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.”