Vacation Reservoirs Are Not the Answer

Contrary to Chuck Bennett’s assertion (Letters to the Editor, May 7), Sespe Creek is indeed endangered, if not by the encroachment of an expanding human population, than by grandiose designs of the would-be dam builders. His reference to areas as a “dust bowl” conjures up images of worthlessness, when in fact in normal years these areas run year-round and provide a valuable watershed at all times.

Mr. Bennett’s allusion that Sespe Creek was responsible for the 1969 floods is erroneous as well, in that it was actually the Santa Clara River which flooded the areas he mentioned. Sespe Creek is a tributary of the Santa Clara, much the same as Santa Paula Creek, Piru Creek and others as far away as the Santa Clarita Valley.

His argument that we need to dam the Sespe to support population growth is inherently ridiculous, because when the population grows to match our increased water supplies, we would be back in the same situation we are in now--and worse off for all the blessings brought forth by an expanding local population.

Lastly, his idea that “vacation reservoirs” would prevent damage to nature is truly laughable. How do you save something by drowning it? Inviting weekend hordes of boaters to lakes situated in the heart of the Sespe area would virtually ensure its destruction.

My advice to Mr. Bennett is to have a cup of strong coffee, look out the window and wake up to the fact we live in a desert. (Did you ever notice it’s always warm here?) Wringing every drop of water available out of it only exacerbates existing problems, with a cost of environmental destruction.

MARK W. BROWN

Ventura