The three environmental groups’ Oct. 9 opinion piece in New Times, “The Lopez solution,” is an expression of hopeful fallacy with misinformation to justify a far-reaching, poorly thought-out legal approach by two of those nonprofit environmental organization authors—Los Padres ForestWatch and San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper.
Sadly, these organizations are now trying to mislead South County residents to believe San Luis Obispo County has intentionally been operating the Lopez Lake Water Project without a water rights license from the State Water Board, to pit the South County agencies and water users of Lopez Lake against the county. This is a “new angle” from their previous false claims that the county is somehow in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act, and this is why the South County communities’ water supply is in jeopardy.
Here is the reality: San Luis Obispo County has operated Lake Lopez since the 1960s. The county has been working on a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Arroyo Grande Creek for more than two decades, which is a requisite for the state license. The HCP process is complicated, as there is complex biology and hydrology and there are multiple federally listed species that utilize this watershed. Getting it wrong could end up in disaster. The county is committed to get it right.
To this end, the county has been closely working with the state and federal regulatory agencies to strike the right balance for water supply and protection of species. And if there were major concerns with the way the county has been operating Lake Lopez for all these decades, the public regulatory agencies would have acted. They have not. The real risk to Lopez Lake and its water supply are Los Padres ForestWatch and SLO Coastkeeper.
Let us be clear here, Lopez Lake and the water supply for the South County are under direct threat from ForestWatch and Coastkeeper with shortsighted litigation. Rather than working with the county and the state and federal regulatory agencies through the appropriate administrative process, they filed litigation to force the county and the community into what they believe is right.
So far, the actions to date have been the initial court order (requested by ForestWatch and Coastkeeper), which required the county to release water from Lopez Lake at twice the normal annual amount into the creek to benefit the steelhead. If this had been required for the last 15 years, Lopez Lake would have run dry with zero water available for drinking, fire suppression, or downstream releases into Arroyo Grande Creek.
In terms of the care for protecting endangered species, the two organizations’ forced court order did not allow for consideration of other protected species like California red legged frogs or the tidewater goby. This important issue was daylighted in oral argument at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where the ForestWatch attorney couldn’t answer a basic question about impacts to these other species. That video can be found on here at hour 1, minute 30: youtube.com/watch?v=tBrJemJfJZA.
The county is currently anticipating a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The time, energy, and money could have been put toward actual benefits to the people of South County and the environment, not lawyers. The true antagonists in this story are the two environmental groups pursuing expensive litigation to the detriment of the South SLO County communities—residents, businesses, and agriculture—and while the county has submitted the HCP application to the resource agencies (again, a longtime existing ongoing effort with the regulatory agencies), ForestWatch and Coastkeeper continue to play games and move the goal post on settlement terms and demand things that are completely unreasonable and put the community’s water supplies and the environment at serious risk.
In closing, San Luis Obispo County is required to find balance for all forms of life and work toward protecting species while ensuring a secure water supply. These are the goals we have been meeting and will continue to work toward. ∆
Dawn Ortiz-Legg is SLO County’s 3rd District supervisor, representing Avila Beach, the Edna Valley, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and portions of San Luis Obispo. Respond with an opinion piece for publication by sending it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Oct 16-26, 2025.
If you care about the environment, it’s time to vote legacy politicians like Ms. Ortiz-Legg out and put tree hugging, dirt worshipping candidates in.
Arroyo Grande farmed prior to Lopez Lake. If the land won’t support humans and modern infrastructure, perhaps humans shouldn’t be there.
Okay, if the environmental activists are unhappy with us here, we better all leave.
Hi …. Thank you Dawn. There is environmental fantasy, coming from the extreme groups, and then there is reality. The reality is that the Steelhead can’t come up the creek to spawn unless the creek is open to the ocean. There are “rules” that restrict governmental agencies from artificially opening the mouth of the creek. Only with heavy rains and lots of creek water, more than a stream from the dam, will allow the creek to wash open. Also, there are other barriers to Steelhead going all the way up the creek. Oh, yes, and where is the fish ladder to allow the fish to actually get into the lake? Another factor: I helped pay for the dam and I don’t want you to dump my water into the creek to allegedly “save” a fish when that is only one part of the challenge.
I wouldn’t shed any tears.
Karen:
(A fitting name indeed).
Hi … Cheap shots amuse me!
Here is Forest Watch’s perspective so you have both perspectives:
Lopez Dam & Water Security: FAQs Answered
Dear Supporter,
We wanted to take a moment to update you on the latest developments in the ongoing Lopez Dam litigation and address some common questions following recent statements to the media from San Luis Obispo County. Misinformation is circulating, and we want to ensure you have the facts about what this case truly means for our region’s water security and wildlife protections. Below, we’ve answered some frequently asked questions to help clear up any confusion.
What is this case all about?
For decades, San Luis Obispo County has operated Lopez Dam in violation of the Endangered Species Act, harming steelhead trout and degrading Arroyo Grande Creek. Despite nearly 30 years of warnings, the County has failed to secure a required federal permit from wildlife agencies to legally operate the dam. In response, ForestWatch and partners took legal action to compel the county to finalize that permit and ensure long-overdue protections for steelhead. In November, in response to overwhelming factual evidence, a federal judge issued a requiring the County to implement interim water releases and habitat improvements while a final decision is reached.
Despite the ruling’s temporary nature, the County has chosen to appeal rather than collaborate on a long-term solution. ForestWatch and our partners remain committed to working toward a balanced outcome that protects both the region’s water security and the survival of imperiled wildlife.
What does the preliminary injunction do?
