Dam Project a Lesson in Input, Deceit

Efforts to make Lang Dam in Thousand Oaks less damaging to the environment provide an illuminating view of how public disclosure can assist public input in land-use decisions, but also how those in charge can thwart change.

Laws that provide for openness in government led to an informed citizenry that worked to correct a bad decision to build a dam in the last remaining ancient oak grove in Thousand Oaks.

The California Public Records Act, a law that requires public agencies to release requested documents, proved to be an invaluable source of information into the problems associated with the building of Lang Dam.

It was through this act that we learned that a biologist hired by Ventura County discovered a federally listed endangered plant at the site and that the information was wrongfully not shared with other public agencies.

It was here that we learned that not only was the proposed dam 66 feet high but also excavating and blasting 30 feet below ground would be necessary, raising questions on how the blasting would impact a massive landslide only a couple hundred feet away.

It was also here that we read how the staff of both Ventura County and the city of Thousand Oaks agreed that the debris basin portion of the project was 2 1/2 times larger than needed but that their superiors wouldn’t listen.

And it was here that we learned that a Chumash monitor had reminded the government that there was a promise given to preserve a sacred archeological site that overlapped the proposed debris basin. This despite claims by the city and its experts that no such archeological site existed.

Records also showed the dam’s questionable financial package. The records show how county staff, in preparation for a public meeting, cautioned each other not to talk about the extra money that would be going into the county’s general fund. As part of the deal that Supervisor Frank Schillo made with the city of Thousand Oaks, the county would get to keep all funds left over after the project is built (referred to as “our profit” by the former head of the county’s Public Works Department).

This is a particularly sensitive subject for Lang Ranch residents who are paying for the dam with special assessments while the county has $2 million more than it needs to build it. At the very least, the county should use the extra funds to retire the bond and relieve Lang Ranch residents.

Interestingly, it was also through the public records act that we read how city and county staff planned to fight the alternative project I submitted in March. The alternative would not “dam” Lang Creek like the Flood Control District’s design; rather it would divert peak flows during intense rainfall from the creek into an “off-line” basin that would be used for baseball fields during dry weather. Baseball fields are already planned for a 10-acre flat field just a stone’s throw from the dam site.

Thousands of pages were reviewed, yet no one had ever considered putting an off-line basin in the flat field. Notes on city documents found during our records search showed how city staff planned to deal with my proposal and the presentation on it that I was about to make during an informational session. They wrote about how they could “kill” the alternative and gave advice on how to respond to any direct questions to staff: “Weasel, equivocate, give more than one answer” was their written advice.

*

Now, nearly a year after the alternative was submitted, there has been no study to determine its feasibility. Most upsetting, the city has wasted tens of thousands of dollars putting up a straw man and knocking it down. The city paid for consultants who falsely interpreted my alternative as being on the steep hillside of a known landslide, not in the flat area where the baseball fields are planned. Not surprisingly, the consultants found that it’s not a good idea to put a 100-foot-deep basin (their figure, not mine) on a steep landslide.

Yet despite all the resistance, we have had success. Through our efforts to reduce the impacts of the project, we were able to get the debris basin downsized to 18 acre-feet--down from the 47 acre-feet that the Flood Control District director had insisted on a year ago. This reduction was needed to avoid the Chumash archeological site we knew was there and for so long they denied. It also confirmed that they had significantly oversized the project.

Now we must look to the Flood Control District’s plan for the detention basin portion of the project and the associated 66-foot-high dam in the ancient oak grove and ask ourselves, if there is an alternative that works, shall we pursue it in good faith?

I will be asking the City Council to approve funding a design team to determine if the alternative is feasible. The geologists, dam builders, landslide specialists and hydro-geologists who helped develop the alternative believe that it’s possible. If these experts find it can’t be done, we’ve done our best and reduced impacts through our due diligence within the open government processes.

If these experts find it can be done, when construction starts this year, it will be for an environmentally responsible project that preserves one of our city’s finest oak groves.