Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/77 AGENDA WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1977 4:00 P. M. Call meeting to order Roll Call - Board Members: Rogers, Chairman; Barton, Bergen, Hoagland, Ratty ~ 1. Approve minutes of meeting of August 31, 1977. 2. Letter of September 30, 1977 from Chevron USA, Inc. regarding oil field water discharging into Beardsley Canal. 3. Borrow Agreement No. 77-05 W.B.~ 4. Letters of August 22, 1977 and September 10, 1977 from Kern County Water Agency regarding excavations in Kern River bed. 5. Berrenda Mesa Water District request to buy Kern River Water as a drought relief measure. 6. Agreement between City of Bakersfield and Olcese Water District. 7. Kern County Water Agency request for Kern River diversion records. 8. Letter of September 28, 1977, to Harold Bergen regarding cloud seeding program. 9. Kern Delta Water District request for services of John Chafin to review their field operations. 10. Notice from Water Association of Kern County regarding alternate board members. 11. Letter of August 15, 1977, to City from North Kern Water Storage Dis- trict regarding Agreement No. 76-89~- Property Sale. 12. Memorandum of September 23, 1977, from Chuck Williams regarding re- construction of First Point of Measurement. 13. Agreement between City and Pacific Gas and Electric for service to well No. 9. 14. Letter of September 28, 1977, to William T0 Balch, Tenneco, from John Chafin regarding access to First Point. 15. Proposed rental of certain canal maintenance equipment by City to water districts. 16. Annual contract for repair of concrete canal linings. 17. Annual contract for weed control on City's canals. M~I NUT E S WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1977 3~ 4:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rogers in the City Hall Caucus Room. The Secretary called the roll as follows: Present: Rogers, Barton, Bergen, Hoagland, Ratty Consulting water Engineer Tom Stetson attended the meeting. The minutes from the meeting of August 10, 1977, were approved as pre- sented. Mr. Hoagland moved that Mr. Ratty be nominated as Vice-Chairman of the Water Board; the motion was carried unanimously. The Conflict of Interest Code for the Water Department was presented to the Water Board by Assistant City Attorney Charles Leach. The Water Manager and~Assistant Water Manager will be required under the code to file an initial statement within 30 days after adoption of the code by the City Council and an annual statement by March 31 of each year for the year ending December 31, in accordance with the Instruction Manual for Statement of Economic Interest Covering Category 1. The Water Superintendent must also file Initial Statement and Annual Statements under Disclosure Categories 9 and 14. Mr. Hoagland brought to the attention of the Board that the clause, '"With- in the jurisdiction" in item (c) of Category 14 is not correct since, some of the areas served may be outside of the City. On a motion which was carried the policy will be passed on to the City Council for adoption, with the clause "within the jurisdiction" being omitted and the following clause inserted, "which might be served~by the system." The Water Enterprise Budgests (Agricultural and Domestic) were presented. to the Board. Mr. Blakemore pointed out that three alternative Budgets were prepared based on estimated revenues in a dry, normal and wet year. After reviewing the 1977-78 Agricultural Budget; based on a dry year operation, a motion by Mr. Barton was passed, approving f~e~Budget and referring it to the City Council for their acceptance. Mr. Bergen made the comment that serious consideration should be given to having a differential rate for City residents versus non-City residents. Tom Stetson, Consulting Engineer for the City, stated that most cities charge a 50% surcharge for residents outside of the City. Mr. Hoagland commented that he felt the surcharge should be made a matter of policy now, as did Mr. Ratty. After discussion, Mr. Bergen made a motion that the staff prepare a report on what would be appropriate as a differential rate, the motion was carried. On motion by Mr. Barton the Board approved the 1977-78 Domestic Budget and referred it to the City Council for ac- ceptance. After discussion of the letter of July 28, 1977, from the Kern River Water Master requesting the city's support of Kern River operation policy, it was decided that the policy should be rewritten if the City is to support it. Upon motion by Mr. Hoagland, the following revised draft of the policy will be circulated and discussed at the next meeting. -1- KERN RIVER~ wATER M~STER POLICY "It Shall be the policy of the Kern River Interests that where the possibility of saving a human life