Groups Clash on River’s Fate : Sespe Creek: Business and farming interests battle environmentalists at a Washington hearing over the issue of dams.

Business and farming representatives from Ventura County clashed with environmentalists in Washington on Thursday during a pivotal hearing of a Senate subcommittee deciding the fate of Southern California’s last wild and undammed river, the Sespe Creek.

Citrus rancher Carolyn Leavens, representing business and agriculture, told the subcommittee that the Senate should enact a bill that would leave options open for future dams by designating only 31.5 miles of the 55-mile river as “wild and scenic.”

The economic future of the county depends on a reliable future water supply, she said.

Meanwhile, Alisdair Coyne, representing the environmental lobby, asked Sen. John Seymour (R-Calif.), who presided over the hearing, to rule out dams on the Sespe by protecting all 55 miles of the river.

And Ventura County Supervisor John K. Flynn, representing a third option, asked the Senate to support his plan to preclude dams on the 51 miles of the river within the boundaries of the Los Padres National Forest.

The plan has the support of the full Board of Supervisors and the cities of Ventura, Fillmore and Ojai, he said.

‘It is inconceivable to me . . . that Congress would deny a local will so clearly expressed,” Flynn said.

Flynn said his plan would protect the river but leave open the possibility of building low diversion-style dams on the lower four miles of the Sespe before its confluence with the Santa Clara River at Fillmore.

How much of the Sespe to preserve as wild and scenic is one of the few unresolved details to be worked out by Congress as part of a comprehensive Los Padres Wilderness bill.

Seymour, Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) and Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ventura), who sponsored the House version of the bill, will decide in conferences over the next two weeks how much of the river to protect.

Both the Senate and the House versions of the bill designate nearly 400,000 acres of national forest as wilderness areas, including the 220,500-acre Sespe Wilderness in the rugged backcountry of Ventura County. The bills also designate as wild and scenic or preserve for further study more than 150 miles of rivers and streams.

The House bill designates a 31.5-mile section of the Sespe as wild and scenic and sets aside another 10.5 miles for further study. But the Senate version of the bill, sponsored by Seymour with Cranston as a co-sponsor, has left open the number of miles to be protected.

Lagomarsino has said Flynn’s plan is unacceptable to him. He said, and area farm representatives agree, that prohibiting dams by protecting all 51 miles of the river is no compromise.

“It’s a sham to call it a compromise,” said Rex Laird, executive director of the Ventura County Farm Bureau.

Coyne, a member of the Keep the Sespe Wild environmental group, said protecting the entire river is the best option.

“Small diversion dams are not environmentally disastrous,” contrasted with a large dam and reservoir, Coyne said. “But we are still holding out for all 55 miles.”

Cranston also favors “wild and scenic” designation for all 55 miles of the river, which, he said, would “protect the best trout stream in Southern California, a unique steelhead fishery, spectacular rock formations and opportunities for both primitive and developed recreation.”

Seymour has been silent on the issue. But he and Cranston have vowed to reach an agreement on how much of the river should be protected. Once the two California senators and Lagomarsino agree, the bills are expected to sail through the full Senate and House.

Whatever the outcome, rancher Leavens said the decision will be crucial to the future of business and agriculture in the county. She said the political climate now would not permit a dam to be built on the Sespe. But things could change in five or 10 years, she said.

“When people really get thirsty and few other options are left, that’s when (a dam) will really get some attention,” she said. “What concerns me is that by that time, the farmers will be gone.”