These two old time fellas, James Ben Ali Haggin and Henry Miller set the “law of the river” for the Kern after a 10-year lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court and was eventually settled between the two in 1888.
That lawsuit also established California water law regarding riparian vs. appropriative rights. And all of that from who owns which rights on the Kern to California law is still in place today.
So these are the grand poohbas of water.
http://www.bakersfield.com/News-sections/take-our-river-back/2010/02/13/lois-henry-outcry-shows-just-how-much-we-want-our-river-back.html
Holy moly! I really don’t know what else to say after seeing the responses sent to the State Water Resources Control board regarding the Kern River.
More than 150 individual letters, note cards and e-mails.
And nearly 4,000 — 3,850 to be exact — signed copies of the petition The Californian ran over seven days.
It was crucial for the board to hear from us before its Tuesday meeting, when it’ll vote on whether to approve a recommended order finding there is unappropriated water on the river, the first step of a long journey to get that water back in the riverbed.
Well, I don’t think anyone can say Bakersfield sat silent on this one.
I had hoped the citizens would speak up, but I was astounded by how much you all want your river back.
I wasn’t the only one awed and humbled by the responses, some hand-written by people who remember swimming in the Kern in the 1940s and ’50s, others formal e-mails from newbies who just arrived in Bakersfield from other parts of the state. Even Merle Haggard came through for the Kern, albeit a little late, sending the paper two petitions on Friday — one signed by himself and the other by his wife, Theresa Haggard.
“It’s absolutely amazing to me that there’s this much public support for this project, ” said Florn Core, former manager of Bakersfield’s Water Resources department who had spearheaded the city’s efforts to get water in the river.
“This should tell everyone who’s been poking at the city that it’s the people in this community who want to see this happen, ” he added in reference to the digs some water district officials have taken at the city for pursuing this water.
Speaking of that, I just can’t let the latest one go unanswered.
Richard Diamond, general manager of the North Kern Water Storage District, wrote that I made false and misleading statements regarding North Kern’s rights to the river.
He says his district had purchased through an agreement “the right in perpetuity” to water accruing under a variety of different rights now owned by the city.
Yes, North Kern does have a contract to use water owned by the city. That’s not the same as owning a water right. The city still owns the rights to the water.
But even if Diamond’s sleight of words on the meaning of water rights were correct, we’re not talking about that city water. North Kern will still get that water in full, per its contract.
The water rights in question were owned by Kern Delta Water Storage District.
North Kern got into a scrap with Kern Delta 15 years ago over Kern Delta’s so-called “first-point” rights. (The city is the only other first-point rights holder.)
North Kern had been using some of Kern Delta’s first-point water. Then Kern Delta began using more of its water, dipping into what North Kern had been taking. So North Kern sued, saying Kern Delta hadn’t been fully using all its water rights, so some of those were forfeit.
Lucky North Kern. It won.
But the court did not agree that Kern Delta’s rights would automatically go to North Kern.
The court said the question of whether there’s unappropriated water on the river belonged in the lap of the State Water Resources Control Board, which also would decide where it would go.
So far, the state board has come up with a recommended order that there is unappropriated water on the Kern, as evidenced by high flow years in which water is allowed to slip away into the California Aqueduct. They also left the door open to continue arguing whether the Kern Delta forfeiture means that water is also available.
Oh, and the order indicates that North Kern failed to establish that the forfeited water had, in fact, been properly diverted and used per valid rights known as pre-1914 rights.
So if Diamond feels I’m wrong, I guess I’m in good company, since I’m just repeating what the experts at the state board have said.
I find Diamond’s last zinger, “In the end, everyone will suffer the consequences of the city’s plan to turn local control of the Kern River over to the state, ” pretty hypocritical.
Citing the city as some kind of spoiler here has become a real “talking point” among the opposition, including North Kern, Kern Water Bank, Kern County Water Agency and Buena Vista Water Storage District.
I suppose it’s meant to cast the city in some kind of “big government/anti-local control” light, but it’s just plain silly.
North Kern started this whole thing by suing Kern Delta. Once the water’s status was thrown into question, every district listed above filed a petition with the state to open up the river and, if there was water, give it to them.
The city, on behalf of us crazy river-lovin’ citizens, is just trying to stay in the mix.
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com
http://www.bakersfield.com/News-sections/take-our-river-back/2010/01/22/lois-henry-could-we-get-a-real-river-back.html
Wooo HOOO! That’s me celebrating a very significant step in the long journey to get a piece of the Kern River back into that dry, ugly gully running through the heart of our city.
