The Battle Over Protecting Ballona Wetlands — And If They Need It

MARINA DEL REY, CA —For decades it’s been an environmental jewel wedged between the urban sprawl of Marina Del Rey and Playa Del Rey. But now the Ballona Wetlands State Ecological Reserve, home to diverse plant and animal wildlife, has become a battleground for conservationists and other activists.

Just where the battle lines will ultimately be drawn depends in large part on a decision by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW), which is expected to choose, possibly before year’s end, from four alternatives for restoring one of the few remaining freshwater coastal wetlands in Los Angeles County.

After three years of studying, analyzing and receiving thousands of public comments on a smorgasbord of options for rehabilitating the wetlands outlined in a preliminary Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in September four finalists emerged from a dozen original proposals:

• Alternative 1 – is the most comprehensive of the proposals, involving large-scale restoration designed to enhance the native coastal wetland and habitats with extensive work to lower land levels, remove some existing levees and creating new ones around the Reserve’s northern perimeter, realigning Ballona Creek and reconnecting it with the wetlands marsh and installing new trails, bike paths and educational features along with improvement of existing parking areas and construction of a three-story parking garage.
• Alternative 2 – would include most of the restoration proposed in Alternative 1, although with less habitat enhancements.
• Alternative 3 – would create an earthen levee along Fiji Way at the Reserve’s northern boundary, install culverts at two locations and enhance habitat north of Ballona Creek from State Route 90 to the west end of Fiji Way.
• Alternative 4 - essentially leaves the wetlands as they are, with restoration activities limited to community volunteer groups using hand tools only, no improvements to parking areas and maintaining public access restrictions.

Although initial restoration work proposed in the three alternatives would encompass work over a five-year period, Alternatives 1 and 2 include a second phase of construction that would begin approximately 18 months after the initial restoration was completed.

Ultimately the choice boils down to whether the Wetlands should undergo substantial restoration, be partially restored or left the way it is.

However, Jordan Traverso, DFW’s deputy director for communications, education and outreach, provided a hint of which way her department is leaning.

“Whatever alternative is selected, the restoration of the wetlands will be ‘large scale,’” she told Patch. “You can either have large scale restoration that will hopefully restore the habitat, or you can go in and weed by hand. You can’t fix by hand what you’ve already done to it – that’s not conducive to habitat restoration. Too many environmental groups think it’s just fine how it is,” said Jordan. “Ultimately the hope is to create a viable public use area.”

The debate over the wetlands’ future is being fueled primarily by a coalition of nonprofit organizations that include Friends of Ballona Wetlands, Heal the Bay, The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation (commonly known as the Bay Foundation), Ballona Wetlands Foundation, Defend Ballona Wetlands, the Sierra Club’s Ballona Wetlands Restoration Committee and the Los Angeles Chapter of the Climate Reality Project, a national organization seeking public action to address the global warming crisis.

While these groups all agree the wetlands must be saved, they don’t all agree on precisely how this should be accomplished. In fact, some of the groups appear to be at odds with each other and three have been accused of being influenced by corporate contributions.

Some of the organizations – Friends of Ballona Wetlands, Heal the Bay the Bay Foundation - support more comprehensive restoration programs while others, along with individual activists, believe a less aggressive approach should be taken that does not include major construction.

"We’re opposed to massive bulldozing that would destroy homes and food sources for thousands of native animals – some of which no longer exist elsewhere on the Los Angeles coast," says Marcia Hanscom, a co-director of the Ballona Institute who also chairs the Sierra Club’s Ballona Wetlands Restoration Committee.

Molly Basler, an environmental activist who chairs the Climate Reality Project Los Angeles Chapter’s Wetlands Protection Committee and has been working for years to stop bulldozing on the wetlands is more critical of the restoration plans.

"It’s the height of arrogance, once again humans driven by ego [and] greed, thinking we can do a better job than nature," she said. "It’s the natural balance of nature to go through cycles. Once we get involved in that balance everything gets thrown off, just like we have in the climate emergency."

"Let’s speak truth to power," said Basler. "Stop this fake restoration that’s really all about the money and oil drilling presented as a restoration."

Corporate Influence?

While conservationists quarrel over what should be done on the surface, deep underground billions of cubic feet of natural gas is being stored until it’s needed to heat millions of homes and businesses. Although the state owns the wetlands and DFW manages the property, Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) controls subsurface rights, something that’s proved contentious because of the need for surface infrastructure to extract the subsurface resources.

