LAFCO
Pass / Mountain Area MSR
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
Final Report
WATER AND WASTEWATER
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW REPORT
Pass / Mountain Area
Prepared for:
Riverside Local Agency
Formation Commission
3850 Vine Street, Suite 110
Riverside, CA 92507-4225
Prepared by:
Dudek and Associates, Inc.
605 Third Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
February 2005
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
I.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................1-1
1.1 Service Review Process.....................................................................................1-1
1.2 Summary............................................................................................................1-3
Regional Map ..........................................................................................................1-7
2.0 PASS/MOUNTAIN SERVICE REVIEW AREA..................................................2-1
2.1 Agency Descriptions...........................................................................................2-1
2.2 Population and Growth.......................................................................................2-5
2.2.1 Growth and Population – Regional Setting.............................................2-5
2.2.2 Growth and Population – Pass/Mountain Service Review Area.............2-7
2.3 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies .............................................................2-12
2.3.1 Regional Water Demand Projections....................................................2-12
2.3.2 Sources of Water..................................................................................2-16
2.3.3 Water Demand and Supply by Agency.................................................2-21
2.3.4 Water System Information....................................................................2-34
2.3.5 Wastewater Agencies...........................................................................2-36
2.3.6 Summary..............................................................................................2-37
2.4 Financing Constraints and Opportunities.........................................................2-43
2.5 Opportunities for Rate Restructuring ...............................................................2-48
2.5.1 Water Agencies....................................................................................2-48
2.5.2 Wastewater Agencies...........................................................................2-49
2.6 Opportunities for Shared Facilities and Cost Avoidance..................................2-50
2.7 Government Structure Options.........................................................................2-53
2.7.1 Services Outside of Agency Boundaries..............................................2-53
2.7.2 Sphere of Influence Updates................................................................2-54
2.7.3 Other Governmental Structure Options................................................2-54
2.8 Evaluation of Management Efficiencies............................................................2-59
2.9 Local Accountability and Governance..............................................................2-64
2.10 Pass/Mountain Service Review Area Determinations......................................2-65
3.0 AGENCY PROFILES AND MAPS..................................................................2-68
February 2005 – Final Report TOC-1
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Pass/Mountain Tables
1.1 Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review Agencies.............................1-2
2.1.1 Pass/Mountain Water/Wastewater MSR Agencies............................................2-1
2.2.1 Change in Population from 1990-2000...............................................................2-5
2.2.2 Regional Population Projections for Riverside County.......................................2-6
2.2.3 Water/Wastewater Service Population Projections............................................2-9
2.3.1 Regional Water Demand Projections...............................................................2-13
2.3.1(a) Pass Area Water Demand Projections...............................................2-13
2.3.2 Water Production/Usage in Mountain Service Review Area............................2-21
2.3.3 Water System Information................................................................................2-35
2.3.4 Regional Wastewater Demand.........................................................................2-36
2.4.1 2002-2003 Property Tax Revenue...................................................................2-45
2.6.1 Joint Service Agreements................................................................................2-50
2.8.1 Employee Information ......................................................................................2-60
2.8.2 Long Range Planning.......................................................................................2-61
2.8.3 FY 2002-2003 Administrative Costs as a Percent of Operating Revenue........2-62
2.8.4 Employee versus Service Connection Comparison.........................................2-63
2.9.1 Local Accountability..........................................................................................2-64
Pass/Mountain Figures
2.2.1 Pass Area Population Projections......................................................................2-7
2.2.2 Mountain Area Population Projections...............................................................2-8
2.3.1 Pass/Mountain Region Water Supply Schematic.............................................2-15
25-Year Source Water Supply Figures
2.3.2 City of Banning.................................................................................................2-18
2.3.3 Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District............................................................2-19
2.3.4 Fern Valley, Idyllwild and Pine Cove Water Districts........................................2-20
Water District Supply/Demand Forecast Figures
2.3.5 City of Banning.................................................................................................2-23
2.3.6 Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District ...........................................................2-24
2.3.7 Cabazon County Water District .......................................................................2-26
2.3.8 Fern Valley Water District.................................................................................2-27
2.3.9 High Valleys Water District...............................................................................2-28
2.3.10 Idyllwild Water District......................................................................................2-29
2.3.11 Pine Cove Water District..................................................................................2-30
2.3.12 Pinyon Pines County Water District..................................................................2-31
2.3.13 San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency...................................................................2-32
2.3.14 Yucaipa Valley Water District...........................................................................2-33
2.4.1 2002-2003 Agency Revenue Comparison........................................................2-44
2.4.2 2002-2003 Aggregate Sources of Revenue.....................................................2-44
2.4.3 2002-2003 Agency CIP Comparison................................................................2-45
February 2005 – Final Report TOC-2
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
2.4.4 2002-2003 Agency Reserve Comparison.........................................................2-46
2.4.5 2002-2003 Aggregate Reserves by Category..................................................2-47
2.5.1 Water Rate Comparison...................................................................................2-48
2.5.2 Monthly Wastewater Rate Comparison............................................................2-49
2.5.3 Wastewater Connection Fee Comparison........................................................2-49
APPENDICES (Separate Document)
Appendix A Western Riverside Council of Governments Population Chart
Appendix B Database Reports
Appendix C Financial Summaries of Agencies
Appendix D Federal, State and Local Regulatory Requirements
February 2005 – Final Report TOC-3
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Riverside Municipal Service Review
Partial List of Acronyms
AF Acre feet
AF/YR Acre feet per year
BCVWD Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District
CCWD Cabazon County Water District
CFS Cubic feet per second
DOF California Department of Finance
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments
CSD Community Services District
CWD County Water District
EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District
GIS Geographic Information System
IWD Idyllwild Water District
LHMWD Lake Hemet Municipal Water District
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MGD Million gallons per day
MWD Municipal Water District
NP Not provided
OPR Office of Planning and Research
SD Sanitary District
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SGPWA San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
SOI Sphere of Influence
SWP State Water Project
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WD Water District
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
YVWD Yucaipa Valley Water District
February 2005 – Final Report TOC-4
11..00 EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Service Review Process
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California
Government Code §56000 et seq.) mandates that each LAFCO conduct service reviews prior to
or in conjunction with Sphere of Influence (SOI) studies and updates. LAFCOs are also
required to review and update the SOI for all agencies not less than once every five years. The
statutory authority (§56430) for service reviews states that LAFCO must prepare an analysis
and a written statement of determinations regarding each of the following:
• Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
• Growth and population projections for the affected area
• Financing constraints and opportunities
• Cost avoidance opportunities
• Opportunities for rate restructuring
• Opportunities for shared facilities
• Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation
or reorganization of service providers
• Evaluation of management efficiencies
• Local accountability and governance
Service reviews are intended to result in options and future studies which will promote more
efficient service patterns, identify areas where service improvement is needed and assess the
adequacy of service provision in relation to SOIs. Service reviews are not intended to directly
change how services are provided; they are a tool to comprehensively review the major
services, the delivery of those services, any issues with the efficient provision of service and
potential actions by LAFCO that might address these issues, if any.
The Riverside LAFCO water and wastewater service review process started in July of 2003.
Due to the diversity of agencies, services and issues, Riverside LAFCO divided the County into
three regions—Western Riverside County, Pass/Mountain and Coachella Valley. This report
addresses the Pass/Mountain region. The other regions are addressed in a separate report.
The agencies included within the Pass/Mountain region are as follows:
February 2005 – Final Report 1-1
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
TABLE 1.1
WATER AND WASTEWATER MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AGENCIES
Riverside LAFCO Water and Wastewater Service Review Agencies
February 2005 – Final Report 1-2
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
PASS/MOUNTAIN
1. City of Banning X ● ●** X ● ●
2. City of Beaumont X ● ●
3. Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District X ● ●** ●*** ●
4. Cabazon County Water District X ●
5. Eastern Municipal Water District* X ● ● ● ● ● X ● ●
6. Fern Valley Water District X ● ●
7. High Valleys Water District X ●
8. Idyllwild Water District X ● X ● ●
9. Lake Hemet Municipal Water District* X ● X ●
10. Pine Cove Water District X ●
11. Pinyon Pines County Water District X ●
12. Ruisenor Water District (no services provided)
13. San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency X ● ●
14. Yucaipa Valley Water District X ● ● ● X ● ● X
* Service area in both Pass/Mountain and Western Riverside service review areas; analysis contained in Western
Riverside service review area
** The BCVWD signed an agreement with the City of Banning in 2003 to jointly build and fund a water treatment plant to
treat SWP water. The water treatment site has been purchased.
*** The BCVWD is currently constructing a non-potable water conveyance system and expects deliveries to begin in 18
months. The District has an agreement with the City of Beaumont, signed in 1993, to sign a purchase agreement for
reclaimed water when available.
A draft questionnaire to collect data was prepared and reviewed by an informal technical
advisory group comprised of representatives from the water and wastewater agencies. Two
initial kick-off meetings with all agencies were held. The first meeting addressed the service
review process and the second the draft questionnaire.
The final questionnaire, which was distributed to all agencies, was divided into three parts. Part
I asked for quantitative data about the agency‘s services, finances and governance structure
and formed the basis of the subsequent database. The second part included questions based
on the service review determinations and was intended to give the agencies an opportunity to
provide qualitative responses.
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Part III consisted of a map with the agency‘s boundaries and SOI. Each agency was asked to
note locations of facilities, overlapping areas of service and any illogical boundaries.
A majority of the agencies in the Pass/Mountain service review area returned questionnaires
although the format, quantity and quality of information varied significantly. The draft service
review report was sent to the technical advisory group and then to all the agencies for review
and comments. Revisions were received by phone, email and fax. In addition, a meeting was
held on June 4, 2004 in Beaumont to meet with agencies, receive comments and discuss the
process and report. Following this meeting, additional response time was provided to the
agencies to allow them to submit additional information and participate in telephone and in-
person interviews.
Various sources of information were used to prepare the service review reports. When data
from the questionnaire was incomplete, copies of master plans, Urban Water Management
Plans (UWMPs) and other sources of data were also used. All information collected from the
questionnaires was entered into the database which will be used for future SOIs studies, service
reviews and LAFCO reports.
1.2 Summary
This Summary addresses:
1. Areas of improvement in the service review process
2. Determinations for the Pass/Mountain service review area
1) AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS
• Reduce the amount of information agencies must submit
While the draft questionnaire was reviewed by all agencies, it was cumbersome
for agencies to use and some of the questions did not yield useful data. Updating
the service review “profiles” of each agency annually would allow Riverside
LAFCO to maintain an accurate database, provide the Commission, the agencies
and the public with annual information about the agencies and could be the
basis, in conjunction with UWMPs, for future service review reports.
• Utilize Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP)
UWMPs must be completed every five years by water agencies with more than
3,000 connections or delivering more than 3,000 AF of water per year. Agencies
in Riverside County completed UWMPs in 2000 and are scheduled to complete
February 2005 – Final Report 1-3
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
the next round in 2005. The UWMPs are required to analyze water supply and
demand and are an important source of data. Riverside LAFCO should consider
scheduling future water and wastewater service reviews to more closely coincide
with the schedule for UWMP updates.
Some suggestions received were beyond the scope of the Riverside LAFCO’s authority.
Projections of population growth are critical for efficient future water and wastewater service and
in Riverside County those projections are provided by a variety of agencies including the
Department of Finance (DOF), Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), Riverside County and the individual water and wastewater providers.
While there is some coordination among the agencies in the source and methodology, the
service review found fluctuations in population projections which make regional estimates of
future service demands more difficult. In addition, population estimates for the boundaries of
special districts are rarely provided by regional agencies. It is suggested that the LAFCO
Commission work with the WRCOG and CVAG to develop a regional means of providing
population projections for special districts, communities of interest and unincorporated
community boundaries as well as for cities.
Another issue that is beyond the scope of LAFCO to address is the need to have a source of
easily obtainable information about private/mutual water purveyors. In Riverside County there
are approximately 300 small (less than 200 connections) and 15 private/mutual water
purveyors. The service review process is only applicable to public water purveyors that come
under the purview of LAFCO. Since groundwater is a predominant source of water, analysis of
future supply and demand must include all water purveyors. Estimates of the use by private
and mutual water companies are difficult to integrate into the public planning process.
2) DETERMINATIONS FOR THE PASS/MOUNTAIN SERVICE REVIEW AREA
Growth and Population
The growth rate in the Pass/Mountain service review area is one of the highest in Riverside
County and will require an adequate water supply and wastewater capacity. Population and
growth projections used by the agencies in the service review were generally similar. However,
to more accurately predict future regional service needs, developing a regional source of future
growth and population projections for all agencies would be invaluable.
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The service review looked at infrastructure needs and deficiencies, including system capacity
and supply. Water supply and wastewater capacity in this region are potential infrastructure
February 2005 – Final Report 1-4
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
deficiencies. The region relies primarily on groundwater augmented by imported water, recycled
water, and surface water. In the Mountain area, a potential shortage of water supply may
negatively impact existing development, future demand and fire protection services. In the Pass
area, there is no consensus on future supply/demand projections between the agencies,
although they share the same or closely related water supply sources. The Beaumont Basin,
which is the largest groundwater basin, is adjudicated. The safe yield has been established at
8,650 af/yr. Water imported through the State Water Project is a new source for the area and
will primarily be used to recharge the overdrafted groundwater basins. In the future a portion of
it will be treated and used directly within the City of Banning and the Beaumont Cherry Valley
Water District service area. System infrastructure needs and deficiencies are being addressed
through master plans, CIPs and other long range planning documents, however rapid growth in
the region may require service before the necessary capacity and supply are in place. Future
groundwater quality is a concern due to the concentration of septic systems in some areas.
Financing Constraints and Opportunities
As a region, financing sources identified by the agencies are adequate to meet future needs.
Approximately 72% of revenues come from fees and charges and approximately 25% from
property taxes. For most of the agencies within the Pass/Mountain service review area, the
amount of reserves is matched to CIP and other infrastructure improvements.
Opportunities for Rate Restructuring
The rates for water and wastewater service in the Pass/Mountain service review area are
generally similar; variations are attributed to the cost of providing service, service area, system
and other unique characteristics of each agency. No significant issues regarding rates were
noted.
Opportunities for Shared Facilities and Cost Avoidance
Agencies in the Pass/Mountain service review area collaborate extensively through a variety of
formal and informal groups and agreements. The three agencies in the Mountain area have a
formal mutual aid agreement to provide staff, equipment and materials in the event of any
natural or manmade disaster. Excess capacity, facilities and staff are made available by
agencies whenever possible.
Government Structure Options
A range of governmental structure options was examined. Some options have been discussed
in the past by the Riverside LAFCO, and, while the disadvantages of reorganization may still
outweigh the advantages, Riverside LAFCO and the agencies should discuss the following
options:
• Reorganization of the Idyllwild WD, Fern Valley WD and Pine Cove WD
February 2005 – Final Report 1-5
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
• Reorganization of the High Valleys WD with the City of Banning
• Dissolution of the Ruisenor WD as it does not provide any services
Several agencies noted areas outside their current boundaries where services are provided.
Riverside LAFCO should compile a list of existing, non-exempt service agreements to simplify
future sphere of influence updates.
Evaluation of Management Efficiencies and Local Accountability and Governance
All the agencies are pursuing management efficiencies, cost avoidance opportunities and
shared facilities to the extent possible. Local accountability and governance were also found to
be efficient. The agencies are locally accountable through adherence to applicable government
code sections, open and accessible meetings, and dissemination of information. However, the
Cabazon CWD, Fern Valley WD and Idyllwild WD should consider developing websites to
increase communication with customers.
Based on the service review process, it can be concluded that the agencies addressed in the
Pass/Mountain service review area are providing efficient, cost-effective services.
