LOIS HENRY
Californian columnist
Feb. 26, 2013
http://www.bakersfield.com/columnists/lois_henry/lois-henry-there-goes-more-kern-river-water-over-the/article_4614262e-859f-5d4a-918b-e8d706710f77.html
Keeping track of Kern River water leads to all kinds of interesting little snarls.
For example, our river water has created what could become a major dustup for the Castaic Lake Water Agency.
The agency, just to Kern’s south, is the state water contractor that supplies the Santa Clarita area. That includes Valencia and the controversial 21,000-home Newhall Ranch development.
The dust up involves whether the Castaic agency should have obtained permission from the California Public Utilities Commission before buying Valencia Water Co. for $73 million last December.
This is all in Los Angeles County so you may not think you care, but believe me, you should.
That’s because the Castaic agency bought Valencia Water Co. in order to make sure Newhall Ranch taps and toilets get water — Kern River water.
How’d that happen? Glad you asked.
The water was owned by the Nickel family here in Kern County. It was flood water on the lower river (also known as the Hacienda right) that only materializes in very high water years. The average is figured at 50,000 acre feet a year.
In reality, the Nickels had way too much water some years and didn’t get a drop others.
In 2000, the Kern County Water Agency — using public bond money that the agency had pledged to use for Kern River restoration — paid the Nickel family $10 million for the Hacienda right.
As part of the deal, the Kern agency also promised to give the Nickels 10,000 acre feet of water every year. Hard and fast, drought or no drought, the Nickels get that water.
That gave the Nickel family a huge asset that could be divvied up and sold.
And they sell it they have, about 1,600 acre feet a year to Newhall Ranch and 8,400 acre feet a year to Development company DMB Associates.
DMB had grand plans to use the water, through a series of swaps, for a very controversial development in Redwood City, but those plans appear to be on hold.
Not so with the Newhall Ranch development down south.
Things had been moving along until the Castaic agency bought the Valencia Water Co. (owned by Newhall) in December and got smacked with a legal action by opponents of Newhall Ranch.
Valencia Water Co., is a water retailer governed by the PUC. Hence, the PUC needed to bless the union before the honeymoon. But someone forgot to make that call.
When I first started asking about the legal action against the purchase, Castaic agency General Manager Dan Masnada chalked it up to a paperwork issue that his agency would clear away momentarily.
Not quite.
A PUC administrative law judge ordered Castaic to go through the application process, then denied Castaic’s plea to reconsider that order and most recently denied Castaic’s motion to dismiss the action entirely. (Incidentally, Castaic filed its dismissal motion on Friday and the judge zapped back his denial on Saturday. Yowser.)
There are a ton more details that raise questions about the Castaic/Valencia Water Co. purchase deal — including a proposed 15 percent rate hike, after Valencia ratepayers just had their bills increased by 3 percent last November.
But I was most interested in the Nickel water.
Masnada said Castaic’s acquisition of Valencia Water Co. wouldn’t affect the Nickel water one way or another. Newhall Ranch owns that water (under a 30-plus-year contract) and it will ultimately be used for that development, he said.
Castaic’s role in all this is simply to facilitate movement of the water, via the California aqueduct, Masnada said. Oh, and as part of its purchase deal with Valencia Water Co., Castaic will get whatever Nickel water is deemed surplus after Newhall Ranch is fully built out and all its needs are met.
“We’re hoping to get the District Attorney or Attorney General to look into this,” said Lynne Plambeck, president of Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment.
Her contention is Newhall Ranch would never have been able to get the Nickel water without the help of Castaic and so they made a deal with Castaic that uses public facilities and public funds for one company’s private gain.
I don’t know about all that, but I have to wonder if our Kern River water had stayed where it belonged, if all this strife might be avoided.
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
VIDEO
http://www.bakersfield.com/columnists/water-shortage-in-california-how-far-will-it-let-us/youtube_d6e5e128-afbd-5251-a205-0620f8778110.html
LOIS HENRY
THE BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN, first ran Feb. 13, 2016
Perhaps it seems crazy that Bakersfield has actually ramped up home construction during one of the worst droughts in California history.
