Fresno City Council
December 18, 2025

N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR
The City has performed extensive planning for the future water system as documented in the Metropolitan Plan Update (Metro Plan Update). The Metro Plan Update used the City’s 2025 General Plan Land Use Update (2025 GP) land use to project future water demands. These demands are the basis for the City’s proposed supply portfolio and transmission pipeline grid developed in the Metro Plan Update to meet the City’s future needs. Updates to the proposed land use impacts the City’s overall system demands. This TM evaluates how the changes to demands impact the planned infrastructure for the City’s water system.

PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS
The City has been using water demands developed in the Metro Plan Update to plan for the future water system infrastructure and supply needs. As described in detail in the Metro Plan Update, West Yost obtained future land use data from the City’s GIS, which used land use designation adopted as part of the City’s 2025 GP. West Yost consolidated the various land use designations from the City’s 2025 GP into the City’s Water Division’s five existing customer classes (single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial/institutional, industrial, and landscape irrigation) to facilitate development of unit factors. In addition to these five existing customer classes, West Yost had added a sixth customer class category for the Southeast Growth Area (SEGA) which had recently been added to the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) at the time the Metro Plan Update was developed.

The 2035 GP updates the land use designation for several locations within the City’s SOI including detailed land use information for the SEGA. The 2035 GP also includes new land use designations which include mixed use for areas outside of the Downtown Central Area. The main change to the land use designations occur along Blackstone Avenue corridor, Shaw Avenue corridor, SEGA, and the southwest section of the City SOI. Figure 1 shows the parcels within the City’s SOI where the planned land use designations were updated in the 2035 GP.

The new mixed use designations required the development of new water customer classes to account for the change in anticipated water use. The mixed use designations combine commercial, office and residential land uses on a single parcel. For the downtown mixed use designated parcels, the water duty factor is higher than for the areas outside of downtown. The mixed use planned in the Downtown Central Area is expected to be high densification of residential, commercial, and office in multiple story buildings. It is anticipated the mixed use downtown will include greater square footage of office and commercial as well as higher density residential than the areas outside of downtown and therefore, different water duty factors were developed for the two areas.

The Metro Plan Update used the assumption that open space land designations did not require irrigation. Since the Metro Plan Update, additional evaluation on how open space area is irrigated within the City has resulted in the development of water duty factors to account for irrigation of turf areas within an open space designated parcel. Depending on the primary purpose of the open space, new park, nature preserve, flood control, or greenbelt, a percentage of the parcel is now assumed to be irrigated.

Table 1 provides a summary of the water duty factors used for the different water customer classes and the land use code for the evaluation.

Technical Memorandum
January 21, 2013

N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR
Table 1. Summary of Unit Water Use Factors
Water Customer Class Land Use Code
Water Duty Factor(a),
afa/ac
Single Family Residential rl, rm, rml, run 3.2
Multi-Family Residential rh, rmh 6.2
Commercial/Institutional cbp, cc, cgh, cms, co, cr, crbp, hwy, il, pf, pfs, pqch, pse, psm, psp, pss

1.9 Industrial Ih 1.9
Landscape Irrigation ccr, orbp, orp, orpr 2.9
Open Space(b)
New parks
Nature preserve park
Ponding basin/Regional flood control
SEGA open space
obp, os

3.4 (80% of area)

3.4 (15% of area)
0 3.4 (47% of area)
Mixed Use Downtown Cce 7.5
Mixed use Outside of Downtown cmx, nmx, rmx 6.6
No Water Use(c) ag, rail, road 0
(a) Assumes water conservation achieved through water conservations implemented by the City and single family meter implementation program.
(b) Open space designations assumed to have a percentage of area irrigated based on type of open space use. (c) No water use includes roadways, railroads, and agricultural land use designations. The eastside agricultural buffer for SEGA is assumed to have no water use.

Demands were calculated for the parcels with a change in land use. Table 2 provides a comparison of the calculated water demand for the 2025 GP land use and the 2035 GP land use for parcels with a change to its land use designation. Parcels without a land use designation change are assumed to have no change in demands. Demand changes to the downtown area are based on work West Yost has conducted based on densification of the proposed mixed use parcels in the downtown area, as well as specific demand for the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan developed by Sherwood Design Engineers.

For purposes of West Yost’s hydraulic evaluation of the demand changes due to the 2035 GP, the water demands associated with the parcels having a change in land use were updated in the hydraulic model. The projected demands for the SEGA are decreased from what was projected as part of the Metro Plan Update. However, the downtown area and the remainder of the City demands increase. The calculated demands show an overall increase for the City due to the changes in the 2035 GP land use of 10,170 acre-feet/year (afa). Figure 2 shows how the changes to demands are spatially located throughout the City.

Water Customer Category
Water Duty
Factor Area, acres
Annual Water
Demand, afa Area, acres
Annual Water
Demand, afa Area, acres
Annual Water
Demand, afa
Downtown Area(b)
Commercial/Institutional 1.9 2,179 4,140 1,699 3,229 -480 -911 Commercial/Mixed Use(c) 7.5 0 0 480 3,600 480 3,600
Industrial 1.9 237 450 237 450 0 0
Landscape Irrigation 2.9 185 537 185 537 0 0
Multi-Family Residential 6.2 367 2,278 367 2,278 0 0
No Water Use 0.0 83 0 83 0 0 0
Open Space(d) 2.9 65 0 65 188 0 188
Single Family Residential 3.2 1,851 5,923 1,851 5,923 0 0 Increase for Fulton Corridor(e)
- - 0 - 1,020 - 1,020
Subtotal Downtown Area 4,967 13,329 4,967 17,225 0 3,896 SEGA
South East Growth Area 3.2 8,227 26,328 0 0 -8,227 -26,328 Commercial/Institutional 1.9 0 0 1,715 3,258 1,715 3,258 Irrigated School Parks 3.4 0 0 354 1,204 354 1,204
Industrial 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landscape Irrigation 2.9 0 0 34 97 34 97
Multi-Family Residential 6.2 0 0 0 0 0 0
No Water Use 0.0 0 0 733 0 733 0
Open Space(d) 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Regional Flood Control(f) 0.0 0 0 269 0 269 0
SEGA Open Space(g) 3.4 0 0 564 901 564 901
Single Family Residential 3.2 0 0 4,039 12,924 4,039 12,924 Mixed Use(h) 6.6 0 0 524 3,460 524 3,460
Subtotal SEGA 8,227 26,328 8,230 21,843 3 -4,485
Remainder of City
Commercial/Institutional 1.9 6,131 11,650 3,309 6,287 -2,822 -5,362 Industrial 1.9 3 7 121 230 118 223
Landscape Irrigation 2.9 157 455 257 745 100 290
Multi-Family Residential 6.2 884 5,482 372 2,307 -512 -3,175 No Water Use 0.0 8 0 31 0 23 0
Open Space(d) 0.0 280 0 0 0 -280 0
New Parks(i) 3.4 0 0 359 977 359 977
Nature Preserve(j) 3.4 0 0 135 69 135 69
Ponding Basin(k) 0.0 0 0 56 0 56 0
Regional Flood Control(f) 0.0 0 0 32 32
Single Family Residential 3.2 3,699 11,838 3,874 12,397 175 558 Mixed Use(h) 6.6 0 0 2,603 17,180 2,603 17,180
Subtotal Remainder of City 11,163 29,431 11,150 40,192 -13 10,761 Total 24,358 69,088 24,348 79,260 -10 10,172
(k) The water duty for the Open Space land use areas planned to be used as Ponding Basis facilities is assumed to be 0 afa. A total of 56.4 acres is currently planned.
(h) Mixed Use land designations outside of the downtown area are assumed to contain less square footage than mixed use within the Downtown Area. Mixed use water duty factor is based on assumptions for building and population projections for SEGA. (i) Open Space land uses assumed to be used as new parks are assumed to be 80 percent irrigated. A total of 359.3 acres of new park is planned for the remainder area of the City.
(j) The water duty for the Open Space land use area planned to be used as a nature preserve type park located in the northwest part of the City is assumed to be 15 percent irrigated. A total of 135.1 acres is currently planned. (e) Demands for Fulton Corridor Specific Plan are based on building type and proposed square footage as provided by Sherwood Engineering.

Demands for Fulton Corridor are not tied to a specific land use type. (f) The water duty for the Open Space land use areas planned to be used as Regional Flood Control facilities is assumed to be 0 afa.

A total of 300.7 acres is planned with a majority of the land use within SEGA. (g) SEGA open space/mixed vegetation area is assumed to be approximately 47 percent irrigated. This assumes 263.6 acres of the total 563.6 acres of open space will require irrigation. detailed demand use.
(c) Downtown Commercial/Mixed Use water duty factor based on densification of mixed use within the downtown area and proposed population increases. Downtown Area commercial/mixed use assumed to contain a greater building square footage than mixed use in other parts of the City and therefore, a larger water duty factor is applied to the Downtown Commercial/Mixed Use land categories. (d) Open Space water duty factor developed for original Metro Plan demand projections assumed 0 water usage. Additional research on the type of irrigation needs for various open space uses has resulted in new water duty factors for the 2035 General Plan land use.

Table 2. Water Demand Comparison for General Plan Land Use Changes(a) 2025 General Plan 2035 General Plan Difference (2035-2025) (a) Demands shown for parcels with a change in Land Use from the 2025 General Plan to the 2035 General Plan Update. (b) Demands for the Downtown Area based on increase in densification to mixed use land use designation and Fulton Corridor Specific Plan N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR
Technical Memorandum
January 21, 2013

N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR

WATER SUPPLY
As described in the City’s Metro Plan Update, the City’s Water Master Plan, the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (2010 UWMP) and West Yost’s March 2009 TM “Hydraulic Evaluation of the Downtown Central Area,” the City’s available water supplies are confined to a finite quantity and are extremely limited. Therefore, water supplies to meet the projected increase in water demand must come from within the City’s existing, limited water supply portfolio. The availability and reliability of the City’s water supplies to meet the City’s projected water demands under various hydrologic conditions were evaluated in the City’s 2010 UWMP which was adopted by City Council in November 2012.

The projected water demands in the 2010 UWMP were based on the City’s anticipated compliance with adopted per capita water use targets in accordance with the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7) and the projected City population in 20351 . As
documented in the 2010 UWMP, the City population in 2035 is projected to be 786,000 (this is based on the Fresno Council of Governments estimate of 1,290,000 people countywide in 2035, with 61 percent of the population residing in the City of Fresno). Assuming that the land use changes proposed for the 2035 General Plan do not result in an increase in the total projected City population, but instead result in an increased densification of population in some parts of the City and reduced densification in other parts of the City, the projected water demand per SBx7-7, based on per capita consumption, in 2035 (220,100 af) would be unchanged as a result of the proposed land use changes.

The projected water supplies in the 2010 UWMP were calculated using land-use based water demand projection using the 2025 General Plan land uses (shifted out 10 years to 2035 to account for the slowdown in development in the City) and assuming water conservation by all users. This land use-based water demand projection (233,400 af) is higher than the SBx7-7 water demand projection (220,100 af) and is more conservative for water supply planning purposes as it provides for additional water supplies in the event that the City were not able to comply with the SBx7-7 requirements. With the land use changes proposed for the 2035 General Plan, this 2035 water demand estimate would increase to 243,570 af (233,400 af + 10,170 af). This increased land use-based water demand projection is shown on Figure 3.

To meet this higher land use-based water demand projection in 2035, additional water supplies would be required. The City’s water supply portfolio in 2035 is projected to include treated surface water supplies, groundwater supplies and recycled water supplies (see Figure 3). Supplies to meet additional water demands would likely be derived from additional groundwater pumpage in conjunction with additional intentional groundwater recharge. The groundwater pumpage projected for 2035 in the 2010 UWMP (85,000 af) would increase to 95,170 af (85,000 af + 10,170 af) with the land use changes proposed for the 2035 General Plan. This increase in groundwater pumpage would require a like amount of additional intentional groundwater recharge to keep the City’s groundwater operations in balance. As described in the City’s 2010 UWMP, the projected future increase in intentional groundwater recharge is assumed to occur due to the increased use of existing recharge basins, construction of new recharge basins, and/or development of a groundwater bank and maximizing the use of available surface water supplies2. 1 See Chapter 6 of the City of Fresno 2010 Urban Water Management Plan dated November 2012. 2 See Section 4.2.3 of the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan dated November 2012.

Technical Memorandum
January 21, 2013

N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR
An additional 210 acres3 of new recharge basins (beyond those previously identified) would be required to balance the additional required groundwater pumpage of 10,170 af associated with the 2035 General Plan.

EVALUATION CRITERIA
The planning and modeling criteria used for this evaluation are based on West Yost’s recent work with the City. The August 2008 verified hydraulic model of the City’s water distribution system was used as the basis for the evaluation. The hydraulic model has been updated since 2008 to account for the updates to demand within the Downtown Central Area.

Planning and Modeling Criteria
The criteria used to evaluate the potential impacts to the City’s existing water system are as follows:

Minimum peak hour demand pressure 40 pounds per square inch (psi); Maximum allowable velocity is 7 feet per second (fps) during a peak hour condition for distribution pipelines and 5 fps during a peak hour condition for transmission pipelines; Maximum allowable head loss rate is 10 feet per 1,000 feet during any condition4; Any new, required pipelines will be modeled with a roughness coefficient (C-factor) of 130; and
Assumed peaking factors for maximum day and peak hour demand conditions are consistent with the City’s adopted peaking factors and are as follows:
— Maximum Day Demand = 2.0 times Average Day Demand
— Peak Hour Demand = 2.9 times Average Day Demand
Fire Flow Requirements
As a purveyor of water, the City is responsible for providing a realistic water supply to meet fire flow requirements. The City’s Fire Department establishes minimum water flows and pressures required for firefighting purposes. The Fire Department uses the 2007 California Fire Code (CFC) (Table B105.1 – Minimum Required Fire-Flow and Flow Duration for Buildings) to assist them in establishing minimum fire flows and durations for individual structures.

The fire flow requirements based on land use type are presented in Table 3. Fire flow requirements do not change significantly due to the 2035 GP land use change. Figure 4 shows how the land use changes impact the required fire flow. The most significant change is to the SEGA area. Prior to having a land use plan for SEGA, the area was assigned a conservative fire flow requirement of 4,000 gpm. Therefore, the fire flow in SEGA have been adjusted to reflect 3 Based on a recharge rate of 0.2 acre-feet per acre per day over a 10-month per year operational cycle (per the Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan Phase 2 Report (Chapter 5), January 2011) plus 25 percent to account for inactive portions of the recharge area (setbacks and roadways within the recharge areas). 4 This criteria was developed primarily for new development; ability to meet this criteria within existing distribution systems (such as that in the City’s downtown area) can be difficult due to existing small diameter pipelines and aging pipelines.

Technical Memorandum
January 21, 2013

N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR
the proposed land use designations and results in a reduction to projected fire flow requirements for most of the area.

Although these criteria have been established, and used to size new pipelines, the existing system should be evaluated using pressure as the primary criterion. Secondary criteria, such as velocity, head loss, age, and material type, are used as indicators for areas of the water system that also may need improvements, but may not be required as part of this evaluation.

Table 3. Recommended Fire Flow Requirements(a,b)
Designation
Non-Sprinklered Sprinklered(c,d,e)
Fire Flow, gpm Duration, hours Fire Flow, gpm Duration, hours Single Family Residential 2,000 2 — —
Multi-Family Residential 3,000 3 — —
Commercial/Institutional 6,000 4 3,500 4
Industrial 8,000 4 4,500 4
(a) Construction type and fire area are not generally known during the development of a master plan; consequently, fire flow requirements set forth in this table are based on previous estimates for these land use types and similar communities.
(b) Unique projects or projects with alternate materials may require higher fire flows and will be reviewed by the City’s Fire Marshal on a case-by-case basis (e.g., proposed commercial/industrial areas and schools). (c) The City’s Fire Marshal normally allows up to a 50 percent reduction in fire flows if a building is sprinklered.

However, the CFC also requires that no fire flow be less than 1,000 gpm for single family residential or 1,500 gpm for all other building types. For a more conservative fire flow estimate, single family and multiple family buildings were considered non-sprinklered for this evaluation.
(d) Specific fire flows were determined from Table B105.1 of the 2007 CFC, and depend on construction type and fire area. These fire flow requirements are based on buildings being fully sprinklered. (e) Fire flow includes a 500 gpm demand for on-site sprinkler flow.

WATER SYSTEM FACILITY ASSUMPTIONS
The City’s hydraulic model was verified for August 2008 operating conditions. Since the initial verification and allocation of existing and proposed demands, West Yost has prepared several evaluation of the proposed infrastructure required to meet future demands.

Recommendations from Previous Evaluations
In March 2009, West Yost completed a hydraulic evaluation of the Downtown Central Area to evaluate available supplies in the City’s downtown area and address the loss of supply in the downtown area due to aging wells and water quality issues5. This evaluation also considered changes to demands in the downtown area based on densification of the mixed use land designations. Based on population projections, projected per capita water demand factors, and proposed land use designations for the downtown Central Area, a unit water demand factor was calculated for mixed use designations. The calculated mixed use water duty factor is used in the evaluation for 2035 GP land use changes.
5 “Hydraulic Evaluation of the Downtown Central Area”, TM, prepared by West Yost, March 12, 2009.

Technical Memorandum
January 21, 2013

N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR
In May 2011, West Yost conducted a re-evaluation of the Downtown Central Area to determine what potential alternatives existed other than the March 2009 recommendation for increasing the pumping capacity of Well 1726. The recommendations of the May 2011 evaluation were to make distribution pipeline improvements to improve flow from Well 172 (as recommended in the March 2009 evaluation), but instead of upgrading the pumping capacity of Well 172, distribution system improvements should be made to convey supplies from Well 313 to the Downtown Central Area.

In July 2011, West Yost conducted additional evaluation of the downtown area to determine the impacts of proposed demands for the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan Project.

For purposes of this evaluation, it has been assumed that the pipeline and storage infrastructure recommendations from these prior hydraulic evaluations will be implemented by the City and will be available to serve the 2035 GP requirements.

Specific System Assumptions
The following specific assumptions have been made related to available water system facilities within the City’s service area:

The Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) has a future production capacity of 60 million gallons per day (mgd) and a firm capacity of 54 mgd to serve maximum day and peak hour demands;
The proposed Southeast SWTF has a production capacity of 80 mgd and a firm capacity of 72 mgd to serve maximum day and peak hour demands; The City’s proposed future groundwater production capacity is assumed to be approximately 549 mgd with a firm capacity of 439 mgd to supplement the surface water supplies during maximum day and peak hour demand conditions, as calculated in the Metro Plan Update Phase 2;
For peak hour demands, the City will supplement surface and groundwater supplies with existing and proposed storage tank capacity;
— Northeast SWTF Clearwell (1.5 MG existing + 4.5 MG proposed) — T-1 and T-2 Southeast Tanks (2.0 MG existing + 2.0 MG proposed) — T-3 Tank (3.0 MG existing)
— Southeast SWTF Clearwell (8.0 MG proposed)
— T-4 Downtown Tank (3.0 MG proposed)
— SEGA Tanks (2- 4.0 MG proposed)
— T-5 Tank ( 3.0 MG proposed)
— T-6 Tank (3.0 MG proposed)
6 “Hydraulic Re-Evaluation of the Downtown Central Area Water Distribution System”, TM, prepared by West Yost, May 10, 2011.

Technical Memorandum
January 21, 2013

N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR
Major regional transmission mains and transmission grid mains (TGMs) as recommended in the Metro Plan Update Phase 3 report are assumed to be active for the 2035 GP evaluation.

The City’s planned water system facilities based on the 2025 GP are shown on Figure 5.

EVALUATION SCENARIOS
To evaluate the adequacy of the City’s water system to serve the Proposed 2035 GP land use changes, West Yost has evaluated the City’s system at buildout (2035) under the following two demand conditions:

A future maximum day demand condition concurrent with fire flow demand while maintaining a minimum residual system pressure of 20 psi along the corridors with significant changes to future demands; and
A peak hour demand condition while maintaining a minimum system pressure of 40 psi.

Figure 6 shows how the demands are changed based on the proposed 2035 GP land use for maximum day demands for the City. Figure 7 shows how the demands are changed based on the proposed 2035 GP land use for peak hour demands for the City.

EVALUATION FINDINGS
Storage Capacity Evaluation
Treated water storage capacity requirements for the City were evaluated based on the following three components: operational storage, emergency storage and fire storage. The principal advantage that storage provides is to equalize demands on supply sources and production facilities.

Table 4 shows the storage requirement calculated for the 2025 GP land use demands, the incremental increase to storage requirements based on the demand changes for the 2035 GP land use designations, and the available system storage and storage credits.

Technical Memorandum
January 21, 2013

N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR
Table 4. City of Fresno Storage Requirements
Storage Component Required Storage, MG
Required Storage - 2025 GP Land Use Demands
Operational(a) 62.5
Emergency(b) 177.1
Fire Flow(c) 1.0
Subtotal 2025 GP Land Use 240.6
Required Storage - 2035 GP Incremental Increase
Operational(d) 2.7
Emergency(e) 7.4
Fire Flow(f) —
Subtotal 2035 GP Incremental Increase 10.1
Total System Storage 2035 GP Land Use 250.7
Available Storage and Storage Credits
Planned Reservoir Capacity(g) 38.0
Emergency Storage Credit(h) 92.6
Operational Storage Credit(i) 60.9
Surface Storage Credit(j) 60.0
Total Available Storage and Storage Credits 251.6
Future System Storage Needs
Total System Storage 2035 GP Land Use 250.7
Total Available Storage and Storage Credit 251.6
Future Storage Surplus (Deficit)(k) 0.9
(a) Based on 15 percent maximum day demand (MDD = 416.7 million gallons per day (mgd). (b) Based on 85 percent of an average day demand (ADD = 208.4 mgd). (c) Based on a fire flow of 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) multiplied by a 4 hour duration. (d) Based on 15 percent of maximum day demand resulting from change in demand due to 2035 General Plan Land Use update (MDD = 12,605 gpm).
(e) Based on 85 percent of an average day demand resulting from change in demand due to 2035 General Plan Land Use update (ADD = 6,033 gpm).
(f) Fire flow already accounted for in City-wide storage calculations and not needed for the incremental land use change. (g) Assumes the following for reservoir capacity: 6.0 Million Gallons (MG) Northeast SWTF (1.5 MG existing + 4.5 MG future); 4.0 MG T-1 and T-2 Southeast Tank (2.0 MG existing + 2.0 MG future); 3.0 MG T-4 Downtown Tank; 8.0 MG SEGA Proposed; 8.0 MG Southeast SWTF; 3 MG Existing T-3; 3.0 MG Proposed T-5; and, 3.0 MG Proposed T-6. (h) Equal to the sum of the groundwater pumping capacity of active wells with backup power. Minimum credit is zero, and the maximum credit is the recommended emergency storage capacity. (i) 56 percent of the difference between the firm groundwater capacity and a maximum day demand. Minimum credit is zero and the maximum credit is the recommended operational storage capacity. Firm groundwater pumping capacity assumes 20 percent of groundwater production capacity is out of service (FPC = 522 mgd) Draft Chapter 4 in the Water Master Plan further defines operational storage credit assumptions.
(j) Equal to the capacity of the smallest surface water treatment facility. (k) Equal to the difference between total available storage and storage credits, and the total required storage.

MG = Million Gallons
Technical Memorandum
January 21, 2013

N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR
The City’s Water Master Plan is evaluating the overall system and will make recommendations for overall system improvements, including recommendations for storage improvements. As shown in Table 4, the preliminary storage calculations indicate the City has planned for adequate storage to include the proposed 2035 GP land use changes.

Distribution System Evaluation
The impacts from the 2035 GP land use changes on the water system infrastructure proposed for the 2025 GP land use was evaluated using the City’s hydraulic model. Scenarios were run for 2025 GP demands and 2035 GP demands under maximum day plus fire flow and peak hour conditions. The ability to maintain system pressure, velocity, and available fire flow criteria for the increase in demands due to the land use changes was evaluated. The evaluation results are described below.

Maximum Day Plus Fire Flow for 2025 GP Land Use
As discussed under the fire flow requirements section, the SEGA area was initially evaluated using a conservative fire flow of 4,000 gpm prior to a detailed land use plan being available. The required fire flow for the land use plan for the 2035 GP shows a reduction in the required fire flow for this area. Due to this conservative approach taken initially, it is assumed, for this evaluation, that the SEGA area has been adequately planned to meet fire flow requirements. In addition, the downtown area has been evaluated for fire flow requirements as part of the densification in the Central Area and the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan hydraulic analysis performed. Therefore, the maximum day plus fire flow evaluation for this TM examines the corridors along Blackstone Avenue, Shaw Avenue, and the southwest section of the City where demands are shown to increase due to the proposed change in land use.

The results of the maximum day demand plus fire flow condition for the system with the 2025 GP land use are shown on Figure 8. The available flow at nodes along Blackstone Avenue, Shaw Avenue, and the southwest corridors in the hydraulic model are shown assuming that a minimum system pressure residual of 20 psi is maintained. Nodes that are shown in “green” have available flows of 3,500 gpm or more, indicating that they meet the fire flow requirement. Nodes shown in “red” have available flows that are less than 3,500 gpm, indicating that they do not meet the fire flow requirement for the 2025 GP land use. As shown, a node along Blackstone Avenue near Shields Avenue does not meet the minimum of 3,500 gpm (see “red” node on Figure 8). The inability of this node to meet the required 3,500 gpm fire flow is due to the age and small diameter of the pipeline at this location. Therefore, specific infrastructure improvements to meet required fire flow in older areas of the City with small diameter pipelines are addressed as part of the system’s rehab and replacement program for aging infrastructure.

It should be noted that the City’s pipeline velocity criteria of a maximum of 10 fps during a simulated fire flow condition was not used as a constraint for this evaluation. Typically, the pipeline velocity criteria for fire flow conditions is used for planning and design of new pipelines, and not for evaluation of existing pipeline systems due to the fact that new criteria standards might have been put in place since the construction of these existing pipelines.

Technical Memorandum
January 21, 2013

N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR
Maximum Day Plus Fire Flow for 2035 GP Land Use
The hydraulic model was used to run the maximum day plus fire flow for the updated demands based on the 2035 GP land use changes. The initial run for this scenario assumed no changes to infrastructure or operations of the City’s system to assess whether required fire flow was impacted by the increased system demands. Results indicated additional locations were not able to meet the 3,500 gpm fire flow. However, the reduction in available fire flow was mitigated in the hydraulic model by adjusting the operational settings for wells. An additional six wells in the vicinity of Blackstone Avenue and Shaw Avenue were assumed to be active for the maximum day plus fire flow scenario with the increased demands. As shown on Figure 9, the changes to operational settings were able to mitigate the reduction in available fire flow.

The results for the maximum day plus fire flow scenarios for the change in demands indicate the infrastructure recommendations for the 2025 GP land use is adequate to convey the additional demand. Mitigation through operation of system wells addresses any reduction in available fire flow.

Peak Hour Demands for 2025 GP Land Use
The results of the peak hour demand condition for the buildout with the 2025 GP demands are shown on Figure 10. Figure 10 shows the system pressure at each node in the hydraulic model based on peak hour demand conditions. As shown, system pressures throughout most of the City are above the minimum pressure criteria of 40 psi (indicated by the “green” nodes). One location, in the northwest part of the City indicates pressures drop below the minimum pressure of 40 psi (indicated by the “red” nodes). This location is a subzone within the City’s system and there are constraints to how water is conveyed to this area. Improvement options are being evaluated to determine how to best improve pressures to this area. The City’s minimum peak hour pressure criterion is being met throughout the rest of the City with the infrastructure being proposed for the 2025 GP land use demands.

Peak Hour Demands for 2035 GP Land Use
The results of the peak hour demand condition for the buildout with the 2035 GP demands are shown on Figure 11. Figure 11 shows the system pressure at each node in the hydraulic model based on peak hour demand conditions. As shown, system pressures throughout most of the City are able to meet the minimum pressure criterion. The results indicate the area in the northwest is still below criteria but the remainder of the City is above the minimum criterion of 40 psi. Like the maximum day demand plus fire flow scenario, operational adjustments were made for the peak hour demand scenario to mitigate areas where pressure in the system had dropped due to the increase demands. An additional five wells were activated in the southwest area of the City to ensure the minimum pressure criterion was being met for this area. The operation of these additional wells was confirmed to be within the firm pumping capacity for groundwater for the City’s supply availability. Therefore, no specific improvements are required for the peak hour demand condition based on the increase in demands due to the 2035 GP changes.

Technical Memorandum
January 21, 2013

N:\C\439\00-12-11\WP\121112 np1 TM MEIR

EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS
As indicated through the results from the system evaluations, the infrastructure recommended in the Metro Plan Update reports is adequate to convey the increased demands throughout the system.

However, operational changes are needed to maintain system pressure and velocity criteria. In order to maintain pressure in the southwest area during peak hour conditions, the City will need to operate additional wells without exceeding the firm production capacity of their groundwater supply. For maximum day demand plus fire flow conditions the City will also need to rely on additional wells to provide required fire flow to the corridors where demands have been increased.

This evaluation looked at the impact of the increased demands due to the 2035 GP land use changes on the City’s infrastructure’s ability to maintain minimum system service standards. The evaluation did not look at specific recommendations for distribution system infrastructure improvements to address localized pressure or available fire flow conditions. The City’s Water Master Plan is evaluating the overall system and will make recommendations for overall system improvements, including recommendations to address localized areas of concern such as pipeline rehab and replacement for older areas of the City. Generally, however, the existing and planned infrastructure improvements are capable of meeting 2035 GP demands.

