MIKE ELIASON/NEWS-PRESS Developer Carlos Yanez says it took much too long to get his plan for 328 homes near Lompoc approved by the county Board of Supervisors.

'Save our open space!"

"Red tape is strangling our farmers!"

Amid the inflamed North-South rhetoric that demarcates the political fault lines in Santa Barbara County lies a knot of interlocking public policy issues that defy easy solutions and simplistic sloganeering.

Land-use planning, infrastructure, law enforcement and social service programs may be radically transformed if advocates of a new proposal to split the county succeed, creating a Mission County in the North.

As county split supporters take to the streets with their petitions this fall, and as many of their complaints reverberate in the recall campaign against 3rd District Supervisor Gail Marshall, voters will be asked to sort through a flurry of claims and counter-claims, often with little background or context to help sort through the conflicting charges.

Here is a roadmap to key issues on which the county split debate will be fought and decided.

WATER RIGHTS AND WRONGS
WHAT ABOUT LAKE CACHUMA?

The South Coast's main water source, Lake Cachuma, would sit within the new county's borders in the event of a split, even though no one in the north drinks from it except the Santa Ynez Valley. Some on the South Coast fear that losing Cachuma would be tantamount to losing power in negotiations for water. They also worry that the North would place a greater premium on flood control and recreation at the reservoir at the expense of the drinking water supply.

Lake Cachuma and the Bradbury Dam were built in 1956 to capture flows from the Santa Ynez River to boost water supplies for the valley and South Coast. Water is sent south through the mountains by way of the Tecolote tunnel and distributed to almost 194,000 users in Carpinteria, Goleta, Montecito, Santa Barbara and Summerland.

In the years that followed the construction of Cachuma there were legal challenges by downstream users - Buellton, Solvang and Lompoc - alleging that the dam depleted their groundwater. As a result, the state guaranteed them releases of a "sufficient" amount of water every year, based on an intricate formula. Those same people have benefitted in recent years from Cachuma's use for flood control.

At the same time, Cachuma is a major recreation spot. About 840,000 people use it every year, mostly for camping, hiking and fishing. Activities involving contact with the water are not allowed.

 
Water law experts seem to agree that Cachuma's location in a new county would not affect water rights at all. The contracts exist between the federal government and the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, a separate political entity from the county itself, although the five county supervisors serve as its governing board. It is unclear how that arrangement might change if a new county is approved by voters.

"When you say, 'What if the reservoir ended up in Mission County?' my answer would be, 'So what?'" said Stan Hatch, a lawyer with Hatch and Parent, considered the dean on water issues in Santa Barbara County. Mr. Hatch said the water agency could even continue to serve both counties in the event of a split.

That doesn't quell South Coast trepidations summed up in the adage "Possession is nine-tenths of the law." The fear is that Mission County might be perceived as having a greater right to the water by simple virtue of "possessing" it.

Others speculate that secession could give rise to conflicting visions about the purpose of Cachuma, pitting Mission against Santa Barbara. Whose drinking water is it, and is flood control for the North more important than drinking water for the South? Could the reservoir also be a swimming hole?

Cachuma's use for flood control only started in recent years. In anticipation of strong rains, the dam releases or holds more water so that the reservoir doesn't spill too much at once. But what if the North County, with forecasts for wet weather, wants releases that South County interests would argue against?

"What if it turns out to be a drier year than anticipated?" said Charles Hamilton, manager of the Carpinteria Valley Water District. "Well, that was drinking water. Who's going to make it up?"

Most of the land surrounding Cachuma is a county park. If the park fell under the jurisdiction of Mission County, its political leaders would not have to answer to the South Coast anymore: "Could they decide to allow human contact, or animal husbandry nearby?" Mr. Hamilton said. "That decision could be made. You would think not, but things happen. If we were to allow body contact it would most likely result in more charges to treat the water."

The possibility of canoeing, kayaking, swimming and catamarans at Cachuma is not so remote.

As the county re-negotiates its contract to manage the park, which expires at the end of 2003, members of the public have lobbied for those uses. County parks officials have said they will consider those ideas. Chris Dahlstrom, manager of the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District Improvement District No. 1, said South Coast residents seem more interested in swimming and heavy uses than those in the North.

"There has been more of a protection mentality from people up here than on the South Coast," he said. "More of the people from the South have wanted body contact, jet skiing. People up here want more passive uses."

Asked why, he said: "It's where we live. It's right in our back yard."

DEALING WITH TRASH
WHERE DOES YOUR GARBAGE GO?

