Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/92 · CA LI FO R N IA W^TER BOARD '~4 a r k S a 1 v a g g i o, C h a i r m a n K e n P e t e r s o n, V i c e -.C h a i r m a n Conni Brunni -SPECIAL MEETING- TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1992 WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE ROOM 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD 4:30 P.M. Call meeting to order. Roll Call - Board Members. 1) Approve minutes of May 5, 1992 meeting. 2) Correspondence - a) Letter from State Department of Water Resources dated May 29, 1992 regarding Water Shortage Contingency Plan. 3) Re-organization of I.D. 4 - DISCUSSION of WORKING COMMITTEES. 4) George Nickel water proposal. FOR BOARD ACTION. 5) Senate Bill 1866 (Johnston) regarding the Delta Protection Act of 1992. FOR BOARD INFORMATION and POSSIBLE ACTION. 6) Water Board Report to City Council regarding "STATEMENT OF WATER . RESOURCES POLICY." FOR BOARD REVIEW and ACTION. 7) Financial reporting relating to the City's Water Banking Program. FOR BOARD INFORMATION. 8) Update on Cawelo Water District meeting held May 27, 1992 regarding the future use, operation and control of the Cross Valley Canal. FOR BOARD INFORMATION. 9) Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Seciton 54956.9(b)(1) regarding potential litigation. 10) Adjournment. Paul Dow, Water & Sanitation Manager POSTED: June 8, 1992 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 · (805) 32~3715 WATER BOARD MEETING - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1992 5:15 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Boardmember Salvaggio at 5:15 P.M. in the Water Resources Conference Room. Present: Salvaggio, Chairman; Peterson, Vice-Chairman; Brunni A motion was made by Boardmember Brunni to approve the mintues of meeting held November 7, 1991. Motion passed. Public Statements were made as follows: 1. Mr. Tom Clark of the Kern County Water Agency made two presentations before the Board. The first was an update on the ID4 separation. The second was regarding Kern County Water Agency's purchase of Tenneco (McClung Ranch) lands for groundwater recharge. a. Several meetings have been held regarding the ID4 separation in an effort to effect a workable solution to the problem of establishing an elected Board. After much discussion, Mr. Dow recommended that the Board approve the Kern County Water Agency's concept that was presented and appoint 3 members to meet with whatever committee members they choose (Boardmember Salvaggio recommended Mr. Balch, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Radon as representatives of the policy making portion of the committee) and try to work out the details and report back to the Water Board. A motion for approval was made by Boardmember Peterson. Motion passed. b. Mr. Clark also informed the Board that the Kern County Water Agency proposed to purchase 2300 acres known as the McClung Ranch properties from Tenneco. This property is near the Ashe Water system and Mr. Clark stated that the Kern County Water Agency will not develop that portion of the property where it will adversely affect the City's system. Questions of concern for the City were use of the Kern River Canal, City Planning of the Kern River corridor and the City's position as a Kern River Interest. 2. Mr. George Nickel made a presentation before the Board regarding his proposed water plan for the de-annexed area between Olcese Water District and ID4. It was recommended by Mr. Dow that Mr. Nickel provide staff with cost figures and commitments of participation from developers in order to continue further discussion and possible participation in this project. At the recommendation of staff Items 9, 4, 5 and 7 were moved up to this position in the above written order. Mr. Bogart presented before the Board the Cawelo Water District letter regarding future operation and control of the Cross Valley Canal. A meeting is scheduled for May 27, 1992 to discuss the future of the Cross Valley Canal and the benefits/non-benefits received by the participants. Mr. Bogart suggested that City staff be in attendance at this meeting and to report back to the Board if anything of concern for the City transpires. The agreement to construct an interconnection with California Water Service at Hageman and Coffee Road was brought before the Board by Mr. Core. City is proposing an interconnection with California Water Service Company at Coffee Road so that water may be switched back and forth under emergency conditions only. This interconnection will help alleviate any water shortage in this area due to disasters or water quality problems, but will not be detrimental to either the City or California Water Service Company's customers. Boardmember Peterson made a motion for approval and recommends the same to City Council. Motion passed. The proposed License Agreement with California Water Service Company for installation of overflow and drain pipe on Beardsley Canal Lateral 1-1-0 ("1" Ditch) was presented before the Board by Mr. Core. California Water Service Company has acquired property adjacent to the Ditch to install a potable water storage tank and are requesting permission to put the drain and overflow pipe from that water storage facility and drain it into the canal when needed. This will not cause any water quality problems or disrupt the operation of the Ditch. A motion was made by Boardmember Peterson to recommend approval by the City Council. Motion passed. Mr. Core presented before the Board the report from the Evaluation Team on selection of Operations and Maintenance contractor for City Domestic Water System. The recommendation of the Evaluation Team was to award the contract to the California Water Service Company. An additional recommendation by the Water Resources staff is an evaluation