The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/12/00 WATER BOARD -5:~.~ Mark C. Salvaggio, Chair David Couch, Vice Chair Irma Carson CITY OF BA~RSFIELD WATER BOA~ MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2000 - 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 MAY 17, 2000 MEETING MINUTES 4). PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5). KERN RIVER OPE~TIONS REPORT 6). OLD BUSINESS A. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT - For Board Information B. CALFED PILOT PROJECT G~NT STATUS - For Board information C. . KERN COUNTY DENTAL SOCIETY FLUORIDATION G~NT FUNDS - For Board Information and Action as Required 7). NEW BUSINESS A. SOILS MAPPING FOR RECHARGE LOCATIONS - For Board Information and Action as Required B. PROPOSITIONS 12 & 13 PROJECT STATUS - For Board Information C. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2000 WATER BALANCE REPORT - Staff presentation and distribution of repo~ D. ARSENIC REGULATIONS FOR DRINKING WATER - For Board Information and authorimtion to staff for wri~en respo.nses E. ORDINANCE UPDATING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 14.04 ASHE WATER SERVICE AREA RELATING TO MAIN EXTENSIONS - For Board Discussion and Action as Required 8). WATER BOARD STATEMENTS 9). CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION. CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) NORTH KERN WATER STOOGE DISTRICT vs KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT, et al., TULARE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE No. 96-172919. 10). CLOSED SESSION ACTION 11 ). ADJOURNMENT BA e oga~ WateiRes~rce~nagerGen PO?~~OAD ' KERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 933~1 · (661) 326-37~5 S:~0~MI~WBAGJLI3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Wednesday, May 17, 2000, Water Resources Conference Room, 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311. 1. The meeting was called to order by Board Chair Salvaggio at 4:40 p.m. 2. Present: Mark Salvaggio, Chair David Couch, Vice-Chair Absent: Irma Carson 3. Boardmember Couch made a motion to approve the minutes of the Special Water Board meeting held March 13, 2000. Motion carried. 4. No public statements. 5. An update on the Kern River operations was given by Hydrographic Supervisor Steve ... Lafond. Lake Isabella Reservoir stands at just under 250,000 acre-feet, peak storage should , be at 300,000 acre-feet by the middle of June. The Kern River snowmelt runoff is running at its seasonal peak above Kemville, releases from the dam are expected to be 1300-1400 cubic feet per second by early June to the middle of August. This is the first year of operation under the Kern River Parkway Flow Management Agreement, water will be released May 26, 2000 for the Memorial Day flow. 6. Old Business. 6A. Update on the Kern River Levee District merger was given by Mr. Core. Mr. Alan Daniel, Deputy City Attorney and Mr. Core attended the County Board of Supervisor's protest hearing on the consolidation of the Levee District into the City of Bakersfield on May 16, 2000. There were no protests, a vote was taken and the proposal was approved. The final action for the merger is the formal acceptance by the City through an ordinance change. A draft ordinance to establish the Kern River Levee District as a subsidiary district of the City, establish the City Council as the Board of Directors of the Levee District and delegate to the City Water Board the normal operations and maintenance authority for the Levee District was presented. A motion was made by Boardmember Couch to recommend approval of the ordinance by the City Council. Motion carried. 6B. The 2000 Urban Streams Restoration Grant was brought before the Board by Mr. Bogart. The Urban Streams Program has a total of $750,000 available at this time, with a $200,000 1 maximum amount per project. Should the City not be awarded a grant at this time, the application will remain on file and become eligible for the next available cycle of grants issued under Proposition 13. As the City is a sponsor of the Kern River Parkway Foundation, these ' grant funds will give the Foundation the opportunity to continue the enhancements of the Kern River floodplain through Bakersfield with projects such as installing irrigation systems and planting trees. For Board information, no action required. 6C. Mr. Core presented the CALFED pilot project grant status to the Board. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program has $2.5 million available and has invited grant applications for conjunctive use projects. Five projects are to be awarded $500,000 each. The City applied for funding for three projects. The City's applications are in competition with 24 other applicants. CALFED is evaluating and preparing recommendations at this time and will notify the City when they have the results. For Board information, no action required. 7. New Business. 7A. Mr. Bogart presented to the Board the California Water Service Company proposal for cooperative engineering design and inspection services for portions of Northeast Bakersfield Water Supply Project. After some discussion, staff requested Board approval to proceed and negotiate an agreement with Cai-Water for cost sharing in securing the professional services, through a Request for Proposal, of local engineering firms to provide design services for intake and pump facilities at the Northeast Bakersfield Water Treatment Plant Project. A motion to this effect was made by Boardmember Salvaggio. Motion carried. 7B. Propositions 12 and 13 were brought before the Board by Business Manager Maurice Randall. The $2.5 million designated for the Kem River Parkway under Water Bond 2000 (Prop 13) has been included in Governor Davis' May budget revisions. Once the budget is approved, the City would receive $2.5 million, when the required documents between the City and State are completed. The $2.5 million designated for the Kern River Parkway under the Park Bond (Prop 12) has also been included in the Governor's May budget revisions and these funds would only be disbursed to the City on a reimbursement basis for eligible Parkway improvements. For Board information, no action required. 7C. An update on the Ashe and Fairhaven system interconnect pipeline was given by Water Superintendent Pat Hauptman. The final phases of construction on this project are almost completed, we anticipate to be online and in service in approximately three weeks. The pipe will connect our south service area with our northerly service zone and help in emergency situations and improve the reliability of service. Also, this project will provide the water supply needed for developing the area specified in the Urban Streams Restoration Grant application filed by the City. For Board information, no action required. 7D. The Right of First Refusal for sale of State Water Project Entitlement was presented before the Board by Mr. Core. The City received from the Kern County Water Agency, a Right Of First Refusal notice regarding a proposed permanent sale of up to 38,000 acre-feet of State Water Project Entitlement to out-of-county interests. The price of the entitlement is a one- time charge of $1,040 per acre-foot, plus interest from January 1, 2000, and future State 2 Water Project costs. Staff is asking Board to authorize the Water Resources Manager to sign the Right of First Refusal to decline purchase of such water. A motion was made by Boardmember Couch to this effect. Motion carried. 8. Water Board statements. A motion was made by Boardmember Couch to move Water Board statements after Closed Session. Motion carried. 9. Closed Session. Adjoumed to Closed Session at 5:45 p.m. 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. The meeting reconvened at 5:50 p.m. 10. Closed Session action. No action taken, update by legal counsel. 8. Water Board statements (continued) Boardmember Couch had questions for staff regarding water recharge and underground storage areas within the 2010 General Plan area. Boardmember Couch requested staff look into locating potential recharge grounds, identify the type of zoning of the land and the feasibility of the land to be utilized by the City for recharge purposes. This will greatly assist the Planning Commission and Council in making land use decisions. Assistant City Manager John Stinson suggested that Development Services Director Jack Hardisty be involved and attend the next Water Board meeting for his input. Staff will bring this subject back to the next Water Board meeting with an update. 11. The meeting adjoumed at 6:00 p.m. Mark Salvaggio, Chair City of Bakersfield Water Board Sharon Robison, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board 3 2ND ANNUAL BAKERSFIELD REGATTA June 17, 2000 Boating entries being readied for sail Boat launch from shore of Beach Park Collecting boats river-side at Yokuts Park Food, Fun and Entertainment at ¥okuts Park 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: July 6, 2000 ISABELLA RESERVOIR 1 2574.57 Lake Elevation (ft.) 267951 Storage (AcFt) -2283 Change (AcFt) 529 Inflowto Isabella (cfs) 2 568075 Storage Capacity 47% % of Capacity 302765 Normal Storage 89% % of Normal Storage For this Date 3 7870 Average Lake Area (Acres) 6557 Inflow(Month) 15904 Outflow(Month) 4 436 North Fork Mean 418 North Fork @ 0600 Hours 416663 Accumulative Inflow(99-00 WY) 5 1561 Mean Outflow 595 Borel Canal 966 Main Dam Outlet 308974 Accum. Outflow(WY) 6 1607 Outflow @ 0600 593 Borel Canal @ 0600 Hours 1014 Main Dam Outlet @ 0600 Hours Hours 7 119 Lake Evap. (cfs) 0.47 Inches Evap. for 24 Hours 1371 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 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for Month 10 7.16 Seasonal Precip. Isabella 9.70 Normal for 74% Isabella Precip. (Season: Oct 1 through Sep 30) this Date % of Normal 11 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for 24 Hours 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for Month 12 33.60 Seasonal Precip. Pascoe 34.60 Normal for 97% Pascoe Precip. this Date % of Normal 13 0.0 Upper Tyndall Creek 0.0 Pascoe 0.0 Wet Meadow 14 85 Isabella Maximum Temperature 15 61 Isabella Minimum Temperature 113 24 Hour Wind Movement (Miles) NATURAL RIVER FLOW 16 547 Natural FIow(cfs) 6719 Natural Flow(Month to Date) 286166 2000 Apr-Jul Runoff 17 1551 Mean Flow 35% Natural Flow 1045 Median Flow 52% Natural Flow For this Date in % of Mean For this Date in % of Median 18 7973 Max. on Record 161 Min. on Record 427637 Accum. Natural Flow (Water Year) For this Date For this Date 19 1620 First Point Flow 16066 First Point (Month to Date) 319210 Accum. First Point (Water Year) KERN RIVER FACTS & FIGURES: ~ · On this date in 1983, Isabella Reservoir surface elevation topped out at 2610.84 feet above sea 6~" ~A K E R S F ~ E ~ level, maximum all-time lake height. The lake held 630,825 acre-feet, the maximum storage volume on record since the reservoir was put into operation. The Isabella Dam spillway discharge, active Produced by City of Bakersfield only when lake storage exceeds 568,075 AcFt (2605. 