Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/95 WATER BOARD Mark Salw, ggio, Ch~ir Randy Rowing, Vice-Chair Patricia M. Smith NOTICE OF WATER BOARD MEETING OF THE Cl~ OF BAKERSFIELD WED~DAY, MAY 10, 1995 AT 4:30P.M. WA~R R~OURC~ BUILDING, 1~0 BUENA VISTA ED, B~RSFIELD, CA AGENDA 1). C~ MEE~NG TO O~E~ 2). ROLL C~L - BOA~ ME~ERS. 3). ~PRO~ ~~S OF WA~R BO~ MEE~NG HELD ~CH 14, 1995. 4). P~LIC STA~MENTS. A. P~SENTA~ON FOR "~N R~ALK FOR WA~R" ~D ~E MON~ OF ~Y AS '~A~R AWA~NESS MON~". B. O~ER PUBLIC STA~MENTS. 5). TO~ OF C~ "~8~ AC~S" GROUNDWA~R ~C~RGE FACILe. 6). DE~D BUSINESS. A. NOR~ST WATER SUPPLY COMMENTS ~CE~ED ON D~ ~PORT. B. SO~S~ ~LOW ~YCATCHER ~DA~. C. ~ ~ER RUNO~ ~ELD FO~CAST. D. ASSEMBLY B~L 733 (SPEIER) - ~UO~DA~ON OF WA~R SUPPLY. 7). NEW BUS,ESS. A. ~~ COUN~ O~ANCE ON ~G~ON OF GROUNDWA~R P~G. B. ~ WA~R B~K 199~ OPE~ONS. C. DO~S~C WA~R ~L~ E~NSION CON~ ~-ASSIGN~S. D. ASSEMBLY BILL 1~ (CORPSE) . WA~R SUPPLY P~NNING. 8). CLOSED SESSION A. GOVE~NT CODE ~49~6.9(b)(1); CONVINCE ~ LEG~ CO~SEL- ~C~ATED LI~GA~ON. SIGN~C~T EXPOSU~ TO L~GA~ON PURSU~ TO SUBD~SlON (b) OF SEC~ON 54956.9. POSED: May 5, 1995 FC:fc ~000 BUEN~ Vl$~ ~O&D * BAK~SglELD, CALlgO~N[A 933~ · (805) I I..-.~ MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE I WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Wednesday, March 14, 1995, 4:30p.m., Water Resources Conference Room, 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311. 1. The meeting was called to order by Boardmember Salvaggio at 4:45p.m. 2. Present: Mark Saivaggio,. Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Absent: None 3. The minutes from the September 14, 1994 Water Board meeting were presented for Boardmember Rowles corrected the minutes reflect that he had left the approval. to .... _m_eeting at the conclusion of item 6B due to a conflict of interest with item 7A, the Closed Session. With this amendment a motion was made by Boardmember Rowles to approve the Water Board minutes of September 14, 1994. Motion carried. 4. There were no public statements. 5A. Mr. Core introduced Mr. Morris Taylor of Ricks, Taylor & Associates to present the Phase II Report of the Northeast Water Supply project. Mr. Taylor reported that there were three potential diversion points from the river and two storage-treatment plant sites investigated (1) the Pacific Gas & Electric tunnel near the mouth of the Kern Gorge, (2) the Rio Bravo Hydro canal, and (3) from the Kern River west of Lake Ming. The PG&E site would have the highest capital construction cost at $87,832,000, Rio Bravo Hydro at $81,010,000 and Lake Ming at $74,442,000. By taking avoided pumping costs into effect at the three locations the costs are adjusted to $9,529,000 for the PG&E site, $31,015,000 for Rio Bravo & $50,726,000 for the Lake Ming site. At this point, the consulting engineers are recommending that a refined combination of the PG&E and the Rio Bravo sites be pursued. Mr. Taylor suggested that the owner/operators of those facilities be contacted regarding the feasibility and potential additional costs involved. Mr. Core suggested there be a minimum 60 day review period in order to circulate the report to interested parties for their comments and allow City staff to review and participate with other entities in their presentations to their respective boards. Staff will bring the report back to the Board at the next Water Board meeting with comments and review. A motion was made by Boardmember Smith to follow staff recommendation for the review and comment period. Motion approved. Boardmember Salvaggio motioned that items 6).A. and item 7)./7).A. on the agenda be moved forward to accommodate public guests and the consulting attorney, then resume . agenda with Item 5).B. Motion approved. 6A. Legislation has been introduced by California Assembly Member Jackie Speier (D- Burlingame) to require the California Department of Health Services to adopt regulations 1 I for the fluoridation of water supply of any public water system of 10,000 service connections or more. Mr. Core introduced Dr. Robert Reed, a local representative of the California Dental Association to advise the Board on the benefits of fluoridation as well as answer any I questions. Dr. Reed was accompanied by Dr. Tom Armstrong and Dr. Alexander. Boardmember Rowles asked of the costs to set-up equipment for the fluoride and the on- going cost to operate, plus what effect would this have on our domestic water rates. Mr. I Core responded that the set-up costs would be about $2,000 per well, operating costs would be a few dollars per well a month and the domestic water rates would have to be adjusted upward approximately a few cents per month. Boardmember Smith asked of other ~ I communities that currently add fluoride to their water. Dr. Reed responded that 62% of the i · communities nation-wide fluoridate, however in California the rate is only 17%. Boardmember Salvaggio asked of other groups that Dr. Reed has approached in the Kern : · County area. Dr. Armstrong replied that he had spoken to County Health Officer, Dr. ' I Jinadu and received a positive reaction. Dr. Reed also answered that the City Water Board was the first local public agency that they had spoken to on this. Ms. Waiters, Assistant City I Manager suggested research into the status of the bill in order to plan time for poi'hie Board action. Boardmember Salvaggio requested that staff monitor the bill and keep the Board informed of the status of the legislation and look at local options in case the bill did i not pass. No action by Board. Boardmember Rowles left the meeting at the conclusion of item 6A due to a conflict of i interest with agenda item 7)./7).A. 7A. At 5:30p.m. the Board adjourned to Closed Session per Government Code 54956.9(b){1); [' conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation. Significant exposure to litigation I to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 (two cases). pursuant Board Chair Salvaggio reconvened the meeting at 5:50p.m. Mr. Salvaggio stated that during I the Closed Session the Board was updated on litigation activities and no Board action was taken. I Boardmember Rowles returned to the meeting. 5B. An update on the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (SWWF) was presented to the Board by I Mr. Core. In February the bird was listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The SWWF intended critical habitat which included the area around the shoreline of Lake Isabella, was left open to a 60 day review and comment period. A I legislative amendment to the Endangered Species Act has been introduced by California Congressman Gary Condit (D-Ceres) which would delist species listed after November 20, 1994 and place a two year moratorium on any further listings under the ESA. This I amendment is in the hearing stage in the House of Representatives. The Kern River Research Center, a private reserve in the Kern River South Fork Valley has requested continued financial support from the Kern River Interests for the SWWF/Brownheaded I Cowbird project for 1995. The City's cost to participate in this successful program would be is approximately $3,000. Boardmember Salvaggio made a motion to continue to support and participate with the other Kern River Interests on the SWWF project for 1995. Motion approved. I I ~..~, 5C. Mr. Bogart updated thc Board on the City's assuming thc responsibilities of operating the Kern River Levee District. Staff has been attending the Levee District meetings monthly to provide updates on Kern River forecasts and Isabella Reservoir operations. The Levee District informed the City that at this time the District wishes to continue the operations of the Levee District. The District has indicated a willingness to engage in talks with the City sometime in the future. No Board action on this item. I 5D. City water staff, purveyors and the Urban Bakersfield Advisory Committee (UBAC) began an audit in November 1993 of administrative overhead charges levied by the Kern County I Water Agency (KCWA) against Improvement District #4 (ID#4). An independent auditor, Dale Piner CPA, was hired by the purveyors within ID4 to examine KCWA accounting procedures for overhead allocation to investigate how the charges are generated. The UBAC i prepared a report, dated February 7, 1995 and forwarded it to KCWA, as of this date no response has been received. Boardmember Rowles requested staff to continue participation in the audit, as needed with the sharing costs of the auditor with the other participants and i purveyors. No action taken by the Board. 6B. The election of the Water Board Vice-Chair was brought before the Board for action. Boardmember Smith made a motion to appoint Boardmember Rowles as Vice-Chair. i Motion carried. 6C. ~he Board discussed the proposed meeting schedule for 1995 and the meeting dates were I to be 10th; July 12th; September 20th and November 15th. All meeting times suggested May will be at 4:30p.m.. Motion to approve these dates was made by Boardmember Salvaggio. i!'.:? Motion approved. At 6:lTp.m. the meeting was adjourned for a dinner break. I The meeting reconvened at 6:43p.m. 6D. Mr. Core presented the current 1995 Kern River runoff yield forecast before the Board for I information. The water supply picture changed dramatically over the past weekend. The official State generated forecast as of March 1, 1995 for the Kern River was 106% of normal. The recent storm event has revised the forecast upward to 160% of normal. This anticipated I supply will allow the City to meet all Basic Contract deliveries including prior year deficiencies and may allow spreading and banking of Kern River water in the "2800 Acres". No Board action taken. I 6E. Mr. Bogart presented the 1995-96 Agricultural Water Price and Sand Sale Schedule, for review and recommendation for City Manager to sign Executive Order. The recommended I rates reflect water availability and demands projected for the 1995 season. Boardmember Salvaggio made a motion to recommend City Manager sign the Executive Order setting the Agricultural Water rates for 1995. Motion carried. I 6F. Mr. Daniel, Assistant City Attorney, has negotiated with Hatch and Parent to updated their contract for legal services. He has reviewed the contract and with suggested changes finds it satisfactory. Boardmember Salvaggio made a motion to recommend approval by the City ."' Council. Motion carried. 