Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/01,.~.~,~ C IT Y 0 F ~.~..~-- ~ ~_..~ CALIFORNIA -~ WATER BOARD Mark C. Salvaggio, Chair David Couch, Vice Chair Harold Hanson CITY OF BAKERSFIELD --~ ..... SPECIAL WATER BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - 4:30pm Water Resources Building Conference Room 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1). CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2). ROLL CALL 3). APPROVAL OF JULY 1 I, 2001 MEETING MINUTES 4). SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5). KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT - No Report 6). KERN RIVER OPERATIONS REPORT 7). OLD BUSINESS A. ENERGY TASK FORCE UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION - For Board Review 8). NEW BUSINESS A. DRY YEAR PLAN FOR NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD WATER SUPPLY PROJECT WITH CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY, A SUPPLEMENT TO WATER BOARD AGREEMENT NO. 01-08 - For Board Approval B. PARTICIPATION IN WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM WITH KERN RIVER INTERESTS AND ATMOSPHERICS INC. - For Board Approval C. AGREEMENT TO DISCHARGE TREATED GROUNDWATER INTO CALLOWAY CANAL WITH EQU I LON ENTERPRISES, NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT AND CITY -For Board Review and Recommendation to City Council D. AGREEMENT WITH KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT TO ALLOW MODIFICATION TO KERN ISLAND CANAL FOR RIVERWALK PLAZA PROJECT - For Board Review and Recommendation to City Council Page 1 of 2 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 ° (661) 326-3715 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD ! 1/06/01 E. CITY WATER POLICY AMENDMENT - For Board Review 9). WATER RESOURCES CAPITAL PROJECTS MID-YEAR UPDATE - For Board Information l 0). GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONY FOR NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD WATER TREATMENT PLANT - For Board Information 1 l). 2002 WATER BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE - For Board Information 12). WATER BOARD STATEMENTS i 3). CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION, CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT vs. KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT, et al, TULARE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE No. 96-172919. 14). CLOSED SESSION ACTION 15). ADJOURNMENT Water ResOurces M~nage POSTED: November 2, 2001 S:L2001WBMIN~WBNO06 Page 2 of 2 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Wednesday, July 11, 2001, Water Resources Conference Room, 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311. 1. The meeting was called to order by Board Chair Salvaggio at 4:32 p.m. 2. Present: Mark Salvaggio, Chair David Couch, Vice-Chair Harold Hanson (seated at 4:42 p.m.) 3. Boardmember Couch made a motion to approved the minutes of the Regular Water Board meeting held May 9, 2001. Motion carried. 4. There were no public statements. 5. Two Capital Improvement Projects for the Kern River Levee District were brought before the Board. Mr. Bogart spoke regarding the erosion of the railroad trestle downstream from Chester Avenue bridge and of the arrangement with Pacific Bell Telephone Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company to share in the cost of a permanent repair. An agreement was entered into where the City, as lead agency, Pacific Bell Telephone Company and the Union Pacific Railroad Company were able to work together to complete this repair. Mr. Core advised the Board of remedial work that had to be completed on the levee before the Corps of Engineers did their bi-annual inspection. 6. An update on the Kern River operations was given by Hydrographic Supervisor Steve Lafond. Kern River flow to Lake Isabella will be in the neighborhood of 54% of normal for the year 2001. Releases from the reservoir will continue through the second week of August and the reservoir should be down to about 80,000 acre-feet by late October or early November. This will be the lowest level in over a decade. A highlight of the season was the release out of Lake Isabella resulting in water through the ParkwaY during the 4th of July holiday week. An article in the Bakersfield Californian discussed global warming and how it may affect the snowpack in the Sierra-Nevada. Staff will continue to keep abreast of the news events and the research on this subject and bring it back with further information on this issue. The 2000 Kern River Hydrographic Annual Report was given to the Boardmembers by Mr. Lafond. 7. There was no Old Business. 1 i 8. New Business SA. Mr. Core presented the electrical demand relief program participation item to the Board. The demand relief program is a state-wide program that is asking for large energy consumers to shed their load during a stage one through three alert periods. These alerts occur whenever there is a demand that exceeds the capacity generated. The City's participation would be the eight agricultural Olcese wells and one domestic well that is being used for agricultural programs. The City will be paid approximately $15,000-$17,000 per month to shed the load for a four hour period, up to six times a month. Buena Vista WSD has capacity in the 2800 acres, and this project is in joint partnership with them. City was approached for a grant to offset the cost of installing the required recording equipment through the California Energy Commission, administered by the Irrigation Training Resource Institute at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo. Staff is requesting: 1) confirm participation in the demand reduction program and 2) authorization to sign contract to receive grant money to offset the cost of installing the required equipment at the facilities. Boardmember Couch made a motion to approve. Motion carried. 8B. The Operations and Maintenance Agreement No. 92-250 with California Water Service Company (Cal Water) was brought to the Board by Mr. Core. The existing contract with Cai Water to perform daily operations and maintenance on City's water system has a three year renewal period option. Staff performs an evaluation at the end of that period to review performance and compare costs for operating the system. Based on the review, staff recommends renewal of the contract which would begin January, 2002. A motion to approve renewal of the agreement was made by Boardmember Couch. 8C. Mr. Bogart presented the request for an assignment of Wastewater Plant #2 Municipal Farm Lease Agreement No. 95-310 to the Board. Mr. Gary Garone, the present lessee, has had medical problems that prevent him from effectively managing the farming operation and requested that the agreement be assigned. There are provisions in the agreement that allow for such assignment. Jim Wren, CPA for Gary Garone Farms, provided City with resumes, financials and letters of recommendation for Mr. Donald Collins, the party seeking to obtain the assignment. Staff finds all is in order for the agreement to be assigned and requests Board approval and a recommendation for approval by City Council. A motion to approve by Boardmember Salvaggio. Motion carried. 8D. The 1976Water Bond Retirement Referral from Councilmember Couch was brought before the Board by Mr. Bogart. This agenda item is in response to a request for a staff presentation to the Water Board regarding alternative uses of funds when the 1976 Water Bond debt has been paid. Several projects were discussed for these funds when they become available. One was a cash power reserve fund to pay electrical charges to pump wells located along the Cross Valley Canal and Carrier Canal for Parkway enhancement flows. Another possibility is complete Capital Improvement projects along the Kern River corridor through Bakersfield. After a lengthy discussion, the Board requested staffinvestigate different options on how to amend the adopted Council Water Resources Policy and bring those recommendations back to the Board by the end of the year. 9. Water Board statements. Boardmember Couch had a question regarding the effect of several drought years on the City's groundwater banking project, what measures would be put into place, and what impact would it have on the community. Staff's response was that the City would be able to furnish water to residents for several years due to the huge amount of water stored underground, plus water conservation efforts that are in place which assist in reducing water usage in the community. 10. The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Mark Salvaggio, Chair -~- City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board ISABELLA RESERVOIR DALLY OPERATIONS REPORT (,All readings are for date of report (THURSDAY) as of 0001. except as noted.., cfs in italics) Date of Report: November 1, 2001 ISABELLA RESERVOIR 1 2546.54 Lake Elevation (ft.) 99621 Storage (AcFt) +84 Change (AcFt) 231 Inflowto Isabella (cfs) 2 568075 Storage Capacity 18% % of Capacity 160060 Normal Storage 62% % of Normal Storage For this Date 3 4184 Average LakeArea (Acres) 9616 Inflow(Month) 16270 Outflow(Month) 4 215 North Fork Mean 228 North Fork @ 0600 Hours 9616 Accumulative Inflow(01-02 WY) 5 187 Mean Outflow 171 Borel Canal 16 Main Dam Outlet 16270 Accum. Outflow(WY) 6 199 Outflow @ 0600 183 Borel Canal @ 0600 Hours 16 Main Dam Outlet @ 0600 Hours Hours 7 2 Lake Evap. (cfs) 0.01 Inches Evap. for 24 Hours 2539 Lake Evap. (Month to Date) 8 0 Spillway Discharge for 24 Hours PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE 9 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for 24 Hours 0.57 Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for Month 10 0.57 Seasonal Precip. Isabella 0.30 Normal for 190% Isabella Precip. (Season: Oct 1 through Sep 30) this Date % of Normal 11 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for 24 Hours 1.20 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for Month 12 1.20 Seasonal Precip. Pascoe 1.43 Normal for 84% Pascoe Precip. this Date % of Normal 13 1.1 Upper Tyndall Creek 0.8 Pascoe 0.0 Wet Meadow 14 63 Isabella Maximum Temperature 15 50 Isabella Minimum Temperature 61 24 Hour Wind Movement (Miles) NATURAL RIVER FLOW 16 238 Natural FIow(cfs) 9707 Natural Flow(Month to Date) 250292 2001 April-July Runoff 17 300 Mean Flow 79% Natural Flow 247 Median Flow 96% Natural Flow For this Date in % of Mean For this Date in % of Median 18 1145 Max. on Record 121 Min. on Record 9707 Accum. Natural Flow(Water Year) For this Date For this Date 19 195 First Point Flow 16394 First Point (Month to Date) 16394 Accum. First Point (Water Year) KERN RIVER FACTS & FIGURES: /~ · B/' ~'~ ~"'A E. E R S F ! E On this date in 1982, the second in a series of/ate month storms battered the upper Kern with heavy rain and snow. The flow at Kemville rose from roughly 600 cfs to a peak Produced by City of Bakersfield instantaneous rate of 2, 132 cfs. Kern River mean daily natural flow of 1,533 cfs was not only Water Resources the highest for this date in history but the highest ever recorded during the month of October. (661) 326-3715 BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM November 1, 2001 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: John W. Stinso~sistant City Manager SUBJECT: Energy Task Force Status and Recommendations During the past few months the City's Energy Task Force has been involved in a variety of activities as a result of the energy situation in California. The Energy Task Force has been concerned with several objectives related to the recent energy crisis including the following: a. Local control of the electrical system. b. Avoiding rolling outages. c. Maintaining electrical reliability for citizens and businesses. d. Availability of electricity for new businesses Energy_ Environment. While the energy situation has improved due to increased conservation, lower summer temperatures, and increased electricity supplies there remain numerous unresolved issues which affect the energy situation. These include the possibility of the State constructing power generation facilities / acquiring transmission lines; the State possibly taking over private generation facilities through eminent domain; the uncertainty of natural gas prices (only 16% of supply comes from within California); continued volatilityofthe power purchasing market (spot market v. long term contracts; PG&E bankruptcy; SCE bailout?); uncertainty about private investment in power generation facilities in California; the need for the State to recover stranded costs and re-payment of bond debt to purchase power; and the ability of the City to purchase fuel or power at a cost lower than the Department of Water Resources or others. Task Force Activities: The Energy Task Force has been studying these issues and has been involved in the following activities: · Public Works Department has been collecting power usage information for city buildings and facilities and for City-wide electrical use from utility. The Cityhas accomplished significant reductions in energy usc in excess of 20% below last years usage through conservation efforts. S:~JOliN'~=n~gy Crisis\Task Force Rcommendation. wlxl · The City Manager's staffhas been monitoring status of electrical issue in Sacramento and state-wide through news articles and League of California Cities information. Staffhas been in communication with the State's "Flex Your Power" coordinators to obtain energy conservation information. There are a large number of bills involving energy issues currently going through the Legislature. Staff in the City Manager's and City Attorney's Office are following them as they progress. Legislation regarding municipal utilities, electricity aggregation and other relevant topics have been identified for legislative tracking by staff. · Public Works has evaluated the possible use of distributed generation with on-site generators for city buildings and facilities. These smaller gas fired generators would serve individual buildings and facilities to remove them fi.om the grid for their base electrical load. They would still be connected to the grid for peaking power. The Task Force has met with vendors who provide this technology and conducted site visits to evaluate its feasibility for various city facilities. Based upon this evaluation, it is possible that this approach could be economical if used. We are evaluating the feasibility of this technology for buildings such as City Hall, the Police Building and Martin Luther King Center. · Public Works staff reviewed the cost and benefit of co-generation plants and bio-mass generation facilities and any feasible applications for the City. Based upon current information these do not appear feasible for the City at this time. · The Water Department implemented a demand reduction program which sheds electrical loads during stage II energy alerts. The city then operates its pumps during off-peak periods and receives payments from the state as part of the program. This program reduces energy loads during peak periods of demand on the statewide system and reduces energy costs for the City. · City Attomey has been in contact with private attomeys involved in electrical energy law and discussed regulatory aspects and considerations of forming municipal utilities. The attorney has been soliciting information regarding fees and expertise fi.om law firms specializing in the energy area in the event they are needed. · The City Attorney and several of the Energy Task Force members have met at the request of Couneilmember Maggard, with representatives of PG&E, various oil companies, and other energy industry experts to discuss energy alternatives available to the City. The issue of the city becoming a municipal utility was discussed with them. It was discussed that the city would have to remain connected to the State electrical grid and would be subject to rotating outages, unless we totally separated ourselves fi'om that system. However, separating ourselves fi.om the state system would require expensive additional redundant power generation capabilities for peak and emergency backup power. It was discussed that due to the large differential between the area's base loads (180 megawatts average) and peak loads (335 megawatts average) that there would be significant costs to provide for this peak capacity should we separate the City from the State electrical grid. PG&E indicated that they could continue to distribute electricity for the City at their costs, if we were to become S:'JO~ C~isb\Task Force Rcomm~mtatlon.wpd a municipal utility. If we were to take over their system it is likely the City would also have to pay the stranded costs of acquiring PG&E's distribution system; distribution, billing and collection costs; electricity production costs as well as costs associated with the bonds issued by the state to purchase power. The City Attorney determined it is possible for the City to form a municipal utility, however, the Charter requires a vote for its formation. Additionally any municipal utility would also be subject to regulation by the Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other state and federal agencies. As a result of these meetings and due to the current environment of the energy industry noted above, it is apparent there is a need for further outside expert review should the city desire to pursue this alternative. · Staff has also reviewed information obtained by Councilmembers from a recent league of California Cities seminar on electrical energy and reviewed alternatives discussed at that meeting including adoption of an ordinance to reserve the City's fight to aggregate electricity for distribution. The PUC conducted heatings related to the aggregation issue and recently approved a decision to suspend for those served by PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E the right to enter into direct access contracts or agreements after September 20, 2001. This decision is consistent with action taken February 1, 2001 by the legislature in its approval of AB 1X which suspended direct access until such time the Department of Water Resources no longer supplies power on behalf of the three major utilities. The decision also was based on the need to provide a stable customer base to sell bonds and ensure recovery of the Department of Water Resources costs of acquiring power the state has purchased since January 2001 and continues to purchase. This decision effectively eliminated the ability for Cities and others served by the three major utilities to implement electrical aggregation through direct access agreements. Even those Cities who may have enacted ordinances which reserved the right to aggregate can no longer enter into contracts after September 20, and the Commission specifically reserved the right to suspend any contracts entered into after July 1,2001. The Commission may also limit the renewal of direct access contracts entered into prior to July (this is to be determined in a subsequent decision by the Commission). Had our City passed a resolution in July reserving the right to aggregate electricity as some cities did, it is unlikely we would have been able to execute any contracts prior to the September 20~ date since we would have had to identify and enter into agreements with electrical providers and identify potential aggregation customers based on mutually beneficial economical conditions (assuming they were possible). These arrangements are also made difficult due to current law which requires individuals to "opt in" to receive aggregated service. Detemfining how many and which customers would choose to "opt in" requires significant time and research prior to the purchase of the needed electricity. It is also likely that potential providers and customers would be hesitant to enter into agreements with the City for electricity with the knowledge that the PUC was likely to eliminate direct access to be consistent with the legislation passed in January and that contracts entered into could also be subject to suspension by the Commission as mentioned above. S:'~lOI'~ Cr~s\Task Force P..~,mmm,cl~ion. wpd It is possible that some time in the future the Commission could allow aggregation again, however it will most likely require legislative action and a return to a more stable electrical market where the Department of Water Resources is no longer purchasing power for the three major utilities. However, the City Council could still consider passing a resolution reserving the right to aggregate electrical power should direct access be permitted again. Based upon these activities the Task Force is recommending the Water Board and the City Council consider the following steps: 1. Hire a specialist/consultant familiar with the formation of municipal utilities as a neutral party to further evaluate the feasibility of the City becoming involved in electrical generation/distribution as a municipal utility. This individual would need to address the legal, technical and engineering issues involved with this alternative. Funding for this would come from Council Contingency. Staff is currently reviewing possible consultants and the anticipated cost. 2. Consider adopting an ordinance which reserves the city's direct access rights to aggregate electrical power for distribution should it be allowed in the future by a change in state law. 3. Evaluate and implement a pilot program for distributed generation using gas fired generators to provide base electrical loads for certain city buildings depending on the operational and economic feasibility of each application. 