HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/05 City of Bakersfield
Water Board
Special ~eeting of
December 19, 2005
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
NOTICE AND AGENDA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Bakersfield Water Board will hold a
special meeting as follows:
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WATER BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:00 p.m.
Water Resources Building Conference Room
1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 10, 2005 for approval- For Board
Review and Action
4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
5. KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT
None
6. REPORTS
A. Kern River Operations Report - For Board Information
7. HEARING
. A Noticed Public Hearing to receive input on the City of Bakersfield 2005 Urban Water
Management Plan for the Domestic Water System - For Board Review and Action
8. OLD BUSINESS
A. Kern River Recharge and Recreation Water Management Agreement (Kern River
Parkway) with Kern County Water Agency - For Board Information
WATER BOARD AGENDA PAGE 2
December 19, 2005
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Reimbursement Agreement with Kern County Water Agency for Kern River Canal
Repairs - For Board Review and Action
10. MISCELLANEOUS
None
11. WATER BOARD STATEMENTS
12, TOUR
A. Tour of The Park at River Walk and associated water features - Approximately 1 Hour
and reconvene at Water Resources Conference Room thereafter
13. CLOSED SESSION
None
14. ADJOURNMENT
Florn Core
Water Resources Manager
POSTED: December 16, 2005
S:\WB MINUTES 2005\WBAGENDADecember1905.doc
WATER BOARD MEETING December 19, 2005
3. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 10, 2005 for approval - For Board
Review and Action
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 1:30 p.m.
Water Resources Building Conference Room
1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Couch at 1:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Couch, Member Hanson
Absent: Scrivner
3. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the Special Meeting of August 24, 2005 for approval.
Motion by Hanson to approve the minutes. APPROVED, SCRIVNER ABSENT
4.PUBLIC STATEMENTS
None
5.KERN RIVER LEVEE DISTRICT
A. Cross River Pipeline at Stockdale Highway/Calloway Drive.
Mark Lambert, Water Superintendent, gave a brief update. No action taken.
6. REPORTS
A. Kern River Operations Report - For Board Information
Steve Lafond, Hydrographic Supervisor, gave a brief update. No action taken.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. Kern River Recharge and Recreation Water Management Agreement (Kern River
Parkway) with Kern County Water Agency.
Florn Core, Water Resources Manager, stated this item is information only. The Kern
County Water Agency will be meeting on November 16, 2005 to consider extending
the Agreement to June 30, 2006
Couch requested the Agency consider extending the Agreement to July 4,
2006.
Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2005 - Page 2
7. OLD BUSINESS continued
A. Florn Core, Water Resources Manager, stated members of the Kern County
Water Agency have requested a tour of the Park at River Walk. A special Water
Board meeting will be scheduled before the end of the year.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Right of First Refusal for up to 16,000 acre-feet of State Project Water.
Florn Core, Water Resources Manager, gave a brief update.
Motion by Hanson to Sign the Right of First Refusal APPROVED, SCRIVNER
ABSENT.
B. Participation in Kern River Weather Modification Program for 2005/2006.
Motion by Hanson to approve participation in the Kern River Weather
Modification Program. APPROVED, SCRIVNER ABSENT.
C. "Urban Water Management Plan" for Domestic Water System.
Mark Lambert, Water Resources Superintendent, gave a brief report and displayed a
map showing the City service area.
Florn Core, Water Resources Manager, stated we do have a balanced water supply,
and the intent of the report is to inform the State that we are in a balanced supply.
Copies of the Plan were distributed to the Water Board.
Couch requested staff provide the report including the population served and
also requested staff compile reports from all purveyors.
Motion by Hanson to approve the Urban Water Management Plan. APPROVED,
SCRIVNER ABSENT
D. Participation with Kern River Interests and Arts Council of Kern for Kern River
Display at William Thomas Terminal at Meadows Field.
Florn Core, Water Resources Manager, stated each Kern River Interest Group will
be contributing $5,000 each for a total of $25,000 to have a photographic art display
of the Kern River at the new William Thomas Terminal at Meadows Field.
Motion by Hanson to participate in the Kern River Interests and contribute
$5,000 as the City's share. APPROVED, SCRIVNER ABSENT
Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2005 - Page 3
8. NEW BUSINESS
E. Domestic Water Availability Fees per Municipal Code 1zkOZk120.
Maurice Randall, Business Manager, gave a brief update and stated staff is in the
process of reviewing the domestic water availability fees. Staff will be proposing a
fee increase. This item will be brought back to the Board at the next regular meeting
in January, 2006. No action taken.
F. Kern River Association.
Florn Core, Water Resources Manager, stated historically North Kern has been
subsidizing the function of the Kern River Watermaster, and is no longer interested
in doing so and Chuck Williams, Watermaster, retired. The Kern River Interests are
looking into creating a Kern River Association, independent of any water district. No
action taken.
9, MISCELLANEOUS
A. Water Board meeting calendar for 2006.
The 2006 calendar will be reviewed at the next regular meeting.
Motion by Hanson to schedule the next regular meeting of the Water Board on
January 18, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. APPROVED, SCRIVNER ABSENT
10. WATER BOARD STATEMENTS
None
11. CLOSED SESSION
None
12. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Couch adjourned the meeting at 2:10 p.m.
David Couch, Chairman Bobbie Zaragoza, Secretary
City of Bakersfield Water Board City of Bakersfield Water Board
WATER BOARD MEETING December 19, 2005
6. REPORTS
A. Kern River Operations Report - For Board Information
KERN RIVER BASIN SNOWPACK ACCUMULATION
EIGHT SENSOR INDEX
December 14, 2005
40.0 ,
1996-1997
I 122°/oA-JI
30.0 ..............
25.0 ---
I Average I
1100% of April 1 Average
20.0
2004-2005
169% A-J
15.0 ...............
i 2005_2006I,' 1999-200065O/o A-J '
10.0 ................
~ 1998-1999 54% A-J
5.0 ...................................................
0.0
November December January February March April
Snowpack Accumulation Season
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WA TER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
. ISABELLA RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS REPORT
(All readings are for date of report (WEDNESDAY)
as of OOOl, except as noted.., cfs in italics) Date of Report: December 14, 2005
ISABELLA RESERVOIR
I 2572.06 Lake Elevation (ft.) 248651 Storage (AcFt) - 377 Change (AcFt) 409 Inflow to Isabella (cfs)
2 568075 Storage Capacity 44% % of Capacity 152009 Normal Storage 164% % of Normal Storage
For this Date
3 7529 Average Lake Area (Acres) 13148 Inflow (Month AcFt) 8626 Outflow (Month AcFt)
4 283 North Fork Mean 281 North Fork @ 0600 Hours 55265 Accumulative Inflow (2006 Water Year)
5 576 Mean Outflow 555 Borel Canal 21 Main Dam Outlet 101020 Accum. Outflow (WY)
6 576 Outflow @ 0600 555 Borel Canal @ 0600 Hours 21 Main Dam Outlet @ 0600 Hours
Hours
7 23 Lake Evap. (cfs) 0.08 Inches Evap. for24 Hours 476 Lake Evap. (Month AcFt to Date)
8 0 Spillway Discharge for 24 Hours 57 South Fork near Onyx @ 0600 Hours
PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE
9 0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for 24 Hours 2.38 Inches of Precipitation at Isabella for Month
10 3.55 Seasonal Precip. Isabella 2.30 Normal for 154% Isabella Precip.
(Season: Oct 1 through Sep 30) this Date % of Normal
0.00 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for 24 Hours 3.80 Inches of Precipitation at Pascoe for Month
12 4.20 Seasonal Precip. Pascoe 7.70 Normal for 55% Pascoe Precip.
this Date % of Normal
13 4.6 Upper Tyndall Creek 4.6 Pascoe 5.3 Wet Meadow
14 60 Isabella Maximum Temperature 0.56 Isabella Max. Precip. on Record For this Date 1993 Year of
Occurrence
15 37 Isabella Minimum Temperature 71 24 HourWind Movement (Miles)
NATURAL RIVER FLOW
16 415 Natural FIow(cfs) 13878 Natural FIow (Month to Date) 788500 2005Apr-Jul Runoff
17 391 Mean Flow 106% Natural Flow 314 Median Flow 132% Natural Flow
For this Date in % of Mean For this Date in % of Median
18 1798 Max. on Record 140 Min. on Record 59386 Accum. Natural Flow (Water Year)
19 1966 Year of Occurrence 1931 Year of Occurrence
20 590 First Point Flow 9372 First Point (Month to Date) 105185 Accum. First Point (Water Year)
KERN RIVER FACTS & FIGURES: ~ ·
.nDecember23, B ,~ ~ ~. . s F ~ E L"D
1955,
4.49"
of precipitation
fell
at
Johnsondale,
California
over
a
24-hour
r/od,/ending to a sharp rise on the Kern River North Fork and culminating in a mean Produced by City of Bakersfield
'"'rnflow to Isabella Reservoir of 12,802 cfs. The December 1955 major winter storm period Water Resources Department
left 7.61" at Johnsondale. The South Fork near Onyx rose from 32 cfs to a peak of 2,050 cfs. (661) 326-3715
KERN RIVER NATURAL FLOW, REGULATED FLOW, & ISABELLA RESERVOIR STORAGE
2005 CALENDAR YEAR
7500 ,, ~. /;' - ~: ? ~ ,~. ~. .:~ ,, 600,000
7000 ~ - .......... ' - ~ - -~ ............... : - '- ........: ....
. 550,000
65OO
' , ~ ' '.: '.~ ': ' 500,000
~. .~ ' .~ · , ~.; " .. , ...?
~- ~ ,: ..~ _ _~_ _~__ ": ~ '.
6000 ? -=:., ............. :.- - -: ::.:- ........
5500 450,000
--~'- ....... ~ ...... ~'~- .......... ~ ...... 2~ ._ ~-:, __' __
" '~ ~" ~'~ '~ ' ' , "' ': ' ' · " 2005":
5000 .....
...... . \' ,.,
~ ~' ~ '" ' 000
3500 ? ~" "- ' Ft.)
3000
2500 ....
2000 _
1500 - -
.~'
1000 - - -,:~- ~ .....
500 ................ ._Reg_u/a_t_e_d_- _ ..... ~_ --
" ~: *- ~' .,;. Flow ~ .,;.
0
0
Jan-~5 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05
12-14-05
WATER BOARD MEETING December 19, 2005
7. HEARING
A. Noticed Public Hearing to receive input on the City of Bakersfield 2005 Urban Water
Management Plan for the Domestic Water System - For Board Review and Action
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT
PLANNING ACT
CALIFORNIA WATER CODE
SECTION 10610, et seq.
All California water suppliers having at least 3,000
urban service connections or providing at least
3,000 acre-feet of urban water supply per year are
required to file an Urban Water Management Plan
every five years, in years ending in "5" or "07 The
public hearing is to receive public input on the City
of Bakersfield 2005 Urban Water Management
Plan.
The hearing will be held Monday, December 19,
2005 beginning at 2:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard, at the following
location:
City of Bakersfield, Water Resources Department,
1000 Buena Vista Road, Bakersfield, CA 93311.
November 30, 2005.
URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
REVIEW
CITY of BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM
PREPARED BY
CITY of BAKERSFIELD
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
DOMESTIC WATER DIVISION
October, 2005
URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA, DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM
IN RESPONSE TO THE URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING ACT
DIVISION OF WATER CODE 10610 ET SEQ.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Bakersfield is the county seat and the principal metropolitan city of Kern County. Located near the
geographical center of the county, Bakersfield is 110 miles north of Los Angeles, 271 miles south .of
Sacramento, the state capital, 286 miles south of San Francisco, 282 miles west of Las Vegas, and about
140 miles from the Pacific Coast.
The climate of Bakersfield includes cloudless, warm, and dry summers with mild and semi-arid
winters. Ninety percent of all precipitation falls from October through April with an average annual
precipitation of 6", classifying the area as a desert. The Kern River is the only local usable source of water
for the Bakersfield area and is fully used in supplying water for drinking, irrigation, and groundwater
replenishment.
Bakersfield is one of the fastest-growing cities in the nation. Current January 1, 2005 population
figures place the population over 295,800 with metropolitan Bakersfield at 451,800 and the population of
the county at 753,070.
The City of Bakersfield Domestic Water System is a municipally-owned system, acquired by the
City of Bakersfield on December 22, 1976. The City operates under a council-manager form of
government, with the Water Board of the City of Bakersfield recommending, administering and
implementing domestic water policies set by the City Council.
The Domestic Water System serves domestic, commercial, and industrial customers in and
adjacent to the westerly portion of the City of Bakersfield. The original system was established in the early
1960's under California P. U. C. jurisdiction, and it grew steadily from about 300 customers in mid-1963 to
1,000 customers in mid-1969 and to about 3,300 customers at the beginning of 1977 at which time the City
assumed ownership. The system presently has over 33,000 service connections representing a population
of approximately 111,000.
The City currently contracts to perform normal, daily operations and maintenance, and meter
reading and billings with an investor-owned public utility who also furnishes public utility water service
throughout the State of California, including service to customers in the Bakersfield area. The contractor
acts as an agent for the city and is under supervision of the City.
The Domestic Water System is operated under enterprise budgeting; thus, the water service rates
must be adequate to operate the system without the use of general tax revenues or other tax supports.
City Hall: Water Board:
Alan Tandy, City Manager Councilmember David Couch, Chair
City Hall, City of Bakersfield Councilmember Harold Hanson, Vice-Chair
1501 Truxtur~ Avenue Councilmember Zack Scrivner
Bakersfield, CA 93301 City of Bakersfield Water Board
1000 Buena Vista Rd.
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Water Resources Dept.:
Florn Core, Manager
Water Resources Department
1000 Buena Vista Rd.
Bakersfield, CA 93311
APPENDICES
I. CONTACT PEOPLE
II. WATERSHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
III. WATER USE PROJECTION WORKSHEETS
IV. DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES WORKSHEETS
V. WATER BALANCE REPORT
VI. WATER SUPPLY/CONSUMPTION DATA (1996-2003)
VII. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD STATEMENT OF WATER SUPPLY
VIII. GRAPH- WATER SUPPLY AVAILABLE TO SERVE PROJECTED
POPULATION GROWTH FOR THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
IX. BAKERSFIELD CLIMATOLOGY
X. ADVERTISEMENTS
14
WATER BOARD MEETING December 19, 2005
8. OLD BUSINESS
A. Kern River Recharge and Recreation Water Management Agreement (Kern River
Parkway) with Kern County Water Agency - For Board Information
WATER BOARD MEETING December 19, 2005
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Reimbursement Agreement with Kern County Water Agency for Kern River Canal
Repairs - For Board Review and Action
AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
KERN RIVER CANAL REPAIR COSTS
RECITALS
WHEREAS, City of Bakersfield (CITY) owns and operates the Kern River
Canal (River Canal) and a thirty-six inch diameter domestic water pipeline that is
located between the Pioneer Central and Pioneer South spreading and extraction
facilities; and
WHEREAS, Kern County Water Agency (AGENCY) owns and operates
the Pioneer Central and Pioneer South spreading and extraction facilities on
behalf of itself and the Pioneer Participants adjacent to said City facilities; and
WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2005, a certain length of the River
Canal liner collapsed within the canal right of way adjacent to AGENCY'S
aforementioned land; and
WHEREAS, the CITY employed Kennedy/Jenks Consultants to
investigate, appraise the damages and estimate the cost of repairs of the River
Canal; and
WHEREAS, the coSt of repairs is estimated to be approximately $116,000
dollars; and
WHEREAS, additional damage to the River Canal may be discovered
which will require repair and or replacement; and
· NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, CITY and
KCWA mutually agree as follows:
1. Canal Re
1.1. City shall repair the damages of the River Canal and liner as
generally described in the Kennedy/Jenks Consultants investigation letter of 31
October 2005 (Exhibit A).
1.2 This reimbursement agreement only includes those repairs
described in Exhibit B or as mutually agreed by both parties.
2. Repair Costs.
2.1. City shall be responsible for those costs associated with use
of City personnel and City equipment up to and including the repairs associated
with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Engineer's Estimate for Kern River Canal
Repairs prepared November 23, 2005 (Exhibit B).
2.2. AGENCY shall reimburse City for outside (Contractor) costs
incurred b~; City to complete these repairs, in an amount not to exceed one-
hundred three thousand one-hundred dollars ($103,100) set forth in Exhibit B'
herein.
2.3. AGENCY shall reimburse City for outside (Contractor) costs
associated with the investigation and inspection of the River Canal generally
described in the letter of 31 October 2005. The amount shall not exceed
fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000).
3. Inspection. City shall oversee all River Canal construction repairs.
4. Payments. City shall invoice AGENCY pursuant to this agreement
and provide AGENCY with documentation for costs incurred for materials,-labor
and equipment. Agency shall reimburse City for these costs within 45 days of
receipt.
5. Assignment. Neither this Agreement, nor any interest in it, may be
assigned or transferred by any party without the prior written consent of all the
parties. Any such assignment will be subject to such terms and conditions as
City may choose to impose.
6.. Corporate Authority. Each individual signing this Agreement on
behalf 'of entities represents and warrants that they are, respectively, duly
authorized to sign on behalf of the entities and to bind the entities fully to each
and all of the obligations set forth in this Agreement.
7. Execution. This Agreement is effective upon exeCution. It is the
product of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of
this Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the
interpretation of this Agreement.
8. Exhibits. In the event of a conflict between the terms, conditions or
specifications set forth in this Agreement and those in exhibits attached hereto,
the terms, conditions or specifications set forth in this Agreement shall prevail.
All exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed
incorporated in this Agreement, whether or not actually attached.
9~ Governinq Law. The laws of the State of California will govern the
validity of this Agreement, its interpretation and performance. Any litigation
arising in any way from this Agreement shall be brought in Kbrn County,
California.
10. Further Assurances. Each party shall execute and deliver such
papers, documents and instruments, and perform such acts as are necessary or
appropriate, to implement the terms of this Agreement and the intent of the
parties to this Agreement.
11. Merger And Modification. This Agreement sets forth the entire
Agreement between the parties and supersedes all other oral or written
representations. This Agreement may be modified only in a writing approved by
the Water Resources Manager and signed by all the parties.
12. Negation Of Partnership. City shall not become or be deemed a
partner or joint venturer with KCWA or associate in any such relationship with
KCWA by reason of the provisions of this Agreement. KCWA shall not for any
purpose be considered an agent, officer or employee of City.
13. No Waiver Of Default. The failure of any party to enforce against
another party any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that
party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary
the terms of this Agreement.
14. Non-Interest. No officer or employee of City shall hold any interest
in this Agreement (California Government Code section 1090).
15. Notices. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in
writing and shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and
be effective upon actual personal service or depositing in the United States mail.
The parties shall be addressed as follows or at any other address designated by
notice:
CITY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
City Hall
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
AGENCY: KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY
3200 Rio Mirada Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Telephone: (661) 634-1400
Facsimile: (661) 634-1428
16. Term. This Agreement shall commence upon complete and
authorized execution by all parties.
17. Termination. This Agreement will terminate upon the c~mpletion of
the work as described in Exhibit B, payment has been received by City from the
AGENCY for such work and AGENCY has completed an operations and
monitoring plan with the cooperation of the City.
IN WITNESS WHIEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Letter
Agreement Regarding Repairs to the City of Bakersfield's River Canal the day.
and year first-above written.
"CITY" "AGENCY"
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD KERN CO, UNTY WATER AGENCY
By: By:__
HARVEY L. HALL
Mayor (Print Name)
Title:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
By:
FLORN CORE
Water Resources Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:
ALLEN M. SHAW
. Deputy City Attorney
COUNTERSIGNED:
By:
NELSON SMITH
Finance Director
AMS:dlRsc
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Engineers & Scientists
200 New Stine Road
Suite 205
Bakersfield, California 93309
661-835-9785
FAX 661-831-5196
31 October 2005
Mark Lambert
City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Subject: Investigation Letter
City of Bakersfield Kern River Canal Investigation
K/J 0574010
Dear Mr. Lambert:
The City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department (City) has retained Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants (Kennedy/Jenks) to perform engineering services to investigate the failure of the
concrete liner along a portion of the Kern River Canal. The purpose of this investigative letter
report is to discuss the extent of the damage to the Kern River Canal and the cause Of the
failure.
Background
On 22 September 2005, the City's Kern River Canal experienced significant damage, due to
failure of the concrete liner. Kennedy/Jenks received a call from the City on 23 September 2005
to investigate the damage and subsequently Morris Taylor and Brian Fulce visited the site of the
damage in the morning and again in the afternoon of 23 September 2005. During our morning
visit, wemet Mark Lambert and Stuart Patteson from the City to view the site. During our'
afternoon visit, City personnel and representatives from the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA)
were at the site.
Damage to the Kern River Canal was first noticed prior to 22 September 2005 by City personnel
in the form of sink holes behind the liner on the North side of the canal. See photos 1 through 3
taken by City personnel. The morning of the 22 September 2005, extensive damage to the liner
began to occur including a failure in a 75 foot length of the North side of the canal.
The Kern River Canal flows in a Southwest direction with headworks at the Coffee Road weir '
generally running south of the River Channel to a location just upstream of the Kern River
Diversion Weir and the Second Point Metering Station. The reach of the canal that experienced
failure is located approximately 3 miles west of Buena Vista Road and approximately 800 feet
east of the east property line of the City's 2800 Acres Recharge Area. (See Figures 1 and 2
attached). The total length of the reach that appears to be damaged or is suspect is
approximately 1,200 feet long. At this location, the Kern River Canal is bordered to the North by
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Mark Lambert
City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department
31 October 2005
Page 2
the Pioneer Central Recharge Ponds C1B, C2 and C3 and is bordered to the South by the
Pioneer South Recharge Pond. These ponds are owned and operated by KCWA.
Operation Background of the Kern River Canal and Adjacent Kern County
Water Agency Recharge Ponds
This season, the. Kern River Canal has been transporting water continually since January 2005.
The water level in the canal on 23 September 2005 was approximately 3 feet average and the
flow was approximately 55 cfs. In recent years, the City has constructed steel drop-in weirs to
raise water level in the Kern River Canal to offset possible hydraulic pressures created by new
adjacent recharge ponds. The weirs are placed at approximate 1,000 foot intervals. This allows
each reach to maintain a similar water level to help provide protection against liner damage due
to high groundwater pressure.
