Wisely, We’ll Know Better the Next Time : * Study of Seeded and Non-Seeded Hillsides After the Fires Will Fill Knowledge Gaps

Will the reseeding of hillsides in Laguna Beach and just outside the city help stop the slopes from eroding? Maybe, say the scientists. Will it make people feel better? In most cases, yes. And that feeling that something is being done is a worthwhile reason to try to make the hills grow green again, especially when it is being carried out as sensibly as in the Laguna area.

The California Department of Forestry wanted to drop tons of seeds over canyons outside the city that had been devastated by the October fires. The department said the new growth would not choke native vegetation and would disappear after a year. In the meantime, it would stop the mud from just rolling down bare hillsides in the event of heavy rain.

But objections to the plan from environmentalists, a federal agency and even another state agency--Fish and Game--forced the Forestry Department to cut back the size of the area it would reseed from 10,000 acres to more than 3,000 acres. Opponents contended the reseeding would not stop erosion and would steal water and nutrients needed by native grass and shrubs. The resulting compromise on the size of the area to be reseeded was sensible.

The Orange County Environmental Management Agency is wisely taking advantage of the controversy to study what happens when one canyon is seeded and another is left untouched. If all goes well, in two or three years the county will have valuable information on what works and what doesn’t, thus solving the problem of too little scientific data on the effectiveness of replanting and what kinds of seed to use.

An academic study of seeding carried out after the fierce 1991 Oakland fires noted the “intense public pressure” to do something. That type of pressure was evident in Laguna Beach too. Those ravaged by the fire and those whose property was threatened but ultimately spared both wanted officials to do all they could to guard against a repetition of the tragedy. Yet the study noted that despite the political pressures, the best scientific response after wildfires may be to do nothing. The problem is, the data is inconclusive.

The Forestry Department was correct in insisting on reseeding the part of Emerald Canyon that it chose, because that’s the area posing the most danger to homeowners below the hills in the event of mudslides. The department had an obligation to do what it could when lives and property were in danger even if there was only a slim chance that reseeding would work.