Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/79 ' ~ ~'r rNY, A G E N D A WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ~PLArJNINO WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 1979 4:00 P.M. Call meeting to order. Hoagland 1. Approve minutes of regular board meeting of January 31, 1979. 2. Scheduled Public Statements. 3. City of Bakersfield Water Board Statement Of Policy Regarding Water Resources Management In The Kern County Portion Of San Joaquin Valley. - FOR BOARD CONSIDE~TION. 4. Domestic Water Enterprise 2nd quarter Operating Statement-Fiscal year 1978-79. - BOARD TO ACCEPT ~D FILE. 5. Memorand~ to Water Board from Dennis Needham requesting purchase of pickup.- FOR BOARD ACTION. 6. Staff Co~ents: a) Discussion of Domestic Water Enterprise Capital Improvement proposals. - O~ REPORT. b) Proposal of Domestic Water Enterprises to ~xpand boundaries of service area.- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY. 7. Board Co~ents. 8. Adjournment. MINUTES WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1979 4:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Ratty in the City Hail'Caucus Room at 4:00 P.M. The secretary called the roll as follows: Present: Ratty, Vice-Chairman; Bergen, Hoagland Absent: Barton Staff Present: Bogart, Chafin, Hansen, Hostmyer, Needham The minutes from the meeting of January 10, 1979, were approved as presented. A letter from the City of Bakersfield Water Board to Kern Delta Water District and North Kern Water Storage District regarding creation of a First Point Committee was presented to the board. After a brief discussion Mr. Bergen made a motion that the board approve the letters and authorize the Vice-Chairman to sign, and that a copy be mailed to each board member. The motion was pass- ed. The following Ditch Eradication and Pipeline Easement Agreements were presented to the board for approval to be granted by the City: A) 2,499.2 lineal feet of pipeline installed in Beardsley Lateral 1-0-4 (B-6A) by Calvin Cheek,Sr, - final inspection made December 15, 1979. B) 712.8 lineal feet df pipeline installed in Beardsley Lateral 1-2-0 (B-3) by First Baptist ,Church of Bakersfield. After an explanation of the Agreements was given by Water Manager Chafin, Mr. Hoagland made a motion that both agreements be approv- ed and the Vice-Chairman authorized to sign. The motion was passed. Staff Comments A letter from Major James Gregory Heavilin was presented to the board requesting use of the City's 2800 acres for use of a Civil War Reenactment. After discussion Mr. Bergen made a motion that the staff be instructed to draft an answer for discussion at the next meeting and that they, ,~also, contact Major Heavilin and in- form him that they are in the process of preparing an answer. The motion was passed. John Hansen, Domestic Water Superintendent, reported to the board that a check' had been mailed today to the Kern County Water Agency in the amount of $60,000.00 for the pump tax covering a six-month period starting July 1978. The cost is $20.00 per acre foot for our nine (9) wells in the Ashe System. There being-no~ further business to come before~he board, ~ViCe- Chairman Ratty adjourned the meeting..at 4:30 P.M. Donald K. Ratlty, Vice-Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board Linda Hostmyer, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board DRAFT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER BOARD STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING WATER RESOORCES MANAGEMENT IN THE KERN COUNTY PORTION OF SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY February 18, 1979 Introduction Recent events point to possible impending shortages in imported water supplies to meet even the present requirements of the Kern County Portion of the San Joaquin Valley. These events include: (1) the inability of the State Water Project to meet its contractual committments by the early 1980's, let alone its committments to meet the full contractual committments of 4,230,000 acre-feet per year; (2) the inability of the federal Central Valley Project to meet planned future committments; (3) legislation that will require water resources management, especially ground water basin management; and (4) a general resistance at both the state and federal level'of government and by the so~called environ- mentalists to new water resources developments. With the pulbication of the Final Report of the Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law and the announce- ment by Governor Brown on his acceptance of the report that he wants a "balanced budget for water," it is more imperative than ever that the Kern County water community work