La Conchita Residents to Pursue Slide Dispute

La Conchita residents Monday decried a Superior Court judge’s recent ruling that farming irrigation was not to blame for a March 1995 landslide that dumped a mountain of mud over their seaside village.

“We’re not done,” said Mike Bell, one of the 146 plaintiffs in the unsuccessful lawsuit against La Conchita Ranch Co. “The residents of La Conchita are not throwing up their hands and saying, ‘OK, ranch, you won, we lost, and we’ll just live in fear the rest of our lives.’ ”

Santa Barbara lawyer Rusty Brace, who represented the residents in the nonjury trial, said he was not sure whether all property owners will decide to appeal Judge Henry J. Walsh’s ruling. The plaintiffs have 60 days to file an appeal to his decision, which is expected to become final next week.

But Bell and other residents say they will pursue their dispute outside the courts. Plaintiffs say the farm operation that grows avocado and citrus trees on 688 acres above their tranquil beach town is not adhering to irrigation permits from the state Coastal Commission.

They accuse the company of using an irrigation system that emits more water than allowed by the state and hope Ventura County officials will help force the company into compliance.

Residents further claim the ranch has failed to comply with the county’s 1981 erosion-control plan.

*

“They are misinformed; our farm is in compliance with the coastal permits,” said David Orr, La Conchita Ranch’s owner. “And in reviewing the conditions of the erosion-control plan, it looks like we’re also in compliance with that.”

Orr said he was not surprised that residents remain adamant, despite Walsh’s Jan. 15 ruling that his farming practices did not cause the mudslide.

“I can’t control what other people are already planning to do,” Orr said.

The disaster struck March 4, 1995, after days of heavy rains. That day, the 600-foot-high bluff above the community broke free, crumbled down and squashed most of the houses on Vista del Rincon.

Nine homes were destroyed, dozens more were damaged, and about 100 houses--two-thirds of the town--were evacuated. The 146 residents who joined in the lawsuit had sought $24 million in damages.

But the judge agreed with the ranch’s lawyers and agricultural engineers who maintained that the landslide was a natural disaster and not the result of improper farm operations.

“We were extremely surprised and devastated when the ruling came down,” said Jonathan Harrel, who has owned a home in La Conchita since 1976. “The evidence was overwhelmingly in our favor.”

A geology professor from San Diego State University testified that the unrelenting storms in the winter of 1994-95 were not sufficient to trigger the landslide.

David Huntley testified that irrigation at the ranch filled the underground water basin in the years preceding the collapse of the heavily saturated slope.

Resident Dick Talaugon said he remembers La Conchita in the 1930s, ‘40s, and ‘50s, when he visited his father who lived near the community. Then, there was no water available for irrigation.

*

“At that time the ranchers did what they called ‘dry farming,’ ” said Talaugon, who has owned a home in La Conchita for 21 years. “They grew lima beans and crops that didn’t need a lot of water.

“I think the judge missed the big picture,” he said. “When there was no water available for irrigation, we had no mudslide problem at La Conchita. Once the water became available and they started irrigating, then--boom!--we get a landslide.”