A Time to Clear All Channels

Perhaps the only thing more gnarled and congested than the bottom of some Los Angeles County flood control channels is the debate over how best to clear them of overgrowth that threatens to cause flooding during this winter’s rainstorms. The Army Corps of Engineers last week gave the go-ahead for public works officials to begin clearing some of the worst channels of trees and shrubs that sprouted during years without maintenance. But no work is set to begin until the county Board of Supervisors can agree on a clearance plan. They need to devise one fast--and then the work must begin promptly.

The concrete-lined channels were built for one purpose: to whisk away rainwater from flood-prone areas. But Los Angeles County officials have identified 95 stretches of channel choked by weeds, trees and shrubs. Nearly half are so clogged that their ability to carry water has been reduced as much as 35%.

Los Angeles County public works officials are charged with maintaining the channels and with keeping them free of plants and debris. But in the last decade, myriad state and federal environmental agencies have asserted control over the channels. They argue that the overgrown channels are home to endangered or threatened species and should be protected. Over the past two years, Los Angeles County officials have spent $200,000 trying to obtain permission to clear the channels. And they’re not alone. Seven other Southern California counties are in the same boat.

Despite last week’s green light from the Corps of Engineers, county supervisors still don’t agree on the best clearance strategy. Some, such as Mike Antonovich, want the channels bulldozed clean. But that approach could hook the county for as much as $35 million in costs to plant new trees to replace those destroyed. Others, such as Zev Yaroslavsky, favor less intrusive methods that would prune the most troublesome stretches, but leave some habitat intact.

The Times has long supported multiple uses for flood control channels--from recreation to habitat preservation. But those uses must not undermine the channels’ effectiveness. When supervisors meet Tuesday, they should endorse a plan that balances safety and preservation with a bias toward safety. That means removing trees and shrubs where flood risk is highest, but leaving some bushes or grasses in less critical channels. Then, work must start immediately.