together to develop a meaningful program of managing its water resources and especially ground water. Governor Brown said, on receiving the report: "I would like people to get the feeling that a water time bomb is ticking away...this generation is consuming the present and stealing from the future." Obviously, he is alluding to "deficit spending" of our groundwater reserves, just as he is criticizing the continued deficit spending of ~the federal fiscal program. As to ~ecommenda- tions for additional water development, he says "all water _~h_ings go hand-in-hand" and further water supply development will not be approved in the State Assembly without a ground-water management program. The Kern County water community must realize that it~ is on notice to institute meaningful management measures. Otherwise, drastic measures such as curtailment of groundwater use may be imposed. A recent report by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Californial--/ very clearly points up the realities of serious shortages in water supplies from the State Water Project unless urgently needed facilities are constructed immediately to firm up the supplies which the State committed itself to furnish under its 31 existing water delivery contracts. The State Water project would not have sufficient water to deliver the full annual entitle- ments of its contractors in 1980 if "critical year"~ conditions of water supply prevailed during 197~ and 1980. Fortunately, all 1/ Planning Concepts Used in Determining the Water Supply Available - from the State Water Project, Report Number 93S, January 1979. -2- State contractors are not scheduling deliveries of all of their contractual entitlements at this time. But based oN the "requested" deliveries of their entitlement water only postpones the crisis of shortages in critical years by about five years, to the mid- 1980's. Proposed legislation has already been introduced in the form of S.B.47, the Nejedly bill, which proposes to carry out the ground water legislation recommended by the Governor's Commission. Furthermore, Assemblyman Leo McCarthy has indicated that any legis- lation which proposes construction of the Peripheral Canal or any other facilities to enhance the yield of the State ~ater Project, will need to include meaningful ground water basin management provisions or it will be doomed to failure. Recently the Bureau of Reclamation announced that the Central Valley Project is faced with substantial water shortages to meet planned future committments. Ail of this points up the need of maximizing the effi- cient management of all available surface and ground water resources while at the same time making an all-out effort to develop additional water from. both the State ~ater Project and the Central Valley Pro- ject. GrOund-water Overdraft The importation of State Project water to Kern County was justified primarily as a means of overcoming the sever over- draft on the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin ground-water basin. The Department of Water Resources in its Bulletin No. 119-8, -3- "Feasibility of Serving the Kern County Water Agency From the State Water Project," September 1963, stated that °there were S92,000 acres irrigated in 1958 in the area overlying the ground- water basin. The Department also estimated that the overdraft in the Kern County portion of the basin would average 700,000 acre- feet per year over the 1960~70 decade and that the safe annual yield of surface and ground water in the area was on the order of 500,000 acre4feet. (State Project water was first delivered to ~ern County in 1968, but not in substantial quantities until 1970). ~/ The Agency's total firm annual entitlement to State Pro- ject water is 1,153,400 acre-feet, plus 100,000 acre-feet of un- regulated surplus water. Under the Agency's policy there are three priorities to State Project Water. Municipal and industrial water is given first priority, agricultural service to preserve the then existing agricultural economy is given second priority, and the remaining water is allocated under a third priority to new lands proposed to be developed for agriculture. It should be pointed out, however, that this policy has apparently not been carried out up to the present time. The second priority water was to be allocated to maintain the existing agricultural economy by providing sufficient water to meet the 1964 water demands and eliminate the overdraft on the basin. It was then estimated that 526,100 acre-feet per year would maintain'the then existing economy and alleviate the over- draft for lands overlying the ground-water basin. With 119,000 1/ Year 1968 = 55,727 acre-feet. Year 1969 = 89,171 