Monday, December 16, 2019

Surfers' Point Phase 2 update

The Surfers Point Working Group met on October 29, 2019.

Final design of Phase 2 of the Surfers' Point Managed Shoreline Retreat project is ongoing.  The consultant team presented the latest design, with much of the discussion concerned lighting, fences, and other ammenties as well as a preliminary design for fixing the stormwater system to eliminate the problem with sand and silt clogging the filters and pumps.  The new parking lots will be paved with asphalt to eliminate erosion of silt and sand.  The runoff is to be filtered in bioswales at the bottom of the hill by the fairgrounds arena before being pumped up to the clarifier and out to the river mouth. The next step will include a coastal analysis for the beach side from the Phase 1 dune area down towards the bathrooms.

Last month, the City with assistance from BEACON applied for a $3M grant for construction.  This would cover about half the cost through a federal program administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) for “Emergency Coastal Resilience Fund 2019

Due to ongoing concerns with parking layout, Surfrider submitted the following comments:

To: Surfers Point Working Group
From: Paul Jenkin, Surfrider Foundation
Date: November 27, 2019
RE: Working Group Meeting October 29, 2019

This memo is a follow up to our last Working Group meeting. During the meeting I repeated concerns regarding the parking layout that has been developed. It is important that the project takes advantage of the opportunity to optimize the quantity of parking, both for Fairgrounds operations and day use public beach access.

After reviewing the October 29 powerpoint presentation we would like to share a few comments:

First, it would be more representative of the project if the new “Shoreline Drive” parking lot was labeled the “Phase 2” lot, as it is in fact the completion of the currently existing “Phase 1” parking lot.

Second, the spaces in the future “Phase 2” overflow parking lot are counted as day use, which somewhat distorts the net gain in parking from the project.

In the table below, day use parking is distinguished from the Fairgrounds overflow parking lot. The project proposes to enlarge the Phase 1 lot to 134 spaces, slightly exceeding the original design specification for 130. However, the existing 120 Beach Parking spaces are reduced to only 54 with the new “Shoreline Drive” lot. “Surf check” spots are also reduced from 32 to 24. Although there is still a net increase in beach parking, it actually only amounts to 9 additional day use spaces.

Surfrider requests that the consultants work closely with the Fairgrounds and the rest of the Working Group to carefully consider the tradeoffs associated with the permanent large roundabout in the middle of the new parking area along Shoreline Drive. Is this necessary for day to day use, or mostly for bigger events? Could this be lined out with removable barriers for events? Alternatively, could large trucks access the Fairgrounds through the other roundabout? Is there an opportunity to increase the number of beach parking spaces here and near the other roundabout and entry kiosk?

For reference, attached in this memo are the recent powerpoint slides as well as the original design parking layout. Also included is the layout that Surfrider provided to the Working Group in November 2017 which illustrates the potential increase in day use parking.

I hope this information is helpful to the Working Group. We all have an interest in optimizing the number of parking spaces both for Fairgrounds events and daily public beach access.

Matilija Hot Springs to be leveled

Sign at Matilija Hot Springs summarizes the historical significance of the site

The Matilija Hot Springs lies directly downstream of Matilija Dam.  The site has a rich history dating back to the 1800's and has alternated between a privately operated resort and County owned park.  The most recent transition occurred during planning for dam removal when Ventura County re-acquired the property using a grant from the California Coastal Conservancy.  The property has a history of flooding during extreme events, and dam removal is expected to greatly increase the flood risk as sediment is released back into Matilija Creek.

With planning for dam removal ongoing, the historic nature of the site has led to lengthy discussions over the fate of the existing infrastructure.  A comprehensive summary of the site was conducted in 2012,  Historical Resources Assessment Matilija Hot Springs Ventura County, CA. A complete chronology of the site begins on page 51 of this report, which includes vivid descriptions from past newspaper articles:

The gorge is a picturesque and wildly beautiful one. Its altitude is 1,000 feet above the sea and the air is delightfully bracing. The mountains rise above the nook on which the springs buildings are located some 1200 feet, rocky and precipitous” (Ventura Free Press, April 11, 1902).

Structures identified in the 2102 Historical Resources Assessment Matilija Hot Springs

Then in December 2017 the entire site was burned in the Thomas Fire.

According to the Ventura County Star, "The remnants of the historic Matilija Hot Springs resort near Ojai are set to be demolished in the next few weeks amid lingering questions over whether anything could be saved after the Thomas Fire left much of it in rubble. "

"Located northwest of Ojai, the site held one of California’s famous mineral springs resorts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The entire 9-acre property, including hot springs, a cold-water spring and the buildings, is designated as a Ventura County historic landmark. Of particular note were a post office and swimming pool dating from the early 1900s, according to a historian who surveyed the site several years before the fire. "

"Nothing will be left except a historical marker after the demolition is completed in January, said Glenn Shephard, director of the Ventura County Watershed Protection District. The agency owns the property that is expected to become a staging area for the removal of the Matilija Dam and later turned into a public recreation area. "

This demolition represents the end of an era.  With dam removal, this special site at the entrance to Matilija Canyon will eventually be returned to the public.  In the meantime, any planning for future of this area will begin with a "clean slate"...

