Troubled Waters : The cost-to-benefit ratio of the $150-million to $200-million project has not been thoroughly examined by the Department of Water and Power.

The community of Encino is sharply divided by the issue of a proposed filtration plant for the Encino Reservoir.

Eight homeowner groups and the city Department of Water and Power make up the Encino Reservoir Coalition, which has met for the past 20 months to deliberate the need for a filtration plant, and if it is deemed necessary, where to locate it.

The DWP is mandated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Health Services to improve our drinking water. While stating that our current drinking water is perfectly safe, these agencies say they must build filtration plants to meet the new standards.

One member of the Encino Reservoir Coalition, Gerald A. Silver of Homeowners of Encino, who does not live near the reservoir, has repeatedly argued for immediate construction of the plant at the reservoir. He has stated that a few individuals and groups “wish to see the federal and state standards gutted.”

This is not so!

Our legitimate fears are the hazards to which we could be subjected.

It is the view of my group, and several others, that the plant may not even be necessary, that if it is built, it should not be built in the Encino Hills alongside the reservoir and, finally, any plant built must be accompanied by public assurances from the DWP that dangers to the community will be mitigated.

The views expressed here reflect those of Concerned Residents of Lake Encino, the Encino Lake Homeowners Assn., the Encino Estates Homeowners Assn. and the Friends of Encirono Avenue “Orange Groves,” all members of the Encino Reservoir Coalition.

When first considered, a filtration plant was to cost $10 million.

Now it is $150 million, and with the usual overruns the cost will be closer to $200 million.

Hundreds of families living near the reservoir, including many who do not see it, are concerned for their safety.

They worry about trucks regularly carrying lethal gases such as chlorine and ammonia through winding, hillside residential streets, and about an accidental spill or leak from the plant.

Safety concerns would exist among neighbors wherever the plant is built.

A filtration plant requires five to nine acres of land, enough for a large industrial-type complex.

Building it at Dike 2 or 3 on the south side of the reservoir, two of several sites being considered, would have a tremendous adverse impact on residents living on all sides of the reservoir and on the indigenous wildlife and flora in this pristine area of the Santa Monica Mountains.

Four to five years of construction would create enormous disruption to residents, faced with huge trucks hauling dirt to and from the site, concrete mixers, bulldozers and a parade of pickup trucks driven by construction crews.

The Encino Reservoir services 15% of Valley residents. But only the minutest amount is for drinking. The rest goes down the drains, down driveways and onto lawns.

Should we be using purified water for such purposes at such great cost?

We all want better looking and tasting drinking water! But . . . * There is no reliable evidence that our current drinking water causes illness.

* The city, county and state have huge budget deficits and are forced to eliminate vital services to the community. Should we spend $150 million to $200 million for a filtration plant? Shouldn’t we be evaluating the cost/benefit ratio?

At a public hearing on Aug. 4, the DWP presented the state with its timetable for construction of a plant for the Encino Reservoir, to be completed by 2003.

Speaking for several members of our coalition, I and members of several homeowner groups affected by filtration plants planned for two other reservoirs, voiced support for the timetable.

Gerald Silver was the sole dissenter, saying that the DWP should be fined $25,000 each day for noncompliance. For the several years it would take for the DWP to be in compliance, tens of millions of dollars in fines would be levied against the DWP--and the ratepayer.

Arguments that favor the quick construction are ill-considered and should be rejected.

If we rush into this project, we will miss the opportunity to avail ourselves of new technology which might obviate the need for filtration plants, possibly saving millions of hard-to-come-by dollars.

More important, we will deny ourselves time to address legitimate community fears and concerns.

Act in haste, and we may repent in leisure!