Matilija Coalition

Statement of Purpose

News/Status

Removing Matilija Dam:

Final Design:

Feasibility Study:

Early Progress:

Background Information:

About the Matilija Coalition:

Contact us

Links

For the most recent news and updates please visit: www.venturariver.org

Timeline:

Aug 10, 2010 - Matilija Dam to enter mediation phase

Stumped by the impasse over sediment management, the County Watershed Protection District (District) and the State Coastal Conservancy have decided to convene a professional facilitator to help define what steps are needed to best resolve the fine sediment issue. According to a letter from the agencies, "The Corps of Engineers are amenable to this approach. The facilitation process will consist of two phases. Over the next several weeks, the facilitator will interview a number of stakeholders representing different organizations and interests to assess their concerns about various options to manage the fine sediments. Following those interviews, the District and the Conservancy may then organize a sediment management study group composed of key stakeholders to engage in a collaborative problem-solving effort on this subject. If there is sufficient community support for convening such a study group, the group would begin meeting in late September or early October. The initial objectives for organizing the study group would be to share information and stakeholder concerns, identify potential data gaps, and develop options and a potential action plan for resolving the issues surrounding management of the fine sediments."

February 16, 2010: Matilija Coalition Position on US Army Corps of Engineers Proposal to Permanently Sequester Fine Sediments in Matilija Canyon

The Matilija Coalition DOES NOT support the proposal to permanently store 2.1 million cubic yards of fine sediments in the Upstream Storage Areas (USA 1 and 2.)

The Matilija Coalition believes that the proposal to permanently sequester the fine sediments upstream of the dam in the manner described undermines the basic objectives of the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project. Moreover, this will likely result in further delays to the project, which is already several years behind schedule. The upstream storage of fine sediments described by the COE will result in a permanent landfill and associated hardscape flood-control facilities within the high-energy floodplain of Matilija Creek: this proposal represents a significant departure from the consensus Alternative Plan 4b previously incorporated in the Feasibility Study
and NEPA/CEQA environmental review, and raises significant concerns, including the environmental, procedural, and regulatory issues outlined below.

Download: MC upstreamdisposal_letter_Feb2010.pdf

February 12, 2010 - Ojai Valley News article

Silt Wars: Casitas Municipal Water District’s rejection of disposal plan threatens dam’s removal
The Casitas Municipal Water District refused Wednesday to endorse in concept disposal of 2.1 million cubic yards of silt behind obsolete Matilija Dam to a storage area above the dam, an alternative favored by county and federal agencies.

February 2, 2010 - VC Star article on fine sediment impass:

Disagreement could delay tearing down Matilija Dam by years

“The whole point was restoration of the river, which really requires that the natural processes are restored,” said Paul Jenkin, chairman of the Matilija Coalition. “I don’t think this plan is in keeping with that original plan. It is not clear to me what it is going to take to get the project back on track.”

January 14, 2010 - Design Oversight Group Meeting

Project managers presented the latest proposal for dealing with sediment accumulated behind Matilija Dam. The question was presented as:

Can a constructable alternative be developed to permanently sequester the fine sediments upstream of the dam so as to reduce impact to Lake Casitas? If so, what would be the environmental impacts and cost?

A proposal was presented for consideration by the group, with responses requested within the next four weeks.

More here: http://www.venturariver.org/2010/01/matilija-dam-upstream-sediment-storage.html

September 16, 2009 - Design Oversight Group Meeting

After summarizing some of the issues with the two downstream disposal strategies (MODA and BRDA), project managers presented a new alternative for consideration. The "Upstream Storage" option would deposit the fines upstream of the dam within the storage sites previously identified within the reservoir area.

More here: http://www.venturariver.org/2009/09/new-solution-for-dam-removal.html

May 7, 2009 - VC Star article on slurry disposal impass

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/may/07/destruction-of-matilija-dam-hits-another-wall/

March 5, 2009 - Matilija Dam Design Oversight Group Meeting - Project manager provided brief updates on project components. Slurry disposal issue will be postponed until other alternatives are considered. Despite a year of analysis, incemental cost increase is cited as reason why BRDA alternative can not be considered.

January 27, 2009 - e-mail memo from project manager:

As many of you may have heard, earlier this month the Church of the Living
Christ declined our offer of an option agreement for future use of their
property for the disposal of fine sediment. The Project Management Team
needs additional time to discuss and evaluate possible options. In an effort to have
more meaningful information at the next DOG meeting, we are rescheduling it
from February 5 to March 5. The meeting time is unchanged (9 am to noon).

