Clovis City Council
October 12, 2026

https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/506a037a-5d83-4992-954ee990c293a4de/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_30.ppeng.egnyte.com/2026_0825 TM1 WMP Amendment Task 1_Final_C.docx Report Prepared for:

City of Clovis
155 N Sunnyside Ave
Clovis, CA 93611
Contact:

Kevin Tuttle, PE
(559) 324-2613
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Heather Bashian, PE
Nick Jacobson, PE
Brian Ehlers, PE (QAQC)
Contact:

Heather Bashian, PE
(559) 449-2700
COPYRIGHT 2026 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.

City of Clovis
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1-1 2 Design Criteria Summary...................................................................................................................2-1 3 Water System Demands....................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Historic Water Use ...................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Historic Per Capita Demands ...................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Water Demand Projections......................................................................................................3-4

3.3.1 Per Capita Basis.......................................................................................................3-4

3.3.2 Land Use Basis.........................................................................................................3-5

3.3.3 Comparison of Water Demand Projections............................................................3-5 4 Water System Supplies......................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Groundwater............................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Intentional Recharge................................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Surface Water ..........................................................................................................................4-2

4.4 Supply Summary ......................................................................................................................4-4

4.5 Water Supply Reliability...........................................................................................................4-4

4.5.1 Groundwater...........................................................................................................4-4

4.5.2 Surface Water .........................................................................................................4-4

4.5.3 Groundwater Banking Facilities..............................................................................4-5 5 Supply and Demand Comparison......................................................................................................5-1 6 References.........................................................................................................................................6-1

City of Clovis
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 ii List of Figures
Figure 3-1. Per Capita Demand Trends.....................................................................................................3-4 Figure 3-2. Comparison of Water Demand Projection .............................................................................3-6 List of Tables
Table 2-1. Summary of WMP Model Design Criteria ................................................................................2-1 Table 3-1. Historic Water Production ........................................................................................................3-2 Table 3-2. Historic Per Capita Water Demands .........................................................................................3-3 Table 3-3. Per Capita Based Water Demand Projections...........................................................................3-5 Table 3-4. Land Use Based Demand Projections .......................................................................................3-5 Table 3-5. Comparison of Water Demand Projections..............................................................................3-6 Table 4-1. Summary of Intentional Recharge (2015 – 2022)....................................................................4-2 Table 4-2. Summary of Available Surface Water Supplies........................................................................4-3 Table 4-3. Summary of Current Water Supplies.......................................................................................4-4 Table 4-4. Boswell Banking Facility Summary...........................................................................................4-5 Table 5-1. Supply and Demand Comparison..............................................................................................5-1

City of Clovis
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • February 2023 iii Abbreviations
ADD ..............................................................................................................................Average Day Demand AF ..................................................................................................................................................... acre-feet AFY .....................................................................................................................................acre-feet per year Boswell......................................................................................................................Boswell Banking Facility City ............................................................................................................................................. City of Clovis FID ............................................................................................................................Fresno Irrigation District fps...........................................................................................................................................feet per second GP...................................................................................................................................... 2035 General Plan gpcd....................................................................................................................... gallons per capita per day gpm ...................................................................................................................................gallons per minute LUDF......................................................................................................................Land Use Demand Factors MDD..........................................................................................................................Maximum Day Demand MG............................................................................................................................................million gallons NKGSA ................................................................................ North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency NKGSP .....................................................................................North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan PHD ..................................................................................................................................Peak Hour Demand psi..............................................................................................................................pounds per square inch SGMA ........................................................................................Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SOI................................................................................................................................... Sphere of Influence UWMP...........................................................................City of Clovis 2020 Urban Water Management Plan WMP ................................................................. City of Clovis Water Master Plan, Phase III (Adopted 2018)

Section One: Introduction
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 1-1
1 Introduction
The City of Clovis (City) is undertaking a review and evaluation of the current Water Master Plan (WMP) (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2018) to identify changes in assumptions, conditions or planned major infrastructure reflecting current development activities and future plans within the City.

This Technical Memorandum serves to provide a concise summary of the System Performance and Design Criteria used in the hydraulic model informing the conclusions of the WMP, and an update to the supply and demands documented in the WMP to reflect current data. The purpose of summarizing this information is to allow the City to identify changes in operations of the water system, or changes in the supply/demand characteristics, that may impact the future planning of infrastructure for the City.

Section Two: Design Criteria Summary
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 2-1
2 Design Criteria Summary
Within the WMP, Chapter 11 details, narratively, the design criteria used in the development and use of the hydraulic model utilized for evaluating the existing water system and future system improvements.

This Section serves to summarize those criteria and is not intended to update the criteria, at this time.

Acronyms used in the following table include:
• Average Day Demand (ADD)
• Maximum Day Demand (MDD)
• Peak Hour Demand (PHD)
• pounds per square inch (psi)
• feet per second (fps)
• gallons per minute (gpm)
Table 2-1. Summary of WMP Model Design Criteria
Criteria Name Value Used and/or Notes
Modeling Software Utilized Innovyze InfoWater1
Model Basis 2013 SCADA Data and City GIS records
Demands Basis MDD based on July 2013 meter data
System Pressure: Maximum 80 psi
System Pressure:

Minimum
MDD, Existing Dev. 35 psi
MDD, Future Dev. 40 psi
PHD 35 psi
Pipeline Velocities:
18-inches and greater
ADD 3 fps
MDD 5 fps
PHD 5 fps
Pipeline Velocities:
12-inches to 16-inches
ADD 5 fps
MDD + Fire Flow [1] 10 fps
PHD 7 fps
Pipeline Headloss: 18-inches and greater 3 feet per 1,000 feet Pipeline Headloss: 12-inches to 16-inches 10 feet per 1,000 feet Fire Flow Requirements 1,800 gpm with residual pressure of 35 psi Notes:
[1] The WMP indicates MDD pipeline velocity maximum is 10 fps; however, the hydraulic model uses this criteria for MDD plus Fire Flow.
1 Updated from the 1999 model developed utilizing EPANET

Section Three: Water System Demands
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 3-1
3 Water System Demands
Within the WMP, Chapter 5 discusses the historic water use of the City, including total production and demand information. Following the historic discussion, a discussion regarding projected water use, both on a per capita demand basis and a land use basis, is included. This Section serves to summarize various tables shown in the WMP and includes 2020 through 2022 data for comparison purposes on water demand trends. Where applicable, the values in the WMP have been updated, as noted below.

3.1 Historic Water Use
The City utilizes a combination of groundwater and surface water to meet the demands of the City’s customer base. Table 5.1-1 in the WMP shows the historic water production (shown in acre-feet [AF]) of the City, including the percentages from both groundwater and surface water supplies, highlighting the City’s continued reduced reliance on groundwater supplies. The following table serves as an updated version of the table in the WMP. The data shows the overall increase in use of surface water to meet demands, as planned for in the WMP.

3.2 Historic Per Capita Demands
Table 5.2-1 in the WMP highlights the gross per capita demands for the City, shown in gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The following table serves to update the data presented in the WMP to be inclusive of years 2016-2025. The overall total water demand of the City has declined when comparing 2013 to 2025, despite an increase in population and the associated increased demands for services associated with an increasing population.

Section Three: Water System Demands
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 3-2
Table 3-1. Historic Water Production
Year Wells SWTP Total Percent
From Wells
Percent
From SWTP
2000 19,353 0 19,353 100% 0%
2001 20,194 0 20,194 100% 0%
2002 21,276 0 21,276 100% 0%
2003 22,599 0 22,599 100% 0%
2004 23,033 1,317 24,350 95% 5%
2005 18,239 5,894 24,134 76% 24%
2006 18,542 6,882 25,424 73% 27%
2007 22,476 4,947 27,423 82% 18%
2008 21,341 6,418 27,759 77% 23%
2009 19,086 7,092 26,178 73% 27%
2010 18,199 6,535 24,734 74% 26%
2011 16,542 7,390 23,932 69% 31%
2012 18,357 7,753 26,110 70% 30%
2013 20,159 6,962 27,121 74% 26%
2014 15,529 9,538 25,067 62% 38%
2015 12,192 7,839 20,031 61% 39%
2016 13,187 7,436 20,623 64% 36%
2017 12,001 10,469 22,470 53% 47%
2018 11,991 11,131 23,123 52% 48%
2019 10,956 11,995 22,951 48% 52%
2020 12,105 12,723 24,828 49% 51%
2021 [1] 15,677 9,639 25,317 62% 38%
2022 [1] 15,237 10,742 25,979 59% 41%
2023 12,749 11,443 24,192 53% 47%
2024 17,635 7,782 25,417 69% 31%
2025 16,972 8,240 25,212 67% 33%
Notes:
[1] The SWTP was offline from September 2011 to March 2022 to allow for FID maintenance on the Enterprise Canal and for the rehabilitation of the SWTP clearwell.

Section Three: Water System Demands
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 3-3
Table 3-2. Historic Per Capita Water Demands
Year Distribution System
Population
Total Production
(million gallons
[MG])
Per Capita
Demand
(gpcd)
2000 72,473 6,306 238
2001 73,949 6,580 244
2002 76,471 6,933 248
2003 79,762 7,364 253
2004 84,086 7,935 259
2005 88,509 7,864 243
2006 92,196 8,284 246
2007 94,112 8,936 260
2008 96,441 9,045 257
2009 97,586 8,530 239
2010 99,519 8,060 222
2011 100,721 7,798 212
2012 102,372 8,508 228
2013 103,953 8,837 233
2014 105,796 8,168 212
2015 108,532 6,527 165
2016 111,015 6,720 166
2017 113,477 7,322 177
2018 116,891 7,535 177
2019 120,218 7,478 170
2020 122,350 8,090 181
2021 125,443 8,249 180
2022 127,607 8,465 182
2023 128,875 7,883 168
2024 131,618 8,282 172
2025 133,118 8,215 169
The following graph illustrates the per capita demand (shown in gpcd) decline associated with the City’s conservation efficacy. The requirement to conserve twenty percent of demand by year 20202 was initiated in 2010, with the first milestone of ten percent reduction in demand occurring in 2015. This, coupled with significant drought conditions and further government mandates for conservation, contributed to the decline shown in the graph.
2 Water Conservation Act of 2009

Section Three: Water System Demands
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 3-4
Figure 3-1. Per Capita Demand Trends

3.3 Water Demand Projections
The WMP utilizes two approaches to evaluate water demand projections, a Per Capita Demand basis, discussed further below and updated based on data shown above, in Section 3.2 of this TM, and a Land Use basis, summarized in Section 3.3.2, below.

3.3.1 Per Capita Basis
The WMP indicates two thresholds for demand projections, the 2035 General Plan (GP) Sphere of Influence (SOI) Buildout and the total City buildout (Full Buildout) in 2083. The projected populations are 184,100 and 280,300, respectively, for those thresholds.

More recent population projections shown in the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2026) indicate the population projection of 184,100 to be reached after 2040. It is assumed growth will slow as the Full Buildout scenario is reached and this Per Capita analysis will continue to utilize 2083 as the anticipated Full Buildout year.

The WMP utilized the calculated Per Capita Target of 199 gpcd (based on UWMP requirements), which is higher than the actual per capita use over the past five years. The average per capita use over the past five years (2020 through 2025) is 174 gpcd. For comparison purposes, the WMP values are shown, as well as re-calculated values based on updated population projections and using both 199 gpcd and 174 gpcd.
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Per Capita Demand (gpcd)
Year
Per Capita Demand

Section Three: Water System Demands
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 3-5
Table 3-3. Per Capita Based Water Demand Projections
Year
WMP Table 5.2-2 Information 2025 UWMP
Service
Population
High
Projection
[2]
Low
Projection
[3]
Service
Population
WMP Per Capita
Projection [1]
2025 141,467 31,500 133,118 29,700 26,000
2030 159,546 35,600 146,811 32,700 28,600
2035 180,001 40,100 161,956 36,100 31,600
2035 GP SOI Buildout 184,100 41,000 184,100 [4] 41,000 35,900 Full Buildout (2083) 280,300 62,500 280,300 62,500 54,700 Notes:
[1] Utilizing 199 gpcd and WMP population projections; total demands shown in AF [2] Utilizing 199 gpcd and population projections updated in the 2025 UWMP; total demands shown in AF. To be consistent with the WMP this value does not account for implementation of upcoming regulations to limit the indoor and outdoor water use. Discussion of the impact of those regulations is provided in Technical Memorandum No. 2. [3] Utilizing 174 gpcd; total demands shown in AF
[4] GP SOI Buildout population anticipated as occurring in approximately 2042 in 2025 UWMP population projections

3.3.2 Land Use Basis
The WMP did not include Land Use Based Demand Projections for conditions other than the GP and Full Buildout conditions. For the purposes of this discussion, the land use demand factors (LUDF) developed in the WMP and shown in Table 5.3-1 of the WMP have not been updated. The LUDFs are the basis of the Land Use Based Demand Projections; therefore, those projections are reproduced below from Table

5.4-1 of the WMP.

Table 3-4. Land Use Based Demand Projections
Year Land Use Based Demand
Projection
SOI Buildout 45,000
Full Buildout (2083) 65,400

3.3.3 Comparison of Water Demand Projections
Similar to the discussion in the WMP, a comparison of the two types of water demand projections has been prepared in the following table. Conservatively, the WMP conclusions and recommendations are based on the Land Use Based Water Demand Projections.

Section Three: Water System Demands
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 3-6
Table 3-5. Comparison of Water Demand Projections
Year Per Capita Demand
Projection [1]
Per Capita Demand
Projection [2]
Land Use Based
Demand Projection [1]
SOI Buildout 41,000 35,900 45,000
Full Buildout (2083) 62,500 54,700 65,400
Notes:
[1] Reproduced from Table 5.4-1 in the WMP. For the purposes of this discussion, the land use demand factors used to prepare the land use based demand projections have not been updated. Demands are all shown in AF. [2] From Table 3-3, above.

The following figure shows a graphical comparison of the three demand projection scenarios.

