City Council - Successor Agency - Housing Authority
April 1, 2025

Water Master Plan Update
2025
Draft
March 2025

Prepared for:

City of Fullerton
303 W. Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton, CA 92832
Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
38 Technology Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618

This page left blank intentionally.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Table of Contents
March 2025
i

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1.1 Existing System ....................................................................................................................... 1.1 Water Supply ........................................................................................................................... 1.1 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 1.2 Water Use ................................................................................................................................ 1.2 Planning and Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................. 1.3 Model Development and Calibration ........................................................................................ 1.3 Water System Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 1.4 Planning Scenarios .................................................................................................................. 1.4 Facility Condition Assessment ................................................................................................. 1.4 Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 1.5 Capital Improvement Program ................................................................................................. 1.5

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1.9

1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1.9

1.2 History and Background ............................................................................................... 1.9

2.0 EXISTING SYSTEM FACILITIES ................................................................................. 2.1

2.1 Pressure Zones ............................................................................................................ 2.3

2.2 Pipelines ..................................................................................................................... 2.15

2.3 MWD Connections...................................................................................................... 2.16

2.4 Groundwater Wells ..................................................................................................... 2.17

2.5 Booster Pump Stations ............................................................................................... 2.20

2.6 Storage Reservoirs ..................................................................................................... 2.21

2.7 Hydropneumatic Tanks ............................................................................................... 2.23

2.8 Fire Hydrants .............................................................................................................. 2.23

2.9 Valves ........................................................................................................................ 2.23

2.9.1 Pressure Reducing Valves ........................................................................ 2.23

2.9.2 Pressure Relief Valves .............................................................................. 2.26

2.9.3 Zone Check Valves ................................................................................... 2.27

2.10 Emergency Generators .............................................................................................. 2.27

2.11 Groundwater Treatment ............................................................................................. 2.29

2.12 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition ................................................................... 2.29

2.13 Interagency Connections ............................................................................................ 2.32

3.0 WATER SUPPLY ......................................................................................................... 3.1

3.1 Groundwater................................................................................................................. 3.2

3.1.1 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacts .............................................. 3.5

3.1.2 Recycled Water and Groundwater Recharge .............................................. 3.5

3.2 Imported Water ............................................................................................................. 3.6

3.2.1 Conjunctive Use Program ........................................................................... 3.7

3.3 Historical Monthly Supply Variation .............................................................................. 3.8 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Table of Contents
March 2025
ii

4.0 WATER QUALITY........................................................................................................ 4.1

4.1 Water Quality Regulation Update ................................................................................. 4.1

4.1.1 PFAS .......................................................................................................... 4.2

4.1.2 Compliance with Proposed Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels ............ 4.4

4.1.3 PFAS Results in the City of Fullerton .......................................................... 4.6

4.1.4 PFAS Treatment in the City of Fullerton .................................................... 4.11

4.1.5 Volatile Organic Compounds ..................................................................... 4.14

4.1.6 Microplastics ............................................................................................. 4.17

4.2 Water Quality Assessment ......................................................................................... 4.18

4.2.1 Fullerton Groundwater Quality Summary .................................................. 4.18

4.2.2 MWD Water Quality Summary .................................................................. 4.21

4.2.3 Distribution System Water Quality ............................................................. 4.23

4.2.4 Coyote Site Manganese Contamination .................................................... 4.24

4.2.5 Raytheon Impacts on Well 9...................................................................... 4.24

4.2.6 Lead and Copper ...................................................................................... 4.25

5.0 WATER USE ................................................................................................................ 5.1

5.1 Historical Water Use ..................................................................................................... 5.1

5.1.1 Historical Water Consumption ..................................................................... 5.1

5.1.2 Per Capita Consumption ............................................................................. 5.2

5.1.3 Historical Water Production ......................................................................... 5.3

5.1.4 Historical Seasonal Water Production ......................................................... 5.4

5.1.5 Non-Revenue Water ................................................................................... 5.6

5.2 Existing Water Demands .............................................................................................. 5.7

5.2.1 Existing Average Day Demands .................................................................. 5.8

5.2.2 Existing Monthly Demands .......................................................................... 5.8

5.2.3 Existing Maximum Day Demands ................................................................ 5.9

5.2.4 Diurnal Demand Patterns ............................................................................ 5.9

5.2.1 Summary of Peaking Factors and Existing Demands ................................ 5.13

5.3 Population Projections ................................................................................................ 5.14

5.4 Future Demand Projections ........................................................................................ 5.15

5.4.1 2020 UWMP Methodology ........................................................................ 5.15

5.4.2 Population Projection Methodology ........................................................... 5.16

5.4.3 Land Use Methodology ............................................................................. 5.17

5.4.4 Historical Demand Methodology ................................................................ 5.28

5.5 Summary of Demand Projections ............................................................................... 5.29

5.6 Recommended Future Water Demand Projections ..................................................... 5.30

5.7 Drought Regulations and Water Conservation ............................................................ 5.31

5.7.1 Drought Regulations ................................................................................. 5.31

5.7.2 Water Conservation .................................................................................. 5.32

6.0 PLANNING AND EVALUATION CRITERIA ................................................................ 6.1

6.1 Water Distribution System Criteria ................................................................................ 6.3

6.2 Storage Criteria ............................................................................................................ 6.3

6.3 Pumping Criteria ........................................................................................................... 6.5

7.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION .......................................................... 7.1 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Table of Contents
March 2025
iii

8.0 WATER SYSTEM EVALUATION ................................................................................. 8.1

8.1 Existing System Evaluation .......................................................................................... 8.1

8.1.1 System Pressures ....................................................................................... 8.1

8.1.2 Pipe Velocities ............................................................................................ 8.7

8.1.3 Storage Requirements ................................................................................ 8.7

8.1.4 Well and Booster Pump Station Capacity .................................................... 8.9

8.1.5 Fire Flow Analysis ....................................................................................... 8.9

8.2 Near-Term System Evaluation .................................................................................... 8.12

8.2.1 System Pressures ..................................................................................... 8.12

8.2.2 Pipe Velocities .......................................................................................... 8.12

8.2.3 Storage Requirements .............................................................................. 8.12

8.2.4 Well and Booster Pump Station Capacity .................................................. 8.14

8.2.5 Fire Flow Analysis ..................................................................................... 8.14

8.3 Future System Evaluation........................................................................................... 8.14

8.3.1 System Pressures ..................................................................................... 8.18

8.3.2 Pipe Velocities .......................................................................................... 8.18

8.3.3 Storage Requirements .............................................................................. 8.18

8.3.4 Well and Booster Pump Station Capacity .................................................. 8.20

8.3.5 Fire Flow Analysis ..................................................................................... 8.20

8.4 Water Age .................................................................................................................. 8.20

8.4.1 Approach................................................................................................... 8.20

8.4.2 Model Results ........................................................................................... 8.21

8.4.3 Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 8.24

8.5 System Improvement Recommendations ................................................................... 8.26

9.0 PLANNING SCENARIOS ............................................................................................. 9.1

9.1 Maximizing Groundwater Supply .................................................................................. 9.2

9.1.1 Scenario 1A – Maximum Available Groundwater Supply ............................. 9.2

9.1.2 Scenario 1B – 100 Percent Long-Term Groundwater Supply ...................... 9.6

9.2 System Operations Efficiency ..................................................................................... 9.11

9.2.1 Scenario 2 – Pumping and PRV System Operations ................................. 9.11

9.3 System Reliability ....................................................................................................... 9.15

9.3.1 Scenario 3A – 7-Day Imported Water Outage ........................................... 9.15

9.3.2 Scenario 3B – Pump Stations Offline ........................................................ 9.18

9.3.3 Scenario 3C – Groundwater Outage ......................................................... 9.20

9.4 Planning Scenario Recommendations ........................................................................ 9.21

10.0 FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 10.1

10.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 10.1

10.2 Condition Assessment Recommendations ................................................................. 10.2

11.0 RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 11.1

11.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 11.1

11.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 11.3

12.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................... 12.1

12.1 Cost Estimate Assumptions ........................................................................................ 12.1 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Table of Contents
March 2025
iv

12.1.1 Unit Construction Costs ............................................................................. 12.1

12.2 Project Priorities ......................................................................................................... 12.4

12.2.1 Facility Improvements ............................................................................... 12.4

12.2.2 Pipeline Improvements .............................................................................. 12.4

12.3 Capital Improvement Projects ..................................................................................... 12.5

12.3.1 Short-Term (by 2030) Capital Improvement Projects ................................. 12.5

12.3.2 Near-Term (by 2035) Capital Improvement Projects ................................. 12.5

12.3.3 Long-Term (2045 and beyond) Capital Improvement Projects ................... 12.5

12.3.4 Capital Improvement Project Costs Summary ........................................... 12.5

12.4 Pipeline Repair and Replacement Program ................................................................ 12.6

13.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 13.1

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1. CIP Cost Summary ............................................................................................... 1.7 Table 2-1. Customer Connections ............................................................................................ 2.1 Table 2-2. Existing Water Distribution System Pressure Zones ................................................ 2.3 Table 2-3. Pressure Zone 1 Summary ..................................................................................... 2.7 Table 2-4. Pressure Zone 2 Summary ..................................................................................... 2.9 Table 2-5. Pressure Zone 3 Summary ................................................................................... 2.11 Table 2-6. Pressure Zone 4 Summary ................................................................................... 2.13 Table 2-7. Pipeline Age .......................................................................................................... 2.15 Table 2-8. Water System Pipe Material .................................................................................. 2.16 Table 2-9. MWD Connections ................................................................................................ 2.17 Table 2-10. Groundwater Wells .............................................................................................. 2.19 Table 2-11. Pump Station Summary ...................................................................................... 2.20 Table 2-12. Reservoir Summary ............................................................................................ 2.22 Table 2-13. Hydropneumatic Tanks ....................................................................................... 2.23 Table 2-14. Hydrants per Pressure Zone ............................................................................... 2.23 Table 2-15. Pressure Reducing Stations ................................................................................ 2.24 Table 2-16. Pressure Relief Valves ........................................................................................ 2.26 Table 2-17. Zone Check Valves ............................................................................................. 2.27 Table 2-18. Generator Summary ............................................................................................ 2.28 Table 2-19. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Sites and Operations ......................... 2.30 Table 2-20. Interconnects ...................................................................................................... 2.32 Table 3-1. Annual Water Production ........................................................................................ 3.1 Table 3-2. Annual Groundwater Well Production ...................................................................... 3.4 Table 3-3. Annual Imported Water Purchased ......................................................................... 3.6 Table 4-1. Regulations Adopted by California Water Quality Control Board Since 1997 ........... 4.2 Table 4-2. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Notification and Response Levels in the State of California ...................................................................................................... 4.3 Table 4-3. Proposed Maximum Contaminant Levels for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Chemicals .............................................................................................. 4.4 Table 4-4. Practical Quantification Level .................................................................................. 4.6 Table 4-5. 2023 Fullerton Well PFAS Data (Potential Initial Monitoring Data) .......................... 4.7 Table 4-6. Running Annual Average (RAA) of Regulated PFAS Chemicals ............................. 4.9 Table 4-7. Kimberly Well 1A Ion Exchange Combined Effluent Results ................................. 4.12 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Table of Contents
March 2025
v

Table 4-8. Kimberly Well 1A Ion Exchange Vessel No. 1 Effluent Results .............................. 4.12 Table 4-9. Kimberly Well 1A Ion Exchange Vessel No. 3 Effluent Results .............................. 4.13 Table 4-10. VOC MCLs in the State of California ................................................................... 4.16 Table 4-11. USEPA Federal MCLs for VOC Chemicals ......................................................... 4.16 Table 4-12. City’s Groundwater Quality as Reported in 2020 Through 2022 (Data from 2019 to 2021) .......................................................................................................... 4.20 Table 4-13. Unregulated Chemicals ....................................................................................... 4.21 Table 4-14. Treated Surface Water from MWD as Reported in 2020 Through 2022 (Data from 2019 to 2021) .................................................................................................. 4.22 Table 4-15. Disinfection Byproducts (2018 - 2022) ................................................................. 4.23 Table 4-16. Chlorine & Fluoride Residuals in the Distribution System (2017 - 2022) .............. 4.24 Table 4-17. Unregulated Chemicals Monitored in Distribution System (2019) ........................ 4.24 Table 4-18. Lead and Copper Groundwater Sampling Results (2019 – 2022) ........................ 4.25 Table 5-1. Annual Water Consumption .................................................................................... 5.1 Table 5-2. Historical Annual Water Consumption ..................................................................... 5.2 Table 5-3. Historical Annual Water Production ......................................................................... 5.4 Table 5-4. Historical Monthly Production .................................................................................. 5.5 Table 5-5. Annual Water Consumption vs. Water Production ................................................... 5.6 Table 5-6. Monthly Demand Factor .......................................................................................... 5.8 Table 5-7. Maximum Day Demand and Demand Factor ........................................................... 5.9 Table 5-8. Existing Demands and Factors Summary.............................................................. 5.14 Table 5-9. City’s 2020 UWMP Future Demand Projections .................................................... 5.16 Table 5-10. Demand Projections per Population Methodology ............................................... 5.17 Table 5-11. Existing and Future Land Use Designation and Area .......................................... 5.18 Table 5-12. General Plan Land Use Method Demand Projections.......................................... 5.24 Table 5-13. General Plan Land Use Density .......................................................................... 5.25 Table 5-14. Unit Demand Factors per Land Use .................................................................... 5.26 Table 5-15. City’s Near-term (by 2035) Development Projects and Demands ........................ 5.27 Table 5-16. General Plan Land Use Method Demand Projections by Planning Year .............. 5.28 Table 5-17. Summary of Demand Projections ........................................................................ 5.30 Table 6-1. Summary of Planning Criteria.................................................................................. 6.2 Table 6-2. Pipeline Velocity Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................ 6.3 Table 6-3. Fire Flow and Fire Storage Requirements ............................................................... 6.4 Table 8-1. Existing System Low-Pressure Areas ...................................................................... 8.2 Table 8-2. Existing System High-Pressure Deficiency Areas .................................................... 8.3 Table 8-3. Existing System Storage Requirements .................................................................. 8.8 Table 8-4. Near-Term System Storage Requirements ............................................................ 8.13 Table 8-5. Future System Storage Requirements .................................................................. 8.19 Table 9-1. Scenario 1A: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply Production................................. 9.2 Table 9-2. Scenario 1A: Proposed MWD Import Water Supply ................................................ 9.3 Table 9-3. Scenario 1A: Proposed BPS Capacity Requirements .............................................. 9.4 Table 9-4. Scenario 1A: Proposed PRV Settings ..................................................................... 9.4 Table 9-5. Scenario 1B: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply .................................................. 9.6 Table 9-6. Scenario 1B: Proposed BPS Capacity Requirements .............................................. 9.7 Table 9-7. Scenario 1B: Proposed PRV Settings ..................................................................... 9.8 Table 9-8. Scenario 1B Alternative: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply ................................. 9.9 Table 9-9. Scenario 1B Alternative: Proposed MWD Import Water Supply ............................... 9.9 Table 9-10. Scenario 2: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply ................................................. 9.11 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Table of Contents
March 2025
vi

Table 9-11. Scenario 2: Proposed MWD Import Water Supply ............................................... 9.12 Table 9-12. Scenario 2: Proposed BPS Capacity Requirements ............................................ 9.12 Table 9-13. Scenario 2: Proposed PRV Settings .................................................................... 9.13 Table 9-14. Scenario 3A: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply .............................................. 9.15 Table 9-15. Scenario 3A: Proposed Supplemental BPS Capacity .......................................... 9.16 Table 9-16. Scenario 3A: Proposed PRV Settings ................................................................. 9.16 Table 9-17. Scenario 3B: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply .............................................. 9.18 Table 9-18. Scenario 3B: Proposed MWD Import Water Supply ............................................ 9.19 Table 9-19. Scenario 3B: Proposed PRV Settings ................................................................. 9.19 Table 9-20. Scenario 3C: Proposed MWD Import Water Supply ............................................ 9.20 Table 9-21. Scenario 3C: Proposed PRV Settings ................................................................. 9.21 Table 9-22. Planning Scenario Summary of Recommendations ............................................. 9.23 Table 10-1. General Description for Scoring of Conditions of Assets ..................................... 10.1 Table 10-2. General Ratings and Timescale .......................................................................... 10.2 Table 10-3. Site Condition Assessment Summary ................................................................. 10.3 Table 10-4. Pump Station Condition Assessment Summary .................................................. 10.4 Table 10-5. Reservoir Condition Assessment Summary ........................................................ 10.5 Table 10-6. Well Condition Assessment Summary ................................................................. 10.6 Table 11-1. Horizontal Asset-Risk Results by Pipe Length and Percentage ........................... 11.3 Table 11-2. Vertical Asset-Risk Results ................................................................................. 11.4 Table 12-1. Pipeline Unit Costs .............................................................................................. 12.2 Table 12-2. Reservoir Storage Costs ..................................................................................... 12.2 Table 12-3. Groundwater Well Costs ..................................................................................... 12.3 Table 12-4. Pump Station Costs ............................................................................................ 12.3 Table 12-5. Facility Unit Costs ............................................................................................... 12.4 Table 12-6. CIP Cost Summary ............................................................................................. 12.6 Table 12-7. Short-Term Capital Improvement Projects and Costs .......................................... 12.8 Table 12-8. Near-Term Capital Improvement Projects and Costs ........................................ 12.11 Table 12-9. Long-Term Capital Improvement Projects and Costs ........................................ 12.13

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Location Map and Service Area ........................................................................... 1.10 Figure 2-1. Existing Water Distribution System ........................................................................ 2.2 Figure 2-2. Pressure Zone Boundaries .................................................................................... 2.4 Figure 2-3. Existing Water Distribution System Hydraulic Profile .............................................. 2.5 Figure 2-4. Existing Water Distribution System – Pressure Zone 1 .......................................... 2.8 Figure 2-5. Existing Water Distribution System – Pressure Zone 2 ........................................ 2.10 Figure 2-6. Existing Water Distribution System – Pressure Zone 3 ........................................ 2.12 Figure 2-7. Existing Water Distribution System – Pressure Zone 4 ........................................ 2.14 Figure 2-8. Existing Water Distribution System Pipe Diameters and Length ........................... 2.15 Figure 3-1. Annual Water Production (FY 2012/13 through FY 2021/22).................................. 3.2 Figure 3-2. Average Monthly Water Production (2012 to 2022) ................................................ 3.8 Figure 4-1. Implementation: Monitoring Requirements Summary ............................................. 4.5 Figure 4-2. Orange County North Basin VOC Plume.............................................................. 4.15 Figure 5-1. Historical Annual Water Consumption per Capita (gpcd) ........................................ 5.3 Figure 5-2. Seasonal Production Variation for FY 2015/16 Through FY 2021/22 ..................... 5.6 Figure 5-3. Historical Annual Non-Revenue Water Trend ......................................................... 5.7 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Table of Contents
March 2025
vii

Figure 5-4. 2022 Monthly Demands ......................................................................................... 5.8 Figure 5-5. July to August 2022 Daily Water Production .......................................................... 5.9 Figure 5-6. Diurnal Pattern Zone 1 ......................................................................................... 5.11 Figure 5-7. Diurnal Pattern Zone 1A ....................................................................................... 5.11 Figure 5-8. Diurnal Pattern Zone 1B ....................................................................................... 5.12 Figure 5-9. Diurnal Pattern Zones 2 and 3 ............................................................................. 5.12 Figure 5-10. Diurnal Pattern Zone 4A ..................................................................................... 5.13 Figure 5-11. Population Projections ....................................................................................... 5.15 Figure 5-12. Existing Land Use .............................................................................................. 5.20 Figure 5-13. Future Land Use ................................................................................................ 5.21 Figure 5-14. Land Use Density Increase between 2019 and 2045 ......................................... 5.22 Figure 5-15. Historical Demand Trend ................................................................................... 5.29 Figure 5-16. Graph of Demand Projections ............................................................................ 5.30 Figure 8-1. Existing System Low- & High-Pressure Areas and High Velocity Pipes ................. 8.5 Figure 8-2. High Pressure Areas H1, H2, and H3 Proposed Improvements ............................. 8.6 Figure 8-3. Existing Fire Flow Analysis Proposed Improvements ........................................... 8.10 Figure 8-4. Existing Fire Flow Analysis Proposed Zone 2 and Zone 4C Realignment ............ 8.11 Figure 8-5. Future Water Distribution System ........................................................................ 8.16 Figure 8-6. Future West Coyote Hills Development Proposed Zone 4C and Zone 5 .............. 8.17 Figure 8-7. Percentile Plot of Average Water Age with Existing ADD Conditions ................... 8.21 Figure 8-8. Distribution System Average Water Age under Existing ADD Conditions ............. 8.23 Figure 8-9. Average Water Age for Existing ADD Conditions by Percentile ............................ 8.24 Figure 8-10. Tank Farm Facility with Average Water Age for Existing ADD Conditions .......... 8.25 Figure 9-1. Scenario 1A: Maximum Available Groundwater Supply .......................................... 9.5 Figure 9-2. Scenario 1B: 100% Long-Term Groundwater Supply ........................................... 9.10 Figure 9-3. Scenario 2: Pumping and PRV System Operations .............................................. 9.14 Figure 9-4. Scenario 3A: 7-Day Import Water Outage ............................................................ 9.17 Figure 9-5. Planning Scenario Recommendations ................................................................. 9.24 Figure 11-1. Risk Matrix ......................................................................................................... 11.3 Figure 12-1. Proposed Short-Term Capital Improvement Projects ....................................... 12.10 Figure 12-2. Proposed Near-Term Capital Improvement Projects ........................................ 12.12 Figure 12-3. Proposed Long-Term Capital Improvement Projects ........................................ 12.14

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Historic VOC Data

APPENDIX B
Policy Handbook Establishing a Standard Method of Testing and Reporting of Microplastics in Drinking Water (August 9, 2022, State Water Resources Control Board)

APPENDIX C
Model Calibration

APPENDIX D
Pump Capacity Verification
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Table of Contents
March 2025
viii

APPENDIX E
Proposed Pipeline Improvements based on Existing Fire Flow Analysis

APPENDIX F
Water Facility Condition Assessment Technical Memorandum (March 2024, Stantec)

APPENDIX G
Risk Assessment Technical Memorandum (April 3, 2024, Stantec)

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Abbreviations
March 2025
ix

Abbreviations
ADD average day demand
ADONA 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid
ADU accessory dwelling units
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AL action level
AWWA American Water Works Association
BEA Basin Equity Assessment
bgs below ground surface
BPP Basin Production Percentage
BPS booster pumping station
CaCO3 calcium carbonate
CDR Center for Demographic Research
cfs cubic feet per second
CII commercial, industrial, and institutional
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Fullerton
CL centerline
COF Consequence of Failure
CRA Colorado River Aqueduct
CUP Conjunctive Use Program
DBP disinfection by-product
DDW Division of Drinking Water
Diemer Robert B. Diemer
DMM Demand Management Measure
DMU Downtown Mixed Use
du/ac dwelling units per acre
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Abbreviations
March 2025
x

DWR California Department Water Resources
EPS extended period simulation
FAR floor to area ratio
fps feet per second
FY fiscal year
GAC Granulated Activated Carbon
GCP Greenbelt Concept Project
GIS geographical information system
GP General Plan
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
gpd/du gallons per day per dwelling unit
gpm gallons per minute
GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System
HAA5 haloacetic acids
HCO3 bicarbonate
HGL hydraulic grade line
HOA homeowners’ association
hp horsepower
IX single-use ion exchange
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
LCRI Lead and Copper Rule Improvements
lf linear feet
LOF Likelihood of Failure
LRAA locational running annual average
MCC motor control center
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Abbreviations
March 2025
xi

MDD maximum day demand
MG million gallon
µg/L micrograms per liter
µm micrometer
µmho/cm micromhos per centimeter
mg/L milligrams per liter
mgd million gallons per day
MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
ND Non-detect
NDMA N-nitroso-dimethylamine
NL notification level
OC Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin
OCSan Orange County Sanitation District
OCWD Orange County Water District
OEL operational evaluation levels
PCE Tetrachloroethene
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFBS Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid
PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid
PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid
PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid
PFHxS Perfluoro Hexane Sulfonic Acid
PFNA perfluorononanoic acid
PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Abbreviations
March 2025
xii

PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonate
PHD peak hour demand
PHG public health goal
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppt parts per trillion
PQL Practical Quantitation Level
PRV pressure reducing valve
psi pounds per square inch
PSV pressure sustaining valve
PVC polyvinyl chloride
PZ pressure zone
RA Replenishment Assessment
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RL response level
RSSCT Rapid small scale column testing
SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition
SMCL secondary MCL
SS steady-state
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TBA tert-butyl alcohol
TCE Trichloroethylene
TDH total dynamic head
TTHM total trihalomethanes
UCMU Urban Center Mixed Use
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Abbreviations
March 2025
xiii

VFD variable frequency drive
VOC volatile organic compound
WCHD West Coyote Hills Development
WMP Water Master Plan

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Abbreviations
March 2025
xiv

This page left blank intentionally.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Executive Summary
March 2025

1.1 Executive Summary
This Water Master Plan (WMP) updates the City of Fullerton’s 1997 Water Master Plan and serves as a guide for water system improvements to the year 2045, providing recommendations for prioritizing the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This was accomplished through building and calibrating a new hydraulic model to analyze the capacity of the City’s infrastructure, performing condition assessments, and expanding the City’s asset management program. This WMP provides facility and operational recommendations to assist the City in servicing their customers with high-quality potable water supply that meets all applicable regulations, to supply adequate flows and pressures for water service and fire protection, to operate at high efficiency and low cost, and to maintain service reliability through redundancy.

Existing System
The City’s water service area covers about 22.3 square miles, serving approximately 144,000 customers with 32,144 service connections (meters). The distribution system is comprised of four main pressure zones with twelve sub-zones. Storage reservoirs and pumping stations equalize flows and maintain adequate system pressures for each zone, which are interconnected through pressure regulating and flow control valves, as well as pressure relief and check valves. The water infrastructure includes 15 reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of 67.5 million gallons (MG), 14 booster pump stations (BPS), 8 active groundwater wells, 7 import water connections, 3 generators, and approximately 424 miles of pipeline.

Water Supply
The existing water distribution system delivers potable water to its customers from two primary supply sources: (1) groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin) and (2) treated imported water connections from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).

Historical supply deliveries from both supply sources were analyzed based on ten years of recent water production data which revealed that the total average annual supply production required by the City to meet its water demands was 25,552 acre-feet per year (AFY). The largest annual supply production during this period was in FY 2013/14 at 30,058 AFY. However, between 2018 and 2022, the City’s supply requirements have seen nearly a 9 percent reduction. This reduction in water supply resulted from diligent efforts in the promotion of water conservation as well as financial incentives for customers to retrofit their homes and businesses with water efficient devices and appliances.

The City’s groundwater wells are the primary source of supply, historically producing an average of approximately 73 percent of the total supply. The City’s groundwater supply has been impacted by levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) detected in the City’s groundwater wells at Kimberly Well 1A and at Main Plant Well 3A. In 2021, Kimberly Well 1A was retrofitted with an ion-exchange treatment facility. At the Main Plant, a PFAS treatment facility was constructed to treat Well 3A and will ultimately WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Executive Summary
March 2025

1.2 include additional facilities to also treat water from a new Well 7A; and a new configuration to treat Wells 5, 6, and 8.

Imported water provides the remaining approximately 27 percent of the City’s supply source through seven MWD connections along MWD’s Orange County Feeder, West Orange County Feeder, and Second Lower Feeder pipelines.

Water Quality
This WMP provides an update of the regulations impacting water utilities since the 1997 WMP. Drinking water quality is regulated by the California State Water Resource Control Board (State Water Board) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Regulated contaminants include radionuclides, inorganic constituents, organic chemicals, disinfectant residuals in the water distribution system, and other constituents. The City’s Water Quality Reports annually verify compliance with these regulations.

The USEPA has recently finalized the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six PFAS chemicals. Therefore, it is important to ensure that PFAS treatment systems already constructed or designed in the City will comply not only with the State’s regulations but also the new federal MCLs.

Microplastics are also a growing concern in water sources and are ubiquitous in drinking water. The State of California has legislated the implementation of a four-year plan to establish a standard method of testing and reporting of microplastics in drinking water (CA SB 1422), which can be found in the Policy Handbook Establishing a Standard Method of Testing and Reporting of Microplastics in Drinking Water (Policy Handbook) prepared by DDW in August 2022. The State Water Board has established an estimated risk to human health of microplastics through exposure via drinking water, through a two-phase iterative approach. Phase 1 will be performed by some large community water systems and wholesale water systems that serve more than 100,000 people, while Phase 2 will involve additional agencies. The Policy Handbook includes a list of potential water systems to perform the microplastics monitoring during Phase 1 – the City of Fullerton is not on this list. The Phase 2 list has not been made public yet.

A water quality assessment was conducted for the groundwater supply, treated imported water supply, and water quality within the distribution system. Year over year, the City’s drinking water wells consistently provide the community with high quality drinking water that meets compliance with federal and state regulations without issue. The treated surface water complies with all current water quality regulations. The combined supplies in the distribution system are subject to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule and monitoring of chlorine and fluoride residuals. Data sampled semi-annually from 2017 through 2022 shows no sample exceeding the fluoride MCL.

Water Use
The City’s historical data of potable water production and consumption was evaluated to determine the water use characteristics and plan for future water usage. In addition to the historical water use WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Executive Summary
March 2025

1.3 information; seasonal variations, population growth, the City’s General Plan and Zoning Map, and known development plans were taken into consideration to project the City’s future water demands.

Historical water consumption was evaluated using available billing data. On average, the City’s historical water consumption during the 10-year period evaluated is approximately 24,352 AFY or 21.74 million gallons per day (mgd). For the same historical 10-year period, the City’s water production has averaged approximately 25,552 AFY. The difference can be attributed to real system losses such as leaking or broken mains and service lines, unbilled consumption such as hydrant flushing and fire-fighting, or apparent losses including unauthorized consumption, monthly billing estimates, and meter inaccuracies.

Based on the comparison of water production against the water consumption data, the City’s annual average water loss is 5 percent, with the last five years being steady between 3 and 5 percent.

Various methodologies are available in the industry when projecting future demands. For this WMP, methodologies used included population-based projections, land use-based projections using the City’s General Plan and known development projects, and historical trends analysis. These future demand projections were then compared with the demand projections from the City’s 2020 UWMP. Based on the results from each methodology, the demand projections from the 2020 UWMP are recommended for this WMP, as they also included a thorough analysis of the demand projections and reflect the 2021 Orange County Water Demand Forecast for Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and OCWD study, considering indoor and outdoor water use as well as Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation requirements. The 2020 UWMP projections were found to strike a balance between the population and the land use projections, validating that they are neither too conservative nor too aggressive.

Planning and Evaluation Criteria
Planning and evaluation criteria provide a means by which the hydraulic performance and reliability of an existing system can be evaluated, and for planning of facilities to meet future system conditions and demands. Criteria for this WMP was based on established criteria in the 2022 City of Fullerton Public Works Department Water Utility Specifications and the 2022 American Water Works Association (AWWA) guidelines for potable water system planning.

Model Development and Calibration
A new hydraulic model was created to reflect a one-to-one pipe relationship with the City’s latest GIS database and further updated to include recently completed projects. The demands were allocated based on City water billing data, and the model was calibrated by conducting real-time fire hydrant flow tests at 19 locations throughout the City. Steady-state (SS) analysis and extended period simulation (EPS) scenarios were both created in the model. The calibrated model was used to predict system performance and identify system deficiencies, evaluate emergency scenarios, and develop recommendations to improve system performance.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Executive Summary
March 2025

1.4 Water production data from calendar year 2022 was used to reflect the most recent water use patterns and characteristics to determine the average day demand (ADD) and maximum day demand (MDD).

Hourly SCADA data of the City’s production facilities were used to determine the daily diurnal patterns for ADD and MDD conditions. These patterns are applied in the model to create a 24-hour EPS for existing, near-term, and future conditions.

Water System Evaluation
The new calibrated model was used to evaluate the City’s water distribution system for three different demand conditions: existing, near-term (10-year planning horizon), and future (20-year planning horizon).

The water distribution system was evaluated under normal operating and supply conditions to determine areas of low-pressure, high-pressure, and high pipeline velocity under ADD and MDD conditions. In addition, the distribution system was also evaluated under MDD plus fire flow conditions. Storage requirements, well pump capacity, and booster pump station capacity were evaluated for each planning horizon. It should be noted that the City also has interconnects with other agencies that are available for temporary emergency situations if needed but are not included in the existing system evaluation as these evaluations are geared towards self-sufficiency and reliability on the City’s system. This WMP provides recommendations to address system pressures, pipeline velocities, pump station, and fire flow deficiencies. The future system evaluation included the West Coyote Hills Development and associated facility recommendations. Water age was also evaluated and locations predicted to have the highest water age were identified.

Planning Scenarios
Results and recommendations were provided for multiple planning scenarios evaluating future system conditions, including the following:

Maximizing Groundwater Supply: These model scenarios evaluated the distribution system for maximizing the City’s current available groundwater supply, as well as the potential future 100 percent groundwater supply.

System Operations Efficiency: This scenario evaluated distribution system operational modifications to improve system efficiency.

System Reliability: Scenarios were performed to evaluate distribution system reliability under extreme supply outage assumptions.

Facility Condition Assessment
A visual inspection of the City’s facilities was performed with the assistance of City operations and recommendations were developed for each pump station, reservoir, and well facility site observed.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Executive Summary
March 2025

1.5 Risk Assessment
An analysis and evaluation of the Asset Management Asset-Risk was conducted for the horizontal and vertical assets. Both the hydraulic analysis, which incorporated a fire-flow availability analysis, and the Asset Management Asset-Risk analysis were considered to create a series of recommended improvements for the CIP. Replacement recommendations for pipelines, wells, pump stations, and reservoirs considered aspects relating to asset condition, pipeline age, historical failures, soil corrosivity, type of critical customers served, groundwater scarcity, financial impacts, and other non-hydraulic factors.

Capital Improvement Program
The CIP projects recommended in this report are based on improvements derived from the hydraulic model evaluations, condition assessment, and risk-assessment analysis. The CIP identifies the proposed improvement projects, provides the estimated planning level cost estimates of the facilities, and develops an estimated timetable or prioritization for implementing these improvements to year 2045 and beyond.

Categorized into short-term, near-term, and long-term priorities, CIP cost estimates are shown in Table ES-1 and CIP recommendations are summarized below:

Short-Term (2030):
• Conduct facility site improvements, replace pump equipment, and install new hydropneumatic tank at Upper Acacia BPS
• Conduct facility site improvements at Hermitage BPS, replace pumps and increase capacity at Hermitage 2B-3 BPS, and install new or rehabilitate existing hydropneumatic tank at Hermitage 2B-4C BPS
• Conduct facility site improvements, replace pump equipment, and increase capacity of pumps at Coyote BPS
• Conduct facility site improvements at Tank Farm Reservoir and BPS, rehabilitate Tank Farm 2D Reservoir tanks, and replace pump equipment at Tank Farm BPS • Conduct facility site improvements, and repair electrical and control equipment at Christlieb Well 15A
• Replace and increase diameter of approximately 76,700 linear feet (LF) of pipeline to improve fire flow capacity
Near-Term (2035):
• Conduct facility site improvements, and replace pumps and increase capacity at Hillcrest BPS and Lower Acacia BPS
• Conduct facility site improvements and replace pumps at State College BPS • Conduct facility site improvements, rehabilitate tanks, and demolish Well 12A at Coyote 1C Reservoir
• Repair and replace piping and appurtenances, and rehabilitate tank at Laguna 2A Reservoir
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Executive Summary
March 2025

1.6 • Conduct facility site improvements and tank improvements at Hermitage 2B Reservoir, Upper Acacia 3A Reservoir, State College 2C Reservoir, and Hawks Pointe 3C Reservoir
• Conduct facility site improvements at Airport Well 9
• Construct new pressure reducing valve between Zone 3 and Zone 2 • Reconnect existing fire hydrants at two locations: Zone 1 at Orangethorpe and Citrus; and from Zone 2 to Zone 3 at Brea and Longview
• Install 7 permanent backup generators at 7 existing BPS sites • Construct a new 7,000 LF 16-inch transmission main in Zone 3 on Harbor Boulevard from Valencia Mesa to Hillcrest BPS
• Zone 1 to 2 realignment
− Relocate one zone break valve between Zone 2 and 1 near the intersection of Vista Verde Drive and West Union Avenue
• Zone 3 to 4C realignment
− Relocate 3 zone break valves between Zone 4C and 3, near the intersection of Camino del Sol and Camino Rey, Atherton Circle and Camino del Sol, and between Applewood Circle and North Gilbert Street
− Construct new pipeline segment (49-LF) to connect the former Zone 3 and newly realigned Zone 4C
Long-Term (2045 and Beyond):
• Construct new pipeline infrastructure to support the proposed West Coyote Hills Development and new Zone 4C service area; approximately 26,000 LF of 8-inch and 12-inch pipelines
• Construct new Zone 4C BPS for West Coyote Hills Development • Construct new Zone 4C Reservoir for the West Coyote Hills Development • Construct new Zone 5 BPS for the West Coyote Hills Development • Conduct facility site improvements, replace pump equipment, and increase pump capacity at Hawks Pointe BPS
• Construct 2 new groundwater wells in Zone 1B with permanent backup generators
• Install 6 permanent backup generators at 6 existing groundwater well sites • Replace pump equipment and increase pump capacity at Hermitage 2B-3 BPS • Conduct facility site improvements and rehabilitate tanks at Hillcrest 1A Reservoir, Lower Acacia 1D Reservoir, and Las Palmas 3B Reservoir • Replace approximately 70 LF of 8-inch pipeline with 12-inch diameter pipeline in Brookhurst Road
• Zone 4A to 3 realignment
− Relocate one zone break valve between Zone 4A and 3, near the intersection of Pioneer Avenue and Rocky Road
• New Pressure Zone 2B Subzone
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Executive Summary
March 2025

1.7 − Construct a new zone break valve near the intersection of Starbuck Street and Hughes Drive
− Construct a new PRV near the intersection of Gilbert Street and Hughes Drive − Construct a new PRV near the intersection of Cusick Drive and Wright Lane • New Pressure Zone 3B Subzone
− Construct a new zone break valve and new PRV southeast of the intersection of Primrose Lane and Camelia Lane, near Rosecrans Avenue − Construct a new PRV at the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue and Emery Ranch Road
− Construct approximately 2,600 LF of 8-inch pipeline along Emery Ranch Road and Muir Trail Drive, disconnecting laterals from the existing Zone 3 parallel pipeline and connecting to the proposed 8-inch pipeline Table ES-1. CIP Cost Summary
Planning
Horizon
Other Water
Main
Project Costsa
Booster Pump
Station
Project Costsb
Other Facility
Project Costsc
Total Project
Improvement
Costsd,e
Pipeline Repair
& Replacement
Program Costsf
Total
20-Year
CIP Costs
Short-Term $42.9M $11.6M $4.5M $59.0M $101.9M $160.9M Near-Term $6.3M $9.6M $17.1M $33.0M $101.9M $134.9M Long-Term $16.2M $9.6M $33.2M $59.0M $203.8M $262.8M Total CIP $65.4M $30.8M $54.8M $151.0M $407.6M $558.6M a Other Water Main project costs include fire flow improvements, proposed transmission main, and development-driven pipeline projects.
b Booster pump station project costs include facility improvements of respective booster pump stations. c Other facility project costs include groundwater wells, reservoirs, pressure reducing valve, zone realignments, generators, and respective facility improvements.
d Total Project Costs are the sum of only the Other Water Main, Booster Pump Station, and Other Facility project costs. e Project contingency is included in the project costs shown to account for unknown conditions when preparing general planning level cost estimates. Costs are based on 2024 dollars and do not include escalation. f The Pipeline Repair and Replacement Program Costs of $407.6M assumes an annual budget of $20.4M over the 20-year CIP planning horizon for this Master Plan. The annual budget assumes a 60-year replacement cycle.

Implementation of the short-, near-, and long-term project improvements listed above would require an estimated annual budget of approximately $7.6 million per year, assuming a 20-year CIP planning horizon.

A well-managed CIP program also includes a strategy for pipeline replacements that involves a proactive approach to identifying and replacing aging or high-risk pipelines aiming to enhance system reliability, reduce leak risks, and reduce the rate of pipe breaks by upgrading the pipeline infrastructure over time.

