SJV WATER: Kern subbasin’s groundwater plan still not up to snuff in state’s eyes

By Lois Henry, SJV Water

Kern water managers’ struck out again on their fourth attempt to write an adequate plan to protect the region’s groundwater, according to a report from state Water Resources Control Board staff released Tuesday, which recommends the board put the subbasin on probation at its Feb. 20 hearing in Sacramento.

Probation would bring with it requirements for farmers to meter and register their wells at $300 each, report all extractions and pay an added $20 per acre foot pumped to the state. That’s on top of fees and assessments they already pay to their water districts and groundwater sustainability agencies.

Specifically, the staff report found Kern’s recently revised plans still don’t do enough to protect water quality and domestic wells from going dry;  keep land from sinking around critical canals and other infrastructure; and stem the chronic lowering of groundwater, among other issues.

“It doesn’t surprise me but it is unfortunate,” said local farmer John Moore. “I think we’ve made great strides as a county. And despite the state’s continued misgivings about Kern, I’m optimistic we will be able to achieve our goal of sustainability by 2040.”

That’s the deadline under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) when overdrafted regions must bring aquifers into balance.

Kern’s water managers had submitted a fourth set of groundwater plans last month, an update from plans submitted in May 2024. The Dec. 2024 revise included a robust $3 million domestic well program to fix wells that go dry due to overpumping and it raised minimum allowable groundwater levels to no lower than 61 feet below historic lows across the entire subbasin.

That wasn’t good enough, according to the state report.

Water Board staff found that the May 2024 plan would have “…allowed substantial impacts to people who rely on domestic wells for drinking, bathing, food preparation, and cleaning, as well as impacts to critical infrastructure such as canals (e.g., Friant-Kern Canal or California Aqueduct), levees, and the aquifer system itself within the subbasin,” according to the report.

A preliminary review of Kern’s Dec. 2024 revised plans “…indicates that concerns remain,” the report states.

The 2020 Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District chapter of the Kern subbasin’s first groundwater sustainability plan. The plan has been revised three times since then, most recently in Dec. 2024. Lois Henry / SJV Water

The staff report praises advancements in coordination and other areas by Kern’s water managers but says there are still holes in the area’s water monitoring networks and definitions of what it considers a violation of SGMA.

Regarding subsidence, Water Board staff recommended limiting groundwater pumping near critical infrastructure, which one GSA has already done.

The Westside Water District Authority in western Kern County issued a full ban on agricultural pumping for 2.5 miles on either side of the California Aqueduct for a 30-mile stretch. It also issued a moratorium on drilling new or replacement wells in that same zone.

The staff report also suggests Kern water managers should develop a plan to “mitigate damage caused by subsidence.” The report doesn’t elaborate on what such mitigation would entail. But costs could be significant. The bill for rebuilding a 10-mile section of the Friant-Kern Canal that had sunk due to overpumping was $326 million.

One local water manager was disappointed with the state’s quick rejection of the region’s updated plans.

“It’s unfortunate that the state process has been so compressed that it didn’t provide adequate time for the Kern and state staff to collaborate on local solutions,” wrote Dan Bartel, General Manager of Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District in a text message.  “We see the new plan as extremely protective of beneficial users and a great roadmap to subbasin sustainabilty, which is no small task.

“I fear that adding another layer of fees may distract from subbasin coordination and interfere with Kern’s ability to fund the $1.3 billion plan we just adopted.”