Matilija Dam

By James W. Coultas

The federal order for Casitas Municipal Water District to construct a fish ladder a mile below Matilija to aid in the recovery of the endangered steelhead trout has cost the people of California and the Casitas district $9 million. We now have a sizable investment in these fish and they will not recover as long as Matilija blocks their access to areas above the dam. Removal makes sense at a local level.

Although I support the dam removal, I was very disappointed in the environmental report for the project. Nearly 1,000 pages still left dozens of unanswered questions of great importance to both citizens and effected agencies. A number of local water agencies, including Casitas, have commented on the failings of the Environmental Impact Report. It is interesting to note that none of those agencies have called for the project to be stopped but all have requested mitigation measures that would allow them to continue to serve their customers. Some members of the community have criticized our agencies, inferring that we are trying to stall the project in order to kill it. This is totally untrue.

Casitas' concerns and requests for mitigation are in three general areas: recovery of the fish, water quality and water supply.

During the planning and construction of the fish ladder, Casitas was ordered to release a significant amount of water to benefit steelhead below Matilija Dam. The dam removal project has no plan to save these fish and it is reasonable to assume they will be exterminated by 6 million cubic yards of silt coming downstream. We feel that these fish need to combine with those existing above the dam, which are 25 generations removed from ocean travel, to restore the southern steelhead. A captive breeding program similar to one on the Carmel River or even a trap-and-truck program could be used for a tiny amount of the total cost of the project. Isn't saving the fish what this is all about?

Water quality should also be an issue of insignificant cost, but which has not been adequately addressed. The project planners have tested the sediments and said they are fine for beach sand. But they have not tested for drinking water quality--more than two years after being asked to do so. We hope that nothing is up there that would affect water quality. But if there is, we need to plan now how to do deal with it to prevent Casitas Lake and our drinking water from being impaired.

Over the last 10 years, Casitas has been able to produce an average of 790 acre feet of water from operating Matilija Dam, enough water for 1,500 homes. When Matilija comes down this supply will be lost. Ventura County officials have estimated that continued siltation at Matilija will completely fill the dam by 2025 and the supply will then be zero. Between now and then about 5,000 acre feet of water could be supplied by operating Matilija and the county had indicated some willingness to find other supplies up to this amount. As a long term water supplier, Casitas would much prefer to have a constant supply of around 500 acre feet per year than a one-time supply of 5,000. This would get us enough water to supply all of our current customers and leave about 100 acre feet for future demand. We think this is possible by some combination of deep wells, trading water with other agencies and upgrading the systems of some smaller water purveyors to increase their water efficiency. We will be talking to the county about spending mitigation dollars in these areas instead of purchasing state water.

Our discussions with the county have been amiable and fruitful. We have agreed to agree on the issue of water rights for Matilija and are close to agreeing on the status of the Matilija conduit, a pipeline owned by the county and leased by Casitas since 1959. We understand the county's issues and the county understands ours. Both sides are trying to do the best thing for the people in our community. I'm sure we will work out all of the issues to everyone's satisfaction in the months ahead.

The Matilija project has great importance beyond Southern California. It has been called a model for other dam removals around the country. We must do it right. If unintended consequences are overlooked, or unmitigated effects become health and safety problems or financial burdens to our community, what other region in the country would want to try it?

If it is going to take more money to do the project right, then we need to find it. If it needs to take more time, then we need to take it. We must do this project right.

James Coultas