Ballona Wetlands Discredited Bulldozing Project Remains Invalidated

JANUARY 6, 2025, Los Angeles, CA….Defend Ballona Wetlands, a community coalition, and Protect Ballona Wetlands, an advocacy organization for wildlife protection and public access, are celebrating and alerting the public that, despite a deceptive public relations campaign by the fossil fuel industry, the California Court of Appeal has affirmed the lower court ruling from 2023, which invalidated the State's inadequate and misleading Environmental Impact Report for Ballona. In other words, there is no valid environmental document or approval for the massive and highly destructive Ballona Wetlands project that has been masquerading for more than a dozen years as a “restoration.”

In the summer of 2023, the Superior Court ruled against the project and ordered the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) to invalidate all environmental approvals for this 9-year long, highly controversial 200 million dollar proposed bulldozing and industrial alteration of the fragile Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve on the Los Angeles coast in Playa del Rey.

Toward the end of 2024, various reports circulated about a different Ballona Wetlands lawsuit that was heard by the California Court of Appeal. That group lost its bid to try to persuade the Court that they had additional arguments they should have won. But their legal skirmish is an irrelevant sideshow that has no bearing on the key fact that the bulldozing project has already been invalidated by the Court.

Protect Ballona Wetlands’ lawyer Jamie T. Hall, explained:

“The recent Court of Appeal decision for this other group does not invalidate the 2023 decision and judgment issued by The Honorable James Chalfant, who directed the CA Department of Fish & Wildlife to:

• Decertify the Environmental Impact Report for the Project;

• Rescind the Project’s CEQA Findings;

• Invalidate all approvals of the Project;

• Prepare and certify a legally-adequate Environmental Impact Report [EIR] if it chooses to proceed;

• Suspend any activity that could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical environment until Respondent fully complies with the requirements of CEQA;”

"This extreme and destructive plan by CDFW to bulldoze everything in the wetlands under the guise of 'saving' it was flawed from the beginning," states Bryan Pease, who represented Defend Ballona Wetlands in the successful lawsuit. "The Court of Appeal's decision that the trial court got it right is further vindication that this EIR needed to be redone."

Environmental scientist Robert “Roy” van de Hoek, also represented by Pease, and one of the individual petitioners in the Defend Ballona Wetlands lawsuit, stressed the importance of reading and understanding the entire 67-page decision by Judge Chalfant, particularly related to disturbance of habitat.

“The Judge paid careful attention to the many rare and endangered species that rely on this ecological reserve,” stated van de Hoek. “He concluded that CDFW did not provide assurance that specific performance criteria would be met for these rare species as habitat is disturbed.”

Since the Draft Environmental Impact Report was released in 2017, two endangered species have returned to Ballona: Least Bell’s Vireo and California Coastal Gnatcatcher. Two other species relying on Ballona for wintering habitat – Monarch Butterfly and Western Burrowing Owl – have been deemed by wildlife authorities as being eligible to be considered endangered or threatened. Activists conclude that new baseline studies and a re-thinking of plans for Ballona are needed, given these changes.

Wendy-Sue Rosen, President of Protect Ballona Wetlands, stated that her group was pleased that Judge Chalfant focused on the erroneous flood risk standards used as a baseline for this project.

“The last thing we need as the ocean waters rise is increased flood risk to our neighborhoods, roads and business districts,” stated Rosen. “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and LA County Flood Control District repeatedly asked the State to correct the calculations used; the Judge threw out the approvals for this project based on that huge mistake.”

“Defend Ballona Wetlands notified Governor Newsom’s representatives that this fix was necessary, yet CDFW refused. Federal agencies have indicated additional concerns,” added van de Hoek.

The State Coastal Conservancy even went so far as to ask then-US Senator Kamala Harris to seek congressional approval to alter the flood risk standards for the Ballona Creek area. Fortunately, she refused to go along with such an outrageous idea. Congress, deciding what LA’s flood risk should be? Not a good idea.