matilija dam project info page

Recently I was called by someone from the Ojai Valley News who had a few questions regarding our recent vote (see below). I was quoted in the newspaper as saying, "Our membership would likely re-visit it and likely pass it if they had some way of knowing the community was in support."

Though I should have realized it, I didn't know I was being interviewed at the time and I can't recall my exact words to the reporter. I don't believe the quote above accurately reflects what I was trying to say. Here's how I remember the conversation:

OVN: Why was the church against allowing the dirt to be put on its land?

TRIGGS: The main concern of our membership was the reaction of our community. As a church, we try to serve our community and many felt this would anger people. If it was clear the community was in support of this, it probably would have passed, but the County didn't have a clear pulse on that, nor could our church find that out.

OVN: If the community was in support, would the church reconsider?

TRIGGS: If there was strong support in the community, it's possible that it could come back to us again.

To me, this isn't quite the same thing. What I meant by it was that if the Ojai community was in agreement that placing the sediment on our property was good for the valley, our church could revisit the issue. That isn't a promise to do so, nor is it a guarantee that if we did our membership would pass it. Even though we did not grant the easement to the County, I believe it's healthy for our church to listen to our community's needs and do what we can to respond rather than turn a deaf ear. Basically, I believe dialogue is healthy and that the church is called to be part of it.

My apologies for any confusion regarding the story in the OVN.

Ron Triggs

____________________________________________ 

On Sunday, January 11, 2009 our voting membership gathered to vote on the agreement with the County of Ventura. The measure failed to pass. For the sake of unity in our body and the importance of this decision, a motion was made to increase the percentage necessary to pass from 51% to 85%. That motion carried. The vote regarding the agreement was 69 in favor and 28 against with 3 abstaining. The original information from this page is available below.

I'm grateful to those who participated in the process of finding God's will regarding this decision. I'm convinced no time was wasted as this has been a test of the willingness of this church to seek God's will. The spiritual process we've walked together has greater value than anything we might accomplish in the physical.

Pastor Ron

_______________________________________________

Our church has been approached by the County of Ventura to consider having fine sediment currently behind Matilija Dam placed on our river-bottom property along Rice Road. This has been discussed off and on over the last six years between our Building Committee, Church Council and the County. After many meetings and discussions, the Church Council has decided to bring this decision to a vote of our membership on January 11, 2009.

We realize that there are many positives and negatives associated with this project and particularly with placing the sediment on our land. The following is our attempt to address the many questions as best we can and in as fair a manner as we can so our membership may make an informed and responsible decision.

The CLC Council

If you have comments to share with our church regarding this project, please click the link below and complete the form or mail your information to the address below.

 Feedback Form

Matilija Project ____________________________                                                                   __                Church of the Living Christ  ____________________                                                                                          _ 190 E El Roblar Dr  _________________________                                                                                                _ Ojai, CA 93023

FAQ Regarding Matilija Project

Below are some frequently asked questions regarding this project.

So what's this project all about and why the urgency?

The County of Ventura is taking steps to remove Matilija Dam and restore the Ventura River to a more native state. There are several purposes behind this. According to the County, sediment has been collecting behind the dam for years and it's estimated that the sediment level will reach the top of the dam within 4 to 8 years. The County states that this condition will have potential to cause serious and costly water quality issues for Lake Casitas and other issues for property owners all along Ventura River. The second purpose is for safety as the integrity of the dam is becoming compromised with age. The third purpose is an attempt to restore endangered steelhead trout which once inhabited the river. The dam no longer provides a significant amount of water due to the sediment.

The County is pursuing the largest dam-removal project in our nation's history at this moment because the dam is close to being full and the County has an opportunity to receive substantial federal funding for the project, which may not be guaranteed in the future. Should the County wait and lose out on that funding, any future costs related to mitigating the effects of Matilija's sediment overflowing the dam would be passed on to property owners and Casitas customers. The County is asking the church to enter into an easement agreement for the purpose of relocating a portion of the sediments behind the dam onto our property.

