LOIS HENRY: Want water in the river? It's up to you
| Tuesday, Feb 02 2010 06:03 PM
Submit written comments supporting the recommended order finding unappropriated water on the Kern River by noon Feb. 9.
Here are the high points to hit:
* You agree with staff's finding that the there is water available on the Kern River.
* You support the City of Bakersfield's application to run available water down the riverbed.
* Running water in the riverbed will help replenish the aquifer, restore the natural environment, provide recreation.
Send comments to:
Jeanine Townsend, Clerk to the Board State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Or by fax to: (916) 341-5620
Or by email to: commentletters@waterboards.ca.gov
Subject line must include "COMMENT LETTER - 2/16/10 BOARD MEETING ITEM: ORDER - KERN RIVER"
Any faxed or emailed items MUST be followed by a mailed or delivered hard copy with an original signature.
You may also speak at the Feb. 16 meeting but you have to limit your statement to three minutes and must focus only on the recommended order.
Read the draft order at:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/kernriver_fas/index.shtml
You can check who's made comments on the Kern River issue here: www.waterboards.ca.gov/public_notices/comments/index.shtml
Remember when I told you a few months ago to keep your powder dry on the quest for water in the Kern River, but to be ready?
Well, it's go time. FIRE AT WILL!
Wait! I forgot this was Kern County. I mean fire off e-mails, letters, postcards and faxes to let the State Water Resources Control Board know how much we support the recommendation to declare the Kern River "not fully appropriated."
We have until noon Feb. 9 to make our voices heard. Then the board will meet Feb. 16 in Sacramento to give a thumbs up or down on the recommendation.
If it's a thumbs up, (I'm not even considering the alternative right now) then the real war begins and we all need to commit to winning each battle.
You can bet I will be right here reminding you, cajoling you, outright nagging you to be a full participant in this effort.
The Kern River has been locked up and hidden from the citizens of this city long enough.
We have a right to our river and we want it back.
This all started when North Kern Water Storage District sued Kern Delta Water Storage district saying Kern Delta had forfeited some of its Kern River water and North Kern wanted it.
A short 12 years later, the court found that Kern Delta had forfeited some of its rights. But whether the river was no longer fully appropriated, as the state had declared in 1964, and who should get any loose water was up to the state, according to the ruling.
The city of Bakersfield quickly applied to the state to find that water was available and, if so, the city wanted it to run down the riverbed.
That's not a frivolous thing.
The aquifer for this water basin, which has served cities and farms for generations, is fed by the Kern River running its natural course. Water levels are (or were) highest under the riverbed and the water spreads to all users from there. Through these years of drought, however, that has reversed as no water has run in the bed and farmers have had to draw more groundwater as state supplies dried up.
That mound of water under the riverbed has become a trough. Outlying groundwater is now flowing in toward the river, users are having to dig deeper wells and some wells have simply dried up.
Water in the river is essential to us all.
Now we're on the cusp of stage one to get that water back. The state board first must find there is loose water. After that, the fight is on for who gets it. Five other entities -- Kern Water Bank Authority, Kern County Water Agency, North Kern along with the city of Shafter and Buena Vista Water Storage District -- have also applied for the water.
So this will not be a quick or easy fight.
The city's quest for a river has been years in the making.
Back in the 1970s, city voters passed a bond to help pay for the Cross Valley canal, a treatment plant for drinking water and 77,000 acre feet of water a year for city use. Improvement District 4 (ID4) was created to run the plant with operation and maintenance costs paid through selling the treated water and property and well pumping taxes.
It was all administered by the Kern County Water Agency with the understanding that more than half of that 77,000 acre feet of water would be run down the river channel to replenish the aquifer.
The plant has contracts to deliver 25,000 acre feet a year to serve its wholesale customers. And even though we don't get all 77,000 acre feet each year (due to drought or endangered species issues in the delta), there's often a lot left over to run down the river.
That hasn't happened most years.
While Jim Beck, general manager for the Agency, told me the river channel is the priority recharge area, that water doesn't usually make it below Manor Street, leaving a dry ugly scar cutting through the majority of town.
"Our goal is to recharge the groundwater as far up into the district as possible," he said.
I would have a better time accepting his reasoning if ID4 didn't stretch all the way out to Allen Road. That means those of us who live west of Manor are paying for water we don't use in our taps and we never see in the riverbed.
Essentially, it's bye-bye river.
The city then cut a deal with the Agency in about 2000 for winter flows from the state that came at the wrong time for growers but could be exchanged for water the city had rights to in Isabella Lake and run in the river at least during the summer months.
"That worked fairly well until about 2005 when the Agency sent a letter to the city terminating the flow agreement," former Bakersfield Water Resources Manager Florn Core told me. "They were expanding the treatment plant and said there would be no water available." The plant, though, wouldn't be operational until 2010 or later.
Bye-bye river, again.
The city also tried teaming up with the Agency in 2000 to lobby the state to get $23 million of a $1.9 billion water bond (Proposition 13) to build a series of wells and pumps to have a "recirculating river" during the summer months.
About $3 million was set for the river project with the rest going to a laundry list of improvements for the Agency. Again, the Agency controlled the money.
The wells and pumps were built, but have never been turned on because it would cost about $1 million a year. The city didn't have the money.
Here's what galls me though. As we reported in 2003, $1.55 million of the original $23 million allotted to the Agency had not been "earmarked," meaning it was left over. But still the Agency wouldn't kick in to run the pumps.
Bye-bye river, again.
Well, here's our chance to take back what we never should have lost in the first place.
I know a lot of you will say, "What about ag?", particularly during this drought and under regulatory issues keeping more water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta.
But it's clear from the staff report at the State Water Resources Control Board there's Kern River water available. It's not being used for ag.
We a have right to our own public waterways through something called the public trust doctrine.
River flows feed the aquifer that benefit both the city and ag. We've given up our share for for long enough.
So let's hear it Bakersfield, tell the state to GIVE OUR RIVER BACK!
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