Figure 3-2. Comparison of Water Demand Projection
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
Per Capita Demand Projection with 199 gpcd
Per Capita Demand Projection with 174 gpcd
Land Use Based Demand Projection
SOI Buildout Full Buildout (2083)

Section Four: Water System Supplies
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 4-1
4 Water System Supplies
Within the WMP, Chapter 6 discusses the historic water supply sources of the City, including current supply availability and future anticipated supply quantities. As conditions change the way water supplies are managed, it is important to review and update the availability and reliability of supplies periodically. The purpose of this Section is to present data from the WMP and updated information, where possible, for comparison.

Upon preparation of the WMP, compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was not included; however, the ensuing years since WMP adoption have included preparation and adoption of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan (NKGSP), prepared by the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). The City is an active member of the NKGSA and included in the NKGSP, which details recommendations to mitigate overdraft of the groundwater aquifer in the area, including reduced groundwater pumping and intentional recharge efforts by all NKGSA member agencies. At this time, a limitation on groundwater pumping has not been established for the City and the discussion below continues to assume the same groundwater availability as shown in the WMP.

4.1 Groundwater
As of the time of preparation of the WMP, based on data from 2014, the City was operating 35 active wells to supply groundwater to the water distribution system. The total production from the active wells in 2014 was 15,500 AF.

In 2025, the City was operating 32 active wells (five wells are offline for various water quality issues), with a total production capacity of 47,100 acre-feet per year (AFY), while the total production from active wells was 15,677 AF. However, 2021 was anomalous due to the SWTP being offline from September 2021 through March 2022; groundwater production in 2020 was 12,105 AF and is more representative of current groundwater usage.

As noted in the WMP, the estimated sustainable groundwater pumping is understood to be approximately 9,400 AFY. The excess capacity of the wells provides for reliability and redundancy in the City’s system to provide more groundwater supply into the system in the fall when the Surface Water Treatment Plant is offline and less in the spring and early summer when demands have not peaked and the SWTP is operational.

4.2 Intentional Recharge
The City continues to operate a systematic groundwater recharge program which replenishes the aquifer as supplies are available. The following table shows the intentional recharge since the WMP was prepared, including years 2015 through 2022.

Section Four: Water System Supplies
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 4-2
Table 4-1. Summary of Intentional Recharge (2015 – 2022) Year Totals
2015 1,788
2016 1,788
2017 9,925
2018 13,590
2019 8,858
2020 4,855
2021 1,549
2022 6,857
2023 12,039
2024 9,770
2025 7,641
Average [1] 7,281
Total [1] 378,602
Notes:
[1] The averages and totals are inclusive of the years shown in the WMP (1974 to 2014) plus the additional years in this table (2015 to 2025).

The WMP assumed 7,400 AFY of intentional recharge, which is just slightly over the more than 45-year average total intentional recharge. However, the average recharge in the last five years is approximately 7,200 AFY and the twenty-year average is just over 7,700, which is more representative of the City’s current operating conditions than factoring in the 1970s and 1980s values to the averages.

4.3 Surface Water
The City has multi-faceted surface water supplies available for either recharge, as described above, or direct use through treatment at the SWTP in southeast Clovis, near Bullard and Leonard Avenues. The WMP presented the existing surface water supplies available to the City in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.4-2 for the SOI Buildout and Full Buildout, respectively. The following table shows those from the WMP and the current supplies available, including the two most recent agreements with the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) executed in 2019.

Section Four: Water System Supplies
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 4-3
Table 4-2. Summary of Available Surface Water Supplies
Surface Water Supply Source
WMP Supply Total (AFY) Updated Supply Total (AFY)
SOI Buildout in
2035 GP Buildout Update SOI Buildout in 2042 GP Buildout Kings River Entitlement [1] 37,000 47,900 [2] 31,500 32,100 Class II - FID 1,300 1,700 1,300 1,700
Water to FID Annexed Lands 100 200 100 200
Garfield Water District 1,700 1,800 1,000 1,750
International Water District 1,000 1,200 1,000 1,200
Waldron Pond Facility [3] -- -- -- --
Boswell Facility 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500
2019 Firm Supply Agreement [4] -- -- 6,400 7,000
Totals 45,600 57,300 45,800 48,450
Notes:
[1] The updated supply information is reflective of the Revised, Amended and Restated Cooperative Agreement between FID and City of Clovis for Water Utilization and Conveyance, executed September 1, 2019. Per the Agreement, Kings River Entitlement is limited to 7.12% of the total FID entitlement. For planning purposes, the 1965-2025 average FID entitlement is 452,541 AFY and it is anticipated all FID entitlement to the City will be realized by the SOI Buildout, as assumed in the WMP.
[2] This value is from Table 7.4-2 in the WMP and includes water supplies available in the Between Canals and Southeast Corner villages; however, no demands were estimated in those areas in the WMP and the later reconciliation does not reflect this entire supply.
[3] Up to 9,000 AFY available to the City on an as-needed basis, not intended to be part of the regular supply portfolio. [4] The updated supply information is reflective of the Firm Surface Water Supply and Purchase Agreement between FID and the City of Clovis, executed September 1, 2019. Per the Agreement; a new firm surface water supply is available to the City beginning with 1,000 AFY in 2020 and increasing annually to a total supply of 7,000 AFY in 2045. This supply is available anywhere the City delivers water supply and is not restricted to the FID boundary for usage. [5] The City is working on developing an exchange agreement with FID and the City of Fresno to properly account for the City’s ownership of its effluent at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Water Treatment Facility. As this agreement progresses, this supply will be incorporated into the overall water balance for the City.

Section Four: Water System Supplies
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 4-4

4.4 Supply Summary
Based on the discussions provided above, the following water supply summary is provided.

Table 4-3. Summary of Current Water Supplies
Water Supply
Source
WMP Water Supply Total (AFY) Updated Water Supply Total (AFY) SOI Buildout GP Buildout SOI Buildout GP Buildout
Groundwater 9,400 9,400 9,400 9,400
Surface Water 45,600 45,900 [1] 45,800 48,450 [2]
Recycled Water 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500
Totals 59,500 59,800 59,700 62,350
Notes:
[1] The true sum of supplies equals 71,200 AFY; however, in the comparison in Chapter 10 of the WMP, the Kings River Entitlement and Class II FID supplies associated with some villages (Northern Rural, Northeast Corner, Between Canal, and Southeast Corner) were removed to account for the fact that demand projections were also not calculated for that area.

Therefore, in this table, the WMP Chapter 10 surface supply is used rather than the total from Table 4-2 above. [2] With the limitation of the Kings River Entitlement to less than previously planned in the main villages (37,000 AFY), the actual supply values are being used for the comparison in this TM.

4.5 Water Supply Reliability

4.5.1 Groundwater
As discussed above, the City is operating on the assumption that 9,400 AFY is the sustainable pumping value for the groundwater aquifer. Additional restrictions may reduce that value, but for the purposes of this study, the assumption will remain in place.

4.5.2 Surface Water
The reliability of the City’s surface water supply sources shown and discussed in the WMP is understood to be consistent for planning purposes, and as illustrated by data in Section 3.1 indicating consistently increasing surface water deliveries.

The revised cooperative agreement limits the surface water entitlement available to the City to 7.12 percent of FID’s entitlement, reducing the supply anticipated from that source shown in the WMP. It is important to note, the City would not have anticipated to develop all lands within FID shown in the General Plan; therefore, the actual supply reduction due to the revised agreement is approximately 4,900 AFY (the difference between the previously assumed 8.5 percent of developable lands within FID and the 7.12 percent limit in the revised cooperative agreement).

The City received 174 AFY of the available 1,000 AF of their Firm Water supply in Water Year 2020-2021, which was all that was needed in the year; however, if requested, the entire 1,000 AF available supply (or more depending on the year of the agreement) can be full obtained through FID.

Section Four: Water System Supplies
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 4-5

4.5.3 Groundwater Banking Facilities
As noted above, the Waldron Banking facility is intended for emergency or drought relief purposes only and is not quantified in the supply portfolio for the City. The Boswell Banking facility (Boswell), however, is part of the City’s supply portfolio. The following table documents the years the City received supplies from Boswell since the WMP was adopted. The maximum available supply is 4,500 AFY and can be fully available from various sources, if requested by the City.

Table 4-4. Boswell Banking Facility Summary
Water Year Quantity Received from
Boswell (AF)
2018-2019 1,000
2019-2020 0
2020-2021 1,500
2021-2022 0
2022-2023 0
2023-2024 0
2024-2025 0

Section Five: Supply and Demand Comparison
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 5-1
5 Supply and Demand Comparison
The WMP, in Chapter 10, provides a comparison of Supply and Demand discussed throughout the WMP.

This summary serves to shows the WMP information and the updated information provided in this TM for comparison purposes. All values in the following table are shown in AF.

Table 5-1. Supply and Demand Comparison
Criteria
WMP Table 10.1-3 Updated Information
SOI Buildout GP Buildout SOI Buildout
[1]
GP Buildout
[1]
SOI Buildout
[2]
GP Buildout
[2]
Total Demand 45,000 65,400 45,000 65,400 41,000 62,500
Total Supply Available 59,500 59,800 59,700 62,350 59,700 62,350 Difference 14,500 (5,600) 14,700 (3,050) 18,700 (150)
Notes:
[1] These comparisons utilize demands shown in the WMP. As recalculated per capita demands in this WMP are less that the land use based demands shown in the WMP, this provides for a more conservative comparison of supply and demands3. [2] These comparisons utilize the “High Per Capita Demands” calculated with per capita values shown above in Table 3-3.

As illustrated in the table above, with the addition of the Firm Supply agreement, the City is improving its ability to meet all demands for the buildout of the City. Whereas previously a deficit was shown at GP Buildout, that scenario is improved with the addition of 7,000 AF of available surface water at the time of buildout and showing use of all available supplies within the urban villages. Additionally, more recent usage data indicates the demand scenarios in the WMP may be more conservative than realistic given the past 9 years of conservation implementation that was not utilized in development of the LUDFs4. 3 It is important to note, per capita demand calculations are for the entire population anticipated at both SOI Buildout in 2042 and Full Buildout in 2083, while land use based demands are attached to the timing of development. This indicates the Land Use Demand Factors developed in 2013 may require an update with the future WMP Update. 4 The LUDFs were developed using 2013 water use data.

Section Six: References
Technical Memorandum No. 1 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 6-1
6 References
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2018). City of Clovis Water Master Plan, Phase III. Clovis.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2026). 2025 Urban Water Management Plan. Clovis.

https://us-partner-integrations.egnyte.com/msoffice/wopi/files/531b7d55-b41c-4069-88b5- 94fddc54b091/WOPIServiceId_TP_EGNYTE_PLUS/WOPIUserId_30.ppeng.egnyte.com/2026_0924 TM2 WMP Amendment TM2_Final _C.docx Report Prepared for:

City of Clovis
155 N Sunnyside Ave
Clovis, CA 93611
Contact:

Kevin Tuttle, PE
(559) 324-2613
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Heather Bashian, PE
Nick Jacobson, PE
Brian Ehlers, PE (QAQC)
Contact:

Heather Bashian, PE
(559) 449-2700
COPYRIGHT 2026 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.

City of Clovis
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 iii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1-1 2 Existing WMP Assumptions...............................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Land Use Based Growth Projections........................................................................................2-1

2.2 Village Based Planning .............................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Projected Growth Patterns......................................................................................................2-2 3 Supply Sources ..................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Supply and Demand Comparison.............................................................................................3-1

3.2 Water Supply Reliability...........................................................................................................3-1

3.2.1 Groundwater...........................................................................................................3-1

3.2.2 Surface Water .........................................................................................................3-1

3.2.3 Groundwater Banking Facilities..............................................................................3-2

3.2.4 Response to Future Regulation or Mandates.........................................................3-2 4 Efficiency of Water Main Layouts .....................................................................................................4-1 5 Major Infrastructure..........................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Groundwater Wells..................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Water Storage Tanks and Pumping Stations............................................................................5-1

5.3 SWTPs and Associated Facilities ..............................................................................................5-2

5.4 Recharge Basins.......................................................................................................................5-3 6 Immediate Recommendations..........................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Piping Layout............................................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Major Infrastructure ................................................................................................................6-1 7 References.........................................................................................................................................7-1 List of Figures
Figure 2-1. City and Irrigation District Boundaries....................................................................................2-3 Figure 4-1. Revised WMP Figure 12.4-1 Reproduction.............................................................................4-3

City of Clovis
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 iv
Abbreviations
AB...............................................................................................................................................Assembly Bill AFY .....................................................................................................................................acre-feet per year CII ...................................................................................................Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional CIP .........................................................................................................................Capital Improvement Plan City ............................................................................................................................................. City of Clovis CSUF ......................................................................................................... California State University, Fresno CVP............................................................................................................................... Central Valley Project DWR ............................................................................................................Department of Water Resources EO.......................................................................................................................................... Executive Order FID ............................................................................................................................Fresno Irrigation District GP...................................................................................................................................... 2035 General Plan gpcd....................................................................................................................... gallons per capita per day LUDF......................................................................................................................Land Use Demand Factors MGD............................................................................................................................million gallons per day NESWTP....................................................................................... Northeast Surface Water Treatment Plant NKGSA ................................................................................ North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency NKGSP .....................................................................................North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan OPL .......................................................................................................................................Official Plan Line PS.......................................................................................................................................... Pumping Station SB ................................................................................................................................................... Senate Bill SESWTP ....................................................................................... Southeast Surface Water Treatment Plant SGMA ........................................................................................Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SOI................................................................................................................................... Sphere of Influence SWRCB.................................................................................................State Water Resources Control Board SWTP.............................................................................................................Surface Water Treatment Plant TM1................................................................................................................Technical Memorandum No. 1 WMP ........................................................................................... City of Clovis Water Master Plan, Phase III

Section One: Introduction
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 1-1
1 Introduction
The City of Clovis (City) is undertaking a review and evaluation of the current Water Master Plan (WMP) (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2018) to identify changes in assumptions, conditions or planned major infrastructure reflecting current development activities and future plans within the City.

