Latest CVPA News

Tehachapi Cummings Land Trust

Be sure to visit
The Archives

Views
McCollough Water Editorial
of October 31, 2007

Vision Fund Progress Report
05/27/2008
Vision Fund Established

Shocked!
a guest editorial by new member
 Mary Uline 

---

Stallion Springs Water, Another look

As a geological engineer who specialized in detailed subsurface geologic studies of sedimentary basins for optimizing production of oil wells, I would like to offer some insights into the Cummings Basin water situation.

The Nitrate Question

There is nothing mysterious or frightening about the nitrates.  Years of farming with high nitrate fertilizers followed by nearly continuous heavy watering have pushed nitrates into the shallower water productive sand layers.  The contamination would be expected to spread laterally through the shallower zones having lowest hydrostatic pressure, and would be unlikely to penetrate low permeability clay-rich layers into deeper sand zones with higher pressures.  When a well is first completed, it will have a static, or standing, water level which stands at the level of the shallowest producing zones.  When pumping begins with the pump at or near the lowest productive zones, the water level in the well bore will gradually drop.  This relieves pressure against the shallower zones first so that they begin to produce freely, giving up the nitrate-contaminated water.   As pumping continues, the water level in the well will continue to drop until an equilibrium producing water level is reached.  As pressure from water in the well bore is relieved against successively deeper zones, they contribute an increasing share of uncontaminated water, and the nitrates are highly diluted.  Each time pumping is stopped for any length of time, the water level in the well will rise back up to the shallow zones, and nitrates may be expected to show up briefly when pumping is restarted.   Over time, nitrates in the shallower zones will diminish, provided continued contamination from chemical fertilizers is not occurring.

The CCI problem is different.  With continuous spraying of nitrate-rich sewer effluent, the ability of shallower layers to accommodate the contamination may be overwhelmed, and penetration into deeper zones is more likely to occur.


Under the conjunctive use program administered by TCCWD, users such as Stallion Springs and Bear Valley Springs who export water from wells in Cummings Valley for use outside the adjudicated alluvial basin must pay to have equal volumes of State Project water recharged into the aquifer by TCCWD.   CCI is also a conjunctive user.  They don’t export water, but in the last expansion, a requirement for CCI to pay for water serving the new units was legislated.  As long as State Project water is available, Stallion Springs can assure its water supply from existing wells or by purchasing a small parcel of land for drilling a well, and paying for aquifer recharge on any exported volumes.

We have been shown a water use of 23,000,000 gallons in a peak month.  This is 742,000 gallons per day in a 31-day month.  During the summer months when high agricultural water use causes some drawdown in the basin, the combined production capability of the two Stallion Springs wells in Cummings Valley is at least 700 gallons per minute, or 1,296,000 gallons per day.


When deliveries of State Project water are heavily curtailed or terminated, there will be a dramatic upheaval.  Recent court decisions curtailing pumping from the Sacramento Delta to protect fish are a minor concern compared to the threat of earthquake, especially during an unprecedented drought.

The San Andreas Fault along the boundary between the colliding Pacific and North American continental plates is ever active.  Even more threatening are sub parallel sister faults, such as the very active Hayward Fault, that underlie the delta.  If the precarious system of levees supporting the delta is destroyed in an earthquake, and saltwater invades the delta, it will be many years until State Project water from that source is again available.  The controversial Peripheral Canal may become mandatory, but it will take years to build.

The other major threat is a prolonged drought, which is being predicted from climate studies.  Climate changes do seem to be upon us as the prolonged drought in the Rocky Mountain region and the state of emergency in the Southeastern U.S. attest.

Alternate water sources in the State system such as draining Lake Isabella or tapping banked storage in San Joaquin Valley aquifers, could provide limited help.


When one or both of the aforementioned threats becomes reality, we will have to rely to a large degree on the water then existing in the Cummings aquifer plus what little recharge there may be from scant rainfall.  TCCWD Board President, Harry Cowan, has stated that the water in the Tehachapi area aquifers would last for three to four years, and smaller shallow wells would go dry. If the cut off of State Project water appeared likely to be prolonged, severe rationing would need to be instituted.  Farming would cease, and domestic use severely restricted.  In the end we might all have to move to Oklahoma!

