Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/92 CALIFORNIA ' ~'"'~' ' '' ~--- WATER BOARD Mark Salvaggio, Chairman Ken Peter son, Vice-Chairman Conn i B r unn i -sPECIAL MEETING- TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1992 WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE ROOM 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD 4:30 P.M. Call meeting to order, ROi1 Call - Board Members. 1) Approve minutes of June 9, 1992 meeting. 2) Update on Governance for Improvement District No. 4 (Scott Slater). FOR BOARD INFORMATION and DISCUSSION. 3) Letter from Olcese Water District dated August 17, 1992 requesting assistance in meeting the water needs of lands in the District. FOR BOARD DISCUSSION and REFERRAL TO STAFF. 4) Response to Vaughn Water Company request for long-term water purchase to serve City residents. FOR BOARD INFORMATION and DISCUSSION. 5) Policy for dedication of groundwater rights to City water service area as agricultural lands become urbanized. FOR BOARD INFORMATION and DISCUSSION. 6) Mainline extension reassignments. FOR BOARD IN-FORMATION. 7) Adjournment. Paul Dow, Water & Sanitation Manager POSTED: August 24, 1992 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 , (805) 326-3715 SPECIAL MEETING WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1992 4:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Boardmember Salvaggio at 4:40 p.m. in the Water Resources Conference Room. Present: Salvaggio, Chairman; Peterson, Vice-Chairman (seated at 4:47 p.m.); Brunni A motion was made by Boardmember Salvaggio to approve the minutes of the meeting held May 5, 1992. Motion passed.~ Mr. Core asked the Board to review and place on file a letter received from the State Department of Water Resources confirming that the City complied with Assembly Bill No. 11 on the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The working committees for the re-organization of I.D. 4 were presented before the Board by Mr. Bogart with input from Mr. Tom Clark of the Kern County Water Agency, The discussion centered around the creation, make-up, representation and scheduling of the various working committees for the I.D. 4 re-organization. The overall consensus was that the representation for these working committees be from the City, County and Kern County Water Agency. After much discussion, Boardmember Brunni made a motion tha't the County Board of Supervisors select their two members from persons residing within I.D. 4. Motion passed. Mr. George Nickel made a presentation before the Board regarding his proposed water plan for the de-annexed area between Olcese Water District and I.D. 4. Key issues for this plan are the cost difference and owner participation/commitment in obtaining a water supply for the area. Boardmember Brunni felt this item could be on future Water Board agendas so that it could be discussed on a regular basis. Mr. Dow recommended the Water Board refer this matter to the Water Resources staff and 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, bring it back to the Board. Boardmember Salvaggio made a m6tion to refer this matter of the development of water supply in the northeast Bakersfield area to the Water Resources staff to continue to work with the landowners affected, the Kern County Water Agency, Mr. Nickel and come back to the Board at an appropriate time. There were Ayes from Boardmember Salvaggio and Peterson; a No from Boardmember Brunni. Motion passed. Mr. Bogart presented before the Board, Senate Bill 1866 regarding the Delta Protection Act of 1992. This plan is an attempt to find and appro- priate public funds for the repair of the Delta levees which are in a deteriorating condition. The Boardmembers were concerned how this Bill would affect the City. Boardmember Brunni felt that this Bill was an objectionable piece of legislation because of its vagueness. In its present form, it constitutes an unfunded state mandate that is a potential to usurp local land use authority. Mr. Dow stated that the Kern County Water Agency does receive water from that area and they have gone on record by sending an opposition letter. Mr. Bogart brought up the fact that the legislation could result in an increase in the cost of moving State water through the Delta. If that happens, then the unit cost for all contractors on the State Water project will see their water rates go uP, including the citizens who live in urban Bakersfield (I.D. 4). Boardmember Brunni made a motion to go on record as opposing this Bill in its present form because it appears that it constitutes an unfunded state mandate that has a potential to usurp local land use authority. Boardmember Peterson recommended that this be sent from the entire Council. Boardmember Brunni' recommended this to the full Council for their adoption. Motion passed. Mr. Dow asked the Water Board to review the Water Board Report to go before the City Council regarding the Statement of Water Resources Policy. tf it meets with their acceptance it will be put on the next City Council Meeting agenda. Mr. Bogart brought before the Board, for information only, the financial reporting relating to the City's Water Banking Program. The Budget and Finance Committee Report 15-91 passed on a suggestion from the City Auditor that there should be a water banking inventory recorded within Agricultural Water Fund. Boardmember Brunni suggested that a footnote be added to include a statement of the average annual banking cost at so many dollars an acre foot. Mr. Bogart concurred and stated that future financial statements would include a footnote indicating the volume of acre feet of water in the City's 2800 Acre banking facility. Mr. Bogart presented before the Board an update on the Cawelo Water District meeting held May 27, 1992 regarding the future use, operation and control of the Cr6ss Valley Canal. Since this was an initial meeting to informally discuss long-range Cross Valley Canal issues, staff, will keep the Board updated as future meetings take place. The meeting adjourned at 6:12 p.m. to Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) (1) regarding potential litigation. Meeting re-opened to the public'at 6:24 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Mark Salvaggio, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board I~RN COUNTY WATER AGENCY - II~PRO~I~NT DISTRICT I~ER 4 D~FT ISS~S STAT~NT AUGUST 12, 1992 TO: JOINT AGEN~/CI~/CO~ CO~IT~E ON ID4 ~~CE. FROM: STAFF WORKING GROUP RE: ISS~S FOR ~LI~ DIRECTION SUBJECT: LEGIS~TION PE~ITTING A SEP~TE ~RNING BO~D FOR ID~4. S~Y This memorandum is provided on behalf of the Staff Working Group which has been appointed by the Joint Co~ittee on the question of transferring governance for the Improvement District Number Four (ID~4) service area from the Kern County Water Agency to a separately elected board of directors or trustees. