Local feedback on the Kern River
| Tuesday, Jun 08 2010 05:05 PM
Articles about the city's fight to get water back in the Kern River have generated a lot of controversy. Collected here are letters to the editor, editorials and other bits of local feedback.
-----------------------2010----------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: On a lazy Bakersfield river
WINSTON SEILER, 5/19/2010
One recent evening, an armada of eight gathered on the banks of the flowing Kern. A green canoe and seven kayaks of various colors and lengths slid into the cool waters above 24th Street. Beneath road, highway and rails we were carried downstream through Bakersfield by the easy current. Ducks flew above, shallow sands passed below. Grasses were folded by the flow against protruding twigs, bushes bloomed delicate pink flowers along the banks. The river split and shallowed around exposed bars. Surprise and encouragement was gathered from those on the bike path. As we pulled out of the water along Truxtun Avenue, the sky glowed pink with the setting sun. How wonderful it is to have a flowing river through Bakersfield -- life the the way it should be.
---------------------------------------------------------
SOUND OFF: This feedback forum allows readers to voice criticisms and ask questions about news coverage. Answers are provided by Editor Mike Jenner. 5/16/2010
RICHARD A. DIAMOND, general manager of the North Kern Water Storage District, an agricultural water district north of Bakersfield along Highway 99:
North Kern Water Storage District believes it is important to set the record straight with regard to Rich O'Neil's May 10th letter to the editor ("Water district's threat is a stab in the back") and Lois Henry's May 5th column ("Mediation doesn't inhibit water district's threats to sue") respecting the State Water Resources Control Board process on the Kern River.
First, contrary to the assertions of both Mr. O'Neil and Ms. Henry, North Kern Water Storage District's attorney was not present at the State Board hearing on May 4, 2010 (in fact, they were not even in Sacramento).
Second, North Kern will vigorously defend its rights to use Kern River water established through the District's 1952 purchase of "all water accruing" under multiple "pre-1914" Kern River canal rights. This will include participating in good faith settlement discussions with the City of Bakersfield, and, until a settlement with Bakersfield is reached, continuing to assert through all possible means that the State Board must consider both its own previous decisions and precedents and relevant court decisions with respect to its review of the Kern River.
JENNER: Lois's column never said North Kern's staff attorney was in Sacramento threatening to sue the state and possibly the city even as mediation talks were going on back in Bakersfield.
She said the attorney appearing before the state board was representing the districts -- known as the "North Kern parties." He certainly represented North Kern just as much as the other districts.
While O'Neil's letter came closer to suggesting the attorney in Sacramento worked exclusively for North Kern, Lois' column never did.
Thanks for splitting that hair. I'm sure you'll agree it's important to be honest, just as it's important to be accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Water district's threat is a stab in the back
RICH O'NEIL, President, Kern River Parkway Committee, 5/10/2010
As the North Kern Water District met to negotiate a fair settlement with the city of Bakersfield over the unappropriated water of the Kern River, its $300 water lawyers were up in Sacramento threatening a lawsuit over the same issue. This is truly a kiss and a stab in the back, simultaneously.
Having worked on the Kern River Parkway for the past 38 years, I can say that this is another demonstration by the water districts to the north of us to deceive us and to steal Kern River water away from Bakersfield and local farmers.
I think that the excess, or unappropriated, Kern River water should flow down and be recharged and banked in the city-owned riverbed. If this happens, we will prosper from increased commerce, recreation, water quality, a recharged aquifer and water banking.
Water districts such as North Kern, Westside and Buena Vista want you to believe that the farmers own the water north of Bakersfield while they and their $300 lawyers sell and/or trade our water to Los Angeles, Newhall and the Bay Area development in Redwood City.
We can share our water, bank it and sell the remainder to outside farmers.
Like we teach our children to share their toys, let us share our water and not let it be traded away to Los Angeles or the Bay Area. We do not want to become another Owens Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: A weekend of 'bests'
STEVE HALASKA, 5/8/2010
Last weekend, I had the pleasure of experiencing two of Bakersfield's "bests."
On Sunday, I took a ride on the Kern River bike path west of Allen Road. The path now runs alongside a flowing river almost all the way to Enos Lane. The combination of the river and its robust flood plain with lush, green growth and myriad calling birds, and cool, fresh air with a bright blue sky marked by jet contrails, snowcapped mountains and clouds made for an experience that was "as good as it gets." I encourage everyone to experience the path before the water is shut off -- it really is a different world with the water.
On Saturday, I saw the local production of "Rent" at Spotlight Theatre. The singing, acting and dancing of the local actors was truly remarkable, with Alex Neal in particular convincingly playing a very demanding and unconventional role. Even though I am pushing 60, I enjoyed the introduction to music and a story line that was unfamiliar to me. "Rent" is a Generation X remake of Puccini's "La Boheme, " written a hundred years before. Both portray the struggles of life and the triumph of love. I encourage anyone with an open mind to attend a performance of "Rent."
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: After reflection: River, roll on through
CHUCK SUKUT, 3/11/2010
As far as the Kern River flowing through town, I was ambivalent until reading Don Davis' Feb. 25 Community Voices article, "Buzz over putting water into Kern River could be followed by stinging sensation." Oh, how fortunate ag interests are to have such a spokesman. The arrogance and self-interest of his arguments got me thinking.
Antiquated water rights and policies, fashioned over the last 100-plus years, could use some revamping. That a man, a business or water district owns water that falls from the sky in the high mountains should and is being revisited.
I also take issue with Davis' quote: "However, the cost and effort to create a river where Mother Nature has not done the job for you is literally almost God-like." I'm pretty sure, if the Kern Canyon is any evidence, water was here first. Now, the ancient course has been levied and channeled, but there was a river before settlers, before agriculture and yes, before Jim Nickel.
And please, Davis, don't bring the general disdain for lawyers into it just because his side was bested in court. He had his hearing and lost.
There are uses for water other than ag. That the feds and state built massive projects to help provide water for ag never seems to get mentioned. I'm pretty sure taxpayer money was used. Davis might take that into consideration before he calls out half the community. After reading Davis' piece, I say roll on through town, Mighty Kern.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: We want our river back
SCOTT DAVIS, 3/11/2010
Did Don Davis, president of the Kern County Farm Bureau, really write that "the cost and effort to create a river where Mother Nature has not done the job for you is literally almost God-like?" ("Buzz over putting water into Kern River could be followed by stinging sensation, " Feb. 25.)
Hopefully, that was just a poor choice of words on his part. Or perhaps I am mistaken about what that is, running alongside Hart Park and Gordon's Ferry.
