HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix M - Water Supply AssessmentWest Ming Specific Plan - Draft EIR
Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0216\02160029\DEIR 9-1\02160029_Appendices.doc
Appendix M: Water Supply Assessment
SB221/SB610WATERASSESSMENTREPORT
for
THEWESTMINGSPECIFICPLAN
Submittedto
CASTLE&COOKE
Revision6
August2006
PreparedBy:
EST.1968
PROVOST&
PRITCHARID
ENGINEERINGGROUP
286W.CromwellAvenue
Fresno,California93711-6162
(559)449-2700
FAX(559)449-2715
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc
Table of Contents
I. Introduction......................................................................................................1
II. State Water Code Report Requirements.......................................................2
A. Water Supply Assessment.................................................................2
B. Urban Water Management Plan Update............................................2
III. Agencies.........................................................................................................2
IV. Regional Supply............................................................................................5
A. Groundwater.......................................................................................5
B. Import Water........................................................................................5
C. Kern River............................................................................................7
V. Local Supply for City of Bakersfield Service Area......................................8
A. Groundwater.......................................................................................8
B. Other Water Supply Entitlements......................................................8
C. Recharge.............................................................................................9
D. Reclaimed Water.................................................................................9
VI. Water Supply Reliability................................................................................9
A. Kern River Flows..............................................................................11
B. Other Surface Water.........................................................................11
C. Groundwater.....................................................................................14
VII. Proposed Development.............................................................................14
VIII. Proposed Water Supply System..............................................................18
A. Groundwater.....................................................................................18
B. Surface water....................................................................................18
C. Reclaimed water...............................................................................18
IX. Water Demand and Facilities......................................................................21
A. System Overview..............................................................................21
B. Water Demand...................................................................................21
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc
C. Water Conservation Measures........................................................23
X. Existing Water Deliveries to Area...............................................................23
XI. Conclusion – Project Impacts....................................................................25
XII. Conclusion – Cumulative Impacts............................................................32
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc
List of Tables
Table 1 – Annual Average Water Demand @ Buildout Using Per Capita Based
Unit Demands
Table 2 – Annual Average Water Demand @ Buildout Using Land Use Based
Unit Demands
Table 3 – Comparison of Existing Crop Consumptive Uses
Table 4 – Consumptive Use Evaluation (in Acre-feet)
Table 5 – Water Supply Evaluation for the City of Bakersfield Service Area (in
Acre-feet)
Table 6 - 2025 City of Bakersfield Service Area Water Supply Evaluation (in
Acre-feet)
Table 7 – 2025 Water Supply Evaluation (in Acre-feet)
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Municipal Water District
Figure 2 –Groundwater Basin Map
Figure 3 – Groundwater Level Change
Figure 4 – Kern River Probability Occurrence Plot
Figure 5 – Kern River Bar Chart
Figure 6 – Long-term Hydrograph
Figure 7 – Location Map
Figure 8 – Land Use Map
Figure 9 – Bakersfield Well Location Map
Figure 10 – Map of 2800 Acre Recharge Facility
Figure 11 – DWR Crop Survey Map 1990
Figure 12 – DWR Crop Survey Map 1998
Figure 13 – Population Projections
Appendices
Appendix A – Bulletin 118
Appendix B – Kern River Purchase
Appendix C – Long Term Delivery Contracts
Appendix D – City of Bakersfield Pending Development Projects
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 1
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this water assessment is to document the sufficiency of the City
of Bakersfield’s Domestic Water System water supply to meet the demands
associated with the proposed land uses of the West Ming Specific Plan. In order
to adequately address the sufficiency of water supply sources for future
developments and in an attempt to prevent major development projects from
being approved without a water supply evaluation, the State of California passed
into law Senate Bill Nos. 221 (Subdivision Act) and 610 (Water Code). Since the
conditions and requirements of these two bills overlaps, this water assessment is
structured to comply with the requirements and conditions of these Senate Bills.
In October 2001, the Governor of the State of California signed into law Senate
Bill 610, which requires preparation of a Water Supply report as part of the
environmental review process for new development projects. A project is defined
in the California Water Code as any proposed residential development having
more than 500 dwelling units, or a public water system that has less than 5,000
connections with a proposed project that will account for a 10% or more increase
in the number of service connections.
In addition to adopting Senate Bill 610 in October 2001, the Governor of the
State of California also signed into law Senate Bill 221 that very same year. This
law requires a city, county, or local agency to condition, as part of the tentative
map process, preparation of a water assessment report documenting the
availability of a water supply to serve a subdivision. Although the triggers for
compliance with SB 221 are essentially identical to those identified above for SB
610, this law uses a different set of requirements to determine the sufficiency of a
water supply. According to SB 221, the verification of a water supply must take
into consideration the following issues: water supply must be based on the
historical record for at least 20 years, consider preparation of an urban water
shortage contingency analysis, identify supply reduction for “specific water use
sector” per Water Supplier’s resolution, ordinance, or contract, the amount of
water that can be made reasonable relied upon from specific projects is subject
to the determinations of Government Code section 66473.7(d) et seq.
The West Ming Specific Plan encompasses approximately 2,182 acres of land in
southwest Bakersfield, and proposes 7,450 residential units and various other
land uses as specified in Table 1.1 of the West Ming Specific Plan document
currently being processed by the City of Bakersfield. Refer to Exhibit 3-1 of the
Specific Plan for a map depicting land uses contemplated by the Project.
In summary and as discussed in detail below, this water supply assessment for
the West Ming Specific plan concludes that sufficient water supplies will exist to
satisfy the projected 20-year demands for the development during normal, single-
dry, and multiple-dry years.
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 2
II. STATE WATER CODE REPORT REQUIREMENTS
A. Water Supply Assessment
California Water Code Section 10910 et. seq. requires preparation of a water
supply assessment for all projects exceeding the size requirements of this
section. The goal of a water supply assessment report is to identify available
water supplies that may be used to meet water demands for a project and to
determine the adequacy of those supplies during critical periods, such as a
drought.
B. Urban Water Management Plan Update
Section 10610 et seq. of the California Water Code, known as the Urban Water
Management Planning Act, calls for creation and periodic update of Urban Water
Management Plans (UWMPs) by all urban water suppliers and sets forth the
requirements for such plans, including definition of relevant terms.
Under the definition given in Section 10617, an urban water supplier is an entity
“providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than
3,000 customers or supplying more then 3,000 acre-feet of water annually.”
Water for this development will be supplied by the City of Bakersfield from
groundwater wells dispersed around the project site, and possibly from future
wells within the project boundaries.
In 2005, the City of Bakersfield completed an Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) review that included the portions of the West Ming Specific Plan located
between Ming, White, Allen, and Renfro Roads. This UWMP did not discuss the
population and activities contemplated by this Specific Plan, although it did
discuss, in general terms, the nature and extent of the long-term water supply for
the City of Bakersfield. Much of this general discussion is cited and paraphrased
in this water assessment. The UWMP did contain an analysis of the factors
required by Government Code section 66437.7 (a)(2), and such factors apply to
this water assessment.
Accordingly, this water assessment report, in concert with the UWMP earlier
prepared by the City, includes all necessary data and analyses required by
California Water Code section 10910 et seq. and by Government Code section
66437.7 et seq., which support the conclusion set forth in Section I.
III. AGENCIES
Within the City of Bakersfield metropolitan area there are numerous agencies
responsible for water retail, water supply and distribution (see Figure 1). The
main water wholesaler for this area is the Kern County Water Agency
Improvement District No. 4 (ID4). This district was formed to provide imported
surface water supplies from the State Water Project to agencies within its
boundary. ID4 owns a surface water treatment plant (Henry C. Garnett Water
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 3
Purification Plant) and two water conveyance lines. This water plant is capable
of treating Kern River, State Water Project, and Central Valley Project waters
and has a nominal peak capacity of 37.5 million gallons per day (mgd).
Water retailers within the Bakersfield metropolitan area include: the City of
Bakersfield, California Water Service Company, Vaughn Mutual Water
Company, Oildale Mutual Water Company, North of the River Municipal Water
District, and the East Niles Community Services District. Of these agencies
listed above, California Water Service Company (CWSC) is the largest municipal
water supplier in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area. CWSC supplies water
through a combination of wells (approximately 187) and surface water from ID4.
Data from the City of Bakersfield Water Balance Report indicates that surface
water accounts for 20 percent of the total water used by CWSC.
The City of Bakersfield (City) supplies water to the Ashe Service Area (acquired
in the 1976 Water Right Purchase from Tenneco West), along with Fairhaven
and Riverlakes areas. This area is shown in brown on Figure 1. Water to these
service areas is supplied by 58 wells distributed across the service area. The
City has contracted with CWSC to operate its system. Another key facility
associated with the 1976 Water Right Purchase is the 2,800-acres of land
situated along the banks of the Kern River, known locally as the “2800 acres”.
This land area has been developed into an intentional recharge program that is
an integral part of the water supply resources for the City and surrounding areas.
Vaughn Mutual Water Company is located in northwest Bakersfield. Water for
this service area is provided entirely with wells, no surface water. This Company
is responsible for operating and maintaining 11 wells.
The North of the River Municipal Water District (NORMWD) was formed in 1969
to provide wholesale delivery of State Water Project supply to the community of
Oildale. NORMWD receives treated water from ID4’s Henry C. Garnett Water
Purification Plant. The NORMWD has a contract with Kern County Water
Agency for 8,500 acre-feet per year (af/yr) of treated water.
The City of Bakersfield produces its domestic water supply with groundwater
wells and replaces this supply with recharge and banking operations. Recharge
occurs through regulation of Kern River supplies through Bakersfield and banking
of surface water supplies in the 2800 Acre Facility. In addition to municipal
water service, the City also delivers Kern River water to a number of irrigation
districts in the local area. Water is transported to these districts through a series
of unlined canals that traverse the Bakersfield metropolitan area and allow water
to percolate back into the aquifer.
Without specifics as to the different service entities, a mass water balance within
City area consists of the following: population 295,893 (Source: Kern Council of
Governments); estimated annual water consumption assuming 325 gallons per
capita per day, yields an annual estimated demand of 89,946 acre-feet per year
(af/yr); average annual imported State Water Project surface water supplies that
~'.'~~-
~.~.
.,a.
I,._...OildaleMutual~\~:'---~."!--.J·!NorthoftheRiver\
",_:waterCompany'"":~.-~iT.'_~~:Municipalwate~Di~:~~~~Jl~1i
oI_
~A
r"-~'I'~II<!J
iI,,~.I.1-~~~-.\I
.
--:)'#,.,~___:_-·--"'~;,'::;-1;~,8:....'".-(j
'"'~-;,"-.,1,_,,..'"
.
(..;.r.;...a-.,'.-J·"I-;:::"I.
r.Ij~~
:1-I.~~!~-~u~..:·,--"I 1",_rI..~I..IIII,'-..__t"...
'.'r-.--~'
.
,""I~"-4
_.~..~,-..--I..".#I:I.,~II.",,'I
:.-..--=-'."
~
..:
~___~.~I-,'",,''''I~,_,_,.~~....."",..,:aI:I
,~.__J"t~;e=---'.~."If 1,.I:~~--!I...,.::I.
".-i',I';'~~l'..-r-,__;__r#
,..1I~",I.a.'I,'-to:.'".,r:rl;'..~~.-"I:-;:·'.--,1.----.,",.,I..
":',--~:C I"f"
;--:.r'':",~.":..aIorDiaWater"u.)'..:--:-nci'-.-:,/ServiceCompany
:i,:---~..~~'~_-.:'f-:
II,!,i,.:;:...I./'
j,."J:Vaugh~Mutuai'--"-'.,::./ii--"I..WtC I,
.;!.:,!!~.,.aerompany£=00~-~70\'.-_~---J
-'...I./."T~III'!.....~T-~'I_~~:1:./-:..t~:t:-.-,...:,',:f..'.I...-.'.~,.._~~.I;i"',..r~
}
...'''~'
i,Il,.__._-".v',',,_t!\I\.U~..~___t"..,-,1,"11_'...I',.lii I.::1CitY.-o!'~a€~rSi~!~~~.I!--"r___:-,r--l,I!..",I.'II
.._~'.I{,.:.:-"\,1:.
!..1'_",ill"-'..J,...,~..-"-,
....~'
.
..;<=..~~:=.Ii1-'.i."~......
o.:."~I.I~....-._.-.'0.,......--.....,--,"
[
0"...
M.
I...
_..\.1~..--,----
':.~
~-'
J
.-,a,:.!.'.'~
..::-;~---"'--1...-.~8J..-11_-11
I
J
..
I
.-;-1.
nOi_
'I'i---'/
I.-=-~:?:,oi-'I':I~.~
':'i.
'~~l
,"0',
.
.=.I--.-r_I''---"I
:_
I>iE':
.__
~I
"___J'-i-,
l,.-~"',
'\:.
___~,J-I,
I
,~_...:.;.'r-f"--
.
_.
.~.-,/
..,---.....-----.-
,_-..'I
('-(':,'..,.,.,"I--_+-..
I~----,:,,------,.
.L--:,n,.rr-:-,;-'-";;'-j.-_.'"-~-~::L-,.,I.
,,~
,,1'
}~J L:=':'--t
.=~I~-.:
I
EastNiI~sCommunity
L___HAKEHS~'IELD
D
,.-"'
I
'
.
'-i-:'ServiceDistrict.
1_.AREA.1,.~~~::.:-
~__m.....:-."i,---:,-Go::::"=',:::-':'---III-.-"
r:--'.9-_.~..,-'~.~~~u>;:~=~;_I:!~iI
..
J'
:;--ID4Boundary
1995
,CityBoundary(1995)
...;----';;'---.--.-...-..-..-
;~.
-.1-
Source:i_':~I'
AUW1110hileClubofSouJ.henrCa/(forlliu
-L
,i\I
,I\.IIII
.
:
(II~
I1~t~{
inmetrobakersfield
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 5
are treated and directly delivered to municipal users total 30,000-af/yr; with the
remaining 59,946-af/yr supplied by groundwater pumpage. The City of
Bakersfield annual average Kern River water right is 140,000-af/yr with an
average of 30,000-af/yr from the Kern Delta Water District. Imported State Water
Project water totals on average 40,000-af/yr and additional supplies from flood
and spill operations of Friant Dam and the Friant-Kern Canal represent additional
supplies available from the Central Valley project. The end result is that on
average over 210,000 acre-feet of water supply is recharged into the ground
through various facilities to meet the groundwater pumping demand from
municipal users in the City, which totals 59,946-af/yr. From this regional
approach it is determined that there is an estimated surface water supply of
150,000 acre-feet available to meet future water demands within the City. Each
Purveyor is required to balance their water needs.
IV. REGIONAL SUPPLY
A. Groundwater
The City of Bakersfield service area is located near the center of the Kern County
Groundwater Subbasin, which is part of the southern third of the San Joaquin
Valley Groundwater Basin (refer to Figure 2). This basin subarea is bordered
by the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, the Temblor Range to the west, the
southern Sierra Nevada to the east, and the Kern County line to the north. Total
area for this subbasin is 1.95 million acres. Refer to California Department of
Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118 for more information on this subbasin,
included here in Appendix A.
B. Import Water
i. State Water Project
From the Kern County Agency Initial Water Management Plan, adopted in 2001:
The Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) was created in
1961 by Act 9098 of the State legislature. In essence, the enabling
act can be thought of as a water management plan, with specified
powers and authorities for implementing the plan.
In the 1960s, groundwater overdraft was estimated at 800,000
acre-feet annually. This rapid rate of depletion led to negotiations
with the State for a supply of water from the State Water Project
(SWP). On November 15, 1963, KCWA signed a contract for
1,153,400 acre-feet of SWP entitlement. The SWP entitlement
was, in turn, contracted with local water districts. The Improvement
Kern Co
Los Angeles Co
Santa Barbara Co
Sanluis Obispo Co
Kings Co Tulare Co
Ventura Co
Bakersfield
Taft
Maricopa
Arvin
Tehachapi
Delano
Lost Hills
Shafter
Wasco
McFarland
Lebec
Lake Isabella
Kernville
Keene
Project Location
Kern Co
Los Angeles Co
Santa Barbara Co
Sanluis Obispo Co
Kings Co Tulare Co
Ventura Co
Bakersfield
Taft
Maricopa
Arvin
Tehachapi
Delano
Lost Hills
Shafter
Wasco
McFarland
Lebec
Lake Isabella
Kernville
Keene
Project Location
Figure 2Groundwater Basin Map
Kern County, California
30361.5Miles
Legend
Cities
Highways
County Lines
Urban Areas
Bulletin 118 Kern Groundwater Basin
Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basins
West Ming Specific Plan Area
5/27/2004File: Z:\Clients\CastleCook_1434\BuenaVista\GroundwaterBasins.mxd
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 7
District 4 has contracted for 93,546 acre feet of SWP supplies. Of
this supply, 30,000 acre-feet is treated at a purification treatment
plant and is delivered directly to the end user. The remainder is
intentionally recharged through various facilities including the Kern
River Channel and the City’s 2800 acre recharge facility
ii. Central Valley Project
The City of Bakersfield is situated at the crossroads of a number of
regional canal systems that transport water locally, regionally and
statewide. The Friant-Kern canal is one of these facilities. Starting at
Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River, this canal delivers water to a
majority of the eastside districts in the San Joaquin Valley that are part of
the Central Valley Project (CVP). Historically, the City has enjoyed the
use of spill flows and flood flows from this facility. The exact quantity of
these flows has not been quantified for this report but generally they occur
in relatively wet hydrologic periods. Also, since the City does not have a
contract for this water, both quantity and availability are unknown, which
preclude CVP water from being considered as a firm supply. Because of
the aforementioned information this water source was not included in this
assessment, but remains a potential source of water supply.
C. Kern River
Below is an excerpt from the Kern River Purchase:
The Kern River is the most southern of the great streams
that flow westward from the crest of California’s Sierra Nevada
Mountains.
The headwaters of the Kern are located near the base of Mount
Whitney in one of the highest, most rugged regions in the United
States. The river’s main fork is joined by its major tributary, the
South Fork, near Lake Isabella.
Below Isabella, and before reaching Bakersfield, the Kern River
drops over 2,000 feet in elevation through the treacherous Kern
River Canyon.
Today, the waters of the Kern River are utilized and distributed in
harmony. Each day of the year cooperative decisions are made
on matters of mutual concern such as flood control, drought, water
use and water exchange.
The average annual water volume as calculated at First Point of
measurement for the period of record from October 1893 to date as
obtained from the City is 725,812 acre-feet.
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 8
V. LOCAL SUPPLY FOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD SERVICE AREA
A. Groundwater
The existing City of Bakersfield water system (Ashe, Fairhaven, and Riverlake
service areas) is supplied entirely with water from wells. The City of Bakersfield
currently has 58 wells in its inventory to meet demands of its urban users.
Average production from these wells for 1996 to 2004 was 30,682-af/yr.
Production for 2005 was 35,668 af/yr.
The City currently re-regulates its municipal supply with groundwater recharge
and banking programs. The aquifer underlying the Bakersfield metropolitan area
acts like a huge reservoir allowing the City to pump groundwater regardless of
whether the hydrologic cycle is wet, normal, dry or critically dry. The City uses
supplies described in the following paragraphs to maintain a positive net
groundwater supply.
It should be noted that the Kern County subbasin is not an adjudicated basin nor
are there any legal limitations on the use of groundwater, except pursuant to
contractual arrangements.
B. Other Water Supply Entitlements
As required by the California Water Code section 10910(d)(1), the following are
the relevant items related to the water supply for the proposed Specific Plan:
1. Existing water supply entitlements: The City purchased its Kern River Water
Rights from Tenneco West in 1976. The City of Bakersfield’s average annual
Kern River Entitlement garnered from these rights is approximately 140,000-
af/yr. This amounts to approximately twenty percent of the water rights of the
First Point interest on the Kern River (refer to Appendix B)
2. Quantities of water received in prior water years under the above water
supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.
The City of Bakersfield has on average diverted approximately
140,000-af of water derived from their Kern River water
entitlements. This supply has varied from approximately 35,000-af
in the critically dry year of 1961 to over 400,000-af in a very wet
year of 1969. To deal with the wide variability in available water
supply, the City has developed groundwater recharge and banking
facilities that allow them to utilize this supply as described in the
groundwater section above. The City does have long term
contracts with a number of local irrigation districts that commits half
of their surface water supply or 70,000 acre feet of water per year
until 2012.
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 9
C. Recharge
To help insure the availability of water to meet future demands, the City of
Bakersfield owns and operates the 2,800-acre recharge facility, located along the
banks of the Kern River. When sufficient Kern River flows are available, excess
water is diverted to the recharge basin so it can percolate into the ground and
replenish the aquifer. This operation allows the City to store excess water for
future use during drought periods. Acquisition of the property occurred in 1977
and the first water spread was in February 1978.
The water stored in the 2,800-acre recharge basin, as reported in the 2005
UWMP report, indicated a volume of 184,600-af. The storage has exceeded
200,000 acre-feet for 12 of the 19 years ending in 2001. This shows the value of
the program, given that the latter part of this record was during one of the most
recent prolonged droughts.
The benefits of this groundwater recharge operation can be seen in the
groundwater surface elevation changes mapped by DWR and the Kern County
Water Agency. A Kern County Water Agency draft report prepared for 1994
through 1996 (see Figure 3) shows an overall increase in water elevations
occurred in and around this recharge area. A groundwater level change exhibit
from this report indicates that water levels increased 140-ft directly under the
recharge basin with water level changes of 50-ft under the proposed West Ming
Specific Plan project. The impact on water levels from the intentional recharge
site diminishes as distance from the site increases. Groundwater surface
elevation changes are negligible approximately six miles from the recharge area.
D. Reclaimed Water
The City of Bakersfield’s wastewater treatment facility produces effluent suitable
for re-use in many applications and is used to supplement groundwater supplies
in the basin. This water source is typically used on non-edible crops. The
volume of reclaimed wastewater treated at the wastewater treatment plant is the
result of flows from the Bakersfield metropolitan area. From 1996 to 2005, the
City produced on average 31,500-af/yr of reclaimed wastewater.
VI. WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
The reliability to provide groundwater for the development is directly related to
the City’s surface water supplies from the Kern River, imported supplies from the
SWP and CVP and the ability to use the groundwater basin to re-regulate the
City’s supplies. As discussed above, surface supplies are currently in excess of
twice the City’s municipal demand. The 2,800 acre recharge facility has the
capability to recharge more than 150,000-af/yr. Coupled together, groundwater
and surface water supplies along with storage facilities, provides the City with the
capability to serve twice the previously estimated demand.
.WaterLevelMeasurementWell
4
:32
"
:..?o-
~
......................
'2
............
13(f)
............
2~
............
36
~
12
(f)
N
0{~~....
j.1,jII-$':27
on
I-
26 2~
............
Miles
Q'~2 23 36
ContourInterval10Feet
200'ContoursofEqualWaterLevelChange.
