LOIS HENRY: Look for water in the river by 2012
| Tuesday, Nov 02 2010 03:46 PM
It's funny what you pick up when you're not even looking. The other day I e-mailed the city of Bakersfield double checking whether volunteers should even muster an effort to re-establish an irrigation system along the Kern River Parkway to replace the dead trees cut down this summer.
I got back a very interesting response. The reply said that doing so might not be cost effective considering the city is "actively pursuing" a plan to restore at least seasonal flows
once its contracts to sell Kern River water to several agriculture districts expire in 2012.
Hmmmm? This was news to me. Turns out it was news to the ag districts as well.
Make no mistake, I think it's great news and could mean a real river through town, albeit not for another two years. But it likely won't come without a fight.
In fact, after getting that delightfully revealing e-mail, I hunted up recent letters between the city and North Kern Water Storage District (one of the three ag districts buying river water under the 2012 contracts) that suggest, yes, this'll be another bruiser.
For background, this is water the city has sold to North Kern, Cawelo and Kern-Tulare water districts under 35-year contracts as a means to pay for the bond the city used in 1976 to buy its rights to the river.
The contracts are up on Dec. 31, 2011, freeing up 70,000 acre feet of pristine Kern River water a year.
When I had asked about that water previously, I was told some of it might be allowed to run down the river. But most would likely be tied up in urban needs or even continue to be sold to the ag districts.
Apparently things have changed per a Sept. 16 letter sent to the districts by City Water Resources Manager Art Chianello.
As soon as the contracts are up, the city will need all 70,000 acre feet currently sold to the districts, Chianello wrote.
But the part that makes my little heart go pitty pat is where he cites a 1988 environmental impact report for the Kern River Parkway that stated the city would eventually use its water "to meet the need for increased Kern River flows."
Does that mean what I think it means?
Yes, Chianello confirmed, the plan is to run the 2012 water down the river.
Then on Friday, City Manager Alan Tandy's weekly memo (affectionately known as the "Tandygram" in certain circles) came out with this morsel:
"... sales that have been going on under a 35-year contract expire in 2012, and we have the opportunity to restore seasonal flows to the Kern River at that time, recharge the water table and receive the environmental benefits of at least having a few months of a real river in average precipitation years."
That seals it!
Before getting too excited, however, the cynical part of my brain (OK, it's a big part) wondered if this was just a ploy by the city. A bluff to get North Kern to back off its opposition to the city's application for forfeited water that's now under review by the State Water Resources Board. (That process is entirely different from this matter and is expected to take years, by the way.)
Or, perhaps, the city is trying to strong arm the ag districts into paying a higher price for the 2012 water. They pay $20 an acre foot right now, which is nothing in the water world.
Chianello assured me that, no, this is no ploy and the city isn't bluffing.
"If we could have enough water for our treatment plants as well as running water down the river, that's a higher calling and benefits everyone."
And what about the suggestion that the city run the water down the river, then pump it out and resell it to the ag districts?
Richard Diamond, general manager of North Kern Water Storage district, told me his district had made that offer.
"Yes, that was proposed," Chianello said. But the city needs to look at the broader picture, what all our water needs are including urban, groundwater, environmental and recreational.
Despite my glee, I acknowledge this will likely be a hardship for North Kern and the other districts, which have gone from thinking they have 10 or 15 years to find a replacement water source to 10 or 15 months, according to Diamond.
They call the city's stance "unbelievable" and have already demanded the city provide a detailed accounting of how it will use the water as well as a new environmental report.
They've asked for a face-to-face meeting with the city.
"We're hoping to make some progress," Diamond said. "But at this point we're dumfounded."
For its part the city has said this should come as no surprise. The contracts were for a set time and the city has sent letters reminding the districts of the time frame in years past.
For my part, and the part of more than 4,000 Bakersfield residents who voiced their desire to have their river back in the river bed, 2012 can't come too soon.
Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at www.bakersfield.com , call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com