This Technical Memorandum serves to evaluate the existing WMP buildout scenario for potential gaps or deficiencies in master planned infrastructure or water supply sources. The purpose of identifying any deficiencies is to allow the City the opportunity to evaluate changes to the capital improvements required for the City’s buildout in a future phase of work.

Section Two: Existing WMP Assumptions
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 2-1
2 Existing WMP Assumptions
The WMP is based on several growth assumptions, leading to recommendations in the WMP regarding infrastructure and timing of infrastructure improvements.

2.1 Land Use Based Growth Projections
The growth projections, specifically water demands, are based on Land Use Demand Factors (LUDFs).

This is thought to be a more conservative approach to demand projections and, per the WMP, at General Plan (GP) Buildout, leads to a difference of approximately 2,900 acre-feet per year (AFY), in water demand projections utilizing a per capita demand of 199 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). As noted in Technical Memorandum No. 1 (TM1), the actual per capita demand in the past five years has been 174 gpcd, a further 16.4 percent reduction in demand or 10,700 AFY less than the Land Use based projections.

Additionally, the LUDFs were established based on 2013 calendar year demand data which is the highest per capita demand year in the past ten years and may not be representative any longer.

Potential Resolution to Consider: The Land Use based methodology using more recent land use meter records should be reevaluated during the next WMP Update.

2.2 Village Based Planning
The WMP utilizes a series of discrete areas known as Villages. In general, the Villages are used to separate infrastructure needs into discrete packages and reconcile supplies and demands by Village; in several instances, the Village boundaries align with Urban Center boundaries noted in the General Plan.

While useful in many regards, the City’s water system functions as a whole and disaggregation into villages may indicate some Villages have excess supply and other are in deficit, which is not the way the system operates. The deficit/excess situation is linked to most of the City’s surface water being generated from development of land within the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) boundary (generally west of the Enterprise Canal), which is largely the developed area of the City and the location of most the groundwater wells, while east of the Canal, new groundwater wells are limited and surface water supply from the FID is outside its place of use. Therefore, regardless of Village boundaries, it is still important to identify growth outside the place of use for surface water supplies and continue to require development of new supplies for planned development outside the place of use.

Additionally, the actual growth is occurring in some Villages that were assumed to have no growth and remain rural residential; therefore, there are some areas where water demands were not projected in the GP Buildout for supply and demand reconciliation, specifically Northern Rural and a small portion of Between Canals. It is possible other Villages may be in this same situation in the future.

Potential Resolution to Consider: It may be useful to consider reevaluating the Village boundaries to be more consistent with updated anticipated growth patterns, or other boundaries such as irrigation districts that will contribute to the supply portfolio for the City. See Figure 2-1, below for illustration of the various boundaries that may be considered if realignment of Village boundaries is undertaken.

Section Two: Existing WMP Assumptions
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 2-2

2.3 Projected Growth Patterns
Other than growth into the Northwest and Loma Vista Villages, most of the growth in the WMP is projected to occur in the Northeast and Northeast Corner Villages. While this may be driven by market factors or market analysis, the water system development will continue to be challenging in this direction. Currently, without additional development in the City, there are existing water system pressure challenges in the Northeast Triangle, specifically in Harlan Ranch. With each new development in Pressure Zone “2”, and more specifically in the Northwest Village, the pressure issues worsen slightly.

The addition of a second Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) in the Northeast Village was intended to help provide a supply to this area.

Potential Resolution to Consider: It may be prudent to consider how growth patterns in the Between Canals and Northern Rural Villages may occur and what master planned facilities are needed in those areas. The location and size of additional surface water treatment facilities is directly related to the plan for growth.

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Legend
General Plan Boundary
Village Boundaries
City Limits
Fresno I.D.

Garfield W.D.

International W.D.
1/31/2023: G:\Clovis_City of Utility-1717\171722009-WMP Amendment\400 GIS\Map\City_IrrigDist.mxd Clovis Water Master Plan
Amendment
Figure 2-1
City and Irrigation District
Boundaries
0 I

0.5 1
Miles

Section Three: Supply Sources
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 3-1
3 Supply Sources
TM1 discusses, in greater detail, the supply sources and their respective quantities. This section presents the conclusions of the previous discussion and identifies specific supply sufficiency gaps or reliability concerns.

3.1 Supply and Demand Comparison
TM1 evaluated supply and demand comparison for the demand scenarios shown in the WMP as well as a potential reduction in demand based on recent per capita demand data from the City. In both scenarios, the overall comparison of supplies available and future demands at General Plan Buildout indicates there is insufficient supplies to meet demands. The WMP indicated a deficit of 5,600 AFY, while the updated information presented in TM1 indicates 3,050 AFY or 150 AFY deficits for existing and reduced demand scenarios, respectively.

Additional supply sources or further water demand reductions, such as implementation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure, permanent allowable landscape type changes (i.e., no turf, drought tolerant plants), proactive retrofit programs, etc. could be evaluated for inclusion in water reconciliation projections.

3.2 Water Supply Reliability

3.2.1 Groundwater
The North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA) prepared the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan (NKGSP) in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requirements. The City is party to this plan and its implementation. While the NKGSA has not set groundwater pumping criteria at this time, it is possible it is forthcoming. The City currently estimates that the sustainable pumping amount approximates 9,400 AFY. The assumption of utilizing this value may require revision. It is understood that, given the City’s past and future commitment to recharge, groundwater will continue to be a reliable source of supply.

If criteria are implemented for City compliance, it will be necessary to reevaluate the overall supply/demand reconciliation to determine what deficits may exist. It is recommended this be undertaken with revisions to demand projections, as discussed in Section 2, to allow for both updates to be reflected.

3.2.2 Surface Water
The City’s surface water supplies are derived from agreements with the FID. The surface water supplies originate from the Kings River. These surface water supplies make up most of the City’s total surface water supplies and have a high level of reliability. The FID agreement recognizes that some surface water may be developed from supplies that originate from the Central Valley Project (CVP) if necessary to supplement Kings River surface supplies.

Section Three: Supply Sources
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 3-2
Potential surface water supplies have been included in the WMP that are currently held by both the International Water District and Garfield Water District. Both these districts hold contracts with the United State Bureau of Reclamation for CVP supplies. The CVP surface water is generated from the San Joaquin River in our geographical location. The San Joaquin River is hydrologically separated from the remainder of the CVP and, as such, the hydrologic variability is directly related to the snowpack in the San Joaquin River watershed. In the recent past, the average CVP supplies have been reduced by as much as ten to fifteen percent, annually. Also, in 2014 and 2015 there were zero allocations. These recent operational results and reductions, when incorporated into the WMP, could impact the timing and reliability of supplies noted as Class II. Surface water supplies from the CVP for FID, International Water District, and Garfield Water District should be reevaluated to identify the potential impacts on dry year supplies in the WMP. The City should consider whether the reliability should be reflected in the overall water supply portfolio, as it relates to those supplies.

In addition to the reliability of the surface water supplies, the reliability of the access to the surface water supplies is a separate issue. As further discussed in the next section, the City is only able to access their surface water supply a portion of the year. The supply is delivered to the City solely through the Enterprise Canal, which is removed from operation for a portion of each year due to maintenance activities conducted by the FID. In some years, the access is limited only by a month or two but in other years, such as Water Year 2021/22, the surface water supply may be unavailable for up to five months of the year. Further discussion and details are available in Section 6 of the Revised, Amended, and Restated Cooperative Agreement between Fresno Irrigation District and City of Clovis for Water Utilization and Conveyance (Fresno Irrigation District, 2019).

3.2.3 Groundwater Banking Facilities
The Waldron Banking facility is a project developed under an agreement executed in 2004 and provides for access up to 9,000 AFY. The Boswell Banking facility is an additional project developed under an agreement in 2011 and has an available supply of 4,500 AFY. The City must request an amount of water each year. It should be recognized that the maximum supply developed from the facility is based upon the surface water delivered to the site in the winter months. In dry years, if rainfall has not been sufficient to generate the agreed upon yield, then the amount that can be generated to the City may be reduced, however the agreements provide for the District to acquire additional water supply. Both the Waldron and Boswell agreements allow for FID to pursue additional water supplies on the City’s behalf should the annual yield not be able to be met.

3.2.4 Response to Future Regulation or Mandates

3.2.4.1 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation As implementation of SGMA proceeds, it will be important for the City to continue to have diverse water supplies available to meet demands. Utilization of groundwater wells, in a sustainable manner, will be a vital component of the City’s water supply portfolio and will buffer against years when surface water supplies are not as plentiful, as indicated below with respect to drought mandates. It is possible the current assumption for groundwater usage may be revised from the existing 9,400 AFY, requiring the City to reevaluate its water supply portfolio for sufficiency.

Section Three: Supply Sources
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 3-3

3.2.4.2 Drought Mandates
Droughts have significant, direct impacts to the availability and quantity of surface water supplies and, generally, requires the City to depend on groundwater more significantly than discussed in Section

3.2.1. While short periods of extra reliance on groundwater supplies are potentially acceptable, longterm shifts in supply usage are not sustainable. The City has a diverse water supply portfolio to help safeguard against these instances; however, it will be prudent to continue to plan for conservation measures as discussed in Section 3.1, or increased usage of recycled wastewater for beneficial uses in the City. Additional recycled water supplies could be used to offset outdoor demands, reserving surface and groundwater supplies for interior or remaining uses.

Past Drought-Related Executive Orders (EOs)
The previously issued Emergency Conservation Regulations and Executive Orders, pertaining to implementing water shortage contingency planning levels and conservation measures have expired or have been eliminated through subsequent EOs.

Future Drought-Related EOs
The impact of future EOs could be as impactful as the City’s mandated conservation target related to EO B-29-15, which resulted the City being issued a mandatory conservation target of 36 percent reduction as compared the 2013 water use, which translated to a conservation target of 7,443 acre-feet in 2015.

3.2.4.3 AB 1668/SB606
In 2018, Assembly Bill (AB) 1668 and Senate Bill (SB) 606, were passed, directing the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to develop requirements for indoor and outdoor residential water use; commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) outdoor water use; and water loss from distribution systems (SWRCB, State Water Resources Control Board, 2018).

Implementation Measures
• Indoor Water Use Standard: Implementation of indoor water use standard of 47 gpcd in 2025, 52 gpcd in 2035. These values were used in 2025 UWMP.
o On September 28, 2022, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 1157, which reduced the indoor water use standard to 47 gpcd in 2025 and 42 gpcd in 2030. This is codified in Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.55, Chapter 9, Section 10609.4(a). • Outdoor Water Use Standard – Residential and CII: The outdoor water use standards for both Residential and CII uses are proceeding through the rule making process. If it is finalized prior to evaluating water demand projection methodology, it is recommended the evaluation includes this new standard, also.
o On September 29, 2022, the DWR made a recommendation to the SWRCB regarding both outdoor water use standards (DWR, 2022).
• Water Loss Performance Standards: the rule making for this measure is in process. Once it is adopted, the City should evaluate the impact to overall water use projections based on requirements to reduce their water loss.
o The SWRCB drafted regulatory text and published them in 2022 for comment (SWRCB, State Water Resources Control Board, 2022).

Potential Resolution to Consider: It is recommended the future water demand projection methodology incorporate the Water Use Standards in the analysis.

Section Four: Efficiency of Piping Layouts
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 4-1
4 Efficiency of Water Main Layouts
The City’s transmission and distribution water mains are laid out throughout the City on a general halfmile grid, following the major streets. In reviewing the WMP water main layouts, several areas that could use further analysis and possibly revisions to the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), were noted, as follows, organized by Village. A reproduction of the revised version of Figure 12.4-1 from the WMP is included below, including all CIP components with labels, as referenced in the following discussions.

Clovis (Village)
• CIP Water Main P-6
• This water main creates a parallel 16-inch water main in Teague Avenue with the existing 12-inch water main between Fowler and Armstrong Avenues. • Possible CIP/WMP amendment could include reevaluation of this main to possibly revise the recommendation from a parallel water main to a remove/replace water main, size to be determined through hydraulic analysis.

Northwest Village
• Sunnyside Avenue, north of Perrin Avenue
• The water main stops at the T-9/PS-T9 site yielding a lack of looping transmission main to Copper Avenue
• The future WMP Update should evaluate including additional CIP water mains, size 12-inch to 24-inch from Perrin to Copper Avenue; an increase of approximately 7,900 feet of water main, size to be determined through hydraulic analysis. • Behymer, International and Copper Avenues, near Sunnyside Avenue • CIP Mains P-14, P-15 and P-19 all end short of Sunnyside Avenue, yielding a lack of looping transmission mains in these major streets, connecting to a potential water main in Sunnyside, as noted above.
• The future WMP Update should evaluate including extension of these 12-inch water mains to Sunnyside Avenue; an increase of approximately 1,500 feet of 12-inch water main, total (500 feet per alignment)
• CIP Water Main P-15, near Minnewawa Avenue alignment
• Jog in the water main is shown in the WMP, possibly consistent with an Official Plan Line (OPL) for International Avenue.
• The future WMP Update should confirm this OPL will proceed and update the planned mains, if needed.
• CIP Water Mains northeast of Shepherd and Willow
Avenues
• Non-typical configuration of transmission water
mains in this area (see inset at right), possibly
consistent with future OPLs for Perrin and Peach
Avenues or Specific Plan in the area. The future WMP
Update should confirm this configuration is accurate.

Section Four: Efficiency of Piping Layouts
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 4-2
Northeast Village
• All CIP Water Mains within the Village
• Confirm location and alignments of water mains in this Village, entirely. Preliminary layouts south of Tollhouse Road indicate varying layouts.
• This reevaluation could be delayed until a full WMP Update is completed in several years, as it is not critical or imminent unless large infrastructure (i.e., pumping stations or the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Plan [NESWTP]) plans change, impacting transmission main size and alignments.

