Category Archives: Uncategorized

McAllister Ranch: Water districts’ split leaves groundwater bank even more up in the air

http://www.bakersfield.com/columnists/lois-henry-water-districts-split-leaves-groundwater-bank-even-more/article_11e9c9a0-ad11-52ef-b017-121574208ea4.html

 

By LOIS HENRY

The Bakersfield Californian

March 18, 2017

If all had gone as planned six years ago, the failed McAllister Ranch housing development would be brimming with water right now.

Instead, the two agricultural water districts that had hoped to turn the foreclosed subdivision into a groundwater bank are now in court over the 2,000-acre property.

The whirlwind courtship that brought Rosedale-Rio Bravo and Buena Vista water storage districts together, spending $22 million to buy McAllister out of bankruptcy, is officially over.

Buena Vista filed a partition complaint in mid-January seeking a court-ordered sale of the property.

“We want to dissolve the partnership,” said Tim Ashlock, Buena Vista’s engineer.

Buena Vista felt Rosedale was bogging down the process and no matter how many meetings they had, nothing ever seemed to happen.

I was told last week that Rosedale will recommend that the court preserve the part of the property that can be developed for groundwater banking, sell the remainder and each district can then make their own groundwater banks.

“I can’t say how we differed over the project because (Buena Vista) never communicated that to us,” said Eric Averett, general manager for Rosedale.

Buena Vista wanted to control the project, which wasn’t acceptable, he said.

“We’re disappointed we ended up here,” Averett added. “Of all the years to fragment, we’re really missing an opportunity this year.”

Not just this year.

If climate change predictions come to fruition, groundwater banking may be California’s preferred method of water storage.

Scientists have predicted that climate change will actually increase precipitation over the Golden State but in the form of rain, rather than snow.

California’s plumbing system was created with the idea that the mountains store most of our water each winter in the form of snow.

As it melts in spring, we capture that water in reservoirs and then move it around the state through a series of canals.

But if the future holds less snow and more rain, that plumbing may need to be altered.

Groundwater banking, where water is spread over percolation ponds and allowed to seep into the ground, is considered a critical water management strategy going forward.

In fact, Rosedale has been very active in creating groundwater banks for itself, such as the ponds at Allen Road and the Westpark Freeway.

And what I consider a more dubious relationship Rosedale has with Irvine Ranch Water District, which owns land along the Kern River west of town where Rosedale banks water. (I call it dubious because I’m naturally suspicious of any southern California agencies nosing around our river.)

Buena Vista has recently begun to up its groundwater banking opportunities, buying a 320-acre piece of land near the Tule Elk Reserve west of Interstate 5.

And both districts said they are still interested in developing groundwater banking on the McAllister land as well. Just independent of one another.

Regardless of who ends up with the land, or how things are split up, McAllister may never store a drop of water.

That’s because the City of Bakersfield holds an interest in this little drama as well.

And the city has never been super excited by the idea of ducks floating over that land.

McAllister is zoned for development (which means development fees) and that’s what the city expects for that area.

In fact, housing developer SunCal exercised an option to buy back the middle third of the land, which has streets and some infrastructure, and had made noise in 2014 about restarting the development.

Then… nothing.

The last contact SunCal had with Bakersfield’s Planning Department was in mid-2016, according to Planning Director Jacqui Kitchen.

But there is nothing “active,” she said.

That leaves just the western 600 acres for possible groundwater banking and the city continues to insist it must be the lead environmental agency on any kind of development — whether it’s houses or groundwater banking — on that land.

That little wrinkle was never ironed out with the ag water agencies and the city’s lawsuit over that issue, though dormant, is still out there.

There’s also the little trick of getting water onto the land, which can’t be done without the city’s assistance since Bakersfield owns or controls the canals and pipelines that would be needed to bring water to McAllister.

So, here we sit.

McAllister remains as it was, a dilapidated icon to the busted real estate bubble of the early 2000s, mostly used for illegal off-roading.

Meanwhile, hundreds of acre feet of Kern River water goes splashing by every day just a few miles to the north.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry. Her column runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or email lhenry@bakersfield.com

McAllister Ranch: Cowboy tactics not helping turn failed subdivision into Kern’s newest water bank

 

http://www.bakersfield.com/columnists/lois-henry/lois-henry-cowboy-tactics-not-helping-turn-failed-mcallister-ranch/article_dc5ec966-6e79-11e7-afd6-f39647397db3.html

July 22, 2017

 

Well, that didn’t take long.

It’s been less than a month since Buena Vista Water Storage District bought the remaining 600 acres of the failed McAllister Ranch subdivision and it’s already butting heads with Bakersfield city officials.

Like, major league butting.

The city cited the water district last week for excavating several ditches on the property without permits and for putting up K-rail barriers blocking public roads.

And it fired off a letter to Buena Vista’s attorneys threatening to revive a lawsuit over the district’s plans to create a water bank on the former housing development.

The lawsuit was stayed several years ago under an agreement that no work in connection with water banking would be done on the property prior to a completed environmental impact report.

No environmental reports have been done.

So recent excavation work done by Buena Vista violates the “intent” of the agreement, if not the “express language,” according to a letter from the city’s water attorney, Colin Pearce.

Things have gotten tense.

“It’s up to Buena Vista as to how close we are to going back to court,” said Bakersfield City Attorney Ginny Gennaro.

The city’s position is that McAllister Ranch was annexed into the city and zoned for residential use, not water banking.

If Buena Vista wants to bank water on the land, it has to seek a General Plan amendment and do the proper environmental impact reports “just like any other developer in the city,” Gennaro said.

For its part, Buena Vista is feeling a little picked on, said General Manager Maurice Etchechury.

The district has spent close to $70,000 cleaning up mountains of trash left on the property, cutting down weeds and chasing off trespassers.

“The city should be sending us a thank-you note,” he said. “They let this (trash, illegal riding, shooting, etc.) go on out here for years.”

He pooh-poohed the city’s concern over the ditches, saying they’re just barriers to keep dumpers and illegal off-roaders out of the property.

I could see that with one ditch that’s scratched deep into the earth from the main entrance of the old subdivision west along Panama Lane.

But, uh, the other “ditch” on the northern edge of the property, with its packed-down sides, that runs from a deep section of the old golf course straight to the James Canal, looks an awful lot like a funnel to move water.

The corrugated pipe in the end of that “ditch” that goes into the James Canal and the new water gate also seem more intended for water movement than traffic control.

Etchechury didn’t comment when I pointed that out.

His view was that the agreement between Buena Vista and the city to stay the city’s lawsuit didn’t prohibit the kind of work Buena Vista has done so far.

As for the other citations about blocking public roads, Etchechury was a little exasperated.

“OK, fine, then the city can come out and maintain them.”

The city’s actions, he said, were a little shocking after how well the Kern River interests cooperated in past months to find places to stash water so it wouldn’t escape into the California Aqueduct.

A simple phone call, he said, would have been helpful if the city really wanted to know what Buena Vista was doing.

“Instead, I get a citation.”

Interestingly, Gennaro felt the same way, saying she would like to see the parties “get around a table” and talk this through.

Apparently, neither side wants to be the first to extend that olive branch.

Anyhow, I know I spend a lot of time watching the twists and turns of the McAllister Ranch saga.

That’s for a couple of reasons.

First, without new dams, water banking has become California’s main water storage option. And McAllister would be a huge new addition to Kern’s collection so the public should know what we have in the ground.

And because of Buena Vista’s rights to the Kern, a lot of what’s banked in McAllister would be from our river.

We need to make sure it stays right here. Buena Vista has promised it will, but as Reagan used to say, “trust but verify.”

Second, SGMA.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act means we have to account for groundwater in/groundwater out and McAllister presents an interesting wrinkle.

