Dear Jerry,

With all due respect and thanks for your work within the watershed and on the Searsville effort, I have to disagree with some of the assertions you make here in response to Dr. Walter Bortz’s courageous opinion piece “Searsville Dam Should Go”.

Dr. Bortz’s statement that Searsville Dam has “languished into disrepair” is accurate and is not limited to the public safety angle your statements imply. The Oxford Dictionary defines “disrepair” as “poor condition of a building or structure due to neglect”. Let’s discuss the “condition” of Searsville Dam (including the resulting reservoir and sediment deposit impacts extending upstream from Stanford lands and onto private property) and whether or not this infrastructure owned by Stanford has been “neglected”. You state that the dam “has gone through both the 1906 and 1989 earthquakes with no apparent damage.” This is not true. As we have posted to our website and discussed at meetings for years, the dam’s Caretaker Journal (then owned by the Spring Valley Water Company) reported that the 1906 earthquake caused multiple cracks on the dam, which still exist, are well-documented by Stanford, and are monitored by the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) annually. DSOD inspection reports also document attempts to repair and seal these cracks in the past, but they continue to leak today. DSOD inspection reports describe the undersized spillway on the dam, regular overtopping of the entire dam crest, and potential for debris blockage of the guardrails and significant filling of the reservoir beyond the top of the dam that could result in additional flooding upstream and uncontrolled release of additional water downstream. DSOD and Stanford have conducted some dam safety studies related to the structure and earthquakes, but additional dam safety studies and determinations, that you are aware we have requested for years, have not been carried out. These include analysis of the currently undersized spillway with updated maximum flood flow estimates and identified debris blockage concerns and concerns about Searsville Reservoir being located adjacent to the San Andreas Fault and triggering ‘reservoir-induced seismicity’, a well-known phenomenon and dam safety risk identified by USGS and other leading earthquake experts. San Mateo County has mapped out the extensive downstream “Searsville Dam Failure Inundation Area”, which includes much of Stanford Campus, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and East Palo. Searsville Dam is listed as a “High Hazard” dam by the U.S. Army Corps, State of California, and San Mateo County. These agencies define a “High Hazard” dam as a dam whose failure would result in “probable loss of lives and significant property damage”. Stanford’s own SPEAR3 report, cites an analysis that determined failure of Searsville Dam could release a “catastrophic” flow of 60,433 cubic feet per second, or “about 6 times the 500-year peak flow of 10,500 cfs” (Section 7.1 Page 7). DSOD documents also describe that one of the dam’s two original bypass flow drain pipes does not work due to sedimentation burying the inlet of the pipe in the reservoir. This reduced ability to drain the reservoir in an emergency adds additional safety risks. As you know, the dam has caused massive sedimentation upstream of the reservoir and exacerbated flooding and safety concerns within the family Farm Road community. This dangerous situation led to a lawsuit threat against the university and Stanford implemented several measures to try and reduce flood risk upstream. However, this flood risk is not gone and additional sediment continues to back up annually and presents an ongoing flood risk upstream. Stanford could have minimized or eliminated many of these safety concerns over the past century with dredging, clearing and retrofitting outlet valves, expanding the spillway capacity, and other measures, but did not. There is a big difference between one agency stating that “there are currently no safety concerns” and others pointing out looming safety concerns, maximum flood flow concerns, lack of studies to address other safety issues, and Stanford not providing an agency recommended Emergency Action Plan for dam failure safety of downstream communities. Do we know enough to tell those at risk, or to suggest, that the dam is definitively safe? No. Dam experts and safety agencies acknowledge that dams present serious safety risks, the 125 year old Searsville Dam is no exception and has additional concerns not found at other, modern dams.

