Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/06City of Bake.rsfield Water Board ~eeting of November 8, 2006 "Kern River at Main Dam Outlet" Water Resources File Packet B A K E R S F I E L D WATER BOARD David Couch, Chair Harold Hanson, Vice Chair Zack Scrivner CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, November 8, 2006 - 2:00 p.m. Water Resources Building Conference Room 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. MINUTES A. Minutes of the July 20, 2006 and July 21,2006 special meetings for approval - For Board Review and Action 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT A. US Corps of Engineers levee inspection - For Board Information 6. REPORTS A. Kern River & Isabella Reservoir Operations Report - For Board Information 7. DEFERRED BUSINESS None 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 05-325 with the Kern County Water Agency for a Water Supply- For Board Review and Recommendation to City Council B. Water Supply Assessment for West Ming Specific Plan - For Board Review and Action C. Water Supply Assessment for 10 Section Project - For Board Review and Action Water Board Agenda Page 2 8. NEW BUSINESS continued D. Participation in Kern River Weather Modification Program for 2006/2007- For Board Action E. 2007 Water Board meeting schedule - For Board Review and Action 9. WATER BOARD STATEMENTS 10. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation. Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9: North Kern Water Storage District vs. Kern Delta Water District - Tulare County Superior Court Case No. 96-172919 B. Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation. Closed session pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(3)(A) of Government Code section 54956.9 (One issue) 11. ADJOURNMENT F~orn Core Water Resources Manager POSTED: November 312006 S:~WB MINUTES 2006\WBAGENDANov0806.doc Water Board Regular Meeting November 8, 2006 3. MINUTES A. Minutes of the July 20, 2006 and July 21,2006 special meetings for approval - For Board Review and Action MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 2:00 p.m. Water Resources Building Conference Room 1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Couch at 2:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Couch, Scrivner Absent: Vice-Chair HansOn 3. MINUTES A. Minutes of the May 17, 2006 regular meeting for approval. Motion by Scrivner to approve the minutes. APPROVED, HANSON ABSENT 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS A. Dennis Fox spoke regarding weed management and the upcoming Water Bonds, Submitted written material. 5. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT None. 6. REPORTS A. Kern River & Isabella Reservoir Operations Report. Steve Lafond, Hydrographic Supervisor, gave a brief update and distributed the 2005 Kern River Hydrographic Report. 7. MISCELLANEOUS None. 8.DEFERRED BUSINESS None. 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Cost Sharing Agreement withKern River Interests for Expert Advice and Technical Information Regarding the Restriction on Use of Isabella Reservoir Storage Space. Motion by Scrivner to approve Agreement No. 06-13WB with Kern River Interests. APPROVED, Hanson absent Bakersfield, California, July 20, 2006 - Page 2 9. NEW BUSINESS continued B. Annexation Agreement with Rosedale Rio-Bravo Water Storage District. Motion by Scrivner to approve Agreement No. 06-14WB with Rosedale Rio- Bravo Water Storage District and recommend to City Council for approval. APPROVED, Hanson absent Chairman Couch requested staff provide a copy to David Burger. C. Agreement between Chevron U.S.A., Kern Delta Water District and City for Use of Carrier Canal System. Motion by Scrivner to approve Agreement No. 05-16WB(1) with Chevron U.S.A., Kern Delta Water District and the City of Bakersfield. APPROVED, Hanson absent 10. WATER BOARD STATEMENTS A. FIorn Core, Water Resources Manager, stated correspondence was received after the agenda was posted and requires action at this meeting, from Southern California Water Committee, Supervisor Ray Watson, Kern County Representative, regarding City of Bakersfield - Water Board membership contribution to Southern California Water Committee in the amount of $600.00. Motion by Scrivner to add the item to the agenda and approve the membership contribution of $600.00. APPROVED, Hanson absent 11. CLOSED SESSION Motion by Scrivner to recess to Closed Session at 2:15 p.m. APPROVED, Hanson absent A. Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation Closed session pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9. 1. North Kern Water Storage District vs.' Kern Delta Water District, et al; Tulare County Superior Court Case No. 96-172919 5th Appellate District Court Case No. F047706.; 2. City of Bakersfield v. Kern Delta Water District Kern County Superior Court Case No. S-1500-CV-258097-RJO Motion by Scrivner to adjourn from Closed Session at 2:33 p.m. APPROVED, Hanson absent Chairman Couch stated there was no reportable action in Closed Session. 12. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Couch adjourned the meeting at 3:12 p.m. David Couch, Chairman Bobble Zaragoza, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board City of Bakersfield Water Board MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Friday, July 21, 2006 - 3:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chairman Couch at 3:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Couch, Member Scrivner Absent: Vice Chairman Hanson 2. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS David Couch, Water Board Chair, thanked everyone for attending the meeting. He stated for the record, the City of Shafter and the City of Bakersfield have completed large sphere of influence increases recently and both are undergoing programs of annexation. The City of Bakersfield continues to have serious concerns regarding the water supply to support the development in the City of Shafter and to that extent the projected water supply that may come from North Kern or from what is known as the "52 Agreement" water. The City of Bakersfield feels that this will, may in fact threaten the water supply for our community, so it's the City of Bakersfield's hope to eliminate any potential litigation over that "52 Agreement". The City of Bakersfield and the City of Shafter have met to mediate the definition of irrigation. According to the mediator's decision, irrigation is water for Ag purposes which means that such water is not available for urban industrial uses. Today the City of Bakersfield is interested in hearing how the City of Shafter intends to meet the water demands of its future developments without using water secured under the "52 Agreement". The City of Bakersfield remains open to suggestions on how the two cities can amicably develop the respective communities. 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion with City of Shafter Officials regarding Future Water Supplies. John Guinn, City Manager, City of Shafter, thanked David Couch. Mr. Guinn stated the City of Shafter also appreciates being here and working together to try to make sure that the entire part of the county where the two communities come together balance in a logical and efficient way. Water Board Chairman Couch recognized Senator Dean Florez in attendance. Mr. Guinn stated this area is within the North Kern Water Storage District and Oildale Mutual Water Company. The City of Shafter's intention has always been and continues to be, to have North Kern be the water supplier and have Oildale Mutual be the water purveyor in the area. Because there is a cloud over the "52 Agreement" water, what the City of Shafter is going to do with their Costa-Keuhl report, the SB610 and 221 Reports, is propose an alternative supply to that. He stated they are not proposing to encumber the "52 Agreement" water in order to develop the projects in Shafter. The City of Shafter disagrees with the judge's opinion about that agreement and that issue has to be resolved. North Kern has water supplies that are not "52 Agreement" water. He recognizes that the City of Bakersfield will want to look at what those supplies are. The City of