Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/81 AGENDA WATER BOARD -CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY,. AUGUST 19, 1981 4:00 P.M. Call meeting to order Roll Call - Board Members: Barton, Chairman; Payne, Ratty, Kelmar, Oberholzer 1. Approve minutes of regular meeting of July 22, 1981. 2. Scheduled. Public Statements 3. Correspondence /a) Letter from Olcese Water District dated July 23, 1981 regarding spreading and extraction improvements to City's 2800 acre spreading facility. - SUGGESTED ACTION: RECEIVE, FILE AND REFER TO .... WATER MANAGER. /b) Letter from Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water - Storage District dated July 29, 1981 regarding City's Master Spreadin~ Agreement Conceptual Outline. - SUGGESTED ACTION: RECEIVE, FILE AND REFER TO WATER ~NAGER. ~4. Adopt a tentative project.for environmental analysis and development of City's 28~0 acre spreading area. -. SUGGESTED ACTION: "PROPOSED PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT," Appendix "A", which has been derived from the Ricks, Taylor & Meyer, Inc. "City of Bakersfield 2800 acre Groundwater Recharge Area Optimization.Study", dated March, 1981. 5. Adopt a schedule of construction for extraction facilities to be completed by Olcese Water District pursuant to Article 1, 77-07 W.B., as amended. ~ SUGGESTED ACTION: CONSTRUCT PHASE I EXTRACTION FACILITIES AS FOLLOWS: a) Construct one well with a capacity of no less than 2000 GPM in the NW corner of Section 16, TWN 30S., RGE 26E., adjacent to the River Canal subject to the conditions set forth in City Water Board letter to Olcese Water District dated'July 22, 1981, construction to commence no later than September 1, 1981 with completion no later than December 31, 1981. b) Construct additional wells as required to produce 2,000 acre feet per month, each with a pumping capacity of no less than 2000 GPM, to be located by City after pumping experience on the initial well is analyzed, all of which are to be constructed no later than July 1, 1982. v/ 6. Designate a liaison officer to act_, in behalf of Kern River Interests to satisfy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requirements for the Preliminary Permit issued on the "Junction Power Project." SUGGESTED ACTION: STAFF RECO_~4ENDS ENGINEERING FIRM OF BOOKMAN- EDMONSTON ENGINEERING, INC. BE DESIGNATED THE "LIAISON OFFICER." 7. Receive proposed "interim" 2800 acre spreading agreement from Kern County~Water Agency, dated August 1~, 1981. - SUGGESTED ACTION: WATER DEPARTMENT STAFF RECOMMENDS BOARD APPROVAL OF "ITERIM" SPREADING AGREEMENT PREPARED BY CITY WATER CONSULTANTS. 8. Staff Comments 9. Board Comments 10. Adjournment MINUTES WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1981 4:00 P. M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Barton in the Depart- ment of Water Conference Room. The secretary called the roll as follows: Present: Barton, Payne, Ratty, Kelmar, Oberholzer Absent: None The minutes from the meeting of June 24, 1981, were approved as presented. SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS At this time Mr. George Nickel presented and read to the board a letter from Mel McColloch, .President of Olcese Water. District dated June 22, 1981, regarding the outline of improvements to the City's 2800 acres. CORRESPONDENCE A letter from Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District dated June 29, 1981, regarding City's Master Spreading Agreement was presented to the board. Mr. Ratty made a motion that the letter be received and referred to staff 'for response. The motion.was passed. Letter dated July 13, 1981, and attachments from George W. Nickel, Jr. regarding Kern County Water Agency use of City's 2800 acres was presented to the board. Mr. Oberholzer made a motion that the letter be received and placed on file. The motion was passed. Letter from Kern County Water Agency dated July 1-5, 1981, includ- ing a copy of Kern County Water Agency Comments on City of Bakers- field Proposed Master Spreading Agreement was presented to the board. Mr. Ratty made a motion that the letter be received and referred to staff for their review and comments. The motion was passed. Letter from Mel McColloch read to;the.board under Scheduled Public Statements, upon motion by Mr. Ratty, was received and placed on file. The motion was passed. A request from Stanley C. Hatch, special water attorney for an hourly rate increase was presented to the board. After discussion Mr. Ratty made a motion that the Modification of Agreement be approved and the Chairman authorized to sign. Proposed Water Board response to Olcese Water District letter dated June 15, 1981, regarding outline of improvements to City's 2800 acres was presented to the board. Mr. Kelmar made a motion that th~ letter be signed by the Chairman and sent to Mr. McColloch. ' The motion was passed. At this time Mr. Hawley asked for authorization of emergency action on .repairing the pump bowls at Well No. 9, located on Quailwood Drive. Mr. Hawley explained that on July 14, 1981, Well No. 9 stopped pumping due to failure of the pump shaft and bowls. If another well were to go out of service the system would not be capable of meeting peak~ summer demands. · California Water Service Company has estimated the repair cost ~ Co ~e $8,000.00 and recommends immediate action to get this well back in service. Staff concurs with this recommendation and asks authorization for emergency action to water bid procedures. Funds are available within the 1981-82 budget. Mr. Oberholzer made a motion to approve the emergency action and recommend to the City Council for adoption. The motion was passed. At this time Mr. Hawley presented to the board a list of thirteen (13) Mainline Extension Agreements with Revised Refund Costs to the board. Mr. Hawley, also, presented nine (9) New Mainline Extension Agreements which have not been brought before the board previously, this particular group amounts to $393,051.94 including 387 new services. At this time Mr. Payne made a motion that the Revised Mainline Extension Agreements and the New Mainline Extension Agreements be approved. The motion was passed. At this time Mr. Hawley presented the Domestic Water Enterprise Proposed Capital Outlay Program Fiscal Years 1981-82 and 1982-83. After discussion Mr. Kelmar made a motion that the budget be approved and submitted to the City Council and, also, that the budget be submitted to Thomas M. Stetson, Consulting Engineer for the City for an evaluation. The motion was passed. At this time.Mr. Payne asked that a written response to the George Nickel Plkn be brought back to the board. Mr. Chafin stated a r~sponse would be brought back to the board and that copies of the plan.have been sent to Stanley Hatch and Thomas Stetson. There being no further business to come before the board, Chair- man Barton adjourned the meeting at 4:35 P.M. James J. Barton, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board Linda Hostmyer, Secretary City of Bakersfield Water Board JUL 3 8~5/3z~ , July 23, 1981 ~~ ~ WA~ James J. Barton Chairman - City Water Board Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dea~ Mr. Barton: I have been advised by the Olcese Water District representatives who attended the City Water Board meeting on July 22nd that Mr. Nickel did distribute my July 22nd letter to you and was able to read the letter at the meeting; however, I am further advised that your proposed letter of July 14th was approved for mailing without any changes being made to reflect the contents of my July 22nd letter to you. Based on this action, I wish to reply to the three (3) conditions noted on page 2 of your July 14th letter. Ail three (3) conditions are satisfactory to Olcese. Representatives of Olcese will be in direct touch with the ~City's Water Manager on specific plans and specifications for the first well to be drilled. As noted to you in my letter of June 15th, I suggest that the first well should be fully evaluated and that locations for additional wells will be suggested to your Water Department and acted upon when approval to proceed is received. We are ready to work with the City Water Board on implementation of whatever portion of the Ricks, Taylor & Associates development plan is approved by the City Water Board. Based on your July 14th letter, it does appear that the City will be 'including participation in the spreading area by other entities. We, of course, hope to have the opportunity to discuss further with the City Water Board and the City Water Department just what additional spreading facilities will be required to accommodate spreading by these other entities. At the same time, we look forward to determining with you payments that will be forth coming from all participating entities. Sincerely, Mel McColloch, President Olcese Water District MM:rjp c- Tom Payne Richard Oberholzer Phil Kelmar Don Ratty John Chafin, Owen Goodman Board of Directors, Olcese Water District HAND DELIVERED 7-29-81 t // WATER STORAGE DISTRICT ....... 2623' F" St., Suite -P.O. Box 867 · Bakersfield, California 93302 · 325-4797 July 29, 1981 JUL :2 1981 Jil~' OF BAKE~FIELD City of Bakersfield Water Board 4101 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Re: Spreading Program - City of Bakersfield Gentlemen: This will supplement our letter of June 29, 1981, regarding the City's proposed Master Spreading Agreement, and 'prior and proposed agreements for -the use of the City's spreading facility. Ps previously stated in our letters of 8/30/79, 4/21/80, and 1/13/81 (copies attached), our Board has questions which we believe must be resolved in the near future and prior to any extrac- tion of water from the groundwater basin under the various agreements and programs. We do not believe the City's earlier efforts under CEQA and particularly its conclusion that a negative declaration was appropriate have adequately addressed the issues. However, even full CEQA compliance would not necessarily resolve differences which may exist. Your drafting of a proposed Master Spreading Agreement illustrates your interest in developing a specific and comprehensive program mutually agree- able to all concerned, however, we have briefly outlined below some of the specific items which concern us: 1. It is essential that the groundwater storage program does not claim water that otherwise would have recharged the basin naturally. Overlying owners and other parties having groundwater rights now benefit from and are entitled to certain replenishment from the Kern River. A pr.ogram which adds groundwater storage to diversion rights which have not previously included storage cannot be allowed to interfere with the recharge entitlement of existing groundwater pumpers. Riparian or appropriative rights to divert surface flows do not include the right to store and to use or exchange the 'water later. Under such rights, water which cannot be put to immediate use must go to the next diverter or I~o the benefit of the basin as a whole. This means that if water is to be stored under the City's spreading grounds, the initial diversion right must first be defined, its priority established, and credit must be allowed against the stored water for the amount that would have gone into recharge had the diversion not been made. July 29, 1981 City~ of Bakersfield Water Board Page Two 2. All water rights are associated with a type and place of use. Generally speaking, changes in these attributes cannot be made to the detriment of others having rights in the basin. Specifically, this means that rights to return flows must be protected in the ~recapture and use of stored water. Possible exports from the basin or substantial increases in consumptive use pose especially sensitive problems. 