DISTRICT PROPOSAL DRAWS IRE MEMBERS OF WATER PANEL SAY THEY'RE READY TO DISCUSS ISSUE.

Byline: Susan Abram Staff Writer

NEWHALL - In the world of suburban water suppliers, the Newhall County Water District is about as small and obscure as can be.

But in Santa Clarita, the tiny district that supplies a population of 25,000 is proposing a resolution that for some is too hard to swallow.

Earlier this month, a newly elected pro-environmental majority on the board sent a wave of concern by questioning the water availability in the valley, proposing a resolution that says supply figures charted in a report relied upon by planners and developers presented water that wasn't there.

The proposed resolution has sent school administrators on a letter- writing spree, asking the district to clarify any impacts it may have on planned new campuses, while the Santa Clarita City Council last week took immediate action by voting to oppose the resolution and demanding an explanation.

All the attention has some members of the board surprised.

``I'm not surprised by the initial concern,'' said Maria Gutzeit, a chemical engineer and the Newhall County Water District's newest elected member. ``What I am surprised at is so far we've had no substantiative dialogue about the resolution. We're willing to discuss it.''

Gutzeit said the resolution was proposed to clarify water availability, primarily water supplied from the state. In the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan that was once challenged in court, it says that the state would supply 30 percent of the water needed 90 percent of the time. Gutzeit and two other directors say that the 30 percent has never been supplied.

The Urban Water Management Plan projects a 20-year supply for the Santa Clarita Valley from various sources, including the State Water Project entitlements, the Saugus and alluvial aquifers, recycling and banked or stored groundwater.

``We're not taking any water away from the numbers that people have been using,'' Gutzeit said. ``What we're doing is clarifying what they can count on today, and the potential that is there. We have potential from the perchlorate cleanup. We have potential water from banking. But except for the perchlorate cleanup that has started, none of that is under way right now.

``I feel comfortable particularly with this resolution because I have a technical background and I understand numbers,'' she said.

But some believe the resolution is being used as a political tool to stop development across Santa Clarita.

Since her re-election to the board in November, Lynne Plambeck, president of the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment, has said her top priority would be to reform the district's water reporting. Past district directors, she has said, had agreed with overstated water supplies, which in turn benefited developers.

The Newhall County Water District is one of four purveyors in the county, but other districts are also concerned about that board's resolution.

``The immediate implications are to their district only,'' said Mary Lou Cotton, assistant to the general manager for the Castaic Lake Water Agency. ``It would impact development within their boundaries.''

Castaic is the valley's wholesaler, managing state water for four retailers, including Newhall County.

Cotton said what is troubling is how the resolution could create disharmony between the water districts.

``Right now, there aren't too many implications for us,'' Cotton said. ``We know our numbers are correct. We would like the water community in the valley to stay unified. Water is a basic utility just like electricity or gas. It's interesting to watch as someone tries to use it as a tool to control growth.''

Newhall County Water District Director Barbara Dore, who opposes the resolution, said its impacts are wide ranging, and the attention toward the board is troublesome.

``I think the more attention we get, the less effectively we are doing our job,'' she said. ``If we are doing our job no one would be paying any attention to us.''

Dore said she ran for the board when an environmental majority had control of it in the mid-1990s.

``I want (the resolution) to be thrown straight into the thrash,'' Dore said. ``To me, the writing is just so careless. I think there would be immediate impacts. I don't see how there cannot.''

Newhall district director Joan Dunn, who is part of what's viewed as an environmental majority on the panel, said she has been surprised by the attention the resolution has received, but believes there will be a positive outcome - the truth.

``I'm surprised that it's getting all this attention,'' she said ``The city's complaining but we can't lie about it. If nothing else, hopefully there is an awareness about it.''

Susan Abram, [phone]

susan.abram(at)dailynews.com