County Issue: Sespe Creek Preservation

The Ventura County Board of Supervisors recently approved a plan to preserve almost all of Sespe Creek, the region’s last major undammed river. Water agency officials say

the plan would eliminate a water supply that the county will need in the future. Should Sespe Creek be preserved or left alone for development as a water resource?

John K. Flynn, Ventura County supervisor who proposed the compromise plan I offered a compromise proposal for Sespe Creek that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors approved. A compromise that will preserve 51 miles of the Sespe and leave the lower four miles to be used for some sort of water project in the future, such as a diversion facility. The Sespe issue had been getting in the way of making a decision to obtain water for Ventura County for too long, and it was time to make a decision. It was time to say no to some options, like the Sespe project, and look at the realistic options. There are many people who are opposed to the Sespe project, and previous studies on the area have shown that the project is not the answer to Ventura County’s problems. We need to start looking into other viable water projects like state water, reclamation, desalination, conservation and volunteer water exchanges with other areas of California. I think by supporting the Sespe compromise, the board has overcome its indecisiveness created by the Sespe issue and can now move forward in making water decisions for Ventura County’s future.

Rex Laird, Executive director, Ventura County Farm Bureau I am for the preserving of the Sespe River as already stated in the bill proposed by Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ventura), which has designated 31 1/2 miles as “wild and scenic” and keeps the balance in a study area for future water resources. Flynn’s proposal will preserve 51 miles of the Sespe, almost the entire river, including the upper eight miles that don’t meet the U.S. Forest Service’s criteria of being wild and scenic. It’s just a ruse to keep all of the Sespe wild. Nobody is proposing a dam-- nobody has the water rights--but the use of the Sespe as a possible future water resource should be placed on the list of water projects right behind desalination. There will be a time, 20 or 25 years from now, when everything has been done to get water and we will have to look at the Sespe. The future generation must have the opportunity to decide what to do with the Sespe when that time comes. They won’t have that opportunity, because Flynn and the Board of Supervisors want to lock up the river and foreclose on a future water resource.

Carolyn Leavens, Water committee chairwoman, Ventura Economical Development Assn. Nobody in their right mind will say, “Let’s build a dam!” That’s not the issue. The issue is that we may be at a point where there is a tremendous need for water, and there’s the Sespe just flowing into the sea. The middle portion of the river, the beautiful part that people wax poetically about and are concerned with, has already been preserved by the Lagomarsino bill. Only an act of Congress could change that. It is the upper portion of the river, the first four or five miles, that isn’t very scenic and has a highway running through it, that will be retained in a study as a potential water project site. It’s not like there’s going to be a dam built there tomorrow. The Lagomarsino bill, when approved by Congress, has an option that says we can look at the area after several years of study and see if we should leave it alone or build a project if the city’s water needs are too great. Whatever the decision is at that time, it will still have to go before a vote of the people. The people of Ventura County will have the last say.

Alasdair Coyne, Spokesman, Keep the Sespe Wild Sespe Creek is a win-win situation. We can preserve the beautiful creek and its pristine state and, at the same time, have access to a majority of its water resources without building extremely expensive and environmentally hazardous water projects. Earlier studies have shown that a great majority of the Sespe’s flow is already being used in the lower area near Fillmore and Saticoy. The Freeman Diversion project near Saticoy has been estimated to use 30,000 to 40,000 acre-feet of water in an average year, while the Fillmore irrigators use about another 7,000 acre-feet of the creek. That leaves only about 30,000 acre-feet left in the Sespe. It doesn’t make sense to build the two proposed dams, which would cost more than $300 million total, for that small amount of water. The Freeman project, which cost $30 million, was built with assistance from federal and state funding, and that wouldn’t be available for these dams. There just isn’t any good reason to reserve the dam options for the future.

Carla Bard, Ojai realtor and former chairwoman, State Water Resource Control Board For years, I have been interested in preserving Sespe Creek, and I am delighted that the Board of Supervisors decided to approve the compromise proposal presented by Supervisor Flynn. While the compromise protects the Sespe, it still leaves the last four miles left to be used for water projects, should they be needed in the future. There are a whole bunch of other resources to get water for Ventura County besides the Sespe, resources that are more viable. The board’s decision to dispose of the Sespe 31 1/2-mile option will free people so they can look at these options as well as free up money, if any can be found, and point it toward other resources like reclamation and state water. Besides not being an economically viable source of water, the Sespe is a wonderful, scenic area of land that is well worth the effort to preserve. The board was very wise in approving the Sespe compromise, and hopefully, Flynn will be able to convince Lagomarsino to accept the new compromise and present it to Congress for approval.