DashedWhereApproximatelyLocated
@HydrographWell
14
(f)
.--
~
19
I-
KWBGroundWaterLevelChanqe.1993-1996
32
.
21
I 65
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 11
Several factors must be addressed in order to ensure long-term reliability of
public water supplies. One of the main factors affecting water supply reliability is
fluctuation in Kern River flows because this water supply is the main source of
recharge for the City of Bakersfield. The other is the ability to re-regulate the
variable water supply by use of the 2,800 acre recharge facility. For this water
supply assessment, water supply evaluations addressed single dry and the driest
multi-year period on record.
A. Kern River Flows
Unlike groundwater supplies, river flows have a high degree of variability.
Historic Kern River flow data was obtained from the California DWR Division of
Flood Management Data Exchange Center website and the Kern River
Watermaster. The flow measuring point for DWR is located downstream of Lake
Isabella and the site ID for this location is KRB. The Kern River watermaster
records flow diversions at a site known as the First Point of Measurement, rebuilt
in 1981.
Based on historic (1954 to 2004) flow data for the Kern River, the most frequently
occurring water years (probability of occurrence greater than or equal to 0.8)
could deliver 78,000 acre-feet or 56% of the historical average. In other words,
there is an 80 percent chance of the annual runoff volume being equal to or
slightly greater than half of the historical average. Figure 4 shows the probability
of occurrence for Kern River flows for the City of Bakersfield’s entitlement and
Figure 5 is a bar chart of available river flows for the same period. Based on the
probability of occurrence plot, the City would be able to receive 120,000 acre-feet
or more in approximately 50% of the years reviewed.
B. Other Surface Water
Kern River water is not the only surface water source available to the City of
Bakersfield; water is also obtained from Improvement District (ID) #4. ID #4 was
formed by resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Kern County Water
Agency on December 21, 1971 to provide a supplemental water supply for
portions of the Bakersfield metropolitan area through the importation of water
from the SWP. Approximately 65% of the district is within the limits of the City of
Bakersfield. The city service area covers about 20 to 30% of ID#4.
F
ig
u
re 4
Pro
b
ab
ilit
y Plo
t
P
r
oba
bi
l
i
ty
of
O
c
c
ur
e
nc
e
for
Ci
ty
of
Ba
k
e
r
s
fi
e
l
d
Ke
r
n
Ri
ve
r
E
nti
tl
e
m
e
nt
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
V
olum
e (kaf)
Probability
F
i
g
u
re
5
Ci
ty
of
Ba
k
e
r
s
fi
e
l
d
Ke
r
n
Ri
ve
r
W
a
te
r
E
nti
te
l
m
e
nt
(S
in
c
e
C
o
m
p
le
tio
n
o
f L
a
k
e
Is
a
b
e
lla
in
1
9
5
4
)
050
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1954
1959
1964
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
2004
Y
ear
Volume (kaf)
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 14
Currently, ID#4 has an annual entitlement of 93,546 acre-feet. Actual allocations
from the SWP in any year are subject to hydrologic variability on the State
Project.
C. Groundwater
Groundwater availability does not fluctuate as much as river flows due to the
ability to use the aquifer as an underground storage reservoir. If the
underground water supply were not intentionally recharged at the 2800-acre
facility, continued extraction without regard to decreasing water levels would
impact both its availability as a long-term water source and quality. In order to
ensure groundwater will be available for future use, other water sources, such as
the Kern River and SWP, are used for recharge during above-average runoff
periods.
During years of above-average river flows, water is diverted from the Kern River
into recharge basins where it percolates into the ground and replenishes
groundwater supplies. Figure 6 is a long-term hydrograph of monitoring wells
30S/26E-16J and 30S/26E-22P01, which are located approximately 1 mile
southwest of the West Ming Specific Plan project. This figure shows that
groundwater levels decreased at a uniform rate from 1937 to 1957, and then the
water level dropped dramatically from 1958 until 1977. Groundwater level
recovery began in 1978 and continued until 1987. In 1988, water levels declined
until 1992 and then increased until the end of the wet cycle in 1996. In summary,
the groundwater level fluctuations do correlate with the hydrologic cycles and
operation of the 2800 acre recharge facility.
VII. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The West Ming Specific Plan describes a proposed master planned community
located southwest of the City of Bakersfield. It encompasses approximately
2,182 acres of agricultural lands situated between Ming Avenue to the north and
Pacheco Avenue to the south and bordered by Buena Vista Drive on the west
(see Figure 7).
The West Ming Specific Plan encompasses approximately 2,182 acres of land in
southwest Bakersfield, and proposes 7,450 residential units and various other
land uses as specified in Table 2.1 of the West Ming Specific Plan document
currently being processed with the City of Bakersfield. Refer to Exhibit 3-1
(Figures 8 in this report) of the Specific Plan for a map of land uses
contemplated by the Project.
~:I
~
:J
~:J
a:
S'<Q
{
0-.,
iO
'fl
i2
!JI
i2
0)
LongTermHydrograph
30S/26E-16Jand30S/26E-22P01
350-11
300 39
150 189
Dataavailalbleuponrequest
100
12/27
239
11/07 I'<a.a
caPI
"'0
:T
11/3711/47 11/5711/6711/77
Date
11/8711/97
-+-30S/26E-16J-0-30S/26E-22P01~~
Q)
i>
j 250 89--
co
L.Q)
Q)-
en co
c:=
co'C
Q)c
I
:e::J0
Q)L.
>CJ
0,Q0 II
-
oCt200 139S
i a.Q)
u.C
Rosedale
K e rn Riv er
J a m e s C a n al
H
PANAMA
MING
UNION
WHITE
ASHE
WIBL
E
STOCKDALE
STINE
TRUXTUN
GOSF
ORD
OL
D RIV
ER
PLANZ
CHESTE
R
BUENA V
ISTA
NORD
OAK
COT
TONWOOD
HEATH
BRIMHALL
HOSKING
CALIFORNIA
RENFRO C
O
FF
E
E
BRUNDAGE
NILESCALL
OWAY
BEALE
MC CUTCHEN
PACHECO
SUPERIOR
JEW
ETT
A
NEW S
TINE
ALLEN
GRE
ELE
Y
CASA LOMA
LAKE
VIEW
24TH
HALEY
MOHAW
K
GRE
ELE
Y
PACHECO
BRIMHALL
ALL
EN
ALLEN HOSKING
PLANZ
119
995
58
99
Kern Ri
v er
K er n R iv e r C a n al
Kern
Isl
and
Can
al
Pion
e
er Can al
A
r
v
i
n
E
d
i
s
o
n
C
a
n
al
Cross Valley Canal
Farmers Canal
Buena Vista Canal
C
e
n
tral
B
ranc
h
C
a
n
al
C arrie r C a n a l
Stine Canal
Ja mes Canal
Goose La
k
e Scough
C allo way Canal
J
am e s-Di x on Ca n al
We
st
Branch Canal
East Branch Cana
l
Stine Canal
Goose Lake Scough
K ern RiverStine Canal
Ja m e s-Dixon Canal
KernC ountyK ernC ounty
Project Location
Vicinity Map
Kern County, California
0120.5 Miles Legend
Highways
Hydrography
Minor Roads
Major Roads
West Ming Specific Plan Area Printed: 05/24/2004File: Z:\Clients\CastleCook_1434\BuenaVista\VicinityMap.mxd
Project Location
Figure 7
WEST MING SPECIFIC PLANEXHIBIT 3-1GENERAL PLANLAND USE DESIGNATIONS
April 2006
21
NOTE:1)
THESE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ARE DEFINED IN CHAPTER 3, "LAND USE", OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN West Ming General CommercialWest Ming High Medium DensityWest Ming High DensityWest Ming Low Medium DensityWest Ming Low DensityWest Ming Mixed UseWest Ming OfficeWest Ming Special UseVillage BoundarySpecific Plan Boundary
CAMPUSPARK DRIVE
UNION PACIFIC RAILROADWM-LMR
WM-LMR
WM-LMR
WM-LMR
WM-LMRWM-LMR
WM-LMR
WM-LMR
WM-LR
WM-LR
WM-LR
WM-LMR
WM-GC
WM-HMRWM-HR
WM-LMRWM-LR
WM-MUWM-OCWM-SU
WM-HMR
WM-HMR
WM-HMRWM-HMR
WM-HRWM-HR
WM-HMR
WM-HMR
WM-HMRWM-SU
WM-SUWM-SU
WM-OCWM-OCWM-GC
KERN RIVER CANAL
VILLAGE AVILLAGE BVILLAGE CVILLAGE DVILLAGE EVILLAGE FVILLAGE CENTER DISTRICTTOTAL
800300300400250700 700
Not to exceed 7,4501,403598740995512
1,995 2,323
VillageDWELLING UNITSMinimumMaximum
CHAMBER BOULEVARD
WINDEMERE
STREET
VILLAGE A VILLAGE C
VILLAGE D
VILLAGE E
VILLAGE FSPECIALUSE
DISTRICT
VILLAGECENTER
DISTRICT
VILLAGE B
WM-MU
WM-MU
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 18
VIII. PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
A. Groundwater
In the most current Department of Water Resources (DWR) bulletin on
groundwater in California, the groundwater basin below the area of the West
Ming Specific Plan is NOT identified as overdrafted nor has it been projected that
the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue.
However, the bulletin does state:
“The extensive use of groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley has
historically caused subsidence of the land surface primarily along
the west side and south end of the valley.”
With the current management policies for available water resources within the
Bakersfield metropolitan area, DWR has not identified subsidence of the lands
within this area. In the past, the City of Bakersfield metropolitan area has
depended mainly upon groundwater to meet urban demands within its boundary;
however, some portions of the City are now supplied with surface water from the
Henry C. Garnett water purification plant and the California Water Service
Company water treatment plant.
Based upon the boundary of the City of Bakersfield service area, which is shown
as Figure 9, all urban water demands within the project area will be met with
groundwater.
To help offset groundwater use, the City of Bakersfield operates a 2,800-acre
recharge facility along the banks of the Kern River (see Figure 10).
This water assessment, in conjunction with the City’s UWMPs prepared in 2000
and 2005, contains discussion and analysis of measures implemented to
recharge the basin and thereby eliminate any long-term overdraft condition, if it
were found to exist.
B. Surface water
Refer to Section VI(a) for a discussion of surface water supplies.
C. Reclaimed water
As part of the groundwater management plan for Kern County, agricultural
irrigation demand is supplemented with reclaimed water from the two wastewater
treatment plants serving the Bakersfield metropolitan area. Reclaimed
wastewater is piped to agricultural lands located southwest of this area. The City
is currently allowed to dispose of reclaimed waters on non-edible crops, which
typically include alfalfa and cotton.
Rose
dal
e
K
e
r
n
R
i
v
e
r
WIB
LE
CHESTER
C H E S T E R
FRUITVALE
CALLOWAY
ALLEN
UNION UNION
JEWE
TTA
ALLEN
SU
PER
IO
R
SULLIVAN
SIDDING
SUPERIOR
ALLEN
G
REELEY
BRIM
HALL
PACHECO
OLD R
IVER
S A N T A
FE
NORD
TRUX
TUN
KRATZMEY
ER
GO
SFORD
HEATH
D
EC
AT
U
R
RENFRO
JEWE
TTA
R
EIN
A
COLUMBU
S
ASHE
OLIVE
PACHE
CO
MANOR
OAK MING PLAN
ZC HES
TER H
AIRPO
RT
N
ILES
PAN
A
MA
HAGEMA
N
WHITE
STOCK
D
A
L
E
BRIM
HALL
COF
FEE
BRUNDAGE
558
5
17
8
17
8
58
99
99
22
23
40
F-101
F-102
L-207
34
L-205
L
-203
39
38
37
36
35
19
33
32
31
30
28
27
26
25
23
21
18
17
16
15 14
13
12
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
11
Well
Locat
ion M
ap
C
it
y
of
Baker
sf
iel
d
Fi
gur
e
9
0
1
2
0.
5
Mi
l
es
Le
ge
nd Highw
ays
Mi
n
or
R
oa
ds
Ma
j
or
R
oa
ds
Buena Vi
sta Projec
t Boun
dar
y
Wel
ls
City
of B
ak
ers
fi
eld Serv
ice Area
2800 A
cre R
e
charge Si
te
Pr
inte
d: 0
5/2
4/20
04
File:
Z:\
Clie
nts\
Castle
Cook
_
14
34\Bu
ena
Vis
ta\Figu
re9
.mx
d
43
5
K e r n Riv er
Pioneer Canal
Ker n River Can al
Cross Valley Canal
Ja m es C anal
James-Dixon
Can al
Buena Vista Canal
Alejandro Canal
Main Canal
J a m es-Dix o n C an al
James Canal
PANAMA
STOCKDALE
BUENA V
ISTA
MING
WHITE
ALLEN
RENFRONORD
HEATH
MUNZER
GRE
ELE
Y
SUPERIOR
J E WETTA
ALL
EN
ALLEN
Project Location
2800 Acre Recharge FacilityCity of Bakersfield
0 0.6 1.20.3 Miles Legend
HighwaysWest Ming Specific Plan AreaHydrography
Minor Roads
Major Roads2800 Acre Recharge Site Printed: 05/24/2004File: Z:\Clients\CastleCook_1434\BuenaVista\2800AcreMap.mxd
Figure 10
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 21
Wastewater generation for this development was determined for an annual
average condition. Wastewater generation rate for residential land uses was
based upon 100 gallons per capita per day (source: West Ming Public Services
Report). Commercial and industrial wastewater flows were assumed to equal
90% of their respective water demands. Since residential wastewater flows are
typically based on per-capita values, two separate population densities were
used for single family and multi-family residential land use types in order to
determine the amount of wastewater that would be contributed by these land use
types. All single-family land use types were assigned a population density of 3.0
residents per dwelling unit and the all multi-family land use types were assigned
a population density of 1.75 residents per dwelling unit. Total wastewater flow
generated by the West Ming Specific Plan at buildout is estimated at 2944-af/yr.
IX. WATER DEMAND AND FACILITIES
A. System Overview
In order to address the inherit variability associated with estimating water
demands for new users; two water demand calculation methodologies are used
in this report. The land use and per capita based demand methodologies provide
a reasonable representation of the projected lower and upper demands limits for
the Project. Each demand methodology is discussed in detail in subsection (B).
Based upon current plans, it is anticipated that water supplies for West Ming will
be met with existing wells and additional wells located within and around the
proposed development. See Figure 9 for a map of all City of Bakersfield wells.
B. Water Demand
The first methodology relies on unit counts, consumption rate, and an assumed
per-unit population density. Water demands for this methodology were based on
a consumption rate of 325 gallons per capita per day (2000 City of Bakersfield
Water Balance report, usage was confirmed by City staff in 2005). This usage
value applies only to residential land uses because it is derived from total water
production and population, so water demands associated with non-residential
land uses are already included in this value. Population densities ranged from
1.75 persons per dwelling unit for multi-family housing to 3.0 persons per
dwelling unit for single family housing (source: West Ming Public Services
Report). Annual water demand represents the product of per capita usage,
assumed population densities and unit counts. Based on this method, annual
demand for the development is approximately 6,925-af/yr (see Table 1).
LAND
US
E
Tota
l
Uni
ts
Ar
e
a
(a
c
)
Uni
t
De
ma
nd
(a
fy/
c
a
p)
P
opul
a
ti
on
De
ns
i
ty
(c
a
p/
du)
Annua
l
De
ma
nd
(a
fy)
S
i
n
g
l
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
4
7
4
8
9
9
4
0
.
3
6
4
3
.
0
1
5
,
2
0
3
M
u
l
t
i
-f
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
2
7
0
2
3
7
7
0
.
3
6
4
1
.
7
5
1
,
7
2
2
To
wn
Ce
n
t
e
r
Co
m
m
e
rc
i
a
l
a
n
d
M
i
x
e
d
Us
e
6
3
Co
m
m
e
rc
i
a
l
5
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
Us
e
2
2
0
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
6
9
P
u
b
l
i
c
P
a
rk
s
5
6
P
ri
v
a
t
e
P
a
rk
s
/
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
/
P
o
n
d
s
1
4
0
Ro
a
d
s
/
Ca
n
a
l
2
1
3
Tota
l
2
,
1
8
2
6
,
9
2
5
N
otes
:
Ta
ble
1
. W
e
s
t
M
ing Spe
c
if
ic
Pla
n Ar
e
a
Annua
l Ave
r
a
ge
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
ma
nd @
B
uildout
U
s
ing Pe
r
C
a
pit
a
B
a
s
e
d U
nit
D
e
ma
nds
(
3)
Population dens
ities
w
er
e obtained fr
om
the W
es
t Ming Public
Ser
v
ic
es
R
epor
t.
(
1)
U
nit dem
ands
for
low
and low
-
m
edium
r
es
idential land us
es
w
er
e bas
ed a per
c
apita dem
and of 325 gallons
per
day (
gpd)
as
publis
hed in the C
ity of Bak
er
s
field 2000 W
ater
Balanc
e R
epor
t
(
2)
U
nit dem
ands
ar
e not r
equir
ed for
other
land us
es
bec
aus
e thes
e dem
ands
ar
e alr
eady ac
c
ounted in the annual per
c
apita dem
and
v
alue for
the C
ity of Bak
er
s
field.
I:\C
lients
\C
as
tle C
ook
e -
1434\14340401 -
Buena Vis
ta SB 610\Spr
eads
heets
\W
ater
D
em
andLandU
s
eBas
ed.xls
-
w
ater
-
c
apita_R
ev
2
R
ev
is
ion 4
07/31/2006
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 23
The second water demand analysis was conducted using land-use-based
demands from the City of Clovis Water Master Plan Update-Phase II Facilities
Plan, dated July 1999. Based on this method, water demand is calculated from
the product of unit demand and land use area. It should be noted that this
methodology would underestimate annual water demand if it is not adjusted for
different annual per capita demands. The unit demand values in the Clovis
report were based on a per-capita use of 200 gpcd. Since the City of Bakersfield
has a higher per-capita usage than the City of Clovis, the total annual average
demand was adjusted by the ratio of Bakersfield to Clovis per-capita usages.
This revision results in a projected demand of 9,308-af/yr (see Table 2).
C. Water Conservation Measures
The City of Bakersfield has implemented water conservation measures to ensure
that customers use water efficiently and that negligent use will have appropriate
consequences. Water conservation policies and ordinances were first described
in the 1985 Urban Water Management Plan. Below is a partial list of current
adopted water conservation policies:
• All service connections are metered to reward customers with a lower
water bill for practicing conservation measures
• Provisions for low-flow fixtures, such as low-flow shower heads, lavatory
and sink faucets, within all new construction
• Ultra-low-flow water closets and flush valves
• Public awareness and education programs – includes television
advertisements, mailers with monthly bills, booths at public fairs, etc.
• City utilizes field personnel and consumer reports to help curb negligent
use of water
The combined affect of these policies places responsibility for water conservation
on both the developer and the City. In addition to the water conservations
policies mentioned above, the City adopted in 2005, a water shortage
contingency plan, which identifies the various actions the City will take at each
water shortage stage.
X. EXISTING WATER DELIVERIES TO AREA
Existing crop water demand was calculated from available historical data.
Existing crop area totals were published in the 1990 and 1998 Department of
Water Resources Crop Survey. Crop evaportransporation requirements were
obtained from reports published by the University of California Experimental
Station. Crop data was used from both the 1990 and 1998 DWR Crop Survey
reports in order to develop a range of existing irrigation demand.
L
AND
USE
Are
a
(
a
c
)
Uni
t
De
ma
nd
(
a
f
y/
a
c
)
Ave
ra
g
e
Da
y
De
ma
nd
(
a
f
y)
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
mi
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
9
9
4
2
.
5
2
,
4
8
5
Mu
l
t
i
-
f
a
mi
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
3
7
7
4
.
2
1
,
5
8
3
T
o
wn
Ce
n
t
e
r
Co
mme
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
Mi
xe
d
Us
e
6
3
2
.
2
1
3
9
Co
mme
r
c
i
a
l
5
0
1
.
8
9
0
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Use
2
2
0
2
.
2
4
8
4
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
6
9
2
.
8
1
9
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
Pa
r
ks
5
6
2
.
8
1
5
7
Po
n
d
s
6
0
6
.
2
3
7
0
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
Pa
r
k
s
/
O
p
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
8
0
2
.
8
2
2
4
Ro
a
d
s
/
Ca
n
a
l
2
1
3
0
Sub
t
o
t
a
l
(
b
e
f
o
re
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
a
d
j
us
t
me
nt
)
5
,
7
2
5
T
o
t
a
l
2
,
1
8
2
9
,
3
0
8
2
N
otes
:
(
3)
Land us
e total wer
e bas
ed on the 8/1/2005 G
ener
al Plan Land U
s
e D
es
ignations
Exhibit
Table 2. W
est M
ing S
pecific P
lan Ar
ea Annual Aver
age W
ater
D
em
and @
B
uildout U
sing Land U
se B
ased U
nit D
em
ands
(
1)
U
nit demand values
wer
e bas
ed data f
r
om the 1999 C
ity of
C
lovis
W
ater
Mas
ter
Plan U
pdate -
Phas
e II Fac
ilities
Plan. Sinc
e s
ingle and multi-
f
amily r
es
idential land us
e types
c
over
a wide r
ange of
dwelling unit dens
ities
, unit water
demands
wer
e f
or
(
2)
T
otal aver
age day demand was
adjus
ted by the r
atio of
325:200, whic
h r
epr
es
ents
Baker
s
f
ield and C
lovis
annual per
c
apita demands
.
I:\C
lients
\C
as
tle C
ooke -
1434\14340401 -
Buena Vis
ta SB 610\Spr
eads
heets
\W
ater
D
emandLandU
s
eBas
ed.xls
-
water
-
ar
ea_R
ev2
R
ev
is
ion 4
07/31/2006
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 25
The 1990 DWR Crop Survey report states that existing agricultural uses included
field crops, grain and hay, native vegetation, semi-agricultural, urban industrial
and pasture. Total area for these uses was approximately 2,106 acres. Field
crops for this region are typically cotton or corn. Native vegetation may include
open grassland or land with light brush. Semi-agricultural land uses include
farmsteads, livestock feed lots, dairies, and poultry farms. Urban industrial land
uses represented a small fraction of the total area, including uses such as
manufacturing, assembling, and general processing. Crop area totals presented
in this report can vary significantly between years because of changing
agricultural market conditions. See Figures 11 and 12 for 1990 and 1998 DWR
crop uses.
Water demand for existing crop use patterns was based on crop
evapotransporation values published by the University of California Experimental
Station. Unit water demands for various crop types ranges from 0.5 to 2.5 feet
per year. Total water applied to this area will vary with crop selection; see Table
3 for a comparison of consumptive water uses for the 1990 and 1998 DWR Crop
Survey reports. The estimated annual consumptive use for these lands in 1990
and 1998 were 6,393 and 4,326-af, respectively. Estimated annual average
consumptive use for these two years is 5,360-af.
