HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/31/79 c,'rY
A G E N D A
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKE~FIELD
DI~2CT~
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1979 F~
4:00 P.M.
Call meeting .to order
Roll Call - Board Members: Ratty, Vice-Chairman; Barton, Bergen,
Hoagland
1. Approve minutes of regular board meeting of January 10, 1979.
2. City of Bakersfield Water Board letter to Kern Delta Water District
and North Kern Water Storage District regarding creation of a First
Point Committee. - BOARD TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE VICE-CHAIR~.CA~] TO
SIGN.
3. Ditch Eradication and Pipeline Easement Agreements (2):
A) 2,499.2 lineal feet of pipeline installed in Beardsley
Lateral 1-4-0 (B-6A) by Calvin Cheek, Sr. - final
inspection made December 15, 1979.
B) 712.8 lineal feet of pipeline installed in Beardsley
Lateral 1-2-0 (B-3) by First Baptist Church of Bakers-
field. - BOARD TO APPROVE DITCH ERADICATION AGREEMENTS
AND AUTHORIZE VICE-CHAIP~4AN TO SIGN.
~5. BoardStaff CommentsC°mments 6. A dj ournment
MINUTES
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1979
4:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Vice-Chairman
Ratty in the City Hall Caucus Room.
The secretary called the roll as follows:
Present: Ratty, Vice-Chairman; Bergen, Hoagland
A~sent: Barton
Staff Present: Bogart, Chafin, Hansen, Hostmyer, Needham
Others Present: Tom Ashlock, District Manager, Rag Gulch Water
~District, Walter Heisey, Committee Member of
Sub-Committee to Kern County Water District's
Advisory Committee.
The minutes from the meeting of December 6, 1978, were approved
as presented.
A letter dated December 11, 1978 was directed to the City Council
from Paul Enns, Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District regard-
ing Proposal to Store and Pump Hacienda Water was referred to the
Water Board on December 13, 1978 for appropriate action. A sug-
gested response was prepared by the staff and after a brief dis-
cussion Mr. Hoagland made a motion that the board approve the
letter and authorize the Vice-Chairman to sign, and a copy be
furnished to each Councilmen. The motion was passed.
A letter Agreement dated November 22, 1978 between Rag Gulch
Water District and Tenneco West requesting City Water Board ap-
proval for sale of Kern Tulare/Rag Gulch undelivered 1977 Kern
River contract water was presented to the board. Also, presented
to the board at this time was a letter Agreement dated December
22, 1978 between Rag Gulch Water District and Tenneco West re-
questing City Water Board approval for sale of Rag Gulch 1978
Kern River contract water to Tenneco West. After a discussion
by board and staff on basic contract sale of undelivered water
Mr. Bergen made a motion that both Letter Agreements be approved
and authorize the Vice-Chairman to sign, and that the letter re-
garding sales be sent to Mr. Ashlock. The motion was passed.
A letter from Kern Delta Water District regarding sale of Power
Flow Storage Water was presented to the board for discussion. Mr.
Bergen made a motion that the letter be referred to the staff for
recommendation to the Water Board. The motion was passed.
Board COmments
Mr. Bergen at this time presented to the board the Response of the
City Staff to the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Kern County
Water District's Advisory Committee on the Activities of the Kern
County Water Agency for approval. Upon a motion by Mr. Bergen the
posit:ion paper was adopted by the Water Board.
At this time Mr. Heisey addressed the board and complimented them
on their response to the Repor% of the Sub-Committee.
There being no further business to come before the board, Vice-
Chairman Ratty adjourned the meeting at 4:20 P.M.
Donald K. Ratty, Vice-Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
Linda Hostmyer, Secretary
City of Bakersfield Water Board
,~ ,"r ,y OF
~~3~~~'~ ~ L ~ CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF WATER
January 31, 1979
Board of Directors
Kern ~Delta Water District
P. O. Box 155
Del Kern Station
Bakersfield, California 93307
Board of Directors
North Kern Water Storage District
P. O. Box 1195
Bakersfield, California 93302
Gentlemen:
We have taken note of various recent communications and activ-
ities relating to Kern River administration matters. Recent
transfers of ownership of Kern River water rights suggest the
need to review representation of the various river interests
in administration of the River. Before dealing with this issue,
however, it seems essential for the First Point interests to
resolve various outstanding operational and water rights allo-
cationmattersamong themselves. We feel this can be best and most
expeditiously accomplished by meetings of the attorneys, engineer-
ing consultants and managers of the North Kern Water Storage
District, Kern Delta Water District and City of Bakersfield.
We recommend that each of those entities form a'Committee com-
-prised of its attorney, manager and engineering consultant, and
that those representatives of each of the three entities meet
on a regular basis to discuss all matters of uncertainty as to-
Kern River operations and water supplies with the objective of
resolving all such matters to the mutual satisfaction of the
three entities. On resolution of those matters by the joint
committee, it would submit any necessary documentation and
1~01 TRLJ~("~LIN AVENLI~. · EIAKI;RRI='IE~L L'I. CAL. IFORNIA .q3301 · (RtlSt 8;t-?71R
January 31, 1979
Page Two
possible agreements to the administrative bodies of the three
entities for their approval.
We have talked in the past of getting together to resolve oper-
ational and administrative matters among the First Point interests,
but is has fallen by the wayside because of lack of a specific
schedule. We therefore recommend that regular meetings of the
joint qommittee be scheduled at the first meeting, and that the
joint committee continue to meet on that schedule until all
matters have been resolved.
We would suggest an initial meeting of the committee on Thursday,
February 22, 1979 at 10:00 A.M. in Great Western Savings and
Loan's second floor conference room.
We hope that both your districts will favorably respond to the
above recommendation.
Sincerely,
Donald K. Ratty, Vice-Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
DKR:lh
* DiRIrCT,(~RS ~ ~ ~? ~4¢MURTRE¥
~LE~ WILLIS. PRESIDENT ATTORNEY5 &T L&w
FRANK GARONE. Vlcz PRZSIDZNT KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT
MELVIN DESTEFANI, COMBINED OFFICER P O BOX 1~5 CONSULTING
STANLEY ANTONGIOVANNI DEL KERN ~TATION
STANLEY M. BARNES BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93307
ROBERT F BOON
PHILIP J. CERRO TELEPHONE (805) B34.4653
HALE COSTERISAN
GILBERT CASTLE. JR . MANAGER
GENE McMURTREY. ASST. SECY.
Dece~e~ 26, 1978
1501 ~:uxtun A~e.
Bake:s~ield, CA 93301
Gentlemen:
Major shifts have o~curred in the ownership of Kern River water
right entitlements since the drafting of the 1962 Water Rights and
Storage Agreement. It follows that entities entitled to a voice in
the selection of the Water Master, in addition to the presently con-
stituted four (North Kern Water Storage District, Hacienda Water
District, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District and Buena Vista
Water Storage District) should also include the City of Bakersfield
and Kern Delta Water District, who between them control more than one
third of the normal flows on the Kern River.
The First Point interests have been diversified and due to this
diversification a conflict of interest could develop if one or more
of the interests were to be permanently involved in the functions
of Water Master and of basic water accounting. We wish to emphasize
that this is not, in any way, criticism of those who are presently
acting in the capacities of Water Master and of water accounting.
We believe that in the interest of long term stability and in-
dependence, the Water Master and water accounting functions should
be placed in the hands of a party not directly tied to any interest
on the Kern River. The party would be responsible to a possible
newly formed Association to be comprised of representatives of all
owners of significant Kern River rights.
It is envisioned that the Water Master office would handle records
of daily entitlements, storage, diversions and losses. The physical
operation of weirs and headgates would continue to be hand~ed by the
owners of same. Agreements would be drafted which would, as is the
case on Kings, Kaweah and Tule Rivers, clearly specify that none of
the water rights or storage rights of any Kern River interests would
be affected by the fact that administration of the waters would be
through the independent Water Master's office.
This memorandum is being circulated among all Kern River interests
with the hope and expectation that the future operation and adminis-
tration of Kern River will be discussed. It is suggested that a
meeting of all interests be convened for the purpose of exploring the
ramifications of the above. You will be contacted at an early date.