50 ft. elevation), was 5, 721 cubic feet per Water Resources second. Water would continue to flow over the spillway until July 20, 1983. (661) 326-3715 James Haples,Assessor-Recorder JASON - %~ Kern County Official Records Pages: 9 'T PLEASE COMPLETE THIS INFORMATION DOCUM ENT #:0200077043 6/26/2000 14:00:00 LAFCO Taxes. · 0200077043, Other. TOTAL PAID WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: gA¥C0 Stat. Types:l 2700 "M" Street, Suite 290 Bakersfield, CA 93301 VIA: COUMTY MESSENGER THIS SPACE FOR RECOROER'S USE ONLY THIS PAGE ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECOROING INFORMATION __oF (Additional recording fee applies) ~MC CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND THE KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT: Establishment of a Subsidiary District ST CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION Pursuant to Government Code Section 57200, this Certificate of Completion is hereby issued by the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of thc County of Kern, Statc of California. 1. The names of each district or city involved in this change oforganization or reorganization or formation and the kind or type of change of organization or reorganization or formation ordered for each such city or district are as follows: City or District Type of Change of Organization CITY OF BAKERSFIELD KERN RIVER Establishment of a LEVEE DISTRICT: Subsidiary District 2. The above listed cities and/or districts are located within the following county(ies): Kern Coun .ty 3. A description of the boundaries of the above cited change of organization or reorganization or formation is shown on the attached map marked Exhibit "B" and the legal description marked Exhibit "A" (if the legal description is incorporated within the resolution or ordinance it shall not be marked as an exhibit) and by reference incorporated herein. Thc map so attached is not essential to this legal description and may be detached for purposes of recording with the County Recorder. A copy of said map is on file in the office of the Local Agency Formation Commission, 2700 'M" Street, Suite 290, Bakersfield, California. For purposes of Government Code Sections 54900 to 54902.5 said map is a part of this certificate. 4. The terms and conditions, if any, of the change of organization or reorganization or formation, are incorporated within, or attached to the resolution or ordinance attached hereto, and by reference incorporated herein. 5. The date of adoption of the resolution or ordinance ordering this change of organization or reorganization or formation without election, or the resolution or ordinance confirming an order for this change of organization or reorganization or formation after confirmation by the voters was May 16~ 2000. 6. The territory involved in this change of organization or reorganization or formation is inhabited. A certified copy of the resolution or ordinance approving this proposal by thc Kern County ' · Board of Supervisors is attached hereto. I, William A. Turpin, Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission, County of Kern, do hereby certify that I have examined thc attached resolution or ordinance ordering the change of organization or reorganization or formation, and have found this document to be in compliance with LAFCO Resolution No. 00-07 approving said change and adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Kern on March 28~ 2000. Dated: June 22, 2000 WILLIAM A. TURPI-N ~ Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission ................................ Legend ........ Levee District Boundary ......... Kem'River Levee Date: District Boundary August 10, 1999 City of Bakersfield Drawn b~. TDE Water Resources Department Sheet 1 of I ITEM 6).B. CALFED PILOT PROJECT GRANT STATUS Verbal Update by Staff- For Board Information L/ Sept. 18, 1995 AB'733 Page 1 CA AB 733 AUTHOR: Speier TITLE: Drinking water: fluoridation INTRODUCED: 02/22/95 LAST AMEND: 09/06/95 LOCATION: To enrollment CODE SECTIONS: An act to add Sections 4026,7 and 4026.8 to the Health and Safety Code, and to add Section 21080.26 to the Public Resources Code, relating to drinking water. SUMMARY: Requires the State Department of Health Services to adopt regulations that require the fluoridation of the water of any public water system that has at least 10,000 service connections according to a prescribed schedule based upon the lowest capital cost per connection; requires the regulations to establish the minimum and maximum permissible concentrations of fluoride; makes related provisions. DIGEST: AB 733, as amended, Speier. Drinking water: fluoridation. Existing law, commonly referred to as the California Safe Ddnkir~g Water Act, is administered by the State Department of Health Services and, among other things, it requires the department to establish recommended public health levels for contaminants in drinking water, and requires operators of public water systems to obtain a permit. Existing law also requires the department to, at the request of any public water system, grant a variance from the primary drinking water standard adopted by the department for fluoride, if certain conditions are satisfied. This bill would require the department to adopt regulations that require the fluoridation of the water of any public water system that has at least 10,000 service connections according to a prescribed schedule based upon the lowest capital cost per connection. Among other things, it would require the regulations to establish the minimum and maximum permissible concentrations of fluoride. This bill wouJd provide that a public water system scheduled to fluoridate purcuant to the bill is not required to comply Citylink Download Sept. 18, 1995 AB 733 Page 2 until funds sufficient to pay capital and associated costs for the system have become available from any source other thaq~ ratepayers, shareholders, local taxpayers, or bondholders of the public water system. '~rhis bill would also exempt a public water system from complying with this fluoridation requirement and the related regulations adopted by the department in any fiscal year that funds are not appropriated, or made available from sources other than ratepayers, shareholders, local taxpayers, or bondholders of the public water system, for new capital operation and maintenance costs. The bill would provide that a public water system with less than 10,000 service connections may elect to comply with the fluoridation standards of the bill. It would require costs of compliance with the standards, compliance requirements, and regulations to · be paid from federal grants, or donations from private foundations, for these purposes. This bill would require each public water system to provide the department with an estimate of anticipated total annual noncapital operations and maintenance costs related to fluoridation treatment by January I of each year. The bill would also require the Attorney General to, upon request by the department, institute mandamus or other appropriate proceedings in cases where the owner or operator of a public water system fails to comply with a regulation adopted pursuant to its provisions. This bill would permit the department to grant variances pursuant to existing law. This bill would require the Public Utilities Commission to approve rate increases related to costs of compliance for public water systems under its jurisdiction. Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act, provides that the maintenance of a quality environment is a matter of statewide concern. This bill would exempt from that act minor alterations to utilities in compliance with this bill. By requiring the addition of fluorides to public water systems, this bill would impose additional duties on local public entities that operate public water systems, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. Series 1937, No~~ 12 Issued August 1945 Bakersfield Area California and ~n~ted ~t~tes Dep~Ft~ont ~ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRiGUI~TUI~ Agricultural Research Adminls~rafion Bureau of Plant Indust~, So~s, and Ag~cultUral Eng~npering ' In cooperation vfi~ tl~e U~ve~ity of Callforn~a Agricul~r~ E~ent Sta~on For ~o ~ ~e S~ERINTENDENT OF DOC~ENTS; WASH~G~N 2S~ D.C. ~ee 60 ou~ P R O P 12 PROP 13 COUNTY WATER AGENCY t3 A K El R $ ti` I E L D TO: Kern County Water Agency Board of Directors Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Tom Clark, Kern County Water Agency General Manager Alan Tandy, City Manager DATE: May 25, 2000 SUBJECT: Kern River Flow Restoration and Water Reliability Program The purpose of this memorandum is to relay good news to you and to give you a preView of a potential project which we may jointly pursue. Governor Gray Davis has included $23 million in the state's May budget revise to implement the Kern River Flow Restoration and Water Reliability Program (Kem River Program). The source of these grant funds is Proposition 13 - the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Act, a section of which provides $180 million for an Interim Water Reliable Supply and Water Quality Infrastructure and Management Program. These funds are targeted for use in the Bay-Delta export area, and are intended to implement programs which will help restore a portion of water supplies that have been reallocated to Bay-Delta environmental uses. We are excited that Governor Davis has decided to fund this program, and wish to convey our deep appreciation to the Governor, Senator Jim Costa, and our other local state legislators who worked hard for the success of Proposition 13. In the weeks ahead, we will be providing you with additional information about the Kern River Program. Ultimately, we will need to seek your approval for proceeding with the Program. At this point, we wanted you to provide you with an overview of the Program, so that when it becomes more publicly known, you will understand what is involved in case you are contacted by the media or public. The Kern River program will provide broad local water supply, drinking water quality and community benefits, both for the metropolitan Bakersfield area and Kern County agriculture, such as: · The Program includes a component to restore flows in the Kern River through the heart of Bakersfield during May through September. This will yield significant aesthetic values, recreational benefits and improved management of Kern River flows for urban and agricultural uses. Kern River Program Page 2 · A major source of Kern County's water supply is the Delta via the State Water Project. The quality of this water is inferior to the high quality Kern River water. The Program will facilitate water exchanges and acquisition of Kern River water rights that will secure a high quality source of supply for Bakersfield citizens. · The Program provides funding to acquire property which will generate multiple benefits. These benefits include new areas for recharging water, integrated with oppommities for park and recreational uses. · Delta water supplies are becoming increasingly unreliable, so the Program will fund construction of new water wells which will be integrated with local water banking projects to provide improved dry year water supply for both urban and agricultural uses. Implementation of the Kern River Program involves a partnership between the City of Bakersfield, Kern County Water Agency, and other local water districts. The Program would begin in August 2000 with Governor Davis presiding over a ribbon-cutting ceremony, and is planned for completion by December 2001. This is an ambitious schedule, but can be accomplished via the coordination, cooperation and hard work of our respective staffs. Attached to this memorandum is a program description which provides more detail on program elements and benefits. At this time, we are working with our local state legislators (Senator Jim Costa, 16th District; Senator Charles Poochigian, 14th District; Senator Pete Knight, 17th District; Assemblyman Roy Ashbum, 32nd District; Assemblyman Dean Florez, 30th District; Assemblyman Keith Olberg, 34th District) to assure that funding for the Program remains in the Governor's fiscal year 2000-2001 budget. This is an important milestone. K~rn Ri~.