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