Cranston, Seymour Clash Over Desert Bill : Environment: State’s senators remain stalemated over measure to protect 7.1 million acres of land.

Saying time is running out for Congress to pass a landmark California desert protection bill this year, Sen. Alan Cranston (D-California) on Monday sent a blunt warning to Republican colleague John Seymour: “Don’t be a spoiler.”

Seymour responded by accusing Cranston of engaging in “election-year politics.”

Cranston and Seymour have met on several occasions to discuss their differences over the largest land protection proposal in the continental United States, but the two California senators have made no progress toward a compromise. This stalemate prompted Cranston to call a press conference Monday to turn up the pressure on Seymour.

“I want very much to have Sen. Seymour on board,” said Cranston, reading from a lengthy prepared statement. “And I am determined to go all out to see that the California Desert Protection Act becomes law this year, with or without Sen. Seymour.”

In November, the House overwhelmingly approved a measure that would expand federal protection to 7.1 million acres in California’s southeast corner. The bill needs approval of the Senate--where its chances of success are lessened by a Cranston-Seymour impasse--before it is sent to President Bush.

“It’s unfortunate that Sen. Cranston has decided to inject election-year politics into the California desert issue,” Seymour said. “If there is a good-faith discussion and negotiation, then the prospects for a desert bill in 1992 could be good. But if the desert debate is going to be used as a political football for partisan gain, then the chances clearly aren’t as good.”

Seymour, who identified desert protection as a top priority when he was appointed a year ago to fill the seat vacated by Gov. Pete Wilson, is campaigning in California for his June primary face-off against Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton). Referring to Seymour’s upcoming race, Cranston said: “I must remind you, John, as you seem to need to be reminded, that you are seeking election in probably the most environmentally conscious state in the union.”

Dianne Feinstein, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for Seymour’s Senate seat, jumped into the act late Monday when she fired off a letter to Seymour urging him to “expedite passage” of the desert bill “or at the very least not obstruct its passage.” She demanding an end to the “congressional gridlock” that has paralyzed the bill for six years.

The desert plans approved by the House and proposed by Cranston in the Senate are similar. Both would designate more than 70 wilderness areas and place 4 million acres off limits to development, mining, off-road vehicles and other potentially damaging uses. They would upgrade protection of an additional 3 million acres by transferring oversight responsibility from the Bureau of Land Management to the National Park Service. Neither bill would restrict military overflights or the expansion of the Army’s training center at Ft. Irwin--concerns raised earlier by the Bush Administration.

The author of the House bill, Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica), introduced the measure five years ago as a courtesy to Cranston. Levine, who is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Cranston’s retirement, said Monday he was encouraged when Seymour took office and initially indicated his intent to forge a compromise on the desert bill.

“But I was very disappointed when I learned last week that Seymour was restating the Adminstration position on this bill,” Levine said.

Seymour favors a substitute plan similar to the one supported by House Republicans and the White House that would designate about 2 million acres of wilderness area. This version would close fewer areas to California recreational enthusiasts and others who use the desert, including mining and grazing interests.

Seymour reiterated that he is willing to “go halfway” on the acreage to be protected. He said he would agree to establish new national parks at Death Valley and Joshua Tree national monuments as proposed in the Cranston plan, but remains unwilling to turn over the East Mojave National Scenic Area to the National Park Service.

The East Mojave is developing into the major sticking point. Cranston said the Bureau of Land Management has overseen the destruction of the East Mojave over the past decade and the land “must” be managed by the park service. Seymour said thousands of mining jobs depend on the area remaining under BLM jurisdiction. “And in tough economic times, I don’t think that putting these people out of work is a smart idea,” Seymour said.

The California desert covers more than 25 million acres and harbors 750 species of wildlife, many of them, such as the desert tortoise, endangered. The protection legislation is considered among this year’s top legislative priorities by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups.

“The California desert is a place of extraordinary variety and beauty,” said Debbie Sease, a Sierra Club official in Washington. “The House bill has resolved all the major issues and we are gravely disappointed that Sen. Seymour has rejected this compromise.”

Cranston, who recently was disgraced when he was reprimanded by the full Senate for his ethical lapses in the Charles Keating affair, said he is confident he can work with his colleagues to pass a desert protection bill without the help of Seymour. He said he has been assured that his proposal will get an early hearing this year in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

If a desert protection plan is not approved this year, Cranston said, it would win certain passage in 1993 if California elects two Democrats to the Senate.