The recommendations in this TM are based on the general land use data available for the 2035 GP. As projects develop with more specific information, additional evaluation will need to be conducted to confirm the local distribution system and infrastructure is adequate to maintain the City system criteria.
0 1 2
Miles
Whites Bridge
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
American
North
California
Jensen
Central
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Ashlan
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Church
Malaga
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Olive
Tulare
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Gettysburg
International
Teague
Fresno
International
Airport
Regional Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation
Facility
Bakman
Pinedale
CSUF
Herndon
Park
Van
Ness
FIGURE 1
City of Fresno
General Plan Land Use
Change Evaluation
2035 GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE CHANGE AREAS
2035 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
Residential
Low Density (1-3 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0 - 12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
Industrial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Commercial
Office
Main Street
Community
Buisiness Park
Regional Business Park
Recreation
General Heavy
Highway & Auto
Regional
Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Regional Mixed Use
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Open Space
Open Space
Recreational Park
Ponding Basin
Regional Park
Ponding Basin (Park use)
Public Facilities
Special School
Elementary School
Middle School
School with Park
Public Facility
Fire Station
Church
Buffer
Buffer
Note:
- Land use only shown for areas where 2035 General Plan Update is proposing a change to the 2025 General Plan Land use. - Downtown Area land use expected to be refined through specific and community plans.
- Areas with land use change based on GIS data provided by the City.

LEGEND
Independent Water System
Downtown Boundary
Sphere of Influence
California
Jensen
North
Shaw
Ashlan
McKinley
Shields
Pinedale

BLACKSTONE AREA

SOUTHWEST AREA
0 1 2
Miles
Whites Bridge
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
American
North
California
Jensen
Central
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Ashlan
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Church
Malaga
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Olive
Tulare
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Gettysburg
International
Teague
Fresno
International
Airport
Regional Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation
Facility
Bakman
Pinedale
CSUF
Herndon
Park
Van
Ness
FIGURE 2
City of Fresno
General Plan Land Use
Change Evaluation

CHANGES TO

ANNUAL DEMANDS
Annual Demand Comparison
-232 to -100 afa (decrease)
-100 to -50 afa (decrease)
-50 to 0 afa (decrease)
0 afa (no change)
0 to 50 afa (increase)
50 to 100 afa (increase)
100 to 375 afa (increase)
Note:
- Demand change based on planned 2035 land use from
General Plan Update
- Only parcels with a change to planned land use shown
in figure.
- Changes to demands shown on a per parcel basis
calculated based on parcel acreage.
- Planned land use changes for 2035 General Plan result in an overall system increase of 10,172 afa (Downtown Area, not shown, increase of 3,896 afa, SEGA decrease of 4,485, and remainder area of the City increase of 10,761 afa.) LEGEND
Independent Water System
Downtown Boundary
Sphere of Influence
California
Jensen
North
Shaw
Ashlan
McKinley
Shields
Pinedale
Southwest Area
- California on North, North on South,
Marks on West, and Walnut on East
- 2025 General Plan Demands = 2,746 afa
- 2035 General Plan Demands = 3,403 afa
- Difference in Demands = 657 afa
Blackstone Area
- 2025 General Plan Demands = 1,567 afa
- 2035 General Plan Demands = 4,410 afa
- Difference in Demands = 2,844 afa

W E S T Y O S T A S S O C I A T E S
n\c\439\00-12-11\engr\futuresuplyanddemand
Last Revised: 01-17-13
City of Fresno
General Plan Land Use Change Evaluation
233,400
172,900
167,800
183,700
201,100
220,100
243,570
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Figure 3. Changes to Future Supply and Demand
Treated Surface Water Recycled Water
Groundwater Additional Groundwater
Metro Plan Water Demand Projection (with additional conservation) SBx7 7 Projected Demand with 2035 General Plan Population Historical Water Demand Revised Water Demand Projection with 2035 General Plan Proposed Land Uses Notes:

1. SBx7 7 Projected Demand based on 2035 total population of 786,000 in 2035 (per Fresno Council of Governments; equivalent to

1.82% growth rate) (see Chapter 3 of 2010 UWMP) and a 2015 target of 282 gpcd and a 2020 target of 250 gpcd (includes projected water consumption plus uanaccounted for water, does not include sales to other water agencies or groundwater recharge) (see Chapter 6 of 2010 UWMP).

2. Water demand projections from the Metro Plan were based on 2025 General Plan land use projections; water demand previously projected for 2025 has been shifted to 2035 based on a 10 year shift in General Plan buildout. Additional water demand based on land use changes proposed for the 2035 General Plan.

3. Treated surface water supply assumes new 80 mgd Southeast SWTF in 2015 and 30 mgd expansion of Northeast SWTF in 2020.

4. 25,000 acre feet of recycled water assumed to be available starting in 2025 to offset potable water demand. 80 mgd
SE SWTF by
2015
30 mgd
expansion of
NE SWTF by
2020
25,000 AF of RW by 2025
Increase in water demand resulting from 2035 General Plan land use changes can be met with additional groundwater pumpage (10,170 af additional groundwater pumpage in 2035) in
conjunction with a like amount of additional intentional groundwater recharge
0 1 2
Miles
Whites Bridge
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
American
North
California
Jensen
Central
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Ashlan
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Church
Malaga
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Olive
Tulare
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Gettysburg
International
Teague
Fresno
International
Airport
Regional Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation
Facility
Bakman
Pinedale
CSUF
Herndon
Park
Van
Ness
FIGURE 4
City of Fresno
General Plan Land Use
Change Evaluation

CHANGES TO FIRE FLOW

REQUIREMENTS
Change in Fire Flow Requirements
-500 to -1 gpm (decrease)
No change
1 - 1,000 gpm (increase)
1,001 - 2,000 (increase)
2,001 - 3,000 (increase)
3,001 - 4,000 (increase)
Note:
- Fire Flow requirement change based on planned 2035 land use from General Plan Update
- Only parcels with a change to planned land use shown
in figure.
- Changes to fire flow requirements shown on a per parcel basis - Fire flow demand requirements based on 20 psi residual:

Single family residential = 2,000 gpm (2 hours)
Multi-family residential = 3,000 gpm (3 hours)
Commercial/Institutiional = 3,500 gpm (4 hours)
Industrial = 4,000 gpm (4 hours)
LEGEND
Independent Water System
Downtown Boundary
Sphere of Influence
California
Jensen
North
Shaw
Ashlan
McKinley
Shields
Pinedale
0 1 2
Miles
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
Q3UT
Q3
Q3
!
!
!
UT
Q3
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!!!
!
!
!
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#* #*
#* #* #*
#* #* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#* #* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
UT
UT
TU
TU
Whites Bridge
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
American
North
California
Jensen
Central
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Ashlan
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Church
Malaga
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Olive
Tulare
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Gettysburg
International
Teague
Fresno
International
Airport
Regional Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation
Facility
2 @ 2 MGD SWTF and 3 MG Tank T-3
Decommission with SE SWTF
Proposed Westside Tank T6
Capacity To Be Determined
Proposed Downtown Tank
T4 = 3 MG
Proposed Southeast Tank
T2 = 2 MG
Existing Clearwell

1.5 MG
Proposed Eastside Tank T5
Capacity To Be Determined
Southeast SWTF,
80 MGD Peak
Capacity
Northeast SWTF,
60 MGD Peak
Capacity
Potential Future
Southwest SWTF,
10-20 MGD
(to be constructed
sometime in future -
after 2025)
Existing Southeast Tank
T1 = 2 MG
Proposed New
Clearwell 8 MG
Proposed New
Clearwell 4.5 MG
Proposed SEGA Tank
4 MG
Proposed SEGA Tank
4 MG
Bakman
Pinedale
CSUF
Herndon
Park
Van
Ness
FIGURE 5
City of Fresno
General Plan Land Use
Change Evaluation
2025 PROPOSED REGIONAL

AND TGM INFRASTRUCTURE
Note:
- Dashed line indicates an existing pipeline
- Infrastructure shown proposed in the Metro Plan Update Phase 3.
- New well locations shown are for display purposes. The City will conduct well siting studies to determine actual well locations.

LEGEND
Q3 Existing Water Treatment Plant
UT Proposed Tank Site
Q3 Future Water Treatment Plant
! Future Pressure Reducing Valve
! TGM Tie-in Location
Existing Well
#* Future Well 2010-2025
Existing City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Independent Water System
Southeast Growth Area
16-inch Diameter
24-inch Diameter
30-inch Diameter
36-inch Diameter
42-inch Diameter
48-inch Diameter
0 1 2
Miles
Whites Bridge
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
American
North
California
Jensen
Central
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Ashlan
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Church
Malaga
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Olive
Tulare
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Gettysburg
International
Teague
Fresno
International
Airport
Regional Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation
Facility
Bakman
Pinedale
CSUF
Herndon
Park
Van
Ness
FIGURE 6
City of Fresno
General Plan Land Use
Change Evaluation

CHANGES TO

MAX DAY DEMANDS
Maximum Day Demand Comparison
-288 to -150 gpm (decrease)
-150 to -75 gpm (decrease)
-75 to 0 gpm (decrease)
0 gpm (no change)
0 to 75 gpm (increase)
75 to 150 gpm (increase)
150 to 465 gpm (increase)
Note:
- Demand change based on planned 2035 land use from
General Plan Update
- Only parcels with a change to planned land use shown
in figure.
- Changes to demands shown on a per parcel basis
calculated based on parcel acreage.
- Planned land use changes for 2035 General Plan result in an overall system increase of 12,605 gpm for maximum day demands.

LEGEND
Independent Water System
Downtown Boundary
Sphere of Influence
California
Jensen
North
Shaw
Ashlan
McKinley
Shields
Pinedale
Southwest Area
- 2025 General Plan Demands = 3,403 gpm
- 2035 General Plan Demands = 4,216 gpm
- Difference in Demands = 813 gpm
Blackstone Area
- 2025 General Plan Demands = 1,942 gpm
- 2035 General Plan Demands = 5,466 gpm
- Difference in Demands = 3,524 gpm
0 1 2
Miles
Whites Bridge
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
American
North
California
Jensen
Central
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Ashlan
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Church
Malaga
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Olive
Tulare
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Gettysburg
International
Teague
Fresno
International
Airport
Regional Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation
Facility
Bakman
Pinedale
CSUF
Herndon
Park
Van
Ness
FIGURE 7
City of Fresno
General Plan Land Use
Change Evaluation

CHANGES TO

PEAK HOUR DEMANDS
Peak Hour Demand Comparison
-418 TO -300 gpm (decrease)
-300 to -150 gpm (decrease)
-150 to 0 gpm (decrease)
0 gpm (no change)
0 to 150 gpm (increase)
150 to 300 gpm (increase)
300 to 674 gpm (increase)
Note:
- Demand change based on planned 2035 land use from
General Plan Update
- Only parcels with a change to planned land use shown
in figure.
- Changes to demands shown on a per parcel basis
calculated based on parcel acreage.
- Planned land use changes for 2035 General Plan result in an overall system increase of 18,278 gpm for peak
hour demands.

LEGEND
Independent Water System
Downtown Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Proposed Transmission Pipelines
16-inch Diameter
24-inch Diameter
30 to 36-inch Diameter
42 to 48-inch Diameter
California
Jensen
North
Shaw
Ashlan
McKinley
Shields
Pinedale
Southwest Area
- 2025 General Plan Demands = 4,934 gpm
- 2035 General Plan Demands = 6,114 gpm
- Difference in Demands = 1,180 gpm
Blackstone Area
- 2025 General Plan Demands = 2,816 gpm
- 2035 General Plan Demands = 7,926 gpm
- Difference in Demands = 5,110 gpm
0 1 2
Miles
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
")
")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")
") ")
") ")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
") ") ")
") ") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")")
")
")") ")
") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ") ")
")
") ")"
")
")
")
") ")
")
")")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Q3
Q3
Whites Bridge
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
American
North
California
Jensen
Central
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Ashlan
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Church
Malaga
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Olive
Tulare
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Gettysburg
International
Teague
Fresno
International
Airport
Regional Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation
Facility
Bakman
Pinedale
CSUF
Herndon
Park
Van
Ness
3189 gpm
FIGURE 8
City of Fresno
General Plan Land Use
Change Evaluation
2025 GENERAL PLAN

AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW
Note:
- Demand based on proposed 2025 General Plan land use
- Availalbe fire flow shown for 20 psi residual
LEGEND
Required Fire Flow (2025 GP)
No Fire Flow
2,000 gpm
3,000 gpm
3,500 gpm
4,000 gpm
Available Fire Flow
Less than 3,500 gpm
3,500 gpm and Greater
Distribution Pipeline
Transmission Pipeline
0 1 2
Miles
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
")
")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")
") ")
") ")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
") ") ")
") ") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")")
")
")") ")
") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ") ")
")
") ")"
")
")
")
") ")
")
")")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Q3
Q3
Whites Bridge
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
American
North
California
Jensen
Central
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Ashlan
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Church
Malaga
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Olive
Tulare
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Gettysburg
International
Teague
Fresno
International
Airport
Regional Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation
Facility
Bakman
Pinedale
CSUF
Herndon
Park
Van
Ness
3086 gpm
FIGURE 9
City of Fresno
General Plan Land Use
Change Evaluation
2035 GENERAL PLAN

AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW
Note:
- Required Fire Flow based on proposed 2035 General
Plan land use
- Availalbe fire flow shown for 20 psi residual
LEGEND
Required Fire Flow (2035 GP)
No Fire Flow
2,000 gpm
3,000 gpm
3,500 gpm
4,000 gpm
Available Fire Flow
Less than 3,500 gpm
3,500 gpm and Greater
Distribution Pipeline
Transmission Pipeline
0 1 2
Miles
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
")
")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
") ") ") ")
") ") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")")
")
")") ")
") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ") ")
")
") ")"
")
")
")
") ")
")
")")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ") ")
") ")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Q3
Q3
Whites Bridge
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
American
North
California
Jensen
Central
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Ashlan
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Church
Malaga
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Olive
Tulare
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Gettysburg
International
Teague
Fresno
International
Airport
Regional Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation
Facility
Bakman
Pinedale
CSUF
Herndon
Park
Van
Ness
FIGURE 10
City of Fresno
General Plan Land Use
Change Evaluation
2025 GENERAL PLAN

PEAK HOUR RESULTS
Note:
- Demand based on planned 2025 land use and downtown
densification data
- System operation based on maintaining 40 psi throughout system
- Northeast SWTF operating at 54 mgd (firm capacity)
- Southeast SWTF operating at 72 mgd (firm capacity)
- Peak hour demands = 417,850 gpm
- System well supply assumed not to exceed firm capacity defined as 80% of active wells
LEGEND
System Pressure
Less than 40 psi (Below Criteria)
40 psi and Greater
Pump Status
") Inactive
") Active
Distribution Pipeline (Less than 18")
7 fps or Less
Greater than 7 fps
Transmission Pipeline (18" and greater)
5 fps or Less
Greater than 5 fps
")
")
")
") ")
")
California
Jensen
North
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
Shaw
Ashlan
McKinley
Shields
Pinedale
0 1 2
Miles
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
")
")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
") ") ") ")
") ") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")")
")
")") ")
") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ") ")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ") ")
")
") ")"
")
")
")
") ")
")
")")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Q3
Q3
Whites Bridge
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
American
North
California
Jensen
Central
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Ashlan
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Church
Malaga
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Olive
Tulare
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Gettysburg
International
Teague
Fresno
Internationa l
Airp ort
Regional Wastewater
Treatment and Reclamation
Facility
Bakman
Pinedale
CSUF
Herndon
Park
Van
Ness
FIGURE 11
City of Fresno
General Plan Land Use
Change Evaluation
2035 GENERAL PLAN

PEAK HOUR RESULTS
Note:
- Demand based on proposed 2035 General Plan land use
- System operation based on maintaining 40 psi throughout system
- Northeast SWTF operating at 54 mgd (firm capacity) plus 7,000 gpm additional storage pumping capacity
- Southeast SWTF operating at 72 mgd (firm capacity) plus 15,000 gpm additional storage pumping capacity
- Peak hour demands = 431,150 gpm
- System well supply assumed not to exceed firm capacity defined as 80% of active wells
LEGEND
System Pressure
Less than 40 psi (Below Criteria)
40 psi and Greater
Pump Status
") Inactive
") Active
Distribution Pipeline (Less than 18")
7 fps or Less
Greater than 7 fps
Transmission Pipeline (18" and greater)
5 fps or Less
Greater than 5 fps
")
")
")
") ")
")
California
Jensen
North
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
Shaw
Ashlan
McKinley
Shields
Pinedale
Appendix B

Technical Memorandum
July 22, 2011

o\c\439\02-10-07\wp\062311_1TMfulton corridor

PROJECTED WATER DEMANDS
The analysis of the potable water demand within the Proposed Project was performed by Sherwood1. The demand analysis utilized the proposed building areas and FARs as developed by Moule & Polyzoides (M&P) and the Project planning team. The water demands were calculated for each development scenario using water demand rates based on built area per land use types.

Unit water use factors were based on the increased densification and proposed land uses for underutilized parcels included in each district within the Proposed Project area and were taken from Sherwood’s existing internal data/research and cross-referenced with the City of Oakland’s land use demand values2. Proposed average daily flow rates per district were calculated as weighted averages based on M&P’s distribution of land uses within each district.

Table 1 provides a summary of the unit water use factors used by Sherwood for each district for the evaluation.

Table 1. Summary of Unit Water Use Factors Used for Proposed Project District
Unit Water Use Factor,
gallons per day per 1,000 square feet
Central Business District 1 (CBD1) 204
Central Business District 2 (CBD2) 202
Civic Center 210
Chinatown District 196
Cultural Arts/South Stadium District 192
Chinatown Industrial District 150
Town Center 210
Neighborhood General 200
Neighborhood General Preservation 200
Special District 130
Source: Sherwood Design Engineers Water Demand Calculations received May 23, 2011 (FCSP_Water_Analysis_110513.pdf) (Water_Flow_SP.xlsx).

Three development scenarios were evaluated by Sherwood:

A minimum buildout scenario (minimum FAR),
A median buildout scenario (median FAR), and
A maximum buildout scenario (maximum FAR).
1 Sherwood Design Engineers Water Demand Calculations received May 23, 2011 (FCSP_Water_Analysis_110513.pdf) (Water_Flow_SP.xlsx).
2 The data available for the City of Oakland was based on estimated wastewater flows for various types of development. To back-calculate water use based on this data, the estimated wastewater flows were multiplied by a factor of 1.20 to account for consumptive water uses which do not result in wastewater flows.

Technical Memorandum
July 22, 2011

o\c\439\02-10-07\wp\062311_1TMfulton corridor
Table 2 provides a summary of the calculated water demands for the three development scenarios evaluated by Sherwood for the Proposed Project. Demands were calculated for underutilized parcels within the Proposed Project area, such that the calculated additional demand represents the projected demand associated with the Proposed Project for various FAR scenarios. Based on the current land use of the underutilized parcels, the existing demand was estimated at 170,822 gallons per day (gpd), or 191 acre-feet per year (af/yr). The estimated water demands on other parcels within the Proposed Project were assumed not to change. A copy of Sherwood’s water demand calculation spreadsheet showing the calculated water demand for each underutilized parcel for each development scenario is provided in Attachment 1.

Table 2. Summary of Projected Water Demand for Various Development Scenarios Development
Scenario
Total
Projected
Building Area
on
Underutilized
Parcels,
square feet
Existing
Demand on
Underutilized
Parcels, gpd
Additional
Demand on
Underutilized
Parcels as a
result of
Proposed
Project, gpd
Total Demand
on
Underutilized
Parcels within
Proposed
Project Area,
gpd
Total Existing
Demand on
All Parcels
within
Proposed
Project Area,
gpd
Total Demand
within Proposed
Project Area, gpd
[1] [2] [3] = [1] + [2] [4] [5] = [2] + [4]
Minimum
Buildout
Scenario
(Minimum
FAR)
5,240,428 170,822 870,835 1,041,656 683,983 1,554,818
Median
Buildout
Scenario
(Median
FAR)
9,572,280 170,822 1,733,744 1,904,565 683,983 2,417,727 Maximum
Buildout
Scenario
(Maximum
FAR)(a)
14,123,642 170,822 2,637,503 2,808,324 683,983 3,321,486 Source: Sherwood Design Engineers Water Demand Calculations received May 23, 2011 (FCSP_Water_Analysis_110513.pdf) (Water_Flow_SP.xlsx).
(a) The Maximum Buildout Scenario (Maximum FAR) is the basis for West Yost’s analysis.

For purposes of West Yost’s hydraulic evaluation of the Proposed Project, West Yost has evaluated the water demands associated with only the maximum buildout (maximum FAR) development scenario which equate to an additional average day demand of approximately 2.6 million gallons per day, which equals an additional annual demand of 2,955 af/yr.

Figure 2 shows the projected demands by parcel within the Proposed Project area for the maximum buildout development scenario.

Technical Memorandum
July 22, 2011

o\c\439\02-10-07\wp\062311_1TMfulton corridor

WATER SUPPLY
As described in the City’s Metro Plan Update, the City’s Water Master Plan, and West Yost’s March 2009 Technical Memorandum “Hydraulic Evaluation of the Downtown Central Area,” the City’s available water supplies are limited to a finite quantity and are extremely limited. As shown in Table 2, the estimated annual demand for the maximum buildout scenario for the Proposed Project will further increase required water supplies by an additional 2,955 af/yr. Water supplies to meet this estimated additional demand must come from within the City’s existing, limited water supply portfolio and may need to be “imported” from other parts of the City and/or require reduced water use (additional water conservation) in other parts of the City.

Water supplies for the Proposed Project will probably need to be evaluated as part of an SB 610 Water Supply Assessment to evaluate the availability and reliability of the City’s water supplies to meet the projected increased water demands of the Proposed Project under various hydrologic conditions and whether these demands were anticipated as part of the City’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan.

EVALUATION CRITERIA
Planning and Modeling Criteria
The planning and modeling criteria used for this evaluation are based on West Yost’s recent work with the City. The August 2008 verified hydraulic model of the City’s water distribution system was used as the basis for the evaluation. The criteria used to evaluate the potential impacts to the City’s existing water system are as follows:

Minimum peak hour demand pressure 40 pounds per square inch (psi); Maximum allowable velocity is 7 feet per second (fps) during a peak hour condition; Maximum day plus fire flow residual pressure at the flowing hydrant must be equal to or greater than 20 psi;
Maximum allowable velocity is 10 fps during the simulated fire flow condition3; Maximum allowable head loss rate is 10 feet per 1,000 feet during any condition4; Any new, required pipelines will be modeled with a roughness coefficient (C-factor) of 130;
3 This criteria was developed primarily for new development; ability to meet this criteria within existing distribution systems (such as that in the City’s downtown area) can be difficult due to existing small diameter pipelines and aging pipelines.
4 This criteria was developed primarily for new development; ability to meet this criteria within existing distribution systems (such as that in the City’s downtown area) can be difficult due to existing small diameter pipelines and aging pipelines.

Technical Memorandum
July 22, 2011

o\c\439\02-10-07\wp\062311_1TMfulton corridor
Assumed peaking factors for maximum day and peak hour demand conditions are consistent with the City’s adopted peaking factors and are as follows:
— Maximum Day Demand = 2.0 times Average Day Demand
— Peak Hour Demand = 2.9 times Average Day Demand
Fire Flow Requirements
Fire flow requirements based on proposed land use for each parcel were determined by Sherwood and were based on the California Building Code (CBC) and the 2007 California Fire Code (CFC) (Table B105.1). Sherwood assumed maximum potential building footprints for each parcel and assumed CBC construction type (IA, IIIB, etc.) for each land use zone based on the building type with the maximum FAR. Based on this methodology, fire flow requirements of up to 6,250 gallons per minute (gpm) for a four-hour duration were identified for some of the parcels. The projected fire flow requirements by parcel are shown on Figure 3. A copy of Sherwood’s fire flow calculation spreadsheet showing the calculated fire flow requirement by parcel is provided in Attachment 2.

Some of the larger buildings included in the Proposed Project will be fully sprinklered which results in a reduction of the required fire flow. Therefore, based on direction received from Byron Beagles (City of Fresno Fire Prevention Engineer), a fire flow requirement of 3,500 gpm for a four-hour duration with a minimum 20 psi residual pressure will be assumed for the Proposed Project5.

It should be noted that evaluated fire flows and residual pressures are based on ground surface elevations, and do not account for required minimum water service pressures on higher floors in multi-story buildings. As such, utility system designs for some buildings within the Proposed Project may require the provision of booster pumps to provide adequate water service pressures on higher floors and for fire suppression systems.

Although these criteria have been established, and used to size new pipelines, the existing system in the City’s downtown area should be evaluated using pressure as the primary criterion.

Secondary criteria, such as velocity, head loss, age, and material type, are used as indicators for areas of the water system that also may need improvements, but may not be required as part of this evaluation.
5 February 6, 2011 e-mail from Byron Beagles to Brock Buche, re: Fire Flow Requirements.

Technical Memorandum
July 22, 2011

o\c\439\02-10-07\wp\062311_1TMfulton corridor

WATER SYSTEM FACILITY ASSUMPTIONS
Recommendations from Previous Evaluations
In March 2009, West Yost completed a hydraulic evaluation of the Downtown Central Area to evaluate available supplies in the City’s downtown area and address the loss of supply in the downtown area due to aging wells and water quality issues6. The following recommendations for water system improvements were made:

Additional storage to increase system reliability during peak hour and fire flow conditions;
Replacement or rehabilitation of Wells 1A and 21A;
Upgrade of Well 172 pumping capacity along with associated distribution system improvements from Well 172 to the City’s downtown area; and Addition of 24-inch and 16-inch diameter pipelines through the Central Area to support integrating surface water supply from the east and continuing the City’s goal of developing opportunities to transition their predominate groundwater supply to a more balanced conjunctive use system.

In May 2011, West Yost conducted a re-evaluation of the Downtown Central Area to determine what potential alternatives existed other than the March 2009 recommendation for increasing the pumping capacity of Well 1727. The recommendations of the May 2011 evaluation were to make distribution pipeline improvements to improve flow from Well 172 (as recommended in the March 2009 evaluation), but instead of upgrading the pumping capacity of Well 172, distribution system improvements should be made to convey supplies from Well 313 to the Downtown Central Area.

For purposes of this evaluation, it has been assumed that the pipeline and storage infrastructure recommendations from these prior hydraulic evaluations of the Downtown Central Area without the pumping capacity increase of Well 172 will be implemented by the City and will be available to serve the Proposed Project.

Specific Facility Assumptions
The following specific assumptions have been made related to available water system facilities and other water demands within the City’s service area:

Wells 1A and 21A in the City’s downtown area (located just northeast of the Proposed Project) area are assumed to be inactive;
6 “Hydraulic Evaluation of the Downtown Central Area”, Technical Memorandum, prepared by West Yost Associates, March 12, 2009.
7 “Hydraulic Re-Evaluation of the Downtown Central Area Water Distribution System”, Technical Memorandum, prepared by West Yost Associates, May 10, 2011.

Technical Memorandum
July 22, 2011

o\c\439\02-10-07\wp\062311_1TMfulton corridor
New Well 1B (located just outside the City’s downtown area) is assumed to be operational and active (recommended as part of West Yost’s March 2009 Hydraulic Evaluation of the Downtown Central Area as a replacement for Wells 1A and 21A); The new 3.0 million gallon (MG) Downtown tank and associated pipelines (along Nielsen Avenue and G Street) (currently under design) are assumed to be operational (recommended as part of West Yost’s March 2009 Hydraulic Evaluation of the Downtown Central Area);
The distribution system improvements from Well 172 to the Central Area are assumed to be operational. The associated distribution system improvements include a new 16- inch diameter pipeline south along Hughes Avenue and a new 24-inch diameter pipeline along Nielsen Avenue to convey supplies from Well 172 to the Central Area (recommended as part of West Yost’s March 2009 Hydraulic Evaluation of the Downtown Central Area);
A 12-inch diameter connection at West Avenue to the 24-inch diameter pipeline in Nielsen Avenue to convey supplies from Well 313 to the Central Area is assumed to be operational (recommended as part of West Yost’s May 2011 Hydraulic ReEvaluation of the Downtown Central Area Water Distribution System); New 24-inch and 16-inch diameter pipelines through the Central Area along G Street, Ventura Street, O Street and Stanislaus Street are assumed to be operational to support integrating surface water supply from the east and continuing the City’s goal of developing opportunities to transition their predominate groundwater supply to a more balanced conjunctive use system (recommended as part of West Yost’s March 2009 Hydraulic Evaluation of the Downtown Central Area);
The new Chestnut Avenue transmission pipeline from the City’s Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) is assumed to be operational; The regional Transmission Grid Mains (TGMs) are included and assumed to be operational;
Future water demands in the southwest part of the City service area are included (per June 8, 2011 e-mail from Brock Buche, the City’s Development Department has indicated that development in the southwest part of the City will occur concurrently with the Proposed Project);
The proposed new Southeast SWTF is not included; and
Future water demands associated with the Southeast Growth Area (SEGA) are not included.

The City’s assumed water system facilities available to serve the Proposed Project in the downtown area are shown on Figure 4.

Technical Memorandum
July 22, 2011

o\c\439\02-10-07\wp\062311_1TMfulton corridor

EVALUATION SCENARIOS
As described above, only the maximum buildout (maximum FAR) development scenario of the Proposed Project has been analyzed by West Yost for this evaluation; no other development scenarios or phasing plans were evaluated.

To evaluate the adequacy of the City’s water system to serve the Proposed Project, West Yost has evaluated buildout of the Proposed Project under the following two demand conditions:

A future maximum day demand condition concurrent with a 3,500 gpm fire flow demand while maintaining a minimum residual system pressure of 20 psi; and A peak hour demand condition while maintaining a minimum system pressure of 40 psi.

EVALUATION FINDINGS
Storage Capacity Evaluation
Treated water storage capacity requirements for the City were evaluated based on the following three components: operational storage, emergency storage and fire storage. The principal advantage that storage provides is to equalize demands on supply sources and production facilities. The City’s Metro Plan Update and Water Master Plan both indicate a need for water storage in the City’s downtown area.

West Yost’s March 2009 evaluation of the City’s Central Area recommended that approximately 3 million gallons (MG) of storage be constructed in the City’s Central Area to increase system reliability during peak hour and fire flow conditions. As described above, a new 3 MG Downtown Tank is currently under design and is assumed to be operational for the purposes of this evaluation. However, the required storage capacity previously calculated for the City’s Central Area did not take into account the increased densification associated with the Proposed Project.

This increased densification will increase the need for storage in the City’s Downtown area.