It’s actually inside the boundaries of the Kern River Groundwater Sustainability Agency, or GSA, which is run by Bakersfield, the Kern County Water Agency and Kern Delta Water District.

But the land is owned by Buena Vista (600 acres exclusively and 1,500 acres jointly with Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District), which has its own GSA.

So, if it became a water bank, who would get to claim that water?

Etchechury said water banks can choose their GSA.

Gennaro countered that McAllister isn’t a water bank and won’t be unless Buena Vista stops its cowboy behavior and works with the city.

Finally, McAllister is important because of John Vidovich.

He’s the president of Buena Vista’s board and has been a driving force behind McAllister.

Vidovich has cut a wide swath in water circles in the southern San Joaquin Valley, amassing control over a vast supply of groundwater.

He implied several weeks ago that if the city didn’t want to work with Buena Vista on McAllister, he might take the issue to the voters.

That means you.

Stay tuned.

Contact Californian columnist Lois Henry at 661-395-7373 or lhenry@bakersfield.com. Her work appears on Sundays and Wednesdays; the views expressed are her own.

McAllister Ranch: Housing Collapse Creates Water Banking Windfall

I’m trying to get all my McCallister Ranch stories together here. But can’t find a link to the original on Bakersfield.com.

Either way, here’s the first story:

May 23, 2011

Bakersfield Californian

By LOIS HENRY

Californian staff writer

e-mail: lhenry@bakersfield.com

McAllister Ranch, the iconic failed housing development of the foreclosure crisis, has found new life.

It will become Kern County’s newest water bank, owned and managed jointly by the Rosedale Rio Bravo and Buena Vista water storage districts.

The 2,070 acre development in extreme southwest Bakersfield was once expected to boast 6,000 homes, a golf course and man made lake.

Now, the majority of it will remain undeveloped, according to Eric Averett, Rosedale’s general manager.

“It’s an exciting project,” he said. The water bank will be used to enhance local supplies, he said, instead of “buying into the very expensive state project.”

The unreliability of water from the State Water Project, the extreme cost of the proposed peripheral canal along with questions about how much water it would yield assuming it’s ever built make local banking “a very attractive alternative,” he said.

That doesn’t mean either district will turn their backs on efforts to find a solution to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta issues. But it doesn’t mean they won’t either.

For now, they’re focusing on how soon they could get water on McAllister considering the magnitude of water available this year.

“Ideally we’d like to do something as soon as possible, but we have to go through all the processes, including CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act reports).”

Though the majority of McAllister ranch will be used for water banking, Averett said about 600 acres — including the golf course designed by the famed Greg Norman — will be set aside for development as part of the water districts’ deal with seller PVCO Land Holdings LLC, which bought the ranch at a bankruptcy auction last month.

The water districts had put in their own bid for McAllister at that auction, which included two other developments in Riverside County owned by SunCal Cos.

But PVCO won out as they bid $71 million for all three properties. The bankruptcy assigned $22 million to pay off McAllister creditors.

A week later, PVCO approached Rosedale and Buena Vista with a proposal.

Rosedale and Buena Vista then bought the property for $22 million. They also gave PVCO a 4-year option to buy back and develop that 600-acre portion of the ranch that has the golf course, streets and some infrastrucure already installed.

But in the meantime, Rosedale and Buena Vista will get started banking water.

“It’s an ideal water banking property,” Averett said. “We didn’t think there were many opportunities like this left.”

The saga of H.H. continues

Lost to history: H.H. and undercover Land Co. saga

  • LINK to original article: http://www.bakersfield.com/columnists/lois-henry-lost-to-history-h-h-and-undercover-land/article_76544036-f747-51b6-afb7-e91273401351.html
  • By LOIS HENRY, The Bakersfield Californian lhenry@bakersfield.com

Let’s see, last I left you, “Operative H.H.” had made inroads into Bakersfield society and was preparing to head out into the countryside to look for the nefarious hay-burning gang.

If you have no idea what I’m talking about, no worries. Let’s catch you up from Part 1 last week.

Thanks to Kern County Museum Curator Lori Wear, I came across a great piece of local history filled with intrigue and funny turn-of-the-century writing.

Back in August 1891, some angry locals set fire to 10 haystacks belonging to the Kern County Land Co. These haystacks were bigger than most houses at the time — and no hay meant no feed for Land Co. cattle. It was also an indication of how despised the Land Co. was as it gobbled up more and more land (and water) through both legal and nefarious means. And when I say the Land Co. was despised, I mean really hated.

Local historian Gilbert Gia has written about how one of the Land Co.’s lawyers was arrested, shot, tarred and feathered in 1890 (just a year earlier) for his antics in getting people’s land by hook or crook. If the Land Co. couldn’t buy a settler out, or trick his land out from under him, it would, apparently, send lawyers to the court up in Visalia to make a claim on the land. The settlers would have to get up to Visalia to defend their claim and often found the case was postponed or canceled, only to be filed again at a later date. One woman even claimed Land Co. agents dumped dead dogs down her well to force her off her land, according to Gia.

So burning Land Co. hay was probably cheered by a lot of good Kern County folks of the day.

For its part, the Land Co. did not take the offense lightly. It hired a San Francisco detective agency to track down the wrong doers.

What Wear found were reports from that agency’s man on the ground, known only as “Operative H.H.”

H.H. took the train down from San Francisco with his wife, bought a buggy, a team of horses and camping equipment in Fresno and proceeded to Bakersfield where he pretended to be a hayseed looking for land. In his Oct. 4 report, H.H. notes that several real estate men had little good to say about the Land Co. He had also met with a Mr. Maude, most likely A.C. Maude, who sold land, dabbled in insurance and owned the Daily Californian , which railed against the Land Co. on a regular basis.

H.H. has a list of names of those suspected of burning the hay stacks. He’s eager to get out into the community and its ranches to find these fellows and pin down this case.

His next report is Oct. 11, 1891.

The Sells Bros. Circus was in town and H.H. attended with Mr. Maude.

“He talked considerably about land and stated that ‘the Company had a kind of hold on him,'” H.H. reports. “But he did not say what it was, nor did I ask him.”

Maude repeatedly tells H.H. not to talk about the Land Co. in front of others.

“… for the reason that I might want a piece of land and have to get water from them, and that some of the hirelings of the Company would inform the office, and they would make it very bad for me.”

Later that week, H.H. and his wife take the buggy out at night to map roads near the land he’s supposedly interested in homesteading “so in an emergency I could slip up to town in the night and avoid the settlers” presumably so he can report back to his agency without suspicion.

After a clandestine meeting with Ferguson, H.H. and his wife make their way toward the ranch of one of the suspects, Jesse Dover. H.H. meets several of Dover’s relatives at the ranch and befriends the group.

“Of course, their talk was all very bitter against the Company, and I also spoke against the Company. They seemed glad to have me on their side … They said they were waiting to see how their suit would come out with the Company.”

That may be a reference to a lawsuit filed against the Land Co. that resulted in the Shaw Decree of 1900.

The Kern River had already been divided up, basically, between the Land Co. and Henry Miller, in a landmark 1888 case that created the basis of California water law regarding riparian versus appropriative rights. But that lawsuit neglected to take into consideration the rights of many long standing ditches that had pulled water from the Kern River for years. The Shaw Decree assigned rights to those ditches, which remain in use today.

Back to 1891.

The Dover ranch folks helped H.H. find a camping site and one of them, Mr. Teilhet, even helped hitch up his team and gave H.H. a tour of the area.

“He was riding alongside our wagon, and when we came to the Lakeside ranch, he pointed out to us where the hay had been burned on that place,” H.H. writes of Mr. Teilhet.