February 2005 – Final Report 1-6
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
RREEGGIIOONNAALL MMAAPP
February 2005 – Final Report 1-7
22..00 PPAASSSS//MMOOUUNNTTAAIINN
SSEERRVVIICCEE RREEVVIIEEWW
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
2.0 PASS/MOUNTAIN SERVICE REVIEW
2.1 AGENCY DESCRIPTIONS
The water and wastewater agencies that were included in the Pass/Mountain service review are
as follows:
TABLE 2.1.1
PASS/MOUNTAIN WATER/WASTEWATER 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
PASS/MOUNTAIN
1. City of Banning X ● ●** X ● ●
2. City of Beaumont X ● ●
3. Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District X ● ●** ●*** ●
4. Cabazon County Water District X ●
5. Eastern Municipal Water District* X ● ● ● ● ● X ● ●
6. Fern Valley Water District X ● ●
7. High Valleys Water District X ●
8. Idyllwild Water District X ● X ● ●
9. Lake Hemet Municipal Water District* X ● X ●
10. Pine Cove Water District X ●
11. Pinyon Pines County Water District X ●
12. Ruisenor Water District (no services provided)
13. San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency X ● ●
14. Yucaipa Valley Water District X ● ● ● X ● ● X
* Service area in both Pass/Mountain and Western Riverside service review areas; analysis contained in Western
Riverside service review area
** The BCVWD signed an agreement with the City of Banning in 2003 to jointly build and fund a water treatment plant to
treat SWP water. The water treatment site has been purchased.
*** The BCVWD is currently constructing a non-potable water conveyance system and expects deliveries to begin in 18
months. The District has an agreement with the City of Beaumont, signed in 1993, to sign a purchase agreement for
reclaimed water when available.
(cid:153) CITY OF BANNING
The City of Banning provides potable water to its residents with groundwater as the main source
of water supply. The City owns one wastewater treatment plant which is managed by a private
company.
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
(cid:153) CITY OF BEAUMONT
The City of Beaumont provides wastewater services only. Its treatment plant has a current
rated capacity of 2.0 MGD and a current flow of 1.5 MGD. The City is currently pursuing a
permit for a 4 MGD expansion. Water service is provided by the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water
District.
(cid:153) BEAUMONT CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
The Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District (BCVWD) serves an area with a population of
approximately 20,000 people. Formed in 1919 as the Beaumont Irrigation District, the District
changed its name to the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District in the 1970s. The primary
water source is currently groundwater; the District has 18 active wells with a water production
capability of 20 MGD. A new well came on line in July 2004 which increased the production
capability by 4.3 MGD. The District has 13.35 MG of storage and a total production capacity
which exceeds the aggregate maximum day demand of two days. Another well is currently
being drilled and two other wells will be drilled in the next year with each well’s production
estimated to be 4 MGD. To ensure reliability, standby power is provided on some wells and
portable generators are available. The District recharges surface water in Little San Gorgonio
Creek and is in the process of developing a stormwater capture and recharge program to
recharge surface water directly over the Beaumont Groundwater Basin. To implement the
stormwater recharge program the District has purchased land, completed hydrogeologic studies
and begun design. In addition to stormwater, the recharge facilities could accommodate
reclaimed water and imported water.
(cid:153) CABAZON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
The Cabazon County Water District (CCWD) provides water service to 899 connections in an
area of approximately 20 square miles; the agency also serves as the back-up water supply for
the Morongo Reservation. Local groundwater is the only water source.
(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. EMWD's service area in Riverside County extends from Moreno Valley to Temecula,
encompassing Perris, San Jacinto, Hemet and parts of Murrieta. Analysis for EMWD is
included in the Western Riverside MSR.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-2
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
(cid:153) FERN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
The Fern Valley Water District provides retail water service to 1,200 connections in an area of
approximately 1,300 acres. Its source of water is surface diversions supplemented by local
groundwater.
(cid:153) HIGH VALLEYS WATER DISTRICT
The High Valleys Water District provides potable water to approximately 8 square miles with
184 connections in the area of Twin Pines, Mt. Edna and Poppet Flats. Currently, its sole
source of supply is water purchased from the City of Banning.
(cid:153) IDYLLWILD WATER DISTRICT
The Idyllwild Water District (IWD) provides water and wastewater collection and treatment to
approximately 1,600 connections in a service area of 2,400 acres. The source of water is
primarily groundwater; it also diverts surface water to use for groundwater recharge at Foster
Lake. It has one wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of 0.25 MGD. Average dry weather
flows in 2001-2002 were 0.115 MGD (State Water Resources Control Board). Current
treatment volume was not supplied as part of this 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 as well as Garner Valley and
surrounding unincorporated areas. The District has a 26 square mile service area and serves
approximately 13,636 domestic and 51 agricultural water customers; and 11,491 sewer
connections. A small portion of the service area is within the Pass/Mountain MSR study area;
however, analysis for LHMWD is included in the Western Riverside service review region.
(cid:153) PINE COVE WATER DISTRICT
The Pine Cove Water District provides potable water to approximately 1,070 active meters.
Groundwater is its sole source of water supply. There are 500 open building sites with
approximately 200 that are considered un-buildable due to slope, percolation tests or other
issues. In the previous year the District provided 1.5 MG of water to the Forest Service for a
controlled burn.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-3
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
(cid:153) PINYON PINES COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
The Pinyon Pines County Water District serves potable water to approximately 320 acres with
80 connections. It also provides water service to two U.S. Forest Service campgrounds (Pinyon
Flats and Ribbonwood Equestrian campgrounds) as well as to Riverside County Fire
Department #30. Its water source is exclusively groundwater.
(cid:153) SAN GORGONIO PASS WATER AGENCY
The San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA) is the State Water Project contractor for the
area responsible for wholesale delivery of imported water as well as groundwater management,
water quality monitoring and studies and monitoring of 600 wells in its service area.
(cid:153) RUISENOR WATER DISTRICT
The Ruisenor Water District does not provide services and has no staff or budget.
(cid:153) YUCAIPA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
The Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) provides water, wastewater, and recycled water
service to customers in the City of Calimesa, the City of Yucaipa and portions of Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties. The District’s overall service area is 35 square miles and it serves a
population of 48,350. The estimated population within Riverside County is 7,150.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-4
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
2.2 GROWTH AND POPULATION
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.
The Riverside LAFCO survey asked agencies to provide the current population and projected
growth in five-year increments through 2025. 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 Riverside
County, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the United States Census
and the California Department of Finance (DOF).
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. The following 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, both the Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG) and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) use 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 2-5
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 2030
United States Census
Riverside
1,170,413 1,545,387
County
Department of Finance (DOF)*
Riverside
1,577,700 1,645,300 1,705,500 1,864,700 2,159,700 2,459,600 2,817,600
County
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
Western
Riverside 1,559,554 2,085,500
County
*Some numbers based on interim County Projections, 2003
Growth is projected to be primarily concentrated in unincorporated areas simply because only
10% of the land area of Riverside County is incorporated (i.e., within the boundaries of a city).
However, existing population figures and future projections are most frequently based on
municipal boundaries and are rarely projected for the service areas of special districts.
Therefore, it is difficult to obtain current population figures or project future population for future
service demands in the service areas of smaller agencies or to ensure that agencies use
consistent methodology and assumptions as regional forecasts. This is a significant issue for
predicting future service demands for smaller water and wastewater agencies where growth is
expected and whose resources are more limited.
The Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District noted in their response to the draft service review
report that local agencies are in a better position to develop population projections since they
work with developers on infrastructure needs and build-out. The District noted that LAFCO
should provide oversight and review to ensure the projections are reasonable and generally
consistent with county and regional projections. In response to the comment from BCVWD, a
regional organization such as SCAG or WRCOG is a more appropriate agency to provide
projections to ensure consistency of methodology. However, agencies (in particular special
districts) can be a valuable source of data for the regional organizations.
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. Neither
LAFCO nor the special districts have the legal authority to regulate land use or affordable
housing production; the Cities and the County government control land use decisions.
Information about affordable housing will be included in subsequent and more appropriate
service review reports.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-6
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Ex_Pop 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year
February 2005 – Final Report 2-7
noitcejorP
noitalupoP
2.2.2 Growth and Population—Pass/Mountain Service Review Area
The Pass/Mountain MSR study area is projecting significant growth over the next twenty years;
however the growth rates differ between the Pass and Mountain areas. As shown below in
Figures 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, Pass/Mountain Population Projections, the Pass area is expecting a
higher level of growth than the Mountain area, primarily due to the larger inventory of
developable land. The projected growth in the Mountain area is due to an increase in year-
round residents rather than development; currently the area serves as a vacation/second-home
destination with a large percentage of part-time residents. Figure 2.2.1 shows the estimated
growth for agencies in the Pass area while Figure 2.2.2 shows those in the Mountain area.
Actual numbers as reported by the agencies are shown in Table 2.2.3, Water/Wastewater
Service Population Projections.
FIGURE 2.2.1- PASS AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District
City of Banning
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
Lake Hemet Municipal Water District
Yucaipa Valley Water District
City of Beaumont
High Valleys Water District is not charted due to scale; Current population = 400, 2025 population = 425
No data was received from Cabazon County Water District
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Ex_Pop 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year
February 2005 – Final Report 2-8
noitcejorP
noitalupoP
FIGURE 2.2.2 – MOUNTAIN AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Fern Valley Water District
Idyllwild Water District
Pine Cove Water District
Pinyon Pines County Water District
No population projections were provided by the Fern Valley Water District.
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
TABLE 2.2.3
WATER/WASTEWATER SERVICE POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Agency Population Projections
February 2005 – Final Report 2-9
noitalupoP
ecivreS
gnitsixE
noitalupop
ecivreS
5002
noitalupop
ecivreS
0102
noitalupop
ecivreS
5102
r
noitalupop
ecivreS
0202
noitalupop
ecivreS
5202
PASS/MOUNTAIN
Wholesale and/or Retail Water Agencies
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency1 53,000 80,000 105,000 114,000 140,000 160,000
Eastern Municipal Water District 4 520,000 559,046 640.926 718,078 819,357 920,461
Lake Hemet Municipal Water District4 50,000 52,020 57,434 63,412 70,012 79,298
Retail Water/Wastewater Agencies
City of Banning2 24,650 25,646 28,315 31,262 34,516 38,108
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District3 21,000 26,600 37,050 45,230 50,580 55,860
City of Beaumont1 19,000 23,000 30,000 40,000 60,000 75,000
Cabazon County Water District1 2,628 NP NP NP NP NP
High Valleys Water District1 400 405 410 415 420 425
Ruisenor Water District NP NP NP NP NP NP
Yucaipa Valley Water District5 7,150 NP NP NP NP NP
Fern Valley Water District 1,000 NP NP NP NP NP
Idyllwild Water District 2,500 2,540 2,640 2,740 2,840 2,940
Pine Cove Water District1 1,300 1,365 1,433 1,504 1,580 1,659
Pinyon Pines County Water District 300 305 310 315 320 325
1Population estimates provided to Riverside LAFCO in the special district questionnaire; Census figure of 2.92 pop/du used where necessary.
2The population figures supplied by the City of Banning are for water service customers.
3Figures based on BCVWD UWMP, Development approach (UWMP Table 1—3) and people/EDU from UWMP Table 1-2. In comments to the
draft service review report, the BCVWD also estimated a population in 2025 of approximately 66,000. The lower estimates supplied by the
BCVWD consultant have been used.
4Majority of population is not in the Pass/Mountain service review area
5Population in total service area is 48,350; estimate of 7,150 for Riverside County only extrapolated from YVWD 2000 UWMP estimate of 275
gpd per capita and total demand of 2,200 af/yr
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
EMWD’s service area encompasses portions of the City of Beaumont as well as unincorporated
areas within the Pass/Mountain service review area, but the majority is within the Western
Riverside service review area. The Lake Hemet Municipal Water District only serves a small
portion of the Pass/Mountain service review area; therefore information and analysis for these
two agencies has been included in the Western Riverside service review area.
Both Pine Cove and Fern Valley Water Districts noted that only 40% of the existing residences
in their service areas are currently occupied year-round; this is expected to increase in the
coming years as the current property owners reach retirement. Pine Cove WD estimates that
there are only 225 buildable lots remaining in its service area. The City of Beaumont has
23,400 dwelling units currently in development and planning, which is reflected in their projected
growth.
The current population figures for the Pass/Mountain area represent approximately 5% of the
total Riverside County population. The Pass/Mountain service review area is one of the fastest
growing regions in Riverside County and could be expected to increase its proportional share of
the total countywide population. However, obtaining accurate population projections for specific
areas, such as the Pass/Mountain service review area or for particular agency boundaries, is
difficult.
The difficulty in obtaining accurate population projections is partly due to the current method by
which regional population projections are developed. Developing projections for specialized
boundaries, such as water and wastewater agencies, can be both time-consuming and
expensive. In response, many larger special districts have developed their own system of
population projections or rely on the projections developed as part of their master plan and/or
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) process. Small special districts generally rely on the
knowledge of their staff for local conditions and estimates of future service demands. This can
create variations in predicting water and wastewater service area populations and demand
among adjacent agencies.
This is not an issue specific to the Pass/Mountain area, to service reviews or to water/
wastewater agencies. For example, the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) “Existing
Setting” section provided two possible countywide population totals in the year 2020. The first
total was approximately 2.8 million people while the other estimates that the County will
continue to grow to 3.5 million in the same year. This represents a difference of 700,000
residents.
Developing population projections for specific areas would be useful for SOI studies,
Communities of Interest (COI) and Unincorporated Community (UC) areas. One of the
unincorporated communities designated as a COI in the Pass/Mountain service review area is
February 2005 – Final Report 2-10
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
the Cabazon COI which is a 6 square mile area (3,840 acres) that includes the territory within
the former City of Cabazon and adjacent areas. The communities which have received a UC
designation within the service review area are the Cherry Valley area and Banning Bench, an
area comprising 1.1 square miles (700 acres) that was removed from the City of Banning’s
sphere of influence.
It was beyond the scope of the service review process to reconcile the various population
projections. However, the Riverside LAFCO should consider developing a county-wide growth
forecasting center that has the ability to provide population projections for special districts,
municipalities, SOIs, COIs and UCs to ensure that all the agencies are using common numbers
and assumptions.
The WRCOG has developed preliminary plans for a regional population model unique to
Riverside County and has estimated that it would require approximately $250,000 to establish a
regional system. Regional, consistent projections would be of the most value to areas and
agencies with expected growth; special districts with service areas that are generally built-out
typically estimate population using the current number of service connections, the average
population per household from the U.S. Census and regional growth rates.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-11
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
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 followed by the infrastructure needs
and deficiencies of the wastewater agencies.
2.3.1 Regional Water Demand Projections
The responses to the service review questionnaire were to be the basis for determining the
existing and future water demand; however several agencies did not respond or provided partial
responses to the service review questionnaire. Therefore other sources of information, such as
UWMPs, studies, and technical memos were used to prepare this analysis.
During a meeting of all the water agencies in the Pass/Mountain service review region on June
4, 2004, agencies present requested additional time to respond to the service review
questionnaire and to this report. Subsequently information was received from the Cities of
Banning and Beaumont, Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, the San Gorgonio Pass Water
Agency, the Pinyon Pines CWD, the Pine Cove WD, the Fern Valley WD and the San Timoteo
Watershed Management Authority. Data from these agencies has been summarized in the
following paragraphs.
In the Mountain service review area, the agencies responding added additional information
regarding the Water Resources Management Plan, currently underway, and clarification on
current and past feasibility studies to reorganize the Idyllwild WD, the Fern Valley WD and the
Pine Cove WD.
Several agencies in the Pass service review area added information regarding their agency’s
calculations of future supply/demand. Data submitted by one agency did not always coincide
with that supplied by another agency and it was not possible to reconcile all data as part of this
service review. The primary source of water in the Pass/Mountain region is groundwater and
while there is a consensus among the agencies that additional water supplies need to be
developed, the sources and uses of future water, the timing of availability and the amount are
under discussion.
