COUNCIL HOPES LEGAL THREATS DERAIL PIPELINE\Oil could ruin water, DWP says.

Byline: Patrick McGreevy Daily News Staff Writer

Charging that the proposed oil-carrying Pacific Pipeline could endanger Los Angeles' water supply if it ruptures, the City Council directed its attorneys Tuesday to challenge the project if the builder and state regulators fail to address city environmental concerns.

Council members said they hope the threat of legal action will force the builders of the Pacific Pipeline to seriously consider the city's objections and explore alternatives, including a route that does not travel so much through highly populated areas of the city.

"It's an issue of environmental justice because it goes through the poor communities in our city," said Councilman Richard Alarcon, whose northeast San Fernando Valley district would be crossed by seven miles of the pipeline.

"It's an issue of environmental safety because it threatens our water supply," Alarcon added. "And it is just the wrong thing to do because there is a better alternative that has not even been fully explored."

As proposed in an application pending before the state Public Utilities Commission, the $160 million pipeline would be built along a 132-mile route that would allow it to transport crude oil between the Kern County oil fields and the refineries in Wilmington and El Segundo.

"These companies are willing to make a multimillion-dollar investment in the region so that oil can be transported in a way that is safe," said attorney George Mihlsten, who is representing project participants Pacific Pipeline Inc., Chevron, Texaco and Unocal.

The council action also was opposed by the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, whose president, Bonny Matheson-Capobianco, said it sends a negative message to business.

"We're really struggling with projects like this to try to retain and attract business," she said. By . . . threatening a lawsuit against the Pacific Pipeline, what kind of message does that send out to the business community thinking of expanding or bringing other business to the city of Los Angeles. We're kind of aghast at this."

Councilman Mike Hernandez said the city has filed 50 pages of objections, including a letter from the city Department of Water and Power that says 75 percent of the city's water supply could be contaminated if the pipeline ruptures where it is proposed to cross an aqueduct near Interstate 5 and Balboa Boulevard.

Some council members, including Laura Chick, Hal Bernson and Rudy Svorinich, wanted the issue to go to a committee for hearings before action the motion was adopted but they failed to muster sufficient votes to delay the action.

Although the proposal calls for the Pacific Pipeline to be buried primarily under railroad track rights of ways - including the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sylmar, San Fernando, Pacoima and Sun Valley - some council members recalled the fiery explosion of another pipeline in the Valley during the Northridge Earthquake.

Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg said many of her constituents live near the railroad tracks and are afraid that any pipeline will eventually deteriorate to become unsafe.

"It may not be until the 10th year that it's underground but at some point that hot oil under pressure is going to explode and it's going to explode in neighborhoods that live near the railroad," Goldberg said.

The opponents said the pipeline builders have not seriously considered alternative routes through less populated areas, such as the Cajon-Edison Pipeline route.