XI. CONCLUSION – PROJECT IMPACTS
The West Ming Specific Plan includes a 2,182-acre development planned for the
southwest portion of the City of Bakersfield. This development will include
residential land uses that vary from low to high, commercial uses, schools, and
light industrial land use types. Table 4 lists specifics of water consumption for
this development for conditions discussed previously in this report. It should be
understood that the budget uses only 50% of the 2944-af/yr of wastewater
generation, recognizing that not all of the generated effluent is effective and
utilized in crop generation. According to the water demand evaluations shown in
this table, the water demand impact associated with this development has the
potential for a wide range of variability; however, the most probable condition is
one that is based upon averaging high and low water demand estimates,
proposed and existing crop demands; and keeping the utilization of wastewater
generation the same. Based on the anticipated-demand evaluation, this
development is expected to increase consumptive use for this area by 1,284-
af/yr.
K ern River
STOCKDALE
JE
W
E
TT
A
WHITE
MING
ALLEN
HEAT
H
O
L
D
R
I
V
E
R
REN
FR
O
BRIMHALL
CALLO WAY
PACHECO
G
O
S
FO
RD
BUEN
A VISTA
PANAMA
NOR
D
Kern County, California
00.61.20.3 Miles
Printed: 05/24/2004File: Z:\Clients\CastleCook_1434\BuenaVista\DWRLandUse.mxd
Legend
West Ming Specific Plan Area
Highways
Major Roads
Citrus
Deciduous Fruit & Nuts
Field Crop
Grain & Hay
Idle
Pasture
Truck Crop
Vineyard
Natvie Riparian
Native Vegetation
Water Surface
Semi agricultural
Urban
Urban Commercial
Urban Industrial
Urban Landscape
Urban Residential
Urban Vacant Existing Crop Use
Source: 1990 DWR Crop Survey
Figure 11
K ern River
STOCKDALE
JE
W
E
TT
A
WHITE
MING
ALLEN
HEAT
H
O
L
D
R
I
V
E
R
REN
FR
O
BRIMHALL
CALLO WAY
PACHECO
G
O
S
FO
RD
BUEN
A VISTA
PANAMA
NOR
D
Kern County, California
00.61.20.3 Miles
Printed: 05/24/2004File: Z:\Clients\CastleCook_1434\BuenaVista\DWRLandUse.mxd
Legend
West Ming Specific Plan Area
Highways
Major Roads
Citrus
Deciduous Fruit & Nuts
Field Crop
Grain & Hay
Idle
Pasture
Truck Crop
Vineyard
Natvie Riparian
Native Vegetation
Water Surface
Semi agricultural
Urban
Urban Commercial
Urban Industrial
Urban Landscape
Urban Residential
Urban Vacant Existing Crop Use
Source: 1998 DWR Crop Survey
Figure 12
Ta
bl
e
3
-
Com
pa
r
i
s
on
of
E
x
i
s
ti
ng
Cr
op
Cons
um
pti
ve
Us
e
s
DW
R
Cr
op
S
ur
ve
y
Ye
a
r
La
nd
Us
e
De
s
i
gna
ti
on
Ac
r
e
s
De
m
a
nd
(a
f/
a
c
)
Annua
l
Cons
um
pti
ve
Us
e
(a
f/
yr
)
Fie
ld
Cro
p
9
3
4
2
.
5
0
2
3
3
5
G
ra
in
a
n
d
Ha
y
2
3
6
1
.
3
1
3
0
9
T
ru
c
k
Cro
p
7
3
4
2
.
2
5
1
6
5
2
1
9
9
8
Na
t
ive
Rip
a
ria
n
0
.
2
1
0
.
5
0
0
.
1
0
Na
t
ive
V
e
ge
t
a
t
io
n
5
4
.
5
0
.
5
0
2
7
W
a
t
e
r
S
u
rf
a
c
e
1
1
3
1
0
.
0
0
0
S
e
m
i-a
gric
u
lt
u
re
5
.
4
6
0
.
5
0
3
Urb
a
n
I
n
d
u
s
t
ria
l
1
3
0
S
ubtota
l
2
1
0
9
4
3
2
6
Fie
ld
Cro
p
6
8
4
2
.
5
0
1
7
0
9
G
ra
in
/
Ha
y
3
3
5
1
.
3
1
4
3
9
1
9
9
0
Na
t
ive
V
e
ge
t
a
t
io
n
1
1
0
.
5
0
6
S
e
m
i-a
gric
u
lt
u
ra
l
8
0
.
5
0
4
Urb
a
n
I
n
d
u
s
t
ria
l
1
0
0
P
a
s
t
u
re
1
0
5
9
4
.
0
0
4
2
3
6
S
ubtota
l
2
1
0
7
6
3
9
3
N
otes
:
(
1)
R
epr
es
ents
wet year
f
looding of
land
(
2)
D
W
R
C
r
op Sur
vey r
epor
ts
wer
e pr
epar
ed dur
ing wet (
1998)
and dr
y (
1990)
year
s
.
(
3)
C
r
op c
ons
um
ptive us
e was
obtain f
r
om
evapotr
ans
pir
ation data publis
hed by the U
niver
s
ity of
C
alif
or
nia
Ex
per
im
ental Station
Revi
s
ed
07/
04/
04
I
:
\
Cl
i
ent
s
\
Cas
t
l
e
Cook
e
-
1434\
14340401
-
B
uena
V
i
s
t
a
S
B
610\
S
preads
heet
s
\
exi
s
t
i
ng_c
rop_wat
erus
e.
xl
s
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 29
Table 4. Consumptive Use Evaluation (in Acre-feet)
Best-Case
Evaluation
Anticipated-Demand
Evaluation
Worst-Case
Evaluation
Proposed Demand 6,925 8,116 9,308
Wastewater Generation 1,472(1) 1,472(1) 1,472(1)
Existing Crop Demand 6,393 5,360 4,326
Total Consumptive
Use Change -940(2) 1,284 4,982
Notes:
(1) Wastewater availability for West Ming was assumed to equal 50% of the projected annual wastewater generation.
(2) Negative value in the total consumptive use change row indicates that the proposed development would use less
water in the overall water budget.
The existing 2005 demand for the City of Bakersfield service is 35,668-af/yr and
with buildout of the West Ming Specific Plan, water demand would increase by
8,116-af/yr, resulting in a combined demand of 43,784-af/yr. However, the
consumptive use for this region, which includes a water supply credit for
wastewater generated by West Ming, is expected to result in a net increase in
demand of 1,284-af/yr.
Using the 2005 groundwater storage in the 2800 acre recharge facility of
184,600-af, the anticipated combined demand of 43,784-af/yr which includes the
demands associated with West Ming could be met for the next four years without
any other activity on the City’s part. This demonstrates that there is more than
sufficient water supply to meet future needs of West Ming and other existing
users without relying on the use of reclaimed wastewater in the water budget.
Even during the driest year on record (since the completion of the dam at Lake
Isabella), the City of Bakersfield Kern River water supply yielded an annual
volume of 35,000-af of water, which nearly equals the demand associated with
existing users, absent dependence on other sources of water supply.
The following table identifies the possible means in which the City can provide
supplies to meet the demand considering a range of hydrologic conditions.
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 30
Table 5. Water Supply Budget Evaluation for the City of Bakersfield
Service Area (in Acre-feet)
Best-Case
Evaluation
Anticipated-
Demand
Evaluation
Worst-Case
Evaluation
Total Consumptive
Change
-940 1,284 4,982
Existing City Demand 35,668 35,668 35,668
Total Demand 34,728 36,952 40,650
Kern River Supply(1) 384,000 122,000 35,000
State Water Project(2) 21,000 16,000 0
2,800-acre Recharge
Facility
0 0 5,650(3)
Total Supply 405,000 138,000 40,650
Surface Supply in
Excess of Demand
370,272 101,048 0
Notes
1. Kern River supply for the anticipated-demand condition is based on a 0.5 probability of occurrence
2. State Water Project (SWP) supplies reduced to reflect that portion of City of Bakersfield service area
within ID#4. SWP water availability is equal to 76% of full entitlement.
3. Worst-case evaluation assumes groundwater is used to make up the shortage between surface
supplies and demand.
Based on evaluations presented in the table above, sufficient water supplies are
available for West Ming and existing users under a wide range of hydrologic
conditions. Of the supply conditions shown in the table above, the worst-case
evaluation represents the most critical dry year since completion of the dam at
Lake Isabella in 1954, which occurred in 1961. However, even prior to
completion of this dam, the annual water yield from the Kern River, according to
recorded data (1904 to 2004), has never been less than the water yield for 1961.
Assuming the reoccurrence of a water year similar to 1961 and all City of
Bakersfield and West Ming water demands are supplied by water extracted from
banked groundwater, over 140,000-af of water would still be available from this
source. At the rate of use shown in Table 5, the City could weather an additional
thirty years of critical dry years identical to 1961, as shown in Figure 5, before the
available groundwater supply to the City is depleted.
In addition to a single year evaluation, the water supply-demand situation for the
City of Bakersfield service area (Service Area) was evaluated at varying
hydrologic conditions, as required by SB 610. Water supply-demand evaluations
are based on anticipated demands for the Service Area at year 2025 during the
following hydrologic conditions: normal, single-dry, and multi-dry years. All water
supplies shown in Table 6 represent those supplies that are available to the
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 31
Service Area and how these supplies are utilized to meet demands are at the
discretion of the City of Bakersfield.
According to the City of Bakersfield Urban Water Management Plan (October
2005), the water demand for the Service Area in 2025 is anticipated to be
50,375-af/yr. Refer to Table 6 for detailed water supply-demand investigation for
the Service Area under varying hydrologic conditions. For the normal year
evaluation, the City of Bakersfield’s Kern River water entitlement alone is nearly
three times greater than the projected demand; so ample water supplies are
available for the Service Area demand. The single-dry year evaluation is based
on the hydrologic conditions for 1961. During a single-dry year period, the Kern
River water entitlement is not sufficient to meet the projected urban demand so
the City of Bakersfield will be required to utilize other water supplies. The most
likely water source to be used to make up the difference between supply and
demand during the single-dry year is banked groundwater – consistent with
current operations during dry periods. The multi-dry years evaluation is based
on the hydrologic conditions that occurred between 1990 and 1992. During this
period, the City’s Kern River entitlement had an average yield that was
equivalent to a 39% water year; however, it is only during the first year of the
multi-year period when the Kern River entitlement is less than projected
demands.
The amount of water the City of Bakersfield has available for use in their service
area greatly exceeds the demands that are anticipated 20 years from now. Even
during the most critical dry year, total water supplies are nearly five times greater
than the anticipated demands. Based on the information present in this
investigation, the City of Bakersfield does have sufficient water supply sources
available to meet the project demands of the Service Area in 2025.
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 32
Table 6. 2025 City of Bakersfield Service Area
Water Supply Evaluation (in Acre-feet)
Multi-Dry Years (7)
Normal
Year
Single-
Dry Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Supplies
Kern River 140,00035,000(1) 44,000 66,000 54,000
State Water (2) 23,375 7,000 23,375 7,000 10,500
Reclaimed Water 9750(3) 13,650(4) 13,650(4) 13,650(4) 13,650(4)
Banked Groundwater
Storage 184,600184,600 184,600 184,600 184,600
Use 0 0 0 0 0
End of Year
Storage
184,600184,600 184,600 184,600 184,600
Supplies Subtotal (5) 357,725240,250265,625271,250 262,750
Demand (6) 50,37550,37550,37550,375 50,375
Notes
1. Single dry year for the Kern River water supply occurred in 1961
2. Supply assumes City is 25% of ID4 area.
3. Reclaimed water supply represents the volume of treated wastewater that is available for recharge or other
approved uses; volume was set at 50% of estimated wastewater generation. Current data from the City of
4. Reclaimed water during dry periods assumed at 70% of wastewater generation.
5. No credit was given for precipitation.
6. Water demand in 2025 as reported in the City of Bakersfield’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.
7. The direst multi-year period occurred from 1990 to 1992.
8. The water supplies shown in this table represent those supplies that are available for use by the City of
Bakersfield and use of this information does not infer how the City will manage these supplies.
XII. CONCLUSION – CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The City has ample supplies not only to meet the demands of this development
but the planned ongoing developments envisioned by the City in recent planning
documents. According to the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) regional
growth forecast adopted April 2002, the population of the metropolitan
Bakersfield area was anticipated to grow 2% on an average annual basis over
the next 20 years. This overall growth projection is consistent with the City of
Bakersfield's growth projections and is slightly lower than the State of California
Department of Finance growth projections; however, it incorporates all related
existing, planned and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the
metropolitan Bakersfield area, including but not limited to the specific projects
identified on the list included as Appendix D. Figure 13 shows the estimated
annual population within the service area (to be expanded) over this 20-year
period. Using a population of 500,000 in 2025 and per capita demand remains
constant at 325 gallons per day.
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 33
The estimated demand for the City at year 2025 is projected to be 182,000-af/yr.
The following Table 7 lists the expected normal conditions, the single dry year
and multiple dry years expectations for 20 years hence. As shown in the Table,
under normal conditions, the City has more than adequate supplies. Under a
single dry year water is drawn from groundwater banking space and the City
continues to be in excellent shape. In the multi-year evaluation, the most recent
dry period of 1990 to 1992 is used. This period represents a 31%, 47% and 39%
water year on the Kern River. As is shown in the table, a negative groundwater
balance end of year storage is realized over this three-year period. Although a
negative balance may occur intermittently over a short period of time, the long
term average remains positive.
Table 7. 2025 Water Supply Evaluation (in Acre-feet)
Multi-Dry Years (7)
Normal
Year
Single-
Dry Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Supplies
Kern River 140,00035,000(1) 44,000 66,000 54,000
State Water (2) 23,375 7,000 23,375 7,000 10,500
Reclaimed Water 28,000(3)28,000(3) 28,000(3) 28,000 28,000
Recharged 0 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000
Banked Groundwater
Storage 184,600200,000 200,000 124,375 54,375
Use 0 101,000 75,625 70,000 78,500
End of Year
Storage
184,60099,000 124,375 54,375 (24,125)
Supplies Subtotal (5) 191,375182,000182,000182,000 182,000
Demand (6) 182,000182,000182,000182,000 182,000
Notes
1. Single dry year for the Kern River water supply occurred in 1961
2. Supply assumes City is 25% of ID4 area.
3. Reclaimed water supply represents the volume of treated wastewater that is available for recharge or other
approved uses; volume was set at 50% of estimated wastewater generation.
4. No credit was given for precipitation.
5. Water demand is based on a 2025 population of 500,000 people and a per capita demand of 325 gallons per
day.
6. The direst multi-year period occurred from 1990 to 1992.
7. The Kern River supply is provided by the City of Bakersfield along with other agencies that have contractual
rights to this water.
Based on the foregoing, the UWMPs prepared by the City, and other sources
and data referred to in this report, we conclude that the water supply system
proposed for the West Ming Specific Plan is adequate to meet the 20-year needs
for the development as required by the California Water Code section 10910 et
seq, Government Code section 66473.3 and other applicable statutes.
Altogether, this water assessment, in concert with the UWMPs provided by the
City, includes the necessary data and analysis need to document the sufficiency
of a proposed water supply to meet the 20-year needs of the development as
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 34
required by California Water Code section 10910 et seq., Government Code
section 66473.3 and other applicable statues. Therefore, the City’s water supply
system is adequate to meet the 20-year needs of the development, considered
cumulatively with all the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
development.
Ci
ty
of
Ba
k
e
r
s
fi
e
l
d
a
nd
Me
tr
o
Ar
e
a
P
opul
a
ti
ons
Sour
c
e: Ker
n C
ounty C
ounc
il of
G
ov
er
nments
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
4
5
0
,
0
0
0
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
7
5
0
,
0
0
0 1
9
6
5
1
9
7
0
1
9
7
5
1
9
8
0
1
9
8
5
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
5
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
5
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
5
Ye
a
r
Population
Ci
t
y
of
B
ak
ers
f
i
el
d
Met
ro
A
rea
Li
near
P
opul
at
i
on
P
roj
ec
t
i
ons
Fi
gur
e
1
3
-
Annua
l
P
opul
a
ti
ons
a
nd
P
r
oje
c
ti
ons
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 36
Appendix A – Bulletin 118
StateofCalifornia
TheResourcesAgency
DepartmentofWaterResources
CALIFORNIA'S
GROUNDWATER
BULLETIN118 Update2003
October2003
GRAYDAVIS
Governor
StateofCalifornia
MARYD.NICHOLS
SecretaryofResources
TheResourcesAgency
MICHAEL].SPEAR
InterimDirector
DepartmentofWaterResources
--
TulareLakeHydrologicRegion
Chapter7ITulareLake HydrologicRegion
J
1-24BasinNumber
1-2.01SubbasinNumber
11 Basin
~HydrologicRegionBoundaries
CountyLines
Figure37TulareLakeHydrologicRegion
176DWR-BULLETIN118
1
...
'"
N
J
02550Miles
BasinsandSubbasinsofTularelake
HydrologicRegion
Basin/subbasinBasinname
5-22
5-22.08
5-22.09
5-22.10
5-22.11
5-22.12
5-22.13
5-22.14
5-23
5-25
5-26
5-27
5-28
5-29
5-71
5-80
5-82
5-83
5-84
5-85
SanJoaquinValley
Kings
Westside
PleasantValley
Kaweah
TulareLake
Tule
KernCounty
PanocheValley
KernRiverValley
WalkerBasinCreekValley
CummingsValley
TehachapiValleyWest
CastaicLakeValley
VallecitosCreekValley
BriteValley
CuddyCanyonValley
CuddyRanchArea
CuddyValley
MilPotreroArea
DescriptionoftheRegion
TheTulareLakeHRcoversapproximately10.9
millionacres(17,000squaremiles)andincludesallof
KingsandTularecountiesandmostofFresnoand
Kerncounties(Figure37).Theregioncorrespondsto
approximatelythesouthernone-thirdofRWQCB5.
Significantgeographicfeaturesincludethesouthern
halfoftheSanJoaquinValley,theTemblorRangeto
thewest,theTehachapiMountainstothesouth,andthe
southernSierraNevadatotheeast.Theregionishome
tomorethan1.7millionpeopleasof1995(DWR,
1998).MajorpopulationcentersincludeFresno,
Bakersfield,andVisalia.ThecitiesofFresnoand
Visaliaareentirelydependentongroundwaterfortheir
supply,withFresnobeingthesecondlargestcityinthe
UnitedStatesreliantsolelyongroundwater.
n:r-
11/"..
II..
-Q...'"
::t'<
CI....
o
o
II:)
-.1"\
-.
o
=>
GroundwaterDevelopment
Theregionhas12distinctgroundwaterbasinsand7
subbasinsoftheSanJoaquinValleyGroundwater
Basin,whichcrossesnorthintotheSanJoaquinRiver
HR.Thesebasinsunderlieapproximately5.33million
acres(8,330squaremiles)or49percentoftheentire
HRarea.
Groundwaterhashistoricallybeenimportanttoboth
urbanandagriculturaluses,accountingfor41percent
oftheregion'stotalannualsupplyand35percentofall
groundwateruseintheState.Groundwateruseinthe
regionrepresentsabout10percentoftheState's
overallsupplyforagriculturalandurbanuses(DWR
1998).
TheaquifersaregenerallyquitethickintheSan
JoaquinValleysubbasinswithgroundwaterwells
commonlyexceeding1,000feetindepth.The
maximumthicknessoffreshwater-bearingdeposits
(4,400feet)occursatthesouthernendoftheSan
JoaquinValley.TypicalwellyieldsintheSanJoaquin
Valleyrangefrom300gpmto2,000gpmwithyields
of4,000gpmpossible.Thesmallerbasinsinthe
mountainssurroundingtheSanJoaquinValleyhave
thinneraquifersandgenerallylowerwellyields
averaginglessthan500gpm.
CALIFORNIA'SGROUNDWATERUPDATE2003177
178DWR-BULLETIN118
Chapter7ITulareLakeHydrologicRegion
ThecitiesofFresno,Bakersfield,andVisaliahavegroundwaterrechargeprogramstoensurethat
groundwaterwillcontinuetobeaviablewatersupplyinthefuture.Extensivegroundwaterrecharge
programsarealsoinplaceinthesouthvalleywherewaterdistrictshaverechargedseveralmillionacre-feet
forfutureuseandtransferthroughwaterbankingprograms.
TheextensiveuseofgroundwaterintheSanJoaquinValleyhashistoricallycausedsubsidenceoftheland
surfaceprimarilyalongthewestsideandsouthendofthevalley.
GroundwaterQuality
Ingeneral,groundwaterqualitythroughouttheregionissuitableformosturbanandagriculturaluseswith
onlylocalimpairments.TheprimaryconstituentsofconcernarehighTDS,nitrate,arsenic,andorganic
compounds.
TheareasofhighTDScontentareprimarilyalongthewestsideoftheSanJoaquinValleyandinthetrough
ofthevalley.HighTDScontentofwest-sidewaterisduetorechargeofstreamfloworiginatingfrommarine
sedimentsintheCoastRange.HighTDScontentinthetroughofthevalleyistheresultofconcentrationof
saltsbecauseofevaporationandpoordrainage.Inthecentralandwest-sideportionsofthevalley,wherethe
CorcoranClayconfininglayerexists,waterqualityisgenerallybetterbeneaththeclaythanaboveit.
Nitratesmayoccurnaturallyorasaresultofdisposalofhumanandanimalwasteproductsandfertilizer.
AreasofhighnitrateconcentrationsareknowntoexistnearthetownofShafterandotherisolatedareasin
theSanJoaquinValley.Highlevelsofarsenicoccurlocallyandappeartobeassociatedwithlakebedareas.
ElevatedarseniclevelshavebeenreportedintheTulareLake,KernLakeandBuenaVistaLakebedareas.
Organiccontaminantscanbebrokenintotwocategories,agriculturalandindustrial.Agriculturalpesticides
andherbicideshavebeendetectedthroughoutthevalley,butprimarilyalongtheeastsidewheresoil
permeabilityishigheranddepthtogroundwaterisshallower.Themostnotableagriculturalcontaminantis
DBCP,anow-bannedsoilfumigantandknowncarcinogenonceusedextensivelyongrapes.Industrial
organiccontaminantsincludeTCE,DCE,andothersolvents.Theyarefoundingroundwaternearairports,
industrialareas,andlandfills.
WaterQualityinPublicSupplyWells
From1994through2000,1,476publicsupplywaterwellsweresampledin14ofthe19groundwaterbasins
andsubbasinsintheTulareLakeHR.Evaluationofanalyzedsamplesshowsthat1,049ofthewells,or71
percent,metthestateprimaryMCLsfordrinkingwater.Four-hundred-twenty-sevenwells,or29percent,
exceededoneormoreMCL.Figure38showsthepercentagesofeachcontaminantgroupthatexceeded
MCLsinthe427wells.
I'
.....
