Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/81 AGENDA WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 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 January 14, 1981. 2. Scheduled Public Statements. 3. Correspondence Incoming: a) Letter from Michael R. Rector' (Consulting Geologist to Water Board) dated January 9, 1981. b) Letter from Gilbert Castle, Manager, Kern Delta Water District dated January 16, 1981 in response to City's inquiry to Kern Delta/North Kern exchange. ~ c) Letter from Ken Wegis, Chairman, Kern County Water Districts Advisory Committee dated January 8, 1981, regarding a proposed program to enhance the water supply to Kern County. 4. Report on Improvement District #4 Advisory Committee tour of Kern River facilities on Friday, January 16, .1981. 5. 'Staff Comments 6. Board Comments 7. Adjournment MINUTES WATER BOARD - CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 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 Staff Present: Bogart, Celedon, Chafin, Core, Hatch, Hawley, Hostmyer, Matsinger, Stetson Others Present: Bob Bellue, District Engineer Kern County Water Agency Mary Collup, District Manager Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District Tom Clark, Nickel Enterprises Chris Garren, River West Dean Gay, Olcese Water District Gail Schontzler, The Bakersfield Californian C.H. Williams, Enginccr-Mc~l~agcr North Kern Water Storage District The minutes from the regular meeting of November 19, 1980, were approved as presented. Letter dated January 13, 1981, addressed to the Water Board from Paul E. Enns, President of Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage Dis- trict regarding the agreement with the City of Bakersfield 'to sell 100,000 acre feet of stored ground water was presented to the board. Mr. Ratty made a motion that the letter be received and referred to staff. The motion was passed.~ Letter dated January 14, 1981, addressed to the Water Board from Stuart T. Pyle, Engineer-Manager of the Kern County Water Agency regarding the possible change of the Water Board meetings to Thursday at 4:00 P.M. was presented to.the board. The letter was deferred to be discussed along with item six (6) on the agenda. North Kern Water Storage District letter regarding proposed Cawelo Water District/North Kern Water Storage District exchange agreement dated December 2, 1980, was presented to the board for consideration. After the letter was outlined by Water Manager Chafin, a letter dated December 9, 1980,~from James J. Barton, Chairman of the Water Board addressed to the Board of Directors of North Kern W~tcr Storage Distric~ regar¢l.i~,j Cawelo Water District/North Kern Exchange Agrucment was prusentcd to the board. After discussion between board and staff Mr. Oberholzer made a motion that the letter be signed by the Chair- man and sent to the board of directors of the North Kern Water Storage District. The motion was passed. Request for assignment of the following City water contracts now held by Tenneco to the James Pioneer Improvement District of the North Kern Water Storage District: a) Assignment of Tenneco portion (82.5%) of Kern Tulare Water District basic contract to James Pioneer Improvement District. b) Assignment of Tenneco water purchased from City (100,000 acre feet "in place") per agreement 80-24 W.B., to be assigned from Tenneco to James Pioneer Improvement District. Mr. Hatch at this time stated that the Assignments should be approved suject to the following conditions: 1) The water Which is the subject of the assignment shall be used for irrigation purposes only; and 2) shall not be used outside the boundaries of the James Pioneer Improvement DiStrict of the North Kern Water Storage District. After discussion Mr. Oberholzer made a motion that the Assign- ments be approved with.the conditions that Mr. Hatch indicated. The motion was passed. Consider Water Board meetings to be changed from Wednesday at 4:00 P.M. to Thursday at 4:00 P.M. to eliminate possible con- flicts with City Council meetings. After a briuf discussion, item number six (6) was withdrawn from the agenda. Mr. Oberholzer made a motion that the regular.meetings of the City of Bakersfield Water Board be held on Wednesday at 4:00 P.M. at the Department of Water Conference R6om located at, 4101 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, The motion was passed. Transfer of $90,000.00 from Agricultural Water Enterprise Budget to the City General Fund waspresentedto the board for action. These funds were budgeted for transfer to the General Fund in'current fiscal year. A memorandum from John Chafin to Mr. Kelmar was presented regarding the details of the transfer, At this time Mr. Kelmar stated that he felt the public should be made aware at the next City Council meeting that the funds to be transferred are to repay the general fund for acquistion costs