Printer-friendly version
Restocking with fish could take up to two years; severe erosion on trails means a bridge may need to be built, district reveals
By Miriam Raftery
View video of hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQW0avdKyE8&t=2165s
April 9, 2023 (Alpine) – A crowd of more than 100 angry residents turned out at the Alpine Community Planning Group hearing on March 23, where Sweetwater Water Authority officials addressed concerns over damage at Loveland Reservoir after SWA drained it to dead pool status. Audience members and planning group members peppered SWA officials with questions in the at times contentious session.
Sweetwater officials pledged to restore the fishing dock, which is insured, but said erosion from recent rains has been so severe that a bridge needs to be built before some trails can be reopened. The district is also awaiting a report on repairs needed to the 80-year-old dam. As for restoring fish killed by the draining, the district indicated it plans to restore the fishing program, but that state and federal wildlife officials may not allow non-native species to be restocked.
The district’s representatives declined repeated requests to commit to a reopening date or to agree not to drain the reservoir below minimum pool status in the future, as had been the situation prior to late last year, when the district cited drought and saving its ratepayers the cost of imported water as reasons to drain Loveland to dead pool status and destroy recreational uses.
Steve Castenada, Chair of the SWA governing board, spoke first, stating, “The fact that we’re here…shows we want to work with your community.”
(Photo, right: SWA General Manager Carlos Quinteros and Chair Steve Castenada)
He explained that the district services about 200,000 citizens and is the most diversified water district locally in its water sources, which include Loveland and Sweetwater reservoirs, wells in Chula Vista and National City, a desalinization plant, and when necessary, water purchased from the County Water Authority. “We can’t overdraft aquifers, or the state would shut us down,” he says of the well water. Half the district’s water typically comes form groundwater, and the rest from surface water.
As for buying water, the cost is high -- $1,300 per acre foot, vs. $100 per acre foot to use surface water from reservoirs, said Carlos Quinteros, SWA General Manager.
The damage could have been far worse, and longer lasting, if not for recent rains that were the heaviest in decades. As of the March 23 meeting, Castenada said Loveland, which had been virtually empty, was back to 30% capacity, with Sweetwater at nearly 70%. More rain since the meeting has filled Loveland to 66.3% and Sweetwater to 74%, according to the SWA website.
Photo: Loveland in March 2023, after heavy rains partially refilled the reservoir
SWA officials said the district likely has enough water to last about two years without extreme draining, but officials declined to pledge not to destroy the reservoir again if it sees fit to do so. “This is a reservoir. We have the right to drain,” said Castenada, adding, “We hope we will get enough rain not to have to drain it.” He said the district owes it to ratepayers to provide the cheapest and best quality water.
None of those ratepayers were in the room, based on a show of no hands raised when Castenada asked, “Is anybody here a ratepayer?” Alpine area residents, those who most used and enjoyed Loveland Reservoir, can’t vote for the SWA board members—and therein lies the rub.
Still, Castenada said of the heavily damaged floating fishing dock, “We’re going to fix it,” adding that it was insured. He insisted that had the district not drained the reservoir, when the heavy rains came that nobody had expected, “We would have had to spend millions to fix the dam,” which is around 80 years old.
Andrew Hayes, District Director for State Senator Brian Jones, announced that Senator Jones has received many emails from constituents concerned about Loveland. He said the Senator’s office serves as an ombudsman to get answers from state agencies and passed around a clipboard for people to sign up.
Next came public comments, many of them blistering.
Josh Francois said he spent over 30 years with Cal Fire in aviation. “I can tell you, Loveland is critical,” he said, adding that water in Loveland has been used by Cal Fire to fight the Valley Fire, Laguna Fire and others. “It’s a matter of time before a fire in Alpine goes into Chula Vista and Bonita,” he warned. “The Harris Fire came close…When you shrink the supply, you can only work two or three helicopters,” not airplanes that can carry more water.”
(Photo, right: Josh Francois)
As for the district’s statement that Cal Fire raised no objections to the draining, Francois fired back, “At CalFire, we do not make comments on public water.” He suggested that loss of water at Loveland could put firefighters’ lives at risk, adding, “We’ve lost lives. San Diego County has the most firefighter deaths of any county in California.”
