Chris Kapheim and Doug Jensen interview
Item
Title
eng
Chris Kapheim and Doug Jensen interview
Description
eng
Chris Kapheim is general manager of the Alta Irrigation District, the oldest irrigation district on the Kings River and one of the oldest districts in California. Doug Jensen is a founding partner of Baker, Manock, and Jensen and long time counsel to the Alta Irrigation District.
Creator
eng
Kapheim, Chris and Doug Jensen
eng
Holyoke, Thomas
Relation
eng
Water Archive Oral Histories
Coverage
eng
California State University, Fresno
Date
eng
9/7/2011
Format
eng
Microsoft Word 2003 document, 15 pages
Identifier
eng
SCMS_waoh_00008
extracted text
>> Thomas Holyoke: We are talking with Chris Kapheim and Doug Jensen. We're
talking about Alta Irrigation District, the Kings River. And we can also talk
about water more broadly in California, in the American West and absolute
wherever we want to. But let's start with the Kings River and to get a sense
with the history the Kings River particularly the early agricultural development
along the river. I mean do you know a lot about the history, really ag in that
part of the valley?
>> Doug Jensen: Yes, there is some names connected with it. One of them is Moses
Church and the fact that the location of the City of Fresno being within the
area that was serviced by the Kings River meant that there was early development
to divert water basically what, for dry-farm grain land on the plain on
basically either side of the Kings River but probably mostly to the west side,
Chris?
>> Chris Kapheim: Yeah. Our district was mainly in wheat in the early years. I
think they found out that the irrigating wheat did much better than dry-land
wheat. And so it helped bring in more water and then with the water came
diversification of crops and interest for the people. But we have old pictures
showing that the district pretty much all on wheat, large farms, and that, you
know, was the crop choice. I think Goshen, some of the -- Traver, a big wheat
distribution centers, some of the largest in the Western United States at that
time because of the predominance of wheat growing in the area.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's probably true because there were large tracks of land
that were purchased mostly from the federal government under for example the
college, the land grant college program. And that land would be productive and
profitable only with a couple of ingredients. One was the water as Chris says
but also the railroad to be able to transport the crops to market. So when we
got the railroads in, then I think that added to the profitability or potential
profitability and that probably been encouraged the investment of human and
financial capital to build the canals and ditches to actually get the water out
of the river bed and spread around. And in many cases, those canals and ditches
were built by private companies and the -- for the benefit of the land that was
being served by them and I've read that in many cases, a land owner would be
responsible for a particular section of canal to get it built. So even though it
was cooperative effort, there was some, I guess you'd say individual
accountability in terms of actually getting the canals built and of course that
was all done with teams and I don't know if the Fresno Scraper was on deck by
then or not but it was all done with mules and horses.
>> Chris Kapheim: Now we -- our district that the water kind of preceded the
population as a private company in the 1800s. It had very few canals but they
did bring in water to basically start the spurring agricultural growth and when
it went public is where the expansion really took place, and then by the turn of
the century, had it pretty much in place. When the district was a private
company, it had very few people. I think when the election took place in 1888,
it was like 314 people voted and they voted under a tree and they vote here and
they heard and -- but it wasn't a large population at that time. But after they
went public and started really expanding the canal system in which every way the
could, they -- the more people started coming and they saw the benefits of, you
know, the water, you know, in the growing of different types of ag crops.
>> Doug Jensen: And when I was in this private company was 76 land and ->> Chris Kapheim: Water company.
>> Doug Jensen: -- and water Company. And then when the election took place to
form Alta Irrigation District under what was the Wright Act and Alta was one of
the first ->> Chris Kapheim: Three. We were the first -- one of the first three to come in.
And the -- probably the first of the three to actually get the system built out
and then actually one of our board members went into the legislature to help
preserve the Wright Act because it was under review and so then he came back on
the board after he got through the legislative stent. And so it was a big thing.
It really developed the water rights in the system that we have today.
>> Doug Jensen: And as I recall when the new Alta Irrigation District bought out
the assets of the 76 Land and Water Company, do you recall, it -- was it 400,000
dollars?
>> Chris Kapheim: We had to--They had to put up a gold coin deposit with a -- I
guess when they -- if you're gonna be do an election of this type which was a
big deal in those days that do you wanna make sure your serious. So, I don't
know. There was -- So there was a gold coin deposit with the county clerk which
at that time was still in Visalia. And then it was like 400 or 410,000 dollars
to buy out all the assets of the private [inaudible]. So a lot of money now but
a lot of money back in the 1800s. And they really struggled. And a lot of
districts, when you look at the history of irrigation districts in Southern
California, there was a lot of irrigation districts, lot of them didn't make it,
and usually due to financial reasons. They just sold bonds. Some of them sold
illegally. Some said -- Some judges ruled that we sold them illegally. But
somehow, that we survived that financial turmoil because it was a big deal. I
think they used land owners, they use whatever methods they could to get the
system in place to get it so they could use it to start expanding the system and
diversify the agricultural base. But it wasn't easy and a lot of them fail.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you know any census to when diversions first started of
the Kings River for growers and along the river?
>> Doug Jensen: Definitely in the 1800s. And in fact, there were lots of
diversions, some of which were directed toward the Fresno area and some toward
Dinuba and the area served by Alta. But the -- there were many, many diversions
and an enormous amount of litigation and gunfights because of the conflicts
between those diverters and since we live in an area that is dry from a
meteorological standpoint, the water was in effect the equivalent of the
livelihood, so there was a lots of fights.
>> Chris Kapheim: It was a big thing. It was a big thing to take those parties
that were adjacent to river with riparian rights and actually make diversions to
go to a appropriative rights or using the water some place else. I mean,
there're all kinds of case law.
>> Doug Jensen: Places, oh yeah.
>> Chris Kapheim: You know to try to straighten those things out and, you know,
we've -- anyway, the appropriative rights did went out because we -- that's what
we're doing today. But, you know, their riparian rights, you know, I'm sure as
the irrigation started, they probably irrigated parcels close to ->> Doug Jensen: Close to the river.
>> Chris Kapheim: Close to the river and water courses as they could. But I
think, you know we had people that saw the vision that we can bring the water to
other places, the valley will bloom and it did.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Just -- So anyone watching this is clear. Could one of you
explain the difference between appropriative and riparian water rights?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, riparian rights which are based on the English common law
which was adopted by the legislature, that state of California, very soon after
the state was founded and I think that anniversary is Friday, perhaps, in any
event in 1850, but that riparian right basically said that if you own land,
that's adjacent to a river, and within the watershed of that river in other
words if a drop of rain falls on your property and instead of soaking in, drains
in to the river, then you're within the watershed, then you can use water from
the river in reasonable amounts basically, but you -- everybody along the river
can use water as well.
>> Doug Jensen: So, it's what we call co-relative right that if all three of us
had land on the river, we could use our share. An appropriative system is based
-- and sometimes called the Colorado System, is based mostly on mining concepts
and that's a first-in-time, first-in-right. So that if you're the first person
to take water out of the river, you don't have to stay or keep the water on land
that's adjacent to the river, you can take it offsite -- excuse me -- for mining
purposes for example. So two entirely different systems and one of the
fascinating parts about California Water Law is that since there was a lot of
mining in California, in the mining regions, they use the first-in-time, firstin-right, the state legislature adopted the riparian system and we've had an
interesting interaction between those two systems ever since. Then in 1914, the
California Legislature adopted a state control permit and license system in
which the state granted you a right to use water which could be in addition to
your riparian rights or appropriative rights but the state took control over the
surface water based on the theory that the state acting kind of as a king would
own all of the wildlife and the surface water. So that's why you've got in many
cases a riparian right on the river, an appropriative right on the river that
would be pre-1914. And then post-1914, state permits or licenses and there is
even a fourth category and that's Pueblo Law because during the time, the state
was part of Spain and Mexico, the Napoleonic Law applied and allow -- gave
priority to cities and missions that took water out of the river, City of Los
Angeles being the most common example.
>> Thomas Holyoke: [Inaudible] a messy legal system for ->> Doug Jensen: It's playing three dimensional checkers if not chess, makes if
fascinating.
>> Thomas Holyoke: A long history of litigation going along with it ->> Doug Jensen: Absolutely correct, yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In the early years on the Kings River, was there one system
that predominated it most, you know, land owners, divert water into a riparian
system or a ->> Doug Jensen: I agree with Chris. I think the land that was farmed, that was
riparian that it was next to the river, probably didn't have as much acreage
involved as the land away from the river because so much of the land was being
used for grain that you needed large acreages and so obviously you're gonna have
more of that away from the river than next to the river. Another factor there is
that land was granted generally by the federal government but sometimes by the
state government in big chunks. And under the riparian law, you -- if you've got
a piece that's adjacent to the river, you're riparian right applies only to the
smallest area that has been held under one ownership from the time that it was
patented out from a government to a private individual so you need a lot of
title work and title history in order to understand the extent of the riparian
acreage.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, now, this change over from the original 76 years
company to the creation of a public entity, irrigation district, why do that?
Why make this change? What's the advantage?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think -- that came from the bottom up, that the people look
at -- they were putting their investment, families, home, things that people
deemed important, and basically on the premise of land and having the water to
grow with crops. Especially after a few years, they started growing different
types of crops that other than green and they needed to have a supply of water.
And so they saw the vision and motivated the people to go to a public-type
district where people would have a say in the governance of the water. I think
it was that important of an issue and that wasn't a unanimous vote but it was
overwhelmingly supported by the people that voted at that time.
>> Doug Jensen: And the district has the power of assessment to levy a charge on
land. So in private arrangements maybe some folks paid and some folks didn't
pay. Whereas with the public agency with that power, if you didn't pay, then
your land could revert to the district who could put it up for auction and
collect their money. So it was a way I think to spread equitably the cost of
putting in not only the capital investment but also the operation and
maintenance and make sure that everybody was gonna pay and be on the same vote.
>> Chris Kapheim: I don't they ever would have been able to expand system as
fast as they did and respond to the people that wanted the water unless you went
to a public type system and that allowed for better financing and capital
investment and that's what it took to do and that's what they did.
>> Doug Jensen: And for that continuity, I think, you know, if everybody have
been happy with 76 then would still be in existence. But I think their ability
to extract money or labor or whatever from the land owners was limited.
>> Chris Kapheim: And a lot of the 76 board members were not from this area.
They were from San Francisco and other areas. They were there to make money,
profit. And I think once the local people started seeing the value of the water
-- and in our areas, always had a history of people living on the ranches and
still do. They wanted to be actively involved in the governance of the system
and that drove the process.
>> Doug Jensen: And one thing that's important about for what we call a
California Irrigation district and Alta is as we said one of the very first
examples is that the voting for board members is by residence. In order to be a
board member, you've got to have an interest in some real property in the
district. But to simply vote, all you need to do is be otherwise qualified
resident of the district. So it's residents voting. In some cases for example a
California water district, your vote -- you vote by land ownership. So it's
ownership voting versus residence voting.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What are the actual responsibilities then of an irrigation
district, does it build and maintain the canal system and the conveyance and
distribution system of the water?
>> Chris Kapheim: Really, there are several, and I think it has changed
overtime. Its primary responsibility is deliver water to the land owners. In our
case, agricultural user who depend on it to work with their conjunctive use
system with groundwater and surface water. I think overtime, the groundwater is
of course become more prominent into the -- with surface water and the
groundwater management almost has an equal role. And so I think the districts
today have the role of bringing in the surface water but you almost need that
surface water to balance with the groundwater. So those are the two primary
roles, is the groundwater management and the surface water distribution for land
owners.
>> Doug Jensen: Some irrigation districts also generate power because they have
water rights such that they can use the water, falling water for power
generation which is a great source of revenue for them. But in the case of Alta,
it does not own as district power generating facilities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So how -- where actually is Alta Irrigation District on the
Kings River?
>> Chris Kapheim: It's the only district of the 28 districts that are on the
Kings. It's east, totally east of the Kings River. And how I tell people and in
one sentence where it is, it's south of Fresno, north of Visalia, and east of
the Kings River. That's kind of the quick picture of where it is.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How big is the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: It's 130,000 acres in Fresno, predominantly in Fresno and
Tulare County and a small piece in the Kings County.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What kinds of crops are grown by the farmers in the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: We have about 38,000 acres of deciduous tree -- tree fruits,
peaches, plums, nectarines. About 13,000 acres of citrus and citrus seems to be
growing, recent time, and a variety of pomegranates and other types of crops
that are grown. But citrus and the deciduous tree fruit, and some grapes, but
the citrus and the tree fruit crops are the predominant crops.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Now just to jump back to water rights for a second, does an
irrigation district own the water rights, does it acquire the water rights when
it's created or are the water rights still held by the individual farmers?
>> Doug Jensen: No the water -- the water rights held by the district much as a
trustee might hold cash in trust for a beneficiary, the land owners and in fact
the beneficiary gets the benefit of that water. And part of the statutory
obligation of the district is to distribute that water ratably among the land
owners. In the case of Alta, since it’s one of 28 units on the Kings River, the
Kings River Water Association holds all of the state permits and licenses that
benefit the King's River service area. So Alta is one of these units that
benefits from the state licenses and then the district Alta and each one of the
other 27 units gets to divert water from the river according to a schedule that
it was worked out by agreement after a lot of litigation.
[ Laughter ]
>> Chris Kapheim: I think people had all kinds of ways to determine who should
take the water. Alta had its own method. We come up first with the highest one
and some say we took a disproportionate higher share than we should have. But,
you know, I think we all realized in the '20s that there's -- that we better
revert to a schedule and do it in organized manner and we've been working under
that schedule since the '20s.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's why Alta Irrigation District is called Alta meaning
in Spanish "high" 'cause ours is the first diversion, the highest diversion off
of the Kings River and it's always good to be near the head of the ditch. Like
they say, "I don't care if I to go heaven or hell, just put me at the head of
the ditch," right? [Laughter] 'Cause then you're pretty sure you're gonna get
your water and somebody isn't gonna short stop it as it flows downhill.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. So just make sure I'm getting this kind of understood.
So the state owns the water rights and then licenses them to the district and
it's growers as opposed to the state water resources control board?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, actually the state water resources control board is the
agency that acts on behalf of the State of California in allocating these water
rights. And so a water right is what we call the hereditament. There are some
discussions about whether or not it's a corporeal or incorporeal hereditament.
Well, what that's mean, that means some right that you can inherent. And since
this -- a water right holder doesn't own the molecules of water. They have a
right to use them. So it's a -- in legal terms called the use factory right that
you can use but you don't own the water and that's a -- like I should say
esoterically go principle. But like the king of England owned the land, the
state of California owns the molecules of water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Are there any cities or towns in the boundaries of Alta?
>> Chris Kapheim: Yes. We have two incorporated cities Dinuba and Reedley and
numerous unincorporated communities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And how does the -- if it all, does district interact with
them in terms of water allocation, are they involved with the district at all or
is that?
>> Chris Kapheim: Well, we have a philosophy, everybody pays in Alta including
people in the city because in the sense we all benefit by bringing the water in,
there's a benefit to people living in the city into the irrigation district,
farmers as well, now the farmer who's using the water, he pays a lot more. But
every lot does pay. I think in the -- as time has evolved and it's cheaper and
most of the communities just poked holes in the ground and get their water
supply from groundwater. I think on our east side we're seeing where there are
some interests of looking at surface water and we're looking at some long term
arrangements to address those needs. And so I think it is changing but as of
right now, we're not serving any of the urban areas of surface water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And you had mentioned that Alta was one I guess 28 irrigation
districts on the Kings.
>> Chris Kapheim: Not necessarily irrigation districts. There no -- at least one
California Water District. There are number of irrigation districts but there
are also entities called mutual water companies that are not public agencies per
se but they're private corporations in which ownership of stock gives you the
right to a certain share of the water owned by that entity.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And during these last few years, I supposed if water cut
backs and maybe in the past have -- all 28 been good neighbors?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think in the past, they didn't get along so well. Some say
they wouldn't even meet at the same town. I think they finally evolved to where
they would meet in the same town but not the same room. And so I think finally
we got to everybody in the same room and -- but I think we understand today, we
have a very valuable resource at south of the Delta and it's in our best effort
-- interest to work together and we do. I think the districts look at what needs
to be done and we have pulled together and achieved those goals.
>> Doug Jensen: And as a result of that agreement, there is a schedule that
shows that on any day of the year, depending on the flow of the river, there's a
schedule of which unit gets which water and it does vary by volume and some of
that is based on historic uses for example. But it was worked out by negotiation
so I mentioned the Kings River Water Association as being the group formed by
those 28 entities and those entities then pay an assessment to KRWA which pays
the water master to and force and interpret those schedules.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Most of the conflict between the districts and mutual
companies on the river, was it over simply water allocation in the amount of
waters?
>> Chris Kapheim: Some said Alta was taking too much water at the beginning.
There was a lot of lawsuits on that because we come out first. And I think as
you went down the river it probably just multiplied. I think that in the '20s
getting to a schedule probably reduced the litigation immensely, maybe it didn't
reduced the hard feelings, I think it took some issue, some time, like 50 years,
to get through some of those issues. But I think today, we've operate under the
schedule for a long period of time and we're very aggressive in terms of
environmental issues and other aspects that have come into play in recent time
and so it behooves us to work together, and we do.
>> Doug Jensen: And that water is -- first of all very high quality because it's
coming off the Sierra which is essentially a big granite black, I mean even
there are soil, it's mostly alluvium that came off that granite black. So that
it's high quality and it's so valuable that the units on the river I think are
more and more operating cooperatively to maximize the use of that resource.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Where does the development of Pine Flat Dam fit into the
history of the Kings River development and that's a major project in there.
>> Doug Jensen: It sure is and I explained it to some visitors from Sacramento
as a TiVo in other words before you could record a television show for example,
then you had to be home at 5 o'clock if you wanted to see the 5 o'clock news.
Well, if you didn't get home till 7 you are out of luck. With TiVo, you can hit
the button and if you wanna play it at 7 or 8 or 9 at night you can do that
because that snow pack, is just an above ground reservoir. It's just upside
down, it's -- all that snow is sitting on the sierra, it comes off when it
pleases and it will come off in the spring whereas most of our irrigation needs
are in the summer. So the dam simply delays the avail -- holds the water back
and makes it available when we need it most.
>> Chris Kapheim: And we -- our irrigation was much earlier, several months
earlier when we just took it off at the river, when the river ran, you took your
water. Today, you have more -- you're afforded more control and timing when you
wanna deliver your water to meet the particular needs of the land owners and it
was -- it is a time shift.