If the North wins a divorce, Santa Barbara County might have nowhere to put its garbage one day. The South Coast's dump, the Tajiguas Landfill, is scheduled for closure in the next 20 years. There really are no suitable sites for a new landfill on the South Coast, garbage experts say, because so much of its land is urban or protected by environmental law.

With North County land out of the picture, the South might have to truck its trash out of the county, with the attendant costs in transportation and air pollution, and fees that the county would no longer control.

Tajiguas takes in about 730 tons of garbage per day from all of the South Coast communities except Carpinteria, and for the Cuyama and Santa Ynez valleys. It sits about 26 miles north of Santa Barbara on the Gaviota Coast, nestled in a canyon overlooking the Pacific Ocean.

Its proximity to the sea has been a rallying cry for the dump's detractors, who contend that Tajiguas seeps garbage juice into the ocean. The landfill is supposed to close in 2005, but could win permits to expand until 2020. Either way, Tajiguas is not the final solution to the South Coast's relentless trash flow.

When the county looked around for possible dump spots last year, every viable location was in the North County.

Even if the South Coast ultimately chooses to build an alternative technology plant, to transform garbage into energy, for example, that facility would need to sit somewhere. And that somewhere is unlikely to fit well on the South Coast. That raises the specter of shipping trash elsewhere.

The nearest dump that could take all of Tajiguas' garbage, according to Phil Demery, director of County Public Works, is the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, near Magic Mountain. That option would cost $134 million more than the currently proposed expansion, he said, mainly due to new transportation costs.

Of course, the South could try to send its garbage to a new landfill in Mission County. But again, Mission would be under no obligation to offer the service.

"They don't have to design a facility with the South Coast in mind," Mr. Demery said. "That would be somewhat problematic."

Even if the another county were interested in the South Coast's trash, Santa Barbara County would be subject to another county's pricing whims.

Said Mr. Demery, "The biggest problem when you lose local control is that you pay whatever the owner will charge because you have no other options."

NO JAIL IN NORTH
WHERE DO YOU PUT YOUR CRIMINALS?

A new Mission County would start up with no jail in its borders. The new county could build its own, an expensive proposition, or it could contract to house its inmates in another county, including Santa Barbara. No other county has to take Mission's prisoners, however, and Mission would have to pay whatever another county asked for the service.

At issue are about 9,000 inmates per year from the North County who commit crimes that do not warrant state prison. Many of the criminals arrested in the North are housed temporarily in Santa Maria holding cells. Within 96 hours, however, deputies are supposed to drive them to the main jail on the South Coast.

 
 
The main jail is nearly always at capacity, and subject to an elaborate chess game of housing prisoners. Rival gang members can't bunk together, child molesters need to be kept apart from those who would attack them, women can't be housed with men.

The situation forces the early release of thousands of low-risk offenders every year before their sentences are finished. Many are under some form of supervised probation, but some are not. This year the jail released 4,196 inmates ahead of schedule, and took back 109 of them later for new crimes.

That overcrowding problem - the subject of several grand jury reports, a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and Public Defender, and a court order to remedy the situation - could be eliminated if the South told a new Mission County to take its inmates elsewhere.

"That would be one of the major services that would be lacking in the new Mission County. It would become the new county's problem," said Sheriff-elect Jim Anderson, who oversaw the jail for almost four years before being elected. "And all the projections say the population increases will occur in the North County over the next 10-20 years. We really need a jail up here. It's only going to get worse."

Mission County could contract with another nearby jail, such as the facility in San Luis Obispo. The sheriff there, Pat Hedges, said he would be open to such an arrangement, depending on Mission's needs. Or the new county could build its own jail, though a similar effort didn't fly a few years back.

Former Sheriff Jim Thomas tried to get voters to approve a half-cent sales tax to build a new jail in the North County. Almost two-thirds of Santa Barbara County voters said no. Back then, the 400-bed jail would have cost $56 million.

To plan for growth, Sheriff-elect Anderson estimated that the North would need to build an 800-bed jail at a cost of about $80Êmillion. He said the community could build a new jail in phases, to avoid the upfront cost, but that the expense would still be a tough pill to swallow.

TRANSPORTATION DILEMMA
BUILD MORE ROADS OR BUY MORE BUSES?

Some northerners believe they would have more money to fix their dilapidated roads if severed from the South and its expensive traffic problems, especially the clogged Highway 101 corridor. Traffic officials counter, however, that fixing Highway 101's problems benefits everyone, not just people living on the South Coast.

With the North so interested in roads, some say it might all but abandon public transit in the absence of any pressure from the South to provide it. Foes also fear that a split might force the South to fight for transportation funds within a more competitive regional organization that includes Los Angeles County.

