Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/91CITY OF DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION PAUL DOW, Manager GENE BOGART, Director of Water Resources FLORN CORE, Assistant Director of Water Resources MIKE SIDES, Sanitation Superintendent AGENDA WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Thursday, November 7, 1991 WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE ROOM NEW OFFICE - 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD 5:15P.M. Call meeting to order. Roll Call - Board Members: Salvaggio, Chairman, Peterson, Brunni 1) Approve minutes of July 16, 1991 and August 21, 1991. 2) Statement of Water Policy. FOR BOARD DISCUSSION. 3) City of Huntington Park request for opposing water surcharges to reduce consumption. FORBOARD CONSIDERATION. 4) Request by Greg Bynum an'd'Associates, Inc. to extend Carrier Canal pipeline agreement on~ year. FOR BOARD ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. 5) ' Update on I.D. 4 water well no. 1. FOR BOARD INFORMATION. 6) Correspondence from Georg~ Nickel dated OctOber 8, October 14, October 16, October 17 an~ October 24, 1991. FOR BOARD DISCUSSION. 7) Mainline extension reassignments. FOR BOARD INFORMATION. 8) Staff comments. 9) Board comments. 10) Adjournment 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD * BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 * (805) 326-3715 AGENDA WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING Water Resources Conference Room - IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING WATER BOARD MEETING - Councilmember Mark Salvaggio - Chairman Councilmember Ken Peterson Councilmember Conni Brunni 1) Request by Kern County Water Agency to discuss current water issues (referred by City Council). Tom Clark - KCWA Manager Ann Mathews - KCWA/ID4 Director Michael Radon - KCWA/ID4 Director Henry Garnett - KCWA/ID4 Director SPECIAL MEETING WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1991 4:30P.M. The meeting was called to order at 4:48p.m. by Chairman Salvaggio in the Water Resources Conference Room. The roll was called as follows: Present: Salvaggio, Chairman; Brunni Absent: Peterson Assembly Bill No. 2090 (Katz Bill) was referred to the Water Board at the last Council Meeting by Councilmember McDermott. This item was brought before the Board by Mr. Paul Dow and Mr. Tom Stetson. Since the meeting was called, staff has found that the Bill had been "killed" in the Senate, at least for this year. It was made a two year Bill, which means it can be renewed after the first of the year when the Senate goes back into session. Staff had intended to recommend that the Board oppose this Bill, but at this point will ask that it be "tabled" until it is brought before the Senate in January. At that time staff will examine the Bill again to see what changes have been made, if any, and report back to the Water Board. It was recommended by Councilmember Salvaggio that a report be sent to City Council explaining the problems of this Bill and letting them know that the Board will continue to monitor and update them' on its ~status if it comes up again at the next legislative~session. Councilmember Brunni stated she wants the Board's objections to the Katz Bill known to 'the City Council so they will be aware of the problems this would cause for the City of Bakersfield and other major water purveyors. It was also recommended by Councilmember Salvaggio that a letter be sent.to Mr. Katz with copies to the appropriate Assemblymen and Senators regarding the problems our City has with this Bill. A motion was made by Councilmember Salvaggio that the above report and letter be done. Motion passed. The Kern County Water Agency correspondence to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board was brought before the Board by Mr. Florn Core. This item was discussed at great length with suggestions from the Board to respond to this correspondence with a letter to the Agency. Staff recommended at this time it would be best to wait for an answer from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and proceed from there. The next Water Board meeting d~te was set for October 22, 1991 at 5: 15p.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:32p.m. Mark Salvaggio, Chairman ! ' ' City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board SPECIAL MEETING WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1991 5:15p.m. The meeting was called to order.by Chairman Salvaggio at 5:17p.m. in the Water Resources Conference Room. The roll was called as follows: Present: Salvaggio, Chairman; Peterson; Brunni The minutes of the Special Meeting held April 23, 1991 were apProved by the Board. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session regarding potential litigation of water matters (per Government Code No. 54956.9(b) (1). The meeting re-opened to the public. The Bakersfield Urban Water Supply Plan has been reviewed by City staff and Mr. Tom Stetson, consulting engineer. Mr. Stetson commented on the plan with the recommendation that the plan is not an acceptable program for the City of Bakersfield. City staff and Mr. Stetson drafted a letter to be sent to the Kern County Water Agency stating the City's view regarding the plan. Boardmember Brunni recommended that the signature page be changed so all Water Board members could sign the letter. A motion was made by Boardmember Peterson to send the letter to the Kern County Water Agency with this noted change. Motion passed. Mr. Core presented SB959, the Water Utility Surcharge Bill, before the Board giving reasons why staff is opposed to the Bill. The Board was in agreement and suggested that staff continue to monitor this Bill's progress and keep them informed. For Board information Mr. Core presented before the Board the current status of the Paladino water service area problem in northeast Bakersfield. There are 22 homes in this area that are in need of water service, plus the possibility of future development. The homeowners have written letters, filed a petition with the City Council, had townhall meetings and formed a committee. The homeowners were originally in the Olcese Water District, but de-annexed due to high costs. Re-annexation to Olcese was explored but re- jected by the Paladino group. Several ways of obtaining water service and funding were mentioned, but none were acceptable to the homeowners. The possibility of future, large scale development occurring either on the east- side or westside would increase the chances of getting water service to this area. Staff will keep Boardmembers and Council apprised of the situation. An update of Kern River property acquisitions was brought before the Board by Mr. Bogart. There were two parcels discussed. Property number one (Anderson Parcel) is a key piece of riverbed and floodplain land lo~ated in the Kern River Parkway immediately west of Coffee Road. The owners are asking $210,000 for this 8.acre parcel; it has been appraised by the City at $74,000. The City will pay only the appraised amount for this property and feel the property is not worth condemnation proceedings to obtain. The second piece of land is Berrenda Mesa property. At this time Berrenda Mesa is using the property to spread and recover water to bolster their water supply. The City has looked at this property as an extension of the Kern River Parkway as part of the equestrian trails, open-space, and bicycle trail, and it is the last separation between the property the City 6wns upstream and downstream. The City is interested primarily in the area that encompasses the floodplain and riverbed. The City will continue to monitor the situation on both properties and update the Board as needed. Mr. Bogart gave a status report to the Board on the progress of the' new Water Facilities Building. At this time the building is now 80% complete and is on schedule, and should be fully operational on October 1, 1991. Staff suggested dedication of the building during the first week in December 1991. For Board information Mr. Bogart presented an update on the 1~91 water supply. W~nat has set 1991 apart from other dry years is the awareness in the community of the importance of water banking in Kern County, and people have become very conscious of how workable these programs have been. With the help of the banking programs the City has not been deficient on Basic Contract deliveries this year. The City was able to satisfy a portion of the Basic Contract deliveries with groundwater the City had banked in flood years. This will free-up future surface water for other uses. In 1991, the City agricultural customers ended up in much better shape on the Kern River than'agricultural users on the State Water Project. The next Water Board meeting date was brought before the Board by Mr. Dow. It was decided by the Board that the Water Board would have its regular meetings on Thursday's at 5:15p.m., as needed. At 7:26p.m. a motion to adjourn was made by Boardmember Brunni. Motion passed. Mark Salvagglo, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board RAFT 10115/91 CITY OF BAKERSFI~ STATEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES POLICY The City of Bakersfield is located in a semi-arid desert region that relies on its water supply from the underlying groundwater basin, the Kern River, and imported sources. The underlying groundwater basin is, and for many years has been, in a state of severe overdraft. Therefore, the~ity of Bakersfield is vitally interested in preserving the quantity and quality .of its Kern River water supplies and water rights as.well as all of the water-resources of the Kern' County portion of the San Joaquin 'Valley. The City owns extensive pre-1914 appropriative water rights which have priority dates among the earliest on the Kern River. The Kern River was declared fully appropriated on a year round basis on October 29, 1964 in Decision D 1196 by the California 'State Water Resources Control Board, which deCision was reaffirmed by the State'Board in its order WR 89-25 dated November 16, 1989, and again re-affirmed by 'the State Board in Order WR 91-07 dated august 22, 1991. The City has also acquired appropriative rights to percolating groundwater through extraction of such water and ..applying it to beneficial uses. The City owns substantial Conservation storage rights in Lake Isabella through a contract with the United States of America. The City also owns most of the bed and flood plain of the Kern River through the City and downstream to Interstate Highway 5. It also owns land adjacent to the river comprising some 2800 acres where it has formally developed groundwater spreading and recovery facilities. Thus, it is timely for the City of Bakersfield to restate its policy to preserve, protect and promote the efficient uSe of its water resources. Following is a summary of the City's stated policies.: 1. City owned Kern River water shall not be utilized outside the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Portion of Kern County. 2. City water which returns by deep percolation to the underlying groundwater basin through the delivery for, and beneficial uses by, the City and/or its customers or contractors shall remain the property of the.City and subject to recapture by the City. 3. When irrigated lands now being served by Kern River water become urbanized,-the water rights related to these lands . · shall be protected to insure that such water will continue to be available to satisfy the water requirements of said lands. 4. Consistent with existing City "User Pay" policies, costs for water service shall be paid by revenues derived from those who benefit from the water service. 5. The City shall be concerned with potential contamination of its water supplies and will Continue monitoring activities to prevent degradation of. its water supply sources. Water quality for dOmeStic and agricultural uses shall be maintained to federal, state and local standards. 6. The City will continue to preserve its water resources to provide for the future orderly growth of the City, and those benefits derived f~om the water rights and'water properties acquired by the City from Tenneco-West, Inc. in 1976 shall remain dedicated'to the residents and taxpayers within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Bakersfield. 7. The City shall continue to encourage conservation, recycling and reclamation of all water resources to make it available for beneficial uses in a safe and efficient manner. 8. The City of Bakersfield supports groundwater management including conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater under local programs that enhance and benefit the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. 9.. The City shall continue its policy to acquire river flood plain properties deemed essential to carry out and Implement the goals of the Kern River Plan; Including the City's adopted Kern River Channel Maintenance Program and the Kern River Parkway Plan. 10. The City will participate with other Kern River interests in the protection, enhancement and efficient management of all Kern River water. 11. Ail records of Kern River water supplies, including Watermaster records and all spreading and extraction of water, shall continue to be maintained by the citY's Water Resources Department. 12. Pursuant to the Kern River Plan, the City shall continue to encourage all opportunities to establish a minimum annual flow of water in .the Kern River channel between Manor Street and Stockdale Highway Bridge. 13. The City Manager, City Attorney, City Water Consultant and the Water Resources Director shall be responsible for monitoring all water related activities concerning the City of Bakersfield and shall report any deviations from the above stated policies to the City Water Board for remedial action. City of HUNTINGTON PARK california M A [~ I J Y N A F~ 0 Y [ I 1 [ C M C July 3, 1991 Mayor and Council Members City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On June 24, 1991 at their adjourned regular meeting, the City Council of the City of Huntington Park adopted the enclo'sed Resolution No. 91-40, A Resolution of the City of Huntington Park Opposing Water Company Surcharges for Reduced Water Consumption. Your support in opposing these surcharges is requested. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ' Maril~' '- City Clerk M~.B/hag Enc. RESOLUTION NO. 91-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK OPPOSING WATER COMPANY SURCHARGES FOR REDUCED WATER CONSUMPTION.. WHEREAS, California is in the fifth consecutive year of below-normal· precipitation; and . WHEREAS, precipitation in Southern California has also been below average and water levels in the main San Gabriel groundwater basin have declined more than forty feet for the last few years'; and WHEREAS, in light of the seriousness of this situation, water companies throughout Southern California urged their customers to voluntarily reduce their water consumption bY ten percent to mitigate the effects of the drought; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Southern California undertook this challenge seriously by reducing their water demands by eight percent in 1988, further reduced their demands in 1989 and 1990, and have been subject to mandatory water reduction programs; and WHEREAS, af{er encouraging citizens t© reduce their water demands, the same companies are now ~o~~~...___.r.._~ the imposition of a surcharge on water consumption to make up lost -profits from the reduced sale of water that they themselves instigated;and WHEREAS, persons using water volumes in excess of reduction quotas should rightfully be penalized; but to tax People for using less water and complying with reduction quotas is fundamentally wrong; and III 1 I WHEREAS, a tax on water conservation will prove to be 2 counterproductive by discouraging the public from reducing 3 their water demands; and 4 WHEREAS, a surcharge on reduced water demands would 5 solely benefit the water Companies by ensuring high profits 6 and would not constructively enhance conservation efforts, 7 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 8 HUNTINGTON PARK DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 9i SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of 10 Huntington Park does hereby serve notice to all water ~] companies on behalf of its constituents that it intends to ]2 mount a strong campaign of opposition to the imposition of ~3 any'such surcharge. 