Hesperia City Council
June 2, 2026

HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

HOUSING AUTHORITY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

WATER DISTRICT

HESPERIA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - SPECIAL MEETING
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, June 2, 2026
Closed Session - 5:15 PM
Regular Meeting - 6:30 PM
City Council Chambers
9700 Seventh Ave., Hesperia CA, 92345
City Clerk's Office: (760) 947-1007
City Council Members
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
Josh Pullen, Mayor Pro Tem
Cameron Gregg, Council Member
Allison Lee, Council Member
Chris Ochoa, Council Member
Rachel Molina, City Manager
Pam K. Lee, City Attorney
Amended Agenda
Green Sheet Item 16 updated after the posting of the agenda NOTE: In compliance with the Americans with Disability Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (760) 947-1007 or (760) 947-1026. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

To leave a Public Comment by phone, call and leave a recorded message at (760) 947-1026 up to 5:30 pm on the day of the scheduled meeting. City Council meetings may be viewed live or after the event on the City’s website at www.hesperiaca.gov.

NOTICE AND CALL OF SPECIAL MEETING

HESPERIA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of Hesperia Fire Protection District will be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, at 9700 Seventh Avenue, Hesperia, CA 92345.

Brigit Benn'ton, Mayor

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

June 2, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

HESPERIA HOUSING AUTHORITY

HESPERIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT

HESPERIA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - SPECIAL MEETING
9700 7th Avenue, Council Chambers, Hesperia, CA 92345
As a courtesy, please silence your cell phones and other electronic devices while the meeting is in session. Thank you.

Prior to action of the Council, any member of the audience will have the opportunity to address the legislative body on any item listed on the agenda, including those on the Consent Calendar.

Individuals wishing to speak during General Public Comments or on a particular numbered item must submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk with the agenda item noted. Speaker slips should be turned in prior to the public comment portion of the agenda or before an agenda item is discussed. Comments will be limited to three minutes for General Public Comments, Consent Calendar items and New Business items. Comments are limited to five minutes for Public Hearing items.

In compliance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not discuss or take action on non-agenda items or engage in question and answer sessions with the public. The City Council may ask brief questions for clarification; provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information and direct staff to add an item to a subsequent meeting.

CLOSED SESSION - 5:15 PM
Roll Call
Mayor Brigit Bennington
Mayor Pro Tem Josh Pullen
Council Member Cameron Gregg
Council Member Allison Lee
Council Member Chris Ochoa
Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)1

1. Cisneros, Jonathan v. City of Hesperia, et al., SBSC Case No.

CIVSB2425104
Conference with Real Property Negotiators – Property Negotiations Government Code Section – 54956.8

1. Negotiating Parties: Hesperia Lake Park and City of Hesperia Location: APN: 0398-031-34
Under Negotiation: Price and terms
Conference with Labor Negotiator
Government Code Section 54957.6

1. Negotiations between the City of Hesperia and the Teamsters Local 1932

June 2, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
with the City's Negotiator. (Staff person: Casey Brooksher, Assistant City Manager)
CALL TO ORDER - 6:30 PM
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
C. Roll Call
Mayor Brigit Bennington
Mayor Pro Tem Josh Pullen
Council Member Cameron Gregg
Council Member Allison Lee
Council Member Chris Ochoa
D. Agenda Revisions and Announcements by City Clerk
E. Closed Session Reports by City Attorney
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items and matters not listed on the agenda) Individuals wishing to speak during General Public Comments or on a particular numbered item are requested to submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk with the agenda item noted. Speaker slips should be turned in prior to the public comment portion of the joint agenda or before an agenda item is discussed. Comments will be limited to three minutes for General Public Comments, Consent Calendar items and New Business items. Comments are limited to five minutes for Public Hearing items.

In compliance with the Brown Act, the City Council may not discuss or take action on non-agenda items or engage in question and answer sessions with the public. The City Council may ask brief questions for clarification; provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information and direct staff to add an item to a subsequent meeting.

JOINT CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Consideration of the Draft Minutes from the Special Meeting held Tuesday, May 19, 2026.

Recommended Action:

It
is recommended that the City Council approve the Draft Minutes from the Special meeting held Tuesday, May 19, 2026.

Staff Person: Assistant City Clerk Jessica Giber
Draft CC Min 2026-05-19Attachments:

2. Warrant Run Report (City- Successor Agency- Housing Authority- Community Development Commission- Water)

June 2, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
Recommended Action:

It
is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.

Staff Person: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
SR Warrant Run 6-2-2026
Attachment 1 - Warrant Run
Attachments:

3. Audit Services for Fiscal Year 2025-26
Recommended Action:

It
is recommended that the City of Hesperia, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, Hesperia Fire Protection District, and Hesperia Water District Council/Boards/Commissions enter into a Professional Services Agreement with the independent certified public accounting firm CliftonLarsonAllen (CLA) LLP, in the not-to-exceed amount of $146,370, to perform the audit of the City and its component units, for the fiscal year end June 30, 2026, as well as additional required State reporting for the year end June 30, 2026.

Staff Person: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
SR Audit Services for FY 2025-26 6-2-2026Attachments:

4. Contract Amendment with Data Ticket, Inc. for Collection Services Recommended Action:

It
is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to approve an amendment of $367,750 to the existing contract with Data Ticket, Inc., for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $820,000, and extend the contract through June 30, 2027, for the continued management and collection of citations, cost recovery, appeals, and additional hearing officer services for Code Enforcement, Police, Building and Safety, and Animal Control.

Staff Person: Administrative Analyst Jordyn Fierro
SR Contract Amendment with Data Ticket 6-2-2026Attachments:

5. Award Professional Services Agreement for the Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Master Plans
Recommended Action:

It
is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia

June 2, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
Water District:

1. Award
a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for the Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Master Plans to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., in an amount not-to-exceed $1,078,353.

2. Authorize the City Manager, or designee to execute the PSA and any necessary documents related thereto.

Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez SR Award Water, Recycled Water, Wastewater Master Plans 6-2-2026 Attachment 1- Ranking Summary
Attachments:

6. Authorize Contract for the Main Street Traffic Signal Synchrozation Project - Phase II, C.O. No. 7133
Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Authorize
a contract for the purchase and installation of equipment from Rhythm Engineering in the amount of $151,400 plus a 10 % contingency of $15,140 for a total contract amount of $166,540 for the Main Street Traffic Signal Synchronization Project - Phase II, C.O. No. 7133; and

2. Authorize the City Manager and/or designee to execute the contract and any other necessary documents thereto.

Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez SR Main Street Traffic Signal Synchrozation 6-2-2026Attachments:

7. Accept the Traffic Signal - Main St. & Sultana St./Timberlane Ave., C.O. No. 7159 Project and Capital Improvement Program Budget Amendment Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-22 amending the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program Budget by appropriating $34,900 of prior fiscal year’s carryover to Fund 504 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funds;

2. Accept the completed Traffic Signal - Main St. & Sultana St./Timberlane Ave., C.O. No. 7159;

3. Authorize staff to record a Notice of Completion; and

4. Authorize the release of all withheld retention amounts no sooner than thirty (30) calendar days following the date of recordation.

Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez

June 2, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
SR Acceptance of CO 7159 and Budget Amendment 6-2-2026
Resolution 2026-22
Attachment 2 - Notice of Completion
Attachment 3 - Project Photos
Attachments:

8. Bear Electric Solutions Contract Amendment
Recommended Action:

It
is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with Bear Electrical Solutions for emergency response services and safety equipment testing for the City’s 32 traffic signals for an additional $65,000 for a revised not-to-exceed contract amount of $115,000 and approve a three-year contract extension.

Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez SR Bear Electric Solutions Contract Amendment 6-2-2026Attachments:

9. Approve the FY 2026-27 Senate Bill-1 Funding Project List Recommended Action:

It
is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-19 approving the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Project List to be funded by Senate Bill-1:

The Road Repair and Accountability Act.

Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez SR FY 2026-27 SB-1 Funding Project List 6-2-2026
Resolution 2026-19
Attachment 2 - Attachment A
Attachments:

10. Award of Contract for Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) Preventive Maintenance and Repair Services
Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District (District) authorize the City Manager to enter into a three (3) year contract with Retrofit Services Co., Inc., in a not-to-exceed amount of $240,000 for heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) preventative maintenance and repair services for City and District facilities.

Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez SR Award of HVAC Contract 6-2-2026
Attachment 1 - Bid Comparison
Attachments:

11. Authorize Expenditures from Con-Fab California, LLC for the Ranchero Road Aqueduct Crossing Project, C.O. No. 7139

June 2, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
Recommended Action:

It
is recommended that the City Council authorize expenditures from Con-Fab California, LLC in the amount of $221,550 for storage fees, sales tax, handling (preparation and loading), and engineer evaluation fees for the girders for the Ranchero Road Aqueduct Crossing Project, Construction Order (C.O) No. 7139.

Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez SR Authorize Expenditures from Con-Fab California, LLC 6-2-2026Attachments:

12. Amendment No. 9 to Waste Disposal Agreement
Recommended Action:

It
is recommended that the City Council approve Amendment No. 9 to the Waste Disposal Agreement (WDA) between the City of Hesperia and the County of San Bernardino.

Staff Person: Assistant to the City Manager Tammy Pelayes SR Amendment No. 9 to Waste Disposal Agreement 6-2-2026 Attachment 1 - Amendment No. 9
Attachments:

PUBLIC HEARING
Individuals wishing to comment on public hearing items must submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk with the numbered agenda item noted. Speaker slips should be turned in prior to an agenda item being taken up.

Comments will be limited to five minutes for Public Hearing items.

WAIVE READING OF ORDINANCES
Approve the reading by title of all ordinances and declare that said titles which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

13. Resolution Accepting the District’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the Planning Period 2025-2045
Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District (District) adopt Resolution No. HWD 2026-07 accepting the District’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), as written or as amended during the public hearing, and authorize submittal of the UWMP to the California Department of Water Resources as required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act.

Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez

June 2, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
SR Adopt 2025 Urban Water Management Plan 6-2-2026
Resolution HWD 2026-07
Attachment 2 - 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Attachments:

NEW BUSINESS

14. Amend the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program Budget for the Ranchero Road Corridor Widening Project Phase III
Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-21 amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget by appropriating $6,663,865 in Fund 306 DIF 2018-Streets, $680,780 in Fund 504 SB1 LPP Grant, and $1,079,594 in Fund 504 SB1 Formula Funds for the Ranchero Road Corridor Widening Project Phase III.

Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez SR Ranchero Road Corridor Widening Budget Amendment 6-2-2026 Resolution 2026-21
Attachments:

15. Amend Construction Management Services Agreement for the Ranchero Road Corridor Widening Project Phase III, C.O. Nos. 7094 and 7139 Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Approve
an amendment to the existing Professional Services Agreement (PSA) No. 2020-21-065 with AnGenious Engineering Services, Inc. (AES) for the extension of construction management services for the Ranchero Road Corridor Widening Project Phase III, C.O. Nos. 7094 and 7139 in amount of $2,640,201, including a 10% contingency of $264,020, for a not-to-exceed total of $13,373,954;

2. Approve a one-year PSA extension of PSA No. 2020-21-065 with AES; and

3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the amendment to the PSA and any other necessary documents related thereto.