H.H. pretends to like the land he’s shown and says he’ll settle it right away.

“I was fortunate to get amongst the gang so soon; it was much easier than I had anticipated,” he reports.

The Dover ranch folks later give H.H. and his wife a “nice chicken dinner” and invite him to a meeting about land issues.

“I thought I would better not be too fast,” H.H. writes and begs off.

What’s fascinating is how H.H. intends to actually sink a well, build a house (12 by 14) and horse shed all to “make an appearance, as otherwise they might discover the object of my mission, as I find they are very shrewd and cunning people.”

He ends by saying: “There is not, so far as I can see, any suspicion attached to my being here at present.”

Did H.H. discover the hay burning culprits?

Did the Land Co. make them pay?

Or did H.H. perhaps join in with the “shrewd and cunning” bunch, sink that well and go into farming?

We will never know.

Sadly, that’s the last report Wear could find in her archives.

Though the outcome may be lost to history, this small snippet is wonderfully instructive of the age-old connection between water, land and money.

A connection just as powerful, and meaningful, today as it was 123 years ago.

Contact Californian columnist Lois Henry at 395-7373 or lhenry@ bakersfield.com. Her work appears on Sundays and Wednesdays; the views expressed are her own.

Private eye hired by Kern County Land Co. discovers locals don’t like its water schemes

Back when water barons hired undercover agents

  • By LOIS HENRY, The Bakersfield Californian lhenry@bakersfield.com

Indulge me while I share a fascinating fragment of Kern County history. And, wouldn’t ya know, it has to do with water, sort of.

Letter from Kern County Land Co. superintendent S. Ferguson seeking help to find the culprits who burned several stacks of hay on Land Company farms in 1891.

As anyone who’s read my columns knows, I love any and all info related to the Kern River.

So, when Kern County Museum Curator Lori Wear told me last year she was getting a cache of old documents from Castle & Cooke, I was all ears.

In case you don’t know, Castle & Cooke is the descendant company of Tenneco West, which was the descendant of the Kern County Land Co. And no two entities were more intertwined than the Kern River and the Kern County Land Co.

Yes! I told Wear, lemme know what you find.

She and her staff are still going through the massive document trove, but Wear alerted me to one shiny gem that caught her eye. It’s a series of letters from 1891 about the hunt for desperate criminals marauding the countryside burning hay stacks. Not just any hay stacks but those belonging to Kern County Land Co.

The letters are between the Land Company and a private detective firm in San Francisco.

First, the letters are a wonderful peek into Kern County life at the turn of the last century. Second, and more importantly, they clearly show a level of animosity and intrigue you just won’t find in textbooks.

In mid- and late-August 1891, 10 hay stacks were torched on two properties owned by the Land Company.

Why is that a big deal?

Hay stacks back then were enormous. And without a store of hay, the Land Company couldn’t feed its livestock. That’s money on the hoof.

Aside from that, the Land Company was ever vigilant against disgruntled settlers and others unhappy with how much land — and water rights — the company was gobbling up.

The Land Company’s response to these hay burners was quick and decisive. But, interestingly, not local.

If the Land Company did call local authorities, it didn’t give them much time to solve the case.

About a month after its stacks were torched on Aug. 16 and Aug. 20, 1891, the Harry N. Morse detective agency in San Francisco already had a man on the ground in Fresno preparing to infiltrate the hay arsonist’s ranks.

Morse was a legendary Bay Area lawman known as the “bloodhound of the far west.”

A Land Company boss, S.W. Ferguson, had discovered the names of about half a dozen locals who he believed might be the hay torching culprits. That included “Old man Emerson of the Paletta Ranch,” according to a letter he sent to Morse’s agent, known only as “Operative H.H.”

“Emerson was at one time arrested at the instigation of the Company for cutting water pipes and was in jail for a while on account of this,” Ferguson wrote.

See? It all comes back to the water.

Anyhow, the hay burning was taken extremely seriously by Ferguson who not only wanted to know who burned the hay, but also anyone who had been “… openly or secretly antagonistic to the Kern County Land Co.”

According to Operative H.H.’s reports, he too, was all in.

In his first report from Fresno, H.H. mentions how he and his wife, yes, his wife, had traveled by train from San Francisco and went about getting a wagon, team of horses and camping gear. Not too expensive, nor too cheap looking.

After haggling over the price of horses and covering the wagon himself rather than pay the “exorbitant” price of $15 for stable hands to do it, H.H. and his wife got underway to Bakersfield on Sept. 27, 1891.

Three days later, they arrived in Bakersfield.

“We put up at the Arlington Hotel. We did not care to go to a first class hotel, as we wished to avoid suspicion, and we had the appearance of first-class ‘hay-seeds,’ and not wishing to change our appearance, we concluded to stop at a second class hotel,” H.H. writes in a report dated Sept. 30, 1891. (His reports are all type written, by the way, so, he must have squirreled away a typewriter among his hay seed trappings.)

H.H.’s next report is dated Oct. 4, 1891.

He spends some time roaming around town asking about land for sale and gets some good intel via a time honored technique: “I have found that by the use of some stimulants in the shape of beer, they loosen up considerably.”

He also lets the locals know he’s not a fan of the Kern County Land Co. He meets a man named Charles Scribner, who has connections to a real estate agent named Mr. Maude (likely A.C. Maude, who also dabbled in insurance and owned the weekly Californian newspaper for a time).

Scribner joins in the Land Company bashing, H.H. reports.

“… he frequently alluded to the Land Company as monopolists, and some very endearing terms were used by him against the Land Company. He also said that the Company had ‘spotters’ around, and if there was anyone in town looking for land these ‘spotters’ would inform the person that he would get swindled if he purchased from him, or Maude, or anyone but the Land Company.

“Mr. Scribner said that the Land Company would do anything to dispose of its worthless land.”

H.H. does meet with Mr. Maude, who warns him against bad mouthing the Land Company, which controls the water and could make things “very bad for me.”

H.H.’s next report goes even deeper into dark history of land and water in Kern.

But I’ve run out of room so you’ll have to check back next week to hear how it ends.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry. Her column runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or email lhenry@bakersfield.com

 

Ancient rock art….sooooo cool!

Ancient rock art evokes mystery, reverence – even some controversy

LINK to original article: http://www.bakersfield.com/entertainment/ancient-rock-art-evokes-mystery-reverence—even-some/article_999b8a43-d497-592c-98a5-e72683d714b1.html

  • BY LOIS HENRY lhenry@bakersfield.com
Experts theorize these figures, found throughout the canyon, may be shaman figures.

I’ve toured the Little Petroglyph Canyon on the China Lake Navy base twice now.

Both times, I’ve had the same question as I wandered along the sandy floor looking up at countless images painstakingly chipped into the rocky walls:

Why?

The petroglyphs, considered the largest concentration of Native American rock art in the Western Hemisphere, were carved thousands of years ago.

Some may be 6,000 years old. Others are even older — dating back 10,000, perhaps even 15,000 years.

But certainly it was before electricity and takeout food.

My point is that life was tough back then. You had to expend a lot of energy just to survive.

So why would people take time away from finding food and shelter to make thousands upon thousands of cryptic images on rocks?

The fun and kind of frustrating part about the tour is no one gives you an answer.

Tours of Little Petroglyph Canyon

Because not only do we not know when the petroglyphs were made, we don’t know exactly who made them.

“The ancient ones” is the only description given during an orientation film at the first stop tour guests make, in Ridgecrest at the Maturango Museum, which hosts the tours.

According to archeologists, the Paiute-Shoshone people settled in the Coso Mountain area about 800 years ago and likely contributed to the rock art.

But scholars argue over whether the majority of the images predate the Paiute-Shoshone.

