Both Sides in Water War Start Push to Sway Voters : Ventura: Supporters of pipeline and desalination proposals target an advisory measure on November ballot.

As the Ventura City Council finalizes plans to place an advisory measure for long-term water sources on the November ballot, state water supporters and proponents of desalinated water are not wasting any time in their campaigns to sway the electorate.

A group led by ranchers from outside the city already is peppering residents with mailers calling for the construction of a pipeline to the State Water Project at Castaic Lake.

Placards declaring “We Want Water,” the battle cry of their campaign, are popping up in front lawns throughout the city. And members are inundating local newspapers with letters to the editor arguing that a pipeline is the least expensive option for more water.

On the other side, some local business people as well as slow-growth advocates who several years ago were against an additional source of water are pushing to build a seawater desalination plant for the city.

Members of a new group, called Desal Water, are drafting a petition to give voters complete control over the city’s future water choices. And they plan to wage an advertising campaign promoting a desalination plant as far more reliable than the drought-plagued State Water Project. They say they will underscore this theme with the slogan “Desal Water for Sure.”

The battle is expected to be a heated one--a prospect that worries some city officials who say a negative campaign rife with misinformation could hurt Ventura’s quest for an additional water source.

“We don’t want this to turn into a circus,” said Mayor Gregory L. Carson. “This issue is too important to the city.”

But some water advocates say they have waited for nearly two decades for this. Before the drought tightened its grip on the city and pro-business council members swept into office last November, the suggestion of bringing an additional source of water into Ventura was shot down time and again because residents were afraid it would only bring a spurt of growth.

“This is our window of opportunity,” said Chuck Bennett, a state water supporter. “We either take it or we lose it.”

Two years ago, in the wake of the worsening drought and a tough water rationing program, the City Council swept aside longtime taboos and hired a consultant to identify the costs of the best long-term water solutions. Without an additional source of water, they said, city wells could run dry by 2010.

The consulting firm quickly narrowed its study to the state water and desalination options, eliminating such ideas as trucking in water from Northern California or towing an iceberg down from Alaska.

A recent report released by the city’s consulting firm, Boyle Engineering Corp., concluded it would be less expensive to build and operate a pipeline. But experts say that a desalination plant would provide a more reliable source of water than a pipeline tapping into the State Water Project, which was able to deliver only 45% of its allotments to agencies last year.

The state project gets it water from Northern California rainfall and Sierra Nevada snowpack, sources that have left the water levels at the state’s major reservoirs far below normal.

And David Kennedy, who oversees the State Water Project as director of the California Department of Water Resources in Sacramento, acknowledges that counting on state water is somewhat of a gamble.

“We’re in the sixth year of what is turning out to be the worst drought on record,” Kennedy said. “I think overall it is a reliable source of water. But there is no question that there are challenges that we have to meet. . . . There are no sure bets.”

Last week, the council voted to place an advisory measure on the ballot allowing voters to voice their opinions on which water source the city should pursue. The council is expected to finalize the wording of the measure at its meeting Monday night.

Although council members have decided to make the final decision on the best long-term water source, the majority of the panel say they will abide by the voters’ decision.

And even though council members say they would like to put out information on the two water sources, the opposing camps have taken it upon themselves to get out their messages about the best option.

“Our point is to tell our story,” said Dana Weber Young, managing director of the Assn. of Water Agencies of Ventura County and a state water supporter.

Tim Downey, an environmental consultant and chairman of Desal Water, added: “This will be a full-blown political campaign. We may be outspent but we won’t be outworked.”

The state water advocacy group includes members of the Ventura Chamber of Commerce and the Ventura Board of Realtors. Its most aggressive organizers, however, are farmers from outside the city who have found themselves in competition over a limited supply of ground water as new neighborhoods push Ventura eastward.

Carolyn Leavens, a citrus and avocado rancher located east of the city, said the farmers are worried that Ventura will opt to build a desalination plant that would yield 7,000 acre-feet a year while upgrading facilities to draft more water from underground aquifers. An acre-foot of water will supply two families of four for one year.

Since desalinated water is purer than state water, the city would be able to mix it with inexpensive ground water.

The State Water Project, however, could deliver up to 9,000 acre-feet and would require the city to draw less ground water, leaving more for farmers.

“We cannot afford either desalinated water or state water if we are forced to use either of those sources,” Leavens said. “The farms can only use ground water. If the city is determined to mine all the ground water it can, that will be the death knell of agriculture in this end of the county.”