acre-feet. acre-feet per year allocated to municipal and industrial purposes, this left 608,300 acre~eet [including the 100,000' acre-feet of unregulated surplus) for the third priority for use on new lands or lands not under irrigation in 1964. The stabilization of the underground basin, second priority, has not been accomplished. The total allocation to lands overlying the ground-water basin,.under full use of State Project water, was 797,900 acre- .. feet per year, of which about two-thirds was considered to main- tain the existing economy and about one-third was for new lands. The September 1969 Zone of Benefit report by Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc., stated on page 18: "Of course, any additional use of water for development of new lands other than from the imported supply would increase the overdraft." The preliminary draft report of the Kern County Nater Agency entitled "Groundwater Recharge in Kern County, Part I, Physical Aspect,'.' dated November 197S, states that the overdraft prior to importation of State Project water was 800,000 acre-feet per year. It also states that there were 680,000 acres of irrigated land overlying the ground-water basin prior to the importation of State Project water and that in 1975 such irrigated area had in- creased to 870,000 acres, an increase of 190,000 acres. It further states that it is now {1975, presumably) estimated that the over- draft will be $00,000 acre-feet per year with delivery of the maxi- mum State Project water entitlement. The November 197S preliminary draft report of the Agency also stated that the rate of increase in overdraft is expected to be 2.S acre-feet for each additional acre of irrigated land overlying the ground-water basin, Therefore, the 190,000 acres of added irrigated land, up to 197S, would increase annual water requirements by 475,000 acre~feet. 'It appears obvious that the overdraft on the ground-water basin will not be overcome by the importation of State Project water. The Agency has been relying on the availability of a con- siderable quantity of surplus water which could be used to help alleviate the overdraft. But the availability of a significant quantity of S~ate Project surplus water is now in doubt due, among other things, to the following: (1) deauthorization of the Eel River Project facilities which would have provided about 900,000 acre-feet per year to the State Water Project yield; (2) the Delta Decision, which may require the release of stored water which would have been part of project yield, to maintain water quality in the Delta; and (5) a serious challenge to the construction of the Peripheral Canal, now several years behind schedule and with a very uncertain future. As a result, the yield of the State Water Project may not be sufficient to supply entitlement water beyond the mid-1980's quantity of entitlement of all of its con- tractors. In a statement presented at the second regular meeting of the Governor's Commission to Review California Water Rights Law on August 12, 1977, the Kern County Water Agency pointed out that the ground-water extractions from the San Joaquin Valley ground-water basin within Kern County exceeded normal recharge by about 750,000 acre-feet per year and that a permanent overdraft condition exists. [This did not include the drought years 1976 and 1977.) -6- Resolution No. 27-76, Groundwater Overdraft Correction Policy of the Kern County Water Agency, was adopted, on September 23, 1976. That resolUtion acknowledges that a serious overdraft exists and sets a goal of reducing or eliminating the overdraft before 1990. It also acknowledges that new land has been and is being developed over the basin for which there is no permanent imported water supply It says that the intention of the Agency is to correct the overdraft by .importation.. of additional water. But where will the Agency get this water? It must be in addition to the entitle- ment under its existing State contract. It is now questionable that the Agency will even receive the entitlement scheduled under its existing State contract. The State Water Project now has a substantial short-fall in supplies to meet its existing committments, as previously pointed out. In summary, it can be stated that somehow at least one- half million acre-feet per year of "new" water must be made avail- able to the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Basin and irri- gation use of water must be restricted to about the present level or an already severe overdraft condition Will become much wors'e. The 1969 report of Leeds, Hill & Jewett stated th~-with - no further growth in non-CVP agriculture (presumably beyond the 1969 level