Agree!

With all due respect to Dr. Bortz, a structure that has been in place as long as the Searsville Dam (1892) is now a part of the existing ecosystem. What are ALL the consequences of removing a structure that has been in place that long? It is my understanding that Stanford is currently studying the impacts of removing the dam (both good and adverse), and a call to remove the dam is premature until those impacts are examined by experts.

Documentaries are wonderful, but they rarely tell the whole story. I need to hear the whole story before I tell someone else what to do on their private property.

Hello Sam Tyler. Thanks for your comment. With all due respect, a 125 year old dam that continues to block a threatened steelhead runs that is millions of years old and which continues to degrade water quality and habitats is not "part of the existing ecosystem". Numerous studies from our nation's leading scientific institutions have shown conclusively that there are chronic and severe ongoing negative impacts from dams on ecosystems and watersheds and wildlife. Additionally, these reports and recently completed dam removal projects have shown that dam removal is a process with consistent and far reaching benefits and that these project results are applicable to other dams / watersheds, such as Searsville /San Francisquito Creek. A call to remove this dam is not premature, just as the call to decommisssion an old coal fired power plant that has not been studied is not premature, due to the extensive knowledge that these are harmful facilities that should be removed and replaced with better alternatives regardless of their location / situation. Additionally, numerous studies of Searsville Dam have shown the diversity of negative impacts and resource agencies have been clear that dam removal is the most effective option to solve problems like fish passage, non-native species in the reservoir, and improving water quality and flows downstream, While Searsville is a private structure on Stanford property, the creek, water, and wildlife negatively impacted by the dam throughout the entire watershed are public "resources" under law that Stanford is not legally allowed to excessively pollute or put at risk of extinction. Stanford currently does not have federal and state permits required to operate this dam in a way that adequately protects these public trust resources.

Related thread: Web Link