So, to answer my own question, Matthews was never supposed to be built as a recreational facility. Not from day 1. The local representative Kevin Jeffries withdrew his own legislation (AB 1686) after finding this out. (Apparently that local rep must be in the group that "wish it would stay closed.")
I'm in the group that say that the public has no legal recourse to force anybody to open Matthews and thus should not invest the public's time and money into doing so, which is what Jeffries also found out. Thus, using Matthews as an example of "What will happen if we don't let in jet skis and water skiers on the water at DVL" is a bit disingenuous on your part, akin to 'scare tactics' that politicians use to sway public support.
And I was just getting my hopes up Matthews might open up someday to the general public.