You state that the dam “is still maintained and functioning”. The dam’s purpose is to store and divert water. Yet, as you acknowledge, a lack of sediment removal has nearly filled in the entire water storage capacity of the reservoir and studies going back over two decades have noted that storage capacity could be lost within a couple of years, depending on several factors (rain, fire, erosion, earthquakes). Even if a “solution” was reached today, the dam could completely fill in before a project was permitted and started. Stanford has known about this sediment filling trajectory for decades and has not removed sediment to ensure that the storage capability will be “maintained and functioning”. The looming “sediment filled” reservoir scenario would result in a lack of “function” due to a lack of “maintenance”. Finally, Stanford’s own Searsville Dam website asks a question and answers as follows: “Is Stanford diverting water from Searsville Lake and San Francisquito Creek to irrigate its golf course and campus landscaping, to the detriment of fish? Answer: Stanford is not presently diverting water at all, and has not diverted water from Searsville Lake since March 2013…” If Searsville Dam is not currently being used to divert water, and Stanford has no plans in place to stop the complete filling in of the reservoir with sediment, that seems to fit the languishing into “disrepair” definition far more than “still maintained and functioning”.

You take issue with Dr. Bortz’s statement that Searsville Reservoir’s "only present usage is to supply water for the Stanford University golf course" and cite usage from all of Stanford’s combined creek diversions for campus irrigation, athletic fields, and other purposes. As noted above, Stanford claims that they are not currently diverting water from Searsville. Past water use data from Stanford’s own website suggests that the golf course irrigation alone uses far more water than all of the water obtained from the Searsville diversion. Stanford has also been widely criticized for it’s extensive and thirsty campus landscaping and lawns in our semi-arid and drought-susceptible region and for maintaining a migration barrier to listed steelhead trout and diverting water from a creek with multiple aquatic species at risk of extinction.

You take issue with Dr. Bortz’s statement that “…untold millions of migratory salmon are obstructed from their original habitat.” You respond that as far as you know “the (steelhead) populations in the watershed were at best numbered in the thousands”. While I would have worded this sentiment differently, Dr. Bortz’s statement, and yours, might both be right. I assume, as you have, that Dr. Bortz is referring to the dam obstructing either the “salmon” or “steelhead” members of the salmon family. I agree with you that annual adult San Francisquito Creek steelhead runs, and historically documented chinook and coho salmon runs, may have numbered in the thousands before Searsville Dam. However, that does not consider the many thousands of steelhead and salmon eggs within each female that have been blocked over the 125 years since Searsville Dam construction started. It does not consider the potentially tens of thousands of juvenile steelhead, coho, and chinook salmon that would have been born each year and migrated back to the San Francisco Bay from headwater streams above Searsville Dam. It does not consider that the thousands of steelhead descendants (rainbow trout) still occurring in at least seven tributaries upstream of the dam are likely producing thousands of eggs and juvenile fish each year, with a percentage of them trying to migrate downstream past the dam and reservoir each year. Juvenile steelhead continue to occur in the pool immediately below Searsville Dam indicating that young steelhead from downstream, or trout from upstream of the dam that washed downstream, are trying to migrate back upstream and are blocked by the dam. Considering all of the adult and juvenile steelhead/rainbow trout and salmon directly blocked by (or killed within) the dam and reservoir while attempting to migrate up and downstream, or the mindboggling number of eggs prevented from being born upstream because of the dam, one can easily see how the dam has most likely blocked millions of migratory salmon and steelhead/rainbow trout over its 125 years of obstruction. This number continues to grow with the impassable dam in place.

You state: Jasper Ridge “studies may be greatly impacted by the substantial change in the ecosystem that would result in the loss of open water if the dam were removed.” It is unfortunate that this statement publically paints dam removal in a negative and inaccurate way before our Advisory Group, which you co-chair, has finished its work. To start, studies at Jasper Ridge can be great enhanced with dam removal as Stanford researchers would have new and important opportunities, of international significance, to assess watershed-scale ecosystem restoration along with more sustainable water use options. The “substantial change in the ecosystem” resulted when the dam was built and this chronic, negative impact continues today. Removing the dam enables “restoration” of natural ecosystem processes. Leaving the dam in place maintains an artificial habitat that benefits an artificial habitat and non-native species at the detriment of native species. I have forwarded numerous studies from the National Science Foundation, USGS, and leading universities describing their findings about dams and their negative impact on the environment. It is particularly disappointing that you have inaccurately stated that dam removal would “result in the loss of open water”. As you know, this is not true. Open water would not be “lost” if the dam were removed. The reservoir-impacted Lloyd’s Pond (also known as Upper Marsh), is a natural pond that would remain as open water. Additional dam removal features have been described for years that would retain a significant amount of open water in the Middle Marsh area of upper Searsville Reservoir, restoration design plans can include additional open water elements adjacent to the increased amount of stream and floodplain habitat, the off-stream Felt Reservoir can be expanded to add more open water than presently exists at Searsville Reserovir, and downstream flood retention basins proposed by the Joint Powers Authority can provide additional, seasonal open water. As you and I have discussed in the past, the above measures can result in a net increase in open water habitat on Stanford lands within and near Jasper Ridge. Ironically, Stanford’s own sediment actions, or inactions, are what has resulted in the looming disappearance of open water at Searsville Reservoir, not a dam removal plan. With regards to the “loss” of habitat comment, it is unfortunate that you did not describe that dam removal and elimination of the main reservoir enables the “gain” of miles of natural, and currently submerged creek habitat and acres of newly restored riparian forest, wetlands, floodplain, and upland habitat.

