Kern groundwater tally not adding up

February 6, 2020
by Lois Henry
Lois Henry

SGMA EXPLAINER

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was passed in 2014 and enacted in 2015.

It aims to stop groundwater overpumping in critically overdrafted basins by 2040 and bring them into “sustainability.”

Sustainability is defined as avoiding undesireable results: 1. Chronic lowering of groundwater. 2. Reduction of groundwater storage. 3. Seawater intrusion. 4. Land subsidence. 5. Degraded water quality. 6. Depletion of interconnected surface water.

The San Joaquin Valley water basin is considered critically overdrafted, as are most of its subbasins including:
Madera; Kings (Fresno area)
Westside (Westlands Water District)
Kaweah (Visalia area)
Tulare Lake (Kings County)
Tule (Delano area)
Kern County (the valley portion). Kern also encompasses the critically overdrafted Indian Wells Valley basin near Ridgecrest.

SGMA mandated that Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), made up of local agencies (mostly agricultural water districts), cover each subbasin completely.  Those were formed in 2017.

CLICK HERE  to look up which GSA you live in.

Each GSA must provide a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP ) to bring the subbasins into sustainability. The GSAs can write individual GSPs, work together on a single plan, or provide chapters within a larger GSP.

The plans are to be submitted to the Department of Water Resources by Jan. 31, 2020.

Drafts are currently circulating and public comments are being received through Nov. 28, 2019.

You can look up the various GSPs on the various GSA websites.
CLICK HERE for KGA member agencies
CLICK HERE for Buena Vista Water Storage District
CLICK HERE for Kern River GSA (Bakersfield, Kern Delta Water District, Kern County Water Agency Improvement District 4)
CLICK HERE for Olcese Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Henry Miller Groundwater Sustainability Agency, email ajaramillo@jgboswell.com for the link

Though GSAs may each write their own sustainability plans, the state requires that all the data and methodology be consistent and in agreement.

If the information is inconsistent or doesn’t agree or doesn’t seem likely to avoid the six listed undesirable results, the state could reject the plan and the subbasin could be placed in probation. Under probation, the state could step in and create an interim sustainability plan for the subbasin.

Under that scenario, the state would require all entities that pump groundwater to provide it with extraction reports on each well being pumped. The state would also require fees of $300 per well and $40 per acre foot of water pumped.

Share This: 

San Joaquin Valley farms and towns have pumped the basin’s groundwater so furiously and for so long that parts of the valley are sinking, endangering roads and bridges and even breaking one of the main canals that brings in water to support local agriculture.

Yet, here in Kern County, state-mandated water budgets presented by several large ag water districts and groundwater sustainability agencies have painted a far rosier groundwater picture.

So rosy, the numbers simply couldn’t be believed — and they aren’t.

“It’s obvious that some districts have created water with their paperwork,” Kern Groundwater Authority Chair Dennis Mullins said in reference to the budgets, which are part of groundwater sustainability plans submitted by the board’s member agencies.

The difference between the groundwater overdraft claimed by member agencies and the deficit based on modeling was staggering. Overdraft means more water is being pumped out than goes back in.

Member agencies claimed an overdraft of 90,000 acre feet per year for the entire 3,000-square-mile Kern subbasin. Modeling has shown the number is closer to 300,000-350,000 acre feet a year, Mullins said.

That’s not going to fly, Mullins told the packed KGA meeting on Sept. 25.

“The state has made it very clear that these kinds of phony numbers won’t work,” he said. “If we can’t get this right, we might as well all go home and let the state take over our pumps.”

Fellow KGA board member Royce Fast admonished directors of each member agency to “step up” and provide some “adult supervision” over water district managers who he felt were protecting their turf at the expense of the larger Kern subbasin, which covers the valley portion of Kern County.

He noted some agencies presented water budgets that not only didn’t have a deficit, but showed an overall surplus.

“Everyone in this room knows that’s not true,” Fast said.

The KGA is an umbrella groundwater sustainability agency, a public body formed under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which went into effect in 2015.

GSAs are required to bring overdrafted basins into “sustainability” by 2040. That means pumping can’t diminish water quality or groundwater storage or cause the land to sink — all of which have become acute problems throughout the San Joaquin Valley.

The KGA is made up of 16 member agencies, mostly ag water districts, which each wrote its own draft groundwater sustainability plan.

Mullins and other KGA board members were dismayed after a couple of landowners crunched the numbers in those draft  plans and it became clear that more water was being counted than truly exists.

Considering these plans are due to DWR in the next 3½ months, Kern has no time left to get it right, Mullins said.

Boiling point

The stakes are high and getting higher.

Thus far under SGMA, water agencies, cities and counties have been doing the prep work needed to get a handle on groundwater pumping, creating GSAs and establishing protocols to track water inflow and outflow within their portions of each subbasin.

Jan. 31, 2020 is the big reveal.

That’s when each GSA must show actual numbers for how overdrawn it is in terms of groundwater pumping.

More importantly, the GSAs have to detail how they intend to bring the subbasins into balance. There’s no way to do that without cutting demand — taking hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland out of production.