~r Program Arv/n-£dison Oana/ BAKERSFIELD Regulatory Alert TO: AWWA Leadership All Utilities FROM: Jack Hoffbuhr DATE: June 22, 2000 What: Publication of Arsenic Rule Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) proposed arsenic rule was published in the Federal Register. As has been widely publicized, and as AWWA informed its members last month, USEPA proposed reducing the arsenic standard from 50 pads per billion n(ppb) to 5 ppb. AWWA expects the proposed standard to cost $1.5 billion annually and $14 billio in capital costs. Today's publication triggers a three-month period for public comment on the rule. USEPA is also seeking comment on standards of 3 ppb, 10 ppb and 20 ppb. AWWA strongly encourages its member utilities to submit comment to USEPA and to inform their customers of the impact this rule will have on them. Comments may be submitted by mail to: W-99-16 Arsenic Comments Clerk Water Docket (MC-4101) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20460 Comments may also be submitted via email to ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov in a WP8 file or as an ASCII file. AWWA is pleased to offer a spreadsheet that will allow utilities to forecast the cost of each standard for which USEPA has sought comment for both the utility and its customers. The spreadsheet, which requires Microsoft Excel software to be run, is available through the Government Affairs section of AWWA's web site: For additional information about the spreadsheet, please contact Jeanne Bailey of AWWA's Washington, D.C. staff at 202-628-8303. Given the substantial increase to customer rates the proposed arsenic rule would require, AWWA utility members may want to inform their customers about the impact of the rule locally and urge them to contact USEPA on their own. Background: AWWA has been deeply involved in the formulation of the proposed arsenic rule and strongly recommends its members provide comment to USEPA on the rule's impact. USEPA has based its rule on the findings of the National Research Council (NRC), which recommended early last year that the arsenic standard for drinking water be reduced. AWWA endorsed the work of the NRC and has repeatedly called for the arsenic standard to be reduced significantly. However, because no research whatsoever exists on the health impacts of long-term exposure to trace amounts of arsenic, the NRC was careful not to endorse a specific numerical level as safe. In fact, to date, the only arsenic level endorsed by health professionals anywhere is 10 ppb, the level recommended by the World Health Organization. The European Economic Community has also endorsed a standard of 10 ppb. In light of this, and in light of comments made by some NRC panelists that an arsenic standard below 10 ppb would not be supportable, AWWA has urged USEPA to establish an arsenic level of "no less than" 10 ppb. Nevertheless, USEPA has proposed 5 ppb, a standard which the AWWA Research Foundation and the Association of California Water Agencies estimates will cost utilities $1.5 billion a year and $14 billion in capital costs. These costs translate into rate increases of as much as $200 per year per customer in some areas of the country. Congress was clear that USEPA was to consider the cost benefit of any rule it proposed in relation to the health benefits the rule was expected to accrue. To that end, and given the lack of information on the rule's true health benefits, AWWA encourages all of its members to use the AWWA arsenic spreadsheet and convey the cost implications of the proposed arsenic rule for them and their customers to USEPA during the public comment 3eriod. The attached fact sheet may help in forming comments on the proposed arsenic rule as well. Finally, AWWA also wants to ensure its members are aware of USEPA's public meeting on this proposal at the Reno Hilton in Reno, Nevada on August 9th. For those members in and around Nevada, this meeting will provide a good opportunity to explain the impacts of the arsenic standard directly to USEPA representatives. For more information on the public meeting, please contact Jeanne Bailey at 202-628-8303. AWWA FACT SHEET Arsenic · Arsenic occurs naturally in the environment, being the twentieth most common element in the Earth's crust, and the twelfth most common element in the human body. Arsenic is added to the environment by weathering of rocks, burning of fossil fuels, and manufacturing. It is widely distributed in nature and is mainly transported in the environment by water. · Arsenic exposure can cause a variety of adverse effects. The severity of the effect depends on the level of exposure Acute high-dose oral exposure to arsenic typically leads to gastrointestinal irritations accompanied by difficulty in swallowing, thirst, abnormally ow blood pressure, and convulsions. Death may occur from cardiovascu ar collapse at very high doses. · Evidence exists that long-term exposure to high arsenic levels increases the risk of cancer. When exposure is by inhalation, the primary effect is increased risk of lung cancer. When exposure is by ingestion, the clearest effect is increased risk of skin cancer. Evidence also exists that the risk of internal cancer (liver, lung, bladder, and kidney) is also increased through ingestion. · For most people, the most significant route of exposure to arsenic is throu h food Stud~ they Food and Drug Administration (FDA~ have found *~--,* ~,~. ....... g. _.. 'es by , ,-o, ,~H ~',U ~ea~'ooa are nigher in arsenic content than any other foods and account for the largest contribution to total arsenic intake in the typical adult diet. · Ingestion of drinking water can be a source of arsenic exposure. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, 1% of water utilities have arsenic levels above the existing federal standard of 50 parts per billion (ppb), 8% exceed 10 ppb and 14% exceed 5 ppb. · Low levels of arsenic can be detected in ambient air. However, inhalation is generally not a significant source of exposure for the general public. · In March 1999, the National Research Center (NRC) issued its Arsenic in Dr nkin War . In it, the NRC recommended that the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCLig~f 50e;;~p°rt does not sufficiently protect public health and that the MCL must be reduced. · Members of the NRC panel expressed concern that reducing the federal standard below 10 ppb is unsupportable. · The World Health Organization has an arsenic standard for drinking water of 10 ppb. · USEPA has proposed an arsenic standard for drinking water of 5 ppb. · A report issued by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AVVWARF) and the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) projects an arsenic standard of 10ppb would cost $600 million annually with capital costs of $5 billion. A standard of 5 ppb would cost $1.5 billion annually, with capital costs of $14 billion. CALIFORNIA WATER February 2000 Arsenic Background Arsenic is a naturally occurring substance that is sometimes found at very Iow levels in drinking water, primarily groundwater. Studies from Taiwan suggest that exposure to drinking water containing more than 100 parts per billion of arsenic -- more than twice the amount allowed by U.S. law -- may be linked to greater incidence of some forms of cancer. While there has been research indicating that Iow levels of arsenic in drinking water poses a risk to human health, scientists have agreed there are significant gaps in the data and that additional research is needed to formulate an appropriate level for a primary drinking water standard. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 to finalize a new drinking water standard for arsenic by January 2001 based on good scientific information and data. The current maximum contaminant level (MCL) is 50 parts per billion, and EPA is considering potential revisions as Iow as 2 parts per billion. A cost-of-compliance study conducted by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Engineers and Scientists in 1996 concluded that a 2 parts per billion MCL would cost California water utilities total capital costs of $5 billion with total annual costs (including annual O&M plus amortized capital) of $720 million per year. A standard of 5 parts per billion would require $1.8 billion in capital costs and annual costs of $240 million. If the standard were set at 10 parts per billion, those numbers drop to $550 million and $77 million respectively, outlined below: Arsenic MCL Number of Affected Estimated Total Estimated Total (ug/L) Sources* Capital Costs Annual Costs** 1 8,700 $8.2 billion $1.2 billion/year 2 5,700 $5 billion $720 million/year 5 1,900 $1.8 billion $240 million/year 10 640 $550 million $77 million/year 20 280 $280 million $35 million/year * Includes active wells and surface water treatment plants ** Includes annual O&M costs plus amortized capital Current Status The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to complete the arsenic rulemaking package any day, and will send it to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) thereafter. WATER BOARD AGENDA ITEM REPORT I MEETING DATE: July 12, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: NEW BUSINESS ITEM: 7). E. TO: City of Bakersfield Water Board FROM: Water Resources Staff DATE: July 7, 2000 SUBJECT: An Ordinance updating Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 14.04 Ashe Water Service Area Relating to Water Main Extensions RECOMMENDATION: Water Board review and recommendation to City Council for approval BACKGROUND: The City of Bakersfield offers refunds to developers