Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/95 WATER BOARD Mark Salvaggio, Chair Randy Rowles, Vice-Chair Patricia M. Smith NOTICE OF WATER BOARD MEETING OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 AT 4:30P. M. WATER RESOURCES BUILDING 1000 BUENA VISTA RD, BAKERSFIELD, CA AGENDA 1). C,~L MEETING TO ORDER 2). ROLL C.~LL. BOARD MEMBERS 3). .~PROVE MINUTES OF WATER BO,~RD MEETING HELD JULY 1~ 1995. 4). PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5). DEFERRED BUSINESS A. NORTHEAST WATER SUPPLY PROJECT - PRESENTATION OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS. B. KERN RIVER OPERATIONS UPDATE. C. INTERFACE RESERVOIR (10 MILLION GALLON) STATUS. 6). NEW BUSINESS A. AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY RENTAL OF ISABELLA RESERVOIR STORAGE SPACE TO KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT. 7). CLOSED SESSION A. GOVERNMENT CODE $4956.9(b)(1); CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSU~ TO SUBDMSION (b) OF SECTION $4956.9 (ONE CASE). 8.) ADJOURNMENT. POSTED: September 15, 1995 FC:fg 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 · (805) 326-3715 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Wednesday, July 12, 1995, 4:30p.m., Water Resources Conference Room, 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311. 1. The meeting was called to order by Boardmcmber Salvaggio at 4:35p.m. 2. Present: Mark Salvaggio, Chair Randy Rowles, Vice-Chair Patricia M. Smith (seated at 4:40p.m.) Absent: None 3. Boardmember Rowics made a motion to approve thc minutes of the Regular Meeting held May 10, 1995. Motion carried. 4. There were no Public Statements. 5. Deferred Business. 5A. Mr. Bogart introduced Steve Lafond, City Hydrographic Supervisor, to report on the Kern River runoff yield forecast and to bring thc Board up-to-date regarding water entitlements and activity on thc river. The Kern River inflow to Lake Isabella is at 190% of normal, the Kern River channel has been fully operative throughout thc season and the City expects to all of its maximum schedules their Basic Contracts. indicated meet delivery on Mr. Bogart there were several bridge construction delays due to the high Kern River flows in Bakersfield, staff has been working with the contractor in scheduling and river diversions to accommodate construction. For Board information, no action taken. 5B. Gene Bogart and Pat Hauptman, City Water Superintendent, presented a video presentation of the Kern Water Bank 1995 operations west of Bakersfield involving both the City and the Kern County Water Agency. Approximately 250,000 acre feet of water has been spread on the City's "2800 Acres", thc Kern River Channel and thc other properties in this area, at the current rate there should be between 500,000 and 600,000 acre feet recharged into the aquifer, which constitutes a major groundwater replenishment project. Board information, no action taken. 5C. Mr. Bogart introduced City consulting attorney, Mr. Scott Slater, for presentation of Assembly Bill 1005 (Cortcse). This Bill would grant certain planning decision powers to local and small water districts or companies and give them thc ability to veto gcncral plan amendments or extension of water service into new areas. A letter has been drafted to be from the City addressed to Senator Costa in opposition to this Bill. Also, since the last Water Board meeting there has been an alternative bill, Senate Bill 901, moving through the California legislature which would treat extension of water service to new areas as a CEQA issue, and gives public water agencies thc responsibility of determining whether or not they have an adequate water supply. SB 901 Icavcs the planning agency, whether a city or county, with the final decision. Motion by Boardmcmber Salvaggio to recommend City Council I I authorize the to letter and transmit letter in AB Mayor sign opposition to 1005. Motion carried. I 5D. Pat Hauptman briefed the Board on Assembly Bill 733 (Speier) concerning fluoridation of public water supply. AB 733 has cleared the California Assembly, and is currently in the California Senate, Health & Human Services Committee for consideration. The Bill phases I in fluoridation over a multi-year period beginning in 1997. There is no funding available for systems of over 10,000 service connections, such as the City's and the local California Water Service Company system; however, thc Bill allows for rate increases to recover costs. The I capital cost to the City of installing fluoridation equipment at each of its well sites is approximately $100,000. Staff will continue to monitor this Bill as it progresses and update the Board. For Board information, no action required or taken. I 6. New Business. I 6A. Marci Cunningham representing Kern Equestrians for thc Preservation of Trails, made a statement before thc Board regarding thc deterioration of thc equestrian trails and the possible danger to riders if the trails were not improved and kept up. The two major i problems mentioned were deteriorated fence and posts upstream of Manor Street and no railing on the horse bridge over the Carrier Canal. Thc bridge was originally installed by the county, but the county lacks the funds to construct railings on the bridge. Staff is working i with Bob Addison, County Parks and Recreation Director, to accomplish this project. Motion by Boardmcmbcr Salvaggio for City staff to remove dangerous and deteriorated fencing. Motion carried. I '"' 7. Closed session. Board Chair Salvaggio adjourned thc meeting to Closed Session at 5:20p.m. I 7A. Boardmember Rowles left the meeting due to a conflict of interest on Closed Session item. I Board Chair Salvaggio reconvened the meeting at 5:54p.m. Closed session action. No action taken. I 8. The meeting adjourned at 5:55p.m. I Mark Saivaggio, Chair City of Bakersfield Water Board I Sharon Robison, Secretary -. City of Bakersfield Water Board I I I ...... [~ I I I I I ! ! ! I  " C O N S U L T I N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R S I ',l TM ,.'~ ~.,~,i~SFI~'. August 28, ~995 ,~.