Loma Vista Village
• CIP Water Mains P-110 and P-111, south of Ashlan Avenue • Both water mains end approximately halfway between Ashlan and Dakota Avenues, creating transmission main dead-ends in the system.
• The future WMP Update should evaluate extending water mains in Thompson and McCall Avenues to Dakota Avenue and then in Dakota Avenue between Highland and McCall Avenues; an increase of approximately 1.5 miles of water main, size to be determined through hydraulic analysis but likely 12-inch diameter based on other proximal water mains.

Most of these adjustments to pipeline configurations should be considered as part of the next WMP Update, in keeping with potential General Plan updates in effect at that time. The current pipeline layouts and configurations are generally sufficient for master planning purposes based on currently available information; however, one exception should be considered in this WMP Amendment discussed in Section 6, below.

Clovis Water Master Plan
Phase III
Figure 12.4-1
Water Infrastructure at Buildout
3/10/2020: P:\xGIS\GIS_Projects\Clovis\PP_Report\CL_Fig12-4-1-FutureSystemCIP_031020.mxd !?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
TU
TU
TU
.²
TU
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!C
#*
#*
#*
#*
.²
TU
TU
TU
TU
TU
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
È
6"
## õ"
#*
#*
#*
P-100
P-49
P-4 P-3
P-6
P-9
P-114
P-14
P-15
P-16
P-62
P-20
P-22
P-17
P-47
P-23 P-24
P-46
P-64
P-56
P-54
P-78
P-116
P-104
P-118
P-81
P-112
P-21
P-51
P-115
P-70
P-108
P-96
P-18
P-68
P-73
P-111
P-77
P-26
P-41
P-97
P-71
P-110
P-8
P-32
P-34
P-94
P-107
P-57
P-15
P-87
P-64
P-61
P-49
P-14
P-20
P-96
P-68
P-49
P-52
P-64
P-15
P-14
P-91
P-1
P-38
P-74
P-54
P-55
P-25
P-51
P-50
P-69
P-75
P-48
P-10
P-76
P-7
P-53
P-65
P-65
P-65
P-65
P-72
P-79
P-60
P-82
P-41 P-36 P-36
P-90
P-71
P-84
P-42
P-58
P-93
P-110
P-67
P-66
P-92
P-35
P-37
P-19
P-27
P-32
P-30 P-30
P-99
P-31
P-28 P-27
P-103
P-29
P-34
P-113
P-44
P-59
P-85
P-89
P-33
P-106
P-88
P-83
P-102
P-39
P-109
P-43
P-86
P-101 P-105
P-13
P-95
P-45
P-117
P-98
P-11
P-12
P-91
P-5 P-6
P-108
P-62
P-80
P-111
P-49
P-63
P-97
P-111
P-52
P-73
P-114
P-110
P-77
P-115 P-108
P-41
P-49
P-108
P-56
P-2
P-21
P-40
P-63 P-52
P-100
P-97
·|þ}168
·|þ}168
S
HIELD
S
AVE
S
H
AW
AVE
B
ULLA
R
D
AVE
HER
N
D
O
N
AVE
NEES
AVE
ALLU

VIAL AVE
TEAGUE
AVE
C
OPPER
AVE

WILLOW AVE
SIERR
A
AVE
BAR
S
T
O
W
AVE

WINERY AVE

PEACH AVE

CLOV SI AVE

SUNNYS DI E AVE

FOWLER AVE

ARMSTRONG AVE

TEMPERANCE AVE

LOCAN AVE
DEWOLF

LEONARD

HIGHLAND

MCCALL AVE

THOMPSON AVE
16 16 16
16 16
16 12/18
16 12/18 18/18 12/24
16 16 16 16
16 16 16
24 42
24 24
16 16
16 16
16 16 14 14
16 42
42 12/18 12/24
16 14 14
42 42
42 42 16 42/ 42/
24 16/16 16
16 16 16
14 16 14
14 14
T2
T3
T4
T5
®®® À
® À®®
®®® À
®®® À
® ®® À
®®® À
®®® À
W-T8
W-T6 W-T7
W-33
W-3
W-T1
W-T3
W-T2
PSV1
PSV2
PSV3
PSV4
PSV5
12 12
12 12
1 12 2
12 12
12 10/12
12 12/12 12
12 12
12 12 12 12
10 12
12 12
12 12
8 12
12 TOLLHOUSE RD
12 12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12 12
12 12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
16 12
12 12
12 1
12 2 12
12 12
16 T-7

PS-NESWTP
T-8
PS-T8
T-6

PS-SESWTP
PSV6
PSV7
12 12
12 12
12 18
12 12
12 12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
W-11
W-35
W-T9
W-44
W-46
30 30
PSV8
PRV1
36 24
16 30
12/12
12 12
12 12 12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
16 12
24 24 12
24 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
16 12 16 24
12 24
16 16
16 12 16 16
12 12
16 16
12 16
16 16
14 24 24
12 12
16 16
24 16
1 12
2 12
12/12
16 24
16 12
16 12
16 16
24 30
24 16
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12
12 12 12
12 12
12 12
18 12 12
12 36 12
12 12
12 12
12 30
12 12
36 Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 1
Zone 2

ACADEMY AVE
A
S
HLA
N
AVE
S
HEPHER
D
AVE
BEHY
MER
AVE

INTERNATIONAL AVE
GETTY
S
B
U
R
G
AVE
D
A
K
O
TA
AVE

M NI NEWAWA AVE
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 4
Zone 3
Z
one 1
Tarpey
Northeast
Corner
T-9
PS-T9
W-45
W-46
W-47
T-10
PS-T10
16 16
12 16
12 12
16 W-7A
W-5A
W-18
W-29
W-42
W-10
W-12
W-T5
W-40
W-16
W-31
W-28 W-32
W-17
W-43
W-20
W-38
W-21
W-14
W-8A
W-2A
W-37
W-24
W-23
W-27
W-36
W-26 W-41
W-22
W-30
W-25
W-34
W-4AA
W-15A
Clovis
Northeast
Village
Between
Canals
Loma Vista
Southeast
Corner
Northern
Rural
N
o
rth
we
st
Villa
g
e
Northeast
Triangle
0 I

0.5 1
Mile
LegendProposed Improvements
.² SWTP
TU Tanks
È
6"
## õ" Booster Pumps
#* Wells
!? Pressure Sustaining Valves!C Pressure Reducing Valves Pipes42” Raw Water Pipeline
Existing System
.² SWTP
TU Tanks
È
6"
## õ" Booster Pumps
#* Active Wells#* Inactive Wells
!? Pressure Sustaining Valves!? Check Valves and Flow Direction PipesPressure ZonesStreets2015 Village Boundaries
®® À
Coordinated with Provost & Pritchard
REVISED 3/29/2020
12

Section Five: Major Infrastructure
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 5-1
5 Major Infrastructure
The major infrastructure in the WMP includes wells, storage tanks and pumping stations (PS), SWTPs, and recharge basins. The following discussion identifies the major infrastructure components that may benefit from reevaluation and/or relocation based on current information and development patterns.

5.1 Groundwater Wells
Groundwater Wells: W-44, W-45, W-46, and W-47
• Following adoption of the WMP, the planned locations of wells north of Shepherd Avenue between Willow and Sunnyside Avenues were reevaluated and relocated along Willow Avenue.

This planning-level decision was corroborated by Ken D. Schmidt & Associates. Data from a test well, constructed near Willow and Perrin in 2024 has indicated the wells in this area will be lowerproducing wells than others constructed throughout the City. Confirming the assumption of 500 gpm and the number of producing wells in the area should be considered with this WMP Amendment.

5.2 Water Storage Tanks and Pumping Stations
T-8 and PS-T8 in the Northeast Village
• The locations of this tank and pumping station may change with reevaluation of the layouts in this area; however, their general location appears to be functioning well in the overall modeling outputs for ultimate buildout.

T-9, PS-T9, T-10, and PS-T10 in the Northwest Village
• Following adoption of the WMP, the planned locations of these two tanks and their associated pump stations, were reevaluated due to growth patterns and development layouts and relocated, as follows:
o T-9 and PS-T9 were relocated from their planned location to the southwest corner of Sunnyside and Perrin Avenues
o T-10 and PS-T10 were relocated from their planned location to nearer to the southeast corner of Behymer and Willow Avenues, internal to the planned residential areas (not along Willow Avenue).

No reevaluation is recommended for the tanks at this time, unless in conjunction with revising plans for surface water treatment in the system.

Section Five: Major Infrastructure
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 5-2

5.3 SWTPs and Associated Facilities
Southeast SWTP
• The WMP planned for a water storage tank (T-6) and 22.5 million gallon per day (MGD) capacity expansion at the Southeast SWTP (SESWTP) 1, yielding a total capacity of 45 MGD. The expansion of the SESWTP is not recommended for reevaluation, except as part of other reevaluations, described below.
• The SESWTP may increase to include all the City’s SWTP capacity, as described below in the discussion of the Northeast SWTP. This would be predicated upon the discussion below, under 12- Month Surface Water Supply Reliability, and the related discussion of sufficient capacity in the Enterprise Canal to support all surface water supply delivery to the City.

Northeast SWTP and associated T-7 and PS-NESWTP
• The NESWTP, and associated facilities, were sited, in the WMP, along Tollhouse Road, near the Friant-Kern Canal, for two primary purposes:
o Potential access to a second water supply source to reduce reliance on the Enterprise Canal as the City’s only access to their surface water supplies. o Provide a distribution system water supply source proximal to the Northeast Village, as a primary growth point in the City and at greater elevation than other parts of the community, and to improve operations of the water system in the Northeast Triangle. • Since the adoption of the WMP, information has indicated it will be unlikely if not impossible for the City to access a reliable water supply from the Friant-Kern Canal that would be capable of meeting the City’s water supply needs, particularly during drought conditions. The Friant-Kern Canal has yielded zero percent Class I supplies in two years of the recent past. The CIP/WMP amendment could include reevaluation of the NESWTP in the following ways:
o Maintain the presently planned location of the NESWTP and deliver water supply to it from the Kings River, through a raw water main. The 42-inch main between the SWTPs shown in the WMP, could be reevaluated as a supply source for the NESWTP. o Maintain the location of the NESWTP but reduce the capacity to 10 MGD and include a third surface water treatment plant location in the Northwest Village with 10 MGD capacity.

Additional conveyance infrastructure would be needed.
o Move the NESWTP to the Northwest Village entirely to provide proximal water supply in the northwest portion of the City. Additional conveyance infrastructure would be needed. o Locate all SWTP capacity at the present (SESWTP) location, increasing the planned expansion from 45 MGD to 65 MGD.
▪ If the supply source continues to be the Enterprise Canal, an evaluation would be required to determine if sufficient capacity is available to accommodate an increased 65 MGD (approximately 120 cubic feet per second [cfs]) demand versus the originally planned 45 MGD (approximately 83 cfs). It is likely the Enterprise Canal does not have available capacity to supply 65 MGD to the City. • If the NESWTP is relocated, storage tank needs should also be evaluated, as there may be a need for a storage tank at the present T-7 location regardless of whether the NESWTP is located in this village, and a storage tank will still be required with the NESWTP. 1 The existing SWTP is referred to as the Southeast SWTP in the technical memoranda to distinguish it from the future planned NESWTP.

Section Five: Major Infrastructure
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 5-3
12-Month Surface Water Supply Reliability
• As mentioned above, in Section 3.2, the ongoing reliability of the City’s surface water supply for meeting demands will be adversely impacted as the City grows and increases its reliance on surface water supplies, to a point of unsustainability. • The future WMP Update should include enhancing reliability of the Enterprise Canal through canal improvements, such as canal lining from the Kings River to the SWTP to avoid annual maintenance of the unlined canal.
o An evaluation of the limitations of the Enterprise Canal, even in a lined condition, should be a component of the future WMP amendment to determine the feasibility of this alternative. It is likely the canal could be offline for FID-directed maintenance and copper sulfate treatments would continue due to the open channel conditions, causing the SWTP to be offline for several days each month, including the critical summer months. • The future WMP Update should include reducing reliance on the Enterprise Canal as the only supply point for the SESWTP (and NESWTP, potentially) including:
o Evaluating a large diameter water main from the Kings River delivering all surface water supply to the SWTP, bypassing the Enterprise Canal entirely. A backup interconnection to the Enterprise Canal would remain for redundancy, potentially. ▪ Multiple potential alignments exist for this raw water main, and an alignment study could be a component of the future WMP Update to evaluate true costs and impacts of the potential pipeline.

5.4 Recharge Basins
The WMP indicates two recharge basins are to be undertaken by the City. One is identified at California State University, Fresno (CSUF) and the other, in the Northwest Village. Both are shown to be 40-acre basins.

CSUF Recharge Basin
• CSUF is largely outside the City limits, however a 64-acre portion of the campus is along Bullard Avenue, east of Willow Avenue. Reinitiating discussions with CSUF regarding the viability of this project may be a good next step. If CSUF is not amenable to the project an alternate location may need to be identified.

Northwest Village Recharge Basin
• The current land use map shown in the WMP does not show a 40-acre recharge basin site in this area. If it is still planned to be located north of Shepherd Avenue, a potential item to coordinate with the General Plan update would be to set aside land for the basin. • It was also planned to co-locate this basin adjacent to a Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District basin and execute a cooperative agreement to allow for extended use of both basins by either entity, depending on the situation.

Recharge basins do not directly impact the infrastructure associated with the water distribution system; however, ongoing recharge is planned for and anticipated for the sustainable use of groundwater supplies. It is therefore recommended these facilities be evaluated and potentially relocated and alternately planned to reach the City’s recharge goals when the WMP Update is undertaken.

Section Six: Immediate Recommendations
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 6-1
6 Immediate Recommendations

6.1 Piping Layout
Clovis: CIP Water Main P-6 (Teague Avenue at Armstrong Avenue) • As development is ongoing in this area, it is recommended this pipeline configuration be reevaluated sooner than the WMP Update as construction of this water main is potentially imminent.

