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.