October 2, 2008 Design Oversight Group Coordination Meeting -The primary focus of this meeting was the Potential Slurry Disposal Area(s) - Project managers will present thier final decision at the February DOG meeting.

Aug 7, 2008 Matilija Dam Design Oversight Group Meeting

February 2008 - Design Oversight Group meeting

September 2007 - Arundo eradication begins in Matilija Canyon

September 6, 2006 - A $5 million state grant was approved to pay for preparation work needed to remove Matilija Dam, including Foster Park Wells and Arundo donax eradication.

July 21, 2006 - Matilija Dam "Design Oversight Team" met to discuss the Current Tasks: Mapping, Biological Opinion (NMFS), Foster Park Well Design, Arundo Removal Plan, Draft Hydraulic/Sediment Model

April 13, 2006 COMMITTEE APPROVES $127 MILLION REQUEST FOR MATILIJA CREEK RESTORATION - Federal funding for project included in water resources bill (WRDA)

January, 2006 - County and Corps held a "kickoff" meeting to get the final design process underway. Under the current schedule, there is $8 million of final design work to be done before actual dam removal may begin in the 2009-2012 time frame.

October 2005 - Local Ventura Surfrider member and activist Paul Jenkin recently travelled to Japan, where he visited local beaches and watersheds suffering similar problems to Ventura's coastline... beach erosion, and dams filled with sediment.

September 23, 2005 - CALIFORNIA OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL endorses Matilija Dam project and allocates $2 million to final design costs.

July 13, 2005 - County Supervisors sign seven year, $8 million Final Design agreement between the county Watershed Protection District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Design will take until 2009, with deconstruction completed in 2012.

Despite numerous threats from local water agencies, no CEQA lawsuit was filed; therefore the environmental documentation is completed for the removal of Matilija Dam. With a completed final Feasibility Study the project was ready for final design beginning in 2005.

December 20, 2004 - Chief of Army Corps of Engineers forwarded completed Feasibility Study to the Secretary of the Army for final approval.

December 14, 2004 - Ventura County Board of Supervisors certified the NEPA/CEQA document.

July 28, 2004 - Public Meeting on Draft Feasibility Study and EIR

June 2004 - Draft Feasibility Report released for a public review

News: See recent news articles below.

Tearing down Matilija Dam may be delayed by disagreement

By Zeke Barlow

Originally published 02:12 p.m., February 2, 2010
Updated 09:38 p.m., February 2, 2010

The sediment built up behind the obsolete Matilija Dam near Ojai is one reason people want to tear it down.

Agreeing what to do with that sediment, however, is proving to be the hardest part of the massive project to remove the dam. It’s an issue some fear could kill the project.

“This project is hanging by a thread right now,” said Jeff Pratt, Ventura County’s public works director. If a consensus isn’t reached, it could “die a de-facto death,” he said.

About 2 million cubic yards of fine sediment are trapped behind the dam on the Ventura River. After officials in charge of the project last year said the two initial ideas for moving the sediment downstream were too costly or unpopular with landowners, they recently proposed a third option: trucking the sediment about 2 miles upstream of the dam.

It would be placed beside the river, mixed with concrete and covered with dirt. Ultimately, the mounds could stretch for 3,500 feet, rise 75 feet above the river and have vegetation on top.

Some environmental groups question the proposal, saying building a concrete structure in the flood plain contradicts the idea of tearing down a concrete dam to restore nature.

Nica Knite, a program manager with California Trout who has also expressed reservations about the proposal, could not be reached for comment.

A total of about 6 million cubic yards of rock, dirt, cobblestones, sand and fine sediment sit behind the dam. The original proposal to plow a channel through the backup and allow 4 million cubic yards of the larger pieces to eventually flow downstream to the sea still stands. But it’s the fine sediment — called fines — that is the challenge. It can’t just flow downstream because it could endanger the Casitas Municipal Water District’s water supply.

“It is our Achilles heel,” said Jim Hutchison, lead planner for the project with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The new proposal would be subject to numerous regulatory reviews, and many question how the project will go forward if not everyone agrees.

Jenkin said years were spent on a feasibility plan agreed upon by the many divergent groups.

He said studying a new proposal to get rid of the fine sediment, which would change that agreement, could add years to the project.

One of the original proposals — moving the fines via a slurry pipeline to sites near Baldwin Road — is still feasible, he said. But last year, the Corps of Engineers said that proposal could cost as much as $45 million and isn’t economically viable. The new proposal could save about $15 million, the agency said.