6.2 Major Infrastructure
SWTP Locations and 12-Month Surface Water Supply Reliability • As noted above, continued shifting in reliance on water supply from groundwater to surface water, consistent with compliance with SGMA and other requirements, in addition to ongoing development in the City has increased the urgency of establishing a 12-month reliable surface water supply for the City.
• Evaluation of the planned SWTP locations and capacities noted in the WMP, and methods to increase the City’s access to its surface water supply from the current condition to a year-round access condition is critical.
• Initiating the evaluation of these large components of the City’s infrastructure is urgent given the amount of time evaluation, planning, design, and construction can take and the City’s commitment to having a safe, reliable, and redundant water system to protect against anticipated drought periods in the future and to continue to allow for development and growth of the City.

No other major infrastructure is recommended for immediate reevaluation but should still be considered during the future WMP Update.

Section Seven: References
Technical Memorandum No. 2 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • August 2026 7-1
7 References
California, S. o. (2023, February). Office of Governor, Gavin Newsom. Retrieved from https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Feb-13-2023-ExecutiveOrder.pdf?emrc=b12708&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery DWR. (2022, September 29). Department of Water Resources. Retrieved from Water Use and Efficiency:
https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Water-Use-AndEfficiency/2018-Water-Conservation-Legislation/RecommendationsSummary-Final-Memo-9-29-

22.pdf
Fresno Irrigation District. (2019, September 1). Revised, Amended, and Restated Cooperative Agreement between Fresno Irrigation District and City of Clovis for Water Utilization and Conveyance.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2018). City of Clovis Water Master Plan, Phase III. Clovis.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2026). 2025 Urban Water Management Plan. Clovis.

SWRCB. (2018). State Water Resources Control Board. Retrieved from Water Issues:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/california_statut es.html#:~:text=SB%20606%20and%20AB%201668,be%20in%20place%20by%202022 SWRCB. (2022). State Water Resources Control Board. Retrieved from Drinking Water:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/docs/2022/water-lossregulatory-text-22-08-31.pdf

City of Clovis

WATER MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
Technical Memorandum No. 3: Infrastructure Analysis
and Recommendations

CLOVIS, CA
September 2026
Prepared for:

City of Clovis
Department of Public Utilities
Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue, Clovis, CA 93611
Attachment 4

Report Prepared for:

City of Clovis
155 N Sunnyside Ave
Clovis, CA 93611
Contact:

Kevin Tuttle, PE
(559) 324-2613
Report Prepared by:

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
Heather Bashian, PE
Nick Jacobson, PE
Ronald J. Samuelian, PE
Contact:

Heather Bashian, PE
(559) 449-2700
COPYRIGHT 2026 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights.

City of Clovis
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................3 2 Surface Water Conveyance to the SESWTP ..........................................................................................4

2.1 Friant Kern Canal .........................................................................................................................4

2.2 Enterprise Canal ..........................................................................................................................4

2.3 Raw Water Pipeline from FID Canal near Kings River..................................................................5

2.4 Surface Water Conveyance Reliability.........................................................................................6 3 Groundwater Only in Winter Months Alternative ................................................................................8 4 Major Infrastructure ...........................................................................................................................11

4.1 Alternative 1: Expand SESWTP to 45 MGD and Construct 20 MGD NESWTP............................11

4.2 Alternative 2: Expand SESWTP to 45 MGD and Construct 20 MGD NWSWTP ..........................14

4.3 Alternative 3: Expand SESWTP to 45 MGD and Construct Two SWTPs.....................................16

4.4 Alternative 4: Expand SESWTP to 65MGD.................................................................................18

4.5 Reliability Conveyance Options.................................................................................................20

4.6 Alternative Analysis and Recommendation...............................................................................21 5 Piping Layout ......................................................................................................................................26 6 References..........................................................................................................................................27

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Raw Water Conveyance Alternatives .........................................................................................7 Figure 4-1. Expand SESWTP to 45 MGD and Construct 20 MGD NESWTP .................................................13 Figure 4-2. Expand SESWTP to 45 MGD and Construct 20 MGD NWSWTP................................................15 Figure 4-3. Expand SESWTP to 45 MGD and Construct 10 MGD NESWTP and 12.5 MGD NWSWTP .........17 Figure 4-4. Expand SESWTP to 65 MGD .....................................................................................................19

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Summary of Surface Water Conveyance Capital Costs................................................................ 6 Table 3-1. Summary of Monthly Water Use at Buildout...............................................................................9 Table 4-1. Potential Surface Water Conveyance Cost from SESWTP to NWSWTP ......................................21 Table 4-2. Summary of Transmission Main Changes...................................................................................22 Table 4-3. Comparison of SWTP Alternative Costs.....................................................................................23

City of Clovis
Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 2

ABBREVIATIONS
ADD ...............................................................................................................................Average Day Demand AF ..................................................................................................................................................... acre-feet AF/yr................................................................................................................................... acre-feet per year cfs..................................................................................................................................cubic feet per second CIP ......................................................................................................................... Capital Improvement Plan City ..............................................................................................................................................City of Clovis ENR CCI............................................................................Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index FID or District............................................................................................................ Fresno Irrigation District FKC .......................................................................................................................................Friant Kern Canal gpcd........................................................................................................................gallons per capita per day gpm ................................................................................................................................... gallons per minute LF..................................................................................................................................................... lineal feet MDD .......................................................................................................................... Maximum Day Demand MGD............................................................................................................................ million gallons per day NESWTP........................................................................................ Northeast Surface Water Treatment Plant NWSWTP ..................................................................................... Northwest Surface Water Treatment Plant SESWTP ........................................................................................ Southeast Surface Water Treatment Plant SWTP ............................................................................................................. Surface Water Treatment Plant TM1 ............................................................ Water Master Plan Amendment Technical Memorandum No. 1 TM2 ............................................................ Water Master Plan Amendment Technical Memorandum No. 2 WMP............................................................................................. City of Clovis Water Master Plan, Phase III

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 3 1 INTRODUCTION
The current Water Master Plan (WMP) includes construction of a Northeast Surface Water Treatment Plant (NESWTP) that assumes a reliable water supply from the Friant Kern Canal (FKC). As noted in the City of Clovis (City) WMP Amendment Technical Memorandum No. 2, water supplies from the FKC have been zero in recent years; therefore, it is not the permanent and reliable source that the City requires.

Increased diversion from the Kings River is necessary to provide the reliable source that the City requires.

Although water from the FKC may not be a reliable enough supply as a primary source for surface water treatment, it is still in the City’s best interest to pursue any available FKC supplies to diversify its water portfolio as a possible secondary source for treatment, or for recharge or exchange.

This Technical Memorandum builds upon the information and conclusions presented in the Water Master Plan Amendment, Technical Memoranda No. 1 and 2 (TM1 and TM2, respectively) and has been prepared to compare alternatives for the City’s needed additional Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) locations and capacities, as well as options for reliable conveyance to the SWTPs, and groundwater planning. The decision on conveyance alternatives is independent from the decision on SWTP expansion alternatives, so these items are presented separately for consideration and recommendation.

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 4 2 SURFACE WATER CONVEYANCE TO THE SESWTP
Surface water deliveries are currently made to the City’s SWTP via the Fresno Irrigation District’s (FID or District) Enterprise Canal, which is typically shutdown for 1-2 months each year. This section discusses alternatives to ensuring that the City will have a reliable 12-month surface water supply for delivery to the SWTPs.

2.1 FRIANT KERN CANAL
The City’s existing WMP considers a second SWTP that would receive surface water from the FKC. The growth area of the City is within the place of use for delivery of FKC surface water. The City does not currently have a Friant water supply contract, so the City would be dependent on a third-party water supply contract for supply to be conveyed via the FKC, unless or until the City secures a USBR water supply contract. The 2012-2016 drought resulted in no water allocation on the Friant system in years 2014 and 2015 (USBR, 2026) and no water was conveyed through the FKC. Although these conditions were extreme, it is possible that the same conditions could occur in the future. For these reasons, the FKC is not viewed as a year-round reliable option for the City to be dependent upon. While water from the FKC may not be a reliable supply as a primary source for surface water treatment, it is still in the City’s best interest to pursue any available FKC supplies to diversify its water portfolio as a possible secondary source for treatment to direct potable use, recharge, or exchange.

2.2 ENTERPRISE CANAL
Surface water to the existing SWTP is conveyed via FID’s Enterprise Canal. The primary concern with the Enterprise Canal as conveyance is that the City is dependent on the SWTP to be operational in peak months, so the Enterprise Canal cannot go offline during the summer. This has nonetheless occurred in the past for varying reasons; however, FID has indicated that effort will be made to take the Enterprise offline during the winter season (when City demands are lowest) for the anticipated two-month maintenance period. As the City continues to grow, the need to operate the SWTP year-round increases.

The changing demands on the Enterprise Canal have resulted in lower velocities and increased weed growth which requires the District to increase vegetation control along the channel. With chemical application, the SWTP is shut down, but if chemical application must be reduced because of state or treatment requirements, FID may need to increase mechanical methods which can take longer shutdown periods. Concrete lining of the canal may provide some reduced maintenance, but even concrete lined sections are still prone to vegetation growth with the slow-moving water in the system. And maintaining an open channel does provide some increased potential for contamination compared to a closed conveyance system. In addition, there are periods of time with storm water runoff into the canal that can cause high turbidity spikes that require the SWTP to go offline.

Channel capacity is also of concern. Section 3, below, considers various SWTP configurations, but regardless of the SWTP alternative selected by the City, the combined total SWTP capacity is proposed to be 65 million gallons per day (MGD), which equates to approximately 101 cubic feet per second (cfs). This would require an additional 66 cfs (approximately) to be conveyed through the Enterprise Canal than currently conveyed for the City’s use. FID has indicated that although demands are changing on the Enterprise Canal, FID does not have the needed additional capacity within the existing Enterprise Canal to provide the increases flow needed for a 45 MGD SWTP, let alone the ultimate 65 MGD need. So, regardless of SWTP increase, improvements would have to be made to increase Enterprise Canal capacity. FID has maximized flow in the canal in recent years and still not been able to meet all demands

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 5 along the canal downstream of the SWTP. The current capacity at the headworks of the Enterprise Canal is approximately 220 cfs, so an increase of 42.5 MGD (from 22.5 MGD to 65 MGD) would require a 66 cfs increase in channel capacity, or about 30% of the total channel capacity.

There are other uses on the Enterprise Canal that should be considered in the course of evaluating available capacity to the City. These uses may include municipal and recharge conveyance. The City should continue to investigate conveyance options and capacity of the canal system. This may include the potential improvement of the canal system to provide additional conveyance capacity.

Channel widening and canal bank raising would be involved, which may require acquiring additional right of way in some locations. There are 18 road crossings that will likely need modification, as well as several check structures and creek crossings that will require modification. There are also several lateral headworks and canal turnouts that may require raising or relocation. In addition to the Enterprise Canal improvements, additional capacity would be needed in the Gould Canal from the Kings River to the Enterprise Canal headworks. This would include two road crossings as well as a crossing of the FKC. A more detailed analysis of the improvements would be required to better estimate the improvements, but the cost may be between $60,000,000 and $90,000,000 to make the necessary improvements to approximately 20 miles of canal from the Kings River to the existing SWTP. Even with these improvements, the channel may still require shutdown during certain periods, even peak periods, should the open channel be subject to increased vegetation or possible contamination.

2.3 RAW WATER PIPELINE FROM FID CANAL NEAR KINGS RIVER
A dedicated pipeline could be constructed from the FID’s canal near the Kings River to convey water to the existing SWTP location. The location of the connection would not be directly in the Kings River, but at a point downstream of the river in FID’s system that is far enough upstream to allow FID to maintain yearround operation. This is similar to how the City of Fresno has configured their pipeline and turnout from FID’s Fresno Canal. The dedicated pipeline would provide an increased level of protection from possible contamination because it is a closed system diverting water from near FID’s headworks. The extent of the watershed sanitary survey completed every 5 years would be a much shorter survey.

All the alignments are approximately 15.5 miles in length. The pipeline size would vary from 48-inch (“in”) to 60-inch diameter depending on the ultimate design flow needed for surface water treatment, would be owned and operated by the City of Clovis, and would not require lengthy annual shutdowns for maintenance. There would still be a need for shutdowns at some frequency (typically every 5 years or so) to allow for pipeline inspection and repair, if necessary, but these shutdowns could be coordinated during lower demand periods and would be at the City’s discretion. The pipeline construction cost is estimated at approximately $141,000,000 depending on pipeline size and alignment.

Figure 2-1 shows possible pipeline alignments that were used for budgeting purposes. A turnout from FID’s Fresno Canal is likely preferred because of the existing use of that canal for year-round deliveries to the City of Fresno. An alignment within existing road right of ways will reduce potential environmental impacts and not require new separate easements. In all three preliminary alignments shown, use of Trimmer Springs and Belmont Avenues provides an alignment to go west without significant topographical changes but would parallel the City of Fresno’s pipeline. The City of Fresno’s pipeline is located north of the road centerline for about the first ½ mile west from their turnout, then transitions to 18 feet south of centerline as it goes west along Belmont Avenue. There is an overhead electrical power line along the north side. All the alignments appear to have a similar number of FID irrigation facility

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 6 crossings, as well as Freewater County Water District pipeline crossing, a Consolidated Irrigation District facility crossing, and a significant number of storm drain and private irrigation pipeline crossings. The three alignments are similar, but a brief summary of the differences is:
• Alignment 1 would follow Belmont Avenue to Academy then go north to Ashlan Avenue, then west to McCall Avenue, then north to Bullard, and then west to the SWTP. • Alignment 2 would follow Belmont Avenue to Newmark Avenue, then north to McKinley, then west to Academy, and then follow the remainder of Alignment 1 alignment to the SWTP.

Newmark has a narrow road right-of-way with limited improvements and would likely require additional construction right of way.
• Alignment 3 would extend further west along Belmont to McCall Avenue, then go north along McCall to Bullard, then west to the SWTP.

If this alternative is selected, a topographic survey and more detailed pipeline alignment evaluation will need to be completed to determine a preferred alignment.

