By Don A. Wright
The State Water Resources Control Board held a workshop in Bakersfield on Thursday, August 29, 2024 at Hodel’s restaurant’s banquet hall, named the Liberty Hall. The workshop was an opportunity for the public to comment on the possible placing of the Kern Subbasin on probation due to an inadequate Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
The meeting began at 5:30pm with State Board Chair Joaquin Esquivel welcoming the almost 100 people gathered. I know I’ve drifted into snarky territory when covering the State Board, like the Out of Control Board and such. I’m not being snarky now. Esquivel is
one of the politest men I’ve ever met. I’m sure he’s got a point where he might get annoyed but he doesn’t show it in public. Good for him. He kept his comments short and on point.
After Esquivel Assistant Director Natalie Stork and other staff members spoke about the impacts of overdraft on the Kern County Subbasin. According to a map displayed, the north-central portion of the area has the most subsidence, up to 2.4 feet. Not too bad compared with other places.
Another topic was the impact on domestic wells. There are wells that have gone dry but there is some controversy as to how the wells ended up in that condition. The state uses all domestic wells reported as going dry in its figures. Many domestic wells were not engineered with the stridency of commercial wells. Many of them go dry due to poor design, collapsed casings and clogged screens, yet they are counted as going dry due to over pumping by surrounding ag wells.
State Intervention
If I understood correctly Stork explained there are 94 subbasins in California required to manage their groundwater sustainably under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. If they can’t get a plan together that passes review by the Department of Water Resources the subbasin will be referred to the State Board for a determination as to whether or not to place the subbasin on probation.
Stork said if the subbasin is placed on probation the State Board staff will identify the GSP’s deficiencies and start collecting data. One of the primary datum will be how much water is pumped, also called extraction. There are fees including $300 per well per year and a $20 per acre foot pumped. This all subjected to a late fee of 25-percent per month.
The next step, if the GSP isn’t deemed adequate by one year of probation, the State Board will take over control of pumping in the subbasin.
State Board’s Issues with GSP
It was mentioned the GSAs within the Kern Subbasin took issue with some of the data the State Board staff used in the report they prepared on the GSP justifying moving towards probation. They were thanked for their input.
Jeevan Jayakody, State Board staff explained what problems they had with the GSP. He said there wasn’t enough in the plan to avoid the undesirable results of subsidence, groundwater quality, impacts on domestic wells and the interconnection between groundwater and surface water.
Jayakody said there are multiple plans from the GSAs put together to produce the subbasin’s GSP. He said there are problems with the consistency of data and methodologies used in the GSP, claiming some of this information is incompatible. A lack of communication resulting in disproportional impacts across the subbasin.
Jayakody cited many of the domestic wells are shallow and draw from the unconfined aquifer. Making them even more vulnerable to drawdown. This focus on domestic wells has certainly been a consistent throughout the SGMA.
Subsidence
Staffer Adel McGee continued the staff review of the plan saying the GSP should include the potential loss of infrastructure due to subsidence. But the GSP doesn’t address this adequately because of the lack of consistent data and methodology. She said there is a lack of identifying constituents in the subbasin. There is an inadequate monitoring of domestic wells and a lack of mitigation.
McGee said the three approaches to dealing with water quality included in the GSP are uncoordinated and it isn’t clear if the GSAs are all working towards avoiding the undesirable consequences listed in SGMA. McGee pointed out water quality degradation comes with many negatives such as illness, death and water unsuitable for irrigating crops.
If the Interconnected Surface Water to groundwater isn’t addressed adequately, streams can be harmed and the habitat along with them. She said there is not a monitoring network established and expects more problems along the Kern River and Poso Creek. The reduction of surface flows caused by overdraft could reduce streams, habitat and the opportunities for human recreational use.
The Updated Plan
Jayakody said, if I understood correctly, there is no need to update an earlier staff report upon receiving the rewritten GSP as the same problems are still present. He hopes to be able to change this situation by working with the local GSAs before the official probation hammer falls.
I got the sense staff doesn’t want to have to deal with a Kern Subbasin in probation. I believe there is some reason for Jayakody’s hope as progress is being made. If so, he wants to see more meat on the minimum thresholds listed. He said the minimum thresholds in the latest plan submitted are deeper than the previous thresholds given in earlier submitted plans. The latest plan is referred to as the 2024 GSP.
The GSAs get to set their own minimum thresholds and then have to negotiate with each other and find common ground. This is the path all the subbasins in the San Joaquin Valley
have taken because one of the selling points of SGMA was the carrot of local control.
Jayakody said there is uncertainty how water banking and recharge operations will impact management. The plans don’t include oil and gas extraction data that justifies the GSPs conclusions on subsidence. He suggested the GSAs should work with the state’s agencies that oversee oil and gas. He said there may not be enough surface water to fulfill the GSP’s recharge targets. Who is preventing more surface water deliveries? I think we know.