AccOrding to City and KCWA personnel, the Pioneer Central and Pioneer South Recharge
Ponds have been in continual operation and at their design water surface elevation since
February 2005. City surveyors shot cross sections of the canal and recharge ponds at three
locations in the reach of the lining failure. The Pioneer Central Recharge Pond was at an
average water surface elevation of 344.3 and the Pioneer South Recharge Pond was at an
average water surface elevation of 344.7. In the subject reach, the Kern River Canal was
operating at a water surface elevation between 340.7 and 339.0. Therefore, at the time of
failure, the recharge ponds were operating between 4 and 6 feet above the canal water level.
On the afternoon of 23 September 2005, City crews potholed three locations on the South side
of the fence line, North of the canal. After allowing the groundwater level to stabilize for
approximately 30 minutes, the static water level in each pit was measured. The water levels
measured were approximately 2.5' to 3.5' below ground surface. According to the survey shots,
the ground water surface at this point is approximately 12 to 18 inches higher than the water
surface in the canal. See the cross sections in Figure 3 and photos 4 through 6.
KcW^ began draining the Pioneer Central and Pioneer South Recharge Ponds on 23
September 2005. Once the ponds are completely drained, the Kern River Canal can be
emptied to further investigate and assess the damage.
Description and Extent of Failure
Upon review of the site, there were numerous obvious failures of the liner and several
indications of potential problem areas. The most obvious failure is an approximately 75 foot
long section on the North side of the canal where the liner and supporting embankment has
collapsed. This failure is located approximately 1,450 feet east of the 2800 Acres property line.
The embankment material about 5 feet behind the liner and into the roadway h. as collapsed and
washed into the canal, due to the movement of groundwater. At the downstream end of this
section, the supporting material is washing from behind the liner exposing a large void. See
photos 7 through 12. Approximately 50 feet east of the above mentioned collapse, another
significant failure is noticeable on the North side of the canal. Three liner panels have failed
L'doc.s~Z(X)5~)574010~)6-co~'sp~.O1-iofmmcle~Net._km-fai~re.cloc
-' ~ Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Mark Lambert
City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department
31 October 2005
Page 3
along the horizontal plane approximately 18 inches above the water surface level. See photos
13 through 15.
In addition to the two major failures identified above, there are several other areas of potential
failures or problems. The canal roadway on the North side of the canal is damp for a distance
of approximately 1,200 feet. This damp reach is an indication of the general extent of the
damage. In addition, the drainage collector along the North side of the frontage road (North of
the fence) contains stagnant water, which appears to be coming from leakage through the
recharge pond levee. See photos 16 through 18. Also, along the 1,200 feet reach there are
wet spots on the liner above the water line where water is weeping through expansion joints and
cracks in the concrete. This is occurring at numerous locations on both the North and South
sides of the canal. See photos 19 through 21. This weeping, which extends 18" + above the
canal water level, would indicate approximately 90 psf uplift pressure exists behind the liner.
In addition to the weeping on the liner, close inspection of each joint shows that sediment is
washing away from behind the liner at nearly every panel joint on both sides of the canal along
the 1,200 feet reach. Several joints have a significant amount of material that is flowing through
the joints and collecting on the liner just below the water surface. See photos 22 through 24.
Due to this material transfer, voids are being created behind the liner at these locations. There
are also several locations along the center of the canal where air is venting from the bottom of
the canal. This would indicate that there is air, probably from voids, coming from the bottom of
the canal created by water pressure under the canal. See photo 25.
Cause of Failure
It appears that the failure to the Kern River Canal liner was caused by high groundwater
pressure against the backside of the canal lining. As shown on Figure 3, the ground water level
was higher than the water level in the canal. The differential pressure caused the liner to be
pushed out. A contributing cause is material that was being forced from behind the liner through
the panel joints. This created a void behind the lining, which caused eventual panel collapse,
due to the lack of supporting soil.
The high groundwater level is due to the extensive water banking at the Pioneer. Central and
Pioneer South Recharge Ponds located on either side of the Kern River Canal. Both of these
ponds have been banking water continuously since February 2005. Percolating water from both
ponds migrated toward the canal and initially continued on down through the sand layer below
the canal. As the material around and below the ponds became saturated or could not keep up
with the infiltration rate of the surface soils, the ground water level began to rise. When the
groundwater level rose to an elevation above the water level in the canal, a higher water
pressure on the back side of the liner situation was created, which began putting stress on the
canal liner and eventually led to failure. It is important to note that this is the first year the
Pioneer South Recharge Pond has been in operation for an extended length o~ Iime. In the
past, it is likely that the Phreatic line from North ponds passed by the 'canal without creating a
differential pressure. Groundwater this year has been coming from both sides of the canal,
which eventually did not leave the groundwater any where to go, but up, thus floating the
, [.~3¢~,GQ5'~0574010~6-.C~XrS0aG~.O ¶ 4ofmn~'~nNe[-km'fattum~d°c
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Mark Lambert
City of Bakersfield Water Resources Department
31 October 2005
Page 4
concrete canal liner. Groundwater migration from either side of the canal, along with this years
unusually long recharge period, has caused a saturation of the soils in this area.
Conclusion/Recommendations
In conclusion, physical evidence indicates high groundwater created by the adjacent water
banking projects has caused the failure in the Kern River Canal. From Kennedy/Jenks initial
visual inspection, the extent of damage appears to be a rninimum of a 1,200 feet long reach.
With further investigation, such as potholing behind the liner and removing a number of panels,
it may be possible to assess the full extent.of the damage. Evidence of weeping and soil
migration indicates that there are more problem areas than the two obvious failure locations.
Kennedy/Jenks recommends that prior to repair of the damaged liner at the two locations noted
above, the City remove panels at selected locations to determine if any additional voids are
present. Another method to determining the presence of voids is to tap on the liner with a
hammer to determine by sound or cracking if any voids are present. This will require the canal
to be emptied following the drainage of the adjacent recharge ponds.
Upon draining the canal, Kennedy/Jenks will investigate further the damage and be able to
more adequately assess the extent thereof. Kennedy/Jenks will prepare a follow up
investigative report at that time.
Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this issue further.
Very truly yours,
KENNEDY/JE~K~NSU/I~TANTS
Morris Taylor, P.E. ~/
Principal Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Brian Fulce, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
File 6.01
I:'~x~2005~)574010~pno~6.01 -Io~omcle~t~e~km.fallure.doc
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST (+30%/-15%) KENNEDY/JENKs CONSULTANTS
Project: Kef'n River Cared Reoair ~: ':- "*:': ...... "' :':'""':-'-'~?'~"*:?~* ~ TM Prepared By:. BWF
Date Prepared: .11/23/05
Building. Area: Kern River Ca.'~d Liner and Embankment Replacement IrgJ Pro{. No. 0574010
Current at ENR
Estimate Type: [] Conceptual ~] Construction Escalated to ENR
~ Pratiminary (w/o plans) r--] Change Order
No. No. n,.~Hpflon Qty Units S/Unit Total S/Unit Total S/Unit Total Total
[}IVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Earthwork 5.000
(Gilliam): I Mobilization I Demobillzalion 1 LS 5.000.00 5.(XX)
=lean up. 3 days to excavate. 1 days for 1000 CY 0 Equipment -
2 330 Excavator 56 HRS 120.00 6.720 6,720~acidill and recompact side $2.000/day. Labor(4) - S2000/day
s[of:)es. 2 days to fine grade side
stopes
glean up, 3 days to excavate, 1 days for 500 CY
3 Bacid',oe 56 HRS 120.00 6.720 6,720gackl'ill and recompact side $3.00O/day, Labor{4) - $2000/day
slopes. 2 days to fine grade side
slopes
2 days to remove concrete and 1 day for t0.000 SF
4 Rough Trucks (Hauling) - 2 trucks 32 HRS 80.00 2.560 2.560clean up - 2 tracks = 32 hrs totaJ $2.000/day. Labor(2) - $$ 000/day
3 days to compact bottom Of
1.200canal
5 Roller Compactor 24 HRS 50.00 1.200
Remove fencing along failure
;oncrete 7 Vlobilization / Demobilization 1 LS 5.000.00 5.000 5.000
Alfter): 57 Panels {oral per KCWA - 1
Panels total per City under
8 :or,crete Panels 57 EA 1.000.00 57.000 57.000 separate contract. 3.5 weeks for
9 Sesiant 1 LS 2.000.00 2.000 2.000Sealant at joints
City of Ball 10 Hauling and Providing Fill Maledsi
Water):
Disposal o! Concrete (from Alfter
11 work)
.... ~ ~ -- 93.700
Subtotals 93.700
9.370
Estimate Conti~ @ 10% 103.100
Estimated Construction Cost 4,000 </J Site lnvesti ation & [}esi n
Desi~ @ 8%. (/J Inspection - 48 hours over 3.,~
WATER BOARD MEETING December 19, 2005
12. TOUR
A. Tour of The Park at River Walk and associated water features - Approximately 1 Hour
and reconvene at Water Resources Conference Room thereafter
BOARD OF DIRECTORS 501 TAFT HIGHWAY OFFICERS & STAFF
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93307-6247
TEt~P~,ONE (661) 834-4656 L. Mark Mulkay
Stanley Antongiovanni, President F~x (661) 836-1705 Gener,,I Manager
David L. Kaiser. Vice Presidmt John Frankhouser
David C. Cosyns. Secretary Controller
Philip J. Cerro. Combined Officer ~ Sheridan Nicholas
Donald Collins ~ . District Engineer
Howard Frick McMurtrey, Hartsock & Worth
Fred Garone Attorneys-at-taw
Rodney Palla Boyle Engineering
Richard 'rillema Consulting Engineers
December 16, 2005
Florn Core, Manager.
City of Bakersfield Water Resources Dept.
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 9331 l
RE: City of Bakersfield 2005 Urban Water Management Plan
Mr. Core:
Kern Delta Water District (Kern Delta) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 2005 update of the City of
Bakersfield (City) Urban Water Manage Plan (Plan) for its domestic water system.
Kern Delta is a California water district comprised of approximately 125,000 acres of agricultural and urban land
situated south and west of the City. Kern Delta's agricultural landowners irrigate their crops using Kern River
water and pumped groundwater. Kern Delta purchased water from the State Water Project to supplement water use
within Kern Delta. The groundwater levels within Kern Delta continue to be an area of concern and the levels are
monitored closely.
The boundaries of Kern Delta and the City partially overlap and as future City annexations occur, the overlapping
lands will only continue to 'increase. Due to the rapid urbanization that is occurring within Kern Delta, we must be
able to advise our landowners that their groundwater supply will not be adversely affected by urban encroachment.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Initially, Kern Delta wishes to acknowledge that it is currently engaged in discussions with the City regarding water
supply issues related to the urbanization of lands within Kern Delta. Kern Delta is hopeful that many, if not all, of
the issues facing this District and the City with respect to the water supply of urbanized lands within Kern Delta will
be resolved through these discussions. However, no agreement has been reached to date and, therefore, Kern Delta
is compelled to comment on the Draft Plan.
