At first blush, the 108th Congress might not seem a welcoming venue for legislation expanding the nation's wilderness system.
Majority control in both the House and Senate lies with Republican lawmakers whose attitude toward initiatives backed by environmentalists has ranged from indifference to hostility. Even if a significant conservation bill were to win passage during the current legislative session, it could expect a chilly reception at the White House, whose current occupant has made his policies toward public lands clear by seeking to open them to oil and gas drilling, off-road vehicle use and other activities anathema to green groups.
Nevertheless, optimistic legislators from a host of western states introduced a wide-ranging menu of wilderness bills in 2003, when the current Congress commenced work. Remarkably, a significant number remain in play as the 2004 session winds down, including several that would bring a sweeping expansion to the federal wilderness system in California. One of those bills appears to have a decent chance of passage, probably during the post-election, lame-duck session, thanks to bipartisan support and a balanced approach to protection that won it friends even among interest groups typically opposed to new land-conservation measures.
“We're optimistic,” said Traci Sheehan, director of the California Wilderness Campaign. “A lot of wilderness bills pass at the end of the session.”
The 1964 Wilderness Act permits Congress to designate federal lands as wilderness, which prohibits roads and structures as well as activities such as logging, mining and grazing. Local government officials and business proponents in many rural communities often regard wilderness designations as direct attacks on local economic bases. Still, one proposal by Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson has received the backing of many local interests, including those with ties to logging and mining.
The most sweeping of the pending California wilderness bills is S. 1555 by Sen. Barbara Boxer. Originally introduced in May 2002, it went nowhere before the 107th Congress adjourned. Boxer re-introduced the legislation in 2003. It would designate 2.5 million acres of wilderness and confer wild and scenic status on 400 miles of rivers.
Boxer failed to win a single co-sponsor for the bill, which has remained bottled up in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources since its introduction. With Boxer campaigning this year for re-election against Republican Bill Jones, there was never much chance the Senate majority would hand her a significant legislative achievement by moving the bill along.
With Boxer's bill stalled, a confusingly overlapping series of alternative California wilderness emerged. Two of them, taken together, closely mirror the contents of Boxer's original bill. Neither appears to have any better chance of passage than Boxer's original bill.
Thompson, who represents a huge district in northwestern California, introduced HR 3327 in October 2003. Titled the Northern California Wild Heritage Wilderness and Wild Rivers Act, it would designate more than 800,000 acres of wilderness - most of that in national forests in the northern Sierra - and 123 miles of wild and scenic rivers. It would also establish a Sacramento River National Conservation Area on 17,000 acres adjacent to the Sacramento River, Lower Battle Creek and Lower Paynes Creek in Tehama and Shasta counties, to be managed primarily for recreation and wildlife.
Simultaneously, Rep. Hilda Solis, a Democrat from the San Gabriel Valley, introduced HR 3325, the Southern California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act. It would designate 1.7 million acres of wilderness and more than 300 miles of wild and scenic rivers between the central Sierra Nevada and the Mexican border. Like Boxer's more ambitious wilderness act, the Solis/Thompson companion bills both were retreads of unsuccessful 2002 bills. And like Boxer's original bill, the 2003 Solis/Thompson bills promptly vanished into subcommittee limbo.
The California wilderness legislation given the best chance of passage this year comprises another pair of companion bills, both introduced on March 27, 2003: Thompson's HR 1501, and S. 738, sponsored by Boxer.
Both bills carry the same title - the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Act - and both would designate about 300,000 acres of wilderness in Thompson's district, which includes all or part of Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma, Napa and Yolo counties. The bills also would confer wild and scenic status on Black Butte River in Mendocino County.
Perhaps the most prominent effect of the Thompson/Boxer bills would be their creation of the King Range Wilderness, encompassing Northern California's “Lost Coast” - a spectacular landscape of isolated beaches and coastal mountains so steep and rugged that roads have never penetrated much of it. The legislation also would expand the existing Trinity Alps, Siskiyou, Snow Mountain and Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel wilderness areas.
The more limited scope of the coastal legislation apparently worked to its favor. Boxer persuaded her Democratic colleague, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, to sign on as a co-sponsor, a level of support Feinstein did not extend to any of the other California wilderness bills. On July 21, the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests conducted a hearing on S. 738, where it won praise even from such staunch conservatives as Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The bill was held back by the subcommittee so a few details could be clarified, the Wilderness Campaign's Sheehan said. But, according to the California Wilderness Campaign's Washington lobbyists, there was bipartisan praise for the way Thompson and Boxer had involved members of the local community when drafting the bills, and had lined up support from a wide range of interest groups. Supporters in Thompson's district include more than 40 elected officials, 100 businesses, a loggers union, lumber mills, Indian tribes, ranchers, farmers and vintners, as well as statewide environmental groups. Although Congress was expected to recess for the election before acting, it was expected to return to work November 15, and could approve the wilderness bill after that.
There is historical precedent for passage of wilderness bills even with a Congress and administration that environmentalists regard as hostile. Among recent Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan signed eight wilderness bills into law, George H.W. Bush signed eight, Richard Nixon signed nine and Gerald Ford signed 13. And in late 2002, the current President Bush signed the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act, which designated 440,000 acres of wilderness in southern Nevada's Clark County, and the Big Sur Wilderness and Conservation Act, which designated 56,880 acres of wilderness in California's Monterey and San Benito counties.
Contacts:
Traci Sheehan, California Wild Heritage Campaign, (916) 442-3396, Ext. 222.
Office of Sen. Barbara Boxer, (202) 224-3553.
Office of Rep. Mike Thompson, (202) 225-3311.