1 ! 6G. Mr. Core presented one Domestic Water Mainline Extension Contract and several reassignments for Board information. No action taken or required. A motion to adjourn was made by Boardmember Rowles at 7:02pm. I Mark Salvaggio, Chair City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board i ! I I I I WALKATHON SATURDAY, MAY 20, 1995 9:00 A.M. star~, 12:00 P.M. finish Last Name: First Name: WAIYER: In consideration of your acceptance of this form, I hereby for myself waive and release all sponsors, coordinating groups and any individual associated with the event,and their representatives from any and all claims that may assume any ~nt. Signature: ~~ Date: ~  l~ated by KCWA, WAKC and the 1995 California Water Awareness Campaign. Use water wisely. It's a way of life. ~ _~~~ I MAY IS CALIFORNIA WATER AWARENESS MONTH 1417 VALe, ~Tla, E~Lr'{" Telephone 871.~011 ~AK~FIELO~ CALIFOSNIA April 11, Susa~ Kennedy/JenK$ Consultante 200 New 8=i~e Road 6 11~ Baker~field, CA 93309 Re: Northern ~akersfiel~ Wa=er su', ~roje~t De~nitip~ ~Dort . Dear Susa~: East Niles Co.unity Smrvioes District has reviewed the draft ~f the above referenced report, ~e following are our oommen~s: ~ Background data pre~en~ed on page ~ cZ the re~or= is seven y~ars - Stated Denefit for Arvin-Edi~on WSD of elzmznating domestic uees of its surfsce wate~ is ~estiona~le, ~ast Niles has a sizeable investment in infrastruot~re rela~.~ =0 ~he ~in Edison supply and considera~ion. A cost ~ompa~ison should be done ~o include the o~ion of expanding the existing Garnmtt =reatmen~, ~cluding ~. cos~ of in~reas~ng the capacity O~ th% tran~is~ion llne from Oswell ~orage facility. ~e ~ite hms the advantage of Garnett, mul~ipl, mouroes making ~or a more relz~bl, f~=ili~y. -The question Of Kern River water e~titlemen~ needs ~o be addressed in the repor~ before ~h. pro~ec= goe~ any f~ther. ~e pro~ect report does not include pipe%ine improvements deliver water west Of Kal= Niles. Tha~ you for t~m opportunity ~o cogent on this report. Very truly yours, Ph~lli~ W. Holderne~s Assistant Manager i ¢ orth of the River Municipal Water District I 4000 RI~) Del Norte Street · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · Office (805) 393-5411 · FAX (805) 399-8911 I I April 17, 1995 Ricks, Taylor and Associates I 1326 H Street Suite 21 Bakersfield, California 93301 Attention: Morris Taylor I Re: Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project I Dear Mr. Taylor and Ms. Rankin: Thank you for providing us the above referenced draft report. We have asked our consulting I engineers, Boyle Engineering, to review this report, and provide appropriate comments. Attached to this letter is a copy of those comments. I In addition, I must add that at the scoping meetings, NOR_MWD expressed concern over the absence of proposed discussion of the actual water supply alternatives to this treatment plant, as a critical component of such a report. It was requested that what, if any water supply alternatives there were, I and what would be necessary to make available these supplies to the plant (i.e., purchase of water rights, water transfers, etc.). In "defining" this project in this report, the feasibility and/or practicality of'acquiring the requisite water supply itself, is just as important as the feasibility of the construction I of the plant. My District reiterates its request, as a participant in the funding of this study, that the water supply options to the plant be discussed, along with the inherent problems, policies, and legal issues that might preclude, or at least influence obtaining water under whatever options are Iidentified. We look forward to your response· Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on your report. I Very truly yours, William R. Miller I General Manager WRM:Ih I Enclosures '.,'~u U3Z'~,M cc: NORMWD Board Of Directors ENCSD/Roland Stephens KCWA~I'om Clark KCWA/Bob Bellu¢ COB/Flora Core Kem~edy Jenk~ CwS/Mcl Byrd Olces¢/Don Wall . ., I OMWC/Doug Nmmelcy Vauglm/Michael Huhn ! I COMb~NTS ON I PROJECT DE~ON REPORT lrOR ~ PROPOSED I NORTR~.Z, ST BAKERSFr'~I.~ WATER SUPPLY PROJECT I The overall purpose of' the "Project Definition Report for the Proposed Northeast B~kerslield Water Supply Project" (I~eport) is to determi.~ how to meet the water needs of the Northeast Bakersfield Area (NBA). Them ar~ Cwo basic considerations: I 1) Recommend a point at which to divert water fi.om the Kern River, and :2) Recommend the location for an 85 MGD water treatment plant. I The NBA. covers about 40 square miles generally extending fi.om Oswell Avenue on the west to the foorhi11~ on the east and from Highway 58 on the south to the Kern River on the north. · Most I of the NBA is undeveloped with the exception of the southwest comer. The aria presently does not have sufficient water to allow substantial development. I OPTIONS CONSIDERED L'~ ~ REPORT i The Report considered three options for the location of the diversion of' water from the Kern Privet. Two sites were considered for the location of the proposed treatment plant. Both the PCr&E Tunnel and' Rio Bravo Hydro River water diversion options assumed the treatment plant Iwould be built at an elevation of about 960 feet. The Lake Ming River water diversion option assumed that the plant would be constructed at an elevation of' about 860 feet;, 100 feet lower than the other treatment plant site considered. I PG&E Tunnel Option - This is the option recommended in the Report. The River water would be diverted at the mouth of the PG&E Tunnel that supplies water to the power plant located I where the 1Liver exits the Kern River Canyon into the San $o~uin Valley. According to the Report, the concept is to convey the water fi.om the mouth of the tunnel, at elevation 9'24 feet, through a 31,300 foot long (56 inch diameter pipeline to a raw water storage reservoir at elevation I water flow by gravity through a treatment plant into 100~ feet. From the will treated water storage ~t · water surface-elevation of 930 feet. I Rio'Bravo Hydro Option - This-option assumes that the water would be diverted fi.om the canal that carries River water to a hydroelectric generator. The canal conveys the water at a high i enough elevation (above the River charw~el) so that power can be generated and the water discharg~ back into the River. The River water would be diverted fi.om the canal at an elevation of &75 feet and conveyed via a ~6 inch diameter pipeline 19,500 feet long to the same i reservoir/treatment plant site az assumed in the P~&E Tunnel option. Lake Ming Option -- The third scenario considered was a turnout fi.om the River near Lake Ming. A diversion dam would be constructed and a 66 inch diameter pipeline about 5,800 feet I (April ~, I995) I I [on~ cons~c~ed to a raw w~er ~o.~c m~o~' at ~on ~ f~t A p,,~ ~on wo~d  w~ would flow by to re~o~ ~h ~e ~fion ~ 830 a f~ It ~o~d be not~ ~ ~e ~ed w~ r~o~ for ~e L~ ~ option h 1~ ~t lower ~ elocon ~ ~ted water r~e~o~ for d~ the PG~ T~n~ or ~o B~vo Ky~ option. E~~ C~piffi $87,382,000 $81,0[0,000 ~ow~r Co,~ 9, 529,000 ~ 1,01 ~,000 Amid~ Power 10.828.000 ~.289.000 0 ~ $107,739~000 15~314,000 $125,168,000 To~ Pr~ent Wo~ $1 ~e p~ sp~ifc b~ts to ~e me~opo~ B~sf~d ~ea ~ would reset ~om the p~oje~~cord~g ~o ~e ~pon ~clude ~e fo~ow~g: 1) ~sed w~ supply;  2) ~u~ ener~ cos~ ~ ~o~ to o~er op~o~; 3) ~uce ~e load on the ~t Pip.e; ~d 4) M~e av~l~le cap~ciw ~ the ~ Pl~t for other ~en. ~ ~crease in Water Supply No n~ water supply ~1 be d~elop~. To ~c~ ~e w~ mpply ~r ~e ~a would ~t water be impon~ in:o ~e ~ as is done by ~e S~e ~u~ md ~e FHa-Kern C~. S~ce no new wa:~ ~ be ~pone~ ~ere ~11 be no ~cr~e ~ ~e ~ce wa~r mpply. I (Aln'il 6, 1995) 2 .... Electrical Power Savings The Repo~ states that the proposed project will result in power savings if the PG&B Tunnel option is implemented because water will be d~erted from thc River at a higher elevation (924 feet). Thus, less energy will be consumed to deliver water to customers. A cursory review of the NBA using the City of Bakers/ield's 2010 General Plan land use map and USGS Quad maps indicates that oft[~c 25.500 acres (40 square miles) in NBA, about 5100 acres, or 20% of the total area, is not "developable" because the land [s too ~eep or is set aside for parks (Hart Park and Lake Ming). Allother 22% (5600 acres) is planned for large lots (2.5 to 20 acres per lot). Furthermore, no more than 50% of the developable area is at an elevation above 800 feet. The remaining 50% is below 800 feet including 20% (:5200 acres) below 500 feet. Therefore, i/'the treated water storaSe i~ at an e[evafion of 930 feet az proposed, perhaps $0% of the water may flow through pressure reducing valves/n order to avoid waler distn'bution ~stem pressures that are too high or, at the least, not necessary. Preliminary calculations indicate that if the treated water storage is at elevation 930 feet, an average pressure reduction of 35 psi (80 feet) will be needed to maintain a mS,mum ~ystem orS0 psi/'or each AF of water used in the pressure NBA. If the treated water storage is at elevation 8.~0 feet, then each AF of waxer used in the NBA will have to be pumped an average of about 20 feet higher (10 psi approximately). These figures indicate that the claimed energy savings of conveying all of the water to elevation 930 feet may not be real!zed. Add to this the factz that the "avoided energy costs" used in the comparison of the costs for the three options are based on a 1982 agreemen~ and an assumption as to what the Rio Bravo Hydro "avoided costs" will be, it appears that the perception of substantial energy cost savings may be incorrect. Replace the Use of Pipes that Are OveHoaded and Operating Inefficiently Not included in the fac/lities (or the cost estimates) in the Report are the pipeline improvements that would be needed to deliver water fiom the proposed plant to West Bakersfield to offset demands on the Garnett Ptant. The Report does include a pipeline to East Niles Community Services District's tank adjacent to Highway 178 at an elevation of 860 feet. There/s a mile 18 inch diameter pipeline out o£the tank. It is not practical to convey 28,000 AFY through an 18 inch diameter pipeline. In addition, the lS~st Pipeline is already "overloaded". Before $/~ificant volumes of water fi-om the proposed plant can be to West will have be constructed. collvcyed Bakersfield, additional pipeline tO The cost for this pipeline is not included/n the Report. Make Garne~ Flant Capacity Available to Meet Demands in West Baker~eld One of the benefits claimed for the proposed water treatmerrt plant is that it will free-up capadty in the existing Cramett Plant to meet increadng water demands in, and possibly outside o/~ The three water purveyor~ presently served by the Gamett Plant take delivery of about 28,000 I ~ of treated water. The proposed Northeast Balc~'sfield Plant's init/al capacity is 65 MGD i (73,000 AFY); expandable to 85 MC-D (95,000 Ar-Y). In the First Phase Technical Report for the proposed project, dated October, 1993, there are i ?