What seems unspoken here is simply that the citizens are no longer willing to abide by an agreement penned 100 years ago by, at the time, water barons. We want our river back -- and make no mistake, it belongs to everyone, not just agriculture.
Perhaps it's time all the interested parties came to this realization and address how to overcome the issues. I, for one, am willing to make some personal sacrifices to make it happen.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Who owns the water?
JIM BUDDELL, 2/28/2010
I had to laugh the other day when I read the Feb. 12 Community Voices article by Richard Diamond, "Diverting Kern River water will hurt virtually everyone." It was meant to be funny, wasn't it?
I began thinking, which is a dangerous thing for me to do. Who does all this water belong to, anyway? I think the local big farm operators believe it all belongs to them. I read somewhere that 80 percent of water resources in this state are allocated to farmers. Maybe they need all that water to feed the people of this state. Or not.
And maybe the water belongs to the people of California. It originates here, after all. So it's a good thing for the people here to give their water to the farmers so the farmers can feed us.
Which brings up another question. What percentage of what our state's farmers produce is consumed in the state? This is where my thinking, my logic, gets a little fuzzy. It sure would be nice to see a little of that water running in the riverbed. Fuzzy thinking, that.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Pump water using non-polluting energy
JACK THOMSON, 2/25/2010
Jim Beck, manager of the Kern County Water Agency, did a good job of explaining that all of the water that comes down Kern River in dry years, such as the past three, is used by urban water districts, including the city of Bakersfield, and by agricultural water districts whose members use it to produce crops. ("Don't take river water from homes, farms, " Feb. 6.)
Thus, if the city wishes to have water flowing through the city, it will mean that the portion of the water that percolates into the the ground will have to be pumped up from the ground water basin to meet the water needs of all the districts. This will require wells and pumps and energy to operate the pumps.
It is my opinion that this energy -- i.e., electricity -- should not come from burning oil, gas or coal. We already have smog and cannot tolerate additional pollutants in our atmosphere.
My suggestion is that if the city decides that having water in the river is important and worth the additional costs involved, and decides to go ahead with the program, it should use non-polluting sources of electricity. Presently, the only sources available would be a solar field, a wind farm or a nuclear plant. Any other electrical source would seem to me to be a huge mistake for our county and valley as well as the city of Bakersfield. We all have to breathe this air.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Kern River and tourism
JOHN OHE, 2/25/2010
In reference to Bakersfield's bid for the unappropriated Kern River water, I would ask your readers to step back for a moment and take a valley-long view.
There are four major rivers that drain west from the mountains down into the Central Valley. From north to south the Sacramento runs through Redding, the American flows through Sacramento, the San Joaquin traverses Fresno, and our own Kern courses through Bakersfield -- when it has water in its bed.
Redding, Sacramento and Fresno now have extensive recreational activities along their surging streams. Their riverine flora and fauna communities are alive and well. Tourism in these communities directly tied to these water flows is extensive.
We now have a golden opportunity to replicate these riverside cities if the Kern is allowed once more to move freely through our own community.
---------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY VOICES: Buzz over putting water into Kern River could be followed by stinging sensation
DON DAVIS, president of the Kern County Farm Bureau. 2/25/2010
As you read this, the first signs of spring are emerging. Almond orchards across the county are just beginning their bloom and beehives are in place. Hungry bees are buzzing in anticipation of the nectar they so desperately need for the growth of their homes.
Meanwhile, out in the human population there is a new buzz in our fair county: The Californian's buzz to re-water the river. As well as I can figure, there are three main reasons why The Californian thinks this would be a good idea. First, lawyers have discovered that the city has the power to take water from agriculture. Second, water in a river is pretty. Third, it will not cost any water because agriculture can always just pump the water back out of the ground after it finishes running through the riverbanks of our town.
On the first point, does anyone really believe that something is best for our community simply because a lawyer has figured out a way to empower a government agency to take something away from private industry? Just because government can do something to its citizens is no reason that it is wise to do it. In fact, I am of the opinion that the less government flexes its muscles, the better off its citizens seem to be.
On the second point: A river is more usable and more aesthetically pleasing if it has water flowing through it. This is obviously true; however I have to wonder if perhaps a farm might be more usable and even more pleasing to the eye if it had water flowing through it. This means we need to choose what the smartest use of our water resources is.
Your car might be more pleasing to watch if it were put on a rotating pedestal with spotlights aimed at it, but you still have to consider if that is the best use of your car. Some would argue the best use is to take the car down from the pedestal and drive it to work to support your family. Count the cost to our desert community where every ag job creates seven city jobs to supply and distribute the food that water provides.
This brings us to the third point. Putting the water on display in a river is OK because agriculture can always pump the water back out of the ground later. Really? Does anyone not see the fallacy of this amazing statement? You are taking water that is on the surface, ready to be used and letting it sink 300 feet below ground. Then you are making the claim that nothing has changed.
Pumping water out of the ground is very expensive. This is like taking a glass bowl, smashing it on the ground and then saying it is OK because it can be glued back together and put back into service. Yes it can, but at what cost?
If running water down the river does not cost anything, because the water can be pumped back out of the ground, why stop at the river? Let's turn on all our faucets and lawn sprinklers 24/7 and run water down every street in town. After all, you can just pump the water back to your house later. No water has been lost.
Agriculture needs money to pump water. We get our money from providing food. We provide food from sunlight, dirt and water. Unfortunately, that food is not going to happen because you took the water and flushed it down the river. No water, no food, no money, no pumping of groundwater. The truth is the city could run the river anytime it wants by simply pumping water out of the ground and dumping it in the riverbed -- but they never have because it is fatally expensive.
Another point The Californian skips over is that some of that river water ends up in groundwater basins south and west of town that are so high in salts the water is ruined from any positive future use by anyone.
I love rivers. I love to walk by them. I even like rafting down whitewater rivers. However, the cost and effort to create a river where Mother Nature has not done the job for you is literally almost God-like. Now The Californian has created a buzz to shut down a critical primary industry to beautify our fair city. Please remember that some buzzing is followed immediately by a very painful stinging sensation. A desert community in the middle of a drought should be looking to the skies for possible river flow, not to a legal scheme to take something from a primary industry.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: It's a crime the way we treat our river
DAWN E. WOLTZ, 2/23/2010
While our treasured Lois Henry and respected Dick Diamond square off regarding facts and rights regarding running water in the river ("No time to lose in river fight, " Feb. 8 and "Diverting Kern River water will hurt virtually everyone, " Feb. 12, respectively), will you all please exhale the false air you've been trying to get us to breath?