Are any other deposit sites being considered?

Yes. The County has labeled the church's land and two adjoining parcels to the north as the Meiners Oaks Disposal Area ("MODA") and some parcels just north and south of Highway 150 near the old Honor Farm facility as the Baldwin Road Disposal Areas or "BRDA". The BRDA sites are still under consideration. The County currently prefers the MODA site due to these factors:

• Its proximity to the dam potentially saves the project $6 million over the BRDA sites; the County believes that using the BRDA sites would require raising this money locally which they expect to be very difficult
• The MODA site is large enough to receive the entire deposit, making the project easier to manage and reducing costs
• The MODA site has the greatest disturbance (kiwi plantation) and invasion of non-native grasses which would all be restored to native species after the project
• The MODA site's proximity to the dam also means a shorter earthen ramp for the slurry pipe than to BRDA, and thus, less destruction to native plants between MODA and BRDA from such a ramp
• There is some concern from the County with how fast the sediment could wash out at the BRDA site during strong river-flow and how that might impact the return of steelhead to the river

How would the deposit change the appearance of the property, and would the church have any say once the project begins?

During the project, it will drastically change the appearance. All plant-life, including trees, must be removed from any deposit site. Then 3 feet of topsoil (including river rock, sands and soils) will be removed and stockpiled for replacement after the slurry and grading are complete (no other dirt will be removed from our land). Finally, the land will be revegetated with native plants, but replacement trees will take years to grow to maturity.

Though no accurate drawing has yet been produced, one can try to imagine how it might look. From the viewpoint of the west side of Rice Rd., you can see the church land straight below and out to the west until the hiking trail splits. Just before that split is the property line we share with the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy. If you look to the south (left), you'll find a power pole which provides electricity to the Meiners Oaks Water District well. The deposit would be at its highest (estimated 20 to 25 feet) right below Rice Rd. along the cliff. It would go as far south as about 50 feet from that power pole, as far west as about 50 feet from the split trail, and to the very north, continuing onto our northern neighbors' land. The deposit surface would then slope slightly toward the west and could be about 10 feet above the river-bottom floor on that western edge. The entire perimeter of the deposit will be sloped to ensure stability and avoid dangerous drop-offs. The County will provide a decent access road from Rice Road running down to the surface. Recreational trails and access roads would also be set in place.

The church would be included in the planning process and allowed to give input. The church would NOT be given power to make decisions, however, and could only stop the project if the County breached our agreement.

What exactly would be deposited on our land and is any of it hazardous?

The makeup of the deposit will be a mixture of mostly fine sediment (similar to clay) and some fine sand. Over 50 core samples of this sediment have been tested and none were found hazardous, however, testing will continue throughout the project to ensure no hazardous materials are deposited on the church's land. Thus far, the County claims the sediment sample has not been found to have any strong objectionable odor.

How would the material get relocated to the church property?

The County would assemble a 36-inch wide pipe set on an earthen ramp running from Matilija Dam to the church property. Water and sediments would be mixed up and "slurried" down the pipe to our land. At that site, this muddy mixture would then be processed to squeeze out most of the water which would then be pumped back up to Matilija for re-use. This process will avoid the difficulties and costs associated with trucking the material.

Will the deposit dry out and be stable?

Yes. The deposit will act similarly to the ground all around us in that the top layer will dry completely while some moisture will be retained deeper down. The amount of moisture retained all depends on weather conditions and rainfall, but the deposit will be designed and compacted enough to be stable and safe.

Will the church have a risk of liability during the project?

The church currently carries liability insurance for this land since we have opened its use to the public. The County, however, would also fully indemnify the church and would defend the church should any litigation arise through the project. The County would be responsible for all safety and boundary controls throughout the project. This protection would survive the completion of the project, meaning the County would defend CLC specifically regarding the deposit even after the project is complete.