4. Become actively involved in supporting legislation related to energy issues which provides for enhanced local municipal control, energy reliability and citizen safety. The Council may also want to pursue legislation which would provide a preference for our community to be exempt from rolling outages since our local energy generation exceeds the local demand, and thus makes our county a net exporter of energy. This would require legislative sponsorship and support. It may be difficult to gain sufficient support to pass such legislation, however. S:~O~ C~sts\Taslc Fm~.e Rco~a~;~m.wpd BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM October 8, 2001 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: John W. Stinso~?A~ssistant City Manager SUBJECT: Energy Meeting This afternoon I attended a meeting of the Kern Wind Energy Association who had as a guest speaker, California Public Utilities Commissioner Dr. Richard Bilas, formerly of Bakersfield. Dr. Bilas provided aa overview of the current en. ergy situation in California and discussed the recent decisions of the P.U.C. and how they affect the politics aad economics of the energy situation in California. He stated that due to the state's need to protect the rate base to recover it's costs for energy, the P.U.C. voted to eliminate direct access contracts. He sees the State government becoming a long term player in the energy business, possibly to the point of functioning as an municipal utility would by generating and selling electricity. He said it is almost certain the state will issue bonds to pay for the additional power acquired this year which would be paid offover the next 15 years. He indicated that it is unlikely that any new municipal utilities would be formed due to the high costs of acquiring the grid (distribution system) and the uncertainty and high cost of acquiring power. Distributed generation (generating power on-site) may still be a viable option, depending on how the generation is accomplished, if it is attached to the grid and what surcharges are applicable for a given installation. S:X~OHN~I Memo Yahoo - Bay Area Economic Forum Issues New Report Recommending Caution Regardin.. Page 1 of 3 ' (:8 [FINANCE - - ~W~re U.S. i~J~DEBTICATED, [ Latest Headlines [ Market Overview I News Alerts ] Wednesday October 10, 2:00 pm Eastern Time ^_D_._J.! 9,129.25 -33.97 ~!XIC 1,654.00 +1.28 Press. Release ¢_s_.P_C 1,064.21 -4.40 ^l!X ]]9.]8 -].97 soURCE: Bay Area Economic Forum ~PS.E 582.42 +4.25 Quote Data provided by Reuters Bay Area Economic Forum Issues New Report Recommending Caution Regarding Municipal Power ¥ :' SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 10, 2001--The Bay Area : El;? ~ 9 ~...~i Economic Forum, a regional leadership organization sponsored by the Bay Area Council and the Association of Bay Area Governments, has ......... released a report on the economics of electric system municipalization. In response to California's power crisis a number of cities in California and the Bay. Area, including San Francisco, are considering the creation of new municipal utilities (MU's). The report analyzes the critical economic issues that cities must address if the conversion of investor-owned electric systems to public ownership and operation is to be successful. The report finds that, historically, the performance of municipal utilities in delivering power at lower cost than investor-owned utilities (IOU's) has varied widely. Municipal utilities have on average delivered lower cost power than IOU's. However, creation of a municipal utility does not assure lower cost power. While established municipal utilities performed well relative to IOU's during the power crisis, this was attributable to the unique historical base of each MU, including portfolios of long-term contracts (which California IOUs were not allowed under deregulation), ownership of generating assets, and access to low-cost federal preference power. Municipal utilities established in the future may not fully enjoy these advantages and will face a different set of challenges. In analyzing whether new MU's can deliver lower Costs to customers, the report compares the cost structures of municipal and investor owned utilities. It also evaluates possible changes in California's regulatory environment, which may require new municipal utilities to pay exit ADVERTISEMENT http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011010/100608 1 .html 10/19/0 Yahoo - Bay Area Economic Forum Issues New Report Recommending Caution Regardin.. Page 2 of 3~ charges, and to share in high-priced power negotiated by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). These changes could reduce or eliminate potential MU cost advantages. 1 The key determinants of whether a new municipal utility can deliver lower rates to its customers are its ability to 1) establish a power supply portfolio that achieves lower cost than the incumbent investor owned utility can provide (a mix of regulated power supply, spot purchases, and DWR obligations), and 2) recover the acquisition costs of the IOU's distribution system. These issues are related, since an MU's ability to develop lower cost power supplies will affect the acquisition costs it can afford to pay, and the price paid for acquisition of the IOU's distribution system will impact the price of power delivered to MU customers. Because of the portfolio mix of IOU's including low-cost hydro and nuclear generating capacity, it is unlikely that new MU's will be able to deliver lower cost power. Continuing regulatory uncertainty will also affect a new MU's power costs. Regarding the proposals to create a municipal utility or power authority in San Francisco, Bay Area Economic President Scan Randolph observed that" if consumers are to benefit and avoid the risk of higher power costs, before committing to a course of action voters and civic leaders should have hard figures for both infrastructure acquisition and power portfolio costs." The report concludes that in today's uncertain economic and regulatory environment, new municipal utilities will'be exposed to he!ghtened risk. In the Economic Forum's view, these risks should be considered carefully. Pursuing municipalization without detailed examination of these factors and the necessary financial analyses could add yet another 1 unnecessary energy cost burden on California consumers. Contact: Bay Area Economic Forum Sean Randolph, 415/981-7117 Emai! this story - Most~emai!ed.articles - Most~iewe.d articles Related News Categories: goyg~_e.._n.t, Q_i!/__e_n_ergy, uti!itles Copyright © 2001 Yahool Inc. All fights reserved. _P~v_a _cy_P_ol_iCy - T_e_r_.n3_.s_of_$e~Jce Copyright © 2001 Business Wire. All rights reserved. All the news releases provided by Business Wire are copyrighted. Any forms of copying other than an individual user's personal reference without express written permission is prohibited. Further distribution of these materials by posting, archivlng in a public web site or database or redistribution in a computer network is strictly forbidden. httn://bi~.vahnn eom/hw/011010/10060R 1 .html 10/19/01 ~Yahoo - Bay Area Economic Forum Issues New Report Recommending Caution Regardin.. Page 3 of 3 Questions.or. Comments? h, ttp://biz.yahoo.com/bw/O 1101 O/100608 1.html 1 Oil 9/01 '" THE BAKERS~.E. LD CALIFORNIAN ..B5 Wednesday~ October 1'0,'200'1 PUC. member addresses wind energy eoncerns: : .Discussion c0versw0rries between the . TurbinesownedbyKWEAmember QueStions were slso.raised shout PUC and Soulh- compmfics make up one of the largest, thcthreatofterrorismandthesafetyof . ".abOut SoCal Edis0n.deal, em California wh~d power areas in the world. TheCaliformasenergynetwork.;' ' ' . . :threat of terrorist attacks. Edison on IM- thousm~ds of propeller-like'maclfines ~Ihatetobethebearerofbadne~vs,:. By ANGELA POYNTER da~inda arc even a tourist attraction in the joked Bilas, "but I am an energy eom:. . White, Tchachapiand Moja;/e areas, missioner. The question is where'are s~eeial to ~'1~ californian executive direc- Though Bilas was not able to'fully we vulnerable to terrorist attacks, z~nd' .. The Kern W'md Energy Association top of Kern W'md quell the fears of those in attendance, theanswerisollover. Itisimpo~sibleto 'hosted a recepl~on Monday for Energy Associa- hc did say that more informafion about protect, a grid line from terrorist · Richardfomia PublicBilas' WhOut~liliesSerVeScommission.On U~e Call- Bilas tion, said she h~s tl~e settlement wifl~ ' SoCal Edison attacks. Someone could put the whole been trying to would be released during a news con- westem gdd down for days.- .. ,' · Bilas was appointed to the commis- arrange a visit ference Tuesday. ' · Bilas indicated there may also b.e a Sion in ;,January 1997, .and se~ed as with Bilas for many montl~s and the " ' ~ ' ' . Edisonwas negotiating tokeep out dim light at the end of the tunnel.. 'presidentfr°mFebmary1998t°MarCh ' timing couldn't have been bctter, con- of bankmp~y m~d they tried to go "What's going on in the world today · 2000.1PriortoservingontbePUC, Bilas sidefing the latest news. through the lc&qSl~ve process and may be the lmmmer which, makes us was a commissioner with the Califor- "All the elecl~icity generators here they were unreceptive," Bilas said. go forth into' dis~butive' geneml~on,.:. "niaEnergyCommissionandhasa17-' . today have long-term contracts signcd "Twoweeksagotheyputamendmen~s which is gas-powered and much more year history in Bakersfield -- chairing with the utilities so that they wotfldn't on the table to keep solvenl~ and setfle secure. The smaller.the systemsl the Economics Department at Cai gobankrupt~'saidWlfite."Nowthey're lhe lawsuit_ presented at our execu. become, U~e harder they are to attack. ' State Bakersfield, hos~ng'a talk show (utility comp,xnies) trying to get out of tire session. Given the way that. Right now the transmission system is andevenwrifinganewspapcrcolunm, givh~g us our l0 perccnt discounts and PG&E'sbmfl~mplcyisgoing, wtfichis in dire slxaits in Califomia and the ulil- The reception, held at the Pe~role- .we have 'set' contracts-- meaning tile i!~i~,~' C!u..b,..was preceded by a round- ~-'.~mtesaren't supposed to change. O~r not well, I thoughtit wasprettymuch a ities can't donffol it because they are nocbrainer. It makes good sense to too far in 'the red. Everyone isjust try- :'.?m~e'digcussion with..10 to 15 local realconcern, though, is how much are keep ii,em ~iable, and tiffs 'will put ~ ingtododgethebullet~hidingbehind: electricity-generating companies that they actually'going to pay us of what pressure on the'state of California to'rocks. No one wants to be visible on' ' · .areconcemedaboutancwdealstruck theyowe.us?' gctoutoftheencrgybusincss.' tl~issue.' ...... : . ' ' · : '~ .... · " " i ~., ;'.~..';:'.:" Judge OKs P6&E sale of old Bakersfield plant .,. By ¥1¢ POLI.~III~ . Botlt PG&E and Norlh American ' '~rhe court decided hhat We couldI ".~ Californian Sacramento Bureau PG&E faces obstacles to its reorgani- officials were dismayed'by Lhe order move forward with t.he sale of' the.. e~.a~: vpo~ardO~ake~s~eld.¢or, . 'zation plan. Page D1 because Gov. Gray Davis bt July l~zd plant," Low'said, "bu~ on the speciQc:. A bankruptcy judge gave Pacific ................................................................................................. issued a~ executive order cleaztng ~ .issue o£ £ging a new aPplicaQon with..." Gas & Elec~c Co. permission Tues- legalroadblockcitedbyLhePUCwhen Qm PUC,,he ask(Jcl t.haL tJta[ be done'" .!. day to seU its old Bakersfield power excuse it from complying wilJ~ a.n it i~ilJally rejected Ute s,'de last April separaLely."'. platt, but QtaL may ~o~ be ~e end of order issued last week by the Califor- Bu[ PG&R spokesman Ron Low Low said the uQUty wiU provide t.he thestory, nia Public UQliQes Commission to said lJ~e judge told Ute uQliLy to come judge wi~ a separate request, task.: ?G&E, as part o£ its b~kruptcy, submit a new applicaQon to the PUC backlaterwitJ~Lhereques[toavoidfil- week, healsosaid?G&~wiJlsubmi[a ":'~ proceedings irt Sa~ l~a~cisco, asked for its permission to sell Q~e plant, ing Qm new apptication with Q~e PUC. new application to Qte PUC. ' " Judge Dennis Mo~tali to approve the ' . · sale of. its long-closed Kern Power Plant to North American. Power Group. North America~, based in Col- ', orado~ wa~ts tx) re£urbish a~d restart :',~..:. theplanL PG&.~ also asked [he judge to ~'~ · "! :': !. :i.":i · · , ,. ';. :. .:~ :~j... . :'. -. ' ' ':.. """ '.'.: ..' ' :"".":':.'! ::....'.'i:' :' i ..~ ' : . · .' ·" I¢~ Th~ Ass~ted Press · . · ~ "' ' ' small busmesses,.wil!.pay..up::to $8~bil. 'to' ban. direct' access' for"ulility cus- ..,"erbusiness cus~mers,!-whb, makd up '"'"' ' : .... "' ' · some l3 perceht':0f the combined use · '.: : : ' .... .?where,"Ang~lides:.' said in" a:Jetter, to .' '!.:: tomers are receiving a kind of subsidy~ ' · ,,:lseCause the.. state and. the utilities ":': :" customers bypass a utility arid cSn- ' . .' ': ..... · '.. · ," ' D.uring the .three-m0nth period, (~us. · '.tomers mpresenling.about 13 Percbnt. ' · bf the pow. er.needs of Southern Call ........ · '., .';' ...' Co., and Saa. Diego Gas & Elechic .... :.:' owned utilities, b&:ause' EdisOn, :/;;debts due to high wholesale electricity :, ' The state bought power at, recdrd- "" "" "' ''~ '""' tomers '.under · capped rates. Cus- .'. ': . · · '"'~ tomers will repay the difference o?er ..... time within their exis~/ng rates.I , . '. But customers who left th~ systbm before Sept, 20 won't lmve to repay.thc " subsidy, Angelides said. '..' ' , ' The"direct accessstampede, wlfich ': 'i ' occurred'as the PUC failed to act,". ".' .. cotdd cost remaining utility customers " . $800 million through 2002, and m~)re ' ' than $8.2 billion whi/e the statd is. : financing power costs, Angelides rdfdd,. '" .:' :'" :'" .. He asked I~ynch to.make the.cutoff' " :.... .' retroaclive to July 1. ' WATER BOARD AGREEMENT NO. Supplement to Water Board Agreement No. 01-08 W.B. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 99-73 The NorthEast Bakersfield Water Supply Agreement This Supplement to Water Board Agreement No. 01 - 08 W.B. is 'made and entered into on November 7, 2001, by and between the City of Bakersfield, a Charter city and municipal corporation, ("CITY") and California Water Service Company, a California public utility water corporation, ("CAL WATER"). RECITALS WHEREAS, on October 3, 2001, CITY and CAL WATER entered into Agreement No. 01-08 W.B. for a water supply for the Northeast Water SUpply Project ("NEWSP"), operations and maintenance of certain NEWSP facilities and to secure long term use of certain facilities by each entity for the NEWSP; and WHEREAS, CITY and CAL WATER in Exhibit "A" to Agreement No. 01-08 W.B. recognized that during "critically" dry years additional sources of water would be required by the CITY in order to provide the NEWSP with 22,400 acre-feet per year and that a specific plan be developed by the CITY for providing water to the NEWSP during such "critically" dry periods; and NOW THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and CAL WATER mutually agree to supplement Agreement No. 01- 08 W.B as follows: 1. BACKGROUND. 1.1 City Water Supply Variables. The CITY'S Kern River water supplies vary in quantity from year to year. The CITY's first and highest priority use of its water supplies is to provide drinking water to its customers whether served directly by CITY or CAL WATER. While water supplies available to CITY for diversion to the CAL WATER NE Bakersfield water treatment plant may fluctuate on an annual basis, during normal hydrologic conditions, CITY will make every effort to meet daily treatment plant flow requirements. The parties recognize the term "critically" dry year is based on a number of factors and variable conditions and therefore agree to confer and mutually agree as to when a "critically" dry year is occurring. This will include developing a monthly and daily supply and delivery schedule for "critically" dry years. The intent of the City is to provide water to Cai Water in the amount of 22,400 acre-feet per year from its yield of water rights on the Kern River. 1.2 Forecasting City Water Supply During "Critically" Dry Years. On or about February 15th of each year the City of Bakersfield receives an initial forecast of Kern River runoff yield from the State of California Department of Water Resources Snow Surveys Section. This forecast is based upon factors of existing water content in the watershed with current and estimates of future weather activity over the basin. This forecast is given in yield of Kern River water in acre-feet for the April-July months of the year and is often expressed as a "percentage of normal" for that snowmelt period. The City uses this information to begin its planning processes for water distribution for that year. The forecast is updated monthly, through May of each year and each forecast is updated using available information on existing conditions. This results in forecasts with steadily increasing confidence in the water supply that will be available for the year. However, several factors affect runoff that may alter the City's water rights entitlements in any given year. Therefore, the yield of the runoff, expressed in percentages of a normal year of runoff, is a guide for estimating water supply availability. In all cases, each year of seasonal runoff from the Kern River basin is unique. Weather patterns, water demands of co-water right holders on the Kern River and unforeseen events may affect the volumes and flows of water available. 2. PLAN FOR SUPPLYING WATER FOR DECREASING PERCENTAGES OF NORMAL RUNOFF YIELD For each of the percentages of normal Kern River runoff yield, the CITY will take the actions indicated in order to meet a normal delivery of 22,400 acre-feet per year. >70%: ' Under normal weather and runoff conditions a Kern River yield of 70% of normal or greater should enable the CITY to meet the normal delivery. 55% - 70%: City will supplement its available Kern River entitlement of that year by providing water from: 1.) CITY's designated 10,000 acre-foot surface reservoir storage account and/or 2.) groundwater banking/exchange withdrawals from the CITY's "2800 Acres" underground storage area. 3.) Or a combination of both. 40% - 54%: Historic yields to the City provide approximately 5,000 acre-feet of Kern River entitlement. City will supplement the 5,000 acre-feet with: 1.) additional water from the CITY's surface reservoir storage account; 2.) Groundwater banking/exchange withdrawals from the CITY's "2800 Acres" underground storage area; 3.) Groundwater exchanges to surface deliveries with City domestic water system. 4.) Or combinations of all. There is a slight possibility of being unable to meet the full demands of the treatment plant under these yield conditions. 25% - 39%: Historic yields to the City provide approximately 3,000 acre-feet of Kern River entitlement. City will supplement the 3,000 acre-feet with: 1.) Up tol0,000 + acre-feet from groundwater banking well field withdrawals in the CITY's "2800 Acres" storage area 2.) Surface water reservoir withdrawals as available 3.)Groundwater exchanges to surface deliveries with City domestic water system; 4.) Rotational groundwater withdrawals using various wells and conveyance systems of local water districts. 