Have you been out Round Mountain Road and taken any of the many access roads to this river where our rejects from society dump their used syringes, condoms, tires, paint balls and whatever refuse they won't responsibly take with them when they leave? Talk to pet owners who've lost the dogs they once walked along the river due to the fecal parasites ingested by drinking the water.
Have you been to the dismally few areas where a person would feel safe to enter the river? They're overrun by whoever can show up earliest and in the greatest number, leaving a small family intimidated to even enter the area.
While water running along the river sounds so homey and romantic, wake up and put it where it belongs -- in our groundwater tables and to our farmers for food on our tables!
Until our tax dollars will fund expansion of areas to go, to include patrolling, regular trash cleanup and grounds maintenance, go find something else to petition for.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Life is complicated
MIKE EVANS, 2/22/2010
We can't pump water from the San Joaquin Delta because we will endanger the smelt. But we need water in the San Joaquin Valley to grow food.
We can't run water down the Kern River through Bakersfield because, according to Dick Diamond in his recent Community Voices article, we'll all suffer ("Diverting Kern River water will hurt virtually everyone, " Feb. 12).
But it will positively benefit the wildlife along the river, provide great PR for the city, create recreational benefits for the citizens of Bakersfield, help growers and replenish our depleted aquifer.
We can't restock the upper Kern with rainbow trout because it will negatively affect the frogs, long-toed salamander and hard-headed minnows. (I had no idea we had minnows with hard heads). But the residents and businesses of Kernville rely upon trout fishing to help them survive.
Hmmm, these are sure hard decisions aren't they?
---------------------------------------------------------
SOUND OFF: This feedback forum allows readers to voice criticisms and ask questions about news coverage. Answers are provided by Editor Mike Jenner. 2/21/2010
RICHARD A. DIAMOND, General Manager of the North Kern Water Storage District:
With regard to Lois Henry's Feb. 13 column ("Outcry shows just how much we want our river back"), setting aside if a response rate of about 1 percent of the Bakersfield population constitutes an "outcry" (particularly considering the persistent cheerleading of Lois Henry and The Californian) it is important for the public to understand what the city of Bakersfield is actually proposing with regard to the Kern River and the associated risks.
First, let's be clear that the Kern River will not miraculously produce more water should the State Water Resources Control Board rule that unappropriated water is available; the river will produce the same quantities of water that it always has -- more in wet years, less in dry years. Thus, plain and simple, the city wants the board to reallocate Kern River water and give the city water supplies that have been used to support the county's agricultural economy for over 100 years.
Since there is no credible argument that such a reallocation would not significantly hurt local agriculture and the myriad of related businesses, the city, through their Californian mouthpieces, are now saying, "Well, those ag districts never had any right to use the water in the first place."
If these statements are not blatantly false, they are certainly counter to how Kern River water supplies have been allocated pursuant to long-established water rights for over a century.
Fundamentally, the city proposes that the State Board discard a century of river operations whereby water supplies not used by a more senior rights holder are made available ("released") and used by junior rights holders as ordered in the 1900 Shaw Decree. North Kern Water Storage District has the perpetual right to "all water accruing" to 17 Kern River water rights through an agreement signed in 1952. For decades before the district acquired these water rights and for decades after 1952 (and continuing to this day), lands in North Kern have used water according to the Decree when senior rights holders did not. All of these supplies are based on ("accrue to") the water rights purchased by the district in 1952.
Since the state board has no concern for historical operations of the Kern River's water rights, the city's tact is to turn the river over to the board in the hope that they will trump historical water rights and reallocate more water to the city. This is a very risky proposition since the full range of the state board's orders regarding the river is uncertain.
If the board is willing to reallocate century old water rights, what is to prevent them from looking into more recent contractual river rights such as the city's "conduit" entitlement which is an unpermitted "post-1914" "right" that also happens to be the "right" that dried up the river in the early 1960s?
Since the conduit "right" provides approximately 75 percent of the city's river water, the loss of this supply would be catastrophic in terms of the city's ability to provide water to its existing and future residents.
"Be careful what you ask for" certainly comes to mind.
JENNER: Thanks for your comments.
I share your interest in clarity, so allow me to add my two cents.
First, the city didn't start this fight. The latest ruckus began because North Kern sued over water belonging to Kern Delta Water Storage District -- and the court said Kern Delta should forfeit some of its rights. The court did not agree, however, that those rights belonged to North Kern.
As a result of North Kern's actions, the question of whether or not there was "unappropriated" water in the Kern wound up in the lap of the State Water Resources Board.
The city, along with North Kern, Kern Delta, Buena Vista and the Kern County Water Agency all filed petitions with the state board arguing that there was indeed unappropriated water in the Kern, and that they should get it.
So these entities are all simply competing for the same water rights.
I recognize that you want this water, which at one point North Kern was using. And I understand that you disagree with the court's finding that you don't have a right to it. Now we'll see what the state water board decides.
At any rate, North Kern's contracted water will not be affected by the state board's decision. Your district will continue to receive its allotments per the Shaw Decree.
As for the argument that a victory for the city would be detrimental to agriculture, I'd find that easier to swallow if local water districts sold all their water to local farmers.
Trouble is, some of these districts sell water not just to growers, but to municipalities and developers. And some are not only out of the river basin, they're out of Kern County.
I'd much rather see this water going to Bakersfield than to see it watering lawns in Santa Clarita or northern California.
Columnist Lois Henry has offered compelling arguments supporting the city's efforts to get this water. And I urged the The Californian to campaign for it as a newspaper and a company.
I truly believe this effort is in the best interests of the community. I also strongly believe the public has an interest in this river -- and at least one member of the state water board agrees.
Finally, as for your analysis of the impact of the coupons published in the paper and submitted by local residents, you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
The coupon submission rate represents close to 10 percent of our home delivery households in the city of Bakersfield -- homes occupied by the community's best-educated and best-informed citizens -- the people most likely to vote and those most engaged in civic life. And I've got stacks of data supporting that.
"Be careful what you sneer at" comes to my mind.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: We live in a desert
TED JOHNSON, 2/16/2010
I cannot believe the arrogance that columnist Lois Henry and the people of Bakersfield are exhibiting. As she says, "keeping water in the (lower Kern) river also keeps it from being transported out of the area."
This is undoubtedly being spoken by a powerful advocate for stealing water from our northern counties. Even this water, flowing as it does from mountainous areas, isn't truly "ours, " but rather is a gift of the landscape.
Let's first consider ourselves Americans, then Californians, and then Kern County residents, and finally, if applicable, Bakersfield residents. But don't ever believe that our interests are greater than the higher levels, lest we find ourselves without any water from those Northern California sources, other than at premium prices.