The proposed Pipeline Repair and Replacement Program assumes the City’s distribution system is replaced over a 60-year period. Approximately 74 miles of the distribution system piping has been identified as high and very high risk and thus prioritized as high priority replacement projects. The annual budget estimated for the City’s Pipeline Repair and Replacement Program is approximately $20,400,000.

This annual budget is in addition to the project improvements identified for the 20-year CIP planning WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Executive Summary
March 2025

1.8 horizon for this Master Plan. The total 20-year CIP budget including the project improvement costs and Pipeline Repair and Replacement Program costs is estimated to be $558,600,000.

A GIS-based prioritization tool was created to determine the priority basis and identify projects to be implemented for each pipe within the Pipeline Repair and Replacement Program.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Introduction
March 2025

1.9 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose
The City of Fullerton (City) is updating their 1997 Water Master Plan (WMP) to serve as a guide for water system improvements through the year 2045, providing a phased Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

This is accomplished through building and calibrating an updated hydraulic model to analyze the capacity of the City’s infrastructure, performing condition assessments, and expanding the City’s existing asset management program to evaluate the condition of the City’s infrastructure. This updated WMP will provide improvement recommendations to assist the City in servicing their customers with a high-quality potable water supply that meets all applicable regulations, to supply adequate flows and pressures for water service and fire protection, to operate at high efficiency and low cost, and to maintain service reliability through redundancy. Note, the information in this study is accurate as of July 2024.

1.2 History and Background
The City is located 22 miles southeast of metropolitan Los Angeles, in the center of North Orange County, California and bordered by the Cities of La Habra and Brea to the north, Anaheim to the south, Placentia to the east, and Buena Park to the west, as shown on Figure 1-1. Fullerton is a full-service, general law city that was incorporated in 1904. Fullerton is renowned for its unique mix of residential, commercial, industrial, educational, and cultural environments and is known for being “the education community.” Fullerton has 52 City parks, a museum, a cultural center, a public library, a golf course, and 29 miles of recreational trails and is home to California State University, Fullerton campus. Fullerton provides an outstanding quality of life for both residents and businesses. Fullerton is also one of the largest cities in Orange County by area and is the sixth most populous.

The City is a predominantly single and multi-family residential community. Recent and ongoing developments include various residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed-use projects. Moving forward, future planned developments may include accessory dwelling units (ADU).

la Mirada Blvd
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig1-1_LocationMap
LEGEND
City Boundary
Service Area
Redondo Beach
Long Beach
Los Angeles
91 60
71 605
Anaheim
Ontario
Corona
Santa Ana
Figure 1-1. Location Map and Service Area

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
11/18/2024´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
BREA

PLACENTIA

LA HABRA

BUENA PARK

ANAHEIM

FULLERTON

VICINITY MAP
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.1 2.0 Existing System Facilities
The City’s water service area covers about 22.3 square miles, serving approximately 144,000 customers.

The existing water distribution system delivers potable water to its customers pumped from local groundwater supply as we well as from imported water connections from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The City’s largest groundwater supply facility is the Main Plant located south of the City, on La Palma Avenue, in the City of Anaheim. The existing water distribution system is provided on Figure 2-1.

The distribution system comprises of twelve pressure zones. Storage reservoirs and pumping stations equalize flows and maintain adequate system pressures for each zone. Pressure zones are interconnected through pressure regulating and flow control valves, as well as pressure relief and check valves. The water infrastructure includes the following major facilities:
• 15 reservoirs with a capacity of 67.5 million gallons (MG) • 14 booster pump stations (BPS)
• 8 active groundwater wells
• 7 import water connections
• approximately 424-miles of mainline pipes
• 3 generators
• 4 pressure zones with 12 sub-zones
The City’s water system supplies 32,144 service connections (meters), with most meters being 5/8-inch and 1-inch. Most of the customers are residential users, followed by commercial, as shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Customer Connections
Land Use
Meter Size (inches)
5/8 1 1 1/2 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 Total
Residential 13,571 14,362 357 322 28 43 5 2 4 28,694
Commercial 510 578 392 465 63 50 12 2 4 2,076
Industrial 9 16 27 41 10 8 3 1 115
Fireline 7 129 133 230 65 2 566
Landscape 9 120 87 198 3 417
Municipal 28 84 33 92 10 16 4 7 274
Agricultural 2 2
Grand Total 14,127 15,160 896 1,127 114 246 157 242 73 2 32,144

A
A
A
A A
A
AAAAAA

HERMITAGE
2B
LAGUNA 2A
LAS PALMAS 3B
COYOTE 1C
KIMBERLY 2
FOREBAY (K2F)
STATE COLLEGE 2C
UPPER ACACIA 3A
LOWER ACACIA 1D

MAIN PLANT
HAWKS POINTE 3C
HILLCREST 1A
PR-05
PR-01PR-12
PR-16
PR-26
PR-17
PR-15
PR-14
PR-13
PR-10
PR-04
PR-03
PR-02
PR-07
PR-08
PR-24
PR-25
PR-29
PR-30
PR-19
PR-20
PR-32
PR-11
PR-09
PR-22
PR-23
F-08 F-07 (NOT BUILT)
F-03 (INACTIVE)
F-06
F-02
F-04
F-01
F-05
F-09
Golden State
Water Company
Brea
Anaheim
La Habra
Suburban
Water
Systems
Anaheim
Buena Park
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91

CHRISTLIEB
WELL 15A

AIRPORT
WELL 9

KIMBERLY
WELL 1A

KIMBERLY
WELL 2

SUNCLIPSE
WELL 10
COYOTE
WELL 12A
(INACTIVE)
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig2-1_ExistingSystem
A
A
A
A
A
AWELL 7A
(FUTURE)
WELL 5
WELL 6
WELL 8
WELL 3A
WELL 4
(INACTIVE)
TANK FARM 2D
TANK 1 (T1)
T3
T4 T5
T2

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 2-1. Existing Water Distribution System

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
2/19/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Zone4CWest
Zone4C East
TANK FARM 2D

MAIN PLANT

FOREBAY
(MPF)

MAIN PLANT
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Reservoir
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 2
Zone 3
Groundwater Well
A Zone 1
A Zone 1A
A Zone 1B
Interconnection
Zone 1
Zone 1B
Zone 3
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
MWD Import Water Turnout
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Thickness Indicates
Pipeline Diameter
Greater than 24"
12" to 24"
8" to 10"
6" or Less
Notes:
- MWD = Metropolitan Water District
TANK FARM 2D

MAIN PLANT
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.3 2.1 Pressure Zones
To maintain adequate pressures throughout the water distribution system regardless of varying topography, water systems are divided into hydraulic regions known as pressure zones. The City’s operational service area is comprised of a total of twelve individual pressure zones. Pressure zone boundaries are based on ground elevations that match desired minimum and maximum system pressures and are separated by booster pump stations and pressure regulating, flow control, or system check valves.

There are five gravity fed zones that are directly connected to a storage reservoir (Zones 1, 1A, 1B, 2, and 3) with the remaining seven zones either directly supplied through a pressure reducing valve or boosted through a pump station (Zones 1C, 2A, 3A, 4, 4A, 4B, and 4C). Pressure zones labeled with the number 1 serve the lowest elevations and zones labeled as 4 serve the highest elevations, generally extending from south to north. The City’s pressure zones are summarized in Table 2-2.

The City’s existing water distribution system pressure zone boundaries and hydraulic profile are shown on Figures 2-2 and 2-3, respectively.

Table 2-2. Existing Water Distribution System Pressure Zones Pressure
Zone
Hydraulic Grade Line
(feet)
Pressure Range (psi) Service Elevations a (feet)
Low High Low High
1 327 48 105 85 215
1A 360 65 83 169 209
1B 281 46 86 82 174
1C 263 77 82 74 84
2 420 50 89 215 305
2A 323 39 56 194 234
3 510 48 143 180 400
3A 484 39 65 334 394
4 660 74 113 400 490
4A 605 50 89 400 490
4B 605 40 89 400 512
4Cb 605/592 50 89 400 490
Notes:
a Elevations taken from City’s Geographic Information System. Local grading may vary from elevations shown, resulting in changes to static service pressures.
b Zone 4C is comprised of two hydraulically separated service areas of similar hydraulic grade line requirements and considered as a Zone 4C (East) service area and Zone 4C (West) service area. Zone 4C (East) is served only by the Hermitage 3A-4C Booster Pump Station. Zone 4C (West) is a small separate service area supplied only by the Hawks Pointe 3C-4C Booster Pump Station.

These service areas are to be considered as being combined in the future when development is implemented in the area. See Section 8.3 for further discussion on the future configuration of Zone 4C.

Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive -
Exhibit Name: Fig2-2_PressureZoneBoundaries
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Figure 2-2. Pressure Zone Boundaries

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
11/15/2024´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Zone 4C West
Zone 4C East
Zone 4C East Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 4B
Zone 4A
Zone 3A
Zone 2
Zone 2
Zone 2Zone 2A
Zone 1 Zone 1AZone 1B
Zone 1C

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.6 General descriptions of each pressure zone are provided in the following pages. Descriptions include a figure and a table summary of pressure zone attributes, including hydraulic grade line (HGL), static service pressure in pounds per square inch (psi), source water, supply facility and storage reservoirs.

Source water can be groundwater, imported water or a combination referred to as blended. Each pressure zone’s supply facility may include wells, MWD turnouts, pressure reducing valves (PRV), and pump stations, depending how water is supplied to the pressure zone. Generally, groundwater is pumped from the wells to supply Zones 1 and 1A and then can be pumped up to the higher-pressure zones. Zone 1B supply is blended, with most of the demand met by groundwater. Imported water is the primary supply directly feeding to Zone 3, and pressure reduced to Zone 2 and pumped up to Zones 4, 4A, 4B, and 4C.

Zone 2 is a blended zone receiving both groundwater and imported water.

Pressure Zone 1: Pressure Zone 1 is the largest of the lower pressure zones, and it is located at the southern, central part of the City. See Table 2-3 for a summary of Zone 1 and Figure 2-4 for a map of the distribution system. Typically, groundwater is supplied to Zone 1 from the Main Plant Wells 3A through 8.

Currently only Main Plant Wells 5, 6, and 8 are active. Wells 4 and 7 are inactive and are to be destroyed.

Well 3A is inactive for the installation of a per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) treatment plant. In addition, water can be supplied to Zone 1 via three PRVs from Zone 2 and one PRV from Zone 1A. PRV 2 and 3 are used during a fire flow event. Operational storage for Zone 1 is stored in two below ground concrete reservoirs: Hillcrest 1A and Lower Acacia 1D. Also, the Main Plant has a forebay that provides operational storage for the Main Plant wells prior to being pumped to Zone 1 through the Main Plant BPS.

Pressure Zone 1A: Zone 1A is located in the southern portion of the City, east of Zone 1. See Table 2-3 for a summary of Zone 1A and Figure 2-4 for a map of the distribution system. Source water to this zone includes groundwater supplied by Kimberly Wells 1A and 2, and Sunclipse Well 10. In addition, water can be supplied from Zone 2 via two PRVs. Kimberly Well 2 currently pumps into a forebay and the Kimberly Plant 2 BPS then pumps the water to Zone 1A.

Zone 1 and Zone 1A are separate pressure zones; however, they are hydraulically connected through a pressure relief valve assembly, PRV station, and 12-inch pipeline located on Dorothy Lane. Currently the PRV (PR12A) is maintained in the open position and water can be freely conveyed between the two zones through the 12-inch pipeline. This allows the 12-inch pipeline to act as a hydraulic link between the two zones. There are also 11 additional connections between the two zones, however currently all of those connections are currently closed with isolation valves.

Pressure Zone 1B: Zone 1B is also located in the southern part of the City, west of Zone 1. See Table 2-3 for a summary of Zone 1B and Figure 2-4 for a map of the distribution system. Source water to this zone includes groundwater supplied from Airport Well 9 and Christlieb Well 15A and imported water received from MWD connection F-05 which is located on the far west side of the pressure zone.

Additional water supply can be provided from Zone 1 via four PRVs, with PRV 29 providing water during a fire flow. Coyote Reservoir 1C provides distribution storage for Zone 1B. Coyote Well 12A is located at the Coyote Reservoir 1C site but is inactive due to water quality issues and low production and will be destroyed.

Pressure Zone 1C: Zone 1C is a small pressure zone, located southwest of Zone 1B, near Buena Park High School. See Table 2-3 for a summary of Zone 1C and Figure 2-4 for a map of the distribution WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.7 system. Zone 1C serves about 260 homes via two PRVs from Zone 1B, which includes groundwater and imported water.

Table 2-3. Pressure Zone 1 Summary
PZ
HGL
(feet)
Static
Service
Pressure
(psi)
Source Water
Supply
Facility/BPS
(# of pumps)
Storage Tank or
Forebay PRVa
PRV
Flow
from
1 327 48-105
Groundwater:

Wells 3Ab, 4c, 5, 6, 7d,8
Imported water:

MWD F-01
d
Main Plant (5)
Main Plant Forebay
Hillcrest 1A
Lower Acacia 1D
PR2 (fire flow),
PR3 (fire flow),
PR4
Zone 2
PR12B Zone 1A
1A
360 65-83
Groundwater:

Kimberly 1A, Kimberly 2,

Sunclipse 10
Imported water:

MWD F-01
e
Kimberly 2 (3) Kimberly 2 Forebay
PR12A (open)f Zone 1
PR1A,
PR1B Zone 2
1B
281 46-86
Groundwater:

Airport 9, Christlieb 15A
Imported water:

MWD F-05
None Coyote 1C
PR29 (fire
flow), PR30,
PR31,
PR32
Zone 1
1C
263 77-82 Blended water from
Zone 1B None None PR22 (lead),
PR23 (lag) Zone 1B
Notes:
a PR100 and PR101 are in Zone 1, however they are not listed in the table because they are not pressure zone boundary valves serving Zone 1. These are maintained by the Water Division for other individual City Facilities; PR 100 serves the Independence Pool and PR101 serves the Community Center Pool.
b Main Plant Well 3A is temporarily out of service due to PFAS response levels (RL). c Well 4 is inactive and to be destroyed.
d Well 7 is inactive and to be destroyed, and Well 7A is in construction to replace this well. e F-01 was recently brought online in case of emergency, in response to PFAS taking out City wells and is not used during normal operations.
f PR12A is maintained in the open position and water can be freely conveyed between the Zone 1A and 1 through the 12-inch pipeline.

ñ
ñ
ñ
ññ
ñ
ñ ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
A
A
A
A A
A
AAAAAA
COYOTE 1C
LOWER ACACIA 1D

MAIN PLANT
HILLCREST 1A
PR-01PR-12PR-04
PR-03
PR-02
PR-29
PR-30
PR-32
PR-22
PR-23
F-05

CHRISTLIEB
WELL 15A

AIRPORT
WELL 9

KIMBERLY
WELL 1A

KIMBERLY
WELL 2

SUNCLIPSE
WELL 10
COYOTE
WELL 12A
(INACTIVE)
Anaheim
Anaheim
Buena Park
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig2-4_ExSysZone1
A
A
A
A
A
AWELL 7A
(FUTURE)
WELL 5
WELL 6
WELL 8
WELL 3A
WELL 4
(INACTIVE)

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 2-4. Existing Water Distribution System - Pressure Zone 1

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
2/19/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet

MAIN PLANT
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Reservoir
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1BñOther Zones
Groundwater Well
A Zone 1
A Zone 1A
A Zone 1B
Interconnection
Zone 1
Zone 1B
Other Zones
Zone 1, 1A BPS
Other Zone BPS
Zone 1A, 1B MWD Turnout
Other Zone MWD Turnout
Zone 1, 1A, 1B, 1C PRV
Other Zone PRV
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Other Zones
Thickness Indicates
Pipeline Diameter
Greater than 24"
12" to 24"
8" to 10"
6" or Less
Notes:
- BPS = Booster Pump Station
- PRV = Pressure Reducing Valve
- MWD = Metropolitan Water District

MAIN PLANT

MAIN PLANT

FOREBAY (MPF)
& MPF-1 BPS

RESERVOIR
HILLCREST 1A

RESERVOIR

RESERVOIR
KIMBERLY 2
FOREBAY (K2F)
K2F-1A BPS
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.9 Pressure Zone 2: Zone 2 is located throughout the central part of the City, north of Zones 1, 1A, and 1B, extending between the easterly and westerly City boundaries. See Table 2-4 for a summary of Zone 2 and Figure 2-5 for a map of the distribution system. Generally, groundwater is supplied via the Coyote and Lower Acacia Pump Stations and imported water are supplied to Zone 2 from Zone 3 through various PRVs. Additional PRVs are provided for only during a fire flow event, PR9, PR10, and PR17 from Zone 3.

Groundwater is delivered to Zone 2 via Lower Acacia Pump Station. Blended water is delivered via Coyote Pump Station. Storage is provided for the zone from four reservoir sites: Laguna, Hermitage, State College, and the Tank Farm.

The Tank Farm consists of a total of five tanks. However, only four of the tanks are active (T1-T4) and the fifth tank, T5, is out of service. Also, the Tank Farm elevations are higher than the other Zone 2 reservoirs but below the Zone 3 system HGL. Therefore, the Tank Farm does not “float” with the Zone 2 HGL.

Supply to Zone 2 is pressure reduced from the Tank Farm through PR5A. Supply into the Tank Farm is provided only through a regulating valve from Zone 3, and primarily from MWD connection F-08.

Pressure Zone 2A: Zone 2A is a small service area, serving approximately 170 homes along the western end of Zone 2. See Table 2-4 for a summary of Zone 2A and Figure 2-5 for a map of the distribution system. Mix of groundwater and imported water is supplied from Zone 2 via two PRVs.

Table 2-4. Pressure Zone 2 Summary
PZ
HGL
(feet)
Static
Service
Pressure
(psi)
Source Water
Supply
Facility/BPS
(# of pumps)
Storage Tank or
Forebay PRV
PRV
Flow
from
2 420 50 – 89
Groundwater:

Coyote Well 12Aa
Blended water
from other zones
Coyote (3)
Lower Acacia (3)
Laguna 2A
Hermitage 2B
State College 2C
Tank Farm 2D Tank 1

Tank Farm 2D Tank 2
Tank Farm 2D Tank 3
Tank Farm 2D Tank 4
Tank Farm 2D Tank 5
b
PR5A,
PR5B (isolation
valve closed)
Tank
Farm
PR9 (fire flow),
PR10 (fire flow),
PR17 (fire flow),
PR7, PR8, PR9,
PR10, PR11,
PR13, PR14,
PR15, PR16A,
PR16B, PR17,
PR21
Zone 3
2A
323 39 – 56 Blended water
from Zone 2 None None PR24 (lead),
PR25 (lag) Zone 2
Notes:
a Coyote Well 12A is inactive, to be destroyed.
b Tank Farm 2D Tank No. 5 is out of service.

A
A
A
A
A A
A
AAAAAA
ñ
ñ
ñ
ññ
ñ
ñ ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
PR-05
PR-16
PR-17
PR-15
PR-14
PR-13
PR-10
PR-07
PR-08
PR-24
PR-25
PR-11
PR-09
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig2-5_ExSysZone2
TANK FARM 2D
TANK 1 (T1)
T3
T4 T5
T2

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 2-5. Existing Water Distribution System - Pressure Zone 2

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
2/19/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
TANK FARM 2D
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Reservoir
Zone 2ñOther Zones
A Groundwater Well
Interconnection
Zone 2 BPS
Other Zone BPS
MWD Import Water Turnout
Zone 2, 2A PRV
Other Zone PRV
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Other Zone
Thickness Indicates
Pipeline Diameter
Greater than 24"
12" to 24"
8" to 10"
6" or Less
Notes:
- BPS = Booster Pump Station
- PRV = Pressure Reducing Valve
- MWD = Metropolitan Water District

TANK FARM
COYOTE 1C-2 BPS

HERMITAGE
2B RESERVOIR
LAGUNA 2A RESERVOIR
LOWER
ACACIA
1D-2 BPS

STATE COLLEGE
2C RESERVOIR
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.11 Pressure Zone 3: Pressure Zone 3 is located in the northern part of the City boundary, extending between the easterly and westerly City boundaries, similar to Zone 2. See Table 2-5 for a summary of Zone 3 and Figure 2-6 for a map of the distribution system. Zone 3 receives imported water via several MWD connections. Imported water can be delivered through connections F-03, F-04, F-06, F-08, and F-

09. However, connection F-03 is not in operation. Connection F-08 is the largest primary supply and typically flows throughout the year. Connection F-06 is set to open based on pressure and operates on a seasonal basis during summer peak demands beginning in April and intermittently flows through October.

In addition, water is supplied to Zone 3 from Zone 1 and Zone 2 via pump stations. To supplement pressure as needed, water can also flow back from Zone 4A through PR26. Storage capacity for Zone 3 is contained in Upper Acacia 3A, Las Palmas 3B, and Hawks Pointe 3C Reservoirs.

It should be noted that due to the Hawks Pointe Reservoir’s inability to cycle properly, thus creating water quality issues within the reservoir, operations staff have closed a butterfly valve on the 16-inch transmission main along Rosecrans Avenue west of Sunny Ridge Drive. With this valve closed, the Zone 3 service area west of this location is isolated from the rest of Zone 3 and is supplied only by the F-09 imported water connection and Hawks Pointe Reservoir.

Pressure Zone 3A: Zone 3A serves about 175 homes in the south-western end of Zone 3, south of Rosecrans Ave. See Table 2-5 for a summary of Zone 3A and Figure 2-6 for a map of the distribution system. Imported water supply is delivered from Zone 3 through two PRVs.

Table 2-5. Pressure Zone 3 Summary
PZ
HGL
(feet)
Static
Service
Pressure
(psi)
Source Water
Supply
Facility/BPS
(# of pumps)
Storage Tank or
Forebay PRV
PRV
Flow
from
3 150 48-143
Imported water:

MWD F-03a, F-
04, F06, F08, F09
Hermitage (2)
Hillcrest (2)
Lower Acacia (3)
State College (2)
Tank Farm (2)
Upper Acacia 3A Tank 1
Upper Acacia 3A Tank 2
Las Palmas 3B
Hawks Pointe 3C
PR26 Zone 4A
3A
484 39-65 Imported water
from Zone 3 None None PR19 (lag),
PR20 (lead) Zone 3
Note:
a MWD Connection F-03 is not in operation.

A
A
A
A A
A
AAAAAA
ñ
ñ
ñ
ññ
ñ
ñ ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
A
UPPER ACACIA 3A
HAWKS POINTE 3C
PR-26
PR-19
PR-20
F-08 F-07 (NOT BUILT)
F-03 (INACTIVE)
F-06
F-04
F-09
Golden State
Water Company
Brea
La Habra
Suburban
Water
Systems
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig2-6_ExSysZone3

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 2-6. Existing Water Distribution System - Pressure Zone 3

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
2/19/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Reservoir
Zone 3ñOther Zones
A Groundwater Well
Interconnection
Zone 3
Other Zones
Zone 3 BPS
Other Zone BPS
Zone 3 MWD Turnout
Other Zone MWD Turnout
Zone 3, 3A PRV
Other Zone PRV
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Other Zone
Thickness Indicates
Pipeline Diameter
Greater than 24"
12" to 24"
8" to 10"
6" or Less
Notes:
- BPS = Booster Pump Station
- MWD = Metropolitan Water District
- PRV = Pressure Reducing Valve

LOWER ACACIA
1D-3 BPS

HERMITAGE
2B-3 BPS

TANK FARM
2D-3 BPS

HILLCREST
1A-3 BPS

RESERVOIR

RESERVOIR
LAS PALMAS 3B

RESERVOIR

STATE COLLEGE
2C-3 BPS
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.13 Pressure Zone 4: Zone 4 is located along the northwestern portion of Zone 3, near Euclid Avenue. See Table 2-6 for a summary of Zone 4 and Figure 2-7 for a map of the distribution system. Water supply is provided to this zone from Zone 3 by the Las Palmas Booster Pump Station, which also includes a 5,000- gallon hydropneumatic tank to control system pressure. There are no storage reservoirs in this zone.

Pressure Zone 4A: Zone 4A serves the high elevations known as the East Coyote Hills service area and is surrounded by Zone 3. See Table 2-6 for a summary of Zone 4A and Figure 2-7 for a map of the distribution system. The Upper Acacia Pump Station provides water supply to Zone 4A while MWD connections F-02 and F-06 provide additional fire flow protection. A pressure relief valve at the pump station is used to control pressures in the system. There are no storage reservoirs in this zone.

Pressure Zone 4B: Zone 4B is an isolated zone, serving approximately 50 homes near the Laguna Reservoir. See Table 2-6 for a summary of Zone 4B and Figure 2-7 for a map of the distribution system.

Water is supplied to this zone from Zone 2 via the Laguna Pump Station. The Laguna Pump Station also includes a 4,000-gallon hydropneumatic tank to maintain system pressures in the zone. There are no storage reservoirs in this zone.

Pressure Zone 4C: Zone 4C consists of two separate service areas. See Table 2-6 for a summary of Zone 4C and Figure 2-7 for a map of the distribution system. The easterly service area located in West Coyote Hills receives supply from Zone 2, via Hermitage Pump Station, which also includes a 5,000- gallon hydropneumatic tank. The hydropneumatic tank is currently out of service and water is allowed to flow through the pressure relief valve back to Zone 2 to control system pressure. The westerly service area receives supply from Zone 3 via Hawks Pointe Pump Station. Note that the westerly and easterly service areas are proposed to be connected in the future when the West Coyote Hills Development is completed. Currently, there are no storage reservoirs in this zone.

Note that since Zones 4, 4A, 4B, and 4C do not have storage, they include pressure relief valves, protecting the respective zones from being over pressurized. In addition, the zones include check valves to allow lower pressure water from Zone 3 to provide support in case of pump station outages. Zone 4A also contains pipe risers throughout the zone to hook up a temporary pump during outages.

Table 2-6. Pressure Zone 4 Summary
PZ
HGL
(ft)
Static Service
Pressure (psi) Source Water
Supply
Facility/BPS
(# of pumps)
Storage
Tank or
Forebay
PRV
PRV
Flow
from
4 660 74-113 Imported water from Zone 3 Las Palmas (2) None None None 4A
605 50-89 Imported water from Zone 3 and
MWD F-02, F06 Upper Acacia (4) None None None
4B
605 40-89 Blended water from Zone 2 Laguna (2) None None None 4C
605 50-89 Blended water from Zone 2 and
Imported water from Zone 3
Hermitage (2)
Hawks Pointe (2) None None None

A
A
A
A
A A
A
AAAAAA
ñ
ñ
ñ
ññ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ññ
ñ
ñ ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
F-02
F-01
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig2-7_ExSysZone4

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 2-7. Existing Water Distribution System - Pressure Zone 4

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
3/5/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4CñReservoir
A Groundwater Well
Interconnection
Zone 4, 4A, 4B, 4C BPS
Other Zone BPS
Zone 4A MWD Turnout
Other Zone MWD Turnout
PRV
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Other Zone
Thickness Indicates
Pipeline Diameter
Greater than 24"
12" to 24"
8" to 10"
6" or Less
Notes:
- MWD = Metropolitan Water District
- PRV = Pressure Reducing Valve
- BPS = Booster Pump Station
Zone4CWest
Zone4C East

HAWKS POINTE
3C-4C BPS

HERMITAGE
2B-4C BPS

LAS PALMAS
3B-4 BPS
LAGUNA 2A-4B BPS

UPPER ACACIA
3A-4A BPS
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.15 2.2 Pipelines
The City operates and maintains an extensive water conveyance system, including approximately 423.6 miles of water pipelines, with pipelines ranging from less than 4 to 42 inches in diameter. In addition, MWD owns and maintains about 5 miles of water pipelines within City boundaries with pipes as large as 55 inches. A graph of the City’s pipe size distribution and length is shown on Figure 2-8. Approximately 68 percent of system pipelines are 6 to 8 inches in diameter, followed by 12-inch-diameter pipeline which makes up approximately 15 percent.

Note: Lengths are rounded to nearest mile. Actual total length sums to 423.6 miles.

Figure 2-8. Existing Water Distribution System Pipe Diameters and Length Pipeline age is summarized by decade in Table 2-7, to show the pipeline age in percentage.

Approximately 2 percent of the City’s pipes were installed prior to the 1950s, the oldest pipes being constructed as early as 1912. About half of the City’s pipes (51 percent) were installed within the last 50 years since 1973. Approximately 48 percent of pipes were constructed between the 1950s and 1970s.

Table 2-7. Pipeline Age
Timeline Unknown Prior to 1950 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010-2024 Age (Years) - >73 .0 73 .0 63 .0 53 .0 43 .0 33 .0 23 .0 <14 .0 Breakdown 9% 2% 18% 16% 14% 8% 9% 13% 11%

Pipeline material is summarized in Table 2-8. The majority of system pipe material is cast iron, totaling 58 percent. The second most common material is ductile iron pipe, making up 29 percent of the system. 4” 6” 8” 10” 12” 14” 16” 18” 20” 21” 24” 30” 36” 42”
Length (miles) 15 141 147 25 62 1 18 4 1 1 6 2 1 1
Breakdown 3.5% 33.2% 34.6% 5.9% 14.6% 0.2% 4.2% 0.9% 0.2% 0.2% 1.4% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
Length (miles)
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.16 Table 2-8. Water System Pipe Material
Pipeline Cast
Irona
Ductile
Iron
Polyvinyl
Chloride
Steel
Cylinder
Concrete
Pipe
Steel
Reinforced
Concrete
Cylinder
Pipe
Cast
Iron
Linedb
High Density
Polyethylene
Diameter
(inches)
Total
Length
(miles)c
Length per Material (miles)
4 15 12 3 <1 <1 <1 - - -
6 141 127 13 1 <1 <1 - <1 -
8 147 57 67 22 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
10 25 18 7 <1 <1 <1 - - -
12 62 32 24 5 <1 <1 <1 - -
14 1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - - -
16 18 2 9 1 5 1 <1 - -
18 4 <1 <1 - 3 <1 - - -
20 1 - - <1 1 <1 - - -
21 1 <1 - - 1 - - - -
24 6 <1 - - 6 <1 <1 - -
30 2 <1 - - 2 - - - -
36 1 <1 - - 1 - - - -
42 1 - - - 1 - - - -
Total 424 248 123 29 20 2 <1 <1 <1
Breakdown 58% 29% 7% 5% <1% <1% <1% <1%
Notes:
a For cast iron pipe material, it is unknown if the pipe is lined. b Cast iron lined pipe indicates a CI pipe that was later lined. c Individual diameter lengths are rounded to nearest mile. Actual total length sums to 423.6 miles.

2.3 MWD Connections
MWD delivers imported water from the Colorado River Aqueduct and State Water Project to the Fullerton service area through their Orange County, West Orange County, and Lower Feeder transmission pipelines. Fullerton has nine metered turnouts, of which seven are active and transfer water from the MWD pipelines into the City’s distribution system. See Table 2-9 for a summary of MWD’s connections.

F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, and F-06 are located on the Orange County Feeder, F-05 and F-09 are located on the West Orange County Feeder, and F-07 and F-08 are on the Lower Feeder. The upper portions of the Orange County Feeder and the Orange County Reservoir provide peaking capacity for Fullerton as well as for the cities of Brea and La Habra. Based on agreements with MWD, Fullerton can operate the MWD turnouts solely on system pressure, provided that during operation, Fullerton must take at least 10 percent of the turnout’s rated capacity.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.17 Table 2-9. MWD Connections
ID Location Feeder
Install
Year
(Rehab
Year)
Capacity
(cfs) PZ Valve
Size
Valve
CL
Elev.
(feet)
Pressure
Setting
(psi)
Note
F-01 Raymond Ave &
Wilshire Ave
Orange
County
1940
(2020) 4 - - 160.60
b -
F-02 Upper Acacia
(Acacia Ave)
Orange
County
1941
(1960) 5 4A 8” 461.74 a 52
F-03 Rolling Hills Dr &
Live Oak Ave
Orange
County
1941
(1956) 7.5 - - 317.50 b - Not
Operational
F-04 Upper Acacia
(Vista Del Mar Dr)
Orange
County
1956
(None) 15
3 12”
455.90
b 24
3 12” 24
F-05 Artesia Ave
(near Buena Park)
West
Orange
County
1956
(2020) 15
1B 12”

72.28b
105
1B 12” 100
F-06 Bastanchury Rd
(near Vista Park)
Orange
County
1958
(1987) 15
3 8”
440.52
a
25 3 10” 34
4A 8” 64 Fire flow;
No SCADA
F-07 Lambert Rd
(near Palm) Lower - 15 - - - - Not Built
c
F-08d Euclid Ave
(in La Habra) Lower 1961 30
3 12”
279.77
a
86 3 12” 88
3 16” - Turbine
3 20” - Turbine
F-09 Rosecrans Ave
(near Buena Park)
West
Orange
County
1966 15
3 10”
153.86a
150
3 10” 150
Notes:
a Valve CL elevations are based on surveyed data gathered as part of this Master Plan. b Elevations are based on As-Built plans.
c City has approved MWD plans for F-07 that date to 1958. The F-07 piping is not constructed on the City’s side, however the MWD turnout is built on the MWD side. The City has the option to construct F-07 should the need arise. d A hydroelectric plant was constructed off F-08 that has not been in operation since 2015. cfs = cubic feet per second
CL = centerline
SCADA = Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition

2.4 Groundwater Wells
The City owns eight active wells and three inactive wells. All the wells are located in the lower pressure zones of the distribution system. They pump from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Table 2-10 provides a list of the City’s wells.

Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, and 8 and future Well 7A are located at the City’s Main Plant, on land owned by the City of Fullerton, but within the City of Anaheim, just south of Fullerton’s city boundary. Wells 5, 6, and 8 are currently active and Well 4 is inactive. Well 4 was taken out of service in 2018 due to a significant decrease in production from a crack in the pump column. In 2021, the City removed Well 4 from the City’s WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.18 permit, indicating that the well exceeded its operational life span and would likely need to be abandoned and re-drilled in the future.

Well 7 was also located at Main Plant but was destroyed in March 2021. The City is in the process of replacing Well 7 at the Main Plant with a new Well 7A. The City completed drilling this well in 2021 and in 2022 completed an equipping basis of design report. Equipping of Well 7A is expected to be completed in 2025. Well 3A was taken offline in 2020 due to elevated levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of man-made chemicals that include perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and is further expanded upon in Section 4.0. Well 3A is scheduled to be brought back online in 2024 with the completion of the first phase of the Main Plant PFAS Treatment Project. The first phase was designed to accommodate future treatment plant expansion to treat well discharge from Wells 5, 6, 7A, and 8.

In 2020, Kimberly Well 1A was temporarily offline due to the installation of single-use ion exchange (IX) treatment equipment at the well site, for removal of PFAS in the well feed water. Well 1A was back online in 2021 and will be rehabilitated and upgraded in 2025.

The City also previously used Fire Station Well 13 and Pioneer Well 14 among others, all of which have been abandoned. Coyote Well 12A has issues with water quality and low production and needs to be destroyed and removed along with its associated water treatment facilities. The City purchased the land where Pioneer Well 14 was located with water funds and has no future plans envisioned for the site.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.19 Table 2-10. Groundwater Wells
Well Name PZ
Drill Year
(Rehab
Year)
Depth
(feet)
Existing
Capacitya
(gpm)
Existing
TDH (feet)f Elevation (feet)
Casing
Diameter
(inches)
1A Kimberly 1A 2002 1,243 2,800 401 165.88h 12
2 Kimberly 2 1A 1955
(2003) 652 1,875 160 181.94h 18
3Ab Main Plant 1 1995
(2023) 1,300 2,400 405 144.70 i 16
4c Main Plant 1 1927 415 1,500 - 145.50i 18
5 Main Plant 1 1959
(2018) 440 1,500 170 142.20i 18
6 Main Plant 1 1959 g 430 1,500 170 141.90i 18
7Ad Main Plant 1 2021 1,400 3,000d - 140.20d -
8 Main Plant 1 1974
(2003) 458 2,000 170 141.90i 18
9 Airport 1B 1985
(2021) 1,080 2,500 360 85.15 h 16
10 Sunclipse 1A 1990
(2000) 1,310 2,000 400 180.74 h 16
12Ae Coyote 1B 1992
(2001) 940 - - 272.10 i 16
15A Christlieb 1B 1992 1,350 2,000 355 107.60h 16
Notes:
a Data extracted from City’s Water Facilities Worksheet. For Well 1A the TDH and Capacity are updated based on the consideration of the added treatment plant.
b Well 3A is inactive and scheduled to be brought back online in 2024 with the completion of the first phase of the Main Plant PFAS Treatment Project.
c Well 4 is inactive, to be destroyed.
d Well 7A is scheduled for construction in 2025. Capacity of 3,000 gpm is based on a pump test conducted in 2022. TDH and casing diameter have not yet been determined. Elevation of Well 7A is approximate based on the City’s Topographic & Boundary Survey of the Main Plant conducted in 2003. (W.D. 2189) e Coyote Well 12A is inactive, to be abandoned.
f Ongoing PFAS projects may change TDH.
g Well 6 rehabilitation project estimated to be completed in September 2024. h Valve centerline elevations are based on surveyed data gathered as part of this Master Plan. i Ground elevations are based on As-Built plans.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.20 2.5 Booster Pump Stations
The City operates 14 BPS, which are each located adjacent to a storage reservoir. Pumps which are a part of groundwater wells are not included. Main Plant and Kimberly 2 pump stations pump from a forebay facility directly into the distribution system. See Table 2-11 for a summary of BPS attributes.

Table 2-11. Pump Station Summary
ID Name Install Year
(Rehab Year)
Suction
PZ
Disch.

PZ
Firm
Capacityb
(gpm)
Pump
Design
Flow
(gpm)
Design
Head
(feet)
Type
MPF-1 Main Plant a - 1 4,500
4 1,500 231 Turbine
5 1,500 231 Turbine
6 1,500 231 Turbine
7 a a Turbine
8 1,600 204 Turbine
K2F-1A Kimberly 2 1955 - 1A 2,000
1 1,000 a Turbine
2 1,000 a Turbine
3 1,000 200 Centrifugal
1A-3 Hillcrest 1988
(2007) 1 3 1,000 1 1,000 224 Turbine
2 1,000 224 Turbine
1C-2 Coyote 1958
(1997) 1B 2 1800
1 900 176 Turbine
2 900 176 Turbine
3 900 176 Turbine
1D-2
Lower Acacia 1960
(2000) 1
2 1700
1 850 106 Turbine
2 850 106 Turbine
3 850 106 Turbine
1D-3 3 2,300
1 1,150 202 Turbine
2 1,150 202 Turbine
3 1,150 202 Turbine
2A-4B Laguna c 1959 (2020) 2 4B 300 1 300 158 Turbine
2 1500 158 Turbine
2B-3
Hermitagec
1978
2 3 500 1 500 94 Turbine
2 1,000 107 Turbine
2B/3-4C 1981 4C 600
1 300 210 Turbine
2 300 210 Turbine
3 2,500 61 Turbine
2C-3 State College 1962
(2001) 2 3 720 1 720 120 Centrifugal
2 1,200 120 Centrifugal
2D-3 Tank Farm 1966 2 3 a 1 a a Turbine
2 a a Turbine
3A-4A Upper Acacia 1994 3 4A 2,050
1 350 147 Turbine
2 700 147 Turbine
3 1,000 147 Turbine
4 1,000 147 Turbine
3B-4 Las Palmas c 1962
(2022) 3 4 600 1 600 120 Centrifugal
2 600 120 Centrifugal
3C-4C Hawks Pointe 2004 3 4C 150 1 150 80 Turbine
2 150 80 Turbine
Notes:
a Information not available.
b Firm capacity is defined to be the capacity of the pump station with the largest pump out of service. c Equipped with hydropneumatic tank. See Section 2.7 for description of the hydropneumatic tanks.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.21 2.6 Storage Reservoirs
Water distribution systems rely on stored water to regulate diurnal variations between supply and demand to provide sufficient water for daily use, and for emergency situations such as fires or unplanned outages of major supply sources. See Table 2-12 for a summary of storage reservoir attributes. The City operates 15 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 67.5 MG and two forebays. The largest storage facility is the Tank Farm, consisting of five ground level tanks (four active tanks and one 6.5 MG tank that is out of service, requiring rehabilitation. However, with all five tanks in operation the City experienced water quality issues. The four tanks in operation at the Tank Farm provide a total active storage of 26 MG, which is approximately 43% of the City’s 61 MG of available storage. The Tank Farm has space available for five additional 6.5 MG tanks. The terms “tank” and “reservoir” are used interchangeably in this report and is commonly understood in the industry.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.22 Table 2-12. Reservoir Summary
ID Name PZ Install Year
(Rehab Year) Material Dia.
(feet)
Height
(feet)
Bottom
Elev/ Max
Level (feet)a
Capacity
(MG)
1A Hillcrest 1 2005 Concrete 230.00 18.3 314.63/
330.93 5
1C Coyote 1B 1952 Concrete 124.67 23.5 265.28/
287.78 2
1D Lower Acacia 1 1960
(2019) Concrete b 16 311.04/
327.04 4
2A Laguna 2 1958 Concrete 122.00 24 398.34/
421.13 2
2B Hermitage 2
1963
1978c
(2008)
Steel 105.00 32 393.27/
423.27 2
2C State College 2 1963 d Steel 105.00 32 386.38/
414.88 2
2D
Tank Farm
Tank 1
2 1966
(1998 - Tank 2)
(2008 - Tank 3)
(2008 - Tank 4)
(2015 - Tank 1)
Steel 170.00 40
422.39/
458.64 6.5
Tank Farm
Tank 2
422.34/
458.59 6.5
Tank Farm
Tank 3
422.40/
460.68 6.5
Tank Farm
Tank 4
422.41/
460.69 6.5
Tank Farm
Tank 5 (inactive)e
422.06/
460.34 6.5e
3A
Upper Acacia
Tank 1 3
1963
(1999) Steel 168.50 32
480.59/
510.59 5
Upper Acacia
Tank 2
1966
(2000)
480.49/
510.49 5
3B Las Palmas 3 1962
(2009) Steel 170.00 32 479.81/
507.81 5
3C Hawks Pointe 3 2004 Steel 127.50 32 474.66/
506.66 3
Notes:
a Elevations are based on surveyed data gathered as part of this Master Plan for all reservoirs with the exception of Tank Farm 2D Tank 5, which is based on As-Built plans.
b Lower Acacia Reservoir is a trapezoidal rectangular shape, approximately 223.33 feet by 190.83 feet. c Hermitage Reservoir was originally constructed in 1963 and relocated to its current site in 1978. d State College Reservoir has had rehabilitation work, but date is unknown due to unavailable records. e Tank 5 is out of service; capacity is not included in the total storage. Tank will need rehabilitation before it is placed back in service.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.23 2.7 Hydropneumatic Tanks
Hydropneumatic tanks are designed to maintain on-demand pressurized water without the continuous use of a pump, providing a small amount of operational storage in small water systems. By regulating system pressures, hydropneumatic tanks provide efficient water supply to quickly meet fluctuations in system demand and avoid too frequent startup and shutdown of the pumps. The City has three hydropneumatic tanks at the discharge of three pump stations as shown in Table 2-13.

