HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.14.2008 WB AGENDA PACKETCity of Bakersfield
Water Board
Regular Meeting of
May 14, 2008
Kern River at Coffee Road Bridge
Water Resources
File Packet
WATER BOARD
David Couch, Chair
Harold Hanson, Vice Chair
Zack Scrivner
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - 2:00 p.m.
Water Resources Building Conference Room
1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the March 5, 2008 regular meeting for approval — For Board Review and
Action
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
5. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT
A. Federal Emergency Management Agency Notification of Floodplain Management
Regulations — For Board Information
6. REPORTS
A. Kern River & Isabella Reservoir Operations Report - For Board Information
7. DEFERRED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Amendment No. 1 to Domestic Water Service Agreement with California Water
Service Company — For Board Review and Recommendation to City Council
B. Contract for Water Needs Determination Study for City Basic Agricultural Contracts
with Stetson Engineers, Inc. — For Board Review and Action
B A
K
E
R
S
F
I E
L
D
WATER BOARD
David Couch, Chair
Harold Hanson, Vice Chair
Zack Scrivner
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - 2:00 p.m.
Water Resources Building Conference Room
1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the March 5, 2008 regular meeting for approval — For Board Review and
Action
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
5. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT
A. Federal Emergency Management Agency Notification of Floodplain Management
Regulations — For Board Information
6. REPORTS
A. Kern River & Isabella Reservoir Operations Report - For Board Information
7. DEFERRED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Amendment No. 1 to Domestic Water Service Agreement with California Water
Service Company — For Board Review and Recommendation to City Council
B. Contract for Water Needs Determination Study for City Basic Agricultural Contracts
with Stetson Engineers, Inc. — For Board Review and Action
Water Board Agenda
May 14, 2008
Page 2
8. NEW BUSINESS continued
C. City of Bakersfield Wholesale Urban Water Management Plan — For Board
Information
D. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Participation — For Board Review and
Action
9. MMC EL(LAMEOUS
10. WATER BOARD STATEMEN7S
A. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation
Closed session pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9
(3 cases):
City of Bakersfield v. City of Shafter (CEQA), et al
Kern County Superior Court Case No. S- 1500 -CV- 260277 -RJO
2. City of Bakersfield v. North Kern Water Storage District, et al
Kern County Superior Court Case No. S- 1500 -CV- 260360 -AEW Tulare
County Superior Court Case No. 224933
3. City of Bakersfield v. Oildale Mutual Water Company
Kern County Superior Court Case No. S- 1500 -CV- 260384 -LPE
CLOSED SESSIOO J ACTIOf
13. ADJOURNMENT
Florn Core
Water Resources Manager
SAAB MINUTES 2008013AGENDAMay1408.doc
Water Board Meeting
May 14, 2008
MINUTES
A. Minutes of the March 5, 2008 regular meeting for approval — For Board Review and
Action
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 2:00 p.m.
Water Resources Building Conference Room
1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Couch at 2:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Couch, Vice -Chair Hanson, Member Scrivner
Absent: None
3. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the January 9, 2008 regular meeting for approval.
Motion by Hanson to approve the minutes. APPROVED ALL AYES
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Moved to be heard after Item 9.
5. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT
A. Appropriation ($265,000) to fund Provisionally Accredited Levee Engineering
Study.
Mark Lambert, Water Resources Superintendent, gave background update.
Motion by Hanson to appropriate $265,000, not to exceed $300,000, and
approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. WR07 -011 (08 -06 WB) with
Meyer Civil Engineering, Inc. and recommend to the City Council for
approval. APPROVED ALL AYES
6. REPORTS
A. Kern River & Isabella Reservoir Operations Report.
Steve Lafond, Hydrographic Supervisor, gave an update, no action taken.
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 2008 — Page 2
7. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Amendment to Pioneer Operating Agreement with Kern County Water Agency.
Florn Core, Water Resources Manager, gave a brief update.
Motion by Hanson to approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 96 -356
(08 -07WB) with the Kern County Water Agency and recommend to the City
Council for approval. APPROVED ALL AYES
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Ditch Eradication and Pipeline Easement Agreement with Virginia Engineering &
Construction Co.
Motion by Scrivner to approve the Ditch Eradication and Pipeline Easement
Agreement (08 -08WB) and forward to the City Council for approval.
APPROVED ALL AYES
B. Annual Weather Modification Program Participation.
Motion by Scrivner to approve weather modification program participation
for 2007 -08 season. APPROVED ALL AYES
C. Agricultural Water Price and Sand Sale Schedule for 2008 -2009.
Motion by Scrivner to approve the 2008 Water Price and Sand Sale
Schedule. APPROVED ALL AYES
D. Domestic Water Division Proposed Fiscal Year 2008 -2009 Rate Schedule.
Maurice Randall, Business Manager, stated a public hearing will be held before
the City Council on a proposed rate increase on June 11, 2008.
Motion by Hanson to approve the Domestic Water Division Proposed 2008-
2009 Rate Schedule and forward to the City Council for approval.
APPROVED ALL AYES
E. Independent Contractor's Agreement with Trans -West Security to Provide
Security Patrol Services for City Water Facilities.
Motion by Hanson to approve Agreement No. 08 -09WB with Trans -West
Security, in an amount not to exceed $40,000. APPROVED ALL AYES
9. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Staff Report on State Water Project Monterey Amendment in reference to metro
Bakersfield water use.
Water Board Member Hanson left the meeting at 2:30 p.m.
Florn Core, Water Resources Manager, gave a brief update. No action taken.
Bakersfield, California, March 5, 2008 — Page 3
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS continued
A. Jim Beck, General Manager, Kern County Water Agency, gave a presentation
regarding the State Water Project Monterey Amendment and answered
questions.
B. Fred Starrh, Board of Directors, Kern County Water Agency, made comments
regarding the Monterey Amendment.
David Couch, Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
Bobbie Zaragoza, Secretary
City of Bakersfield Water Board
May 14, 2008
Agency Notification of Floodplain Management
on
rnRr�y
_ Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER TO:
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 19P -N a
March 26, 2008
The Honorable Harvey Hall Community: City of Bakersfield, California
Mayor, City of Bakersfield Community No.: 060077
1501 Truxtun Avenue Map Panels Affected: 06029CINDOA, 1800E,
Bakersfield, CA 93301 1817E, 1818E, 1819E, 1825E, 1833E, 1834E,
y 1837E, 1840E, 1841E, 1842E, 1858E, 1861E,
u 1862E, 1865E, 1866E, 1870E, 2250E, 2257E,
2275E, 2276E, 2277E, 2281E, 2282E, 2307E,
2325E, 2750E
Dear Mayor Hall:
This is to formally notify you of the final flood hazard determination for your community in compliance
with Title 44, Chapter I, Part 67, Code of Federal Regulations. On May 1, 1985, the Department of
Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) that identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) the areas subject to inundation by
the base (1- percent - annual - chance) flood in the City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California. Recently,
FEMA completed a re- evaluation of flood hazards in your community. On September 28, 2007, FEMA
provided you with Preliminary copies of the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report and FIRM that identify
existing flood hazards in your community.
FEMA has addressed all comments received on the Preliminary copies of the FIS report and FIRM.
Accordingly, the FIS report and FIRM for your community will become effective on September 26, 2008.
Before the effective date, FEMA will send you final printed copies of the FIS report and FIRM.
Because the FIS for your community has been completed, certain additional requirements must be met
under Section 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, within 6 months from the
date of this letter. Prior to September 26, 2008, your community is required, as a condition of continued
eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to adopt or show evidence of adoption of
floodplain management regulations that meet the standards of Paragraph 60.3 d of the enclosed NFIP
regulations (44 CFR 59, etc.). These standards are the minimum requirements and do not supersede any
State or local requirements of a more stringent nature.
It must be emphasized that all the standards specified in Paragraph 60.3(d) of the NFIP regulations must be
enacted in a legally enforceable document. This includes adoption of the current effective FIS report and
FIRM to which the regulations apply and the other modifications made by this map revision. Some of the
standards should already have been enacted by your community in order to establish eligibility in the
NFIP. Any additional requirements can be met by taking one of the following actions:
1. Amending existing regulations to incorporate any additional requirements of Paragraph 60.3(d);
2. Adopting all the standards of Paragraph 60.3(d) into one new, comprehensive set of regulations; or
3. Showing evidence that regulations have previously been adopted that meet or exceed the minimum
requirements of Paragraph 60.3(d).
Communities that fail to enact the necessary floodplain management regulations will be suspended from
participation in the NFIP and subject to the prohibitions contained in Section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 as amended.
In addition to your community using the FIS report and FIRM to manage development in the floodplain,
FEMA will use the FIS report to establish appropriate flood insurance rates. On the effective date of the
revised FIRM, actuarial rates for flood insurance will be charged for all new structures and substantial
improvements to existing structures located in the identified SFHAs. These rates may be higher if
structures are not built in compliance with the floodplain management standards of the NFIP. The
actuarial flood insurance rates increase as the lowest elevations (including basement) of new structures
decrease in relation to the Base Flood Elevations established for your community. This is an important
consideration for new construction because building at a higher elevation can greatly reduce the cost of
flood insurance.
To assist your community in maintaining the FIRM, we have enclosed a Summary of Map Actions to
document previous Letter of Map Change (LOMC) actions (i.e., Letters of Map Amendment, Letters of
Map Revision) that will be superseded when the revised FIRM panels referenced above become effective.
