The Carpinteria Valley Water District’s rocky road to building a 3-million gallon storage tank on Rancho Monte Alegre took a detour recently after Foothill Road residents protested the proposed route scheduled for the project’s 18-wheeler trucks. Rancho Monte Alegre is located north of Foothill Road and west of Santa Monica Creek.

Up to 20 truck trips a day were estimated by the water district to be necessary to haul away the boulders and dirt excavated to create space for the mostly underground 3-million gallon tank. The hauling route is from the 101 south Padaro Lane interchange, west on Via Real, north on Nidever Road to Foothill Road, east to the County Flood Control Road near Santa Monica Creek, and up the mountain to the tank site.

According to Jeremy Tiddle, executive assistant to Salud Carbajal, when the county issued the conditional use permit for the tank project it approved the truck route, which was an amendment to the permit.

“The county isn’t directly involved, it’s a water district issue that’s already been through the public process,” said Tiddle.

What the water district does need, and hasn’t yet applied for, is a hauling permit from the county. County officials, water district officials and concerned residents will meet on Friday, July 15, at the county administration building to discuss mitigations or lessened impacts of truck traffic, according to Tiddle.

Now, Caltrans is reviewing the district’s request for a permit to use the Foothill Road bridge, which crosses over Arroyo Paredon creek on the Santa Barbara side of Ocean Oaks, as part of their route, said Caltrans representative Marta Bortner.

“Structural engineers are reviewing the water district’s anticipated number of trucks, trips per day, weight and what other equipment will be transported across the bridge. The decision on the permit should be within two weeks,” she said on Monday. The bridge is safe for current truck traffic, added Bortner. “If it wasn’t strong enough, it would be closed.”

The plans to replace the bridge have been on the books, and now are pushed back five years. It is being replaced because water has washed away the bridge abutments, the same issue as Highway 150, said Bortner.

The new bridge will be slightly larger. The current bridge has two lanes of 10 to 11-feet width with no shoulder. The new bridge will have two 12-foot lanes, a standard width, and four-foot shoulders.

Resident rumblings on the truck route have turned into questions on the necessity of a $12 million capital investment such as a new 3-million gallon storage tank when water bills are already the highest in the South Coast, and possibly the state.

“My issue is with the truck route without a county permit,” said Vera Benson. “And, I don’t know if the tank is necessary.”

The water district said we needed the Rancho Monte Alegre tank to store water while the Carpinteria Reservoir was being covered. Now the reservoir is covered and they haven’t started Rancho Monte Alegre. So the reason didn’t make sense, said Benson, who serves as vice president for the Carpinteria Valley Association, a nonprofit public interest group. “You can’t rely on what they tell you anymore.”

Water district general manager Charles Hamilton said the tank is necessary to meet future water quality standards mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency. “The current district water quality would not meet standards proposed by the EPA,” said Hamilton.

The water filling the tank will come from Rancho Monte Alegre groundwater, which has lower levels of organic content compared to surface water, defined as water that is impounded from lakes and streams, such as state water and Cachuma Lake water.

According to Hamilton, in 2003 the district received a compliance time extension from the EPA—even though in a few instances district water exceeded maximum levels for haloacetic acids, a disinfection by-product associated with the risk of cancer—based on the construction of the storage tank.

According to Lea Brooks of the State Department of Health Services, district water is in compliance with health and safety standards. She said the district has not applied for the permit from that state department to build the tank. Brooks could not comment on future compliance.

This (tank project) is fiscal irresponsibility and we are being asked to pay for a project which we don’t need, said resident Ann Louise Bardach, who thinks the water district isn’t being straight with the community, which should have been consulted in regards to the project, specifically with the truck route.

“This is not the time to do luxury projects,” Bardach said. “They’re spending money like water.”

The water district has not awarded a contract for the construction of the tank, according to Hamilton, and hopes to do so at their July 27 directors meeting.

The water district will host a community meeting about the project at 7 p.m. on July 20 at City Hall. Call 684-2816.