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a statement of issues for the policy makers to consider. The list of issues is not intended to be exhaustive. Instead of attempting to foresee all the issues which formation of ID~4 may raise in the process of drafting the legislation, we reco~end that the Co~ittee focus on the purpose of the separately elected Board for ID~4, its powers and method of exercise. Resolution of these questions will require expertise and assistance from engineering, legal and political segments of the three entities. While all political decisions will ultimately be made by the elected representatives comprising the Joint Co~ittee, a technical working group has been appointed by the Agency, City and County with the support of representatives from the Urban Bakersfield Water Purveyors (UBWP) for the purpose of issue analysis and evaluation of feasible alternatives for presentation to the respective decision makers. This is the first effort of that group. STATEblENT OF PURPOSE ID#4 is an "improvement district" formed under the Agency's authorizing legislation as amended in 1965. ID#4 is not presently a separate political entity, its primary purpose being the financing of Agency improvements specially benefiting residents and land owners within its designated boundaries. ID#4 lies within the land use jurisdictions of Kern County and the City of Bakersfield. Under the existing institutional configuration, the Agency with expansive political boundaries, is responsible for almost all the water planning that occurs within the ID#4 area. Although land use within the ID#4 area was once primarily agricultural, over time the area has become increasingly urbanized. Coincident with this urbanization, water supply, distribution, conservation and financing issues continue to become more complex. As the area urbanizes there will be a continuing need to address the increased demand for services and to integrate water planning with responsible land use planning agencies. Therefore, the Agency, City, and County now agree that a separately elected governing board needs to be established for the purpose of providing maximum representation to ID#4 residents in the determination of their future. LEGAL ISSUES AS was previously pointed out by legal counsel to the Agency, most of the problems associated with the creation of a separate governing board for ID#4 involve "political" questions. We agree that any new representation scheme for ID#4 will require legislation in the form of an amendment to the Agency's authorizing act. Most likely, this legislation will be the result of building a consensus of the three political entities and the UBWP which are involved in this process. The legal feasibility of an amendment has already been thoughtfully examined in a memorandum by Agency counsel John Stovall. In summary, Mr. Stovall concludes that there are no constitutional impediments presented by an amendment to the Agency's authorizing act which would preclude a transfer of governance to an independent board, such as a separately elected board of trustees. We concur with this conclusion, subject to the qualifications identified by Mr. Stovall. (See San Bernardino County v. Way (1941) 18 Cal.2d 647.) This is not to say, however, that the legal input in drafting legislation to implement the transfer will be insignificant. There are a myriad of policy considerations to be resolved through the adoption of amendments to the legislation. In addition, the political decisions must be implemented in a legally effective manner. However, as has been stated previously, this is primarily a question of -3- draftsmanship. Therefore, the balance of this memorandum focuses on the political and institutional issues now facing the decision makers. POLITICAL ISSUES The Agency is a political body which was created by special state legislation. (Water Code Appendix section 99-1 et seq.) Section 3 provides that the Agency shall have, among others, the powers enumerated in this act and such other powers as the law may provide. The powers of the agency shall, except as otherwise provided, be exercised by the Board of Directors. (99-3.) These powers supplemented, but in the main did not supersede, those held by municipalities or other public districts within its boundaries. (§§ 99-23.) ID#4 was subsequently formed under the provisions of the Agency's authorizing act. However, unlike the Agency, ID#4 is not a separate political entity. Rather, it is essentially an assessment district formed for the purpose of financing the construction, maintenance, and operation of improvements or the engagement in activities which benefit the area located within the district. It is what is commonly referred to as an "assessment district" and it exists solely by virtue of the Agency's authorizing act which provides as follows: Improvement districts may be formed to undertake projects to investigate study, analyze, appraise, finance, acquire and carry out any of the objects or purposes of this act of special benefit to such improvement districts, including, without limitation, -4- projects to construct, operate, maintain, · extend repair or improve any works or improvement of special benefit to such improvement districts. (§ 99-14-3) ID#4 has no political power independent from the powers of the Agency. In other words, ID#4 is simply a zone within the Agency which has been designated as receiving a "special benefit" from a particular Agency "improvement." ID#4 presently possesses no power or representation independent from the Agency itself. If the entities desire ID No. 4 to have separate representation, then the threshold question is "what is the purpose of the new representation?" Unless the representation is to be advisory only, the creation of a separately elected governing body will serve no purpose unless it is given power. We understand that the purpose of the