Accusations Traded in Water Sources Debate

In the first public debate on Ventura’s future water source, each side accused the other Thursday of spreading misinformation about the State Water Project and desalination.

Residents will cast advisory votes in November on the city’s long-term water source before the City Council makes the final choice between building a desalination plant or importing state water.

“A lot of people are sitting on the fence,” said Norman McDaniel, vice president of the Ventura Downtown Lions Club, which sponsored the 90-minute debate. About 250 people attended the event at the American Legion Hall.

Cost and reliability were the main issues discussed, and both sides said the other had misrepresented the facts.

Desalination advocates contended that the State Water Project is not a reliable source of water, while state water supporters maintained that desalination is too costly.

“If there’s no rain or snow in Northern California, there ain’t going to be any water coming down the pipeline,” said Tim Downey, chairman of Desal Water, a citizens group pushing for a desalination plant.

The State Water Project receives its water from Northern California rainfall and the Sierra Nevada snowpack. Last year, it was able to deliver only 45% of its allotments to agencies.

John Johnson, manager of the Casitas Municipal Water District, said, “There are going to be good years and there are going to be bad years. Desal is only willing to talk about the bad. If you store water when it’s available, you have it available for the dry years.”

On the cost issue, state water advocates emphasized that building a desalination plant would cost taxpayers $6.2 million a year more than constructing a pipeline for state water.

“That’s the equivalent of 88 more police officers,” Johnson said. “There is no justification for going and spending $6.2 million more for water.”

Boyle Engineering Corp., the city’s consulting firm, estimated that it would cost about $30.4 million per year to build a desalination plant and construction would last four to six years. The report also estimated that it would cost about $24.2 million yearly to build a connecting pipeline, with construction requiring six to eight years.

Steve Bennett, a high school teacher who is on the Desal Water committee, said, “What the other side doesn’t want you to know is that it’s a $10 difference on your water bill. Ten dollars more a month is certainly worth it to drought-proof us.”

Both sides said environmental issues associated with both options need to be further addressed. The state water proponents emphasized the problem of brine disposal, and desalination supporters touted the fact that the plant would be operating on natural gas.

Ventura gets its water from several sources, including the Lake Casitas reservoir, the Ventura River and ground water. One study has estimated that city wells could run dry by 2010 if an additional source of water is not found.

At the end of the forum, both groups said they believed that they had fared well. The audience did not seem to particularly favor one side over the other.

“I think both did very well,” said Frank Eulau, an accountant. “But I haven’t made up my mind yet. I’ll probably wait until Election Day.”