~blcs showing the projected water demand for the NBA. The tables show '%vater demand during peak week". Based on data in th:,r l~'port, it was dctcrmir~ed that the "water demand during peak week" is 1.6 times the average day domed (anmad b~,~). Local experience indicates that the i sidle m~-i,,,,,,, day demand during a year is about twice the average day demand. Based on the "water demand during peak week" data in the October, 1993, Report. the foilowhag table wa~ ffrepared. NBA PROJ'BCTED WATER DEMANDS 2000 12.6 20.2 25.2 14,100 2010 17.9 28.6 35.8 20,000 I .. 2020 25.1 ~0.2 50.2 28,100 2030 34.7 55.5 69.4 38,900 2040 47.3 75.7 94.6 53,000 2050 57.8 92.5 115.6 '64,800 I Considering ~ the initial is 65 MGD the ultimate plant (73,000 plant capac~ proposed is 85 MCrD (95,000 Al:Y), and the anticipated demand of the NBA is 65,000 AFY, supplying :28,000 AFY to West Bakm-~d, as propos~ in the tL~ort, would be possible. I FIowever, while thc proposed plant would be capable of providing as much as 30,000 A.FY of water to West Bakersfield, there will be little or no water available to West Bakersfield from the i Northeast Bakersfield Plant in the high water demand months. The claimed benefit to West Bakersfield of having water available from the Garner Plant to meet Iincrease! demandi fi.om the three water purveyors it now serves a~d poss~ly others is questionable. Ici the short run tl~s concept app~rs feasible. In the long run, however, the proposed Northezst Bakersfield Plant may even be insufficient to meet the water dema,~ds Id~cribed i~ the P,~ort for just the NBA. I (At~il 6, 199~) 4 . I COST OF WATER I Capital Cost I The project proposed in the Report has an estimated capJt~l cost ofS87.4 million. As pointed out ~bove, pipeline improvements will be needed if'the delivery of 28,000 AFY to West Bakersfield is to be a:complished. The cost of this pip~_lin~., including engineering and contingencies to be I consistent with the Report, wilI increase the total cost to about $105 million. Based on the 7% interest raze ~d 30 year period used in the l~port, the annual capital cost for the proposed Northeast Bakersfield Plant would be $8.5 million I If the Garnett Plant capacity Ls increased by 25 MGD (28,000 AFY), the capital co~ would be about $25 million including a 35% allowance for engineering and contingencies to be consistent I Report. Including cost a pipeline to convey water to the the the from the Gamett Plant the East Niles Community Services District tank at elevation 860 feet would increase the total Icapital cost to about $~0 million. The annual capi~l cost o£ doubling the capacity o£ the Garnet: Plant and comsu'ucting a pipeline from the Crarnett Plant to East Niles Community Services District's tank would be abou: $3.2 million. I Power Cost~ I For the proposed Northe~t Bakersfield Plant, the power ¢o~ to conv~7 water to the East Niles C°mmunity Services Distfi~ ta.nk, at elc-,ration 860 feet is e~tirnated at $30/AF. This figure includes the "avoided power ¢o$t,' and the ener~ needed m lffi the wat,r the 100+ feet Imentions:! in t~ l~ort. If water from the Crarn~ Plant i~ li~ed :500 ~'e~t to the tank, the power cost will be about $70/AF. The difference in power costs b~'ween the t.h~¢ two alt~nativ~ is $40/AF. I With a power cost differential of $40/AF, the additional power cost of'pumping 28,000 AFY from the Clarne~ Plant to the Eas~ Niles ~ommunit¥ Services Tank would be $1.1 million p~r ),ear. Annual Costs I For the Northeast Bal<ersfield Plant alternative, the annual capital cost would be about $8.5 million. If the Ga~.. et: Plaat is expanded by 25 MGD (28,000 AFY)., the total annual cost for icapital repayment and the additional power cost to li~ water to East Niles Community Services District's tank would be about $4.~ million. The cost difference between the two options for delivering 28,000 AFY to the tank is, therefore, about $4.2 million per year. i In the Report there is a table that shows the aaticipa~ed oulput from the proposed 'Northeast Bakersfield Plant. In the year 2000, a flow of 42,100 AFY is shown. This includes 28,000 AFY' Ifor West Baker~eld. Il'West Bakcrsfeld can expand the Crarnett Plant and produce an additional 28,000 AFAr or' water for $4.3 million, then West Bakersiield's "fair shar~' or' the proposed project's annual cost is $4.3 million. ! I That leaves $4.2 million ofthe mmual c~pital cost o£the Northeast Bakersfield Pla~t project plus S30/A~ for power for water com~me~s La the ~BA. to pay. Ir'these costs a'e spread over 14,100 I AIrY (42, I00 ~ - 28,000 A~r), ~e wholesale water cost in thc ~I-BA w~l bc $335/AF. '["ais is almost S200/AF more than the cost of'the water fi.om the expanded Garnett Plant would be. I It should be remembered t~t of the 14,100 AE'Y' az~dpated need in the N'BA in the 2000, year 12,000 AEY is already being supplied. If'N'BA's sl~m of the cost ~ only be spread over "new water demmds", the wholesale water cost L~ the NBA in the year 2000 could be over $2,000/A~ I unless Ge cost is subdctized As water demand increases ia the the would by someone. cost decrease. :But, even by t~ year 2010, the wholesale cost wou[c[ be about $$$O/A.F. I CONCLUSIONS A.ND I~COMM~iDATION$ i From this cursory r~i~w of ~e Report, it appears that the benefits fi-om the project with respec[ to the areas outside or' the 1N'BA a.te not hearty as si~ni~cant as claimed: I t) t~o ~dido~a/water is made available; 2) The energy ~vings t'or t~e a'eas outside of'the 1N'~A. ~e neglig/ble at best; 3) The addifio~l ~cilides needed to dellve~ w~te: to West Bakers£eld h~'~e not been I " adcLressed; Md, " 4) The proposed [~ott~east Bakers~eld Pla.nt would only be sbic to deliver water to West Bakers~eld La the low water use montl~. I h' addit, ioa, the "faLr share" cost or'wa:er from the project to coasumers in the ~rBA appears to be ut~easoaably l~g~ ur, less substantial subsides are recdved ~ the ~st 20 or 30 yea~ of' the I project. These subsidies could be in the form of a "surcha~$e' on the water sold to consumers outside of. the NBA. I There other available the demands of the NBA a~d the aze ol~ons to meet an~cipated ws. ter tema~der of' the Bakersfield ~rea. Expa~ion of. the Gamett Plant and ~e u~e of ~otmd water isupplies a~e two options. A combina:io~ of these two or all three, incluciing the proposed Norr. l~east B~er~eld Plant, may be the leas: costly way to meet the wazer needs of the metropolka~ Bakersfield ~e~. I Basically, the study area i~ the Report w~ too limited. It appear~ that the goal of the Report was to 5n~i & ~olu~o~.to t~e w~ter supply problem of the ~A. while clalmi~ behests for a. much II~ger ~e~ in order to spread the costs. In order to demo~trate ~ behests will ~n ~ a:crue to · e me~opolitan Bak. ers~dd a~ea ~ well as to the ~'BA, the raiLLeries needed to meet the w~ter clema~d~ or'the metropolita~ area, a~d costs a~soci~ed with them, need to be [denti~ed. I It is recommended th~.t a. study indudLag all of the metropolitaa Bakers~qelct area. be prepared identL~yL~ ail oE the t'adlkies ~ will be ~ecessary to deliver war~et to the entire S~er~eld ~ I lust how the Gar~et~ Pla~t a~d local grotmd wa~er supplies best ~t into a scheme to meet the ~'ow~ w~ter dema~d~ of' the entire Bakersfield ~rea should be examined before a, decis~o~ Ls ~de to proceed with ~ ~uffa:¢ w~ter ~eatment plant in the NBA. Lftbh is doae, the least costly i (April S, Z~9~) 6 project for the entire area can be ident/fl~ and a ~alr ~ncl equitable means o£ spreading thc costs ·mon& all those who will beneft can be ascertained. , " Specifically, there are a number o~questiom that should be ;~_-wered befor~ ~opted: 1) Wh~ is the least c°stly means, including all fi~ilities ~eecled, or'meeting all' orr the Bak~rsfidcL arch's ant/c/pared, water demands? 2) e. ~ w~er treatmem: plant ~ b~'lt in the NBA, where L~ the best Ioca~o~ It' and at wlmt elevat/on7 3) How should construct/on of'all o£the needed ~mLorovement~ be phase, ct? a,) If water treatment is required, wha~ should the treatment proce~(es) be ~n light of' forthcoming water treatmeat regulation. 5) Wha: will be the co~; capita~ and Wha: ~ the fah'~t and most equitable means ot'p~ying for the project adopted? I DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES GENE BOGART, Manager - -~-~ FLORN CORE, Water Resources Director I PATRICK E. HAUPTMAN, Superintendent STEVE LAFOND, Porecastin8 and Records MAURICE KANDALL. Busines~ Manager '~. KERN RIVER DISPATCHER 326-3716 i April 25, 1995 Mr. Sam F. Spiller, Field Supe~isor Arizona Ecological Services Office I U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85021 I RE: SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER - DESIGNATION OF ISABELLA RESERVOIR AS CRITICAL HABITAT I Dear Mr. Spiller: I The City of Bakersfield is very concerned with the Fish and Wildlife's draft rule of including Isabella Reservoir as part of a critical habitat designation for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The designation would severely inhibit activities along the lake shoreline and consequently will greatly Idecrease the designed storage capacity in the reservoir. This will have a dramatic affect on the exposure to flooding in Bakersfield, the availability of excellent quality drinking water supplies and the economic stability of the Bakersfield area. I The inclusion of Isabella Reservoir as critical habitat could reduce conservation storage by as much as seventy percent {70%). Such a drastic cut would limit the ability to store and regulate Kern River I flows for flood control and cause water to be lost to the Bakersfield area. With a diminished storage capacity, the peak spring snowmelt runoff on the Kern River