From White House to Wilderness

By Ed Magnuson

Clark tries to find a home on the range

In the American West, most any plot of land big enough to graze a goat or nurture an apple tree is called a ranch. But by any standards, William Clark's 880-acre spread in California's San Luis Obispo County qualifies. His rolling land has few trees and is more of a barley than a cattle operation. It is surrounded by much larger ranches, which protect the judge's property from encroachment by commercial developers. His air and water are relatively clean.

Anyone looking for clues to Clark's personal inclinations on land use and environmental issues last week was forced to examine such inconclusive evidence. Those who applauded his nomination as Secretary of the Interior stressed that Clark grew up on his parents' ranch in Ventura County and helped run cattle there. For Idaho Republican Senator James McClure, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will hold confirmation hearings next month on Clark's appointment, it was enough to know that "Bill Clark has a natural affinity for the job, coming from the West and having worked on a ranch."

That was insufficient, however, to calm worried environmentalists, who fear that Clark may share James Watt's essential view that there should be more commercial use of public lands. By their reckoning, Clark could prove an even more formidable adversary than Watt because of his low-key, nonbelligerent style and close personal ties with President Reagan. Many environmentalists were quick to point out that Clark has no real expertise in the intricacies of land-management policy and the myriad regulations that the Interior Department must observe or enforce. Complained William Turnage, executive director of the Wilderness Society: "This is the third time that President Reagan has appointed William Clark to a job for which he has no apparent qualifications."

The most tangible evidence of Clark's thinking on environmental issues is his record as a supreme court justice in California. A U.C.L.A. Law Review article in 1980 examined the court's decisions in this field during the years when Clark was on the bench (1973-80) and rated him lowest of the seven justices in protecting land against development and environmental hazards. It described Clark as "development oriented."

In 1973, for example, Clark wrote the California Supreme Court majority opinion supporting the contention of developers that a voter-approved initiative banning certain coastal projects did not apply to construction started before the vote was taken. Through later decisions the court in effect nullified this ruling. That same year, Clark was in the minority in contending that Occidental Oil Co. did not have to file an environmental-impact report before drilling test holes off the Los Angeles coastline. He wrote, a bit woodenly: "Sound practical considerations militate against the implication of formalistic requirements in the legislative process." Clark also dissented in two court decisions that upheld the right of communities to limit residential projects in which the developer did not also help pay for additional school facilities.

The one pro-environmental decision that Clark's defenders could cite was ambiguous. In 1978 he first wrote the opinion rejecting efforts by environmentalists to relocate a water-diversion project on California's American River, arguing that since the facility was federally funded, the state court lacked jurisdiction. When the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this argument and directed the California court to reconsider, Clark concurred in a unanimous decision accepting the environmentalists' argument that the design would produce an "unreasonable diversion of water" from the river.

Environmentalists are expected to criticize Clark's judicial record at the confirmation hearings as well as his apparent lack of expertise. Such liberal Senators on the committee as Ohio's Howard Metzenbaum and Massachusetts' Paul Tsongas may lead the attack. Metzenbaum has already assailed Clark as "eminently unqualified." Still Western conservatives strongly influence the committee, and confirmation by the full Senate is expected, perhaps before the Thanksgiving recess.

Even some of Clark's supporters are wondering how well he will do in the un customary role of public salesman for the policies of his department rather than backstage adviser to higher officials. He has never been the top boss in a government job and a public advocate as well. His public speaking style is about as stiff and uninspiring as his court prose.

Nonetheless, career veterans at the Interior Department, as well as many Watt-appointed loyalists, look forward to having a boss who has the President's ear. In any bureaucratic battles, notably those with Budget Director David Stockman, the Interior officials expect Clark to emerge on top. "We feel good and secure that he's so close to Reagan," says one Interior aide.

Interior bureaucrats also expect the glare of public attention on the department to soften under Clark. Watt's public remarks got in the way of gaining broad support for his policies. As one department official puts it: "He's a great fella, but why did he have to shoot his mouth off like that?" Though Clark may be far less vocal, Interior aides expect him to be an aggressive boss, despite his inexperience with environmental issues. On the other hand, no radical shifts in policy are expected. Says one department veteran: "Reagan and Watt didn't have any great philosophical differences, and Clark and Reagan are nearly identical."

Some of Reagan's critics see the Reagan-Clark intimacy as oddly advantageous to environmentalists. "Reagan has lost his lightning rod," contends Polly Freeman, spokeswoman for the Sierra Club. With Watt going and Clark arriving, the President, she believes, will have to take more heat on environmental issues. About the best that environmentalists could say about Clark last week was that his lack of knowledge on land issues could work in their favor. Says Janet Brown, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund: "Maybe it's better he start with no opinion than the opinions James Watt started with." One thing seems certain: Clark may have been fatigued at NSC, but he will not be able to rest, free of controversy, at Interior.

With reporting by Jay Branegan, Dick Thompson This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.