Politics & Government
Aliso Creek Estuary Restoration: Future Uncertain, Murky Waters Ahead?
Is my City of Laguna Beach betraying its own enviro-community, sabotaging a project that was supposed to reflect eco-protectionist values?
Fear And Loathing At Laguna Beach City Hall: Part 1 of a 2 Part Series
The future of the Aliso Creek Estuary Restoration Project (Project), the “Bring the Lagoon Back to Laguna” campaign spearheaded by the Laguna Ocean Foundation (LOF) took an odd twist recently. Briefly, there were several conceptual plans proposed by the LOF, viewable online, that were vetted at numerous local and County-hosted meetings over these past 10 years. [1]
Often, the passage of time lessens inertia, and what seemed to have tremendous potential and traction, both public stakeholder and cross-agency sycophants, decelerated down to a crawl, perhaps in serious jeopardy now? I’d write “slowed to a glacial pace” except they’re disappearing fast, so might be time to sunset that trope.
Find out what's happening in Laguna Beachfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
I hold my home town of 50 years to the highest standards, not optical illusions, and officials have repeatedly alleged that we're THE most protective, THE best eco-stewards in SOC. "Pinocchios" all.
The Project thought leader for the ACER was a featured presenter at the Aliso Creek Stakeholder group hosted by OC Public Works/Watersheds many times. And honestly, everyone except me/my NGO seemed aboard, resounding huzzahs and accolades---including the agencies who are the topic of this column.
Find out what's happening in Laguna Beachfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Since I’m the only eco-NGO representative (Clean Water Now—Founded in 1998) that seems to be aware of what went down this past Fall, including follow-up exchanges in subsequent weeks with the parties who’ve dropped what might be a HUMUNGOUS lump of Christmas coal into the pond’s conversation, guess I’m the messenger.
Perhaps it’s fitting that I be the whistleblower, divulge it to the general public stakeholders and public trust agencies who’ve also supported it in theory. The subject is a disturbing Draft letter that’s been circulating, an attempt to recruit major agencies into seriously delaying or blocking, if not outright killing, the Project.
The objections are cleverly couched in a bureaucratic jargon term that often obscures or challenges reality at times (Cue up the handwringing and Shostakovich): “Concerns"
And full disclosure: My NGO has been the sole voice of enviro-opposition thus far. Our reservations, our perceived fatal flaws and conceptual project blind spots, expressed openly at pertinent meetings? They are on top of, in addition to, what’s mentioned in the Draft letter and will be laid out in full view in Part 2 of this series.
It’s no secret that coastal wetlands in California are down to about 5% of historical acreage. And that 5% are probably impaired, so many left now don’t function well, meet what’s called “Basin Plan Objectives” (BPO). The 3 “pillars” of the BPO concept include goals and objectives, metrics to measure eco-health, and bundled for the specifically identified watersheds, drainage areas and Points Of Discharge (POD). In the case of a coastal wetland, a mixing zone of fresh and seawater, the POD is the Pacific Ocean.
BPOs are dominantly focused upon the original purposes of the federal and state water quality regulations: The Waters Of The US (WOTUS) should be fishable and swimmable, i.e., codify, designate, determine the beneficial uses and memorialize them in the BPO. [2]
They’re reviewed and amended periodically, but to my knowledge never hit their tri-annual timelines here, in Region-9, Cal/EPA. It doesn’t take a biologist to realize that human and the riparian/aquatic species should thrive and survive: Protect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our streams, lakes and POD, try to restore or maintain them at historical, pre-development (pre-1950s) levels of well-being. [3]
What does and what does not constitute WOTUS, btw, has been one of THE most controversial topics, in and out of county, state and federal courtrooms including the Supreme Court of the US……….been bouncing around intensely since Donald Drumpf tried to sabotage USEPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers.
To me, what I saw and heard at the South OC Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) could be construed by NGOs as a stealthy act of betrayal, sabotage by this JPA and its members if they sign it at the City of Laguna Beach’s (CLB) behest.
According to my investigation, those agencies who supported the Project in the past with $$$ and accolades, not to mention the vast array of other protectionist organizations, didn’t know of this letter.
I inquired and was told that “No, they weren’t notified.” I asked that question with specificity and as yet have seen zilch in mainstream media or online SM chats. So either it’s been intentionally hidden or maybe 2nd thoughts, brighter minds prevailed and the Draft has been rescinded, or won’t be signed nor sent after I spoke out, questioned its need or motivation?
