Loading...
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