of the new California Water Service Company contract within three months and ~ake appropriate action on th~ issuance of a new contract. It was 'recommended by Mr. Dow that Board authorize staff to work-out an agreement with California Water Service Company that matches what they proposed which will be sent to City Council for approval. A motion to this effect was made by Boardmember Salvaggio. Motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 P.M. to Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Seciton 54956.9(b) (1) regarding potential litigation. Meeting re-opened to the public at 7:45 P.M. The Water Contingency Plan was presented before the Board by Mr. Core. After some discussion, a motion was made by Boardmember Salvaggio for the City of Bakersfield to adopt the Water shortage Contingency Plan and place the Plan on file at the City Water Resources Office. Motion passed. Mr. Bogart brought before the Board the contract from Dodd Investigations and Security, Inc. requesting a cost of living rate increase to $23.40 per hour. This is the first rate increase since 1979 when Mr. Dodd initially entered into a contract with the City for Security/Patrol Services. A motion was made by Boardmember Salvaggio to approve a cost of living rate increase in accordance with the "Ail Commodities Index", and to require insurance coverage up to a million dollars. Consideration of a possible adjustment to the hourly.rate would be given for the added coverage for "Broad Form General Liability Insurance Coverage" if needed. City Attorney Lunardini suggested the additional insurance premium should not exceed $500 annually. Motion passed. A request from Loron Hodge of the Water Association for a contribution to the 1992 Water Awareness Campaign was presented by Mr. ~ogart. A motion was made by Boardmember Salvaggio to authorize a contribution of $500 from Ag Water and a contribution of $500 from Domestic Water. Motion passed. The Statement of Water Policy was brought before the Board by Mr. Bogart with a request for the Board to adopt this as the official policy, unless they felt it should be reviewed further. A motion was made by Boardmember Salvaggio to adopt this Water Policy and prepare a report to the City Council for approval. Motion passed. Mr. Dow presented to the Board, for informatin only, the reassignment of various Mainline Extension contracts in the amount of $139,136.76. The next me~ting of the Water Board was set for Tuesday, June 9, 1992 at 4:30 P.M. A motion to adjourn was made by Boardmember Peterson at 8:30 P.M. Motion passed. Mark Salvaggio, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board STATE OF CAUFO~RlqlA-=-'THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPAR ENT OFWATER RESOURCES O 1416 NINTH STREET, P.O. 8OX 942836 SACRAMENTO, CA 94236-0001 (916) 653-5791 May 29, 1992 Mr'. Paul Dow City of Bakersfield 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, California 93311 Dear Mr. Dow: We are pleased to note that your agency's Water Shortage Contingency Plan meets all requirements of the law. The Department will report to the Governor and Legislature on state-wide water shortage preparedness, as evidenced by Water Shortage Contingency. Plans~ Your agency will be listed as one which complied with the law. A copy of this report will be sent to you. Please contact Larry Farwell, Water Conservation Office, (916) 653-6261, with any questions or comments regarding Water Shortage Contingency Planning. The Department of Water Resources will also be happy to assist you with other water conservation programs and activities. Sincerely, .~inton, Chief Water Conservation Office MEMORANDUM June 4, 1992 TO: CITY WATER BOARD Mark Salvaggio, Chairman Ken Peterson, Vice-Chairman Conni Brunni FROM: Paul Dow, Water and Sanitation Manager SUBJECT: I.D. NO. 4 REORGANIZATION The Kern County Water Agency Board took the action recommended on the attached memo at their regular Board meeting on May 28, 1992. They will be asking the Water Board who they want to designate as representatives to the various working committees at our next Water Board meeting on Tuesday, June 9th. The creation, make-up and scheduling of the committees will be the main topic of discussion. If you have any questions beforehand, please call myself or Gene Bogart at 326-3715. PD:sr MAY £~ '9£ 16:0~ KC i~ATER A,gEI~CY KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY MEMORANDUM TO: Kern County Water Agency Board of Directors FROM: Tom Clark/Bob B~llue DATE: May 28, I992 SUBJECT: Improvement District No. 4 Governance BACKGROUND On May 5, 1992, Urban Bakersfield Committee Directors, staff and counsel appeared before the City Water Board to preseat preliminary staff findings to the effect that a separate Board of DirectOrs for Improvement District No. 4 0I)4) was a legM and practicable possibility given appropriate changes in the AgencY's Act. The Agsncy's presentation was well r~ived and generated a substantial discussion over the make-up of review committees that would further the concelm. It Is proposed that a working committe~ be established comprising of thr~ city councilmen, presumably the Water Board, thre~ Kern County Water Agency Dire'tots, presumably the Urban Committ~, and ~o perso~ from the County Board of Supervisors. At the staff level, the Agency would be represented by Tom Clark ~ Bob Bellue, the City by the Water Board staff of Paul Dow, Gene Bogarh and Florn Core, plus on~ or more persons designated by the Supervisors from the County of Kern staff. Legal representation for the Agency would be Roy Gargano and lohn Stovall who would work with their p~rs from the ¢tty Attorney's office and the offic~ of County Counssl. ID4, purveyors would provide.Input and be represent~l at all levels of commltte~ and staff work. Activities would be dirocted primarily to achieving a s/parate govexnancs for , 1134 and the change~ in the Agency Act necessary to implement this. