With the controversial Malibu Lagoon Restoration Project set to begin June 1, and a city-funded review of scientific evidence going nowhere, City Councilmember John Sibert says the council will make a stand for or against the project before the April 10 City Council election.
By Jimy Tallal / Special to The Malibu Times
The controversial project to reshape the Malibu Lagoon is set to begin June 1, and the City Council is running out of time to take an official stance for or against it. With a city-funded review of scientific studies on the Lagoon bogged down in disagreements, one City Councilmember says the council come out either for or against it before the April 10 City Council election.
The project, approved by the California Coastal Commission in 2010, would replace vegetation and reshape slopes and channels using bulldozers. It is backed by groups like Heal the Bay, which maintain that the lagoon’s waterways are lacking oxygen and need to be altered to improve water quality. Opponents assert that the lagoon has the ability to repair itself in time, and that the State Parks-led restoration is invasive and would needlessly kill native wetlands and wildlife.
The City of Malibu has no legal power to stop the project, as it takes place on California State Parks-owned land. However, opponents of the project say the city’s involvement could help delay or stop the project at the state level.
On Jan. 23, the City Council approved $25,000 to hire an independent science group to review existing scientific studies on the Lagoon. Councilmember John Sibert initially proposed the review as a way for the council to “separate fact from fiction” in order to make an informed decision on the controversial project.
Sibert, who faces re-election in the April 10 City Council election, has drawn heavy criticism from opponents to the project because he sits on the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, which supports the project.
The council asked that an organization be chosen and report back to the council by March 13. But more than two months after the $25,000 appropriation was approved, a scientific group has still not been chosen.
Whether the analysis is finished or not, Sibert told The Malibu Times in a telephone interview last week that “the city will take a position before the election based on all the facts we’ve got.”
When it began the selection process, the council asked both sides of the controversy—State Parks, the lead agency on the lagoon project, and the Wetlands Defense Fund (WDF), which leads opposition to the project—to agree on one group to conduct the scientific review. But over the past two months, a total of 11 scientific individuals or groups have been reviewed and then rejected after neither side could agree on a scientific group they feel would be unbiased.
Recently, both sides agreed on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), but City Manager Jim Thorsen says WDF withdrew its support “based on rumors of which scientist might be used by the USGS.”
Marcia Hanscom of WDF indicated that her group is waiting to receive a list of specific individuals from USGS before they’re willing to say yes.
At the March 12 regular City Council meeting, WDF’s scientific director Roy van de Hoek said the selection process had been “tainted” due to Sibert’s past association with the USGS in Alaska. A scientist with USGS who works in Alaska had been recommended, and Sibert once managed a scientific facility in Alaska.
Sibert denounced those allegations last week in a telephone interview with The Malibu Times.
“I left Alaska 17 years ago. I don’t remember doing anything with USGS while I was up there,” Sibert said. “This is just ensuring that we will not finish on time. It’s sad.”
“If they select USGS,” van de Hoek said last week, “we want to do due diligence and interview the team members chosen for this project.”
Suzanne Goode, senior environmental scientist with State Parks, said one problem is the two groups have had difficulty finding “ a true wetlands expert.” Several candidates put forward by State Parks were rejected by WDF, and Goode said WDF’s plan to interview USGS team members was counterproductive.
“They’re trying to micromanage the study,” Goode said last week in a telephone interview. “USGS doesn’t even want anyone to call them. We all really need to stay out of it,” so as not to influence the review.
Hanscom said WDF has put forward a good-faith effort to find a reviewer, saying that at first, “We were the only ones putting any experts forward; and every one we put forward was denied by the state.” State Parks rejected several nominations by WDF on the basis that none had enough expertise on wetlands, which Hanscom denies.
The City Council has yet to take a position on the project. Thorsen sent two letters to the California Coastal Commission in 2010 expressing conditional support for the project, and Councilmember Jefferson Wagner said he was involved in drafting the letters. In April last year, the council decided to remain neutral after debating a motion to write an official letter to Gov. Jerry Brown either in support or opposition to the project.