Western Riverside Service Review Area

22..00 WWEESSTTEERRNN RRIIVVEERRSSIIDDEE SSEERRVVIICCEE RREEVVIIEEWW AARREEAA Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 2.0 WESTERN RIVERSIDE SERVICE REVIEW AREA 2.1 AGENCY DESCRIPTIONS The following Table 2.1.1 lists water and wastewater agencies in the Western Riverside service review area. TABLE 2.1.1 – WESTERN REGION AGENCIES Riverside LAFCO Water And Wastewater Service Review Agencies February 2005 – Final Report 2-1 SECIVRES RETAW retaW elbatoP citsemoD liateR retaW elaselohW tnemtaerT retaW retaW demialceR-delcyceR tnemeganaM retawdnuorG SECIVRES RETAWETSAW noitcelloC reweS yratinaS tnemtaerT reweS yratinaS AERA ECIVRES YTNUOC ITLUM WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1. City of Corona X ● ● ● X ● ● 2. City of Hemet X ● ● X ● 3. City of Perris X ● X ● 4. City of Riverside X ● ● ● ● X ● ● 5. City of San Jacinto X ● X ● 6. Eastern Municipal Water District X ● ● ● ● X ● ● 7. Edgemont Community Services District X ● 8. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District X ● ● ● ● X ● ● 9. Elsinore Water District X ● ● 10. Home Gardens County Water District X ● 11. Home Gardens Sanitary District X ● 12. Jurupa Community Services District X ● X ● 13. Lake Hemet Municipal Water District X ● X ● 14. Lee Lake Water District X ● ● X ● ● 15. Murrieta County Water District X ● ● ● X ● 16. Rancho California Water District X ● ● X ● ● 17. Rubidoux Community Services District X ● ● X ● 18. San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District X ● ● X 19. West Valley Water District* X ● ● ● X 20. Western Municipal Water District X ● ● ● ● ● X ● ● *Formerly known as West San Bernardino Valley Water District Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) CITY OF CORONA The City of Corona provides potable water treatment and distribution and wastewater collection and treatment services. Recycled water is also produced and distributed. The City encompasses approximately 38 square miles, of which approximately 16 percent is vacant and considered developable. (cid:153) CITY OF HEMET The City of Hemet supplies potable water within a 5.25 square mile service area, approximately 20% of the City’s incorporated area. It also provides wastewater collection services to 13,600 customers. All sewage generated within the City is conveyed to the Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility, which is operated by Eastern Municipal Water District. (cid:153) CITY OF PERRIS No data was submitted by the City of Perris. (cid:153) CITY OF RIVERSIDE The City of Riverside provides potable water distribution, wastewater collection/treatment services and recycled water to customers. The water supply primarily comes from the Bunker Hill, Riverside North and Riverside South groundwater basins. (cid:153) CITY OF SAN JACINTO The City of San Jacinto provides potable water and wastewater collection service. The City has 12,296 existing water service connections and the primary water supply is from groundwater. Wastewater is collected and conveyed to the Eastern Municipal Water District system for treatment. (cid:153) EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) imports water to Riverside County and is a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). It provides domestic and agricultural water, wastewater collection/treatment and recycled water in a 555 square mile service area with a population of 520,000. The EMWD operates five wastewater treatment plants with a combined capacity of 49 MGD. Existing average annual flows total approximately 34 MGD. February 2005 – Final Report 2-2 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) EDGEMONT COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT Edgemont CSD provides wastewater collection and treatment services to an area of approximately 1,504 acres through a contract with the City of Riverside. (cid:153) ELSINORE WATER DISTRICT The Elsinore Water District (EWD) provides potable water distribution to a service area of approximately seven square miles with approximately 1,700 service connections. It maintains two separate water distribution systems both of which are located in older parts of Lake Elsinore and surrounding unincorporated areas. Water supply is from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) and from wells. (cid:153) ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) provides water service, water supply development and planning, wastewater treatment/disposal, and recycling. Currently, the district has over 24,500 water, wastewater and agricultural service connections. The EVMWD’s 97 square mile service area includes the cities of Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake and Murrieta (California Oaks), and several unincorporated communities in addition to a separate water system service area in Temescal Valley; the Temescal water system only serves agricultural users and does not allow new connections at this time. In the 1990s the Aguamansa, Alta Mesa and Meeks & Daley mutual water companies were merged into a new entity, the Meeks & Daley Mutual Water Company. The EVMWD and the County of Riverside are the primary shareholders of the Meeks & Daley Mutual Water Company. (cid:153) HOME GARDENS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Home Gardens County Water District has a service area of 232.5 acres and provides potable water service to 800 domestic customers. Water is supplied from the Western Municipal Water District via the City of Riverside and from groundwater. (cid:153) HOME GARDENS SANITARY DISTRICT Home Gardens Sanitary District provides wastewater collection and treatment within a 672-acre service area with 2,438 wastewater service connections. The sewer collection system is entirely gravity flow and the District owns one wastewater treatment plant, which is operated by the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority. February 2005 – Final Report 2-3 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The Jurupa Community Services District provides potable water and wastewater collection services to a population of approximately 60,000 within a 48 square mile service area. The District pumps its wastewater via the Jurupa Force Main Pipe to the City of Riverside's Regional Treatment Plant for treatment and disposal. The water supply comes from groundwater. (cid:153) LAKE HEMET MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Lake Hemet Municipal Water District (LHMWD) provides potable water, irrigation water and sewer collection services to residents of Hemet and San Jacinto as well as Garner Valley and surrounding unincorporated areas. There are approximately 13,636 domestic and 51 agricultural customers within a 26-square mile service area (cid:153) LEE LAKE WATER DISTRICT The Lee Lake Water District (LLWD) provides water distribution, recycled water, and sewer collection and treatment services to approximately 6,700 acres located in the Temescal Valley. All potable water is imported and supplied from the Western Municipal Water District. (cid:153) MURRIETA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Murrieta County Water District (MCWD) is the water and sewer purveyor for approximately 1,900 customers within the city limits of the City of Murrieta. The MCWD service area encompasses approximately 6.1 square miles. All of the District’s water currently comes from wells; the Eastern Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District treat the agency’s wastewater. (cid:153) RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) provides potable water, wastewater collection/treatment services, and recycled water within its 99,435-acre service area. The District pumps nearly half of its annual demand (30,000 acre-feet per year) from groundwater with the remaining water demands met with imported water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Eastern Municipal Water District. The District serves the City of Temecula, portions of the City of Murrieta and surrounding unincorporated areas of Riverside County. February 2005 – Final Report 2-4 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) RUBIDOUX COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) provides both potable and agricultural water treatment and distribution services and wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services to an 8.5 square mile service area with a service population of approximately 26,000. (cid:153) SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) encompasses about 325 square miles in southwestern San Bernardino County and has a population of 576,000. The SBVMD imports State Water Project (SWP) water and monitors groundwater supplies in the San Bernardino and Colton-Rialto basins as well as maintaining flows at Riverside Narrows on the Santa Ana River. The SBVMWD does not deliver water directly to retail water customers. The majority of the agency’s service area is within San Bernardino County. (cid:153) WEST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (FORMERLY WEST SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT) The West Valley Water District provides retail water service to a service area that encompasses 19,000 acres with an estimated population of 66,700. Only 310 acres are within Riverside County. The District relies on imported, ground, surface and recycled water for its supply. (cid:153) WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Western Municipal Water District (Western) supplies both wholesale and retail water (treated and untreated) and recycled water. It serves as the wastewater treatment system operator for two organizations within its service area-- the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority (WRCRWA) and March Air Reserve Base (MARB). The WRCRWA plant is a tertiary facility providing reclamation water for reuse or for discharge through an outfall to the Santa Ana River. It has a design capacity for eight million gallons per day (MGD) with the capability for expansion to 32 MGD. Water resource management is also provided throughout the District’s service area. 2.2 POPULATION AND GROWTH PROJECTIONS 2.2.1 Growth and Population—Regional Setting One of the determinations that LAFCO is required to make for service reviews includes growth and population projections. Accurate and consistent population and growth projections are critical in planning for the provision of future services and infrastructure. February 2005 – Final Report 2-5 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review The Riverside LAFCO survey asked the agencies to provide the current population and projected growth in five-year increments through 2025. Those projections are shown in the following charts and tables. The information submitted by the agencies was then aggregated by service review area and compared to countywide and sub-regional projections, where available, to evaluate the consistency of projections among agencies. Sources for countywide and sub- regional population projections were obtained from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Riverside County, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the United States Census and the California Department of Finance (DOF). The population projections from the wholesale agencies, whose population projections include retail agencies, were also used as a means of comparison. The rate of growth in Riverside County has frequently been cited as one of the fastest in southern California as well as in the nation with a ranking of fifth (5th) among California counties for the highest increase in population. Table 2.2.1 shows the change in the Census population for Riverside County from 1990 to the 2000 counts in comparison with other southern California counties. TABLE 2.2.1 CHANGE IN POPULATION FROM 1990-2000 County 1990 Census 2000 Census Change % Change Los Angeles 8,863,164 9,519,338 656,174 7% Orange 2,410,556 2,846,289 435,733 18% San Bernardino 1,418,380 1,709,434 291,054 21% San Diego 2,498,016 2,813,833 315,817 13% Riverside 1,170,413 1,545,387 374,974 32% Source: SCAG and US Census Data from the Census is used by the DOF and SCAG as the basis for future population projections. In Riverside County, WRCOG and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) use both the Census figures and the SCAG numbers in projecting future population growth. Table 2.2.2 compares the 2000 Census figures and projections from both DOF and WRCOG. February 2005 – Final Report 2-6 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review TABLE 2.2.2 REGIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1990 2000 2002 2003 2005 2010 2015 2020 United States Census Riverside County 1,170,413 1,545,387 Department of Finance (DOF) Riverside County 1,577,700 1,645,300 1,705,500 1,864,700 2,159,700 2,459,600 2,817,600 Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Western Riverside 1,559,554 2,085,500 County *Some numbers based on interim County projections, 2003 Overall, between 1994 and 1999, Riverside County grew by approximately 7%; during the same time, the western portion of the County grew by 6% or from 1,082,996 to 1,147,629 people1. The variations in population projections among the agencies range from 1%-5%. Countywide growth is projected to primarily be concentrated in the unincorporated areas because only 10% of the land area of Riverside County is incorporated (i.e., within the boundaries of a city). A majority of the municipalities and the incorporated territory in Riverside County is located in the Western Riverside service review area. Since current and future projections are most frequently based on municipal boundaries, population projections for the Western Riverside service review area are considered the most accurate out of all three service review regions. However, existing population figures and future projections are rarely projected for the service areas of special districts unless the district devotes staff for that purpose. This is a significant issue for predicting future service demands for smaller water and wastewater agencies where growth is expected and whose resources are limited. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The final OPR Guidelines for Municipal Service Reviews recommend that service review reports address environmental justice issues, including the provision of affordable housing. LAFCO has no legal authority to regulate land use or affordable housing production; however, information about affordable housing will be included in subsequent service reviews for cities. 1 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc., SCAG Regional Forecasts, 1998 Regional Transportation Plan, Department of Finance February 2005 – Final Report 2-7 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 2.2.2 Growth and Population—Western Riverside Service Review Area The population and growth responses from each agency are shown in the following Table 2.2.3, Water/Wastewater Service Population Projections. The population figures supplied by the agencies, by WRCOG and by the DOF are similar with a variation of 2-4%. It should be noted that the total population in Table 2.2.3 contains overlay as some areas are in two districts. Beyond ensuring that special districts, particularly smaller ones with more limited resources, can obtain population projections for their service areas, no other significant issues related to population and growth projections in the Western Riverside service review area were noted. TABLE 2.2.3 WATER/WASTEWATER SERVICE POPULATION PROJECTIONS EXISTING AGENCY POPULATION 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 City of Corona 137,600 142,000 148,300 151,800 153,000 153,600 City of Hemet 22,673 25,697 27,452 27,452 27,452 27,452 City of Perris1 36,303* 36,303* 63,046* 63,046* 88,396* 88,396* City of Riverside 277,000 294,000 311,000 328,000 345,000 362,000 City of San Jacinto 12,290 14,900 15,900 17,000 18,000 19,000 Eastern Municipal Water District 520,000 559,046 640,926 718,078 819,357 920,461 Edgemont Comm. MWD 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Elsinore Water District. 4,436 4,468 4,480 4,500 4,550 4,600 Elsinore Valley MWD 100,000 106,351 113,322 128,607 153,000 172,346 EVMWD - Temescal Division 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Home Gardens County Water District 3,032 NP NP NP NP NP Jurupa Community Services District NP NP NP NP NP NP Lake Hemet Municipal Water District 50,000 52,020 57,434 63,412 70,012 79,298 Lee Lake Water District NP NP NP NP NP NP Murrieta County Water District 3,528 4,900 7,900 10,112 13,906 16,900 Rancho California Water District 105,000 135,000 170,000 215,000 215,000 225,000 Rubidoux Community Services District 26,177 28,500 30,300 32,200 34,100 37,400 San Bernardino Valley MWD2 660 660 660 660 660 660 West Valley WD3 66,700 70,000 78,750 80,000 90,000 100,000 Western Municipal Water District of 657,376 709,966 766,763 828,104 894,352 965,901 Riverside County NP-Not provided 1 Agency did not provide information; WRCOG projections used 2 Only includes population within Riverside County 3 Includes population for entire service area (310 acres in Riverside County, 18,690 acres in San Bernardino County) February 2005 – Final Report 2-8 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review It is suggested that the Riverside LAFCO along with other agencies in Riverside County investigate the costs and benefits of developing a county-wide system for consistent population projections for both municipalities and, most importantly, for special districts. The WRCOG has previously proposed a regional model for projection population figures that are specific to Riverside County and has estimated that it would require approximately $250,000 per year for the system. The value of the population projections could be compared with the costs of establishing a regional system. Many special districts estimate population by using the existing number of service connections, the per-household population and regional growth rates. This method can be adequate for agencies whose service areas are essentially built-out but are more problematic for agencies where growth is expected. 