Wetlands review gets more time

Paul Clinton

The Irvine Ranch Water District has extended a deadline for public

comments about the 8-inch thick tome that analyzes environmental

effects of a sweeping, wetlands filtering project.

In extending the deadline to May 30, the agency is bowing to water

regulators who say they need more time. The Santa Ana Regional Water

Quality Control Board requested the extension, said Norris Brandt,

the project’s manager.

“They are short on staff time,” Brandt said about the reason for

the extension. “They’ve got four or five people looking at it from

different perspectives.”

Paul Jones, the water district’s general manager, announced the

extension in a May 5 open letter to the public. The agency first

circulated the document March 12.

Despite the extension, local environmentalists offered different

opinions on the district’s review of the $41-million wetlands

project, in which the agency will install natural wetlands at 31

locations along Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek. The wetlands

would act as filters to remove oil, animal waste, grease, pesticides,

and other waste in urban runoff that flows down the watershed and

enters Back Bay.

Newport Beach has also started crafting a response to the

analysis. The city’s Environmental Quality Affairs citizens’

committee on Monday submitted an 11-page commentary on the report to

City Manager Homer Bludau. The City Council is scheduled to discuss

the project, and the remarks, at a May 27 meeting.

City leaders have generally supported the project, Assistant City

Manager Dave Kiff said.

“It’s state of the art in terms of seeing if there’s a natural way

to treat runoff before it gets into a water body,” Kiff said. “Let’s

see if it works.”

However, the citizens’ committee has suggested some refinements to

the plan.

The committee criticized the report for failing to address runoff

from the John Wayne Airport area and Santa Ana Delhi Channel, for not

fully addressing runoff from two reclaimed water reservoirs and for

not being written in a way that is fully accessible to the public.

Local environmentalists Jack Skinner and Bob Caustin echoed these

concerns.

Skinner, a surfer and clean water activist, said the report needs

revision. He said he’d like to see more in-depth analysis of how

selenium, a naturally occurring substance in the groundwater, is

treated. High levels of the metal are harmful to humans

Caustin, who has won a string of court victories against the

district for their environmental analysis of previous projects, said

he agreed that the voluminous report isn’t review-friendly.

Caustin, however, said he is still reviewing the document and

couldn’t offer an appraisal of it yet.

“They should be able to boil down their arguments in 80 pages,”

Caustin said. “It does dissuade public participation.”

Skinner also criticized the planned locations of the filters.

“I’m concerned that not all of these projects are going to be

effective,” Skinner said. “They’re not necessarily put in the

location they’re needed most.”

* PAUL CLINTON covers the environment, business and politics. He

may be reached at (949) 764-4330 or by e-mail at

[email protected].