Yours truly,
cc: North Kern Water Storage District
Buena Vista Water Storage District
Hacienda Water District
Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
City of Bakersfield /
'~ec~o'~ding Requested by
and Whe'm Recorded, M~il
Recording requested by and for
the City of Bakersfield
Mail to Ci~ of
OEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN
~AKERSFIELD, ~hO,.:.,,~ .¢~.~1
DITCH ERADICATION AGREEMENT
AND PIPELINE EASEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated November 13, 1978, between BRONCO, BUILDERS,
hereinafter called "First Party", whether one or more, and CII¥ 0F
BAKERSFIELD, a California municipal corporation, DEPARTHENT OF UATER,
hereinafter called "Second Party",
W I T N E S S E T H T H A T:
WHEREAS, Second Party is the owner and operator of the Beardsley
Canal lateral, also known as Lateral B-6A now existing as an open ditch,
and is the owner of a right-of-way and easement therefor over and across
that certain real property owned by First Party in the County of Kern,
State of California, particularly described as follows:
A portion of Lot 3 and Lot 4 per "Sales Map of Lands of Kern
County Land Company" in Section 9, T. 29 S., R. 27 E., M.D.M.
recorded April 4, 1893 in the County of Kern, State of Calif-
ornia; and
· WHEREAS, First Party desires to fill in and eradicate said open
ditch and to substitute therefor a concrete pipeline, of the type and
inside diameter hereinafter specified, in and along said easement and
right-of-way, as hereinafter provided; and
~.~HEREAS, Second Party is willing to consent to such substitution
upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth;
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
1. First Party does hereby grant to Second Party the exclusive
and permanent 'right-of-way and easement to construct, install, main-
tain, alter, repaic, improve, recon'struct, enlarge and supplement and
to flow and conduct water through a buried pipeline or pipelines over,
along and in those certain strips of land in the County of Kern, State
of California, more particularly described as follows:
A st~£p of land 15 feet in width lying 7.5 feet either
side of the following descr£bed line in Lots 3 and 4 per
"Sales Map of Lands of Kern County T,,.qrJ_rl Company", in Section
9, T. 29 S. , R. 27 E. , M..D.M. , recorded April 4, 1893, in
the County of Kern, State of California, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the North 1/4 Corner of said Section 9,
T. 29 S., R. 27 E., said point also being on the center
line of Snow Road (County Road No. 584), 85 feet wide,
thence, N 89o43'02'' W., a distance of 1317.735 feet to a
point on the center line of said Snow Road, 85 feet wide
said point also being the northwest Corner of said Lot 3;
thence, southerly and departing said center line of Snow
Road S 00°08'14'' W, a distance of 62.5 feet to the True
Point of Beginning for this description.
Thence, N 89o43'02' W, a distance of 1265.727 feet; thence
S 00o07'46'' W, a distance of 1233.900 feet to the end point
of this easement.
The side lines of which w~ll be shortened or lengthened
so as to start of the westerly line of said Lot 3 and
end on the northerly right-of-way line of Cherrywood Avenue
in Lot 4, Section 9, T. 29 S., R. 27 E., bI.D.M.
together with all right covenient and incidental thereto, including
the right of ingress to and egress from said strip of land over and
across said real property of First Party, and First Party covenants
and agrees that no building or other structure shall be constructed,
and no trees, vines, or shrubs shall be planted upon said right-of-way
and easement.
2. First Party agrees, at its own expense, to procure an Ease-
ment Guarantee Policy of title insurance in the amount of $1,000.00
from The Title Insurance and Trust Company of other title insurance
company acceptable to Second Party, insuring that the right-of-way~
and easement herein~ granted is vested in Second Party free and clear
of all liens and encumberances excepting only those matters waived in
writing, if any, by Second Party.
3. First Pary agrees to construct and install along the center
line of said right-of-way and easement a 36"/24" inside dia-
meter concrete irrigation pipeline. Said pipeline shall be of
the quality and on the grade and in the manner to be designated and
approved in writing by Second Party's engineer. Said construction and
installation work shall be done at.a time that will not interfere with
the flow or distribution of water through the present ditch as re-
quired by Second Party.
4. First Party shall pay the entire cost of laying, constructing
and installing said pipeline or pipelines, inlets, outlets, and other
structures required by Second Party, including the costs of all labor
and materials incurred or used in connection with the installation,
tr~nching, backfilling, leveling and testing the same, and the cost of
all engineering, professional and other necessary services furnished
by Second Party or others in connection therewith. In the ewent that
First Party shall not pay the entire costs thereof and complete said
work as provided in this agreement, Second Party may, but shall not
be required to, pay such costs and complete such work, and First Party
does hereby agree to repay Second Party any amount so expended to-
gether with interest thereon at 7% per annum from the date. the same
is expended tLntil the date of repayment.
2
5. First Party agrees to commence the construction and installa-
tion of said pipeline or pipelines and structures within a reasonable
time.
6. First Party agrees that, upon completion of construction
and installation ~f said pipeline or pipelines, inlets, outlets and
other structures, the same shall become and remain the property of
Second Party and First Party shall have no right, title or interest
therein, and Second Party shall be in the sole and absolute control
of the manner, method and time of conducting and discharging water
through said pipeline or pipelines and faciltiies; and the nature and
extent of Second Party's right-of-way and easement shall be in no
manner diminished or restricted by the construction of said pipeline
by First Party.
7. First Party agrees to keep and maintain said pipeline or
pipelines, and the inlets, outlets and other structures thereon, in
good operating condition and repair for a period of one year after
the completion of construction and acceptance thereof by Second Party,
and to pay all costs of such repairs and maintenance and of any
replacement of any part thereof required to maintain said pipeline
or pipelines and structures in good operating condition. First Party
agrees that, in the event it fails, neglects or refuses to repair,
maintain or replace promptly, upon demand, any part of said pipeline,
or the structures connected therewith, during said period of one
year, Second Party shall have the right, but shall not be required,
to make any such repairs or replacements, and First Party does hereby
agree to repay Second Party the cost of any such repairs or replace-
ments made by Second Party, with interest at 7% per annum from the
date such cost is incurred to the date of repayment.
8. First Party agrees to indemnify and hold Second Party free
and harmless of and from any and all claims and liabilities arising
out of or in connection with the construction, maintenance and repair
of said pipeline or pipelines, and any other thing or matter done or
required herein to be done by First Pary.
9. Upon full performance of this agreement by First Party, and
the acceptance of said pipeline or pipelines and other structures by
Second Party, Second Party agrees to abandon that portion of its
present open ditc~ and right-of-way therefor which will be replaced
by said pipeline or pipelines and the right-of-way and easement herein
granted.
10. First Party agrees to pay to Second Party reasonable
attorneys' fees, trial preparation expense, and court costs in any
successful action brought by Second Party to enforce any of the terms,
convenants and conditions of this agreement.
11. This agreement shall apply to and be binding upon the heirs,
executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the respective
parties hereto.
-3-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the~parties hereto have caused this
Instrument to be executed in duplicate as of the day and year first
above
written.
BRON~
BUILDERS,
· ......
~lvin' ~k, Sr. ~. '~~~
Calvin Chee~,
Alvin Cheek First :Y
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DEPT. OF WATER
By:
Donald K. Ratty, Vice-Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
approved as to form:
City Attorney
COUNTY OF KERN
November 15
ON , 19 78 ,
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
Calvin Cheek, Jr.
, known to me,
~-_~ to be one of the partners of the partnership that executed the within Instrument, and acknow,-
I ,,'~ I_1 ,~: DA ~.. POOL'-~~ edged to me that such partnership executed the same.
Lind~ E. Pool
Notary Public in and for said State.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT--Partnership--Wolcott$ Form 236--Rev. 3-64
Recording Requested by
-L - -~¥".
and when recorded mai) to:
WHEN RECORDED NtAIL ?O
City of Bokersficld
DEPARTMENT OF WAT~qR
1501 TRUXTUiN AYENU.~
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
DITCH ERADICATION AGREEMENT
AND PIPELINE EASEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated Sept. 22, 1978, between First Baptist
Church of Bakersfield, hereinafter called "First Party",
whether one or more, and Kern River Canal and Irrigating Company,
owned in full by the City of Bakersfield, hereinafter called "Second
Party",
W ITNESSETH THAT:
¥.'HEREAS, Second Party is the owner and operator of the Beardsley
Canal lateral, also known as Lateral 1-2-0, now existing as an open
ditch, and is the owner of a right of way and easement therefor over
and across that certain real property owned by First Party in the
County of Kern, State of California, particularly described as
fol lows:
A portion of the Southwest guarter of the Southeast
Quarter (SW/4 of SE/4) of Section 10, T. 29 S., R. 27 E.,
M.D.B.&M., more exactly described as Lot.30 of said Section 10
and;
WHEREAS, First Party desires to fi l'1 in and eradicate said open
ditch and to substitute therefor a concrete pipeline, of the type and
inside diameter hereinafter specified,-in and along said easement -_
and right of way, as hereinafter provided; and
WHEREAS, Second Party is willing to consent to such substitution
upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth;
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
1. First Party does hereby grant to Second Party the exclusive
and permanent right of way and easement to construct, install, main-
tain, alter, repair, improve, reconstruct, enlarge and supplement
and to flow and conduct water through a buried pipeline or pi. pelines
over, along and' in those certain strip~ of land in the County of Kern,
State of California, more particularly described as follows:
(See attached Exhibit
~'" ~og~.he~,.wi'th ali rigtl~o convenient and incidenta hereto~ including
the right of ingress and egress from said strip of land over and
across said rea] property of First Party, and First Party covenants
and agrees that no building or other structure shall be constructed,
and no trees, vines, or shrubs shall be planted upon said right of
way and easement.
