Army Engineers Give Pamo Dam an Endorsement

Ending months of speculation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced Monday that it intends to issue a permit for construction of Pamo Dam, the $86-million water project near Ramona that has been bitterly fought by environmentalists.

Spokesman Larry Hawthorne said that, after a “thorough review,” the commander of the Army Corps of Engineers’ Los Angeles district has determined that the massive project would not be “contrary to the public interest.”

While conceding that the project would take a toll on the environment, the Corps of Engineers concluded that any negative impacts would be outweighed by a host of benefits, among them the establishment of an emergency water supply, increased water storage capacity for dry years and the recreational opportunities on the giant reservoir that the dam would create.

The decision was applauded by officials with the San Diego County Water Authority, which filed an application for a permit in November, 1984, and views the project as key to ensuring an emergency water supply for the burgeoning northern reaches of the county.

“The authority . . . views the (action) as an important step forward in the process leading to the eventual construction of the reservoir and the protection that the reservoir will afford to hundreds of thousands of San Diegans in the event of drought or emergency,” Francesca M. Krauel, chairwoman of the water authority’s board, said in a statement.

‘Sold Down the River’

But environmentalists, who object that Pamo Dam will cause the irreversible destruction of 1,800 acres of pristine habitat, harshly criticized the Army Engineers’ action and vowed to continue their opposition to the dam.

“I’m extremely disappointed that the value of the wildlife and cultural resources in Pamo Valley have simply been sold down the river,” said Emily Durbin, chairwoman of the Sierra Club’s Pamo Dam Task Force. “It is claimed by the Water Authority that this is for emergency water storage only. In fact, this is a growth-inducing project that will enable more imported water to be used in the county, principally to fuel development.”

While Monday’s announcement clearly marked a milestone for dam proponents, the project still is subject to additional reviews by other agencies. In particular, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has final authority to veto construction of the dam.

In March, EPA officials sent a letter to the Corps of Engineers advising that the permit be denied on grounds that the Water Authority had failed to adequately explore an alternative to Pamo Dam, which would inundate the remote, environmentally sensitive Pamo Valley.

EPA officials also expressed skepticism about the authority’s plan to mitigate environmental damage from the project by re-creating vast amounts of new wildlife habitat elsewhere.

On Monday, EPA spokesman Terry Wilson in San Francisco said the agency’s steadfast opposition to the dam has not wavered. Wilson said that, after learning of the Corps of Engineers’ action, EPA officials promptly requested a meeting with the corps’ district staff in Los Angeles to further discuss their objections to the project.

“We will sit down with them and see if we can come to a settlement of this situation,” Wilson said. “But if they remain determined to go ahead without modification, then we can elevate the issue up the ladder. Ultimately, any final decision would be made in Washington.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also plays a role and can recommend that the Corps of Engineers’ decision be reevaluated at a higher level.

Sharon Lockhart, a biologist with that agency in Laguna Niguel, said it might choose to take such a step if the corps has not addressed various environmental concerns through conditions attached to the dam permit.

“We asked for several conditions to deal with our concerns, things like habitat replacement and a bond fund to guarantee the mitigation work will be done,” Lockhart said. “If those concerns have not been resolved, then we can initiate a formal review process and ask that the decision not be made at the local level.”

Reclamation Project

The project would consist of a 264-foot-high concrete dam across Santa Ysabel Creek and would flood 1,800 acres in Pamo Valley, a lush pocket near Ramona treasured by environmentalists for its rare stream-side habitat and isolation.

Water officials say the reservoir, which would contain about 130,000 acre-feet of water, would be reserved for use in drought years or in the event that an earthquake severed the aqueducts that bring water to San Diego County.

Attached to the project would be the largest water reclamation project in San Diego County history--an $11-million program that would reclaim 11,000 acre-feet of treated waste water to replenish depleted supplies and improve ground water quality in the nearby San Pasqual Valley.

In November, 1984, voters approved revenue bonds for the project by a margin of 55% to 45%.

Since then, however, environmental opposition to the plan has mushroomed. In particular, critics say the water authority has failed to seriously consider less environmentally destructive alternatives to the Pamo Dam, such as the raising of San Vicente Dam to increase its storage capacity or the “banking” of Colorado River water in Lake Mead for use in dry years.

Opponents also are dubious of the water authority’s plan to mitigate the project--or compensate for habitat destroyed when Pamo Valley is flooded by recreating similar habitat elsewhere. Plans call for the planting of new woodland, wetland and grassland habitat in San Pasqual Valley.

“What we have is the certainty of losing 1,800 acres of excellent wildlife habitat in a remote area that is a refuge for the wildlife that has nearly disappeared from our remaining streams and river valleys,” said the Sierra Club’s Durbin. “And in return we are going to gamble that . . . such habitat can be replaced through artificial means.”

Wildlife Dislocated

Both the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service share environmentalists’ worries about the authority’s proposed mitigation program. Federal officials note that habitat replacement is a new, little-tested technique and has rarely been attempted on the scale of that proposed under the Pamo Dam project.

“It’s more of an art than a science, and there is no guarantee you will get new habitat of the quality that you destroy,” Lockhart said.

Moreover, all of the various wildlife species dependent on Pamo Valley will be dislocated by the flooding. Those include the orange-throated whiptail, a lizard; the tri-colored blackbird; the black-tailed gnatcatcher, a bird, and the San Diego horn lizard, Lockhart said.

Habitat used by the least Bell’s vireo, an endangered species, also is threatened by the dam construction. But in January, water officials unveiled a plan to release water from the reservoir to maintain habitat for the gray songbird downstream in the San Pasqual Valley.

According to Monday’s announcement, the Army Corps considered all of the environmental objections but decided the project still deserved a green light.

“Basically it was a combination of all the benefits and weighing the adverse effects that helped our commander decide this was not counter to the public interest,” spokesman Hawthorne said. “If it is not counter to the public interest, then we have no reason not to issue (the permit).”

Among the benefits of Pamo Dam cited by the Corps were the provision of an emergency water supply, an increase in water storage capacity for dry years, an increased operational flexibility for water supplies countywide, an increase in the amount of runoff captured, a reduced need for alternative energy resources because of the proposed generation of hydroelectric power at the dam and the provision of flood control.