2.4 SURFACE WATER CONVEYANCE RELIABILITY
Table 2-1. Summary of Surface Water Conveyance Capital Costs Water Supply
Alternative
Possible Additional
Capital Cost
Major Concerns
Friant Kern Canal N/A Reliability is uncertain in dry years.

Enterprise Canal
Improvements $90,000,000
Continued reliance on the Enterprise Canal and
groundwater pumping limitations will limit growth for
the City if SWTP is offline in the winter months.

Limited constructability season.

Costs may be higher if significant right-of-way or
structure raising is determined to be needed.

Dedicated Surface
Water Pipeline $140,660,000 Constructability, maintenance, and Right of Way Acquisition Either the Enterprise Canal improvements or the dedicated surface water pipeline are viable options to supply the City with the surface water it requires. Although the dedicated pipeline is more costly, it would provide the highest level of reliability and dependability to the City and its residents for domestic deliveries, especially during peak demand periods.

Q3
Bullard Ave Bullard Ave McCall Ave
Newmark Ave
Leonard Ave
Academy Ave
McCall Ave
Herndon Ave
Kings Canyon Rd
Mc Kinley Ave
Ashlan Ave
Belmont Ave Trimmer Springs Rd
0 0.5 1
Miles
Q3
Surface Water
Treatment Plant
Enterprise Canal
FID Canal
FID Pipeline
Raw Water Route
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
City Limit
o
Figure 2-1: Raw Water Conveyance Alternatives
9/11/2026 \\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Clovis_City Utilities - 1717\171722009-WMP Amendment\400 GIS\Map\WMP_Amendment_2026\WMP_Amendment_2026.aprx Prepared By FID, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Clovis Water Master Plan Amendment

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 8 3 GROUNDWATER ONLY IN WINTER MONTHS ALTERNATIVE
If a raw water pipeline were not utilized to convey the surface water supplies to the City, and ongoing reliance on canal conveyance continued, the City would continue to experience periods of no surface water supplies, typically in the winter months. This section discusses an operational alternative whereby the City would prioritize using its allowable groundwater supplies during the winter months, when surface supplies are not conveyed to the City, and the related implications of operating the water distribution system in that manner.

As noted in TM1, the City’s groundwater supply is delivered to the water distribution system through 32 active wells with an estimated total production capacity of 33,290 gallons per minute (gpm). The recently adopted 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) indicates another 3,550 gpm of planned capacity and 4,380 gpm of standby capacity. This yields a total well capacity of 41,220 gpm at General Plan buildout.

While the existing and planned well capacity may be able to provide significant pumping capacity to meet demands, the total amount of groundwater that can be pumped in a year to sustain the aquifer is a limiting factor. As discussed in TM1, the working estimate for sustainable groundwater pumping is 9,400 acre-feet per year (AF/yr). The existing WMP also calls for a planned recycled water use of 4,500 AF/yr.

So, a conservative estimate for safe groundwater pumping is 13,900 AF/yr, the combination of sustainable pumping and recycled water use. This estimate will likely be modified and refined through SGMA efforts by the Kings Subbasin to determine the sustainable yield for the basin and each GSA in the Kings Subbasin through the adoption of the Kings Subbasin Groundwater Allocation Framework. The sustainable yield for the NKGSA is agreed to be 445,800 AFY (NKGSA, 2026), and the NKGSA is in the process of determining the sustainable yield for each entity in the NKGSA boundary, including the City.

These efforts are expected to be completed in 2026.

As noted, this alternative assumes use of groundwater only would need to meet demands during the period the Enterprise Canal is shut down, which for evaluation purposes is assumed to be November through January. Utilizing City data from 2016 to 2025, the average monthly demand as a percentage of annual demand was determined and then applied to the assumed future total demand of 65,400 AF/yr to determine the projected monthly demands. The table below shows the total monthly pumping and a possible source of supply for this alternative. The analysis shows that the total pumping for November through January would be approximately 10,179 AF. Assuming the maximum pumping amount of 13,900 AF/yr, that would only leave 3,721 AF to be pumped throughout the balance of the year. This provides little redundancy, and pumping limits may be exceeded if the Enterprise Canal must be shut down midyear for weed or algae bloom control. FID has experienced some significant algae blooms and vegetation growth in the canal requiring shut down for maintenance during summer months when City demand is at its peak. Frequent shut down and startup of the SWTP is an operational concern and negative to this alternative.

The following table illustrates how the groundwater supply could be used, if it were to be relied upon primarily in November, December, and January. The remaining supply has been proportionally spread throughout the four warmest months (June through September), to offset surface water usage as much as possible in the largest demand months.

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 9 Table 3-1. Summary of Monthly Water Use at Buildout
Month Days Average Monthly
% of Total
Supply Source (AF)
Surface Water Groundwater Total
January 31 4.32% 0 2,827 2,827
February 28 4.28% 2,797 0 2,797
March 31 5.07% 3,314 0 3,314
April 30 6.94% 4,537 0 4,537
May 31 9.95% 6,509 0 6,509
June 30 11.62% 6,712 886 7,598
July 31 13.16% 7,603 1,004 8,607
August 31 12.89% 7,448 983 8,431
September 30 11.11% 6,418 848 7,266
October 31 9.42% 6,163 0 6,163
November 31 6.37% 0 4,169 4,169
December 31 4.87% 0 3,183 3,183
Total: 100% 51,500 13,900 65,400
In the past five years, the City has averaged a split of 62% groundwater usage and 38% surface water usage to meet demands; the water use in this scenario, as shown in the table above would result in a split of 21% groundwater versus 79% surface water usage.

The City has planned recharge as part of its masterplan and has considered expanding its recharge capabilities. The City will continue to evaluate potential recharge locations and opportunities for recharge.

Of greater concern, and a potential fatal flaw of this alternative, is the need to increase the planned SWTP expansion to be able to meet Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) with only SWTP capacity during summer months if the allowable groundwater pumping quantity has been fully utilized and no groundwater is available in the summer (i.e., winter demands were larger than shown in the table above). This impact can be evaluated in multiple ways with cost implications ranging from $50,000,000 to more than $200,000,000 depending on operational decisions; two are presented below:
• The more conservative method to estimate MDD, includes taking the total annual demand of 65,400 AF/yr, converting to an Average Daily Demand of 58.4 MGD, and multiplying the ADD by the MDD peaking factor of 1.81, which equates to 105.1 MGD. To meet the MDD, the total SWTP capacity in the system would need to be 40 MGD more than the total planned SWTP capacity.

The additional 40 MGD SWTP capacity could cost an additional $200,000,0002and further cost implications of upsizing the transmission grid mains, storage, and pumping capacities would be substantial.
• Alternately, reflecting the water usage scenario describe in the table above, the MDD would occur in July, and the surface water usage in that month would equate to 79.9 MGD (using the surface water demand for the month divided by the number of days without a peaking factor, as 1 (Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group, 2018)
2 Additional SWTP capacity cost based on memorandum prepared by Stantec for the City, in late 2023, indicating a new 20 MGD SWTP would cost $100,000,000, inclusive of contingencies.

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 10 the maximum month data is being utilized), which is 15 MGD above the currently planned SWTP total capacity and could incur an additional cost of approximately $75,000,000 for additional SWTP capacity, plus upsizing of other related infrastructure.

Both approaches create a need for additional SWTP capacity to provide for sufficient supply only in the summer, which is cost prohibitive. While iterations of this alternative could be considered to shut down the SWTP for just one or two months, the SWTP capacity would still need to be increased to meet MDD, so this alternative is not recommended. In addition, there is concern of meeting demands during the winter month with the largest water use (November) as it may exceed well capacity if any wells are offline or if the wells planned are not constructed as planned; 4,169 AF in November (31 days) equates to an ADD of 30,429 gpm versus the current well capacity is 33,290 gpm.

For the reasons described, this alternative was not included in the comparison of alternatives in Section 4.

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 11 4 MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE
There are two sources of water supply available to the City to meet demands: surface water and groundwater. This section discusses possible changes to the SWTP plans for the City, including revised location and capacities of existing and future SWTPs.

The WMP currently plans for an expanded capacity at the existing SWTP (referred to as the Southeast SWTP [SESWTP]) and a 20 MGD SWTP in the Northeast Village. As noted above and in the previous technical memoranda, it is understood that a surface water supply from the FKC is not a reliable enough supply for the purpose of surface water treatment, so surface water will be delivered entirely from the Kings River. Given this change in supply source location, modifications to the capacities and locations of the SWTPs are being contemplated to better serve the City’s growth and demand patterns.

The alternatives considered in this section include:
• Alternative 1: Maintain the WMP location/capacity plans for SWTPs and expand the SESWTP to 45 MGD and construct a 20-MGD SWTP in the Northeast Village (NESWTP) • Alternative 2: Expand the SESWTP to 45-MGD and relocate the 20-MGD SWTP to the Northwest Village (NWSWTP)
• Alternative 3: Expand the SESWTP to 45-MGD and construct a 10-MGD NESWTP and a 12.5-

MGD NWSWTP
• Alternative 4: Expand the SESWTP to 65-MGD and discard having separate SWTPs throughout the City
For comparison purposes, only the unique infrastructure (SWTP size and location, pumping stations, tanks, and transmission main size and location associated with SWTP alternatives) are included in the comparison below.

4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: EXPAND SESWTP TO 45 MGD AND CONSTRUCT 20 MGD NESWTP

4.1.1 Alternative Description
This alternative includes expanding the existing plant from 22.5 MGD to 45 MGD and constructing a new NESWTP with 20 MGD capacity, as shown in the WMP. This alternative would maintain the same planning approach as currently shown in the WMP. Cost implications are relatively neutral. The components are shown in Figure 4-1.

4.1.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Advantages:
• Provides a potential solution to meet future water demands in Zones 2, 3, and 4 • Ability to move water from Zone 3 to Zone 2 which may provide long-term cost savings on pumping
• Consistent with previous planning efforts and would minimize changes to previously master planned infrastructure

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 12 Disadvantages:
• SESWTP is still the primary water supply to Zone 2
• Northwest portion of system is still largely dependent on SESWTP • Requires raw water conveyance to supply NESWTP
• Two treatment plants to operate and maintain
• The NESWTP would not be located within the FID place of use boundary

TU
TU
TU
*#
*# *# *#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#
*# *#
*# *#
*#
*# *#
*# *#
*#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
M4
M4
M4
M4
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
TU
TU
TU
TU
Q3
Q3
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
M"
M"
M"
M"
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
Copper
International
Behymer
Perrin
Shepherd
Teague
Nees
Alluvial
Herndon
Sierra
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Willow
Peach
Minnewawa
Clovis
Sunnyside
Fowler
Armstrong
Temperance
Locan
De Wolf
Leonard
Highland
Thompson
Mc Call
Del Rey
Bethel
Academy
AkE
AkE
S o u t h e a s t
C o r n e r
L o m a V i s t a
N o r t h e a s t
C o r n e r
B e t w e e n
C a n a l s
N o r t h e a s t
T r i a n g l e
N o r t h w e s t
V i l l a g e
N o r t h e r n
R u r a l N o r t h e a s t
V i l l a g e
C l o v i s
P-15 P-15
P-22
P-15
P-23
P-17
P-29
P-30
P-27
P-27
P-19
P-49
P-49
P-73 P-74
P-75
P-72
P-69
P-61
P-59
P-58
P-57
P-52
P-52
P-52 P-53
P-99
T9 = 7 MG
Q = 17,800 GPM
T8 = 3 MG
Q = 4,900 GPM
T7 = 7 MG
Q = 21,900 GPM
T6 = 3.5 MG
(6MG Total Storage)
Q = 45,200 GPM
T10 = 3.5 MG
Q = 2,500 GPM
0 0.5 1
Miles
42" Raw Water
Pipeline
Pressure Zone 1
Pressure Zone 2
Pressure Zone 3
Pressure Zone 4
City Limit
Village Boundary
Q3
Proposed Surface
Water Treatment
Plant
Q3 Existing SWTP
M"
Proposed Booster
Pumps
*# Proposed Wells
*# Existing Wells
!? Proposed Valves
!? Existing Valves
M4
Existing Booster
Pumps
TU Proposed Tanks
TU Existing Tanks
Pressure Zone
Boundary
Existing Pipes
Propsed Pipes
12"
14"
16"
18"
20"
24"
30"
36"
42"
o
Figure 4-1: SW Alternative 1: Expand SESWTP to 45 MGD and Construct 20 MGD NESWTP 9/28/2026 \\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Clovis_City Utilities - 1717\171722009-WMP Amendment\400 GIS\Map\WMP_Amendment_2026\WMP_Amendment_2026.aprx Prepared By Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Clovis Water Master Plan Amendment

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 14

4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: EXPAND SESWTP TO 45 MGD AND CONSTRUCT 20 MGD NWSWTP

4.2.1 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION
This alternative is similar to Alternative 1 but relocates the planned NESWTP to the Northwest (NW) Village. This alternative includes expanding the existing plant from 22.5 MGD to 45 MGD and constructing a new SWTP with 20 MGD capacity in the vicinity of Minnewawa and Behymer Avenues (NWSWTP). This alternative includes realigning the pressure zone boundary to the Shepherd Avenue alignment between Willow and Sunnyside Avenues.

The total storage capacity in the planned storage tanks would be reduced as the T-10 tank would no longer be necessary with all the NW Village being within Pressure Zone (PZ) “2” and a large supply source located within the village. The T-9 tank would be relocated to the planned NWSWTP location; the T-7 tank site would be relocated nearer the Pressure Zone PZ-2 / PZ-3 boundary. The planned mains near these large facilities have been reevaluated and are noted with updated sizes in Table 4-3.

The booster pump stations would change, as reflected in Table 4-3, with movement of some pumping capacity to the NWSWTP but needing additional pumping capacity to push water supply from the SESWTP and NWSWTP into the Northeast Village. A transmission main would be required to convey treated surface water from the SESWTP to the Northeast village.

