From the Publisher / Arnold G. York

0
160

To Go or Not to Go? That is the Question.

Tucked away behind the Malibu Colony, and alongside the Malibu Creek and Lagoon, is a roughly 12-acre parcel of land and seawater, with birds and debris that the environmentalists call a wetland habitant. In my old neighborhood in Brooklyn we would have called it a swamp. Those

two conflicting definitions tell you a great deal about the battle that’s brewing over the overhaul of the wetland habitat at the lagoon proposed by

the state and a group of environmental agencies, which is opposed by another group of environment organizations. In the coastal areas, wetlands

restoration is the holy grail of the environmental movement. What caught my attention is that it’s highly unusual to see the environmental community

split over a wetland restoration project, which is what’s happening here in Malibu.

To reduce the issue to its basics, perhaps even to oversimplify it, the state proposes to bulldoze the currently existing wetland habitat, rebuild

it correctly, they claim, replant it with authentic native grasses and make it function properly as a wetland. The environmental opposition says this

is irrational because it already is a wetland and has been for 20 years since the Little League moved out and up to Bluffs Park, after which the state dug it out and turned it into a wetland.

The opposition charges that birds and other animals already live there, that it is a living and functioning ecosystem. And instead of cleaning it

up carefully and taking out the nonnative species, the proposed state plan is a gigantic overkill that would tear away everything that nature has done

the last 20 or so years, apparently without our help, and replace it with a scientifically designed wetland because we’re man and we know how to

do it better.

This battle raises interesting philosophic questions about the management of our environment. The truth is, it’s very tough to be God and to decide which species of plants should live and which should die, which should be allowed to grow and which should be torn out by their roots. It is, I must confess, above my pay grade. The same with the animals, trying to decide which should be sacrificed now, and clearly a great many will be if this wetland is torn up, so that maybe more and healthier animals will reside there in the future is not just a scientific question, it is almost a

theological question.

Considering what’s in question here, and the fact that many dedicated environmentalist have serious reservations about this project, I do believe that the state shouldn’t just plunge into this project without

giving it some more thought and trying to address some of the concerns that have been raised. Perhaps it is a good project, perhaps not. I must be frank, I certainly don’t know but I think enough real and substantial questions have been raised to require a relook. Perhaps the ultimate

decision will be the same, then again perhaps not. I would urge the Coastal Commission that’s scheduled to hear this project next week to delay

it, to allow time to make a careful and prudent decision. This project has been delayed before and another couple of months won’t make much difference

over the long run.

P.S. I confess to having a newsman’s skeptical nature. I always wonder in these large environmental projects where the money is coming from and to whom is it going. Over the past number of years we have passed a number of large dollar water bonds. That bond money typically can’t be spent until there are projects to spend them on. Is this a project that stands on its own or is it bond money burning a hole in some bureaucrat’s pocket and looking for a place to go? I don’t know yet,

but I would certainly like to hear from the proponents who get money from this project.