 Given the risk of having to go into the depletion scenario, it seems extremely unwise to add 6,000 to 8,000 more water users in Cummings Valley.  These would be in addition to some 7,600 potential water users who have existing rights to build homes in Stallion Springs, Bear Valley Springs and Cummings Valley (approximately 2700 undeveloped lots times 2.8 residents per average household).


Selling individual 20-acre parcels of sod farm lands as an alternative to the Meadows development is being portrayed as extremely negative - all those individual wells depleting the water, and septic systems fouling it.  These are not reasonable arguments.  Yes, each owner could drill a well, but if the use were primarily domestic and small growing efforts, the effect on the aquifer would be negligible.  If owners engaged in high-water-use agriculture, their withdrawals would be regulated by TCCWD under the safe yield restrictions for the basin.

In the Agricultural Zoning District one residence is allowed per 20 acres.  A residential septic system produces very small amounts of contaminants relative to the size of a 20-acre property.  These contaminants are purified in the shallow sediments by bacteria and filtration before they can reach the aquifer far below.  In areas of very shallow water table, which are not present in most of Cummings Valley, septic systems would not be permitted.

The claim that owners of the 20-acre parcels would subdivide into smaller lots is also not valid.  That would presently require a General Plan Amendment and zone change, which would face stiff opposition.  When the Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan, currently underway, is completed, Specific Plan Amendments may be expected to be even more difficult.  

The advertised threat of 20-acre parcel buyers having a mobile home and junk cars lacks credibility.   A 20-acre prime Ag land parcel might be expected to sell for in excess of $200,000.  It does not seem likely that a person paying such a price would trash the property, but in any event, it would still be Ag land that could be reclaimed for growing food when population pressures demand more farming – not less.

    If you attended the "Town Hall Meeting" in Stallion Springs last Saturday, and if you were literally in a position to hear what was being said, you are probably still curious, or now even more curious, about one simple thing. Is it logically possible that a development of 2400+ residences on say 2400 or even fewer acres in the heart of the valley can have less of an impact (or a more favorable one) on resources and existing residents of Cummings Valley and its surrounds than if the county General Plan were staunchly followed with its potential for only 120 more residences at build-out, each on 20 acres, (and still zoned exclusive agriculture) on that same 2400 acres? That is perhaps 20 times more people demanding 20 times more services creating 20 times more waste and problems. I say that would be logically impossible and all the red herring water, sewer, property value, and transient farming woe distractions,  to assuage those less analytical, simply cannot conceal that simple truth. Think for yourself! Does it seem logical to you? If we value our current life style, we must not continue with such a development. That's how I see it!
    In any event, let your representatives know how you see it.

To Exist
an editorial by
John Mester

    As a tiny, healthy, baby begins its life interacting with the world, it unknowingly develops a sense of existential priorities (a priority of functions based upon how long one can live without it). I submit the following priorities, in order of need. Foremost on the list is respiration. Second is thermal moderation. Next is waste elimination, then satiation of thirst then hunger and so on. Near the top but below these already listed are trauma protection (one can argue this should head the list and probably later does, but a newborn is unaware of those dangers), physical comfort, and relief of pain. We are all, perhaps without thinking, familiar with this list, and as we interact with others, develop a more personalized one of our own, adding functions as we acquire experience, abilities or disabilities. Note, however, that the top of the priorities list remains virtually unchanged.. We all need air to breathe, protection from temperature extremes, waste elimination, water to drink and food to eat. Any societal action that ignores, contaminates  and/or impedes these needs is doomed to failure or will ultimately doom the society. The needs are too great to be ignored.

    The CVPA has provided me with the ability to help myself and others recognize that these existential priorities exist and that our actions in life must not antagonize them. Specifics? Here I concentrate on satiation of hunger.

    There is a limited space on this earth where food can be grown naturally. And now, with the need for development of renewable energy sources - particularly, bio-fuels, placing increasing stress on agricultural resources, society simply cannot keep allowing housing development to usurp land that can be used for growing plants. There is much land not readily useful for agriculture available for housing development, albeit at perhaps greater construction cost. If we continue to allow residential development to destroy agricultural lands in the name of “affordable housing”, the day will come when famine and world hunger reign supreme, hastened because we simply lacked the foresight to recognize the existential priorities.