Staff Person: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez SR Amend PSA for Ranchero Rd Widening Project 6-2-2026Attachments:

16. Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Operating Budget Adoption
Recommended Action:

It
is recommended that the City Council/Board’s adopt the following Resolutions approving the FY 2026-27 Operating Budget for the City of Hesperia, Hesperia Housing Authority, Hesperia Fire Protection District, and Hesperia Water

June 2, 2026City Council Meeting Agenda
District:

1. City
of Hesperia Resolution No. 2026-09 adopting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget

2. City of Hesperia Resolution No. 2026-10 adopting the GANN Appropriations Limit

3. Hesperia Housing Authority Resolution HHA 2026-01 adopting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget

4. Hesperia Fire Protection District Resolution HFPD 2026-02 adopting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget

5. Hesperia Fire Protection District Resolution HFPD 2026-03 adopting the GANN Appropriations Limit

6. Hesperia Water District Resolution HWD 2026-04 adopting the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget

7. Joint Resolution No. 2026-11, HHA 2026-02, HFPD 2026-04, and HWD 2026-05 re-adopting the Financial Policies
Staff Person: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
SR Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Operation Budget Adoption 6-2-2026 Attachment 1-6 2026-27 Budget Resolutions Combined
Attachment 7 - Joint Resolution 2026-11
Attachment 8 - Exhibit A Financial Policies clean and track changes Attachments:

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COMMENTS
The Council may report on their activities as appointed representatives of the City on various Boards and Committees and/or may make comments of general interest or report on their activities as a representative of the City.

CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY/STAFF REPORTS
The City Manager, City Attorney or staff may make announcements or reports concerning items of interest to the Council and the public.

ADJOURNMENT
I, Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Hesperia, California do hereby certify that I caused to be posted the foregoing agenda on Thursday, May 28, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. pursuant to California Government Code §54954.2.
_____________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk
Documents produced by the City and distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting regarding items on the agenda will be made available in the City Clerk's Office during normal business hours.

City of Hesperia
Meeting Minutes – Draft
City Council
Tuesday, May 19, 2026 6:30 PM

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

HESPERIA CITY COUNCIL

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

HESPERIA HOUSING AUTHORITY

HESPERIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT

HESPERIA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT - SPECIAL MEETING
CLOSED SESSION – 5:45 PM
Roll Call

Present: 5 - Mayor Bennington, Mayor Pro Tem Pullen, Council Member Gregg, Council Member Lee, and Council Member O
choa
Conference with Real Property Negotiators – Property Negotiations Government Code Section – 54956.8

1. Negotiating Parties: Hesperia Lake Park and City of Hesperia Location: APN 0398-031-34
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
CALL TO ORDER - 6:30 PM
A. Invocation
B. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
C. Roll Call

Present: 5 - Mayor Bennington, Mayor Pro Tem Pullen, Council Member Gregg, Council Member Lee, and Council Mem
ber Ochoa
D. Agenda Revisions and Announcements by City Clerk
E. Closed Session
Reports by City Attorney
City Council Chambers
9700 Seventh Ave.

Hesperia CA, 92345

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS (For items and matters not listed on the agenda) The following people commented:

Kim Jones
Melanie Loyd
Bristol Loyd
Pastor Paul Jones
Tim Mustalkis
Al Vogler

JOINT CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Ochoa, seconded by Pullen, that the Joint Consent Calendar be approved.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye: 5 - Bennington, Pullen, Gregg, Lee and Ochoa
Nay: 0

1. Consideration of
the Draft Minutes from the Special Meeting held Tuesday, April 21, 2026, and the Special Meeting held Tuesday, May 5, 2026.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council approve the Draft Minutes from the Special Meeting held Tuesday, April 21, 2026, and the
Special Meeting held Tuesday, May 5, 2026.

Sponsors: Assistant City Clerk Jessica Giber

2. Warrant Run Report (City - Successor Agency - Housing Authority - Community Development Commission - Water)
Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Co
mmunity Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.

Sponsors: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher

3. Treasurer’s Cash Report for the unaudited period ended March 31, 2026.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the Council/Board accept the Treasurer’s Cash Report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Co
mmunity Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.

Sponsors: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher

4. Three Year Enterprise Agreement with Crayon Inc.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to approve a new three-year Enterprise Agreem
ent with Crayon Inc., in a total not-to-exceed amount of $294,932, for Microsoft software products licensing. A 5% contingency has been included to accommodate increased licensing

needs arising from additional staffing or projects requiring additional licenses.

Sponsors: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher

5. G & M Automotive Center, Inc. Contract Amendment
Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District authorize the City
Manager to approve a one-year contract extension for vehicle maintenance and repairs with G & M Automotive Center, Inc. and increase the contract for $325,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $625,000.

Sponsors: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez

6. Vehicle Procurement - One (1) Full Size Service Truck Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Victorville Chevrole
t Cadillac for the purchase of one (1) 2026 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 service truck in the not-to-exceed amount of $66,488.

Sponsors: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cassandra Sanchez

PUBLIC HEARING

7. FY 2026-27 Budget Workshop #2 - Vacancies, Recruitment Efforts, and Retention Strategies as Required by California Assembly Bill 2561
Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council/Board receive this report on the City of Hesperia's proposed staffing for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 and hold a public hearing of a comprehensive overview of current job vacancies, recruitment efforts, and retention strategies as required by California Assembly Bill 2561.

Sponsors: Assistant City Manager Casey Brooksher
Receive and file item.

NEW BUSINESS

8. Discussion on Residency Requirements for Candidates Running for City Council Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report, which provides background and factual information regarding residenc
y requirements for candidates running for City Council.

Sponsors: City Attorney Pam K. Lee
The following people commented on this item:

Robert Davie

Receive and file item.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COMMENTS
The Mayor and Council Members reported from various events and Committees.

Council Member Ochoa requested we agendize a discussion for the removal of resolution 2016-05 at a future hearing.

CITY MANAGER/CITY ATTORNEY/STAFF REPORTS
None

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. in honor of Donna Davie. ___________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members
City Council, as Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency
Chair and Commissioners, Hesperia Housing Authority
Chair and Commissioners, Community Development Commission Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Casey Brooksher, Assistant City Manager
Keith Cheong, Deputy Finance Director
Verenise Fierros, Accountant

SUBJECT: Warrant Run Report (City – Successor Agency – Housing Authority – Community Development Commission – Water)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the Council/Board ratify the warrant run and payroll report for the City, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, and Water District.

BACKGROUND

The Warrant Run totals represented below are for the period April 11 , 2026 through April 24, 2026.

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Financial Health – Maintain a balanced budget and adequate reserves.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Warrant Runs
Agency/District Accounts Payable Payroll Wires Totals
City of Hesperia $4,136,124.02 $342,383.15 $0.00 $4,478,507.17 Successor Agency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Authority 0.00 162.98 0.00 162.98
Community Development Commission 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water 592,059.00 158,094.77 0.00 750,153.77
Totals $4,728,183.02 $500,640.90 $0.00 $5,228,823.92
* Includes debt service payments made via Automated Clearing House (ACH) electronic deposit of funds.

YEAR-TO PRIOR FY YTD

W/E W/E WARRANT DATE DATE
FUND # FUND NAME 4/17/2026 4/24/2026 TOTALS Wires TOTALS * TOTALS Accounts Payable
100 GENERAL 2,061,392.32$ 172,391.87$ 2,233,784.19$ -$ 33,540,751.36$ 30,976,231.45$ 110 SILVERWOOD -$ -$ -$ -$ 89,370.75$ 124,207.24$ 200 HESPERIA FIRE DISTRICT -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
204 MEASURE I - RENEWAL 6,732.44$ 14,938.84$ 21,671.28$ -$ 2,570,225.55$ 52,676.69$ 207 LOCAL TRANSPORT-SB 325 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.64$ 209 GAS TAX-RMRA -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,336.73$ -$
210 HFPD (PERS) -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,896,318.00$ 1,755,819.00$ 241 CFD 2021-1 Resid Maint. & Serv -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,515.00$ 1,920.00$ 242 CFD 2022-1 Non-Resd Maint & Serv -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,646.00$ 1,920.00$ 243 CFD 2023-1 Silverwood Maint -$ -$ -$ -$ 4,696.00$ 1,920.00$ 251 CDBG 26,030.31$ 3,720.00$ 29,750.31$ -$ 1,701,291.97$ 3,104,940.63$ 256 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS GRANT -$ -$ -$ -$ 40,021.87$ 40,240.62$ 262 SB 1383 LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT -$ 1,520.00$ 1,520.00$ -$ 174,621.01$ 104,497.49$ 263 STREETS MAINTENANCE 43,474.61$ 84,047.35$ 127,521.96$ -$ 1,372,405.00$ 2,253,470.75$ 300 DEV. IMPACT FEES - STREET -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 182,329.26$ 301 DEV. IMPACT FEES - STORM DRAIN 18,087.80$ -$ 18,087.80$ -$ 79,098.18$ 149,218.71$ 306 DEV. IMPACT FEES - 2018-STREETS -$ 206,096.14$ 206,096.14$ -$ 1,979,781.29$ 1,310,565.77$ 307 DIF 2018-DRAINAGE FACILITIES -$ -$ -$ -$ 26,353.00$ 175,199.30$ 313 DIF A-04 DRAINAGE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,154,638.51$ 402 WATER RIGHTS ACQUISITION -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,376,791.79$ 1,912,552.24$ 403 2013 REFUNDING LEASE REV BONDS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 404 2023 REFUNDING LEASE REV BONDS 164,153.06$ -$ 164,153.06$ -$ 741,433.04$ 176,534.97$ 504 CITY WIDE STREETS - CIP -$ 862,548.59$ 862,548.59$ -$ 2,814,501.88$ 2,791,462.04$ 509 CITY FACILITIES CIP -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
800 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 230,422.35$ 46,598.54$ 277,020.89$ -$ 8,433,074.01$ 8,060,023.83$ 801 TRUST/AGENCY 1,758.00$ 192,211.80$ 193,969.80$ -$ 2,076,773.43$ 1,429,958.18$ 802 AD 91-1 AGENCY -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
804 TRUST-INTEREST BEARING -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,854.70$ 42,669.21$ 807 CFD 2005-1 -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,282,179.33$ 1,189,973.06$ 808 HFPD (TRANSITION) -$ -$ -$ -$ 335,635.00$ 317,435.02$ 815 PLAN REVIEW TRUST - FRONTIER -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CITY 2,552,050.89$ 1,584,073.13$ 4,136,124.02$ -$ 60,549,674.89$ 57,310,405.61$ 163 REDEVELOP OBLIG RETIREMENT-2018 -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,475,979.87$ 9,690,950.62$ SUCCESSOR AGENCY -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,475,979.87$ 9,690,950.62$ 370 HOUSING AUTHORITY -$ -$ -$ -$ 26,309.42$ 45,068.76$ HOUSING AUTHORITY -$ -$ -$ -$ 26,309.42$ 45,068.76$ 170 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 700 WATER OPERATING 234,193.39$ 109,807.85$ 344,001.24$ -$ 17,931,254.15$ 12,278,790.04$ 703 WATER CAPITAL REHAB AND REPLACE -$ 15,897.55$ 15,897.55$ -$ 561,693.84$ -$ 705 WATER PENSION OBLIGATION TRUST -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,250,000.00$ 706 WATER OPEB TRUST -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000.00$ 701 WATER CAPITAL -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,011,784.44$ 16,473.00$ 710 SEWER OPERATING 198,004.18$ 32,880.94$ 230,885.12$ -$ 11,441,918.74$ 5,836,163.52$ 711 SEWER CAPITAL -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,330,766.95$ 2,006,504.81$ 720 RECLAIMED WATER OPERATIONS 180.22$ 1,094.87$ 1,275.09$ -$ 265,682.30$ 279,539.47$ WATER 432,377.79$ 159,681.21$ 592,059.00$ -$ 32,543,100.42$ 21,917,470.84$ ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TOTAL 2,984,428.68$ 1,743,754.34$ 4,728,183.02$ -$ 101,595,064.60$ 88,963,895.83$ REG. PAYROLL
City -$ 342,383.15$ 342,383.15$ -$ 6,998,646.52$ 7,037,959.05$ Housing Authority -$ 162.98$ 162.98$ -$ 3,383.40$ 5,295.71$ Water -$ 158,094.77$ 158,094.77$ -$ 3,300,630.50$ 3,278,690.36$ PAYROLL TOTAL -$ 500,640.90$ 500,640.90$ -$ 10,302,660.42$ 10,321,945.12$ City of Hesperia

WARRANT RUNS
04/11/2026 - 04/24/2026
Attachment 1

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members
Chair and Commission, Community Development Commission
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Housing Authority
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Fire Protection District

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Casey Brooksher, Assistant City Manager
Keith Cheong, Deputy Finance Director

SUBJECT: Audit Services for Fiscal Year 2025-26

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the City of Hesperia, Successor Agency to the Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency, Hesperia Housing Authority, Community Development Commission, Hesperia Fire Protection District, and Hesperia Water District Council/Boards/Commissions enter into a Professional Services Agreement with the independent certified public accounting firm CliftonLarsonAllen (CLA) LLP, in the not -to-exceed amount of $146,370, to perform the audit of the City and its component units, for the fiscal year end June 30, 2026, as well as additional required State reporting for the year end June 30, 2026.