Staff Recommendations
Stork said staff recommends household wells not be reported or charged fees, require other pumpers to report sooner, require meters on wells pumping more than 500 a/f or near infrastructure. Staff also recommended no good actor status be allowed. She said staff will review all public comments received today and may incorporate them in a revised staff report.
Public Q&A
The first question was from a Bakersfield City Councilman about how much of Bakersfield is a disadvantaged community. How will these poor people pay for this? Stork said there are provisions within SGMA for discounted charges for disadvantaged communities.
A gas and water geologist who lives in Kern County asked how the state will determine how much domestic pumping is taking place since there are no meters required? Stork said there are estimation processes listed on the State Board’s website.
Arshdeep Singh of the Punjabi American Growers Group questioned the Board staff’s figures and wanted to know what growers are going to do if the groundwater used for farming is cut back by the State Board. Stork said there may be cutbacks and she hopes the GSAs can work with growers, the environment and all the impacted concerns to come up with a viable plan.
The geologist asked about the produced water from oil wells on the subbasin’s east side. Much of this has decent water quality and has qualified as permitting under new water. Will this continue under SGMA? Stork said that isn’t covered under SGMA’s authority.
Grower Kevin Assemi asked how subchapters in the GSP has now changed to Management Areas. He said the subbasin has many different areas, some are water rich with banking and others are working with other conditions. Why shouldn’t there be recognition of different needs for different locations and not a one size fits all? Stork said
the State Board staff doesn’t know the subbasin as well as the GSAs and these concerns should be included in the comments given this evening.
Lois Henry, SJV Water asked for the definition of a disadvantaged community. Stork said this is defined by law but not in SGMA. Understandably, Stork wasn’t able to give the legal definition from memory.
The GSAs Presentation
This presentation was given by Derik Yurosek, chair of the Kern Subbasin Coordination Committee. He said the Kern Subbasin is the most complex subbasin in the state. He asked his staff to continue the presentation on how the 2024 plan is being updated.
Stephanie Hearns also presented updates to the 2024 plan. She said the Kern Subbasin recognizes the need to update the plan and said the coordination now includes a committee with the simple goal of unifying the 2024 plan. She said 1.78million acres make the Kern Subbasin the largest in the state. Forty of the 71 already approved subbasins could fit in the Kern Subbasin.
There are improved mitigation and monitoring programs in the 2024 GSP and will prioritize demand management. Extensive stakeholder outreach has been ongoing in collaboration with Kern County and Self Help Enterprises. She said both the Friant Water Authority and the California Aqueduct have been consulted about subsidence issues.
Larry Rodriguez of GEI Engineering has extensive experience in Kern groundwater. A basin hydrologic conceptual model has been developed to take into account the different aquifers in the subbasin. The US Geological Service has estimated only 10-percent of the subbasin has an intact Corcoran Clay layer at 300 feet. The rest of the subbasin is a mix of thin or no clay layers. He said coordinating all of the aquifer types spread throughout the subbasin and in order to apply a single definition will not work.
Rodriguez said groundwater flow patterns are largely identified and the 2024 plan takes that into account under its well monitoring criteria. Each of the responses to the
undesirable results SGMA requires to be avoided have been updated and is incorporated into the 2024 GSP.
Hearns next took a closer look at the impacts on domestic wells saying what many others have – the number of domestic wells facing going dry is overestimated by the state. Their studies show from 17 to less than 100 wells over almost 1.8 million acres have been covered by the 2024 GSP mitigation programs. As for water quality – an updated designated water quality monitoring network in coordination with Kern County and Self Help is in the 2024 GSP.
Rodriguez said not all subsidence is a result of over pumping. The 2024 GSP includes a letter of support from Friant for the subsidence plan. There is no groundwater related habitat to be found in the subbasin. He said water banking in Kern County is conducted by the rules of leave behind and has resulted in net contributions to groundwater levels.
Rodriguez said the subbasin interests are confident the 2024 GSP has addressed the staff report’s concerns. He said there were some surprises about the staff report finding issues not mentioned during the more than 20-hours of meetings with staff. I think the subbasin interests are of the opinion staff didn’t pay as much attention to the updates provided by the subbasin the 2024 GSP. This is a criticism many of the other subbasins facing probation are echoing. Rodriguez showed a slide that illustrated claims staff has used selected criteria at the exclusion of completeness to find problems with the updates. However, he added he believes there is a way to get the GSP, the GSAs and the State Board on track in time to avoid probation.
