LAKE ELSINORE -- Three candidates running as a slate in this November's water district election raised concerns Thursday that the district would be misusing public funds if it went ahead with a plan in the next few months to promote a highly debated power plant proposal.

The candidates, including incumbent Chris Hyland, have made their opposition to the proposed Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage project the centerpiece of their campaigns and each are worried that the public relations push would be aimed as much at countering their campaigns as promoting the project.

That would be against the law, each of the candidates contended Thursday at an Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District board meeting.

"I feel a strong duty to advise you that the LEAPS project is indeed a campaign issue, so that you will be properly warned not to break the law of California by issuing a biased press release before the Nov. 7 election," candidate Doug Pinnow told the board.

"The law is both very clear and well established that EVMWD cannot make such a biased press release at the expense of the taxpayers," said Pinnow, who is opposing Ben Wicke in Division 1.

In brief statements to the board, Pinnow, Hyland -- who is running to retain her Division 3 seat -- and Division 5 candidate John Lloyd referred to Government Code Section 54964, which states that an agency can't use public funds to expressly support or oppose an issue or a candidate. If it were to promote the hydro plant during the election campaign, they said, the district would be doing just that.

Board President Phil Williams challenged their contention. Though certain candidates are choosing to make it an election season issue, Williams said, the project is not a matter on which the voters will be casting ballots in November.

"This issue is not an election item," he said. "LEAPS is not on the ballot."

Backing Williams, district lawyer Steve Anderson said a 1976 California Supreme Court decision that the three candidates referenced in their comments also did not apply.

The case, Stanson v. Mott, does not apply because it was a case in which an agency had spent public money in taking a side on a bond measure on the ballot, while the hydroelectric plant is not on the ballot, he said after Thursday's meeting.

The project, which the district is planning with a private partner, The Nevada Hydro Co. of Vista, would result in a hydroelectric power plant and a high-voltage transmission line being built in the hills southwest of Lake Elsinore. Water would be stored in a 100-acre reservoir behind a 180-foot dam and be released in pipes down the mountain to the lake on summer days, when demand is at its peak, to energize electricity-producing turbines in a powerhouse built 300 feet underground. Water would be pumped back up the hill at night when less electricity is needed and power costs less.

Proponents say it will supply much needed electricity and help stabilize the lake's water level, while opponents contend it will be an environmental disaster.

Lloyd is challenging longtime board member Kris Anderson in the Wildomar-area Division 5; Hyland is being challenged by businesswoman Judy Guglielmana in Division 3, which covers the district's west side and includes Lakeland Village.

Much of the discussion Thursday came after Hyland asked the district to hold off on all of its public outreach campaigning until after the election. After Hyland made a motion on her request, there was no "second" supporting the action and, thus, no vote.

"That's not unusual," said Hyland, who is viewed by some as an outsider on the board. "Most of the motions I've made in this place have died."

Her fellow board members said the district's overall promotion efforts are crucial. There are multiple facets to the district's outreach efforts that provide critical information to the public about the water supply and other issues, several board members said. If the district were to hold off on passing out that information, the district's customers would suffer, they said.

As for the outreach program, Williams said, the district would be attempting to stop misinformation being spread by opponents. Though he has said in the past that the district intends to promote the positives of the project because, after all, it is proposing to build it, he said Thursday it would be done truthfully.

Lloyd took that to mean that the district would also be sharing information about the project's potential negative impacts. If the district were to do that as well, he said, that would be fine.

"As long as it represents not only all the positives but negatives too, that's legal," he said.

Contact staff writer Jose Carvajal at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2624, or jcarvajal@californian.com.