Table 2-13. Hydropneumatic Tanks
Pump Station Tank Volume (gallons) Type Zone
Las Palmas 5,000 Compressed Air/Water 4
Laguna 4,000 Compressed Air/Water 4B
Hermitagea 5,000 Compressed Air/Water 4C
Note:
a The Hermitage hydropneumatic tank has not been used in a long time. After Zone 4C was extended to include a new tract, BPS 2B/3-4C continuously provides pressure to Zone 4C and any flow that is not used recirculates through one or both 4-in relief valves to the pump inlet header.

2.8 Fire Hydrants
There are 4,303 active fire hydrants within the City, with installation of the oldest hydrants dating back to at least 1922. Table 2-14 summarizes the number of hydrants in each pressure zone (PZ).

Table 2-14. Hydrants per Pressure Zone
Pressure
Zone 1 1A 1B 1C 2 2A 3 3A 4 4A 4B 4C
Number of
Hydrants 985 463 425 30 1,034 21 1,202 23 12 77 6 25

2.9 Valves
Pressure regulating, control, and check valves help maintain appropriate zone pressures and are further discussed below.

2.9.1 PRESSURE REDUCING VALVES
Pressure regulating stations reduce water pressure to manageable levels to protect from high-pressure impacts. See Table 2-15 for a summary of City’s PRVs. Generally, PRVs are used to isolate one PZ from another and are normally closed and will open only when the downstream pressure is lower than the WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.24 valve setting. Other times, PRVs are used as a primary water source to supply water from a higher- pressure zone to a lower pressure zone. The City has six regulating valves that are used as the primary supply source to three smaller PZs: 1C, 2A, and 3A. Also, several PRVs are used to meet fluctuating demands or supplement local system pressures in lower zones. For example, the PRVs between Zone 2 and Zone 1A are used as an additional supply source for Zone 1A to meet peak demands supplementing the wells supply.

Table 2-15. Pressure Reducing Stations
ID Location
Pressure
Zone Install
Year Diameter No. of
Valves
Pressure
Setting
(psi)
Note
From To
PR-1A Acacia Ave - 20' s/o
Dorothy Ln (West) 2 1A a 12'' 7 39
PR-1B Acacia Ave - 20' s/o
Dorothy Ln (East) 2 1A a 12'' 7 43
PR-2 Valencia Mesa Dr -
200' e/o Raintree Rd 2 1 1989 10'' 3 20 Fire flow
PR-3 Berkeley Ave - 25' w/o
Lemon St 2 1 1965 12'' 4 Closed
Modified
WD1438 1983,
Fire flow
PR-4 Hornet Way - 10' s/o
Dorothy Ln 2 1 1965 8'' 1 55
PR-5A-1 Euclid St - 10' n/o
Laguna Rd (10") 2 2 1965 10'' 15 60 - 65 Summer: 65 psi Winter: 60 psi
PR-5A-2 Euclid St - 10' n/o
Laguna Rd (North) 2 2 1965 12'' 15 55 - Open

Summer: Open
Winter: Fire
flowb
PR-5A-3 Euclid St - 10' n/o
Laguna Rd (South) 2 2 1965 12'' 15 Closed
PR-5B-1 Euclid St - 10' n/o
Laguna Rd (North) 2 2 1965 12'' 15 Open
Removed;
Isolation Valves
Closed
PR-5B-2 Euclid St - 10' n/o
Laguna Rd (South) 2 2 1965 12'' 15 Open
Removed;
Isolation Valves
Closed
PR-7 Verona Dr - 500' w/o
Ranch Cir 3 2 1964 6'' 1 68
PR-8 Valencia Mesa Dr - 20'
e/o Sunny Crest Dr 3 2
(a) 8'' 1 45
PR-9 Brea Blvd - 950' n/o
Panorama Rd 3 2 1958 8'' 1 40 Fire flow
PR-10 Virginia Rd - 100' e/o
Luanne Ave 3 2 1989 6'' 1 42
b Fire flow b
PR-11 Longview Dr - 20' s/o
Virginia Rd 3 2 1958 6'' 1 38
PR-12A SW Corner of Dorothy
Ln & Acacia (West) 1 1A a 12'' 6 Closed
PR-12B SW Corner of Dorothy
Ln & Acacia (East) 1A 1
a 12'' 6 Open
PR-13 Brea Blvd - 100' w/o
Lemon St 3 2 1960 8'' 1 88
Pressure
Sustaining:
110 psi
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.25 ID Location
Pressure
Zone Install
Year Diameter No. of
Valves
Pressure
Setting
(psi)
Note
From To
PR-14 Panorama Rd - 10' e/o
Palisades Dr 3 2
1962
(replaced
2012)
6'' 1 53
PR-15 Smokewood Ave - 20'
w/o Raymond Ave 3 2 1964 8'' 1 63
PR-16A Acacia Ave - 200' n/o
Dana Pl (West) 3 2 1959 10'' 6 27
PR-16B Acacia Ave - 200' n/o
Dana Pl (East) 3 2 1959 10'' 6 30
PR-17 Acacia Ave - 10' s/o
Miramar Dr 3 2 1959 8'' 1 20 Fire flow
PR-19 Camino Centraloma -
40' n/o Sunset Lane 3 3A a 6'' a 85
PR-20 Gilbert St - 100' n/o El
Rancho Vista 3 3A a 8'' a 58
PR-21 Res 2C State College 3 2 1981 6'' - 7
PR-22 West Ave & Meade
Ave 1B 1C 1960 8'' 1 68
PR-23 Manchester Ave - 450'
e/o Maxwell Ave 1B 1C 1961 8'' 1 76
PR-24 Wyckersham Pl - 10'
e/o Newcastle Ln 2 2A 1974 6'' 1 54
PR-25 Burning Tree Rd - 70'
s/o Pioneer Ave 2 2A 1974 8'' 1 49
PR-26 Lindendale Ave in cul-
de-sac 4A 3 1960 6'' 1 42
PR-29 Commonwealth Ave
e/o Brookhurst Rd 1 1B 1984 10'' 3 70
b Fire flow b
PR-30 Orangethorpe Ave e/o
Brookhurst Rd 1 1B 1984 8'' 3 70
PR-31 Well 15A Christlieb 1 1B 1984 12'' a 105
PR-32 West end of Chapman
near Railroad 1 1B
a 8'' a 70
PR-100 Independence Pool - - a 2" a a
PR-101 Community Center
Pool - -
a 2" a a
Notes:
a Information not available.
b Fire flow setting based on assumption of 10 psi less than the downstream operating pressure. e/o = east of
n/o = north of
s/o = south of
w/o = west of

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.26 2.9.2 PRESSURE RELIEF VALVES
In addition to pressure regulating stations, the City’s water distribution system also uses pressure relief valves to prevent system over pressurization. Table 2-16 list these valves throughout the existing system.

Some of the relief valves have been placed in the system such that the excess pressure in one zone can be released into a lower zone. Other relief valves are located adjacent to drainage facilities or flood control channels, and in the event of excessive pressures, discharge water into these channels or drains.

Table 2-16. Pressure Relief Valves
ID Location
Pressure
Zone Install
Year
Diameter
(inches)
No. of
Valves
Pressure
Setting Note
From To
RV-1 Res 2B Hermitage 3 2 1963 6 - 65
RV-2 Hughes Private Rd &
12" Main to Res 1C 2 1B a 8 a 72b
RV-3 Euclid Ave n/o RR
Tracks n/o Bastanchury 2 -
a
(replaced
2012)
2 2 115 Located in Meter
Box
RV-4 Gilbert Ave n side of
Flood Control Channel 1B - a 4 2 100 Modified WD1656
2004
RV-5 Res 1C Coyote 2 1B 1997 6 - 80
RV-6A Res 3A Upper Acacia
(4") 4A 3 1994 4 - 57
RV-6B Res 3A Upper Acacia
(6") 4A 3 1994 6 - 65
RV-7 30' NW of Wilshire Ave
& Raymond Ave (4") 1A -
a 4 2 80 Located with RV-9
RV-8 SW corner of Imperial
Hwy & Euclid Ave 3 - 1991 12 - 125
RV-9 30' NW of Wilshire Ave
& Raymond Ave (6") 1 - a 6 2 90 Located with RV-7
RV-10 Magnolia at Flood
Control Channel 1B - 1960 6 2 115
RV-12 Res 2A Laguna 4B 2 a 8 - 55
RV-13 Dorothy Lane and
Acacia Ave - Fowler 1A 1 1984 8 2 40 b
RV-14 Res 3C Hawks Pointe 4 3 2004 4 - 40
RV-15 Res 3B Las Palmas 4 3 a 6 - 77
RV-16A Res 2B Hermitage
(Lower) 4C 3 1988 4 - 100
RV-16B Res 2B Hermitage
(Higher) 4C 3 1988 4 - 108
RV-17 Well 1A Kimberly 1A - 2002 6 - 85
RV-18 Well 3A Main Plant 1 - 1995 6 - 90
RV-19 Well 10 Sunclipse 1A - 1990 6 - 80
Notes:
a Information not available.
b Fire flow setting based on assumption of 10 psi less than the downstream pressure.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.27 2.9.3 ZONE CHECK VALVES
A water check valve is used to ensure that water only flows in the desired direction and not backwards.

The City has seven check valves that ensure water flows in one direction from one zone to another zone.

The City’s zones check valves are summarized in Table 2-17. Since the downstream zone for each valve is at a higher hydraulic grade, these valves are normally closed between the zones. These are installed at the highest zones that are reliant on having a working pump station and have no tanks above. They are safeguards in the event of a power outage.

Table 2-17. Zone Check Valves
ID Location
Pressure Zone
Install Year Diameter
(inches) From To
CV-1 Applewood Cir e/o Hermitage Dr 3 4C 1993 10
CV-2 Atherton Cir s/o Camino Del Sol 3 4C 1993 8
CV-3 Rideout Way & Las Palmas Dr 3 4 1993 8
CV-4 Terraza Pl n/o Laguna Rd 3 4B 1993 10
CV-5 Excelsa Dr n/o Bastanchury Rd 3 4A 1995 8
CV-6 Trails Dr n/o Gilbert St 3 4C 1987 12
CV-7 Upper Acacia 3 4A 1969 8

2.10 Emergency Generators
The City has 17 water facility production sites and booster pump stations, with power supply details summarized in Table 2-18. Based on 2021 findings of visual inspections and testing, the City has three working emergency generators including Hawks Pointe, Main Plant, and Upper Acacia. Ten of the remaining facilities are provided a manual transfer scheme to allow for a portable generator hookup. Four facilities do not have a transfer scheme provided altogether: Kimberly 2, Airport Well 9, State College BPS, and Tank Farm BPS. Additional and site-specific information can be found in the City’s 2022 Water Facilities Generator Study.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.28 Table 2-18. Generator Summary
Notes:

ATS = Automatic Transfer Switch
kVA = 1,000 volt-amps
kW = kilowatt

Name Power Supply Generator
Type
Max Peak
Load (kW)
Switchboard
Protection Transfer Switch Scheme
Main Plant 2000-amp,
480/277-volt service Permanent 458 2000-amp main
circuit breaker
2000-amp ATS connected to
existing 500 kW generator (800-
amp circuit breaker protection)
Main Plant
Well 3A
1200-amp,
480/277-volt service Portable 188 1200-amp main
circuit breaker
Manual: Two (2) 1200-amp main
circuit breakers
Kimberly
1A BPS
600-amp,
480/277-volt service
Portable 244 600-amp main
circuit breaker
Manual: 600-amp main circuit
breaker and 500-amp generator
breaker
Kimberly
No 2 Well
600-amp,
480/277-volt service

No generator
capability 193 600-amp main
circuit breaker None
Sunclipse
Well 10
600-amp,
480/277-volt service
Portable 206 600-amp main
circuit breaker
Manual: 600-amp main circuit
breaker and 600-amp generator
breaker
Airport
Well 9
800-amp,
480/277-volt service
No generator
capability 500 800-amp main
circuit breaker None
Christlieb
Well 15A
600-amp,
480/277-volt service
Portable 215 600-amp main
circuit breaker
Manual: 600-amp main circuit
breaker and 600-amp generator
breaker
Hillcrest
BPS
400-amp,
480/277-volt service
Portable 114 400-amp main
circuit breaker
Manual: 600-amp manual transfer
switch and 700-amp rated
camlock connector
Coyote
BPS
600-amp,
480/277-volt service
Portable 129 600-amp main
circuit breaker
Manual: Two (2) 600-amp rated
breakers
Lower
Acacia BPS
400-amp,
480/277-volt service
Portable 225 600-amp main
circuit breaker
Manual: 600-amp main breaker
and 400-amp generator breaker
Laguna
BPS
200-amp,
480/277-volt service
Portable 37 200-amp main
circuit breaker
200-amp Manual Transfer Switch
connected to existing 100-amp
rated camlock connector
Hermitage
BPS
150-amp,
480/277-volt service
Portable 70 150-amp main
circuit breaker
Manual: 200A rated double throw
switch with one set of 400A rated
camlock connectors
State
College
BPS
300-amp,
480/277-volt service

No generator
capability 2 300-amp main
circuit breaker None
Tank Farm
BPS
400-amp,
480/277-volt service

No generator
capability 89 400-amp main
circuit breaker None
Upper
Acacia BPS
300-amp,
480/277-volt service
Permanent 86 300-amp main
circuit breaker
260-amp ATS connected to 100
kW/125 kVA generator
Las Palmas
BPS
200-amp,
480/277-volt service
Portable 60 200-amp main
circuit breaker Manual Transfer Switch
Hawks
Pointe BPS

100-amp,
120/240-volt single
phase service
Permanent 6 100-amp main
circuit breaker
ATS connected to 35 kW/44 kVA
generator
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.29 2.11 Groundwater Treatment
In partnership with the Orange County Water District, the City of Fullerton constructed the new Kimberly Well 1A PFAS Treatment Plant, which began operation in June 2021. Kimberly 1A is a high producing water well that provides approximately 2,400 gallons per minute (gpm) of supply. The Kimberly Well 1A PFAS Treatment Plant uses an IX treatment equipment, made of highly porous resin that adsorbs and holds contaminants, removing PFAS from the well feed water.

A second PFAS treatment facility was constructed in FY 2023/24 at Main Plant to treat Well 3A discharge.

Per the PFAS Treatment Systems Planning Study for the City of Fullerton, completed in April 2020, Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) treatment will be designed for all existing and future Wells (Wells 3A, 7A, 5, 6, and 8), with the understanding that immediate construction of GAC treatment vessels will be sized for Well 3A only. The proposed treatment plant configuration includes a northern treatment plant to treat water from Well 3A and future Well 7A and a southern treatment plant to treat water from Wells 5, 6, and 8 in the future.

2.12 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
In 2012, the City upgraded its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system at the City’s twenty-one remote sites and connected them in real-time to the City’s SCADA control room central computers at the City Maintenance Yard. The system provides the City with accurate historical data by logging and archiving the data from the field into the central computer. The data can be transferred from the computer’s hard drive periodically and stored on external electronic media. The City has used Wonderware software, now rebranded under AVEVA, for its SCADA system platform. Table 2-19 briefly describes the communication and operation at each site.

The Main Plant BPS has the capability to remotely monitor the station’s flow rate but does not have a flow meter equipped. Other facilities have a flow meter to monitor the station’s flow but are not connected to SCADA. These facilities include Coyote BPS, Hawks Pointe BPS, Hillcrest BPS, State College BPS, Tank Farm BPS, Hermitage BPS, Laguna BPS, and Las Palmas BPS.

Facilities without remote SCADA capabilities should be prioritized for CIP funding in the future.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.30 Table 2-19. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Sites and Operations Site Name Facility Monitoring Capability Control To
Repeater
Airport Well 9
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Pump Run Status
Bypass Valve Status
Valve Status
Level Mode – Coyote 1C
Pressure Mode – Zone 1B
Hawks
Pointe
Christlieb Well 15A
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Pump Run Status
Bypass Valve Status
Level Mode – Coyote 1C
Pressure Mode – Zone 1B
VFD Mode – Set Point
Hawks
Pointe
Kimberly 1 Well 1A
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Pump Run Status
Bypass Valve Status
Valve Status
Level Mode – Lower Acacia 1D
Pressure Mode – Zone 1A
VFD Mode – Set Point
Upper
Acacia
Kimberly 2
Well 2, PS K2F-
1A, and
Kimberly
Forebay
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Forebay Level
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
Well 2:

Level Mode – Kimberly Forebay
Level Mode – Lower Acacia 1D Upper
Acacia
PS K2F-1A:

Level Mode – Lower Acacia 1D
Main Planta
Wells 3A, 4, 5,
6, 7 & 8 Flowrate
Well 3A:

Level Mode – Hillcrest 1A
Pressure Mode – Zone 1
Upper
Acacia
Wells 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8:

Level Mode – Main Plant Forebay
PS MPF-1 and
Main Plant
Forebay
Discharge Pressure
Forebay Level
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
PS MPF-1:

Level Mode – Hillcrest 1A
Pressure Mode – Zone 1
Sunclipse Well 10
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
Level Mode – Lower Acacia 1D
Pressure Mode – Zone 1A
Upper
Acacia
F-02 & F-04 MWD
Connection
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Upstream Pressure
Valve Status
F-02:

Pressure Mode – Zone 4A
Flow Mode – Set Point
Upper
Acacia
F-04:

Level Mode – Upper Acacia 3A
Pressure Mode – Zone 3
Flow Mode – Set Point
Upper
Acacia
F-05 MWD
Connection
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Upstream Pressure
Valve Status
Level Mode – Coyote 1C
Pressure Mode – Zone 1B
Flow Mode – Set Point
Hawks
Ponte
F-06 MWD
Connection
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Upstream Pressure
Valve Status
Pressure Mode – Zone 3
Flow Mode – Set Point
State
College
F-08 MWD
Connection
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Upstream Pressure
Valve Status
Flow Mode – Set Point Las
Palmas
F-09 MWD
Connection
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Upstream Pressure
Valve Status
Level Mode – Hawks Pointe 3C
Pressure Mode – Zone 3
Flow Mode – Set Point
Hawks
Pointe
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.31 Site Name Facility Monitoring Capability Control To Repeater
Coyoteb
PS 1C-2,
Reservoir 1C &
Well 12A
c
Discharge Pressure
Reservoir Level
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
Level Mode – Hermitage 2B
Pressure Mode – Zone 2
VFD Mode – Set Point
Hawks
Pointe
Hawks Pointeb PS 3C-4C,
Reservoir 3C
Discharge Pressure
Reservoir Level
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
Pressure Mode – Zone 4C City Yard
Hermitageb
PS 2B-3, PS 2B-
4C, Reservoir
2B
Discharge Pressure
Reservoir Level
Bypass Flowrate
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
PS 2B-3:

Level Mode – Las Palmas 3B
Pressure Mode – Zone 3
Hawks
Ponte
PS 2B-4C:

Pressure Mode – Zone 4C
Hawks
Pointe
Hillcrestb PS 1A-3,
Reservoir 1A
Discharge Pressure
Reservoir Level
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
Level Mode – Upper Acacia 3A
Pressure Mode – Zone 3
Upper
Acacia
Las Palmasb PS 3B-4,
Reservoir 3B
Discharge Pressure
Reservoir Level
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
No controls in SCADA Upper
Acacia
Lower Acacia
PS 1D-2, PS
1D-3, Reservoir
1D
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Reservoir Level
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
PS 1D-2:

Level Mode – State College 2C
Pressure Mode – Zone 2
Upper
Acacia
PS 1D-3:

Level Mode – Upper Acacia 3A
Pressure Mode – Zone 3
Upper
Acacia
Lagunab PS 2A-4B,
Reservoir 2A
Discharge Pressure
Reservoir Level
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
Pressure Mode – Zone 4B Las
Palmas
State Collegeb PS 2C-3,
Reservoir 2C
Discharge Pressure
Reservoir Level
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
Level Mode – Upper Acacia 3A
Pressure Mode – Zone 3
Upper
Acacia
Tank Farmb PS 2D-3, Tank
Farm T1-T5
Discharge Pressure
Reservoir Level
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
Valve Percent Open
Level Mode – Las Palmas 3B
Pressure Mode – Zone 3
Las
Palmas
Upper Acacia
PS 3A-4A,
Reservoir 3A
Repeater
Station
Flowrate
Discharge Pressure
Reservoir Level
Pump Run Status
Valve Status
Pressure Mode – Zone 4A City Yard
Notes:
a Main Plant BPS does not have a flow meter but is capable of being monitored and connected to SCADA. b Coyote BPS, Hawks Pointe BPS, Hermitage BPS, Hillcrest BPS, Las Palmas BPS, Laguna BPS, State College BPS, and Tank Farm BPS have a flow meter but are not connected to SCADA. c Well 12A has been abandoned and has no SCADA monitoring capabilities.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Existing System Facilities
March 2025

2.32 2.13 Interagency Connections
The City has six interagency connections (interconnects) with neighboring water systems, with an additional one currently under design, to allow the sharing of supplies during short-term emergencies or during planned shutdowns of a primary supply source. Table 2-20 lists the City’s interconnects.

Table 2-20. Interconnects
Interconnect City Intersection PZ
Static
Pressure
(psi)
Fullerton
Pressure
(psi)
Size
(inches)
Capacity
(cfs)
Installation
Year
Anaheim Raymond Ave n/o
Discovery Ln 1A 68-78 72 10 8 1989
Anaheim Harbor Blvd n/o La Palma
Ave 1 79-89 81 8 11.8 1993
Brea Placentia Ave n/o
Cedarbrook Dr 3 72 70 8 11.8 1992
La Habra Euclid St s/o Imperial Hwy
(one way - to La Habra) 3 120-125 110 6 5 1998
La Mirada
(Suburban Water
Systems)
Hawk's Pointe Dr -
Highlander Dr
(two-way meter)
3 96 105-114 8 3.3 2006
Placentia (Golden
State Water
Company)
Bastanchury Rd e/o
Cambridge Ave 3 70-120 69-74 10 8 1996
Buena Park Magnolia, n/o Orangethorpe
(one way - to Buena Park) 1B 68-75 65-70 8 TBD 2024 (TBD) Note:

TBD = to be determined

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Supply
March 2025

3.1 3.0 Water Supply
The City receives its water supply from two sources: groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin) and treated imported water purchased from MWD. Historical supply was analyzed based on available production facilities data over a ten year period, between 2012 to 2022.

This analysis shows that the average annual supply required by the City to meet its water demands was 25,552 AFY. The largest annual supply was in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013/14 at 30,058 AFY.

Since 2018, the City’s supply requirements have seen a nearly 9 percent reduction through 2022, which had a supply of 23,619 AFY. This reduction in water supply results from diligent efforts in the promotion of water conservation as well as financial incentives for customers to retrofit their homes and businesses with water efficient devices and appliances. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the annual water production from each of the supply sources. The City’s historically largest single water customer also closed their account in 2020, they previously used about 1,500 acre-feet (AF) annually, approximately 5-7% of the City’s total production.

Table 3-1. Annual Water Production
Fiscal Year Groundwater
(acre-feet)
Imported
Water
(acre-feet)
Total Water
Supply
(acre-feet)
Basin
Production
Percentage
Groundwater Imported Water
2012/2013 19,489 9,205 28,694 68% 68% 32%
2013/2014 21,279 8,779 30,058 70% 71% 29%
2014/2015 18,946 8,298 27,244 70% 70% 30%
2015/2016 17,541 5,842 23,384 75% 75% 25%
2016/2017 17,933 6,425 24,359 75% 74% 26%
2017/2018 17,104 8,844 a 25,948 75% 66% 34%
2018/2019 18,373 5,564 23,937 77% 77% 23%
2019/2020 18,696 5,023 23,719 77% 79% 21%
2020/2021 17,630 6,924 24,554 77% 72% 28%
2021/2022 17,739 5,880 23,619 77% 75% 25%
Annual
Average 18,473 6,882 25,552 74% b 73% 27%
Notes:
a FY 2017/18 was an outlier year due to availability of MWD water at equivalent cost to groundwater/pumping costs. Annual average excludes FY 2017/18 production.
b BPP is increased to 85% starting FY 2022/23 in anticipation of the opening of Phase 2 of the Groundwater Replenishment System.

The primary source of supply for the City is groundwater production from the OC Basin. The City’s wells have produced on average of 18,473 AFY since FY 2012/13, which is approximately 73 percent of the total supply. The supply through its imported water connections supplements the remaining 27 percent of the City’s annual average supply needs. Figure 3-1 illustrates the trend in production of the two supply sources between FY 2012/13 and FY 2021/22.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Supply
March 2025

3.2 Figure 3-1. Annual Water Production (FY 2012/13 through FY 2021/22)

3.1 Groundwater
Groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range to protect the long-term sustainability of the basin. The OC Basin is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and underlies the northerly half of Orange County. The OC Basin is subdivided into three major aquifer systems that are hydraulically connected and include the Shallow Aquifer, Principal Aquifer, and Deep Aquifer. The Shallow Aquifer, less than 200 feet below ground surface (bgs), has poor water quality and is generally pumped by small water systems for industrial and agricultural use. The Principal Aquifer is the largest water bearing strata between 200 and 1,300 feet bgs where most of the water (over 90 percent) is pumped for municipal use. Only a minor amount of groundwater is pumped from the Deep Aquifer that extends to an approximate depth of 2,000 feet bgs in the center of the OC Basin. The City only pumps potable water out of the Principal Aquifer.

OCWD was formed to manage Orange County’s groundwater supply and protect north and central County’s water rights to the OC Basin. In addition, OCWD operates the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) in partnership with the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSan). GWRS can produce up to 130 MG of high-quality potable water per day for aquifer recharge OCWD manages groundwater levels by artificial recharge of stormwater, purified recycled water, and untreated imported water. OCWD also manages groundwater levels by regulating the annual amount of pumping through a process of 68%
71%
70%
75%
74%
66%
77%
79%
72%
75%
32%
29%
30%
25%
26%
34%
23%
21%
28%
25%
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000Water Supply (acre-feet)
Groundwater (acre-feet) Imported Water (acre-feet)
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Supply
March 2025

3.3 financial incentives to encourage groundwater producers to pump a sustainable amount of water. The framework for the financial incentives is based on establishing a Basin Production Percentage (BPP), which is the percentage of each producer’s total water demands that can be supplied from groundwater.

Groundwater production at or below the BPP is charged a Replenishment Assessment (RA) to offset the costs of basin management and recharge facility operation. While there is no legal limit as to how much an agency can pump from the OC Basin, there is a financial disincentive for pumping above the BPP.

Water pumped in excess of the BPP is charged a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) in addition to the RA.

The combined RA and BEA rates approximately equal the cost of imported water, thus removing any financial incentive to pump excess groundwater. The BPP is set by the OCWD Board of Directors based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, and basin management objectives.

In 2013, OCWD’s Board of Directors adopted a policy establishing a stable BPP of 75 percent in FY 2015/16 to coincide with the first expansion of the GWRS. In 2019, the BPP was raised to 77 percent due to significant basin recharge, availability of excess imported water, and rainfall conditions.

Table 3-2 shows the annual production of each well between FY 2012/13 and FY 2021/22. Since FY 2012/13, on average, approximately 73 percent of City’s water supply came from groundwater. Due to availability of MWD water, groundwater production dropped approximately 8 percent during FY 2017/18, reaching 66 percent in production as reflected by the reduction from the Main Plant wells, particularly Well 5. In addition, Airport Well 9 reduced production by around 20 percent. Groundwater production increased by FY 2018/19 to 77 percent and declined about 5 percent by FY 2020/21 due to PFAS detected in the groundwater wells.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Supply
March 2025

3.4 Table 3-2. Annual Groundwater Well Production
Groundwater Well
Annual Water Production (acre-feet)
FY 2012/13
FY 2013/14
FY 2014/15
FY 2015/16
FY 2016/17
FY 2017/18
FY 2018/19
FY 2019/20
FY 2020/21
FY 2021/22
Kimberly Well 1Aa 1,465 2,355 2,907 2,047 1,901 2,322 1,903 3,762 1,431 3,563 Kimberly Well 2 1,782 3,024 1,960 1,547 1,587 1,764 2,923 1,845 2,387 1,132 Main Plant Well 3Ab 3,017 3,065 1,672 4,126 3,691 3,825 3,395 2,146 - - Main Plant Well 4c 567 772 1,306 233 370 651 - - - -
Main Plant Well 5 1,764 1,990 2,188 1,116 1,041 64 1,224 998 2,495 2,599 Main Plant Well 6 18 51 632 98 174 458 130 7 1,542 456
Main Plant Well 7d 864 425 1 - - - - - - -
Main Plant Well 8 2,872 2,622 2,477 2,365 2,483 2,611 2,637 2,675 2,522 2,272 Airport Well 9 2,270 1,937 1,888 2,035 2,270 1,865 2,004 2,477 1,560 2,231 Sunclipse Well 10 1,997 3,332 1,438 1,335 2,457 1,699 1,198 1,926 2,425 3,114 Christlieb Well 15A 2,875 1,707 2,477 2,640 1,960 1,845 2,958 2,860 3,267 2,373 Coyote Well 12Ae - - - - - - - - - -
Total Groundwater 19,489 21,279 18,946 17,541 17,933 17,104 18,373 18,696 17,630 17,739 Total Water Supply 28,694 30,058 27,244 23,384 24,359 25,948 23,937 23,719 24,554 23,619 Groundwater 68% 71% 70% 75% 74% 66% 77% 79% 72% 75%
Notes:
a Kimberly Well 1A added PFAS treatment in 2021.
b Main Plant’s PFAS Treatment Plant under construction in 2023 for Well 3A. Well 3A was taken offline in 2020. c Well 4 located at the Main Plant has been offline since 2018 due to poor production and is recommended by the Main Plant Master Plan to be destroyed.
d Well 7 had been offline since 2014 and was destroyed in 2021 due to poor production and water quality concerns. e Coyote Well 12A has been offline since October 2003 due to TBA detection and low production.

OCWD’s most recent modeling of water supplies available for groundwater recharge and water demand forecasts anticipates being able to sustain a BPP at 85 percent, which is the current BPP as of FY 2022/23. The primary reasons for the higher BPP are the completion of the GWRS Final Expansion dedicated in April 2023 and the trend toward lower water demands.

Modeling and forecasts generate estimates based on historical averages. Consequently, forecasts use average hydrologic conditions that smooth the dynamic and unpredictable local hydrology. Variations in local hydrology are the most significant impact to supplies of water available to recharging the groundwater basin. The BPP projection of 85 percent is based upon average annual rainfall weather patterns. If southern California were to experience a protracted dry period (as occurred over the recent past), the BPP could be reduced to maintain water storage levels, by as much as five percent. However, for this study a BPP is assumed to be maintained at 85 percent for all planning scenarios beginning in 2025.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Supply
March 2025

3.5 3.1.1 PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES IMPACTS
PFAS are a group of thousands of manmade chemicals that include PFOA and PFOS. PFAS compounds are commonly used in many products including, among others, stain- and water-repellent fabrics, nonstick products (e.g., Teflon), polishes, waxes, paints, cleaning products, and fire-fighting foams.

Beginning in the summer of 2019, the California State Division of Drinking Water (DDW) began requiring testing for PFAS compounds in some groundwater production wells in the OC Basin.

OCWD’s groundwater production in FY 2019/20 was expected to be approximately 325,000 AF county- wide but declined to 286,550 AF primarily due to PFAS impacted wells being taken offline around February 2020. OCWD expects groundwater production to continue to be reduced due to the currently idled wells and additional wells impacted by PFAS. As a result of these impacts, OCWD initiated a program to pilot test PFAS removal technologies and studied how treatment could be added to area wells. The OCWD Board also adopted a policy to administer treatment facility construction at producer sites. Under this policy, OCWD would pay for 100 percent of treatment capital costs and 50 percent of operating costs up to $75/acre-foot. As PFAS treatment systems are constructed, OCWD expects total annual groundwater production to slowly increase back to normal levels of between 310,000 to 330,000 AF.

The City’s groundwater supply was reduced due to levels of PFAS detected at Kimberly Well 1A and at Main Plant Well 3A. Kimberly Well 1A was retrofitted with an ion-exchange treatment facility and construction was completed in 2021. This treatment facility was the first to be completed under OCWD’s program. Limited Kimberly Well 1A production occurred in 2021 due to treatment plant construction and start-up. To make up this supply reduction, the Main Plant’s Well 6 production was increased to meet demand. At the Main Plant, a PFAS treatment facility was constructed to treat Well 3A. Ultimately, the proposed treatment plant will include two separate treatment facilities at the Main Plant: a northern treatment plant to treat water from Well 3A and a new Well 7A; and a southern treatment plant configuration to treat Well 5, Well 6, and Well 8. It should be noted that Well 3A and 7A are deeper and discharge directly into the Zone 1 system transmission mains after treatment whereas Well 5, Well 6, and Well 8 are shallower and discharge to the forebay prior to being pumped into the Zone 1 distribution system.

Additional specific discussions related to PFAS and water quality characteristics are provided in Section 4.1.1.

3.1.2 RECYCLED WATER AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
The City does not own nor operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to OCSan for treatment. OCWD’s GWRS produces highly treated water from OCSan for indirect potable reuse through the replenishment of the OC Basin. Although the City does not use recycled water directly, the City does benefit from the GWRS.

Water from the GWRS is pumped to the Kraemer, Miller, and Miraloma Basins for recharge into the OC Basin.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Supply
March 2025

3.6 3.2 Imported Water
The City supplements its local groundwater with imported water purchased from MWD, which is about 27 percent of total supply. MWD’s sources of water are the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and the Lake Oroville watershed in Northern California through the State Water Project (SWP). For Orange County, the water from these sources is treated at the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant (Diemer) in Yorba Linda. Typically, Diemer receives a blend of Colorado River water from Lake Mathews through the MWD’s Lower Feeder and SWP water through the Yorba Linda Feeder.

The City has a water purchase agreement with MWD that is a 10-year commitment to purchase a minimum quantity of water on an annual basis and a minimum quantity of water over the course of the 10- year commitment. In return, the City can purchase a greater percentage of imported water than otherwise allowed at the Tier 1 water rate. However, this agreement expired on December 31, 2024.

The City receives imported water through seven MWD connections along the Orange County Feeder, West Orange County Feeder, and Second Lower Feeder pipelines. The total available capacity from MWD is 107 cubic feet per second (cfs). Table 3-3 provides a summary of the annual imported water supply from each MWD connection. From FY 2012/13 to FY 2021/22, imported water supply averaged to approximately 26 percent of total water supply for the City.

Table 3-3. Annual Imported Water Purchased
Imported Water
Connection
Annual Imported Water (acre-feet)
FY 2012/13
FY 2013/14
FY 2014/15
FY 2015/16
FY 2016/17
FY 2017/18
FY 2018/19
FY 2019/20
FY 2020/21
FY 2021/22
F-01a - - - - - - - 137 - -
F-02b - - 3 - - - 694 2 22 -
F-04 1,273 43 511 779 403 802 399 359 355 729
F-05 740 2,181 1,767 1,207 1,711 2,522 49 1 1,678 230
F-06 369 299 227 77 344 82 49 34 136 179
F-08 6,554 6,043 5,582 3,634 3,763 5,202 4,147 4,312 4,623 4,641 F-09 269 214 207 145 203 236 226 178 110 101
Total Imported
Water 9,205 8,779 8,298 5,842 6,425 8,844 5,564 5,023 6,924 5,880 Total Water
Supply 28,694 30,058 27,244 23,384 24,359 25,948 23,937 23,719 24,554 23,619 Imported Water 32% 29% 30% 25% 26% 34% 23% 21% 28% 25%
Notes:
a F-01 connection became temporarily operational in 2021 as an emergency backup supply due to potential well production being reduced as a precaution from groundwater PFAS impacts. It has not been used since 2021. b F-02 connection is normally not operational due to limited pressure on the MWD side of the turnout.

Imported water supply is normally delivered through five connections (F-04, F-05, F-06, F-08, and F-09).

Historically, F-01 has not been operational and was at one point disconnected from the rest of the City’s WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Supply
March 2025

3.7 system. Due to impacts from PFAS on groundwater production, F-01 was reconnected for use as an emergency backup supply; usage in 2020 was for testing and activation of the newly reconnected connection. Similarly, F-02 was temporarily operational in 2020 due to construction in the vicinity.

Normally F-02 is not used due to the equalized pressure between the MWD and the City’s Pressure Zone 4A HGL; if not monitored and controlled, water can potentially flow from the City to MWD. F-02 is considered to be set for fire flow.

Since FY 2012/13, F-08 has been the City’s primary source of imported water with annual average of 4,850 acre-feet or approximately 69 percent of total imported water supply. In FY 2021/22, F-08 accounted for nearly 79 percent of the imported water supply at 4,641 AF.

3.2.1 CONJUNCTIVE USE PROGRAM
In 2003, OCWD, MWD, and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) signed a historic 25-year agreement to store nearly 20 billion gallons of water in the OC Basin for use during dry years and emergencies. The agreement also provides for additional protection from seawater intrusion and improved groundwater quality. This program is referred to as the MWD’s Conjunctive Use Program (CUP). The CUP agreement ends in 2028.

Currently, the CUP allows MWD to store up to 66,000 AF of water in the OC Basin during wet years, to be used by participating producers during dry years, instead of receiving imported water supplies. During dry years, droughts or emergencies, up to 20,000 AFY will be withdrawn for use. In exchange, MWD agreed to contribute to improvements in basin management facilities and pay an annual administrative fee.

Improvements include installing eight new groundwater extraction wells for city and local water district participants to ensure that the stored water can be pumped in addition to the existing pumping demand.

The operating cities and water districts can use Metropolitan's new wells as backups for their existing systems and ownership of these wells would transfer to them when the agreement expires in 25 years.