2. First Party agrees~ at its own expense, to procure an Ease-
ment Guarantee Policy of title insurance in the amount of $1~000.00
from The Title Insurance and Trust Company or other title insurance
company acceptable to Second Party, insuring that the right of way
and easement herein granted is vested in Second Party free and clear
of all liens and.enCumbrances excepting only those matters waived
in writing, if any~ by Second Party.
3. First Party agrees to construct and install along the center-
line of said right of way and easement a thirty-six inch inside dia-
meter concrete irrigation pipeline. Said pipeline shall be of
the quality ano on the grade and in the manner to be designated and
approved in writing by .Second Party's engineer. Said construction and
installation work shall be done at a time that will not interfere with
the flow or distribution of water through the present ditch as re-
quired by Second Party.
4. First Party shall pay the entire cost of ]aying~ constructing
and installing said-pipeline or pipelines, in,ts, outlets, and other
structures required by Second Party, including the costs of all labor
and materials incurred or used in connection with the installation,
trenching, backfi]]ing, leveling and testing the same, and the cost of
all engineering, professional and other necessary services furnished
by Second Party or others in connection therewith. In the event that
First Party shall not pay the entire costs thereof and complete said
work as provided in this agreement, Second Party may~ but shall not
be required to, pay such costs and complete such work, and First
Party does hereby agree to repay Second Party any amount so expended
together with interest thereon at 7~ per annum from the date the same
is expended until the date of repayment.
5. First Party agrees to commence the construction and install-
ation of said pipeline or pipelines and structures within a reasonab]e
time.
6. First Party agrees that, upon completion of construction and
installation of said pipeline or pipelines, inlets, outlets and other
structures, the same shall become and remain the property of Second
Party and First Party shall have no right, title or interest therein,
and Second Party shall be in the sole and absolute control of the
manner, method and time of conducting and discharging water through
said pipeline or pipelines and facilities; and the nature and extent
of Second Party's right of way and easement shall be in no manner
diminished or restricted by the construction of said pipeline by First
Party.
7. First Party agrees to keep and maintain said pipeline or
pipelines, and the inlets, out]ets and other structures thereon, in
good operating condition and repair for a period of one year after
the completi-on of construction and acceptance thereof by Second Party,
an~.to pay'all c~sts such repairs and maintele and of any
replacement of any part thereof required to maintain said pipeline
or pipelines and structures in good operating condition. First Party
agrees that, in the event it fails, neglects or refuses to repair,
maintain or replace promptly, upon demand, any part of said pipeline,
or the structures connected therewith, during said period of one year,
Second Party shall have the right, but shall not be required, to make
any such repairs or replacements, and First Party does hereby agree
to repay Second Party the cost of any such repairs or replacements
made by Second Party, with interest at 7% per annum from the date
such cost is incurred to the date of repayment.
8. First Party agrees to indemnify and hold Second Party free
and harmless of and from any and all claims and liabilities arising
out of or in connection with the construction, maintenance and repair
of said pipeline or pipelines, and any other thing or matter done or
required herein to be done by First Party.
9. Upon full performance of this agreement by First Party, and
the acceptance of said pipeline or pipelines and other strucures by
Second Party, Second Party agrees to abandon that portion of its
present open ditch and right of way therefor which will be replaced
by said pipeline or pipelines and the right of way and easement
herein granted.
10. First Party agrees to pay to Second Party reasonable
attorneys' fees, trial preparation expense, and court costs in any.
successful action brought by Second Party to enforce any of the
terms, covenants and conditions of this agreement.
ll. Second Party agrees to quitclaim all prior easements of
record.
12. This agreement shall apply to and be binding upon the heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the respective
parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Instrument
to be executed in duplicate as of the day and year first above written.
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF BAKERSFIELD
(FiFst Party)
KERN RIVER CANAL &-IRRIGATING COMPANY
(Second Party)
By:_. · Donald K. Rattv
Vice-Chairman,Cl' of Bakersfield Water Board.
CI-/cy of fSaKerstietylO
Department of Water
The undersigned, claiming some right~ title or interest in or
to the above described rea] property consent to the making of the
foregoing grant of easement and agree to be bound thereby and agree
that their right~ title or interest is subject to such grant of
easement. I~'FI:::E~NN_ EXLCL)PATIbNAL rFKFFF_~ OF KEk~
, · AND TRu~-T
STATE O~ ~ALIFORNIA ./ '1
ss.
On //{~__ '~/ ~' ~ / ~ ~; L / "~ ~'~'? before--me, thc undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally ap~ared "~ /d 'v', ,.~ . , ,. : / /~' ,
~ow~ to me lo be the President. and ._ ~. ' -,.-,.- / .~ 2 ,:~: ' ,/;/,f~',
known to me to be ~ecre~
of the corporation that executed the within Instrument,
known Io me to be the persons who ex~uted the within
Inst~ment on behalf of the corporation therein named, and
acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the ] ~ OFFICIAL
within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of ] [~:g~ LINDA g CAMARILLO
its board of directors, ~ ~/~-~4._~LI NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNI~
W~N~S my hand and o~cial seal. ] ~ KERN OOUN~
~ My Gommisaion Expires Nov. 11,
(This area for o~cial notarial seal)
Skate of California)
County of Kern )
On this ~"."cx day of.'??,',':.,.~. ,; , in the year 197 .' before me,
the undersign:ed, a Nptacy Pubtic in and for said Sta~, personally
appeared .... <.'~.~_ ../. .C~ '.,'~_ _ .. .,: , known to~e to be ~he
and
be ~he .-iz~.~.,..,z~/~,r .,(',;:/(,~./? . °f'[hm Regional Occupational Center
of Kern~ and kncwn'~o-be [0 be" ~'he persons who executed ~he within
ins~rumen~ on behalf of said political subdivision, and acknow'ledged
~o me ~ha~ such political subdivision executed the same.
VilT~JESS MY HAND AND SEAL.
~~~x~ ~ ~'.._.~ ./,' ' Z ~ ~; .'
~ .... ::,a,,:.,. OFFtO~L SEAL ~ "
~ M~' Commission E,plrm, A~'il 6. ~979 ~
EXHIB IT 'A'
All that portion of Lot 30 of Section 10, Township 29
South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, accordi,n,g
to that certain les Map of Lands of Kern County Land
"Sa
Company" filed in the Office of the County Recorder on
July 14, 1893, being a strip of land 10.00 feet wide
lying 5.00 feet on each side of the following described
center line:
Commencing at a point on the east line of said Lot ~0,
from which point the southeast corner of the southwest
quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section bears
S00°24'48'W, 497.00 feet; thence N89°lO.38"W parallel
with the south line of said Section, 82.00 feet to a point
in the existing centerline of the Beardsley Canal Lateral
No, 1-2-0, also being] the True Point of Beginning; thence
continuing N89°lO,38"W, 210.51 feet; thence S45°49,22"W,
115.37 feet; thence S26°19,22"W .
, 386 91 feet, more or less,
to said existing centerline and the end of said strip.
PLA~INH~G
' PUB. WOR~S ....
WAT~{R
FIR~
JAN 18 1979
copies: Ma~or and Council
Start Hatch, Attorne~
Tom Stetson, Engineer
Response of the City of Bakersfield Water Board
to the Report .,of the Sub-Committee of the
Kern County Water District's Advisory Committee
on t'he Activities of the Kern County Water Agency
The '"Tentative and Preliminary" Report of the Sub-Committee on Agency
Review has been reviewed by the staff and consultants of the City of Bakersfield
Water Board. We wish to commend the sub-committee for its work which we know
involved many meetings, much work and arduous and extensive thought to weigh
all of the various material and opinions presented to it. We will hereinafter comment
on each of the 15 recommendations of the sub-committee.