Shafter is working with the Bakersfield, California, July 21,2006 - Page 2 ' 3. NEW'BUSINESS continued developers on contracts for those supplies now. When the contracts and the report are finished the City of Shafter will provide it to the City of Bakersfield for review. The report under the SB610 and 221 was part of the letter agreement that the City of Shafter did earlier in this process and it's the City of Shafter's intention to honor that agreement. Mr. Guinn also stated in addition, Oildale Mutual and the City of Shafter own the North of the River Sanitary District wastewater flows and those flows are available to help meet water supply needs in that area. The City of Shafter is trying to move forward with these projects. The supply that the City of Bakersfield will see will be a North Kern supply that is inside the district, non- "52 Agreement" supplies. The City of Shafter will also look at supplies at North of the River and will use wastewater return as a supply where it is appropriate. He stated the City of Bakersfield will receive the reports in a couple of weeks. He stated it will happen before the City of Shafter processes the final part of the tract maps. Mr. Guinn stated until Monday when their staff met they had not told the City of Bakersfield that they were not going to propose any of the "52 Agreement" water. Water Board Chairman Couch asked if there is any other specific source that Mr. Guinn can identify other than North of the River Sanitation District? Tom Clark, North Kern Water Storage District, stated what they would propose to do is a full inventory of all of their water supplies and provide the inventory. The City of Bakersfield will have every opportunity to comment. He stated North Kern has abundant water supplies that can meet the needs of the district as well as short term for these developers. He also stated they have rights on the "52 Agreement" and it does not restrict them for any purpose. He said they will be diverting their full rights to the supply as well. Senator Florez stated now it's about accounting and the City of Shafter, will be able to account for the additional flow or the storage capacity of the district. Water Board Chairman Couch stated he anticipates that the City of Bakersfield would get that report. City of Bakersfield staff will review it and it may be subject at one of the City of Bakersfield Water Board meetings. 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. 5. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Couch adjourned the meeting at 2:39 p.m. David Couch, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board Bobble Zaragoza, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board Water Board Regular Meeting November 8, 2006 5. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT A. US Corps of Engineers levee inspection- For Board Information Water Board Regular Meeting November 8, 2006 6. REPORTS A. Kern River & Isabella Reservoir Operations Report- For Board Information KERN RIVER NATURAL FLOW, REGULATED FLOW, & ISABELLA RESERVOIR STORAGE 2005 - 2006 WATER YEAR 7500 ..... , ............. , ........... ~ .... , ................. , ..... 600,000 2608.25 Ft.) 7000 --~' ................... ' ................. ~ .......... ] ..... ~'C · Isabella Storage ~ , · " ~ Natural Flow- 550,000 '2603.91 Ft.) 6500 . ~- ~ ...... :- ~-~ ~'~-~~- ..... '-- -~ ....... 500,000 6000 ............................. 2599,38 Ft,) 450,000 5500.:.. 5000 -. -' ........ I~ai3~l-I~-S-t~,~le-~- 400'OOFOt.)~ ' 4500 350,000 4000 3500 -I 3000 ................ 250,000 2500 · . ........ ? ...... 200,000 2000 .................. 150,000 1500 ............................ 1000 , _ ...... '~ . 00,000 Reg[ilated Flow 500 50,000 0 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 10-18-06 ISABELLA RESERVOIR DALLY OPERATIONS REPORT (All readings are for date of report (TUESDAY) as of 0001, except as noted.., cfs in italics) Date of Report: October 31,2006 ISABELLA RESERVOIR 2569.67 Lake Elevation (ft.) 231037 Storage (AcFt) -217 Change (AcFt) 324 Inflow to Isabella (cfs) 568075 Storage Capacity 41% % of Capacity 157901 Normal Storage 146% % of Normal Storage For this Date 7215 Average Lake Area (Acres) 18065 Inflow (Month AcFt) 20017 Outflow (Month AcFt) 270 North Fork Mean 273 North Fork @ 0600 Hours 1042692 Accumulative Inflow (2006 Water Year) 374 Mean Outflow 340 Borel Canal 34 Main Dam Outlet 1061216 Accum. Outflow (06 WY) 373 Outflow @ 0600 339 Borel Canal @ 0600 Hours 34 Main Dam Outlet @ 0600 Hours Hours 59 Lake Evap. (cfs) 0.21 Inches Evap. for 24 Hours 3185 Lake Evap. (Month AcFt to Date) 0 Spillway Discharge for 24 Hours 33 South Fork near Onyx @ 0600 Hours PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE 9 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for 24 Hours 0.19 Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for Month 0 0.19 Seasonal Precip. Isabella 0.30 Normal for 63% Isabella Precip. (Season: Oct 1 through Sep 30) this Date % of Normal 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for 24 Hours 1.30 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for Month 2 1.30 Seasonal Precip. Pascoe 1.43 Normal for 91% Pascoe Precip. this Date % of Normal 3 0.0 Upper Tyndall Creek 0.3 Pascoe 0.0 Wet Meadow 4 73 Isabella Maximum Temperature 0.36 Isabella Max. Precip. on Record For this Date 1982 Year of Occurrence 5 47 Isabella Minimum Temperature 95 24 HourWind Movement (Miles) NATURAL RIVER FLOW 6 293 Natural Flow (cfs) 18403 Natural Flow (Month to Date) 795728 2006 Apr-Jul Runoff 7 297 Mean Flow 99% Natural Flow 246 Median Flow 119% Natural Flow For this Date in % of Mean For this Date in % of Median 18 1533 Max. on Record 117 Min. on Record 1092827 Accum. Natural Flow (06 Water Year) 19 1982 Year of Occurrence 1990 Year of Occurrence 20 371 First Point Flow 20355 First Point (Month to Date) 1111453 Accum. First Point (06 Water Year) - KERN RIVER FACTS & FIGURES: B A K E R S F I E L ~ 7 this date in 1982, the second in a series of late month storms battered the upper Kern fy 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 Department the highest for this date in history but the highest ever recorded for the month of October. (661) 326-3715 AVERAGE JANUARY - MARCH [3-month] PRECIPITATION RANKINGS DURING ENSO EVENTS 1915 1919 1941 1958 196§ 1969 ]973 1983 1987 1992 §ased on 1§95-1997 N]cv=Dec~Jar~ Dec*Jan*Feb Jan*Feb*~ar Feb~ar*A[pr Precipitation · .,~ ~00~=07 200~07 ~007 2007 ~ar~A~r=~sy Apr=~sy=Jun ~sy*Jun=Ju~ Jun=Ju~=Au~ 2007 ~007 2007 2007 2007 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY CIVIL WORKS WASHINGTON DC 20310-0108 :' .;~n~ CITY ~.~-' ~,~rtELD O.'.~T ~ ~.~ ,,..uu~ WATER RESOURCES Mr. David R. Couch Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board 1000 Buena Vista Road Bakersfield, California 93311 Dear Mr. Couch: This is in response to your letter dated September 18, 2006, informing me about the concern that the City of Bakersfield has with public safety and water supplY at the Isabella Dam and Lake project. I share your concerns and assure you that this project is receiving priority attention. On September 21, 2006, I met with various Members of Congress, Kern River interests and Mr. Florn'Core, the Manager of the Bakersfield Water Resources Department, in the Washington, D.C. office of Congressman Bill Thomas. The meeting provided everyone with a common understanding of the complex issues involved and the challenges that lie ahead in dealing with them. The Army Corps of Engineers is investigating three dam safety problems at the Isabella project -- spillway capacity, seismic stability, and seepage. We understand and share your desire to move forward as quickly as possible with the investigations so restrictions on the pool may be lifted. The current restrictions are based on an in-depth seepage study that was independently reviewed and verified by State of California dam safety officials and other technical experts outside the Corps of Engineers. The reviewing parties unanimously recommended a reservoir restriction to lower the risk due to seepage. The initial risk assessment screening that was conducted in 2005 identified Isabella Dam among the highest at-risk dams in the Corps portfolio due to the spillway, seismic and seepage concerns, combined with the large downstream population. This assessment provides priority consideration for funding the extensive investigations that need to be done to determine the best course of action. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, the Corps Sacramento District spent approximately $952,000 conducting investigations. In FY 2007, the President's budget includes $2 million to continue those investigations. Isabella Dam will continue to receive every consideration in developing budgets in FY 2008 and future years in support of completing the investigations and analyses in the most expeditious manner possible. Printed on ~ Recycled Paper We understand and are very sensitive to the regional impacts of a reduced operating pool. The Sacramento District will continue to work closely with local water management agencies to minimize impacts to water resources while maintaining public~ safety. After the Corps has collected the necessary data on both the seismic and seepage issues, it will be able to determine if the problems.should be addressed separately or together. The Corps will carefully consider all the factors and interests that will be affected by its decisions, recognizing that public safety and flood protection must remain foremost in its deliberations. I suggest that you continue to work closely with the Kern River Watermaster and Colonel Ronald Light, the Sacramento District Engineer. Colonel Light and his staff are fully engaged in working to resolve the dam safety issues at Isabella Lake. We will move forward as quickly as possible to determine the extent of the problems, and execute appropriate remedial measures to restore authorized project purposes. On my next visit to California, I look forward to personally inspecting Isabella Dam, so that I have first hand knowledge and understanding of the situation. Very truly yours, John Paul Woodley, Jr. Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Water Board Regular Meeting November 8, 2006 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 05-325 with the Kern County Water Agencyfor a Water Supply- For Board Review and Recommendation to City Council AGREEMENT NO. 05- 325 (1).. WATER BOARD AGREEMENT NO. 05-21WB(1). AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 05-325 BETWEEN PURVEYOROF BAKERSFIELD AND KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY FOR A WATER SUPPLY THIS AMENDMENT NO. I TO AGREEMENT NO. 05-325 is made and entered into on November , 2006, by and between the Kern County Water Agency, established by Chapter 1003 of the 1961 Statutes of the State of California ("Agency") and the City of Bakersfield ("Purveyor"), a charter City and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Agency and Purveyor have previously entered into the Water Supply Agreement dated September 21, 2005, Agreement No. 05-325, governing the terms and conditions under which the Agency through its Improvement District No. 4 (ID4) will provide a treated water supply to Purveyor; and WHEREAS, the Agency intends to design and construct new facilities and make improvements to existing facilities to allow for the treatment and delivery of up to 53,000 acre-feet of water to Purveyor and other Customers (Treated Water Capacity Expansion Project); and WHEREAS, Exhibit E of the Water Supply Agreement contains cost estimates for the expansion of the Henry C. Garnett Water Purification Plant to a design capacity 72 million gallons per day; and WHEREAS, Article 6(G) of the Water Supply Agreement contains a provision that allows for a Customer to opt-out of the Treated Water Capacity Expansion Project if the projected costs are greater than one hundred and twenty five percent (125%) of those specified in Exhibit E of the Water Supply Agreement; and WHEREAS, the most current cost estimate for the Henry C. Garnett Water Purification Plant Expansion is at or near one hundred and twenty five percent (125%) of the cost estimate specified in Exhibit E of the Water Supply Agreement; and WHEREAS, prior to proceeding with the design of the Henry C. Garnett Water Purification Plant expansion project, the Agency and Purveyor's desire to amend the Water Supply Agreement, Article 6(G) and Exhibits E and F, to reflect the most recent cost estimates and allocation of costs. NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, Purveyor and Agency mutually agree to amend Agreement No. 05-325 as follows: 1. This agreement between the Agency and Purveyor shall constitute an amendment to the terms of the Water Supply Agreement between the parties, incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 2. Subdivision (G) of Article 6 shall be amended to read as follows: "Prior to 'the acceptance of bids on contraCts for construction or the issuance of financing instruments for the Distribution Component of the Expansion Project as defined in Article 5 (whichever shall occur first) and prior to the acceptance of bids on construction contracts or, the issuance of financing instruments for the Purification Plant Expansion Component of the Expansion Project, if the projected costs are more than one hundred and twenty percent (120%) of those estimated herein, Purveyor shall have the option of withdrawing from either component of the Expansion Project by providing written notice hand-delivered to the Agency General Manager and to each other Customer within twenty (20) days of the opening of construction bids, for the specified component of the Expansion Project. In the event of withdrawal, Purveyor shall pay all fees and other payments specified herein based upon the allocation formulas specified herein utilizing Purveyor's currently existing capacity and entitlement, if any, for the component from which the Purveyor has withdrawn, and shall be entitled only to benefits and rights based upon Purveyor's currently existing capacity and entitlement, if any, for the component from which the Purveyor has withdrawn. In the event of the withdrawal hereunder of any Customer, Purveyor shall pay based upon the recalculated amounts after the withdrawal of Customers electing not to participate in an Expansion Project component and shall be entitled to a share, based on such recalculation, of the withdrawing Customer's Capacity, entitlement and other rights and privileges under the Agreement from which such Customer is withdrawing. Agency and Purveyor shall take all actions and execute all documents reasonably required to evidence the foregoing changes in Purveyor's entitlement, rights and obligations. If a withdrawal occurs, the Agency shall require a renegotiation of contract terms, and may' reject all bids or delay financing." 3. Exhibit E shall be amended as attached. 4. Exhibit F shall be amended as attached. 5. Except as specifically amended herein all other provisions of the Water Supply Agreement shall remain in force and effect. 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 05-325 be executed the day and year first above written. "Purveyor .... Agency" CITY OF BAKERSFIELD KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY By: By:. HARVEY L. HALL Mayor Title: President APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: VIRGINIA GENNARO City Attorney By: By: Title: Secretary JANICE SCANLAN Deputy City Attorney Insurance: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT By: FLORN CORE Water Resources Manager COUNTERSIGNED: By:. NELSON SMITH Finance Director Attachments: Exhibit "E" - Amended Exhibit "F". - Amended Exhibit E-Amended Treated Water Capacity Expansion Project Cost Allocation Summary I 1 12 3 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Treated Water Capacity Expansion Cost Summary Revised Estimated Project Costs Summary - 10/20/2006 9/21/2005 Feasibility Estimated And Design Estimated Total Contract Percent Administration Engineering Construction Estimated Project Amount Change & Financing5 Cost~ Cost9 Cost ($) (%) ($) ($) ($) ($) Henry C. Garnet: WPP Expansion (72 MGD) 38,323,500 30.0% 300,000 3,525,000 46,000,000 49,825,000 North Feeder Expansion Project 4,076,750 40.6% 513,00(3 5,219,100 5,732,100 Easl Feeder Expansion Project 3,847,450 