15 of this Resolution to the Governor, the Public Utilities ]6 Commission, our State. legislators, local water suppliers, and 37 all member cities of the League of California Cities. ~8 SECTION 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the 19 adoption of this~ReSolution. 30 PASSED, APPROVED A3~D ~DOPTED this 24th day of June, '2] 1991. 23 Cit~of Huntington Park ATTES.~: ~5 /~/ 27 c~ty C~k- - / / 28 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 4 I, .MARILYN A. BOYETTE, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON 5 PARK, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 91-40, was passed and adopted by the City Council 7 of the City of Huntington Park, signed by the Mayor of said City, 8 and attested by the City Clerk, all at an adjourned regular meeting 9 of the City Council held on the 24th day of June, 1991, and that 10 the same was passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: 11 12 AYES: Councilmen - Perez, Cunningham, Jackson, Hernandez, Parks '15 NOES: Councilmen - None 14 ABSENT: Councilmen - None 15 19 ' Z0 3 CITY° OF ~-. ~¢~- · ~'-... ~......,~ ~.-: ~-. CALl FOR'N IA DEPARTMENT OF* WATER AND SANITATION PAUL DOw, Manager -~-~-~-- GENE BOGART, Director of Water Resources FLORN CORE, Assistant Director of Water Resources MIKE SIDES, Sanitation Superintendent Mayor and Council Members November 14, 1991 City of Huntington Park 6550 Mills Avenue Huntington Park, CA 90255-4399 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On July 17, 1991 at the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, your letter and Resolution concerning water company surcharges, was received and referred to the City of Bakersfield Water Board. The Water Board met on November 7~, 1991 and considered the letter and Resolution. The Water Board directed staff to respond on behalf the Board. Although.the City Water Board sympathizes with your concerns over the high cost of water, we also recognize and understand that there are increased costs of acquiring adequate water supplies during drought periods. Individual water purveyors, whether public, mutual or private must stay financially solvent in order to continue providing acceptable water service. However, the City Water Board is opposed to the assessing of surcharges or taxes on water without fair, legal and proper public hearings before the imposition of such surcharges or taxes. The Board supports rational methods of dealing with water costs, based on water supply/demand and the. true cost of supplying good quality, dependable drinking water' supplies to its citizens and customers~ If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact the Water Resources staff. . ..... PAUL DOW //-,~ . / ;i. · '~f,'. - Water & Sanitation Manager *! ~'? ~/ "' ? "/ cc: City of Bakersfield Water Board City of Bakersfield Councilmembers $. Dale Hawley, City Manager 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD * BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 · (805) 326-3715  · MEMORANDUM TO: PAUL DOW, WATER AND SANITATION DIRECTOR 'FROM: ROBERTA GAFFORD, ASSISTANT'CITY CLERK SUBJECT: REFERRALS . Attached'are the orig.in~l..Ci%~..~le.rk...relfemral(s) ( '1 )·from 'the Council Meeting of ..... JUL¥'tT~'i1991.':':::.'.': ...... which require your attention. If you have any qUestions, please call me.. Otl'Y OF BAKE~$~:IELD WAT~:F~ CITY COUNSZL REFERRAL MEETING OF' 07/17/91 REFERRED TO' WATER BOARD P. DO",*/ ITEM: RECORD.¢ 8411 Communication from Marilyn A. Boyette, City of Huntingto~a Park? 6550 Miles Avenue; Hunti,.'agton Park, dated July 3, 1991, regarding reso!utic, n opposing waCer company surcharges for reduced water consumpti on. ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL' RECEIVE AND REFER TO WATER BOARD. APPROVED. AB' PS. BACKUP MATERIAL ATTACHED' YES DATE FORWARDED BY CITY CLERK' 07/19/91 City of HUNTINGTON PARK california HtJNI INGIOi' ' t I t M A ICI Y N A t~ O Y [ 1 I [ C M C July 3, 1991 Mayor and Council Members City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On June 24, 1991 at their adjourned regular meeting,'the City Council of the City of Huntington Park adopted the enclosed Resolution No. 91-40, A Resolution of the City of Huntington Park Opposing Water Company Surcharges for Reduced Water Consumption. Your support in opDosin~ these surcharges is requested. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely3 ,' ~P~ City Clerk MAB/hag Enc. RESOLUTION NO. 91-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON P.ARK OPPOSING WATER COMPANY SURCHARGES FOR REDUCED WATER CONSUMPTION.. WHEREAS, California is in the fifth consecutive year of below-normal precipitation; and WHEREAS, precipitation in Southern California has also been below average and water levels in the main San Gabriel groundwater basin have declined more than forty feet for the last few years; and WHEREAS, in light of the seriousness of this situation, water companies throughout Southern California urged their customers to voluntarily reduce their water consumption by ten percent to mitigate the effects of the drought; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Southern California undertook this challenge seriously by reducing their water demands by eight percent in 1988, further reduced their demands in 1989 and 1990, and have been subject to mandatory water reduction programs; and WHEREAS, after encouraging citizens to reduce their water demands, the same companies are now ccnte~p!ating the imposition of a surcharge on water consumption to make up lost profits from the reduced sale of water that they themselves instigated; and WHEREAS, persons using water volumes in excess of reduction quotas should rightfully be penalized; but to.tax people for using less water and complying with reduction quotas is fundamentally wrong; and III WHEREAS, a tax on water conservation will prove to be. counterproductive by discouraging the public from reducing their water demands; and WHEREAS, a surcharge on reduced water demands would solely benefit the water companies by ensuring high profits and would not constrUctively enhance conservation efforts, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of Huntington Park does hereby serve notice to all water companies on behalf of its constitUents that it intends to mount a strong campaign of opposition to the imposition of any such surcharge. SECTION 2: The City Clerk is directed to send copies of this Resolution to the Governor, the Public Utilities Commission, our State legislators, local water suppliers, and all member cities of the League of California Cities. SECTION 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND kDOPTED this 24th day of June, 1991. c± ~ ~f the t~ of Huntington Park C~ty C] 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 4 I, MARILYN A. BOYETTE, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON $ PARK, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the fOregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 91-40, was passed and adopted by the City Council 7 of the City of Huntington Park, signed by the Mayor of said City, 8 and attested by the City Clerk, all at an adjourned regular meeting 9 of the City Council held on the 24th day of June, 1991, and that 10 the same was passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: 11 12 AYES: Councilmen - Perez, Cunningham, Jackson, Hernandez, Parks NOES: Councilmen - None 14 ABSENT: Councilmen - None 1718 ~/ / v Cit~ CJerk- 19 21 24 3 was DooKt~d Oil tsusplcion ol. holni- ~ ~ ..... ~4 49" ...... · , .... ~ .~ '-.: '-nag!?s was carrying.::~ , o on ~n marunez, saki ~gt. l%lcn wecKle, wi:il Knodin] ,A~ronf '~hl'K)'ln~ Poro~ Alma Madrigal, 9, was pronounced -.~] yr~-~-d-~,~-.~ -:-v~?-~-~-~;*- '' dead 'at '11 13 m Thur ' at SalCl in ~an francisco, agents mso c .~ .... :. , .p,. .. .....s. aa..y,, . seized four boxes apparently full o£ ,veita ~wem~,.~ nosp!ta! mAnuocn. , cash that HaginS had shipped to. a ~ Sheriff alters towing policy bus station in Dallas, Perez said. It'sbacklDon'tm~ssthereh~nofo~r ' The FBI. reported Thursday that l~-sdliag 25" W! 0JAI -- Ventura County Sheriff shortly, before the Coliseum heist Z~ni$'~cOmpqO25-inch "Se~2"i~now :John V. Gillespie transferred six Hagins had asked co-workers about lx~cki, limif~dsupp~,. One, · ~,/that ~'IS info most en~rfoinment cenk~m Full Ojai-based officers .to another sta- how to' slip quietly into Mexico. on-scre~ menu, oni£~dremo~, · towing Policy Weeks after his son's day Inn in Irving under the alias SS25al -. 'ear was ticketed and.towed.' . Bob ·Ogilvy, Perez said. Agents'set f'If it looks bad, I'm sorry," up a stakeout at the hotel around 4 Gillespie said Friday ~)f his orders, p.m. Friday, Perez said., Gillespie said he had planned to. Hagins tried to collect his' boXes institute a less-Vigorous towing. Poli- ,..Friday, but a bus station agent Who ey in Ojai'well before his son's had been telephoned just minutes vehicle was towed on May ..9~ . : before,, by Oakland police told him ' Deputy.. ward· Eckstein cited the boxes hadn't arrived and noti- Shawn V: Gillespie, 23,' f0r'.dr!ving' .fled the FBI.'. . ;' with an expired license and turning , .. . 'without atowed. 'signal and ordered:his.,car Falling demand, h · Ark ·dead, ?bu. shootings drought lead to LOs ANGELES -- A teen-ager_ · zoa '.. was shot and'killed 'and seven otb-Water-rate 'boOst., oth, : ers were wounded in two gang-relat .... _ ~ FRL~ DEl/VERy/ __ i ed drive-by 'attacks, a Sheriff's · LOS ANGELEs (AP) Facing i deputy said. a drop in revenue from drought-con- ~ ' · . Abraham Valenzueial 13, was fa', scious consumers, Southern Califor- Cals0]e W~? We've got 'mi ,, tally shot at 12:40 a.m.. Saturday at . nia's giant' water wholesaler has · ~/~m//omstereo sw/ve/~l z~ ~an East Los 'Angeles street corner, begun steps to increase rates by 40 ~° ~ a Los Angeles County sheriff's percent. - . . *M/~ s~o . . · 178 chmnels -' spokesman Said. : : ,,' The MetroPolitan Water District, ,On-stmmmmu '~r~[~ S ' The other victims were treated in .a private meeting Friday with *HU~ 27" green No~ Irs o..t~a, u.h'ful piece.of._~. . ~rnporary. fumi~ure I tru~ ' at East Los Angeles .Doctors ]-]ospJ- managers of the water, agencies it in a light homey., oak h'nish wilh matching I *Ho · tal and released, Linnemeyer said.' serves, outlined a series of propos: ~%?J.~l%b290~ sa~ngs5991 re~ ;There were no immediate arrests, als for the rate increase that would ' ' ' ' ' ' iBomb fOund; man arrested go .into effect beginning July 1, 1992. A 14 percent rate increase took a,&~,,.sss~,~y' ' CRESCENT' CITY--· A' 34-year- effect earlier this month: rmta:""'"" BREAKi. :old man was arrested Friday .after. The MWD supplies .water agen- :officials were called in to.dismantle ties serving 15 million residents, lrrStlime vnder $1000prlce · . a bomb found under a pickup, and . MWD spokesman Duane George- (or a co/ossol 3I" St~r~ ]3/! ' i'·they'say the incident may be relat- Son said that as 'the drought :ed to a similar: one earlier this stretched into a fifth year and the lhese huge direct view tube ~elevsion systems '~week~ State Water Proieet reduced MWD are becomingbest " ' Marion W. DeLong, the .ex-boy- deliveries,, the district· has had' to ~l/er~ at We~eh~/~r 'UM//~ TO '.. friend of the woman who owns the double the subsidy it giVe~ local IVI RC.A'~ mo&l pickup, was booked on Suspicion of agencies for water reclamation pro- r31221 willwow~ur STOCKON. , wlth is. HAND! threatening death or 'great bodily jeers ,and double :its budget for injury and being a convicted felon conservation programs. .'in possession of a weapon, officials The district also invested $52 ,ystem, said. .. million to buy 300,000 acreqeet of ~-screenmenu Flight case ends in miStrial water from an emergency state uni~lr~mo~. · water bank. Georgeson said that LOS ANGELES'-- A 'mistrial cost was ."totally unanticipated and NOHIDDENDELIVER¥COST was decl.ared in the case against a unbudgeted.". hairdresser accUsed Of cursing and The district has known it would ........... ,' manhandling an airline stewardess need to double its charges in the who told him to stop smoking on a next decade, said Georgeson. But ~i;~;~:~ ~ '~' cross-country flight.. ' unexpected costs and a drop in' · i Jurors deliberated only a day revenue caused by the drought con-... ~ ~i ~i~ before the mistrial, was declared servation effort have forced district ' ~ Friday in federal court, They were officials to seek increases ahead of split 7 to 5 in fay, or of'convicting schedule. .' OPEN EVERYDAY 30-DAY PRI( : James J. Tabacca, 37, on a charge One' of the proposed inbreases MondaylhruFridqy 10107 If you see ¥our purcha of interfering with·the duties of a includes a plan for seasonal charg- ~turdoyg-5 $undoyl2~o4 : inad'&r~ceipl[c . ' . ~4onfl~yl~ymen~ ar~ w~?h Wo.¢t~hestor fligl~ crew.' · . ~' ' es, ,~- ._ · -~-'- -,77'-''--:- '--'-'~-;'-- I. · .~- W' ~,r .l" ~"'~:?:' . ..... .~:~ MW/7 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Number 4, 1991 Why using less will cost more by Carl Boronkay, General Manager Metropolitan Water District of Southern California The inevitable is about to occur. And no one is happy about it. The public expects that, when the drought is over, things will return to normal. Farms will have water, indusu7 will have water, more people will be em- Ployed on those farms and in those facto- ries and Californians will be able to get on with fl~eir lives. This will not be the case. Southern Californians will find them- selves paying not only higher water rates, but also higher costs for the goods and ser- vices that rely heavily on water. People al- ready annoyed by the constraints of con- servation will have to pay more to use less. The current drought is only one reason water costs are mounting. To be able to meet reasonable demands during years when rainfall is at least normal, Metropolitan Water District has begun a $6 billion expansion program. The new facilities nearly triple the pre- sent value of all the facilities Metropoli- tan has built since its founding in 1928. New reservoirs, treatment plants, pipelines and other projects allow us to must be paid for and maintained even continue our tradition of meeting the when drought reduces its flows to a need for adequate quantities of high qual- trickle. The efforts, and the paychecks of itYsuchWater, experts in engineering, planning, water a program requires money. quality and operations, are ongoing re- Meeting new, even stricter water qual- gardless of how much water is available. -,le distress of California's fifth ity standards also costs ~noney. Nearly a decade ago, it was Metropoli- consecutive year 0! drought is Metropolitan's distribution system, tan's practice to base its water rates for about t0 be compounded by built by visionaries undaunted by the the coming year on predicted sales. This Great Depression, is now 50 years old. rising costs for imported water. Maintenance is expensive, was essentially "break-even" budgeting. The amount of water delivered is only ' Continued on page 3 one factor in its cost. Any existing system Why using less will cost more Continued from front cover State water supply shortages hinder efforts t0 eliminate taste and odor Little money was set aside to buffer the problems at Lake Mathews. someti/nes huge fluctuations in water sale!