Participating agencies cities in this agreement include the cities of Buena Park, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Orange, Santa Ana, and Westminster, as well as the Golden State Water Company, and Yorba Linda Water District. In addition to water storage, the CUP would allow for MWD to fund seawater intrusion barrier improvements for OCWD, and the construction of the Diemer Bypass Pipeline, a bypass pipeline around MWD's Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda to redirect lower-salinity supplies from the State Water Project directly into OCWD's groundwater spreading basins in Anaheim. The water accounted for via the CUP is administered by OCWD and controlled by MWD to be withdrawn over a three-year period when needed.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Supply
March 2025

3.8 3.3 Historical Monthly Supply Variation
The City increases its groundwater supply production during the summer months to meet the increased water demand.

Figure 3-2 shows the average monthly groundwater production versus imported water production for the calendar years 2012 through 2022. As illustrated, the imported water production remains consistent, and groundwater production varies to meet the monthly demand fluctuations.

Figure 3-2. Average Monthly Water Production (2012 to 2022)

0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Groundwater (acre-feet) Imported Water (acre-feet)
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Supply
March 2025

3.9 This page left blank intentionally.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.1 4.0 Water Quality

4.1 Water Quality Regulation Update
The previous Water Master Plan Update performed for the City of Fullerton was prepared in 1997. This section provides an update of the regulations impacting water utilities since the previous update. Drinking water quality is regulated by the State of California Department of Drinking Water (DDW) and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Regulated contaminants include radionuclides, inorganic constituents, organic chemicals, disinfectant residuals in the water distribution system, and other constituents. A summary of regulations effective after 1997 is provided in Table 4-1. More information on these regulations can be found on the DDW website. The City of Fullerton’s Water Quality Reports annually verify compliance against these regulations.

The following sections include discussion on regulatory updates for PFAS, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and microplastics. Additional regulations that are in process or planned or pending revision, include hexavalent chromium, arsenic, N-nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA), styrene, and cadmium.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.2 Table 4-1. Regulations Adopted by California Water Quality Control Board Since 1997 Regulation Application Title Effective Date
DW 2022-0001-DDW General Order Requiring Monitoring for Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances October 31, 2022
SBDDW-20-001 Perchlorate Detection Limit for Purposes of Reporting July 1, 2021 SBDDW-20-002 Revised Total Coliform Rule July 1, 2021
SBDDW-17-003 Point of Use/Point of Entry Treatment Permanent Regulations March 22, 2019 SBDDW-16-02 Surface Water Augmentation Regulations October 1, 2019 SBDDW-17-001 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Maximum Contaminant Level December 14, 2017 SBDDW-16-01 Point of Use/Point of Entry Treatment Emergency Regulations April 1, 2016 DPH-11-005 Hexavalent Chromium Maximum Contaminant Level July 1, 2014a DPH-14-003E Groundwater Replenishment Using Recycled Water June 18, 2014 DPH-09-014 Long Term 1 and 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules July 1, 2013 DPH-09-004 Disinfectant Residual, Disinfection Byproducts, and Disinfection Byproduct Precursors June 21, 2012
DPH-10-011E Point of Entry Treatment September 22, 2011 DPH-09-007 Ground Water Rule August 18, 2011
DPH-10-009E Point of Use Treatment December 21, 2010
DPH-06-009 Revision of Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund December 21, 2010 DPH-04-017 Revision of Arsenic Maximum Contaminant Level November 28, 2008 R-14-03 Water Works Standards March 9, 2008
R-20-01 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule January 12, 2008 R-16-04 Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for Perchlorate October 17, 2007 R-21-03 Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels September 27, 2006 R-59-01 Public Notification Requirements for Drinking Water Violations September 1, 2006 R-62-00 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts June 17, 2006 R-12-02 Radionuclide Drinking Water Regulations June 11, 2006 Source: 2023 State of California https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certli c/drinkingwater/Recentregs.html Note:
a DPH-11-005 Hexavalent Chromium Maximum Contaminant Level was removed on September 11, 2017.

4.1.1 PFAS
Prior to April 10, 2024, California state notification and response levels (RL) were more stringent than federal PFAS limits. The USEPA has since finalized the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six PFAS chemicals which are now lower than the current notification and response level in the State of California for PFAS. The standards for each regulatory agency can be found in Tables 4-2 and 4-3.

California’s standards include notification and response levels for four PFAS chemicals. A notification level (NL) is a nonregulatory, health-based advisory level for contaminants in drinking water that do not have an MCL and requires notification of the exceedance to the governing bodies of customers in our WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.3 service area. An RL is a concentration to signify a response is needed – agencies must either take the well out of service, install treatment at the well, or notify the public they are receiving water above the RL.

California is in the process of establishing MCLs for various PFAS contaminants. A summary of the PFAS chemicals with notification and response levels in California is shown in Table 4-2. In addition to the chemicals identified in the table, the State of California has requested NLs and RLs for perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), and 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA). While federal limits are now more stringent, samples must still also be in compliance with the state regulations.

Table 4-2. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Notification and Response Levels in the State of California
Abbreviation Chemical name Notification Level
ng/L (ppt)
Response Level
ng/L (ppt) Date Issued
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid 5.1 10 February 6, 2020
PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 6.5 40 February 6, 2020 PFBS Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid 500.0 5000 March 5, 2021 PFHxS Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid 3.0 20 October 31, 2022 Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/pfas.html Notes:
ng/L = nanograms per liter
PFBS = Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid
PFHxS = Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid
ppt = parts per trillion

Table 4-3 below shows the finalized USEPA limits for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) as contaminants with individual MCLs and MCL goals (MCLGs), and PFAS mixtures containing at least two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS using a Hazard Index MCL that the City must comply with.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.4 Table 4-3. Proposed Maximum Contaminant Levels for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Chemicals
Abbreviation Chemical Name MCLG MCL ng/L (ppt) Date Issued PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid Zero 4.0 April 10,
2024 PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid Zero 4.0
PFHxS Perfluorohexane sulfonic
acid 10.0 10.0
PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid 10.0 10.0
HFPO-DA (GenX Chemicals) Hexafluoropropylene oxide
dimer acid 10.0 10.0
Mixtures containing two or
more of PFHxS, PFNA,
HFPO-DA, and PFBS

1.0 (unitless)
Hazard Index1

1.0 (unitless)
Hazard Index1
Source: USEPA, https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substan ces-pfas Sources: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/pfas_npwdr_faqsstates_4.8.24.pdf Hazard Index
HI
= 

10 + 
 !"#
2000

+ 
 !%&
10 + 
 !'(#
10 Notes:

The denominators of the HI calculation are the Health-Based Water Concentrations levels which are non-enforceable levels that represent a level at which no health effects are expected for that Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. Non-Detect values are to be 0 in the above HI calculation if the detection limit (DL), reporting detection limit (RDL), etc. is below the Set Environmental Protection Agency Practical Quantification Level (PQL). The PQLs are 5 ppt for GenX Chemicals, 4 ppt for PFNA, 3 ppt for PFBS and PFHxS.

In addition to the MCLs, the USEPA has proposed a trigger level set at one-half of the MCLs for regulated PFAS, PFOA and PFOS 2.0 ppt, PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA at 5 ppt, and a Hazard Index of 0.5 (unitless) for mixtures of PFHxS, GenX Chemicals, PFNA, and PFBS.

It is important to ensure that PFAS treatment systems already constructed or designed in the City of Fullerton will also comply with the new federal MCLs.

4.1.2 COMPLIANCE WITH PROPOSED FEDERAL MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS
To remain in compliance with the proposed federal limits, the City must conduct initial monitoring at each entry point to the distribution system (EPTDS) within three years of the new rule’s finalization. The initial monitoring process is based on the size of the water system. As the City serves over 10,000 customers, it must conduct quarterly monitoring within a continuous 12-month period. Water systems may use recent existing quarterly PFAS occurrence data taken at each EPTDS.

Figure 4-1 below is adapted from the EPA’s “Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation” presentation. It outlines how a water system is required to show compliance with the EPA’s new guidelines.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.5 Figure 4-1. Implementation: Monitoring Requirements Summary The flowchart depicts how a water system can reach compliance. If any sample exceeds the trigger level at an EPTDS default quarterly monitoring is triggered. Systems are considered in violation of an MCL if the running annual average is in exceedance after one year of quarterly sampling. Also, if a system takes more than one compliance sample during each quarter at a particular location, the system must average all samples taken at that location during that quarter. If there is an exceedance, the water system must provide notification of the MCL violation as soon as practicable but no later than 30 days after the system learns of the violation. The notification provides an alert to consumers of the violation and if there is a risk to public health.

If a water system’s initial results are below the trigger levels, the system reduces compliance monitoring frequency for a system to once every three years. Any system that monitors less than quarterly and finds sample results at or above the rule trigger level reverts to quarterly monitoring.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.6 The following is an example from an USEPA factsheet that shows how water systems should calculate their running annual average and report their results. Values below the USEPA’s proposed Practical Quantification Level (PQL) are considered 0.0 (See Table 4-4):
“If the results of sampling for PFOA at a compliance location for the most recent four quarters are 2.0, 1.5,

5.0, and 1.5 ppt, the values used to calculate the running annual average would be 0.0, 0.0, 5.0, and 0.0.

In this case the PFOA running annual average would be 1.3 ppt and in compliance.” Table 4-4. Practical Quantification Level
Compound Practical Quantification Level (ppt)
PFOA 4.0
PFOS 4.0
PFNA 4.0
PFBS 3.0
PFHxS 3.0
HFPO-DA (GenX Chemicals) 5.0
Source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/pfas_npwdr_faqsstates_4.8.24.pdf

Wells with federal MCL exceedances have 3 years (until 2027) to become in compliance once the new limits are passed. Once in compliance, the City can reduce to triennial monitoring. The City’s plans to ensure compliance are presented in Section 4.1.4.

Starting in 2027, initial monitoring results must be included in Consumer Confidence Reports (also known as the Annual Water Quality Report), regular monitoring must begin and also be included in the reports, and public notification will be required for monitoring and testing violations.

Beginning in 2029, water systems must comply with the MCLs and continue notification when MCL violations occur. The City must also incorporate PFAS monitoring data into their Consumer Confidence Report. They would be required to report measured levels of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, GenX Chemicals, PFNA, and PFBS, and the Hazard Index for the mixtures of PFHxS, GenX Chemicals, PFNA, and PFBS.

4.1.3 PFAS RESULTS IN THE CITY OF FULLERTON
Based on the requirements outlined in the flowchart in Figure 4-1, the City will be required to conduct quarterly monitoring at the EPTDS as samples at all wells shown in Table 4-5 are greater than or equal to the trigger level. Quarterly monitoring will be required until the four consecutive samples are less than the MCLs which would lead to only yearly sampling or once the running annual average is less than or equal to the MCL which would lead to triennial monitoring.

Table 4-6 shows the historic PFAS running annual averages found in drinking water wells in the City of Fullerton calculated using the EPA’s specified methods presented in Section 4.1.2. City only has one well that is non-detect (ND) for PFAS, which is Well 9.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.7 Table 4-5. 2023 Fullerton Well PFAS Data (Potential Initial Monitoring Data) Well/ Location Compound/Chemicala
2023b,c
1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr.

Kimberly Well 1A
PFOA 8.37 8.35 8.20
PFOS 18.23 17.60 16.95
PFHxS 6.37 6.60 5.80
PFNA 0.00 0.00 0.00
HFPO-DA 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.64 0.66 0.58

Kimberly Well 2
PFOA 9.00 9.10 8.90
PFOS 7.10 8.10 8.70
PFHxS 4.20 4.30 4.30
PFNA 0.00 0.00 0.00
HFPO-DA 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.42 0.43 0.43

Main Plant Well 5
PFOA 7.10 8.25 8.05
PFOS 13.60 15.65 14.65
PFHxS 6.20 7.80 6.75
PFNA 0.00 0.00 0.00
HFPO-DA 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.62 0.78 0.68

Main Plant Well 6
PFOA 5.30 6.30 -
PFOS 10.50 10.70 -
PFHxS 4.50 4.80 -
PFNA 0.00 0.00 -
HFPO-DA 0.00 0.00 -
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.45 0.48 -

Main Plant Well 8
PFOA 7.30 7.40 8.70
PFOS 13.10 12.80 11.90
PFHxS 6.40 6.40 6.20
PFNA 0.00 0.00 0.00
HFPO-DA 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.64 0.64 0.62

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.8 Well/ Location Compound/Chemicala
2023b,c
1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr.

Sunclipse Well 10
PFOA 6.20 6.90 6.80 -
PFOS 13.20 13.30 13.80 -
PFHxS 4.00 4.30 4.00 -
PFNA 0.00 0.00 0.00 -
HFPO-DA 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.40 0.43 0.40

Christlieb Well 15A
PFOA - - 5.60 -
PFOS - - 15.40 -
PFHxS - - 7.20 -
PFNA - - 0.00 -
HFPO-DA - - 0.00
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS - - -

Main Plant Forebay
(blended water)
PFOA 6.90 7.20 8.10
PFOS 13.10 11.80 13.20
PFHxS 6.00 5.80 5.40
PFNA 0.00 0.00 0.00
HFPO-DA 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.60 0.58 0.54

Notes:
a PFBS levels are 2 to 3 orders of magnitude below California's NL and RLs and are not shown on this table. EPA does not have an individual MCL for PFBS.
b Bold text represents a sample over the MCL.
c Italic text represents sample over the Trigger Level.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.9 Table 4-6. Running Annual Average (RAA) of Regulated PFAS Chemicals Well/Location Compound/Chemicala
2019b,c 2020b,c,d 2021b,c,d 2022b,c 2023b,c,d
1st
Qtr.
2nd
Qtr.
3rd
Qtr.
4th
Qtr.
1st
Qtr.
2nd
Qtr.
3rd
Qtr.
4th
Qtr.
1st
Qtr.
2nd
Qtr.
3rd
Qtr.
4th
Qtr.
1st
Qtr.
2nd
Qtr.
3rd
Qtr.
4th
Qtr.
1st
Qtr.
2nd
Qtr.
3rd
Qtr.
4th
Qtr.

Kimberly Well 1A
PFOA 8.4 7.6 7.6 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.1 PFOS 22.0* 17.3* 17.1 17.0 PFHxS 6.6 5.6 5.3 5.1 7.2 8.0 7.7 7.2 6.8 6.4 6.2 PFNA 0.0
HFPO-DA 0.0
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS

0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6
Kimberly Well 2
PFOA 0.0 1.1 2.3 2.3 4.9 7.1 7.1 8.3 9.3 9.0 PFOS 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.8 7.5 7.5 7.7 8.0 8.1 PFHxS 1.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 3.0 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.8 4.5 PFNA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HFPO-DA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 Main Plant Well 5
PFOA 10.3 10.9 10.9 10.8 10.4 9.0 8.2 8.4 7.9 7.5 7.0 6.6 6.6 6.7 7.0 7.4 PFOS 23.7 23.8 23.8 23.4 22.0 18.5 16.5 17.0 16.0 14.9 14.4 13.7 13.7 13.6 14.2 14.4 PFHxS 9.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.6 8.9 8.4 9.1 8.4 7.9 7.6 7.0 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.0 PFNA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HFPO-DA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Main Plant Well 6
PFOA 6.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.6 6.3 5.9 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.6 PFOS 15.5 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.6 14.2 13.5 13.8 13.0 12.7 12.3 11.5 11.5 11.6 11.0 PFHxS 5.5 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.2 6.5 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.0 PFNA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HFPO-DA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 Main Plant Well 8
PFOA 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.0 7.5 7.4 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.5 PFOS 17.7 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.0 16.9 15.9 16.0 14.9 14.6 14.5 13.9 13.9 14.0 13.4 12.6 PFHxS 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.8 7.9 8.2 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.0 6.5 PFNA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HFPO-DA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.10 Well/Location Compound/Chemicala
2019b,c 2020b,c,d 2021b,c,d 2022b,c 2023b,c,d
1st
Qtr.
2nd
Qtr.
3rd
Qtr.
4th
Qtr.
1st
Qtr.
2nd
Qtr.
3rd
Qtr.
4th
Qtr.
1st
Qtr.
2nd
Qtr.
3rd
Qtr.
4th
Qtr.
1st
Qtr.
2nd
Qtr.
3rd
Qtr.
4th
Qtr.
1st
Qtr.
2nd
Qtr.
3rd
Qtr.
4th
Qtr.

Sunclipse Well 10
PFOA 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.5 PFOS 14.3 14.0 14.1 14.3 14.2 14.0 13.7 13.7 13.9 13.6 13.5 PFHxS 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.3 PFNA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HFPO-DA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4
Christlieb Well 15A
PFOA 0* 4.1* 5.6*
PFOS 9.7* 11.2* 15.4*
PFHxS 6.1* 7.4* 7.2*
PFNA 0* 0* 0*
HFPO-DA 0* 0* 0*
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS
RES-FULLERTON-01
PFOA 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.5 7.7 7.4 7.2 6.9 6.9 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.9 7.2 PFOS 14.4 14.4 14.4 18.1 16.5 15.5 15.8 14.7 14.1 14.0 13.7 13.7 13.8 13.5 13.2 PFHxS 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.5 6.1 PFNA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HFPO-DA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 a PFBS levels are 2 orders of magnitude below the RL, so they are only included in this table per EPA regulations as a part of a mixture with a Hazard Index (HI) b Bold text represents an RAA over the MCL.
c Italic text represents an locational running annual average (LRAA) over the Trigger Level. d The asterisk (*) represents data from one quarter, not an LRAA.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.11 Values in Table 4-6 that are italicized exceed the DDW’s notification limits and those bolded exceed the response level. The trends of the data are summarized below:
• PFOA is trending down in wells Main Plant Well 5, Main Plant Well 6, and Main Plant Forebay. PFOA is trending up in wells Main Plant Well 8, Sunclipse Well 10, Christlieb Well 15A, and Kimberly Well 2. PFOA has remained consistent at Kimberly Well 1A.
• PFOS is trending down in wells Sunclipse Well 10, Main Plant Well 5, Main Plant Well 6, Main Plant Well 8, Kimberly Well 1A, and RES-FULLERTON-01. PFOS is trending up in wells Kimberly Well 2 and Christlieb Well 15A. • PFBS is trending down in wells Main Plant Well 5, Main Plant Well 6, Main Plant Well 8, and RES-FULLERTON-01. PFBS is trending up in wells Sunclipse Well 10, Christlieb Well 15A, Kimberly Well 1A, and Kimberly Well 2. • PFHxS varies at wells Sunclipse Well 10, Main Plant Well 6, Main Plant Well 8, and Kimberly Well 1A. PFHxS is trending down in wells Main Plant Well 5 and RES-FULLERTON-01. PFHxS is trending up Kimberly Well 2 and Christlieb Well 15A.

4.1.4 PFAS TREATMENT IN THE CITY OF FULLERTON
The City of Fullerton has implemented or started construction on treatment solutions for two groundwater wells within the water system that historically had elevated levels of PFAS compounds. The treatment systems are as follows:
• Ion exchange treatment system at Kimberly Well 1A, which began operation in 2021; and
• GAC treatment system at the Main Plant treating water from Well 3A. Well 3A is scheduled to be brought back online early 2024 with the completion of the first phase of the Main Plant PFAS Treatment Project.

Both systems are designed to be operated to achieve ND PFAS levels.

The finalized EPA standards require testing at each EPTDSs, as shown on shown in Table 4-7, there are no exceedances for Kimberly Well 1A treated water with the exception of IX Vessel No. 3. However, the combined effluent is shown as ND, the combined effluent results would be the EPTDS for Kimberly Well 1A. This would apply to other wells that will have treatment structures designed in the future. As such, Table 4-7 shows the efficacy of the Kimberly Well 1A IX system.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.12 Table 4-7. Kimberly Well 1A Ion Exchange Combined Effluent Results Chemical
Name
1/4/23
2/7/23
3/1/23
4/18/23
5/9/23
6/5/23
7/5/23
8/1/23
9/5/23
10/30/23
11/13/23
12/11/23

PFOA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFOS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFBS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
PFHxS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFNA ND ND ND ND ND

HFPO-DA ND ND ND ND ND

HI ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

While the combined effluent is ND, Vessels No. 1 and Vessel No. 3 has seen PFOA breakthrough in 2023. See Table 4-8 for the breakthrough seen in December of 2023 in Vessel No. 1.

Table 4-8. Kimberly Well 1A Ion Exchange Vessel No. 1 Effluent Results Chemical
Name
1/4/23
2/7/23
3/1/23
4/18/23
5/9/23
6/5/23
7/5/23
8/1/23
9/5/23
10/30/23
11/13/23
12/11/23
PFOA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.1

PFOS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFBS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
PFHxS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFNA ND ND ND ND ND

HFPO-DA ND ND ND ND ND

HI ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Table 4-9 shows the breakthrough in Vessel No. 3 seen during the second half of 2023. In December 2023, the PFOA level after treatment was above the MCL.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.13 Table 4-9. Kimberly Well 1A Ion Exchange Vessel No. 3 Effluent Results Chemical
Name
1/4/23
2/7/23
3/1/23
4/18/23
5/9/23
6/5/23
7/5/23
8/1/23
9/5/23
10/30/23
11/13/23
12/11/23
PFOA ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.5 2.2 3.2 3.8 3.6 4.2

PFOS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFBS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
PFHxS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFNA ND ND ND ND ND

HFPO-DA ND ND ND ND ND

HI ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

The City has numerous other wells in operation that show elevated concentrations of PFAS contaminants (see Table 4-5 and Table 4-6). Because of this, a PFAS treatment system planning study was prepared for the City and OCWD by Carollo Engineers, Inc. in August 2020, titled “Producer Report: City of Fullerton.” When the study was conducted, it recommended treatment solutions for impacted wells based on the California DDW revised drinking water RLs of 10 ppt for PFOA and 40 ppt for PFOS that were proposed on February 6, 2020; however, the final treatment goal was set by OCWD in collaboration with producers to lower the concentration of PFOS and PFOA to ND levels, which is defined as 2 nanograms per liter (ng/L) or less. The following treatment systems were recommended by Carollo in this study to provide treatment for PFOA and PFOS based on the individual well water quality, site layouts, and life- cycle costs developed:
• Main Plant Wells (Wells 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7A, and 8) – Provide GAC treatment using 40,000-pound carbon vessels. This recommendation is based on the fact that many of the Main Plant Wells have the co-occurring contaminants trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE). Rapid small scale column testing (RSSCT) data from the OCWD’s PFAS Treatment Testing Support Services project was not available at the time of this report. When the RSSCT data becomes available, it should be analyzed to determine the impacts of TCE and PCE on the removal of PFOA and PFOS. If these impacts are significant, a treatment train with TCE and PCE pretreatment may be the most economical approach. This GAC treatment will be designed for all existing and future Wells (Wells 3A, 5, 6, 7A, and 8), with the understanding that the immediate construction of GAC treatment vessels that is to be completed in 2023 will be sized for Well 3A only. Treatment for Wells 5, 6, 7A, and 8 will be customized and sized accordingly.
• Kimberly Well 1A – IX was recommended based on the limited space available for treatment. The IX treatment system was constructed and began operation in June 2021.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.14 • Kimberly Well 2 – Study recommended to provide IX treatment for Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10 at this site. This recommendation is based on the limited space at Well 10 and sufficient area acquired from the developer of the previous Kimberly Clark site at the Kimberly Well 2 site.
• Sunclipse Well 10 – The study recommended pipe flow from Sunclipse Well 10 to the Kimberly Well 2 site for treatment. As a backup plan, the City could reach out to the nearby businesses to see if space could be leased or purchased at other locations for the IX treatment.

While these systems were designed with the intention of treating water to non-detect levels, there may still be an increase in anticipated operating costs due to an increase in changeout frequency of ion exchange resin or granular activated carbon required to operate to achieve ND levels.

4.1.5 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
The City of Fullerton lies in the Orange County North Basin. In September 2020, the USEPA listed a six- and-a-half-square-mile portion of the groundwater aquifer as a superfund site on the National Priorities List due to a history of industrial pollution, mainly from VOCs, in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

The VOC plume shown in Figure 4-2 has resulted in some of the City’s wells to be shut down and destroyed, the City’s wells are denoted with red circles. Fire Station Well 13 and Kimberly Well 1 were shut down and destroyed in 2002 due to VOC contamination. Coyote Well 12A has been offline since October 2003 due to tert-butyl alcohol (TBA) detection and low production. Main Plant Well 7 was inactivated in 2014 and later destroyed in 2021, partly due to VOCs. The City’s wells are denoted by red circles on Figure 4-2.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.15 Figure 4-2. Orange County North Basin VOC Plume
In 2008, six extraction wells were installed by OCWD to contain the plume. In September 2017, OCWD started operating extraction well EW-1, represented as a black circle on Figure 4-2, as VOC-contaminated groundwater in the northeastern part of the North Basin VOC plume posed an imminent threat to City of Fullerton production wells. EW-1 was installed to stop VOCs from entering the wells in Zone 1A (Kimberly Well 1A, Kimberly Well 2, and Sunclipse Well 10).

Also, the City was previously required to blend the Main Plant water from Wells 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in the forebay to dilute VOC levels in accordance with approved Operation Plan dated September 16,1997. This mixing is no longer required as VOC levels have decreased.

Since 2000, the City has sampled its wells for 84 different VOC compounds. The City has detected 12 VOC compounds at levels above zero: 1,1-Dichloroethene (11DCE), Bromodichloromethane, Bromoform, Chloroform, Dibromochloromethane, Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM), Bromomethane, Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), tert-butyl alcohol (TBA), PCE, TCE, and Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113). These 12 chemicals’ regulatory thresholds are summarized in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11 below.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.16 Table 4-10. VOC MCLs in the State of California
Abbreviation Chemical Name MCL, µg/L (ppb)a,b
11DCE 1,1-Dichloroethene 6
TTHMs Total Trihalomethanesc 80
MTBE Methyl tert-butyl ether 13
PCE Tetrachloroethene 5
TCE Trichloroethene 5
Freon 113 Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1,200
Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_goals/search.html Notes:
a Tert-butyl alcohol does not have an MCL, but has an NL of 12 µg/L and RL of 1200 µg/L. b Bromomethane was detected in the wells; however, there are no limited defined by California State Water Resources Control Board.
c The limit for Total Trihalomethanes is the sum of Bromodichloromethane, Bromoform, Chloroform, and Dibromochloromethane. These individual chemicals do not have limits defined by California State Water Resources Control Board and are limited by their sum.

Table 4-11. USEPA Federal MCLs for VOC Chemicals
Abbreviation Chemical Name MCLG, µg/L (ppb) MCL, µg/L (ppb) 11DCE 1,1-Dichloroethene 7 7
DBP Bromodichloromethane 0 -
DBP Bromoform 0 -
DBP Chloroform 70 -
DBP Dibromochloromethane 60 -
TTHMs Total Trihalomethanes 0 80
PCE Tetrachloroethene 0 5
123-TCE Trichloroethene 0 5
Source: USEPA, https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations#six Note:

Bromomethane, Methyl tert-butyl ether, tert-butyl alcohol, Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113) do not have Federal MCLGs or MCLs.

While the above chemicals have been detected in the City’s wells, VOC values have been trending downward and there are currently no wells in exceedance of any regulatory limits. The historic VOC values are displayed as figures in Appendix A.

Downward trends may be related to the following:
• Dilution with uncontaminated groundwater as the plume spreads (through chemical diffusion and hydraulic mixing);
• Pumping occurring at other locations in the aquifer leading to plume movement; WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.17 • Effective management of the Plume by OCWD;
• Partitioning of VOCs into the soil potentially removing them from the water column; and,
• Potential dilution from rainwater; however, may be fairly unlikely due to time required to percolate 200 to 1,300 feet from the surface to the groundwater table.

As of March 2020, the City no longer has to sample for VOCs. Previously a blending plan at the Main Plant Forebay was required to meet the MCL requirements for PCE and TCE. In March 2020, PCE and TCE levels had decreased below the required monitoring triggers and monthly samples are no longer collected. OCWD continues to collect VOC samples as part of the required quarterly Title 22 sampling.

4.1.6 MICROPLASTICS
Microplastics are a growing concern in water sources and are ubiquitous in drinking water. To address this concern, an understanding of the fate and transport of microplastics in water, the impact on human health toxicity, and a standardized and affordable means of testing for microplastics are needed. Various research studies are underway to evaluate these concerns and identify a path forward. The State of California is implementing a four-year plan to establish a standard method of testing and reporting of microplastics in drinking water (Senate Bill (SB) 1422). The plan can be found in the Policy Handbook Establishing a Standard Method of Testing and Reporting of Microplastics in Drinking Water (Policy Handbook) prepared by DDW in August 2022 (included as Appendix B). The purpose and objectives of the four-year plan are the following:
• Adopt a standard methodology for microplastics testing in drinking water, which includes identifying surrogate methods of testing,
• Obtain four years of data from microplastics testing and reports, • Move toward issuing a notification level or other guidance to aid interpretation of testing results,
• Accredit California laboratories to analyze microplastics.

The testing program is designed to understand the likelihood a water agency will have microplastics entering the system based on water source, the removal of microplastics based on the processes employed in the water treatment system, and whether there are surrogate methods to use to reduce the cost of microplastics testing. According to the Policy Handbook, past research has shown microplastics are more common in surface water than groundwater and are up to 5,000 micrometers (µm) in length, while several commonly used drinking water treatment technologies remove microplastics larger than 20 µm in length.

The State Water Board must establish an estimated risk to human health of microplastics through exposure via drinking water. To accomplish this, the State Water Board is using a two-phase iterative approach. Phase 1 (years one and two) will focus on characterizing the occurrence of microplastics larger than 20 or 50 µm in length in drinking water source waters, while Phase 2 (years three and four) will focus on characterizing the occurrence of microplastics smaller than and larger than 20 micrometers in length in treated drinking water. Phase 1 will be performed by large community water systems and wholesale water systems that serve more than 100,000 people, while Phase 2 will involve additional agencies. The Policy WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.18 Handbook includes a list of potential water systems to perform the microplastics monitoring during Phase 1--the City of Fullerton is not on this list. The Phase 2 list has not been made public yet.

The timeline for the microplastics testing is as follows:
• Summer, 2022: Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program offered accreditation to qualified laboratories for microplastics in non-potable water and drinking water fields of accreditation.
• Fall, 2022: State Water Board issued monitoring orders in accordance with Phase One of planned monitoring, with monitoring requirements applicable between Fall 2023 – Fall 2025.
• Fall, 2025 – Spring, 2026: Interim period in which State Water Board staff will assess results from Phase One and determine best approach for Phase Two. • Spring, 2026: State Water Board will issue monitoring orders in accordance with Phase Two of planned monitoring with monitoring requirements applicable between Fall 2026 – Fall 2028.
• Fall 2028: Completion of Phase Two of planned monitoring.

4.2 Water Quality Assessment
The City of Fullerton distribution system combines local groundwater with treated surface water from MWD. This section summarizes the groundwater quality, the treated surface water quality, and the water quality in the distribution system.

4.2.1 FULLERTON GROUNDWATER QUALITY SUMMARY
The City of Fullerton’s drinking water wells consistently provide the community with high quality drinking water. Year over year, the water meets compliance with federal and state regulations without issue. The City regularly monitors their wells and address concerns that arise. A summary of the City of Fullerton groundwater quality as reported in the Fullerton Water Quality Reports from 2020 through 2022 is provided in Table 4-12. The data are from samples taken between 2019 and 2021. The groundwater used for drinking water complies with all current water quality regulations.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.19 This page left blank intentionally.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.20 Table 4-12. City’s Groundwater Quality as Reported in 2020 Through 2022 (Data from 2019 to 2021) Chemical Unit MCL PHG (MCLG) 2020 2021 2022
Average Min Max Average Min Max Average Min Max
Radionuclides
Combined Radium pCi/L 5 0 <1 ND 1.09 <1 ND 1.09 - - -
Uranium pCi/L 20 0.43 4.2 ND 11.7 3.7 ND 11.7 3.03 1.37 6.75 Organic Chemicals
Tetrachloroethylene, PCE ppb 5 0.06 <0.5 ND 1.7 <0.5 ND 1.9 <0.5 ND 2 Trichloroethylene, TCE ppb 5 1.7 <0.5 ND 0.7 <0.5 ND 1.3 <0.5 ND 1.3 Inorganic Chemicals
Arsenic ppb 10 0.004 <2 ND 2 <2 ND 2 <2 ND 2
Fluoride ppm 2 1 0.56 0.49 0.65 0.56 0.49 0.65 0.57 0.49 0.65 Nitrate ppm as N 10 10 2.18 0.74 5.25 2.19 0.72 5.01 2.15 0.76 4.92 Nitrate+Nitrite ppm as N 10 10 2.19 0.74 5.25 2.19 0.72 5.02 2.15 0.76 4.92 Perchlorate ppb 5 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a <2 ND 2.7
Selenium ppb 50 30 <5 ND 10.3 <5 ND 10.3 <5 ND 10.3
Secondary Standards
Chloride ppm 500 n/a 66.1 49.5 79 66.1 49.5 79 65.6 59.3 77.1 Odor threshold odor number 3 n/a <1 ND 2 <1 ND 2 <1 ND 2 Specific Conductance µmho/cm 1600 n/a 766 550 1,140 767 550 1,140 749 550 1,140 Sulfate ppm 500 n/a 134 83.2 249 134 83.2 249 136 103 249 Total Dissolved Solids ppm 1000 n/a 451 288 722 454 332 722 457 338 708 Turbidity NTU 5 n/a <0.1 ND 0.3 <0.1 ND 0.3 <.1 ND 0.3
Unregulated Chemicals
Alkalinity, total as CaCO3 ppm NR n/a 146 101 233 146 101 233 142 101 233 Bicarbonate ppm as HCO3 NR n/a 177 123 284 177 123 284 170 123 284 Boron ppm NL=1 n/a 0.18 ND 0.23 0.18 ND 0.23 0.19 ND 0.23 Calcium ppm NR n/a 73 44 101 73 44 101 67.7 44 101
Hardness, total grains per gallon NR n/a 14.3 8.4 23.4 14.3 8.4 23.4 13 8.4 23 Hardness, total as CaCO3 ppm NR n/a 245 144 400 245 144 400 230 144 400 Hexavalent Chromium ppb NR 0.02 <1 ND 1.31 <1 ND 1.31 <1 ND 1.31 Magnesium ppm NR n/a 15.4 8.2 36 15.4 8.2 36 14.9 8.2 36 Perfluoro Butane Sulfonic Acid (PFBS) ppt NL=500 n/a - - - <4 ND 4.6 <4 ND 4.7 Perfluoro Hexane Sulfonic Acid (PFHxS) ppt NL=3 n/a - - - 6.7 ND 14.9 4.5 ND 9.5 Perfluorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA) ppt NR n/a - - - <4 ND 6.3 <4 ND 6.3 Perfluoro Octane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) ppt NL=6.5 n/a 26 14.9 48.1 15.4 ND 38.4 9.7 ND 18 Perfluoro Octanoic Acid (PFOA) ppt NL=5.1 n/a 10.5 5.7 19.2 6.7 ND 14.9 4.1 ND 8.8 pH pH unit NR n/a 7.9 7.8 8 7.9 7.8 8 7.9 788 8
Potassium ppm NR n/a 3.7 3 4.2 3.7 3 4.2 3.6 3 4
Sodium ppm NR n/a 64.8 49.4 92.6 64.8 49.4 92.6 65.4 49.4 92.6 Notes:
a Dashed-line (-) indicates data was not available
b The data analyzed is from reports dated 2020 through 2022. Each report includes data taken from the previous year (from 2019 to 2021). µmho/cm = micromhos per centimeter
CaCO
3 = calcium carbonate
HCO3 = bicarbonate
NR = Nonregulatory
n/a=Not applicable (no regulatory limits)
ND = non-detected (less than method detection limit)
pCi/L = picocuries per liter
PHG = public health goal
ppm = parts per million

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.21 4.2.1.1 Unregulated Chemicals Requiring Groundwater Monitoring Unregulated chemicals required to be monitored are summarized in Table 4-13. Manganese in the drinking water wells is well below the secondary MCL of 50 ppb. Secondary MCLs are established as guidelines for aesthetic considerations (taste, color, and odor) and are also considered to be safe for human consumption. Bromide, germanium, and TOC are monitored but not regulated. All data are from 2019, the most recent sampling date.

Table 4-13. Unregulated Chemicals
Chemical Unit MCL PHG (MCLG) Average Minimum Maximum
Bromide ppm NR n/a 0.12 0.07 0.23
Germanium ppb NR n/a 0.03 ND 0.40
Manganese ppb SMCL = 50 n/a 0.96 ND 5.80
Total Organic Carbon (unfiltered) ppm NR n/a 0.25 0.17 0.40 NR = not required
SMCL = secondary MCL

4.2.2 MWD WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Treated surface water supplied by MWD consistently provides southern California with high quality drinking water. A summary of the treated surface water reported in the Fullerton Water Quality Reports from 2020 through 2022 is provided in Table 4-14. The data are from samples taken between 2019 and 2021. The treated surface water complies with all current water quality regulations.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.22 Table 4-14. Treated Surface Water from MWD as Reported in 2020 Through 2022 (Data from 2019 to 2021) Chemical Unit MCL PHG (MCLG) 2020 2021 2022
D Average* W Average* Min Max D Average W Average Min Max D Average W Average Min Max Radionuclides
Alpha Radiation pCi/L 15 0 - - - - <3 ND ND 3 ND ND ND 3 Beta Radiation pCi/L 50 0 - - - - <4 4 ND 7 5 5 4 6
Combined Radium pCi/L 5 0 - - - - ND <1 ND 2 ND ND ND 1 Uranium pCi/L 20 0.43 - - - - 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 3
Organic Chemicals
Toluene ppb 150 150 ND 0.6 ND 0.6 - - - - - - - -
Inorganic Chemicals
Aluminum ppm 1 0.6 0.124 0.122 ND 0.1 0.137 0.149 ND 0.3 0.141 0.148 ND 0.24 Barium ppm 1 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.107 0.105 0.1 0.1 0.111 0.11 0.11 0.111 Bromate ppb 10 0.1 2 1.9 ND 8.1 1.9 2 ND 4.2 ND ND ND 7 Fluoride ppm 2 1 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.9 Nitrate ppm as N 10 10 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 - - - - - - - -
Secondary Standards
Aluminum ppm 200 600 124 122 ND 110 137 149 ND 260 141 148 ND 240 Chloride ppm 500 n/a 56 50 46 58 94 93 93 94 96 96 95 97 Color color units 15 n/a ND ND ND 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Iron ppb 300 n/a ND 243 ND 243 - - - - - - - -
Odor threshold odor number 3 n/a ND 1 ND 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 Specific Conductance µmho/cm 1600 n/a 514 469 435 521 970 966 963 975 958 964 950 965 Sulfate ppm 500 n/a 91 73 65 93 216 213 211 217 214 219 214 221 Total Dissolved Solids ppm 1000 n/a 304 266 244 312 592 590 582 603 597 604 597 609 Unregulated Chemicals
Alkalinity, total as CaCO3 ppm NR n/a 72 68 67 74 118 118 117 120 125 126 123 128 Boron ppm NL=1 n/a 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.1 0.13 0.13 0.1 0.1 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Calcium ppm NR n/a 30 25 23 30 66 65 65 67 66 67 64 70
Hardness, total grains per gallon NR n/a 7.4 6.3 5.9 7.6 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 Hardness, total as CaCO3 ppm NR n/a 127 108 101 130 265 262 256 269 274 272 270 276 Magnesium ppm NR n/a 14 12 11 14 26 26 25 26 25 26 24 36 Perfluorohexanoic Acid ppt NR n/a 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.6 - - - - - - - - N-nitrosodimethylamine ppt NL=10 n/a - - - - 3.1 ND ND 3.1 - - - - pH pH unit NR n/a 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 Potassium ppm NR n/a 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.9 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.6 4.2 4.7 Sodium ppm NR n/a 56 50 46 57 96 95 93 98 94 98 93 101
Unregulated Chemicals Requiring Monitoring
Germanium ppb NR n/a 0.1 ND 0.4 0.1 ND 0.4 0.1 ND 0.4
Manganese ppb SMCL = 50 n/a 2.2 0.8 3.3 2.2 0.8 3.3 2.2 0.8 3.3 Total Organic Carbon ppm NR n/a 2.4 2.4 1.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.7 2.4 2.4 1.8 2.8 Note:
a The data analyzed is from reports dated 2020 through 2022. Each report includes data taken from the previous year (from 2019 to 2021).

