A San Francisco Superior Court judge last week rejected a lawsuit by three environmental groups challenging the California State Parks plan to reshape the Malibu Lagoon. The project is tentatively scheduled to begin in summer 2012.
By Knowles Adkisson / The Malibu Times
Barring further appeals, it appears the controversial plan to reshape the Malibu Lagoon using bulldozers will begin next summer. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith last week ruled against three environmental groups that had filed a lawsuit to stop the California State Parks project.
The $7 million project received approval from the California Coastal Commission in 2010, and was due to begin June 1 this year. However, Goldsmith granted a stay of the project in May to allow the lawsuit by the Wetlands Defense Fund, Access For All and the Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network to be heard.
Last Thursday in San Francisco, Goldsmith rejected the environmental groups’ claims that the Coastal Commission had not considered other, less invasive alternatives to the State Parks project.
Suzanne Goode, a senior environmental scientist for California State Parks who has spearheaded the project over more than a decade of planning, welcomed the ruling.
“The entire project team is very gratified that the judge made the correct decision to allow this important project to go forward,” Goode wrote in an email to The Malibu Times.
Marcia Hanscom, Executive Director of the Wetlands Defense Fund and a staunch opponent of the project, said she was disappointed the judge made the ruling based on scientific studies performed when the project was being put together. Hanscom said Goldsmith did not take into account new research, such as a recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey and commissioned by the City of Malibu, which she believes proves the lagoon’s health has improved.
“The worst thing about the decision was that everything he was talking about was really old science,” Hanscom said. “It’s not the current condition of the lagoon, which is extremely healthy. We are extremely disappointed in the judge’s ruling,” Hanscom said.
Hanscom told The Malibu Times there were “strong grounds for an appeal” of the ruling. However, Hanscom said the opponents of the project would consider a range of options to stop the project before its expected starting date of June 1, 2012. Those options include filing a new lawsuit in either federal or state court. The opponents could also file administrative appeals to the State Water Resources Control Board or the Environmental Protection Agency, she said.
Whichever option is eventually chosen, Hanscom said the opponents had “a lot of fund-raising to do” in order to pay for legal fees to fight the project.
Goode said in her email an appeal would not surprise her “due to the tremendous amount of emotion that has been stirred up by the opposition.”
The project is now scheduled to begin June 1, 2012, marking a one-year delay from the planned starting date. The work can only be completed during the summer in order to take advantage of the dry season. Goode said the $7 million cost of the project is higher than it was originally due to the delay of the lawsuit. She said there had been a successful bidder on the contract prior to Goldsmith’s May ruling, and the project will now have to be rebid.
The plan is to drain 12 acres of the lagoon and use bulldozers to reshape its western channels to allow for greater water circulation in the oxygen-depleted lagoon. Approximately 13,000 cubic yards of mud would be removed, along with non-native plants and shrubbery that would be replaced by native plant species. Several wooden bridges that connect paths through the marsh leading to Surfrider Beach would also be removed as part of the project.
A major restoration project was attempted in 1983, after ball fields had been installed atop the original lagoon in the 1970s. Today, the lagoon is plagued by poor water quality and low oxygen levels caused by excessive algae blooms. Nearby Surfrider Beach, where water from the lagoon empties into the ocean during storms, receives consistently poor grades in water quality.
Supporters of the plan, including environmental groups Heal the Bay and Santa Monica Baykeeper along with State Parks, say the changes being proposed are necessary to correct mistakes caused by the faulty design of the 1983 project. Reshaping the western channels of the lagoon and removing the non-native vegetation will improve water circulation, they say, and increase oxygen levels in the water.
But opponents object to the use of bulldozers, arguing it is too drastic and will kill wildlife in the lagoon. They believe the lagoon will naturally repair itself over time, which stands in contrast to proponents’ belief that the lagoon is irreparable.
Opponents also object to the removal of four wooden bridges that connect a path to Surfrider Beach as a reduction of public access. In addition, a significant number of surfers have also registered objections to the project, for fear it will alter the popular Third Point wave at Surfrider.