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION The Board of Directors supports the above recommended process to consider creation of a separate Board of Directors for Improvement District No. 4. 6/8/92 ID4 GOVERNANCE COB WATER KCWA.URBAN BOARD COUNTY OF KERN COMMITTEE Salvaggio Matthews Peterson Radon Brurmi Balch \ / \ ./5 Dow Lunardini Clark Stovall Bogart Daniels Bellue Gargano Core KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY 16.2.s TO: Urban Bakersfield CommitteeMEMORANDUM Agenda Item No. 2 FROM: Tom Clark/Bob Bellue · DATE: May 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Improvement District No. 4 Governance BACKGROUND On May 5, 1992, Urban Bakersfield Committee Directors, staff and counsel 'appeared before the City Water Board to present preliminary staff findings to the effect that a separate Board of Directors for Improvement District No. 4 (ID4) was a legal and practicable possibility given appropriate changes in the Agency's Act. The Agency's presentation was well received and generated a substantial discussion over the make-up of review committees that would further the concepts. It is proposed that a working committee be established comprising of three city councilmen, presumably the Water Board, three Kern County Water Agency Directors, presumably the Urban Committee, and two persons from the County Board of Supervisors. At the staff level, the Agency would be represented by Tom Clark and Bob Bellue, the City by the Water Board staff of Paul Dow, Gene Bogart, and Florn Core, plus one or more persons · designated by the Supervisors from the County of Kern staff. Legal representation for the Agency would be Roy Gargano and John Stovall who would work with their peers from the City Attorney's office and the office of County Counsel. ID4 purveyors would provide input and be represented at all levels of ~ committee and staff work. Activities would be directed primarily to achieving a separate governance for ID4 and the changes in the Agency Act necessary to implement this. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION The Board of Directors supports the recommended process to consider creation of a separate Board of Directors for Improvement District No. 4 as outlined in the staff memo to the Urban Bakersfield Committee dated May 28, 1992. Kern County Water Agency URRAN RAKFR~FIFLD ADVIRORY COMMITTEE P. O. Box 58, Bakersfield, California 93302-0058 (805) 393-6200 ~$ May 11, 1992 The regular meeting of the Urban Bakersfield Advisory Committee was held on Monday, May 11, 1992, at 3:00 PM in the Board Room of the Kern County Water Agency. MEMBERS PRESENT: California Water Service Company Bob Lewis/Mci Byrd City of Bakersfield Department of Water Resources Flora Core East Niles Community Services District Roland Stephens/Hedge Black North of the River Municipal Water District ~ Oor~ ~o~*- Agricultural Representative Hugh Williams Industrial Representative Norm Baldinger Urban Representative Doug Nunneley OTHERS PRESENT: Improvement District No. 4 Bob Bellue Femando Cisneros Bob Moorehead Susan Stafford Kern County Water Agency Tom Clark Harry Starkey Urban Bakersfield Committee of KCWA Bill Balch Henry Gamett Ann Mathews Vaughn Water Company Mike Huhn The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hedge Black at 3:00 PM. Chairman Black presented the minutes of the regular meeting of April 6, 1992. Chairman Black noted that the second sentence on page 2 should read ,...parts and labor., instead of "...strictly labor., Norm Baldinger moved to accept the minutes as amended, seconded by Doug Nunneley and unanimously carried. Chairman Black asked for a report of the Finance Committee. Doug Nunneley, Chairman, reported that the Finance Committee met and had a few questions on the budget. There was an overlap on Agency overhead and the original salary level that was set. This and the other few questions the subcommittee had on the budget have been answered to their satisfaction. Bob Lewis moved to accept the budget as amended, seconded and unanimously carried. Mr. Nunneley was asked to report on the lead and copper role. Mr. Nunneley responded that the lead and copper rule will not apply to the Agency. It is the purveyor's responsibility to meet the requirements. No action was taken. Ci~airman Black asked for discussion on the recommendation for a Service Contract on the High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph (ItPLC). Mr. Cisneros referred to a proposal from Dionex which was handed out earlier. Bob Moorehead explained that the current five-year-old unit in no longer reliable or functional and needed upgrading to be brought up to spec. Chairman Black asked if this proposal included parts and labor. Mr. Moorehead responded that it included only labor but noted that they offered a discount on the parts. To purchase this piece of equipment new would nm approximately $40,000. Roland Stephens moved to enter into an agreement with Dionex and have Agency staff inquire as ~o Dionex's response time if the equipment was to fail, seconded by Norm Baldinger and unanimously carried. Bob Bellue suggested polling different laboratories as to what their approach is regarding service contracts. Bob Lewis asked that Mr. Moorehead report back to the Committee on what the first inspection reveals. Chairman Black called for discussion regarding fencing of the Oswell Pumping Station. Mr. Cisneros reported that Agency staff has recently noticed children playing inside our facility. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the fence installed by the developer on the adjacent property had deteriorated. The Committee suggested that fencing be installed at the property line. Norm Baldinger moved to authorize installation of a fence at the above-referenced location, seconded by Doug Nunneley and unanimously carried. Chairman Black called upon Mr. Cisneros to report on the Emergency Disaster Plan. Mr. Cisneros stated the Department of Health had sent some suggested guidelines to follow for public notification in the case of an emergency and has requested we complete a plan and submit it back to them. Mr. Cisneros stated the Agency's Safety Committee is in the process of preparing a preliminary draft and will incorporate the Department's guidelines into this plan. Mr. Cisneros suggested that the managers of the three purveyors and the City meet to coordinate this whole effort. Mr. Cisneros offered to make necessary arrangements. Tom Clark remarked that ID4, as an entity, should never be put in the situation that they must personally contact homeowners. ID4's role would be water supply. The purveyors gave the following reports. Oildale Mutual - Preparing ground water wells for the summer. East Niles - It's budget time and in addition, we are working on the earliest stages of the sanitary survey of the Arvin-Edison system for the State Health Department. California Water Service - We are in the process of negotiating an additional three year contract with the City of Bakersfield to continue operation of their system. North of the River - Absent. City of Bakersfield - Gearing up for summer operations and new housing tracks. Under Old Business, Mr. Cisneros reported that the City's river supply is down to 33 %. Mr. Core clarified that Kern-Tulare/Rag Gulch allocation will be 33 % but the river, as predicted, will be running at 43 %. By mid-July, Mr. Cisneros reported, the treatment plant will be back on Aqueduct water. Under New Business, Tom Clark reported on the meeting with the City Water Board. Several issues were discussed: 1) ID4 separation (reorganization); and 2) McClung Ranch purchase. Regarding ID4 reorganization, the idea of an elected board was addressed. Mr. Clark reported that the reason this concept was never developed was because the transferring of the bond indebtedness of ID4 to a new public agency prevents the ability to create a new board. In discussions with the City, it was suggested that an elected board be formed for ID4 within the structure of the Kern County Water Agency. Mr. Clark asked Agency legal counsel if this could legally be done. Upon investigation, John Stovall reported that if there were any prohibitions against doing this, it would be a constitutional prohibition. The Agency Act is an act of the legislature itselfi To form this board, an amendment to the Agency Act must be developed. At the City Water Board meeting it was suggested that a working committee be formed to do further work on this subject. The membership of the proposed committee could be comprised of the directors and/or council people of the political bodies that are involved; i.e. the City of Bakersfield, Kern County Water Agency and the County of Kern as it relates to the unincorporated area. Mr. Clark asked for reaction from the Urban Committee. Chairman Black noted that we have lands unincorporated within four of the five supervisorial districts and asked who would be the representative. Mr. Clark responded that he hoped it would be two members of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Clark stated that his intent was to work up a draft and distribute -2- it to everyone including the City and County and ask for feedback. The objective of the group is to merely have a layer of elected officials to take care of the day-to-day business of ID4. Chairman Black requested that whenever Mr. Clark makes contact with the County and their representatives have been determined, find out how will they participate and what kind of 'hands on" participation will be involved and report back to the Urban Committee. Mr. Clark agreed. Chairman Black pointed out that the County elected officials are not involved in the water issues nearly to the level as the City's elected officials are. Bob Lewis asked to go on record as saying that the water purveyors involved have a vast interest in this and are capable of helping with the water supply problems. Chairman Black asked that when the memo that outlines this is drafted, submit it first to the Urban Committee before it goes to the Agency Board. Under New Business, Tom Clark updated the Committee on the progress of the McClung Ranch purchase. Mr. Clark stated that escrow has opened on roughly 2,300 acres at an average price o~ Escrow should close June 15 and various alternatives for financing are now being explored. All of the Member Units are going to be given the opportunity to participate in this project. Tenneco has offered a financing package; 25 % down and the balance over 10 years at 10%. That financing could be used as a bridge until a public bond issue could be explored. Under New Business, Bob Bellue reported that there is an opportunity for the CVC to purchase a Gradall at a public auction. Harry Starkey has polled all CVC Participants and is now asking the Participants sitting on this Advisory Committee to okay the purchase of up to $35,000 for this piece of equipment. ID4's share would be 1/3 of that cost. Roland Stephens moved to approve the purchase, seconded by Bob Lewis and unanimously carried. Chairman Black adjourned the meeting at 4:30 PM. -3- MEMORANDUM June 2, 1992 TO: CITY WATER BOARD - Mark Salvaggio, Chairman Ken Peterson, Vice-Chairman Conni Brunni FROM: Paul Dow, Water and Sanitation Manager ~ SUBJECT: GEORGE NICKEL MEMORANDUMS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF WATER SUPPLY IN NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD My staff and I have looked into many alternatives over the past few years in an attempt to help landowners in the Northeast