D = Diemer
W = Weymouth

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.23 4.2.3 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER QUALITY
The Fullerton distribution system combines groundwater with import water from MWD. The combined water is subject to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule and monitoring of chlorine and fluoride residuals, as well as monitoring of various unregulated contaminants.

4.2.3.1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule
The disinfection byproducts under the DPBR are TTHMs and haloacetic acid (HAA5). TTHMs and HAA5s are monitored by the locational running annual average (LRAA) and operational evaluation level (OELs).

Data from 2018 through 2022 shows the LRAAs and OELs for TTHM and HAA5s are all well below the MCLs. A summary of the LRAA and OELs is shown in Table 4-15.

Table 4-15. Disinfection Byproducts (2018 - 2022)
Chemical Unit MCL Highest LRAA Highest OEL
Highest
Individual
Sample
Number of
Samples
TTHM ppb 80 30.1 31.7 35.4 160
HAA5 ppb 60 13.79 16.9 21.9 160

4.2.3.2 Chlorine and Fluoride Residuals
Chlorine is added during the drinking water treatment process to ensure the water will maintain a disinfection residual throughout the distribution system. The sites nearest the disinfection location will have higher concentrations of chlorine while those farthest away will have the lowest concentrations.

Water entering the distribution systems must have a chlorine residual between 0.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and 4.0 mg/L and must have detectable chlorine at the furthest point in the distribution system.

Fluoride is in the distribution system either as an additive for dental health or from the naturally occurring weathering of rocks. The City of Fullerton does not add fluoride to the groundwater or the distribution system; however, the treated surface water from MWD has added fluoride. The American Dental Association recommends 0.7 mg/L of fluoride in drinking water, the City’s average fluoride residual is slightly lower at 0.57 mg/L. Data sampled semi-annually from 2017 through 2022 shows no sample exceeding the fluoride MCL.

A summary of chlorine and fluoride residuals, for all monitoring locations in the distribution system, is shown in Table 4-16.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.24 Table 4-16. Chlorine & Fluoride Residuals in the Distribution System (2017 - 2022) Chemical Unit Target Range MCL Average Maximum Minimum Number of Samples
Chlorine ppm 0.2 - 1 4 1.54 5.5 0.12 160
Fluoride ppm <2 2 0.57 0.84 0.16 300

4.2.3.3 Unregulated Chemicals Requiring Monitoring in Distribution System Chemicals to be monitored that do not have an MCL were summarized using data from 2019, which is the most recent sampling data available. A summary of unregulated chemicals monitored in the distribution systems is shown in Table 4-17.

Table 4-17. Unregulated Chemicals Monitored in Distribution System (2019) Chemical NL PHG Average Minimum Maximum
Bromochloroacetic acid n/a n/a 2.5 ND 4.9
Bromodichloroacetic acid n/a n/a 0.84 ND 2.1
Chlorodibromoacetic acid n/a n/a 0.82 ND 1.6
Dibromoacetic acid n/a n/a 1.7 ND 2.5
Dichloroacetic acid n/a MCLG = 0 2.8 0.4 8.9
Monobromoacetic acid n/a n/a 0.2 ND 0.5
Monochloroacetic acid n/a MCLG = 70 0.1 ND 3.1
Trichloroacetic acid n/a MCLG = 20 0.7 ND 1.9
n/a = not applicable
ND = non-detect

4.2.4 COYOTE SITE MANGANESE CONTAMINATION
The State of California has a notification level of 50 µg/L for manganese. Data between 1992 through 2003 from Coyote Well 12A shows manganese levels ranging from 20 µg/L to 93 µg/L, with an average of

66.4 µg/L. Due to the high levels of manganese, Coyote Well 12A was taken offline and is not anticipated to be put into use in the future.

4.2.5 RAYTHEON IMPACTS ON WELL 9
The Packer Testing System coordinated by the City and conducted by Raytheon (formerly Hughes Aircraft Company) in 2015 concluded that 1,1-DCE was likely entering Well 9 from the lower well screens.

It was determined that the concentration of 1,1-DCE could be decreased below the detection limit by isolating the lower two screens. Well 9 was scheduled to be taken out of service in FY 2017/18 during the fall or winter. Raytheon agreed to implement mechanical and electrical upgrades to Well 9 and installed a semi-permanent packer, a new pump and motor, and various new controls equipment in January 2021.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.25 Well disinfection and neutralization activities were conducted in March 2021, and startup testing occurred in the summer of 2021 and was completed in January 2022.

4.2.6 LEAD AND COPPER
The USEPA established the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) to protect public health and reduce exposure to lead in drinking water. The MCLG for lead is zero because there is no level of lead exposure that is without risk. Lead is not commonly found in significant quantities in groundwater or surface water but can enter the drinking water system via lead pipes or other fixtures.

Data sampled between 2019 – 2022 show no exceedances of lead or copper at groundwater wells and is summarized in Table 4-18.

Table 4-18. Lead and Copper Groundwater Sampling Results (2019 – 2022) Chemical Unit AL PHG
90th
Percentile
Value
Sites Exceeding
AL / Number of
Sites
AL
Violation?
Typical Source of
Contaminant
Lead ppb 15 0.2
(MCLG = 0) ND 0 / 52 No Corrosion of
Household Plumbing
Copper ppm 1.3 0.3 0.14 0 / 52 No Corrosion of
Household Plumbing
AL = action level

Copper was found in 31 homes, and none exceeded the regulatory action level (AL). Lead was found in 1 home and did not exceed the regulatory AL. The City complies with the LCR as of 2021.

The USEPA is developing a new proposed rule, the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) to strengthen the Lead and Copper Rule. The LCRI will be promulgated prior to October 16, 2024. Each agency will need to develop and maintain a lead service line inventory with the goal of 100% removal of lead service lines. By October 16, 2024, an initial lead service line inventory and replacement plan are required. The City began working with a consultant in late 2023 to create an inventory and replacement plan through a shared services agreement with MWDOC.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Quality
March 2025

4.26 This page left blank intentionally.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.1 5.0 Water Use
This section evaluates historical data of potable water production and consumption within the City’s service area to plan for the City’s future water usage. Historical water use, seasonal variations, population growth, the City’s General Plan and Zoning Map, as well as known development plans are taken into consideration to project the City’s future water demands.

5.1 Historical Water Use
Historical water production and consumption data were analyzed to understand water use trends in the City. Most recent available consumption, or customer meter billing data were used to estimate water duty factors for each land use category since the data provided water use per land use. The City provided daily water production and consumption data for FY 2012/13 to FY 2021/22, and additional data from July 2022 to December 2022, which was the available data at the time for preparation of this Master Plan.

5.1.1 HISTORICAL WATER CONSUMPTION
Historical water consumption was evaluated using available billing data for FY 2012/13 to FY 2021/22.

The data were used to calculate historical annual water demand and average day demand (ADD), summarized in Table 5-1. On average, the City’s historical water use during this 10-year period is approximately 24,352 AFY or 21.7 million gallons per day (mgd).

Table 5-1. Annual Water Consumption
Fiscal Year
Average Consumption
Annual (acre-feet) Daily (mgd)
2012/2013 27,040 24.14
2013/2014 28,465 25.41
2014/2015 25,695 22.94
2015/2016 22,146 19.77
2016/2017 23,096 20.62
2017/2018 24,930 22.26
2018/2019 23,219 20.73
2019/2020 22,533 20.12
2020/2021 23,589 21.06
2021/2022 22,805 20.36
Annual Average 24,352 21.74

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.2 5.1.2 PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION
The City’s historical water billing data was used to calculate annual water consumption and per capita water consumption for FY 2012/13 to FY 2021/22, as shown in Table 5-2 and on Figure 5-1. Per capita consumption is based on the historical annual water consumption divided by the population of that given year. Per the population data obtained from the Center for Demographic Research (CDR) at California State University, Fullerton, the population in the City grew from 2012 to 2018 and experienced a drop in population between years 2018 and 2021. The per capita water consumption did not follow the same trend as the population between 2013 to 2015. As population increased, per capita water consumption decreased from 182 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 139 gpcd and has been averaging around 145 gpcd. Of the recent analyzed data, the City’s highest per capita water use was in FY 2013/14, at 182 gpcd. The lowest per capita water use was in FY 2015/16, which is the lowest out of all available records, going back to the early 1970s. The use of less water per person can be attributed to the water conservation efforts in 2015 and the reduction in per capita effort.

Note that the gpcd presented in this report reflects water use for all land use and is not only considering the residential use. According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City met its 2020 water use target and complies with the California Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7); the actual 2020 residential consumption was 111 gpcd that is well below the 2020 target of 179 gpcd. The historical average per capita water consumption for all land use after 2015 conservation efforts is 145 gpcd per Table 5-2 and is also below the 2020 target of 179 gpcd. The 145 gpcd is based on gross water use within the City’s water service area and does not account for exclusions allowed SBx7-7 as described in the 2020 UWMP Section 5.1.

Table 5-2. Historical Annual Water Consumption
Fiscal Year
Annual
Consumption
(acre-feet)
Average Daily
Consumption
(gpd)
Populationa
Average Daily Consumption
per Capita
(gpcd)
2012/2013 27,040 24,139,756 138,370 174
2013/2014 28,465 25,411,914 139,506 182
2014/2015 25,695 22,939,018 140,785 163
2015/2016 22,146 19,770,675 142,081 139
2016/2017 23,096 20,618,780 142,846 144
2017/2018 24,930 22,256,070 142,996 156
2018/2019 23,219 20,728,587 142,251 146
2019/2020 22,533 20,116,166 142,070 142
2020/2021 23,589 21,058,902 141,974 148
2021/2022 22,805 20,358,992 142,732 143
FY 2012/13 to FY 2021/22 Average 145
Notes:
a Population was obtained from Center for Demographic Research at California State University Fullerton (May 2022 CDR)

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.3 Figure 5-1. Historical Annual Water Consumption per Capita (gpcd)

5.1.3 HISTORICAL WATER PRODUCTION
As discussed in Section 3.0, several groundwater wells and MWD imported water connections provide the City’s water production to meet the daily water demands. For the historical 10-year period, the City’s water production has averaged approximately 25,552 AFY as shown in Table 5-3.

174
182
163
139 144
156
146 142 148 143
0 2
0 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
180
200
132,000
134,000
136,000
138,000
140,000
142,000
144,000
146,000
148,000
150,000
FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 FY20/21 FY21/22 gpcd
Population
Population Annual Average Day Consumption per Capita
(gpcd)
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.4 Table 5-3. Historical Annual Water Production
Fiscal Year Total Water Production
(acre-feet)
2012/2013 28,694
2013/2014 30,058
2014/2015 27,244
2015/2016 23,384
2016/2017 24,359
2017/2018 25,948
2018/2019 23,937
2019/2020 23,719
2020/2021 24,554
2021/2022 23,619
Average 25,552

5.1.4 HISTORICAL SEASONAL WATER PRODUCTION
There is considerable seasonal variation in water use mainly due to climate variations. As show in Table 5-4, there is variation through the years, wet years vs dry years. However, demands are the lowest in December to March when the weather is cold or there is rain. Typically in the winter months, Jan to March. Typically demands begin to increase in April, with higher demands from June to October. Over the historical ten fiscal year period, maximum demands mostly occurred in August followed by July.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.5 Table 5-4. Historical Monthly Production
Description
Water Demand (AF)
FY 2012/13
FY 2013/14
FY 2014/15
FY 2015/16
FY 2016/17
FY 2017/18
FY 2018/19
FY 2019/20
FY 2020/21
FY 2021/22
Avg Min Max
July 2,993 3,024 2,985 2,190 2,500 2,665 2,768 2,554 2,494 2,512 2,669 2,190 3,024 August 3,133 3,066 2,903 2,396 2,576 2,689 2,765 2,631 2,552 2,548 2,726 2,396 3,133 September 2,923 2,929 2,774 2,146 2,412 2,416 2,468 2,452 2,338 2,305 2,516 2,146 2,929 October 2,618 2,651 2,558 2,110 2,193 2,394 2,203 2,361 2,229 1,987 2,330 1,987 2,651 November 2,131 2,196 2,158 1,956 1,927 2,046 1,960 1,944 1,858 1,868 2,004 1,858 2,196 December 1,423 1,993 1,551 1,709 1,593 1,959 1,477 1,373 1,824 1,419 1,632 1,373 1,993 January 1,685 2,222 1,787 1,474 1,247 1,746 1,434 1,570 1,539 1,492 1,619 1,247 2,222 February 1,646 1,838 1,804 1,594 1,165 1,693 1,153 1,642 1,441 1,616 1,559 1,153 1,838 March 2,090 2,006 2,275 1,639 1,767 1,556 1,470 1,395 1,690 1,828 1,772 1,395 2,275 April 2,445 2,334 2,220 1,888 2,191 2,091 1,997 1,464 2,017 1,892 2,054 1,464 2,445 May 2,719 2,923 2,043 2,042 2,379 2,280 2,010 2,130 2,227 2,130 2,288 2,010 2,923 June 2,890 2,874 2,185 2,253 2,455 2,402 2,190 2,281 2,364 2,142 2,404 2,142 2,890 Annual
Average 2,391 2,505 2,270 1,950 2,034 2,161 1,991 1,983 2,048 1,978 2,131 - - Note:

Color gradient represents low water demand for lighter shading and higher demand for darker shading

To display the average and standard deviations in demands for the past ten years, minimum, maximum, and average water consumption is estimated for each month from FY 2012/13 to FY 2021/22, as shown in columns on Table 5-4. The overall monthly average demand for the FY 2012/13 to FY 2021/22 period was 2,131 AF. To determine the seasonal average, minimum, and maximum variation factors, the monthly average, minimum, and maximum demands are divided by the overall average demand of 2,131 AF. Figure 5-2 displays a graph of the average, minimum, and maximum factors for each fiscal year. The black line shows the graph of the average factors with a maximum average ratio occurring in the month of August.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.6 Figure 5-2. Seasonal Production Variation for FY 2015/16 Through FY 2021/22

5.1.5 NON-REVENUE WATER
As required by the California Urban Retail Water Suppliers: Water Loss Management legislation (SB 555), the City has conducted annual water loss audits since 2015 per the American Water Works Association (AWWA) methodology to understand the relationship between water loss, operating costs, and revenue losses. Non-revenue water within the distribution system is defined as the difference between facility production volume or supply and billed authorized consumption. Water production, billed water consumption, as well as the non-revenue water loss is shown in Table 5-5 and on Figure 5-3 for FY 2012/13 to FY 2021/22.

Table 5-5. Annual Water Consumption vs. Water Production Fiscal Year
Total Water
Production
(AF)
Total Water
Consumption
(AF)
Non-Revenue Water
(AF)
Water Loss
%
2012/2013 28,694 27,040 1,654 6%
2013/2014 30,058 28,465 1,593 6%
2014/2015 27,244 25,695 1,549 6%
2015/2016 23,384 22,146 1,238 6%
2016/2017 24,359 23,096 1,263 5%
2017/2018 25,948 24,930 1,018 4%
2018/2019 23,937 23,219 718 3%
2019/2020 23,719 22,533 1,186 5%
2020/2021 24,554 23,589 965 4%
2021/2022 23,619 22,805 814 4%

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.7 Figure 5-3. Historical Annual Non-Revenue Water Trend Non-revenue water can be attributed to real system losses such as leaking or broken mains and service lines, unbilled consumption such as hydrant flushing and fire-fighting, or apparent losses including unauthorized consumption, monthly billing estimates, and meter inaccuracies. Table 5-5 shows the water system has had between 3 to 6 percent water loss since FY 2012/13. The highest apparent water loss was in FY 2012/13 to FY 2015/16, at 6 percent. Based on information provided by the City, average water loss equates to 5 percent. The water loss has been steady over the last five years, ranging between 3 percent and 5 percent.

5.2 Existing Water Demands
Water demand is defined as the water that is supplied and is conveyed through the water system and includes non-revenue plus actual water consumption. Therefore, monthly water production data were used to analyze seasonal demand variations. Additionally, for purposes of system evaluations for the hydraulic model analyses, the most current demands from the calendar year 2022 were used to determine the seasonal and existing daily and peak demands in the system.

The City provided daily production data and hourly facility SCADA data for calendar year 2022, which was the latest data available at the time this Master Plan was prepared. Daily production data was used to estimate the annual ADD and maximum day demand (MDD). The hourly SCADA data was used to determine daily diurnal pattern of water use, to account for peak hour demand (PHD) in the model. The ADD and MDD are applied in the model and diurnal patterns are assigned to each demand to account for hourly peaking of water use.
27,040 28,465
25,695
22,146 23,096 24,930 23,219 22,533 23,589 22,805
1,654
1 ,593
1,549
1,238 1,263
1,018
718 1,186 965 814
28,694
3 0,058
27,244
23,384 24,359
25,948
23,937 23,719 24,554 23,619
0 5
,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 Water (acre-feet)
Total Water Consumption Non-Revenue Water Total Water Production WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.8 5.2.1 EXISTING AVERAGE DAY DEMANDS
The production data from calendar year 2022 was used to determine the existing ADD to reflect the most recent existing demand conditions. Based on the 2022 data, the existing system demands are 22,956 AFY. This equates to an average daily demand of 62.9 AF per day, or 20.5 mgd.

5.2.2 EXISTING MONTHLY DEMANDS
Daily production data were summarized into monthly water use and is shown on Figure 5-4. Average monthly water use was 1,913 AF in 2022. Like the historic monthly data analyzed above in Section 5.1.4, maximum monthly water use occurred in August, followed by July. Although Section 5.1.4 shows the FY 2012/13 to FY 2021/22 average minimum monthly water use occurred in February, followed by January then December, the 2022 data is similar in that the minimum monthly water use occurred in December and is followed by January.

Figure 5-4. 2022 Monthly Demands
The maximum month demand for 2022 is 2,384 AF, occurring in August. To determine the maximum month peaking factor, 2,384 AY is divided by the monthly average of 1,913 AF, resulting in a peaking factor of 1.25, as shown in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6. Monthly Demand Factor
Demand Description Demand (AF) Peaking Factor Notes
Monthly Average 1,913 - From January 2022 to December 2022 Maximum Month 2,384 1.25 Occurred in August 2022

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.9 5.2.3 EXISTING MAXIMUM DAY DEMANDS
Using the 2022 daily production data, ADD and MDD water use were estimated to be approximately

62.9 and 92.4 AF, respectively. The MDD water use occurred on July 4, 2022, as show on Figure 5-5.

Figure 5-5. July to August 2022 Daily Water Production
Table 5-7 shows average and maximum daily water use for year 2022. The peaking factor for the daily maximum water use is 1.47. The daily MDD peaking factor is used in the hydraulic model to estimate maximum day demands for the system.

Table 5-7. Maximum Day Demand and Demand Factor
Demand
Description
Daily Demands
(AF)
Daily Demands
(mgd) Peaking Factor Notes
Average Day 62.90 20.50
Maximum Day 92.44 30.12 1.47 Occurred on July 4, 2022

5.2.4 DIURNAL DEMAND PATTERNS
Hourly SCADA data of the City’s production facilities are used to determine the daily diurnal patterns for ADD and MDD conditions. These patterns are applied in the model to create a 24-hour extended period simulation for each condition. Per the most recent annual production data available at the time of the

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.10 study, year 2022, it was determined that March 15, 2022, ADD was approximately 63 AF, close to the annual 2022 ADD of 62.9 AF. To study the ADD and MDD diurnal patterns, SCADA data was requested for March 15, 2022, and July 4, 2022.

SCADA data of pressure and flow data were available for most facilities. Pump data for pump stations included pressure data; however, most did not include flow data. Flow data for wells was available. Tank water level data were available for all tanks. SCADA data were not available for PRVs in the system.

Because of the limited available SCADA data, it was not possible to obtain a diurnal pattern for all pressure zones. Pressure Zone 1, 1A ,1B and 4A had sufficient SCADA data to determine a diurnal pattern for each zone. Pressure Zone 2 and 3 were combined and treated as one zone since pump SCADA data between Zone 2 and 3 was missing. Zones 1C, 2A, 3A, 4, 4A, 4B, 4C did not have sufficient SCADA data, however these zones were like Zone 4A, such that majority of the users were residential customers. Therefore, Zone 4A diurnal pattern was applied to Zones 1C, 2A, 3A, 4, 4A, 4B, 4C. ADD and MDD diurnal patterns were estimated for the following pressure zones:
• Pressure Zone 1
• Pressure Zone 1A
• Pressure Zone 1B
• Pressure Zones 2 and 3 (combined)
• Pressure Zone 4A (used for zones used for 1C, 2A, 3A, 4, 4A, 4B, 4C) The ADD and MDD diurnal patterns were studied, and it was determined that the ADD diurnal patterns were more representative of typical daily use due to missing data from the MDD SCADA data. Therefore, ADD diurnal patterns are used in the model and in this report for diurnal patterns for all zones. The patterns do not differentiate between residential and non-residential customers because available SCADA data did not allow for that level of analysis. The diurnal patterns include a combination of all land use customers.

5.2.4.1 Diurnal Pattern Zone 1
The City provided meter data in geographical information system (GIS) for 2022 water consumption that attributed to each meter, to determine water use per land use. Data revealed that in Pressure Zone 1, 22 percent of total water use comes from non-residential customers and 78 percent are residential users.

Figure 5-6 shows the diurnal pattern for Zone 1 and reflects a more typical residential user diurnal pattern. There is more water used in the morning hours, as people shower, followed by a drop in water use and a little rise in the evening, when people are home from work and use more water. At the peak time, the peaking factor is approximately 1.8, which reflects the PHD factor.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.11 Figure 5-6. Diurnal Pattern Zone 1

5.2.4.2 Diurnal Pattern Zone 1A
The 2022 consumption data combined with the meter data provided in GIS revealed that in Pressure Zone 1A, 42 percent of total water use comes from non-residential users and 58 percent from residential users. Of those non-residential users, 33 percent of water use comes from industrial users, which impacts the pattern of use from a typical residential pattern. Figure 5-7 shows the diurnal pattern for Zone 1A, which is a flat line at a factor of 1, with very small variation. This shows a constant water use for this use with little to no change in usage. The PHD factor is assumed to be 1.0.

Figure 5-7. Diurnal Pattern Zone 1A

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.12 5.2.4.3 Diurnal Pattern Zone 1B
Like Zone 1A, water use in Pressure Zone 1B are split between non-residential and residential, 48 percent and 52 percent, respectively. Of those non-residential users, 35 percent water use is from industrial users. Figure 5-8 shows the diurnal pattern for Zone 1B. There is a slight drop in use between 8:00 AM and 10:00 AM, this could be due to the type of daily water use operations for non-residential or industrial users. The PHD factor is approximately 1.4.

Figure 5-8. Diurnal Pattern Zone 1B

5.2.4.4 Diurnal Pattern Zones 2 and 3
Like Zone 1, Pressure Zones 2 and 3 have most of the water use from residential users, with 75 percent from residential users and approximately 25 percent water use from non-residential users. Figure 5-9 shows the diurnal pattern for Zone 2 and Zone 3, reflecting a more typical residential user pattern. At peak time, the peaking factor is approximately 1.62, which reflects the PHD factor.

Figure 5-9. Diurnal Pattern Zones 2 and 3

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.13 5.2.4.5 Diurnal Pattern Zone 4A
Pressure Zone 4A has mostly residential users: with 85 percent from residential users and 15 percent water from non-residential users. Like Zone 2 and 3, Pressure Zone 4A patterns reflect a typical residential pattern. The peaking factor is approximately 1.97, which reflects the PHD factor. Pressure Zone 4A doesn’t include industrial users, and has much lower number or commercial users, which can impact the PHD. Typical industry standard for PHD is approximately 2 times ADD, which is close to what is seen for Pressure Zone 4A on Figure 5-10. Since Pressure Zones 1C, 2A, 3A, 4, 4A, 4B, 4C include similar land uses with a majority of residential water users, the diurnal pattern for Zone 4A can be applied for those zones as well.

Figure 5-10. Diurnal Pattern Zone 4A

5.2.1 SUMMARY OF PEAKING FACTORS AND EXISTING DEMANDS
Table 5-8 below provides a summary of the resulting existing demands and peaking factors based on the data provided for 2022. The PHD demand factors shown are applied to the MDD for the zone to determine the PHD for that zone.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.14 Table 5-8. Existing Demands and Factors Summary
Demand Description Existing Demand
(mgd)
Maximum Day Demand Peaking
Factor
Average Day 20.50 -
Maximum Month 25.05 1.25
Maximum Day 30.12 1.47
Peak Hour Demand:

Zone 1 - 1.80
Zone 1A - 1.00
Zone 1B - 1.40
Zones 2 & 3 - 1.62
Zones 1C, 2A, 3A, 4, 4A, 4B, 4C - 1.97

5.3 Population Projections
To estimate future demand projections using the population method, population data were obtained from the CDR at California State University, Fullerton. CDR updates the population data annually and the latest data available during the preparation of this Master Plan reflects data published in May 2022, which reflects the 2020 census. Note that population data in the City’s 2020 UWMP reflects data from CDR, however that data reflects the 2010 census, and therefore varies from data used in this Master Plan.

Figure 5-11 shows a comparison of the population projections of the City’s service area per this Master Plan and City’s 2020 UWMP. Population projections change annually as more data is available.

Per the 2020 UWMP, based on the 2010 census, population growth was predicted to increase

33.9 percent from 141,648 in 2020 to 189,687 in 2045. This equates to annual population growth of

1.4 percent. However, the population projections in this Master Plan, based on 2020 census, show a projected population growth of 22.4 percent over the same time frame, from 142,070 to 173,936, respectively. This equates to annual population growth of 0.9 percent. Population projections change vastly as time goes on due to shifts in social and economic factors, and population densifies due to housing requirement allocations based on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and ADU plans within the City.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.15 Figure 5-11. Population Projections

5.4 Future Demand Projections
Various methodologies are available in the industry when projecting future demands. The methodologies evaluated in this Master Plan are based on population growth projections, land use changes based on the City’s General Plan, development growth, and historical trends. Also, the demand projections from the City’s 2020 UWMP are compared to the projections in this Master Plan. Based on the results from each methodology, a future projection methodology will be recommended.

5.4.1 2020 UWMP Methodology
In the 2020 UWMP, the population projections from the CDR provided a baseline projection for the City.

The City revised the population and dwelling unit data developed by CDR to accommodate the growth due to the RHNA allocations of the City (2020 UWMP, Sections 3.4.3 and 3.5). Additionally, as stated in the 2020 UWMP, in 2021, MWDOC and OCWD, in collaboration with member agencies, led the effort to update water demand projections originally done as part of the 2021 OC Water Demand Forecast for MWDOC and OCWD. The updated demand projections were for the Orange County region as a whole and provided retail agency specific demands. The projections span the years of 2025-2050 and are based upon information surveyed from each Orange County water agency. This survey evaluated data for FY 2017/18, FY 2018/19, and FY 2019/20 water use by major sector, including number of accounts. • For residential projections, water use of gallons per home per day was estimated. Water use was split into indoor and outdoor water use based on:

Residential End Uses of Water (Water Research Foundation, 2016); California’s plumbing codes and landscape ordinances; and California Department Water

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.16 Resources (DWR) Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) calculator.
• For commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) water demands, unit demand from FY 2019/20 was used to estimate demands from 2020 to 2025, since demands have been stable from a unit use perspective (gallons/account/day).

From 2030 to 2050, the average CII unit use from FY 2017/18 and FY 2018/19 was used. These unit use factors were then multiplied by an assumed growth of CII accounts under three broad scenarios: low, medium, high. For Fullerton, the mid-scenario was used since medium growth is expected for the City based on the UWMP. Note that the CII projections also accounted for the City’s largest single industrial customer closing operations officially on June 30, 2020, and the replacement customer’s projected water consumption being notably less.

For a detailed description of the methodology used to project future demands for the City’s service area, please refer to the City’s 2020 UWMP Section 4.3.1. Table 5-9 reflects the demand projections from the City’s 2020 UWMP. It was projected that water use will increase by 16.2 percent by 2045.

Table 5-9. City’s 2020 UWMP Future Demand Projections
Year Existing 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Water Consumption (acre-feet) 24,806 26,535 26,649 26,755 26,928 Estimated Non-revenue Watera (acre-feet) 849 909 912 916 922 Projected Water Use (acre-feet) 23,799b 25,655 27,444 27,561 27,671 27,850 Demand increase (percent) - 7.8% 7.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6%
Notes:
a 2020 UWMP assumed 3.4 percent water loss for non-revenue water. b Existing 2020 production data reflects data from the City’s 2020 UWMP.

5.4.2 POPULATION PROJECTION METHODOLOGY
This method uses the latest available population projection data (May 2022 CDR) and includes population growth due to RHNA and the addition of ADUs by year 2030. The increase in ADUs implies an increase in number of people per dwelling unit which translates to higher water demand. Per the 2020 UWMP Table 4.5, 39.3 percent of the City’s allocated housing needs for the planning period from 2021 to 2029 are considered low-income housing, which is estimated to 3,198 very low income and 1,989 low-income households, totaling 5,187 households. For purposes of this Master Plan, and for conservative purposes to evaluate if the system can handle extreme growth, 5,187 households are assumed to be the number of future ADUs.

The City of Fullerton currently averages 3 people per dwelling unit and with a total of 5,187 additional households by year 2029, it is projected that this will result in an additional 15,561 people by 2030. Future demands were then projected using this updated population and the historical per capita water use of WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.17 145 gpcd calculated in Section 5.1.3. The future annual system projected demands are outlined in Table 5-10. Using the population methodology, it is projected water use will increase by 26.9 percent by 2045.

Table 5-10. Demand Projections per Population Methodology Year
Existing 2022
Productionb 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population 147,696 151,606 153,996 156,742 158,323
Population including population for ADU 15,613 15,613 15,613 15,613 Total Population 147,696 167,219 169,609 172,355 173,936 Demand per Capita per Day (gpcd) 145 145 145 145 145
Average Daily Projected Water
Consumption (mgd)

21.42 24.25 24.59 24.99 25.22
Projected Water Consumption (AF) 23,989 27,160 27,548 27,994 28,251 Estimated Non-revenue Watera (AF) 1,199 1,358 1,377 1,400 1,413 Projected Water Use (AF) 22,956 25,188 28,518 28,925 29,394 29,663 Demand increase (percent) - 9.7% 13.2% 1.4% 1.6% 0.9%
Notes:
a This Master Plan assumes 5% water loss, average from FY 2019/20 to FY 2021/22 b Existing 2022 production data reflects data from this Master Plan

5.4.3 LAND USE METHODOLOGY
As anticipated, over time, population growth has slowed as the City approaches a completely built-out development. To estimate future water demands using the land use methodology, both existing and future land use are analyzed. Future land use reflects the City’s General Plan (GP). Unit demand factors are determined for each existing land use and then applied to future land use to determine future demands. Unit demand factors are water use per day per land use category. In addition, the City currently has planned development projects that provide specific development information and will update the GP.

These projects are scheduled to be built in the next few years. Demands for these projects are estimated and added to the near-term planning horizon, in the next five years.

5.4.3.1 Existing and Future Land Use
Existing land use information within the service area is based on GIS data provided by the City. Parcels are assigned zoning and general plan land uses based on over 30 land use designations. Since many of these land uses are similar in nature from a water use perspective, the land uses have been consolidated into 15 land use designations as summarized in Table 5-11. This Master Plan focuses on these land uses in determining current and future water demand allocations. Existing and future land uses are shown in Figure 5-12 and Figure 5-13, respectively. Figure 5-14 shows the future land use density increase compared to existing land use.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.18 Table 5-11. Existing and Future Land Use Designation and Area General Plan/Zoning Land Use
Water Master Plan
Land Use
Designation
Existing Future (2045) Delta
Area
(acres) Percent Area
(acres) Percent Percent
R-1 One-Family Residential Low Density
Residential 5,144 43.7% 5,304 45.1% 1.4% R-1-P One-Family Residential, Preservation
R-2 Two-Family Residential
Low-Medium Density
Residential 510 4.3% 456 3.9% -0.5%
R-2P Two-Family Residential
Preservation
R-G Garden-Type Multiple
Residential
R-MH Mobile Home Park
R-3 Limited Density, Multiple
Family Residential
Medium Density
Residential 857 7.3% 875 7.4% 0.2%
R-3P Limited Density, Multiple
Family Residential Preservation
R-3R Restricted (Single Story)
Multiple Residential
R-4 Medium Density, Multiple
Residential
R-5 Maximum Density, Multiple
Residential
High Density
Residential 53 0.5% 56 0.5% 0.0%
C-3 Central Business District
Commercial
Commercial 663 5.6% 600 5.1% -0.5% C-G Commercial Greenbelt G-C General Commercial
O-P Office Professional
Office 257 2.2% 259 2.2% 0.0%
Religious Use
P-L Public Land
Government Facilities 202 1.7% 215 1.8% 0.1%
School Facilities 661 5.6% 653 5.6% -0.1%
C-M Commercial, Manufacturing
Industrial 1,197 10.2% 1,216 10.3% 0.2% M-G Manufacturing, General M-P Manufacturing Park
O-G Oil Gas
Open Space 790 6.7% 136 1.2% -5.6%
O-S HA Open Space Hillside Area
O-S PP Open Space Public Park
O-S VP Open Space View Park
O-S WH Open Space Wildlife
Habitat
O-S GC Open Space Golf Course
Parks and Recreation 1,084 9.2% 992 8.4% -0.8% O-S PR Open Space Private Open Space
O-S PU Open Space Public Utility
Use
Road/Railroad/OCFCD 332 2.8% 325 2.8% -0.1%
Not Zoned - Road
Not Zoned - Railroad
Not Zoned - Orange County Flood
Control District (OCFD)
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.19 General Plan/Zoning Land Use
Water Master Plan
Land Use
Designation
Existing Future (2045) Delta
Area
(acres) Percent Area
(acres) Percent Percent
Urban Center Mixed Use Urban Center Mixed
Use 14 0.1% 34 0.3% 0.2%
Downtown Mixed Use Downtown Mixed Use 0 0.0% 39 0.3% 0.3% Greenbelt Concept Greenbelt Concept 0 0.0% 604 5.1% 5.1% Total 11,764 100.0% 11,764 100.0% -
Note:

Although the City is 22.4 sq mi (14,336 ac), the total land use parcel acres do not include all roads and highways.

OCFCD = Orange County Flood Control District

Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig5-12_ExistingLandUseCity of Fullerton, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Figure 5-12. Existing Land Use

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
11/15/2024´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
LEGEND
City Boundary
Low Density Residential
Low-Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Office
Government Facilities
School Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Open Space
Industrial
Road/Railroad/OCFCD
Urban Center Mixed Use
Note:
- Land use based on City of Fullerton
2019 General Plan Existing Zoning
- Land use updated as needed to
match current actual ground-built
conditions per Google Earth
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig5-13_FutureLandUseCity of Fullerton, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Figure 5-13. Future Land Use

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
11/15/2024´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
LEGEND
City Boundary
Low Density Residential
Low-Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Office
Government Facilities
School Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Open Space
Industrial
Road/Railroad/OCFCD
Urban Center Mixed Use
Downtown Mixed Use
Greenbelt Concept
Note:
- Land use based on City of Fullerton
2019 General Plan Future Zoning
- Future conditions assumed to be
build out year 2045
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig5-14_LandUseDensityIncreaseCity of Fullerton, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Figure 5-14. Land Use Density Increase between 2019 and 2045

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
2/20/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
LEGEND
City Boundary
Land Use Density Increase
Note:
- Density Increase from Existing
Land Use shown on Figure 5-12
to build-out conditions per City
of Fullerton 2019 General Plan
(assumed to be 2045)
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.23 5.4.3.2 General Plan Land Use Demand Projections
Water demands can be projected from existing water use and land use. Existing land use type and 2022 water consumption data was used to estimate water duty or unit demand factors for each existing land use as shown in Table 5-12. For example, the existing water duty factors for Low-Density Residential land use is approximately 1,869 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac). This factor is multiplied by the land use area at build-out year to estimate future demands. Build-out year is assumed in 2045 for this Master Plan.

For future land use Urban Center Mixed Use (UCMU), Downtown Mixed Use (DMU), and the Greenbelt Concept Project (GCP), land use densities from Table 5 of the GP are used to estimate the unit demand factors, since there is no comparable existing land use. Per the GP Table 5, the maximum density of the UCMU, DMU, and GCP are 80, 60, and 3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) respectively and the Low Density Residential maximum density is 6 du/ac. To project demands for the UCMU and the DMU, the High Density Residential factor is recommended since the densities per the GP Table 5 are similar. To project demands for the GCP, the factor for the Low Density Residential land use is recommended since the densities per the GP Table 5 are similar with only slight variation in range. The total land use for GCP is 604 acres of which approximately 150 acres has been planned for the West Coyote Hills Project, a long term planned project. The total build-out water demand projection is approximately 24,349 AF, which is about 6.1 percent higher than the 2022 water use of 22,956 AF. Note that this does not include demands from near-term planned development projects. Section 5.4.3.3 describes the addition of demands from near-term planned projects to complete the land use demand projection methodology.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.24 Table 5-12. General Plan Land Use Method Demand Projections Land Use
Existing
Annual
(AF)
Gallons
per day
(gpd)a
Existing
Land Use
(ac)
Existing
Unit
Demand
Factors
(gpd/ac)
Build-out
Land Use
(ac)
Build-out
Demands
(gpd)
Build-out
Demands
(AF)
Low Density
Residential 10,769 9,614,186
5,144 1,869 5,304 9,913,227 11,104
Low-Medium Density
Residential 1,264 1,127,995
510 2,212 456 1,008,560 1,130
Medium Density
Residential 4,135 3,691,278 857 4,307 875 3,768,807 4,222 High Density
Residential 426 380,370 53 7,177 56 401,901 450
Commercial 1,537 1,372,518 663 2,070 600 1,242,098 1,391 Office 500 445,951 257 1,735 259 449,422 503
Government Facilities 89 79,634 202 394 215 84,759 95
School Facilities 1,038 926,567 661 1,402 653 915,353 1,025 Industrial 1,686 1,505,554 1,197 1,258 1,216 1,529,452 1,713 Open Space (Parks
and Recreation) 1,434 1,280,414 1,874 683 1128 770,708 863 Road/Railroad/OCFCD 0 0 332 - 325 0 0
Urban Center Mixed
Use 78 69,329 14 7,177 b 34 244,011 273
Downtown Mixed Use - - - 7,177 b 39 279,895 314
Greenbelt Concept - - - 1,869 c 454 848,530 950
West Coyote Hills - - - - 150 d 280,351 314
Total Production 22,956 20,493,796 11,764 - 11,764 21,737,075 24,349 Notes:

Land use does not include Road/Railroad/OCFCD since water is not produced from this land use. a Data was based on consumption data, assumed 5% loss to estimate water production and include non-revenue water. b Urban Center Mixed Use factor of 7,177 gpd/ac is used to estimate duty factor for Downtown Mixed Use land use. c Low Density Residential factor of 1,869 gpd/ac is used to estimate duty factor for the Green Belt Concept. d West Coyote Hills project acres is estimated from the 2022 vesting tentative map (VTTM 17609).

