Church Says No To Silt Lease
Matilija Dam during the rains of 2005. An estimated 2 million cubic yards of silt and fine sediments must be removed as part of the $145 million dam demolition project.
By Daryl Kelley
With a Meiners Oaks church refusing to lease Ventura river-bottom land, government agencies have been forced to back away from their top choice for disposal of a 20-foot-high mound of silt as part of the Matilija Dam removal project.Members of the Church of the Living Christ rejected last week a lease with Ventura County and the U.S. government that would have allowed 2.1 million cubic yards of slurried silt to be piped from behind the aging dam to a 74-acre site at the base of a bluff next to Rice Road.
That leaves the county’s Watershed Protection District, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the state Coastal Conservancy and county Supervisor Steve Bennett with the question of how to proceed now with a key part of a plan to tear down Matilija Dam.
Funding for $90 million of the $145-million dam removal project, the first of its kind in the nation, was approved by Congress last year. But where to move silt from behind the dam has become a thorny question.
Project managers have said $5 million to $6 million can be saved by piping silt slurry to the Meiners Oaks site and drying it there, instead of pumping it to other sites miles farther down the Ventura River near Baldwin Road.
The silt must be moved from behind the dam because it would likely clog the Robles fish ladder just up-river from Meiners Oaks if it were allowed to simply wash downstream during storms once the dam is removed, officials have said.
But environmental and conservation groups, along with several dozen nearby residents, have criticized the Meiners Oaks disposal site.
Critics favor use of two sites north and south of Baldwin Road that would allow most of the silt to be naturally washed away to Ventura beaches during wet years.
Conversely, they maintain the Meiners Oaks site would become a permanent visual blight, alter the natural course of the river and hinder access to public hiking trails, while possibly creating flooding problems, sullying groundwater supplies and producing noise and dust for years.
Critics also say the government has underestimated the cost of the Meiners Oaks option and that it might cost as much as the Baldwin Road alternatives.
Because of rejection by the church, government officials are rethinking their options. But they maintain that the Meiners Oaks option could still be viable, if they can prove to church members that the broader Ojai Valley community favors that plan.
“My information is that all options are still on the table, that the church didn’t close the door on revisiting the issue,” said Peter Sheydayi, project manager for the Watershed Protection District.
Pastor Ron Triggs confirmed that church members might reconsider the issue if they become convinced it has broad community support. But for now, the church’s position is that the county should look elsewhere.
“Our membership would likely revisit it and likely pass it if they had some way of knowing the community was in support,” Triggs said Wednesday. “But they would want to know how our community feels.”
The church balked at a $180,000 lease offer because of opponents’ concerns and the potential for a community backlash, Triggs said.
“There was a high concern among some members that the community would become angry with the church and feel we did it only for the money —that there would be some kind of backlash,” he said.
As a result, the church council decided the full membership should vote on the issue. And to retain consensus, the council decided an 85 percent super-majority was needed for passage. Only 70 percent favored the lease, so it failed, Triggs said.
If the county were able to show community support for the Meiners Oaks site, of which the church owns the majority, the congregation would probably reconsider a lease or outright sale of its 46-acre portion of the disposal area, he said.
Meanwhile, an early February meeting in which the project’s oversight committee was expected to announce a disposal site likely will have to be rescheduled, said the county’s Sheydayi.
“At this point, we need to meet and discuss our options as an executive team,” he said.
Sheydayi acknowledged that cost estimates of the disposal alternatives, provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, were based on a “very limited analysis” under the assumption that all sites would be cleared and restored in a similar fashion.
But now the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy has questioned whether the restoration of the Meiners Oaks site might not cost as much as the $5 million saved on transportation because it would have to be replanted as permanent, while the Baldwin Road sites are in the immediate flood plain and might not have to be.
“We have a lot of big concerns,” said Stevie Adams, project manager for the Land Conservancy, which owns about 1,700 acres adjacent to the disposal site and maintains access to hiking trails across the church property.
The conservation group not only questions cost estimates, but also is concerned that the silt pile, protected from erosion by a new levee, would become a permanent eyesore, she said.