Raymond Powers, who lived on site as caretaker, produced this video following the fire:


Historical Resources Assessment Matilija Hot Springs Ventura County, CA , Prepared for:
County of Ventura Watershed Protection District, November 2012
Matilija Hot Springs has Colorful History
Postcard: Matilija Hot Springs Pool
Postcard: Hanging Rock — A Trysting Place

In the news:

Remnants of Matilija Hot Springs resort being leveled, VC Star, Dec 15, 2019

On this blog:

Matilija Hot Springs Resort

Monday, November 18, 2019

Dams in the news

H2O Radio visited Matilija Dam for series they are doing on dam sedimentation.  The story makes the connection between the obsolete dam and the beach at Surfers' Point in Ventura.

And the Associated Press published an investigation that concludes At least 1,680 dams across the US pose potential risk.

In California, six high-hazard dams were rated as poor or unsatisfactory, including Oroville, which failed in 2017 and prompted mass evacuations downstream. Crews have since been repairing the dam and it is now listed in “fair” condition, according to California inspectors. The other dams were Kelley Hot Spring in Modoc County; North Fork in Santa Clara County; Misselbeck in Shasta County; Moccasin Lower in Tuolumne County; and Matilija, a dam in Ventura County slated for removal.

In the news:

H2O Radio: The Dam Nobody Wants Just Won’t Go Away

AP: At least 1,680 dams across the US pose potential risk

LA Times: California has six of the nation’s 1,680 high-hazard dams deemed in risky condition

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

ChannelKeeper settlement on City's pumping

Ventura River at Foster Park; City wells can pump the river dry

Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper and the City of Ventura announced an interim settlement in a lawsuit over pumping and diversion from the Ventura River.  Text below adapted from the press release:

Ventura, California – The City of San Buenaventura and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper are pleased to announce an interim settlement in the lawsuit regarding the pumping and diversion of water from the Ventura River Watershed. Both Channelkeeper and the City are dedicated to ensuring the protection of this finite water source and the habitat and species that rely on it while providing water now and for the future. This collaborative agreement brings us another step closer towards this goal. 

As part of the interim settlement, the City agreed to:

  • begin a Pilot Program to reduce its pumping and diversion of water from the river when flows drop during dry times to help protect species that depend on the river
  • The City will also address two low-flow fish passage barriers at its Foster Park facilities and install two monitoring gauges to help better evaluate water levels in the river. 

These interim measures will provide temporary assurance that some water remains in the river until scientific studies are completed to establish appropriate permanent safeguards for steelhead while also meeting the community’s water needs.

The agreement reached between the city and the Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, which lasts 164 days and covers essentially Foster Park to the estuary, includes the following key elements: 
  • Flow monitoring. When the instream flow measures 4 cubic feet per second, the equivalent of just under 30 gallons, the city will shut off one of its three wells. Once it hits 3 cubic feet per second, the city will shut a second well and at 2 cubic feet per second, it will shut down all Foster Park facilities. If it's after business hours, the change will take effect by 8 a.m. Pumping will be restored after 72 consecutive hours of flow above those thresholds.
  • Fish barriers. The city will "take action" on two areas along the river at Foster Park that serve as potential barriers to fish passage during dry times. One is a 36-inch water line that comes up over the water surface during certain times of the year; the other is the top of a subsurface dam that again comes up over the water under certain conditions.
  • An equipment check. The city will work to repair or install a new gauge at the Casitas Vista Road Bridge if the U.S. Geological Survey finds it working improperly. 
  • Attorney costs and fees. The city will pay Channelkeeper's attorney $850,000 toward legal costs. That covers most, but not all, of the nonprofit's bill.

More info:  

Thursday, September 26, 2019

Community Resilience through Dam Removal

Business and community members in Ojai have started a monthly "Green Drinks" meeting at the new Topa Topa Brewery.  The video below is the August 19 presentation on Matilija Dam

Public Advocacy Group Sues over State Water

The California Water Impact network (C-WIN), a Santa Barbara based organization, has filed a lawsuit against the City of Ventura's EIR for the proposed State Water Interconnection Project.  The suit formalizes complaints often brought up by local residents that the City has not put a good faith effort into developing local water solutions to maintain our current independence from imported water.

For 30 years, C-WIN has advocated for the sustainable use of California's fresh water resources, and intervened in issues associated with the State Water Project.  Their 2017 report demonstrates the cost impacts and consequences for State Water Project (SWP) participation to date, utilizing the experience of Santa Barbara County Coastal Aqueduct Project as an example of the statewide problem that will be encountered if the Twin Tunnels comes to fruition.  The 'Santa Barbara Report' exposes the underlying problem of "paper water;"  C-WIN spent three years gathering ... information through Public Records Act requests and Freedom of Information Act requests and found that consumptive water rights claims are at least 5 1⁄2 times more than available supply.  