GP = General Plan

5.4.3.3 Planned Development Demand Projections
In addition to the GP land uses proposed as shown in Table 5-12 in the previous section, the City’s planning department provided details on recent development projects that are updates to the GP information. To estimate demands for these development projects, the existing unit demands per land use are further refined to include residential density, dwelling unit per acre. The City’s GP defined land use densities are shown in Table 5-13. The GP provided ranges in densities and floor to area ratio (FAR) per land use. FAR is the measurement of a building's floor area in relation to the size of the lot/parcel that the building is located on.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.25 Table 5-13. General Plan Land Use Density
Land Use General Plan Table 5 Densities Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Low Density Residential Up to 6 du/ac Up to .35 FAR
Low-Medium Density
Residential Up to 15 du/ac, min 6.1 du/ac Up to .35 FAR Medium Density Residential Up to 28 du/ac, min 15.1 du/ac Up to .50 FAR High Density Residential no max du/ac, min 28.1 du/ac Up to .65 FAR Urban Center Mixed Use Min Density: 30 dwelling units/acre Max Density: 80 dwelling units/acre Min FAR: 0.75 Max FAR: 3.0 Downtown Mixed Use Min Density: 30 dwelling units/acre
Max Density: 60 dwelling units/acre Min FAR: 0.9 Max FAR: 2.0 Greenbelt Concept Up to 3 dwelling units/acre NA
Commercial NA Min FAR: 0.30 Max FAR: 0.35
Office NA Min FAR: 0.30 Max FAR: 0.35
Industrial NA Min FAR: 0.30 Max FAR: 0.5
Max = maximum
Min = minimum
NA = not applicable

Per the City’s direction, midpoint densities were chosen to define the unit demands shown in Table 5-14 and used to estimate the demand projections for the City’s near-term development projects. Note that densities are unknown for these projects and a conservative unit demand was estimated for future ADUs assuming 65 percent of the unit demand for Low Density Residential land use, equating to 276 gpd per dwelling unit (gpd/du). As more ADUs get built and occupied, historical water use for these uses will become available, and the unit factor can be adjusted in the future.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.26 Table 5-14. Unit Demand Factors per Land Use
Land Use
Existing Unit
Demand Factorsa
(gpd/ac)
Densityb (du/ac)
Residential Unit
Demand Factor
(gpd/du)
Low Density Residential 1,869 4 425
Low-Medium Density Residential 2,212 7 340
Medium Density Residential 4,307 22 200
High Density Residential 7,177 54 133
Residential ADUc NA NA 276
Urban Center Mixed Use 7,177 54 133
Downtown Mixed Use 7,177 45 159
Greenbelt Concept 1,869 3 425
Commercial 2,070
NA NA
Office 1,735
Government Facilities 394
School Facilities 1,402
Industrial 1,258
Open Space (Parks and Recreation) 683
Notes:
a Existing Unit Demand Factors reflect values shown in Table 5-12. These factors can be used to estimate demands for future land use where detailed information including building size and dwelling unit count for the developments are not available. b Densities reflect the midpoint of densities defined in the GP and shown in Table 5-13 except for the Low Density Residential.

Existing demands and number of Low Density Residential accounts was used to determine the density for the Low Density Residential category, since these reflect single family homes with one meter serving one dwelling unit. c ADU Unit Demand (gpd/du) is estimated at 65% of Low Density Residential Land Use.

NA = not applicable

The City provided a list of projects with information regarding proposed dwelling units, building size, and land use information as shown in Table 5-15. Estimated planning horizons were also provided by the City in terms of existing, near-term (by 2035) and future (2045 and beyond). This information and the unit demand factors from Table 5-14 was used to estimate the near-term demands from the proposed developments. The near-term horizon reflects year 2035. It is anticipated that by year 2035, an additional 377 AF of water demand will be needed from planned developments.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.27 Table 5-15. City’s Near-term (by 2035) Development Projects and Demands Project Name Project
Land Use
Area
(ac)
Unit
Factor
(gpd/ac)
Dwelling
Units
(du)
Unit
Factor
(gpd/du)
Demand
(gpd)
Demand
(acre-
feet)
Shoe City Billboard
Commercial 6.62 2,070 NA NA 13,704 15
Commercial Remodel on W.

Commonwealth
Remodel of Bowling Alley
New Restaurants on Santa Fe Ave
Parkwest Project
Downtown
MU 4.44 7177 140 159 54,126 61
Fox Block
Fullerton Fox Theatre
Fox Block Mixed-Use Development
245 N. State College Blvd.

High
Residential NA NA 485 133 64,505 72
The Hub
Casa Bella
Pathways of Hope
Rexford Industrial Project –
1500 S. Raymond
Industrial 20.6 1,258 NA NA 25,935 29
Rexford Industrial Project –
1901 Via Burton
Acacia and Kimberly Industrial
project
Truck yard
737 N Highland Avenue
Low
Residential NA NA 17 425 7,225 8 Subdivision on Ladera Vista Parcel Map on Valley View
New Mixed-Use Development,
Streetlights
Medium
Residential NA NA 405 200 81,000 91
321 E. Amerige Avenue
Pointe Common
New Residential Townhomes
Law Office on E. Amerige Office 1 1,735 NA NA 1,735 2
Southwest corner of Orangethorpe
and Brookhurst
Urban MU 8.26 7177 216 133 88,010 99
Hillcrest Project
The Pines
Total 88 1,263 336,241 377
Note:

Near-term planning horizon reflects year 2035.

NA = not applicable

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.28 5.4.3.4 Land Use Methodology Demand Projections
This section summarizes the demands projected from the changes in land use, reflecting the GP, the contribution of the 377 AF of water from planned developments and demands from future ADUs. For purposes of this Master Plan and as described earlier in Section 5.4.2 herein, 5,187 households are the number of future ADUs. To project future water demands from ADUs, the 5,187 units are multiplied by the unit factor for ADU, which is 276, as shown in Table 5-14. Total demand projections are shown in Table 5-16, by planning year from 2025 to 2045, at every 5-year increment. It is projected water use will increase by 13.4 percent by 2045.

Table 5-16. General Plan Land Use Method Demand Projections by Planning Year Existing
2022 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
GP Land Use Method Demand Projections 22,956 22,662 23,411 23,743 24,130 24,349 Near-term Planned Projects 377 377 377 377 377
ADU Projects 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604
Projected Water Use (acre-feet) 22,956 24,643 25,392 25,724 26,110 26,329 Demand increase %
(assumed similar rate as population methodology)

6.8% 3.0% 1.3% 1.5% 0.8%
GP = General Plan

5.4.4 HISTORICAL DEMAND METHODOLOGY
Demand projections can also be estimated using historical water demand trends. For this method, FY 2015/16 to FY 2021/22 were used. Figure 5-15 features a graph of the historical demand from the early 1970s and its trendline, showing an overall decreasing trend in demand. The trendline is then projected to forecast demand to the year 2045, which is approximately 25,000 AF.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.29 Figure 5-15. Historical Demand Trend

5.5 Summary of Demand Projections
A comparison of projected water demands from methodologies based on the 2020 UWMP, land use, population, and historical demands are shown in Table 5-17 and Figure 5-16. • The population methodology demand projections align with the 2020 UWMP demand projections for 2030, however the population methodology projects higher demands in 2045.
• The land use methodology demand projections are lower than the 2020 UWMP and the population methodology projections. Future land use reflects the average densities as defined in the City’s GP and does not consider the increase in population intensification.
• The historical trend line is showing a drop in demand and is based on historical population trends remaining consistent in the future. Additionally, not enough historical data was analyzed to adequately predict the future demands.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.30 Table 5-17. Summary of Demand Projections
Methodology
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
2020 -
2045
Percent
Delta
AFY
City’s 2020 UWMP Future Demand Projections 25,655 27,444 27,561 27,671 27,850 +16.2% Demand Projections per Population Methodology 25,188 28,518 28,925 29,394 29,663 +26.9% Land Use Method Demand Projections 24,643 25,392 25,724 26,110 26,329 +13.4% Historical Demand Projection 25,000

Figure 5-16. Graph of Demand Projections

5.6 Recommended Future Water Demand Projections
The 2020 UWMP included a thorough analysis of the demand projections and reflected the 2021 Orange County Water Demand Forecast for MWDOC and OCWD study, considering indoor and outdoor water use as well as RHNA allocation requirements. The 2020 UWMP projections fall between the population and the land use projections, validating that they are neither too conservative nor too aggressive. The demand projections from the 2020 UWMP are recommended for this Master Plan.

15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
2045
Water Demand Projection
(acre-feet)
2020 UWMP Land Use Method
Historical Data Population Method
Historical Trendline Projection
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.31 5.7 Drought Regulations and Water Conservation
The changing climate requires Californians to adopt permanent changes to make conservation a way of life, using water more wisely to prepare for more frequent periods of limited water supply.

5.7.1 DROUGHT REGULATIONS
On October 19, 2021, Governor Newsom expanded the drought emergency statewide, including Orange County, to reduce water consumption by 15 percent due to drought conditions in northern California and along the Colorado River. The 15 percent water conservation was voluntary, but standard conservation measures were enforced.

On January 4, 2022, the State Water Board adopted an emergency water use regulation. The water conservation requirements are as follows and available on State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) website:

Effective until December 2023:

1. Prohibited for all Californians prohibition on wasteful water uses remains in effect:
• Outdoor watering that lets water run onto sidewalks and other areas (except incidental runoff)
• Washing vehicles without an automatic shutoff nozzle
• Washing hard surfaces like driveways or sidewalks that don’t absorb water • Street cleaning or construction site preparation
• Filling decorative fountains, lakes, or ponds without a recirculation pump • Outdoor watering within 48 hours after at least 1/4 inch of rainfall • Watering decorative grass on public medians

2. Additional requirements for Urban Water Suppliers
• Follow all prohibitions listed in Item 1
• If needed, exercise authority to adopt more stringent local conservation measures
On May 24, 2022, in response to Governor Newsom’s March 28, 2022, Executive Order N-7-22, the State Water Board adopted an emergency water use regulation to endure more aggressive conservation by local water agencies across the state. The water conservation requirements are as follows and available on SWRCB’s website: All urban water suppliers to implement conservation actions under Level 2 of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans.

Effective until June 2024:

1. Prohibited for all Californians, for commercial, institutional, and homeowners’ association (HOA) common areas
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.32 • Watering decorative grass in commercial, industrial, and institutional areas, including common areas of HOAs. Note: You may also be a customer of a local water supplier that adopted different and/or stricter water conservation measures; check with your supplier about its current restrictions.

2. Additional requirements for Urban Water Suppliers
• Follow all prohibitions listed in Item 1
• If needed, exercise authority to adopt more stringent local conservation measures
On March 24, 2023, Governor Newsom’s Executive Order (N-5-23), reduced emergency drought requirements. This did not immediately terminate current State Water Board water conservation emergency regulations. The State Water Boards emergency regulations are still in effect except for urban water suppliers, statewide Level 2 demand reduction actions are no longer required. The requirement for urban water suppliers to implement demand-reduction actions that correspond to at least Level 2 of their water shortage contingency plans is no longer in effect since June 5, 2024. Local water suppliers may adopt different and/or stricter water conservation measures.

On June 7, 2024, the Fullerton City Council adopted Level 2 (20 percent conservation) of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Per the City’s website, the following mandatory water use restrictions have been in effect since June 10, 2024:
• No watering lawns on Sundays. Even addresses water on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Odd addresses water on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday.
• Prohibit watering lawns on all days between the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm. • Prohibit using a hose to wash down paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, and parking areas.
• All leaks from indoor and outdoor plumbing fixtures shall be promptly repaired. • Must use a shutoff nozzle to wash a motor vehicle.

5.7.2 WATER CONSERVATION
Per the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City met its 2020 water use target and complies with SBx7-7 (Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session), which was signed into law in 2010 and requires the State of California to reduce urban water use by 20 percent by 2020 from a 2013 baseline. Per City’s 2020 UWMP, the reported 2020 consumption was 111 gpcd, well is below its 2020 target of 179 gpcd.

The City works closely with MWD and MWDOC to promote regional efficiency by participating in the regional water savings programs, leveraging MWDOC local program assistance, and applying the findings of MWDOC’s research and evaluation efforts.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water Use
March 2025

5.33 Section 9 of the City’s 2020 UWMP reports the role of City programs in meeting new state regulations for complying with the SWRCB new Conservation Framework. The categories of demand management measures are as follows and detailed description is provided in the City’s 2020 UWMP:

Water waste prevention ordinances are in accordance with Ordinance No. 3118 (2008) and Ordinance No. 3299. Ordinance No. 3118 was replaced On June 1, 2021. The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3299, an updated Water Conservation Planning Ordinance. Prohibited uses include the following:

1. Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
• Permitting the excess use or loss of water through leaks, breaks or malfunctions from indoor and outdoor plumbing fixtures
• Water runoff from landscaped areas into adjoining streets, sidewalks, or other paved areas due to incorrectly directed or incorrectly maintained sprinklers or excessive watering
• Cleaning, filling, or maintaining levels with potable water in decorative fountains, or other similar aesthetic structures, unless such water is part of a recirculating system
• Washing motor vehicles, trailers, boats, and other types of mobile equipment with hose not equipped with a positive shutoff nozzle for quick rinses • Hosing off paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, and parking areas, except as required for health and safety purposes
• Outdoor watering of turf areas and other landscape areas with potable water during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall
• Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians
• Hand watering of plants and trees is encouraged during the early mornings and evenings

2. Metering

3. Conservation pricing

4. Public education and outreach

5. Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss

6. Water conservation program coordination and staffing support

7. Other Demand Management Measures (DMM) that have a significant impact on water use as measured in gpcd, including innovative measures, if implemented

8. Programs to assist retailers with Conservation Framework Compliance

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning and Evaluation Criteria
March 2025

6.1 6.0 Planning and Evaluation Criteria
Planning and evaluation criteria provide a means by which the hydraulic performance and reliability of an existing system can be evaluated, and for planning of facilities to meet future system conditions and demands. Criteria has been recommended based on established criteria in the City of Fullerton Public Works Department Water Utility Specifications published in April 2022 as well as AWWA guidelines for potable water system planning, as summarized in Table 6-1.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning and Evaluation Criteria
March 2025

6.2 Table 6-1. Summary of Planning Criteria
Potable Water Unit Demand Factors
Unit Demand
Factors
(gpd/acre)
Density
(du/ac)
Residential Unit
Demand Factor
(gpd/du)
Low Density Residential 1,869 4 425
Low-Medium Density Residential 2,212 7 340
Medium Density Residential 4,307 22 200
High Density Residential 7,177 54 133
Residential ADU NA NA 276
Urban Center Mixed Use 7,177 54 133
Downtown Mixed Use 7,177 45 159
Greenbelt Concept 1,869 3 425
Commerciala 2,070
NA NA
Office 1,735
Government Facilities 394
School Facilities 1,402
Industrial 1,258
Open Space (Parks and Recreation) 683
Potable Water Distribution System Value Unit
Minimum Pipeline Diameter 8 inch
Average Day Velocity <5 fps
Peak Hour Velocity <7.5 fps
Max Day + Fire Flow Velocity <15 fps
Maximum Pressure 120 psi
Minimum Pressure for Peak Hour 40 psi
Minimum Pressure for MDD + Fire Flow 20 psi
Fire Flow Value Unit
Low Density Residential, Low-Medium Density Residential 1,500 gpm Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential 2,500 gpm Commerciala 3,000 gpm
School Facilities 3,500 gpm
Industrial 4,000 gpm
Storage Value Unit
Emergency Storage 1 x MDD mg
Operational Storage: Low and Low-Medium Density
Residential 0.18 mg
Operational Storage: Medium and High Density Residential 0.45 mg Operational Storage: Commerciala 0.54 mg
Operational Storage: School Facilities 0.63 mg
Operational Storage: Industrial 0.96 mg
Notes:
a Includes commercial, office, government facilities, and parks and recreation land uses fps = feet per second
NA = not applicable
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning and Evaluation Criteria
March 2025

6.3 6.1 Water Distribution System Criteria
Multiple water sources are recommended in combination with adequate emergency reserve either in gravity or pumped reservoir storage, and or groundwater pumping, equipped with emergency power sources to maintain pumping capacity. As much as possible, all water distribution system mains should be looped for reliability and fire protection. Dead-end mains with more than two fire hydrants are generally not acceptable to the City, except in phased development projects or where no potential for future interconnection of facilities exist. Approved dead-end mains that will not serve fire hydrants may be sized as hydraulically appropriate in residential areas and no less than 8-inches in diameter in commercial areas.

Pipeline Diameter: Pipe sizing and construction should be in accordance with the latest version of the City of Fullerton Public Works Department Water Utility Specifications. Unless otherwise specified by the Public Works Department, distribution water mains should be polyvinyl chloride (PVC) C900. If ductile iron is proposed, polyethylene encasing should be used. Water distribution pipeline diameter should be sized as required hydraulically to service meters and should be no smaller than 4-inches. However, the minimum pipeline diameter is 8-inches for fire hydrants service. All pipelines should be designed and sized for peak hour demands or MDD plus fire flow conditions, whichever is greater. The City does not use 10-, 14-, and 20-inch-diameter pipelines.

Pipeline Velocities: Maximum velocity in pipelines should not exceed 7.5 fps with certain exceptions such as pipes near pump stations or other supply facilities. However, the maximum velocity for MDD plus fire flow is 15 fps. Pipeline evaluation criteria are summarized in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2. Pipeline Velocity Evaluation Criteria
Operating Condition Desired Range
(fps)
Marginal Range
(fps)
Deficient Range
(fps)
Average Day Demand Up to 5 5 to 7 Over 7
Peak Hour Demand Up to 7 7 to 10 Over 10
Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow Analysis Up to 15 - Over 15

System Pressures: A municipal water system should be capable of providing a minimum of 40 psi service pressure for average day, maximum day, and peak hour demand conditions. Maximum service pressures should not exceed 120 psi. The minimum residual pressures during a fire flow event at fire hydrants should be greater than or equal to 20 psi based on flow requirements shown in Table 6-1.

6.2 Storage Criteria
The storage necessary for reliable potable water system operation is divided into three categories:
emergency, operational, and fire flow emergency storage. These storage volumes are typically provided in system storage (reservoirs). Regional emergency storage is provided through the Orange County WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning and Evaluation Criteria
March 2025

6.4 groundwater basin and MWD. In specific planning studies, the criteria can vary. A detailed discussion of when and how these criteria should be applied is presented below.

Emergency Storage Requirements. Emergency conditions will occur occasionally in all water systems.

These emergencies can be either regional (typically source of supply outages) or localized (pipe, pump, or electrical failures). Demands can be met under these conditions provided provisions are made for appropriate emergency supply and/or storage. For this Master Plan, emergency storage is based on the volume required for one MDD.

Where two sources of supply to a pressure zone are available, the emergency storage requirement may be met from another zone such as pressure reduced from a higher pressure zone through a PRV or pumped up from a lower pressure zone. If emergency supply from another zone needs to be pumped, then the pump station must be equipped with emergency backup power. If two sources of supply are not practical, then the zone should have sufficient storage to meet all emergency criteria with the supply out of service. Storage should be within the pressure zone or can flow from higher pressure zone storage.

Operational Storage Requirements. Storage is typically provided in each pressure zone to balance the differences between the rate of supply and the hourly demand variation on a maximum day. Operational storage is also referred to as equalization storage.

Typically, the storage facility is replenished during hours when the demand is less than the supply rate and usually occurs in the night-time hours. For this Master Plan, the operational storage requirement is based on 30-percent of MDD.

Fire Flow Storage Requirements: Fire flow storage is based on the requirements in Table 6-3 and is a function of the required fire flow rate times duration.

Table 6-3. Fire Flow and Fire Storage Requirements
Land Use Fire Flow (gpm) Duration (hours) Storage (MG)
Low Density and Low-Medium Density Residential 1,500 2 0.18 Medium and High Density Residential 2,500 3 0.45
Commerciala 3,000 3 0.54
School Facilities 3,500 3 0.63
Industrial 4,000 4 0.96
Note:
a Includes commercial, office, government facilities, and parks and recreation land uses

The fire storage volume provided for each pressure zone or storage service area should be based on the largest fire flow requirement for all the land uses within the zone or service area. Zones 1, 1A, and 1B include industrial land use as the largest fire flow requirement and would require a storage volume of

0.96 MG. Zone 2 includes school facilities land use as the largest fire flow requirement, with a storage WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning and Evaluation Criteria
March 2025

6.5 volume requirement of 0.63 MG. The largest fire flow requirement in Zone 3 is commercial land use, requiring a storage volume of 0.54 MG.

6.3 Pumping Criteria
Booster pump stations must be capable of pumping the design flow rate with the largest pumping unit out of service. Therefore, a backup or stand-by pump is to be provided, equal to the largest pump in the station. The design flow rate should meet MDD for the zone being pumped to but will depend on whether there is adequate storage for operational and fire flow requirements. The pump station should be equipped with a permanent backup power source. A portable generator can also be considered acceptable as a backup power source for the station. However, portable generators should be considered on a case-by-case basis for each station and coordinated with operations to determine response times and number of portable generators required.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Model Development and Calibration
March 2025

7.1 7.0 Model Development and Calibration
The City requested a new hydraulic model be created to reflect a one-to-one pipe relationship with their GIS data. Autodesk’s InfoWater Pro 2023.3 software was used to develop and calibrate the new hydraulic model. A one-to-one model was built using the latest GIS database provided by the City (2022). The model was further updated to include projects currently in construction and improvements completed since 2022 based on as-built plans also provided by the City. The demands allocated in the model were assigned based on City water meter data from 2022. Additional details about the model development are summarized in Appendix C.

The hydraulic model was calibrated for both steady-state (SS) analysis and extended period simulation (EPS). Model calibration is the process of comparing model results with field results and adjusting model parameters where appropriate until the model results closely match corresponding field measurement data, within an acceptable difference of 10 percent. The goal is to calibrate the model to MDD conditions.

An accurately calibrated model improves predicted system performance, which can then be used to identify system deficiencies, evaluate emergency scenarios, and make recommendations to improve system performance.

To calibrate the SS model, the water system is stressed by opening fire hydrants in the field at strategic locations. Actual system performance is then used to calibrate the model’s supply sources, static pressures, pipe diameters and friction losses under extreme flow conditions. For this project, fire hydrant tests were conducted at 19 locations throughout the City in July 2023. Two of the locations (Tests 8 and 10) are within a subzone and were tested twice to evaluate the system with one or two PRVs active. As such, a total of 21 fire hydrant flow tests were evaluated. For each of the 21 tests, the static and residual pressures of the model results are compared with those of the field measurements, where a total of 42 data points were compared. The model was calibrated to match field static and residual pressures, as well as flow data, by adjusting the roughness coefficient (C-factor) of the system pipelines. Approximately 88 percent of the data points showed the model to be within the accepted 10 percent variation of the field records. The remaining 12 percent (6 data points) are evaluated and discussed in Section 3.2 of Appendix C.

The EPS calibration was performed for a 24-hour period for SCADA from July 4, 2022, which was during a historical MDD condition for the entire system. The model results of each facility were compared with actual data provided by the City from their SCADA data. The comparison of hourly model results versus SCADA data was performed to determine that the model reflects the actual system operating conditions.

City SCADA data was limited and not available for all facilities. Several workshops were held with the City operations staff to verify facility controls and operations, including those that did not have SCADA. The EPS model calibration was within the accepted 10 percent difference.

Details about the SS and EPS calibrations are summarized in Appendix C, which also includes calibration data, graphs, and tables.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Model Development and Calibration
March 2025

7.2 This page left blank intentionally.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.1 8.0 Water System Evaluation
The new calibrated model was used to evaluate the City’s water distribution system for three different demand conditions: existing, near-term reflecting a 10-year planning horizon, and future reflecting a 20-year planning horizon. The water distribution system was evaluated under normal operating and supply conditions to determine areas of low-pressure, high-pressure, and high velocity under ADD and MDD conditions. In addition, the distribution system was also evaluated under MDD plus fire flow conditions. Storage requirements, well pump capacity, and booster pump station capacity were evaluated for each planning horizon. It should be noted that interconnects are available for temporary emergency situations if needed but are not included in the existing system evaluation as these scenarios are geared towards self-sufficiency and reliability on the City’s system.

8.1 Existing System Evaluation
The existing system evaluation was based on the City’s existing normal operating conditions. The system was evaluated for a duration of 24-hours, under ADD and MDD conditions. The existing ADD is 20.5 mgd and the existing MDD is 30.1 mgd. Refer to Section 5.2 for calculation of the existing ADD and MDD.

8.1.1 SYSTEM PRESSURES
The water distribution system evaluation results in areas with low-pressure and high-pressure demand nodes, which represent one or more meters or appurtenances in the vicinity, are discussed below.

8.1.1.1 Low Pressure Areas
The system was evaluated based on the City’s minimum pressure criteria of 40 psi. Table 8-1 lists the areas having low pressure, and Figure 8-1 shows where low pressures below 40 psi are located. • Low pressure areas L1, L2, L5, and L6 are located in upper elevations of pressure zones. The City has not had any low-pressure complaints in these areas, thus far. However, the City should be on alert for any future low-pressure complaints and monitor pressures in these areas.
• Area L3 is a meter that serves a landscape area. This meter requires an individual booster pump to provide adequate irrigation pressures. • Area L4 includes several meters where the model indicates low pressures between the hours of 1:00 am and 11:00 am. The meters in the area supply single family residential properties, where respective pressure zone demand diurnal patterns are applied, and high irrigation demand is used during this time frame. This area may need further monitoring and evaluation. Note the low pressures improve when MWD import connection F-06 is adjusted to increase flow. It is recommended that the City verify if there are low-pressure complaints and to monitor the pressures in the area.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.2 Table 8-1. Existing System Low-Pressure Areas
Pressure
Zone
Area
No. Location Min Pressure
(psi) Modeling Note
1 L1 Vista Verde Dr 39 One hour, at hour 24
2 L2 Deerpark Dr & Amherst Ave 38 One hour, at hour 6
L3 St College Blvd 28 All 24 hours – Landscape Meter
3 L4 Harrison Circle 23-38 Several nodes, near F-06, hours 1- 11 L5 Armstead Lane & Atherton Cir 30-33 Several nodes, hours 4-7 L6 Hermitage Dr & Applewood Cir 34-39 Several nodes, hours 4-7

8.1.1.2 High Pressure Areas
The system was evaluated based on the City’s maximum pressure criteria of 120 psi. It should be noted that any meter with pressure above 80 psi requires a pressure regulator. Table 8-2 lists areas of high pressure, and Figure 8-1 shows where pressures above 120 psi are located. Each of the areas are discussed below:
• Area H1 includes multiple meters that serve a commercial area in the lower portion of Zone 2, between Gilbert Street and Bastanchury Road and north of Malvern Avenue. The high pressures are above the 120 psi criteria with a maximum static pressure of 132 psi. To mitigate these pressures a small subzone can be created for this service area. Two PRVs can be constructed to create a Zone 2B with an HGL of 395 feet with a minimum pressure drop of 11 psi. The two PRVs can be installed at the intersection of N Gilbert Street and Windsong Way and at the intersection of Nicolas Way and Cusick Lane. A zone break valve would be needed at Starbuck Street and Chaffee Street. All proposed improvements are shown on Figure 8-2.
− An alternative improvement was also evaluated by converting Area H1 to the lower zone, Zone 1B. For this alternative Area H1 would connect to Zone 1B to the west by installing a pipeline across N Gilbert Street near the intersection of Windsong Way to the south by installing a pipeline along Crossroads Way at the intersection of W Malvern Avenue, crossing the Brea Creek. However, the proposed pipeline crossing the Brea Creek would present multiple obstacles including, but not limited to, Orange County Flood Control District permitting, private property easements, trenching underneath the channel or constructing a pipe bridge, and traffic control at a busy intersection. Moreover, converting Area H1 to Zone 1B would create a significant pressure drop (approximately 70 psi) from what customers are now accustomed to and may create challenges for their existing operations and fire sprinkler systems. As such, the alternative improvement is not recommended for this Master Plan but could be further explored by the City and communications with the commercial area customers.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.3 • Area H2 includes numerous meters that serve residential properties in the northwest corner of the City’s water distribution system in Zone 3, north of Rosecrans Avenue and served by the Hawks Pointe 3C Reservoir. To mitigate these pressures, a small sub-zone can be created, identified as Zone 3B with an HGL of 440 feet. A new 8-inch diameter pipeline is proposed to be installed on Emery Ranch Road and Muir Trail Drive, parallel to the existing pipeline. The existing parallel line would remain as a dedicated transmission main to supply the Hawks Pointe 3C Reservoir. Two PRVs would be added from Rosecrans Avenue, one at the intersection of Emery Ranch Road and the other at approximately 550 feet east of Emery Ranch Road. In addition, the laterals from the existing parallel line would be moved over to the new 8-inch pipeline. All proposed improvements are shown on Figure 8-2. Although the evaluation was conducted for the existing system, these proposed improvements are recommended as a long-term Capital Improvement Project. • Area H3 includes several meters that serve residential properties at three separate areas within Zone 4A. Area H3 is located within Zone 4A, which is a pressurized zone supplied only by the Upper Acacia BPS. Static pressures in this area exceed the criteria of 120 psi and are up to 132 psi. As shown in Table 8-2, the MDD pressures are higher than the static pressures because of the pumping operations of the Upper Acacia BPS. The pump station is oversized for the pressure zone’s normal daily demands. It’s recommended to downsize the pumps and add a hydropneumatic tank. Although some of the high pressures are mitigated with the pump station improvements, there are still high-pressure meters along Rocky Road north of Pioneer Avenue (Figure 8-2). To mitigate these pressures, the area can be converted to a lower pressure zone, from Zone 4A to Zone 3. Note that the residential meter service pressures would be reduced from 121-141 psi to 57-83 psi, a drastic decrease in pressure may cause pressure complaints from customers, especially if the customers are used to the high pressures, they may have installed their own pressure regulating valves at their homes. All of the proposed improvements are shown on Figure 8-2.

Table 8-2. Existing System High-Pressure Deficiency Areas Zone No. Location Max Static
Pressure (psi)
Max MDD
Pressure (psi)
2 H1 Retail Center north of Malvern Ave 124-130 121-129 3 H2 Large Area north of Rosecrans Ave and east of Beach Blvd 124-148 120-143 4A H3 Rocky Rd and Pioneer Ave – Ladera Vista Dr to Rocky Rd 107-132 121-141 a Note:
a MDD pressures exceed the static pressures due to this being a pressurized zone supplied Upper Acacia BPS. During low demand periods the zone may experience higher pressures.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.4 Two additional areas, H4 and H5 (Figure 8-1), exceeded the maximum pressure criteria but have no demand allocations, cannot be mitigated, and are not considered deficient areas:
• Area H4 includes several locations on Zone 3 pipelines that traverse a Zone 2 service area. The pressures are high because this section of the transmission main is in a low elevation area (203 to 214 feet) for Zone 3 and is within a Zone 2 service area, given the pipelines must cross Zone 2 to supply Zone 3. • Area H5 includes a few locations on a Zone 3 transmission main. The pressures are high because this section of the transmission main is in a low elevation area (215 to 224 feet) in Zone 3 bordered by Zone 2, a lower pressure zone.

A
A
A A
A
AAAA
ñ
ñ
ñ
ññ
ñ
ñ ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ

HERMITAGE
2B
LAGUNA 2A
LAS PALMAS 3B
TANK FARM 2D
COYOTE 1C
KIMBERLY 2
FOREBAY (K2F)
STATE COLLEGE 2C
UPPER ACACIA 3A
LOWER ACACIA 1D

MAIN PLANT
HAWKS POINTE 3C
HILLCREST 1A
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
City of Fullerton, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig8-1_ExSys_Pres-Vel

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 8-1. Existing System Low- & High-Pressure Areas and High Velocity Pipes

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
2/20/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Zone4C
West
Zone4C East
L1
L2
L3
L4
L6
H1
H2
H3
Existing 8-in diameter (approx. 82-lf)
high velocity (approx.14 fps)
pipeline segment
H4
H5
L5
FIGURE 8-2
FIGURE 8-2
FIGURE 8-2
LEGEND
City Boundary
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4CñReservoir
A Groundwater Well
Interconnection
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
MWD Import Water Turnout
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Low Pressure Nodes (<40 psi)
27 to 30 psi

30.1 to 35 psi

35.1 to 38 psi
High Pressure Nodes (>120 psi)
120.1 to 130 psi
130.1 to 140 psi
140.1 to 143 psi
Notes:
- Areas H4 and H5 exceed the pressure criteria but are
not in need of improvements given they are transmission pipelines between pressure zones without any demands
- psi = pounds per square inch
- fps = feet per second
High Velocity Pipe
Brea Blvd
ValleVi
sta D
r
Kroeg
er Av
e
Skyli
ne Dr
Lade
ra
Vista D
r
N
Acacia Ave
Coyote Hills
Golf Course
Panorama
Nature Preserve
N
Mou
nta
in V
iew Pl
Alto Ln
Miramar Dr
Fullerton Creek
Greenbelt
ñ
ñ ñ
ñ
Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Fullerton, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau,

USDA, USFWS
St
arb
uc
k
St
Clark Dr
Wh
ite
wa
te
rDr
Arborland
Montessori
Children's
Academy
N G
ilbert St
Moo re Ave
Tar
ge
tW
ay
W Malve rn Ave
E Malver n Ave
Cusick Ln
Begov
ich S
t
Ni
co
las S
t
Hughes Dr
W Malv ern Ave
Bastanchury
Park
Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Anaheim, City of Fullerton, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
Som
erse
t D
r
Coyot
e C
re
ek
Castawa
y Cv
Vi
sio
ns
Dr
M
ui
r Tr
ai
lDr
Beach B
lvd
Be
ach
Bl
vd
Emer
y
Ra
nch
Rd
W
isteria
Ln
Cam
el
lia Ln
Rosecrans Ave
Haw
ks Pointe Dr
Muir Trail Dr
Highla
nder
Rd
Ave
Rosec rans Av e
Ralph B. Clark
Park
Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Fullerton, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig8-2_ExSys_Pres-Vel_PropImp
Figure 8-2. High Pressure Areas H1, H2, and H3 Proposed Improvements

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
2/20/2025´
Relocate zone break valve
near Pioneer Ave & Rocky Rd
to convert pipelines from
Zone 4A to Zone 3
Install new Zone 2 to Zone 2B PRV
All pipes downstream converted to
new subzone
Install new Zone 3 to Zone 3B PRV
All pipes downstream converted to
new subzone
Disconnect laterals from existing parallel
pipeline and connect to new proposed 8"
pipeline (typical for all laterals)
0 250 500
Feet
0 400 800
Feet
0 150 300
Feet
Upper Acacia BPS
Downsize pumps and install
Hydropneumatic Tank
Install new Zone 3 to Zone 3B PRV
All pipes downstream converted to
new subzone
Install new Zone 2 to Zone 2B PRV
All pipes downstream converted to
new subzone
High Pressure Area H1 - New Zone 2B Proposed Subzone (HGL 395 ft) High Pressure Area H3 - Proposed Upper Acacia BPS Improvements & Zone 3 Realignment High Pressure Area H2 - New Zone 3B Proposed Subzone (HGL 440 ft) Alternative - Convert Area H1 to Zone 1B
Pipeline crossing Brea Creek is
problematic, alternative is not
recommended
High pressure nodes
mitigated with Upper
Acacia BPS improvements
High pressure nodes
mitigated with Upper Acacia
BPS improvements
8"8"
8"
8"
Zone 2B
Proposed
Subzone
Zone 3B
Proposed
Subzone
Proposed Zone 4A to Zone 3
realignment along Rocky Rd
north of Pioneer Ave
Zone
4A to 3
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1B
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4AñReservoir
Interconnection
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
MWD Import Water Turnout
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Zone 1B
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4A
Existing High Pressure Nodes (>120 psi)
120.1 to 130 psi
130.1 to 140 psi
140.1 to 141 psi
Proposed Pressure Zone
Zone 2B
Zone 3B
Zone 4A to 3
Proposed Zone Break Valve
Proposed PRV
Proposed Pipeline
New Zone 3 Subzone
New Zone 3
Zone 3 Realignment
Notes:
- Existing high pressure nodes shown will
be mitigated once recommendations
are implemented
- psi = pounds per square inch
Install new Zone 2 to Zone 2B
zone break valve
Install new Zone 3 to Zone 3B
zone break valve
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.7 8.1.2 PIPE VELOCITIES
The system was evaluated based on the City’s maximum velocity criteria of 7 fps. Figure 8-1 shows one area of the system that exceeded the velocity criteria, a segment of pipe in Brookhurst Road at the intersection of West Roberta Avenue. The pipeline velocity was approximately 14 fps between the hours of 1:00 am and 11:00 am. The pipeline diameter is 8 inches according to the GIS; however, it is connected between two 12-inch-diameter pipelines. As-builts were unavailable to confirm the diameter. If field investigations verify the existing pipeline is 8 inches, this area should be revaluated to consider upsizing the pipeline to 12 inches to reduce velocity and extend the life of the pipeline. Even though the pipeline exceeded velocity criteria, the pressures in the area were not negatively impacted and no improvements are recommended at this time.

8.1.3 STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
A storage volume analysis evaluated system requirements for operational, fire, and emergency storage based on the criteria described in Section 6.2. Analysis results are shown in Table 8-3. As noted in the table, Zone 1, 1A, and 1B each show a storage deficit. However, these deficits can be made up by the surplus volume contained in Zone 2 through the system’s PRVs. Overall, the City has approximately

17.6 MG of surplus storage without the Tank Farm 2D reservoir T5 that is out of service.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
M
arch 2025

8.8 Table 8-3. Existing System Storage Requirements
PZa Reservoir
Existing
MDD
(mgd)
Existing
Capacity
(MG)
Storage Requirement Storage
Surplus/
(Deficit) (MG)
Note Fireb
(MG)
Oper.c
(MG)
Emer.d
(MG)
Total
(MG)
1 Hillcrest 1A 5.0
Deficit supplied from PZ 2 surplus
thru PRVs Lower Acacia 1D 4.0
Subtotal Zone 1 6.5 9.0 0.96 2.0 6.5 9.5 (0.5)
1A - 0 Deficit supplied from PZ 2 surplus
thru PRVs Subtotal Zone 1A 2.6 0 0.96 0.8 2.6 4.4 (4.4) 1B Coyote 1C 2.0 Assume deficit supplied from PZ
1 via PZ 2 surplus thru PRVs Subtotal Zone 1B 3.6 2.0 0.96 1.1 3.6 5.7 (3.7) 2 Laguna 2A 2.0

Hermitage 2B 2.0
State College 2C 2.0
Tank Farm 2D
T1-T4e

26.0 Subtotal Zone 2 7.9 32.0 0.63 2.4 7.9 10.9 21.1
3 Upper Acacia 3A
T1-T2

10.0 Las Palmas 3B 5.0
Hawks Pointe 3C 3.0
Subtotal Zone 3 9.5 18.0 0.54 3.0 9.5 13.0 5.0
Total 30.1 61.0 43.5 17.6
Notes:
a Subzones are included as part of the main zones. Zone 1B includes subzone 1C; Zone 2 includes subzones 2A, 4B, and 4C (east); Zone 3 includes subzones 3A, 4, 4A, and 4C (west).
b Fire storage requirement is based on the largest of the fire flow required for the land uses within the zone in accordance with Table 6-3. c Operational storage requirement is calculated as 30-percent of the MDD. d Emergency storage requirement is the volume required for one MDD (see Section 6.2). e The Tank Farm 2D T5 Reservoir has a capacity of 6.5 MG but is not in service and therefore not included in the total existing storage volume.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.9 8.1.4 WELL AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION CAPACITY
All wells and booster pump stations were evaluated for the ability to meet system MDD. For long-term efficiency and overall life of the pump stations, it is recommended that the pump stations operate with dedicated duty pumps and dedicated standby pumps, where a standby pump can operate as a backup if a duty pump were to fail, allowing for redundancy. Although all well and booster pumps operated within their respective design capacity for both flow and total dynamic head (TDH), as shown in Appendix D, there is no redundancy at Coyote BPS.

Coyote BPS operates all three pumps for the entire 24-hour simulation to meet Zone 2 demands and replenish the Hermitage 2B Reservoir, resulting in the continuous use of the third pump that is meant to be used for backup purposes only. The existing firm capacity of the Coyote BPS is 1,800 gpm, an additional 1,200 gpm is needed to replenish the reservoir and allow for a standby pump to be available, all while still meeting Zone 2 demands. As such, the Coyote BPS needs to have an available total flow rate of approximately 3,000 gpm. Alternative solutions were investigated to provide the flow to Zone 2 from the upper Zone 3 area through adjusting settings at existing PRVs and adding a new PRV at Rosecrans Avenue. However, this alternative does not allow adequate reservoir operation to replenish the Hermitage 2B Reservoir and creates a negative impact to pressures within Zone 3. The recommended improvement therefore is to upsize and replace the pumps at Coyote BPS. Three new pumps at 1,500 gpm (100 horsepower (hp)) each are recommended to provide two duty pumps and one standby pump.

Note the State College BPS was not required to operate during the analysis. In addition, Kimberly Well 1A will undergo rehabilitation and pump upgrades in the Fall of 2024. Also, although the Christlieb Well 15A is currently being rehabilitated, it may not be available in the future.

8.1.5 FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS
MDD plus fire flow simulations evaluated the system’s capability of meeting fire demands with a minimum 20 psi residual pressure. Fire flows were based on land use type. SS simulations were performed by applying the required fire flow at nodes representing existing fire hydrant locations to determine the residual pressure. For nodes resulting in a residual pressure less than 20 psi additional SS evaluations were performed to determine improvement recommendations. If a node was assigned a fire flow greater than 2,500 gpm and did not meet the criteria, the flow was split between two proximate nodes and re- tested. Pipeline improvements, such as replacing existing pipes with larger diameters, are recommended for most of the areas that did not meet fire flow criteria. In addition, all 4-inch distribution mains directly connected to fire hydrants are recommended to be upsized to 8 inches. The 6-inch pipes were upsized to 8-inch on an as needed basis. The proposed pipeline improvements are listed in Appendix E and are shown on Figure 8-3. The proposed Zone 2 and Zone 4C realignments are shown on Figure 8-4.