~==:' ..... I To all participants in the Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project. i Mr. ~lorn Core, Ashe Water District Mr. Melvin Byrd, California Water Service Mr. Gene Bogart, City of Bakersfield, Department of Water Resources I Mr. Roland W. Stevens, East Niles Community Services District Mr. Bob Bellue, Kern County Water Agency Mr. William R. Miller, North of The River Municipal Water I District Mr. Douglas Nunneley, Oildale Mutual Water Company Mr. Donald Wahl, Olcese Water District i Mr. Michael L. Huhn, Vaughn Mutual Water Company Gentlemen: I The Project Definition Report for the proposed Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project was submitted to the participants I in March, 1995. At that time, it was requested that the report be reviewed and that all comments be returned to the Consultants for further evaluation. I To date we have received comments from East Niles Community Services District, North of the River Municipal Water District (Boyle Engineering) and the City of Bakersfield. Copies of those I comments are attached to this report. Two questions generally asked when discussing Kern River water I diversions to a water treatment plant, are "Where is the water entitlement coming from?", and "How can it be accomplished?" The Kern River water supply has historically been 100% utilized for i irrigation purposes, and no surface entitlement has been available for use as a domestic supply. Water that percolated naturally in the river channel has replaced the ground water pumped for domestic use. I In both the Northeast and Northwest areas of the Improvement District, a portion of the water imported from the California I Aqueduct by Improvement District No. 4 through the Kern County Water Agency has been treated in the Henry Garnett Treatment Plant I I 1326 H STREET, SUITE 21, BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 PHONE (805) 323-3169 FAX (805)-323-4331 North East Bakersfield Water Supply Project August 28, 1995 Page 2 and delivered to areas with limited ground water supplies. The remainder of the imported water is recharged to the groundwater basin for later extraction by wells. These wells are located throughout Improvement District No. 4 boundaries. It is generally accepted that up to ten percent loss of water occurs between the water recharged to the groundwater basin and the water later pumped for use on the surface. This loss is composed of evaporation in the conveyance - spreading facilities, transpiration losses due to vegetation in and around the spreading basins and migration losses outside of the immediate groundwater basin. These losses would not be recoverable for use by the entities operating the spreading facilities. If the Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project is approved, it will require multiple agreement and contract arrangements for Kern River water. These would include exchanges of California Aqueduct entitlement owned by Improvement District No. 4, Friant- Kern entitlement owned by East Niles Community Services District groundwater supplies by City Bakersfield, Kern and owned the of County Water Agency and Olcese Water District in the City's Groundwater Recharge area or Kern Water Bank. All or a portion of these entitlements could be exchanged for Kern River water through negotiations with owners of those water rights. The City of Bakersfield, through its purchase of Kern River water rights from Tenneco West in 1976, has indicated it will utilize a portion of the water currently obligated to agricultural uses for domestic uses. After that date, the surface water supply for the of Bakersfield lands will be assured and the City groundwater-surface water supply can be maximized to provide the most efficient operation, including those City lands not presently represented by a Water District. A review that was performed for North of the River Municipal Water District by Boyle Engineering raised a number of points that require more extensive comments to evaluate and answer. The following is a response to those concerns Increase in Water Supply The report does not claim that new water will be developed for the Bakersfield area, but rather that the existing surface and groundwater supplies can be utilized through exchanges to better manage the total supply and to provide a new treated water source. As indicated earlier, treating a surface water supply is more efficient than recharging and then repumping a groundwater supply. North East Bakersfield Water Supply Project August 28, 1995 Page 3 Electrical Power Savinqs In any given service area, which has varying elevations, there will always be low areas that have a higher pressure than the minimum required on a distribution system. Unless areas can be isolated with their own supply, storage, and pressure system, this differential in will exist, differential 30 pressure A pressure of psi is not uncommon in major distribution systems. Treated water delivered to the East Niles tank will allow distribution to all of East Niles CSD, to the Oswell Terminal Tanks, to the Henry Garnett Plant and to all turnouts on the East Pipeline. This will be without additional pumping cost. If the East Pipeline and North Pipeline are intertied, water deliveries could also be made directly to Oildale MWC, North of the River MWD, Vaughn Mutual Water Co., and California Water Service. A residual head from 300 to 400 feet would available. varying be Based on KCWA utility bills, all water delivered to the East Pipeline is pumped an average of 550 feet. The water delivered to East Niles is pumped an additional 100 feet, and the water delivered to the North Pipeline is pumped an average of 300 feet. If the Northeast treatment Plant was constructed at this time, all of these pumping costs could potentially be eliminated, or reduced considerably. In reality, the Henry Garnett Plant will not stop production and inflow to the Northeast service area of ID-4 will increase gradually, reducing peak costs and possibly energy reducing some groundwater pumping that is presently delivered to the Northeast area. In the ensuing years since the Rio Bravo Hydro Plant signed an energy agreement with PG&E, rates that utilities are willing to pay for "run-of-the-river" hydroelectric plants have been reduced considerably. Avoided energy costs, that utilities are willing to pay for at this time, are approximately 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. The 5 cent rate used in the study exceeds the present avoided- energy cost rate and appears to be conservative. Energy rates used for pumping project water varied from $0.07 per KWH to $0.10 per KWH. Pumping costs at Henry Garnett Plant are approximately $0.08 per KWH. The relative position of the alternatives studied does not change when lower energy rates are used; however, when the final project costs are compared with other alternatives, the lower energy rate will favor projects that require more energy costs. The $0.10 rate used is more an average of the rates that can be expected over the project life. North East Bakersfield Water Supply Project August 28, 1995 Page 4 Replace use of Pipes that are Overloaded and Operating Inefficiently The existing East Pipeline is presently overloaded when delivering water from the Henry Garnett Plant to the Oswe!l Reservoir. If the flow were reversed in this pipeline, 10,000 acre feet of water could be delivered to the Henry Garnett Plant with a peak flow rate of 23 cfs. In addition, the 18,000 acre feet presently delivered from the East Pipeline and from the Oswell reservoir could still be made. This could be done without any additional pumping cost. Due to the undersized pipelines in the East Pipeline, when delivering peak capacity to the Oswell Reservoir, the additional capacity increases only 3 MGD when the last pump is started, as compared to 12 MGD with only one pump running. The existing pipelines, between the Oswell Reservoir and the East Nile Reservoir, would not be adequate in capacity to deliver project water to the Oswell Reservoir. Construction of a parallel 36" pipeline would be required between these points at an estimated cost of $1,650,000. Make Garnett Plant Capacity