By Lois Henry, SJV Water
In a comment letter to the state Water Resources Control Board, one of the plaintiffs in the ongoing lawsuit over Kern River flows alleges information has been withheld from the region’s groundwater plan to the detriment of the river.
Water Audit California states a number of entities, including the City of Bakersfield and its main drinking water purveyor California Water Services, “…failed to disclose the adverse impacts that their groundwater extraction is having on interconnected surface waters, thereby causing injury to the public trust and its biological components,” according to the June 20 letter.
Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), regions that have over pumped aquifers must bring them into balance by 2040 to avoid specific harms. One of those harms is sucking out so much groundwater that it damages existing, natural interconnections that exist between the water table and streams, wetlands, springs or rivers.
Water Audit contends that diverting Kern River water into groundwater recharge basins that are then pumped for drinking water, creates an interconnectivity that may affect stream flows.
“In addition to the injurious cycle of diversion, recharge and extraction, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the extractions directly cause diminution of flows,” the letter states. “In both instances, the extractions are subject to inquiry pursuant to the public trust doctrine.”
William McKinnon, general counsel for Water Audit, seeks time to make a presentation on the issue at the Water Board’s Sept. 17 hearing on the Kern subbasin’s plan.
Water managers who’ve worked closely on the plan declined to comment on Water Audit’s letter, pointing SJV Water to the groundwater plan’s section on interconnected surface water.
Kern’s plan states that there are no areas of interconnectivty in the subbasin per the definition under SGMA regulations, which is that there must be a continuous connection between underground and overlying surface water. The seven wetland type areas noted in the plan are likely supported by irrigation water or temporary groundwater connections, it states.
“Data on depth to groundwater and other local conditions indicate that the vast majority of surface water features in the Kern Subbasin are not connected to groundwater, and in the few limited areas where a connection may occur, the connection is likely transient, shortlived, and involves shallow or perched groundwater that is not part of the principal aquifer systems,” the plan states.
Water Board staff had recommended the Kern subbasin be placed on probationary status but gave water managers extra time to work on the plan, which staff said had shown great improvement. Probationary status would be onerous for area growers who would be required to meter and register their wells annually at $300 each, report extractions and pay $20 per acre foot pumped.
The public can access the Kern subbasin groundwater sustainability plan at https://kerngsp.com. The discussion in interconnected surface water begins on page 521.
Water Audit California, along with Bring Back the Kern and several other public interest groups, are suing the City of Bakersfield demanding that its river operations be studied under the public trust doctrine to determine the harm to ecosystems.
The Water Board is accepting public comments on the plan until noon August 7. Submissions may be may via email to SGMA-Kern@waterboards.ca.gov, using the subject line Comments – Kern County Subbasin.
If the file is greater than 15 megabytes in size, commenters may submit the information by fax at (916) 341-5620, in multiple emails, or by mail to Courtney Tyler, Clerk to the Board, State Water Resources Control Board, P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812-2000.
The Kern subbasin hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. Sept. 17 in the California Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Building, 1001 I Street, 2nd Floor, Sacramento, California 95814.
