Supervisors Support Flynn’s Plan to Preserve Sespe Creek : Environment: The alternative is a proposal advanced by Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino, which some have called more thoughtful.

The Ventura County Board of Supervisors, entering a debate centered in Congress, endorsed on Tuesday a plan that would preserve nearly all of Sespe Creek as wilderness.

Despite protests by water agencies and business groups, the board unanimously backed a proposal by Supervisor John K. Flynn to designate 51 of 55 miles of the Sespe as “wild and scenic,” while allowing construction of a low-rise dam only on the lower four miles near Fillmore.

Flynn said he hopes to present the county’s position on the Sespe, the region’s last major undammed river, at congressional hearings beginning Oct. 17.

The new county proposal represents an alternative to one drafted by Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ventura). And Tuesday’s hearing became something of a referendum on the relative merits of the Lagomarsino and Flynn plans.

Flynn argued that decades of disagreements over damming the Sespe have hindered construction of more viable water projects, such as a pipeline to import water from Northern California to Ventura and construction of a desalination plant on the coast.

“The Sespe issues are really getting in the way of realistic water proposals,” said Flynn, a statewide expert on water issues. He said he considers dams on the upper Sespe, which would cost $200 million to $500 million, too expensive to ever be built.

But supporters of the Lagomarsino bill touted that plan as a better, more thoughtful compromise that would both preserve nature and allow future construction of two dams in the high country.

The congressman’s bill would protect 31.5 miles of the river in perpetuity and exempt another 10.5 miles from development until more study is done.

Dams could be built on the upper eight miles and lower four miles of the river, sections that do not meet federal guidelines for protection as “wild and scenic,” supporters said.

The Lagomarsino bill “really should be passed as it is,” argued Carolyn Leavens, representing the Ventura County Economic Development Assn.

“My major concern is that you people look at this with a very long vision,” she told the board. “Forget the political expediency and protect the next generation’s options.”

Leavens joined spokesmen for large water agencies and a county taxpayers group in declaring the congressional bill superior because it represents 3 1/2 years of study and recognizes that Ventura County will need all the water it can get in the future.

While damming the Sespe does not make economic sense today, capturing the Sespe’s waters may be attractive in the future, said Frederick J. Gientke, general manager of the United Water Conservation District.

“When given the choice between sand and water to drink, the price becomes less objectionable,” he said.

Other opponents said that while the Sespe is depicted as tranquil and benign, its undammed menance was seen clearly in the devastating flood of 1969.

Rex Laird, executive director of the Ventura County Farm Bureau, read newspaper headlines from that year that document 10 deaths and millions of dollars in damage from the flood.

Several environmental groups, including Keep the Sespe Wild, also opposed the Flynn plan. They said they wanted the entire 55 miles of the river preserved.

But Flynn drew support from environmental advocates who previously had opposed a dam anywhere on the Sespe, including Ventura-based Patagonia Inc.

Among the supporters was Carla Bard, former chairwoman of the State Water Resources Control Board, who urged the supervisors to back Flynn “to prevent any further mortgaging of the future” through development of the county’s backcountry.

Bard said the supervisors’ support of Flynn’s compromise “is terribly significant because the board has never before taken a position on this issue, or at least not since the 1960s.”

A resolution supporting Flynn’s plan will be forwarded to Lagomarsino and U. S. Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) and John Seymour (R-Calif.).

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on Lagomarsino’s proposal this month. A Senate committee will take up the issue at hearings beginning next week. Cranston has opposed any dam on the river, while Seymour has remained neutral.

Spokesmen for Lagomarsino and Seymour have declined comment on Flynn’s proposal.

Proposals to dam the Sespe first surfaced in the 1920s and, in the 1960s, approval of a dam was narrowly rejected by voters.

Studies of the last two decades have all rated Sespe dams low when analyzing new water sources because of environmental concerns and the cost of construction.

It is estimated that damming the Sespe could produce about 15,000 to 20,000 acre-feet of water annually, or 4% to 5% of Ventura County’s current demand.