Mining Interests, Others Dig In to Battle Bill for Huge Desert Park

Mining interests and groups representing other desert users came together Wednesday and said that they are in no mood to compromise in their opposition to legislation establishing vast new national parks and wilderness areas in the California desert.

At issue is the future of nearly 12 million acres of land east of Los Angeles, an area nearly as large as the state of West Virgina.

Before testifying before a Senate subcommittee, associations of small- and large-scale mining concerns and allied groups representing everything from off-road bicyclists to the Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep denounced the environmentalist-sponsored park bill. They told a press conference that there is little room or desire on their part for compromise.

“No, absolutely not,” said Marie Brashear, whose California Desert Coalition claims to speak for a million people--recreation vehicle owners, hunters, desert land owners and others.

Loren Lutz, president of the bighorn sheep group, said that park and wilderness designations proposed for 8.4 million acres of the 12 million total would endanger the wild sheep. This is because the animals have grown dependent on artificial watering holes, which would be prohibited under strict preservationist rules.

Strong Mining Interests

But the day’s main opponents were the miners of the desert, including the California Mining Assn. and the Western Mining Council. The sweeping arid lands from the Mojave Desert to the higher deserts around Death Valley are rich in boron and produce a variety of other metals, including gold and platinum. They also are a storehouse of so-called “rare earth” minerals now being employed in high-technology electronics.

Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), author of the park bill, has insisted that existing mining interests are protected under the parkland proposal. But mining groups read the measure as a costly and unnecessary federal land-grab.

“It is inconsistent with the needs and priorities of America as it faces the 21st Century,” said Glenn F. Rouse, executive director of the California Mining Assn.

The reluctance to talk compromise stems from 10 years of debate and negotiations that already have occurred over the future of the desert. Under an earlier congressional mandate, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is supposed to balance competing interests. Environmentalists have grown embittered about the direction of the bureau’s management, saying that it favors economic developers and off-road vehicle enthusiasts, and are now behind the new park legislation.

“There is no need to reopen old wounds and resurrect unworkable plans from the past,” Rouse said.