or lives exists the Kern River Water Master may cooperate in re- ducing the flow of Kern River from Isabella Reservoir." Upon a motion by Mr. Barton the Board approved the expenditure of $400.00 for the 1977 contribution of the City of Bakersfield-Water Board to the Water Association of Kern County and authorized that the miscellaneous item in the budget be increased $400.00. The motion carried four (4) to one (1) with Mr. Hoagland voting no. After reviewing the letter regarding the City's participation in the Hydrospect Report Water Manager Blakemore gave a summary of what the report involves. Mr. Blakemore explained that the Hydrospect project is a research project to improve the ability of long-range weather fore- casting with a state wide budget of about $120,000.00, and that they are trying to raise about $42,000.00 from local agencies such as the City. The Kern County Water Agency has obligated themselves for about $4,500.00 and they are asking $1,400.00 each from the City of Bakersfield, North Kern Water Storage District, and Buena Vista Water Storage District. Hacienda Water District was requested to contribute about $300.00. Tom Stetson, Consulting Engineer for the City, commented that Hydrospect is of state wide if not nation wide interest and he was not enthusiastic about local entities such as the City contributing to it. Superintendent Bogart told the Board that he can use the State Department of Water Re- sources forecast data for the information we need to meet contract re- quirements. Mr. Hoagland moved, and it was passed that the City not contribute funds to Hydrospect. A CorrectorY Grant Deed from Tenneco West, Inc. to the City of Bakersfield was presented to the Board to correct description of Parcel four (4) con- tained in Grant Deed to City from TWI dated December 30, 1976, in Book 4999, Page 436 which included a portion of the Cross Valley Canal and road easement, in error. The~matter was explained to the Board and pass- ed on to the Mayor for his signature and recordation. Mr. Hoagland brought to the attention of the Board again the matter of the Cawelo Contract regarding oil field water. Mr. Bergen, moved and it was passed that a letter be drafted by Mr. Hoagland and Mr. Stetson stating the City's position on this matter. Tom Stetson presented the Board with copies of his "Draft of Statement On Policy For Management Of Kern County Portion of San Joaquin Ground- Water Basin." On motion by Mr. Bergen the statement was received and will be placed on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting. The motion was carried. There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairman Rogers adjourned the meeting at 5:45 P.M. Lfhda Hostmy~r, ~eCretarY City of Bakersfield Water Board -2- ~ " ~ 770816--tms DRAFT OF STATEMENT ON POLICY FOR MANAGEMENT OF KERN COUNTY PORTION OF SAN JOAQUIN GROUND-WATER BASIN The importation of State Project water to Kern County was justified primarily as a means of overcoming the-severe over- draft on the Kern-County portion of the San Joaquin ground-water basin. The Department of Water Resources in its Bulletin No. 119-8, "Feasibility of Serving the Kern County Water Agency From the State Water Project," September 1963, stated that there were 592,000 acres irrigated in 1958 in the area overlying the ground- water basin. The Department also estimated that the overdraft in the Kern County portion of the basin would average 700,000 acre-feet per year ove~ the 1960-70 decade and that the safe annual yield of surface and ground'water in the area was on the order of 500,000 acre-feet. (State Project water was first delivered to Kern County in 1968, but not in substantial quantities until 1970..)~/ The September 1969 Zone of Benefit report by Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc., stated (pp. 16 and 17): "Assuming that there is no further growth in non-CVP agricultural areas and that the full contractual commitments of the CVP contractors are delivered in Kern 1/ Year 1968 = 55,727 acre-feet. Year 1969 = 89,171 acre-feet. "Presented to Water Board 8-31-77" County, it is estimated that the overdraft would be about 530,000 acre-feet per year without the State project."' The Agency's total firm annual entitlement to State Project water is 1,153,400 acre-feet, plus 100,000 acre-feet of ~nregulated surplus water. Under the Agency's policy there are three priorities to State Project water. Municipal and industrial water is given first priority, agricultural service to preserve the then existing agricultural economy is given second priority, and the remaining water is allocated.under a third prio.rity to new lands proposed to be developed for agriculture. It should be pointed out, however, that this policy.has apparently not been carred out up