How would the project impact the current recreational and utility access of our land?

Our agreement requires the County to maintain access for these purposes throughout the project, within reason. The County is allowed to reroute these trails and roads as needed at their discretion, and could completely close access for a short period of time if necessary to ensure safety. Once the project is complete, our current plan is to relocate and expand the trailhead access parking area that we provide to the community through the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy onto the deposit area. Though the Council desires to maintain this access as much as possible, the church purposely granted it through a "temporary" easement agreement to avoid recreational use becoming a restriction from pursuing future goals.

How does our community feel about the project?

There are mixed feelings about the sediment being placed on the church's land. Some people are open to it, others have vocalized opposition, while the majority of the valley simply doesn't know about this project. The church has been contacted by seven residents of the Meyer/Oso Rds. community just north of our river-bottom property who have asked the church not to grant this easement to the County. Meiners Oaks Water District has expressed great concern, and a local environmental group named The Matilija Coalition has expressed alternatives on its website (www.matilija-coalition.org).

Thus far, the concerns mentioned by each of these groups are as follows:

• The deposit would be permanent for quite some time rather than getting washed out to the ocean by the Ventura river as would happen at BRDA1 (BRDA2 would remain fairly permanent)
• The deposit may worsen flooding issues in the Meyer/Oso community 
• The deposit may harm the water quality and replenishing of the Meiners Oaks well south of the church property 
• The deposit may give off an offensive odor
• The work activity generated by the project may be objectionable to nearby residents
• Oak trees would be lost to the project; replacement oaks may not grow in sediment
• The view of that area would be spoiled for many years, perhaps permanently

The church Council considers these to be important issues that each of our voting members must evaluate and reach a conclusion on. As of 12/22, the sense of our Council on each of these is as follows:

• Permanency: True, the deposit will remain permanent for our lifetime. Only the outer edges would gradually erode during major flooding. This would also be true, but to a much lesser extent, at the southern BRDA site. The smaller parcel nearest the old Honor Farm would mostly remain in place for the forseeable future.
• Flooding: The County has performed and presented studies stating the deposit will not worsen flooding potential in the Meyer/Oso Rds. community. The northern border of the MODA site is at least 30 feet lower in elevation than Meyer Rd. Even in major events like the flood of 1969, the depth across the river was significantly less than 30 feet. At present, the church Council trusts these findings, but finds this issue of greatest concern.
• Water Quality: The County states that it is required by law to mitigate any issues arising from this deposit for Meiners Oaks Water. This could mean drilling the water district a new well or finding some other solution. Meiners Oaks Water is conducting a study to discern whether or not their well might be affected. Though the Council is interested in hearing about this study, at present we are trusting the County's promise to protect the interests of Meiners Oaks Water. Ventura River County Water District has expressed concern that the southern BRDA2 site may affect one of the District's wells.
• Odor: County Supervisor Steve Bennett stated that a sample he was exposed to did not have a strong offensive odor, though we have been told by a Meyer/Oso community resident that it did. Supervisor Bennett has compared the potential for odor to when Casitas was severely receded a few years ago and its sediment was exposed to the air. The smell of Casitas sediment was not found to be offensive. The church Council believes that if there is an odor, it will be an issue wherever the sediment is placed for nearby residents. In other words, if odor is a big issue, then the dam can't come down period. If the community wants the dam removed, then some residents in the valley may have to be exposed to some odor for a period of time. We don't see this as a major concern.
• Workers: Activity will be generated at any site used for this project, and therefore will be an inconvenience to any residents living near the disposal site(s). The Council sees this as similar to the odor question. It's not a question of whether people will be inconvenienced, but which people and how many. If the dam is to come down, this issue is unavoidable at both the MODA and BRDA sites. Fortunately, the decision to use a slurry pipe significantly reduces the activity related to the project. The number of residents within the area of influence to the MODA site are significantly less than those who live by BRDA1 & 2.
• Oaks: Though it's true that oaks must be removed before the sediment is re-deposited, this is the case at either of the the proposed sites (MODA or BRDA), and the number of oaks to be lost are about the same at either site. The plan includes a replanting of trees and native plants after it is complete. Some believe live oaks will not grow due to the depth of the deposit at the MODA site, but again this would also be true at the BRDA site. Also, it is unclear if only live oaks may be planted. Other native trees like valley oaks have much deeper tap roots, and even live oaks could be planted where the deposit's depth is 10 feet or less.

