Watt's Line

A peace ploy--and contempt

At first glance, Interior Secretary James G. Watt's sweeping federal wilderness proposal seemed an offer no conservationist could refuse. Its chief feature: closing up U.S. wilderness lands to oil and gas drilling, and even mineral mining, until the year 2000. Declared Watt: "We think these lands are special lands and should be preserved in their natural state."

Caught off guard, environmentalists at first welcomed the plan as a peace overture from the embattled Secretary. But their approval turned to dismay when they examined the fine print. Said John McComb, director of the Washington, D.C., office of the Sierra Club: "To say that we were deceived by Watt's proposal would be an understatement. This is one of the worst things that has happened to the environment since Watt himself."

Environmentalists pointed out that while present law technically permits resource development of federal wilderness, little has occurred, in part because of an arduous permit process. The law, moreover, bans development altogether after 1983. Watt's proposal would expose the wilderness to full commercial development after 18 years; reduce congressional control over the designation of wilderness areas; and grant oil and mining companies immediate access to wilderness areas to conduct potentially environment-disturbing probes. The environmentalists were especially exercised over a provision that would permit "sampling conducted by helicopter" and "seismic surveys." The proposal, concluded the Wilderness Society's Gordon Roberts, would allow "oil companies to use explosives in search of oil or gas resources, as long as they reach the site by helicopter."

But if Watt's olive branch got him nowhere last week with the environmentalists, he appeared to have lost even more ground with his congressional critics. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, voting along partisan lines, recommended that the full House cite him for contempt of Congress for refusing to provide eleven Government documents concerning possible Canadian discrimination against U.S. investors that Watt claims are protected by Executive privilege. If the full House approves the contempt citation, and Watt is found guilty in a criminal trial, he could face a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. Meanwhile, the General Accounting Office recommended that Watt replace some $4,342 of federal money spent on two Christmas parties at Arlington House, a National Park Service-owned mansion in Virginia. By this time, Watt was his old combative self: he refused to discuss the matter with a House subcommittee because it was conducting ' 'a media sideshow.'' sb

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.