Information on LOMCs is presented in the following four categories: (1) LOMCs for which results have
been included on the revised FIRM panels; (2) LOMCs for which results could not be shown on the revised
FIRM panels because of scale limitations or because the LOMC issued had determined that the lots or
structures involved were outside the SFHA as shown on the FIRM; (3) LOMCs for which results have not
been included on the revised FIRM panels because the flood hazard information on which the original
determinations were based is being superseded by new flood hazard information; and (4) LOMCs issued for
multiple lots or structures where the determination for one or more of the lots or structures cannot be
revalidated through an administrative process like the LOMCs in Category 2 above. LOMCs in Category 2
will be revalidated through a single letter that reaffirms the validity of a previously issued LOMC; the letter
will be sent to your community shortly before the effective date of the revised FIRM and will become
effective 1 day after the revised FIRM becomes effective. For the LOMCs listed in Category 4, we will
review the data previously submitted for the LOMA or LOMR request and issue a new determination for
the affected properties after the revised FIRM becomes effective.
The FIRM and FIS report for your community have been prepared in our countywide format, which means
that flood hazard information for all jurisdictions within Kern County has been combined into one FIRM
and FIS report. When the FIRM and FIS report are printed and distributed, your community will receive
only those panels that present flood hazard information for your community. We will provide complete
sets of the FIRM panels to county officials, where they will be available for review by your community
The FIRM panels have been computer - generated. Once the FIRM and FIS report are printed and
distributed, the digital files containing the flood hazard data for the entire county can be provided to your
community for use in a computer mapping system. These files can be used in conjunction with other
thematic data for floodplain management purposes, insurance purchase and rating requirements, and many
other planning applications. Copies of the digital files or paper copies of the FIRM panels may be
obtained by calling our Map Service Center, toll free, at 1- 800 - 358 -9616. In addition, your community
may be eligible for additional credits under our Community Rating System if you implement your activities
using digital mapping files.
If your community is encountering difficulties in enacting the necessary floodplain management measures,
we urge you to call the Director, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division of FEMA in Oakland, CA, at
510- 627 -7103 for assistance. If you have any questions concerning mapping issues in general or the
enclosed Summary of Map Actions, please call our Map Assistance Center, toll free, at 1- 877 -FEMA MAP
(1-877-336-2627).
Sincerely,
I EN
4
William R. Blanton Jr., CFM, Chief
Engineering Management Section
Mitigation Division
List of Enclosures:
National Flood Insurance Program Elevation Certificate and Instructions
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Effect That Revised Flood Hazards Have on Existing Structures
Lowest Floor Elevation Certifications for Flood Insurance Post Flood Insurance Rate Map Construction
Use of Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Data as Available Data
National Flood Insurance Program Regulations
Final Summary of Map Actions
cc: Community Map Repository
Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
SOMA -2
FINAL SUMMARY OF MAP ACTIONS
Community: BAKERSFIELD, CITY OF Community No: 060077
1. Insufficient information available to make a determination.
2. Lowest Adjacent Grade and Lowest Finished Floor are below the proposed Base Flood Elevation.
3. Lowest Ground Elevation is below the proposed Base Flood Elevation.
4. Revised hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.
5. Revised topographic information.
4. LOWS To Be Redetermined
The LOMCs in Category 2 above will be revalidated through a single revalidation letter that
reaffirms the validity of the determination in the previously issued LOMC. For LOMCs issued for
multiple lots or structures where the determination for one or more of the lots or structures has
changed, the LOMC cannot be revalidated through this administrative process. Therefore, we
will review the data previously submitted for the LOMC requests listed below and issue a new
determination for the affected properties after the effective date of the revised FIRM.
Date
Reason Determination
LOMC
Case No.
Issued
Project Identifier
will be Superseded
LOMR -F
199104410FIA
11/0711988
1
1. Insufficient information available to make a determination.
2. Lowest Adjacent Grade and Lowest Finished Floor are below the proposed Base Flood Elevation.
3. Lowest Ground Elevation is below the proposed Base Flood Elevation.
4. Revised hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.
5. Revised topographic information.
4. LOWS To Be Redetermined
The LOMCs in Category 2 above will be revalidated through a single revalidation letter that
reaffirms the validity of the determination in the previously issued LOMC. For LOMCs issued for
multiple lots or structures where the determination for one or more of the lots or structures has
changed, the LOMC cannot be revalidated through this administrative process. Therefore, we
will review the data previously submitted for the LOMC requests listed below and issue a new
determination for the affected properties after the effective date of the revised FIRM.
3/22/2008 Page 2 of 2
Date
Old
New
LOMC
Case No.
Issued
Project Identifier
Panel
Panel
NO CASES RECORDED
3/22/2008 Page 2 of 2
May 14, 2008
Information
w
C)
Q
O
/r�
vi
O
cc
w
CO
a
J
J
w
m
Q
Cl)
°d m
� w
O
J
LL w
o a
w
H
J p
� N
W
N
O
J
LL
J
a
a
Z
m
w
Z
m
w
Y
u.
SN S
0 LO
co c°v to
(SiSGg4U9a8(oJ Ua u014en813) IdOV u! 3JbaOlS
OL OOL o_ O. 0 0 0 o_
rn O� 8tq O m O N O Lo O 0 CD N ®- Om
o O0) O� O 0) O't 000 O � O� O(6 LO N L1i N d' N N M N Cri V N N N N N
I I I I I I I I I i I
I I I
I I I I I
I d I I I
I I O I I
I I o I I I
E (n
o
Z
I N I I
I I I I L
O
I I I }r
U)
I I I I
I I I I rn
I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I i
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I
I II I I 1
I I I 1
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
L
F
Z
I III
II I
I
iI
I I
I I
I
� I
II i
I I
II
I I
I I
O O O
O LO O
LO N O
N N N
�J�
O O O O
LO O LO O
V� LO N O
o LL
C) Cl)
O
o�
g
° N
I
LO N c
1 '
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I 1
I f
I I
I I
II
e 3
of
0) CII
4) II
I
y II
GN003S Had 133J o18no
O O O
Ln O U)
I- LO N
0
1p
O
O
L
U
cn
ao
O
6)
00
O
5
0
O
C
0
0
cq
00
O
Q
Q
co
0
co
2
O
U
N
O
O
Z
O
U
ISABELLA RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS REPORT
(All readings are for date of report (THURSDAY)
as of 0001, except as noted... cfs in italics) Date of Report: May 8, 2008
ISABELLA RESERVOIR
1
2565.61
Lake Elevation (ft.) 202842
Storage (AcFt) +1199
Change (AcFt) 1597 Inflow to Isabella (cfs)
2
568075
Storage Capacity 36%
% of Capacity 232740
Normal Storage 87% % of Normal Storage
For this Date
3
6663
Average Lake Area (Acres)
23806 Inflow (Month
AcFt) 11314 Outflow (Month AcFt)
4
1541
North Fork Mean 1599
North Fork @ 0600 Hours
251334 Accumulative Inflow (2008 Water Year)
5
930
Mean Outflow 554
Bore[ Canal 376
Main Dam Outlet 150780 Accum. Outflow (08 WY)
6
978
Outflow @ 0600 556
Bore] Canal @ 0600 Hours
422 Main Dam Outlet @ 0600 Hours
Hours
7
63
Lake Evap. (cfs) 0.33
Inches Evap. for 24 Hours
694 Lake Evap. (Month AcFt to Date)
8
0
Spillway Discharge for 24 Hours
247 South Fork near Onyx @ 0600 Hours
PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE
9
0.00
Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for 24 Hours 0.00
Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for Month
10
11.64
Seasonal Precip. Isabella
9.38 Normal for
124% Isabella Precip.
(Season: Oct 1 through Sep 30)
this Date
% of Normal
i
0.00
Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe
for 24 Hours 0.20
Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for Month
12
33.20
Seasonal Precip. Pascoe
33.43 Normal for
99% Pascoe Precip.
this Date
% of Normal
13
14.4
Upper Tyndall Creek
5.1 Pascoe
N/R Wet Meadow
14
76
Isabella Maximum Temperature
0.33 Isabella Max.
Precip. on Record For this Date 1955 Year of
Occurrence
15
50
Isabella Minimum Temperature
N/R 24 Hour Wind Movement (Miles)
NATURAL RIVER FLOW
16
1602
Natural Flow (cfs) 23871
Natural Flow (Month to Date)
104780 2008 Apr -Jul Runoff
17
2410
Mean Flow 66%
Natural Flow 1736
Median Flow 92% Natural Flow
For this Date
in % of Mean
For this Date in % of Median
18
8961
Max. on Record 391
Min. on Record
253957 Accum. Natural Flow (08 Water Year)
19
1916
Year of Occurrence 1977
Year of Occurrence
20
981
First Point Flow 11379
First Point (Month to Date)
153433 Accum. First Point (08 Water Year)
KERN RIVER FACTS & FIGURES:
'n this date in 1998-15" of rain was recorded at Lake Isabella, ending five consecutive days of
measurable precipitation. Over May 12 -13, 1998, another. 67" of rain fell on the lake, pushing the
May 1998 precipitation total to an all -time record high of 1.74 ". The single -day precipitation record
at Isabella for the month of May occurred on May 26, 1999 when .75" of rainfall was measured.
•
B A K E R S F I E L D
Produced by City of Bakersfield
Water Resources Department
(661) 326 -3715
tom;
rr E_ a
�P
..
