facebook twitter you tube



A Tale of Two Developments

But if it turns out she is correct, then Madera County Supervisors have approved a project that is questionable at best.

Dec 18, 2013

Madera County is a case study of how water policy is impacting a lot more than agriculture in the state of California. In the first story below Lois Henry of the Bakersfield Californian tells the convoluted story of how water from Kern County by way of Tulare is going to Madera for a project approved by the Madera Board of Supervisors. To build in Madera County you have to be able to prove you have water, which is a good thing, and Castle and Cooke went out and found the water for their project. Lois Henry suspects the use of the water violates water policy law, and we'll stay out of that argument for now and let the bureaucrats figure it out. But if it turns out she is correct, then Madera County Supervisors have approved a project that is questionable at best.

Story #2 below is about a Richard Gunner proposed development also in Madera County which prompted the Board of Supervisors to send it back to staff because they "
were not confident about how much water the project would need and where it would come from."

If you think the water story of the Central Valley is all about ag, think again. City Councils and Boards of Supervisors need to realize that if they think they are going to grow, they'd better get involved with water policy or find themselves in the same boat as Madera. These locally elected officials who think water policy is for congressmen and state legislators need to get educated, and fast.

Just for review, in Paso Robles they are crafting a water management plan and according to the SLO Tribune "the need for a water management district was prompted by a crisis in the sprawling Paso Robles groundwater basin in which water levels have dropped precipitously in recent years." This has pitted farmers against their urban neighbors.

Fresno County's West side is much in the news because of Westlands Water District's high profile, and farmers have been forced to pump from the underground supply because their surface supply has been cut off by environmental policies. This is now causing its own ecological disaster in the form of subsidence, sinking land, causing canals to sink and requiring some water to flow uphill.

In Oakdale the Modesto Bee reports "
that “disaster is imminent,” and the Oakdale Irrigation District’s board president on Tuesday called for an "immediate moratorium on new water wells in Stanislaus County."

So, there are two kinds of people in California, those who have water and those who don't. If you're not in the water war or don't think it's about you, you're about to be in group two. Welcome to the war.


LOIS HENRY: How water from Kern grows sprawl in Madera

Dec 15, 2013

Bakersfield Californian

Lois Henry

So, a pile of water banked in Kern County is being used to support a massive urban development in Madera County.

Before you try and wrap your head around how that's geographically possible, there's the whole question of whether the banked water (and other water slated for the project) even can be used for that purpose.

Then let's tack on whether it's cool that public resources are being used throughout this deal to basically benefit private businesses.

I swear when I started this I just wondered how the water would "move" up to Madera.

Why can't anything ever be simple?

Let's start in Madera County.

A 2,000-acre development called Gateway Village was proposed way back in the 1990s by Castle & Cooke as a "master planned" community of more than 6,500 homes with parks, commercial space, etc., in the southeast corner of the county just north of Children's Hospital Central California along Highway 41.

The taps and toilets for all that urbanization will require more than 6,300 acre-feet of water a year, according to Gateway's environmental documents. (Imagine 6,300 football fields each covered with a foot of water -- it's a lot).

Of course, the question is where will that water come from?

The development is in the Root Creek Water District, formed a little before Gateway Village was first proposed. It covers about 9,200 acres and is home to citrus and grape farming.

Root Creek's groundwater is severely overdrafted and the district has no other surface supplies.

The district is not a contractor within the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), which moves water through the Friant-Kern Canal from Millerton Lake north of Fresno to the Arvin-Edison Water District in Kern County.

Gateway developers came up with a plan under which Root Creek would buy "excess" water from the neighboring Madera Irrigation District, which is a CVP contractor, and from the Bureau of Reclamation, which runs the CVP.

Both of those supplies are described as "when available" in Gateway's documents.

Considering the vagaries of Mother Nature, the Madera County Board of Supervisors wasn't comfortable with that and sent Root Creek/Gateway out to look for a backup supply of water.

They found it in Kern County.

First, a quick stop in Tulare County.

That's where the Root Creek "backup" water originates.

It's owned by Paramount Citrus Association, one of the many companies owned by billionaires Lynda and Stewart Resnick.

Paramount owns Rayo Ranch in Tulare County, which has rights to 9,000 acre-feet a year of Kaweah River water.

Paramount doesn't use all its Rayo water, so, for years, has moved some of it through the CVP system to other Paramount lands.

Like Root Creek, Paramount is not a CVP contractor. It has to partner with Tulare Irrigation District, which is a CVP contractor, to move that Rayo water.

Paramount releases its Rayo water to Tulare Irrigation, which, in turn, sends a like amount of water down the Friant-Kern Canal to the North Kern Water Storage District here in Kern County. North
Kern isn't a CVP contractor but has access to the Friant-Kern Canal.

In order to use the CVP system, Paramount had to have an "environmental assessment" (EA) approved by the Bureau of Reclamation.

In that EA, it very clearly states that the Rayo water is only to be used for farming and groundwater recharge.

It also states the water cannot be used in such a way that would trigger any land use changes, such as from ag to urban.

OK, so now, much of that Rayo water is banked in North Kern, where Paramount is a huge landowner. Paramount also bought some water from the Nickel family and has it banked in North Kern.

