Fears that the canyons of Henry Coe State Park would be flooded
from a dam should be eased today after a meeting of the Santa Clara
Valley Water District
’s board of directors.
Fears that the canyons of Henry Coe State Park would be flooded from a dam should be eased today after a meeting of the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s board of directors.
SCVWD chief executive officer Stan Williams will present a report interpreting the water board’s policy on Coe Park in which he makes two main points:
• “In seeking a solution to the San Luis Reservoir low point problem, the district will not adversely impact Henry Coe State Park. There will be no inundation of any Coe Park lands.
• “While a change in designation from state park to state recreation area might allow for a storage facility, this change in use and purpose of Henry Coe State Park would be incompatible with district interests and the district will not seek such a change in designated use.”
DiMarco said it is usual for the board to take the CEO’s advice and that he expected the report means there will be no dam in Coe.
Board chair Sig Sanchez, a Gilroy resident and longtime county supervisor, said Monday that he could not comment on William’s report since he had not yet heard it but that he looked forward to Tuesday’s meeting. He did not want to speculate on the proper use of Coe Park.
South Valley representative to the water board, Rosemary Kamei, could not be reached Monday for comment on the Williams report.
The fears arose from the public agency’s effort to maximize use of the county’s water supply.
A new reservoir near the 86,000-acre park or expansion of an existing one are two of several concepts floating in a state-funded study by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which is looking to sidestep an algae problem that might render water from the huge San Luis Reservoir off state Highway 152 relatively unusable here.
But a group of park enthusiasts organizing as the Advocates for Coe Park say besides doing the unthinkable – violating the park’s boundaries – the dam plans would change and destroy the character of a scarce, unspoiled wilderness.
“In many ways, (Coe) represents what California was before any of us got here,” said Teddy Goodrich, a longtime Gilroy resident who has volunteered at Coe for more than 20 years and is the park’s historian.But district officials emphasize that nothing is set in stone yet – they’re trying to be proactive in ensuring future water supplies.
“A lot of people think we’re trying to get our hands on another water supply,” water district spokesman Mike DiMarco said. “What we’re trying to do is keep access to the supply we have today.”
At issue is the district’s so-called San Luis Low Point Improvement Project, the focus of a three-year, $14 million state-funded study targeting an ongoing supply problem at San Luis.
The reservoir, one of the largest in California, is a key component of the state’s complex water supply system,serves the Central Valley and Southern California, as well as Santa Clara and San Benito counties.
It does not fill naturally, but is used for seasonal storage of Sacramento-San Joaquin delta water that’s delivered to the reservoir via the California aqueduct and the Delta-Mendota canal. Santa Clara County receives roughly a fourth of the water it uses each year through the reservoir.
The project is designed to help provide solutions for what district officials call the “low point” problem that can prevent district officials from using their full supply from the huge reservoir.
During the summer when water levels in the reservoir are low, district officials say the higher water temperatures and wind-induced mixing at San Luis result in algae blooms on the surface of the lake.
The algae degrades the water quality, making it impractical to treat and send to customers in the Santa Clara and San Benito counties and, in the future, the Pajaro Valley’s water management agency.
“The time we need the water the most is when our reservoirs are really low or almost empty,” DiMarco said. “That’s the same time of year San Luis is so low that the algae is blooming.”
To solve the problem, federal and state dam operators keep the water level above that algae-forming “low point” – tying up otherwise-useable water in the process. And they expect the frequency of the problem to increase in the future due to new operating requirements and increases on demand.
District officials originally developed with 80 different ideas for solving the problem after public meetings last August, ranging from several new and expanded dams to a bypass to increased treatment. They have since cut the list down to 16.
What park enthusiasts considered one of the most egregious proposals – a dam starting directly within the park’s boundaries – had apparently been put aside. The so-called Coe Reservoir – unofficially known as the “China Hole Dam” – would have begun within the park itself and backed water up Coyote Creek for up to seven miles and several other drainages.
But to their chagrin, two reservoir concepts remain that still could back waters up into the park.
Activists say a proposed Los Osos dam upstream of Coyote Reservoir could flood four miles of Coyote Creek within the park, including the “Hunting Hollow” entrance area that’s popular with equestrians, mountain bikers and families. They say it also could restrict access to the Gilroy Hot Springs, which the state is in the process of acquiring.
Another proposal still alive, to enlarge the Pacheco Reservoir, could back water up as much as 2.5 miles into the park under the most dramatic proposal, Goodrich said.
The dams would alter the character of the park both physically and operationally, activists say, inundating wildlife habitat, historic and archaeological sites and swimming holes and creating an opportunity for more intrusive forms of recreationt.
A dam crossing the park’s boundaries also could set a nasty precedent for intrusions in other parks, Goodrich said, “totally negating” the idea of protection inherent in the park system’s mission.
But DiMarco cautioned that the district wanted to put all ideas out on the table in the problem-solving process. Other ideas still alive include raising the crest of the dam at Anderson Reservoir east of Morgan Hill, more intensive treatment, bypassing the reservoir, importing water from other facilities and desalinization.
“The whole reason we started with 80 alternatives was because we specifically said ‘Let’s not lop off any one thing. Let’s look at everything,’ ” DiMarco said. “We didn’t discard any ideas – we threw them all out there.”
And DiMarco – a former South Valley resident himself – said affecting the park isn’t the district’s goal.
“I understand how they feel – it’s a gorgeous park, and I would feel insulted if someone (pursued) development to alter it,” he said. “That’s not something the district favors if there are other alternatives.”
The district’s goal is to eventually reach around six “feasible” alternatives that will undergo formal environmental review. A draft environmental impact report isn’t expected until at least next spring, and DiMarco said there will be plenty of opportunity for public comment.
“We’re far away from a decision,” he said. “There’s not going to be anything done under the table or foisted on anybody.”
Advocates for Coe Park also complained recently that the district refused to add the group to the “stakeholders” list. DiMarco said Monday that the Advocates would be added to the list.
