SLO County 3rd District Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg’s recent op-ed (“The real risk to Lopez Lake are the environmental organizations that sued the county,” Oct. 16) in response to the Oct. 9 Down to Earth column, “The Lopez Solution,” misrepresents several key facts about the Lopez Dam litigation and the community groups involved. We’re here to set the record straight.
Revisiting the basics: Community groups filed the Lopez Dam lawsuit in response to SLO County’s failure to remedy Lopez Dam’s decades-long violations of the Endangered Species Act. Arroyo Grande Creek’s low flow threatens the survival of the endangered local steelhead. The SLO County Supervisors have the opportunity (and legal responsibility) to fix the mistakes of their predecessors and make Lopez Dam finally compliant with the law.
So, let’s address the misinformation:
First, the fact that the court-ordered flows are nearly double what the county was releasing (average of 4.6 cubic feet per second (cfs) in 2024) is a clear demonstration that the county’s operations have been plainly inadequate. The court agreed with the expert agencies that additional flow releases are necessary to ensure ecologically meaningful flows. Moreover, the court-ordered flows of 7.9 cfs are only 1 cfs more than what the county had previously committed to release (7 cfs) in response to concerns from wildlife agencies.
Second, she claims that government agencies would intervene if there were a problem—well, public agencies have intervened. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife formally protested the county’s water right application and NMFS rejected county proposals due to endangered species concerns. Additionally, the state of California will not grant SLO County its missing state water license until Lopez Dam complies with the Endangered Species Act. Despite these interventions, SLO County has not fixed the issue.
Moreover, environmental enforcement often fails when governments regulate themselves. That’s exactly why Congress included citizen lawsuit provisions in key environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act. Often, community action is the only way to ensure accountability when government agencies look the other way.
In fact, public records show that NMFS staff believed citizen litigation was necessary to finally bring Lopez Dam into compliance.
Third, the county’s arguments about biological impacts are misleading. In court, the county’s attorney claimed that Lopez Dam never harmed steelhead—an assertion that flies in the face of decades of scientific research and agency findings. Meanwhile, the county’s own draft habitat conservation plan, filed with the court on Oct. 1, 2025, asserts that flows from Lopez Dam will not harm tidewater goby (see, case no. 24-06854, docket 141-2)—the species the county previously invoked in court to justify inaction. In other words, the county’s recent filings undermine its own courtroom arguments, suggesting that its legal maneuverings are more about delay than finding resolution.
Local ratepayers deserve transparency. The county has spent millions on legal delay tactics while leaving city representatives in the dark. At a recent flood control district meeting, officials were even unaware of who the county’s outside attorneys were.
The Lopez Dam lawsuit is about accountability and compliance with federal law. The lawsuit has already resulted in a draft habitat conservation plan, which is the first step in the process to protect steelhead and improve water management for everyone. The path to resolution is clear, and the county Board of Supervisors controls the levers to make it happen. ∆
Write a response for publication to the Sierra Club, ForestWatch, and Coastkeeper’s op-ed by sending it to letters@newtimesslo.com.