~ upon which Metropolitan's funds rose and fell. When sales were high, as was true in years when local weather was Harmless algae creates nuisance dry, income was greater than expenses. Charges then did not have to be in- California's lingering drought is present. For example, Wolfe says, if creased the following year in lockstep making it difficult for Metropolitan the Rose Bowl were filled with water with inflation. to provide water attractive to the and a thimble of the algae tossed in, If water sales were slack, water rates palate and the nose. the average person would be able to the following year had to be increased in The problem is an explosive growth detect its presence in the water, order to cover the fixed, on- of algae in Lake Mathews, Responding to concerns aboutan goingcosts of importing Metropolitan's main reservoir in "earthy" smell to some water, MW-D water. Riverside County. During previous established a taste and odor program This made it difficult for summers, Met was able to blend in 1979 that traced the problem to Metropolitan's member water brought in from Lake Mathews and a agencies and their retail sub- Northern California blue-green algae pro- agencies to manage their with Colorado River ducing a harmless but own budgets: water to reduce the odoriferous chemical Before the onset of tl~e present hardness of the latter that gave the water its drought, Metropolitan's board of direc- and compensate for musty smell, tors established a special fund designed the algae growth, The algae recurs to absorb the financial shock waves common in most every summer when brought on by unpredictable water sales. freshwater lakes. It's warmer water and This "rate stabilization fund", made pos- not known why the longer days promote its sible by revenues from unexpectedly algae is more prolific growth. But Met has de- high water sales during the last several in Colorado River veloped a number of years, is drawn upon when sales decline. water, but as it grows, :5[ :'"" fools to handle the sim- This year is a good example of how the it creates a harmless ation: drawing water fund works. Sales are down because the yet malodorous prob- from various levels in drought has severely limited Metropoli- lem in the water that the lake, treating the tan's supplies. Yet, operating costs went flows from Lake Mathews. lake with copper sulfate, and blending up and the fund was needed to help bear "Some of the water has an earthy Colorado River water with state pro- these costs. Without the stabilization or musty smell characterized by an ject water, fund, the rates would have increased by off-taste," says Roy Wolfe, manager Copper sulfate is being used to at least 80 percent instead of 13 percent. of Metropolitan's microbiology lab. stop the algae's growth with some If existing conditions continue, the stay "There is no health hazard associated success, but Ed Means, director of bilization fund will be ahnost exhausted with the algae growth in Lake water quality, says a lack of state in another year. Mathews, but there have been a water has seriously hampered fia~d what if it rains a lot in Northern number of co~nplaints about the Metropolitan's ability to control the California next year anti Southern water's taste and smell." problem. California remains dry? Metropolitan The strain of algae responsible is "Before the drought, we had great would once again have ample water to especially potent and can be detected flexibility to blend water from our sell. That may replenish the stabilization even when only tiny amounts are two sources, but this year restricted fund and allow furore rate increases to be supplies of state water have limited gradual rather than abrupt. our ability to do that," he says. Even so, rate increases will be a hard Over the past decade, efforts to ira- sell to most consumers who only per- prove state project supplies have been ceive that they are using less water and stalemated by regional interests, paying more. But the bottom line is that rates will rise. It is inevitable, r~ C~TY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL CONCERNING CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK RESOLUTION ON OPPOSING WATER COMPANY SURCHARGES FOR REDUCED CONSUMPTION The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is the largest supplier of drinking water in the whole southern California area, wholesaling water to some 52 member agencies that include public and private water companies. MWD has supply sources from the Colorado River and the State Water Project. The SWP yields for 1991 were 20-30% of normal, requiring cutbacks in deliveries to its customers, which has seriously affected MWD's ability to meet its contractual committments. As we are aware locally, the SWP water entitlements are a contractual amount that requires payment for the full amount of water in the contracts, even if their is a serious shortage of water available. Thus, the unit rate for water will go up dramatically. The individual water districts and companies in the MWD service area will have to--ir rates to pass through the unit cost increases, to stay,financiallY so~ven~ This is the case in the Huntington Park area. 'The water supply in Bakersfield is relatively stable, as we rely on groundwater for the majority of our supply. Past years of.excess runoff from the Kern River, SWP and Friant-Kern have raised groundwater levels to a level that can mitigate several years of heavy groundwater pumping. This department has experienced, some revenue decline due to conservation of our citizens, but has managed to not increase rates. At this time, the unit rate charges for our metered water is an accurate measure of the true variable costs to deliver water to customers. The City of Huntington Park is asking for support in their opposition to surcharges on reduced water demands. The City of Bakersfield should continue to support a rational. · /'method of dealing with water costs, based on supply/demand and the /true cost of supplying a good quality, dependable drinking water /supply to its citizens and customers. ' ~ Gregory D. Bynum & Associates, Inc. Real Estate Development October 22, 1991 OCT 2 3 lgBJ CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Mr. Gene Bogart WATER RESOURCES City of Bakersfield - Water Resources Department 1501 Truxmn Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93309 RE: Agreement Number 89-270 (canal burial and purchaSe) Dear Gene, We are. building a new building on a site located adjacent to one of the canal areas specified in the above referenced agreement. The tenant in this building requires an option to expand the leased premises through June 1995. We would like to accomplish this expansion by using land obtained through the above agreement, but this agreement expires in November 1994. To remedy this situation, we request that the City of Bakersfield amend the term of this agreement from the current term of five years to a term of six years. The ~ amended agreement would then expire November 1995. All other terms and conditions of the agreement would remain unchanged. YOur assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Please let me know if there is anything we can do to help you. Sincerely, Anthony ~6~nsolabehere Gregory D. Bynum & Associates, Inc. 5601 truxtun avenue, suite 190 * bakersfield, california 93309 · [805] 395-0541 · facsimile [805] 395-0484 89-07 W.B. AGREEMENT NQ. 89-270 CARRIER CANAL DE~F~LOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN GREGORY D. BYNUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD THIS CARRIER CANAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this29th day of November , 1989, by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a municipal corporation (CITY), and GREGORY D. BYNUM & ASSOCIATES, INC., a California corporation (DEVELOPER). RECITALS WHEREAS, CITY is the owner in fee and operator of certain portions of the Carrier Canal in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California, which ow.nership is delineated on the map attached to and made a part of this agreement as Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, DEVELOPER desires to construct parking for developments to take place near the Carrier Canal·and is willing to purchase the fee ownership from CITY and return easements to the CITY for canal purposes for access, maintenance, and inspection, which easements are delineated on the map attached to and made a part of this agreement as Exhibit "A"; and, W~EREAS, DEVELOPER will build a parking facility which covers the Carrier Canal at locations to be delineated on the map attached to and made a part of this agreement as Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, DEVELOPER will pay fair market value for the Carrier Canal at the improved price (not including surface improve- ments such as asphalt, curbs, gutters, et al. for parking) minus the cost of installing the canal structure improvements plus a ten percent (10%) incentive to be given to the DEVELOPER if said development costs falls below the appraised fair market value thereby returning funds to City; and, WHEREAS, CITY will agree to the coveting of the Carrier Canal as delineated in Exhibit "A", and is willing to sell the fee title to DEVELOPER and take back easements for access, main-' tenance, and inspection and will accept fair market value at the improved price minus the cost of installing said improvements plus a ten percent (10%) incentive to the DEVELOPER as set forth herein; and, WHEREAS, a current appraisal ("appraisal" herein) by Bruce Beaudoin is acceptable to CITY and DEVELOPER to set the fair market value for a period of one year from the date set forth in the appraisal; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. DESCRIPTION OF WORK. DEVELOPER shall provide all materials and labor for, and shall be responsible for carrying out to completion the following construction project: The covering of certain portions of the carrier canal as set forth in Exhibit "A" for the purposes of constructing canal improvements as delineated in Exhibit "A," which is attached to and made a part of this agreement, and according to plans and specifi- cations approved by the CITY. The work to be~done under this agreement, is shown on the attached drawings entitled Exhibit "A", and will be further described in plans and specifications which will be prepared for this project and such plans and specifications are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, and shall be binding on the parties to this agreement. All work shall be done as set forth in this contract, the attached exhibits, and the plans and specifications. 2. APPROVAL OF PLANS. DEVELOPER shall provide CITY with a complete set, or sets, of construction plans and specifica- tions and a complete set'of "as built" plans for the covering of a portion of the Carrier'Canal delineated in Exhibit "A." CITY's written approval of all plans and specifications shall be neces- 'sary prior to any construction on the Carrier Canal. All plans and specifications provided by DEVELOPER for the parking.structure shall be at DEVELOPER's sole expense and shall not be included in the cost for the total project. Plans and specifications for the improvements appurtenant to the box culvert shall be included in the total project costs. 3. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT. All materials and equip- ment shown or specified on the plans or in the specifications, -2- or required to complete the project, shall be provided and securely installed and placed by DEVELOPER. Provision and installation of materials and equipment shall include everything required for satisfactory performance, regardless of omission of specific reference on plans or specifications. Standard building practice will be followed to achieve this result.' Materials and equipment in the project shall be new. Workmanship shall be first class. 4. WARRANTIES. DEVELOPER guarantees and warrants all work performed under this agreement for a period of one (1) year after the completion of the construction and acceptance by the CITY, and shall pay all costs of any and all repairs or maintenance required, and shall pay for any replacement of any parts required to maintain these structures described in the plans and specifications in good operating condition. Acceptance shall be complete upon filing a notice of completion and the expiration of thirty-five (35) days after the recording of such notice. DEVELOPER further guarantees and warrants that any improvements constructed over the portion of the Carrier Canal covered by the project set forth in this agreement shall in no way endanger or cause actual harm to the integrity of the'improvements installed under this agreement. Should the improvements set forth herein be endangered or harmed by future overlying improvements, DEVELOPER shall, at the request of CITY, take steps which ade- quately remedy the condition or conditions which endanger or have caused harm to the improvements set forth herein. 5. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. Upon CITY approval of the plans and specifications for the construction of the project described herein, between October 15 and February 1, DEVELOPER shall be entitled to commence construction for a forty-five (45) day-period at the "Marathon" Property with a 75 CFS minimum flow bypass or sand plug and a sixty (60) day construction period at the "school farm" property with a 200 CFS minimum flow bypass at this location. DEVELOPER shall give notice.to the CITY sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of construction. One week prior to start of construction and one week after the construction period has expired, the CITY shall cease operation of the Carrier Canal so that developer may construct necessary bypass facilities. DEVELOPER shall notify CITY prior to starting such work and immediately upon completion of construction as set forth in this agreement. The~e construction times are set in order to prevent interference with the flow or distribution of water moving down the Carrier Canal. DEVELOPER fully understands that emergency conditions may require the CITY to refuse DEVELOPER's request for construction under this paragraph; however., the DEVELOPER shall, be notified immediately upon such emergency arising. -3- 6. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. IN THE EVENT DEVELOPER DOES NOT COMPLETE THE PROJECT DESCRIBED HEREIN WITHIN THE TIME PERIODS SET FORTH THEREBY CAUSING THE CARRIER CANAL TO BE SHUT-DOWN BEYOND THE SPECIFIED PERIODS GRANTED FOR CONSTRUCTION, THEN THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES OF $1,000.00 PER DAY FOR EACH DAY THAT CONSTRUCTION CONTINUES PAST THE SPECIFIED PERIODS. SHOULD DEVELOPER FAIL TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT IN A TIMELY FASHION, 'THE DAMAGES SUFFERED BY CITY BY REASON THEREOF WOULD BE UNCERTAIN OR VERY DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN. DAMAGES WOULD INVOLVE SUCH VARIABLE FACTORS AS THE AMOUNT OF WATER AVAILABLE AND THE PRICE THEREOF, THE CONSIDERATION THAT DOWNSTREAM USERS OF THE CARRIER CANAL WOULD PAY TO TRANSPORT SUCH WATER, THE PRICE OF OBTAINING ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF TRANSPORTING SUCH WATER, THE LOSSES OF WATER WHICH WOULD BE SUSTAINED BY USING ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF TRANSPORTING SAID WATER, AND THE DAMAGES THAT MAY BE AWARDED AGAINST THE CITY IN LEGAL ACTIONS WHICH MAY BE FILED BY DOWNSTREAM USERS; ALL OF WHICH WOULD RESULT IN ADDITIONAL AND IMMEASURABLE DAMAGES AND LOSS TO THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY. IT IS IMPRACTICABLE AND EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FIX THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DAMAGES TO THE CITY, BUT THE PARTIES ARE OF THE OPINION, UPON THE BASIS OF ALL INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THEM, THAT SUCH DAMAGES WOULD APPROXIMATELY EQUAL $1,000.00 PER DAY. SAID AMOUNT OF $1,000 PER DAY SHALL BE PAID TO THE.CITY UPON THE EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PAST THE SPECIFIED SHUT-DOWN PERIODS AS THE TOTAL OF ALL LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR ANY AND ALL SUCH DEFAULTS AND NOT AS A PENALTY. IN THE EVENT THIS PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE HELD TO BE VOID FOR ANY REASON, THE CITY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF DAMAGES OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY SPECI~/~ALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THIS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION BY TH ,~~,G~E~E~: ~ D'~e -~ City 7. RIGHT OF INSPECTION. City shall have the right to enter upon the project site at all reasonable times to inspect the project and DEVELOPER's operations thereon. 