Flynn Plan Would Protect Most of the Sespe : Water: The supervisor seeks to preserve 51 miles of the river as ‘wild and scenic.’ A low-rise dam could be built on the lower portion near Fillmore.

Nearly all of Sespe Creek, the region’s last major undammed river, would be protected under a compromise plan Supervisor John K. Flynn will ask the Ventura County Board of Supervisors to endorse today.

Flynn recommends that 51 of the creek’s 55 miles be preserved by Congress as “wild and scenic,” which would allow construction of a low-rise dam on the lower four miles of the creek near Fillmore.

His proposal is the latest in a series of initiatives, including one to be debated in Congress this month, that seek to resolve a decades-long dispute over whether the Sespe should be dammed.

Flynn, a statewide expert on water issues, said he favors preserving nearly all of the creek not for environmental reasons, but because concern over the river has muddled the debate over new ways to provide water for Ventura County.

“You reach a time when you simply have to start removing options and get down to the real projects,” Flynn said. “Realistically, I don’t think anything will ever be built on the (upper) Sespe because it is too expensive.”

Old estimates of the cost of a dam on the Sespe in the mountains of the Los Padres National Forest have exceeded $250 million, he said. And the cost would surely be more today, he said.

If approved by supervisors, a resolution supporting Flynn’s plan would be forwarded to Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ventura) and Democratic Sen. Alan Cranston and Republican Sen. John Seymour.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote this month on a bill introduced by Lagomarsino. It would protect 31.5 miles of the Sespe in perpetuity and exempt another 10.5 miles from development until more study is done. But it would also allow two dams--one at Cold Spring and another at Oat Mountain--in the high country through which the year-round creek flows.

A Senate committee will take up the issue at hearings beginning Oct. 17. Cranston has opposed any dam on the river, while Seymour has remained neutral.

Spokesmen for Lagomarsino and Seymour had no comment on Flynn’s proposal Monday. In Ventura County, response was mixed.

Flynn drew quick support from some environmentalists, but others said they still want the entire river preserved. And water agency officials said Flynn’s plan would eliminate a water supply that the county will desperately need in the future.

Frederick J. Gientke, general manager of the United Water Conservation District, said Flynn’s proposal makes no sense partly because the low-rise dam it supports near Fillmore would cost perhaps $40 million and catch very little water.

“John’s proposal has never been studied, and I don’t think a politician ought to be in the position of engineering water projects,” Gientke said. “But my biggest concern is that you’re forcing our future generations to drink sand.”

Gientke said the river’s water will surely be needed by county residents and businesses in the next century. “Why make a decision today that you most assuredly will regret tomorrow?” he said.

But Flynn’s proposal was supported by Phil White, an engineer who has lobbied against damming the Sespe.

“I think this is a compromise that everyone can support because it gives both sides most of what they’re looking for,” White said.

The low-rise dam near Fillmore should satisfy water interests, White said, because it diverts creek runoff into a holding area where it will sink through sandy soil into water basins. Flynn estimated that water for at least 10,000 families could be captured there.

“I never thought I would be advocating a dam on the Sespe,” White said, “but this would protect the 51 miles of the Sespe that I think deserve protection.”

A spokesman for Keep the Sespe Wild, a group that has opposed a dam on any part of the river, praised Flynn’s initiative but said the group’s position is unchanged.

“Flynn’s position is excellent, of course, in that it precludes any large dams on the creek, which is our main objective,” Alasdair Coyne said. “But we would still hold out for all 55 miles.”

Studies of the last two decades have all rated Sespe dams low when analyzing new water sources because of environmental concerns and the cost of construction.

Flynn argues that there has been enough study of the Sespe, and damming it is not a viable option.

Ventura County should focus on new sources such as a pipeline to the city of Ventura from Castaic Lake, which receives imported water from Northern California, Flynn contends. The city and two water agencies are considering construction of the pipeline, which a consultant said would cost about $160 million.

Flynn said other options that should be pursued include a desalination plant off the Ventura County coast and expansion of the Freeman Diversion Project, which channels water out of the Santa Clara River and allows it to sink into subterranean basins.

It is estimated that damming the Sespe in the high country would produce about 20,000 acre-feet of water annually, or 5% of the county’s current demand.

Sespe Creek

Sespe Creek, the last major wild river in Southern California, runs 55 miles from its headwaters at Pine Mountain to its confluence at Fillmore with the Santa Clara River. Congress may decide this year how much of the creek to protect as a “wild and scenic” river. County Supervisor John K. Flynn has proposed protecting all but the four miles closest to the Santa Clara River.