State Water Resources Control board staff are recommending that the board declare the Kern is not — repeat NOT — fully appropriated. That means there is “loose” water in the Kern for the first time since it was declared locked up in 1964.
This is huge!
The board will vote on the issue at its Feb. 16 meeting in Sacramento and we all have until noon Feb. 9 to get in our two cents.
The recommended order wasn’t exactly what I expected. Board staff focused more on flood water that in really wet years can’t be used by water rights holders and occasionally goes out to the California aqueduct unclaimed.
That, they said, shows without doubt there is unappropriated water on the river.
There wasn’t enough evidence to make a determination about whether water is available through a court ruling that found Kern Delta Water Storage District forfeited some of its rights to the river for lack of use.
That issue can still be argued before the State Water Resources Control Board, however, according to the recommended order. And it means the city can go full tilt with its application to get any unappropriated water and run it down the riverbed.
“This is 90 to 95 percent favorable, ” the city’s attorney, Colin Pearce, told me. “Now, we’re moving into a process where the public can comment on the use of the water and the order stated they would consider the environment and public trust issues.
“This order is a strong statement on their part.”
If you’ve been following my columns on this, you know I’m in full support of the city’s efforts. If there’s water available, and apparently there is, we should have some of it.
Five other entities, including some of Kern’s powerhouse ag districts, have fought against having the status of the river revised and they’ve also applied for the water themselves in case the board did find water was available. They would, according to their applications, use it for irrigation and housing.
I’m sure some of you will accuse me of favoring aesthetics over ag.
But remember, this is water that’s not being used. And running it down the river isn’t just about aesthetics anyway.
Doing so would:
1. Replenish the aquifer.
2. Restore the natural flora and fauna.
3. Create more recreation.
4. And yes, it would add beauty, which we could sorely use around here.
So if you want a river back here in good ol’ “river city, ” now’s the time to get involved.
These are Lois Henry’s opinions, not those of The Californian.
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/2009/10/28/lois-henry-fight-for-the-kern-river-begins.html
The best thing about the state water hearing on whether there’s unclaimed water in the Kern River that we might be able to use for an actual river is that it’s over.
I swear, I don’t know which is worse — deadly dull water law or the lawyers who wallow in it.
Anyway, besides me, there were only two other “civilians” attending the State Water Resources Control Board Kern River hearing held Monday and Tuesday.
The others were hardy Bakersfield couple Doug Worley and Cathy Barnes sporting matching “Bakersfield: A riverbed runs through it” T-shirts.
“We came up to support Bakersfield having a river, ” Worley said. “Half the town should have come up for this.”
They followed every arcane twist and complex turn in the hearing, cheering on Bakersfield’s attorney, Colin Pearce, as he dueled with no fewer than five attorneys from the opposition who represented four powerhouse ag districts and the city of Shafter.
For a little background, the city petitioned the state board to find there is unclaimed water in the Kern after a 2007 court ruling held that Kern Delta Water District had forfeited some of its rights to the river. The city wants that water, possibly as much as 50,000 acre-feet a year, to run down the river.
The opposition (North Kern Water Storage District, Buena Vista Water Storage District, Kern Water Bank Authority, Kern County Water Agency and Shafter) want the board to find there is no unclaimed water.
It’s the same “nothing to see here, move along” attitude that has long governed use of the Kern.
It’s interesting to note that initially all those districts and Shafter had also asked the board to find there was excess water on the river and each also petitioned to have it given to them. They changed tactics for some reason, however, and joined forces to oppose the city and try to dissuade the board from even considering the issue.
Despite their best efforts, the state board granted the hearing in near-record time. This first phase is only to determine if there is water available.
Board member Arthur Baggett Jr., who acted as the hearing officer, told me he expects to make his recommendation to the full board before the end of the year. If the board finds there is unappropriated water, that’s when the real fighting starts.
“Then everyone gets a shot at it, ” Baggett, a silver-haired Mariposa lawyer who looks more like a Wyatt Earp stand-in complete with black boots and vest, told me.
But don’t hold your breath. Baggett also told me the board just issued the final water right last week on the Santa Ana River, a similar case that came to them 11 years ago.
Ugh.
After watching this week’s hearing, though, I can’t help but have some hope. Because if this was the opposition’s “shock-and-awe” campaign, it was shockingly unawesome.
Their case that the forfeiture didn’t create excess water rests on the idea that the other rights-holders on the river can and have absorbed that water.
After a long series of questions for former city Water Resources Manager Gene Bogart about how he tracked which district got how much water from the Kern on a daily basis, Buena Vista’s attorney Gene McMurtrey smirked triumphantly.