2.3 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES In addressing infrastructure needs and deficiencies, the service review survey included a series of questions to determine current and future demand/supply and capacity. Additional questions were included to gather an overall “snapshot” of the infrastructure. This section first addresses infrastructure needs and deficiencies for the water agencies within the Western Riverside service review area. The second part addresses infrastructure needs and deficiencies for the wastewater agencies. 2.3.1 Water System Information Table 2.3.1, Water System Information, includes data obtained from responses to the service review questionnaire regarding number of customers, peak capacity/demand, facilities of each water agency and the date of the most recent master plan, if any. Assessing this type of information can highlight agencies that might have infrastructure deficiencies such as an aging system or significant shortfalls in the peak capacity as compared to the peak demand. February 2005 – Final Report 2-9 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review TABLE 2.3.1 WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION (retail) Total # Storage Estimated Peak Estimated Peak of Connections Miles of Lines Agency (in days) Demand (MGD) Capacity (MGD) City of Corona 37,887 490 .75 – 2.7 62.3 97.2 City of Hemet 9,650 130 NP NP NP City of Perris NP NP NP NP NP City of Riverside 61,726 NP 1 7.3 8.75 City of San Jacinto 3,516 NP 1 2.8 4.2 Eastern Municipal Water District 95,455 1, 528 2 160 160 Elsinore Valley M.W.D. 28,861 525 7 NP NP Elsinore Water District 1,685 26 3 .5 .75 Home Gardens County Water District 800 9.6 3 NP NP Jurupa Community Services District 16,430 NP NP 31 31.5 Lake Hemet Municipal Water District 13,490 >100 2 36 40 Lee Lake Water District 1,837 49 3 5.81 5.81 Murrieta County Water District 1,959 38 1.1 2.7 2.2 Rancho California Water District 29,681 838 3 190 250 Rubidoux Community Services District 6,425 63 <1 9.95 12.5 San Bernardino Valley MWD 0 0 0 0 0 West Valley WD* 17,500 >360 2 39.3 49.4 Western Municipal Water District of 18,333 242 >1 34.2 34.2 Riverside County NP-Not provided * Includes data for entire service area (310 acres in Riverside County, 18,690 acres in San Bernardino County) 2.3.2 Regional Water Demand Projections The first step in determining an overall, regional picture of supply and demand for water was assembling the data from each agency. Due to the number of agencies providing water service in the area, an exhibit, Figure 2.3.1, Western Riverside County Water Supply Schematic, was prepared showing the relationship of wholesale and retail water providers in the service review area. February 2005 – Final Report 2-10 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review FIGURE 2.3.1 – WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY WATER SUPPLY SCHEMATIC February 2005 – Final Report 2-11 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Table 2.3.2, Regional Water Demand Projections, provides the existing and future water demand/supply. Finally Figure 2.3.2, Western Riverside Regional Supply/Demand Forecast, graphs the available data. TABLE 2.3.2 REGIONAL WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS Future Future Existing Existing (2025) (2025) Demand Supply Demand Supply Agency (AF) (AF) (AF) (AF) City of Corona 38,831 60,489 43,873 71,575 City of Hemet 5,598 8,250 6,308 10,250 City of Perris NP NP NP NP City of Riverside 75,000 78,000 95,000 99,000 City of San Jacinto 3,005 4,670 4,136 6,427 Eastern Municipal Water District 98,578 98,578 147,808 147,808 Elsinore Valley M.W.D. 49,200 49,200 112,038 112,038 Elsinore Water District 454 460 NP NP Home Gardens County Water District 540 540 NP NP Jurupa Community Services District 17,011 17,011 NP NP Lake Hemet Municipal Water District 17,000 NP 20,800 20,800 Lee Lake Water District 1,912 6,516 9,529 10,136 Murrieta County Water District 1,600 1,500 10,000 10,100 Rancho California Water District 78,000 88,300 113,400 200,000 Rubidoux Community Services District 5,800 10,600 10,600 19,400 San Bernardino Valley MWD (includes data for San Bernardino County) 78,624 299,121 364,566* 299,121* West Valley WD* 22,000 55,350 87,200 92,000 Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County 19,316 78,392 54,000 123,000 NP-Not provided * Data from San Bernardino County LAFCO 2003 MSR * Includes data for entire service area (310 acres in Riverside County, 18,690 acres in San Bernardino County) February 2005 – Final Report 2-12 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-13 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS/dnameD FIGURE 2.3.2 WESTERN RIVERSIDE – REGIONAL SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Note: Data includes information for San Bernardino County 2.3.3 Water Demand and Supply by Agency The water and wastewater service review questionnaire requested data from agencies regarding both the current and future supply of water and the current and future demand. The data is summarized in this section. The responses to the service review questionnaire were to be the basis for determining the existing and future demand; however as was previously noted, some responses were either not provided or only provided partial data. While supplemental information such as master plans and Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) were used wherever possible, it was not always possible to reconcile the various sources of data. The graphs on the following pages, which show the expected demand for each agency in five-year increments, have been created using a combination of the service review questionnaire, the agency’s UWMP, if available, and other documents. Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 80,000 71,575 71,575 71,575 70,000 67,211 64,970 60,489 60,000 50,000 43,046 43,873 43,873 40,700 38,831 38,831 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-14 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS / dnameD (cid:153) CITY OF CORONA The City of Corona’s Department of Water and Power provides both potable water treatment and distribution and wastewater collection and treatment services. Recycled water is also produced and distributed. The City encompasses approximately 38 square miles, of which approximately 16 percent is vacant and considered developable. The City's water supply is comprised of 60% ground water, 30% Colorado River water and 10% State Water Project water. Twenty wells supply a total of 18,330 AF/Yr from the Temescal and Coldwater groundwater basins. Water service is provided to 37,667 customers residing within 29,952 acres that include the City and areas outside the City boundaries in the City of Norco, the Green River area, Coronita and El Cerrito unincorporated areas. Lee Lake Water District provides water to a small area within the City boundary. Figure 2.3.3 illustrates that demand is projected to increase 13% by 2025 with supply primarily coming from imported water and recycled water. No additional wells are planned. FIGURE 2.3.3 CITY OF CORONA WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST (cid:153) Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 12,000 10,250 10,250 10,250 10,250 10,000 9,250 8,250 8,000 6,308 6,308 6,308 6,308 5,908 6,000 5,598 4,000 2,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-15 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS/dnameD (cid:153) CITY OF HEMET The City of Hemet supplies potable water and provides wastewater collection services within a 5.25 square mile service area with approximately 41 acres included in the sphere of influence. Approximately 16% of the land within the City is presently undeveloped and unserved while 66% of the sphere is considered developable. The primary water supply to the City is from the Hemet and San Jacinto groundwater basins. The City operates 12 groundwater wells and purchases a small amount of water (approximately 11% of the total supply) from the Eastern Municipal Water District. Water distribution service is provided to 9,650 customers. Figure 2.3.4 illustrates that water demands are projected to increase 13% by the year 2025. The City is working with other agencies to prepare a groundwater management plan with a goal of recharging up to 7,500 acre-feet of water into the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin annually. Two additional wells are also planned within the next 10 years. Figure 2.3.4 City of Hemet Water Supply/Demand Forecast Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand (cid:153) CITY OF PERRIS No data submitted Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 120,000 99,000 100,000 95,000 95,000 90,000 91,000 86,000 85,000 82,000 82,000 78,000 78,000 80,000 75,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-16 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS/dnameD (cid:153) CITY OF RIVERSIDE The City of Riverside provides potable water distribution, wastewater collection/treatment and recycled water; there are currently 61,726 water service connections. The City encompasses approximately 77.8 square miles, of which approximately 20% is vacant and considered developable. The water supply is almost entirely from the Bunker Hill, Riverside North and Riverside South groundwater basins; less than 1% of the total water supply is purchased from Western Municipal Water District. The City operates 51 groundwater wells and nine additional wells are planned within the next 10 years. The City also has water rights to surface water in the Seven Oaks Dam. Figure 2.3.5 illustrates that water demands are projected to increase 27% by 2025 with the future supply primarily coming from additional wells. An increase in surface water supply from the Seven Oaks Dam is also proposed. Recycled water is in the early stages of development; however grant funding has been received to expand this source. FIGURE 2.3.5 CITY OF RIVERSIDE WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 7,000 6,427 6,121 6,000 5,774 5,397 5,044 5,000 4,670 4,136 3,939 4,000 3,716 3,473 3,245 3,005 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-17 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS / dnameD (cid:153) CITY OF SAN JACINTO The City of San Jacinto Water/Wastewater Division is responsible for the delivery of a potable water supply to 12,296 existing water service connections. The City also provides wastewater collection services; wastewater treatment is provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District. Approximately 55% of the land within the City boundaries is vacant and considered developable. The primary water supply is from groundwater wells in the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin. Figure 2.3.6 illustrates that water demands in 2025 are projected to increase significantly. Additional groundwater wells are proposed to supply future demands. FIGURE 2.3.6 CITY OF SAN JACINTO WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 160,000 143,791 147,808 140,000 130,270 120,000 116,491 101,687 98,578 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 - Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-18 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS/dnameD (cid:153) EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) provides domestic and agricultural water, wastewater collection/treatment and recycled water in a 555 square mile service area with a population of 520,000. The EMWD's service area in Riverside County extends from Moreno Valley to Temecula and encompasses the cities of Perris, San Jacinto, Hemet and parts of Murrieta. Water supply is approximately 81% imported water and 19% local groundwater. Recycled water is also produced by the District’s five regional water reclamation facilities and delivered from a single integrated distribution system. The majority of the groundwater produced by EMWD comes from wells in the Hemet and San Jacinto area. Some of these wells have limited production as a result of the Fruitvale Judgment and Decree. EMWD also has wells in the Moreno Valley, Perris Valley and Murrieta areas. Planned water supplies to meet future demands include desalination of brackish groundwater and significant expansion of current groundwater recharge programs. Figure 2.3.7 illustrates the projected water supply/demand to year 2025. FIGURE 2.3.7 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) ELSINORE WATER DISTRICT The Elsinore Water District (EWD) provides potable water distribution to a service area of approximately seven square miles and maintains two separate water distribution systems. Both systems are located in older parts of Lake Elsinore and adjacent unincorporated areas. There are a total of 1,685 service connections with water supply coming from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) and from groundwater. The EWD also currently provides water service to approximately 95 customers outside of their service area. Service is provided through out-of-agency service agreements with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District that have been in place for approximately 30-40 years (the agreements were originally for temporary service). EWD is essentially built-out. Figure 2.3.8 illustrates the projected water supply/demand to year 2025. FIGURE 2.3.8 ELSINORE WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST 500 460 454 460 454 460 454 460 454 460 454 460 454 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 - Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-19 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS/dnameD Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) provides public water service, water supply development and planning, wastewater treatment and disposal and recycling. Currently, EVMWD has over 24,500 water, wastewater and agricultural service connections. The EVMWD’s 97 square mile service area includes the cities of Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Murrieta (California Oaks) and several unincorporated communities. The District has a total of 28,861 water customers. Water supply is a blend of local groundwater, imported water (approximately 50%) from the Western Municipal Water District and surface water from Railroad Canyon Reservoir (Canyon Lake). The reservoir impounds local runoff from the 750 square mile San Jacinto River watershed. Annual water production is about 22,200 acre-feet from nine wells in the Elsinore groundwater basin. There is a separate Temescal Division domestic water system service area in Temescal Valley where potable and non-potable water is delivered to approximately 2,163 customers. Residential customers are served from domestic wells in the Coldwater Basin while agricultural customers in the Temescal Valley receive water from several wells in the Bunker Hill, Colton and Temescal Valley basins, and surface water from Corona Lake, which is fed by the Temescal Wash. Annual water production for this division ranges from approximately 6,000 to 7,000 acre-feet. Wastewater service is not provided to the Temescal Division. Figure 2.3.9 illustrates the projected water supply/demand to year 2025 for the agency, excluding the Temescal Division. FIGURE 2.3.9 ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST 120,000 112,038 99,699 100,000 87,360 80,000 69,440 60,000 56,000 49,200 40,000 20,000 - Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-20 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS/dnameD Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) HOME GARDENS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Home Gardens County Water District is located between Riverside and Corona and has a service area of 232.5 acres. The District delivers approximately 540 AF/Yr of potable water to 800 domestic customers. Water is supplied from the Western Municipal Water District via the City of Riverside and from groundwater. The District has one active groundwater well that pumps from the Arlington/Temescal Groundwater Basin. The average age of water facilities is 16 years. Forecast data was not provided since the District is considered to be built-out and projects the same water supply/demand through the year 2025 as depicted in Figure 2.3.10. FIGURE 2.3.10 HOME GARDENS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST 600 540 540 540 540 540 540 500 400 300 200 100 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-21 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS/dnameD Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) provides potable water and wastewater collection services to a population of approximately 55,000 within a 48 square mile service area. The service area includes the Eastvale area which is expected to add a further 18,000 connections to the District with an expected population of 60,000. Currently, there are approximately 1,800 occupied dwellings in the Eastvale area, 36 tracts currently under development and the District has issued water and sewer availability letters for approximately 4,000 additional residences that are anticipated to be built within the next two years. Service is also provided to several areas outside of the District boundary. Water supply is from groundwater wells. The District currently has 11 wells and owns and operates a desalination plant located in the neighboring County of San Bernardino. This desalter plant is currently being expanded from 8 MGD to 13 MGD and a second desalter plant is being constructed on the District’s Administration/ Operations facility and expected to be on- line in the year 2004. Potable water connections were approximately 16,760 in 2002 and there is a small irrigation water system located in the Sunnyslope area. The District also provides water, through inter-ties, to its neighboring water agencies. FIGURE 2.3.11 JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST 18,000 17,011 17,011 17,011 17,011 17,011 17,011 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 - Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-22 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS/dnameD Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) LAKE HEMET MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Lake Hemet Municipal Water District (LHMWD) provides potable water, irrigation water and sewer collection services to residents of Hemet and San Jacinto and potable water to the growing community of Garner Valley and surrounding unincorporated areas. The District also maintains Lake Hemet as a water reservoir and recreational facility. There are approximately 13,636 domestic and 51 agricultural customers within a 26-square mile service area. The LHMWD currently serves its water customers from three main sources of supply: locally pumped groundwater, surface water from the San Jacinto River system and water purchases from Eastern Municipal Water District. Local groundwater from the Hemet and San Jacinto Groundwater Basins is the primary potable water source. The District operates seven wells that provide water to the domestic water system and six wells that supply water to the irrigation system. The District also leases private wells to supplement its domestic and irrigation water needs during high demand periods. Surface water from the San Jacinto River system averages 3,600 AF/Yr, which is approximately 20 percent of the District’s total water supply. Most of the surface water is used for agricultural purposes, but a portion is conveyed to the District’s Eggen Water Treatment Plant for treatment prior to domestic use. The District can also purchase water from Eastern Municipal Water District. The LHMWD is entitled to a maximum of 336 AF/Yr of EMWD’s Fruitvale System water at a special rate and can purchase additional surplus groundwater as needed at EMWD’s normal billing rate. The LHMWD will need additional water supplies to be able to satisfy projected growth within the District’s service area. The District has committed to participating in the development of a comprehensive Regional Groundwater Management Plan to obtain sufficient groundwater supplies. Supplemental future water supply options include a recycled water distribution system supplied from the Eastern Municipal Water District, supplemental imported water supplies, increased use of local surface water and demand reduction/conservation. Figure 2.3.12 illustrates the projected water supply/demand to year 2025. February 2005 – Final Report 2-23 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review FIGURE 2.3.12 LAKE HEMET MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST 25,000 20,800 20,800 20,000 20,000 18,800 17,700 17,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-24 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS/dnameD Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) LEE LAKE WATER DISTRICT The Lee Lake Water District (LLWD) provides water distribution, recycled water, and sewer collection and treatment services to 1,831 water service connections located in the Temescal Valley. Water is also supplied to the Bedford Motorway area in the City of Corona (by service agreement) and the California Meadows development within Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District’s Temescal Division service area by an MOU. The City of Corona, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority all have existing water and sewer infrastructure within LLWD’s boundaries. All potable water is imported and supplied from Western Municipal Water District. The LLWD has an existing purchase agreement for 9.0 cfs and a right of first refusal for an additional 5.0 cfs. The maximum demand supplied in 2003 was 5.8 MGD (8.9 cfs). The District has two wells which pump from the Bedford Groundwater Basin and these wells are used to supply a separate irrigation system. The average age of water facilities is 5 years. Figure 2.3.13 illustrates the projected water supply/demand to year 2025. FIGURE 2.3.13 LEE LAKE WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST 12,000 10,136 10,136 10,136 10,000 9,529 9,529 9,529 8,869 8,000 7,574 6,876 6,516 6,000 4,953 4,000 1,912 2,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-25 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS / dnameD Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) MURRIETA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Murrieta County Water District (MCWD) is the water and sewer purveyor for approximately 1,900 customers within the city limits of the City of Murrieta. The MCWD covers 6.1 square miles of land (4,200 acres). There is a projected increase to 13,900 customers by the year 2020. The District uses five production wells which pump from the Murrieta Sub-Basin of the Santa Margarita Watershed to serve areas surrounding the City of Murrieta. All of MCWD’s current supply comes from wells or surface water, and there is the potential to obtain imported water from Metropolitan Water District through the Eastern Municipal Water District. The District is planning on drilling new wells at the rate of one per year for the next four years. Connections for imported water are in place and planned for the future. The majority of future demands will be met from an increase in surface water supplies. Figure 2.3.14 illustrates the projected water supply/demand to year 2025. FIGURE 2.3.14 MURRIETA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST 12,000 10,000 10,10010,000 10,000 8,300 8,000 6,5006,500 6,000 4,7004,700 4,000 2,9002,898 2,000 1,5001,600 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-26 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS / dnameD Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) provides potable water, wastewater collection and treatment services and recycled water within its 99,435-acre service area. The RCWD serves the rapidly growing City of Temecula, portions of the City of Murrieta and surrounding unincorporated areas. The potable water supplied to customers is a combination of imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Eastern Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District and local groundwater supplies. Groundwater is supplied from the Temecula Arkose and Pauba Formation Groundwater Basins. Areas that are provided water outside of the RCWD service area include the Grey Squirrel area of the Eastern Municipal Water District and the Lake Skinner recreation area. Recycled water is produced at the Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility for landscape irrigation purposes and distributed to customers within the RCWD service area and to the Eastern Municipal Water District. RCWD engages in an artificial recharge/recovery project at the Valle De Los Caballos spreading grounds. Raw water imported from the MWD and controlled releases from Vail Lake are discharged to percolation ponds. Three recovery wells located within the recharge basin can then pump in excess of 20,000 AF/Yr of potable-quality water into the distribution system. The RCWD’s future supply will be comprised of increased recycled water, additional imported treated water and additional imported raw water. The largest future supply component will be imported, treated water. A peak flow capacity of 220 cfs (142 MGD) will be required from aqueduct turnouts to supply peak summer demands. RCWD has recently completed a 100-cfs turnout on Metropolitan’s Pipeline 3 Bypass allowing it to complete its 220 cfs future required capacity. Figure 2.3.15 illustrates the projected water supply/demand to year 2025. February 2005 – Final Report 2-27 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 250,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 180,000 180,000 150,000 140,000 113,400 113,400 110,000 100,000 100,000 88,300 88,000 78,000 50,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-28 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS / dnameD FIGURE 2.3.15 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) RUBIDOUX COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) provides both potable and agricultural water treatment and distribution services and wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services to an 8.5 square-mile service area. A population of approximately 26,000 people resides within the service area. Figure 2.3.16 illustrates the projected water supply/demand to year 2025. The existing water supply for the RCSD is groundwater from the Riverside South Grand Water Basin. The District operates seven well pumping plants and two water treatment facilities. RCSD plans to develop additional ground water supplies to meet future water demands. Approximately 5,800 AF/Yr of water was supplied in 2003. FIGURE 2.3.16 RUBIDOUX COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST 25,000 20,000 19,400 17,200 15,900 14,600 15,000 11,700 10,600 10,600 10,000 9,400 8,700 8,000 6,400 5,800 5,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-29 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS / dnameD Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) covers about 325 square miles in southwestern San Bernardino County and has a population of 576,000. The District’s projected population for 2025 is 973,000. SBVMWD imports SWP water and manages groundwater storage within its boundaries. SBVMWD has specific responsibilities for monitoring groundwater supplies in the San Bernardino and Colton-Rialto basins and maintaining flows at Riverside Narrows on the Santa Ana River. It fulfills its responsibilities with SWP water for groundwater recharge and by coordinating the delivery of water resources to retail agencies throughout its area. The SBVMWD does not deliver water directly to retail water customers. Retail water service within the District’s service area is provided by 14 major purveyors and several smaller purveyors. The only water purveyor within the Riverside LAFCO jurisdiction is the West Valley Water District. The City of Riverside (with the Gage Canal Company) is an exporter of water from the SBVMWD service area. FIGURE 2.3.17 SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST 400,000 364,566 350,000 307,378 299,121 299,121 299,121 299,121 299,121 299,121 300,000 250,189 250,000 193,001 200,000 135,812 150,000 100,000 78,624 50,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Note: Includes supply/demand for service area in both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties February 2005 – Final Report 2-30 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS/dnameD Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 100,000 92,000 90,000 84,000 80,000 75,000 70,000 66,000 60,000 55,300 55,300 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 - Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-31 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS/dnameD (cid:153) WEST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (FORMERLY WEST SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT) The West Valley Water District provides retail water service to a service area of approximately 19,000 acres. Less than 1%, 310 acres, lies within Riverside County and the majority is in San Bernardino County. The District estimates that there are 150 metered connections within Riverside County; that is expected to reach a maximum of 250 connections at build-out. The District relies on a combination of imported, ground, surface and recycled water to meet demand. Imported water is purchased from the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. The District extracts groundwater from five basins. It shares the Chino, Bunker Hill, and North Riverside basins Norco, the Jurupa CSD, and the City of Riverside. Water demand shown for 2025 below is the ultimate expected demand within the District’s total service area. FIGURE 2.3.18 WEST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 140,000 123,000 120,000 101,000 99,000 100,000 87,000 80,000 78,392 77,243 60,000 54,000 48,000 42,000 40,000 36,000 31,646 19,316 20,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 February 2005 – Final Report 2-32 ).ry/teef-ercA( ylppuS / dnameD (cid:153) WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Western Municipal Water District (Western) supplies potable water, non-potable water, recycled water and wastewater collection services. The 510 square mile service area was supplied water in the amounts of 53,855 AF/Yr of potable water and 24,537 AF/Yr of untreated water in 2003. The primary source of water is imported water from the SWP purchased from the Metropolitan Water District. Western also imports a very small quantity of water from the San Bernardino basin but owns no wells for pumping groundwater. Western provides wholesale water to nine agencies within its general district boundaries and retail service to 18,000 customers in the Woodcrest/Orangecrest/Lake Matthews area. Supplemental water is provided to the cities of Corona, Norco and Riverside and the water agencies of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District. Figure 2.3.18 illustrates that the total demand supplied by Western is projected to increase 60% by the year 2025. Most of the additional water supply to meet future demands will be purchased from MWD. The remainder will be obtained from future groundwater supplies which will be available with the construction of the proposed Riverside/Corona Feeder Project and an increase in recycled water. FIGURE 2.3.19 WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year February 2005 – Final Report 2-33 noitcudorP ytiC Western is one of the five member districts in the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), a regional water resources planning and project implementation organization. Western participates with SAWPA in operating a 30 MGD industrial brine disposal system. Western also participates with the Metropolitan Water District, SAWPA and the Orange County Water District in a desalting project to treat brackish contaminated groundwater in the Arlington Basin. 2.3.4 Sources of Water The service review questionnaire also requested that the agencies provide information regarding the sources of water. Each agency was asked to list the supply in acre-feet (AF) for each source (wholesale, State Water Project, surface water, wells, reclaimed) for each five-year increment. The data received is summarized in the following charts (Figures 2.3.19 through 2.3.27). FIGURE 2.3.20 – CITY OF HEMET 25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY Wholesale Well Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year February 2005 – Final Report 2-34 )ry/fa( noitcudorP retaW FIGURE 2.3.21 – CITY OF SAN JACINTO 25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Y ear FIGURE 2.3.22 – EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY Reclaimed Well Wholesale noitcudorP ytiC Well Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year February 2005 – Final Report 2-35 noitcudorP ytiC Reclaimed Well Suface Water SWP Wholesale 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year )ry/fa( noitcudorP retaW FIGURE 2.3.23 – ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY FIGURE 2.3.24 – LAKE HEMET MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY Well Suface Water Wholesale Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year February 2005 – Final Report 2-36 noitcudorP ytiC SWP Reclaimed Well 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year noitcudorP ytiC FIGURE 2.3.25 – LEE LAKE WATER DISTRICT 25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY FIGURE 2.3.26 – MURRIETA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY Well Suface Water Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year February 2005 – Final Report 2-37 noitcudorP ytiC FIGURE 2.3.27 – RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY Wholesale Reclaimed Well FIGURE 2.3.28 – RUBIDOUX COMMUNITY SERVICES DICTRICT 25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year noitcudorP ytiC Well Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review FIGURE 2.3.29 – CITY OF CORONA 25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year February 2005 – Final Report 2-38 )ry/fa( noitcudorP retaW SWP Reclaimed Well Suface Water Wholesale Summary Based on expected water supplies from Metropolitan and on data supplied by the agencies, water supply in the Western Riverside service review area is expected to be adequate for future demand. 