would be required to be released in an untimely manner when the Bakersfield and valley area demands are low. Potentially, large i quantities of water would be passed through our community and lost. Water that escapes beneficial use has to be replaced by groundwater overdrafting or increased dependance on limited imported water supplies. Overdrafting of groundwater not only lowers water levels and increases cost but can ialso lead to the degrading of the quality of drinking water supplies in our community. In high snowmelt years, such as 1995 is or as a result of a sudden heavy precipitation event, it is possible that without full use of the Isabella Reservoir space and regulation, vast areas of Bakersfield and the valley floor could be exposed to flooding. ! The majority of Isabella Reservoir does not presently and cannot be expected in the future to provide the biological and physical features needed for the flycatcher. The current vegetation in the I Kern River south fork delta has encroached into reservoir takelines result of the historic storage as a 1986-92 California drought. Because this area is subject to inundation in the course of normal operations of the reservoir as a flood control and water conservation storage [acility, the area is I unstable and is not suitable as breeding habitat. For example, in large water such as this years year, the reservoir is forecast to fill to capacity and most if not all of the south fork delta will be submerged for an extended period of time. ! = T, : ~-'-' =?:~ ~'E=.cz'E'-D I I MR. SAM SPILLER UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE PAGE - 2 - ! The City of Bakersfield and the other Kern Rivcr Interests have cooperated on successful activities to increase the population of the flycatcher outside the vicinity of Isabella reservoir and nearer to I its natural habitat in the south fork A successful to reduce the brown- breeding upper area. program headed cowbird parasitism of the willow flycatcher was conducted and the reported results are good. The results indicate that the program is effective in reducing cowbird parasitism of the willow I flycatcher and increasing the flycatcher's reproductive rates. The Isabella Reservoir shoreline is not necessary to conserve the breeding ground of the I Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and such a designation would cause substantial adv. erse economic impacts to the ongoing activities of water management and conservation of Kern River water in Bakersfield and the surrounding areas. In addition to increased costs to pump groundwater for I drinking supplies, there will be substantial reductions in crop production, all causing several million dollars of economic hardship in our community of over 370,000 people. Unless the United States is able to purchase and replace the conservation storage space in Isabella Reservoir and provide i assurances of flood control protection for our City, it should not attempt to include it as part of the critical habitat designation. IThe benefits of excluding Isabella Reservoir from the designation will far outweigh the benefits of including it as a portion of the designation. The City of Bakersfield urges you to remove Isabella Reservoir from the designation as critical habitat for thc Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. I Very truly yours, GENE BOGART I Manager Florn Core Director ! cc: City of Bakersfield Water Board Alan Tandy, City Manager I Judy Skousen, City Attorney Alan Daniel, Assistant City Attorney Charles H. Williams, Kern River Watermastcr I 1 I I I ci~ o)~B~ KERN RIVER BASIN SNOWPACK ACCUMULATION ~',~,~o~,~ EIGHT SENSOR INDEX 35.0 .-'-- 41% A-J November December January February March April Snowpack Accumulation Season KERN RIVER BASIN SNOW SENSOR FORECAST MODEL Readings of Water Content DATE: 01 -Apr 1995 are in Inches ..... Previous Year April-July Runoff = 41% of Average SNOW SENSOR SITE Upper Tyndall Crabtree Chagoopa Wet Tunnel Casa Beach Weighted Creek Meadow Plateau Pascoe Meadow Guard Vieja Meadow Average Elevation (feet) 11,450 10,700 10,300 9,150 8,950 8,950 8,400 7,650 -- Actual Water Content This Date 34.0 27.7 34.6 53.8 43.2 27.1 29.5 13.2 32.6 Normal Water Content This Date 27.7 19.8 21.8 24.9 30.3 15.6 20.9 11.0 21.6 % of Normal Water Content This Date 123~ 140~ 159~ 216% 143~ 174% 14196 120~ 150~ April 1 Average Water Content 27.7 19.8 21.8 24.9 30.3 15.6 20.9 11.0 21.6 % of April I Average Water Content 123% 140~ 159~6 216~ 143~ 174% 141% 120~ 150~ 1) 3-Gage Precipitation Index For this Date = 84.92 inches 3-Gage Precipitation Index Normal For this Date = 53.51 inches 3-Gage Precipitation Index In % of Normal = 159~ Percentage Into Snowpack Accumulation Season = 10o~ 2) Estimated April-July Runoff into Isabella Reservoir = 808,~?. acre-feat 3) Estimated April-July Runoff in % of Average = 175% 1) 3-Gage precipitation index = October I to date cumulative rainfall totals for Glennville, Pascoe & Isabella Dam 2) Assumes median snowpack accumulation subsequent to date of estimate 3) April-July average inflow to Isabella Reservoir = 461,000 acre-feet Note: Upper Tyndall Creek and Wet Meadow sensors are currently inoperable. Readings of water content and precipitation for these stations are estimates only. A~B 733 m~;mum and maximum permissible concentrations o£ AMENDigD IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 17, 1995 fluoride. c~a.?o~~sL,~x--l~~sr, ssIoN This bin ~ouId pro,de that a pubic water system scheduled to ~uo~date pursuant to the b~ may comply the apphYab]e rebvu]a~ons at any time, but i~ not r~quired to AS~EI~BL¥ BILL No. '/33 comply unti[ £unds su£Bcient to pay capital costs for the system have become ava~able f~om any source. The b~l pro,de ~hat a pubic ~ater system ~dth less than 10,000 Introduced by Assembly Member Spelev servic~ conn~'t/onsmay a[ect to comply'vdth the tluo~dation (Pr/nelpal coauthor: Assembly Member '~/llie Brown) s~n~]a~ts o£the bin. It wou]d permit water systems to collect u~r f..ees for co~t~ of c~nph'~oe ~th the standards. (Principal coauthor: Senator Maddy) comph'ance requiremen~ and red, la,ohs. The bill would also require the Attorney Conceal to, upon request by the department, institute m_~l~mus or other February 22, 1995 ~ppropriate proeee3~ngs in eases where the owner operator o£ a publi~' w~ter system £~fl~ to comply with a .'.' re~d~en ~dopte. d pursuant to its provisions. This bill would ..... ' -- . ...... ~e___rmit the department to grant variances purs~,~ut to exis~g An act to add Sections 40116.7 and 4026.8 to the Health and By requiring the addition o£ fluorides to public water Sa£ety Code, relating to drinking water, systems, this bill would ;repose additional duties on local public entities that operate public water systems, thereby r.~is~ COUNS~.~ mcrsr imposing a state.manciated local program. AB 733, as amended, Speier. Drinking water: tluoridation. :Y-he ~ ~ ~ ~ stye t~ Existing law, commonly re~erred to as the California Sa/e ~ ~ ~ seheet ~ ~r ~ eest~ Drinlcing Water Act, is administered by the State Department bg' ~kc ~.~Ic ~ ~ c;'-,.~?-..k ~ o/Health Services and, ~mong other things, it requir~ the _.~_-__ ,~..,__:__k ........ · :_.~...~:__ -------o ..... - ................ -, ......~ .-. crcafcT, et:a ~ate deparlment to establish recommended public health levels ~ ~ Fern4 te pa~ ~ eest~ e/mimilates '..~.~.'. idng quit .-.~ ,k for contaminants in drin water, and re es operators o£ --'..... ,....~_'~ ,,.,..~,~.~~' '~ '~ st~e~ide ._.. c,-cr public water systems to obtain a permit. Existing law also etag~ whose state,,vide ees~s ct, cc.--~. ~ requires the department to, at the request of any public water ,r~.,....., bill ...... .. ----~ prs;idc ,k.,__., i~ ~ ~ ~a systelll, grarlt a var~anc~ from the primary (lrinlcing water M,-.,~,~,,,., d.'. ....... s~ncInrd adopted by the department for fluoride, if certain ~ ~ .... b ........ t r, conditions are satisHed. ~,-..:- .......... This bill would require the department to adopt reg~g!~tions T~e California Constitution requires the state to re/rnburse that require the fluoridation of the water of any public water local aEenaie$ and $cJ~ooJ ch'stn'cts for oertni, costs mandated system that has at least 10,000 service connections according by the state. Statuwry proviz'ohs establish procedures for to a prescribed schedule based upon the ~ sf ~ maIdn~ that reimbursement. ~ lowest capita] costper connection. Among other TIlis bin would provide that no reimbursement i$ required ~_h!ngs, it would requ/re the reg~_~l~tions to establish the by t~a's act For a specified reason. kB 733 ~ 3 ~ kB 733 1 to eornpl? untilfunds sui~eient topa), capital costs for the Vote: majority. ~ppropriatiou: no. Fiscal ~ommittee: yes. ~ system have become available from any souroe. State-mandated local program: yes. 3 4 se~iee of the State o£ C~Hfor-~ do enact a~ followm ...:.... 1 SECTION 1. Section4016.7 is added to the Health and ~6 ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ is ~ ev,,se~ and Ss/eW Code, to read: +'"""::' ' 3 40~.?. (a) In order to promote the public health  through the protection and rp~h~tenan.e.e of dental health, the deparm~ent shall adopt regulations pursuant to_ 10 6 Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of 11 ? Division 3 o£ Title o, of the Oovennment Code, requi~g ~ fluoridation of public water ~ystem~. The regulations 13 adopted by the department shall take effect on January 15 10 1, 1997. ..,.::~,.? ..... ............ 11 (b) The regulations shall include, but not be limited to, 16 .. 17 lf~ the following: 18 13 (1) Minimum snd rn~tmum permissible 14 concentritions of fluoride to be maintained by 19 (b,) The department shall enforce Section 40t6.? and l0 this section, arid all regulations adopted pursuant to thes~ 15 fluoridation of public water systerna. 9.1 sections, unless delegated pursuant to a local primary 16 (9.) The requirements and procedures for maintaining p.~ agreement. 17 proper concentrations of fluoride, including equipment, il3 18 testing, recorClkeeping, and repor~ng. 24 (¢) If the owner or operator of any public water system 19 (3) Requirements for the addition of fluorides to 110 public water systems in which the natural level of t5 subject to Section 40116.7 fails, or refuses, to comply with 9.1 fluorides is less than the minimum level established in the ~6 any regulations adopted pursuant to Section 40~6.?, or ,--- Il'/ any order of the department implementing these P.