Deer Canyon
Safety must come before development

Our view: An independent study is in order to ease concerns of those
living below flood-control basin.

San Bernardino County Sun Editorial

A couple of things are clear to us about the San Bernardino County
flood-control land in the West End south of Deer Canyon, as developers
begin to hover. First, enough questions have been raised about the design and capacity of the Deer Canyon debris basin north of Rancho Cucamonga to warrant a thorough re-evaluation of its safety before any development proceeds on that land.

Second, but equally as important, Rancho Cucamonga, not the county,
should have final say over any development there. Several other things
revolving around the land are less clear. We'll get to some of those
later.

County Supervisor Paul Biane said last week that he wants a thorough
review of the basin as county and Rancho Cucamonga officials work on
proposals to develop the 1,137-acre parcel and annex it to the city.
Thecounty has said the land is no longer needed as a water-settling ground for flood protection, even though it lies within special flood hazard
zones. Nor is the land still in play, apparently, as part of a
potential lawsuit settlement between the county and Colonies Partners L.P. But it may be that Biane is anxious to sell the land to a developer, so that the flood-control district would have some money to use in a settlement or to pay off a possible loss in court. Questions about the debris basin's design resurfaced last year when the land below was originally proffered as part of a potential Colonies settlement.

U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer called then for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate the public safety threat.
California's two senators had prompted a 2002 study that resulted in a
state recommendation that the Corps work with the county's
flood-control district to enlarge the basin, but it didn't happen.

The Corps stands by the adequacy of the basin, which the Corps designed
and built in 1983, but has said it would re-evaluate the facility's
safety if authorized by Congress and if a local sponsor shares the
cost. Biane is proposing that Rancho Cucamonga and the flood-control district co-sponsor the cost of a Corps study. Several independent scientists and engineers have raised questions about whether the land parcel could safely be developed with the debris basin in its current state. Some studies have found that the basin is undersized to handle a 50- or
100-year flood. The basin has never failed, but there were reports that
it was filled to the brim after heavy rainstorms in December 2004.

It seems to us that one possible outcome of a safety study would be
that the basin is adequate to protect existing development downstream,
as long as the land in question remains vacant as a settling grounds,
and is not developed. Thus, the safety study must take place before
development plans get too far along. Biane said he'd like to see a
master-planned community with a lot of open space on the land. Rancho
Mayor Bill Alexander said he'd like a master-planned community with
low-density housing and open space that takes water issues into
consideration. Sounds good, assuming any development is deemed safe.

Supervisor Dennis Hansberger cautioned that supervisors should not get
too involved in the details of a project, and with that we agree. The
county will want to maximize the price for its land certainly, but
Rancho Cucamonga should be at the table throughout the process.

Of course, the county could unilaterally rezone the land for
development before the city completes annexation. But the good news is
that Biane was on the Rancho council when the city had to sue the
county
over zoning changes on county land adjacent to the city, so Biane is
sensitive to the city's point of view.

As promised for discussion, here are some things that are not clear:

How much confidence should we have in any safety evaluation by the
Corps, given what we saw in New Orleans last year when the Corps'
levees failed? Would a positive re-evaluation by the Corps of its own work
give us any more confidence in the original design?

We'd prefer to see a separate independent analysis of the basin's
adequacy. But the Corps has been unmoved by past studies that found its
work inadequate. If the local agencies were to hire independent
scientists instead of the Corps to evaluate the basin and they found it
lacking, how much weight would that carry with the Corps and with
Congress? Would they still insist that the Corps do its own evaluation
before any federal money went into an upgrade? Probably so. Would it be
possible for the local agencies and the Corps to agree ahead of time on
an independent reviewer whose evaluation would be taken seriously?

What really is the county's position on the basin's safety? County
officials, as recently as 10 days ago, have said they back the Corps'
evaluation that the basin is safe. Yet the county flood-control district
stated in a 2004 grant application that the basin needs to be enlarged
to protect the public, and supervisors voted last summer to seek
federal funding to improve the basin. Now, Biane wants a review.

On safety, the county seems to be on both sides of the basin wall. In
our view, the safety issue has to be settled before anything else
happens.