HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/79 AGENDA
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1979
4:00 P.M.
Call meeting to order
Roll Call - Board Members: Barton, Chairman; Payne, Ratty, Bergen
Hoagland
1. Approve minutes of regular board meeting of October 3, 1979.
2. Schedule Public Statements.
3. Input to Kern County Cloud Seeding Program - FOR BOARD
CONSIDERATION.
4. Letter from David A. Head, Supervisor Second.District County of
Kern asking for input regarding Kern County Water Agency Budget
Review - FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION.
5. Letter from George Nickel, Jr. regarding City's 2,800 Acre Spreading
and Extraction Conceptual Outline - BOARD TO RECEIVE AND FILE.
6. Staff Comments
7. Board Comments
8. Adjournment
MINUTES
WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1979
4:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Barton in the City
Hall Caucus Room.
The secretary called the roll as follows:
Present: Barton, Payne, Ratty, Bergen, Hoagland
Absent: None
Staff Present: Bogart, Chafin, Hansen, Hostmyer, Kelmar, Needham
Others Present: Bob Bellue, District Engineer Kern County Water
Agency
The minutes from the meeting of August 29, 1979, were approved as
presented.
At this time Bob Bellue present,to the board copies of the "1979
Report On Water Conditions." for(~provement District No. 4.
Statement prepared by Thomas M. Stetson dated September 25, 1979,
regarding "Ground Water Basins in California" was presented to
the board. After a lengthy discussion between board and staff,
upon a motion by Mr. Ratty which was passed, the statement was
accepted by the board.
At this time Water Manager Chafin stated that the staff was seek-
ing direction in regard to assistance to North of the River Mu-
nicipal Water District and East Niles Community Service District
for possible reformulation of Improvement District No. 4 from the
Kern County Water Agency. Mr. Bergen made a motion that the Chair-
man of the Water Board appoint a committee of this board (elected
officials) who together with our consultants Stanley C. Hatch and
Thomas M. Stetson would meet and formulate a plan of action with
representatives of North of the River Municipal Water District,
East Niles Community Service District and Kern County Water Agency,
which would accomplish removal of Improvement District No. 4 from
the Kern County Water Agency.
Staff Comments
Mr. Hoagland informed the board at this time that the City has
intervened in the relicensing of the Southern California Edison
Powerhouse. They now have been relicensed for a per, of thirty
(30) years. Mr. Hoagland stated that some of the l~nu~a~e in the
"order" for relicensing was. very disturbing in effec~'~it says that
Southern California Edison within one (1) year will get together
with the Fish, Wildlife and Forestry people to determine what the
minimum flow from Lake Isabella should be in order to enhance fish
life and recreational uses. However, nothing was said about the
irrigators or the City of Bakersfield which.has storage rights.
Mr. Hoagla~has filed an Application for Rehearing on the basis
that the l~nu~ge should include those people who have storage rights
in Lake Isa~lla, and for protection of those rights. At this time
Mr. Bergen suggested that a copy of the Application for Rehearing
be submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Needham at this time informed the board that during the past
few months the level of activity in the Domestic Water Superin-
tendent job classification has indicated that an additional position
may be recommended in the near future.
Mr. Hansen at this time brought the board up to date on the nego-
tiations with Fairhaven Industrial Fire Protection District.
Mr. Hansen presented three (3) Water Mainline Extension Agreements
to the board for the following tracts:
Tract 3891 - Tejon Valley Development Company
Tract 3946 - Regional Mortgage Company
Tract 4016 - Regional Mortgage Company
Mr. Hoagland made a motion that the Agreements be received and
placed on file. The motion was passed.
Water Manager Chafin at this time requested that the board adopt
a policy to prohibit hunting on the City's 2800 acres. Mr.
Bergen made a motion to prohibit use of firearms on the City's
2800 acres. This motion is made in Consideration of the
following facts:
1) City Ordinance prohibits discharge of firearms
in the City limits.
2) The City has a commitment to the local colleges
to utilize the 2800 acres as an ecological pre-
serve consistent with its primary purpose as
a groundwater replenishment area.