Santa Barbara County has paid and will continue to pay extremely high costs for minimal amounts of the SWP water, largely due to the low reliability of the SWP. Actual delivery of SWP water between 1998 and 2015 for the four South Coast water agencies (Montecito, the City of Santa Barbara, Goleta and Carpinteria) was only 28% of full contract amounts, despite the fact that Santa Barbara County voters were told in 1991 ballot information that the State Water Project was expected to deliver 97% of contract amounts to urban water users.

C-WIN's action should serve as a wake-up to residents that rely on the Ventura River for their water supply.  Their experience in Santa Barbara highlights the expense and unreliability of imported water, and they warn that the resources wasted on "paper water" would be better spent on protecting and enhancing our local supplies.

C-Win Press Release:

Public Advocacy Group Sues the City of Ventura over State Water Interconnection Pipeline

Project EIR fails to demonstrate water reliability, fails to evaluate the impacts of state water on the community and fails to evaluate alternatives. 

September 9, 2019 (Ventura, CA) — On September 4, 2019 the California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) filed a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Challenge against the City of Ventura’s approval of the State Water Interconnection Pipeline project based on a faulty Environmental Impact Report. The city is acting as the lead agency for the project, which proposes a seven-mile pipeline connecting the water systems of Calleguas (via the Metropolitan Water District) and Ventura, seeking to facilitate local dependence on state water from the water-scarce California Delta flowing to the Casitas, United and Ventura water districts.

C-WIN challenges the project’s inability to meet its own water reliability objectives and the City’s refusal to study local alternatives and major project impacts—including the major costs and risks of state water—as required by CEQA.

The Interconnection Project is a major step backward from the growing recognition that local dependence on state water is a problem, not a solution, for water reliability and the environment. State water must be exported from the California Delta, from which the state has allocated 5.5 times more than is available. State water is so oversubscribed that the courts have identified more than half of its allocation as unreliable “paper water”. The Delta Reform Act of 2009 requires that regions south of the Delta reduce their dependence on the Delta watershed. The City knows that state water is unreliable and that deliveries of state water will be negligible in times of drought. In March 2019, Ventura published a draft EIR for its Ventura Water Supply Project, confirming that state water from the Interconnection Project would be unreliable. The findings were wrongly excluded from the Interconnection Project EIR.

The cost of state water will cripple Ventura’s ability to explore and develop sustainable regional solutions. Districts under contract with the State Water Project (SWP) pay based on their full allocation whether or not they receive any water. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) often sets and increases rates for state water without local input. As an example, when Santa Barbara County agreed to connect to the SWP in 1991, voters were told the cost would be $270 million with 97% reliability. The actual cost, including bond interest, has been $1.7 billion for, on average, 28% of their allocation. Once a district is dependent upon the state water system, they’re responsible for the costs of the maintenance and new infrastructure of the entire SWP conveyance system. Ratepayers have no direct input and no ability to opt out of these maintenance and infrastructural decisions. The stated Ventura pipeline project estimate of $50 million does not include the exorbitant additional costs and risks of state water.

The EIR for the Interconnection Project evaded assessing the major impacts of growth encouraged by the false perception of state water availability. When the SWP predictably fails to ensure reliable deliveries, demands on other depleted sources such as groundwater, the Ventura River and Lake Casitas will only increase when it is too late to plan for integrated improvements in local water resilience.

When it approved the State Water Interconnection Project, the Ventura City Council ignored an important event in the City’s earlier water history. In 1992, Ventura’s voters rejected connecting to the SWP and indicated they would prefer desalination to reliance on state water. There has not been a vote since. Moreover, the potential for conservation and other local water resilience options has only grown in the years since that vote, as have the compelling reasons for rejecting state water.

The California Water Impact Network is a state-wide organization that advocates for the equitable and sustainable use of California’s fresh water resources for all Californians. 

More information:
       Santa Barbara Report

In the news:

Ventura's awash in water litigation. This time, the target is state water, VC Star, Sept 13, 2019

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Matilija reservoir sedimentation - Summer 2019

As documented on this blog, the storms of 2019 transported large quantities of sediment down the Ventura River following the Thomas Fire of December 2017.  In February, a new sediment delta was observed in the Matilija reservoir.  Recent observations of vegetation sprouting in the reservoir suggest deposition this year has significantly reduced the depth of the reservoir.  Ventura County plans to survey and update the bathymetry in the near future.

Delta deposits in Matilija Reservoir, February 24, 2019

Delta deposits and vegetation in Matilija Reservoir, August 2, 2019

Matilija reservoir, Aug 2, 2019

Matilija reservoir, looking downstream, Aug 2, 2019

On this blog:

Thomas Fire
Ventura River post-fire sedimentation 2019