Water torture, Valley-style, repeats itself 87 years later. (From the Newsroom).

THE first time cityhood for the San Fernando Valley was seriously considered, water was an issue. Here we are again.

When the Valley, officially became an annexation target in the first part of the last century, the carrot in front of it was the water crashing through the Los Angeles Aqueduct on its way from the Owens Valley - via the San Fernando Valley - to the other side of the Santa Monica Mountains. Los Angeles, which had the power to turn the spigot on, was the stick.

Become a part of the city, and tap into the water supply; that was the lure. Remain independent, and stay bone dry; that was the ultimatum.

Today, as the campaign for secession moves into a new phase, you might as well say history is repeating itself.

Last week, LAFCO director Larry Calamine gave his breakup blueprint to his commission. Valley VOTE did a good job of putting its fingerprints all over it. If the plan for secession reaches voters in somewhere close to the shape it is now, the Valley will get much of what it has wanted:

* Most of the city's capital assets in the Valley - libraries, fire stations, public buildings and even the Van Nuys Airport - would become property of the new city.

* The new city would have time, a few years at least, to build its own departments and services, gradually weaning itself off of a dependence on L.A. for police and fire protection, garbage pickup, etc.

* A new mayor and city council would have the chance to prove they can do what they say they can: run a city of a mere million and a half more cheaply and efficiently than L.A. now runs a city of 5 million.

Everybody involved has been absorbed, rightly so, in the minutiae of municipal law and finance. However, it's time to look up.

The politics of secession now moves beyond the inside baseball that has been played for several years to a wide open campaign for the hearts and - face it - simpler minds of the electorate.

The average voter in Chatsworth or Angelino Heights, in Hancock Park or Sherman Oaks, is not interested in the formula used to derive alimony payments or the rules to determine eligibility for retirement benefits of police officers and firefighters.

The millions of people in this city who haven't thought twice about secession yet will now make their decisions the same way they always do in elections: by responding to a few basic, and very simple, arguments.

Secession advocates have theirs clown: Smaller is better, regardless of which side of the hill you live on, and, if you're on this side, 87 years of second-class citizenhood is enough.

However, they will have to be ready to fight their war on the two fronts the opposition appears to be preparing, neither of which can be considered a surprise attack.

First, expect that old white-flight-to-the-Valley chestnut to be revived. It's frustrating for those of us who live and work here to have to listen to, and those running the opposition know it isn't true. Nevertheless, voters in the rest of L.A. will be told secession is an attempt by middle and upper-middle class white people to abandon the poorer and more culturally diverse Los Angeles.

Statistics certainly can make the case, but if you live in the Valley, you don't need the U.S. Census Bureau to tell you that Latinos make up 38 percent of the area's population and Asians another 9 percent. Caucasians account for 45 percent of the Valley's population.

A recent report commissioned by the Economic Alliance of the San Fernando Valley on ethnic diversity indicates that poverty in the Valley is far less segregated than anywhere else in L.A.

The idea that the Valley is an outpost of white affluence is, for those of us who live here and know, just not true. But it is an argument that may be easy to make to voters in other parts of the city who have never been to the Valley.

The second front will be a permutation of that water issue from nine decades ago. LAF CO's belief all along has been that it can compel the city of L.A. to charge citizens of a new Valley city the same for water and electricity as it does its own citizens.

In the past week though, city officials have taken a "Did I say that?" attitude to this particular topic, insisting there are no guarantees when it comes to what it might charge the Valley for utilities. LAFCO believes it has the law on its side with this issue, but it might be complicated enough to scare voters in the Valley into believing they could be buried under massive water and electricity rate hikes.

I'm like every other average voter. I don't have the slightest idea of whether LAFCO has the authority to tell the city of L.A. how much it can charge non-city residents for utilities, but getting to the truth has long-costly-legal-battle written all over it.

And it's a perfect campaign issue for secession opponents: Scare enough Valley residents into thinking they'll pay more for water and you've got all the votes you need to defeat this.

And once again, for at least the second important time in its history, the Valley will have been victimized by its desire to keep the water spigot on.

Michael Hart is editor of the San Fernando Valley Business Journal. He can be reached at [e-mail].