As a member of the still underway Searsville Advisory Group and process, I am particularly disappointed that your article identifies you as the Searsville Advisory Group co-chair without stating that this perspective is your own and does not reflect the perspective or position of Searsville Advisory Group members.

Matt Stoecker

Director, Beyond Searsville Dam

A style note, if you please, from long ago, when a correspondent wrote: "I wrote you a long letter because I didn't have time to write you a short one."

The length of the previous comment and its general lack of reasonable paragraph breaks makes it essentially unreadable. [part removed.]

Today's wonderful Stanford Daily Op Ed:

Stanford should abandon the Searsville Dam
December 21, 2014
Op Ed

It seems absurd to me and my boys that people in the San Francisco Bay Area drive so far to get a taste of nature. As Menlo Park residents, we have a wonderful nature area right down our street, just a couple of blocks away.

It is the San Francisquito Creek, which, thanks to historic conflict between local governments, is the only major creek in the South Bay that has not been channeled in concrete. The creek lies on the border between the cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto, as well as the border between San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Local authorities were never able to agree on how to divide costs for stream channelization. While other “creeks” like the Matadero Creek in Palo Alto were turned into dead concrete channels decades ago, the San Francisquito Creek retains its natural character and is generally teeming with life.

My boys and I have hiked up and down San Francisquito Creek hundreds of times. Though we’ve caught crawdads and skipped rocks, we also found dead steelhead trout stranded near a stagnant pool that was left behind as the creek ceased to flow during the late spring of 2013. Other steelhead have encountered the same fate in recent years. California’s wild steelhead are a highly resilient species, but they are struggling to survive in Bay Area streams and elsewhere due to widespread loss of adequate habitat and diversion of critical flows.
Stanford University’s 125-year old Searsville Dam and other water diversions have kept the San Francisquito Creek much drier than it was for years before Searsville was built. When water was more plentiful on this and other creeks, thousands of steelhead and salmon would swim many miles upstream from the San Francisco Bay to spawn eggs in the headwater streams of the San Francisquito watershed. Today, the creek’s native steelhead population is listed as threatened, while the University continues to block their upstream migration by holding back water from local streams in order to irrigate its water-intensive golf course.

Fortunately, Stanford may be close to a turning point regarding Searsville Dam. For over a year, the University has joined with local watershed groups to study what to do with the antiquated dam, and the university has pledged to make recommendations to campus leaders by the end of 2014. Multiple low-impact alternatives, such as a moderate expansion to Stanford’s existing off-stream Felt Lake reservoir, will result in a more efficient and resilient water source for Stanford.

The San Francisquito Creek watershed presents a unique opportunity to recover a critical habitat for Stanford’s native steelhead and other wildlife. If the University agrees to finally remove the Searsville Dam and its sediment-choked reservoir, the network of creeks on Stanford lands can once again flourish and support a thriving wild steelhead run that Stanford and the surrounding community can be proud of.

What will Stanford do? My boys and I hope that my alma mater will follow its own stewardship and sustainability goals by prioritizing the recovery of the creek and wildlife that run through the heart of campus and removing Searsville Dam.

Mike Lanza ‘84