David Thomas said he grew up near Loveland and started fishing there when he was 8 years old. “In 52 years, the never, ever did this to our lake…They dug pits and buried all the fish” that died after the draining, he stated. He criticized Sweetwater for not honoring a land-swap deal with the Forest Service, under which Sweetwater got land near Loveland and was supposed to provide shoreline access for fishing. “They’ve mismanaged it,” he said. “They’ve taken money from California, and during all of COVID, they kept the lake closed….they lied to us…over and over again. They’ve not done anything good for any of us. They’ve taken those fish and they’ve killed them.”
Another resident named Warren also voiced anger. “My daughter goes down there,” he said of Loveland. Now, he told SWA official and planners, “It’s all death…You took it all.”
Karen Wood (photo, left), a real estate agent and east Alpine resident, also raised the fishing easement as “the whole reason they (SWA) own that land.” Since the recent draining, there has been no fishing or any public access. “There can be no fishing without shoreline access,” she said. Wood cited the district’s own mission statement requiring a balanced approach to human and environmental needs. She said it’s incumbent on the board to restore the reservoir. “You have not been a good steward. You have not been a good neighbor to Alpine.” She urged SWA officials, “Fix the dock. Reopen Loveland and stop draining it to dead pool.”
Russell Walsh, a vocal opponent of the draining, said he’s done over 60 Public Records Act requests. He claims documents show that SWA “did not drain because of drought, because they have an oversupply of water, partly because we gave them a $35 million grant for a desalinization plant.”
Walsh (photo, right) cited a 2019 newspaper article which quoted Castenada saying the district wanted to sand mine Loveland to sell sand under the water as aggregate. “They want to cannibalize Loveland at will, to top off Sweetwater,” he accused the district. Walsh also said he views the timing of the draining as suspect, at a time when a proposal to sand mine the Sweetwater River is in the works. “They took Loveland Reservoir to prove that they could; that’s it,” he concluded.
Steve Hales, an Alpine resident, thanked SWA officials for “coming out and taking flak.” He added, “I want a win-win.” He noted that the difference between maintaining minimum pool status and draining to dead pool has been “disastrous” for wildlife. “The money you saved for your customers, how does that compare to the money to restore hiking trails, the dock, etc.?” he asked, adding that moral authority is also at issue. He wants discussion with Alpine officials and residents before future draining.
A disabled veteran voiced outrage that the district drained the reservoir apparently without making any effort to save the fish. “Did you work with the Department of Fish & Game to open up the creel limit? Did you do research to shock fish to the surface and relocate them? They did not survive. It was a very peaceful reservoir to go fishing, quiet and respectful.” He said he’s shot drone footage of the devastation, adding, “Now we know what you did. Tell the people the truth,” he implored, asking whether the district plans to sand mine, or would promise never to drain the lake to dead pool again.
A biology expert, Susan Hales, told SWA representatives, “We don’t feel respected…The resource is coming from our backcountry. You’re causing environmental damage in our backyard.” She said that a fishing program is an indicator of the environment and that cattails that help stabilize the environment have died. While seasonal rainfall is hard to predict, she noted, “I want to know, will Sweetwater draft a commitment to maintain minimum pool and repair the damage?”
Another woman noted that Cleveland National Forest is one of the richest in the state in biodiversity, home to bobcats, mountain lions, osprey, bald eagles and more. Of the extreme draining, she asked, “How is this done without any environmental review? What is the plan for habitat restoration?” She noted that when the draining was done starting last November, there was no rainfall predicted. “What was the plan for mitigation if we hadn’t had the rainfall?” she asked.
Misty Lewis lives off Jamacha and Carveacre and said water from the lake was used by firefighters to save her home during a fire. She recalled, “When the lake was full to the brim, it was beautiful. I never understood why it was drained. In 2020, that lake save my house…We would have lost every house up on Carveacre.”
She stepped toward the SWA officials, noting angrily, “I don’t think people in Chula Vista, your district, would like what you are doing in our community. You stand there with smug looks on your faces…”(photo, above right)
Chair Travis Lyon noted, “Everyone wants respect.”
Castaneda took a step toward the door, stating, “We don’t have to be here.”