We need to allocate our water to agriculture first, and to residents second; if we can't shower every day, too bad; if we can't water our lawns, let 'em die.
We live in a desert. Water is precious. If our kids need to float, go to a local public pool, and float to your heart's content. The river is a waste of precious resources that should be redirected to agricultural needs. And no, I don't have any connections to the ag community.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: North Kern district has right to share Kern River water
RICHARD A. DIAMOND, general manager of the North Kern Water Storage District. 2/13/2010
With regard to the North Kern Water Storage District's use of its acquired Kern River water rights, The Californian's Lois Henry claims that "No such rights have ever been established, however, and my contention is if they've been using that water, they've done so improperly." ("Arguments against a river don't hold water, " Feb.10.)
This contention is frankly absurd, and demonstrates that Henry's understanding of the Kern River is lacking, or that her myopic desire to have water in the river has clouded her judgment. There is simply no doubt that:
* One, the Miller-Haggin Agreement and Shaw Decree established the Kern River water rights subsequently acquired by North Kern;
* Two, the right to divert and use the water accruing to specific Kern River rights from the Miller-Haggin Agreement and the Shaw Decree was purchased by North Kern through the 1952 agreement; and
* Three, daily river diversion records clearly show that North Kern has properly used these rights over the last 58 years. These records have been maintained by the City of Bakersfield since 1976.
Read our full rebuttal to Henry's column: tinyurl.com/LoisIsWrong.
---------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY VOICES: Diverting Kern River water will hurt virtually everyone
RICHARD A. DIAMOND, general manager of the North Kern Water Storage District. 2/12/2010
The North Kern Water Storage District filed the first petition to appropriate Kern River water under the current State Water Resources Control Board process and was the lead plaintiff in the preceding lawsuits that resulted in the forfeiture of a portion of the Kern Delta Water District's Kern River water supplies. Consequently, North Kern is extremely well qualified to provide input and perspective to the ongoing public debate on the Kern River.
In her Feb. 10 column, "Arguments against a river don't hold water, " Californian columnist Lois Henry made several false or misleading claims regarding North Kern's rights to Kern River water and the impacts of the City of Bakersfield's current attempt to take water that has been used in North Kern for nearly 60 years. More specifically:
* Henry claimed that the "North Kern Water Storage District is not a right holder."
Through an agreement with the Kern County Land Company in 1952, North Kern purchased "the right in perpetuity" to "all water accruing" under approximately 17 Kern River rights established between 1871 and 1876, pursuant to the Miller-Haggin Agreement of 1888 and the Shaw Decree of 1900. North Kern has the exclusive right to use all the water accruing to the water rights listed in the 1952 agreement for all purposes. When the City of Bakersfield acquired its water rights in 1976, its rights were purchased expressly subject to the prior water rights of North Kern. North Kern has exercised its water rights to the Kern River for the last 58 years to develop a vibrant agricultural economy that provides significant jobs and benefits countywide.
Finally, just so we're clear, the dictionary defines "perpetual" as "continuing forever; valid for all time."
* With regard to North Kern's use of its acquired Kern River water rights, Henry says that "No such rights have ever been established, however, and my contention is if they've been using that water, they've done so improperly."
This contention is frankly absurd, and demonstrates that Henry's understanding of the Kern River is lacking, or that her myopic desire to have water in the river has clouded her judgment. There is simply no doubt that:
Three, daily river diversion records clearly show that North Kern has properly used these rights over the last 58 years. These records have been maintained by the City since 1976.
* Henry further contends that "if the water is run in the river channel, it benefits growers, including North Kern, by replenishing our seriously depleted aquifer."
North Kern is located in the northeastern portion of the Kern County groundwater basin whereas the Kern River channel runs to the southwest. Consequently, there would be little or no benefit to the groundwater basin underlying North Kern as a result of running water in the river channel.
Any tangible benefit to North Kern could only result if the percolated water could be extracted and delivered to farms in North Kern. However, the City's water rights proposal does not provide any water to farmlands in North Kern or elsewhere; rather, the City has requested the State Board order all the recharged water be dedicated to the City and deny agricultural users their historical water supplies. As a result, groundwater supplies in North Kern will significantly decline if the State Board agrees with the City's plan.
In closing, water supplies from the Kern River have always been managed by local interests for the benefit of both urban and agricultural users in Kern County. If the residents of Bakersfield are willing to pay for having more water in the Kern River they should ask the City to use its own water supplies instead of shifting the burden to local farmers who have depended on Kern River water for over 100 years.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Bring water back home to Kern River
BILL COOPER, Kern River Parkway Foundation. 2/9/2010
I've worked on the Kern River Parkway for 35 years. In that time I have observed, often in disbelief and amazement, what goes on in water politics in California.
I've heard all the arguments as to why we must destroy rivers and even entire watersheds in order to promote the quality of life somewhere else. This usually means, simply put, that special-interest water districts, agencies and their constituents get the improved quality of life while others, living at the source of the water, such as Bakersfield, wind up with a dead river.
Now there is a chance that some of the Kern River's water will be returned to the river. It has been determined that there is "unappropriated" water from the Kern and the only remaining issue is who will get that water.
The water must be returned the Kern River, to be owned by the people of Bakersfield for their benefit and administered by the city's water department.
There will be no "taking water from farms and homes, " a term thrown around by water interests to scare people in to supporting the status quo. The unappropriated water, given back to the river and the people of Bakersfield, will provide future water for homes, recreation and an improved quality of life. It will help revitalize the Kern River Parkway and improve the city's image and economic viability. The water will be stored underground in the city's publically owned water recharge area and made available to farms, as well as urban use.
There should be no argument as to where this unappropriated water should go. It should go home, to the river.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Resist lawyers, let river flow
RICH O'NEIL, Kern River Parkway Committee. 2/8/2010
The Bakersfield Water Department has the right to keep supplying our citizens and farms with clean Kern River water. Having our river back will allow our community to grow, enrich itself, and become stronger and more vibrant.
We can do this by claiming the Kern River water "not fully appropriated" and letting the river flow through Bakersfield. Once the water reaches downstream and into the aquifer, it can be distributed to farms and people. Businesses will prosper, thanks to the image-boost the river will provide.
The city has been attempting to take back the unappropriated portions of the Kern River for a dozen years. Two courts have already ruled in favor of Bakersfield's claim but highly paid lawyers keep thwarting it. Our city is best equipped to recharge and distribute our river water to the businesses of our area. It has invested millions of dollars in operating many miles of canals, the riverbed and its 2,400-acre basin, and maintaining clean Kern River water.