1'. Dissolution. We agree with this recommendation with the
same condition placed thereon by the sub-committee in the
last paragraph of the recommendati4n.
The Kern County Water Agency can be said to have been formed for
the sole purpose of contracting with the State of California to bring
supplemental water supplies to Kern County. In fact that was the
promise made to the voters prior to the formation of the Kern County
Water Agency.. We would like the Agency to restrict itself to those
activities. Although the Agency Act gives the Agency powers to do
many other things, if the Agency were not needed to contract with the
State for water, it probably would not have been formed, since other
entities can provide those other things which the Agency has been
undertaking.
2. Board. We disagree that the number of members of
the Board of Directors of the Agency should be increased. The report
";.-'
itself finds that there needs to be more liaison and contact with
the agency staff and increasing the number of board members WOuld
only compound that problem. Furthermore, we see nothing in the
Agency Act which permits the Water District's Advisory Committee
to nominate persons from the member units.
' The problems with the Agency, as addressed by the sub-committee,
give no indication that their solution lies in increasing the number
Of Board members. Quite the contrary· A closer relationship between
the Board, the Staff and the Agency consultants will be much easier
to achieve with the present number of board members.
The Agency board should not have more than seven (7) members·
The Agency Act authorizes seven members now "... nominated and
· elected from each of seven divisions..." "...the boundaries of any
or all of the divisions ... shall be as nearly equal in population as
. may be."
To add four more directors chosen by the member districts would
violate the one man - one vote principal.
A Board with 11 members would be more awkward than the present
board of seven members· Board member costs would increase, both
as to directors' compensation for attendance at meetings and director's
expense accounts.
3. I.D. 4: We agree that ImProvement District No. 4
should be autonomous. %Are think the proper vehicle for accomplishing
_this would be by amending the Agency Act to provide that a separate
Board of Trustees (Board of Directors) comprised of five members be
-2- 1/10/79
elected, One from each of~the five divisions within I.D. 4 with each
division being of approxim?tely equal population. The assets and
liabilities of I. D. 4 should 'become the responsibility of I. D. 4 and
not the parent agency.
It has not been demonstrated that there is a need for a water
supply contract between I. D. 4 and the parent Agency. If such is the
case, a contract could be executed even if it required amending the
Agency Act to do so.
The Improvement District should retain all the powers and benefits
.of the Agency, including the ability to have Agency zone of benefit
assessments levied on adjacent areas which may now or in the future
benefit from the I. D. 4 spreading of ~vater, with the revenues derived
from such assessments applied to the payment of the cost of the I.D.4's
'State water.
Since an improvement district is formed for an area specifically
benefitting thereby and is empowered to obligate itself to bonded
indebtedness for such speacial improvements, it should be under the
supervision, direction and control of an elected Board of Trustees. The.
obligation created in behalf of the improvement district is a charge
against only the property situated within the improvement district.
All facilities of the Improvement District must be owned by the
Improvement District, n.ot by the Kern County W. ater Agency', since it
was the voters of the Improvement District which obligated their properties
to pay for the facilities--not the property owners in the other portions
of the Agency.
-3-'
1/10/7.9
4. C.V.C. Th~ Cross Valley Canal should be owned and
, i
operated by those districts who paid for it. A joint powers
arrangement for its operation, maintenance and administration
can be entered into among those owners.
The crOss-Valley Canal should be operated by I. D. 4 under an
advisory board comprised of representatives of the districts which own
the Cross-Valley Canal.
5. Flood Control. We agree with the recommendation relating to
flood control.
'6. Drainage. We agree with the recommendation relating to
drainag e.
7. Groundwater. We agree that the local water districts, not the
~ Agency, should be responsible for groundwater management. This,
too, can be done through joint powers arrangements where it would
be more efficient for two or more districts or cities to have joint
management.
8. Zones of' Benefit. We agree that the zone of benefit concept is a
,,
desirable one. Areas which have a balanced water supply should
not be assessed for the benefit of other areas. Areas which do not
have a balanced water supply, whether contracting with the Agency
for State water or not, should pay zone of benefit assessments on
an equitable basis. :
Properly applied, the Zone of Benefit procedure can be a valuable
tool by which all areas can be made to pay their fair share of benefits
received from imported water.
-4- 1/10/79
.9. Finance. We, agree that a complete and independent
accounting must be made of the various operations and funds of the
Agency including a separate accounting for I. D. 4 and the Cross-Valley
Canal. In addition to a fiscal accounting, however, we believe that
an accounting must also be made of water entitlements and water
deliveries of I. D. 4 water.
10. Water District Advisory Committee (W.D.A.C.). We feel that
the W.D.A.C. can best keep itself informed of Agency activities
by having one or more of its members attend all Agency board meetings
and report periodically to the W.D.A.C.
ll. Staff. We agree with this recommendation.
12. Legislative Advocate. We believe that it is not necessary to
.. employ a full time legislative advocate. This should be a management
function of the staff and consultants of the Agency. The manager
or assistant manager and the Agency consultants should be capable
· of carrying out this function without the necessity of adding another
high-paid position to the staff roster. Furthermore, a well informed
.... manager should make a better legislative advocate because he would
(or should) be better informed on the Agency's interests and functions.
13. Board Activity re Staff. With a proper relationship between the
· Agency Board and staff and with proper management, it should not
be necessary for the Board to undertake the special activity of setting
priorities for staff activity. This should be the natural result of good
management, keeping the Board informed and receiving guidance from
the Board during the regular course of Agency Business.
14. G°als- We agree with this recommendation, although·
it should be the natural course of a well managed water agency.
15. Agency Act. We agree with this recommendation but the last
phrase "...with no general review of the Act," should be deleted.
General Comments. ' We'have not been privy to the matters dis.closed
'by the s{]b-committee's investigation. However, it seems clear that there has
been much criticism of day-to-day operations of the Agency at all levels of
administration--Board, staff and consultar~ts. It is certainly time .to reevaluate
the Agency's operations and reset its course to that originally intended--the
securing'of supplemental water supplies to meet the needs of its member units
and to equitably distribute the' costs of such water.
For example, the cost of State water to I.D.4, including the cost of
transporting it across the valley through the Cross-Valley Canal, exceeds
$40 per acre-foot. Such water should not be sold for use outside of I.D.4,
and in any emergency condition when such water may be sold for use outside
of I. D. 4 it should be at a price which will net to I. D. 4 the full cost of the
water including all Cross-Valley Canal costs.
Adopted by the 'City of Bakersfield Water: Board at'the meeting on
Wednesday, January 10, 1979, 4:00 P.M. in the City Hall Caucus
Room.
/10/79
The Agency P, evlew sub-committee has obtained, revie,,~ed, and ~valuated question-
aires, documents, in~ervieus and personal contacts in regard ~o ~hether the Kern
~ounty Water Agency should continue Co exist in its present form and funcrlon, be
dissolved, or be in some manner reFor,~ed, revitalized, and improved as to its
fields of activity and as to its efficiency and effectiveness.
It is imperative that the Agency board and staff fuliy realize that there is
much more than simply the s~rviva! of the Agency as an institution involved. The
-survival of both urban and rural, local, state and .federal water programs' and the
economic uell being of the county are ~t stake.
To shift Agency emphasis, as called for in the recommendations to follou, will
require bold and uise decisions of policy implemented by a s~aff no larger than
sound business principles call for.
During this study we have made the following findin;s upon which a series of
recommendations are being submitted:
I. The Agency Board, Staff and Consultants have. not been sufficiently d.iIi-
gent in making certain what tile needs and ti~e Viewpoints of the various districts
are before [eking positions or entering negotiations which ~ffect the districts
and the county as a whole. There is wide spread dissatisfaction even on the part
of those who recognize the necessity for c$~tinuance of the A~ency with many of
the Agency actions, or in some cases, lack of action. However, it ;s recognized
tha~ in recent months there have been a number of instances of i~rovemen~ in
many of the matters referred to below in findings 3 through 8.
