AS CALIFORNIA grapples with rapid change, there was at least one bright spot amid the drumbeat of news: the creation last year of the new state Environmental Protection Agency, known as Cal/EPA.

The bad news, one year lat-er, is that Cal/EPA could be a casualty of political intrigue, as Assembly and Senate budget committees move to slash its central office budget. The $1 million to $2 million being ar-gued about will not affect the state's budget crisis much el-ther way. But it could cripple our state's continued environ-mental leadership.

We need to recall what Cal /EPA is and why it matters. For many years, California has led the nation in air, water, solid and hazardous waste and pes-ticide regulation. Nonetheless, there were problems, such as the Department of Food and Agriculture's regulation of pes-ticides and the lack of coordina-tion among all of these regulato-ry arms. Cal/EPA brings all those efforts under one roof.

Those concerned primarily with economic competitiveness understand the cost of not inte-grating pollution control ef-forts; one result is an inconsis-tent, overly complex permit system. Those whose first con-cern is the environment also recognize that an integrated ap-proach is needed to assure pollution prevention and better ac-counting of multiple environmental assaults, and to avoid merely moving pollution from one place to another.

The inability of the federal EPA to move into an integrated approach is perhaps its greatest failing; it also provides the greatest opportunity for the next generation of California environmental leadership.

While integrated pollution control can be achieved over time, the benefits of Cal/EPA's existence are not merely theory. In the week of its creation, at the site of the toxic spill at Dunsmuir. The agency provid-ed the technical support behind Governor Wilson's successful opposition to new drilling off the state's coast and his support for a Monterey Bay sanctuary.

Cal/EPA is implementing the governor's "green lights" program, moving the state to-ward environmentally protec-tive, energy-efficient lighting. It played a key role in the cre-ation of a new pesticide "data gaps" law, which is now being implemented. And it has taken on the contentious issue of re-forming the environmental per-mit system while maintaining high standards.

The agency is moving hard and fast - perhaps too much so in a political climate better at-tuned to talk than action. An-other problem may be those Democratic leaders in Sacra-mento who remain unhappy with Cal/EPA's creation by ex-ecutive branch reorganization and subject only to legislative veto. There also is understand-able anxiety about change on the part of those boards and departments brought into the new agency.

Still, there appears to be room for saving the new agency budget but time is short. All sides must look for solutions. Environment Secretary James Strock should apply the energy and drive lie has exhibited in his early initiatives to winning legislative support.

Legislative leaders should commit to legislation confirm-ing Cal/EPA'S authorities for this year, concluding debate on whether there should be a Cal /EPA. No matter how Cal/EPA is to be saved, it must be done.