Articles - GOOD GREEN AND GOOFY GREEN

INTRODUCTION

Definitions of "environmentalism" abound. Generally, it is concerned with relationships between organisms and their relations to the earth's physical conditions. It commonly is regarded as a philosophy, a movement, and even a sort of belief verging on a religion. Its primary themes are the protection of species, the conservation of wild lands, and the prevention or reduction of pollution. Historical reviews of the subject commonly begin with its philosophical roots - Thoreau at Walden Pond, President Theodore Roosevelt's establishment of national parks, and John Muir's love of the Sierra Nevada. In California, the first environmental concerns that found their way into law were related to the gold rush of 1849. First came the rules, and later laws, governing the use of stream waters, followed by the prohibition of hydraulic mining. California, especially with its Environmental Quality Act, its Coastal Act, and its Porter- Cologne Water Quality Act, all legislation developed during the 1970s, has come a long way since and in some respects too far, and in Malibu at least, one could say, goofy.

"Goofy green" herein refers to projects billed as environmentally valuable which on examination prove to be of questionable value or efficacy. The problem of goofy greenness is perhaps best understood from the point of view of economic environmentalism, a relatively new concept, at least in Malibu.

CROSS CREEK ROAD BRIDGE

The Cross Creek Road bridge (my name for it), also referred to as the "Serra Retreat bridge," replaced what was called a "submersed" bridge. That submerged bridge was actually concrete slabs on the original Kentucky crossing that was part of a wagon road connecting the Rindge's Laudemas Farm headquarters to the fields and ranch operations on the western side of Malibu Creek. The Cross Creek Road bridge was constructed late in 2004. It greatly improves ingress and egress for the Serra Retreat area, now referred to by some as "Serra Canyon." Nevertheless, because of the extensive residential development there, the Cross Creek Road bridge is very important in terms of fire risk and seems justified for that reason alone. On the other hand, justification for it has been asserted largely on environmental grounds - namely to facilitate upstream spawning of steelhead trout.

The concern for annual trout migration may have dictated to some extent the design of the Cross Creek Road bridge in terms of stream hydraulics. In the first test of its performance in that regard, it was overtopped by flooding during the 2004-2005 storm season, probably because it blocked the passage of debris entrained in the flow. Furthermore, the bridge is without large upstream wing-walls that would lessen the chance of flooding around the abutments. This is of some concern considering the prehistoric stream channel 100 - 300 feet west of Cross Creek Road. In the event of more serious blockage, a diversion back into this channel seems possible. However, of more interest for present purpose is the asserted reason the bridge was built. For lack of a better source, reference to a web article attributed to Jack Topel, Environmental Scientist, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, Barry Rands, Associate Engineer, Hawks & Associates, and C.W. Carson, Serra Canyon Property Owners Association gives this reason for the bridge:

The pre-project low-water crossing (ford) on Malibu Creek was identified as a partial barrier to southern steelhead trout, determined by the federal government to be an endangered species. The ford also retained sediment and required frequent repair following high flows, resulting in recurring disturbance to the adjacent channel.

Now the trout had been spawning long before the Rindges established the ford and continued to do so for many years afterwards. In the early 1960s when I first crossed it, the concrete sections the bridge replaced had not been installed. At low water, the fish had to somehow negotiate between large cobbles, or they didn't get upstream. That had to be the case long before the Rindges came along and thereafter until the concrete slabs were installed. If those slab sections, which were about 8 feet wide, actually had presented a serious obstacle to spawning, the environmentally economic thing to do would have been to remove them.

It seems to me that among the contributors to construction of the bridge, including the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, the Malibu Coastal Land Conservancy, the Serra Canyon Property Owners Association, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the California Dept. of Fish and Game, the City of Malibu, Hawks and Associates, Rincon Consultants, Inc., Mendez Concrete, Inc., and Underground Services, someone could have documented a little better the fish's problem. It's the sort of thing that those who desire an objective as well as an economic approach to environmental improvement would appreciate. Because of the fire risk, the bridge is a highly desirable; but to use environmentalism to misrepresent its necessity is not only disingenuous but in the absence of any rigorous scientific data regarding trout behavior, also goofy.

THE DOUBT ABOUT TROUT

A great deal of time and attention has been devoted to demanding that the Rindge dam be removed because it interferes with the spawning of steelhead trout in Malibu Creek. Representatives of various stakeholders such as CalTrout and the Malibu Creek Watershed Council lose no opportunity to decry the adverse effects they assert the dam has on the trout, and over the years they have been stoutly supported by some City Council members. Nevertheless, the trout seem to have survived during the past 80 years or so since the dam has been in place.