A
A
A A
A
AAAA
ñ
ñ
ñ
ññ
ñ
ñ ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ

HERMITAGE
2B
LAGUNA 2A
LAS PALMAS 3B
TANK FARM 2D
COYOTE 1C
KIMBERLY 2
FOREBAY (K2F)
STATE COLLEGE 2C
UPPER ACACIA 3A
LOWER ACACIA 1D

MAIN PLANT
HAWKS POINTE 3C
HILLCREST 1A
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig8-3_ExSys_FF
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4CñReservoir
A Groundwater Well
Interconnection
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
MWD Turnout
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Proposed Pressure Zone
Zone 2B
Zone 3B
Zone 4A to 3
Zone 1 to Zone 2 Realignment
Zone 3 to Zone 4C Realignment
Proposed New Zone 3 to Zone 2 PRV
Proposed Pipeline
Zone Realignment
Upsize Existing to 8"
Upsize Existing to 12"
New Pipe for Looping
Proposed FH Reconnection

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 8-3. Existing Fire Flow Analysis Proposed Improvements

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
2/20/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Zone4C
West
Zone4C East
FIGURE 8-4
FIGURE 8-4
Proposed
Fire Hydrant
Reconnection
Proposed
Fire Hydrant
Reconnection
Zone 3 to Zone 2
Proposed PRV
N Highland Av
e
N
For
d A
ve
De l Mont e W
W Glen wood A
ve
W Fern Dr
Brea C
ree
k(OCF
CD)
N Berkeley Av e
Vista Ve rde Dr
E Glenw ood Ave
W Union Ave
E Union Ave
N Har
bor B
lvd
Hillcr est Dr
12''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
6''
12''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
4''
8'' 6''
10''
6''
6''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
30''
12''
4''
N Gilbert St
Tra
ils
D
r
W Coyote Hills Dr
Wa lk er Ln
Sea view Dr
Coyot
e Hills DrWest Coyote
Hills Park
N G
ilbe
rt
St
Cas
tlewood Dr
Co
yo
te
Hills
Dr
Parks R
d
Camino d
el Sol
Chan tilly Ln
West Coyote
Hills Tree Park
Cam
in
o
delSol
Robert E Ward
Nature Preserve
ñ
8''
10''
6''
12''
8''
12''
8''
16''
10''
8''
12''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
12''
6''
12''
12''
8''
8''
12''
6''
12''
12''
8''
8''
8''
6''
12''
6''
12''
8''
12''
8''
8''8''
12''
8''
8''
12''
8''
12''
8''
6''
12''
12''
6''
8''
12''
6''
12''
8''
12''
12''
8''
8''8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
4''
8''
8''
8''
4''
4''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
12''
16''
8''
8''
8''
8'' 12''
16''

HERMITAGE
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig8-4_ExSys_FF-Zone-Realign
Existing Zone 1 pipelines
proposed to be converted
to Zone 2
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4CñReservoir
Booster Pump Station
Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4C
Proposed Pressure Zone
Zone 1 to Zone 2 Realignment
Zone 3 to Zone 4C Realignment
Proposed Zone Break Valve Relocation
Proposed Pipeline
Zone 1 to Zone 2 Realignment
Zone 3 to Zone 4C Realignment
New Pipe for Looping
Figure 8-4. Existing Fire Flow Analysis Proposed Zone 2 and Zone 4C Realignment

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
1/16/2025´
0 200 400
Feet
0 100 200
Feet
Proposed Zone 1 to Zone 2 Realignment
Proposed Zone 3 to Zone 4C Realignment
Existing Zone 3 pipelines
proposed to be converted
to Zone 4C
Existing Zone 3 pipelines
proposed to be converted
to Zone 4C
Existing Zone 3 pipelines
proposed to be converted
to Zone 4C
Existing Zone 1 pipelines
proposed to be converted
to Zone 2
10"
8"
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.12 8.2 Near-Term System Evaluation
This evaluation reflects the near-term planning horizon, simulated for a MDD 24-hour duration. Total system near-term MDD is 36.0 mgd. This assumes the PFAS treatment project for Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10 is complete and in operation. A single PFAS treatment system for both wells is located at the Kimberly 2 site. The Kimberly 2 Forebay and booster pump station have been demolished.

In addition, a new Well 7A (3,000 gpm capacity) at the Main Plant is currently in design and will be online during near-term conditions.

8.2.1 SYSTEM PRESSURES
The near-term system pressures for each of the pressure zones are similar to those reported for the existing system analysis. The model analysis shows no additional low- or high-pressure areas.

8.2.2 PIPE VELOCITIES
The near-term pipeline velocities are similar to those reported for the existing system analysis. No additional pipeline velocity deficiencies were found in the model.

8.2.3 STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
A storage analysis was conducted to evaluate the near-term storage required. The analysis is shown in Table 8-4. As was the case for the existing storage evaluation, Zone 1, 1A, and 1B each show a storage deficit. However, the deficits can be made up by the surplus volume in Zone 2 through the system’s PRVs. The City overall has approximately 10.1 MG of surplus storage without the Tank Farm 2D T5 Reservoir that is out of service.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
M
arch 2025

8.13 Table 8-4. Near-Term System Storage Requirements
PZa Reservoir
Near-Term
MDD
(mgd)
Existing
Capacity
(MG)
Storage Requirement Storage
Surplus/
(Deficit)
(MG)
Note Fireb
(MG)
Oper.c
(MG)
Emer.d
(MG)
Total
(MG)
1 Hillcrest 1A 5.0
Deficit supplied from PZ 2 surplus
thru PRVs Lower Acacia 1D 4.0
Subtotal Zone 1 7.9 9.0 0.96 2.4 7.9 11.3 (2.3)
1A
- 0 Deficit supplied from PZ 2 surplus
thru PRVs Subtotal Zone 1A 3.1 0 0.96 0.9 3.1 5.0 (5.0) 1B
Coyote 1C 2.0 Assume deficit supplied from PZ 1
via PZ 2 surplus thru PRVs Subtotal Zone 1B 4.4 2.0 0.96 1.3 4.4 6.7 (4.7) 2 Laguna 2A 2.0
Hermitage 2B 2.0
State College 2C 2.0
Tank Farm 2D
T1-T5e

26.0 Subtotal Zone 2 9.4 32.0 0.63 2.9 9.4 12.9 19.1
3 Upper Acacia 3A
T1-T2

10.0 Las Palmas 3B 5.0
Hawks Pointe 3C 3.0
Subtotal Zone 3 11.2 18.0 0.54 3.4 11.2 15.1 2.9
Total 36.0 61.0 51.0 10.1
Notes:
a Subzones are included as part of the main zones. Zone 1B includes subzone 1C; Zone 2 includes subzones 2A, 4B, and 4C (east); Zone 3 includes subzones 3A, 4, 4A, and 4C (west).
b Fire storage requirement is based on the largest of the fire flow required for the land uses within the zone in accordance with Table 6-3. c Operational storage requirement is calculated as 30-percent of the MDD. d Emergency storage requirement is one MDD.
e The Tank Farm 2D T5 Reservoir has a capacity of 6.5 MG but is not in service and therefore not included in the total existing storage volume.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.14 8.2.4 WELL AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION CAPACITY
The near-term modeling results for wells and booster pump stations are similar to those found for the existing conditions. Assuming the capacity upgrades are made to the Coyote BPS, no additional recommendations are needed for the booster pump stations. The State College BPS was not required to operate during the analysis.

As noted above, the existing Kimberly Well 2 pumps to the existing onsite Kimberly 2 Forebay are being abandoned. The near-term model simulations include the new PFAS treatment facility at the Kimberly 2 site, with capacity to treat the combined groundwater from Sunclipse Well 10 and Kimberly Well 2 that will be pumped directly into the Zone 1A distribution system. The model analysis required the Kimberly Well 2 pump and motor to be upsized to increase the pump head requirement. Further detailed evaluation of the Kimberly Well 2 pump design curve and motor requirements are recommended during the preliminary design phase of the project.

As previously mentioned, a new Well 7A (3,000 gpm) at the Main Plant is currently in the design phase and will be online during near-term conditions.

8.2.5 FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS
Assuming the pipeline improvement recommendations are constructed as summarized in Section 8.1.5 for the existing system analysis, the near-term system meets the minimum residual pressure criteria of 20 psi based on the required fire flow for each land use. No additional system improvements are proposed.

8.3 Future System Evaluation
This evaluation is based on the City’s water distribution system for the future planning horizon. A future MDD 24-hour simulation used a total system demand of 36.5 mgd. The future planning horizon reflects build out conditions for the City as shown on Figure 8-5. Refer to Section 5.0 for discussion on future demands.

The West Coyote Hills Development (WCHD) in the northwest portion of the City is assumed to be fully developed and (for purposes of this evaluation) may require the following for water service to this area:
• New Zone 4C expanded service area pressure zone combining the existing Zone 4C West and East services areas, and a new Zone 5 pressure zone. Both pressure zones are shown on Figure 8-6.
• The Zone 4C expanded pressure zone may require a new storage reservoir and a booster pump station, which would be supplied from Zone 3. The proposed reservoir requires a capacity of at least 0.7 MG of storage, as such, a 0.7 MG storage reservoir is proposed (see Table 8-5). The proposed Zone 4C BPS is recommended to consist of two pumps (one duty and one standby) at 1,000 gpm (75 hp) each and is assumed to be located at the existing Tank Farm facility.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.15 • The Hawks Pointe BPS is proposed to be upsized with two new pumps (one duty and one standby) at 1,000 gpm (75 hp) to meet storage requirements and demands in the proposed expanded Zone 4C and new Zone 5.
• The new Zone 5 pressure zone would be needed for the WCHD higher elevations, with an HGL of 715 ft. Zone 5 would be a pressurized closed system served by a proposed booster pump station with two pumps (one duty and one standby) at 150 gpm (10 hp) each and one high flow fire pump at 1,500 gpm (50 hp). The proposed Zone 5 BPS may also require a hydropneumatic tank.
• With the proposed development area and new pressure zone, the valve located on Rosecrans Avenue near the intersection of Utility Access Road (pipe ID P8055), between the Hawks Pointe and Hermitage facilities, is recommended to be 100 percent open. This valve has been closed due to water quality issues and low reservoir turnover in the Hawks Pointe 3C Reservoir.

However, with the additional demand to be pumped out of Zone 3 to the proposed expanded Zone 4C, the fully open valve would help water circulation in this area and improve turnover in the Hawks Pointe 3C Reservoir.

A
A
A
A A
A
AAAAAA

HERMITAGE
2B
LAGUNA 2A
LAS PALMAS 3B
TANK FARM 2D
COYOTE 1C
KIMBERLY 2
FOREBAY (K2F)
STATE COLLEGE 2C
UPPER ACACIA 3A
LOWER ACACIA 1D

MAIN PLANT
HAWKS POINTE 3C
HILLCREST 1A
PR-05
PR-01PR-12
PR-16
PR-26
PR-17
PR-15
PR-14
PR-13
PR-10
PR-04
PR-03
PR-02
PR-07
PR-08
PR-24
PR-25
PR-29
PR-30
PR-19
PR-20
PR-32
PR-11
PR-09
PR-22
PR-23
F-08 F-07 (NOT BUILT)
F-03 (INACTIVE)
F-06
F-02
F-04
F-01
F-05
F-09
Golden State
Water Company
Brea
Anaheim
La Habra
Suburban
Water
Systems
Anaheim
Buena Park
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig8-5_FutSys
A
A
A
A
A
AWELL 7A
(FUTURE)
WELL 5
WELL 6
WELL 8
WELL 3A
WELL 4
(INACTIVE)

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 8-5. Future Water Distribution System

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
2/19/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Valve (pipe ID P8055) at
Rosecrans Ave & Utility
Access Rd is fully open
Well 2 & Well 10 combined
for PFAS treatment at the
Kimberly 2 site
Well 7A is online
(3,000 gpm)
FIGURE 8-6
Proposed Zone 3B
(see Figure 8-2)
Proposed Zone 2B
(see Figure 8-2)
Proposed Zone 4C to
Zone 3 Realignment
(see Figure 8-2)
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Reservoir
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 2
Zone 3
Groundwater Well
A Zone 1
A Zone 1A
A Zone 1B
Interconnection
Zone 1
Zone 1B
Zone 3
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
MWD Import Water Turnout
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Thickness Indicates
Pipeline Diameter
Greater than 24"
12" to 24"
8" to 10"
6" or Less
Proposed Pressure Zone
Zone 4C
Zone 5
Zone 2B
Zone 3B
Zone 4A to 3
Proposed Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 4C
Zone 5
Proposed Reservoir
Proposed BPS
Notes:
- MWD = Metropolitan Water District
- Previous planning horizon improvements assumed to be
implemented and existing, only future planning horizon
improvements are shown on this figure as proposed
- Future assumed to be build out conditions year 2045 per City of Fullerton General Plan

MAIN PLANTMAIN PLANT
urphy Rd
W Nicklau s Ave
WSne
ad
St
BeachBlvd
A
F
K L
Muir Trail Dr
Franc
isco
Dr
Lag
una
St
Ros ecran s Ave
h B. Clark
Park
W Nickla us Ave
W Snead St W Playe r Ave
S Run
yan
St
W Harri son Ave
S
Hag
en C
tS
Fl
oyd C
t
S
Tre
vin
o
St
Westridge Golf
Club
Sam's Club
N Gilbert St Tr
ails
D
r
W Coyote HillsDr
W Nic klaus Ave
Wal ker Ln
Seaview Dr
Winterwood Dr
Calle C
andel
a
Canyon
Dr
Ca
lle
Aleg
ria
Gre enw ich Dr
El Rancho Vis
El Ran cho Vis
Rosecrans Av e
West Coyote
Hills Park
W Cou
ntry Hills Dr
S I
daho
St
S
Idaho
St
W
Risner Way
Teakw ood Ave
Co
achwood St
W Wedgewood Ln
Dor
w
ood
Av
eHoneywood
Ln
Kirkwood Ln
Al
mon
dw
ood S
t
W Pebble
Beach Ave
S Spyglass
HillCt
S
Wats
on
St
Sand lewo od Ave
N
G
ilbert
St
Castlewoo
dDr
Coyo
te
Hills
Dr
Parks
R
d Ca
m
ino
del SolChan till y Ln
Pa
rks Rd
Coyot e Hills Dr
Cam
in
o
Rey
Via
Ca
lien
te
Ser
ran
o
PlEl Ranch
oVis
Rosecran
s A
ve
West Coyote
Hills Tree Park
Calle D
on
Guillerm
o
Ave nida Santa Domingo
Avenida Santa Elena
Aveni da Santa Dorotea
W Las Pa
Calle Do
n
Juan
Aven ida Santa Anita
LaTrav
esiaDr
E Coun try Hill s Dr
N
He
S
Eu
clid
St
Camino
del Sol
La Tra vesia DrN Euclid St
N
Eu
clid
St
Robert E Ward
Nature Preserve
Cam
ino
delSolManza
nita Dr
Verona
Dr
12''
12''
12''
12''
12''
12''
12''
12''
8''
8''8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
12''
12''
10''
8'' 12''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
16''
6''
6''
8''
8''
4''
8''
4''
6''8'' 12''
8''
4''
18''
12''
8''
12''
6''
8''
12''
12''
6''
8''
6''
8''
8''
6''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
12''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
12''
6''
12''
4''
42''
18''
42''
6''
8''
8'' 12''
12''
8''
16''
6''
42''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
12''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8'' 8''
8''
8''
12''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
16''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
12''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''8''
6''
6''
6''
6''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
12''
8''
6''
8'' 8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
12''
8''
8''
16''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''16''
6''
8''
8''
12'' 12''
8''
8''6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8'' 8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
12''
8''
6''
8''
8''
12''
8''
8''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
18''
16''
12''
8''
6''
8''
8''
12''12''
8''
8''
12''
8''
12''
12''
12''
8''
8''
12''
6''
8''
12''
12''
16''
12''
8''
16''
12''
8''
24''
24''
12''
24''
16''
42''
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig8-6_FutSys_Prop-Z4C-Z5
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Existing Reservoir
Zone 2
Zone 3
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
Pipeline
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4C
Proposed Pressure Zone
Zone 4C
Zone 5
Zone 3B
Proposed Zone 4C Reservoir
Proposed BPS
Proposed Pipeline
Zone 4C
Zone 5
Figure 8-6. Future West Coyote Hills Development Proposed Zone 4C and Zone 5

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
1/16/2025´
0 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
HERMITAGE 2B
HAWKS POINTE 3C
TANK FARM 2D T2 T1
T3
T4
T5
Proposed Zone 4C
Reservoir (0.7 MG)
Proposed Zone 5 Pump Station
2 new pumps at 150 gpm (10 hp)
each and 1 high flow pump at
1,500 gpm (50 hp)
Hawks Pointe BPS
Replace with 2 new pumps
at 1,000 gpm (75 hp) each
Proposed Zone 4C BPS
2 new pumps at
1,000 gpm (75 hp) each
LAS PALMAS 3B
8"
12"
8"
8"
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.18 8.3.1 SYSTEM PRESSURES
No additional low or high system pressure areas were found for the future system condition.

8.3.2 PIPE VELOCITIES
No additional pipelines exceeding the velocity criteria were found in the model for the future system conditions.

8.3.3 STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
A storage analysis was conducted to evaluate the future storage required. The analysis is shown in Table 8-5. As with the existing and near-term storage requirement evaluations, Zone 1, 1A, and 1B each show a storage deficit. However, the deficits can be made up by the surplus contained in Zone 2 through the system’s PRVs. As described in Section 8.3, a new 0.7 MG storage reservoir is proposed in Zone 4C for the WCHD. A total system surplus of 9.2 MG is anticipated for the future conditions.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
M
arch 2025

8.19 Table 8-5. Future System Storage Requirements
PZa Reservoir Na
me
Future
MDD
(mgd)
Existing
Capacity
(MG)
Storage Requirement Storage
Surplus/
(Deficit) (MG)
Note Fireb
(MG) Oper.c (MG) Emer.d
(MG) Total (MG)
1 Hillcrest 1A 5.0
Deficit supplied from PZ 2
surplus thru PRVs Lower Acacia 1D 4.0
Subtotal Zone 1 8.0 9.0 0.96 2.4 8.0 11.4 (2.4)
1A - 0 Deficit supplied from PZ 2
surplus thru PRVs Subtotal Zone 1A 3.1 0 0.96 0.9 3.1 5.0 (5.0) 1B Coyote 1C 2.0 Assume deficit supplied from
PZ 1 via PZ 2 surplus thru
PRVs Subtotal Zone 1B 4.4 2.0 0.96 1.3 4.4 6.7 (4.7)
2 Laguna 2A 2.0

Hermitage 2B 2.0
State College 2C 2.0
Tank Farm 2D
T1-T5e

26.0 Subtotal Zone 2 9.4 32.0 0.63 2.9 9.4 12.9 19.1
3 Upper Acacia 3A T1-T2 10.0

Las Palmas 3B 5.0
Hawks Pointe 3C 3.0
Subtotal Zone 3 11.2 18.0 0.54 3.5 11.2 15.2 2.8
4C
- Deficit supplied by new
proposed 0.7 MG reservoir
Subtotal Zone 4Cf 0.4 0.18 0.1 0.4 0.7 (0.7)
Total 36.5 61.0 51.8 9.2
Notes
a Subzones are included as part of the main zones. Zone 1B includes subzone 1C; Zone 2 includes subzones 2A, 4B, and 4C (east); Zone 3 includes subzones 3A, 4, 4A, and 4C (west). b Fire storage requirement is based on the largest of the fire flow required for the land uses within the zone in accordance with Table 6-3. c Operational storage requirement is calculated as 30-percent of the MDD. d Emergency storage requirement is one MDD.
e The Tank Farm 2D T5 Reservoir has a capacity of 6.5 MG but is not in service and therefore not included in the total existing storage volume. f The MDD of 0.4 mgd includes the existing Zone 4C West and Zone 4C East service areas in addition to the WCHD.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.20 8.3.4 WELL AND BOOSTER PUMP STATION CAPACITY
Consistent with the existing and near-term conditions, the future conditions assume the Coyote BPS capacity improvements are constructed. With the upgrades at the Coyote BPS and Hawks Pointe BPS, recommended in Section 8.3, the remaining booster pump stations were evaluated and found to operate within their respective design capacities. The State College BPS was not required to operate during the future MDD analysis.

Although Well 7A was not needed during existing or near-term conditions, Well 7A operates during future conditions to meet demands. With Well 7A online and operating, all the groundwater wells operate within their respective design capacities.

8.3.5 FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS
Assuming the pipeline improvement recommendations are constructed as summarized in Section 8.1.5 for the existing system analysis, no additional deficiencies were discovered during the future fire flow analysis. Therefore, no additional recommendations are proposed.

8.4 Water Age
This analysis approximated the water age in the existing water distribution system. Water age is an important factor in water quality deterioration within distribution systems. As water ages disinfectants decay which can create favorable conditions for microbial regrowth and pathogen contamination, as well as allow more time for disinfection by-products (DBP) to form. In a water distribution system, water age can be used as a surrogate for reaction time for TTHM formation and nitrification potential (for chloraminated systems) and thus degraded water quality.

The analysis will focus on the existing ADD scenario because lower demands typically result in longer reservoir storage and pipeline travel times.

The following assumptions and limitations apply to the water age analysis:
• While water age is considered an effective surrogate for water quality, is it not a perfect surrogate. For example, water age increases linearly with time, whereas chlorine decay and trihalomethane formation typically follows first order exponential decay or growth kinetics, respectively. Therefore, evaluating water age cannot accurately predict actual TTHMs, for example. • Model controls were used based on the model update and calibration. Any changes to operations could impact the water age.

8.4.1 APPROACH
This analysis was modeled as a 30-day EPS during existing ADD conditions with average water age reported for all tanks and nodes for the last 7 days, which is representative of stabilized water age results.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.21 Model nodes with zero assigned demand (e.g., hydrants, facility nodes, etc.) were removed from the analysis. The model was run under the existing ADD of 20.5 mgd.

8.4.2 MODEL RESULTS
The water age model results were evaluated statistically as well as graphically.

8.4.2.1 Statistical Analysis
The average system-wide water age for the existing ADD conditions is provided on Figure 8-7.

Figure 8-7. Percentile Plot of Average Water Age with Existing ADD Conditions From Figure 8-7 approximately 75 percent of the system has a water age under 72 hours (3 days) and approximately one percent of the system has a water age over approximately 192 hours (8 days). 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

WATER AGE (HOURS)

PERCENTILE OF SYSTEM
ADD
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.22 8.4.2.2 Graphical Analysis
Figure 8-8 shows the average water age under existing ADD conditions throughout the system. The average water age of all the nodes was approximately 51 hours (2.1 days). In general, portions of Zones 3, 4B and 4C had the oldest water in the system and could be problematic areas in terms of water quality and DBPs.

The average water age in storage varies from approximately 3.5 days at Hillcrest 1A Reservoir to over 20 days for the Laguna 2A Reservoir, and nearly 21 days for Tank Farm 2D T4 Reservoir.

A
A
A
A A
A

AAAAAAA
Golden State
Water Company
Brea
Anaheim
La Habra
Suburban
Water
Systems
Anaheim
Buena Park

CHRISTLIEB
WELL 15A

AIRPORT
WELL 9

KIMBERLY
WELL 2

SUNCLIPSE
WELL 10
COYOTE
WELL 12A
(INACTIVE)

KIMBERLY
WELL 1A
WELL 7A
(FUTURE)
WELL 5
WELL 6
WELL 8
WELL 3A
WELL 4
(INACTIVE)

HERMITAGE
2B
LAGUNA 2A
LAS PALMAS 3B
TANK FARM 2D
COYOTE 1C
KIMBERLY 2
FOREBAY (K2F)
STATE COLLEGE 2C
UPPER ACACIA 3A
LOWER ACACIA 1D

MAIN PLANT
HAWKS POINTE 3C
HILLCREST 1A
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive -
Exhibit Name: Fig8-8_ExSys_WaterAge
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
WELL 7A
(FUTURE)
WELL 5
WELL 6
WELL 8
WELL 3A
WELL 4
(INACTIVE)
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
A Groundwater Well
Interconnection
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
MWD Import Water Turnout
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
MWD Distribution System Feeder
Pipeline
Water Age

0.00 - 72.00 (<3 days)
72 .01 - 120.00 (3-5 days)
192.01 - 720.00 (>8 days)
168.01 - 720.00 (>7 days)
120.01 - 168.00 (5-7 days)

72.01 - 120.00 (3-5 days)

0.00 - 72.00 (<3 days)

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 8-8. Distribution System Average Water Age under Existing ADD Conditions

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
2/20/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Zone4C
West
Zone4C East
TANK FARM 2D

MAIN PLANT

MAIN PLANT

FOREBAY (MPF)
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.24 8.4.3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The water age in the extremities of Zone 3, 4B, and 4C is some of the oldest in the system. The percentile plot of water age from Figure 8-7 above is shown in an alternative format for 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentile water age on Figure 8-9 below.

Figure 8-9. Average Water Age for Existing ADD Conditions by Percentile The statistical analysis indicates that approximately three quarters of the system has a water age of 74 hours (approximately 3 days) or less, and that 95 percent of the system has a water age of 108 hours (4.5 days) or less (Figure 8-9).

The tank in the system with the oldest water was Tank Farm 2D T4 Reservoir which is fed from MWD import connection F-08, modeled as a supply, but is the last tank on the dead-end branch and the total tank farm inflow and outflow (1,500 gpm) is relatively small compared to the total volume of the five

6.5 MG tanks (32.5 MG total) shown on Figure 8-10.
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
25th 50th 75th 95th
Water Age (hours)
Percentile
ADD
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.25 Figure 8-10. Tank Farm Facility with Average Water Age for Existing ADD Conditions The Las Palmas 3B Reservoir is also near the Tank Farm but is directly fed from the MWD import connection F-08 and is a single 5 MG tank with a 1,200-gpm inflow/outflow and therefore has an average water age of 4.6 days. The Laguna 2A Reservoir is fed from the Tank Farm 2D Reservoirs and therefore has older water (over 20 days old) due to the large volume at the Tank Farm Reservoirs.

However, water age does not directly indicate quality; even within each system, the water age may not be indicative of quality because the pipe walls themselves can influence water quality such as the rate of chlorine decay. For example, unlined cast iron pipe material has between 4-100 times faster decay rate than PVC pipe material (Kowalska, 2006). Further investigation is recommended at the locations predicted to have the highest water age to validate the model results, such as collecting water samples to verify chlorine residuals are within criteria.

There are several things that could help the City better baseline and improve water age as follows:
• Monitoring for DBPs at the locations with the highest water age in the late fall as system demands decrease and water temperature is elevated (higher water age and higher temperature facilitate formation of DBPs). It is recommended to monitor the locations with high water age, namely the locations shown on Figure 8-8 and listed below:
− Zone 3 along Muir Trail Drive.
− Zone 4B along Terraza Place near the Laguna 2A Reservoir.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.26 − Zone 4C in the north along Somerset Lane, Chantilly Lane, Walker Lane, and Brooke Lane.
− It is recommended to review the tank level range set-points of the Tank Farm 2D Reservoirs, and specifically to explore opportunities for seasonal reductions in upper and lower tank operating levels to reduce water age. An effective mitigation strategy would likely be reducing the low set point of the tanks to increase the tank turnover, although any change to minimum level set-point requires a review of minimum fire flow volumes.

8.5 System Improvement Recommendations
The following projects are recommended for the overall improvement of the water distribution system:
• Upsize pipelines throughout the system for fire flow conditions and install proposed new pipe looping for fire flow conditions, approximately 91,100 lf (Figure 8-3)
• Construct PRV at the intersection of East Bastanchury Road and Hartford Avenue, between Zone 3 and Zone 2 (Figure 8-3)
• Reconnect Zone 1 fire hydrant to the existing 10" parallel pipeline, near the intersection of West Orangethorpe Avenue and South Citrus Avenue (Figure 8-3) • Reconnect Zone 2 fire hydrant to the existing 12" parallel pipeline in Zone 3, near the intersection of Brea Boulevard and Barbara Boulevard (Figure 8-3) • Zone 1 to 2 realignment (Figure 8-4)
− Relocate one zone break valve between Zone 2 and 1, at the intersection of Vista Verde Drive and West Union Avenue
• Zone 4A to 3 realignment (Figure 8-2)
− Relocate one zone break valve between Zone 4A and 3, near the intersection of Pioneer Avenue and Rocky Road
• Zone 3 to 4C realignment (Figure 8-4)
− Relocate 3 zone break valves between Zone 4C and 3, near the intersection of Camino del Sol and Camino Rey, Atherton Circle and Camino del Sol, and between Applewood Circle and North Gilbert Street
− Construct new pipeline segment (49-lf) to connect the former Zone 3 and realigned Zone 4C
• New Pressure Zone 2B Subzone (Figure 8-2)
− Construct a new zone break valve near the intersection of Starbuck Street and Hughes Drive
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Water System Evaluation
March 2025

8.27 − Construct a new PRV near the intersection of Gilbert Street and Hughes Drive − Construct a new PRV near the intersection of Cusick Drive and Wright Lane • New Pressure Zone 3B Subzone (Figure 8-2)
− Construct a new zone break valve and new PRV southeast of the intersection of Primrose Lane and Camelia Lane, near Rosecrans Avenue
− Construct a new PRV at the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue and Emery Ranch Road − Construct approximately 2,600 LF of 8-inch pipeline along Emery Ranch Road and Muir Trail Drive, disconnecting laterals from the existing Zone 3 parallel pipeline and connecting to the proposed 8-inch pipeline

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.1 9.0 Planning Scenarios
All the planning scenarios discussed in this section assume the future system conditions as summarized in Section 8.3. Recommendations for each planning scenario are independent of one another and are not acquired into the next scenario. The following planning scenarios were requested by the City:

Maximizing Groundwater Supply: These model scenarios evaluated the distribution system for maximizing the City’s groundwater supply.
• Scenario 1A – Maximum Available Groundwater Supply: This scenario evaluated the future distribution system for a 72-hour simulation, assuming groundwater supply from all existing wells is maximized to meet future MDD.

This analysis evaluated the capability of the system to convey all available groundwater supply to the upper pressure zones and minimize imported water supply.
• Scenario 1B – 100 Percent Long Term Groundwater Supply: This scenario evaluated the future distribution system for a 21-day simulation, assuming 100 percent of the future ADD is supplied by groundwater wells.

System Operations Efficiency: This scenario evaluated distribution system operational modifications to improve system efficiency by minimizing the amount of water pumped to upper zones that is then allowed to flow back to lower zones via system PRVs.
• Scenario 2 – Pumping and PRV System Operations: This future distribution system analysis assumes pump operating times are reduced, and downstream PRV pressure settings are increased to minimize flow from upper zones to lower zones. This scenario was modeled under 72-hour future MDD conditions.

System Reliability: The following scenarios were performed to evaluate distribution system reliability under extreme supply outage assumptions.
• Scenario 3A – Import Water Outage: This scenario evaluates the capability of the distribution system to meet future ADD during a 7-day MWD import water supply outage.
• Scenario 3B – Pump Stations Offline: This evaluates the capability of the future distribution system to meet future ADD during a 7-day pump station outage. This assumes that seven pump stations between pressure zones are offline (Main Plant, Coyote, Lower Acacia Zone 2 and 3, Hillcrest, Tank Farm, and Hermitage Zone 3 BPS). Five pump stations serving pressurized zones are assumed to be online (Las Palmas, Upper Acacia, Laguna, Hermitage Zone 4C, and Hawks Pointe BPS).
• Scenario 3C – Groundwater Outage: This scenario evaluates the capability of the future distribution system to meet future ADD during a 7-day groundwater well supply outage. All groundwater wells are assumed to be offline.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.2 9.1 Maximizing Groundwater Supply
Two scenarios were developed in the hydraulic model to evaluate the goal of maximizing groundwater supply for the future planning horizon demand conditions.

9.1.1 SCENARIO 1A – MAXIMUM AVAILABLE GROUNDWATER SUPPLY The goal of Scenario 1A is to increase the well production from all existing wells, including the proposed new Well 7A. This scenario was modeled under a 72-hour duration with future MDD conditions of

36.5 mgd.

With all groundwater wells operating at full capacity for the entire 72-hours, a total groundwater supply of approximately 29.4 mgd (Table 9-1) is produced, which is approximately 81 percent of the 36.5 mgd MDD.

Table 9-1. Scenario 1A: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply Production Pressure
Zone Name Design Capacity
(gpm)a
Avg MDD Flowrate
(gpm)
Total MDD Supply
(mgd)
Zone 1
Well 5 (Main Plant) 1,500 1,967 2.83
Well 6 (Main Plant) 1,500 1,364 1.96
Well 8 (Main Plant) 2,000 1,708 2.46
Well 3A (Main Plant) 2,400 2,549 3.67
Well 7A (Main Plant)b 3,000 3,092 4.45
Zone 1A
Kimberly Well 1Ac 2,800 1,767 2.54
Kimberly Well 2d 1,875 1,723 2.48
Sunclipse Well 10d 2,000 2,082 3.00
Zone 1B
Airport Well 9 2,500 1,903 2.74
Christlieb Well 15Ae 2,000 2,263 3.26
Totals 21,575 20,418 29.39
Notes:
a Design capacity data obtained from Water Facilities Worksheet provided by the City. b Well 7A capacity is currently in the design phase and based on the expected capacity. Well 7A and Well 3A will pump to a treatment facility located at the Main Plant and directly supply Zone 1. c Kimberly Well 1A to be rehabilitated and upgraded in 2025; however, this scenario assumes current well conditions. Note the average MDD flow rate matches SCADA collected during hydrant flow testing. d Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10 are assumed to pump to a common PFAS treatment facility located at the Kimberly Well 2 site prior to discharging to Zone 1A. Kimberly 2 is assumed to be equipped with a new pump to deliver its well design capacity. e Christlieb Well 15A is being rehabilitated but may not be available in the future. This scenario assumes current well conditions.

The remaining 7.1 mgd will be supplied from MWD imported water connections, as shown in Table 9-2.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.3 Table 9-2. Scenario 1A: Proposed MWD Import Water Supply Pressure Zone Name a,b Design Capacity
(cfs)
Avg MDD Flowrate
(cfs)
Total MDD Supply
(mgd)
Zone 1B F-05c 15 1.5 0.75
Zone 3
F-04 15 1.5 0.75
F-06 15 2 0.91
F-08 30 4 2.49
F-09 15 5 2.21
Zone 4A F-02 5 0 0.00
Total 95 14 7.11
Notes:
a MWD Connections F-01 is not used. In 2021 it was brought online to serve as a backup supply for emergencies due wells being out of service at the time impacted by PFAS.
b MWD Connection F-03 is not operational.

9.1.1.1 Pump Capacity Evaluation
Wells 5, 6, and 8 pump directly to the Main Plant Forebay, and the Main Plant BPS pumps out of this forebay into Zone 1. The Main Plant BPS pumps are controlled by the tank level at the Hillcrest 1A Reservoir. Two of the five pumps at the Main Plant BPS operate under this scenario. With all the groundwater wells operating on a 24-hour basis, additional capacity is needed to pump the available groundwater supply to the higher-pressure zones. The existing pump stations are undersized for this scenario, as most of the MDD in the higher-pressure zones are historically met by MWD imported water.

Given most of the demand is met by import water connection in the upper zones, upsizing the pump stations is recommended to meet the MDD by moving the available groundwater to the upper zones.

Therefore, additional capacity is required at the Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPS and Hillcrest BPS. The Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPS pumps are proposed to be upsized by three new pumps at 1,500 gpm (75 hp) each.

The Hillcrest BPS pumps are proposed to be upsized by two new pumps at 1,500 gpm (125 hp) each.

Based on the existing system evaluation, the Coyote BPS is assumed to be upgraded with three new pumps, each at 1,500 gpm. Note that the State College BPS and Tank Farm BPS were not needed for this scenario. The proposed booster pump station upsizing requirements are summarized in Table 9-3.

The proposed number of pumps, capacity, and horsepower are provided for each of the booster pump stations. The proposed pumps would replace the existing pumps at each pump station.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.4 Table 9-3. Scenario 1A: Proposed BPS Capacity Requirements Facility
Number of Pumps Pump Capacity (gpm) Proposed Pump
Horsepower Existing Proposed a Existing Proposed
Coyote BPSb 3 3 900 1,500 100
Hillcrest BPS 2 3 1,000 1,500 125
Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPS 3 3 850 1,500 75
Notes:
a Proposed number of pumps assumes two duty pumps and one standby pump configuration. Pumps proposed to replace existing pumps.
b Coyote BPS recommendation is consistent with existing conditions recommendation in Section 8.1.

9.1.1.2 PRV Evaluation
Additionally, to reduce the flow through PRVs from upper zones to the lower zones, the settings were adjusted for four PRVs as summarized in Table 9-4.

Table 9-4. Scenario 1A: Proposed PRV Settings
From Zone
To Zone Name
Setting Flow Rate (gpm)
Existing Proposed
Existing Proposed
Average Peak Average Peak
2 to 1 PR-4 55 50 383 441 0 0
Tank Farm to 2 PR-5A1 65 61 6,647 7,841 1,617 3,156
3 to 2
PR-7 68 55 632 643 232 273
PR-14 53 40 399 475 0 0

With the recommendations as proposed, the system is capable of replenishing the reservoirs, maintaining a minimum service pressure of 40 psi, and having standby pumps readily available, while still meeting future MDD. The proposed recommendations for maximizing groundwater supplies are shown on Figure 9-1.

HERMITAGE
2B
LAGUNA 2A
LAS PALMAS 3B
COYOTE 1C
KIMBERLY 2
FOREBAY (K2F)
STATE COLLEGE 2C
UPPER ACACIA 3A
LOWER ACACIA 1D

MAIN PLANT
HAWKS POINTE 3C
HILLCREST 1A
PR-05
PR-01PR-12
PR-16
PR-26
PR-17
PR-15
PR-14
PR-13
PR-10
PR-04
PR-03
PR-02
PR-07
PR-08
PR-24
PR-25
PR-29
PR-30
PR-19
PR-20
PR-32
PR-11
PR-09
PR-22
PR-23
F-08 F-07 (NOT BUILT)
F-03 (INACTIVE)
F-06
F-02
F-04
F-01
F-05
F-09
Golden State
Water Company
Brea
Anaheim
La Habra
Suburban
Water
Systems
Anaheim
Buena Park
A
A
A
A A
A
AAAAAA
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig9-1_FutSys_scn1a
A
A
A
A
A
AWELL 7A
(FUTURE)
WELL 5
WELL 6
WELL 8
WELL 3A
WELL 4
(INACTIVE)
TANK FARM 2D
TANK 1 (T1)
T3
T4 T5
T2

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 9-1. Scenario 1A: Maximum Available Groundwater Supply

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
2/19/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Hillcrest BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (125 hp)
Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (75 hp) each
Proposed
Zone 4C BPS
Proposed Zone 5 BPS
& Zone 4 Reservoir
Coyote BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (100 hp) each
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Reservoir
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 2
Zone 3
Groundwater Well
A Zone 1
A Zone 1A
A Zone 1B
Interconnection
Zone 1
Zone 1B
Zone 3
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
MWD Import Water Turnout
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Thickness Indicates
Pipeline Diameter
Greater than 24"
12" to 24"
8" to 10"
6" or Less
Proposed Pressure Zone
Zone 4C
Zone 5
Zone 2B
Zone 3B
Zone 4A to 3
Proposed Zone 4C Reservoir
Proposed BPS
Proposed Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 4C
Zone 5
TANK FARM 2D

MAIN PLANT

MAIN PLANT

FOREBAY
(MPF)

TANK FARM
Notes:
- MWD = Metropolitan Water District
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.6 9.1.2 SCENARIO 1B – 100 PERCENT LONG-TERM GROUNDWATER SUPPLY The goal of Scenario 1B is to completely rely on groundwater as a long-term supply operation. This scenario evaluated the operational capabilities of the future system with 100 percent groundwater supply while meeting future ADD, replenishing the reservoirs, and maintaining minimum service pressures of 40 psi. This scenario was modeled for a 21-Day EPS future system conditions with a total future ADD of

24.9 mgd.