“So, essentially, there’s always been a cap, hasn’t there? And the river has always operated the same way,” he said.
His point was that Kern Delta’s forfeiture didn’t create any new water because so many other “buckets” are waiting to be filled down the line.
Interesting theory.
Except those other bucket holders don’t have a right to that water — it’s not theirs. Their rights don’t expand just because Kern Delta’s contracted.
As for the river still operating the same after the 2007 judgment, yes, that’s because the city is waiting for the state board to determine what should be done with that water. Duh!
Either way, it’s in the state board’s hands now.
The really curious thing is why all these districts have closed ranks on this issue.
The water in question is so-called “first point” water. There are only three first point rights-holders including North Kern, Kern Delta and Bakersfield. So if the state board finds some of that water is unclaimed, there’s a strong legal precedent for keeping it in the first-point family rather than letting it go down the river to “second point” or “lower river” rights holders.
You don’t think those districts and Shafter have agreed among themselves to push back on the state in order to dummy up and take the excess water without entitlement, do you? That would be so, so wrong!
If you think things can’t get that cloak and dagger on the Kern, you’d be wrong. Bogart himself spent four years working in a windowless room with no phone built specifically for him and his precious Kern River flow and diversion records when he worked for Tenneco, before the city bought out its rights, and the city was suing for information contained in those records.
“Don’t talk to anyone, ” were his marching orders back then. Apparently some in the water world would like to keep it that way.
These are Lois Henry’s opinions and not necessarily those of The Californian.
The first phase of the hearing on whether there’s Kern River water available to, um, make a river (only in California does that make sense) happened last week and I feel my hopes rising.
This phase was just procedural, so none of us missed anything by not being there. But from what I understand, the hearing officer made some comments that look good for the prospect we will get a river back in the dry gully that now cuts through town.
Now that the “who goes first” and “what topics are allowed” stuff is out of the way, the actual live hearing will start Oct. 26 before the State Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento. They’ve set aside three days, so it may go until Oct. 28.
We can all attend this phase and I plan to be there. We can’t speak, but we can show support. I hope a few other river lovers will be there too.
For background, this issue came up after a 12-year-long lawsuit between two water districts ended with a forfeiture of some river water.
The courts found that the water was, essentially loose and it was up to the state board to decide A) if there really was unappropriated Kern River water and B) if so, who should get it.
So the city of Bakersfield filed an application asking the board to hold a hearing to determine the status of the water and, if water was available, to grant it to the city which plans to run the water down the river. I just love saying that — run the water down the river!
At first, the city’s “opposition” (four local powerhouse water districts and the city of Shafter) also wanted the board to find the water was unappropriated and they each applied for it as well, to be used for irrigation or homes.
When they saw how much support the city was getting from us regular schmos, however, they changed tactics and urged the board not to hold a hearing at all because “why, there’s no water here, never was, don’t know what you’re talking about — scoot along now.”
According to the city (and the initial applications filed by Shafter and the water districts) there could be a lot of water available. A lot. The city’s estimate is between 50,000 and 60,000 acre feet.
Florn Core, Bakersfield’s Water Resources Director and the city’s champion for getting water back in the river, filled me in on last week’s hearing.
The opposition, again, tried to get the hearing delayed.
The hearing officer stuck to his guns, however, so it’s on.
The other issue batted around last week was the “public trust doctrine.” This holds that rivers belong to all the people. The State Water Resources Control Board, coincidentally, is tasked with protecting that right.
The opposition lawyers (they had five to the city’s one) tried to get the hearing officer to exclude the public trust doctrine entirely.
Here’s where I get my hopes up.
The hearing officer said the public trust doctrine wouldn’t be discussed at this phase, but will be considered in the next phase.
Hmmmm.
Does that mean the officer has read all the submitted arguments and documentation and expects there will be a next phase???
Be still my heart!
I know there are those of you out there saying, “Hey! We’re in a drought, ag needs that water!”
True, the water picture isn’t pretty.
But looking long term, the city running the water down the river (water down the river! It makes me giddy) will build up our aquifer.
Considering state and federal officials’ penchant for cutting off delta supplies, ag will need more groundwater.
So, water in the river is a win, win, win.
The aquifer is replenished for all users, including ag, the natural riverscape can come back to life and we, the people, would have a beautiful, lush, life-affirming ribbon of water instead of a dry, desolate rut.
Core was hopeful about the October hearing.
“We’re ready to go.”
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com.
http://www.bakersfield.com/News-sections/take-our-river-back/2008/09/10/lois-henry-river-in-the-city-there-s-still-hope.html
Don’t give up on the Kern River!