C:
m
O O O O O O O O O
O LO O LO O LO O LO O
IT co c7 N N r r
(SOL13ul) 4ugj oo J94cm
Q
Q
.0
U
L
M
C
' N
�
cz R
:3 d
� N
N C
LL
O
co
7
E
7
U
V
a
C�
n�
C�
cz Q
O
cn
L
E
a�
U
U
0
L
E
i
0
Z
B120 (05/08/081124)
Department of Water Resources
California Cooperative Snow Surveys
May 1, 2008 FORECAST
OF UNIMPAIRED RUNOFF
(in thousands of acre -feet)
April -July Forecast
April Percent 80%
thru of Probability
July Average Range
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH COAST
Trinity River at Lewiston Lake 570 87%
Scott River near Fort Jones 160 80%
SACRAMENTO RIVER
Sacramento River above Shasta Lake 220 74%
McCloud River above Shasta Lake 310 79%
Pit River above Shasta Lake 790 74%
Total inflow to Shasta Lake 1350 74% 1110 - 1750
Sacramento River above Bend Bridge 1860 75% 1550 - 2390
Feather River at Oroville 1180 66% 900 - 1590
Yuba River at Smartville 630 63% 490 - 780
American River below Folsom Lake 760 61% 590 - 960
SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Cosumnes River at Michigan Bar 62 49% 25 - 110
Mokelumne River inflow to Pardee 290 63% 250 - 340
Stanislaus River below Goodwin Res. 500 71% 410 - 600
Tuolumne River below La Grange 870 71% 770 - 1040
Merced River below Merced Falls 400 63% 340 - 510
San Joaquin River inflow to Millerton Lk 880 70% 730 - 1050
TULARE LAKE
Kings River below Pine Flat Res. 970 79% 850 - 1110
Kaweah River below Terminus Res. 230 80% 190 - 290
Tule River below Lake Success 37 58% 29 - 59
Kern River inflow to Lake Isabella 330 72% 270 - 400
NORTH LAHONTAN
Truckee River,Tahoe to Farad accretions 150 57%
Lake Tahoe Rise, in feet 0.7 51%
West Carson River at Woodfords 33 61%
East Carson River near Gardnerville 115 62%
West Walker River below Little Walker 105 68%
East Walker River near Bridgeport 41 64%
Water -Year Forecast and Monthly Distribution
Oct Aug Water 80%
thru Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul & Year Probability
Jan Sep Range
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inflow to Shasta 1335 610 525 370 450 300 230 405 4225 3910 - 4750
Sacramento, Bend 2010 1005 700 455 660 440 305 520 6095 5695 - 6775
Feather, Oroville 500 240 360 355 470 240 115 170 2450 2125 - 2920
Yuba, Smartville 225 140 180 230 285 95 20 25 1200 1045 - 1360
American, Folsom 205 140 185 255 330 155 20 14 1304 1130 - 1510
Cosumnes, Mich.Bar 30 27 22 23 28 9 2 1 142 100 - 195
Mokelumne, Pardee 25 30 50 80 140 65 5 2 397 350 - 450
Stanislaus, Gdw. 75 55 75 135 220 120 25 15 720 620 - 830
Tuolumne, LaGrange 110 100 125 190 365 260 55 15 1220 1110 - 1430
Merced, McClure 55 65 50 105 180 95 20 8 578 515 - 700
San Joaquin, Mil. 95 70 105 175 350 265 90 40 1190 1020 - 1380
Kings, Pine Flat 85 75 100 200 390 290 90 45 1275 1150 - 1430
Kaweah, Terminus 31 31 39 54 90 70 16 7 338 290 - 400
Tule, Success 16 18 16 11 17 7 2 1 88 75 - 115
Kern, Isabella 55 35 55 80 115 95 40 35 510 440 - 590
Notes:
50 year averages are based on years 1956 to 2005. Unimpaired runoff represents the
natural water production of a river basin, unaltered by upstream diversions, storage,
or by export or import of water to or from other watersheds. Forecasted runoff assumes
median conditions subsequent to the date of forecast. Runoff probability ranges are
statistically derived from historical data. The 80% probability range is comprised of
the 90% exceedence level value and the 10% exceedence level value. The actual runoff
should fall within the stated limits eight times out of ten.
• C' t
1
Operations
History
Date of First Water
Flow Delivery:
October 6, 2005
Amount of
Recharge (acre -feet)
by Year:
2005 =
1,004
2006 =
3,948
2007 =
2,405
2008 =
460 (thru
April)
Sources of
Recharge Water:
Kern River Water
State Project Water
Friant -Kern Water
Banked
Groundwater
Operations Data provided by City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
CLIMATE PREDICTION CENTER
THREE -MONTH OUTLOOK MAY - JUNE -JULY 2008
Temperature
a
C 3<
EC
im-
Lllw�l
THREE —MONTH OUTLOOK
TEMPERATURE PROBABILITY
0.5 MONTH LEAD
VALID MJJ 2008
MADE 17 APR 2008
z
EC
C3
Precipitation
9
THREE —MONTH OUTLOOK
PRECIPITATION PROBABILITY
0.5 MONTH LEAD
VALID MJJ 2008
MADE 17 APR 2009
r"
s
FFC MEANS EQUAL
HRNCES FOR R. N. B�
R MEANS ABOVE
N WINS NORMAL
B MEANS BE LON
0A''.K
s
9
EC EC
90 Eg EEppp
CHRNtES$FORUA N. B
N MEANS ABOVE
N MCAN5 NORMAL
B MEANS BELON
Water Board Meeting
NEW BUSINESS
May 14, 2008
A. Amendment No. 1 to Domestic Water Service Agreement with California Water
Service Company — For Board Review and Recommendation to City Council
AGREE ENT O. * -2500
•TER BOARD A REE ENT NO.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TOO AGREEMV ENT NCO. 92-250
DOHESTI C WATER OPERATIONS AGREEMENT
THIS A E DD ENT MO. 1 TO AGREEMV AGREE ENT NO 92-250 =1# and
entered into on by and between UT" OF
:AKERSFIELDD a Charter and municipal rp s C - and,
CALIFORNIA WATER SERViCE COMPANY, -a California p bli
corporation, ("Company" herein).
RECITALS
other that Company, in which event Company shall bill City for Company's
engineering, supervision, inspection and construction overhead charges at
the rate of ten percent (10%) of the amount billed to City by said person
other than Company as the total cost of such Extraordinary Maintenance
item. City agrees to pay Company within thirty (30) days after receipt of
such bill.
2. Sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) are hereby added to Section 6.
EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE. as follows:
(b). SERVICE PIPE REPLACEMENT. Service pipe replacements
shall occur when the same service line leaks more than once (1 time)
within a twelve (12) month period. A long side service that meets the
criteria for replacement which is deemed to have a second service (split
service) originally installed in a common trench, but does not meet the
above criteria for replacement, in such instance Company shall notify City,
so the service can be considered for replacement per City written
approval. The replacement of such services shall be considered a capital
improvement and replaced under a yearly replacement program, and paid
for wholly by City.
(c). ENCROACHMENT OR STREET CUT PERMITS. City shall pay
for all encroachment or street cut permits as issued by the Publics Works
Department of the City of Bakersfield within City service area boundaries
for installation, replacement, and/or repair of City Domestic Water System
facilities only.
3. Section 7. EMERGENCY REPAIRS, Section 11. CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS., sub-sections (a), (b), and (c), and Section 12. SUBDIVIDER
INSTALLATQNS,, sub-sections (a), and (b) are hereby amended as follows:
In each instance within all three above named Sections (7, 11, and 12),
replace four percent (4%) with five percent (5%), and replace eight
percent (8%) with ten percent (10 %).
4. Except as amended herein, all provisions of Agreement No. 92-250 shall
remain in full force and effect.
(SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS)
IN
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment
No. 1 to Agreement No. 92 -250 to be executed, the day and year first -above written.
"City„
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
HARVEY L. HALL
Mayor
DAVID R. COUCH
Water Board Chairman
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
By: 4
FLORN CORE
Water Resources Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
IS
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
COUNTERSIGNED:
By:
NELSON SMITH
Finance Director
"Company"
CALIFORNIA ERS SERVICE
COMPANY[ WpyfT
® ,
Y
MARTI A. K PELNICKI
Vice President, CFO
By: ®,
R R ETTA
Vice - President
3
L. 1
Water Board Meeting
8. NEW BUSINESS continued
May 14, 2008
B. Contract for Water Needs Determination Study for City Basic Agricultural Contracts
with Stetson Engineers, Inc. — For Board Review and Action
CO ^J U�T��JT EF^,�E"vT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on , by and
between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation ( "CITY" herein), and
STETSON ENGINEERS INC. ( "CONSULTANT" herein).
('�FCITI�L S
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has submitted a proposal concerning City of
Bakersfield Non - utility Water Supply Agreements; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents CONSULTANT is experienced, well
qualified and a specialist in preparing Kern River Water Supply Agreements; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is required and does currently have errors and
omissions insurance which will protect the City of Bakersfield in the event of
professional errors or omissions by the CONSULTANT; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is aware that information may come into
CONSULTANT's possession which may impact the CITY's legal position in the event
such information was released to outside parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and
CONSULTANT mutually agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF WORK. The scope of work is described as: Review and
evaluate the provisions of the Kern River water agreements entered into with Kern —
Tulare Water District (Agreement 76 -61), Cawelo Water District (Agreement 76 -62),
Rag Gulch Water District (Agreement 76 -63), and North Kern Water Storage District
(Agreement 76 -69) according to Section 3.1(b) of the agreements. (EXHIBIT "A "). The
scope of work shall include all items contained in CONSULTANT's Proposal (Exhibit
"A "). CONSULTANT's Proposal is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set
forth. CONSULTANT's services will include all the procedures necessary to properly
complete the task CONSULTANT has been hired to perform whether specifically
included in the scope of work or not.