Disagreements among the water and wastewater agencies in the Pass area have occurred in
the past. Currently, the California Department of Water Resources is facilitating discussions
among the agencies with a trained mediator in an effort to resolve differences. After the CDWR
process is completed, LAFCO should obtain a copy of the results and attach them to the MSR.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-12
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
The following table, Table 2.3.1, Regional Water Demand Projections, shows the expected
demand for each agency in 2025 based on available data provided by the agencies. Figure
2.3.1 shows the relationship of water providers and water sources in the service review region.
TABLE 2.3.1
REGIONAL WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Total Existing Demand Future Demand Future Supply
Number (2025) (2025)
Agency of Connections AF AF AF
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency NA 29,000 60,000 45,000
Pass Retail Agencies
City of Banning 9,950 9,869 16,058 36,071
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District 7,498 (2003) 6,308* 20,400 27,020
High Valleys Water District 184 110 NP NP
Cabazon County Water District 900* 1,042* 3,360** 3,360 **
Yucaipa Valley Water District 23,364 15,200 25,700 48,841
Mountain Retail Agencies
Idyllwild Water District 1,590 302 *** ***
Pine Cove Water District 1,064 112 *** ***
Fern Valley Water District 1,148 146 *** ***
Other
Pinyon Pines County Water District 82 22 22 22
* Future supply/demand data will be included in upcoming Water Resources Management Plan
**Based on Water Master Plan
*** Final figures will be available upon completion of Water Resources Plan, currently under underway
As an alternate comparison for a portion of the Pass Area, the “Final Report – Update of Water
Demands and Water Supply Plans” prepared for the San Timoteo Watershed Management
Authority (STWMA) lists the following demand projections1:
TABLE 2.3.1(a)
PASS AREA WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Year BCVWD Banning YVWD and SMWC Total
2000 10,200 9,500 2,200 21,900
2005 11,900 10,600 2,700 25,200
2010 14,600 12,000 4,600 31,200
2015 18,100 13,500 6,200 37,800
2020 20,600 15,300 7,800 43,700
2025 23,400 17,300 8,900 49,600
1 San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority, “Final Report – Update of Water Demands and Water Supply
Plans”. WE Inc. June 21, 2004
February 2005 – Final Report 2-13
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
The difference in BCVWD Year 2000 demand revealed in these two estimates was noted in the
District’s Final 2000 UWMP Update. The STWMA developed supply and demand projections in
March 2002 for Phase 1 of its Watershed Management Plan. The update prepared in 2004
included an evaluation and adjustment to those original estimates. BCVWD noted that the
STWMA demand estimates are higher than the District’s, and the supply estimates are lower.
There is a correlation between the projections of the two agencies and they are reasonably in
agreement at 2025.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-14
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
FIGURE 2.3.1
PASS/MOUNTAIN WATER SUPPLY SCHEMATIC
February 2005 – Final Report 2-15
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
2.3.2 Sources of Water
Pass Area
Groundwater is historically the primary water source for the Pass Area; imported water received
through the State Water Project (SWP) is a new supplemental source that will be used to
augment groundwater production through recharge and direct delivery. Surface water provides
additional supply in some areas. Recycled water will become an increasingly important source
of supply as the use of recycled water to irrigate landscape directly offsets potable demand for
that use.
As a hydrological region, the Pass area consists of sub-basins divided by faults and other
geologic barriers forming large sub-surface aquifers. The Pass service review region is
underlain by the Beaumont Storage Unit, the Beaumont, Banning Bench, East/West Banning,
Banning Canyon, Cabazon, Edgar Canyon, Singleton, San Timoteo, and Noble Canyon basins.
Water purveyors in the area have wells located in various basins, and although the MSR
considers the groundwater production of public agencies, there are a number of private interests
and mutual water companies extracting from the same basins. There is a growing concern over
the safe-yield of these basins as it is widely recognized that they have been overdrafted; the
increase in demand caused by development and the drought has focused attention on the
management of this water resource.
In February 2003, the San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority filed suit in Superior
Court to adjudicate pumping and storage rights in the Beaumont Basin to mitigate the
overdrafting that has occurred. In early 2004, a stipulated agreement was approved by the
Court that creates the Beaumont Basin Watermaster and establishes the pumping rights for
both the overlying and appropriative pumpers. This agreement sets the safe-yield of the
Beaumont Basin at 8,650 af/yr. It also declares that there is a temporary surplus in the basin of
160,000 af that can be used by the appropriative pumpers within the first ten years. By
removing the surplus, additional evacuated storage will be created that can be used to store
supplemental water.2 The other basins listed above are not adjudicated and no data was
provided regarding a coordinated management program or studies to determine the safe-yield.
Groundwater recharge is accomplished through natural recharge by surface and stormwater. In
the future, water imported through the SWP will be used for recharge through spreading basins.
Groundwater quality is a concern due to the number of septic systems concentrated in local
areas. There was no indication that production had been impacted by any contaminant or an
increase in Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) at this point.
2 Ibid.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-16
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Imported water is a new source of supply for the Pass Area. The transmission and treatment
infrastructure is in place to allow for deliveries through the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency,
the State Water Project Contractor for the area. According to the Final Report prepared for the
San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority, SGPWA’s Table A entitlement for the Report’s
study area starts out at 2,000 af/yr in 2004, increases to 7,000 af/yr in 2005, and increases to
14,000 af/yr in 2010.3 It is important to note that actual delivery volumes from the SWP are
almost always a percentage of a given entitlement. SWP contractors request delivery based on
demand projections from the retail agencies; the volume received is dependent on a number of
factors, including the available supply and requests from other contractors. Because of this
inherent variability, it is important that agencies proactively manage this resource and maximize
water banking, conjunctive use and storage opportunities.
Both the City of Banning and Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District are planning to increase
their use of imported water in the future. The City and District have entered into an agreement
to jointly fund and own a water treatment plant for SWP water. Banning will take delivery of
SWP water indirectly though spreading grounds in the Beaumont Basin and directly once the
treatment plant is operational. BCVWD is collecting fees from new developments to purchase
additional SWP Table A water through SGPWA.
Through forward planning and implementation, recycled water is rapidly becoming a viable
water source for the Pass Area. The Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District has been planning
for this since the late 1980s and has agreements in place with the City of Beaumont, the
recycled water producer. The BCVWD collects fees from developers to fund the installation of
the backbone recycled water distribution and storage system. Developers are required to install
the required facilities as part of their development. As a result, a large portion of this
infrastructure is already in the ground. Design is underway for a pipeline from the SWP East
Branch Extension to provide supplemental, untreated SPW for irrigation in the interim until
adequate supply is available. It is expected that construction will start in early 2005. A recycled
water storage reservoir is also in design and planned for construction in 2005.
The total water supply for the investigation area covered under the “Final Report” prepared for
the San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority is shown at 26,000 af/yr in 2003 and
increases to 53,700 af/yr by 2025.4 (This excludes portions of the Pass Area included in the
MSR study area.) However, this is not corroborated by the SGPWA’s projections, although they
do not include the stipulations of the adjudication agreement, the development of new local
surface water sources, recycled water use plans, or the acquisition of additional SWP
entitlements. As stated earlier, the adjudication of the Beaumont Basin establishes a 160,000 af
surplus that can be used by the appropriative pumpers in the next 10 years in order to create
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-17
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
additional storage for surplus supplies. It is assumed that the surplus supply to be stored will be
obtained through recharge of SWP water. Obtaining supply from each of the water sources
bears a cost that will ultimately affect water rates. Going forward, it is critical that the agencies
work collaboratively on demand projections and allocations for the region to maximize the use
benefits of each of the water sources.
The following figures show the 25-year source water supply for Banning and the BCVWD.
FIGURE 2.3.2 – CITY OF BANNING
25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year
February 2005 – Final Report 2-18
)ry/fa(
noitcudorP
retaW
Reclaimed
Well
Suface Water
SWP
Note: Surface water is from Whitewater River provided to City through Banning Bench Mutual Water
Company. Reclaimed water will be provided through the City’s Wastewater Reclamation Plant.
Untreated SWP water delivered by SGPWA may be a potential source for additional non-potable
supply.
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
FIGURE 2.3.3 – BEAUMONT CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year
February 2005 – Final Report 2-19
)ry/fa(
noitcudorP
retaW
Reclaimed
Well
Suface Water
SWP
Note: Information obtained from BCVWD “Final 2000 Urban Water Management Plan Update”, August
2002. Surface water is comprised of urban runoff and stormwater capture, both used for groundwater
recharge, as well as captured infiltration (shallow groundwater).
Mountain Area
The primary water sources for the Mountain Area are groundwater and surface water diverted
from streams and springs. There currently is no infrastructure to import water into the area,
although this will be evaluated as part of the Water Resources Management Plan that is being
developed.
According to the draft “Task Two - Technical Memo: Water Resources Management Plan”, the
groundwater supply in the area is highly dependent on climatic changes, with the shallower
alluvial wells responding first, and often dramatically, in drought periods. The deeper bedrock
wells are the most reliable production sources. While the shallower wells may decline 50-feet
during a drought, the deeper wells may only decline less than 10-feet. Existing wells are
concentrated in some areas which may exacerbate declining water levels during drought
conditions. Based on the analysis completed by an independent consultant, there is an
estimated surplus of 800 af/yr of water exiting the study area; however it may not be
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Year
February 2005 – Final Report 2-20
)ry/fa(
noitcudorP
retaW
economically feasible to place wells everywhere necessary to capture this water.5 This surplus
is not included in the supply data shown in Figure 2.3.4; further studies need to be done to
determine if extraction is feasible as well as the volume that could be considered as a consistent
supply.
Surface water rights are addressed in the draft “Task One - Technical Memo: Water Resources
Management Plan”. For the Fern Valley WD, all surface water rights are currently designated
for municipal use and must be used within the pre-specified place of use. Fern Valley is allowed
to divert 0.48 cfs from Strawberry and Tahquitz Creeks for use within 30 days and 30 af/yr for
seasonal storage.
Idyllwild Water District is permitted to store 40 af/yr on Lilly Creek and has the right to use water
from the creek for domestic, recreational and fire protection uses. In addition, the District may
store surface runoff from the Lilly Creek Watershed in Foster Lake during the fall, winter and
spring seasons. IWD has a pre-1914 Appropriative Rights claim to divert water from Strawberry
Creek to Foster Lake for storage; however the District has stated in writing that it will not assert
this pre-emptive right.
Pine Cove WD and Pinyon Pines CWD rely solely on groundwater. The following figure shows
the 25-year source water supply for the Mountain Area.
FIGURE 2.3.4 – FERN VALLEY, IDYLLWILD AND PINE COVE WATER DISTRICTS
25 YEAR SOURCE WATER SUPPLY
Well
Suface Water
5 San Jacinto Mountain Area Water Study Agency, “Task Two - Technical Memo: Water Resources Management
Plan”. Albert A. Webb Associates, May 19, 2004 (Draft).
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Table 2.3.2 - Water Production in the Mountain Service Review Area, depicts the water
production in AF for each agency as noted in the draft “Task One - Technical Memo: Water
Resources Management Plan”.
TABLE 2.3.2
WATER PRODUCTION/USAGE IN THE MOUNTAIN SERVICE REVIEW AREA
Calendar Year Idyllwild WD Fern Valley WD Pine Cove County WD
Total Water Total Water Total Water
Total Water Total Water Total Water
Produced Produced Produced
Usage (AF) Usage (AF) Usage (AF)
(AF) (AF) (AF)
Existing (2004) 295.99 287.99 178.21 143.66 126.62 114.2
2005 296.86 288.86 178.96 144.41 127.26 114.9
2010 301.41 293.41 182.69 148.14 130.46 118.1
2020 311.90 303.90 190.15 155.60 136.84 124.4
* Source: Draft Task One, Technical Memo: Water Resources Management Plan
As stated previously, the three agencies in the Mountain service review region are jointly
preparing a Water Resources Management Plan. Copies of the Task One report, which reviews
and summarizes existing information, and Task Two report, definition of study area, are
available from the Riverside LAFCO. The final report will provide a detailed assessment of
water resources in the Mountain service review area.
2.3.3 Water Demand and Supply by Agency
The 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.
(cid:153) CITY OF BANNING
The City of Banning provides potable water to all areas of the City except the northern portions
which are served by the Banning Heights Mutual Water Company. The City's source of water
supply is groundwater and the source of water for the Banning Heights Mutual Water Company
is surface water diverted from the Whitewater River. The primary use of water by the Banning
Heights Mutual Water Company is for crop irrigation. In addition, the High Valleys Water
District is located approximately three to six miles southeasterly of the City of Banning and
currently receives water from the City.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-21
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Based on a study completed by Geoscience Support Services, Inc. (Determination of Maximum
Perennial Yield for the City of Banning, 2003) and on draft portions of the Water Resources
Element for the City’s 2004 update of its General Plan, the groundwater tables have shown a
steady decline since 1964 with little seasonal fluctuation. In the Geosciences report the range
of maximum perennial yield for the City’s planning area was calculated as between 8,900 and
12,800 af/yr. Total average water demand since 1991 has ranged between a high of 10,053 in
2003 and a low of 6,719 af/yr in 1992. The annual water use has averaged 8,406 af/yr, with the
median water use being 8,180 af/yr. Due to the drought and continued development in the City,
the draft Water Resources Element for the City’s General Plan concluded that the groundwater
basin is being overdrafted.
In 2001-2002, the City’s wells in Banning Canyon failed due to the drought. The City and the
Beaumont Cherry Valley WD entered into an agreement which provided emergency water
connections to the City from the District’s system in the interim. Since the City’s primary source
is groundwater and significant concerns have been raised about overdrafting of the groundwater
basins in the area, this represents a significant infrastructure need. In December 2003, the City
of Banning entered into a cooperative agreement with the Beaumont Cherry Valley WD to jointly
develop and operate three new wells in the Beaumont Storage Unit to meet Banning’s water
requirements. A longer range plan has also been developed to participate with BCVWD in a
new water treatment plant to treat imported water for distribution in their respective service
areas. However, as growth continues the concern regarding water supply remains until the
long-range plans are in existence.
The City owns one wastewater treatment plant which is managed by a private company. The
City has planned on developing, in two phases, and ultimately using 7,394 af/yr of recycled
water to supplement existing sources and has planned on receiving approximately 6,600 af/yr of
SWP, again in two phases, for another source of water. Figure 2.3.5 was developed using
information submitted by the City. Based on information submitted by the agency, groundwater
will continue to be the primary source of water for the City.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-22
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
40,000
36,071
35,000 33,607
30,358
30,000
28,006
24,645
25,000
22,852
20,000
16,058
14,796
15,000 13,535
12,273
10,875
9,869
10,000
5,000
-
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
February 2005 – Final Report 2-23
)ry/fa(
ylppuS
.sv
dnameD
FIGURE 2.3.5 – CITY OF BANNING
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST
Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand
(cid:153) BEAUMONT CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
At the end of 2003 the Beaumont Cherry Valley WD had 7,498 water system connections with a
total population served, based on an adjustment of US Census data, of 14,550 people. Based
on the District’s UWMP, of the total 9,650 (66%) were located in the City of Beaumont, 4,580
(33%) in Cherry Valley and the remainder in unincorporated areas.
The District has used land-use based growth projections to determine their estimated increase
in service connections over the next 25 years. By 2025, their estimation of total connections is
expected to be 20,385 which represents an increase of 12,887 connections or 172%. Currently,
all water is from the Edgar Canyon and Beaumont Storage Unit groundwater basins and is
produced at a rate of 6,308 af/yr. Pump capacity of the 19 wells totals 22,650 af/yr. A new well,
projected to produce 4,800 af/yr, is being drilled (July 2004); two more wells of similar capacity
are planned to be drilled within the next year. Figure 2.3.3 illustrates the water supply demand
forecast to year 2025.