We still have a shot at getting real river water back in that dry, brown gulch running through town.
But you — yes, you — have to pay attention and stay involved.
The State Water Resources Control Board is still deciding if it will hold a hearing on whether river water forfeited by a local irrigation district last year may be claimed by the city of Bakersfield, which has vowed to run it down the natural channel.
I know, I know — glaciers have formed and melted while this board ponders a hearing. Makes you wonder if we get a hearing, how long it will take to get an actual ruling. Don’t ask.
I’m being told there may be a decision soon, so this is where you come in. Notes, e-mails, postcards, smoke signals — send them.
Even if you’ve written before — if you really want that river — write again, call, stand on the Padre and holler until Sacramento hears you. Our voices count, but we have to amp up the volume.
Because despite what local ag water districts have said — that the Kern is all tied up and there’s not a drop to spare — there is something known as the public trust doctrine that figures heavily into the mix. That doctrine holds that rivers belong to all the people and, coincidentally, the board has a duty to protect that right.
But the public has to demand its share.
Meanwhile, the city is still hammering away. Last month, it filed a 35-page brief with the board explaining its view of Kern River water rights, who owns ’em, who doesn’t and why Bakersfield should get any “loose” river water.
Basically, the city’s argument is that a court found that the Kern Delta Water District forfeited a portion of its river water for lack of use. Even if someone else was using that water, the city argued, that doesn’t mean they have a “right” to it.
Bakersfield is asking the board to A) determine if surplus water is available, and B) protect the public interest in that water by allocating the rights to Bakersfield, which will run it down the river channel. It would restore and enhance the natural environment, provide recreation and increase our groundwater supply.
Some have questioned whether Bakersfield would use the water for development.
Bakersfield’s Water Resources Manager Florn Core told me the city will run that water down the river. Period. It will increase our groundwater and that water could later be used for development.
“The primary focus for that water is the environment, ” Core said.
I’ve also been told the forfeited water is only available in the winter months so it wouldn’t provide for recreation. As with all things water, that’s true and not so true.
The city can, Core told me, pull that water out of Isabella Lake during spring and summer as long as it works out agreements with the power plants up river.
I am in absolute, total support of the city.
It’s important to recognize, though, that it has heavy opposition — four local ag water districts and the city of Shafter — which are arguing against the board holding a hearing at all, saying there’s no water to be had. Move along, nothing to see here!
That’s pretty interesting, considering each one of those entities initially filed petitions asking that the board give the unappropriated water to them.
Then the city and the public got involved and suddenly, whoops! No water here! Never!
If there isn’t any water because the river is oversubscribed, why not have the board make that ruling?
Makes me wonder if some district(s) have been using that forfeited Kern Delta water all along without rights or even paying for it, and now that the door has cracked open on that cozy little deal, they’re rushing to push it shut again.
As for needing Kern River water to grow crops and maintain our ag industry, well, again, yes and no.
Some Kern water goes to ag, some to drinking water and some is being used like a cash machine by the very ag districts that would have us believe we’ll never grow another carrot if Bakersfield succeeds in running water down the river channel.
Buena Vista Water Storage District, one of the entities that applied for the water and is now fighting to keep the state from hearing this issue, has rights to Kern River water in “high flow” years. It also gets water from the State Water Project.
Two years ago, the district began selling 11,000 acre-feet of water a year to Castaic Lake Water Agency for $500 an acre-foot.
Dan Bartel, general manager of Buena Vista, told me the district typically moves its state water to Castaic so the higher quality Kern River water isn’t leaving our water basin.
He acknowledged that with the unreliability of the State Water Project and continuing drought, there could come a time when he would have to pump stored Kern River water to meet his obligation to Castaic. But he wasn’t too worried about that possibility.
I am.
I don’t like the idea of any Kern River water leaving our county. That’s our main native source of water, and we should fight to keep it here.
The city’s policy is that none of its river water will ever leave the county.
Hey! One more reason the state board should grant Bakersfield rights to that forfeited water.
Be sure and remind them when you write.
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com /home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry @bakersfield.com.
http://www.bakersfield.com/special-sections/take-our-river-back/2008/02/17/lois-henry-16-year-old-takes-up-fight-for-kern-river.html
Remember this name: Conor O’Sullivan.
He’s a 16-year-old Stockdale High junior right now, but I have no doubt we’ll be hearing from him in the future.
I recently met him after he told me he’s taken on the Kern River as a pet cause, and he’s determined to have an effect.
