With Conservationists Like These ...

This blog was created in response to the blog by the Friends of Ballona Wetlands President, David Kay.  Dr. Kay has consistently shown a preference for PR spin over fact, and that does not reflect well on his organization.  Many Friends of the Ballona Wetlands supporters are sincerely interested in the health of the Ballona ecosystem, and our criticisms of Dr. Kay's writings aren't intended to diminish their work.  However, we would ask those supporters to take a step back and consider whether the kinds of comments that Dr. Kay is making on their behalf are helpful to the cause of environmental conservation.

Starting with the Annenberg Foundation's proposal for Area C, Dr. Kay has used exactly the same arguments that oil companies have used to push for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

1) It is only a fraction of the ecosystem

2) It is expendable habitat

3) It will raise money that can be used for good things.

None of these are good or sincere arguments, whether it is oil companies or David Kay that is making them:  

1) Regarding the size of the Annenberg proposal, it is important to note that the Ballona ecosystem has already been greatly diminished and heavily fragmented.  The Friends settlement with the developers in the 90s, while based on good intentions, contributed to this reduction and fragmentation in habitat.  The Friends not only resisted efforts to preserve additional land in "Area D" of the ecosystem, but were also ready to cede "Area A" and "Area C" to development.  

Luckily, other groups kept fighting for these areas and they were included in the ecological reserve at great tax payer expense.  Even with that additional acreage, the State's own analysis indicates that the relatively small amount of land preserved creates challenges for maintaining biodiversity, habitat mixes and recreational uses.  (These documents can be found at www.ballona.org/annenberg)

Yet Mr. Kay dismisses the 16 acre figure he uses as inconsequential.  These are not the writings of someone dedicated to the conservation of biodiversity, but rather those of someone supporting a non-conservation agenda via classic "green washing" tactics.

2) Just as proponents of drilling in ANWR have described that ecosystem as a "barren wasteland", Dr. Kay and others have wrongly suggested that the uplands "Area C" have no ecological value.  While it is certainly true that this site is in need of restoration, it is highly misleading to ignore the potential of this site as well as its current value in order to justify a construction project there.  Again, if we look to folks like Dr. Kay to be spokespeople for the environment, it is no wonder that we have seen such vast loss of habitat in Southern California.

3) The economic argument for the Annenberg proposal has been grossly oversimplified.  Yes, the Foundation will pump somewhere in the neighborhood of between $50 and $85 million into their construction project and ongoing maintenance if they are given special permission to build their long-desired companion animal center as part of the proposal.  However, the vast majority of that money will go into the construction project itself, not into some fund that will undo the negative impact of the project.  It is like telling a town that you'll invest $50 million into their school district if they let you build a shopping mall on school property, but the $50 million is to build the mall.  It is a lose/lose for the school district.  The Annenberg proposal is a lose/lose for Ballona.  The Friends should have the ecological sense to recognize this and to oppose that element of the State's plan.

It is also worth noting that we have been hearing that the EIR will be released "later this year" since the MOU was announced in January.  At that time, "later this year" specifically referred to the spring of 2013.  When Spring came, "later this year" meant the summer.  Then in summer "later this year" meant the fall.  Now it is fall and we are told that the draft may not come out until December.  In fact, they haven't even begun the analysis that Mr. Kay keeps referring to, as they are still working out the project description.  

This is quite likely due, in part, to the challenge of career ecologists being forced to pretend that the construction of facilities for dogs and cats (and an interpretive center 15 times as big as the wonderful Grassy Hollow Visitor Center in Angeles Forest) somehow supports legitimate ecological objectives.

Regarding the overall restoration, Dr. Kay again oversimplifies and misleads.  By suggesting that we must either blindly support the current plan or "do nothing" is the classic false dilemma logical fallacy.  With an energized community of stakeholders, we can help the State determine the most ecologically beneficial course of action based on an objective and comprehensive reading of all the science that becomes available to us through environmental review.  Some stakeholders' positions will naturally be influenced by the different values they hold dear.  Our organization, the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust, has made clear our commitment to review the environmental analysis in good faith.  We have asked in our public comments for the project team to explain when a particular ecological benefit can only be achieved via an industrial approach instead of a less invasive approach.  We think that is a reasonable and productive request.

Disagreement about the details of the restoration is healthy.  Manipulative PR spin is not.  We call on Dr. Kay to help facilitate a more candid and objective discussion of this complex issue, such as this valuable ecosystem deserves. 

Walter Lamb
Ballona Wetlands Land Trust