Public Comment
The first speaker was Friant Water Authority’s O&M Manager Chris Hickernell. He took a moment to explain the impacts of subsidence on the Friant Kern Canal and how serious FWA takes this matter. He thanked the Kern Subbasin for their attention and determination to deal with this issue.
A lady from Cal Water told the Board about how domestic water in Bakersfield has been reduced.
Barry Watts, Chair of the Kern Non Districted Lands Authority told the Board the Kern Subbasin has been working at a disadvantage as the County didn’t step up to manage the White Areas in Kern. He called on the Board to set aside the probation process until the 2024 GSP can be reviewed as he believes it is complete.
The Public Works Manager of Wasco urged the Board to set aside the probation direction.
Aaron Meyers, of Meyers Civil Engineering of Bakersfield said he has been tasked with 20-years of subsidence studies on the Cross Valley Canal. He disputes the subsidence data the state is using. He said he’s seen no subsidence on the Cross Valley Canal and doesn’t believe the maps the staff are using are accurate. He said if more surface water is delivered there will be less subsidence in the future.
Carmen Garza said she’s been involved in agriculture since she was a young girl. She said she can’t understate the importance of ag in the Kern County in providing jobs and education and a better life. She said a designation of probation will harm not just field workers but the entire ag economy including the small farmers. Probation will undermine the years of work to bring the subbasin into sustainability. She said the people here want to keep their jobs and homes. She received applause from the room.
Jenny Holterman, Executive Director of the Water Association of Kern County said she is also a landowner and fourth generation grower in Kern County. She said the subbasin has
released a new 2024 GSP and she has seen firsthand the dedication that has been applied. She said Board staff has not taken the time or adequately reviewed this new plan referring to the older plans in its staff report recommending probation. She said this flawed process goes against SGMA as a law and asked the Board to direct staff to review the new 2024 GSP before any probation is on the table. She too received applause.
A resident west of Bakersfield told the Board his domestic well went out and the local water agency acted immediately and helped them resolve the issue. In his opinion the issue of domestic wells going dry has been more than adequately addressed by local agencies. He said to have the state take over something that is already being dealt with locally just doesn’t make sense.
A spokesman for the Kern County Farm Bureau asked the Board to set aside probation and direct staff to give a thorough review of the 2024 GSP.
Taylor Blakslee, Assistant General Manager of the Eastside Management Area said the 2024 GSP addresses all the concerns of the White Areas in Kern County.
Rachel Glosser is on the Oildale Mutual Water board and on the Kern River GSA. The Oildale community is entirely disadvantaged. She said OMW supports the 2024 GSP because it protects the community. However, probation will harm the community by raising costs and harming the ag job base.
Raul Garza, GM Arvin Community Services District had some praise for the Arvin Edison Water Storage District telling the Board without their help the community of Arvin would have suffered many times over. He urged the Board to direct the staff to review the 2024 GSP and not to go the probation route.
A young man told the Board to place the subbasin on probation. He said the locals have done a poor job of protecting public health. He said he grew up in Bakersfield near a refinery and believes the drinking water is bad. He did not receive applause. To be fair it didn’t sound like he understood the purpose of SGMA and may have had a complaint directed to the City of Bakersfield.
There was also a young lady who shouted into the microphone while looking at her cellphone. I wasn’t able to understand what point she was trying to make.
Closing Comment
Comments will still be accepted until September 22nd. Esquivel told the audience the State Board is, “. . . not in the business of collecting GSAs to oversee.” He said they already have enough to do. He said he will have staff continue to work with the subbasin. And he thanked everyone. That was the end at 8:30pm on the dot as scheduled. When’s the last time you saw that happen?
As more and more workshops, hearings, scoping sessions and such are conducted the process mostly improves. There was one workshop recently held at an indoor basketball court, presumably to accommodate a large audience. You know the sound of a tennis shoe squeaking on a polished wooden floor? That was the acoustic signature of that meeting. Very difficult to understand what was being spoken due to the massive reverberation taking place. That was a lesson learned and this workshop was much better.
It’s easy to feel like your lone voice doesn’t count. But you should attend the workshops presented in your subbasin. You need to add your voice to others and let the State Board know your opinion. It’s a bit like voting. If you don’t vote, don’t gripe. Also don’t vote if you’re not a legal citizen of the United States.
DISCLAIMER OF RESPONSIBILITY; Waterwrights.net strives to provide its clients with the most complete, up-to-date, and accurate information available. Nevertheless, Waterwrights.net does not serve as a guarantor of the accuracy or completeness of the information provided, and specifically disclaims any and all responsibility for information that is not accurate, up-to-date, or complete. Waterwrights.net’s clients therefore rely on the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of information from Waterwrights.net entirely at their own risk. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not represent any advertisers or third parties.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2024 by WaterWrights.net