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
FIGURE 2.3.6 – BEAUMONT CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST
30,000
27,020
26,560
25,500
25,000
22,250
20,400
20,000 19,300
17,900
15,380
15,000 14,100
9,800
10,000
6,308 6,308
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
Based on the UWMP, the SWP supply via the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency will be used
by 2005 and is expected to provide up to 5,000 af/yr in the short term. In its response to the
draft service review report, the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District noted that it “recognizes
the limitation on the SWP availability and the fact that the Beaumont Basin is in overdraft. It is
expected that a large portion of the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency’s Table A entitlement will
go toward replenishing the overdraft.” The Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District is currently
collecting fees for the purchase of new water over and above the Pass Agency’s Table A
entitlement to meet projected demands. The remaining water demand in the future will be
supplied by recycled water, groundwater recharge and stormwater capture.
However, the State Water Resources Control Board has written the Beaumont Cherry Valley
Water District informing them that there are concerns about the agency’s rights to stormwater
capture and the supply of this source water is not certain. The Beaumont Cherry Valley WD
noted that, “The SWRCB has a misunderstanding of the District’s Stormwater Capture and
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Recharge Project. The SWRCB recognizes that the District has two permitted diversions in
Little San Gorgonio Creek through pre-1914 and riparian rights. As part of the Stormwater
Capture and Recharge Project, the District is merely relocating one of the diversions farther
downstream. The District believes that once the SWRCB fully understands the project, this
water rights issue will become moot.”
The District’s 1995 Water Master Plan included a reclaimed water master plan. This has been
revisited during the preparation of the UWMP update. An estimated demand of 5,600 af/yr of
recycled water is projected in the future. Currently there are 5 golf courses within the District’s
service area (Oak Valley-1, Highland Springs-2, and PGA-2); in addition there are common
areas irrigable with recycled water in Three Rings Ranch, Oak Valley, Pardee, and the PGA
development. The Beaumont School District’s new high school and middle school are all piped
to use recycled water. In addition the City has a Sports Park and medians, along with Noble
Creek Regional Park which can be irrigated with recycled water. The infrastructure is already in
place to serve these areas (the Highland Springs Golf Courses are the exception.) The current
demand far exceeds the recycled water supply and as such the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water
District is proposing to use untreated SWP water to supplement the recycled water in the interim
until the reclaimed water supply matches demand. Furthermore, the District has spreading
grounds available that can be used to recharge recycled water. The District recognizes that
additional treatment may be required for the recharged water.
The District also noted that, “The key elements for supporting the continued growth in the
District are the continued construction of a recycled water distribution system, the
implementation of a recharge program, the development of an urban runoff program and the
delivery and recharge program using new SWP water. This new water, as discussed above, will
be purchased by BCVWD from agencies having a surplus of SWP water or from other water
rights owners. In lieu of direct purchase, the District can use the new water fees to purchase
shares in water resource projects by other agencies and exchange the water with SWP water.
BCVWD and the Pass Agency will need to work together on this since the Pass Agency has the
contract with the Department of Water Resources to transport this ‘exchange’ or ‘purchased’
water. BCVWD recognizes there will be conveyance charges for this. These programs are all
underway and facilities are in the ground.”
February 2005 – Final Report 2-25
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
4,000
3,500 3,360
3,000 2,894
2,500 2,431
1,968
2,000
1,505
1,500
1,0421,042 1,042 1,042 1,042 1,042 1,042
1,000
500
0
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
February 2005 – Final Report 2-26
).ry/teef-ercA(
ylppuS/dnameD
(cid:153) CABAZON WATER DISTRICT
The Cabazon Water District did not respond to the service review questionnaire, therefore the
only supply/demand information available was the 2002 Riverside LAFCO Special Districts
questionnaire listing current system demands. The District provides water service to
approximately 900 homes at an average annual demand of 1,042 af/yr. The Cabazon WD sold
water rights to The Cabazon Indian nation. However, the agreement stipulated that if the water
rights were not used within 5 years, the rights would revert back to the Cabazon WD. All water
is supplied through groundwater wells. They are projecting to provide sewer service in the near
future for approximately 100 homes. Figure 2.3.7 illustrates the water supply demand forecast
to year 2025.
FIGURE 2.3.7 – CABAZON WATER DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST
Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
250
238 238 238 238 237
230
196
200
189
180 178
166
146
150
100
50
-
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
February 2005 – Final Report 2-27
)ry/fa(
ylppuS
.sv
dnameD
(cid:153) FERN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
The agency was established in 1958 and a large portion of the water delivered to Fern Valley
Water District customers is surface water runoff from the watershed generally north of the
district. Water is diverted from Strawberry Creek (0.2 cfs) and Tahquitz Creek (0.28 cfs) under
licenses issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. Figure 2.3.8 illustrates the water
supply/demand forecast to year 2025. The projections will likely be revised in connection with
the water management study currently underway for the Mountain area.
FIGURE 2.3.8 – FERN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST
Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
(cid:153) HIGH VALLEYS WATER DISTRICT
The High Valleys Water District relies on the City of Banning as its sole source of supply. The
District used to operate several small wells to meet the majority of demand. However, High
Valleys now pumps from the City of Banning at a very high cost. The District’s Board of
Directors is pursuing a contract with a hydrogeologic expert to locate a well or wells within
district boundaries.
The following Figure 2.3.9 illustrates the water supply/demand forecast to year 2025 for the
High Valleys WD, based on 2002 demand information only. The draft “Task Two - Technical
Memo: Water Resources Management Plan” noted that a preliminary report, prepared in 1969
by Albert Webb Associates, included design of a water system to serve the High Valleys Water
District with the proposed water supply to be obtained from a well near the City of Cabazon.
The “Water Resources Management Plan” currently being prepared for the San Jacinto Area
Water Study Agency will evaluate this option.
FIGURE 2.3.9 – HIGH VALLEYS WATER DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST
120
110 110 110 110 110 110
100
80
60
40
20
0
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
February 2005 – Final Report 2-28
).ry/teef-ercA(
ylppuS/dnameD
Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
900
800 800 800 800 800 800
800
700
600
500
400
302
302 302 302 302 302
300
200
100
0
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
February 2005 – Final Report 2-29
).ry/teef-ercA(
ylppuS/dnameD
(cid:153) IDYLLWILD WATER DISTRICT
The Idyllwild Water District (IWD) provides water and wastewater collection and treatment to
approximately 1,600 connections and 2,400 acres. IWD has a supply of 800 af/yr of
groundwater and a current demand of 302 af/yr. No information regarding projected supply or
demand was available. The source of water for the agency is primarily groundwater and
diversion of surface water which is used for groundwater storage/replenishment. The agency
has one wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of 0.25 MGD. Both IWD and the Pine Cove
Water District are co-owners of a 26-acre parcel (Dutch Flats) that contains three wells. Water is
treated by PCWD through filters and distributed to both districts. Figure 2.3.10 illustrates the
water supply/demand forecast to year 2025, based on 2002 demand information only. Some
supply/demand data for future years is available from the preliminary water resources
management study currently underway.
FIGURE 2.3.10 – IDYLLWILD WATER DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST
Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
120
112 112 112 112 112 112
100
80
60
40
20
0
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
February 2005 – Final Report 2-30
).ry/teef-ercA(
ylppuS/dnameD
(cid:153) PINE COVE WATER DISTRICT
The Pine Cove Water District provides potable water to approximately 1,000 connections.
Groundwater is its sole source of supply. As mentioned above, the District is a co-owner with
IWD of a 26-acre parcel that contains three wells. No figures for projected supply/demand were
available. Figure 2.3.11 illustrates the water supply/demand forecast to year 2025, based on
data in the preliminary water resources management plan.
FIGURE 2.3.11 – PINE COVE WATER DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST
Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand
(cid:153) RUISENOR WATER DISTRICT
The Ruisenor Water District does not provide services.
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
(cid:153) PINYON PINES COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
The Pinyon Pines County Water District relies exclusively on groundwater. In the response to
the service review questionnaire, the agency noted that it has 78 connections and has not
permitted additional connections for more than 15 years due to concerns raised by the District
and the Riverside Health Department regarding water supply. It appears, based on reports from
the area, that the water supply is decreasing and that water is being trucked in daily to serve
residents relying on private wells. The following chart is reflective of demand information
provided by the District during a 2002 service questionnaire. Figure 2.3.12 illustrates the water
supply/demand forecast to year 2025, based on 2002 demand information only. In addition,
Figure 2.3.12 does not include demand data from private and mutual water companies,
including homeowners associations and limited partnerships, or from private wells. There are
several private and mutual water companies, including homeowner association and limited
partnerships, also pumping in the area in addition to private wells. Water supply is a significant
concern.
FIGURE 2.3.12 – PINYON PINES COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST
25
22 22 22 22 22 22
20
15
10
5
0
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
February 2005 – Final Report 2-31
).ry/teef-ercA(
ylppuS/dnameD
Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
(cid:153) SAN GORGONIO PASS WATER AGENCY
The San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency’s Integrated Water Resources Plan is expected to be
available in February 2005. It is approximately 25% complete; preliminary draft information was
provided for this review. Figure 2.3.30 illustrates the water supply/demand forecast to year
2025.
FIGURE 2.3.13 – SAN GORGONIO PASS WATER AGENCY
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST
70,000
60,000
60,000
50,000
50,000
40,00039,000 41,000 44,000 42,000 43,000
40,000
33,00032,000
30,000 28,000
25,000
20,000
10,000
0
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
February 2005 – Final Report 2-32
).ry/teef-ercA(
ylppuS/dnameD
Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
(cid:153) YUCAIPA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
The Yucaipa Valley Water District provides water, wastewater, and recycled water service to
customers in the City of Calimesa, the City of Yucaipa and portions of Riverside County and
San Bernardino County. The District currently operates 31 primary groundwater wells in the
Yucaipa Valley Water District service area with a total production capacity of more than 13,500
gallons per minute. In addition to the main production wells, the District operates 13 other wells
that are used for supplemental production with the production capacities of these wells ranging
up to 1,000 gallons per minute. The District has recently completed the renovation of a surface
water treatment plant that is capable of producing up to one million gallons of treated water per
day. YVWD is in the service area of two State Water Project Contractors, SGPWA and San
Bernardino Valley MWD. Future SWP water is factored into the District’s supply projections.
The District currently has 22 above ground steel reservoirs in the service area that provide
operational, emergency and fire protection storage. The District's water distribution system
consists of approximately 150 miles of pipelines. Over the last 10 years the District has
implemented an aggressive program to replace old and undersized pipelines in the service
area. This has resulted in the replacement of pipelines which improve redundancy and fire
protection for the community.
The Yucaipa Valley Water District's Recycled Water Facility is located in Crow Canyon with a
tertiary treatment capacity of 4.5 MGD. The District collects and conveys wastewater through
160 miles of sewer lines. Figure 2.3.14 illustrates the water supply/demand forecast to year
2025 based on their most recent water master plan data.
FIGURE 2.3.14 – YUCAIPA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY/DEMAND FORECAST
60,000
56,050
49,824
50,000
42,038
40,000
35,872
30,000
29,146
25,783 25,700 26,225
22,750
19,800
20,000
16,800
15,200
10,000
0
Existing 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
February 2005 – Final Report 2-33
).ry/teef-ercA(
ylppuS/dnameD
Water System Capacity/Supply Average Annual Water Demand
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
2.3.4 Water System Information
Table 2.3.3, Water System Information, summarizes data obtained from responses to the
service review questionnaire regarding number of customers, peak capacity/demand, and
storage capacity of each water agency. 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. Data was obtained from
responses to the service review questionnaire and from supplemental information submitted by
agencies. For ease of comparison, the agencies have been divided into the agencies located in
the Mountain area, the agencies located in the Pass area and other agencies. Responses to
the service review questionnaire from some agencies were incomplete and the first draft of the
service review report used the data available. During the extended review period given to
agencies in the Pass/Mountain service review area, additional data was received. That data
has been incorporated into this report wherever possible and corrections made to the tables and
text.
Based on the data provided by the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District in response to the
service review questionnaire, the first draft of the service report noted that it appeared that the
District lacked adequate surface storage capacity. However, the Beaumont Cherry Valley
District noted in its response to the first draft of the service review report that it has 13.35 MG of
storage at the present time which is more than the maximum day demand. Another 5 MG
reservoir is in the design stage. The District noted, “BCVWD has more than adequate storage;
in fact it has enough storage to use time-of-day use pumping exclusively for its larger wells and
booster pumps.”
In addition, most of the agencies in the Pass/Mountain service review area use groundwater
basins as storage so that typical above-ground storage requirements are not as critical since the
agencies use the underground aquifers as storage. The Beaumont Cherry Valley WD noted
that, “Agencies only need to provide storage for fire fighting, diurnal demand fluctuations and
short term emergencies if there are adequate wells available and equipped with standby power.”
In the Mountain area, the water table has been dropping due to demand, growth and, most
importantly, to the on-going drought. The agencies are addressing this issue through the water
resources management plan which is currently being prepared. With respect to water
availability for fire protection, the agencies maintain adequate fire flow resources in above-
ground storage tanks and there are several programs in place to remove dead trees and brush.
However, if the drought continues the area could be more vulnerable to fires. It is suggested
that the Riverside LAFCO Commission address these issues during the service review for fire
agencies.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-34
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
TABLE 2.3.3
WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION
Maximum Day
Total # Storage Average Annual
Miles of Demand
of (in Demand
AGENCY Lines (mgd)
Connections days) (AF/YR)
Pass Service Review Area
City of Banning 10,000 120 1.4 9,869 19.2
Yucaipa Valley Water District 23,364 161 0.6 15,200 20.7
High Valleys Water District 184 30 7 110 .097
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water 1.0
7,498 (2003) NP 6,308 13.57
District 2.3(1)
Cabazon County Water District 900 NP NP 1,042 NP
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency NA 13 NA 29,000(4) NA
Mountain Service Review Area
Fern Valley Water District 1,148 17 60(2) 134.64 0.36
Idyllwild Water District 1,590 28 14(3) 283.33 0.48
Pine Cove Water District 1,064 18 14-30 109.35 0.25
Other Agencies
Pinyon Pines County Water District 79 15 .09 22 22
NP – not provided; NA – not applicable
1 Maximum and average demand days respectively
2 Includes 7.25 mg in above ground storage
3 Includes 3.3 mg in above ground storage, groundwater basin storage and Foster Lake
4 Estimated total demand for SGPWA service area including potable and non-potable
In 1989 the Pinyon Pines County Water District received notice from the Riverside County
Department of Health stating that due to past shortages of water in the system, no new service
connections would be allowed on the system without approval of the Department. The County
also indicated that the most current system layout plan was dated in 1979 and must be updated
for any major system changes. It is assumed that this restriction is still in place.
The High Valleys Water District has 250 connections of which 184 are active. The District has
replaced a large quantity of aging water mains over the past several years. The water loss had
grown to nearly 70% in some areas but has been reduced to less than 15%. The District is also
replacing old meters to better conform to AWWA standards related to age of the meters in
service. It is expected that this will further reduce the water loss.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-35
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
The majority of the agencies noted common infrastructure needs, including replacing aging
lines, increasing storage and constructing new wells. The agencies use their master plans and
annual CIPs to identify and plan for infrastructure needs and deficiencies.
No other significant infrastructure needs or deficiencies were noted. However, only partial data
was received from some agencies making an assessment of water system infrastructure needs
and deficiencies difficult.
2.3.5 Wastewater Agencies
The information in the following table, Table 2.3.4, Regional Wastewater Demand, was taken
from the California State Water Resources Control Board’s 2002 “Wastewater User Charge
Survey Report” since some data from the agencies providing wastewater service was
incomplete. The Yucaipa Valley WD only serves portions of Riverside County but figures
reflect the entire wastewater system for the agency.