Table 3 shows the increased storage requirement attributed to the increased demands associated with the Proposed Project.

Technical Memorandum
July 22, 2011

o\c\439\02-10-07\wp\062311_1TMfulton corridor
Table 3. Additional Storage Required Due to
Densification Associated with Proposed Project
Storage Component
Required Storage based
on Current Buildout of
Fulton Corridor Area
without Proposed
Project, MG
Required Storage based
on Current Buildout of
Fulton Corridor Area
with Proposed
Project, MG
Increased Storage
Requirement Attributed
to Proposed Project, MG
Operational: Equal to
25% of the Maximum
Day Demand

1.17 1.65 0.48
Emergency: Equal to
Average Day Demand 2.33 3.30 0.96
Fire Flow: Equal to the
highest fire flow demand
for an area multiplied by
the required duration.

0.84 0.84 0.00
Total 4.34(a) 5.78 1.45
(a) The storage requirement shown for buildout of the Fulton Corridor Area without the Proposed Project (4.34 MG) is part of required storage previously calculated for the Downtown Central Area. As described in West Yost’s March 2009 Hydraulic Evaluation of the Downtown Central Area, required storage within the Downtown Central Area was previously calculated to 8.3 MG, which will be met by a combination of groundwater credits (5.2 MG) and a new Downtown storage tank (3.0 MG). These previous storage calculations for the Downtown Central Area did not include the Proposed Project described in this technical memorandum.

As shown in Table 3, the additional storage requirement resulting from the increased densification associated with the Proposed Project is 1.45 MG.

As described in West Yost’s March 2009 evaluation of the City’s Central Area, water storage within the City is considered on a regional basis with the water storage requirements for the downtown area being a portion of the overall system requirements. The City’s Water Master Plan is evaluating the overall system and will make recommendations for overall system improvements, including recommendations for storage improvements. The 3.0 MG Downtown tank (currently being designed) does not provide adequate capacity for the additional storage required for the Proposed Project, therefore additional operational and emergency storage will need to be provided within the City’s overall system to meet the storage needs for the Proposed Project.

Pumping Capacity Evaluation
Along with the increased storage due to the demand densification, the City will require additional pumping capacity for the Proposed Project to meet operational demands. The operational pumping requirements are used to help meet the City’s performance criteria during peak demand conditions. The pumping capacity for fire flow has been accounted for on a regional basis and will not increase as a result of the densification. Emergency pumping capacity is based on an average day demand and is generally met by wells and pump stations equipped with auxiliary power. The recommended pumping required to serve the operational needs of the Proposed Project is approximately 1.44 mgd (1,000 gpm). This increased pumping capacity will need to be added within the City’s overall system to meet peak demand operations.

Technical Memorandum
July 22, 2011

o\c\439\02-10-07\wp\062311_1TMfulton corridor
Distribution System Evaluation
The City’s existing water system hydraulic model was modified by West Yost to be representative of the projected water demands associated with the maximum buildout (maximum FAR) development scenario of the Proposed Project. The estimated future demands were distributed throughout the Proposed Project area, as appropriate, according to the proposed development plans.

The future buildout system with the Proposed Project, and the previously recommended Downtown Central Area water system infrastructure improvements described above, was evaluated under maximum day demand plus fire flow conditions and peak hour demand conditions. The evaluation results are described below.

The results of the maximum day demand plus fire flow condition for the future buildout system with the Proposed Project are shown on Figure 5. Figure 5 shows the available flow at each node in the hydraulic model assuming that a minimum system pressure of 20 psi is maintained. Nodes that are shown in “green” have available flows of 3,500 gpm or more, indicating that they meet the fire flow requirement for the Proposed Project. Nodes shown in “red” have available flows that are less than 3,500 gpm, indicating that they do not meet the fire flow requirement for the Proposed Project. As shown, in the northern part of the Proposed Project area, there are several locations where available flows are below the required minimum of 3,500 gpm (see “red” nodes on Figure 5); the lowest available flow in this area is 1,617 gpm. Similarly, there are several locations in the southern part of the Proposed Project area where available flows are below the required minimum of 3,500 gpm (see “red” nodes on Figure 5); the lowest available flow in this area is 1,497 gpm. It should also be noted that the City’s pipeline velocity criteria of a maximum of 10 fps during a simulated fire flow condition is not being met in many locations within the Proposed Project area; however, this is expected due to the age and small diameter size of the existing pipelines in the downtown area. Therefore, infrastructure improvements will be required to meet the City’s fire flow pressure and flow criteria (these recommendations are described below).

The results of the peak hour demand condition for the future buildout with the Proposed Project are shown on Figure 6. Figure 6 shows the system pressure at each node in the hydraulic model based on peak hour demand conditions. As shown, system pressures throughout most of the Proposed Project area are between 40 and 50 psi under buildout peak hour demand conditions (indicated by the “green” nodes), and some are between 50 to 60 psi (indicated by the “blue” nodes). Therefore, the City’s minimum peak hour pressure criteria of 40 psi is being met throughout the Proposed Project area and no specific improvements are required for the peak hour demand condition.

EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 7 shows the following recommended infrastructure improvements to resolve the fire flow deficiencies described above as a result of the increased water demands associated with the Proposed Project. The recommended improvements include the replacement of existing smaller diameter pipelines with 8-inch diameter pipelines (approximately 1,400 linear feet in total) and the installation of new 8-inch diameter pipelines where pipelines did not previously exist Technical Memorandum
July 22, 2011

o\c\439\02-10-07\wp\062311_1TMfulton corridor
(approximately 7,660 linear feet in total). A table listing the proposed pipeline improvements by street is provided as Attachment 3.

Also, as described below, West Yost recommends that an additional 1.5 MG of storage be located within the City’s overall water system to meet the operational and emergency storage needs of the Proposed Project.

Figure 8 shows the maximum day demand plus fire flow scenario with the Proposed Project with the recommended pipeline improvements as listed above. As shown, with the recommended improvements, the fire flow requirement of 3,500 gpm is met throughout the entire Proposed Project area, with the exception of the following two locations:

G Street (just north of Stanislaus Street): The available fire flow at this location is 1,972 gpm. This node is located at the end of an approximately 440 foot long, 8-inch diameter pipeline (which appears to be a hydrant lateral). Flows from this location could be combined with flows from other nearby hydrants to provide the fire flow requirement of 3,500 gpm for the Proposed Project.

Mono Street (just east of E Street): The available fire flow at this location is 2,140 gpm. This location has smaller parcels and no proposed multi-story buildings, therefore, this available fire flow appears to be adequate for this area. Also, flows from this location could be combined with flows from other nearby hydrants to provide the fire flow requirement of 3,500 gpm for the Proposed Project.

It should be noted that the City’s pipeline velocity criteria of a maximum of 10 fps during a simulated fire flow condition is still not being met in many locations within the Proposed Project area, even with the recommended improvements described above and shown on Figure 7; however, this is expected due to the age and small diameter size of the existing pipelines in the downtown area. Because fire flow pressure and flow requirements are being met, this velocity criteria, by itself, is not considered as being critical enough to require replacement of additional existing pipelines with larger diameter pipelines in the downtown area.

Figure 9 shows the peak hour demand scenario with the Proposed Project with the recommended improvements. As noted above, no specific improvements were required for the peak hour demand condition for the Proposed Project. Similar to the peak hour results shown in Figure 6, the minimum peak hour system pressure of 40 psi is met throughout the entire Proposed Project area.

An estimation of probable construction costs for these recommended water system infrastructure improvements to serve the Proposed Project was not included in West Yost’s Scope of Work for this evaluation. However, these cost estimates can be provided if requested and if a budget augmentation is approved by the City.
0 500 1,000
Scale in Feet
ÄÆ99
UV180
UV41
FIGURE 1
City of Fresno
Fulton Corridor Hydraulic Analysis

PROJECT LOCATION
LEGEND
Fulton Corridor Specific Plan

PROJECT

LOCATION
ÄÆ99
ÄÆ99
Notes:
- Fulton Corridor Specific Plan GIS parcels provided by Sherwood Design Engineers on May 23, 2011.
0 500 1,000
Scale in Feet
ÄÆ

UV

UV
*-+96)
'MX]SJ*VIWRS
*YPXSR'SVVMHSV,]HVEYPMG%REP]WMW
463.)'8)(()1%2(
()27-*-'%8-32
LEGEND
*YPXSR'SVVMHSV4VSNIGXIH(IQERHW
0 - 5,000 gpd
5,001 - 10,000 gpd
10,001 - 20,000 gpd
20,001 - 30,000 gpd
30,001 - 286,209 gpd
Notes:
- Demand projections based on Sherwood Design Engineers provided data (5/13/2011).
- Shown demands are based on the maximum proposed FAR.
- Proposed densification demands are only calculated for underutilized parcels. All other parcels are assumed not to change.
0 500 1,000
Scale in Feet
ÄÆ

UV

UV
*-+96)
'MX]SJ*VIWRS
*YPXSR'SVVMHSV,]HVEYPMG%REP]WMW
463.)'8)(*-6)*03;
6)59-6)1)287
LEGEND
9RHIVYXMPM^IH4EVGIP*MVI*PS[
1,500 - 3,000 gpm
3,001 - 4,000 gpm
4,001 - 5,000 gpm
5,001 - 6,500 gpm
Fire Flow not updated
Notes:
- Proposed building square footage based on maximum FAR. - Flow rates as provided by 2007 California Fire Code, Table B105.1.

Based on construction type and building square footage. - Fire flow shown does not include any reduction for approved sprinkler systems.
- Fire flow requirements only shown for existing underutilized parcels based on data provided by Sherwood Design Engineers.
- Fire flows may change depending on number of stories constructed for the buildings.
0 500 1,000
Scale in Feet
UT
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼ÐÚ¼ÐÚ¼Ð
ÄÆ99
UV180
UV41
3 MG Downtown
Storage Tank and
Booster Pump Station
WELL 16A
WELL 066
WELL 009A
WELL 022A
WELL 003A
WELL 021A
WELL 001A
WELL 050A
WELL 002B
WELL 010A WELL 018A
FIGURE 4
City of Fresno
Fulton Corridor Hydraulic Analysis

PLANNED BUILDOUT

FACILITIES
LEGEND
Existing Pipelines
Planned Transmission Pipelines
12 inch diameter
16 inch diameter
24 inch diameter
30 inch diameter
ڼРWell/Pump Station
ڼРInactive Well
UT Storage Tank
Fulton Corridor SP
Notes:
- Downtown tank and transmission pipeline along G Street currently under design.
- Planned transmission pipeline recommendations based on the City of Fresno Metropolitan Plan to supply surface water throughout the City. 0 500 1,000
Scale in Feet
UT
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼ÐÚ¼ÐÚ¼Ð
ÄÆ99
UV180
UV41
3 MG Downtown
Storage Tank and
Booster Pump Station
3322.6 gpm
2594.5 gpm
2136.93 gpm
1616.71 gpm
1658.64 gpm
3327.63 gpm
1497.16 gpm
3494.32 gpm
2950.59 gpm
1595.33 gpm
1509.42 gpm
1525.76 gpm
3003.75 gpm
1770.32 gpm
1580.77 gpm
1565.99 gpm
3230.12 gpm
2945.98 gpm
2748.37 gpm
2612.13 gpm
2695.87 gpm
1888.39 gpm 1974.98 gpm
WELL 16A
WELL 066
WELL 009A
WELL 022A
WELL 003A
WELL 021A
WELL 001A
WELL 050A
WELL 002B
WELL 010A WELL 018A
FIGURE 5
City of Fresno
Fulton Corridor Hydraulic Analysis

PROPOSED DENSIFICATION

FIRE FLOW
LEGEND
Available Flow @ 20 psi
Less than 3,500 gpm
Greater than 3,500 gpm
ڼРWell/Pump Station
ڼРInactive Well
UT Storage Tank
Pipe Diameters
6 to 8 inch
10 to 12 inch
14 to 16 inch
24 inch
30 inch
Notes:
- Required fire flow assumed to be 3,500 gpm per Fresno Fire Department. - Minimum pressure at flowing hydrant is 20 psi.
- Results reflect current planned system infrastructure without downtown improvements to address densification or fire flow.
0 500 1,000
Scale in Feet
UT
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !! !
!!! !!! ! !
!! !
! !
! ! !! !! !! !! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !
! ! !! ! ! !
!! ! ! !! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
! !!
! !
!
! ! ! !! ! ! !
! !
!
! !!
!
! ! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!!! ! !
!
! !
! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!
!
!!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
! ! !
! ! !
!! ! !
!
! ! !
! !!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!!
! ! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !!!
!
!! ! ! ! !
! !!
! ! ! ! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !! ! !! !! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !! !
! ! !
! ! !! ! ! !! !
! !!! ! !! !
! ! ! !
! !! ! !! !! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !! !
! !
!
! !
!! ! !! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!!
! !!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! !
! !! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !! !
! !! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !!
!! ! !
! ! ! ! !!
! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!!
!!
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !! ! ! !
!
!!
!!
!!!
!!
!
!! !! ! ! ! ! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !!
!! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!! !
! !!! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! !! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!! !
!
! !!
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !! ! !
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!! !
!! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼ÐÚ¼ÐÚ¼Ð
ÄÆ99
UV180
UV41
3 MG Downtown
Storage Tank and
Booster Pump Station
WELL 16A
WELL 066
WELL 009A
WELL 022A
WELL 003A
WELL 021A
WELL 001A
WELL 050A
WELL 002B
WELL 010A WELL 018A
FIGURE 6
City of Fresno
Fulton Corridor Hydraulic Analysis

PROPOSED DENSIFICATION

PEAK HOUR
LEGEND
System Pressure
! Less than 35 psi
! 35 to 40 psi
! 40 to 50 psi
! 50 to 60 psi
! 60 psi and Greater
Pipeline Velocity
Less than 6 fps
6 to 7 fps
7 fps and Greater
ڼРWell/Pump Station
ڼРInactive Well
UT Storage Tank
Fulton Corridor SP
Notes:
- Demands based on densification buildout assumptions of the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan.
- SEGA and Southeast WTP not included in model
- Results reflect current planned system infrastructure transmission grids. 0 500 1,000
Scale in Feet
UT
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼ÐÚ¼ÐÚ¼Ð
ÄÆ99
UV180
UV41
3 MG Downtown
Storage Tank and
Booster Pump Station
WELL 16A
WELL 066
WELL 009A
WELL 022A
WELL 003A
WELL 021A
WELL 001A
WELL 050A
WELL 002B
WELL 010A WELL 018A
FIGURE 7
City of Fresno
Fulton Corridor Hydraulic Analysis

RECOMMENDED PIPELINE

IMPROVEMENTS
LEGEND
Recommended Improvements
New Pipeline (8 inch)
Replacement Pipeline (8 inch)
ڼРWell/Pump Station
ڼРInactive Well
UT Storage Tank
Existing/Planned Pipeline
Distribution (less than 12 inch)
Transmission (12 inch and greater)
Notes:
- Recommended pipelines based on City critiera of meeting 3,500 gpm fire flow at 20 psi for the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan area. 0 500 1,000
Scale in Feet
UT
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
ڼмÐÚ¼Ð
ÄÆ99
UV180
UV41
3 MG Downtown
Storage Tank and
Booster Pump Station
2,140 gpm
1,972 gpm
WELL 16A
WELL 066
WELL 009A
WELL 022A
WELL 003A
WELL 021A
WELL 001A
WELL 050A
WELL 002B
WELL 010A WELL 018A
FIGURE 8
City of Fresno
Fulton Corridor Hydraulic Analysis

DENSIFICATION FIRE FLOW

IMPROVEMENTS
LEGEND
Available Flow @ 20 psi
Less than 3,500 gpm
Greater than 3,500 gpm
ڼРWell/Pump Station
ڼРInactive Well
UT Storage Tank
Pipe Diameters
6 to 8 inch
10 to 12 inch
14 to 16 inch
24 inch
30 inch
Notes:
- Required fire flow assumed to be 3,500 gpm per Fresno Fire Department. - Minimum pressure at flowing hydarnt is 20 psi.
- Results reflect current planned system infrastructure plus the recommended improvements to address densification fire flow.
0 500 1,000
Scale in Feet
UT
! ! ! ! ! !
! !! !
! !! !!! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !! !! !! ! !! ! !
! !! ! !! ! !! !! ! !
!
! !! ! ! !
!! ! ! !! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !!
!
! !!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !! ! !
!
! !
! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !
!!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!
!
!!!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!!
! ! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!! ! !! !! ! !
! ! ! !
! !! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!! !! !
! !!
! ! ! ! ! !
!!!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !! !! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! !
!! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !! !
! ! !
! ! !! ! ! !! !
! !!! ! !! !
! ! ! !
! !! ! ! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!! !! !
! !
!
!
!! ! ! !! !
! !
! ! !
! !! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !
! !
! !
! !! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !!
! !!
!
! ! ! ! !!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!!!
! !!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !!! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!!
!! ! !
! ! !! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!!! !
! !
! ! ! !! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !!
! ! ! !
! !
! !!
! !
!! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!! ! !
!! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
! !
!!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!!
! !!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! !! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !!
! ! !
! ! !
!! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
Ú¼Ð
ڼмÐÚ¼Ð
ÄÆ99
UV180
UV41
3 MG Downtown
Storage Tank and
Booster Pump Station
WELL 16A
WELL 066
WELL 009A
WELL 022A
WELL 003A
WELL 021A
WELL 001A
WELL 050A
WELL 002B
WELL 010A WELL 018A
FIGURE 9
City of Fresno
Fulton Corridor Hydraulic Analysis

DENSIFICATION PEAK HOUR

IMPROVEMENTS
LEGEND
System Pressure
! Less than 35 psi
! 35 to 40 psi
! 40 to 50 psi
! 50 to 60 psi
! 60 psi and Greater
Pipeline Velocity
Less than 6 fps
6 to 7 fps
7 fps and Greater
ڼРWell/Pump Station
ڼРInactive Well
UT Storage Tank
Notes:
- Demands based on densification buildout assumptions of the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan.
- SEGA and Southeast WTP not included in model.
- Results reflect current planned system infrastructure transmission grids plus recommended improvements in the Fulton Corridor Specific Plan.

City of Fresno SEDA Specific Plan Program EIR
Water Technical Study Appendix D
220320_SEDA_Water Tech Study_REV Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers Appendix D
City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
2020 Urban Water
Management Plan
Final
JULY 2021 CITY OF FRESNO
Photo Credit: Downtown Fresno Partnership

CITY OF FRESNO
Final
2020 Urban Water
Management Plan
JULY 2021
Prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc.

The primary authors are listed below.

Jeff Szytel, PE
Rob Morrow, PE
Heather Freed, PE
Lauren Cetin, EIT
Michael Cruikshank, PG, CHG
Spencer Waterman
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the City of Fresno, including the following staff.

Director of Public Utilities Michael Carbajal
Utilities Planning & Engineering Division
Assistant Director Brock Buche, PE, PLS
Supervising Professional Engineer Glenn Knapp, PE
Professional Engineer Peter Maraccini, PE
Water Division
Assistant Director Bud Tickel
Water System Manager Chris Carroll
Water System Manager Russell Guilliams
Business Manager Henry McLaughlin
Water Conservation Supervisor Conrad Braganza
Wastewater Division
Wastewater Manager Rosa Staggs
Operations Supervisor Cory Asher
Reclamation Coordinator Setrag Cherchian
City of Fresno
July 2021 i
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary......................................................................................................1-1

1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1-1

1.1 The California Water Code.................................................................................1-2

1.2 UWMP Organization...........................................................................................1-3

1.3 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts ...................................................................1-4

1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan.............................................1-4

2. Plan Preparation.......................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Coordination and Outreach ................................................................................2-2

3. System Description ..................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Service Area.......................................................................................................3-3

3.1.1 Land Uses within Service Area ...................................................................3-3

3.1.2 Water System..............................................................................................3-4

3.2 Service Area Climate..........................................................................................3-7

3.3 Service Area Population and Demographics......................................................3-8

3.3.1 Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors..................................3-10

4. Water Use Characterization .....................................................................................4-1

4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use ............................................................4-2

4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector ............................................4-2

4.2.1 Water Use Sectors ......................................................................................4-2

4.2.2 Distribution System Water Losses ..............................................................4-3

4.2.3 Past and Current Water Use .......................................................................4-4

4.2.4 Projected Water Use...................................................................................4-6

4.2.5 Characteristic Five-Year Water Use..........................................................4-11

4.3 Water Use for Lower Income Households........................................................4-11

4.4 Climate Change Considerations.......................................................................4-13

5. SBX7-7 Baseline, Targets and 2020 Compliance ....................................................5-1

5.1 General Requirements for Baseline and Target .................................................5-2

5.2 Service Area Population.....................................................................................5-2

5.3 Gross Water Use................................................................................................5-3

5.4 Baselines and Target Summary .........................................................................5-3

5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per-Capita Water Use (GPCD).....................................5-3

5.5.1 Meeting the 2020 Target .............................................................................5-3 City of Fresno
July 2021 ii
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

5.5.2 2020 Adjustments to 2020 Gross Water Use ..............................................5-4

6. Water Supply Characterization.................................................................................6-1

6.1 Groundwater.......................................................................................................6-2

6.1.1 Basin Description ........................................................................................6-2

6.1.2 Groundwater Management .........................................................................6-5

6.1.3 Overdraft Conditions ...................................................................................6-7

6.1.4 Groundwater Quality ...................................................................................6-8

6.1.5 Estimated Groundwater Yield ...................................................................6-11

6.1.6 Historic Groundwater Pumping .................................................................6-13

6.2 Surface Water ..................................................................................................6-13

6.2.1 USBR Friant Division Contract Supply ......................................................6-13

6.2.2 Fresno Irrigation District Supply ................................................................6-16

6.3 Stormwater.......................................................................................................6-17

6.4 Wastewater and Recycled Water .....................................................................6-18

6.4.1 Recycled Water Coordination ...................................................................6-18

6.4.2 Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal......................................6-19

6.4.3 Recycled Water System Description.........................................................6-20

6.4.4 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycled Water Uses...........................6-22

6.4.5 Actions to Encourage and Optimize Future Recycled Water Use ............6-25

6.5 Desalinated Water Opportunities......................................................................6-25

6.6 Water Exchanges and Transfers......................................................................6-25

6.6.1 Exchanges and Transfer Opportunities.....................................................6-25

6.6.2 Emergency Interties ..................................................................................6-27

6.7 Future Water Projects ......................................................................................6-27

6.7.1 Expand Recycled Water Distribution System............................................6-27

6.7.2 Expand Groundwater Recharge Capacity.................................................6-27

6.7.3 Expand Surface Water Treatment Capacity..............................................6-28

6.7.4 Beneficial Transfers and Exchanges.........................................................6-28

6.8 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water.......................................6-28

6.8.1 Supply Management .................................................................................6-28

6.8.2 Special Conditions ....................................................................................6-29

6.9 Energy Intensity................................................................................................6-30

7. Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment .........................................7-1

7.1 Water Service Reliability Assessment ................................................................7-2

7.1.1 Constraints on Water Sources ....................................................................7-2

7.1.2 Description of Management Tools and Options ..........................................7-3

7.1.3 Year Type Characterization ........................................................................7-3 City of Fresno
July 2021 iii
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

7.1.4 Water Service Reliability .............................................................................7-5

7.2 Drought Risk Assessment ..................................................................................7-7

8. Water Shortage Contingency Plan ...........................................................................8-1

9. Demand Management Measures .............................................................................9-1

9.1 Demand Management Measures for Retail........................................................9-2

9.1.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances ..........................................................9-2

9.1.2 Metering ......................................................................................................9-2

9.1.3 Conservation Pricing...................................................................................9-3

9.1.4 Public Education and Outreach...................................................................9-4

9.1.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Loss...............9-6

9.1.6 Other Demand Management Measures ......................................................9-6

9.2 Implementation to Achieve Water Use Targets ..................................................9-6

9.3 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements)....................................................9-7

10. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation.....................................................10-1

10.1 Notice of Public Hearing.................................................................................10-2

10.2 Public Hearing and Adoption..........................................................................10-2

10.3 Plan Submittal ................................................................................................10-2

10.4 Public Availability............................................................................................10-2

11. References...........................................................................................................11-1 Appendix A 2020 UWMP Checklist ................................................................................ A Appendix B DWR Standardized Tables.......................................................................... B Appendix C SBx7-7 Tables and Verification Form.......................................................... C Appendix D City of Fresno’s Reduce Delta Reliance Reporting ..................................... D Appendix E AWWA Water Audits ................................................................................... E Appendix F DWR Population Tool Output .......................................................................F Appendix G North Kings Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability...................................... G Appendix H City of Fresno’s Central Valley Project Contract ......................................... H Appendix I City of Fresno and Fresno Irrigation District Agreements ...............................I Appendix J Water Shortage Contingency Plan................................................................ J Appendix K Outreach Events.......................................................................................... K Appendix L Notification Letters ........................................................................................L Appendix M Adopting Resolutions..................................................................................M City of Fresno
July 2021 iv
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1. City of Fresno Demand Projections ......................................................ES-4 Figure ES-2. Projected Water Supplies .....................................................................ES-7 Figure ES-3. Normal Year Supply vs. Demand .........................................................ES-9 Figure ES-4. Single Dry Year Supply vs. Demand ....................................................ES-9 Figure ES-5. Multiple Dry Years Supply vs. Demand ................................................ES-9 Figure ES-6. City Service Area................................................................................ES-12 Figure 1-1. Previous and Ongoing Water Resources Planning Efforts .........................1-5 Figure 3-1. City Service Area........................................................................................3-5 Figure 3-2. Water System.............................................................................................3-6 Figure 3-3. City of Fresno and Water Service Area Historic Population .......................3-9 Figure 4-1. Historical Consumption by Customer Type (2013–2020)...........................4-4 Figure 4-2. Historic Recharge of City Surface Water....................................................4-6 Figure 4-3. Existing and Projected Land Use ...............................................................4-8 Figure 6-1. Kings Subbasin ..........................................................................................6-3 Figure 6-2. Kings Groundwater Subbasin Conceptual Hydrogeologic Cross-Section, Southwest-Northeast ....................................................................................................6-4 Figure 6-3. Well Specific Capacity................................................................................6-6 Figure 6-4. Time Series of Groundwater Levels at Representative Wells ....................6-8 Figure 6-5. Regional Groundwater Recharge System ..................................................6-9 Figure 6-6. Regional Groundwater Contamination .....................................................6-10 Figure 6-7. Historic Groundwater Production..............................................................6-13 Figure 6-8. USBR Deliveries to City Since 2007.........................................................6-15 Figure 6-9.Southwest Recycled Water System ..........................................................6-23 Figure 6-10. Historical RWRF Groundwater Exchange Deliveries..............................6-26 City of Fresno
July 2021 v
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1. Existing and Future Water Service Area................................................ES-3 Table ES-2. Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment ...................................................ES-10 Table 2-1. Agency Coordination and Outreach.............................................................2-2 Table 3-1. Current Service Area Characteristics ..........................................................3-4 Table 3-2. Average Climate Characteristics .................................................................3-7 Table 3-3. Current and Projected Population (DWR 3-1R).........................................3-10 Table 4-1. DWR 4-4R 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting.......................................4-4 Table 4-2. Actual Demands for Water: Potable (DWR 4-1R)........................................4-5 Table 4-3. Existing and Future Water Service Area Acreage .......................................4-7 Table 4-4. Passive Conservation Savings Assumptions...............................................4-9 Table 4-5. Projected Future Savings for Potable Demands, AF ...................................4-9 Table 4-6. Projected Demands for Water: Potable (DWR 4-2R).................................4-10 Table 4-7. Projected Demands for Water: Non-Potable (DWR 4-2R).........................4-10 Table 4-8. Lower Income Dwelling Units and Acres to be Developed through 2023 and Estimated Water Demand...........................................................................................4-12 Table 4-9. Lower Income Household Projected Water Demands ...............................4-12 Table 5-1. Per Capita Water Use Baseline and 2020 Target........................................5-3 Table 6-1. Components to Groundwater Yield for Normal Years................................6-12 Table 6-2. Available USBR Simulated Allocation (1922–2003) ..................................6-15 Table 6-3. FID Diversions by Water Year Type (1964 to 2019)..................................6-17 Table 6-4. Projected FID Kings River Allocation for City, Normal Years.....................6-17 Table 6-5. Historic Recycled Water Used Within Service Area...................................6-22 Table 6-6. Recycled Water within Service Area in 2020 (DWR 6-4R) ........................6-24 Table 6-7. Actual Water Supplies (DWR 6-8R)...........................................................6-28 Table 6-8. Projected Water Supplies (DWR 6-9R) .....................................................6-29 Table 6-9. Water System Energy Intensity in 2020.....................................................6-30 Table 7-1. Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR 7-2R)......................7-5 Table 7-2. Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR 7-3R) .................7-5 Table 7-3. Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR 7-4R).............7-6 Table 7-4. Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment...........................................................7-8 Table 9-1. Current Water Rate Structure......................................................................9-3 Table 9-2. Interior and Exterior Surveys .......................................................................9-5 Table 9-3. Rebate Program Results (2015–2020)........................................................9-5 City of Fresno
July 2021 vi
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
°F degrees Fahrenheit
1,2,3-TCP 1,2,3-trichloropropane
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AMI advanced metering infrastructure
AWE Alliance for Water Efficiency
AWWA American Water Works Association
BP04 Booster Pump 4
CII Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System City City of Fresno
COG Council of Governments
CPC California Plumbing Code
CSUF California State University Fresno
CVP Central Valley Project
CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act
CVWAC Central Valley Water Awareness Committee
CWC California Water Code
CY Calendar Year
DBCP 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
DMM Demand Management Measures
DDW Department of Drinking Water
DPU Department of Public Utilities
DRA Drought Risk Assessment
DWR Department of Water Resources
EDB ethylene dibromide or 1,2-dibromoethane
ETo Evapotranspiration
FID Fresno Irrigation District
FMFCD Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD gallons per capita per day
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
City of Fresno
July 2021 vii
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HCF hundred cubic feet
IGSM Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model
Metro Plan Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan mgd million gallons per day
NESWTF Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility
NFWRF North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility
NKGSP North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
PCE perchloroethylene or tetrachloroethylene
PEIR Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFOA
PFOS
perfluorooctanoic acid
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RWMP Recycled Water Master Plan
RWRF Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
SB Senate Bill
SBx7-7 Senate Bill x 7-7
SESWTF Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SOI Sphere of Influence
sq mi square miles
SWTF Surface Water Treatment Facility
T-3 SWTF T-3 Water Storage and Modular Surface Water Treatment Facility TCE trichloroethylene
TDS total dissolved solids
TTDF Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection Facility
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
UV ultraviolet
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
UWMP Act Urban Water Management Planning Act
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WSIP Water Storage Investment Program
WY Water Year

CITY OF FRESNO
Executive
Summary
This section summarizes the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of Fresno (City). It provides a lay description of the 2020 UWMP in a manner that is accessible to non-technical readers. This summary describes the fundamental purposes of the UWMP, including water service reliability, future challenges, and strategies for managing water reliability risks.