2. The Kern C~unty Water Agency, through its Board~ of Dire:tots, Staff,
Consu]tar, ts has, over the years, ~erformed many valuable services, and made dif-
ficult dec'isions. A typical example would be the Agency board's successful
p]ementation of the Leeds, Hi'Il and Je',:ett report of June 30, 1961 On the forma-
tion ~nd operation of a master water agency. That report to the Nern Cou=ty Board
of Supervisors said in part "Our*studies result in the single fundamental conclu-
sion tha*t the Kern County Water Agency wi~]i provide the vehicle for approaching
your water prob]ems particularly that of obtaining, at the earliest pos~;b]e date,
the ~mpo'r.ted supply needed to sustain the present economy of the County. Tn'e
Agemc'/ upon act;vatlon w~]l be faced with ma~y difficult engineering, legal and
contractual situations which mast be resolved within a re]atively shor~ period
of time." It is the sub-co~m~ttee"s observation that the Agency Fesoived the
situations referred ~o, and obtained a wc~abPe contract to prov~de~'~he ~qater
,needed in Kern County. ; ,}
'3. The Agency Board. of Directors has not'always been sufficiently diligent
in demanding that ;ts resident staff furnish it with complete information on the
water n~eds of the districts and the cOUnty a.s a whole.
4. There has been too great a reliance upon the judgement of'the Consulting
Engineer, Consulting Attorney, and Eng;neer-Hanager; and too little independent
evaluation and judgement on the part of the Eoard of Oirectors.
5- The Engineer-Hacagers and their staffs have not, over the 9ears, kept the
Board of Directors fully ~nd accurately informed as to the problems faced by the
districts.'
6. The Agency has exercised some of the powers granted by the Agency Ac,t
beyond the point: necessary to carry out its primary function oF working to
provide adequate water supplies to the County, t:hus the Agency has neglected
some of its basic administrative functions by becoming engaged too much, in
construction and operations. , · .... ~
· 7- The Agency Board, Staff and Consultants have not been fully cooperative
with the water districts as problems were brought to them~ The board members,
'too, have not taken sufficient initiative in working with the water community
to understand their needs, problems and points of view.. ~
-8, The Agency appears to have not adequately separated staff time, funds
and administration of ID-4, the C.V.C.'and the Agency proper to such an extent
as to make possible a clear delineation of these staff efforts, funds and
administration. The result has been that the affected entities have found the
operation and reporting confusing and unacceptable. ...- .. _,~.'.....
In view of the findings of t~e study, gleaned from personal kn'owledge, and
the facts, opinions and ideas put forth in testimony during this investigation,
._ the following recommendations are respectfully submitted:
1. .DISSOLUTION:
The'Agency has a necessary function and should not be disso'lved, but i'ts
structure and activity must be modified so as to give major emphasis to
the obtaining of adequate water supplies for Kern County.
Recommendation against dissolution of the Agency is based upon the strong
feelings expressed in questionaire responses and interviews, and concurred
in by the sub-committee, that, in the event of a dissolution, the water
districts of the county would, Of necessity, need to set up.some similar
.. organization to act in their behalf in many areas calling for coordination
among the districts.
- The.Agency is essential to the meeting ~F Kern County's water needs, because
'it is in the most advantageous position to deal successfully with the Calif-
" ornia Department of Water Resources in the administrat'ion of the contract
for water. Were the Agency dissolved, some disposition of the contract
.woul'd need to be made, and, in all probability, it would be imposs.ib~e to
avoid the inclusion of contract changes-detrimental to county interests.
The Agency is needed to properly and equitably allocate water supplies and
;costs to each contracting entity.
~ The'Agency is the logical and best institution t~ Work toward construction
and financing'of the Master Drain,,an essential feature of the State Water
Plan.
'In short, the reasons for retaining the Agency far outweigh the reasons.
put forth for its dissolution.
, This recommendation against dissolution is,further made with the proviso
that proper end adequate response to all of the following recommendations
:- be forthcoming in the weeks immediately ahead.
2. BOARD
The Agen'cy board should be expanded by the addition of four ex-officio
members. This should~be accomplished by L~he Water Districts Advisory
~ommittee nominating persons from the member units (as defined in The
Agency Act). These ex-officio members should have the same powers an~
.responsibilities as held by the present seven members who are elected
by popular.vo~e.
-
The committee has determi.ned that, for whatever'reason was present ~hen an
improvement district was formed to represent the Greater Bakersfield area
.in the acquisition of water under the State Water Plan, the time has now
arrived for the granting of separate autonomy to that area so that it ~ill
have the same dignity and status of any other member unit of the Agency.
This should be accomplished through the formation, by legislative action'
or otherwise, a district with a separate board of directors, giving the
area Uniform'and adequate representation, and through a transfer of all
assets which were purchased and financed.by the Kern County Water Agency
in the ID-4 area, including the assumption of liabilities, in short, it is
the committee's intent that the greater Bakersfield area (known as
should become and should be operated as a separate entity with full contract-
.- ~ral powers to deal with its water problems. .- -' :,"
!
The committee finds that problems in operation of the Cross-Valley Canal
have developed between the Kern County Water Agency and the true owners
(the participants). These problems apparently have arisen through the
fact that the participants as owners do not have the.necessary control to
protect their interests. The committee recommends that these problems
be resolved amicably through contractional negotiations.or ~ther appropriate
means as necessary. ._ .
S. FLOOD CONTROL: . . .
-""' The responsibility of flood control and the review of plan's relating to
surface drainage should revert to the County Public Works Department wit~
..... the Agency being relieved of this responsibility. It is further recommended
· : that governmental activities in regard to flood control should be. supervi-
-sory only with each project handled t~roogh consultants without additional
staff being added to the'Public Works Department for that purpose.
6.'" DRAINAGE: "~ "" ....
Sub-surface drainage efforts should be handled primarily by local districts
or areas, with the Agency functioning only as a coordinator of the district
activi.ty and as a source of information and research when requested by the
-district's. "
7. GROUNDWATER: '" ..
G~oundwater management, including recharge and recovery activity should be
accomplished by the local districts or areas, with the Agency functioning
only as a coordinator of district acitvity and as a source of information
and research when requested by the districts.
8. ZONES OF BE~EFIT: .... . .,,.,...
During the course of the invest~gatlon w~tnesses uere questioned regarding
the current Water Agency Zone of Benefit tax procedure. Information re-
ceived on the matter was, in itself, inconclusive. However, the sub-com-
mittee recognizes the Z.O.B. concept as a necessary vehicle to assure that
all elements of the Kern County economy pay an equitable share of certain
, costs for benefits directly or indirectly received. The Z.O.B. program
~as'included in the Agency Act to guarantee that commitments to the State
of California would be fully met.-The program serves as a method, of asses-
sing areas not paying for the import of water but who are being benefited
by the imports of neighboring areas. The Z.O.B. concept is also used as a
method by wi~ch ID-4 pays For its imported water. All legitlma:e justifi-
cations for the program are not genera!iy understood by the people of Kern
County, and the Agency should take steps to inform the public fully cn the
.~_ matter, clearly, setting forth the reasons for the various assessntents and
the disposition of the funds Collected.
'~" ' 'A comp'lete ~nd ind~l~ndent accounting of the operations and funds
of the Agency should be completed and' made public not later than July 1st,
197~. It should cover the period from.~he inception of ID-4 and C.V.C.
t'he end of 1'~78 and should 'include the Zone of Benefit program and clearly
reveal quantities, costs and charges of the water purchases and deliveries.
1'O. W.D .A.C.: .... ,
~The Agency board should consult freely and regularly with the Wat'er Districts
/ Advisory Committee and take no action which is clearly contrary to the ex-
:... ~ pressed desires of the water community.
A committee of the Agency Board should meet within 30 days of the receipt
of ~his report with a committee of the W.D.A.C. to thoroughly discuss any
'necessary changes in staff or staff Function, consultants or consultant .
function to accomplish the objectives of this report.
12. A competent, loYal, well-informed iegislative advocate and negotiator who
~uld represent only Kern County Water interests in Sacramento and else-
where should be employed.
13. The Agency board should be more active in setting priorities for staff.
It is 'incumbent upon the.Agency to put aside personalities, past ways of
doing things~ preconceived concepts - and to get on with the major tasks
~. ',.of working vigorously toward providing for the water needs of all county
interests as an immediate goal; while taking as its Iong-term, but no less
important,~goal; that of finding ways for construction of a master va}Iey
drain or a sui~table, substitute.