Either way, current tribal members consider the art sacred and an important part of their heritage.

The bigger mystery, to me, is what the images meant to those who made them.

Early Navy scientists left their own petroglyphs when China Lake was established in the 1940s.

Even the seemingly self-explanatory carvings, such as bighorn sheep, probably meant more than what they seem on the surface, according to scholars.

The sheep, which used to be prolific in the area, are carved on nearly every surface in the canyon.

Some are clearly being speared, so perhaps those markings depict a recent hunt or wishes for a good hunt.

Others are just there, repeated over and over, leading some scholars to theorize they were spirit animals, possibly associated with water or rain.

Which is interesting because the climate changed in that area dramatically between 12,000 and 700 years ago, going from a lush region with huge lakes (China Lake) to the desert we know today.

So if the petroglyphs were made in the more distant past, those artists were reflecting a very different world, putting their meaning even further out of reach.

People who study these things believe the canyon was a religious site and that shaman or those on spirit quests made the images. Though, again, that’s up for debate.

Some images are easily recognizable: the sheep, antelope, weapons, stick-figure humans.

Others are really mysterious, especially the human-like images that scholars say are shaman figures.

Those have long, rectangular bodies filled with geometric designs and bird claw feet sticking out the bottom.

Their heads are sometimes just swirls or seem to be erupting in flames or aren’t heads at all but a pair of eyeballs on the shoulders.

Some appear to be holding daggers. One looks as if it’s stirring a large pot.

Were they depictions of dreams? Visions? Were they meant to convey a ritual or a final step in some kind of training?

At first, they seem fun, whimsical. But the more you look at them, the eerier they become. You get the feeling they were never meant for public consumption.

None of the petroglyphs appears haphazard, as if doodled out of boredom. (I’m not counting the more recent additions such as “J.P.” or “E=MC2”; those are just vandalism.)

The ancient petroglyphs are very detailed and clearly took time to make.

One petroglyph appears to depict one figure sticking a knife in another figure’s head. Depiction of war?

Regardless of their specific meanings, I suppose what the petroglyphs tell us in general is that artistic expression has always been a vital part of human existence no matter how hard that existence might have been.

At least that’s my very unscholarly take.

 

Rock art: overexposed, underappreciated?

Though the Paiute-Shoshone people haven’t objected to museum-led tours of the petroglyphs, the recent Petroglyph Festival in Ridgecrest has created some bad feelings.

The festival is the latest attempt by the City of Ridgecrest to boost its economy outside of the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, the town’s main employer.

The city has long billed itself as the gateway to Death Valley and has had a trickle of tourism from that. But mostly pass through.

A couple of years ago, it tried a balloon festival. High winds wreaked havoc on that idea, and the balloons.

Then in 2014, city officials held the first petroglyph festival, a joint effort between the Ridgecrest Area Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Maturango Museum.

It was a hit.

Up to 15,000 people flocked to the desert town over the two days of the event, held in early November. (This year’s festival will be Nov. 5-6, http://rpfestival.com/.)

But many Paiute-Shoshone were dismayed that an event promoting a very special and sacred part of their heritage didn’t include them.

In fact, no one from the festival reached out to the Paiute-Shoshone, said Kathy Bancroft, cultural officer of the Paiute-Shoshone in Bishop.

“Even after the festival got some bad publicity over it, no one reached out to the local tribes,” Bancroft said. “It’s very frustrating.”

Instead of Paiute-Shoshone speakers, displays or historical discussions, the festival features a car show, beer garden, tchotchke galore and life-size petroglyph cutouts that people can stick their heads through for photos.

Then there’s the “intertribal” pow-wow with a Cherokee hog fry and Cherokee dances.

The Cherokee weren’t in the Ridgecrest area at the time the petroglyphs were made — or for thousands of years afterward. They have nothing to do with the petroglyphs, Bancroft said.

“It’s insulting. The whole thing just feels like exploitation for profit.”

She and other tribal members would like to see the festival focus on education, especially preservation. Because ancient petroglyphs and pictographs are being damaged, even stolen, throughout the Mojave desert.

Little Petroglyph Canyon on the Navy base is an incredible collection of carvings in one small area. But Bancroft said there are countless more ancient carvings and paintings scattered throughout the desert on open land.

A thorough discussion of the danger those artifacts face would be helpful in raising awareness.

“It’s really strange to me because people come here from around the world because of the petroglyphs. I would think they (festival organizers) would want to teach them the value of the petroglyphs and the meaning. There are a lot of people around here who’ve studied them for years and know the stories behind them.”

Debbie Benson, with the Maturango Museum, agreed the emphasis should be on education.

That’s why the festival is being tweaked this year to have more events at Petroglyph Park that include docents giving talks about the history of the area. Benson said she’s reached out to one member of the Paiute-Shoshone and will be reaching out to Bancroft as well.

She added that the museum has an archaeologist on staff and works with an anthropology professor at Cerro Coso Community College to provide educational programs for local school children about the petroglyphs.

“There will be some changes this year,” she said. “We would like the festival to go more in the direction of understanding, respect and the need for preservation.”

If you go

Getting on a tour isn’t easy.

You have to go through the Maturango Museum in Ridgecrest for a supervised tour.

Start at the museum website: http://maturango.org.

Cost is $55 per person for non-museum members.

The museum only has tours in the fall and spring when the weather allows.

Little Petroglyph Canyon is on the Navy base, which allows the Museum to lead a couple dozen regular tours a year under very tightly controlled circumstances. The Navy has opened that up a little for Ridgecrest’s Petroglyph Festival.

Because the petroglyphs are on a military base, visitors going on the regular museum tours must fill out a slew of forms, submit to a background check and, on the day of the tour, all vehicles are searched.

Normally, non-U.S. citizens are not allowed on tours but an exception is made during the Petroglyph Festival.

The regular tours start at the museum at 6 a.m.

The drive from the entrance of the base to Little Petroglyph Canyon, also known as Renegade Canyon, is about 40 miles.

Tours typically last from about 10 a.m. to 2 or 3 p.m.

The canyon itself is only about one and a half miles long so, if you go the whole way, it’s only a three-mile walk.

The terrain is very easy with no steep climbs. The canyon floor is sandy with a few rocks, and there are a couple places you have to scramble down some boulders.

Guides are there to help you. And you don’t have to go the entire way. There is plenty to see on just about every surface.

There are still a few spaces available on tours June 4 and 5.

After that, you’ll have to wait until the fall.

LOIS HENRY: A water scare you never heard about

The backstory of a water scare you never knew about

LINK to original story:    http://www.bakersfield.com/columnists/lois-henry-the-backstory-of-a-water-scare-you-never/article_e2413d84-4ee7-5bce-9e23-bec87dfcc712.html

  • By lhenry@bakersfield.com
  • How water in Lake Shasta moves through the delta to San Luis Reservoir and on down to Kern users – or NOT, as happened in summer 2016.

Millions of Californians nearly had their water shut off late last month because the federal government ran out of water — sort of.

Yes, you read that right.

The federal Bureau of Reclamation ran out of water in the San Luis Reservoir and sent shutoff alerts (giving three days notice) to 26 districts it serves in the northern San Joaquin Valley and Bay Area.

One of those was the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which provides water to about two million customers including a few companies you may have heard of such as Apple and Hewlett Packard.

The shutoffs were narrowly avoided thanks, in part, to some quick water trades courtesy of the Kern County Water Agency and Arvin-Edison Water Storage District.

Still, San Luis Reservoir is at historic low levels. Dangerous lows, in fact.

And none of it should have happened at all, say water managers.

Because Lake Shasta is full to the brim.

Yes, you read that right, too.

The feds have heaps of water. Just not in the right place.