Some estimates peg the impending fallowing at more than a million acres throughout the San Joaquin Valley.

In Kern, nearly 200,000 of the 900,000 irrigated acres could be lost. That would mean about $600 million in lost farm income and 12,400 direct and indirect farming jobs, according to water district estimates.

Looming behind all of that is the specter of state intervention.

Facing the bogeyman

If KGA member agencies and the other GSAs in Kern can’t put together a coordinated plan that passes muster, DWR could deem the basin in probationary status and take over a portion of groundwater operations.

What would that mean?

Anyone who pumps groundwater would have to send detailed extraction reports to the state on each of its wells and pay fees of $300 per well and $40 per acre foot pumped. The state would then develop an interim plan to bring the Kern subbasin into balance.

The fees alone would be staggering and no one knows what to expect from a state pumping plan.

With that in mind, the KGA board approved a “guidance document” at its Sept. 25 meeting that must be used by all its member agencies to get their water budgets in line.

The document mandates the methodology to calculate total water demand and each form of surface supply, including state and federal imported water, Kern River water, precipitation and “native yield.”

Native yield is considered water that naturally seeps into the subbasin and has become a sensitive topic.

Where some see natural seepage, others see owned recharge.

Who gets to claim that water will likely be the subject of lawsuits up and down the valley, particularly for entities that own river water rights.

Native waters

While KGA member agencies recrunch their water budgets, some are grumbling about several aspects of where and how the KGA set the native yield number, at 0.15 acre feet of water per acre of land.

That means if you’re a grower with 1,000 acres in the Kern subbasin, you are allowed to pump 150 acre feet of groundwater per year of native yield, which is about enough to irrigate 50 acres of crops.

But all areas of the subbasin aren’t equal in terms of native yield, argued Dana Munn, general manager of the Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District. The far eastern and western foothill sections have little to no useable groundwater — no native yield.

If they were carved out of the equation, as Munn suggested, that would give farmers closer to 0.3 acre feet of water per acre of land, which adds up quickly when you stretch it across thousands of acres.

Munn didn’t get any traction on that issue, however, and the KGA approved the guidance document.

Member agencies have already begun redoing their water budgets using the approved methodology.

River hogs?

A larger, more complex, native yield issue surrounds the Kern River, and potentially all San Joaquin Valley rivers.

Just a few water districts own rights to the Kern’s regular flows. Those are Buena Vista Water Storage District, Kern Delta Water District and the City of Bakersfield, which also owns the river bed and adjacent lands.

None of those entities is a KGA member agency as each has formed its own groundwater sustainability agency.

And each has claimed its full river rights in its water budget: 149,000 acre feet for Buena Vista; 201,000 acre feet for Kern Delta; and 163,000 acre feet for Bakersfield.

Each has also claimed the 0.15 acre feet-per-acre native yield set by KGA as a supply in its water budgets.

Some water folks are grumbling about that, saying the Kern River parties are essentially “starving” the rest of the subbasin by unfairly hogging the entire river rather than allowing its waters to be factored into the native yield equation.

“We are not grabbing all the water,” said Art Chianello, Bakersfield’s Water Resources Manager. “People are being very difficult about this issue and we don’t understand why. It’s no different than if someone brings in SWP (State Water Project) water and banks it. You don’t count that as native yield. Same with our river water.”

Slippery water rights

As SGMA closes in, though, and tensions rise, some are seeing the city’s river water as especially vulnerable.

That’s because both Kern Delta and Buena Vista take their water off the river through canals, while the city often runs its share through the river bed, and state water law says you have to divert water from a river in order to “perfect” the right, according to some observers.

No way, Chianello said during a Sept. 26 open house at the Kern Ag Pavillion for the public to learn about the various groundwater sustainability plans.

“This is a controlled river from top to bottom. The city owns that water and the river bed,” Chianello insisted during a heated conversation with Eric Averett, general manager of the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Storage District.

The river may be divvied up by agreements and legal settlements, but California water law is clear, insisted Averett: Water must be diverted from a river; otherwise, it’s covered by the Public Trust Doctrine and belongs to the entire basin.

Bakersfield’s water attorney, Colin Pearce, with the Duane Morris law firm, differed with Averett on that point.

“Bakersfield manages, controls and regulates flows in the river with the intent to recharge and recover those flows,” he said. “The city counts on that water as part of its supply and recovers it for later use. California law is clear that recharged water still belongs to Bakersfield.”

Averett said Rosedale-Rio Bravo wouldn’t go after the city’s water, but others facing the SGMA squeeze may feel differently.

“People are upset because their numbers don’t add up,” Chianello said. “Well, isn’t that where we’ve been for the last 35 years?

SJV Water is an independent, nonprofit news site dedicated to covering water in the San Joaquin Valley. Get inside access to SJV Water by becoming a member.

Sponsored

Receive the latest news

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter & Get Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive INSTANT ALERTS of new articles and to be added to SJV Water’s WEEKLY NEWSLETTER