{"id":129,"date":"2017-03-17T20:51:23","date_gmt":"2017-03-17T20:51:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/loishenry.com\/?p=129"},"modified":"2017-05-03T23:10:24","modified_gmt":"2017-05-03T23:10:24","slug":"how-much-growth-can-bakersfields-water-sustain-no-one-knows","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/loishenry.com\/index.php\/2017\/03\/17\/how-much-growth-can-bakersfields-water-sustain-no-one-knows\/","title":{"rendered":"How much growth can Bakersfield’s water sustain? No one knows"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
New houses sprouting up on the western fringe of Bakersfield in 2016. Besides new permits, the City had 58,000 already approved lots in the wings.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Link to original article<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.bakersfield.com\/columnists\/lois-henry-how-far-will-our-water-let-us-build\/article_8c683b40-46df-5785-b8b2-5af8cf5f08c3.html<\/p>\n

VIDEO
\nhttp:\/\/www.bakersfield.com\/columnists\/water-shortage-in-california-how-far-will-it-let-us\/youtube_d6e5e128-afbd-5251-a205-0620f8778110.html<\/p>\n

LOIS HENRY
\nTHE BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN, first ran Feb. 13, 2016<\/p>\n

Perhaps it seems crazy that Bakersfield has actually ramped up home construction during one of the worst droughts in California history.<\/p>\n

Especially crazy since the city\u2019s river rights dried up last summer, bringing 20,000 residents harrowingly close to running out of water.<\/p>\n

Add to that the fact that we have a boatload of development left over from the pre-recession days already approved.<\/p>\n

Oh, and we sit atop one of the most over-pumped aquifers in the state, something new law aims to change.<\/p>\n

Yet from 2012 through 2015, the drought years, Bakersfield issued a combined 5,139 building permits for new single-family homes.<\/p>\n

All of which got me wondering how much more development Bakersfield\u2019s water supplies can sustain.<\/p>\n

So I asked around.<\/p>\n

I kind of figured there\u2019d 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.<\/p>\n

Mostly what I heard back was \u201cThat\u2019s a really good question.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hmph.<\/p>\n

To be fair, water and planning agencies do track development and water supplies. To the drop.<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s just it. Each entity tracks its own supplies, its own use and its own development plans.<\/p>\n

Since all those straws are poked into the same milkshake (nod to \u201cThere Will Be Blood\u201d), I thought there must be some way to figure out the cumulative demand versus total supply.<\/p>\n

Simple, yes? No.<\/p>\n

RABBIT HOLE<\/p>\n

No one agency keeps an overall running tally of our water supplies and the impact each new development will have on that supply.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019t uniform from one purveyor to the next, making it difficult to find definitive numbers for how many more houses our water can support.<\/p>\n

New groundwater legislation passed last year by the state will force a much more strict accounting, but not for several years.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, we have about 58,000 housing units either approved or in some stage of construction in and around Bakersfield.<\/p>\n

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\u2019t track which are under construction or in the holding stage.<\/p>\n

(By the way, that 58,000 doesn\u2019t 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.)<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

That would be on top of the 120,000 acre-feet a year that existing residents, businesses, parks and lakes require.<\/p>\n

Arguably, that wouldn\u2019t be a huge amount of \u201cnew\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

Either way, such expansion would be more \u201chard\u201d demand on what has already been deemed a critically overdrafted aquifer.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s been a million acre-feet). That\u2019s, of course, including the draw from Kern\u2019s 800-pound economic gorilla \u2014 agriculture.<\/p>\n

When water is short, almond trees can be pulled up and cotton plowed under. Houses can\u2019t go dry.<\/p>\n

KERN RIVER, DEVELOPMENT LIFELINE<\/p>\n

The City of Bakersfield has always boasted a healthy water supply thanks to its ownership of a large chunk of the Kern River.<\/p>\n

That didn\u2019t 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.)<\/p>\n

Aside from the river, Bakersfield and Cal Water (the main water purveyors in the city) buy some water from the state through what\u2019s known as Improvement District 4 (ID4).<\/p>\n

But, by and large, the main source is groundwater.<\/p>\n

The city has long maintained that because of recharge from the Kern River, it has a solid groundwater base.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s probably true.<\/p>\n

Unless you\u2019re in a severe, sustained drought, as we\u2019ve been.<\/p>\n

Even without drought, the days of assuming that groundwater is an unending supply are over.<\/p>\n

PLANNING KNOCKED FOR A LOOP<\/p>\n

\u201cThe whole world\u2019s turned upside down and I honestly don\u2019t know how it will all sort out,\u201d said Kern County Planning Director Lorelei Oviatt.<\/p>\n

