FEDS' HEAVY HAND; MOST `ASSISTANCE' FROM WASHINGTON HAS BUREAUCRATIC STRINGS ATTACHED.

Byline: Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon

IF someone tells you, ``I'm from the federal government and I'm here to help,'' you probably recognize that as a joke line. After all, most people realize that when the federal government gets involved in something, especially a matter best left to local government, it usually messes things up.

This fact ought to be remembered by people who are concerned about media reports regarding a June 3 letter I wrote to the Clinton administration in which I opposed the inclusion of the Santa Clara River in President Clinton's American Heritage Rivers Initiative.

I would like to explain what the initiative is and why I opposed it. Very simply, it would open the door to federal involvement - and eventual domination and control - over what should be a local issue.

Under the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, each executive agency in the federal government would be required, in essence, to ``offer assistance'' to communities in conserving the selected rivers, through a bureaucrat called a ``river navigator.''

On the surface, it probably seems like a good thing. In fact, if this had come before me when I was on the Santa Clarita City Council in 1987-92, I probably would have favored it. That's because back then I did not realize how disastrous it is when the federal government uses a seemingly benign assistance role to impose its heavy-handed bureaucracy over a local matter.

The problem is the executive order is written so vaguely that it is impossible to tell what this federal ``assistance'' would be. We don't know what it would do. All we know is that it would provide no additional funds for selected rivers or additional legal protection against development that may threaten rivers.

In other words, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is, in the spirit of Jerry Seinfeld, a program about nothing. At best, it offered symbolic federal recognition of a river's importance - the kind of recognition that could be accomplished through a national private organization or at the state level.

Then why oppose it? Very simply, I did not want to open the door to federal bureaucrats to take a vaguely defined assistance role that would eventually lead to federal intrusion over river management.

It can be a disastrous thing when the heavy hand of the federal bureaucracy gets involved in local issues. Just recently, the Environmental Protection Agency tried to shut down all traffic on Interstate 10 in San Bernardino during the month of August in order to preserve the mating habitat of an endangered, inch-long fly. The last thing I want to do is invite those sort of bureaucrats here.

Some people have also accused me of not heeding the input of my constituents on this issue. The exact opposite is true. I had received a great deal of negative input about the American Heritage Rivers Initiative from constituents who were concerned that it represented a federal power grab by Clinton. Since September 1997 until early June, we received dozens of letters and/or calls from constituents opposing the initiative, and none - zero - from supporters.

My office never heard a word of support for the initiative from the city of Santa Clarita, or anyone else, until after I wrote my letter to the Clinton administration. I learned after the fact that the city had written a letter supporting Ventura County's application, but that was not communicated to me. I never heard from Ventura County.

When the administration, recognizing widespread public opposition to the program, sent me a letter May 7 asking if I wanted to exclude my district, it was an easy decision. Given the threat of federal intrusion into a local issue, no identifiable local benefit and the overwhelming constituent opposition, I wrote the letter - and would do it again.

It is true that The Newhall Land and Farming Co. did contact me and asked me to oppose the Santa Clara River's inclusion in this program. However, this request came late in the game, long after I had already made my decision and the letter in question had been drafted and was going through the final editing stages.

It is therefore an absolute falsehood to suggest that I took my action at the request of Newhall Land. I made my decision first, and found out later that my position coincided with Newhall Land's.

My position has always been to protect our nation's natural resources. I wrote the legislation that successfully banned construction of a 190 million-ton mega-dump in Elsmere Canyon. I am seeking $5 million in federal funds to improve the Pacific Crest Trail, including a three-mile section in Agua Dulce.

Some have questioned why I would have the federal government involved in Elsmere and the Pacific Crest Trail, but not the Santa Clara River. The answer is in the role played by the government. My Elsmere bill dealt with management of federal lands - indisputably a proper role for the federal government - and did not provide a roving federal bureaucrat to ``assist'' in landfill issues. The Pacific Crest Trail provides funding only, to be administered by state and local officials, not the federal government.

By contrast, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative provides neither environmental protection nor money, but it does provide a federal bureaucrat. I ask you, is this really a good deal?

Ultimately, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative asks us to trust Clinton, which is never good advice. This is a president whose administration has proved itself to be very hostile to private-property rights and has consistently used shaky, politically driven science to support his desired conclusion. He is asking us to trust the federal government to ``assist'' us, without any specifics on what this assistance will be.

The Santa Clarita Valley is a beautiful place, but we don't need another federal bureaucrat to keep it that way.

CAPTION(S):

Photo

PHOTO Under the American Heritage Rivers initiative, each executive agency in the federal government would be required to ``offer assistance'' to communities in conserving the selected rivers, including the Santa Clara River.

John Lazar/Special to the Daily News