Rabbi Levi Cunin recently shared a quote by his friend: “I may not know what the truth is, but I can smell a lie a mile away.” This quote is timely when considering the Malibu Lagoon “restoration” project.
First, the name of the project is deceptive. This project will not be “restoring” what Mother Nature would have created. Instead, it will be creating an unnatural environment. Why can’t the name of the project accurately reflect the true nature of the project? It is not a restoration, but a dredging project that will enlarge the holding ponds found in the lagoon. Was it simply called a “restoration” project in order to be eligible for Proposition 50 funds?
The project will be funded by Proposition 50 funds, the Clean Drinking Water initiative. The passing of California Proposition 50 in 2002 allowed the state to issue $3,440,000 general obligation bonds to fund a variety of water projects, including: specified CALFED Bay-Delta Program projects including urban and agricultural water use efficiency projects; grants and loans to reduce Colorado River water use; purchasing, protecting and restoring coastal wetlands near urban areas; competitive grants for water management and quality improvement projects; development of river parkways; improved security for state, local and regional water systems and grants for desalination and drinking water disinfection
If the voters in the great State of California knew that the our bond money would be used for an experimental project in Malibu which has absolutely nothing to do with clean drinking water, how do you think they would feel?
Were alternatives considered that would reduce the amount of dredging or eliminate dredging? I heard testimony on April 11, 2011 that alternative devices exist (e.g., “Jet Streamer”) which would accomplish the same result (more oxygen in the water) at 1/7 the cost (i.e., $1 million) and without disruptive dredging and bulldozers. Why not consider this alternative?
The information published on the State of California Prop. 50 disbursement website states that over $900,000 was given to Heal the Bay for the Malibu Lagoon Restoration project. I pulled this public information off the Prop. 50 website last April, 2011 when the Malibu City Council was taking another look at the project. I was told by Heal the Bay that they only received approximately $300,000 and about $150,000 was used for CEQA/permitting. I have asked for the Governor’s office to verify what has been paid thus far. It is very unfortunate that tax payer money spent on this project is not accounted for and/or accurate.
Construction during the summer months of June, July, August and September will adversely impact the local and regional economy, residents and visitors alike who are trying to visit Malibu beaches, wildlife and especially the Snowy Plover, which mates from March through September.
It is time for this Malibu City Council to be leaders and take action, just like we did when the LNG facilities were proposed off our precious coast. Any statement that there is nothing the City can do to stop the project is simply not true. In addition to funding a study which may or may not even be completed before June, the Malibu City Council can: Allocate $50,000 toward legal fees to slow down the project, just like we did in our fight against the LNG; direct our attorney to file an amicus brief just as we have done in many other cases; take a formal position on the project and argue our case before Governor Jerry Brown; collaborate with the State and all stakeholders to try to come to a mutually agreeable solution. In short, it is time to do what we were elected to do, represent the citizens of Malibu and protect and preserve our natural resources.
BY Pamela Conley Ulich