Panel Urges Desalination Plant for City : Ventura: A committee recommends the $41-million facility. An alternative is piping state water from Castaic Lake.

A citizens committee has recommended that the Ventura City Council build a $41-million desalination plant to convert seawater into tap water rather than rely on state reservoirs to provide a long-term source of water.

The Citizens Water Advisory Committee, appointed by the council last summer, concluded late Thursday that the city could best meet its water needs by building a desalination facility that could tap the almost limitless supply of the Pacific Ocean.

Most committee members agreed that a locally controlled desalination plant would be more reliable than state water, which could be reduced in drought years.

The cost of such a desalination plan would be borne by city residents, causing the average monthly water bill to increase about $30 a month, said Glenn McPherson, a consultant to the city.

Council members had mixed reactions on Friday to the committee’s recommendation.

“That is crazy,” Councilman Jim Monahan said. “I don’t think the council will support that.”

Monahan said the city should instead cooperate with other cities and water agencies in building a joint pipeline to import water from Castaic Lake. A pipeline would cost less to build and operate than a desalination plant.

But Councilman Gary Tuttle, a longtime proponent of building a city desalination plant, applauded the citizen committee’s recommendation.

“I think their vote is very significant,” Tuttle said. “It gives tremendous momentum to the desalination” proposal.

Councilman Todd Collart, who is undecided on the issue, agreed that the council should take the committee’s recommendation seriously. “It would be useful to give the voters a choice--desalination versus pipeline.”

On Monday, the council will hear presentations from consultants about pipelines to connect the city to state water. By the end of June, the council is expected to decide on a desalination plant, a state pipeline or other means to boost the city’s water supply. The council will place its recommended solution on the November ballot so voters can decide if they want to pay for it.

The committee membership, which has dwindled over the months, is a mix of experts and citizens from the community who have studied alternative water sources for eight months, he said.

If a balanced, well-informed group recommended a desalination plant, Collart said, “the public is safe to assume it’s not a crazy, fly-by-night idea.”

Building a desalination plant would cost the city a little more than participating in the construction of a joint pipeline, which would cost $37 million. The total cost of building a desalination plant and other system improvements would be $135 million by 2010, contrasted with $125 million for the pipeline.

A desalination plant would also cost almost twice as much annually to operate, McPherson said.

Residents would pay about $8 more per month on the average water bill for a desalination plant than for a joint pipeline, he said.

But the citizens’ committee decided the higher cost of a desalination plant would be justified because it would be a more reliable source than state water.

Under the joint pipeline project, the city’s water supply from Castaic Lake would be cut back during dry years.

“Ventura is unique because it is still water-independent,” committee member Steve Bennett said, referring to the Ventura River and underground water basins that supply the city.

If the city builds a desalination plant, all of its water sources will continue to be local, said Bennett, a high school teacher.

Other committee members opted for a desalination plant because they said it would be more environmentally responsible than draining water from other parts of the state.

“I think other people are going to need the water inland,” Jerry Sortomme told his fellow committee members. “We have a water source right next door.”

Twelve of the 14 committee members at Thursday’s meeting supported a desalination plant. Two said the city should work with other water agencies to build a pipeline.

Committee member Dolores Taylor, who is a division engineer for the Ventura County Flood Control District, said Ventura residents should have no qualms about using water from Northern California.

“The water belongs to the whole state,” Taylor said.

In addition, Taylor said, a joint pipeline would bring water to other parts of the county besides the city of Ventura.

“We need to look at the benefit for all the citizens of Ventura County,” she said.

The other committee member who supported the joint pipeline is Rex S. Laird, executive director of the Ventura County Farm Bureau.