Santa Clara River Denied Federal Heritage Designation

A federal panel Tuesday declined to include the Santa Clara River on its list of finalists for the American Heritage River designation and a local environmental group blamed Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon for the exclusion.

In a June 3 letter to the federal Council on Environmental Quality, McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) requested that the Los Angeles County portion of the river be excluded from the initiative. The Santa Clarita Republican said he opposed the initiative because it lacked built-in funding and it would invite federal interference into an area that was better left to local control.

The designation would not have offered new environmental protections or direct funding for the river but would have assigned a federal employee to work with local groups to help secure government money.

“It’s very disappointing,” said Ron Bottoroff, chairman of Friends of the Santa Clara River, one of several environmental groups that supported the application to give the river heritage status. “I think that the fact that Congressman McKeon opposed it had a major negative effect on the application.”

A number of local government agencies also supported the application, including Ventura County, the cities of Santa Clarita and Santa Paula and the state Coastal Conservancy, which helped finance the application.

The 85-mile Santa Clara River originates in Angeles National Forest and empties into the Pacific Ocean in Ventura. It is one of Southern California’s longest and wildest remaining waterways. Roughly one-third of the river lies within Los Angeles County in McKeon’s 25th Congressional District.

In September, President Clinton signed the American Heritage Rivers Initiative to give key national rivers support and recognition. The designation was designed to give local governments along the 10 chosen rivers streamlined access to federal funding and other resources.

Earlier this month, the Santa Clara River was one of 25 rivers nationwide to be nominated for heritage status. On Tuesday, that list was pared further by the Council on Environmental Quality, and Clinton is expected to announce the 10 winners in October.

“I have always felt that the best way to improve our environmental quality is from locally driven actions,” McKeon said in his letter to the Environmental Quality council. “The American Heritage Rivers Initiative is not a locally operated and driven action.”

But Bottoroff took issue with McKeon’s assertion that the initiative would compromise local control of the waterway. He believes that McKeon rejected the initiative because he opposes stricter environmental protections that could be introduced later.

“The justifications for his opposition that we have seen are very weak,” Bottoroff said. “This would give us an overseer who would help grease the skids for all kinds of federal help.”

McKeon aide David Foy said the congressman was wary of that help.

“We would support some type of river protection but this is an open invitation to federal control,” Foy said. “The main thrust of our opposition is that [the initiative] is extremely vague. We don’t really trust the Clinton administration so much to just hand over local control.”

Rick Putnam, director of parks, recreation and community services for Santa Clarita, said that until this week he was unaware McKeon had asked that the Los Angeles County stretch of the river be excluded from the initiative.

“It did come as a bit of a surprise,” Putnam said. “We feel that this would bring a bit of a spotlight to the river that will be a real positive.”

Lynne Plambeck, a member of Friends of the Santa Clara River and an outspoken McKeon critic, said the congressman appeared to be favoring the Newhall Land & Farming Co. over his constituents. The builder is trying to win approval to build Newhall Ranch, a housing development that would bring up to 70,000 new residents to an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County that runs along the river west of the Golden State Freeway.

“What’s very aggravating is that this [designation] would do nothing but benefit the river,” Plambeck said. “To have their congressman stab his community in the back is going to be very disappointing for his constituents. A lot of people are going to be very upset by this.”

Foy acknowledged that Newhall Land opposed the initiative and that McKeon had discussed the matter with company representatives. However, he said, the congressman’s decision to oppose it came before those talks took place.

“We see this as a local control issue. . . . The idea that we are doing this at the request of Newhall Land is totally false.”