Jenkin argued that by delaying the project and doing new studies, the cost of the new upstream plan would be about the same as the pipeline proposal.

But proponents of the new plan, including county Supervisor Steve Bennett, who has been trying to drum up support for it, say it would cause the least environmental impact. Bennett said it would require less land and fewer resources and affect fewer landowners in the long run.

The total area affected by the new proposal would be 37 acres, vs. 71.5 acres for the Baldwin Road plan, which is near the Highway 150 bridge. Bennett said there would be less construction needed, and overall the new proposal is more eco-friendly.

“There is a compromise no matter where you put these fines, ” he said. “This is very reasonable.”

One reason the project got so much support and funding from Sacramento and Washington, D.C., involved the broad coalition of people behind it. Without funding and political support, the plan could lose its priority status to other projects and languish for years, Pratt said.

“We could have one of those projects that lingers,” he said. “They can kill the project or slow it up to where it de-facto dies.”

The Ojai Valley Land Conservancy and California Coastal Conservancy said they support the idea of upstream sediment storage, because it would have a smaller footprint than the downstream plans.

Jenkin wouldn’t say if the issue could hold up his support for the project. “I’m not sure where we are going to go from here,” he said.

Editor's note Feb. 3: A previous version of this story misstated how the amount of sediment is measured. There are 6 million cubic yards of sediment behind the dam.

Destruction of Matilija Dam hits another wall

By Zeke Barlow
Thursday, May 7, 2009

One of the reasons to tear down the Matilija Dam was to let all the silt and rock built up behind it to flow down the Ventura River and out to the ocean — where it would have gone naturally if not for the wall of concrete blocking the way.

But officials in charge of one of the largest dam removal projects in U.S. history have hit a roadblock. They no longer know where the 6 million cubic yards of silt and rock would go.

Of the two proposed disposal methods outlined in the plan to destroy the dam, one is proving too expensive and another was scuttled after private property owners said they didn’t want the silt on their land.

Darrell Buxton, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project manager in charge of the removal, declined to say what alternative options are being examined or how many there are. But he said they will find an answer that will keep the project on schedule to start deconstruction in 2011.

“I am confident that there will be a solution and this decision doesn’t have to happen until we are ready to take the dam down,” he said.

Critics say if another alternative is proposed —such as pumping all the silt to one location and making a de facto landfill out of it — much of the reasoning behind tearing the dam down will be lost.

“The objective of the project is quite clear in terms of ecosystem restoration, restoring the natural processes, restoring fish passage and the riparian habitat,” said Paul Jenkin, the head of the Matilija Coalition, which has been lobbying to have the dam removed for years. “Building permanent landfills is not restoring the natural process.”

Jenkin and others had thought the proposal was to put the silt into a series of pipes that would take it to strategic places along the Ventura River near Baldwin Road. It would then undergo a series of procedures to “dewater” it so it would become hardened. Over time, as big storms flooded the river, the silt would be carried downstream and out to the ocean. The rock and silt would help stabilize beaches in Ventura, including Surfers Point.

But Buxton said the dewatering process has become too expensive — the estimate has gone from $18 million to more than $40 million, he said.

Another alternative was to pump the silt down river to property owned by the Church of the Living Christ, where it would make an oblong sort of levee more than a half-mile long. But church officials said they didn’t want it on their land, which sent the engineers back to the drawing board.

“I wouldn’t say it’s a small issue, but it’s nothing we can’t work through,” said Peter Sheydayi, a director with the Ventura County Watershed Protection District, which is the lead county agency in charge of the dam removal. “With any project you end up learning things you didn’t expect and you have to work through them.”

Of bigger concern to Sheydayi is that if this part of the project is going over budget, he wonders what other costs will increase.

“Nobody expected the overall project to increase incrementally like we are looking for the Baldwin Road site,” he said.

Jenkin said when considering the total cost of the project — $140 million to remove the dam and build new infrastructure along the Ventura River — an increase shouldn’t stop officials from the proposal to pump it downstream.

“When we talk about permanent disposal and impacting recreation and other permanent impacts, that is a different deal than we signed on to,” he said.

Buxton said the new proposals of what to do with all that silt and rock should be made public by early fall and it shouldn’t slow down the timeline.

On the Net: http://www.matilijadam.org

Ventura River Is Undammed If They Get OK, Dammed If They Don't

Efforts to remove Matilija Dam still await congressional approval. And the project is still not out of the weeds, so to speak.

