Sweetwater Authority’s recent transfer of water out of Loveland Reservoir has reignited debate over whether water rates or public recreation should take priority. After local residents complained about being caught off-guard by the transfer, the authority’s board of directors last week called fo r increased transparency and for residents both down and upstream of the reservoir to be notified of upcoming transfers by the water agency’s administrators. The authority oversees Loveland Reservoir, located south of Alpine, and Sweetwater Reservoir, located south of Spring Valley, as well as the Sweetwater Dam. Water is perioidically released from Loveland, treated in Spring Valley and then supplied to 200,000 customers in South County. Authority officials said in mid-November that the agency would consider conducting a water transfer from Loveland Reservoir in anticipation of heavy rainfall to secure supply for the coming year. The agency said it would transfer about 10,000 acre-feet of water to Sweetwater Reservoir to “support residents in Chula Vista, National City, and Bonita.” The water transfers began Nov. 18 and valves were closed Tuesday. Total water capacity at the reservoir dropped from about 63% in mid-November to 20.3% as of Dec. 11, according to daily levels on the authority’s website. One acre-foot of water is equal to about 325,850 gallons, or enough to cover a football field. “This practice is essential to keeping water rates low and maintaining our position as one of the most affordable water agencies in San Diego County,” said Angel Marquez, public affairs manager for Sweetwater Authority. This is not the first time water transfers from Loveland Reservoir have been met with backlash. In 2020, the authority amended its storage policy to reduce required emergency levels from three months to none. A drought spell in 2022 led the agency to conduct a transfer from the Loveland Reservoir, which brought it to “deadpool” levels for the first time ever. The decision was criticized by residents, who said recreation was impacted. They also expressed concern about whether the reservoir could quickly bounce back from steep drainage. The recent transfer again sparked controversy with residents saying it severely impacted recreational opportunities by potentially harming fish populations and reduced shoreline availability for fishing. Advocates also said the move increased fire hazards and posed threats to the environment. While water transfers are regularly conducted by agencies to maintain supply or reduce ratepayer cost, Friends of Loveland Reservoir nonprofit director Karen Wood said the recent transfer was too much. “You have an obligation to your ratepayers to provide water at a reasonable rate, but you also have this other obligation to the people that use Loveland to have fishing access, and those two things are not mutually exclusive,” Wood said. For instance, she said leaving around 31% of total capacity could have bolstered savings for ratepayers while leaving high enough water levels to allow for continued fishing access. Loveland Reservoir was obtained by Sweetwater Authority in 1997 through a land swap with the U.S. Forest Service. As a condition of the trade, USFS asked the authority to provide the public with an access easement for fishing and to expand recreational opportunities at the reservoir. “The public would benefit from having more accessible shoreline to fish (from a maximum of five miles to a minimum of 3.6 miles, depending on water levels),” District Ranger Dean Nelson wrote in a letter to a state fishery biologist regarding the conditions of the trade in 1996. The authority agreed to allow public access to the recreational easement “from sunrise to sunset,” according to a copy of the deed. What has come into question by the public with the recent water transfer is whether this agreement requires the authority to maintain both access to the easement and water levels that would allow for fishing year-round. Wood said the recent draining has significantly lowered water levels, leaving “essentially no viable shoreline fishing access.” Fishing viability is “subject to water availability,” Marquez said. Maintaining public access to the easement is the only condition required of the deed, he said. The conflict over recreation access at the reservoir reached a peak during a Sweetwater Authority Governing Board meeting Wednesday. Governing Board Director Elizabeth Cox said conflict about management of the reservoir has heightened since it was first drained to deadpool levels in 2022. Further, she said authority management had mentioned the possibility of a transfer in an earlier meeting, but failed to inform directors that the draining had occurred until Tuesday. “I would like to really see a more positive working relationship between this organization and the Friends (of Loveland Reservoir),” Cox said. “I don’t like the contention. We talk about balancing environmental and human needs, and I believe that applies to both of our reservoirs.” ...read more read less