3. Movement of water percolated underground on the City's 2800 acres, must be addressed. The right to recapture stored water must be related to and dimenished by groundwater movement to other areas in the basin and subsequently pumped out. Our experience indicates that water does dissipate in a relatively short p~riod of time. 4. A proper and public accounting system must be established. Finally, son, what as an aside, we understand from staff conversat'ions that the City takes the position that short-term Isabella storage rights can be equated to long-term groundwater storage rights and thus, transferred. With this we disagree. It is important that in the near future we meet and work out acceptable solutions. We know that the City too is interested in a comprehensive p.rogram but none the less, we have nothing but a growing number of indi- vidual agreements which fail to deal with these basic issues. Rosedale, in one way or another, must take action to protect the interests of the District and those it represents and all those who plan to participate in the groundwater storage program should understand that. We will look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, ROSEDALE-RIO BRAVO WATER STORAGE DISTRICT Paul I. Enns ~ President 7-30-81 cC: w/a S. Hatch T. Stetson P. Kelmar ~R. Oberholzer G. Bogart F. Core Hand delivered 1/13/81 '. ~ RIO BRA ~ i ~/ WATER STORAGE DISTRICT 2623 "F" St., Suite L P.O. Box 867 · Bakersfield, California 93302 · 3254797 January 13, 1981 Water Board .City cf Bakersfield City ttall 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Gentlemen: Since receiving copies of Tenneco West, Inc.'s letter of August 20, 1980 to the City of Bakersfield, setting forth an agreement by the City to sell 100,000 ~cre feet of stored .ground water, our Board has continued to discuss problems relative to use of the ground water basin in that area for storage. As you will remember, after the meeting of August 2, 1979, we sent a letter to the ,City which set forth our concerns about your program. (A copy of that letter is enclosed for your reference.) Those concerns remain. We recognize the City's efforts to work out a program for use of the ground water basin; none the less, to date no program has been agreed upon by all interested entities. The proposed sale of ground water points to the necessity for action in the near future. It is the position of Rosedale that the City's Kern River rights do not entitle the City to store Kern River water underground, hold title to that water, and then later sell it. While there ma~ be merit in working out a management plan which would include the storage of natural flows, we think such a plan must be accomplished with the agreement of all affected parties. It is our desire to continue to discuss these matters with you, as we strongly think it is essential that a management plan be established to deal with ~the many problems which we face in regard to use of the Kern River.and the ground water basin. We suggest that staffs of the interested entities be directed to forthwith meet and formulate a' plan to present to our'various governing bodies. We w~ll look forward-to hearing from you. Very truly yours, ROSEDALE-RIO BP~VO WATER ,Enclosure ' RO$ DAI E . RIO BRAVO ..... WATER STORAGE DISTRICT ..... 2623 "F St., Suite L 'e P.O. Box 867 · Bakersfield, California 93302 · 325~797 City of Bakersfield Water Board City tiall Bakersfield, CA 93301 Gentlemen: As you will recall, a meeting in regard generally to the subject of tke Kern River was held by most of the interested parties on August 2, 1979. As a result of that meeting, it was. aeciued that the parties would submit in writing proposals and con'~.ents in regard to the proposed Kern River Conjunctive bse Program. Rosedale submitted its cormnent under date of August 30, 1979. It was our understanding ti~at a second mecting would be scheduled around the end of September, 1979. -However, to date that meeting has not been held. Recently the local newspaper quoted city officials as insist- ing that Mr. George ~.[ickel move forward with any agreement between the City and Mr. Nickel which would call for Mr. Nickel 'to ariil certain water wells on the City's 2800 acre spreading ground, presumably to be used for the exporta- tion of water to what has com~,only been known as the Rio' Bravo Annexation to the City. P, osedale considers that the program' reported in the newspaper woul~ violate the spirit expressed at the August 2, 1979 meeting. We would ask and sugge, st that the meeting proposed for last September be rescheduled with the hope that a Conjunctive Use Program for the River, satisfactory to all parties can be agreed upon prior to any physical implemen- tation of the agreement between ~ne City and Mr. Nickel. Very truly yours, ! District Manager '.'.,C: ck ' ' 2~2~ °'F" St., Suit~ L e P.O. Box 8§7 · Bakersfield, California ~)~302 · ~25-47~)7 / / HAND DEL[VEP, ED Aug'.~st 30, 1979 r, ir. John Chafin City of Bakersfield Department of Water 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear John, These comments are in response to the ;neeting of August 2, 1979 in regard to the City's proposed program for the City's 2800 acres. We believe that these matters should be considered and a resolution of the problems reached before the program is imple:nented. The initial area of concern is identifying the water ~.;hich would be available for the program. The July 18, 1979 outline Implies that the City may consider that water available on a short-term basis would be the water which could be percolated and recovered under the proposed program. This position would not seem to be .consistent with what has historically taken place in replenishing the groundwater basin. However, as we understand the clarifications made by Mr. Stetson and Mr. HatctYat the August 2, 1979 meeting, the' City intends only tha.t water which is tru]y surplus to Kern County, or "new water" would be considered as available for the proposed program. Therefore, it would seem that there would seldom, if ever, be Kern River water available, except that water which historically flowed out of the County. Thus, the only water normally available for the program would be Friant Kern or other federal ¥~ater, or state water. Th'e Kern River water which has historically left Kern County, and could properly be considered as water available for the proposed program, should be identified specifically so that there is no question as to what water is in fact being referred to. To summarize, we believe that it is imperative that prior to the commencement of the program, and the percolation of any water, that the water be identified as to source and quantity so that there is no. question in that regard. Of course, ., waters which historically would have gone into the basin in any event, should still be percolated in one or more of the historical percolation areas; however, we do not believe it appropriate for any entity to make claim to that water for recovery purposes. Mr. John Chafin Cit$$~ oF~B~kersfield August 30, 1979 ?age Two A seconJ general area of concern, which we do not believe has adequately been addressed, is the problem of underground movement of water. Although it is possible that in the broad sense, the water which in fact does reach the under- ground water tables does remain captured until extracted, it is clear that the underground water basin for the Kern River fan extends far beyond the proposed area of inclusion for the City.program. Further,'~.Je believe that all studies confirm that the underground flow gradient for the'fan area carries water, over a period of time, outside of the geographic limits of the area proposed in the City's program. As a result, water that is put into the ground in one year simply will not be there at sonle time in the future. Simply stated, the bank that you are proposing to use has a hole in the vault which allows the ¥~ater to floN~ out over a period of .time. There are several other points which should be considered in dealing with the extraction portion of the program. First, we believe it clear that there are presently adequate wells available overlying the fan area to provide 'all necessary extraction, and that it is totally unnecessary to drill additional wells simply for extraction purposes under this program. The impact of new wells on the environment generally and on the groundwater table in the specific area of the 2800 acres is not known, ho:.~ever, it would seem quite clear that a large pumping effort in a small confined area ~,~ould cause a fairly substantial adverse effect on the surrounding area. We also concur, as was pointed out at ti~e August 2, 1979 meeting, that no single entity has a right to control use of the water extracted from the program. Ue also agree that the water should not be exported from Kern COunty. In regard to the proposed S3.00 per acre-foot ,fee or spreading charge that the City is proposing, based on Rosedale's experience in percolating water over the last 15 years or more, we feel that a more realistic' capital cost figure for owning a percolating facility.on a 50-year life basis would be $.2] per acre foot. ~,~e of course will be more than happy to provide background material used in arriving at this figu. re. We are'hopeful that the above questions and comments can be clarified in short order so ,that we can move fon.~ard with a desired comprehensive ground','~ater manage- ment program. We are presently attempting to formulate our ideas in this area. As we understand it, upon your receipt of comments from all of the interested entities, you will then disseminate the same, and then arrange.for another meeting to discuss the various items of concern. ~'~e will look forward to hearing from you in that regard. Very truly yours, ROSEDALE-RIO BRAVO WATER STORAGE DISTRICT Mary E.'~ollup Manager APPENDIX A CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 2800 ACRE GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AREA PROPOSED PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT The March 1981 optimization study on the 2800 Acre Spreading area, which was prepared for the City of Bakersfield, contained four alternative plans with various basin c0nfig- urations on and off the Kern River Channel. After consider- ing the ~advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives it was decided to select a plan or combination of plans that would have the largest spreading acreage and the largest off river spreading capability. This would allow maximum effective spreading during high river flow. The plan which is being proposed for development is a combination of Alternative A and Alternative C as proposed in the March report. Alternative A consisted of seven off river basins on the ~south of the river, one basin north of the river, and one diversion basin on the river. This alternative had ~he ad- vantage of least cost per wetted area and the disadvantage of smallest wetted area. The proposed plan augments Alternatve A bv adding five "off river" basins north of the river. This maximizes the potential spreading area of off river basins but also increases the average cost per wetted acre. As shown on the following table and drawing the proposed development plan will cover 843 acres on the south side of the river at an average cost of $663 per acre. On the north side of the river 281 acres of land would be covered at an average cost of $1078 per acre. Total cost of the proposed plan is $918,000, covering 1241 acres at an average cost of $740 per acre. ~The plan will be constructed in phases, with phase one emphasizing construction of basins one through seven on the south side of the river and basin 10A on the north of the river. Phase two would be the completion of basins eight· through twelve on the north of the river. In either of the two phases of construction the ponds ~can be further staged by constructing one or more at a time. · It is also possible to increase spreading capability by constructing temporary sand dikes in the river channel and increase the amount of system spreading potential. .... CITY OF BAKERSFIELD .. ~ 280Q ACRE GROUNDWATER. ~ P~CHARGE AREA PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROX. .