It is understood that the City's Plan is only a tool for future growth within the City limits and will be updated every
five (5) years. Unfortunately city planners and developers sometimes point to this type of document in their CEQA
proceedings as being the last word with respect to their water supply study and assessment. Because this Plan is not
a CEQA document, Kern Delta fully reserves its right to review and comment on any and all future urban projects
and their related water use and water supply impacts within Kern Delta.
CITY OF ~AKu. t:.,~,r:!=i_[?:
WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Flom Core, Manager City of Bakersfield Water Resource Department
December 16, 2005
Page 2
WATER SOURCES AND SUPPLY OUTLOOK
General System Expansion
Page 3: The Plan states that "Additional water will be needed to meet the growth of the service area and population.
These supplies will be met with additional groundwater wells along with future 10-20 MGD water purification
plants." It is acknowledged that it is the practice to construct wells in general locations of development. However,
this Plan should state where future water purification plants may be located.
The Plan continues, "The City's planned service area will be in areas that have been under general agricultural use;
thus, a 'trade' in the type of use of water will take place." This statement does not take into account the fact that
general agricultural use allows for fallowing, whereas domestic use does not. Furthermore, many of these
agricultural areas are in undistricted areas of Kern County, where no supply exists other than groundwater. In those
cases, development under the assumption that the City can pump groundwater as necessary may add to the overdraft
in the Kern County Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (as suggested in the California
Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 - "California's Groundwater").
Wastewater Recycling
Page 4: The Plan states that "These agricultural crops would otherwise require the pumping of.groundwater to
sustain the farm lands." This is not always the case. Portions of City's farm properties are entitled to significant
amounts of surface water fi.om the Kern River, and do not "require the pumping of groundwater to sustain the farm
RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY
Historical Deficiencies
Pages 5-6: The use of groundwater levels is not an accurate way to determine available supplies. Graph 1 does not
take into account water that has been banked in the numerous banking projects surrounding the City and its
domestic service area. Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, Kern Delta Water District, Kern Water Bank,
Berrenda Mesa Water District, and the Pioneer Project have combined to bank over one million acre-feet in the
Kern Fan groundwater basin. Absent these banked supplies, the average depths to groundwater as shown in Graph
No. 1, "Average System Water Table Depths" could be much deeper. Furthermore, this graph does not indicate
which wells were used to determine these depths. Were the same wells used in 2005 and 19777 Were additional
wells used in the calculation as they were brought into production? If so this graph should reflect the changing data.
APPENDIX II - WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PL.AN
Section 3 - Worst Case Water Supply Availability for 12, 24 and 36 Months
Recycled Water
Page 6: The removal of the wastewater source fi.om the City farmland to which it is delivered would not necessarily
force the use of groundwater wells. As these lands are owned by the City, the City can dictate the ~se of these
lands, and stop agricultural production if need be, and as discussed earlier, much of these lands are entitled to a
surface supply and should not require groundwater pumping.
Mr. Flom Core, Manager City of Bakersfield Water Resource Department
December 16, 2005
Page 3
Section 4 - Stages of Action
Potential for Deficiencies
Page 7: The Plan states, "The water supply available to the City and its customers is not subject to cut-backs....the
underlying groundwater reservoir could accommodate many years of overdraft before becoming severely affected."
The City's Plan should consider "cut-backs" in times of extreme drought. The Plan also says that because of it's
relatively small groundwater use compared to agriculture (95% v. 5%), that the City's use is "insignificant" in the
overall water balance and supply. It further states that "...the economics of pumping would dictate the highest and
best use." Kem Delta disagrees with the assumption that any domestic use is a."higher and better use" than
agricultural production. Further detail is required for the assumption that municipal and industrial use is 5%
compared to agricultures use.
APPENDIX III - WATER USE PROJECTION WORKSHEETS
Projected figures throughout this worksheet appear to be inconclusive. For instance, the number of service
connections in 1995, 2000, and 2005 increased from 19,721 to 25,507 to 34,845. This indicates an increase of
5,786 connections from 1995 to 2000, and 9,338 from 2000 to 2005. However, projections for 2010 onward
indicate an increase of only 5,000 connections every five years. Does the City expect a decrease in the number of'
new connections for a given period? If trends continue, the City will be pumping atits proposed Year 2030 level of
60,000 in 2019, eleven years ahead of schedule. These projected figures should be reevaluated.
The worksheet also says that the aquifer is not in overdraft. California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118
- "California's Groundwater"states that the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region is currently overdrafted in average year
and dry year conditions. Please provide more detail on your water supply to allow a full analysis of the City's claim
of a positive water balance.
APPENDIX VI - WATER SUPPLY CONSUMPTION DATA (1996-2003)
General Comments: The data in this Appendix is inconsistent with the Plan because it is information for the area
within.the entire City limits which is a much larger area than the City domestic service area.
Total Inflows Table: The Table indicates a large supply due to River & Canal Seepage. Kern Delta continues to
maintain that canal seepage occurring during transportation of Kern Delta owned water through canals owned and
operated by Kern Delta is part of its water supply. The Plan should acknowledge Kem Delta's claim.
APPENDIX VII - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD STATEMENT OF WATER SUPPLY
The assertion that 50% of all water use is reclaimed through deliveries to agricultural producers has been previously
discussed. However, please explain how an average lot size of 8500 square feet leads to 2.5 dwelling units per acre,
as shown in Table 1-Net Annual Water Demand. Is the remaining 0.5 acre attributable to parks, streets (medians),
etc? Please explain how these uses contribute to the overall water demand.
Pages 2 and 3 of Appendix VII describe ongoing discussions between Kern Delta and the City. Kern Delta
acknowledges these discussions but makes no guarantee of additional water supply for the City. The disposition of
the 35,000 acre-feet shown in Table 2 on page 3 has not been resolved. Kern Delta reserves the right, as per
existing agreement, to include all canal losses in its water balance, and any use of Kern Delta supplies by the City in
the future will be for urbanized lands within the boundaries of Kern Delta.
Mr. Flora Core, Manager City of Bakersfield Water Resource Department
December 16, 2005
Page 4
For the reasons listed above, Kem Delta believes the City's Plan is incomplete and does not contain enough
information to adequately describe the City's Urban Water needs. In addition, because .this Plan has not gone
through the CEQA process, Kern Delta reserves the right tO object to any development plan or future CEQA that
points to this Plan as a water supply study or assessment.
Thank you for the oppommity to comment on the Plan. If you have any questions please call the undersigned.
Sincerely,
General Manager
Kern Delta Water District
NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT
P.O. Box 81435 33380 Cawelo Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93380-1435 Bakersfield, CA 93308-9575
Administration Water Orders and Operations
Telephone (661) 393-2696 Telephone (661) 393-3361
Facsimile (661) 393-6884 Telephone (661) 746-3364
December 19, 2005
Mr. Flom Core, Manager
Department of Water Resources
City of Bakersfield
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
RE: Urban Water Management Plan Review
Dear Mr. Core:
The North Kern Water Storage District was not provided a draft of the above report.
Upon learning of the report and the upcoming hearing District staff requested and received a
copy of the report late last week. We have not had sufficient time to study it in detail. Given that
the draft report was not provided to responsible water districts inside the City of Bakersfield's
sphere of influence we request adjournment of the hearing for a period to provide detailed review
and comment.
Absent an adjournment for detailed review our general reading of the document develops
a concern over the available supply that the City is siting in the report. In particular some the
source of groundwater appear to be double counted by other agencies outside of the City's sphere
of influence. The Kern County Water Agency is currently coordinating a process to develop
consistent rules for urban groundwater plans and ! would recommend that Bakersfield participate
in this water supply planning.
Very truly yours, DE
WATER RF'SO'LiRCES
DANA S. MUNN
Engineer-Manager
OovLoc/COB
December 19, 2005
Mr. FlornCore DEC ! ~ ~_00~
Manager, Department of Water Resources
1000 Buena Vista Rd CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Directors: Bakersfield, CA 93311 WATER RES~,~
Fred L. Starrh RE: Review of City of Bakersfield Draft Urban Water Manag~
Division 1 October 2005
Terry Rogers
Division 2 Dear Florn:
Peter Frick
Division 3 The Agency is pleased to provide comments on the City of Bakersfield's (City)
draft Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). We appreciate the opportunity
Michael Radon
President that we had to review your plan with City staffprior to your hearing date. Our
Division 4 goal in offering these written comments is to work with the City in obtaining a
better understanding of the complicated water supply system that we both deal
Adrienne J. Mathews with. The Agency has provided comments on all of the UWMPs that have been
Division 5
prepared by urban purveyors who have been participating in our local
Lawrence P. Gallagher groundwater mediation effort. The Agency's comments are designed to
Division 6 strengthen the UWMPs prepared by Kern County water suppliers.
Gene A. Lundquist
Vice President The City provided detailed information on connections and water use by sector
Division 7 (i.e., single family housing). This information is outstanding and demonstrates
there is a tremendous amount known about the City's water demands.
James M. Beck
General Manager Urban Water Management Plan Content
Amelia T. Minaberrigarai In our review, we were unable to find several items of information required by
General Counsel Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Sections 10610 - 10656)
in the City's draft UWMP. As an example, the Urban Water Management
Planning Act requires various tables of information in 5-year intervals. The State
Department of Water Resources published a "Guidebook to Assist Water
Suppliers in the Preparation of a 2005 Urban Water Management Plan," dated
January 18, 2005. This document is available online at
www.owue.water.ca.gov/urbanplan/Guidebook.pdf. The Agency also prepared a
draft guidance manual for preparing the 2005 UWMPs. Both of these documents
are attached for your convenience. The City should also consider expanding the
range of information provided in your report, to that required by the Urban Water
Management Planning Act, namely 2005 to 2025.
Water Supplies
A recapitulation of operations of the City's 2800 Acre Recharge Facility (2800
Acres) shows a balance of 184,600 acre-feet in 2005. Groundwater pumping
reported in the UWMP is about 30,000 acre-feet annually, but recovery from the
661/634-1400 2800 Acres is shown as being less than half that. The source of the City's supply
Mailing Address to meet its groundwater pumping is unclear from the information provided. The
P.O. Box 58 report specifies that the City's urban water supply needs are currently met
Bakersfield, CA 93302-0058 entirely with groundwater. In the future, groundwater will provide about two
Street Address
3200 Rio Mirada Dr.
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Mr. Florn Core
Review of City of Bakersfield Draft Urban Water Management Plan, October 2005
December 15, 2005
Page 2
thirds of urban water supply needs. For the sphere of influence, this amounts to about 350,000
acre-feet annually. This is far greater than the 184,600 acre-feet in the City's current 2800 Acre
balance. The report does not discuss how the supply in the 2800 Acres fits into the City's future
water supply needs for its Domestic Water System or the sphere of influence.
Page 4 of the report references Improvement District No. 4's (ID4) groundwater replenishment
activities as a contributor to the City's water supplies. ID4 recently entered into agreements with
the City and others to expand treated water deliveries from the Henry C. Garner Water
Purification Plant, including 6,500 acre-feet to the City. These agreements will result in a
reduction in direct recharge activities in future years.