2.3.5 Wastewater Demand and Capacity The following agencies provide wastewater service to the Western Riverside service review area: • The City of Corona operates three wastewater treatment plants with a combined existing capacity of 15.5 MGD and an ultimate capacity of 20.5 MGD. Sewer service is provided to 33,967 connections within 22,144 acres that include the City of Corona and the unincorporated El Cerrito area. Existing flows average approximately 10.5 MGD. • The City of Hemet provides wastewater collection service to 13,600 customers. All sewage generated within the City is conveyed to the Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Reclamation Facility, which is operated by the EMWD; 75% of the City’s gravity sewers are over 50 years old. • The City of Riverside operates one wastewater treatment plant, the Riverside Regional Water Quality Control Plant, which has a capacity of 40 MGD. Sewer service is provided to 58,585 customers and the average daily flow is 32 MGD. No new treatment facilities are planned; approximately 75% of the gravity sewers are less than 50 years old. • The City of San Jacinto has 3,241 wastewater service connections. Wastewater is collected and conveyed to the EWMD for treatment. • The Home Gardens Sanitary District provides wastewater collection and treatment within a 672-acre service area with 2,438 wastewater service connections. The sewer collection system is entirely gravity flow and the District owns one wastewater treatment plant, which is operated by the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority. There is currently excess treatment and collection capacity. Since limited space is available within the District for future development, the existing excess capacity should be adequate for ultimate build-out conditions. • The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) operates five wastewater treatment plants with a combined capacity of 49 MGD. The existing average annual flows totaling approximately 34 MGD. • The Edgemont Community Services District (CSD) provides wastewater collection services to an area of approximately 1,504 acres. The District contracts with the City of Riverside to provide wastewater treatment and disposal services. The estimated existing and future population within the service area is 7,000 and the service area is basically built out. There are approximately 1,300 wastewater service connections. Almost all of the gravity sewers are between 20 and 50 years old. • The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) has 23,316 wastewater service connections and operates three wastewater treatment plants. The current total capacity of the treatment plants is 9.7 MGD with an average combined dry weather flow estimated to be approximately 6 MGD. • The Jurupa Community Services District provides 14,500 residences with sewer service. The District has one wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of 1.0 MGD and the District is part of the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority (WRCRWA) for a regional wastewater treatment plant located within its service area. This plant’s capacity is currently 8 MGD with the ability to expand to 24 MGD. • The Lee Lake Water District (LLWD) has 1,725 wastewater connections and operates three wastewater treatment plants with a combined treatment capacity of 1.07 MGD. The largest treatment facility, the Lee Lake Water Reclamation Facility, is currently being expanded from a capacity of 0.90 MGD to 1.575 MGD. February 2005 – Final Report 2-39 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review • The Murrieta County Water District (MCWD) collects wastewater from 1,482 customers. All wastewater collected within the MCWD is treated by two neighboring districts: Eastern Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District. Gravity sewer facilities are all less than 25 years old. • The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) collects wastewater from 13,776 customers within its service area and also from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Murrieta County Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District. RCWD has one wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of 5.0 MGD and current dry weather flows estimated to be approximately 3.5 MGD. The plant is designed for an ultimate capacity of 17.0 MGD. • The Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) has wastewater facilities consist of regional conveyance facilities, gravity sewers, and lift stations. The RCSD has approximately 5,975 wastewater service connections. All wastewater is conveyed through the regional conveyance facilities for treatment at the Riverside Regional Water Quality Control Plant, which is owned and operated by the City of Riverside. RCSD currently has capacity rights in the treatment plant for average daily wastewater flows of 3.055 MGD. The current volume of wastewater treated is approximately 2.0 MGD. • The Western Municipal Water District serves as wastewater treatment system operator for two organizations within its service area: Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority (WRCRWA) and March Air Reserve Base (MARB). The two wastewater treatment plants have a combined capacity of 8.75 MGD. Capacity expansions are planned within the next 5 years at both plants. Western also operates and maintains domestic and industrial wastewater collection and conveyance systems for retail and contract services customers in Lake Hills, March Air Reserve Base, Home Gardens, and Norco. WMWD has 3,334 retail wastewater service connections. Table 2.3.3, Wastewater System Information, depicts data obtained from responses to the service review questionnaire regarding wastewater system information. February 2005 – Final Report 2-40 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review TABLE 2.3.3 WASTEWATER SYSTEM INFORMATION Total # Rated Capacity ADWF Agency of Connections (MGD) (MGD) Treatment Level Miles of Lines City of Corona 33,967 15.5 10.5 Advanced Secondary 382 City of Hemet 13,600 NA 2.5 Advanced Secondary 120 City of Perris NP NP 0.4 Advanced Secondary NP City of Riverside 58,585 40 32 Tertiary* 780 City of San Jacinto 3,241 NP 0.5 Advanced Secondary 108 Eastern Municipal Water District 165,000 42 28.6 Advanced Secondary 1,500 Edgemont Comm. MWD 1,300 NP 0.61 Tertiary* 100 Elsinore Valley M.W.D. 23,316 9.7 12 Tertiary 299 Home Gardens Sanitary District 2,438 NP 0.49 Secondary* 77 Jurupa Community Services District 14,430 8 4.0 Tertiary* 206 Lee Lake Water District 1,725 1.066 0.320 Tertiary and Secondary 30.3 Murrieta County Water District 1,482 NP 0.09 Tertiary 25 Rancho California Water District 13,776 NP 3.3 Tertiary 71 Rubidoux Community Services District 5,975 NP 2 Tertiary* 76 Western Municipal Water District 3,334 8.75 NP Secondary* 10.3 TOTALS 280,172 98.81 *Treatment provided through Riverside Regional Water Quality Control Plant operated by the City of Riverside NP-Not provided; NA – Not Applicable The provision of wastewater services in Western Riverside County is adequate to meet future demands. No significant issues were noted. Summary Based on the expected water supply from both the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, on State Water Project entitlements and on the data provided by the agencies, no significant issues regarding water supply and demand were noted in the Western Riverside service review area. However, sources of water are primarily groundwater and imported water and during drought conservation should be emphasized. Sources are varied for a majority of the agencies. Wastewater capacity also appears to be adequate to meet future demand. Some agencies are currently producing reclaimed water and the supply is expected to increase. February 2005 – Final Report 2-41 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 2.4 FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS A series of questions was included in the service review questionnaire as a means of evaluating financial constraints and opportunities in relation to existing and projected service needs. Agencies were asked to identify any financing constraints and opportunities that affect the service provided and the infrastructure needs. Beyond existing legislative, political and governmental regulations, few agencies identified any financing constraints. Most agencies did note that the cost of infrastructure replacement and upgrades, the cost of meeting increasing federal and state regulatory requirements and the cost of insurance was a concern. Agencies noted that their governing board examined rates annually to ensure a balance between rates and capital needs. Maintaining reasonable rates for customers and to preserve agricultural resources were cited as a self-imposed financing constraint. The Rubidoux CSD also noted that the demographics of some of their customers require that the District carefully balance rate increases with the customers’ economic abilities. The service review questionnaire asked agencies to provide total revenues, revenue sources, CIP budget and reserves for the previous three fiscal years. That information is summarized for each agency in Appendix C, Agency Financial Summaries. No significant issues were noted for any of the agencies that responded to the service review questionnaire in relation to financing opportunities and constraints. No significant issues were noted for any of the agencies in relation to financing opportunities and constraints. Figure 2.4.1, Agency Revenue Comparison, compares revenue of the agencies. Data from FY 2002-2003 was used to compare actual numbers. As enterprise activities, the primary revenue source for all water and wastewater agencies comes from service charges and fees directly related to the provision of services. Other income generally comes from interest earned on various funds. Figure 2.4.2, 2002-2003 Aggregate Sources of Agency Revenues, indicates that water and wastewater agencies, as enterprise funds, derive approximately 67% of their revenue from fees and charges. The next largest revenue source is property tax at 23% of aggregate revenues. February 2005 – Final Report 2-42 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review FIGURE 2.4.1 AGENCY REVENUE COMPARISON February 2005 – Final Report 2-43 565,831,6$ 249,944,2$ 814,505$ 830,948,2$ 095,007$ 556,018,6$ 549,622,74$ -$ 528,221,2$ 381,366,11$ M33$ 087,330,1$ 361,557,2$ 035,378,71$ $173 M $74M $70M $76M n H c e h m o e C t alif W or e n s i a t er n M W S D a n J a ci nt E o d g e m o nt M u H r o ri m et e a G ar d e n s R u bi d o u x C m o e r o G n a a r d e M n W s S D D - T e m e s c al E M W L a D k e H e m et Ri v e E r l s s i i d n e or e V a E ll e l s y i n or e W D L e e L a k e J ur u p a R a H o E V 3002-2002 ,euneveR latoT FIGURE 2.4.2 WESTERN RIVERSIDE REGION 2002-2003 AGGREGATE SOURCES OF AGENCY REVENUE 70% 64% 60% 50% 40% 30% 23% 20% 10% 6% 4% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% Property T ax es S p ecial Taxes Service Charges F e es Ass ess m ents Stand- by Ch arges Grants Ot her seuneveR latoT fo egatnecreP Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review The amount of property tax revenue each agency received during FY 2002-2003 is shown in Table 2.4.1 - 2002-2003 Property Tax Revenue. Information for cities has not been included. TABLE 2.4.1 2002-2003 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Agency Property Tax Revenue Eastern Municipal Water District $14,477,271 Edgemont Community Services District $278,692 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District 0 Elsinore Water District $194,764 Home Gardens County Water District 0 Home Gardens Sanitary District $106,230 Jurupa Community Services District NP Lake Hemet Municipal Water District $843,506 Lee Lake Water District $29,191 Murrieta County Water District $2,551 Rancho California Water District NP Rubidoux Community Services District $29,493 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District $91,2891 West Valley Water District $938,550 Western Municipal Water District $4,784,306 NP – not provided 1 within Riverside County only Funds of dependent districts are required by law to be maintained separately from the funds of the city. However, municipalities can and almost universally charge water and wastewater departments, dependent districts and special purpose agencies such as a water authorities charges for administrative services (i.e. accounting, personnel administration, insurance etc). In the FY 2002-2003, the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto reported transferring no money from water/wastewater funds to the General Fund; the City of Corona reported transferring $3,884,302 and the City of Riverside $3,181,551. A comparison of the capital improvement financial expenditures for the fiscal year 2002-2003 is shown in Figure 2.4.3, Western Region Agencies 2003 CIP Budgets. CIP expenditures were generally consistent across agencies according to the size of their service area and customer base. February 2005 – Final Report 2-44 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review February 2005 – Final Report 2-45 946,314$ 828,132,71$ 055,302,71$ 0$ 0$ 189,371$ 0$ 996,176$ 111,390,83$ 0$ 0$ 000,003,75$ 827,287$ 000,173,32$ 473,318,5$ 000,000,1$ 962,192$ 293,098,23$ R a H n e c m h o e t C ali W f or e n s i a t er n M W S D a n J aci nt o E d g e m o nt M u H r o ri m et e a G ar d e ns R u bi d o ux H o C m o e r o G n a a E r V d e M n W s D S D - T e m esc al E M W L a D k e H e m et Riv e E r l s s i i d n e or e V a E ll e ls y i n or e W D L e e L ak e J ur u p a 3002-2002 ,serutidnepxE PIC latoT Figure 2.4.3 2002-2003 Agency CIP Comparison Data about agency reserve levels was collected as part of the service review. The issue of reserve levels was raised as a general statewide concern in the 2000 Little Hoover Commission report on special districts. That report concluded that some agency reserves appear unreasonably large, are not integrated into infrastructure planning and are obscure. Data collected for this service review did not indicate that the agencies in the Western Riverside service review area showed evidence of the concerns noted by the Little Hoover Commission. The service review questionnaire asked agencies to report reserves in the categories of operating, capital, rate stabilization, restricted and other for the previous three fiscal years. Figure 2.4.4, 2002-2003 Agency Reserve Comparison compares reserve amounts. Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review February 2005 – Final Report 2-46 0$ 0$ 000,39$ 041,455$ 521,813$ 821,969,6$ 394,429,03$ 386,243$ 899,556$ 713,258,7$ 455,124,71$ 347,061,11$ 927,013,1$ 952,088,2$ 161,056,01$ $224 M $168 M $110 M n H c e h m o e C t alif W or e n s i t a er n M W S a D n J a ci nt E o d g e m o nt M u H r o r m i et e a G ar d e n s R u bi d o u x C m o e r o G n a a r d e M n W s D S - D T e m e s c al E M W L a D k e H e m e R t i v E e l r s s i i n d o e r e V a E ll l e s y i n or e W D L e e L a k e J ur u p a R a H o E V 3002-2002 ,sevreseR latoT FIGURE 2.4.4 2002-2003 AGENCY RESERVES COMPARISON Setting specific levels of reserves for the diversity of agencies addressed in this service review report is impracticable. The different services, service areas, customer bases, condition of infrastructure, capital improvement programs and other issues require reserve levels specific to each agency. Agencies with large reserves typically have major, long-term capital improvement projects. All reserve levels reported by the agencies were clearly segregated into the uses for the reserves—operating and rate stabilizations, restricted debt reserves and capital reserves funds. Figure 2.4.5, Western Region Agencies 2002-2003 Aggregate Reserves depicts the amount of reserves in the Western Riverside service review area aggregated by category. Aggregate operating reserves in the Western Riverside service review area are slightly higher than in the Coachella Valley (20%) and Pass/Mountain (9%) service review areas. The larger percentage of operating reserves can, in part, be attributed to the sources of water—agencies in the Western Riverside service review area rely more on imported water than other service review areas where groundwater is the primary water source. The cost of imported water can fluctuate and agencies need larger operating reserves to absorb unexpected increases. Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review FIGURE 2.4.5 2002-2003 AGGREGATE RESERVES BY CATEGORY 40% 38% 35% 33% 30% 25% 22% 20% 15% 10% 8% 5% 0% Operating Reserves Capital Reserve Fund Restricted Debt Reserves Other Reserves 2.5 OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING The service review questionnaire asked agencies to list current rates for water and wastewater service, rates changes in the previous two years, anticipated rate changes and any difference in rates charged to customers outside agency boundaries. The responses regarding the meter and commodity charges are summarized below; complete responses to the service review questionnaire can be found in Appendix B, Database Reports. All the agencies in the Western Riverside region noted that rates are reviewed annually. The City of Riverside has held hearings recently to set recycling water rates; this water has historically been sold on a contract basis. The City will be adding an additional percentage over the next three years to for funds to match grants received to expand water recycling infrastructure. Agencies were asked about the differences in rates charged for areas served outside their boundaries; the intent was to identify areas where customers may want to consider annexation to a service provider to reduce rates. Only two agencies reported rate differences between customers inside and outside their agency boundaries. The following Figure 2.5.1, Water Rate Comparison, compares water rates among the Western Riverside water agencies. February 2005 – Final Report 2-47 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review FIGURE 2.5.1 WATER RATE COMPARISON (5/8” meter, water usage = 500 gallons per day) $60 Meter charge (fixed) Water Use Charge Total Monthly Charge $50.96 $50.05 $50 $48.08 $46.39 $44.48 $42.44 $40.12 $40 $36.46 $37.16 $36.44 $37.87 $37.80 $36.59 $30.82 $30 $28.37 $24.98 $20 $18.62 $10 $0 City of Corona* City of He me C t ity of Rivers C id it e y of San Jacinto Eastern E l M si W no D re Val E le V y M M W W D D - * T e mes E c ls a i l n D or iv e . Water D H i o st m ric e t * G ardens C WD* Jurupa C L L a S a k D k e e H H e e m m e e t t M M W W D D - Garner Valley Lee Lak M e u R W r a r D i n e * c t a h o C C ou A R n W a ty n D W c h - D o R * C a A nc W ho D D - i v S is a i n o t n a Rosa Division Western M WD * Agencies have supplemental rates for pumped zones or special districts. Base rate is shown for comparison. The above costs were derived from rate information gathered from each agency. A standardized scenario of a 5/8-inch water meter serving a residential customer at an average water demand of 500 gallons per day for a period of one month was chosen for comparison of rates. Most agencies include a capacity fee in addition to a water usage fee. The combined cost represents a typical monthly customer bill. Some agencies have multiple billing rates for different customers in different areas or pressure zones. In these situations, the highest rate was chosen for comparison. Wastewater agencies were asked to provide information regarding rates and to note if rates were flat or were tied to water usage. Responses are shown in Figure 2.5.2, Western County Wastewater Agency Monthly User Charge Comparison and Figure 2.5.3, Western County Wastewater Agency Connection Fee Comparison. Connection fees are usually the source of funds for wastewater agencies to extend infrastructure or to upgrade facilities as a result of increased demand or water quality requirements. February 2005 – Final Report 2-48 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review FIGURE 2.5.2 MONTHLY WASTEWATER USER CHARGE COMPARISON Western County Wastewater Agencies Monthly User Charge Comparison $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 City of Corona City of He met City of E P a e s C r t r e i i t s y r E n o d M f g R e u m n iv i e c o i r n p s t a i d C l e W o E m l a s m t i e n u r o n r D e it i s y V t r S a ic l e l t e rv y i c M e u s n D ic H i i s p o t a r m i l c e t W G at a e J r u r d r D e u n i p s s a t r S i C c a t o n m ita m ry u n D it i y s t S ric e t rvic L e e s e D L i a s M t k r e i u c r t W rie a t t a e r C D o R u is a n t n r ty i c c h t W o R a C u te b a r i l d i D f o o i u r s W n x tr i a e i C c s t W o t m S a m a te n u r n B D i e t i y s r t n S r a ic e r t d rv in ic o e s C o D W u is e n t s t r y t ic e W t rn a M te u r n D ic is ip tr a ic l t Water District February 2005 – Final Report 2-49 egrahC resU ylhtnoM SOURCE: CALIFORNIA, STATE OF. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 2002. WASTEWATER USER CHARGE SURVEY REPORT FY 2001-02: A SUMMARY AND LISTING OF DATA FROM THE OCTOBER 2001-APRIL 2002 SURVEY OF CALIFORNIA WASTEWATER AGENCIES. FIGURE 2.5.3 WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEE COMPARISON $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 City of Corona City of He met City of E P a e s r C r t i e i s t r y n E o d M f g R u e n m iv ic e o i r p n s a t i d l C e W o E m a l t s m e in r u o D n r i i e t s y t V r S ic a e t ll r e v y ic M es u D ni i c s i t p H ri a o c l t m W e a G te a r J r D d u e i r s u n t p r s i a c S t C a o n m ita m ry u D ni i t s y t r S ic e t rvice L s e D e i s L t a r M i k c e t u r W rie a t t a e r C D o i u R s n t a r t i n y c c t W ho a R t C e u a r b l D i i d fo i o s r u t n r W x i i c a C e t W s o t m a S t m e a r n u D n B i i t s e y t r r n S ic a e t r r d v i i n c o e s C D ou i W s n tr e t i y c s t t W er a n t e M r u D n is ic t i r p ic a t l Water District eeF noitcennoC SOURCE: CALIFORNIA, STATE OF. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. 2002. WASTEWATER USER CHARGE SURVEY REPORT FY 2001-02: A SUMMARY AND LISTING OF DATA FROM THE OCTOBER 2001-APRIL 2002 SURVEY OF CALIFORNIA WASTEWATER AGENCIES. Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Agencies were asked if rates had changed in the previous two years. The Elsinore Valley WD, Elsinore WD, Rancho California WD, Western MWD, Eastern MWD and the Lake Hemet WD all reported rate changes in the previous two years. 2.6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES AND COST AVOIDANCE In evaluating both shared and cost avoidance opportunities, the service review noticed numerous areas of overlap between the two determinations and the analysis for both determinations have been combined into this section. The Riverside LAFCO service review process examined current practices used by the agencies to reduce or avoid costs including joint activities with other agencies, the use of outside vendors and contractors. Overlapping or inefficient service boundaries and areas outside the agency boundaries where service is provided were also examined as a means that the Riverside LAFCO can use to encourage efficiently provided water and wastewater services, increase opportunities for shared facilities and avoid costs. Some boundary issues have been addressed in Section 2.7, Government Structure Options. However, the lack of digitized maps and an in- house GIS system is a deterrent to the ability of the Riverside LAFCO staff to ensure that boundaries of the agencies and their SOIs are efficient. Some agencies, including the Murrieta CWD, have extensive GIS systems and fully digitized maps which could be shared with the Riverside LAFCO and other agencies. For example, the Eastern MWD staff recently completed a comprehensive Water Facilities Master Plan which includes a GIS system for the agency’s entire 555 square mile service area and modeling tools to project current and future supply/demand as well as identifying future sources of water and associated costs. The Eastern MWD system, as well as those operated by other agencies, could be used in future service reviews. As part of the service review questionnaire, agencies were asked to identify ways that they currently cooperate with other agencies to maximize opportunities for sharing facilities. Agencies were asked to list current joint activities with other agencies, which are shown in Table 2.6.1, Joint Service Agreements. All the agencies responding noted on-going internal practices to ensure cost effective and efficient operations. No significant issues were noted. February 2005 – Final Report 2-50 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review TABLE 2.6.1 - JOINT SERVICE AGREEMENTS AGENCY City of Corona None Noted City of Hemet None Noted City of Perris NP City of Riverside MOU with Western MWD; various interconnection and emergency service agreements; GAGE Canal Co-Maintenance of GAGE facilities City of San Jacinto Interconnections with the Eastern MWD; Eastern MWD also provides some agency functions; participating in regional ground water management plan Eastern Municipal Water District Member of the Santa Ana Watershed project Authority; interconnections with Murrieta CWD and Western MWD; member agencies include Cities of Hemet, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Perris, San Jacinto, Temecula, unincorporated communities, the Lake Hemet MWD, Nuevo Water Company and the Rancho California Water District. Edgemont Community Services District City of Riverside provides wastewater treatment and industrial waste inspection; private contractors provide sewer cleaning; interconnections with the City of Corona Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Lake Elsinore San Jacinto Water Authority (LEJWA); service agreements with the City of Lake Elsinore; interconnections with Rancho California Wd and Eastern MWD; private contractors for maintenance, construction, landscaping, janitorial services, billing and computers. Elsinore Water District Interconnections with the Elsinore Valley MWD; private contractors for construction and engineering work Home Gardens County Water District Service agreements for operations/maintenance with Western MWD Home Gardens Sanitary District MOU as part of Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority; service agreement and equipment sharing with Western MWD; interconnections with agencies; private contractors for engineering, legal and cleaning services. Jurupa Community Services District JPA with City of Riverside, Rubidoux CSD for wastewater treatment; sells water to Santa Ana Water Company and the City of Norco Lake Hemet Municipal Water District Possible interconnections with Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto and Eastern MWD to improve service; leases office at Lake Hemet to Riverside County sheriff’s department; sewer collection agreement with Eastern MWD. Lee Lake Water District MOU with Elsinore Valley WD for water to California Meadows development, with City of Corona for water to Bedford Motorway with Western for purchase of water; member of California Rural Water Districts Insurance Program; interconnections with other agencies; private contractors for management, engineering and sewer/water operations Murrieta County Water District Service agreements with Rancho California WD and Eastern MWD; interconnections with Eastern MWD; private contractors for engineering, construction and some emergency repairs; shares rebate and education programs Rancho California Water District Service agreements with Murrieta CWD, Elsinore VMWD, Eastern MWD Rubidoux Community Services District JPA with City of Riverside, Jurupa CSD for wastewater treatment; interconnections with other agencies; private contractors for wastewater treatment San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water Potable water service to the Crestmore Heights Service Area is provided by West Valley WD; District Yucaipa Valley Water District to San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency per the Santa Ana River – Mill Creek Cooperative Water Project Agreement (1976); City of Colton to Reche Canyon Mutual Water Company per an Emergency Water Sales Agreement among the City of Colton, SBVMWD, and Reche Canyon Mutual Water Company (1997); SBVMWD to Reche Canyon Mutual Water Company per an agreement between the Company and the District for facilities for a supplemental water supply (1997) West Valley Water District Agreements with City of Rialto, Fontana Water Company, Marygold Mutual, City of San Bernardino, and City of Colton February 2005 – Final Report 2-51 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review AGENCY Western Municipal Water District JPAs (Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority and Santa Ana Watershed project Authority); MOU with San Bernardino Valley WD to share resources; service agreements for operations/maintenance to Box Springs Mutual WD, Home Gardens CWD, Home Gardens SD and Murrieta CWD; purchasing agreements with Elsinore Valley MWD and City of Riverside; Association of California Water Agencies joint insurance pool; joint funding with San Bernardino Valley WD (Seven Oaks Dam) and Cities of Riverside and Norco; interconnections with Eastern MWD and City of Corona; private contractors used as necessary and cost effective The number of service agreements, joint powers agreements, memorandums of understanding, inter-connections and shared facilities among the agencies in the Western Riverside service review area is extensive. The City of Riverside noted that beyond the Western MWD sharing the use of the Riverside canal, it also shares joint facilities with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and is evaluating shared production and transmission service with that agency. The Eastern MWD is sharing effluent pipelines with the Rancho California WD, developing a groundwater management plan with Lake Hemet MWD and conducting a water quality investigation in the Santa Margarita watershed with the Bureau of Reclamation, Camp Pendleton, Fallbrook PUD (San Diego County) and the Rancho California WD. The Elsinore Valley MWD also noted that it is part of an organizational agreement to share machinery and other resources and that it provides personnel for the Meeks and Daley Water Company. The Elsinore WD reported that it entered into a collaborative agreement with the Elsinore Valley WD concerning joint operation of the groundwater basin. The Home Gardens Sanitary District has excess sewer treatment capacity which could be shared with other agencies. The Lee Lake WD noted that it had excess water capacity available. 2.7 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS The service review becomes a tool to examine existing and future service provision and to evaluate governmental structure options that can ensure that services are provided efficiently and concurrent with need. The service review does not require the Riverside LAFCO to initiate changes of organization but to list options which the LAFCO Commission, service review February 2005 – Final Report 2-52 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review agencies and the public can use as a starting point for changes in service provision, in agencies or in SOIs. Changes in government structure of agencies are proposed for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the governing board, an external agency, such as a Grand Jury, or the public identifies benefits that might result or a problem that might be “fixed” by a consolidation with another agency. Advantages that might accrue from the reorganization of agencies include: • Simplification of boundaries – If there are too many agencies that provide similar services in a limited area, there could be overlapping service areas and confusion among the customers. • Improved service delivery – An agency might be reorganized if the provision of service would be improved. For example, a small agency might reorganize with a larger one to increase staff expertise and depth or to increase the agency’s capacity to provide services. An agency may find itself better able to serve its constituency after reorganization or a sphere amendment adds or deletes territory. • Reduction in costs or fees – The cost of providing service may vary among agencies and reorganization may be seen as a means of lowering rates and/or reducing costs. If an agency is very small, reorganization with another agency might achieve economies of scale. • Increase in local accountability and “home rule” – If citizens believe that an agency is unresponsive to their needs, a reorganization might be proposed to allow closer interaction between a governing board and residents. • Correction of problems – Occasionally governing board members may be perceived by the public as ineffectual or service provision as inefficient and reorganizations are proposed to “fix” the problem. • Realignment – An agency may find itself better able to serve its constituency after an incorporation or sphere amendment adds or deletes territory. Disadvantages or neutral effects from a change in governmental boundaries can include: • No actual or limited costs savings – Reorganizations must assess and calculate all cost inputs such as the cost of reorganization, merging staffs, retirement obligations or February 2005 – Final Report 2-53 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review upgrades to systems, etc. Sometimes the actual savings as a result of reorganization are modest enough that it is not cost-efficient to pursue. • Little improvement in service efficiency – If agencies considering a reorganization are run efficiently, there may be little improvement in services. • Local autonomy – A small agency providing services may offer benefits of community cohesion and local “ownership” which might be lost in a reorganization with a larger agency. • Political opposition – Pursuing reorganization without the support of residents or the governing board typically increases the time and effort involved. 