“That pile would always be there,” she said. “We’re also concerned that the county would not be able to maintain trail access through this pile of slurry. And the aesthetics of it are a huge issue … (pictures) show other sites look like the moon.”
The Land Conservancy estimates that 250 people a day visit its Riverview Trial during peak season.
Another opponent, Paul Jenkin, founder of the Matilija Coalition and executive director of the local chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, has pushed a Baldwin Road alternative that would affect two sites closer to the river and be subject to flooding during heavy rains, which would carry the silt to the ocean.
“The county has appeared to be pretty hell-bent on this Meiners Oaks proposal,” Jenkin said. He thinks a slurry pile there would forever change the natural course of the Ventura River. And restoration of the natural river valley is the key goal of the dam removal effort, he said.
“This is one of the first projects of its kind around the world,” Jenkin said. “And we’re hoping this will be a good example, not a bad one.”
Lynn Malone, a neighbor who fears flooding, traffic, noise and dust problems, thinks the Meiners Oaks disposal would undermine the value of her property by making her community a less inviting place to live.
Indeed, 44 nearby Meiners Oaks area residents signed a petition against the plan, she said. And the Meiners Oaks County Water District has hired a consultant to determine if its wells would be affected by seepage from the silt pile.
“Everybody is guessing the county will go back to the church with another offer,” said Malone, who is also membership director for the Land Conservancy.
For his part, Sheydayi said arguments against a Baldwin Road alternative are not only greater costs, but also concerns by the Ventura River County Water District about proximity to its wells.
“And both Baldwin Road sites would have a substantial amount of impact on their neighbors,” he said.
That impact would be the risk of erosion of river banks resulting from the silt deposits.
“That would be a risk,” Sheydayi said.
For now, he said, “all options are still under consideration.”
The earliest actual dam demolition could happen is during 2010-2012, according to a feasibility study completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers four years ago.
In addition to the federal government’s contribution, about $55 million would be required from state and local sources. Almost all of that would come from bonds issued by the state, which has endorsed the project and has assigned the Coastal Conservancy as the point agency for it.
So far, the state has spent several million dollars to design the dam removal project.
But state and federal budget crises have raised questions about the reliability of that funding.
Matilija Dam, built in 1948 for flood control and water storage, has been obsolete for decades, because it quickly filled with sediment from Matilija Canyon runoff. Now, only 5 percent of its storage contains water. Millions of cubic feet of sediment fill the rest of the reservoir.
Q: could you please explain to all of us why the dam can’t just be removed incrementally?
A: This is a good question. Certainly this was the approach that many of us were advocating for before the studies were conducted. And this is the method being planned for the Elwah Dam in Washington State (where it rains a lot!)
The short answer is politics.
The long answer:
Part I: Casitas Water District has always been concerned about sediment discharges from Matilija. “Natural Transport” would release tons of sediment during rainfall events, which is when the Robles Diversion Dam is operational (approx 50% of Casitas water comes from this diversion.) Fine sediments are of special concern, since its hard to separate the silt from flowing water, and al this would end up in the lake.
The solution to managing the fine sediments became the slurry line – move all the silt downstream of the diversion. The solution to increased coarse sediment is upstream management and modification of the diversion facility to facilitate flushing of sand, gravel, and cobble.
Part II: Unpredictable weather patterns make it hard to plan for incremental dismantling of the dam. As we all know, we may be entering into a long term drought. Or, we may get a 100 year storm next year. Either way, the complete removal of the dam would take at least a decade or more, waiting on the rain to do the work. And in the meantime, if the dam collapsed, or downstream interests were damaged, or the money ran out, or anything else, the whole project could be stalled indefinitely.
So the current plan was intended to complete the job with 5 years of construction, providing immediate fish passage and sediment to the beaches, while keeping all interests ‘whole.’
But the devil’s in the details.
An open process will result in a better project in the long run, and it’s good to see residents voicing their concerns and hunger for more information.
Paul, could you please explain to all of us why the dam can’t just be removed incrementally?
Thanks for the facts and the new URLs, Paul.