TABLE 2.3.4 - REGIONAL WASTEWATER DEMAND
Rated
Total # of Capacity ADWF Treatment Miles of
AGENCY Connections (mgd) (mgd) Level Lines
Pass Service Review Area
City of Banning 9,500 3.6 2.4 Secondary 80.2
City of Beaumont 6,600 1.62 1.3 Tertiary 92
Yucaipa Valley Water
15,362 10.5 3.12 Tertiary 170
District
Mountain Service Review Area
Idyllwild Water District 568 0.25 0.12 Secondary 11.4
(cid:153) CITY OF BEAUMONT
A “cease and desist” order was issued by the RWQCB in 1992 for problems with the City of
Beaumont’s wastewater treatment plant. To pay for the required repairs and upgrades, in 1991
the City tried to form an assessment district which was defeated by the voters. In 1992 the City
then formed a Community Facilities District (CFD) and in 1993 resolved issues regarding
reclaimed water with other service providers including the Beaumont Cherry Valley WD, the San
Gorgonio Pass WA and the school district. Repairs required by the RWQCB were completed.
Recently, due to the potential for total dissolved solids (TDS), the RWQCB will require the City
to use reverse osmosis when TDS levels reach a certain level.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-36
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
The City is currently upgrading its wastewater treatment plant to 4.0 mgd to meet expected
demand; current flows are approximately 1.5 mgd. The wastewater treatment plant produces
reclaimed water and the City has approximately 30 days of storage of reclaimed water. It is
currently providing reclaimed water to several resorts/golf courses and other users in the area.
The City has a comprehensive facilities financing plan in place for using fees to ensure that
wastewater services are provided concurrent with need.
The City has noted that continued development in the unincorporated areas with septic systems
can have significant impacts on groundwater resources in the City and in the region. The City
currently has a policy of not serving areas outside its boundaries but it may revise that policy to
both ensure that groundwater supplies are protected and to ensure continued capital expansion
from fees on new development.
(cid:153) CITY OF BANNING
The City of Banning has one wastewater plant with a capacity of 3.6 mgd with current flows of
approximately 2.4 mgd. The wastewater treatment plant is managed by a private company.
Although it has capacity for some future development, the City is considering going to tertiary
treatment levels in order to make use of recycled water. The City is currently collecting fees to
finance improvements and future upgrades.
2.3.6 Summary
The Pass service review area is hydrologically complex. As an example, in 1995 the San
Gorgonio Pass Water Agency prepared the “Safe Yield Study of the Beaumont Storage Unit”,
one of the larger underground aquifers in the service review area. This report concluded due to
uncertainty regarding subsurface hydrological conditions and the resulting inflow/outflow of
groundwater in and adjacent to the Beaumont Storage Basin that it was difficult to provide a
clear analysis of safe yields. The report also concluded that “Annual pumping on the order of
10,400 af/yr will cause widespread declines of a magnitude that would probably affect well
performance and create some adverse conditions described above. At this time the best
estimate of safe yield for the Beaumont Storage Unit is 6,110 af/yr.”6 The full text of the 1995
“Technical Memorandum” is available from Riverside LAFCO.
To correct overdraft and provide additional water supply for future growth, a 13 mile pipeline, the
East Branch Extension, was completed in 2003 to bring SWP entitlements to the area. The first
priority in allocating the SWP deliveries was to mitigate overdrafting. However, even with the
6“Safe Yield Study-Beaumont Storage Unit”. Boyle Engineering Corporation (San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency)
October, 1995.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-37
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
SWP deliveries, the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency began preparation of an Integrated
Water Resources Plan (IWRP) to ensure that water supplies would be available concurrent with
the rapid growth occurring in the area. The preliminary findings of the IWRP were that
approximately 20,000-25,000 af/yr is being pumped now and that within ten (10) years the
demand will outpace supply.
Not all of the agencies in the Pass area agreed and in 2003 the San Timoteo Watershed
Management Authority (STWMA) filed a lawsuit to adjudicate pumping and storage rights which
resulted in a stipulated agreement for the Beaumont Basin. The safe yield in the stipulated
agreement was established at 8,650 af/yr.
Water supply and demand in the Pass service review area is complex. The number of
underground basins, the flows to and from the basins, conjunctive use programs, water rights
and service areas, adjudication of water rights, different supply/demand projections, past
relations among the agencies and rapid growth in the area have all complicated the issue.
It is generally agreed that the groundwater basins are overdrafted but the projected amount of
the overdrafting varies and in the various basins varies. Growth has increased significantly in
the previous two years and, as it continues, the impact on the water supply will intensify unless
the agencies take steps to mitigate the impact and develop the infrastructure. Water supply is
a significant concern, especially in successive dry years and when the potential for fires is high.
Several coordinated efforts are underway to address the issue. The San Gorgonio Pass Water
Agency’s Integrated Water Resource Plan and other studies are addressing the issue. In
addition, the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, the Yucaipa Valley Water District, the City
of Beaumont and the South Mesa Water Company are members of the San Timoteo Watershed
Management Authority (STWMA) which started a watershed plan in July of 2004 that will
address, among other issues, the development of new water sources. However the STWMA’s
service area also does not include the entire Pass service review area.
Estimates of the amount of overdrafting and future demand also vary by agency. As stated
earlier, the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency is currently preparing an Integrated Water
Resources Plan (IWRP), and based on preliminary information from that report, the water
supply in the Pass area is expected to exceed demand within the next 5-10 years. However,
not all the Pass agencies agree with the findings of the San Gorgonio Pass WA.
The San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority (STWMA) noted several areas of
disagreement with the SGPWA report. First the service area for the SGPWA includes the
investigation area of the STWMA report and the Cabazon area. The STWMA report noted that
if the demand in the Cabazon area is reduced the SGPWA projections are 6,000-10,000 af/yr
February 2005 – Final Report 2-38
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
higher than their estimates. The STWMA report also noted that the SGPWA water supply
projection did not include the Beaumont Basin operations per the stipulated Agreement,
development of new local water sources, recycled/reuse plans or the purchase of new imported
water. Finally, the STWMA report was concerned that the assumptions used by the SGPWA
have yet to be published.
As part of their response to the service review process, the STWMA also updated the water
demand/supply for the Beaumont Cherry Valley WD, the City of Banning, the South Mesa Water
Company and for the portion of the Yucaipa Valley WD located in Riverside County. The report
concluded that “Total demand is seen to increase from about 23,600 (af/yr) in 2003 to about
49,600 af/ft in 2025—an aggregate growth rate of about 3.4 percent. The total water supply
available to the investigation area ranges from about 26,000 af/yr in 2003 to about 53,700 af/yr
in 2025.”7 Future supplies were from groundwater and surface supplies, returns from new
development (12.5%) direct reuse and recycled water plans and imported water.
Sources of data used in the report included the UWMP of the Beaumont Cherry Valley WD
(2202), the draft 2002 Water Master Plan for the Yucaipa Valley WD, the Maximum Perennial
Yield 2003 study for the City of Banning and the area encompassed by the report did not
include the entire Pass service review region.
Also in response to the San Gorgonio Pass WA preliminary findings, the Beaumont Cherry
Valley Water District noted that it has “the regulations and ordinances in place to fund the
purchase of additional water supply, either through the State Water Project or by participating in
other local water resource projects and exchanging that water with existing SWP entitlements.
In addition BCVWD has an aggressive program underway to capture and percolate storm water
and distribute reclaimed water to current groundwater users. All of the agencies in
Pass/Mountain Area recognize the need to maximize the development of local water resources
in light of the limited supply of SWP”.
The agencies in the Pass service review area are developing plans, implementing fee structures
and installing facilities to ensure adequate water supply. The Beaumont Cherry Valley WD
noted that, “The UWMPs developed by the agencies must address this by law. Some agencies,
e.g., BCVWD, have already made this critical dry period assessment. Fortunately, for those
agencies which rely on groundwater from the Beaumont Basin, which has a huge storage
volume, short term shortages are not going to be a problem as the temporary over-extractions
would be replaced during wet years.” However, only agencies serving more than 3,000
customers or delivering more than 3,000 af/yr are required to prepare UWMPs. In the
Pass/Mountain service review region, only the Beaumont Cherry Valley WD and the City
7 San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority, “Final Report – Update of Water Demands and Water Supply
Plans”. WE Inc. June 21, 2004
February 2005 – Final Report 2-39
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Banning are required to prepare UWMPs and their UWMPs do not address the entire service
review region.
Sources of additional supply are limited. Estimates provided by the agencies of the safe yield
from the groundwater basins varied as did estimates of the allotments of water that would be
received from the SWP water. SWP water, approximately 17,000 af/yr, is now available to the
area but the first use will be for the recharge of the groundwater basins. The data submitted by
the agencies for the service review questionnaire as well as in their UWMPs seem to balance
water supply and demand, concerns remain.
Water supply and demand in the Mountain service review region is also a continuing
concern, especially during successive years of drought. More detailed projections for future
water supply/demand for the Idyllwild, Fern Valley and Pine Cove WDs are part of the water
resources management study the three districts are currently completing.
Finally, the Pinyon Pines WD, which is geographically separate from both the Pass and
Mountain service review regions, noted serious concerns regarding water supply and growth in
their area. The District has not approved any new connections for more than 15 years due to
concerns regarding an adequate water supply. Currently, water is also provided by private and
mutual water companies and private wells. Some of these water sources are uncertain and
supply can be intermittent at best. In addition, new wells are being drilled to lower depths which
can affect other existing wells. Water is being trucked in regularly for those dependent on
private wells. Water service to current residents is a significant concern; water supply and
service to additional growth is, at best, questionable. There are also some concerns regarding
the infrastructure needs and deficiencies for some of the private and mutual water companies.
Deferred maintenance makes reorganization with the public agency a legal and financial liability
for the public agency.
The provision of wastewater service is also a concern. Only two agencies provide wastewater
service in the Pass service review area and while their capacity, based on the data supplied for
the draft service review report, appears adequate to serve some future growth, the use of
reclaimed water is important as a means of supplementing existing water in the area. While
other agencies have considered activating their latent powers to provide wastewater services,
especially to the Cherry Valley area, the construction of such plants are years away from
providing service. Portions of the Cherry Valley will be served by on-site wastewater systems
(septic systems) and water quality may become more of a concern as growth continues. For
example, the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District noted in its response that it is willing to
provide wastewater collection and treatment services for new developments should this be
needed to prevent groundwater contamination from the continued use of septic systems and as
a means of increasing the supply of reclaimed water.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-40
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
The agencies in the Pass service review region are working diligently to ensure that water and
wastewater services are available concurrent with need. In addition, as previously noted, the
California Department of Water Resources has begun a mediated process to help the agencies
resolve issues. However, the differences in estimates of future need and of sources are a
concern if Riverside LAFCO receives applications for annexations as development proceeds.
As part of each annexation, the Commission must ensure the distribution of efficient and
appropriate public services and without agreement among the experts (i.e. the agencies
involved); it may be difficult to evaluate boundary or sphere of influence changes.
There are several possible options that Riverside LAFCO can consider. They are not mutually
exclusive and are listed below along with advantages and disadvantages.
1) Moratorium on changes in governmental boundaries
Advantages
• LAFCO can ensure that water and wastewater will be available concurrent with
need
• The moratorium would be of a limited duration since the agencies are working
toward resolution of issues
Disadvantages
• Significant financial impact to agencies since fees from new developments are
used to fund infrastructure needs
• Financial impacts to property owners/developers if the provision of services is
delayed
2) Adopt requirement regarding proof of water availability for all changes in
boundaries/spheres
Advantages
• Already required for some developments pursuant to SB 610 and 221
• Could ensure that services would be available concurrent
Disadvantages
• Cumbersome for LAFCO staff
• Does not provide regional overview of water supply
3) Require that agencies in the Pass service review region return in 12 months with a
management plan for future water/wastewater
Advantages
• Allows agencies to continue efforts to resolve issues regarding water supply
• Could re-align timing of water/wastewater service review in area with UWMP
• Provide regional overview of water
February 2005 – Final Report 2-41
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
• No financial issue for agencies/property owners/developers
Disadvantages
• Concern regarding LAFCO analysis of service provision for current annexations
• UWMPs do not address entire service review area
4) Continue processing annexations
Advantages
• Allows agencies to continue efforts to resolve issues regarding water supply
• No financial issue for agencies/property owners/developers
Disadvantages
• Concern regarding determination of adequate service provision for current
annexations/sphere of influences
The first option of adopting a moratorium is opposed by the agencies involved. A moratorium
on changes in governmental boundaries could result in financial impacts to the agencies which
use fees from new development to fund new infrastructure. However, continuing to process
annexations/detachments/reorganizations and update spheres with concerns regarding the
regional supply of water would require legal analysis.
The second option is to require each change of organization to agencies in this service review
region to provide a detailed plan of services for water and wastewater as part of the LAFCO
application process. A plan of services could be modeled after the recently enacted legislation
(SB 610 and 221) which required most large development projects in California to ensure that
the adequacy of the water supply to serve a specific project has been addressed before the
project is approved. The plan of services could similarly require an identification and
assessment of the reliability of the anticipated water supplies and set criteria each change in
organization must make in order to demonstrate the adequacy of the water supply. Since some
of the anticipated annexations to water and wastewater purveyors in the Pass/Mountain area
would be required by the State law to prepare such an analysis, the burden on the applicants
and agencies should not be onerous. However, this would not provide LAFCO with a regional
overview of supply and demand.
The suggested alternative is for LAFCO to require that Pass area agencies return in 12 months
with a comprehensive report on the water supply/demand and wastewater capacity/demand for
the region. It is suggested that the report be endorsed by all the agencies involved in the Pass
service review region. This allows the agencies and the State Department of Water Resources
to continue resolving differences and issues without creating financial impacts. If agencies do
not return with a mutually acceptable report, LAFCO could then adopt a moratorium on all
changes in governmental boundaries and spheres.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-42
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.
Information collected addressed total revenues and expenditures as well as reserve levels.
Agencies were also asked to identify any financing constraints and opportunities that affect the
service provided and 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 were 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 Pinyon Pines CWD noted that
its annual audit and employee disability insurance cost approximately 20-25% of its annual
budget without a corresponding increase in value to its system or water quality.
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.
Figure 2.4.1, Agency Revenue Comparison, and Figure 2.4.2, Aggregate Sources of Agency
Revenue, compare total revenues for all agencies and aggregate sources of revenues. Data
from FY 2002-2003 was used to compare actual numbers. It should be noted that meaningful
comparisons among the agencies were hampered by the fact that some agencies did not
respond to the service review questionnaire.
As enterprise activities, the primary revenue source for a majority of the 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, Aggregate
Sources of Agency Revenue, shows that the water and wastewater agencies in the
Pass/Mountain service review area, as enterprise funds, derive 72% of their revenue from fees.
Again, it must be stressed that the lack of responses from some agencies may affect data.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-43
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
FIGURE 2.4.1 - AGENCY REVENUE COMPARISON
FY 2002-2003
FIGURE 2.4.2 - AGGREGATE SOURCES OF AGENCY REVENUE
FY 2002-2003
100%
90%
80%
70% 67%
60%
50%
40%
30%
30%
20%
10%
0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1%
0%
Property Taxes Special Taxes Service Fees Assessments Stand-by Grants Other
Charges Charges
February 2005 – Final Report 2-44
seuneveR
latoT
fo
egatnecreP
$9,448,935
$6,896,702
$5,674,000
$3,338,000
$1,378,751
$696,033
$539,601 $459,980
$39,395
San Beaumont City of City of Idyllwild Fern Valley Pine Cove High Valleys Pinyon Pines
Gorgonio Cherry Valley Beaumont Banning Water DistrictWater DistrictWater District WD County Water
Pass Water WD District
Agency
3002-2002
,euneveR
latoT
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Property taxes comprised 30% of revenues for those agencies that provided information. The
amount of property tax revenue each agency received during FY 2002-2003 is shown in Table
2.4.1, 2003-2003 Property Tax Revenue.