2. COMPENSATION. Compensation for all work, services or products called
for under this Agreement shall consist of a total payment of Seventeen Thousand
Dollars ($17,000.00) which shall be paid for completed services after receipt of an
itemized invoice approved by the Water Resources Manager or his designee. The
compensation set forth in this section shall be the total compensation under this
Agreement including, but not limited to, all out -of- pocket costs and taxes. CITY shall
pay only the compensation listed unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties.
SA2008 CONTRACTS \StetsonEngCons u1tantA9rMay6.doc
May 6, 2008
-- Page 1 of 8 Pages --
3. PAYMENT PROCEDURE. CONSULTANT shall be paid for services
rendered after receipt of an itemized invoice for the work completed and approved by
CITY in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Payment by CITY to
CONSULTANT shall be made within thirty (30) days after receipt and approval by CITY
of CONSULTANT's itemized invoice.
4. KEY PERSONNEL. At request of CITY, CONSULTANT shall name all
key personnel to be assigned to the work set forth herein. CONSULTANT shall provide
background for each of the key personnel including, without limitation, resumes and
work experience in the type of work called for herein. CITY reserves the right to
approve key personnel. Once the key personnel are approved CONSULTANT shall not
change such personnel without the written approval of CITY.
5. INCLUDED DOCUMENTS. Any bid documents, including, without
limitation, special provisions and standard specifications and any Request for
Proposals, Request for Qualifications and responses thereto relating to this Agreement
are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth.
F. STARTING WORD. CONSULTANT shall not begin work until authorized
to do so in writing by CITY. No work will be authorized until the contract has been fully
executed by CONSULTANT and CITY.
7. TITLE TO DOCUMENTS. All documents, plans and drawings, maps,
photographs and other papers, or copies thereof prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant
to the terms of this Agreement shall, upon preparation, become the property of CITY.
8. LICENSES. CONSULTANT shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in
effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits and
approvals which are legally required for CONSULTANT to practice its profession.
9. CONFIDENTIALITY. During the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT
will be dealing with information of a legal and confidential nature, and such information
could severely damage CITY if disclosed to outside parties. CONSULTANT will not
disclose to any person, directly or indirectly, either during the term of this Agreement or
at any time thereafter, any such information or use such information other than as
necessary in the course of this Agreement. All documents CONSULTANT prepares
and confidential information given to CONSULTANT under this Agreement are the
exclusive property of the CITY. Under no circumstances shall any such information or
documents be removed from the CITY without the CITY's prior written consent.
10. NEWS RELEASES /INTERVIEWS. All news releases, media interviews,
testimony at hearings and public comments relating to this Agreement by
CONSULTANT shall be prohibited unless authorized by CITY.
I1. NO WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against
another party any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that
party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the
terms of this Agreement.
S \ 2008 CONTRACTS \StetsonEngConsultantAorMay6 doc
May 6, 2ooa
-- Page 2 of 8 Pages --
12. GOVERNING LAW. The laws of the State of California will govern the
validity of this Agreement, its interpretation and performance. Any litigation arising in
any way from this Agreement shall be brought in Kern County, California.
13. FURTHER ASSURANCES. Each party shall execute and deliver such
papers, documents and instruments, and perform such acts as are necessary or
appropriate, to implement the terms of this Agreement and the intent of the parties to
this Agreement.
14. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing
and shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective
upon depositing in the United States mail. The parties shall be addressed as follows, or
at any other address designated by notice:
CITY: CITY OF BAIKERSFIELD
Water Resources Department
1000 Buena Frusta Road
Bakersf eId, CA 93311
CONSULTANT: STETSON ENG1NEERS INC.
861 Village Oaks Drive, Suite 1000
Covina, CA 91724
15. ASSIGNMENT. Neither this Agreement, nor any interest in it, may be
assigned or transferred by any party without the prior written consent of all the parties.
Any such assignment will be subject to such terms and conditions as CITY may choose
to impose.
16. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall
inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the contract and their heirs,
administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns, and
whenever the context so requires, the masculine gender includes the feminine and
neuter, and the singular number includes the plural. This Agreement may be executed
in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered as an original and be
effective as such.
17. EXHIBITS. In the event of a conflict between the terms, conditions or
specifications set forth in this Agreement and those in exhibits attached hereto, the
terms, conditions or specifications set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. All exhibits
to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated in this
Agreement, whether or not actually attached.
18. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. This contract sets forth the entire
Agreement between the parties and supersedes all other oral or written representations.
This contract may be modified only in a writing signed by all the parties. If any
modification of this Agreement results in a total compensation which will exceed Forty
Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00), such modification must be approved by the City
Council.
5:12008 CONTRACTS \Stetson EngConsu1tantAgrMay6.dcc
May 6, 2008
-- Page 3 of 8 Pages --
E9. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. CONSULTANT stipulates that corporately;
or individually, the firm, its employees and subconsultants have no financial interest in
either the success or failure of any project which is dependent upon the result of the
work prepared pursuant to this Agreement.
20. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual signing this Agreement on
behalf of entities represents and warrants that they are, respectively, duly authorized to
sign on behalf of the entities and to bind the entities fully to each and all of the
obligations set forth in this Agreement.
21. TERM_. Unless terminated sooner as set forth herein this Agreement shall
terminate on September 52006 (date).
22. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. If at any time CITY becomes dissatisfied
with the performance of CONSULTANT under this Agreement, CITY may terminate this
Agreement on ten (10) days written notice. Written notice shall be given pursuant to the
"Notices" paragraph of this Agreement. In the event of early termination,
CONSULTANT shall be compensated only for work satisfactorily completed up to the
date of termination and delivered to and accepted by CITY.
23. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS. CONSULTANT shall, at
CONSULTANT's sole cost, comply with all of the requirements of Municipal, State and
Federal authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to this
Agreement, and shall faithfully observe in all activities relating to or growing out of this
Agreement all Municipal ordinances and State and Federal statutes, rules or regulations
and permitting requirements now in force or which may hereafter be in force including,
without limitation, obtaining a City of Bakersfield business tax certificate (Bakersfield
Municipal Code Chapter 5.02) where required.
24. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. This Agreement calls for the
performance of the service of CONSULTANT as an independent contractor.
CONSULTANT is not an agent or employee of CITY for any purpose and is not entitled
to any of the benefits provided by CITY to its employees. This Agreement shall not be
construed as forming a partnership or any other association with CONSULTANT other
than that of an independent contractor.
25. DIRECTION. CONSULTANT retains the right to control or direct the
manner in which the services described herein are performed.
26. EQUIPMENT. CONSULTANT will supply all equipment, tools, materials
and supplies necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.
27. INSURANCE. In addition to any other insurance or bond required under
this Agreement, the CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of this
Agreement the following types and limits of insurance ( "basic insurance requirements"
herein):
512003 "I"T r.11.11,11,11,117111-1 1-
May 6, 2008
-- Page 4 of 8 Pages --
2701 Professional liability insurance, providing coverage on claims
made basis for errors and omissions with limits of not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) aggregate; and
27.2 Autornobile llalb liity insurance, providing coverage on an
occurrence basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property
damage and personal injury, with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)
per occurrence; and the policy shall:
27,2,1 Provide coverage for owned, non -owned and hired autos.
27.3 Broad form cornrnercia�eral lia�il °otry in��, unless
otherwise approved by the CITY's Risk Manager, providing coverage on an occurrence
basis for bodily injury, including death, of one or more persons, property damage and
personal injury, with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per
occurrence; and the policy shall:
27.3.1 Provide contractual liability coverage for the terms of this
Agreement.
27,3,2 Contain an additional insured endorsement in favor of the
CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and
volunteers.
27.4 Workers' compensation insurance with statutory limits and
employer's liability insurance with limits of not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) per occurrence; and the policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation in
favor of the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
27.5 Except for professional liability, all policies required of the
CONSULTANT shall be primary insurance as to the CITY, its mayor, council, officers,
agents, employees or designated volunteers, and any insurance or self- insurance
maintained by the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and designated
volunteers shall be excess of the CONSULTANT's insurance and shall not contribute
with it.
27.6 Except for workers' compensation, insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a Bests' rating as approved by CITY's Risk Manager, but in no event less
than A:V. Any deductibles, self- insurance retentions or insurance in lesser amounts, or
lack of certain types of insurance otherwise required by this Agreement, or insurance
rated below Bests' A:V must be declared prior to execution of this Agreement and
approved by the CITY in writing.
27.7 Unless otherwise approved by CITY's Risk Manager, all policies
shall contain an endorsement providing the CITY with thirty (30) days written notice of
cancellation or material change in policy language or terms. All policies shall provide
that there shall be continuing liability thereon, notwithstanding any recovery on any
policy. Copies of policies shall be delivered to CITY on demand.
SA2008 CONTRACTS \Stetson EngConsultantAgrMay6.doc
May 6, 2008
-- Page 5 of 8 Pages --
27.8 The insurance required hereunder shall be maintained until all work
required to be performed by this Agreement is satisfactorily completed as evidenced by
written acceptance by the CITY.
27.9 The CONSULTANT shall furnish the CITY's Risk Manager with a
certificate of insurance and required endorsements evidencing the insurance required.