Over the next few days we will be reading letters from high-powered water lawyers and millionaire users who think that they should get the unappropriated water. Then the slick-talking lawyers will write glossy letters and talking points for their friends and families to sign. Don't be fooled.
We must take back our own water -- our own river. We must prevent other special interests from shipping our water north or even to Los Angeles by sneaky underground trades.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: 'Wet' river is just what we asked for
SHERYL BARBICH, President, Greater Bakersfield Vision 2020. 2/8/2010
The Bakersfield community strongly supports restoring water to the Kern River through the downtown area to Beach Park. Evidence of this support stems from a community visioning process undertaken a decade ago -- Greater Bakersfield Vision 2020. More than 13,000 residents participated the process, which resulted in the development of a plan, complete with strategies and specific action items, released back to the community for implementation in January 2001.
The important Quality of Life plan contains several strategies specific to the Kern River, notably Strategy #9: "Keep water in the Kern River year-round through Beach Park." Among the action items is: "Support governor's $23 million Kern River Restoration project to keep water in Kern River through Beach Park."
Another relevant strategy is Strategy #8: "Provide additional recreational and other activities along the Kern River." Action items for this strategy include: "Provide easier public access to the Kern River bottom at Beach Park by creating entrances to safe areas of the river; improve river use for recreation with barbecues, chess tables, etc., in parks along the river; and provide maps and parkway information at Kern River Parkway access points."
Strategy #7 calls for "a green, landscaped river shoreline along the Kern River at Beach Park that includes recreational use."
The complete Action Plan and documented process may be viewed online at www.bakersfieldvision2020.com. We would encourage the Regional Water Quality Control Board to consider all this in acting on the city of Bakersfield's application to run available water down the Kern River riverbed.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: River has PR potential
SAM AMES, 2/8/2010
Unclaimed water and the potential to see the mighty Kern River flow more often is an exciting possibility. If we (the government and citizens of Kern County) determine or have determined that our agricultural water needs are met, then I think the beautification and color the river could bring to Bakersfield and surrounding areas would be fantastic. It would allow for more recreational business and an increase in business potential near the Kern.
The PR potential and showcasing Bakersfield with a beautiful river is exciting.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Flow, Kern River, flow
SPC JOSHUA PATTERSON, Iraq, 2/7/2010
I am with the U.S. Army's 923rd Movement Control Team, stationed in Iraq. The 923rd MCT is the reserve unit based in Bakersfield, just off the river on Chester Avenue.
I would love to see the Kern River flowing through Bakersfield again. If there is something we can do to help out from here, just let me know, and I will try to get it done. Being as we are here, though, it will be hard to make the Feb. 9 deadline for submitting written comments to the State Water Resources Control Board. But since most of the unit is from Bakersfield, we will try to do our part.
We do enjoy being a part of the Bakersfield community, and I think getting the river flowing again would be a highlight of the town.
Thank you for getting this idea out to the people. Hopefully they will feel similarly, and do as much as they can to help.
---------------------------------------------------------
SOUND OFF: This feedback forum allows readers to voice criticisms and ask questions about news coverage. Answers are provided by Editor Mike Jenner. 2/7/2010
MICHAEL YOUNG, past president Kern County Farm Bureau:
As a past member of The Californian editorial board, I am appalled that the publisher is using the paper for her own personal agenda.
Editorializing about hot topics is acceptable. However, running a half-page ad encouraging people to sign a petition based on inaccurate facts regarding the unappropriated water in the Kern River is simply irresponsible.
The Californian is incorrect in stating that the riverbed would be wet in dry years if the State Water Resources Control Board were to take unappropriated water and appropriate it to the city.
Don't let The Californian fool you into thinking that the problem is an easy fix if you sign this petition. There still would not be enough water to fill the riverbed. The city could turn on the pumps that they spent millions of dollars developing to try to fill the river, but they know that it would be cost prohibitive and the river would only be a puddle.
Report the news, give honest editorials and let the columnists do the job they are paid to do. The Californian should be ashamed that they are responsible for swaying public opinion without truly representing the facts.
This is no different than running the same type of ad soliciting signatures for a proposition to put on a ballot that the The Californian supports.
The people of this city deserve more from their newspaper. This is not the same paper it was when I had the opportunity to serve it. It's no wonder readership and revenue is down.
JENNER: The notion that this campaign to support the city's bid to win unappropriated Kern River water somehow benefits our publisher's "personal agenda" is a load of hooey.
I believe, and so do many others here at the paper, that if the city gains those water rights, everyone in the community -- including ag users -- would benefit.
The unusual thing about this campaign is that Publisher Ginger Moorhouse has written a column outlining her support, joining columnists Lois Henry and Herb Benham and our editorials supporting the city's efforts to obtain rights to this water.
She's done that before, in campaigns to raise money for animal shelters and to encourage citizens to volunteer to serve as classroom tutors helping struggling second-graders learn to read.
Her speaking out on behalf of this issue is neither unethical nor inappropriate. In fact, I think it's laudable.
As for your complaint about our "inaccurate" reporting,
I can't find where we've promised there will be water in the river year-round if the city prevails and the State Water Resources Control Board awards these rights to the city. The presence of water in the riverbed certainly does depend on a number of factors, including the snowpack and the limits on Isabella Lake levels due to restrictions placed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
But we're much more likely to see water in the lower Kern if the board grants this unappropriated water to the city than if it doesn't.
It's neither irresponsible nor shameful to alert the citizens of this community of this opportunity and encourage them to be heard.
While we're on the topic of irresponsibility and shame, I have to say I'm a little taken aback by some of the attitudes recently expressed by some ag and water leaders regarding the city's effort to obtain this water.
Several water districts and the city of Shafter have filed claims to get this water, so there's competition for it. I get that.
But I bristle at the notion that the citizens of Bakersfield are interlopers who somehow aren't entitled to make a claim for this water.
This river is a public resource. And citizens of Bakersfield have dutifully accommodated the needs of ag with the understanding that ag needs water to thrive.
We're not asking for every gallon. But if there's water available, we deserve a few drops.
---------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY VOICES: Year-round water in the river just too costly
BILL PHILLIMORE, executive vice president of Bakersfield's Paramount Farms, the largest grower of pistachios and almonds in the world and a participant in the Kern Water Bank. 2/7/2010
The Bakersfield Californian, in the persons of publisher Ginger Moorhouse and columnist Lois Henry, is looking for support from its readers to "take back our Kern River." The essence of their advocacy seems to be that they want water to flow in the river all the time. They further seem to believe that this can be achieved by legal maneuvers and getting state agencies involved in local issues.