>> Doug Jensen: And there's also a flood control aspect. For example, Pine Flat
was built under auspices of the Corps of Engineers that in the United States
government is in charge of flood control. So that was extremely valuable because
as the river goes west, and the slope flattens out, any flooding will affect the
very large area of land especially in the Tulare Lake basin. So the real -well, a very important, if not primary purpose of Pine Flat was to prevent the
flooding of valuable farmland.
>> Chris Kapheim: It is interesting in 1954. They said it would never fail
because there's this big reservoir. In 1955, we had an extremely wet year, and
it -- the reservoir did fill up that next year.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Why is it that a federal agency comes in beyond the Corps of
Engineers and builds this dam, there hadn't been -- as I understand, federal
involvement before, why was it brought in then to build this?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, on the San Joaquin River and other rivers for example,
State of California initially was going to build that project but that was in
the '30s and the states simply didn't have the money and the federal government
did. So I think we mentioned that at the Friant, that was completed in 1948. So
I think that because the feds had enough money, had the capital to build that
project but the San Joaquin River is subject to reclamation law, that project
was build under auspices of the Bureau of Reclamation whereas Pine Flat as I
said was built by the Corps of Engineers.
>> Chris Kapheim: But all of our payment contracts are to the bureau, because
initially we went to the bureau to build it. But they were so busy building up
so many other projects that they couldn't build ours. So the Army Corps could
and did, end up building it, and -- but our repayment contracts did go to the
Bureau of Reclamation. So that's -- we paid ours off, I don't know 7, 8 years
ago. The last check went to the Bureau of Reclamation but that's who we end up
actually paying the check to.
>> Doug Jensen: And each entity spoke for a certain amount of storage and
therefore paid more. But even after paying off that capital loan entities still
pay for operation and maintenance of the facilities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How is it that the payments go to the Bureau of Reclamation
if the Army Corps built it?
>> Chris Kapheim: You know, I mean it's who -- I don't know, the initial of
contract may have been with the Bureau of Reclamation, I assumed they were. And
-- But, you know, when it came to build the reservoir the Army Corps built it
and there were the issues of irrigation versus flood control and those aspects
and then there's -- when the CVPIA and other things came in was the Kings, you
know, subject to those or not? And that was clarified, you know, in the '80s.
And because it wasn’t -- you know, it wasn't a Central Valley project so to
speak, and -- so anyway it was kind of interesting to us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Who operates the dam now?
>> Chris Kapheim: The Corps operates the dam. We make our requests for
deliveries. If it's not a flood control period, then the districts have the
authority to -- over the controls and then if it goes into a flood release
criteria and then the Corps takes over the release on the dam to protect the
facilities. And on the consulting with the local folks, they basically determine
what the flows are.
>> Doug Jensen: And there's a protocol, because of the flood control aspect that
there has to be flood -- empty space available to store water that comes down in
a flood and in order to keep control of the river, the Corps will release water,
to flood release in order to be sure there is enough empty space available for
snow melt.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When excess water comes down, flood water, does that -- does
the Corps then -- do they claim ownership of that water? Who owns water rights
on flood water like that?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, we maintained that those 28 entities with very, very few
exceptions own, have, hold all of the water rights on the river. And it's known
-- it’s fully appropriated. So if somebody now goes to the State Water Resources
Control Board and says, "Oh, I want some of the Kings River water." They are
told basically, "Sorry, it's all taken." So our position is that we can take any
of the water that comes down the river.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is excess -- part of your schedules then and did they up
excess water when there is excess water?
>> Doug Jensen: Well at some point, there is so much water that it's first come
first serve. If you can use it then you do, which gets to, I think, a main point
in that is that on average there's a flood release of 200 –- 250,000 acre feet a
year. Well it doesn't happen that way. It happens only in -- I'll say 3 or 4
years during any 10-year period. But if we could hold on to the water that now
leaves our service area because of these peak high flows, flood releases would
be a whole lot better off and Alta for example and other entities are trying to
hold on to that water not only behind the dam but also by using it on the
surface and storing it underground.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Something else you had mentioned, I just wanna come back to,
you mentioned that there was, you know some issues as to whether aspects of
reclamation law applied to the Kings River because the bureau would build the
dam and you'd mentioned CVPIA, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, you
didn't say it was the outcome, does it apply or doesn't?
>> Chris Kapheim: The Congress ruled in the '80s that by a specific vote of
Congress that it does not apply to ->> Doug Jensen: Reclamation law. It is a primarily flood control project, build
by the corps, reclamation law and its limitations do not apply.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And could you sort of talk a little bit about, maybe with
some of the advantages are in the sense that CVPIA has had some -- one might say
detrimental effects on, say, the San Joaquin River and some of the other rivers
that are part of the Central Valley Project, in what ways is the Kings River and
then -[ Simultaneous Talking ]
>> Chris Kapheim: One is the acreage limitation and we have a lot of -- we front
up to the Friant on our easterly boundary.
>> Doug Jensen: [Inaudible] Friant-Kern Canal
>> Chris Kapheim: Friant-Kern Canal, and so we have a lot of landowners who farm
in Friant and farm in Alta. And so they would say, you know, we got to fill out
this reclamation forms and all that and, you know, sometimes they'll -- you
know, confused, they don't have to fill them out in our district they do in the
other ones. But, you know, being exempt from the reclamation law, we don't come
under the acreage limitations and the issues applicable to that. And so that is
not a factor.
>> Doug Jensen: But it was a factor for larger land holdings downstream, down
river from us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How would that be a factor for them if reclamation law didn’t
apply?
>> Doug Jensen: Because they would have to limit their ownership to the 640
acres for example. And in the case of land in the Tulare Lake Basin, they were
holding thousands, tens of thousands of acres under one ownership and that was
not possible, would not have been possible if reclamation law applied.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Does this also mean that Kings River users are -- don't have
to have the same concerns that, say, San Joaquin River users have regards to
environmental concerns, especially the concerns up in the Delta with the smelt
and other fish?
>> Doug Jensen: That is correct because the Kings River is -- does not flow to
Delta and because it would general flow to the Tulare Lake Basin only in periods
of very, very high flows, would there be a hydraulic connection between the
Kings River and the San Joaquin River and therefore to the delta. So those same
sorts of concerns that they have on the San Joaquin River don't apply to the
Kings.
>> Chris Kapheim: But I think the -- all water courses have their own
environmental issues. We have a trout fishery and we've, you know, work with the
folks that are involved in that. And so, you know, being we're not maybe tied
directly to the delta issues. All water is kinda connected anyway and it is
important I think all water courses have to address their own environmental
issues. They all have environmental issues and until they have to work those
out.
>> Doug Jensen: And one of the things that's happened on the Kings is that those
units have voluntarily agreed to keep in a sense a minimum amount of water
behind the dam in what we call a temperature control pool meaning that that
water is cool. So during periods of low flow, during the fall for example, when
it's still warm, you wanna have a supply of cold water that you can send down
the water to keep the trout alive as Chris says.
>> Chris Kapheim: And then to actually distribute that water, you needed a
banking arrangement between those districts that are in that reach which is
Fresno, Alta and consolidated now. In years past, we didn't have to do many
projects jointly but we did that one. So we had to learn how to -- how they make
those releases and to operate that 'cause we're the ones putting the three
districts, we're the ones putting the water in to make that fishery enhancement
work and we have and it's worked very successfully.
>> Doug Jensen: Plus in that often involves a release of water when there's no
irrigation demand. So as Chris, as we've been trying to work together to in a
sense to retrieve that water, then the Kings River units have also put up
substantial amount of money over the years usually, you know, low six figures
per year for habitat enhancement and studies to ensure the health of that cold
water fishery.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is Alta Irrigation District and the other Kings River users
subject to California environmental laws like CEQA, the California Environment
Quality Act, is that been a problematic issue?
>> Doug Jensen: Not, not really and I think partly the reason is that we've
taken voluntary steps to avoid those kinds of lawsuits.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Just in terms of water quality maintenance or regulation, has
there been any sense of a movement towards more of a statewide water management
system in your opinions over the last?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think the state would like and have shown interest in going
towards more of a state controlled system, talked about it for 20 years. I think
that we've -- we look at really as a state-local partnership where on the -- on
the local side the state is involved in some cases putting up grant money and is
–- and involve another ways. But it's really a state and local partnership. And
I think whenever it swings one way or the other, it doesn't work. But when you
have a true partnership, I think people have to respect their boundaries and I
think when people don't respect their boundaries is when you have problems. And
thus far, the state is doing their thing and I think the local agencies are
doing theirs.
>> Doug Jensen: And the state I think naturally wants to control all of that
resource within its state boundaries so there's -- I'll say a creep in terms of
increasing state presence and regulation especially with regard to groundwater
and California is one of, let's say a few states, in which the groundwater is
owned by the owner of the overlying land and is part of that private property
right and the state would like to control much more of the groundwater, quantity
and quality.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And as I understand a lot of growers and other users of
groundwater have resisted this effort from the state to control and -- at least
regulate groundwater.
>> Doug Jensen: True partially because that groundwater is like the savings
account in the bank, in the dry year that's what you can use. So if it's
controlled by the state, the individual land owner may be unable to use that
water.
>> Chris Kapheim: And we live in the local communities and we have a board
meeting. The land owners can come look us in the eye and we work out our issues.
When you're in Sacramento or Washington I think the issue -- is the state and
the federal government really gonna look at the land owner's best interest in
terms to where that water goes and so I mean that's it's a matter of trust.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do large number of the growers in Alta Irrigation District
also draw on groundwater on a regular basis?
>> Chris Kapheim: They do on the dry years. I mean it's truly a conjunctive use
system. I think it's a success story because, you know, we have -- when we have
ample surface water supplies, we insensibly priced it so that it gets used and
so they don't -- the whole deal is to protect the groundwater. So when you get
in those five or six critically dry years or even two or three critical dry
years, there's sufficient supply to make it through. We've had -- I remember in
1992, was the six year -- sixth dry year in a row. Now we had a tough time,
barely made it, '77, '78. We did everything we could to make sure we could
maintain that groundwater to make it through those dry years. If you don't do
that, you get into trouble.
>> Doug Jensen: And you maintain those groundwater levels and supply by using
the surface water instead of the groundwater. It's what we call in lieu recharge
namely, use the surface water, leave the groundwater in place for -- can't say a
rainy day but a dry day.
>> Chris Kapheim: The best groundwater recharge is to turn off the pumps. Now in
the dry years when there's no other supply, you don't really have a choice. But
on the wet years, I remember one time someone said, "Yeah, you guys in ag have
to insensibly price your water." They have to insensibly pressure your water. So
we did. I said, "When we have the surface water, we -- the price it low as an
incentive." So they use it. So they don't use the groundwater and those wet
years 'cause if we do we'll be in trouble.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In a sense at this point as to the status of the water table
-- I mean large portions of the valley it seemed pretty and seriously -- serious
declines in their water table, people digging, drilling down further and further
to reach water in the aquifers . How is it stand now in Alta
>> Doug Jensen: In ours -- our water table is -- has come up. We've had two wet
years, very wet years and, you know, it goes up in the wet years and goes down
in the dry years. And so it's a balance to address that, you know, change in
groundwater use but, you know, at this point, we've been able to manage that and
move on.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Does the district engage in all, you know, water banking or
other types of aquifer recharge.
>> Chris Kapheim: Yeah, we have several -- one we finished and one we’re –we’re just we'll be finishing this winter a water bank and it's -- incentive on
that or vision on that is to develop urban water supplies that yield on those
projects will ultimately be served to -- for drinking water that on the east
side of our district where there's ground water quality issues where they -- on
a long term basis will have and have had difficulty sustaining in some certain
areas meeting the drinking water standards that on a long term basis this is the
plan and it may -- it will take many years to get in the place but we're
developing the water supply for that now.
>> Doug Jensen: But from that time of the first diversions out of the river into
canals and ditches, that will recharge because there will be seepage and that's
going to right to the ground water table so not all the water that you divert
from the river gets to the farm and the difference, there's some evaporation but
most of the difference it’s recharging the underground.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Since a lot of groundwater tends to move a lot through the
soil including in and out of the river is the district's groundwater management
plan done in conjunction with the other districts in the cities and on the
river?
>> Chris Kapheim: You know, I think that there's two ways to look at the
groundwater management plan. We look at it as a district but we've also form the
-- a kind of a basin-wide plan. Water really doesn't know the individual
boundaries as it's going through this water course. And so we are -- we've
developed a model and we have looked at the long term implications and where the
long term impacts from a basin-wide perspective. And I think that, that's really
gonna hold the long term value is looking at it in that means.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When I was sort of looking through the Alta Irrigation
District's website I came across references to something called the Southern San
Joaquin Water Quality Coalition?
>> Doug Jensen: Yeah, they formed a coalition some years back to look at all the
myriad of water quality issues, irrigated lands program and others and to look
at the Kings, Kaweah, Tule and Kern look at the -- from the broader perspective
how to address those issues and that's the genesis of that.
>> Chris Kapheim: And part of what the district does is try to educate land
owners with regard to the use of chemicals for example in order to avoid
contamination of either groundwater or the surface stream.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Has water quality been a serious issue in the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: Nitrates are an issue. And people asked where they come from.
Don't really know. One time there's small grade B dairies and whether it's a
legacy issue from that or naturally occurring. We're not applying as much
nitrogen as we did in the past and yet the numbers seem higher. So that's gonna
take more study. I think our solution is let's look at, A) making sure
communities that can't meet the drinking water standard on a long term basis
can. And then once we do that let's look at what's causing the issues.
>> Thomas Holyoke: The emphasis in the state legislature of the last couple of
years about the need to build significant new water infrastructure leading into
this, you know, hypothetical bond issue we may or may not have in a few years.
Does Alta irrigation had a stake in this?
>> Chris Kapheim: Well, I mean right now, a lot of regulations that got put in
to that 2009 process are –- we have to comply with them. We're working with them
on a daily basis now. In terms of the bond in 2012, I have no idea if that's
gonna pass or not. But the polls don't look very favorable right now. But all
the regulatory actions that measurement, the pricing, the methodology for water
efficiency and we’re wrapped up in that right now trying to work through that
and see where that goes.
>> Doug Jensen: But I don't think that the much if or any direct financial
benefit to Alta in terms of conveyance facilities for example within Alta. There
maybe an indirect benefit in that if the folks who use water that's transported
through the Delta, say on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and in
Southern California, if they could be assured of a firm -- a more firm supply of
better quality water, then they probably would not be seeking to get water that
we use.
>> Chris Kapheim: And the three billion in storage was a big deal. I think they
had to give a lot for that. There're people on both sides on that issue. But
we'll see in 2012 what the bottom looks like. [Laughter] Is it gonna look like
it did in 2009 or is it gonna look different? I think all of those issues are
still our there right now.
>> Thomas Holyoke: It hadn't occurred to me to ask, has there been issues at the
-- on Kings River water with Southern California trying to acquire water rights
there and take water?
>> Doug Jensen: Not directly but Southern California for example has worked out
an arrangement. Was it San Diego and Imperial? For example, I mentioned the
canals and I believe that which ever Southern California agency or city put up
the capital to allow that district to line its canals thereby reduce seepage and
groundwater recharge and then the city got the benefit of that avoided seepage.
But here in our area, I know there had been some discussions about, well, could
we use money from Southern California to save water and then share that savings
but at least so far I'm not -- certainly not in Kings River has that ever come
to fruition.
>> Chris Kapheim: We look at the water as a regional benefit. Long-term I can't
tell you though. I know they'll be more urban growth and things and I think
water will be used, but it'll be used to the benefit of the region. And we wanna
keep the water in the region for those regional benefits.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So make a concern then with if any particular user wants to
sell their water rights off to Southern California?
>> Chris Kapheim: We would not let that happen.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's been a political football because some land owners
think--well, I as a land owner have a right that I can sell but the original
idea of the irrigation district was based on a cooperation among all of the land
owners in terms of holding on to and being a steward of those water rights. So I
think it's pretty clear that the district holds the water rights as a steward
for the benefit of all the land owners in the district.
>> Chris Kapheim: And it's our primary interest that we are the water rights and
that's what it really the essence of being of a district is, and so it's of a
primary importance.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Looking towards the future what would you say are the biggest
challenges to the district, to water in general in California, to farmers?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think that the farmers have shown great resiliency. They->> Doug Jensen: Sufficiency.
>> Chris Kapheim: Sufficiency, the dry years come and people say, well, they
can't make it but they do somehow. They tend to adapt to government regulations
somehow. I think we're gonna have a lot more urban growth. When you look at
where people can go in California, you know, eventually they're going to run out
of area on either side of the Tehachapi’s and we're gonna have a lot more people
here. And I think that yet ag I think is -- there's a strong infrastructure for
ag here and it will be here -- certainly won't be because the irrigation
districts why ag goes out, farming for this area. And so I think it's the
balancing of all those interests is probably the biggest issue that's gonna put
in front of the district. And I think also to preserve local control. So many
folks for some reasons, say, "You know, we don't want the locals." But I think
most people, who do they trust? When it gets down to the essential question who
do they really trust? Most people trust the local folks that they see, they know
they can go talk to rather than somebody in some far away place that may look
after their interests and may not.
>> Doug Jensen: 'Cause it's awfully easy for any land owner in Alta to call
Chris or one of the directors. Going up to Sacramento, this takes times and
expense. Going back to Washington I'd be interested to know how many of our land
owners in Alta have ever been to Washington, DC for example or even Sacramento
for that matter. So being able to talk to your neighbor who is on the board is a
lot more comforting than being governed by somebody far away.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any final thoughts, anything important that I some how
missed?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, I've talked to a number of clients and business people
recently and I said if there is one commodity that you could own that would be
good for generations, it would be water. And so the fact that the district holds
these increasingly valuable rights, means I think we'll see more high value
crops planted in the district. Chris is right. There's gonna be a competition
with urban areas who basically can afford to pay more for water than ag can. And
so the sort of cooperation that Chris has established in Alta between the ag
consumers and urban areas, I think is a good harbinger for the future.
>> Chris Kapheim: And I think one way to look at it is the water districts,
irrigation districts, mutual water companies are true success stories. I mean
they've gone through all different legislative and regulatory and mine fields
and somehow have been successful. And so probably will continue to be so.
>> Doug Jensen: And I think another factor on the Kings River in Alta as one of
the units is we're not importing water from another watershed or another river.
We're not subject to those kinds of political pressures that are suffered by the
south, the folks getting water from the San Joaquin River because Kings River is
our water source and we don't have to go through a lot of conveyance facilities
and politics to use the water.
