Water District Policy

Re “Water District Policy Shift Could Help Developer,” July 30.

This article about Castaic Lake storm waters was an interesting exercise in a writer knowing what she wanted to write before she started doing the interviews.

When asked by the reporter whether United Water Conservation District’s request to the Department of Water Resources for an amendment to our storm water storage agreement was a shift of policy on the part of our board of directors, I clearly stated that it was not a policy shift. In spite of my answer--which I repeated several times during the interview because I had the uneasy feeling that my answer wasn’t what the reporter wanted to hear--she went ahead and erroneously reported that this was a policy shift. Taking its lead from a botched story, the headline said the same thing.

Here, for the record, is how it stands: United Water has been a party to an agreement with the Department of Water Resources to store Castaic Creek storm waters in Castaic Lake since 1978. This agreement includes three other entities with prior rights to Castaic Creek flows--Newhall County Water District, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 36 and Newhall Land & Farming Co. The four entities are referred to as the Castaic Lake Downstream Water Users.

The Downstream Users have long known that the storm waters could be more effectively used at the local level if we could change the historic point of diversion to allow us to divert water before the May 1 cutoff date. If United could get its share of the storm flows through Pyramid Lake into United’s Lake Piru reservoir, then Ventura County would have the full benefit of those storm flows rather than having them either fully percolate upstream or be appropriated by the Department of Water Resources if we couldn’t take the water before May 1.

The Downstream Users made a written request years ago to amend the agreement. The Department of Water Resources responded with an emphatic refusal. Therefore, United Water did not pursue it further. At a meeting with the Department in October 1999--not March, as this article says--the Downstream Users were given the impression that the department might be willing to discuss an amendment, so we decided to renew our efforts. United’s policy remained unchanged.

I find it odd that the reporter sees our efforts to amend our agreement as an effort to help develop Newhall Ranch. She obviously has no idea what a water conservation district does. United does not get involved in growth or land-use issues. We are simply interested in good water management and protecting the water resources of Ventura County. It is not our concern whether Newhall benefits from an amendment. If it will benefit Ventura County by allowing us to receive more of the storm water than we have in the past, we will support it.

DANA L. WISEHART

United Water Conservation District

Santa Paula