2.7.1 Services Outside of Agency Boundaries/Sphere of Influence Updates Government Code Section §56133 states that a city or district may provide services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundaries only through approval by LAFCO. This requirement, which was enacted in 2000, exempts agreements between two public agencies for the transfer of untreated water to agricultural lands and other instances. Several agencies noted water and/or wastewater connections outside their jurisdictional boundaries. Those agencies are listed below. While many of these service agreements may be exempted, it may be worthwhile for the Riverside LAFCO to list and map service agreements that are not exempt before updating spheres. This might simplify the sphere review process. In addition, areas where the SOI of agencies could be amended to provide more efficient service are also described in the following sections. Those agencies not responding or noting no areas for SOI updates have not been listed. (cid:153) ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT The District noted that it serves some agricultural customers in the City of Corona. The Elsinore Valley MWD also noted that proposed development projects within the Farm Mutual Water Company might present problems with service delivery. The EVMWD did not specify the types of problems which may occur. However, the General Counsel for the Farm Mutual Water Company (MWC) noted that the EVMWD has a water service agreement with the Farm MWC that was signed approximately twenty years ago which rebuts the statement of the EVMWD February 2005 – Final Report 2-54 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review regarding future development and service problems in the Farm MWC service area. In addition, the 1993 update of the SOI for the EVMWD included portions of the Farm MWC in the SOI for the EVMWD. These issues should be clarified during the SOI update for the EVMWD. The District noted that a portion of its southern wastewater service area flows more efficiently to the Rancho California WD and might be more efficiently served by that agency. Rancho California WD is currently providing wastewater service in this area. (cid:153) ELSINORE WATER DISTRICT The District noted that it has served approximately 100 connections on the north and south sides of the Lake for the previous 30 years. (cid:153) JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The Jurupa CSD noted in the 2002 Riverside LAFCO Special Districts Questionnaire that it currently serves several areas outside its current boundary including the Swan Lake Mobile Home Park, the Santa Ana River Water Company service area and the Cities of Ontario and Norco. It also noted that its SOI might consider inclusion of the Swan Lake Mobile Home Park and the Santa Ana River Water Company service area. (cid:153) LAKE HEMET MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT The agency serves a portion of a citrus grove which lies outside its current boundaries. (cid:153) LEE LAKE WATER DISTRICT The Lee Lake WD noted that areas north of the District’s existing boundaries between Leroy and Cajalco Roads and areas east of the District near Temescal Creek might be considered for inclusion in its SOI. It also noted that the Lee Lake WD has facilities which could be shared with the City of Corona and the Elsinore Valley MWD to better serve the Butterfield Estates, California Meadows and Tract 2240 developments. There are several pending developments that the Lee Lake WD has issued “will-serve” letters to and which may require updating its SOI. (cid:153) RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT The District noted that it provides water service to the Grey Squirrel area through an agreement with the Eastern MWD as well as water service to the Lake Skinner area. February 2005 – Final Report 2-55 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 2.7.2 Other Governmental Structure Options The service review process examined a full range of governmental structure options. Some government structure options which had been previously examined by the Riverside LAFCO (or other groups such as the Grand Jury) were not pursued due to opposition, existing agreements, modest savings or increases in efficiency. These options are briefly mentioned in the discussion in this section and could be periodically revisited by the Riverside LAFCO. In addition, the service review did not address reorganizations with private and/or mutual water companies which occasionally rely on the public agencies for various services and for water supply. Several agencies in the Western Riverside service review area suggested that private and mutual water companies should be integrated into the service review or other LAFCO processes. For example, the Western MWD provides administrative and some operational services to the Box Springs Mutual Water Company and the Murrieta CWD provide services to the Hawthorne Water Company. (cid:153) HOME GARDENS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT/HOME GARDENS SANITARY DISTRICT/ CITY OF CORONA The Home Gardens CWD, the City of Corona and the Home Gardens SD and the Cities of Riverside and Corona all provide various services in the same area. There may be cost savings, economies of scale, simplification of service providers and service efficiency gained by a reorganization of the two agencies or with the Cities of Corona and/or Riverside. Recently the Home Gardens SD won an appellate decision against the City of Corona regarding its right to serve an area when its lines were installed prior to the City and the implications of this decision would have to be considered during any discussions. The fiscal impacts of a reorganization would be complicated by the existing debt of the agencies and by the presence of redevelopment areas. (cid:153) ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT / ELSINORE WATER DISTRICT In 1997-1998 the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District filed an application with LAFCO to reorganize the Elsinore WD and the Elsinore Valley MWD. The application was opposed by residents and denied by the Riverside LAFCO Commission. Subsequently the two agencies entered into a collaborative agreement regarding the groundwater basin. Although it was concluded during the reorganization hearings that little efficiency in service provision would be gained through the reorganization, it would be worthwhile at some point in the future for the agencies to revisit the issue to determine if there are now more opportunities for savings or efficiency. The General Counsel for the EWD noted that groundwater water rights should also be addressed in any subsequent reorganization study. February 2005 – Final Report 2-56 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review (cid:153) LEE LAKE WATER DISTRICT / CITY OF CORONA / ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Both the City of Corona and the Elsinore Valley MWD have numerous water lines and groundwater wells located within the Lee Lake WD boundaries. The City serves approximately 50 customers and the Elsinore Valley MWD approximately 800 customers. In addition the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) has a 24-inch waste disposal line that passes through the Lee Lake WD in Temescal Canyon Road; along Temescal Canyon Road there are water lines belonging to Lee Lake WD, City of Corona and the Elsinore Valley MWD. Portions of the SOI for the City of Corona overlap the SOI for the Lee Lake WD SOI. As noted previously, the potential for duplication of services and overlapping service areas should be clarified during the SOI update process. During that process it might also be worthwhile for the agencies to discuss some form of reorganization and the efficiencies that might be gained. Due to the previous preferences of the residents, the reorganization would have a greater chance of success if initiated by petition of the customers. (cid:153) MURRIETA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT / WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT/ RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT There are some overlapping service areas between Western MWD, Rancho California WD and the Murrieta CWD and the opportunities for reducing costs, reaching economies of scale and improving service resulting from a reorganization of the agencies should be discussed. Issues specific to the Murrieta CWD that should be addressed during a reorganization study are the comparative cost of water and ensuring employment equity for employees. (cid:153) EDGEMONT COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT / CITY OF RIVERSIDE The Edgemont CSD provides wastewater collection services to an area of approximately 1,504 acres but contracts with the City of Riverside to provide wastewater treatment and disposal services. The CSD’s service area is built-out and some of the sewers are aging--between 20 and 50 years old. There may be cost savings associated with a reorganization with the City of Riverside. (cid:153) JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT / RUBIDOUX COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The two agencies provide similar wastewater services to adjacent areas and are both formed under the same enabling legislation. Several years ago the Riverside LAFCO Commission examined the potential reorganization of the agencies and did not find sufficient gains in cost avoidance opportunities or in efficiency to justify a reorganization. However, with the substantial growth in the area the agencies and the Riverside LAFCO Commission may want to revisit the situation in the future. February 2005 – Final Report 2-57 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 2.8 EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES Reviewing management efficiencies is generally an internal function of a public agency with limited oversight by other agencies such as the state and federal government or grand juries. The OPR service review guidelines suggested twenty factors that could be used when evaluating management efficiencies but some of those factors assess internal practices which are difficult to measure or whose correction is outside the purview of LAFCO authority. These factors were not included in the service review questionnaire. Further complicating the process is the variety of water and wastewater agencies in Riverside County. Managerial efficiencies can vary widely among the water and wastewater agencies and can be affected by size, organizational culture, politics, past agency actions and other explanatory factors. In order to try to assess the relative effectiveness of the agencies while still accounting for the explanatory factors unique to the agencies, the Riverside LAFCO service review collected data that indicated compliance with some federal/state requirements and data that could be used as a general indicator of managerial efficiencies. Agencies were asked to provide the number and classification of employees, employee training, the presence of master plans and other long-range planning documents and audits. GIS capabilities and the administrative costs expressed as a percent of total revenues were collected to serve as indicators of managerial efficiencies. Agencies that did not meet requirements or whose response was significantly different from other agencies were contacted individually to determine what explanatory factors, if any, existed. The service review questionnaire asked agencies to provide data on the total number of employees for each agency, the staff providing direct provision of water and wastewater and the number of employees in water and wastewater with certification. The presence of employees with certification indicates both meeting legal requirements as well as some support within the agency for improved knowledge and training opportunities for employees. In California employees who operate, supervise or make decisions about the operation of drinking water treatment or distribution facilities must possess a water treatment and/or a distribution certificate. Certification is also required in order to work as an operator in a wastewater treatment plant. The results are shown in the following Table 2.8.1, Employee Information. In some instance, the number of employees with certification exceeds the total number of operational employees. This is usually a result of employees holding multiple certificates. February 2005 – Final Report 2-58 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review TABLE 2.8.1 EMPLOYEE INFORMATION # # of Operational # of Operational # of Employees-- Certifications Employees-- Certifications Total Water held by Staff Wastewater held by Staff Agency Employees Service Service City of Corona 123 40 65 24 18 City of Hemet 21 15 18 3 3 City of Perris NP NP NP NP NP City of Riverside 142 94 123 66 48 City of San Jacinto 10 6 6 2 1 Eastern Municipal Water District 433 41 100 47 45 Edgemont Community Services District NP NA NA NP NP Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District 134 54 57 17 23 Elsinore Water District 7 4 9 NA NA Home Gardens County Water District 5 4 4 NA NA Home Gardens Sanitary District 4 NA NA 2 0 Jurupa Community Services District NP NP NP NP NP Lake Hemet Municipal Water District NP NP 25 NP 7 Lee Lake Water District 7 2 4 2 2 Murrieta County Water District 15 7 9 NA NA Rancho California Water District 74 57 87 10 18 Rubidoux Community Services District 9 NP 11 NP 1 San Bernardino Valley MWD 19 19 NA NA NA West Valley Water District 50 28 28 NA NA Western Municipal Water District 56 13 37 13 13 NP- not provided; NA – Not Applicable The Riverside LAFCO service review questionnaire also used the presence and/or frequency of capital improvement programs (CIP), master plans, Urban Water Management Plans, Emergency Response Plans and audits as a means of assessing an agency’s management efficiencies. All urban water suppliers with more than 3,000 customers or delivering more than 3,000 AF/Yr are required to prepare urban water management plans (UWMP) and update them every five years. Most Riverside County agencies completed their UWMP in 2000 and will be required to prepare an update in 2005. Audits and CIPs are generally prepared annually. While there are no established standards for the frequency of preparation, typically master plans for water and wastewater agencies are prepared every 5-10 years. The type of service area (i.e., level of development, rate of growth or presence of growth control initiatives) can also affect the frequency of preparation. The presence of audits, CIPs, UWMPs and Emergency Response Plans can indicate that the agency’s management structure is efficient in meeting basic reporting requirements as well as long range planning. February 2005 – Final Report 2-59 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Table 2.8.2, Long Range Planning, shows the agencies and information regarding master plans and other long range planning documents. TABLE 2.8.2 LONG RANGE PLANNING Urban Water Emergency Date of Wastewater Water Master Management Response last CIP Master Plan Plan Plan* Plan Audit City of Corona Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 City of Hemet Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 City of Perris NP NP NP NP NP NP City of Riverside Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 City of San Jacinto Yes Yes NP Yes NP 2002 Eastern Municipal Water District Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Edgemont Community Services NA NA Yes NP NP 2002 District Elsinore Valley Municipal Water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2002 District Elsinore Water District No NP Yes NA NP 2004 Home Gardens County Water District Yes NA Yes NA NP 2003 Home Gardens Sanitary District NA NA NP No NA 2003 Jurupa Community Services District NP NP NP NP NP NP Lake Hemet Municipal Water District Yes Yes Yes NP Yes 2002 Lee Lake Water District Yes NA Yes No Yes 2003 Murrieta County Water District Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 Rancho California Water District Yes Yes Yes Yes NP 2003 Rubidoux Community Svcs District Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Yes Yes Yes NA NP 2003 Water District West Valley Water District Yes Yes Yes NA Yes 2004 Western Municipal Water District Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2002 NP- not provided; NA – not applicable Comparing an agency’s total administrative expenses as a percent of total operating revenue can provide a rough measure of an agency’s overhead costs relative to its size. Table 2.8.3 shows expense as a percent of operating revenue for each agency. However, since the service review questionnaire did not include specific instructions for calculating administrative costs, the data provided by the agencies could not be verified to ensure a consistent methodology. The results for each fiscal year, where reported by the agencies, are included in Appendix C, Financial Summaries and depicted in the following table. February 2005 – Final Report 2-60 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Note: The calculation method was not defined so results vary by how each agency classifies administrative costs. TABLE 2.8.3 FY 2002-2003 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AS A PERCENT OF OPERATING REVENUE WATER AGENCIES WASTEWATER AGENCIES City of Corona 73% 27% City of Hemet NP NP City of Perris NP NP City of Riverside 8% 6% City of San Jacinto NP NP Eastern Municipal Water District 25% 48% Edgemont Community Services District NA 18% Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District 9% 20% Elsinore Water District 23% NA Home Gardens County Water District 26% NA Home Gardens Sanitary District NA 21% Jurupa Community Services District NP NP Lake Hemet Municipal Water District 51% NA Lee Lake Water District 15% 22% Murrieta County Water District 40% 16% Rancho California Water District NP NP Rubidoux Community Services District 16% 3% San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District NP NP West Valley Water District 23% NA Western Municipal Water District 13% NA NP- not provided; NA – not applicable The fluctuations in the responses provided by the agencies are mostly likely the result of differing methods of defining administrative expenses or in the method of calculation. It is suggested that future service review questionnaires either provide detailed instructions for calculating the administrative expenses or that another indicator of management efficiencies be used. February 2005 – Final Report 2-61 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 2.9 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE No significant issues regarding local accountability and governance were noted for any of the agencies within the Western Riverside service review area. The governing boards of the agencies appear to be locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information and encouragement of participation in their election process. However, only thirteen of the agencies have websites which is an important means of increasing public accountability and access. The service review questionnaire asked each agency to provide current information about the governing board and the expiration date of each member’s term; that information is contained in Appendix A, Database Reports. This information was entered into the database and will be used by the Riverside LAFCO staff to maintain current and accurate information. Public access was evaluated by regularly scheduled meetings and locations, the presence of websites and the use of legally required notices. Several agencies held meetings during normal working hours; this could limit public accessibility. All agencies reported compliance with the legal requirements for posting of meetings. Table 2.9.1 summarizes local accountability and governance for each agency. February 2005 – Final Report 2-62 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review TABLE 2.9.1 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY # of Board Members Running Time of Unopposed in November 2002 Unqualified Website Meetings and 2003 Elections Audit City of Corona Yes 7:00 pm None Yes City of Hemet Yes Varies None Yes City of Perris NP NP None NP City of Riverside Yes 6:30 pm None Yes City of San Jacinto Yes 7:00 pm None Yes 9:0 am and Eastern Municipal Water District Yes One board member Yes 1:00 pm Edgemont Community Services District No 7:00pm Two board members Yes Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Yes 7:00 pm One board member Yes Elsinore Water District No 5:00pm None Yes Home Gardens County Water District No 5:00 pm Three board members Yes Home Gardens Sanitary District No 7:00 pm Two board members Yes Jurupa Community Services District NP NP Two board members NP One board member in each of Lake Hemet Municipal Water District Yes 3:00 pm Yes three divisions Lee Lake Water District No 8:30 am None Yes Murrieta County Water District Yes 7:00 pm None Yes Rancho California Water District Yes 9:00 am None NP Rubidoux Community Services District Yes 7:30 pm None Yes San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water Yes NP One board member NP District West Valley Water District In Process 3:00 pm Three board members Yes Western Municipal Water District Yes 9:30 am None Yes NP – not provided February 2005 – Final Report 2-63 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review 2.10 WESTERN RIVERSIDE SERVICE REVIEW AREA DETERMINATIONS • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. Based on expected supplies from Metropolitan and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and on data supplied by the agencies, the water service providers within the Western Riverside service review area have adequate water to meet future needs. 