Lewis concluded, “I will sit down,” pointing toward Castenada, “and I’m treating him the way he’s treating all of us.”
A Jamul resident named Matthew said he lives the closest to Loveland of anyone. “I see the devastating every day. I believe all of this was about sand mining. I have documents back to the 1980s. I was planning to build a house, until I learned of this.” He claimed the board is “not happy that the rainwater came” as this would make it harder to sand mine. He also complained that long overdue dam repairs proposed even before the draining have not been done. “For five or ten years, they’re saying we need to drain Loveland to repair the dam, but then when it’s drained, they don’t repair it.” He suggested an ulterior motive for no environmental review, since not finding species at risk could make it easier to get approval for sand mining.
Russ Pearson blamed the district for actions that led to the dock being destroyed, adding, “I’ve been fishing all my life. You lost millions and millions of fish.” He said SWA should have moved the fish. Now, he asked SWA to immediately “restock Loveland from your other lake” at Sweetwater Reservoir.
(Photo, right: Loveland Reservoir during draining and drained dry)
Another man asked how long structural repairs would extend the life of the dam and what the plan is down the road. “If we lose structural integrity, then we don’t had a fee structure to save your ratepayers money in Chula Vista, because once it’s gone, we can’t get it back.” He said he lives downstream from Loveland and fears loss of red tail hawks, ospreys and other birds that rely in part on fish to survive.
Yet another resident said he raised his children here, and asked why the land swap terms are not being honored. (Sweetwater has claimed it has the right to drain the reservoir despite the land swap terms; thus far the Forest Service has deferred to Sweetwater’s position on the matter, though documents at the time of the land swap did not provide exceptions to the requirement of shoreline fishing access being maintained.)
John, a volunteer with California Hiking and Riding Trails as well as a real estate agent, said closure of the parking lot has shut off “the only safe access for some riders.” He also objected to restrooms being closed and to hiking trails that were never completed. “There’s a bridge to nowhere,” he said, adding that a second bridge was never installed.
He also offered a positive suggestion. “I’ll volunteer, so your trails are good to go.” H says trails were used for hiking and birdwatching as well as access to fishing.
A woman who lives near Loveland said, “I get so mad, I can hardly talk…If that dam cracks, you won’t have any water.” After the draining, she described a “dry lake bed, with birds flying around and no fish…It’s like a man-made drought.”
ECM editor Miriam Raftery asked whether the district had considered making recreation at Loveland profitable by adding campgrounds, boat rental, cabins or other amenities for fees, instead of draining the lake to save a few dollars a month per ratepayer. SWA officials did not respond.
A woman stated, “Conflict is a part of life. It doesn’t mean its disrespectful…The ground rules of resolving conflicts is to be respectful and take responsibility…The current board has decided `We have all the rights; we don’t have responsibilities anymore.’”
She noted that draining the reservoir saved the district’s 200,000 ratepayers only about $5 a month. “That’s a $30 savings over six months” or $6 million total, “in exchange for draining the reservoir to bare earth,” she said. “Erosion didn’t happen because of rain., but because of draining to bare earth.”
A man said he can’t think of any more important resource than water, and said SWA should have an obligation to the community, not just ratepayers. “We should be building more reservoirs, not destroying them….Ratepayers would rather have water than a cup of sand,” he concluded. “You might as well leave it beautiful and usable for the entire community.”
Board discussion and action
After public comment ended, a board discussion ensued. Planning group members peppered SWA officials with questions.
Mike Milligan asked which federal agencies have jurisdiction regarding Sweetwater. A biologist with SWA listed U.S. Fish & Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, and others. An SWA official claimed draining the reservoir is “exempt from CEQA”, the California Environmental Quality Act but claims coordination with agencies was done regarding regulation of any endangered species.
Mary Kay Borchard thanked everyone present. “Government is what you make it. Conflict nurtured well produces growth,” she said. She asked about a rumor that a special district might be formed, with Alpine paying for repairs.
Quinteros said, “That’s something you would have to do.”
Then he revealed, “Erosion is so much, we may have to build a bridge,” but provided no details on how that might be funded, or when any environmental review for such a project might be done. “We don’t know yet.” He reiterated that the fishing dock is covered by insurance, then pledged, “We are planning to do proper work to reopen the lake.”