Unfortunately, both writers ignore the facts -- and the potential cost of their advocacy. They fail to mention that "taking back the river" involves taking water from farmers who are using it to grow crops, provide jobs and pay taxes to Kern County and the city of Bakersfield.
Here are the facts:
* The city of Bakersfield can "put water back" in the Kern River today, if it wants to. The city has the water and can choose to put it back in the river. City officials have demurred because they know it would be expensive and lead to water loss. The bottom line is that the city is not prepared to pay the price. In fact, the city built the River Canal in the 1960s so that it would not have to put water in the river, except at times when there is excess water.
* Bakersfield is a desert. Water is our most valuable asset (perhaps apart from oil), and the city should be making far greater efforts than it does to preserve the water that is available. At this very moment, the city, and the surrounding agriculture which supports so much of its economy, is suffering because of water restrictions in the delta. If these restrictions are not lifted, the economy of both the city and the county will suffer enormously, but Bakersfield is doing nothing to conserve its current supplies.
* The water that The Californian wants the city to run down the river is currently being used to grow food or fiber, and it is creating jobs (economists claim that seven jobs are created for every single job in production agriculture due to sales, marketing, support, etc.). Taking this water from its current use to run down the river will increase unemployment and lower local tax receipts.
* The city is trying to obtain additional water by asking a state agency to get involved in the government of the Kern River. The allocation of water in the river has always been in local hands. Henry fails to explain why she likes the State Water Resources Control Board, and why she thinks they will behave any better than her nemesis, the California Air Resources Board.
* The city's legal maneuvers have, to date, cost it well over $1.2 million; money that presumably could be used meaningfully elsewhere. Before the process is over, this expense will probably triple because the current water users are unlikely to give up their livelihood without a fight.
Remember, the city has the power to put water in the river whenever it wants -- it's just a matter of cost. But, to take other people's water by legal shenanigans so that it can be run down the river is highly questionable, especially when it will increase local unemployment and negatively affect tax revenues.
I think everyone in Bakersfield yearns for and loves those years when there is enough snowpack in the Sierra for water to run in the river. We would all like to have water in the river, but we need to understand the full costs.
Hopefully, the city's water committee and the Bakersfield City Council will understand those costs -- and behave more responsibly than The Californian by taking the time to fully understand the consequences of the actions that city staff is mindlessly pursuing.
---------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY VOICES: Don't take river water from homes, farms
JIM BECK, general manager of the Kern County Water Agency, 2/6/2010
Lois Henry's Feb. 3 column, "Want water in the river? It's up to you, " painted the Kern County Water Agency's Improvement District No. 4 as the obstacle to a river flowing through Bakersfield. Nothing could be further from the truth. Misrepresentations about ID4's role concerning water in the river are unproductive and not in the best interests of Kern County.
ID4 was created in the 1970s to provide a supplemental water supply to address the then-existing decline in groundwater levels and quality. ID4's mission is to replenish the underlying groundwater aquifer through direct and indirect recharge of imported State Water Project water supplies. ID4 encompasses a significant portion of Bakersfield but also extends to areas beyond. ID4 was not created by city of Bakersfield voters for city use, as Ms. Henry suggested.
In approving the formation of ID4, all voters authorized the issuance of bonds to construct a drinking water treatment plant, pipelines and canals to deliver and treat this supplemental water supply. With those facilities, ID4 delivers SWP water into the Kern River channel to directly replenish the aquifer and indirectly recharges the aquifer by providing treated surface water to portions of ID4 that previously used groundwater to meet drinking water needs. Reducing pumping in key areas stabilizes groundwater levels.
ID4 has been hugely successful in fulfilling its mission. Since 1971, over 2.4 million acre-feet of water has been delivered into ID4, with over 1.7 million acre-feet recharged. Water seen in the river channel since ID4's inception has almost always been from ID4, not the city. In addition to the recharge upstream of Manor Street, ID4 recharges water in the river channel between Beach Park and Allen Road. Water has been recharged in the river channel 36 out of its 39 years of existence.
The Kern River Parkway agreement developed jointly by the city and ID4 enabled ID4 to recharge more water in the river channel during the spring and summer. To meet requests for increased treated water deliveries from the city and ID4's other customers, ID4 had to terminate the parkway agreement. The parkway agreement was restructured to continue to provide water in the river and to secure a source of revenue to operate the parkway wells. The city has not executed that agreement.
The parkway wells were constructed as part of a $23 million grant awarded to the Kern County Water Agency (not to the city) for countywide water management programs. These wells were designed to pump previously recharged groundwater into the river channel -- an innovative approach to providing recreational benefits for local residents with the agricultural community's water supply. The terms of the grant do not permit any of the funds to be used for operating the parkway wells.
The Kern County Water Agency agrees that a river flowing through Bakersfield would be wonderful. However, taking water away from homes, businesses and farms is not the way to get there. As local residents consider the "water in the river" issue, an important question to ask is this: Why is the city choosing to deliver Kern River water through lined canals rather than the river channel? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones -- they should throw some of their water at the dry riverbed.
---------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY VOICES: Benefits of year-round water in Kern include recreation, tourism, tax base
DON I. COHEN, manager of the Bakersfield Convention & Visitors Bureau, 2/5/2010
The battle over Kern River water rights is a complicated and drawn out political quagmire, not one I plan on lending insight to here -- not that I could if I tried. What I do believe is if water flows in the Kern River, permanently and year-round, it would go a long way towards drawing tourists, recreation seekers and development to Bakersfield.
Political and environmental issues aside, the benefits of having year-round water flowing through the Kern River are economic and quantifiable through potential increases in tourism and retail sales. Transient occupancy tax and sales tax paid by visitors lessen the tax burden on Bakersfield residents, and that is something we all can agree is a good thing.
There are plenty of examples of water features stimulating development, retail and tourism. Locally, the Mill Creek Redevelopment project helped attract the new federal courthouse and the commercial development will follow. The Park at Riverwalk is another example of an entertainment and recreational venue centered around water sources.
Regionally, Stockton and Sacramento have marketed their waterfront attractions as a benefit to visitors. On a national level, cities such as Chicago and San Antonio have responsibly developed waterfronts and have realized substantial economic benefits.
There is no doubt that a water source adds a unique feature to a community, something both local citizens and visitors can enjoy. When completed correctly, a riverwalk can be a tourist destination, a catalyst for growth, a job creator and an asset providing a return on investment for many years to come.
Water features, particularly ones the size of a perennially full Kern River, tend to attract retail, recreation and commercial development. With the foresight of many, we already have integral parts of a successful riverwalk -- the Kern River Parkway and the Bright House Networks Amphitheatre.