associated with the purchase of the Kern River rights and properties. Mr. Kelmar made a motion that the transfer of funds be approved. The motion was passed. Mainline Extension Agreements for various Tract and Parcel Maps within the Ashe Water System fourteen (14) in all were presented to the board for acceptance. Mr. Ratty made a motion that the _ agreements be accepted. The motion was passed. staff Comments At this time Consulting Attorney Stanley C. llatch brought Qbe board up-to-date on the Olcese negotiations. At this time a letter addressed to Mr. Gilbert H. Castle, General Manager of Kern Delta Water District from James J. Barton regard- ing the Kern Delta 1981 Extra 'Surplus State Water Project Exchange was presented to the board. Mr. Oberholzer made a motion that the letter be signed by the Chairman and distributed as indicated. The motion was passed. At this time C. H. Williams, Engineer-Manager of the North Kern Water Storage District brought the board up-to-date on the Cloud Seeding Program. There being no further ~usiness to come before the board, Chairman Barton adjourned the meeting at 4:45 P.M. ~-t~on,~Cha±rman C~t~ of Bakersf£eld ~ater Board Liffda Hostmyer, Sec~tary City of Bakersfield Water Board MI'CHAE~- R. RECTOR. INC. 1415 18th Street, Suite 708 Water Resources Consultant Bakersfield. CA 93301 Geology and Hydrology 805 / 322-8206 Agricultural Draihage Groundwater Quality Water Supply ]anuary 9, T9811 City of Bakersfield Department of Water 1501 Truxtun Avenue - Bakersfield, CA 93301 .. ATTN: Mr. ]ohn Chafin, Manager Re: Environmental Protection Corporation Eastside Disposal Farm Review of Data -_-.-::. Dear John: I have revie~ed the E.I.R. prepared by the Kern County Planning Depart- ment and the pualic con~nents related thereto, as well as the Planning Department Staff Report dated December 11, 1980. I also visited the site. In sunlnary, I would like to report the following: 1. lhe State Water Resources Control Board has stated that waste now being a6cepted at the site exceeOs the flow limitation of Order 79-51. 2. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board will set new requirements regulating the existing site and the expansion area, subsequent to the County's approval of the expansion project. 3. It appears that the regulations set forth by the RWQCB and the related conferences normally held with the operator will provide adequate protection to the public on a routine basis. 4. I feel that the' pond design permits the opportunity for visual monitoring of potential leakage from the empoundments, within the property boundaries. 5. Although the disposal "farm" appeared to be more of a multiple evaporation basin operation, the ponOed mixtures that I observed did not appear to present a problem leading to widespread overland flooding in case of a levee rupture. 6. Evidence of heavy metals in the groundwater produced by an adjacent well was not examined by me. However, there have probably been opportunities for contamination from the other more ancient sources Eastsiue Disposal Farm Review Data )anuary 9, 1981 Page 2 in the same area. It must be remembered that contaminants, in groundwater normally move only a few feet each year. 7. It is my feeling that the regulatory agencies involved are on top of the situation. Future monitoring will no doubt be increased due to the participation of local special interest groups who are con- cerned. 8. If special public committees are formed to "evaluate" future rumors or "findings", a city water department representative should be involved. Respectful ly submitted, Michael R. Rector Water Resources ConsuFtant, Retained ~IRECTORS ,, McMURTREY ANO ETCHIrV£RR¥ S,~ANLEV ~. W,L",S. ".ES,O~.T KERN DELTA WATER DISTRICT FRANK GARONE, V~CE PRES~D£N? . HOWARD R. FRICK. SECREt'ARY BOYLE ENGINEERING MELVIN OESTEFANI. COMBINED OFFICER P.O. BOZ J65 CONSULTING ENGINEERS STANLEY ANTONGIOVANNI DEL KERN STATION ROBERT F. BOON BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93307 PHILLIP J. CERRO HALE COSTERISAN. TELEPHONE (805) 834-4653 THOMAS HURLBUTT GILBERT CASTLE. JR.. GENERAL MANAGER GENE MCMURTREY. ASST. SECY. LUCIA HARRIS. ASST. TAX COLLECTOR - ASST. 5£CY. January 16, 1981 James J. Barton, Chairman City of Bakersfield Water Board 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Barton: This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1981 objecting to the principle of the establishment of a "bank account" by Kern Delta Water District of its extra surplus state water in North Kern Water Storage District spreading works. Your main concern appears to be not so much with our objectives, but with the technical aspects of the pay back feature. I accept the fact that there may be penetrating questions that should be jointly resolved and I will be more than happy to participate in deliberations of this nature. For your information we operated the