    Concerning local annexation of agricultural properties to Stallion Springs, Bear Valley Springs, Golden Hills, Tehachapi, Alpine Forest Park or any other existing development thereby permitting conversion to residential development for whatever reason proffered, we must all say no! Under no circumstance should that be permitted - ever! If you claim an “open mind” and need further information to support a NO, just remember your own existential priorities and that once arable land is “paved over”, future restoration back to agriculture, when that becomes necessary, will be impossibly expensive and a virtually hopeless task.

    The thought that residential development of Cummings Valley is inevitable is patently invalid. Consider the actions of foresighted planners in some southern counties of California and elsewhere who are now recognizing and protecting their farmlands as the valuable resource that it is. That same foresight exists here and is widespread among property owners in this Valley. Apparently, we must convince our own area and county planners of the potential danger we all face (and their obligation and power to prevent it) if agricultural land is continually permitted to perish. To them we say "If you have blindly ignored the need before and the wishes of most property owners, then start here, start now and become a local hero." Our arable land must be conserved.

Whenever discussions about increasing density of residential development occur, one invariably hears remarks from those favoring an increase like “property rights should not be infringed upon” or “underlying the high sounding goals & objectives of ‘protective associations’ and those who would rather maintain the status quo, often is an 'I got mine and you can't have yours attitude'” or even “well, how do you think you were allowed to build on your smaller lot?” Remarks like these are designed to put the opposition to zoning changes on the defensive and divert attention from the real issue. The real issue is that when each of us purchased our property, at that time, there were zoning laws in place (regardless of what they were or how they got there), which each of us who cared to inquire about were aware of and that we all implicitly agreed to abide by at time of purchase. Those laws as well as perhaps covenants, conditions or restrictions which run with the land were/are designed to protect each of us from the other and in effect put a limit on, or more precisely define, the “property rights” associated with that land. We all knew about them when we purchased and apparently agreed to them and to respect those similar rights of our neighbors or we wouldn’t have purchased. Pretty simple! We have all agreed to the zoning at the time of purchase and understand that it offers protection to us all.

Comes now some neighboring property owner who would have the zoning changed for what can only be a self serving reason, since although good for him, the change could, and probably would, affect a much larger region than his property and in a negative way for neighboring property owners opposed to a change or who prefer the zoning just as it is, as it was, when we all purchased and agreed to it. Should not the rights of those many neighbors who had reasonable expectations of property protection through zoning, as it was when they purchased, be more important and given more “weight” than those of the one owner who wants a change? Should not those in power who consider changing zoning be required to tread very, very lightly, if at all, in that area, especially since the effects of zoning changes will result in irreversible changes to the landscape and perhaps the environment? Well, I think so!

A common argument for zoning change and one voiced by government officials is “for the betterment of the area”, which is always going to be inanely subjective and difficult to prove or disprove until too late, perhaps. Another argument, that property values will increase, presupposes that increased values are important to more than just the “tax man” or the speculator or government officials attuned to them. The need for a 20 year before review, perhaps, General Development Plan for each geographical area (not easily defined, I suspect)  with concomitant zoning treated as virtually inviolable during its term is obvious to me. Any changes to such a plan and its zoning should be made a really Big deal and very cautiously done. It is especially disquieting that any variance or conditional use permitted seems to establish a precedence upon which subsequent change can then more easily be permitted by those in power. "The natural or logical order of progression", as it is often referred to, can and often does perpetuate an errant path which can never be righted. There is little doubt some existing land owner(s) will be injured by almost any change forced upon them “for their own good” in spite of what we all had previously agreed to and were comfortable with at time of purchase.

We recognize that circumstances do change (e.g. the climate, earth  movement, energy cost/availability, air quality, water quality/availability, population, to name a few), so that it would be wise to review the General Plan at least at the end of its term, but any circumstance change that may cause a review and prompt an amendment should not be that of one individual but more "global" in scope to the entire area. After all, those "little changes/variances/conditional use permits" to indulge just one, as we have seen, have a much more "global", long lasting, effect ...  and, that's my opinion on zoning changes.