What could the church do with the land after the project is finished?

The use of land is largely dictated by its zoning. This land is zoned Open Space, which limits its use significantly. Structures may not be placed on OS land, but horses are typically allowed. This may allow us to relocate the horse boarding facilities onto the raised river-bottom, but the pros and cons of doing so still need to be fully evaluated and are not the main purpose of cooperating with the County. The revegetation could prove to complicate the horse relocation option. The project would not change the land's zoning or ease its current restrictions as it would remain Open Space in the future. In the end, we are not depending on using the lower portion of land.

How would the church benefit financially or otherwise through this project?

The current agreement is an easement lease which the County would compensate the church for on a monthly basis. The amount is based on the fair rental value of undeveloped, open space land, and has been judged a fair value by both a long-time, local, reputable real estate broker and an attorney who specializes in land. The church would be paid $10,000 up front, and then a monthly rent. It is estimated that by the end of the project the church could be compensated a total sum of $180,000. Though this is a fair value, it is not a great sum of money to the church. The Church Council, however, believes it is in the church's and community's best interest to cooperate with the County by making a project (which seems beneficial for our community) doable and possibly increasing the potential for the use of the land. The proceeds could be used to pursue serving needs in our community, such as recreational fields and a playground.

Is it better financially and liability-wise to rent the property or sell it to the County?

Our current agreement is to rent to the County for the duration of the project, but the option to sell the property to the County is still open for discussion. The church has yet to receive a hard offer from the County for purchase. An option has been introduced by the County to swap the river-bottom property for 2 acres on El Roblar just east of the Roth Apartments. The offered lot is in the process of being cleared of a hazardous fuel spill and would not be considered unless it is cleared. Either way, one of these options may be viable for the church. Regarding liability, a sale of the river-bottom land would reduce the church's long-term liability. A land swap would change, but not necessarily reduce, our liability.

Should the voting members evaluate the actual agreement ourselves?

The Council will make the agreement available to any voting member who requests it, but we do ask that it be returned and that no copies are made in order to keep this a church matter. It can be difficult to strike a balance in regards to how much information our members need. The whole point of our church's representative structure is to elect people we trust to evaluate these matters and make a recommendation. It's not feasible to expect 130 voting members to research and negotiate all these details. If a member lacks peace from the Lord regarding the Council's recommendation, he or she should vote against the agreement.

What's the church's motivation for cooperating with the County and what might some reasons be for not doing this project?

For many years, our church has desired to serve the needs of our community. This particular decision is a tough call because while the church is being given precisely that opportunity, there are some local people who are against this project. This puts us in a unique place to discern which is God's best. If we choose to serve this need, we may alienate certain members of our community. On the other hand, if we refuse the agreement, the project may be jeopardized or postponed for some time. The County has expressed concern that the additional funding required for placing the deposit on the BRDA sites would be difficult to raise due to our area's historical resistance to passing temporary sur-taxes for such projects. If local residents voted down a sur-tax, the County would be left to appeal to agencies and organizations to donate at least $6 million. This could put off the project for some time and possibly place its Federal funding in jeopardy.

Possible reasons for not doing the project would be if it were unsafe to residents, unhealthy to our environment, or that it might alienate a large portion of our community. Thus far, the Council has found the County's responses to these concerns satisfactory, but each voting member of our body will need to come to his or her own conclusion.