LOIS HENRY: Arguments against a river don't hold water
| Tuesday, Feb 09 2010 06:54 PM
Last Updated Tuesday, Feb 09 2010 06:54 PM
It's been more than a few years since I was called to the principal's office. But the feeling came right back when the Buena Vista Water Storage District general manager emailed to say he and his board would like me to attend their Tuesday meeting in Buttonwillow to discuss my recent columns on the Kern River.
He might as well have added, "young LADY."
Ulp!
OK, it wasn't that bad; they were very polite.
And general manager Dan Bartel very politely lectured me that my columns supporting the city of Bakersfield's quest for loose water on the Kern River really made his hair curl.
In particular, he disagreed most vehemently with my view that if the State Water Resources Control Board rules this water is unappropriated Feb. 16 and gives it to the city to run in the river channel, it won't hurt agriculture.
"Yes, it would hurt ag," he argued at the meeting and later during a lengthy phone call. "It's going to hurt somebody.
"If there's 50,000 to 60,000 acre feet a year that's currently being distributed to some users, the truth of the matter is if it's taken away, it's going to impact someone, some business owner somewhere."
We argued about a lot of other things and eventually agreed this Kern River issue means a lot of water lawyers' kids will attend fine colleges, drive fancy cars and have grand weddings long before it's ever settled.
Back to his main point -- that this could hurt agriculture.
That is the single largest concern of most people I've spoken with about this fight. No one in Kern County wants to do anything to harm ag. We know where our bread is buttered.
I respectfully disagree with Bartel for a number of reasons.
The Kern is divvied up by different rights holders. It's very complex but lets just look at "first-point" and "second-point" rights holders.
There are only two first-pointers, Kern Delta Water Storage District and the City of Bakersfield. Buena Vista is a second-point right holder.
North Kern Water Storage District is not a right holder, but has had a contract with the city since 1952 to use some of its first-point water.
About a dozen years ago, North Kern sued Kern Delta, saying it wasn't using all its water rights. In 2007, a court agreed and Kern Delta had to forfeit some of those very precious first-point rights. Now the state board has to decide if the forfeiture means there is unappropriated water and, if so, who should get it.
Which is where we find ourselves now.
Bartel's contention is that North Kern farmers have been using that water in a "junior rights" capacity. So if the water is taken away, they're hosed.
No such rights have ever been established, however, and my contention is if they've been using that water, they've done so improperly. The right should be established and users should pay the rights holder for that water.
Bartel agreed with me on that last bit, but then we got caught in another loop.
I say if the water is run in the river channel, it benefits growers, including North Kern, by replenishing our seriously depleted aquifer.
Yes, but if farmers are shorted surface water, they'll increase pumping defeating any gain to the aquifer, Bartel countered.
We went back and forth but I still say water in the river is a greater overall benefit than if any of the other four petitioners vying for the water gets it, including Buena Vista.
When the scent of possible loose water on the Kern first wafted up from that 2007 court decision, the city, Buena Vista, North Kern with the City of Shafter, Kern Water Bank and Kern County Water Agency all petitioned the state to A) revise the status of the river to not fully appropriated and B) give them the water.
All the other petitioners would use the water for irrigation, storage or municipal uses. And there would be nothing to keep any of them from selling it out of the county.
The city is doing exactly what each of the other petitioners is doing, except it's the only one promising to keep the water in county by running it down the riverbed.
Which brought up another argument from Bartel, and this is one I've also heard from KCWA General Manager Jim Beck and others -- if the city wants a river so bad, why doesn't it just use its own water? (It's actually us citizens who want water in the river, but lets not quibble.)
Indeed, the city has rights to an average 160,000 acre feet a year of pristine Kern River water. That's a lot.
In order to pay for those rights, purchased from Tenneco in the 1970s, though, the city entered into long-term contracts with several ag districts. The water was purchased with the express intent of accommodating Bakersfield's growth. Since the real estate crash there may not be as much of a need right away. But like all good water stories, there's another catch.
The contracts allowed the city to short contractors in dry years as long as they make it up later. So even after 2012, the city will owe its contractors another 100,000 acre feet or more.
Bartel, Beck and others also argued that that the city "chooses" to deliver water to second point users in a lined canal rather than the river channel.
"The city cries that it can't put water in the river and they're the ones who decide to divert it into a canal," he said.
I asked former Water Resources Manager Florn Core about that.
"The city couldn't meet the second-point demand if we ran the water down the river because of seepage," he said. "The city's obligation is to deliver second-point water 'undiminished.'"
That means the city has to absorb any evaporation or seepage losses, which can add up to more than 20,000 acre feet a year, and could endanger their other demands.
Ah, the twists and turns of the Kern are never ending.
I truly appreciate Bartel's time, his arguments and his concerns. But I remain steadfast in my support of the city's efforts.
Don't feel bad, Dan -- there's a long line of frustrated principals ahead of you.
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