With water flowing adjacent to the amphitheatre, it could be transformed into a centerpiece attraction. A visitor could rent a bike, pedal to a riverside coffee shop, eat lunch or dinner on a patio overlooking the water and stroll a pedestrian friendly promenade filled with retail shops. When they are done for the day a short ride could take them back to their hotel or to the amphitheatre for a concert.
The potential economic synergy just from having water in the Kern River all year is immense and one that should not go ignored in Sacramento on Feb. 16.
Water in the Kern River also means more recreational opportunities. Fishing, kayaking, tubing and swimming are just a few of the activities that could potentially become a way of life for residents of Bakersfield. Water in the river alone would entice more citizens and visitors to use the Kern River Parkway, promoting physical fitness and increasing quality of life.
The trickledown effect from these activities would be significant. Would the increase in outdoor recreation create enough demand for a big-name outdoor retailer to finally build a long overdue store? I think it would. From fishing equipment and license sales, local retailers could potentially capitalize on the most basic of all human needs -- water.
Of course these are only a few possibilities and merely a vision right now. But through the due diligence of city staff and the support of the community, we are taking a huge first step in creating a natural attraction with unlimited potential. The recent developments are a start to make the "no diving" signs on overpasses relevant for more than 10 days a year. With the decision looming, we have a chance to permanently change the scenery of Bakersfield. Let's not miss this opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIAN EDITORIAL: Mighty Kern River belongs to our entire community, 2/4/2010
In many ways, the starkly empty riverbed that winds through the center of Bakersfield defines this community: Substantial in potential, unrealized in actuality.
The bone-dry Kern River channel introduces America to a city that outwardly appears devoid of vitality. Travelers on Highway 99 who cross over the empty trough at the city's approximate center point cannot be even slightly tempted to stop, stay, play and spend. Nothing to see here.
The place once known as Kern Island because of the abundance of water that cascaded down from the Sierra is today a dutiful servant of industry, a casualty of water politics.
But we've been longing to change things for years. When the Greater Bakersfield Vision 2020 project convened a decade ago -- bringing together 13,000 ordinary local citizens who allowed themselves to dream about what their city could be -- one of the fondest collective hopes was that the Kern River might again flow through the center of Bakersfield. To that end, we supported the governor's $23 million Kern River Restoration Project. We placed high-density development and recreational amenities along the usually-barren riverbed, and beside our downtown canals. In some cases, we acted as if there were actually water there.
Talk about hope.
But now, unexpectedly, we find ourselves at one of those rare crossroads where harsh, immutable reality is suddenly flexible. The State Water Resources Control Board is about to consider a draft recommendation finding that the Kern River is not fully appropriated. In other words, that not all of our water is legally spoken for. The City of Bakersfield has applied for permission to channel this newly available water into the lower Kern River.
That's not merely a great idea, it's the fulfillment of a wish many have had for a long time.
Some may be under the impression that allowing the Kern River to be the Kern River would somehow be wasteful. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to the symbolic and aesthetic benefits of a "wet" river, a permanent, year-round flow of water would restore our depleted aquifers -- the underground "rivers" that supply groundwater wells. What was once a "mound" of underground water has become a trough as the recharge basin has depleted from lack of river water. As outlying groundwater has begun flowing in toward the river channel, water users have been forced to dig deeper wells. Some wells have simply dried up.
Well-users, therefore, would benefit. But so would many others. A flowing Kern River would be a major boon to businesses situated on or near the riverbank, perhaps including recreation companies not yet imagined.
Kern County growers have been innovators in the science of irrigation, developing methods that the world has admired and studied. Growers have switched to techniques and crop varieties that are best suited to the southern valley's climate and resources. They are to be commended.
But if a share of the Kern River belongs to the community, the community should have it -- and not just on principle. We need it.
If ever a city was ready, willing and enthusiastic about the possibility of restoring a flowing channel of water to a strikingly desolate riverbed, Bakersfield is that city.
For more information about how to get involved in the "Take Our River Back" campaign, log on to Bakersfield.com/river.
---------------------------------------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Thanks Lois, for moxie
JANET ANDREA, 1/30/2010
Columnist Lois Henry is such a breath of fresh air (pun intended). I thoroughly delight in reading about her tireless efforts to make public agencies accountable to the people.
I hope she keeps exposing these injustices and enlightening the public. Cleaner air, lower PG&E bills and Kern River water flowing through Bako along the bike path are just a few examples of how her dedication and moxie affect us.
-------------------------2009-------------------------
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Water in the river
CAROLYN BELLI, 3/4/2009
What a shame that past water officials thought they needed to drain the Kern River on the east side of Bakersfield, when they could have done the same far to the west, allowing the river to flow through the city.
The Bakersfield City Water Department has worked diligently with the various water agencies to allow this to happen over the past few years but, although a lot of money was put into designing and constructing diversion canals to allow the water to flow through town before being diverted, this has yet to come to pass.
Now the State Water Resources Control Board thinks there might be some unclaimed water available. If the city is granted that water, the Kern River would flow, to some degree, through town. The only problem with that is the various water agencies are also competing for that excess water.
I encourage the public to support the city's claim to the water by writing to the State Water Resources Control Board. The city should pursue the plan to divert the water to the west. I would put pressure on the water districts to cooperate -- after all, Bakersfield is their city, also. How nice would it be to see water flowing.
---------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY VOICES: Kern River a great resource we can do much more to enhance and preserve
A. RILEY PARKER, 12/3/2009
The current controversy over who should end up with exclusive rights to the Kern River bike path -- the bicyclists or the walkers -- is not something that can be easily resolved. I must admit, however, that I was amused by the recent letter writer who claimed that since it is called by most everyone "the bike path" then it must therefore be the domain of bicyclists.
Those of us who have been here for more than 60 years can recall when the grand idea to construct a human-friendly thoroughfare along the Kern River was known simply as a "trail" or "pathway." And that is how it should remain, just as originally intended, a user-friendly point of access to what is one of the most underutilized attributes of Bakersfield, the scenic Kern River.
I have been here long enough to remember, and to have photographs of the original "wild" Kern River, raging beneath the Panorama Bluffs, before it was tamed by the Army Corps of Engineers, who in the process drowned out the original town of Kernville.
This now dry riverbed is still a delightful wildlife- and bird-infested area, and it should be available for enjoyment by all. Rather than constructing any more legacy structures for the newcomer, City Manager Alan Tandy, et al, let's spend a few more bucks and further develop what should be known as the Kern River Parkway, with both bicycle (paved) trails and decomposed granite hiking and running trails. And we might want to throw in a couple of more parks adjacent.