Is concern over the survival of steelhead trout justified? Certainly. But is the assertion, as fact, that the dam interferes with trout spawning justified? Certainly not. There is no evidence whatsoever that the trout ever got past falls believed to have been located the place that later became the dam site. A few locals who knew old guys around then say the site was a high waterfall that trout could not negotiate. Although strictly anecdotal, this is consistent with the geologic character of the dam abutment area. Without evidence either way, the only rational position is to suspend judgment. Efforts to convince the public otherwise is based on belief, not knowledge, that trout could get higher up the creek. Belief is the only criterion we have for many of life's decisions, but it is goofy to rely on it as the rationale for determining a costly and possibly useless course of action. The trouble is, goofiness can lead to real problems such as a decision to remove the Rindge dam, the cost of which now is estimated be in the millions. In terms of economic environmentalism, that is something to consider long and carefully.

WHITER INVASIVENESS?

Malibu adheres to the California Coastal Commission's strictures regarding certain vegetative species which is based on recommendations of the California Exotic Pest Plant Council Southwest Vegetation Management Association, hereinafter, "the Association." The purpose of the Association's work is based on the conviction that:

Invasive non-native plants collectively constitute one of the gravest threats to the biodiversity of wildlands - conservation areas and other native habitats.

Generally, species defined as invasive are arbitrarily prohibited in Malibu even though of demonstrable use in non-wild lands. Areas in Malibu regarded as wildlands presumably include mountain slopes and certain stretches of coast and beaches. In non-wild land areas of Malibu, essentially those ether developed or suitable for development, application of the Association's invasive criterion seems questionable. For example, consider Carpobrotus edulis, a widespread hardy succulent ground cover with common names such as "Hottentots," "Cape Fig," and, incorrectly, "ice plant." C. edulis in Malibu occurs along miles of Pacific Coast Highway and covers large areas of some private properties where it was originally planted and seems content to remain. It is easily recognized by its low, ground-cover aspect, its isolated yellow or flowers, and its short spear-like leaves that are triangular in cross-section. Once widely planted in Santa Monica Mountain developments under the erroneous impression it could stabilize slopes, events soon proved otherwise. That, and the asserted tendency of it in back-beach areas to spread and therefore exclude species deemed native, appear to be the only reasons it is considered environmentally undesirable.

On the other hand, C. edulis is useful to keep down dust, requires no maintenance, does not need irrigation, and has a fairly pleasant aesthetic appearance. Moreover, its invasive character so deplored by the Association hasn't demanded armies of CalTrans maintenance crews frantically cutting it back to keep PCH open. It seems goofy to arbitrarily deny it for planning scenarios where its invasive character, such as it is, does not conflict with its usefulness, just because the Coastal Commission says so. More to the point, one wonders how many other useful species, technically but not practically harmful, are objects of the Association's arbitrary dictates.

PERVIOUS CONCRETE

An environmental problem readily recognized but not easily evaluated is the pollution of water bodies by surface runoff, particularly from areas such as roads and parking lots. The specific question at hand for Malibu is whether pervious concrete, also "permeable concrete," is a good idea for reducing runoff from the Civic Center area. The thought is that rather than plain old concrete from which the dreaded runoff occurs when it rains, rain on pervious concrete will seep through into the road bed, then an into the underlying natural materials, soil and the like, and presto! no more runoff. Of course, local ground water takes a hit.

Pervious concrete is composed of coarse-grained materials such as sand or gravel held together by a paste of concrete and perhaps other substances that give it strength and allow for openings the more knowledgeable refer to as interstices. A brief tour of the web discloses that commercially available pervious concrete pavers have hydraulic conductivities in the range of 5 to 10 feet per day off the showroom floor. Malibu aquifers should have such hydraulic conductivities. But there is a problem. Whereas the volumes of interstices in aquifers remain constant, the volumes of interstices in pervious concrete don't. In time, possibly within a few years, they must clog with silt and clay, and auto oil, and all sorts of other road crud. The hydraulic conductivity then drops to near zero. Unpresto! - no more perviousness, with the associated additional costs down the drain. Some may suggest that vacuuming might alleviate the problem, but once the stuff gets down 3 or 4 inches and sets up, as oily and clayey materials are wont to do, removing them from, say, the recently installed Cross Creek Road Improvement Project pavers, seems highly unlikely. Of course, it would be nice to have the extension-cord contract.

THE STREAM TEAM MEETS THE STREAM REGIME

Heal the Bay, which seems to do some good work, has a "Stream Team" the purpose of which apparently is to survey streams, particularly those of the Malibu Creek watershed. A data base that describes characteristics of various streams within that watershed is useful, particularly with regard to the fact that as development continues, those streams more and more become means for pollutants to reach the ocean. But beyond that, searching for other reasons to "study" them, raises the question of whether such efforts are economically worthwhile.

