LOIS HENRY: Bakersfield turns out for the Kern River
| Thursday, Mar 10 2011 08:22 PM
Last Updated Friday, Mar 11 2011 11:30 AM
Comments on the city's environmental impact review considering running water in the Kern River year round will be accepted until 5 p.m. March 21. Send comments to:
Jennie Eng, Principal Planner
City of Bakersfield
Planning Department
1715 Chester Ave
Bakersfield CA 93301
661-326-3043
Bakersfield residents packed the City Council chambers Thursday night in a show of overwhelming support for the city's quest to run water down the Kern River year round.
The chambers were standing room only and nearly 30 people spoke. The City's Planning Department had received more than 100 letters and emails by Thursday afternoon regarding the project, also overwhelmingly supportive.
The meeting was the formal kickoff for an environmental impact review looking at the consequences of running two different sources of water down the river.
The heart of the matter was summed up by Marion Vargas:
"A riverbed is meant to have water running through it," she said. "And the Kern River should have Kern River water."
Numerous speakers talked of what an economic shot in the arm it would be to the city to have a river, rather than a dry, weed-pocked gully running through the center of town. She asked that be included in the EIR.
The water, speakers said, would bring visitors and help in recruiting both businesses and employees.
Before Winston Seiler moved here three years ago for work, he looked up Bakersfield on Google Earth and it showed a lush, blue river running through the center of town.
"That was kind of a tease," he said to laughter from the crowd.
Others wanted the EIR to quantify how much water Bakersfield actually has, where the river's water goes and to whom. Is it sold? Traded? Exchanged away? Speakers asked that the EIR track all of that as well.
"The river is a public resource, not a commodity to be moved around the state," said Bill Cooper, a long time river parkway activist.
Speakers expressed concern about the level of the city's groundwater and what would happen in future years if the city weren't able to run water down the river channel.
Noted for their absence were the agricultural water districts who have opposed the city's efforts to get water into the river channel.
"Will someone be able to tell us why we, the citizens, shouldn't have a this (water in the river) and the water districts should?" asked Michael Ressler.
Several ag district representatives were in the audience but didn't speak, saying they would send comment letters later.
The city has applied for what's known as "forfeited" water, over which the State Water Resources Control Board has jurisdiction.
The city is also looking at running water now tied up in long term contracts to agricultural water districts down the river. Those contracts expire at the end of this year.
The EIR will cover both sources.