5.) Or combinations of all. There is possibility of being unable to meet the full demand requirements of 22,400 acre-feet. <25% Historic yields to the City provide approximatelyl,000 acre-feet of Kern river entitlement. City will supplement the 1,000 acre-feet with: 1.) Up to 10,000+ acre-feet from groundwater banking well field withdrawals in the CITY's "2800 Acres" storage area 2.) Surface water reservoir withdrawals as available 3.) Groundwater exchanges to surface deliveries with City domestic water system 4.) Rotational groundwater withdrawals using various wells and conveyance systems of local Water districts; 5.) Or combinations of all. There is a strong possibility of being unable to meet the 22,400 acre-feet of delivery scheduled under these circumstances. The parties hereby acknowledge this plan for water supply to the Northeast Bakersfield 'Water Supply Project as a Supplement to Water Board Agreement No. 01 - 08 W.B. "CITY" "CAL WATER" CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. WATER BOARD Mark Salvaggio, Chair City of Bakersfield Water Board Title: Vice President By Gene Bogart, Manager City of Bakersfield Water Resources Dept. Title: Secretary S: 2001 CONTRACTS'~!EWSDroughtPIanJLYarne October 15, 2001 NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT P.O. Box 81435 33380 Cawelo Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93380-1435 Bakersfield, CA 93308-9575 .Administration Water Orders and Operations Telephone (661) 393-2696 Telephone (661) 393-3361 Facsimile (661) 393-6884 Telephone (661) 746-3364 October l 1, 2001 Buena Vista Water Storage District ~ 1~ (~ ~ ~ ~ [~ ~) Martin Milobar OCT 1 7 2001 City. of Bakersfield Water Resources CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Florn Core WATER RESOURCES Mark Mulkay Kern Delta Water District RE: 2001-2002 Weather Modification Program Gentlemen: Enclosed for your files is an executed copy of the subject contract with Atmospherics, Inc. Please sign the copy of this letter where noted that certifies your agreement to participate in 25% of the costs of the program and return to North Kern. Very truly yours, C. H. WILLIAMS Staff Assistant We agree to our 25% share of the program for 2001-2002 (Agency) Enclosure NORT H '(ERN OCT i 0 2001 WATER S'TOF~AGE DIST. 8 October 2001 Mr. Charles II. Williams, North Kern Water Storage District P.O. Box 81435 Bakersfield, CA 93380-1435 Dear Chuck: Here is the contract covering the cloud seeding program for the period 1 November 2001 through 31 May 2002. We have lef~ the terms and payment schedule the same as the previous season., . Hopefully, this coming season will provide an upSUrge in seeding opportunities and snowl~ack water content amounts. Best regards, Tom Henderson President 5B52 EAST DAYTON I FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93727 I TELEPHONE '(t~ a'9"1-5575 I FAX '(~i)' 291-5579 E-MAIL.: WXMODOATMOS-INC.COM I WEB SITE: HTTP:IlWWW. ATMOS-INC.COM CONTRACT TNs contract entered into this 8TM day of October 2001 by and between the NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, a Water Storage District organized and existing under and by virtue of Division 14 of the California Water Code, hereinafter referred to as the "District" and, Atmospherics Incorporated, a California corporation hereinat~er referred to as the "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WttF.11EAS: the Department of Water Resources, State of California, has issued to the District a permit for Weather Resources Management (hereinafter referred to as the "permit"), dated July 2, 1980 (Permit #11), which authorizes the District to conduct a Weather Resources Management Program (hereinat~er referred to as the "Program"); and WHEREAS: the Contractor has on its staff qualified and recognized weather resources management personnel and other professionals necessary to carry out and supervise the program and has at its disposal the equipment necessary to carry out the program; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGRF. F~D as follows: 1. Contractor shall engage in artificial cloud nucleation operations during the term of this contract, within the target area identified by and consistent with the INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF KERN RIVER WEATHER MODIFICATION PROGRAM and the above referenced permit. The purpose of this cloud nucleation operation is to increase precipitation within the target area. 2. The term of this contract shall cover one seasonal operational period beginning on November 1, 2001 and ending on May 31, 2001. 3. The Contractor shall furnish and have available for use during the operational period the following .equipment and personnel: ~ a) The Contractor agrees to have available on a 24-hour-per-day, 7-day-per-week basis the services ora competent staffto furnish full meteorological data. b) A complete radar system.of the type designed to track predpitation areas within storms will be located at the vicinity of Porterville, California and shall be installed to cover the target area to the best advantage. c) All basic weather data will be processed at the head office of the contractor in Fresno and will be available at the location of the radar system. This information will be used to coordinate various phases of the field program. d) Telephone and power facih'ties will be maintained at the location of the radar system. e) A weather radio receiver will be additionally maintained at the location of the radar system for receiving hourly airway weather reports. f) Contractor will provide special photographic equipment designed to furnish permanent records of the various phases of the program. These photographs will be used to study and analyze various storm situations and will be made avaiJable to the District upon request. g) A cloud seeding aircratt will be based at the Porterville Municipal Airport. This aircraft will be equipped for all-weather flying. It will be further equipped with facilities for dispensing silver iodide and other nucleating agents for use in cloud seeding activities throughout the The contractor agrees that its aircraft and equipment thereon will be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, an agency of the United States of America, and that any and all pilots operating aircraft for or on behalf of the Contractor shall be duly licensed by the said Federal Aviation Administratior~ h) Contractor will install, operate and maintain five (5) silver iodide ground generators for use on the program during those periods when windflow directions and velocities from southerly directions make airborne seeding impractical due to military restricted air space southeast of the target area. i) Contractor will provide a service vehicle for field work related to all ground and air equipment utili?ed on the project. j) Contractor will furnish the following personnel who will be stationed within or near the project area during the contract period: ~. 1) One radar meteorologist 2) One instrument rated cloud seeding pilot 3) One radar technician 4) · One field serviceman and equipment technician k) Thomas J. Henderson shall supervise the program and'act as Contractor Representative. 4. The primary nucleating agent will be silver iodide, which shall be dispensed from aircraft and ground generators. Other advanced nucleating agents may be utilized as special storm characteristics may suggest. 2 5. The Contractor shall prepare all reports penainm' 8 to the program required to be filed by the Contractor and District to comply with Federal and State Law. The Contractor shall furnish monthly operational reports during the full course of the cloud nucleating operation. As soon as practical aRer the conclusion of each yearly operational period, the Contractor will fimaish the District a final operations report coveting the entire yearly operation. 6. The Contractor shall furnish and keep in force during the operational period the following insurance: comprehensive public liability and property damage insurance in the amount of not less than $2,000,000, coveting the operation of'all its equipment owned or leased including aircrai~ and workers compensation insurance. Such insurance shall be maintained at Contractor's cost. With respect to the above referenced insurance policies, the contractor shall deposit Certificates'of Insurance with District prior to the commencement of the operational period reflecting the existence of the required insurance. The certificates of insurance for the comprehensive public liability and property damage insurance and the aviation bodily injury and property damage l/ability insurance additionally shall name North Kern Water Storage District, Buena Vista Water Storage District, Kern Delta Water District, and the City of' Bakersfield, and their officers, agents and employees, as additionally named insureds. Paxties require a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation. 7. Contractor agrees to be responsible for, and to indemnify and hold the District harmless and fiee fi'om, all claims of damage to person or property of any kind or character whatsoever, caused by Contractor's acts of negligence of malpractice in its cloud seeding operations. 8. Contractor agrees to be bound by all the laws of' the State of' California and the Federal Government, and that prior to commencing the operation under the conWact for the District, the Contractor shall have in force all necessary licenses and permits fiom the State of California to so operate. 9. This Contract may be canceled by the District for any of the following reasons upon five days written notice, sent by mail to the principal office of the Contractor. a) The issuance of'any court of competent jurisdiction of any temporary or permanent injunction against all or any part of the cloud nucleation operations undertaken by Contractor under this contract, whether the District is a part of said legal proceedings or not. It is understood that the issuance of any temporary remaining order, or any temporary injunction limited by its terms to a period of less than twenty (20) days in duration, shall not constitute a basis for cancellation under this paragraph. b) The passage of any overriding legislation by the State of California which shall outlaw, limit, void or alter in any substantial respect any provisions of this contract, or shall make unlawful or improper in any substantial respects, any of the operations of the Contractor under this contract. c) For any reason considered in the best interest of the District. In the event of cancellation by the District under or pursuant to the terms of 9a through 9e above, all monies already paid to the Contractor by the District shall be retained by the Contractor as compensation for services already performed. If the District requests a summary report on the cloud seeding operations for that season up to the time of such cancellation, Contractor will furnish such a report. 10. In the event the District decides that additional precipitation is not desired for any portion of the operational period, 'the District may suspend cloud seeding operations for any specified portion of such operational period by providing three (3) days notice to the Contractor. In the event the District suspends operations under this paragraph, Contractor will reimburse the District in the amount of $250.00 for each day of the suspension. 11. District agrees to pay the Contractor for the services rendered, as outlined in this conlxact, the total sum of NINETY EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRI~ZD DOLLARS ($98,400), PLUS AN AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRRD SEVENTY FOUR DOIJARS ($174.00) PER HOUR OF AIRCRAFT SEEDING FLIGHT TiME PLUS SEEDING MATERIALS IN PAYMENTS AS SET FORTH BELOW. It is understood and agreed that this sum includes the total fee for all aircra~ flights and evaluations of the program. 12. SCHFI)ULE OF PAYMENTS: PAYMENT DATE AMOUNT 1 November 2001 14,000 1 December 2001 14,000 + November con~mables 1 January 2002 14,000 + December consumables 1 February 2002 14,000 + January.consumables 1 March 2002 14,000 + February consumables 1 April 2002 11,000 + March consumables 1 May 2002 10,500_+ April consumables 1 June 2002 6.900 + May consumables TOTAL: $ 98,400 .Co~.m~les are considered to be aircraft flight time and seeding materials. Special liability insurance (."consequential loss") at the $1,000,000 coverage level can be supplied for an additional cost of $3,200. This can be separately billed as a pass-through cost if desired by the District. 13. Any notice to be given hereunder may be served personally or by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the party being notified at his address as set forth below, or at such other address as may be hereafter designated in writing. If served by mail, service shall be conclusively deemed to have been made upon deposit in the United States mail. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals to this contract the day and year first hereinabove written. P.O. Box 81435 Bakersfield, California 93380-1435 ~o~. ~ wA~ ~o~. D~C~ ~_¥C~ ~,, ~__ ATTEST: ~~'~~ ' ~SD' Date 5652 E. Dayton Avenue Fresno, California 93727 ATMOSPHERICS INCORPORATED. President - ~fitr~actor;; AT'I~, ST: Date il 5 AGREEMENT FOR DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER INTO THF CALLOWAY CANAL SYSTEM BY AND BETWEEN NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT AND EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC AND THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD This Agreement is made, entered into and executed in triplicate, any copy of which may be considered and used as the original hereof for all purposes, as of the __ day of 2001, in the State of California, County of Kern, City of Bakersfield. BY AND BETWEENNORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, a district organized under water storage district law; and EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a California Charter City, WHEREAS, North Kern Water Storage District (hereinafter "North Kern") is a water storage district organized under Water Code section 39000 et seq., and is in existence for the purpose of delivering water suitable for irrigation use; and WHEREAS, North Kern is the present owner of the Calloway Canal System and certain laterals and appurtenances thereto located in the County of Kern, California; and WHEREAS, Equilon Enterprises, LLC (hereinafter"Equilon") is a public corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; and WHEREAS, Equilon generates in connection with a groundwater remediation system a quantity of water known as treated groundwater; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield (hereinafter "City") is a chartered city organized and existing under and by virtue of the constitution and laws of the State of California and is situated In Kern County; and WHEREAS, the City has a right to use one hundred (100) cubic feet per second of capacity in that portion of the Calloway Canal System south of Seventh Standard Road: and C:\Callowaybackup\AGREEMEN\NKWSDDischargeAgreementVersion8 20 01.doc Page ! of 7 WHEREAS, Equilon has requested the use of the facilities of North Kern to receive Equilon's treated groundwater and North Kern is agreeable to providing the aforementioned facilities for Equilon, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and with the understanding that this Agreement is entered into by North Kern and the City to assure North Kern and the City that Equilon's treated groundwater delivered to the water users of the Calloway Canal System, their successors and assigns, shall at all times be suitable for use as irrigation water and to assure North Kern and the City that all costs and expenses incurred by North Kern and the City as a consequence of Equilon's treated groundwater shall be paid for in their entirety by Equilon. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PROMISES AND COVENANTS HEREIN CONTAINED, NORTH KERN AND EQUILON AND THE CITY HEREBY AGREE as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Unless otherwise specified, the terms defined in this Article I shall, for all purposes of this Agreement, have the meanings herein specified. 1. "Calloway Canal System" means that canal system commencing at the Calloway River Weir and including the Calloway Canal and all laterals and appurtenances thereto.. 2. "Delivered water or water delivered" means that water which is diverted from the Calloway Canal System and transported to water users of the Calloway Canal System. 3. "Suitable for use as irrigation water" means that quality of water which allows the water users of the Calloway Canal System, their successors and assigns, an equivalent opportunity for agricultural production, with the same variety of crop alternatives, that they would experience if Equilon discharged no treated groundwater into the Calloway Canal System. 4. "Treated groundwater" means all water produced from the site of the Equilon groundwater treatment system and that is treated and discharged into the Calloway Canal. 5. "Emergency" means any earthquake, flood, fire or other natural disaster or Act of God, precluding the normal operation and maintenance of North Kern's facilities. 6. "Monitor or monitoring" means the recording, sampling, testing and reporting of the various constituents within Equilon's treated groundwater and the receiving water as performed by North Kern. C:\Callowaybackup\AGREEMEN\NKWSDDischargeAgreementVersion8_20_01.doc Page 2 or' 7 7. "NPDES permit" means the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued to Equilon by the State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, or by any other agency assuming jurisdiction over such discharges into the Calloway Canal System. 8. "Regional Board" means the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, State of California, or any other agency assuming jurisdiction over wastewater discharges into the Calloway Canal System. 9. "Water users of the Calloway Canal System" means those persons, partnerships, corporations or other legal entities which are delivered water transported through the Calloway Canal System by either North Kern or the City. ARTICLE II PROVISIONS 1. Equilon shall construct and maintain, at its sole expense', all facilities necessary to transport and discharge its treated groundwater into the Calloway Canal System. 2. Equilon may discharge all its treated groundwater into the Calloway Canal System up to 150 gallons per minute (instantaneous peak flow). 3. Equilon agrees to cease all discharges into the Calloway Canal System during that period when the Calloway Canal System is closed for maintenance or emergency. North Kern agrees that on the earliest possible date, that it shall notify Equilon of the dates during which the Calloway Canal System is expected to be closed for scheduled maintenance. North Kern also agrees to give Equilon as much advance notice as reasonably possible before closing the Calloway Canal System for emergency. 4. Except as provided for in its NPDES permit, Equilon agrees that It will immediately cease its discharge into the Calloway Canal System upon being presented written evidence by North Kern that Equilon's treated groundwater contains any substance which is contained within any of the following definitions or lists, whether as currently drafted or as amended in the future: a. the definition of "extremely hazardous waste," as defined in section 25115 of the California Health and Safety Code; or b. the definition of "hazardous waste," as defined in section 25117 of the California Health and Safety Code; or c. the definition of "hazardous substance" as defined in section 2531.6 of the California Health and Safety Code; or C:\Callowaybackup\AGREEMEN\NKWSDDischargeAgreementVersion8 20 01.doc Page 3 o£ 7 d. any substance listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 30, Article 9, Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Materials, section 66680 and Article II, Criteria For Identification of Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous Wastes, sections 66693-66746; and which substances or wastes to the extent that such substances or wastes in the treated groundwater are in concentrations that cause the receiving waters to be deleterious to either plant, animal or human health. 5. Equilon shall obtain and maintain a NPDES permit and shall comply with all the terms of such. Any increase in the quantity of water discharged in excess of 150 gallons per minute or modification of the water quality standards specified in such a permit, shall not be implemented by Equilon unless Equilon has prior written consent of North Kern. 6. Equilon shall comply with each and every other federal, state or local water quality standard or provision pertaining to discharging said treated groundwater into the Calloway Canal System, whether in existence on the date this Agreement is executed or promulgated at any subsequent time, once such standard or provision becomes final and enforceable by the appropriate governmental agency. 7. Equilon shall pay North Kern $1600per year for North Kern's monitoring and administration. 8. The amount stated in paragraph 7 is a best estimate of the full cost associated with the monitoring and administration of Equilon's treated groundwater and are subject to change. Therefore, the aforementioned costs shall be adjusted January 1, each and every year this Agreement is in effect, either upward or downward according to the implicit Price Deflator for Gross National Product using the second quarter of the preceding year in relation to the second quarter of 1997, which stood at 112.22 as a base. 9. North Kern shall invoice Equilon on a quarterly basis for the costs charged in paragraph 7. Payments not received within sixty (60) days of the date stated on the billing invoice will incur a late charge of 10 percent plus 1 percent per month interest on the outstanding balance. Upon termination of this Agreement under Article II, paragraph 14, all sums currently owing to North Kern shall be paid within forty-five (45) days of the date of termination. 