 
 
 
Right now, much of the money for bike paths, buses, car pools, highways and roads is routed through a regional agency called the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. That association only covers this county, though similar groups elsewhere in the state cover many.

One representative from each of the eight cities and all five county supervisors make up its board of directors, with the North holding a slim majority of one. The agency handed out $280Êmillion this year, some by formula, but about one third almost solely by its own discretion. In recent years, those decisions infuriated the North.

"The congestion in the South County has sucked up the money that could be going to road maintenance, to true traffic relief projects," said Andy Caldwell, executive director of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business, which isn't taking a position on secession.

The South did win the lion's share of the money from 1996 to 2000, about two-thirds of the money where local leaders made the call.

A lot of the South Coast money in years past was earmarked for Highway 101 improvements after community opposition scuttled the widening of the highway indefinitely. None of projects - piece-meal attempts to relieve the congestion - have been constructed yet, but are undergoing various stages of environmental review.

Jim Kemp, director of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, said residents need to remember that transportation problems are solved regionally.

"You need to keep in mind that that corridor doesn't just serve the South Coast, but the whole county, and the state," he said. This year the funding was much more even. The North actually came out ahead, with $19 million, compared to the South's $16 million.

The fate of the agency, which is supposed to take a regional approach to transportation problems, would be up in the air in the event of a split. Michael Powers, director of planning, said the state might favor keeping the agency whole to serve both counties. If that were the case, the dynamics of funding transportation projects probably wouldn't change much, he said.

If the agency were dissolved, however, the South might be lumped under the umbrella of the Southern California Association of Governments, which oversees Los Angeles, Riverside and Ventura counties, among others. In that arena, Santa Barbara might have a tougher time battling for funds.

Mission County could be hooked up with the agency to its North, which solely includes San Luis Obispo County, Mr. Powers said. In that scenario, Mission would probably do as well as it does now, he said.

Some feel that the split might ring the death knell for public transit in the North. Leaders there already favor funding for road repair and widening over public transit.

Just last year, they spent 60 percent of their public transit money on roads, by claiming that there were no unmet transit needs in the North that were reasonable to meet. The agency has been sued over its unmet needs process by a South Coast citizen's group. The South Coast regularly spends its portion of the money on public transit.

SOCIAL SERVICES
HOW DO YOU PARCEL OUT POVERTY?

Some observers say that Mission County would not be able to offer its poor the same social services that Santa Barbara County does now because Mission would account for almost 80 percent of the county's current caseload. At the same time, the pot of money that funds government services for the poor is projected to be millions of dollars short. The result could be fewer people served, and more turning to North County charities, which are fewer and less well funded than those in the South.

Northerners counter that they will make up that financial shortfall, if it comes to bear at all, through cheaper office space, lower wages and cuts to a top-heavy bureaucracy. The county's Social Services Department does many things, but one of its main charges is to give out food stamps and cash, and to get the unemployed back to work.

Though much of its $104 million budget comes from the state and federal governments - meaning that to some extent funding will follow those who need it - the county still has to pitch in $8 million to secure the funds. That contribution comes from the county's discretionary revenue, projected to be millions of dollars short in the new Mission County, according to preliminary estimates by the pro-split campaign.

If Mission fails to ante up, it jeopardizes the money flowing in from the state and federal governments.

Beyond that, the new Social Services Department will need to duplicate many jobs, computers and offices previously shared by a county twice as large.

Split supporters have said they will make up for those extra expenses by housing employees in cheaper buildings, scaling back salaries to meet the cost of living in Mission County, and eliminating unnecessary positions.

"A lot of people think they can cut in administration, but I'm not sure they know what that means," said Michelle Fitzpatrick, deputy director of the administration at Social Services.

Frank Mejia oversees the office in Santa Maria, which serves about 2,000 people every year. Less money, Mr. Mejia said, would probably mean higher caseloads.

His eligibility managers already oversee about 165 people each, well over the department's target of 120. Higher caseloads would likely mean benefits not going out on time, more errors computing them and eliminating expedited delivery of food stamps and cash to clients.

Undoubtedly, he said, higher caseloads would make it harder to get people back to work, too.

"The state doesn't prescribe the number of hours you spend with someone," Mr. Mejia said. "Being a good case manager means often means holding someone's hand. Sometimes that's taking someone to an appointment or visiting them at home to find out why they're not showing up for classes for adult education. If I have double the number of people to see, I'm not going to get to you as quickly. ... You fall through the cracks, and then your time is up."

People who fall off the welfare rolls often tumble into the arms of private groups like Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army. But there are far fewer nonprofits in North County, 454 to South Coast's 651. Nonprofit leaders worry that North County's charities might not be able to pick up the extra work.