Especially crazy since the city’s river rights dried up last summer, bringing 20,000 residents harrowingly close to running out of water.
Add to that the fact that we have a boatload of development left over from the pre-recession days already approved.
Oh, and we sit atop one of the most over-pumped aquifers in the state, something new law aims to change.
Yet from 2012 through 2015, the drought years, Bakersfield issued a combined 5,139 building permits for new single-family homes.
All of which got me wondering how much more development Bakersfield’s water supplies can sustain.
So I asked around.
I kind of figured there’d be a number. Or a guesstimate. Or someone besides me mulling over the issue considering we actually hit the bottom of the barrel last summer.
Mostly what I heard back was “That’s a really good question.”
Hmph.
To be fair, water and planning agencies do track development and water supplies. To the drop.
But that’s just it. Each entity tracks its own supplies, its own use and its own development plans.
Since all those straws are poked into the same milkshake (nod to “There Will Be Blood”), I thought there must be some way to figure out the cumulative demand versus total supply.
Simple, yes? No.
RABBIT HOLE
No one agency keeps an overall running tally of our water supplies and the impact each new development will have on that supply.
If a development includes more than 500 homes, a full-blown environmental review, including cumulative water impacts, is required. But I noticed a lot of large developments appeared to be done piecemeal, staying under that 500-home trigger.
And urban water reports (required by the state every five years), which are typically used to give developments the OK, contain vague averages in terms of water supplies and the reports aren’t uniform from one purveyor to the next, making it difficult to find definitive numbers for how many more houses our water can support.
New groundwater legislation passed last year by the state will force a much more strict accounting, but not for several years.
Meanwhile, we have about 58,000 housing units either approved or in some stage of construction in and around Bakersfield.
Of those, I counted about 12,500 lots in developments in the city that are in some phase of construction, leaving about 37,500 lots in the approved but holding stage, which could mean they are months, years or forever from being built. About 8,000 lots are in county areas around metro Bakersfield but the county didn’t track which are under construction or in the holding stage.
(By the way, that 58,000 doesn’t include the 12,000 homes proposed by Tejon Ranch at the base of the Grapevine, nor the already approved 3,000 homes in Shafter just over the city line at 7th Standard Road.)
So, if you figure each of those 58,000 homes will hold about three people, that means an increase in population of 174,000 people, assuming it all gets built, of course.
Each of those folks will use, say, 250 (a number that will go down if conservation measures are kept in place) gallons of water per day, which works out to about 16 billion gallons a year, or 52,000 acre-feet.
That would be on top of the 120,000 acre-feet a year that existing residents, businesses, parks and lakes require.
Arguably, that wouldn’t be a huge amount of “new” demand assuming most of that development occurs on existing farmland and ag to urban is considered a wash in terms of water use. A lot of those new homes, though, are slated for the unfarmed northeast.
Either way, such expansion would be more “hard” demand on what has already been deemed a critically overdrafted aquifer.
When I say overdrafted, I mean we pump about 300,000 and 400,000 acre-feet a year more than goes back in. (During the drought, it’s been a million acre-feet). That’s, of course, including the draw from Kern’s 800-pound economic gorilla — agriculture.
When water is short, almond trees can be pulled up and cotton plowed under. Houses can’t go dry.
KERN RIVER, DEVELOPMENT LIFELINE
The City of Bakersfield has always boasted a healthy water supply thanks to its ownership of a large chunk of the Kern River.
That didn’t stop a near catastrophe last summer when the river all but dried up and Cal Water had to do some fast dealmaking to get water to its northeast and northwest treatment plants. (See side box.)
Aside from the river, Bakersfield and Cal Water (the main water purveyors in the city) buy some water from the state through what’s known as Improvement District 4 (ID4).
But, by and large, the main source is groundwater.