After reading my column outlining how there may be a chance to get water in the river, Conor did more than just send his comments to the State Water Resources Control Board (which you, also, can do — more on that later).
He printed 180 postcards with a picture of a beautiful, full Kern River on the front, addressed them to the state board and added a list of reasons why the board should allow water back in the now dry riverbed.
He’s been taking the stamped postcards to the Park at River Walk on Stockdale Highway after school and on weekends asking people to sign.
So far, he’s gathered 50 signatures and already sent that batch of cards up to Sacramento.
His goal is to get the rest of the cards signed and, if he can get some donations, print up even more.
The cards cost about 50 cents each including postage, so he’s already made a substantial investment.
“I just thought it might finally be possible, ” he said of the prospect of an actual river.
I wrote last month about how a lawsuit between two local water districts resulted in one of the districts forfeiting some of its rights to Kern River water. The city of Bakersfield petitioned the state to decide there is water available and then give it to the city, which it promised to run down the riverbed.
Imagine! A river in our riverbed!
Several powerful, local water districts, however, have also asked for the water. They want it for irrigation, to bank or possibly for municipal use.
My take is that ag has enough Kern River water.
It’s time for the public to reclaim at least some of the river and bring life back to the brown beach cutting through the center of town.
A number of people agreed with me.
Actually, 185 people, who sent comments to the board pleading to have our river back. (Really, there were 187 comments, but two were against.)
Conor wants to keep up that momentum and multiply it.
I was told the public comment period ended Jan. 31. But when I contacted the state about Conor’s mission, they told me Jan. 31 wasn’t a “hard” deadline and that public comments are still being accepted.
Great! Because Conor is one determined kid.
Not only that, the water districts are not giving up.
They got together and sent the state a 16-page letter using just about every case except Brown v. Board of Education to bolster their side, which is to keep an iron grip on the status quo. They argue:
A) The board shouldn’t hold a hearing on the river and should ignore all applications for the water, including theirs.
B) If the board does hold a hearing, it can’t find there is any available water because the river is already oversubscribed.
C) If they do find there’s water available, they can’t consider environmental benefits as a factor in deciding who should get it because the environment wasn’t considered back in 1964 when the board decided the river was fully divvied up.
D) If they do decide there’s water available and do award it to one of the applicants, those rights would be junior to all other rights on the river, meaning the new entity would only get water after everyone ahead of it got their full allotment.
The letter is signed by some of the most powerful water agencies in Kern County (and the state) — the Kern County Water Agency, Kern Water Bank Authority, North Kern Water Storage District, Buena Vista Water Storage District and the city of Shafter.
I wonder if David felt this puny in front of his Goliath?
The water districts, though, never mention something called the public trust doctrine, which holds that rivers belong to all the people. I think it is worth mentioning, as well as the fact that the state board has a duty to protect that right.
It’s up to us, the public, to assert that right.
Conor is doing his part. And despite the obstacles, he remains undaunted.
He’ll be at the Park at River Walk again today from 2 to 4 p.m. gathering signatures.
“I taught my dog how to swim in the river, ” he said. Besides, his dad recently won an inflatable boat in a raffle.
Here’s hoping Conor and his dog will someday spend their lazy summer afternoons floating down the lower Kern, watching the banks slide silently by.
Lois Henry’s column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com /home/Blog/noholdsbarred, e-mail her at lhenry@bakersfield.com or call her at 395-7373.
I want a river. I want a river so bad I can taste it.
You can tell me all day long how much more beneficial it is to carve the Kern River into a Hydra of canals and ditches that help sustain our ag economy.
And you’d be right — to a point. But isn’t there just a little water from the mighty Kern that can be set free down its ancient path?
Turns out there might be. Here’s why:
A 12-year-long lawsuit between two local water districts culminated last year in a judge finding one of the districts had forfeited its rights to some Kern River water.
Once that happened, a flurry of petitions and applications were filed with the board, including one from the City of Bakersfield asking that the board a) declare the Kern not fully appropriated and b) give the forfeited water to the city.
In its application, the city states it would run that water down the natural channel of the Kern River. Gasp!
It seriously made my heart beat faster when I read that.
You may remember we had a river for a short time back in the spring and summer of 2006. The Corps of Engineers was concerned about Isabella Dam busting, so they lowered the lake, dumping water on us. So, it wasn’t exactly “natural” and there was some serious worry involved, but who cares!
We had a big, full, fat, lazy, beautiful river. And I swear it made Bakersfield a different city. I saw people on the bike path marveling at the water, the plant life, the wildlife. People canoed and kayaked and swam and picnicked on and around the river.