By Catherine Saillant, Times Staff Writer
September 10, 2006

Two foes stand in the way of restoring the Ventura River to a free-flowing state: bureaucratic infighting over removal of the upstream Matilija Dam and the ever-hardy Arundo weed.

Six years after a Clinton administration official removed a ceremonial chunk of the 198-foot-high dam north of Ojai, Congress has yet to authorize efforts to take down the obsolete structure.

A fragile agreement between government agencies and environmentalists about how best to remove it is beginning to fray.

And then there's that Arundo.

The invasive cane grows 20 feet tall, hogs water and chokes out native plant life along the Ventura River, officials say. Every bit of it has to go before the dam can be dismantled.

Supporters of removing the dam say the marathon patience needed to see the project through will pay off.

"It might be 15 years before you finish the whole project," said Ventura County Supervisor Steve Bennett, whose district includes the dam. "But in the end, it will benefit of lot of people.''

Bruce Babbitt, who was then Interior secretary, made much the same point when he removed an 8-ton piece of the dam with a crane in October 2000. He promised that the federal government would do its part to make the $130-million project happen.

Across the U.S., dams that no longer serve a useful purpose are being removed to restore rivers and reestablish ecosystems. At 198 feet tall and 600 feet wide, Matilija is one of the largest slated for removal.

The silt-clogged structure no longer serves a useful purpose, federal studies found. Its removal would restore the steelhead fishery to the Ventura River and replenish sand at Ventura's beaches.

A little-known benefit, according to Bennett, is the likelihood that upgrades to water pumps and wells that are part of the project will save Ventura and Ojai ratepayers the future cost of paying for them.

This week, for instance, the state gave Ventura County $5 million to relocate two water wells used by the city of Ventura. Grant money will also be used to remove the voracious Arundo canes, said Jeff Pratt, director of the Ventura County Watershed Protection Agency.

Arundo replicates through tough, fibrous rhizomes deep in the soil, so workers will begin removing it high above the dam to prevent its spread during floods, Pratt said. Arundo removal is an important step in restoring natural vegetation to the river, he said.

The project has, until recently, enjoyed remarkable support from a long list of government agencies and environmental groups involved in the demolition.

After much debate, the agencies agreed in 2004 to remove 2 million cubic yards of silt through a slurry pipe, reinforce or build new levees to handle increased water flows downstream, and then remove the 8-foot-thick concrete face.

The Arundo removal will be the first phase, Pratt said. But the work may be slowed by a dispute between the Army Corps of Engineers, the lead agency on the project, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, he said.

In the spring, the Fisheries Service said it needed more information before issuing its biologic analysis of the project, Pratt said. The Corps of Engineers contends it has provided more than enough information, he said.

Meanwhile, work cannot get started until the disagreement is resolved.

"It can slow it down," Bennett said. If the Fisheries Service "doesn't give the biologic opinion, the Army Corps can't move forward."'

Daryl Buxton of the Army Corps of Engineers' Los Angeles office said his agency has requested three times that the study get underway. It will take at least four months to complete, he said.

"That takes us to January, and as of yet, they still have not notified us that it has started," he said.

National Marine Fisheries' officials could not be reached for comment.

The project also is awaiting formal authorization by Congress and President Bush.

It is contained in a federal water bill that has been held up for several years, said Sue Hughes, a Ventura County legislative analyst.

A conference committee is working on a final version of the Water Resources Development Act, and it's expected to go to the president this year, Hughes said.

After the project is authorized, local officials and the involved agencies will have to lobby the federal government each year for appropriations. Because of the enormous costs, the project cannot be completed without a two-thirds share coming from federal sources, Bennett said.

"It's going to be very much dependent on getting help from Congress," he said.

Vandalism blamed for dead fish

Water diversion may have killed endangered steelhead

By Zeke Barlow zbarlow@VenturaCountyStar.com
April 7, 2006

The first curious thing that Rich Handley noticed as he hiked toward the Ventura River on March 26 was that there was no sound of running water echoing through the hills near Ojai.

The second was the stench of dead fish.

"It was dry, dry, dry," Handley said of the river, which runs through an Ojai Valley Land Conservancy preserve where he’s the manager.

The river had dried up within hours, leaving clusters of dead fish on the rocky river bottom. Handley had seen it all before.

For the third time in three years, the Ventura River, prime habitat for federally endangered steelhead trout, had unexpectedly run dry below the Robles Diversion Dam. The structure, maintained by the Casitas Municipal Water District, diverts water to Lake Casitas to be stored for later sale. It’s also the site of a controversial $9 million fish ladder designed so steelhead can swim past the diversion during their migration.