BACKGROUND

CLA is the City’s current auditor, and the firm has extensive experience in governmental auditing and a deep familiarity of the City’s accounting structure. The firm has a depth of knowledge that is supported by the nearly 3,600 Certified Public Accountants (CPA’s) employed by CLA, in 130 locations across the country, and has provided accounting and auditing services for over 60 years.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

The firm of CliftonLarsonAllen (CLA) has expertise in governmental accounting and ensures the City’s financial statements comply with the latest Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) statements. One of the GASB statements that is scheduled to take effect for the June 30, 2026 financial statements is Statement 103, Financial Reporting Model Improvements, which will improve key components of the financial report to enhance its effectiveness in providing information that is essential for decision-making and assessing a government’s accountability.

The City is in compliance with Government Code 12410.6(b), which established an auditor rotation requirement for local agencies, and the lead auditor responsible for performing the City’s audit is Kassie Radermacher, CPA, CFE. An agreement with CLA is recommended for the City’s fiscal year-end June 30, 2026, audit and required State reporting.

Staff Report to the City Council, Chairman and Board Members Audit Services for FY 2025-26
June 2, 2026

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Financial Health - Maintain a balanced budget and adequate reserves

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed cost of performing the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 audit and required State reporting is $146,370 as detailed below:

$88,670 Audit (includes the City of Hesperia and its component units, the Hesperia Fire Protection District, the Hesperia Water District, the Community Development Commission, and the Hesperia Housing Authority; also includes the Successor Agency to the Former Hesperia Community Redevelopment Agency) 16,070 Report Preparation
19,640 State Controller’s Office Reporting
21,990 Single Audit 1st through 5th major programs
$146,370 Total Audit/Reporting Costs
The cost of the audit and State reports will be allocated among the City and its component units based upon the size and complexity of each component unit. An adequate budget will be included within the FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)
None

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Melinda Sayre, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
Jordyn Fierro, Administrative Analyst

SUBJECT: Contract Ammendment with Data Ticket, Inc. for Collection Services

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to approve an amendment of $367,750 to the existing contract with Data Ticket, Inc., for a revised not -to-exceed amount of $820,000, and extend the contract through June 30, 2027, for the continued management and collection of citations, cost recovery, appeals, and additional hearing officer services for Code Enforcement, Police, Building and Safety, and Animal Control.

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the City contracted with Data Ticket, Inc. (Data T icket) to provide for the management and collection of citations, cost recovery, appeals and hearing officer services. In 2015, the City also re -instituted the use of the special assessment program offered by the County of San Bernardino for collection of outstanding fines. These two programs are used in conjunction to collect fines and fees due from enforcement procedures.

The Data Ticket contract is unique in that the City and Data Ticket, Inc. maintain a joint escrow account through which revenue and payments are processed. Data Ticket collects fines on behalf of the City and reconciles the amount due to the City each month after payment of associated service fees. As such, funds are budgeted annually to accommodate these processing costs.

Staff intends to continue utilizing Data Ticket, Inc. to provide hearing officer services, parking citation processing, and processing of citations related to the Police Multiple Response Program, Truck Route Program, Off -Highway Vehicle citations, DUI fee collectio n, Building and Safety Administrative Fines, and select Animal Control and Code Enforcement cases where collection through means other than the special assessment program is the most appropriate method of collection.

For example, p arking citation processi ng must be adjudicated and serviced by an agency authorized to make inquiries with the California Department of Motor Vehicles; Data Ticket maintains that authority. In addition, unpaid parking citations are recovered through the DMV registration process, which typically occurs annually.

Staff Report to the Mayor and City Council
Contract with Data Ticket, Inc.

June 2, 2026

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

Over time, the number of citations issued across City departments and enforcement programs has increased, resulting in a corresponding increase in citation processing activity, associated service costs, and related revenue recovery.

With the increase in citations, a n increase in contract authority is necessary to cover current contract costs along with additional funds to continue services through Fiscal Year 2026–27.

Based on current citation processing activity and expenditure trends, the requested amendment of $367,750 is anticipated to provide sufficient authority to cover the remaining contract costs through the proposed extended term.

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Financial Health - Maintain a balanced budget and adequate reserves

FISCAL IMPACT

Funding for this contract will continue to be included in the annual operating budget.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Provide alternate direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)

None

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Tina Souza, Senior Project Manager
Deanna Lestina, Project Manager

SUBJECT: Award Professional Services Agreement for the Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Master Plans

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District:

1. Award a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for the Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Master Plans to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. , in an amount not -to- exceed $1,078,353.

2. Authorize the City Manager , or designee to execute the PSA and any necessary documents related thereto.

BACKGROUND

The City’s Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Master Plans were last completed in 2007 (Water) and 2008 (Recycled and Wastewater). Since then, the City has experienced significant changes in development, population, usage, regulatory requirements, infrastructure conditions, and long-term water supply planning. As a result, the current plans no longer fully reflect existing conditions or effectively support future planning, and capital improvement needs and efforts.

Updating these master plans will allow the City to assess the current performance of its systems, identify capacity needs and d eficiencies, and establish a clear path forward for future infrastructure improvements. The updates will also help ensure compliance with current regulations and support coordination with regional partners.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

A Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on December 10, 2025, through Public Purchase, proposals were received on February 18, 2026. A total of three (3) firms submitted proposals, which were evaluated by a panel of five staff members from multiple departments/divisions .

Evaluation criteria were based on technical review and understanding of the scope of work , proposed approach, qualifications, experience, and references.

Proposals were received from the following firms:

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members, Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District Award Professional Services Agreement for the Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Master Plans June 2, 2026

Firm Location
Albert A. Webb Associates Riverside, CA
Dudek Encinitas, CA
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Irvine, CA

Based on the evaluation, Stantec Consulting Inc. is the highest-ranked firm. Following staff review and due diligence, the firm has been found qualified to perform the required work. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council and Board of Directors award a PSA to said firm for preparation of the of the Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Master Plans.

The proposed cost includes optional site assessment services that are essential to determining the existing condition of facilities such as water storage tank sites, sewer pump stations, etc., and identifying deficiencies for effective capital improvement planning.

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Capital Improvement - Continually evaluate capital improvement priorities

FISCAL IMPACT

Funding for the project is budgeted in the FY 202 6-27, Fund 700 – Water Operating Budget.

Additional funding will be budgeted in future fiscal year budgets as the Master Plan process continues.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Do not award the PSA for the Water, Recycled Water, and Wastewater Master Plans.

2. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment 1 – Ranking Summary

Attachment 1

RANKING SUMMARY
Reviewer #1Reviewer #2Reviewer #3Reviewer #4Reviewer #5Total Points Proposal Average Score Ranking Proposal Scores
100Maximum 100 Points

FIRM NAME
AA WEBB 84 80 95 94 84 437 87.4 3
Dudek 95 89 93 97 90 464 92.8 2
Stantec 88 95 97 89 97 466 93.2 1

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Tina Souza, Senior Project Manager

SUBJECT: Authorize Contract for the Main Street Traffic Signal Synchrozation Project – Phase II, C.O. No. 7133

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Authorize a contract for the purchase and installation of equipment from Rhythm Engineering in the amount of $151,400 plus a 10 % contingency of $15,140 for a total contract amount of $166,540 for the Main Street Traffic Signal Synchronization Project – Phase II, C.O. No. 7133; and

2. Authorize the City Manager and/or designee to execute the contract and any other necessary documents thereto.

BACKGROUND

The goal of the adaptive traffic signal system is to reduce commute times , improve traffic flow, reduce harmful vehicle emissions, and enhance the quality of life for Hesperia residents by utilizing advanced signal timing, coordination, and communication technolog ies to monitor and optimize traffic operations along the Main Street corridor.

The Main Street Traffic Signal Synchronization project, Phase II, C.O. No. 7133 (Project) and related expenses were approved by the City Council on July 16, 2019. Cabinet upgrades and system installation occurred; however, the Project experienced significant delays due to COVID.

The Project was further impacted by the Caltrans Interstate 15 (I-15) improvements.

Consequently, the project was placed on hold before continuous adaptive learning and system optimization could occur.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

Completion of the Project requires the purchase and installation of equipment at the intersections of the I-15 on/off ramps at Main Street and in the controller cabinets within the corridor. Because the adaptive traffic signal system is from Rhythm Engineering, they are the sole source for the equipment necessary for proper operation.

The unanticipated delays affected the timing of the system ’s learning abilities and final implementation and coordination efforts with Caltrans District. Currently, equipment installation on Caltrans’ new traffic signals is required, along with other miscellaneous ancillary equipment the system relies on for proper operation. Coordination with Caltrans will continue until the system is operating at full optimization.

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
Authorize Contract for the Main Street Traffic Signal Synchrozation Project – Phase II, C.O. No. 7133 June 2, 2026

Once the Rhythm Engineering system is complete, Rhythm Engineering, in coordination with City Staff and Caltrans, will conduct system training.

Approval of the equipment purchase and installation of the equipment will allow the City to finalize implementation of the adaptive traffic signal system in this congested segment and improve traffic operations along the Main Street corridor.

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Capital Improvement – Continually evaluate capital improvement priorities.

FISCAL IMPACT

Funding for the Project is budgeted in the approved Fiscal Year 2025 -26 Capital Improvement Program.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)

None

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Tina Souza, Senior Project Manager

SUBJECT: Accept the Traffic Signal – Main St. & Sultana St./Timberlane Ave., C.O. No. 7159 Project and Capital Improvement Program Budget Amendment

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026 -22 amending the Fiscal Year 2025 -26 Capital Improvement Program Budget by appropriating $34,900 of prior fiscal year’s carryover to Fund 504 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funds;

2. Accept the completed Traffic Signal – Main St. & Sultana St./Timberlane Ave., C.O. No. 7159;

3. Authorize staff to record a Notice of Completion; and

4. Authorize the release of all withheld retention amounts no sooner than thirty (30) calendar days following the date of recordation.

BACKGROUND

Based on recent traffic collision history, the City identified the need to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Main Street and Sultana Street/Timberlane Avenue. The City successfully obtained an HSIP grant in the amount of $899,300 for the intersection improvements.

On August 6, 2024, the City Council awarded the Traffic Signal – Main St. & Sultana St./Timberlane Ave., C.O. No. 7159 (Project) construction contract to DBX, Inc. for a not-to- exceed amount of $1,831,688.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

All construction work was completed in March 2026, with total expenditure s amount of $1,792,006. Work included the installation of a traffic signal, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant ramps, and the construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks at the intersection approaches. The improvements are expected to improve traffic flow and enhance safety for pedestrians and motorists.