8. COMPENSATION AND EXCHANGE OF TITLE. DEVELOPER will pay to'CITY the appraised value of the finished land, with improve- ments, as set forth in the September 26, 1988 .appraisal by Bruce A. Beaudoin unless said appraisal shall lapse by becoming more than one year old and. then the DEVELOPER shall pay the finished land value as set forth in a new appraisal, said new appraisal to be paid for by DEVELOPER. The cost of constructing said improve- -4- ments shall be subtracted from the appraised finished land value. In addition, the DEVELOPER will be allowed to retain ten percent (10%) of the difference between the actual construction cost and the appraised finished land value as a reasonable incentive. The remainder of the funds, if any, after subtracting reconstruction cost and incentive (if any) from the finished land value shall be paid over to City. In no event shall the CITY owe DEVELOPER any money because of or in any way related to the construction of the project set forth in this agreement.· By way of example only : If the finished land value were $1,200,000 and if the DEVELOPER constructs the project for $1,000,000 then the CITY would be paid $200,000 minus $20,000 to the DEVELOPER as incentive as shown below: Finished land value: $1,200,000 Construction costs: 1,000,000 EXAMPLE To CITY (subtotal) $ 200,000 10% to DEVELOPER 20,000 Final to CITY $ 180,000 9. PERFORMANCE BOND. a) DEVELOPER shall furnish within 30 days prior to the start of construction a surety bond conditioned upon the full and faithful performance of all °bliga- tions required to be performed under or arising from this agree- ment and full performance an~ verity of all warranties and guarantees contained herein. Said bond shall be in the amount of not less than the finished land value as established by the appraisal. b) Said bonds shall be of a'form satisfactory to the CITY and shall be obtained from a responsible corporate surety (or sureties), acceptable to the CITY, licensed by the State of California to act as surety upon bonds and undertakings and which maintains in said State at least one office for the conduct of its business. Said surety (or sureties) shall furnish reports as to its financial condition from time to time as requested by the CITY. The premiums for said bonds shall be paid by the Contractor. c) If any surety becomes unacceptable to the CITY or fails to furnish reports as to is financial condition as requested by the CITY, the Contractor shall promptly furnish such additional security as may be required from time to time to protect the interests of the CITY and of persons supplying labor or materials in the prosecution of the work contemplated by this agreement. -5- d) In the event of any conflict between the terms of this agreement and the terms of said bonds, the terms of this agreement shall control and said bonds shall be deemed to be amended thereby. Without limiting the foregoing, the CITY shall be entitled to exercise all rights granted to it by this Agreement in the event of default, without control thereof by the surety, provided that the CITY gives the surety notice of such default at the time or before the exercise of any such right by the CITY, and regardless of the terms of said bonds, the exercise of any such right by the CITY shall in no manner affect the liability of the surety under said bonds. 10. QUIT CLAIM DEEDS. Upon completion and acceptance by the City of all work performed by DEVELOPER under this agreement, the CITY shall grant to DEVELOPER by quit claim deed all right and title to the portion of the Carrier Canal covered by this pro- ject (as shown in Exhibit A), and DEVELOPER shall grant back to CITY easements for canal purposes, access, maintenance, and inspection; said easements are set forth on maps attached to and made a part of this agreement as Exhibit "A". Said easements and quit claims shall be recorded. CITY shall continue to own all water conveyance facilities constructed under this agreement. 11. TIME OF PAYMENT. DEVELOPER shall reimburse CITY the difference between the appraised value of the-finished land minus the cost of constructing the improvements, and minus ten percent (10%) of the difference between the appraised value and the actual cost of improvements, within ninety (90) days from the completion and acceptance of the project by the City. 12. REZONING AND ENVIRONMENTAL~ DEVELOPER shall be solely responsible for obtaining any rezoning necessary to go forward with the project, and DEVELOPER shall be solely responsi- ble for any and all reports, mitigation measures, or other governmental requirements concerning the California Environmental Quality Act or other environmental concerns including, but not limited to hazardous materials; and DEVELOPER shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits and approvals required by CITY, STATE, or FEDERAL authorities and agencies in order to construct the project and shall in the actual construction of said project comply with all such governmental requirements pertaining thereto. CITY makes no representations concerning the suitability of the property for the proposed project. CITY transfers the property to DEVELOPER AS IS. 13. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another a provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a provi- sion at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement. -6- 14. FORUM. Any lawsuit pertaining to any matter arising under, or growing out of, this contract shall be instituted in ~ Kern County, California. 15. TIME. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 16. HEADINGS. All paragraph or section captions are for reference only, and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement. 17. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement Shall be given in writing and shall be sent by certified or regis- tered 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 OF BAKERSFIELD Water Department City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 GREGORY D. BYNUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5601 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 (805) 395'0541 18. ASSIGNMENT. This contract shall not be assigned by any party, or any party substituted, without prior written consent of all the parties. 19. 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. 20. ATTORNEY'S FEES. In any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its attorney's fees and court costs and other nonreimbursable litigation expenses, such as expert witness fees and investigation expenses. 21. 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 approved by the City Council and signed bY all the parties. -7- 22. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual executing this Agreement represents and warrants that they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the corporation or organization, if any, named herein and that this Agreement is binding upon said corporation or organization in accordance with its terms. 23. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS. DEVELOPER shalI, at DEVELOPER'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 ~greement, 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 now in force or which may hereaft~er be in force. 24. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. This Agreement calls for the performance of the services of DEVELOPER as an independent contractor, and DEVELOPER will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose and is not entitled to any of the bene- fits provided by City to its employees. This Agreement shall not be construed as forming a partnership or any other association with DEVELOPER other than that of an independent contractor. 25. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ~PROVISIONS. During the term of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. DEVELOPER will take affirma- tive action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. 26. TERM. This agreement shall terminate five (5) years from the date of execution, unless sooner terminated by the completion of the project as set forth herein, or otherwise termi- nated by the terms of this agreement. 27. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE. The DEVELOPER shall furnish the City Risk Manager with a certificate of insurance evidencing the insurance required under this agreement. The policy shall contain an additional endorsement in favor of the City, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. 28. INSURANCE. In addition to any other forTM of insurance or bond required under the terms of this agreement, the DEVELOPER shall procure and maintain for the duration of this agreement the following types and limits of insurance: -8- a. Automobile liability insurance, prowiding 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 ($1,000,000) per occurrence; and b.· Broad form comprehensive general liability 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 ($1,000,O00) per occurrence. c. Workers' compensation with statutory limits and employer's liability insurance with limits of not less than one million ($1,000,000) per accident. All policies required of the DEVELOPER hereunder shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers and any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers shall be excess of the DEVELOPER's insurance and shall not contribute with it. The automobile liability policies shall provide coverage for owned, non-owned and hired autos. The liability policies shall provide contractual liability coverage for the terms of this agreement. The liability'policies shall contain an additional insured endorsement in favor of the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers. The workers' compensation policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation endorsement in favor of the CITY, its mayor, council, officers, agents, employees and volunteers. All policies shall contain the following endorsement: An endorsement providing the CITY with ten (10) days written notice of cancellation or material change in pol~icy language or terms~ If any part of the work under this agreement is sublet similar insurance shall be provided by or on behalf of the Subcontractors to cover their operations. The insurance required under this agreement shall be maintained until all work required to be performed under the terms of this agreement is satisfactorily com- pleted as evidenced by formal acceptance by the CITY. -9- The DEVELOPER shall furnish the City Risk Manager and Water Department with a certificate of insurance evidencing the insur- ance required under this agreement. DEVELOPER's Federal Tax ID. Number ~--3~1~ . DEVELOPER is a corporation? Yes _ %/' N6 . (Please check one.) 'o0o -10- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to.be executed, the day and year first-above written' "CITY" CITY OF BAKERSFIELD- APPROVED AS TO FORM: ARTHUR J. SAALFIELD City A~u~ney /Q ce Director .r~.. -DEVELOPER- . .... ASSUAge, INC. ~ // Title ADD:lg Attachment: Exhibit "A" 10/05/89 A AGMT 4 BYNUMi-ll -i1- 26 T. 29 S.R. 27E. scHooL Pt~ TRACT ]' I I MEMORANDUM November 1, 1991 TO: CITY OF BAKEaRSFIEL, D WATER BOARD FROM: FLORN CORE, ASSISTANT WATER RESOURCES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY/IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #4 WATER WELL #1 NEAR KERN RIVER The Kern County Water Agency water well that is identified as Improvement District No. 4, Well No. 1 was shut down on September 3rd, 1991 @ 10:00 am. The well, located just south of Brimhall Rd. on what would be the Calloway Rd. extension, pumped continuously from April 18~h through September yd, 1991 and produced 1646 acre-feet. The well pumped into the Agency's Cross Valley Canal for delivery to the ID #4 Treatment Plant. The well production was to supplement the shortfall in State Water Project entitlement to ID #4, which had been cut to 20% of normal. The water produced augmented the Treatment Plant supply to help reduce the possibility of cut-backs (rationing) to the contracting water purveyors. The well was producing elevated levels of the contaminate dibromochloropropane (DBCP), which is listed as a pollutant by the EPA and California Department of Health Services for drinking water. The DBCP was detected in laboratory tests performed by KCWA during the drilling and development of the well. The zone where the DBCP was found was determined by selective sampling of the three layered aquifer. The samplings indicated that contamination occurred in water produced from the middle zone. The well was completed and equipped to produce water from all zones, including the contaminated zone. The City owns and operates two domestic water wells in the area. One well is within 1300' of the KCWA well and the other City well is about 3500' away. These wells are strictly for drinking water purposes. City staff notified the California Regional Water Quality Control Board of the concerns of a nearby well producing contaminants and in that letter requested an investigation into the problem. The KCWA followed the City letter with a letter of their own to the Regional Board that explained the KCWA position on the operation of the well. KCWA water quality sampling of one of the nearby City wells showed test results, at one point, of having DBCP in the water. However, the measured results were below the Maximum Contaminant Levels as allowed by EPA and Cai DOHS. A subsequent sample obtained by KCWA indicated DBCP levels below the detection limits. City water quality sampling for the same City well showed below detection limits, before and after the KCWA testing. On September 26t~, 1991, a field meeting was held at the City water well station between City staff and KCWA to determine sampling methods used by KCWA. The meeting was left with the KCWA re-sampling the well, in the presence of everyone, with the subsequent results of DBCP being below detection limits (zero). A meeting was held on August 28% 1991 at the KCWA to discuss the actions to be taken on the future of the ID #4/Well # 1. In attendance at the meeting were representatives of the City, KCWA, Kern County Environmental Health, California Department of Health Services, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The KCWA proposed to remove the pumping equipment, video downhole to determine where the water was flowing between the aquifers and then decide a course of action. The courses of action could be the installation of packing devices to seal off the contaminated zone or other mechanical methods to stop the movement of the contaminated water. The Regional Water Quality Control Board representative, a Mr. Mike Mangle, indicated that no study or investigation as requested in the City letter would take place in the near future. A study is under way in Fresno on DBCP contamination and the Board staff would see if those study results can be applied to Bakersfield. This study is scheduled for completion some time in 1992. The KCWA did perform the downhole tests on October 2, 1991 to determine the water flow between the aquifers. The results of the tests indicate that water is flowing from the upper zone (uncontaminated) downward into the middle zone (the contaminated zone) and further down into the lower water bearing strata. The flowage numbers given were 125 gallons per minute (gpm) from the upper into the middle, with 65 gpm from the middle to the lower. This would indicate that about 60 gpm is flowing into the middle zone. With the information learned from the flowage tests, and following another series of water quality testing, the KCWA has decided to install rubber packers to isolate the middle zone of the well, therefore limiting production from only the upper and lower zones. The pumping equipment is to be re-installed and the well readied for operation. Further KCWA operation of the well is pending compliance with normal CEQA processing as agreed to by KCWA in a letter dated May 2, 1991 to Lawrence Lunardini, City Attorney. · -.-., ./__.j/ KERN COUNTY / WATER AGENCY D/rectors: May 2, 1991 Fred I_ Starrh Division I City of Bakersfield Terry Rogers 1501 Truxtun Avenue Division 2 . Bakersfield, CA 93301 John L. willis Division 3 Attention: Mr. LaWrence Lunardini Michael Radon City Attorney President Division 4 Re: Emergency Well Program - Response to City letter dated April. 