UWMPs are updated every five years and outline each
suppliers’ long-term water resource planning to ensure
there is enough water to meet both existing and future
demands. They set the roadmap for how the City will use water over the coming years.

The original Fresno water system began operations in 1876 as a non-profit organization established by a group of
public-minded citizens. Today, the City covers
approximately 115 square miles (sq mi) (73,500 acres)
consisting largely of single-family residential, commercial, public, and industrial development. The City’s General Plan projects buildout of the 106,000 acres planning area in 2056. This UWMP addresses the City’s water service
reliability, future challenges, and strategies for managing risks to water reliability through 2045. The City’s Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan (Metro
Plan), which is currently being prepared, addresses a 50- year horizon – through 2070.

IN THIS SECTION
• Service Area
Description
• Water Use
• Water Sources
• Water Supply
Reliability
ES-1
Purpose and Organization of the Plan
This plan comprises the 2020 UWMP for the City, as required by the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, which requires all urban water suppliers with more than 3,000 connections or distributing more than 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) to complete an UWMP every five years. As of the close of the 2020 calendar year, the City has over 139,500 residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional water service connections and produced nearly 122,000 acre-feet (AF) of water. As a result, the City is required to prepare and adopt an UWMP and submit it to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) by the July 1, 2021, due date.

Requirements for the UWMP include:
• Assessment of current and projected water supplies
• Evaluation of demand and customer types
• Evaluation of the reliability of water supplies
• Description of conservation measures implemented by the urban water supplier • Response plan, in the event of a water shortage
• Comparison of demand and supply projections
The UWMP is a valuable planning document used for multiple purposes:
• Serves as a valuable resource to the community and other interested parties regarding water supply and demand, conservation, and water related information • Meets a statutory requirement of the California Water Code (CWC) • Provides a key source of information for water supply assessments and written verifications of water supply
• Supports regional long-range planning, including City and County General Plans • Provides a standardized methodology for water utilities to assess their water resource needs and availability
• Provides a resource for regional involvement in the California Water Plan • Provides for a plan during water drought situations
Outreach and Engagement
The City has coordinated the preparation of its 2020 UWMP with its water suppliers, Fresno County, the City of Clovis, nearby water agencies, and community members to develop a UWMP that adheres to the requirements of the CWC and plans for a resilient water future. In total, the City has coordinated preparation of the 2020 UWMP and solicited participation and comments with the following agencies:
• Bakman Water Company
• City of Clovis
• County of Fresno
• Fresno Irrigation District
• Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control
District
• Friant Water Authority
• Garfield Water District
• Malaga County Water District
• Pinedale County Water District
• North Kings Groundwater
Sustainability Agency
• US Bureau of Reclamation
Executive Summary
City of Fresno
July 2021 ES-2
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Service Area Description
The City’s General Plan planning area covers approximately 106,000 acres comprised of approximately 73,500 acres of incorporated land and 32,500 acres of unincorporated land. The City’s water service area covers 70,400 acres consisting largely of single-family residential, commercial, public, and industrial development, shown in Figure ES-6 (located at the end of the Executive Summary). The service area excludes areas served by the Bakman Water Company, Pinedale County Water District, Park Van Ness Mutual Water Company, California State University Fresno, and private groundwater users located within Fresno County islands. The City will eventually serve out to the Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary adopted in the 2014 General Plan and includes all lands planned to be annexed by the City at the projected 2056 buildout of the General Plan, summarized in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1. Existing and Future Water Service Area

LAND USE CATEGORY
2020 WATER

SERVICE AREA
2056 WATER

SERVICE AREA

ACRES PERCENT ACRES PERCENT
Single-Family Residential 27,700 39.3% 40,000 47.4%
Multifamily Residential 3,700 5.3% 3,800 4.5%
Commercial 4,500 6.4% 8,600 10.2%
Public Facility 5,600 8.0% 7,200 8.5%
Industrial 4,500 6.4% 9,300 11.0%
Open Space/ Landscape Irrigation 13,100 18.6% 11,000 13.0% Mixed Use 0 0% 3,900 4.6%
Downtown 0 0% 600 0.7%
Vacant / Partially Vacant 11,300 15.9% 0 0%
TOTAL 70,400 100% 84,400 100%
Note: Acreage from City GIS Shapefile of Land Uses and aligns with the General Plan for buildout in year 2056.

Population Projections
The City experienced rapid growth since it was founded by the Central Pacific Railroad in 1872 up through the mid-1990s, when the City’s annual growth rate was typically greater than 2%.

From 1995 to 2015, the annual growth rate has decreased to an average of 1.3%, and since 2015, the rate has not surpassed 1.0%. Achieving General Plan buildout population estimates requires an average annual growth rate of 1.44% from 2020 to 2056. The City’s water service area population is anticipated to continue to grow along with the City, with some slightly higher growth years anticipated in the next 10 years due to multiple large developments planned for completion in the near term. As a result, population growth, shown in Figure ES-1 on the following page, occurs at an annual rate of ranging from 1.1–2.1% between 2020 and 2056.

Executive Summary
City of Fresno
July 2021 ES-3
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Executive Summary
City of Fresno
July 2021 ES-4
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Water Use
Water consumption in the City is characterized by the typical demand sectors of residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and irrigational. The difference between production and consumption is losses, which may be attributed to system leaks, meter inaccuracies, fire flows, theft, unmetered use, or other factors.

As shown in Figure ES-1, the City’s water demand has decreased even as the City has grown over the past several decades, and demands are projected to grow slower than population growth. This trend is captured by the City’s daily per capita water use, measured as gallons per capita per day (GPCD). For 2020, the City’s water use averaged 198 GPCD based on 121,993 AF of water production and a service area population of 550,217. The City is far below its 2020 daily per capita water use target of 247 GPCD due to the extensive conservation efforts implemented by the City in the past decade.

The City also diverts raw surface water obtained from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) to recharge basins throughout the service area.

The City coordinates with FID for the delivery of the recharge water, utilizing FID’s existing system of channels and pipelines to covey the raw water, and with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) to deliver water to FMFCD’s stormwater retention and recharge basins or the City’s own recharge basins. The raw surface water recharges the groundwater basin to sustain the groundwater supply for the City. The groundwater recharge volume can vary based on surface water supply availability and is represented as an addition to annual groundwater supplies. In addition, the City serves a limited number of customers secondary treated or tertiary treated and disinfected recycled water for agricultural irrigation or landscape irrigation, respectively.

Figure ES-1. City of Fresno Demand Projections
269
312
332
307
243
188
203198 195 188
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
199019952000200520102015202020252030203520402045
GPCD
AFY or Population
Potable Demand Population GPCD
Actual Projections
Executive Summary
City of Fresno
July 2021 ES-5
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
The City’s per capita water usage is projected to continue to decline through 2045 due to more water efficiency in future construction and passive conservation; however, due to the increase in population the demand is expected to slowly increase in the next 25 years. The potable demand projections for normal water use are based on land use where future land use areas are expected to be more water efficient than existing land uses and buildings due to the California Plumbing Code (CPC) and use of higher efficiency appliances and landscapes.

Demand for existing land uses is also expected to slowly reduce over time due to passive conservation, which includes the replacement of older water fixtures and appliances with more efficient types now required as part of the CPC.

Water Sources
The City relies on groundwater from the North Kings Subbasin; surface water from Central Valley Project (CVP), through a contract with the USBR; Kings River water, through a contract with FID; and recycled water. Water production in the City has consisted of 100% groundwater prior to the commissioning of the City’s first surface water treatment facility (SWTF) in 2004. Since 2004, the City has invested in expanding its surface water treatment capabilities and now has three SWTFs that provide approximately half of all potable water demands in the service area.

Groundwater
The City overlies the Kings Subbasin, which is part of the greater San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The City is one of many water purveyors that use groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. The City has a network of over 270 municipal wells and currently operates approximately 202 municipal supply wells within the Kings Subbasin.

The City was a founding member of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (North Kings GSA), which was formed following passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014. This legislation created a statutory framework for groundwater management in California that can be sustained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results. SGMA requires governments and water agencies of “critically overdrafted” basins to reach sustainability by 2040. The Kings Subbasin was designated a critically overdrafted basin by DWR and the North Kings GSA is working within the SGMA framework to reach groundwater sustainability.

Due to the City’s investments in other supplies – surface water, recycled water, and conservation – groundwater levels beneath the City have already begun to recover from low levels experienced during the recent drought. The City plans to continue to use groundwater within a larger conjunctive use program that maximizes its existing water rights and surface water supply sources.

Surface Water
With the completion and operation of the Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF), surface water is now a primary water supply used to meet potable demands within the City. The City contracts with FID for Kings River water and with USBR for CVP water from the Friant-Kern Canal. The surface water supply is used either for potable uses through treatment and distribution or delivery to recharge basins for groundwater recharge. The City has historically not used all its available FID allocation in any given year, although it pays a flat rate for its total allocation regardless of use. Water unused by the City is reallocated by FID to its other customers.

Executive Summary
City of Fresno
July 2021 ES-6
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
The City, through an agreement originally executed in 1961, secured a surface water supply from USBR CVP Friant Division for an annual water supply of 60,000 AF of Class 1 water. The agreement was last renewed in 2010 as a Section 9(d) contract that provides water from the San Joaquin River in perpetuity. Class 1 water has historically been very reliable until the 2006 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Agreement, which ended an 18-year legal dispute over the operation of Friant Dam brought by a coalition of conservation and fishing groups. The projected surface water available for the City from USBR is based on USBR simulations for the 2006 Settlement Agreement. Average simulated delivery is 53,680 AFY and the median simulated delivery is 60,000 AFY. However, very dry years have previously resulted in substantial reductions as demonstrated by the zero allocations that occurred in 2014 and 2015.

FID is one of 28 agencies that receives an entitlement of water from the Kings River through the Kings River Water Association. The City executed its most recent agreement with FID in 2016.

The 2016 agreement identifies the City’s contracted percentage of FID’s Kings River water based on the City’s water service area located within FID service area as a percentage of the FID land area. FID land area varies slightly every year because it is dependent on the acreage receiving water deliveries for that year rather than the total acreage within FID, and is roughly 200,000 acres. As the City incorporates new users and the water service area expands, the percentage of FID supply increases. However, the 2016 FID Agreement sets the City’s maximum percentage of FID’s Kings River water as 29.0%, which is expected to be reached between 2025 and 2030.

The City’s potential supply from FID was projected using actual Kings River deliveries for 1964– 2019. The average FID Kings River delivery over that time was 452,541 AF, which equates to an average potential City supply of 131,237 AF, assuming the maximum 29.0% City supply percentage. The projected City percentage of FID supplies was estimated based on City’s water service area growth projections through buildout in 2056.

Recycled Water
The Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) has developed from what was once a sewer farm to what is now a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment facility. The RWRF treats flows from not only the City, but also sewered County areas (some county areas remain unsewered), the City of Clovis, Pinedale County Water District, and Pinedale Public Utility District. Flows received at this facility peaked at 81,100 AF in 2006 and have been steadily decreasing since, with the average influent flow about 63,000 AF over the last five years.

The City has three primary means of effluent disposal from the RWRF:

1. Undisinfected secondary effluent to on-site and off-site farmland for restricted irrigation

2. Undisinfected secondary effluent to percolation ponds

3. Disinfected tertiary effluent to the recycled water distribution system The percolated effluent has been deemed equivalent to tertiary treated water by the State and the City has been extracting this water for reuse in areas within and surrounding the RWRF, as well as to FID’s canals, through an exchange agreement for delivery to FID agricultural customers. The City recently constructed the Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection Facility (TTDF) at the RWRF and has constructed most of the southwest recycled water system, which is projected to increase deliveries from roughly 1,000 AFY today to eventually meet 5,800 AFY of non-potable demands. In addition, the City uses recycled water from the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF) to irrigate Copper River Ranch Golf Course.

Executive Summary
City of Fresno
July 2021 ES-7
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Summary of Supplies
The City currently balances its surface water supplies and groundwater based on minimum production for operation of the SWTFs and minimum groundwater pumping to manage and control contamination plumes and prevent their spread. The minimum operation conditions typically occur in the low-demand winter months, and the City can increase surface water production during peak demand months when surface water is available. In normal and wet years, the City intends to rely on more surface water supply and recharge raw surface water to replenish the groundwater basin and build storage for dry years. In dry years, when surface water is less available, the City will ramp up well production to meet demands. The City is expected to continue this supply management strategy in the future. Figure ES-2 shows the City’s annual average projected water supplies through 2045.

Figure ES-2. Projected Water Supplies
138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
125,030 131,600 131,600 131,600 131,600
5,910
329,030 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 341,140 346,610 352,000 357,330 0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
AFY
Groundwater Surface Water – USBR Surface Water – FID Recycled Water Executive Summary
City of Fresno
July 2021 ES-8
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Water Supply Reliability
The City currently manages its surface water and groundwater supply by maximizing surface water for potable use and intentional recharge during wet and normal years, while relying on groundwater during dry years. The City is currently updating its Metro Plan, which will recommend projects and programs to optimize the use of its supply portfolio and further improve supply resilience. Supply management tools are an expected outcome of the Metro Plan update; however, the City’s ongoing supply management is intended to maximize local supplies and improve the groundwater basin storage. Current actions include enhanced groundwater management and intentional recharge, increased recycled water use, and continued conservation through the implementation of demand management measures.

Normal water year, single dry water year, and five-year consecutive drought period supply projections were made based on historic water allocations for surface water supplies, sustainable yield for groundwater, and projected utilization for recycled water. For surface water, the single dry year is based on 2015 allocations and the five-year drought is based on 2012 to 2016. Groundwater supplies, due to intentional recharge augmentation, remain reliable in all hydrologic conditions.

Despite severe reductions of surface water supplies during recent dry years, sufficient goodquality water was available to operate the SWTFs. The projected supplies and demands for a normal year, single dry year, and five-year consecutive drought, shown in Figure ES-3 through Figure ES-5 on the next page and in Table 7-1 through Table 7-3 in Section 7.1.4, demonstrate that the City is projected to have greater than 100,000 AF of available supply after meeting demands in normal years; the City’s surface water supplies are reduced in a single dry year, but all potable demands are met and groundwater recharge of raw surface water is reduced; and the City is projected to meet all demands during a five-year drought with its existing supplies with reduced groundwater recharge in years three and four of a five-year drought to accommodate low surface water allocations.

Managed recharge of surface water is an essential component of the City’s groundwater supply and the City must average 60,000 AFY to 70,000 AFY of recharge with surface water to meet the projections. This highlights the City’s priority of recharging available surface water in the coming years.

Executive Summary
City of Fresno
July 2021 ES-9
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Figure ES-3. Normal Year Supply vs. Demand
Figure ES-4. Single Dry Year Supply vs. Demand
Figure ES-5. Multiple Dry Years Supply vs. Demand
329,030 341,140 346,610 352,000 357,330
136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
AFY
Recycled Water
Surface Water – FID
Surface Water – USBR
Groundwater
Total Demand
(Potable & Recharge)
Potable Demand
Available Supplies
189,852 195,392 200,862 206,252 211,582
136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
AFY
Recycled Water
Surface Water – FID
Groundwater
Potable Demand
Available Supplies
136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
AFY
Potable Demand
Year 1 Supplies
Year 2 Supplies
Year 3 Supplies
Year 4 Supplies
Year 5 Supplies
Executive Summary
City of Fresno
July 2021 ES-10
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
2021-2025 Drought Risk Assessment
A new provision of the Water Code directs Suppliers to prepare a Drought Risk Assessment (DRA), assuming a drought period lasting five consecutive years, starting from the year following the year when the assessment is conducted. The DRA analysis allows the City to examine the management of its supplies during stressed hydrologic conditions and an opportunity to evaluate whether the City may need to enact its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) during the next actual drought period lasting at least five years. The projected gross water use for the fiveyear DRA is based on unrestricted potable demand, a reduction in raw-water demand for intentional recharge in years three and four of the five-year drought, and unrestricted recycled water demand. Surface water supply availability is based on actual allocations during the previous drought – from 2012 to 2016.

Table ES-2 compares the total projected supply and demand for the five-year DRA for 2021 through 2025. As shown, the City does not expect to enact its WSCP for a five-consecutive-year drought based on the unrestricted potable demand projections and the reliability of the current supply portfolio. Available surface water supplies during this period would be utilized for groundwater recharge to sustain the groundwater basin.

Table ES-2. Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment
WATER USE TYPE 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Groundwater 133,602 134,724 135,846 136,968 138,090
Surface Water – USBR 30,000 37,200 0 0 45,000
Surface Water – FID 93,354 83,085 65,425 40,776 111,911 Recycled Water 1,912 2,911 3,911 4,910 5,910
TOTAL SUPPLY 258,868 257,920 205,181 182,655 300,911
Potable Demand 124,910 127,827 130,745 133,662 136,504
Non-Potable Demand 60,000 60,000 48,287 22,260 60,000
TOTAL DEMAND 184,910 187,827 179,032 155,922 196,504
AVAILABLE SUPPLIES 73,958 70,093 26,149 26,732 104,407
Water Shortage Contingency Plan
This WSCP is a detailed plan for how the City intends to respond to foreseeable and unforeseeable water shortages. A water shortage occurs when the water supply is reduced to a level that cannot support typical demand at any given time.

The WSCP is used to provide guidance to the City’s governing body, staff, and the public by identifying response actions to allow for efficient management of any water shortage with predictability and accountability. Preparation provides the tools to maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions due to extended drought and catastrophic supply interruptions.

Executive Summary
City of Fresno
July 2021 ES-11
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
The WSCP describes the following:
• Water Supply Reliability Analysis
• Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures
• Six Standard Shortage Stages
• Shortage Response Actions
• Communication Protocols
• Compliance and Enforcement
• Legal Authority
• Financial Consequences of WSCP Implementation
• Monitoring and Reporting
• WSCP Refinement Procedures
• Special Water Features Distinctions
• Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability
The 2020 WSCP is a standalone document that can be modified as needed and is included as Appendix J in the 2020 UWMP.

Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
Belmont Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
McKinley Ave
California Ave
Jensen Ave
West Ave
Walnut Ave
Chestnut Ave
North Ave
Central Ave
Temperance Ave
American Ave
Elm Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/ CA-180
East Ave
Cedar Ave
Peach Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Behymer Ave
Copper Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highand Ave
McCall Ave
Del Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Jameson Ave
Fresno Yosemite
International Airport

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER

DRY CREEK
180
168
41 41
99 99
Southeast
Development
Area
Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Facilities
W:\GIS\Fresno\Metro Plan\2020 UWMP\Fresno_UWMP.aprx
Prepared by:
0 1 in.
0 0.75 1.5 3
Mi
0 3,750 7,500 15,000
US Feet
Prepared for: City of Fresno
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Legend
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Clovis Sphere of Influence
Fresno City Limits
County Islands
North Area
Southeast Development Area
Wastewater Reclamation Facility
Streets
Areas Served Water by Others
Bakman Water District
Malaga Water District
Park Van Ness Mutual Water
District
Pinedale County Water District
CA State University, Fresno
1:140,000
References:

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983
Notes:

Figure ES-6. City Service Area
City of
Clovis
1-1

CITY OF FRESNO
Introduction
This plan comprises the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of Fresno (City), as required by the California Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act).

The UWMP Act requires all urban water suppliers with more than 3,000 connections or distributing more than 3,000 acrefeet per year (AFY) to complete an UWMP every five years.

As of the close of the 2020 calendar year, the City has over 139,500 residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional water service connections and produced nearly 122,000 AF of water. As a result, the City is required to prepare and adopt an UWMP and submit it to DWR by the July 1, 2021, due date.

IN THIS SECTION
• California Water
Code
• UWMP
Organization
The UWMP is a valuable planning document used for multiple purposes:
• Serves as a valuable resource to the
community and other interested
parties regarding water supply and
demand, conservation, and water
related information
• Meets a statutory requirement of the
California Water Code (CWC)
• Provides a key source of information
for water supply assessments and
written verifications of water supply
• Supports regional long-range
planning documents, including City
and County General Plans
• Provides a standardized
methodology for water utilities to
assess their water resource needs
and availability
• Provides a resource for regional
involvement in the California Water
Plan
• Provides for a plan during water
drought situations
Introduction Section 1
City of Fresno
July 2021 1-2
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

1.1 The California Water Code
The UWMP Act is administered by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), which is responsible for compiling data for statewide and regional analysis and publishing the adopted documents online for public access. This report was prepared according to the requirements of the CWC, UWMP Act, and the 2020 UWMP Guidebook.

CWC Section 10620 (a) of the UWMP Act states, “Every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt an urban water management plan in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640).” These plans are to be updated every five years and submitted to DWR.

Requirements for the UWMP include:
• Assessment of current and projected water supplies
• Evaluation of demand and customer types
• Evaluation of the reliability of water supplies
• Description of conservation measures implemented by the urban water supplier • Response plan, in the event of a water shortage
• Comparison of demand and supply projections
In November 2009, the State legislation passed Senate Bill (SB) x 7-7, referred to as SBx7-7 or the Water Conservation Act of 2009. SBx7-7 set the goal of achieving a 20% reduction in urban per capita water use statewide by 2020. Retail water agencies were required to set targets and track progress toward decreasing daily per capita urban water use in their service areas, which would assist the State in meeting its 20% reduction goal by 2020.

This law requires that every UWMP include:
• Baseline per capita water use
• Urban water use target for 2020
• Compliance daily per capita water use
This 2020 UWMP has been prepared to comply with the UWMP Act and SBx7-7. In addition to meeting the requirements of the Act, this report will be used to support water supply assessments and written verifications of water supply required by SB 610 and SB 221 of 2001.

These bills require that water supply information be provided to counties and cities for projects of a certain size, prior to discretionary project approval. Both bills allow an UWMP to be used as a source document to fulfill these legislative requirements. The UWMP Act has undergone significant expansion since it was originally passed, particularly since the City’s previous UWMP was prepared in 2015. Prolonged droughts, groundwater overdraft, regulatory revisions, and changing climatic conditions affect the reliability of each water supplier as well as the statewide water reliability overseen by DWR, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Legislature. Accordingly, the UWMP Act has grown to address changing conditions, and the current requirements are found in Sections 10610–10656 and 10608 of the CWC.

Since 2015, several amendments have been added to the UWMP Act. These require urban water suppliers to prepare a five-year consecutive drought supply and demand assessment and a five-year drought risk assessment to evaluate the functionality of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in the event of a continuous five-year drought beginning next year.

Introduction Section 1
City of Fresno
July 2021 1-3
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
There are also new requirements for the WSCP, and it is now required to be adopted as a separate plan from the UWMP. This 2020 UWMP was developed to incorporate these new requirements, under the guidance of DWR’s 2020 UWMPs Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers. A checklist to document compliance of this 2020 UWMP with the Act and the CWC is provided in Appendix A.

This 2020 UWMP includes all required DWR standardized tables for Chapters 1 to 10 compiled in Appendix B and all required SBx7-7 tables in Appendix C. A selection of these tables is also provided in the body of this Plan, as necessary to present supporting data.

1.2 UWMP Organization
This 2020 UWMP is organized into the following chapters. • Chapter 1 - Introduction and Overview: This chapter provides a discussion of the purpose and content of the 2020 UWMP and the extent of the City’s water management planning efforts.
• Chapter 2 - Plan Preparation: This chapter provides information on the City’s development of the 2020 UWMP, including the basis for plan preparation, planning type, data format, and coordination and outreach to nearby agencies.
• Chapter 3 - System Description: This chapter provides a description of the City’s water system, including service area maps, climate information, service population and demographic information, and an overview of the City’s organizational structure and history. • Chapter 4 - Customer Water Use: This chapter describes the City’s historic, current, and projected water uses, system losses, water savings, and water use by lower income households.
• Chapter 5 - Conservation Target Compliance: This chapter includes a description of the City’s chosen method for calculating baseline per capita water use, the City’s calculated baseline, 2015 interim and 2020 per capita demand targets, and compliance with the 2020 target.
• Chapter 6 - System Supplies: This chapter includes a discussion of the City’s water system supplies, including groundwater, surface water, wastewater, and recycled water, the City’s future water projects, and a summary of existing and future water sources. • Chapter 7 - Water Supply Reliability Assessment: This chapter describes the reliability of the City’s water supply through a 20-year planning horizon, including a supply and demand assessment and regional reliability evaluation. Supply reliability is presented for a normal, single dry year and five consecutive dry years.
• Chapter 8 - Water Shortage Contingency Planning: This chapter provides a description of the City’s WSCP, including stages of action, prohibitions, penalties, reduction methods, and catastrophic supply interruption.
• Chapter 9 - Demand Management Measures: This chapter explains the City’s existing and historic efforts to promote water conservation and the City’s plans to use Demand Management Measures to achieve its 2025 water use targets. • Chapter 10 - Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation: This chapter details the steps taken by the City to adopt the 2020 UWMP in accordance with the CWC, make it available to the public, and implement it.

Introduction Section 1
City of Fresno
July 2021 1-4
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
• Appendices: These include any additional information to support and clarify any information presented within the 2020 UWMP content.

1.3 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts
The City previously prepared a 2005 UWMP, 2010 UWMP, and 2015 UWMP. This 2020 UWMP serves as an update to the 2015 UWMP and complies with new requirements and regulations.

In addition to completing the 2020 UWMP, the City is presently updating its Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan (Metro Plan). The last Metro Plan was completed in 2014, and the current Metro Plan update will prepare a fresh look at the City’s water resources and consider new conditions and strategies for planning through 2070. Figure 1-1 shows the City’s ongoing and additional future water resources planning efforts.

1.4 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan
A new requirement for the 2020 UWMP is that agencies that anticipate participating in, or receiving water from, a proposed project utilizing Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) Water or within the Jurisdiction of the Delta Stewardship Council (covered action) should demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan’s policy to reduce reliance on the Delta. Covered actions include, but are not limited to, projects such as multiyear water transfers, conveyance facilities, or new diversions that involve transferring water through, exporting water from, or using water in the Delta, per California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 5003. The City of Fresno contracts with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division for an annual supply of 60,000 AF of Class 1 water. Although the Friant Division of the CVP does not directly divert or convey water from the Delta, the project was developed through an exchange with the Delta-Mendota supply. As restrictions on Delta exports have hindered USBR from making deliveries to the Delta-Mendota Canal, the Friant Division Class 1 allocations are reduced, and the water is transferred back to the users that would typically receive water from the Delta-Mendota Canal. As such, the City is required to demonstrate consistency with the Delta Plan’s policy to reduce reliance on the Delta. Appendix D includes the reporting and calculations that demonstrate Fresno’s reduced reliance on supply from their USBR CVP water supply.

Introduction Section 1
City of Fresno
July 2021 1-5
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Figure 1-1. Previous and Ongoing Water Resources Planning Efforts 2-1

CITY OF FRESNO
Plan Preparation
The City has coordinated the preparation of its 2020 UWMP with its water suppliers, the County, the City of Clovis, nearby water agencies, and community members to develop a UWMP that
adheres to the requirements of the CWC and plans for a resilient water future.

The City of Fresno provides water service to a variety of customer sector types within the City limits, inclusive of several historic County Waterworks Districts (county
islands) which have been incorporated into the City’s water system.

The City has approximately 139,500 service connections
and produced just under 122,000 AF of potable water in
2020. The City meets the threshold identified in the CWC to be classified as an urban water supplier and in the California Health and Safety Code as a public water system. The City provides water directly to its customers and does not
wholesale water to any other agencies for potable uses
(defined as sales greater than 3,000 acre-feet per year).

Therefore, the City is required to prepare and update a Retail UWMP every five years. This report was prepared on a calendar year basis.

IN THIS

SECTION
• Coordination
and Outreach
Plan Preparation Section 2
City of Fresno
July 2021 2-2
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

2.1 Coordination and Outreach
The City has water supply contracts with USBR and Fresno Irrigation District (FID). Each of these water suppliers has been notified of the plan update and provided water supply projections for the time period covered by this plan. Additionally, the preparation of this 2020 UWMP was coordinated with other appropriate agencies to ensure regional stakeholders had the opportunity to provide input to this plan. The City has coordinated preparation of the 2020 UWMP and solicited participation and comments with the agencies indicated in Table 2-1. The City has also published notices in local newspaper and encouraged the active involvement of the population within the water service area to provide feedback on the UWMP and the WSCP during the public review period, as discussed in Section 10.1.

Table 2-1. Agency Coordination and Outreach
AGENCY
NOTIFIED 60 DAYS

PRIOR TO PUBLIC

HEARING

NOTIFIED OF
PUBLIC DRAFT 14

DAYS PRIOR TO

PUBLIC HEARING
Bakman Water Company  
City of Clovis  
County of Fresno  
Fresno Irrigation District  
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District  
Friant Water Authority  
Garfield Water District  
Malaga County Water District  
Pinedale County Water District  
North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency  
US Bureau of Reclamation  
3-1

CITY OF FRESNO
System Description
This chapter describes the history of the City’s water system, its current service area, climate, population, and demographics.

The original Fresno water system began operations in 1876 as a non-profit organization inaugurated by a group of
public-minded citizens. Initially, the water system consisted of one pumping station composed of small pumps and two
storage tanks located above the second floor of one of the early store buildings. This building was located on Fresno Street between “J” and “K” Streets, presently known as
Broadway and Fulton.