~ FLOW RATE EARTHWORK AVE~GE. STRUCTLrRE TOTAL BASIN NO. I.~TTED APdA (CFS). COST * COST ** COST *** COST/ACRE SOUTH OF RIVER 1 127 Ac 63.5 $ 61,265 $ 44,900 $ 105,300 $ 829 2 23 Ac 11.5 $ 11,105 $ 7,920 $ '19,080 $ 829 3 107 Ac 53.5 $ 57,900 $ 37,100 $ 95,000 $ 888 4 153 Ac 76.5 $ 64,420 $ 53,010 $ 117,430 $ 768 5 85 Ac 42.5 $ 33,140 $ 29,450 $ 62,590 $ 736 6 165 Ac 82.5 $ 38,860 $ 57,210 $ 96,030 $ 582 7 183 Ac 91.5 $ '0 $ 63,450 $ 63,405 $ 346 Sub-Total 843 Ac· 421.5 $226,690 $292,140 $ 558,835 $ 663 NORTH OF RIVER 8 53 Ac 26 5 $ 55,320 $ 18,375 $ 73 695 $1390 9 '41 Ac- 20 5 $ 20,145 $ 14,215 $ 3~ 360 $ 838 10A 81 Ac 40 5 $ 22,555 $ 28,065 $ 50 620 $ 625 10B 27 Ac 13 5 $ 16,300 $ 9,360 $ 25 660 $ 950 11 22 Ac 11 0 $ 32,025 $ 7,360 $ 39 655 $1802 12 57 Ac 28 5 $ 59,320 $ 19,765 $ 79 085 $1387 Sub-Total 281 Ac 140 5 $205,670 '$ 97,410 $ 303,080 $1078 ON RIVER A 117 Ac 58.5 $ 16,035 $ 40,565 $ 56,600 $ 484 TOTAL 1241 Ac 620.5 $ 488,395 $430,115 $ 918,510 $ 740 Based on $1.50/cy. Total project structure cost divided proportionately among basins. Cost includes 30% Engineering & Contingencies. MOTE: 1) Anticipated Phase I construction includes ponds 1 through 7 plus pond 10A. 2) Phase'II construction includes ponds 8, 9, 10B, !1, and.12. RICKS, T~.YLOR & MEYER, INC. August 1981 .... -- SHEET . ........... ~'~'~.~=._..._..._... L';'.'.'.'.'.',..:... ......... ,o,~ .... ~=.~.~.~.~,,~.~,,~ ~ ~ "' PUMP S~ ~ '" . ~i~ : . ... ~ ~ ~-..- ~ -~ : .. ~ ' . ~ ~ / i ~ ,, I 4,': .... ~ ...... · ,, ~ ~ ~ ..... " ",' " - ' ~ I~ ~ ' 8 ~/ ~~11 ~ ~ ,11 (~/~ -;_ .~ ....... ~2 / / ~ ~~~ ~~~ / ~~ff ~~ / .... ~ ~ -%k // ~ L r , ' R , ~ ..... ::: ...... ~1 .... /~ ~ ~ PqL;l~~~ ~ ¢ I ,, "~ ~'/.~' ~1 ~~~.~'~~.~" ~_~ ~ ~ ......... ,,.,,., ~ . , x~ - , .,, ~ ............. : ........... ~- , ,,,% ...... ~x ~,?,--x ~,,,,: ....... · ~ Z .,(/ ,, zo' ' -- = ' ~-' I ' ,,,',' , ................................................................. ::,.~ -~$. -- ._ , ~ o ,, ~ ~ / ' ' : ~ / / % , / ~ '~ ~ ;. ~< ~ ' .,- ~~¢~ *~I~/~: ~ [: -~%/ '~ ;% RECHARGE /REA BOUNDARY '''~;='~~~~ . .' - ' ~ ~.l ~ --" t~' ' - ; ~ -- -~-~tev ; WETTED SURFACE AREA · ' ~ , ? '1 .~ ~.'% ~l ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / 7/.'"1-'" ~-- ~ % , ~ ' , · 4 RIVER WEIR STRUCTURE ~ . "- ~'/~.~~l~ :¢ ' q' ' /~;~- '~~~ ~ ','" OATED CON"ROL STRUCTURE · ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~~~~ - ~ ~ ''0--' ~ II. ~_,~ -' j ~.- ,,, ~ BASIN NuMEER (I) s~ ~~~ :....~t~: / / V ~ ~--' ;-, r~ ~ PHASE I ~HNS (1~ TO (7~ +(10~ ' :'"'="' .... '" " " ' - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD RICKS, TAYLOR AND MEYER, ~. AUGUST, 1981 MEMORANDUM To: Board of Directors North Kern Water Storage District From: Lucian J. Meyers Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc. Date: August 7, 1981 ~abject: Implementation of Junction Power Projec0 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued an order granting a Preliminary Permit for the Junction Power Project on the North Fork of Kern River to North Kern Water Storage District acting as lead agency for itself and the City of Bakersfield and Kern Delta Water District. The Preliminary Permit provides North Kern the exclusive 'right to investigate the feasibility of the Project and prepare an application to the FERC for a license. The Permit provides a time period of 36 months from the first day of the month (July 1981) in which the permit order was issued, to complete these functions including preparation~ . of environmental assessments relative to Federal and State statutes; resolution of measures relative to preservation of fish and wildlife resources; completion of arrangements for marketing or local use of the Project power output and utilization of the water conservation benefits of the Project; and confirmation of Project water rights. The Preliminary Permit imposes certain specific require- ments on the Permittee (North Kern et al) which require action within 60 days of the first day of the month in which the permit was issued (July). These include: /~. (1) Designate a liaison officer to act for the Per- mittee in keeping designated appropriate Federal, State and local agencies currently informed as to progress of investi- J gations. ' ' - (2) Consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State Fish and Game agencies and the National Marine Fisheries Service (if the Project affects anadromous fish, I believe it does not), to obtain their views and recom- mendations on studies to be'conducted of Project effects on fish and wildlife. The permit requires this within "the initial period of the permit," which is not defined in~' this condition but apparently means within the 60-day period. Board of Directors -2- (3) Prior to undertaking any field investigation on National Forest land, consult with the Forest Supervisor (Sequoia Forest) and develop a plan for alleviation of damage to the forest resources and enter into a memorandum of agree- ment with the Forest Supervisor regarding the field activities. This provision does not contain a specific time period but it will be recognized that the field work could be delayed if the required agreement is not developed at an early date. This memorandum contains a preliminary discussion of the institutional arrangements necessary to provide the proper direction of the implementing measures and the fund- ing of the costs thereof. Also presented are suggestions for accomplishing the implementing measures. Institutional Arranqements A necessary initial step in the implementation process is the establishment of a directing authority which will assume the responsibility for the program. It would appear desirable for the three agencies to perform this function under a joint exercise of powers arrangement. An agreement for this purpose would include the following principles: (1) Appointment of a Steering Committee of members of the governing boards of the participating agencies, with authority to establish policy and expend the funds neces- sary to implement the pre-license functions of the Project. (2) Appointment of a Project Coordinator delegated to perform the management function, including ail arrange~ ments necessary to obtain legal, engineering and financial consulting services for the preparation of feasibility studies, environmental assessments, fish and wildlife pro- tection measures, power marketing plans, financing plans, and ultimately, the application(s) to the FERC for a power project license and any water rights required by law. (3) Equal (three-way) sharing of the costs of the pre- license activities. Elements of Pre-license Program The program of activities for the 36-month term of the Preliminary Permit must include the studies and negotiations necessary to prepare and file an application for a power Board of Directors -3- project license. However, for reasons stated following, consideration should be given to proceeding with'the pro- gram in two phases. It should be recognized by all concerned that only a very rough reconnaissance type of analysis has so far been - made of the Junction Project. Furthermore, the program of activities leading to the application for license will in- volve costs of a very substantial nature. Therefore, it is suggested that a first phase of the program consist of a prefeasibi!ity study to assess the desirability of con- tinuation. If favorable results are obtained from the first phase, the second phase would address all of the matters up to and including the preparation of the formal application for a power project license. Prefeasibilit¥ Phase After execution of a joint powers agreement by the three participating agencies (organized as the "Kern River Power Authority"), the prefeasibility phase (Phase I) would consist of the conduct of a study of the Junction Project generally confined to the following activities: (1) Consultation with the Corps of Engineers to ob- tain any information available from their presently on- going study of additional storage possibilities on the Kern River. (2) A preliminary project layout utilizing presently available topographic information s~pplemented by'a pre- liminary site examination. Included would be preliminary identification and elimination, to the extent possible, of alternatives. (3) A preliminary water and power operation study, utilizing presently available hydrologic data, to estimate water and power yields. Operational criteria respecting stream maintenance flows and downstream flood control (Isabella Reservoir), irrigation and power operations will have to be assumed in advance of resolution of these matters with the responsible agencies. (4) Meetings and consultation with representatives of the U. S. Forest Service to develop a plan for alleviation of damage to, and achieving maximum utilization of, National Forest resources as they may be affected by the studies and investigations, to develop a "memorandum of agreement per- taining to requirements for fire prevention and control and ,Board of Directors -4- s- for alleviating injury to or destruction of Forest Service iands, resources, buildings, bridges, roads, trails and other improvements of the properties of the United States" as required by the FERC permit. ~-~ (5) A preliminary meeting with each of the principal power utility companies in the area, Southern California Edison Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to discuss possible terms of marketing and/or exchange of Junction Project power and potential power revenues. Also included would be consideration of transmission interconnection requirements. (6) A preliminary meeting with representatives of the Department of Fish and Game respecting flow require- ments for fish and.wildlife preservation. In this regard, the FERC preliminary permit includes a condition which~ requires development and submission of a program for fish and wildlife preservation studies which matter would be resolved in this preliminary meeting. (7) Preparation of preliminary estimates of capital and annual costs of the Project. Included would be develop' ment of preliminary plans for obtaining Project capital funding and estimates of the debt service costs thereof. (8) Preparation of a summary prefeasibility report containing preliminary findings respecting, the feasibility of Project financing and construction. Included in this ~ prefeasibility'report would be a refinement of the program · for the Phase II activities of the pre-license program out- lined later in this memorandum. Implementation of Phase I - It will be important to initiate and complete Phase I as rapidly as possible in order to maximize the time period within~the 36-month life of~the FERC permit, one month of which has already passed, for com- pletion of the several major activities of Phase II. It is believed that the Phase I prefeasibility report can be com- pleted within a period of about four.months following exe- cution of the joint powers agreement. Allowing for a period of one month to reach a decision regarding the implementation of Phase II and to finalize arrangements for funding the costs thereof, a time period of about 30 months would be available for the Completion of all matters included in Phase II, at which time the ap- plication would be filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a license. It is estimated that the cost of preparation of the prefeasibility study and report, including the various con- sultations with the power companies and fish and game rep- resentatives could be as much as $50,000. · .