-Q
...."'
J:
'<:
Q.
....
o
o
It:>
1476WellsSampled
D MeetprimaryMCLstandards
.DetectionofatleastoneconstituentaboveprimaryMCL
Figure38 MCLexceedancesbycontaminantgroupinpublicsupplywells
intheTulareLakeHydrologicRegion
Table31liststhethreemostfrequentlyoccurringcontaminantsineachofthesixcontaminantgroupsand
showsthenumberofwellsintheHRthatexceededtheMCLforthosecontaminants.
Table31Mostfrequentlyoccurringcontaminantsbycontaminantgroup
intheTulareLakeHydrologicRegion
Contaminantgrou
Inorganics-Primary
Inorganics-Secondary
Radiological
Nitrates
Pesticides
VOCs/SVOCs
DBCP=Dibromochloropropane
EDB=Ethylenedibromide
TCE=Trichloroethylene
PCE=Tetrachloroehylene
VOC=Volatileorganiccompound
SVOC=Semivolatileorganiccompound
CALIFORNfA'5GROUNDWATERUPDATE2003179
-
--
Contaminant-#ofwellsContaminant-#ofwells Contaminant
-#ofwells
Fluoride-32 Arsenic-16Aluminum-13
Iron-155 Manganese-82 TDS-9
GrossAlpha-74 Uranium-24Radium228-8
Nitrate(asNO)-83 Nitrate+Nitrite-14 Nitrite(asN)-3
DBCP-130 EDB-24 Di(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate-7
TCE-17PCE-16 Benzene-6
MTBE-6
Chapter7ITulare LakeHydrologicRegion
ChangesfromBulletin118-80
TherearenonewlydefinedbasinssinceBulletin118-80.However,thesubbasinsoftheSanJoaquinValley,
whichweredelineatedaspartofthe118-80update,aregiventheirfirstnumericdesignationinthisreport
(Table32).
Table32ModificationssinceBulletin118-80ofgroundwaterbasinsandsubbasins
inTulareLakeHydrologicRegion
SeveralbasinshavebeendeletedfromtheBulletin118-80report.InSquawValley(5-24)all118wellsare
completedinhardrock.CedarGroveArea(5-72)isanarrowrivervalleyinKingsCanyonNationalPark
withnowells.ThreeRiversArea(5-73)hasathinalluvialterracedepositbut128of130wellsare
completedinhardrock.SpringvilleArea(5-74)isthisstripofalluviumadjacenttoTuleRiverandallwells
arecompletedinhardrock.TempletonMountainArea(5-75),ManacheMeadowArea(5-76),andSacator
CanyonValley(5-77)areallatthecrestofmountainswithnowells.RockhouseMeadowsValley(5-78)is
inwildernesswithnowells.InnsValley(5-79)andBearValley(5-81)bothhaveallwellscompletedinhard
rock.
180DWR-BULLETIN118
Subbasinname Newnumber Oldnumber
Kings 5-22.085-22
Westside 5-22.09 5-22
PleasantValley 5-22.105-22
Kaweah 5-22.11 5-22
TulareLake 5-22.12 5-22
Tule 5-22.13 5-22
KernCounty 5-22.145-22
SquawValley deleted5-24
CedarGroveArea deleted5-72
ThreeRiversArea deleted5-73
SpringvilleArea deleted 5-74
TempletonMountainArea deleted 5-75
ManacheMeadowArea deleted5-76
SacatorCanyonValley deleted5-77
RockhouseMeadowsValley deleted 5-78
InnsValley deleted 5-79
BearValley deleted5-81
.--
---
Table33TularelakeHydrologicRegiongroundwaterdata
"
:I>....
."o'"<:
:I>
'"
gpm-gallonsperminute
mgIL-milligramperliter
TDS-totaldissolvedsolids
"'"oc:<:o
:E:I>-t",'"
c:..,o
:I>-t",
'"cc<.u
...
00...
uo!6iJH)!6%JP,{HiJ>fD1iJJD/"l
IL.Ja~de,,)
~.
WellYields(gpm)TypesofMonitoringTDS(mgIL)
Groundwater
Basin/SubbasinBasinName Area(acres)BudgetType Maximum Average Levels QualityTitle22 AverageRange
5-22SANJOAQUINVALLEY......."
5-22.08KINGS976,000 C 3,000500-1,500 909-722200-70040-2000
5-22.09WESTSIDE 640,000 C 2,0001,100 960-50520220-35,000
5-22.10PLEASANTVALLEY 146,000 B 3,300-151-2 1,5001000-3000
5-22.11KAWEAH 446,000 B 2,5001,000-2,000568-270189 35-580
5-22.12TULARELAKE 524,000 B 3,000300-1,000241-86200-600200-40,000
5-22.13TULE 467,000 B3,000-459-150256200-30,000
5-22.14KERNCOUNTY 1,950,000 A 4,0001,200-1,5002,258 249476400-450150-5000
5-23 PANOCHEVALLEY 33,100 C--48--1,300394-3530
5-25KERNRIVERVALLEY 74,000 C 3,650 350--92378253-480
5-26WALKERBASINCREEKVALLEY 7,670 C650---1--
5-27 CUMMINGSVALLEY10,000 A1505651-15344-
5-28 TEHACHAPIVALLEYWEST 14,800 A 1,500 45464-19315280-365
5-29 CASTACLAKEVALLEY 3,600 C400375--3583570-605
5-71VALLECITOSCREEKVALLEY 15,100 C----0--
5-80 BRITEVALLEY 3,170 A50050--
---
5-82 CUDDYCANYONVALLEY3,300 C500400--3693695
5-83 CUDDYRANCHAREA4,200 C300180--4550480-645
5-84CUDDYVALLEY3,500 A1601353-3407325-645
5-85MILPOTREROAREA2300C3200240 7-7 460372-657
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 37
Appendix B – Kern River Purchase
It is not very often we see the ownership of a river change
hands. The City of Bakersfield’s purchase of Kern River water
rights and facilities in 1976 resulted in a major shift from
private to public control of this tremendous local resource.
This document provides some insights to the colorful history
of the Kern River (Chapter One); the events leading up to the
election and purchase of the Kern River (Chapter Two); and
finally, describes the water rights, facilities and properties that
were acquired with the Kern River Purchase (Chapter Three).
Compiled by the staff of the
City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department
December 2003
One such explorer was a young lieutenant
in the United States Topographical Corps, a
mapmaking group at the service of the U.S.
Cavalry, by the name of John C. Fremont.
On his third expedition to
the west coast, Fremont had
with him sixty experienced,
dedicated mountain men
including Joseph Walker,
Alexis Godey, Kit Carson and
a young Philadelphian by the
name of Edward Kern.Kern
was only 23 years old but
exhibited an uncanny sense
of direction. Although not
schooled in the art of
topography, he quickly
learned and became a favorite
of Fremont and his men.
In fact, Fremont was so
taken with the young man that
the river which they had just
crossed would be named in his honor...thus
the river would from that time until now be
known as Kern River.
In 1855, a prospector named Richard
Keys discovered gold on the Kern River and
established a mining town that bore his name –
Keysville. In only four short months, 6,000
miners from the mother
lode country poured
into the upper Kern
River Valley to
stake their claim
on this new found
bonanza.
But, not everyone
who thirsted for quick
fame and fortune were
successful and soon turned to other endeavors
such as supplying food for the gold camps.
There were those who could envision a larger
and more stable enterprise than the fickle
prospects of gold.
They could see the potential of clearing
the fertile land to allow for the raising of
agricultural crops to supply the demands of
the fledgling state of California. A bigger
bonanza was yet to come.
The Kern River is the most southern of the
great streams that flow westward from the crest
of California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The head waters of the Kern are located near
the base of Mount Whitney in
one of the highest, most rugged
regions in the United States.
The river’s main fork is joined
by its major tributary, the
South Fork, near Lake Isabella.
Below Isabella, and before
reaching Bakersfield, the Kern
River drops over 2,000 feet
in elevation through the
treacherous Kern River
Canyon, and over the years
has taken hundreds of lives,
and is considered one of the
most dangerous stretches of
river in the United States.
Today, the waters of the
Kern River are utilized and
distributed in harmony. Each day of the year
cooperative decisions are made on matters of
mutual concern such as flood control, drought,
water use and water exchange.But, this was not
always the case...
The Legend
In April of 1776, as a new nation was being
born on the East Coast, a Franciscan Priest,
Father Francisco Garces, was exploring the
untamed and un-chartered West in a quest to
establish missions to provide comfort and
spiritual guidance to the native inhabitants,
comprised locally of the Yokut Indian Tribe.
It was on this journey, after passing through
what we know now as the City of Arvin, that
he came upon the Kern River.
His impressions of the crossing were so
vivid that he immediately named the river
Rio De San Felipe.
The Rio De San Felipe, later known as Rio
Bravo, became a recognized landmark crossed
by explorers and fur trappers who were blazing
new trails through the mountains and valleys
of the west.
4
South Fork Kern River
Kern River North Fork
On September 10,
1863, Colonel Thomas
Baker and his young
family moved into the
former Bohna home,
which Baker had
purchasedfor $200. Included in
the sale were 160 acres of prime
farmland on Kern Island. Colonel
Baker’s background as a lawyer,
state assemblyman and a surveyor
made him ideal as the founder of
this fledgling community.
In 1867, a flood diverted the
Kern River north away from the
Kern Island settlement, and Colonel
Baker set about to clear and sell
property and would soon be asked
to set up a town site which would
become known as Baker’s Field.
The name was suggested by Philo
Jewett as a tribute to Baker’s
generosity and his common practice
of allowing travelers to graze their
livestock on the lush grasses and
alfalfa in the field owned by Baker.
Colonel Baker, being a
man of great enterprise,
opened a land office
and began selling the
reclaimed swamp land to
anyone willing to settle in this
new city. Roads were being carved
through the foothills, and the
Butterfield Stage carried travelers
from north tosouth near the
growing town site.
Gordon’s Ferry, on the Kern
River, was established as a stage
stop at the base of what is now
known as the Panorama Bluffs,
near Bakersfield College.
5
Downtown Bakersfield Flood, 1893
Kern River Mills
Horatio P. Livermore and Julius Chester
constructed what was one of the first major
canals in California used exclusively for
irrigation. The Kern Island Canal transported
water from the Kern River to Kern Lake. The
Kern Island Canal powered the Kern River
Mills, a flour mill owned by Livermore and
Chester, located at the corner of S Street and
Truxtun Avenue in downtown Bakersfield.
Eventually, the Kern County Land Company
purchased the Kern River Mills and continued
to produce flour from this locally owned mill
until 1942.
– Kern County Museum
The first known settler in the area of what is
now Bakersfield was Christian Bohna. The
large Bohna family arrived in February 1860
and set up a farm on what is commonly
known, even to this day, as Kern Island.
They occupied an abandoned hut built by a
fur trapper, Thomas Fitzgerald. The hut was
locatednear 21st and M Streets, not far from the
presentsite of the telephone company. The
family adapted well and soon the hut became a
log cabin. Other settlers soon joined the Bohna
family.
Although this new land held promise,
Mother Nature was to deal them a heavy blow.
In December of 1861 rains began falling until
the banks of the Kern River were spilling over
onto the new settlement. Disgusted with the
ever present threat of floods and malaria,
Bohna left the valley and eventually settled in
the Glennville-Woody area.
6
While the miners continued to harvest the
precious metal from the upper Kern, progress
was at a fever pitch in the valley below. New
settlers were moving in each day such as Julius
Chester, Horatio Livermore and Richard
Hudnut. The fertility of the area and
the hard work of its citizens were
starting to pay off. Sheep men, such as
Solomon Jewett and General Edward F.
Beale, and others would begin raising
great flocks to supply the miners.
Cattle ranchers, such as Ferdinand
Tracy, Wellington Canfield and George
Young, would also make a contribution
to this growing community known as
Bakersfield.
As the swampland was drained and
cleared, canals were dug and levees
built. Soon Colonel Baker had the claim
to over 89,000 acres of reclaimed swamp
and marsh land. By 1869 the demand
for Kern County land was increasing.
In 1871, the permanent population
was over 600 and the small city was
boasting of a bustling business district,
a school and other development
brought on by civilization. Even with
the apparent success of these pioneers,
hardship and danger were always close
at hand.
The Kern River continued to flood
periodically and Colonel Baker, after
falling victim to typhoid fever, died of
pneumonia in November of 1872. But
his hard work to establish a place for
others to live and raise families would
never be forgotten.
To provide water for the growing
agricultural community, canals were
being dug to divert Kern River water to
those areas in need of irrigation. One
such canal was the Kern Island Canal
constructed by Horatio P. Livermore.
After construction began, two
wealthy men, James B. Haggin and
Lloyd Tevis, along with a powerful
overseer, Billy “Boss” Carr, would
purchase 59,000 acres of rich Kern
Delta land, including Livermore’s canal
and the Kern Valley Water Company
on the west side.
Julius Chester
1831 - 1890
Julius Chester
was born in 1831, a
Connecticut Yankee
who came to
California in 1854. Julius and his brother
George arrived in Bakersfield about the time
Colonel Thomas Baker was laying out the
future city of Bakersfield. Julius was the
owner of a large mercantile and livery
business and the town’s leading citizen.
A man of many endeavors, Julius Chester ran
a saw mill, herded sheep and founded the
newspaper “Southern Californian” in
Bakersfield. The first Wells Fargo agent,
Julius operated a freight business and the
Overland Stage Coach in which he laid out a
new route to Visalia by bypassing the Sierra
foothills. In 1860, the California State
Legislature approved of a Tulare-region land
sale of $1.00 per acre. Julius bought land and
petitioned the state legislaturefor the right
to irrigate the farmland. In 1871, Julius
Chester and H.P. Livermore dug the Kern
Island Canal from the foot of the Panorama
Bluffs to the flour mill owned by Livermore.
It is believed that the digging of the Kern
Island Canal was to bring a reliable source of
water to Julius’ farmland and Livermore’s
flour mill. Because Julius now had a reliable
water source, he brought cotton farming to
Bakersfield to help out the Civil War effort
with a supply of cotton fabric. In 1871, Julius
was one of the founding members of the
California Cotton Growers and Manufacturers
Association.Julius Chester died in San
Francisco on May 3, 1890, at the age of 59.
In recognition of their contributions to the
community, several Bakersfield streets,
namely Chester Avenue, Chester Place and
Chester Lane, were named in honor of Julius
and George Chester.
Prompted by the Haggin-Tevis-Carr
organization, which now owned their own
canal and water system, other farmers began
to dig their own canals, purchasing their water
from the Haggin-Tevis-Carr group and bringing
irrigation water to every farm in the region.
Henry Miller and Charles Lux, wholesale
meat producers and retailers, also owned and
were developing most of the swamp lands
between Buena Vista and Tulare Lakes. They
also owned thousands of acres of range land
that extended as far as San Francisco.
Because there was no recognized system
governing the use of the waters of the Kern
River, each user took what he needed and a
water rights controversy began to erupt.
Souther Ditch Plow
The Souther Ditch Plow was named for
William Henry Souther, superintendent of the
Horatio P. Livermore land holdings in Kern
County from 1874 to 1878. W.H. Souther had
his enormous plow constructed near Hollister,
California and transported on the Southern
Pacific Railroad to Bakersfield. The plow was
constructed to build the Kern Island Canal in
1874. The Kern Island runs from the foot of
Panorama Bluffs through Central Park in
downtown Bakersfield past the Beale Library
and on south to water the fertile fields of the
Kern Lake bottom. The plow reportedly could
cut a furrow five feet wide and three feet deep.
Weighing 1,800 pounds and requiring forty yoke
of oxen to pull this massive piece of machinery,
the Souther Ditch Plow proved an inefficient tool
for excavating a canal. The plow was abandoned
on H.P. Livermore’s Greenfield Ranch (located
south of Bakersfield) in 1875.
- Kern County Museum
The Compromise
In 1875, Oliver P. Calloway started to build a
canal on the previously undeveloped north side
of the Kern River that would be used to irrigate
35,000 acres. Due to the lack of financing,
however, Calloway could not complete the
project. Meanwhile Haggin, Tevis and Carr
aided by passage of landmark legislation in
Washington called the Desert Land Act, laid
claim to the large portion of the Calloway land.
With purchases of additional railroad property,
Haggin, Tevis and Carr soon became the largest
land owners in the area. They continued where
Calloway left off completing the Calloway Canal.
By 1879 the completed canal worked so well
that it diverted the remaining flow of the Kern
River north through the Calloway Canal.
Downstream, the farms and sloughs were left
high and dry. Cowboys and farmers alike
retaliated by sabotaging the new Calloway
weirs. Tempers ran high and a lengthy court
battle began that would establish water rights
law for the State of California. This battle
would rage for the next nine years both in and
out of court. The lawsuit was known as LUX
vs. HAGGIN.
Miller and Lux claimed title to the water,
asserting they owned the land on the natural
course of the river, commonly known as a
Riparian Right. Their land was located along
the west side of the valley between Buena Vista
and Tulare Lakes.
Haggin, Tevis and Carr claimed the water
along the east side of the valley on grounds of
prior appropriation, and that their endeavors
were to go for a greater common good. The
court battle waged on with volumes of testimony
being accumulated. The trial court ruled in
favor of Haggin, Tevis and Carr.
After Miller and Lux appealed the trial court
decision, the Supreme Court rendered a land-
mark decision which established water rights
law for California and other western states, and
directed that the case be reviewed on certain
issues. Rather than pursue further litigation,
Henry Miller proposed a compromise. This
compromise brought about a settlement of the
water dispute that had taken so much time,
energy and resources to fight.
According to the agreement, Kern River
water would be jointly measured above
Gordon’s Ferry at a site to be known as First
Point of Measurement. One third of the water,
during the six spring and summer months,
would belong to downstream lands owned
by Miller and Lux. The one third water
allocation would be delivered to the west side
in undiminished quantities to a site known as
Second Point of Measurement. Haggin and
Tevis and the upstream canal companies would
get the rest. In addition to the
other concessions, they would
assist in constructing a reservoir
out of Buena Vista Lake for
Miller and Lux, that would
be used to store high flows not
utilized by the upstream group.
The agreement was signed on
July 28, 1888,and ratified by 30
corporations and 77 individuals.
Little did they know that this
historic Kern County Water
Agreement would go on to
constitute the basis for water
rights on the Kern River for
generations to come.
7
Calloway Canal, circa 1915
Bakersfield Courthouse, circa 1888
8
A Boom Town Emerges
The townspeople of Bakersfield were
ecstatic about the Miller-Haggin agreement
as the uncertainty of the water supply for their
lands was finally settled. But their joy was to
be short lived because on July 7, 1889, the
entire business district of Bakersfield burned
to the ground.
However, Bakersfield’s community spirit
could not be destroyed, and out of the ashes a
newer and bigger downtown Bakersfield arose.
From this point forward Bakersfield
continued to grow. A few years later,
just before the turn of the century, oil
was discovered and with this discovery
a boom town would emerge.
Even with the new found wealth, the
area continued to be at the mercy of
Mother Nature experiencing both floods
and droughts that through the years
caused millions of dollars of damage.
In 1944 Congress passed the flood
control act which authorized the
construction of Isabella Dam. Although
flood control was its main purpose, other
benefits accrued from its construction
such as recreation, fish and wildlife,
electrical power generation, and
improved water supply for irrigation.
The project was completed in 1953
and Kern River water was first stored
behind the new dam beginning in
April of 1954.
Kern River Valley Connection
During the early 1900s, the Kern River was
harnessed for hydroelectric power which the
growing cities of California needed. The towns
of Kern Valley were hopping as power company
workers swarmed. A good road from the Kern
Valley to Bakersfield along the Kern River
connecting the power projects was clearly
needed and was built in portions for several
years. It was finally
completed in 1926.
At the time,
Western movies
were all the rage
and movie
companies began
to come to the
Kern Valley to film.
Soon there was
so much filming
activity in Kernville
that the town built a special street of false
fronts which they named Movie Street. Some
of the actors who were seen in the Kern Valley
during those years were Hopalong Cassidy,
Roy Rogers, Tom Mix, Yvonne DeCarlo, Hoot
Gibson and Gene Autry.
A dam on the Kern River in the Kern Valley
was being considered as early as 1913 but
was finally authorized by the United States
Congress in 1944. Many of the residents of the
Kern Valley were in shock when they were told
their homes were in the way of the new lake.
The entire towns of Kernville and Isabella
were to be under water when the dam was
completed. The work consisting of two
side-by-side dams was started in 1948 and
completed in 1953.
Isabella Project Authorization
The Isabella Project, Kern River, California
was authorized by the Flood Control Act of
1944, approved December 22, 1944, the
pertinent portion of which follows:
“The project for the Isabella
Reservoir on the Kern River for flood
control and other purposes in the
San Joaquin Valley, California, is
hereby authorized substantially in
accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Engineers in his
report dated 26 January 1944,
contained in House Document
Numbered 513, Seventhy-eighth
Congress, Second Session,...”
The modern era has greatly impacted the
Kern River and its daily operation. Major weirs,
which allow for canals to carry water away
from the river, originally constructed of wood
have been replaced with soundly engineered
concrete and steel structures. Engineers,
realizing that floods of great magnitude will
occur on the Kern River in the future, as they
have historically, have developed a maintenance
program that will help to ensure safe passage
of water in the Kern River Channel through
Bakersfield.
Democrat Dam
Isabella Spillway
Large areas of land have been developed for
the purpose of conserving Kern River and other
water supplies not needed for crop irrigation,
allowing for underground storage of this water
for future use. One early example of this water
conservation practice is the storage of surplus
water in the City of Bakersfield-owned 2,800
Acre Water Bank.
Another current community development
is the Kern River Parkway, a program which
includes streamside restoration and beautification
of the Kern River Channel and its banks, and
will allow all citizens of Bakersfield to further
enjoy our precious local resource.
The story of the Kern River is really a story
of people. Men like Christian Bohna, Colonel
Thomas Baker, Horatio Livermore, Henry
Miller, Charles Lux, Lloyd Tevis, James B.
Haggin, Julius Chester, and countless unnamed
others, all learned how to cooperate and
compromise, and have left a great legacy for
others to follow.
From humble beginnings to its present day
development, our community has received
enormous benefits from the water resources of
the majestic Kern River...and with continued
cooperation and understanding will continue
to do so for many years to come.
9
10
The City of Bakersfield was officially
established in 1869 with 250 residents. Swamp
lands were being drained and the Kern River
flood plain was rapidly being developed by
agriculture. The City was slowly beginning to
grow into the dominant trading center of the
southern San Joaquin Valley.
The City had no reason to foresee a day
when its residents would be confronted with a
concern for water. The Kern River was at its
doorstep and the water table was so high that
green fence posts frequently took root and
became trees. The future growth of our
community and its great need for a secure and
expanding source of good water for municipal
and industrial users would remain a remote
problem for future generations to deal with.
Men of agriculture showed great acumen
and foresight in vigorously acquiring water
rights, building canals and expanding agriculture.