>> Chris Kapheim: But I think a lot of the people have lived here many
generations. And so there's real positive trends that'll continue in the future.
And so I think with that I know when people come here we've done tours with
people from Southern California, they like that. They see that people have made
investments over time and their kids and grand kids have gone to, you know,
similar area schools and that there's a reason why they stay there.
>> Doug Jensen: And I think even in recent years the fact of the -- a firm
supply of good quality water coming from the King's River has had an effect on
demand to buy and develop the land in Alta for example. So it is a success story
and we get the benefit.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Thank you very much.
>> Doug Jensen: Thank you.
[ Silence ]
talking about Alta Irrigation District, the Kings River. And we can also talk
about water more broadly in California, in the American West and absolute
wherever we want to. But let's start with the Kings River and to get a sense
with the history the Kings River particularly the early agricultural development
along the river. I mean do you know a lot about the history, really ag in that
part of the valley?
>> Doug Jensen: Yes, there is some names connected with it. One of them is Moses
Church and the fact that the location of the City of Fresno being within the
area that was serviced by the Kings River meant that there was early development
to divert water basically what, for dry-farm grain land on the plain on
basically either side of the Kings River but probably mostly to the west side,
Chris?
>> Chris Kapheim: Yeah. Our district was mainly in wheat in the early years. I
think they found out that the irrigating wheat did much better than dry-land
wheat. And so it helped bring in more water and then with the water came
diversification of crops and interest for the people. But we have old pictures
showing that the district pretty much all on wheat, large farms, and that, you
know, was the crop choice. I think Goshen, some of the -- Traver, a big wheat
distribution centers, some of the largest in the Western United States at that
time because of the predominance of wheat growing in the area.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's probably true because there were large tracks of land
that were purchased mostly from the federal government under for example the
college, the land grant college program. And that land would be productive and
profitable only with a couple of ingredients. One was the water as Chris says
but also the railroad to be able to transport the crops to market. So when we
got the railroads in, then I think that added to the profitability or potential
profitability and that probably been encouraged the investment of human and
financial capital to build the canals and ditches to actually get the water out
of the river bed and spread around. And in many cases, those canals and ditches
were built by private companies and the -- for the benefit of the land that was
being served by them and I've read that in many cases, a land owner would be
responsible for a particular section of canal to get it built. So even though it
was cooperative effort, there was some, I guess you'd say individual
accountability in terms of actually getting the canals built and of course that
was all done with teams and I don't know if the Fresno Scraper was on deck by
then or not but it was all done with mules and horses.
>> Chris Kapheim: Now we -- our district that the water kind of preceded the
population as a private company in the 1800s. It had very few canals but they
did bring in water to basically start the spurring agricultural growth and when
it went public is where the expansion really took place, and then by the turn of
the century, had it pretty much in place. When the district was a private
company, it had very few people. I think when the election took place in 1888,
it was like 314 people voted and they voted under a tree and they vote here and
they heard and -- but it wasn't a large population at that time. But after they
went public and started really expanding the canal system in which every way the
could, they -- the more people started coming and they saw the benefits of, you
know, the water, you know, in the growing of different types of ag crops.
>> Doug Jensen: And when I was in this private company was 76 land and ->> Chris Kapheim: Water company.
>> Doug Jensen: -- and water Company. And then when the election took place to
form Alta Irrigation District under what was the Wright Act and Alta was one of
the first ->> Chris Kapheim: Three. We were the first -- one of the first three to come in.
And the -- probably the first of the three to actually get the system built out
and then actually one of our board members went into the legislature to help
preserve the Wright Act because it was under review and so then he came back on
the board after he got through the legislative stent. And so it was a big thing.
It really developed the water rights in the system that we have today.
>> Doug Jensen: And as I recall when the new Alta Irrigation District bought out
the assets of the 76 Land and Water Company, do you recall, it -- was it 400,000
dollars?
>> Chris Kapheim: We had to--They had to put up a gold coin deposit with a -- I
guess when they -- if you're gonna be do an election of this type which was a
big deal in those days that do you wanna make sure your serious. So, I don't
know. There was -- So there was a gold coin deposit with the county clerk which
at that time was still in Visalia. And then it was like 400 or 410,000 dollars
to buy out all the assets of the private [inaudible]. So a lot of money now but
a lot of money back in the 1800s. And they really struggled. And a lot of
districts, when you look at the history of irrigation districts in Southern
California, there was a lot of irrigation districts, lot of them didn't make it,
and usually due to financial reasons. They just sold bonds. Some of them sold
illegally. Some said -- Some judges ruled that we sold them illegally. But
somehow, that we survived that financial turmoil because it was a big deal. I
think they used land owners, they use whatever methods they could to get the
system in place to get it so they could use it to start expanding the system and
diversify the agricultural base. But it wasn't easy and a lot of them fail.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you know any census to when diversions first started of
the Kings River for growers and along the river?
>> Doug Jensen: Definitely in the 1800s. And in fact, there were lots of
diversions, some of which were directed toward the Fresno area and some toward
Dinuba and the area served by Alta. But the -- there were many, many diversions
and an enormous amount of litigation and gunfights because of the conflicts
between those diverters and since we live in an area that is dry from a
meteorological standpoint, the water was in effect the equivalent of the
livelihood, so there was a lots of fights.
>> Chris Kapheim: It was a big thing. It was a big thing to take those parties
that were adjacent to river with riparian rights and actually make diversions to
go to a appropriative rights or using the water some place else. I mean,
there're all kinds of case law.
>> Doug Jensen: Places, oh yeah.
>> Chris Kapheim: You know to try to straighten those things out and, you know,
we've -- anyway, the appropriative rights did went out because we -- that's what
we're doing today. But, you know, their riparian rights, you know, I'm sure as
the irrigation started, they probably irrigated parcels close to ->> Doug Jensen: Close to the river.
>> Chris Kapheim: Close to the river and water courses as they could. But I
think, you know we had people that saw the vision that we can bring the water to
other places, the valley will bloom and it did.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Just -- So anyone watching this is clear. Could one of you
explain the difference between appropriative and riparian water rights?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, riparian rights which are based on the English common law
which was adopted by the legislature, that state of California, very soon after
the state was founded and I think that anniversary is Friday, perhaps, in any
event in 1850, but that riparian right basically said that if you own land,
that's adjacent to a river, and within the watershed of that river in other
words if a drop of rain falls on your property and instead of soaking in, drains
in to the river, then you're within the watershed, then you can use water from
the river in reasonable amounts basically, but you -- everybody along the river
can use water as well.
>> Doug Jensen: So, it's what we call co-relative right that if all three of us
had land on the river, we could use our share. An appropriative system is based
-- and sometimes called the Colorado System, is based mostly on mining concepts
and that's a first-in-time, first-in-right. So that if you're the first person
to take water out of the river, you don't have to stay or keep the water on land
that's adjacent to the river, you can take it offsite -- excuse me -- for mining
purposes for example. So two entirely different systems and one of the
fascinating parts about California Water Law is that since there was a lot of
mining in California, in the mining regions, they use the first-in-time, firstin-right, the state legislature adopted the riparian system and we've had an
interesting interaction between those two systems ever since. Then in 1914, the
California Legislature adopted a state control permit and license system in
which the state granted you a right to use water which could be in addition to
your riparian rights or appropriative rights but the state took control over the
surface water based on the theory that the state acting kind of as a king would
own all of the wildlife and the surface water. So that's why you've got in many
cases a riparian right on the river, an appropriative right on the river that
would be pre-1914. And then post-1914, state permits or licenses and there is
even a fourth category and that's Pueblo Law because during the time, the state
was part of Spain and Mexico, the Napoleonic Law applied and allow -- gave
priority to cities and missions that took water out of the river, City of Los
Angeles being the most common example.
>> Thomas Holyoke: [Inaudible] a messy legal system for ->> Doug Jensen: It's playing three dimensional checkers if not chess, makes if
fascinating.
>> Thomas Holyoke: A long history of litigation going along with it ->> Doug Jensen: Absolutely correct, yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In the early years on the Kings River, was there one system
that predominated it most, you know, land owners, divert water into a riparian
system or a ->> Doug Jensen: I agree with Chris. I think the land that was farmed, that was
riparian that it was next to the river, probably didn't have as much acreage
involved as the land away from the river because so much of the land was being
used for grain that you needed large acreages and so obviously you're gonna have
more of that away from the river than next to the river. Another factor there is
that land was granted generally by the federal government but sometimes by the
state government in big chunks. And under the riparian law, you -- if you've got
a piece that's adjacent to the river, you're riparian right applies only to the
smallest area that has been held under one ownership from the time that it was
patented out from a government to a private individual so you need a lot of
title work and title history in order to understand the extent of the riparian
acreage.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, now, this change over from the original 76 years
company to the creation of a public entity, irrigation district, why do that?
Why make this change? What's the advantage?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think -- that came from the bottom up, that the people look
at -- they were putting their investment, families, home, things that people
deemed important, and basically on the premise of land and having the water to
grow with crops. Especially after a few years, they started growing different
types of crops that other than green and they needed to have a supply of water.
And so they saw the vision and motivated the people to go to a public-type
district where people would have a say in the governance of the water. I think
it was that important of an issue and that wasn't a unanimous vote but it was
overwhelmingly supported by the people that voted at that time.
>> Doug Jensen: And the district has the power of assessment to levy a charge on
land. So in private arrangements maybe some folks paid and some folks didn't
pay. Whereas with the public agency with that power, if you didn't pay, then
your land could revert to the district who could put it up for auction and
collect their money. So it was a way I think to spread equitably the cost of
putting in not only the capital investment but also the operation and
maintenance and make sure that everybody was gonna pay and be on the same vote.
>> Chris Kapheim: I don't they ever would have been able to expand system as
fast as they did and respond to the people that wanted the water unless you went
to a public type system and that allowed for better financing and capital
investment and that's what it took to do and that's what they did.
>> Doug Jensen: And for that continuity, I think, you know, if everybody have
been happy with 76 then would still be in existence. But I think their ability
to extract money or labor or whatever from the land owners was limited.
>> Chris Kapheim: And a lot of the 76 board members were not from this area.
They were from San Francisco and other areas. They were there to make money,
profit. And I think once the local people started seeing the value of the water
-- and in our areas, always had a history of people living on the ranches and
still do. They wanted to be actively involved in the governance of the system
and that drove the process.
>> Doug Jensen: And one thing that's important about for what we call a
California Irrigation district and Alta is as we said one of the very first
examples is that the voting for board members is by residence. In order to be a
board member, you've got to have an interest in some real property in the
district. But to simply vote, all you need to do is be otherwise qualified
resident of the district. So it's residents voting. In some cases for example a
California water district, your vote -- you vote by land ownership. So it's
ownership voting versus residence voting.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What are the actual responsibilities then of an irrigation
district, does it build and maintain the canal system and the conveyance and
distribution system of the water?
>> Chris Kapheim: Really, there are several, and I think it has changed
overtime. Its primary responsibility is deliver water to the land owners. In our
case, agricultural user who depend on it to work with their conjunctive use
system with groundwater and surface water. I think overtime, the groundwater is
of course become more prominent into the -- with surface water and the
groundwater management almost has an equal role. And so I think the districts
today have the role of bringing in the surface water but you almost need that
surface water to balance with the groundwater. So those are the two primary
roles, is the groundwater management and the surface water distribution for land
owners.
>> Doug Jensen: Some irrigation districts also generate power because they have
water rights such that they can use the water, falling water for power
generation which is a great source of revenue for them. But in the case of Alta,
it does not own as district power generating facilities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So how -- where actually is Alta Irrigation District on the
Kings River?
>> Chris Kapheim: It's the only district of the 28 districts that are on the
Kings. It's east, totally east of the Kings River. And how I tell people and in
one sentence where it is, it's south of Fresno, north of Visalia, and east of
the Kings River. That's kind of the quick picture of where it is.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How big is the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: It's 130,000 acres in Fresno, predominantly in Fresno and
Tulare County and a small piece in the Kings County.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What kinds of crops are grown by the farmers in the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: We have about 38,000 acres of deciduous tree -- tree fruits,
peaches, plums, nectarines. About 13,000 acres of citrus and citrus seems to be
growing, recent time, and a variety of pomegranates and other types of crops
that are grown. But citrus and the deciduous tree fruit, and some grapes, but
the citrus and the tree fruit crops are the predominant crops.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Now just to jump back to water rights for a second, does an
irrigation district own the water rights, does it acquire the water rights when
it's created or are the water rights still held by the individual farmers?
>> Doug Jensen: No the water -- the water rights held by the district much as a
trustee might hold cash in trust for a beneficiary, the land owners and in fact
the beneficiary gets the benefit of that water. And part of the statutory
obligation of the district is to distribute that water ratably among the land
owners. In the case of Alta, since it’s one of 28 units on the Kings River, the
Kings River Water Association holds all of the state permits and licenses that
benefit the King's River service area. So Alta is one of these units that
benefits from the state licenses and then the district Alta and each one of the
other 27 units gets to divert water from the river according to a schedule that
it was worked out by agreement after a lot of litigation.
[ Laughter ]
>> Chris Kapheim: I think people had all kinds of ways to determine who should
take the water. Alta had its own method. We come up first with the highest one
and some say we took a disproportionate higher share than we should have. But,
you know, I think we all realized in the '20s that there's -- that we better
revert to a schedule and do it in organized manner and we've been working under
that schedule since the '20s.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's why Alta Irrigation District is called Alta meaning
in Spanish "high" 'cause ours is the first diversion, the highest diversion off
of the Kings River and it's always good to be near the head of the ditch. Like
they say, "I don't care if I to go heaven or hell, just put me at the head of
the ditch," right? [Laughter] 'Cause then you're pretty sure you're gonna get
your water and somebody isn't gonna short stop it as it flows downhill.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. So just make sure I'm getting this kind of understood.
So the state owns the water rights and then licenses them to the district and
it's growers as opposed to the state water resources control board?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, actually the state water resources control board is the
agency that acts on behalf of the State of California in allocating these water
rights. And so a water right is what we call the hereditament. There are some
discussions about whether or not it's a corporeal or incorporeal hereditament.
Well, what that's mean, that means some right that you can inherent. And since
this -- a water right holder doesn't own the molecules of water. They have a
right to use them. So it's a -- in legal terms called the use factory right that
you can use but you don't own the water and that's a -- like I should say
esoterically go principle. But like the king of England owned the land, the
state of California owns the molecules of water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Are there any cities or towns in the boundaries of Alta?
>> Chris Kapheim: Yes. We have two incorporated cities Dinuba and Reedley and
numerous unincorporated communities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And how does the -- if it all, does district interact with
them in terms of water allocation, are they involved with the district at all or
is that?
>> Chris Kapheim: Well, we have a philosophy, everybody pays in Alta including
people in the city because in the sense we all benefit by bringing the water in,
there's a benefit to people living in the city into the irrigation district,
farmers as well, now the farmer who's using the water, he pays a lot more. But
every lot does pay. I think in the -- as time has evolved and it's cheaper and
most of the communities just poked holes in the ground and get their water
supply from groundwater. I think on our east side we're seeing where there are
some interests of looking at surface water and we're looking at some long term
arrangements to address those needs. And so I think it is changing but as of
right now, we're not serving any of the urban areas of surface water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And you had mentioned that Alta was one I guess 28 irrigation
districts on the Kings.
>> Chris Kapheim: Not necessarily irrigation districts. There no -- at least one
California Water District. There are number of irrigation districts but there
are also entities called mutual water companies that are not public agencies per
se but they're private corporations in which ownership of stock gives you the
right to a certain share of the water owned by that entity.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And during these last few years, I supposed if water cut
backs and maybe in the past have -- all 28 been good neighbors?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think in the past, they didn't get along so well. Some say
they wouldn't even meet at the same town. I think they finally evolved to where
they would meet in the same town but not the same room. And so I think finally
we got to everybody in the same room and -- but I think we understand today, we
have a very valuable resource at south of the Delta and it's in our best effort
-- interest to work together and we do. I think the districts look at what needs
to be done and we have pulled together and achieved those goals.
>> Doug Jensen: And as a result of that agreement, there is a schedule that
shows that on any day of the year, depending on the flow of the river, there's a
schedule of which unit gets which water and it does vary by volume and some of
that is based on historic uses for example. But it was worked out by negotiation
so I mentioned the Kings River Water Association as being the group formed by
those 28 entities and those entities then pay an assessment to KRWA which pays
the water master to and force and interpret those schedules.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Most of the conflict between the districts and mutual
companies on the river, was it over simply water allocation in the amount of
waters?
>> Chris Kapheim: Some said Alta was taking too much water at the beginning.
There was a lot of lawsuits on that because we come out first. And I think as
you went down the river it probably just multiplied. I think that in the '20s
getting to a schedule probably reduced the litigation immensely, maybe it didn't
reduced the hard feelings, I think it took some issue, some time, like 50 years,
to get through some of those issues. But I think today, we've operate under the
schedule for a long period of time and we're very aggressive in terms of
environmental issues and other aspects that have come into play in recent time
and so it behooves us to work together, and we do.
>> Doug Jensen: And that water is -- first of all very high quality because it's
coming off the Sierra which is essentially a big granite black, I mean even
there are soil, it's mostly alluvium that came off that granite black. So that
it's high quality and it's so valuable that the units on the river I think are
more and more operating cooperatively to maximize the use of that resource.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Where does the development of Pine Flat Dam fit into the
history of the Kings River development and that's a major project in there.
>> Doug Jensen: It sure is and I explained it to some visitors from Sacramento
as a TiVo in other words before you could record a television show for example,
then you had to be home at 5 o'clock if you wanted to see the 5 o'clock news.
Well, if you didn't get home till 7 you are out of luck. With TiVo, you can hit
the button and if you wanna play it at 7 or 8 or 9 at night you can do that
because that snow pack, is just an above ground reservoir. It's just upside
down, it's -- all that snow is sitting on the sierra, it comes off when it
pleases and it will come off in the spring whereas most of our irrigation needs
are in the summer. So the dam simply delays the avail -- holds the water back
and makes it available when we need it most.
>> Chris Kapheim: And we -- our irrigation was much earlier, several months
earlier when we just took it off at the river, when the river ran, you took your
water. Today, you have more -- you're afforded more control and timing when you
wanna deliver your water to meet the particular needs of the land owners and it
was -- it is a time shift.
>> Doug Jensen: And there's also a flood control aspect. For example, Pine Flat
was built under auspices of the Corps of Engineers that in the United States
government is in charge of flood control. So that was extremely valuable because
as the river goes west, and the slope flattens out, any flooding will affect the
very large area of land especially in the Tulare Lake basin. So the real -well, a very important, if not primary purpose of Pine Flat was to prevent the
flooding of valuable farmland.