It was amazing how this ribbon of water through the city changed things, lightened them, made a hot sticky day bearable, made the air seem clearer, made the blind see (OK, I’m exaggerating, but only slightly). Personally, I was spellbound.
I want it back.
And here’s our opportunity.
I’m not advocating taking a chisel to the dam. But if you want that river even half as much as I want it, you can write to the State Water Resources Control Board in support of the city.
I’ll give you all the deets in a minute. The first step is to get a hearing and then the process will grind on from there.
It’s imperative that we get behind this effort now because the board is only taking comments through Thursday, and the city already has competition.
Four other districts have petitioned the board and asked for the water.
North Kern Water Storage District in conjunction with the city of Shafter wants to use the water for irrigation, groundwater storage and for homes and businesses.
Buena Vista Water Storage DIstrict wants it for irrigation and storage.
The Kern Water Bank Authority wants it for irrigation, storage and industrial uses.
The Kern County Water Agency would wholesale it to its member ag districts and municipal clients.
No, no, no!
Bakersfield should get that water. And for reasons beyond the aesthetics I mentioned earlier. Running water down the now bone-dry river channel would increase our overall groundwater storage.
The riverbed is the center of Kern’s vast aquifer, I’m told by Florn Core, the city’s water resources director.
“So water absorbed there eventually makes it out to the whole basin and everyone benefits, ” he said.
We also get our drinking water from that aquifer, so recharging it with good clean Kern water, rather than salty water from the California Aqueduct, means higher quality water out of the tap.
Oh, and Bakersfield would never sell or swap that good Kern water outside the county’s boundaries, Core promised. That’s what I call a win-win-win proposition.
Though no one knows the exact number of acre-feet that may be up for grabs, the city has calculated it could be as much as 110,000 to 120,000 acre-feet a year.
Core said in average water years the city typically has a river through town for about two months — May and June — as there’s more water than is needed by other river users. If the city succeeds in its pitch to the state board, we could be assured a river — except in dry years, of course — nine to 10 months a year.
I’m down with all the other benefits Core lists, but I really want that river. Even more so because I believe we were cheated out of our river several years ago.
Back in 2000, the city and the Kern County Water Agency got about $23 million from Proposition 13 funds, about $3 million of which was spent to build the “Kern River Flow Restoration Project.”
Sounds impressive, huh?
The water agency took control of the project, which involved building a series of pumps and wells along the river that would pull up groundwater and run it down the river channel between May and September.
In dry years, though, it would have cost up to $1 million to have that “recirculating river” through summer. So the pumps have never been used for that purpose, Core said.
Soooooo, we spent all those millions for what? Classic! Well, here’s another chance, a better chance and it won’t cost anything except a few minutes of your time. Everyone has taken their cut of the once untamed Kern River. The people of Bakersfield deserve a share.
Update on Wednesday’s column
In case no one noticed, expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, lost again on Wednesday when the House could not override Bush’s veto for a third time.
This is a program to provide insurance to the children of the working poor. I think it’s a great program and the expansion was reasonable. But my view did not win out, so the program, known in California as Healthy Families, will continue to limp along under an 18-month extension.
Lois Henry’s column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com /home/Blog/noholdsbarred, e-mail her at lhenry@bakersfield.com or call her at 395-7373.
http://www.bakersfield.com/News-sections/take-our-river-back/2010/05/06/lois-henry-selling-water-out-of-kern-is-drought-protection.html
As the fight over forfeited Kern River water has heated up, Buena Vista Water District has come out swinging — hard.
Which is interesting for a number of reasons.
One, because Buena Vista’s rights aren’t in question. The water that may be up for grabs is First Point water and flood waters. Buena Vista has rock solid rights to Second Point water.
And two, because while Buena Vista officials have decried the very idea of running that forfeited water down the river saying the loss to local farmers now using it would be devastating, the district has been selling 11,000 acre feet a year, backed by its own Kern River supply, to Castaic Lake Water Agency for $550 an acre foot to support homes and businesses hundreds of miles away.
And it may be positioning itself for even more such sales.
As to the Castaic sale, General Manager Dan Bartel explained that the district banks much of its river water and uses its state supplies to fulfill the Castaic contract.
If that state supply gets low enough, though, Buena Vista must meet that Castaic obligation and that means Kern River water will go over the Grapevine.
“We could potentially have to pump water out for Castaic,” Bartel said.
Such sales, Bartel and other water district officials say, benefit locals by helping pay for facilities to better use water here and by keeping costs low to farmers, who can then keep more jobs filled or more land in production. The trickle down theory.