In 1888, Henry Miller and James B. Haggin,
along with many others, were dividing up
the waters of the Kern River by solemn
contract and agreement; the City was not even
represented. No voice spoke out on behalf of
the people of Bakersfield or their heirs. The
water went to ever-expanding thirsty lands.
Weirs were built above the City, siphoning
off water that had previously fed the great
underground water table of the City.
In 1900, Judge Lucien Shaw issued his
historic findings and decree ordering in detail
the division of the Kern River water among
the various right holders, detailing the areas
the canal companies served and the priority
of flows of water to which each was entitled.
This decision went a long way towards bringing
peace on the river as between agricultural
interests, but did nothing to protect the
interests of urban Bakersfield.
In 1888, Henry Miller and
James B. Haggin...were dividing
up the waters of the Kern River
by solemn contract and
agreement; the City was not
even represented...
11
By 1900, the City of Bakersfield had a
population of over 4,000 inhabitants. However,
with stagnant sloughs and excess ground water
in wet years, no one seemed to notice that an
ever tightening grip was being taken on Kern
River waters which were being diverted away
from Bakersfield for the near exclusive use
of agriculture.
Since the turn of the century, we saw the
great Kern County Land Company move to
consolidate its ownership of the major canal
companies and water rights. In more recent
years, we have seen its successor, Tenneco
West, embark upon a progressive program
of liquidating much of its agricultural land
and vigorously proceeding with the industrial
and urban development of other large parcels
adjacent to the City of Bakersfield.
The City first became actively aware of its
water needs and shortages with the advent of
the State Water Bond election to build the vast
State Water Project. The State project became a
reality through the affirmative vote of the people
of Bakersfield. The City didn’t question how it
got into a water deficit position, but it expressed
its wholehearted support of agriculture at the
polls and the urban area agreed to take 77,000
acre-feet of State project water when available
and the Kern County Water Agency was
formed to administer the State project water.
The Kern County Water Agency attempted
in 1967 to form a Municipal Water District
and build a cross valley canal. This maneuver
was soundly beaten at the polls and the City
council formed a “Water and City Growth
Committee” as a standing counsel committee
with Mr. William Parks, Chairman, and Dr.
Richard Stiern and Mr. Richard Hoskings,
members. They were instrumental in obtaining
Mr. Thomas M. Stetson, well-known water
engineer, as consultant for the City of
Bakersfield. The objective was to study the
City’s current and long term water needs and to
recommend an alternative program of action.
Through changes in the City Council body
in the spring of 1967, the Water and City
Growth Committee was placed under the
chairmanship of Walter F. Heisey, where it
remained for the next eight years. The other
members of this three man committee varied
through the years and consisted of Dr. Richard
Stiern, Mr. Keith Bleeker, Mr. Robert
Whittemore, Mr. Don Thomas and Mr. Don
Rodgers. The latter succeeded to chairmanship
in May, 1975.
The study by Mr. Stetson of the City’s water
needs revealed that we were in a deficit water
position. Our major water purveyor, the
California Water Service Company, was regularly
finding it necessary to deepen its wells and
occasionally to abandon wells due to poor
quality or due to uneconomic output.
Walter F. Heisey, Chairman
Bakersfield Water and
City Growth Committee
1967 - 1975
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
2,500
1,000
500
0
12,727
4,836
2,626
801
250
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2003
266,784
246,889
174,820
105,611
69,51556,848
34,78429,25226,015
18,636
The Acquisition Team
Left to right: Harold Bergen, Thomas M. Stetson, and Ken Hoagland
12
The question that naturally followed was:
Where has our water gone?
We found that several things had happened.
First, our population was growing and we were
using more water. This by itself shouldn’t have
made any appreciable difference. Since both
urban land and farm land use roughly three
acre-feet of water per acre of land per year, the
transition from farm land to urban land did not
increase use.
Wherein, then, did the real problem lie?
Agricultural pumping for the development of
new lands was drawing the water table out
from under the urban area. Further, weirs had
been built north of Bakersfield diverting water
from the Kern River Channel, thus depriving the
urban area of its historic annual river percolation.
In addition, several canals that transverse the
urban area were lined with concrete, depriving
the public of even this percolation. Lastly, as
the City had grown and agricultural land had
become urbanized, the river water had been
arbitrarily taken from these urban lands to
develop other agricultural lands at great
distances from Bakersfield.
The fact that the City was not a participant
in 1888 or in the deliberations of 1900 whereby
the waters of the Kern were divided up did not
imply that the City had no water rights but
simply that the City had not been invited to
participate in the decisions and its water rights
had not been considered.
We gradually came to the only conclusion
possible that the citizens of the City of
Bakersfield and their heirs were in fact being
deprived of their legitimate historic water
rights. At first we tried to bargain with
“Tenneco West” in hopes of acquiring once
again for urban use those waters that had been
diverted for other purposes. Our case was so
clear cut that we hoped they would return
these waters to the City for some modest
payment. We never received a realistic offer
from Tenneco and negotiations broke down.
About this same time we began to hear
rumors that certain commercial groups were
interested in purchasing Tenneco’s water rights
and that they might even be sold to Southern
California. The Kern County Land Company’s
operation had changed rapidly under Tenneco
and it appeared to some of us that the cash
flow that would come from a quick sale of their
water rights would have a strong appeal to both
management and stockholders.
After a great deal of research and study and
in conjunction with the California Water Service
Company, the Bakersfield City Council in Executive
Session on Monday evening, September 28,
1970, acted to protect the rights of its citizens
to the use of such amounts of Kern River water
as the court determines to be valid.
The California Water Service Company, in
order to protect fully the interest of its customers,
joined with the City in filing eight causes of
action. Together, they requested a court decree
determining ownership of Kern River water; a
declaration of the water rights of the City of
Bakersfield and property within the City; an
injunction to prevent the defendants from
taking water in excess of their rights; and an
award of damages to the plaintiffs. The City
filed a ninth cause of action on its own
condemning the first 77,000 acre-feet of Kern
River water annually all at First Point of
Measurement. These actions were filed against
all known claimants of water rights on the River.
The shock was great to many, but from
that day forward we had their attention and
cooperation towards an equitable and reasonable
settlement that would prove to be in the best
interest of both the City of Bakersfield and
Tenneco, as well as of the entire urban area,
all accomplished out of court.
...the citizens
of the City of
Bakersfield...
were in fact
being deprived of
their legitimate
historic water
rights...
13
The City had previously spent five years in
study and negotiations searching for an alternative
to their participation in the Cross Valley Canal,
a proposed eighteen-mile long canal that would
be used to convey state water from the
California Aqueduct to the Bakersfield area.
The conclusion was finally reached that to
ensure our community’s future we needed both
the state project entitlement water transported
to urban Bakersfield as well as a re-establishment
of our Kern River water rights.
The 77,000 acre-feet of State Project Water
would take care of our needs for the next thirty
years; beyond that date we needed our own
firm supply of Kern River water. The Kern
County Water Agency had levied a substantial
tax on the urban area to pay for the state entitlement.
This state water tax had to be paid whether or
not we received any of the state water.
Having set our course, the City Council
appointed a “Citizens Advisory Water
Committee,” under the chairmanship of Mr.
Francis A. Moore Jr. to ensure passage of the
local bond issue to build the Improvement
District No. 4 Treatment Plant and its share
of the Cross Valley Canal. The election was
to be held on September 12, 1972.
This council committee was subsequently
consolidated with the Chamber of Commerce
sponsored “Citizens for Water Committee”
into one unified group with Mr. Fred Morris,
General Chairman; Mr. Ralph Zellers, Publicity
Chairman; and Mrs. Francis Moore Jr., Finance
Chairman.
As chairman of the Water and City Growth
Committee, Mr. Heisey personally addressed a
great number of community organizations
encouraging support of the bond issue. At a time
when most bond issues were failing statewide,
the election to bring state water into Bakersfield
and build a water treatment plant passed with
an overwhelming 73.5 percent vote of approval.
In recognition of the hard-fought election,
Mr. Heisey received a personal letter from the
Kern County Water Agency signed by W.C.
Bryant, Engineer-Manager, thanking him for his
efforts, support and assistance in passage of the
bond issue.
It was during this same period of campaigning
on the bond issue in the summer of 1972 that the
City Manager was approached by a representative
of Tenneco asking if the City would be interested
in buying all of the Tenneco rights on the Kern
River in settlement of our lawsuits.
Certainly we were interested but with an
election pending it was not the time to make
such an offer public. However, with the election
out of the way in September, we authorized our
staff and consultants to seriously negotiate with
Tenneco toward acquiring all of their interests
in the Kern River in settlement of our lawsuits
and also to exploring methods of financing the
acquisition.
We worked with one overriding principle
in mind – that the acquisition was not to be
a burden on the taxpayers but pay for itself
over a reasonable period of time. It followed
that we could then afford to pay for the
system whatever sum we could finance out
of water revenues.
We worked with one
overriding principle in mind...
the acquisition was not to be a
burden on the taxpayers...
Harold E. Bergen
Bakersfield City Manager
April 5, 1966 to December 26, 1980
Harold Bergen was born October
30, 1928. After graduation from high
school, Harold served three years in
the United States Coast Guard and
was honorably discharged in 1949.
In 1951, he received his AA degree
from Reedley College. Three years
later he obtained a BS degree in
Civil Engineering from the University
of California in Berkeley. After
graduation from Berkeley, Mr.
Bergen worked a short time for the
City of Sacramento before hiring on
with the City of Bakersfield as an
Engineer II in 1955. In 1958, Harold
was promoted to City Engineer and
then in 1962 to Director of Public
Works. In 1980, after serving as
Bakersfield City Manager for 14
years, Mr. Bergen retired and went
into private business.
A tireless and devoted public
servant, Harold Bergen led the City
team in pursuit of the Kern River
Purchase from Tenneco West, Inc.
With the acquisition of the Kern
River on December 22, 1976, the
City of Bakersfield’s claim to its
rightful share of Kern River water
rights was finally realized.
1976 Water Bond
14
The water
rights of
Tenneco, the
operation of the
canal companies,
the revenues and expenses,
the handling of flows in years of
floodand drought - all these questions and many
morerequired answers. There was only one
person in Kern County who really had the
answers and that was Mr. William Balch of
Tenneco, who was also the Kern River
Watermaster.
He was the same one we were bargaining
with for the settlement. Tenneco was fortunate
to have a man of his caliber and character.
It has also proved fortunate for the City of
Bakersfield.The City was always able to rely
on his word and advice in simple as well as
complex matters. Facts and figures that had
been sealed away for nearly a hundred years
were turned over to our consulting engineer
and our consulting attorney in order that the
City could have a complete and understandable
profile of the river as to its flows, uses, commitments,
contracts, and future expectations.
“On June 1973, a luncheon meeting was held at the Hilton Hotel in a
private dining room with Mr. William Balch and Mr. Jack Fox of Tenneco West.
The City staff and consultants were present as well as our City Council Water
Committee.
Mr. Jeptha A. Wade Jr., Vice-President/Chief Engineer and Mr. Harry Kerr, Vice-
President of California Water Service Company, were also present. I explained to
the representatives of Tenneco that I was speaking as the Chairman of the City
Water and Growth Committee with the full concurrenceof the full City Council to
make binding agreement.
Their asking price at this point in time was $20 million. We on this occasion
made our first official offer of $17 million. Their reaction seemed to be one of
sincere interest and they agreed to present it to Mr. Askin, Executive Vice-
President of Tenneco, who was to be in Bakersfield from Houston later in the
week.
On Friday, June 22, 1973, at a second luncheon meeting at the Bakersfield
Country Club together with some subsequent telephone conversations held that
afternoon the purchase was completed for a total of $17,900,000 subject to
ratification by the Council and in consideration of settlement of all lawsuits
pending. There were many details to work out; however, I never doubted for a
moment the sincerity of Tenneco. We achieved far more for the citizens of
Bakersfield than we had dared dream.”
Walter F. Heisey
“We achieved far
more for the citizens
of Bakersfield than
we had dared
dream.”
- Walter F. Heisey -
Following on July 30, 1973, City Council
unanimously took the following action:
1. Approval of lawsuit settlement by
acquisition of water rights of Tenneco
West, Incorporated, for $17.9 million.
2. Authorized staff and committee to work
out details of financing and payment.
3. Authorized employment of special bond
counsel and financial consultant.
Present: City Council
City Staff: City Manager
City Attorney
Consulting Attorney, Ralph Helm
Consulting Engineer,
Thomas Stetson
Harry Kerr, Co-plaintiff,
California Water Service Company
While the foundation for purchase of Tenneco’s
assets had been established, dancing in the
streets would have to wait until a myriad of
details could be worked out. Specifically, the
City acquired all of Tenneco’s water rights,
rights-of-way, canals, head gates, and operating
equipment and rolling stock plus their storage
capacity at Lake Isabella, together with 2,800
acres of land in the Kern River floodplain west
of Bakersfield.
From this point on, our acquisition was
primarily one of resolving the financing and
fighting off the slings and arrows of those who
would have liked to see our program fail.
William T. “Bill” Balch
Kern River Watermaster 1955-1975
William T. Balch, born in 1925, was
a graduate of the University of
California, Berkeley with a degree in
engineering. After a brief stint with
the Fresno Irrigation District, Bill went
to work for the Kern County Land
Company in 1951. Rising quickly
through the ranks of the land
company’s water division, Mr. Balch
was named General Manager of Kern County Canal and Water
Company in 1955. With this position came the duty of Kern River
Watermaster. Bill presided over the records transformation that
came with the conversion of Kern River from a natural stream to a
regulated stream upon completion of Isabella Dam and Reservoir.
His tenure saw the first amendment to the original Miller-Haggin
Agreement in 1955, completion of the Kern River Conduit in
1962, the second amendment to the Miller-Haggin Agreement in
1964, the great flood of December 6, 1966 and the first occasion
water poured over the Isabella Dam spillway in July of 1969.
During the years leading up to the City’s Kern River Purchase in
December of 1976, William T. Balch was invaluable in furnishing
his extensive knowledge of Kern River operations to City leaders.
A brilliant and humble man, Bill Balch noted during a recent
interview, “The role of any single individual cannot outweigh the
significance of the City’s acquisition. (Private) companies come
and go, but the bond between the City of Bakersfield and the
Kern River will last a long, long time.”
Charles H. “Chuck” Williams
Kern River Watermaster
1976-present
C. H. Williams was born in Istanbul,
Turkey on December 23, 1928.
The son of a National Geographic
photographer, Chuck received his
degree in civil engineering from
Stanford University before hiring on
as an engineer with Kern County Land
Company in 1956. Widely regarded
for his work on the Kern River Conduit, Chuck spearheaded a
long-term engineering study that in effect, numerically replicated
the flow and seepage conditions of Kern River as if Isabella Dam
were not in operation. The study, initiated by the construction of
the Kern River Canal and requirement of First Point water interests
to meet delivery obligations to Second Point under terms of the
1888 Miller-Haggin contract, would define the entitlement of the
Kern River Conduit which the City later purchased from Tenneco
West, Inc. in 1976. Acutely aware of Kern River Service Area
hydraulics, Chuck was named head of the Land Company’s Water
Division in 1964, overseeing much of the engineering work
devoted to the company’s irrigation system within the North Kern
Water Storage District. In 1976, Chuck became Engineer-Manager
for the North Kern Water Storage District, a position he held until
August of 1999. On December 29, 1976, C.H. Williams was
appointed Kern River Watermaster by the Kern River Interests.
Chuck recalls the conversion of Kern River Watermaster records
from hand-written to computer generated reports in 1985. This
major change in record production passed by a narrow 3 to 2
vote of the water districts, causing him to quip, “Change comes
grudgingly to Kern River.” The Chuck Williams era as Kern River
Watermaster has seen flood years requiring use of the Kern River
Intertie with the California Aqueduct (1978, 1980, 1983, 1986 and
1998) and an unprecedented period of drought between 1987
and 1992. The challenges of development along the river and
environmental issues related to operation of Isabella Reservoir
have been difficult, yet C.H. Williams has continued to steward
the Kern River with consistency, accuracy and determination.
Watermaster
During the 1954 contract negotiations between the United States
of America and North Kern Water Storage District (representing the
First Point water interests), Buena Vista Water Storage District, Tulare
Lake Basin Water Storage District and Hacienda Water District
(collectively “water districts”) to provide for the operation and
maintenance of the conservation storage space of the Isabella
Reservoir, it was determined that a single voice, or Watermaster,
would speak for the various water districts on matters pertaining
to operation of Isabella
Dam. The Army Corps of
Engineers, acting for the
United States, was to store
and regulate the Kern River
water to which the districts
were entitled under the
direction of the Watermaster.
According to the 1962
Kern River Water Rights and
Storage Agreement by and
among the water districts,
the Watermaster shall
“prepare and keep complete
records on a daily basis of
the flow of the waters of
Kern River and the storage
thereof in and release thereof
from Isabella Reservoir and
shall prepare and deliver
to each district reports
summarizing such records...”.
In addition to maintaining
daily contact with the Corps
on Lake Isabella operations,
the Watermaster coordinates
the diversion of imported
water supplies into the Kern River Service Area on behalf of the
water districts he represents and routinely monitors development
and environmental activities in the Kern River watershed, Kern River
Valley and Kern River below Isabella as to how they may impact the
current and future operation of Kern River. The Watermaster has
even been known to mediate disputes among the various Kern River
water right holders.
The Watermaster utilizes Central Records staff to perform the
actual daily measurements of Kern River flow and diversion. Based
upon the results of these measurements, releases from Isabella Dam
are made in accordance with all prior existing agreements on Kern
River, beginning with the Miller-Haggin Agreement of 1888. Since
1977, the Central Records function has been fulfilled by the City of
Bakersfield Water Resources Department.
15
“The role of any
single individual
cannot outweigh the
significance of the
City’s acquisition.
(Private) companies
come and go, but the
bond between the
City of Bakersfield
and the Kern River
will last a long,
long time.”
- William T. Balch -
former Kern River
Watermaster and General
Manager of Kern County
Canal and Water Company
16
2,800 ACRE WATER BANK
The properties acquired from
Tenneco West, Inc. by the City of
Bakersfield included approximately
2,800 acres of land situated along the
Kern River between the extension of
Renfro Road and InterstateHighway 5.
The site was approximately six miles
long and included old river channels
and overflow lands, part of the natural
recharge area that existed prior to
operation of Isabella Dam. The sandy
soil was ideal for percolation of water
into the underground aquifer, so the
City set out to create the first municipal
water bank in Kern County. In so doing,
the 2,800-acre spreading area has far
outgrown its original contemplated
uses and, in fact, has become the
prototype for the water banking
industry not only in Kern County but
throughout the State of California.
However, according to the memoirs of
Walter F. Heisey, this piece of the Kern
River Purchase almost didn’t happen:
“For the 2,800 acres, which we
bargained for and received almost as an afterthought, we are indebted to
Mr. Alan Watts, a former Kern County Land Company man. He came by my
office one day to point out the necessityof having this flood plain land to
assist with water management in wet years. After passing this information
on to the City Manager it was quickly incorporated into our agreement.
If the suggestion had come much later, we might well have missed out on
this valuable asset.” - Walter F. Heisey
Since the date of acquisition of the 2,800-acre property, the City has
invested over $2 million in infrastructure on the land,
including major weirs, levee construction, man-made off
channel spreading basins and inter-basin head gates and
measuring devices. In addition, 25 productionwells dot
the property, providing for recovery of previously
banked groundwater in dry years. Since the first drop of
water was spread in the 2,800-acre recharge area in
February of 1978, water spreading operations by the
City and its 2,800-acre contractors have totaled over
1,300,000 acre-feet.
We found that we could finance the entire
purchase through the sale of water for a limited
period to various agricultural interests. We
also learned through Mr. Stetson that the
power consortium headed by the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power was interested
in possible stand-by water as coolant for a
proposed nuclear power plant to be built near
Wasco. An E.I.R. was initially prepared on this
project which ran into considerable opposition
from both environmental groups and the
agricultural community. Kern Delta Water
District had also filed an action against Tenneco
and the City, and the County of Kern also
entered this action as an interested party.
In order to bring harmony on the water
front, the City in the fall of 1974 abandoned
the proposed agreement with the power
consortium and proceeded to finance the Kern
River acquisition through contracts with five
local irrigation districts for the sale of water
over the next thirty-five years.
Further, the City reached a settlement of
Kern Delta Water District’s suit by agreeing to
sell the Kern Island Water Company canals and
water rights to the district for $3,500,000.
Having accomplished this, a new Environmental
Impact Statement was prepared and a hearing
was held on August 18, 1975. Opposition at
this point turned to support. The final
Environmental Impact Report and Hearing was
held September 29, 1975, clearing the way for a
complete settlement and general obligation
bond election.
The “original” Second Point of Measurement
17
In November 1976, the City of Bakersfield
submitted Water Measure “B” to the voters to
secure the financing and to obtain the best
possible interest rate. Over two-thirds of the
electorate voted in favor of the general obligation
bond, as follows:
The City of Bakersfield, almost ninety years
after the original Miller-Haggin Agreement, was
finally assured the City’s right to water in the
Kern River. Our requirements are met for the
next century and a valuable natural resource
has passed from the whim of private ownership
to the custody of a responsible government
body that is close and directly responsible to
the will of the public.
It would now be the obligation of the City
of Bakersfield to protect this invaluablelocal
resource for our future generations.
ERA OF RECONSTRUCTION
The post-acquisition years have resulted in an era of reconstruction
unparalleled in Kern River history. Since the City acquisition, all major river weirs
and measuring points located between the mouth of the Kern River Canyon and
Interstate Highway 5 have been rebuilt. At the time of acquisition, major river
structures inherited by the City from Tenneco West, Inc. were in poor shape
from years of flood control operations and neglect or nearing the end of their
useful life. First Point of Measurement was
nothing more than a point on
the river with a cableway across
the streambed from which
measurements of flow could be
taken. The original structure had
been washed away during the
flood of December 6, 1966 and
never replaced. At the Beardsley
and Rocky Point weirs, portions of
the wooden weir structures were
buckled or nearing collapse,
making them largely ineffective
for efficient water diversion.
Downstream, diversions into the
Kern River Conduit were only
possible by use of a sand plug in
the river bottom. At the Bellevue
weir site, large boulders were used
to maneuver the river flow into the
Rosedale and Pioneer Canals. At
Second Point of Measurement near
Enos Lane, only a single two-by-
four remained of the original measuring structure.
The City of Bakersfield, in participation with other major Kern River interests,
began the task of rebuilding the river structures that are the backbone of the
Kern River distribution system. The following major structures (with date of
completion)have been reconstructed since the date of the City’s Kern River
Purchase:
First Point of Measurement - 1981
Beardsley River Weir - 1982
Rocky Point Weir - 1982
Calloway River Weir - 1984
River Canal Weir - 1979
Bellevue River Weir - 2002
Second Point of Measurement - 1985
In addition to the above major Kern River structures, numerous other
water diversion structures have been built, both new and reconstructed. Most
prominent of these include Four Weirs on the Carrier Canal, including the Kern
Island and Eastside canal head gates, the Calloway Canal head gate, the
Calloway Culverts connecting the river with the Carrier Canal, and the 2,800
Acre Water Bank weirs, basin head gates and inter-basin levee system
completed in 1983.