for the installation of water mains in tracts and sub-divisions that are located in a specified area of the City Domestic Water system. Developers install or cause to be installed the water systems, in accordance with City standards and specifications, and upon completion and dedication of the facilities to the City, City refunds the cost of installation to developers. This practice is patterned after California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) rules for investor owned utilities. Prior agreements with developers based the refunds on the revenue received from the tract or sub-divisions. Revenue from each and every development that was eligible for a contract was tracked and calculated on an annual basis. The developer would receive twenty-two percent of such calculated revenue in annual payments over a 20 year period, or sooner if revenue allowed. Any remaining balance due after twenty years was paid in equal payments over a five year period. Newer rule changes in the CPUC regulations changed the refund requirements to allow equal annual payments to developers over a forty year period, based on the cost to install the system. Since the newer rules do not use revenue as a basis for refund, this change dramatically reduced the annual accounting for refunds for the utilities and evened out the future cash flow requirements to meet debt service for the contracts. This ordinance update will bring the Bakersfield Municipal Code in compliance with the regulated water utilities in California and allow the City to continue the issuance of contracts within eligible service areas of the Domestic Water system, in conformance with the Municipal Code. July 5, 2000, 2:58PM 14.04.140 Main extensions--General provisions--Applicability. A. All extensions of distribution mains, from the city's basic production and transmission system or existing distribution system, to serve new customers, except for those specifically excluded in subsections B or C of this section, shall be made under the provisions of this section through Section 14.04.230 unless specific authority is first obtained from the city to deviate therefrom. A main extension contract shall be executed by the city and the applicant or applicants for the main extension before the city commences construction work on the extensions or, if constructed by the applicant or applicants, before the facilities comprising the main extension are transferred to the city. B. Extension solely for fire hydrant, private fire protection, resale, temporary, standby, or supplemental service shall not be made under this section through Section 14.04.230. C. The city may, but will not be required to, make extensions under this section through Section 14.04.230, in easements or rights-of-way where final grades have not been established, or where street grades have not been brought to those established by public authority. If extensions are made when grades have not been established and there is a reasonable probability that the existing grade will be changed, the city shall require that the applicant or applicants for the main extension deposit, at the time of execution of the main extension agreement, the estimated net cost of relocating, raising or lowering facilities upon establishment of final grades. Adjustment of any difference between the amount so deposited and the actual cost of relocating, raising or lowering facilities shall be made within ten days after the city has ascertained such actual cost. The net deposit representing actual cost is not subject to refund. The entire deposit related to the proposed relocation, raising or lowering shall be refunded when such displacements are determined by proper authority not to be required. (Prior code § 1.46.140(a)(1)) D. If the applicant requests the city to design and build main extension, the main shall be designed and built on the city's time schedule. Repayment of costs for main will be made in accordance with Section 14.04.210. If applicant chooses to design and build the main extension, applicant forfeits the right to a main extension refund. 14.04.150 Main extensions--General provisions--Definitions. For the purposes of Sections 14.04.140 through 14.04.230, the following words shall have the meanings as set forth in this section: A. "Bona fide customer" is a customer (excluding any customer formerly served at the same location) who has given satisfactory evidence that service will be reasonably permanent to the property which has been improved with a building of a permanent nature, and to which service has commenced. The provision of service to a real estate developer or builder, during the construction or development period, shall not establish him as a bona fide customer. B. "Real estate developer" or "builder" includes any individual, association of individuals, partnership, or corporation that divides a parcel of land into two or more portions. '1 C. "Adjusted construction cost" is reasonable and does not exceed the costs recorded in conformity with generally accepted water utility accounting practices, and as specifically defined in the Uniform System of Accounts for Water Utilities prescribed by the public utilities commission, of installing facilities of adequate capacity for the service requested. If the city, at its option, should install facilities with a larger capacity or resulting in a greater footage of extension than required for the service requested, the "adjusted construction cost" shall be determined by the application of an adjustment factor to actual construction cost of facilities installed. This factor shall be the ratio of estimated cost of required facilities to estimated cost of actual facilities installed. (Prior code § 1.46.140(a)(2)) 14.04.160 Main extensions--General provisions--Ownership, design and construction of facilities. A. Any facilities installed under this section shall become the sole property of the city. B. The size, type, quality of materials, and their location shall be specified by the city, and the actual construction shall be done by the city or by a properly licensed constructing agency acceptable to it. C. Where the property of an applicant is located adjacent to a right-of-way, exceeding seventy feet in width, for a street, highway, or other public purpose, regardless of the width of the traveled way or pavement, or a freeway, waterway, or railroad right-of-way, the city may elect to install a main extension on the same side thereof as the property of the applicant, and the estimated and adjusted construction costs in such case shall be based upon such an extension. D. When an extension must comply with an ordinance, regulation, or specification of a public authority, the estimated and adjusted construction costs of the extension shall be based upon the facilities required to comply therewith. (Prior code § 1.46.140(a)(3)) 14.04.170 Main extensions--General provisions--Estimates, plans, and specifications. ur,,- ,,~u,~,,o~ ,,j - v-~ .... .~ If applicant is eligible for a mainline extension refund and upon request by applicant for a main extension, the city shall prepare a prelimina~ sketch and rough estimates of the cost of installation to be advanced by the applicant. ~-j ~,,..,. ~, a ma;n .~,. .... ~,, If applicant is eligible for a mainline extension refund and is requesting the city to prepare detailed plans, specifications and cost estimates shall be required to deposit with the city an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparation of such material. The city shall, upon request, make available within fo~y-five days after receipt of the deposit refe~ed to above in this subsection, such plans, specifications and cost estimates of the proposed main extension. If the extension is to include oversizing of hcilities to be done at the city's expense, appropriate details shall be set fo~h in the plans, specifications and cost estimates. C. In the event a main extension contract with the city is executed within one hundred eighty days after the city furnished the detailed plans and specifications, the deposit shall become a part of the advance, and shall be refunded in accordance with the terms of the main extension contract. If such contract is not so executed, the deposit to cover the cost of preparing plans, specifications and cost estimates shall be forfeited by the applicant for the main extension and the amount of the forfeited deposit shall be credited to the account or accounts to which the expense of preparing the material was charged. D. When detailed plans, specifications and cost estimates are requested, the applicant for a main extension shall furnish a map to a suitable scale showing the street and lot layouts and, when requested by the city, contours or other indication of the relative elevation of the various parts of the area to be developed. If changes are made subsequent to the presentation of this map by the applicant, and these changes require additional expense in revising plans, specifications and cost estimates, this additional expense shall be borne by the applicant, not subject to refund, and the additional expense thus recovered shall be credited to the account or accounts to which the additional expense was charged. (Prior code § 1.46.140(a)(4)) 14.04.180 Main extensions--General provisions--Timing and adjustment of advances. A. Unless the applicant for the main extension elects to arrange for the installation of the extension himself, the full amount of the required advance or an acceptable surety bond must be provided to the city at the time of execution of the main extension agreement. B. If the applicant for a main extension posts a surety bond in lieu of cash, such surety bond must be replaced with cash not less than ten calendar days before construction is to commence; provided, however, that if special facilities are required primarily for the service requested, the applicant for the extension may be required to deposit sufficient cash to cover the cost of such special facilities before they are ordered by the city. C. An applicant for a main extension who advances funds shall be provided with a statement of actual construction cost and adjusted construction cost showing in reasonable detail the costs incurred for material, labor, any other direct and indirect costs, overheads, and total costs; or unit costs; or contract costs, whichever are appropriate. D. Such statement shall be submitted within sixty days after the actual construction costs of the installation have been ascertained by the city. In the event that the actual construction costs for the entire installation have not been determined within one hundred twenty days after completion of construction work, a preliminary determination of actual and adjusted construction costs shall be submitted, based upon the best available information at that time. E. Any differences between the adjusted construction costs and the amount advanced shall be shown as a revision of the amount of advance and shall