Council newbie opposes project

Mayor Pro Tem Elizabeth Pearson went to bat at the Jan. 27 City Council meeting for the Aliso Creek SUPER Project.

Pearson rebutted the opposition announced by newly elected Councilwoman Verna Rollinger to the SUPER Project, which stands for Stabilization, Utility Protection and Environmental Restoration.

The majority of the funding for the project would come from the federal government, with a lesser portion from local agencies, which Pearson has diligently pursued.

“I feel I should be on the record in opposition to this project,” Rollinger said. “I’m sure all five of us want to improve water quality in Aliso Creek, but I agree with the Sierra Club that this is not the right project for Aliso Creek.”

Rollinger advised Pearson of her impending announcement by telephone before the meeting, and both were well prepared to defend their positions to the public.

Pearson and Councilwoman Toni Iseman were appointed at the Aug. 8, 2006, meeting to form a subcommittee to meet with elected officials of other cities to create an overall strategy for obtaining a federal grant for the project to at least partially fund the project.

“I personally met with and recruited council members from each of the cities upstream from us in our watershed to participate in working toward a solution for Aliso Creek,” Pearson said.

The city’s subcommittee also sought support from federal officials.

“Toni and I lobbied [Sen.] Dianne Feinstein in Washington, after meeting with the Aliso Elected Coalition regarding a grant for the SUPER Project the county had applied for,” Pearson said.

Rollinger said if Iseman and Pearson were appointed to a subcommittee, they should be on the list revised after the November election.

“As far as I can tell, the city doesn’t have a position on the SUPER Project,” Rollinger said.

Claims for the project:

 Protect infrastructure, restores habitat, reduces toxic urban runoff, conserves water.

 Stabilizes the stream by replacing large concrete structures with small, natural ones.

 Restores the watershed with native species and reconnects the creek with the flood plain.

 Improves water use and quality with best practices, treatment and reclamation.

Rollinger took issue with the claims.

“The ‘cleanup’ of the creek that is receiving so much press these days is a secondary goal only and involves diverting the water through a new storm-water treatment facility in the county parking lot at the mouth of the creek and then returning it to the channel,” Rollinger read from a prepared statement.

“This solution to the pollution problem does nothing to reduce the amount of runoff or the flow of toxins from the inland cities, and in any case, it does not depend on the proposed stabilization upstream.

It could be undertaken right away, and in fact South Coast Water District already has a project in the works that will remove as much of the creek water as it can handle and recycle.”

Rollinger also objects to the proposed construction that will entail excavation and filling, and the removal of vegetation, which she said would make the project susceptible to erosion.

Supporters say the project protects public sewer and utility lines from being undermined by worsening erosion; restores riparian habitat; expands wetlands; encourages upstream best practices; offers an opportunity for a public/private partnership; reduces beach closures; and protects environmental quality and public health in Orange County.

The county is proceeding with its efforts to build on previous funding grants.

“We received some critical initial funding for the project, with the best news being that we are in queue for potential additional funding,” Pearson said. “Most of the support came from Democrats.”

Additional funding requires matching funds from local sources, actually 25% of the estimated $45 million cost, to “match” the federal government’s 75%.

“The county, hopefully with help from the state and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the [watershed] cities can, and should, work together for the matching piece required for future funding,” Pearson said.

The first matching funds came from the county and the states.

Other support for the project came from California Proposition 50 funding and the Surfrider Foundation.

BARBARA DIAMOND can be reached at (949) 494-4321 or coastlinepilot@latimes.com.