Desert Bill’s Impact on Mining Jobs Disputed

Sen. John Seymour (R-Calif.) says more than 20,000 mining-related jobs would be lost under the desert protection bill pending before Congress.

Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) says the measure would not put a single miner out of work.

The dispute illustrates the startling gap--and partisan rhetoric--that separates the two sides in the mining debate: Opponents insist the desert legislation would cripple the Southern California mining industry while supporters predict no noticeable economic impact.

A Times survey found that only seven mines employing a total of 356 employees operate within the boundaries of the desert bill. None of these jobs would be immediately jeopardized because the mines may continue to operate under the bill.

Once the sites are no longer profitable, mining in many cases would not be permitted to expand in the surrounding areas covered by the desert legislation. Eventually, many of the 356 workers would face layoffs if mining is not continued elsewhere.

The disagreement between California’s two senators surfaced in January when Cranston called a news conference to scold his Republican counterpart for attempting to block passage of the California Desert Protection Act.

Seymour responded swiftly by urging Cranston to meet with desert residents to hear firsthand how the legislation would cause “economic devastation.”

“Over 20,000 mining jobs depend directly on how the (desert) issue is resolved,” Seymour said in a press release. “And in tough economic times, I don’t think that putting these people out of work is a smart idea.”

For his estimate, Seymour relied on a study conducted by Shirley C. Anderson, head of the marketing department at Cal State Northridge. Her research determined that the Southern California economy would lose 20,354 jobs “in the long term” because of the desert bill.

Anderson’s study cites no specific mining companies or desert locations that would be affected by the bill. She declined to share that information with The Times, citing a need to protect the confidentiality of the mining companies involved.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which oversees mining in the desert, was unable to point out any other operations within the desert bill boundaries beyond the seven located by The Times.

Mining industry officials say they fear the bill’s potential, long-term impact on prospecting and mining operations.

“The issue is not only how many mines would be shut down, but how many mines would never be able to operate,” said Margaret Allender, a spokeswoman for the California mining industry.

The only known research that attempted to measure this long-term impact was the Anderson paper and she admitted that her work “is getting to be an old study at this point.” It was based on job data collected in July, 1987.

In her study, Anderson “gratefully acknowledges” the assistance of the California Mining Assn. in providing employment figures. Anderson said she was not paid to do the study. “I have perfect confidence that the jobs we put in there are jobs that are going to be impacted by the bill,” she said.

The study classified 6,870 mining jobs in the 7.3 million acres of desert territory covered by the bill, Anderson said. She then relied on a multiplier effect--to account for the impact on trucking, hotel, food and other industries--to arrive at 20,354 job losses.

The methodology employed by Anderson is “fatally flawed,” said Tom Goerold, a minerals economist and geologist who is a consultant in Golden, Colo.

Goerold, who testified before the House and Senate in support of the desert bill, said he examined the study and discussed it with Anderson when he worked as chief economist for energy and mineral resources for the Wilderness Society.

The 20,000 figure is a “phantom number,” Goerold said. “This whole thing is ridiculous.”

The report was praised by Michael McKibben, an associate professor of geology at UC Riverside. He called Anderson’s work “one of the most important studies of the economics of mining in the California desert that has ever been published.”

In her study, Anderson listed two “positive effects” and 23 “negative effects” or “problems” with the desert bill. Although the legislation is intended to protect the desert and is supported by dozens of environmental groups, Anderson said she considers the bill “anti-environmental.”

The study concludes that the desert protection act “represents legislation at its worst.”