March 18, 2025
Alternate link: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15D3gjQoUd/
The controversial proposal by the Del Puerto Water District (DPWD) to re-route historic Del Puerto Canyon Road to make way for a 300 foot tall dam, saddle dams, and small above surface reservoir, was retorted by members of the public who spoke during the public comment period of the February 25 Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors meeting.
The Supervisor’s gave their support to the Water District’s desires to re-route Del Puerto Canyon road, during the previous meeting, which only drew one member of the public in support of the decision.
Currently, Del Puerto Canyon Road follows the historic Patterson and Western Railroad bed first established by the magnesite miners of WWI in the early 1900s. This created a gentle grade for the current users of Del Puerto Canyon road which include bicyclists, cattle haulers, Adobe Springs water trucks, motorists and recreational vehicles bound for the Frank Raines Off Highway Vehicle Park.
Road relocation process excludes key user groups
Despite not needing Del Puerto Canyon or Del Puerto Canyon Road to access their community, the residents of Diablo Grande in the hills of Salado Canyon, were polled as to where they thought the relocated Del Puerto Canyon Road should end up. Residents there were provided several road relocation choices eventually selecting the option that kept the road as far away from the Diablo Grande community as possible.
Residents of the City of Patterson were not included in this poll nor were the users of Frank Raines Park, located 15 miles up Del Puerto Canyon Road.
In the option chosen by the Diablo Grande residents, the relocated first five miles of Del Puerto Canyon Road would force drivers away from the gentle grade and up and over steep grades that will increase travel times and wear and tear on vehicles and bicyclists. This portion of Del Puerto Canyon contains unstable soils and active slumping of the land can be clearly observed there.
“We should be doing these all the way down the Valley in the hills. It just checks all the boxes,” District 3 Supervisor Terry Withrow said during the meeting February 4. “Why would we not want to do this and why would we not want to continue to build these up and down the Valley and solve a bunch of problems?”
At the next available opportunity the signatures of thousands of people opposed to the dam plans, including any destruction of Del Puerto Canyon’s historic Gateway rocks, were presented to the clerk of the board along with other written and oral comments opposed to the Supervisor’s support of the Water District’s plans.
What the opponents had to say
Reasons provided by those opposed included; not having enough available water to store, dangerous and unstable soils including construction directly over the San Joaquin Fault, destruction of special species habitats, destruction of a Native American Yokuts pathway carved in the Gateway rocks over thousands of years, exclusion of the Patterson community in the planning process, and disruption of Patterson’s current plans for a regional natural and cultural heritage park that had been planned there since 2012 among other reasons.
“I’m worried and I’m concerned about the future, we only have so many natural resources, and once we use them up they’re gone,” Stanislaus County resident Milt Trieweiler said to the Supervisors.
Trieweiler brought up the rising cost of the proposed reservoir — currently $1.2 billion — as not being a good return of investment for only 60,000 acre feet of water storage per year.
Though the reservoir has an 80,000 acre foot capacity, 20,000 of that storage space would not be accessible due to a dead space at the bottom of the reservoir.
According to the Water District’s Environmental Impact Report, this 20,000 acres of unusable storage would create a stagnant cesspool that will put off a stench whose odor would be detectable within a 1 mile radius surrounding the reservoir.
Trieweiler reminded the supervisors of the recently approved $1 billion plans for the San Luis Reservoir dam rise expansion project that would bring 130,000 acre feet of true storage since it would sit above the current dead space of the San Luis Reservoir and would come in at a cost of $200 million less than the Water District’s plans for Del Puerto Canyon.
An over abundance of currently available water storage
“There will be a time where this reservoir will receive no new water in a year’s period of time when we’re in a serious drought condition,” Trieweiler said of the Del Puerto Reservoir.
Trieweiler also mentioned how 386,000 acre feet of storage is currently available in the San Luis Reservoir. If the 130,000 acre feet of approved storage from raising the B.F. Sisk Dam at San Luis were available today, an additional 516,000 acre feet of storage would be possible, given the water was available.
The proposed Los Banos Grandes Reservoir — the adjacent sister reservoir of the San Luis Reservoir that would hold 1.73 million acre feet of water — received approvals in the 1990s but has struggled to receive the funds needed to proceed.
The San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority is the main district backing the Del Puerto Reservoir project along with the Del Puerto Water District, and the Los Banos Grandes Reservoir project sits directly within their planning scope, yet was overlooked as an alternative to the Del Puerto Reservoir.
This puts the currently approved and available above surface storage at 2.25 million acre feet of water, nearly 40x’s the amount of water that Del Puerto Reservoir would provide.
Trieweiler hasn’t been the only one to raise the issue of not having enough available water to store regardless of the available storage space.
Members of the Friant Water Supply Protection Association filed suit against the Del Puerto Water District in 2022 in efforts to protect 10 water districts within their association, and their access to water allocations from the Central Valley Project (CVP) threatened by the proposed creation of the Del Puerto Reservoir.