of irrigated agriculture) the State Water Project supplies would in effect correct the ground-water overdraft.' Then, in 1975, the Kern County Water Agency's own study indicated that, presumably based on the 1975 level of irrigated agriculture, the overdraft would be 500,000 acre-feet with the importation of State -7- Project water. Manifestl¥~ the continued overdraft is a result of increased extractions of ground water. Ground ~ater Basin ~ianag.ement The question then becomes, how to manage a severely over- drawn ground-water basin? Annual ground~water extractions have been regarded as the measure of one's water right in an overdrawn basin. But the recent State Supreme Court decree in the Los Angeles case~/ also says that overlying pumpers cannotfprescript against municipalities or water dedicated to public use by public utilities. That decreee also pro~ides that public districts which import water to a basin from a non-tributary source, such as State water and CVP water, have the right to recover the return flow (that is, the deep percolation of such water to the ground- water basin) from such imported water. Therefore it would appear that the appropriative rights to ground water by municipalities and public utilities would be treated separately from the water pumped from the basin by othefs, such as farmers. To the extent that a farmer's ground-water pump- ing is combined with an imported supply source, the return flow from.the imported supply could be counted first against his ground- water pumping (although, technically, the right of recovery lies with the importing public entity). His pumping in excess of the return.flow would then form the basis of his prorata share of the safe yield of the basin after the safe yield is reduced by the Los Angeles v. San Fernando, I4 Cal. 3d 199 (1975). amount necessary to supply the appropriative rights of the munici- palities and public utilities. Any comprehensive management plan of the Kern County por- tion of the San Joaquin ground-water basin must recognize the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the Los Angeles Case. -.. Furthermore, a policy must be established whe.rebM~_~those who develop new agricultural lands must have an assured imported water supply or an established right to the use of local water supplies. Otherwise, the overdraft on the native Kern County water supplies will be increased even more. If such a policy cannot be effectively developed among the various public and pri- vate interests which either (1) own the rights to the native 'supply of the basin, or (2) have contractual rights to local and imported water, litigation is inevitable. Litigation will not generate any additional water supplies. It will simply determine how the various water users pay their fair share of the cost of water re- quired to offset the overdraft. Ail of this, of course, assumes that supplemental imported water will be available. If it is not, a serious threat to the agricultural economy of the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Basin is imminent. To a,degree, the equating of the costs of imported water is now being attempted through zone of benefit assessments- levied by the Kern County Water Agency. However, zone of benefit assess- ments are levied against property owners and not specifically and equitably against those who are causing the overdraft. It may be necessary to impose a pump tax against those who are relatively new pumpers, or who are increasing their pumping ~ver a certain level of development, or on all ground water extractions. Obviously, newly developed lands requiring large water supplies cannot draw them from the overdrafted basin unless a like amount of basin depletion is supplied from imported or other' sources to offset such depletion of basin supplies. Kern River Fan Area At the present time the use of water from the Kern River Fan Area exceeds the available supplies' This is not unique to the Kern River Pan Area--sqme imbalance prevails throughout much of the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Even with full importation of entitlement from the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project, there will still be a substantial overdraft in Kern County. The ultimate answer is the acquisition of additional supplies and the maximum utilization in the most e~ficient manner of the available supplies. It is absolutely essential that a local management plan be developed for the Kern River Fan Area. Otherwise.it is very possible that a management plan will be imposed upon the area by others--and that "plan" could be a restriction in groundwater use. At the present time the Department of Water Resources (DWR) is looking closely at the area as a possible unit to be added to the State Water Project. Preliminarily, DWR has indicated that it could firm up the yield of the State Water Project by an average of 72,000 acre-feet per year through a conjunctive use operation -10- utilizing 500,000 acre~feet of the storage capcity underlying the Kern River Fan Area, DWR states that there is currently 3~000,000 acre-feet of dewatered storage in the Fan Area. The next pro- nouncement from DWR may be that if 72,000 acre-feet per year of yield can be achieved from 500,000'acre-feet of storage, why not 432,000 acre-feet per year from 3 million acre-feet of storage? The Problem and Its Possible Solution ...................... The statment of the problem is simple: More water is being used from the Fan Area than is being supplied to the Fan Area. It is the solution that is going to be difficult. But the first step of the solution is to formulate a management plan to maximize the use of the water supplies that are now, and can be made, available to the area. The management plan must be equitable and the operational unit must be manageable. Unfortunately, the Kern River Fan Area is ~not one with well-defined boundaries, especially subsurface boundaries. It is not a container with one inlet and one outlet at which measure-- ments can be made. Rather, it is a portion of a complex subsurface basin. Ground-water moves away from the Fan Area in northwesterly and southwesterly directions. Variations in pumping patterns within and outside of the Fan Area can change the direction and quantities of groundwater movement. One of the complex matters in a manage- ment plan will be the determination and accounting of the movement of groundwater in the peripheral areas, or outer boundaries, of the Fan Area. -11- The Fan Area is overlain by a variety of water districts, the City of Bakersfield and areas which are not within any water District. The City has certain Kern River surface water and ground-' water rights; most of the districts have certain surface water rights (including contractual rights); and the overlying landowners have certain groundwater rights. The City and districts have or can acquire groundwater storage rights. This is not to say the over- lying landowners do not have storage rights. Rather, it is to point out that recent court decisions (Niles1/ and Los Angeles-2/) have clarified certain points as to the' rights of public entities to store in and recover from groundwater basins water which they spread into those basins. Principles Important to the City of Bakersfield A management agreement should be formulated among the public entities overlying the Kern River Fan Area (the specific boundaries of which would be defined) to manage the surface and groundwater resources of the area, including imported water. Any lands not within a water district may be required to annex to the appropriate district or contract in some way with the Fan Group so that they cannot interfere with a management plan. The City's Kern River water supplies are now committed by long-term contracts to the extent of about the first 90,000 acre-feet annually. Annual supplies in excess of that quantity 1/ Niles .Sand and Gravel Co. v. Alameda County Water District,., 37 Cal. App. 3'd 924, 112 Cal. Rptr. 846 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 869 (1975). 2/ City .of .Los Angeles V. City of San Fernando, 14 Cal. 3d 199, - 537 P.2d 1250, 123 Cal, Rptr. 1 (19'75). -12- are also committed to a large extent in that the City's four long- term agricultural water contractors have the righ% of first.re- fusal to purchase such excess water. In addition, Tenneco has entered into a contract with the City for the right of first re- fusal to purchase such water when the four long-term contractors do not'exercise their rights to purchase it. Also, Tenneco has the right of first refusal to acquire any of the four contracts if they default. (Tenneco has recently contracted, with the City's approval, to purchase a substantial portion of the basic supply under the Kern-Tulare Water District contract over the next five ~ea~s. ) City water available for spreading in the Kern River Fan Area will be the portion of its annual supply which it does not sell for direct use to others and will generally occur during above- normal years of streamflow. One reservation must be made on all City water: It will not be made available for sale if it is needed for use inside the City or on City-owned property. Sharing the Hegemony In considering the various means of administering a management program, it is recommeded that a Management Committee comprised of one member from each participating