IN THIS SECTION
• Service Area
• Land Uses
• Water System
• Population and
Demographics
By 1888, the town had grown to a small city, which demanded an improved water distribution system. This was necessary because of several large fires, including the destruction of the first permanent courthouse. In 1888, the first pumping station and water tower were constructed at Fresno and "O" Street. These facilities were designed to be an integral part of a larger and continually expanding water system.

This No. 1 station was in continuous use until 1959, when it was retired having served its useful purpose. Today, this building is known as the “Water Tower” and has been declared a historic structure.

System Description Section 3
City of Fresno
July 2021 3-2
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Between the years of 1887 and 1890, 4-inch and 2½-inch cast iron pipe, as well as 4-inch wrought iron water mains were laid out. Most of these original “permanent pipes” have since been replaced in the present water supply system. The owner and operator of the system in 1888 was the Fresno Water Company. In 1904, the Fresno Water Company was purchased by Balch, Kerckhoff & Wishon, and was reorganized as the Fresno City Water Company. In 1926, the facilities were purchased by the California Water Service Company. This company then sold the water system to the City of Fresno in 1931, which operated as a municipal utility. It was first managed under an appointed water board, but currently is a division of the Department of Public Utilities.

Historically, the City’s supply of water consisted of direct pumping from wells drilled into the underground aquifer. Today, groundwater remains one of the City’s primary water supply sources, including 202 active and 56 inactive groundwater wells. The production capacity from the active wells is approximately 403 million gallons per day (mgd) and the total production capacity is 487 mgd, including inactive wells. The wells are located around the City to provide equitable distribution throughout the City’s water system, as described below. Most wells are connected directly into the transmission grid main system (14- to 20-inch diameter pipelines) to convey water throughout the system.

In the 1960s, the City secured a surface water contract made available from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). The City contracted with USBR for 60,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Friant Division (Millerton Lake) and developed a system to recharge the groundwater basin by “intentional recharge,” percolating the imported surface water supplies in constructed recharge basins. The City’s USBR supplies are conveyed to the City via FID canals.

In 1976, the City signed a contract with FID for delivery of surface water supplies from the Kings River based on the City’s pro rata share of FID’s water entitlements. The Kings River water is used for groundwater recharge and treated for potable use.

In 2004, the City also began treating surface water supplies for direct potable use at its first surface water treatment facility located in northeast Fresno (NESWTF). For the period of 2005– 2014, this 30 mgd-rated facility provided 10–15% of the City’s potable water supplies. From 2016–2020, this facility produced 15% of the City’s potable water supply, an increase largely attributed to transmission system improvements, which permitted conveying water further into the City’s distribution system, and the City’s lower overall system demands. Also, in 2015, the City commenced operations of its new T-3 Water Storage and modular Surface Water Treatment Facility (T-3 SWTF) in southeast Fresno. In January 2013, the City completed the installation of meters on all single-family residences.

In 2018, the City completed construction of its new 54 mgd surface water treatment facility in southeast Fresno (SESWTF) and large diameter water mains that serve nearly one-half of the City. Production from this facility may ultimately be 80 mgd with the City demonstrating to the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) that the facility is capable of safely running at higher filter loading rates. With the SESWTF operational, along with the NESWTF and T-3 SWTF, the City provided greater than 50% of its potable supply through using surface water for the first time in 2019 and 2020. The City expects to provide half or more of its potable demand using its surface water supply sources going forward.

System Description Section 3
City of Fresno
July 2021 3-3
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

3.1 Service Area
The City of Fresno presently covers approximately 115 square miles (sq mi) (73,500 acres) consisting largely of single-family residential, commercial, public, and industrial development. It also includes several areas not within the City limits (e.g., County islands), as shown in Figure 3-1. With the exception of the Bakman Water Company (Bakman), Pinedale County Water District (Pinedale), Park Van Ness Mutual Water Company (Park Van Ness), California State University Fresno (CSUF), and private groundwater users located within County islands, the City currently serves water to the entire area encompassed by its City limits and will eventually serve out to the Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary. The SOI is coincident with the City of Fresno General Plan Land Use and Circulation Map, which was adopted in the 2014 General Plan and therefore, includes all lands planned to be annexed by the City at the projected 2056 buildout of the General Plan (City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department, 2014).

3.1.1 Land Uses within Service Area
According to the General Plan and the City’s Planning and Development Department, the City’s planning area covers approximately 106,000 acres (165.6 sq mi) comprised of approximately 73,500 acres (115 sq mi) of incorporated land and 32,500 acres (50.8 sq mi) of unincorporated land based on the City’s current shapefiles. The total 106,000-acre planning area includes approximately 84,300 acres of developed or planned to be developed land, approximately 18,500 acres of roads, highways, and railroads with no corresponding water demand, and about 2,500 acres outside of the SOI north of the City’s most northwesterly portion referred to as the North Area and shown on Figure 3-1.

Of the 106,000 acres within the City’s planning area, the City’s water service area covers 70,400 acres (110 sq mi) of land within the SOI, which includes most of the 73,500 acres of incorporated area and the unincorporated County Islands not within the City limits. As shown in Table 3-1, approximately 59,100 acres of the 70,400 acres within the water service area are developed and served water by the City. The remainder consists of vacant land that will be served by the City when it is developed. Residential units make up the largest portion of water demand served by the City, consisting of over 40% of the total served area and almost 90% of the total service connections.

The remaining areas within the City’s SOI are served by other systems or are unserved by a water system, consisting of open space and agricultural land, land used by roads, highways, and railroads, as well as the North Area.

System Description Section 3
City of Fresno
July 2021 3-4
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 3-1. Current Service Area Characteristics

LAND USE TYPE
AREA
(ACRES)
% OF
TOTAL
AREA

SERVICE

CONNECTIONS
% OF TOTAL

CONNECTIONS
Single-Family Residential 27,700 39.3% 118,775 85.1%
Multifamily Residential 3,700 5.3% 6,087 4.4%
Commercial 4,500 6.4% 11,982 8.6%
Public 5,600 8.0% 2,504 1.8%
Industrial 4,500 6.4% 175 0.1%
Open Space/
Landscape Irrigation 13,100 18.6% Note 1
Total 59,100 139,5232 100%
Vacant / Partially Vacant3 11,300 15.9% N/A
Total 70,400 100%
Source: Acreage from City of Fresno Geographic Information System Shapefile of Land Uses provided 8/12/20. Number of connections provided by the City for 2020.

Notes:

1. Dedicated irrigation meters are included in commercial and public meter total.

2. Approximately 3,633 dedicated fire service connections are included in the total services connections, most of which are included in the commercial and public meter total.

3. For partially vacant land, half of the area is included in the zoned land use type and the other half is assumed vacant.

3.1.2 Water System
The City’s water system consists of about 1,860 miles of distribution and transmission mains, 202 active municipal groundwater wells, three surface water treatment facilities (SWTFs) with current rated capacities ranging from 4 to 54 mgd, five water storage facilities with pump stations, including one at each of the SWTFs plus two in the distribution system, and three booster pump facilities.

The City’s service area spans an approximate 120 feet of elevation difference, declining from northeast to southwest. To help regulate pressure throughout the water distribution system, the City utilizes five pressure zones, as shown on Figure 3-2: Highway 41, Shepherd, Sierra, Southwest, and Booster Pump 4 (BP04). The pressure zones are separated by a series of closed or partially closed valves between each zone to prevent or impede flow from one zone to the next, referred to as gate systems. There are four gate systems — Shepherd, Sierra, Southwest, and BP04 — separating the five pressures zones. The Highway 41 Pressure Zone was previously split into two pressure zones divided by a series of 26 gate valves closely following the alignment along Highway 41. However, these zones were combined into a single zone in 2015 by fully opening the Highway 41 gate valves, and as a result are not shown on Figure 3-2.

Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
Belmont Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
McKinley Ave
California Ave
Jensen Ave
West Ave
Walnut Ave
Chestnut Ave
North Ave
Central Ave
Temperance Ave
American Ave
Elm Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/ CA-180
East Ave
Cedar Ave
Peach Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Behymer Ave
Copper Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highand Ave
McCall Ave
Del Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Jameson Ave
Fresno Yosemite
International Airport

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER

DRY CREEK
180
168
41 41
99 99
Southeast
Development
Area
Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Facilities
W:\GIS\Fresno\Metro Plan\2020 UWMP\Fresno_UWMP.aprx
Prepared by:
0 1 in.
0 0.75 1.5 3
Mi
0 3,750 7,500 15,000
US Feet
Prepared for: City of Fresno
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Legend
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Clovis Sphere of Influence
Fresno City Limits
County Islands
North Area
Southeast Development Area
Wastewater Reclamation Facility
Streets
Areas Served Water by Others
Bakman Water District
Malaga Water District
Park Van Ness Mutual Water
District
Pinedale County Water District
CA State University, Fresno
1:140,000
References:

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983
Notes:

Figure 3-1. City Service Area
City of
Clovis
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W
W W
W
W WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W W
W W
W
W
W
W
W W W
W W
W
W
W W W
W W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W W W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
WW
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W W
W
W W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
TU
TU
"M
"M
"M
"M
"M
"M
Q3
Q3
Q3
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
Belmont Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
McKinley Ave
California Ave
Jensen Ave
West Ave
Walnut Ave
Chestnut Ave
North Ave
Central Ave
Temperance Ave
American Ave
Elm Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/ CA-180
East Ave
Cedar Ave
Peach Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Behymer Ave
Copper Ave
Chateau Fresno Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highand Ave
McCall Ave
Del Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Fresno Yosemite
International Airport

KINGS RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

DRY CREEK
180
168
41 41
99 99
City of
Clovis
Southeast
Development
Area
NESWTF
SESWTF
T3 SWTF
Friant-Kern Canal
Fresno-Clovis
Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Facilities
W:\GIS\Fresno\Metro Plan\2020 UWMP\Fresno_UWMP.aprx
Prepared by:
0 1 in.
0 0.75 1.5 3
Mi
0 3,500 7,000 14,000
US Feet
Prepared for: City of Fresno
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Legend
City Facilities
Q3 Water Treatment Plant
"M Booster Pump Station
TU Storage Facility
W Active Well
Existing Turnout
Wastewater Reclamation
Facility
Gate System Valves
Pressure Relief Valve
Pressure Sustaining Valve
Water Mains by Diameter (inch)
<10
10 - 16
16 - 30
30 - 72
Raw Water Mains by Diameter
(inch)
<10
10 - 16
16 - 30
30 - 72
Friant-Kern Canal
Areas Served Water by Others
Bakman Water District
Malaga Water District
Park Van Ness Mutual Water
District
Pinedale County Water District
CA State University, Fresno
Pressure Zones
Highway 41
Booster Station 4
Shepherd
Sierra
Southwest
City Features
Southeast Development Area
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Fresno City Limits
Streets
1:136,886
References:

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983
Notes:

Figure 3-2. Water System
System Description Section 3
City of Fresno
July 2021 3-7
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

3.2 Service Area Climate
The City’s service area is in California’s San Joaquin Valley in Fresno County along Highway

99. The climate of the area is best described as Mediterranean, characterized by hot dry summers and cool winters. Precipitation in the area averages around 11 inches per year, as shown in Table 3-2. However, rainfall can significantly vary year to year, with over 18 inches received in 2011 and less than 4 inches received in 2014. The recent drought was marked by four consecutive years (2012 to 2015) of less than 10 inches of rainfall. As shown by the average evapotranspiration (ETₒ) and temperature values in Table 3-2, the City’s water use in the summer months is significantly higher than in the winter, reflecting increased water use for irrigation purposes during the hot, dry summers.

Table 3-2. Average Climate Characteristics
MONTH ETₒ
(INCHES)

RAINFALL
(INCHES)

TEMP-HIGH
(°F)

TEMP-LOW
(°F)
Jan 1.17 2.33 56.9 37.4
Feb 1.98 1.8 62.6 39.8
Mar 3.73 1.99 68.4 43.6
Apr 5.43 0.99 73.7 46.9
May 7.33 0.54 81.3 53.2
Jun 8.41 0.19 89.6 59.1
Jul 8.8 0.02 95.7 63.8
Aug 7.82 0.01 94.6 62.5
Sep 5.69 0.07 89.6 57.9
Oct 3.68 0.59 79.3 49.3
Nov 1.85 0.98 66.2 40.6
Dec 1.10 1.83 56.5 36.1
Total/
Average

56.99 11.34 76.2 49.2
Source: CIMIS Website: http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov, Station 80 Fresno State (1988 to 2020) Monthly Average Report, October 2020 (downloaded November 30, 2020) System Description Section 3
City of Fresno
July 2021 3-8
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

3.3 Service Area Population and Demographics
The City experienced rapid growth since it was founded by the Central Pacific Railroad in 1872 up through the mid-1990s, when the City’s annual growth rate was typically greater than 2%.

From 1995 to 2015, the annual growth rate has decreased to an average of 1.3%, and since 2015, the rate has not surpassed 1.0%.

The population served by the City Water Division is slightly higher than the City’s population after adding unincorporated areas served by the City and removing areas within the City limits served by private water companies, special districts, or private wells. The City acquired County service areas and facilities in 1989, which increased the service area population to slightly greater than the City population since 1990.

Figure 3-3 compares the historic City population to the water service area population since 1990.

Water service area population estimates prior to 1990 were unavailable for comparison to the City’s population. The City Water Division’s methodology for calculating the population of the City’s water service area involves summing all the Census tract data for the City’s overall service area and subtracting out tracts not served by the City. These tracts included areas served by Pinedale, Bakman, and CSUF, as well as areas outside the City service area, unserved areas within County areas, unserved areas within City areas, and areas with only partial service (i.e., straddling City service areas). Based on the City’s methodology, the water service area population was estimated to be 546,502 in 2020, compared to 545,769 for the total City population in January 2020 (California Department of Finance, 2020). For comparison, in the 2015 UWMP, the City Water Division population served was 525,575 compared to the total City population of 522,369 (California Department of Finance, 2020). The City’s water service area population in 2020 using the DWR Population Tool is 550,217 and is similar to the population estimate using the City’s methodology.

System Description Section 3
City of Fresno
July 2021 3-9
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Figure 3-3. City of Fresno and Water Service Area Historic Population The City’s General Plan is the City’s primary growth planning document from which the baseline water service area population projection for this UWMP was developed. The General Plan includes population estimates for the City planning area, which includes all areas within City limits and unincorporated areas outside of City limits within the City’s SOI, based on projections developed by the Fresno Council of Governments and estimates a buildout population of 921,057 in 2056. In 2017 the Fresno Council of Governments developed population projections in 5-year increments through 2050 for all cities within Fresno County (Applied Development Economics, Inc. and Mintier Harnish Associates, 2017). The Fresno Council of Governments’ 2017 report projects the City’s population will grow at an annual growth rate ranging from 0.92–

1.44%, with an average annual growth rate between 2020 and 2056 (buildout) of 1.03% per year. These population projections and growth rate have been incorporated in the City’s General Plan population projections.

According to the City’s Planning and Development Department, the City’s water service area population is anticipated to continue to grow along with the City, with some slightly higher growth years anticipated within the next 10 years due to multiple large developments planned for completion in the near term. For planning purposes, this UWMP assumes the City will slowly incorporate areas served by others within the City’s SOI by buildout in year 2056. As such, the long-term water service area population annual growth rate is expected to be 1.44% between 2020 and 2056 to account for absorbing these areas into the City’s water system.

The baseline population projection starts with the 2020 water service area population determined using the DWR Population Tool and grows based on areas expected to be developed by 2030, System Description Section 3
City of Fresno
July 2021 3-10
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
as provided by the City’s Planning Department, and then linearly beyond 2030 to meet the buildout population in 2056. The City’s 2020 population estimate includes the entire City planning area, including areas not served water by the City and areas currently outside the City limits but within the SOI, and is higher than the current water service area population. The water service area population projection assumes the City will incorporate all areas currently served by others and grow to provide water service to all areas within the SOI by buildout. Because the water service area has more growth potential than the City planning area, the annual average growth rate as calculated ranges from 1.1–2.1% between 2020 and 2056, with an average annual growth rate of approximately 1.56% between 2020 and 2045 that continues to slow through the buildout. Table 3-3 shows the water service area population projections through 2045 in fiveyear increments.

Table 3-3. Current and Projected Population (DWR 3-1R)
POPULATION SERVED 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
TOTAL 550,217 609,433 674,677 719,327 765,278 812,529

3.3.1 Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors
Most recently, the City is experiencing significant impacts due to the global pandemic caused by COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In March 2020, the State issued a stay-at-home order that forced many businesses to close and other businesses to require residents to continue work only from their home to slow the spread of the virus. Additionally, the forced closure of several businesses caused a historic increase in unemployment across the US and a resulting economic recession. While all the impacts of COVID-19 are not entirely known at this time, it has caused a shift in water use by customer class. In 2020, residential demands increased by over 8% from 2019 demand, while commercial and industrial water use decreased by over 5%.

This shift is expected to be temporary with an anticipated return to previous levels once all stay at home orders are lifted and businesses can reopen. However, the economic recession could have longer term impacts to the region.
4-1

CITY OF FRESNO
Water Use Characterization
This chapter describes and quantifies 2020 water use and projected water use through 2045 within the City’s service area.

Water consumption in the City is characterized by the
typical demand sectors of residential, commercial,
institutional, industrial, and irrigational. The difference between production and consumption is losses, which may be attributed to system leaks, meter inaccuracies, fire flows, theft, unmetered use, or other factors.

IN THIS SECTION
• Distribution
System Water
Losses
• Past and
Current Water
Use
• Projected
Water Use
Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-2
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use
The City serves its customers potable water for residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, and landscape irrigational demands through its potable water distribution system.

The City also diverts raw surface water obtained from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and Fresno Irrigation District (FID) to recharge basins throughout the service area. The City coordinates with FID for the delivery of the recharge water, utilizing FID’s existing system of channels and pipelines to convey the raw water, and with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) to deliver water to FMFCD’s stormwater retention and recharge basins or its own recharge basins. The raw surface water recharges the groundwater basin to sustain the groundwater supply for the City. The groundwater recharge volume can vary based on surface water supply availability and is represented as an addition to annual groundwater supplies as discussed in Chapter 6. In addition, the City serves a limited number of customers secondary treated or tertiary treated and disinfected recycled water for agricultural irrigation or landscape irrigation, respectively. The recycled water demands are discussed in Section 6.4.

4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use by Sector
The following sections document the past and current water use for each sector, and the projected water use through 2045.

4.2.1 Water Use Sectors
Records of historical water consumption serve as the basis for developing water demands by water use sector. Water consumption is the volume of water measured at each metered service.

The City tracks water consumption across different water use sectors listed in the California Water Code (CWC), including:
• Single-Family Residential
• Multifamily Residential
• Commercial and Institutional / Governmental
• Industrial
• Landscape
• Distribution System Losses
In addition to the water uses listed in the CWC, the City participates in exchanges and transfers, provides temporary travel meters for temporary water use, and diverts non-potable surface supplies for groundwater recharge, described below. The City does not provide water for sales to other agencies, saline water intrusion barriers, or agricultural use.

4.2.1.1 Exchanges
Since 1976, the City has had a water exchange agreement with FID for delivery of the City’s percolated wastewater effluent — considered equivalent to tertiary treatment — to FID canals.

This is not counted as a water use in this chapter and is discussed as a water supply in Section

6.6.1.2. Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-3
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

4.2.1.2 Other
A small, quantified water demand has been classified as “other” to account for temporary travel or construction meters for water used for dust control. This use type typically accounts for less than one percent of total water use.

4.2.2 Distribution System Water Losses
Real losses, as defined in the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Audit tool are:
“Physical water losses from the pressurized system (water mains and customer service connections) and the utility’s storage tanks, up to the point of customer consumption. In metered systems, this is the customer meter; in unmetered situations, this is the first point of consumption (stop tap/tap) within the property. The annual volume lost through all types of leaks, breaks, and overflows depends on frequencies, flow rates, and average duration of individual leaks, breaks, and overflows.”
The past five years of distribution system losses are listed in Table 4-1, and the results of the 2016-2019 AWWA Water Audit Tool are provided in Appendix E. The AWWA Audit Worksheet was not completed for 2020 prior to the submittal of this plan, and the volume of water loss is estimated as the difference between water produced and metered water consumed for each calendar year period.

The overall consumption of water in the system is placed into four different categories:
• Billed Metered Usage
• Billed Unmetered Usage
• Unbilled Metered Usage
• Unbilled Unmetered Usage
The water losses for the system were found by determining the difference between the overall amount of water supplied to the community and the apparent system losses. The City’s system losses have many different possible causes such as hydrant flushing/testing, construction, firefighting, system leaks, water main breaks, and meter error. The estimated loss in 2020 is 9,568 acre-feet (AF), which is the difference between metered production and metered consumption and is approximately 8% of the overall system production. Based on the previous four years of audits, the City has not had to apply meter adjustments in the AWWA Water Audit Tool, and the water losses report is the difference between water produced and metered water consumed each year. It is anticipated that the estimated 2020 water loss volume in Table 4-1 will be the water losses reported on the 2020 AWWA Audit when it is certified.

Currently, the City does not have a water loss standard but intends to evaluate programs to reduce water losses in their Metro Plan that is currently being updated. The City is also tracking forthcoming water use standards, which will include a water loss standard that is planned to be adopted by the Water Board within the next few years.

Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-4
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 4-1. DWR 4-4R 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting

REPORT PERIOD START DATE VOLUME OF WATER

LOSS, AFY

PERCENT LOSS OF

MM YYYY PRODUCTION
1 2016 9,036 8.0%
1 2017 10,235 8.5%
1 2018 9,028 7.5%
1 2019 9,059 7.8%
1 2020 9,568 7.8%
For 2016 through 2019, volume of water loss is taken from the AWWA Water Audit Tool. For 2020, the volume of water loss is the difference in metered production and metered consumption.

4.2.3 Past and Current Water Use
Since 2013, all water services in the City’s water service area have been metered. Prior to 2013, the City estimated single-family residential water use, since these services were not equipped with meters, by subtracting all other metered uses (commercial, institutional, industrial, and irrigational), plus 10% assumed losses, from production data. Water consumption for the City’s water service area by customer type for 2013–2020 is shown on Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1. Historical Consumption by Customer Type (2013–2020) 76,029 67,179
54,189 53,805 57,842 57,314 54,719 60,065
20,901
19,807
17,522 17,774 18,393 18,448 17,922
18,842
20,062
20,047
17,469 17,887 19,008 19,089 17,938
16,971
5,747
5,800
5,618 5,533
5,698 5,561 5,554 5,729
10,666
9,130
7,358 7,726
9,021 9,872 10,019
10,478
133,692
122,191
102,308 103,045
110,525 110,725 106,500 112,426
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Metered Consumption (AF)
Single-family Residential Multi-family Residential Commercial/Institutional Industrial Landscape Irrigation Travel Meters
Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-5
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
As shown in the figure, single-family residential water use has decreased more than 20,000 AFY since the Single-Family Metering Program was completed in 2013. Multifamily residential, commercial, and institutional services have historically been metered, and consumption has also decreased since 2013, with industrial users and landscape irrigation consumption at similar levels to 2013 consumption, even as new customers are connected to the City’s water system.

Landscape irrigation demands did decrease in 2015 and 2016, likely due to the drought restrictions, and continue to recover after the drought ended in 2017.

Table 4-2 provides the breakdown of actual water use by sector type in calendar year 2020. As shown in Table 4-2, single-family residential water use is the largest use type in the City and accounted for almost 50% of potable water use in 2020. Multifamily residential use was the second largest, accounting for approximately 15% of water sales in 2020. Together, residential water use accounts for about 65% of all potable water uses in the City’s service area. The remaining potable water uses consist of mainly commercial and institutional water use, which are tracked together and included only on the commercial use row on Table 4-2, followed by landscape irrigation and industrial usage. Distribution losses accounted for approximately 8% of potable water used in 2020 (per Section 4.2.2).

Table 4-2. Actual Demands for Water: Potable (DWR 4-1R)

USE TYPE

ADDITIONAL

DESCRIPTION

LEVEL OF TREATMENT

WHEN DELIVERED
2020
VOLUME

PERCENT

OF TOTAL
Single Family Drinking Water 60,065 49.2%
Multi-Family Drinking Water 18,842 15.4%
Commercial Drinking Water 16,971 13.9%
Industrial Drinking Water 5,729 4.7%
Institutional/
Governmental
See Note 1 Drinking Water --- ---
Landscape Drinking Water 10,478 8.6%
Other Travel Meters Drinking Water 340 0.3%
Losses Drinking Water 9,568 7.8%
Total: 121,993 100%
Note:

1. Institutional and Governmental water usage is included in the Commercial use type.

Figure 4-2 shows the historic volume of the City’s raw surface water used for groundwater recharge since 2000. Over the last 20 years (2000–2020), the average annual intentional recharge of surface water was 49,240 AFY. Total recharge has ranged from a high of 82,900 AF in 2019 and a low of 19,700 AF in 2015. Also, total recharge volumes in 2016, 2017, and 2019 were three of the highest volumes in the last 20 years. The increases were due to over 30% increase in recharge at City basins from the addition of several basins (Nielsen, Fancher) and proactive maintenance of basins to maximize percolation capacity. The annual variability between years is caused by several factors, including basin availability, water delivery season, pond maintenance, or length of wet seasons.

Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-6
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Figure 4-2. Historic Recharge of City Surface Water

4.2.4 Projected Water Use

4.2.4.1 Land Use Projections
The potable demand projections through 2045 for normal water use follow the methodology for land use-based projections described in Appendix K of the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) Guidebook. Under this methodology, existing land use and demand is accounted separately from future land use and demand. This allows different demand factors to be applied to current land use areas and future land use areas. Future land use areas represent future customers and developments that are expected to be more water efficient than existing land uses and buildings due to the California Plumbing Code (CPC) and use of higher efficiency appliances and landscapes.

The existing and future land use acreage was sourced from the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database and the City’s General Plan. The existing land use shapefile and associated acreage for each land use classification were used to represent 2020 land use data.

Areas not served by the City were excluded from the existing land use shapefile. The future land use shapefile corresponds with the planned land use at buildout as described in the City’s General Plan representing the year 2056. Although the City does not have any plans to serve areas currently served by others within the City limits, all areas within the City Sphere of Influence (SOI) were assumed to be served by the City by buildout for conservative planning purposes. Table 4-3 lists the land use acreage by land use category for the 2020 and buildout 2056 water service areas. 54,995 46,538 46,514
55,46144,92542,88139,74936,58349,85252,53850,96148,91945,47145,16934,68119,76265,650 72,11649,119
82,93342,686
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
AFY
Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-7
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
The land use acreage between 2020 and 2056 was estimated in 5-year increments based on areas planned to be developed by 2030 from the City’s Planning Department, and by linearly interpolating the remainder of the change in acreage for each land use category between 2030 and 2056. Figure 4-3 shows the existing and projected land use by customer class used to develop the projections.

Table 4-3. Existing and Future Water Service Area Acreage

LAND USE CATEGORY
2020 WATER
SERVICE AREA1, 3, 4
2056 WATER
SERVICE AREA2

ACRES PERCENT ACRES PERCENT
Single-Family Residential 27,700 47% 40,000 47%
Multifamily Residential 3,700 6% 3,800 5%
Commercial 4,500 8% 8,600 10%
Public Facility 5,600 9% 7,200 9%
Industrial 4,500 8% 9,300 11%
Open Space/
Landscape Irrigation 13,100 22% 11,000 13%
Mixed Use3 0 0% 3,900 5%
Downtown3 0 0% 600 1%
TOTAL 59,100 100% 84,300 100%
Notes:

1. Acreage from City of Fresno GIS Shapefile of Land Uses provided 8/12/20 and reduced to the City's water service area (excludes Pinedale, Bakman, and California State University Fresno and unserved areas outside the City limit and SOI).

2. Future Land Use Shapefile provided by the City on 8/12/20 and aligns with the General Plan for buildout in year 2056. The buildout service area acreage listed excludes the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility, land used for road, highways, and railroads, and the north area outside of the SOI.

3. Mixed use and downtown land use categories are not in the existing land use shapefile.

They are described in the General Plan as new designations for redevelopment of existing areas that contain a mix of land uses.

4. Approximately 11,300 acres of non-water demanding vacant/partially vacant land is excluded from the 2020 water service area acreage.

Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-8
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Figure 4-3. Existing and Projected Land Use
Note: Acreage for Mixed-use and Downtown land use types are not shown every year for clarity, but are included in the total acreage value.

4.2.4.2 Demand Factors and Future Savings
Land use-based water demand factors were developed using 2018 metered consumption data matched to 72 categories of land use data. These demand factors were applied to the 2020 land use acreage by category to develop the demand projection beginning in 2020. Demand factors for land uses that grow over time and represent new developments were assigned a lower demand factor than the demand factors for existing development. Additionally, demand factors were assumed to slowly reduce over time due to passive conservation, which includes the replacement of older water fixtures and appliances with more efficient types now required as part of the CPC. The passive conservation savings are projected to be greater for existing customers than future customers because future customers are already assumed to have a lower water demand factor and meet the plumbing code.

Future savings due to passive conservation were developed using the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) Water Conservation Tracking Tool. The Tracking Tool is an Excel tool that can 27,702 30,044 32,387 33,849 35,312 36,774 38,237 39,699 39,992 3,666 3,707 3,747 3,762 3,777 3,792 3,807 3,822 3,825
4,453 5,236 6,018 6,505 6,992 7,479 7,966 8,453 8,551
5,615 5,874 6,133 6,335 6,537 6,740 6,942 7,144 7,184
4,519
5,201
6,384 6,944 7,504 8,064 8,624 9,184 9,296
13,094
12,979
12,863 12,501 12,139 11,776 11,414 2,293 11,052 10,980 2,783 3,274 3,764 3,862 59,050
63,781
69,012 71,952 74,891 77,831 80,770 83,710 84,298
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2056
Land Use Acreage
SFR MFR Commercial Public
Industrial Open Space Mixed Use Downtown
Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-9
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
incorporate water service area-specific data to estimate natural replacement rates of fixtures and future savings based on the CPC.