12, 1991 Adrienne J. Ma~ew~ Division .5 Dear Mr. Lunardini: Henry C. Garnett Division 6 This will confirm the discussion among Paul Dow, Florn Core, Alan Daniels, Gene A. Lundquist 13i,,ision ? .lames .lenks, Rick Iger and .lohn Stovall at a meeting on ApriI'18, 1991. Among 'other things, the meeting was held to respond to your letter of April 12, 1991. (See attached.) It is our impression that the meeting was Thomas N. Clark: successful in resolving our differences and We look forward to working with General Manager the City to resolve the long-term water development issues in the John I:. Sm,,all metropolitan area. General Cotmsel As discussed, the sudden imposition of a 90% reduction in M&I supplies from the State Water Project (SWP) threatened mandatory water rationing within the Improvement District #4 (ID4) service area and created the need for the emergency I~D4 project. We have now received confirmation from the Department of Water Resources (DWR) that our shortage has now been scaled back from a 90% to an 80% reduction. We have therefore discontinued oUr. pla~-s for the third ID4 emergency well, and will limit the I~D4 program to the two ID4 emergency wells which have been completed. Pumping from these wells will be required, given the 80% reduction in SWP deliveries, to meet minimum needs for water deliveries from the treatment plant. Normal deliveries from our plant have approximated 28,000 to 30,000 acre-feet, and we anticipate that the voluntary conset~,ation campaign now underway will reduce demands to approximately 25,000 acre-feet. Under current circumstances, production of less than this amount would force us to initiate public hearings for mandatory' rationing. Losses resulting from our Kern River exchange contract with the Kern- Tulare and Rag Gulch Water Districts are 3,000 acre-feet or about the output of one of our emergency wells. I.f reductions are eased by DWR, we will reevaluate the situation to determine if pumping can be reduced. Ma//ing Address: P.O. Box 58 Bakersfield CA 93302-0058 Phone: 805/393-6200 Fax: 805/395- i 713 City of Bakersfield Attention: Mr. Paul Dow May 2. 1991 Page 2 City staff have expressed concerns regarding the quality of water from one of our LD4 emergency wells. County Environmental Health and the Department of Health Services are monitoring the use of this well. Water from the well is being blended with .agricultural water supplies in the CVC. This blended sUpply is exchanged for Kern River water which is used in the treatment plant. Pumping of the well is in accordance with Dr. Carl Longley's reeornmendation to clean the aquifer by pumping the water for agricultural, use. We have initiated a monitoring program to determine if the desired results are being obtained. The City may wish to participate by including or contributing quality data on your nearby wells. Once the emergency has terminated we will discontinue pumping and proceed with normal CEQA processing. We hope to ultimately develop a program for the long-term benefit of the urban area. Such a program should include City participation. As with ail our efforts, it is our intent to,serve our citizens who also happen to be, in large part, the citizens of the City of Bakersfield. The three "Agency" well sites identified along the pipeline on the diagram of our proposed long- term project are not currently being drilled. We do not anticipate drilling these wells for our emergency p.rojeet. The sites are open for discussion in our mutual effort to develop a long-term water supply for the urban area. Once a'project has been defined we will initiate CEQA review for the project, including these wells. We trust that these clarifications will now allow us to focus our attention on a cooperative long-term plan for urban water development which will meet the needs of all urban residents. Working' together, we can meet those needs and we look forward to working with you in a constructive effort which satisfies our mutual interests. If the City has any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to ea. lL Thomas N. Clark-~ -'"" General Manager cc: Mr. Paul Dow Mr. Dale Hawley Mr. Clarence Medders Mr. Michael S. Radon Kern County Water Agency Board of Directors .£ George W. Nickel, Jr. 6200 Lake Ming Road Bakersfield, CA 93306 Telephone 805/872-5050 FAX~ 805/872-7141 October 8, 1991 Gene Bogart Director of Water Resources City of Bakersfield 1000 Buena Vista R°ad Bakersfield, CA 93311 Dear Gene: I look back with pride on my constructive participation with the City of Bakersfield on water development programs for the City's present and future growth. Regarding future growth, I also look with pride to my initiation and follow thrOugh with the City to the 14,000 acre Rio Bravo annexation to the'City. In my advancing maturity, I also look back to water development in Kern County that my Great Grandfather Henry Miller of Miller & Lux, Inc. had much responsibility for on programs today that are important to the City of Bakersfield. Some of such importance is set forth in my attached memorandum entitled "PROGRAMS FOR THE PRESENT AND FUTURE M&I WATER SUPPLY FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD". I continu© to have real support and appreciation for the continued growth and prosperity of the City of Bakersfield. I belieVe that such positive growth is very definitely related to a continued. abundant supply of good quality M&I water, Recognizing that the City of Bakersfield Water Board has great interest in this overall subject, I am passing on copies of this conveyance, plus the attachments thereto, to Water Board Chairman, Mark Salvaggio, and members Ken Peterson and Conni Brunni. An important reason for passing on to the Water Board this conveyance and the attachments thereto is their letter of July 16th to Michael Radon, President of the Kern County Water Agency, regarding an Agency report entitled ."BAKERSFIELD URBAN WATER FINANCING", a copy of which is enclosed for easy reference. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the Water Board. I also want to see prime reference to the economic expansion of the City, which is definitely related to proper water programming and cost. As you know, this concern was properly addressed at the August 8th meeting at my office headquarters in the Rio Bravo area of the City. You, as Chief Engineer for the City Water Department, and Bob Bellue, who heads up Improvement District #4 of the Kern County Water Agency, put the meeting together to discuss and resolve differences regarding future planning' and water operations within Urban Bakersfield, as designated in the 2010 Plan. As already noted, such differences were spelled out Bogar~/rja Gene Bogart October 8, 1991 Page 2. in the July 16th City Water Board letter to Mike Radon, President of the Kern County Water Agency. At the August 8th meeting, you and Floren Core represented the City Water Department and Bob Bellue represented Improvement District//4 of the Kern County Water Agency. Also present at the meeting were representatives of the California Water Service Company, the East Niles Community Services District, the North of the River District, the Olcese Water District and La Hacienda, Inc..I think it can be Properly set forth that the concerns of the City Water Board, expressed in the July 16th letter, were properly and fairly addressed. It is my understanding that the Kern County Water Agency wants to fully cooperate with the aims and objectives of the City Water Board. Among other things, I understand that this will mean that there will be no further expansion of the boundaries of Improvement District//4. The result of this' will be that the California Aqueduct water entitlement of Improvement District //4 will be, basically, just utilized within the present boundaries of Improvement District//4. This will, among other things, certify for the City that annexation programs will not be held back or retarded by uncalled for water delivery competition. I am definitely left with the conclusion that the Kern County Water Agency, and its Improvement District//4, want to fully cooperate with the City on its long range annexation programs. Regarding lands within the City, and also in Improvement District//4, that are served by the Garnett Treatment Plant, I think it can be properly stated that th6 City landowners have definitely been benefitted by the Gamett Treatment Plant installed by Improvement District//4. Ithink this · same kind of cooperation will be available from the Kern County Water Agency and the Improvement District//4 on lands now within the City, and for the lands that may be annexed to the City, lying between Improvement District//4 on the west and the present boundaries of the Olcese Water District on the east. There appears to be no question but that a major water conduit should be built, probably starting at the Rio Bravo Hydro Canal on the east and extending west'to the east boundary of Improvement District//4, approximately where it is entered by Highway 178. Such routing is shown on the enclosed map. Such a water conduit will bring much needed water into the east side of ID//4 and will be able to supply water to lands now in the City, plus lands to be annexed to the City,lying between ID//4 and the Oleese Water District. Now, I get to what I believe can be done to achieve the aims of the City of Bakersfield, with very little, if any, capital expenditure required, regarding the proposed major conduit between the Rio Bravo Hydro Canal and ID//4. This, what I will refer to as the George Nickel Water Program, is more particularly set forth in my enclosed October 1st memorandum to Tom Clark, General Manager of the Kern County Water Agency. I have discussed this memorandum with Gene Bogart October 8, 1991 Page 3. Tom Clark and now have his authorization to pass it on to you and the City Water Board. I firmly believe that, properly approached, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) will not only agree to finance the overall program set forth, but will also pay proper consideration for the benefits that MWD will achieve in' the overall water regulation program. I further believe that, with properly constructed legal agreements, we can achieve full protection for Kern River water rights and storage fights in Isabella Reservoir. If the City Water Board would like to secure further information from me, I would be pleased to make myself available for a get together with you and the City Water Board. As soon as the City Water Board is satisfied, I recommend a meeting at an early date with representatives of all the Kern River Interests, the Kern County Water Agency and its Improvement District//4 and Arvin-Edison. .~e~~~y, t~S' erely, , GWN:rjs c- Mark Salvaggio Ken Peterson Conni Brunni Paul Dow Bogart/rja TO: Gene Bogart and the City Water Board FROM: George W. Nickel, Jr. : DATE: October 8, 1991 SUBJECT: PROGRAMS FOR PRESENT AND FUTURE M&I WATER SUPPLY FOR THE CITY It is set forth, in making up the 2010 General Plan area, there axe 402 square miles, which amounts to 26,880 acres. It is projected that population in the 2010 Plan area will increase from the present approximate 300,000 to 500,000 by 2010; consequently, there is, no doubt, a need for constructive planning that will produce sufficient, good quality, M&I water to meet this projected 200,000 increase' in population. Present M&I water supply is handled by 7 retail water purveyors in portions of 5 agricultural water districts. The City of Bakersfield wisely purchased from Tenneco, the successor to the Ke,rn County Land Company, a Kern River water right with an average yield of 140,000 acre feet per year and, to cover much of the purchase obligation, sold 50% of that yield to agricultural districts outside of the City until 2012, when that average 70,000 acre feet per year of sold water will return to the City for, likely, use within the City for M&I purposes. This will make it feasible for the City to annex substantial lands within the 2010 General Plan that are not presently within the City. The City, with definite encouragement by me and other individuals and entities, developed the 2800 acre water spreading and recovery facility along the Kern River, west of the main body of the City. This has made it possible to economically regulate and subsequently recover high flow Kern River water entitlement, plus occasional flood waters that are pumped into the Friant-Kern Canal and discharged into the City's 2800 acre spreading area. The quality of these percolated and later recovered waters is so good that they are usable directly for M&I use. In recognition of that, the City has already embarked upon a fine program of water conveyance from its recovery wells to an 8 million gallon storage facility and direct distribution therefrom for substantial M&I use. In dictating this memorandum, I can't help but want to go back into the early history of the Kern River and the participation therein' of my Great Grandfather Henry Miller, of Miller & Lux, Inc., plus some further recognition of some of my own efforts that have worked for regulation and beneficial use of Kern River water in what is now the City's 2800 acre spreading area and elsewhere. M&I-PRO~RAM Gene Bogart October 8, 1991 Page 2. First, regarding some of the Kern River accomplishments of Henry Miller, I make note of the Miller-Haggin Agreement of 1888, when Henry Miller settled his water right controversy with Haggin and Tevis, the founders of the Kern County Land Company. Henry Miller had the forethought to establish that his calculated Kern River Water Rights must be measured at First Point of Measurement, which is found today at the water measuring station in the Kern River immediately west of Hart Park. Henry Miller then set forth that his calculated water rights must be delivered in undiminished quantifies to Second Point of Measurement, located in the Kern River just a short distance north of the Buena Vista Lake water storage area that was established by Henry Miller, for regulation of his Kern River water entitlement, for regulated delivery to his large agricultural holdings, in what is now the Buena Vista Water Storage District. In making this requirement that his calculated water entitlement at First Point of Measurement should be delivered in undiminished quantifies to Second Point of Measurement, Henry Miller, of course, fully recognized that the Kern County Land Company, as successor in interest to Haggin and Tevis, would have very substantial conveyance losses'of their own Kern River water entitlement, just to get Henry Miller's calculated entitlement to Second Point of Measurement. Next, we come to my follow up on the knowledge of water conveyance loss that Henry Miller initially recognized. When I took over the development of the 30,000 acre Buena Vista Lake reservoir in the late 1950's, with the program in mind to convert that area from an inefficient reservoir to a fine farming.operation, I, of course, knew of the prospect that was upcoming for regulatory water storage in Isabella Reservoir, when it would be completed in the early 1960's; consequently, I laid plans to switch, with the approval of the Buena Vista Water Storage District, Kern River storage in Buena Vista Lake for a much more efficient storage in Isabella Reservoir. To accomPlish this with the Buena Vista Water Storage District, I had to Persuade the balance of my family ownership of the Buena Vista Lake area to pay for 32 % of the conservation storage in the 570,000 acre foot Isabella Reservoir. I succeeded in that effort, but, at the same time, recognized, as Henry Miller had, that there would still be great transportation losses in the Kern River from First Point of Measurement to Second Point' of Measurement. Therefore, before agreeing to the terms of the Kern River Water Rights and Storage Agreement of 1962, I made sure that a portion of that overall understanding would require the Kern County Land Company to build the concrete lined River Canal that would make possible transportation of water stored in Isabella Reservoir without loss to Second Point of Measurement. This, then, opened