Chat with Chic, November 15, 1985

Chat with Chic A Report from Washington November 15, 1985 By U.S. Senator Chic Hecht History will be repeating itself when a public hearing, conducted by the House of Representative's subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, is held in Ely November 25 to consider testimony on the proposed Great Basin National Park in the Mt. Wheeler area of eastern Nevada. It was in 19 60 that the last strong park movement swept Nevada and it would have been successful had it not been for the lone Nevada congressman fighting it, the staunch ally of ranching and mining interests and, to a certain extent, the U.S. Forest Service. The national park bill of the 60s had the backing of the President of the United States and the United States Senate. But its downfall came in form of Nevada Congressman Walter Baring whose backers simply didn't want it; nor did Forest Service officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture who would have had to relinquish turf to their arch enemy at the time, the National Park Service, which of course was, and remains, part of the Depart-ment of Interior. Pros and cons of the proposed park were debated then and no doubt will be rehashed later this month. It is my personal feeling that error has been made by the House sub-committee studying this issue by consolidating the national park question with Nevada's current and volatile wilderness controversy. And I doubt that Chat with Chic, page 2 the subcommittee's action in initially approving a park for Nevada without the benefit of a single hearing was the appropriate thing to do. I've always felt that a national park proposal was a subject of great importance and considerable prestige and should stand or fall on its own merits, not inserted, as the House subcommittee has done, as an appendage to the wilderness bill; a "sweetener" to make the principal bill more palatable. Washington duties may preclude my attendance in Ely, but in any event I am not now, nor will I then be, prepared to take a definitive stand on the park question. I, at least, want to opportunity to examine and weigh all testimony given, particularly that from those closest to the proposed area who would be most affected. And further, before making final decision, I would like opportunity to consider additional testimony on this subject from other areas of Nevada and probably will get that chance next February when I conduct wilderness hearings in Las Vegas, Reno, Winnemucca, Elko and Ely as a member of the Senate subcommittee on public lands, reserve water and resource conservation. I say "probably get that chance" because our February hearings will focus on the Senate wilderness bill Senator Laxalt and I have introduced and whatever bill emerges from the House which, very likely, could be the one now containing the national park provision. Our hearings next year will give assurance to all that this issue with its many benefits but attendant problems will be "duly considered" in Nevada, by Nevadans. And that's the way it should be handled, not arbitrarily from Washington.