The city has long maintained that because of recharge from the Kern River, it has a solid groundwater base.
That’s probably true.
Unless you’re in a severe, sustained drought, as we’ve been.
Even without drought, the days of assuming that groundwater is an unending supply are over.
PLANNING KNOCKED FOR A LOOP
“The whole world’s turned upside down and I honestly don’t know how it will all sort out,” said Kern County Planning Director Lorelei Oviatt.
Land-use planning has become an evolving issue under the state’s new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).
“Because now we have a new regulation over the groundwater that we didn’t have before,” she said. “What if it turns out that things in the General Plan that we said we were going to build, we don’t have the water for? How’s that going to turn out? I don’t know the answer to that.
“Right now, the (ag) water districts are all worried about the new law, but planning seems like an afterthought.”
Under the new state law, everyone with a stake in the aquifer (pretty much everyone) has to agree on how much each entity can pump without creating an overdraft.
We’re a long way from a number, but what if it were only a half acre-foot per acre of land? What would that do to planning? To property rights? Who gets priority for that water?
These are questions the county has been wrestling with in different forms for a number of years in other parts of Kern.
For instance, some developments in outlying areas have been required to provide proof of two water sources, homes have been assigned individual water budgets and anyone seeking a General Plan amendment first has to show the county its water source, Oviatt said.
“Those are some of the ideas we’re going to discuss when we start our General Plan update in a couple of months,” she said. “But for some county areas in the metro Bakersfield area, like western Rosedale, I don’t have any solutions yet.”
For her part, Bakersfield’s chief planner, Jacqui Kitchen, agreed that local land use and water agencies must be on the same page going forward.
Though the planning future is murky for both, Oviatt acknowledged the city is in a better position by virtue of its river ownership.
“It may go down some years, but they still have it.”
Or do they?
WATER ACCOUNTING 101
Even the city’s river rights are getting a critical eye as the deadline for a groundwater plan under SGMA approaches.
What if recharge from Kern River water run down the river channel couldn’t be claimed by any particular entity? What if, once it seeped into the aquifer, it was considered “native water”? How would that affect the city’s water assumptions and its planning?
“In adjudicated basins, native river water is claimed by the entire basin,” said Eric Averett, general manager of the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District and director of the Kern Groundwater Authority, which is working to create a Groundwater Sustainability Agency per SGMA rules.
An adjudicated basin means water supplies have been sorted out by a court rather than through mutual agreement. If such adjudications have any kind of precedent, that could change how Kern River recharge is accounted for, according to Averett.
No. No. No. And heck no, was the essence of the response I got from Bakersfield’s water resources manager, Art Chianello. (He’s too nice a guy to say “hell no.”)
There’s nothing “native” about the Kern River. It’s divvied up, spoken for, stored and carefully controlled as to when it comes down the river channel.
“It’s not willy-nilly stream water,” he said. “It has someone’s name on it.”
He noted that ID4 claims losses (recharge, seepage, all the same thing) incurred when it moves water through the unlined portion of the Cross Valley Canal.
The city’s claims on river recharge are no different.
OK, but I recall that the city was extremely watchful when ID4 pumped a load of water from wells near the Cross Valley Canal in 2014 and 2015, saying it hadn’t specifically banked water to those wells.
“Shell game” was a phrase I heard from a number of city officials concerned about that pumping.
Funny, that’s the exact same term I heard in reference to how the city accounts for water as well.
“I think it’s an open question,” Averett said of Kern River water. He said that except under certain very limited circumstances that Rosedale-Rio Bravo can’t run its water down the river channel and call it “banked.”
“Rosedale wouldn’t get credit for that water,” he said. “This is just one of the difficult questions we’re working with in groundwater of who counts what, how’s it counted and who gets credit.”
A longtime water observer told me he could see Averett’s point but predicted if anyone tried to make a serious claim for the city’s (or any Kern River rights holders’) recharged river water, that would provoke a fight with all the river interests.