Available to Meet Demands in West Bakersfield. No claim was made that the proposed Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project would be adequate to meet demands of the Bakersfield area until the year 2050. The actual plant size will only meet demands for approximately 30 years of growth. At that time, growth patterns, water supplies and other factors would determine whether existing plants would be expanded or new treatment plants would be constructed. The plant was sized to deliver 28,000 AF per year or 40 MGD to the ID-4 service area, while delivering 30,800 AF per year or 45 MGD to the Northeast Service area. This capacity would meet the projected growth demands of the Northwest service area while providing a peak week capacity of 1.6 times the average capacity. Peak day use would have to be met from storage or alternative supplies. Cost of Water The Project Report did not attempt to estimate additional costs to distribute water from the mainline pipeline, that would be all in the Olcese Water required by participants project. District, East Niles CSD, and ID-4 may all have to construct additional storage and distribution systems to convey water to their respective service areas. Minor changes would be required at North East Bakersfield Water Supply Project August 28, 1995 Page 5 the Henry Garnett Plant to utilize line pressure in the East Pipeline and to make direct deliveries to the North of the River and the Oildale Mutual service areas. These costs would be incurred by the various water agencies with whatever source of treated water is developed and do noL affect the comparisons of alternatives studied in this project. I have attached a comparison of costs to deliver water to the Northeast service areas of ID-4 and to the Northwest service area from either the Northeast Water Treatment Plant or the Henry Garnett Treatment Plant. In either case, 28,000 AFY would be delivered. This requires a treatment plant with 40 MGD capacity with a 1.6 peaking factor. As shown on Table 1, a 65 MGD plant will deliver 42,100 AF the first year with a project cost of $89,032,000. This includes a 36" pipeline constructed to the Oswell Reservoir. Annual repayment costs are $7,175,000, and total energy costs are $1,291,000. This results in a first year water cost of $201 per acre foot that is delivered to the Northeast Service area. The comparable cost of delivering water from a new 40 MGD treatment plant at the Henry Garnett site, with a new pipeline to the East Niles Reservoir, would be $45,500,000. Annual repayment costs of $3,667,000 and energy costs of 1,623,000 result in a first year cost of $189 per acre foot. After 10 years the Northeast Water Treatment Plant would operate at its first stage capacity of 65 MGD. The average cost of water delivered would be $188 per acre foot. Costs to produce water at the Henry Garnett site would remain at $189 per acre foot. The estimated cost to increase the Northeast Project to its full capacity of 85 MGD after 10 years is $9,640,000. This will increase repayment costs to $7,952,000 per year. When combined with total energy costs the unit cost of water after full build up will be $162 acre foot. per An additional benefit to the Northeast Project that was not included in these comparisons was the savings in pumping costs at the Henry Garnett Plant that would be possible from the 300 to 400 feet of pressure that would be available at the west end of the East Pipeline. Depending on the water delivered, this would reduce pumping costs to the Northwest area from $250,000 to $400,000 per year. North East Bakersfleld Water Supply Project August 28, 1995 Page 6 Summary In general the comments received on the report have been beneficial. Questions relating to water supply can be settled by negotiation between the participants and owners of Kern River Water. The City of Bakersfield has indicated it is willing to provide a surface water supply to serve those lands located within the City boundaries. If the project is to proceed, any remaining water supply issues would have a high priority. In order to determine the true feasibility, as to whether a 40 MGD plant should be located at the Henry Garnett site and a second 45 MGD plant in the Northeast area, further construction costs and energy costs comparisons would have to be prepared. The short evaluation made indicates water can be delivered from both sites at approximately the same unit cost, however, a straight-line treatment plant cost was used and in reality two smaller plants will cost more to construct than a single treatment plant. This would increase the cost of water produced. The City of Bakersfield has proposed that combining the use of existing treatment plant facilities may be utilized in the short term, however, this capacity will only provide water for projected growth during the next few years. When present treatment plant capacity is reached the new plant has to be completed to allow orderly development in the project area. Meeting for Project Discussion A meeting has been scheduled for all participants in the Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project at 3:00 PM on September 14, 1995 at the Kern County Water Agency. This will be in conjunction with the Urban Bakersfield Advisory Committee Meeting. We request that representatives be in attendance from all of the participating agencies. A meeting is also scheduled at 4:30 PM on September 20, 1995 at the City of Bakersfield Water Department office on Buena Vista Road. This meeting will be to update the City Water Board on progress of the studies. Those unable to attend the September 14th meeting are welcome to attend the September 20th meeting. North East Bakersfield Water Supply Project August 28, 1995 Page 7 If there are any questions regarding the project report or this letter, please fill free to call either myself or Susan Rankin at your convenience. Sincerely, RICKS, TAYLO~SOCIATES INC. KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS Morris W. Ta~9~, P.E. Susan Rankin Principal ~ Project Engineer T~LE 1 NOR!q{EAST BAKERSFI~, WATEF, SbTPLY .ROJE~T FACILITIES COST COMParISON .NE_ Bakersf~eid Henry Garnett Item %reatment Plant Treatment Plant FIRST PHASE TREATMENT PLANT Average Day Capac!ty 40.6 mgd 25.0 mgd Peak Capacity 65.C mgd 40.0 mgd Peak Flow Rate 100.6 cfs 61.9 cfs Average Annual Capacity 45,003 af 28,000 af First Year Delivery 42,!0C af 28,000 af Pro3ect Cost ~8~,0~,00~ 1/ $45,500,000 2/ Annual Cost - 30 %Ts @ 7% $7,!75,000 $3,667,000 EnergTf Cost - ~ g0.10/kwh $1,291,00C $1,623,000 3/ Total ~mmua! Ccst $~,466,000 $5,290,000 Unit Cost $20! /al $189 /al .AFTER 10 Y~R. BUILD%~ Average knrraa! Delivery 45,600 af 28,000 af ~/muai Cost - 30 yrs @ 7% $7,!75,000 $3,667,000 Energy Cost - 8 S0.10/kwh $1,398,000 $1,623,000 3/ Total Annual Cost $8~573,000 $5,190,000 Unit Cost $188 /al $189 /al ! i 1/ ~87,382,000 Project cost from report plus $1,650,000 for a 36" pipeline between East Niles Reservoir ~nd Oswell Reservoir. 2/ $30,500,000 for 40 MGD treatment plant plus $15,000,000 for new pipeline I between Henry Garnett Treatment Plant and East Niles Reservoir. 