Hanscom suggests positions taken by some of the organizations in the debate have been unduly influenced by donations from SoCalGas, and one organization supporting restoration has a SoCalGas executive on its board.

Scott Culbertson, Friends of Ballona Wetlands’ executive director, confirmed Neil Navin, a gas company executive overseeing gas storage operations was vice president of the nonprofit’s board of directors.

“We do have a SoCalGas executive on our board,” said Culbertson. “They have never tried to influence the project.”

Annual financial disclosures required by the CPUC show during the past three years SoCalGas has contributed $80,000 to Friends of Ballona Wetlands, $33,000 to Heal the Bay and $30,500 to the Bay Foundation. These contributions combined are less than one percent of the total $15.9 million in charitable donations made by the utility to some 1,980 other organizations during the same period.

Regulators Will Have Say

At least eight federal, state and local government entities have some form of regulatory jurisdiction over the wetlands, including the California Coastal Commission, US Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Conservation’s Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management District and both the City and County of Los Angeles.

Whatever alternative is chosen, this assortment of regulators virtually guarantees substantial restoration activities won’t commence anytime soon. Before any major restoration work can begin permits and other approvals will have to be obtained from the Coastal Commission, Corps of Engineers and possibly other agencies. Until that happens the conflict between energy and environment will most likely continue unabated and in the end nobody will be completely happy.

At the very least any rehabilitation work in the wetlands will require a permit from the powerful Coastal Commission which regulates development along the state’s coastline to ensure environmentally-sustainable development of land and water resources.

Dr. Kate Huckelbridge, the Commission’s Deputy Director for Energy, Ocean Resources and Federal Consistency, told Patch she didn’t think any approach to Ballona permitting had yet been worked out with DFW.

“To provide authorization for any development in the Coastal Zone, the Commission needs sufficient detail to assess impacts on coastal resources and determine if those activities are consistent with the Coastal Act,” she said. “Thus, DFW would need to provide enough detail on the activities they propose to allow for a full Coastal Act analysis.”

Huckelbridge said the Coastal Act definition of development is fairly broad and covers placement of any structures or other materials in areas regulated by the Commission.

“Construction of a parking structure would be considered development and would therefore require authorization from the Commission,” said Huckelbridge. “As much as possible, we try to have related development projects come before the Commission in one permit application rather than [a piecemeal approach] for various parts of an overall project. This helps ensure that we know about, and can analyze the impacts of, the entirety of the project,” she said.

Prolonged Planning

Originally the Ballona Wetlands covered more than 2,000 acres (five-and-one-half square miles) but housing and commercial development slowly reduced that to the roughly 600 acres it occupies today. The existing Reserve is largely the work of Ruth Lansford, a local resident who formed Friends of Ballona Wetlands, a nonprofit that fought for 25 years to save the wetlands, preserving more than 100 acres when it settled a lawsuit against the Commission in 1994. The Reserve was expanded to its present size in 2003 when the state acquired 483 acres from developer Playa Capital Company, purchasing 192 acres with the developer donating the remaining 291 acres.

Following the 2004 installation of a new tide gate for flood control and improvement of the natural tidal flow to the wetlands from Ballona Creek, planning for the comprehensive wetlands restoration began in earnest. Much of that planning was funded by grants from the California Coastal Conservancy, a state agency established to support coastal resource protection programs and encourage public enjoyment of the state’s entire coastline but having no regulatory authority. It is one of 10 conservancies within the California Natural Resources Agency.

Many of the Conservancy’s activities are financed by proceeds from Proposition 12, the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act approved by voters in 2000 authorizing $2.1 billion in bonds to protect wildlife habitat, improve water quality and improve state and local parks.

The proposition earmarked $220.4 million for the Conservancy with $25 million provided for the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project to fund grants for habitat restoration and other programs. An additional $25 million was specifically allocated for acquisition and restoration of wetlands projects covering 400 acres or more in counties with populations of 5 million or greater. The Conservancy used $10 million of this to help with the state’s $140 million purchase of the wetlands in 2003.

Since then the Conservancy has awarded contracts totaling $8.9 million to private companies and state agencies for environmental and engineering studies and another $2.2 million in grants to nonprofits for data collection and other activities directly related to the wetlands’ restoration.

The largest contracts were awarded to three companies – Environmental Sciences Associates (ESA), a consulting firm specializing in open spaces and wildlands ($3.98 million), Jones & Stokes, a subsidiary of ICF International, that consults on natural resources management ($1.7 million) and Psmoas, an environmental and engineering consulting firm with clients that include Los Angeles County ($1.6 million) – for work related to the EIR process. Previously the Conservancy had awarded $1.4 million in contracts to Philip Williams & Associates, a firm that later merged with ESA, for wetlands water monitoring and planning.

