ELECTIONS / MEASURE O : Farmers Drawn Into Water Source Battle

In the final weeks before a citywide vote on a new source of water for Ventura, the camp fighting a pipeline hookup to the state water system charges that the plan is a ruse to make Santa Clara Valley farmers rich.

But farmers and others who favor a state water pipeline over their opponents’ proposal to build a seawater desalination plant say the assertion is absurd.

State water opponents say a pipeline through the agricultural valley could eventually provide high-quality water to an area far from the city limits of Ventura that is now dependent on mineral-laden ground water.

That would increase land value and open the area to future housing tracts and condominiums, they charge.

The valley’s growers, who farm outside the city, admit they have an economic motive for backing state water. But they say it’s simply to guarantee themselves access to cheap ground water in the future, not to set the stage for some massive development of their farmlands.

If Ventura chooses state water, they say, the city could receive more water for less money than if it opts for desalination. And that would leave more cheap ground water for growers.

Rex Laird, executive director of the Ventura County Farm Bureau and a member of the Venturans for State Water committee, called the development assertion “the big lie technique: If you say it often enough, people might believe it.”

“Our concern over the pipeline is to ensure the city has enough of an additional water supply so they don’t try to take ours,” he said.

Timothy Downey, chairman of the Desal Water committee and a city planning commissioner, said that if farmers truly want to maintain a low-cost water supply for agriculture, they should vote against an expensive pipeline. Instead of a pipeline, he said, they should lobby for bringing state water down Piru Creek to the Santa Clara River at virtually no cost.

“But if what you’re really concerned about is the development value of your property, you would be more inclined to support a pipeline that you could access to develop your agriculture land in the future,” Downey said.

The charges and countercharges over development barely scratch the surface of the complex issues in the testy campaign, which both sides say could ultimately shape the future of the city and region.

The two camps have accused each other of manipulating cost estimates and misrepresenting the reliability of the projects. In addition, the group favoring desalination has pulled up just short of accusing state water proponents of unethical campaign practices.

Ventura voters will get a chance to choose between a seawater desalination plant and a state water pipeline when they vote on Measure O on the Nov. 3 ballot. Although the vote is only advisory, it is widely expected that elected council members will go along with the voters’ choice.

Both sides have plotted their strategies for the final weeks. Venturans for State Water plans to put up signs on buildings and in front lawns. The committee has enlisted service clubs and unions that have endorsed their cause to walk precincts and solicit donations.

A mailer from the state water forces has gone out to new voters and residents who voted in previous elections. Supporters are appearing regularly at club meetings and debates to push their project and raise money for more mailings.

The Desal Water committee plans no signs or posters, but will use scarce dollars for direct mailings to voters who are still undecided, based on committee telephone surveys.

Instead of walking precincts, the Desal camp plans several evenings of telephoning during the last two weeks before the election. Desal also plans a fund-raising wine and cheese party at the proposed future site of the desalination plant at Garden and Santa Clara streets in downtown Ventura.

Both sides have complained of difficulties raising money during a general election year in a depressed economy.

Venturans for State Water had set its fund-raising goal at $40,000 but has now cut that figure almost in half.

As of Sept. 30, the group had raised $8,237, including a $5,000 loan from supporter Robert F. Formanek, owner of Five Points Car Wash.

Desal Water had hoped to raise $20,000 and is now looking for $12,000.

By Sept. 30, it had raised $10,592, predominantly in the form of loans from supporters. Schoolteacher and former City Council candidate Steve Bennett loaned the campaign $6,000, on top of an $1,800 contribution. Downey, president of a firm that recycles oil-field wastes, loaned the campaign $2,000, and Frank Eick, a Pepsi-Cola executive, loaned $1,000.

But Downey and Bennett say that state water proponents’ filings do not reflect the true total they have collected and spent on the campaign.

A committee called We Want Water, supported by business interests and growers, spent an estimated $10,000 to produce a mailer and a position paper supporting state water before Measure O was placed on the November ballot.

The contributions and expenditures, however, were not reported to the state because the committee considered its function educational only, said Dana Weber Young, managing director of the Assn. of Water Agencies, which provides staff for the state water campaign.

“It’s a countywide educational group on water issues and it is not limited to the city of Ventura debate,” Young said. Although the brochure did not mention Measure O, it urged recipients to call their council members and support state water over desalination.

Officials at the state Fair Political Practices office in Sacramento said last week that they would not issue a legal opinion to parties other than those directly involved. But a spokeswoman said that if the literature did not specifically mention the ballot measure, the committee could be exempt from reporting requirements.