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
November 2, 1976
CONSOLIDATED WITH STATE
GENERAL ELECTION
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
BOND PROPOSITION
“Shall the City of Bakersfield incur a bonded
indebtedness in the principal sum of
$15,500,000 for the acquisition of all Kern
River water, water rights, waterworks and
water facilities of Tenneco West, Inc., Kern
Island Water Company and Kern River
Canal and Irrigating Company described in
the AcquisitionAgreement entered into by
the City as of April 12, 1976, and all expenses
incidental to or connected with the authori-
zation, issuance and sale of the bonds?”
YES - 19,738
NO - 8,914
“Old” Rocky Point Weir
18
FUNDAMENTALS OF CALIFORNIA WATER RIGHTS
In California, we have what is commonly known as a dual-system of water rights. It is based upon two legal doctrines – riparian and
appropriative. When California was admitted to the Union in 1850, the legislature adopted the common law of England which includes the
doctrine of riparian ownership. Lands which abut upon a water course have the right in common with other riparians to use water on that
land so long as it has never been severed legally and physically from the water source and is located within the watershed.
The appropriative doctrine came to California with the early miners. They needed water for their mining operations, but they usually did
not own the land. Most of the mining in those days was on government land. Also, much of the land in California is arid and the stream flow
decreases appreciably in the summer months. Therefore the doctrine of prior appropriation was recognized by the courts. The doctrine of
prior appropriation is based on the concept of “first in time is first in right.” In other words, those who used the water first retained a priority
over those who came later. Also, this is very important, under the doctrine of prior appropriation the land on which the water is used need
not be riparian to the water source. This doctrine was formally recognized by the Legislature in 1872 when it incorporated into the Civil Code
the procedure of posting and recording notices of appropriation.
The history of water rights on the Kern River is long and complicated. In some ways it is unique because the great bulk of the waters of
the Kern River were being utilized before California adopted the Water Commission Act in 1913 to regulate appropriations of surface water
through a State agency. Prior to that time appropriations of water were made by posting a notice at the point of diversion, recording a copy
of the notice at the County Courthouse, constructing the diversion and conveyance works and putting the water to beneficial use.
Thomas M. Stetson
Early in 1966 I was retained by the City of
Bakersfield to prepare a study and report on
alternative sources of water supply for the
Bakersfield urban area. There were four principal
sources of water supply then considered available
to the Bakersfield area. These were: (1) local
ground water; (2) Kern River water; (3) Central
Valley Project water through the proposed East
Side Division; and (4) the State Water Project
through a contract with the Kern County
Water Agency.
The continued reliance on the ground water
basin as a sole source of supply, although an
economical source, was fraught with uncertainties
as to its dependability and future quality due to
the large overdraft on the ground water basin.
A dependable supply of water was not available
from the Central Valley Project. The proposed
East Side Division had not been authorized. Its
timing of construction was very uncertain, and
now it appears that the East Side Division may
never be constructed.
Kern River water was recognized as a source
that may be available and could possibly be
obtained through exchanges for State Project
water. State Project water was available and
was considered to be of suitable quality and
dependability but it was the most expensive
source of supply. It was considered that
obtaining a supply of State water and then
exchanging that supply with Kern River
interests for their Kern River water would be
a feasible method of obtaining a long-term
water supply for the Bakersfield area.
City representatives then attempted to
negotiate various means of acquiring Kern
River water for use in the urban Bakersfield
area, mainly through exchanges for State
Project water. These efforts did not succeed.
After a number of years of such negotiations
the City decided to institute legal proceedings
to acquire Kern River water for the long-term
needs of the Bakersfield area.
The Kern County Land Company, formed by
James B. Haggin, W.B. Carr and Lloyd Tevis in
1890, was acquired by Tenneco in 1967. On
September 29, 1970, the City of Bakersfield and
California Water Service Company jointly
initiated litigation claiming an interest in Kern
River water against various subsidiaries of
Tenneco West, Inc., and other parties with
interests in the Kern River. Also, on the same
date the City of Bakersfield initiated an action
to condemn various subsidiaries of Tenneco
and other Kern River interests seeking to obtain
the first 77,000 acre-feet per year of water and
water rights of the Kern River. (The quantity of
77,000 acre-feet is the amount of water projected by the Kern
County Water Agency to be required to meet the future water
needs of the urban Bakersfield area through the year 2000.)
...the irrigation system of the
Kern County Land Company
was described as the greatest
irrigated farm in the world...
Law of the River
Significant irrigation with Kern River water began in the
1860s. By 1873, six canals furnished water to about 7,000 acres of
irrigated land. By 1880, the irrigated land area had increased to
about 40,000 acres.
By 1874, the Southern Pacific Railroad had reached Bakersfield.
James B. Haggin purchased many of the odd-numbered sections
of land which had been granted to the railroad by the United
States government. The Desert Land Act of 1877 made the
even-numbered sections available to entry. Entrymen under that
act bought water from Haggin’s canals in order to prove that
water supplies were available to their lands so that they could
perfect their entries.
An article in the publication “Irrigation Age” in the 1890s
described the irrigation system of the Kern County Land Company,
started by Haggin, as the greatest irrigated farm in the world.
The company owned 400,000 acres and had 125,000 acres
developed to alfalfa.
In the early 1880s there were two large land interests
competing for the waters of the Kern River. The Miller and Lux
interests had acquired large areas of overflow lands along the
channels of the lower river through which waters of the Kern
River flowed into Buena Vista and Tulare Lakes. Upstream on the
Kern River the Haggin interests (later the Kern County Land
Company), controlled large areas of land in the area north, south
and west of Bakersfield, constructed canals and used Kern River
water on lands which were not riparian to the river. Such water
was acquired by the Haggin interests under the appropriative
rights doctrine. A significant conflict developed after the drought
of 1877 when there was not sufficient water in the Kern River to
supply irrigation water to both of these areas.
The Miller and Lux interests, holders of the riparian lands in
the lower portion of the river, brought suit against the Haggin
interests in an attempt to enjoin the diversions under the
appropriative rights doctrine. This was essentially the first large-
scale legal test of the system of water rights which should prevail
in California – whether or not the riparian doctrine would take
precedence over the later appropriative rights doctrine in
California.
There was a lengthy trial in the Kern County Superior Court in
1881 and it was decided in that court in favor of the defendants,
the Haggin interests, upholding the rights of the upper appropriator
against the lower riparian owner. But the case was appealed and
argued twice before the State Supreme Court. A final decision
rendered by the court in 1886 reversed the lower court and
upheld the doctrine of riparian rights as the governing rule of
water law in California. The case was sent back for retrial, but
this retrial never occurred because the parties entered into an
agreement in 1888, commonly known as the Miller-Haggin
agreement. The agreement was later given judicial standing
when it became a part of the so-called Shaw decree of 1900,
adjudicating the rights on the Kern River. It is the Miller-Haggin
agreement and the Shaw decree which essentially formed “the
law of the river” on the Kern River.
19
Kern County irrigation districts (North Kern
WSD, Cawelo WD, Kern-Tulare WD, Rag
Gulch WD and Rosedale-Rio Bravo WSD)
that entered into long-term water supply
contracts with the City in 1976
Diversion amount in cubic feet per second of
the City’s Castro water right
Day of December 1976, that the City acquired
the Kern River assets of Tenneco West, Inc.
Percentage of Isabella Reservoir conservation
storage space owned by the City
The term in years of the Basic Contracts
Established right in cubic feet per second of
the Kern Island Canal
Average daily discharge of Kern River in cubic
feet per second
Acres of land along the Kern River between
Renfro Road and Interstate 5 acquired by the
City of Bakersfield as part of the Kern River
Purchase
Elevation in feet of Mount Whitney located in
the Kern River Basin, the highest point in the
continental United States
Acre-feet of Basic Contract water deliverable
by City during each year of the long-term
agricultural water contracts
Mean flow of Kern River in cubic feet per
second on December 6, 1966, maximum of
record
Acre-foot average Kern River April through
July snow melt runoff
Acre-foot capacity of Isabella Reservoir
Annual runoff of Kern River in acre-feet during
1916, the highest yearly flow ever recorded
Amount in dollars of the City of Bakersfield
acquisition from Tenneco West, Inc.
5
20
22
34
35
300
1,008
2,800
14,494
70,000
80,029
466,634
570,000
2,520,149
17,900,000
City of Bakersfield Acquisition
In 1973, as a result of extensive negotiations
with Tenneco, the City agreed to a settlement of
this matter whereby the City would acquire all
of Tenneco’s water rights and water properties
at a cost of $17.9 million. As a result of this the
City now owns an average annual entitlement
of more than 125,000 acre-feet of Kern River
water plus two utilities which were subsidiaries
of Tenneco West. One of these utilities is the
Kern River Canal and Irrigating Company on
the northerly side of the river immediately
north of the City of Bakersfield. This irrigation
water utility still serves irrigation water and
owns a right to more than 10,000 acre-feet per
year on the average from the Kern River.
The City also acquired the Kern Island
Water Company, another water utility, which
included both a domestic water system and a
large irrigation utility system. The irrigation
utility system of Kern Island Water Company
was sold by the City to the Kern Delta Water
District at a price of $3.5 million. However, the
City retained the Ashe Water system, which
was the domestic water utility of the Kern
Island Water Company, and continues to own
that system which is now operated under a
management agreement by the California Water
Service Company.
Kern River Canal & Irrigating Company
The Kern River Canal & Irrigating Company was incorporated in 1892 as a successor to Kern River
Water and Irrigating Company. The company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities
Commission. Kern River Canal & Irrigating Company (KRC&I Co.), also known as the Beardsley
Laterals, comprises some 6,000 acres of rich southern San Joaquin Valley farmland. The area is situated
north of Kern River between the Beardsley and Calloway Canals, bordered by Seventh Standard Road
to the north and Rosedale Highway to the south. Lands within the service area boundaries are entitled
to receive water from the Kern River based on the rights of the Beardsley, Lerdo and McCord Canals.
The diverison rights of these canals are based on priority appropriation in accordance with the Shaw
Decree of 1900, establishing the priority and amounts of Kern River water diversion in cubic feet per
second as follows:
CanalRiverTotal DiversionKRC&I Co.
CompanyStageRightPortion
Beardsley and Lerdo1190.56042
McCord, Lerdo & Beardsley1376.57049
Beardsley3106.5240168
Water is conveyed through the Beardsley Canal to the company’s service area and distributed to
farmlands via smaller canals, laterals and ditches. Growers within the service area produce a wide
variety of crops such as cotton, alfalfa, almonds, potatoes, wheat, melons and grapes. Average annual
diversions by KRC&I Co. for the period 1962-1974 were 15,700 acre-feet. The company maintains a
storage account in Isabella Reservoir providing for conservation storage of high flow Kern River water
entitlement. The North Kern Water Storage District, as a consumer of the KRC&I Co., has the right to
purchase 30 percent of the Kern River entitlement accruing to the company.
20
All in all, the City acquired approximately
one-third of the water rights of the First Point
interest of the Kern River and all of Tenneco’s
water transmission facilities and storage rights
in Lake Isabella at a net cost of about $14.25
million.
The properties acquired from Tenneco by the
City of Bakersfield included the following:
1. Kern Island Canal Company including the
Ashe Domestic Water System
2. Kern River Canal and Irrigating Company
3. Kern River Conduit, which is a concrete-
lined canal extending from Bakersfield
downstream on the southerly side of the
Kern River to the vicinity of Interstate
Highway 5
4. Water rights of the utility canal companies
listed as items 1 and 2 above, water rights
of the Kern River Conduit, and other water
rights owned by Tenneco identified as
Castro, Wilson, Calloway and Railroad
5.Storage rights in Lake Isabella to the
extent of 34% of all conservation storage
space in that reservoir
6. 2,800 acres of land astride the Kern River
between the extension of Renfro Road and
Interstate Highway 5 and most of the
riverbed from Allen Road upstream to
approximately Manor Street in Bakersfield.
Ashe Water Service
The Ashe Water Service which served
primarily groundwater for domestic, municipal
and industrial purposes was operated as a
public utility. At the time of acquisition, the
service area, known as the Ashe Water
Service Area, was relatively small providing
water to about 2,200 connections. The original
service area was situated generally west of
Stine Road, bounded by Panama Lane to
the south, Gosford Road to the west and
Stockdale Highway to the north. Water service
was first provided by the Kern County Land
Company in 1961 to the newly constructed
residential area known as Del Webb’s Kern
City. In 1973, total groundwater production
from the then existing seven service area
wells was approximately 2,500 acre-feet
annually. Additional wells were soon
constructed by the City shortly after the
date of acquisition to accommodate the
rapid growth and development occurring in
the southwest part of Bakersfield. With the
acquisition of the Fairhaven water system and
development of the River Lakes/Laborde
water systems during the 1990s, the City’s
water purvey boundaries were expanded to
provide domestic water service to areas
located northwest of the Kern River.
Operated by California Water Service
Company under contract with the City of
Bakersfield, the City of Bakersfield’s Domestic
Water Service Area, including the original
Ashe Water Service Area, currently has
over 30,000 service connections and fifty
groundwater production wells in operation.
21
Typical City of Bakersfield domestic water pump station
22
MILLER-HAGGIN SNOW SURVEYS
The City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department, as successor in interest to the Kern County Land Company and Tenneco West,
Inc., is a vital player in the State of California Snow Surveys program, along with fellow Miller-Haggin interests North Kern Water Storage
District, Kern Delta Water District and Buena Vista Water Storage District.
Utilizing the snow course and snow sensor data
collected by City, State and Federal personnel from
locations high up in the Kern River Basin, the Water
Resources Department produces long-range operations
forecasts for Isabella Dam & Reservoir based on historic
records of Kern River water use coupled with snow
pack information. These long-range forecasts are
then coordinated through the Kern River Watermaster,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local water districts,
helping to ensure the orderly and efficient scheduling
of Kern River water through the Bakersfield area. In
addition, information is provided to the City’s water
contractors and customers as to water availability
well in advance of the peak water use season, helping
these districts to achieve maximum productivity.
As previously mentioned, the City sold to
the Kern Delta Water District the Kern Island
Water Company irrigation utilities, including
their water rights, and retained only the Ashe
Domestic System of that company. This was the
result of a lawsuit filed by the Kern Delta Water
District which, unless settled, would have
probablyprevented the acquisition of the
Tenneco properties by the City of Bakersfield.
The City also quitclaimed the ownership of the
Beardsley Canal and Calloway Canal, acquired
from Tenneco, to the North Kern Water Storage
Districtat a price of $150,000. The City
retained its rights to use both of those canals to
the extent of the same capacities that it owned
prior to the quitclaim to North Kern. The rights
to use of capacities of those canals were the
subject of previous agreements between the
Tenneco interests and North Kern and the
change of ownership simply meant that as
properties owned by North Kern they would
not be subject to future property tax assessments.
Representatives of the City of Bakersfield
have long recognized the importance of
such major activities as the agricultural and
petroleum industries to the economy of Kern
County and the City of Bakersfield. Irrigated
agriculture, of course, had been the dominate
user of water in the San Joaquin Valley portion
of Kern County for more than 100 years and
even today represents about 95% of the use
of water annually in this area. The future
economy of the Bakersfield urban area would
SNOW SURVEYING
Snow surveying was begun in the United States in the early 1900’s by Dr. James E.
Church, Jr., a professor at the University of Nevada in Reno. Dr. Church developed
measuring equipment and sampling techniques that led to the
first water supply forecasts on Sierra Nevada streams. Realizing
the importance of this information, several agencies started
independent snow survey programs. These agencies and the
State of California soon recognized the need for a centralized
coordination of a snow survey program, so the California State
Legislature in 1929 established a statewide program that has
continued to this day. The Legislature, with the input of major
water interests, determined that the State Department of
Water Resources would be the coordinator of what would be
known as the “California Cooperative Snow Surveys Program.”
Cooperators include State, Federal, local, and private entities. The Kern River Group
was an original charter member of the state-wide program. Today in California more
than 50 state, national, and private agencies pool their efforts in collecting snow
data from over 300 snow courses each winter.
Through the years, the art of snow surveying has gradually evolved. Recent
advances in technology have provided sophisticated new measuring devices called
snow sensors or “pillows,” remote units capable of withstanding harsh winter
conditions. This has resulted in an increased number of snow stations being
monitored automatically. However, the
foundation of the snow surveys program
is still the human part of the equation –
the snow surveyor.Surveyors from
cooperating agencies venture into the
mountain regions of California beginning
in January of each year to check each of
the State’s 300-plus snow courses. Every
snow course is inspected at least once a
year by a snow surveyor for data gather-
ing or verification of automated snow
sensor sites. An average snow course is
1,000 feet long. Most courses consist of
about ten sample points to ensure sound
statistical data. From two to six courses
are measured in a day, depending upon
how severe the weather is and whether
the snow surveyor travels on foot, by
helicopter, or by an over-snow vehicle,
such as a “snow cat” or snowmobile.
Kern River Weather Modification
The Kern River watershed comprises approximately 2,200
square miles of area upstream from Lake Isabella. The region is
characterized by rugged mountain terrain with several granite
spires reaching above 14,000 feet. Mount Whitney, the highest
mountain in the continental United States, is located in the
northeast corner of the Kern River “cloud seeding” target area
near the head waters of the Kern River. The main objective of the
Kern River Basin “cloud seeding” effort is to increase the overall
water yield of the Kern River by “targeting” precipitation to occur
in the snow shed above Lake Isabella (The City of Bakersfield
and its predecessors have participated in the program for nearly
forty years). To accomplish this objective, the Kern River weather
modification program, operated by Atmospherics Incorporated
under direction of Thomas J. Henderson, president, includes both
airborne and ground-based applications. First, suitable clouds and
storm systems over the Kern River watershed must be
present for seeding to occur. Once the developing clouds and
storm systems have been correctly identified, then it is necessary
to deliver the required amount
of nuclei (“seed”, usually in the
form of silver iodide) to the
cloud systems. Of primary
importance within the airborne
operation is to disperse the
nuclei at the right time and
place within the clouds and
storm system. The tools
required to accomplish this
task are a satellite weather
data acquisition system, a well
organized weather forecast
method, a complete weather
surveillance radar system,
proper aircraft for delivering
the seeding material, a
network of silver iodide
ground generators, and a
team of dedicated people to
implement the program’s 24-
hour-per-day, 7-day-per-week
operation. Whenever the
National Weather Service
issues a local storm flood
advisory warning, all cloud
seeding operations over the
Kern River Basin are
suspended.
The History of Cloud Seeding
The potential for beneficial weather modification by
cloud seeding was discovered by Dr. Vincent J. Schaefer
in 1948 while working at the General Electric Research
Laboratory in Schenectady, New York.He noted quite by
accident that dry ice pellets introduced into a cloud
formed in a freezer chest produced tiny ice crystals
(snowflakes). Dr. Bernard Vonnegut, also a member of
the General Electric Research Team, soon discovered
that silver iodide smoke particles produced the same
effect. Hence, the beginning stage of a new science
and technology was born.
Since 1948, the technology of increasing precipitation by artificial means has moved through three
presidential investigative committees. Following the early discoveries, basic research programs at the
university and government levels now number in the hundreds. Foremost among these field research
programs has been the effort supplied by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, The Department of Commerce,
The National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences. The results from all these
fundamental and statistical studies since 1948 strongly indicate that increases in precipitation within the
range of 5-15% have been achieved from properly designed and operated cloud seeding programs.
Prominent among these studies has been those focused on orographic wintertime clouds, particularly
the programs over the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California.
At one time, the environmental community questioned the effects from cloud seeding programs.
Several hundred environmental studies followed these concerns. The most comprehensive publication
on potential environmental effect is, “Environmental Impacts of Artificial Ice Nucleating Agents,”
Donald A. Klein, Colorado State University. A total of more than 400 references for various environmental
studies are listed in this publication. All have indicated “no significant negative impacts on the environment.”
Currently, there are about 37 active cloud seeding programs in the United States. Thirteen of these
are in California, including the Kern River Basin, whose participants include the City of Bakersfield,
North Kern Water Storage District, Kern Delta Water District and Buena Vista Water Storage District.
Worldwide, there are presently 59 countries involved in some type of serious weather modification
program. Southern California Edison Company has been sponsoring the cloud seeding program over
the San Joaquin River watershed for over 50 years, the longest continuously operated cloud seeding
program in the world.
23
require adequate, dependable and good quality
water for not only the future of the urban area
but the future economy of this portion of Kern
County. Acquisition of the water properties
and water rights of Tenneco by the City of
Bakersfield now assures a good water supply
for the foreseeable future of the urban area.
Bakersfield is one of the few cities in California
and, indeed, in the United States, that can
make this claim. Until this water is needed
for urban purposes it can continue to supply
the needs of irrigated agriculture and other
purposes which benefit the economy of the
entire county.
24
An important point to keep in mind is that
Improvement District No. 4 of the Kern County
Water Agency, which is essentially the urban
Bakersfield area, has its own allocation of
imported State Project water, which will build
up to a supply of 77,000 acre-feet per year in
1990 and annually thereafter. This water is
now served through the Treatment Plant to
California Water Service Company, North of the
River Municipal Water District and East Niles
Community Services District in the amount of
about 25,000 acre-feet per year. The quantities
of imported water in excess of 25,000 acre-feet
per year are percolated underground in I.D. 4
to replenish the underlying ground water
supplies. The I.D. 4 water is, of course, in
addition to the natural ground water supplies
underlying I.D. 4 and in addition to the City’s
Kern River supplies.r urban purposes it can
continu
e to supply e needs of irrigated a
City’s Use of Kern River Water
To pay the cost of this acquisition the City
entered into long term irrigation water service
agreements with five public irrigation districts.
These agreements are for a base period of 35
years, commencing January 1, 1977. The City
sells basic quantities of 20,000 acre-feet per
year to North Kern Water Storage District,
20,000 acre-feet per year to the Kern-Tulare
Water District, 27,000 acre-feet per year to
the Cawelo Water District, and 3,000 acre-feet
per year to the Rag Gulch Water District. In
addition the City sells what is commonly called
“winter water” to the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water
Storage District which is supplemental to water
delivered under a contract that district had
with Tenneco.
The water sales agreements with the
irrigation districts require those districts to
make fixed annual payments to the City of
Bakersfield for the basic quantities of water to
be delivered under those contracts, whether or
not those quantities are actually delivered.