Several nonprofits and one government agency received Conservancy grants including four separate awards to the Bay Foundation totaling $1.2 million for data collection, technical support for the EIR and site restoration activities. The Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority received $570,000 for site restoration and other improvements, the Los Angeles Audubon Society received $43,000 for field trips and Friends of Ballona Wetlands received $20,000 for site restoration.

Taylor Samuelson, a Conservancy spokesperson, told Patch all Ballona contracts were awarded pursuant to state law covering engineering, environmental and related services with specific contracts approved by the Conservancy’s executive officer with funding approved by the agency’s seven-member board of directors.

“We have no position on the design alternatives,” Samuelson said. “Currently, we’re funding one outreach program focused on engaging school children and other youth with restoring habitat at two sites within the Wetlands Reserve by removing invasive, non-native vegetation and replanting native plants.”

Ebb & Flow

Apart from ocean tides, the only constant at the wetlands is the ebb and flow of natural gas from the Playa Del Rey Field, an exhausted oil field used by SoCalGas since 1955 to store natural gas. It is one of the company’s four storage fields, with a capacity of 40 billion cubic feet, second only in size to the infamous Aliso Canyon Field which experienced a major gas leak in 2015.

SoCalGas, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy which also owns San Diego Gas & Electric, serves some 6.1 million residential, commercial and industrial customers, generating $4.5 billion in operating revenues last year. To serve these customers the utility buys gas from producers during periods of low customer demand, pumps it into the Playa Del Rey storage reservoir and pumps it out again when needed.

This process necessitates surface hardware atop wells dotting the Ballona landscape requiring regular monitoring and maintenance, work that accounts for much of the visible activity currently of concern to conservationists.

Since January of 2019 SoCalGas has received 21 permits from the California Department of Conservation’s Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM, (formerly the Oil, Gas & Geothermal Division) for reworking or abandoning wells in the Playa Del Rey field – nine of those located within the wetlands.

Many of the permits involve work on wells located outside the wetlands on property owned by SoCalGas and occupied by its compressor station.

Currently work is underway to abandon Vidor 5, a well near the center of the Reserve south of Culver Boulevard, one of 16 wells within the wetlands boundaries SoCalGas intends to permanently abandon.

Work on Vidor 5 involves earthmoving on the existing access road and stabilizing the ground to permit equipment needed to remove gas well piping and installing cement to seal the well. All work is expected to be completed during December and is being performed under an exemption from the Coastal Commission’s permitting process which allows such activity under its “repair and maintenance” regulations covering oil and gas fields.

The company also plans to abandon Vidor 18, a well at the western edge of the Reserve, and was issued a permit by CalGEM in August but is awaiting Coastal Commission approval to proceed with that work.

However, the Commission has issued a permit to DFW for removal of a drain system illegally installed beneath Culver Blvd. in 1996 when the property was privately owned. A permit amendment approved in August gives DFW five years to complete the removal.

SoCalGas did not respond to a series of questions submitted by Patch. However, a company spokesperson referred Patch to previous statements indicating SoCalGas plans to permanently abandon 16 wells located within Reserve boundaries as part of the restoration and will work with state agencies to obtain all required permits.

Debate Will Continue

Permits or not, bulldozers and biodiversity will continue to frame the ongoing public discussion.

"The notion that the wetlands are thriving or there’s an equilibrium is just not true," says Patrick Tyrrell, manager of habitat restoration at Friends of Ballona Wetlands. "Studies have been done over and over again that say it’s not true. Science should be our driving principle in this project. Doing nothing is not like a neutral position."

"To restore Ballona, we can’t do a little TLC, that’s not how restoring wetlands work. We’ve proven that up and down the coast of California with successful projects and we can do that with Ballona as well," he said.

Neysa Frechette, manager of scientific programs for Friends of Ballona Wetlands believes restoration will increase public access and ultimately lure public investment.

"Our hope is that once it’s restored they’ll provide more funding because it will be worth it," she said.

But Natalie Ford, a local fine arts photographer and animal rights activist, appearing at a recent community meeting, said she believes the entire restoration process is confusing and chaotic.

"We’re going back in time people," Ford said. "We do not need to put millions of dollars into demolishing a place where animals are safe. I don’t know why [they’re] thinking this is a good idea. It’s infuriating to me."