10. Equilon agrees to assume all duties and obligations including, but not limited to, the payment of any tax, assessment, penalty or any levy whatsoever, which may be imposed by any federal, state or local governmental agency upon North Kern, the City or the water users of the Calloway Canal System, pertaining to actual or claimed degradation of groundwater quality due to Equilon's treated groundwater. Following imposition by a governmental agency of any above-specified levy, the parties shall meet and confer to determine the nature and extent, if any, of Equilon's responsibility for such a levy. Equilon shall not be obligated under this paragraph to make payments to North Kern, the City or the water users of the Calloway Canal System, if Equilon has previously made direct payment to the governmental agency imposing the levy. C:\Callowaybackup\AGREEMEN\NKWSDDischargeAgreementVersion8_20_01.doc Page 4 of' ? 11. The charges specified in Article II, paragraphs 7 and if applicable 11 represent the parties' best estimate of the foreseeable costs incurred by North Kern, the City and the water users of the Calloway Canal System as a consequence of Equilon discharging its treated groundwater into the Calloway Canal System. No charge or fee whatsoever, other than those charges above-specified, shall be levied under the terms of this Agreement by North Kern or the City against Equilon in connection with the monitoring, discharge or use of Equilon's treated groundwater in the Calloway Canal System. 12. North Kern Water Storage District, upon forty-eight hours notice, may temporarily suspend Equilon's discharged of effluent water from time to time for purposes of investigation, inspection, maintenance, repair or replacement of the Calloway Canal, provided that North Kern Water Storage District will use the best efforts to avoid such discontinuance of reduce the time of such discontinuance. 13. The failure of any party to enforce against the other a provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time. 14. Equilon agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless North Kern and the City and its respective officers, agents and employees, and each of them, for any injury, damage, loss, liability, claim or causes of action, including, but not limited to, inverse condemnation, property damage, personal injury, death directly and proximately caused by Equilon discharging its treated groundwater into the Calloway Canal System. Provided, however, Equilon shall not be responsible for any injury, damage, loss or liability directly and proximately caused by the negligent or willful misconduct of either North Kern, the City or the water users of the Calloway Canal System, including but not limited to, any and all injury, damage, loss or liability directly and proximately caused by a water user of the Calloway Canal System failing to add a salt correction material to their soil and/or water to counterbalance the higher salt load contained within Equilon's treated groundwater. North Kern and/or the City shall tender to Equilon the defense of any claims against them, or either of them, which come within the scope of this paragraph. Should Equilon accept the tender of defense, Equilon shall keep North Kern and/or the City apprized of all developments of any claim and shall confer with North Kern and/or the City prior to settling any claim. The attorneys' and experts' fees to be paid shall not exceed such amount as the court in which the litigation occurs determines to be reasonable. Equilon shall have the right to select counsel to represent North Kern with respect to any such claim. 15. This Agreement shall be in effect until and including December 31, 2010. Provided, however, North Kern may suspend Equilon's discharge of effluent water, only for violations of this Agreement or other exigent cause, upon forty-eight (48) hours notice to Equilon as provided in Article II, paragraph 20. Equilon shall incur no liability for charges levied according to this Agreement during any such suspension. Unless otherwise mutually agreed between the parties, upon termination of this Agreement, Equilon shall cease all discharges and remove all its discharge facilities from North Kem's Calloway Canal System and right-of-way and restore the premises without damaging existing canal facilities. Equilon shall assume all costs associated with the removal of its facilities and restoration of the premises. C:\Callowaybackup\AGREEMEN\NKWSDDischargeAgreementVersion8 20 01.doc Page 5 of' '7 'o In the event regulations, state, federal, or local, such as those identified in Article II, paragraphs 4 and 6, should render Equilon's treated groundwater unsuitable for discharge into the Calloway Canal System, all monetary obligations of Equilon to North Kern and the City shall be suspended until that time when discharge can be resumed. 16. Nothing contained in this Agreement, nor any performance under this Agreement, shall affect or change the existing Kern River water rights or Lake Isabella storage rights held by North Kern or the City. 17. In the event of any litigation between North Kern and Equilon and the City or any two of them, in connection with the interpretation, performance or enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party or parties in such litigation shall be entitled to be reimbursed by the other party or parties thereto for all costs of litigation, including, but not limited to, court costs, time and expense of personnel, attorneys' fees, costs of experts and other costs of litigation. Provided, however, that the attorneys' and experts' fees to be reimbursed shall not exceed such amount as the court determines to be reasonable. 18. All parties are equally responsible for authorship of this Agreement and section 1654 of the Civil Code has no application to the interpretation of this Agreement. 19. None of the rights or obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall be assigned or delegated by any party without the prior written consent of the other two parties. 20. All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and shall be sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon posting in the United States mail. The parties should be addressed as follows: North Kern Water Storage District P.O. Box 81435 Bakersfield, CA 93380-1435 Equilon Enterprises LLC P.O. Box 1476 Bakersfield, CA 93302 City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 21. This Agreement shall be binding on the three named parties and their successors and assigns. 22. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties pertaining to the discharge of Equilon's treated groundwater into the Calloway Canal System and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, not specifically referred to herein. C:\Callowaybackup\AGREEMEN\NKWSDDischargeAgreementVersion8_20_01.doc Page 6 of 7 23. None of the provisions of this Agreement are intended to dedicate, nor have they dedicated, any of the water the subject of this Agreement, or any of the facilities of the parties to public use as a public utility or common carrier. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC Title: o~'/~ /'///~,~,~'~. SECRETARY CITY Of BAKERSFIELD BY: MAYOR OF BAKERSFIELD COUNTERSIGNED: BY: FINANCE DIRECTOR APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: BY: WATER RESOURCES MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: CITY ATTORNEY C:\Callowaybackup\AGREEMEN\NKWSDDischargeAgreementVersion8_20_01 .doc ?age ? of' ? AGREEMENT NO. AGREEMENT FOR COMMON USE OF KERN ISLAND CANAL THIS AGREEMENT is mad~nter~to on A ~ Tby and between the CITY OF BAKERSF~_L..~.D~ a ~r~C.;jp~al ~l~.tion~CiTY" h~.~gin), and KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT, a California water district, organized and existing under the provisions of Division 13, Sections 34,000 et seq., of the California Water Code, ("KERN DELTA" herein). : RECITALS WHEREAS, KERN DELTA is owner of that portion or reach of the Kern Island Canal and underlying right-of-way, extending from 14th Street southerly to California Avenue within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, California (hereinafter referred to as "Kern Island Canal"), as evidenced by Agreement No. 76-70, "Agreement for the Sale of Kern River Water Rights and Canals by and between CITY OF BAKERSFIELD and KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT," dated June 15, 1976 and location of which is depicted on attached EXHIBIT "A"; and WHEREAS, currently the operation, maintenance and all expenses of transporting irrigation water through the aforementioned reach of the Kern Island Canal are the responsibility of KERN DELTA; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to reconstruct said reach of the Kern Island Canal as a natural water themed element for the multi-purpose stadium component of the River Walk Plaza Project ("Natural Water Theme" herein); and WHEREAS, KERN DELTA desires to maintain its existing capability to transport water for irrigation purposes from Kern River as to water flow capacities, volumes and scheduling that existed prior to the construction of the Natural Water Theme in the Kern. Island Canal; and WHEREAS, KERN DELTA consents to said construction Natural Water Theme in and upon the Kern Island Canal and CITY's utilization of said right-of-way for construction, operation and maintenance of the Natural Water T. heme, upon the terms and conditions herein set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, KERN DELTA and CITY hereby agree as follows: 1. NATURAL WATER THEME. The proposed Natural Water Theme element plan view and typical cross section is attached as EXHIBIT "B". In general, the project is to restructure the canal cross section to incorporate boulders, adjacent'concrete supports and walkways with landscaping to create a natural streamlike active water element as an amenity to the River Walk Plaza. CITY agrees, at its own expense, to design, construct, operate and maintain the Natural Water Theme and, to the extent the Kern Island Canal is disturbed, to restore it to its original flow capacity to the satisfaction of KERN DELTA. Said design, construction and areas of use shall be subject to approval, in writing, by KERN DELTA. Said approval by K~RNzDELT~-s~all not b,~ unrea's;gnably 2. COSTS AND EXPEN E C ree all ass ted with the planning, construction, operation, maintenance and repair of said Natural Water Theme. CITY agrees to construct, operate, maintain and repair the Natural Water Theme in a manner which will not interfere with KERN DELTA's required use of the Kern Island Canal for water distribution. KERN DELTA agrees to use its best efforts and to cooperate in assisting CITY with its construction work by advance planning and scheduling of its Kern Island Canal use requirements. CITY may provide other means, subject to approval by KERN DELTA, for the purpose of continuing KERN DELTA's distribution of water during the period of construction, operation, maintenance and repair of said Natural Water Theme. It is agreed that CITY shall own the Natural Water Theme facilities constructed pursuant hereto; however, the nature and utility of KERN DELTA's right-of-way and easement shall not be diminished or restricted by construction of the Natural Water Theme. 3. CONSTRUCTION COSTS. CITY shall pay the entire cost of Natural Water Theme construction and any repairs, of any portion of the Kern Island Canal that is disturbed as a result of the design, construction, operation, maintenance or repair of the Natural Water Theme, including, but not limited to, the costs incurred for all labor, materials, engineering, inspection, technical review, and other necessary services in connection therewith. 4. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSESi CITY agrees to pay all costs and expenses associated with CITY's operation of the Natural Water Theme of the Kern island Canal, either directly or indirectly, with the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of said Natural Water Theme. For purposes of this Agreement, construction, operation, maintenance and repair of the Natural Water Theme shall include,. but not be limited to, planning, preparation of the Kern Island Canal for construction of the Natural Water Theme, actual construction of the Natural Water Theme, maintenance, repair and all costs associated with the deterioration and/or damage to the Kern Island Canal as a result of said Natural Water Theme or use thereof. Further, CITY hereby agrees to pay all costs associated with the modification or removal of Natural Water Theme facilities and repair of said Natural Water Theme facilities. For purposes of this Agreement, modification or removal of required Natural Water Theme facilities shall include, but not be limited to, the removal and replacement of fencing or landscaping along the banks of the Kern Island Canal or unforseen emergency maintenance activities. 5. GENERAL MAINTENANCE. KERN DELTA agrees not to perform general maintenance within the Natural Water Theme element in this reach of the Kern Island Canal, without notification of CITY and conference with CITY. KERN DELTA shall be allowed to perform its general maintenance along the Kern Island Canal in the reaches adjacent to the Natural Water Theme reach. For purposes of this Agreement, general maintenance could include slopin'g~of'banks,"~e~ abatenl, ent, ma!.13'terlanc~'~right-of- way and general upkeep of the Ke~ Isla~hd CahalI~KERNzi~LTA w~l.~ot be r~p(~ns~ble · ~ ~. ~ ~,~' ,~.~ ~ ~- ... for general ma,ntenance where d~a~,~..cj~~,s c~.~d~to N~!ur~l~.Wate~.~Theme f.~!ht,es as a result of normal required maintenance under this Agreement. 6. SPECIAL MAINTENANCE. CITY agrees to be responsible for all costs associated with special maintenance of the Natural Water Theme element of the Kern Island Canal. No special maintenance costs shall be incurred until CITY and KERN DELTA agree in writing to incur such expenses. For purposes of this Agreement, special maintenance shall include the following: (a) Fencing shall include the repair and replacement of any newly constructed or existing fencing along said reach of the Kern Island Canal. (b) Structures shall include major repairs and replacement of all or any portions of weirs, head gates, or special facilities required due to the installation of the Natural Water Theme located within the Kern Island Canal. (c) DredginglShelfWork shall include dredging and shelf work within the Kern Island Canal resulting from the accumulation of sand within the Natural Water Theme, from the normal and required use of the Kern Island Canal as a water transportation facility. (d) Act of God shall include any repair or maintenance of the Natural water Theme element of the Kern Island Canal caused by an act of God, which shall include but not be limited to, fire, flood, earthquake,. mudslide, temperature extremes, wind or other unforeseen circumstances. (e) Intentional or Negligent Acts of Third Parties shall include all acts of third parties that cause damage to the Natural Water Theme of the Kern Island Canal. 7. WEED CONTROL. Upon 10 days notice to CITY, KERN DELTA may apply approved aquatic herbicides at a time which is mutually agreeable to both KERN DELTA and CITY. 8. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION. CITY hereby agrees and undertakes to indemnify, defend and hold harmless KERN DELTA, its officers, agents and employees from any and all losses, costs, expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees), claims, liabilities, actions or damages of any nature whatsoever, including injuries to or the death of any person or persons or damage to any property, in any way arising out of or connected with or incident to or all~g'e'd~to ha~e~[isen in a'Dy man'lilel"~!ut ojf,~.~'.~t~ have been in any way connected with o~ncic~nt t0~l~¢~ act or~ission~fsCITY, i~ officers, agents, employees, contractors, _~,u~b~tra~cj~r~.or i~l~-[5~de~.contract~ in the performance of this Agreement or~{~ave o(~curred fro~ any use of'the Natural Water Theme. For purposes of this paragraph, the performance of this Agreement shall-be in full force and effect during all periods of construction, use and existence of the Natural Water Theme and appurtenances thereto. 9. CONSTRUCTION LIABILITY. It is further understood and agreed that CITY, and not KERN DELTA, its officers, agents or employees, is responsible and liable for any defective, harmful or negligent work done by any person, entity or organization pursuant to the construction of the Natural Water Theme. 10. SELF-INSURANCE. CITY represents it is self-insured and will, throughout the term of this Agreement, maintain its insurance program. CITY warrants that, at all times during the term of this Agreement, it shall have and maintain workers' compensation insurance in compliance with the Labor Code of the State of California. 11. LEGAL NOTICE. The party against whom any claim arising from any subject matter of this agreement is filed shall give prompt notice of the filing of the claim to the other party. 12. REASONABLE CANAL MAINTENANCE. KERN DELTA hereby agrees to use reasonable efforts to maintain the Kern Island Canal in a manner which is consistent with the historical aesthetics of the Kern Island Canal. 13. CANAL CARRYING CAPACITY. KERN DELTA and CITY hereby agree this Agreement shall in no way affect, alter or modify KERN DELTA's or CITY's capacity. in the Kern Island Canal. ~," 14. MAINTENANCE APPROVAL. CITY shall obtain the approval of KERN DELTA for any and all maintenance work on the Natural Water Theme element of the Kern Island Canal which the CITY desires to complete. Such approval shall not be unreaSonably withheld. 15. STADIUM PROJECT. Should the stadium project contemplated under the River Walk Plaza project not proceed, then this agreement shall be void and shall have no force and effect on the parties. The parties agree the stadium project is the sole reason for the canal reconstruction and a failure of the stadium project will nullify the purpose of this agreement. 16. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the contract and their heirs, administrators, executors, person~'-re~reser)~atiwes, suc,~essors'~-'~ncl,i, assjig'~.e~:s This Agreement shall also be binding u~i~)n t~e pa~e?~]qereto,.~l~ir suc~. s~ors a~ a~signs, provided that neither party may ~'~ig,.g:~r su~!~{~l! or~'~rt o~its rights ~nder this greemen~ ~n SUCh manner as to reheve ~t of ~ts obhgations hereunder without written permission from the other party. 17. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date first set forth above and shall terminate upon either party giving notice to the other of abandonment of its utilization of said Kern Island Canal for the purposes herein contemplated. Upon cessation of the River Walk Plaza project, the Natural Water Theme improvements may be abandoned in place by CITY or removed as required by KERN DELTA. 18. NOTICES.. All notices or other communications herein provided to be given or which may be given by either party to the other shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and deposited with the United States Postal Service, registered or certified, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Notice to the CITY shall be made to: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CITY HALL 1501 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 Notice to KERN DELTA shall be made to: BOARD OF DIRECTORS KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT 501 Taft Highway Bakersfield, CA 93307 Notice shall also be deemed received when served upon the CITY Clerk or KERN DELTA'S general manager, personally. 19. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another a provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement. 20. GOVERNING LAW. Any lawsuit pertaining to any matter arising under, or growing out of, this contract shall be instituted and maintained in Kern County, California. 21. MERGER AND MODIFICATION. This contract sets forth the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes all other oral or written representations relating to the placement of the N~t~'t~l~Water~h~me over.~the afor~rn'ehtio~l~d~ach~_ of · contrast' ma,,~ ~o~lfled'~ ~ ' onl~/~ia · ~" approved" ' the Kern Island Canal Th,s be a wr,tm~ by the Board of g,rectors of KERN PELT~:~.~¢the ~C~,!~oun.~l ar~(~s,gn.~ by all th.~,..part,es. 22. CORPORATE AUTHORITY. Each individual executing this Agreement represents and warrants they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the corporation or organization, if any, named herein and that this Agreement is binding upon said corporation or organization in accordance with its terms. 23. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY shall not become or be deemed a partner or joint venturer with KERN DELTA or associate in any relationship with KERN DELTA by reason of the provision of this Agreement. KERN DELTA and its employees shall not for any purpose be considered agents, officers or employees of CITY, nor shall CITY or its employees be considered for any purpose agents, officers, or employees of KERN DELTA. IIII IIII IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed, the day and year first-above written. "CITY .... KERN DELTA" CITY OF BAKERSFIELD KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT HARVEY L. HALL Mayor Title: and · APPROVED AS TO FORM: By:. Title: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: By:. McMURTREY & HARTSOCK ALAN D. DANIEL Deputy City Attorney By: Insurance: APPROVED AS TO CONTENTS: WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT By: GENE BOGART Water Resources Manager COUNTERSIGNED: By: GREGORY J. KLIMKO Finance Director FC:sr Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" S:~001CONTRACTS~KDWD-KemDeltaRiverWalk · ~-48 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD SCHOOL DIS'l: ~/Jm sr 2. BIOS S. PLdZA L VIP PMI~G '~? 2+0Q 2+50-- 60' CRLST' MATERIAL: 1 3- CONCRk'TB 4- FENCING SOUTH ,.so-, SITE PLAN ~iM'~,,,I~ ~ ;?~ i:' ~ ~ ...... -'.~'~'-:.'~,".¥~ ....... " o,o2s~ ,~ 20°,. · i~i;~' i"-~? i' ' . ,... ??" RNIA STREET';:':'.'.-,~,,::,;.. ::::_ - ':~ -.- . PROPOSED REVENUE POLICY TO BE ADDED TO THE "STATEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES POLICY" ORIGINALLY ADOPTED NOVEMBER 4, 1992: 13. "In order to preserve and provide the resources necessary to administer the above policies, all revenues received from the operation of the water enterprise, including water sales, water banking, miscellaneous sales and/or cost savings resulting from a reduction in debt service shall continue to be used only for the purposes outlined in the above-stated Water Resources Policies." S:\ProposedWRPolicy · CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD COMMrUI'EE REPORT NO. 2-92 NOVEMBER 4, 1992 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES POLICY On July 1, 1992, the Water Board presented a Statement of Water Resources Policy to the City Council that would help protect, preserve and promote its'Kern River rights and facilities for Bakersfield and the community. It was suggested at the Council that the scope of the water policies might be expanded to include other available .water sources, not just the Kern River. Upon further evaluation of the Policies, the Water Board, now more than ever, feels it is vital to provide a crystal clear policy statement for the use of the City's Kern River water fights and facilities. With the present climate of uncertainty surrounding the future of State and Federal water supply policies, our number one priority will be to protect our existing local Water resources. State and Federal laws regarding the use of the California Aqueduct and Cen~xal Valley Project water supplies are in a state of flux. The outcome of new water transfer legislation is presently unknown. The debates surrounding the renewal of long term Federal water contracts are nowhere near a final settlement Permanent shortages are becoming more common place since no new projects are being completed on the State Water Project. Water Districts are paying higher costs for State water while attempting to survive on less and less firm water supplies. WATER BOARD COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 2-92 · November 4, 1992 Page -2- The Kern River, on the the other'hand, is our most unique and reliable community resource. Kern River water is of excellent quality, is available by gravity flow and is not interruptable by power outages. The City's Kern RiVer water rights, the Kern River channel and floodplain properties,' the 2800 Acre Groundwater Project and the water storage rights in Lake Isabella all contn~oute to this t~emendous local resource. For these reasons, we feel it is important to re-emphasize those policies that will enable us to preserve the Kern River water rights and facilities for Bakersfield while at the same time providing for the future orderly growth of our City. To help us ensure for the long-range protection of these water resources, the Water Board requests that the City Council accept this report and re-affirm the City's position by adopting the attached "STATEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES POLICY." Respectively Submitted, COUNCILMEMBERMARK IO, CHAIR COUNCILMF~MBER IO~N PETERSON, VICF.~CHAIR COUNCmME UNN :st WB2-92.RPT 10/07/92 CITY OF BAKE~FIELD ~) STATEMENT OF WATER RESOURCES POLICY The City of Bakersfield is located in a semi-arid desert region that relies'on its water supply from the underlying groundwater basin, the Kern River, and imported sources. The underlying groundwater basin is, and for many years has been, in a state of severe overdraft. Therefore, the City of Bakersfield is vitally interested in preserving the quantity and quality of its Kern River water supplies and water rights as well as all of the water resources of the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley. The City owns extensive pre-1914 appropriative water rights which have priority dates among the earliest on the Kern River. The Kern River was declared fully appropriated on a year round basis on October 29, 1964 in Decision D 1196 by the California State Water Resources Control Board, which decision was reaffirmed by the State Board in its Order WR 89-25 dated November 16, 1989, and reaffirmed again by State Board Order WR 91-07 dated August 22, 1991. The City has also acquired appropriative rights to percolating groundwater through extraction of such water and applying it to beneficial uses. The City owns substantial conservation storage rights in Lake Isabella through a contract with the U, nited States of America. The City also owns most of the bed and flood plain of the Kern River through the City and downstream to Interstate Highway 5. It also owns landadjacent to the river comprising some 2800 acres where it has formally developed · groundwater spreading and recovery facilities. With this in mind, the City of Bakersfield hereby enumerateS its basic policy designed to preserve, protect and promote the efficient use of its water resources. Following is a. summary Of the City's stated policies: 1. City owned Kern River water shall not be utilized outside the boundaries of the San $oaquin Valley Portion of Kern' County. 2. City water which returns by deep percolation to the underlying groundwater basin through the delivery for, and beneficial uses by, the City and/or its customers or contractors shah remain the property of the city 'and subject to recapture by the City. ' 3. When irrigated lands now being served I~y Kern 'River water become urbanized, the water rights related to these lands shall be protected to insure that such water will continue to be available to satisfy the water requirements of said lands. 4. Consistent with existing City "User Pay" policies, costs for water service shall be paid by revenues derived from those who benefit from the water service. 5. The City is Concerned with potential contamination of its water supplies and will continue monitoring activities to prevent degradation of its water supply sources. Water quality for domestic and agricultural uses shall be maintained to meet aH federal, state and 1~1 standards. 6. The City will continue to .preserve its water resources to provide for the future orderly growth of the City, and those benefits derived from the water rights and Water properties acquired by the City from Tenneco-West, Inc. on. December 22, 19'/6 shah remain dedicated to the residents and taxpayers within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Bakersfield. 7. The City shall continue to encourage conservation, recycling and reclamation of aH water resources to make it available for beneficial uses in a safe and efficient manner. 8. The City of Bakersfield supports groundwater management including conjunctive use'of surface water and groundwater under local programs that enhance and benefit the Kern County portion of the San $oaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. 9. The City shah continue its policy to acquire river flood plain properties deemed essential to carry out and implement the goals of the Kern River Plan; including the City's adopted Kern River Channel Maintenance Program and the Kern River Parkway Plan. 3 10.' The City will participate with other Kern River interests in the protection, ~ enhancement and efficient mafiagement of all Kern River water. 11. Ail records of Kern River water supplies, including Watermaster records and all spreading and extraction of water, shall continue to be maintained by the City's Water Resources Department. 12. Pursuant to the Kern River Plan, it is the policy of the City to establish a minimum annual flow of water in the Kern River channel between Manor Street and Stockdale Highway Bridge as soon as poss~le. 13.' ADD NF_..gJ PC L C..¥ .. ~. 1/1., The City Manager, City Attorney, City Water Consultant and the Water Resources ~ shall be respons~le for monitoring all water related activities concerning the City of Bakersfield and shall report any deviations 'from the above stated policies to the City Water Board for remedial action. Rio Vista Recreati_on. Area Kern River Flow Restoration Pro.~ram ~ ~ o The City's newest park and recreation facility will be In partnership with the Kern County Water Agency and located on the south bank of Kern River bet~veen Old River funded through grants authorized by Governor Gray Davis Road and under Proposition 13, the Kern River Flow Restoration Stockdale Program providesforconstructionofnewwellsandwaterCity of Bakersfield Highway Bridge. exchange facilities to restore flows in the Kern River through The 30 acre Water Resources Department facility will feature water related themes and lush grasses. An aquatheater is MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS planned for the park that will seat over 3,000 I FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS people for x~arious community events, productions and the heart of Bakersfield. Kern River water normally flowing in musicals. Other amenities include river access, a bike path canals will be replaced with well water, thus allowing high bridge, open space and walking paths, quality Kern River water to be diverted into the Kern River Park~vay during the The City Water Resources Department will be involved in peak recreation the creation of t~vo lakes at the park site which will be inter- season. connected by meandering Iow water channels. Environmental and community benefits are an important 40-Acre Multi-Purpose Soccer Park element ' of the local flow Using Proposition 13 grant funds, in March of 2001 the restoration plan, by City of Bakersfield purchased 40 acres of property from assuring that water Castle ~ Cooke, Inc. for use as a water recharge area and will flow through multi-purpose Bakersfield from soccer park. Manor Street in the northeast to Stockdale Highway Bridge in Initial the southwest every year. development of the property, Under current located north of construction schedules, it the Kern River and is now estimated that east of Allen eight wells dedicated to Road, will involve the Kern River Flow the construction Restoration Program will of a 10 acre be fully operational by recharge lake that spring of 2002. will be used year round (similar to Truxtun Lake). The soccer park will be accessible from the NOVEMBER 2001 future extension of Jewetta Avenue and from Rio Vista Park by way of the new Bellevue River Weir bike path and pedestrian bridge crossing soon to be under construction. Northeast Bakersfield Water Treatment Plant Bike Path Extension GX/est) Pioneer Canal Extension Construction on the Beginning at the ~ The Pioneer Canal Extension (formerly known as Levee Stockdale Highway Bridge, Canal No. 2 ) has been used continuously for over a century first phase of the ~ to deliver ..... ~' ~"~' '~' ...... California Water Service the current bike path will be Company Northeast extended by construction water from Bakersfield Water . of a new eight mile segment the canal Treatment Plant began which will pass through system with the intake structure unique terrain surrounding located (pictured at left) during the City's 2800 Acre south of the the fall of 1999. An recharge preserve. This planned phase of the bike path will Kern River to aggressive work traverse natural habitat areas that include riparian vegetation the Pioneer schedule calls for initial startup of the plant in April 2003. and numerous varieties of birds and animals and will and Plans for fall 2001 include construction of the on-site terminate at a rest area parking lot located at Enos I. ane. Rosedale canals reservoir (situated north of Alfred Harrell Highway and west located on of CALM) and beginning of work on the new Kern River Estimated Project Cost: $1,200,000 pump station· The groundbreaking for the new Northeast Funding Source: Proposition 13 the north I~ Water Treatment Plant is scheduled for November 16, 2001 Completion Date: July 2002 side of the · River. The former earthen canal is being converted to pipeline by Bellevue River Weir Bike Path Extension (East) Castle ~ Cooke, Inc. to allow for future development along The eastern extension of the bike path will tie the Stockdale Highway. A special turnout will also be The reconstruction of the Bellevue River Weir has been in existing trail to the planned Lake Ming Loop. This 3 mile constructed to deliver water to the future recharge lakes that the works since the early 1980's. This major river structure section will afford breathtaking views of the Kern River with will be located within the new 30-acre Rio Vista Park site. will be located just upstream of the Stockdale Highway the Greenhorn Mountains as a Bridge and will provide for the reliable diversion of Kern backdrop. An added notable Pump Plant Thirteen Mural Art River, State and Federal water supplies into local canals. A feature of this expansion is the bike bridge will be integrated into the structure, gracefully , construction of a branch of the In an ongoing effort connecting bike and pedestrian traffic between the bike path between Morning to enhance and beautify Drive and Alfred Harrell images associated with Highway. This segment of the the Kern River Parkway, bike path will overlay the 54- local artists will be inch water pipeline carrying enlisted to create a mural Kern River water for delivery to the soon-to-be constructed painting on the City's Northeast Bakersfield water treatment plant, domestic water storage tank situated at the east Estimated Project Cost: $450,000 end of Truxtun Lake· The Funding Source: Proposition 12 art work will make for an Completion Date: Fall 2002 attractive feature along the Bike Path Improvements Truxtun Avenue Extension  and Kern River Parkway Scheduled improvements while providing a new include the widening and re- coat of paint for the proposed Rio Vista Park and the future multi-purpose 40- surfacing of the existing bike path 200,OO0 gallon water acre Soccer Park to be located on the north side of the Kern between Manor Street and Coffee storage tank. River. Road Bridge. Completion Date: Spring Estimated Project Cost: $1,300,000 Estimated Project Cost: $600,000 2002 Funding Source: Proposition 13 Funding Source: Prop. 12 Completion Date: MaY 2002 Completion date: December 2002 SCHEDULED MEETINGS JANUARY 2002 THROUGH DECEMBER 2002 BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL [~1 REGULAR MEETING (7:00 PM) r~--~BUDGET MEETING & PRESENTATIONS WORKSHOP-CLOSED SESSION (5:15 PM) 'Monday's @ Noon, Wednesday's @ 5:15 PM Hearing on 6-12, Adoption on 6-26 ~ HOLIDAYS - City Hall Closed ~ Water Board Meeting 4:30 PM (Proposed) JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH SM T W TH F S SM T W TH F S SM T W TH F S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 ~ 22 23 24 25 26 17 ~ 19 20 21 22 23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 31 APRIL MAY JUNE S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S I 2 3 4 5 6 I 2 3 4 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14~ 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21, 22 28 29, 30 26~ 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 ~ 12 13 14 14 15 16~ 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 25 26 27, 28 29 30 31 29, 30 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 12 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 20i 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 26 27 28 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 ~ ~. ~,-~ 30 29 30~ ITEM 13). CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION, CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT vs. KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT, et al, TULARE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE No. 96-172919. Today's Outlook - The California ISO ' · ~- 7// ,4~d'o,~- ,SV-~'~°'nPage 1 of 2 Today's Outlook $$000 33370 /.i. t.,. "'" '"'~ "" ~'- --- C 3t74o Int{ 3011 ~ ~ Toda~ ~ 26~50 25220 23590 OO 01 02 e3 a4 a; nA fl~ ~ 66 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 235 Hour Be~innin~ Sudden spikes in resoume cuwe graph may indicate false data briefly re.fled by system This page does not refresh, rinse click your bmwse?s reloa~refresh bu~on to see current information. Info~ation is u~ated approximately eve~ Available Resources*: The current forecast of generating and impo~ energy resoumes available to the ( sewice area. This number is comprised of dependable generation less outages and unavailable OFs, plu impo~ed supply (see cha~ below). Forecast Demand: Forecast of the demand expected today. This forecast was completed during the pre energy market. The procurement of energy resources for the day is based on this forecast. Actual Demand: Today's actual system demand with historical trend. Revised Demand Forecast: The current forecast of the system demand expected throughout the remair This forecast is updated hourly to reflect current conditions. h ttp://vvww.caiso.conv/outlook.html ~~/~~ 11/6/2001 Tod~y's Outlook - The California ISO Page 2 of 2 Hour Beginning (MWs) 12a la 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a 7a 8a Dependable Generation 44395 44395 44395 44395 44395 44395 44395 44395 44395 4~ -Outages 13446 13473 13473 13166 13166 13166 13202 13175 1316(; - QF's Unavailable 1400 140C 1400 140{; 1400 1400 1400 140(; 140( + Imports 4003 322( 2887 2967 3313 3863 3901 411£ 435-q Available Resources 33552 32742 32409 3279~ 33142 33692 33694 3393(; 34194 Forecast Demand 20366 20182 19644 1934~ 19677 20998 23451 25914 26916 2; Actual Demand ! Revised Demand Forecast* 20896 19965 19460 19339 19756 21063 23779 26209 27376 21 Surplus/Shortfall 12656 12777 12949 13457 13386 12629 991~ 7721 6818 HourBeginning (MWs) 12p lp 2p 3p 4p 5p 6p 7p 8p Dependable Generation 44395 44395 44395 44395 44395 44395 4439~ 44395 44395 4~ -Outages 13465 13945 14029 14029 13623 13526 1350a 13508 13508 1 - QF's Unavailable 1400 1400 1400 140C 1400 1400 140(; 1400 1400 + Imports 4748 4878 4586 4527 4527 4527 4527 4527 4527 , Available Resources 34278 33728 33552 33493 33899 33996 34014 34014 34014 3~ Forecast Demand 28705 28874 28871 28430 28205 28969 3044C 29950 28899 Actual Demand/Revised Demand Forecast* 29079 29050 28717 28426 27967 28916 31282 30780 29704 Surplus/Shortfall 5199 4678 4635 5065 5932 5080 2732 3234 4310 Amounts are recorded at 10 minutes past each hour to reflect values following the hourly ramp. Totals listed for past hours represent actual operati * The Actual and Forecast Demand numbers within the above table include a 3% reserve while the graph at the top of the page subtracts 3% from so as not to distort the demand curve. This 3% reserve ensures the California lSD's ability to respond adequately to an unanticipated emergency. integrity of the Grid, the California lSD must declare a Stage Three Emergency when the system's Operating Reserve is forecast to be at or below largest contingency within the service area (estimated to be 3%). Important Legal Notice The information contained in these web pages is compiled for informational purposes for the convenience of site visitors and is furnished without responsibility for its accuracy. The information is accepted by the visitor on the condition that errors, omissions and/or cha contents shall not be made the basis for any claim, demand or cause for action. Decisions the information contained in these pages are the sole responsibility of the visitor. The information and data on these web pages is obtained from sources believed to be relial California Independent System Operator does not guarantee its accuracy. This part of the California Independent System Operator Home Page is dependent upon sy= conditions and is subject to change without warning. Updated: 06-Nov-2001 15:40 http://www.caiso.com/outlook.html 11/6/2001 ~, A~.