Santa Clara River Must Be Preserved as Water Source : Box-channeling and concrete banking for the benefit of developers is not in the best interests of the public that enjoys this beautiful natural resource.

In 1991, Newhall Land & Farming Co. illegally concrete box-channeled part of Bouquet Creek just above its confluence with the Santa Clara River. This was part of a flood-control plan so that the company could build commercial property adjacent to the creek. This was not Newhall Land’s first violation of the integrity of the Santa Clara River system. But as work began, so did a public outcry against further losses of our natural river systems.

In effect, Newhall won the Bouquet Creek battle. The nearly $400,000 in fines and costs to replant the wetland area in the Santa Clara was nothing compared to the amount gained in commercial property.

Why are so many people so concerned about the Santa Clara River? Because it is the last major unchannelized waterway in Los Angeles County. It is home to an incredible variety of wildlife. A 12-mile reach west of the Golden State Freeway has been designated a protected area by federal agencies because of its prime riparian habitat. And the river is simply beautiful. The changing colors of the cottonwoods in the fall caught by the light of a setting sun with just a glimpse of the thin silvery ribbon of the river winding its way to the sea is an unforgettable pleasure.

The Santa Clara River also has a pragmatic importance. It is the source of most of the drinking and irrigation water for communities along its bank from Acton to Ventura. Ground water has always been important in the Santa Clarita Valley. But as we realize the expenses to taxpayers and the limitations of bringing water down from the north, this resource becomes ever-more precious. Southern California developers have long pushed for concrete box-channelization of waterways to optimize profits on their land. The taxpayer has taken up the burden of replacing this lost water resource with Northern California water, building canals at great expense. Now, both the taxpayer and the natural system of the Sacramento Delta have reached their limit. There is no longer a choice. If water is to be supplied to existing communities, the Santa Clara River cannot be box-channeled.

This has not stopped Newhall Land’s effort to develop along the banks of the Santa Clara. Their most recent proposals, for 3,700 condominiums on the north bank of the Santa Clara and San Francisquito Creek, would require concrete banking of the river to allow building in the flood plain right to the river’s edge. In addition, the newly proposed Newhall Ranch project would build 24,000 units along the Santa Clara west of the Golden State Freeway. To do this, Newhall Land is promoting its “Natural River Management Plan,” which would cover 15 miles of river with new concrete banks and levees. The Army Corps of Engineers is nevertheless requiring an Environmental Impact Statement.

Two lawsuits have challenged permits given by L.A. County for condominiums to be built in the flood plain of the Santa Clara River. One was filed by SCOPE (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment) on the Newhall project that required the first concrete banking in that area. The second suit was filed by the city of Santa Clarita against a 750-condo project, for similar reasons.

Obviously there is no consensus about preserving the Santa Clara River. So what do Santa Claritans envision? In a city-sponsored community planning session called “Share the Vision,” community leaders listed a linear park as a top goal. We want what many cities with a river have: a park along the river’s edge. This makes long-term financial sense. It protects the water supply. It backs development out of the flood plain and earthquake liquefaction areas, thus reducing potential government emergency assistance payments. It keeps taxes down, and it provides recreation and a chance for alternative transportation--such as bicycling and walking--to flourish. It would also make our community a desirable place to live, and thus even benefit developers.

Why isn’t this happening? Because developers make more short-term profit by maximizing land. But many taxpayers no longer wish to subsidize this kind of new development. Yet there is an answer. There are funds available to buy out flood-plain owners. Parks and Recreation funds are available in L.A. County for open-space acquisition. Funding is available from the State Water Resources Department to promote water recharge projects.

Newhall Land and other developers have paid agricultural tax rates on their land along the Santa Clara for many decades. Why won’t Newhall Land now sell that property to the community at the same rate?