Wetland Activists Claim a Victory as Bill Is Shelved

Environmentalists are declaring victory in their battle against an Assembly bill they say would drastically weaken laws protecting wetlands and other critical coastal habitats.

But the bill’s author says her proposal--sparked by a pivotal Orange County case--has merely been put on hold to allow comment from state officials and environmental organizations.

“It has obviously raised a lot of controversy,” said Assemblywoman Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego), who withdrew the bill before it could be heard by a committee Monday. “We’re trying to move toward something more people can be comfortable with.”

The bill, coauthored by Assembly members Patricia Bates (R-Laguna Niguel) and Thomas Calderon (D-Montebello), would have amended the state’s landmark 1972 Coastal Act to allow filling of degraded wetlands and sensitive habitat if superior habitat--so-called “mitigation”--is created elsewhere.

Environmentalists and some city and state officials sharply criticized the bill, saying it would have sidestepped a precedent-setting appellate court ruling that prohibited the destruction of wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat at Bolsa Chica near Huntington Beach.

“We get our victories in little pieces,” said Marcia Hanscom, executive director of the Wetlands Action Network. “We think it shows that the citizens of California . . . were not poised to let the Coastal Act be gutted.”

Mark Massara of the Sierra Club agreed. “We’re pleased that she pulled it off the agenda and hope that this signifies her intent not to go forward with this wetlands-destruction legislation.”

Ducheny, however, said the bill is evolving and will be reintroduced in a few weeks. She said she has two goals: to clarify that wetlands may be filled in if builders compensate for the loss and to assure the certainty of habitat-conservation plans, which allow builders to destroy sensitive habitat in exchange for setting aside larger pieces of land elsewhere.

California Resources Secretary Mary Nichols said she asked Ducheny to pull the bill Monday because she believes the bill is unnecessary.

The bill has been in flux since its introduction. Its initial wording changed the definition of wetlands in such a way that would have eliminated many patches in Southern California from receiving special protection. Residential, commercial, recreational and transportation construction were also added to the list of reasons for filling degraded habitat--reasons currently forbidden because of state law and the Bolsa Chica ruling.

Much of this language, which Ducheny concedes may have been “overly broad,” has been dropped, but the bill still allows the bulldozing of degraded wetlands and sensitive habitat if mitigation is provided.

“We’re pleased that the author removed the most explicit language that attacked specific resource protections in . . . the Coastal Act,” said Susan Jordan, a League for Coastal Protection board member. “We thought the bill was still unacceptable because of the remaining language, [which] is more subtle but no less of a potentially devastating attack.”