transference of government now contemplated for ID#4 is to give the area's residents and taxpayers the right to work with an independently elected board to address the unique urban issues and problems that may arise within its boundaries. Instead of an exercise in clairvoyance to determine all the problems that the new entity may encounter, we recommend that the group focus on those powers they desire the entity to have to dispose of problems as they may arise. Many options are available. For example, ID#4 might have any one or all of the following powers within its boundaries: 1. All the powers of the Agency with a · " complete transfer of power from the Agency to ID#4. a. Effect. (1) This would entail a complete substitution of ID#4 for the Agency within the boundaries of ID#4. (See Water Code section 75165 authorizing the formation of an "special improvement district" within the boundaries of a Water Conservation District. Its directors are separately elected.) (2) The result would be the creation of an Agency within the Agency with power similar to'full "member unit" status under the Agency's authorizing act. b. Recommendation. There is no need to substitute ID#4 for the Agency. This approach raises significant legal problems in drafting and effectively implementing the substitution. 2. Only those specifically enumerated powers presently held by the Agency designed to address "urban issues" would be extended to ID#4. a. Effect. The transfer of governance would be limited to those matters expressly delegated. b. Recommendation. With care in draftsmanship the transfer of governance can be accomplished to extend the ID#4 governing board the powers necessary to serve the unique needs arising within the area. 3. Limiting authorization by a designated purpose. (See Castaic Lake Water Agency limiting powers to "wholesale" water service only.) a. Effect. Limiting the powers of ID#4 to matters related solely to wholesale service would clearly define the role of the Board. It would further preclude ID#4 from assuming a competitive function with the UBWP. -6- (1) Possible exceptions for · incidental purposes; e.g. construction, temporary or urgency services. (2) Retail service where there is no existing retail purveyor. b. Recommendation. ID#4 should be designated as having powers limited to the provision of wholesale water service. The ability to provide retail service for incidental uses may be appropriate. However, in light of the need to build a consensus including the UBWP, ID4 should not be allowed to compete for future retail business with the UBWP. 4. Develop a water suDpl¥. a. Effect. ID#4 could be extended any of the following powers for the development of a water supply. (1) Appropriate water by groundwater extraction. (a) Would this foster increased overdraft? (b) Are there any conditions that would ever make this acceptable? In light of the present overdraft, there is probably no native groundwater which can be appropriated under existing law. Once overdraft has commenced, any new use would be considered prescriptive and adverse to existing users. (See City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199 [123 Cal.Rptr. 1].) (c) What about conjunctive use, groundwater banking or water storage project for imported water? Under this circumstance, the right to appropriate would be limited to "imported" water that was stored locally and recovered through extractions. -7- (d) Subpart Recommendation. Presently no consensus. Requires further discussion. (2) Contract for a water supply. (a) State Water Project. An assignment of the SWP entitlement and obligation to ID#4? Use of the SWP entitlement would be permanently dedicated to the ID#4 service area. (b) Subcontract with ID#4 for of SWP entitlement and financial obligation? Use of SWP entitlement would permanently be dedicated to ID4 service area. (c) Limitation to Imported Supplies. ID#4 could be limited to contracting for imported water only. 1) What is imported water? Water that originates outside the County? Is there some other definition? 2) Should ID#4 be authorized to purchase water from willing sellers within the County? Other member units? (d) Subpart Recommendation. Presently no consensus. Requires further discussion including autonomy issue outlined below. 5. Manage a water supply. a. Effect. Management implies the ability to regulate some activities of wholesale or retail customers. (1) Should this be limited to imported water? -8- ~ (2) Water storage projects? (3) New water supply projects? b. Recommendation. Presently no' consensus. Requires further discussion. 6. Distribution and treatment of a water a. Effect. The key question to be answered is whether ID#4 will operate solely as a wholesale water purveyor. If it will act only as a wholesale purveyor, then questions of distribution and treatment must focus on the relationship between ID#4 and Agency and ID#4 and UBWP. (1) Wholesale Supplier Only. Will ID#4 act as a intermediary between the Agency and ID#4 retail purveyors? Or will it operate merely as a subsidiary? (2) Retail. Will ID#4 assume any retail water service responsibility? (a) Express Prohibition. By expressly prohibiting the ability to engage in retail, ID#4 would be precluded from entering the retail business. (b) Implied Authorization. Say nothing other than reference the power to provide a water supply. (c) Conditional Empowerment. i. ID#4 could be empowered to provide service only in those areas in which there is no retail purveyor existing on the date of the legislation. ii. Incidental uses? -9- b. Recommendation. The primary purpose . of ID#4 should be the provision of a wholesale water supply. There is no consensus on whether ID#4 should have the power to provide water to incidental uses. 7. Finance improvements, including a water a. Effect. ID#4 might have any revenue raising powers you seek to extend it. (1) Wholesale. (2) Retail. (See discussion above) (3) Other Revenue Mechanisms. (a) Assessments? (b) Stand-by charges? (c) Water availability charges? (d) Limited to water sales only? b. Recommendation. Dominant financing mechanism should be water sales. No present consensus on what other revenue raising powers ID#4 should have. Requires further discussion. 8. StoraGe. a. Effect. The ability to store acquired water is typically extended to most water purveyors. (1) Surface storage. (2) Subsurface storage. (3) Limited to imported water? b. Recommendation. No consensus. Requires further discussion. 