Challenge at Big Bear

The folks up at Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County have a unique problem that deserves the attention of the California Legislature. The initial response is likely to be something akin to this: “But we’ve never done anything like that before.” True, but the Big Bear challenge is so without precedent that it merits some second thoughts.

First, a brief history of the lake--perhaps the most popular recreational body of water in inland Southern California. The dam at Big Bear originally was built to develop irrigation water for citrus crops down in the Redlands area. As recreation became popular at the mountain lake, the annual drawdowns during the summer irrigating season proved to be a headache, leaving boat docks and other facilities far from the water’s edge.

In 1978 the 14,000 residents of the area formed an assessment district and raised $4.7 million to buy the lake site and the dam from the valley irrigation district. They also agreed to purchase alternative sources of water for the irrigators so that the lake would not be depleted during the summer recreation season. While the Big Bear community did not own the water, it was able to maintain the lake level for the benefit of recreation seekers.

Now, however, the state has said that the 75-year-old dam is in danger of collapsing in the event of an earthquake of 8.0 magnitude on the Richter scale. The Division of Safety of Dams says that the structure must be repaired by October, 1988, or Big Bear will have to be substantially emptied to reduce pressure on the dam. This could draw the shoreline back as much as half a mile from present levels and devastate water recreation, Big Bear officials say.

Assemblyman Bill Leonard (R-Redlands) has introduced a bill--to be heard Wednesday in the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee--that would get the state to put up $6 million to help repair the dam; $4 million would come from the Davis-Grunsky water projects loan program, and the rest from the state Transportation Fund for reconstruction of state Highway 18 across the span. The local residents are willing to raise $5 million through another assessment to make up the total $11 million cost. They make a persuasive argument that the $5 million is more than a fair contribution on their part.

An estimated 5 million persons visit Big Bear each year, but only a fraction contribute to the local bed tax through overnight stays. In contrast to Lake Arrowhead, which is private, Big Bear is fully accessible to the public. Much of the lake is bounded by non-taxable U.S. Forest Service land. Even if the Forest Service wanted to help, its reduced budget would not allow it.

Davis-Grunsky Act funds have never been granted for such a purpose, and that tradition will be difficult or impossible to overcome. Some have suggested charging tolls for entering the Big Bear Lake valley, but Caltrans says that this would be cumbersome, requiring booths at three separate entry points. Big Bear officials dislike the idea of being sealed off by toll gates.

This is more than a local problem. Big Bear Lake clearly is an important recreation resource available to 14 million Southern Californians. If the Leonard measure is not acceptable, another way should be found, perhaps in conjunction with other agencies like the state Parks and Recreation Department. This is the sort of unique problem that begs for a creative and cooperative solution from government.