The CITY may withdraw its offer of contract or cancel this contract if certificates of
insurance and endorsements required have not been provided prior to the execution of
this Agreement.
27.10 Full compensation for all premiums which the CONSULTANT is
required to pay on all the insurance described herein shall be considered as included in
the prices paid for the various items of work to be performed under this Agreement, and
no additional allowance will be made therefor or for additional premiums which may be
required by extensions of the policies of insurance.
27.11 It is further understood and agreed by the CONSULTANT that its
liability to the CITY shall not in any way be limited to or affected by the amount of
insurance obtained and carried by the CONSULTANT in connection with this
Agreement.
27.12 Unless otherwise approved by the CITY, if any part of the work
under this Agreement is subcontracted, the "basic insurance requirements" set forth
above shall be provided by, or on behalf of, all subcontractors even if the CITY has
approved lesser insurance requirements for CONSULTANT.
28. THIRD PARTY CLAIMS. In the case of public works contracts, CITY will
timely notify CONSULTANT of third party claims relating to this contract. CITY shall be
allowed to recover from CONSULTANT, and CONSULTANT shall pay on demand, all
costs of notification.
29. INDEMNITY.
29.1 CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY,
its officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of
action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or
judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or caused by
CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT's employees, agents, independent contractors,
companies or subcontractors in the performance of, or in any way arising from, the
terms and provisions of this Agreement whether or not caused in part by a party
indemnified hereunder, except for CITY's sole active negligence or willful misconduct.
29.2 In the event CONSULTANT is a "design professional" as defined in
Civil Code Section 2782.8, the CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims,
actions, causes of action or demands, against them, or any of them, before
administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, that only arise out of, pertain
to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT.
S V7008 C ACTS \StetsonF_ngConsu
ONTRlt - ntAgrMay6.doc
May 6, 2008
-- Page 6 of 8 Pages --
30. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It is the
product of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this
Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the
interpretation of this Agreement.
is:
311. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR, The Contract Administrator for the CITY
Maurice Randall, Business Manager
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, California 93311
Telephone (661) 326 -3715
CONSULTANT's Project Manager shall be:
Stephen B. Johnson, P.E.
STETSON ENGINEERS INC.
861 Village Oaks Drive, Suite 100
Covina, CA 91724
Telephone (626) 967 -6202
30.11, The Contract Administrator and the Project Manager shall be the
primary contact persons for CITY and CONSULTANT. It is expressly understood that
only the City Council may approve modifications to the contract, which modifications
must be in writing.
31. ACCOUNTING RECORDS. CONSULTANT shall maintain accurate
accounting records and other written documentation pertaining to all costs incurred in
performance of this Agreement. Such records and documentation shall be kept at
CONSULTANT's office during the term of this Agreement, and for a period of three
years from the date of the final payment hereunder, and said records shall be made
available to CITY representatives upon request at any time during regular business
hours.
CONSULTANT's Federal Tax ID Number 94- 2452155
CONSULTANT is a corporation? Yes X No (please check one)
33. NOWNTEREST. No officer or employee of CITY shall hold any interest
in this Agreement (California Government Code section 1090).
34. RESOURCE ALLOCATION. All obligations of CITY under the terms of
this Agreement are subject to the appropriation and allocation of resources by the City
Council.
S: \2008 CONTRACTS \StetsonEng ConsultantAgr\Aay6.doc
May 6, 2008
-- Page 7 of 8 Pages --
III kNI T NESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed, the day and year first above written.
in
"C ITY"
0;y, ml
HARVEY L. HALL
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
Insurance:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
FLORN CORE
Water Resources Manager
COUNTERSIGNED:
la
NELSON SMITH
Finance Director
"CONSULTANT'
STETSON ENGINEERS INC.
STEPHEN E. JOHNSON, P.E.
Vice President
S. \2008 CONTRACTS \S[etsonEny Consultant 4yrMay6.dcc
May 6, 2008
-- Page 8 of 8 Pages --
STUTSON
FNGINIFfZS INC
1113 -07
861 village Oak Drivi" Suites 100 Covina, California 917)4 • (626) 9674,202
FAX: (626) 3311-7061 email, acts 'sta�t�i7e�c�i};ineers.coi�e
'1 1 ?I 1 t I
I SAX' li' >> :+ , -' h 11111 - ���i,�il: •.. ',1•..nr.�u;;nu���r. t nn.
(�It i u�x k�l.. `�ai `.l; :i ^. i i 11:`5
May 6, 2008
Mr. Flom Core
Water Resources Manager
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Reply to: Covina
Subject: City of Bakersfield Non - utility Water Supply Agreements
Dear Mr. Core:
Stetson Engineers Inc. (Stetson) is pleased to provide the City of
Bakersfield (City) with this proposal to evaluate the provisions of the Kern River water
agreements entered into with Kern — Tulare Water District (Agreement 76 -61), Cawelo
Water District (Agreement 76 -62), Rag Gulch Water District (Agreement 76 -63), and
North Kern Water Storage District (Agreement 76 -89). This review and evaluation will
be performed in accordance with Section 3.1(b) of the four Agreements.
The sum of these four Agreements is for 70,000 acre -feet per year of non -
utility water supply. In addition, the City uses Kern River water in association with the
"2800 Acre Banking Program ", the water is sold to California Water Service Company
for use at surface water treatment plants, and there are other existing and planned
uses. The provisions of the Agreements indicate the City will review its current and
projected demands for water 1) to meet the current agreements, 2) for use within City
boundaries, and 3) for use on City -owned property. The City will also determine future
availability of Kern River supply. Subsequently, the City is required to notify the water
districts of the quantity of water that may be available through an agreement extension,
if any.
Stetson proposes the following tasks to assist the City with its review of
non - utility water supplies and demands, potential availability of non - utility water, and
determination of the 2007 cost of the "Extension Quantity" of water.
Task 1: Stetson will work with the City to verify the delivery of Kern River
agreement water between 1977 and 2007. Stetson will review this
information to determine whether the water districts have received
the contracted amounts, and if additional contract deliveries may be
required.
h
EXHIBIT "A"
,_ is t - t 1 i �l �" is i i� i) t J f {) l i IM ). i 1: A r
(. I �_, (�) ) 1.) I ".+ i � I �_} 1 � l ! !. 1) l.i i 1 .. ) 1 -i �'1 �) I 1� I ( � I 1\ .)
Mr. Florn Core
May 6, 2008
Page 2
-Mask 2: Stetson will work with City staff to quantify the future Kern River
water supply that will be available.
Table 3: Stetson will confirm the quantity of Kern River non - utility water
required to meet the City's current /projected demands and correlate
that information with information in the City's wholesale Urban
Water Management Plan regarding projected demands.
Table 4: Using the projected City demands for non - utility water, Stetson will
quantify the amount of Kern River water (Extension Quantity) that
may be available currently and in future years (as demands
increase) for on -going sale to the four water districts. In the event
less than 70,000 acre -feet per year is projected to be available,
Stetson will prepare a preliminary allocation of non - utility water
using the proration in Section 3.1 (b) of the agreements, after
providing first priority water to North Kern Water Storage District,
Task 5: Stetson will develop a preliminary "Extension" price pursuant to
Section 4.1 (b) of the "typical" contract using 2007 data. (Although
the extension price is based on a 5 -year average, Stetson will
calculate the 2007 Extension Price.)
The proposed budget for these tasks is a not -to- exceed amount of $16,500. This
includes two meetings with the City to discuss the findings of our analysis. All work will
be performed on a time and materials basis and the City will be invoiced only for time
required to complete the assignment. The not -to- exceed amount will not be increased
without prior authorization by the City. Stetson is prepared to begin work following
written authorization to proceed, and anticipates the work assignment will require about
six to eight weeks to provide a draft report.
Please feel free to contact me or Kevin Smead should you have any questions.
Sincergly,
-- Stenff61 B.'Johns n, P.E.
Vice Pres4� '
Stetson Engineers I C.
J:1Jobs11 1 13\07-water contracts\Florn Core Ltr..doc
May 14, 2008
;sale Urban Water Management Plan — For Board
Water Board Meeting
NEW BUSINESS continued
May 14, 2008
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Participation — For Board Review and
Action
Draft
Scope of Services
San Joaquin Valley Portion of Kern County
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Introduction and Background
The San Joaquin Valley Portion of Kern County (Region), as defined for the purposes of this
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan ( IRWMP), consists of that portion of the Kern
County Water Agency (KCWA) service area within the San Joaquin Valley and any service
areas of other water management agencies within Kern County, San Joaquin Valley, that may
choose to join the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG).
A critical goal of this IRWMP is linkage to IRWMPs prepared by (or that may be prepared by)
other regions within the Kern County portion of the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. Linkage of
these IRWMPs will provide mutual benefits and potential joint funding partnership opportunities
for entities in the within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. It is anticipated that there will be
opportunities to link this IRWMP to plans from other adjacent areas. To enable such linkage to
other IRWMPs, the geographic area and stakeholders for this IRWMP would be broadly defined.
According ly.this IRWMP will address the entire Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley.
These broader discussions will provide a common basis upon which to link to other IRWMPs,
due to KCWA's wide powers and authorities, which enable it to promote regional programs and
projects. The intent is to create an Agency -wide plan that would cover all programs allowable
under KCWA's formation act, but assumes that subregions within the Kern County portion of the
San Joaquin Valley may do separate plans that could be later linked to the Agency -wide plan.