~ ~oard.of Directors -5- Feasibility/Application Phase The Feasibility/Application Phase (Phase II) would in- clude ali of the activities necessary to establish project feasibility, including plans for obtaining th~ necessary Capital funds and for servicing the resulting indebtedness. Also included, would be-the preparation of design plans in sufficient detail for the application for license; prepa- ration of environmental assessments and resolution of fish ~and wildlife preservation measures. The activities of this phase are outlined briefly following: (1) Detailed examination of sites of dam, reservoir, tunnel and powerhouse including preparation of detailed geologic mapping. It is believed that exploratory drilling and other subsurface exploration will not be necessary for the purposes of the feasibility designs and cost estimate. (2) Topographic mapping of the dam, reservoir, tunnel and power plant sites. This can be accomplished by aerial photogran~etric methods thereby limiting ground level activity to minimal control surveys. (3) Hydrologic studies to develop reliable information on the Project water supply for purposes of the water and power operation studies and also to provide the basis for design of the spillway and other river outlet works. (4) Follow-up meetings with the Corps of Engineers to coordinate Project operations with the flood control oper- ation at Lake Isabella. Also included, will be discussions of the possibility for inclusion of storage Capacity in Junction Reservoir for recreation purposes. The Corps has had under study for some time alternatives for additional storage capacity for this purpose. (5) Follow-up consultation with representatives of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State Department of Fish and Game to develop the program for studies required to evaluate Project effects on fish and wildlife and final resolution of required stream maintenance flows and other provisions relative to wildlife habitat preservation. (6) Follow-up meetings with representatives of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and/or Southern California Edison Company and finalization, to the extent possible, of ar- rangements for marketing.of the Project power and energy. ~' Boa~rd of Directors -6- Included will be consideration of wheeling and/or exchange arrangements whereby the Project yield might be utilized in the areas of the joint participants. Inquiries will also be made with the State 'Department of Water Resources and the Western Area Power Administration as possible alternative purchasers of the Project power and energy. (7) Preparation of environmental assessments as re- quired by Federal and State laws. Included'would be con- sultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer and the U. S. Heri%age Conservation and Recreation Service as required by the FERC permit. (8) Preparation of feasibility level Project design plans and estimates of capital and annual costs. Included would be resolution of design alternatives ~nd selection of the final Project plan subject to .any modifications which may be made during final design. Also included would be preliminary contacts with the State Supervision of Safety of Dams to assure that plans for .the Junction D~ will be generally in compliance with the Agency's requirements. (9) Additional power and water operation studies utilizing refined hydrologic data and operating criteria developed in the consultations with the purchasing entity or entities and with the Corps of Engineers .respecting downstream flood control. Also reflected will be the ob- jectives of the participating Kern River water agencies in achieving additional water conservation. Project yields of power and energy, including power benefits at existing downstream power developments of Edison and PG&E, and ad- ditional water conservation will be determined from these studies. (10) Additional studies to develop final Project financing plans and Project repayment analyses based upon estimates of Project water and power revenues and Project annual costs. (11) Preparation of a Project feasibililty repor't which will provide the basis for Project adoption bY the Project participants and further institutional.activities including Project election and initiation of financingI activities. (12) North Kern's legal counsel (Mr. Paulden) has ex- pressed the view that North Kern, because ofl the pre-1914 status of its water ~rights, has rather broad flexibility in the exercise of its rights. It appears that North Kern Board of Directors -7- an~ the other participants may already have the water rights ~tatus necessary fo~ construction and operation of the Junction Project. In any event, this activity will in- clude investigation of this matter and confirmation of Project water rights. (13)'Depending upon a favorable decision respecting Project adoption, preparation of an application to the FERC for a power project license. Implementation of Phase II - Depending upon favorable findings in the prefeasibility studies of Phase I, it will be important to initiate and pursue the activities in Phase II most expeditiously. Under the most favorable cir- cumstances, the accomplishment of the lengthy list of activities just presented within a time period of 30 months will be difficult. The consultations and resolution of matters with the Federal and State agencies will assuredly be time consuming. It should be recognized that much of the activity relating to them must proceed at their speed regardless~of good intentions and zealous efforts on behalf of the Permittee. At this time we do not have a reliable estimate of the total costs involved in the Phase II activity. The costs of the Phase II activities will be greatly influenced by the requirements of the Federal and State agencies, particularly respecting the studies and analyses of fish and wildlife re- sources, and the extent of these studies cannot be reliably estimated at ~this time. However, during the prefeasibility phase initial contacts with these agencies and with the power utility ~representatives should provide a basis for a re- liable estimate of.the Phase II costs.. At this time it should be anticipated that the costs of the Phase II activities ex- cludinq preparation of the application for license may ex- ceed an amount of about $200,000. As an example of the unknown cost factors, the FERC Permit requires the Permittee to install and maintain a stream gaging station or stations to the satisfaction of the U. S. Geological Survey for the purpose of obtaining Project Water supply data. There are existing gaging sta- tions on the North Fork of the Kern River but it is not known whether analyses of the historical data for these stations will provide the basis for water and power oper- ation studies acceptable to the USGS. program Management The implementation of the pre-license program for the Junction Project will require professional services, pri- marily in civil and hydraulic engineering of the type which Board of Directors -8- Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc., provides to clients in Kern County and elsewhere in California. Also involved will be specialized activities in hydroelectric power and large dams as well as in fish and wildlife and environmental as- pects with Which we are familiar but do not normally per- form in-house. In addition, there will be a need for legal and financing consulting services. We would propose to your Board and the governing bodies of the other Project participahts that Boo~man-Edmonston be assigned the responsibility for the overall management of the pre-license program. In this assigm~ent we would per- form the following functions: (1) Act as the program manager and coordinate the activities of the joint powers organization and its con- tacts with FERC, including reporting of progress semi- annually as required by the FERC Permit. (2) Conduct the prefeasibility study and prepare a report thereon. In this regard, Bookman-E~monston would obtain engineering assistance from a consulting firm which specializes in large hydro projects. (3) Depending upon the participants" decision follow- ing the prefeasibility study, Bookman-Edmonston would manage the activities necessary for the feasibility study and en- vironmental assessments. We would perform the portions of the engineering work for which we have in-house capability, arrange for outside services in specialized fields and pre- pare the feasibility report. (4) Conduct the contacts with the Federal and State agencies, plan the studies and investigations required to satisfy their requirements and develop criteria for Proj- ect operation studies reflecting requirements for stream maintenance flows. (5) Conduct-the contacts with the power utility rep- resentatives, develop plans for power marketing and/or ex- change and assist in the preparation of power'marketing and/or exchange contract(s). (6) Develop plans for allocation and/or marketing of the additional irrigation season water supplies de- · veloped through the operation of Junction Reservoir. (7) Prepare the application for license, including the various exhibits which will utilize much of the design 'data developed in the feasibility study. '*- ., KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY '~J~' ] ;51981' 4, 4114 Arrow Street. P.O. Box 58 Bakersfield, Car[fomia 93302 ' .. 13ireClo~: .. ' : ' '" ~..~ : ... ~,'~ J. E~ionFox ' Division 2 ~',Z .,, ,. -."~ r;:-/,;i,.' e.~.£m~,.".'..i:-,:; ' Hem~C. Gammt ' : ,'Dlvimen6 ' .. ': ..:-'~,. ,' ".. ,:,:: *: ' ':' :'.wi'-.,~ * · . '-' ..... ':.:"."': AugUSt 10~ 1981 ,...'.~.?:,' ,'-. .~. .. Nr. John Chafin, Nanager :. Department of Water ~' '" City of Bakersfield . · 4101 Truxtun Avenue .""- ",:i' .'"" " :' '"' ....... :' Bakersfield, CA 93301 · /, . ~;.~: '.'., . : . . ., · ,,"~ ,~,-" '",:':..~':'-":" RE: Agreement for ]Interim Use of 2800 Acre Spreading Area ~. ";-:~:.:'.i De~r John: '~?':"'i,~..",i'"'. ]'- '. i'.~!{' ',: ,- This will confirm our understanding concerning the spreading of ,. State Project-water in the City's 2800 acre spreading area pending the ~,i~, ~'~'. ~ii'."- execution of a formal agreement between the Kern County Water Agency and the City: -. 1. Commencing on the date that this interim agreement is approv- ed by the City, the Kern County Water Agency shall be entitled to spread upon the City's 2800 acre spreading area such State · Project water as the Agency may acquire for that purpose under its Contract with t~e State of California. City reserves the right to terminate this interim agreement by giving the Agency 48 hours written notice of intention to terminate. 