ID4's State Water Project (SWP) water supply of 82,964 acre-feet is for the benefit of the entire
ID4 area. Most of the City's Domestic Water Division is within ID4. Through the treated water
contracts, I134 has assigned its water supplies to specific purveyors. The City's Statement of
Water Supplies specifies 52,600 acre-feet of SWP to the City's sphere of influence. At this time,
it cannot be ascertained how much of ID4's SWP supply accrues to the City. We are currently in
the midst of discussions with all the purveyors within ID4 to develop a recommended method for
allocating the water supplies associated with ID4's redharge activity. Once developed at the
purveyor level, those recommendations will be presented to our Board for its consideration.
The City estimates that 8,200 acre-feet of Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District's SWP
water supply could be made available to the sphere of influence. This should be corroborated by
direct contact between the City and Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. Likewise, the
City's water balance includes 35,000 acre-feet of recharge losses from Kern Delta Water
District's canal system. This should be corroborated by direct contact between the City and Kern
Delta Water District.
There are a number of issues related to the City's use of its Kern River water supply that need
additional clarification. The City includes its entire estimated Kern River fights of 163,000 acre-
feet as a water supply. This assumes the City's rights can all be delivered without loss. There
will at least be evaporation losses from open conveyance systems used to deliver the water. Also,
the City has some long-term settlement agreements associated with its lining of the River Canal
(i.e., Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District's agreement with the City for 20,000 acre-feet
annually of Keru River water). The water supply may need to be adjusted by the amount of these
settlement agreements. Finally, the City has entered into agreements that commit a portion of its
Kern River water to areas outside of the City through 2011. Absent this information the City's
water supply for 2005 and 2010 appears to be substantially overstated.
Table 1 of the statement of water supply references an engineering study done for the City which
suggests that 50 percent of all water delivered to dwelling units is sewered. Sewered water is
assumed to be 100 percent reclaimed and available to the City. At present, the City's wastewater
plants deliver effluent to the City's sewer farm (south of the City) and to the Green Acres Farm
(west of the City). The UWMP does not provide information to show whether the City's sewer
farm is within the sphere of influence or not. Clearly, the Green Acres Farm is outside the sphere
of influence. The demands for water in these farming areas outside the sphere of influence are
not counted in the City's net demand number of 1.25 acre-feet per acre. To this extent, the City's
water balance is overstated. It is also very unlikely the City's wastewater plants deliver effluent to
Mr. Florn Core
Review of City of Bakersfield Draft Urban Water Management Plan, October 2005
December 15, 2005
Page 3
the fanning areas with 100 percent efficacy. Effluent deliveries should be reduced by an
estimation of evaporation and transportation losses.
Water Balance
The City's water balance assumes build out within the sphere of influence. The report does not
suggest when build out is expected to occur. For purposes of the UWMP, it would be helpful if
the City projected build out to occur.
The City's water balance is derived from Tables 1 and 2 of the statement of water supply. Table
1 computes a net demand of 1.25 acre-feet per acre. In the UWMP, lot sizes are assumed to
remain constant at 8,500 square feet. At 2.5 dwellings per acre, this accounts for roughly 0.5
acres for dwellings, with the other 0.5 acres apparently dedicated to other transportation and
recreation uses (e.g., parks, roads, median strips, golf courses). The net demand of 1.25 acre-feet
per acre apparently does not consider the amount of water used and consumed on landscaping on
these areas.
There appears to be an overestimation of the amount ofwastewater that can be reused. Using the
50 percent value noted in Table 1, this infers a total wastewater volume of 261,250 acre-feet
(209,000 acres in the sphere of influence x 2.5 acre-feet per acre x 50% = 261,250 acre-feet). By
comparison, total effluent for 2005 is estimated at 33,500 acre-feet. The disposition of this much
larger wastewater supply needs further scrutiny.
A further refinement to the wastewater use may be appropriate for the amount of wastewater that
is delivered to Green Acres Farm. This area is west of the City's boundaries and probably would
not be farmed without the City's effluent. Accounting for wastewater delivered to Green Acres
Farm as a water supply that can be recovered within the City conflicts with the City's policy of
not allowing ID4 to bank in projects west of the City and recover the water within the City. The
City's accounting for wastewater in this fashion raises the potential for impacts to other
groundwater users within ID4.
At Appendix 3, page 1, the UWMP reports per capita water use as 794 gallons per capita per day
(GPCD) in 2005, declining to 422 GPCD in 2030. Apparently, this accounts for all water uses.
At Appendix 3, page 2, residential per capita water use is shown as 694 GPCD in 2005 increasing
to 995 GPCD in 2030. In fact, numbers of residential connections are projected to top out in
2010 at 35,000 and then decline by 30% in 2015 to 27,700 connections. Maximum connections
will be reached again in 2025 at 35,000. In 2015, residential per capita water use will reach its
highest amount at 1,002 GPCD. The UWMP provides no reasons for such an increase. Page 9 of
the UWMP states, "No increase is projected for amount consumed per customer." These values
need to be reconciled.
Groundwater Quali _ty and Reliability
The UWMP mentions groundwater as the primary supply for the City, both currently and in the
future. Page 6 of the UWMP says that drought will not impact the ability of the City to meet its
demands. The graph on page 6 "Average System Water Table Depths" shows a general trend
toward declining water levels since the early 1980s. The UWMP Act requires information be
provided relative to potential impacts associated with groundwater pumping level changes. Such
information should include an analysis of groundwater contaminant migration, cones of
depression and other factors which may impact the ability of a groundwater user to ensure an
Mr. Florn Core
Review of City of Bakersfield Draft Urban Water Management Plan, October 2005
December 15, 2005
Page 4
adequate supply. Additionally, water quality impacts associated with drinking water regulations
should be addressed as groundwater in certain areas of the projected City service area may be
unusable without treatment.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me or Eric Averett at 634-1400.
Sincerely,
~2;;aI~ll~iBa;~kge r
xc: KCWA Board of Directors
City of Bakersfield Water Board
A ]~ E R 5 F ! E [, D
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Flora Core · Water Resources:Manager
December 13, 2005
Eric Averett
Kern County Water Agency
PO Box 58
Bakersfield, CA 93302-0058
RE: DRAFT ID#4 2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Dear Mr. Averett:
The City has reviewed the draft ID#4 2005 Urban Water Management Plan and submits
the following questions and comments:
Page 2; Demand - The water demands from the groundwater users in the district are left
out. The assumption is that only the treatment plant contractors are the district's demand.
Groundwater pumpers are the districts largest demand.
Page 4; Water Sources - Seems a little dated to say that the project was formed to meet
agricultural as well as municipal and industrial needs within the improvement district. How
much agricultural demand is left in ID#4? It would seem appropriate to clarify the changing
complexion of the district.
Page 5 & 6; Water Sources - Groundwater; In-District Groundwater Banking - This section
alludes to a banking project within the district. When was this banking project approved?
Simply describing the spreading operation of ID#4 as banking is unacceptable to one of
the largest segment of the district, the City as a groundwater pumper. Were not the
spreading operations of ID#4 to replenish the aquifer and the taxes paid to accomplish the
goal of groundwater recharge for the groundwater pumpers in the district? An after the fact
banking and extraction project that will remove groundwater from areas affecting the City
of Bakersfield and used to aid area's outside the City, will be opposed. The KCWA has
agreed previously that "the ID#4 spreading operation shall not be considered banked
within the ID#4 boundaries, unless otherwise agreed to between the CITY and ID#4".
Page 7; Allen Road Complex Well Field - Wording to the effect that the wells constructed
for Kern River Parkway flow regimes are "owned and operated by ID#4 and are available
to ID#4 for supply augmentation, using previously banked water within ID#4", will be
challenged by the City of Bakersfield. This name change to "Allen Road Well Field" to
Create a banking and extraction program is in disregard to the City of Bakersfield, its
residents, customers and rat·payers. These are the very same residents, customers and
ratepayers that· ID#4 is supposed to represent and also provide protection of their water
supplies.
1000 Buena Vista Road · Bakersfield · California 93311
(661) 326-3715 · Fax (661)852-2].27 · E-Mail: water@d.bal~ersfield.ca.us
Page 8; Frequency and Magnitude of Supply Deficiencies - This section seems
to correctly describe operations during periods of deficiency by using the true
banking projects for make-up of shortages and not the "in-district banking"
proposals from pages 5,6 & 7. A statement is made that "After reaching the
targeted groundwater banking project account balances, remaining water is
recharged within ID4 to replenish groundwater pumped within ID4'. Is this a new
policy of ID#4 where in-district use takes a back seat to banking? If so, this Would
be contrary to the statement on page 4 about the formation and intent of ID#4.
Page 9; Single Dry Water Year - The use of the Kern River Parkway wells, your
re-named Allen Road Complex Well Field, to move water from City areas to
those areas outside the City, will be questioned by the City.
Page 9; Multiple Dry Years - Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 & Year 4 - Does the
statement that "This amount is sufficient to meet all of ID#4's demands" include
groundwater recharge demands?
Page 10; ID4 Allen Road Complex Well Field - This section is in contention with
the City. See previous comments from Pages 5, 6 & 7.
Page 12; Three Year Minimum Water Supply - It is stated that "ID4 would reduce
the amount of water delivered for groundwater recharge". This has been KCWA
policy in the past. The treatment plant apparently does not take shortages to the
detriment of the groundwater users and ratepayers in those areas of ID#4 that do
not receive treated water. Groundwater users are again forced to resort to
lowered water tables, lower water 'quality in many instances and higher water
rates. Isn't this a true service demand that ID#4 needs to address?
Page 12; Water Use - Recharge - The City supports this statement and desires
the KCWA work toward this goal.
Flom Core
Manager
cc: Mark Lambert, Water Resources Superintendent
Allen Shaw, Deputy City Attorney
Flom Com
D~recmvs: City of Bakersfi~ld~ Water Resources Department
Fred L. Starrh 1000 Buena'Vista.Road
DMsion I Bal~ersfield, CA93311
Terry Rogers '"1
Division 2 ~ Re:, City. of Bakersfield Comments on the ID4 Urban Water Management
Plan
Peter Frick
Division 3
Michael Radon Dear Flora:
President
Division 4 Thank you for your comments on the 2005 update to the hnprovement
Adrienne J. Mathews District No..4 (ID4)Urban Water 'Management Plan (Plan). As you are
DMsion 5 aware, the intent of the Plm~ is to coordinate water supplies with land use
Lawrence P. Gallaghcr planning to ensure responsible growth of urban areas.
Division 6
Gene A. Lundquist We~ understand the City of Bakersfie!d's (City) commcnls on the ID4 Plm~
'vice President fOCUS on ~,o main issues: 1) the use of the Allen Road Well Complex to
Division 7 meet delivery obligations of the Henry C. Gamett Water Purification Plant;
and 2) the reference to the delivery of water into the Kern River Channel as
.James M. Beck banking.
General Manage~
Amelia'I: MinaN:rrlgarai The Allen Road"Well Complex includes wells funded by a Proposition 13
General Counsel
grantwhich are owned and operated by ID4. These wells are an important
asset that the Kern County Water Agency (Agency) is including in our
discussions with' the City regarding the de: elopment of a long-tem~
agreem.ent ona recharge and recreation program. The Agency is committing
the use o£these.facilities to the recharge and recreation program on a first
priority basis. The. additiona!use of these wells for supply au~nenta.tion, as
referenced in 'the Pimp, is consistent with the operation of all 'II34 t~cilitics, in
that they.may be used :for the benefit of all lands within 1D4.