Table 4-4 lists the passive conservation savings assumption incorporated in the potable demand projections. Existing unit demand factors are reduced by the percentages listed to develop the future development unit demand factors. As shown in the table, this assumes future residential and non-residential dwelling units are 10% and 5% more water efficient, respectively, than existing dwelling units due to changes in the plumbing code and ever-increasing new water efficient technology. Table 4-5 compares the total potable demand projections without the estimated savings due to passive conservation from 2025–2045.

Table 4-4. Passive Conservation Savings Assumptions

LAND USE TYPE
FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT

UNIT DEMAND
FACTOR
REDUCTION1

EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT

ANNUAL PASSIVE

CONSERVATION
SAVINGS2
FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT

ANNUAL PASSIVE

CONSERVATION
SAVINGS3
Residential/Mixed Use 10% 0.20% per year 0.04% per year Commercial/Downtown 5% 0.05% per year 0.01% per year
Public 5% 0.05% per year 0.01% per year
Industrial 5% 0.05% per year 0.01% per year
Open Space/
Landscape Irrigation 0% 0% per year 0% per year
Notes:

1. Existing (2020) unit demand factors are reduced by the percentages listed to develop the future development unit demand factors.

2. Existing development annual passive conservation savings were developed using the AWE Water Conservation Tracking Tool.

3. Future development passive conservation savings are assumed to be one-fifth the rate of existing development passive conservation savings.

Table 4-5. Projected Future Savings for Potable Demands, AF 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total Potable Demand with no conservation 137,521 149,361 157,204 165,047 173,160 Estimated Passive Conservation 1,017 2,005 2,994 3,973 5,213

TOTAL POTABLE DEMAND
WITH PASSIVE CONSERVATION 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,074 167,947 Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-10
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

4.2.4.3 Demand Projections
Table 4-6 provides the projected demands by use type based on the methodology described above. Table 4-7 includes the projected raw surface water used for groundwater recharge through the planning period for normal years. The City intends to recharge an average of 60,000 AFY beyond 2020, corresponding with the average recharge volume from 2016 through 2020, and gradually increase recharge by about 540 AFY each year. In 2025, the normal year groundwater recharge is projected to be 62,700 AFY and will continue to increase to 73,500 AFY by 2045. The actual volume recharged is based on the available surface water supplies each year, as well as available basin capacity and other factors, and may be lower in dry years or higher in wet years.

Table 4-6. Projected Demands for Water: Potable (DWR 4-2R)

USE TYPE ADDITIONAL

DESCRIPTION

PROJECTED WATER USE
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Family 76,255 80,429 82,934 85,437 87,936
Multi-Family 19,000 20,654 21,737 22,831 23,935
Commercial 19,052 21,135 22,587 24,041 25,496
Industrial 7,410 9,003 9,922 10,841 11,758
Institutional/
Governmental See Note 1
Landscape 4,490 5,035 5,422 5,809 6,196
Other Travel Meters 200 200 200 200 200
Losses 10,097 10,900 11,408 11,917 12,426
TOTAL: 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Note 1: Institutional and Governmental water usage is included in the Commercial use type.

Table 4-7. Projected Demands for Water: Non-Potable (DWR 4-2R) - ADDITIONAL

DESCRIPTION

PROJECTED WATER USE
USE TYPE 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater
Recharge Raw-Water 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
- TOTAL: 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-11
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

4.2.4.4 Future Conservation
In 2018, following the unprecedented drought, California Legislature established a framework centered on “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life.” The goal was to help the State better prepare for droughts and climate change by establishing statewide water efficiency standards and incentivizing recycled water (California Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board, November 2018). The resulting legislation of Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668, along with future regulations, will have impacts on water providers over the coming years, requiring indoor, outdoor, and commercial, industrial, and institutional water use goals, water loss standards, annual water budgets, and documented preparation for longterm water shortages. All the water use goals together will form a total urban water use objective specific for each water agency. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has provided recommended standards for indoor residential water use, and other urban water use goals are currently being developed and are expected to be released in late 2021. The State Water Resources Control Board is anticipated to adopt the element that includes the total water use objective in 2022, and agencies will begin reporting their water use in accordance with their urban water use objective beginning in 2024, with compliance anticipated by 2027. Because most of the water use goals are unknown, and none has been adopted by the State, the City’s total urban water use objective is unknown and was not incorporated into the demand projections herein. However, the City is tracking the water use efficiency standards and goals and is aware it may need to implement additional conservation above what is presented in these projections to meet its total urban water use objective as mandated by the State in the future. The City is considering these higher conservation demand projections within a demand envelope in the current Metro Plan update.

4.2.5 Characteristic Five-Year Water Use
A new component of the UWMP is to prepare a five-year drought risk assessment (DRA) to evaluate water service reliability for a drought lasting five years from 2021–2025. The five-year DRA assumes potable water demand is unconstrained, and the City will continue to meet all projected potable demands. The raw water demand varies based on the availability of surface water supplies for groundwater recharge. The recycled water supply is not impacted by the drought, and recycled water demands are at normal year projections for the five-year drought.

Projected water demands for years 2021–2025 for the DRA are included in Section 7.2.

4.3 Water Use for Lower Income Households
The Fresno Council of Governments (COG) prepared an update to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to cover the period of January 1, 2015–December 31, 2023. The City subsequently developed its own Housing Element based on the COG RHNA for the planning period of December 31, 2015–December 31, 2023. The City’s current Housing Element was adopted on April 13, 2017.

The City’s Housing Element specifies the City will develop 8,955 new housing units through 2023 for extremely low, very low, and low income levels (City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department, 2017). The City’s Planning and Development Department prepares Housing Element Annual Progress Reports to report the progress of the RHNA and housing goals. The City of Fresno 2019 Housing Element Annual Progress Report details that 909 lower income units are approved or permitted (City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-12
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
2020). The remaining number of lower income units needed over the RHNA 2013–2023 period, when subtracting the approved and permitted units, is 8,046.

Table 4-8 includes the Housing Element identified available single-family and multifamily acres to be developed and dwelling units for Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate income levels (City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department, 2017). This data was used to determine the number of acres of both single-family and multifamily land use that needs to be developed by 2023 to meet the remaining 8,046 lower income units target for RHNA. The identified acres needed for low-income development by 2023 was applied to the average water demand factor for single-family and multifamily land uses to project the lower income water demands through 2023 to meet RHNA, shown in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8. Lower Income Dwelling Units and Acres to be Developed through 2023 and Estimated Water Demand

FRESNO HOUSING ELEMENT

SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL

MULTIFAMILY

RESIDENTIAL TOTAL
Acres Available for Low-Income
Development 3,163.6 1,310.9 4,474.5
Total Dwelling Units 13,457 21,526 34,983
Dwelling Unit per Acre 4.25 16.42
Dwelling Unit Needed to Meet RHNA 3,095 4,951 8,046
Acres to be developed to Meet RHNA 727.6 301.5 1,029.1
Average Water Demand Factor (AF/ Acre) 2.54 5.13
Low-Income Demand to meet RHNA
from years 2020 – 2023 (AF) 1,847 1,545 3,392
Annual Low-Income Demand to meet
RHNA (AFY) 462 386 848
Based on the estimated low-income water demand to meet the RHNA requirements by 2023, the annual projected low-income households demand is 462 AFY for single-family residential and 386 AFY for multifamily residential. For the purposes of this plan, the current RHNA projected low-income growth and water demands was applied through the UWMP planning period of 2045 and is presented in Table 4-9. However, lower income demands beyond 2023 will be based on the next Housing Element and RHNA Update expected in 2023 and may change in the future. All housing units and associated population are included in the adopted General Plan, and the demands for these units that occur within the water service area boundaries are included in the future water demands presented in this plan.

Table 4-9. Lower Income Household Projected Water Demands LOW INCOME DEMAND 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single-Family Residential Demand 2,308 2,308 2,308 2,308 2,308 Multifamily Residential Demand 1,932 1,932 1,932 1,932 1,932 TOTAL (AF) 4,240 4,240 4,240 4,240 4,240
Water Use Characterization Section 4
City of Fresno
July 2021 4-13
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

4.4 Climate Change Considerations
Climate change impacts were considered in the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan (NKGSP) based on DWR’s Guidance for Climate Change Data Use during Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Department of Water Resources, 2018) and the related Sustainable Groundwater Management Act climate change website.1 As documented in the NKGSP, the DWR climate change datasets were developed for the California Water Commission’s Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP), are consistent with other DWR programs, are based on the best available science, build on previous efforts, incorporate the latest advances in projections, and follow the Climate Change Technical Advisory Group guidance (Provost & Pritchard, November 2019).

Changing precipitation and evapotranspiration (ETo) rates are expected to have the greatest impact on future demands, especially for outdoor water use. The WSIP climate change data sets estimate minimal changes to precipitation due to climate change from the historic period. The same datasets predict the ETo rate estimates with climate change will increase 3% by 2030 and up to 8% by 2070. More specifically, the ETo rate is predicted to increase the most in typically low ETo months (winter) and when irrigation is limited. The ETo rate is also predicted to be only slightly higher than historic in warmer months during the irrigation season. While higher ETo rates would increase irrigation demands, they are not anticipated to substantially impact the City’s urban water use. The climate change impacts to supply sources are discussed in the supply chapter of Section 6.8.2.1.
1 https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/sgma-climate-change-resources 5-1

CITY OF FRESNO
SBX7-7 Baseline, Targets and 2020 Compliance
Senate Bill x 7-7 (SBx7-7) was signed into law in 2009 and requires the State to achieve a 20% reduction in per capita water use by December 31, 2020, with an interim target of 10% reduction by December 31, 2015.

The legislation requires each urban water supplier to
develop and include in its Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) estimates of: 1) baseline daily per capita water use; 2) daily per capita water use target; 3) daily per capita water use interim target; and 4) compliance daily per capita water use. The UWMP must also include the basis for
determining the estimates, with references to supporting data.

IN THIS SECTION
• Baselines &
Targets
• 2020
Compliance
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) developed the Methodologies for Calculating Baseline and Compliance Urban Per Capita Water Use Guidebook (GPCD Methodologies Guidebook) to provide appropriate methodologies and criteria guidance (California Department of Water Resources, Feb 2016).

The baseline and 2020 per capita water use targets were calculated in the 2015 UWMP and are provided in Appendix C. There have not been significant changes in the City’s service area since 2015, thus the calculations included in the 2015 Plan are still valid for compliance in this 2020 UWMP.

SBX7-7 Baseline, Targets and 2020 Compliance Section 5
City of Fresno
July 2021 5-2
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

5.1 General Requirements for Baseline and Target
Methodologies consistent with those described in the GPCD Methodologies Guidebook were used to develop baselines and targets. The selected procedure used to develop the required SBx7-7 estimates includes the following basic steps:

1. Calculate baseline water use, which is the average gross daily water use per capita, reported in gallons per capita per day (GPCD), based on gross water use and service area population for a continuous 10-year period ending no earlier than December 31, 2004.

2. Calculate urban water use target using one of the four methods described below.

3. Check and confirm the urban water use target using the five-year running average.

4. Calculate the interim urban water use target (equal to the average of the baseline and confirmed urban water use target).

5. Calculate the compliance daily per capita water use (equal to the gross daily water use per capita during the final year of the reporting period).

DWR allows the urban water supplier to choose one of four different methods to calculate the urban water use target in Step 2 above.
• Method 1 involves calculating the target based on 80% of baseline daily per capita water use and the interim target based on 90% of the baseline daily per capita water use. • Method 2 involves calculating the per capita daily water use by using the sum of performance standards applied to indoor residential use, landscaped area water use, and commercial, industrial, and institutional uses.
• Method 3 calculates the water use target as 95% of the applicable state hydrologic region target as stated in the draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. • Method 4 is an approach developed by DWR that uses a spreadsheet to calculate estimated water savings factors to estimate targets.

The City selected Method 1 for determining its 2015 Interim and 2020 Final urban water use targets during the preparation of its 2010 UWMP. This selection was made after reviewing the four alternative methods available. Rather than duplicating the evaluation for this plan update, the reader is directed to Appendix I of the City’s 2010 UWMP for details, as the previous City adopted evaluation is still applicable and results in the same target method selection.

5.2 Service Area Population
The City’s 2020 service area population was estimated using the DWR Population Tool consistent with DWR Methodology 3 (Service Area Population) and the 2015 UWMP. Shapefiles of the City’s water service area were loaded into the DWR Population Tool along with available residential service connection numbers to develop service area populations for the corresponding census years. The DWR Population Tool, provided in Appendix F, estimated the City’s water service area population is 550,217. The DWR Population Tool provides a population based on the 2000 and 2010 census data and, published effective as of April 1 of the census year, the water service area during each census year and the number of water service connections. For the 2020 population, the number of services from December 31, 2020, was used, and the 550,217 population is estimated as of the end of 2020.

SBX7-7 Baseline, Targets and 2020 Compliance Section 5
City of Fresno
July 2021 5-3
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

5.3 Gross Water Use
The City’s gross water use is comprised of surface water contracted for delivery of allocated supplies from USBR and FID and groundwater produced by its municipal wells. The basis of gross water use are the meters installed at the City’s North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility, Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility, and T-3 Water Storage and modular Surface Water Treatment Facility, and each of its municipal groundwater wells, which are equipped with flow meters. DWR Methodology 1 (gross water use) provides the opportunity to make adjustments and deductions in the reported gross water use for factors such as: meter errors, changes in distribution storage, indirect recycled water use, agricultural water use, and process water use. The City’s gross water use has not been adjusted for any of these factors.

Therefore, the total water use shown in Table 4-2 is the City’s gross water use.

5.4 Baselines and Target Summary
The City’s 2015 UWMP reviewed and updated the 10-year and five-year Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use and 2020 Target, included in Table 5-1. The continuous time period used in the 2015 UWMP for the 10-year baseline period is 1999–2008 and has an associated average daily per capita water use of 309 GPCD. The continuous time period that was used in the 2015 UWMP for the five-year target confirmation baseline period was 2003–2007, which has an associated average daily per capita water use of 304 GPCD. The confirmed 2020 target was established as a 20% reduction from the 10-year baseline per capita use and is 247 GPCD.

Refer to Chapter 5 of the City’s 2015 UWMP for more information on how the baselines and targets were developed.

Table 5-1. Per Capita Water Use Baseline and 2020 Target

BASELINE
PERIOD
TIME
PERIOD

AVERAGE

BASELINE GPCD
(GPCD)
CONFIRMED 2020

TARGET (GPCD)
10 Year 1999 – 2008 309
247
5 Year 2003 – 2007 304

5.5 2020 Compliance Daily Per-Capita Water Use (GPCD)
This section presents the procedure used to meet the requirements of SBx7-7 as defined in the Water Conservation Act of 2009 as incorporated into Division 6 of the California Water Code, commencing with Section 10608 of Part 2.55.

5.5.1 Meeting the 2020 Target
The determination of 2020 target compliance is based on gross water use for the 2020 calendar year, which was 121,993 acre-feet (see Table 4-2), and a service area population of 550,217 as of December 31, 2020 (see Table 3-1). The resultant actual per capita water use for the City in 2020 was 198 GPCD. As such, the City has met and exceeded the 2020 target of 247 GPCD.

The overall water usage patterns of the City have been greatly reduced due to its conservation measures and metering of all services. Prior to January 2013, nearly all of the City’s single-family residential water customers had been billed on a monthly flat rate structure; they were unaware of the water they actually used and had no real incentive to conserve water. As of January 2013, the City has completed its residential water meter program, which installed approximately SBX7-7 Baseline, Targets and 2020 Compliance Section 5
City of Fresno
July 2021 5-4
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
113,000 water meters for single-family homes. With the completion of this program, all the City’s water service connections are now metered, and the City and its customers can work more closely together to optimize water use. Since completion of the project, residential water demands have dramatically decreased. Attainment of the 2020 target has been influenced by the City’s investments in metering and the proactive conservation education and outreach to customers. These factors have played a significant role in the City’s ability to meet and surpass the 2020 target. In the future, the City will need to remain diligent in monitoring water use and continuing incentive programs to further reduce water consumption. These efforts are necessary so when the current strict reduction requirements are lifted, all water users remain diligent in avoiding unnecessary use of water and upgrade fixtures to eliminate water wasting.

5.5.2 2020 Adjustments to 2020 Gross Water Use
No extraordinary events or economic adjustments have taken place that would cause any adverse effects with regards to overall water usage. As was previously mentioned, the City did not make any adjustments to the 2020 gross water use as is permissible with Water Code 10608.24 cited above.
6-1

CITY OF FRESNO
Water Supply
Characterization
This chapter identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water supplies for the City through 2045.

The City relies on groundwater from the North Kings
Subbasin; surface water from Central Valley Project (CVP), through a contract with the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR); Kings River water, through a contract with Fresno Irrigation District (FID); and recycled water.

This chapter also provides a discussion of supply
availability and reliability under normal supply conditions (normal water year), during a single dry year, and for a drought lasting five years.

IN THIS SECTION
• Groundwater
• Surface Water
• Recycled Water
• Projected
Water Supply
Water production in the City has consisted of 100% groundwater prior to the commissioning of the City’s first surface water treatment facility (SWTF) in 2004.

Since 2004, the City has invested in expanding its surface water treatment capabilities and now has three SWTFs that provide approximately half of all potable water demands in the service area.

Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-2
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

6.1 Groundwater
The City overlies the Kings Subbasin, which is part of the greater San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The City is one of many water purveyors that use groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. The City has a network of over 270 municipal wells and currently operates approximately 202 municipal supply wells within the Kings Subbasin. Until late 2004, the City relied solely on groundwater to meet the water demands. The City’s desire is to continue to use groundwater within a larger conjunctive use program that maximizes its existing water rights and surface water supply sources.

6.1.1 Basin Description
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) has partitioned the State into 10 major hydrologic regions (also referred to as “basins”) and then further divided each basin into subbasins. The City is located in the Kings Subbasin (DWR Groundwater Subbasin Number 5-22.08) and lies within the larger San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin in the Central Valley of California. The Kings Subbasin covers approximately 1,530 square miles (sq mi).

6.1.1.1 Basin Location
The San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin is bounded to the north by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley, to the east by the Sierra Nevada Mountains, to the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains, and to the west by the Coast Ranges. The Kings Subbasin, located within the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, is bounded to the north by the San Joaquin River, to the east by the alluvium-granite rock interface of the Sierra Nevada foothills, to the south by the southern fork of the Kings River, and to the west by the Delta-Mendota and Westside Subbasins (California Department of Water Resources, January 2006). The Kings Subbasin is split into seven Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) management areas, with Fresno located in the North Kings GSA. Figure 6-1 illustrates the location of the City within the Kings Subbasin.

6.1.1.2 Area Geology
The upper several hundred feet of geology within the Kings Subbasin generally consists of highly permeable, coarse-grained deposits, which are termed older alluvium. Figure 6-2 presents an idealized hydrogeologic cross-section that illustrates the general depth of various lithologic features within the Kings Subbasin, near the City.

Coarse-grained stream channel deposits, associated with deposits by the ancestral San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, underlie much of northwest Fresno (Layer 3 and 4 in Figure 6-2). There is a laterally extensive clay layer, at an average depth of approximately 250 feet below the ground surface, beneath most of the south and southeastern portions of the City.

Below the older alluvium, to depths ranging about 600–1,200 feet below ground surface, the finer-grained sediments of the tertiary-quaternary continental deposits are typically encountered (Layer 5 in Figure 6-2). Substantial groundwater has been produced and utilized from these depths by the City. However, deeper deposits located in the southeastern and northern portions of the City have produced less groundwater.

There are also reduced deposits in the northern and eastern portions of the City, at depths generally below 700 or 800 feet, which are associated with high concentrations of iron, manganese, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, and methane gas. Groundwater at these depths does not generally provide a significant source for municipal supply wells.

Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-4
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Figure 6-2. Kings Groundwater Subbasin Conceptual Hydrogeologic Cross-Section, Southwest-Northeast Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-5
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

6.1.1.3 Aquifer Characteristics
The aquifer beneath the City was characterized using data compiled during aquifer tests performed at the City’s production wells. As part of updating the detailed hydrogeologic evaluation, aquifer test data (pump tests) were reviewed to update the hydrogeologic analysis and evaluate the specific capacity data. The specific capacity indicates the ability of a particular well to produce water. Figure 6-3 presents the estimated specific capacity of each active well from early 2020 pump test data. As shown in the figure, the northwestern and southwestern portions of the City have wells with higher specific capacities.

6.1.2 Groundwater Management
In 2014, a three-bill legislative package was signed into law, composed of Assembly Bill 1739, Senate Bill (SB) 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014, which is codified in Section 10720 et seq. of the California Water Code. This legislation created a statutory framework for groundwater management in California that can be sustained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results. SGMA requires governments and water agencies of “critically overdrafted” basins to reach sustainability by 2040. The Kings Subbasin was designated a critically overdrafted basin in the DWR’s Bulletin 118. The North Kings GSA is working within the SGMA framework to reach groundwater sustainability.

The City was a founding member of the North Kings GSA, which consists of the following public agencies and participating agencies:
• Fresno Irrigation District (member)
• City of Fresno (member)
• City of Clovis (member)
• City of Kerman (member)
• County of Fresno (member)
• Bakman Water Company (participating
agency)
• Biola Community Services District
(member)
• Garfield Water District (member)
• International Water District (member)
• Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
(participating agency)
The Kings Subbasin contains seven GSAs, including the North Kings GSA, as listed below and shown in Figure 6-1:
• Central Kings GSA
• James Irrigation District GSA
• Kings River East GSA
• McMullin Area GSA
• North Kings GSA
• North Fork Kings GSA
• South Kings GSA
The seven GSAs operate cooperatively across the basin via a coordination agreement that ensures common approaches to sustainability items such as similarity of data usage and methodologies, consistent interpretations of the basin setting, and common assumptions and development of water budgets, monitoring networks, sustainable management criteria and data management systems.

The North Kings GSA prepared and submitted its GSP in January 2020 (Provost & Pritchard, November 2019) and is awaiting DWR review by January 2022.

Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
Belmont Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
McKinley Ave
California Ave
Jensen Ave
West Ave
Walnut Ave
Chestnut Ave
North Ave
Central Ave
Temperance Ave
American Ave
Elm Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/ CA-180
East Ave
Cedar Ave
Peach Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Behymer Ave
Copper Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highand Ave
McCall Ave
Del Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Jameson Ave
Fresno Yosemite
International Airport

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

DRY CREEK
180
168
41 41
99 99
City of
Clovis
W:\GIS\Fresno\Metro Plan\2020 UWMP\Fresno_UWMP.aprx
Prepared by:
0 1 in.
0 0.75 1.5 3
Mi
0 3,500 7,000 14,000
US Feet
Prepared for: City of Fresno
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Legend
Well Specific Capacity (gpm/ft)
Unknown
< 20
20 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 200
200 - 450
Groundwater Quadrant Divide
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Fresno City Limits
Streets
1:136,886
References:

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983

1. Well specific capacity was provided by the City and
calculated using 2020 data.

Notes:

Figure 6-3. City Wells Specific Capacity
SE Quadrant
SW Quadrant
NW Quadrant
NE Quadrant
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-7
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
As required by SGMA, the North Kings considers six sustainability indicators:
• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating significant and unreasonable depletion of supply
• Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage • Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion
• Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality
• Significant and unreasonable land subsidence
• Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water
Each indicator has an identified undesirable result, measurable objective, and minimum threshold. The measurable objective and minimum threshold allow the North Kings GSA to evaluate their progress for the subject indicator and determine if conditions are improving, remaining stable or degrading. The sustainability indicators of primary concern within the City are groundwater levels, groundwater storage, and groundwater quality. The methodology for the water quality indicators has been developed and the methodology is still being developed for the groundwater levels and groundwater storage indicators. A copy of the GSP is provided in Appendix G of this UWMP1.

6.1.3 Overdraft Conditions
SGMA directs DWR to identify groundwater basins and subbasins in conditions of critical overdraft. As defined by SGMA, “A basin is subject to critical overdraft when continuation of present water management practices would probably result in significant adverse overdraftrelated environmental, social, or economic impacts.” As mentioned, DWR classifies the Kings Basin as being in a state of critical overdraft in its Bulletin 118, and the future of the groundwater basin has been projected to see continued overdraft conditions.

The Kings Subbasin groundwater aquifer supplies the City, other municipalities, agriculture, and rural residential areas with a consistent source of water. Like much of the Kings Subbasin, groundwater levels beneath the City were relatively shallow at 25 feet below ground surface in 1940, prior to the start of World War II (Fresno City Water, Engineering Department, 1940). After the war, the State, including the City, began growing at a rapid rate. For the period from 1959 to 1968 it was reported groundwater levels declined at a rate of 2.8 feet per year (John Carollo Engineers, 1969). The City continued to rely on the groundwater aquifer for decades, monitoring groundwater levels continuously. Groundwater levels since 1990 have declined at a lower rate than previously. Rates of decline slowed further starting in 2004 when the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF) started operations and the City renewed focus on increasing groundwater recharge. In 2019 and 2020, surface water accounted for more than half of the total water supply in the City. With the reduced pumping due to higher reliance of surface water, the groundwater levels have begun to increase in certain areas of the City in the last few years. Figure 6-4 provides a depiction of the City’s depth to groundwater for six representative wells across the Sphere of Influence (SOI) since 1960.

The City expects to continue to operate its three SWTFs and pump groundwater at a lower rate than historically so that the groundwater basin can recover. One of the primary objectives for the City as described in its current Metro Plan is to maximize the use of available surface water 1 Available at https://www.northkingsgsa.org/groundwater-sustainability-plan/ Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-8
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
treatment supplies to reduce overall reliance on groundwater. Additionally, as described in Chapter 4, the City plans to continue their groundwater recharge program to protect the groundwater basin. Figure 6-5 shows the active and proposed recharge basins and FID Canals the City utilizes as part of groundwater recharge program.

Figure 6-4. Time Series of Groundwater Levels at Representative Wells

6.1.4 Groundwater Quality
Groundwater within the North Kings Subbasin generally meets primary and secondary drinking water standards for municipal water use and is described as being bicarbonate type water, including calcium, magnesium, and sodium as the dominant ions (California Department of Water Resources, January 2006). Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations rarely exceed 600 mg/L and range from 200 to 700 mg/L (California Department of Water Resources, January 2006). However, the groundwater basin has been impacted by multiple chemical contaminants that affect the City’s ability to fully utilize the groundwater basin resources without some type of wellhead treatment in certain areas.

Figure 6-6 presents the general location of regional plumes and major point sources within the City. The primary contaminants are nitrate, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), 1,2,3- trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP), and other volatile organic compounds like trichloroethylene (TCE) and and perchloroethylene (PCE). The City has received settlements in a number of lawsuits related to these contaminants and has constructed wellhead treatment systems and implemented blending plans for a number of wells.

Q3
Q3
Q3
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
Belmont Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
McKinley Ave
California Ave
Jensen Ave
West Ave
Walnut Ave
Chestnut Ave
North Ave
Central Ave
Temperance Ave
American Ave
Elm Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/ CA-180
East Ave
Cedar Ave
Peach Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Behymer Ave
Copper Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highand Ave
McCall Ave
Del Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Jameson Ave
Fresno Yosemite
International Airport

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

DRY CREEK
168
41 41
99 99
City of
Clovis
NESWTF
SESWTF
T3 SWTF
BU
CK
3D
4C
RCR
AY
BJ
CU
CV
FF
HH
SS
DM
FGB
CQ
D
DG
EL
GG
II3
UU2
LL
CD
BP
AR
CG
CJ
AE
AZ
AN
AH2
4B
ZZ
BT
DH1
CI
BK
6D
M
3F
Z
AH1
CP
L
EJ
O
BG
FCR
BL
X
AB
K
AG
DO
EH
BDB
J
AM
AQ
DS
BY
UU3
B/E
AS
AU
DV
BQ
II4
V
JJ
BD
4D
PCB
BB
AL
CM
BC
1G
P
CZ
EM
MM
7C
BW
BV
CX
BF
CY
W
CS
DCE
Y
DI
DK
R
DL
EG
OO
DH2
PP
A
5F
CL
BS
AJ Q
XX
CH
G
II1
NN
TT2
TT1
AW2
CE
AW1
RCB
BM
BR
KK
AX
3G
AO
EI
7D
2D
F
EN
AI
EO
BO
AK
AF
EK
CO2
H
I
AA
AD
EF
AC
DQ
CN
PEB
5B/5C
BDR
U
C
3A
N
AV
DD1
DD2
4E
7H
BZ
DE
II2
DP
CF
1E
T
S
CW
BX
ADB
BE
EE
CC
RR1
RR2
RR3
BH
DN
Effluent
Percolation
Ponds
Leaky
Acres
Alluvial
Recharge
North
Fresno WRF
Fresno-Clovis
Regional WRF
Fresno State Axt
Simpson
Johnson
Limbaugh
Serena
Woodward Lake
Blasingame
Oleander
Southwest
Banking
Facility
Wagner
Pond
Central Basin
Central & Hughes
Central Basin
Malaga
& East
North
Central
Kearney
Avenue
Chestnut Avenue
Woodward Park
Nielsen
Recharge
Fancher Basin
South
W:\GIS\Fresno\Metro Plan\2020 UWMP\Fresno_UWMP.aprx
Prepared by:
0 1 in.
0 0.75 1.5 3
Mi
0 3,500 7,000 14,000
US Feet
Prepared for: City of Fresno
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Legend
Groundwater Recharge Basins
FID Basin
Privately Owned Basin
City of Clovis Basin
City of Fresno Basin
RWRF Effluent Percolation Area
FMFCD Basin
FMFCD Proposed Basin
FMFCD Boundary
Wastewater Reclamation
Facility
Q3 Water Treatment Plant
FID Facilities by Capacity
Less than 35 cfs
35 - 150 cfs
150 - 350 cfs
350 - 900 cfs
900 - 1500 cfs
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Fresno City Limits
Streets
1:136,886
References:

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983
Notes:

Figure 6-5. Groundwater Recharge System
Owner/ Operator
No. of
Basins
Total Area
(acres)
FID 25 2,900
Private Owner 8 300
City of Clovis 1 90
City of Fresno 11 450
City of Fresno RWRF --- 2,000
FMFCD (Existing) 166 8,500
FMFCD (Proposed) 12 140
Recharge Basin Summary
W !
W !
W !
W !W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
!
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W ! W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
!
W !
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
!
W !
WW!
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
!W !
W !
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
WW!!
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
!
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
!
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W ! W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
!
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W ! W !
W !W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W ! W !W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W !
W !
W W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W
W
W
!
W ! W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
!
W !
W !
W
W W !
W !
!
W !
WW
W !
W
W !
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
!W !
W !
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W W W
W W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
WW!!
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W !W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
!
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W
W W
W W
W
!
W
W
W
W
W W !
W
W
W
W !
W ! W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W
W
W !
W
W !
W
W
W !
W
W !
W ! W !
W !W !
W !
W !
W
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W ! W !W !
W !
W
W W !
W !
W !
W W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W
W W
W !
W !
W !
W
W
W
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
!
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
!
W !
W
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W ! W !
W !
W !
W !
W ! W ! W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
W !
Grantland Ave
Hayes Ave
Cornelia Ave
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
Belmont Ave
Clovis Ave
Fowler Ave
McKinley Ave
California Ave
Jensen Ave
West Ave
Walnut Ave
Chestnut Ave
North Ave
Central Ave
Temperance Ave
American Ave
Elm Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/ CA-180
East Ave
Cedar Ave
Peach Ave
Shields Ave
Ashlan Ave
Shaw Ave
Bullard Ave
Herndon Ave
Nees Ave
Shepherd Ave
Behymer Ave
Copper Ave
Dickenson Ave
West Lawn Ave
Chateau Fresno Ave
Dewolf Ave
Highand Ave
McCall Ave
Del Rey Ave
Bethel Ave
Academy Ave
Jameson Ave
Fresno Yosemite
International Airport

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

DRY CREEK
180
168
41 41
99 99
City of
Clovis
W:\GIS\Fresno\Metro Plan\2020 UWMP\Fresno_UWMP.aprx
Prepared by:
0 1 in.
0 0.75 1.5 3
Mi
0 3,500 7,000 14,000
US Feet
Prepared for: City of Fresno
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Legend
Nitrate-Nitrogen Contamination and
Concentration
5 mg/L
10 mg/L
DBCP Contamination and
Concentration

0.01 ppb

0.02 ppb

0.05 ppb

0.1 ppb

0.2 ppb
1,2,3-TCP Contamination and
Concentration
5 ppt
10 ppt
20 ppt
50 ppt
100 ppt
Other Plumes
TCE Plume
EDB Plume (old)
Well Pumped to Control
Contaminant Plumes
W !
DBCP
W !
PCE
W !
TCE
W !
TCP
W !
No Minimum Pumping
W Well Head Treatment
Groundwater Quadrant Divide
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Fresno City Limits
Streets
1:136,886
References:

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983

1.A list of wells with treatment was provided by the City as of September 2020. Some wells share treatment and
convey water via a raw water pipeline to another well's treatment site. Wellhead treatment types includes activated carbon for VOC/SOCs, air stripping for VOCs, blending,
degassing tank, corrosion control treatment, H2S odor
control, and manganese treatment, or a combination of
such.

