Preserve Shows Environment Is Right for Compromise

The 1990s have provided several crucial environmental battlegrounds. On the national stage, the assault by congressional Republicans on hard-won environmental protections has turned off many Americans and created a set of unanticipated political problems for the party. In Orange County, the gnatcatcher, a tiny songbird, stood between sagebrush preservationists and developers. The protracted local battle became emblematic for a debate over competing values.

At mid-decade, a spirit of compromise has emerged in the local arena, even if it is not shared by all. Orange County has been a spawning ground for new ways of thinking about the coexistence of development and environmental protection. It is here that contending groups have paved the way for large-scale habitat preservation as an alternative to the time-consuming and contentious process of listing endangered species one at a time.

In this effort, such diverse interests as the Nature Conservancy, the Irvine Co., state officials and the federal government have managed to forge some common ground. This was evident in the recent signing of a plan to create a 37,000-acre wildlife preserve in the county’s central and coastal areas. A ceremony on July 17 brought together U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, representing a Democratic administration in Washington, state Resources Agency Secretary Douglas P. Wheeler, representing a Republican administration in Sacramento, Irvine Co. Chairman Donald L. Bren and others.

With the partisan wrangling on environmental protection that has occurred on the local as well as the national level, it is remarkable that such an agreement could be reached at all. It was not so long ago that people were talking about chaining themselves to bulldozers in Laguna Canyon. The habitat preservation approach gives evidence of a new pragmatism about providing clear rules to all participants.

The agreement came after much publicity, and not all are satisfied. Some environmentalists are pointing to last week’s state Supreme Court action involving endangered species as a sign that such agreements might be altered. However, the state Department of Fish and Game has downplayed the significance of the ruling.

And William L. Rukeyser of the California Biodiversity Alliance has warned that the agreement could not be considered a national model as touted by advocates until more data were in and the preserve actually tested. True, perhaps, but it is a signal where important work is being done in some areas of carving out new middle ground.

For example, Babbitt and the Marine Corps signed an agreement late last year in which the corps would work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enhance special habitats on the 125,000-acre Camp Pendleton base. A year earlier, California and the federal government agreed on a plan to restore the environmental health of the estuary that stretches from San Francisco Bay to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

In supporting the Orange County habitat agreement, the federal government made a point of noting that California had demonstrated that its environmental law was compatible with the federal approach. It seemed to follow that agreements from Sacramento to localities could be left to be worked out without the heavy hand of Washington. We hear much these days about returning decision-making to local levels; here seems to be evidence of how enlightened strategies on the environment can be formulated and implemented.

Babbitt noted on his visit that thinking about the environment had evolved from protecting places far away to protecting places close to home. This plan, with its multiple players, seems to carry implicit recognition that even the tough local battles can be resolved.