~ regulations. 118 regulations, the Attorney General shall, upon the request 113 (4) A schedule for the fluoridation of public water 9.4 ~ ~ b~ bas?., e.n ld~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of the department, institute mands us proceedings, or Z5 syst~,t~~~l~hepubEc'::t, tcrrTstcm, 30 other appropriate proceedings, in order to compel 116 ee beth~sterns with at ]east 10,000 service connectioos, 31 compliance with the order, rule, or res~fl~t/on. This 27 based oo the lowest capital costper connection for emch 311 remedy shall be in addition to all other authorized 33 reined/es or sanctions. 118 system. 29 SEC. 9.. Sect/on 40116.8 is added to the Health and 34 35 (d) Neither this section nor Section 40'26.7 shall 30 Sa_iety Code, to read: 36 supersede subdivision (b) o£ Section 4027.6. 31 4016.8. (a) ............... e ~a e/ t4~e 3~ A public water system $ol~eduled to fluo~dat~ pursuaut 37 ~ ~ ~'~-'"'-"~'-"--'~:-- 17~19 38  toparagraph~ (4) ofsubdivision (b) o£Section 40$~.Yrnay a_, ~.._ · comply with tho regulaffon$ adopted by the department 39 35 pursuant to that seotion at anytlme, but isnotrequired 40 ,--: ....... e ............... , ................. takes ~ffect pursuant to the CMi~ornYa ConstYtuzfon. 11 (e) ~e de--eat sh~ se~ ~ so~ces 1~ ~ e~or~ent o[ ~e st=~ =d capit~ =t 13 r~emen~ ~tab~ed p~$u~t 14 E~on ~ ~ ~du~, but not ~'ted 16 (1) F~er~.bl~k ~. 17 (E) ~ner~ ~ made av~ab]e ~o~ p~~ 18 r~uc~o=. 19 (3) ~u'6~ ~om p~vate ~dab~. ~1 ~~ may e]~t to ~mpiy ~ ~e s=d~, ~ (~) ~ pubEc water ~tem may coeur a · ~ e=tomers to r~ver ~e co~ ~c~ed ~ adopt~p~u~t to ~e ~ $EC 3. ~o re~b==ent Js req~ by ~ act 31 Co~b~n beoause a ]~ agency or $c~] ~t 33 s~ent to pay ~r ~e pro~ or ]e~ of $e~ 34 m~dated by ~ ac~ ~ ~e me~g o~on 17~ ~ ~e ~ove=ent C~e. 37 C~e, ~e~ o~e~e ~~, ~e pro~ o[~ act March 7, 1995 TO: FLORN CORE, Director of Water Resources FROM: ALAN D. DANIEL, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: The Tehama County Ordinance 1. A recent case, Baldwin v. County of Tehama, (1995), D.A.R. 18228, upheld a county ordinance regulating groundwater pumping. 'The Tehama County Ordinance required a permit to extract groundwater for the purpose of use on land other than where the extraction occurs. The ordinance states a permit may only be granted if the Board of Supervisors finds it will not result in: a withdrawal of more water from the basin than will be replenished, saltwater intrusion, adverse effects on the rate of flow of water through the aquifer, adverse effects upon the water table, or the "overdraft" of groundwater based upon pre-existing and reasonable, foreseeable, beneficial uses of the water on lands within Tehama County overlying the aquifer (mining). In addition, the operation of any well in a manner that causes a cone of depression in the water table beyond the boundaries of the property is prohibited. 2. I have attached a copy of the ordinance and the case for your review. The City Attorney believes it would be beneficial for the City to pass a similar ordinance; thus, I am requesting your review with an eye toward recommending whether or not such an ordinance would be beneficial, and, if so, what changes or additions you would recommend. We are considering asking the County of Kern to adopt such an ordinance and I would welcome your thoughts on the advisability of the County passing such an ordinance as well as strategy considerations in making our recommendation to the County. 3. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for your invaluable time. ADD:bg Enclosures cc: Judy K. Skousen, City Attorney ADD\M~\~Com. O~ THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. 1995 Recharge Program DRAFT .. ~ 8~a~Je I Pond Ar~a~ ~ S~je 2 Pond 1 I DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE MAINLINE EXTENSION REASSIGNMENTS I Meeting - City Bakersfield Water Board of Wednesday, May 10, 1995 I Tract/ I Water Board Parcel Remaining Reassigned to No. Map Balance MLE's at 22%: I The Elena Bernice Givens-Rossum 82-01 W.B. TR 3827-A $ 7,811.64 Trust also known as Givens-Rossum Trust dated 11/23/94 I 101 Rainbow Drive #2168 Livingston, TX 77351-9300 Total 22% Contracts $ 7,811.64 ! I MLE's at 2V:%: The Elena Bernice Givens-Rossum 83-44 W.B. TR 4544 28,596.65 I Trust also known as Givens-Rossum Trust dated 11/23/94 85-12 W.B. TR 4772 33,738.69 101 Rainbow Drive #2168 I Livingston, TX 77351-9300 Total 2V: Contracts $62,335.34 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I ! I -' ITEM 7).D. I I REPORT BY ALAN DANIEL, ASSISTANT CITY ATYORNEY, WILL BE PRESENTED REGARDING THE LATEST PROPOSED WATER i SUPPLY PLANNING LEGISLATION (CORTESE - AB1005) AT BOARD MEETING. I I 'l I ! I I I I I I I I I I I -- ITEM 8).A. I I GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9(b)(1); CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO I SUBDIVISION (b) OF SECTION 54956.9. I I I 1 I 1 ! 1 Alan Tandy · City Manager June 15, 1994 Jim Costa Phil Wyman Assemblyman, 30th District State Senator, 16th District 2158 Capitol Building 4062 Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Trice Harvey Assemblyman, 32nd District 4162 Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Assembly Bill 2673 Local Public Water Systems Honorable Members of the California Legislature: The City of Bakersfield, through its City Council and Mayor, opposes the passage of AB 2673 (Corteze) in any form. This Bill hinders the ability of the City of Bakersfield to plan and decide its own future. AB 2673 turns over to other agencies the potential to veto City planning decisions. This bill will allow outside water agencies to hold the city hostage for special considerations or actions not related to adequate water supplies. There are no provisions in this bill to allow a city to overcome a water agency's findings of facts; thus, the noncity agency - with a noncity constituency - can be as unreasonable in its estimate of the future water needs (under drought conditions no less) as it desires and the city has no recourse against its unreasonable decisions. Current law already allows water agencies to comment on the general plan and amendments to the plan; however, the city maintains control of the final decision. Cities do not need additional outside control of the local planning process. The Priorities established in AB 2673 for water service appears to be an attempt to change current California law which puts people ahead of crops in water priority. "Existing customers" are given first priority under AB 2673, and that may include agricultural businesses (crops) rather than people. If passed, this bill will create an inconsistency with the state's statutes which can only be resolved by the courts. The bill is internally inconsistent. One section states the city cannot adopt or amend its general plan until the outside water agency's findings of fact have been received by the city (sections 65352.6 (c)); however, another section states the outside water agencies do not have to send the findings of fact (section 65352 (c)(1)). These sections of the City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 Assembly Bill 2673 I~>cal Public Water Systems June 15, 1994 Page 2 bill will paralyze cities without the necessary communication from the water agencies, and water agencies do not have to send these findings of fact. Water agencies can, therefore, paralyze the City by nonaction. The City of Bakersfield is proud of its accomplishments in acquiring adequate and beneficial water supplies and the institution of programs to ensure its own water future. The City of Bake=sfield does not need this legislation to plan and provide for' water nor outside interference with its planning. We are concerned about those surrounding unincorporated areas that are deficient in water and have not spent time, effort or resources to balance their supplies. This bill's' provisions are shocking and misguided. Its passage will mean the City's control over its own destiny could be seriously hampered. We urge you to withhold sponsorship of this bill and vote "NO" on it. pas~e i~.any form. Bob ~ice,~aJor t Ke~in McDermott, Vice-Mayor Conni Br~~ilme~er ..- Pa~ricia Smith~ Councilme~.r coun ilm. .r ADD:jwf David G. Kelley, Senator, 37th District Dan McCorquodale, Senator, 12th District Robert Presley, Senator, 36th District Nicholas C. Petris, S~nator, 9th District Vivien Bronshvag, Assemblywoman, 6th District Robert Campbell, Assemblyman, llth District Sal Cannella, Assemblyman, 26th District Dominic L. Cortese, Assemblyman, 23rd District Mike Gotch, Assemblyman 76th District Dan Hauser, Assemblyman, 1st District Phillip Isenberg, Assemblyman, 9th District League of California Cities Judy Skousen, Acting City Attorney %VATEJtXM]SC%A B26'73. LTt Page 3 1ST DOCUMENT of Level 1 printed in FULL format. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BILL TEXT STATENET Copyright (c) 1995 by Information for Public Affairs, Inc. CALIFORNIA 1995-96 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL 1005 ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 1005 INTRODUCED BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER CORTESE FEBRUARY 23, 1995 1995 CA A.B. 1005 VERSION: Introduced VERSION-DATE: February 23, 1995 SYNOPSIS: An act to amend Sections 65302, 65352, and 65352.5 of, and to add Section 65352.6 to, the Government Code, relating to public water systems. DIGEST: LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 1005, as introduced, Cortese. Local public water systems: service needs. Existing law requires a city or county to prepare and adopt a general plan for its jurisdiction that includes certain mandatory elements, including a land use element. Under existing law, when a city or county proposes to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, a public water system, as defined, must provide the city's or county's planning agency with specified information relating to the availability and use of existing and planned future water supplies. Existing law requires a planning agency to refer the proposed action to several entities, including any affected public water system, as specified. Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to impose reasonable fees to support the work of the planning agency. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations with respect to the relationship between future growth and water provision, and the need for cities and counties to undertake necessary actions to develop additional water supplies, to the extent allowed by law, and to augment existing water supplies, as specified. The bill would require that the land use, circulation, or conservation element of the general plan include specified information concerning water supply availability. It would also require a city or county to refer a proposed general plan or general plan amendment to the appropriate Page 4 1995 CA A.B. 1005 public water system, when the area covered by the proposed action is outside the area in which water service is currently being provided, as specified, before the agency may act on the general plan or amendment. This bill would add to a public water system's duties with respect to a proposed general plan or general plan amendment proposing new development, by requiring the public water system to make specified findings of fact concerning its ability to provide water service to meet the reasonable needs, consistent with the provisions of the urban water management plan adopted by the public water system, through periods of forecasted drought, of certain customers within and outside the public water system's existing service area. The bill would permit the city or county to adopt the general plan or general plan amendment if the public water system fails to make these findings within specified time limits. The bill would provide procedures to be followed by the public water system if it finds that it cannot provide water service sufficient to meet these reasonable needs, including providing periodic reports, as specified, to the city or county, identifying the public water system's progress in augmenting its water supply to meet these needs. The bill would also prescribe the necessary findings and other dUties of the affected city or county with respect to the public water system's findings, and the circumstances under which the proposed action on the general plan or amendment may be taken. Because it would require cities and counties to perform new local planning duties under certain circumstances, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that it shall not provide the public water system with the authority to veto the land use decisions of a city or county. It would state that it is not intended to create a right or entitlement to water service, or to change existing law regarding a public'water system's obligation to provide this service to future customers, but is intended to provide assistance carrying out long-term planning responsibilities, as specified. The bill would also state that it is not intended to require any city or county to adopt or amend a general plan until the city or county is otherwise required by law to do SO. This bill would authorize the city or county to initiate mediation, as specified, to resolve any dispute between the city or county and the public water system. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. NOTICE: [A> UPPERCASE TEXT WITHIN THESE SYMBOLS IS ADDED <A] [D> Text within these symbols is deleted <D] TEXT: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares the following: Page 5 1995 CA A.B. 1005 (a) California's overall water delivery system has become less reliable over the last 20 years because demand for water has continued to grow while supplies available for consumptive uses have diminished. (b) More and more often, California's water agencies are required to impose water rationing on their residential and business customers during this state's frequent and severe periods of drought. (c) Water supply planning to meet future growth needs has become more critical than ever, and will become an increasingly important water utility activity as we approach the 21st century. (d) Because of the diminishing water supplies available to most water agencies today, and a need to meet an ever increasing water demand, all water agencies must plan carefully to ensure that they can meet the needs of their customers through periods of drought with minimal disruption to residential, commercial, and industrial activities within their service areas. (e) As part of that planning process, all water agencies must undertake the necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to develop additional water supplies, as well as undertake other measures, to augment existing water supplies to support future growth within the state and provide more reliable water service to existing and future customers. (f) Approval and construction of major new water supply facilities to maintain a reliable water delivery system has become increasingly costly, complex, and requires longer lead times in t6day's climate. (g) The basic and fundamental decisions concerning growth within a community should be made by cities and counties, the general land use authority at a local level. (h) In order for retail water agencies to do the best possible job in planning for meeting the future water needs associated with the growth plans of their cities and counties, they must closely link their water supply planning process to the city and county's general planning process to clearly understand the projections for growth within and adjacent to the water agencies' existing service area and sphere of influence. ~(i) In order for cities and counties to properly plan the timing, location, and density of new development within their jurisdiction, they must fully understand the proximate water agency's current ability to meet the water needs of its existing and potential future customers, through periods of drought. (j) In assessing the ability of water agencies to serve customers through periods of drought, cities and counties must recognize the hierarchy of categories of customers or potential customers alon~ a continuum, with differing degrees of legitimacy to their claim to water service. These categories, ranked from highest degree of legitimacy to lowest degree of legitimacy in their expectation that water service must be provided to them upon demand, are as follows: (1) Existing customers within the existin~ service area of retail water agency. Page 6 1995 CA A.B. 1005 (2) Future expected customers associated with new development within an existing service area of a retail water agency. (3) Future expected customers associated with new development outside of the existing service area, but within the sphere of influence, of a retail water agency. (4) Future expected customers associated with new development outside of th~ sphere of influence of a retail agency. (k) Absent a hierarchy of the degree of legitimacy of claims upon water service, the basic concept of a water agency's service area would be rendered meaningless. In California's current era of water scarcity, if this hierarchy of water claims were not in effect, water agencies would be compelled to serve the "first development in time" rather than first serving those within their service area. Planned businesses and prospective home buyers within urbanized areas would have absolutely no assurance that they would receive a water hookup when their plant or home is built and ready for occupancy. This kind of uncertainty would devastate the current local planning process upon which proper growth is based. (1Given each of the above principles, any general planning by cities or counties for growth outside of existing water agency service areas must be conditioned upon findings by the water agency of either adequate existing water supplies or firm future water supplies to meet the water needs through periods of drought of customers in categories (1), (2), and (3) before a growth plan outside of the existing service area, but within the water agency's sphere of influence, is approved. Furthermore, before a growth plan outside of both the existing service area and the water agency's sphere of influence is approved, the water agency must find that either adequate existing water supplies or firm future water supplies exist to meet the water needs of customers in the categories specified in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of subdivision (j) . SEC. 2. Section 65302 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65302. The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements: (a) A land use element [A> , <A] which [D> designates <DJ [A> SHALL DESIGNATE <A] the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The land use element shall identify areas covered by the plan which are subject to flooding and shall be reviewed annually with respect to those areas. The land use element shall designate, in a land use category that provides for timber production, those parcels of real property zoned for Page 7 1995 CA A.B. 1005 timberland production pursuant to the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982, Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 51100) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 [A> , AND SHALL INCLUDE THE INFORMATION RELATING TO WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY PROVIDED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPHS (3) TO (9), INCLUSIVE, OF SUBDIVISION (C) OF SECTION 65352.5 OR, ALTERNATIVELY, THE WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY INFORMATION MAY BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE'CIRCULATION OR CONSERVATION ELEMENTS. WATER AVAILABILITY INFORMkTION PROVIDED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65352.5 SHALL BE INCLUDED IF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSES NEW DEVELOPMENTS. A CITY OR COUNTY SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM. THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT, INCLUDING ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN <A] (b) A circulation element [A> , <Al consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. (c) A housing element [A> , <A] as provided in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580). (d) A conservation element [A> , <A] for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any countywide water agency and with all district and city agencies which have developed, served, controlled or conserved water for any purpose for the county or city for which the plan is prepared. The conservation element may also cover: (1) The reclamation of land and waters. (2) Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters. (3) Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan. (4) Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores. (5) Protection of watersheds. (6) The location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel resources. (7) Flood control. The conservation element shall be prepared and adopted no later than December 31, 1973. (e) An open-space element [A> , <A] as provided in Article 10.5 (commencing with Section 65560). (f) A noise element [A> , <Al which shall identify and appraise noise Page 8 1995 CA A.B. 1005 problems in the community. The noise element shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control in the State Department of Health Services and shall analyze and quantify; to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources: (1) Highways and freeways. (2) Primary arterials and major local streets. (3) Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems. (4) Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation. (5) Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards. (6) Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prePared on the basis of noise monitoring or following generally accepted noise modeling techniques for the various sources identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive. The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. 