Court orders Stanford to take steps toward removal of Lagunita Diversion Dam

A district judge issued a court order requiring Stanford to provide periodic assessments of its removal of Lagunita Diversion Dam on Jan. 16. This new development is only one bump in Stanford’s long history of dams, as two environmental groups have filed multiple lawsuits against the university in recent years.

According to local environmental activist Matt Stoecker, Lagunita Dam and the much larger Searsville Dam, both impede the upstream migration of endangered steelhead trout, and are therefore in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Stoecker first took issue with the dam and its fish ladder in 1998.

“We’re talking about 15 years of us defining that dam as a problem for steelhead, requesting that Stanford do something about it, requesting its removal, having the agencies — [National Marine Fisheries Service and CA Fish and Wildlife] — work with Stanford to agree on removal,” said Stoecker. “Now it’s 2015, and Stanford hasn’t even completed a design planning process, let alone looked for permits to carry out the removal.”

Lagunita Diversion Dam, which used to divert water into the now-dry Lake Lagunita, became the subject of a lawsuit filed by two non-profits, Our Children’s Earth (OCE) and Environmental Rights Foundation (ERF), last year.

Chris Sproul, the lawyer for OCE and ERF, believes that the new addition of the court order, which requires written reports every 75 days, will force Stanford to be held accountable and proceed in a timely manner.

“From our view it’s a game changer. Stanford has continued to make noises since 2005, but yet has done nothing,” said Sproul. “[The court order] creates deadlines that don’t allow Stanford to continue this strategy of saying to the world, ‘Oh, we’re going to do something about this’, and then do nothing.”

However, university spokeswoman Lisa Lapin said that Stanford has been proceeding with activity to remove the dam for some time.

“Stanford is actively doing the engineering and hydrology work in preparation for removing the Lagunita Dam. The court has actually stayed litigation activity on this subject, allowing Stanford time to continue working on the project,” said Lapin. “The court has simply asked the university to provide progress reports on a project the university initiated and already has underway.”

Sproul, however, said that Stanford’s response regarding Lagunita Dam will set a precedent for its proceedings with the Searsville Dam lawsuit.

“We’re hoping this shows that Stanford will respond if enough public pressure is brought on the university that they won’t continue to just delay on Searsville Dam as well,” Sproul said.

Searsville Dam, built in 1892, is located in Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve. The dam diverts water used to irrigate the golf course and other campus amenities. OCE and ERF filed a similar lawsuit to that of Lagunita Dam regarding Searsville’s blockage of steelhead trout.

Portola Valley Town Council recently sent a letter to President John Hennessy presenting its position on Searsville Dam.

The council wrote that they “support an unimpeded migration corridor along Corte Madera Creek and other creeks to enable effective wildlife migration to and from Portola Valley in order to ensure that wildlife can maintain genetic diversity and adapt to a changing climate.”

Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor David Freyberg MS ‘77 Ph.D. ‘81 believes removal is not so simple. Freyberg sits on the Jasper Ridge Advisory Committee and Searsville Alternative Study that are researching tradeoffs and alternatives to Searsville removal. Freyberg said that the group is studying various ways for the trout to get around the dam and additional consequences of dam removal.

According to Freyberg, the reservoir is filled with 120 years’ worth of accumulated sediment and captures 90 percent of new sediment deposits annually.

“Any modification to the dam and the reservoir has to address the consequences of sediment movement downstream,” Freyberg said.

Additionally, the presence of Searsville Dam has modified the ecosystem of Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve in the last century into a wetland habitat supported by the sediment deposit.

“The dam and reservoir are sitting on a biological preserve, which is an important resource as a teaching facility. The disruption of any future alternative has to be assessed against the impact on the goals of the preserve,” Freyberg said.

Stoecker, however, believes that dam removal at Lagunita and Searsville can be posed as a teaching moment in itself.

“At the end of the day, this is an amazing opportunity for Stanford to remove a dam and study the impact at Jasper Ridge and become leaders in the science of dam removal and river restoration on a large scale,” Stoecker said.

Contact Alexandra Nguyen-Phuc at amn17 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

About Alexandra Nguyen-Phuc

Alexandra Nguyen-Phuc ‘18 is a news deputy desk editor and former staff writer. A freshman from Los Angeles, California, she wants to learn more about urban studies, economics and food system sustainability in her time at Stanford. Contact her at nguyenphuc ‘at’ stanford.edu.
  • Matt Stoecker

    Thanks Alexandra for the great article.

