Water district board approves agreement, plus hears concerns and complaints
A small water company serving customers in a subdivision just outside Tehachapi city limits has entered into an agreement to buy water from the Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District.
At its meeting on Oct. 19, the district’s board approved a Term M&I (municipal and industrial) Agreement with West Tehachapi Mutual Water Company that General Manager Tom Neisler said will provide an assured water supply for existing records.
As related by Nesiler in a staff report, the small water company was formed in 1964 to serve a small subdivision. The 40-lot subdivision in the unincorporated area has 36 service connections and the company owns and maintains a well to serve the area. Most of the lots are just under an acre in size. The neighborhood is north of Valley Boulevard and includes homes along Sierra Vista Drive and Alta Vista Avenue.
The mutual water company was among plaintiffs in the water district’s litigation to adjudicate the Tehachapi Basin. Initially, the court determined the company was the owner of 3 acre feet of base water rights in the Tehachapi Basin. By 2011, through a series of transactions, the total was up to 13 acre feet.
Properties in the subdivision were developed at different times over the years. Neisler provided an overview of water use since 2017, showing that it averaged more than 24 acre feet in the five years ending in December 2021.
He said that previously the water company has relied on leased water rights to cover extractions over their allotted amount and has purchased water from the district through an informal agreement at the Term M&I rate. The company has been unsuccessful in its attempts to be annexed to either the city or to Golden Hills Community Services District.
Neisler said the district’s agreement with West Tehachapi Mutual Water Company is virtually identical to an agreement the district made with California Water Service to serve the Grand Oaks neighborhood last year.
The district also has Term M&I agreements with the city and area community services districts.
The agreement also requires the water company to buy water from the district, when available, to build up a banked water reserve account. According to the agreement, the district shall have no obligation to sell the company more than 25 acre-feet per year and sufficient water to establish and maintain the banked water account.
SAND CANYON CONCERN
Beverly Billingsley and April Biglay of Sand Canyon shared concerns about water in Sand Canyon. They both noted that there has been recent well drilling activity on land northeast of the intersection of West Tehachapi Boulevard and Sand Canyon Road with large open air reservoirs under construction.
They shared documents and information about their contacts with Kern County and the California Department of Water Resources. Billingsley asked the district to take action to begin proceedings to place the property within the adjudicated Tehachapi Basin. She said she spoke with principals of the company that now owns the property and learned that they plan to use the water for their construction business.
One of the individuals she named, Delbert Jones, is a candidate for a seat on the water district board and was present at the meeting. He confirmed his company had purchased the property.
Neisler told the women that the property in question is not within district boundaries and that the adjudicated limits of the Tehachapi Basin have been in place since 1972. He added that the adjudication was set over the water-bearing areas of the basin.
“I don’t know that we would have any interest in extending the adjudication but we’ll certainly look at the materials,” he said.
A map of the water district shows that many areas of Sand Canyon, including the location of Billingsley’s veterinary hospital, are within the district. However, the boundary does not include some parcels in the immediate vicinity of the intersection of the Sand Canyon Road-Tehachapi Boulevard intersection.
RUWMP COMPLAINT
Also at the meeting, Christopher Carlson of Golden Hills Community Services District addressed the board
briefly to note that a letter from Golden Hills and the city of Tehachapi had been provided to the board.
In the letter, the two entities drew attention to their concerns that there has been no apparent progress on the 2020 Regional Urban Water Management Plan. They were among local agencies that agreed with the district in 2020 to fund development of the plan with the water district being the lead agency.
The 2020 RUWMP was to be submitted to the DWR by July 1, 2021. At a meeting in June, Neisler said the lack of progress on the report was his fault.
In their letter, the two agencies asked the board to
set a meeting with the district, the consultant, and the stakeholders within the next two weeks.
Don Marsh, public works director for the city, also noted that there are grants available for conservation projects that can’t be pursued by the various agencies because the 2020 plan hasn’t been completed.
The board elected to discuss a response to the letter in closed session. No reportable action was made from that closed session.