'The noise element shall include implementation measures and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any. The adopted noise element shall serve as a guideline for compliance with the state's noise insulation standards. (g) A safety element [A> , <A] for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 2690) of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wild land and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards. Prior to the periodic review of its general plan and prior to preparing or revising its safety element, each city and county shall consult the Division of Mines and Geology of the Department of Conservation and the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of including information known by and available to the department and the office required by this subdivision. Page 9 1995 CA A.B. 1005 To the extent that a county's safety element is sufficiently detailed and contains appropriate policies and programs for adoption by a city, a city may adopt that portion of the county's safety element that pertains to the city's planning area in satisfaction of the requirement imposed by this subdivision. At least 45 days prior to adoption or amendment of the safety element, each county and city shall submit to the Division of Mines and Geology of the Department of Conservation one copy of a draft of the safety element or amendment and any technical studies used for developing the safety element. The division may review drafts submitted to it to determine whether they incorporate known seismic and other geologic hazard information, and report its findings to the planning agency within 30 days of receipt of the draft of the safety element or amendment pursuant to this subdivision. The legislative body shall consider the division's findings prior to final adoption of the safety element or amendment unless the division's findings are not available within the above prescribed time limits or unless the division has indicated to the city or county that the division will not review the safety element. If the division's findings are not available within those prescribed time limits, the legislative body may take the division's findings into consideration at the time it considers future amendments to the safety element. Each county and city shall provide the division with a copy of its adopted safety element or amendments. The division may review adopted safety elements or amendments and report its findings. All findings made by the division shall be advisory to the planning agency and legislative body. SEC. 3. Section 65352 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65352. (a) Prior to action by a legislative body to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action to all of the following entities: (1) Any city or county, within or abutting the area covered by the proposal, and any special district which may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. (2) Any elementary, high school, or unified school district within the area covered by the proposed action. (3) The local agency formation commission. (4) Any areawide planning agency whose operations may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. (5) Any federal agency if its operations or lands within its jurisdiction may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. (6) Any public water system, as defined in Section 4010.1 of the Health and Safety Code, with 3,000 or more service connections, that serves water to customers within the area covered by the proposal. The public water system shall have at least 45 days to comment on the proposed plan, in accordance with subdivision (b), and to provide the planning agency with the information set forth in Section [D> 65958.1 <D] [A> 65352.5. IF THE AREA COVERED BY THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION OR AMENDMENT IS OUTSIDE THE Ai~EA IN WHICH WATER SERVICE IS CURRENTLY BEING PROVIDED BY ANY PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM, THE CITY OR Page 10 1995 CA A.B. 1005 COUNTY SHALL IDENTIFY THE LIKELY PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM TO PROVIDE WATER TO THIS AREA, AND REFER THE PROPOSED ACTION TO THAT ENTITY FOR ITS REVIEW, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 65352.5 AND 65352.6 <A] (7) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District for a proposed action within the boundaries of the district. (b) Each entity receiving a proposed general plan or amendment of a general plan pursuant to this section shall have 45 days from the date the referring agency mails it or delivers it in which to comment unless a longer period is · specified by the planning agency. (c) (1) [D> This section is <D] IA> EXCEPT WITH REGARD TO REFERRALS TO A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM, AS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH (6) OF SUBDIVISION (A), THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ARE <A] directory, not mandatory, and the failure to refer a proposed action to the other entities specified in this section does not affect the validity of the action, if adopted. [A> IF THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM DOES NOT RESPOND TO A REFERRAL MADE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION WITHIN THE 45-DAY TIME PERIOD SET FORTH IN P~RAGRAPH (6) OF SUBDIVISION (A), OR WITHIN ~ LONGER PERIOD AS MAY BE DESIGNATED BY THE AGENCY, THE REFERRING AGENCY MAY ACT ON THE GENERAL PLAN OR AMENDMENT. <A] (2) To the extent that the requirements of this section conflict with the requirements of Chapter 4.4 (commencing with Section 65919), the requirements of Chapter 4.4 shall prevail. SEC. 4. Section 65352.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65352.5. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that it is vital that there be close coordination and consultation between California' s water supply agencies and California's land use approval agencies to ensure that proper water supply planning occurs in order to accommodate projects that will result in increased demands on water supplies. (b) It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature to provide a standardized process for determining the adequacy of existing and planned future water supplies to meet existing and planned future demands on these water supplies. (c) Upon receiving, pursuant to Section 65352, notification of a city's or a county's proposed action to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, [A> OR UPON RECEIVING A REQUEST FROM A CITY OR COUNTY IN THE PROCESS OF PREPARING A GENERAL PLAN OR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT THAT PROPOSES NEW DEVELOPMENT, <A] a public water system, as defined in Section 4010.1 of the Health and Safety Code, with 3,000 or more service connections, shall provide the planning agency with the following information, as is appropriate and relevant: (1) The current version of its urban water management plan, adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) of Division 6 of the Water Code. (2) The current version of its capital improvement program or plan, as reported pursuant to Section 31144.73 or the Water Code. (3) A description of the source or sources of the total water supply currently available to the water supplier by water right or contract, taking into account historical data concerning wet, normal, and dry runoff years. Page 11 1995 CA A.B. 1005 (4) A description of the quantity of surface water that was purveyed by the water supplier in each of the previous five years. (5) A description of the quantity of groundwater that was purveyed by the water supplier in each of the previous five years. (6) A description of all proposed additional sources of water supplies for the water supplier, including the estimated dates by which these additional ~ sources should be available and the quantities of additional water supplies that are being proposed. (7) A description of the total number of customers currently served by the water supplier, as identified by the following categories and by the amount of water served to each category: (A) Agricultural users. (B) Commercial users. (C) Industrial users. (D) Residential users. (8) Quantification of the expected reduction in total water demand, identified by each customer category set forth in paragraph (7), associated with future implementation of water use reduction'measures identified in the water supplier's urban water management plan. (9) Any additional information that is relevant to determining the adequacy of existing and planned future water supplies to meet existing and planned future demands on these water supplies. SEC. 5. Section 65352.6 is added to the Government Code, to read: 65352.6. (a) If a proposed general plan or general plan amendment proposes new development in an area outside the area in which water service is being provided by any public water system, the public water