Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/79 A G E N D A ~ -- WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1979 4:00 P.M. ~ ~ __ DIREc O~ Call meeting to order Roll Call - Board Members: Barton, Chairman; Payne, Rat Hoagland 1. Approve minutes of regular board meeting of August 29, 1979. 2. Scheduled Public State.ments. 3. Statement prepared by Thomas M. Stetson dated September 25, 1979 regarding "Ground Water Basins in California,". - FOR REVIEW AND BOARD ACCEPTANCE. 4. Staff seeks direction in regard to assistance to North of the River Municipal Water District and East Niles Community Service District for possible de-annexation of ID-4 from Kern County Water Agency. - FOR BOARD DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION. 5. Staff Comments 6. - Board Comments 7. Adj ournmen t MINUTES WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 1979 4:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Payne in the City Hall Caucus Room. The secretary called the roll as follows: present: Payne, Ratty, Bergen, Hoagland Absent: Barton Staff!Present: Chafin, Hansen, Hostmyer, Needham, Oberholzer The minutes from the meeting of July 18, 1979, were approved as presented. Agreement between Gerald D. Dodd and City of Bakersfield Water Boardfor Guard Services on'City owned canals and property was brought before the board for approval. Mr. Bergen made a motion that., the agreement be approved and the City Water Manager auth- orized to sign, also, that the staff come back to the board with a. comparison of guard service rates. The motion was passed. A report on Fairhaven Industrial Fire Protection District was given by Dennis Needham and John Hansen. Also, presented to the board at this time for concept approval was a d~aft,~greement between the City of Bakersfield and Fairhaven Industrial Fire Protection District. Mr. Needham at this time requested that the staff'be directed to continue negotiations on this agreement. Mr. Ratty made a motion that the negotiations~be continued by the staff. The motion was passed. Item number four (4) was deferred, from the Agenda. There being no further business to come before the board, Vice- Chairman Payne adjourned the meeting at 4:25.P.M. James J. Barton, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board Linda Hostmyer, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board / · Statement of Thomas M. Stetson* September 25, 1979 Fresno, California Re GROUND WATER BASINS IN CALIFORNIA A RePort to the Legislature in Response to Water Code Section 12924 (Draft Report, August'1979) The main concern of the City of Bakersfield is the solution to the overdraft problem in the Kern County portion of the San Joquin Valley ground water basin. The report divides that basin into four parts. This, undoubtedly, is because of the language of Water Code Section 12924 which says political boundaries shall be considered in identifying the boundaries of the basin. This is of significance only in relation to creating units for basin management. The unit designated as Kern Delta is an area which is more or less most immediately affected by the Kern River'. It is the area which is locally designated the "Kern River Fan" area. The City of Bakersfield owns and operates a 2,800-acre water spreading facility in that area astride the Kern River from Renfro Road to Interstate Highway $. In addition the City owns about 1,100 acres of the bed of the Kern River upstream of its 2,800-acre water spreading facility from Allen Road to Manor Street, a distance of about eight miles. The City has invited virtually all of the water dis- tricts within the Kern River Fan area to participate in a water spreading and recovery program facility. This would include the ~ Consulting Civil Engineer representing the City of Bakersfield. spreading of imported as well as local water to maximize replenish- ment of the basin. It is propose~' as a major step towar~ en- hancing water supplies of the basin. The Department's draft report indicates a current over- draft of 440,000 acre-feet in the Kern County portion of the San $oquin basin. This is less than the quantity of overdraft esti- mated by the Kern County Water Agency. Also, the draft report, at page 30, states as follows: "If no additional new lands were to go into productiom, and full entitlement from the State Water Project were delivered today, there would be no overdraft in Kern County as a whole." This is inconsistent with statements and publications of the Kern County Water Agency. In December of 1978, the Engineer-Manager of the Agency stated1-/ that the overdraft was 800,000 acre-feet per year and that then current deliveries of State Project water were 700,000 acre-feet per year. He indicat- ed that "full entitlement" of State Project water was 1,100,000 acre-feet. This would indicate that with full entitlement de'liveries the overdraft would be about 400,000 acre-feet per acre-feet per year if no new lands are developed~ A November 1975 report of the Kern County Water Agency~/ indicated an overdraft of about S00,000 acre-feet per.year with delivery of maximum State Project water entitlement. 