A possible component of this alternative that was evaluated included eliminating the 42-inch raw water pipeline to the NWSWTP in the Northwest Village and using the existing Enterprise Canal to convey surface water to the NWSWTP. Parallel to the preparation of this memorandum, an evaluation of the possible capacity available or improvements necessary to increase the capacity in the Enterprise Canal is being completed; it is possible use of the Enterprise could replace the need for a raw water main from the SESWTP to the NWSWTP. As use of the Enterprise Canal is a potential option and could be interchanged with the raw water pipeline, a recommendation will be made for raw water conveyance following completion of the Enterprise Canal Capacity study currently in process. Therefore, the raw water conveyance infrastructure to the NWSWTP has been excluded from Alterative 2 in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 shows a comparison of all SWTP Alternatives, including existing WMP components, where they may be impacted by one or more alternative with both capacity/length and cost represented.

4.2.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Advantages:
• New source of supply to the northwest growth area potentially reduces some of the dependence on the interconnecting pipelines from the SESWTP to the Northwest Village • The NWSWTP would be located within the FID place of use boundary Disadvantages:
• Two treatment plants to operate and maintain

TU
TU
TU
*#
*#
*#
*# *# *#
*#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
M4
M4
M4!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
TU
TU
Q3 M"
M"
!?
!?
!?
!? !? !? !? !?
!?
*#
*#
*#
*#
Q3
Copper
International
Behymer
Perrin
Shepherd
Teague
Nees
Alluvial
Herndon
Sierra
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Willow
Peach
Minnewawa
Clovis
Sunnyside
Fowler
Armstrong
Temperance
Locan
De Wolf
Leonard
Highland
Thompson
Mc Call
Del Rey
Bethel
Academy
AkE
AkE
S o u t h e a s t
C o r n e r
L o m a V i s t a
N o r t h e a s t
C o r n e r
B e t w e e n
C a n a l s
N o r t h e a s t
T r i a n g l e
N o r t h w e s t
V i l l a g e
N o r t h e r n
R u r a l N o r t h e a s t
V i l l a g e
C l o v i s
T9 = 7 MG
Q = 17,800 GPM
T8 = 3 MG
Q = 4,900 GPM
T7 = 7 MG
Q = 21,900 GPM
T6 = 3.5 MG
(Total Storage)
Q = 45,200 GPM
P-15 P-15
P-22
P-15
P-23
P-17
P-29
P-30
P-27
P-27
P-19
P-19a
P-19a
P-19a
P-49
P-49
P-73 P-74 P-75
P-72
P-69
P-61
P-59
P-58
P-57
P-52
P-52
P-52 P-53
P-99
0 0.5 1
Miles
Enterprise Canal
Pressure Zone 1
Pressure Zone 2
Pressure Zone 3
Pressure Zone 4
City Limit
Village Boundary
Q3 Proposed SWTP
Q3 Existing SWTP
M"
Proposed Booster
Pumps
*# Proposed Wells
*# Existing Wells
!? Proposed Valves
!? Existing Valves
M4 Existing Booster Pumps
TU Proposed Tanks
TU Existing Tanks
Pressure Zone Boundary
Existing Pipes
Proposed Pipes
12"
14"
16"
18"
20"
24"
30"
36"
42"
o
Figure 4-2: SW Alternative 2: Expand SESWTP to 45 MGD and Construct 20 MGD NWSWTP 9/29/2026 \\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Clovis_City Utilities - 1717\171722009-WMP Amendment\400 GIS\Map\WMP_Amendment_2026\WMP_Amendment_2026.aprx Prepared By Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Clovis Water Master Plan Amendment

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 16

4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: EXPAND SESWTP TO 45 MGD AND CONSTRUCT TWO SWTPS

4.3.1 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION
This alternative includes expanding the existing plant from 22.5 MGD to 45 MGD and constructing two separate new SWTPs: one in the Northeast (10 MGD) and one in the Northwest (12.5 MGD to offset elimination of planned groundwater wells in the NW Village). This alternative includes realigning the pressure zone boundary to the Shepherd Avenue alignment between Willow and Sunnyside Avenues.

T-9 would be located with the NWSWTP at a reduced capacity and T-10 would be eliminated entirely due to the pressure zone boundary change making all the NW Village fall within PZ-2. The NESWTP and T-7 would be located further south in the NE Village. The booster pumping stations and planned mains near these large facilities have been reevaluated and are noted with updated sizes/capacities in Table 4-3.

Additionally, a new finished water transmission main from the SESWTP to the NE Village to augment the supply to meet NE Village demands would be necessary.

As there is no method to convey raw water to the NESWTP other than a raw water transmission main, the approach for this alternative would be to modify the raw water main shown in the WMP to the NESWTP to include a raw water main to Nees Avenue and then split to go east and west to supply raw water to each SWTP. As the NESWTP shifts south and west in this Alternative, the overall length of raw water main needed to supply the NESWTP decreases from approximately 6 miles to 3.5 miles.

As noted above, the conveyance of raw water to the NWSWTP is undecided and may not necessitate the raw water main Locan Avenue alignment to the NWSWTP if the Enterprise Canal is a viable conveyance avenue. For this reason, similar to Alternative 2, the raw water conveyance to the NWSWTP has not been included in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 shows a comparison of all SWTP Alternatives, including existing WMP components, where they may be impacted by one or more alternative with both anticipated capacity/length and cost represented.

4.3.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Advantages:
• New source of supply in the northwest growth area to potentially reduce some of the dependence on the interconnecting pipelines from the SESWTP to the Northwest Village • The NWSWTP would be located within the FID place of use boundary Disadvantages:
• Requires significantly more raw water pipeline conveyance to deliver raw surface water to both the NE and NW SWTP locations.
• Three treatment plants to maintain and operate.
• Additional finished water transmission main and pumping costs to get finished water from SESWTP to Zone 3 and Zone 4.
• The NESWTP would not be located within the FID place of use boundary

TU
TU
TU
*#
*#
*#
*# *# *#
*#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
M4
M4
M4!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
TUM"!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!? !? !? !?
!?
*#
*# Q3
Q3
Q3
Copper
International
Behymer
Perrin
Shepherd
Teague
Nees
Alluvial
Herndon
Sierra
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Willow
Peach
Minnewawa
Clovis
Sunnyside
Fowler
Armstrong
Temperance
Locan
De Wolf
Leonard
Highland
Thompson
Mc Call
Del Rey
Bethel
Academy
AkE
AkE
S o u t h e a s t
C o r n e r
L o m a V i s t a
N o r t h e a s t
C o r n e r
B e t w e e n
C a n a l s
N o r t h e a s t
T r i a n g l e
N o r t h w e s t
V i l l a g e
N o r t h e r n
R u r a l N o r t h e a s t
V i l l a g e
C l o v i s
T9 = 5 MG
Q = 11,300 GPM
T8 = 3 MG
Q = 4,900 GPM
T7 = 7 MG
Q = 21,900 GPM
T6 = 3.5 MG
(Total Storage)
Q = 45,200 GPM
P-15 P-15
P-22
P-15
P-23
P-17
P-29
P-30
P-27
P-27
P-19
P-19a
P-19a
P-19a
P-49
P-49
P-73 P-74 P-75
P-72
P-69
P-61
P-59
P-58
P-57
P-52
P-52
P-52 P-53
P-99
0 0.5 1
Miles
Enterprise Canal
Pressure Zone 1
Pressure Zone 2
Pressure Zone 3
Pressure Zone 4
City Limit
Village Boundary
Q3 Proposed SWTP
Q3 Existing SWTP
M"
Proposed Booster
Pumps
*# Proposed Wells
*# Existing Wells
!? Proposed Valves
!? Existing Valves
M4 Existing Booster Pumps
TU Proposed Tanks
TU Existing Tanks
Pressure Zone Boundary
Existing Pipes
Proposed Raw Water Pipes
30"
42"
Proposed Pipes
12"
14 16"
18"
20"
24"
30"
36"
42"
9/15/2026 \\Egn oyteDrive\Clients\Clovis_City Utilities - 1717\171722009-WMP Amendment\400 GIS\Map\WMP_Amendment_2026\WMP_Amendment_2026.aprx Prepared By Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Figure 4-3: SW Alternative 3: Expand SESWTP to 45 MGD and Construct 10MGD NESWTP and 12.5MGD NWSWTP Clovis Water Master Plan Amendment

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 18

4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: EXPAND SESWTP TO 65MGD

4.4.1 ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION
This alternative includes expanding the existing plant from 22.5 MGD to 65 MGD at the existing site.

Overall storage in the system remains as shown in the WMP; however additional pumping capacity would be needed at the SESWTP. A significant number of planned mains the WMP would require increased sizes to carry the additional water supply across the City. The raw water main (as currently planned in the WMP) from the SESWTP to the NESWTP would be eliminated entirely; however, a new finished water transmission main from the SESWTP would be necessary. The overall cost implications for the water mains are positive.

Table 4-3 shows a comparison of all SWTP Alternatives, including existing WMP components, where they may be impacted by one or more alternative, with both capacity/length and cost represented.

4.4.2 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Advantages:
• Provides a potential solution to meet future water demands in Pressure Zones 2, 3, and 4 • One treatment plant to operate and maintain
• Could be planned to be consistent with most previously planned transmission mains • Eliminate raw water transmission main(s)
• The SESWTP is located within the FID place of use boundary Disadvantages:
• Requires additional land acquisition at the existing site that could be constrained • Requires 3.5-miles of new transmission main and increased sizing of planned mains through the NE Village, south of Shepherd Avenue

TU
TU
TU
*#
*#
*#
*# *# *#
*#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*# *#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
*#
M4
M4
M4!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
TU
TU
TU
TU
M"
M"
M"
M"
M"
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
*#
*#
*#
*#
Q3
Copper
International
Behymer
Perrin
Shepherd
Teague
Nees
Alluvial
Herndon
Sierra
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Willow
Peach
Minnewawa
Clovis
Sunnyside
Fowler
Armstrong
Temperance
Locan
De Wolf
Leonard
Highland
Thompson
Mc Call
Del Rey
Bethel
Academy
AkE
AkE
S o u t h e a s t
C o r n e r
L o m a V i s t a
N o r t h e a s t
C o r n e r
B e t w e e n
C a n a l s
N o r t h e a s t
T r i a n g l e
N o r t h w e s t
V i l l a g e
N o r t h e r n
R u r a l N o r t h e a s t
V i l l a g e
C l o v i s
T10 = 3.5 MG
Q = 2,500 GPM
T8 = 3 MG
Q = 4,900 GPM
T7 = 7 MG
Q = 21,900 GPM
T6 = 3.5 MG
(Total Storage)
Q = 52,200 GPM
T9 = 7 MG
Q = 4,900 GPM
P-15 P-15
P-22
P-15
P-23
P-17
P-29
P-30
P-27
P-27
P-19
P-19a
P-19a
P-19a
P-49
P-49
P-73 P-74 P-75
P-72
P-69
P-61
P-59
P-58
P-57
P-52
P-52
P-52 P-53
P-99
0 0.5 1
Miles
Enterprise Canal
Pressure Zone 1
Pressure Zone 2
Pressure Zone 3
Pressure Zone 4
City Limit
Village Boundary
Q3 Existing SWTP
M"
Proposed Booster
Pumps
*# Proposed Wells
*# Existing Wells
!? Proposed Valves
!? Existing Valves
M4 Existing Booster Pumps
TU Proposed Tanks
TU Existing Tanks
Pressure Zone Boundary
Existing Pipes
Proposed Pipes
12"
14 16"
18"
20"
24"
30"
36"
42"
48"
o
Figure 4-4: SW Alternative 4: Expand SESWTP to 65 MGD
9/22/2026 \\EgnyteDrive\Clients\Clovis_City Utilities - 1717\171722009-WMP Amendment\400 GIS\Map\WMP_Amendment_2026\WMP_Amendment_2026.aprx Prepared By Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Clovis Water Master Plan Amendment

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 20

4.5 RELIABILITY CONVEYANCE OPTIONS
As discussed above and in TM1 and TM2, the need for reliable operation of the SWTPs is becoming increasingly urgent and a reliable water supply to any surface water treatment facility the City operates is a critical component of reliability in the City’s water supply portfolio. Water supply reliability still depends on multiple factors that are undecided. As such, these options are described but a recommendation is not offered pending remaining information, as described below.

4.5.1 SURFACE WATER CONVEYANCE TO THE SESWTP
As discussed in Section 2, the year-around use of the SESWTP is imperative and the preliminary recommended surface water conveyance is a pipeline from the Kings River to the SESWTP. The cost associated with that pipeline is approximately $141M, while the cost associated with canal improvements is approximately $90M. A significant amount of evaluation must be completed prior to finalizing this recommendation, which explains the exclusion from Tables 4-2 and 4-3, below.

4.5.2 SURFACE WATER CONVEYANCE TO THE NWSWTP
As described above, the conveyance of surface water to the NWSWTP could be accomplished through a raw water main or use of the Enterprise Canal. Pending the decision regarding sustainable groundwater pumping by the NKGSA, groundwater well supply may be a viable option to augment the NWSWTP supply during periods where the Enterprise Canal is offline. This will be evaluated further in subsequent planning efforts once sustainable groundwater pumping volumes are determined and the Enterprise Canal Capacity Study is concluded.

4.5.2.1 RAW WATER PIPELINE FROM THE SESWTP TO THE NWSWTP One option to convey water supply to the NWSWTP is a raw water pipeline between the two plants. The construction of such a pipeline would be challenging due to the level of existing improvements in the possible alignments that could be considered. However, if an alignment could be identified, the pipeline parameters to be included would be as follows:
• Alternative 2: 42-inches from the SESWTP to the NWSWTP, approximately 8 miles • Alternative 3: 30-inches from the intersection of the Leonard/Nees Avenue alignments to the NWSWTP, as shown on Figure 4-3.
o Alternative 3 includes a raw water pipeline from the SESWTP to the NESWTP (10MGD); however, if a common pipeline were utilized to convey surface water supplies to both plants, approximately two-thirds of the raw water main would be increased in diameter to accommodate the total flow to both plants.

The costs associated with the raw water pipeline options are shown in Table 4-1 but are not included in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 to allow for additional evaluation and alternative selection.