9. Conservation. a. Effect. Extends ID#4 to pursue conservation methods to regulate supplies in the time of shortage (consistent with contract rights and obligations) to pursue conservation programs to limit waste and maximize use. -10- b. Recommendation. ID#4 should have · ' this power. 10. Eminent Domain. a. Effect. By legislation broad or narrow powers of eminent domain could be extended to ID#4. Presently the Agency act limits its power to condemn property under certain circumstances. (1) Unlimited. Should ID#4 have broader condemnation powers than the Agency? May have implications for the assets of other public entities and the UBWP. (2) Limit by Broad Purpose. Example, condemnation for the provision of wholesale water supply. (3) Limit to Specific Acquisitions. Roads, ditches and right of ways. (4) Limit to the same condemnation powers of the Agency. (5) Limit by Autonomy. Make exercise of the power subject to ratification by Agency, City, County or any combination thereof. See discussion below. 11. Other Powers. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Summary. If there is a benefit to having the right to engage in any of the above activities under certain controlled circumstances, we have the option of expressly limiting the exercise of the power by the same legislation. Any of the above powers can be restricted by their defined purpose or in the grant of the power. -11- For example, ID#4 might have the power to condemn property for "wholesale" purposes only. Each of the above powers could be limited by the purpose of the power. In addition, most of the above powers can be further restricted by institutional limitations on the autonomy of ID#4. 2. Autonom~r Restrictions on the Powers of ID#4. Closely coupled with the question of what powers ID#4 is to have, is what will be the institutional structure for the exercise of those powers. Simply, whatever powers ID#4 is extended by legislation, those powers can be restricted or conditioned by the same legislation. For example, the powers might be exercised by a completely independent entity or one which is merely a subsidiary of the Agency. Alternatively the working group might decide to grant independence to ID#4 incrementally. The concerns are best summarized as the decision on how much autonomy ID#4 will have. If ID#4 is to be completely subordinate to the Agency, is it intended to operate as an advisory agency? Does it only make recommendations to the Agency, which the Agency may reject? If so, what is the purpose of a separately elected governing board if it will only serve as' an "advisory body." It is our understanding that the ID#4 advisory group is probably already fulfilling that function adequately and therefore we recommend against this approach. -12- On the other hand, complete independence comes with some risk that the new decision makers of ID#4 will lack the background experience necessary to make sound choices. As a consequence, the new ID#4 may find itself in harm's way very early in its existence. Perhaps this concern can best be addressed by providing for budgetary review by the Agency for a defined period of time. Another alternative would be to grant ID#4 complete independence on some issues and require Agency validation or approval on others. For example, ID#4 might have the power of eminent domain, but only after application to the Agency's Board of Directors. As noted above, potential division lines might be drawn on the basis of subject matter, financial concerns or some other reasonable basis. The Committee might further determine that ID#4 should be granted greater autonomy over time. Thus, ID#4 might have the right to submit an advisory budget to the Agency for approval for its first five years of existence. After a time certain, ID#4 would have the power to adopt its own budget. The Committee may agree that some powers should never be extended to ID#4. Perhaps ID#4 should not be involved in activities which are duplicative of Agency, City or County programs or otherwise counter productive. If the Committee does not wish ID#4 to have powers other than those expressly prescribed by statute, it need only say so. -13- , 3. Relationshio to Retail Suppliers Within ID#4 Boundaries By virtue of Agency Resolution 17-71, approximately 77,000 acre-feet of SWP water was dedicated to ID#4. Retail water delivery is accomplished through a series of contracts between the Agency and North of the River Municipal Water District, the East Niles Community Services District and the California Water Service Company. The Committee needs to address how ID#4 will interface with these retail water purveyors. 1. Retail Responsibility. Will ID#4 assume any retail responsibility? (See above) The working group is recommending limited retail water service power for ID#4. 2. Contract for water. a. Will there be an assignment or subcontract of the existing SW-P contract between the Agency and ID#4? b. Will the Agency enter into a separate contract for delivery of water to ID#4? c. Are the retail purveyors required to consent to the assignment? UBWP are probably required to consent to any assignment of right which would effect their obligations and/or entitlements under existing contracts. 4. Annexation of Land Into ID#4. ID#4 boundaries are presently consistent with the "special benefit" of the area, which is the SWP. The power to approve annexations generally lies with LAFCO. However, the legislation might prohibit or allow annexation under a variety of circumstances. -14- a. Expansion of the Urban Area. (1) Will ID#4 have the unilateral authority to request annexation into its boundaries? (2) How do we account for urbanization under the 2010 plan which includes areas presently outside the ID#4 boundaries? b. Potential Conditions. If annexation is to be allowed, under what circumstances? a. Bringing a new water supply to ID#4? b. Monetary contributions? c. Simultaneous annexation into one of the UBWP's service areas? d. Approval of any one or all three of the political entities? 