I’ve never seen a steelhead trout, but I sure would like to see one because I’ve never seen a fish that’s worth $4,200 per head, or fin or whatever the appropriate measure is.
I know, to some, this is going to sound terribly crass and politically incorrect but, the truth is, in a world of limited government resources, a decision to spend $4,200 on a trout is a decision not to spend that money on a kid.
The government, and that is federal/state/county and others, is about to spend between $1.5 million and $2 million to do a three-year environmental study to determine whether or not the Rindge Dam, which is about two and a half miles up from Pacific Coast Highway, in Malibu Creek, should be torn down to encourage the return of the steelhead trout to the creek. The reason I say ‘encourage’ is, because no can say with any degree of certainty that tearing down the dam will actually bring the steelhead back. At this point, it’s only a theory. The cost of tearing down the dam is roughly figured at $40 million. Some will argue that the decision hasn’t yet been made to tear down the dam, but any casual glance at the environmental people and organizations supporting the tearing down of the dam shows that they’ll go through the motions of doing an objective balanced study. And when the report comes out, you can bet it will advocate tearing down the dam.
I’ve been told there are currently between 10 to 75 steelhead that are part of the population of the creek, but, to be fair, I’m looking much farther back than that. In 1929, according to reports by environmentalists, there was a sustainable population of roughly 1,000 steelhead in Malibu Creek. So let’s assume for the moment that, if we do it right and tear down the dam, we can get 1,000 steelhead back. Obviously not the same steelhead, but at least the great, great, great progeny of those 1929 steelhead.
There are two questions that come to mind. One: What’s it going to cost?
If we went out to borrow the $42 million to do the project, we probably could figure we’re going to spend 10 percent per year in interest, each and every year. Our annual cost would be, at a rough estimate, about $4.2 million per year to save those 1,000 trout. Which, by my calculation, comes out to $4,200 per trout, per year.
Two: Is it worth it?
Let me put it in perspective. The L.A. County health system was bailed out not too long ago by the federal government to the tune of $500 million because they were faced with the prospect of shutting down hospitals and trauma centers. Yet, we appear willing to spend $4.2 million per year to save 1,000 trout.
That $4,200 per trout could pay for a child’s education for a year. So, if we’re going to do it, we should have a damn good reason for being willing to protect those trout.
As I understand it, what the government is talking about is not sustaining an existing population of trout, but actually reintroducing a population that has not been self-sustaining in Malibu Creek since 1929, more than 70 years ago.
Just compare then and now. In 1929, the population of Southern California certainly wasn’t 20 million like it is today. For example, my wife, Karen, moved to North Hollywood in the 1950s when North Hollywood was the furthest outpost of municipal civilization and the San Fernando Valley was the fastest-growing community in the nation. It’s a safe bet that in 1929 there was hardly anyone living in Malibu, in the mountains, the western San Fernando Valley, or in east Ventura County. Now, they estimate there are 100,000 homes within Malibu Creek’s watershed, which includes the above- mentioned areas. This calculates to about 400,000 people living in those areas.
Does that change things? Of course it does. It changes everything. It changes the flora and fauna. It brings in water and pumps out sewage. It produces runoff and pollution. Some things, like the steelhead trout, become extinct or move away, and others that do well on the urban fringes, like coyotes and raccoons, stay.
Perhaps there are sound reasons to do reintroduce the trout. Maybe biodiversity is worth this cost. But it’s only fair to say to these people and agencies pushing this $42 million that they have to make their case or forget it.
What they’re talking about is large and expensive, and may very well not work. It’s certainly going to impact everyone living in the watershed and that’s all of us from Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, Agoura, Calabasas, the Santa Monica Mountains and Malibu. And it’s completely reasonable for us to ask — Is it really worth it?