>> Chris Kapheim: It is interesting in 1954. They said it would never fail
because there's this big reservoir. In 1955, we had an extremely wet year, and
it -- the reservoir did fill up that next year.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Why is it that a federal agency comes in beyond the Corps of
Engineers and builds this dam, there hadn't been -- as I understand, federal
involvement before, why was it brought in then to build this?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, on the San Joaquin River and other rivers for example,
State of California initially was going to build that project but that was in
the '30s and the states simply didn't have the money and the federal government
did. So I think we mentioned that at the Friant, that was completed in 1948. So
I think that because the feds had enough money, had the capital to build that
project but the San Joaquin River is subject to reclamation law, that project
was build under auspices of the Bureau of Reclamation whereas Pine Flat as I
said was built by the Corps of Engineers.
>> Chris Kapheim: But all of our payment contracts are to the bureau, because
initially we went to the bureau to build it. But they were so busy building up
so many other projects that they couldn't build ours. So the Army Corps could
and did, end up building it, and -- but our repayment contracts did go to the
Bureau of Reclamation. So that's -- we paid ours off, I don't know 7, 8 years
ago. The last check went to the Bureau of Reclamation but that's who we end up
actually paying the check to.
>> Doug Jensen: And each entity spoke for a certain amount of storage and
therefore paid more. But even after paying off that capital loan entities still
pay for operation and maintenance of the facilities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How is it that the payments go to the Bureau of Reclamation
if the Army Corps built it?
>> Chris Kapheim: You know, I mean it's who -- I don't know, the initial of
contract may have been with the Bureau of Reclamation, I assumed they were. And
-- But, you know, when it came to build the reservoir the Army Corps built it
and there were the issues of irrigation versus flood control and those aspects
and then there's -- when the CVPIA and other things came in was the Kings, you
know, subject to those or not? And that was clarified, you know, in the '80s.
And because it wasn’t -- you know, it wasn't a Central Valley project so to
speak, and -- so anyway it was kind of interesting to us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Who operates the dam now?
>> Chris Kapheim: The Corps operates the dam. We make our requests for
deliveries. If it's not a flood control period, then the districts have the
authority to -- over the controls and then if it goes into a flood release
criteria and then the Corps takes over the release on the dam to protect the
facilities. And on the consulting with the local folks, they basically determine
what the flows are.
>> Doug Jensen: And there's a protocol, because of the flood control aspect that
there has to be flood -- empty space available to store water that comes down in
a flood and in order to keep control of the river, the Corps will release water,
to flood release in order to be sure there is enough empty space available for
snow melt.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When excess water comes down, flood water, does that -- does
the Corps then -- do they claim ownership of that water? Who owns water rights
on flood water like that?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, we maintained that those 28 entities with very, very few
exceptions own, have, hold all of the water rights on the river. And it's known
-- it’s fully appropriated. So if somebody now goes to the State Water Resources
Control Board and says, "Oh, I want some of the Kings River water." They are
told basically, "Sorry, it's all taken." So our position is that we can take any
of the water that comes down the river.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is excess -- part of your schedules then and did they up
excess water when there is excess water?
>> Doug Jensen: Well at some point, there is so much water that it's first come
first serve. If you can use it then you do, which gets to, I think, a main point
in that is that on average there's a flood release of 200 –- 250,000 acre feet a
year. Well it doesn't happen that way. It happens only in -- I'll say 3 or 4
years during any 10-year period. But if we could hold on to the water that now
leaves our service area because of these peak high flows, flood releases would
be a whole lot better off and Alta for example and other entities are trying to
hold on to that water not only behind the dam but also by using it on the
surface and storing it underground.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Something else you had mentioned, I just wanna come back to,
you mentioned that there was, you know some issues as to whether aspects of
reclamation law applied to the Kings River because the bureau would build the
dam and you'd mentioned CVPIA, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, you
didn't say it was the outcome, does it apply or doesn't?
>> Chris Kapheim: The Congress ruled in the '80s that by a specific vote of
Congress that it does not apply to ->> Doug Jensen: Reclamation law. It is a primarily flood control project, build
by the corps, reclamation law and its limitations do not apply.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And could you sort of talk a little bit about, maybe with
some of the advantages are in the sense that CVPIA has had some -- one might say
detrimental effects on, say, the San Joaquin River and some of the other rivers
that are part of the Central Valley Project, in what ways is the Kings River and
then -[ Simultaneous Talking ]
>> Chris Kapheim: One is the acreage limitation and we have a lot of -- we front
up to the Friant on our easterly boundary.
>> Doug Jensen: [Inaudible] Friant-Kern Canal
>> Chris Kapheim: Friant-Kern Canal, and so we have a lot of landowners who farm
in Friant and farm in Alta. And so they would say, you know, we got to fill out
this reclamation forms and all that and, you know, sometimes they'll -- you
know, confused, they don't have to fill them out in our district they do in the
other ones. But, you know, being exempt from the reclamation law, we don't come
under the acreage limitations and the issues applicable to that. And so that is
not a factor.
>> Doug Jensen: But it was a factor for larger land holdings downstream, down
river from us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How would that be a factor for them if reclamation law didn’t
apply?
>> Doug Jensen: Because they would have to limit their ownership to the 640
acres for example. And in the case of land in the Tulare Lake Basin, they were
holding thousands, tens of thousands of acres under one ownership and that was
not possible, would not have been possible if reclamation law applied.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Does this also mean that Kings River users are -- don't have
to have the same concerns that, say, San Joaquin River users have regards to
environmental concerns, especially the concerns up in the Delta with the smelt
and other fish?
>> Doug Jensen: That is correct because the Kings River is -- does not flow to
Delta and because it would general flow to the Tulare Lake Basin only in periods
of very, very high flows, would there be a hydraulic connection between the
Kings River and the San Joaquin River and therefore to the delta. So those same
sorts of concerns that they have on the San Joaquin River don't apply to the
Kings.
>> Chris Kapheim: But I think the -- all water courses have their own
environmental issues. We have a trout fishery and we've, you know, work with the
folks that are involved in that. And so, you know, being we're not maybe tied
directly to the delta issues. All water is kinda connected anyway and it is
important I think all water courses have to address their own environmental
issues. They all have environmental issues and until they have to work those
out.
>> Doug Jensen: And one of the things that's happened on the Kings is that those
units have voluntarily agreed to keep in a sense a minimum amount of water
behind the dam in what we call a temperature control pool meaning that that
water is cool. So during periods of low flow, during the fall for example, when
it's still warm, you wanna have a supply of cold water that you can send down
the water to keep the trout alive as Chris says.
>> Chris Kapheim: And then to actually distribute that water, you needed a
banking arrangement between those districts that are in that reach which is
Fresno, Alta and consolidated now. In years past, we didn't have to do many
projects jointly but we did that one. So we had to learn how to -- how they make
those releases and to operate that 'cause we're the ones putting the three
districts, we're the ones putting the water in to make that fishery enhancement
work and we have and it's worked very successfully.
>> Doug Jensen: Plus in that often involves a release of water when there's no
irrigation demand. So as Chris, as we've been trying to work together to in a
sense to retrieve that water, then the Kings River units have also put up
substantial amount of money over the years usually, you know, low six figures
per year for habitat enhancement and studies to ensure the health of that cold
water fishery.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is Alta Irrigation District and the other Kings River users
subject to California environmental laws like CEQA, the California Environment
Quality Act, is that been a problematic issue?
>> Doug Jensen: Not, not really and I think partly the reason is that we've
taken voluntary steps to avoid those kinds of lawsuits.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Just in terms of water quality maintenance or regulation, has
there been any sense of a movement towards more of a statewide water management
system in your opinions over the last?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think the state would like and have shown interest in going
towards more of a state controlled system, talked about it for 20 years. I think
that we've -- we look at really as a state-local partnership where on the -- on
the local side the state is involved in some cases putting up grant money and is
–- and involve another ways. But it's really a state and local partnership. And
I think whenever it swings one way or the other, it doesn't work. But when you
have a true partnership, I think people have to respect their boundaries and I
think when people don't respect their boundaries is when you have problems. And
thus far, the state is doing their thing and I think the local agencies are
doing theirs.
>> Doug Jensen: And the state I think naturally wants to control all of that
resource within its state boundaries so there's -- I'll say a creep in terms of
increasing state presence and regulation especially with regard to groundwater
and California is one of, let's say a few states, in which the groundwater is
owned by the owner of the overlying land and is part of that private property
right and the state would like to control much more of the groundwater, quantity
and quality.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And as I understand a lot of growers and other users of
groundwater have resisted this effort from the state to control and -- at least
regulate groundwater.
>> Doug Jensen: True partially because that groundwater is like the savings
account in the bank, in the dry year that's what you can use. So if it's
controlled by the state, the individual land owner may be unable to use that
water.
>> Chris Kapheim: And we live in the local communities and we have a board
meeting. The land owners can come look us in the eye and we work out our issues.
When you're in Sacramento or Washington I think the issue -- is the state and
the federal government really gonna look at the land owner's best interest in
terms to where that water goes and so I mean that's it's a matter of trust.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do large number of the growers in Alta Irrigation District
also draw on groundwater on a regular basis?
>> Chris Kapheim: They do on the dry years. I mean it's truly a conjunctive use
system. I think it's a success story because, you know, we have -- when we have
ample surface water supplies, we insensibly priced it so that it gets used and
so they don't -- the whole deal is to protect the groundwater. So when you get
in those five or six critically dry years or even two or three critical dry
years, there's sufficient supply to make it through. We've had -- I remember in
1992, was the six year -- sixth dry year in a row. Now we had a tough time,
barely made it, '77, '78. We did everything we could to make sure we could
maintain that groundwater to make it through those dry years. If you don't do
that, you get into trouble.
>> Doug Jensen: And you maintain those groundwater levels and supply by using
the surface water instead of the groundwater. It's what we call in lieu recharge
namely, use the surface water, leave the groundwater in place for -- can't say a
rainy day but a dry day.
>> Chris Kapheim: The best groundwater recharge is to turn off the pumps. Now in
the dry years when there's no other supply, you don't really have a choice. But
on the wet years, I remember one time someone said, "Yeah, you guys in ag have
to insensibly price your water." They have to insensibly pressure your water. So
we did. I said, "When we have the surface water, we -- the price it low as an
incentive." So they use it. So they don't use the groundwater and those wet
years 'cause if we do we'll be in trouble.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In a sense at this point as to the status of the water table
-- I mean large portions of the valley it seemed pretty and seriously -- serious
declines in their water table, people digging, drilling down further and further
to reach water in the aquifers . How is it stand now in Alta
>> Doug Jensen: In ours -- our water table is -- has come up. We've had two wet
years, very wet years and, you know, it goes up in the wet years and goes down
in the dry years. And so it's a balance to address that, you know, change in
groundwater use but, you know, at this point, we've been able to manage that and
move on.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Does the district engage in all, you know, water banking or
other types of aquifer recharge.
>> Chris Kapheim: Yeah, we have several -- one we finished and one we’re –we’re just we'll be finishing this winter a water bank and it's -- incentive on
that or vision on that is to develop urban water supplies that yield on those
projects will ultimately be served to -- for drinking water that on the east
side of our district where there's ground water quality issues where they -- on
a long term basis will have and have had difficulty sustaining in some certain
areas meeting the drinking water standards that on a long term basis this is the
plan and it may -- it will take many years to get in the place but we're
developing the water supply for that now.
>> Doug Jensen: But from that time of the first diversions out of the river into
canals and ditches, that will recharge because there will be seepage and that's
going to right to the ground water table so not all the water that you divert
from the river gets to the farm and the difference, there's some evaporation but
most of the difference it’s recharging the underground.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Since a lot of groundwater tends to move a lot through the
soil including in and out of the river is the district's groundwater management
plan done in conjunction with the other districts in the cities and on the
river?
>> Chris Kapheim: You know, I think that there's two ways to look at the
groundwater management plan. We look at it as a district but we've also form the
-- a kind of a basin-wide plan. Water really doesn't know the individual
boundaries as it's going through this water course. And so we are -- we've
developed a model and we have looked at the long term implications and where the
long term impacts from a basin-wide perspective. And I think that, that's really
gonna hold the long term value is looking at it in that means.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When I was sort of looking through the Alta Irrigation
District's website I came across references to something called the Southern San
Joaquin Water Quality Coalition?
>> Doug Jensen: Yeah, they formed a coalition some years back to look at all the
myriad of water quality issues, irrigated lands program and others and to look
at the Kings, Kaweah, Tule and Kern look at the -- from the broader perspective
how to address those issues and that's the genesis of that.
>> Chris Kapheim: And part of what the district does is try to educate land
owners with regard to the use of chemicals for example in order to avoid
contamination of either groundwater or the surface stream.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Has water quality been a serious issue in the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: Nitrates are an issue. And people asked where they come from.
Don't really know. One time there's small grade B dairies and whether it's a
legacy issue from that or naturally occurring. We're not applying as much
nitrogen as we did in the past and yet the numbers seem higher. So that's gonna
take more study. I think our solution is let's look at, A) making sure
communities that can't meet the drinking water standard on a long term basis
can. And then once we do that let's look at what's causing the issues.
>> Thomas Holyoke: The emphasis in the state legislature of the last couple of
years about the need to build significant new water infrastructure leading into
this, you know, hypothetical bond issue we may or may not have in a few years.
Does Alta irrigation had a stake in this?
>> Chris Kapheim: Well, I mean right now, a lot of regulations that got put in
to that 2009 process are –- we have to comply with them. We're working with them
on a daily basis now. In terms of the bond in 2012, I have no idea if that's
gonna pass or not. But the polls don't look very favorable right now. But all
the regulatory actions that measurement, the pricing, the methodology for water
efficiency and we’re wrapped up in that right now trying to work through that
and see where that goes.
>> Doug Jensen: But I don't think that the much if or any direct financial
benefit to Alta in terms of conveyance facilities for example within Alta. There
maybe an indirect benefit in that if the folks who use water that's transported
through the Delta, say on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and in
Southern California, if they could be assured of a firm -- a more firm supply of
better quality water, then they probably would not be seeking to get water that
we use.
>> Chris Kapheim: And the three billion in storage was a big deal. I think they
had to give a lot for that. There're people on both sides on that issue. But
we'll see in 2012 what the bottom looks like. [Laughter] Is it gonna look like
it did in 2009 or is it gonna look different? I think all of those issues are
still our there right now.
>> Thomas Holyoke: It hadn't occurred to me to ask, has there been issues at the
-- on Kings River water with Southern California trying to acquire water rights
there and take water?
>> Doug Jensen: Not directly but Southern California for example has worked out
an arrangement. Was it San Diego and Imperial? For example, I mentioned the
canals and I believe that which ever Southern California agency or city put up
the capital to allow that district to line its canals thereby reduce seepage and
groundwater recharge and then the city got the benefit of that avoided seepage.
But here in our area, I know there had been some discussions about, well, could
we use money from Southern California to save water and then share that savings
but at least so far I'm not -- certainly not in Kings River has that ever come
to fruition.
>> Chris Kapheim: We look at the water as a regional benefit. Long-term I can't
tell you though. I know they'll be more urban growth and things and I think
water will be used, but it'll be used to the benefit of the region. And we wanna
keep the water in the region for those regional benefits.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So make a concern then with if any particular user wants to
sell their water rights off to Southern California?
>> Chris Kapheim: We would not let that happen.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's been a political football because some land owners
think--well, I as a land owner have a right that I can sell but the original
idea of the irrigation district was based on a cooperation among all of the land
owners in terms of holding on to and being a steward of those water rights. So I
think it's pretty clear that the district holds the water rights as a steward
for the benefit of all the land owners in the district.
>> Chris Kapheim: And it's our primary interest that we are the water rights and
that's what it really the essence of being of a district is, and so it's of a
primary importance.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Looking towards the future what would you say are the biggest
challenges to the district, to water in general in California, to farmers?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think that the farmers have shown great resiliency. They->> Doug Jensen: Sufficiency.
>> Chris Kapheim: Sufficiency, the dry years come and people say, well, they
can't make it but they do somehow. They tend to adapt to government regulations
somehow. I think we're gonna have a lot more urban growth. When you look at
where people can go in California, you know, eventually they're going to run out
of area on either side of the Tehachapi’s and we're gonna have a lot more people
here. And I think that yet ag I think is -- there's a strong infrastructure for
ag here and it will be here -- certainly won't be because the irrigation
districts why ag goes out, farming for this area. And so I think it's the
balancing of all those interests is probably the biggest issue that's gonna put
in front of the district. And I think also to preserve local control. So many
folks for some reasons, say, "You know, we don't want the locals." But I think
most people, who do they trust? When it gets down to the essential question who
do they really trust? Most people trust the local folks that they see, they know
they can go talk to rather than somebody in some far away place that may look
after their interests and may not.
>> Doug Jensen: 'Cause it's awfully easy for any land owner in Alta to call
Chris or one of the directors. Going up to Sacramento, this takes times and
expense. Going back to Washington I'd be interested to know how many of our land
owners in Alta have ever been to Washington, DC for example or even Sacramento
for that matter. So being able to talk to your neighbor who is on the board is a
lot more comforting than being governed by somebody far away.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any final thoughts, anything important that I some how
missed?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, I've talked to a number of clients and business people
recently and I said if there is one commodity that you could own that would be
good for generations, it would be water. And so the fact that the district holds
these increasingly valuable rights, means I think we'll see more high value
crops planted in the district. Chris is right. There's gonna be a competition
with urban areas who basically can afford to pay more for water than ag can. And
so the sort of cooperation that Chris has established in Alta between the ag
consumers and urban areas, I think is a good harbinger for the future.
>> Chris Kapheim: And I think one way to look at it is the water districts,
irrigation districts, mutual water companies are true success stories. I mean
they've gone through all different legislative and regulatory and mine fields
and somehow have been successful. And so probably will continue to be so.
>> Doug Jensen: And I think another factor on the Kings River in Alta as one of
the units is we're not importing water from another watershed or another river.
We're not subject to those kinds of political pressures that are suffered by the
south, the folks getting water from the San Joaquin River because Kings River is
our water source and we don't have to go through a lot of conveyance facilities
and politics to use the water.
>> Chris Kapheim: But I think a lot of the people have lived here many
generations. And so there's real positive trends that'll continue in the future.
And so I think with that I know when people come here we've done tours with
people from Southern California, they like that. They see that people have made
investments over time and their kids and grand kids have gone to, you know,
similar area schools and that there's a reason why they stay there.