3) The safety and liability factor because of the
hazards of discharge of firearms adjacent to
private property.
The motion was passed. It was requested that copies of the policy
be distributed to the City Council and Chief of Police.
There being no further business to come before the board, Chair-
man Barton adjourned the meeting at 4:45 P.M.
James J. Barton, Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
Linda Hostmyer, Secretary
City of Bakersfield Water Board
-'" SECOND SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT
DAVID ~. HEAD Mojave County Building
· Su;~wvi~t ~771~ ~ ~j~, California
T~le~ne (BM)
October 10, 1979
Mr. Harold E. Bergen, Ci. ty Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Baker{field, California 93301
Dear Mr. Bergen:
Early In ~ve~er, the Kern ~unty ~ard of Supervisors will be
discussing an Issue of vital lmpo~ance to the p~ple of Kern County,
haply, "Should the ~rn ~unty ~ard of Supervisors continue to exercise
authority and jurlsdl6tlon over the budget of the ~rn County Water
Agency?"
It Is my position that once the legal obi lgatlons of the budget
pr~ess have been ~t...the public hearings are held and the staff repo~s
reviewed and fl led...and the budget has been approved, line item by line
item, the budget session should then be concluded and the budget adopted
by the duly elected ~rd of Dlr~tors of the ~rn ~unty Water Agency
without endorse~nt of another elected body,
Fu~her, I belleve that the offlclally elected governlng body of
.any.entity .... be. It a sqh~l dlstrl.ct,.water district, sanitation dlstcict,
city, county, etc...should be. totally responsible for the legal affairs
of that entl~.
i would appreciate r~elvlng your thoughts and counts on this
impo~ant ~er. Your response will be c~sldered and act as a basis
for my presenta?lon ~o +he ~ard of Supervisors.
ere.~ yours,
S~ond 01s~rlc~
GEORGE W. NICKEL, JR.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES MAILING ADDRESS
] 10 NEW STINE ROAD, SUITE N P.O. BIN 9448
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309
(BO5) 832-6963
September 6, 1979
James J. Barton, Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Curley:
As we discussed on the phone, I delivered to John Chafin copies of
the attached unfinished letter of September 6th addressed to you.
John noted that he would be meeting with you, Tom Stetson and
Stan Hatch in Santa Barbara later this week. In preparation for
your Santa Barbara meeting, John suggested that Tom and Stan could
be more helpful to you if they can review and be prepared to comment
upon my letter upon your arrival.
Because I did not have an opportunity to finish my September 6th
letter before John left for Santa Barbara, I do have additional
comments and recommendations to make. For discussion purposes with
you later today, I have comPleted and am attaching the balance of
my September 6th letter.
S~n~qrely,
George W. Nickel, Jr.
GWN:rjp
Attach
GEORGE W. NICKEL. JR.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES MAILING ADDRESS
110 NEW STINE ROAD. SUITE N P.O. BIN 9448
BAKER=FIELD, CA 93309 BAKERSFIELD. CA 93309
(805) 83Z-6963
September 6, 1979
James J. Barton, Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Dear Mr. Barton:
At your invitation contained in your letter of July 18th, I attended
the meeting that you called for August 2nd at the City Hall Caucus
Room. Your invitation went to a number of individuals and entities
that have a potential use of the City's 2800 acre spreading area.
Attached to your .invitation was a document entitled City of Bakersfield
Spreading and Extraction Program Conceptual Outline. This program
was, of course, the principal topic of discussion at the August 2nd
meeting, presided over by you as Chairman of the City of Bakersfield
Water Board. At the conclusion of the meeting you noted that written
comments were requested concerning the City's suggested program,
together with reactions to information set forth by individuals and
entities at the August 2nd meeting.
I have given a great deal of thought to the City's suggested program
and to what transpired at the August 2nd meeting. I believe that my
primary concern is identical with' yours. It is my desire to see the
Ci.ty..of Bakersf-ield grow and.prosper. For. this .to be a.rea!ity one
of the basic essentials is an adequate water supply for all lands
within the City. This, of course, includes the approximate 14,000
acre annexation to the' City of Bakersfield. I am proud to have parti-
ci.pated in not only bringing about this substantial annexation, but
in working directly with you and other members of the City Council
and your staff on a water program that should bring an adequate water
supply to the lands in the Rio .Bravo Annexation. This was accomplished
by Agreement #77-07 entered into under date of November 9, 1977 by
and between the City of Bakersfield and the Olcese Water District.