be payable within thirty days of the date of submission of the statement. (Prior code § 1.46.140(a)(5)) 14.04.190 Main extensions--General provisions--Assignment of main extension contracts. A. Any contract entered into under Sections 14.04.200 through 14.04.220, or under similar provisions of former rules, may be assigned, after settlement of adjusted construction costs, after written notice to the city by the holder of the contract as shown by the city's records. B. Such assignment shall apply only to those refunds which become due more than thirty days after the date of receipt by the city of the notice of assignment. C. The city shall not be required to make any one refund payment under such contract to more than a single assignee. (Prior code § 1.46.140(a)(6)) 14.04.200 Main extensions--Serving subdivisions, tracts, housing projects, industrial developments or organized commercial districts-- Advances. A. Unless the procedure outlined in subsection C of this section is followed, an applicant for a main extension to serve a new subdivision, tract, housing project, industrial development or organized commercial district shall be required to advance to the city, before construction is commenced, the estimated reasonable cost of the extension to be actually installed, from the nearest city facility at least equal in size or capacity to the main required to serve both the new customers and a reasonable estimate of the potential customers who might be served directly from the main extension without additional extension. The costs of the extension shall include necessary service stubs or service pipes, fittings, gates and housing therefor, and meter boxes, but shall not include meters. To this shall be added the cost of fire hydrants when requested by the applicant for the main extension or required by public authority, whenever such hydrants are to become the property of the city. B. If special facilities consisting of items not covered by subsection A of this section are required for the service requested and, when such facilities to be installed will supply both the main extension and other parts of the city's system, at least fifty percent of the design capacity (in gallons, gpm, or other appropriate units) is required to supply the main extension, the cost of such special facilities may be included in the advance, subject to refund, as provided in Section 14.04.210, along with refunds of the advance of the cost of the extension facilities described in subsection A of this section. C. In lieu of providing the advances in accordance with subsections A and B of this section, the applicant for a main extension may be permitted, if qualified in the judgment of the city, to construct and install the facilities himself, or arrange for their installation pursuant to city standards for competitive bidding procedures initiated by him and limited to qualified bidders. If the applicant chooses to construct and install the facilities applicant forfeits the right to refunds. The cost, including the cost of inspection and supervision by the city, shall be paid directly by the applicant 14.04.210 Main extensions--Serving subdivisions, tracts, housing projects, industrial developments or organized commercial districts -- Refunds. A. The amount advanced under subsections A and B and C of Section 14.04.200 shall be subject to refund by the city, in cash, without interest, to the party or parties entitled thereto as set forth in subsections B and C of this section. The total amount so refunded shall not exceed the total of the amount advanced. Except as provided in this section, the refunds shall be made in annual, semiannual or quarterly payments, at the election of the city, and for a period not to exceed t~'eniy forty years after the date of the contract. B. Whenever costs of main extensions have been advanced pursuant to subsections A or C of Section 14 04 200, the city shall ~' .... :-^ ,1` ..... ............... ,~.~--~ ~ ~,.~.;"~ refund and pay annually at ~o and a half percent of the costs of installation of main extension. 14.04.220 Main extensions--Serving subdivisions, tracts, housing projects, industrial developments or organized commercial districts-- Termination of contracts. A. Any contract with refunds based upon percentage of revenues and entered into under o,~,~,,,. .... ,,-~.,-,,,, L-,,,~,s- ,.o o,~,~,,,, a former main extension rule, or under similar provisions of foyer roles, may be purchased by the city and te~inated, provided the payment is not in excess of the estimated revenue re,nd multiplied by the te~ination hctor in the following table, the te~s are othe~ise mutually a~eed to by the pa~ies or their assignees and subsections B and C of Section 14.04.210 arc is complied with. B. The estimated revenue re,nd is the amount that would othe~ise be re~nded, at the cu~ent level of re~nds, over the remainder of the ~ for~-year contract period, or sho~er period that would be required to extinguish the total rehnd obligation. 5 ~'0 6 6852 7 8 6~.0 10 11 12 5162 13 AaA, 14 17 18 Termination Factors Years Factor Years Factor Years Factor Years Factor Remain'g Remain'g Remain'g Remain'g 1 0.8929 11 0.5398 21 0.3601 31 0.2608 2 0.8450 12 0.5162 22 0.3475 32 0.2535 3 0.8006 13 0.4941 23 0.3356 33 0.2465 4 0.7593 14 0.4734 24 0.3243 34 0.2399 5 0.7210 15 0.4541 25 0.3137 35 0,2336 6 0.6852 16 0,4359 26 0.3037 36 0.2276 7 0.6520 17 0.4188 27 0,2942 37 0,2218 8 0.6210 18 0.4028 28 0.2851 38 0.2136 9 0.5920 19 0.3877 29 0.2766 39 0.2111 10 0.5650 20 0.3729 30 0.2685 40 0.2061 14.04.230 Main extensions--Serving subdivisions, tracts, housing projects, industrial developments or organized commercial districts-- Extensions including fire protection. A. The cost of distribution mains designed to meet the fire flow requirements of the city are to be advanced by the applicant. The city shall refund this advance as provided in Section 14.04.210. B. Should distribution mains be designed to meet fire flow requirements in excess of those set forth by the city, the increase in cost of the distribution mains necessary to meet such higher fire flow requirements shall be paid to the city as a contribution in aid of construction. C. The cost, allocated as appropriate, of facilities other than distribution mains required to provide supply, pressure, or storage primarily for fire protection purposes shall be paid to the city as contribution in aid of construction. (Prior code § 1.46.140(c)) ITEM 9). 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 N° 96-172919. May 25, 2000 KERN RIVER FLOW RESTORATION and WATER RELIABILITY PROGRAM Overview Local water leaders are working to implement the Kern River Flow Restoration and Water Reliability Project, utilizing $23 million from the "Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Act" (Proposition 13), known as Water Bond 2000. This project will generate broad local water supply, environmental and community benefits, and targeted drinking water quality benefits within the metropolitan Bakersfield area. Background With the passage in March 2000 of Proposition 13, the "Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Act", over $1.9 billion was made available to improve California's water infrastructure. It is estimated these funds could generate nearly 1,000,000 acre- feet of new dry-year water supply, restoring a portion of the Bay-Delta water supplies that have been lost due to federal actions, as well as generate important water quality and flood protection improvements. Projects funded by Water Bond 2000 will bring greater certainty to the water supplies which fuel Califomia's economy and sustain the state's competitive edge. These investments will help prepare California for an additional 15 million people by 2020 through a variety of clean water, watershed, flood protection and water supply improvement programs. Chapter 9, Article 4 of Proposition 13, the Interim Water Reliable Supply and Water Quali _ty Infrastructure and Management Program, provides $180 million in competitive grants and loans "to local agencies located in the delta export service areas for programs or projects that can be completed and provide the intended benefits not later than March 8, 2009, and are designed to increase water supplies, enhance water supply reliability, or improve water quality." Programs to be funded under this section of the bond are authorized at the discretion of the Governor. Kern County water leaders and planners have been working to develop a comprehensive local program that would encompass the specific types of activities targeted for funding under this portion of the bond, including; 1) improving drinking water quality by shifting reliance from lower quality to higher quality source water supplies; 2) constructing new groundwater storage and recovery projects, 3) expanding existing groundwater storage and recovery projects, 4) acquiring water and storage rights in existing surface reservoirs, and 5) measures and facilities that improve opportunities for water transfers and exchanges. Program Overview The Kern River Flow Restoration and Water Reliability Project will provide significant water quality, water supply, environmental and community benefits for the metropolitan Bakersfield area and a broad range of Kem County water users through the coordinated implementation of a number of program components. Specific project components include; acquisition of Kern River water rights (including storage in Lake Isabella), purchasing of prime water recharge lands, construction of wells for recovering water, and construction of new water exchange facilities. Water quality benefits will be realized by obtaining high-flow Kern River water rights from private interests (averaging 40,000 acre-feet annually), which will make certain that this source of high quality Sierra water is available to meet local drinking water needs. The Kern River is one of the highest quality streams in the state and is the best source of drinking water for over 350,000 people in the metropolitan Bakersfield area. Residents who receive water from the Henry C. Garnett Purification Facility and local users who rely on groundwater for their drinking water will enjoy the benefits of a reliable, high quality Kern River supply made available under this program. Water supply benefits will also be realized by obtaining these Kern River water rights. Of the 40,000 acre-feet targeted for acquisition, approximately 10,000 acre-feet of water will be used directly by the water purification facility to meet drinking water demands, with the remaining water recharged in the Kern River Parkway and other recharge areas for regulation and recovery by urban and agricultural users. In addition to obtaining this water supply, the right to store water in Lake Isabella will also be obtained. These storage rights will provide a higher level of water supply reliability for the metropolitan Bakersfield area, and improve the operational flexibility of Kern's extensive