This IRWMP is being prepared in accordance with the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water,
Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 50). This IRWMP will also meet
requirements as stipulated in the Proposition 50 Integrated Regional Water Management
(IRWM) Grant Program Guidelines (November 2004). Pending revisions to the Guidelines by
the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) based on the requirements of the Clean
Water, Parks and Coastal Protection Bond of 2006 (Proposition 84) resulting in additional or
reduced work, an estimate of time and expenses for the additional or reduced work will be
submitted to the RWMG for review and approval prior to implementing a revised scope.
Currently, Proposition 50 requires that to be eligible for later grant funding, an IRWMP must be
prepared by three public agencies, two of which have statutory authority over water. Eligible
grant recipients are public agencies and non - profit organizations. Other entities, including but
not limited to investor -owned water utilities regulated by the Public Utilities Commission may be
part of the regional water management group responsible for applying for a grant and may
perform work funded by the grant. For the purposes of this Scope of Work, it is assumed that
KCWA will act as an umbrella agency for its service area, with other entities participating in the
RWMG.
The IRWMP is supposed to solicit the input of a diverse assembly of stakeholders. DWR
particularly emphasizes the need to have the input of local land use planning agencies. Other
IRWMP efforts have solicited the participation of such groups as local land use conservancies,
Draft Scope of Services March 2008 Page 1
San Joaquin Valley, Portion Kern County IRWMP
local chambers of commerce, agricultural interests, town councils, mutual water companies,
resource protection agencies, and non - profit environmental interest groups. .
i' a (it C= �► C i4
The following task descriptions have been developed by the Kennedy /Jenks Consultants project
team as the approach for developing the IRWMP. These tasks reflect the requirements of the
IRWMP Development as identified in the DWR IRWMP Guidelines (November 2004,
Attachment A). These tasks are based on our understanding of the project needs and
objectives at this time, and may be adjusted to meet the needs of the RWMG, interested parties
and to meet current or revised requirements of the Guidelines.
Task 1 A Project Management
The Project Manager will assure that proper resources and staff are dedicated to this project to
participate in nine (9) meetings and to allow timely completion of the work products. The Project
Manager will also implement and incorporate internal Quality Assurance and Quality Control
programs. The meetings are generally planned as follows:
• Meeting 1. Kickoff and Public Hearing (intent to prepare an IRWMP)
• Meeting 2. Identification of Regional Issues and Introduction to Objectives
• Meeting 3. Water Management Strategies and Objectives
• Meeting 4. Objectives, Public Comment on Introduction and Regional Setting
Sections, and
• Meeting 5. IRWMP preferences, Prop 84 elements, Project Screening
• Meeting 6. Presentation on Projects
• Meeting 7. Initial Screening Results, Discussion on IRWMP Implementation, Discussion
on Obligations of Project Proponent
• Meeting 8. Final Screening Results, Discussion on IRWMP Implementation
• Meeting 9. Extra Meeting /Public Workshop
Task 1011 — Project Administration and Management
Project administrative and management tasks will include: managing staff; coordinating with the
IRWMP RWMG and Facilitation Consultant (if one is selected); monitoring the scope, schedule,
and budget; planning and monitoring project activities; and preparing the Draft and Final
Reports. The Project Manager will be the primary point of contact with the RWMG and will
develop and maintain close communications with all project participants. Monthly email status
reports will be provided in a format specified by the RWMG.
Facilitation Consultant services can be useful during the IRWMP process, particularly for
discussions regarding issues and conflict identification and for project prioritization agreement.
Other IRWMP processes have contracted directly with a Facilitation Consultant, while others
have had the Technical Consultant provide facilitation services through a subcontractor. If the
RWMG chooses to utilize a Facilitation Consultant later in the IRWMP process for the San
Draft Scope of Services Page 2
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kern County IRWMP
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Joaquin Valley Portion of Kern County, rather than from the outset of the process, it is expected
that the Facilitation Consultant will contract directly with the RWMG. If the RWMG wishes to
utilize a Facilitation Consultant from the outset, the contract can be either through
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants or directly with the RWMG (see Attachment B for an example of
optional scope of work for facilitation services).
Task 1.2 — Meetings and Workshops
Up to three key Kennedy /Jenks project staff, including the Project Manager, will attend up to
twelve (12) meetings with the RWMG and stakeholders, including a kick -off meeting and eleven
(11) monthly status meetings with the RWMG and stakeholders. Some meetings may include
the use of an outside facilitator as deemed necessary by the RWMG..
As drafts of the IRWMP sections become available, they will be distributed approximately one
week prior to the next Stakeholder meeting and discussed to obtain all interested participants'
comments at the subsequent project meetings. Meetings will thus provide an opportunity to
review draft sections, and will allow drafting of the plan to move along to the next section, which
will then be discussed at the next meeting. These draft sections and reviews will serve as the
"technical memo deliverables" for describing water management strategies, prioritization of
strategies and Plan implementation and other Plan content. Draft sections will consist of the
components of the IRWM Plan, and will include:
A. Regional Water Management Group Description
B. Region Description
C. Objectives
D. Water Management Strategies
E. Integration
F. Regional Priorities
G. Implementation
H. Impacts and Benefits
I. Technical Analysis and Plan Performance
J. Data Management
K. Financing
L. Statewide Priorities
M. Relation to Local Planning
N. Stakeholder Involvement
O. Coordination
(Some components will be combined into the same sections of the Plan).
Kennedy /Jenks will assist with production of meeting agendas, and will assist the Facilitation
Services Consultant (if one is selected) in the review of meeting minutes, email lists of meeting
participants, database of meeting participants' contact information, email reminders of meetings,
and handout materials. One workshop to set priorities for objectives is included as one of the
monthly meetings, with two subsequent meetings allowing for refinement of objectives. It is
assumed that if a Facilitation Services Consultant is not selected to assist with meetings, Kern
County Water Agency designated staff will assume the responsibility for leading meetings and
preparing meeting minutes.
Draft Scope of Services Page 3
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kern County IRWMP
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Invoices will be prepared and submitted to KCWA on the 10th of every month.
Task 2 - Objectives of the IRWMP
Task 2.1 — Objectives and Priorities ((guidelines Components C, F and L)
This task will include identification and development of the objectives of the IRWMP to be
adopted by the RWMG and stakeholders. This task also includes development of a process to
set priorities to achieve the objectives. This discussion will address major water - related
objectives and water - related conflicts in the Region, and will also describe the benefits of an
IRWMP. Criteria to be utilized for setting priorities will be developed. A meeting will be held to
review proposed objectives and set priorities (as budgeted in Task 1 above). The meeting may
require the services of a facilitator (as described in Task 1.2 above and in Attachment B). As
assumed in Task 1.2, if a Facilitation Services Consultant is not selected to assist with
meetings, Kern County Water Agency designated staff will assume the responsibility for leading
meetings and preparing meeting minutes. The regional priorities for implementation and
justification for the proposed priorities will be provided, as will the identification of the short -term
and long -term implementation priorities. Objectives and priorities will be refined in conjunction
with the projects and strategies identified and described in Task 4 to ascertain their compatibility
with statewide priorities. The objectives and priorities will be the basis for project ranking in
Task 4.2.
Task 2.2 — Planning Horizon and Planning Process
This task will include discussion of the appropriate planning horizon for the IRWMP. A planning
period of 25 years for water demand projections will be considered initially in the IRWMP so that
they will be integrated with the existing KCWA IN Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP),
other local UWMPs, and other water supply planning documents. As the IRWMP process
continues, agreed -upon projections for build -out of the Region will be incorporated. Build -out
projections will be provided by land -use planning agencies and other stakeholders and
documented in the IRWMP. This task will also include development of a comprehensive
planning process that will involve meetings with the RWMG, identified stakeholders, and other
possible partnerships. The planning process will emphasize the benefits of a regional,
integrated effort and will define the strategy necessary to meet the water needs of the Region
and to meet the objectives of the IRWMP. The mechanisms and processes that will be used to
facilitate stakeholder involvement and communication during implementation of the IRWMP will
be documented for this task. In addition, possible constraints to plan implementation will be
identified.
Task 3 — San Joaquin Valley Portion of Kern County, Region Description
Task 3,1 — Data Collection and Compilation (Guidelines Component B)
This task involves the compilation, review, and summarization of existing documents and
background information on these agencies, and the identification of whether or not supply and
demand data will be available from all parties (if not, some assumptions and projections will
need to be made). This task will also include identification of available hydrologic data
(groundwater and surface water quality and quantity), demographic data, local and regional
Draft Scope of Services Page 4
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kern County IRWMP
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
planning documents, and other data and documents that will be necessary for the IRWMP
documentation. The agencies that are covered in this IRWMP, and those that are not, will be
clearly identified and documented in a map with clearly defined boundaries as described below.
Task 3.2 — Geographic Boundaries (Guidelines Component B)
The geographic boundaries of the Region will be described and will include an explanation of
why it is an appropriate area for the IRWMP. This task will also include the preparation of
figures showing the Region's internal boundaries, such as water service areas of the
wholesalers, agency boundaries and directorial divisions, as appropriate, wastewater collection
and treatment agency jurisdictions, groundwater basin boundaries, watershed boundaries, land
use jurisdictions, major water related infrastructure, disadvantaged community information, etc.
It is assumed that GIS shape files and associated data files provided by RWMG agency
members will be utilized by the RWMG agency members to prepare maps and that only minimal
digitizing will be required.