It seems that Matilija Dam is coming down, one way or another. Even if there were no Steelhead in the river (and there are), the dam is either going to be demolished in an orderly fashion or it is going to continue to fail, either incrementally or catastrophically. However, given the current economic climate, it seems unlikely that the Feds are going to be rushing to dive into this project. If funds for the removal of Matilija Dam managed to make it into the newest economic stimulus proposal, no one has reported on this as far as I know. Additionally, since the removal of the sediments behind the dam will require an estimated 1.46 billion gallons of water which is either going to have to fall from the sky (unlikely) or be purchased from the outfit that owns the only supply of drinking, commercial, and agricultural water for much of the Ojai Valley, west Ventura and the Rincon, it would seem that the County has some very serious obstacles to overcome before this project actually begins, and that so far none of these issues are being seriously discussed in the local press or at high-profile public meetings.
One way or another, there are far more stakeholders in this project than have been accurately catalogued in any of the articles I’ve ever read in the OVN or anywhere else. I would like to see a much more detailed and unbiased analysis of both the pros and the cons of this issue, and I would like to believe that nothing is being hidden from me.
In spite of what I have said here, at this time I support the removal of Matilija Dam. However, I do not automatically support this project as thus far described AT ANY COST, and I want to know the whole story. I don’t yet feel that I have that.
As one of the participants in the many studies and processes that have taken place over the past decade, I would like to clarify some of the issues with the slurry disposal component of the Matilija Dam project.
First, the Meiners Oaks Disposal Area (MODA) should be a surprise to those who attended the public meetings during the Feasibility Study and CEQA/NEPA environmental review in 2004. At that time the project description indicated the use of downstream slurry disposal sites near Baldwin Road (now known as BRDA.) During the feasibility phase, the technical study team agreed that the aim of the site selection was to provide temporary storage and allow future floods to flush the silt downstream. This would nourish the floodplain and naturally transport silt to the ocean. The use of the Meiners Oaks site represents a fundamental change in that approach, since the fine sediments would become a permanent feature of the landscape. This presents significant issues, not the least of which is that it will bury the primary trailhead for the Ventura River/El Nido Preserve, one of the only highly utilized public access points within the entire watershed.
Secondly, the subheading, “County left without site to put slurry for Matilija Dam demolition,” is misleading. The use of the original (BRDA) disposal area would simply require extending the slurry pipe a mile-and-a-half at most, not trucking as the article suggests. And if you believe the Corps of Engineers preliminary cost estimates, the $5 million price difference is only 4% of the $140 million project. (The difference may be much less if the true cost of revegetation and restoration at MODA is included.) Most importantly, the temporary sediment disposal alternative that stakeholders had supported in the Feasibility Report would provide far greater long-term benefits by providing for the natural restoration of the ecosystem.
The Matilija Coalition was formed in 2000, shortly before outgoing Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt visited Matilija Dam as part of a nationwide ‘dam-busting’ tour. We have consistently advocated for the ecosystem objectives of the project, which include restoration of native steelhead, riparian/floodplain habitat, and natural river processes. More information is online at www.matilija-coalition.org and http://venturaecosystem.blogspot.com
Paul Jenkin
Matilija Coalition
I think the dam removal is acually less about fish than it is about a decomposed dam that is on the verge of falling down and letting millions of cubic yards of silt go down the river uncontrolled. That will not help anyone’s water supply if it happens. I believe the dam needs to come down, we just need to be careful not to make another mess in the process. The silt needs to be disposed of where it can wash to the ocean as it was meant to do before man got stupid and dammed it all up.
The pristine ecosystem that thrives in the riverbottom requires nothing from us other than to leave it alone. No money, no added water other than rainfall and occasional river flow, so don’t worry, it isn’t taking anything from us. It does however provide a lot for the river and wildlife.
Thanks annonomous for your comments. It was looking like the nasty blog trolls were coming out from under the bridge again.
Just think,
if all the environmentalist and fish biologists who get so worked up about steelhead trout and fish ladders would just leave ojai, we would have enough water to drink and let down the river for the fish.
Southern California is to overpopulated to sustain “pristine ecosystems”. To many people depend on the water to live. Why dont you take the money you are Throwing at this issue up to northern california and other areas that still have hope of a ballanced ecosystem. Or should we try to rehabilitate this area at the expense of an other area.