5. Elected vs. Appointed Board of Directors or Trustees. It would be possible for the ID#4 area to be served by either an elected or appointed Board of Trustees or Directors. While an appointed Board would be able to focus their attention on the more narrow issues pertinent to ID#4 and increase the level of services to ID#4 residents, an appointed Board would not provide for greater local participation. Because the City, County and Agency encompass broad geographic areas, a Board appointed from the three entities would not enhance the ability of ID#4 residents to control their own destiny. We believe that increasing resident participation in local water decisions was one of the primary impetuses in providing for the transfer of governance. Accordingly, we recommend the creation of a separately elected Board. CONCLUSION ID#4 will operate under whatever rules you set forth. We encourage you to provide ID#4 with enough power to address the needs of residents living within its boundaries. On the one hand, granting ID#4 broad powers will give it flexibility to independently address issues. However, the exercise of these powers may, from time to time, place ID#4 at odds with the entities now seeking its creation. Consequently, it is important for the Committee to consider the circumstances under which each of the powers might be exercised. This memorandum serves to narrow the issues and to make recommendations to the Committee. After identifying what powers ID#4 will exercise, the Committee can provide further direction to the working group and we can proceed to build a consensus for the legislation. 2878S -16- OLCESE WATER DISTRICT 6~00 Lak; Ming Road Mailing Address: Bakersfield, California 93306 P.O. Box 6~1 Telephone: (805) 872-5~63 .Bakersfield, California 93302 August 17, 1992 CFI'~ 0~ ?/,.~. 'S~!SLD WA1 E~ KESCL'RC:7 BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD City of Bakersfield 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, CA~ 93311 Dear Members of the Water Board: Olcese Water District finds itself in an impossible situation with respect to its future water supply because there simply is not enough pumping capacity available to the District to meet its contractual obligations to the City and Buena Vista Water Storage District plus meeting the District's needs, even in the present situation, not to mention current development demands as well'as proposed future developments. Olcese Water'District therefore requests the assistance of the City of Bakersfield in addressing the problem in order that the lands in 'the District and northeast Bakersfield can receive reasonably necessary water service. Please advise as to when the City's representatives can meet with the District's representatives at an early date to discuss this pressing problem. Very truly your~ JOHN F. GREGORY, PresiQent JFG/j st r cc: Councilwoman Pat Smith :. OLCESE WATER DISTRICT 6'~00 Lake Ming Road Mailing Address: Bakersfield, California 93306 P.O. Box 651 Telephone: (805) 8'/2-5563 Bakersfield, California 93302 July 22, 1992 Gene Bogart Director of Water Resources Department of Water and Sanitation 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, CA. 93311 SUBJECT: 1992 Water Supply Agreement. Dear Mr. Bogart: Enclosed please find a signed copy of 1992 Water Supply Agreement between the City of Bakersfield and Olcese Water District. As to item 7 of the Agreement - Olcese does serve incidental amounts of water outside the District to California Living Museum, the County Soccer Fields and Hart Park. The Board of Directors express gratitude for the City's assistance in this most difficult water year. Sincerely, District Manager enc. file:bogart.let 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 '~ Sune 29, 1992 Mr. Donald L. Wahl, Manager Olcese Water District 6200 Lake Ming Road, Suite C Bakersfield, CA 93306 RE: 1992 WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT Dear Mr. Wahl: Olcese Water District (Olcese) has requested that the City of Bakersfield (City) assist Olcese with its water supply needs during 1992 by supplying water in amounts not to exceed 700 acre-feet. The City is willing to assist Olcese-in meeting such water needs and shall cause water to be made available for use by Olcese subject to the terms and conditions listed below: 1) The term of this water supply agreement shall be for the period of Jane 18, 1992 through December 31, 1992. 2) Olcese shall divert City water from the Kern River via existing pump and pipeline facilities located in Section 3 of T29S/R29E, MDB&M. 3) It shall be the obligation of Olcese to provide, maintain and pay for all City approved water meter or meters necessary to measure the quantities of City water diverted by Okese from the Kern River under the terms of this agreement. 4) The rate of use of City water by Olcese from Kern River shall be calculated and reported by City on a daily basis. It shall be the responsibility of Olcese to obtain daily meter readings associated with the pumping of City water hereunder and to furnish City with such information within four (4) calendar days following the last day of each month throughout the term of this water supply agreement. The City or its duly authorized agents shall at all reasonable times have the right of ingress to and egress from Olcese property for any purpose connected to the delivery or taking of City water by Olcese. 5) Olcese shall pay to City the amount of $52 for each acre-foot of water 'so delivered to Olce~ by City from the Kern River. 6) City shall invoice Olcese monthly for water delivered pursuant to this water supply agreement and shall be due and payable by Olcese within 30 days receipt of such invoice. 7) City makes no claims or assurances as to the quality or daily quantities of water to be pumped from the Kern River and used by Olcese. Olcese hereby assures City that City water 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 · (805) 326-3715 to be made available under this water supply agreement shall be used within the boundaries of Olcese and shall not be sold, transferred, assigned or exchanged by Olcese to any other agency, entity or water district outside of Olcese without the prior written consent of City. 8) Olcese 'shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees against any and all claims, losses or damages caused by or resulting fxom the diversion and use of City water bom the Kern River by Olcese pursuant to this agreement. 