This Agreement was supplemented by the Letter Agreement between the
City and Olcese of June 27, 1978 which became identified as Agreement
#78-12. Prior to these Agreements being entered into, the City had'the
foresight and is certainly to be complimented for its participation
in Improvement District #4 of the Kern County Water Agency for acquisition
of a substantial supply of California Aqueduct Water. In addition,
the City had concluded a water purchase of the then remaining Tenneco
Kern River Water Rights and the 2,800 acre spreading area. These
positive acts by the City did an excellent job of insuring an adequate
water supply for the City as it was constituted prior to the Rio Bravo
annextion; however, the Rio Bravo annexation does require the additional
water that will become available under the Agreements entered into
with the Olcese Water District referred to above.
~James J. Barton, Chairman
Page 2.
My reason for the preamble above is to emphasize the extreme importance
of p,reserving and implementing the two agreements .that have been
ente'red into between the City and Olcese. The Rio Bravo annexation
can be a. real credit to the City if it grows and prospers as it can
with an adequate water supply. In my opinion, the use of the City's
2800 acre spreading area is essential to bring this about. The
City-Olcese Agreements are'structured to accomplish this; however,
the City's suggested program discussed at the meeting on August 2nd
is not, in-my opinion, going to obtai~n the results that you and I,
and others .concerned for the City's welfare, hope to achieve. As a
point of beginning, I will set forth below my points of concern regarding
the City's suggested program on the 2800 acre spreading area that was
discussed at the.August 2nd meeting.
(1) There is no direct reference to the two existing agreements
between the City and the Olcese Water District. From conversations
that I have had with the City's legal and engineering consultants, it
has been indicated that such omission may have come about to placate
Rosedale and Tenneco. In fact, it' has also been suggested that the
City - Olcese Agreements should be re-drawn in order to accomplish
.this.
(2) In the City's suggested program, there is absolutely
nothing stated that would obligate an entity like Tenneco or Rosedale
to limit their extraction of water from the common underground to
the water that they bring into their respective areas.and/or the
City's 2800 acre spreading area. This contrasts with the existing
City - Olcese Agreements wherein it is specifically set forth that
n'o .more .water may be extracted than what is ~e~rcolated to .t.~he City's
'2800 ac're'~preading'ground. Before Tenneco and kosedale are permitted
use of the City's 2800 acre spreading area, I suggest that an under-
standing should be worked out with each entity on the amount of future
withdra~.~als of water if such withdr~wal's are going to exceed the amount
of water brought in '.for spreading purposes.
(3) While. the records of Rosedale and Tenneco on underground
pumping show that both entities are pumping substantially more water
than what they are bringing in for underground recharge, the issue
with Tenneco would appear to be perhaps more certain and clear cut
than the issue with Rosedale. The.principal difference would seem
to be the fact that Tenneco sold all of its remaining Kern River YJater
Rights to the City of Bakersfi. eld. From my own knowledge, ! can state
that a substantial portion of the water rights purchased by the City
were the percolation losses to the Kern River underground that Tenneco
picked up when the concrete lined River Canal was constructed by .its
predecessor in interest, the Kern County Land Company, following the
construction of Isabella Reservoir. These were historic transportation
Y' 'Janie~ J. Barton, Chairman · ~age 3.
and recharge losses that took place annually when the Kern'County
Land Company was required under the provisions of the Miller-Haggin
Agreement to trans)~ort water entitl~ement of the Buena Vista Water
Storage District to Second Point of Measurement in undiminished
quan'tities. At that time, Kern County Land Company recognized that
Buena Vista would take regulated flows that could be contained in
the concrete lined River Canal; consequently, Kern County Land
Company built the River Canal with the approval.of Buena Vista but
with the spelled out provision that Kern County Land Company would
have to satisfy any third parties that claimed a diminution of their
rights to historic recharge from the transportation losses to'Second
Point of Measurement. As a factual matter, Rosedale did contend
that it had a right to at least a portion of the historic transportation
losses. Apparently, recognizing the validity of this contention
and claim, Kern County Land Company .did at that time enter into an
agreement with Rosedale to furnish it certain Kern River Walter
under terms and conditions set forth in an agreement with Rosedale.
