‘The dam must be moved.’ Speakers cite flood risk in opposing Stanislaus reservoir project
People commenting on an environmental study for a proposed dam near Patterson urged water districts to scrap the plan or build the dam someplace else.
About 150 people attended the hearing Wednesday at Patterson’s senior center and comments were heavily against the 800-acre reservoir that would inundate part of Del Puerto Canyon, just west of Interstate 5.
Opponents said city residents and the broader community would lose a scenic treasure. In addition, the 20,000-plus residents of Patterson would be exposed to flood risks and flood insurance costs, speakers said.
“Is this dam absolutely necessary?” said Kent Mitchell, political chair of Sierra Club of Stanislaus County. “Are there better ways of conserving water other than flooding a scenic canyon.”
Since Del Puerto Water District went public with the reservoir plan last year, some residents have identified as “anti-dam” and there was less talk Wednesday about reservoir park facilities as a tradeoff for residents.
Del Puerto and other Central Valley Project contractors say the reservoir is needed for wet-year storage so West Side farmers are not cut off to water deliveries in drier years. The water would be pumped form the nearby Delta-Mendota Canal into the reservoir, stored behind a 260-foot-high dam, and then released back to the canal as needed.
Little or no recreation has been proposed, unless the county and city of Patterson develop recreation such as picnic areas and bike trails.
One sign held at the hearing said: “The dam must be moved to an alternative site.”
Other speakers praised the canyon for its native cultural resources and intriguing geology, plus it’s where the first dinosaur fossil was discovered in California. The fauna includes foxes and wild turkeys, more than 100 species of birds, and a dense breeding population of golden eagles.
“I want the students I teach to take it for granted (Del Puerto Canyon) will always be there,” said Sharon Reeves, who grew up in Patterson.
The Del Puerto district will accept written comments on the EIR through Jan. 27. It will respond to comments before the district board decides whether to certify the final study.
The draft study released in December said impacts to aesthetic and cultural resources were unavoidable. It outlines mitigation measures for construction impacts, light pollution and effects on wildlife. It also assures seismic risks will be addressed in a design plan submitted to the state.
One alternative site considered is the Ingram Creek area west of the Interstate 5-Howard Road interchange. Chris White, executive director of the San Joaquin River Water Authority, co-authors of the reservoir proposal, said during a break the districts looked at possible dam sites up and down the San Joaquin Valley, but the other locations were not as favorable.
The districts will keep working through the environmental process for the Del Puerto reservoir, White said.
People riveted to the issue have awaited a formal comment from Patterson City Hall. Mayor Deborah Novelli referred a call from the Modesto Bee on Thursday to Assistant City Attorney Doug White.
“We will ultimately have a position,” White said. “We are aware of the project but we have not delved into it deeply in terms of taking a position” for or against the reservoir proposal.
Any city comments on the EIR before Jan. 27 will refer to technical content in the study, White said.
Angela Freitas, director of Stanislaus County planning and community development, said county agencies have been reviewing the EIR and a committee could submit a written comment to Del Puerto Water District. Freitas said a state law exempts water resource projects from any land use or zoning permit review.
The proponents will need to relocate a portion of county-owned Del Puerto Canyon Road.
David Froba of Modesto questioned if the districts’ water sales for agriculture will generate enough for bond payments on the $400 million to $500 million reservoir project. The districts have planned to finance the reservoir project through district operations and some federal funding.
One written comment suggested the water districts should strongly consider conservation techniques like pressurized pipelines and groundwater storage for meeting their water needs.
Noah Hughes, a science professor at Modesto Junior College, said groundwater recharge areas in western Stanislaus County are rated from moderately good to excellent. He disagreed with the study’s claim that groundwater recharge would not replace the districts’ need for surface water storage.
Hughes pointed out that groundwater overdraft in the area amounts to 160,000 acre feet per year, which is twice the maximum amount of water the reservoir would store.
This story was originally published January 16, 2020 at 2:11 PM.