up the wonderful potential of the City's 2800 acre spreading area along the Kern River immediately adjacent to the concrete lined River Canal. I worked directly with the City on my thinking and projections for what is now the City's 2800 acre spreading area along the Kern River. The fact that the First Point interest no longer had to lose substantial portions of their Kern River entitlement for conveyance of Water to Second Point M&I-PROGRAM Gene Bogart October 8, 1991 Page 3. of Measurement, by reason of the concrete lined River Canal installation, set up an underground water storage area that could be utilized for high flow Kern River Water entitlement for which there would not be sufficient storage in Isabella Reservoir. Working directly with the City, we came up with a program for regulation of. such high flow water of the City, the Buena Vista Water Storage District and Lower River. Our program went further to include the installation of wells for water recovery and transportation without loss by use of the concrete lined River Canal to the west and use of the concrete lined Cross Valley Canal to the east. The success of water regulation and recovery in the City's 2800 acre spreading area is well known to all Kern County water interests, but, of course, also captured the attention of the State Department of Water Resources to bring about a further water regulation and recovery program on some 20,000 acres of land that the DWR purchased from Tenneco. My active and construction participation in these water conservation and regulation programs does give me qualification for the further programs that I am going to set forth in a separate memorandum for the evaluation of the Kern County Water Agency and its Improvement District #4, plus the City, all Kern River Interests, Arvin Edison, MWD and .the DWR. M&Ir-PROGRAM ME. MORAND~ TO: Tom Clark, Manager Kern County Water Agency ¢- Bob Bellue FROM: George W. Nickel, DATE: October 1, 1991 SUBJECT: NEW THOUGHTS ON WHAT CAN BE DONE TO'WORK OUT A FURTHER WATER PROGRAM THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY AND ITS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #4, PLUS THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, ALL'THE KERN RIVER INTERESTS, ARVIN EDISON, MWD AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES You will recall that I sent to you a lune 18th memorandum covering this subjecL'plus a June 17th memorandum to all Kern River Interests, plus a COpy of my June 12th letter to Cliff Trotter, Manager of Arvin Edison. I think I expressed some constructive ideas and suggestions that will be background for what I will now set forth for your consideration. As a point of beginning, I think it is now abundantly clear to MWD that to firm up its M&I water supply, it is essential that some constructive and expensive programs must be embarked. upon. As an example, desalinization of ocean water.is no longer just a pie in the sky, but'a program that must have some serious consideration and follow through by MWD and the numerous water entities that it supplies water to. I don't know what a proper estimate is for the cost of producing M&I water by desalinization; however, I understand that'it is in the range of $2000 per acre foot. This is, no doubt, the highest cost supplemental water that will have to be dealt with; however, reclamation of sewage and waste water, even for just landscaping, is an expensive program already subsiantially embarked upon by water entities dealing with MWD. As an offhand guess, I would estimate that the finished and delivered cost of that water would be at least in the range of $700 per acre foot. What I think can be concluded is that MWD can well afford and appreciate water regulation and sales programs'that we can put together for MWD here in Kern County. To the best of my knowledge, the only program here in Kern County that MWD has been making a serious evaluation of and an effort to proceed with is an exchange program with Arvin Edison. This has run 'into problems. One of the most serious being the take by MWD, under an exchange program, Arvin Edison water flowing in the California Aqueduct, which is highly subsidized Federal water intended only for use on agricultural lands. Aside from that most significant problem, I understand that the proposed exchange program between Arvin Edison and Tom Clark - Memo October 1, 1991 Page 2. .MWD is currently having to go through a Federal and State environmental review, which has not been completed and, when it is, may not be making a favorable conclusion for a procedure with the exchange program. I think you will agree with me that the time has come when a real effort must be set forth to give maximum regulation of water here in Kern County for the good of all concerned in Kern County. If that can be achieved by getting IVIWD to bear a Proper sharing of the cost of such a program, there appear to be potential real benefits for both MWD and all of Kern County. As already. earlier stated, MWD faces tremendous unit water cost for desalinization programs; consequently, if, to some extent, those programs can be avoided by substantially less expensive programs in Kern County, there should be some enthusiasm and acceptance on the part of MWD. Then, looking at it from Kern County's standpoint, some financial assistance from MWD, which it can well afford, can definitely work a substantial benefit for Kern County. We now get to my suggestions on what may be done to benefit MWD, plus Kern County water interests generally. For evaluation and discussion, I will enumerate below the programs I believe should.be given prompt consideration. 1. The Agency and ID#4, the City, the Kern River Interests and Arvin-Edison should get together and adopt a program of mutual interest and benefit. 2. An early program that should benefit all concerned will be to proceed with a take of Kern River water out of the Rio Bravo Hydro Canal for conveyance to the east side of ID#4. Such conveyance system should, en route, incorporate a water treatment plant to prepare a portion of the water for M&I use. It appears that all of the water that enters the east side of ID#4 should be finished water for M&I use; however, the water conveyance facility should also handle up to approximately 400 cfs of untreated water for delivery into Arvin Edison and its main facilities in the Edison area. All of the take of water from the Rio Bravo Hydro Canal before treatment for M&I use can be conveyed directly to a regulating reservoir to be established within the north half of Section 23, T29S, R29E, which is an area just south of the Rio Bravo Golf Course area in Section 14. The water from the regulating reservoir can, in part, pass into a water treatment plant and then be conveyed in a pipeline to the east side of ID#4. The treated water can then not only be used in ID#4, but also on the lands within the City lying between the Olcese Water District on the east and ID#4 on the west. The City and Olcese.can work together on a water distribution and sales program on the lands between ID#4 and the present west boundary of Olcese. 3. From the regulating reservoir in Section 23, a separate pipeline system can be Tom Clark - Memo October 1, 1991 Page 3. established to convey up to 400 cfs to Arvin Edison and the Edison area. 4. In this overall program, I suggest that MWD should provide all of the construction funds on a financial and benefit program that will meet the satisfaction of MWD and all of the involved Kern County Interests. This will be further explained in following enumerated paragraphs. 5. For water exchange purposes, MWD can look substantially beyond just an exchange program with Arvin Edison. I suggest that several of the Kern River Interests can make exchange programs with MWl) for the benefit of both MWD and the Kern River exchangers. I make direct reference to the Buena Vista Water Storage District, the Henry 'Miller Water District, the Kern Delta Water District, the North Kern Water Storage District and the City, to the extent that it currently delivers Kern River water to.Cawelo, and other agricultural districts. The MWD Aqueduct delivery program to Buena Vista, Henry Miller and Kern Delta in the Kern Lake area can all be made without any use of the Cross Valley Canal. This will, of course, be an important development, as much, if not all, of Arvin EdiSOn's 400 cfs capacity in the Cross Valley Canal can then be made available for 'the State Water Bank Project in Kern County. 6. The exchange water to be supplied to ~ from the Kern River Interests can, in part, be water stored for regulation in Isabella Reservoir. It can also be water pumped from the City's 2800 acre spreading area and ID#4 water pumped from its spreading areas. 1 think it can be set forth that an exchange program with ~ cannot only encompass the Arvin Edison exchange, but can be greatly expanded for the benefit of ~, so long as ~ is willing and able to pay an appropriate price for the overall water regulatiOn program. 7. A factual look at water storage in Isabella Reservoir over the years will clearly show that in many years there is extra storage capacity in Isabella that could be put to use by holding Kern water therein that would not be needed for a period of time, because MWD water can be substituted and used off of the California Aqueduct. The Kern River water held under those circumstances in Isabella can later be delivered to lVtWD by conveyance directly to the California Aqueduct or by exchange programs of various types. There will be no disadvantage suffered by the Kern River Interests with the storage rights in Isabella, provided that is set forth clearly in the understanding that can be entered into with ~. As an example, when a big water year occurs on the Kern River that will require removal of water already stored therein, it can be a requirement upon MWD to take such surplus water into the Aqueduct as a portion of the exchange water credit that MWD would have at that particular time. This might cost MWD some of its California Aqueduct entitlement, for which there would not be sufficient conveyance capacity in the Aqueduct; however, this would be a relatively small expense to Tom Clark - Memo October 1, 1991 Page 4. MWE)~ which I believe can be set forth to be easily afforded by MWD in the overall program. The average time period for a big water year on the Kern River is approximately I in every :5 years; hence, it appears that substantial more use can properly be made of Isabella under an exchange program with MWD. I should also add that it would appear proper for MWD to pay some form of unit charge for such regulatory storage, plus absorption of related evaporation costs. 8. To the extent that Kern River Interests take California Aqueduct water from MWD and give up a like amount of Kern River water to MWD, for temporary storage in Isabella, I think it should be proper and aCCeptable to MWD to pay a fair calculated cost per acre foot for the exchange program. 9. By having a water regulating program along this line, it should be possible for MWD to maximize its take of California AqUeduct entitlement. It should also make possible better water regulation within MWD. When these benefits are calculated, it would seem reasonable and worthwhile for MWD to make some form of payment for these benefits, when · measured as against the cost of desalinization programs, etc. This is a fascinating overall subject that I suggest should be fully evaluated at an early date. Knowing that Bob Bellue, as Chief of Improvement District #4, has been working on these overall' prOgram concepts for you, I am sending a copy of this memorandum to Bob for his evaluation and comments to you and, I hope, also to me. If possible, I would like very much to discuss the contents of this memorandum with you before I give any thought to passing it out to the Kern River Interests, MWD, DWR, etc. I am sure that you will have some critical and constructive comments for the good of the overall program concept. It would be a pleasure for me to discuss them with you before the program concept is generally passed out. WATER AND SANITATION DEPARTM~ PAUL ~W, Manager GENE B~ART. ~r~tor ot Water ~e~urces FLORN ~RE. A~stant Oir~tor ot Water MIKE SLOES. Sanitation Su~nn;enaent. 32~3114 July 16, 1991 RECEIVED STP JF$ ~ LWF RKB Mr. Michael Rado~, ~rcsidc=t AFH Ke~ Coun~ Water Agen~ DKS P. O. Box 58 Kern County Water A~ ~ ' Bakersfield, CA 93302-~58 _ RE: B~RS~LD URB~ WA~R F~C~G P~- J~Y 1991 ' Dear Mr. Radon:. Upon review of the latest draft "Bakersfield Urban Water Supply - Preliminary Financing Plan" presented by Bartle Wells Associates, we agree that a .plan for the future should prOvide for coordination among local water purveyors that will prevent duplication of costs and facilities when developing municipal water resources. However, we strongly disagree with several major points of the proposed plan. As originally stated in Mr. Tom Stetson's letter dated March 23. 1990 (copy attached), we view the plan as a major expansion of the boundaries of I. D. No. 4 of the Kern County Water AgenCy. This proposed expansion of territory would create no new water nor would it reduce the cost of water to existing residents. The plan appears to create major new subsidized areas at the expense of existing water users. As proposed, a very large number of City residents located south of the Kern River in central and southwest Bakersfield would receive no water benefit but would be expected to subsidize undeveloped lands and isolated areas currently experiencing water quality problems. Those utilities and purveyors that have worked hard to develop dependable, good qu.ality water sources through 'User Pay~ policies would be penalized or forced to unfairly subsidize other agencies. Undeveloped lands should bear the fu.ll cost of providing water and facilities necessary to service that land. Formation of a huge new I. D.-2010 water assessment district would only. create another layer of government with tremendous new taxing authority. AS most of the land' located in the proposed I.D.