All this time , energy, and money for a steelhead river that got less than 5 fish in it last year.
Sorry Lynn, that was my fault for joking about the Whale. That was totally uncalled for and I opened the door for the nasty “name calling” annonymous writer below me.
….and a thank you for the Church for wanting to save the nature preserve. I want it pristine too.
Oh, one more thing, I hope that those of you who join me in thanking the church for their decision to leave the land as it is for the community will also join me in letting them know how we feel about that. The land in question is the main trail head and access point to the Ventura River Preserve, a plethora of outdoor recreation (hiking, biking, horseback riding, swimming in the river, etc.) for the entire Ojai Valley. Standing on the edge of Rice Road at El Roblar it encompases most all of the flatland you can see to the north and the south, and all the life on it which would have been buried had they said yes to the County.
The church has been for years the generous donor of an easement across this land for people to enjoy this magnificent place. I for one thank them profusely for not allowing it to become a muddy construction zone for the next 3 years and who knows what thereafter. I hope you will join me in posting, writing, calling them or their members you may know, whatever it takes to let them know how much we appreciate them.
I’m so sorry to see that this blog has been infected by such ill directed annymosity, I was enjoying the sharing of intelligent conversation for a while there.
Coming from one who has attended all their meetings about this, that is not at all the case. The county offered them a percentage of appraised value which was all that is, or will ever be legally allowed, a fact the church well knew when they turned down the offer (and the money that came with it) because they want to do what is right for the community. The only other way the county could get their land would be through an outright purchase (whether voluntary or eminant domain) or a land trade. The county has not made any offers to that effect yet, but if they did, they would again be bound by the law. They can ONLY offer appraised value. This would actually in all likelihood be a considerably lesser amount than the church would have gained by agreeing to the lease.
If ever the church does get around to building a new church, it will be far from a monstrosity. They actually hope to include sports fields for kids and possible senior housing, combined efforts which would take most of their land to accomplish.
Knowing the pastor and many of the members of the church personally I can attest the the fact that they are people of kind and generous spirit, and anything but money grubbers. There is nothing gained by such false accusations.
By the way, were you a bully as a child too? You must of been because only a bully would throw stones at people they don’t even know, for reasons they cannot substantiate.
Now, can we get back to the issues?
Those money-grubbing holy rollers are just holding out for more money so they can build their monstrosity of a church.
Oh, just blow it up with TNT like a gigantic dead whale. We can charge admission for viewing the explosion.
I applaud the churches decision, but with that I would also like its members to think very hard and to understand the full impacts of what to decide if approached again by the County. You cannot make a educated decision on a partial amount of the information. In the EIR and EIS, the content of some of the silt sampled is outlined in that report. It can be found at county of ventura.org or just type in Matilija Dam in your search engine. I say some because no matter what they tell you, no one knows exactly what the content of the silt really is. Back when this started some 8 or 9 years ago Supervisor Bennett said that all potabe water sources must be protected. The reality of it is that we do not know the full effects will be at any of the disposal sites or how long those affects will last. Meiners Oaks Water received the study from their consultants and is available at their office for a fee of $30.00. I would encourage the church to acquire a copy as well as anyone else who might be interested. I’m also concerned that the project has gone from a restoration project to let see how inexpensively we can get it done. There are other ways to remove the dam, ways that are less inhibative to the natural enviroment and the people who wish to enjoy it. The answer to above question;”I wonder if has anyone calculated how much water would be needed to liquefy and transport, as slurry, all of the sediment behind Matilija Dam”? 4500 acre feet of water and for those of you don’t know what translates to it’s 1,466,226,000.00 gallons and they don’t know where thats going to come from.
I can picture it now. They take the dam down but the big brick wall of hardened silt remains with just the top layer of liquid sludge slurping over the edge and into the river bed. Possibly its the hardened silt that has kept the dam together all these years. Has anyone tried to test its liquidity at the lower depths?
It does make one wonder however, how they will get the sediment started down the slurry line.
Hmmm……any process requiring water that otherwise would be used for drinking and agriculture wouldn’t be a very good idea in a time of drought, would it? I wonder if has anyone calculated how much water would be needed to liquefy and transport, as slurry, all of the sediment behind Matilija Dam?
