The column (Aug. 26) by congressional candidate Christy Smith is more of an endorsement of herself than it is a call for safe drinking water standards. She speaks of the PFAS Action Act, and how Rep. Mike Garcia voted against it. Just in case you’re wondering, PFAS stands for polyfluoroalkyl substances. What’s that, you may ask. Teflon is an example of a PFAS — that stuff that keeps food from sticking to your frying pans.
Well, Ms. Smith is a little late to the PFAS game.
In 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2010/2015 Stewardship Program brought together eight of the world’s top “corporate polluters” with the goal of phasing out the manufacture and use of PFOA’s, of which PFAS’s are a subset. As of now the manufacture and use of PFAS is being phased out in the United States industry-wide. The chemicals are being replaced by other, less toxic chemicals that do the same thing. The wonders of science. But more to the PFAS Action Act, which Ms. Smith is for, and Mike Garcia is against…
The PFAS Action Act is the legislative equivalent of saying, “Identify everything that has the potential to do harm to human health and get rid of it.” The PFAS Action Act is but one of the many congressional poster children of the proverbial “broad brush stroke.”
There is no real need for such legislative and regulatory excess. That’s why representatives like Mike Garcia voted against it.
Like I said, this column is not so much about the need for water quality standards as it is a political self-endorsement of Christy Smith over Mike Garcia, and she is banking on your ignorance to get your vote — but that’s par for this course, isn’t it?
Arthur Saginian
Santa Clarita