66.4% 585,00(~ 5,817,000 6,402,000 East Feeder Oswell Bypass Project 625,00[~ 28,0% 0 800,000 800,000 Northwest Feeder Project 15,500,90C -4.1% 120,00(3 970,00(; 13,780,00(; 14,870,000 Total162,373,60(; 24.5% 420,00i3 5,593,06(~ 71,616,10{3 77,629,100 Treated Water Expansion Cost Allocation Summary4 Existing Annual Incremental Total Existing incremental Total Avg of Ratio HCGWPP Entitlemen Annual Annual Peaking Peaking Peaking Capacity & Cost Project Participant t :ntitlement Entitlement Capacity Capacity Capacity Entitlements Allocation (AF/YR) (AF/YR) (AF/YR) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (%) ($) California Water Service 11,500 9,000 20,500 15.0 15.0 30.0 35.4% 17,490,025 .ICity of Bakersfield 0 6,500 6,500 0.0 6.0 6.0 19.3% 9,554,483 ---as: Niles CSD 5,000 6,000 11,000 6.7 7.1 13.8 19.9% 9,813,69E qorth of the River MWD 8,500 6,500 15,000 11.4 10.7 22.1 25.4% 12,546,79E mprovement District_No. 4 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 420,000. Total 25,000 28,000 53,000 33.1 38.8 71.9 100.0% 49,825,000 Distribution Cost Allocation Summary North North North East Feeder Feeder Feeder East Feeder NW Feeder NW Feeder Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline East Feeder NW Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Capacity Capacity Cost Capacity Capacity Pipeline Cost Capacity Capacity Cost Project Participant _~._z ......Allocation2 Allocation Allocation Allocation A location Allocation7 Allocation3 Allocation Allocalions (%) (MGD) ($) (%) (MGD) ($) (%) (MGD) ($) California Water Service 0.0% 0.0 (; 0.0% 15.0 552,995 46.9% 15.0 . 9,434,429 City of Bakersfield 0.0% 0.0 ¢ 0.0% 0.0 (~ 18.8% 6.0 3,773,771 East Niles CSD 0.0% 0.0 C 100.0% 13.8 6,064,006 0.0% 0.0 0 North of the River MWD 100.0% 22.1 5,219,10( 0.0% 0.0 ¢ 0.0% 0.0 0 Improvement District No. 4 0.0% 0.0 513,00( 0.0% ' 0.0 585,00( 34.4% 11.0 1,661,800 100.0% 22.1 5,732,10( 100.0% 28.8 7,202,000.0 100.0% 32.0 14,870,00(~ Project Participant Total Capital Project Cost Total Project Project Participant ............ Cost ($) California Water Service 27,477,4A9 City of Bakersfield 13,328,255 East Niles CSD 15,877,700 North of the River MWD 17,765,896 Improvement District No. 4 3,179,800 77,629,100 Footnotes: 1 ) Costs approved to date lc~r engineering, ana!ysis and design of the conveyance system. Approval does not include plant expansion design. 2) Allocation calculated by the average of the ratios be~veer~ percentage of incremental entitlement and percentage of incremental capacity. 3) Allocation calculated by percentage of incremental capacity. 4) Includes cost of ~nancing Treated Water Capacity Expansion Project 5) Cost associated with de;,elopment of the bond feasibility engineering repor~ and bond counsel. 6) Based in ID4 incremental participation in the NW Feeder Project. Includes iD4 payment of 100% NW Feeder design cost except the last design changes requested by COB and CWS for $265,000. 7) Includes Oswell Bypass Project Cost nat funded through the $1,200,000 DWR State Revolving Fund Loan. 8) Project pa~icipant percent allocation does not directly compare to dept service percent due to different interest rates for taxable and nontaxable interest rates. 9) Construction costs include 35% contingency. ID4 Exhibits-R02, Exhibit E-Amended 10/2512006 Exhibit F-Amended Treated Water Capacity Expansion Project Billing Summary Project Participant Billing Schedule Summary Frequency Date Due~/ Power Monthly January 30 Days through December Operation & Maintenance Quarterly JulY 1 30 Days .' October 1 January 1 April 1 Treated Water Charge Semiannually July 10 30 Days January 10 Capital Facilities Char~ ..... Semiannually July 10 30 Days January 10 Project Participant Billing Cost Summary Operation & Treated Water Power Costs Maintenance5 Charge2 Capital Facilities Charge3 Conveyance Conveyance Treatment Conveyance I Treatment I Total Frequency 'Monthly Quarterly Semiannually Semiannually California Water Service Actual Actual 1,394,000 337,842 591,631 929,473 City of Bakersfield4' Actual Actual 442,000 119,059 301,435 420,494 East Niles CSD Actual Actual 748,000 191,314 309,613 500,926 North of the River MWD Actual Actual 1,020,000 163,074 395,839 558,914 Improvement District No. 4 52,428 0 52,428, $3,604,000 $863,717 $1,598,518 $2,462,235 Footnotes 1) Bills due within 30 days of postmarked date on invoice. 2) Based on $136/Ac-Ft multiplied by the purveyor's entitlement on a semiannual basis. 3) Estimated charges include principle, interest and four percent for financing. Estiamted interest rates 4,4% for nontaxable and 5,0% for taxable bonds with a 30 year finance period. 4) Bond interest based on nontaxable rate. 5) O,M & P Costs for treatment paid for by the ID4 Enterprise Fund ID4 Exhibits-R02, Exhibit F-Amended 10/2512006 Water Board Regular Meeting November 8, 2006 8. NEW BUSINESS continued B. Water Supply Assessment for West Ming Specific Plan - For Board Review and Action SB 2211SB 610 WATER ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE WEST MING SPECIFIC PLAN Submitted to: CITY of BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT On Behalf of: CASTLE & COOKE Revision 8 (Final Draft) October 2006 Prepared by: PRITCHARD 286 W. Cromwell Avenue Fresno, California 93711-6162 Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................ : ............. 1 Ii. State Water Code Report Requirements ....................................................... 2 A. Water Supply Assessment ................................................................. 2 B. Urban Water Management Plan Update ............................................2 2 III. Agencies ......................................................................................................... IV. Regional Supply ............................................................................................ 5 A. Groundwater ....................................................................................... 5 B. Import Water ........................................................................................ 7 7 C. Kern River ............................................................................................ V. Local Supply for City of Bakersfield Service Area ....... ~ .............................. 8 A. Groundwater ....................................................................................... 8 8 B. Other Water Supply Entitlements ...................................................... C. Recharge ............................................................................................. 9 D. Reclaimed Water ............................................................................... 10 12 VI. Water Supply Reliability .............................................................................. 12 A. Kern River Flows .............................................................................. B. Other Surface Water ......................................................................... 12 C. Groundwater ..................................................................................... 15 15 VII. Proposed Development .............. ............................................................... VIII. Proposed Water Supply System .............................................................. 19 A. Groundwater ..................................................................................... 19 19 B. Surface water .................................................................................... 19 C. Reclaimed water ............................................................................... IX. Water Demand and Facilities ..................................................... ~ ................ 22 A. System Overview ................................... " .......................................... 22 22 B. Water Demand ................................................................................... Revision8 Table of Contents (cont'd) C. Water Conservation Measures .................................. .. ..................... 24 X. Existing Water Deliveries to Area ............................................................... 