Task 3.3 — Roles and Responsibilities (Guidelines Component r4)
The RWMG is responsible for development and implementation of the IRWMP. The RWMG's
management responsibilities related to water and involvement in the planning process will be
described. The role of the RWMG and the partnership agencies will also be described.
Task 3.4 — Hydrologic Features (Guidelines Component B)
Existing data will be utilized to provide a surface water and hydrogeologic summary of the
Region. The evaluation will be based on available information from various 2005 Urban Water
Management Plans, the ID4 Water Conditions Report, various annual water reports and
compilations prepared by other local agencies, as well as DWR and USGS reports and other
existing reports, plans and data. The evaluation will also involve the compilation, review, and
summary of available information, including the following: surface geomorphology and
watershed areas; surface water sources; groundwater basin boundaries; subsurface geology
(faults or other geologic features that may affect groundwater flow); hydrogeologic information
such as aquifer parameters, groundwater flow and depth to groundwater; locations and pumping
rates of wells in the area; and groundwater quality. The 2005 UWMPs will be used to provide a
description of the municipal and industrial water supplies and demands for the next 20 -25 years
in appropriate parts of the Region; other information will be used to determine water supply and
demand for those areas in the region not covered by a 2005 UWMP. For those areas impacted
by flood management issues, flood management capital needs will be described based on
available information.
Task 3.5 — Environmental Issues (Guidelines Component B)
Based on a review of available documents, relevant environmental issues in the Region will be
summarized. A description of the social and cultural makeup, cultural and social values, and
economic conditions and trends of the Region will also be provided. The potential impact of
these issues on water supply planning, flood management planning and other technical
components will be discussed.
Draft Scope of Services Page 5
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kern County IRWMP
KennedylJenks Consultants
Task 4 - Development of the IRWMP
Task 4.1 — Identify Proposed Projects
This task will identify and describe the proposed projects that further the objectives of the plan
(as described in Task 2.1). A stakeholder meeting will be held at the onset of this task to
identify and describe known projects, their level of development (conceptual, planning, pre -
design, or design) and the schedules for project development so that possible linkages can be
identified. The projects will be linked to water management strategies as identified in Task 4.2
below.
`bask 4.2 — Water Management strategies (Guidelines Component V)
Appropriate water management strategies will be identified and developed to meet the
objectives of the plan, considering the following technical components and issues included in
the Proposition 50 IRWM Grant Proposal Guidelines (November 2004):
• Water supply reliability
• Groundwater management
• Water quality protection and improvement
® Water recycling
• Water conservation
• Storm water capture and management
• Flood management
• Recreation and public access
• Ecosystem restoration
Wetlands enhancement and creation
• Environmental and habitat protection and improvement
• Conjunctive use
• Desalination
• Imported water
• Land use planning
• Non -Point Source (NPS) pollution control
• Surface storage
• Watershed planning
• Water and wastewater treatment
• Water transfers
Based on information received from DWR, it is likely that all 24 of the California Water Plan
water management strategies will be included in the Guidelines for Proposition 84 and thus will
need to be analyzed in the Plan. These consist of:
Draft Scope of Services Page 6
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kern County IRWMP
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
• Reduce Water Demand
• Agricultural Water Use Efficiency
• Urban Water Use Efficiency
• Improve Operational Efficiency and Transfers
o Conveyance
o System Reoperation
o Water Transfers
• Increase Water Supply
o Conjunctive Management and Groundwater Storage
o Desalination — brackish /seawater
o Precipitation Enhancement
o Recycled Municipal Water
o Surface Storage — CALFED
o Surface Storage — Regional /Local
• Improve Water Quality
• Drinking Water treatment and Distribution
• Groundwater /Aquifer Remediation
• Matching Quality to Use
o Pollution Prevention
o Urban Runoff Management
• Practice Resource Stewardship
• Agricultural Lands Stewardship
• Economic Incentives (loans, grants, water pricing)
• Ecosystem Restoration
• Floodplain Management
• Recharge Areas Protection
• Urban Land Use Management
• Water- Dependent Recreation
• Watershed Management
The following management strategies are currently being put forth as potential new strategies
that will be outlined in the California Water Plan Update 2009:
o Forest Management
• Improve Flood Management
Draft Scope of Services Page 7
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kern County IRWMP
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
• Modify Flooding
• Modify Susceptibility to Damage
• Modify Impacts of Flooding
• Preserve Natural Floodplain Resources
This task represents an important process in the development of a viable IRWMP. It is
assumed that a wide variety of specific projects that can be categorized within the water
management strategies listed above will be identified by the RWMG and stakeholders. Based
on Kennedy /Jenks' experience with IRWM planning efforts (including those for Western
Municipal Water District, Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County, the Antelope Valley and the
Upper Santa Clara River Watershed), water management strategy project development will
require significant follow -up discussion efforts (telephone, conference call, e -mail, meeting, etc.)
with project proponents to define projects to a sufficient level to allow analysis and comparison.
Projects will be screened on two levels initially for basic project parameters. The first level
screening consists of an evaluation of the projects relative to benefits to the Region, California
Environmental Quality Act compliance, time frame for implementation, and ability to provide
matching funds. Those water management strategies and projects that cannot be defined will
not be carried forward for further analysis but will be listed in the IRWMP to provide a record of
their submittal (and to assist future IRWMP revisions and updates). The second screening is for
those projects that can be sufficiently defined to evaluate comparative costs, benefits,
synergies, and other topics as described below.
For the second level of screening, the projects within each water management strategy will be
evaluated with input from project proponents sufficient to develop a comparative cost estimate,
benefits, synergies with other water management strategies, issues with implementation, etc.
Comparative cost estimates will be based on unit costs that have been collaboratively vetted
and agreed upon. It is expected that the second screening will result in a ranked list of projects
using objectives and priorities developed in Task 2.1 to be carried forward into Task 5.1.
It is likely, based on the Guidelines and previous experience, that numerous projects will be put
forward by proponents. For budgetary purposes, it is assumed that up to twenty (20) water
management strategies projects will remain after initial screening and input from the RWMG and
stakeholders that can be sufficiently described to develop comparative cost estimates, benefits
issues, etc. as described above. Several of the water management strategies will likely link
closely with those necessary to accomplish groundwater management as described in Task
4.2.1 below.
Task 4.2.9 - AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan
Compliance with AB 3030 is required for funding eligibility for all groundwater projects under
Proposition 50 and Proposition 84. If various IRWMP participants not located in an area
covered by an AB 3030 plan wish to submit groundwater projects for their areas or subbasins, a
separate scope and budget for preparation of an AB 3030 plan would be required.
Draft Scope of Services Page 8
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kern County IRWMP
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Task 4.3 — Strategy Integration (Guidelines Component E)
This task includes development of how the selected water management strategies work
together to achieve regional benefit and meet the objectives for the IRWMP. In addition, this
task includes discussion about how the objectives might not be achieved by individual
strategies /projects, and will discuss the added benefits of integration of multiple water
management strategies.
Task 4.4 — Strategy Alternatives
This task includes development and evaluation of the alternatives that could achieve the optimal
combination of water management strategies.
Task 5 - Implementation Plan (Guidelines Component G)
This task lays out the future implementation plan for the IRWMP so that its recommendations
can be carried out through time. Regular "implementation updates" will be given by plan
participants at regular RWMG meetings to assist in determining implementation status of the
projects.
Task 5.1 — Project Selection
In this task, specific actions through which the IRWMP will be implemented will be identified,
including the ongoing /planned actions, projects, and studies selected from Task 4.1 and 4.2.
Task 5.2 — Project Scheduling
This task will include a schedule /timeline for identified active and planned projects, and the
identification of the entities responsible for their implementation. It will also include a discussion
of the priorities (identified in Task 2.1) that will direct the implementation plan, and any linkages
or interdependence between projects.
Task 5.3 - Impacts and Benefits (Guidelines Component H)
This task will include evaluation of the potential negative impacts from plan implementation.
The advantages of the regional plan as opposed to individual local efforts will also be described.
The interregional benefits and impacts will be identified and the benefits to disadvantaged
communities (DACs) will be described. Kennedy /Jenks will assist in the identification of DACs,
which will be described in the regional setting portion of the IRWMP. However, it is assumed
that Kern County Water Agency designated staff will be conducting the outreach to the DACs.
This is an important task as there are likely to be a high number of DACs within Kern County,
and outreach to them to encourage engagement in the IRWMP process will be an important
criterion in future funding opportunities. This scope assumes that the entity(s) conducting the
outreach will describe the process and outcomes to Kennedy /Jenks, in sufficient detail to be
described adequately in the IRWMP.
Draft Scope of Services Page 9
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kern County IRWMP
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Task 6 - Technical Analysis and Plan Performance (Guidelines Component 1)
This task provides for a discussion of the data, technical methods, and analyses used in plan
development. Any data gaps will be identified (as discussed in Task 3.1). Measures and
monitoring systems that will be used to evaluate project/plan performance and opportunities to
adapt project operations based on monitoring of performance will be discussed, and the
economic and technical feasibility of the projects will be demonstrated.