To just curious, the dam site doesn’t hold much water. It it mostly filled with very compacted sediment, and within another 5 or 6 years is predicted to be completely full of sediment, not allowing it to control anything. The concrete dam has decomposed to a state that it’s destruction could take care of itself with much more weight and pressure built up behind it.
I went up there recently and tried to dig a sample of the silt for a demonstration, and even stepping out into the water, could hardly, with all my strength get a shovel into it. So, yes, it is like one solid brick, but would nonetheless disolve and erode away without the presence of the dam. It does make one wonder however, how they will get the sediment started down the slurry line.
IF the silt has been steadily filling up the dam since 1948 it could be one giant brick by now. Only 5% of its mass is water. I wonder how much of it would be liquid silt that would actually run down stream. I agree with the idea of breaking down the dam in increments just in case . We wouldn’t want the preserve buried in quick sand its just too beautiful and life sustaining. Wow, since 1948, its just sat there filling up with whatever, sounds really gooey. They’ll probably find Jimmy Hoffa.
Has there been any “global warming” impact study done of this area, from the mountains up behind the dam. including the river basin, on down to the ocean? Will there possibly be a need for the dam in the future to control flash floods, like what happened in Oregon recently, where the mountains got lots of snow which melted too quickly when the weather turned warm (which happens often here, cold to hot to cold).
I believe the silt must be routed down river, maybe with a spillover or seepage system cut into the sides/middle of the dam. The silt must not be land locked somewhere, leaving someone else to clean up the mess.
I like the above comment by the local resident and stream biologist. I would like to think of the silt as highly productive, not something undesireable that we have to flush away as soon as possible.
To the comment above that, if the silt dries to impermeable solid wouldn’t it make good bricks?
I have a feeling that there is gold in that there
silt.
Local resident
I think the design team needs to reexamine the entire idea of story all the fines (silt and sand) from behind the dam and allow it to naturally flush to the sea, where it was heading anyway before the dam was built. The question is how to do this most effectively.
As far as the Robles Diversion Dam goes, all they need to do is shut the diversion off (to Casitas Reservoir) during high flow events when there is a high amount of suspended sediment (silt) flowing past (which is in their best interest anyway so they don’t fill Casitas Reservoir with sediment and loss water storage capacity). As the suspended sediment load subsides with the flow coming down then the diversion can reopen and bring the low sediment water to the reservoir (this is standard operation for a well managed diversion operation anyway).
If Casitas still can’t handle this idea then just slurry around their diversion during higher flows and, LET THE SILT GO TO THE SEA. It is ridiculous to spend millions of dollars storing this material that should be going to the ocean where it will benefit local beaches and provide nutrients to zooplankton and the supported web of marine life.
While I want to see this dam removed as soon as possible I am more interested in seeing it done right even if that means lowering the dam over the course of a decade or more and letting high flows meter the fine sediment out to sea.
The short term negative impacts of letting the silt go to the sea on steelhead and other aquatic species is overstated. Sending the silt to the sea over the course of several years or a decade while incrementally removing the dam in stages will not have noticeable long term implications. Headwater populations of native rainbow trout will always allow steelhead recolinization as will natural straying from other watersheds. While this is happening, sell the highly productive silt (that makes up our productive alluvial farmland soil) at the dam site to local growers and anyone else for cheap or free and speed up the process.
Forget the silt storage idea, it’s a bad one.
The silt in question is a very fine clay-like sediment, which dries very hard and forms an almost impermiable surface. Though there is sand at the site as well, the disposal need is for the fine sediment, which normally becomes suspended in floodwaters. You have seen it when the river is turbid and brown in color. This material naturally washes out to the ocean in high flood events. Though there would likely be some sand incorporated in it, it would be minimal.
An issue with trying to use the material for agricultural use, is that it would have to be trucked for such a use. It has been determined that there is so much mass (2.1 MILLION cubic yards), it will be cost effective and more environmentally friendly to slurry it down-river, hopefully to a site where it would wash to the ocean, which the Meiners Oaks site is NOT. Use of the Meiners Oaks site would result in the permanent destruction of a natural and recreational treasure for Ojai.