26 XI. Conclusion - Project Impacts .................................................................... 26 XlI. Conclusion - Cumulative Impacts ............................................................ 33 Revision8 List of Tables Table 1 - 2800 Acres Recharge Facility Operations Table 2 - Annual Average Water Demand @ Buildout Using Per Capita Based Unit Demands Table 3 - Annual Average Water Demand @ Buildout Using Land Use Based Unit Demands Table 4 - Comparison of Existing Crop Consumptive Uses Table 5 - Consumptive Use Evaluation (in Acre-feet) Table 6 - Water Supply Evaluation for the City of Bakersfield Service Area (in Acre-feet) Table 7 - 2025 City of Bakersfield Service Area Water Supply Evaluation (in Acre-feet) Table 8 - 2025 Water Supply Evaluation (in Acre-feet) Figure 1 - Municipal Water District Figure 2 -Groundwater Basin Map Figure 3 - Groundwater Level Change Figure 4 - Kern River Probability Occurrence Plot Figure 5 - Kern River Bar Chart Figure 6 - Long-term Hydrograph Figure 7 - Location Map Figure 8 - Land Use Map Figure 9 - Bakersfield Well Location Map Figure 10 - Map of 2800 Acre Recharge Facility Figure '11 - DWR Crop Survey Map 1990 Figure 12 - DWR Crop Survey Map 1998 Figure 13 - Population Projections Appendix A - Bulletin 118 Appendix B - Kern River Purchase Appendix C - Long Term Delivery Contracts Appendix D - City of Bakersfield Pending Development Projects Revision8 X. EXISTING WATER DELIVERIES TO AREA Existing crop water demand was calculated from available historical data. Existing crop area totals were published in the 1990 and 1998 Department of Water Resources Crop Survey. Crop evaportransporation requirements were obtained from reports published by the University of California Experimental Station. Crop data was used from both the 1990 and 1998 DWR Crop Survey reports in order to develop a range of existing irrigation demand. The 1990 DWR Crop Survey report states that existing agricultural uses included field crops, grain and hay, native vegetation, semi-agricultural, urban industrial and pasture. Total area for these uses was approximately 2,106 acres. Field crops for this region are typically cotton or corn. Native vegetation may include open grassland or land with light brush. Semi-agricultural land uses include farmsteads, livestock feed lots, dairies, and poultry farms. Urban industrial land use type includes such uses as manufacturing, assembling, and general processing. Crop area totals presented in this report can vary significantly between years because of changing agricultural market conditions. See Figures 11 and 12 for 1990 and 1998 DWR crop uses. Water demand for existing crop use patterns was based on crop evapotransporation values published by the University of California Experimental Station. Unit water demands for various crop types ranges from 0.5 to 2.5 feet per year. Total water applied to this area will vary with crop selection; see Table 4 for a comparison of consumptive water uses for the 1990 and 1998 DWR Crop Survey reports. The estimated annual consumptive use for these lands in 1990 and 1998 were 6,393 and 4,326-af, respectively. Estimated annual average consumptive use for these two years is 5,360-af. XI. CONCLUSION - PROJECT IMPACTS The West Ming Specific Plan includes a 2,182-acre development planned for the southwest portion of the City of Bakersfield. This development will include residential land uses that vary from Iow to high, commercial uses, schools, and light industrial land use types. Table 5 lists specifics of water consumption for this development for conditions discussed previously in this report. It should be understood that the budget uses only 50% of the 2,944-af/yr of wastewater generation, recognizing that not all of the generated effluent is effective and utilized in crop generation. According to the water demand evaluations shown in this table, the water demand impact associated with this development has the potential for a wide range of variability; however, the most probable condition is one that is based upon averaging high and Iow water demand estimates, proposed and existing crop demands; and keeping the utilization of wastewater generation the same. Based on the anticipated-demand evaluation, this development is expected to increase consumptive use for this area by 1,284-af/yr. Revision8 26 B A K E R S .F I E L D WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM September 12, 2006 TO: Florn Core, Water. Resources Manager FROM: Ma~k Lambert, Water Resources Superintendent SUBJECT: Water Supply for Major Developments in Bakersfield Summary This memorandum was prepared to demonstrate that there is an adequate water supply available to meet the demands within the existing City. limits and provide water to proposed additional development, without affecting the City's ability to meet its agricultural contract commitments. Currently within the City of BakerSfield there is enough water available to serve an additional 70,000 population. The City is running a surplus of water supply oVer demand. It is projected that the City's population in 2012 will be 398,000. The water supply available at the end of the year 2011 will serve a population of over 410,000, meaning the surplus. continues through 2011. At the conclusion of the City's agricultural water contracts in 2011, more Kern River water will become available to place in use for urban needs. That supply alone represents the ability toserve an additional 190,000 residents, more than adequate to serve the projected new developments as shown on Table 4 below. The City's existing water supply from all sources is at 139,335 acre-feet per year (afy). Demand is 113,500 afy, thus representing'a surplus of 25,835 afy. The demand is projected to increase 31,500 afy by 2011 for a total of 145,000 afy while supplies will increase 10,385 afy to 149,720 afy. A surplus remains on the books through the termination of the City's agricultural contract period. The City's agricultural contract deliveries are 70,000 afy. Analysis The 2006 population (see Table 1) in the City of Bakersfield is estimated at 311,824 with a water demand of 113,500 afy. The water demand is based on production and delivery records from the City's Domestic Water System, the California Water Service Co., and Vaughn Mutual Water Company. These three purveyors combined provide water service to over 95% of the City of Bakersfield, thus providing an excellent real-world base for projecting water needs. The projected population in 2012 is estimated to grow to 398,000, equating to a water demand at an estimated 145,000 afy. Overall, using the projected growth rate of the City, the annual average water demand in·2012 will increase by 31,500 afy. · Table 1' Bakersfield Population (from Bakersfield Plannin~l Division) ' " W~ter · ' .. 'Demand Year" PopUlation (acre-feet) · 2006 3.11,824 113,500 · 2012' est. 398,000 145,000 Change. +86,176 +31,500 Purveyors supplying water within the City of Bakersfield rely on water from the Kern River, groundwater, the State Water Project and other surface sources. A portion of the surface water supplies are purified and delivered for drinking water and the remaining is recharged or percolated into groundwater aquifers to replenish pumped groundwater. Table 2 was prepared to summarize the available water supplies that are used to meet the demands within the City limits. -Table 2-. SoUrces of Water Supply · ' ' ' ' . · ~: ." Average AnnUal Water Northeast Treatment Plant- City Kern River Entitlement; .' . - ·" River'Channel/Carrier Canal Recharge' City Kern River ' : ". ' · 2800 Acre Banking Facility - City Kern River Entitlement '::... Captured Precipitation- Stormwater PercOlation' Program 13,000 '' · 14,900 Reclaimed Wastewater - Net Return to Groundwater Basin 7,000 ' 8,900 Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District - Allocated . .. · . State Water Project Supply ' .. . 415 .1,000 .Kern Delta Canal Percolation Prog.r. am - Per City Agreements'with KDWD '24,000 30,0'00 KCWA/Improvement District No. 4 - Allocation of State'. ' Water Project to ID#4 Areas Within City Limits Through GroundWater Rechar~le & Treated Surface Deliveries · 39,320 ' 39,320 Total Available W~iter Supplies - ' · 139,335 '149,720 Population Water Will Serve 382,740 . 