The Santa Maria United Way was able to raise about $681,000 last year, compared to almost $3 million in Santa Barbara.

"We make less money up here," said Cheryl Waller, the Santa Maria director, to explain the lower donations. "It's not a matter of generosity. I think more people give up here, but it's just less money."

LAND USE CONFLICTS
MORE OPEN SPACE OR MORE DEVELOPMENT?

Clear away all the rhetoric over growth and property rights in Santa Barbara County and what is left is land. Many on the South Coast fear a new Mission County would usher in a building boom north of the Santa Ynez Mountains. Many northerners take offense at the notion, saying they only want to keep the government from interfering with legitimate businesses, including farming.

At issue are almost 708,000 acres of land in northern Santa Barbara County that are privately owned, but come under the purview of the Board of Supervisors. With the split, Mission County likely would have political leaders more friendly to business and development. Its supervisors could allow more development in the rural parts of the county, decisions often blocked or offset now by South Coast supervisors with slow-growth constituencies.

The new county's Local Agency Formation Commission, the agency that allows border changes between cities and counties, could annex more farmland around its cities to build businesses, housing or industry.

South Coast foes of a county split point to the city of Santa Maria, which has shown a propensity for swallowing surrounding farmland.

The city is considering the annexation of 2,030 acres known as Bradley Ranch for houses, a golf course, a business park and senior housing. That's on top of the 3,000 acres of farmland around Santa Maria, Orcutt and Guadalupe developed for urban uses in the past 30 years.

"Arguably that's the reason they're doing this," said Marc Chytillo, an environmental lawyer in Santa Barbara. "There's so much money to be made. (The political leaders) are going to find themselves, by virtue of political necessity, scratching the backs of those giving them money. It will be hard to say no to requests to rezone ag land."

Some northerners vehemently disagree with their characterization as development zealots.

"The North County still has its farm fields and ranches," said Mr. Caldwell. "Where are theirs? You want to see sprawl and congestion, look in the mirror! Then they call the people in the North hicks, that we want to pave over everything. We're the community they say they want to be!"

Developers say they simply want to be free of the bureaucratic bog that slows down approval of their projects, and often cite developer Carlos Yanez as a case study of what so vexes the North.

Mr. Yanez said he came to the county almost seven years ago with preliminary maps to build 429 houses near the Burton Mesa, north of Lompoc. He thought it would take, at most, a year and a half to get approved, at a cost of about $700,000. His final plan, for 328 homes known as Providence Landing, was finally approved by the Board of Supervisors last month, at a cost of $2.6 million.

"I think the biggest frustration was how long the environmental analysis took," he said. "It was supposed to take 90 days for the draft, 120 for the final. It took two years. I could have sued the county, I suppose. But you're asking them to approve you, so it doesn't make much sense to go out and sue them."

County officials said Mr. Yanez is mistaken, that they actually had a year to complete the environmental review of a project. That deadline was extended with the consent of the developer.

"If we had rushed this thing through, it would have had a lot more negative impacts and it would have been much harder to get approval from the Board (of Supervisors)," said Steve Rodriguez, a planning consultant who oversaw Providence Landing. He added that the formal approval process took four years, not seven, as Mr. Yanez claimed.

Mr. Yanez said that if the county clarified the rules for development, the developer's task would be much easier. He noted, for example, he was confronted with a directive to "minimize grading."

"I was moving a half a million cubic yards of dirt. Was that OK?" he said. "In the end they said it was, but in other jurisdictions it's a little more specific. They tell you what percentage of the land mass you can move."

However, many business people say the developer's dream of a red-tape free Mission County is unrealistic.

"When initially we have a new county, a lot of those county rules could drop. That's what people are fighting for," said Victor Tognazzini, manager at Tri-Valley Vegetable Harvesting in Santa Maria, who opposes the split. "But the thought that we won't have to worry about the state and federal rules, the Endangered Species Act, and whatnot, well, yeah you do. You're not going to get away from that."

Mr. Chytillo takes cold comfort in the ability of existing laws to stem over-development in a new Mission County, given its likely political leadership.

"I don't hold state and federal law as being much of an impediment to conversion of agricultural land," he said. "Especially while the state is screaming for more housing." Some say dormant environmental activists in the North would mobilize if the South Coast no longer rallied to protect its open spaces.

"I don't think the new government, even one comprising North County residents, will necessarily guarantee them unfettered control over their land because you have people in the North and in the Santa Ynez Valley who have a much different view of land use than in Santa Maria," said Joe Armendariz, from the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. "It's going to bring people out of the woodwork if they think their quality of life is compromised."

e-mail: jrich@newspress.com