Carmel River steelhead swim 27 steps up a 68-foot-tall fish ladder and through the silted San Clemente Dam to make it to their spawning pools. And then, to get back out to the ocean, they either find a path down the fish ladder or dive off the 107-foot dam. For the threatened fish, the trip can be deadly – but so can red tape, which the fish, the water company, and a slew of state and federal agencies have been swimming in for years.

In the summer of 2007, California American Water Company began working with state and federal agencies to remove the obsolete dam on the Carmel River. The San Clemente is so glutted with sediment that it no longer stores water. Additionally, it’s a safety hazard in the event of an earthquake, and a huge obstacle to the threatened steelhead trout.

It looked like Cal Am and the Coastal Conservancy had worked out a plan to re-route the river and remove the dam. But then, in March, Cal Am announced it would scrap the $84 million dam removal project because of unresolved liability issues and the February freeze of state payments to bond-funded projects. Instead, it would spend $50 million to strengthen the San Clemente Dam with steel-reinforced concrete.

Now, however, the re-route and removal plan is back on the table, as Cal Am and elected officials discuss conveying the property to federal park lands. “An agreement with federal lands is not rare. They take sites that are blighted all the time,” says Supervisor Dave Potter, who participated in a recent conference call with Assemblyman Bill Monning, Rep. Sam Farr and Cal Am President Kent Turner. “The regulators are all in agreement that the dam should come down.”

But it’s got to be financially feasible, Turner says.

“We’re under pressure from the state to make San Clemente Dam earthquake-safe,” Turner says. “This issue has been pending for over 10 years and the message from Department of Water Resources and others is that we need to act now. We are moving forward with the strengthening project because the liability issues surrounding the removal-and-reroute alternative could not be resolved. We made that announcement earlier this year and it is still the case. That said, if the federal government is willing to provide financial assistance for removal and can ensure our customers won’t be liable for the project, we’re all ears. We’ve committed to strengthening, but are still open to good ideas. If an arrangement were to surface that could make a removal project affordable for our customers, we will be receptive and listening.”