DON’T BANK ON IT
TM: This matter was the subject of extended discussion during the final EKRC [Environ¬mental Report Review Committee] hearing on Oct. 30, which I believe you attended. I’m sure the county can provide you with a transcript, if you’re interested. At that hearing, Ahmanson agreed to Mitigation Measure WR-4, which required the developer to implement a water quality testing program to evaluate the presence of perchlorate, using sampling methodology consistent with EPA guidelines.
In the event testing confirmed perchlorate to be present, Ahmanson would be required to provide for the establishment of a perchlorate treatment facility on the ranch using an ion exchange or other suitable system in order to treat the irrigation water to the more stringent of currently established state or federal drinking water standards.
Finally, WR-4 provided that if monitoring indicated that contaminants from off-site sources were being drawn into the wellhead, the well would have to be abandoned per Ventura County public works standards.
Michael, that’s about as “exact and technical” as I can be on a Sunday evening. Please feel free to consult the SEIR and hearing transcripts for further details. My notes from Oct. 30 indicate that there was a discussion of a number of municipalities in Southern California, including La Puente, that have perchlorate in their drinking water sources and successfully use ion exchange systems to treat the water to remove the perchlorate. My notes indicate that Bruce Smith, the ERRC chair¬man, characterized the effectiveness of these methods as “well known and not controversial.” You may wish to contact him for further information on this matter.
I’m afraid that I have no way to reach our engineering consultants this weekend to ascertain what costs estimates were generated for compliance with WR-4, so I will be unable to provide that information to you.
As you are aware, WR-4 is no longer operative. Instead, the Board of Supervisors at their Dec. 19 meeting imposed the condition that the well be destroyed and that no ground-water from this source be used.
MC: The Reporter received a letter today from a homeowners association close to the project. The board member of that association informed us that the group has voted to withdraw $118,000 from its soon-to-be-closed Washington Mutual account over what they call a “disastrous” ranch project because of pollution concerns. Are you concerned that attempting to build the ranch could turn into a public relations disaster for Washington Mutual?
TM: Judging from the New York Times story this morning, perhaps it’s Rob Reiner who should worry more about PR disasters.
As for Washington Mutual, the controversy has not significantly affected our business to date, and we have reason to believe our vulnerability is very limited. We will continue to use a variety of communications means to address customer and public concerns as events warrant.
MC: Observers claim that this project is somehow a personal mission of yours. How would you respond to that observation?
TM: First of all, this is not about me. Your “observers” are hilariously wide of the mark if they think I exert some sort of influence at Washington Mutual to keep the company involved in the Ahmanson project— I’m simply not that important. I’m just one of several press officers at our Los Angeles regional office, far from the seat of corporate decision making. The Ahmanson Ranch just happens to be one of my assignments (and that’s what it is—an assignment, not a “mission”). My responsibilities are limited to media relations. Major decisions about the bank’s involvement in the project are made elsewhere by people far more qualified to make them than I am.
Moreover, I don’t have a personal stake in the outcome. I don’t plan to ever live at Ahmanson Ranch, for instance. I work down¬town, still live in the same mid-Wilshire neighborhood where I was born and raised and wouldn’t have it any other way I love L. A. The suburbs aren’t for me—even one as nice as Ahmanson is sure to be.
To be sure, I honestly believe in the project. I hope it comes to pass (and I believe it will). Here, let me step outside the spokesman role and speak strictly for myself. From the perspective of what strikes me as best for the region as a whole, I’m critical of the tendency of affluent coastal communities to try to push all development inland or out into the desert. I don’t think that’s socially equitable, and I’m sure it will make our environmental and infrastructure problems worse. I see Ahmanson Ranch (along with Playa Vista) as a major test case of the region’s ability to resist that tendency, which I view as elitist. I also think the open space dedication associated with Ahmanson was brought about by a model of the public and private sectors working together to generate something of considerable public value. I think we lose that model if the project fails to happen.
Those are my opinions, for what they’re worth. But frankly, there are things that stir my soul a lot more. I try to work hard, do a good job and be conscientious, but I don’t see myself as on a mission as far as the Ahmanson Ranch is concerned.