In Buena Vista, costs to members are low, going from a per acre assessment of $38 10 years ago to $20 now.
But that’s not the whole picture.
Water use dropping
According to an environmental impact report on several new projects planned for the district, water use has dropped in Buena Vista as cropping patterns have changed and more owners have taken land out of production putting it under wildlife conservation easements.
Water use peaked in the mid-1970s at 113,000 acre feet a year and has steadily declined to an average of 99,500 acre feet a year, according to the environmental report.
The projects include groundwater banking to capture and recover high flow Kern River water (these are flood waters that exceed Buena Vista’s regular allotment of river water), land acquisition and a new turnout in the California Aqueduct.
The environmental document also says Buena Vista has a positive groundwater balance.
So, Buena Vista has good ground water, solid Kern River rights and less in-district demand.
All those factors make it seem as though Buena Vista is gearing up to market more of its water out of the county.
Given state supplies are sketchy (it only received 13,000 acre feet of its contracted 21,300 acre feet last year), that leaves the banked Kern River water as Buena Vista’s strongest asset.
That is not the intent of the program, Bartel said. They just want to manage their water more efficiently, he said.
Besides, the relatively few number of wells included in the banking operation mean it could never pull water out on the scale of say Kern Water Bank, which can suck hundreds of thousands of acre feet a year out of Kern’s ground. By comparison, Buena Vista’s project would only be able to recover 10,000 to 15,000 acre feet a year.
But, yes, he acknowledged, the new facilities could lead to more out-of-county sales. And yes, that could mean Kern River water.
“That’s not our intent, in fact I hadn’t even thought about the water going out of county,” Bartel said. “But these days everybody is trying to put whatever water resources they have to the best value.”
Sales just another tool
The Kern River is one of the most variable rivers in the state, overflowing one year and dead dry the next. Harvesting as much flood water as possible is good whether local farmers get it or it’s sold out of county and the money used to improve water management locally, he said.
“It’s drought protection,” Bartel said of the district’s projects.
Eric Averett, general manager of the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, which also sells water to developers and others out of the county, agreed with Bartel.
Sales make sense if they benefit the district, such as providing money to build more facilities to capture more water.
Rosedale’s contract with Coachella Valley developer Glorious Land Company gives the developer between 1,300 and 1,500 acre feet a year for the next 30 years, escalating each year as the development is built out.
What happens at the end of that 30 years?
“They have to extend the contract or find water somewhere else,” Averett said.
He had no concerns that such long-term sales to hard water needs could eventually result in the permanent loss of local water.
Bartel said selling water out of county may seem counterintuitive when there’s so much talk about the need for water locally. But it’s not necessarily bad as long as it’s done on a term basis.
“It’s short-sighted for any district to sell their water rights,” he said.
Term contracts though, even 30 or more years, are a wise way to use excess water.
He compared it to the City of Bakersfield selling water to local ag districts under 35-year contracts to pay off the bonds they used to buy the water rights.
“If they hadn’t been able to contract that water out, they wouldn’t have been able to buy the rights.”
The big difference, of course, is the city sold the water to local districts, keeping it in our groundwater basin. When it reverts back to the city, its policy is it will never be sold or transferred out of the county.
Mystery on the river
When it comes to sales, apparently, it’s all “just business” for Bartel and other water district officials.
But Buena Vista’s reaction to the city’s position on the 50,000 acre feet of forfeited water seems much more personal.
Bartel has said his fear is the State Water Resources Control Board, which is deciding the fate of the forfeiture water, could tinker with other rights on the river.
In its environmental documents, however, Buena Vista states that the forfeiture water issue would, in no way, affect its own supplies.
The 50,000 acre feet of forfeiture water popped up after a court found that an upstream district had lost some of its river rights for lack of use. The matter was taken to the state water board where the city and four other districts — including Buena Vista — petitioned to have the river deemed not fully appropriated. Each entity also applied to get that water.
Even so, Bartel singled out the city as the bad guy.
“The city is the only one looking to open up the river,” Bartel insisted.
And “opening up the river” is clearly something that unnerves Bartel and the other districts.
As Bartel said in response to an explanation that this series would attempt to take the mystery out of the Kern River:
“When it comes to the river, mystery is a good thing.”
http://www.bakersfield.com/News-sections/take-our-river-back/2010/05/06/lois-henry-district-s-suit-could-forever-change-the-river.html
Two local ag water districts went to war 16 years ago, eventually battling to a draw in 2007 when a court ruled that one district had forfeited some of its rights to Kern River water but the other district didn’t get those rights.