Notes:

Figure 6-6. Regional Groundwater
Contamination
SE Quadrant
SW Quadrant
NW Quadrant NE Quadrant
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-11
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Approximately 40 City wells are being treated for contaminants such as PCE, DBCP, TCE, 1,2,3- TCP, perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, ethylene dibromide, and nitrate, and an additional 20 wells include treatment for iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulfide removal or corrosion control.

As shown in the figure, extensive groundwater contamination nearly covers the City’s entire water service area; only areas located in the northwest appear to be relatively unaffected by regional groundwater contamination. Also, many of the City’s wells are impacted by one or more of the contaminant plumes (indicated by the presence of overlapping plumes on the figure). The figure also shows the approximately 93 existing active wells that are impacted by at least one contaminant plume and the 60 existing wells with wellhead treatment. The City is also managing contamination from spreading by pumping specific wells to control the plumes.

6.1.5 Estimated Groundwater Yield
As part of the ongoing Metro Plan update, the City is developing a storage accounting framework to estimate groundwater yield. The storage framework will track the City’s groundwater recharge, pumping, and flows into and out of the City’s SOI and incorporate bi-annual monitoring well water level readings on a grid basis. This work is ongoing, and the City reserves the right to update this analysis with more recent data when available.

Currently, the best available information on the City’s groundwater yield is from a hydrologic groundwater and surface water model that was prepared for the Upper Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Authority. The City contributed additional funding to the effort so the model would be more refined for its service area and capable of assisting in the development of the City’s previous Metro Plan. The Kings Basin Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model (IGSM) was completed in 2007 and provided outputs specific to the City SOI (WRIME, 2007). The IGSM was developed and calibrated utilizing data for the period of 1964–2004.

Building off the calibrated IGSM, additional modeling was conducted in 2008 to evaluate the City’s proposed water supply plan and its ability to attain the balanced use of groundwater by the buildout year of 2025. The estimated groundwater yield within the City’s SOI presented in this section is based on the modeling efforts to establish the various natural elements of the underlying aquifer.

6.1.5.1 Natural Recharge
As a result of the IGSM effort, the long-term average deep percolation from rainfall and irrigationapplied water for the period of 1964–2004 was found to be 42,700 acre-feet per year (AFY) for the entire SOI (West Yost Associates, January 2014). However, as urbanization continues within the SOI, the amount of deep percolation will decline because of increased runoff and less open land for natural recharge. For 2005, it was estimated deep percolation would be about 37,000 AFY and would reduce annually, ultimately declining to and remaining at 27,000 AFY by buildout in 2025. The new General Plan now anticipates SOI buildout will occur in 2056. Holding the 2005 value of 37,000 AFY and extending the 27,000 AFY to 2056, intermediate values were straightline interpolated. Additionally, the City currently covers 73,500 acres of the 100,277 acres within its SOI, representing 73% urbanization, which would approximate the City’s water system service area. Table 6-1 shows estimated natural recharge through 2045.

6.1.5.2 Net Subsurface Inflow
Again, utilizing information developed from the IGSM, average net subsurface inflow into the SOI was characterized as being 64,800 AF annually for the period of 1964–2004. Applying the Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-12
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
previously described 73% proportioning factor of the developed SOI area to overall SOI area, approximately 47,510 AFY would be attributed to the City’s water service area in 2020. This value will increase in future years as the City annexes more land until the SOI is built out. Table 6-1 shows the estimated subsurface inflows for future years based on the land use growth presented in Figure 4-3. The City has historically benefitted from the net subsurface inflows and requires these flows for replenishment necessary to maintain the sustainable yield of the groundwater aquifer system.

6.1.5.3 Intentional Groundwater Recharge
The City has long made efforts toward offsetting the decline of groundwater levels and minimizing overdraft conditions through an active intentional recharge program that started in 1971 (CH2MHill, 1992). Through cooperative agreements with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) and FID, the City has access to not only City-owned basins, but also those of these two agencies. Utilizing available surface water supplies, the City recharged on average approximately 60,000 AFY from 2000–2019; however, with the reduction in available surface water supplies, intentional recharge declined to 34,700 AF in 2014 and 19,800 AF in 2015, followed by an increase in recharge in years 2016, 2017, and 2019 to help replenish the aquifer. In 2019, City recharge of 82,993 AF was the maximum annual recharge attained during this period. The City has averaged over 60,000 AFY the previous five years and plans to gradually increase recharge by about 540 AFY each year. However, during wet years the City will recharge more water when it is available to allow to the City to draw on additional groundwater during dry years when surface water is not available. Intentional recharge is included in the non-potable demand projections as well as contributing to the estimated groundwater yield presented in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. Components to Groundwater Yield for Normal Years

GROUNDWATER COMPONENT

QUANTITY (AFY)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Natural Recharge1 24,970 25,480 25,910 26,280 26,570 26,790 Net Subsurface Inflow1 47,510 49,910 52,320 54,720 57,120 59,530 SUSTAINABLE YIELD 72,480 75,390 78,230 81,000 83,690 86,320 Intentional Recharge2 60,000 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500

TOTAL ESTIMATED
GROUNDWATER YIELD 132,480 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820 Notes:

1. Based on the Kings Basin IGSM and projected City land growth from Figure 4-3 as discussed in Section 3.1.1.

2. Projected normal year intentional recharge from Table 4-7.

Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-13
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

6.1.6 Historic Groundwater Pumping
The City has historically relied on groundwater as its main supply source prior to the construction of its SWTFs. With the recent investments in surface water infrastructure, the City has been able to drastically reduce its groundwater pumping. Figure 6-7 shows the historic groundwater pumping since 2003. As shown, pumping has dropped significantly since 2003, the City’s peak year for groundwater production.

Figure 6-7. Historic Groundwater Production

6.2 Surface Water
With the completion and operation of the Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF), surface water is now a primary water supply used to meet potable demands within the City. The City contracts with FID for Kings River water and with the USBR for CVP water from the Friant-Kern Canal. The surface water supply is used either for potable uses through treatment and distribution or delivery to recharge basins for groundwater recharge.

The Kings River water year (WY) is October through September while USBR uses a WY of March through February. The City has historically used a calendar year (CY) for its analysis, so monthly water supply information was compiled in CY format for this report.

6.2.1 USBR Friant Division Contract Supply
The City, through an agreement originally executed in January 1961, secured a surface water supply from USBR CVP Friant Division. This agreement, for an annual water supply of 60,000 AF of Class 1 water, was last renewed in 2010 as a Section 9(d) contract that provides water from the San Joaquin River in perpetuity. A copy of the renewed contract is provided in 165,200 160,000 141,500 136,000 146,300 148,700 138,200 128,600 119,900 119,500 123,200 106,800 82,500 99,100 105,200 76,800 54,600 55,000 0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Groundwater Production (AF)
Year
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-14
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Appendix H of this UWMP. The USBR CVP Friant Division facilities generally include: Friant Dam (Millerton Reservoir), the Friant-Kern Canal, and the Madera Canal. The Friant-Kern Canal is maintained and operated by the Friant Water Authority. The USBR water supply is a wholesale supply.

Construction of Friant Dam was completed in 1947 and began making diversions to the FriantKern Canal in 1949. Full operations of the CVP Friant Division did not commence until the Madera Canal was completed in 1951. Class 1 water was intended to be a supply that would be dependable in practically every year, regardless of the type of hydrologic WY. Class 2 water is essentially excess water available as determined by USBR and less reliable than Class 1 water.

Class 1 water has historically been very reliable until the 2006 San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Agreement between the Department of the Interior and Commerce, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Friant Water Users Authority (which is now the Friant Water Authority). The City is a member of the Friant Water Authority. The Settlement ended an 18-year legal dispute over the operation of Friant Dam brought by a coalition of conservation and fishing groups. The agreement characterized Class 1 deliveries by six hydrologic year types based on a recurrence over an 82-year simulation (1922–2003): wet, normal-wet, normal-dry, dry, criticalhigh, critical-low. The projected surface water available for the City from USBR during each hydrologic year defined by the 2006 Settlement Agreement is summarized in Table 6-2. As shown in the table, the average simulated delivery is 53,680 AFY and the median simulated delivery, which is similar to normal year delivery, is 60,000 AFY. The median value is higher than the average value because 100% allocation of 60,000 AF is simulated in 50 of 82 years but the dry and critical years result in substantial reductions, which bring down the average allocation.

The Settlement Agreement estimates the reduced supply available to the City compared to historic supplies, most evident in dry years. Restrictions on exports from the Delta have hindered the USBR from making deliveries to the Exchange Contractors via the Delta-Mendota Canal.

The Exchange Contractors allowed the formation of the CVP Friant Division by agreeing to not exercise their historic pre-1914 water rights to the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers if guaranteed water deliveries continued through the Delta-Mendota Canal or other facilities. If USBR is unable to deliver water to the Exchange Contractors, they have the right to receive their water from the San Joaquin River, which reduces the Class 1 water availability (History of SJRECWA Exchange Contractors, n.d.).

Reduced deliveries from the Delta to the Exchange Contractors resulted in the CVP Friant Division contractors with zero allocations of Class 1 water in USBR WY 2014 and 2015, though the City received USBR deliveries in CY 2014 (prior to the USBR WY starting in March). Annual USBR deliveries since 2007 are shown in Figure 6-8 for CY. The availability and reliability of the City’s surface water supplies through its USBR contract are discussed further in Chapter 7.

Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-15
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 6-2. Available USBR Simulated Allocation (1922–2003) WATER

YEAR TYPE
% OF YEARS OVER

SIMULATION
PERIOD
OF DELIVERIES (1)

NUMBER OF

YEARS IN
THAT

YEAR TYPE

RANGE OF

ALLOCATION

TO CITY (AF)

AVERAGE

ALLOCATION

TO CITY (AF)
Wet Highest 20% 16 60,000 60,000
Normal-Wet 50% to 80% 25 60,000 60,000
Normal-Dry 20% to 50% 25 47,500 to 60,000 57,060
Dry 5% to 20% 12 28,100 to 46,800 36,575
Critical(2) Lowest 5% 4 13,900 to 24,700 19,025
TOTAL 82
AVERAGE 53,680
MEDIAN 60,000
Source: 2006 Settlement Agreement
Notes:

1. As defined in 2006 Settlement Agreement

2. Includes both critical-high and critical-low, which are differentiated by the amount of unimpaired runoff. The simulation uses deliveries through 2006 and does not include the zero allocation years in 2014 and 2015.

Figure 6-8. USBR Deliveries to City Since 2007
39,342
59,450
49,776
60,86459,625
24,492
7,902
12,954
0 47,678
62,919
58,220
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 AFY
Calendar Year
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-16
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
In addition to the Class 1 water available to the City, the USBR contract also makes available water classified as: recovered water account water; Section 215 water; and unreleased restoration flows, unreleased recirculation flows, and uncontrolled season flows. The complexities of each water type are beyond the scope of this report but are mentioned here to reflect the other water acquisition opportunities afforded to the City through this contract.

The San Joaquin River water supply has excellent water quality as it originates from snowmelt from the high Sierras and has not been detrimentally impacted.

6.2.2 Fresno Irrigation District Supply
FID is one of 28 agencies that receives an entitlement of water from the Kings River through the Kings River Water Association. Water entitlements for Kings River Water Association contract members is determined based on a methodology that was initially developed in 1917–1919 to established entitlements for early claimed rights holders. The methodology was based on historic mean daily natural flow conditions at Piedra, which is approximately three miles downstream from the then yet to be built Pine Flat Dam and “at the heart of Kings River uses, regulation, and stream control and storage.” (Kings River Water Association and Kings River Conservation District, June 2003)
On December 20, 2016, the Revised, Amended, and Restated Cooperative Agreement was executed between FID and the City for Water Utilization and Conveyance (2016 FID Agreement) (Appendix I). The 2016 FID Agreement replaces the 1976 Cooperative Agreement and ends in 2035. The Agreement identifies the City’s contracted percentage of FID’s Kings River water based on the City’s water service area located within FID service area as a percentage of the FID land area. FID land area varies slightly every year because it is dependent on the acreage receiving water deliveries for that year rather than the total acreage within FID (roughly 200,000 acres). As the City incorporates new land area into its service area, the percentage of FID supply increases. However, the 2016 FID Agreement sets the maximum percentage as 29.0%, although the City’s service area is anticipated to expand and encompass more than 29.0% of FID’s service area between 2025 and 2030. In 2020, the City’s percentage of overall FID Kings deliveries was

25.79%. The FID Agreement identifies that the 29.0% maximum was based on moderate growth in Growth Area 1 of the City’s SOI (shown in Exhibit C in the 2016 Agreement). As such, the supply projections in this plan limit the City’s FID supply with the 29.0% cap, but if the agreement were revised in the future the City’s FID allocation percentage could grow beyond 29.0% as the water service area expands.

The City has historically not used all of its available allocation in any given year, although it pays a flat rate for its total allocation regardless of use. Water unused by the City is reallocated by FID to its other customers.

The City’s potential supply from FID was summarized using actual Kings River deliveries for CYs 1964–2019, then categorized by the same WY types used for the USBR Friant supply. The range and average FID deliveries by WY type is shown in Table 6-3. The average of all 56 CY delivery totals of FID Kings River deliveries is 452,541 AF, which equates to an average potential City supply of 131,237 AF, assuming the maximum 29.0% City supply percentage. Table 6-4 lists the historic and projected allocation of FID’s Kings River water for the City in normal (average) CYs. The City percentage of FID supplies was estimated assuming the City’s water service area will grow from 59,100 acres to 84,300 acres by buildout at the rate shown in Figure 4-3.

Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-17
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 6-3. FID Diversions by Water Year Type (1964 to 2019) WATER

YEAR TYPE
% OF
YEARS(1)
NUMBER

OF YEARS

BETWEEN
1964 AND
2019
TOTAL FID DELIVERIES (AF)(2) EXAMPLE

AVERAGE

AVAILABLE
TO CITY RANGE AVERAGE (3)
Wet Highest 20% 11 563,500 to 644,600 590,700 171,300
Normal-Wet 50% to 80% 17 452,800 to 563,300 513,700 149,000 Normal-Dry 20% to 50% 17 362,600 to 448,000 415,000 120,400 Dry 5% to 20% 8 253,700 to 362,000 315,700 91,600
Critical Lowest 5% 3 158,100 to 253,300 210,200 61,000
56 AVERAGE 453,800 131,600
Notes:

1. As defined in 2006 Settlement Agreement

2. Assigns water year type defined in defined in 2006 Settlement Agreement to FID deliveries from 1964 to 2019

3. Based on maximum 29.0% City supply percentage to provide an example City supply amount
Table 6-4. Projected FID Kings River Allocation for City, Normal Years YEAR

PROJECTED TOTAL

FID ALLOCATION, AFY

PROJECTED ALLOCATION
TO CITY, AFY1
2025 27.55% 125,030
2030 29.00% 131,600
2035 29.00% 131,600
2040 29.00% 131,600
2045 29.00% 131,600
1Projected City Allocation (%) x 453,800 AFY (estimated normal year diversion by FID, per Table 6-3)

6.3 Stormwater
The Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area and surrounding rural vicinities are within the service area boundaries of the FMFCD, which has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows. Most stormwater in the City drains to urban stormwater basins, where the water is retained to attenuate peak flow runoff and recharge stormwater, or is pumped to local irrigation canals for conveyance away from the municipal areas. FMFCD’s operation of stormwater basins is predicated on maintaining storage capacity for rain events, which limits accessibility for recharge activities during the rainy season. FMFCD estimates the amount of stormwater that is recharged each wet season. However, recharge attained with the FMFCD basins largely occurs in May Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-18
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
through October when limited storage capacity is required. Dry-season recharge is accomplished by diverting surface waters, from the Kings River and Millerton Reservoir, using City-allocated surface water. It is difficult to estimate stormwater recharge volumes as there is no physical measurement of stormwater flows into the basins, and infiltration rates can vary with water elevation and degree of siltation in the basin. However, FMFCD estimates that stormwater recharge in urban basins during the winter months may range from 7,000 AF/yr to 22,200 AF/yr.

Stormwater capture and infiltration are considered an integral component of natural groundwater recharge discussed in Section 6.1.5.1.

6.4 Wastewater and Recycled Water

6.4.1 Recycled Water Coordination
The City is currently expanding its recycled water supplies to increase offset use of potable water for landscape irrigation. In 2010, the City completed a Recycled Water Master Plan (adopted by the City Council in 2013) to evaluate and plan for increased recycled water use in the City. The City’s last Metro Plan, adopted in 2014, also outlined projects to increase the use of recycled water to offset potable demands (Carollo, 2010). The City is currently updating the Metro Plan and will reevaluate recommendations and projects to increase recycled water use.

The City owns and operates two water reclamation facilities: 1) the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) and 2) the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF), both of which can produce Title 22 recycled water for use within the City’s service area. They are described further in Section 6.4.3.

Coordination with other water agencies and potential consumers within the planning area is inherently within the purview of the City’s Department of Public Utilities (DPU) as this department provides both water and wastewater services. DPU has been on the forefront of numerous water supply preservation, enhancement, and development projects and programs for decades. The concept of multiagency coordination is fully embraced by the department as is evident with the previously discussed joint agency agreements and the commitment to construct new infrastructure to further develop new resources. The endeavor to develop recycled water as a resource was a requirement of a development in north Fresno, where the developer was conditioned to have a net zero impact on water resources. The fundamental component of this development was the construction and dedication of the NFWRF to the City.

There are only a few agencies, besides the City, that have wastewater collection and treatment facilities within and immediately adjacent to the plan area. These agencies include:

Collection Treatment
City of Clovis X X
Malaga County Water District X X
Pinedale County Water District X -
Pinedale Public Utility District X -
As the City is the primary responsible agency for wastewater collection and treatment for its annexed areas and certain County islands, it has taken the lead role of developing and implementing recycled water facilities to serve the same area.

Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-19
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

6.4.1.1 City of Clovis
The RWRF was developed under a Joint Powers Authority agreement executed in 1977 among the City of Fresno, the City of Clovis, and the County of Fresno. Both of the cities contribute to the cost of operations and maintenances and capital expenditures for the RWRF based on formulas in the agreement. This facility provides service for most of Clovis’ sewer flows.

The City of Clovis recently constructed its own wastewater treatment facility that produces tertiary level effluent and is distributed in a dedicated purple pipe system within portions of its service area.

6.4.1.2 County of Fresno
The County of Fresno, like the City of Clovis, is a party to the RWRF Joint Powers Authority for treatment of flows from unincorporated areas encompassed by the City’s service area.

6.4.1.3 Malaga County Water District
Malaga County Water District provides water and sewer service to an unincorporated county area of about 2.25 sq mi, which covers a small portion of the City’s SOI. The district provides wastewater collection and treatment for residential and non-residential customers.

6.4.1.4 Pinedale County Water District
Pinedale County Water District provides water, sewer, and solid waste service to an area of about 2 sq mi, which service area covers an unincorporated County island and a portion of the City. The district provides wastewater collection to an area of 699 acres and diverts the flow to the City’s collection system for treatment at the RWRF.

6.4.1.5 Pinedale Public Utility District
Pinedale Public Utility District provides wastewater, street lighting, street sweeping, and landscape maintenance. The district services an area of 362 acres in the northern portion of the City, serving both an unincorporated County island and portions of the City. The collected wastewater is diverted to the City’s collection system for treatment at the RWRF.

6.4.2 Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal
The City’s wastewater collection system was originally developed in 1891 with the installation of a 24-inch outfall sewer that discharged to a 40-acre sewer farm located southwest of town. The amount of land and facilities at this location continued to be expanded as the City grew over the years. Today, the City’s wastewater collection system consists of about 1,630 miles of pipes ranging in size from 4 inches in diameter to 84 inches in diameter. This collection system also utilizes 15 lift stations throughout the City, ranging in pumping capacity from 0.25 mgd to 2.2 mgd.

6.4.2.1 Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Within Service Area The City is served by two wastewater treatment plants, briefly described below.

Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
The RWRF has developed from what was once a sewer farm to what is now a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment facility. In 1966, the City of Fresno was appointed the sewering agency Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-20
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
for the local metropolitan region and shortly after began long-range planning and construction of new facilities to handle increasing flows and regulatory requirements. The RWRF treats flows from not only the City, but also sewered County areas (some county areas remain unsewered), the City of Clovis, Pinedale County Water District, and Pinedale Public Utility District.

Flows received at this facility peaked at 81,100 AF in 2006 and have been steadily decreasing since, with the average influent flow about 63,000 AF over the last five years. The RWRF includes preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment units with disinfection.

Secondary treatment consists of three treatment trains with an annual average capacity of 87 mgd, consisting of 30 mgd for Train A and 57 mgd for Trains B and C combined. In 2017, a 5- mgd tertiary treatment system — the Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection Facility (TTDF) — was completed. The system can be expanded to 15 mgd and ultimately to 30 mgd.

The City has three primary means of effluent disposal:

1. Undisinfected secondary effluent to on-site and off-site farmland for restricted irrigation

2. Undisinfected secondary effluent to percolation ponds

3. Disinfected tertiary effluent to the recycled water distribution system The percolated effluent has been deemed equivalent to Title 22 tertiary treated water by the State Water Resources Control Board Department of Drinking Water (DDW). The City has been extracting this water for reuse in areas within and surrounding the RWRF, as well as to FID’s canals, through an exchange agreement for delivery to FID agricultural customers.

The discharged effluent is within the City boundaries and located just southwest of the metropolitan area. The treated effluent percolation ponds are within the City’s SOI and hydrologic sphere that benefit the City’s overall regional water budget. See Figure 3-1 for a depiction of the facility’s location relative to the metropolitan area.

North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility
The NFWRF was constructed as part of a residential, commercial, and golf course master planned development located in the northern portion of the City. As a condition of the planned community, the developer was required to construct a wastewater treatment facility that would produce tertiary level effluent for use within the development to ensure the overall project had a net zero impact on water resources. This facility is presently rated at 0.71 mgd (average monthly flow) and 1.07 mgd (maximum daily flow). However, the ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection system was only validated for 300 gpm (0.43 mgd), which is the current flow limit until the DDW approves a higher flow. This facility is expandable to 1.25 mgd (average monthly flow). The disinfected tertiary effluent from the plant is largely used to irrigate the Copper River Ranch Golf Course. Of the 325 AF of wastewater treated in 2020, 54 AF was used for irrigation of turf. Treated but unused effluent is diverted to the City’s collection system to the RWRF.

6.4.3 Recycled Water System Description
The 2014 Metro Plan recommended expanding reuse by: 1) using the NFWRF effluent to irrigate Copper River Ranch Golf Course; and 2) up to 25,000 AFY of recycled water for landscape irrigation or other non-potable uses from the RWRF or new satellite WRFs. Since then, the City has irrigated the Copper River Ranch Golf Course with recycled water and has constructed much of the southwest recycled water distribution system. However, the City is currently updating the Metro Plan and reevaluating the target volume of reuse in the City beyond the southwest system Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-21
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
considering new conditions and regulations, including the potential for potable reuse in the future.

6.4.3.1 Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility As mentioned above, the RWRF produces undisinfected secondary effluent for restricted irrigation to on-site and off-site farmlands and disinfected tertiary treated effluent for the recycled water distribution system.

The City’s RWRF diverts a portion of the undisinfected secondary effluent to irrigate non-food crops grown adjacent to this facility. The practice of using the secondary effluent to irrigate nonfood crops has been carried-out for decades and is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The City owns nearly 3,300 acres of land for and around the RWRF, consisting of percolation ponds (1,750 acres) and other land available to farm non-food crops. Table 6-5 provides the annual quantities of recycled water applied to these crops for the period from 2015– 2019.

Additionally, the RWRF produces Title 22 disinfected tertiary treated effluent through the TTDF completed in 2017 and through tertiary equivalent soil aquifer treated recycled water recovered from the percolated secondary effluent. A series of 15 groundwater wells located at the RWRF are used to extract previously percolated effluent groundwater from beneath the facility. The extracted groundwater has the potential to be used for higher beneficial use if it can be demonstrated this water has attained a level of treatment satisfactory to meet disinfected tertiary levels. The City embarked on a joint project with the WateReuse Research Foundation to demonstrate to State regulatory agencies the soil aquifer treated recycled water met Title 22 levels. The culmination of this study is presented in a final report entitled “Demonstration of Filtration and Disinfection Compliance Through Soil-Aquifer Treatment,” which was completed in 2013 (WateReuse Research Foundation, 2013). This study concluded that, based on the documented sampled water quality data, the extracted groundwater met requirements for classification as disinfected tertiary level recycled water. The SWRCB DDW stated that the percolated effluent water meets the tertiary treatment classification, and the City is making plans for its use as part of its recycled water production and distribution system (California Regional Water Qulaity Control Board, 2018). The combined rated production yield of the 15 wells, if run year-round, would be approximately 32,000 AFY. The City plans to blend the recycled extraction well water with the disinfected tertiary level recycled water produced from the 5 mgd TTDF to feed the southwest recycled water distribution system. As new sales grow for the recycled water, additional recycled extraction well water will be utilized to feed the City’s southwest recycled water system.

The tertiary equivalent soil aquifer treated recycled water (recovered groundwater) is also used for on-site irrigation and transport to FID canals for delivery to customers during the irrigation season, as facilitated through an exchange agreement with FID. More information on the City’s FID RWRF Exchange Agreement is discussed in Section 6.6.

Since the completion of the 2010 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP), the City has constructed most of the southwest recycled water system, shown in Figure 6-9. The southwest recycled water system consists of a 3.2 MG recycled water reservoir located at the RWRF, a 6,000 gpm (8.64 mgd) recycled water pump station located at the RWRF, a 640-gpm booster pump station (Roeding Park Booster), and 15.7 miles of 10-inch to 54-inch recycled water pipeline. Roughly

7.5 miles of pipeline remain to be constructed. The City also updated the demand and distribution system from the 2010 RWMP with the 2019 Citywide Recycled Water Demand and Southwest Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-22
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Recycled Water System Analysis (Carollo, 2019) to identify potential recycled water customers.

This recent analysis will be incorporated into the latest Metro Plan update.

6.4.3.2 North Fresno Water Reclamation Facility
As described earlier, the City has an existing recycled water plant in the northern portion of the City that receives and treats sewage from the residential, commercial, and golf course master planned community. The NFWRF was constructed in 2008 but was not fully operational until 2009 due to the inability to properly run at extremely low flow conditions. Subsequent modifications at the plant allowed it to run on a regular basis in 2010 and again in 2014 for UV approval. The amount of reuse has varied substantially since 2016 because the delivery system was offline in 2017 and 2018 for treated water basin slope repairs. City staff indicated that 2016 is representative of operations going forward. The disinfected tertiary effluent is conveyed in a dedicated pipeline to an adjacent golf course for irrigation purposes. The quantities used for irrigation purposes are shown in Table 6-5 for the period of 2015–2019.