At the SOCWA meeting I attended, an official from the CLB who pled the case for signing, admitted that the Draft and its instigator, its biggest fan, IS the CLB. But look at the logo lineup, and you see the attempt to draw other agencies into what could be a major scandal once publicized.
The County of Orange, btw, after February, will be “off the hook,” that is no longer responsible for the estuary or berm, nor maintenance, CIPs, attendant personnel, etc. for the entire park and lagoon zone.
As for South Coast Water District, CLB or SOCWA, they’ve memorialized their intransigence. Translation, after February, the County logo and support of the letter will evaporate, buck successfully passed (literally) by the agency that made the whole 38 sq. mile Aliso Creek Watershed and its estuary a veritable catastrophe, a train wreck.
I’ll not discuss the berm issue (“Berm Buddies,” now is that grammar school hokey phrasing or what?), which IMO is a manufactured controversy, a false narrative cause, NGOs complaining about what is not scientifically supported by reality but "Yes, kids, send in your feel good $$$ today!" [4]
In the last phase of intense negotiations regarding the OC Board of Supervisors transference of County property and facilities within the CLB municipal limits, I didn’t quite get the consequences of the transfer. [5]
The DRAFT was dated October 14, 2022, but there must have been some work up to that date. It’s addressed to Ms. Amy Hutzel, the Executive Officer of the California State Coastal Conservancy, an agency that has already poured hundreds of thousands in seed funds to the Project.
Don’t believe me, read the DRAFT. It should be noted by the reader that the transference (and $22 million the CLB receives) are scheduled to be finalized in February. But the real estate does look like a “done deal.” The November 8, 2022 BOD meeting, was a shock, scroll down to Pages 164-166 (Agenda Item 6.G) [6]
It did take me a few days to tie this to a major acquisition by the CLB, major ducats dumped into our coffers but of course with assets come liabilities. With SOCWA as lead in the letter’s circulation plus having a SOC, double digit JPA membership, apparently the CLB felt that legerdemain (sleight of hand) was called for.
You know, hide this IED out of sight, use other agencies as shills or cover, who’re unaware of the possible blowback and outrage that could follow.
In detective novels, the sleuth always asks: “Qui bono?,” that is to say “Who profited from this crime?” That’s easy: Stuck with this white elephant (lower Aliso below The Ranch), this Gordian knot of an estuarine zone (which includes the trapezoidal channel’s berm terminus), the County actually got off cheaply, unloaded a $$$-draining parcel.
Which is why they paid us, unloading damaged goods they had for positive PR optics. Now they don’t have to fund anything subsequently, in a bleak (read expensive) future scenario like 3rd party litigation exposure, no liabilities including the flood control channel, etc., so they unloaded an estuary version of a Pinto. And we’re taking that money gleefully, no one divulging the liabilities, just the assets.
The truth? The County didn’t want to fund the Project as lead agency, in fact it’s an orphan. Not one public agency with the fiscal liquidity over this 10 year period wanted to be the parent, a committed lead entity (including the protracted, expensive run-ups featuring complex, multi-jurisdictional agency enviro-certifications).
Don’t shoot (or stab) me, the messenger. I’m just asking questions and providing information. The price watchdogs of the environment pay is similar to a democracy: Eternal vigilance.
How diabolical, bury the letter at the end of a hefty SOCWA agenda, this JPA btw attended by NGOs about as often as Haley’s Comet comes round. By the time LOF et al realized it, they’d have already been stabbed by their own home town (possibly the death knell), like Caesar. "Et tu SOCWA?"
And if there’s anyone who believes that the CLB will be that agency, take on this particular Promethean task? Invest and find partners who’ll toss in the remaining necessary funds (in today’s dollars, guestimated at $25+ million for any of the 3 LOF concepts)?
Well, I have a salt/freshwater mixing zone, an impaired, channelized watercourse that’s the recipient of the urban, post-development nightmare which is Aliso Creek Watershed seeking a home improvement…..so yes, Virginia, of course there’s a Sugar Daddy Santa Claus out there, or is there?
[1] https://www.lagunaoceanfoundation.org/aliso-creek-estuary-restoration/
[3] https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/bio_objectives/
[4] https://www.lagunabeachindy.com/opinion-the-aliso-creek-beach-berm-a-false-narrative/#comments
[6] http://www.socwa.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/BOD-Agenda-Packet_2022.11.03.pdf