2. It is. un~estood that the water sPread by the Agency pursuant to this interim agreement shall be spread for underground storage and shall be recoverable'by the Agency when, as, and at such times as it deems fit. Provided, that if at the time such water is recovereU by the Agency, the City .and the Agency have entered into a formal water spreading agreement then the water shall be recovereo under the terms and conditions more particularly set forth in that agreement. Provided further, that if at the ti~,e said ~'a;er is recovered, the parties have not entered into a formal ~'ater spreading agreement, the Agency shall pay a fee for the use cf the City's spreading area according to the City's hater sFreading fee schedule in effect at the time of such recover~. Mr.. hn Chafin Page Two August 10, 1981 '.." ;?; " '¥ ? 3. All water spread pursuant to this interim agreement ,ill be r , ' diverted from the Cross Valley Canal at any .appropriate turnout .... ":' 4. It is agreed and understood that the Agency shall indemnify, -'... defend (upon written request of the City), and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents from any and all loss, damage, liability., claims or causes of action of every nature ~ whatsoever from damage to or destruction of, or interference .-' -' with the use of ownership of property or from personal injury, ~::-~-. including that incurred by City's officers, employees, agents ~ / ~).~ ~ ~ ~ m~)~) arising, caused or resulting from the Agency's actions during : use of City's lands for the purposes herein authorized. Engineer-Manager APPROVED: John Chafin, Manager Department of Water City of Bakersfield Mr. Stuart Pyle Kern County Water Agency August 13, 1981 Page 5 AGREED 'AND APPROVED: DATE: Stuart Pyle Engineer-Manager Kern County Water Agency APPROVED: Jo~ E. Chafin, WateY/Manager City of Bakersfield APPROVED AS TO FOPS4: Richard Oberho!zer, City Attorney City of Bakersfield Ci~;~)f ~akersfield TRANSMITrA~ SLIP ~ Date.~ .................................... For Your:---L [] Signature [] Action [] Information I-! File Please :~ [] Return [] See Me [] Follow Up [] Prepare Answer Copy to: .5...~;~ ................................................................................... MelT]O: .~~:.~..~~ ........... ../~.. ....... ~ /~.~../.. ....... ~ .................. ..... ~......_..~ ....... ~~ ................. ..~.....~.....~...~~......~.~; ......... ........................ ~.,..~....,~....~ ....... DEPARTMENT OF WATER ~u~ust 1 9, 1 981 Mr. Stuart Pyle Engineer-Manager Kern County Water Agency 4114 Arrow Street, P 0 Box 58 Bakersfield, California 93302 RE: Interim Agreement for Use of 2800 Acre Spreading Area Dear Stu: In response to your letter of August lO, 1981 t'heCity of Bakersfield ("City'") is willing to agree to an interim arrangement which will permit the spreading of certain State Project Water in the City's 2800 acre spreading area pending the execution of a formal, long-term agreement between the Kern County Water Agency ("Agency") and the-City. The terms of this Interim Agreement have been specially formulated to accom- modate Agency on an interim basis because of the urgency expressed by the Agency of being able to spread imported State Project Water in the immediate future. Such terms shall not be a precedent for other City water spreading agreements or for a permanent agreement with the Agency. The arrangements and the condi-tions, under which, the interim spreading shall be permi, tted ar.e as follows: 1..Commencing on the date this I'nberim Agreement is executed by both the City'and the Kern County Water Agency-, the Agency shall be permitted: (a) Subject to prior notice and to the direction, supervision, and control of City, to enter City's lands for the purpose of constructing. water spreading facilities, including diversion structures and measuring devices. All such facilities and improvements shall be constructed at the sole expense of Agency and shall be and remain the property, of the City. (b) To spread such State Project water as the Agency may acquire for spreading under its contract with the State of California on the City?,s 2800 acre spreading area. 2. This permission is subject to the following conditions: .~ ,:. (a) The City reserves the right to terminate this Interim." Agreement by, gi. ving the Agency 48 hours, wrl%ten notice of intention to terminate. 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD, CAt. IFORNIA 933'01 · (805) 86:1-27t5 Mr. Stuart Pyle ~Kern County Water Agency August 19, 1981 Page Two (b) Recovery of the water spread by Agency hereunder shall be limited to the net amount of water placed in underlying storage. The City acknowledges the right of Agency to recover said water.- This Agreement, however, gives the Agency no right to the utilization of any wells on the City's 2800 acre spreading area for this purpose. Such use, if any, will have to be arranged by future supplemental agreement. (c) If City and Agency enter into a long-term water spreading agreement, said agreement may provide that water spread hereunder shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in said long-term agreement. (d) Agency shall pay to City a spreading fee for water spread pursuant to this Agreement in the amount of $4.37 per acre foot. In the alternative, and in lieu'of paying a spreading fee, the Agency shall have the right to pay an extraction fee for all or any part of the water spread in the said amount of $4.37 per acre foot. Provided that the payment of said spreading fee or extraction fee, as the case may be, shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) Said $4.37 per acre foot charge is subject to escalation until paid on the basis of the July 1, 1981 Price Index "All Commodities" classification for the Wholesale Price Indexes for major commodity group published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Adjustments will be made in January of each year. (2) If the Agency elects to pay a spreading fee, such fee shall be payable within thirty (30) days after the water has been spread upon receipt of a billing by the City. (3) If the Agency elects to pay an extraction fee, such extraction fee shall be due and payable'within thiri~y,i/(30) days after the water or any part thereof has been extracted, upon receipt of a billing from the City. {4) The obligation to pay the extracti'on fee provided for herein shall survive the termination of thi, s Agreement. (5) Unless the Agency otherwise notifies the City in~ writing prior to the time that the water is spread, it shall be deemed that the Agency has elected to pay a spreading fee. (e) All water spread pursuant to this Agreement wiq~l be diverted from the Cross Valley Canal at its turnout or turnouts and delivered to City's 2800 acre spreading area at no cost to City. (f) This Agreement. shall not be interpreted to limit in Mrs, StuaYt Pyle Kern C6unty Water Agency August 19, 1981 Page Three any manner any rights of City to spread in, recover, transfer, exchange, or convey City water from the City's 2800 acre spreading area without restriction. Agency agrees not to contest such rights of City. (g) Any and all rights created under this Agreement shall be subject to the City'.s reserved right to spread, percolate and later recover water from the City's.2800 acre spreading area and to the rights previously granted to the Olcese Water District and the Buena Vista Water Storage District by Agreement No. 77-07 W.B. as amended. (h) It is understood that the Agency does not intend to use or permit the use of water spread and extracted under this Agreement outside the boundaries of the Agency and that its policy in this respect is in harmony with the policy of the City. (i) Agency shall indemnify, defend ('upon written request of the City) , and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents from any and all loss, damage, liability, claims, or causes of action of every nature whatsoever from damage to or destruction of, or interference with the use of ownership of property or from personal injury including that incurred by City's officers, employees, and agents arising out of, caused, or resulting from the Agency's actions during use of City:s land for the purpose herein authorized. (j) If the City is compelled to. resort to li'tigat?on for performance of conditions of this Agreement,, including any payment to the City, court costs and attorneys~ fees shall be paid by Agency. {k) Agency shall be responsible for compliance with all federal, state and local regulations or restrictions. {1) In no event shall City be liable for any damage which may result f~om City's non-negl tgent' performance of any, orde, or di~rection to ft. (m) It is anticipated.that water will be extracted by. Agency, or' its assignee'~under this Agreement from wells owned {1 ) by AgencY', or (2) by, landowners within Agency"s boundaries, Or (3) by others. As a consequence, /~gency agrees to provide City,'by April 1st of each year, wl. th.. an annual report of pumping from all welis'owned or controlled in any way. by Agency., and all wells owned by others within the Agency., who have been assigned such'right to extract the water spread, or who have the right~ to extract the water spread, specifying~therefn the-amount of water stored- pursuant to this Agreement which has been extracted in the precedi'ng calendar yea,. - {n) City. shall be responsible for and shall mai~ntatn records · of all spreading 'and recovery of all such wate~ whenever extracted under thi's Agreement, Agency shall have access to Such records. Mr. Stuart Pyle ~Kern COunty Water Agency August 19, 1981 Page Four (o) This Agreement may not be transferred or assigned either voluntarily or involuntarily, by Agency to any other party without the prior written concent of City. (p) It is understood that this Agreement is an interim agreement only and that the parties hereto intend to enter into a long-term agreement within a reasonable time hereafter, but no later than six (6) months from the date hereof. If these terms are agreeable to you, please sign this letter as provided below and return it to us for acceptance by the Water Board. Very truly yours, ~ John E. Chafin, Manag'e~ Department of Water City of Bakersfield APPROVED AS TO FORM Richard Oberholzer, City Attorney City of Bakersfield AGREED AND AppR~ED Stuart T. ~e DATE: August 19~ 1981 Engineer-Manager· ~rn County ~ter Agenc~ APPROVED AND ACCEPTED ~mes Barton, Chairman DATE: August 19r 1981 Cityof Bakersffeld Water Board CALIFORNIA '~~ ~- DEPARTMENT OF WATER ~ August 21, 1981 Mr. Stuart Pyle ~'~C~V~D Engineer-Manager -Kern County Water Agency STP [] PDF [] 4114 Arrow Street, P.O Box 58 CER [] DKS [] ' AUG 241§8 ....... [] Bakersfield, California 93302 JLS ~ ........ [] RJG [] ....... [] Re, Interim Agreement for Use of Kern County Water Agency 2800 Acre Spreading Area Dear Stu: This letter is to acknowledge the fact that the City and Agency have entered into an Interim Spreading Agreement dated August 19, 1981, but that one portion of one section of that Agreement (Section 2(d)(3)), in which the City wishes to require the payment of an extraction fee in no event later than December 31, 1991, has not yet been agreed to. We are told that Agency has certain legal concerns regarding its powers to act in the terms stated. At the same time, City has constitutional concerns regarding the uncompensated use of its facilities. To complete the Interim Agreement and to facilitate actual spreading activity, the parties agree to add the following language to Section 2 (d)(3): "Both parties agree to negotiate in good faith to enter into a permanent agreement for water spreading that will also apply to water spread under the Interim Agreement and will provide for one of the following three alternatives: "(A). Agency shall agree that payment of the extraction fee shall occur not later than December 31, 1991; or "(B). Agency shall agree to pay the. spreading fee for all water spread within thirty (30) days after the mailing of a notice by City; or "(C). The matter will be handled otherwise as mutually agreed to by the parties in the permanent agreement. 