With regard to the above comment, this area of the river is indeed considered pristine alluvial terrace habitat. No, it is not a rainforest, but nonetheless pristine, as it is populated with a vast array of native plant life which supports an abundance of wildlife. It is currently well maintained and dearly cared for as the main gateway for the Ojai community to the Ventura River Preserve and its abundant trail system. It is generously given for this use as an easement to the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy by the Church of the Living Christ. I want to join those above in thanking the church for providing the community with this special community asset, and for protecting it for the future.
I couldn’t agree more with the above. Though I would think if this pile were sand it would be called a sand pile and not silt. I think silt is even smaller than sand so I don’t think this is the stuff that winds up on beaches or that’s very plantable. I’m sure there’s a grower out there who can enlighten us all.
I for one want to thank the Church for voting this down. That trail is my peace and if it’s going to be buried under a big pile of whatever, I want to know its because everyone affected thinks its a good idea.
It isn’t like the riverbed is pristine rainforest. It is basically campsites for homeless, who burn broken furniture and leave their fast-food trash and empty beer cans in the brush.
You must be talking about the riverbed in Ventura. This article addresses a privately-owned stretch of river bottom in Meiners Oaks, which is at least 11 miles north of the area that often has the problematic homeless encampments.
The Ventura River Preserve has more eyes and ears watching out for it than you could possibly imagine if you weren’t a local, and take my word for it — there are no homeless encampments. If there were, they wouldn’t last longer than a day or two. As far as we’re concerned, this is our preserve, and it was paid for by (mostly) locals in the form of donations small, large, and enormous. With the exception of the occasional low-life slob, everyone who uses the preserve does their best to make sure that it remains pretty much the way it looked the day it was first opened to the public. All are welcome to visit and use the preserve (and to donate to the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy), but if they do visit they should remember that they’re on private property, and that visitation is a privilege, not a right.
Because the Ventura River Preserve is privately owned with a conditional public easement, any repeated form of vandalism or other type of misuse will cause the preserve to be closed to entry, and given that the Sheriff’s Department is not Ventura PD, you can bet that trespassing infractions will be dealt with with gusto and great certainty.
The County owns plenty of land at the site of the old Honor Farm just a couple of miles south of the Preserve. If they want to make a giant sandpile, they can do it on their own land. Otherwise, they can just let the stuff wash downstream the way it would have been over the years had the dam never been built in the first place.
The silt is of such fine granularity that it is essentially sand. Not good for farmers, topsoil, etc. But it would eventually be useful, downstream, to mitigate some of the beach erosion.
Piling the silt up along the bluff would not be such a bad thing; the bluff itself is rock/dirt/sand. Opponents sniff at the extra $5 million because they won’t have to pay it, but the savings in budget and time is significant. It isn’t like the riverbed is pristine rainforest. It is basically campsites for homeless, who burn broken furniture and leave their fast-food trash and empty beer cans in the brush.
There is a public meeting from 9am-12pm on Feb. 4, at Ventura County Public Works in Saticoy, all this info is discussed openly.
Silt in itself can be a good thing. Silt deposits by annual floods along the Nile river created the rich soil that sustained the ancient Egyptian civilization. Brought to you by Wikipedia.
Does anybody know the content of this silt? I mean by silt it sounds like it could either be considered contaminated and unusable or possibly nutrient rich top soil that would be good for cultivation. Has there been a report done on it for publication?
Thanks to CLC for their decision. I’m sure that they would find some notable community support for their current position if they were to take a poll. I can’t imagine that anyone who has visited the relatively new Ventura River Preserve would want to see any part of it turned into anything other than what it is right now. That said, I was under the impression that The Church of the Living Christ already had their own plans for the area in question, and that those plans involved moving the equestrian operation (on Rice Road between El Roblar and Lomita) into the river bottom so that they could relocate their church onto the property that is now being used as a stables. They own that property, too, I believe. (Note that this is what I’ve heard and believe to be true, not what I know to be an absolute fact.)
I like the idea, already put forth by many other people, of removing the dam in phases over the next 25 years, thereby allowing the sediments to head downstream incrementally every time it rains.