agency be formed. since the City's Water Department now maintains the river records for the Kern River Watermaster and since'the City's land forms the core of the water spreading operations, the Water Department should maintain all records for the bianagement Program and render an annual accounting to all members of the Fan Group. The City would bill the Kern River Fan Group for this service and the Fan Group would establish an Administrative Fund from which to pay this and any other Fan Group administrative costs which may be incurred with approval of the Management Committee. An administrative Assessment would be levied based on an annual acreage charge, a water extraction charge, or a combination of these.and~or.other means of assessment to maintain the Adminstra- tive Fund. There should be recognition in the Agreement of the principles of water spreading, extractions, sales, purchases and exchanges in order to provide an outline of what may be called guidelines for such activities. There should be no question that members of the Fan Group have certain rights among themselves to conduct those activities without interference so long as they do so under the guidelines, or possibly specific rules and regulations, agreed to by the Fan Group. During 1978 the City of Bakersfield caused a large quantity of its Kern River water supplies to percolate to the underlying ground-water basin along the Kern River and on its 2,80C-acre water spreading facility. Also, through contractual arrangements, it allowed spreading of. other water on its facilities by the Olcese Water District, the Buena Vista Water Storage District and the Kern County Water Agency. This managment program could be expanded to include other entities under similar arrangements and bring a large portion of the Kern County ground-water basin under this management umbrella with a sharing of the hegemony. OPERATING STATEMENT DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE SECOND QUARTER, FISCAL YEAR 1978-79 Operating Revenues: Sales to Domestic Customers $604.684.02 Operating Expenses: Field Expenses: ~ O & M Charge from Cal Water $ 79,152.O0 Power for Pumping 101,832.73 Other Maintenance 10,OO3.95 $190,988.68 Administrative Expenses: Consulting Engineer Charges $ 51,903.39 Charges from Other Departments 9,087.27 Property and Pump Taxes 61,724.49 Insurance 8,877.18 Management Fee from Cal Water 8,748.00 Refunds on Mainline Extensions 1,117.45 Miscellaneous General Expense '3~715.70 145,2OO.48 336~189.16 Net Operating Income Before Depreciation: $268,494.86 · Depreciation Expense 48,750.O0 Net Operating Income (Loss): $219,744.86 Active Accounts EOQ = 5.077 JHH:BES 3-5-79 C~LIFORNIA LEGISLATURF_.-1979-80 REGULAR SESSION t' ASSEMBLY BILL -- No. 442 Introduced by Assemblyman Kapiloff "~.. ~ .. . , February 1, I979 . . 'I... · REFEBRED TO coMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS. AND WILDLIFE "' Ah act to add Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 10600) tO Division 6 of the. Water Code, relating to ~vater. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST .'~ AB 442, as introduced, Kapiloff (W., P., & W.) Water '"'-. --policy.. .................. -Existing law does not provide for a comprehensive state. water policy encompassing water use, development, control, ~: conservation, and management. (~. ~ This bill would express the intent to establish, for the first · .., time, a comprehensive state water policy encompassing all i --- major_ .~elements of water use, development, c. ontrol, [ · conservation, and management and to provide for specified ~', .... needs, and would specify the princiPal foundation of such ~.,: .' water policy.' ~. · ~ Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. : ,.. State-mandated local prog'ram: no. - , :~. J' Tl~e-people of tl~e State of CabTorrda do enact as follows: I SECTION 1. Part 2.5 (commencing with Section ~" 2 10OX}) is added to Division 15 of the Water Code, to read: :: "t "-. '?-'".i:" . .' " ~ ' :.i.,'-.",;'-:-. .;' 77:;' ' . · -:. 'i' ' . AB 442 "' ' --2-- ..' '. ..... ~ ~;' '. :'"'/ PART 2.5. STATE ~VATER POLI~CY "' 2 : . i.I' 3 10600. It is the intent of this part to establish, forthe ' 4 first time, a comprehensive state water policy 5. encompassing, all major elements of water use, 6 development, control, conservation, and management. · 7' 1060L It is the further intent of this part to provide for ' ......... 8 (1) the urban water needs of California's growing .