to the present time. The second priority water was to be allocated to maintain the existing agricultural economy by providing sufficient water to meet the 1964 water demands and eliminate the overdraft on the basin. It was then estimated that 526,100 acre-feet per year would maintain the then existing economy and alleviate the overdraft for land~ over- lying the ground-water basin. With 119,000 acre-feet per year allo- cated to municipal and industrial purposes, this left 608,300 acre-feet (including the 100,000 acre-feet of unregulated surplus) for the third priority for use on new lands or lands not unde~ irrigation in 1964. The stabilization of the underground basin, second priority, has not been accomplished. The total allocation to lands overlying the ground-water basin, under full use of State Project water, was 797,900 acre-feet per year, of which about two-thirds was considered to maintain the existing economy and about one-third was for new lands. The September 1969 Zone of Benefit report by Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc., stated at page 18: "Of course,.any additional use of water for development of new lands other than from the imported supply would increase the overdraft'S" The preliminary draft report of the' Kern County Water Agency entitled "Groundwater Recharge'in Kern' County, Part I, Physical Aspects," dated November 197~, states that the overdraft prior to importation of. State Project water was 800,000. acre-feet per year. It also states that there were 680,000 acres of irrigated lands over- lying the ground-water basin prior to the importation of State Pro- ject water and that-in 1975 such irrigated area had increased to 870,000 acres, an increase of 190,000 acres. It further states that it is now (1975, presumably) estimated that'the overdraft will be 500,000 acre-feet per year with delivery of the maximum State Project water entitlement. It appears, then, that the importation of the full State Project entitlement will reduce the'overdraft by only 30,000 acre-feet from the quantity stated by Leeds, Hill and Jewett to be the case without importation of State water. And this assumes that the 100,000 acre-.feet per year of unregulated surplus water will be. delivered. The November 1975 preliminary'draft report of the Agency also stated that the rate of increase in overdraft is expected to be 2'5 acre-feet for each additional acre of irrigated land overlying the ground-water basin. Therefore, the 190,000 acres of added irri- gated land, uP to 197S, would require 47S,000 acre-feet of imported water. It appears obvious that the overdraft on the ground-water basin will not be overcome by the importation of State Project water. The Agency has been relying on the availibility of a considerable quantity o£ surplus water which could be used to help alleviate the overdraft. However, a number of events which have occurred since the early 1960's now put in doubt the availability of a sufficient supply of surplus water, and even the amount of entitlement water contracted for from the State could be reduced. Among these events are: (1) deauthorization of the Eel River Project facilities which would have. provided about 900,000 acre-feet per year to the State Water Project yield; (2) the Delta Decision,~ which may require the release of stored water which would have been part of project yield, to maintain water quality in the Delta; and (3) a serious challenge to the construction of the Peripheral Canal, now several years-~behind schedule and with a very uncertain future in the current Ayal~ bill (S.B. 346). As a result, the yield of the State Water Project may not be sufficient to supply entitlement water beyond the mid-1980's quantity of entitlement of all of its contractors. The question then becomes, how to manage a severely over- drawn ground-water basin? Annual ground-water extractions have been regarded as the measuFe of one's water right in an overdrawn basin. But the recent~ State Supreme Court decree in the Los Angeles case also says that overlying pumpers cannot prescript against munici- palities or water dedicated to public use by public utilities. That decree also provides that public.districts which import water to a basin from a non-tributary source, such as State water and CVP water, have the right to recover the return flow (thkt is, the deep percola- tion of such water to the ground-water basin) from such imported water. Therefore, it would appear that the appropriative rights to ground water by municipalities and public utilities would be treated separately from the water pumped from the basin by others such as farmers. To the extent that a farmer's ground-waier pumping is combined with an imported supply source, the return flow from the imported supply could be counted first against his ground-water pump- ing .