Congressman Attacks Pamo Dam Project : Bates Accuses County of Using Threat of Drought as Smoke Screen

Adding to the controversy swirling around the proposed Pamo Dam near Ramona, Rep. Jim Bates (D-San Diego) attacked the project Tuesday and accused county water officials of misleading the public into believing that the dam is vital to ensuring that the region has an emergency water source.

Bates, echoing concerns voiced for months by environmentalists, said that the San Diego County Water Authority has used the threat of a drought as a smoke screen to conceal its true motive in constructing the dam--the provision of water to accommodate new growth in the region’s northern reaches.

The congressman also criticized the Water Authority for pursuing construction of the new dam in an isolated, verdant valley when other, less environmentally damaging methods of increasing water storage exist. He charged that the cost of a “mitigation program” designed to compensate for habitat destroyed by erection of the dam in Pamo Valley has been seriously underestimated.

And Bates chided the Water Authority for budgeting $136,000 for a public relations campaign designed to stir up public support for the dam.

“I think it’s a big mistake for them to proceed with this project,” said Bates, whose position puts him at odds with the rest of San Diego’s Washington delegation. “It’s clear that the real reason they want to build the dam is to get additional water to accelerate land development.”

The congressman’s announcement comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prepares to formally initiate a procedure leading to rejection of the dam, which has been bitterly fought by the Sierra Club and others since voters approved $86 million in bonds for its construction in 1984.

Terry Wilson, an EPA spokesman in San Francisco, said that “any day now,” the agency will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing its proposed action on the dam. Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued a permit for the project, it cannot be built without the blessing of the EPA.

Once the notice appears in the Federal Register, the EPA will open a 60-day period for the public to submit written comments and testify at a hearing on the proposed water project. Those comments will be reviewed by the EPA’s assistant administrator for water in Washington, who will make the final decision on the dam.

Wilson said rejection of Pamo Dam would mark the first time disagreements between the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have resulted in a project veto in the western region, composed of California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii and the Pacific Islands.

The project would consist of a 264-foot-high concrete dam across Santa Ysabel Creek and would flood 1,800 acres in Pamo Valley, northeast of Ramona. Environmentalists have opposed the dam because it would dislocate numerous species of wildlife and destroy rare habitat that some say cannot be re-created through the replanting called for in the Water Authority’s mitigation program.

Both the EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have sounded similar ecological alarms. EPA officials also maintain that under the Clean Water Act, Pamo Dam should not be built because there are alternatives that would inflict less harm on the environment. EPA officials say their analysis shows that the expansion of San Vicente Reservoir would meet the region’s water needs at a lower cost.

The Water Authority, however, disputes those figures and says the 130,000 acre-feet of water Pamo reservoir would hold is key to preventing San Diegans from suffering if a drought or earthquake should threaten the region’s water supply. Board members have said that any rejection of the project by the EPA would likely be challenged in court.