-2010 _~s_~.ssment district is currently agricultural land, it would further complicate the existing I.D. No.4/Agricultural water supply question m regard to representation and costs. For instance, why should urbanized land continue to subsidize the agricultural land in this new assessment district? Should agricultural interests continue to represent a majority of the land in this new Urban District? We strongly feel that the control and representation of the Urban water supply should remain vested with the residents who live in and pay taxes to the Urban District. State water supplies paid for by residents within 'I.D. No.4 should, be preserved and protected for use within I.D. No.4. Likewise, Kern River water rights bought and secured by taxpayers of the City of Bakersfield will continue to be preserved and protected for the present and future citizens of Bakersfield. As additional water conveyance facilities and/or enlargement of treatment plant facilities are needed in the future, the potential beneficiaries of those new facilities should provide the financing and investigative work. Improvement District No.4 should only be required to provide coordination of the effOrt and to see that it does not interfere with or duplicate the City's or any other water purveyor's planned expansion. The Battle Wells report indicates that groundwater charges levied by the Improvement District would remain at $10 per acre-foot for agricultural water but would be increased for municipal water from $20 per acre-foot to $44 (+120%) per acre-foot inside I.D. No.4 and would ultimately be established at $59 per acre-foot outside of I.D. No.4~ Also under the proposed plan, development fees for new housing would increase over 300%. These are huge rate increases and would directly impact the taxpayers of the City of Bakersfield. The plan calls for the utilization of the City's Kern River water supplies, up to 40,000 acre-feet per year from 1993 to 2012 and then 75,000 to 97,500 acre-feet per year from 2012 through 2020 and thereafter. (Table 4.1.1,-Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton, February 1990). Why should the City's water be committed for use under this plan anywhere outside of the City or outside of City-owned property.? The plan calls for the establishment of a Contract B ~oard of Control administered by a five-member Board, three of which supposedly represent the City. But the City now has its own very satisfactory arrangements for the administration of its water suPplies and water facilities. Under the proposed Joint Operating Contract the. City would be requi~ed to provide for development of water supply on a uniform basis for each purveyor area in accordance with i~.growth patterns; the City could not require annexation of existing developed properties as a condition of water supply delivery; and the City may require annexation of new development '~vithin its own retail water service area." Why should the City be subject to such obligations and constraints? The objective of the Joint Operating Contract is stated to be for the centralization of all urban water supply management functions. But it appean~ that the real objective is to make City-owned Kern River water available to other water purveyors which have problems with their own water supplies. The proposed plan offers nothing to the City except increased costs and yet it obligates the City to commit its own water resources to benefit areas outside of the City. More than 20 years ago, the City of Bakersfield set forth on a program to acquire an assured supply of high quality water to meet its current and future needs. After many years of expensive litigation and effort it accomplished that goal. It appears that those who did not have that foresight now want to share in the City's acquired resources through the guise of an urban water supply management plan and a joint operating contract. The City made certain commitments to its basic contractors, including what on reflection were generous terms, at the time it acquired its Kern River water supplies and facilities. The City should not now further commit those resources to a project which offers little, if anything, to the City and its residents and taxpayers. · Sincerely, MARK SALVAGGIO Water Board Chairman KEN PETERSON Water Board Member CON~~~-~~ Water Board Member MS/KP/CB:sr cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dale Hawley, City Manager Larry Lunardini, City Attorney Attachment 3 1113 ETSON, EN~E CIV1L AND COt~SUI. TING w~t C~. ColiJomm 91791 ~ D . (818) ~7~ ~n C~. ~iJ~ 92672 (415) d57~701 Fax ~i4J March 23, 1990 ,~Y Mr. Stua~ Pyle, General Manager Kern Coun~ Water Agen~ P. O. Box 58 Bakersfield, C~ 93302-0058 Dear Mr. ~le: ~ consultant to the C~ of Bake~eld Water Depa~ment, I have reviewed the Ora~ repo~ ent~ed "Urban Bakersfield Water Supp~ Plan for Improvement Distri~ No. 4, Kern Coun~ Water Agent," FebrUa~ 1990. A~ough I agree ~h the obje~ive of planning ahead to assure that muni~pai and dome~ic water supplies will be available for the urban Bakersfield area in the future, it should be kept in mind that the C~ of Bakersfield took the lead some ~ years ago in planning for ~re water supplies for the urban Baker~eld are~ ~e Ci~ n~ only supposed obtaining ~e municipal and indus~al alio~tion of ~te Proje~ water to the urban Baker~ield area, b~ K expendea a great aeal of effo~ and money to' ob~n a separate Kern River water supp~ through the a~uis~ion of the water rights and water prope~ies of Tenneco West, Inc. ~e Ci~ of Bakersfield over the years has cooperated w~h other public agencies aha water pu~eyors in the urban Bakersfield area in making its water facilities and water SUpplies available in and around the urban Bakersfield area. ~e C~'s water sources represent more than one-half of the total proje~e~ water supply avaiiable for the Metrcpolitan Priori~ Area of the U~an Bakersfield water Supply Plan, as shown in Table 4.1.1 of the repo~. I see no reason to designate a single wholesale water opera, on agen~, suggested at page ~o of the repo~. I also see no reason to expand the bounaaries Improveme~ D~i~ No. 4 of the Kern Cou~ Water Agent. Ne~her of these sugge~ions crea~es add~on~ water or reauces the cost of water. ~e urban Bake~eld area should not be used a vehicle .to supp~ add~ional su~ce water to ag~cu~re to lessen economic impa~ agricuEure, ~ recommended ~ page 5 of ~e repo~ · . ~e overall water manageme~ plan for the urb~ area should be one that provides the necessa~ quan~ and ~uai~ of water for ~ure urban needs. Urban and agricu~ural water supplies ~d ~ter requirements should stand on ~eir o~ aha ne~er should be used to suDsid~e the other. In ~e ~n~ronmenta Impa~ Repo~ Re: Use aha Disposition oi Prope~ Rights Acquired by the City of BakerSfield from Tenneco West, Inc., in Settlement of Utigat~on. September 29, 1975, page I-4, it stated 'The City of Bakersfield has long recognized the need to assure a long-term, high quality source of supplem, ental water to meet the increasing needs of the urban Bakersfield area." The City of Bakersfield, through its long-range planning initiated some 25 years ago. has acquired and developed water supplies and facilities to meet the needs of the City and areas to be annexed to the City. The Urban Bakersfield Water Supply Plan should not duplicate nor interfere with the City's plans. It should supplement the City's plans and each of the entities proposing to participate in the. Water Supply Plan should retain the ownership and control of its own water rights and water facilities. This is not to say that there should not be joint participation in major facilities which can be commonly used by those wishing to participate in them. There is no reason to expand Improvement District No. 4 or to create a new water supply agency to assume wholesale water supply responsibilities and assets of agencies such as the City of Bakersfield, Olcese Water District and East Niles Community Se~icas District, as suggested at page 6 of the report. Another layer of government is not needed nor is it desirable. Wholesale water supply agencies are formed to supply imported water: the Kern County Water agency is a wholesale agency and has committed its imported supplies to its member agencies anc Improvement District No. 4. The supplying of local surface water is the logical responsibility of eac~ of those who own rights to local surface water supplies. Creation of an Action Committee, as described at pages 6 and 7 of the report. appears to be unnecessary. It suggests that all urban water suppliers pool their water supplies anc turn them over to a water supply agency to operate some type of a community wholesale 'water supply system. This seems totally unnecessary in that the urban water purveyors have accluirec their own water supplies, have been operating their'own systems, have been meeting their water supply requirements and have been cooperating to assist one another as the need arises. In lieu of establishing an Action Committee and having such committee consider th~ establishment of a wholesale Water SuDpiy Agency or the expansion of Improvement District Nc 4 as a wholesale water supply agency, the Urban Bakersfield Water Advisory Committee coulc address the need for the facilities which are described in chapter 5 of the report. As some of thos~ facilities may be needed in the future, the potential beneficiaries of the facilities can Oetermine wha: is neeOed, what it will cost, how it will be funded ancl operated and how the cost sharing will b~ achieved. Sincerely, Ci=y Council~embers ~. 6 ~om~ M. Ste~on OCT 1 6 1991 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES MEMORAND~ TO: The Kern River Watermaster on behalf of the Kern River Interests City of Bakersfield Water Department Kern County Water Agency and its Improvement District #4 Arvin-Edison Water Storage District FROM: George W. Nickel, Jr. DATE: October 14, 1991 SUBJECT: FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THE GEORGE NICKEL WATER PROJECTS PLANNING Reference is made to my letter of October 8th to Gene Bogart, Director of Water Resources for the City of Bakersfield, and the attachments thereto, including my October 1st memorandum to Tom Clark, Manager of the Kern County Water Agency, entitled "NEW THOUGHTS ON WHAT CAN BE DONE TO WORK OUT A FURTHER wATER PROGRAM THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY AND ITS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #4, PLUS THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, ALL THE KERN RIVER INTERF. STS, ARVIN-EDISON, MW-D AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES". I think I have set forth some constructive planning that will result in more usable water by improved regulation programs. What I would like to do now is to' concentrate on the specific better water regulation programs that should produce more usable water, particularly for MWD, but, at the same time, water conservation and programs of financial benefit for all participant parties. 1. To start off with, we need full evaluation and tabulation of when MWD will have California Aqueduct entitlement water that can be beneficially regulated in Kern County. I make direct reference to the type of MWD entitlement water that has been proposed to be regulated in Arvin-Edison. I believe that in an overall Kern County. program, water can be efficiently regulated in Arvin-Edison; however, in any overall Kern County program, no water returned to MWD need be Federally subsidized agricultural water. In the overall program., water returned to MWD can be a combination of Kern River water and Kern County water Agency California Aqueduct water on programming comparable to that set forth in DWR's Kern County Water Bank program, which deals with California AqueduCt water outside of regular MWD entitlement. What we need to have calculated by MWD is the total amount of its California Aqueduct entitlement that can be beneficially regulated in Kern County. This, of course, should be a substantial enlargement over and above what MWD has calculated can be regulated in GWN-10-14/rjs Kern River Interests - Water Memo October 14, 1991 Page 2. Arvin-Edison. It is, of course, well known to all concerned that the maximum MWD Aqueduct water that can be regulated in Arvin-Edison is the amount of Cross Valley Canal capacity that Arvin-Edison can provide at any particular time up to a maximum of 400 cfs. The regulation take of MWD Aqueduct entitlement can be greatly accelerated and increased by working out with Kern River Interests a direct delivery of Aqueduct water to Kern River Interests, including the Buena Vista Water Storage District, Hacienda, the Henry Miller Water District, the Kern Delta Water District and the City of Bakersfield. 2. ' Replacement and exchange for the MWT) water can be assured primarily with Kern River water stored in Isabella .Reservoir by the respective Kern River Interests, which can be later released, when there is a demand by MWD by direct delivery to the California Aqueduct and/or by release of Kern River Interests' Aqueduct entitlement, plus stored underground water that can be conveyed for delivery to the Aqueduct. It should be noted that there should be a requirement upon MWD to be charged for evaporation losses on MWD exchange waters in Isabella Reservoir, plus any calculated conveyance losses from Isabella Reservoir to the California Aqueduct. I go on to further note that in a big water year on the Kern River, that occurs about once in every 5 years, there will logically be a requirement upon MWD to take out its exchange water in Isabella Reservoir to the extent necessary to accommodate Kern River inflow entitlement of the Kern River Interests, that will need accommodation in Isabella Reservoir. 3. With some appropriate financial assistance from MWD, the Kern River Interests will be able 'to set up to take substantially increased direct take of Kern River water regulated in Isabella Reservoir to Improvement District//4 of the Kern County Water Agency and lands within the City east of Improvement District #4 and west of the Olcese Water District. It will then also be possible for the Kern River Interests to set up to make water exchanges with Arvin- .Edison, but with the definite provision that Arvin-Edison exchange entitlement in the California Aqueduct will only be delivered to agricultural lands in Kern County with no release of such Arvin-Edison entitlement for MWD. 4. To financially accommodate the Kern River Interests on the overall exchange program, it would appear appropriate for MWD to finance a major water conduit program to convey Kern River water from the 1600 cfs capacity Rio Bravo Hydro Canal to the east boundary of Improvement District 4 of the Agency. This major conduit will make a major water exchange program with MW'D financially feasible for the Kern River Interests. It will also make feasible the Kern River Interests exchange program with Arvin-Edison. 5. To fully avoid any potential legal problem or misinterpretation of Isabella GWN-10-14 I~j, .- Kern River Interests - Water Memo October 14, 1991 Page 3. Reservoir storage rightsi .it will be of the utmost importance that MWD enters into a contractual legal understanding thatI there will be no interference with any of the existing storage fights of the Kern River Interestslin Isabella Reservoir. As earlier stated, this will, of course, mean that MWD must evacuate any regulatory storage water in Isabella Reservoir, to the extent that such storage is needed by any of the Kern River Interests having the prime storage 'fights in Isabella Reservoir. Most or all 6f MWD's forced release water can be arranged conveyance to the Kern' River Intertie to the AqUeduct. 6. In addition to some regulatory storage of consequence in Isabella Reservoir with Kern River exchange water, it will be feasible for MWD to work out a further water storage program of some 50,000 to 100,000 acre feet in Cottonwood Creek by use of the same water lift program from the ~o Bravo Hydro Canal that will be utilized for the major water conduit that will pass to Improv~ement District #4 of the Agency and Arvin-Edison. It will certainly be worthwhile to have ~ fully evaluate storage in a reservoir in Cottonwood Creek that can be created by an expenditu~re of MWD. 7. When making direct delivery .of Aqueduct water to the Kern Island area of the Kern Delta Water District, it will become necessary for MWD to expend money to improve the Maples Canal conveyanCe facility between the Buena Vista Aquatic Park on the west and the Kern Lake area of the Kern Delta Water District on the east. In addition, it is my suggestion that MWD should pay SOme form of exchange fee per acre foot for the accommodations that will be provided MWD by t~he individual Kern River Interests. 