Ventura Candidates Speak Out on Water Supply Issue

The 14 candidates for the Ventura City Council were asked questions on three key issues facing the city. Today, they answer the first question, outlining their views on how Ventura should supply its residents with sufficient water over the long term. The Question: In November, Ventura residents voted 55% to 45% in an advisory measure favoring desalination over importing water. Critics have accused the council of purposely delaying progress on the proposed desalination plant because some council members favor building a pipeline to the State Water Project instead. What do you think should be Ventura’s long-term water source? Should the city build a desalination plant or a pipeline to the State Water Project?

Steve Bennett

Unfortunately, many candidates dodge a direct answer to this question attempting to offend no one. The voters deserve better. After millions of dollars of studies, the 14-2 vote for desal by the Citizens Water Advisory Committee, and last fall’s clear public vote, only a politician would say they need more studies before stating their preference. My position: It would be short sighted to believe that one wet season means we don’t need a locally controlled and reliable water source to protect us from future droughts. I support building the voter-approved desalination plant within the cost limitations authorized by the voters.

Nancy Cloutier

We should proceed with all environmental studies with respect to the proposed desalination plant, select a site for the plant, locate potential well sites and outlet locations and be prepared as the need arises. We should also consult with other cities and/or private industry as to the feasibility of working jointly with them in the future. We do not want to build a desal plant that in 10 years will be obsolete. Also, the Metropolitan Water District will be building a new pipeline and the possibility exists of working with them in the future as we have in the past.

Todd Collart

A new long-term source should be as cost effective and reliable as possible. Given two specific options, 55% of the voters preferred desalination. Other options exist and should be assessed as detailed engineering work on desalination proceeds. One alternative is the Santa Paula Basin which may safely yield on a cooperative basis with the farmers supplies equal to that of a desal plant or pipeline, but at less cost. Given the present abundance of water, I favor continued exploration of alternate cost effective supplies until time constraints and water supplies dictate commencing construction on the presently preferred alternative: desalination.

Neil Demers-Grey

I think Ventura should use desalination as its viable alternative (as long as it’s done within the approved fiscal amount), with water conservation programs in place and penalties for those who waste water, whether during drought periods or not. Desalination means self-reliance, and I feel it the most agreeable.

Charles Kistner

I believe we have to get beyond the politics of this issue so that the city can have a reliable water source for our future needs. The people have recommended desalination with the given parameters and I believe we must follow through. I also believe that we cannot rely on State Water because the politics, cost, and supply are unreliable and I have witnessed first hand the quality and environmental damage to water in the Sacramento Delta. We must take advantage of being a coastal community and build the desal plant if the cost isn’t too high.

Dick Massa

There is no doubt that long-term Ventura, hopefully in cooperation with Oxnard, will build a desalination plant. But not now. For now, desal is too expensive, and we’re not sure of the environmental impact. So, for now I favor conservation and State Water.

Rosa Lee Measures

I respect the majority will of the people I hope to represent, and I think the Council has a responsibility to listen to the public voice. However, I think there are multiple options for water sources, including cooperative cost ventures in building a desal plant, pipeline and privatization. Whichever choice is most cost-efficient, I think we need to move ahead more forcefully on water and improve the study process we use to determine how we will deliver water. I propose to raise the public’s confidence levels by clear communication of the costs of options in providing a quality water source.

Jim Monahan

Ventura, an oceanfront community, has a responsibility to explore desalination as a water source, but a state pipeline should be built first. We should defer building desalination until technology advances. Without a limitless source of funds to solve our water problems, it is irresponsible to experiment with taxpayer money. A pipeline would allow us to look at water solutions regionally. A pipeline is a permanent mechanism to “wheel” water through neighboring communities, similar to the temporary pipeline constructed to Santa Barbara a few years ago. A pipeline could also transport any water that we might ultimately desalinate.

Clark Owens

I support a two-step approach to our water dilemma following Santa Barbara’s example, but in reverse order. I submit utilizing the State Water option at a cost of approximately $24 million annually, while actually accruing $30 million ,the estimated actual cost of desal. The additional $6 million that is set aside, unused for State Water, would be spent in the future to fund the desal facility. During the accrual period, the cost would not exceed the original annual cost of desal. Once built, the desal plant would provide the reliability comfort the State Water option may lack.

Brian Lee Rencher

I firmly support the State Water Project pipeline. The State Water Project can provide our community water at a fraction of the cost of a desalination plant. These lower water costs will benefit our local economy. Families can use the cost savings for the improvement of their standard of living. Local farmers need a reliable source of affordable water to remain competitive and economically viable. During wet years the pipeline will provide ample water to end users, allowing for the replenishment of our aquifers. During dry years this replenished aquifer water can be used as a supplement to reduced deliveries.

Ken Schmitz

State water would be more cost-effective, of better quality, and reliable as a supplemental source of water. The city-sponsored study by Boyle Engineering endorsed state water for valid reasons based on extensive evaluation of state-wide water issues. Ventura should pursue its State Water allocation by working with the other water agencies to build a pipeline. In the future, when the cost of desal plants will be less and other water agencies can share the cost, a desal plant could be a reasonable addition to the water supply system for this region.

Gary Tuttle

Ventura’s water future is desalination. Future generations will be assured water security throughout the 21st century with a fully active desalination facility. The State Water system is an antiquated, environmentally unsound system. State Water will continue to undersupply water orders during times of drought. As the population grows in Southern California, demand for water will increase--and a dry pipeline will be our children’s future. Ventura’s long-term water strategy must also include the use of reclaimed water and continued conservation.

Virginia Weber

We need to look at better utilization of our existing supply. This would include reclamation, increasing our ability to retain runoff either above or below ground, and expanding projects like the Freeman Diversion. Second, we need to look at all of the state water options available to us, not just the single pipeline option proposed under Measure O. Thirdly, we need to consider desalination and keep abreast of the new technologies in this area, but the city of Ventura should not be the guinea pig when there are other viable options available to our citizens.

Carroll Dean Williams

I have said, “Why is the City Council allowing the fraud and deceit to continue on this issue?” Why is Steve Bennett, when he openly campaigned as a private citizen on this issue, refusing to accept the official reports? In 1986-87, actual water usage was 123 gallons of water per person. That was before rationing. Somebody increased usage to 196 gallons per person per day. Think of that in terms of dollars. That’s $73 a day increase. I uncovered the fraud and deceit hid in the name of WATER!