Upon acceptance of the Project, a Notice of Completion will be recorded, and the retention held by the City will be released after a minimum of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of recordation. Upon City Council acceptance, the Project will be under a one-year warranty period.

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
Accept the Traffic Signal – Main St & Sultana St/Timberlane Ave C.O. No. 7159 Project and Capital Improvement Program Budget Amendment
June 2, 2026

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Capital Improvement - Continually evaluate capital improvement priorities.

FISCAL IMPACT

Approval of the recommended action will require amending the FY 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget by appropriating $34,900 of carryover from prior fiscal year’s grant allocations to Fund 504 – HSIP in the current fiscal year’s budget. This action provides funding to fully reconcile the HSIP program grant expenditures, consistent with the grant award of $899,300.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution No. 2026-22

2. Notice of Completion

3. Project Photos

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROPRIATE $34,900 OF PRIOR FISCAL YEAR CARRYOVER GRANT FUNDS TO FUND 504 – HIGHWAY SAFETY
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL – MAIN ST . & SULTANA ST./TIMBERLANE AVE. PROJECT, C.O. NO. 7159.

WHEREAS, the City was awarded a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant in the amount of $899,300 for the Traffic Signal – Main St. and Sultana St./Timberlane Ave. project, C.O. No. 7159 (Project); and

WHEREAS, the Project was constructed to improve traffic operations and enhance safety for motorists and pedestrians at the intersection; and

WHEREAS, on August 6, 2024, the City Council awarded the construction contract for the Project to DBX, Inc.; and

WHEREAS, construction of the Project was completed in March 2026; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Fiscal Year 2025 -26 Capital Improvement Budget by appropriating $34,900 in prior fiscal year carryover grant funds to Fund 504 - HSIP for the Project to reconcile grant expenditures consistent with the grant award.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF HES PERIA CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Fiscal Year 2025 -26 Capital Improvement Program Budget is hereby amended by appropriating $34,900 of prior year carryover grant funds to Account No. 504-29-700-7159-8000.

Section 2. That City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 2nd day of June 2026.

______________________________
Brigit Bennington, Mayor
ATTEST:

____________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

Attn: Deanna Lestina

CITY OF HESPERIA
Engineering Division
9700 Seventh Avenue
Hesperia, CA 92345
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
RECORDING FEE WAIVED PURSUANT TO CAL. GOV’T. CODE 27383

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
(CA Civil Code §§ 8180-8190 and 9200-9208)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The undersigned is OWNER of an interest of estate in the hereinafter described real properties.

2. The FULL NAME of the undersigned is: City of Hesperia

3. The FULL ADDRESS of the undersigned is: 9700 Seventh Avenue, Hesperia, California 92345.

4. Work of improvement on the properties hereinafter described was completed and accepted as a whole on June 2, 2026

5. The NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DIRECT CONTRACTOR for such work of improvement as a whole is:

DBX, Inc. 42024 Avenida Alvarado Temecula, CA 92590

6. There was completed upon the herein described properties a work of improvement as a whole and is described as follows:

Traffic Signal - Main St. & Sultana St./Timberlane Ave. C.O. No. 7159

7. The real properties on which said work of improvement was completed are located in the City of Hesperia, County of San Bernardino, State of California, and are described as follows: N/A – Work was located within public right of way

8. The street address(es) of said property(ies) is/are: N/A – Work was located within public right of way at the intersection of Main St. & Sultana St./Timberlane Ave. in the City of Hesperia, California.

Deanna Lestina, Project Manager Signature:

Name and Title of Person Completing this Form for the City of Hesperia, a municipal corporation of the State of California Date: June 3, 2026

VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned authorized agent, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the Assistant City Manager and Director of Development Services for the municipal corporation of the foregoing Notice of Completion; I make this verification on behalf of said municipal corporation, owner of the aforesaid interest of estate in the property therein described; I have read said Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof; and the facts therein stated are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Executed on , at Hesperia, California
Signed:

Kevin Sin, Deputy City Engineer
Attachment 2

Project Photos

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Brian Blackwell, Streets Operation Manager

SUBJECT: Bear Electric Solutions Contract Amendment

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with Bear Electrical Solutions for emergency response services and safety-equipment testing for the City’s 32 traffic signals for an additional $65,000 for a revised not-to-exceed contract amount of $115,000 and approve a three-year contract extension.

BACKGROUND

The City maintains 3 2 traffic signals that require Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) and Malfunction Management Unit (MMU) testing by a certified technician, as mandated under federal and state adoption of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This testing must be performed by a qualified provider, such as Bear Electrical Solutions.

In addition, during emergency situations, the City requires an on -call contractor capable of responding 24 hours a day to perform urgent repairs to traffic signal equipment that exceeds the capabilities of the City’s Traffic Division.

The City also operates specialized adaptive traffic control equipment that requires advanced training to properly install, configure, and program. Bear Electrical Solutions was awarded a one- year contr act as a result of a Request for Bid in August 2025 and possesses the necessary certifications and technical expertise to maintain this specialized equipment, ensuring proper operation and compliance with manufacturer requirements.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

Bear Electrical Solutions’ current contract is set to expire on June 30, 2026. The contractor has agreed to hold its pricing for Traffic Signal Maintenance and Emergency Response services for an additional three years. Based on the high-quality work performed during the current fiscal year, staff recommends extending Bear Electrical Solutions’ contract through Fiscal Year 2028-29.

Staff Report to the City Council
Bear Electric Solutions Contract Amendment
June 2,2026

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Public Safety- Ensure public safety resources adequately protect our community Financial Health- Maintain a balanced budget and adequate reserves

FISCAL IMPACT

Sufficient funding will be included in the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Operating Budget.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)

None

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Tina Souza, Senior Project Manager
Deanna Lestina, Project Manager

SUBJECT: Approve the FY 2026-27 Senate Bill-1 Funding Project List

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-19 approving the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Project List to be funded by Senate Bill-1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act.

BACKGROUND

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown announced a transportation funding agreement. The agreement was passed by the State Legislature and signed into law in April of 2017 as Senate Bill 1 (SB-1) or the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. SB-1 is funded by various mechanisms including an initial 12 cent gas excise tax increase, a reset price -based excise tax at 17.3 cents, a 20 cent diesel excise tax, a 4% diesel sales tax increase, a $25-$175 annual transportation improvement fee based on vehicle value, and a $100 annual zero emissions vehicle fee, with annual increases based upon changes in the Consumer Pri ce Index (CPI) beginning July 1, 2020. From these sources, SB-1 is expected to provide $5.2 billion annually and $15 billion for local streets and roads over the next ten years. Specifically, local agencies will be funded through the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) which consists of the new gas tax, the transportation improvement fee, and part of the diesel excise tax. The local share will be split evenly between cities and counties with city revenues being allocated per capita. The City of Hesperia will receive an estimated $2,856,134 for FY 2026-27.

SB-1 will provide investments to make significant improvements to the State’s highway system as well as local transportation facilities in disrepair. Cities and Counties will use SB -1 funds for complete streets projects, railroad grade separations, traffic control devices, increasing mobility options for residents, and increasing access to multi -modal transportation options by expanding transit, bicycle, and pedestrian friendly opportunities. However, the main focus of RMRA is to improve deteriorating roads throughout the state through maintenance and rehabilitation projects as well as critical safety projects. Therefore, SB -1 requests that, to the extent possible, local agencies prioritize basic maintenance and safety projects.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

SB-1 includes accountability and transparency measures to ensure the residents of the City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community. Cities and counties will adopt a project list by resolution each year and provide year end reporting on completed projects including

Staff Report to the City Council
Approve FY 2026-27 SB-1 Project List
June 2, 2026

necessary amendments, if applicable. Prior to receiving funds, cities are required to annually approve a list of all projects by resolution that are proposed to receive funding from the RMRA.

The project list must include a description and the location of each proposed project as well as the estimated useful life of the improvement, as further detailed in Attachment A.

City Staff will submit a list of projects to the Ca lifornia Transportation Commission that includes projects approved by Council. The following previously proposed and adopted project , as identified in Attachment A, may also utilize Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account reven ues in their delivery. With the relisting of these projects in the adopted fiscal year resolution, the City is reaffirming to the public and the State our intent to fund these projects with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

FY 2021 -22 Street Improvement Project consists of the following streets: Jacaranda Avenue which includes select level course and crack and cape seal between Bear Valley Road and Eucalyptus Avenue; Seventh Avenue which includes selected removal and replacement and slurry seal and crack seal and/or grind and overlay of asphalt between Main Street and Mesquite Street, as well as Seventh Avenue which includes select crack and slurry seal of asphalt between Willow Street and Cajon Street. The Projects asphalt rehabilitation has an estimated useful life of 5 to 20 years. Construction commenced in April 2026, and the anticipated completion date of this project is July 2026.

FY 2025-26 Street Improvement Project consists of the select removal and replacement of asphalt on Seventh Avenue between Willow Street and Bear Valley Road which has an estimated useful life of 20 years. Construction commence d in April 2026, and the anticipated completion date of this project is July 2026.

Maple Avenue Rehabilitation consists of select removal and replacement of asphalt between Main Street and Ranchero Road which has an estimated useful life of 20 years. Construction is anticipated to commence in May 2026, and the anticipated completion date of this project is December 2026.

Forward planning for FY 2026-27 will incorporate the following list of new projects , as further detailed in Attachment A, anticipated to utilize Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

The Escondido Avenue Street Improvement s project, between Sage Street and Main Street, consists of pre -construction activities and pavement treatment and rehabilitation methods designed to extend roadway service life by approximately 5 to 20 years. Construction is anticipated to commence in Spring 2027, with project completion anticipated by December 2027.

The FY 2026 -27 Street Improvement s project, located on Seventh Avenue between Ranchero Road and Mesquite Street, consists of pre -construction activities and pavement treatment and rehabilitation methods designed to extend roadway service life by approximately 5 to 20 years.

Construction is anticipated to commence in Spring 2027, with project completion anticipated by December 2027.

The FY 2026 -27 Slurry Seal Project consists of the street segments listed below. The project includes pre-construction activities followed by crack seal and slurry seal roadway preservation treatment, anticipated to extend the useful life of the roadway by approximately 5 years.

Staff Report to the City Council
Approve FY 2026-27 SB-1 Project List
June 2, 2026

Construction is anticipated to commence in Spring 2027, with project completion anticipated by December 2027.