Th'e reference to recharge activity within ID4 as %anking," does not reflect a
change from the Agency's historic view o f ID4's recharge actMty, but comes
as:a result ora legal review of our draft Plan. It is our understanding that
· recharge, as legally defined, is for thc benefit of thc basin and may be subject
to claim by others. Our recent efforts to allocate the lD4 spreading
6611634-1400 ' operatiOns for the beneficial use of those water suppliers within I134 may be
compromised' if the tem~ recharge is applied to spreading operations within
Mailing Address
no. ~,,~ 58 ID4. It is oUr intent to preserve this benefit fro- the residents ~ind groundwa.ter
~ abm ID4 by using the tcma banking in our Plan.
Bakersfield. CA 93302-0058 pumpers ~' '
;3200 Rio Mira& Dr.
· B~kersfidd. CA 93:108
FI°rn Core
December 14, 2005
Page 2 of 2
ID4 is committed to working with the'City to address the. questions and concerns that may exist
with the ID4 Plan. The City's comments; however, do not specifically address the intent of the
Plan. While we are not making any material changes to the Plan as a result of the City's
comments, we will immediately begin working with the Cit'yto resolve the issues identified.
Since..
Eric Averett
Manager,: Improvement District No~ 4
Kern County Water Agency
cc: Kern County Water Agency Board of Directors
Urban Bakersfield Advisory Committee'
Jim Beck, General Manager
Martin Varga, Assistant Manager, Improvement District No. 4
Kern County Grou iation
Urban Workgroup
For The U
2005 Urban M Plan
Bakersfield, California
December, 2005
This guidance manual was developed through the efforts of the Kern County
Groundwater Mediation Urban Workgroup. The manual is a companion to the
Guidebook to Assist Water Suppliers in Preparation of a 2005 Urban Water
Management Plan, prepared by the California Department of Water Resources.
Information contained in this workbook is intended to assist Kern County urban water
suppliers in their update and provides recommendations from the Groundwater
Mediation Urban Workgroup on various water supply and demand analysis to be
included in the 2005 urban water management plan u .
KERN COUNTY GROUNDWATER MEDIATION - URBAN WORKGROUP
2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
Section I. Introduction
1.01 Purpose
General statement as to the purpose of the Urban Water Mana (Plan) with some
background on the Urban Water Management Plan Act.
'1,02 Public Participation
In this section each urban purveyor should include on what' )ter district has
done to solicit public participation (public worksho '.). Include the date of your
public hearing in this section as well.
1.03 Agency Coordination
The Urban Water Management requi supplier to coordinate
preparation of its Plan with "other in including other water
suppliers that share a common source, and relevant public
agencies, to the extent practicable", er districts and
organizations who were ir the your Plan. This data can be
compiled in table as r exhibit. DWR guide book)
1.04 Supp! ,ervice ;a
(a) Population
Refere population of your metropolitan area and the population
the source of your information (population data)
Council Kern COG). This data can be compiled in table format.
Popu ections sh~ 5) year increments and projected through 2025 (20
years).
An estimate ation groWth and the mix of customer types (residential vs.
commercial) is t fying what the projected water demand pattern will be in the
discussion of dem;
(b) Demand
Identify the number of service conneCtions within your retail service area. Include such
information as current demand (in acre-feet) as well as projected demands; correlating
population groWth information provided in (a)with corresponding increased demand for water
from your system. Also, provide information on projected land use within your service area and
how you anticipated water demands for those land use types. An example of this could be a
Statement such as "Increased water demand over the next twenty years is projected to be a mix
of both high density residential development as well as several large areas of Industrial and
commercial development. Demand projections take into account the mix of land use and
KERN COUNTY GROUNDWATER MEDIATION - URBAN WORKGROUP
2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
customer service types through 2025". Support the information with a table or other information
showing how you arrived at your projected demands.
(See Tables. 1-3 for examples of Demand Analysis)
(c) Climate
Include a general description of your location (Kern County, Southern San Joaquin) and climate
for'your service area with information such as mean maximum and minimum temperatures. Also
include the average precipitation for your service area with reference to the source of your
information. This data can be compiled in table format.
(d) The Groundwater Basin
Include a description of your groundwater basin, ition, if available.
The following link provides some helpful information:
http://www.dpla2.water, ca.qov/publications/¢ dletin118/basin~ desc/5-
22.14.pdf
Information provided should include any relevanl quality, as as current
conditions within the groundwater basin. Identify ~ndwater basin is determined
by DWR to be in overdraft. (If you are County is considered by DWR to be in
overdraft).
-3-
KERN COUNTY GROUNDWATER MEDIATION - URBAN WORKGROUP
2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
Section II. Water Resources
2.01 Water Sources
A description of each of the water supply components should be i~d under Section II. This
description should identify each of the supply components and ~,~.lfey contribute to your
overall water supply balance. Identify and describe any wate~contractual arrangements
that provide a water supply to your district. ~. ~
2.02, Water Sources - Groundw
For the 2005 Plan update DWR now requests th~ supplier who 13~g'es
groundwater as a source of supply and you are in a Jetermined to be in overdraft,
then you must identify steps you are to prevent :1 over drafting of the basin (see
DWR guidance manual).
Many Kern County Water suppliers have rights since the basin
remains non-adjudicated. This, however ability of many water
· suppliers to meet Is by cc first establishing a
source of supply, rs to cc g to meet growth within
Kern County include recharge the groundwater.basin or non-
growth advocates ,ish to an devel ent. These challenges may be upheld
without specific ps being taken by the urban suppliers to
mitigate impacts to the a reliable water supply.
To to your Plan, the urban workgroup has identified a number
of m{ ish a reliable groundwater supply that can be used to meet
~n water dema
The recor following actions:
1. ~ment of a supply thrcu.qh contractual arrangement with an
oved~ ' 'ict. Many Kern County urban water suppliers provide water
service to 3at are also within an agricultural water districts boundaries.
These agricultural have surface water supplies that are used to meet irrigation.
needs and to repleni 'nped groundwater. These agricultural districts have an interest in
working with the urban water suppliers within their boundaries, as your activities have an impact
upon their groundwater levels. Urban water suppliers should establish a contractual relationship
with their overlying agricultural distdct where they agree to allocation a portion of their water
supplies, to your urban needs.
2. Purchase of ,qroundwater supplies throu.qh contractual arran,qement.
The conveyance of surface water through unlined canals allows for percolation of large volumes
of water into the groundwater basin. Many agricultural districts account for these as losses to
their overall supply and would be willing to discuss the allocation of these losses to urban water
suppliers for accounting to their supply balance. Discussion with your overlying agricultural water
-4-
KERN COUNTY GROUNDWATER MEDIATION - URBAN WORKGROUP
2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
district and development of an agreement where you can acquire these "losses" will establish a
groundwater supply that you can identify in your supply balance.
3. Purchase of a .qroundwater bank account from another water district
Many Kern County water districts participate in groundwater banking to protect against dry year
conditions. The groundwater banking concept is built upon the recharge of water during wet
years for recovery during dry years. Few urban water suppliers have access to surface water
and should seek to partner with their overlying agricultural district to gain access to a "water
bank" for dry year suPplies. This dry-year supply will augment their s~ f and demonstrate
prudent planning to protect against dry-year shortages.
4. Purchase of surface supplies to replenish .qroundwal
Acquisition of surface supplies for direct recharge of the in can establish a
groundwater supply for urban water districts. Urban ble to purchase
surface supplies either directly from or through their agricultur~ It. High-flow
surface supplies frequently become available for ,~. These supplie ~in excess
to the immediate needs of the agricultural dj,' be purchased and re¢ for
replenishment of the groundwater basin. Con arrange~ with local for
the acquisition and storage of these supplies can ]roundwater for an
urban water supplier.
To the extent that replenishment of th~ an~ ~bsequent availability of this water
to the urban water supplier is dependE water, the urban water
supplier should factor in the surface wa! Plan. See Section 2.04(a)
The urban that e developed between the
urban retailers an. sin with surface water.
This will ~ to urban water suppliers.
Additional inform; includl detailed description and analysis of the
location, amount, an( ,~ped by the supplier for the past five years
and that is h 2025. This information should also
con~ movem It and levels of contaminants, and projected
avers Manual pg. 13).
If has a dwater management plan (AB 3030 Plan), or its
equival should be section and attached as an appendix to the Plan.
2.03 Wa' y
All surface water s~ ~ntribute to a urban water suppliers water balance should be identified in
the Plan. A descri surface supply, the arrangement that provides for the supply (Water Right
or Contract) and the qu~ ' of water provided by each surface supply component should be listed in this
section. Identify and define to any contracts or water riqhts which establish your ri.qhts to this
water.
2.04 Effective Precipitation
Effective Precipitation is calculated by taking total precipitation and reducing losses due to interception,
evaporation, transpiration and depression in surface water storage. Review Table 8-1, titled "Tulare Lake
Hydrologic Region Water Balance Summary" of the California Water Plan Update 2005. The urban
workgroup recommends using 20% of the total precipitation as the effective precipitation value. (See
Table 4 for example of effective precipitation calculation)
-5-
KERN COUNTY GROUNDWATER MEDIATION - URBAN .WORKGROUP
2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
2.05 Basin Yield
Basin Yield is based upon the premise that there are un-appropriated water supplies that
contribute to the groundwater basin. The urban workgroup was unable to identify any Basin
Yield contributor beyond Effective Precipitation within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The
urban 'workgroup does not recommend that urban water suppliers identify a basin yield value but
rather identify an effective precipitation value.
2.06 Reliability of Supply
The Act requires each urban water supplier to describe the reliabil pply and the
vulnerability of the supply to seasonal or climactic shortages, suppliers are to
provide information on their listed water supplies based upor 'lng:
An average year
An average (normal) year may be defined as the me¢ over a ~riod for the
watershed contributing to the supply.
A single dry water year
A single dry water year is defined as the lowest ar watershed cor ~g to
the supply since the water-year beginning in 1903.
Multiple-dry year period
A multiple-dry year period is defined a.~ )r a consecutive multiple year
period (three or more years) for a waters
For urban.retailers usin ;r as ti' ion should identify each .
source of surface ;s to re nent of the groundwater basin and use data
from those watersh ~ydrogra to show the subsequent groundwater level
impacts of the year an s is uantify potential impacts to the reliability of
groundwater supplie
(a)
Grou ;r is typic liable source of supply for urban water suppliers.
er is not su[ ~riability due to shod-term hydrologic events and usually
has quality. G however, is dependent upon surface water
imports lenish the gr¢ )umped. Groundwater reliability is also dependent upon
migration mdwater co ~inants. This dependency cannot simply be addressed by
lowering the ;r zones as the upper zone is dewatered. Urban water
suppliers shoul, adjacent and overlying water districts may challenge this practice
in the future as th. additional resources to preservation of groundwater levels.