15. AGENCY ACT:
Any ammendment of the Agency Act which might be required to implement any
of the above reco~endations should be confined to the specific ~difi-
cation necessary, with no general r~vision of the Act. ~
SlGNE~ FOE THE SUB-COHMITTEE "~' ' - '~
~ ~ ~il !/ ' ~ ~/ '' "- ~ ' ' ./"'" .~/'
~err~CappelYo' ~ ~alter F. He~sey // Hugh~T. ~illiams
u. fTorman Da~e ' / H. R~n Lampson. Stanley E. ~ill~s
. ~/ ~/ - , . . '.' - . .
Donald C. Gage David Hoore
' Pan-e 6
' ' ' -. '' " :.'-'.-' .':' / i::.' ...
.ADDENDUH'TO RECOH[,~E[IDATIONS BY C'OM?,IITTE~- ?.IEHBER :::ALTER F. H.EISE¥ -.
I have signed the Committee report and agree ,:~ith.all but one of
the recommendations. I have served on the investigative committee
in an effort to represent the interests not only of aqriculture,.
but of Greater Dakersfield, which area provides a large share of
the tax base for the subsidization of water for Kern County
· Agriculture. I. have the greatest respect for mY colleagues on
the review committee. However, it is my firm conviCtiOn that
the.best interests of the citizens would be served by substantial
changes in the recommendation identified as 2. 'I respectfully
submit-the following recommendation: ..
2. Board: The agency board should not have more than the
seven members as no~./ authorized, nominated and
elected from each of seven divisions. The
.~ .,~ 'boundaries of the divisions should include areas
as nearly equal in population as possible. It is
~ a well es'tablished principal that public boards
'. represent people, not numbers of cattle, cotton
stalks or acres of land.. .To add additional directors
chosen by the member 'districts would.violate.the one-
'' man, one-vote p. rinciple. It would appear to be an
....~/:i,~. ~ .~ttempt to pack the board to obtain some narrow
...... .. =~ advantage.. This would be an affront to the public
and negate the present election process of propor-
; tional representatioh. :
" A larger, board of directors would be. more a~kwar.d
than the present board of seven members, Board
~ member costs would increase both as to director's
compensation for attendance at meetings and director's
expense accounts.
'To subvert the electoral process by packing the board
would .only create new antagonisms. It is doubtful
.'that the legislature would agree to amend the !.later
A~oency Act to provide for such additional appointed
" Board members.
The frustations, of the water community, both urban
and rural, are real. The findings so indicated and
~ '-- the fourteen other recommendations, if acted upon,
,. will go along way toward resolving these frustations.
, /(fldendum to !~econ!meud '~on by Committee ~lember n G. Simpson
,~'.. '~ ~oncur with all tlxc fin~ing~ and recommcndatzons of the Committee;
howcrcr, Ibc, liere some further explanation is needed on a port[o~ as
' follows ~ ~ ' ~
Recommendation No. 1 - Dissoldtion
The last paragraph states that "This recomm-endation against dissolu-
tion is further made with thc proviso that vropcr and adequate rt'~ponse
to all of the following recommendations be forthcoming in the weeks'
immediately ahead.
This should be strengthened to indicate that failure to implement all
1S recommendations should cause reconsideration of the whole subject
of dissolution. .~ .......
This also relates to Recommendation No. 2 which c~lls for the addition
of ~ ex-officio members to the Agency Board of Directors directly
representing the ~;'Iember Units.
After hearing the information presented to the Committee by th~
Agency's friends and foes alike it became apparent to me the acticns '
and/or non-actions taken by the Agency over the years which have
resulted in the dissatisfaction expressed would probably never have
occurred if the ~-Iember Units had had the direct representation to .which
I f'eel they are entitled. This belief was reinforced by discussions
with other interested and knowledgeabl~ members of the water community.
The property owners who make up the ~-.~embcr Units paM the costs for
State water in'S ways. First,- they make direct payments under tho
cofitr'act. This amounts to approximately 8S~ of ~he total water costs.
Secondly, they share equally .with all other property owners in pa>'ing.
the Zone 1 Zone of Benefit Tax and thirdly, they again share with
the property owners of the entire County in payzng the AgencM
Administrative Tax. U~de'r ID~, the ~.~ember'Units located within that
area pay. additionally for the cost of water delivered and again they
share equally with all property owners in t~aying the Zone 1, Zone of
Benefit Tax. There is some difference in Pump Tax charge in ID~
b~tween agricultural and ~,~I ~ I users; ho(~evcr, in ~he overall cost
of water, this is relatiyely minor.
" Thus, ~' b~lievo a strong cause could be made for a far more fundamental
chang~ in thc makeup of the Board of Directors than is recommended.
seems inequitable to me that those property owners, in the ~ember Units
who have in essence mortgaged their property to bear.bet~'een 8S~ and
90~ of'th~ total cost of bri'nging State Water to Kern County ~o not
hav~ the majority voice in the operation of the Agency.
If a. change in the District .Act were-proposed to accomplish such.a
fm~damcnt~l change in Agcvcy representation it is almost inevitable
thc:~State Administration woulc~ slezc on it as mn opportunity to make
~ other changes which would be extremely dctrimontal to the overall .water community in Kern County.
For that reasen, I accepted Recommendation No. 2 that only d members
mdded to the Agency Board of Directors from thc ~ember Units ratker than
th~ more fm~damentol change I feel is justified.
I d~ feel s t~omglM thi; is a minimum which-should b6 achieved along witk
the other' 1~ recommendations to bring the Agency back to the cnti'ty
it was env'~.s~.oned.when the original Act was adopted by the L~gisla~ure
.m~l ;~ppro~cd br thc voters of Kcr~
.'. ~". : ' .
REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE ON AGENcy REVIEW
Following receipt of a letter from the Cawelo Water District, the WDAC voted
.to direct its chairman Hugh Williams to name a sub-committee to conduct an objec-
tive, comprehensive study and- investigation as to the effectiveness of the struc-
ture and function of the Kern County Water Agency, and as to whether the Agency
should be.dissolved or, 'if not dissolved, what reforms and improvements in the-
organization would best serve the interest of Kern County and the purposes of the
Agency. The following sub-committee was named: ,;' .-.
Kenneth Wegis - . . ~, *'
Board ~ember of the Semitropic Water Storage District and Buttonwillow
farmer. .
Jerry Cappello - ..
President of the board of Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water storage District,
-', farmer.
' d,.Norman Dawe - ' '~':' ' ' "~- .... *'-;"*'.~ :" -
~resident of Lost Hills Water District board and member of other Water
_. District boards in Kern County. ' ..... '"' .
Donald C.' Gage - ' ;" .
.Secretary of the board, North of 'the River Municipal Water District,
~' Insurance/Accounting.
Rilo E. Hall - .'.' ':" . " ::' "--"~
) Board Chairman of Cawelo Water District, member of the board of North
Kern Water Storage District, Farming executive.
~alter F. Halsey - .
Former Councilman and chairman of the City of Bakersfield Water Committee,
, Businessman. , ~.,.,.~
David Dore - '" ':, "-"-:'- .... '--'
Board member of Arv~n-Edlson Water Storage District, Potato grower and
shlpper.
-. .' . 'L ' , :, ; ....
Don Simpson - ' . .
-Consulting Engineer for several Kern County cities and public utility
districts.
..... : .~- ~ ,.~ :. · · ,..,'
Hugh T. Williams -
;' President of Kern-Tulare Water District Board, Chairman of Water Districts
Advisory Corn;hi t tee. , , - '.
~. "~ The servlces~of H were engaged to provid retar~a! assistance
· ~. and to aid in preparation of a report on the committee's findings
At the October 12th meeting, Ron Lampson, Secretary of the Water Districcs
Advisory Committee and Engineer-Manager of the Berrenda Mesa Water District, vas
asked to serve as temporary secretary of the'sub-committee for the four meetings
being held during the absence of Hal Sparks.from the county. Believing that
Lampson would provide an effective liason between the sub-committee and t~e full
WDAC, he was asked to continue attending the meetings throughout the investigation.
'Later the WDAC was contacted with the' suggestion that a member of the Kern
County Water Resources Committee (advisory to the County Board of SuperviSors) be
added to the group in order that any appropriate recommendation to the County
Boar~ could be made. This was done by unanimous consent, and'Stanley Willis,
Arvin area farmer, and President of the Board of Directors of the Kern Delta
Water Dis~rict,.was selected by the Water Resources group.
SCHEDULE OF SUB-COMMITTEE WORK/INTERVIEW SESSIONS ..