>> Doug Jensen: And I think even in recent years the fact of the -- a firm
supply of good quality water coming from the King's River has had an effect on
demand to buy and develop the land in Alta for example. So it is a success story
and we get the benefit.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Thank you very much.
>> Doug Jensen: Thank you.
[ Silence ]
>> Thomas Holyoke: We are talking with Chris Kapheim and Doug Jensen. We're
talking about Alta Irrigation District, the Kings River. And we can also talk
about water more broadly in California, in the American West and absolute
wherever we want to. But let's start with the Kings River and to get a sense
with the history the Kings River particularly the early agricultural development
along the river. I mean do you know a lot about the history, really ag in that
part of the valley?
>> Doug Jensen: Yes, there is some names connected with it. One of them is Moses
Church and the fact that the location of the City of Fresno being within the
area that was serviced by the Kings River meant that there was early development
to divert water basically what, for dry-farm grain land on the plain on
basically either side of the Kings River but probably mostly to the west side,
Chris?
>> Chris Kapheim: Yeah. Our district was mainly in wheat in the early years. I
think they found out that the irrigating wheat did much better than dry-land
wheat. And so it helped bring in more water and then with the water came
diversification of crops and interest for the people. But we have old pictures
showing that the district pretty much all on wheat, large farms, and that, you
know, was the crop choice. I think Goshen, some of the -- Traver, a big wheat
distribution centers, some of the largest in the Western United States at that
time because of the predominance of wheat growing in the area.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's probably true because there were large tracks of land
that were purchased mostly from the federal government under for example the
college, the land grant college program. And that land would be productive and
profitable only with a couple of ingredients. One was the water as Chris says
but also the railroad to be able to transport the crops to market. So when we
got the railroads in, then I think that added to the profitability or potential
profitability and that probably been encouraged the investment of human and
financial capital to build the canals and ditches to actually get the water out
of the river bed and spread around. And in many cases, those canals and ditches
were built by private companies and the -- for the benefit of the land that was
being served by them and I've read that in many cases, a land owner would be
responsible for a particular section of canal to get it built. So even though it
was cooperative effort, there was some, I guess you'd say individual
accountability in terms of actually getting the canals built and of course that
was all done with teams and I don't know if the Fresno Scraper was on deck by
then or not but it was all done with mules and horses.
>> Chris Kapheim: Now we -- our district that the water kind of preceded the
population as a private company in the 1800s. It had very few canals but they
did bring in water to basically start the spurring agricultural growth and when
it went public is where the expansion really took place, and then by the turn of
the century, had it pretty much in place. When the district was a private
company, it had very few people. I think when the election took place in 1888,
it was like 314 people voted and they voted under a tree and they vote here and
they heard and -- but it wasn't a large population at that time. But after they
went public and started really expanding the canal system in which every way the
could, they -- the more people started coming and they saw the benefits of, you
know, the water, you know, in the growing of different types of ag crops.
>> Doug Jensen: And when I was in this private company was 76 land and ->> Chris Kapheim: Water company.
>> Doug Jensen: -- and water Company. And then when the election took place to
form Alta Irrigation District under what was the Wright Act and Alta was one of
the first ->> Chris Kapheim: Three. We were the first -- one of the first three to come in.
And the -- probably the first of the three to actually get the system built out
and then actually one of our board members went into the legislature to help
preserve the Wright Act because it was under review and so then he came back on
the board after he got through the legislative stent. And so it was a big thing.
It really developed the water rights in the system that we have today.
>> Doug Jensen: And as I recall when the new Alta Irrigation District bought out
the assets of the 76 Land and Water Company, do you recall, it -- was it 400,000
dollars?
>> Chris Kapheim: We had to--They had to put up a gold coin deposit with a -- I
guess when they -- if you're gonna be do an election of this type which was a
big deal in those days that do you wanna make sure your serious. So, I don't
know. There was -- So there was a gold coin deposit with the county clerk which
at that time was still in Visalia. And then it was like 400 or 410,000 dollars
to buy out all the assets of the private [inaudible]. So a lot of money now but
a lot of money back in the 1800s. And they really struggled. And a lot of
districts, when you look at the history of irrigation districts in Southern
California, there was a lot of irrigation districts, lot of them didn't make it,
and usually due to financial reasons. They just sold bonds. Some of them sold
illegally. Some said -- Some judges ruled that we sold them illegally. But
somehow, that we survived that financial turmoil because it was a big deal. I
think they used land owners, they use whatever methods they could to get the
system in place to get it so they could use it to start expanding the system and
diversify the agricultural base. But it wasn't easy and a lot of them fail.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you know any census to when diversions first started of
the Kings River for growers and along the river?
>> Doug Jensen: Definitely in the 1800s. And in fact, there were lots of
diversions, some of which were directed toward the Fresno area and some toward
Dinuba and the area served by Alta. But the -- there were many, many diversions
and an enormous amount of litigation and gunfights because of the conflicts
between those diverters and since we live in an area that is dry from a
meteorological standpoint, the water was in effect the equivalent of the
livelihood, so there was a lots of fights.
>> Chris Kapheim: It was a big thing. It was a big thing to take those parties
that were adjacent to river with riparian rights and actually make diversions to
go to a appropriative rights or using the water some place else. I mean,
there're all kinds of case law.
>> Doug Jensen: Places, oh yeah.
>> Chris Kapheim: You know to try to straighten those things out and, you know,
we've -- anyway, the appropriative rights did went out because we -- that's what
we're doing today. But, you know, their riparian rights, you know, I'm sure as
the irrigation started, they probably irrigated parcels close to ->> Doug Jensen: Close to the river.
>> Chris Kapheim: Close to the river and water courses as they could. But I
think, you know we had people that saw the vision that we can bring the water to
other places, the valley will bloom and it did.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Just -- So anyone watching this is clear. Could one of you
explain the difference between appropriative and riparian water rights?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, riparian rights which are based on the English common law
which was adopted by the legislature, that state of California, very soon after
the state was founded and I think that anniversary is Friday, perhaps, in any
event in 1850, but that riparian right basically said that if you own land,
that's adjacent to a river, and within the watershed of that river in other
words if a drop of rain falls on your property and instead of soaking in, drains
in to the river, then you're within the watershed, then you can use water from
the river in reasonable amounts basically, but you -- everybody along the river
can use water as well.
>> Doug Jensen: So, it's what we call co-relative right that if all three of us
had land on the river, we could use our share. An appropriative system is based
-- and sometimes called the Colorado System, is based mostly on mining concepts
and that's a first-in-time, first-in-right. So that if you're the first person
to take water out of the river, you don't have to stay or keep the water on land
that's adjacent to the river, you can take it offsite -- excuse me -- for mining
purposes for example. So two entirely different systems and one of the
fascinating parts about California Water Law is that since there was a lot of
mining in California, in the mining regions, they use the first-in-time, firstin-right, the state legislature adopted the riparian system and we've had an
interesting interaction between those two systems ever since. Then in 1914, the
California Legislature adopted a state control permit and license system in
which the state granted you a right to use water which could be in addition to
your riparian rights or appropriative rights but the state took control over the
surface water based on the theory that the state acting kind of as a king would
own all of the wildlife and the surface water. So that's why you've got in many
cases a riparian right on the river, an appropriative right on the river that
would be pre-1914. And then post-1914, state permits or licenses and there is
even a fourth category and that's Pueblo Law because during the time, the state
was part of Spain and Mexico, the Napoleonic Law applied and allow -- gave
priority to cities and missions that took water out of the river, City of Los
Angeles being the most common example.
>> Thomas Holyoke: [Inaudible] a messy legal system for ->> Doug Jensen: It's playing three dimensional checkers if not chess, makes if
fascinating.
>> Thomas Holyoke: A long history of litigation going along with it ->> Doug Jensen: Absolutely correct, yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In the early years on the Kings River, was there one system
that predominated it most, you know, land owners, divert water into a riparian
system or a ->> Doug Jensen: I agree with Chris. I think the land that was farmed, that was
riparian that it was next to the river, probably didn't have as much acreage
involved as the land away from the river because so much of the land was being
used for grain that you needed large acreages and so obviously you're gonna have
more of that away from the river than next to the river. Another factor there is
that land was granted generally by the federal government but sometimes by the
state government in big chunks. And under the riparian law, you -- if you've got
a piece that's adjacent to the river, you're riparian right applies only to the
smallest area that has been held under one ownership from the time that it was
patented out from a government to a private individual so you need a lot of
title work and title history in order to understand the extent of the riparian
acreage.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, now, this change over from the original 76 years
company to the creation of a public entity, irrigation district, why do that?
Why make this change? What's the advantage?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think -- that came from the bottom up, that the people look
at -- they were putting their investment, families, home, things that people
deemed important, and basically on the premise of land and having the water to
grow with crops. Especially after a few years, they started growing different
types of crops that other than green and they needed to have a supply of water.
And so they saw the vision and motivated the people to go to a public-type
district where people would have a say in the governance of the water. I think
it was that important of an issue and that wasn't a unanimous vote but it was
overwhelmingly supported by the people that voted at that time.
>> Doug Jensen: And the district has the power of assessment to levy a charge on
land. So in private arrangements maybe some folks paid and some folks didn't
pay. Whereas with the public agency with that power, if you didn't pay, then
your land could revert to the district who could put it up for auction and
collect their money. So it was a way I think to spread equitably the cost of
putting in not only the capital investment but also the operation and
maintenance and make sure that everybody was gonna pay and be on the same vote.
>> Chris Kapheim: I don't they ever would have been able to expand system as
fast as they did and respond to the people that wanted the water unless you went
to a public type system and that allowed for better financing and capital
investment and that's what it took to do and that's what they did.
>> Doug Jensen: And for that continuity, I think, you know, if everybody have
been happy with 76 then would still be in existence. But I think their ability
to extract money or labor or whatever from the land owners was limited.
>> Chris Kapheim: And a lot of the 76 board members were not from this area.
They were from San Francisco and other areas. They were there to make money,
profit. And I think once the local people started seeing the value of the water
-- and in our areas, always had a history of people living on the ranches and
still do. They wanted to be actively involved in the governance of the system
and that drove the process.
>> Doug Jensen: And one thing that's important about for what we call a
California Irrigation district and Alta is as we said one of the very first
examples is that the voting for board members is by residence. In order to be a
board member, you've got to have an interest in some real property in the
district. But to simply vote, all you need to do is be otherwise qualified
resident of the district. So it's residents voting. In some cases for example a
California water district, your vote -- you vote by land ownership. So it's
ownership voting versus residence voting.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What are the actual responsibilities then of an irrigation
district, does it build and maintain the canal system and the conveyance and
distribution system of the water?
>> Chris Kapheim: Really, there are several, and I think it has changed
overtime. Its primary responsibility is deliver water to the land owners. In our
case, agricultural user who depend on it to work with their conjunctive use
system with groundwater and surface water. I think overtime, the groundwater is
of course become more prominent into the -- with surface water and the
groundwater management almost has an equal role. And so I think the districts
today have the role of bringing in the surface water but you almost need that
surface water to balance with the groundwater. So those are the two primary
roles, is the groundwater management and the surface water distribution for land
owners.
>> Doug Jensen: Some irrigation districts also generate power because they have
water rights such that they can use the water, falling water for power
generation which is a great source of revenue for them. But in the case of Alta,
it does not own as district power generating facilities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So how -- where actually is Alta Irrigation District on the
Kings River?
>> Chris Kapheim: It's the only district of the 28 districts that are on the
Kings. It's east, totally east of the Kings River. And how I tell people and in
one sentence where it is, it's south of Fresno, north of Visalia, and east of
the Kings River. That's kind of the quick picture of where it is.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How big is the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: It's 130,000 acres in Fresno, predominantly in Fresno and
Tulare County and a small piece in the Kings County.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What kinds of crops are grown by the farmers in the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: We have about 38,000 acres of deciduous tree -- tree fruits,
peaches, plums, nectarines. About 13,000 acres of citrus and citrus seems to be
growing, recent time, and a variety of pomegranates and other types of crops
that are grown. But citrus and the deciduous tree fruit, and some grapes, but
the citrus and the tree fruit crops are the predominant crops.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Now just to jump back to water rights for a second, does an
irrigation district own the water rights, does it acquire the water rights when
it's created or are the water rights still held by the individual farmers?
>> Doug Jensen: No the water -- the water rights held by the district much as a
trustee might hold cash in trust for a beneficiary, the land owners and in fact
the beneficiary gets the benefit of that water. And part of the statutory
obligation of the district is to distribute that water ratably among the land
owners. In the case of Alta, since it’s one of 28 units on the Kings River, the
Kings River Water Association holds all of the state permits and licenses that
benefit the King's River service area. So Alta is one of these units that
benefits from the state licenses and then the district Alta and each one of the
other 27 units gets to divert water from the river according to a schedule that
it was worked out by agreement after a lot of litigation.
[ Laughter ]
>> Chris Kapheim: I think people had all kinds of ways to determine who should
take the water. Alta had its own method. We come up first with the highest one
and some say we took a disproportionate higher share than we should have. But,
you know, I think we all realized in the '20s that there's -- that we better
revert to a schedule and do it in organized manner and we've been working under
that schedule since the '20s.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's why Alta Irrigation District is called Alta meaning
in Spanish "high" 'cause ours is the first diversion, the highest diversion off
of the Kings River and it's always good to be near the head of the ditch. Like
they say, "I don't care if I to go heaven or hell, just put me at the head of
the ditch," right? [Laughter] 'Cause then you're pretty sure you're gonna get
your water and somebody isn't gonna short stop it as it flows downhill.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. So just make sure I'm getting this kind of understood.
So the state owns the water rights and then licenses them to the district and
it's growers as opposed to the state water resources control board?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, actually the state water resources control board is the
agency that acts on behalf of the State of California in allocating these water
rights. And so a water right is what we call the hereditament. There are some
discussions about whether or not it's a corporeal or incorporeal hereditament.
Well, what that's mean, that means some right that you can inherent. And since
this -- a water right holder doesn't own the molecules of water. They have a
right to use them. So it's a -- in legal terms called the use factory right that
you can use but you don't own the water and that's a -- like I should say
esoterically go principle. But like the king of England owned the land, the
state of California owns the molecules of water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Are there any cities or towns in the boundaries of Alta?
>> Chris Kapheim: Yes. We have two incorporated cities Dinuba and Reedley and
numerous unincorporated communities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And how does the -- if it all, does district interact with
them in terms of water allocation, are they involved with the district at all or
is that?
>> Chris Kapheim: Well, we have a philosophy, everybody pays in Alta including
people in the city because in the sense we all benefit by bringing the water in,
there's a benefit to people living in the city into the irrigation district,
farmers as well, now the farmer who's using the water, he pays a lot more. But
every lot does pay. I think in the -- as time has evolved and it's cheaper and
most of the communities just poked holes in the ground and get their water
supply from groundwater. I think on our east side we're seeing where there are
some interests of looking at surface water and we're looking at some long term
arrangements to address those needs. And so I think it is changing but as of
right now, we're not serving any of the urban areas of surface water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And you had mentioned that Alta was one I guess 28 irrigation
districts on the Kings.
>> Chris Kapheim: Not necessarily irrigation districts. There no -- at least one
California Water District. There are number of irrigation districts but there
are also entities called mutual water companies that are not public agencies per
se but they're private corporations in which ownership of stock gives you the
right to a certain share of the water owned by that entity.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And during these last few years, I supposed if water cut
backs and maybe in the past have -- all 28 been good neighbors?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think in the past, they didn't get along so well. Some say
they wouldn't even meet at the same town. I think they finally evolved to where
they would meet in the same town but not the same room. And so I think finally
we got to everybody in the same room and -- but I think we understand today, we
have a very valuable resource at south of the Delta and it's in our best effort
-- interest to work together and we do. I think the districts look at what needs
to be done and we have pulled together and achieved those goals.
>> Doug Jensen: And as a result of that agreement, there is a schedule that
shows that on any day of the year, depending on the flow of the river, there's a
schedule of which unit gets which water and it does vary by volume and some of
that is based on historic uses for example. But it was worked out by negotiation
so I mentioned the Kings River Water Association as being the group formed by
those 28 entities and those entities then pay an assessment to KRWA which pays
the water master to and force and interpret those schedules.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Most of the conflict between the districts and mutual
companies on the river, was it over simply water allocation in the amount of
waters?
>> Chris Kapheim: Some said Alta was taking too much water at the beginning.
There was a lot of lawsuits on that because we come out first. And I think as
you went down the river it probably just multiplied. I think that in the '20s
getting to a schedule probably reduced the litigation immensely, maybe it didn't
reduced the hard feelings, I think it took some issue, some time, like 50 years,
to get through some of those issues. But I think today, we've operate under the
schedule for a long period of time and we're very aggressive in terms of
environmental issues and other aspects that have come into play in recent time
and so it behooves us to work together, and we do.
>> Doug Jensen: And that water is -- first of all very high quality because it's
coming off the Sierra which is essentially a big granite black, I mean even
there are soil, it's mostly alluvium that came off that granite black. So that
it's high quality and it's so valuable that the units on the river I think are
more and more operating cooperatively to maximize the use of that resource.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Where does the development of Pine Flat Dam fit into the
history of the Kings River development and that's a major project in there.
>> Doug Jensen: It sure is and I explained it to some visitors from Sacramento
as a TiVo in other words before you could record a television show for example,
then you had to be home at 5 o'clock if you wanted to see the 5 o'clock news.
Well, if you didn't get home till 7 you are out of luck. With TiVo, you can hit
the button and if you wanna play it at 7 or 8 or 9 at night you can do that
because that snow pack, is just an above ground reservoir. It's just upside
down, it's -- all that snow is sitting on the sierra, it comes off when it
pleases and it will come off in the spring whereas most of our irrigation needs
are in the summer. So the dam simply delays the avail -- holds the water back
and makes it available when we need it most.
>> Chris Kapheim: And we -- our irrigation was much earlier, several months
earlier when we just took it off at the river, when the river ran, you took your
water. Today, you have more -- you're afforded more control and timing when you
wanna deliver your water to meet the particular needs of the land owners and it
was -- it is a time shift.
>> Doug Jensen: And there's also a flood control aspect. For example, Pine Flat
was built under auspices of the Corps of Engineers that in the United States
government is in charge of flood control. So that was extremely valuable because
as the river goes west, and the slope flattens out, any flooding will affect the
very large area of land especially in the Tulare Lake basin. So the real -well, a very important, if not primary purpose of Pine Flat was to prevent the
flooding of valuable farmland.
