Development Hits Rising Tide of Water and Traffic Troubles : Contra Costa: Conflicting visions raise age-old question: How do you balance a growing population with limited natural resources?

Standing atop a ridge overlooking the rippling yellow flanks of Dougherty Valley, the only sound one hears is the whisper of hot breezes bending thistles close to the ground.

Thomas J. Koch looks at the valley, site of a proposed 11,000-home development, and sees a community, a cluster of neighborhoods built around parks, restaurants and schools, linked by trails and bicycle paths.

Water officials look at the valley and see a calamity, an ill-advised project that could drain water supplies serving hundreds of thousands of residents on the eastern side of San Francisco Bay.

The conflicting visions raise a question as old as California: How do you balance a growing population and limited resources?

“Water’s been an issue of contention in California since Gold Rush days,” said Peter Szego, consultant to the state Senate Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources. “People fought over water. They fought politically and economically, on occasion shooting each other. So far, that last method hasn’t shown up in Dougherty Valley.”

Even so, the battle over the development in Contra Costa County has not lacked drama. The count so far: two lawsuits, one legislative fight and one controversial expose of water officials’ spending habits.

Koch, the development’s manager, sees the legal wrangling as more than a water war.

“This is not about water; this is about power,” he said. “It’s about control of land use.”

He argues that much of the area’s expanding population comes from new births, not from people moving in.

“They’re trying to stop growth. It’s not possible unless people stop sleeping together,” he said.

But Andy Cohen, board member of the East Bay Municipal Utility District, says the district has no such agenda.

“We don’t have any particular position pro or con on the development itself, but we just don’t have the water to supply it,” Cohen said.

Of course, water isn’t the only issue.

Ten cities and environmental groups have filed suit charging that the project’s environmental report is flawed, neglecting the regional impact on schools, law enforcement and traffic.

Proponents counter that the project is being penalized for presenting itself as a complete plan.

“It’s a big target, and it’s going to have a lot of detractors . . . but life goes on and we need to provide housing,” said Supervisor Tom Powers. “We can’t turn our face to our children and grandchildren and say, ‘Well, you’ll have to move.’ ”

The battle was joined late last year after county supervisors amended their general plan to allow development in the barren valley, although they did not go so far as to approve the project by developers Shapell and Windemere.

The water district promptly sued, arguing that it doesn’t have enough water. Most of the new development sits just outside the water district boundaries, so it would have to be annexed to be served.

State Sen. Dan Boatwright (D-Concord) then proposed a bill that would make the water district prove its case to an arbiter. District officials say the measure requires them to declare a drought before making such an appeal, a requirement they say is too restrictive.

The bill squeaked through the Senate in September, but Boatwright decided not to go further, opting to seek a compromise with the water district before the Legislature reconvenes next year.

An entertaining skirmish came in June when a report released by an investigator working for developers detailed water district spending over a two-year period. Among other items: $11,000 for parkas from L.L. Bean and Eddie Bauer and $29,000 for bottled water.

District officials were furious, charging that many of the items were wrong or taken out of context. For instance, the bottled water total was for five years, not two, they said, and the water went to customers cut off by main breaks or to workers without another source of potable water. The parkas were a one-time purchase that won’t be repeated.

Both sides claim they have California’s future at heart.

“We came to the conclusion that we were running short of water. That’s no particular surprise given the last six years of drought,” Cohen said.

“The reality is (the utility district) loved the drought,” Koch said, arguing that the district could seek new water sources and use more reclaimed water than it does. “We would amount to a 2.5% increase in their water demand (over a 25-year build-out period).”

Cohen believes that the figure could go higher than 2.5% and maintains that the district doesn’t have any extra water.

“We’re confident that if we’re reviewed by an unbiased arbiter, they will find that we’re telling the truth,” he said.

The developers portray the project as a community of the future. Their plans describe a cohesive blend of housing, schools and shops, an alternative to the piecemeal approach of individual tracts.

County Supervisor Gayle Bishop, an opponent, thinks “there are some wonderful ideas in there.” But she fears the development would swamp existing facilities and dump more traffic on already clogged highways.

In a compromise over traffic, the county has ordered a new study.

Developers say the community would be built over three decades. They believe that the houses would attract workers from nearby business parks and suburbs. They have proposed bus service and car-pooling and have reserved space for a light-rail line to a Bay Area Rapid Transit station under construction.

Opponents remain dubious.

“There’s no way that people are going to stay within that development,” said Christopher Genovali of the Sierra Club’s Mt. Diablo chapter. He blasted the development as “anachronistic. . . . We’re going to create another San Fernando Valley, another Los Angeles-style area that’s going to be a nightmare in terms of quality of life.”

So far, the rhetoric may be ricocheting, but the fight is relatively mild by California standards, said historian Charles Wollenberg.

The state’s wildest water war came at the turn of the century, when Los Angeles took water from Owens Valley in the eastern Sierra. Outraged residents bombed the aqueduct and mounted armed night rides. Los Angeles responded with armed guards. Los Angeles won.

“The politics of water in California,” said Wollenberg, “is not for the fainthearted.”