2. The wastewater providers can meet future wastewater needs by upgrading existing facilities and constructing new facilities. 3. The agencies adequately address infrastructure needs and deficiencies through master plans, CIPs and other long range planning documents. • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. The variations in growth and population projections among the agencies could be addressed through regional agencies providing population projections for special districts. 2. Projections of growth provided by agencies indicate that growth will occur throughout the Western Riverside service review region. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. The agencies prepare comprehensive annual budgets, maintain annual Capital Improvement Plans and maintain adequate and appropriate reserves. 2. The agencies, as enterprise activities, derive approximately 67% of their aggregate sources of revenues from fees and charges and approximately 23% from property taxes. 3. For most of the agencies within the Western Riverside service review area, the amount of reserves held is matched to CIP and other infrastructure improvements. 4. All agencies responding to the service review questionnaire reported unqualified audits prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. The agencies use their annual budget process to identify cost avoidance opportunities and use outside vendors and contractors for services when shown to be cost effective. 2. Establishing clear service boundaries through the sphere of influence process may assist agencies in avoiding costs for duplicative planning and litigation. February 2005 – Final Report 2-64 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. The agencies set rates and fees through an annual public process to ensure fair and equitable rates. 2. The rates for water and wastewater service are based on the cost of providing service and vary according to the service area, system and other unique characteristics of the agencies. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. The agencies collaborate extensively in the Western Riverside service review area. 2. Excess capacity, facilities and staff are made available by agencies whenever possible. 3. The agencies increase opportunities for shared facilities through joint powers agreements, inter-ties, service agreements and industry groups • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. The Riverside LAFCO should list existing, non-exempt service agreements as part of the agency SOI update process. 2. The Riverside LAFCO should examine the revision of spheres of influence of agencies with overlapping service boundaries. 3. The Riverside LAFCO should encourage discussions regarding reorganization among the following agencies: • Home Gardens County Water District/Home Gardens Sanitary District/ City of Corona • Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District/Elsinore Water District • Lee lake Water District/City of Corona/ Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District • Murrieta County Water District/Western Municipal Water District/Rancho California Water District • Edgemont Community Services District/City of Riverside • Jurupa Community Services District/Rubidoux Community Services District • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. The agencies maintain current management, interdepartmental and inter-agency practices and procedures appropriate to and efficient for their service. 2. Based on data supplied by the agencies, the number of employees with the appropriate water and wastewater certifications is appropriate to the size of the agency staff. February 2005 – Final Report 2-65 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review • Local accountability and governance 1. The governing bodies of the agencies are locally accountable through adherence to applicable government code sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information. 2. The Lee Lake WD, Jurupa CSD, Home Gardens CWD, Home Gardens SD and Edgemont CSD should consider developing websites to increase communication with customers. February 2005 – Final Report 2-66 2.11 Western Riverside Service Review Area Profiles Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review City of Corona (Department of Water & Power) ADDRESS: 815 West Sixth Street, Corona, CA 92880 EMAIL/WEBSITE: donw@ci.corona.ca.us, www.discovercorona.org TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 137,600 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 29,952 acres (water service); 22,144 acres (wastewater) FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $ 47,226,945 $ 47,213,101 $ 30,924,493 $ 38,093,111 WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: Domestic: 31,392 Domestic: 32,309 Irrigation: 923 Commercial: 1,582 M&I: 2,556 Industrial: NA Reclaimed: 220 Other: NA Other: 94 Number of Treatment Plants: 3 Supply (AF): Wholesale: 20,480 Total System Size: State Water Project: 3,780 Miles Gravity Sewer: 370 Surface: 16,700 Miles Force Main: 12 Wells: 18,330 Reclaimed: 400 Rates: Billing Period: monthly Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: Yes Total Capacity (AF): 60,489 Tied to Water Usage: No Total Demand. (AF): 38,831 Estimated Monthly Bill: $21.00 Peak Capacity (mgd): 97.2 Peak Demand (mgd): 62.3 Storage Capacity (mg): 19,710 Current Capacity Treatment Level 11.5 mgd Tertiary Rates: 3.0 mgd Secondary Billing Period: Monthly 1.0 mgd Secondary Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 11.05 $ NA $ NA ¾” $ $14.50 $ NA $14.50 1’ $ $20.75 $ $20.75 $20.75 Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $1.08 $ 0.935 (treated) $1.08 $ NA $0.30-0.75 (reclaimed) $0.30-0.75 CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided . M & I = manufacturing and industry **Source: City of Corona Water System Master Plan and HCF = hundred cubic ft Sewer System Master Plan Initial Study and Mitigated AF = acre-feet Negative Declaration, September 1997. mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-67 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review City of Corona Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-68 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review City of Hemet ADDRESS: 445 East Florida Avenue, Hemet, CA 92543 EMAIL/WEBSITE: stemple@cityofhemet.org, www.cityofhemet.org TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 22,673 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 3,360 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $ 6,138,565 $6,403,713 $ NP $416,649 WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: Domestic: 8,806 Domestic: 13,600 Irrigation: 124 Commercial: 0 M&I: 720 Industrial: 0 Reclaimed: 0 Other: 0 Other: 0 Number of Treatment Plants: 0 Supply (AF): Wholesale: 641 Total System Size: State Water Project: NAP Miles Gravity Sewer: 120 Surface: NA Miles Force Main: 0 Wells: 5,048 Reclaimed: NA Rates: Billing Period: Bimonthly Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: $6.40 –resid. Total Capacity (AF): 8,250 Tied to Water Usage: C/I only Total Demand (AF): 5,598 Estimated Monthly Bill: $19.20 C/I Peak Capacity (mgd): 8.75 Peak Demand (mgd): 7.3 Storage Capacity (mg): 5.0 Current Capacity Treatment Level NA NA Rates: Billing Period: Bimonthly Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 29.06 $ NA $ NA ¾” $ 31.32 $ NA $ NA 1’ $ 37.46 $ NA $ NA Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com 0-6 $ 1.57 $ NA (treated) $ NA 6-12$ 1.70 $ NA (reclaimed) $ NA CIP = capital improvement program Over 12 $1.96 FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-69 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review City of Hemet Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-70 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review City of Perris ADDRESS: 101 North "D" Street, Perris, CA 92570-1998 EMAIL/WEBSITE: NP, www.perris-ca.org TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 36,189* SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: NP FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $NP $NP $NP $NP WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: NP Domestic: NP Domestic: NP Irrigation: NP Commercial: NP M&I: NP Industrial: NP Reclaimed: NP Other: Other: NP Number of Treatment Plants: NP Supply (AF): Wholesale: NP Total System Size: NP State Water Project: NP Miles Gravity Sewer: NP Surface: NP Miles Force Main: NP Wells: NP Reclaimed: NP Rates: Billing Period: NP Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: NP Total Capacity (AF): NP Tied to Water Usage: NP Total Demand (AF): NP Estimated Monthly Bill: NP Peak Capacity (mgd): NP Peak Demand (mgd): NP Storage Capacity (mg): NP Current Capacity Treatment Level NP NP Rates: Billing Period: NP Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ NP $ NP $NP ¾” $ NP $ NP $NP 1’ $ NP $ NP $NP Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $ NP $ NP (treated) $NP CIP = capital improvement program $ NP $ NP (reclaimed) $NP FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft *2000 population, City of Perris (California Department of Finance AF = acre-feet www.dof.ca.gov) mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-71 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review City of Perris Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-72 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review City of Riverside ADDRESS: 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 EMAIL/WEBSITE: gcaravalho@ci.riverside.ca.us, www.riverside.ca.org TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 277,000 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 47,424 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $40,541,000 $32,867,000 $17,417,000 $21,489,000 WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: 58,585 Domestic: 61,726 Domestic: 54,311 Irrigation: NP Commercial: 3,864 M&I: NP Industrial: 372 Reclaimed: NP Other: NP Other: NP Number of Treatment Plants: 1 Supply (AF): Wholesale: NP Total System Size: 780 (miles) State Water Project: NP Miles Gravity Sewer: 770 Surface: NP Miles Force Main: 10 Wells: NP Reclaimed: NP Rates: Billing Period: monthly Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: NP Total Capacity (AF): 8,250 Tied to Water Usage: NP Total Demand (AF): 5,598 Estimated Monthly Bill: NA Peak Capacity (mgd): 8.75 Peak Demand (mgd): 7.3 Storage Capacity (mg): 2.3 Current Capacity Treatment Level 40 mgd NP Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 4.52 $ NP $4.61 ¾” $ 4.52 $ NP $4.61 1’ $ 7.52 $ NP $7.67 Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $0.57 $0.55 (treated) $0.94 $ NP $0.19 (reclaimed) $0 CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet\mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-73 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review City of Riverside Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-74 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review City of San Jacinto ADDRESS: 210 East Main Street, San Jacinto, CA 92583 EMAIL/WEBSITE: PCosentini@sanjacinto.ca.us, www.ci.san-jacinto.ca.us TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 12,290 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: NP FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $2,449,942 $1,618,011 $ NP $ NP WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: 3,241 Domestic: 2,953 Domestic: 2,598 Irrigation: 57 Commercial: 540 M&I: 484 Industrial: 103 Reclaimed: 0 Other: NP Other: 0 Number of Treatment Plants: 0 Supply (AF): Wholesale: 34 Total System Size: 108 (miles) State Water Project: NP Miles Gravity Sewer: 108 Surface: NP Miles Force Main: 0 Wells: 2,134 Reclaimed: Rates: Billing Period: monthly Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: yes Total Capacity (AF): 4,670 Tied to Water Usage: NP Total Demand. (AF): 3,005 Estimated Monthly Bill: NA Peak Capacity (mgd): 4.2 Peak Demand (mgd): 2.8 Storage Capacity (mg): NP Current Capacity Treatment Level NP NP Rates: Billing Period: monthly Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 12.84 $ NP $ NP ¾” $ 12.84 $ NP $ NP 1’ $ 18.83 $ NP $ NP Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $1.65 $1.65 (treated) $1.27 $ NP $ NP(reclaimed) $ NP CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hndrd cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-75 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review City of San Jacinto Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-76 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Eastern Municipal Water District ADDRESS: 2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA 92570 EMAIL/WEBSITE: packa@emwd.org, www.emwd.org TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 520,000 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 352,000 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $173,800,000 $144,100,000 $87,000,000 $57,300,000 WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: 165,000 Domestic: 91,821 Domestic: 152,500 Irrigation: 853 Commercial: 2,500 M&I: 2,775 Industrial: NP Reclaimed: 185 Other: NP Other: NP Number of Treatment Plants: 5 Supply (AF): Wholesale: 79,518 Total System Size: 1,500 (miles) State Water Project: 0 Miles Gravity Sewer: 1,440 Surface: 0 Miles Force Main: 60 Wells: 19,000 Reclaimed: 25,000 Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: NP Total Capacity (AF): 98,578 Tied to Water Usage: NP Total Demand (AF): 98,578 Estimated Monthly Bill: NP Peak Capacity (mgd): 160 Peak Demand (mgd): 160 Storage Capacity (mg): 0 Current Capacity Treatment Level 11mgd 8.5 Rates: 16mgd 9.5 Billing Period: NP 3mgd NP 12mgd 10.6 Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 7.17 $ NP $7.17 ¾” $ 7.17 $ NP $7.17 1’ $ 7.17 $ NP $7.17 Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $1.47 $1.08 (treated) $1.47 $ NP $0.16 (reclaimed) $0.41 CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-77 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Eastern Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-78 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Edgemont Community Services District ADDRESS: 21640 Cottonwood Avenue, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 EMAIL/WEBSITE: NP, NP TYPES OF SERVICES: Wastewater only POPULATION SERVED: 7,000 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 1,504 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $505,418 $344,285 $93,000 $0 WASTEWATER Connections: 1,300 Domestic: 1,300 Commercial: 1,300 Industrial: NP Other: NP Number of Treatment Plants: NA Total System Size: 100,000 (feet) Miles Gravity Sewer: 18.9 Miles Force Main: NA Rates: Billing Period: Annually Flat Rates: NP Tied to Water Usage: NP Estimated Monthly Bill: NP Current Capacity Treatment Level NP NP CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-79 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Edgemont Community Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-80 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District ADDRESS: 313 Chaney Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 EMAIL/WEBSITE: NP, www.evmwd.com TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 100,000; (Temescal Division 1,200) SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 61,440 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $33,771,416 $25,646,178 $2,311,864 $5,813,374 (Temescal Division) $2,122,825 $2,001,296 $111,529 $0 WATER (Temescal Division) Connections: Water Rates (HCF): Domestic: 27,200 Residential Irrigation Ind/Com Irrigation: 56,900 $.71 $1.38 (treated) $1.20 M&I: 844 $ NP $0.75 (reclaimed) $0.75 Reclaimed: 4 Other: 48 WASTEWATER Supply (AF): Connections: 23,316 Wholesale: 9,196 Domestic: 31,169 State Water Project: 3,000 Commercial: 1,567 Surface: 2,500 Industrial: NP Wells: 10,304 Other: Reclaimed: 6,466 Number of Treatment Plants: 3 Water Service Capacity: Total Capacity (AF): NP Total System Size: 299 (miles) Total Demand (AF): NP Miles Gravity Sewer: 285 Peak Capacity (mgd): NP Miles Force Main: 14 Peak Demand (mgd): NP Storage Capacity (mg): NP Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Rates: Flat Rates: yes Billing Period: Monthly Tied to Water Usage: no Estimated Monthly Bill: NA Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. Current Capacity Treatment