3/ 14,000AFpumped 550 feet tc East Niles Reservoir and 14,000AEpumped 300 I feet to North of the River and Oildale service areas. ~ Bakersfield Henry Garne=t !~em Treatment Plant Treatment Pl,-ut SECOhT, P~S£ TP~AT.MENT' PLA_N?_' Average Day Capacity 53.! mg~ 25.0 mgd Peak Capacity 85.0 mgd 40.0 mgd Pea3; Flor R=te 131.5 cfs 61.9 cfs Averace knnuai ~ ~ ' +v _ ~ap~!_, 59,500 af 28,000 af Project Cost -Phase ! $~9,032,000 Treatment Plant - Phase 2 $$,470,000 4/ Units Phase 2 $!,!70,000 Pumpin~ Total Cost ¢ ¢~ ... 9~.., 672,000 $45,500,000 Armua! Cost - 30 ~.~s @ 7% $7,952,000 $3,667,000 Energy Ccst- ~ $0.10/kwh $!,68S,000 $1,623,000 Total knnua! Cost $9,640,000 $5,290,000 Unit Cost $162 /al ~189 /al ! 4/ 25% of Flrst Phase Cost does not have tc be constructed during Second Phase. 20 MGD capacity based on 75% of First Phase cost for 65 MGD plant. ! 1417 VALE STREet' Teteo~one 871-2011 ! m p.o. BOX 6o.,~ BAKEFISFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93388 m April 11, 1995 I Susan POSt-it' Fax NoTe 7071 Dm I .~ · Rankin Kennedy/Jenks Consultants ~= ~1'~:~ 'T'~-,;,, ~'~ ,~. ~"~'" "':'u '.~ 200 New Stine Road # 115 co.,Dept. ~. " m Bakersfield, P~e= p,~., ...... CA 93309 Re: Northern Bakersfield Water Su'. F.~ F~. - m .Project Definition Report '" Dear Susan: m East Niles community services District has reviewed the draft of the above referenced report. The following are our comments: m , Background data presented on page 2 of the report is seven years old and appears to have some erroneous or massing information. m . stated benefit for Arvin-Edison WSD of eliminating domestic uses of its surface water is questionable. East Niles has a sizeable investment in infrastructure related to the Arvin-Edison supply and will not want to eliminate it as a supply without further m consideration. - A cost comparison should be done to include the option of expanding m the existing Garnett treatment, including the cost of increasing the capacity of the transmission lane from the Garnett plant to the Oswell storage facility. The Garnett site has the advantage of m multiple sources making for a more reliable facility. - The question of Kern River water entitlement needs to be addressed m in the repor~ before the project goes any further. - The project report does not include pipeline improvements needed to deliver water west o~ East Niles. m Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report. m very truly yours, m Philli~ W. Holderness Assistant Manager ! v orth of the River Municipal Water D/strict 4000 Rio Del None Street · Bakersfield, CA 93308 · Office (805) 393-5411 · FAX (805) 399-8911 April 17, 1995 Ricks, Taylor and Associates 1326 H Street Suite 21 Bakersfield, California 93301 Attention: Morris Taylor Re: Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project Dear Mr. Taylor and lMs. Rankin: Thank you for providing us the above referenced drai~ report. We have asked our consulting engineers, Boyle Engineering, to review this report, and provide appropriate comments. Attached to this letter is a copy of those comments. In addition, [ must add that at the scoping meetings, NORMW'D 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, 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 supgly itself, is just as important as the feasibility of the construction of the plant. My District reit2rates 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 identified. We look forward to your response. Again, thank you for the opportunity, to comment on your report. \;er,,, truly yours, William R. Miller General Manager WRM:Ih Enclosures .'c: NORMWD Board (.)l'Dir¢ctorq ENCSD/Roland Steph~'ns KCW.&..Tom Clark KCW.MBob Bellu¢ CO~'Flom Core K~medy J,.'nks CWS;Mel B.wd Olccse/Doa Wall ( ).X l \VC. Dou § N u,m¢lcv \'augiu~, N lichae{ Huhn I ~-~5-!995 16:50 B~YtH ~ $~S ~95 ~'59 I COM:h4~NTS ON PROJECT DEFINTrION I~ORT FOR ~ PROPOSED NOR T WA~ S~PLY PRO~ ~e ov~ p~o~ of ~e "Project D~on ~epo~ for ~e ~opo~ No~ Wag Supply Proj~ ~pon) is to det~i~ how to m~t ~e 1) ~o~end I po~t at wM~ ~o ~ water ~m ~e K~ ~vg, ~~end ~e lo~tion for m 85 M~ ~er ~e ~A ~ve~ ~out ~ ~e ~es g~e~ly ~d~ ~om O~ell Avenue on ~e of ~ ~A is ~dev~oped ~ the ~cepfion of ~e sou~ comg. ~e not wgg to developing. ~ve ~ow O~ONS CONS~E~ ~ ~ RE~RT ~e ~on ~n~d~ ~ee options for fie location of ~e ~v~on of wger from ~v~. T~ it~ w~e ~dged for ~e lo.on of ~e propo~ ~~ plml. Bo~ ~e P~ T~ md ~o Bravo Hy~o ~vg water ~ve~ion opfiom ~ ~e ~~ p~ wo~d be b~t a ~ cleon of about 9~ f~, ~e L~ ~ng ~er ~tg ~ve~on option P~E T~nd Op~on - ~ ~ ~e option reco~ded ~ ~e ~epo~. ~e ~ver ~g wo~d be d~ a ~e mo~ of ~e PG~ Tunnel ~ mpp~s wa~r m ~e powg plmt 1o~ ~o~ ~e ~ to the wa~ ~ ~e mo~ of ~ou~h · 3 !,300 foot lon$ ~6 ~ch ~etg pipgine to I mw w~er ~o~e 100~ f~t. From ~e r~ok, ~e w~ ~I1 flow by ~W ~ou~ w~ sto~e ~ a w~ ~ce elevation of 930 ~o Bravo Hydro Opgon - T~s o~on ~ ~g ~ w~ wo~d be of 675 f~ ~d conv~ed ~a a 66 ~ch ~i.m~g ~e 19,500 ~e ~g Option - The ~d stero comider~ w~ a ~out from ~ng. A ~v~on ~ wo~d be con~ md a 66 inch d~sme~ pipehne ~o~ long consmicted to · raw water storage reservoir at elevation 8al) feet. A pump station would convey water fi'om the raw wa~er r~-rvoir to a treatment plant at elevation 860 ~ Trealed water would flow by ~ravity to reservoirs with a water mrfac, z elevation of 830 feet. It should be ached tha~ ',he ~reated waler reservoir for the Lake ~ option is 100 ~ lower in elevation than the treated water reservoir for either the PG&~ Tunnel or Rio Bravo Hydro option. The following table summarizes the costs estimates for the three options smdi~. Included in the table are the "preserrc wort~" of the power costs, including "avoid~ power costs". Power costs Estimated Capital $87,382,000 $$1,010,000 $74,442,000 Pre. sere Worth Power Cost 9,529,000 31,015,000 50,726,000 Avoided Power ~ ~ Total Present Worth .$107.73%000 .. $115~314.000 $125.168.000 BENEFITS C~ FOR TI~ PRO~ECT The primary specific bmaefits to the m~poli~ Bakersfield area flint would result fzom the project according to the R~ort include ~e 1) In,eased w~t~ supply; Reduc.