Testimony Phase of La Conchita Landslide Suit Comes to an End

Irrigation at a farm overlooking La Conchita could not have led to a catastrophic mudslide three years ago that devastated much of the town, a University of California scientist testified Thursday in the $24-million lawsuit brought by residents against the farm.

The testimony by UC Davis agricultural engineer Mark E. Grismer concluded the first phase of the trial, which is nearing a critical junction.

After five weeks, attorneys are finished shuttling experts in and out of the courtroom. They plan to make closing remarks the week of Jan. 4. Ventura County Superior Court Judge Henry J. Walsh is expected to then decide whether negligent irrigation practices or natural processes caused the disaster, a pivotal decision that will determine if 149 residents should be compensated for damages.

In an attempt to bolster their case, attorneys for La Conchita Ranch Co. called Grismer, who spent more than two years studying soil, farming practices and subsurface water at the farm. He testified two days last week and again Thursday during cross-examination.

Appearing awkward initially and speaking in a professorial tone, Grismer described a farm that carefully managed its orchards to prevent water from penetrating deep into the mountain where the landslide occurred.

“It’s not very often we have a ranch with full control of their irrigation system,” said Grismer, who teaches students and Central Valley farmers how to design and manage irrigation systems. He described ranch manager David Orr as a “very progressive grower” because of his adherence to using drip irrigation to apply precise quantities of water only when trees need it.

It is a very different picture of the farm than the one advanced by attorneys for the residents. They say the farm discharged 500 million gallons of water since 1975, much of which soaked into the soil and led to the collapse of the hillside. Last month, their expert from San Diego State University said his studies showed an eight-fold increase in subsurface water beneath the ranch compared with off-site areas. It is a key piece of evidence for the residents’ attorneys attempting to show how super soggy soils precipitated the landslide.

But last week Grismer called those findings “false” and “physically impossible” because they relied on salt levels in soil, a method Grismer said has been discredited. He said the farm is operated like many others in the West, relying upon “deficit irrigation” in which the crop is managed in such a way as to actually deplete ground water and dry out soil.

Grismer described a process by which the 40,000 lemon and avocado trees at the farm act like rows of straws, sucking out irrigated water applied to the roots before it can escape to overfill underground water basins.

Using soil probes that track water movement, Grismer said water applied to the surface soaks the base of the tree to a depth of about 2 feet. Within two days, the moisture content in the soil is in rapid decline and by the sixth day most of it is gone as roots soak it up. By the 10th day, the tree roots are sucking water from deeper in the soil and the plant begins to wilt after about two weeks, at which more water is applied. He conducted his study from June 1996 to October 1998.

“Water isn’t even penetrating hardly down to 2 feet on the average,” Grismer said. “In the last two years, we see at the end of the irrigation season a decline in soil moisture at all depths.”

Attorneys for the farm contend that heavy rains and natural processes caused the landslide, not irrigation. They say landslides have been occurring on the 600-foot bluff above La Conchita throughout the 20th century. The area where the collapse occurred, they say, is part of an ancient landslide that failed to break entirely until 1995.

During a vigorous cross-examination on Thursday, attorney John F. McGuire contested Grismer’s findings. He asked if Grismer’s two-year study may be too brief to account for changes in the orchard, including age and bug infestations that affect how roots absorb water, and the scientist replied “that might be partially correct.”

McGuire also challenged some of Grismer’s calculations on the amount of water used for irrigation and how rainfall flowed off the land surface.

Much of the trial has been steeped in arcane testimony about scientific concepts foreign to most everyone in the courtroom. Throughout the trial, Walsh at times stopped testimony to seek clarification on scientific terms and equipment and spectators complained during breaks about the technical complexity of the case.

Residents sued the ranch in July 1997, one month after a first lawsuit involving 112 residents was settled for an undisclosed amount.

The March 1995 landslide dumped 600,000 tons of mud and rock on the Vista Del Rincon neighborhood. Nine homes were destroyed and the risk of future landslides has left the remaining homes designated as unsafe, though some people still live there. No one was injured in the landslide, which had been expected.

In the current lawsuit, the residents seek $24 million in damages. However, Walsh will not consider compensation until he decides whether the ranch is responsible for the landslide. If he finds the ranch at fault, the trial moves into a second phase to determine appropriate damages. If he rules in favor of the farm, the trial is over and residents go home empty-handed.