Tues. September 26 7 ~M Lyons Restaurant Thurs. November 16 6 AM Ril~' House
Thurs.October 12 6 AM Hill House Tues. " 21 6 AM " "
Thurs. " 19 6 AM " " Tues. 'i 28'
TUes. " 24 6AM " " Thurs. " 30
Thu~s. '" 26 6 AM " " Tues;' December' 5
Tues. " 31. 6~AM " " Thurs. " ~ 6 AM ." "
Thurs.November 2 6 AM " " Mon. " 11
Tues.~ " 7 6 AM " " Tues. " 12
Thurs; " ~ 6 AM " " Thurs. " 14
Tues. " 14 '6 AM " " .- Frl. " 15 6AM " "
These sessions ranged from 2½ to 3 hours in length.
. i INDiV~IDUALS INTERVIEWED BY THE SUB-
.COMtJlTTEE AT REGULARLY SCHED0'LED MEETINGS
Mark Eudey - ,- ~., ': .'
..'California Municipal Statistics, Inc. San Francisco
Roy argano - -
.... Formerly Ke, rn County Counsel', Appellate Court Judge~ now Agency
,- - 'Wasc° area farmer and businessman, director of semltr6P~c Water Storage
· 'Distr,ct~ formerly board member of Kern County Water Agency.
Bakersfield businessman, member of Agency board of directors '
Tom Stetson - ' ,.-"
:,-, Consulting engineer for the City of Bakersfield. -' ,.. -"
' Manager of North of the River Municipal'Wa'ter District, chairma'n of ID-4
Advisory Committee, member of Kern County Water Resources ComMittee.
"Tom'Schroeter - ..
Bakersfield~,attorney', member of Kern County Planning Commission.
Stuart Pyle - . ~.,.
,' Engineer-Manager'Kern County Water Agency.
Stephen Wall -
'Bakersfield water attorney, counsel for Cawelo, and Kern-Tulare Water
.Districts.
Don Wahl ....
Director of Finance, Kern County Water Agency. ..
Walter Schultz -
. Kern. County Water Agency consulting engineer of Leeds, Hill & Jet~ett,
.. San Francisco. .-~
"B~b Edmonston .....
Consulting engineer for a number of Kern.County Water Districts.
(;eorge Ribble -
'Assistant 'Engineer-Manager of Kern County Water Agency.
Horace Mas'say -
Bakersfield businessman, chairman of the C.V.C. advisory committee, member
of board of North of the River Municipal Water District.
'', ' Jack Thomson - ":"' ..... ,
.' Kern.County-farmer, member of Kern County Water Agency b~ard of directors.
Harold Bergen ~
City Manager of Bakersfield. " .,
Paul Enns - .. ,' ',
President of the board of Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, member'
of Water Districts Advisory committee, and member of Kern County Water
Resources Committee.
In addition to the above people.who met with the full sub-committee, numerous
individual conversations between committee members and persons in the water com-
munity and the general public were held over the 3 months period of the study.
These personal one-on-one contacts were valuable in assessing community attitudes
on the functioning of the Agency.
TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY THE SUB-COMMITTEE
Numerous letters, reports and other pert|nent documents were received by
the sub-committee during the study, only a few of which are reproduced in this
repo~t. Ail members of the Water Districts Advisory Committee and"others in
~ the water community and general public were mailed copies of the questionaire
contained in this report. A total of 29 .questionaires were received and studied
'by the sub-committee.' A compilation of the answers showed that of these 2.9
individuals and organizations responding to the questionaire:
3 favor dissolution of the Agency -.
~ " continuation as-is
13 " modification by changing Agency Act
17 " urging Agency to modify functions and methods
8 " continuing popular vote election of board
~ 1E~ " board chosen from contracting districts
· .2t~ " Agency negotiating for S¥1P water -.'
~ " Agency operating ID-4 .
I0 " Agency operating CVC
12 Agency doing flood control work throughout county.
13 "' Agency worl~ing on groundwater spreading
lO " Agency studying and/or operating drainag~ activity -'
i' 2 " Agency engaging in other activities " '~,
t; ;-'L 11 " a change in Z.O.B. procedures and expenditures.
1i '" Agency operating any local authority set up by.State for ground-
tvater management.
~1 " n ininl' nnwers aoreemenC for' such activity. ., '
'Additional ideas and opinions expressed to date in the 29 returned questionaires:
· l~ Agriculture, the jest user of water should be re~rese~ted on ,
.~ the Agency board. .- "
2. Feels Agency has done~a poor job. in bargaining for ~ts constituents.
3. .Says Agency should be representing Kern County at Sta.te and Federal-level.
4. Says"Agency should require all areas to provide wat'er to meet their consump-
tive use - if not, they should be assessed to provide funds for importation.
5. i Agency'should be vigorous in efforts to obtain water for Kern. County.-
6. Agency board should provide firm policy direction for its staff and active
leadership for the water community.
7.- Water Districts Advisory Committee should have stronger role in determining
Agency policy
8. Dissolution of the Agency would be unwise and unnecessary ~ it needs to '
be strengthened by the board and staff.
~. A 7 or 9 member board should be made up of water entlt~es in the county.
One member at large might be appointed by the County Supervisors.
10. Cross. Valley Canal could be operated by a joint powers agreement.
11. Party questions whether groundwater pumping costs are allocated equitably.
12. Agency has an ill-defined role. Is not functioning to get maximum ~ater
for all Kern County's needs - or it would have purchased the Kern River.
It is not just a wholesaler, or it would not be operating ID-4. 'Agency
should set out a program of goals, acitlvites and'limitations for.itself.
· 13~ Agency should aid distbicts of the C.V.P. only when and if requested to do so.
1~'. ~Electlon o¢~directors' of the KC~A should be held during the general
November election.'
The Agency should be an administrative rather than an operational entity.
16. The Agency board'membership does not reflect the interests of its major
customers.
17. The Agency's groundwater interests should be in obtaining water - not
management.
18. The Agency's drainage activity should be in study - not in operation.
1~. Contracting districts should have some direct input into Agency actions.
20. The Agency's functions have been too broad and ambitious.
· 21. The Agency's role needs better definition.
-22. The Agency should listen to C.V.P. users and not try to rule them.
23.. The member units must be consulted.
24. Agency board members do not seem to be interested in district problems -
instead of trying to work with us they si_mply have said if'we don't pay
~; in advanc~e, they will cut our water off.
25.Repayment pFovisions of the member units' contracts should be reviewed so
that districts are not paying further in advance than the Agency has to
pay the sca~e. .
2~.' The Agency should definitely be dissolved. ~":' ' '.
"' -~' - .- .... ' .' .. Page -12-
~'i-. · 23. ID-4 should be split from the Agency. '
28. The Agency could serve as a-vehicle to assist in effecting cooperation
among districts. ..
29. While more desirable Lo have an Agency board made up of district represen-
tatives, as a practical matter it would probably be wise to maintain the
· - existing board structure and accomplish the purposes of the water users
through diplomacy. -
30. Not concerned with the amount of money spent on consultants - but on Whether the money is being spent wisely.
31. We do not believe the Agency board should also be operating ID-4 and C.V.C. -
'(conflict of interest)
'32. With the passage of Proposition 13, the Agency should substantially.reduce
its flood control activity.
33- Tile Agency has rightly been charged with lack of-responsiveness to the needs'
of the water entities, however, there has been improvement in recent months -
largely due to activity of the Water Districts Advisory Committee.
~4. The original position of the Agency on SB 346 was developed largely on the
advice of consultants and was contrary to the desires'of all of the districts
~[th.ln the county - and was reversed only with great effort on the part of
districts. In many cases it has been necessary for districts to push the
Agency into action.
35.. ID-4 could be operated by the City of Bakersfield Water Board.
36.' Lack of follow-through on requests and suggestions.
37. Groundwater management by local districts preferred.
38. Z.O.B. tax should be levied so areas and districts pay according to their
consumptive use over and above importations.
39. Separate ID-4' board appointed by Supervisors - one from NOR, one from East
~ Niles, one from Agriculture within ID-4 plus City Council appoint one from
California Water, one from City, and one other.
As to those who testified in person at sub-committee meetings the following
ideas and opinions were noted. They are listed here in random order and in
abbreviated, paraphrased form, but care has been taken to assure that the
essence of the testimony of all witnesses is covered. -. _-
'It was customary to ask each witness to make a brief opening statement as
to his experience and observations regarding the Agency's organization and
performance.