411,260 2 In comparing the total water demands from Table 1 to the available supplies shown in Table 2, the average annual water supply exceeds demand by over 25,000 afy in 2006. The water demand increase over the next 5 years will be at a faster pace than supply increases, however, at the end of 2011, supply will still be in excess of demand. After 2011, increases in demand will be mostly met with City Kern River water that was previously contracted to agricultural districts. ~Table 3- Current Diversion & Use Quantities Kern River Entitlement IAcre-feet) 160,000 AgricUltural District Contracts ~ . "-70,000 Northeast Treatment Plant (t° Table 2)' · · '-22,400 2800Acre Banking (toTable 2) .. . .i. ' -18,200 River Channel/Carrier Cana! Recharge (t° Table 2) ~15,000 Isabella EVap/Kern CountY Parks":" '-: .' .' '-'.8 700 Available SUpply for Other UseS ..'' ~'. ' 15,700 Table 3 Shows that the City has a surplus of Kern River water available for current use, if needed, to fulfill deficiencies in demand. Listed in Table 4 below are planned developments either in the City or requesting to be annexed 'with the anticipated annual average water supply required at full build-out. The build-out'of these projects is anticipated to take 20+ years. Table 4 Annual Demand · at Build-out of New DevelOpment, Projects Development .. Build.OUt. · . Proiect (acre-feet) ~.' Rosedale Ranch ' · · -~. 6,318 West Ming ' ....... 6,925 Old River Ranch:- "5,298 McAIlister Ranch ' 6,553 Stockdale Ranch .2,700 Riverview 2,149 Manley .' '. 592 Gosford/Panama 1,041 Ashe No. 4 1,693 Total . '33,269 3 AlthoUgh the proPosed new deVelopment'Water demand will be 33,269 afl/at full build-out,. it is anticipated that the actual amount needed.in 2012 will be less than ~ that. Together with the available SupPlies beginning in 2012, there will be 'more than ample water to supply the needs of the projects described in Table 4 at full build-out as well as additional projects. cc: Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner Attachment: Area Map 4 , ,-- , City of Bakersfield Sp~~b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ROSEDALE-R 0 BRAVO WS : ~ , ~ , , ,, , , ..... ~..~ ASHE Ne '~ '" ' r : ~' ~[ ' : ' ~ ~ I~ ~ ~I ~{ ' i Water~l Districts ~ ~ , ~ ' IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 4 tr I .... I{ % Miles s ~ ~1~~ ~" .... B A K E R S F I E L D WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM October 31, 2006 TO: Florn Core, Water Resources Manager FROM: Mark Lambert, Water Resources Superintendent SUBJECT: Water Supply Within the City of Bakersfield Domestic Water Service Area Summary This memorandum was prepared to examine the existing water supply being used to currently meet the demands within the existing City Domestic Water Service Area, also known as the Ashe, Fairhaven and Riverlakes systems. The City Domestic Service Area encompasses over 29,000 acres and is generally west of Stine Road with the majority of new growth to the south and west. The system has over 35,000 connections and serves over 100,000 residents of the estimated 300,000 plus current population in the City. Demand is currently met with pumped groundwater although in 2007 the City anticipates replacing up to 6,500 acre-feet (af) annually with treated surface water from the Kern County Water Agency for use within Improvement District No. 4 (ID#4). An additional treated surface supply will be introduced in January 2007, from a new treatment plant utilizing Kern River water. Initial deliveries will be 5,000 af per year. The City system currently has a water supply available of over 32,000 af (Table 1 ), with a net demand of just over 28,000 af (Table 2). In 2007, the City will see an increase in available water supply to over 42,000 al, an additional water supply that can meet the demands of over 10,000 new connections. There are five new development projects planned within the City's service area which have completed a water supply assessment. These projects, when fully completed in 20+ years, will increase the annual net demand by 12,471af (Table 5). Three of these new developments are within the Kern Delta Water District boundaries which will provide a portion of the water supply to those projects. The total annual net demand including the new projects is approximately 40,600af (Table 2 & Table 5). The 2007 average annual available supply is over 42,000af (Table 3) demonstrating that there is more than an adequate water supply available to meet the City's service area demands. Analysis There are multiple sources of water supply for use within the City's Domestic Water Service Area. Table 1 below summarizes those current water supplies used. The City Domestic System currently delivers about 5,000 acre-feet (al) per year from the "2800 Acre" Banking Facility through the City Interface Project. The City and California Water Service Company have a canal percolation program with Kern Delta Water District in which the City's portion amounts to over 6,900 af per year. Approximately 25% of ID#4 is within the City Domestic Service Area. ID#4 has a calculated average annual State Water Entitlement of 61,120 af (74% of 82,594), The average annual captured precipitation in the City Service Area is approximately 5,600 af. Allocated State Water Project from Rosedale Rio-Bravo Water Storage District equals 415 af annually. -Table 1- Sources of Water Supply City Domestic Service Area Current Source/Entity Average Annual Water Supply (Acre-feet) 2800 Acre Well Field 5,000 *Kern Delta Canal Percolation Program - Kern River6,500 KCWA/Improvement District No. 4 - State Water Project (treated and groundwater) 15,280 *Captured Precipitation 5,264 Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District 415 Total 32,459 *Canal Percolation and Captured Precipitation adjusted for 6% loss. The City's System is currently served through domestic groundwater wells and is 100% metered to customers. In 2007, the City anticipates replacing up to 6,500 af of pumped groundwater within ID#4 with treated surface water from the ID#4 treatment plant through the Northwest Feeder Pipeline Project. An additional 5,000af per year of treated Kern River water will begin in January 2007 through the new treatment plant located at the corner of Coffee and Norris Roads. The current annual gross production for the City Service Area is 35,200 af. To account for landscape irrigation return and wastewater reclamation a typical residential split is applied between water used for landscape irrigation and interior water (water returned to wastewater treatment plant). This split is approximately 60% irrigation and 40% interior water. Approximately 20% of each respective source of water is reclaimed and re-introduced to the groundwater basin. o 2 Factoring in reclaimed water with gross demand, Table 2 shows that the current net demand for the City's Service Area is 28,160 af. -Table 2- City of Bakersfield Domestic Service Area Demand City Annual Amount Service Area (Acre-feet) Actual GrOss Demand 35,200 20% Landscape Irrigation Return -4,224 20% Wastewater Reclamation -2,816 Net Demand 28,160 Using a 60-40 split Landscape-wastewater usc In 2007 and ensuing years as demand dictates, the City expects to increase the use of the 2800 Acre well field and with the additional treated water received from the Coffee/Norris Road Water Purification Plant, estimates the sources of water supply to increase to 42,459af (see Table 3). -Table 3- 2007 Sources of Water Supply City Domestic Service'Area Average Annual Water Source/Entity Supply (Acre-feet) Kern River via 2800 Acre Interface 10,000 Coffee/Norris Rd Treatment Plant 5,000 Kern Delta Canal Percolation Program - Kern River 6,500 KCWA/Improvement District No. 4 - State Water Project 15,280 Captured Precipitation 5,264 Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District 415 Total 42,459 Table 4 lists the annual demand for planned new developments in the City service area for which a water supply assessment has been completed. The table includes the total acreage of the projects. -Table 4- Annual Demand at Build-out of New Development, Projects Annual Demand