LIVING IN OUR WATER MEANS
All of which gets me no closer to an answer to my initial question, how much development can our water sustain?
I posed the question to City Councilman and City Water Board Chairman Harold Hanson, whose ward covers the rapidly expanding southwest area of town, and Kern County Supervisor Mike Maggard, whose district encompasses the growing northeast.
Both men agreed it’s a serious question. But neither had an answer.
“In Bakersfield, kind of fortunately and unfortunately, water hasn’t been a real issue up until the last few years so people haven’t really thought about it,” Hanson said. “I think there will come a time when we’ll have to build up, rather than out. And that will be a result of water.”
Maggard said the city and county would have to have a “meeting of the minds” and the place for that is a joint General Plan.
“We need to understand how much water is available to us and figure out how to divvy that up,” he said. “Of course, if there are already thousands and thousands of approved lots, well, the cat’s already out of the bag.”
Don’t worry, but do your planning was the advice I got from Metropolitan Water District Executive Director Jeff Kightlinger.
“If you look at the raw numbers, we are adding people to California and most of that growth is coming from births,” he said. “You can’t forestall it, so we plan for it. We figure that’s our job.”
The giant water district that has kept Southern California watered works on reducing water use and finding new supplies whether that’s recycled water or potentially buying islands in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (another story for another time).
“We use less water now than we did 25 years ago and our planning shows we can do it for the next 25 years,” Kightlinger said.
Well, if anyone knows how to make water magically appear to keep the growth train on track, it would be these guys.
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.
Kern River through Bakersfield in 2011, a relatively good water year.
Kern River through Bakersfield in October 2015, the worst year of the recent drought and the driest year in 2,000 years for the Kern, according to tree rings.
ALMOST DRY
So here’s how 20,000 Bakersfield residents were nearly left high and dry in summer of 2015.
The Kern River ran at a historically low 12.3 percent of normal. So low that Bakersfield’s rights to the river dried up.
That doesn’t mean the city ran out of water since it also buys state water and has ample groundwater.
The problem for those 20,000 residents is that the city sells river water to California Water Service Co. for use in its northeast and northwest treatment plants.
The plants were built to take water straight off the river, as in the case of the northeast plant, or have it delivered via the Beardsley Canal, as the northwest plant does.
So, when the city’s river rights stopped, Cal Water could see it was headed for trouble.
The only entity getting any river water was Kern Delta Water District. And even its supply was only a dribble.
“The river almost went dry last year,” said Mark Mulkay, Kern Delta’s general manager
But it agreed to give Cal Water part of its river supply in a four-way swap.
Kern Delta gave Cal Water water, then pumped a like amount to deliver to its farmers. The Kern County Water Agency’s Improvement District 4 pumped water that was previously banked by Cal Water and ran it to the California Aqueduct on Kern Delta’s behalf to repay Metropolitan Water District, which needed its stored water back from Kern Delta.
“Without this program the northeast plant would have stopped,” Mulkay said. “I don’t think residents understood how close they came to having no water.”
Some observers raised an eyebrow at that, saying the city had an obligation to be much more upfront with residents served by those treatment plants.
I agree.
Either way, I note the city has taken last summer’s lessons to heart.
The council voted on Wednesday to spend $3.5 million to bring a handful of old, inactive wells back online as an back up water source to “keep pressure in the system.”
The city took that step because the Kern County Water Agency said it could no longer guarantee the city extra water on a short-term agreement.
The city insists none of this is “emergency water,” that there is no risk of the city going dry.
Hmmm. I’m sure everyone thought that before last summer, too.
The Kern River flowing through the heart of Bakersfield. The river is the city’s main recharge for groundwater, which is its primary source of drinking water.
HOW WATER DEMAND IS MET
This information is contained in the Urban Water Management Plans for the City of Bakersfield and Cal Water systems.
The most recent plans were done in 2010 and 2011, respectively. The state will require updated plans this year.
All numbers are annual averages; afy stands for acre-feet per year.
