Push Planned for Castaic Lake Hookup : Ventura: Some council members say they want the city connected to the state reservoirs, a move officials say will lure businesses.

Seizing an opportunity to shift Ventura away from its no-growth water policies, pro-business members of the City Council say they want to push ahead this summer with plans to connect the area to state reservoirs at Castaic Lake.

The move to bring in state water by pipeline will solve many of Ventura’s water problems, giving the city what it needs to lure new business and allow population to grow by a small amount, officials say.

In recent years, the notion of hooking up Ventura to the Los Angeles County lake was widely unpopular because some feared it would prompt widespread growth. The City Council used the water shortage as a prime reason for slapping a building moratorium on the city.

But the drought has taken a toll on the city, and the politics of the council changed with November’s election.

Councilman James L. Monahan and recently elected pro-business council members Jack Tingstrom, Tom Buford and Gregory L. Carson say they would like to hook Ventura into the State Water Project. The City Council is expected to make a decision on the issue in June.

“State water is the most viable option,” Tingstrom said. “I’m ready to vote on it right now. Let’s get it done.”

According to a report prepared by James Montgomery Engineering in Pasadena, it would cost the city $40 million to $80 million to join other Ventura County communities in tapping state reservoirs. The expense could translate into a 50% increase in city water rates, which officials say is “cheaper than no water at all.”

Ventura voters most likely will be given the final say in the November election on whether the city should proceed with the pipeline, which could be built along the Santa Clara River. The project would either be financed through general obligation or municipal revenue bonds.

Officials warn that if Ventura does not secure an additional source of water, the city’s supply could run out by 2010. Ventura now obtains its water from wells, the Ventura River and Lake Casitas. A tough rationing program, which could be eased slightly by the City Council at the end of the month, has virtually stopped business expansion.

“If we fail to maintain a reasonable business environment, we will be driving employers out of the community,” Buford said. “We’ve got to create a situation where we will become very attractive.”

While Buford, Monahan, Tingstrom and Carson said they like the idea of state water, Councilman Todd J. Collart said he wants to study the issue more before making a decision.

Council members Gary Tuttle and Cathy Bean say they favor building a desalination plant, an option that will be discussed at the council meeting Monday night.

Engineer David Ringel said a desalting plant would be more expensive, costing $60 million to $100 million to build. But since the state project cannot always meet customers’ demands, Ringel said, the desalting plant would be a more reliable source of freshwater.

“It’s not going to be cheap,” Bean said. “But at least it’s predictable.”

Eventually, Buford said, Ventura might want to build both a pipeline and a desalination plant. Although both options would be costly, he said “it means a lot of money” if Ventura continues levying strict fines on residents who exceed their water allotments.

Nevertheless, Tingstrom and Monahan say they will launch an intense plea for the state option when the council makes its decision in June.

“Desalination has too many unknowns,” Tingstrom said.

Added Monahan, a councilman in his fourth term: “I’ve been here all my life and I’ve always felt that state water was the way to go.”

Since the 1960s, the city has paid the state to reserve the right to tap into the reservoir, which is fed by water from Northern California. Over the years, Monahan has suggested that the council move forward with a hookup, but he said his recommendations were always shot down.

Former City Councilman Richard Francis said he campaigned against state water when he ran for office in 1987 because of the growth that could follow.

But Francis said his views began to change after he entered office and was forced to vote in favor of water rationing as the drought gripped the city.

“I realized that the situation was a lot worse than I expected,” Francis said. “It became real clear when we had to go to rationing.

“There was no doubt in my mind. State water is the option that makes the most economic sense, but I would like to see it tied to a sound, rational slow-growth policy.”

Carson, who was elected mayor by his colleagues after he joined the council, agreed.

“Some people have tried to tie it to growth,” Carson said. “I want to tie it to the quality of life for the people who live here.”

Both Carson and Buford said they support the city’s Comprehensive Plan, which would allow the city to expand to 102,941 residents. In the 1990 census, Ventura had 92,575 people. Carson and Buford said they also favor careful business development.

More than a year ago, the city commissioned $1.2 million in studies on its current water system and future options. The city’s Citizens Water Advisory Committee is also reviewing the options and will make a recommendation this spring.

Committee member Steve Bennett, an unsuccessful City Council candidate last fall, said he has reservations about state water.

“I have real concerns about reliability,” he said. “And it should not be used as a growth tool.”

Bennett said he recognizes that Ventura needs another water source but believes desalination might be the best option.

“We need a source that will be there during drought periods,” he said. “I think the voters should have the right to choose.”

According to the study prepared by Montgomery Engineering, it would take six to eight years to run a pipeline from Ventura to Castaic Lake.

Ventura could join cities served by the Casitas Municipal Water District and United Water Conservation District in building the 40-mile line. If the city builds the pipeline alone, the study said, costs could exceed $100 million.

Despite the support for imported water, one local environmentalist said he believes the city can get by without state water.

“I think the city needs to make conservation permanent,” said Neil A. Moyer, president of the Environmental Coalition of Ventura County.

But Councilman Buford said while some conservation measures are needed, the city should not be expected to continue rationing at its current level.

In March, 1990, the City Council adopted an ordinance requiring residents to trim water use by 30% or face penalties on their bills. The standard city allotment for a family of four is 294 gallons a day.

Buford is one of the council members suggesting that those restrictions be eased because of the recent rains. The recommendations are scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council on March 30.

“It is not appropriate to call on people to live at this level on a continuing basis,” Buford said. “That will not attract local business or boost the economy.”

City Manager John S. Baker said Ventura has a “responsibility to the next generation” to obtain another water source.

“After that, it’s up to them,” Baker said. “But we have a responsibility to ensure we have quality water and enough water.”