It doesn't require eminent domain and displaced residents, nor does it require the destroying of any more wonderful old buildings such as the outrageous destruction that occurred at California Avenue and P Street. This city, as founded both by Col. Thomas Baker, and Mr. Gordon's nearby ferry, came to be specifically because of the proximity and existence of the Kern River, and what it offered to us.
Perhaps one needed to attend the fourth grade here in Bakersfield, and make a few trips to the old Kern County Museum, in order to really understand what made this a remarkable place to be raised, and to call home. From the mouth of the Kern River Canyon, near the Yokuts Indian Village at Olcese Reservation, to its terminus in the Buena Vista Plain, the Kern River was the original heart of this community.
It was a place where deer, bear, elk, beavers, valley quail and other wildlife flourished. It was not a man-made canal near a downtown foundry that should have been the focus of this community's leaders in the past 10 or more years. Rather, it was the most readily available intrinsic asset of this community since the day that it was founded -- the mighty Kern River. It is quite possible to develop a bicycle path that will allow for an "out and back" ride of 50 miles; a hiking path in 10 segments of 5 miles each, with proper shade, water and rest stations along the way.
But instead, we have built an unnecessary movie theater, an ice hockey rink, a swimming pool, and a man-made lake that has become a death pool. It is way past time for the leaders of this city to make the Kern River Parkway, and its surroundings readily available to everyone who might choose to use it as a place of recreation. And in the process, we can build upon the character of Bakersfield by creating a destination of true distinction.
Imagine, if you will, Bakersfield as a destination community for something more than loud race cars and country music -- not that I don't love and enjoy both, but we have a lot more to offer. That is, if we can get our "leaders" to learn a little more about our history and what we have to offer.
Maybe next time we can talk about the incredibly rich history of the old Chinatown in downtown Bakersfield. Hopefully, they won't have the last remnants of that excavated, destroyed and paved over in order to build a new courthouse.
But then, you just never know with this bunch. That's what happens when folks don't have a true sense of culture and community.
-----------------------------2008-----------------------------
COMMUNITY VOICES: Kern River rights not that simple
MICHAEL YOUNG, past president of the Kern County Farm Bureau, 2/25/2008
As a person who has logged hundreds of miles on the bike path that runs through our great city, I would love nothing more than for the Kern River to always be full and flowing.
I have to agree with columnist Lois Henry when she says that "this ribbon of water through the city changed things." She's right, it does make our city a more beautiful and comfortable place to live. What was not said in her recent columns and a subsequent editorial is the fact that all the water that was affected by the forfeiture of one of the existing right holders, has always been diverted and used by the other existing right holders of Kern River water, according to the prior rights as confirmed by the State Water Resources Control Board.
We all need to remember that we live in an "irrigated desert." The natural flow of the Kern River is highly variable and rarely sufficient to meet all the beneficial needs of the region.
Long before the City of Bakersfield first acquired its right to use Kern River water in 1976, all of the natural flow of the river had been fully appropriated to legally authorized users, as determined by the State Water Resources Control Board. In fact, the SWRCB ruled that prior to 1894, all the natural flow of the Kern River had been fully used according to established court decisions for beneficial uses of irrigation and ground water replenishment.
It is crucial to understand that the water rights of the Kern River which the courts have determined to be partially forfeited would only flow during the months of October to January. This is certainly not the period mentioned in The Californian when outdoor recreation use is most popular. Also, zero effort was made to explain that the city's plan will take water away from long-established users. Nor was any consideration given to the consequences that such a proposal will have on the local agricultural economy, which is one of Kern County's core industries. It is an industry Supervisor Michael Rubio stated in his State of the County address that gives Kern County many "homegrown advantages" and adds $3.5 billion to the Kern economy.
A plan to let the forfeited water flow down the Kern would be very harmful to the local agricultural economy and the businesses which depend on it. It would reduce the water supply that is essential to grow the thousands of acres of trees and vines that surround the City of Bakersfield.
Agriculture adds beauty to our landscape, keeps open space open, provides jobs and tax revenue to Kern County and helps clean up our air. A reduction in water supply would be harsh at this time because Kern County is suffering a historic and perhaps chronic water shortage resulting primarily from environmental issues in the Sacramento Delta.
As Lois Henry mentioned, the City of Bakersfield had a plan for providing water in the river channel, but chose not to implement it for financial reasons. If the city is serious about wanting to provide the community with the benefits of a "wet river, " it needs to dedicate its resources towards a local plan and coordinate with its neighbor water agencies so that a "win-win" program can be developed. Any acceptable plan should be balanced in order to achieve both an improvement to the Kern River corridor while also preserving the local agricultural community.
Michael Young of Bakersfield is a local farmer and president Kern County Farm Bureau. Another View is a critical response to a Californian editorial or story. It may contain up to 500 words. The Californian reserves the right to reprint contributed commentaries in all formats, including on its Web page.
---------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIAN EDITORIAL: Want water in river? 1/30/2008
Rivers help define the cities they flow through, and in many cases the cities also define the rivers. St. Louis, Cincinnati, Sacramento -- all are situated on rivers of historical import and aesthetic character.
Bakersfield, by comparison, has the Kern River -- or, more accurately, it has the Kern Riverbed.
Now, thanks to a recently settled lawsuit, Bakersfield may soon be able to enjoy the many benefits of a river. A wet river.
But we have to speak up, and quickly.
Californian columnist Lois Henry has stumbled upon a rare opportunity for this community to weigh in on the possibility of a flowing, trans-urban Kern River. In April 2007, a judge hearing a 12-year-old lawsuit between two local water districts found that one of the districts had forfeited its rights to some Kern River water. He said the Kern might no longer be "fully appropriated, " meaning some water might be available to a water district that did not previously have a recognized claim to it. He said it was up to the State Water Resources Control Board to decide.
The City of Bakersfield filed an application, asking that it be awarded this "spare" water. The city said it would run that water down the natural channel of the Kern River.
As Henry suggests, the people of Bakersfield can help the water board decide. We agree. There's nothing like a rush of water coursing through the city. It's life, it's energy, it's peace.
It's also groundwater storage. The riverbed is the center of Kern's vast aquifer, the source of our drinking water. By recharging that aquifer with a living, meandering Kern River, we would have considerably cleaner drinking water coming out of the tap.
The city has calculated that as much as 110,000 to 120,000 acre-feet of water a year may become available. That's enough for nine or 10 months of water in the Kern River in all but the driest years -- a far sight better than the two months' worth of water we've been getting in average water years.
Bakersfield deserves to reclaim its long-lost status as a river city. Write to the State Water Resources Control Board in support of the city's application. But hurry. The water agency is only taking comments through Thursday.