8. At my initiation of this memorandum, I did set forth that it will be of great importance for MWD t6 make a calculation of how much of its California Aqueduct entitlement water it can exchange h~re in Kern County for later delivery of exchange return water in years of water shortage to dea~ with in the MWD Service Areas. I have made the assumption that the potential amount of MWD entitlement water from the Aqueduct that can be beneficially regulated will substantially exceed what MWD projected it could pass to Arvin-Edison for regulation. I believe that MWD has treacly proceeded with constructive regulation programs within its own service areas that will make possible temporary further regulation of its California Aqueduct water in Kern County. iIt appears there should be great incentive to do this, as against the cost that will be involved in expanded programs of desalinization of ocean water. In any event, I am sure that we will look[ forward to learning from MWD its estimate on the amount of its California Aqueduct entitlement that it will like to regulate in Kern County. To move ahead toward getting an answ~er on this subject from MWD, I will send a copy of this memorandum to Carl Boronkay, Genegal Manager of the Metropolitan Water District, as well as a copy of my letter of October 8th to Gene Bogart and the attachments thereto. I think that the George Nickel GWN-10-14/rjs Kern River Interests - Water Memo October 14, 1991 Page 4. Water Projects program can be of mutual benefit to MWD and water interests in Kern County. I hereby request critical comment and appropriate suggestions from all Kern County Water Interests that will be receiving my documentation. I would like to think that my suggested programming will be SOmething that the recipients of this memorandum may approve oL I suggest that Kern River Watermaster Chuck Williams should, at an early date, call a meeting of all Kern County Water I, nterests to discuss what we might specifically agree to with MWD. OW~/rjs / ; GWN-10-14/rj~ George W. Nickel, Bakersfield, CA 93306 Telephone 805/872.5050 FAX: 805/872-7141 0Gl' 1 8 ]991 October 16; 1991 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES Carl Boronky, General Manager Metropolitan Water District P.O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 Dear Carl: I have already sent to you a copy of my October 14th memorandum to the Kern River Watermaster, the City of Bakersfield Water Department, the Kern County Water Agency and the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, which is entitled "FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THE GEORGE NICKEL WATER PROJECTS PLANNING"; however, for your quick and easy reference, I am attaching another copy of that memorandum, plus a copy of my October 14th letter to Bob Edmonston. · The reason that I am making this direct contact with you is because of the importance of learning here in Kern County the amount of MWD California Aqueduct entitlement that we can potentially regulate through exchange programs with MWD. By our overall programming, I feel sure that we can give an assist to the projected MWD exchange with Arvin-EdiSOn by working out a total program within Kern County, whereby the return water to MWD will be Kern River or other Kern County waters that are not Federally Subsidized ag~cultural water. In addition to that, I am equally sure that, to the extent that MWD has additional Aqueduct entitlement that can · be made available for regulation and later exchange, we have the ability and facilities here in Kern County to give MWD a real helping hand. What we particularly need to learn from MWD is the approximate amount of total MWD Aqueduct entitlement water that yoU would like to have regulation of in certain calculated future years of MWD Aqueduct entitlement. I believe that you will agree that this subject has good coverage in my attached October 14th memorandum. If there is positive MWD interest in what I have set forth, it would be helpful if it is possible to get some tentative figures from MWD prior to November 7th, when we have some scheduled meetings of Kern River Interest with the City of Bakersfield and the Kern County Water Agency. If it will be possible for MWD to supply some tentative figures on the amount of MWD Aqueduct entitlement, that might be constructively regulated in given years of future Aqueduct entitlement, I would like to request that copies of such figures should be sent to me and: Gene .Bogart, Director of Water Resources City of. Bakersfield 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, CA 93311 Carl Boronky October 16, 1991 Page 2. Chuck Williams Kern River Watermaster P.O. Box 1195 Bakersfield, CA 93302 Tom Clark, General Manager Kern County Water Agency P.O. Box 58 Bakersfield, CA 93302 It would be a pleasure to hear from you at an early date. I fully believe that some constructive progress can be made for the mutual benefit of MWD and Kern County water interests. Sincerely, / ; / George W. Nickel, Jr. ~'~ GWN:rjs Encs. c-Gene Bogart ' Chuck Williams Tom Clark TO: City Water Board File: FROM: George W. Nickel, Jr. DATE: October 17, 1991 SUBJECT: PROGRAM OF POTENTIAL MUTUAL INTEREST ON SALE OF WATER ENTITLEMENT TO THE LANDS WITHIN THE CITY LYING BETWEEN THE OLCESE WATER DISTRICT ON THE EAST AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #4 OF THE KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY. ON THE WEST The lands that I refer to are primarily made up of lands that were de-annexed from the Olcese Water District; however, in addition to those lands, I see the potential of further City annexation to developable lands south of those de-annexed from the Olcese Water District. In any event, it is a substantial total block of largely fine developable land for residential and commercial purposes. I am attaching a map that shows this general area and also shows thereon the major water conduit system that I project should originate out of the 1600 cfs capacity Rio Bravo Hydro Canal and extend to ID#4 with branches off therefrom to serve the present and future lands within the City. It is this major water conduit system that I p~jeet we may be able to get' financial assistance for from MWD, in return for helping MWD on water regulation and exchange programs that I have outlined in the George Nickel Water Program that should have some overall Kern County water interest discussion in the near future. Because the land area outlined on my attached map is a very substantial one, the thought has occurred to me that the sale Of Kern River entitlement water thereto should, logically, be a joint effort and program by the City and La HaCienda, Inc., which owns the lower river water fights on the Kern River to the extent that they are not obligated to or needed by the lands remaining in the Olcese Water District. I am satisfied that this can be a good, workable, water entitlement sale program, equally participated in by the City and La Hacienda, Inc., both of which entities have substantial investment in making such water entitlement available and are entitled to proper compensation for having done so. I go on to note that the lands to which water entitlement can be made available have very little market value without such water entitlement; consequently, the landowners in this overall area should be willing to pay a fair and proper charge for purchase of sufficient water entitlement to permit them to proceed with residential and commercial development. I would like to discuss and evaluate with you what a fair and proper charge might be for water City Water Board October 17, 1991 Page 2. entitlement to the landowners who will have purchase interest. I have started out by. reasoning that the average open land holding in this area, without water entitlement, probably has no more than $1,000 per acre value; however, with water entitlement thereon, I project that thc average market value in the overall area could easily accelerate to about $10,000 per acre. With that assumption, I think it may be reasonable to set forth a purchase value of M&I water entitlement to be approximately $5,000 per acre. If that is a proper assumption, I go on to note that the obligation to supply the M&I water entitlement should be equally that of the City and La Hacienda, Inc. and the income from the sales should also be equally divided. In order not to set forth an immediate obligation for water entitlement purchase, I think we might set up a program wherein there would be an option to purchase that might extend for up to a 10 year period; however, during the option period, I believe that all optionee landowners should be required to pay for their percentage share of the major water distribution system that will be installed to eventually serve them. If we get the MWD financial help that I am projecting, the cost of the overall water distribution system will not be an excessive one for the individual 'landowners. This is a subject that we will, of course, want to fully explore and evaluate. In addition to purchasing water entitlement and sharing in the cost of the major water distribution system, the landowners will need to look to a public entity or two that will be purchasing the water from the City and La Hacienda, Inc. and supplying it to the landowners. It does appear .entirely feasible for the Olcese Water District to expand it boundaries to take care of a portion of the lands to be served; however, in addition, either the. City and/or an entity like Cai Water can also be the water purchaser and distributor. This, of course, is another subject that I would like to discuss and evaluate with you. I do believe that the present and likely expanded lands within the City in this general area should be a fine growth area that doesn't generally' compete and take from lands in agricultural production, which I believe to be in the general best interest of the City and Kern County. I think we have a most interesting overall subject to discuss and evaluate. I look forward to the potential of your setting up a meeting for this purpose. GWN/rjs Oy-wu-l~l Iris OCT 2 5 1991 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES MEMORANDUM TO: ALL KERN COUNTY WATER INTERESTS File: 220-f-4 / 1430-s / 1200-b FROM: George W. Nickel, Jr. DATE: October 24, 1991 SUBJECT: TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH DUANE GEORGESUN OF MWD REGARDING MY LETrER OF OCTOBER 16TH TO CARL BORONKAY, GENERAL MANAGER OF MWD Duane is, apparently, one of the key men working under Carl Boronkay, and Carl made specific request of Duane to make direct telephone contact with me regarding my October 16th letter to Carl, plus my extensive attachments thereto. Duane started out by telling me that continuous effort is being made to get State and Federal approval of the proposed water exchange program between MWD and Arvin-Edison. Duane indicated that they have some optimism that there will be an approval of the exchange program. I noted to him that MWD can enlarge its exchange program in Kern County beyond what it projects with Arvin-Edison and that involved Kern County water interests can probably give a helping hand in making the Arvin-Edison exchange fully acceptable to the State and Federal authorities by making a return of water to MWD to be other than the Federally subsidized Arvin-Edison water. I went on to note that in an overall Kern County water interest program with MWD, I thought we could and would fully protect Arvin-Edison in getting, for exchange purposes, the amount of exchange water that MWD was ready to commit to; however, for political reasons, I noted that it would work better for both Arvin-Edison and. MWD if the MWD water is exchanged with Kern County water interests that don't receive Federally subsidized agricultural water. Such Kern County water interests can make firm commitment to make a like amount of Kern River water exchange with Arvin-Edison and the Water received from Arvin-Edison will be applied on agricultural lands in Kern County and not then be transported as Arvin-Edison's Federally subsidized water in the California Aqueduct to MWD. The' water received from MWD to designated Kern River Interests can be returned as Kern River water delivered for transportation to MWD in the California Aqueduct. Furthermore, I pointed out that it would become feasible for MWD to greatly increase its water delivery and exchange program in Kern County over what it would be physically feasible for MWD to deliver to Arvin-Edison. As I noted in my October 16th letter to Carl Boronkay, what we need to know here in Kern County is how much total MWD Aqueduct entitlement water in given years can be delivered to Kern River Interests for future exchanges that can be .made to work to the mutual advantage of all of Kern County water interests and MWD. kw-lO-24 Iris ALL KERN COUNTY WATER INTERESTS - MEMO October 24, 1991 Page 2. I think I was getting my message through to Duane Georgesun; howeVer, he stated that MWD preferred not to negotiate with Kern River Interests until a determination is made on whether or not there will be Federal and State authority approval of the proposed MWD exchange with Arvin-Edison. Duane indicated that such a determination will likely be made in the near future. Even so, I am, frankly, surprised that MWD wouldn't want to promptly start negotiations with Kern River Interests, as there should be nothing lost in doing so and there is the potential of a substantial gain in the amount of exchange OVer what can be physically feasible with Arvin- Edison. Furthermore, speaking personally and, I believe, for Kern River Interests, I believe that we will fully cooperate with Arvin-Edison so that' it will have nothing to lose by working with US. Regarding Kern River Interests and the State Water Bank in Kern County, Duane told me that MWD was greatly disappointed that the environmentalists and the DWR have been causing a delay in take of Hacienda and other DWR owned underground waters in Kern County. Duane pointed out that there has been no extraction to date to deliver any of such water to MWD. I replied to Duane that the Kern County Water Agency is making every conceivable effort to get the State Water Bank program operative. 'I went on to note that the real problem seems to be with the environmentalists. My final message to Duane Georgesun was that, through the Farm Bureau, Assemblyman Rusty Areias, Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Agriculture, had a constructive meeting here in Kern County yesterday, together with State, County and Bureau representatives, and that every effort is going to be made to get the State Water Bank program moving in Kern County, as well as other water conservation and sales programs in both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley and will, hopefully, benefit agriculture as well as M&I users like MWD. It may be wishful thinking on my part; however, I believe that, within the next couple of weeks, there will be some contact with Carl Boronkay and others in MWD with the City of Bakersfield 'Water Department, the Kern River Watermaster and the Kern County Water Agency, as I specifically suggested in my October 16th letter to Carl Boronkay. kw-lO-24 Iris Cliff Trotter Arvin-Edison Water Storage District P.O. Box 175 Arvin, CA 93203 Tom Clark · Kern County Water Agency P.O. Box 58 Bakersfield, CA 93302 Bob Bellue Kern County Water Agency P.O. Box 58 Bakersfield, CA 93302' Gene Bogart, Director of Water Resources City of Bakersfield 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, CA 93311 Chuck Williams Kern River Watermaster Box 1195 'Bakersfield, CA 93302 Stan Barnes 2929 West Main Street, Suite H Visalia, CA 93291 Carl Boronky, General Manager Metropolitan Water District 1111 Sunset Blvd., BOx 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 Mr. BOb Edmonston Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc. 109 North Brand Blvd., Suite 600 Glendale, CA 91203-2699 KRW-ADDRESSF, S Gil Castle Kern Delta Water District Del Kern Station - P.O.' Box 155 Bakersfield, CA 93307 Marty Milobar Buena Vista Water Storage District 'P.O. Box 756 Buttonwillow, CA 93206 Joe Lutje Henry Miller Water District P.O. Box 9759 ' Bakersfield, CA 93389-9759 Gordon Ricks Ricks, Taylor 1326 "H" Street, S~ite 27 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Duane Georgesun METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT 111 Sunset Blvd. Box 5111113 Lo-~ Angele-~, CA 90054 KRW- ADDRF_.,S$ F.,S DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISES MAINLINE EXTENSION REFUND REASSIGNMENTS Regular Meeting, Water Board - City of Bakersfield November 7, 1991 Tract/ Water Board Parcel Remaining Reassigned to % No. Map Balance Dr. Mortimer Masure 22% 80-35 W.B. TR #4220 $ 40,234.98* Box 828 Burbank, CA 91503 Ms. Joan Lovell 22% 80-35 W.B. TR #4220 40,234.98* P. O. Box 223-784 Carmel, 'CA 93922 Debren Companies 2½% 88-17 W.B. TR #5033-1 43,380.61 1844 North E1 Camino Real, Suite 150 TR #5034-1 San Clemente, CA 92672 Debren Companies 2½% 88-18 W.B. TR #5034-2 18,032.69' 1844 North E1 Camino Real, Suite 150 San Clemente, CA 92672 Debren Companies 2½% 88-19 W.B. TR #5034-3 10,276.55 1844 North E1 Camino Real, Suite 150 San Clemente, CA 92672 Debren Companies 2½% 89-08 W.B. TR 95034-4 20,328.10 1844 North E1 Camino Real, Suite 150 San Clemente,~ CA 92672 Debren Companies ~2½% 91-04 W.B. TR #5034-5 44,582.50 1844 North E1 Camino Real, Suite 150 San Clemente, CA 92672 Debren Companies 2½% 91-05 W.B. TR #5033-2 20,569.00 1844 North E1 Camino Real, Suite 150 San Clemente, CA 92672 i Robert A. Dauterman 2½% 88-18 W.B. TR #5034-2 18,032.69' 114 La Quebrada Way San Jose, CA 95127 TOTAL AMOUNT IS ...................................... '... $197,404.43 *Reassigned twice