Big Stir at Big Sur

As Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) sees it, his bill to create a Big Sur National Forest Scenic Area is a modest and reasonable measure that would do virtually nothing to local landowners--nothing, that is, so long as the new Monterey County coastal plan succeeds in preserving the wild, rustic, rural atmosphere of the 70-mile-long Big Sur coast.

Still, Wilson’s measure ran into unwarranted criticism and opposition at its first Senate hearing last week. With time, perhaps tempers will cool and critics will see that the bill is not the evil federal land grab that its opponents claim.

The philosophy of the county plan, adopted last spring, is to “prohibit all future public or private development visible from Highway 1.” It would provide for a maximum of 850 new houses on the 55,000 acres of privately owned land along the Big Sur coast, in addition to about 600 existing homes. Another 300 guest rooms could be built in small inns; there now are 165 lodging units.

Under Wilson’s bill, the secretary of agriculture could condemn property only if development somehow was approved that violated the county plan. A federal trust would be created to use donated funds to buy property where necessary, preferably with the owner’s consent. The property then would be transferred to county ownership.

The bill is not strong enough for some conservation groups, including the Wilderness Society. The bill is, of course, much too stringent for local landowners who find the idea of any government control abhorrent, even though federal and state governments already control hundreds of thousands of acres in the area.

Opposition also came from the Reagan Administration, which objects to the proposed ban on future mining, lumbering and energy development, including a prohibition on offshore oil and gas activities within a 20-mile-wide strip along the coast. The Interior Department claimed that this provision would lock up 25% to 35% of Central California’s offshore petroleum reserves. But the California congressional delegation is not likely to allow any drilling in the Big Sur region--nor should it--whether or not a federal scenic area is created. Nor should further timber or mining operations be permitted.

Wilson generated some of his problems on his own by introducing the Big Sur bill before the ink on the county plan was dry, and without consulting county officials or the area’s U.S. House member, Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley). He will have to do a lot of fence-mending of his own to overcome those difficulties.

Monterey County should be commended for adopting its Big Sur coastal plan. It is a model for all of California. But Big Sur is a state and national treasure, too. To delay some measure of federal protection until we see how well the county plan works, or does not work, is to wait too long.