Urban water suppliers should approach groundwater reliability based upon the following:
1. A plan to prevent/mitigate short and long term impacts to groundwater levels
2. A plan to address water quality impacts from contaminate migration
3. A plan to address regulatory impacts on groundwater quality
(b) Reliability-Surface Water
Kern County has access to a number of surface supplies which are used to meet urban water
demands. These sources include the Kern River, State Water Project, and the Central Valley
Project. Surface supplies are highly variable in both quantity and quality. All of Kern County's
-6-
KERN COUNTY GROUNDWATER MEDIATION - URBAN WORKGROUP
2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
surface supplies are susceptible to allocations based upon hydrologic conditions. To properly
account for surface water as a supply component, this variability must be accounted for.
State Water Proiect Water as Surface
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) publishes a reliability report that can' be used as a
tool to project future reliability of water supplies from the SWP. This reliability report also
identifies SWP allocations on single and multiple dry-year scenarios. This report should be used
when projecting future water supply amounts from the SWP.
There have been a number of questions raised regarding the DWF Reliability Report and
the modeling used to generate the values contained therein. TI e has been raised by
several local agencies and DWR is looking into modifying the available report,
however, is the only document available and should be :1 for the 2005 update
.to the Plan. Subsequent SWP reliability reports will be water suppliers who
depend upon the SWP for a water supply may amen~ to retie reliability
reports.
Article 21 water from the SWP is a supply for man, an water sup ;throughout
the state. This water typically is available during J~ h flow, short ~tion events
when the SWP is in excess conditions. Local wa~ter pture a portion of this high-flow
water and recharge it within banking created 'e high flow water. This is a major
supply component for many Kern .gencies is to assure water supplies
during drought conditions.
Article 21 and other hi to project some level of
supply reliability before b A statement identifying this
as a source should be some
Kern River Water ~urface S
Water supplies Riv also sub variability due to hydrologic conditions
within the Kern River 'shed should be used to predict average
yield as we ~. This analysis should be based upon
;rational con= erations within the Kern River watershed and
Lake a.
Urban ,uppliers depE Central Valley Project as a surface water supply
should cc the Reclamation to determine the reliability of the water supplies
from this
2.07 Sup! Analysis
.This section should b( ;ed to summarize the reliability.analysis completed in Section 2.04 (a)
and (b). A description of the supply reliability in single and multiple dry-year scenarios as well as
a description of specific actions to be taken by the urban water supplier should be included in
the analysis.
Water quality impacts can be the result of regulatory actions as well as surface water
contamination and/or groundwater contaminant migration. Urban water suppliers should look at
each of their listed sources and identify any potential impacts to those supplies from a water
quality perspective.
-7-
KERN COUNTY GROUNDWATER MEDIATION - URBAN WORKGROUP
2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
This section should include a description of any source water quality concerns that you may be
aware of as well as source water quality data, if available. Consideration of any water quality
regulations that may be pending that will impact your source of supply should also be
documented. (Arsenic is a good example).
^ reader of this section should have an understanding as to vulnerability of your supply to both
hydrologic events as well as water quality impacts.
2.08 Plans to Assure a Reliable Water Supply
(a) Hydrologic Events-Groundwater:
Identify what you, as the urban Water supplier will do to address e dry-year scenarios
where your groundwater supply reliability is impacted. While that on ore of these listed
actions be in place, it is sufficient to identify plans to that are on! Possible actions
include:
1. Agreement(s) to purchase hig 'for "banki nd recovery d ;Iry-year
periods.
2. Agreement for a groundwater with anoth listrict.
3. Memorandum of Understanding ~ntities al for short-term groundwater level
impacts during drought.
4. Purchase of"banked local ; and used during drought.
5. Plan to deepen drop below normal operating range.
(b) H! ;nts - S Wate
Identify wh~ the event surface water'supplies are
im multiple r scenarios. Possible actions include:
1. ns to water to ensure minimum supplies even under dry-
ir conditions.'
2. ents with districts that provide the ability to acquire supply during dry-
year
3. Participa ~g projects that can store high-flow surface water for later recovery
dudng litions.
(c) Water Quality Impacts:
Groundwater quality impacts can be mitigated to a large degree by well'head treatment or
blending. Each of these alternatives can be costly and at some point may require abandonment
of a particular well or source. A discussion of any listed concerns (section 2.05) should be
addressed here as well as actions your utility is planning to mitigate these impacts.
Surface water impacts should also be discussed as well as plans to address surface
contamination that may require abandonment of the source for a period of time.
-8-
KERN COUNTY GROUNDWATER MEDIATION - URBAN WORKGROUP
2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
(d) Facility Reliability:
The urban water supplier should look at their system to determine if there are system
components that are vulnerable to failure or could have significant impacts upon their ability to
provide a reliability supply.
The discussion of facility reliability should focus on failure of critical infrastructure and what the
utility has done to maintain the system as well as provide a level of back-up in the event there is
failure. A good example of facility reliability is the inclusion of back-u supplies for
groundwater recovery wells.
Examples of facility reliability could include:
1. Backup power supplies for groundwater wells an m components
2.. Adequate distribution system storage capa, d s during
outages
3. Preventative maintenance statement ident program steps
taken to ensure equipment repair and readin
(e) Transfers and Exchan,
One method of mitigating impacts to the rel ~ to supply deficiencies or
quality impacts, is to develop and implement water districts. These
transfers and exchanges can a management
opportunities with other .ist any agreements you may have
as well as provide some ! you m on that will improve the reliability of your
supply.
(f)
A reliability statement car ! to provide a reliable supply and demonstrate
planning led in to en reliabilitY.
Water U mer Type
Identi~ uses wi! area by customer type.
2.10 and Ma ement Measures
2.11 Eva DMM's Not Implemented
2.12 Planned Supply Projects and Programs
This section to be used to list planned water supply projects and programs.
2.13 Development of Desalinated Water
N/A
2.14 Current or Projected Supply Includes Wholesale Water
List if your utility currently or plans to acquire wholesale treated water
-9-
KERN COUNTY GROUNDWATER MEDIATION - URBAN WORKGROUP
2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
section III. Determination of DDM Implementation
3.01 DMM Implementation
The Urban Water Management Planning Act specifies 14 Demand gement Measures
(DMM's). The Act was revised in 2000 to relate the DMM's to the Management
Practices of the California Urban Water Conservation Council. uncil website for
information-
(a) Public Awareness
List any activities or programs supported by that im )lic water
awareness. These programs can include public ion programs, conser news letters
etc.
Section 'IV. Water Shortangency Plan
4.01 Step One: Stages
Identify any stages of action to be im water shortages.
Examples of stages of acti nclude:
1. Conservation
2, Demand a ount triggers higher rate)
3. Raft
e of Minimum Supply for Next Three Years
Ident minimum Ible during the next three years based upon the driest
4.03 ~tion for Catastrophic Water Supply
Inte~
(a) Co~3 qanning - Raw Water Facilities
Identify steps or plans of action in the event the raw water conveyance facilities that serve your
utility are unable to deliver raw water. Identify any plans to work with other water utilities to
ensure continued deliveries in this event.
(b) Coordinated Planning- Potable Water Facilities
Identify steps or plans of action in the event the potable water facilities that serve your utility are
unable to deliver potable water (failure of wells or pipelines). Identify any agreements or
arrangements with other water suppliers that will allow you to continue to make deliveries and
KERN COUNTY GROUNDWATER MEDIATION - URBAN WORKGROUP
2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
maintain service (interconnections etc).
4.04 Step Four: Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption
Reduction Methods
4.05 Step Five: Analysis of Revenue Impacts of Reduced Sales
During Shortages~ .
Identify any revenue impacts resulting from reduced sales durin~upply shortages.
Examples of impacts could be lay-offs, deferred maintenance~l improvement projects,
rate increases etc..
4.06 Step Six. Draft Ordinance and i~v, onitorin~edure
Identify if your utility has developed and implem, ~.ny monitoring mechan[~at allow you
to determine if actual demand reductions are Jring ~s.
Section V, Plan'
5.01 Recycled Water
Kern County has a number of wastewatE ,from urban areas. Many of
these plants use the efflue~ to irrig~ has been identified
as an important ~t tool.
A portion of the eve ~lly back to the groundwater basin as a usable
supply. The this co is not clearly defined. Many of the
wastewater plants the influent is generated. The
accounting in-lieu supply for the agricultural district
using th ;upply for the an agency generating the effluent) has yet to
be
Th~ workgroup re( if an urban water supplier is to account for wastewater
as a su )onent, of then the amount of water returning to the
usable to be quantified. The goal is to eliminate double counting
and to clearl is actually returning to the basin. Wastewater that is used to
irrigate non-fo( be evaluated and appropriate adjustments made to reflect actual
return amounts i ,nsistent'with the groundwater mediation technical workgroup
method.
-11 -
KERN COUNTY GROUNDWATER MEDIATION - URBAN WORKGROUP
2005 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
Section VI. Water Quality Impacts on Reliability
6.01 Overview
Discuss any water quality impacts your utility may be aware of that )act the reliability of
the water supply.
Include a table that shows Water quality impacts upon supply
Section VII. Water;e ility
7.01 Reliability
7.02 Step One: Projected Normal Supply and Demand
7.03 Step Two: Pro upply and Demand
Comparison
7.04 Step Three: and Demand
Com '
-12-
DRAFT
TABLE 1
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ANALYSIS
Umts per Persons Landscape Hoaclway /
LAND USE Acre Per Unit Irrigation % Building % Public Use Total
(A) (B) (C') (D) (E)
Rural Density Residential 0.4 3 87.00% 3.00% 10.00% 100.00%
Rural Community 1.0 3 84.00% 6.00% 10.00% 100.00%
100.00%
Medium Density Residential 4.0 3 63.00% 18.00% 19.00% 100.00%
Medium_High Density Residential 5.0 3 60.00% 20.00% 20.00% 100.00%
High Density Residential 15.0 3 30.00% 50.00% 20.00% 100.00%
A Number of Housing Units per Acre
B Persons per Housing Unit
C % of Acreage Ded'mated to Landscaped Areas
D % of Acreage Dedicated to Building
E % of Acreage Dedicated to Roadways (no water demand)
TABLE 2
RESIDENTIAL WATER USE ANALYSIS
Water Demand Per Acre
Umts per Persons Imgat~on Uomest~c I otal
WATER USE Acre Per Unit (AF/Acre-Yr) (Af/Yr) (Af/Yr) GPCD
(A) (S) (C') (D) (E)
Rural Density Residential 0.4 3 3.0 0.1 3.1 2,335.33
1.0 3 2.9 0.2 3.2 944.89
Medium Density Residential 4.0 3 2.2 0.9 3.1 234.04
Medium_High Density Residential 5.0 3 2.1 1.2 3.3 194.98
High Density Residential 15.0 3 1.1 3.5 4.6 90.83
A Units per Acre of Development
B Persons per Unit
C (3.5 AF/Acre Irrigation) * (Land Use % Landscape In'igation)
D (A) * (B) * (70 gped) * (365 Days) / (325,851 Gal/Acre-Foot)
E (C)+(D)
· Assume Landscape Inlgation requires 3.5 acre-feet per acre of irrigated landscape
· * Assume Domestic use Is 70 gallons per capita
TABLE 3 / ,gu
NET DEMANDANALYSlS /
Irngatlon X/ 'y '
Service Total Factor % Return to Net
Area Irrigation demand return to basin Demand
Outdoor Use (Acres) (AF/Acre-Yr) (AF) basin (AF) (AF/Year)
(A) (B) (C') (D) (E) (F)
Rural Density Residential 1,500 3.0 4567.5 20% 913.5 3,654
Rural Community 1,500 2.9 4410 20% 882.0 3,528
Low Density 30,000 2.3 69300 20% 13,860.0 55,440
Medium-Low Density 15,000 2.2 ~. 3360e ~- 20% 6,720.0 26,880
Medium Density Residential 5,000 2.2 11025 20% 2,205.0 8,820
Medium_High Density Residential 10,000 2.1 21000 20% 4,200.0 16,800
High Density Residential 2,000 1.1 2100 20% 420.0 1,680
Total 65,000 146,003 29,200.5 116,802
A Acres W'~in Service/~ea
B Irrigation Per Acre/Land Use Type (Taken from Table 2)
c (A) * (B)
D Irrigation Factor- % of Irrigation Water That Retoms to Basin
E (A) * (a) * (C)
F (C) o (E)
I oral Al-
Domestic Domestic Returned Net.