That, and other water maneuvers by the Bureau, have water managers up and down the state fuming that regulators’ overly strict operation of the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) has been so reckless it could cause problems years into the future.

HOW THE PLUMBING WORKS

To understand how this near-shutdown happened and why water managers are so worried for the future you have to understand the Central Valley Project (CVP).

Don’t be scared! We’ll take baby steps.

The CVP is the federal side of California’s two biggest water systems. The other is the State Water Project, which we will mostly ignore in this story.

To start, I want to make it clear this isn’t a “fish versus farms” rant. Though the Endangered Species Act is the underlying factor for how this all unfolded.

I’m just fascinated by how turning a valve — or not — 500 miles away can wreak havoc throughout the entire system.

So, here’s what happened.

PLAN, NO PLAN

After four years of unprecedented drought, we actually had a decent water year in 2015-2016 (in Northern California, anyway).

The two main reservoirs the CVP relies on, Shasta and Folsom, were full.

The Bureau of Reclamation was able to repay water it had borrowed the previous year and on April 1 told its contractors how much water it would be able to provide.

It promised 100 percent to all its contractors north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 100 percent to so-called Exchange Contractors in the northern San Joaquin Valley and 100 percent to wildlife refuges south of the delta.

It also promised 55 percent of contracted allotments to its municipal users in the Bay Area and 5 percent to its west side agricultural contractors (Westlands Water District and a few other districts).

It made those promises based on approval of a so-called temperature plan for Shasta Lake by the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS).

Because Shasta is a linchpin in the survival of the endangered winter-run Chinook salmon, regulators have to make sure it has enough cold water to run down the Sacramento River at the end of October.

The temperature plan outlines how much water can be released from Shasta each month to preserve that needed chunk of cold water. Typically, downstream users can expect up to 13,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) a day in the river.

But salmon took a beating these last few drought years so the Bureau and NMFS created a more cautious plan with limits of 9,000 CFS in June, 10,500 CFS in July and 10,000 CFS in August.

With approval by all the regulating agencies, cities made their water supply plans, farmers planted their crops and wildlife refuges let out a sigh of relief after several dry years.

Happy days, right?

Not so fast.

DOWN TO A DRIBBLE

In early May, NMFS became concerned that initial lake temperature readings came in higher than predicted.

It scrapped the original plan and announced what many saw as a draconian reduction in Shasta releases, no more than 8,000 CFS all summer. In fact, June’s releases were cut back to 7,400 CFS at one point.

The announced reduction caused pandemonium among water contractors south of the delta and the Bureau set about re-negotiating the plan.

Compounding reduced supplies from Shasta was salt.

The delta was hit with a “king tide” starting in June that brought more salt from the San Francisco Bay than had been anticipated.

That required the Bureau, along with the state Department of Water Resources (DWR), to push more fresh water out through the delta to maintain water quality for municipal users.

That wasn’t as great a burden on DWR because it’s responsible to provide only 25 percent of that water and its main reservoir, Oroville, isn’t under the same winter-run salmon release restrictions.

Since the Bureau couldn’t increase its supply of fresh water out of Shasta because of NMFS, it had to move as much water out of Folsom as possible while keeping pumping out of its Jones Pumping Plant near Tracy to only a single pump.

The Bureau planned to move nearly 3,000 CFS daily through Jones and into the San Luis Reservoir. That was down to about 800 CFS this summer.

MAJOR WATER DEBT

The dribble coming out of Jones was quickly overmatched by demand, hence, the feds ran out of water in San Luis in about mid-June.

That’s when the borrowing frenzy started.

San Luis is a holding tank for water from both the feds and state.

They park water in San Luis and, from there, it goes to Bay Area cities, San Joaquin Valley farmers, wildlife refuges or all the way to Los Angeles through a variety of canals.

Contractors also store water in San Luis. Some is left over from previous years and some they purchase from third parties and pay a fee to store in San Luis.

That’s where the Bureau started.

In June and early July it took 270,000 acre feet that federal contractors had stored in San Luis, which caused severe howling and a lot of legal saber rattling from districts that had bought water at steep prices last year and paid to have it waiting for them in San Luis.

The Bureau is still working out how to answer those issues, I was told.

TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE

Finally, on June 28, NMFS approved a new plan for Shasta releases, which was basically the old plan.

But the increased releases for June were moot. June had passed.

The Bureau quickly burned through all its borrowed water and needed more.

It put out a call for help to all water contractors.

On July 15, Arvin-Edison, Kern County Water Agency and the state Department of Water Resources stepped up offering water through loans and exchanges.

The feds accepted but weren’t initially able to get the required permits to make the deals.

That’s why, on July 21, the Bureau sent three-day shutoff notices to all its contractors.

That includes the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which was already having to use its emergency water supplies out of Anderson Reservoir to blend with San Luis water because San Luis had dropped so low the water had become too fetid for Santa Clara to run directly through its treatment plants.

WHISTLING PAST THE GRAVEYARD

The Bureau finally got its permits and no one was shut off but it still only had a trickle coming from Shasta, the king tide to deal with and obligations to meet south of the delta.

It had to borrow even more water, all the way from Fresno and at least one Friant Division district.

As the calendar ticks toward mid-August, the Bureau is holding its breath.

That’s because salinity requirements will drop off mid-August, demand from north-of-delta users is expected to relax and NMFS actually agreed to keep Shasta releases at 10,500 CFS per day rather than throttle back to 10,000 CFS as outlined in the temperature plan.

Yes, water managers say, the crisis appears to be coming to a close.

REPAYING THE DEBT

But what about next year?

“The Bureau should be moving as much water south as they can right now (to repay the approximately 380,000 acre feet it owes),” said Ara Azhderian, water policy administrator for the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority. “But there doesn’t seem to be much opportunity for that this fall.”

Indeed, Ryan Wulff, branch chief for Delta Policy and Restoration with NMFS, reminded me these next few weeks are typically very hot so releases from Shasta will continue cautiously.

And even with this abundance, some say over abundance of caution (water managers tell me Shasta has 325,000 acre feet more cold water than the NMFS plan called for), Wullf predicted this fall’s salmon run will be paltry at best because of previous drought years.

And that, Azhderian said, is one of the most frustrating aspects of all of this.

“We need effective regulation so all these sacrifices actually result in something,” he said. “Part of the problem is we’re a victim of our own success.”

California’s water districts are so adept at moving, trading and exchanging water, the public never really knows how close we come to the cliff edge.

“People don’t have the foggiest idea of how it all works.”

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry. Her column runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or email lhenry@bakersfield.com.

LOIS HENRY ONLINERead archived columns by Lois Henry at Bakersfield.com/henry.

TIMELINEMarch 31 — National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) approves the Bureau of Reclamation’s temperature plan for Shasta Lake. Enough cold water must be kept in the lake to release at the end of October for winter-run Chinook salmon. The plan would have allowed daily releases of 9,000 CFS in June, 10,500 CFS in July and 10,000 CFS in August.

April 1 — Based on NMFS’ approval of the Bureau’s temp plan, the Bureau announces water allocations of 5 percent of contracted amounts for west side ag districts, 55 percent for municipal clients and 100 percent each for wildlife refuges, below delta exchange contractors, above delta Sacramento Valley diverters and Sacramento Valley Settlement Contractors.

Mid-April — Shasta fills to near capacity of 4.3 MAF, Folsom fills 850,000 AF.

April through May — Bureau only runs one pump out of six available in its Jones Pumping Plant near Tracy. One pump moves 800-1,000 CFS of water per day.

May 2 — NMFS rejects the original temp plan as early lake temperatures come in warmer than predicted. NMFS states it will reduce Shasta releases to 8,000 CFS all summer. The Bureau and NMFS enter negotiations for a new plan.