TABLE 2.4.1
2003-2003 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
AGENCY PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency $5,674,000
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District 0
Cabazon County Water District NP
Yucaipa Valley Water District NP
High Valleys Water District $309,620
Fern Valley Water District $364,980
Idyllwild Water District $255,139
Pine Cove Water District $85,998
Pinyon Pines County Water District 0
A comparison of the capital improvement financial expenditures for the fiscal year 2002-2003 is
shown in Figure 2.4.3 - 2002-2003 Agency CIP Comparisons. CIP expenditures were generally
consistent across agencies according to the size of their service area and customer base with
two agencies reporting no CIP figures.
FIGURE 2.4.3
2002-2003 AGENCY CIP COMPARISONS
$5,000,000
$3,795,000
$2,000,000
$491,876
$233,720 $231,800
$0 $0 $3,000
San Beaumont City of City of High Valleys Idyllwild Fern Valley Pine Cove Pinyon
Gorgonio Cherry Beaumont Banning WD Water Water Water Pines
Pass Water Valley WD District District District County
Agency Water
District
February 2005 – Final Report 2-45
3002-2002
,serutidnepxE
PIC
latoT
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
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 find that the agencies responding to the service review
questionnaire in the Pass/Mountain service review area showed evidence of the concerns noted
by the Little Hoover Commission for agencies in other parts of California.
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.
FIGURE 2.4.4
2002-2003 AGENCY RESERVE COMPARISON
$16,000,000
$9,916,000
$4,213,390
$3,277,510
$1,671,301
$1,267,318
$200,000 $139,774 $11,520
San Beaumont City of City of Idyllwild Fern Valley Pine Cove High Valleys Pinyon Pines
Gorgonio Cherry Beaumont Banning Water Water Water WD County
Pass Water Valley WD District District District Water
Agency District
February 2005 – Final Report 2-46
3002-2002
,sevreseR
latoT
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
While setting specific levels of reserves for the diversity of agencies addressed in this service
review report is impracticable, the reserves noted for two of the three agencies in the Mountain
area (Idyllwild and Pine Cove) appear high in comparison to the CIP budgets. No information
was provided regarding major or long-term capital improvement projects, however Pine Cove
WD indicated in a draft letter to its customers that the accumulation of cash reserves was for
new water source development. The Fern Valley WD noted that its cumulative capital
expenditures for FY 2005, 2006 and 2007 will be $2.8 million, resulting in a projected negative
reserve balance in 2007 if rates are not adjusted. For the remaining agencies, the different
services, service areas, customer bases, condition of infrastructure, capital improvement
programs and other issues require reserve levels specific to each agency.
Reserve levels reported by the agencies were segregated into the uses for the reserves:
operating and rate stabilization, restricted debt reserves and capital reserves funds.
Figure 2.4.5, Aggregate Reserves by Category, supports the link between capital improvement
projects and reserve levels among agencies responding. Approximately 60% of the reserves
were earmarked for capital reserve funds. High capital reserve levels indicate an agency’s need
to maintain adequate reserves for planned infrastructure improvements/upgrades, meet
expected demand and to comply with stricter regulatory requirements.
FIGURE 2.4.5
AGGREGATE RESERVES BY CATEGORY
70%
60%
60%
50%
40%
30%
26%
20%
10%
10%
4%
0%
Operating Reserves Capital Reserve Fund Restricted Debt Reserves Other Reserves
February 2005 – Final Report 2-47
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
2.5 OPPORTUNITIES FOR RATE RESTRUCTURING
2.5.1 Water Agencies
Comparing rates among the water and wastewater agencies within Riverside County is difficult
due to the variety of agencies in terms of size, topography, sources of water, wastewater
discharge requirements, age and condition of facilities, type and number of customers, past
agency policies and decisions and a host of other mitigating factors. Figure 2.5.1 illustrates the
comparison of water rates amongst the Pass/Mountain agencies. The service review survey
asked agencies to note their standard billing cycle, service charges according to the size of
meters, commodity water rates, connection fees, capital improvement/facilities charges,
connection fees and other existing assessments.
FIGURE 2.5.1 – PASS/MOUNTAIN AGENCIES WATER RATE COMPARISON
(3/4” meter and 500 gpd)
$120
Meter charge (fixed) Water Use Charge Total Monthly Charge
$101.00 $97.48
$100
$80
$70.67
$60
$44.00
$40 $36.66 $34.75
$25.00
$20
$0
Beaumont Cherry Valley City of Banning High Valleys Water District Idyllwild Water District Fern Valley Water District Pine Cove Water District Pinyon Pines County Water
Water District District
* Agencies have supplemental rates for pumped zones or special districts. Base rate is shown for comparison.
The comparison shown above assumes residential use at 500 gpd and a ¾-inch meter so that
there is consistency across agencies. However, it is important to note that the Mountain
agencies have a daily average that is much lower. Per the draft “Task One - Technical Memo:
Water Resources Management Plan”, the average annual unit water usage for the Mountain
agencies is as follows: Fern Valley WD – 111 gpd/meter; Idyllwild WD – 156 gpd/meter; Pine
Cove WD – 95 gpd/meter.8
8 San Jacinto Mountain Area Water Study Agency, “Task One - Technical Memo: Water Resources Management
Plan””. Albert A. Webb Associates, May 19, 2004 (Draft).
February 2005 – Final Report 2-48
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
2.5.2 Wastewater Agencies
The following Figures 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 compare the monthly user fees and connection fees for
the wastewater agencies in the Pass/Mountain service review area. Rates for the Eastern
MWD have also been included for comparison purposes. No significant issues regarding
wastewater monthly rates or connection fees were noted.
FIGURE 2.5.2 – MONTHLY WASTEWATER RATE COMPARISON
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
City of Banning Yucaipa Valley Water Eastern Municipal City of Beaumont Idyllwild Water District
District Water District
FIGURE 2.5.3 – WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEE COMPARISON
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
AGENCIES.
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
City of Banning Yucaipa Valley Eastern Municipal City of Beaumont Idyllwild Water
Water District Water District District
eeF
noitcennoC
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
2.6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES AND
COST AVOIDANCE
The Riverside LAFCO service review process examined current practices used by the agencies
to reduce or avoid costs including the use of outside vendors and contractors. Overlapping or
inefficient service boundaries were also examined as a means that the Riverside LAFCO can
use to encourage the provision of efficient 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, as noted in other service review
reports, 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.
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. Of the eleven agencies within the Pass/Mountain service
review area, two did not respond. The remaining agencies noted joint activities, which increase
opportunities for shared facilities.
TABLE 2.6.1 - JOINT SERVICE AGREEMENTS
Agency Joint Agreements Noted
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
USGS, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, Beaumont Cherry Valley WD MOU
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority Cities of Beaumont and Banning, Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
City of Banning Risk Management Authority; contracts with United Water Services for operation of
wastewater treatment plant
City of Beaumont San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority; Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District for
reclaimed water and water infrastructure funding; agreement with San Gorgonio Pass Water
Agency
Cabazon County Water District
No response
High Valleys Water District
Mountain Water Company; service agreement with City of Banning
Yucaipa Valley Water District
San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority
Idyllwild Water District MOU with surrounding agencies for emergency services; member of San Jacinto Mountain
Area Water Study Group to develop a water resources management plan; makes facilities
and staff available to surrounding agencies as needed.
Fern Valley Water District MOU with surrounding agencies for emergency services; member of San Jacinto Mountain
Area Water Study Group to develop a water resources management plan; Hill Water
Advisory Committee, formed in 1996, to cooperate in purchasing and sharing of resources.
Pine Cove Water District MOU with surrounding agencies for emergency services; member of San Jacinto Mountain
Area Water Study Group to develop a water resources management plan; Hill Water
Advisory Committee, formed in 1996, to cooperate in purchasing and sharing of resources.
Pinyon Pines County Water District Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority; interconnections
with four other agencies including US Forest service, CDF and BLM
February 2005 – Final Report 2-50
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Pass Area
Two primary components of shared facilities in the Pass Area are the San Timoteo Watershed
Management Authority and the adjudication of the Beaumont Basin. The Authority is providing
leadership in the beneficial uses of water resources in the Pass Area, including analysis of
water supply and demand. BCVWD is one of the founding members. In February 2004, the
Beaumont Basin was legally adjudicated, creating the Beaumont Basin Watermaster as a
groundwater management entity. The Watermaster Committee is comprised of a representative
from each of the following agencies: City of Banning, City of Beaumont, Beaumont Cherry
Valley WD, South Mesa Mutual Water Company (private), and Yucaipa Valley WD.
The Beaumont Cherry Valley WD noted that it avoided costs by installing and maintaining
computerized systems for water production and meters to reduce labor costs. The District has
also contracted with power providers for reduced rates. The Beaumont Cherry Valley WD also
noted that it has an agreement with the City of Banning that would tie compatible pressure
zones along Highland Springs Road for increased system efficiency. The City and District will
be constructing three new wells and sharing operation and maintenance costs. The District also
noted that it has some equipment that can be used by neighboring agencies if needed.
The City of Banning and the Beaumont Cherry Valley WD have entered into an agreement to
jointly fund a new water treatment plant that will be owned by both agencies. This plant will be
used to treat water imported from the SWP. Property has been acquired for the plant location.
The Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District also noted that in 2002-2003 it provided the City of
Banning with an emergency connection when the City’s water supply was short. The BCVWD
also has agreements with the SGPWA and Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District relative to use of spreading grounds on District owned land, and has
agreements with the City of Beaumont relative to distribution of reclaimed water and the funding
of infrastructure for water and reclaimed water facilities.
The High Valleys Water District is negotiating with the City of Banning to determine if the District
can improve its water resources and water availability. There is a possibility that the District
could purchase State Project Water from the SGPWA that would be delivered to Banning for
use on the Sun Lakes Golf Course; the water would be delivered by the Beaumont Cherry
Valley WD and would reduce Banning’s pumping needs. High Valleys could then use a well
now used by the City and formerly owned by the Mountain Water Company. This would
significantly reduce the District’s operating costs.
Based on the data provided for this review, the retail agencies in the Pass Area are seeking to
work cooperatively, maximize opportunities for shared facilities and avoid costs.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-51
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Mountain Area
The three districts in the mountain area with adjacent boundaries – Idyllwild, Fern Valley, and
Pine Cove – have a history of sharing facilities and resources. Because of their isolated
location within the water supply system, they are dependent on each other for cooperative
assistance for fire protection and other emergency needs. All three districts are signatory to a
mutual aid agreement established in December 1996 that will provide personnel, equipment,
and material in the event of a natural or manmade disaster. The minutes of the Idyllwild WD
Board of Directors meeting discuss a water transfer between the three agencies for fire
protection in 2003 and future needs in 2004.9 These actions indicate a high level of cooperation
between these closely related agencies.
The three agencies are also participating in the preparation of the Water Resources
Management Plan for the San Jacinto Mountain Area Water Study Agency. Two tasks have
been completed, including a review and summary of existing information and defining the study
area for resource evaluation. The work is being performed by a private consultant. The
outcome of this effort will provide a coordinated resource management plan that the agencies
can implement.
As discussed earlier, the Fern Valley WD has considered importing water through the High
Valleys Water District. The High Valleys WD would obtain additional supply through a well near
the City of Cabazon; Fern Valley WD would construct a system to connect to High Valleys. This
alternative will be evaluated in Task 5 of the Water Resources Management Plan.
The Mountain Area has been subject to several studies of the benefits that might accrue from
reorganizing the three districts into one agency (see 2.7 – Government Structure Options).
However, there is no clear consensus on cost savings from this action. The two smaller
agencies (Fern Valley and Pine Cove) are concerned that this might increase costs.
Based on the data provided for this review, the Mountain Area agencies are maximizing current
opportunities to share facilities and avoid costs.
9 Idyllwild Water District, Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors, February 17, 2004
February 2005 – Final Report 2-52
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
2.7 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS
The service review is 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
agencies and the public can use as a starting point for possible changes in service provision, in
agency boundaries or in spheres of influence. The governmental structure options address
three separate categories:
• Areas where service is provided outside the agency boundaries
• Agencies where additional analysis may be required during sphere of influence updates
• Reorganization option
2.7.1 Services Outside Of Agency Boundaries
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 surplus water to agricultural lands and other instances. Few agencies
in the Pass/Mountain service review area reported providing service outside their boundaries or
their sphere of influence and those that did generally served small areas. While many of these
service agreements may be exempted, it is suggested that the Riverside LAFCO list and map
service agreements that are not exempt before updating spheres.
(cid:153) IDYLLWILD WATER DISTRICT
The Idyllwild Water District provides wastewater service to nine parcels outside the agency
boundaries.
(cid:153) CITY OF BEAUMONT
The City of Beaumont provides wastewater services to approximately 850 connections outside
its boundaries and sphere of influence which includes the Highland Springs development.
(cid:153) BEAUMONT CHERRY VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
The Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District provides water service to an area outside its district
boundaries.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-53
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
(cid:153) CITY OF BANNING
The City of Banning provides water and sewer service to an area adjacent to its corporate
boundaries.
(cid:153) CABAZON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
The Cabazon County Water District provides back-up water service to the Morongo
Reservation.
(cid:153) PINYON PINES COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
The Pinyon Pines County Water District provides water service to two campgrounds and a fire
station.
2.7.2 Sphere Of Influence Updates
In the Pass service review area, several agencies noted areas where their spheres of influence
might be amended in the future to provide more efficient services. The City of Banning noted an
area west of Sunset Avenue and south of Westward Avenue where city service might be
required. The Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District noted a need for a comprehensive update
of its sphere and the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency recommended that LAFCO consider the
Potrero Canyon area for inclusion in their sphere.
In the Mountain service review area, Pine Cove Water District noted that the Stonewood and
Alandale areas north of the district should be included within the District’s sphere of influence.
Given the significant concerns regarding the adequacy of future water supplies and the capacity
for wastewater services in the Pass/Mountain area, it is suggested that the Riverside LAFCO
consider a comprehensive review of all the agency spheres in this region. During the
comprehensive sphere update, various reorganizations of agencies could also be addressed.
2.7.3 Other Government Structure Options
One of the purposes of the service review is to list all possible government structure options
including advantages and disadvantages of potential reorganizations. For the purposes of this
service review report, a reorganization is defined as two or more changes of organization (i.e.,
consolidation, merger, dissolution, annexation and/or detachment) which are initiated in a single
proposal before LAFCO.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-54
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
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 several 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
upgrades to systems, etc. Sometimes the actual savings as a result of reorganization
are modest enough that it is not cost-efficient to pursue.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-55
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
• 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.
The service review process examined a full range of governmental structure options. Some
government structure options had been previously examined by the Riverside LAFCO (or other
groups such as the Grand Jury) or were clearly impractical due to service areas, system
differences, potential opposition or existing agreements. These options are not included in the
discussion in this section but should be periodically revisited by the Riverside LAFCO.
Other governmental structure options that may be possible are listed below. It is suggested that
the Riverside LAFCO Commission, in conjunction with the agencies involved, discuss the
potential benefits that might accrue from reorganizations of the following agencies.
(cid:153) IDYLLWILD WATER DISTRICT / FERN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT / PINE COVE WATER
DISTRICT
There have been discussions about a potential reorganization among the three agencies since
the 1960’s. In 1974 a petition was submitted to Riverside LAFCO requesting that a feasibility
study for reorganization of the three agencies be prepared. The petitions were circulated by the
Idyllwild Chamber of Commerce, the Pine Cove Property Owners Association and other groups
who were concerned about the reliability and long-term supply of water after a severe water
shortage in 1972. The findings of that report were that any savings in costs would be minimal
and that other benefits of reorganization were uncertain. The 1974 report also noted residents
in the Fern Valley Water District were opposed to any reorganization.