Table 6-5. Historic Recycled Water Used Within Service Area

RECYCLE WATER FACILITY

QUANTITY (AFY)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
RWRF, Secondary Effluent
(Non-Food Crop Irrigation) 8,688 7,329 4,540 7,031 3,652 3,845 RWRF, Tertiary Effluent 531 485 423 867 912 858
NFWRF 62 110 0 0 19 54
TOTAL 9,281 7,924 4,963 7,898 4,583 4,757
Note: Reuse at the NFWRF was zero in 2017 and 2018 because the recycled water delivery system was offline for system repairs.

6.4.4 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycled Water Uses The 2020 actual recycled water use, and projected recycled water use in the City’s service area is included in Table 6-6. Secondary undisinfected reuse is projected to continue to be used to irrigate non-food crops adjacent to the RWRF in the future. The projected secondary undisinfected use going forward is based on the average use from 2015 to 2020. Additionally, the amount of tertiary recycled water from the RWRF is projected to increase to provide 6,210 AF for landscape and agricultural irrigation as the southwest recycled water system is built out.

Projected tertiary recycled water from the NFWRF for golf course irrigation is projected to be 110 AF annually through 2045.

The 2015 UWMP anticipated that 21,200 AFY of recycled water would be produced and utilized in 2020. The previous projected increases in recycled water were based on recommendations from the 2010 RWMP, which included projects to increase recycled water use for landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, industrial use, and blending with raw surface water for groundwater recharge. Since the 2010 RWMP, the City has focused on constructing the southwest recycled water system to increase landscape and agricultural irrigation in the southwest portion of the City. The City is also currently updating the Metro Plan that is evaluating recycled water alternatives in the City and is expected to update its RWMP following the Metro Plan update to serve as a new guiding planning document for recycled water use by the City.

ÚI
³
ÚI
³
ÚI
³
Brawley Ave
Marks Ave
Belmont Ave
McKinley Ave
California Ave
Jensen Ave
West Ave
Walnut Ave
Elm Ave
Whitesbridge Ave/ CA-180
Shields Ave

DRY CREEK
41 99
8-10, 13-16
35 36
34 2
4 5
6 37
44 1
3 17
7 29
18 31
21 23
28 27
26 30
32 41
40 43
38 42 39
25 24
10"
12"
4"
4"
4"
36"
36"
12"
8"
12"
24"
4"
24"
54"
12"
24"
12"
36"
10"
30"
48"
36"
24"
16"
8" 8"
8" 42"
11 12
19 19
20 33
22 RWRF PS
Roeding
Park PS
SWPS1
Fresno-Clovis
Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Facilities
W:\GIS\Fresno\Metro Plan\2020 UWMP\Fresno_UWMP.aprx
Prepared by:
0 1 in.
0 0.28 0.55 1.1
Mi
0 2,000 4,000 1,000
US Feet
Prepared for: City of Fresno
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Legend
Existing Facilities
Wastewater Reclamation
Facility
Existing Recycled Water
Pipeline
Recycled Water Pump Station
ÚI
³
Existing
ÚI
³
Future
Future/ Proposed Recycled Water
Pipelines
Oasis Development
SW1D
South Pipeline
Recycled Water Customer
Existing Recycled Water
Customer
Agriculture
Cemetery
Central Unified School District
College
Fresno Unified School District
Park
Private/Commercial
Residential
Freeway
City Features
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Fresno City Limits
Streets
1:44,248
References:

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California IV FIPS 0404 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: North American 1983

2. Figure recreated from Figure 7 Potential Southwest Recycled Water Users from the 2019 City Wide Recycled Water Demand and Southwest Recycled Water System Analysis prepared by Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Notes:

Figure 6-9. Southwest Recycled Water System
Customer
ID Customer Name
MDD
(gpm)
PHD
(gpm)
Hours of
Irrigation
Customer
ID Customer Name
MDD
(gpm)
PHD
(gpm)
Hours of
Irrigation
1 Quist Farms 1,300.0 1,300.0 24 27 Veteran's Memorial 27.7 83.0 8 2 Fresno Memorial Gardens 131.0 450.0 7 28 City Hall 27.7 83.0 8 3 Roeding Park 267.0 640.0 10 29 AmeriPride 67.3 202.0 8 4 Peelman Farms 650.0 650.0 24 30 Courthouse Park 116.7 350.0 8 5 Peelman Farms 650.0 650.0 24 31 Communty Regional 173.0 519.0 8 6 St Peters Cemetery 152.7 458.2 8 32 Chukchansi Park 59.3 178.0 8 7 Westside Auto 8.0 30.0 6 33 Caltrans 41/H 16.7 50.0 8 8-10 Multiple Cemeteries 225.8 677.2 8 34 McKinley Elem 66.7 200.0 8 11-12 Caltrans-99 100.0 300.0 8 35 El Capitan Middle 83.3 250.0 8 13-16 Multiple Cemeteries 225.8 677.2 8 36 Polk Elem 74.7 224.0 8 17 Masis Ararat Cemetery 80.0 240.0 8 37 Madison Elem 56.1 168.3 8 18 Belmont Memorial Park 172.3 517.0 8 38 King Elem 44.3 101.6 8 19 Caltrans 180/ Hughs 33.3 100.0 8 39 Gaston Middle 87.5 350.0 8 20 Caltrans 180/ Fruit 16.7 50.0 8 40 Computech Middle 63.0 245.5 8 21 Fink-White Park 61.0 183.0 8 41 Edison High 43.7 166.0 8 22 Caltrans 99/ Amador 16.7 50.0 8 42 Fresno City College 639.4 871.9 24 23 Columbia Elem 44.3 133.0 8 43 Hinton Park 19.3 58.0 8 24 Frank Ball Park 19.3 58.0 8 44 Oasis Residential Development 210.5 631.5 8 25 Kearney Triangle 18.3 55.0 8
26 Eaton Plaza 21.0 63.0 8 Total 6,070.0 12,013.4 ---
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-24
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 6-6. Recycled Water within Service Area in 2020 (DWR 6-4R) The supplier will complete the table.

Name of Supplier Producing (Treating) the Recycled Water: City of Fresno Name of Supplier Operating the Recycled Water Distribution System: City of Fresno Supplemental Volume of Water Added in 2020: 0%
Source of 2020 Supplemental Water: N/A

BENEFICIAL USE TYPE

POTENTIAL

BENEFICIAL USES

OF RECYCLED
WATER

AMOUNT OF

POTENTIAL USES

OF RECYCLED
WATER

GENERAL DESCRIPTION
OF 2020 USES LEVEL OF TREATMENT 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Agricultural Irrigation1 Non-foodcrop
irrigation 7,900 Irrigate non-food crops Secondary, Undisinfected 3,845 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900 7,900 Landscape Irrigation
(excludes golf courses) Landscape Irrigation 5,800
Landscape irrigation, distributed
through the southwest recycled
water distribution system
Tertiary 858 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800
Agricultural Irrigation1 Food crop irrigation 410
Irrigate limited food crops,
distributed through the southwest
recycled water distribution system
Tertiary - 410 410 410 410 410
Golf Course Irrigation Landscape Irrigation 110 Copper River Golf Course Tertiary 54 110 110 110 110 110 - Total: 4,757 14,220 14,220 14,220 14,220 14,220
Note:

1. Recycled water for agricultural irrigation does not offset the City’s potable water demands, and as such, is excluded from projected recycled water in subsequent tables.

Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-25
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

6.4.5 Actions to Encourage and Optimize Future Recycled Water Use The 2010 RWMP identified the need for the City to adopt an ordinance to establish a recycled water policy and criteria for its use within the City’s SOI. On July 14, 2014, the Recycled Water Ordinance was adopted by the City Council, laying the foundation for the expanded use of recycled water within the City.

The focus of the ordinance includes the following:
• Establish an Administrative Authority.
• Establish approved uses of recycled water.
• Define areas of potential eligibility for recycled water service. • Specify voluntary uses of recycled water, depending on user classifications. • Require installation of a transmission and distribution infrastructure. • Encourage the use of voluntary retrofits for existing users that may not be addressed in the ordinance.
• Require the City of Fresno to prepare Rules and Regulations. • Provide enforcement and severability clauses.
• Establishing a means for the City to provide recycled water at a negotiated price.

Efforts to further the use of recycled water include the requirement that new developments within planned major recycled water distribution mains must install purple pipe. Then, as the City’s capital projects construct a distribution infrastructure, these segments will be in place to facilitate connections to new customers, reduce program costs by avoiding digging up new street improvements and reduce disruption to vehicular traffic.

Most of the southwest recycled water distribution system from the RWRF is completed or planned for construction in 2021. The City has identified potential customers to connect to the recycled water system once it is completed to offset potable demand and increase recycled water use in the City.

6.5 Desalinated Water Opportunities
The City is located in the central San Joaquin Valley; therefore, seawater desalination is not applicable to the City. Additionally, the groundwater that exists within the immediate area of the City is not brackish in nature and does not require desalination treatment.

6.6 Water Exchanges and Transfers

6.6.1 Exchanges and Transfer Opportunities

6.6.1.1 USBR Supply
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) of 1992 authorized the transfer of all or a portion of a CVP contractor’s water supply to any other California water users or water agencies.

The CVPIA allows water transfers as long as they are consistent with federal and state water laws. The primary component of the CVPIA that specifies water transfer provisions for federal Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-26
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
water supplies is Section 3405(a), which includes provisions regarding maximum annual water transfer, beneficial use, and approvals.

As part of the City’s current Metro Plan update, the City is evaluating potential future water transfers and exchanges of its periodically available USBR water. Currently, the City does not have any plans to transfer its USBR water to other California water users.

6.6.1.2 FID / RWRF Groundwater Exchange Supply
Since 1974, the City has had an agreement with FID to exchange recycled water for the delivery of surface water east of the City (Appendix I). The Agreement between FID and the City for Exchange of Recycled Water allows for water pumped from beneath the RWRF to be conveyed to FID’s Dry Creek and Houghton Canals for delivery to growers west of the City. In exchange for the water delivered to FID by the City, FID agreed to deliver 46% of the total from either its Kings River entitlement or USBR Class II supply to growers or basins in the eastern portion of FID “insofar as is feasible and practical.” The water is to be considered additional to the water that would have been delivered to the eastern portion of FID, such that the additional delivered water used by growers is assumed to offset groundwater pumping in the area and, therefore, provide a groundwater basin benefit. This is an indirect benefit to the City.

The agreement includes a minimum of 100,000 AF delivered over a 10-year period and no more than 30,000 AF in any given year. As shown in Figure 6-10, the City exceeded the maximum yearly delivery in 2003 and 2004 and has maintained more than 100,000 AF of deliveries over a 10-year period. However, since 2016, the City has reduced RWRF groundwater exchange deliveries. The City is currently discussing an update to the agreement with FID, while the 2020 Metro Plan will identify and recommend other beneficial uses for the City’s percolated effluent.

Figure 6-10. Historical RWRF Groundwater Exchange Deliveries 15,633 26,824 28,902 31,338 32,324 24,895 17,709 27,532 23,068 22,143 11,096 5,150 22,321 26,853 25,512 22,602
8,739
0 8,703
0 5,809
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
AFY
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-27
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

6.6.2 Emergency Interties
In 2007, the Cities of Fresno and Clovis executed an agreement for interconnection of their potable water systems to provide service during emergencies and other times of hardship in either community. The agreement covers interconnections, including apportionment of capital costs, at two locations: Leonard Avenue at the Gould Canal alignment and Behymer Avenue at Willow Avenue.

The agreement provided for temporary deliveries from Clovis to southeast Fresno through the Leonard connection through 2013. The Leonard interconnection was constructed and remains in place for emergency uses through manual operation.

The agreement also provided for temporary deliveries from Fresno to northern Clovis through the Behymer connection through 2015. However, the Behymer interconnection has yet to be constructed and, if constructed in the future, would serve only for emergency use.

6.7 Future Water Projects
The City is currently updating its Metro Plan, which will recommend programs and projects to improve the City’s water supply portfolio and continue providing a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply. While the outcomes of the Metro Plan update are currently being developed, the City’s ongoing and future projects to improve its supply portfolio include:
• Expansion of recycled water distribution system
• Expansion of groundwater recharge program
• Expansion of surface water treatment capacity
• Beneficial transfers and exchanges

6.7.1 Expand Recycled Water Distribution System
As mentioned in Section 6.4.5, the City has made significant improvements to their recycled water system over the last five years and is currently expanding their recycled water distribution system. The City expects to implement construction on the final portion of the Southwest recycled water distribution system this year. The completed distribution system will allow an additional 5,000 AF of recycled water use in the City to offset potable demands that can be used in all hydrological year types. The expansion is projected to be completed by 2025.

6.7.2 Expand Groundwater Recharge Capacity
With the acknowledgement that the groundwater aquifer is and will remain an integral resource, the City is currently evaluating an expanded recharge program as part of the Metro Plan update.

Expanding intentional recharge may include the development of new dedicated intentional recharge facilities and/or joint projects for basins with FMFCD and potentially FID. The target for recharge expansion is to maximize storage within the groundwater basin and optimize use of available surface water supplies in normal years. The stored water will be used more in the single-dry year and consecutive dry years when surface water supplies are less available.

The timing for groundwater recharge capacity expansion will be examined as part of the Metro Plan update and, for the UWMP, is assumed to increase to allow for an additional 540 AFY of recharge to occur on average each year.

Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-28
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

6.7.3 Expand Surface Water Treatment Capacity
A key component to the success of the City’s ability to reverse the long-time overreliance on groundwater is the construction of its surface water treatment facilities. These have allowed the City to optimize the use of available surface water supplies. The City’s NESWTF currently has a 30 mgd capacity and the capability to expand up to 60 mgd. The SESWTF is currently permitted to produce up to 54 mgd but, with the subsequent rerating of the media filters, will be capable of operating at a rated capacity of 80 mgd.

The timing for the SWTF expansion will be examined as part of the Metro Plan update and determined based on need as the City grows and demands increase.

6.7.4 Beneficial Transfers and Exchanges
As mentioned in Section 6.6.1, the City is evaluating future beneficial transfers and exchanges of the City’s USBR water in normal water years when available water supplies exceeds demands.

6.8 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water
Summaries of the above discussed existing and planned sources of water are provided in Table 6-7 and Table 6-8 below.

6.8.1 Supply Management
The City currently balances its surface water supplies and groundwater based on minimum production for operation of the SWTFs and minimum groundwater pumping to manage and control contamination plumes and prevent their spread. The minimum operation conditions typically occur in the low-demand winter months, and the City can increase surface water production during peak demand months when surface water is available. In normal and wet years, the City intends to rely on more surface water supply and recharge raw surface water to replenish the groundwater basin and build storage for dry years. In dry years, when surface water is less available, the City will ramp up well production to meet demands. The City is expected to continue this supply management strategy in the future.

Table 6-7. Actual Water Supplies (DWR 6-8R)

WATER SUPPLY
2020

ACTUAL VOLUME WATER QUALITY
Groundwater 55,028 Drinking Water
USBR CVP 37,447 Drinking Water
FID Kings River 71,292 Drinking Water
Recycled Water, RWRF 858 Recycled Water
Recycled Water, NFWRF 54 Recycled Water
TOTAL: 164,679
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-29
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 6-8. Projected Water Supplies (DWR 6-9R)

WATER SUPPLY

REASONABLY AVAILABLE VOLUME, AFY
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
USBR CVP 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
FID Kings River 125,030 131,600 131,600 131,600 131,600 Recycled Water, RWRF 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800
Recycled Water, NFWRF 110 110 110 110 110
TOTAL: 329,030 341,140 346,610 352,000 357,330

6.8.2 Special Conditions
This section details climate change and future regulatory conditions that impact the City’s supply sources.

6.8.2.1 Climate Change Effects
Climate models disagree on average annual precipitation projections but agree on other hydrologic metrics relevant to water resources management, including:
• Snowpack declines
• Increased fraction of precipitation on extreme rainfall days • Shorter, sharper rainy season
• Increased evapotranspiration
• Higher frequency of extremely wet and extremely dry years • Higher incidence of extreme dry year followed by an extreme wet year or vice versa (Persad, 2020) (Partida, 2020)
As discussed in Section 4.4, climate change impacts were evaluated in the North Kings GSP using DWR climate change datasets, which were developed for the California Water Commission’s Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP). The North Kings GSP analyzed WSIP water supply projections and found climate change will have no significant impact on the FID Kings River diversions. The North Kings GSP estimates the timing of the inflows to water reservoir and surface water supplies is anticipated to shift significantly due to warmer temperatures causing precipitation to arrive as rainfall instead of snowmelt. The warmer temperatures are also predicted to cause the snowmelt to turn to runoff earlier each spring.

These climate impacts are estimated in the North Kings GSP to slightly increase inflows to the Kings River (0.6% in 2040 and 0.3% in 2070); however, it is not expected to impact the Kings River diversions significantly and the timing will have a greater impact on water management, including a possible greater need for additional storage. The North Kings GSP also estimated climate impacts to the San Joaquin River supplies available to the CVP Friant Division Contractors, including the City’s USBR Class I supplies, and found the WSIP dataset estimates a slight reduction in future water supplies (Provost & Pritchard, November 2019). This plan Water Supply Characterization Section 6
City of Fresno
July 2021 6-30
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
considers water supply during an extreme dry year or multi-dry year scenario, which may occur more often due to climate change, further in Chapter 7.

6.8.2.2 Regulatory Conditions
The City has existing contracts for its surface water supplies that are not facing any reduction due to forthcoming regulation. The City’s groundwater supply is from an unadjudicated basin and is also considered reliable. The GSA is currently working toward determining a safe yield for the Kings Subbasin, which is the amount of water than can be pumped from the basin over a long-term period without producing undesirable results. The City is an active member of the GSA, working collaboratively to bring the basin to balance while protecting the City’s groundwater supply.

Additionally, forthcoming California regulations for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may impact certain wells within the City. The City is currently monitoring and treating some groundwater wells for PFAS. These regulations are not expected to impact the City’s ability to use its full groundwater supply.

6.9 Energy Intensity
Pursuant to CWC Section 10631.2(a), readily available information regarding energy intensity shall be reported in the 2020 UWMP. For the City, this includes the total energy usage at each production facility, including each well site and the three SWTFs. The electrical usage includes the energy to produce, treat, and pump the water into the distribution system. Because the City’s distribution system includes over 200 groundwater wells, Table 6-9 presents the total energy usage, water produced, and average energy intensity for all groundwater wells and for each SWTF following the methodology presented in Appendix O of the DWR 2020 UWMP Guidebook.

The energy intensity varies significantly between groundwater wells depending on the depth to the groundwater table, if the well includes treatment beyond disinfection, and other local conditions. The total energy intensity for all production and treatment in the City’s distribution system in 2020 was 384 kWh/ AF.

Table 6-9. Water System Energy Intensity in 2020
WELLS NESWTF SESWTF T-3 SWTF TOTAL
Electricity (kWh) 27,667,366 5,848,314 13,416,000 454,470 47,386,150 Treated Water
Deliveries (AF) 56,445 20,724 45,367 875 123,411
Energy Intensity
(kWh/AF) 490 282 296 520 384
7-1

CITY OF FRESNO
Water Service Reliability
and Drought Risk
Assessment
This Section discusses the long-term reliability of surface and groundwater supplies for the City.

A comparison is made of anticipated supplies and demands through 2045 for a normal year, single dry year, and fiveyear drought. Shorter-term reliability planning that may require immediate action, such as drought or catastrophic supply interruption, is addressed in Chapter 8.

IN THIS SECTION
• Water Service
Reliability
Assessment
• Drought Risk
Assessment
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 City of Fresno
July 2021 7-2
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

7.1 Water Service Reliability Assessment
This section describes the existing constraints on the City’s supply sources and reliability in different hydrologic year types.

7.1.1 Constraints on Water Sources

7.1.1.1 Groundwater
Groundwater has long been the primary water supply source for the City. Before the City’s investments to increase its use of surface water with the construction of its NESWTF, T-3 SWTF, and SESWTF, groundwater levels were declining, and the falling levels were a potential constraint. Groundwater levels in some areas of the City have actually been increasing over the last five years as a result of the City’s using less groundwater and are expected to continue to increase as the City pumps less in the future.

The North Kings GSP is setting sustainability indicators for groundwater levels and groundwater storage. The current GSP does define a measurable objective and minimum threshold for the basin to allow the North Kings GSA to evaluate its progress for the subject indicator, as defined by SGMA, and determine whether conditions are improving, remaining stable, or degrading.

Another constraint to the use of groundwater stems from the negative impacts from contamination (see Section 6.1.4). To ensure the continued beneficial use of the groundwater supply, the City has set minimum pumping requirements for specific wells to prevent the spread of existing groundwater plumes to other areas in the City and to protect the basin. The City will remain proactive in pursuing responsible parties so the proper remediation is conducted to preserve the groundwater system as a viable and sustainable resource in perpetuity. Largely, the City has been able to rely on the relatively good quality of this resource.

7.1.1.2 USBR
The City has a contract for 60,000 AFY of Class 1 water with the USBR. Analysis supporting the 2006 San Joaquin River Settlement is the basis for USBR supply projections. The settlement is based on ensuring flows downstream of Millerton Dam for varying hydrologic conditions, which can constrain surface water supplies available to the CVP Friant Division contractors, such as the City.

Another constraint that affects the consistency of this supply are the restrictions that have been imposed on water diversions from the Delta (see Section 6.2.1). The resulting impacts associated with the restrictions from the Delta has been more detrimental to water supplies for the CVP Friant Division contractors than the above-discussed settlement, as the latter has resulted in two years of zero allocations for the CVP Friant Division contractors.

The construction of a raw water pipeline in 2018 to convey USBR water from the Friant-Kern Canal to the NESWTF, referred to as the Friant-Kern Canal Pipeline, has improved the reliability and water quality of deliveries to the NESWTF. The NESWTF is now capable of year-round operation, and the original connection from FID’s Enterprise Canal still exists as a backup delivery system if needed.

Every three years, the Friant-Kern Canal is taken down for maintenance, and during these shutdowns the City has the flexibility to deliver its Kings River supply to the NESWTF to allow for its continued use.

Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 City of Fresno
July 2021 7-3
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

7.1.1.3 FID
The City has an agreement with FID providing the City an allocation of approximately 115,000 AFY of Kings River water in normal-year conditions. Water supplied from the FID contract is most susceptible to annual hydrologic conditions. The City’s annual FID supply allocation is dependent on annual precipitation, Sierra Nevada mountain snowpack, and natural river flow conditions. The annual variability of these sources results in variable allocations to the City.

Based on the foregoing data, FID receives an annually adjusted entitlement, the delivery of which will fluctuate throughout the irrigation delivery season. The City in turn receives its pro rata allocation based on the foregoing entitlement determination.

Another factor that may constrain the availability of Kings River water supply is scheduled maintenance of FID’s vast canal network. FID typically terminates water deliveries to the City’s water treatment facilities in the months of November and/or December so they can perform necessary infrastructure repairs and maintenance. However, the City constructed a dedicated 13-mile, 72-inch-diameter raw water pipeline to deliver Kings River water to the SESWTF to allow for year-round operations and prevent shutdowns due to FID maintenance. Deliveries to intentional recharge facilities will continue to be supplied through the FID canal system.

7.1.1.4 Recycled Water
At present, the largest constraint for recycled water use is the lack of infrastructure to distribute the water to end users. The City has recently increased recycled water production capabilities and constructed much of the southwest recycled water system, as described in Section 6.4. The City plans to complete construction of the southwest recycled water distribution system in the near term and expand its recycled water delivery in the City.

7.1.2 Description of Management Tools and Options
The City currently manages its surface water and groundwater supply by maximizing surface water for potable use and intentional recharge during wet and normal years, while relying on groundwater during dry years. The City is currently updating its Metro Plan, which will recommend projects and programs to optimize the use of its supply portfolio and further improve supply resilience. Supply management tools are an expected outcome of the Metro Plan update; however, the City’s ongoing supply management is intended to maximize local supplies and improve the groundwater basin storage. Current actions include enhanced groundwater management and intentional recharge, increased recycled water use, and continued conservation through the implementation of demand management measures.

7.1.3 Year Type Characterization
Normal-water-year, single-dry-water-year, and five-consecutive-year-drought-period supply projections were made based on historic water allocations for surface water supplies, historic municipal water well pumping for groundwater, and projected utilization for recycled water, as described below.

Kings River water supply data was obtained from the Kings River Water Association and FID.

USBR CVP Friant Division data was obtained from the USBR website, the City of Fresno, and FID. Groundwater and recycled water supply data was obtained from the City of Fresno.

Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 City of Fresno
July 2021 7-4
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

7.1.3.1 Normal Year
Data for the total water supply for the normal-year condition is provided in Table 7-1 based on:
• Groundwater: estimated sustainable yield from Table 6-1. • USBR: long-term average allocation from Table 6-2.
• FID: long-term average allocation from Table 6-3.
• Recycled Water: projected supply from Table 6-6, excluding agricultural irrigation demand that does not offset the City’s potable demand.

7.1.3.2 Single Dry Year
The single-dry-year supply availability is based on 2015, during the 2012-2017 drought, because the City had the lowest surface water supply available in 2015. Data for total water supply for the single-dry-year condition is provided in Table 7-2 based on:
• Groundwater: estimated sustainable yield from Table 6-1. If necessary, the City would pump beyond its estimated sustainable yield during dry periods and balance out the pumping with recharge in normal or wet periods.
• USBR: actual allocation in 2015 (0 AF).
• FID: actual total FID allocation in 2015 (42,935 AF) but with the projected City percentage of FID supply for the future years considered (per Table 6-3). • Recycled Water: projected supply from Table 6-6, excluding agricultural irrigation demand that does not offset the City’s potable demand.

7.1.3.3 Multiple Dry Years
Data for total water supply for the five-year drought condition is provided in Table 7-3 based on:
• Groundwater: estimated sustainable yield from Table 6-1. If necessary, the City would pump beyond its estimated sustainable yield during dry periods and balance out the pumping with recharge in normal or wet periods.
• USBR: actual allocations in 2012 to 2016, which ranged from 0 to 45,000 AF. • FID: actual total FID allocations in 2012 to 2016, which ranged from 42,935 to 110,824 but with the projected City percentage of FID supply for the future years considered (per Table 6-3).
• Recycled Water: projected supply from Table 6-6, excluding agricultural irrigation demand that does not offset the City’s potable demand.

Despite severe reductions of surface water supplies during dry years, sufficient good-quality water was available to permit the SWTFs to operate. As mentioned in the previous section, there is some seasonal vulnerability with surface water availability in dry years, which needs to be closely coordinated with surface water suppliers to minimize impacts to the City’s SWTF operations. Groundwater supplies, with intentional recharge augmentation, remain reliable in all hydrologic conditions.

Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 City of Fresno
July 2021 7-5
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan

7.1.4 Water Service Reliability
This section compares projected supplies and demands for a normal year, single dry year, and five-year consecutive drought. As shown in Table 7-1, the City is projected to have greater than 100,000 AF of available supply after meeting demands in normal years. As shown in Table 7-2, the City’s surface water supplies are reduced in a single dry year, but all potable demands are met and groundwater recharge of raw surface water is reduced. As shown in Table 7-3, the City is projected to meet all demands during a five-year drought with its existing supplies. Potable demands are unrestricted, and non-potable water used for groundwater recharge is reduced in years three and four of a five-year drought.

Table 7-1. Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR 7-2R) - 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water – USBR 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Surface Water – FID 125,030 131,600 131,600 131,600 131,600 Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
SUPPLY TOTALS 329,030 341,140 346,610 352,000 357,330
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable (Groundwater
Recharge) Demand 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
DEMAND TOTALS 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
DIFFERENCE: 129,826 128,384 124,300 120,124 115,883
Table 7-2. Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR 7-3R) - 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water – USBR 0 0 0 0 0
Surface Water – FID 45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
SUPPLY TOTALS 189,852 195,392 200,862 206,252 211,582
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable (Groundwater
Recharge) Demand 27,588 28,776 29,964 31,152 32,340
DEMAND TOTALS 164,092 176,132 184,174 192,228 200,287
DIFFERENCE: 25,760 19,260 16,688 14,024 11,295
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 City of Fresno
July 2021 7-6
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 7-3. Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR 7-4R) - - 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
FIRST
YEAR
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water – USBR 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Surface Water – FID 99,725 99,725 99,725 99,725 99,725
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
SUPPLY TOTALS 273,725 279,265 284,735 290,125 295,455
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable Demand 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
DEMAND TOTALS 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
DIFFERENCE: 74,521 66,509 62,425 58,249 54,008
SECOND
YEAR
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water – USBR 37,200 37,200 37,200 37,200 37,200 Surface Water – FID 93,426 93,426 93,426 93,426 93,426
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
SUPPLY TOTALS 274,626 280,166 285,636 291,026 296,356
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable Demand 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
DEMAND TOTALS 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
DIFFERENCE: 75,422 67,410 63,326 59,150 54,909
THIRD
YEAR
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water – USBR 0 0 0 0 0
Surface Water – FID 73,568 73,568 73,568 73,568 73,568
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
SUPPLY TOTALS 217,568 223,108 228,578 233,968 239,298
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable Demand 53,763 46,281 43,526 40,677 37,761
DEMAND TOTALS 190,267 193,637 197,736 201,753 205,708
DIFFERENCE: 27,301 29,471 30,842 32,215 33,589
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 City of Fresno
July 2021 7-7
Final
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
- - 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
FOURTH
YEAR
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water – USBR 0 0 0 0 0
Surface Water – FID 45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852 45,852
Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
SUPPLY TOTALS 189,852 195,392 200,862 206,252 211,582
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable Demand 26,047 18,564 15,810 12,960 10,045
DEMAND TOTALS 162,551 165,920 170,020 174,036 177,992
DIFFERENCE: 27,301 29,471 30,842 32,215 33,589
FIFTH
YEAR
Groundwater 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
Surface Water – USBR 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 Surface Water – FID 125,840 125,840 125,840 125,840 125,840 Recycled Water 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910 5,910
SUPPLY TOTALS 314,840 320,380 325,850 331,240 336,570
Potable Demand 136,504 147,356 154,210 161,076 167,947
Non-Potable Demand 62,700 65,400 68,100 70,800 73,500
DEMAND TOTALS 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447
DIFFERENCE: 115,636 107,624 103,540 99,364 95,123