California Desert Bill

“Compromise” is a relative term, and nowhere is that more apparent than in The Times’ editorial “An Unnecessarily Arid Approach to the Desert” (Aug. 9).

The Times’ apparent view is that anything less that Sen. Alan Cranston’s mark of roughly 7.5 million acres (actually 9.2 million when you add in his proposal for an East Mojave National Monument) falls short of a reasonable compromise. I have to differ.

For the record, let me restate what I have offered in negotiations with Sen. Cranston in an effort to reach a comprehensive and workable compromise. Cranston seeks the creation of three new national parks--Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and East Mojave. I have agreed to the first two of those three parks, and have indicated my willingness to be flexible on the expansion of those parks’ boundaries. I have also offered to meet Cranston half-way on the remaining wilderness acreage.

In return, I have asked that East Mojave remain under the Bureau of Land Management. The East Mojave is a multiple-use area, and BLM rightly and properly should retain management authority. The Park Service has testified before the Senate that the East Mojave is not suitable to qualify for inclusion in the national park system.

The proposal I have offered is roughly 5.6 million acres--slightly 3 million acres below Cranston’s bill and just over 3 million acres more than the BLM has proposed. If my offer were approved, when combined with my recently passed Los Padres wilderness legislation, we could more than double the total federal wilderness acreage in California this year.

I think most people would view my offer as an attempt at compromise and negotiation in good faith. Regrettably, Sen. Cranston has not responded in kind, suggesting that my one request on the East Mojave be deferred until a later date.

And in what can only be viewed as a partisan political move, Senate Democrats on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee sought to attach the Cranston bill to totally unrelated legislation involving timber management. The action flies in the face of sound practice by the committee that public lands legislation have the consent of both home-state senators before being approved.

Responding to a partisan shot across the bow, I used the rules to bring their games to a halt. If they persist, I will continue the fight. Not because I’m not interested in compromise. That’s as unfair as labeling opponents of Cranston’s bill as being hellbent on spoiling the desert for their own ends. Look closer, and you’ll find that the opponents include rock hounds, sportsmen, local chambers of commerce, and boards of supervisors from 20 counties.

If there is a willingness for Cranston and others to negotiate in good faith, then the prospects for a bill this year are not dead.

SEN. JOHN SEYMOUR

R-Calif., Washington