Land-use planning has become an evolving issue under the state\u2019s new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause now we have a new regulation over the groundwater that we didn\u2019t have before,\u201d she said. \u201cWhat if it turns out that things in the General Plan that we said we were going to build, we don\u2019t have the water for? How\u2019s that going to turn out? I don\u2019t know the answer to that.<\/p>\n

\u201cRight now, the (ag) water districts are all worried about the new law, but planning seems like an afterthought.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re 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?<\/p>\n

These are questions the county has been wrestling with in different forms for a number of years in other parts of Kern.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cThose are some of the ideas we\u2019re going to discuss when we start our General Plan update in a couple of months,\u201d she said. \u201cBut for some county areas in the metro Bakersfield area, like western Rosedale, I don\u2019t have any solutions yet.\u201d<\/p>\n

For her part, Bakersfield\u2019s chief planner, Jacqui Kitchen, agreed that local land use and water agencies must be on the same page going forward.<\/p>\n

Though the planning future is murky for both, Oviatt acknowledged the city is in a better position by virtue of its river ownership.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt may go down some years, but they still have it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Or do they?<\/p>\n

WATER ACCOUNTING 101<\/p>\n

Even the city\u2019s river rights are getting a critical eye as the deadline for a groundwater plan under SGMA approaches.<\/p>\n

What if recharge from Kern River water run down the river channel couldn\u2019t be claimed by any particular entity? What if, once it seeped into the aquifer, it was considered \u201cnative water\u201d? How would that affect the city\u2019s water assumptions and its planning?<\/p>\n

\u201cIn adjudicated basins, native river water is claimed by the entire basin,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

No. No. No. And heck no, was the essence of the response I got from Bakersfield\u2019s water resources manager, Art Chianello. (He\u2019s too nice a guy to say \u201chell no.\u201d)<\/p>\n

There\u2019s nothing \u201cnative\u201d about the Kern River. It\u2019s divvied up, spoken for, stored and carefully controlled as to when it comes down the river channel.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not willy-nilly stream water,\u201d he said. \u201cIt has someone\u2019s name on it.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The city\u2019s claims on river recharge are no different.<\/p>\n

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\u2019t specifically banked water to those wells.<\/p>\n

\u201cShell game\u201d was a phrase I heard from a number of city officials concerned about that pumping.<\/p>\n

Funny, that\u2019s the exact same term I heard in reference to how the city accounts for water as well.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s an open question,\u201d Averett said of Kern River water. He said that except under certain very limited circumstances that Rosedale-Rio Bravo can\u2019t run its water down the river channel and call it \u201cbanked.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cRosedale wouldn\u2019t get credit for that water,\u201d he said. \u201cThis is just one of the difficult questions we\u2019re working with in groundwater of who counts what, how\u2019s it counted and who gets credit.\u201d<\/p>\n

A longtime water observer told me he could see Averett\u2019s point but predicted if anyone tried to make a serious claim for the city\u2019s (or any Kern River rights holders\u2019) recharged river water, that would provoke a fight with all the river interests.<\/p>\n

LIVING IN OUR WATER MEANS<\/p>\n

All of which gets me no closer to an answer to my initial question, how much development can our water sustain?<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Both men agreed it\u2019s a serious question. But neither had an answer.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn Bakersfield, kind of fortunately and unfortunately, water hasn\u2019t been a real issue up until the last few years so people haven\u2019t really thought about it,\u201d Hanson said. \u201cI think there will come a time when we\u2019ll have to build up, rather than out. And that will be a result of water.\u201d<\/p>\n

Maggard said the city and county would have to have a \u201cmeeting of the minds\u201d and the place for that is a joint General Plan.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe need to understand how much water is available to us and figure out how to divvy that up,\u201d he said. \u201cOf course, if there are already thousands and thousands of approved lots, well, the cat\u2019s already out of the bag.\u201d<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t worry, but do your planning was the advice I got from Metropolitan Water District Executive Director Jeff Kightlinger.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you look at the raw numbers, we are adding people to California and most of that growth is coming from births,\u201d he said. \u201cYou can\u2019t forestall it, so we plan for it. We figure that\u2019s our job.\u201d<\/p>\n

The giant water district that has kept Southern California watered works on reducing water use and finding new supplies whether that\u2019s recycled water or potentially buying islands in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (another story for another time).<\/p>\n

\u201cWe use less water now than we did 25 years ago and our planning shows we can do it for the next 25 years,\u201d Kightlinger said.<\/p>\n

Well, if anyone knows how to make water magically appear to keep the growth train on track, it would be these guys.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