~ energy costs as compared to other options; l~educe th~ load on the ~= P~,-l~,e; 4,) Make available capaei~ in the C.,amen Plant for other users. Increase in Water Supply No nu-w wat~' supply Will be developed. To i~crease the water supply ~r the area would require thai water be imported into the area as is done by the State Aqueduct a~l the Priam-Kern Canal. Since no new wa~er will be imported, there .,viii be no increa.se ba the surface wa~er supply. Neither will the project cause ,n ~ .crease in the ~'otmd water supph2'. Thc Kern Rive~ does not flow out of Kcm"Coum'y excerpt in -~mmally w~ years. Wa~r not diverted from the River percolates into the ground wa~er basin. If the Northeast Baker~eld Plant is built, water that might otherwise percolate into the ~'ound water ~ will be diverted. As a result, less River water will be available to recha~e the ground water basin. Therefore, while the proposed water treamaent plant will increase th~ supply of treated water, there will be no increase in the total (su~cz and !p'ound water) water supply. ! i(A~l (h i99:) 2 i Electrical Power Savings The Report states that the proposed projec~ will result ia power savings if the PG&E Tunnel i option is implemented because water WIU be diverted from the River at a ~/~fier elevazion (924 feet). Thus, less energy will be consumed to deliver water to customers. I A cursory review of the NBA using the City of Bakersfeld's 2010 General Plan land use map and USGS Quad maps indicates that of the 25,$00 acres (40 square miles) in NBA, about 5100 acres, or 20% of the total area, is not "developable" because the land is too steep or is set aside/'or I parks (Ttart Park ami Lake Ming). Another 22% (5500 acres) is planned/'or large lots (2.5 to 20 acres per lot). Furthermore, no more than $0% o£the developable area is at an elevation above 800 feet. The remaining 50% is below 800/'eet includin~ ~-0% (5200 acres) below 600 feet. ~ I Therefore, if the treated water storase is at an elevation of 930 feet as proposed, perhaps 50% et' the water may flow throutth pressure reducing valves ia order to avoid water distn'bution system I pressures are too high or, at the lea,st, not necessary. Preliminary calculations indicae that that the treated water storage is at elevation 930 feel an average pressure reduction of 35 psi (80 feet) iwill be needed to maintain a minimum system pressure orS0 psi for each Al: of water used in the NBA. If the treated water storage is at elevation 830 feet, then each AF of' wa:er used in the NBA will have to be pumped an average of about 20 feet higher (10 psi approximately). I These f!~res indicate that the claimed energy savings of conveying all o/' the water to elevation 930 feet may not be realized. Add to this the faa'ts tbst the "avoided energy costs" used in the I comparison of the costs for the three options are based on a 1982 agreemeni and an assumption as to wha: the Rio Bravo Hydro "avoided costs" will be, it appears that the perception of substantial energy cost savings may be incorrect. I Replace the Use of Pipes that Are Overloaded and Operating Inefficiently I Not included in the facilities the cost estimates) in the the pipeline improvements (or Report that would be needed to deliver water from the proposed plant to West Bakersfeld to o/fset demands on the Cra.met: Plant. The Report does include a pipeline to East ,~les Community I Services District's tank adjacent to I-Iil/hway 178 al an elevation of 860 Feet. There is a single li inch diameter pipeline out o/` the tank. I It is not practical to convey 28,000 ~ through an 18 inch diameter pipeline. In addition,, the East Pipeline is already "overloaded". Before significant volumes of' water fi.om the proposed I plant can be conveyed to West Baker~elct, an additional pipeline will have :o be constru~ed. The cost for this pipeline is not included in the Report. I IVlake Garnett Plant Capacity Available to Meet Demands in We~t Bakerdleld One of the bendits claimed for the proposed water treatment plant is thai it will free-up capacity Iia the existing C. nu'nett Plant to meet increasing water demands in, and possibly outside o£ ID*~4. The three water purveyor~ pr'-~ntly served by the G'arnett PLant take delivery of about 21~,000 ! I I. AFY of tr~ed water. The proposed North~.st Balm~eld Plant's initial capacity is 65 MGD (73,000 AFY); expazxlable to 85 MGD (95,000 Ia the First Phase T~hnieal P. epor~ for the l:rroposed proj~-r, dat~l October, 1993, th~ tables showing the projected wazer demand for the NBA. The tables show %rater demand during peak week". Based on data ia that 1R~o~ it ~ d,xc.~llli:l~ that tim "wa~er demand durMg ~ week" is 1.6 times the average day d~mand (aamial basis). Local experi~cr, iadicates that the si~e ma~m-,~ day demand during a year B about twi~e the aw-rage day d~l. Baled on the "w~t~r de, hand during w~k" data in the the 1993, table prepar NBA PRO~CTED WATEX DEMANDS 1~.;? ~.;'.~.i:i .:, .:~ ...:A~ ,~.~L;-; .................. ~:'.:,: ':,'~":- ............................... ........ ' ............... '. ..... ;'.': ,'1'?': .:,~ ;.;.:."::.',-"~*~i~":*:~,~-.-~"':;"!,'i:¢ ;':~'.'~'''''-''''' ........... · .................. :' 'al"',' k.';:'!';'' :"':':~; :;:<::.2::7: ~:;;::....,~-:::':..¢.,.., .......... ~a...~.~a..:.~.~^:~: .:,-.-. .......~." :-" ~:-L~ ~ %'-.-..,'.'-'...'-. - : · · :> .......... .............~'~:'::'~."'"'~ '" :: '~ '~ ..... ~ ............ ; ......;'~" '." '"'""~ ............ !' ~. 2000 1'l.6 20,2 25.2 14,100 2010 17.9 2~,~ 3.5.~ 2:0,000 2020 25.1 ~,2 50.:2 2~, 1 O0 2030 34.7 55.5 69.4 38,900 2040 47.3 75,7 94.6 5~,000 2050 57.8 92.5 ! 15.6 ~ '64,800 ./ Cousid~ing that the initial plant capacity h 65 MGD (73,000 AFY), th~ ultimate plant capacity propos~ ia 85 MOD (95,000 A,b'Y), and the anticipat~ demand o£ the NBA is 65,000 AFY, ' supplying 28,000 AFY to West Batmrsfi~cl, as propos~l in the l~ort, would be pomlale. However, while thc would be of much ~ of proposed plato capable 30,000 wa~er ~o Wes~ Bakersfield, ther~ will be 1i~1¢ or no wa~er availab[e ~o We~ Bakersfield fi'om the Northcast Bakersfield Plar~ in t~ high w-a~er demand Th~ ~laim~d b~m:. to West Bak~'fi~d of haviag water available from the Gamett Plant to m~'~ incr~..~d demand~ from t.h¢ t.l'tr~ wa~ purv~or~ it now ,~wes and pom'bl¥ othca'~ i~- que~on~,bl¢. In th~ ~hort run this ¢onmpt a~p~.r~ f~a.qible. In th~ lon8 run, bowater, tl~ proposed North~ Bal~,~eld Plant m~ eyre b, '~ici~t to m~t tl~ w,t~r demand~ d~Sbed in the R~ort for ju~ tho NB~. (..xprit e, ls~) 4 ... COST OF WATER Capital Co~t The project proposed in the Report h~s an estimated capkal cost of S87.4 million. As poinzed out above, pipeline improvements will be needed if'the delivery of 28,000 AF~ to West Bakersfield is to be a:complished. The cost of ~ pipelin~ ~nclud~ng e~o~eering and contingen~es to be consistent with the B~port, will increase the total cost to about $105 million. Based the on interest tale and 30 year period used in the Report, the annual capital cost for the proposed Northeast Bakersfield Plant would be $8.5 mt[lion... If the Gam~'t Plant c~mity is in~-~-~t by 25 MG:D (:28,000 AF~, the capital cost would be about $25 million including a ]$% allow~mce for ~gin~'ing and conti~?.ndes to be with th, R. epo~. l.n¢ludin8 the ¢o~ of a pipeline to conv~ the water from the Gam,tt Plan~ to th, ~a~l: Nile~ CommuniW $~'ices Diga'i~ tank ~ elevation 860 f~-,~ would incr~.~ the ~o~1 capit~ ¢o~ to about ~ millio,~ The ~ual ~pil. al cost of' doublin8 the capacir7 of th, Pla.u: sad consu-u~ng a pipelinc from the Crarnctt Plant to East Niles Community Services District' s tank would be about $3.2 million. Power Costs For the proposed Northea.s: Bakersfield Plant, the power cost to convey water to the East Niles Community Services District tank at elevation 860 feet is estimated al $30/A~. -This figure includes the "avoided power costs" and the energy/ needed to lift the water the 100+ feet mentioued in the Report. I.f water from the Garnet: Plant is lii~ed 500 Eeet to the tank, the power. - cost will be about $'/O/AF, The difference in power costs between thc these two alternatives is With a pow~ cost differential of $40/.a~, the additional power co~ of pumping 28,000 AFY fi.om the Oarnet~ Plant to th, ~ ~tl~ ~ommunity $¢rvi¢~ Tank would be $1.1 million per Annual For th, Northe~ Bal~r~i¢ld Plan~ alt~nativ,, ~e annual capkal co~ would be abou~ $8.5 million. If the Cram.. ~ ?l~mt i~ ~q~and~ by 25 MGD (28,000 ,a2-~, th~ total annual ¢o~t for ~api~ repaym~ and the ~dkioml power ¢os~ ~o lift wm~r to Ea.