Units per Persons per Use of 70 Demand % Return to Basin Demand
Domestic Use Acre Unit GPCD (AF/Year) to Basin (AF/Year) {AF/Year)
(A) (B) (C') (D) (E) (F) (G)
Rural Density Residential 1,500 3.0 70 353 25% 88 265
Rural Community 1,500 3.0 70 353 25% 88 265
Low Density 30,000 3.0 70 7057 25% 1,764 5293
Medium-Low Density 15,000 3.0 70 3528 25% 882 2646
Medium Density Residential 5,000 3.0 70 1176 25% 294 882
Medium_High Density Residential 10,000 3.0 70 2352 25% 588 1764
High Density Residential 2,000 3.0 70 470 25% 118 353
Total 65,000 15,290 3,822 t t,467
A Units Per Acre (Table 1 )
B Persons Per Unit (Table 1)
C Domestic Use of 70 GPCD
D (A) * (B) *(C') * 365 day/yeer 1325,851 Gal/N=
E % of Waste Water Returned to Basin After Irrigation of Non-Food Crops
F Amount of Water Returned to Basin
G (D) - (F)
TOTAL DEMAND 161,292
AMOUNT OF WATER ADJUSTED FROM TOTAL DEMAND
IRRIGATION RETURN 29,201
WASTEWATER RETURN 3,822
TOTAL 33,023
NET DEMAND FOR SYSTEM 128.269
DRAFT
TABLE 4
PRECIPITATION FACTOR
~Service Annual ~-ttecave ~-ttectlve
Ama Precipitation Factor Precip
Precipitation (Acres) (Inches) (%) (AF/Year)
(A) (B) (C') (D)
DISTRICT X SERVICE AREA 65,000 · 6.2 3% 1,008
· EffeclJve Factor Estimated
BOARD OF DIRECTORS 501 TAFT HIGHWAY OFFICERS & STAFF
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93307-6247
TELEPHONE (661) 834-4656 L. Mark Mulkay
Stanley Antongiovanni, President FAx (661) 836-1705 General Manager
David L. Kaiser, Vice President John Frankhouser
David C. Cosyns, Secretary ' Controller
Philip J. Cerro, Combined Officer ~ Sheridan Nicholas
Donald Collins ~ District Engineer
Howard Frick McMurtrey, Hartsock & Worth
Fred Garone Attorneys-at-Law
Rodney Palla Boyle Engineering
Richard Tillema Consulting Engineers
December 16, 2005
Florn Core, Manager
City of Bakersfield Water Resources Dept.
1000 Buena Vista Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311
RE: City of Bakersfield 2005 Urban Water Management Plan
Mr. Core:
Kern Delta Water District (Kern Delta) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 2005 update of the City of
Bakersfield (City) Urban Water Manage Plan (Plan) for its domestic water system.
Kern Delta is a California water district comprised of approximately 125,000 acres of agricultural and urban land
situated south and west of the City. Kern Delta's agricultural landowners irrigate their crops using Kern River
water and pumped groundwater. Kern Delta purchased water from the State Water Project to supplement water use
within Kern Delta. The groundwater levels within Kern Delta continue to be an area of concern and the levels are
monitored closely.
The boundaries of Kern Delta and the City partially overlap and as future City annexations occur, the overlapping
lands will only continue to increase. Due to the rapid urbanization that is occurring within Kern Delta, we must be
able to advise our landowners that their groundwater supply will not be adversely affected by urban encroachment.
GENERAL COMMENTS
' Initially, Kern Delta wishes to acknowledge that it is currently engaged in discussions with the City regarding water
supply issues related to the urbanization of lands within Kern Delta. Kern Delta is hopeful that many, if not all, of
the issues facing this District and the City with respect to the water supply of urbanized lands within Kern Delta will
be resolved through these discussions. However, no agreement has been reached to date and, therefore, Kern Delta
is compelled to comment on the Draft Plan.
It is understood that the City's Plan is only a tool for future growth within the City limits and will be updated every
five (5) years. Unfortunately city planners and developers sometimes point to this type of document in their CEQA
proceedings as being the last word with respect to their water supply study and assessment. Because this Plan is not
a CEQA document, Kern Delta fully reserves its right to review and comment on any and all future urban projects
and their related water use and water supply impacts within Kern Delta. ~ [~ {~ [~ ~ ~ ~ [~)
CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD
WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Florn Core, Manager City of Bakersfield Water Resource Department
December 16, 2005
Page 2
WATER SOURCES AND SUPPLY OUTLOOK
General System Expansion
Page 3: The Plan states that "Additional water will be needed to meet the growth of the service area and population.
These supplies will be met with additional groundwater wells along with future 10-20 MGD water purification
plants." It is acknowledged that it is the practice to construct wells in general locations of development. However,
this Plan should state where future water purification plants may be located.
The Plan continues, "The City's planned service area will be in areas that have been under general agricultural use;
thus, a 'trade' in the type of use of water will take place." This statement does not take into account the fact that
general agricultural use allows for fallowing, whereas domestic use does not. Furthermore, many of these
agricultural areas are in undistricted areas of Kern County, where no supply exists other than groundwater. In those
cases, development under the assumption that the City can pump groundwater as necessary may add to the overdraft
in the Kern County Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (as suggested in the California
Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 - "California's Groundwater").
Wastewater Recycling
Page 4: The Plan states that "These agricultural crops would otherwise require the pumping of groundwater to
sustain the farm lands." This is not always the case. Portions of City's farm properties are entitled to significant
amounts of surface water from the Kern River, and do not "require the pumping of groundwater to sustain the farm
lands."
RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY
Historical Deficiencies
Pages 5-6: The use of groundwater levels is not an accurate way to determine available supplies. Graph 1 does not
take into account water that has been banked in the numerous banking projects surrounding the City and its
domestic service area. Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, Kern Delta Water District, Kern Water Bank,
Berrenda Mesa Water District, and the Pioneer Project have combined to bank over one million acre-feet in the
Kern Fan groundwater basin. Absent these banked supplies, the average depths to groundwater as shown in Graph
No. 1, "Average System Water Table Depths" could be much deeper. Furthermore, this graph does not indicate
which wells were used to determine these depths. Were the same wells used in 2005 and 1977? Were additional
wells used in the calculation as they were brought into production? If so this graph should reflect the changing data.
APPENDIX lI - WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN
Section 3 - Worst Case Water Supply Availability for 12, 24 and 36 Months
Recycled Water
Page 6: The removal of the wastewater source from the City farmland to which it is delivered would not necessarily
force the use of groundwater wells. As these lands are owned by the City, the City can dictate the use of these
lands, and stop agricultural production if need be, and as discussed earlier, much of these lands are entitled to a
surface supply and should not require groundwater pumping.
Mr. Flom Core, Manager City of Bakersfield Water Resource Department
December 16, 2005
Page 3
Section 4 - Stages of Action
Potential for Deficiencies
Page 7: The Plan states, "The water supply available to the City and its customers is not subject to cut-backs....the
underlying groundwater reservoir could accommodate many years of overdraft before becoming severely affected."
The City's Plan should consider "cut-backs" in times of extreme drought. The Plan also says that because of it's
relatively small groundwater use compared to agriculture (95% v. 5%), that the City's use is "insignificant" in the
overall water balance and supply. It further states that "...the economics of pumping would dictate the highest and
best use." Kern Delta disagrees with the assumption that any domestic use is a "higher and better use" than
agricultural production. Further detail is required for the assumption that municipal and industrial use is 5%
compared to agricultures use.
APPENDIX III - WATER USE PROJECTION WORKSHEETS
Projected figures throughout this worksheet appear to be inconclusive. For instance, the number of service
connections in 1995, 2000, and 2005 increased from 19,721 to 25,507 to 34,845. This indicates an increase of
5,786 connections from 1995 to 2000, and 9,338 from 2000 to 2005. However, projections for 2010 onward
indicate an increase of only 5,000 connections every five years. Does the City expect a decrease in the number of
new connections for a given period? If trends continue, the City will be pumping at its proposed Year 2030 level of
60,000 in 2019, eleven years ahead of schedule. These projected figures should be reevaluated.
The worksheet also says that the aquifer is not in overdraft. California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118
- "California's Groundwater"states that the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region is currently overdrafted in average year
and dry year conditions. Please provide more detail on your water supply to allow a full analysis of the City's claim
of a positive water balance.
APPENDIX VI - WATER SUPPLY CONSUI~IPTION DATA (1996-2003)
General Comments: The data in this Appendix is inconsistent with the Plan because it is information for the area
within the entire City limits which is a much larger area than the City domestic service area.
Total Inflows Table: The Table indicates a large supply due to River & Canal Seepage. Kern Delta continues to
maintain that canal seepage occurring during transportation of Kern Delta owned water through canals owned and
operated by Kern Delta is part of its water supply. The Plan should acknowledge Kern Delta's claim.
APPENDIX VII - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD STATEI~IENT OF WATER SUPPLY
The assertion that 50% of all water use is reclaimed through deliveries to agricultural producers has been previously
discussed. However, please explain how an average lot size of 8500 square feet leads to 2.5 dwelling units per acre,
as shown in Table 1-Net Annual Water Demand. Is the remaining 0.5 acre attributable to parks, streets (medians),
etc? Please explain how these uses contribute to the overall water demand.
Pages 2 and 3 of Appendix VII describe ongoing discussions between Kern Delta and the City. Kern Delta
acknowledges these discussions but makes no guarantee of additional water supply for the City. The disposition of
the 35,000 acre-feet shown in Table 2 on page 3 has not been resolved. Kern Delta reserves the right, as per
existing agreement, to include all canal losses in its water balance, and any use of Kern Delta supplies by the City in
the future will be for urbanized lands within the boundaries of Kern Delta.
Mr. Flora Core, Manager City of Bakersfield Water Resource Department
December 16, 2005
Page 4
For the reasons listed above, Kem Delta believes the City's Plan is incomplete and does not contain enough
information to adequately describe the City's Urban Water needs. In addition, because this Plan has not gone
through the CEQA process, Kern Delta reserves the right to object to any development plan or future CEQA that
points to this Plan as a water supply study or assessment.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Plan. If you have any questions please call the undersigned.
Sincerely,
General Manager
Kern Delta Water District