Month of June — Because there is no temp plan in place, NMFS keeps Shasta releases to 7,400 CFS. Bureau quickly begins falling behind in filling San Luis Reservoir, which is used to meet its south-of-delta obligations.

June through July — A “king tide” creates salinity issues in the delta, forcing the Bureau and state Department of Water Resources (DWR) to push 8,000 to 12,000 CFS per day to the ocean through releases from Folsom and Oroville. Typically, the agencies would have to move 7,500 CFS through the delta for salinity.

Mid-June — Bureau has no water in San Luis Reservoir and is forced to borrow 270,000 AF from federal contractors who had stored water there from previous years or who had purchased water from third parties and stored it in San Luis. That water is used to meet the Bureau’s April allocations but only lasts until mid July.

June 28 — NMFS agrees to a second temp plan that allows for releases of 9,000 CFS in June (but June has passed), 10,500 CFS in July and 10,000 CFS in August.

July 6 — Santa Clara Valley Water District is forced to tap its emergency supplies at Anderson Reservoir to blend with water out of San Luis because the San Luis water had become fetid as lake levels dropped dramatically. Santa Clara has used 12,000 AF of its emergency supplies.

July 15 — The Bureau is again out of water in San Luis. It asks for help from all contractors including those on the State Water Project. It inks a deal to borrow 12,000 AF from Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, a Friant contractor,* and exchanges 45,000 AF of federal water from Millerton with the Kern County Water Agency, a state contractor. The Bureau also borrows 38,000 from DWR. But it needs approval from the State Water Resources Control Board to make those trades.

July 21 — The Bureau doesn’t get approval and sends shutoff notices to 26 water districts alerting them pumping would cease in three days.

July 22 — Shutoff is narrowly avoided after an all-night session between Bureau and Water Board employees results in the needed approvals.

July 22 — The Bureau approves an increase in allocations to contractors on the Friant side of the CVP, which takes water from Millerton, igniting a firestorm of criticism from other federal contractors who were still in danger of being shut off.

July 22 — Westland’s Water District agrees to take 40,000 AF of water it had purchased and stored in San Luis as an emergency stash, rather than what was promised by the Bureau in April. It also gives 5,000 AF from that emergency stash to San Luis Water District.

July 25 — Bureau borrows another 10,000 AF from Fresno Irrigation District and the City of Fresno and sends it down the San Joaquin River from Millerton for west side ag contractors.

Aug 1 — Bureau borrows another 5,000 AF from a Friant district to send down the San Joaquin from Millerton for west side contractors. Total borrowed, not including Westlands water, is 380,000 AF.

Aug. 1 — At 205,000 AF, San Luis Reservoir is lower even than it was in 1976-77, one of the driest years on record.

Aug. 10 — NMFS agrees to keep Shasta releases 10,500 CFS daily through August rather than dropping down to 10,000 CFS as planned.

Future — There are no certain plans for how the Bureau will repay the 380,000 AF it borrowed.

West side federal contractors believe the debt should be paid out of Millerton.

Friant division contractors (which include several districts in Kern County) believe the water should be repaid through increased pumping out of the Jones facility this fall.

Either way, all sides are hoping this debt doesn’t reach into the 2017 water year.

*The CVP south of the delta is split into two halves. One serves districts in the Bay Area and along the west side of the valley, the other serves districts in the Friant Division, which includes Arvin-Edison, Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District and Kern Tulare Water District in Kern County.

LOIS HENRY: How water grows houses hundreds of miles away without moving an inch

This is an oldie, but a goodie about how water is “moved” around to make deals…

Water banked in Kern County is used to develop houses in Madera, three counties to the north, through a series of paper water transfers.

LINK to original article:

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/lois-henry-how-water-from-kern-grows-sprawl-in-madera/article_2c11936a-4542-56f2-b81b-d0f32e3e1c5c.html
By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist lhenry@bakersfield.com

So, a pile of water banked in Kern County is being used to support a massive urban development in Madera County.

Before you try and wrap your head around how that’s geographically possible, there’s the whole question of whether the banked water (and other water slated for the project) even can be used for that purpose.

Then let’s tack on whether it’s cool that public resources are being used throughout this deal to basically benefit private businesses.

I swear when I started this I just wondered how the water would “move” up to Madera.

Why can’t anything ever be simple?

Let’s start in Madera County.

A 2,000-acre development called Gateway Village was proposed way back in the 1990s by Castle & Cooke as a “master planned” community of more than 6,500 homes with parks, commercial space, etc., in the southeast corner of the county just north of Children’s Hospital Central California along Highway 41.

The taps and toilets for all that urbanization will require more than 6,300 acre-feet of water a year, according to Gateway’s environmental documents. (Imagine 6,300 football fields each covered with a foot of water — it’s a lot).

Of course, the question is where will that water come from?

The development is in the Root Creek Water District, formed a little before Gateway Village was first proposed. It covers about 9,200 acres and is home to citrus and grape farming.

Root Creek’s groundwater is severely overdrafted and the district has no other surface supplies.

The district is not a contractor within the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), which moves water through the Friant-Kern Canal from Millerton Lake north of Fresno to the Arvin-Edison Water District in Kern County.

Gateway developers came up with a plan under which Root Creek would buy “excess” water from the neighboring Madera Irrigation District, which is a CVP contractor, and from the Bureau of Reclamation, which runs the CVP.

Both of those supplies are described as “when available” in Gateway’s documents.

Considering the vagaries of Mother Nature, the Madera County Board of Supervisors wasn’t comfortable with that and sent Root Creek/Gateway out to look for a backup supply of water.

They found it in Kern County.

First, a quick stop in Tulare County.

That’s where the Root Creek “backup” water originates.

It’s owned by Paramount Citrus Association, one of the many companies owned by billionaires Lynda and Stewart Resnick.

Paramount owns Rayo Ranch in Tulare County, which has rights to 9,000 acre-feet a year of Kaweah River water.

Paramount doesn’t use all its Rayo water, so, for years, has moved some of it through the CVP system to other Paramount lands.

Like Root Creek, Paramount is not a CVP contractor. It has to partner with Tulare Irrigation District, which is a CVP contractor, to move that Rayo water.

Paramount releases its Rayo water to Tulare Irrigation, which, in turn, sends a like amount of water down the Friant-Kern Canal to the North Kern Water Storage District here in Kern County. North Kern isn’t a CVP contractor but has access to the Friant-Kern Canal.

In order to use the CVP system, Paramount had to have an “environmental assessment” (EA) approved by the Bureau of Reclamation.

In that EA, it very clearly states that the Rayo water is only to be used for farming and groundwater recharge.

It also states the water cannot be used in such a way that would trigger any land use changes, such as from ag to urban.

OK, so now, much of that Rayo water is banked in North Kern, where Paramount is a huge landowner. Paramount also bought some water from the Nickel family and has it banked in North Kern.

Here’s where Root Creek comes in.

In 2009, another Resnick company, the Westside Mutual Water Company, made a deal with North Kern to pull some of that banked Paramount water out and give it to neighboring Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District for ultimate delivery to Root Creek in Madera.

The deal is phased, starting at 3,500 acre-feet of water per year up to a maximum of 7,000 acre-feet, if needed.

Shafter-Wasco is a CVP contractor so it can take that Paramount water and have the Bureau of Reclamation release a like amount of water from Millerton Lake to the Madera Irrigation District.

Madera Irrigation would then deliver it to Root Creek through two turns-outs soon to be constructed on the federally owned Madera Canal.

Again, all those swaps, including constructing the turnouts, had to pass muster with the Bureau of Reclamation in an EA.