~ N'tle~ Community Di~n'ict's tank would be abou~ $4.3 million. The cost diffcr~'w.~ bem'~ tl~ two optiom for deliw.~'in~ 28,000 .,~'Y m the tank it, th~r~aqor¢, about $4.2 million p,r y~'. In th~ Re¢ort there i~ · table that ~hows thc ant. icipat,~l OUllmt fi.om th, pm~o.~t Nor',.h~a.~ Bakersfield Plant.. In the y~z :2000, a flow of 42,100 .&FY is ~own. ~ includes 28,000 for Wes~ Bakerffield. l. fW~t Bakersfield the Gar~ett Plant and additional produce 28,000 ~ of' w~ f~r ~.3 million, th~ W~ Baker$field'$ "fair share" of the propo~ proj~:t's annual cost ~ $4..'I million. I (.A~,i 6, 199~) ~ That leaves $4.2 million of the annual capital cost o£ the No.east Bakersfield Plant project plus $30/A~ for power for water consumers i~ the NBA to pay. If these cos:a are spread over 14,100 Ar-Y (42, I00 AFY - 28,000 A~f), the wholesale water cost in thc N'BA will be $335/AF. ~ is aimost $200/A.F more than the cost of th~ water fi-om the ex~and~ Crarne~ Plant would be. I4,100 a~cipated need, in the NBA ~n the year 2000, It should be of the 12,000 Ak-Y is already being supplied. IfNBA'$ share of the cost can only be ~read over "new water demands", the wholesale water cost in the NBA in the year 2000 could be over $2,000/A~ unless the cost is subsidized by someone. ~ wa~er ~'mand hacreases in the NBA, the cost would decrease. But, even bY the year 2010, the whole~e cost would be about $$$0/A~. CONCL1381ON$ AND I~COlVlI~'e~DA.TIONS From this cursory review of the Report, it appears that the ber~fits from the project with respect to the areas outside of the NBA, are not nearly as significant as claimed: 1) No additional water is made available; 2) The energy savings for the areas outside of the NBA are negligible at best; 3) The ~ditional facilities needed to deliver water to West Baker~eld have not be~n addre.~ed; and, 4) The proposed Northeast Bakersfield Plant would only be able m deliver water, to We~ Bakerffield in the low water me moml~. In addition, the "fair share" co~t of water fi-om ~ projem ~o ¢onsumer~ in the N-BA appear~ to be um'easonably high unles~ ~ub~tarrfial tab,idles are r~eived in the flint 20 or .30 year~ of the project. These sub~idies could be in the form of a ~urclmrge" on the water ~old to consumer~ ou~de of the NBA. There are other olxior~ ~vail~i¢ ~o m~.,~ th~ mli~/pated water demands of thc NBA, and the ramainder of the Bakersfield area. ~.x-panaion of the Cramert Plant and the u~e of ground water ~upplies are two olxion~. A combimlion of the~e two or ~ thr~e, including the propo~ Northea.~t Baker~eld Plam, may be the le.~ eoffiy way to me~ ~e water needs of the metropolitan Bakemqeld area. Ba.~ic.~lly, ~e ~dy area in the R~or~ was too limited. It appear~ *.hal ~he goal of the R.,port w~ to find a ~olution.m the water supply problem of thc NBA while claimi~ beaefit~ for a mu~h larger area in order to ,pread the co~$. In order to demomt, rate th~, benefrts will in fact acme to the metropolitan Bakerffield area ~ well as to tl~ NB& th, facfilifies needed to meet the water d~.man~ ofthe metropolitan area, and costs a~sou-~ated with them, need to be ident~ecL Il is recommended that a study including all of the metropolitan Bakersfield area be prepared identif-yin8 ail o£ the facilities tim will be necessary to deliver wamr to the entire Bakersfield area. Just how the C. ramett Plant and local ground water supplies best fit into a scheme to meet the growing water demands of' the entire Bakersfield area should be examined before, decision is made to proceed wkh a surf~e water u-eamaent plato in the NBA,, ~ this is done, the least costly I (Ap~ 6, ~95) 6 - , ';~.~R-~-t995 16:5S B3YL~ ENG 8~ 5~S 8.~Z. 9 F.88 ! I project ~or the entire area can be identifl~ and a fair and equitable means of spreading the costs among all those who will benett can be ascertained. I Specifi~y, there are a number of que,s'tioas that should be answer~ before a project concept is adopt~l: ! 1) Wha~ i~ ~¢ lea.st mslly means, ind~r~ all fa~ilki~ ne~led, of m ~,~.,~ all o1' th, Bakersfield. area's anIicipated water demands? I 2) If' ~ ~ water treatment plant is Ir, git in the NBA, where is the best' location and at what elevation? i 3) How should co--on of'all of the needed improvements be phased? a,) If water tres~ ~ms~rtt is required, whaI should the trea:mcnt process(m) be in lisht of' forthcoming wa:er ~eatment regulations. I $) Wha: will be the costs; capital and O&JvI 6) Wha: is the fairest and most equitable means of paying for the project adopted? ! ' Y OF .....~-':" .~_....._~_.. ~"~~~ , ,i CALIFORNIA DEPAR~NT OF WA~R ~SOURCES ~-- OENE ~OART. Ma~r ~RN ~R~ Water ~s Di~ctor PA~ICK ~ ~N, Su~nte~ent ~'i ~ ~. ~ting and ~URICE ~ ~e~ Ma~r ~RN ~ DISPA~ Au~st ~, 1995 Mor~s Taylor Ric~, Taylor & ~sociates 1326 ~H" St., Suite 21 Bakersfiei~ CA 93301 RE: COMME~S TO PROJECT DEFI~ON REPORT - NOR~ST B~RS~ELD WA~R SUPPLY PROJECT Dear Mr. Taylor: ~e 'Proje~ Definition Re~rt for the Proposed Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project' h~ been renewed by the Ci~ of Bakersfield Water Resources staff. We are submitting the follo~ng ~mments and su~estions on behalf of the City. ~e rein pro, des a blueprint for the ~!! build out of the backbone system for the treatmen~ transmission piping and storage for a water supply to a ~dc area of northeast Bakersfield. ~is sets the for construction and pin~inting the hable stage by identi~ing locations for thc development of the water system for the area. If wide-spread interest matefiali~s and the project area water demand incre~es to thc ~int that the system neede~ this plan ~!! quicken thc process. Based u~n initial reactions to the cost of the pro~sed project, the lack of defiffitive benefi~afies and apparent low landowner interest on undevelo~d prope~ coupled ~th slower than anticipated grn~h in the immediate Rio Bravo are~ it would appear that the ~11 project is more ambitious than warranted at this time. ~ a solution to the short-tern water deman~ and some gro~h induced demand, a ~led- do~ plan for an interim project should be investigated. ~is ~uld be ~ed to pro, de se~ce to the water deman~ of the immediate area until such time that developments ~ur at a rate to justi~ the ~!1 stole project. ~e Ol~se Water District has an e~sting water pufifimtion plant in the area that intakes from the Kern River. ~at plant should be looked to as a ~ssible source and under mine modifimtion and e~ansion, be used to meet immediate or intermediate deman~ for water se~ce. In conjunction with tie-ins to California Water Se~ce Co. facilities near Morning Drive and Panorama Drive and ~ssibly tic to thc ~st Niles hcilities near Morning Drive and Highway '178~, such an interim project ~uld meet the immediate 0eman~ in the area, at a reasonable mst to pa~i~pants. I 100£ BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93311 · (805) 326-3715 I N ORTHEAST WATER SUPPLY REPORT PAGE - 2 - I Please incorporate these comments and suggestions into the engineer's review of remarks from the project participants. We bc looking forward to the presentation scheduled at the City Water Board I m eeting of September 20, 1995. Sincerely, I GENE BOGART I Water Resources Manager I Florn Core Water Resources Director I cc: Mel Byrd, California Water Service Co. i Don Wahl, Olcesc Water District Bob Bellue, Improvement District #4 Mike Huhn, Vaughn Mutual Water Co. Bill Miller, North of the River Municipal Water District I Doug Nunneley, Oildale Mutual Water Co. Roland Stephens, East Niles Community Services District I I I I 1 I I I KERN RIVER NATURAL FLOW, REGULATED FLOW, & ISABELLA RESERVOIR STORAGE 1994-1995 WATER YEAR __~__~s Ft.) ('zs99.38 it.) Natural Flow ~'~ Isabella Storage (2~7224 FL) Regulated flow ~.) Oct-94 Nov-94 Dec-94 Jan-95 Feb-95 Mar-95 Apr-95 May-95 Jun-95 Jul-95 Aug-95 Sep-95 Ie STATE & CALIF~NIA--THE ~SOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, ~mr~r DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES I 1416 NINTH STREET, P.O. ~X 942836 SACRAMENTO, CA 94236-0001 (916) 653-5791 I 7 1995 ! Honorable Bob Price Mayor of the City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Mayor Price: I Your application for a loan under the Water Conservation Bond Law of 1988 (Proposition 82) has been reviewed. We have found the City of Bakersfield in Kern County eligible for a I $3,000,000 New Local Water Supply construction loan. The total project cost is estimated to be $4,050,000. The difference will be funded by the City of Bakersfield. I Loan funds will be used for Phase IV to construct a Water Regulation/Storage Reservoir and Agricultural/Domestic Water Interface Project. I This letter serves as our commitment of $3,000,000 to the City of Bakersfield. Our loan contract provides for a 15-year i repayment period, at a 6.1 percent interest rate. The loan principal will be the sum of total loan disbursements to be determined at the completion of the project, plus the State's five percent administrative fee required by the bond law. I Therefore, your estimated loan principal will.be $3,150,000. Based on these factors, your semiannual principal and interest payments will be about $161,751. Once your agency has drawn loan I . funds, the Department of Water Resources will invoice your agency semiannually for interest accrued at the contract interest rate on loan funds disbursed to date, until the project is completed. Enclosed is an informational printout of your estimated loan I repayment schedule. Article B-6 of our Contract requires the additional I accumulation of about $16,175 semiannually to build a repayment Reserve Fund equal to two semiannual payments during the first 10-years of the repayment period. I Water Code Section 12579.4(c)(8) and Article B-7 of our loan contract require your agency to establish a dedicated source of revenue for repayment of the loan. Your agency has proposed to I repay this loan through savings as a result of reduced groundwater pumping assessments, off-peak power used for pumping, and annual allocation from the capital budget, diverted from I construction of water wells. Your governing body must designate by resolution and submit a copy to DWR for this purpose. Honorable Bob Price, Mayor 1 7 1995 wage Two ~ater Code Section 12879.4(d) requires all loans made under Proposition 82 to be approved by the Legislature. Assembly Bill 2763 (Chapter 723, Statutes of 1994) has provided this authority to DWR. This commitment is subject to the availability of funds from the sale of State general obligation bonds. 'Should conditions in the bond market prevent the State from selling bonds, delays in funding all or of some projects occur. We hope part may any funding delays would be temporary. Reimbursement for all costs which your agency incurs is expressly contingent upon the execution of a loan contract and your agency's ability to meet all requirements for disbursement of funds pursuant~to the contract. Before the State can disburse loan funds you must complete the following: o Adopt a resolution of your governing body accepting the loan, designating an officer to sign a loan contract with the Department of Water Resources, and designating a person to approve Partial Payment Estimates. o Execute the enclosed contract Number E84004 with DWR by signing and returnin~ four coDies to the Department of Water Resources, Bond Financing and Administration Office, Attention: Sarah Room Post Office Box Richey, 804, 942836, Sacramento, California 94236-0001. We will return one fully executed contract to you. Be advised that Section 450.5 (a)(4) of the Proposition 82 administrative regulations requires the contract be si~ned within six months of our letter of commitment, or the commitment may be withdrawn. o Adopt a resolution of your governing body formally establishing a dedicated source of revenue to repay this loan, to be deposited into a designated account or fund in amounts sufficient to meet the semiannual principal and interest payments as they become due. o Prior to advertising for bids, submit final plans and specifications certified by a California Registered Civil Engineer as to compliance with the approved project as defined in the enclosed contract to Division of Local DWR, Assistance, Financial Assistance and Environmental Review Branch, Attention: Dan OtiS, Post Office Box 942836, Sacramento,.California 94236-0001. o Submit with your final plans and specifications an Initial Budget and.Expenditure .Summary (form 4135, enclosed) reviewed and signed by the Registered Civil Engineer. IHonorable Bob Price, Mayor I 7 1995 Page Three ! o Secure the services of a Fiscal Agent to assist in Iadministering repayment of the loan. Complete and return to DWR a Fiscal Services Agreement (form 600) in triplicate, as indicated on the enclosed sample; refer to enclosed Iinstructions. o Expend Supplier's Cost of $1,050,000 as provided in Section i5 of the State's contract. PLEASE NOTE; The following two requirements must be satisfied and the authorizing resolution referenced in the first I r equirement submitted before DWR will sign the loan agreement. o Conduct a public meeting as required by the bond law, or Ihold an election as required by your enabling authority. See "Public Meeting" enclosure (form 601). o Submit an itemized list of all necessary permits and Ithat be required other State, Federal, approvals may by and/or local agencies as required by Section 10 of the enclosed contract. This list must specify the type of Ipermit or approval required, the name of the agency requiring it, and an outline of your Agency's schedule for obtaining it. I Section 450.7 of'the Administrative Regulations requires that you notify the Department of Water Resources in writing before You commence construction, of the date construction is to Ibegin. You must submit to DWR a summary of all bids before awarding construction contracts over $20,000, or contracts in any amount and for any purposes for