Whether or not Rosedale was overdrafting and reducing underground
water level's prior to the Kern County Land Company construction of
the River Canal, I do not have factual information in hand; however,
I am advised that Rosedale is currently overdrafting the underground
at an average annual rate in excess of 30,000.00 acre-feet. This
seems to indicate that Rosedale may not have reached an adequate
settlement with Kern County Land Company. In any event, Kern County
Land Company did, after construction of the River Canal, claim and
take the historic transportation and recharge losses for use and
application in other areas. As previously stated, these losses are
a very substantial portion of the Kern River water that was purchased
from Tenneco by the City.
Now after Ten~nec.o sol. d'specified Kern River ..~Water ~.Rights .to..the City,
for some $22 million,Tenneco turned right around and began a very
large crop plan development program along the Kern River adjacent
-to the City's 2800 acre spreading area. I am advised that Tenneco
has installed some 80 irrigation wells and that Tenneco's annual
overdraft of the area will probably exceed 80,000 acre-feet per year.
This would appear to be a little like "havi~ng your cake and eating
it too". Tenneco sold to the City the recharge water that fed the
Tenneco land now being developed adjacent to the City 2800 acre
spreading area. Then, Tenneco embarked on a program to pump great
quantities of water by a heavy overdraft program in the area. It is
difficult for me to rationalize that Tenneco is acting fairly or
legally in this situation. This has got to be of concern to the
City as Tenneco seems embarked upon a program that will largely
take whatever water is spread for percolation in the City's 2800
acre spreading area. Nevertheless, there is nothing contained in
the City's suggested program discussed on August 2nd that would
indicate that Tenneco should accept any responsibility to bring in
water before it should be allowed to continue the overdraft program.
(4) I' make the further Observation that Tenneco and Rosedale
appear to make 'strange bedfellows. However, at the August 2nd
meeting, both Tenneco and Rosedale representatives seemed to be
~unconcerned abbut.their overdraft programs. On the other hand, both
~ '~.J.anle$ J. Barton, Chairman
Tenneco and Rosedale seem opposed to other entities bringing to
the City's 2800 acre spreading area recharge water for subsequent
recovery. My remark about strange bedfellows deals with what appears
to be an undisputed factual s-ituation wherein Tenneco's new over-
draf,,t program has got to be more damaging to Rosedale than any other
entity except the City and Olcese. Just how Rosedale representatives
could attend the meeting like that on August 2nd and not ask for
Tenneco to bring in as much water as it pumps out, I just plain do
not .understand. It does suggest that there may be some side agree-
ment between Tenneco and Rosedale that many of us are not presently
familiar with.
(5) In the existing agreement between the City and Olcese, the
City is scheduled to receive an extraction charge when percolated
water is removed by operaton of wells in the City's spreading grounds.
Under the City's suggested program, a $3.00 per acre foot spreading
charge would be apPlied instead of some form of extraction charge.
In my opinion, this will not bring about the beneficial end result
that the City should look to. The most extreme example applies to
the .program of the Kern County Water Agency wherein water has been
spread in this calendar year 1979 without any claim of right of
recovery. In other words, it is just a donation to the overall under-
ground to offset overdraft. Also, for those that have wells and' will
specifically use the City spreading grounds, such as Olcese and the
Buena Vista Water St'orage District, there are no benefits immediately
derived from the spreading program. There is only the cost of water
and its application. On the other hand, there is resulting benefit'
for the applied underground area. A per acre-foot spreading charge
will discourage and possibly make economically infeasible the very
program that can most benefit the area. There will likely be
substantial periods of time between the spreading and recovery for
much of this water. It should on-ly.be when water is extracted and
'a benefit derived that a charge would seem logically made.