Cal Water
14,000 afy of state water is bought from Kern County Water Agency’s Improvement District 4 (ID4)
19,000 afy is Kern River water bought from the City of Bakersfield
44,000 afy is pumped groundwater
Total: 77,000 afy
Bakersfield
6,500 afy is state water bought via ID4
38,000 afy is pumped groundwater
Total: 44,500 afy
Both agencies also bank water in wet years
QUOTES
“Everyone can no longer look at groundwater like a free checkbook. They better account for it.”
— Peter Brostrom, with the water use and efficiency branch of the California Department of Water Resources about how new state law will affect groundwater use
“The housing market is probably more in balance today than it has been for 10 years. There’s not a shortage but not an oversupply either.”
— Gary Crabtree, a Bakersfield appraiser who produces a monthly real estate report
“Even if all those homes are built to current (water conservation) standards, that’s still new water. And the rest of us have to cut back 32 or 36 percent? Where’s the water for those new homes coming from?”
— Gordon Nipp, Kern-Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club
“Less water is used for housing than farming. So if you’re taking ag out of production for houses, it’s better for the basin. But it feels like it doesn’t matter what homeowners do to save water if we continue exporting water out of the basin.”
— Bryan Batey, local developer
“Cumulative water use (by new developments) may come up but we’re not talking about it now.”
— Scott Thayer, Castle & Cooke vice president of operations and development
“The driest year on record occurred in 1961, with a total Kern River runoff of 19 percent of average.”
— Bakersfield’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The river ran at 12.3 percent of normal in 2015.
The Community Reading Project in Bakersfield pairs reading coaches with struggling readers for 15 minutes per day. Each volunteer commits to one hour a week, helping four kids each visit. The benefits have been astounding, helping struggling readers increase by one to two grade levels in just six months.
Locals welcome the first water to reach Kern County from the State Water Project in the California Aqueduct, 1968. SOURCE: Kern County Water Agency
I found this photo on the Kern County Water Agency’s website.
A truly historic day that ushered in an era of water plenty, at least for a few decades.
By 1982 the love affair with large water projects was over and California voters rejected one of the final pieces of the State Water Project, the peripheral canal. It would have taken water from the Sacramento river out of the delta to pumps in Tracy.
Theoretically, that could have avoided problems with endangered species such as the delta smelt and salmon. (There was another piece known as the San Luis drain that theoretically could have avoided salinity issues now plaguing Westlands Water District, but that’s another story).
Click here to see an 1888 map of the Kern “Delta,” courtesy of the Library of Congress.
You can zoom in and scoot around the map to see the different features more clearly. It looks like the Southern Pacific Railroad was either already completed, or about to be, through Bakersfield.
You can see the different ranches including Bellevue, McClung, Greenfields, Rosedale and more. A number of canals still in use today are also already on this map, including the Beardsley. And the Kern Lake hadn’t yet been dried up.
This 1888 map shows a full Kern Lake south of Bakersfield and a number of huge ranches.
Compare that to this 1897 map created by the Kern County Land Company, also courtesy of the Library of Congress.
Not even 10 years later, the Kern Lake is gone and most of the ranches are now owned by Kern County Land Company, which renamed them “colonies” and tried to sell them off section by section to incoming homesteaders. Problem was, as I discovered in some old reports by an undercover investigator, the Land Company took all the water (but that’s a later post).
This 1897 map shows dry fields where the Kern Lake used to be and huge swaths of land are owned by Kern County Land Company.
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.
A wealthy San Francisco business man who made his fortune in the aftermath of the Gold Rush, James B.A. Haggin, was also a major land speculator. He owned vast territories all over California and was one half of the original owners of the Kern Land Company, which held huge swaths of Kern County Land.Henry Miller was a German immigrant who went from being a butcher to owning large tracts of land in California. His rights to the Kern River are still intact today and owned by the Buena Vista Water Storage District.
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
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.
LOIS HENRY