The preliminary injunction is a court order requiring San Luis Obispo County to implement interim measures to protect threatened steelhead trout while the lawsuit is ongoing. It includes requirements for modest, specific water releases from Lopez Dam to ensure steelhead migration, along with habitat monitoring and other actions aimed at preventing further harm to the species.
This ruling does not permanently determine how the dam must be operated—it simply ensures improvements to habitat conditions for endangered species in the short term while long-term solutions are developed.
Why is the preliminary injunction notable?
Winning a preliminary injunction is significant because courts require strong, compelling legal and factual evidence before granting one. To succeed, we had to demonstrate that irreparable harm to steelhead would occur without immediate intervention and that our legal claims were likely to succeed at trial. This ruling affirms that the County’s operations likely violate the Endangered Species Act by harming steelhead, and it underscores the urgency of protecting steelhead while a final resolution is reached.
What science and data did the court rely on to set temporary water releases?
The ruling set temporary water release requirements based on the County’s own consultants’ analysis, which determined the flows necessary to support steelhead migration and habitat. The court relied on scientific data and expert recommendations to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act while balancing water resource considerations.
Does the preliminary injunction threaten the local water supply?
No. The preliminary injunction is temporary and ensures threatened steelhead receive adequate flows while a final solution is developed. Lopez Reservoir is near full capacity, making the County’s claim that the ruling threatens water supply during the short time it is in effect is false. The court-ordered flows are proportionally small compared to other existing water demands, including municipal, agricultural, and discretionary releases. The County’s assertion that these requirements are permanent suggests it in fact has no real intention of finalizing a permit with wildlife agencies, further affirming our original motivation to legally intervene.
Does the ruling impact the fire department’s ability to respond to wildfire?
No, these wild assertions play off of the current political climate to spread fear and misinformation. The ruling does not impact the fire department’s ability to respond to wildfires. Lopez Reservoir is near full capacity, and fire agencies have multiple water sources available for firefighting. The county’s claim that the court-ordered releases jeopardize fire suppression is misleading and ill-informed.
Consider that the largest fire department helicopter buckets hold about 2,600 gallons. At 5% of its capacity, Lopez Lake would provide enough water for over 300,000 drops of water from helicopters. Again, the required flow adjustments are proportionally small, temporary, and do not diminish emergency response capabilities.
Who is really using the most water, and why is wildlife being blamed?
Before pointing fingers at wildlife protections, the County should take a closer look at where the bulk of the water from Lopez Reservoir is actually going. According to publicly available data housed by the State Water Resources Control Board, in 2021 and 2022, a single private agricultural entity diverted more water from Arroyo Grande Creek than the combined municipal demand of all five cities that rely on Lopez Reservoir! Yet, the County claims that modest, science-based flow releases for steelhead are the real problem.
The real question isn’t whether we can balance wildlife needs—it’s why a small number of private interests are receiving the lion’s share of water while the county fights protections that benefit the entire ecosystem and community. Instead of attacking steelhead protections, we should be asking whether our water is being equitably managed for everyone.
What solutions is the County ignoring while pointing fingers?
The County currently follows its Interim Downstream Release Plan which includes a Low Reservoir Response Plan that only kicks in after Lopez Reservoir is already 60% depleted, instead of taking proactive steps to manage water sustainably before shortages occur. There is no discussion of how conservation efforts could reduce demand or how investments in groundwater recharge and other water supply augmentation projects could help secure long-term resilience.
Instead of working toward forward-thinking solutions, the County is using steelhead protection as a scapegoat while ignoring the bigger issue of outdated, reactionary water management policies that put the region at greater risk. If the County truly cared about water security, it would be focusing on smart conservation, efficiency, and diversified water solutions—not just fighting environmental protections.
What’s next?
ForestWatch and our partners remain committed to working with the County to develop a long-term solution that balances water security, agricultural needs, and the survival of threatened steelhead. Unfortunately, the County has yet to step forward with any constructive proposals or meaningful efforts to resolve the issue. Instead, its decision to appeal threatens to derail progress entirely—at great expense to taxpayers. We continue to hope that stronger leadership will emerge to change the current course, abandon political posturing, and focus on real solutions—ones that secure a sustainable water future for both people and wildlife.
Thank you,
Los Padres ForestWatch
This weekend’s “No Kings” march will basically consist of Boomer libs virtue signalling their moral superiority. Many of them managed to dodge the draft, voted to remove all the regulations that prevented banks from using savings and loan money for “investment” banking, opened our borders, poured all our national treasure into useless foreign wars, and to top it off, intend on spending a weekend day wagging their fingers at the rest of us fed up with their B.S. These people represent a generation born at the close of WWII on the winning side who, in the span of one generation (theirs), managed to destroy the Post War Boom and have left the rest of us born later, the unwilling inheritors of a country on the verge of bankruptcy. At the end of their “march,” they will fold up their walkers, hop into their BMW’s and Tesla, go to their villas, eat prime rib, drink top shelf scotch, turn on CNN, and wonder why the rest of us, working 2 and 3 jobs, failed to attend their ridiculous “march.”
I have to agree with Dawn Ortiz-Legg on this one.
If Arroyo Grande Creek was 50 mile long, then working to save the Steelhead might make sense, having that volume of Steelhead swimming upstream to spawn. But on this 10 mile long creek, the environmentalists are not being realistic.
The amount of Steelhead saved versus the damage done to the community really is absurd, and the cost will be much more than the environmentalist think it will.
And I am an environmentalist, just not fanatical.
p.s. And if that is how Charles Varni is at any meetings, jmho, he should never be allowed to be on any board or committee, just for sanities sake.