now completed program in question on a "real time" basis, banking no water and thereby honoring your concerns. Our experiment resulted in the importation of 500 acre feet into Kern County that would otherwise have been diverted into San Francisco Bay. We forsee the possibility of a greatly expanded program in the future with relatively minor modification of existing transportation works. Kern Delta Water District GHC/leh 1 -19-81 cc: Mr. Milo Hall Mr. Chuck Williams cc: J. 8art0n Mr. Wallace Houchin I. Payne Mr. Harold Russell D. Ratty Mr. Stanley Willis R. 0berh0lzer Mr. Tom Hurlbutt P. Ke]mar Mr. Stuart Pyle I. Stetson $. Hatch MEMO '~ (~ ~i'~ ~ JAN g, 0 1981 Ci IT OF BAKE;~SFI£LD DEPARTMENT OF WAT~ January 8, 1981 To: Chairmen of all Kern County Water Organizations Attention: Mr. James J. Barton Bakersfield Water Board City of Bakersfield 1501Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Curly: 'In response to suggestions from some.of the water organizations we have formalized a draft of a proposed program to increase the dependability, as well as the total supply, of water to Kern County. I would appreciate your review and your suggestions, as well as your interest in participating in such a program, as soon as possible. Very.~ruly yours, 7508 E1 Verano Drive Bakersfield, CA 93309 Enc; 1-20-81 cc: S. Hatch T. Stetson DRAFT - 1/8/81 .The realization that the State is unable to deliver its long term contractual supplies of firm water to Kern County, the'severe shortages in these deliveries experienced in the recent dry years, and the availability of large amounts of surplus water during the wet years of 1979 and 1980, have led a committee headed by Kenneth Wegis to devise a plan to assist in meeting Kern County's short term water supply needs. This plan is intended to fill the breach until additional water from the Peripheral Canal and other sources such as the Marysville project become a reali.ty. Political and admin- istrative actions~at the Federal level show that there is little likelihood of obtaining additional Federal water for the Central Valley Project service area. In addition, this plan is obviously compatible with and an essential element of any future water program. The objectives of this plan are as follows: {1} Provide for the near-future stabilization and improved conditions-of groundwater in Kern County's San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin, including State_, Federal and local water service areas, (2) Provide dry year water supplies for those districts de- 'pending entirely on State water and which do not have underground supply. (3) Minimize dry year crop losses in the non groundwater districts of the State service area. (4) Provide savings in energy costs of pumping water from the underground. (5) Show the detractors (as well as the supporters) of irrigated agricu]ture that we are taking additional positive steps in water resources management. Recent experience, roger.her with detailed studies by the Bookman- Edmonston engineering fi'm, confirm that substantial quantities of water which would otherwise waste to the ocean are available for diversion from the Delta during certain months of practically every year. This, plus the fact that water districts within the county cannot now absorb all of the water supplies occasionally availab]e from Kern River, the Central Valley Project and other sources, indicate that a cooperative program should be initiated to provide additional absorptive capacity'to retain this water within the county. This will require construction of an additional canal or canals extended eastward from the California Aqueduct, extension of existing irrigation distribution systems and construction of additional spreading grounds. Representatives of several of the water districts which do not have groundwater supplies have indicated an interest in the program. Subject to a determination that groundwater conditions would be improved and negotiation of appropriate financial arrangements, there is an indicated willingness by the groundwater areas to deliver some of their State water in dry years to the non groundwater areas and draw on the previously stored groundwater. Thus, dry year deficiencies in the non groundwater districts could be overcome. This concept could also be applied to the Federal and local water service areas. The foregoing is the basic concept of the program. Obviously, many details have to be worked out. A program of bringing a substantial additional amount of water into Kern County can be accomplished by the cooperative efforts of the districts in Kern County which would be benefited. No one else will or can carry out this program - not the State~ the Federal Government or the Kern County Water Agency, The cooperation of these agencies will be required but the .initiative must come from the local districts. The fact that the State