Task 7 -[data 111anagement (Guidelines Component J)
This task includes discussion of how data will be managed and disseminated to stakeholders
and the public, as well as how data collection will support statewide data needs. Suggestions
for filling in data gaps identified in Task 6 will be provided. The status of existing groundwater
and surface water monitoring efforts will be assessed and summarized including identification of
agencies conducting monitoring, purpose of monitoring, frequency and constituents of
monitoring, and how monitoring data are maintained, to whom they are reported and in what
form. Based on this assessment, the possibility of integrating data into the SWRCB's Surface
Water Ambient Monitoring and Groundwater Ambient Monitoring Assessment Programs (as
described in subtask 4.2.1, AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan) will be evaluated. Data
from Task 3.1 will also be used to evaluate efficient data management methods. Appropriate
Data Management activities will be documented. A discussion of the mechanisms and
processes that could serve as a framework for Data Management will be provided. The budget
for this task does not include actual development of such a framework at this time. It is
assumed for budgetary purposes that this task includes documentation of activities necessary
for a Data Management framework but does not include full development or implementation of a
Data Management system.
Task 8 - Finance Plan (Guidelines Component K)
Potential funding sources to implement the IRWMP will be identified. Level of detail about
funding options will depend on whether the participants want a "broad brush" description of
funding options or if a detailed financing plan is desired. For this proposal, it is assumed that
the deliverable will be a broad summary of the funding opportunities available to the Region.
Funding sources such as grant and loan programs will be described. In particular, this task will
include a discussion of funds available through the Proposition 50 IRWM Program. The
requirements and draft guidelines to be eligible for funding through the Proposition 50 IRWM
Program will be described. Beneficiaries will be identified, and a discussion of ongoing support
and financing for operation and maintenance of implemented projects will be discussed.
To calculate potential capital needs, comparative cost estimate information from Task 4.2,
Water Management Strategies will be incorporated into this task.
Task 9 - Relation to Local Planning (Guidelines Component M)
How the identified actions, projects, and studies relate to existing local planning documents will
be discussed, as well as their relation to the IRWM water management strategies. Coordination
with local land -use planning decision - makers will be demonstrated. It is assumed that
information from participants (including the City of Bakersfield and the Kern County Regional
Draft Scope of Services Page 10
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kem County IRWMP
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Planning Department) about existing planning documents, actions and projects and
relationships to those that are needed in the future will be provided.
Task 10 - Stakeholder Involvement and Coordination (Guidelines Components N
and O)
Task 10.1 — Public Outreach
Appropriate public outreach activities will be documented. A discussion of the mechanisms and
processes that facilitate stakeholder and public involvement and communication will be
provided. It is assumed for budgetary purposes that this task includes documentation of
activities necessary for a public outreach plan. Most IRWMP processes involve the utilization of
a region - specific website to enable stakeholders and the public to access information about plan
development. Such a website is usually hosted and maintained by one of the RWMG public
agency members. An "optional" task for website design and hosting by Kennedy /Jenks
Consultants would require development of a more detailed scope and budget.
Attachment B provides an example scope of work for facilitation services describes a typical
IRWMP facilitation process, if the RWMG wishes to consider utilizing professional facilitation
services for the stakeholder process.
Task 10.2 — Environmental Justice
This task will utilize census tract and other data to allow identification of the extent of the
presence of disadvantaged communities in the plan area, and other environmental justice
concerns. This task also includes identifying the organizations /agencies, if any, that are active
in the plan area and how to encourage their involvement in the planning process. The outreach
activities to environmental justice contacts will be documented in Task 10.1.
Task 11 - Outline, Administrative, Draft and Final IRWMP
Task 11.1 — IRWMP Outline and Individual Sections
An outline for the IRWMP will be prepared for RWMG review. As drafts of the individual
sections of the IRWMP become available they will be provided to the RWMG for review, as
described in Task 1.2. They will then be distributed for stakeholder review and comment.
Task 11.2 —Administrative Draft IRWMP
After comments on the outlines and text of all sections are received they will be compiled into an
Administrative Draft IRWMP. Twenty 20 copies of the Administrative Draft IRWMP will be
submitted to the RWMG for review.
Task 11.3 — Draft and Final IRWMP
The Public Review Draft IRWMP will be prepared and twenty (20) hard - copies and one
electronic Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) will be submitted to the RWMG, posted to
the IRWMP website and made available to all participating entities. After incorporating RWMG
Draft Scope of Services Page 11
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kern County IRWMP
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
and participating stakeholder comments, the final IRWMP will be prepared and fifty (50) copies
and one (1) electronic PDF copy will be submitted to the RWMG. The Final IRWMP will be
published in an attractive, reader - friendly format (submission of graphics and photography from
RWMG agencies and stakeholders will be encouraged). After submittal of the Final IRWMP to
the RWMG and participating stakeholders, the IRWMP shall be adopted by the necessary public
agency entities in a timely manner to support identified funding opportunities. An "optional" task
for production of a separate "promotional piece" brochure or handout would require
development of a more detailed scope and budget.
Task 12 - Optional Services
Task 12.1 Integration and Linkage with Other Kern County, San Joaquin
Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plans
There are several options for linking /integrating IRWMPs, as listed below. It is recommended
that the preferred option be reviewed by DWR to determine acceptability and correspondence
with the 2004 Guidelines (or revised Guidelines that may be promulgated). Depending on the
option chosen, a detailed scope of work and budget will be prepared.
• Prepare a "functional equivalent," as allowed in the 2004 Guidelines, of an IRWMP
based on existing IRWMPs that have been prepared. Use this as a basis for a grant
application.
• Prepare a Master Executive Summary of the various existing IRWMPs, demonstrating
common themes, common geography, common problems and objectives, and similar
projects identified by all IRWMPs. Each IRWMP would prepare its own grant application
package and would provide the Executive Summary to show the Linkages.
• Prepare an IRWMP in which each subregion is described in individual chapters, and
which also contains common chapters where all the objectives of each subregion are
contained, and a common chapter where all the projects are displayed and prioritized.
This process produces a totally new IRWMP (this approach was used for the
Watersheds Coalition of Ventura County IRWMP).
• The San Joaquin Valley Portion of Kern County IRWMP would serve as the "backbone"
plan for the Region, which consists of the San Joaquin Valley portion of the KCWA
service area and would utilize KCWA's broad regional powers and authorities to promote
regional programs and projects. Other IRWMPs prepared in any subregions could be
formally appended to this IRWMP and submitted in entirety in grant application
packages.
Task 12.2 — Proposal Solicitation Packages Review and Proposition 84 Round
I Applications Preparation
This task could include reviewing final Proposal Solicitation Packages (PSP) and /or helping to
prepare and submit Proposition 84, Proposition 1 E, FloodSafe, or other current funding
opportunity applications. Depending on the needs of the RWMG or other project proponents,
detailed scopes and budgets will be prepared for each funding round.
Draft Scope of Services Page 12
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kern County IRWMP
Kennedy /Jenks Consultants
Task 12.3 - Geographic Information System (GIS) Mapping
GIS will be used to produce map products identifying the numerous participants and their
boundaries. It is recommended that a combination of the GIS databases of the Kern County
Regional Planning Department, City of Bakersfield, Kern County Water Agency and other
available databases be used to accomplish this. Depending on the needs of the RWMG for
additional assistance from Kennedy /Jenks with GIS mapping activities, a more detailed scope
and budget will be prepared.
Task 12.4 - IRWMP Website
As noted in Task 10. 1, it is recommended that a project website be utilized to provide an
ongoing source of information and to allow stakeholder interaction during the development of
the IRWMP. Such a website is usually hosted and maintained by one of the RWMG public
agency members. Depending on the needs of the RWMG for additional assistance from
Kennedy /Jenks for website services, additional scope and budget would be required.
Schedule
The estimated time for completion of the IRWMP is up to one year from the start of the project.
A draft schedule is provided as an attachment.
Budget
The estimated budget for the tasks and work plan described in the Scope of Services is
provided as an attachment.
Attachment A: Department of Water Resources IRWMP Guidelines (November
2004)
Attachment B: Example of Optional Scope of Work for Facilitation Services
Attachment C: Estimated Schedule
Attachment D: Estimated Budget
Draft Scope of Services Page 13
San Joaquin Valley Portion Kern County IRWMP
Water Board Meeting
11. CLOSED SESSION
May 14, 2008
A. Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation
Closed session pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9
(3 cases):
1. City of Bakersfield v. City of Shaffer (CEQA), et al
Kern County Superior Court Case No. S- 1500 -CV- 260277 -RJO
2. City of Bakersfield v. North Kern Water Storage District, et al
Kern County Superior Court Case No. S- 1500 -CV- 260360 -AEW Tulare
County Superior Court Case No. 224933
3. City of Bakersfield v. Oildale Mutual Water Company
Kern County Superior Court Case No. S- 1500 -CV- 260384 -LPE
BAKE
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
`
0 WATER BOARD
'LIFO
MEETING DATE: May 14, 2008 AGENDA SECTION: Closed Session
ITEM:
TO: David Couch, Chairman
Harold Hanson, Commissioner
Zack Scrivner, Commissioner
FROM: Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney
DATE: May 1, 2008
APPROVED
DEPARTMENT HEAD
CITY ATTORNEY l'/
SUBJECT: Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation
Closed session pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9.
(3 cases):
• City of Bakersfield v. City of Shafter (CEQA), et al
Kern County Superior Court Case No. S- 1500 -CV- 260277 -RJO
• City of Bakersfield v. North Kern Water Storage District, et al
Kern County Superior Court Case No. S- 1500 -CV- 260360 -AEW
Tulare County Superior Court Case No. 224933
• City of Bakersfield v. Oildale Mutual Water Company
Kern County Superior Court Case No. S- 1500 -CV- 260384 -LPE
SAWATER\WaterSoard \07- 08 CISe Admin\CISe &Admin.0S14- 08ExtLit.doc
5/1/2008