Cost, Benefits of Matilija Dam

Re “Demolishing Dam May Not Help Fish,” Dec. 6.

There are always those who say it can’t be done--but dams are starting to come down all around the country. Most recently, the Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River in Maine was been slated for removal.

Speaking at the signing ceremony, Bruce Babbitt, secretary of the Interior, said: “This is not a call to remove all, most or even many dams. But this is a challenge to dam owners and operators to defend themselves--to demonstrate by hard facts that the continued operation of a dam is in the public interest, economically and environmentally.”

The arguments against dam removal are primarily economic. However, in the case of Matilija Dam, a few million dollars spent to safely remove it now may save many times that in the future.

Engineering studies have revealed ongoing movements of the 130-foot-high concrete wall, even though it has been notched down to reduce stress. What will be the costs in property damage, loss of life and environmental cleanup when this dam collapses?

On the other hand, what are the costs associated with upgrading and retrofitting Matilija Dam to safely serve its intended purpose? For comparison, the Bureau of Reclamation plans to spend $40 million to retrofit Casitas Dam to seismic standards. Any modernization of Matilija Dam would have to include considerations of fish passage and sediment bypassing as well as the more pressing issues of structural stability.

I venture that a complete economic cost-benefit and risk analysis study of Matilija Dam would reveal the advantages of removing this structure as soon as possible. I echo Bruce Babbitt in asking the owners and operators of Matilija Dam to demonstrate to the public the economic realities of this structure. Is it cheaper to remove or to fix Matilija Dam?

PAUL JENKIN, Surfrider Foundation, Ventura County Chapter