    The perspective, presented by some Stanford staff and faculty, that removing the dam may “disrupt” wetlands and Stanford’s biological “Preserve” is troubling. The dam and reservoir are the very thing that has already disrupted the natural ecosystem, blocked threatened wildlife migration, introduced non-native species, and degraded water quality. Our nation’s top scientific institutions have shown conclusively that dams degrade ecosystems and are one of the leading causes of wetland decline around the country.

    Additionally, the dam and reservoir resulted in dozens of acres of riparian forest, wetlands, ponds, and over 3 miles of stream being cut down, flooded, and filled with degraded water and sediment. Dam removal projects around the country are realizing an increase in these native habitat types following dam removal as low value, artificial “reservoir” habitat is restored to native habitat types that support native species and improved water quality.

    The ecological health of the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve and entire watershed has already been negatively impacted by the dam, and the impacts are ongoing. The short-term disruption of removing the dam will result in the long-term improvement of both the ecosystem and beneficial research opportunities at the Preserve. Again, top scientific institutions are showing this benefit at hundreds of dam removals nationwide. I know of no studies that suggest the presence of a dam and reservoir are benefiting ecosystem health. Why would Searsville be any different?

    If “preserving” non-native species and a harmful reservoir and dam takes precedent over restoring and protecting native habitats and species, then the entire mission of the Jasper Ridge preserve deserves reevaluation.

    Thanks for staying on this story Stanford Daily,

    Matt Stoecker

    Director, Beyond Searsville Dam

  • Matt Stoecker

    Regarding the quotes in the article, attributed to Stanford’s Lisa Lapin, that Stanford “initiated” and was already “working on” removing Lagunita Dam:

    This revisionist history fails to represent what happened leading up to this important court order for Stanford to actually remove Lagunita Dam. Going back to at least 2001, the San Francisquito Watershed Council (SFWC) Steelhead Task Force (which I founded and then directed) produced a list of steelhead migration barriers in the watershed. This list included Lagunita Dam as a severe barrier and high priority for initiating a fish passage project. Stanford representatives were members of this group and were involved with the barrier list creation. We requested a fish passage study. No progress was made. In 2004, SFWC meeting minutes capture renewed requests for fish passage action at Lagunita Dam and recorded confirmation that no action was being taken by Stanford at the dam. Stanford representatives were noted as present at this meeting. Before Stanford’s Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process started, in 2006, we went on record requesting that Lagunita Dam removal or modification be included in the HCP. In early 2009, we formally requested that the federal and state agencies require Stanford to remove the dam. Later that year, and following discussions with federal resource agency staff, Stanford finally announced they would remove Lagunita Dam. In 2010, as part of the slow HCP process we requested that the Lagunita Dam removal “which began before the HCP process, continue as planned and independently from the HCP process”. Finally, on Dec 6, 2012, Stanford sent NMFS a letter requesting suspension of their permit application for the HCP, which included the Lagunita Dam project. We have repeatly requested since then that Stanford finally carry out the necessary studies to remove the dam outside of the earlier HCP or current Searsville study process (which we also requested for years prior to Stanford implementing). A similar track record exists of Stanford not providing adequate fish passage at their known, problematic Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve road crossing for almost 15 years.

    So, contrary to what Ms. Lapin is quoted as saying in the article above, Stanford did not “initiate” removing Lagunita Dam, others were pushing for it long before the HCP and before Stanford agreed to do it, we requested that the agencies require dam removal before Stanford agreed to do it, and after 15 years Stanford has still not completed a design plan to remove the dam. The lawsuit clearly utilized the above track record of delay and rightly got the court to, yes, “order” Stanford to complete the dam removal project and provide reports to show they were carrying it out.

    The Searsville Dam story is an even longer and more complex one of a similar note. We suspect a court will similarly require action at Searsville to protect and restore listed steelhead trout and frequent progress reports to ensure that Stanford implements a timely solution. If Stanford decides to remove Searsville Dam before the court order, we are ready to support that decision and all of the permitting and funding efforts needed to carry it out.

    Matt Stoecker
    Director, Beyond Searsville Dam