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE · BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 · (8051 861-2715 ' Mr. Stuart Pyle Kern County Water Agency August 21, 1981 Page 2 "If the parties have not otherwise agreed to the resolution of the above within a six (6) month period from the date of this letter, City may give noticetto Agency of such fact and Agency shall thereupon inform City of its decision to proceed pursuant to either option (A) or (B) above within ten (10) days of receipt said notice. If no such decision is forthcoming from Agency, City shall determine which option to follow and notify Agency accordingly." If this understanding is acceptable to you, please sign the attached copy of this letter and return it to us for our files. This letter will thereupon become part of the August 19, 1981 Agreement. Very truly yours, James Barton, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board AGREED AND APPROVED: Stuart Pyle Engineer-Manager Kern County Water Agency Date: cc: Thomas M. Stetson Stetson Engineers, Inc. lll3-A--tms 810824 REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS RE PROPOSED JUNCTION POWER PROJECT Preliminary Cost Estimate:~/ Capital Costs Dam and reservoir $33,000,000 Tunnel 61,200,000 Power Plant 14,100,000 Subtotal: $108,~300,000 Contingencies, 20% 21,700,000 Engineering & Administrati0n,15% 16,300,000 Interest during construction 9,000,000 Total Project Capital Cost $155,300,000~F Costs:2_/ Annual 10%, 30 years 12%, 20 years Repayment of capital $16,474,200 $20,791,600 OM&RI_/ 1,000,000 1,000,000 Property taxes, 1% of capital cost 1,500,000 1,5~0,000 ~Insurance 150,000 ~0,000 Estimated Total $19,124,200 $23,441,600 Gross Annual Revenues:~/ Average annual energy generation: 251,000,000 kilowatt hours Revenue at $0.055 per kwh $13,805,000. ~ ~'~ Revenue at $0.075 per kwh $18,825,000. Summar~ of Costs versus Revenue: 10%, 30 ..years 12%, 20 years Annual costs/kwh $0.0762 $0.0934 Annual revenue/kwh 0.055 0.055 Annual deficiency/kwh $0.0212 $0.0384 Annual revenue/kwh $0.075 $0.075 Annual deficiency/kwh $0.0012 $0.0184 1_~ Bookman-Edmonston memo of 5/7/81 re: Updated Reconnaissance Analysis of Junction and Miracle-Cottonwood Projects. 2--/ Calculations and estimates by Stetson. .' "i~~ - - ~~-' lll3-A--tms 810824 F~_ F ,~ · T~OMAS' M. STETSON ~ REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS RE PROPOSED MIRACLE-COTTONWOOD POWER PROJECT Preliminary Cost Estimate.I/.- Capital Costs Diversion Dam $1,000,000 Tunnel 106,000,000 Power Plant 20,400,000 Cottonwood Dam 28,800,000 Cottonwood Power Plant 7,000,000 Subtotal $163,200,000 Contingencies, 20% 32,600,000 Engineering & Administration, 15% 24,500,000 Rights-of-way 2,000,000 Interest during construction 14,000,000 Total Project Capital Cost $236,300,000~ Annual Costs-2/.- 10%, 30 years 12%, 20 years Repayment of~capital 25,066,700 31,635,800 OM&R~/ 1,000,000 1,000,000 Property taxes, 1% of capital cost 2,360,000 2,360,000 Insurance 236,000 236,000 Estimated Total $28;662,700 $35,231,800 Gross Annual Revenues-1/._ Average annual energy generation: 266,000,000 kilowatt hours Revenue at $0.055 per kwh $14,630,000. Revenue at $0.075 per kwh $19,950,000 Summary of Costs versus Revenue: 10%, 30 years 12%, 20 years Annual costs/kwh $0.1077 $0.1325 Annual revenue/kwh 0.055 0.055 Annual deficiency/kwh ~0.0527 $0.0775 Annual revenue/kwh $0.075 $0.075 Annual deficiency/kwh ~0.0327 $0.0575 1_/ Bookman-Edmonston memo of 5/7/81 re: Updated Reconnaissance Analysis of Junction and Miracle-Cottonwood Projects. 2--/ Calculations and estimates by Stetson. MEMORANDUM TO: City Water'Board Ref. File: #1200-B City Water Department Staff ~l~lll~l~ FROM: George W. Nickel, Jr. DATE: July 13, 1981 SUBJECT: FOLLOW UP TO MEETING WITH CURLY BARTON AND GENE BOGART ON JULY llth At my. invitation Curly Barton met with me and Tom Clark of my organization on the morning .of July llth. In order to have City Water Department Staff input at the meeting, Curly also had Gene Bogart participate in the meeting. Gene's superior John Chafin was on vacation and not available. I had also attempted to include Tom Payne and Don Ratty in this get together; however, both of them were out of town on other matters. In any event~ I believe that we had a good meeting and exchange of ideas. At Curly's request, I am writing this memorandum to keep all of you up to date on our discussion and on the attached information that I passed out' to Curly and Gene at the July llth meeting. As the appointed representative of the 01cese Water District and as a long time member of the Kern County~Water Community, it is my sincere desire to work with all of you on a constructive program that will bring in supplemental water to benefit the City of Bakersfield and all of Kern County. In addition, look forward to suggesting and working with programs on conjunctive water use and exchanges that are in the best interest of the Kern County Economy. I do hope that you will find my ideas to be constructive and workable. As a point of beginning, I will first refer to the information passed out .to Curly and Gene. 1, You will find attached my memorandum of July loth to Curly entitled Proposed Agency Program on the City's 2800 acre Spreading Area. I believe that my most important suggestion for the City Wa'ter Board is to deal directly with the Kern County Water Agency on bringing supplemental California Aqueduct water into the City's spreading area. I believe that this will be a far more workable program than dealing separately with the Agency's. Member Units. I feel that if you put the responsibility on the Agency, the Agency will come up with a program that will work for its Member Units and not involve the City on how to reach that agreement. On the matter of supplemental California Aqueduct water, I can accurately report that Ron Robie and his staff at the Department of Water Resources have no intention of dealing with any entity in Kern County other than the Agency. The other point of importance that I make in the memorandum to Curly, is that to deal with the Agency, I feel Page 2. that the City will want to work with an extraction charge ratherX-than a spreading charge. I believe that your staff and your consulting engineer Tom Stetson recognize the importance of this contention. 2. You will also find attached a draft of what I have entitled Water Spreading and Recovery Agreement. You will note that this incorporates much of the language in your draft of a Master Spreading Agreement that has been sent out to a number of water districts for comment; however, there are some very basic differences that I will note below. (a) As noted in my memorandum to Curly, I suggest that this-agreement should only be between the City and the Agency rather than with a n.umber of separate districts that must necessarily deal through the Agency. I feel that it will be simpler and more workable in every way for the City to have to deal only with the Agency. (b) I have set forth an extraction charge rather than a spreading charge. This i's necessary in order to make the program work for the Agency's Member Units such as Wheeler Ridge, Berrenda Mesa, Belridge, Lost Hills and Semitropic. (c) I have suggested that the City and its prior Contractors should always have a prior position on both water spreading'and extraction from the City's spreading area. (d) I have suggested that all further physical improvements in the City's spreading area should be taken on by the Agency. I do not anticipate that it will be difficult to get a commitment from the Agency on this point. It will certainly be in the best interest of the City and its prior Contractors to do so. Regarding my suggestions, I am sure that Curly will be reporting directly to you; however, I can state that Curly thought that there would be merit in my encouraging the Agency to directly make this type of proposal to the City Water Board. To begin with, Curly further suggested that this should be handled somewhat informally so that there can be a further exchange of ideas before a form of agreement is actually pFesented at either the Agency or the City Water Board. 3. You will find attached a copy of my letter of July 7th. to Ron Robie, Director of the Department of Water Resources. As reported in my memorandum to Curly, I felt that I had a very satisfactory meeting on July 7th with Ron Robie and five (5) key members of his staff. To really make a conjunctive use water program in the City's spreading area, it does seem indicated that a physical means of getting the water out of the spreading area in a water short year is extremely important. As long as the State is willing to accept into the Aqueduct for distribution Page 3. well w~ater from the City's spreading area, we have a conduit that wi'll really work for getting water to such Agency Member Units as Wheeler Ridge, Belridge, Berrenda Mesa, Lost Hills and Semitropic. Quite frankly, Ron Robie would prefer to have the State handle the surplus £alifornia Aqueduct water program and to use it as part of the State Water Project yield which would mean that water conserved in the underground for later use would benefit all State Project Contractors rather than just Kern County. I assured Ron Robie this would be totally unacceptable to Kern County. When I left the meeting with Ron Robie, I was satisfied that he would agree that the Kern County Water Agency's regulation of surplus water Aqueduct water by underground recharge and later recovery should be for the benefit of only Kern County. I know that the present Agency Board of Directors feel very strongly on this point and will take a very positive position on it with the State. I do hope that I will have the opportunity to meet informally with City Water Board members and City Water Department Staff further on this overall subject~ I understand that there will not be a City Water Board meeting on July 15th, but that one will ~be likely scheduled on July 22nd. Prior to that time, I welcome the opportunity to meet with any or all of you. As I told Curly, my primary objective is to assist the City Water Board and its prior Contractors in having a fully workable and economic program in the City's spreading area on conservation and recovery of water for the City of Bakersfield. As long as we have satisfactory assurance that'tbe City and its prior Contractors have a priority position on the spreading and recovery of water, it will be important to work with the water community generally for enchancement of water supplies and the economic regulation of them. I look forward to hearing from any of you who would like to discuss this overall subject and the implementation of it. GWN: rj p c- Curley Barton Tom Payne Richard Oberholzer Phil Kelmar Tom Stetson John Chafin Gene Bogart MEMORANDUM TO: Curly Barton Ref. File FROM: George W. Nickel, Jr. DATE: July 10, 1981 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AGENCY PROGRAM ON THE CITY'S 2800 ACRE · SPREADING AREA Reference is made to the Master Spreading Agreemen.t which was distributed at the Water Board meeting on June 24th. At your June 24th meeting the Water Board approved sending this Draft.of Water Mas~er Spreadi~ng