It was a classic case of “be careful what you wish for” for North Kern Water Storage District, which brought the suit against Kern Delta Water District.
North Kern won the argument, but now the water is in the hands of the State Water Resources Control Board, which could give the water to anyone. Or the board could deem the water doesn’t exist at all and erase the right entirely if they find the river is oversubscribed.
With so much to lose, you’d think North Kern and Kern Delta would have worked out a private deal. But the two districts were born fighting.
North Kern was created first, in the 1930s by the Kern County Land Company. It covers 60,000 acres that straddle Highway 99 north of Bakersfield from northern Rosedale up to Shafter.
Right from the start, farmers in what would become Kern Delta, which covers 125,000 acres south of Bakersfield from Arvin to Enos Lane, feared North Kern was after their water.
They were right to worry.
The Land Company owned nearly all the canals that served Kern Delta farmers as well as nearly all the land in the North Kern district. Without a steady water supply, the land was worthless.
Kern Delta farmers could easily see where the Land Company’s economic incentives would lie. They raised a fuss and forced the Land Company company to curtail North Kern’s rights. North Kern could use some of the water coursing through the Land Company’s web of canals but not own it. That became what’s known as the 1952 Agreement.
Uneasy truce
In the 1970s Kern Delta bought rights to some river water. North Kern had been using some of that water all along and when Kern Delta wanted it back, North Kern sued.
That resulted in the 2007 judgment that 50,000 acre feet was forfeit.
Now, North Kern has the most to lose among all the players in this drama.
Richard Diamond, general manager of North Kern, and John Guinn, city manager of Shafter, said if that 30,000 acre feet is pulled out of North Kern it would devastate the district, the farmers and the area’s economy.
Aside from the Kern Delta water, North Kern gets about 100,000 acre feet a year from the river through the 1952 Agreement.
It also buys 20,000 acre feet a year from Bakersfield and has banking operations that bring in water from a variety of partners.
Oddly, Diamond wasn’t worried about the prospect of losing that 20,000 acre feet when North Kern’s contract with Bakersfield is up in 2012. It’s a small portion of the district’s overall water picture, he said.
And he wasn’t worried about giving up some of that 1952 Agreement water for urban use as Shafter develops.
In fact, North Kern fought Bakersfield tooth and nail in order to give, or sell, Shafter 1952 Agreement water.
Diamond said if Shafter built out to its full plans tomorrow, it wouldn’t suck that much water from ag interests.
But losing that 30,000 acre feet of Kern Delta forfeiture water would be a heavy blow, he said. Particularly in light of state water reductions which could cause adjacent districts to pump more groundwater.
Fighting the state board
“That water has always gone to the interests up here,” Guinn said. “If they lose water and we’re all pumping from the same basin, it could have a tremendous impact on our little community.”
So, it would seem logical for Guinn and Diamond to slap back any hands reaching for Kern Delta forfeiture water.
Instead, they’ve joined with the other districts — Kern Water Bank, Kern County Water Agency and Buena Vista — applying for the same water to oppose Bakersfield.
Each entity filed petitions to have the state board declare the Kern River not fully appropriated. And each one asked that the forfeited water be given to them.
If any one of them wins, North Kern loses.
Yet, North Kern, and the the other ag districts, are bitter only toward Bakersfield.
“The city has been a cheerleader for the state board process,” Diamond explained. “Otherwise, I don’t think the state would have found that there was unappropriated water.”
Bakersfield’s actions, Diamond said, “Put all the users at risk.”
However, the records show that it was North Kern that first filed with the state board, not Bakersfield.
Pointing fingers
Diamond said if Bakersfield wants to re-wet the river, as it has stated in its application for the 50,000 acre feet of forfeiture water, it could put water it currently runs in a lined canal back in the riverbed.
Or Bakersfield could run other supplies down the river and pump groundwater for its planned water treatment plants.
“Pumping would be more expensive and they don’t want to do that,” he said. “And that’s unfair. If they want a river, they should use their own water.”
It’s true the city delivers water to the Buena Vista district in a lined canal, but it’s obliged to get that water to them “undiminished” per rights and agreements dating back more than 100 years.
The water he’s talking about that’s destined for the treatment plants was purchased more than 30 years ago for the express purpose of sustaining the city’s growth. The economic slow down may leave some for the river, but eventually the water will have to be used for homes.
Finally, it seems, North Kern’s, and the other districts’, ire with Bakersfield comes down to fear. And Diamond thinks Bakersfield could use a bit more caution as well.
“I’m saying they should be concerned about how (the river) could be looked at by the state,” Diamond said.
“There are risks to everyone.”