“Nevertheless, they violated the intent and certainly the spirit of the law,” Downey said.

We Want Water has since stopped all activity to avoid any appearance of impropriety, Young said. Many of its members have since joined the Venturans for State Water campaign, headed by former City Councilman John McWherter.

The ballot language of Measure O weighs heavily in favor of the state water option, stating that it would bring the city 9,000 acre-feet of water each year at an annual cost of $24.2 million. That compares to a $30.4 million annual cost for 7,000 acre-feet of desalinated water, according to the text of the measure.

Desal Water forces say the figures are misleading, while state water proponents and Ventura city officials say they are based on an unbiased engineer’s report.

The two proposals break down this way:

The state water proposal calls for building a 44-mile pipeline from Castaic Lake near the junction of Interstate 5 and California 126 through the Santa Clara Valley to eastern Ventura.

The estimated cost includes drilling two new wells for ground water pumping to be used during drought years when the State Water Project cannot deliver the full amount requested.

Cost estimates assume that the Castaic Lake Water Agency or the Metropolitan Water District would build about the first 15 miles of the pipeline to bring it to the county line, said Shelley Jones, Ventura’s director of public works.

Estimates include the cost of paying a Castaic Lake Water Agency treatment plant now under construction to treat the water before it is sent west to Ventura.

Estimates also assume that Casitas Municipal Water District, which serves western Ventura and the Ojai Valley, and agencies represented by United Water Conservation District will help pay for the pipeline. Each holds rights to 5,000 acre-feet a year of state water.

United has so far preferred to take delivery of its allocation from Pyramid Lake, down Piru Creek and into the Santa Clara River.

But officials in Santa Paula and Fillmore say their communities may want to help pay for a pipeline to improve their water quality and provide an additional source of water in case their ground water basins become contaminated.

Neither the Santa Paula City Council nor the Fillmore City Council has voted on the issue, both preferring to wait to see whether Ventura opts for the pipeline.

Jones said firm estimates are not available on how much the cost would be affected if any of the agencies outside Ventura opt not to participate. But he said the price to the city would not change “substantially” because the size of the project would also be reduced. Opponents charge that the assumptions built into the estimates constitute “hidden costs” that could increase the cost of state water until it is as high as that of desalinated water.

City officials and supporters say the project would bring in up to 9,000 acre-feet a year to the city of Ventura, about 38% of what is used in an average year.

But opponents say that figure is inflated, pointing out that the State Water Project delivered only 45% of its commitments last year and only 30% the year before. In addition, it has overcommitted its ability to deliver water with its present system of reservoirs by 55%, officials at the State Department of Water Resources acknowledge.

State officials say the amount of water in storage is lower for this time of year than it has been during the six-year drought, and predictions call for below-average rainfall for the next few months.

Supporters point out, however, that the state did not have to cut deliveries until the fifth year of what has turned out to be one of the most severe droughts in the state’s history.

The desalination proposal calls for building a plant to remove salt from 7,000 acre-feet of seawater each year, providing about 30% of what the city uses in an average year. Unlike an existing desalination plant in Santa Barbara that was put on standby when heavy rains replenished city reservoirs last spring, the Ventura plant would run constantly.

The plant would use reverse osmosis to force seawater through filtering membranes at very high pressure. The process uses large amounts of electricity, which adds an unknown variable to the cost of the project in future years. Much of the estimated $6-million annual cost difference between the two options is the cost of energy, Jones said.

The desalination plan calls for a pipeline to convey water from the ocean to the plant in downtown Ventura, and another pipeline to take the brine from the plant to a city sewage treatment plant. There, the brine would be mixed with treated waste water to dilute salt content before it is discharged to the ocean.

The proposal also calls for expansion of ground water pumping capacity to meet peak water demands and to act as a backup when desalination or other sources fail.

Desalination proponents argue that the city’s annual entitlement from the state is fixed at a maximum of 10,000 acre-feet, but a desalination plant can expand well beyond the 7,000 acre-feet it is designed to yield each year. In addition, it can produce water independent of rain or state politics.

But desalination is still new to the country, despite extensive use in the Middle East. The dependence on massive amounts of electricity also raises environmental questions, as does the prospect of releasing heavily salt-laden waste from the plant.

Former Councilman McWherter, who supports the state water proposal, predicted that environmentalists would not support a desalination plant.

“I think we’ll be hearing from them loud and clear,” he said.