Agreement to a number of entities that have indicated interest in a spreading and recovery program in or adjacent to the City spreading area.. I had an opportunity to look at this draft of agreement shortly before the meeting on June 24th. Consequently, I noted my concern to the Water Board t~at there was nothing in the draft of agreement that would permit entities spreading water in the City's 2800 acres to extract water by wells in the 2800 acres. I noted that the agreement really only seemed to have ~potential value for entities immediately adjacent to the City spreading area. The possible benefitting entities would appear to be the James Pioneer Improvement District of North Kern which covers land largely owned by Tenneco and the West Kern County Water District and possibly the Rosedale District. I noted that the entity that could do the most for bringing surplus Aqueduct water into the City spreading area was the Agency, which is the only entity in Kern County that has license to deal with the State of California on Aqueduct water. I went on to note that there are a number of Agency Member Units that would like to work through the Agency for a conjunctive use program which would necessarily include the right of water extraction from the City'~s spreading area. After bringing these things to the attention of the Water Board, your staff and your con~sultants, Tom Stetson spoke forth and stated that he anticipat.ed that the Agency and other entities would want the right of extraction from the City spreading area. However, language was inadvertently. or otherwise left out of the agreement. Tom Stetson went on to say that he would recommend that any entity interested in setting up for water extraction should so indicate to the Water Board. It seemed agreed that this type of extraction program would be given consideration by the Water Board. Since the June 24th Water Board meeting, I have had the opportunity to discuss this subject further with Tom Stetson, John Chafin and Gene Bogart. There does definitely .seem to be agreement among them that water extra,ction should be included in the Water Spreading Agreement. I have followed up this'contact with several meetings with Agency staff and directors. I think that I have come up with a program that should be of mutual interest to both the City and the Agency. Moreover, it is a program that should find endorsement from the City's prior Contractors, namely Olcese and Buena Vista. Attached you will find a copy of my draft of a Water Spreading and Recovery Agreement between the City and the Agency. In this Agreement, you will'note that the priority position on both spreading and extraction of water is preserved for the City and its prior Contractors. You will also note ~that the Agency will act for and on behalf of its Member Units. This means that the City will only have to deal with the Agency and not with the Member Units of the Agency. The Agency will have the responsibility of coming up with an overall program and the City will be able to stay out of the politics of how this may be achieved. One of the most important points that I have tried to ~make to the Agency has to do with th~ physical facilities that will be necessary in the City spreading area. I feel that the City and Olcese already hive facilities that have done a good job at spreading a large amount of water. It is my contention that if the Agency is to come in on behalf of itself and its Member Units that all additional spreading facilities costs should be passed on to'the Agency. After talking to a number of the Agency Member Units, I have satisfied myself that it will not be difficult to put this point over. I will also want to again stress that it is my concept that the City and its prior Contractors will at all times hav. e a priority on spreading capacity and recovery facilities. The recovery of water from ithe City spreading area is a matter that I have given much thought to. This has resulted in my meeting with the Director of the Department of Water Resourc'es of the State, Ron Robie on July 7th. You will find' attached a copy of my July 7 letter to Ron Robie. You will note that ~l have asked for the Agency to have the right to convey water into the California Aqueduct from wells in the City spreading area. The California Aqueduct can then be a conveyance facility to reach the lands of the Agency's Member Units that can be served off of the California Aqueudct. I can report to you that I had a very satisfactory meeting with Ron Robie and 5 key members of his staff. I look forward to further discussion with you on this subject at our meeting on July llth. GeOrge W. Nickel, Sr. ~20,0 l~2<e khng Rood ,' ~, ~o ~:c-,.'s Annex ..... · ..... q~6 ~ Te:eF.t-.cne 8q5,'~1 JUL 1 3 lOffi J u 1 y 7 1 9 8 1 "' ¥ ~ ~'~E~:'~ Ron Robie, Director Department of Water Resources State of California State Capitol Sacramento, California Dear Ron: I very much appreciate your setting aside a few minutes to meet with-me this afternoon. As you know, I have been very act;ye in ~he Ke.n ~cunty Water ~m,,,unity. , think the record will show mat I have made ?os;t~ve centribut~ons ~n the past. i would ilke co work with you and the State of California in making some positive contributions in the future for the mutual benefit of the State and Kern County. At present, I am working closely with the City of Bakersfield on the development of :ts 2800 acre spreading area along the Kern River on conjunctive water use programs. As a point of beginning, we have a program for spreading high flow Kern River Water Rights for recovery on a regulated basis. In doing so, an evaluation has been made by the engineering firm of Ricks, Taylor S Meyers on the potential spreading capacity of the City's 2800 acre spreading area. This evaluation indicates that under properly controlled conditions in excess of 400,000 acre feet can be spread in a given year for subsequent recover'! by wells to be installed in the area. This is substantially more spreading capacity than what is required to regulate our high flow Kern River water rights; consequently, it has become apparent that there is a good opportunity to also spread surplus California Aqueduct water when it 'is available. Such spreading can be accomplished by both direct spreading off the Cross Valley Canal and by some exchanges of Kern River water for California Aqueduct water. I look forward to giving you a little more detail on how these programs can be physically accomplished. When we encounter a d~v year like 1977, there is presently great urgency to have a supplemental supply of water to augment the limited flow available in the California Aqueduct. Even if the Peripheral Canal is constructed, it appears that there will be years '..:~en supplemental water will be required to meet the contracted amounts of water that the Kern County ~4ater .Agency. purchases from the State for its Member Units. 7-13-81 cc:w/attach. S. Hatch, T. Stetson, G. Bogart, F. Core No~; making the assumption that there is a well .organized ',~preading program on the City's 2800 acres, we will have a supply of water to draw on in a year of low yield on the California A~ueduct. The next question is how do we get portions of that water supply to Member Unit Districts of the Kern County Water Agency lying along the California Aqueduct such as the Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District, the Belridge Water Storage District, the Berrenda Mesa Water District, the Lost Hills Water District and the Semitropic Water District. I have given this ~ubject substantial thought and have concluded that a delivery of good quality well water into the California Aqueduct out of the Buena Vista Aquatic Park will be a practical physical solution. It is'this particular program that I look for- ward to discussing with you this afternoon. It is proposed' that the well water be pum.ped from wells in the City's spreading area. Such wells will discharge into what we refer ~o as the River Canal which is a concrete lined canal with a.capacity of some 700 cfs that discharges into the Buena Vista Aquatic Park. With very little work, water can be passed from the Buena Vis~'a Aquatic Park into the ............. ~ w~t~r [~ receive6 into the California Aqueduct, it will merely be a bookkeeping pro- cedure for getting a like amount of water from the California Aqueduct delivered to Member Units of the Kern County Water Agency ~hat I made reference to earlier. I think we have a physical solution here that works to the mutual advantage of the State and the Kern County Water Agen.cy on behalf of its Member Units. Through your cooperation in 1977, there actually was some well water pumped into the California Aqueduct from wells in the Wheeler Ridge- Maricopa Water Storage District for water credit and delivery; however, it was a very limited program as com- pared to the one that I :ihave described above. Incldentally, another benefit from the program that ! have described will be found at the Buena Vista Aquatic Park. It will assure a supply and good circulation of water through the Buena Vista Aquatic Park even in a dry year like 1~77. As I am sure you know, the Buena Vista Aquatic Park is the most popular publlc recreation facility along the California Aqueduct in the ian Joaquin Valley. A positive reaction from you to the program that I have outlined, and will discuss further with you, will be of great benefit to the Kern County Water Community. As noted, I am working closely with the City of Bakersfield to maximize use'of its 2800 acre spreading area. I am also working directly with the Kern County Water Agency and a number of its Member Units. I would 1. ike to carry the word back to all concerned that the State will look favorably upon the program that I have suggested. It is clear to me that this program will make much better use of surplus California Aqueduct water when it is available in a year like 19~1. Sincerely, . -. georg~ W Nickel, Jr. GWN: rj p MEMORANDUM TO: Curly Barton Ref. File FROM: George W Nickel, Jr. DATE: July 10, 198! SUBJECT: PROPOSED AGENCY PROGRAM ON THE CITY'S 2800 ACRE SPREADING AREA Reference is made 'to the Master Spreading Agreement which was distributed at the Water Board meeting on June 24th. At your June 24th meeting the Water Board approved sending this Oraft of Water Master Spreading Agreement to a number of entities that have indicated interest in a spreading and recovery program in or adjacent to the City spreading area.. I had an opportunity to look at this draft of agreement shortly before the meeting on June 24th. Consequently, I noted ~Y concern to the Water Board t~at there was nothing in the draft of agreement that would permit, entities spreading water in the City's 2800 acres to extract water by wells in the 2800 acres. I noted that the agreement really only seemed to have potential value for entities immediately adjacent to the City spreading area. The possible benefitting entities would appear to be the James Pioneer Improvement District of North Kern which covers land largely owned by Tenneco and the West Kern County Water District and possibly the Rosedale 0istrict. I noted that the entity that could do the most for bringing surplus Aqueduct water into the City spreading area was the Agency, which is the only entity in Kern County that has license to deal with the State of California on Aqueduct water. I went on to note that there are a number of Agency Member Units that would like to work through the Agency for a conjunctive use program which would necessarily include the right of water extraction~from