area of Bakersfield secure an adequate supply of good quality water to meet their needs. Because of the unique terrain and lack of quantity and quality of groundwater in the area, the cost of developing a proper system for the area is unfortunately several times more expensive than other parts of the City. After reviewing projects that vary from an emergency supply to 22 homes, to plans that would serve the needs of a fully developed Northeast area, I have come to the conclusion, the very minimum cost of development varies from $6,000 to $8,000 per acre. In the past year we have tried twice to measure the interest of property owners in the area to support an assessment district. Both times the property owners rejected the plans, primarily because of the price. The plan being recommended in Mr. Nickel's memorandums is basicly the same plan proposed by the Kern County Water Agency as part of their Urban Bakersfield Water Supply Plan. Although the plans are almost identical, the Agency's engineering estimates are nearly twice as high as Mr. Nickel's costs. Upon applying the Agency estimated cost (approxi- mately $58,000,000) over the area of benefit as we see it (approximately 8300 acres at the most), we come up with a cost per acre of $7,000. That total does not include distribution lines, storage and assessment district costs. Therefore, I recommend the Water Board refer this matter to Water Resources staff. We will continue to remain in contact with the affected landowners and water purveyors in that area, and when they commit to supporting a project for that area, we will bring it back to the Board. PD:sr cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers J. Dale Hawley, City Manager projec, is. 'The bill could be improved to apply only to .challenges within 120 days of the enactment of the ordinance 6r resolution. Such a statute of limitations would not forbid later actions by individuals aggrieved by an unlawful ordinance, but it would encourage associations such as the BIA to bring their challenges before a local agency is committed to a particular mechanism for repayment. Cities should contact the Assembly Ways and Means Committee members and voice your concerns. Members are: Vasconcellos (Chair), Wright (Vice Chair), Allen, Baker, Burton, Campbell, Costa, Eaves, Epple, Felando, Filante, Frizzelle, Gotch, Hannigan, Hansen, Hughes, Murray, Nolan, O'Conneil, Polanco, Roybal-Allard, Tucker, and Woodruff. 9. REVIEW & COMMENT Speaker's Civil Rights Restoration Act Passes Out of Assembly Ways and Means on Party Vote. AB 3825 (Brown). On tO Assembly FIoQr. Assemblyman Willie Brown's AB 3825 has been approved by the Assembly Ways and Means Committee on a straight partisan vote of 14 to 9. The Speaker pointed out the need for this bill in light of the Los Angeles riots and recent Supreme Court trends which he argues dismantle civil rights law. AB 3825 is a collection of a number of independent bills which are either working their way through the legislature or which have been vetoed. The bill is intended to: 1. Overturn five California Supreme Court decisions which restrict remedies available to victims of discrimination. 2. Develop lower thresholds for establishing discrimination by the use of land use regulations. 3. Overturn the Harris v, Capital Investmcnt~ case which refused to uphold an alleged civil rights violation under the Uaruh Civil Rights Act based on economic discrimination. 4. Ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation and codify judicial rulings that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act prOhibits such discrimination. 5. Prohibit employers from making rules requiring that 'English Oniy~ be spoken in the workplace unless justified by business necessity. Some portions of the bill have been opposed by the League in the past. The bill includes AB 531 (Polanco) which establishes a discriminatory effects test and compelling interest standard for allegations of discrimination by land use regulation. The League is opposed to this measure. The bill also includes provisions of SB 1y27 (Bergeson) and AB ;311 (Moore)'which allow the Fair Employment and Housing Commission to award compensatory and punitive damages for employment discrimination. Cities are encouraged to review ..AB 3825 and send comments to Ernest Silva on League staff. ~~ ~ RE- ~'& CO 'MMENT ;~Sacramento-San.Joao~uin De. lta. SB !866 (,ohnston~. Senator Pat Johnston has introduced SB 1866 which is a comprehensive measure to protect the Delta-area of ~~' the Sacramento and San Joaquln rivers. It enacts the 'Delta Protection ACt of 1992' for the long-term resource ~i~L.~ management of the Delta area. Local Governments affected by the bill include the Counties of Contra Costa, ~ ~ 02~ Sacramento, San Joaquln~ Solano, and Yolo and the Cities of Sacramento, Stockton, Tracy, Antioch, Lodi, Pittaburg, lsleton, Latlu-op, Brentwood, Rio Vista, and West Sacramento. Specifically, the bill does the following: e'~d'5 lODe__., 1. Establishes a Delta Protection Commission Consisting of 19 members including: ~"~'~ ~0~-~0-~.-~. a, One member of the Board of Supervisors of each of the five counties within the Delta; / 7 May 15, 1992 ,' L b. Three city representatives who shall be selected and appointed by city selection committees from regional and area councils of government, in three areas specified in the bill. c~ Directors from the following State agencies, departments 'and others: Resources, Parks and Recreation, V~sh and Game, Food and .Agriculture, State Lands Commission, Boating and Waterways, Water Resources,- and Office of planning and Research. 