STREET NAME BEHIND (From) AHEAD (To)

ARROYO AVE RIVERSIDE ST CASHEW ST

ARROYO AVE PENDLETON ST MAUNA LOA ST

BALSAM AVE MOJAVE ST RIVERSIDE ST

BALSAM AVE MESA ST PENDLETON ST

CASHEW ST HAWTHORNE AVE KERN AVE

CASHEW ST HEMLOCK AVE VICTOR AVE

COTTONWOOD

AVE CASHEW ST WILLOW ST

HEMLOCK AVE RIVERSIDE ST CASHEW ST

HEMLOCK AVE PENDLETON ST MAUNA LOA ST

JUNIPER ST REDWOOD AVE

COTTONWOOD
AVE

JUNIPER ST VICTOR AVE OAKWOOD AVE

JUNIPER ST HEMLOCK AVE VICTOR AVE

KERN AVE RIVERSIDE ST CASHEW ST

LOCUST AVE PENDLETON ST MAUNA LOA ST

MAUNA LOA ST KERN AVE LOCUST AVE

MAUNA LOA ST REGENCY RD MAPLE AVE

MOJAVE ST COTTONWOOD AVE LOCUST AVE

PENDLETON ST HAWTHORNE AVE KERN AVE

PENDLETON ST COTTONWOOD AVE HAWTHORNE AVE

PENDLETON ST REDWOOD AVE

COTTONWOOD
AVE

PENDLETON ST VICTOR AVE OAKWOOD AVE

PENDLETON ST MAPLE AVE HEMLOCK AVE

PENDLETON ST BALSAM AVE REDLANDS AVE

PORTLAND AVE RIVERSIDE ST CASHEW ST

PORTLAND AVE PENDLETON ST MAUNA LOA ST

SMOKE TREE ST BALSAM AVE HICKORY CT

SPRUCE ST HAWTHORNE AVE LOCUST AVE

VICTOR AVE RIVERSIDE ST CASHEW ST

WILLOW ST OAKWOOD AVE

COTTONWOOD
AVE

WILLOW ST SHANGRI-LA AVE MAPLE AVE

WILLOW ST COTTONWOOD AVE LOCUST AVE

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Staff Report to the City Council
Approve FY 2026-27 SB-1 Project List
June 2, 2026

Capital Improvement - Continually evaluate capital improvement priorities.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of this subject item. This action simply approves the FY 2026-27 SB-1 Funding Project List for the purpose of receiving and disbursing SB-1, RMRA funds.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution No. 2026-19

2. Attachment A

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-19

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FY 202 6-27 PROJECT LIST TO BE FUNDED BY SENATE BILL-1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.

WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB -1), the Road Repai r and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi -modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide ; and

WHEREAS, SB-1 include s accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, the City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB -1, in the City budget, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and

WHEREAS, the City will receive an estimated $2,856,134 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2026- 27 from SB-1; and

WHEREAS, the City will submit a project list that includes projects to be adopted in the FY 2026- 27 Capital Improvement Program Budget; and

WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good condition , as well as the installation of traffic control devices, will reduce traffic drive times and traffic congestion, which leads to a reduction on vehicle emissions helping the State achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, and will improve bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular safety; and

WHEREAS, the SB -1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using modern technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive benefits statewide; and

WHEREAS, funding from SB-1 will assist the City in maintaining and rehabilitating its roadway infrastructure, and the relisted and newly proposed project identified in Attachment A are recommended to receive funding.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Attachment A, consisting of previously proposed and adopted projects and newly proposed projects, will be funded in -part or solely with Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 -27 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) revenues.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 2nd day of June, 2026.

_____________________________
Brigit Bennington, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk

Project Details
Title Description Location Component
Priority
Status
Est. Schedule Useful
Life
Assem SenateStart Complete Min Max
FY 2025-26
Street
Improvement
Project
This project will include: Pavement Rehab/Repair
(Existing), Paving and/or Striping Rehab/Repair (Existing Safety) | Consisting of the select removal and
replacement of asphalt on Seventh Avenue between
Willow Street and Bear Valley Road
Seventh Avenue between
Willow Street and Bear Valley
Avenue
Construction In Progress
25/26
04/2026 07/2026
10 20 59 17
Maple Avenue
Rehabilitation
This project will include: ADA Curb Ramp Installation
(New), ADA Curb Ramp Rehab/Repair (Existing),
Pavement Rehab/Repair (Existing), Paving and/or
Striping Rehab/Repair (Existing Safety), Sidewalk and/or Crosswalk Rehab/Repair (Existing), Storm Drain and/or
Culvert Rehab/Repair (Existing)
Maple Avenue between Main
Street and Ranchero Road
Construction In Progress
25/26
05/2026 12/2026
15 20 33 17
FY 2021-22
Street
Improvement
Project
This project will include: Pavement Rehab/Repair
(Existing), Paving and/or Striping Rehab/Repair (Existing Safety) | FY 2021-22 Street Improvement Project which
includes Jacaranda Avenue which includes select level
course and crack and cape seal between Bear Valley
Road and Eucalyptus Street, Seventh Avenue which
includes selected removal and replacement and slurry
seal and crack seal and/or grind and overlay of asphalt on between Main Street and Mesquite Street Seventh
Avenue. | N/A
Seventh Avenue between
Willow Street and Cajon Street;
Seventh Avenue between Main
St and Mesquite Street; and
Jacaranda Avenue between
Bear Valley Road and
Eucalyptus Street.

Construction In Progress
25/26
04/2026 07/2026
5 20 59 17
FY 2026-27
Street
Improvements
This project will include: ADA Curb Ramp Rehab/Repair
(Existing), Bicycle Lane Rehab/Repair (Existing), Cost
Estimating, Document Preparation, Environmental
Study/Documents, Pavement Rehab/Repair (Existing),
Paving and/or Striping Rehab/Repair (Existing Safety),
Preliminary Design, Sidewalk and/or Crosswalk
Rehab/Repair (Existing), Traffic Signals, Lights, and/or Signage Rehab/Repair (Existing Safety)
Seventh Ave from
Mesquite Street to
Ranchero Road
Pre-
Construction
and
Construction
New 26/27
05/2026
02/2027
02/2027
12/2027
5 20 59 17
FY 2026-27
Slurry Seal
Project
This project will include: Cost Estimating, Document
Preparation, Environmental Study/Documents, Pavement
Rehab/Repair (Existing), Paving and/or Striping
Rehab/Repair (Existing Safety), Preliminary Design |
Additional locations-MOJAVE ST (COTTONWOOD-

LOCUST), PENDLETON ST (HAWTHORNE-KERN),

PENDLETON ST (COTTONWOOD-HAWTHORNE),

PENDLETON ST (REDWOOD-COTTONWOOD),

PENDLETON ST (VICTOR-OAKWOOD), PENDLETON ST
(MAPLE-HEMLOCK), PENDLETON ST (BALSAM-

REDLANDS), PORTLAND AVE (RIVERSIDE-CASHEW),

PORTLAND AVE (PENDLETON-MAUNA LOA), SMOKE TREE

ST (BALSAM-HICKORY), SPRUCE ST (HAWTHORNE-

LOCUST), VICTOR AVE (RIVERSIDE-CASHEW), WILLOW

ST (OAKWOOD-COTTONWOOD), WILLOW ST (SHANGRI-

LA-MAPLE), WILLOW ST(COTTONWOOD-LOCUST)

ARROYO AVE (RIVERSIDE-

CASHEW), ARROYO AVE
(PENDLETON-MAUNA LOA),

BALSAM AVE (MOJAVE-

RIVERSIDE), BALSAM AVE
(MESA-PENDLETON), CASHEW

ST (HAWTHORNE-KERN),

CASHEW ST (HEMLOCK-

VICTOR), COTTONWOOD AVE
(CASHEW-WILLOW), HEMLOCK

AVE (RIVERSIDE-CASHEW),

HEMLOCK AVE (PENDLETON-

MAUNA LOA), JUNIPER ST
(REDWOOD-COTTONWOOD),

JUNIPER ST (VICTOR-

OAKWOOD), JUNIPER ST
(HEMLOCK-VICTOR), KERN AVE
(RIVERSIDE-CASHEW), LOCUST

AVE (PENDLETON-MAUNA LOA),

MAUNA LOA ST (KERN-

LOCUST), MAUNA LOA ST
(REGENCY-MAPLE)
Pre-
Construction
and
Construction
New 26/27
05/2026
02/2026
02/2027
12/2027
5 5 59 17
Attachment A
Attachment 2

Title Description Location Component
Priority
Status
Est. Schedule Useful
Life
Assem SenateStart Complete Min Max
Escondido
Avenue Street
Improvements
This project will include: ADA Curb Ramp Rehab/Repair
(Existing), Cost Estimating, Document Preparation,
Environmental Study/Documents, Pavement
Rehab/Repair (Existing), Paving and/or Striping
Rehab/Repair (Existing Safety), Preliminary Design,
Project Scope Development, Sidewalk and/or Crosswalk
Rehab/Repair (Existing), Traffic Signals, Lights, and/or Signage Rehab/Repair (Existing Safety)
Escondido Ave from Sage St to
Main St.

Pre-
Construction
and
Construction
New 26/27
07/2026
01/2027
12/2026
12/2027
5 20 59 17

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members
Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brian Blackwell, Streets/Traffic Operation Manager

SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) Preventive Maintenance and Repair Services

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the City Council and Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District (District) authorize the City Manager to enter into a three (3) year contract with Retrofit Services Co., Inc., in a not -to-exceed amount of $ 240,000 for heating, ventilation, and air -conditioning (HVAC) preventative maintenance and repair services for City and District facilities.

BACKGROUND

The City contracts with an HVAC contractor for preventive maintenance and repairs at various City and Water District facilities, including the Hesperia Branch Library. These services include quarterly filter changes, system adjustments, and repairs to ensure HVAC systems are operating to factory specifications. With the aging HVAC systems, an aggressive preventative maintenance program will be incorporated to ensure these systems are operating at optimal capacity. While preventative maintenance will not eliminate failures, it will reduce the frequency with which they occur.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

The current contract for HVAC preventative maintenance and repair services is set to expire on June 30, 2026. To continue to provide these services, the City prepared a formal bid that was released on April 26,2026 and closed on May 12, 2026. The City received the following bids:

Allison Mechanical, Inc. Retrofit Services Inc.

FY 2026-27 $82,242 $78,225
FY 2027-28 $85,044 $79,690
FY 2028-29 $87,894 $81,417
Total Cost $255,180 $239,332

Upon review of the submitted bids, Retrofit Services Company, Inc. was deemed the lowest responsible/responsive bidder for HVAC preventative maintenance and repair services

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council
Award of Contract for Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) Preventative Maintenance and Repair Services
June 2, 2026

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Financial Health - Maintain a balanced budget and adequate reserves

FISCAL IMPACT

Sufficient funding will be included in the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Operating Budget.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Bid Comparison

Bid Comparison Type: Non-Taxable
Bid Comparison Completed By:

Date:

Item No. UOM Qty Description/Location Unit Price
Extended
Amount Unit Cost
Extended
Amount
1 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia City Hall $1,428 $5,712.00 $1,926 $7,704.00 2 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Branch Library $2,139 $8,556.00 $2,187 $8,748.00 3 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Police Station $2,534 $10,136.00 $1,847 $7,388.00 4 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Animal Control $908 $3,632.00 $1,319 $5,276.00 5 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Public Works Yard $843 $3,372.00 $2,253 $9,012.00 $31,408.00 $38,128.00
6 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia City Hall $1,404 $1,404.00 $602 $602.00 7 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Branch Library $1,068 $1,068.00 $776 $776.00 8 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Police Station $1,068 $1,068.00 $516 $516.00 9 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Animal Control $1,068 $1,068.00 $516 $516.00 10 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Public Works Yard $704 $704.00 $689 $689.00 $5,312.00 $3,099.00
11 Annual 1 Hesperia City Hall $3,040 $3,040.00 $490 $490.00 12 Annual 1 Hesperia Branch Library $2,352 $2,352.00 $751 $751.00 13 Annual 1 Hesperia Police Station $3,040 $3,040.00 $404 $404.00 14 Annual 1 Hesperia Animal Control $1,512 $1,512.00 $490 $490.00 15 Annual 1 Hesperia Public Works Yard $1,512 $1,512.00 $838 $838.00 $11,456.00 $2,973.00
16 Hour 128 Labor $172 $22,016.00 $175 $22,400.00
17 Each 25 Service Call Charge $116 $2,900.00 $75 $1,875.00 18 Each $6,000 Materials Markup Percentage 22% $7,320.00 30% $7,800.00 19 Each $1,500 Equipment Markup Percentage 22% $1,830.00 30% $1,950.00 $34,066.00 $34,025.00
$82,242.00 $78,225.00
1 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia City Hall $1,473 $5,892.00 $1,951 $7,804.00 2 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Branch Library $2,206 $8,824.00 $2,217 $8,868.00 3 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Police Station $2,613 $10,452.00 $1,871 $7,484.00 4 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Animal Control $937 $3,748.00 $1,337 $5,348.00 5 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Public Works Yard $870 $3,480.00 $2,287 $9,148.00 $32,396.00 $38,652.00
6 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia City Hall $1,448 $1,448.00 $621 $621.00 7 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Branch Library $1,104 $1,104.00 $792 $792.00 8 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Police Station $1,104 $1,104.00 $535 $535.00 9 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Animal Control $1,104 $1,104.00 $535 $535.00 10 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Public Works Yard $728 $728.00 $707 $707.00 $5,488.00 $3,190.00
11 Annual 1 Hesperia City Hall $3,136 $3,136.00 $506 $506.00 12 Annual 1 Hesperia Branch Library $2,428 $2,428.00 $770 $770.00 13 Annual 1 Hesperia Police Station $3,136 $3,136.00 $418 $418.00 14 Annual 1 Hesperia Animal Control $1,560 $1,560.00 $506 $506.00 15 Annual 1 Hesperia Public Works Yard $1,560 $1,560.00 $858 $858.00 $11,820.00 $3,058.00
16 Hour 128 Labor $180 $23,040.00 $180 $23,040.00
Total for FY 2026-27 HVAC Quarterly Maintenance Cost
Total for FY 2026-27 HVAC Twice per Year Evaporator Cleaning Total for FY 2026-27 Annual Pressure/Leak Down Test
Total for FY 2026-27 Repair Rate
Total for FY 2027-28 HVAC Quarterly Maintenance Cost
Total for FY 2027-28 HVAC Twice per Year Evaporator Cleaning Fiscal Year 2027-28 Repair Rate
Total for FY 2026-27 Grand Total
Fiscal Year 2027-28 HVAC Maintenance (Quarterly)
Fiscal Year 2027-28 HVAC Evaporator Coil Cleaning (Once Per Year) RFB 2025-26-019 - HVAC Preventive Maintenance & Repair Services Purchasing
5/12/2026
Allison Mechanical, Inc. Retrofit Service Company,
Inc.

Fiscal Year 2026-27 HVAC Maintenance (Quarterly)
Total for FY 2027-28 Annual Pressure/Leak Down Test
Fiscal Year 2027-28 HVAC Annual Pressure/Leak Down Test Fiscal Year 2026-27 Repair Rate
Fiscal Year 2026-27 HVAC Evaporator Coil Cleaning (Once Per Year) Fiscal Year 2026-27 HVAC Annual Pressure/Leak Down Test Attachment 1

17 Each 25 Service Call Charge $120 $3,000.00 $80 $2,000.00 18 Each $6,000 Materials Markup Percentage 24% $7,440.00 30% $7,800.00 19 Each $1,500 Equipment Markup Percentage 24% $1,860.00 30% $1,950.00 $35,340.00 $34,790.00
$85,044.00 $79,690.00
1 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia City Hall $1,519 $6,076.00 $2,012 $8,048.00 2 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Branch Library $2,275 $9,100.00 $2,260 $9,040.00 3 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Police Station $2,695 $10,780.00 $1,916 $7,664.00 4 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Animal Control $967 $3,868.00 $1,365 $5,460.00 5 Quarterly (4) 1 Hesperia Public Works Yard $897 $3,588.00 $2,324 $9,296.00 $33,412.00 $39,508.00
6 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia City Hall $1,496 $1,496.00 $638 $638.00 7 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Branch Library $1,140 $1,140.00 $792 $792.00 8 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Police Station $1,140 $1,140.00 $552 $552.00 9 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Animal Control $1,140 $1,140.00 $552 $552.00 10 Once Per Year 1 Hesperia Public Works Yard $752 $752.00 $724 $724.00 $5,668.00 $3,258.00
11 Annual 1 Hesperia City Hall $3,236 $3,236.00 $514 $514.00 12 Annual 1 Hesperia Branch Library $2,504 $2,504.00 $777 $777.00 13 Annual 1 Hesperia Police Station $3,236 $3,236.00 $426 $426.00 14 Annual 1 Hesperia Animal Control $1,612 $1,612.00 $514 $514.00 15 Annual 1 Hesperia Public Works Yard $1,612 $1,612.00 $865 $865.00 $12,200.00 $3,096.00
16 Hour 128 Labor $188 $24,064.00 $185 $23,680.00
17 Each 25 Service Call Charge $124 $3,100.00 $85 $2,125.00 18 Each $6,000 Materials Markup Percentage 26% $7,560.00 30% $7,800.00 19 Each $1,500 Equipment Markup Percentage 26% $1,890.00 30% $1,950.00 $36,614.00 $35,555.00
$87,894.00 $81,417.00
Total Bid $255,180.00 Total Bid $239,332.00
Submitted $238,944.00 Submitted $239,332.00
Difference $16,236.00 Difference $0.00
Fiscal Year 2028-29 HVAC Annual Pressure/Leak Down Test Fiscal Year 2028-29 HVAC Evaporator Coil Cleaning (Once Per Year) Fiscal Year 2028-29 HVAC Maintenance (Quarterly)
Total for FY 2027-28 Grand Total
Total for FY 2027-28 Repair Rate
Total for FY 2028-29 HVAC Quarterly Maintenance Cost
Total for FY 2028-29 HVAC Twice per Year Evaporator Cleaning Total for FY 2028-29 Annual Pressure/Leak Down Test
Total for FY 2028-29 Repair Rate

WINNING BID
Total for FY 2028-29 Grand Total
Fiscal Year 2028-29 Repair Rate

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Tina Souza, Senior Project Manager

SUBJECT: Authorize Expenditures from Con-Fab California, LLC for the Ranchero Road Aqueduct Crossing Project, C.O. No. 7139

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the City Council authorize expenditures from Con-Fab California, LLC in the amount of $221,550 for storage fees, sales tax, handling (preparation and loading), and engineer evaluation fees for the girders for the Ranchero Road Aqueduct Crossing Project, Construction Order (C.O) No. 7139.

BACKGROUND

Due to unforeseen circumstances, the construction contract for the Ranchero Road Corridor Widening Project Phase III, collectively, C.O. Nos. 7094, 7131, 7139, 7146, 7154 (Project) was terminated in February 2025. At the time, the aqueduct bridge and some minor portions of roadway and waterline infrastructure adjacent to the bridge remained to be constructed.

With the termination of the contract, there were various materials for t he Project that were previously paid for, commonly referred to as Materials on Hand (MOH) that are the property of the City, including girders for the bridge.

Con-Fab California, LLC is the manufacturer of the girders, and they have been stored at their facility.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

While the project was rebid and awarded to a new contractor, the City owns the girders manufactured by Con -Fab California, LLC, and is responsible for the materials until they are loaded on a truck, where they become the responsibility of the new contractor for delivery to the project site. Therefore, the City must pay the sales tax and handling fees. This is similar to a Free on Board/Freight on Board (FOB) origin purchase. These were unforeseen charges as a result of the termination that resulted in unusual circumstances outside standard construction operations, where these fees would be included under installation costs in the construction contract because the contractor would be purchasing the materials directly from the manufacturer. These are not additional charges to the City; it is a shift of payment responsibility.

The City is also responsible for the storage fees and any fees associated wit h engineer evaluation/calculations of the girders if they are out of camber or damaged from transport or installation.

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
Authorize Expenditures from Con-Fab California, LLC for the Ranchero Road Aqueduct Crossing Project, C.O. No. 7139
June 2, 2026

The storage fees , sales tax , and handling fees are non -commodity items that are generally exempt from centralized purchasing as they relate to open market purchases or bidding, and are also a sole source. Further, the Project is identified in the CIP with an established budget , and miscellaneous project-related expenses do not require additional City Council authorization.

The storage fe es are within the threshold for expenses that do not require City Council authorization. However, the upcoming charges for the sales tax and handling fees will exceed the authorization limits based on value. Engineer evaluation/calculations is an estimated amount and will occur only if necessary, based on number of girders requiring evaluation. Further, due to the unusual circumstances and for transparency, staff is requesting City Council authorization for the following expenditures:

Storage Fees: $ 39,182.00
Handling Fees: $ 158,499
Sales Tax: $ 13,869
Engineer Evaluation/Calculation: $ 10,000.00
Total: $ 221,550

Storage fees were a result of the termination of the original construction contract, and were sole sourced through Con -Fab California, LLC. Upon City Council authorization, staff will process prompt payment to the vendor to facilitate transport to the Project site for installation.

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Capital Improvement – Continually evaluate capital improvement priorities.

FISCAL IMPACT

Funding for the Project is budgeted in the approved Fiscal Year 2025 -26 Capital Improvement Program. A budget amendment for the FY 2025 -26 CIP Budget is also being presented at this meeting to provide additional project funding as necessary.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Provide alternative direction to staff.

ATTACHMENT(S)

None

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Melinda Sayre, Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
Tammy Pelayes, Assistant to the City Manager

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 9 to Waste Disposal Agreement

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the City Council approve Amendment No. 9 to the Waste Disposal Agreement (WDA) between the City of Hesperia and the County of San Bernardino.

BACKGROUND

In 1989, the State of California passed Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) requiring all local jurisdictions to reduce landfill waste by 25% in 1995 and 50% by 2000 or be subject to fines of up to $10,000 a day for each day of non-compliance.

The County of San Bernardino owns, manages and operates the sanitary landfill system for the disposal of local jurisdiction solid waste . Recognizing that all California counties and cities are subject to the same waste diversion mandates, the County of San Bernardino Solid Waste Management Division (SWMD) and the City of Hesperia entered into a Solid Waste Disposal Agreement (WDA) in November 1998, in order to serve the public health, safety, and welfare of the City with greater d isposal rate stability, environmental protection, and more predictable and reliable long -term disposal service. Originally, 16 cities in San Bernardino County became signatories to identical agreements ; fifteen cities currently participate. By doing so, th e WDA contract requires the City to deliver all solid waste to the County disposal system in return for receiving the lowest disposal rate, or tipping fee, in use at the landfill(s), subject to potential adjustments as necessary.

Since 1998, several amendments to the WDA have been approved to include implementing the “Article 19 Solid Waste” component of the County’s waste management system and define the City’s share of that revenue. Amendment No. 2 was to increase the annual maximum limits of “Article 19 Solid Waste” in the County landfill system. Amendment No. 3 allowed the County to charge the fee of $10.00 per ton (prorated) for identified controllable waste of the City (e.g., roll off container trucks and other County/City vehicles such as pickups and dump trucks) and have such waste subject to being processed in the recycling program. Amendment No. 4 allowed the County to calculate the annual cost of living adjustment earlier in the calendar year. Amendment No. 5 extended the end date of the WDA to June 30, 2016. Amendment No. 6 extended the term of the WDA to June 30, 2021, applied an annual fixed WDA renewal discount adjustment of $0.82 per ton for the term of the WDA, and allowed the County to enter into agreements to accept in-

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
Amendment No. 9 to Waste Disposal Agreement
June 2, 2026

County waste from non-WDA users of the Disposal System at a rate lower than the WDA Contract Rate in exchange for sharing the net revenue generated from those agreements. Amendment No. 7 reset the WDA Contract Rate and extended the term for five (5) years to June 30, 2026.

Amendment No. 8 capped the WDA Contract Rate in order to maintain a 15% buffer between the WDA Contract Rate and the County’s posted gate rate.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

Throughout the last several months, representatives from the WDA cities and the County of San Bernardino have met to discuss the various amendments to the WDA proposed by the County.