system shall make findings of fact pursuant to the provisions of Section 65352.5 concerning its ability to provide water service to meet the reasonable needs, consistent with the provisions of the urban water management plan adopted by the public water system, through periods of forecasted drought, of the following types of customers: (1) Existing customers within the existing service area of the public water system. (2) Forecasted new customers within the existing service area of the public water system. (3) Forecasted new customers outside the existing service area of the public water system, but within its sphere of influence, including those associated with new development according to the proposed general plan amendments. Page 12 1995 CA A.B. 1005 (4) Forecasted new customers outside the existing service area of the public water system and outside of its sphere of influence, including those associated with the new development, according to the proposed general plan or general plan amendment. (b) (1) If the public water system finds that it cannot provide water service sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of all four categories of customers identified in subdivision (a) through periods of forecasted droughts, the public water system shall identify the improvements, or other measures, that would be required to its water system, and the projected timeframe for implementing the~e improvements,' or other measures, as set forth in Section 65352.5, necessary to meet the water needs of all four categories of customers identified in subdivision (a). (2) Within 90 days of making its findings, the public water system shall report to the city or county its progress to date in identifying the improvements, or other measures, to augment its water supplies in order to meet the water needs of all four categories of customers. After that initial report, the public water system shall report to the city or county at least every six months on its progress on augmenting its water supplies. In its report to the city or county, the public water system shall identify the various actions that must be completed by the public water system in order to augment its supplies, as well as the public water system's plans for completing these actions. (3) (A) In its report to the city or county, the public water system shall set forth all of the options for augmenting its water supplies that have been identified by the public water system, based upon all of the following: (i) The current version of its urban water management plan, adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610) of Division 6 of the Water Code. (ii) The current version of its capital improvement program or plan, as reported pursuant to Section 31144.73 of the Water Code. (iii) Any additional information which it possesses that is relevant to planning for future water supplies. (B) The public water system shall, in addition to the material set forth in subparagraph (A), also set forth in its report various regulatory, financial, and physical requirements which must be taken into account by the public water system and its plans for comp-lying with these requirements. (c) If the proposed general plan or general plan amendment includes new development outside areas in which water service is currently being provided by any public water system, the city or county shall not adopt or amend its general plan until the findings of fact of the public water system pursuant to subdivision (a) have been transmitted to the city or county and have been made part of the record. If the public water system does not transmit findings to the city or county within 90 days after the receipt of the proposed action pursuant to Section 65352, the city or county may adopt the general plan or amendment. If the public water system made findings of fact that it cannot provide water service sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of all four categories of customers identified in subdivision (a) through periods of forecasted drought, the city or county shall not adopt the general plan or general plan amendment, unless the city or county makes one of the following Page 13 1995 CA A.B. 1005 findings, based on substantial evidence in the record: (1) The general plan or general plan amendment, including those provisions identifying the location, intensity, and timing of new development, is consistent with the findings of the public water system. (2) A source of water which is not part of the public water system' s water supply system, or other measures, will be available to service new development in the area covered by the general plan or general plan amendment. This source of water need not be more specific or detailed than the level of specificity o~ detail contained in the proposed general plan amendment. (d) Within 30 days after receiving a public water system's findings, submitted pursuant to this section, the city or county may initiate mediation to resolve any dispute between the city or county and the public water system. The parties to this mediation process shall be the city or county proposing to adopt a general plan or general plan amendment, and the public water system that has issued and transmitted findings pursuant to this section. (1) The parties shall select a mutually acceptable person to serve as a mediator, or an organization or agency to provide a mediator. In selecting a person to serve as mediator, or an organization or agency to provide a mediator, the parties shall consider the following: (A) The council of governments with jurisdiction in the county where the dispute arose. (B) Any subregional or countywide council of governments in the county where the dispute arose. (C) The Office of Permit Assistance within the Trade and Commerce Agency, pursuant to its authority in Article 1 (commencing with Section 15399.50) of Chapter 11 of Part 6.7 of DiVision 3 of Title 2. (D) Any other person with experience or training in mediation, including those with experience in land use issues, or any other organization or agency able to provide a person with experience or training in mediation, including those with experience in land use issues. (2) Mediations conducted by a mediator pursuant to this section involving less than a quorum of a legislative body shall not be considered meetings of a legislative body pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5). (3) Any action taken regarding mediation conducted pursuant to this section shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of current law. (4) Ninety days after the commencement of the mediation, and every 90 days thereafter, the mediation shall be terminated, unless any of the following Occurs: (A) The parties arrive at a settlement and implement it in accordance with the provisions of current law. (B) The parties agree by written stipulation to extend the mediation for another 90-day period. Page 14 1995 CA A.B. 1005 (C) The city or county that initiated the mediation process unilaterally extends the mediation for additional 90-day periods, upon determining that additional mediation may be useful in resolving the dispute. (5) A mediator shall not file a declaration or finding of any kind, other than a required statement of agreement or nonagreement, unless both parties in the mediation expressly agree otherwise, in writing. (6) At the end of the mediation, the mediator shall file a report with the · Office of Permit Assistance within the Trade and Commerce Agency, consistent with Section 1152.5 of the Evidence Code. This report shall include each of the following: (A) The title of the action. (B) The names of the parties to the action. (C) An estimate of the costs avoided, if any, because the parties used mediation instead of litigation to resolve their dispute. (7) The sole purpose of the report required by paragraph (6) is the collection of information needed by the Office of Permit Assistance, within the Trade and Commerce Agency, to prepare its report to the Legislature pursuant to paragraph (10). (8) If the mediation process fails to resolve the dispute, either party may, in its discretion, file an action in superior court. (9) The Judicial Council may adopt rules, forms, and standards necessary to implement this chapter. (10) By January 1, 2001, the Office of Permit Assistance within the Trade and Commerce Agency, in cooperation with the Judicial Council, shall report to the Legislature regarding the implementation of this chapter. The office shall consult with persons and interest groups with knowledge of the mediation process, and affected public agencies, including, but not limited to, councils of governments. The report may recommend the extension of the chapter, changes to the chapter, or the repeal of the chapter. (e) If a city or county makes findings pursuant to subdivision (c), the general plan or general plan amendment shall include a requirement that a development project in that area shall not be approved until all agreements and financing for supplemental water supplies are in place. (f) Nothing contained in this section shall provide a public water system with the authority to veto the land use decisions of a city or county. The ultimate findings concerning water supply availability to serve proposed new development and the final decision concerning adoption of the general plan amendment shall remain with the city or county. SEC. 6. (a) Nothing in this act is intended to create a right or entitlement to water service. This act is intended to provide assistance to cities, counties, and public water systems in carrying out their long-term planning responsibilities to ensure adequate water supplies to meet the existing and Page 15 1995 CA A.B. 1005 future demand for water. Nothing in this act is intended to change existing law concerning a public water system's obligation to provide water service to future customers. (b) Nothing in this act requires any city or county to adopt a general plan or to amend an existing general plan to be consistent with the requirements of this act until the city or county is otherwise required by law to adopt or amend its general plan. SEC. 7. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code. Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this act shall become operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution. SPONSOR: Cortese