OJAI VALLEY : Activist Criticizes Water Plant Report

A draft report conclusion that a proposed $27.5-million water-treatment plant will not have significant economic or environmental impact on the Ojai Valley is “simply ridiculous,” an environmental activist said.

Pat Baggerly, a member of the powerful Environmental Coalition of Ventura County, said the coalition wants the document revised and recirculated for more public review.

Consultants who prepared the report for the Casitas Municipal Water District said all public comments will be answered when the final document is released later this spring.

The water district wants to build a plant near the Casitas Dam overlook to treat and filter 32 million gallons a day of Lake Casitas water. Hydroelectric turbines would provide power to generate and pump ozone and chemicals into the water before it is delivered to farms, businesses and 56,500 residents in Ventura and the Ojai Valley.

Opponents question the location of the proposed plant, saying it’s too near an earthquake fault and area homes. Some opponents also say the district could find less expensive ways to filter the water.

A new state law requires all surface water to be treated and filtered before being delivered to customers, which leaves the district little choice but to build the plant, said John Curphey, a state Department of Health Services engineer.

Baggerly chided the district for releasing the plant’s environmental report Dec. 17 and holding a public hearing on it so soon after the holidays.

About 15 valley residents attended the hearing Wednesday evening in Oak View. Several said they needed more time to review the study. District officials noted that written comments can be submitted until Feb. 4.

Tom Bunosky of the Southern California Water Co., which buys Casitas water, said the study needs to address numerous financial aspects and alternative water-treatment methods.

Jim Rush, an Upper Ojai Valley rancher, said water bills would rise dramatically if two-thirds of the district taxpayers do not vote for a bond issue in 1992 to finance the plant’s construction.

“In light of the frost, the drought, recession and possible war,” Rush said, “if the bond issue doesn’t go through, this would be even more of an economic hardship on farmers, who don’t care what’s in the water.” Farmers, who will use the water for irrigation, are not concerned about whether it is treated.