Department of Water Resources will not look after our interests and does not intend to fulfill its obligations under the existing water suppl'y contracts is made clear by its protests to the water rights filings for the Marysville Dam project. This knee-jerk reaction came many months prior to the formal date for filing such protests. This unbeliev- able'action further emphasizes the need for local initiative and cooperation. Several meetings have already been held with individual districts. Next, the committee held a meeting with financial consultants for the purpose of obtaining advice on financial and institutional considerations. Finally, on December 9, 1980, a meeting was held with representatives of several of the water districts within the county for the purpose of determining whether there was overall interest in such a program. District representatives indicated an interest in going forward and discussions were held on the best way to proceed. Moving the program forward will require the following immediate actions: {1) Determination by each district in the county as to whether it could be benefited by the program and appropriate action by the districts to participate in the development of the detailS of the program format. {The Kern County Water Agency would act as a participating district and would provide coordination wi th ~the State. ) (2) Each participating district would appoint a board member to serve on a program Steering Committee. (3) The Steering Committee would be responsible for the develop- ment of the details of the program, including consideration of: (a) Institutional arrangements as joint exercise of powers, an improvement district of the agency, etc. " {b} Capital financing. (c} Operations and cost recovery. (4) Each district would outline its internal objectives, both physical and financial. {5) After identification of the individual district requirements, negotiations would be undertaken between the participating districts and the program format with respect .to both insti- tutional, financial and operational arrangements would be ' fi nal i zed. The first step is for ~each district to evaluate the general concept of the program as outlined and indicate whether or not it wishes to participate. This program is an obvious 'first step in the optimization study which it is hoped will be undertaken in 1981 which will address itself to a broader geo- graphical area and other issues. This program outlined here, ~however, is essential to any enhancement of water supplies which can be obtained now_from the Delta or in the future from Marysville Dam or other sources. A portion of the program can be realized in~ediately. With concerted action by a sufficient number of districts, Kern County could be in a position to realize substantial benefits from this program within two to three years.~ · DOMESTIC WATER Ei~'I-~-.RPkISE ' ~ Comparative I~come First Half Ended Deceniber 31, 1979 and December 31, 1980 (Decrease) (Decrease) N~t~/~t$ fI · ~'N 1950 1979 During 1980 Durin:iI 1980 REVENUES Domestic Water Sales $756,384 $667,218 $ 89,166 13.4 Construction Sales (Temporary Service) 7,455 24,139 _~(16,684) (69.]) Total Sales 763,839 691,357 72,482 10.5 OPERAT!HG EXPENSES Field Expenses: 0 & M Charges from Cal Water Service 145,800 112,200 33,600 29.9 Power for Pumping 149,803 84,11q 65,689 78.1 iiaintenance 1,569 9,386 (7,8]7) (83.3) Total Field Expenses 297,172 205,700 91,/-~.72 Administrative Expenses Administrative Salaries and Fringe Benefits 29,629 9,448 20,181 213 6 Charges from Other Departments 6~050 7,283 (1,233) (16 9) Professional Consulting Charges 10,357 17,379 (7,022) (40 4) Insurance Expense 3,679 8,880 (5,201) (58 6) Pumping & Property Taxes 82,579 7.2,267 10,312 14 3 Management Fee from Cal Wa~er Service 14,700 10..896 3,804 34 9 Miscellaneous General & Uncollectible Accounts Expenses 16,958 3,939 13,019 330.5 Total Administrative Expenses 163,952 130,092 33,860 NET OPERATING INCOME BEFORE. DEPRECIATION 302,715 355,565 (52,850) (14.9) Depreciation Expense (Est.) 62,501 47,356 15,145 32.0 NET OPERATING INCOME 240,214 308,209 (67,995) (22.1) NON-OPERATING ITEMS Re ven ue · Interes't Revenue (Est.) 47,000 42,000 5,000 Il.9 Expenses' - - - NEI' NON-OPERATING ITEMS 47,000 42,000 5,000 Il.9 NET INCOME OR (LOSS) $287,214 $350,209 $(62,995) (18.0) Prior CURRENT NU~,BER OF SERVICES Year ~'~INLINE EXTENSION REFUNDS Active 6,384 5,928 Refunded Amount -$8,682.98 Inactive 132 91 undeveloped Lots 888 360 TOTAL 7 ,'404 6,379 ITEM FOR AGENDA AT NEXT WATER BOARD MEETING RE: Water Board Meeting 1/14/81 4 P.M. In order to fully utilize the services of our consultants from out of town while they are here and not have to worry about a long meeting running into City Council Meeting time, we would like to change the time of Water Board Meetings. John Chafin conferred with Richard Oberholzer and he concurs. JC/sh