But as of today, April 9, the lake remains closed to the public.
Asked whose decision it was to drain the lake, Quinteros said he made the decision. As for the district’s annual budget, he said it’s around $70 million a year.
John Sullivan asked, “If you don’t have a timetable to restore, what’s your plan?”
Quinteros noted, “We can’t bring in water to fill the lake. Loveland is completely isolated; there is no pipeline. Capacity is 25,000-acre feet.”
He assured, “We are looking at restocking” fish, but said Fish & Wildlife must approve that, and “one thought is not to introduce non-native species…they’re great for recreation, but not the environment, and not that many birds there rely on fish,” he claimed. He said while awaiting a decision by federal and state wildlife agencies, “We’re developing a budget for restocking in a year or two to build up the stock.”
Chair Travis Lyon asked, “Is there a habitat restoration plan?”
Quinteros replied, “There is not.” He insisted that habitats at Loveland “are perfectly intact” and looking “extremely healthy with the rain” He added that cattails are “native, but not rare” and seemed unconcerned about an earlier speaker’s concern over loss of cattails.
Amelia Hay asked about the land grand. Quinteros insisted there is no commitment to keep the water at any specific level. While the land grant promises birdwatching, he said, “You can birdwatch, but that doesn’t mean you will see birds.”
Quinteros added that the reservoir remains closed in part due to “12-to-15-foot cliffs” exposed. “We need time to repair the trails,” but provided no timeline for doing so.
Lyon (photo, left) asked if the board was open to reopening the parking lot. Quinteros said that would be challenging, since if the lot is open, the public would have access to trails.
Carlene Cossio asked about the extreme draining. “Where the consequences conveyed to ratepayers?” Quinteros replied, “Yes.”
Milligan asked point blank, “Do you have plans for sand mining at Loveland?”
Castenada replied, “No, and as for the project regarding Sweetwater (the proposed Cottonwood sand mine), we’ve voiced concerns.”
Asked if SWA ever explored sandmining, Castenada admitted, “Yes, to make the water cleaner.”
Asked about the status of dam repairs needed, Qui9nteros said, “We’re looking at fixing the valve and repairing stairs,” both repairs in the works before the latest heavy rains. “A consultant is still doing an assessment,” he said, adding that the state’s department of dams will make an assessment after the consultant is done. “Then we can proceed.”
Borchard told SWA officials, “We want a relationship with you in the future” adding that she wants to see them repair the fishing float and restore access to the parking lot and trails.
Cossio grilled Quinteros on a sign at Loveland that talks about the promise made during the land swap. “Did your draining at Loveland go against your promise on that sign?” Quinteros replied, “I look at getting water for our customers…that’s what I was hired for.” Cossio fired back, “I look at this as binding.” Quinteros insisted, “It’s nonbinding.”
Another planned asked about desalinization. Quiinteros said that’s expensive, and that Colorado River water is also much more expensive than reservoir water.
Sullivan persisted, “How low does the reservoir have to be for you to consider there’s still a shoreline? There’s got to be some water, right?”
Quinteros ducked that question and said, “There’s a lot of erosion. We may not be able to fill that. We’re looking at other options, such as a bridge.”
Another planner urged the district to “continue to have a dialogue and reopen public access as soon as possible.”
Castenada denied any ulterior motive. “We want to work with the community, but to be frank, if major construction is needed for the bridge across the gorge, we will need environmental review,” which could delay reopening. Still, he said Sweetwater wants to “honor commitments” and “keep lines of communications open.”
Angela May proposed that the Alpine Planning Group send a letter to the agencies with jurisdiction. Another planner said the APG needs to learn what roles each agency has.
Lyon mentioned that he invited Cleveland National Forest representatives to the meeting, but that both representatives were unavailable. He said they would be willing to appear in the future, but “they don’t believe there was a violation” of the land swap agreement.
Lyon asked fellow planning group members about the SWA, “Any ideas how to get them to commit to this?”
A proposal was made for the APG to appoint a subcommittee on the Loveland Reservoir issues. The proposal was adopted unanimously. Lyon will chair the subcommittee, which will also include Borchard and Cossio.
The subcommittee is expected to report back to the full APG at its next meeting.
Recent comments