Regarding the $2 million feasibility study, and subsequent $40 million estimated pricetag to remove the Rindge Dam, a number of questions come to mind.
Forty years ago the steehead trout had several prime spawning gravel bed areas in the four miles from Serra Retreat to the dam that could now be rehabilitated, probably at less cost than the feasability study alone. I do not believe the short, narrow, boulder-strewn section of creek above the dam is as significant a habitat for the steelhead to reproduce in; even if they could get up to that section it is only two miles to the treatment plant. Can’t the much longer lower section alone support a population of steehead? That’s where the most spawning areas are; not above the dam. Many towns have already undertaken similar projects, and with the guidance of groups like Ca-Trout have had great success.
Where will the clean water come from? Many years ago artesian springs fed the creek, but depletion of underground water from numerous wells have dried those sources up. The sea-run rainbow trout, otherwise known as “steelhead” due to their chrome-silver coloring, require extremely pure water to thrive, and greater flow than is currently running through the canyon. Although it looks clear, the water that is released from the treatment plant is too high in nitrogen and phosphorus — it fertilizes the algae, choking the creek, absorbing the oxygen, raising the water temperature, and slowing the current. Without a constant flow of cleaner water there will be no steelhead trout, dam or no dam.
Most people have never seen the Rindge dam; stop at the turn-out before the tunnel and check it out. Not only is it very large, but it’s also located in an extremely steep and inaccessible part of the canyon. I find it very hard to believe that the demolition of that dam won’t result in enormous amounts of concrete debris and silt washing down and polluting the entire length of the creek all the way to the lagoon. Perhaps the $40 million includes Christo draping the entire canyon and Clas Oldenburg providing a giant broom and dustpan.
How about the impact of heavy equipment on the fragile canyon ecosystem? There are no adequate service roads to access that area. Does a new road have to be cut in the steep canyon rock? One Chumash arrowhead found will undoubtedly bring everything to a grinding halt. (Hint, hint.)
Do you think commuter traffic will be flowing smoothly through the canyon during all of this? Not a chance.
Demolishing dams has become a very popular eco-trend, and although some are certainly justified, others are definitely not. With $40 million as the payoff, some people will undoubtedly get much richer. I’m afraid this project reeks of the ol’ pork barrel.
I’d also be interested in knowing the condition of these 10 to 75 trout the various groups “believe” still exist in the creek. Are they healthy fish capable of reproducing? My fly-casting guru, Cliff Wayatt, told me of fishing Malibu creek from horseback in the ’40s, magnificent, huge steehead, fresh from the sea, stacked up in the narrow creek by the hundreds. Unfortunately it’s difficult to imagine any fish surviving in the “bio-hazard” conditions of the lagoon today. If we shouldn’t swim in it, neither should the trout.
Back in the ’60s, I fished Malibu Creek on a regular basis and was fortunate to catch several large steelhead, hundreds of pan-size trout, and observed many more, some over 20 pounds, as they made their way up the creek. One of the most productive stretches was right behind where the shopping center is now. Why can’t we rebuild the lower section first, and see if the steelhead numbers increase? Although rehabilitating the streambed is more janitorial in nature, schools and communty organizations could be involved, giving us a true sense of accomplishment. It certainly is a more significant, viable habitat and not nearly as costly.
Scott Winner