www.bakersfield.com/news/columnist/henry/x467205070/LOIS-HENRY-Water-enough-for-deals-but-not-the-river

The Bakersfield Californian

Saturday, Jun 26 2010 03:25 PM

Last Updated Saturday, Jun 26 2010 03:25 PM

Maybe it's just me, but when an agricultural water district ships thousands of acre feet of Kern River water south to grow suburbs in Irvine, it kind of takes the oomph out of their argument that running water down the actual river bed right here in Bakersfield will devastate local farmers.

Buena Vista Water Storage District is one of a handful of local ag water districts fighting tooth and nail to keep the city of Bakersfield from getting some forfeited Kern River water to run down the river bed.

Meanwhile, Buena Vista has begun a one-year pilot program to transfer 5,000 acre feet of Kern River water to Irvine Ranch Water District's Strand Ranch groundwater bank near Enos Lane. Irvine will then pump it into the California Aqueduct and off it will go to Southern California.

(This is on top of the 11,000 acre feet a year Buena Vista sells to Castaic Lake Water Agency for $550 an acre foot, by the way.)

In exchange for the 5,000 acre feet to Irvine, Buena Vista may receive 2,375 acre feet of water back in dry years and some water storage space, for a limited time, in Strand Ranch.

If all goes well, they hope to extend the deal into a 15-year contract.

Buena Vista General Manager Dan Bartel insisted this is an "exchange" -- not a sale. The agreement, however, reads loosely enough that Buena Vista could get some water back in dry years, or perhaps not, depending on a variety of factors.

Hmmm.

Considering some of Irvine's water comes from the State Water Project -- highly unreliable even in a good year -- what are the chances the exchange will ultimately involve money instead of water in dry years?

Clever.

Bartel said that is absolutely not the intent of the agreement. This is strictly a water management deal, he said.

Buena Vista is finding places to park excess water when the Kern River is high in order to have enough for the district's farmers when Mother Nature holds back.

"This program is designed to hedge against drought periods," he said. "I wish more local water agencies were interested in these types of 'win-win' programs."

Frankly, I just can't get my head around the idea that "drought protection" locally always seems to involve shipping our water south.

Bartel said Buena Vista needs the Strand Ranch storage because its contracts with the city of Bakersfield's groundwater bank are expiring soon and the district has concerns about Lake Isabella storage restrictions brought about by dam safety issues.

OK, but the Strand Ranch storage is on a fairly short schedule because, as Bartel said, "they don't want us leaving our water in there forever and impacting their ability to store water from other places."

Besides, Buena Vista is now operating its own groundwater bank, which isn't full. As for Lake Isabella, after several years of drought it isn't anywhere near capacity even under the new restrictions and with above normal runoff.

So, why does Buena Vista really need Irvine?

For that matter, why does Irvine need Buena Vista? If this deal truly only involves water in high-flow years, anyone, including Irvine, can take excess water off the river as long as all other rights have been fulfilled.

I asked Bartel about that, especially considering they're moving water to Irvine this year when the river is only at 115 percent of normal, not 125 percent, the demarcation for what's considered "high-flow."

He said the agreement doesn't preclude Buena Vista from giving Irvine Kern River water even in lower flow years.

Ahhh. I see. Back to the hue and cry from local ag districts over the city's quest to get river water back into the river bed.

A little background: One local water district was found to have forfeited up to 50,000 acre feet of Kern River water after a protracted legal battle with another ag water district. That set the stage for the State Water Resources Control Board to determine there is water available on the river.

Several local ag water districts and the city of Bakersfield applied for the water. The city is the only entity that has vowed to run it down the river channel, however.

Those ag districts, Buena Vista, North Kern Water Storage District, Kern County Water Agency and the Kern Water Bank, then joined forces to oppose the city -- bitterly.

Managers and board members of those districts have come out publicly saying the city's efforts will all but destroy local ag, throw families out of work and force children into slavery. OK, I made that last part up.

But seriously, the howls from ag have been almost ear-splitting. All of which makes me go "hmph" when I hear about things like this Irvine water deal.

At the risk of repeating myself: No one is saying put every drop of the Kern back in the river. But can't we spare at least a little?

Judging by this latest deal, I'd say that's a big fat "yes."

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