>> Chris Kapheim: It is interesting in 1954. They said it would never fail
because there's this big reservoir. In 1955, we had an extremely wet year, and
it -- the reservoir did fill up that next year.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Why is it that a federal agency comes in beyond the Corps of
Engineers and builds this dam, there hadn't been -- as I understand, federal
involvement before, why was it brought in then to build this?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, on the San Joaquin River and other rivers for example,
State of California initially was going to build that project but that was in
the '30s and the states simply didn't have the money and the federal government
did. So I think we mentioned that at the Friant, that was completed in 1948. So
I think that because the feds had enough money, had the capital to build that
project but the San Joaquin River is subject to reclamation law, that project
was build under auspices of the Bureau of Reclamation whereas Pine Flat as I
said was built by the Corps of Engineers.
>> Chris Kapheim: But all of our payment contracts are to the bureau, because
initially we went to the bureau to build it. But they were so busy building up
so many other projects that they couldn't build ours. So the Army Corps could
and did, end up building it, and -- but our repayment contracts did go to the
Bureau of Reclamation. So that's -- we paid ours off, I don't know 7, 8 years
ago. The last check went to the Bureau of Reclamation but that's who we end up
actually paying the check to.
>> Doug Jensen: And each entity spoke for a certain amount of storage and
therefore paid more. But even after paying off that capital loan entities still
pay for operation and maintenance of the facilities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How is it that the payments go to the Bureau of Reclamation
if the Army Corps built it?
>> Chris Kapheim: You know, I mean it's who -- I don't know, the initial of
contract may have been with the Bureau of Reclamation, I assumed they were. And
-- But, you know, when it came to build the reservoir the Army Corps built it
and there were the issues of irrigation versus flood control and those aspects
and then there's -- when the CVPIA and other things came in was the Kings, you
know, subject to those or not? And that was clarified, you know, in the '80s.
And because it wasn’t -- you know, it wasn't a Central Valley project so to
speak, and -- so anyway it was kind of interesting to us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Who operates the dam now?
>> Chris Kapheim: The Corps operates the dam. We make our requests for
deliveries. If it's not a flood control period, then the districts have the
authority to -- over the controls and then if it goes into a flood release
criteria and then the Corps takes over the release on the dam to protect the
facilities. And on the consulting with the local folks, they basically determine
what the flows are.
>> Doug Jensen: And there's a protocol, because of the flood control aspect that
there has to be flood -- empty space available to store water that comes down in
a flood and in order to keep control of the river, the Corps will release water,
to flood release in order to be sure there is enough empty space available for
snow melt.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When excess water comes down, flood water, does that -- does
the Corps then -- do they claim ownership of that water? Who owns water rights
on flood water like that?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, we maintained that those 28 entities with very, very few
exceptions own, have, hold all of the water rights on the river. And it's known
-- it’s fully appropriated. So if somebody now goes to the State Water Resources
Control Board and says, "Oh, I want some of the Kings River water." They are
told basically, "Sorry, it's all taken." So our position is that we can take any
of the water that comes down the river.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is excess -- part of your schedules then and did they up
excess water when there is excess water?
>> Doug Jensen: Well at some point, there is so much water that it's first come
first serve. If you can use it then you do, which gets to, I think, a main point
in that is that on average there's a flood release of 200 –- 250,000 acre feet a
year. Well it doesn't happen that way. It happens only in -- I'll say 3 or 4
years during any 10-year period. But if we could hold on to the water that now
leaves our service area because of these peak high flows, flood releases would
be a whole lot better off and Alta for example and other entities are trying to
hold on to that water not only behind the dam but also by using it on the
surface and storing it underground.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Something else you had mentioned, I just wanna come back to,
you mentioned that there was, you know some issues as to whether aspects of
reclamation law applied to the Kings River because the bureau would build the
dam and you'd mentioned CVPIA, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, you
didn't say it was the outcome, does it apply or doesn't?
>> Chris Kapheim: The Congress ruled in the '80s that by a specific vote of
Congress that it does not apply to ->> Doug Jensen: Reclamation law. It is a primarily flood control project, build
by the corps, reclamation law and its limitations do not apply.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And could you sort of talk a little bit about, maybe with
some of the advantages are in the sense that CVPIA has had some -- one might say
detrimental effects on, say, the San Joaquin River and some of the other rivers
that are part of the Central Valley Project, in what ways is the Kings River and
then -[ Simultaneous Talking ]
>> Chris Kapheim: One is the acreage limitation and we have a lot of -- we front
up to the Friant on our easterly boundary.
>> Doug Jensen: [Inaudible] Friant-Kern Canal
>> Chris Kapheim: Friant-Kern Canal, and so we have a lot of landowners who farm
in Friant and farm in Alta. And so they would say, you know, we got to fill out
this reclamation forms and all that and, you know, sometimes they'll -- you
know, confused, they don't have to fill them out in our district they do in the
other ones. But, you know, being exempt from the reclamation law, we don't come
under the acreage limitations and the issues applicable to that. And so that is
not a factor.
>> Doug Jensen: But it was a factor for larger land holdings downstream, down
river from us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How would that be a factor for them if reclamation law didn’t
apply?
>> Doug Jensen: Because they would have to limit their ownership to the 640
acres for example. And in the case of land in the Tulare Lake Basin, they were
holding thousands, tens of thousands of acres under one ownership and that was
not possible, would not have been possible if reclamation law applied.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Does this also mean that Kings River users are -- don't have
to have the same concerns that, say, San Joaquin River users have regards to
environmental concerns, especially the concerns up in the Delta with the smelt
and other fish?
>> Doug Jensen: That is correct because the Kings River is -- does not flow to
Delta and because it would general flow to the Tulare Lake Basin only in periods
of very, very high flows, would there be a hydraulic connection between the
Kings River and the San Joaquin River and therefore to the delta. So those same
sorts of concerns that they have on the San Joaquin River don't apply to the
Kings.
>> Chris Kapheim: But I think the -- all water courses have their own
environmental issues. We have a trout fishery and we've, you know, work with the
folks that are involved in that. And so, you know, being we're not maybe tied
directly to the delta issues. All water is kinda connected anyway and it is
important I think all water courses have to address their own environmental
issues. They all have environmental issues and until they have to work those
out.
>> Doug Jensen: And one of the things that's happened on the Kings is that those
units have voluntarily agreed to keep in a sense a minimum amount of water
behind the dam in what we call a temperature control pool meaning that that
water is cool. So during periods of low flow, during the fall for example, when
it's still warm, you wanna have a supply of cold water that you can send down
the water to keep the trout alive as Chris says.
>> Chris Kapheim: And then to actually distribute that water, you needed a
banking arrangement between those districts that are in that reach which is
Fresno, Alta and consolidated now. In years past, we didn't have to do many
projects jointly but we did that one. So we had to learn how to -- how they make
those releases and to operate that 'cause we're the ones putting the three
districts, we're the ones putting the water in to make that fishery enhancement
work and we have and it's worked very successfully.
>> Doug Jensen: Plus in that often involves a release of water when there's no
irrigation demand. So as Chris, as we've been trying to work together to in a
sense to retrieve that water, then the Kings River units have also put up
substantial amount of money over the years usually, you know, low six figures
per year for habitat enhancement and studies to ensure the health of that cold
water fishery.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is Alta Irrigation District and the other Kings River users
subject to California environmental laws like CEQA, the California Environment
Quality Act, is that been a problematic issue?
>> Doug Jensen: Not, not really and I think partly the reason is that we've
taken voluntary steps to avoid those kinds of lawsuits.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Just in terms of water quality maintenance or regulation, has
there been any sense of a movement towards more of a statewide water management
system in your opinions over the last?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think the state would like and have shown interest in going
towards more of a state controlled system, talked about it for 20 years. I think
that we've -- we look at really as a state-local partnership where on the -- on
the local side the state is involved in some cases putting up grant money and is
–- and involve another ways. But it's really a state and local partnership. And
I think whenever it swings one way or the other, it doesn't work. But when you
have a true partnership, I think people have to respect their boundaries and I
think when people don't respect their boundaries is when you have problems. And
thus far, the state is doing their thing and I think the local agencies are
doing theirs.
>> Doug Jensen: And the state I think naturally wants to control all of that
resource within its state boundaries so there's -- I'll say a creep in terms of
increasing state presence and regulation especially with regard to groundwater
and California is one of, let's say a few states, in which the groundwater is
owned by the owner of the overlying land and is part of that private property
right and the state would like to control much more of the groundwater, quantity
and quality.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And as I understand a lot of growers and other users of
groundwater have resisted this effort from the state to control and -- at least
regulate groundwater.
>> Doug Jensen: True partially because that groundwater is like the savings
account in the bank, in the dry year that's what you can use. So if it's
controlled by the state, the individual land owner may be unable to use that
water.
>> Chris Kapheim: And we live in the local communities and we have a board
meeting. The land owners can come look us in the eye and we work out our issues.
When you're in Sacramento or Washington I think the issue -- is the state and
the federal government really gonna look at the land owner's best interest in
terms to where that water goes and so I mean that's it's a matter of trust.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do large number of the growers in Alta Irrigation District
also draw on groundwater on a regular basis?
>> Chris Kapheim: They do on the dry years. I mean it's truly a conjunctive use
system. I think it's a success story because, you know, we have -- when we have
ample surface water supplies, we insensibly priced it so that it gets used and
so they don't -- the whole deal is to protect the groundwater. So when you get
in those five or six critically dry years or even two or three critical dry
years, there's sufficient supply to make it through. We've had -- I remember in
1992, was the six year -- sixth dry year in a row. Now we had a tough time,
barely made it, '77, '78. We did everything we could to make sure we could
maintain that groundwater to make it through those dry years. If you don't do
that, you get into trouble.
>> Doug Jensen: And you maintain those groundwater levels and supply by using
the surface water instead of the groundwater. It's what we call in lieu recharge
namely, use the surface water, leave the groundwater in place for -- can't say a
rainy day but a dry day.
>> Chris Kapheim: The best groundwater recharge is to turn off the pumps. Now in
the dry years when there's no other supply, you don't really have a choice. But
on the wet years, I remember one time someone said, "Yeah, you guys in ag have
to insensibly price your water." They have to insensibly pressure your water. So
we did. I said, "When we have the surface water, we -- the price it low as an
incentive." So they use it. So they don't use the groundwater and those wet
years 'cause if we do we'll be in trouble.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In a sense at this point as to the status of the water table
-- I mean large portions of the valley it seemed pretty and seriously -- serious
declines in their water table, people digging, drilling down further and further
to reach water in the aquifers . How is it stand now in Alta
>> Doug Jensen: In ours -- our water table is -- has come up. We've had two wet
years, very wet years and, you know, it goes up in the wet years and goes down
in the dry years. And so it's a balance to address that, you know, change in
groundwater use but, you know, at this point, we've been able to manage that and
move on.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Does the district engage in all, you know, water banking or
other types of aquifer recharge.
>> Chris Kapheim: Yeah, we have several -- one we finished and one we’re –we’re just we'll be finishing this winter a water bank and it's -- incentive on
that or vision on that is to develop urban water supplies that yield on those
projects will ultimately be served to -- for drinking water that on the east
side of our district where there's ground water quality issues where they -- on
a long term basis will have and have had difficulty sustaining in some certain
areas meeting the drinking water standards that on a long term basis this is the
plan and it may -- it will take many years to get in the place but we're
developing the water supply for that now.
>> Doug Jensen: But from that time of the first diversions out of the river into
canals and ditches, that will recharge because there will be seepage and that's
going to right to the ground water table so not all the water that you divert
from the river gets to the farm and the difference, there's some evaporation but
most of the difference it’s recharging the underground.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Since a lot of groundwater tends to move a lot through the
soil including in and out of the river is the district's groundwater management
plan done in conjunction with the other districts in the cities and on the
river?
>> Chris Kapheim: You know, I think that there's two ways to look at the
groundwater management plan. We look at it as a district but we've also form the
-- a kind of a basin-wide plan. Water really doesn't know the individual
boundaries as it's going through this water course. And so we are -- we've
developed a model and we have looked at the long term implications and where the
long term impacts from a basin-wide perspective. And I think that, that's really
gonna hold the long term value is looking at it in that means.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When I was sort of looking through the Alta Irrigation
District's website I came across references to something called the Southern San
Joaquin Water Quality Coalition?
>> Doug Jensen: Yeah, they formed a coalition some years back to look at all the
myriad of water quality issues, irrigated lands program and others and to look
at the Kings, Kaweah, Tule and Kern look at the -- from the broader perspective
how to address those issues and that's the genesis of that.
>> Chris Kapheim: And part of what the district does is try to educate land
owners with regard to the use of chemicals for example in order to avoid
contamination of either groundwater or the surface stream.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Has water quality been a serious issue in the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: Nitrates are an issue. And people asked where they come from.
Don't really know. One time there's small grade B dairies and whether it's a
legacy issue from that or naturally occurring. We're not applying as much
nitrogen as we did in the past and yet the numbers seem higher. So that's gonna
take more study. I think our solution is let's look at, A) making sure
communities that can't meet the drinking water standard on a long term basis
can. And then once we do that let's look at what's causing the issues.
>> Thomas Holyoke: The emphasis in the state legislature of the last couple of
years about the need to build significant new water infrastructure leading into
this, you know, hypothetical bond issue we may or may not have in a few years.
Does Alta irrigation had a stake in this?
>> Chris Kapheim: Well, I mean right now, a lot of regulations that got put in
to that 2009 process are –- we have to comply with them. We're working with them
on a daily basis now. In terms of the bond in 2012, I have no idea if that's
gonna pass or not. But the polls don't look very favorable right now. But all
the regulatory actions that measurement, the pricing, the methodology for water
efficiency and we’re wrapped up in that right now trying to work through that
and see where that goes.
>> Doug Jensen: But I don't think that the much if or any direct financial
benefit to Alta in terms of conveyance facilities for example within Alta. There
maybe an indirect benefit in that if the folks who use water that's transported
through the Delta, say on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and in
Southern California, if they could be assured of a firm -- a more firm supply of
better quality water, then they probably would not be seeking to get water that
we use.
>> Chris Kapheim: And the three billion in storage was a big deal. I think they
had to give a lot for that. There're people on both sides on that issue. But
we'll see in 2012 what the bottom looks like. [Laughter] Is it gonna look like
it did in 2009 or is it gonna look different? I think all of those issues are
still our there right now.
>> Thomas Holyoke: It hadn't occurred to me to ask, has there been issues at the
-- on Kings River water with Southern California trying to acquire water rights
there and take water?
>> Doug Jensen: Not directly but Southern California for example has worked out
an arrangement. Was it San Diego and Imperial? For example, I mentioned the
canals and I believe that which ever Southern California agency or city put up
the capital to allow that district to line its canals thereby reduce seepage and
groundwater recharge and then the city got the benefit of that avoided seepage.
But here in our area, I know there had been some discussions about, well, could
we use money from Southern California to save water and then share that savings
but at least so far I'm not -- certainly not in Kings River has that ever come
to fruition.
>> Chris Kapheim: We look at the water as a regional benefit. Long-term I can't
tell you though. I know they'll be more urban growth and things and I think
water will be used, but it'll be used to the benefit of the region. And we wanna
keep the water in the region for those regional benefits.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So make a concern then with if any particular user wants to
sell their water rights off to Southern California?
>> Chris Kapheim: We would not let that happen.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's been a political football because some land owners
think--well, I as a land owner have a right that I can sell but the original
idea of the irrigation district was based on a cooperation among all of the land
owners in terms of holding on to and being a steward of those water rights. So I
think it's pretty clear that the district holds the water rights as a steward
for the benefit of all the land owners in the district.
>> Chris Kapheim: And it's our primary interest that we are the water rights and
that's what it really the essence of being of a district is, and so it's of a
primary importance.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Looking towards the future what would you say are the biggest
challenges to the district, to water in general in California, to farmers?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think that the farmers have shown great resiliency. They->> Doug Jensen: Sufficiency.
>> Chris Kapheim: Sufficiency, the dry years come and people say, well, they
can't make it but they do somehow. They tend to adapt to government regulations
somehow. I think we're gonna have a lot more urban growth. When you look at
where people can go in California, you know, eventually they're going to run out
of area on either side of the Tehachapi’s and we're gonna have a lot more people
here. And I think that yet ag I think is -- there's a strong infrastructure for
ag here and it will be here -- certainly won't be because the irrigation
districts why ag goes out, farming for this area. And so I think it's the
balancing of all those interests is probably the biggest issue that's gonna put
in front of the district. And I think also to preserve local control. So many
folks for some reasons, say, "You know, we don't want the locals." But I think
most people, who do they trust? When it gets down to the essential question who
do they really trust? Most people trust the local folks that they see, they know
they can go talk to rather than somebody in some far away place that may look
after their interests and may not.
>> Doug Jensen: 'Cause it's awfully easy for any land owner in Alta to call
Chris or one of the directors. Going up to Sacramento, this takes times and
expense. Going back to Washington I'd be interested to know how many of our land
owners in Alta have ever been to Washington, DC for example or even Sacramento
for that matter. So being able to talk to your neighbor who is on the board is a
lot more comforting than being governed by somebody far away.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any final thoughts, anything important that I some how
missed?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, I've talked to a number of clients and business people
recently and I said if there is one commodity that you could own that would be
good for generations, it would be water. And so the fact that the district holds
these increasingly valuable rights, means I think we'll see more high value
crops planted in the district. Chris is right. There's gonna be a competition
with urban areas who basically can afford to pay more for water than ag can. And
so the sort of cooperation that Chris has established in Alta between the ag
consumers and urban areas, I think is a good harbinger for the future.
>> Chris Kapheim: And I think one way to look at it is the water districts,
irrigation districts, mutual water companies are true success stories. I mean
they've gone through all different legislative and regulatory and mine fields
and somehow have been successful. And so probably will continue to be so.
>> Doug Jensen: And I think another factor on the Kings River in Alta as one of
the units is we're not importing water from another watershed or another river.
We're not subject to those kinds of political pressures that are suffered by the
south, the folks getting water from the San Joaquin River because Kings River is
our water source and we don't have to go through a lot of conveyance facilities
and politics to use the water.
>> Chris Kapheim: But I think a lot of the people have lived here many
generations. And so there's real positive trends that'll continue in the future.
And so I think with that I know when people come here we've done tours with
people from Southern California, they like that. They see that people have made
investments over time and their kids and grand kids have gone to, you know,
similar area schools and that there's a reason why they stay there.
>> Doug Jensen: And I think even in recent years the fact of the -- a firm
supply of good quality water coming from the King's River has had an effect on
demand to buy and develop the land in Alta for example. So it is a success story
and we get the benefit.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Thank you very much.