1/ Presented to Senate Committee on Agricult,,ure and Water, San D.i~go, December 13, 1978. _Z/ Groundwater Recharge in Kern County, Part I, Physical Aspects, November 197S (preliminary draft). -2- The Department's draft report states that "critical conditions of overdraft," require that traditional overdraft must exist and that a critical condition is one under which one or~ more of the undesirable results.of traditional overdraft are causing Or threaten to cause significant adverse engironmental, social or economic impacts. The only real'difference between critical conditions of overdraft and traditional overdraft appears to be the inclu- sion of environmental, social, or 'economic factors. The defini- tion of critical conditions of overdraft also appears to be in- consistent within itself in that it first says that it must in- clude one or more of the components of traditional overdraft and then further on states that a threatened inclusion of one or more 0f those conditions would result in a critical condition of over- draft. There are really three definitions of overdraft in the report, t.n Appendix A the definition of overdraft is given as follows: "The condition of a ground water basin where the amount of water withdrawn exceeds the amount of water replenishing the basin over a period of time." The report almo appears to be inconsistent with certain pa~ts of Bulletin 118.* For example, at page 119 of Bulletin 118 the following statement is made: * California's Ground Water, DWR Bull. No. 118, Sept. 1975. "Narryi misconceptions and myths concerning ground water management still exist. Three common miscon~' ceptions are tha't (1) ground water levels must be main- tained Or raised',. (2) ground Water that is mined or overdrafted will d~s'troy the usefulness of the ground water reservoir, and (3) ground water is different from any other res'ource 'and therefore must be managed differently. "Those ~isconceptions have often influenced ground water resources planning. .In many cases, taking immedi- ate step~ to avoid declining water levels, to eliminate overdraft, and tO forestall possible subsidence and wate/ quality degradation, has become the objective of ground water b~sin management. Thus, many alternatives, such as controlled mining for a limited period and selective uses of ground water basins for salt sinks and other purposes, have not received consideration." At page 124 of Bulletin 118 the following statement made. "Under the earlier;hutual prescriptio~ stipulated judgments.the 'total annual grouQd water prqduction usually has been limited to the'%afe yiel~ of the basin, that i$, the.average annual amount of water which naturallY recharges the basin. The courts adopted the safe.yield concept based on the conventional wisdom of the ground water hydrologists of the 1940's and S0's that continued overdraft of ground water basins was undesirable. However these limitations on mining of ground water often have limited the potential useful- ness of basins to offset variations in annual precipi- tation and particularly to postpone or reduce the need for importations of water.. Recent studies of ground water basins have indicated that. the dangers of perma- nent damage from overproduction have been oversold to the courts." · , It would seem that the Department is now overselling critical conditions of overdraft on the basis of undefined and un- known environmental and social impacts. -4- We realize that the Department is carrying out its obligation under Water Code Section 12924 to identify the State's ground water basins. However, I question whether the Department has selected an acceptable and workable definition of critical conditions of overdraft. No standards are provided other than the four so-called traditional undesirable results. The report is not definitive as to the facts of over- draft and the criteria specifically used to determine that basins are either in a critical condition of overdraft or are subject to critical conditions of overdraft. For some of the basins identi- ' fled as being subject to critical conditions of overdraft the re- port presents some facts as evidence of overdraft. But for others, specific facts are not given. The report does not discuss the solution to the over- draft problems--the development, of additional water supplies which would eliminate the overdraft in many of the basins said to be subject to critical' conditions of overdraft. In summary, we find the definition of critical condi- tions of overdraft to be vague and ambiguous. Therefore it is an unacceptable definition because it leaves too much leeway for future interpretation of its meaning. It could be incorporated into future legislation that would interfere with ground water basin management.