Before leaving this subject, I would particularly like to
note the 'importance of working with Buena Vista on a spreading program
in the City's 2800 acres. Buena Vista has tentatively agreed to
accept, under certain terms and conditions, water pumped by Olcese
from the City's spreading grounds for an exchange to Olcese of like
amounts of Buena Vista-Kern River water as it flows through the
Olcese District in the Rio Bravo annexation. This is by 'far the
most economically feasible way to bring about delivery of equivalent
amounts of water to Olcese to what is pumped from the City's spreading
area.
(6) Prior to and following the August 2nd meeting, both Tenneco
and Rosedale have indicated that one or the other entity may file
legal injunctions to prevent recovery of percolated water in the
City spreading area by the ,City, Buena Vista or Olcese. This appears
to be a concern of your legal and engineering consultants. I suggest
that the time has come to face up to this issue and bring it to a
head. I am not an attorney, but I have lived with Kern River Water
~.~ J~e~ J. Barton, Chairman
~ °Pa~ge 5.
Rights and negotiations most of my business life. I can see no
conceivable equity that either Tenneco or Rosedale would have for
brin,ging legal action to prevent recovery of percolated water. 'To
bring this matter to a head, I understand that Olcese is ready to
commence early installation of one or more ~vells in the City's
spreading area. As you probably know, the well drilling program
was temporarily held up because there was no need to recover percolated
water in either 1978 or 1979. Olcese had and sl~ill has a substantial
quantity of water available in Isabella Reservoir. The water demands
in the Olcese District are presently far smaller than the amount of
available water. Nevertheless, it does seem important to test
Tenneco and'Rosedale to learn if they will be foolish enough to
file some form of injunctive proceedings. I am advised that Olcese
will proceed with a well drilling program as soon as the 1st well
location has been approved by. the City.
(7) The City's suggested Program sets forti) the opportunity
for a number 'of entities .to use the City's spreading grounds on
more or less an equal basis with Olcese and Buena Vista. The problem
that I see here is the dilution of the workability of 'specific
programs that give benefit to the City. Olcese's basic program is
to provide water for City lands within the Rio Bravo Annexation.
Buena Vista has the physical capability to exchange some of its
Kern River entitlement for like quantities of Olcese percolated water
pumped from the City's spreading grounds. Both Olcese and Buena
Vista are potentially set up to greatly benefit the City. These
entities' should be encouraged and given the opportunity to do just
that. On the other hand, there appears to be no physical benefits
for the City to give entities like Tenneco and Rosedale a use of the
'C-ity's'sp'reading'grounds. 'As a matter of fact', giving'use of'.spreading
capacity to Tenneco and Rosedale will at times reduce the amount of
water that can be spread by Olcese and Buena Vista. Perhaps, even
more important, Tenneco and Rosedale can potentially embark upon
programs that will even further increase their overdraft of the under-
ground.- As an .example, Tenneco and Rosedale can reduce the size
of their own spreading areas in order to farm additional land that
would otherwise be devoted to spreading programs.
I suggest that there may be some times.' when Tenneco and Rosedale can
use the City's spreading grounds without impairment of the requirements
of"~the City, Olcese and Buena Vista; however, this should be left for
future evaluation. In the interim, I suggest that Tenneco and
Rosedale should be encouraged to increase their own spreading areas
and acquisition of supplemental water when available.
(B) In the City's Program, it has been set forth that natural
river losses should be a contribution to the underground without
recovery rights. In this I fully concur. Furthermore, I know that
~ ~ 'J~anie~s J Barton, Chairman
.~ ePage 6.
this is important to Buena Vista and Rosedale. I do suggest that
a committee of City and Buena Vista representatives should be set
up to define natural river losses and make factual determination
when they do occur such as in 1978.