In 1994 the Riverside County Grand Jury released a report that concluded that approximately
$390,000 might be saved through a reorganization of the three agencies. Starting in October of
that year an ad-hoc committee comprised of representatives of the Idyllwild and Pine Cove
Water Districts met regularly for 18 months to discuss possible benefits from reorganization. In
1996 an interim feasibility report of a potential reorganization of the Idyllwild and Pine Cove
WDs was released. The report noted “...no substantial advantage to formation of a reorganized
water district…” and added that even though the Fern Valley WD did not participate in the study,
its inclusion would not have significantly altered the results. Cost savings resulting from a
February 2005 – Final Report 2-56
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
reorganization were estimated to be approximately $25,000. The 1996 report also
recommended that the ad-hoc committee be reformed to identify ways of improving efficiency
through cooperative efforts. It also recommended that representatives of the Fern Valley WD
be invited to participate.
After releasing the interim feasibility study, a formal committee, the Hill Water Advisory Group,
was formed in 1996. The Advisory Group, which was comprised of General Managers and
Board members from all three agencies, met monthly to identify ways of saving money through
joint cooperative activities. In 1997 a report prepared by the Idyllwild WD was completed which
noted some positive impacts of a reorganization (specifically in governance, organization, water
distribution, operations/maintenance, equipment/vehicles, property/facilities, water rates and
standby assessments), negative impacts (specifically on governance, staffing, employee
benefits, computerization, billing and property/facilities) and no change in the areas of sanitary
systems, emergency preparedness, regulatory compliance, water and sewer rates, standby
assessments and, most importantly, in water supply. This third feasibility study also found that
cost savings might be $135,000 per year.
In 2004 a feasibility study prepared by the Idyllwild WD was released. Fern Valley WD and Pine
Cove WD provided data to the Idyllwild WD for use in the study but neither Board endorsed the
study. The 2004 study estimated a savings of approximately $300,000 per year although
rebuttals to the study pointed out that the analysis ignored some of the costs associated with the
reorganization (legal, fees, combining billings, employee reduction, etc.) and allowed for only a
very limited staff size for operations.
As in past discussions, there was opposition to reorganization from residents and board
members of the districts. It should be noted that the Idyllwild WD Board, in January of 2004,
removed the feasibility study from its unfinished business agenda and dissolved the ad-hoc
consolidation committee. Currently a citizens’ group, Citizens Committee for Unification (CCU),
is trying to gather enough signatures to initiate a formal application for reorganization of the
three districts. The status of that effort is not known.
In September 2004, the Harman Bill (AB 2067) was signed into law. This law allows for the
consolidation of two or more special districts that were formed under different principal acts.
With a consolidation, the threshold for voter signatures on the petition is 5% rather than the
more challenging 25% for other types of reorganizations. This may have an effect on the
outcome of the citizen effort.
While the water systems have limited interconnection, in 1996 all three agencies entered into a
mutual aid agreement which allows the agencies to supply water, personnel and equipment
during emergencies. The service areas of the three districts do not overlap.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-57
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
The water supply, which is groundwater for Pine Cove WD and Idyllwild WD and primarily
surface water for Fern Valley WD, has been identified in this service review as a potentially
significant infrastructure deficiency. The agencies are participating in a joint water resources
management plan which is expected to be completed in 2005. One of the initial findings of the
study is that most of the groundwater is escaping from the area. The San Jacinto Mountain
Area Water Study (GSi Water, 2004) noted in its preliminary findings that capture of this source
may be a potential source of additional groundwater.
While there may be some efficiency gained through a reorganization of the agencies, there is a
fairly strong local sentiment against this action. Given the cooperative nature of the current
study, it may be more prudent for a reorganization proposal to wait until the groundwater
management plan is complete.
(cid:153) HIGH VALLEYS WATER DISTRICT
The agency serves 184 dwelling units, has five employees and reported in the 2003 Riverside
LAFCO Special Districts Questionnaire that it supplied approximately 110 AF of water to
customers during the previous year. The agency currently receives its water from the City of
Banning. Although the agency is related to the Pass Area, the San Jacinto Mountain Area
Water Study Agency will be evaluating a proposed system to import water to the Fern Valley
Water District that might include the infrastructure of the High Valleys Water District. It is
suggested that the Riverside LAFCO continue to monitor the District’s progress on developing
an alternative water source. The Commission may also want to consider a reorganization of the
agency with the City of Banning or another appropriate service provider after the completion of
the San Jacinto Mountain Area Water Study Agency report if economies of scale and other
benefits can be demonstrated.
(cid:153) RUISENOR WATER DISTRICT
The Ruisenor Water District does not provide water service and should be reorganized with
another agency.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-58
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 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 Table 2.8.1 - Employee Information. In some
instances, the number of employees with certification exceeds the total number of operational
employees due to employees holding multiple certificates.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-59
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
TABLE 2.8.1
EMPLOYEE INFORMATION
# of
Operational Employees
# Operational Employees-- Employees-- with
Total Employees-- with Water Wastewater Wastewater
Agency Employees Water Service Cert. Service Cert.
City of Banning 24 10 19 5 6
Beaumont Cherry Valley WD 17 9 10 NA NA
City of Beaumont * 5 NA NA 3 6
Cabazon CWD 7 NP NP NA NA
Eastern MWD 322 41 100 47 45
Fern Valley WD 4 2 7 NA NA
High Valleys WD 5 2 2 NA NA
Idyllwild WD 7 3 8 1 2
Lake Hemet MWD 84 NP 25 NP 7
Pine Cove WD 3.75 2.5 7 0 1
Pinyon Pines CWD 3 2 2 NA NA
Ruisenor WD 0 0 0 0 0
San Gorgonio Pass WA 3 0 1 NA NA
Yucaipa Valley WD NP NP NP NP NP
* Wastewater operation is contracted out
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 per year are required to prepare Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) 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 2-60
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
Water Master Management Wastewater Response Last
Plan Plan CIP Master Plan Plan Audit
City of Banning Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2002
Beaumont Cherry Valley WD Yes Yes Yes NA NP 2000
City of Beaumont NA NA NP Yes NP 2003
Cabazon CWD NP NP NP NA NP NP
Eastern MWD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2003
Fern Valley WD Yes NA Yes NA Yes 2003
High Valleys WD No NA No NA NP 2002
Idyllwild WD No NA Yes No Yes 2002
Pine Cove WD No ** No NA NP 2003
Pinyon Pines CWD Yes ** Yes NA Yes 2003
Ruisenor WD * NA NA NA NA NA NA
San Gorgonio Pass WA In progress No Yes NA NP 2003
Yucaipa Valley WD NP Yes NP NP NP NP
*The Ruisenor WD does not provide services.
**Water agencies under 3,000 customers are not required to prepare an Urban Water management Plan
The Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District has not completed an audit since FY 2000 but the
District noted that this was due to a problem with the District’s computer system, which
precluded data extraction. This has since been rectified and the audit for FY 2001 should be
available September 2004; FY 2002 and 2003 will follow. The District will complete its EPA-
mandated Vulnerability Assessment under the federal bio-terrorism law on June 30, 2004 and
begin preparation of the mandated Emergency Response Plan. This will use the Vulnerability
Assessment as a basis and will be completed by December 2004 as required by law.
The High Valleys Water District has recently hired a management consultant and a new General
Manager. The Board has directed them to develop a management and system operations plan
which will assist the District in achieving a greater degree of management efficiency in the
future.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-61
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
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. 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 2.8.3.
TABLE 2.8.3
FY 2002-2003 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AS A PERCENT OF OPERATING REVENUE
WATER AGENCIES WASTEWATER AGENCIES
City of Banning 1.1 1.7
Beaumont Cherry Valley WD 29 NA
City of Beaumont* NA NP
Cabazon CWD NP NA
Eastern MWD 25 49
Fern Valley WD 35 NA
High Valleys WD 50 NA
Idyllwild WD 39 33
Lake Hemet MWD 51 NP
Pine Cove WD 20 NA
Pinyon Pines CWD 50 NA
Ruisenor WD NA NA
San Gorgonio Pass WA NP NA
Yucaipa Valley WD NP NP
*Operated by a private firm
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.
The American Water Works Association Research Foundation recommends that water and
wastewater utilities consider using the number of customer accounts per full-time employee as
one of several performance indicators for organizational best practices.10 Agencies were asked
10 American Water Works Association Research Foundation. “Selection and Definitions of Performance Indicators for Water and Wastewater
Utilities”. 2004.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-62
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
as part of the service review questionnaire to provide the total number of employees and total
number of service connections. The information is provided in the Table 2.8.4 below.
TABLE 2.8.4
EMPLOYEE VERSUS SERVICE CONNECTION COMPARISON
Total
Total Number Of Water Total Total
Number Of Water Connections Number Of Number Of Wastewater
Water Service Per Wastewater Wastewater Connections
Employees Connections Employee Employees Connections Per Employee
City of Banning 16 9,950 622 8 9,500 1,188
Beaumont Cherry
17 7,498(2003) 441 NA NA NA
Valley WD
City of Beaumont NA NA NA NP 6,600 NP
Cabazon CWD NP NP NP NA NA NA
Eastern MWD 53 95,634 1,804 67 155,000 2,313
Fern Valley WD 4 1,148 287 NA NA NA
High Valleys WD 2 184 92 NA NA NA
Idyllwild WD 6 1,590 265 7 559 80
Lake Hemet MWD NP 1,689 NP NP NP NP
Pine Cove WD 2.5 1,070 428 NA NA NA
Pinyon Pines CWD 3 79 26 NA NA NA
Ruisenor WD NA NA NA NA NA NA
San Gorgonio Pass
3 NA NA NA NA NA
WA
Yucaipa Valley WD NP NP NP NP NP NP
NP – not provided; NA – not applicable
The Ruisenor WD is a paper agency that has no employees and does not provide services.
The San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency is a wholesale agency for State Water Project deliveries
and only has wholesale customers. This table would indicate that larger agencies are
sometimes able to provide service with a lower number of employees. However, the service
review did not clearly specify that the agencies apportion employee time to the provision of
water and wastewater. Results from cities and agencies that provide more services than just
water and wastewater or have large support staffs shared among several departments may be
skewed.
No significant issues regarding the evaluation of management efficiencies were noted.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-63
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
2.9 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERANCE
No significant issues regarding local accountability and governance were noted for any of the
agencies within the 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 six of the agencies have websites, which is an important
means of increasing public accountability and access.
Public access was evaluated by regularly scheduled meetings and locations, by the presence of
websites and by the use of legally required notices. Several agencies held meetings during
normal working hours, which can 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.
TABLE 2.9.1
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
# Of Board Members Running Unopposed In Unqualified
Website Time Of Meetings November 2002 Election Audit
City of Banning Yes 6:30 pm NA Yes
Beaumont Cherry Under
7:00 pm NA No
Valley WD Construction
City of Beaumont Yes 6:00 pm NA Yes
Cabazon CWD No Response No Response NA No Response
Eastern MWD Yes 9:00 am: 1:00 pm NA Yes
Fern Valley WD No 9:00 am NA Yes
High Valleys WD Yes 6:00 pm NA Yes
Idyllwild WD No 7:00 pm NA Yes
Lake Hemet MWD Yes 3:00 pm NA Yes
Pine Cove WD Yes 10:00 am NA No Response
3 directors did not appear on the ballot because
Under an insufficient number of candidates applied. All
Pinyon Pines CWD 9:00 am Yes
Construction three candidates that filed were elected since
they were uncontested.
Ruisenor WD NA NA NA NA
San Gorgonio Pass
Yes 1:30 pm NA Yes
WA
Yucaipa Valley WD Yes No Response No Response No Response
February 2005 – Final Report 2-64
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
2.10 PASS/MOUNTAIN SERVICE REVIEW AREA
DETERMINATIONS
• Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
1. Future water supply projections in the Pass Area rely on additional SWP water
(beyond SGPWA’s current entitlement) becoming available on the market.
2. Water supply and wastewater capacity in the Pass/Mountain service review area are
potential infrastructure deficiencies.
3. A potential lack of an adequate water supply may negatively impact existing
development, future demand and fire provision service in the Mountain area.
4. The agencies are currently addressing infrastructure needs and deficiencies through
master plans, development impact fee structures, CIPs and other long range
planning documents but the rapid growth in the area may require service before the
necessary capacity and supply are in place.
5. Riverside LAFCO should consider various options for ensuring that water and
wastewater service are provided concurrent with need in the Pass/Mountain service
review area. Potential options, including advantages and disadvantages of each, are
discussed on pages 2-41 and 2-42.
• Growth and population projections for the affected area
1. The growth rate in the Pass/Mountain area is one of the highest in Riverside County
and will require an adequate water supply and wastewater capacity.
2. The variations in growth and population projections among the agencies could be
addressed through providing population projections for special districts.
• Financing constraints and opportunities
1. The agencies prepare comprehensive annual budgets, maintain annual Capital
Improvement Plans (CIP) and maintain reserves.
2. The agencies, as enterprise activities, derive approximately 72% of their aggregate
sources of revenues from fees and charges and approximately 25% from property
taxes. Data from some agencies was not provided which may skew results.
3. For most of the agencies within the Pass/Mountain service review area, the amount
of reserves is matched to CIP and other infrastructure improvements. Reserves
held by the agencies in the Mountain area appear high in relation to current CIP
programs; however, reserves may be used to develop new water sources in the
future.
4. Of the agencies providing data only the Beaumont Cherry Valley WD did not report
an unqualified audit; no responses were received from the Cabazon CWD, the High
Valleys WD, and the Yucaipa Valley WD. The BCVWD’s last completed audit was
February 2005 – Final Report 2-65
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
for FY 2000. Per the District, the audit for FY 2001 should be completed by the end
of September 2004. FY 2002 will follow, with FY 2003 completed in the first part of
2005. Riverside LAFCO should continue to monitor the progress on the completion
of BCVWD’s audits.
• Cost avoidance opportunities
1. The agencies in both the Pass and Mountain areas are seeking to avoid costs
through cooperative planning, shared facilities, infrastructure and resources.
2. 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.
3. Cost avoidance opportunities might be increased through establishing clear service
boundaries through the sphere of influence process by avoiding costs for duplicate
planning.
• Opportunities for rate restructuring
1. The agencies set rates and fees through a public process.
2. Agencies noted rate changes in the previous two years and provided information
regarding the differences in rates charged to customers inside and outside agency
boundaries, if any.
• Opportunities for shared facilities
1. The agencies collaborate as appropriate and as deemed efficient.
2. Excess capacity, facilities and staff are made available 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. Riverside LAFCO should list existing, non-exempt service agreements as part of the
agency SOI update process.
2. A comprehensive update of the spheres of influence for the water and wastewater
agencies in the Pass/Mountain area is needed.
3. The reorganization of the Idyllwild, Fern Valley and Pine Cove Water Districts is a
possible opportunity to simplify the provision of water and wastewater service in the
area and should be examined after the San Jacinto Mountain Area Water Study
Agency completes its Water Resources Management Plan. Riverside LAFCO
should initiate discussions with the agencies to determine if a reorganization of the
agencies might increase efficiencies and reach economies of scale.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-66
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
4. Riverside LAFCO should monitor the progress of High Valleys Water District in
developing an additional source of supply; the Commission should discuss with the
District and the City of Banning or another agency whether there are potential
economies of scale and benefits from a reorganization.
5. Riverside LAFCO should consider the dissolution of the Ruisenor Water 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.
3. The number of employees per water or wastewater connections varies according to
the size and service area of the agency.