which competitive bids are Irequired under your enabling authority. The Department of Water Resources commends the City of Bakersfield for taking steps to improve the efficiency of its I water operations. Please call Sarah Richey at 653-4763 if (916). you have any questions. ISincerely, Ior~n~ s~gned by Chester M. Winn, Chief IDivision of Fiscal Services Enclosures I cc: (See attached list.) mMember of the Senate State Capitol, Room 2054 Sacramento, California 95814 mHonorable Trice Harvey Member of the Assembly State Capitol, Room 3173 m S acramento, California 95814 Mr. Gene Bogart, Manager Department of Water and Sanitation m City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Road Bakersfield, California 93301 m Mr. Florn Core~ Water Resources Director mcity of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Road Bakersfield, California' 93111 I m m m m m m m m CITY OF BAKERSFIELD INTERFACE PROJECT PROJECT TIMETABLE PHASE 4 - TEN MILMON GALLON REGUL~TING/S'I'OI~GE FACILITY 1994 / 1995 / 1996 ~_.ASIBILITY STUDY WATER RIGHTS RIGHT-OF-WAY CEQA DESIGN PROJECT PERMI'I'FING FINANCING ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION DENOTES COMPLETED TASK I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER BOARD Mark Salvaggio, Chair i Randy Rowles, Vice-Chair Patricia M. Smith AGREEMENT FOR RENTAL OF ISABELLA RESERVOIR STORAGE SPACE BETWEEN CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT This Agreement is entered into this day of ,1995 by and between thc I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a California municipal corporation and a charter city ('City'), and KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT, a California water district, ("Kern Delta') and will become effective upon execution. I RECITALS I WHEREAS, City is owner of 34% of thc irrigation water storage space in Isabella Reservoir as set forth in 'Storage Agreement Among First Point Watcr Entities' (March 3, 1964) and Hacienda I Water District will exercise its option to rent 10% of the City storage space in accordance with 'Kern River Water Rights and Storage Agreement' (December 31, 1962); and I WHEREAS, City will use only its remaining 24% share of a 170,000 acre-feet of Isabella Reservoir irrigation storage during the pcriod of December 1, 1995 extending through January 31, 1996; and I WHEREAS, Kern Delta desires to store up to 10,000 acre-feet of State Project Water ('SWP') exchange water after November 1, 1995 and requests thc usc of City's share of increased i carryover storage should such increased storage space bccomc available to City. NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating thc foregoing recitals herein, it is mutually agreed between i the panics as follows: 1. City shall permit Kern Delta to store in City's available Isabella Reservoir storage space, up to 10,000 acre-feet of Kern Dclta's SWP water between November 1, 1995 I through February 29, 1996. 2. City shall only allocate to Kern Delta the rental and use of City storage space for I SWP water that becomes available result of total in as a irrigation c~rryover storage Isabella Reservoir exceeding 170,000 acre-feet. I 3. City does not warrant or that increased will be granted guarantee storage space City through agreement with the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps') in Isabella Reservoir during the period of December 1, 1995 through January 31, I 1996, and Kern Delta understands it is possible no storage space will be allocated to Kern Delta under this agreement. I 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93311 · (~OS) 32~.371S I I RENTAL O1~ ISABELLA STORAGE SPACI~ Pap - ~ - I 4. City does not intend to store water in its available space in Isabella Reservoir above 24% of 170,000 acre-feet of irrigation water storage between December 1, I 1995 and January 31, 1996 and City is not a participant in an agreement with Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District (WLBWSD") regarding carryover storage in Isabella Reservoir in excess of 200,000 acre-feet during the period of December 1, I 1995 through January 31, 1996. 5. Kern Delta shall be responsible for its share of any and all flood damages that I may occur north of thc Kings-Kern county linc which may be caused by or result from thc carryover storage of its SWP water in City storage space between December 1, 1995 through January 31, 1996, whether or not said damages occur during that I time. Kern Delta shall enter into separate agreement, either by a new instrument or amendment to an cxisting document on an Assurancc Ictter and commitment to TLBWSD on responsibilities for flood damages during this time period. I 6. Kern Delta agrees that should the Corps order evacuation of any City storage space in Isabella Reservoir during the period of November 1, 1995 through February i 29, 1996, Kern Delta SWP water held in City storage pursuant to this agreement shall be thc first water released from City storage space. i 7. Kern Delta SWP water stored in City storage space under this agreement shall bear its own evaporation loss as proportioned among the Isabella storage entities on a daily basis. I 8. Kern Delta agrees to pay its proportionate share of City's rcscrvoir costs or expenses that arc attributable to Kern Delta SWP water stored in City storage space. City shall invoice Kern Delta quarterly for said charges, and said charges shall be I within of the date of the invoice. paid thirty (30) days 9. Kern Delta is to pay its share of ail costs incurred and invoiced by the Kern River I Watermaster for involving Isabella operations and excess carryover requests. expenses 10. Kern Delta shall make every effort to fully vacate SWP water in an expedient I manner prior to February 29,1996. Any portion of Kern Delta SWP water remaining in City's storage after March 2, 1996 shall become City water and Kern Delta shall release all right, title, or interest of any kind whatsoever therein. I 11. Kern Delta and City agree that this agreement is an accommodation by City, is temporary, and shall not affect thc water rights or storage rights of either party in I any way or become a basis of a right or precedent for future agreements. 12. Notices I City: City Water Board Kern Delta: Board of Directors CITY OF BAKERSFIELD KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT I 1000 Buena Vista Rd. 501 Taft Highway Bakersfield, CA 93311 Bakersfield, CA 93307 I RENTAL OF ISABELLA STORAGE SPACE Page. 3 - 13. The term of this agreement shall be Novcmbcr 1, 1995 through February 29, 1996. 14. The agreements and contracts as refcrcnccd hcrcin arc recognized to be in full force and effect and shall bc dccmcd as included in this agreement as though fully set forth. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed, the day and year first-above written. APPROVED: KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD ("Kern Delta") ("City") President, Board of Directors Chair, City Water Board Secretary, Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Finance Director I Gene M~Murtrcy, Kcrn Dclta Attorney Alan Daniel, Assistant City Attorney ! S:~DISASTR FC:f¢