~v/v,~a .5 4;~, soa '7 ,'9' Weekly Natural Gas Report Page 1 of 3 Weekly Natural Gas Report October 29, 2001 Natural Gas Market Conditions from October 22-26, 2001 Natural gas prices at Henry Hub continued to exhibit volatility due to a cooling weather and lower-than-expected U.S. storage injections. In addition, the expectations of colder weather coming up soon helped push prices upward. For November 6-10, the National Weather Service (NWS) forecasts temperatures to be below normal along the East Coast and normal to above normal for the rest of the nation. At this time, no tropical storm activity threatens Gulf of Mexico gas production. The Henry Hub natural gas futures contracts are traded for 36 months. The November 2001 natural gas futures contract, today's near month contract, began trading in October 1998. This contract will stop trading on October 29, 2001. The trading of this contract provides daily closing (settlement) prices for the contract. These settlement prices indicate what the natural gas market is willing to buy and sell in November 2001 with the information they have currently. Natural Gas Prices at Henry Hub, Louisiana Dollars per million British thermal units Spot Contract Futures Contract, near month Week of Oct. 22-26, $2.64-3.14 $2.69-3.05 2001 Week of Oct. 15-19, $2.27-2.65 $2.38-2.69 2001 Prices in California mainly followed national price changes. Over the past 30 days California prices have increased more than a dollar per MMBtu. As the winter heating season approaches, the California gas market is well poised for the upcoming winter. Major price rises will be mitigated from abundant storage inventories in California, http ://www.energy. ca.gov/naturalgas/update.html 11/6/2001 ~ Weekly Natural Gas Report Page 2 of 3 pipeline expansions have or are being completed, and any potential market power issues have been mitigated. Natural Gas Spot Market Contract Prices at California Border Entry Points Dollars per mimon British thermal units Northern Southern California California Week of Oct. 22- $2.55-3.00 $2.59-3.06 26, 2001 Week of $2.00-2.50 $2.16-2.60 Oct 15-19, 2001 Natural Gas Spot Contract Market Prices Dollars per million British thermal units Natural Gas Spot Market Prices 30.00 Current Storage Inventory Levels and Prices The American Gas Association (www.aga.org) reported additional natural gas injections for the both the U.S. and Western U.S on October 19. Nationwide, inventories increased to 93 percent of capacity, while a week ago, October 12, capacity was 92 percent full. Western U.S. storage increased to 93 percent of capacity on October 19, one percentage http://www.cnergy, ca. gov/naturalgas/update.html 11/6/2001 '~Weekly Natural Gas Report Page 3 of 3 point higher than last week. U.S. Natural Gas Storage Inventories Percent Full ]1 U.S. Total II Western U.S. I Homepage I Commission Info l Site Index ] Search Site I Links I Contact Us I Page Updated: November 1, 2001 http://www, energy, ca.gov/naturalgas/update.hh~nl 11/6/2001 EDITORIAL / On Public Power / Danger: political ~oltage Page 1 of 3 EDITORIAL On Public Power Danger: political voltage Sunday, October 21, 2001 ~2001 San Francisco Chronicle URL: http://www, sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/200 l/ l O/2 l/ED14 54.DTL Advocates of public power attach almost magical qualities to San Francisco's proposals to seize PG&E's distribution system. They promise a future of lower rates, better service, increased conservation, shutdowns of plants that blight city neighborhoods and a plethora of new power-generating capability that is easy on the environment. Never mind that some of these goals are potentially contradictory. The crusade for Proposition F and Measure I pretends that energy policy does not require any tough choices. This campaign believes that public power will allow us to have it all: cheap electricity without a belching smokestack or rolling blackout in sight. Supporters insist that a government-run utility overseen by politicians can operate an electricity- distribution system far better than the career powermeisters at Pacific Gas and Electric Co. PG&E certainly makes an inviting foil for public-power advocates. Its blundering excesses of recent years - soaking consumers at seemingly every mm while protecting the pocketbooks of its executives and shareholders - have stoked the public outrage that is helping advance Proposition F and Measure I. Who could possibly do any worse, after all, than a company in bankruptcy court? Public-power advocates are confident they could do better. But they gloss over the fact that the energy crisis (and PG&E's insolvency) was a problem of supply, not distribution. Their numbers don't add up. At best, the city-owned Hetch Hetchy hydroelectric system would meet about 40 percent of San Francisco's power demand. Even with the proponents' optimistic outlook for conservation along with aggressive ventures into solar and wind energy generation, a power authority created by F or I would almost certainly have to build potentially controversial plants - and compete on the open market for power. Significantly, these ballot measures were proposed without feasibility studies. The city's most recent assessment of public power - in 1997, before California's energy markets became rocked with the volatility of the Legislature's flawed semi-deregulation scheme - concluded that public power would produce very modest benefits to San Franciscans. Public power is not immune from management mistakes or market forces. (Just ask the hopping-mad customers of the Lassen Municipal Utility District, which proposed a 162 percent rate increase earlier this year.) As the 1997 study showed, public power's main fiscal advantage is that the government would be exempt from taxes and would get more favorable interest rates. Yet don't forget: Every dime a government utility saves in city http://www.sfgate.com/cgi.bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/arc.../ED 1454.DTL&type--printabl 11/2/2001 EDITORIAL / On Public Power / Danger: political voltage Page 2 of 3 taxes is one less dime reaching a city's general fund. The 1997 study projected that San Francisco electric rates would decrease by less than 5 percent under municipalization. The biggest variable for public power's bottom line would be the cost of taking over PG&E's distribution system - everything from underground lines to trucks and offices. Both ballot measures anticipate a new power authority using eminent domain to seize PG&E's assets. No doubt PG&E would fight in court for a high valuation; if it prevailed, the economics of public power could sour dramatically. The fact is, advocates off and I have no real idea of the potential startup costs and the impact on ratepayers. While the two measures both have the same basic goal, they take slightly different approaches, and each has serious specific flaws. Measure I, on the ballot in San Francisco and Brisbane as a result of a petition drive, is the more sweeping and in many ways the more troublesome scheme. It would establish a Municipal Utility District in the two cities, governed by an elected five-member board. The MUD would be a creation of the state and thus independent of city government. Candidates for those seats are on the Nov. 6 ballot, although they would assume office only if Measure I were to pass. Plenty of legal questions have been raised about the MUD plan, the most significant of which is the failure to complete a required feasibility study before the election. There also is a question about what might happen if the voters of only one of the cities were to pass the measure. The new MUD would have the potential to take over the two cities' cable, water, telephone, transportation and garbage systems - though public-power advocates maintain that is not their intent. Assuming the MUD held to its original mission, there would seem to be an inherent conflict between having one governmental entity (the MUD) managing the hydroelectric power of the Hetch Hetchy system with another(San Francisco) managing the water supply. The other option, Supervisor Tom Ammiano's Proposition F, would put San Francisco in control of its public power. It would establish a new Municipal Water and Power Agency to be overseen by seven elected directors. Regrettably, the Ammiano proposal failed to correct the biggest shortcoming in the city's management of I-Ietch Hetchy: its neglect of basic maintenance for the water-delivery system. Proposition F would require the surplus revenues from water and power - assuming there are any - to be returned to the system for only the first five years. After that, they would be available for the annual free-for-all of City Hall spending. If both measures were to pass, the elected MUD board and an (initially) appointed Water and Power Agency board would try to agree on which was more likely to deliver public power sooner. It's an invitation for an all-out turf war, perhaps to be settled in court. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi_bin/article.cgi? file~/chronicle/arc.../ED 1454.DTL&type--printabl 11/2/2001 EDITORIAL / On Public Power / Danger: political voltage Page 3 of 3 Lawsuits are hardly unusual in hostile takeovers of privately owned utilities. Sacramento's MUD, often held out as a model for San Francisco, took 23 years to work through the legal and logistical battles and to finally deliver electricity to residents after being approved by voters in the far less litigious 1920s. Our assessment of the deficiencies in these particular ballot measures, however, should not be taken as a dismissal of the public-power concept. San Francisco should commission an independent study of whether and how it would be prudent to proceed on public power. The city already has all the authority it needs to adopt a well-thought-out, expert-tested, facts-supported plan to provide electrical service to its residents. The city simply cannot afford to hand the keys to a group of tree believers before assessing the practicality of public power at this time. It's not a responsible course. Voters should reject Proposition F and Measure I on Nov. 6. ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page C - 6 http://www.sfgate.~~m/¢gi.bin/artic~e.~gi?~~e=:/chr~nic~e/arc.../ED1454.DTL&type--printab~ 11/2/2001 Vote for public power no guarantee it will happen / Two propositions on S.F. ballot Page 1 of 4 Vote for public power no guarantee it will happen Two propositions on S.F. ballot Rachel Gordon. Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, October 25, 2001 ¢)2001 San Fran¢i~o_Chronicle If San Francisco voters decide Nov. 6 that a public agency is a better bet to provide cheaper, more reliable power than PG&E, it will be some time before the switch is flipped. Propositions F and I, which only set up the first steps toward public control, also face possible legal challenges from Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and other large utilities that have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars campaigning against the measures. There is also uncertainty about the costs. Neither measure has a price tag attached. For more than two decades in San Francisco, PG&E has lobbied City Hall vigorously and used legal maneuvers to keep public power off the ballot. But the company was thwarted in the past year by a voter-backed initiative drive and a Board of Supervisors that advocates local control over the electrical system. The move gained steam with the state energy crisis. If San Francisco voters take the initial steps toward public power on Nov. 6, they will join more than 2,000 public jurisdictions, including Sacramento, Los Angeles and Seattle, that provide electric power to about 40 million customers, accounting for 15 percent of the demand in the United States. Proposition I would establish a municipal utility district, or MUD, in San Francisco and neighboring Brisbane that would be governed by an elected five- member board of directors. Measure-backers included Brisbane to meet a state requirement that more than one jurisdiction in a municipal utility district. The directors after conducting a feasibility study, could decide to provide electricity directly to residents and businesses. They then could use eminent domain to take over the electrical generation and distribution lines from PG&E and the San Francisco-owned Hetch Hetchy Water and Power agency. The other measure, Proposition F, would set up a Water and Power Agency for San Francisco only. The agency would be governed by an elected seven-member board of directors and would replace the mayor-appointed Public Utilities Commission. The PUC currently provides electricity to municipal operations and water and sewer service to homes and businesses. http://www~sfgate~com/c~bin/ar~e~c?d~?~e=/chr~ni~e/a~/MN24526.DTL&type--printab~ 11/2/2001 Vote for public power no guarantee it will happen / Two propositions on S.F. ballot Page 2 of 4 Like the MUD called for in Proposition I, the agency would have to conduct a feasibility study to review the costs and benefits of public power. Then, with the consent of the Board of Supervisors, the agency could take over PG&E's electricity system. No such board consent would be needed under Proposition I. The agency also would have the ability to issue revenue bonds under $100 million without approval by supervisors or voters. Anything over that amount would be subject to a referendum. The Prop. F plan is also designed to promote conservation efforts and renewable energy. 'Props. F and I both rely on elected directors, who ultimately will decide whether to create a public power system. The board would also set the rates and have control over everything t~om the terms for buying'electricity to whether to use more renewable energy sources, such as wind, hydroelectric and solar power. If both measures pass, Prop. I will take priority. Supervisors placed Prop. F on the ballot as a backup -- one they believe could better withstand the expected legal challenges from PG&E. , The utility waged a 23-year battle to beat back public power in Sacramento - - and eventually lost. Opponents of the S.F. public power effort, with PG&E at the lead, already have spent more than $650,000 on the campaigns against the measures with more money expected in the coming weeks. AT&T and Pacific Bell also have been big contributors, fearful that the MUD directors will use state laws to take over the phone and communications utilities in San Francisco, as well. Public power critics say there are too many unknowns in the proposals, chief among them the cost. City Controller Ed Harrington noted that a disputed 1997 study commissioned by the San Francisco PUC estimated the value of PG&E's distribution system at $800 million. Other.estimates have ranged from $300 million to $1 billion. "A lot of people are not happy with PG&E. But neither of these measures can guarantee that they're going to solve the state's power problem, or provide us better, more reliable or cheaper service," said Jim Mathias, vice president of public affairs for the San Francisco Chamber'of Commerce. "The unknown could be worse." Proponents, however, say a public power system answers to voters and ratepayers, not corporate shareholders. Historically, such public power systems have had lower rates. "The only unknowns are ephemeral because we've seen through the Sacramento MUD, the Alameda MUD and the Los Angeles public power authority that rates are lower and service is better," said Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano, a public power http://www.sfgate.c~m/c~-bin/artic~e.c~?~e=/~hr~nic~e/a.../MN24526.DTL&type--printab~ 11/2/2001 Vote for public power no guarantee it will happen / Two propositions on S.F. ballot Page 3 of 4 advocate. THE MUD MEASURES San Francisco voters face two public power measures on the Nov. 6 ballot.. -- PROPOSITION F Placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, the measure would: -- Abolish San Francisco's Public Utilities Commission and replace it with a Municipal Water and Power Agency. The agency would be governed by an elected seven-member board of directors. -- Authorize the agency to take over the existing Heteh Hetchy Water and Power system, which is now operated by the city PUC. -- Order a feasibility study to determine the costs and benefits of providing public power to San Francisco consumers. -- Operate with the goal of ending Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s control of electricity distribution in San Francisco and create a public power system that would sell electricity directly to residents and businesses. It also would continue to provide water and sewer service, as the local PUC has. -- Allow the agency to issue revenue bonds without approval by the Board of Supervisors or voters. Any bond issue of more than $100 million would be subject to referendum. -- Require the new agency to maintain some ties to City Hall. For example, the Board of Supervisors would have to approve the use of eminent domain to take over PG&E's distribution lines and generation facilities. -- PROPOSITION I Placed on the ballot by initiative, the measure would: -- Establish a Municipal Utility District for both San Francisco and Brisbane. The district would be nm by an elected five-member board of directors. Candidates for the director posts also are on the Nov. 6 ballot. -- Give directors the authority to determine whether to take over PG&E's electrical and distribution system in San Francisco, as well as the Hetch Hetchy system, in order to provide publicly owned power directly to ratepayers. Requires a feasibility study of such an action. Subsequent voter approval of specific projects probably would be required. http:// ww.sfgate.c~m/c~(~~bin/arftc~e.c~(~?~~e=~chr~ni~~e/a...~MN24526.DTL&type--p~ntab~ 11/2/2001 Vote for public power no guarantee it will happen / Two propositions on S.F. ballot Page 4 of 4 -- Allow the district to investigate whether it should provide water, transportation, garbage collection, telephone, communications and sewer services, as allowed by state law governing municipal utility districts. -- Give the MUD power as a state agency, independent of the Brisbane and San Francisco local governments, allow the directors to undertake eminent domain proceedings and provide authority to issue revenue bonds. E-mail Rachel Gordon at r_gordon@4fchronicle, com. ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 17 http://www.sfgate.~m/cgi-bin/artic~e.cgi?