at Development Build-Out Project (acre-feet) Acres West Ming 6,925 2,181 Old River Ranch 5,298 1,921 Gosford/Panama 1,041 300 Ashe No. 4 1,693 467 10 Section Project 592 220 Total 15,549 5,089 The Old River Ranch, Gosford/Panama and Ashe No. 4 projects are within Kern Delta Water District boundaries and will receive an allocated supply not yet accounted for in this analysis. With the added acreage to the City's stormwater collection system an additional 906af per year at build-out will be added to the City's captured precipitation calculation. Listed in Table 5 is the net additional water supply demand needed for the new development projects within the City's service area at build-out. The build-out of these projects is anticipated to take 20+ years -Table 5- City of Bakersfield Domestic Service New Development Projects Net Demand at Build-out City Annual Amount Service Area (Acre-feet) Actual Gross Demand 15,589 20% Landscape Irrigation Return -1,871 20% Wastewater Reclamation -1,247 Net Demand 12,471 Using a 60-40 split Landscape-wastewater use The total annual net demand including these new development projects is 40,631af (Table 2 + Table 5). cc: Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner Attachment: Area Map 4 ~ DDHEBTI~ WATER DIVI~IDN ~ ~ERVIDE AREA MAP ' ~,,'"-.,. . ~ ....... ~~, X ,i ~ · ~-_ . , ..... , ~.~ ,~ ._. ~-~~ - ~-~ I ix~ ~_~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~?~~ ~ - ~ /~/ , ~ ~ , ., ,~. .. ,~]~ / . I , p ~.:~. ,,~ ~ -,~ ..-] , -. - ._f , - ~., , , .:_ ___~ /x~ ~ ,' x~ ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .................................................................. ' . ~~~k~ ~.~2~:~/~ ~ ~ ~ ,' ~ -~ l -' ............... . ~, · ~ ,~,' ~:. ~' ,. · z~~,' ~2~ ~ . I ........................... .,.~ ,. ,-, ~ . . ~) ~.~.~;~ .. . z~ , - - Z . . .. ~- ~ . ... ~, .~z~, ?;~ ~..,~ ~ ~.. , i~~_. . - ~ ..................... ~ ~~ ~i ~ ~, ~:i ~ t~~ ~ / j / I I ~ ~ %'~i.';::~'~:,,~t;::;:c't~2 Water Board Regular Meeting November 8, 2006 8. NEW BUSINESS continued C. Water Supply Assessment for 10 Section Project - For Board Review and Action WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT 10 SECTION PROJECT- GPA/ZC No. 05-1580 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT City of Bakersfield October 2006 CONSULTING BAKERS FIELD 10 Section Project - GPA/ZC No. 05-1580 Water Supply Assessment October 2006 Xl. Primary Issue for Assessment- Conclusion (1) The City of Bakersfield has been identified as the public water purveyor for the 10 Section Project GPA/ZC No. 05-1580, and (2) Water demand for the 10 Section Project is not specifically identified as a future demand in the City's 2005 UWMP, however growth in the area was anticipated and the increased water demand is planned to be met through groundwater extraction, and possible future surface water treatment. (3) Recharging of the Basin at the Kern River Channel, unlined canals and water banking at the 2800 Acres site provide reliability to the groundwater system. (4) The calculated water demand for the 10 Section Project is 585 AFY, which includes domestic water service to 788 dwelling units, a park and a detention basin. (5). The Project is planned for build out by 2030. Water demand for the Project represents approximately 1.1% of the Year 2030 City water use, as estimated in the 2005 UWMP. (6) The City of Bakersfield proposes to deliver water to the 10 Section Project from groundwater extracted from the Kern County subbasin. XII.References 1. California's Groundwater Bulletin 118 - San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin - Kern County Subbasin, Department of Water Resources, February 27, 2004. 2. City of Bakersfield 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, November 2000. 3. City of Bakersfield 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, December 2005. Page 15 of 15 Water Board Regular Meeting November 8, 2006 8. NEW BUSINESS continued D. Participation in Kern River Weather Modification Program for 2006/2007 - For Board Action CO._NTRACT This contract entered into this 2?th day of October 2006 by and between the NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT, a Water Storage District organized and existing under and by virtue of Division I4 of tl~e Ca]ifbrnia Water Code, l~ereinafter referred to as the "District" and, Atmospherics Incorporated, a California corporation hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor," WITNESSETH: WHEREAS: the Department of' Water Resources, State of California, initially issued to the District a perm it for Weather Resources Management (hereinafter referred to as the "perrnit"), dated July 2, I980 (Permit ~¢11), which authorizes the District to conduct a Weather Resources Management Program (bereinafi'er referred to as the "Program"); and WHEREAS: tl~e Contractor has on its staff qualified and recognized weatl~er resources management personnel and other professionals necessary to carry out and supervise tl~e program has its disposal the equipment necessary to carry out the program; NOW THER£FORE, IT IS AGREED as follows: 1. Contractor shall engage in artificial clotld nuclemion 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 permk. The purpose of this cloud nucleation operation is to increase precipitation within the larger area. 2. The term of. fl~is contract shall cover one seasonal operational period beginning on November 1,2006 and ending on May 3 I, 2007. 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 ufa competent smff[o furnish full meteorological data. b) A complete radar system of the ~ype d~signed to track precipitation areas within storms will be located at the vicinity of Porter¥itle, California and shall be installed to cover the target area to the best advantage. c) Ali basic weather data'will be processed at the head office oftl~e contractor in Fresno and will be available at the location of the radar system. This informatim~ will be used to coordinate various phases of the field program. · d) Telephone and power facilities will be maintained at the lorn:ion oftt~e r~dar system. e) A weather radio receiver will be additionally maintained at the location of the radar system for receiving hourly airway weather reports. 0 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 available to the DiatrJct upon request. g) A cloud seeding aircraft will be based at the Porterville Municipal Airport. This aircraft will be equipped for all-weather flying. It ,,viii be further equipped with facilities for dispensing silver iodide and other nucleating agents for use in cloud seeding activities ~hroughout the target area. The Contractor agrees that i~s aircr~ and equipment thereon will b~ certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, an agency of the United States of America; and tho! any and all pilots operating aircraft for or on behalf of the. Contractor shal! bo duly lieensed by the said Federal Aviation Adm inistration. h) Contractor will install, operate and maintain five (5) silver iodide ground generators for u~e on the program during those p~riods when winflflow directions and velocities from .southerly directions make airborne seeding impractical due to military restricted air space southeast of the t,'trget area. i) Contractor will provide a service vehicle for field work related t° all ground and air equipment utilized on the project. Contractor will furnish the following personnel who will be stationed within or near th~ .project area during the contract period" l) One radar meteorologist 2) One instrument rated cloud ~eeding pilot 3) One radar technician 4) One field serviceman and equipment technician k) David Newsom si~II supervise the program as Senior MeteoroIogism [n combination witl~ Steve Johnson as Oeneral Manager for A;mospherics bcooorated. Both will provide updates as necessary on tl~e m~nagement of'the program. 