ORANGE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE : Foresight in Land Use Is No Luxury

Land-use decisions are often forever, and they may have unintended consequences. That’s a recurring lesson for Orange County, which has spread out so quickly, often with a big green light from planners. This is especially so in fast-growing South County.

In San Juan Capistrano, rancher Bill Bathgate stood the other day on farmland he has worked for a lifetime and gazed over the edge of a newly created 50-foot canyon, carved by water rushing through Oso Creek. Nearby, an orange tree’s roots were exposed. Other trees lay strewn in the creek bed.

Such are the unplanned, long-term consequences of development whose planning books may have been closed upstream long before the creek gathered force and raced through flood control channels to tear into soil on the ranch. Here is a stark example of land-use planning that obviously did not give much consideration to the land that was going to be affected by accelerated runoff far downstream.

Is this just a story of one farm’s tough luck because of flawed decisions that were made by somebody else in another time and place? Not entirely. The erosion now poses a problem for San Juan Capistrano too, because Oso Creek flows through property that the city has considered buying for open space. Moral of the story: The consequences of development decisions rest with everyone.

The developers say we should not blame them for what has happened. A spokeswoman for the Mission Viejo Co., one of the major players in the Oso Creek watershed, says that the creek has plenty of water-retention facilities and the company has built three basins. So whose fault is it when paved roads, roofs and other artificial surfaces impede the percolation of water into the soil and hasten its rush downstream? Some planner or project approver ought to have foreseen these problems.

The county is now talking with San Juan Capistrano about correcting the creek problems. Bill Huber, director of public works for the city, says that it will have to be a joint county and city flood-control project and that it “can cost $10 million to $15 million easily.”

It’s a bit like the auto repair commercial: “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.”

Pity the poor farmer if this problem isn’t fixed. Pity the poor taxpayer if it is. Surely, it makes more sense to anticipate such a problem long before it comes rushing downstream.