~e=/chr~nic~e/a.../MN24526.DTL&type--printab~ 11/2/2001 ~ A'plan that needs to be unplugged / Municipal utilities idea on ballot in S.F. Page 1 of 3 A plan that needs to be unplugged Municipal utilities idea on ballot in S.F. Ken Garcia Tuesday, October 30, 2001 ~2001 San Francisco Chronicle San Francisco -- San Francisco residents are used to getting a jolt at election time, but next week, they could be in for a real shock. And that's what will happen if the so-called progressive forces in town manage to sucker enough voters to approve the city's takeover of municipal utilities from Pacific Gas and Electric Co., a well-meaning idea whose time has not yet come. There are so many problems with the proposed formation of the public power agencies that it's amazing the plans haven't been short-circuited yet. But before I get to the facts, here's one little tidbit that should toss some cold water on the local push for public power -- the two biggest proponents of the measures designed to seize control of PG&E's distribution system are blustery Bay Guardian Publisher Bruce Brugmann and the entertaining but often-daffy former Supervisor Angela Alioto. If that's not enough to scare you, then Halloween really is your time of year. For starters, the ballot measures, F and I, were proposed without any feasibility studies, which is to say the backers of the plans have no idea how much they would cost consumers. There are no guarantees that a murdeipal agency would lower rates, provide better service, help solve the state's power problem or avoid the painful lessons of other recently approved public utility districts such as Lassen County's, which passed on a 162 percent rate increase to its customers this year. Not that the public power advocates care about statistics, but the last time PG&E's distribution system was valued, the estimate was $800 million to $1 billion. That's at least how much it would cost the city to take over the company's power system -- a cost that would be passed on to ratepayers. That's just one glaring flaw. Measure I would create a new government agency that is completely independent of the City and County of San Francisco, perhaps not the best way to serve the citizens of the City and County of San Francisco. Yet the new, independent MUD would have no assets or revenues. It would probably take years before the MUD had the financial resources to take control of the utility's properties -- not including an expected and costly legal fight with PG&E. The creation of a Sacramento MUD was fought in the coum for more than 20 years, so even those who would vote for a public power district without any notion of the cost should realize they won't be flipping the switch overnight. Worse yet, the public power agency would be controlled by a board of unpaid novices http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artide.cgi?file=/chronicle/a.../MN79183.DTL&typ~---pfintabl 11/2/2001 plan that needs to be unplugged / Municipal utilities idea on ballot in S.F. Page 2 of 3 who have absolutely no experience in or knowledge of running a utility district. How can a group of untested politicians operate an electricity- distribution system better than the corporate titans at PG&E? Well, because public power advocates say they can. And with that kind of serious reasoning, what's left to debate? If Measure I passes and a new MUD is established, the first order of business for the rookie utility managers will be to conduct a feasibility study. In real life, this is generally done before new government agencies are created, not after, but this being San Francisco, the push for public power has surged forth before the facts are in. Proposition F, the brainchild of Supervisor Tom Ammiano, would create a new Municipal Water and Power Agency that would replace the city's Public Utilities Commission. Unfortunately, the proposition doesn't address the most vexing problem with the city's water supply system, the neglected and overdue maintenance of Hetch Hetchy. It would require the surplus revenues from water and power-- assuming there are any -- to be returned to Hetch Hetchy for only the first five years, then returned to the general fund, subject to the whims of our stumbling supervisors. And perhaps the best part of the newly empowered public utility push, if both propositions I and F are approved, the new MUD board and the new water agency are supposed to get together to see which entity can provide public power sooner. Nothing like getting a bunch of newly empowered politicians to decide who should have more control. I don't know what the utility rates will be under the proposed measures (and no one else does either) but I can guarantee you that the legal profession should enjoy some hefty profits. Before public power crusaders start accusing me of sidling up to PG&E, let the record show that I have been a vocal critic of the company for years. Its mismanagement of the power crisis and gouging of consumers has been among the worst cases of corporate ineptitude and greed in recent years. But at the same time, the energy crisis was a problem of supply, not distribution, and the measures on the ballot don't address either the acquisition or management of future power needs. So while it may seem an opportune time to beat up on the blundering utility giant, there's nothing in the proposed measures that can assure us that a public power agency would be immune from the myriad problems associated with deregulation or from the market forces that drove PG&E into insolvency. Although it is tree that many cities with public power agencies do enjoy moderately cheaper rates, most of those municipalities got into the business 70 and 80 years ago, when generous federal subsidies allowed them to set up utility districts at low cost. There's nothing cheap about the proposals on next week's ballot except the talk. The next surge of public power proposals should include a few facts, so voters won't have to wonder why they got left in the dark. You can reach Ken Garcia at (415) 777-7152 or e-mail him at kgarcia@jfchronicle, com. ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 13 http://www.sfgate.corn/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/a.../MN79183.DTL&type--printabl 11/2/2001 plan that needs to be unplugged / Municipal utilities idea on ballot in S.F. Page 3 of 3 http://www.sfgate.c~m/¢~.bin/a~¢~e.¢~?~1e~/¢hr~ni¢~e/a.../MN791$3.DTL&type--printab~ 11/2/2001 KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON / The wrong way to public power Page 1 of 2 KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON The wrong way to public power Jim ChaDoell Thursday, November 1, 2001 ~2001 San Francisco Chronicle IN SAN FRANCISCO, next Tuesday's election is all about public power. Sure, there are other measures on the ballot, but the most important are Proposition F and Measure I -- two ballot items that would get the city into the public power business. Although it now seems like years ago, before September 11 the biggest political issue in California was the power crisis. Rates shot up. Blackouts were threatened. PG&E declared bankruptcy. California's far-reaching utility restructuring, begun in 1996, was largely undone. In response to this mess, two items made it onto the ballot in San Francisco. Granted, no one has a lot of sympathy for PG&E these days. And it's clear that something went horribly awry with electricity deregulation. But F and I look more like classic San Francisco shenanigans than practical solutions to the power mess. Unfortunately, these measures are just not going to work. Prop. F would create a new city agency (the Municipal Water and Power Agency) to take over the functions of the city's current Public Utility Commission -- running the Hetch Hetchy water and power network, the water treatment system and generating electricity to sell. Measure I would create a new special-purpose district, a municipal utility district or MUD in San Francisco and Brisbane. In principle, its board of directors could take over any utility -- water, power, cable TV or telephone -- they want, but the stated intention of the proponents is to take over PG&E's assets. It could not take over the Hetch Hereby system because one government agency a can't take over another. Both F and I face a basic problem: Where would the city get its power? Hetch Hetchy produces at most one-third of the electricity San Francisco currently needs in a year. That means the new public agency would be forced to build new generating plants, take over old polluting PG&E generating plants or buy power on the open market. Is there any reason to believe the new public agency will have special expertise or skills to either build generators or buy power?Also, if history is a guide, it could take a long time to get through the inevitable litigation as the agencies attempt to seize PG&E's assets. It took the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) 23 years to get through its own litigation and begin operations and that was 78 years ago. Both measures would set up elected bodies to run them. And although this may be appealing on first blush, it represents a move to politicize the management of the city's http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronide/a.../ED 149838.DTL&type=pfintabl 11/2/2001 ~ I~EEPING THE LIGHTS ON / The wrong way to public power Page 2 of 2 infrastructure. While no one likes political patronage appointments, governance by zealots elected in low-profile elections can only be worse. Maintaining infrastructure requires expertise not governance by social reformers. The measure virtually guarantees that people unqualified for their posts will be running a technical, and critically important, public agency. There is no reason to believe that public power rates would be significantly cheaper than today. A new power agency would have to get its power from the same places as everyone else -- on the open market. Public power may have some positive outcomes; In particular, it is likely to result in a greater commitment to renewable energy. The fight way to get into the public power business is incrementally: Simply have the city's PUC start putting up solar panels and windmills on city sites wherever it's cost- effective. When these devices generate surplus power, sell it on the open market. The PUC can do this now; there's no need to create a new agency. Propositions B and H, also on Tuesday's ballot, direct the PUC to do this very thing! Prop F and Measure I play on voter frustration with California's power crisis, but they will not do anything to solve it. They are two of the most ill-conceived and impractical measures to be on the ballot in years. Vote no on F and I. ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 25 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? file=/chroniele/a.../ED 149838.DTL&type=printabl 11/2/2001 million to fight S.F. public power / PG&E Corp. against city ballot measures Page 1 of 2 $1 million to fight S.F. public power PG&E Corp. against city ballot measures Rachel Gordon. Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, November 1,2001 ~32001 San Francisco C_hro0icle The corporate parent of PG&E, the bankrupt California utility fighting for financial recovery, has pumped more than $1 million into a campaign to defeat a pair of public power measures on Tuesday's ballot in San Francisco. Company representatives say they want to protect their assets in the city, where there are 365,000 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. customers. Independent experts say more is at stake. "I'm sure they' dofft Want to see a sno~l/iitI effect where other dries try to mm them out," said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California's Energy Institute. Borenstein noted that Los Angeles, the state's largest city, had long been in the public power business. So has Sacramento and a number of smaller cities, such as Alameda and Palo Alto. PG&E serves 4.7 million customers in the state. "If you're looking at a major movement, San Francisco is the biggest location where' this is being discussed now," Borenstein said yesterday. San Diego and San Jose also have been looking at putting their electrical system under public control, but have yet to take action. In San Francisco, two measures on the ballot would pave the way for a publicly owned electricity system. Measure I would set up an independent municipal utility district for San Francisco and neighboring Brisbane, governed by state law. Proposition F would create a Water and Power Agency in San Francisco only and retain ties to City Hall. In both cases, elected directors would decide whether to seize PG&E's transmission and distribution lines. PG&E has said it isn't interested in selling, and for decades has fought at City Hall and in court to derail such efforts in San Francisco. But last winter's energy crisis shifted public attitudes and a more liberal Board of Supervisors pushed the public power proposals forward. Still, PG&E vigorously opposes the effort. Campaign finance reports show PG&E spent $1,023,289 through Oct. 20 to defeat the measures. How much more money the company has poured into the campaign since then will not be made public until after the election. http://www~sfgate~com/c~-bin/artic~e~c~1?~e=/chr~nic~e/.../MN ~ ~297~.DTL&type=printab~ 11/2/2001 ,'.. . $1 million to fight S.F. public power / PG&E Corp. against city ballot measures Page 2 of 2 Other business interests gave nearly $400,000 more through Oct. 20 to fight the ballot measures. The contributors include Pacific Telesis Group ($100,000) and AT&T ($150,000). The companies fear the creation of a MUD would lead the new agency's directors to try to take over the phone and communications operations, too. The Committee on Jobs, a big business group funded in part by PG&E, gave $110,500. The money has paid for campaign consultants, mailers, slate cards, polls, phone banks and TV ads. PG&E spokeswoman Jennifer Ramp said the spending was warranted. "It's perfectly natural that any company -- bankrupt or not -- facing a hostile takeover would fight the measures and get the word out to people that this is not going to solve the energy crisis," Ramp said. She added the money used in the campaign did not come fi:om the utility but fi:om its corporate parent company. Ross Mirkarimi, who runs the public power campaigns, was more blunt in his assessment of PG&E's campaign contributions. "They are going to.do everything they can to preserve their monopoly and greed," he said. The campaigns in favor of Proposition F and Measure I raised a little more than $90,000 through Oct. 20. Bay Guardian newspaper publisher Bruce Brugmann and his wife, Jean, gave $10,500. The weekly paper, which has long crusaded for public power, provided an additional $38,000 in flee advertising. The Vanguard Public Foundation donated another $10,000. E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgordon~_~sfchronicle, com. ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 15 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? file=/chronicle/.../MN 102970.DTL&type--printabl 11/2/2001 From: . <mwoodcock@lemoore.com> To: <rgarcia@leprinofoods.com>, <kippsj@rb5f. swrcb.ca.gov>, <risingerj@rb5f. swrcb.ca.gov> Date: 8/28/01 3:09PM Subject: FW: White Paper ..... Original Message ..... From: Marshall~ Jim [mailto:marshallj@ci.merced.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 11:28 AM August 16, 2001 /~ To: City Managers Central Valley Division South San Joaquin Valley Division Subject: Wastewater Treatment Plant Issues - San Joaquin Valley Dear City Manager: As an outgrowth of concerns expressed by local agencies at the Governor's San Joaquin Valley Economic Summit and Empowerment Initiative Town Hall Meeting, a white paper has been prepared addressing the wastewater treatment needs identified in our communities. The white paper was prepared after meeting in Sacramento with State and Federal officials with many of our cities participating. The white paper was authored by the Merced County Association of Governments to focus the issues and identified needs. The Governor's Office and our elected State Representatives recognize our situation, but need this type of document to chronicle our problems. We would like to suggest to our Legislators that a hearing be conducted by all of the Valley Legislators to focus attention on the wastewater problems characterized by the white paper. The hearing could be held in more than one location seeking to draw public attention, and press coverage, to our concerns. To that end, I am asking you to read the attached white paper and attachments. Afterwards, I would ask you to send a letter to your State Assembly Member and State Senator (a draft is attached for your convenience) imploring their participation. A similar letter to Federal representatives is also attached. We want this to be a "bottoms-up" approach that the Legislators can then take forward knowing they have the support of their constituents. If we don't do something soon, we may find ourselves completely priced out of the economic development marketplace, and, driven into bankruptcy by mandatory fines for discharge violations propounded by SB 709 and the Regional Water Quality Contro Boards. Your immediate attention is requested. Jim Marshall, City Manager, Merced 209 385-6834 C:\My Documents\WWTP\transmittal city managers.doc <<White Paper Cover table of contents.doc>> <<White Paper Aug 01.doc>> <<White Paper Attachment A 01.doc>> <<White Paper Attachment B 01.doc>> <<White Paper Attachment C 01.doc>> <<White Paper Attachment D 01.doc>> <<White Paper Attachment E 01.doc>> <<White Paper Support Ltr to Fed Reps.doc>> <<White Paper Support Ltr to State Reps .doc>> WHITE PAPER Prepared by Merced County Association of Governments DISCUSSION OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY WASTEWATER NEEDS An Effort of the San Joaquin Valley Wastewater Task Force August 2001 San Joaquin Valley Wastewater Needs White Paper Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Description of Area 3 : Introduction 4 Clean Water Act Overview 5 Porter-Cologne Act Overview 5 Discharges to Water Bodies 6 Determination of Beneficial Uses 6 Determination of Impaired Water Bodies Total Maximum Daily Load Standards 7 Significance of Basin Plans 9 Implications for the Valley 10 Determination of Beneficial Uses 10 Determination of Impaired Water Bodies Total Maximum Daily Load Standards i 1 Significance of Basin Plans 12 Economic Impacts 13 Recommendations 14 Attachments Map - San Joaquin Valley Regional Location A San Joaquin Valley Wastewater Task Force Participants B · Map - Basin Plan Locations C Definitions D Case Studies E San Joaquin Valley Wastewater Needs White Paper August 2001 WATER TREATMENT Editorial: Too-clean water Agency's action is bewildering and costly Vacaville Reporter - 3/20/01 Where is the public safety, where is the benefit to the local environment or economy, from the onerous requirements being heaped on Vacaville's wastewater treatment plant expansion? The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board last week ]renewed an operating permit for Vacaville's Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is undergoing a major expansion, to better meet the demand today and into the next three decades. City officials were worried that some new requirements might be forthcoming. What they did not expect was an.edict to create the cleanest wastewater in the nation, at a cost that could double the monthly sewer and water bill for Vacaville residents and raise the cost of a new home by $12,000. In effect, this regulatory agency, wants the water coming out of the city sewer plant to be cleaner than the water coming out of kitchen tap in local homes. The ruling imposes the strictest wastewater quality regulations anywhere in California, city officials argue, and perhaps anywhere in the country. So where is the benefit? The plant discharges water into Alamo Creek, a source for farmers. It mixes with chemicals and agricultural additives before being applied to crops. What is not used by farmers heads to the delta. The sewer plant project is an $86 million expansion plan. The price tag could jump to $117 million with additional treatment requirements. Given what the agency piled on last week, the total cost to taxpayers could top $200 million. The city must appeal the agency's pointless and arduous new requirements. If the state water board supports them, the case must go to court. Our water and sewer bills and the cost of housing in Vacaville are already too high. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wastewater infrastructure needs have increasingly been identified in central Valley forums as a critical barrier to attracting business and new jobs to the Valley, as well as accommodating the housing demands of a burgeoning population. Requirements being placed in municipal wastewater discharge permits are believed to be overly 1 ' Ga~ Carlton - White Paper Aug 01 doc .......................................... ~ ......................... -'. ...... ~ ,~ . Pa e 2 San J° aquin Valley Wastewater Needs White Paper August 2001 stringent, and will force many publicly owned treatment works to install costly technologies to comply with permit requirements. The installation and operation of such advanced treatment will not result in any tangible · environmental benefits, yet will have significant cost and energy impacts. The use of the advanced treatment technology, which is energy intensive, will significantly increase energy demands from the power grid. Total capital costs, with increases in operation and maintenance costs, will in some cases triple service charges for residential, commercial and industrial customers. As seen on the following page, Valley residents already have the lowest median household incomes in the State. They also already pay some of the highest sewer user rates in the State. It is unreasonable to ask these ratepayers to fund treatment facilities that will result in no measurable environmental benefit. ,....~.,~,.,~,...,,~,.....,,~,,GaE Carlton - White ........ Pal~er Aug 01.doc ............................ Pa~'~ 3 San Joaquin Valley Wastewater Needs White Paper August 2001 VALLEY MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES AND SEWER USER CHARGES County Median Per Capita Monthly User Connection Fee Household Income 'County Charge Highest Highest Rate Income * Rank ** Rate *** *** Fresno $26,377 41 $33.55 $3,883 Kern $28,634 47 $35.95 $2,855 Kings $25,507 58 $22.00 $2,519 Madera $27,370 52 $60.33 $539 Merced $25,548 50 $28.95 $3,525 San Joaquin $30,635 33 $19.70 $6,100 Stanislaus $29,793 38 $25.65 $4,978 Tulare $24,450 48 $35.00 $3,938 · Source: Department of Finance, Economic Profile; Census, 1989 www.ceres.ca.gov/planning/ · * Source:' Department 0f Finance, Economic Profile; Per Capita Income as of 1998 www.ceres.ca, gov/planning/ · ** Source: Wastewater User Charqe Survey Report FY 1999-2000, May 2000, State Water Resources Control Board Communities have formed various coalitions throughout the Valley to discuss reasonable and workable solutions to these barriers. This report presents a summary of that effort, and makes the following recommendations: 1. The State Water Resources Control Board and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board establish an interim permitting policy no later than July 1, 2002 for use during period of Basin Plan amendments. 2. The State Water Resources Control Board assign "high priority" rankings to San Joaquin Valley (Region 5) Basin Plan Amendments for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and receiving water turbidity standards. Estimated total cost and time to accomplish: $4 million, 36 months. 3. Provide funding for Basin Plan Amendments in the State FY 02/03 budget, by offering planning grant program with incentives for 50% match commitments from Valley .dischargers, and additional staffing for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to assist with Basin Plan Amendments. 