2. Thc Commission is charged with the responsibility to develop a comprehensive long-term resource management plan for the *primary zone' of the Delta. The plan is to accomplish some of thc following goals: a. Protect and preserve thc cultural values that represent the historic and natural heritage of the Delta. b. Preserve and restore riparian and wetlands habitat, an~ ensure a net increase in both the acreage and values .of riparian, and we~_land resources. c. Restore, preserve and manage: levee system. d. Protect thc Delta from any development that results in any significant loss of habitat or agricultural. 3. The language 'states that the regional resource management plan shall not supersede the authority of local governments over areas within the *secondary zone' of the Delta. 4. The ~ of thc Delta means the Delta land and water area of primary state concern and statcwidc signltr~canc~ which is situated within the boundaries of the Delta as described in thc Water Code, but which is not within either thc urban limit line or sphere of influence Fmc of any local government's general plan or currently existing studies as of January 1, 1992. / 5. Thc 5.~ m~s all thc Delta land and water area within the boundaries of the Delta not included in the primary zone, subject to the land use authority of local government and which includes the land and water areas on specified maps. 6. Speci~es that thc Comm~_qiOll may approve a general plan of a local government, as to land located within thc primary ~.ne, only after making several written f'mds, based on substantial evidence in thc record. 7. Specifics that an~ ~rson implementing the regional pla~- or otherwise taken pursuant to this law may file an appeal with the Commission. Thc Commission shall either:. a. Dc~y thc appeal; or b. Remand tl~ matter to thc local government, after making specified findings. Upon remand, the local agency may modif~ the permit or approval and resubmit the matter for review to the Commissi0n.-~-Thc _nermit or a_m)roval, xh,li not be effective until thc Commi~ion'ad' _o~ts written find-intm based on substantial evidence in thc record that the ~r~iit or a_oproval is consistent with the re~onal plan and the ap_vroved local general ~lan. We arc requesting that the cities impacted by *~hls_ proposal carefully review the bill and give us your comments. Thc bill h~s a major implication for local land usc authority and would appear to b~ another *tops-down' approach to a regionally signillcant isst~;--. Please forward ~ comments you may hav~ to Dwight 5tenbakken on the League staff. 8 May 15, 19~2 MEMORANDUM June 2, 1992 TO: Paul Dow, Water and Sanitation Manager FROM: Alan D. Daniel, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: SB 1866 -- THE SACRAMENTO - SAN JOAQUIN DELTA PROTECTION ACT OF 1992 1. On May 29, 1992, I reviewed the proposed Delta Protectio~ Act of 1992, otherwise known as SB 1866, as requested. Please note this Act has been passed by the Senate and has moved to the Assembly. Because the Act is still moving through the Legislature, changes could be made at any time. 2. Under the current law, the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta Area is defined by statute and this law piggy-backs upon the definition to add additional protections. The law establishes a Delta Protection Commission consisting of nineteen (19) members and gives that Commission broad powers and duties. The bill would require the Commission adopt a comprehensive long-term resource management plan for the Delta and that all general plans of local government, as to land located within the primary zone, be consistent with the regional plan passed by the Commission. 3. The financing mechanisms of the bill are vague; in fact, there seems to be no permanent financing mechanism. The bill would impose a penalty assessment of ten percent (10%) on fines levied for specified fish and game and boating violations that occur within the Delta. The bill provides for the establishment of a Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta Protection fund in which the ten percent fines would be deposited. The Legislature would provide for $150,000 per year for support of the Commission. The bill would also allow a $250,000 loan to be made from the California Environmental License Plate fund for support of the Commission. No reimbursement is required by this bill to local governments because the local agencies have the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by the Act. 4. Parts of the bill say the Delta is filled with irreplaceable resources of critical state-wide significance. The bill then creates the Delta Protection Commission. The Commission members would be directors of various state agencies such as Parks and Commission members would be directors of various state agencies such as Parks and Recreation, Fish and Game, Food and Agriculture, State Lands Commission, et seq. The Commission will appoint an executive director with a salary to be fixed by the Commission. 5. The central focus of the bill is the long-range resource management plan which the Commission must adopt. The bill sets forth the requirements for the plan which include: Protect and preserve the cultural values that represent the historical and natural heritage of the Delta, preserve and restore Delta dependent fisheries and their habitat, preserve and restore riparian and wetlands habitat, preserve and enhance the water quality, protect private property interests from trespassing and vandalism, restore, improve and manage levee systems, preserve and enhance agriculture, et seq. 6. The plan is an obvious attempt to find and appropriate public funds for the repair of the Delta levees which are in a deteriorating condition. This bill goes to great lengths to try and establish a public purpose for the rebuilding of the levees. The rebuilding of these levees would primarily benefit private farming interests. Reading between the lines, I assume the cost associated with upgrading the Delta levees is so great the farming interests do not wish to bear these expenditures alone. The expenditures required may be so great as to make farming this area uneconomical. Thus, this is a plan to off-load the large amounts of money required to maintain the Delta system onto the public. