Suit Challenges Water-Saving Law : Ventura: A group calls the city’s ordinance that rations water and places a moratorium on new hookups unconstitutional.

A lawsuit seeking to invalidate Ventura’s water conservation ordinance, which calls for a moratorium on new construction and cutbacks for local business and residences, was filed late Friday against the city, Ventura City Atty. Peter Bulens said.

“It was filed by a group called the Ventura Assn. for Fair Water Allocations, or something like that,” Bulens said. No individual plaintiffs were named in the lawsuit, he added.

Lindsay Nielsen, the attorney representing the group, could not be reached for comment Friday at his home or office.

Bulens said the lawsuit “basically alleges that the water ordinance is not fair because it violates equal protection rights guaranteed in the Constitution and that it should also be nullified because we didn’t go through an environmental review process before adopting it.”

He said he believes the suit is the first of its type filed against a municipal entity since the four-year statewide drought began.

Bulens said he is confident that the water ordinance will withstand the legal challenge.

“I think the ordinance is quite defensible,” he said.

Ventura City Council members were reached by phone or in person by Bulens and informed about the suit near the end of the workday, he said. Councilmen Todd Collart, John McWherter and Gary Tuttle said they had not seen the suit and therefore could not comment on it.

Councilman Jim Monahan, who cast the only council vote against the ordinance when it was adopted in March, said: “I knew this would happen. It was just a matter of time.”

Under the ordinance, single-family homes are receiving allocations of 294 gallons a day and multifamily residences are limited to 196 gallons a day unless they can obtain exemptions from the city for undue hardships. Businesses and institutions, such as the city government, have to reduce their water consumption by 15% to 20%. Violators are penalized by up to 10 times the normal fee for excess use.

The ordinance was adopted despite strong opposition from developers and members of the business community, who complained that the measure was too drastic and called it a ploy to control growth in the city.