Based on these discussions, the proposed Amendment No. 9 provides the following changes to the WDA to include the following:

 In connection with the ongoing administration of the WDA, the parties have determined it is now in their best interests to extend the term 9 years to June 30, 2035, adjust the WDA Contract Rate to be equal to 83% of the County’s posted gate rate, and eliminate the provision for annual adjustments;
 Effective July 1, 2026, and each July 1 thereafter during the term of the Agreement, the contract rate shall be equal to 83% of the County’s posted gate rate effective that July 1st.

For July 1, 2026, the County’s posted gate rate is $49.49 ($61.49 minus the $12 CDSDP fee); therefore, the WDA Rate, effective July 1, 2026, will be $41.08 per ton;  In exchange for adjusting the WDA Contract Rate to be equal to 83% of the County’s posted gate rate, the City agrees to commit to remaining a WDA City, with no provision to terminate without cause, for the remainder of the WDA term, which is June 30, 2035;  This agreement shall become effective, shall be in full force and effect and shall be legally binding upon the City and the County from the WDA Contract Date and shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 2035, unless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms.

The County has requested that the 15 current WDA cities/towns present the WDA Amendment No. 9 to each representative Council for review and approval prior to the County’s Board meeting on June 23, 2026.

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Public Safety - Ensure public safety resources adequately protect our community.

FISCAL IMPACT

Amendment No. 9 to the WDA will adjust the WDA Contract rate to be equal to 83% of the County’s posted gate rate and thus eliminate the provision for annual adjustments, thus making the WDA Contract Rate $41.08 per ton. The WDA Contract Rate is the “tipping fee” charged for dumping at the County land fill. The WDA Contract Rate along with the total Article -19 tonnage provides the total revenue collected by the County. The City receives a portion of these funds as Article-19/Waste Disposal revenue based upon the number of participating cities and population.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Staff Report to the Mayor and Council Members
Amendment No. 9 to Waste Disposal Agreement
June 2, 2026

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Amendment No. 9 to the WDA

AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE
WASTE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT NO. 98-959
On Novembe
r 17, 1998, the City of Hesperia (“City”) and the County of San Bernardino (“County”) entered into a Waste Disposal Agreement (“WDA”). The parties hereby amend the WDA, on the Effective Date as provided herein, by their respective execution of this agreement (hereinafter “Amendment’).

Recita
ls
A. The parties
have previously entered into the following amendments to the WDA. Amendment No. 1 to the WDA was to implement the “Article 19 Solid Waste” component of the County’s waste management system and define the City’s share of that revenue. Amendment No. 2 was to increase the annual maximum limits of “Article 19 Solid Waste” in the County landfill system. Amendment No. 3 allowed the County to charge the fee of $10.00 per ton (prorated) for identified controllable waste of the City (e.g., roll off container trucks and other County/City vehicles such as pickups and dump trucks) and have such waste subject to being processed in the recycling program. Amendment No. 4 allowed the County to calculate the annual cost of living adjustment earlier in the calendar year. Amendment No. 5 extended the end date of the WDA to June 30, 2016. Amendment No. 6 extended the term of the WDA to June 30, 2021, applied an annual fixed WDA renewal discount adjustment of $0.82 per ton for the term of the WDA, and allowed the County to enter into agreements to accept in-County waste from non-WDA users of the Disposal System at a rate lower than the WDA Contract Rate in exchange for sharing the net revenue generated from those agreements. Amendment No. 7 reset the WDA Contract Rate and extended the term for five (5) years to June 30, 2026. Amendment No. 8 capped the WDA Contract Rate in order to maintain a 15% buffer between the WDA Contract Rate and the County’s posted gate rate.

B. In connec
tion with the ongoing administration of the WDA, the parties have determined it is now in their best interests to extend the term 9 years to June 30, 2035, adjust the WDA Contract Rate to be equal to 83% of the County’s posted gate rate, and eliminate the provision for annual adjustments.

NOW THE
REFORE, in consideration of the forgoing recitals and the following covenants and promises the Parties agree as follows:

1. Secti
on 4.2, entitled “CONTRACT RATE” is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety to read:

SECT
ION 4.2 CONTRACT RATE. Effective July 1, 2026, and each July 1 thereafter during the term of the Agreement, the Contract Rate shall be equal to 83% of the County’s posted gate rate effective that July 1st. For July 1, 2026, the County’s posted gate rate is $49.49 ($61.49 minus the $12 CDSDP fee); therefore, the WDA Rate, effective July 1, 2026, will be $41.08 per ton.

Please
note that, due to timing, in future years where the gate rate is recommended to be increased, the WDA rate notification letter may be delayed until final approval of the gate rate by the Board of Supervisors.

2. Secti
on 5.2, entitled “CITY CONVENIENCE TERMINATION” is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety to read:

SECTI
ON 5.2 CITY CONVENIENCE TERMINATION. In exchange for adjusting the WDA Contract Rate to be equal to 83% of the County’s posted gate rate, the City agrees to commit to remaining a WDA City, with no provision to terminate without cause, for the remainder of the WDA Term.

3. Secti
on 6.1 , entitled “ EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM ”, paragraph (A) Term , is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety to read:

SECT
ION 6.1. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. (A) Term. This Agreement shall become effective, shall be in full force and effect and shall be legally binding upon the City and the County from the Contract Attachment 1

Date and shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 2035, unless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms.

4. Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective if and only when all fifteen cities/towns listed on Exhibit A have each adopted and executed a counterpart of this Amendment N o. 9 (the amendment number may differ for each city/town listed on Exhibit A) and such amendment has been adopted and executed by the County on or before June 30, 2026. In all events, the conditions in the forgoing sentence shall occur otherwise this Amendment No. 9 shall be null and void and without any effect whatsoever.

5. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same Amendment.

The parties shall be entitled to sign and transmit an electronic signature of this Amendment (whether by facsimile, PDF or other email transmission), which signature shall be binding on the party whose name is contained therein. Each party providing an electronic signature agrees to promptly execute and deliver to the other party an original signed Amendment upon request.

6. Except as modified in this Amendment (or in any prior Amendment(s)) all other terms and conditions of the WDA shall remain in full force and effect.

///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , San Bernardino County and the City have each caused this A mendment to be subscribed by its respective duly authorized persons, on its behalf.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
City of Hesperia
(Print or type name of corporation, company, contractor, etc.)

By

Dawn Rowe, Chair, Board of Supervisors (Authorized signature - sign in blue ink) Dated:

Name

SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS (Print or type name of person signing contract)

DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD Title
Lynna Monell
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of San Bernardino County
(Print or Type)
By Dated:

Deputy
Address

9700 Seventh Avenue

Hesperia, CA 92345

EXHIBIT A

CITIES/TOWNS WITH A WASTE DELIVERY AGREEMENT

WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
OFFERED THIS AMENDMENT JUNE 2026
FOR AN AGREEMENT END DATE OF JUNE 30, 2035

1. ADELANTO

2. APPLE VALLEY

3. BARSTOW

4. BIG BEAR LAKE

5. COLTON

6. FONTANA

7. GRAND TERRACE

8. HESPERIA

9. HIGHLAND

10. LOMA LINDA

11. RIALTO

12. TWENTYNINE PALMS

13. VICTORVILLE

14. YUCAIPA

15. YUCCA VALLEY

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

City of Hesperia

STAFF REPORT

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District

FROM: Rachel Molina, City Manager
BY: Cassandra Sanchez, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jeremy McDonald, Water Operations Manager

SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting the District’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the Planning Period 2025-2045

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Hesperia Water District (District) adopt Resolution No. HWD 2026 -07 accepting the District’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), as written or as amended during the public hearing, and authorize submittal of the UWMP to the California Department of Water Resources as required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act.

BACKGROUND

Per California’s Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act), every water supplier must prepare and adopt an UWMP every five years for subm ittal to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The Act requires water agencies to prepare a plan that provides water supply planning over a 20-year period in five-year increments. The UWMP is a planning tool that provides the City and the pub lic with a broad perspective on water supply issues and is required for the District to be considered for future grant funding opportunities or to receive drought assistance from the State.

The UWMP must describe the adequacy and reliability of all water supplies for existing and future customers. The intent of the UWMP is to provide assistance to water purveyors in carrying out their long-term resource planning responsibilities to ensure that there are adequate water supplies to meet existing and future demands for water. The UWMP must identify and quantify current and future water supplies, including recycled water and desalination, for existing and future demands in normal, single -dry and multiple -dry years and is to describe conservation program implementation and efficient use of urban water supplies.

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

In November 2025, the Mojave Water Agency convened a workshop for all water purveyors within its service area required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The workshop included participation from Zanjero (formerly Tully & Young), which previously completed the District’s two most recent UWMPs.

The purpose of the workshop was to assess interest in a collaborative approach with the Mojave Water Agency to develop a Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP). Following this discussion, staff elected to participate in the regional effort based on several considerations,

Chair and Board Members, Hesperia Water District
Resolution Accepting the District’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the Planning Period 2025-2045
June 2, 2026

including Zanjero’s established familiarity with the District and the Mojave River Valley, as well as anticipated cost savings of approximately $10,000. Of the twelve agencies invited to participate, ten elected to join the regional effort.

The California Water Code requires that wholesale and retail water providers, of at least 3,000 acre-feet of water sales or with 3,000 or more retail connections, prepare and submit an UWMP update every five years. Submittal of the adopted UWMP is critical for water management planning efforts and maintains the City’s eligibility for water grants or loans administered by the DWR.

The process for developing this plan was extensive. Staff and Zanjero, Inc. coordinated on developing the methodology to be utilized within the plan. District staff attended in -person workshops and virtual meetings with the consultant to ensure all data was correct, agreed to, and acceptable. During these meetings staff and the consultant discussed the methodology and approach to compiling the data for the plan. This data was then formulated and presented as a complete service area demand. This effort included a strong emphasis on coordination with neighboring water suppl iers and the Mojave Water Agency. The Draft 2025 UWMP was completed and made available for review in May 2025.

Staff is recommending that the Board of Directors adopt the Public Draft 2025 UWMP as written or as amended during the public hearing as the Hes peria Water District 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and authorize staff to submit the plan to the DWR.

CITY GOAL SUPPORTED BY THIS ITEM

Public Safety - Ensure public safety resources adequately protect our community.

Financial Health - Maintain a balanced budget and adequate reserves.

FISCAL IMPACT

The District entered into an agreement with the Mojave Water Agency in the amount of $15,000, who is responsible for managing the contract with Zanjero to assist staff with the preparation of the 2025 UWMP. After the adoption of the plan by the Board and submittal to the DWR, no further expenditures will be necessary.

There is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of the 2025 UWMP. Water suppliers that do not complete an updated UWMP are not eligible to apply for state or federal water grants.