groundwater banking projects. The amount of water received under these rights can vary widely from year to year. Local water banking projects will be used to store the high flows that are not needed in the current year. This stored water will be recovered for use during water shortages, providing a dependable increment of water supply for local farmers. Additional recovery wells will be constructed on existing water banking projects to assure that this increment of stored water can be recovered to meet dry year demands. These wells will provide 36,000 acre-feet of additional recovery opportunities during dry years. Environmental and community benefits are an important component of this program, by assuring that the heart of the City of Bakersfield (from Manor Street in the northeast to Allen Road in the southwest) will enjoy a re-watered Kem River during the peak recreation season between May and September of each and every year. This stretch of the Kem River has been dry since the mid-19$0s, except in wet years. A series of wells will be constructed in the right-of-way of the Kern River Canal and Cross Valley Canal, which are adjacent to the Kem River channel. During dry years, water released and percolated down the Kern River channel will be recaptured and recirculated by these wells. This program will keep the river flowing during the peak use months, without decreasing the supplies that are needed during critical water short years. -2- Regulation/recharge basins will be constructed on lands near Stockdale Highway and Allen Road, providing the additional capacity necessary to recharge the acquired Kern River water rights, and to provide a facility for delivering water back to the Kem River. These regulation/recharge basins will be constructed in coordination with a new multipurpose regional park targeted for construction in this area (using non-Proposition 13 funds), thus combining a prominent water feature into the park. Lands within the park facility may be included to accomplish the added benefit of increased absorptive capacity during high water years and flood situations, and provide a multipurpose recreational field (soccer park, etc.) during non-recharge cycles. Modifications and improvements to existing surface water delivery systems will allow the integration and increase the operational flexibility of these systems. The improvement,s~will be aimed at systems which facilitate the delivery of high quality Kern River water to areas which currently receive water of lesser quality. Initial evaluations have examined opportunities to re-regulate Kern Delta Water District and North Kern Water Storage District supplies, improving reliability of their peak irrigation supplies in exchange for providing high quality Kern River water for the urban area. The program may be expanded in the future to include other systems which provide equivalent opportunities. Program Funding In addition to dedicating a significant amount of local resources for the initial construction and ongoing operation and maintenance of program facilities, local water leaders and planners are seeking $23 million under the "Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Act" to assist in program implementation. The $23 million is allocated as follows: 1) Acquisition of Kern River water rights (including Lake Isabella storage) $10 million 2) Purchase of land for additional recharge and recovery facilities $ 3 million 3) Construction of water well recovery facilities $ 8 million 4) Construction of water exchange facilities $ 2 million Total $23 million Local funds required for full implementation of the Kern River Flow Restoration and Water' Reliability Project will be provided by project participants. Program Participants A number of local government and water management entities will be involved with the development and implementation of this program. Key program participants currently identified include: City of Bakersfield Kern County Water Agency Improvement District No. 4 Kern Delta Water District North Kern Water District Program Timeline Program participants have already begun the steps necessary for implementation of some of the program components. Construction activity funded under the program would begin in August 2000 and is planned to be completed by December 2001. -3- BAKERSFIELD Mt. Whitney Isabella Dam & ;~ ~ ' ,,,: ~ / ", ~ Reservoir The Gity of Bakersfield is dedicate~ to providing the following services: ~ A firm, reliable water supply to meet Kern River Canyon customer demands for hioh quality drinking water at a competitive price; ~ Preservation and augmentation of the underground water supply in the New No,beast metropolitan area; increase of local Water Supply Project instream flows to Kern River channel; ~ Proper distribution of Kern River Kern River Parkway water rights and delivery of water from Isabella Reservoir to canal headoates and agricultural customers; ~ Flood control management and operation o~ Kern River and local Fdant-Kem Ganal ~ ~anked Water drainage basins; Kern Ri ~ Expand and maintain a viable Kern River Parkway through Bakersfield; and ~ Planning for future gro~h and 2800 Acre meeting increased water demands. Water Bank ~- /~' " ' ' ~ California AqueOuct purpose Wide open space, a seasonable climate, and an affordable cost of living are drawing new residents and businesses to the City of Bakersfield. These new members of the community will seek to share the water resources of the area with the existing population. This study provides a review of the historical balance of water supply and demand within the Gity. This review se~es as the basis for determining how much additional water demand can occur without taxing the available water resources. This will allow the Gity to pursue its mission goal of providing a safe and dependable water supply in sufficient quantities to meet customer demands into the 21st Century. su I J !L encies The physical supply of water to residents and businesses throughout metropoli- tan Bakersfield Js provided by a serbs of water districts and private water supply companies. The service boundaries of these agencies/companies are shown on the map on the opposite page. The description below provides specific informa- tion about wholesale and retail agencies that provide water to users within the City of Bakersfield. , .KernCounty Water Agency Kern River and Central Valley Project water in addition ~mprovemem District No.4(ID4) to the State Water Project supply. ID4 also operates two transmission lines to convey treated water to four ID4 was formed to treat and convey State Water Project participating retail suppliers. Only one of these suppli- flows to retail suppliers in Metropolitan Bakersfield. The ers, the California Water Service Company, distributes District owns and operates the Henry Barnett Water a significant amount of ID4 surface water within City Treatment Plant. This facility has the ability to treat boundaries. California The City of Bakersfield also owns and operates 2,800 Water Service ,ompany acres of recharge ponds along the Kern River on the west side of the City. This banking system is an The California Water Service Company (CWSC) is important reliability feature in the City's water supply currently the largest municipal water supplier in the system. metropolitan Bakersfield area. CWSC supplies ground- water through 187 wells in combination with surfaceVaughn Hutual Water Company water. Approximately 20% of the water used by CWSC is surface water purchased from ID4. The Vaughn Mutual Water Company provides water to portions of northwest Bakersfield. This agency City ,of Bakersfield obtains all of its water from wells. The Vaughn Mutual Service Area Water Company owns and operates 11 wells. The City of Bakersfield purchased both Kern River water Agricultural Districts rights and the physical water distribution systems for the Ashe Service Area from Tenneco West in 1977. The This document focuses on municipal water supply. City subsequently added service areas in the Fairhaven However, the City of Bakersfield has also contracted and Riverlakes areas. These service areas are the only to provide Kern River water for irrigation to five portion of the City which directly receives water service nearby agricultural water districts. The majority of this from the City of Bakersfield. Water supply to the systemwater is transported to the Districts through a series is pumped from 47 groundwater wells. Additional wells of earthen canals spanning the City. Percolation are continually in development. The California Water through these canals plays a key role in replenishing Service Company operates the City's water system the City's groundwater supply. under contract for the City of Bakersfield. ale Mutua - :,_,,~ [] ::\ :....~ orth of the River ,~_i I?? IWater Company~~,l-'.i?~:~. '-- . ~-~ ~ l lMunicipal Water District ?!' / ,---_ ....... .~.,., ,_.~ _~. ~ _.-. .. , , ....~.. .... ., , ., , · ~. ,.. .. '~'-:' ~---~ - '~ -'-~E~.~ % ~ ' I 'l .... '" "" ....... .. ,- ~- - .. ¥ ~.. California Water ~ : , ~ ..... . ~/~ ...' _., _ .L-,_~ Service Company ',__ r'~~ . VaughnJutual -.. ~. ~ ,-~ ~ , J.,--- ,---~ Water Company ~. , - r' ' 'L: J ~-~ , ~~~~ '~'' ..... '~ '-* - - - East Niles ~ .y~-mmun""' ~-- '~ ,' ?' ' ...... - 'JServiceDi~ricl . _ , .u. ~1_~.~_ . _ =~- ~ ~---~ ' ~ ~L,~,--~' Ci~ofBake~ield - , , ., . , ~ - ,~ , · --~- ~ ~'l_.l, '17', ~ 'l :i~' :" ' ~ ~'-''~ ' ' '=" >'-J']' i~l .... 104 Bounda~1995 il h-",_:7 ;' . _,-~ ... ~- ~utomobile Club ofSoz~thern Cal(forni(~ " ' ' ' ' / 7', '" " . , / , · ,. ..... ,} , . ./ ~ / .... ' ,, x / . ,' f "-] .' . . . ,~' ' ~'' '. in metro bakersfield lima e The City of Bakersfield is located in the southern San Joaquin Valley in Kern County approximately 100 miles north of Los Angeles and 290 miles southeast of San Francisco. The current population is over 230,000 with an acreage of 71,009 and area of 110.95 square miles. Bakersfield is partially surrounded by a rim of mountains with an open side to the northwest. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are located northeast of Level A~er~,e ~zi~ll, B~keraJ~¢ld Bakersfield. These mountains catch and (inches) (~! 1.1. store snow which can be used as a water supply. The southern boundary is ~.o. [--] formed by the Tehachapi Mountains. o.~. I I o o ~ '-'- ' ~ ~ o I I ~ ,~ ,× ,~ ~ %%, ° o These mountains often have high wind o.~, velocities and heavy precipitation. 0.7. 111-t o.~.o.~, o... 1 II Year* Total (in) o.1. [._] 1998 14.66 ,^N FEB .AR APR HAY JUN JUL AUG SEP ocr NOV DE(; 1997 6.38 Month 1996 6.52 1995 10.29 1994 5.72 The Coast Ranges are located approximately 75 miles to the west. 1993 9.35 There are large climatic variations in this area because of the 1992 7.00 nature of the surrounding valleys, mountains, and desert areas. 