LOIS HENRY ONLINE<\/p>\n

Read archived columns by Lois Henry at Bakersfield.com\/henry.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Kern River through Bakersfield in 2011, a relatively good water year.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
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.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

ALMOST DRY<\/strong><\/p>\n

So here\u2019s how 20,000 Bakersfield residents were nearly left high and dry in summer of 2015.<\/p>\n

The Kern River ran at a historically low 12.3 percent of normal. So low that Bakersfield\u2019s rights to the river dried up.<\/p>\n

That doesn\u2019t mean the city ran out of water since it also buys state water and has ample groundwater.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

So, when the city\u2019s river rights stopped, Cal Water could see it was headed for trouble.<\/p>\n

The only entity getting any river water was Kern Delta Water District. And even its supply was only a dribble.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe river almost went dry last year,\u201d said Mark Mulkay, Kern Delta\u2019s general manager<\/p>\n

But it agreed to give Cal Water part of its river supply in a four-way swap.<\/p>\n

Kern Delta gave Cal Water water, then pumped a like amount to deliver to its farmers. The Kern County Water Agency\u2019s Improvement District 4 pumped water that was previously banked by Cal Water and ran it to the California Aqueduct on Kern Delta\u2019s behalf to repay Metropolitan Water District, which needed its stored water back from Kern Delta.<\/p>\n

\u201cWithout this program the northeast plant would have stopped,\u201d Mulkay said. \u201cI don\u2019t think residents understood how close they came to having no water.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

I agree.<\/p>\n

Either way, I note the city has taken last summer\u2019s lessons to heart.<\/p>\n

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 \u201ckeep pressure in the system.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The city insists none of this is\u00a0\u201cemergency water,\u201d that there is no risk of the city going dry.<\/p>\n

Hmmm. I\u2019m sure everyone thought that before last summer, too.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
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.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

HOW WATER DEMAND IS MET<\/strong><\/p>\n

This information is contained in the Urban Water Management Plans for the City of Bakersfield and Cal Water systems.<\/p>\n

The most recent plans were done in 2010 and 2011, respectively. The state will require updated plans this year.<\/p>\n

All numbers are annual averages; afy stands for acre-feet per year.<\/p>\n

Cal Water<\/strong><\/p>\n

14,000<\/strong> afy of state water is bought from Kern County Water Agency\u2019s Improvement District 4 (ID4)<\/p>\n

19,000<\/strong> afy is Kern River water bought from the City of Bakersfield<\/p>\n

44,000<\/strong> afy is pumped groundwater<\/p>\n

Total:<\/strong> 77,000 afy<\/p>\n

Bakersfield<\/strong><\/p>\n

6,500<\/strong> afy is state water bought via ID4<\/p>\n

38,000<\/strong> afy is pumped groundwater<\/p>\n

Total:<\/strong> 44,500 afy<\/p>\n

Both agencies also bank water in wet years<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
QUOTES<\/p>\n

<\/strong>\u201cEveryone can no longer look at groundwater like a free checkbook. They better account for it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014 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<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe housing market is probably more in balance today than it has been for 10 years. There\u2019s not a shortage but not an oversupply either.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014 Gary Crabtree, a Bakersfield appraiser who produces a monthly real estate report<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cEven if all those homes are built to current (water conservation) standards, that\u2019s still new water. And the rest of us have to cut back 32 or 36 percent? Where\u2019s the water for those new homes coming from?\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014 Gordon Nipp, Kern-Kaweah chapter of the Sierra Club<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cLess water is used for housing than farming. So if you\u2019re taking ag out of production for houses, it\u2019s better for the basin. But it feels like it doesn\u2019t matter what homeowners do to save water if we continue exporting water out of the basin.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014 Bryan Batey, local developer<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cCumulative water use (by new developments) may come up but we\u2019re not talking about it now.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014 Scott Thayer, Castle & Cooke vice president of operations and development<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe driest year on record occurred in 1961, with a total Kern River runoff of 19 percent of average.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014 Bakersfield\u2019s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The river ran at 12.3 percent of normal in 2015.<\/em><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Link to original article http:\/\/www.bakersfield.com\/columnists\/lois-henry-how-far-will-our-water-let-us-build\/article_8c683b40-46df-5785-b8b2-5af8cf5f08c3.html 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\u2019s river rights dried up last summer, bringing 20,000 residents harrowingly close to … Continue reading How much growth can Bakersfield’s water sustain? No one knows<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/loishenry.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/loishenry.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/loishenry.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loishenry.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loishenry.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/loishenry.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":204,"href":"https:\/\/loishenry.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129\/revisions\/204"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/loishenry.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loishenry.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loishenry.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}