• 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 Cabazon CWD, Fern Valley WD and Idyllwild WD should consider development
of websites to improve local accountability.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-67
33..00 PPAASSSS//MMOOUUNNTTAAIINN
AAGGEENNCCYY PPRROOFFIILLEESS
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
City of Banning
ADDRESS: 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220
EMAIL/WEBSITE: ptoor@ci.banning.ca.us, www.ci.banning.ca.us
TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater
POPULATION SERVED: 24,650
SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 23,629 (acres)
FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP:
(FY 2002-2003): $4,745,612 $4,394,413 $550,000 $294,858
WATER WASTEWATER
Connections: Connections: 9,500
Domestic: 9,210 Domestic: 8,883
Irrigation: 7 Commercial: 605
M&I: 733 Industrial: 12
Reclaimed: 0 Other: 0
Other: 0
Number of Treatment Plants: 1
Supply (AF):
Wholesale: 0 Total System Size: 80.2
State Water Project: 0 (miles)
Surface: 0 Miles Gravity Sewer: 80
Wells: 22,900 Miles Force Main: 0.2
Reclaimed: 0
Rates:
Water Service Capacity: Billing Period: monthly
Total Capacity (AF): 22,852 Flat Rates: yes
Total Demand (AF): 9,869 Tied to Water Usage: no
Peak Capacity (mgd): 20.9 Estimated Monthly Bill: $14.86
Peak Demand (mgd): 19.2
Storage Capacity (mg): 14.6
Current Capacity Treatment Level
Rates: 3.6 mgd Secondary
Billing Period: monthly
Meter/Service Charge:
Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
5/8” $ 13.20 $ 13.20 $13.20
¾” $ 13.20 $ 13.20 $13.20
1’ $ 20.18 $ 20.18 $20.18
Water Rates (HCF):
Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
0-9--$0.90 $ NA (treated) $ NA
10-29--$1.06 $ NA (reclaimed) $ NA CIP = capital improvement program
30+--$1.14 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
CCIITTYY OOFF BBAANNNNIINNGG MMAAPP
February 2005 – Final Report 2-70
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Yucaipa Valley Water District*
ADDRESS: 12770 Second Street P.O. Box 730, Yucaipa, CA 92399-0730
EMAIL/WEBSITE: NP, www.yvwd.dst.ca.us
TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater
POPULATION SERVED: 48,350
SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 35 square miles
FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP:
(FY 2002-2003): $12,129,273 $10,642,864 $1,250,000 $7,800,421
WATER WASTEWATER
Connections:
Connections: Domestic: 15,088
Domestic: 9,990 Commercial: 201
Irrigation: 98 Industrial: 42
M&I: 250 Other: 31
Reclaimed: 2
Other: 90 Number of Treatment Plants: 1
Supply (AF):*** Total System Size: 173.3 (miles)
Wholesale: NA Miles Gravity Sewer: 170.5
State Water Project: 1,098 Miles Force Main: 2.8
Surface: 492
Wells: 10,508 Rates:
Reclaimed: 18.75 Billing Period: Monthly
Flat Rates: Yes
Water Service Capacity: Tied to Water Usage: Yes-water
Total Capacity (AF): NP Estimated Monthly Bill: NP
Total Demand (AF): NP
Peak Capacity (mgd): 23.2
Peak Demand (mgd): 17.3 Current Capacity Treatment Level
Storage Capacity (mg): 29.6 4.5 mgd Tertiary
6.0 mgd Tertiary-2006
Rates:
Billing Period: Various
Meter/Service Charge:
Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
5/8” $ 7.50 $7.50 $7.50
¾” $ 7.50 $7.50 $7.50
1’ $ 14.29 $14.20 $14.20 CIP = capital improvement program
FY = fiscal year
NA = not applicable
Water Rates (HCF):
NP = information not provided
Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
M & I = manufacturing and industry
$ 0.83
HCF = hundred cubic ft
$ 0.15
AF = acre-feet
mgd = million gallons/day
* Data provided for entire service area, which
encompasses Riverside and San Bernardino
County
February 2005 – Final Report 2-71
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
YYUUCCAAIIPPAA VVAALLLLEEYY MMAAPP
February 2005 – Final Report 2-72
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Pinyon Pines County Water District
ADDRESS: 63500 Pozo, Mountain Center, CA 92561
EMAIL/WEBSITE: PPCWD@aol.com, NP
TYPES OF SERVICES: Water only
POPULATION SERVED: 300
SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 320 (acres)
FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP:
(FY 2002-2003): $39,395 $34,798 $8,520 $3,000
WATER
Connections:
Domestic: 79
Irrigation: 0
M&I: 0
Reclaimed: 0
Other: 0
Supply (AF):
Wholesale: 0
State Water Project: 0
Surface: 0
Wells: 2
Reclaimed: 0
Water Service Capacity:
Total Capacity (AF): NP
Total Demand (AF): NP
Peak Capacity (mgd): 10,000 gal/day
Peak Demand (mgd): 10,000 gal/day
Storage Capacity (gal) 100,000 gallons
Rates:
Billing Period: monthly
Meter/Service Charge:
Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
5/8” $ NA $ NA $ NA
¾” $ 25 $ NA $ NA
1’ $ NA $ NA $ NA
Water Rates (HCF):
Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
0-8--$0.10 $ NA (treated) $ NA CIP = capital improvement program
FY = fiscal year
8-10--$0.10 $ NA (reclaimed) $ NA
NA = not applicable
10+--$0.25
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
PPIINNYYOONN PPIINNEESS MMAAPP
February 2005 – Final Report 2-74
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
City of Beaumont
ADDRESS: 550 East Sixth Street, Beaumont, CA 92223
EMAIL/WEBSITE: cityhall@ci.beaumont.ca.us, www.beaumont.ca.us
TYPES OF SERVICES: Wastewater only
POPULATION SERVED: 20,000
SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 19,200 (acres)
FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP:
(FY 2002-2003): $1,964,452 $1,389,777 $574,675 $815,102
WASTEWATER
Connections:
Domestic: 6,000
Commercial: 500
Industrial: 100
Other: 0
Number of Treatment Plants: 1
Total System Size:
Miles Gravity Sewer: 85
Miles Force Main: 3.5
Rates:
Billing Period: Bi-monthly
Flat Rates: $42.50
Tied to Water Usage: No
Estimated Monthly Bill: $42.50
Current Capacity Treatment Level
1.62 mgd Tertiary
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 2-75
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
CCIITTYY OOFF BBEEAAUUMMOONNTT MMAAPP
February 2005 – Final Report 2-76
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District
ADDRESS: 560 Magnolia Avenue, Beaumont, CA 92223
EMAIL/WEBSITE: bcvwdgm@msn.com, www.bcvwd.org
TYPES OF SERVICES: Water Only
POPULATION SERVED: 21,000
SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 25,600 (acres)
FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP:
(FY*2002-2003): $9,448,935 $ NP $384,809 $3,795,000
*Fiscal year is calendar year
WATER
Connections:
Domestic: 6,561
Irrigation: 71
M&I: 241
Reclaimed: NP
Other: 75
Supply (AF):
Wholesale: 0
State Water Project: 6,530
Surface: 0
Wells: 8,000
Reclaimed: 5,470
Water Service Capacity:
Total Capacity (AF): 20,000
Total Demand (AF): 4,751
Peak Capacity (mgd): NP
Peak Demand (mgd): 13.57
Storage Capacity (mg): 13.35
Rates:
Billing Period: bimonthly
Meter/Service Charge:
Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
5/8” $ 14.00 $ NP $14.00
¾” $ 21.00 $ NP $21.00
1’ $ 35.00 $ NP $35.00
Water Rates (HCF):
Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
$0.77 $0.47 (treated) $0.77 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
Sources: BCVWD 1994 Water System Master Plan AF = acre-feet
Update, and www.bcvwd.org. mgd = million gallons/day
February 2005 – Final Report 2-77
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
BBEEAAUUMMOONNTT CCHHEERRRRYY VVAALLLLEEYY MMAAPP
February 2005 – Final Report 2-78
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Cabazon County Water District
ADDRESS: 50256 Main Street, Cabazon, CA 92230
EMAIL/WEBSITE: NP, NP
TYPES OF SERVICES: Water only
POPULATION SERVED: NP
SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: NP
FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP:
(FY 2002-2003): $NP $NP $NP $NP
WATER
Connections:
Domestic: NP
Irrigation: NP
M&I: NP
Reclaimed: NP
Other: NP
Supply (AF):
Wholesale: NP
State Water Project: NP
Surface: NP
Wells: NP
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: 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
AF = acre-feet
mgd = million gallons/day
February 2005 – Final Report 2-79
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
CCAABBAAZZOONN CCOOUUNNTTYY WWAATTEERR DDIISSTTRRIICCTT MMAAPP
February 2005 – Final Report 2-80
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
ADDRESS: 1210 Beaumont Avenue, Beaumont, CA 92223
EMAIL/WEBSITE: sstockton@sgpwa.com, www.sgpwa.com
TYPES OF SERVICES: Water only
POPULATION SERVED: 53,000
SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: NP (acres)
FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP:
(FY 2002-2003): $5,674,000 $4,513,000 $3,017,000 $3,500,000
WATER
Connections:
The San Gorgonio Pass WA does not have
service connections. It delivers wholesale
water to agencies and provides
management and monitoring of
Groundwater and water quality for member
agencies.
Supply (AF):
Wholesale: NP
State Water Project: 17,000
Surface: NP
Wells: 29,000*
*(pumped by agencies)
Reclaimed: NP
Water Service Capacity:
Total Capacity (AF): NA
Total Demand (AF): 29,000
Peak Capacity (mgd): NA
Peak Demand (mgd): NA
Storage Capacity (mg): NA
Rates:
The San Gorgonio Pass WA does not provide retail
water service to customers and does not have
meter/service charges or commodity rates for water
used. The Agency’s revenues are derived from
property tax and an assessment of $0.17 per $100 of
assessed valuation.
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 2-81
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
SSAANN GGOORRGGOONNIIOO PPAASSSS WWAATTEERR AAGGEENNCCYY MMAAPP
February 2005 – Final Report 2-82
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Fern Valley Water District
ADDRESS: 55790 South Circle Drive, Idyllwild, CA 92549
EMAIL/WEBSITE: fvwd@pe.net, NP
TYPES OF SERVICES: Water only
POPULATION SERVED: vacation home community (specifics not provided)
SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 1,500 (acres)
FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP:
(FY 2002-2003): $696,033 $549,761 $1,267,318 $231,800
WATER
Connections:
Domestic: 1,148
Irrigation: 0
M&I: 0
Reclaimed: 0
Other: 0
Supply (AF):
Wholesale: 0
State Water Project: 0
Surface: 168
Wells: 160
Reclaimed: 0
Water Service Capacity:
Total Capacity (AF): 640
Total Demand (AF): 165.80
Peak Capacity (mgd): .60
Peak Demand (mgd): .36
Storage Capacity (mg): 7.25
Rates:
Billing Period: bi-monthly
Meter/Service Charge:
Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
5/8” $30 $ NA $30
¾” $30 $ NA $30
1’ $30 $ NA $30
Water Rates (HCF):
Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
0-12 $2.00 $NA (treated) 0-12 $2.00
12-30 $4.00 $NA (reclaimed) 12-30 $4.00 CIP = capital improvement program
FY = fiscal year
30+ $8.00 30+ $8.00
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
FFEERRNN VVAALLLLEEYY MMAAPP
February 2005 – Final Report 2-84
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
High Valleys Water District
ADDRESS: 47781 Twin Pines Road, Banning, CA 92220
EMAIL/WEBSITE: www.hvwd.org; hvwd.pe.net
TYPES OF SERVICES: Water only
POPULATION SERVED: NP
SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: NP
FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP:
(FY 2002-2003): $459,980 $454,348 $139,774 $0
WATER
Connections:
Domestic: 186
Irrigation: NP
M&I: NP
Reclaimed: NP
Other: NP
Supply (AF):
Wholesale: NP
State Water Project: NP
Surface: NP
Wells: NP
Reclaimed: NP
Other: The High Valleys WD purchases
water from the City of Banning. In 2001-2002, it
purchased approximately 36,000 cf
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” $ 40 $ NP $NP
¾” $ 40 $ NP $NP
1’ $ 40 $ NP $NP
Water Rates (HCF): CIP = capital improvement program
Residential Irrigation Ind/Com FY = fiscal year
$ 3.00 $ NA (treated) $64.00 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
HHIIGGHH VVAALLLLEEYYSS MMAAPP –– NNOOTT AAVVAAIILLAABBLLEE
February 2005 – Final Report 2-86
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Idyllwild Water District
ADDRESS: 25945 Hwy 243, Idyllwild, CA 92549
EMAIL/WEBSITE: Tom@Idyllwildwater.com, NA
TYPES OF SERVICES: Water and Wastewater
POPULATION SERVED: 2,500
SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 2,400 (acres)
FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP:
(FY 2002-2003): $1,378,751 $1,117,419 $1,671,301 $233,720
WATER WASTEWATER
Connections: Connections: 568
Domestic: 1,440 Domestic: 409
Irrigation: NP Commercial: 150
M&I: 150 Industrial: NP
Reclaimed: NP Other: NP
Other: NP
Number of Treatment Plants: 1
Supply (AF):
Wholesale: 0 Total System Size: 11.4 (miles)
State Water Project: 0 Miles Gravity Sewer: 11.4
Surface: 0 Miles Force Main: 0
Wells: 300
Reclaimed: 0 Rates:
Billing Period: Monthly
Water Service Capacity: Flat Rates: NP
Total Capacity (AF): 800 Tied to Water Usage: NP
Total Demand (AF): 300 Estimated Monthly Bill: NP
Peak Capacity (mgd): 0.72
Peak Demand (mgd): 0.48
Storage Capacity (mg): 3.35 Current Capacity Treatment Level
0.25 mgd Secondary
Rates:
Billing Period: monthly
Meter/Service Charge:
Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
5/8” $ 18.90 $ NA $18.90
¾” $ 28.35 $ NA $28.35
1’ $ 54.81 $ NA $54.81
Water Rates (HCF):
Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
$3.40 $NA (treated) $3.40 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 2-87
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
IIDDYYLLLLWWIILLDD WWAATTEERR DDIISSTTRRIICCTT MMAAPP
February 2005 – Final Report 2-88
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Pine Cove Water District
ADDRESS: 24917 Marion Ridge Road, Idyllwild, CA 92549
EMAIL/WEBSITE: PCWD@PCWD.org, NP
TYPES OF SERVICES: Water only
POPULATION SERVED: NP
SIZE OF SERVICE AREA: 4,200 (acres)
FINANCIAL INFORMATION Revenues: Expenses: Reserves: CIP:
(FY 2002-2003): $539,601 $535,814 $220,000 $ 0
WATER
Connections:
Domestic: 1,070
Irrigation: 0
M&I: 0
Reclaimed: 0
Other: 0
Supply (AF):
Wholesale: 0
State Water Project: 0
Surface: 0
Wells: 125
Reclaimed: 0
Water Service Capacity:
Total Capacity (AF): 125
Total Demand (AF): 125
Peak Capacity (mgd): 0.3
Peak Demand (mgd): .250
Storage Capacity (mg): 3.1
Rates:
Billing Period: Two months
Meter/Service Charge:
Size Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
5/8” $ 38.00 $ NA $ NA
¾” $ 38.00 $ NA $ NA
1’ $ 38.00 $ NA $ NA
Water Rates (HCF):*
Residential Irrigation Ind/Com
0-7-$1.00 $ NA (treated) $ NA CIP = capital improvement program
7-20--$2.00 $ NA (reclaimed) $ NA FY = fiscal year
20+--$4.00 NA = not applicable
*Based on regular billing; agency also has rate schedule for NP = information not provided
stages 1-3 of water shortage emergency. 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
PPIINNEE CCOOVVEE MMAAPP
Riverside LAFCO
Water & Wastewater Municipal Service Review
Ruisenor Water District
This agency does not provide service.
February 2005 – Final Report 2-91