Ballona Wetlands: Part 2, Our Long Road Trip Together

See Part 1 for the introduction and legal/regulatory foundation for the Ballona project's development. -DK

Part 2:  Regional Goals Must be Clearly Articulated, But Need Not Enjoy Unanimous Consensus

The first step is to establish regional goals for a Ballona Restoration within the roughly 600-acre state-owned land now designated as ecological reserve.  Many Ballona goals already enjoy unanimous support; public open space dedicated to conservation in perpetuity, protected wildlife habitat, well-regulated public access and educational opportunities. 

Other goals lack consensus, and may never be accepted by some.  Should the restoration favor aquatic organisms with much open, blue water? Or, favor terrestrial organisms with landscape dominated by marsh and upland (dry land) habitat?  Or, should the restoration balance the two, with a hybrid mix of the many sub-habitats in between? Shall the restoration be executed by conventional means (excavation and grading, followed by re-vegetation) or be hand-built by members of the community in a minimally invasive, low impact way? Shall existing and restored wetland be connected to the Ballona Creek tidal prism, the Marina Del Rey channel or directly to the ocean?  Shall the little league fields be allowed to remain in the state-owned reserve and should other uses unrelated to open space habitat enjoyment be allowed? 

Who gets to decide the destination of our road trip, the route we’ll take and the car we’ll drive? We’ll all be passengers in the car and we’re chipping in for gas, so don’t we have say about where we’re all headed and how we’ll get there?  The answer is, “it depends”. 

Under CEQA, a project is defined by its proponent.  In the case of a shoe factory, that may be a shoe company that owns the land, purchased for that purpose in an area zoned for manufacturing.  The company establishes the project goal: to build a shoe factory.  Their plans may be for a large factory, but could also include a medium-sized one.  The company might not seriously consider a small factory; perhaps because of economics (a small factory might not be competitive).  The proponent is not required to advance alternatives that don’t meet their goals, and the public cannot force them to (generally speaking), unless the proposed alternatives cause significant, adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated in some way which the developer agrees to accept.  The developer may abandon the project if they cannot, or don’t choose to mitigate the impacts, but they can’t be forced to advance a project that does not satisfy their purpose and meet their goals.  So, the shoe company will build its factory if it can economically mitigate all significant environmental impacts, or it won’t build at all.  It cannot be forced to build an uncompetitive small factory.  Like it or not, that’s the law of the state, and it’s consistent with other familiar tenets of American governance, such as property rights.  

For Southern California Edison’s (SCE) San Dieguito Wetlands Restoration near Del Mar, a good case study for Ballona,the primary goal was to create and restore tidal wetland habitat that would offset the impacts to fish eggs and larvae from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.  Since the project was driven by Coastal Commission permit requirements, the Commission added additional goals, such as a design that was to be largely self-maintaining and always open to the tide, as well as very prescriptive goals for wetland and upland habitat composition and performance (Figure 1).

Absent such prescriptive design requirements, the project proponent for Ballona - the State of California – is free to set its own project goals. Represented by the Department of Fish and Game (the state’s land owner) and the Coastal Conservancy (the state’s project manager and funding source) and through a series of public workshops held since 2004 that incorporated the advice of a scientific advisory panel (SAP) and various policy makers (hired or appointed by our elected representatives), California has decided that Ballona shall be restored, and that an abundance of high quality, productive wetland and upland habitats shall be created, enhanced or preserved, accessible by regulated public access. 

 Those are the regional goals of a Ballona restoration as articulated by the proponents, and unless their goals otherwise conflict with state or federal law or policy, that is the destination of our road trip.  I believe all those concerned with Ballona agree upon those overarching, regional goals, and are willing to make the journey.  Disagreements remain about how to get there, however, and there will be much arguing about those details.  That’s OK.  That’s our process.

As the land owner and project manager designated by any number of statutes, policies and regulations, our Department of Fish and Game and Coastal Conservancy have already established these regional goals for Ballona’s 600+ acres (Figure 2).  Their decision is not revolutionary, but ordinary and familiar.  Indeed, these agencies have already completed over 1800 projects at a cost of $1.5 billion, many restorations of state-owned tidal lands up and down our state coastline, because we the people have ordered that be done through our laws and regulations (Public Resources Code §31200 et seq.).  This should not come as a surprise.  Indeed, Ballona will be one of the last remaining tidal marshlands to be preserved and restored by a California state government structure created in 1976 expressly to accomplish those public goals.  Los Angeles regional taxpayers have contributed many dollars to fund all of those other statewide projects.  Now it’s the rest of California’s turn to fund Ballona, and all Californians have already made a substantial investment with the land purchase and ecological reserve designation.   

So, we the people decided long ago to protect, restore and enhance our remaining coastal wetlands.  That’s the road trip destination.  As passengers, we will have a say about what road to take to get there; what kind of car to drive, how fast to go, and other details. That part of the CEQA process has barely begun. 

In Part 3:  Mapping Our Road Trip, Deciding Upon a Route and Choosing a Vehicle