>> Doug Jensen: Thank you.
[ Silence ]
talking about Alta Irrigation District, the Kings River. And we can also talk
about water more broadly in California, in the American West and absolute
wherever we want to. But let's start with the Kings River and to get a sense
with the history the Kings River particularly the early agricultural development
along the river. I mean do you know a lot about the history, really ag in that
part of the valley?
>> Doug Jensen: Yes, there is some names connected with it. One of them is Moses
Church and the fact that the location of the City of Fresno being within the
area that was serviced by the Kings River meant that there was early development
to divert water basically what, for dry-farm grain land on the plain on
basically either side of the Kings River but probably mostly to the west side,
Chris?
>> Chris Kapheim: Yeah. Our district was mainly in wheat in the early years. I
think they found out that the irrigating wheat did much better than dry-land
wheat. And so it helped bring in more water and then with the water came
diversification of crops and interest for the people. But we have old pictures
showing that the district pretty much all on wheat, large farms, and that, you
know, was the crop choice. I think Goshen, some of the -- Traver, a big wheat
distribution centers, some of the largest in the Western United States at that
time because of the predominance of wheat growing in the area.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's probably true because there were large tracks of land
that were purchased mostly from the federal government under for example the
college, the land grant college program. And that land would be productive and
profitable only with a couple of ingredients. One was the water as Chris says
but also the railroad to be able to transport the crops to market. So when we
got the railroads in, then I think that added to the profitability or potential
profitability and that probably been encouraged the investment of human and
financial capital to build the canals and ditches to actually get the water out
of the river bed and spread around. And in many cases, those canals and ditches
were built by private companies and the -- for the benefit of the land that was
being served by them and I've read that in many cases, a land owner would be
responsible for a particular section of canal to get it built. So even though it
was cooperative effort, there was some, I guess you'd say individual
accountability in terms of actually getting the canals built and of course that
was all done with teams and I don't know if the Fresno Scraper was on deck by
then or not but it was all done with mules and horses.
>> Chris Kapheim: Now we -- our district that the water kind of preceded the
population as a private company in the 1800s. It had very few canals but they
did bring in water to basically start the spurring agricultural growth and when
it went public is where the expansion really took place, and then by the turn of
the century, had it pretty much in place. When the district was a private
company, it had very few people. I think when the election took place in 1888,
it was like 314 people voted and they voted under a tree and they vote here and
they heard and -- but it wasn't a large population at that time. But after they
went public and started really expanding the canal system in which every way the
could, they -- the more people started coming and they saw the benefits of, you
know, the water, you know, in the growing of different types of ag crops.
>> Doug Jensen: And when I was in this private company was 76 land and ->> Chris Kapheim: Water company.
>> Doug Jensen: -- and water Company. And then when the election took place to
form Alta Irrigation District under what was the Wright Act and Alta was one of
the first ->> Chris Kapheim: Three. We were the first -- one of the first three to come in.
And the -- probably the first of the three to actually get the system built out
and then actually one of our board members went into the legislature to help
preserve the Wright Act because it was under review and so then he came back on
the board after he got through the legislative stent. And so it was a big thing.
It really developed the water rights in the system that we have today.
>> Doug Jensen: And as I recall when the new Alta Irrigation District bought out
the assets of the 76 Land and Water Company, do you recall, it -- was it 400,000
dollars?
>> Chris Kapheim: We had to--They had to put up a gold coin deposit with a -- I
guess when they -- if you're gonna be do an election of this type which was a
big deal in those days that do you wanna make sure your serious. So, I don't
know. There was -- So there was a gold coin deposit with the county clerk which
at that time was still in Visalia. And then it was like 400 or 410,000 dollars
to buy out all the assets of the private [inaudible]. So a lot of money now but
a lot of money back in the 1800s. And they really struggled. And a lot of
districts, when you look at the history of irrigation districts in Southern
California, there was a lot of irrigation districts, lot of them didn't make it,
and usually due to financial reasons. They just sold bonds. Some of them sold
illegally. Some said -- Some judges ruled that we sold them illegally. But
somehow, that we survived that financial turmoil because it was a big deal. I
think they used land owners, they use whatever methods they could to get the
system in place to get it so they could use it to start expanding the system and
diversify the agricultural base. But it wasn't easy and a lot of them fail.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you know any census to when diversions first started of
the Kings River for growers and along the river?
>> Doug Jensen: Definitely in the 1800s. And in fact, there were lots of
diversions, some of which were directed toward the Fresno area and some toward
Dinuba and the area served by Alta. But the -- there were many, many diversions
and an enormous amount of litigation and gunfights because of the conflicts
between those diverters and since we live in an area that is dry from a
meteorological standpoint, the water was in effect the equivalent of the
livelihood, so there was a lots of fights.
>> Chris Kapheim: It was a big thing. It was a big thing to take those parties
that were adjacent to river with riparian rights and actually make diversions to
go to a appropriative rights or using the water some place else. I mean,
there're all kinds of case law.
>> Doug Jensen: Places, oh yeah.
>> Chris Kapheim: You know to try to straighten those things out and, you know,
we've -- anyway, the appropriative rights did went out because we -- that's what
we're doing today. But, you know, their riparian rights, you know, I'm sure as
the irrigation started, they probably irrigated parcels close to ->> Doug Jensen: Close to the river.
>> Chris Kapheim: Close to the river and water courses as they could. But I
think, you know we had people that saw the vision that we can bring the water to
other places, the valley will bloom and it did.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Just -- So anyone watching this is clear. Could one of you
explain the difference between appropriative and riparian water rights?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, riparian rights which are based on the English common law
which was adopted by the legislature, that state of California, very soon after
the state was founded and I think that anniversary is Friday, perhaps, in any
event in 1850, but that riparian right basically said that if you own land,
that's adjacent to a river, and within the watershed of that river in other
words if a drop of rain falls on your property and instead of soaking in, drains
in to the river, then you're within the watershed, then you can use water from
the river in reasonable amounts basically, but you -- everybody along the river
can use water as well.
>> Doug Jensen: So, it's what we call co-relative right that if all three of us
had land on the river, we could use our share. An appropriative system is based
-- and sometimes called the Colorado System, is based mostly on mining concepts
and that's a first-in-time, first-in-right. So that if you're the first person
to take water out of the river, you don't have to stay or keep the water on land
that's adjacent to the river, you can take it offsite -- excuse me -- for mining
purposes for example. So two entirely different systems and one of the
fascinating parts about California Water Law is that since there was a lot of
mining in California, in the mining regions, they use the first-in-time, firstin-right, the state legislature adopted the riparian system and we've had an
interesting interaction between those two systems ever since. Then in 1914, the
California Legislature adopted a state control permit and license system in
which the state granted you a right to use water which could be in addition to
your riparian rights or appropriative rights but the state took control over the
surface water based on the theory that the state acting kind of as a king would
own all of the wildlife and the surface water. So that's why you've got in many
cases a riparian right on the river, an appropriative right on the river that
would be pre-1914. And then post-1914, state permits or licenses and there is
even a fourth category and that's Pueblo Law because during the time, the state
was part of Spain and Mexico, the Napoleonic Law applied and allow -- gave
priority to cities and missions that took water out of the river, City of Los
Angeles being the most common example.
>> Thomas Holyoke: [Inaudible] a messy legal system for ->> Doug Jensen: It's playing three dimensional checkers if not chess, makes if
fascinating.
>> Thomas Holyoke: A long history of litigation going along with it ->> Doug Jensen: Absolutely correct, yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In the early years on the Kings River, was there one system
that predominated it most, you know, land owners, divert water into a riparian
system or a ->> Doug Jensen: I agree with Chris. I think the land that was farmed, that was
riparian that it was next to the river, probably didn't have as much acreage
involved as the land away from the river because so much of the land was being
used for grain that you needed large acreages and so obviously you're gonna have
more of that away from the river than next to the river. Another factor there is
that land was granted generally by the federal government but sometimes by the
state government in big chunks. And under the riparian law, you -- if you've got
a piece that's adjacent to the river, you're riparian right applies only to the
smallest area that has been held under one ownership from the time that it was
patented out from a government to a private individual so you need a lot of
title work and title history in order to understand the extent of the riparian
acreage.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, now, this change over from the original 76 years
company to the creation of a public entity, irrigation district, why do that?
Why make this change? What's the advantage?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think -- that came from the bottom up, that the people look
at -- they were putting their investment, families, home, things that people
deemed important, and basically on the premise of land and having the water to
grow with crops. Especially after a few years, they started growing different
types of crops that other than green and they needed to have a supply of water.
And so they saw the vision and motivated the people to go to a public-type
district where people would have a say in the governance of the water. I think
it was that important of an issue and that wasn't a unanimous vote but it was
overwhelmingly supported by the people that voted at that time.
>> Doug Jensen: And the district has the power of assessment to levy a charge on
land. So in private arrangements maybe some folks paid and some folks didn't
pay. Whereas with the public agency with that power, if you didn't pay, then
your land could revert to the district who could put it up for auction and
collect their money. So it was a way I think to spread equitably the cost of
putting in not only the capital investment but also the operation and
maintenance and make sure that everybody was gonna pay and be on the same vote.
>> Chris Kapheim: I don't they ever would have been able to expand system as
fast as they did and respond to the people that wanted the water unless you went
to a public type system and that allowed for better financing and capital
investment and that's what it took to do and that's what they did.
>> Doug Jensen: And for that continuity, I think, you know, if everybody have
been happy with 76 then would still be in existence. But I think their ability
to extract money or labor or whatever from the land owners was limited.
>> Chris Kapheim: And a lot of the 76 board members were not from this area.
They were from San Francisco and other areas. They were there to make money,
profit. And I think once the local people started seeing the value of the water
-- and in our areas, always had a history of people living on the ranches and
still do. They wanted to be actively involved in the governance of the system
and that drove the process.
>> Doug Jensen: And one thing that's important about for what we call a
California Irrigation district and Alta is as we said one of the very first
examples is that the voting for board members is by residence. In order to be a
board member, you've got to have an interest in some real property in the
district. But to simply vote, all you need to do is be otherwise qualified
resident of the district. So it's residents voting. In some cases for example a
California water district, your vote -- you vote by land ownership. So it's
ownership voting versus residence voting.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What are the actual responsibilities then of an irrigation
district, does it build and maintain the canal system and the conveyance and
distribution system of the water?
>> Chris Kapheim: Really, there are several, and I think it has changed
overtime. Its primary responsibility is deliver water to the land owners. In our
case, agricultural user who depend on it to work with their conjunctive use
system with groundwater and surface water. I think overtime, the groundwater is
of course become more prominent into the -- with surface water and the
groundwater management almost has an equal role. And so I think the districts
today have the role of bringing in the surface water but you almost need that
surface water to balance with the groundwater. So those are the two primary
roles, is the groundwater management and the surface water distribution for land
owners.
>> Doug Jensen: Some irrigation districts also generate power because they have
water rights such that they can use the water, falling water for power
generation which is a great source of revenue for them. But in the case of Alta,
it does not own as district power generating facilities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So how -- where actually is Alta Irrigation District on the
Kings River?
>> Chris Kapheim: It's the only district of the 28 districts that are on the
Kings. It's east, totally east of the Kings River. And how I tell people and in
one sentence where it is, it's south of Fresno, north of Visalia, and east of
the Kings River. That's kind of the quick picture of where it is.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How big is the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: It's 130,000 acres in Fresno, predominantly in Fresno and
Tulare County and a small piece in the Kings County.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What kinds of crops are grown by the farmers in the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: We have about 38,000 acres of deciduous tree -- tree fruits,
peaches, plums, nectarines. About 13,000 acres of citrus and citrus seems to be
growing, recent time, and a variety of pomegranates and other types of crops
that are grown. But citrus and the deciduous tree fruit, and some grapes, but
the citrus and the tree fruit crops are the predominant crops.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Now just to jump back to water rights for a second, does an
irrigation district own the water rights, does it acquire the water rights when
it's created or are the water rights still held by the individual farmers?
>> Doug Jensen: No the water -- the water rights held by the district much as a
trustee might hold cash in trust for a beneficiary, the land owners and in fact
the beneficiary gets the benefit of that water. And part of the statutory
obligation of the district is to distribute that water ratably among the land
owners. In the case of Alta, since it’s one of 28 units on the Kings River, the
Kings River Water Association holds all of the state permits and licenses that
benefit the King's River service area. So Alta is one of these units that
benefits from the state licenses and then the district Alta and each one of the
other 27 units gets to divert water from the river according to a schedule that
it was worked out by agreement after a lot of litigation.
[ Laughter ]
>> Chris Kapheim: I think people had all kinds of ways to determine who should
take the water. Alta had its own method. We come up first with the highest one
and some say we took a disproportionate higher share than we should have. But,
you know, I think we all realized in the '20s that there's -- that we better
revert to a schedule and do it in organized manner and we've been working under
that schedule since the '20s.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's why Alta Irrigation District is called Alta meaning
in Spanish "high" 'cause ours is the first diversion, the highest diversion off
of the Kings River and it's always good to be near the head of the ditch. Like
they say, "I don't care if I to go heaven or hell, just put me at the head of
the ditch," right? [Laughter] 'Cause then you're pretty sure you're gonna get
your water and somebody isn't gonna short stop it as it flows downhill.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. So just make sure I'm getting this kind of understood.
So the state owns the water rights and then licenses them to the district and
it's growers as opposed to the state water resources control board?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, actually the state water resources control board is the
agency that acts on behalf of the State of California in allocating these water
rights. And so a water right is what we call the hereditament. There are some
discussions about whether or not it's a corporeal or incorporeal hereditament.
Well, what that's mean, that means some right that you can inherent. And since
this -- a water right holder doesn't own the molecules of water. They have a
right to use them. So it's a -- in legal terms called the use factory right that
you can use but you don't own the water and that's a -- like I should say
esoterically go principle. But like the king of England owned the land, the
state of California owns the molecules of water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Are there any cities or towns in the boundaries of Alta?
>> Chris Kapheim: Yes. We have two incorporated cities Dinuba and Reedley and
numerous unincorporated communities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And how does the -- if it all, does district interact with
them in terms of water allocation, are they involved with the district at all or
is that?
>> Chris Kapheim: Well, we have a philosophy, everybody pays in Alta including
people in the city because in the sense we all benefit by bringing the water in,
there's a benefit to people living in the city into the irrigation district,
farmers as well, now the farmer who's using the water, he pays a lot more. But
every lot does pay. I think in the -- as time has evolved and it's cheaper and
most of the communities just poked holes in the ground and get their water
supply from groundwater. I think on our east side we're seeing where there are
some interests of looking at surface water and we're looking at some long term
arrangements to address those needs. And so I think it is changing but as of
right now, we're not serving any of the urban areas of surface water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And you had mentioned that Alta was one I guess 28 irrigation
districts on the Kings.
>> Chris Kapheim: Not necessarily irrigation districts. There no -- at least one
California Water District. There are number of irrigation districts but there
are also entities called mutual water companies that are not public agencies per
se but they're private corporations in which ownership of stock gives you the
right to a certain share of the water owned by that entity.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And during these last few years, I supposed if water cut
backs and maybe in the past have -- all 28 been good neighbors?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think in the past, they didn't get along so well. Some say
they wouldn't even meet at the same town. I think they finally evolved to where
they would meet in the same town but not the same room. And so I think finally
we got to everybody in the same room and -- but I think we understand today, we
have a very valuable resource at south of the Delta and it's in our best effort
-- interest to work together and we do. I think the districts look at what needs
to be done and we have pulled together and achieved those goals.
>> Doug Jensen: And as a result of that agreement, there is a schedule that
shows that on any day of the year, depending on the flow of the river, there's a
schedule of which unit gets which water and it does vary by volume and some of
that is based on historic uses for example. But it was worked out by negotiation
so I mentioned the Kings River Water Association as being the group formed by
those 28 entities and those entities then pay an assessment to KRWA which pays
the water master to and force and interpret those schedules.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Most of the conflict between the districts and mutual
companies on the river, was it over simply water allocation in the amount of
waters?
>> Chris Kapheim: Some said Alta was taking too much water at the beginning.
There was a lot of lawsuits on that because we come out first. And I think as
you went down the river it probably just multiplied. I think that in the '20s
getting to a schedule probably reduced the litigation immensely, maybe it didn't
reduced the hard feelings, I think it took some issue, some time, like 50 years,
to get through some of those issues. But I think today, we've operate under the
schedule for a long period of time and we're very aggressive in terms of
environmental issues and other aspects that have come into play in recent time
and so it behooves us to work together, and we do.
>> Doug Jensen: And that water is -- first of all very high quality because it's
coming off the Sierra which is essentially a big granite black, I mean even
there are soil, it's mostly alluvium that came off that granite black. So that
it's high quality and it's so valuable that the units on the river I think are
more and more operating cooperatively to maximize the use of that resource.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Where does the development of Pine Flat Dam fit into the
history of the Kings River development and that's a major project in there.
>> Doug Jensen: It sure is and I explained it to some visitors from Sacramento
as a TiVo in other words before you could record a television show for example,
then you had to be home at 5 o'clock if you wanted to see the 5 o'clock news.
Well, if you didn't get home till 7 you are out of luck. With TiVo, you can hit
the button and if you wanna play it at 7 or 8 or 9 at night you can do that
because that snow pack, is just an above ground reservoir. It's just upside
down, it's -- all that snow is sitting on the sierra, it comes off when it
pleases and it will come off in the spring whereas most of our irrigation needs
are in the summer. So the dam simply delays the avail -- holds the water back
and makes it available when we need it most.
>> Chris Kapheim: And we -- our irrigation was much earlier, several months
earlier when we just took it off at the river, when the river ran, you took your
water. Today, you have more -- you're afforded more control and timing when you
wanna deliver your water to meet the particular needs of the land owners and it
was -- it is a time shift.
>> Doug Jensen: And there's also a flood control aspect. For example, Pine Flat
was built under auspices of the Corps of Engineers that in the United States
government is in charge of flood control. So that was extremely valuable because
as the river goes west, and the slope flattens out, any flooding will affect the
very large area of land especially in the Tulare Lake basin. So the real -well, a very important, if not primary purpose of Pine Flat was to prevent the
flooding of valuable farmland.