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD REPORT NO. 1-92 JUNE 24,' 1992 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES POLICY Due to the extended drought conditions that have prevailed throughout California during the last six years, and because of the vital importance our local water resources mean to the citizens of Bakersfield, the Water Board feels that now is the time for the City to adopt a Statement of Water Resources Policy. We feel it is important to re-emphasize those policies that will enable us to preserve the Kern River water fights for Bakersfield, improve our quality of life and provide for the future orderly growth of our City.' With this in mind, the Water Board and City staff have summarized those major water policies that have been developed over the years in response to the changing needs of the community. These water management policies and commitments were developed through numerous 'environmental impact reports relating to the Use and Disposition of Kern River Wate, r Rights, the 2800 Recharge Facility, the Kern River Channel Maintenance Program 'and the Kern River Parkway Project. To help us ensure for the continued well-being and long-range protection of our water resources, the Water Board requests that the City Council accept this report and re- affirm the City's position by adopting the attached '"STATEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES POLICY.~ Respectively submitted; COUNCILMEMBER MARK SALVAGGIO, CHAIRMAN COUNCILMEMBER KEN PETERSON, VICE-CHAIRMAN COUNCILMEMBER CONNI BRUNNI 5/1/92' CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 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 City 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 reaffirmed again by State Board 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 fights in Lake Isabella through a contract with the United States of America. The City als0 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. With this in mind, the City of Bakersfield hereby enumerates its basic policy designed 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 is 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 2 to meet all 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 from the water rights and water properties acquired by the City from Tenneco-West, Inc. in December of 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. 3 10. 'The City will participate with other Kern River interests in the protection, enhancement and efficient management of all Kern River water. 11. All 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 Deparlment. 12. Pursuant to the Kern River Plan, it is the policy of the City to establish a minimum annual flow of water in the Kern River channel between Manor Street and Stockdale Highway Bridge as soon as possible. 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. 4 4 1992 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES APRIL 29, 1992 TO: PAUL DOW, WATER AND SANITATION MANAGER FROM: GIL ROJAS, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REFERRAL TO WATER BOARD In a Budget and Finance Committee Report No. 15-91 dated December 18, 1991 the Committee referred to the Water Board a financial reporting issue relating to recording a water banking inventory within the Agricultural Water Fund. Susan Chichester (Accounting Supervisor) was assigned lead responsibility to research the feasibility of this proposal. In her research the following items were documented: 1. As of June 30, 1991 the valuation of 238,326 acre feet in inventory would be $184,581. 2. City of Bakersfield Agricultural Water Fund banking cost are minimal because the City does not purchase its water; whereas, all other water districts purchase water from outside sources. 3. In fiscal year 1990-91 City water sold for $40 - $50 per acre foot with the average banking cost $.76 per acre foot. In light of these facts, Susan has recommended and I concur that due to the lack of materiality of a proposed inventory 'account an acceptable alternative would be to include a footnote in the financial statements stating the acre feet of water in the City's banking facility. krc MGR.46 PAP..T aP rs AG DA AGENDA 1 Are the public agencies-- who sold bonds over 15 years ago to cause the CVC to be built--satisfied with an advisory committee to the Kern County Water Agency to express their view5 about the way money is spent and'the way' the canal is operated? 2 Interim Rules and Regulations regarding 3rd party use? 3 Responsibility of the Advisory Committee Should there be more strength given to the committee so the Agency can recognize us as pa'rticipants on the CVC? 4 Defining CVC personnel Jobs descriptions should be outlined 5 Reverse Flow on the CVC Concern of participants if Others build increased capacity in the CVC Negotiations In any negotiations regarding the CVC, the Advisory Committee will play an actiVe role from the beginning Accounting Procedures There should be an outside CPA's audit of the books and ~ designated party at the Agency keeping CVC books. IgAWELO WATER DISTRICT ! 