the City's spreading area. After bringing these things to the attention of the Water Board, your staff and your consultants, Tom Stetson spoke forth and' stated that he anticipated that the Agency and other entities would want the right of extraction from the City spreading areal However, language was inadvertently or otherwise left out of the agreement. Tom Stetson went · .. on to say that he would recommend that any entity interested ,,: in setting up for water extraction should so indicate to · ~,-.' the Water Board. It seemed agreed that this type of 'i:' extraction program would be given consideration by the Water '~- Board. . ,:" Since the June 24th Water Board meeting, I have had the ":"- opportunity to discuss this subject further with, Tom Stetson, John Chafin and Gene Bogart. There does definitely seem to be agreement among them that w~ter extraction should be incluc~d in the Water Spreading Agreement. I have followed up this' contact with several meetings with Agency staff and directors. I think that I have come up with a program that should be of mutual interest to both the City and the Agency. Moreover, it is a program that should find endorsement from the City's prior Contractors, namely 01cese and Buena Vista. Attached you will find a copy of my draft of a Water Spreading and Recovery Agreement between the City and the Agency. In this Agreement, you will note that the priority position on both spreading and extraction of water is preserved for the City and its prior Contractors. You will also note that the Agency will act for and on behalf of its Member Units. This means that the City will only have to deal with the Agency and not with the Member Units of the Agency. The Agency will have the responsibility of coming up with an overall program and the City will be able to stay out of the politics of how this may be achieved. One of the most important points that I have tried to make to the Agency has to do with th~ physical facilities that will be necessary in the City spreading area. ! feel that the City and Olcese already have facilities that have done a good job at spreading a large amount of water. It is my contention that if the Agency is to come in on behalf of itself and its Member Units that all additional spreading facilities costs should be passed on to the Agencyt After talking to a number of the Agency Member Units, I have satisfied myself that it will not be difficult to put this point over. I will also want to again stress that it is my concept that the City and its pYior Contractors will at all times have a priority on spreading capacity and recovery facilities. The recovery of water from'the City spreading area is a matter that I have given much thought to. This has resulted in my meeting with the Director of the Department of Water Resources of the State, Ron Robie on July 7th. You will find attached. a copy of my July 7 letter to Ron Robie. You will note that I have asked for the Agency to have the right to convey water into the California Aqueduct from wells i~the City spreading area. The California Aqueduct can.thenh~ea conveyance facility to reach the lands of the Agency's Member Units that can be served off of theLC~.lifornia Aqueudct. I can report to you that I had a very ~ meeting with Ron Robie and 5 key members of his staff. I look forward to. further discussion with you on this subject at our meeting on July 11th. ?DRAFT OF CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (City) and . KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY '(Agency) entlted: WATER SPREADING AND RECOVERY AGREEMENT WHEREAS: A. The City owns approximately 2800 acres of land overlying the Kern County Groundwater Basin, hereinafter referred to as "City Spreading Area", which lands are set forth on a map entitled Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein; B. City has entered into Agreement No. 77-07 W.B. dated November 9, 1977, which Agreement has been amended as- set forth' in Agreement No. 78-12 W.B. dated June 27, 1978 and Agreement no. 81-7~, dated ~prll 15, !981. Ali of the above said Agreements are jointly referred to herein as the "Basic Spreading Agreements"; C. From time to time City has spreading capacity excess to its own needs on City Spreading Area, and excess to requirements of its prior Contractors under the Basic Spreading Agreement, hereinafter referred to as I'Excess Spreading Capacity". D. Agency is the Contractor with the State of California for itself and all Oistrlcts in Kern County for California .Aqueduct water. On behalf'of itself and the Oistricts that it contracts for, Agency wishes .to increase and maximize the use of California Aqueduct water for the benefit of the Kern County Water Community.. E. To better accomplish its purposes, Agency wlshes to contract with City for the Use of surplus capacity, in City's spreading area for the spreading and subsequent recovery of water for beneficial use. F. Subject to the City and its prior' Contractors. having at all times the first priority on use of spreading capacity, and water recovery facillties, City is willlng to permit Agency on behalf of itself and its contracting Oistricts' to use excess spreading capacity and to subsequently recover water for beneficial use subject to appropriate financial conditions and arrangements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AMONG THE PARTIES as follows: 1. FACILITY CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND FINANCING. (a) City and its prior Contractors already have a spreading program and facilities to handle the spreading of large quantities of water. Agency agrees at its cost to improve and increase the spreading capacity in City's spreading area in order to a~commodate not only the water of City and its prior Contractors, but also water that Agency wishes to spread in the ar, ea on behalf of itself and the Districts re- presented by Agency. Agency agrees to follow the plans that - have been developed for City by, Ricks, Taylor & Associates in i-ncreasin'g the spreading capacity in City's spreading area. Agency shall reimburse City for any payments City has made to Ricks, Taylor & Associates fo~ the engineering studies and for the related aerial survey. Agency will not be required to reimburse City or its prime Contractors for spreading work and facilities constructed prior to date of this Agreement. In order to implement this program as rapidly as possible, Agency will not be required inltlally to install all of the controls and facilities set forth in the Ricks, Taylor & Associates plans. By written agreement with City, Agency can work toward a scheduled program. If there should be such a program, it will be attached to this Agreement and made a part hereof. (b) When Agency spreads water in the future, Agency shall pay its proportionate share of the annual cost to spread water as the amount of such waters spread shall bear to the total water spread in any given calendar year. Agency shall work directly with City on the annual operation and maintenance program. City shall have the control of decisions on maintenance work to be carried out and City shall be reimbursed for administrative expense. (c) Because the City and its prior contractors · are to a substantial extent relying upon high flow Kern River entitlement for spreading water, it is difficult to predicK the years and times that such water will be available for spreading; however, Agency acknowledges and agrees that these and any other waters of City and its prior Contractors will at all times have a priority for spreading such water over and above that of Agency and the Districts contracting with Agency. Aside from this stipulation, Agency will have the right to use excess spreading capacity in City's spreading area. Agency agrees to notify City when Agency has water for spreading. Agency agrees to establish measuring devices satisfactor~ to City for the measurement of Agency water flowing into City'~ spreading area. Agency agrees to.terminate spreading to the extent that City or its prime Contractors have a need for the available s~reading capacity or a portion thereof at any particular time 2. OPERATION AND USE OF LAND AND FACILITIES (al Agency may spread water obtained from the California Aqueduct or Kern River water obtained by exchange for California Aqueduct water. (bi Recovery of water bY Agency will be limited to the net amount of water placed in underlyi'ng storage. In any given calendar year, Agency will be restricted to recovery of no more than 50~ of the'Agency w~ter in underground storage at the beginning of that particular calendar year. (c) At locations having the-prior approval of City, Agency may install wells and pumps in City's spreading area. Without prior written approval of City, water recovered by Agency may be used for agricultural purposes only. Agency may use for conveyance purposes either the Cross Valle~ Canal and/or the River Canal. To the extent that Agency.wishes to use the River ~anal, prior notice shall be given to City. City at all times will maintain priority of use of the River Canal for the City and those entities having a present'right of use. Subject to those restrictions, City will permit Agency to use the River Canal subject to paying a use charge for the Canal similar to what City will " ' charge to its prior Contractors 'when they make use of the Canal. (d) City will own wells and pumps in City's spreading area installed by City's prior Contractors. Agency will own wells and pumps at locations authorized by City. To maximize efficiency of well use and control of underground water levels, City will retain control of the wells to be utilized during times when full well production is not required to meet the needs of City, its prior Contractors and Agency. Cost of well operation will be calculated 0M&R on each installed well and pump. City will be responsible for determination of OM&R costs and they will be assessed to the authorized users under the terms of this Agreement. EXTRACTI0" FEc In addition to other '~ayments required under this Agreement, Agency shall pay to the City the following noted extraction fees~ (a) For water extracted from City's spreading area the same extraction charge to be assessed to Agency's prior Contractors, which at the present time is per acre foot. (b) The above noted extraction charge is subject to escalation on the basis of the'July 1, 1981 Price Index "Ali Commodities" classifications for the Wholesale Price Indicies for Major Commodity'Group published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Adjustments will be made in January of each year. (c) It is recognized that some of the Districts that the Agency will be contracting for will have the Agency spread water in the City's spreading area, but will recover such water from wells in their adjacent or nearby District areas. Agency agrees to notify City when this will be scheduled to occur. Extraction charges will then be made at the same rate noted above to the Agency when the contracting Districts pump their wells for water recovery. Such Districts are to furnish the Agency and the City with an annual report of pumPing from all well'~ o'~ed or controlled by such Districts and all wells owned by landowners within such districts, specie, lng therein the amount of water stored pursuant to this Agreement which has been extracted, in the preceedlng calendar year. Agency shall furnish proof satisfactory to City that such District's are balancing their underground water take by imported water acquired through Agency and/or by water acquired from other sources.