Exclusive Interview: Governor Brown Speaks Out In Defense of His State

Q  Has the State leaned too far in the direction of environmental protection?
A  If you are referring to dow Chemical's decision to drop its plans for a major plant, that was largely a matter of the local air-pollution-control district saying "No." In fact, I met with Dow to try to facilitate their obtaining State permits. But to alter the Dow situation would have meant radically restructuring the local-government process in California. Most people feel very strongly about home rule, and regional pollution-control districts have considerable authority.

The strength of the this State is its land its clean air and water. People coming in have to meet standards for protecting these resources. We'll give the businessman assistance—even to the point of changing a law, if appropriate—but we're not going to destroy the environment to create profit.

Other States are beginning to show the same kind of concern.

Q  Is anything being done to cut down on the regulations that hamper business expansion?
A  Certainly the process for approving new plants should he streamlined, and we're doing that in a bill presently before the legislature to speed up the issuance of permits. I very much support that measure. Many of the problems can be traced to the multiple layers of goverment, Local governments often have their planning processes and their roadblocks. And when you put that together with State and federal regulations, it is very much a mind boggler for business. I'm very sympathetic to this, and our reponse has been to create an office in the business and transportation agency to help busunesses negotiate their way through the labyrinth. Where we can we'll simplify, steamline and accelerate.

Q  What is being done to make sure that the State has enough energy to continue to grow?
A  I've met with Dr. Schlesinger [White House energy adviser], and our State energy commission has been quite active in forecasting energy needs. Energy development is a matter of available capital, of environmental quality and of trade-offs. The farmers in the San Joaquin Valley don't want to give up their fresh water to a power plant. The same goes for farmers elsewhere, who now see how important that water is—especially with the drought.

The energy commission is looking at some nuclear sites now. The number of sites eventually chosen will be based on their judgment. But as far as looking to nuclear energy in a major way, with dozens of new plants up and down the coast, I'd say that the ideal is in for alot of trouble—unless someone figures out an answer to earthquakes, orcan guarantee farmers their fresh water.

We have a definite problem, and I've been actively pursuing new energy sources, such as solar, geothermal and liquefied natural gas. I'm not at all sure burning coal is an alternative,although there may be some possibility in synthetic fuels derived from coal. We're way ahead of the rest of the country in conservation, and we're going to have to find the best balance between environmental quality and energy development.

Q  With the drought now in its second year,what are the plans to expand the State's water resources?
A  Some people are pushing a bill to repeal the State's Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, so that more dams and reservoirs can be built on the rivers. The measure has very little chance of passing.

It's unreal that people in the water business are trying to open up the wild rivers at a time when the water projects I'm proposing, which will cost 3.5 billon dollars, are themselves in great difficulty.

Given President Carter's views on new water projects and the desires of other parts of the country to obtain federal assistance, California must come up with a unitied position and get what is possible. So I'm inviting the people who want to dran up all the wild rivers to support my program, which won't go nearly as far as they want but will cost more than all the water projects in California to date.