Supporters of Dam Removal Fear Interest Is Waning

Ventura County environmentalists are worried that budget cuts proposed by the Bush administration signal enthusiasm for the removal of Matilija Dam may be waning in Washington.

“Things have been going downhill lately” on environmental issues, said Paul Jenkin, head of the Matilija Coalition. “I don’t expect a lot of support from this administration.”

The budget proposal comes at the same time as a Commerce Department review of no-fishing zones, including ones proposed around the northern Channel Islands.

At least for now, the Matilija project is progressing. The Army Corps of Engineers is committed to a $3.5-million study--with funding from a variety of sources--to investigate options for tearing down the dam.

It is nearly universally agreed that the structure, which is filled with silt, serves no useful purpose, starves the beach of sand and blocks the county’s once-plentiful supply of steelhead trout.

The Bush administration has proposed a cut in the Army Corps of Engineers’ 2002 budget, from this year’s $4.54 billion to $3.9 billion. Continued cuts could affect removal of the dam, which could cost from $21 million to $179 million, according to estimates by the Bureau of Reclamation.

The Army Corps of Engineers would be expected to pay for 65% of the cost if it does the work, with local interests funding the remainder. “It’s a sign of the Bush administration’s priorities,” Jenkin said. “It is a little worrisome.”

And the arrival of Gale Norton--a woman with a focus on property rights and an interest in recreation--as Interior secretary may not bode well for Matilija.

“There’s a fear that goes deeper, that it’s an institutional objection,” said John Buse, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Center in Ventura. “If there’s a reduction in dam-removal mode, it absolutely affects the local issue.”

But other backers of Matilija Dam removal believe local support will sway any federal doubts.

“We have strong support from a Republican, [Rep. Elton] Gallegly” of Simi Valley, Supervisor John Flynn said. “I think we’ll continue to do OK.”

Flynn said funding for the feasibility study is a good sign and vowed to lobby for help from Washington, where he believes he may get a newly sympathetic ear.

“I don’t think recent [administration] actions sit very well with the American people,” Flynn said. Bush “needs to know that, and know if he supports projects like ours he could erase some of that.”

Environmentalists have decried Bush’s decisions not to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning plants and to relax rules on acceptable arsenic in drinking water.

Jim Edmondson of California Trout, a nonprofit organization pushing for the dam’s removal, said because it can be framed as an economic issue--more trout means more fishermen means more money--proponents should fare well.

At any rate, Jenkin said, the process could theoretically span Bush’s entire administration if he does not stay in office another term.

In a separate decision last week, the Commerce Department reviewed “marine-protected areas,” which would broadly restrict fishing in some areas. Although staff members recommended keeping the Clinton rules, one of the options discussed was for the federal government to pull out of ongoing negotiations to establish no-fishing zones off the northern Channel Islands.

But officials with the Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary said that with 18 months of negotiations behind them on proposals to set aside 8% to 50% of those waters from fishermen, it’s not very likely their work would be undone.

Matt Pickett, director of the sanctuary, called the review a standard briefing and said because the so-called no-take zones are a federal and state partnership--involving both his group and the state Department of Fish and Game--he was not worried that refuge plans would be scuttled.

Pickett said the review was most likely aimed at any future no-fishing zones--including suggested zones around the Gaviota Coast and Malibu--or at restricted zones around the Hawaiian Islands.

Even two fishing industry representatives said they would be unhappy if the new administration put a halt to plans for no-take zones around the Channel Islands.

“The majority of recreational anglers think that some small reserves are a critical part of management,” said Tom Raftican, president of United Anglers, a sportfishing organization. But “let’s start small.”

Squid fisherman Neil Guglielmo said that after the 18-month negotiation process, he would be upset to see the proposals tossed out. A final proposal is expected next week from a committee of conservationists and fishermen.

“All I can say is we’ve been doing this a long time, and when I went into this dialogue my opinion was there were no reserves necessary,” Guglielmo said. “After listening to reports from the science panel, I think a marine reserve wouldn’t be a bad thing.”