Here's where Root Creek comes in.

In 2009, another Resnick company, the Westside Mutual Water Company, made a deal with North Kern to pull some of that banked Paramount water out and give it to neighboring Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District for ultimate delivery to Root Creek in Madera.

The deal is phased, starting at 3,500 acre-feet of water per year up to a maximum of 7,000 acre-feet, if needed.

Shafter-Wasco is a CVP contractor so it can take that Paramount water and have the Bureau of Reclamation release a like amount of water from Millerton Lake to the Madera Irrigation District.

Madera Irrigation would then deliver it to Root Creek through two turns-outs soon to be constructed on the federally owned Madera Canal.

Again, all those swaps, including constructing the turnouts, had to pass muster with the Bureau of Reclamation in an EA.

And, again, the Bureau EA clearly states that the Paramount (Westside Mutual) water and any water Root Creek buys directly from Madera Irrigation or the Bureau is to be used only for ag or groundwater recharge.

It can't be used in a manner that results in land use changes -- ag to urban.

But that's exactly what this water will do. That's what it's intended to do. That was the whole point of this long, elaborate deal.

I asked the Bureau about that.

First, I confirmed that, yes, the Bureau did put those ag-only limitations on all the water movements involved in this deal and that the water cannot be used for "M and I" (municipal and industrial).

The Bureau does follow up on these deals annually but mostly to make sure the right amount of water is being moved to the correct recipients.

It's up to Root Creek to tell the Bureau how it used the water.


My guess, backed up by what Root Creek's attorney told me, is Root Creek will simply say the water was used for groundwater recharge per the Bureau's limitations.

End of story.

Of course that's not the end of the story because the water will have been pumped right back out and put into the taps and toilets of Gateway Village, as was the intent all along.

I'm not arguing against Gateway Village. It may be the greatest piece of leap frog development ever to grace the fertile fields of Madera County.

That's not the point.

The point is that taxpayers, who built and own the CVP system, seem to be giving quite an assist to the bottom lines of two private enterprises.

Oh, and Root Creek was also awarded a $4 million grant from the State Department of Water Resources to help pay for those turnouts on the Madera Canal in order to curb the district's severe groundwater overdraft.

All of which makes me wonder, what's in it for us?

The owners of Gateway Village (Castle & Cooke sold it in 2010 to unnamed investors) aren't going to give the Bureau a cut of every lot they sell.

And Paramount/Westside Mutual certainly isn't going to share any of the loot it makes off selling water to Root Creek.

The loot, by the way, could be pretty substantial.

Paramount/Westside Mutual has spent at least $2.6 million up front to sink four wells and build pipelines between North Kern and Shafter-Wasco and pay both districts "stand by" fees for the water.

But companies appear to have made about $3.5 million back from Root Creek, which has been paying $180 per acre-foot a year for the last five years for Paramount/Westside Mutual to hold its water in reserve.

If Root Creek ever needs the water, the price will go up by $420 per acre-foot for a total of $600 per acre-foot.

I gleaned most of those figures by scouring through agreements with the ag districts and talking to district managers and the attorney for Root Creek.

I would have liked to get a more accurate picture of the finances involved but Paramount/Westside Mutual wasn't talking.

"We're a private company," I was told by Westside Mutual President Bill Phillimore. "I don't think there's any advantage to us participating in this story."

Yeah, and that's what concerns me.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com


Water Worries Send Gunner Ranch Project Back to Madera Co Staff

Dec 11, 2013

Fresno Bee

By Carmen George

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/12/10/3659799/water-worries-send-gunner-ranch.html#storylink=cpy

Concerns over water supplies at a proposed 2,840-home development in southern Madera County prompted the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to send the project back to staff for further review.

After a motion to pass the Gunner Ranch West project failed with a 3-2 vote, a follow-up vote to send the proposal back to county staff passed 4-1.

"You can see our dilemma here -- we want to do the right thing," Board Chairman Max Rodriguez said after a couple hours of back-and-forth debate over water-shortage fears and the desire for economic growth. "It's too huge a project to decide today. It really needs more information."

The move to send the project back to staff comes in the wake of three other approved developments, paving the way for as many as 35,000 new homes in Madera County.

Gunner Ranch would cover more than 2 million square-feet for residential and commercial development, along with more than 1 million square-feet for hospital-related services associated with nearby Children's Hospital Central California.

While the planning department recommended the project's approval, supervisors were not confident about how much water the project would need and where it would come from.

Landowner and developer Richard Gunner spoke briefly, answering a question about whether he'd be willing to purchase water, if necessary: "We would consider it, in accordance with all the other measures."

Supervisor David Rogers was strongly opposed to the project. If water disappears, it will be "ghost everything," he said, wrapping up a long, scary list including "ghost project," "ghost agriculture" and "ghost town."

Home construction contributes to the county's economy, Rogers said, but it is not an economic base. Madera County's No. 1 industry is still agriculture, he said.

Supervisor Manuel Nevarez, whose district includes the project, said he strongly supports Gunner Ranch. He noted that "95% of all groundwater used in this county is used by ag."

As of Tuesday, a date had not been set for a return vote on the project.

Valid RSS FeedGet the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.