Water Showdown Looms in Santa Barbara : Election: On Tuesday, voters get a second chance to tap into the state aqueduct project. Debate pits slow-growth factions against businesses and those who suffered in drought.

Many Southern Californians expressed little sympathy for drought-weary Santa Barbara as water rates tripled, lawns turned brown and vegetation withered and died.

Santa Barbara deserved its fate, critics of the city’s water policy said. Residents had the chance to obtain an additional water supply in 1979, but rejected it when they voted against tying into the State Water Project, partly to control growth.

Now residents have another chance--a final chance--for state water. On Tuesday, in 14 water districts throughout Santa Barbara County, residents will vote on whether to finance a series of pipelines and pumping plants to import Northern California water.

The debate has divided Santa Barbara County and is one of the most heated campaigns in recent years. The local newspapers run inflammatory letters supporting or decrying the State Water Project. There have been numerous debates, and bumper stickers and posters advocating the various positions have proliferated.

The severe drought has raised the stakes in this long-running debate. Many in the business community are pushing for state water and argue that Santa Barbara has suffered needlessly during the past few years.

“If we brought state water here 12 years ago, we would have gotten through this drought in a lot better shape,” said Steve Cushman, executive director of the Chamber of Commerce. “We can’t afford to make that mistake again.”

But those who oppose importing state water argue that if the project had been approved in 1979, there would be more development in the Santa Barbara area, which would simply create new water shortages.

“With state water this area would be on its way to looking like Orange County north,” said Arve Sjovold, head of the water committee for Citizens Planning Assn. “We wouldn’t have been any better off.”

The cost of building a pipeline from Kern County, near the California Aqueduct, to Lake Cachuma is more than $400 million, and the share for the city of Santa Barbara, paid for by revenue bonds, would be more than $25 million.

On some points, such as financing and growth, the debate has remained unchanged since 1979, but there are some new issues. Opponents of state water now have the option of another supply--desalination.

Santa Barbara soon will begin building the nation’s largest municipal seawater desalination plant, an emergency facility that will supplement the supplies of Santa Barbara and two neighboring cities for five years. On Tuesday, Santa Barbara residents also will vote--in an advisory election--on whether to build a permanent facility for the city’s long-range needs.

With Goleta already committed to building a permanent desalination plant and other cities along the central coast considering facilities, opponents of state water say there is a feasible alternative to the project.

The Santa Barbara area was devastated by the drought because it is not connected to any outside water source and must rely entirely on local reservoirs and ground water supplies. The main reservoir for the area, Lake Cachuma, is at 40% of capacity.

Because of the shortages, Santa Barbara had to prohibit lawn watering for more than a year and Goleta had considered importing water by ocean-going tanker from Canada. Thousands of trees have died, and the drought killed landscaping worth millions of dollars.

While both sides in the debate argue about “water delivery schedules,” “pricing formulas” and “flexibility quotients,” the issue of growth is what many voters are concerned about and what, ultimately, they may base their vote on. In southern Santa Barbara County, residents appreciate the small-town atmosphere and the way city officials have kept developers at bay. They are forever concerned about being overwhelmed by growth.

Largely because of these fears, state water was rejected in the county by a 3-1 vote in 1979. But that vote followed an extremely wet year, and this year’s vote follows a lengthy drought during which some longtime opponents of state water have changed their position.

After the 1960s, when Goleta’s population tripled, the local water board ceased searching for outside water supplies--at the same time refusing to issue permits for new water hookups. This approach had the intended effect, and Goleta became the first community in California to slow the pace of growth by deliberately limiting its access to new water sources.

But today, after five years of drought, three of the five members of the Goleta Water Board have come out in support of state water.

“The situation here has gone beyond politics,” said Katy Crawford, president of the board, who opposed state water when she was elected in 1987. “We’ve determined our supplies are just not enough.”

Opponents of state water say it will be an expensive surplus supply. They fear local officials might even encourage growth if they have to finance both state water and desalination.

“Every community that’s ever imported water from Northern California has had a building boom--from San Diego to San Bernardino to Riverside to Orange County,” said supervisor Bill Wallace, a former Goleta Water Board member. “And if we bring state water here, we’ll find the pressure to grow overwhelming, just like these other places.”

Desalination, Wallace said, has a number of advantages. The facilities will be controlled by local officials, not Sacramento. The plants can be expanded during drought years and shut down during rainy years.

Furthermore, he said, state water is unreliable. This year, urban users received only 20% of their allotment, and by the year 2000, if the project is not expanded, there will be regular cutbacks, water officials have said.

Many leaders of the two sides are divided along traditional lines--environmentalists and “slow-growthers” on one side and real estate groups and business leaders on the other. But another faction has entered the debate. Because of the drought, numerous gardeners, farmhands and orchard workers lost jobs. With higher water bills compounding the problem, some could no longer afford housing.

“We need the state water for our jobs,” said Rogelio Trujillo, a board member of the Legal Defense Center and owner of a gardening business. “This water shortage has hit our community very hard. A lot of people lost both their jobs and their apartments . . . some have had to leave town and find work elsewhere.”

Tuesday’s vote is critical, Trujillo said, because it is the area’s last chance to tie into the project. In April, the Santa Maria City Council committed to state water, which means the rest of the county--and cities in San Luis Obispo County--must decide soon whether to participate in financing the coastal branch of the aqueduct.

“All new water sources are expensive these days . . . but we’ve all got to realize there’s no free lunch anymore,” said Crawford of the Goleta Water Board. “It’s time for all of us to realize that in Southern California water is a rare commodity and if you’ve got the opportunity for a reasonable new water supply, you better take it.”