And, again, the Bureau EA clearly states that the Paramount (Westside Mutual) water and any water Root Creek buys directly from Madera Irrigation or the Bureau is to be used only for ag or groundwater recharge.

It can’t be used in a manner that results in land use changes — ag to urban.

But that’s exactly what this water will do. That’s what it’s intended to do. That was the whole point of this long, elaborate deal.

I asked the Bureau about that.

First, I confirmed that, yes, the Bureau did put those ag-only limitations on all the water movements involved in this deal and that the water cannot be used for “M and I” (municipal and industrial).

The Bureau does follow up on these deals annually but mostly to make sure the right amount of water is being moved to the correct recipients.

It’s up to Root Creek to tell the Bureau how it used the water.

Um.

My guess, backed up by what Root Creek’s attorney told me, is Root Creek will simply say the water was used for groundwater recharge per the Bureau’s limitations.

End of story.

Of course that’s not the end of the story because the water will have been pumped right back out and put into the taps and toilets of Gateway Village, as was the intent all along.

I’m not arguing against Gateway Village. It may be the greatest piece of leap frog development ever to grace the fertile fields of Madera County.

That’s not the point.

The point is that taxpayers, who built and own the CVP system, seem to be giving quite an assist to the bottom lines of two private enterprises.

Oh, and Root Creek was also awarded a $4 million grant from the State Department of Water Resources to help pay for those turnouts on the Madera Canal in order to curb the district’s severe groundwater overdraft.

All of which makes me wonder, what’s in it for us?

The owners of Gateway Village (Castle & Cooke sold it in 2010 to unnamed investors) aren’t going to give the Bureau a cut of every lot they sell.

And Paramount/Westside Mutual certainly isn’t going to share any of the loot it makes off selling water to Root Creek.

The loot, by the way, could be pretty substantial.

Paramount/Westside Mutual has spent at least $2.6 million up front to sink four wells and build pipelines between North Kern and Shafter-Wasco and pay both districts “stand by” fees for the water.

But companies appear to have made about $3.5 million back from Root Creek, which has been paying $180 per acre-foot a year for the last five years for Paramount/Westside Mutual to hold its water in reserve.

If Root Creek ever needs the water, the price will go up by $420 per acre-foot for a total of $600 per acre-foot.

I gleaned most of those figures by scouring through agreements with the ag districts and talking to district managers and the attorney for Root Creek.

I would have liked to get a more accurate picture of the finances involved but Paramount/Westside Mutual wasn’t talking.

“We’re a private company,” I was told by Westside Mutual President Bill Phillimore. “I don’t think there’s any advantage to us participating in this story.”

Yeah, and that’s what concerns me.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

LOIS HENRY: How Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s 2016 delta legislation works

LINK to original article: http://www.bakersfield.com/columnists/lois-henry-water-water-everywhere-but-can-we-keep-it/article_d1cd4c96-6115-582c-9707-11e07a06ae46.html

Will we get the water?

That’s the question everyone’s been asking. (And by everyone, I mean the other five or six people I know who are as weirdly interested in water as I am.)

Storms are dumping, rivers are rising and lakes are filling — finally.

Will we be able to squirrel that water away for the next dry spell?

Or will California flush it out to sea?

Yes and yes.

The state Department of Water Resources (DWR) and federal Bureau of Reclamation are planning to move as much water as possible into storage, said Kern County Water Agency General Manager Curtis Creel.

There are concerns about the endangered delta smelt fish that must also be addressed, so DWR and the Bureau are coordinating with their counterparts in the U.S. and state departments of Fish and Wildlife.

But there’s so much water pouring into the state right now, with more coming, that Creel wasn’t too worried about the smelt’s share.

“At some point, even with the ESA (Endangered Species Act) in place, there will be more water in the system than we can physically take,” he said.

Locally, water folks are already sucking up as much as they can.

Some of that is “extra” water from this season’s storms, some of it isn’t.

For instance, local water agencies are getting a big slug of water out of Millerton Lake east of Fresno, which has been dumping water for the past week and a half for flood control.

That water comes down the Friant-Kern Canal (that’s the one behind Lowe’s on Rosedale Highway) and goes to Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors in Kern.

When the CVP (which is federal) is in flood control mode, that means contractors take as much water as they can.

Which is exactly what they’re doing through a network of banking and recharge agreements with other entities.

Which is why you now see a “river” in the Kern River bed from Coffee Road to a bit west of the Stockdale Highway bridge.

That’s not Kern River water.

It’s actually San Joaquin River water coming out of Millerton headed to groundwater recharge ponds on behalf of a number of local water agencies.

Meanwhile, the California Aqueduct on the west side of the valley (part of the State Water Project) is bringing what’s known as “carryover” water out of San Luis Reservoir that local districts are socking away in the Kern Water Bank and Semitropic Water Storage District water bank.

Carryover water is water that districts bought the previous year and are allowed to store in San Luis until needed the next year.

With water being pumped out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta fast and furious, no local agencies want to lose their carryover water if San Luis gets too full.

“We are scrambling to recharge all the water we can,” said Jonathan Parker, general manager of the Kern Water Bank Authority.

Generally speaking, the Kern Water Bank can recharge up to 60,000 acre feet a month. That pace slows as the bank fills.

Which is why water folks are watching weather conditions closely, ready to throttle back if needed.

Because everyone also has eyes on the Kern River and Isabella Lake.

“If the Kern has mandatory releases, I would expect all our (groundwater banking) participants would take any of that water offered,” Parker said.

Under a mandatory release situation, when the Army Corps of Engineers dumps water out of Isabella for flood control and dam safety, it becomes a kind of free-for-all.

There’s no cost for the water or moving it, since it’s all gravity-fed.

That’s like manna water — everybody wants some.

So, you don’t want to fill up on delta water if Kern River water is in play.

But that’s tricky to predict.

Right now, Isabella is at 170,000 acre feet, according to Kern River Watermaster Dana Munn.

Starting Feb.1, the Corps could let the level rise to 245,000 acre feet.

But it depends on how big the snowpack is and is expected to get.

A recent model shows the snowpack at 120 percent of normal, which would allow river interests (several ag water districts and the City of Bakersfield) to store up to 245,000 acre feet.

With more storms on the horizon, though, the Corps could get antsy about holding on to that water.

Or, as Munn noted, it could be like 1997.

Back then, we had a huge December and January, then it all came to a screeching halt.

Mother Nature is fickle like that.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry. Her column runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or email lhenry@bakersfield.com.

LOIS HENRY ONLINE

Read archived columns by Lois Henry at  bakersfield.com/columnists/lois-henry.

A water bill that pays dividends

You may have heard that a landmark California water bill was passed in late 2016.

OK, maybe you hadn’t heard.

But you’re gonna now.

There are a lot of moving parts to the legislation, which was pushed by an odd alliance of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and faithful GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield (dissect the politics on your own time).

Anyhow, right now a couple of pieces of that bill are kicking in and water managers expect they will result in greater flexibility, meaning more water and, most importantly, greater certainty to water users.

It’s all about flow.

In average years, there usually isn’t enough water coming into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta from the San Joaquin River to push water north through the delta as the massive pumps that feed both the state and federal water projects pull water south near the town of Tracy.

That creates a “reverse flow” in what’s known as the Old and Middle River channels and is considered bad for endangered fish species.

So fishery agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, set a standard reverse flow amount they felt the fish could tolerate.

No more than 5,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) can flow toward the pumps in the Old and Middle River channels.

The fishery agencies could be more restrictive than 5,000 CFS, but rarely allowed any greater flow unless storms fattened the San Joaquin River to the point that it pushed water north harder than the pumps could suck it south.

You may think this is all esoteric but it has a real, direct local impact.

