ELECTIONS / MEASURE O : Debate Over Water Source Focuses on Cost and Reliability

Desalination advocates and state water proponents squared off Tuesday night in the second debate over which long-term water source is best for the city of Ventura.

Residents will cast advisory votes next month on whether to build a desalination plant or a pipeline hookup to the state water system. A majority of the City Council, which will make the final decision on Measure O, have said they will go with the residents’ choice.

About 60 people attended the Tuesday forum, which was sponsored by the League of Women Voters and held at Poinsettia Elementary School.

Representatives from the citizen groups Desal Water and Venturans for State Water said either option would serve the city’s long-term water needs but argued over cost versus reliability.

“You have to believe it’s going to rain in Northern California in order for water to be sent south,” said Tim Downey, head of Desal Water. “If you build a desalination plant, you’ll always have the water you need.”

Desalination supporters said the State Water Project, which receives its water from Northern California rainfall and Sierra Nevada snowpack, is not dependable. It was able to deliver only 45% of its requests last year, state officials said, and 30% the year before. In general, it has overcommitted its ability to ship water with its present reservoir system by 55%.

State water proponents countered that storing water during years of high rainfall would ensure a reliable source.

“There is a difference between variability and reliability,” said John McWherter, head of Venturans for State Water. “State water is reliable. . . . 17 million people depend on state water.”

McWherter said desalination would cost taxpayers more.

“Either one would do the job, but I don’t want the people to have to pay that extra money,” he said.

The desalination proposal would cost Ventura $6 million more annually than importing state water, according to Boyle Engineering Corp., the city’s consultant. It would cost about $30.4 million per year for 30 years to build a desalination plant, and construction would require four to six years, the firm has said. A connecting pipeline, on the other hand, would cost about $24.2 million per year for 30 years and would take six to eight years to build.

A desalination plant would also require large amounts of electricity to operate, and it is unknown how that would affect the project’s cost in future years. Most of the $6-million estimate accounts for the cost of energy, said Shelly Jones, the city’s director of public works.

Desalination supporters argued that the extra cost would only mean about a $11 difference a month to the average citizen’s water bill, which would be worth it to drought-proof the city.

State water proponents, however, said a desalination plant would have significant environmental impacts. “The damage to the marine life is just incredible,” said George Kite, a real estate broker who is a member of Venturans for State Water.

Steve Bennett, a high school teacher who is part of the Desal Water group, accused Kite of using scare tactics. Brine water--the water left after desalination--has little environmental impact if it is disposed of properly, he said.

As Nov. 3 draws near, both camps are stepping up their campaigns to court voters. Last weekend, state water proponents scattered about two dozen large signs saying “State Water Costs Less” throughout the city, while the desalination group mailed out 20,000 flyers to homeowners last week.

The final debate has been scheduled for Oct. 21 at City Hall.