To meet demands entirely by groundwater, additional well supply is needed. Without imported water supply from F-05 to Zone 1B, the two existing wells in Zone 1B are not able to meet demands in the zone and maintain tank levels at the Coyote 1C Reservoir. A well siting and capacity study should be conducted. This new groundwater well to Zone 1B is proposed to have a minimum capacity of 1,000 gpm.

The proposed groundwater well supplies are summarized in Table 9-5. The new proposed well is shown on Figure 9-2; however, the location shown is temporary and only for the purposes of this report.

Table 9-5. Scenario 1B: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply Pressure Zone Name Design Capacity
(gpm)a
Avg Flowrate
(gpm)
Total Supply
(mgd)
Zone 1
Well 5 (Main Plant) 1,500 0 0.00
Well 6 (Main Plant) 1,500 1,379 1.99
Well 8 (Main Plant) 2,000 1,732 2.49
Well 3A 2,400 2,271 3.27
Well 7Ab 3,000 3,085 4.44
Zone 1A
Kimberly Well 1Ac 2,800 1,713 1.52
Kimberly Well 2d 1,875 1,667 2.40
Sunclipse Well 10d 2,000 2,044 2.94
Zone 1B
Airport Well 9 2,500 2,532 3.65
Christlieb Well 15Ae 2,000 2,000 2.56
Proposed Zone 1B Well 1,000 895 1.15
Totals 21,575 19,318 26.40
Notes:
a Design capacity data obtained from Water Facilities Worksheet provided by the City. b Well 7A capacity is currently in the design phase and based on the expected capacity. Well 7A and Well 3A will pump to a treatment facility located at the Main Plant and directly supply Zone 1. c Kimberly Well 1A to be rehabilitated and upgraded in 2025; however, this scenario assumes current well conditions. Note the average MDD flow rate matches SCADA collected during hydrant flow testing. d Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10 are assumed to pump to a common PFAS treatment facility located at the Kimberly Well 2 site prior to discharging to Zone 1A. Kimberly 2 is assumed to be equipped a new pump to deliver its well design capacity. e Christlieb Well 15A is being rehabilitated but may not be available in the future. This scenario assumes current well conditions.

The Tank Farm 2D Reservoirs are at an elevation above the Zone 2 HGL but below the Zone 3 HGL and are only supplied by the MWD import water turnout F-08 through a control valve located at the Tank Farm facility. As a long-term operating scenario without supply from MWD, the Tank Farm Reservoirs are recommended to be removed from the system for this scenario only. Additional pumping from the lower WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.7 zones up to Zone 3 would be required to fill the Tank Farm Reservoirs. However, the reservoirs only feed Zone 2 by gravity. Therefore, considering the large storage volume at the Tank Farm Reservoirs and significant pumping costs, the system operates more efficiently with the Tank Farm Reservoirs disconnected from the system. In addition, with the Tank Farm Reservoirs disconnected, the system would maintain better water quality in the upper zones.

The F-08 MWD connection is also used during normal daily operations historically to fill Las Palmas 3B Reservoir, with filling operations in conjunction with the control valve filling the Tank Farm Reservoirs.

Therefore, to meet the needs for this scenario, the Las Palmas Reservoir is proposed to be filled by the Hillcrest BPS, where pump settings are adjusted to be controlled by the Las Palmas Reservoir level. In addition, for this scenario, a dedicated 16-inch (7,000 linear feet (lf)) transmission main is proposed to be installed in Zone 3 from the Hillcrest BPS to the intersection of North Harbor Boulevard and West Valencia Mesa Drive as shown on Figure 9-2.

9.1.2.1 Pump Capacity Evaluation
The Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPS and Hillcrest BPS each require upsizing all pumps with a capacity of 1,500 gpm each. Coyote BPS is also assumed to be upsized. For this scenario, additional pumping capacity is needed at the Lower Acacia Zone 3 BPS and Hermitage Zone 3 BPS, as listed in Table 9-6.

Note that the State College BPS and Tank Farm BPS were not needed for this scenario. The proposed number of pumps, capacity, and horsepower are provided for each of the booster pump stations. The proposed pumps would replace the existing pumps at each pump station.

Table 9-6. Scenario 1B: Proposed BPS Capacity Requirements Facility
Number of Pumps Pump Capacity (gpm) Proposed Pump
Horsepower Existing Proposed a Existing Proposed
Coyote BPSb 3 3 900 1,500 100
Hillcrest BPSc 2 3 1,000 1,500 125
Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPSc 3 3 850 1,500 75
Lower Acacia Zone 3 BPS 3 3 1,150 1,500 100
Hermitage Zone 3 BPS 2 2 500/1,000 1,500 75
a Proposed number of pumps assumes two duty pumps and one standby pump configuration, except for Hermitage Zone 3 BPS with one duty and one standby pump. Pumps proposed to replace existing pumps. b Coyote BPS recommendation is consistent with existing conditions recommendation in Section 8.1. c Capacity recommendation is consistent with Scenario 1A Maximum Available Groundwater Supply during future MDD conditions.

9.1.2.2 PRV Evaluation
To minimize the flow of already pumped groundwater supply to the upper zones flowing back down to the lower zones, the settings were adjusted for five PRVs as summarized in Table 9-7.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.8 Table 9-7. Scenario 1B: Proposed PRV Settings
From Zone To
Zone Name
Setting Flow Rate (gpm)
Existing Proposed
Existing Proposed
Average Peak Average Peak
2 to 1 PR-4 55 50 383 441 0 0
Tank Farm to 2 PR-5A1 65 60 6,647 7,841 0 0
3 to 2
PR-7 68 55 632 643 181 283
PR-13 88 87 8 85 199 351
PR-14 53 40 399 475 0 0

Since this scenario is a long-term supply operating condition and the Tank Farm 2D Reservoirs are not used for this operating condition, onsite permanent backup generators are proposed to be installed at groundwater wells 1A, 2, 3A, 9, 10, and 15A as well as the proposed well in Zone 1B. Onsite permanent backup generators are also proposed at the following booster pump stations: Coyote, Hillcrest, Lower Acacia, Laguna, Las Palmas, and Hermitage. Note that the State College BPS was not needed for this scenario. The proposed conditions for this scenario are shown on Figure 9-2.

9.1.2.3 Scenario 1B Alternative: Maintain Tank Farm Facility in Service Demolishing the Tank Farm 2D Reservoirs is not recommended as a permanent solution as this facility provides valuable operational and emergency storage to the City. An additional evaluation was conducted to determine the minimum supply from the F-08 MWD connection while allowing the Tank Farm facility to remain in service and be used as part of the system. The evaluation was modeled under the same conditions as the 100 percent groundwater supply (Scenario 1B), with a total future ADD of 24.9 mgd.

At least one import water connection is needed to maintain the Tank Farm facility in service, with a minimum of two tanks operating (T1 and T2). Tables 9-8 and 9-9 summarize the groundwater wells and import water supply turnout required for this evaluation, with approximately 95 percent of demand met by groundwater. Aside from those proposed above for Scenario 1B, no additional recommendations are proposed for this alternative evaluation.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.9 Table 9-8. Scenario 1B Alternative: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply Pressure Zone Name Design Capacity
(gpm)
Avg MDD Flowrate
(gpm)
Total MDD Supply
(mgd)
Zone 1
Well 5 (Main Plant) 1,500 0 0.00
Well 6 (Main Plant) 1,500 1,379 1.99
Well 8 (Main Plant) 2,000 1,732 2.49
Well 3A 2,400 2,272 3.27
Well 7Aa 3,000 3,085 4.44
Zone 1A
Kimberly Well 1Ab 2,800 1,711 0.13
Kimberly Well 2c 1,875 1,698 2.45
Sunclipse Well 10c 2,000 2,065 2.97
Zone 1B
Airport Well 9 2,500 2,535 3.65
Christlieb Well 15A 2,000 2,000 1.55
Proposed Zone 1B Well 1,000 898 0.70
Totals 21,575 18,477 23.64
a Well 7A capacity is currently in the design phase and based on the expected capacity. Well 7A and Well 3A will pump to a treatment facility located at the Main Plant and directly supply Zone 1. b Kimberly Well 1A average MDD flow rate matches SCADA collected during hydrant flow testing. c Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10 are assumed to pump to a common PFAS treatment facility located at the Kimberly Well 2 site prior to discharging to Zone 1A. Kimberly 2 is assumed to be equipped a new pump to deliver its well design capacity.

Table 9-9. Scenario 1B Alternative: Proposed MWD Import Water Supply Pressure Zone Name a,b Design Capacity
(cfs)
Avg MDD Flowrate
(cfs)
Total MDD Supply
(mgd)
Zone 1B F-05 15 0 0.00
Zone 3
F-04 15 0 0.00
F-06 15 0 0.00
F-08 30 4 1.26
F-09 15 0 0.00
Zone 4A F-02 5 0 0.00
Total 95 4 1.26
Notes:
a MWD Connections F-01 is not used. In 2021 it was brought online to serve as a backup supply for emergencies due wells being out of service at the time impacted by PFAS, however, it has not been used. b MWD Connection F-03 is not operational.

HERMITAGE
2B
LAGUNA 2A
LAS PALMAS 3B
COYOTE 1C
KIMBERLY 2
FOREBAY (K2F)
STATE COLLEGE 2C
UPPER ACACIA 3A
LOWER ACACIA 1D

MAIN PLANT
HAWKS POINTE 3C
PR-05
PR-01PR-12
PR-16
PR-26
PR-17
PR-15
PR-14
PR-13
PR-10
PR-04
PR-03
PR-02
PR-07
PR-08
PR-24
PR-25
PR-29
PR-30
PR-19
PR-20
PR-32
PR-11
PR-09
PR-22
PR-23
F-08 F-07 (NOT BUILT)
F-03 (INACTIVE)
F-06
F-02
F-04
F-01
F-05
F-09
Golden State
Water Company
Brea
Anaheim
La Habra
Suburban
Water
Systems
Anaheim
Buena Park
A
A
A
A A
A
AAAAAA
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
A
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig9-2_FutSys_scn1b
A
A
A
A
A
AWELL 7A
(FUTURE)
WELL 5
WELL 6
WELL 8
WELL 3A
WELL 4
(INACTIVE)
TANK FARM 2D
TANK 1 (T1)
T3
T4 T5
T2

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 9-2. Scenario 1B: 100% Long-Term Groundwater Supply

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
3/5/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Proposed
Zone 4C BPS
Proposed Zone 5 BPS
& Zone 4 Reservoir
TANK FARM 2D

MAIN PLANT
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Reservoir
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 2
Zone 3
Groundwater Well
A Zone 1
A Zone 1A
A Zone 1B
Interconnection
Zone 1
Zone 1B
Zone 3
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
MWD Import Water Turnout
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Thickness Indicates
Pipeline Diameter
Greater than 24"
12" to 24"
8" to 10"
6" or Less
Proposed Pressure Zone
Zone 4C
Zone 5
Zone 2B
Zone 3B
Zone 4A to 3
Proposed Zone 4C Reservoir
A
Proposed Zone 1B
Groundwater Well
Proposed BPS
Proposed Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 3
Zone 4C
Zone 5
Notes:
- MWD = Metropolitan Water District
Hillcrest BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (125 hp) each
Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (75 hp) each
Coyote BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (100 hp) each
Tank Farm (2D) Reservoirs
100% GW Supply
Disconnected from system
95% GW Supply
Only two reservoirs online
Proposed
Zone 1B Well
1,000 gpm
Lower Acacia Zone 3 BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (100 hp) each
Hermitage Zone 3 BPS
Replace with 2 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (75 hp) each
Proposed Zone 3
dedicated 16" (7,000 lf)
transmission main

MAIN PLANT

FOREBAY
(MPF)

TANK FARM

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
Install permanent backup generators
at Groundwater Wells:
- Kimberly 1A
- Kimberly 2
- Main Plant 3A
- Airport 9
- Sunclipse 10
- Christlieb 15A
- Proposed Zone 1B
HILLCREST 1A
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.11 9.2 System Operations Efficiency

9.2.1 SCENARIO 2 – PUMPING AND PRV SYSTEM OPERATIONS
The goal for Scenario 2 is to minimize pumping hours as well as to minimize flow from upper zones to lower zones by evaluating PRV settings. Scenario 2 was modeled under 72-Hour EPS future MDD conditions with a total demand of 36.5 mgd.

Groundwater wells supplied approximately 23.9 mgd as summarized in Table 9-10. The remaining

12.6 mgd was supplied by MWD imported water (Table 9-11). Note the ratio between groundwater and MWD imported water are similar to existing conditions.

Table 9-10. Scenario 2: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply Pressure Zone Name Design Capacity
(gpm)a
Avg MDD Flowrate
(gpm)
Total MDD Supply
(mgd)
Zone 1
Well 5 (Main Plant) 1,500 1,960 1.08
Well 6 (Main Plant) 1,500 1,354 0.03
Well 8 (Main Plant) 2,000 1,698 1.24
Well 3A 2,400 2,618 3.77
Well 7Ab 3,000 3,188 4.59
Zone 1A
Kimberly Well 1Ac 2,800 1,744 2.51
Kimberly Well 2d 1,875 1,688 2.43
Sunclipse Well 10d 2,000 2,058 2.96
Zone 1B
Airport Well 9 2,500 2,480 3.57
Christlieb Well 15Ae 2,000 2,154 1.70
Totals 21,575 20,943 23.89
Notes:
a Design capacity data obtained from Water Facilities Worksheet provided by the City. b Well 7A capacity is currently in the design phase and based on the expected capacity. Well 7A and Well 3A will pump to a treatment facility located at the Main Plant and directly supply Zone 1. c Kimberly Well 1A to be rehabilitated and upgraded in 2025; however, this scenario assumes current well conditions. Note the average MDD flow rate matches SCADA collected during hydrant flow testing. d Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10 are assumed to pump to a common PFAS treatment facility located at the Kimberly Well 2 site prior to discharging to Zone 1A. Kimberly 2 is assumed to be equipped a new pump to deliver its well design capacity.
e Christlieb Well 15A is being rehabilitated but may not be available in the future. This scenario assumes current well conditions.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.12 Table 9-11. Scenario 2: Proposed MWD Import Water Supply Pressure Zone Namea,b Design Capacity
(cfs)
Avg MDD Flowrate
(cfs)
Total MDD Supply
(mgd)
Zone 1B F-05 15 6 3.12
Zone 3
F-04 15 2 0.97
F-06 15 5 2.89
F-08 30 6 3.48
F-09 15 6 2.15
Zone 4A F-02 5 0 0.00
Total 95 24 12.61
Notes:
a MWD Connections F-01 is not used. In 2021 it was brought online to serve as a backup supply for emergencies due wells being out of service at the time impacted by PFAS, however, it has not been used. b MWD Connection F-03 is not operational.

9.2.1.1 Pump Capacity Evaluation
The model results indicate that there are three pump stations where at least one or more of the pumps operates on a 24-hour continuous basis. For long-term efficiency and overall life of the pump stations, it is recommended that the pump stations operate with dedicated duty pumps and dedicated standby pumps, where the standby pump can operate as a backup if a duty pump were to fail or taken offline for maintenance. However, to allow this operating condition, additional pumping capacity is needed at the three pump stations as listed in Table 9-12. The proposed number of pumps, capacity, and horsepower are provided for each of the booster pump stations. The proposed pumps would replace the existing pumps at each pump station.

Table 9-12. Scenario 2: Proposed BPS Capacity Requirements Facility
Number of Pumps Pump Capacity (gpm) Proposed Pump
Horsepower Existing Proposed a Existing Proposed
Coyote BPSb 3 3 900 1,500 100
Hillcrest BPS 2 2 1,000 1,500 100
Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPS 3 3 850 1,000 50
Notes:
a Proposed number of pumps assumes two duty pumps and one standby pump configuration, except for Hillcrest BPS with one duty and one standby pump. Pumps proposed to replace existing number of pumps. b Coyote BPS recommendation is consistent with existing conditions recommendation in Section 8.1.

Two of the four closed system pressure zones, Zone 4C and Zone 4A, are supplied by pump stations that do not have hydropneumatic tanks or variable frequency drives (VFDs). These constant speed pumps typically pump significantly more than the daily system demands. To maintain system pressure these pumps circulate water back to the suction line through a control valve. To improve pump operating efficiency and reduce operating costs, hydropneumatic tanks are recommended at the Hermitage WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.13 Zone 4C BPS and Upper Acacia BPS. It should be noted that the Hermitage Zone 4C BPS does have a hydropneumatic tank system onsite, but has not been operating for several years. A further study of this facility should be conducted to determine if the hydropneumatic system can be rehabilitated or replaced.

The State College BPS and Tank Farm BPS were not needed for this scenario.

9.2.1.2 PRV Evaluation
For large pressure zones, the goal of this analysis is to minimize the flow from the upper zones to the lower zones. To accomplish this, flow from Zone 3 to Zone 2 and from Zone 2 to Zone 1 was evaluated.

To reduce the flow and maintain minimum service pressures of 40 psi, the settings for four PRVs were adjusted as summarized in Table 9-13.

Table 9-13. Scenario 2: Proposed PRV Settings
From Zone To
Zone Name
Setting Flow Rate (gpm)
Existing Proposed
Existing Proposed
Average Peak Average Peak
2 to 1 PR-4 55 50 383 441 0 0
Tank Farm to 2 PR-5A1 65 61 6,647 7,841 847 2,121
3 to 2
PR-7 68 55 632 643 205 253
PR-14 53 44 399 475 141 200

The proposed conditions for Scenario 2 are shown on Figure 9-3.

HERMITAGE
2B
LAGUNA 2A
LAS PALMAS 3B
COYOTE 1C
KIMBERLY 2
FOREBAY (K2F)
STATE COLLEGE 2C
UPPER ACACIA 3A
LOWER ACACIA 1D

MAIN PLANT
HAWKS POINTE 3C
HILLCREST 1A
PR-05
PR-01PR-12
PR-16
PR-26
PR-17
PR-15
PR-14
PR-13
PR-10
PR-04
PR-03
PR-02
PR-07
PR-08
PR-24
PR-25
PR-29
PR-30
PR-19
PR-20
PR-32
PR-11
PR-09
PR-22
PR-23
F-08 F-07 (NOT BUILT)
F-03 (INACTIVE)
F-06
F-02
F-04
F-01
F-05
F-09
Golden State
Water Company
Brea
Anaheim
La Habra
Suburban
Water
Systems
Anaheim
Buena Park
A
A
A
A A
A
AAAAAA
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig9-3_FutSys_scn2
A
A
A
A
A
AWELL 7A
(FUTURE)
WELL 5
WELL 6
WELL 8
WELL 3A
WELL 4
(INACTIVE)
TANK FARM 2D
TANK 1 (T1)
T3
T4 T5
T2

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 9-3. Scenario 2: Pumping and PRV System Operations

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
3/5/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Proposed
Zone 4C BPS
Proposed Zone 5 BPS
& Zone 4 Reservoir
TANK FARM 2D

MAIN PLANT
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Reservoir
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 2
Zone 3
Groundwater Well
A Zone 1
A Zone 1A
A Zone 1B
Interconnection
Zone 1
Zone 1B
Zone 3
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
MWD Import Water Turnout
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Thickness Indicates
Pipeline Diameter
Greater than 24"
12" to 24"
8" to 10"
6" or Less
Proposed Pressure Zone
Zone 4C
Zone 5
Zone 2B
Zone 3B
Zone 4A to 3
Proposed Zone 4C Reservoir
Proposed BPS
Proposed Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 4C
Zone 5
Notes:
- MWD = Metropolitan Water District
Hillcrest BPS
Replace with 2 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (100 hp)
Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,000 gpm (50 hp) each
Coyote BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (100 hp) each
Hermitage Zone 4C BPS
Rehabilitate/Replace
Hydropneumatic Tank
Upper Acacia BPS
Install Hydropneumatic Tank

MAIN PLANT

FOREBAY
(MPF)

TANK FARM
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.15 9.3 System Reliability

9.3.1 SCENARIO 3A – 7-DAY IMPORTED WATER OUTAGE
The goal of Scenario 3A is to investigate the capability of the system to meet demands with a 7-day MWD imported water supply outage. This scenario was modeled under a 7-Day EPS future ADD of 24.9 mgd.

During this type of emergency condition, the City would assume to curtail demands with mandatory use restrictions. However, for purposes of evaluating the system under this scenario, ADD conditions are assumed.

With imported water supply out of service, 100 percent of the demand will be met by groundwater supply as shown in Table 9-14. All groundwater well pumping is maximized and operating for the full 168 hours with the exception of Wells 1A and 15A. Well 1A is controlled by Lower Acacia 1D Reservoir levels and Well 15A is controlled by Coyote 1C Reservoir levels. However, additional supply is needed to meet Zone 1B demands and maintain the Coyote Reservoir levels. A new groundwater well in Zone 1B is proposed with a minimum capacity of 1,000 gpm (150 hp). The proposed groundwater well supplies are summarized in Table 9-14.

Table 9-14. Scenario 3A: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply Pressure Zone Name Design Capacity
(gpm)a
Avg Flowrate
(gpm)
Total Supply
(mgd)
Zone 1
Well 5 (Main Plant) 1,500 0 0.00
Well 6 (Main Plant) 1,500 1,379 1.99
Well 8 (Main Plant) 2,000 1,732 2.49
Well 3A 2,400 2,305 3.32
Well 7Ab 3,000 3,123 4.50
Zone 1A
Kimberly Well 1Ac 2,800 1,724 1.28
Kimberly Well 2d 1,875 1,681 2.42
Sunclipse Well 10d 2,000 2,053 2.96
Zone 1B
Airport Well 9 2,500 2,533 3.65
Christlieb Well 15Ae 2,000 2,000 2.62
Proposed Zone 1B Well 1,000 899 1.18
Totals 21,575 19,429 26.40
Note:
a Design capacity data obtained from Water Facilities Worksheet provided by the City. b Well 7A capacity is currently in the design phase and based on the expected capacity. Well 7A and Well 3A will pump to a treatment facility located at the Main Plant and directly supply Zone 1. c Kimberly Well 1A to be rehabilitated and upgraded in 2025; however, this scenario assumes current well conditions. Note the average MDD flow rate matches SCADA collected during hydrant flow testing. d Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10 are assumed to pump to a common PFAS treatment facility located at the Kimberly Well 2 site prior to discharging to Zone 1A. Kimberly 2 is assumed to be equipped a new pump to deliver its well design capacity. e Christlieb Well 15A is being rehabilitated but may not be available in the future. This scenario assumes current well conditions.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.16 9.3.1.1 Pump Capacity Evaluation
To pump groundwater from the lower pressure zones to higher pressure zones, additional pumping capacity would be needed at five booster pump stations as listed in Table 9-15. The number of pumps, capacity, and horsepower are provided for each of the BPS. The proposed pumps would replace the existing pumps at each pump station.

Table 9-15. Scenario 3A: Proposed Supplemental BPS Capacity Facility
Number of Pumps Pump Capacity (gpm) Proposed
Pump
Horsepower Existing Proposed a Existing Proposed
Coyote BPSb 3 3 900 1,500 100
Hillcrest BPSc 2 3 1,000 1,500 125
Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPSc 3 3 850 1,500 75
Lower Acacia Zone 3 BPSd 3 3 1,150 1,500 100
Hermitage Zone 3 BPSd 2 2 500/1,000 1,500 75
Notes:
a Proposed number of pumps assumes two duty pumps and one standby pump configuration, except for Hermitage Zone 3 BPS with one duty and one standby pump. Pumps proposed to replace existing pumps. b Coyote BPS recommendation is consistent with existing conditions recommendation in Section 8.1. c Capacity recommendation is consistent with Scenario 1A Maximum Available Groundwater Supply during future MDD conditions.
d Capacity recommendation is consistent with Scenario 1B 100 Percent Groundwater Supply during ADD conditions.

For Scenario 3A, the Tank Farm BPS is needed to operate 7 to 8 hours per day over 6 days to meet Zone 3 demands and maintain the Las Palmas 3B Reservoir levels.

Note that the State College BPS is not needed for this scenario.

9.3.1.2 PRV Evaluation
To reduce flow from the upper zones to the lower zones and save pumping costs, the settings for three PRVs were adjusted as summarized in Table 9-16.

Table 9-16. Scenario 3A: Proposed PRV Settings
From Zone
To Zone Name
Setting Flow Rate (gpm)
Existing Proposed
Existing Proposed
Average Peak Average Peak
2 to 1 PR-4 55 50 383 441 0 0
3 to 2
PR-7 68 55 632 643 172 278
PR-14 53 40 399 475 0 0

The proposed conditions for this scenario are shown on Figure 9-4.

HERMITAGE
2B
LAGUNA 2A
LAS PALMAS 3B
COYOTE 1C
KIMBERLY 2
FOREBAY (K2F)
STATE COLLEGE 2C
UPPER ACACIA 3A
LOWER ACACIA 1D

MAIN PLANT
HAWKS POINTE 3C
HILLCREST 1A
PR-05
PR-01PR-12
PR-16
PR-26
PR-17
PR-15
PR-14
PR-13
PR-10
PR-04
PR-03
PR-02
PR-07
PR-08
PR-24
PR-25
PR-29
PR-30
PR-19
PR-20
PR-32
PR-11
PR-09
PR-22
PR-23
F-08 F-07 (NOT BUILT)
F-03 (INACTIVE)
F-06
F-02
F-04
F-01
F-05
F-09
A
A
A
A A
A
AAAAAA
A
Golden State
Water Company
Brea
Anaheim
La Habra
Suburban
Water
Systems
Anaheim
Buena Park
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig9-4_FutSys_scn3a
A
A
A
A
A
AWELL 7A
(FUTURE)
WELL 5
WELL 6
WELL 8
WELL 3A
WELL 4
(INACTIVE)
TANK FARM 2D
TANK 1 (T1)
T3
T4 T5
T2

LOWER FEEDER

ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER

WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER
Figure 9-4. Scenario 3A: 7-Day Import Water Outage

FULLERTON WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
3/5/2025´
0 1,500 3,000
Feet
Proposed
Zone 4C BPS
Proposed Zone 5 BPS
& Zone 4 Reservoir
TANK FARM 2D

MAIN PLANT
LEGEND
City Boundary
Pressure Zone
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Reservoir
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 2
Zone 3
Groundwater Well
A Zone 1
A Zone 1A
A Zone 1B
Interconnection
Zone 1
Zone 1B
Zone 3
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
MWD Import Water Turnout
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Thickness Indicates
Pipeline Diameter
Greater than 24"
12" to 24"
8" to 10"
6" or Less
Proposed Pressure Zone
Zone 4C
Zone 5
Zone 2B
Zone 3B
Zone 4A to 3
Proposed Zone 4C Reservoir
A
Proposed Zone 1B
Groundwater Well
Proposed BPS
Proposed Pipeline
Zone 1
Zone 4C
Zone 5
Notes:
- MWD = Metropolitan Water District
Hillcrest BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (125 hp)
Coyote BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (100 hp) each
Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (75 hp) each
Tank Farm BPS
Operating 7 to 8 hours
per day for 6 days
Proposed
Zone 1B Well
1,000 gpm
Lower Acacia Zone 3 BPS
Replace with 3 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (100 hp) each
Hermitage Zone 3 BPS
Replace with 2 new pumps
at 1,500 gpm (75 hp) each

TANK FARM

MAIN PLANT

FOREBAY
(MPF)
WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.18 9.3.2 SCENARIO 3B – PUMP STATIONS OFFLINE
Scenario 3B investigated the impacts to and capability of the system during a 7-day pump station outage while meeting demands and maintaining minimum service pressures of 40 psi. This scenario assumes emergency generators are not available, except for generators at pump stations in closed zones.

Scenario 3B was modeled under 7-Day EPS future ADD condition with a total demand of 24.9 mgd.

The groundwater wells supplied 9.3 mgd (see Table 9-17) and the MWD import connections supplied

15.6 mgd (see Table 9-18). The groundwater wells are in the lower pressure zones (Zones 1, 1A, 1B) and most of the MWD connections supply Zone 3. Therefore, with the pump stations between zones offline, the demands to Zone 3, Zone 2, and as required when demands exceed groundwater wells capacity in Zone 1, were met by the MWD import connections through PRVs in the system. Zones 4, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5 are all closed zones only supplied by pump stations; therefore, these were the only booster pump stations assumed to remain in operation.

Table 9-17. Scenario 3B: Proposed Groundwater Well Supply Pressure Zone Name
Design
Capacity
(gpm)a
Avg MDD Flowrate
(gpm)
Total MDD Supply
(mgd)
Zone 1
Well 5 (Main Plant) 1,500 0 0.00
Well 6 (Main Plant) 1,500 0 0.00
Well 8 (Main Plant) 2,000 1,695 1.27
Well 3A (Main Plant) 2,400 1,668 1.48
Well 7A (Main Plant)b 3,000 3,799 3.37
Zone 1A
Kimberly Well 1Ac 2,800 1,795 1.51
Kimberly Well 2d 1,875 1,701 0.09
Sunclipse Well 10d 2,000 2,044 0.09
Zone 1B
Airport Well 9 2,500 2,583 1.45
Christlieb Well 15Ae 2,000 2,193 0.06
Totals 21,575 17,478 9.31
Notes
a Design capacity data obtained from Water Facilities Worksheet provided by the City. b Well 7A capacity is currently in the design phase and based on the expected capacity. Well 7A and Well 3A will pump to a treatment facility located at the Main Plant and directly supply Zone 1. c Kimberly Well 1A to be rehabilitated and upgraded in 2025; however, this scenario assumes current well conditions. Note the average MDD flow rate matches SCADA collected during hydrant flow testing. d Kimberly Well 2 and Sunclipse Well 10 are assumed to pump to a common PFAS treatment facility located at the Kimberly Well 2 site prior to discharging to Zone 1A. Kimberly 2 is assumed to be equipped a new pump to deliver its well design capacity. e Christlieb Well 15A is being rehabilitated but may not be available in the future. This scenario assumes current well conditions.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.19 Table 9-18. Scenario 3B: Proposed MWD Import Water Supply Pressure Zone Namea,b Design Capacity
(cfs)
Avg MDD Flowrate
(cfs)
Total MDD Supply
(mgd)
Zone 1B F-05 15 2 1.42
Zone 3
F-04 15 3 2.12
F-06 15 6 3.56
F-08 30 11 7.07
F-09 15 2 1.42
Zone 4A F-02 5 0 1.42
Total 95 25 15.59
Notes
a MWD Connections F-01 is not used. In 2021 it was brought online to serve as a backup supply for emergencies due wells being out of service at the time impacted by PFAS, however, it has not been used. b MWD Connection F-03 is not operational.

9.3.2.1 Pump Capacity Evaluation
Las Palmas, Upper Acacia, Laguna, and Hawks Pointe BPS in Zones 4, 4A, 4B, and 4C, respectively, were allowed to operate given they are the sole source to meet demands in the respective zones. In addition, the proposed new Zone 4C and Zone 5 BPS were allowed to operate for the same reasons.

Backup power generators should be equipped for the Laguna and Las Palmas BPS and are currently in design.

9.3.2.2 PRV Evaluation
PRVs were used to supply demands in the lower pressure zones. As such, settings for two PRVs were adjusted as summarized in Table 9-19.

Table 9-19. Scenario 3B: Proposed PRV Settings
From Zone To
Zone Name
Setting Flow Rate (gpm)
Existing Proposed
Existing Proposed
Average Peak Average Peak
2 to 1 PR-3 55 60 0 0 907 2,404
Tank Farm to 2 PR-5A1 65 63 6,647 7,841 3,744 6,019

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.20 9.3.3 SCENARIO 3C – GROUNDWATER OUTAGE
The goal for Scenario 3C is to investigate the impacts to and capability of the system to meet demands during a 7-day groundwater well supply outage. Scenario 3C was modeled as a 7-day EPS future ADD conditions with a total demand of 24.9 mgd.

With groundwater wells out of service, 100 percent of the demand is met by imported water supply with flow from each MWD connection as summarized in Table 9-20.

Table 9-20. Scenario 3C: Proposed MWD Import Water Supply Pressure Zone Name a,b Design Capacity
(cfs)
Avg Flowrate
(cfs)
Total Supply
(mgd)
Zone 1B F-05 15 7 4.39
Zone 3
F-04 15 4 2.88
F-06 15 12 7.88
F-08 30 13 8.64
F-09 15 6 1.43
Zone 4A F-02 5 0 0.00
Total 95 42 25.22
Notes:
a MWD Connections F-01 is not used. In 2021 it was brought online to serve as a backup supply for emergencies due wells being out of service at the time impacted by PFAS, however, it has not been used. b MWD Connection F-03 is not operational.

9.3.3.1 Pump Capacity Evaluation
Given there is no groundwater supply available to pump up to the higher zones, the only booster pump stations online are those in five closed pressure zones. Zones 4, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5.

Las Palmas, Upper Acacia, Laguna, and Hawks Pointe BPS in Zones 4, 4A, 4B, and 4C, respectively, remained in operation. In addition, the proposed new Zone 4C and Zone 5 BPS remained online for the same reasons. Backup power generators should be equipped at the Laguna and Las Palmas BPS.

9.3.3.2 PRV Evaluation
Since most of the MWD import connections are in the higher zones, PRVs were used to supply demands to the lower pressure zones. Settings for nine PRVs were adjusted as summarized in Table 9-21.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.21 Table 9-21. Scenario 3C: Proposed PRV Settings
From Zone To
Zone Name
Setting Flow Rate (gpm)
Existing Proposed
Existing Proposed
Average Peak Average Peak
2 to 1A PR-1B 43 48 0 0 787 1,712
2 to 1
PR-2 20 30 900 1,217 2,391 2,703
PR-3 55 60 0 0 1,735 2,822
3 to 2
PR-8 45 66 0 0 1,803 1,867
PR-9 40 74 0 0 596 655
PR-10 42 64 0 0 808 833
PR-11 38 58 0 0 1,057 1,117
PR-16B 30 32 22 301 785 1,647
PR-17 20 63 0 0 410 470

9.4 Planning Scenario Recommendations
Although each planning scenario was evaluated independently, some planning scenarios have multiple recommendations in common. Table 9-22 and Figure 9-5 show a comprehensive summary of all facility and improvement recommendations for each planning scenario.

The following recommendations are proposed based on the evaluation of all the scenarios and considers the goal to increase groundwater supply capabilities to meet demands to the upper zones, becoming less reliant on imported water purchases:
• Coyote BPS: Replace existing pumps with 3 new pumps, two duty pumps and one standby pump, at 1,500 gpm (100 hp) each to allow for redundancy. • Hillcrest BPS: Replace existing pumps with 3 new pumps, two duty pumps and one standby pump, at 1,500 gpm (125 hp) each to allow for redundancy. • Lower Acacia Zone 2 BPS: Replace existing pumps with 3 new pumps, two duty pumps and one standby pump, at 1,500 gpm (75 hp) each to allow for redundancy.
• Lower Acacia Zone 3 BPS: Replace existing pumps with 3 new pumps, two duty pumps and one standby pump, at 1,500 gpm (100 hp) each to allow for redundancy.
• Hermitage Zone 3 BPS: Replace existing pumps with 2 new pumps, one duty pump and one standby pump, at 1,500 gpm (75 hp) each to allow for redundancy.
• Hermitage Zone 4C BPS: Rehabilitate or replace existing onsite inoperable hydropneumatic tank to meet minimum pressure criteria of 40 psi. • Upper Acacia BPS: Install hydropneumatic tank to meet minimum pressure criteria of 40 psi.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
March 2025

9.22 • Zone 1B: Install new groundwater well, with a redundancy well, at 1,000 gpm (150 hp) each to meet capacity.
• Zone 3: Install new dedicated 16-inch 7,000-lf transmission main from the Hillcrest BPS to the intersection of North Harbor Boulevard and West Valencia Mesa Drive to maintain tank levels at Las Palmas 3B Reservoir. • PRVs: Adjust setting at various PRVs to meet reservoir storage requirements and maintain minimum pressure of 40 psi in the respective zones.

WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2025
Planning Scenarios
M
arch 2025

9.23 Table 9-22. Planning Scenario Summary of Recommendations Facility
S
cenario 1A:

Maximizing
Groundwater
Scenario 1B:
100% Groundwater Supply
Scenario 2:

System Operations
Efficiency
Scenario 3A:

Import Water
Outage
Scenario 3B:

Pump Stations
Offline
Scenario 3C:

Groundwater
Outage
Coyote BPS
3 new pumps at
1,500 gpm (100 hp)
each
3 new pumps at 1,500 gpm
(100 hp) each
3 new pumps at
1,500 gpm (100 hp)
each
3 new pumps at
1,500 gpm (100 hp)
each
- -
Hillcrest BPS
3 new pumps at
1,500 gpm (125 hp)
each
3 new pumps at 1,500 gpm
(125 hp) each
2 new pumps at
1,500 gpm (100 hp)
each
3 new pumps at
1,500 gpm (125 hp)
each
- -
Lower Acacia Z2 BPS
3 new pumps at
1,500 gpm (75 hp)
each
3 new pumps at 1,500 gpm
(75 hp) each
3 new pumps at
1,000 gpm (50 hp)
each
3 new pumps at
1,500 gpm (75 hp)
each
- -
Lower Acacia Z3 BPS - 3 new pumps at 1,500 gpm
(100 hp) each -
3 new pumps at
1,500 gpm (100 hp)
each
- -
Hermitage Z3 BPS - 2 new pumps at 1,500 gpm
(75 hp) each -
2 new pumps at
1,500 gpm (75 hp)
each
- -
Hermitage Z4C BPS - -
Rehabilitate or
replace
hydropneumatic tank
- - -
Upper Acacia BPS - - Install
hydropneumatic tank - - -
Zone 1B Additional
Supply - 1 new well at 1,000 gpm
(150 hp) & redundancy well -
1 new well at
1,000 gpm (150 hp)
& redundancy well
- -
Zone 3 Additional
Pipelines - Dedicated 16-in (7,000-lf)
transmission line - - - -
PRV Settings Updated
PR-4
PR-5A1
PR-7
PR-14
PR-4
PR-5A1
PR-7
PR-13
PR-14
PR-4
PR-5A1
PR-7
PR-14
PR-4
PR-7
PR-14
PR-3
PR-5A1
PR-
1B
PR-2
PR-3
PR-8
PR-9
PR-10
PR-11
PR-16B

PR-17
Onsite Permanent
Backup Generators -
Wells 1A, 2, 3A, 9, 10, 15A, &
proposed Zone 1B; BPS Coyote,
Hillcrest, Lower Acacia, Laguna,
Las Palmas, and Hermitage
- - BPS Laguna
and Las Palmas -
Additional
Recommendations - Remove Tank Farm 2D
Reservoir operations - - - -
A
A
A A
A
AAAA
ñ
ñ
ñ
ññ
ñ
ñ ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ
ñ

HERMITAGE
2B
LAGUNA 2A
LAS PALMAS 3B
TANK FARM 2D
COYOTE 1C
KIMBERLY 2
FOREBAY (K2F)
STATE COLLEGE 2C
UPPER ACACIA 3A
LOWER ACACIA 1D

MAIN PLANT
HAWKS POINTE 3C
Beach Blvd
Raymond Ave
Beach Blvd
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Kraemer Blvd
Gilbert St
State College Blvd
Euclid St
Rosecrans Ave
Orangethorpe Ave
I- 5
La Palma Ave
Yorba Linda Blvd
Chapman Ave
Magnolia Ave
Harbor Blvd
Euclid St
La Palma Ave
Harbor Blvd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Commonwealth Ave
Tustin Ave
Rose Dr
Malvern Ave
SR 57
Brookhurst St
Harbor Blvd
State College
Blvd
Imperial Hwy
Orangethorpe Ave
Lambert Rd
Bastanchury Rd
Brea Blvd
SR 91
I - 5
SR 57
SR 91
A
C:\Users\rocarrillo\OneDrive - Stantec\_Projects\FullertonWMP\Figures\_GIS_Pro\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures\Fullerton_WaterMasterPlan_Figures.aprx Exhibit Name: Fig9-5_Planning_Scenario_Recommendations
LEGEND
City Boundary
Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 1B
Zone 1C
Zone 2
Zone 2A
Zone 3
Zone 3A
Zone 4
Zone 4A
Zone 4B
Zone 4C
Existing Facilities
ñReservoir
A Groundwater Well
Interconnection
Booster Pump Station (BPS)
MWD Import Water Turnout
Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
MWD Distribution Sys Feeder
Pipeline
A
Proposed Zone 1B
Groundwater Well
Proposed BPS Improvements
Proposed Zone 3 Transmission Main