Water Agency Concerned About Dam

Frustrated that a federal agency is ignoring local concerns about seismic retrofitting of Casitas Dam, a local water agency Wednesday decided to fire off a letter outlining its problems with the $20-million project.

The board of the Casitas Municipal Water District unanimously voted to inform the Bureau of Reclamation of potential problems related to the repair work--ranging from the dam’s safety during construction to ensuring that the water supply isn’t harmed.

The district provides water to 50,000 people from Ojai to Ventura.

“The bureau has not really responded to us directly,” General Manager John Johnson told the board. “We would like [the project] to proceed as quickly and as safely and as economically as possible.”

However, some of the handful of people attending the meeting said the panel’s action did not go far enough.

“They didn’t do anything,” said Lawrence Anderson, who lives directly below the 335-foot-high dam with his wife, Lori. “One letter is going to be mailed? . . . They’re not worried about safety, they’re worried about money.”

*

Indeed, much of the board’s discussion revolved around the potential loss of revenue that would occur if some of the 254,000 acre-feet of water now in the man-made lake near Ojai were drained during the project. The district expects to pay about $3 million for its share of the work.

The bureau plans to strengthen the dam to ensure it is capable of withstanding an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.5 or greater.

In 1989, the bureau said the earthen dam constructed in the early 1950s was capable of handling a 7.0-magnitude earthquake, but new understanding of the effects of a major earth movement has cast doubt on that conclusion, Johnson said. An earthquake fault runs three miles from the dam.

“Casitas Dam is a very safe dam,” Johnson said. “It’s existed for 40 years without spilling a drop. . . . The idea with the modernization project is to make that dam safer.”

After the meeting, however, Johnson conceded that “nobody really knows what’s safe and what’s unsafe.”

On that point, local activists agree. But in their opinion the dam has been unsafe for 40 years--it’s just that no one knew it.

“The reason why it’s been safe up to now is because we haven’t had a great quake,” said environmentalist Russ Baggerly, president of Citizens to Preserve the Ojai. “The dam is not safe in the event of a major seismic event.”

*

Adding to concerns is a flood inundation study the bureau released in 1996 that showed portions of Ventura would be under as much as 87 feet of water within two hours after a dam collapse, including all of the Avenue Area and much of downtown.

“All I would hear would be a large crack, I’d kiss her on the cheek and I’m dead meat,” Anderson said, looking at his wife. “We’re concerned about the people who live downstream from the dam all the way to the ocean.”

The couple want an alarm system installed that would give nearby residents the opportunity to seek higher ground in the event of such a catastrophe, he said.

Anderson said he has been unsuccessful in convincing local governments of the need for such a warning system, including the water district and the Ventura City Council.

The proposed work at Casitas Dam is similar to that underway at Cachuma Dam in Santa Barbara County.

The city of Lompoc installed just such a warning system when retrofitting began, and that area’s local school district conducted practice drills to ensure that schoolchildren could reach surrounding hills in time.

A detailed assessment of the work planned at Casitas, which would include strengthening and widening the dam, could be released as soon as this week, district officials said. Construction could begin next spring.

*

Baggerly and his wife, Pat, a member of the board of the Environmental Coalition of Ventura County, urged water district officials to hire an independent consultant to review the bureau’s project.

They are concerned with the suggestion of district officials that it may be unnecessary to lower the lake level during the work. Doing so would alleviate the water pressure on the dam during construction, which could require digging into the structure’s foundation.

Draining the lake’s level by 10 feet would mean losing the equivalent of 1 1/2 year’s worth of water supply, an amount that could be crucial if a drought follows this year’s El Nino, officials said.

Board member Laurence Whelan suggested postponing the construction until the lake level goes down naturally. Board member Jim Coultas noted the cost of spilling water would have to be factored into the project’s overall cost.

After the meeting, Baggerly expressed consternation at such an attitude.

“One and a half year’s worth of yield versus the lives of 30,000 people seems trifling,” he said.