The order in which items are listed has no reference to their pr~orlty in'
the eyes of the committee. Statements expressing similar sentiments to those
included were made by a number of the witnesses. The importance of various
statements as judged by the committee members is reflected in the conclusions
~nd recommendations in this report. ..
'~ + The Agency should be dissolved.. -.~
+ If'the Agency were dissolved you'd be in big trouble.
"+ If ~ontracts were opened by dissolution of theAgency, the State would
'" :"' reduce districts' maximum entitlements to equal the present inadequate
project yield.
'+ ~he Agency has the legal power for all its present functions - the only
question then is - whether the board has used those policies wisely.
+.Agency should not be dissolved.
.+ Robie was quoted as not liking the idea of dissolution but that if the
Agency did not exist it might be possible to help districts to obtain
~ater on their own.
+Quoted DWR director Robie as stating that in no way did he want to see
the Kern County Water Agency dissolved.
~'~'... + Called' for~a ca consideration of the future . ershi~ and operation, of the C.V.C. and ID4.
+ No~ pleased with the way the Agency has ignored the CVC Advisory Committee.
· + If the Agency board and staff were different 'and confined themselves to
administering the state contract in a manner truly representing the districts~
then the Agency could continue to operate to the benefit of all.
+ Not favoring dissolution of the Agency. .
+ The Agency should be dissolved. Agency scorns public opinion and conducts
business behind office doors.
+ ZOB tax not equitable.
+ Agency is inefficient, wasteful,.and has outlived it~ usefulness.
+ Saw no re~son why the City of Bakersfield cOuld not operate the CVC and
Treatment P~ant, but saw no significant savings by such a move.
+ Individual districts are doing significant work in the matter of groundwater
stddies and management. Called for construction of a San Joaquin.Valley master
. drain as the soluti'on to drainage problems.
+ The Agency still 5 months behind on'accounting reports.
+.Expenses are too high under Agency management.- '.
,- :.+ Suggested joint powers agreements
+ Favored Districts picking up the bill now being absorbed by the Zone of
Benefit tax.
.+ I.t seems to me you have invited both sides on a fair basis. I don't think
there is anything in your p[oceedure that bothers me. "
+ Unhappy ~lth the way the Agency mixes up',its operation of ID4 and CVC and
'. 'its own Agency business.
+ The price structure for the districts' water is not fair and proper.
'+ The Agency could be dissolved and the contracts assigned.
'+ Little sentiment fbr separation of ID4. · "
+'The computer has not elimina[ed the need for any accounting personnel, but has offered management more information than previous.methods.
+ Agency not accountable and practically invisible. '
· '- +'The Agency has not been looking out for the best .interests of the Water
Districts.
'+ The 'State has the power to levy county-wide tazes to pay for contract
obligations if other means fails.
+if the Z.O.B. method ¥~as abandoned some means ~ould_be needed to protect
ID4 bonding if that district were separated from the Agency.
-I
;, + The staff ould to any length to expand t ~pire." -
+ ~o ~ay £he Agency could stand a thorough inspection of its methods.
+ Z.O.B. tax is hoe equitable to the East side. '. ':
+ i'have some hope in dealing with the State - n~ne.if we continue with ~he.
'Agency.
+ Have concern about the Agency's handling of ID~ budget matters.
+ ID4 should get out of the Agency. '-'
+ We have to ride herd on the Agency. - , .,.,. .... r ....
'+ It is not likely that 24 entities could agree on a comprehensive joint "
exercise of po;.~ers for such things as ground~vater management, though it'
would be the best ~,~ay to go.
+ Most needed changes could be made by the Agency board and Staff.
+ Best move would be' to clean house and go with what you've got.
+Do not feel present legal consu]tant's firm is a'proper lobbyist for
Kern County.
'+ It was the County Supervisors who deci'ded to include' flood control and.
drainage powers in the Agency Act..
.... + Why not have ID4 become a true member unit and contract with the Agency - and be operated with a separate board of directors?.
+ Advisory Committee recommendations do not regularly get before the Agency
board and become a part of board discussion.
+ Favors separation of ID4 and a joint exercise of powers-agreement for
operation of CVC.
'+ Doubted if any change in Agency structure is needed - it's a matter of whom
you elect to the board and ~hat kind of staff you have,
+ The advisory committees have not been effective in ~nfluencing t~e board...
,+ Arrogance has been visible on the part of the Agency.
+ .Lack of communication among the staff, the board and the distircts paying
the bi 11.
+ The Agency should be a coordinating force rather than a b~ilding, operat, ing
entity. ....
+ The.manager should do a better job in .informing the board of problems the
districts are having.
+ Consultants are having too great a role in determining policy,
+ The people t.~ho pay the bill should have more po~ver in the operation
+ Getting facts and figures related to CVC~has been difficult. '
~-, ...?.~ + ID4 and CVC.opera OhS should be separated from one another
~'~ " + The Agency is not set up'to handle all the thing are doing.
.. + Have ex-officio K¢[4A board members represe'nt~ng IDb and CVC..
+ No need to' separate CVC from Agency. .' ... -,
+ No popular vote would be required to have water districts of the county.
represented on the Agency board.
+ lhe Agency has outgrown its need for any control or review by the Supervisors.
~ The Agency is buying Robie's line'instead of defending the needs of Kern
County~ "
+The board should give greater credence and weigh: to the recommendatiOns
of its advisory committees.
+ The Water Districts Advisory Committee could well have its own staff person.
+ The board should evaluate consultant loyal~y to Kern County ~nterests.
+ Agency has not observed Proposition 13.
+ A board of trustees could be set up to administer ID-~ and C.¥.C.
+ Flood control should go back to the county. --
+ Community has not sufficient confidence in the Agency at this time to
· warrant-letting them manage the groundwater basin.
......... + £~t|re Z.O.B. concept should.be reviewed by an indeP~nde.nt body - perhaps a grand'jury. "
-+.~roundwater management could be accomplished by a joint exercise of powers or by a friendly adjudication.
CONFIDENTIAL STUDY QUESTIONAIRE
" 1. Should the Agency be'
(,%) Dissolved? ' ' ~,~.
(b) Continued as is? ' ~'~
(c) 5Iodif'ied by changes in the Agency act?
-~ ! (d) Urged to make modifications in its functions & methods
2. Do you favor an Agency board elected from divisions by popular
vote or by some other method such as chosen from the
board members of the contracting districts?-
B. Should tl~e Agency functions include: '
(a) Negotiation contracting for State Project ¥,"-~ter?.
(b) Operating I D 4?
(c) Operating the Cross-Valley Canal?
(d) Flood control throughout the county?
-(e) Groundwater spreading and management?
(f) Drainage study and operations?
(g) Other '
4. Should any changes be made in the ~resent Z O B procedures
· .- and expenditures?
" (a) What changes, if any?
5. .In the event the outcome of the proposals of the Governor's
Com~uission to Review California Water Rights Law calls for
"local" authorities to set up groundwater or other management
functions, should this be done in Kern County by:
(a) X C W A
(b) Joint power agreement
(c) State of California D W R
· 6. Wh~t services, courtesies, or assistance could or shou.ld the
.Agency offer to entities obtaining all or part of their water
supplies from the Federal Central Valley Project?
On a separate sheet of paper please enum'erate and discuss briefly
any further suggestions you may have regarding the proper role of
.. the KCWA and/or how its staff or board might improve 'th.-.t role,
bearing in mind that your confidential answers :';ill be for the
information' solely of the study committee.
PRE.LIM_INARY - Subject to Revision [ MONTHLY SUMMARY OF 1978~
I~ERN RIVER GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT OPERATIONS~
Fi POINT GROUP FACILITIES ,Quantities in Acre Feet
LOCATION Total
Kern River Laterals O 70~O
Carrier Spreading
Cal loway-Central O ~
Kern River Conduit
ss &
Loss & Percolation I$~
Subtotal City of Bksfd.
Pioneer (TWI) ~O6
James (I~I) O
BVWSD-2800 Ac. Basin O ~O~
HWD-2800 Acre Basin O O ~'
Rosedale RBWSD I~
TOTAL ~7~,~O~
KERN DELTA WD
~ NORTH KERN WS.D
Calloway-NKWSD
Spreading Ponds
Pose Creek Spreading
,, , ,
A D~-,~ NIYE~ .5 I ST ?ol~ OF
~ DITCH L~TE I~AL~ MF_AS U R_E ME KIT
CAIZ, RH~ I~ CA, kIAL