Of immediate concern to conservationists is the lack of public access to portions of the Reserve and what they see as destructive work being undertaken by SoCalGas during the past few months, activity that the Sierra Club’s Hanscom claims have generated complaints from nearby residents.

DFW officials acknowledge some sections of the wetlands are closed to the public but these restrictions were imposed because of operational and maintenance constraints and safety concerns. The closures and other aspects of the restrictions were detailed in an October 7 letter from DFW to the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, a state agency created to monitor and coordinate restoration and other activities enhancing the Bay and its watersheds.

At the same time, DFW told Patch that SoCalGas has legal rights-of-way and other easements within the Reserve and can restrict access to those areas.

Conservation to Courtroom

Restrictions on wetlands access, along with misuse of public money are among allegations contained in a lawsuit filed last August in Los Angeles Superior Court against the Conservancy, Sam Schuchat, its executive officer, and the Bay Foundation by a group of organizations and activists seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Proposition 12 funds or other public money from being spent for anything other than “maintaining and protecting the fragile, imperiled lands at Ballona and the wild species that rely on these lands.”

The lawsuit alleges substantial amounts of bond funds are being spent for purposes not authorized by voters who approved the proposition two decades ago and seeks a “forensic accounting” and return of all funds the plaintiffs claim were misspent on what they term a “cynical and counterfeit” wetlands restoration program actually designed to benefit SoCalGas in light of calls by some to shut down the gas storage field.

Brian Pease, a San Diego attorney filed the lawsuit in August on behalf of Defend the Ballona Wetlands, an unincorporated association and its co-founder Lisa Karlan; the Animal Protection & Rescue League, a nonprofit animal rights group Pease heads which serves as a “fiscal sponsor” permitting Karlan’s group to solicit tax-deductible donations, and activists Basler, Hanscom and her partner, Robert Jan van de Hoek, a naturalist and supervisor for the Los Angeles Department of Parks & Recreation.

At its core the legal complaint alleges the Conservancy and Schuchat are tools of SoCalGas, who used Prop 12 funds to finance “front groups,” most notably the Bay Foundation, to pitch a program disguised as restoration but which instead will irreparably damage the wetlands. The complaint further alleges that two other organizations, Friends of Ballona Wetlands and Heal the Bay have been influenced to support the restoration program by donations from SoCalGas.

Schuchat, the complaint suggests, “has a documented history of investing in the fossil fuel industry” and along with his agency “has misspent more than $12 million of [Prop 12] bond money researching ways to destroy the wetlands” so his “allies” at SoCalGas and Sempra Energy can upgrade their gas storage field. It further suggests Schuchat may have had had a conflict of interest in awarding contracts to the Bay Foundation.

Responding to the complaint, on Sept. 29 the Bay Foundation asked to have the case dismissed on grounds that it was improperly named as a defendant because it was not a government agency and had made no “illegal expenditure of public funds.”

Saying the complaint was an “untimely and inappropriate challenge” of the Ballona Wetlands EIR, the Foundation argued the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient facts to support a court action and the complaint was “uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible.”

The court gave the Conservancy and Schuchat until Nov. 16 to respond and continued further proceedings until next year.

"There needs to be public pressure, there needs to be public outrage," Pease told Patch. "But this lawsuit is one piece of challenging [them] and getting information to the public. Where is the money, and what did you spend it on? Now is the time to find out where the money went."

A Conflicted Conservancy?

Schuchat has headed the Conservancy for nearly two decades after a lengthy career in nonprofit fundraising and management. In addition to his Conservancy position, Schuchat, is a member of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and serves of the boards of the Baldwin Hills Conservancy and the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority. Schuchat is also one of 38 members of the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, a state agency that coordinates activities related to restoration and improvement of the Bay and its watershed although he frequently is represented by designees at Commission meetings.

Although Schuchat and his wife inherited energy company stock from their parents, those holdings were divested several years ago. According to Schuchat’s current financial disclosure his only investment in energy-related companies is stock valued at $10,000 or less in Public Service Enterprise Group, the parent company of utilities in New Jersey and on New York’s Long Island.

Despite several public comments submitted as part of the wetlands EIR suggesting long-standing conflicts of interest by Schuchat, his agency, contractors and consultants involved with the Ballona Reserve, a review of their activities over a period of several years by DFW officials found no violation of state laws or regulations.

“None of the comments identifies the underlying rationale as to why the alleged activities give rise to a conflict of interest or undue influence. Accordingly, DFW considered these comments from the viewpoint of California State law’s treatment of conflicts of interest,” the Department reported.

- Bob Porterfield and Nicole Charky contributed to this report.