4.5.2.2 ENTERPRISE CANAL IMPROVEMENTS
As discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3.1, eliminating the raw water pipeline from the SESWTP to the NWSWTP and using the Enterprise Canal is being evaluated in a separate, parallel study. While that study has not progressed to cost approximations at this point, it is not possible to cite a cost for this possible option. The cost per mile for canal improvements discussed in Section 2.2 is $4.5M per mile and there are 8 miles from the SESWTP to the NWSWTP; it is anticipated the cost for improvement along the

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 21 Enterprise Canal within the developed area of the City would be more costly than those from the Kings River to the SESWTP. A cost has not been provided in Table 4-1 for this reason.

4.5.2.3 SURFACE WATER CONVEYANCE TO THE NWSWTP SUMMARY
Assuming the NWSWTP would be preferred to operate year-around, the raw water pipeline or improvements to the Enterprise Canal are the options to be considered, however, costs are not fully understood to make this comparison. As noted in the Alternative descriptions, this only impacts Alternatives 2 and 3 and includes only the raw water main to supply surface water to the NWSWTP; the raw water main to supply the NESWTP in Alternatives 1 and 3 is included in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 as it is required to operate the NESWTP.

Table 4-1. Potential Surface Water Conveyance Cost from SESWTP to NWSWTP Size by Scenario Capital Improvement Costs
Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3
WMP ID (in) (LF) (in) (LF) ($) ($)
Raw Water Pipeline to NWSWTP 42 42,240 30/42 31,680 $50,857,000 $30,877,000 [1] Enterprise Canal Improvements to NWSWTP Cost Information Not Available Note:
[1] Assumes a larger diameter main from the SESWTP to a point near Leonard/Nees Avenues and then the raw water pipeline splits east and west to each plant. This cost accounts for the cost to upsize the initial portion of the pipeline from the size needed for the NESWTP alone, and the remainder from the point of splitting to the NWSWTP. If two separate raw water pipeline alignments are undertaken, the cost will be approximately $36.3M for the NWSWTP raw water pipeline, alone.

4.6 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Table 4-2 provides a summary of the transmission mains and either the change in size (in inches [in]) or length (in miles) from an existing WMP planned main or a new main being added, for each alternative.

These changes drive the costs shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 shows a summary of the changes to the WMP, either through new infrastructure or modifications to currently planned infrastructure, attributable to each alternative. For reference, the alternatives are:
• Alternative 1: Maintain the WMP location/capacity plans for SWTPs and expand the SESWTP to 45 MGD and construct a 20-MGD SWTP in the Northeast Village (NESWTP) • Alternative 2: Expand the SESWTP to 45-MGD and relocate the 20-MGD SWTP to the Northwest Village (NWSWTP)
• Alternative 3: Expand the SESWTP to 45-MGD and construct a 10-MGD NESWTP and a 12.5-

MGD NWSWTP
• Alternative 4: Expand the SESWTP to 65-MGD and discard having separate SWTPs throughout the City

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 22 Table 4-2. Summary of Transmission Main Changes
Size by Scenario Capital Improvement Costs [1]
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
WMP ID (in) (LF) (in) (LF) (in) (LF) (in) (LF) ($) ($) ($) ($) P-15 12 10,300 12 10,300 12 10,300 12 10,300 $3,461,000 $3,461,000 $3,461,000 $3,461,000 P-17 16 3,950 30 3,950 24 3,950 16 3,950 $1,809,000 $3,397,000 $2,726,000 $1,809,000 P-19 12 1,400 16 1,400 16 1,400 16 1,400 $470,000 $641,000 $641,000 $641,000 P-22 16 2,650 16 2,650 16 2,650 16 2,650 $1,214,000 $1,214,000 $1,214,000 $1,214,000 P-23 24 2,650 16 2,650 16 2,650 24 2,650 $1,829,000 $1,214,000 $1,214,000 $1,829,000 P-27a 12 1,375 16 1,375 16 1,375 16 1,375 $462,000 $630,000 $630,000 $630,000 P-27b 12 1,290 16 1,290 16 1,290 16 1,290 $433,000 $591,000 $591,000 $591,000 P-29 12 1,275 16 1,275 16 1,275 16 1,275 $428,000 $584,000 $584,000 $584,000 P-30a 12 1,390 16 1,390 16 1,390 16 1,390 $467,000 $637,000 $637,000 $637,000 P-49 16 12,600 16 10,900 16 12,600 16 10,900 $5,771,000 $4,992,000 $5,771,000 $4,992,000 36 1,700 36 1,700 $1,754,000 $1,754,000
P-52a 12 3,975 36 3,975 12 3,975 36 3,975 $1,336,000 $4,102,000 $1,336,000 $4,102,000 P-52b 12 4,650 36 4,650 30 4,650 36 4,650 $1,562,000 $4,799,000 $3,999,000 $4,799,000 P-53 12 2,500 36 2,500 30 2,500 36 2,500 $840,000 $2,580,000 $2,150,000 $2,580,000 P-57 16 3,650 16 3,650 42 3,650 16 3,650 $1,672,000 $1,672,000 $4,395,000 $1,672,000 P-58 16 1,550 16 1,550 42 1,550 16 1,550 $710,000 $710,000 $1,866,000 $710,000 P-59 24 2,025 24 2,025 36 2,025 24 2,025 $1,397,000 $1,397,000 $2,090,000 $1,397,000 P-61 12 3,300 16 3,300 16 3,300 16 3,300 $1,511,000 $1,511,000 $1,511,000 $1,511,000 P-69 12 2,500 16 2,500 16 2,500 16 2,500 $1,145,000 $1,145,000 $1,145,000 $1,145,000 P-72 24 2,500 24 2,500 16 2,500 24 2,500 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $1,145,000 $1,725,000 P-73 24 4,825 42 4,825 12 4,825 42 4,825 $3,329,000 $5,809,000 $1,621,000 $5,809,000 P-74 36 3,625 30 3,625 24 3,625 30 3,625 $3,741,000 $3,118,000 $2,501,000 $3,118,000 P-75 30 2,000 24 2,000 24 2,000 24 2,000 $1,720,000 $1,380,000 $1,380,000 $1,380,000 P-99 30 1,525 30 1,525 30 1,525 48 1,525 $1,312,000 $1,312,000 $1,312,000 $2,098,000 Main from
SESWTP to P-53 36 14,000 30 14,000 36 14,000 $14,448,000 $12,040,000 $14,448,000 Raw Water Main
to NESWTP 42 31,680 30 18,480 $38,143,000 $15,893,000
Pipeline Totals 109,185 91,505 109,985 91,505 $76,487,000 $64,823,000 $71,853,000 $64,636,000 Notes: [1] Costs are based on the unit prices discussed in the 2024 CIP Cost Update and then adjusted by 4.87% based on the ENR CCI data from June 2024 to September 2026; the average CCI between Los Angeles and San Francisco for September 2026 is 16075.56. The costs also incorporate 48% total contingencies (30% construction contingency, and 18% engineering and administrative contingency) and land acquisition, where applicable

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2026 23 Table 4-3. Comparison of SWTP Alternative Costs
Item Description Size by Scenario Capital Improvement Costs [1] Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

TANKS (MG)
T-6 (PZ2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 $9,910,000 $9,910,000 $9,910,000 $9,910,000 T-7 (PZ3) 7 7 7 7 $19,820,000 $19,820,000 $19,820,000 $19,820,000 T-8 (PZ4) 3 3 3 3 $8,494,000 $8,494,000 $8,494,000 $8,494,000 T-9 (PZ2) 7 7 5 7 $19,820,000 $19,820,000 $14,157,000 $19,820,000 T-10 (PZ1) 3.5 3.5 $9,910,000 $9,910,000
Tank Totals 24 20.5 18.5 24 $67,954,000 $58,044,000 $52,381,000 $67,954,000 PUMP STATIONS (gpm)
PS-SESWTP (PZ2) 42,000 45,200 45,200 52,200 $21,943,000 $23,615,000 $23,615,000 $27,272,000 PS-NESWTP 22,000 $11,494,000
PS-T7 21,900 21,900 21,900 $11,442,000 $11,442,000 $11,442,000 PS-T8 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 $2,560,000 $2,560,000 $2,560,000 $2,560,000 PS-T9 4,900 17,800 11,300 4,900 $2,560,000 $9,300,000 $5,904,000 $2,560,000 PS-T10 2,500 2,500 $1,306,000 $1,306,000
Pump Station Totals 76,300 89,800 83,300 86,400 $39,863,000 $46,917,000 $43,521,000 $45,140,000 PRESSURE SUSTATINING VALVES (inches)
PSV9 16 16 $469,000 $469,000
PSV10 12 12 $351,000 $351,000
PSV11 12 12 $351,000 $351,000
PSV12 12 12 $351,000 $351,000
PSV Totals $1,522,000 $1,522,000

TREATMENT PLANTS (MGD)
NESWTP 20 10 $104,900,000 $52,450,000
Existing SWTP Expansion 45 45 45 65 $91,200,000 $91,200,000 $91,200,000 $196,100,000 NWSWTP (New) 20 12.5 $104,900,000 $65,562,500
Treatment Plant Totals 65 65 67.5 65 $196,100,000 $196,100,000 $209,212,500 $196,100,000 TRANSMISSION MAINS (See Table 4-2 for details)
Pipeline Totals 109,185 91,505 109,985 91,505 $75,780,000 $64,823,000 $71,853,000 $64,636,000

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group  September 2026 24 Item Description Size by Scenario Capital Improvement Costs [1] Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
PRODUCTION WELLS (gpm)
W-44 500 500 500 $2,730,000 $2,730,000 $2,730,000
W-45 500 500 500 500 $2,730,000 $2,730,000 $2,730,000 $2,730,000 W-46 500 500 500 500 $2,730,000 $2,730,000 $2,730,000 $2,730,000 W-47 500 500 500 $2,730,000 $2,730,000 $2,730,000
Production Well Total 2,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 $10,920,000 $10,920,000 $5,460,000 $10,920,000 Totals $390,617,000 $378,326,000 $383,949,500 $384,750,000 Notes: [1] Costs are based on the unit prices discussed in the 2024 CIP Cost Update and then adjusted by 4.87% based on the ENR CCI data from June 2024 to September 2026; the average CCI between Los Angeles and San Francisco for September 2026 is 16075.56. The costs also incorporate 48% total contingencies (30% construction contingency, and 18% engineering and administrative contingency) and land acquisition, where applicable.

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 25 Alternative 2 provides the benefit of water supply in two of the primary growth areas of the City, allowing more flexibility in development patterns and has a lower cost by more than $5.6M of the next lowest cost (Alternative 3) and over $13M less than the current WMP. Additionally, locating a large scale SWTP in the Northeast Village, as shown in Alternatives 1 and 3, may not align with future growth area projections.

For these reasons and as elaborated upon throughout this memorandum, Alternative 2 is the recommended alternative for amending WMP regarding major water infrastructure to better support current growth patterns in the City.

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 26 5 PIPING LAYOUT
This section documents changes to piping layouts, as noted in TM2, beyond those noted above in the various SWTP alternatives. Additionally, through other hydraulic modeling efforts undertaken for the City, it has become apparent master planned water mains are needed north of Shepherd Avenue and east of Sunnyside Avenue (including Sunnyside Avenue) to facilitate/accommodate growth in the Northern Rural Village (which was not included in the WMP).

Clovis: CIP Water Main P-6 (Teague Avenue at Armstrong Avenue) • The main was mis-identified in the WMP as a parallel main but has been hydraulically modeled as a replacement. The CIP will be updated to reflect this as a replacement (current size is 12-inches, replacement size is 16-inches), not a parallel water main.

Northern Rural: New / Extended CIP Water Mains
• P-41, P-42, and P-43: Modify planned 12-inch main alignments as needed to align with future planned development layout
• Net difference: 7,650 LF of 12-inch water main based 2025 layout • New Transmission Main:
o P-19a: new 16-inch water main from the Behymer and Sunnyside Avenues intersection, eastward and southward to connect to Shepherd Avenue at Temperance Avenue in Behymer, between Sunnyside and Armstrong Avenues and Behymer and Shepherd Avenues (approximately 14,000 LF)

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Water Master Plan Amendment
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group • September 2026 27 6 REFERENCES
Fresno Irrigation District. (2019, September 1). Revised, Amended, and Restated Cooperative Agreement between Fresno Irrigation District and City of Clovis for Water Utilization and Conveyance.

NKGSA. (2026, March 31). Kings Subbasin Allocation Framework Accepted by GSA Board. Retrieved from https://northkingsgsa.org/kings-subbasin-allocation-framework-accepted-by-gsa-board/ Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. (2018). City of Clovis Water Master Plan, Phase III. Clovis.

USBR. (2026). Central Valley Operations. Retrieved from Bureau of Reclamation:
https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/water_allocations_historical.pdf

Report to the City Council
To: City Council
From: Administration
Date: October 12, 2026
Staff: Andrew Haussler, City Manager
Subject: Consider Approval — Change of Council Meeting Schedule.

Recommendation: Approve
Attachments: None
Recommendation:

For the City Council to approve the cancellation of the regular Council meeting scheduled for Monday, October 19, 2026.

Executive Summary:

There is a need to change the schedule of meetings for the City Council in September. Staff is recommending that City Council approve the cancellation for the meeting of Monday, October 19, 2026.

Background:

Staff was able to consolidate the agenda items to the first and second Council meetings in October.

Therefore, staff is recommending Council consider canceling the meeting of October 19, 2026, due to the limited number of items on the agenda. Given adequate notice, staff will be able to amend the timing of actions coming forward so that operations will not be affected by the cancellations.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Reason for Recommendation:

Pursuant to the Clovis Municipal Code, the City Council meets in regular session on the first, second, and third Monday of each month, except when those Mondays occur on a recognized City holiday.

The City Council needs to confirm any change to the schedule of meetings in order to properly notice the public of the City Council’s schedule of meetings.

Actions Following Approval:

A revised schedule of meetings will be published in conformance with law.

Conflict of Interest:

None.