4. The primary nucleating agent ,,viii be silwr iodide, which shall be dispensed from aircraft and ground generators, Other advanced nucleating agents may be utilized ~s special storm characteristics may suggest, $. The Contractor shall prepare ail reports pertaining to the program required to be filled by the Contractor and District to comply with Federal and State kaw. The Contractor shall furnish monthly operational reports during tl~e full course of' tile cloud nucleating operation. As soon as practical after the conclusion of'each yearly operational period, the Contractor will fi~rnish the District a final operations report covering the entire yearly operation. 6. The Contactor shall ~'urnish and keep in force during the operational period tile ~'ollowing insurance: comprehensive public liability and property damage insurance in the amount of not less than .$2,000,000, covering tile operation of all its equipment owned or leased including aircraft and workers compensation insurance. Such insurance shall be maintained at Contractor's cost. With respec! to the above referenced insurance policies, ire 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 l. he aviation bodily injury and property damage liability insurance additionally shall name North Kern Water Storage District, Buena Vista Water Storage Distri¢l, Kern Delta Water District, and City of Bakersfield, and their officers, agents and employee.q, as additionally named insureds. Parties require a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation. 7. Contractor agrees to be responsible for, and to indemnify and hold the District harmless and free from, all claims of damage to person or property o£ 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 contract for the District, the Contractor shall have in force all necessary licenses and permits from the State of California to so operate. 9. This Contract may be canceled by the District For any of tim following reasons upon five days written notice, sent by mail to the principal office of the Contractor; a) The issuance of any cou~ of com?etent jurisdiction o~' any temporary or permanent injunction against all or any part o'f' 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 o~' any temporary, restraining order, or any temporary injunction limited by its terms to a period of' less than twenty (20)days in duration, shall not consfitmc a basis for cancellation under lhis paragraph. b) The passage of any overriding legislation by thc State of California which shall outlaw, limit, void or niter n any substantial respect any provisions of this contract, or shall make unlawful or improper in any substantial respects, any of the operations of' Ihe Contractor under this contract. 3 c) For any reason considered in the best interest of'tile District. In the event of' cancellation by the District under or pursuant to the terms of 9a through 9e above, ali monies already paid to the Contractor by the District shall be retained by ~he Contractor as compensation for services alread~performed. If the District requests a summary report on ~l~e cloud seeding operations for that season up to the time o£such cancellation, Conrrnetor will furnish such a report. I 0. 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 tiao District suspends operations under this paragraph, Contractor will reimburse the District in the amount of'$500.00 tbr each day of the suspension. Il. Contractor may at any time during the contract period, assign this contract, upon the written consent of the District. District's written consen~ shall not be unreasonably upheId. 12. District agrees to pay the Contractor for the services rendered, as outlined in this contract, the total sum or ONE HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS ($137,800, PLUS AN AMOUNT OF THREE HUNDERD FIFTY DOLLARS ($350,00) PEK HOUR. OF AIRCRAFT SEEDING FLIGHT TIME PLUS THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS ($35.00) PER FLARE FOR. SEEDING MATERIALS IN PAYMENTS AS SET FORTH BELOW. It is understood and agreed that this sum includes the total fee for all aircrati flights and evaluations of the program. 13, SCHEDULE OF PA YMENTS: PAYMENT DATE AMOUNT I November 2006 $23,000 I December 2006 $16,400 + November Consumables 1 January 2007 $16,400 + December Consumables I February 2007 $16,400 -,- January Consumables 1. March 2007 $16,400 + February Consumables I April 2007 $16,400 + March Consumables I May 2007 $16,400 + April Consumables I June 2007 $16,400 -~- May Consumables TOTAL: $137,800 + all Consumables Consumables are considered to be aircraft Flight time and seeding materials. 14. Any notice to be given hereunder may be served personally or by depositing the same in the United States mail, poslage prepaid, and addressed to fi~e party being notified at his address as set fbrth below, or at such other addre.qs as may be hereafter designated in 4 ~rking. If served by mail, service shall be conclusively deemed to have been made upon deposit in the United States mail. IN WITNESS WHEREOF., the parties hereto have set their hands and seals to this contrac[ the day and year first hereinabov¢ wrilxen. ADDRESS_: P.O. Box 814] 5 Bakersfield, California 93380-1435 NORTH KERN WATER sToRAGE DISTRICT wl ............................ Engineer- Manager- "NKWSD" ATTEST: 5e./cretary ADDRESS' 5652 E. Dayton Avenue Fresno, California 93727 ATMOS?I-IERICS INCORPORATED By: Its: ATTEST: $e¢ ret ary Water Board Regular Meeting November 8, 2006 8. NEW BUSINESS continued E. 2007 Water Board meeting schedule- For Board Review and Action AGENDA PACKET DEADLINES FOR 2007 BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 2007 THROUGH DECEMBER 2007 Adopted October ~ 4, 2006, F~eso~ufior~ ~REGULAR MEETING BEGINS @ 5:15 PM r~-----~BUDGET MEETING & PRESENTATIONS Reconvenes at 6:30 PM ---._ _ [~-'] Holidays - City Hall Closed [-"~Joint City/County Meeting ----]Proposed Wa~er Board JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH S M r w TH F S S, M T W iTH F S S M T W TH F S .... I 2 3 I 2 3 I 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 25 26 27 28 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 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 1 2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 41 5 61 7 8 9 8 9; 10 11 12 13 14 13 141 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 20 21 22 231 24 25 26 17 18 19 201 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER 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 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19; 20 21 19! 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 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 I 2 3 1 I 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 25i 26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 30 31 Water Board Regular Meeting November 8, 2006 10. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation. Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9: North Kern Water Storage District vs. Kern Delta Water District - Tulare County Superior Court Case No. 96-172919 B. Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation. Closed session pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(3)(A) of Government Code section 54956.9 (One issue) ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT WATER BOARD I MEETING DATE: November 8, 2006 I AGENDA SECTION: Closed Session I ITEM: 10. A. TO: David Couch, Chairman Harold Hanson, Councilmember Zack Scrivner, Councilmember APPROVED FROM: Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney DEPARTMENT HEAD /,'"~ DATE: October 18, 2006 CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: 1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9: North Kern Water Storage District v. Kern Delta Water District- Tulare County Superior Court Case No. 96-172919 VG:dll S:\WATE R\WaterBoard\ClSessAdmin2.11-08-06.doc 1 O/18/2006 ADMINISTRATIVEWATER BOARD REPORT MEETING DATE: November 8, 2006 AGENDA SECTION: Closed Session ITEM: ].0.]~. TO: David Couch, Chairman Harold Hanson, Commissioner Zack Scrivner, Commissioner APPROVED FROM: Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney DEPARTMENT HEAD ~' DATE: October 3, 2006 CITY ATTORNEY ~'~l-ff' SUBJECT: Conference with Legal Counsel -- Potential Litigation Closed session pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(3)(A) of Government Code section 54956.9. (One issue). RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: S:\WATER\WaterBoard\ClSessAdmin.11-08-06.doc 10/3/2006 '