~. ex~and ..... ". ..... '-' t.' " 9"'population,-(2) the need to maintain, and 10 California's output of food for consumption in the United -' 11 States and for export, (3) the need to use our natural 12 resources Wisely, and (4) the need to. protect our fragile i'_ 13: environment: .......... '14 I0602. The principal foundation of such ~vater policy i5 ~hall be that any area needing water must first proceed 16 'with all reasonable water management, development, -' .. 17. conserv'ation, and reclamation within its own area before 18 being allowed to import water from other areas of the 19 state. .,. , . . : . .;~. · , ...... ,.-.;,.~.. _~ ~.:~ - __ ._ ~._.2_~ ....,_:. _ _ . ........ . _ ' ' i ,,' '~ :' ' : ' · :',~.~?.:..'.:~. .... ~-,; ,. -. .. .- . ' "' ' ' ~' '"-' ~":"!"'- '.- (.. f . ,':ft-? :.., . ,",' ,., .., · .'."..:.' ': ':' :',.' '-.. i ~.': '-: , 'i : -, .": :',-"- ': '.., ,,.,, . . ...... ,. ,. ~ . ,. . .. . . .;: .:,.:~['..'. .~ ,. .: . ," ~ ' ' M E M O R A N D U M February 27, I~79 ~ATER BOARD DENNIS NEEDHAM, DIRECTOR OF FIRE AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FROM ............................................................................................................................................................................ SHBJF~ VEHICLE REQUEST FOR DOMESTIC WATER ENTERPRISE The Domestic Water Superintendent is in need of a pickup truck to conduct normal business operations such as transportation of materials, review of systems' operations, inspection of construction projects, and response to emergency situations within the system. At the time the Water Board authorized the position of Domestic Water Superintendent, a vehicle was not requested. The budget will require adjustment by $200 per month (for a total of $2,400' annually) to reflect the cost of the vehicle. JH:BES " ~ RICKS, T&¥I.~R & ASSOSIATES INC. 930 T~ux'ru~ ~vtNu, ~ . . : Contracts Office, MS 56 '- ...... Sacramento,' 'CA 95825 - Attention: .,James Helmtch Dear 1~. Helmich, ........ OUr rim has been working with several of the Kern River water interests in a prelimihary design study to revise and ........ update their Kern River Diversion structures in the area a' . .,. _ bove Bakersfield. The nreser%t timber weir' structures are re- quirtng frequent, repair~ and it is the purpose of our study ........ to. recommend any revisions in layout or configuration that.~ would be included in the 'anticipated rebuilding-. .. One of-the possibilities would be to Consider Iow head generation of power and to revise the layout of the present: structures to enhance this potential for po. wet generation. ........... This. could be accomplished by reducing the number of measur- ~- - ._- ~:.:/... ing and control .struct::ur~ and using this increased head ~,. :- ..... F. ..... ': .through gated, low head.power units' '. .. The Kern River,. above these diversion points, varies in. flow from.a minimum of 300 cfs, to a normal s,.,~er flow of'.' 1800 cfs, to a controlled flood release of over 3500 cfs. , .... Normal summer_ flows are fully diverted from the river into .-._ '.i ..... irrigation, canals, flows in. excess of' the delivery require~. " ' ..... :ments-og-the-canal~ ilow past the' last river diversion strut-~.- ,.. ........ F--; ture and. continues on downstream. With the present configuration using two river diversion .. ---': ..... ":" S'tr~ctures. and. two canal svgtems.., there is a low head hydro_: ......... '._.= ,_f ............. ..... ~":: ' .':?." pot~.ntiaI.'a~:. 'fOur l'ocation~. They are as follows :- · -. '-' . -' approx, appro'x, approx.. . ' -"' : .-. Location flow head capacitF '! :. '" ' :---:-'"'- 2)..:' Beardsley Canal Control Stucture 600 cfs ' ,6 ft. -. 0.26 M~- !.-,:' ' [, ,'. ,, .- (Flood flows) 0. to' i700 cfs '10 ft. ":," ~ Z'. M~,f':;:/ ' California Energ~ Cc..~n_..ission ~February 26, 1979 - Page 2 These flows in a normal year will be. on an irrigation schedule for release with peak flows occuring in June, July, August and a portion of September. Minimum flows in the-off season months drop. to approximately 300 cfs. During high flow water vears the controlled releases vary between 2000~ cfs and 400~ cfs depending, upon t~he amount o~ beneficial use for the water and the requirements for flood control storage. There are two general power purveyors in the Bakersfield area with some overlap in their ~ervice areas. It ~s assumed that P.G.&E. would be the more interested in the purchase of non dependable energy and S.C.E. may have a similar interest. Depending upon the costs involved and the method of financing the required construction, the Kern River Interests are ready to move ahead with the modifications. ~ether or no~ power features will be included also depends uoon the ben efits that will be derived. If incorporation of power gener- ation will help defray construction and operation expense of the total construction required, it can be assumedlthey would move ahead. For your general information we have included a general l~cation map ~nd pictures ~f some of the structures Als0 included is a resume of the experience of the principals of our firm. ~'~en the project has proceeded to the point of requiring electrical machinery design, we would use the firm of Interstate Engineering Inc. of Fresno. Very truly yours,  ~.