In years of drought there may be shortages
in supplying those basic quantities and such
shortages would be made up to those districts
in subsequent years when there was an ample
supply of Kern River water. Nevertheless, the
districts will make fixed annual payments
based upon the basic quantity of water in each
ISABELLA DAM AND RESERVOIR
Isabella Dam is located at the confluence of the North and South
Forks of Kern River in the Kern River Valley, about 40 miles northeast of
Bakersfield. The multipurpose Isabella Dam and Reservoir is operated
primarily for irrigation water storage, flood control, and power production.
In recent years, recreation has become an important function of the
reservoir as well.
Isabella Reservoir was created by the construction of a main dam across
the Kern River, a rolled earth fill embankment 1,695 feet long with a crest
width of 20 feet and a maximum height of 185 feet, and a 100 foot high
Auxiliary Dam across the
adjacent valley, which
impound the flow of the
North and South Forks
of the river. A small,
uncontrolled spillway
is located in the left
abutment of the Main
Dam. The Main Dam
outlet into the river
channel has a capacity
of 10,000 cubic feet per
second at full reservoir
pool. The Borel Canal,
with a capacity of 605
cubic feet per second,
has an intake four miles upstream on the North Fork and flows through the
reservoir through a controlled outlet at the Auxiliary Dam.
The reservoir has a capacity of 570,000 acre-feet, relatively large
compared to the annual Kern River flow of about 700,000 acre-feet.
Between November 1 and January 31 of each winter season, the Corps
of Engineers reserves a flood control space of 400,000 acre-feet in the
reservoir designed to reduce downstream flood damage.
The City of Bakersfield, as part of the Kern River Purchase from Tenneco
West, Inc., owns 34% of the Isabella Reservoir storage space allocatedby the
United States of America to downstream water districts. Pursuant to the
1962 Water Rights and Storage Agreement, Hacienda Water District has
the right to rent 10% in whole or in part of the City’s storage space. This
storage rental arrangement usually occurs only in very wet years on Kern
River when Hacienda Water District has Kern River entitlement, or in the
years immediately following very wet years.
Isabella Reservoir has proven its effectiveness for flood control on several
occasions since reservoir operations began in April of 1954. Since the date
of Isabella Dam construction, a number of great floods on Kern River have
been wholly contained within the reservoir, protecting urban Bakersfield
and approximately 150,000 acres of rich agricultural land from Kern River
flood flows. The greatest of these floods occurred on December 6, 1966,
when the Kern River reached an instantaneous flood peak of approximately
120,000 cubic feet per second.
25
contract and this enables the City to have
dependable annual revenue from those four
contracts in the amount of $1,400,000. This
arrangement was designed so that the City
would always have a fixed annual income from
which bond payments could be made.
Under the supplemental contract with the
Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District a
portion of the City’s so-called miscellaneous
quantity water is sold to that district. The term
miscellaneous quantity water means the
amount of non-utility Kern River water which
the City may have available from time to time
above and beyond the water necessary to meet
the City’s other water commitments, including
its long term agricultural delivery contracts and
all other contracts and agreements which predate
the supplemental agreement, and beyond the
quantities needed for use on City-owned
property or within the boundaries of the City of
Bakersfield. Such water is delivered essentially
during the non-irrigation season, so-called winter
water, at a basic rate of $6 per
acre-foot with such rate escalating
each year in accordance with the
All Commodities Classificationof
the Wholesale Price Index. If such
water is requestedto be delivered
during the months of March
through September, that price is
increased by multiplyingit by 3.5,
or the basic price of $6 increases
to $21 per acre-foot, plus the
escalator.
The City also has numerous
agreements with local water
districts permitting those
districts to spread and recover
water at the City’s 2,800-acre
spreading facility located along
the river between Renfro Road
and Interstate Highway 5. These
Districts can recapture their water
and by exchange or otherwise use
it to supply the needs within its
boundaries and in the Rio Bravo
annexation area in the easterly
part of the City of Bakersfield as it
is neededin that area. When not
needed in that area, under certain
arrangements, such water can be
sold for use in other places in
Kern County.
Kern River Natural Flow at First Point of Measurement
Bakersfield, California
MEAN DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
Period of Record: 1893 - 2002
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Jan
462
512
605
509
500
477
469
474
457
470
491
550
569
668
589
601
589
658
629
590
598
691
710
717
954
929
772
723
641
619
678
Feb
739
704
661
615
616
675
804
750
792
762
695
710
820
811
805
781
803
903
903
893
838
840
863
836
837
830
834
821
869
Mar
867
900
978
955
984
946
904
920
1005
1047
1051
1003
1008
1018
988
1021
1049
1111
1102
1095
1132
1120
1125
1137
1185
1209
1243
1249
1248
1248
1284
Apr
1307
1313
1330
1324
1355
1382
1401
1427
1454
1482
1581
1598
1591
1608
1630
1672
1692
1722
1764
1814
1859
1897
1911
1929
1949
1984
2009
2054
2071
2105
May
2138
2164
2203
2264
2308
2348
2377
2420
2457
2483
2487
2488
2513
2538
2556
2575
2603
2636
2672
2672
2673
2682
2674
2683
2704
2748
2754
2757
2773
2766
2757
June
2711
2680
2662
2654
2662
2669
2668
2643
2593
2572
2534
2514
2496
2461
2427
2377
2344
2303
2266
2231
2196
2161
2114
2052
1999
1936
1892
1842
1793
1740
July
1700
1680
1655
1627
1570
1524
1478
1432
1390
1350
1301
1265
1235
1212
1174
1148
1116
1087
1054
1027
992
962
947
947
905
876
855
826
793
770
738
Aug
724
701
684
668
642
627
611
597
582
572
563
550
525
506
499
495
483
481
478
465
446
428
419
405
395
382
381
383
383
378
372
Sep
368
364
361
352
366
370
346
334
323
313
308
312
302
292
291
286
284
281
275
275
276
276
274
273
290
331
306
289
293
289
Oct
301
298
295
292
285
292
293
289
289
285
282
279
279
275
275
276
282
279
278
280
278
275
276
275
273
280
284
286
287
293
298
Nov
291
289
286
283
285
285
288
363
383
322
323
319
312
315
310
311
320
335
465
415
370
380
366
387
389
366
380
374
364
394
Dec
356
358
374
396
502
1099
524
432
438
447
459
442
419
393
390
386
389
379
372
370
377
406
536
486
484
461
495
471
459
503
453
City of Bakersfield
Kern Delta Water District
North Kern Water
Storage District
Buena Vista Water
Storage District
Hacienda Water District
There are many agreements among
the Kern River interests relating to
water rights, use of water, storage rights
in Lake Isabella and other matters. The
Kern River Watermaster prepares and
maintains records on a daily basis or
river flows, Lake Isabella storage and
diversions from the river. The staff of
the City’s Water Department maintains
these records for the Watermaster. The
main division of the water and water
rights of the Kern River is between the
First Point interests (City of Bakersfield,
North Kern Water Storage District and Kern
Delta Water District), and the Second Point
interests (Buena Vista Water Storage District),
with a third group involved, Downstream
Group (Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage
District, Hacienda Water District, and most
recently, Olcese Water District), that receive
Kern River entitlement during high-flow years
on the Kern River.
26
From this unique arrangement you can
see that it is very important to have open
communications and cooperative efforts among
the Kern River interests. Most disputes or
differences in views on the Kern River have
historically been resolved by agreements among
the parties rather than Court decisions. This is
not to say that lawsuits have not been filed in
the past to get the other fellow’s attention.
But they have almost invariably been resolved
through negotiations and agreement.
In conclusion, the City of Bakersfield
purchased a large long-term water supply,
actually rights in perpetuity to Kern River
water, at a very reasonable cost. Based on this
background, the Kern River Purchase was an
extremely wise and far-sighted decision for the
City of Bakersfield.
- Thomas M. Stetson -
27
Kern river chronology
Major Events in Urban Bakersfield Water
Original Kern River canal system completed.
Miller-Haggin Agreement signed July 28, 1888.
Kern River Levee District formed June 4, 1928.
Friant-Kern Canal (C.V.P.) completed into Kern County.
Isabella Reservoir completed March 18, 1953.
Kern River Canal completed/Carrier Canal enlarged.
First California aqueduct water to Kern County
January 13, 1968.
City of Bakersfield/California Water Service Co. initiated
litigation against Tenneco West, Inc. – September 29, 1970.
California Aqueduct/Cross Valley Canal completed to
Bakersfield area.
Henry Garnett Water Treatment Plant completed.
Kern River Water Bond (Measure “B”) passed by Bakersfield
City voters on November 2, 1976. $15,500,000 financed
through 35-year contracts with four agricultural water ‘
districts (2012).
Kern River Intertie completed.
Major Kern River diversions weirs and canal headgates
reconstructed; 2,800 Acre Water Bank completed.
Kern River Plan adopted July 1985.
Kern River Parkway Project adopted November, 1988.
Kern County Water Agency/City of Bakersfield Kern River
Parkway Water Management Agreement adopted
November 17, 1999.
Proposition 12 and 13 passed by voters in March - includes
$5 million for Kern River Parkway and $23 million for
Governor’s water project.
First delivery of City of Bakersfield Kern River water to the
new $50 million California Water Service Co. northeast
Bakersfield Treatment Plant - June 2, 2003.
1877
1888
1928
1952
1953
1962
1968
1970
1975
1976
1976
1977
1977-1985
1985
1988
1999
2000
2003
1877
1888
1928
1952
1953
1962
1968
1970
1975
1976
1976
1977
1977-1985
1985
1988
1999
2000
2003
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 38
Appendix C – Long Term Delivery Contracts
C
IT
Y
O
F
B
AK
ER
SF
IEL
D
S
TATUS
OF
L
ONG
TE
RM
CONTRACTS
Quanti
ti
es i
n acre-feet
N
OR
TH
K
E
R
N
W
ATE
R
S
TOR
AGE
D
IS
TR
IC
T
C
AW
E
LO W
ATE
R
D
IS
TR
IC
T
Ba
s
i
c
Cu
mu
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ba
s
i
c
Cu
mu
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ba
s
i
c
Ba
s
i
c
Cu
mu
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ba
s
i
c
Cu
mu
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ba
s
i
c
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
ct
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Ye
a
r
Amo
u
n
t
Amo
u
n
t
De
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
De
l
i
v
e
r
y
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
Ye
a
r
Amo
u
n
t
Amo
u
n
t
De
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
De
l
i
v
e
r
y
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
1
9
7
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
7
7
2
7
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
5
,
0
2
4
5
,
0
2
4
(
2
1
,
9
7
6
)
1
9
7
8
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
7
8
2
7
,
0
0
0
5
4
,
0
0
0
3
5
,
4
0
4
4
0
,
4
2
8
(
1
3
,
5
7
2
)
1
9
7
9
2
0
,
0
0
0
6
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
6
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
7
9
2
7
,
0
0
0
8
1
,
0
0
0
3
6
,
7
8
0
7
7
,
2
0
8
(
3
,
7
9
2
)
1
9
8
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
8
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
8
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
1
0
8
,
0
0
0
3
0
,
7
9
2
1
0
8
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
1
2
7
,
0
0
0
1
3
5
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
1
3
5
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
2
2
7
,
0
0
0
1
6
2
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
1
6
2
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
3
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
1
8
9
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
1
8
9
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
4
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
4
2
7
,
0
0
0
2
1
6
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
2
1
6
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
5
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
8
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
8
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
5
2
7
,
0
0
0
2
4
3
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
2
4
3
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
6
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
6
2
7
,
0
0
0
2
7
0
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
2
7
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
7
2
7
,
0
0
0
2
9
7
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
2
9
7
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
8
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
4
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
4
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
8
2
7
,
0
0
0
3
2
4
,
0
0
0
1
2
,
8
2
1
3
0
9
,
8
2
1
(
1
4
,
1
7
9
)
1
9
8
9
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
6
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
6
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
9
2
7
,
0
0
0
3
5
1
,
0
0
0
2
2
,
4
6
0
3
3
2
,
2
8
1
(
1
8
,
7
1
9
)
1
9
9
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
8
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
8
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
9
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
3
7
8
,
0
0
0
1
7
,
7
2
3
3
5
0
,
0
0
4
(
2
7
,
9
9
6
)
1
9
9
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
9
1
2
7
,
0
0
0
4
0
5
,
0
0
0
2
9
,
3
1
6
3
7
9
,
3
2
0
(
2
5
,
6
8
0
)
1
9
9
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
4
,
3
8
1
3
1
4
,
3
8
1
(
5
,
6
1
9
)
1
9
9
2
2
7
,
0
0
0
4
3
2
,
0
0
0
2
8
,
8
6
8
4
0
8
,
1
8
8
(
2
3
,
8
1
2
)
1
9
9
3
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
4
0
,
0
0
0
2
3
,
7
0
0
3
3
8
,
0
8
1
(
1
,
9
1
9
)
1
9
9
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
4
5
9
,
0
0
0
3
2
,
0
0
0
4
4
0
,
1
8
8
(
1
8
,
8
1
2
)
1
9
9
4
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
5
8
,
0
8
1
(
1
,
9
1
9
)
1
9
9
4
2
7
,
0
0
0
4
8
6
,
0
0
0
2
3
,
7
6
0
4
6
3
,
9
4
8
(
2
2
,
0
5
2
)
1
9
9
5
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
8
0
,
0
0
0
2
1
,
9
1
9
3
8
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
9
5
2
7
,
0
0
0
5
1
3
,
0
0
0
3
2
,
0
0
0
4
9
5
,
9
4
8
(
1
7
,
0
5
2
)
1
9
9
6
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
9
6
2
7
,
0
0
0
5
4
0
,
0
0
0
3
2
,
0
0
0
5
2
7
,
9
4
8
(
1
2
,
0
5
2
)
1
9
9
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
2
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
9
7
2
7
,
0
0
0
5
6
7
,
0
0
0
3
2
,
0
0
0
5
5
9
,
9
4
8
(
7
,
0
5
2
)
1
9
9
8
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
4
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
4
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
9
8
2
7
,
0
0
0
5
9
4
,
0
0
0
3
2
,
0
0
0
5
9
1
,
9
4
8
(
2
,
0
5
2
)
1
9
9
9
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
6
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
6
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
9
9
2
7
,
0
0
0
6
2
1
,
0
0
0
2
9
,
0
5
2
6
2
1
,
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
8
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
8
0
,
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
6
4
8
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
6
4
8
,
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
7
,
0
0
0
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
1
5
,
6
7
0
6
6
3
,
6
7
0
(
1
1
,
3
3
0
)
2
0
0
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
5
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
5
2
0
,
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
7
,
0
0
0
7
0
2
,
0
0
0
1
8
,
2
7
0
6
8
1
,
9
4
0
(
2
0
,
0
6
0
)
2
0
0
3
2
0
,
0
0
0
5
4
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
5
4
0
,
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
7
2
9
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
1
1
5
7
0
9
,
0
5
5
(
1
9
,
9
4
5
)
K
E
R
N
-TU
LAR
E
W
ATE
R
D
IS
TR
IC
T
R
AG GU
LC
H
W
ATE
R
D
IS
TR
IC
T
Ba
s
i
c
Cu
mu
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ba
s
i
c
Cu
mu
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ba
s
i
c
Ba
s
i
c
Cu
mu
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ba
s
i
c
Cu
mu
l
a
t
i
v
e
Ba
s
i
c
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
ct
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Ye
a
r
Amo
u
n
t
Amo
u
n
t
De
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
De
l
i
v
e
r
y
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
Ye
a
r
Amo
u
n
t
Amo
u
n
t
De
l
i
v
e
r
e
d
De
l
i
v
e
r
y
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
1
9
7
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
,
6
7
3
4
,
6
7
3
(
1
5
,
3
2
7
)
1
9
7
7
3
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
4
4
9
4
4
9
(
2
,
5
5
1
)
1
9
7
8
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
2
3
,
6
9
0
2
8
,
3
6
3
(
1
1
,
6
3
7
)
1
9
7
8
3
,
0
0
0
6
,
0
0
0
3
,
5
5
0
3
,
9
9
9
(
2
,
0
0
1
)
1
9
7
9
2
0
,
0
0
0
6
0
,
0
0
0
2
4
,
1
2
2
5
2
,
4
8
5
(
7
,
5
1
5
)
1
9
7
9
3
,
0
0
0
9
,
0
0
0
3
,
5
5
0
7
,
5
4
9
(
1
,
4
5
1
)
1
9
8
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
8
0
,
0
0
0
2
3
,
4
0
3
7
5
,
8
8
8
(
4
,
1
1
2
)
1
9
8
0
3
,
0
0
0
1
2
,
0
0
0
3
,
5
5
0
1
1
,
0
9
9
(
9
0
1
)
1
9
8
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
3
,
7
0
0
9
9
,
5
8
8
(
4
1
2
)
1
9
8
1
3
,
0
0
0
1
5
,
0
0
0
3
,
5
5
0
1
4
,
6
4
9
(
3
5
1
)
1
9
8
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
4
1
2
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
2
3
,
0
0
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
3
,
3
5
1
1
8
,
0
0
0
0
1
9
8
3
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
4
,
5
8
7
1
2
4
,
5
8
7
(
1
5
,
4
1
3
)
1
9
8
3
3
,
0
0
0
2
1
,
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
8
,
6
0
0
(
2
,
4
0
0
)
1
9
8
4
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
4
4
,
5
8
7
(
1
5
,
4
1
3
)
1
9
8
4
3
,
0
0
0
2
4
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
2
1
,
6
0
0
(
2
,
4
0
0
)
1
9
8
5
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
8
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
6
4
,
5
8
7
(
1
5
,
4
1
3
)
1
9
8
5
3
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
2
4
,
6
0
0
(
2
,
4
0
0
)
1
9
8
6
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
1
8
4
,
5
8
7
(
1
5
,
4
1
3
)
1
9
8
6
3
,
0
0
0
3
0
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
2
7
,
6
0
0
(
2
,
4
0
0
)
1
9
8
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
4
,
5
8
7
(
1
5
,
4
1
3
)
1
9
8
7
3
,
0
0
0
3
3
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
3
0
,
6
0
0
(
2
,
4
0
0
)
1
9
8
8
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
4
0
,
0
0
0
1
1
,
7
6
3
2
1
6
,
3
5
0
(
2
3
,
6
5
0
)
1
9
8
8
3
,
0
0
0
3
6
,
0
0
0
1
,
7
6
4
3
2
,
3
6
4
(
3
,
6
3
6
)
1
9
8
9
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
6
0
,
0
0
0
1
6
,
6
3
5
2
3
2
,
9
8
5
(
2
7
,
0
1
5
)
1
9
8
9
3
,
0
0
0
3
9
,
0
0
0
2
,
4
9
5
3
4
,
8
5
9
(
4
,
1
4
1
)
1
9
9
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
8
0
,
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
,
9
8
5
(
4
7
,
0
1
5
)
1
9
9
0
3
,
0
0
0
4
2
,
0
0
0
0
3
4
,
8
5
9
(
7
,
1
4
1
)
1
9
9
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
5
2
,
9
8
5
(
4
7
,
0
1
5
)
1
9
9
1
3
,
0
0
0
4
5
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
3
7
,
8
5
9
(
7
,
1
4
1
)
1
9
9
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
2
0
,
0
0
0
9
,
0
8
9
2
6
2
,
0
7
4
(
5
7
,
9
2
6
)
1
9
9
2
3
,
0
0
0
4
8
,
0
0
0
1
,
3
6
3
3
9
,
2
2
2
(
8
,
7
7
8
)
1
9
9
3
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
4
0
,
0
0
0
2
9
,
3
3
2
2
9
1
,
4
0
6
(
4
8
,
5
9
4
)
1
9
9
3
3
,
0
0
0
5
1
,
0
0
0
4
,
3
9
4
4
3
,
6
1
6
(
7
,
3
8
4
)
1
9
9
4
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
1
8
,
3
4
8
3
0
9
,
7
5
4
(
5
0
,
2
4
6
)
1
9
9
4
3
,
0
0
0
5
4
,
0
0
0
2
,
7
5
3
4
6
,
3
6
9
(
7
,
6
3
1
)
1
9
9
5
2
0
,
0
0
0
3
8
0
,
0
0
0
3
2
,
7
3
3
3
4
2
,
4
8
7
(
3
7
,
5
1
3
)
1
9
9
5
3
,
0
0
0
5
7
,
0
0
0
4
,
9
9
3
5
1
,
3
6
2
(
5
,
6
3
8
)
1
9
9
6
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
3
,
7
0
0
3
6
6
,
1
8
7
(
3
3
,
8
1
3
)
1
9
9
6
3
,
0
0
0
6
0
,
0
0
0
3
,
5
5
0
5
4
,
9
1
2
(
5
,
0
8
8
)
1
9
9
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
2
0
,
0
0
0
2
3
,
7
0
0
3
8
9
,
8
8
7
(
3
0
,
1
1
3
)
1
9
9
7
3
,
0
0
0
6
3
,
0
0
0
3
,
5
5
0
5
8
,
4
6
2
(
4
,
5
3
8
)
1
9
9
8
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
4
0
,
0
0
0
2
3
,
7
0
0
4
1
3
,
5
8
7
(
2
6
,
4
1
3
)
1
9
9
8
3
,
0
0
0
6
6
,
0
0
0
3
,
5
5
0
6
2
,
0
1
2
(
3
,
9
8
8
)
1
9
9
9
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
6
0
,
0
0
0
2
3
,
7
0
0
4
3
7
,
2
8
7
(
2
2
,
7
1
3
)
1
9
9
9
3
,
0
0
0
6
9
,
0
0
0
3
,
5
5
0
6
5
,
5
6
2
(
3
,
4
3
8
)
2
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
8
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
5
7
,
2
8
7
(
2
2
,
7
1
3
)
2
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
7
2
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
6
8
,
5
6
2
(
3
,
4
3
8
)
2
0
0
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
1
,
6
1
0
4
6
8
,
8
9
7
(
3
1
,
1
0
3
)
2
0
0
1
3
,
0
0
0
7
5
,
0
0
0
1
,
7
4
0
7
0
,
3
0
2
(
4
,
6
9
8
)
2
0
0
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
5
2
0
,
0
0
0
8
,
6
5
9
4
7
7
,
5
5
6
(
4
2
,
4
4
4
)
2
0
0
2
3
,
0
0
0
7
8
,
0
0
0
1
,
2
9
9
7
1
,
6
0
1
(
6
,
3
9
9
)
2
0
0
3
2
0
,
0
0
0
5
4
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
,
0
0
0
4
9
7
,
5
5
6
(
4
2
,
4
4
4
)
2
0
0
3
3
,
0
0
0
8
1
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
7
4
,
6
0
1
(
6
,
3
9
9
)
I:\Clients\Castle & Cooke - 1434\14340401 - Buena Vista SB 610\Reports\Revisions\Revision
2006\060830_Revision6.doc 39
Appendix D – City of Bakersfield Pending Development Projects
Pr
ojec
t N
o.
on key
map*
*
*
Sor
tkey
C
as
e T
ype
C
as
e N
o.