Level 5/8” $ n/a $ n/a $n/a 8 mgd Tertiary ¾” $ 9.52 $ 9.52 $9.52 1.2 mgd Tertiary 1’ $ 16.18 $ 16.18 $16.18 0.5 mgd Tertiary Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $0.90 $1.54 (treated) $1.32 CIP = capital improvement program $ NP $0.83 (reclaimed) $0.83 FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. M & I = manufacturing and industry 5/8” $ 6.73 $ 6.73 $6.73 HCF = hundred cubic ft ¾” $ 7.67 $ NP $ NP AF = acre-feet 1’ $ 13.00 $ NP $ NP mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-81 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Elsinore Valley Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-82 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Elsinore Water District ADDRESS: 16899 Lakeshore Drive, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 EMAIL/WEBSITE: ewdwater@gte.net, NP TYPES OF SERVICES: Water only POPULATION SERVED: 4,436 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 4,480 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $1,033,780 $823,880 $217,249 $NP WATER Connections: Domestic: 1,685 Irrigation: NP M&I: NP Reclaimed: NP Other: NP Supply (AF): Wholesale: NP State Water Project: 230 Surface: NP Wells: 460 Reclaimed: NP Water Service Capacity: Total Capacity (AF): 460 Total Demand (AF): 454 Peak Capacity (mgd): .75 Peak Demand (mgd): .5 Storage Capacity (mg): NP Rates: Billing Period: Bi-Monthly Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 26.00 $ NP $ NP ¾” $ 26.00 $ NP $ NP 1’ $ 28.00 $ NP $ NP Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $NA $NA (treated) $NA $NA $NA (reclaimed) $NA CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-83 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Elsinore Water District Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-84 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Home Gardens County Water District ADDRESS: 3832 North Grant Street, Corona, CA 92879 EMAIL/WEBSITE: hgcwd@pamajic.net, NA TYPES OF SERVICES: Water only POPULATION SERVED: 3,032 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 232.5 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $700,590 $573,328 $318,125 $ NP WATER Connections: Domestic: 800 Irrigation: 0 M&I: 0 Reclaimed: 0 Other: 0 Supply (AF): Wholesale: 159.62 State Water Project: NP Surface: NP Wells: 378.62 Reclaimed: NP Water Service Capacity: Total Capacity (AF): NP Total Demand (AF): NP Peak Capacity (mgd): NP Peak Demand (mgd): NP Storage Capacity (mg): NP Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ NA $ NA $NA ¾” $ 28.50 $ NA $NA 1’ $ 47.60 $ NA $NA Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $1.05 $NA (treated) $1.05 $NP $NA (reclaimed) $ NA CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-85 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Home Gardens County Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-86 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Home Gardens Sanitary District ADDRESS: 13538 Magnolia Avenue, Corona, CA 91719 EMAIL/WEBSITE: hgsd@pe.net TYPES OF SERVICES: Wastewater only POPULATION SERVED: 9,461 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: NP FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $ NP $ NP $ NP $ NP WASTEWATER Connections: 2,438 Domestic: 2,261 Commercial: 143 Industrial: 27 Other: 7 Number of Treatment Plants: 1 Total System Size: 14.69 (miles) Miles Gravity Sewer: 14.69 Miles Force Main: 0 Rates: Billing Period: Bimonthly Flat Rates: NP Tied to Water Usage: NP Estimated Monthly Bill: NP Current Capacity Treatment Level NP NP CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-87 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Home Gardens Sanitary District Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-88 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Jurupa Community Services District ADDRESS: 11201 Harrel Road, Mira Loma, CA 91752 EMAIL/WEBSITE: www.jcsd.us TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 60,000 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 30,720 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $17,873,530 $13,727,888 $10,650,161 $32,890,392 WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: Domestic: 14,916 Domestic: 12,836 Irrigation: 5 Commercial: 85 M&I: 1,509 Industrial: 1,509 Reclaimed: NA Other: 0 Other: NA Number of Treatment Plants: 1 Supply (AF): Wholesale: 560 Total System Size: State Water Project: NP Miles Gravity Sewer: 200 miles Surface: NP Miles Force Main: 5.5 miles Wells: 16,316 Reclaimed: NP Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: Yes Total Capacity (AF): 96/day Tied to Water Usage: No Total Demand (AF): 95/day Estimated Monthly Bill: $54.00 Peak Capacity (mgd): 31.5 Peak Demand (mgd): 31 Storage Capacity (mg): 40 Current Capacity Treatment Level 8 mgd Tertiary Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 10.75 $ NA $NA ¾” $ 15.80 $ NA $NA 1’ $ 26.65 $ NA $NA Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $ 0.55 (0-15) $ 0.72 $NA $ 0.81 (16-50) $ NA $NA CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-89 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Jurupa Community Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-90 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Lake Hemet Municipal Water District ADDRESS: 2480 East Florida Avenue, Hemet, CA 92544 EMAIL/WEBSITE: rlindquist@lhmwd.org, www.lakehemet.org TYPES OF SERVICES: Water only POPULATION SERVED: 50,000 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 21,000 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $11,663,183 $12,496,680 $7,852,317 $782,728 WATER Connections: Domestic: 1,309 Irrigation: 46 M&I: 334 Reclaimed: NP Other: NP Supply (AF): Wholesale: 1,500 State Water Project: 0 Surface: 3,000 Wells: 12,500 Reclaimed: 0 Water Service Capacity: Total Capacity (AF): 17,000 Total Demand (AF): 17,000 Peak Capacity (mgd): 40 Peak Demand (mgd): 36 Storage Capacity (mg): 0 Rates: Billing Period: NP Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 17.77 $ NP $17.77 ¾” $ 17.77 $ NP $17.77 1’ $ 21.55 $ NP $21.55 Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $1.65 $.78 (treated) $1.65 $ NP $ NP (reclaimed) $ NP CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-91 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Lake Hemet Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-92 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Lee Lake Water District ADDRESS: 22646 Temescal Canyon Road, Corona, CA 92883 EMAIL/WEBSITE: llwdjp@att.net, NA TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: NP SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 6,800 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $2,755,163 $2,081,372 $2,880,259 $291,269 WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: 1,725 Domestic: 1,737 Domestic: 1,690 Irrigation: 38 Commercial: 8 M&I: 36 Industrial: 9 Reclaimed: 1 Other: 1 Other: 25 Number of Treatment Plants: 3 Supply (AF): Wholesale: NP Total System Size: 30.3 (miles) State Water Project: 6,516 Miles Gravity Sewer: 30 Surface: NP Miles Force Main: 0.3 Wells: 1,610 Reclaimed: 0 Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: yes Total Capacity (AF): 6,516 Tied to Water Usage: no Total Demand (AF): 1,912 Estimated Monthly Bill: NA Peak Capacity (mgd): 5.81 Peak Demand (mgd): 5.81 Storage Capacity (mg): 0 Current Capacity Treatment Level 0.9 mgd Tertiary Rates: 0.076 mgd Secondary Billing Period: monthly 0.090 mgd Secondary Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 7.35 $ 7.35 $7.35 ¾” $ 11.03 $ 11.03 $11.03 1’ $ 18.38 $ 18.38 $18.38 Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $1.32 $1.32 (treated) $1.32 $ NP $0.58 (reclaimed) $0.58 CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-93 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Lee Lake Water District Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-94 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Murrieta County Water District ADDRESS: 42290 Ivy Street, Murrieta, CA 92562 EMAIL/WEBSITE: wspencer@murrietawater.com, www.murrietawater.com TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 3,528 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 5,000 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $2,849,038 $2,527,132 $321,906 $173,981 WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: 1482 Domestic: 1,681 Domestic: 1,411 Irrigation: 70 Commercial: 70 M&I: 158 Industrial: NA Reclaimed: 0 Other: NA Other: 50-construction Number of Treatment Plants: 0 Supply (AF): Wholesale: none Total System Size: 25 (miles) State Water Project: none Miles Gravity Sewer: 24.5 Surface: 1,000 Miles Force Main: 0.5 Wells: 1,400 Reclaimed: 0 Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: yes Total Capacity (AF): 1,500 Tied to Water Usage: NP Total Demand (AF): 1,600 Estimated Monthly Bill: NP Peak Capacity (mgd): 2.2 Peak Demand (mgd): 2.7 Storage Capacity (mg): 3.3 Current Capacity Treatment Level NP NP Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 10 $ 10 $10 ¾” $ 15 $ 15 $15 1’ $ 25 $ 25 $25 Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $1.45 $1.45 (treated) $1.45 CIP = capital improvement program $ NP $NA (reclaimed) $NA FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-95 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Murrieta County Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-96 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Rancho California Water District ADDRESS: 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA 92590 EMAIL/WEBSITE: mail@ranchowater.com, www.ranchowater.com TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 105,000 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 100,000 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $73,607241 $60,431,872 $189,864,039 $17,231,828 WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: 13,776 Domestic: 29,597 Domestic: 13,453 Irrigation: NP Industrial: 323 M&I: NP Other: 0 Reclaimed: NP Other: 84 Number of Treatment Plants: 1 Supply (AF): Total System Size: 71 (miles) Wholesale: 44,200 Miles Gravity Sewer: 62 State Water Project: 0 Miles Force Main: 9 Surface: 0 Wells: 41,100 Rates: Reclaimed: 3,000 Billing Period: Monthly Flat Rates: yes Water Service Capacity: Tied to Water Usage: no Total Capacity (AF): 140,000 Estimated Monthly Bill: $25.00 Total Demand (AF): 78,000 Peak Capacity (mgd): 250 Peak Demand (mgd): 190 Current Capacity Treatment Level Storage Capacity (mg): 131 5 MGD Tertiary Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Meter/Service Charge-Santa Rosa Division: Meter/Service Charge-Rancho Division: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ NP $ NP $ NP 5/8” $ NP $ NP $ NP ¾” $ 16.97 $ 16.97 $ 16.97 ¾” $ 10.97 $ 10.97 $ 10.97 1” $ 30.47 $ 30.47 $ 30.47 1” $ 16.26 $ 16.26 $ 16.26 Water Rates (HCF)-Santa Rosa Division: Water Rates (HCF)-Rancho Division: Residential Irrigation Ind/Com Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $ 1.14 $ 1.14 (treated) $ 1.14 $ 0.78 $ 0.78 (treated) $ 0.78 $ 1.14 $ 1.14 (reclaimed) $ 1.14 $ 0.78 $ 0.78 (reclaimed) $ 0.78 CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-97 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Rancho California Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-98 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Rubidoux Community Services District ADDRESS: 3590 Rubidoux Boulevard, Riverside, CA 92509 EMAIL/WEBSITE: davelopez@rcsd.org, www.rcsd.org TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 26,177 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 4,800 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $6,810,655 $4,311,350 $6,969,128 $671,699 WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: 5,975 Domestic: 6,033 Domestic: 5,570 Irrigation: 20 Commercial: 405 M&I: 312 Industrial: 0 Reclaimed: 0 Other: 0 Other: 0 Number of Treatment Plants: 0 Supply (AF): Wholesale: 0 Total System Size: 76 miles State Water Project: 0 Miles Gravity Sewer: 72.4 Surface: 0 Miles Force Main: 3.6 Wells: 5,800 Reclaimed: 0 Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: yes Total Capacity (AF): 10,600 Tied to Water Usage: NA Total Demand (AF): 5,800 Estimated Monthly Bill: NA Peak Capacity (mgd): 12.5 Peak Demand (mgd): 9.95 Storage Capacity (mg): none Current Capacity Treatment Level NP NP Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 15.00 $ 17.78 $ 17.78 ¾” $ 18.00 $ 23.00 $ 23.00 1’ $ 23.00 $ 31.78 $ 31.78 Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $NA $NA (treated) $ NA $NA $NA (reclaimed) $ NA CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hundred cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-99 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Rubidoux Community Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-100 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District ADDRESS: 1350 South ‘E’ Street P.O. Box 5906, San Bernardino, CA 92412-5906 EMAIL/WEBSITE: webmaster@sbvmwd.com, www.sbvmwd.com TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 576,000 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 208,000 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $NP $NP $NP $NP WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: NP Domestic: NP Domestic: NP Irrigation: NP Commercial: NP M&I: NP Industrial: NP Reclaimed: NP Other: Other: NP Number of Treatment Plants: NP Supply (AF):* Wholesale: NP Total System Size: NP State Water Project: 67,716 Miles Gravity Sewer: NP Surface: 73,200 Miles Force Main: NP Wells: 132,205 Reclaimed: 26,000 Rates: Billing Period: NP Water Service Capacity:* Flat Rates: NP Total Capacity (AF): 299,121 Tied to Water Usage: NP Total Demand (AF): 364,566 Estimated Monthly Bill: NP Peak Capacity (mgd): NP Peak Demand (mgd): NP Storage Capacity (mg): NP Current Capacity Treatment Level NP NP Rates: Billing Period: NP Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ NP $ NP $NP ¾” $ NP $ NP $NP 1’ $ NP $ NP $NP Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $ NP $ NP (treated) $NP $ NP $ NP (reclaimed) $NP CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable Source: Sphere of Influence/Service Review (SOI/SR) NP = information not provided SBVMWD Prepared April 2003 for Riverside LAFCO M & I = manufacturing and industry *Supply and demand at ultimate build out from Table 2 in the HCF = hundred cubic ft SOI/SR. It should be noted that SBVMWD has excess AF = acre-feet capacity for current demand as shown in Figure 1 in the mgd = million gallons/day SOI/SR. February 2005 – Final Report 2-101 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review San Bernardino Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-102 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review West Valley Water District ADDRESS: 855 West Base Line Road, Rialto, CA 92377 EMAIL/WEBSITE: leon@wvwd.org, www.wvwd.org TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 56,000 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 23,500 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $9,200,820 $10,196,653 $28,000,000 $80,500,000 WATER Connections: Domestic: 17,346 Irrigation: 24 M&I: NP Reclaimed: NP Other: 130 (fire) Supply (AF): Wholesale: NA State Water Project: 1,687 Surface: 4,451 Wells: 15,418 Reclaimed: NP Water Service Capacity: Total Capacity (AF): 55,300 Total Demand (AF): 23,500 Peak Capacity (mgd): 49.4 Peak Demand (mgd): 39.2 Storage Capacity (mg): 66 Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ 7.96 $ 7.96 $7.96 ¾” $ 7.96 $ 7.96 $7.96 1’ $ 11.87 $ 11.87 $11.87 Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $ 0.80 $ 0.40 (treated) $0.80 $ 0.23 (reclaimed) CIP = capital improvement program Data Sources: WSBCWD Municipal Service Review by FY = fiscal year San Bernardino County LAFCO, Draft 2003; and www.wvmd.org NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hndrd cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-103 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review West Valley Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-104 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Western Municipal Water District ADDRESS: 450 Alessandro Boulevard, Riverside, CA 92508 EMAIL/WEBSITE: wmwd@wmwd.com, www.wmwd.com TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater POPULATION SERVED: 657,376 SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 326,400 acres FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP: (FY 2002-2003): $70,244,090 $58,373,095 $109,546,155 $17,203,550 WATER WASTEWATER Connections: Connections: 3,334 Domestic: 17,102 Domestic: 3,381 Irrigation: 589 Commercial: 18 M&I: 639 Industrial: NP Reclaimed: 3 Other: NP Other: NP Number of Treatment Plants: 2 Supply (AF): Wholesale: NP Total System Size: 10.3 (miles) State Water Project: NP Miles Gravity Sewer: 7.4 Surface: NP Miles Force Main: 2.9 Wells: NP Reclaimed: NP Rates: Billing Period: Monthly Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: NP Total Capacity (AF): 78,392 Tied to Water Usage: NP Total Demand. (AF): 19,316 Estimated Monthly Bill: NA Peak Capacity (mgd): 34.2 Peak Demand (mgd): 34.2 Storage Capacity (mg): NP Current Capacity Treatment Level 0.75 mgd Secondary Rates: 8.0 mgd Tertiary Billing Period: Monthly Meter/Service Charge: Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com. 5/8” $ NA $ NA $ NA ¾” $ 13.00 $ 13.00 $13.00 1’ $ 18.00 $ 18.00 $18.00 Water Rates (HCF): Residential Irrigation Ind/Com $1.16 $0.80 (treated) $1.16 $ NA $0.64 (reclaimed) $NA CIP = capital improvement program FY = fiscal year NA = not applicable NP = information not provided M & I = manufacturing and industry HCF = hndrd cubic ft AF = acre-feet mgd = million gallons/day February 2005 – Final Report 2-105 Riverside LAFCO Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review Western Municipal Water Map February 2005 – Final Report 2-106