~T S, INC. Gordon Ricks ~ GR:po Attachments .~. : ~.7'~ . ,~ .ew , -' ~ ~ ', '. ~ '%. , ' %.%.: . 'v ~ ' -,. ".." ~. ' ',;- ,'-:' ' / ' :, .~ ~ ' ~ .... ", .... . .~ _ ~ . . ,. / ~ ..; .. ~ :i ~';', '~ ', v '-, .... ? ' 4". ~_,;~ './ ~ ,.~ t ~" ' ~ 4' ' z~/ ' .~ - ~ % ~; ' ~,' <- T~ /~ ' ; '~ ...... · .... !I ~ ,~ iff ,~, ~ c i ~ ~'~1 I,: ~ ,~ ,, ~ ~ ~ , _~ . ~ , ~ .... ~ : ~ =' ' ~ ~ = o .. ' , _ __ Structure + .,. , .. . . . ,. -.-,-, , ~ ..... . . ~. ..,. ~ ' ..-. ..... ~' ~ .'~ ~ , ~ ' "-' . __. ~' ~_'~e~ 1~ ' ~ ' 5akers=~eld ';: '~'~ ~'. .... ROCKY POINT DIVERSION STRUCTURE BEARDSLEY DIVERSION- STRUCTURE" KERN IS? AND CANAL METERING STRUCTURE · REGISTRATrON: Remistered Professiona! Engineer in State of California since 1956. MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: American Society of Civil Engineers, American Water Works Association, Consulting Engineers Association of California, International Commission on [rrioation and Drainage PRESENT POSITION: President - Ricks, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Consulting Civil Engineers Bakersfield, California EXPERIENCE RESUME: 1950-19S3 Three years with California Division of Highways surveying for location and construction Los Angeles Area Freeway System including preliminary, final and construction surveys. 1953-1956 Three years with C~lifornia Division of Water Resouraes - planning studies, water quality investigations, ground water investigations, flood control and feasibility studies and support work in development of California Water Plan. 1956-1963 Seven years with California Department of Water Resources - working on preliminary and final design for features of the California Aqueduct System, a 444 mile canal system to convey water from the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta to the Los' Angeles area. Work included route location; economics of sizing, alternative studies for route and plans operation, pump storage, off peak pumping', remote operation of canal systems; feasibility studies related to irrigation systems, power canal features at Oroville Dam, shallow subsidence and deep sub- sidence investigations and final design work on 130 miles of the aqueduct and related features. Grade at time of termination- Supervising Engineer. 1963- Fourteen years as a consulting engineer in the Bakersfield and Kern County area. Supervised the design and construction of large scale water conveyance facilities for water districts and large scale faming operations. Work has included pressure aod gravity pipelines ranging through 72 - inch RCP, 48 - inch to 24 -inch mortar lined and coated pipe, 30-inch to 4 . inch asbestos cement pipe, and 15-inch to 1-1/2-inch plastic pipe. Pumping plants up to 3000 HP; water treatment and filtering systems for both domestic and irrigation systems; Small sewage REGISTRATION: Register-ed Professional Ensineer in State of California ~ince )962. PRESENT POSITION: Vice President - Ricks~ Taylor &'Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers BakeKsfield, California EXPERIENCE RESUME: 1957-1964 Seven years design experience while with California Department of Water Resources, Aqueduct design branch. This included preliminary studies for )ocation of facilities of the California Aqueduct, cost estimates, feasibility studies and operations studio' on aqueduct and storage facilities and final design on the canals, tunnels and pipelines of ehe South Bay Aqueduct,~ a portion of the California Aqueduct. 1964-1977 Thirteen years design experience as a Consulting Civil Engineer on water conveyance facilities in the Kern County Area, Projects have included lined and unlined canal facilities with appurtenant control structures metering structures, bridges, turnouts, and related structures. Pipeline facilities for water di-stricts and private corporations conveying both treated and irrigation water. Pipelines have ranged from 72-inch down to 1-1/4-inch in diameter and included reinforced concrete, mortar lined and coated steel, asbestos and plastic pipe. Pumping plants and storage facilities for both domestic and irrigation systems, and water and sewage treatment facilities. EDUCATION: UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO, Mo§cow, Idaho B.S. - degree in Civil Engineering in 1957.