9) The maximum amount of this water supply agreement shall not exceed 700 acre-feet unless agreed to by both Olcese and City. 10) It is expressly understood by the par~ies herunder that this water supply agreement is temporary and shall not establish any precedents or priorities for future water sale terms or' water rights of any kind. If the above correctly sets forth our mutual understanding, please execute this agreement/n the space provided and return a copy of this agreement for our files. Very truly yours, PAUL DOW Manager /~'~~ UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED: Directbr of Resources~-._ ¢ ~ DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION ~' PAUL DOW, Manager GENE BOGART, O~rector of Water Resources FLORN CORE. Assistant Director of Water Resources August 26, 1992 ~-. .... Michael L. Huhn, General Manager Vaughn Mutual Water Co. 10014 Glenn Street Bakersfield, CA 93312 RE~ Long Term Water Purchase Dear Mr. Huhn: The City of Bakersfield has received your letter of request for the Iong term purchase of water to serve City tracts. We share in your concern to deliver the highest quality water available to the residents and citizens of Bakersfield and we are working in many areas to achieve that goal. As you are aware, our water supply for the Riverlakes project also is derived solely from groundwater wells. The two wells that are currently on-line provide all of the water for the City Riverlakes Ranch service area and are a satellite system, not connected to the main City pressure zone. The wells have given excellent quality water to our customers and, at times, to Vaughn Water, through the inter-connection at Meacham and Calloway Roads. We are very cognizant of the groundwater quality problems encountered by both Vaughn and California Water Service Co. in the immediate vicinity of the Riverlakes project. In order to keep us informed on the water quality status of our groundwater well supply, the operating wells have been and will continue to be sampled and tested bi-monthly. The City has long range plans to connect and loop the Riverlakes Ranch satellite system to the remainder of the City water system, primarily through major transmission mains in Coffee Road and Roscdalc Highway. These plans are linked to the City's ability to recharge, bank, store and retrieve water in the "2800 Acre" Groundwater Recharge area and the associated"facilities to extract and distribute potable water to areas of need. This project is to be phased and will require 3 to 5 years to complete. The initial facilities consisting of the recharge site improvements, extraction facilities and a 36" transmission main are in place. The remaining phases include a large storage/regulation' reservoir on Buena Vista Rd., booster stations and transmission/distribution mains. The City water policy is to continue to preserve its water resources to provide for the future orderly growth of the City and to the benefit of the residents and taxpayers within the City. To this end, the City can not impair the ability to supply good quality water to its customers to the betterment . of others. At this time, the City is not able to commit to selling its water on a long term basis, however, will continue to allow the present inter-connections to provide and supply water in the interim. 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD ,. BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93311 ., (805) 326-3715 Pg. 2 - Vaughn Water We appreciate the sharing of your experiences in developing the groundwater supplies in the Polo Grounds and Riverlakes Ranch area and hope to continue the exchange of information. If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, PAUL DOW. Manager Gene Bogart Water Resources Director cc: City oF Bakersfield Water Board Mark Salvaggio, Chair Conni Brunni Ken Peterson Alan Tandy, City Manager Lawrence. Lunardini, City Attorney ~' VAUGHN WATER' COMPANY, INC. "~' ~ 10014 Glenn Street ~,~ Bakersfield, CA 93312 ~, Phone (805) 589-2931 · FAX (805) 589-7438 DmECTORS mCHAEL L ,U,K L MICHAEL LOUOEN ART NAVARRETTE KELLY K. ULRICH FLOYO L PAR~ONS OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR -ION REGIES CHRIS HARRIS OFFICE SECRETARY May 20, 1992 ~'~t.',/ CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES Mr. Gene Bogart. Director of' Water Resources City of Bakersfield 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, CA 93311 RE: Long Term Purchase of City Water to Augment Vaughn Water Company's Supply to City Tracts Dear Mr. Bogart: Vaughn Water Company would .like to look into the possibilities of purchasing.:'water from the City to augment our existing supply to City tracts especially the new Polo Grounds area. At the present time, all our water supply comes from wells. We have several well sites in the Polo Grounds and have'drilled two test wells in that area. One well was in the NW/4 of Section 18, T29S-RS7E and the other was in the NE/4 of Section 24, T29S-R26E. Both wells showed good quality water below 450 feet except for the presence of sulfides. We are investigating treatment methods and have found systems that look promising. Before implementing the treatment system the Board of Directors and the staff will have to be confident that the process will work, since our main concern has always been and will continue to be the delivery of high quality water to our customers. Vaughn Water Company is requesting the City consider wholesaling water to us for use in city tracts mainly in the Polo Grounds area. We would like to consider a long term contract based on the total number of City lots presently served with the built in capability to increase the water volumes as our City service area increases. The existing inter-ties could be used to deliver a portion of this water. At the present time, we have "will serve" letters and existing services for city tracts that total over 2400 lots. The Polo Grounds makes up a substantial part of this number. At the present Polo Grounds pro3ected build-out of 1200 lots, we estimate that the initial annual water requirement would be 2000 acre feet with a peak demand of' 3000 GPM. This does not include city developments presently under way. --1-- Gene Bogart~ page 2 May 20, 1992 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Michael L. Huhn General Manager MLH:prm DOMESTIC WATER EI~ERPRISES [~INLINgEXTEN$ION ~ RKASSIGNMENTS Special Meeting, Water Board - City of Bakersfield Tuesday, August 25, 1992 Tract/ Water Board Parcel Remaining Reassigned to % No. Map Balance William G. Leonard 2}% 83-37 W.B. TR %4610 $ 33,654.38 663 Berry Avenue Los Altos, CA 94024-4939 William G. Leonard 2½% 83-39 W.B. TR %4594 25,359.30 663 Berry Avenue Los Altos, CA 94024-4939 William G. Leonard 2}% 83-42 W.B. TR %4611 32,901.03 663 Berry Avenue Los Altos, CA 94024-4939 William G. Leonard 2}% 83-50 W.B. . PM %6721 15,042.66 663 Berry Avenue Los Altos, CA 94024-4939 William G. Leonard 2½% 84-23 W.B. TR %4650 36,096.05 663 Berry Avenue Los Altos, CA 94024-4939 William G. Leonard 2½% 84-24 W.B. TR %4696 14,706.01 663 Berry Avenue Los Altos, CA 94024-4939 William G. Leonard 2½% 87-01 W.B. Mexicali Dr. & 12,075.00 663 Berry Avenue White Ln. Los Altos, CA 94024-4939 TOTAL AMOUNT ................ $169,834.43 WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE - IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING WATER BOARD MEETING - 'I~ESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1992 Councilmember Mark Salvaggio, Chairman Councilmember Ken Peterson, Vice-Chairman Councilmember Conni Brunni 1) Equestrian Trail Workshop Issues (Jim Marino). Discussion of current trails issues to provide access from subdivisions located in Northwest (Polo Grounds and Rosedale Area) to the Kern River Parkway via canals and waterways (Jerry Slough). Water Staff to work directly with trails committee and water districts for possible use of these waterways. 2) Canal Beautification referral (Staff). Committee requested Staff establish a program with Kern Delta Water District to co-ordinate the replacement of fencing and clean-up of overgrown canal right-of-ways as part of our ongoing City-wide beautification program. Report due back to City Council on September 16th, 1992. WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE - IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING WATER BOARD MEETING - TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 1992 Councilmember Mark Salvaggio, Chairman Councilmember Ken Peterson, Vice-Chairman Councilmember Conni Brunni 1) Equestrian Trail Workshop Issues (Jim Morino). 2) Canal Beautification referral (Staff). BAKERSFIELD July 13, 1992 PLANNING DEPARTMENT JACK HARDIS'r'Y, Dire'tm' 1501 TRUXTUN AVE. BAKERSFIELD. CA 93301 (8051 328-3733 Dear Property Owner: The Bakersfield City Council and Kern County Board of Supervisors are mutually committed to evaluating the need and pOssible establishment of a multi- purpose trail system within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The City has recently established a trail system within the Polo Grounds development and has added a subdivision improvement standard for multi-purpose trails. Bakersfield City Planning Commission Trails Committee and interested members of the general public have held several meetings during 1992 in regard to the establishment of a multi-purpose trail system for the Rosedale area. We have received considerable interest and support from people in the Rosedale area who are interested in maintaining the historically rural character of the area. We are eXPloring the possible use of various public and private easements for this equestrian trail system. Multi-purpose trails are intended to be utilized for pedestrian and equestrian usage. It is hoped this system will eventually link all existing and proposed development which permit the keeping of horses and the Kern River. Staff has reviewed an evaluation of property values adjacent and near multi- purpose trails and generally found no adverse impacts to house prices. (Economic impacts of protecting rivers, trails, and greenway corridors - National Park Service 1990.) ToWard this end, we are soliciting comments from you regarding the potential use of the Goose Lake Slough easement adjacent to your property, as a segment of this overall trail system. The current use of this easement would remain as is, the preliminary ,idea is to include a multi-purpose trail within the Goose Lake Slough easement. This letter is merely intended to determine the level of interest of those property owners in having pedestrian and equestrian usage within the existing flowage easement. Should there appear to be significant support for such usage from the appropriate property owners, staff would follow-up with a conveyance document to legally establish a multi-purpose trail within the Goose Lake Slough flowage easement. Please contact Marc Gauthier by phone (326-3733) or letter on any questions or comments you have regarding this proposal. · / I-Ia''~~~ ~/ Planni pt..,~,,,oC. JH:pjt ~5 ~w~ca54a ~ g~ c~u~'r'~ PURPOSE: TO PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PLIED GROWTH THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THE'PRESERVATION AND ENI~CEMENT' OF EXISTING RURAL EQUESTRIAN AND RECREATIONAL ORIENTED LIFESTYLES WHILE ENSURING THE INCLUSION OF THIS LIFESTYLE IN FUTURE/NEW PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL TO ~ CITY AND COUR"PY RESIDENTS. SECURE BOTH CITY AND COUNTY APPROVAL FOR A MULTI-USE TRAIL SPECIFIC PLAN IN THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD ~nREA. OBJECTIVES: 1. DEVELOP MIrLTI-USE TRAIL STA/TDARDS THAT CAN BE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED IN BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY MINIMIZING CONFLICTS BETWEEN USERS. 2. IDENTIFY ~ RECOMlqEND FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR INSTALLATION OF NEW MULTI-USE TRAIL IN 1) EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS, AND 2) IN AREAS PLANNED FOR DEVELOPMENT. 3. DETERMINE MI3LTI-USE TRAIL F~AINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS A/TD RECOMMEND THE PUBLIC ENTITY TO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAID MAINTENANCE. 4'. ESTABLISH A WORKABLE MASTER PLAN FOR MULTI-USE TRAIL ALIGNMENT. 5. DETERMINE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO INFORM THE PUBLIC AND BUILDING RELATED INDUSTRIES, SOLICIT THEIR INPUT AND OBTAIN THEIR SUPPORT. t f )1' 'l'.t,j :;.!..;,~ ,'u~:; ! '' ! F'le.']se tur:~ to [) -~.,~ !5 ., Interest in trait.s' ': '% ith city grows w · - New horse, bike paths iR works Norris Road 131,' GREG CAMPBELL, Rosedale riders sa:,' they are · .....~.... '~ ...... -"¢i' '" C~Jilornian 5[ai~ ~Til~r getting increasingly held in by ur- Whether the city ct Bakersfield ban deve!opmenL. The happy trails will pedal or trot like it talks o~' the past are getting biocked witil Hagem~¢ Road .