(9) As earlier noted there is nothing contained in ~the City's
Program that asks or even suggests that Tenneco should .extract no
-more water than it brings in to the general underground adjacent
to the City's spreading area. In the meantime, Tenneco is embarked
on a program to accelerate 'its take and further overdraft the under-
ground. To worsen the situation even further, I have been told that
Tenneco is going to drill additional water wells in tile immediate
future. Time is running and Tenneco will soon have a prescriptive
right to continue its overdraft program. The effectiveness of the
City's spreading area will basically be lost to Tenneco. For any
relief, the .City will likely have to resort to very expensive
and time consuming underground water adjudication. Results of such
· litigation will at best be uncertain. Is this where the City wants
to find itsel, f? I' don't think so. I maintain that the City has a
strong position that can be asserted now. If successful, underground
water adjudication may be unnecessary. The time has come to have a
frank talk with Tenneco representatives. As a matter of simple equity,
Tenneco should be asked to balance its water take with equal amounts
of imported water. Tenneco has made a very minor effort in that
direction by temporary purchase of water from Kern Tulare and other
entities; however, long range-wise, this is of very little signifi.cance.
What is really required at this time is a flat commitment from Tenneco
that it will only extract water when it has a positive underground
balance by reason of importation of supplemental water. If that
commitment cannot be obtained from Tenneco, I suggest that Stan Hatch
should be asked to recommend legal steps that can be taken other
than underground water adjudication. As a matter of simple equity,
I cannot rationalize that Tenneco should be able to sell the water
ri.ghts that historically recharged the underground adjacent to the
City's spreading grounds and, then, go forward with a program that
takes from the underground water that other entities are spreading
in the City's spreading grounds.
In conclusion, I would like' to recommend that the City should work
to go forward on the pr6gram with Olcese and Buena Vista. Althou§h
Olcese has available in Isabella far more water than-its early water
requirements, the current circumstances indicated the desirability
of installing one or more wells in the City's spreading area. In good
faith, Buena Vista )las spread a substantial quantity of water in the
City's spreading grounds. In doing so, Buena Vista was informed
that recovery of such water would be by Olcese installed wells. I
understand that Olcese is prepared to commence well installation as
soon as locations are designated and mutually agreed to by City and
Olcese representatives.
James J. Barton, Chairman
Page 7.
Probably equally important is to learn from Tenneco if it will make
a firm commitment to only pump water when it has a positive under-
ground balance supplied by importation of supplemental water -- not
natural unavoidable recharge. Frankly, I don't think that Tenneco
will make such a commitment. After some personal discussions with
Bill Balch, I have reached the conclusion' that Tenneco is using Rosedale
to bring on an underground water adjudication. In addition, Tenneco
apPears to-be playing for time to establish prescriptive rights for
operation of the numerous wells it continues to install over the
underground common to the City's spreading grounds. At this time,
I think the City can take the initiative in a very constructive
way. If Tenneco refuses to limit its underground take, I suggest
that the City can file suit for violation of its purchase of water
rights from Tenneco and for damages to the operation of the City's
spreading grounds. I'm sure that you will want Stan Hatch to give
you guidance on this .subject. Also, for whatever it may be worth, I
understand that in absence of a suit by the City that there may
be a representative action suit initiated against Tenneco by tax-
payers within the City who feel that Tenneco is proceeding in
violation of its water sale agreement to the City.
Sincerely,
George W. Nickel, Jr.
GWN: rj p
DEPARTMENT
OF
WATER
October 24, 1979 ~ ~ ~
Paul I. Enns, President
Board of Dfrectors
Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District
P.o O. Box 867
Bakersfield CA 93302
Dear Mr. Enns:
The purpose of this'letter is to inform you that effective
February l, 1980, the City of Bakersfield Department of Water
will discontinue service under Agreement No. 78~04 W.B. regarding
the operation and maintenance of the Rosedale District Project,
including the Ros~dale Channel, District spreading ponds and
appurtenant structures.
The Department of Water is willing to 2ssign City personnel
experienced in the operation of the Rosedale Project to assist
in the training of Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District
personnel. The~same rate schedule for service that is now in
effect w. Quld apply t. hroug~..February 1., 1980. This.should~provide
for an'o'rderl~ transition for the Distr-ict's'operation 6f the
Project facilities.
We have enjoyed the opportunity t-o service the Rosedale-
Rio Bravo Water Storage District Project during the past two
years.
Sincerely,
James J. Barton, Chairman
City of Bakersfield Water Board
JJB/GB:ss