NEWS ANALYSIS : Offshore Oil Drilling Is Expected to Remain California Election Issue

President Bush’s offshore oil decree pleased both candidates for governor of California Tuesday, because both are announced foes of drilling along the coast, but it did not necessarily put the oil controversy to rest as an issue in the 1990 election campaign.

In fact, Bush’s decision may have helped crystallize the environment as an issue in the California election as Republican Pete Wilson and Democrat Dianne Feinstein compete for support from conservation organizations and environmentally concerned voters.

Some political observers believed the decision to ban drilling along most of the coast for the rest of the decade would help Wilson, the U.S. senator who has fought drilling in federal waters since he was mayor of San Diego in the mid-1970s. In fact, the Sierra Club and Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy, a Democrat, accused the President of timing and shaping the announcement to help the Wilson campaign, although the Nov. 6 election is more than four months away.

Rep. Leon Panetta (D-Monterey), a leader in the anti-oil campaign in Congress, thought Bush’s plan would help Republicans running for governor in California and Florida, which also is included in Bush’s drilling delay.

But one of Panetta’s allies in the offshore oil campaign, Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica), said offshore oil will remain an issue in the election campaign because he and others will continue to battle in Congress for a permanent ban on drilling along the California coastline.

“It leaves the candidates’ position on permanent protection a very important issue,” Levine said.

Asked if he would press the Democratic nominee, former San Francisco Mayor Feinstein, to pursue a permanent ban, Levine said: “Absolutely. I would hope that she would. And I expect that she will.”

In fact, Feinstein did just that, in a statement issued about five hours after the President’s announcement.

Bush’s decision goes in the right direction, but a temporary solution is not enough, Feinstein said, adding: “We need a permanent end to the battle over California’s waters.”

Wilson has talked of permanent protection, but so far has not formally endorsed legislation backed by Feinstein that would declare all of California a marine sanctuary off-limits to any oil drilling. But he will be pressured to do that by environmental groups.

Lucy Blake, executive director of the League of Conservation Voters, said Wilson told the organization privately that he supports a permanent drilling ban. As the league, a coalition of environmental groups, ponders whether to endorse a candidate for governor, she said, “We will certainly hold him to it.”

Although there may be some differences between Wilson and Feinstein, they are not major ones, Blake said. “After all, this is not a Gov. (George) Deukmejian,” who has been a holdout for additional oil drilling off the coast. Blake said California is fortunate to have two candidates who oppose offshore oil drilling, but she added that “neither of these candidates is an environmental paragon.”

The major environmental issue dividing Wilson and Feinstein is expected to be the Environmental Protection Initiative on the Nov. 6 ballot, sponsored by Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, who lost the June 5 primary to Feinstein, and Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica). Feinstein has endorsed the complex and controversial measure nicknamed “Big Green.” Wilson opposes it.

Tuesday’s offshore decision may have a greater impact on the contest for attorney general between San Francisco Dist. Atty. Arlo Smith, a Democrat, and former Rep. Dan Lungren, the GOP nominee, who has been a major supporter of offshore drilling. Lungren said Tuesday that the decision “puts this issue to bed.”

But a spokesman for Smith said the attorney general elected in November may still be attorney general in 1996, when some new drilling might be permitted in the Santa Maria Basin.

Contributing to this report were Times staff writers Paul Feldman in Los Angeles and Alan C. Miller in Washington.