Environmentalists see the cumulative episodes as an example of the district’s general lack of interest in providing a healthy steelhead habitat. The district long fought building the fish ladder and last year filed a lawsuit against the federal government, seeking reimbursement for water it’s mandated to send downriver.

County supervisors approve pact, a key step in removing Matilija Dam

By Kathleen Wilson, kwilson@VenturaCountyStar.com
July 13, 2005

The effort to take down Matilija Dam -- which could be the most costly and complicated removal of a dam in American history -- moved forward Tuesday when an agreement to design the project was approved.

County supervisors approved the pact between the county Watershed Protection District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers without debate.

Jeff Pratt, director of the Watershed Protection District, said the approval is a key step in the effort to remove the dam and restore the ecosystem.

Located north of Lake Casitas, the 1947 dam stands 190 feet high and is holding back millions of cubic yards of sediment from tiny particles to boulders the size of beach balls.

Engineers say that sediment has rapidly reduced the ability to store a significant amount of water for future use; a reservoir basin is due to be filled with sediment by 2040.

The design phase alone is expected to cost $8 million, a cost to be shared by the district, the California Coastal Conservancy and the Corps of Engineers. The local district would pay $400,000, the conservancy $1.6 million and the federal government the rest, a county document shows.

Most of the federal funding is still in question, but Congress approved $250,000 this year. Officials hope for an additional $800,000 next year.

Once that's completed, the cost of actually doing the project is estimated at $130 million.

Supervisor Steve Bennett told his colleagues the project passed another key hurdle when no lawsuits were filed after supervisors certified an environmental review late last year.

"We are getting closer and closer to making this a reality," he said.

Environmentalists say the obsolete dam has robbed beaches of fresh sand and prevented endangered steelhead trout from migrating to spawning grounds. The Ventura River system once supported 4,000 to 5,000 spawning steelhead, but fewer than 100 of the fish remain, a review of the project says.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Los Angeles Daily News

Taxpayer group knocks $10.6 billion water bill
By Lisa Friedman
Staff Writer

Friday, July 15, 2005 - WASHINGTON -- A $10.6 billion water bill headed for Senate approval this month is laden with Southern California projects that a watchdog group is calling "pork" but local lawmakers are hailing as vital priorities.

Among the state projects are $130 million to remove the Matilija Dam north of Lake Casitas, $20 million to improve water infrastructure in Sierra Madre and Arcadia, $7 million for flood control in Palmdale, and funds for several groundwater remediation studies in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties.

The House passed the bill 406-14 Thursday. The Senate is expected to overwhelmingly support it.

"At a time of staggering budgets and deficits, it is outrageous that Congress is picking projects based on politics and committee assignments rather than actual economic need," said Keith Ashdown, spokesman for the D.C.-based Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Southern California lawmakers, however, maintained that the bill will give much-needed help to local water officials.

"With more and more people calling Southern California home, we need to be smart about how we manage our water supply," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Glendora. "Local leaders are making huge progress in their efforts, and I believe this federal support will only enhance benefits for all of our communities."

One of the largest state projects is removal of the Matilija Dam. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates it will kick in $78.9 million over several years for the project about 70 miles from Los Angeles.

"This is the first step of a long and involved process that will unfold over several years before Matilija Dam has been deconstructed," said Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Thousand Oaks, who worked for the project's inclusion in the water bill.

U.S. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Santa Clarita, secured a promise of up to $7 million for two Palmdale projects aimed at protecting downstream properties like Air Force Plant 42 and improving flood-control.

McKeon and Rep. Joe Baca, D-San Bernardino, also demanded federal studies of perchlorate contamination throughout the region after cities discovered the rocket fuel ingredient had seeped into the groundwater basins.

In San Bernardino County, Congress did not authorize a specific funding level but called on the government to study the possible creation of water supply projects for Rialto, Fontana and Colton.

McKeon increased funding levels for perchlorate studies in Santa Clarita from $7 million to $10 million.

Baca's projects also include: federal support to study flood-control needs in the Lytle Creek; up to $7 million to install a missing drainage system in Colton; and up to $7 million that he secured along with Rep. Gary Miller, R-Brea, to build storm drains in south Ontario.

Dreier's projects, in addition to funds for Sierra Madre and Arcadia, also include: $13 million for storm drainage and flood control projects in Upland; and $5 million for groundwater quality and supply projects throughout the San Gabriel Mountain Foothill region.