Pr
ojec
t N
ame
C
omments
Appr
oval Status
*
*
O
r
iginal
T
AZ
N
ew T
AZ
IT
E C
ode
D
evelopment T
ype
Var
iable
U
nits
AD
T
R
AT
E
AD
T
R
etail
O
f
f
ic
e/
Ins
titutional
Indus
tr
ial
R
ate
In % Split/
T
r
ips
O
ut %
Split/
T
r
ips
R
ate
In % Split/
T
r
ips
O
ut %
Split/
T
r
ips
G
PA/ZC
03-
0340
Pinnac
le-
T
homas
on
R
educ
tion f
r
om c
ur
r
ent
entitlements
PC
Appr
oved 03/05
380
380
210
Single Family
149
D
welling U
nits
9.57
1,426
G
PA/ZC
03-
0746
C
ity in the H
ills
Mods
R
educ
tion f
r
om c
ur
r
ent
entitlements
O
f
f
of
Lis
t, appr
oved by
C
ounc
il 3/30/04
379
G
PA/ZC
03-
1188
Eagle Meadows
EIR
O
nly 2.7ac
c
hange f
r
om O
S
to LR
(
8 added D
U
)
, the 419
is
the total pr
ojec
t on 156 ac
Sc
heduled f
or
7/7/05 PC
375
210
Single Family
489
D
welling U
nits
1
G
PA/ZC
03-
1345
Mc
Intos
h -
Ming/Allen
PC
Appr
oved 12/04
13
210
Single Family
76
D
welling U
nits
9.57
727
2
G
PA/ZC
03-
1345
C
ounc
il Appr
oved 03/30/05
820
Shopping C
enter
*
57
1,000 SF
eq
6,101
89
3
G
PA/ZC
03-
1345
T
ot
al
6,828
3
1
G
PA/ZC
03-
1528
O
ld R
iver
R
anc
h (
Petr
ini)
*
*
Sc
heduled f
or
9/05 PC
50,398
989-
995
210
Single Family
D
etac
hed H
ous
ing
5,979
D
welling U
nits
9.57
57,219
2
G
PA/ZC
03-
1528
See "
O
ldR
iver
R
anc
h"
wor
ks
heet f
or
mor
e details
Multi-
Family
1,058
D
welling U
nits
6.63
7,015
3
G
PA/ZC
03-
1528
820
G
C
(
O
f
f
ic
e)
191.66
1,000 SF
eq
10,357
598
4
G
PA/ZC
03-
1528
820
G
C
(
R
etail)
686.08
1,000 SF
eq
19,988
1071
5
G
PA/ZC
03-
1528
T
ot
al
94,579
1
G
PA/ZC
03-
1544
W
es
t Ming (
BV R
anc
h)
N
ot in s
hapef
ile
1034, 1037
1034, 1037,
1051
Alr
eady inc
luded in Ker
nC
O
G
Spec
ial Model r
un D
ata
6
1
G
PA/ZC
04-
0057
Q
uad/Pr
ogr
es
s
R
d
Sc
heduled f
or
7/7/05 PC
53
53
820
Shopping C
enter
*
587.34
1,000 SF
eq
18,248
917
2
G
PA/ZC
04-
0057
110
G
en Light Indus
tr
ial
19.98
ac
r
es
51.8
1,035
260
3
G
PA/ZC
04-
0057
240
Mobile H
ome Par
k
230
D
welling U
nits
4.99
1,150
4
G
PA/ZC
04-
0057
220
Apar
tments
471
D
welling U
nits
6.72
3,162
5
G
PA/ZC
04-
0057
210
Single Family
D
etac
hed H
ous
ing
643
D
welling U
nits
9.57
6,154
6
G
PA/ZC
04-
0057
820
Shopping C
enter
*
108.9
1,000 SF
eq
6,101
170
7
G
PA/ZC
04-
0057
T
ot
al
35,850
10
20
G
PA
04-
0266
D
elmar
ter
/Abr
is
hami
LR
to G
C
on 10ac
PC
D
enied 06/04
171
171
820
Shopping C
enter
*
42.92
1,000 SF
eq
3,863
67
9
19
G
PA
04-
0423
Smithtec
h/AdavC
o
SR
to LR
on 60ac
PC
Appr
oved 06/04
200
200
210
Single Family
D
etac
hed H
ous
ing
175
D
welling U
nits
9.57
1,675
2
G
PA/ZC
04-
0429
C
entex
R
-
IA to LR
on 77ac
PC
Appr
oved 06/04
51
51
210
Single Family
D
etac
hed H
ous
ing
310
D
welling U
nits
9.57
2,967
4
8
G
PA/ZC
04-
0435
Smithtec
h/Pas
c
oe T
r
us
t
R
-
IA to LR
on 89ac
N
ot s
c
heduled, or
iginally
6/04 -
W
IT
H
D
R
AW
N
??
397
397
210
Single Family
D
etac
hed H
ous
ing
374
D
welling U
nits
9.57
3,579
1
G
PA/ZC
04-
0671
R
os
edale R
anc
h
Sc
heduled f
or
9/05 PC
5, 1021,
1027, 1028
210
Single Family
D
etac
hed H
ous
ing
4,871
D
welling U
nits
eq
39,046
2
G
PA/ZC
04-
0671
See "
R
os
edaleR
anc
h"
wor
ks
heet f
or
mor
e details
220
Multi-
Family
1,079
D
welling U
nits
eq
9,736
3
G
PA/ZC
04-
0671
140
Manuf
ac
tur
ing
1,963
1,000 SF
eq
7,499
4
G
PA/ZC
04-
0671
150
W
ar
ehous
ing
1,198
1,000 SF
eq
5,942
5
G
PA/ZC
04-
0671
750
O
f
f
ic
e
381
1,000 SF
eq
12,319
5
G
PA/ZC
04-
0671
750
Ins
titutional
381
1,000 SF
eq
4,353
6
G
PA/ZC
04-
0671
820
G
C
(
R
etail)
1,481
1,000 SF
eq
56,197
2312
7
G
PA/ZC
04-
0671
D
oes
not inc
lude pas
s
-
by & c
aptur
e r
educ
tions
T
ot
al
135,092
G
PA/ZC
04-
0814
Ellis
Pr
oper
ty
Inc
r
eas
e f
r
om 7 D
U
to 57
D
U
, ins
ignif
ic
ant c
hange no
T
IS
D
enied by PC
9/04, denial
upheld by C
ounc
il 11/03/04
1018
57
D
welling U
nits
9.57
545
G
PA/ZC
04-
0815
Etc
hever
r
y Pr
oper
ty
Inc
r
eas
e f
r
om Sr
-
>LR
239
D
U
to 320 D
U
, ins
ignif
ic
ant
c
hange -
no T
IS
PC
Appr
oved 12/04,
s
c
heduled f
or
C
ounc
il
8/17/05
1018
320
D
welling U
nits
9.57
3,062
3
1
G
PA/ZC
04-
0853
R
io Br
avo N
o. 3 Annex
600 ac
R
-
IA to LR
Sc
heduled f
or
7/05 PC
384
210
Single Family
D
etac
hed H
ous
ing
1,200
D
welling U
nits
9.57
11,484
2
G
PA/ZC
04-
0853
17 ac
R
-
IA to LMR
220
Multi-
Family
140
D
welling U
nits
6.63
928
5
G
PA/ZC
04-
0853
T
ot
al
12,412
1
G
PA/ZC
04-
0867
Balf
anz
7.02 ac
LR
to G
C
PC
Appr
oved 12/04
136
210
Single Family
D
etac
hed H
ous
ing
29
D
welling U
nits
9.57
278
2
G
PA/ZC
04-
0867
4.03 G
C
to LR
820
G
C
(
R
etail)
*
61
1,000 SF
eq
4,217
95
5
G
PA/ZC
04-
0867
N
et inc
r
eas
e ins
ignif
. (
76 PM Peak, 915 AD
T
)
-
no T
IS
T
ot
al
4,494
G
PA
04-
0870
G
r
if
f
in Indus
tr
ies
134 ac
R
-
MP to LR
PC
D
enied 09/04,
APPR
O
VED
by C
ounc
il on
appeal 10/30/04
379
210
Single Family
804
D
welling U
nits
9.57
7,694
G
PA/ZC
04-
0874
Batey
Inc
omplete applic
ation, R
-
IA to LR
on 80 ac
N
ot s
c
heduled -
ST
ILL
IN
C
O
MPLET
E
12
G
PA/ZC
04-
0875
Ker
n C
o. Elec
tr
ic
al
Pens
ion T
r
us
t
R
educ
tion f
r
om c
ur
r
ent
entitlements
, G
C
to H
MR
,
7.5 ac
C
ASE W
IT
H
D
R
AW
N
131
220
Multi-
Family
96
D
welling U
nits
6.63
636
G
PA/ZC
04-
1322
Luc
as
LR
to G
C
14.95 ac
,
R
educ
tion f
r
om c
ur
r
ent
entitlements
due to net los
s
of
G
C
f
or
Fwy Inter
c
hange
PC
Appr
oved 12/04,
C
ounc
il Appr
oved 3/30/05
134
820
G
C
(
R
etail)
*
130.36
1,000 SF
eq
6,871
203
1
G
PA/ZC
04-
1326
R
udnic
k
SI/LI to LMR
on 10 ac
and
LR
on
PC
Appr
oved 12/04
170
210
Single Family
D
etac
hed H
ous
ing
236
D
welling U
nits
9.57
2,259
AM Peak H
our
T
r
ips
PM Peak H
our
T
r
ips
G
ener
al Inf
or
mation
D
aily T
r
ips
Employees
Pr
ojec
t N
o.
on key
map*
*
*
Sor
tkey
C
as
e T
ype
C
as
e N
o.
Pr
ojec
t N
ame
C
omments
Appr
oval Status
*
*
O
r
iginal
T
AZ
N
ew T
AZ
IT
E C
ode
D
evelopment T
ype
Var
iable
U
nits
AD
T
R
AT
E
AD
T
R
etail
O
f
f
ic
e/
Ins
titutional
Indus
tr
ial
R
ate
In % Split/
T
r
ips
O
ut %
Split/
T
r
ips
R
ate
In % Split/
T
r
ips
O
ut %
Split/
T
r
ips
AM Peak H
our
T
r
ips
PM Peak H
our
T
r
ips
G
ener
al Inf
or
mation
D
aily T
r
ips
Employees
2
G
PA/ZC
04-
1326
32.7 ac
, over
all r
educ
tion
C
ounc
il Appr
oved 3/30/05
220
Multi-
Family
100
D
welling U
nits
6.63
663
5
G
PA/ZC
04-
1326
in c
ur
r
ent entitlements
T
ot
al
2,922
G
PA/ZC
04-
1328
T
abitha H
ous
e
R
educ
tion f
r
om c
ur
r
ent
entitlements
, SI to LMR
on
55ac
PC
Appr
oved 12/04
81
220
Multi-
Family
240
D
welling U
nits
6.63
1,591
G
PA/ZC
04-
1334
Lus
ic
h
R
-
IA to LR
on 96ac
PC
Appr
oved 12/04,
C
ounc
il Appr
oved 3/30/05
397
210
Single Family
419
D
welling U
nits
9.57
4,010
G
PA/ZC
04-
1335
C
or
p f
or
Better
H
ous
ing
G
C
to H
R
on 1.67 ac
,
R
educ
tion f
r
om c
ur
r
ent
entitlements
C
ASE W
IT
H
D
R
AW
N
210
220
Multi-
Family
73
D
welling U
nits
6.63
484
G
PA/ZC
04-
1336
T
ower
y H
omes
R
educ
tion f
r
om c
ur
r
ent
entitlements
, G
C
to LR
on
13 ac
PC
Appr
oved 12/04,
C
ounc
il Appr
oved 3/30/05
411
210
Single Family
61
D
welling U
nits
9.57
584
G
PA/ZC
04-
1337
Fr
ic
k
R
-
IA to LR
on 95 ac
PC
Appr
oved 12/04
200
210
Single Family
458
D
welling U
nits
9.57
4,383
1
G
PA/ZC
04-
1340
Kos
ar
ef
f
ER
, U
ER
, H
MR
& LR
to LI
on 18.5 ac
and H
MR
on
20.5 ac
PC
Appr
oved 12/04
6
220
Multi-
Family
200
D
welling U
nits
6.63
1,326
2
G
PA/ZC
04-
1340
820
G
C
(
R
etail)
217.8
1,000 SF
eq
9,558
340
3
G
PA/ZC
04-
1340
T
ot
al
10,884
G
PA/ZC
04-
1342
C
r
aig C
ar
ver
LR
to H
MR
on 20 ac
Sc
heduled 06/05
375
220
Multi-
Family
112
D
welling U
nits
6.63
743
G
PA/ZC
04-
1342
N
ote: totals
at r
ight inc
lude all entitlements
on this
pr
ojec
t
210
Single Family
30
D
welling U
nits
9.57
287
G
PA/ZC
04-
1342
LR
to G
C
on 22 ac
820
G
C
(
R
etail)
270
1,000 SF
eq
10,974
421
G
PA/ZC
04-
1342
T
ot
al
12,003
G
PA/ZC
04-
1343
Etc
hec
hur
y
R
-
MP to SI on 22.5 ac
, no
c
hange in entiltments
f
r
om
allowed in C
ounty
PC
Appr
oved 12/04,
C
ounc
il Appr
oved 3/30/05
1018
LI
22.5
ac
r
es
293
G
PA/ZC
04-
1344
Etc
hec
hur
y
R
-
IA to LR
on 86 ac
Inc
omplete
78
210
Single Family
275
D
welling U
nits
9.57
2,632
G
PA/ZC
04-
1345
Mc
Intos
h
R
educ
tion f
r
om c
ur
r
ent
entitlements
, G
C
to H
MR
on
10 ac
C
ASE W
IT
H
D
R
AW
N
396
220
Multi-
Family
175
D
welling U
nits
6.63
1,160
G
PA/ZC
04-
1346
Mc
Intos
h
PC
Appr
oved 12/04,
C
ounc
il Appr
oved 3/30/05
79
210
Single Family
118
D
welling U
nits
9.57
1,129
G
PA/ZC
04-
1346
G
PA/ZC
04-
1570
Lennox H
omes
SR
to ER
on 33ac
and LR
on 67 ac
Sc
heduled 6/05
200
210
353
118
D
welling U
nits
9.57
1,129
G
PA/ZC
04-
1704
Almgr
en
Ins
ignif
c
hange, no T
IS, LR
to H
MR
on 3 ac
Sc
heduled 6/05
134
220
Multi-
Family
48
D
welling U
nits
6.63
318
G
PA
04-
1738
Signal H
ill Petr
ol
R
educ
tion f
r
om c
ur
r
ent
entitlements
, H
MR
to LMR
on 30 ac
PC
Appr
oved 03/05
377
220
Multi-
Family
82
D
welling U
nits
6.63
544
G
PA/ZC
04-
1745
C
or
ner
s
tone
R
-
IA to LR
on 40 ac
PC
Appr
oved 03/05
51
220
Multi-
Family
151
D
welling U
nits
6.63
1,001
1
G
PA/ZC
04-
1746
C
entex
EIR
Pending, R
-
IA & R
R
to
LR
on 116 ac
and LMR
on
70.4 ac
Sc
heduled 9/05
79
220
Multi-
Family
95
D
welling U
nits
6.63
631
2
G
PA/ZC
04-
1746
79
210
Single Family
371
D
welling U
nits
9.57
3,552
3
G
PA/ZC
04-
1746
863
820
Multi-
Family
398
D
welling U
nits
6.63
2,636
4
G
PA/ZC
04-
1746
N
ote: T
r
af
f
ic
Study as
s
umed 874 units
of
Single Family
T
ot
al
864
T
ot
al
6,820
G
PA
04-
1747
Aer
a Ener
gy
R
educ
tion f
r
om c
ur
r
ent
entitlements
, G
C
to LR
on
15ac
PC
Appr
oved 03/05
379
210
Single Family
65
D
welling U
nits
9.57
622
G
PA/ZC
04-
1763
J
ean O
lliver
SR
to LR
on 17 ac
Sc
heduled 6/05
200
220
Multi-
Family
71
D
welling U
nits
6.63
471
G
PA/ZC
04-
1764
Kevin Pas
c
oe
R
-
IA to LR
on 41.89 ac
,
D
U
s
c
alc
'd bas
ed on KC
O
G
r
ate table
Sc
heduled 6/05
397
210
Single Family
134
D
welling U
nits
9.57
1,282
1
G
PA/ZC
04-
1765
Smithtec
h
R
-
IA to G
C
& LI on 40 ac
Sc
heduled 9/05
54
LI
20
ac
r
es
260
2
G
PA/ZC
04-
1765
Sc
heduled 9/05
54
820
G
C
(
R
etail)
217.8
1,000 SF
eq
9,558
340
3
G
PA/ZC
04-
1765
Sc
heduled 9/05
54
T
otal
9,558
G
PA/ZC
04-
1766
Etc
hever
r
y Pr
oper
ty
SR
to LR
on 80 ac
, D
U
s
c
alc
'd bas
ed on KC
O
G
r
ate
table
Sc
heduled 6/05
1018
210
Single Family
256
D
welling U
nits
9.57
2,450
G
PA/ZC
04-
1768
J
ef
f
W
illiams
R
educ
tion f
r
om c
ur
r
ent
entitlements
, LI to LMR
on
13 ac
D
EN
IED
03/05
186
220
Multi-
Family
130
D
welling U
nits
6.63
862
G
PA/ZC
05-
0338
King G
ar
dner
Far
ms
R
-
IA to LR
on 80 ac
, D
U
s
c
alc
'd bas
ed on KC
O
G
r
ate
table
Sc
heduled 9/05
1021
210
Single Family
256
D
welling U
nits
9.57
2,450
G
PA/ZC
05-
0403
C
al-
Ker
n D
ev. C
o.
R
-
MP on LR
58 ac
, 240 D
U
Sc
heduled 9/05
379
210
Single Family
240
D
welling U
nits
9.57
2,297
G
PA/ZC
05-
0412
Mas
s
ie
I to LMR
on 22.82 ac
, 112
D
U
Sc
heduled 9/05
195
220
Multi-
Family
112
D
welling U
nits
6.63
743
G
PA/ZC
05-
0414
H
er
nandez
I to LMR
on 40 ac
, 242 D
U
Sc
heduled 9/05
81
220
Multi-
Family
242
D
welling U
nits
6.63
1,604
G
PA/ZC
05-
0417
D
uenas
H
I to LMR
on 40 ac
, 240
D
U
Sc
heduled 9/05
81
210
Multi-
Family
240
D
welling U
nits
6.63
1,591
Pr
ojec
t N
o.
on key
map*
*
*
Sor
tkey
C
as
e T
ype
C
as
e N
o.
Pr
ojec
t N
ame
C
omments
Appr
oval Status
*
*
O
r
iginal
T
AZ
N
ew T
AZ
IT
E C
ode
D
evelopment T
ype
Var
iable
U
nits
AD
T
R
AT
E
AD
T
R
etail
O
f
f
ic
e/
Ins
titutional
Indus
tr
ial
R
ate
In % Split/
T
r
ips
O
ut %
Split/
T
r
ips
R
ate
In % Split/
T
r
ips
O
ut %
Split/
T
r
ips
AM Peak H
our
T
r
ips
PM Peak H
our
T
r
ips
G
ener
al Inf
or
mation
D
aily T
r
ips
Employees
G
PA/ZC
05-
0420
Pinnell
R
-
IA to SR
on 1 ac
, 4 D
U
Sc
heduled 9/05
1019
210
Single Family
4
D
welling U
nits
9.57
38
G
PA/ZC
05-
0423
Pas
c
oe Family
Inves
tments
R
-
IA to LR
on 95.65 ac
, 350
D
U
Sc
heduled 9/05
401
210
Single Family
350
D
welling U
nits
9.57
3,350
G
PA/ZC
05-
0425
H
ughes
Par
tner
s
, et al
R
-
IA, G
C
& LMR
to R
-
IA,
G
C
, U
ER
& LR
on 170 ac
Sc
heduled 9/05
854
G
PA/ZC
05-
0476
Lennar
, et al
R
-
IA to LR
on 76 ac
, D
U
s
c
alc
'd bas
ed on KC
O
G
r
ate
table
Sc
heduled 9/05
397
210
Single Family
243
D
welling U
nits
9.57
2,326
G
PA/ZC
05-
0519
BR
AN
D
N
EW
C
ASE
765
210
Single Family
1206
D
welling U
nits
9.57
11,541
(
Santa Bar
bar
a C
apital Pr
ojec
t)
863
1128
D
welling U
nits
T
hese C
ases ar
e on t
he C
ase List
sent
by
Planning but
not
y
et
mapped on t
he shapef
ile
G
PA
03-
0337
G
ener
al H
oldings
LR
to G
C
on 20ac
is
G
PA
por
tion, lar
ge r
es
idential
pr
ojec
t on bluf
f
s
, mos
tly in
T
AZ 343, s
ome in T
AZ 378
N
ot s
c
heduled yet, EIR
in
pr
ogr
es
s
343, 378
G
C
20
ac
r
es
eq
9,558
260
G
PA
04-
1012
G
lobal Inves
tment
(
Mc
C
utc
hen 110 EIR
&
Annex)
R
-
IA to LR
on 110ac
, N
W
&
SE c
or
ner
s
, Mc
C
utc
hen &
Pr
ogr
es
s
N
ot s
c
heduled yet, EIR
in
pr
ogr
es
s
399
210
LR
30
ac
r
es
G
PA
04-
1012
54
210
LR
80
ac
r
es
G
PA
04-
1012
C
omputed D
welling U
nits
=
352
G
PA/ZC
05-
0335
Panor
ama H
ighlands
C
o.
O
S-
P and H
R
to LR
on
23.17 ac
, D
U
s
c
alc
'd bas
ed
on KC
O
G
r
ate table
Sc
heduled 9/05
343, 377
210
Single Family
74
D
welling U
nits
9.57
708
Bef
or
e c
ompar
is
on f
or
deter
mination of
net c
hange, s
hows
tr
ips
will be r
educ
ed
220
Multi-
Family
255
D
welling U
nits
6.63
1,691
7
17
xxx
Smithtec
h_G
old_G
Sc
oped pr
ior
to 4/2004
C
as
e N
ot f
iled as
of
4/15/05
79
79
210
Single Family
D
etac
hed H
ous
ing
410
D
welling U
nits
9.57
3,924
8
18
xxx
Smithtec
h_Stine
Sc
oped pr
ior
to 4/2004
C
as
e N
ot f
iled as
of
4/15/05
404
404
820
Shopping C
enter
*
122
1,000 SF
eq
6,569
301
O
ther
Pr
ojec
ts
Added by Ker
n C
O
G
:
Shaf
ter
G
ener
al Plan U
pdate
N
ew C
os
tc
o/Panama Ln
150
C
anyons
Pr
ojec
t/N
W
Baker
s
f
ield
343
435
D
welling U
nits
N
o net c
hange f
r
om C
ounty entitlements