In Santa Barbara, a new desalination plant with capacity to produce 7,500 acre-feet a year delivered its first water to the city on March 4, after a month of near-record rainfall. It was put on long-term standby June 4, after delivering only 416 acre-feet.

State water supporters say they fear the Ventura plant would prove so expensive to operate that it too would be put on standby, increasing the city’s need for ground water.

But Santa Barbara officials say their $35-million plant is a valuable insurance policy against dry years when local reservoirs and ground water could run dry, as they almost did in 1990.

Because of a binding referendum in which voters chose desalination and state water to keep the city from the kinds of 50% cuts in water supplies it experienced in 1990, Santa Barbara will also build a pipeline to connect to the State Aqueduct.

“But our analysis shows that we could rely on desalination alone, without state water,” said Sandra Lizarraga, Santa Barbara deputy city administrator. “The City Council’s preference was to use desal alone. Nevertheless, the public elected for both.”

Up until the drought and the referendum vote, Santa Barbara had tried to use water availability to help control growth, a tool that is neither necessary nor effective, Ventura County officials said.

Government and its elected officials, not water, will prevent or allow growth and development, said Ventura County Supervisor Maggie Kildee, whose district includes the Santa Clara Valley.

“We already have a county general plan, zoning, the Local Agency Formation Commission and greenbelts,” Kildee said. Those mechanisms are in place to keep growth from spilling beyond the cities and into rural areas.

“Instead of development, more water might mean there would be more farmers finding it economically possible to stay in farming,” she said. She said she had never seen a case in the Santa Clara Valley where the lack of water was a factor in whether to approve a development.

Norman Wilkinson, public works director and city engineer for Santa Paula, said water availability has never been a problem in his city. Wilkinson and Bert Rapp, Fillmore city engineer, said the state pipeline could provide not only more and better water, but also a secondary source in case a catastrophic event were to contaminate the underground basins.

“There are too many other issues controlling growth, like the air quality issue and quality of life,” he said.

The real issue, he said, is not who or what controls growth, but who or what controls the water’s source. Although the State Aqueduct is subject to state water politics, energy availability and cost are tied to the United States’ relations with the volatile Middle East, he said.

“Do we want the state of California controlling our water, or the Middle East?” Wilkinson asked.

Ventura’s Water Showdown

The city of Ventura now relies on three primary sources for its water supply, but many officials and residents believe additional sources must be obtained. The pressure for more water has led to a ballot showdown this November on whether to import state water or build a desalination plant.

EXISTING WATER SOURCES

Lake Casitas

The lake provides the city of Ventura with an average of 37% of its water in normal rain years. The source remains relatively constant during periods of drought and heavy rain. The Casitas Municipal Water District, which operates the reservoir, limits the amount of water the city and other customers can use because of growing demand on a fixed supply. The district is searching for its own supplemental water source.

Ground Water

During a normal rain year, the city takes about 38% of its water from underground supplies. But during drought years, such as 1990, the city tapped underground basins for 52% of its needs. Ground water is also a limited supply, however, and all pumpers must reduce use by 25% before 2010 to stop seawater intrusion into the basins, according to a county ordinance.

Ventura River

The Ventura River is the largest variable in the city’s water supply picture. In normal years, the river yields 25% of the city’s supply. But during the drought year of 1990, the river provided only 15%, causing the city to shift to ground water to make up the difference. By contrast, the heavy rains of 1991 yielded 38% of the city’s supply.

POTENTIAL NEW SOURCES

State Water Project

To tap into the California Aqueduct, the city would have to build a pipeline to Lake Castaic in Los Angeles County. The pipeline, which city officials say could deliver a maximum of 9,000 acre-feet a year, would cost $24.2 million a year over a 30-year period. But critics of the project say that the source is unreliable during drought years. The state delivered only 45% of water requested by its customers in the 1991-1992 rain year, which began in October and ended in September.

Desalination

Estimates show that it would cost about $30.4 million each year to produce 7,000 acre-feet of desalinated water, which is sea water forced through tiny membranes to remove salt. A desalination plant can be expanded almost indefinitely at additional cost and it is a source completely independent of rain. But its critics argue that it is too expensive at an estimated $6 million more a year to bring in 2,000 acre-feet less water than the State Water Project.

FYI

The League of Women Voters of Ventura County plans a debate Tuesday between proponents of importing state water and desalination supporters in Ventura. The debate will be followed by a public question-and-answer session. It begins at 7:30 p.m. at Poinsettia Elementary School, 350 Victoria Ave.