1991 5.95 The overall climate of Bakersfield is warm and semi-arid. The 1990 3.30 normal wet season is from October through April. Approximately 1989 3.77 90 percent of the precipitation falls during this period. The annual 1988 5.55 average rainfall is 5.72 inches. A monthly summary of the average 1987 5.58 rainfall is shown above. Annual precipitation for 1977-1998 is presented in the sidebar table. 1 986 6.47 1985 4.04 Winters are mild and semi-arid. The growing season averages 1984 5.26 265 days. Cotton, potatoes, grapes, and cattle are the main 1983 9.94 agricultural products in the valley. Severe freezes seldom occur 1982 6.22 and in some years no frost occurs at all. Snow rarely falls in the 1981 4.60 valley. Tule fog frequents the valley in December and January. 1980 6.84 This fog occurs when marine air is trapped in the valley by a high pressure system. Extreme fog can last continuously for two or 1979 6.70 three weeks. 1978 11.73 1977 4.19 Summers in Bakersfield are hot and dry with minimal breezes. *Year begins on July 1st for recording purposes supply Water supply for the City of Bakersfield is provided through Both groundwater and surface water. [ach type of water supply has several sources. · Natural Recharge · Kern River · Canal Seepage i~t~'~ ~}? '- '" .... ~'~.,~ x~-' ,u · Central Valley Project · Spreading Basins · State Water Project · Reclaimed Water / The City of Bakersfield rests above a series of water bearing d' ... ,./ aquifers. These water bearing aquifers are part of the larger ~, }.,:.. / groundwater basin called the Southern San Joaquin -:,-~,;...'--. Groundwater Basin. · , ~ The primary groundwater aquifer below Bakersfield is made up of unconsolidated sediments. These sediments are ~- bordered by faults or mountain ridges to the east, west, and south. These geologic features serve as effective barriers to groundwater movement to or from these directions. The goal for water resource management is to reach a condition of "safe yield" for the groundwater basin. "Safe yield" occurs when the amount of water pumped from the basin is less than or equal to recharge into the basin. ,,,.; Sources of recharge include: '- [] Kern River channel [] runoff, [] canal seepage, [] spreading/banking and [] wastewater reclamation. precipitation runoff Natural recharge is provided by precipitation runoff, which is defined as the amount of melted snow and rainwater measured after evaporation, evapotranspira- tion, and percolation. Runoff from the Sierra Nevada Mountains feeds the Kern River. Precipitation falling within the City of Bakersfield may not reach the Kern !, River. The City operates a series of drainage basins or .... sumps". Stormwater collected in these basins perco- lates to the groundwater or evapotranspirates. An average of about 24,000 acre-feet of this runoff occurs yearly. This contributes about 12% to the City of Bakersfield's total water supply. river and cana] seepage Canal seepage is defined as the amount of water that percolates into the ground from earthen canals. When added with seepage from the Kern River channel, it contributes more than half the City's water supply at an average of 54%, or about 106,000 acre-feet each year. reclaimed water Current and anticipated water shortages in the South- western United States have caused recycled wastewater, or reclaimed water, to be viewed as a valuable resource in water supply. Effluent produced from the City's two wastewater treatment plants is used in land application. Land application of reclaimed water to non-edible crops "~ for irrigation is considered one of its most beneficial uses, providing both water and nutrients to enhance :',~ plant growth. The City of Bakersfield obtains about 10% of its total water supply from reclaimed water, at an average of 20,000 acre-feet per year. Percolation of water spread in open basins has been historically used in Kern County as a means of banking groundwater. The City owns and operates the 2800 Acre recharge facility used to replenish water to the groundwater aquifers. It was included with the acquisition of Kern River water rights by the City. This site is 6 miles long and includes old river channels, overflow lands, and constructed spreading basins. It is located in and along the Kern River Channel approximately 8 miles west of Highway 99. The facility receives surface water supplies during years when surpluses exist. Sources include the Kern River, the Central Valley Project, and the State Water Project. Depth to Water (ft) 0 ~" -25 -50 -75 -100 -125 -150 -175 -200 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 20-Year Operation 1977-1997 The groundwater is recharged in this facility by using spreading basins, which look like small lakes surrounded by levees. The city began spreading water into the "2800 Acres" in 1978 through the use of one basin and a number of temporary embankments. Additional basins have since been constructed, increasing the number of acres available for water spreading and recharge. More than 1,000,000 acre-feet of water has been spread within the facility since its inception. The 2800 Acre recharge facility improves groundwater quality by recharging Iow salinity Kern River water into the aquifers. This dilutes the more saline irrigation water that percolates underground from adjacent farming operations. The underground reservoir can be pumped in dry years for agricultural and domestic use. In wet years, the reservoir can be built up. This allows water to be used without causing a groundwater overdraft problem. The facility is a valuable resource to the City in providing a reliable water supply during dry years. An average of 22,000 acre-feet of water is banked annually in the facility, which provides about 11% to the City's total water supply. 7 ,'~, " Water sources are usually categorized as either PRECIPITATION groundwater or surface water. However, recharge of groundwater supplies is very dependent on surface water as shown below. The wet yeaddry year cycle can have a significant ~' impact on recharge. The category which may be '~ most noticeably impacted is groundwater banking. River a Spreading Drainage ]age itL_ Seepage ~ and Banking : Basins 0 GROUNDWATER BASIN r~ r--1E~ r--1E~O r--~ E~l r'~ r--~ E~ E~ E~ r'-'~ r'-~ r'~ ~ E~3 E~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Three surface water supplies are available to the City of Bakersfield: [] Kern River, [] State Water Project, and [] Central Valley Project k rn river The Kern River originates in the vicinity of Mount Whitney. The river drains a 2,420 square mile area in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. River water has been sharply managed since the 1954 Army Corps of Engineers construction of the Isabella Dam. The primary purpose for the dam is flood control; however, the reservoir behind the dam provides a key reserve. The usable capacity of the reservoir is 568,075 acre-feet. The Kern River enters the San Joaquin Valley through the Kern River Canyon. With the exception of very wet years, there is no flow in the river past Bakersfield due to upstream canal diversions. During very wet years, water flows in the river south- west to Buena Vista Lake Bed and then north to Tulare Lake or into the California Aqueduct Intertie near Tupman. As a result of the purchase of water rights from ~,..:...~ Tenneco West, Inc., the City owns an average annual -~._ entitlement to more than 140,000 acre-feet of Kern ./' ~ River water. , .. supplemental · .: surface water supplies !/' "~ J.::'. The California State Water Project (SWP) is an (~.. . :,::- extensive network of reservoirs, aqueducts, power ',. ' - '..~-:? plants and pump stations. The main function of the ~._~.~ ~, SWP is to manage water supply, storing surplus water i ~ .~ California . ... during wet periods and distributing it to service areas i'! , State wat¢' ~. throughout California. !. ~ Project~- . .,. ~:- .~'~ The Federal Central Valley Water Project provides '~ ' "~ ~",';~:: ':~" irrigation water to the Central Valley through the Fr:iant¢'i:~ '~.~',::...L tl;l:a~., Friant-Kern Canal System. It also contributes to urban '.;; ~:";" water supply, water quality, flood control, power, CanalCr°ssx~Val'ey.%,,',', :'., ~ ,~V~i(~*' recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement through- , :~..~. out central and northern California. Many of its facilities ~,.,~ ,.:,,~:: ~ ;~ were developed to be used jointly with the California .'iE~(~':i', "~' State Water Project. ' ~'~ '"' '~'' ''~ ';7 Bakersfi(Jid' ';; '¢: ~ Existing SWP facilities can supply approximately 2.4 ._ ~,'~ ~;_. million acre-feet of water each year. This system ': ....... ~:~?',~i~;:~, .~'. ~ .~ could ultimately be expanded to provide 4.2 million :~' ".- .. acre-feet per year. , The bar graph and pie chart below present historical water supply over the past twenty years. The "treatment plant" category represents the metered water supplies from the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) and the California Water Service Co. treatment plants. "Reclaimed water" and "banking" values are similarly based on metered flows. "Canal and river seepage" and "runoff" are calculated based on historical gauge readings and precipitation records respectively. These historical values show trends of steadily increasing development of the treated water supply and reclaimed water spreading. The figure below also shows the impact of a drought period on the available supply. quantity (thousands of acre-feet) ~ Treatment Plant ~ ~ Reclaimed Water 40o- ~:~ River and Canal Seepage ~ , 2800Acre Banking ~ Precipitation Runoff 300- ~ ' 0 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Year '";" demand and outflow ............................ Water demand can be calculated by a water utility USE ~ ~ in several different ways: meters for individual Treatment Plant 2800 Acre ~ residents or businesses, meters for subdivisions Operations Extractions Well Pumping ~ and other subregions or meters on the delivery D system. This latter approach includes flow ~= /~ ,=~=== /~ ===~= /~.~,==~,~ metering on pumps or gravity pipelines into the service area. This is the approach which has been used to calculate demand for this analysis. There are three types of metered delivery systems ----~ ~ =~.] calculatein the CitYwaterOf Bakersfielddemand:[] GroundwaterWhich have wellsbeen used to ......... L_] ........ ~ [] 2800 Acre Wells GROUNDWATER BASIN MIGRATION Plant ~ These demand points are shown in the graphic ........................ - .... ° at left. Well production is the total amount of water pumped from municipal, purveyor, commercial, and individual wells within the City. The City is currently provided water by the City's own Ashe Water Company, the Vaughn Mutual Water Company, and the California Water Service Company. Well production data is not available for Ashe Water before 1983. Therefore, for the years 1977 through 1982, the well production for the Ashe Water Company was estimated using an average acre-foot per customer. Aisc, the Vaughn Mutual Water Company only had two wells producing in the City which began in 1994. Before this time, the Vaughn Mutual Water Company had no wells within the city limits. The average well production is 58,138 acre-feet per year. Well production in 1995 was 75,789 acre-feet. The current well production is increasing an average of 2,200 acre-feet per year. The City has first priority to spread its water in the 2800 Acre Recharge Facility. However, the City permits other water districts and agencies having surplus water to spread, percolate, and later recover their own water in the 2800 Acres. At this time, the City has spreading and extraction agreements with many districts and agencies. These extractions must be used in the San Joaquin Valley for irrigation, light commercial or industrial, and municipal or domestic purposes. These extractions account for an average of 12,947 acre-feet per year. Surface water from the Kern River, California State ~: Water Project or Central Valley Water Projects must be treated prior to distribution. There are currently two ~; ~~~~_~ surfaCeBakersfieldWater treatment plants in the metropolitan area: This facility is owned and operated by the Kern County Water Agency ID4. The plant treats combi- nations of Kern River, California Water Project and Each plant uses a combination of chemical addition, Central Valley Project supplies. The facili~ has a se~ling, filtration and disinfection to produce water of nominal peak capaci~ of 37.5 mgd. Treated water is acceptable quali~. The plants have produced an average distributed to customers inside and outside the City of 24,000 acre-feet of water annually, a portion of of Bakersfield boundaries, which accounts for 12% of the City's total water supply. m California Water Service Co. Filtration Plant: The location of these two facilities is shown on the map This 1.5 mgd water treatment plant is now owned above. and operated by the California Water Se~ice Co. The plant was built and operated by Olcese Water A third water treatment plant is planned in the ne~ five District with California Water Se~ice Co. assuming years. This new water treatment plant will be con- ownership in 1999. The facility treats only Kern structed and operated by the California Water Service River water. Company. This facility will treat Kern River water and distribute it to City of Bakersfield residents in the ~ste:~ca~ growing northeast area of the City. wa e: dema:d Quantity The pie chart and the bar (thousands) ~ Well Production graph at left present ZOO ~ '"~ ;)800 Acre Banking historical water demand ~ Treatment Plant over the past twenty years. The "treatment plant" category represents the metered water 150 supplies from the Kern County Z Water Agency (KCWA) and the I former Olcese Water District lOO treatment plants. "Well produc- II tion" and "2800 Acre extractions" values are based on recorded pumping rates. 5O 1977 1979 1981' 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 * High demand reflects sales of banked water to lames Pioneer 2 Year Improvement District Year Total Inflow Total Outflow Balance 1995 247500 108100 139400 1993 235500 101500 134000 1991 108500 143600 -35100 The table at right compares the inflow (water supply) 1990 95400 115900 -20600 and outflow (water demand) for the City of Bakersfield 1989 110700 96500 14200 from 1977 through 1995. This data shows that the 1988 127000 95900 31100 inflow exceeded the outflow for all but the three years 1987 150100 97100 53000 during the drought period during the early 1990's. The 1986 281800 85900 196000 impacts of this drought period were buffered by the City's surface water storage behind Isabella Dam and 1985 157000 85400 71600 the introduction of banked water to the groundwater 1984 169900 87000 82900 distribution system. 1983 321400 63900 257500 1982 241300 72700 168600 Conservation of water supply through the City's long 1981 231000 174600 56300 term program for banking excess water through the 2800 Acres Recharge Facility is a key in maintaining the 1980 293100 82300 210700 water balance. The chart below compares average use 1979 276700 65400 211300 (demand) with the available supply. On average, there is 1978 364600 55000 309600 an excess supply of 95 thousand acre-feet per year. The 1977 81000 47300 33700 2800 Acre program allows the City to retain a portion of that water for future system reliability. Total 3745000 1822100 1923000 Average 197100 95900 101200 Thousand Note:All values in acre-feet. of Acre-Feet per Year .......................... ©f / Reclaimed Water roundwater Nigration ~2s- _. ~_ (actual quantity The Southern San doaquin Groundwater Basin in the unknot~n) vicinity of Bakersfield is essentially contained by geologic boundaries on three different sides. However, ~oo- it is possible that groundwater can migrate in a north- westerly direction. This migration has never been ?s- quantified. The graph at left shows the impact of approximately 50,000 acre-feet per year of migration. so- Although the actual amount of migration is uncertain it should be noted that the inflow into the groundwater basin has exceeded the outflow. This is evidenced by 2s- the rise in groundwater levels (see graph on page 7). Treatment o Supply Usage Average (1977-1995) ]] ~ for 'the :future wate demand Population Actual Population Data This Water Balance Report has shown Projected Population I~ i ~ that the available water supply has 300000 I ~ ' historically been able to meet the 25oooo ~~ water demand in the City of Bakers- 200000 I ,~""''~"~ ' ]__ i ] field. The City Water Resources ~ Department has also evaluated the 150000 i --~ ~ ---~ __ ability of the water supply system to - meet future water demands as the 100000 ~ City grows. Water demands are ~ I ] generally projected as a function of 50000 ~ ! increasing population. The 1998 o I , population of the City of Bakersfield is 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 in excess of 220,000; the City's Planning Department has projected Year the 2020 population at 365,600. Forecasting future water demand typically considers other factors in addition to population growth. Overall water use tends to decrease over time as in- creased emphasis is placed on both conservation and on recycling. The City has developed a conservative water demand projection based on current usage patterns. The projected water demand shown below is based on the current annual average water consumption rate of 325 gallons per capita day. Population Volume of Water (ac-ft) Projected Water Demand This graph shows that the projected 300000 I Based on 3Z5 9pcd ] water demand in the year 2020 is significantly less than the average 250000 Average Supply (197,107 ac-fi) annual water supply which has been available over the past 20 years. This 200000 _ graph also indicates that that the projected water demand will be 150o0o I greater than the imported water Minimum Supply (81,004 ac-fi),,,,~..,,~ ~ 100000 ,,- .,~,,,,,,,,,,_. supply if the dry year conditions of 1977 occur again. The City has soooo planned for this event through the o development of its groundwater 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 20ZO banking program. Year b lanc d rin§ drought conditions Tables presented in this report have shown that during the dry years from 1990 to 1992 the water outflow for the City of Bakersfield exceeded the water inflow. These conditions are typical for communities throughout the southwestern United States. The graph below shows the annual average Acre - Feet fluctuation in flow conditions for the Kern River. z,ooo,ooo I 1,500,000 I iI I i II I i 1 identifies ' ii ' [ i I This graph i | [ il H,stoncal average I [ [ the cycles ofwet/d,T 1,000,000 ~ 468,650 A.F] ' L i ' i years which i I I i I Ii ~ i ~ "~.~[~~ Bakersfieldhas ~l~l~[~ll experiencedoverthe 5o0,000 _ i~ I ~ I ' past century. 0 i' S991 1900 [ 1919 i 19Z9 11939 1949 i1959 1894 1894 1914 19Z4 1934 1934 1954 1964 1974 1984 1994 Year Most water utilities in the arid Southwest have developed "Drought Manage- ment Plans". These tools may include water usage restrictions, distribution of water conservation devices such as Iow flow shower heads, and stringent price controls. The City of Bakersfield's own planning includes such mea- sures for prolonged drought conditions. However, the primary element of the City's "drought management" plan is the banked groundwater. The graph below shows the relative accumulation of banked groundwater from Banked Water 1977 through 1997. (thousands of acre feet) 500 400 1 This graph shows ........ ~ Total Water Spread I that the current Total After Extraction "banked" 300 ~ { groundwater is over ......... i- ' ' I i three times as great 200 ~ , as the collective i I shortJall fi'om I990 ~ co i I to 1992. 019'75 1980 1985 1990 1995 * This does not reflect the net water loss Year due to groundwater migration and summary The City of Bakersfield requires adequate, dependable [] Started a phased program to upgrade and replace and high quality water for the future of the urban area.mechanical and electronic components of drinking Acquisition of water properties and water rights from water delivery systems to assure reliable water Tenneco West was a major step for the City of Bakers- pressures and flows are available to consumers field in tending to long term water supply for its citi-under all conditions. zens. The development of the 2800 Acres Recharge Facility has been another important feature of the City's long term program. The City is continuing to be proactive in water supply planning. Recent achievements include the follow- ing: [] Completion of a 10 million gallon storage tank that links high quality Kern River water into the drinking system. [] Created a public/private partnership to con- struct and operate a new water treatment plant in northeast Bakersfield to serve Kern River water to new and existing urban developments. [] Implemented a Water Management Plan to increase flows in the river channel through the Kern River Parkway to complement Parkway activities and increase groundwater aquifer recharge. [] Enhanced the Reclaimed Water Program with the acquisition of additional farm land for the use of recycled water for irrigation of crops, decreasing the reliance of those lands on the shared groundwater basin. "This plaque hangs in the hallway of the City of BakersfieM Water Resources buiMing as a tribute to the succession of ownership of the Kern River water rights the City CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, California CITY MANAGER Alan E. Tandy CITY ATTORNEY Bart Thiltgen BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD Mark Salvaggio, Chair 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone 661-326-3767 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone 661-326-3767 David Couch, Vice Chair 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone 661-326-3767 WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, CA 93311 Phone 661-326-3715 Fax 661-326-3098 E-mail water~ci.bakersfield.ca.us WATER RESOURCES MANAGER Gene Bogart WATER RESOURCES Florn Core WATER SUPERINTE Patrick E. Hauptman