• The Publisher’s Notebook •

Making Public Policy

BY ANNE SOBLE

It’s too soon to say how the differences over the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District proposal to place seepage pits along the sides of Malibu Creek will ultimately be resolved, if at all. The case for keeping the pits as far from the creek bed as possible has merits, but that doesn’t alter misgivings about how this issue was handled by all the parties. More troubling than the science being debated is the public policy process and the lack of communication between everyone involved. Terms such as “ambush,” “outrageous,” “end run” and “blindsided” don’t create much other than acrimony, of which there’s already a surfeit, especially when it comes to Malibu water quality issues, where everyone not only has an opinion but also assumes that their “opposition” harbors a self-serving agenda at the expense of the “public good.”

The current situation was compounded, dare one say, by arrogance and haste, which can only bode ill in complicated public policy formulation. The LVMWD assumed it had a slam dunk vote after it received California Coastal Commission staff approval and the blessings of key groups and grant money. Officials saw no need to even take part in the public hearing. Other environmental groups assessed the situation differently. Fearing that Tapia had found a loophole in the current creek dumping regulations (a reflection of past experiences?), activists sprang into action, and challenged the project’s proximity to the water’s edge. The CCC hearing should have been where views were openly exchanged. Las Virgenes disregarded the notion that every public forum should be accorded the respect that is its due in the policy-making process. Participants that regard public votes as window dressing sell their proposals, as well as the democratic process, short.

One doesn’t need a class in Public Administration 101 to realize that there are few, if any, policy slam dunks. Coastal Commissioners were obligated to balance concerns about potential adverse impact on creek flow with the case that the plan’s habitat enhancement had public benefits. The process was impeded by absent participants and incomplete information. As if public policy-making isn’t difficult enough.