7Z07 INDUSTRIAL FARM ROAD BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93308-980! (80S) 393-6072 WATER ORDERS 393-6070 JOHN I.. JONES DISTRICT MANAGER t(EHORANDt~ March 30, 1992 APR 6 ]992 TO: Cross Valley Canal Participants FROM: Cawelo Water DistriCt CITYOF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES Re: Request for May 27, 1992 Participants' meeting on future use, operation and control of the Cross Valley Canal Cawelo Water District invites committees of the legislative body of each of the participants in the Cross"Valley Canal to join in a meeting to discuss the future of the Cross Valley Canal including its use, operation and control in view of changed circum- .stances and recent events involving the use of the Canal. We have selected 10:30 a.m. on May 27, 1992 at the Red Lion Inn in Bakersfield as the time and place for the meeting. We sUggest attendance by two members of the legislative body of each participant along with the manager and a consultant and we invite such representatives of each participant to be our'guests at lunch following or during the meeting. The focus of the meeting will be to chart the future'course of the use, operation and control of the Cross valley Canal for the primary benefit of and pursuant to the desires of participants' taxpayers who have been paying the capital costs of the Canal for years and must continue to do so for years to come. Our Districts' primary concerns and their reasons for asking for this meeting and inviting your attendance are as follows: 1. Although the taxpayers of participants~ as the beneficial owners, have spent millions of 'dollars annually in paying for the capital costs of the Canal, more and more of the useful life of its components and facilities are being devoted for the benefit of others without prior agreement by participants. 2. Non-participants receive'the benefit of capital investments by the taxpayers of participants. Sometimes, in such matter as reverse-flowing, even so as to likely increase the capital replacement costs without decision-making participation by participants who paid for the Canal. .~hemo to CrC Participants -~ MargW 30, 1992 · ~ Pag~ 3. A recent example, of the present operation of the Canal in a manner not in the best interests of the participants was the way in which the Agency handled the removal of tumbleweeds from the Canal in late December of 1991 in order to continue reverse- flowing for the benefit of non-participants at a cost in excess of $100,000, much of which will be paid for by participants' taxpayers, even though, the increased overtime cost of expedited tumbleweed removal was of the most benefit to non-participants. 4. This points up the fact that the Agency's accounting for the Cross Valley Canal operating costs charges against the participants. is woefully uncertain and often unreasonably delayed. 5. More and more of the conflict of interest positions of the Agency--as operator of the Cross valley Canal, as the legislative body for Cross Valley Canal participant Improvement District No.4 and also as the State Water Project representative of the Agency's non-participant member units--are working to the disadvantage of the participants. 6. Another example of the Kern County Water Agency's unauthor- ized use of capital investments by participants is when the Agency allowed water wells to be drilled for non-participants' use within the Cross Valley Canal property purch~nts years ago. We have made arrangements with~the Red Lion Inn fo~ the meeting and lunch, so will you please let us'~ very soon a~B~o whether your legislative body will be representeH-'~-~--rh~--~-~ting and how many individuals will attend? We will very much appreciate your giving serious consideration of this matter at this time, because we sincerely feel that our taxpayers and yours are now .being seriously disadvantaged by the manner in which the Cross Valley Canal, financed by our taxpayers, is being operated and perhaps even to the extent of the unlawful gifting of public funds. ~.D.M. Camp, President KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY CROSS VALLEY CANAL RECALCULATION OF VOTING SHARES ' TO REFLECT SALE OF 6 CFS BY KERN-TULARE WE) to ROSEDALE RIO-BRAVO WSD (Effective July 28, 1989) Original Revised Revised Share of Percent of Share of Percent of Total Project Total Project Total ProjectTotal Project. Participant COsts Capital Costs Costs Capital Cost ($) (%) -($) (%) Arvin-Edison W.S.D. 245,650 1.09 245,650 1.09 Cawelo W.D. 5,700,932 25.24 5,700,932 25.24 F-T Group 4,602,179 20.37 4,602,179 20.37 Improvement District No.4 6,748,362 29.88 6,748,362 29.88 Kem-Tulare W.D. 2,783,280 1Z32 2,644,116 11.71 Rag-Gulch W.D. 925,465 4.10 925,465 4.10 Rosedale Rio-Bravo W.S.D. 1,581,981 7.00 1,72t, 145 7.62 T O T A L $22,587,849 100 $22,587,849 100 Based on original project costs $/cfs. ** FRESNO-TULARE GROUP REVISED % Lower-Tule River Irrigation District 8.88% Pixley Irrigation District 8.88% County of Tulare 0.86% County of Fresno 0.86% Hills Valley Irrigation District 0.61% Tri-Valley Irrigation District 0.28% _ 20.37% CROSS VALLEY CANAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1992-1993 Arvin-Edison Water Storage District Howard Frick, Delegate Cliff Trotter, Alternate California Water Service Company Donald L. Houck, Delegate Bob Lewis, Alternate Cawelo Water. District John Jones, Delegate Norman Blackwell, First Alternate R. L. (Dick) Schafer, Second Alternate City of Bakersfield Gene Bogart, Delegate Florn Core, Alternate East Niles Community Services District Harold Ash, Delegate Roland Stephens, Alternate Kern~Tulare Water District Anton Caraton, Delegate Bill Bowers, Alternate North of the River Municipal Water District Mike McCune, Delegate Don Cross, First Alternate Ralph Gifford, Second Alternate Northern Group (Arvin-Edison Assignees) Roger Robb, Delegate Robert Tate, Alternate Rag Gulch Water District Matt Pandol, Delegate Bill Bowers, Alternate Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District Roy Pierucci, Delegate Mary Collup, Alternate Cross Valley Canal Committee of the Kern County Water Agency Chairman: John Willis Ann Mathews Bill Balch Cross Valley Canal Advisory Committee Officers (Officers to serve a term of ~) Chairman: Bill Bowers Vice-Chairman: John Jones Cmte. Secretary: Suzanne Stafford 2/92