~ remains to be seen. cRrTlen~, a£phalt and tract c~ J But the idea oi loping, pedaling \Vith that in mind, Marino said, = J or jogging around town on horse o o° the idea is to create a system of · - . and bike trails is starting to drawa trails leading to the .Kern River, a = ~ little more interest from local plan- prime riding area and an area .~ nets. desk§hated for equestrian trai!s "In the next 20 years the city will the Kern [liver Parkway. Plan. grow by as much as 70 square Brimhall Road miles," said Planning Comrmssion- Bakersfield would not be pioneer- ~ er JLm Marino, a member of the ing.new ground with such a system. ~ ~ ~j c~ con'ur,Jssion's trails comxrdttee. Con- The cities ct' Noted and Wa[nut have Slockdall~ Ii 8 ndaoe '~ sideration of horse and bike trails, e:,aensive horse trail systems, which ~vhJch are tough'to put in aiter an several contmissioners have toured. !.'= area has been developed "has to But few appear to be leaping at !Z ~ ': start sometime and better now than the chance to develoo such trails. 2 20 years from now." Part ct the problem is maintenance ~' ~ ~' : The issue of horse trails has costs. I tg ~/ : i'eared up most noticeably in the The 1,450~acre Polo GroLmds '~ h Ro~ : Rosedale are.', of Bakersfield, where velopment in the Rosedale area is ~ ~{anz I{ Road some horse-riding residents are er{ exception. It was to have more -- --'~ ~ staging, "Don't Fence .Me In." than 20 m/les of horse trails, but o 'ii "If we don't do some~.hJng quick- that number was cut to 14 miles ~. ~ ]l :. said. "There is a lifestyle out. there rmssion. .¢ P~nanla Lan~ !:i::!!!:::;:C}~"~:'l~?:i~ii::'::J:"i' .... J!. that we're in danger o~ losing.'! .4. big issue was paying /or trail A separaled tight of way desigr~aled lot the J Il.' ...... ' piece of the "rural atmosphere" o[ new area through which the trai! ~ [] exclusive use ol bicycles. J the fast-growing area, said Darren would ruJ'~ is not zoned [or anLrnals, (~) g A lane lot bicycles separaled k, om the resl ct the I Powe.rs, planning commis'sioner . yet the people Living near Lhe trail m · road bvapainied slHoe. / trails corm'toLtec chairman..., would have to pay [or ils ma/me- A road shared with cars thai is desianaled as a I "There 'afc certain uart.q of this nance. V'R~y would people want to -" - ' ............... : · bikeway by sions on Dosts or on lhe pavemenl: ] · . ' ' cay to maintain a trail that they , 2 miles , i~:;;;:;i!':~;}!: cornmunitv that have always been . , rural and that has been part of our could no.'. use from'their homes? --' ; heritage." Tidal henLag~ needs to be Powers said the answer to that is preserved, he said. Please him to TRATLL.S / B2 ~, () ~', ' ¢' ' '~. ~ _ ,0'- T;, TRAIl. S: Rapid growth fuels Plans for new I orse, bike paths Co,~tiimed Irom BI Supervisors allocated nearly Thecily isinlhe early 'stagesol Norm llolfman, p~esidcnl of the :'atmosphere." llesidents ~,ould get ~.200,000 last year to develop a plan adopting reqmremenls that will Iii.. bicycle-riding Kern V/heelmc~,, said a differe~d characler than in the [or the Rosedale area, which is a bike lanes inlo the right o! way in there is plenty of de,natal for tlie stamlard tract. The landscaped mix of cit~' and county jurisdictions, new areas. Retrofitting all of the lanes. I,'ails also cotdd be ~sed by joggers Cit}' planners simpl],' t~rged the slreets or,tithed in that plan ma~' lie gets many calls from i~eop!e a,d walkers, a,sd would contribute cotmt¥ to eons[der a trail syslem l'or prove impossible, who want him lo p.~sue ~nore hike Io Ihe qualily ol lile in the area, lie lhe area in that plan. "We may not be able to get the paths. People are afl'aid to ride said. 1[ ,iced be, gravel trails could '~The most promising alignme,ds i;,hole syslem [or some time," said lraffie, he said. lloflman said he be turned into paved bike trails in for a regional equeslrian Irail ap- Bruce Deeter of the city trallie believes more lhan lsvice as Ihe lutm'e, pear to be through ~ndeveloped divisio,~. In Ihe meantime, the goal would ride if lhey could feel safe The h'ails were a welcome devel- properties primarily Iocaled in the is "conneelivil~'" -- a connection and have a place Io salely park opmenl, said (ferric Molfett ol unincorporated area o[ Rosedale," that may not be the most direct their bikes. ':!(eep It Counh'¥." "The Rosedale Conunission Chairwoman Kate Ro- palls but nonelheless allows a cyclist There has been a cha,~ge area would belselit greatly il' more se,filch said in a letler Io Ihe Board Io lravel across town. altitude abo.t cycling in Bakers- developers eapilalized on our eques- o[ Supervisors. A request l'or 1;10,000 to stripe field, said lloH~,la,~. h'ian corn,rurally ... rather Ihan The .plan; which is to be based iii bike lanes is iii this year's budget, The city 20.year growth ldan, l. he Iorgell. ing aboul the residenls and par[ on residents' comme,ds, is lie said. A big proble,n is I. hat many 2010 Plan, sees plenty oI polenliai [orcing our counlry communily lo expected I~o be done iii 1992. slreels are no[ wide eno,l§h lo hold for [~vo-~vheeled human-po~vered be obsolele," she fold lhe Planning When if comes lo bike~'ays0 Ba- .a bike lane unless o,l-slreet parking lravel. "Bicycliilg accounts [or a (:o,nmission. kersiield has an elaborale set o[ is eliminaled. Thal.'s a sensilive small p,'oporlion o! Iotal ,niles lrav- Along lhose lines, Ihe [~'lanning plans on paper in lhe cily's 20-),ear Iopic, he said. eled in Bakerslield (less lha,i Commission recenlly adopted slan- growth plan. "It's really diffict,ll, lo go back percenl)," file plan says. dards got "re. Iii-use" equestrian 1tol much o[ it, ho~'ever, is do~vn inlo der ~ped areas a,~d put in bike "Neverl. heless0 Ihe relalively flat h'ails so thai ii a developer wa,ds lo terrain and fair wealher are comh,- pul iii trails Ihe)' will be consistent on asphalL lanes," I-,e said. "~,~e're jusl. starting lo set the New areas are a little easier, cive lo bicycling for hansportation from one area to another, slandard and set the direction [or Marino said. "The newer slreelsare lo work, recreation and school. It is But it appears that the most Ihe [ulnre when g0e'll have some a little bi[ ~,ider and they can put estimated Ilia{ one-tired Ihe popula~ immediate chance of a Ii'ail system comprehensiv.e bike trails around." an IHoot bike path iii I. here and not lion ulilizes bicycling i,l o,le fo,'nl or x~,ill he ~p lo the cou,d¥ of Kern. Marino said. have lo lorce it," he said. another."