(althOugh, technically, the right of recovery lies with the import- ing public entity). His pumping in excess of the return flow would then form the basis of his prorata share of the safe yield'of the basin after the safe yield is reduced'by the amount necessary to supply the appro~riative rights of the municipalities and public utilities. Anx comprehensive management plan of the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin ground-water basin must recognize the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the Los Angeles case. Furthermore, a policy mu~t be established whereby those who develop new agricultural lands must have an assured i~ported water supply or an established right to the use o'f local water supplies. Otherwise,' the overdraft on the native Kern .County water supplies will be increased even more. If such a policy cannot be effec- tively developed among the various public and private interests which either (1) own the rights to the native supply of the basin, or (2) have contractual rights to local and imported water, liti- gation is inevitable. Litigation. will not generate any additional water supplies. It will simply determine how the various water users pay their fair share of the cost of water required to offset the overdraft. Ail of this, of'course, assumes that supplemental imported water will be available. If it is not, a serious threat to the agricultural economy of the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Basin is imminent. To a degree, the equating of the costs of imported water is now being attempted through zone of benefit assessments levied by the Agency. However, zone of benefit assessments are levied against property owners .and not specifically and equitably against those who are causing the overdraft. It may be necessary to impose a'~Pump tax against those who are relatively new pumpers or who are increasing their pumping over a certain level of develop- ment. Obviously, newly developed lands requiring large water supplies cannot draw them from the overdrafted basin unless a like amount of basin depletion is supplied from imported or other sources to offset such depletion of basin supplies.. In a statement presented at the second regular meeting of the'Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law on August 12, 1977, the Kern County Water Agency pointed out that the ground-water extractions from the San Loaquin Valley ground-water basin within Kern County exceeded normal recharge by about 750,000 acre-feet p~r year and that a permanent overdraft condition exists. (This did not include the drouth years 1976 and 1977.) Resolution No. 27-76, Groundwater Overdraft Correction Policy, of the Kern County Water Agency was adopted on September 23, 1976. That resolution acknowledges that a serious overdraft exists and sets a g~al of reducing or eliminating the overdraft before 1990. It also acknowledges that new land has been and is being developed-over the basin for which there is no permanent imported water supply. It says that the intention of the Agency is to correct the overdraft by importations-of additional water. But where will the Agency get this water? It must be in addition to the entitle- ment under its existing State contract. It is now questionable that the Agency will even receive the entitlement scheduled under its existing State contract. The State Water Project now has a sub- stantial short-fall in supplies to meet its existing commitments, as previously pointed out. As would be expected, Resolution No. 27-76 talks of means of relieving the overdraft but it is almost entirely dependent upon finding another source of imported water. It does not address the very obvious approach of restricting ~the expansion of irrigated lands--it doesn't even give a hint that this would arrest the growth of the overdraft. In summary, it can be stated that somehow about one-half million acre-feet per year of "new" water must be made available to the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Basin and irrigation use of water must be restricted to about the 1975 level or an already severe overdraft condition will become much worse. The 1969 report of Leeds, Hi'll & Jewett stated that with no further growth in non-CVP agriculture (presumably beyond the 1969 level of irrigated agriculture)the State WatEr Project supplies would in effect correct the ground-water overdraft. Then, in 1975, the Kern County Water Agency's own study indicated that, presumably based on the 1975 level of irrigated agriculture, the overdraft would be 500,000 acr~e-fee~t with.th-e importation of~State Project water- Manifestly, the continued overdraft is a result of the expansion of irrigated agriculture. ~