Stuck in a Political Desert

Sen. John Seymour (R-Calif.) is developing an unfortunate instinct for the wrong side of key environmental issues. Last year, he helped bottle up a drought-relief bill that would have allowed parched parts of the state to buy some of the 7 million acre-feet of federal water now used for irrigation.

Now he is trying to cut--by more than half--a plan to protect 7.1 million acres of Southern California desert from off-road vehicles and other artifacts of a relentlessly growing population.

Called to account for his position by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), sponsor of the bill to create three national parks and designate 4.4 million acres more as wilderness, Seymour accused Cranston of election-year politicking.

Though he would like to help his fellow Democrats’ chances in the November election, Cranston, of course, is running for nothing. Because of his health--and, little doubt, the damaging savings and loan scandal involving contributor Charles H. Keating Jr.--Cranston will retire at the end of this year. Seymour, on the other hand, will be trying in the June primary to turn back challenges, mostly from his party’s right, to win a full term in the Senate.

Seymour contends that the Cranston bill would ban mining in the East Mojave desert, an argument tilted toward rugged individualism and his party’s ideological right. But that is specious because the few mines in the East Mojave could keep operating, even in wilderness areas, under the Cranston measure.

As for a claim that Cranston is trying to seal off the land for a narrow band of environmentalists, the National Park and Conservation Assn. said Tuesday that the desert had nearly 7.8 million visitors last year. So much for the “special interests” argument.

Seymour should not sacrifice the graceful dunes and sparkling sands those millions of visitors went to see. The senator should remember that in this state most people don’t consider “environmentalist” an epithet.