4. Offer increased grant funds for Valley communities to assist with the capital costs of improvements to Wastewater facilities, particularly to communities over 10,000 in population. We recommend that these increases be offered through the state Central Valley Infrastructure Grant Program (AB31), administered by the CA Department of Housing Community Development, and the federal Water and Waste Disposal Grant Program, administered by USDA Rural Development. San Joaquin Valley Wastewater Needs White Paper August 2001 DESCRIPTION OF AREA Califomia's San Joaquin Valley region (also known as the Central Valley) consists of the counties of Fresno, Kem, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. The Valley Basin includes two major watersheds-the Sacramento River on the north and the San Joaquin River on the south-plus the Tulare Lake Basin. The combined watersheds extend nearly 500 miles from northwest to southeast and range from about 60 to 100 miles wide. A map of the region is included as Attachment A. The Valley accounts for 50 percent of the state's agricultural output, and is known as the richest agricultural region in the world. Its population is also growing at a faster rate than California as a whole, attributed to relatively low living costs, and a population with high birth rates. This trend is likely to continue. The region accounts for 10 percent of California's population, greater than that of 20 individual states. 4 San Joaquin Valley V/astewater Needs White Paper August 2001 % Rate Statewide Ranking (58 being worst) Fresno 14.3 54 Kern 11.3 47 Kings 14.0 53 Madera 11.8 48 Merced 14.4 55 San Joaquin 8.8 43 Stanislaus 10.4 46 Tulare 15.4 56 CA 4.9 Source: CA Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division The single greatest common denominator among the counties that make up the Valley continues to be the chasm between the richness of this agricultural center of the world and the poverty of its residents. Unemployment rates are the highest in the state, with associated high rates of poverty and public assistance. These unique challenges have received both State and Federal attention. San Joaquin Valley Wastewater Needs White Paper August 2001 Governor Davis has hosted two Central Valley Economic Sunm~its; water, energy, agriculture, education and economic development have been central themes. For decades, the area between Stockton and Bakersfield has been California's hidden ghetto, a region of entrenched rural' poverty curtained off by the coastal ranges. If the region broke off from California, its population would be larger than that of 21 other states, but it would be the second poorest, after Mississippi. - California's Future May Hinge on Enriching a Hidden Ghetto, San Jose Mercury News, July 28, 2001 An October 25, 2000 Executive Order designated the Central San Joaquin Valley Empowerment Initiative. The Initiative, one of only two in the nation, has taken a regional and comprehensive approach to the economic development of the Valley; its five-pronged approach includes business, infrastructure, education, health, and housing. From: Alex Mayer To: George, Catherine Date: 10/3/01 10:04AM Subject: FYI. This information may be helpful regarding the Ag. runoff issues in Region 5. -Alex DRINKING WATER STANDARDS EPA ordered to assess pesticide health risks San Francisco Chronicle - 9/28/01 By Bob Egelko, staff writer A San Francisco federal judge, acting over the objections of pesticide- makers and farm groups, has approved a nationwide settlement between environmentalists and the Bush administration, speeding up a review of pesticides in the food supply. The settlement requires the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reassess by next August the possible dangers of 39 commonly used insecticides called organophosphates. The reassessment could lead to restrictions or bans. Organophosphates act on the nervous systems of insects and other animals, including humans, and are considered the most acutely toxic pesticides. They account for about half of the insecticides sold in the United States, with 60 million pounds a year used on crops alone. Another provision of the settlement requires a review over the next year of whether certain types of insecticides and weed-killers react together in drinking water to become long-term poisons. The settlement also requires measures to protect farmworkers from three insecticides -- azinphos methyl, chlorpyrifos and diazinon. The 1999 lawsuit accused the EPA of ignoring legal deadlines to reassess the risks of numerous pesticides. It was settled by the outgoing Clinton administration on Jan. 19, its last day in office. President Bush's EPA administrator, Christie Whitman, approved the agreement in March, with minor changes, at the same time she was repudiating Clinton standards for reducing arsenic in drinking water. The agreement was challenged by the American Crop Protection Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation and other trade groups. They said it had been adopted too hastily and without their participation, was based on unsound science and would cause serious economic harm. · But U.S. District Judge William Alsup, in a ruling made public yesterday, said the settlement was "fair, reasonable, equitable and in the public interest." He said the provisions, adopted after extensive public .comment, were consistent with Congress' intention to hasten review of the most dangerous pesticides. Opponents can sue later to contest any restrictions ordered by the EPA, Alsup said. Petition to Revoke the Waiver - of Waste Discharge Chronology Requirements for Agricultural · 28 November 2000 - Petition rece,vcd Return Flows · 26 January 2001 -Board review and direction to staff  Consideration of Resolution · 27 July 2001 - Board workshop Denying Petition and Directing Staff to Undertake Further Evaluation of Waiver Conditions Proposed Resolution Proposed Resolution · Denies petition · Directs staff to assist in and track voluntary · Directs staff to begin evaluation of existing efforts to monitor and control discharges of waivers before 2003 pollutants · Recognizes need for site specific · Directs Executive Officer to inform information before renewed waiver policy can be considered ' SWRCB of results of Board review and to seek guidance and resources · Directs staffto work with other agencies to establish local water quality monitoring Proposed Resolution Recent Developments · Directs Executive Officer to issue · State Board has started review monitoring orders if satisfactory progress is · Comments received not being made by February 2002 · Directs Executive Officer to make · Farm Bureau offer recommendations before the end of 2002 on whether to proceed to adopt a new ~ conditional waiver California RegionalcentralWatervalleyQUalitYRegion Control Board Winston H. Hickox Sacramento Main Office Gray Davis Secretary for Intemet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/~rwqcb5 Governor Environmental 3443 Routier Road, Suite A, Sacramento, California 95827-3003 Protection Phone (916) 255-3000 · FAX (916) 255-3015 TO: Art Baggett, Chairman FROM: Robert Schneider, Chairman State Water Resources Control Board Central Valley Regional Board DATE:. 24 April 2001 SIGNATURE: SUBJECT · The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) is facing major challenges in the areas of basin planning, effluent dominated water bodies, and agricultural discharge waivers. The Regional Board lacks the resources or the flexibility to redirect our present resources to effectively address these complex issues and the Regional Board requests the assistance of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) in addressing the issUes. The following summarizes the issues and the way in which the State Board can assist the Regional Board. BASIN PLANNING The present Regional Board Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) was created in 1975. The beneficial uses and water quality objectives portions of the Basin Plan have remained largely unchanged since its adoption. Because the Region is so large and contains literally thousands of water bodies or segments, it was deemed infeasible to specifically identify the beneficial uses of each individual water body or segment. As a result, the Regional Board has relied on federal law and the so-called "tributary rule, that essentially attributes the beneficial uses of the downstream water body to the tributary. The Regional Board is also subject to State Board Resolution 88-63, which essentially designates all waters of the Region as sources or potential sources of drinking water, but allows for some exceptions. Some beneficial uses designated under either the tributary rule or Resolution 88-63 may not actually exist and are not likely to exist. It is not appropriate to require discharges to meet requirements necessary to protect uses that do not and are not likely to exist. However, Basin Plan amendments are needed to dedesignate such uses and significant technical information is needed to justify such dedesignations. Consistent with applicable law, the Regional Board has provided dischargers with time schedules in permits to postpone the application of the requirements to allow them to pursue Basin Plan amendments. However, even with such assistance, staff is still needed to allow the Regional Board to complete the Basin Plan amendment process. The Regional Board has insufficient resources to pursue such information and complete the Basin Plan amendment process. The Basin Plan contains water quality objectives that have been superseded or augmented by the California Toxics Rule and the National Toxics Rule. Some of the water quality objectives, such as those related to temperature, may be more stringent than necessary to protect beneficial uses in certain water bodies. Site- specific objectives would be more appropriate. Some objectives are not sufficient to take into account all California Environtnental Protection Agency  Recycled Paper California'Regional Water QualitY Control Board Central Valley Region Robert Schneider, Chair Winston 11. llickox Gray Davis Secretary for Sacramento Main Office Governor Em,ironmental Interact Address: http://~x~v.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5 Protection '" 3443 Routier Road, Suite A, Sacramento, California 95827-3003 Phone (916) 255-3000 · FAX (916) 255-3015 .TO: ·Dale 'Claypoole FROM: Gary M. Carlton AsSistant Executive Director Executj3d Officer SUBJECT: POSSIBLE REDIRECTION FOR FY 01-02 As discussed'at the 5 June, 2001 MCC meeting, we have undertaken a review of our existing programs to identify potentially high priority activities that are unfounded at this time. We understand there are no additional positions available to support these activities and we are proposing to redirect from less critical programs that we believe can be delayed until permanent staffing can be authorized. We are requesting additional contract monies to help with these tasks.. We would hope that some of the additional federal monies could be directed to help support these activities. The "needs analysis" identified several of our key program areas that are under staffed. We xvould hope that State Board continues to seek additional resources to bring these programs up to an acceptable level. For this exercise, we used our existing staff resources since there has been no decision to continue the redistribution of resources that were identified in the needs analysis. We have identified three program activities that in our opinion are critical and warrant redirection of staff from other activities: 1. SB 390 Waiver Requirements - This bill will have significant impact to our programs since effective 1 January, 2003, all existing Waivers cease to exist unless renewed by the Regional Board. If the State Board determines that the State as a whole must meet the legislative provisions of SB 390 and no new resources are provided, then we believe there may be no alternative other than to redirect resources from our Core Regulatory Program. The extra resources necessary to renew the dozens of waiver categories Scheduled to expire are significant and could overwhelm our entire discharge to land program. We anticipate a significant water quality impact in at least a dozen categories of waivers the most important of which is in the area of septic systems, irrigation return flows, dairies and pesticides. We do not have sufficient staff resources to implement this legislation, however, we feel that it is critical that we make an effort to develop a process for dealing with these water quality issues. We are proposing to shift three positions from our Core Regulatory Program to help identify a process for implementing this new legislative requirement that will minimize the impacts to water quality. These positions would prioritize the categories of waivers and then identify the steps and resource needed for dealing with each category. Once this has been accomplished these staff could start on the most critical issues. Shifting these resources away from the Core Regulatory Program means we will not be able to meet backlogged program commitments for WDRs, permits, inspections and reports. California Environmental Protection Agency  Recycled Paper The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at http:llwww.swrcb.ca.govlrwqcb5 ~ '~ Dale Claypoole - 2 - 6/15/01 2. Basin Planning Efforts - Them are two immediate concerns with Basin Plan beneficial use designations. '.. a. The first is that we have ~50 dischargers that discharge to effluent dominated water bodies and the tributary rule assigns beneficial uses that end up making permits very stringent and costly to the dischargers. Many of these permits have been appealed to the State Board and subsequently end up in court. Two NPDES staff resources would be redirected to work on NPDES-related. Basin Planning. Staff would work directly on Basin Plan strategies and modification to address Basin Plan problems currently hampering permits. Using only two staff, it will take many years to complete the necessary studies and Basin Plan modifications. If contract funding becomes available, the staff would work with contractors to increase the work, which can be accomplished. We estimate the need for $3 million additional contract monies per year to hire contractors to collect the background information and develop and process appropriate basin plan amendments. Redirecting 2 NPDES st'aff resources to work on NPDES-related Basin Plan modifications will have negative impacts on the NPDES Program in the near term. This resource level represents about 10% of the Regional NPDES staff resources and redirecting these resources will result in a commensurate reduction in program outputs (.permit renewals, inspections, DMR review, etc.). However, resolution of NPDES-related Basin Plan issues should, in the long term, result in efficiencies in the permit renewal process by reducing debate over these issues and appeals of permit actions. It should be possible to recoup the loss of these resources to direct N'PDES activities in relatively short order once the NPDES-related Basin Plan issues are resolved and the resources returned to the NPDES Program. b. The second Basin Plan problem is the potentially inappropriate designations that stem from the tributary rule that apply to the thousands of agriculturally dominated water bodies and urban creeks. Inappropriate designation of the drains and urban creeks makes the TMDL listing process impossible. It is difficult to add these water bodies to the list if we don't know what uses to apply. We are proposing to redirect two positions from a combination of Basin Planning (.6), WMI (1.0) and TMDL (.4). New beneficial use categories or subcategories and water Cluality objectives would be developed for agricultural dominated waters and urban creeks, similar to what was proposed in the Inland Surface Water Plan efforts. We are also requesting $2 million additional contract monies per year to hire contractors to collect the background information and develop and process appropriate basin plan amendments. 3. Timber Harvest Plan Review - Our Regional Board passed a resolution directing the EO to investigate all possible means, including redirection to obtain additional resources to address forestry issues. We are currently allocated approximately two positions to review harvest plans on private and federal lands that comprise approximately 50 percent of the States' total timberland acreage and generate over 50 percent of the volume harvested. Due to lack of staff resources, we can only review 10 percent of the timber plans submitted for private lands and we do not review any harvesting activitie~ on Federal lands. Without staff review and input on most of the harvest plans proposed for the region, increased water quality impairment will occur. Furthermore this impairment will occur in sensitive watersheds that provide valuable domestic water supplies and support threatened and endangered fish species. We are proposing Dale Claypoole - 3 - 6/15/01 to shift two positions from either the Stormwater and/or the CalFe.d programs. It is anticipated that one position will be in Sacramento and one position transferred to Redding. Shifting one or two positions away from the Stormwater program will reduce the number of NOls reviewed and Stormwater sites i'ri'spected. Shifting one or two positions away from the CalFed program will reduce participation in existing CalFed watershed endeavors. If you have any questions or comments concenfing these proposals please give me a call. cc: Tom Pinkos Ken Landau Board Members ITEM: 9 ~_.~J SUBJECT: Dairy Regulatory Program- A Status Report DISCUSSION: California is the leading state in the nation in milk production and more than 75% of that production is in the Central Valley. Dairying is a major part of the Central Valley economy. There are currently around 1,650 dairies in the region. The industry continues to grow and the trend is towards larger dairies. The numbers and rate of growth, coupled with recent legislative changes, are stressing the resources of the Board. Prior to 1982, dairies were regulated under a voluntary program of compliance with recommended minimum guidelines. In 1982, the Board adopted Resolution 82-036 that waived WDRs provided the dairyman complied with the minimum guidelines. The guidelines were incorporated into statewide minimum regulations in 1984. For years, the program consisted of using whatever resources were available to investigate complaints, issue WDRs on dairies only when absolutely necessary, and enforce against recalcitrant dairymen with the tools most expediently available. Through the 1990s, staff resources dwindled to the point that at one time there was only one full time person working on dairies in the Central Valley. Currently, special funds are provided for 7.1 PYs in the region. These special resources are combined with other general fund resources for a combined total of around 9 PYs. The resources are not sufficient to effectively run a conventional regulatory program. For example, the 9 PYs to maintain regulatory oversight over these 1,650 dairies and 300 other animal confinement-type facilities in the region can be contrasted with the 30 PYs for regulatory oversight over 300 + NPDES dischargers. In many cases, the NPDES and dairy sites are similar in complexity. Because of this, the Board has relied heavily on voluntary compliance and the Board's Resolution 82-036 waiver program. In January 2000, SB 390, was enacted which eliminates that waiver on 1 January 2003, unless the Board terminates or reviews the waiver prior to that date. Prior to renewing any waiver, the Board must review the terms of the waiver policy in a public hearing. In order to consider a new waiver, policy, or general or site-specific WDRs, the Board must comply with CEQA. A few counties (Kem, Tulare, Kings, Madera, and Merced) are regulating dairies through conditional use permits and act as the lead agency for CEQA. But most counties are not, and the Board would be the only responsible agency with discretionary approval over dairies in these counties. There are no resources to conduct the environmental reviews for individual dairies. Until recently staff was continuing to use the Board's waiver policy. ... However, by the attached letter of 18 July 2001, the Center for Race, ~..,~ Poverty and the Environment (Center) requested that the Board prepare a subsequent environmental impact report on its Resolution 82-036 WDR , waiver program for confined animal operations. The letter also requests that the Board immediately cease issuing waivers until the environmental' assessment is complete. Staffwill summarize the present dairy regulatory effort and provide analysis of the staffing levels necessary to run an effective program under various options, including satisfying the request of the Center. RECOMMENDATION: Information item only. Mgrnt. Review Legal Review