2 Sides to This Environmental Coin : The letter of the law versus the spirit of wilderness

The notion of an environmental group filing suit against a state agency that has the explicit mission of creating parks and protecting the environment seems absurd, but the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy found itself at the losing end of such a case late last month. In the lawsuit brought by Friends of Caballero Canyon, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that the conservancy did not follow the proper environmental and planning procedures in its development of a mountain park at the top of Reseda Boulevard in Tarzana. While the case itself focuses on the minutiae of environmental law, it raises larger questions about the tension between promotion and protection of wild areas in the Santa Monicas.

The dispute centered on Big Sky Gateway Park, known to neighbors as Reseda Ridge. Proposed in 1992, the park was intended as a gateway to the northern reaches of Topanga State Park. The Friends supported early plans that called for a primitive park on the site, which had already been graded to make room for a road. But they balked when the conservancy changed course and decided to develop a more manicured park with sod grass and a sprinkler system--a move the Friends argued was out of character with the rugged terrain and required additional environmental review. The conservancy countered that the changes were needed to attract more visitors to the site and were minor enough that no further study was warranted.

The judge disagreed, and so do we. That the conservancy should have followed the proper procedures is not only a matter of law, but a matter of trust. Regardless of its intent, the conservancy more than any other agency must follow the letter and spirit of the environmental laws that regulate development. However ridiculous it may sound, planting more trees than originally proposed and installing sprinkler systems change the park and warrant at least an initial study of their environmental impacts. To that end, we agree with the Friends’ position that the conservancy should not have proceeded without proper study.

But we reject the group’s contention that the park should not have been developed as it was. The conservancy’s charge from the state to protect wild land can be fulfilled only with broad support from the public. And that kind of support, we believe, can come only from experiencing wilderness firsthand. The purpose of parks such as Big Sky Gateway--with its inviting grass, convenient restrooms and easy parking--is to provide a staging area for further exploration of the wild spaces deeper in the Santa Monicas. It’s a place where visitors can toss a Frisbee or enjoy a picnic before heading off on a hike that, we hope, helps them appreciate why open land should be preserved for its own sake.

Suggesting that all mountain parks be like Big Sky Gateway is bad environmental policy. But it’s equally irresponsible to suggest that none should be. Those who truly care about the long-term survival of the Santa Monica Mountains should understand the role such parks play. The intangible benefits they bring to the cause of wilderness preservation can often outweigh occasional, minor damage to the immediate environs.