The regimes of the major streams in the Malibu Creek watershed, Malibu Creek, Las Virgenes Creek, and Cold Creek, have been permanently altered from those they had prior to development. This is particularly important in the case of Malibu Creek which, for convenience in discussion here, includes the reach from the ocean upstream to Lake Sherwood dam, a total thalweg distance of about 17.5 miles. Several dams, the conversion of Russell Valley to tract development with a fake lake, a number of road bridges, and especially the disposal of treated effluent from the Tapia plant, all have resulted in a modified regime that for practical purposes is permanent. It is in this context that work of the Stream Team needs to be evaluated.

One Stream Team bone of contention these days is that various bank protective devices along Malibu Creek regime are bad because in their immediate vicinity they can cause downstream bank erosion and consequent sedimentation. In this view, the assumption seems to be that if there was no such armoring, the banks would not be eroded and therefore that rip-rap and similar devices should be replaced with "... soft bioengineered solutions..." (Abramson, et al. 2005, p. 3). Such "solutions" that, presumably, would cause less bank erosion they do not specifically describe. Of course, bank erosion and resulting sedimentation is a more or less constant process that is an element of any stream regime. Furthermore, the devices of which the Stream Team complains cannot affect more than a small fraction of one percent of the reach of the creek under consideration.

The question of Stream Team activities in this regard is best illustrated by Heal the Bay's on opposition to a mitigated negative declaration concerning a rip-rap slope behind buildings on the eastern side of Cross Creek Plaza. Briefly, the Mariposa Land Company wants a permit to do something without modifying or removing the rip-rap, that was installed, I understand, prior to 1997, and provides significant protection for the Plaza from stream erosion. Heal the Bay deems the rip-rap slope environmentally bad and believes it should be replaced by some sort of "soft" embankment protection which it deems environmentally good. Shorn of procedural and legal arguments, some of which may have merit, Heal the Bay's underlying technical objection is that :

"... ongoing erosion caused by the rip-rap to the downstream banks and the channel down cutting that contribute fine sediments are major factors in the summer algal blooms and eutrophication in the lagoon" (op cit. p. 5, para. 5a.)

This idea that rip-rap slopes cause algal blooms in Malibu Creek is especially odd. Photo 1 shows an algal bloom in the Malibu creek in November, 2007, about 1,000 feet upstream from the rip-rap slope in question.

Malibu Geology

Photo 1.

However, the only issue for present purposes is why an organization such as Heal the Bay will offer such technical argument without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Exactly how, and to what extent, a rip-rap slope along Malibu Creek is environmentally damaging, the Stream Team fails to address in any specific, measureable way. In a way this is clever, because such assertions can't be specifically refuted. Rather, presented before decision-making bodies, members of which commonly lack technical expertise, it might sound convincing or it might be relied upon to support a member's preconceived notion of the matter. In my opinion, technical-sounding opinions such as those offered by Abramson, et al. (op. cit.) would be inadmissible in court as irrelevant and lacking foundation. But used by decision-making bodies, in this case, the City Planning Commission, the City Council, or the Coastal Commission, they can have the effect of forcing an applicant to either a costly appeal or a costly "remedy."

Heal the Bay has every right to oppose the negative declaration in question, but to cloak its opposition in the trappings of scientific analysis is wrong. Science is based on an ability to measure something, in this case downstream erosion and resulting environmental damage. Without such data, the Stream Team assertions have no scientific validity, and for a decision-making body to rely upon them would be the height of environmental goofiness.

BACK TO BUSINESS

Gas rationing during the second world war gave rise to the question: "Is this trip necessary?" By analogy, today we should ask: "Is this project environmentally necessary?" It is a question those with the responsibility for disbursing project funds should keep in mind, and its determination should be the responsibility of an entity having neither a financial or nor a political interest in the matter. Disbursement of funds for environmental projects should be consistent with independent review of project feasibility. In the absence of such review, there is an insidious hierarchical mechanism that works to waste funds and therefore harms the environmental movement. It is characterized by:

Availability of government funds partly legitimate and partly authorized for raw political gain;
Agencies having the duty to disburse such funds but lacking the technical expertise to determine whether projects are feasible;
Agency mangers who seek such funds for projects ostensibly relevant to the agency's mission regardless of whether such projects are feasible;
Contractors willing to apply for such funds even though aware that a particular project is environmentally of no value or has little hope of success.

Whatever checks and balances there now may be in place supposed to assure that funds are spent reasonably in improving the environment, they do not seem to be working well, at least not in Malibu. Much of what passes for environmental improvement in Malibu is just plain goofy.

* * *