Ventura County Farm Bureau Executive Director Rex Laird has also weighed in on the side of state water.

“We want the city of Ventura to have an ample water supply so they don’t share their problem with other people, including farmers,” Laird said. “The irony is that so many people outside the city of Ventura are impacted by what the council does.”

Leavens said she has been trying to get state water hooked up to the western portion of Ventura County for five years. “It is just one of those things that people did not get excited about until there was a water shortage,” she said.

Once water rates started to skyrocket and residents were ordered to cut back, there were plenty of people wanting to join the state water movement, Leavens said.

Young of the Assn. of Water Agencies of Ventura County said Ventura should build a pipeline now and later consider constructing a desalination plant.

“It makes more sense to go with the cheaper alternative first,” she said. “It would be foolish not to take advantage of it.”

Young said the group plans to spend about $20,000 on its campaign to persuade the public that hooking up to the State Water Project is the better alternative.

She said most of the money will come from private donations. So far, she said, the group has sent out 15,000 flyers to Ventura voters that claim “State water is the most reliable and least expensive” source.

“At most a joint agency pipeline (with other cities) would cost families an estimated $9 per family per month versus desalination at a cost of $30 per family per month,” according the flyers.

But members of the Desal Water group say the flyer has misleading figures.

They point to city estimates that show the average monthly water rate, which is now $28, would climb to $53 a month if a desalination plant were built. The average rate would rise to $42 a month, according to the estimates, if the city joins Casitas Municipal Water District and United Water Conservation District in building a pipeline that taps Rio Vista Treatment Plant at the State Water Project.

Supporters of a desalination plant say that although it would be less expensive to build a pipeline, turning seawater into drinking water would be a more reliable source.

“You don’t have to assume anything with desal,” said Downey, chairman of the advocacy group. “You build a plant and you get the water. With state water, if it doesn’t rain in Northern California, we’re in trouble. I think people would be willing to pay a little more for the guarantee of reliability.”

For the past year, Downey said, he has been studying the differences between desalination and state water as a member of the council-appointed Citizens Water Advisory Committee.

Several months ago, the committee recommended that the city pursue desalination because of the reliability issue. When it became evident that the push for state water was gaining momentum, Downey and several members of the committee decided to form their own group, Desal Water.

Downey, also a member of the city’s Planning Commission, has sharply criticized council members for deciding to put only an advisory measure on the ballot instead of a binding one.

“We’ve said all along that it’s such an important decision, it should not be made by a seven-member council,” he said.

Later this summer, he said, group members will start gathering signatures to place their own measure on the ballot that would require the council to follow the voters’ wishes.

So far, the most vocal members of Desal Water include several former participants of the citizens’ committee. They are Downey, Sandy Smith, a planning commissioner and owner of the Rosarito Beach Cafe, and Fred Eick, the safety and purchasing director of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. in Ventura.

“We’re the city’s largest water customer,” Eick said. “Reliability means a lot to us.”

Steve Bennett, an environmentalist and high school teacher, is also an active member of the group.

Bennett said that several years ago he was against bringing additional water into the city. But his views changed as the drought intensified.

“We do need an additional water source,” Bennett said. “But state water is going to be there when we don’t need it.”

Bennett said he is urging Ventura officials to continue with the conservation program, no matter which long-term water source the city picks. He also said that officials need to be careful not to allow water to prompt rapid growth.

“We are mandated to use our water wisely,” he said.

Judee Hauer, a city resident who has urged the council to take further conservation measures, said she also is worried that the city will squander its water once an additional source is secured.

“We need to try to become more creative than we have,” Hauer said. “People were just getting the hang of conservation. I’m afraid this will send a double message.”

But Jay T. Spurgin, a consultant with Boyle Engineering, said the city’s long-term water plan calls for continued conservation. The days of turning on the tap without regard for the consequences are over, city officials agree.

“Whatever source of water we find, it’s going to be up to the future generation to guard that water carefully,” said Councilman Gary Tuttle. “There is no way in the world we should let (the growth) that went on for two decades get us to the point where we are out of water again. I’m hoping that future city leaders will make sure that doesn’t happen.”

For now, Tuttle said, he plans to play referee in the battle between supporters of state water and proponents of desalination.

“I’m worried people will stretch the facts, that’s my biggest fear,” he said. “I hope both sides will play fair and use fair figures. And I hope the City Council will stay above it.”