“Del Puerto could take their 1.2 billion, or whatever they have so far, buy into the San Luis Dam Project, and they could save Del Puerto Canyon, they could also get more water then they could out of Del Puerto Canyon,” Trieweiler said. “Forget about Del Puerto, and move down to San Luis.”
Elaine Gorman, a Stanislaus County resident from District 1 also spoke in opposition to the dam citing potential earthquake and downstream flood damage issues as well as habitat destruction and dubious water saving capabilities.
“I’m also concerned and opposed to the re-routing of Del Puerto Canyon road as many Stanislaus County residents and visitors use the road for access into the canyon,” Gorman said. “Building a dam in Del Puerto Canyon will not alleviate water issues for our county, you must consider alternative sites and viable conservation efforts.
Gorman continued, “Del Puerto Canyon is an important natural resource with cultural and environmental values. Stanislaus County has a mandate to protect our natural heritage.”
Patterson community members speak up
While representatives from the City of Patterson have stayed relatively absent on the discussion, former Patterson Planning Commissioner Elias Funez reminded Supervisors of the regional nature and cultural heritage park planned for that area as part of the 2012 General Plan revision.
“The City of Patterson already has plans for that area. There is a Native American pathway carved into the historic Gateway Rocks that would be protected with the creation of this park. Within the historic Gateway, an outdoor amphitheater is planned. All of this would be taken away from us by allowing the Del Puerto Water District to move forward,” Funez said.
“Here you have the Tuolumne River Regional Park and Dry Creek area. In Patterson we finally have the opportunity to have our own slice of nature that the community can enjoy, but you will be taking that away from us by going along with the Del Puerto Water District’s plans,” Funez said.
Patterson resident Mallinali Cali referenced the affordable tourism that Del Puerto Canyon provided to him growing up and to many others that travel from all over the state to visit Del Puerto.
“There’s a benefit to saving the Del Puerto Canyon,” Cali said. “It’s our gem of the West, it’s our Yosemite, a beautiful place, a great ecosystem.”
Sevy Toscano, who described himself as a citizen from Patterson, spoke highly of living in Patterson and was proud to live in Stanislaus County due to his experiences in Del Puerto Canyon.
“I went to Del Puerto Canyon just as being some kid trying to get away from the city noise and trying to connect with nature,” Toscano said.
“I’m speaking not only for myself but for a lot of people my age, but that canyon is not only a sacred canyon to the people who lived there for thousands of years, but to us as well, because when we go there, we’re able to connect with nature and we’re able to actually have a moment of true serenity and we’re able to come back to Patterson refreshed and to feel rekindled and at peace,” Toscano said.
“We literally take a bit of peace with us when we leave from the canyon. This is undeniably ancient land. I ask that you give your children the opportunity to experience the true beauty of California. If we build this dam in the Del Puerto Canyon, you’re robbing your children of a beautiful place to connect with nature and God. I’ve seen many places in the world and not a single place in the world will compare to the Del Puerto Canyon that is the most beautiful place that I have ever seen in my entire life. I just ask that you go there one time. Feel the water touch the energy in the land, I love that place with all my heart. If you take that place away from us it will be a complete devastation to our entire community and to California history,” Toscano said to the Supervisors.
Diagrams of the proposed road reroute from Del Puerto Water District's February 4th, 2025 presentation to the Stanislaus Co. Board of Supervisors meeting. Green indicates roadcuts into the mountain. Blue indicates a protected tar plant. Orange indicates federally threatened Valley longhorn elderberry beetle habitat.
Road Relocation
During the Feb. 4 board meeting in which the relocated road location was discussed, project proponents acknowledged the historic assets of the Del Puerto Canyon Roadway that was once the railroad bed of the Western & Patterson narrow gauge railroad.
With the DPWD’s plans to dam the canyon, the historic roadway would become inundated between mile 1 and 5 and would be rerouted into an area with sensitive natural habitats all their own.
The federally threatened Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, whose habitat includes the hillsides of Del Puerto Canyon, were recognized by project consultants as needing protection from the road relocation project.
Since the rerouted roadway’s elevations would require drastic road cuts into the side of the hillsides, the issue with the surrounding unstable hillsides remains a serious concern for many as this portion of the Diablo Range is one of the fastest growing and eroding mountain ranges in the state.
Despite the recent approvals by the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, the Del Puerto Water District still needs additional approvals before the plan to dam Del Puerto Canyon is a done deal. The DPWD still has to have an environmental review done of the area downstream of the proposed dam, as well as to bring the entire project before the state decision makers, at which time that meeting has yet to be determined.
Since the DPWD’s Anthea Hansen went back on her commitment to hold an in person town hall meeting on the project and instead had the dam approved during Covid restrictions, many locals are calling for any state meeting on the project to be held locally so that local residents can voice their concerns.
Comments