When flows were ratcheted down it meant pumping had to slow or even stop, which has meant a lot less water for farms and cities in our neck of the woods.

And it was all based on fishery agencies’ concerns, not data.

The McCarthy-Feinstein legislation changed that.

Now, if agencies want to curtail flows toward the pumps below 5,000 CFS, they must provide scientific evidence that doing so is needed to protect the fish.

The legislation also allows the Department of Water Resources and Bureau of Reclamation to seek higher flows as long as they, likewise, provide evidence that increased flows won’t harm the fish.

What that’s meant this year is that flows toward the pumps haven’t been cut below 5,000 CFS, allowing a lot more water to move south.

The other part of the legislation that will kick in this year involves stormwater payback.

Remember, in heavy water years like this one, fishery agencies could allow flows toward the pumps to increase.

But previously, those agencies would then require the water be paid back, explained Kern County Water Agency General Manager Curtis Creel.

How the agencies got the water back was somewhat arbitrary.

“At some point in the future, let’s say three months after the storm event, the fisheries might say it would be OK to stay at 5,000 CFS but we’re going to drop you down to 4,000,” in order to repay the “extra” water that was captured earlier, Creel said. “They would artificially limit you because there might be some benefit to the smelt.”

That kind of management created a lot of uncertainty for water managers south of the delta.

The McCarthy-Feinstein legislation did away with the payback requirement.

“It’s real change and it’s very positive,” Creel said of the legislation. “It did not change the Endangered Species Act in any way.”

It simply puts both fishery and water agencies on notice that the congressional preference is for delta operations to lean toward the upper allowable limits unless there is evidence that justifies either cutting back or going above.

It may be nuanced, but, as I said, it’s landmark.


LOIS HENRY: Taxpayer funded water deal that makes me go: Hmmm

By LOIS HENRY
Californian columnist
July 30, 2016
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/lois-henry-taxpayer-funded-water-deal-that-makes-me-go/article_79f6c1b9-92ed-5b4b-99f6-e2881c1ad25d.html

The Nickel water came to my attention again recently.

Tejon Ranchcorp released its draft environmental impact report for its proposed Grapevine community of 12,000 new houses at the base of the Grapevine.

If the development is approved, it will be Nickel water flowing through the taps and toilets of all those homes.

I like following the Nickel water partly because it’s fascinating to see how many development dreams it continues to fuel.

And also because the Nickel water was part of a deal that cost taxpayers $10 million back in 2000 and I like to see how that investment is working out for us.

First, the background.

The Nickel family owned land up in Kings County that actually got a slug of Kern River water every so often when the river ran high.

After the Isabella Dam was built, George Nickel made a claim that storing water in Isabella Lake would deprive him of that high flow water.

The issue was settled with the other river interests agreeing that Nickel had rights to high flow water — now known as the Lower River right — and he was allowed to rent storage in Isabella.

Fast forward to 2000.

The late Tom Clark, who used to work for Nickel, was general manager of the Kern County Water Agency.

The agency made a deal to buy Nickel’s Lower River right and storage in Isabella for $10 million plus the agency agreed to give Nickel 10,000 acre feet of water every year in perpetuity.

That $10 million was public bond money, by the way.

It was part of Proposition 13 passed in 2000 to support safe drinking water, water quality and water reliability.

The agency’s deal definitely created reliability for the Nickel family, which now has 10,000 acre feet a year, rain or shine, to sell up and down the state. And, boy has it (see sidebar).

As for taxpayers who funded the deal, I’m not so sure how we made out.

The Lower River right has only materialized three times in the last 16 years, yielding about 300,000 acre feet to the agency.

Now that is a load of water. But where’s it all gone?

The agency sold a big chunk, 118,666 acre feet, mostly to its member units, local agricultural water districts.

A little more than 90,000 acre feet have been put into the agency’s Pioneer groundwater bank.

And more than 58,000 acre feet have been used to made good on the agency’s 10,000-acre-foot-a-year obligation to the Nickel Family LLC.

Oh, and a little more than 12,300 acre feet have been sold to the Western Hills Water District to support a swanky golf resort/housing development in the bone dry foothills west of Interstate 5 up near Modesto. (Who on earth thought that was a good use of Kern River water? Sheesh!)

Excluding the water sent to the Nickels and Western Hills, about 230,000 acre feet stayed put and was used here in Kern County, which was Clark’s argument for the deal back in 2000.

If the agency hadn’t bought the Lower River right, Clark told me several times, that water would have barreled down the river channel, gone into the intertie and on to the California Aqueduct where downstream users could lay claim to it. (Yes, but no one ever got extra water. It would just mean less pumping from the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.)

That’s because the Nickels only had so much storage in Isabella. Once that was full and assuming the family had nowhere else to park it, that water was on the loose.

Okaaaay.

Except, I would argue back with Clark, that meant anyone — including the agency, the Kern Water Bank, Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District, or anyone else with recharge facilities and the ability to divert water off the river — could capture it and use it for free.

I didn’t see the wisdom in the deal but Clark never stopped trying to convince me. I do miss that guy.

Anyhow, remember that the Lower River right was paid for by all Californians via a bond. But it was used mainly by large farming interests, which have made large profits from that water.

And, I would point out, our aquifer didn’t benefit. We are critically overdrafted — meaning more water is being pumped out than put back in.

So, that $10 million Lower River water hasn’t increased the “reliability” of the aquifer, which affects all of us.

Besides all that, the environmental documents the agency used to approve the Lower River deal were based on the premise that some additional bond money obtained by the agency would be used to build wells that would restore the river through Bakersfield at least part-time.

That never happened.

In fact, for the past few years, the agency has pumped the heck out of those wells to meet drinking water demand, which makes zero sense to me if the agency truly is flush with Lower River water stored in its Pioneer groundwater bank.

Some people got rich off this deal, some people got water and some got both.

But I still don’t see what taxpayers got out of it.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry. Her column runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or email lhenry@bakersfield.com.

LOIS HENRY ONLINE
Read archived columns by Lois Henry at Bakersfield.com/henry.

Related Info

Watering suburbia
The 10,000 acre feet of water provided to the Nickel Family LLC by the Kern County Water Agency has been sold in long-term contracts to various entities intent on using it for development.

Most of these developments haven’t broken ground or been fully built yet so much of this water has been stored in groundwater banks or sold on a one-time basis to farming operations.

Here’s who currently owns the Nickel water:

• 2005, Newhall Land and Farming Co. signed a long-term contract to buy 1,607 acre feet. It plans to use that water to help supply 22,000 homes in the Santa Clarita area.

• 2007, DMB Communities II Inc. signed a long-term contract to buy 8,393 acre feet. DMB had tried to use the water for a controversial development in the northern California community of Redwood. But that met with severe opposition.

• 2013, DMB assigned 1,700 acre feet of its Nickel water to CV Communities and 6,693 acre feet to Tejon Ranchcorp. Tejon plans to use 6,278 acre feet of that water for the proposed 12,000-home Grapevine development. No word on what it plans to do with the remaining 415 acre feet.

• 2016, CV Communities assigned its 1,700 acre feet to Antelope Valley‐East Kern Water Agency. CV Communities plans to use that water for a proposed 758-home development called Avanti North near Lancaster.

Cash cow
The Kern County Water Agency gets 10 percent of what the Nickel Family LLC earns off its water sales.

Here’s how much the agency has made over the years:

2001 – $460,000

2002 – $213,945

2003 – $175,278

2004 – $165,672

2005 – $ 78,805

2006 – $ 81,366

2007 – $376,011

2008 – $628,929

2009 – $539,114

2010 – $556,251

2011 – $573,908

2012 – $592,531

2013 – $611,293

2014 – $655,251

2015 – $675,176

2016 – $695,707