>> Chris Kapheim: It is interesting in 1954. They said it would never fail
because there's this big reservoir. In 1955, we had an extremely wet year, and
it -- the reservoir did fill up that next year.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Why is it that a federal agency comes in beyond the Corps of
Engineers and builds this dam, there hadn't been -- as I understand, federal
involvement before, why was it brought in then to build this?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, on the San Joaquin River and other rivers for example,
State of California initially was going to build that project but that was in
the '30s and the states simply didn't have the money and the federal government
did. So I think we mentioned that at the Friant, that was completed in 1948. So
I think that because the feds had enough money, had the capital to build that
project but the San Joaquin River is subject to reclamation law, that project
was build under auspices of the Bureau of Reclamation whereas Pine Flat as I
said was built by the Corps of Engineers.
>> Chris Kapheim: But all of our payment contracts are to the bureau, because
initially we went to the bureau to build it. But they were so busy building up
so many other projects that they couldn't build ours. So the Army Corps could
and did, end up building it, and -- but our repayment contracts did go to the
Bureau of Reclamation. So that's -- we paid ours off, I don't know 7, 8 years
ago. The last check went to the Bureau of Reclamation but that's who we end up
actually paying the check to.
>> Doug Jensen: And each entity spoke for a certain amount of storage and
therefore paid more. But even after paying off that capital loan entities still
pay for operation and maintenance of the facilities.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How is it that the payments go to the Bureau of Reclamation
if the Army Corps built it?
>> Chris Kapheim: You know, I mean it's who -- I don't know, the initial of
contract may have been with the Bureau of Reclamation, I assumed they were. And
-- But, you know, when it came to build the reservoir the Army Corps built it
and there were the issues of irrigation versus flood control and those aspects
and then there's -- when the CVPIA and other things came in was the Kings, you
know, subject to those or not? And that was clarified, you know, in the '80s.
And because it wasn’t -- you know, it wasn't a Central Valley project so to
speak, and -- so anyway it was kind of interesting to us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Who operates the dam now?
>> Chris Kapheim: The Corps operates the dam. We make our requests for
deliveries. If it's not a flood control period, then the districts have the
authority to -- over the controls and then if it goes into a flood release
criteria and then the Corps takes over the release on the dam to protect the
facilities. And on the consulting with the local folks, they basically determine
what the flows are.
>> Doug Jensen: And there's a protocol, because of the flood control aspect that
there has to be flood -- empty space available to store water that comes down in
a flood and in order to keep control of the river, the Corps will release water,
to flood release in order to be sure there is enough empty space available for
snow melt.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When excess water comes down, flood water, does that -- does
the Corps then -- do they claim ownership of that water? Who owns water rights
on flood water like that?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, we maintained that those 28 entities with very, very few
exceptions own, have, hold all of the water rights on the river. And it's known
-- it’s fully appropriated. So if somebody now goes to the State Water Resources
Control Board and says, "Oh, I want some of the Kings River water." They are
told basically, "Sorry, it's all taken." So our position is that we can take any
of the water that comes down the river.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is excess -- part of your schedules then and did they up
excess water when there is excess water?
>> Doug Jensen: Well at some point, there is so much water that it's first come
first serve. If you can use it then you do, which gets to, I think, a main point
in that is that on average there's a flood release of 200 –- 250,000 acre feet a
year. Well it doesn't happen that way. It happens only in -- I'll say 3 or 4
years during any 10-year period. But if we could hold on to the water that now
leaves our service area because of these peak high flows, flood releases would
be a whole lot better off and Alta for example and other entities are trying to
hold on to that water not only behind the dam but also by using it on the
surface and storing it underground.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Something else you had mentioned, I just wanna come back to,
you mentioned that there was, you know some issues as to whether aspects of
reclamation law applied to the Kings River because the bureau would build the
dam and you'd mentioned CVPIA, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, you
didn't say it was the outcome, does it apply or doesn't?
>> Chris Kapheim: The Congress ruled in the '80s that by a specific vote of
Congress that it does not apply to ->> Doug Jensen: Reclamation law. It is a primarily flood control project, build
by the corps, reclamation law and its limitations do not apply.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And could you sort of talk a little bit about, maybe with
some of the advantages are in the sense that CVPIA has had some -- one might say
detrimental effects on, say, the San Joaquin River and some of the other rivers
that are part of the Central Valley Project, in what ways is the Kings River and
then -[ Simultaneous Talking ]
>> Chris Kapheim: One is the acreage limitation and we have a lot of -- we front
up to the Friant on our easterly boundary.
>> Doug Jensen: [Inaudible] Friant-Kern Canal
>> Chris Kapheim: Friant-Kern Canal, and so we have a lot of landowners who farm
in Friant and farm in Alta. And so they would say, you know, we got to fill out
this reclamation forms and all that and, you know, sometimes they'll -- you
know, confused, they don't have to fill them out in our district they do in the
other ones. But, you know, being exempt from the reclamation law, we don't come
under the acreage limitations and the issues applicable to that. And so that is
not a factor.
>> Doug Jensen: But it was a factor for larger land holdings downstream, down
river from us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How would that be a factor for them if reclamation law didn’t
apply?
>> Doug Jensen: Because they would have to limit their ownership to the 640
acres for example. And in the case of land in the Tulare Lake Basin, they were
holding thousands, tens of thousands of acres under one ownership and that was
not possible, would not have been possible if reclamation law applied.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Does this also mean that Kings River users are -- don't have
to have the same concerns that, say, San Joaquin River users have regards to
environmental concerns, especially the concerns up in the Delta with the smelt
and other fish?
>> Doug Jensen: That is correct because the Kings River is -- does not flow to
Delta and because it would general flow to the Tulare Lake Basin only in periods
of very, very high flows, would there be a hydraulic connection between the
Kings River and the San Joaquin River and therefore to the delta. So those same
sorts of concerns that they have on the San Joaquin River don't apply to the
Kings.
>> Chris Kapheim: But I think the -- all water courses have their own
environmental issues. We have a trout fishery and we've, you know, work with the
folks that are involved in that. And so, you know, being we're not maybe tied
directly to the delta issues. All water is kinda connected anyway and it is
important I think all water courses have to address their own environmental
issues. They all have environmental issues and until they have to work those
out.
>> Doug Jensen: And one of the things that's happened on the Kings is that those
units have voluntarily agreed to keep in a sense a minimum amount of water
behind the dam in what we call a temperature control pool meaning that that
water is cool. So during periods of low flow, during the fall for example, when
it's still warm, you wanna have a supply of cold water that you can send down
the water to keep the trout alive as Chris says.
>> Chris Kapheim: And then to actually distribute that water, you needed a
banking arrangement between those districts that are in that reach which is
Fresno, Alta and consolidated now. In years past, we didn't have to do many
projects jointly but we did that one. So we had to learn how to -- how they make
those releases and to operate that 'cause we're the ones putting the three
districts, we're the ones putting the water in to make that fishery enhancement
work and we have and it's worked very successfully.
>> Doug Jensen: Plus in that often involves a release of water when there's no
irrigation demand. So as Chris, as we've been trying to work together to in a
sense to retrieve that water, then the Kings River units have also put up
substantial amount of money over the years usually, you know, low six figures
per year for habitat enhancement and studies to ensure the health of that cold
water fishery.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is Alta Irrigation District and the other Kings River users
subject to California environmental laws like CEQA, the California Environment
Quality Act, is that been a problematic issue?
>> Doug Jensen: Not, not really and I think partly the reason is that we've
taken voluntary steps to avoid those kinds of lawsuits.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Just in terms of water quality maintenance or regulation, has
there been any sense of a movement towards more of a statewide water management
system in your opinions over the last?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think the state would like and have shown interest in going
towards more of a state controlled system, talked about it for 20 years. I think
that we've -- we look at really as a state-local partnership where on the -- on
the local side the state is involved in some cases putting up grant money and is
–- and involve another ways. But it's really a state and local partnership. And
I think whenever it swings one way or the other, it doesn't work. But when you
have a true partnership, I think people have to respect their boundaries and I
think when people don't respect their boundaries is when you have problems. And
thus far, the state is doing their thing and I think the local agencies are
doing theirs.
>> Doug Jensen: And the state I think naturally wants to control all of that
resource within its state boundaries so there's -- I'll say a creep in terms of
increasing state presence and regulation especially with regard to groundwater
and California is one of, let's say a few states, in which the groundwater is
owned by the owner of the overlying land and is part of that private property
right and the state would like to control much more of the groundwater, quantity
and quality.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And as I understand a lot of growers and other users of
groundwater have resisted this effort from the state to control and -- at least
regulate groundwater.
>> Doug Jensen: True partially because that groundwater is like the savings
account in the bank, in the dry year that's what you can use. So if it's
controlled by the state, the individual land owner may be unable to use that
water.
>> Chris Kapheim: And we live in the local communities and we have a board
meeting. The land owners can come look us in the eye and we work out our issues.
When you're in Sacramento or Washington I think the issue -- is the state and
the federal government really gonna look at the land owner's best interest in
terms to where that water goes and so I mean that's it's a matter of trust.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do large number of the growers in Alta Irrigation District
also draw on groundwater on a regular basis?
>> Chris Kapheim: They do on the dry years. I mean it's truly a conjunctive use
system. I think it's a success story because, you know, we have -- when we have
ample surface water supplies, we insensibly priced it so that it gets used and
so they don't -- the whole deal is to protect the groundwater. So when you get
in those five or six critically dry years or even two or three critical dry
years, there's sufficient supply to make it through. We've had -- I remember in
1992, was the six year -- sixth dry year in a row. Now we had a tough time,
barely made it, '77, '78. We did everything we could to make sure we could
maintain that groundwater to make it through those dry years. If you don't do
that, you get into trouble.
>> Doug Jensen: And you maintain those groundwater levels and supply by using
the surface water instead of the groundwater. It's what we call in lieu recharge
namely, use the surface water, leave the groundwater in place for -- can't say a
rainy day but a dry day.
>> Chris Kapheim: The best groundwater recharge is to turn off the pumps. Now in
the dry years when there's no other supply, you don't really have a choice. But
on the wet years, I remember one time someone said, "Yeah, you guys in ag have
to insensibly price your water." They have to insensibly pressure your water. So
we did. I said, "When we have the surface water, we -- the price it low as an
incentive." So they use it. So they don't use the groundwater and those wet
years 'cause if we do we'll be in trouble.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In a sense at this point as to the status of the water table
-- I mean large portions of the valley it seemed pretty and seriously -- serious
declines in their water table, people digging, drilling down further and further
to reach water in the aquifers . How is it stand now in Alta
>> Doug Jensen: In ours -- our water table is -- has come up. We've had two wet
years, very wet years and, you know, it goes up in the wet years and goes down
in the dry years. And so it's a balance to address that, you know, change in
groundwater use but, you know, at this point, we've been able to manage that and
move on.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Does the district engage in all, you know, water banking or
other types of aquifer recharge.
>> Chris Kapheim: Yeah, we have several -- one we finished and one we’re –we’re just we'll be finishing this winter a water bank and it's -- incentive on
that or vision on that is to develop urban water supplies that yield on those
projects will ultimately be served to -- for drinking water that on the east
side of our district where there's ground water quality issues where they -- on
a long term basis will have and have had difficulty sustaining in some certain
areas meeting the drinking water standards that on a long term basis this is the
plan and it may -- it will take many years to get in the place but we're
developing the water supply for that now.
>> Doug Jensen: But from that time of the first diversions out of the river into
canals and ditches, that will recharge because there will be seepage and that's
going to right to the ground water table so not all the water that you divert
from the river gets to the farm and the difference, there's some evaporation but
most of the difference it’s recharging the underground.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Since a lot of groundwater tends to move a lot through the
soil including in and out of the river is the district's groundwater management
plan done in conjunction with the other districts in the cities and on the
river?
>> Chris Kapheim: You know, I think that there's two ways to look at the
groundwater management plan. We look at it as a district but we've also form the
-- a kind of a basin-wide plan. Water really doesn't know the individual
boundaries as it's going through this water course. And so we are -- we've
developed a model and we have looked at the long term implications and where the
long term impacts from a basin-wide perspective. And I think that, that's really
gonna hold the long term value is looking at it in that means.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When I was sort of looking through the Alta Irrigation
District's website I came across references to something called the Southern San
Joaquin Water Quality Coalition?
>> Doug Jensen: Yeah, they formed a coalition some years back to look at all the
myriad of water quality issues, irrigated lands program and others and to look
at the Kings, Kaweah, Tule and Kern look at the -- from the broader perspective
how to address those issues and that's the genesis of that.
>> Chris Kapheim: And part of what the district does is try to educate land
owners with regard to the use of chemicals for example in order to avoid
contamination of either groundwater or the surface stream.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Has water quality been a serious issue in the district?
>> Chris Kapheim: Nitrates are an issue. And people asked where they come from.
Don't really know. One time there's small grade B dairies and whether it's a
legacy issue from that or naturally occurring. We're not applying as much
nitrogen as we did in the past and yet the numbers seem higher. So that's gonna
take more study. I think our solution is let's look at, A) making sure
communities that can't meet the drinking water standard on a long term basis
can. And then once we do that let's look at what's causing the issues.
>> Thomas Holyoke: The emphasis in the state legislature of the last couple of
years about the need to build significant new water infrastructure leading into
this, you know, hypothetical bond issue we may or may not have in a few years.
Does Alta irrigation had a stake in this?
>> Chris Kapheim: Well, I mean right now, a lot of regulations that got put in
to that 2009 process are –- we have to comply with them. We're working with them
on a daily basis now. In terms of the bond in 2012, I have no idea if that's
gonna pass or not. But the polls don't look very favorable right now. But all
the regulatory actions that measurement, the pricing, the methodology for water
efficiency and we’re wrapped up in that right now trying to work through that
and see where that goes.
>> Doug Jensen: But I don't think that the much if or any direct financial
benefit to Alta in terms of conveyance facilities for example within Alta. There
maybe an indirect benefit in that if the folks who use water that's transported
through the Delta, say on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and in
Southern California, if they could be assured of a firm -- a more firm supply of
better quality water, then they probably would not be seeking to get water that
we use.
>> Chris Kapheim: And the three billion in storage was a big deal. I think they
had to give a lot for that. There're people on both sides on that issue. But
we'll see in 2012 what the bottom looks like. [Laughter] Is it gonna look like
it did in 2009 or is it gonna look different? I think all of those issues are
still our there right now.
>> Thomas Holyoke: It hadn't occurred to me to ask, has there been issues at the
-- on Kings River water with Southern California trying to acquire water rights
there and take water?
>> Doug Jensen: Not directly but Southern California for example has worked out
an arrangement. Was it San Diego and Imperial? For example, I mentioned the
canals and I believe that which ever Southern California agency or city put up
the capital to allow that district to line its canals thereby reduce seepage and
groundwater recharge and then the city got the benefit of that avoided seepage.
But here in our area, I know there had been some discussions about, well, could
we use money from Southern California to save water and then share that savings
but at least so far I'm not -- certainly not in Kings River has that ever come
to fruition.
>> Chris Kapheim: We look at the water as a regional benefit. Long-term I can't
tell you though. I know they'll be more urban growth and things and I think
water will be used, but it'll be used to the benefit of the region. And we wanna
keep the water in the region for those regional benefits.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So make a concern then with if any particular user wants to
sell their water rights off to Southern California?
>> Chris Kapheim: We would not let that happen.
>> Doug Jensen: And that's been a political football because some land owners
think--well, I as a land owner have a right that I can sell but the original
idea of the irrigation district was based on a cooperation among all of the land
owners in terms of holding on to and being a steward of those water rights. So I
think it's pretty clear that the district holds the water rights as a steward
for the benefit of all the land owners in the district.
>> Chris Kapheim: And it's our primary interest that we are the water rights and
that's what it really the essence of being of a district is, and so it's of a
primary importance.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Looking towards the future what would you say are the biggest
challenges to the district, to water in general in California, to farmers?
>> Chris Kapheim: I think that the farmers have shown great resiliency. They->> Doug Jensen: Sufficiency.
>> Chris Kapheim: Sufficiency, the dry years come and people say, well, they
can't make it but they do somehow. They tend to adapt to government regulations
somehow. I think we're gonna have a lot more urban growth. When you look at
where people can go in California, you know, eventually they're going to run out
of area on either side of the Tehachapi’s and we're gonna have a lot more people
here. And I think that yet ag I think is -- there's a strong infrastructure for
ag here and it will be here -- certainly won't be because the irrigation
districts why ag goes out, farming for this area. And so I think it's the
balancing of all those interests is probably the biggest issue that's gonna put
in front of the district. And I think also to preserve local control. So many
folks for some reasons, say, "You know, we don't want the locals." But I think
most people, who do they trust? When it gets down to the essential question who
do they really trust? Most people trust the local folks that they see, they know
they can go talk to rather than somebody in some far away place that may look
after their interests and may not.
>> Doug Jensen: 'Cause it's awfully easy for any land owner in Alta to call
Chris or one of the directors. Going up to Sacramento, this takes times and
expense. Going back to Washington I'd be interested to know how many of our land
owners in Alta have ever been to Washington, DC for example or even Sacramento
for that matter. So being able to talk to your neighbor who is on the board is a
lot more comforting than being governed by somebody far away.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any final thoughts, anything important that I some how
missed?
>> Doug Jensen: Well, I've talked to a number of clients and business people
recently and I said if there is one commodity that you could own that would be
good for generations, it would be water. And so the fact that the district holds
these increasingly valuable rights, means I think we'll see more high value
crops planted in the district. Chris is right. There's gonna be a competition
with urban areas who basically can afford to pay more for water than ag can. And
so the sort of cooperation that Chris has established in Alta between the ag
consumers and urban areas, I think is a good harbinger for the future.
>> Chris Kapheim: And I think one way to look at it is the water districts,
irrigation districts, mutual water companies are true success stories. I mean
they've gone through all different legislative and regulatory and mine fields
and somehow have been successful. And so probably will continue to be so.
>> Doug Jensen: And I think another factor on the Kings River in Alta as one of
the units is we're not importing water from another watershed or another river.
We're not subject to those kinds of political pressures that are suffered by the
south, the folks getting water from the San Joaquin River because Kings River is
our water source and we don't have to go through a lot of conveyance facilities
and politics to use the water.
>> Chris Kapheim: But I think a lot of the people have lived here many
generations. And so there's real positive trends that'll continue in the future.
And so I think with that I know when people come here we've done tours with
people from Southern California, they like that. They see that people have made
investments over time and their kids and grand kids have gone to, you know,
similar area schools and that there's a reason why they stay there.
>> Doug Jensen: And I think even in recent years the fact of the -- a firm
supply of good quality water coming from the King's River has had an effect on
demand to buy and develop the land in Alta for example. So it is a success story
and we get the benefit.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Thank you very much.
>> Doug Jensen: Thank you.
[ Silence ]