ALTERNATIVE(S)

1. Provide alternative direction to staff

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution No. HWD 2026-07

2. Hesperia Water District Public Draft 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (available for review in the City Clerk’s office or online at the City’s website)

RESOLUTION HWD NO. 2026-07

RESOLUTION OF THE HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA, CALIFORNIA, A CCEPTING THE DISTRICT’S 2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (UWMP) FOR THE PLANNING PERIOD 2025- 2045

WHEREAS, in 1983 the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 797 (adding §§ 10610 - 10657 to the Water Code) known as the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act),subsequently amended, which mandates that every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3, 000 customers or supplying more than 3, 000 acre- feet of water annually shall prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP); and

WHEREAS, the Act requires the UWMP to address water planning over a 20-year period in five- year increments, to describe in the plan water management tools and options used by the District to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water, to identify and quantify current and potential future water supplies including recycled water and desalinatio n, for existing and future demand in normal, single- dry and multiple- dry years, to develop a water shortage contingency plan, to describe conservation program implementation and efficient use of urban water supplies, and to demonstrate the City' s progre ss towards compliance with reduction in overall water consumption as mandated by Senate Bill X7- 7; and

WHEREAS, each UWMP shall include simple lay description of how much water the supplier has on a reliable basis, how much it needs for the foreseeable future, what the supplier's strategy is for meeting its water needs, the challenges facing the supplier, and any other information necessary to provide a general understanding of the supplier' s plan; and

WHEREAS, the Hesperia Water District is an urban water supplier providing water to a population in excess of 3,000 customers; and

WHEREAS, the UWMP is to be adopted after public review and hearing and filed with the California Department of Water Resources; and

WHEREAS, the District has prepared and circulated for public review, a draft copy of the 2025 UWMP, and a properly noticed public hearing regarding the 2025 UWMP was held by the District on June 2, 2026;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF HESPERIA WATER DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Board of Directors hereby specifically finds that all of the facts as set forth in this resolution are true and correct.

Section 2. The 2025 Urban Water Management Plan is hereby accepted and ordered filed with the City Clerk.

Section 3. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to file the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan with the California Department of Water Resources by July 1, 2026.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 2nd day of June 2026.

______________________________
Briget Bennington, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________
Jessica Giber, Assistant City Clerk

2025 MOJAVE

REGIONAL URBAN WATER

MANAGEMENT PLAN
Attachment 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................ES-1 Chapter 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Background and Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1.2 Basis for Plan Preparation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.1.3 Coordination and Outreach .................................................................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.1.4 Statutory Requirements for Notice ................................................................................................................................................... 1-4

1.1.5 RUWMP Adoption .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-4

1.1.6 Document Organization .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2.0 The Mojave Region........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 Regional Overview ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 Water Suppliers of the Mojave Region .......................................................................................................................................... 2-6

2.1.3 Mojave Region Groundwater Basins .............................................................................................................................................. 2-9

2.1.4 Major Regional Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-15

2.1.5 Regional Climate ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2- 20

2.1.6 Current and Projected Population ................................................................................................................................................. 2- 23

2.1.7 Land Use, Economy, and Demographics .................................................................................................................................. 2- 28

2.1.8 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2- 33 Chapter 3.0 Regional Water Supply Characterization ............................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Mojave Region Water Supply Sources ............................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3-10

3.1.3 Desalination Opportunities ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-15

3.1.4 Delta Reliance .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-15

3.1.5 Climate Change ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-16

3.1.6 Summary of Existing and Planned Water Supplies ............................................................................................................. 3-16 Chapter 4.0 Water Use Characterization ...................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Current Regional Water Use ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.2 Forecasting Regional Water Use ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.1.3 Summary of Future Regional Water Use ..................................................................................................................................... 4-8

Chapter 5.0 Regional Water Service Reliability ........................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Mojave Region Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................... 5-2

5.1.2 MWA Long-Term Service Reliability ................................................................................................................................................ 5-3

5.1.3 Water Supply Reliability Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 5-7 Chapter 6.0 Mojave Water Agency................................................................................................. 6-1 Chapter 7.0 The City of Adelanto ..................................................................................................... 7-1 Chapter 8.0 County Service Area 64 Spring Valley Lake ............................................................ 8-1 Chapter 9.0 County Service Area 70J Oak Hills ............................................................................ 9-1 Chapter 10.0 Golden State Water Company – Barstow System ............................................... 10-1 Chapter 11.0 Hesperia Water District .............................................................................................. 11-1 Chapter 12.0 Hi-Desert Water District ........................................................................................... 12-1 Chapter 13.0 Joshua Basin Water District ..................................................................................... 13-1 Chapter 14.0 Liberty Utilities – Apple Valley ................................................................................. 14-1 Chapter 15.0 Phelan Piñon Hills Community Services District .................................................. 15-1 Chapter 16.0 Victorville Water District .......................................................................................... 16-1

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Public and Public Agency Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 1-3 Table 2-1: Urban Water Retail Water Suppliers within the Mojave Region ..................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-2: Groundwater Basins within the Mojave Region ...................................................................................................... 2-10 Table 2-3: Historical Population ................................................................................................................................................................ 2- 24 Table 2-4: Comparison of Incorporated City Population Data ........................................................................................... 2-25 Table 2-5: Urban Water Supplier Population Projections – UCR Study and Adjusted UCR Study ................ 2-26 Table 2-6: Mojave Region Population Projections – UCR Study and Adjusted UCR Study ................................ 2-26 Table 2-7: Adjusted UCR Study and SCAG Population Projections ................................................................................... 2-27 Table 2-8: 2025 RUWMP Population Projections ............................................................................................................................ 2- 28 Table 2-9: Known Land Use Plans in the Mojave Region .......................................................................................................... 2-30 Table 3-1: Projected Native Groundwater for each Subregion through 2050 (AFY) ................................................ 3-6 Table 3-2: MWA’s Projected Imported Water Supplies (AFY) ................................................................................................... 3-7 Table 3-3: Summary of Return Flow for Subregion 1 and Subregion 2 through 2050 (AFY) ............................... 3-8 Table 3-4: Recycled Water Supplies for Subregion 1 through 2050 (AFY) ...................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-5: Average Existing TDS and Nitrate Concentrations by SNMP Subregion ................................................. 3-13 Table 3-6: Reduced Delta Reliance ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-16 Table 3-7: Projected Total Water Supply for the Mojave Region for the Next 5-Years (AFY) ............................ 3-17 Table 3-8: Projected Total Water Supply for the Mojave Region Through 2050 (AFY) .......................................... 3-17 Table 4-1: Regional Water Use 2021-2025 (AFY) .............................................................................................................................. 4-3 Table 4-2: Subregion 1 Water Use 2021-2025 (AFY) ....................................................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4-3: Subregion 2 Water Use 2021-2025 ................................................................................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-4: Subregion 3 Water Use 2021-2025 ................................................................................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-5: Projected Subregion 1 Water Demand 2030-2050 (AFY) .................................................................................. 4-9 Table 4-6: Projected Subregion 2 Water Demand 2030-2050 (AFY) ................................................................................ 4-9 Table 4-7: Projected Subregion 3 Water Demand 2030-2050 (AFY) ................................................................................. 4-9 Table 4-8: Projected Regional Water Demand 2030-2050 (AFY) ....................................................................................... 4-10 Table 5-1: MWA Five Year Drought Risk Assessment (AFY) ....................................................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-2: Normal and Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand through 2050 (AFY) .................................. 5-5 Table 5-3: Five Consecutive Dry Years Water Supply and Demand Through 2050 (AFY) ................................... 5-6

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: The Mojave Region ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2: Subareas and Management Areas within the Mojave Region .................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3: 2025 RUWMP Subregions ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-4: Urban Water Retail Suppliers within the Mojave Region .................................................................................. 2-9 Figure 2-5: Groundwater Basins within the Mojave Region ..................................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-6: Adjudicated Subareas and Defined Management Areas within the Mojave Region .................. 2-13 Figure 2-7: SWP Mojave Division Aqueduct Reach Sections ................................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2-8: MWA Turnouts Along the East Branch ......................................................................................................................... 2-17 Figure 2-9: R-Cubed Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................... 2-19 Figure 2-10: Average Climate Conditions............................................................................................................................................ 2- 21 Figure 2-11: Annual Precipitation Variability (1996-2024) ......................................................................................................... 2- 21 Figure 2-12: Historical Annual Temperature and Trends (years) ....................................................................................... 2-22 Figure 2-13: San Bernardino County Employment Data 2015-2025 .................................................................................. 2-33 Figure 3-1: Floodplain and Other Regional Aquifers ...................................................................................................................... 3-4

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Notices ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Appendix 2 – Reduced Delta Reliance ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Appendix 3 - MWA Regional DWR Checklist ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Appendix 4 – MWA WSCP ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

This 2025 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) was prepared by Zanjero in conjunction with Mojave Water Agency.

This 2025 RUWMP was prepared under the direction of a California licensed civil engineer

The Victorville Water District Retail
Chapter contained within this RUWMP
was prepared by:

The Golden State Water Company -
Barstow System Retail Chapter
contained within this RUWMP was
prepared by:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LAYPERSON’S DESCRIPTION
After the devasting drought in the late 1970s, the California Legislature declared California’s water supplies a limited resource, subject to ever-increasing demands, and that the long- term, reliable supply of water is essential to protect California’s businesses, communities, agricultural production, and environmental interests. The Legislature also recognized a need to strengthen local and regional drought planning and increase statewide resilience to drought and climate change. Thus, in 1983, the California Legislature created the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA).
1 The UWMPA requires urban water suppliers serving over 3,000 customer connections or supplying at least 3,000 acre-feet of water annually to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan (UWMP) every five years,2 and demonstrate water supply reliability in a normal year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years over a twenty-year planning horizon.3 The UWMPA also requires each urban water supplier to prepare a drought risk assessment and water shortage contingency plan.4 In addition, each urban water supplier must prepare an annual water supply and demand assessment.5 The California Legislature emphasizes that aggregating these legal requirements at the urban water supplier management level will improve local, regional, and statewide water planning and water resilience.

At a practical level, the UWMP is the legal and technical water management foundation for urban water suppliers throughout California. A well-constructed UWMP provides elected officials, management, staff, customers, and the public with an understanding of past, current, and future water conditions. The UWMP integrates local and regional land use planning, water supply planning, infrastructure considerations, and demand management measures, while also addressing statewide challenges that may manifest through climate change, drought, and evolving regulations. Thoughtful urban water management planning provides an opportunity for water suppliers to integrate supplies and demands in a balanced and methodical planning platform that addresses short-term and long-term planning 1 California Water Code Section 10610 et seq. (Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1009, Sec. 1) and its subsequent amendments
2 California Water Code Section 10610 et seq.
3 California Water Code Section 10631-10635
4 California Water Code Section 10632
5 California Water Code Section 10632.1

conditions. In brief, the UWMP gathers, characterizes, and synthesizes water-related information from numerous sources into a plan with local, regional, and statewide practical utility.

ES-1 The Mojave Region
The 2025 Mojave Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2025 RUWMP or Plan) has been prepared by Mojave Water Agency (MWA) and the ten participating urban water suppliers within the Mojave Region. The Mojave Region is concurrent with MWA’s service area and encompasses approximately 4,900 square miles of eastern San Bernardino County. The Region includes a diverse mix of incorporated cities, unincorporated communities, rural domestic users, small water systems, industrial and recreational uses, agricultural uses, and urban retail water suppliers that depend primarily on local groundwater supplies supported by imported water management.

The 2025 RUWMP represents the first regional urban water management plan prepared for the Mojave Region. The regional planning approach allows MWA and the participating urban water suppliers to prepare a coordinated water management plan that evaluates shared regional water supplies, regional water demands, and long-term water service reliability using consistent assumptions and methodologies. This approach also reduces duplicative analyses, improves regional coordination, and provides a common technical foundation for local and regional decision-making.

The participating urban water suppliers include MWA, as the Region’s wholesale water supplier, and the urban water retail suppliers located within MWA’s service area. For adoption purposes, each participating urban water retail supplier will adopt Regional Chapters 1 through 5, MWA’s wholesale supplier chapter (Chapter 6), its own retail-specific chapter, its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), and all applicable appendices. MWA will adopt the entirety of the 2025 RUWMP, including Regional Chapters 1 through 5, its wholesale supplier chapter, all participating retail supplier chapters, its WSCP, and all applicable appendices.

Chapters 1 through 5 provide the shared regional planning framework, including the regional description, regional water supply characterization, regional water use characterization, and regional water service reliability analysis. Chapter 6 describes MWA’s wholesale water supply, imported water management, managed groundwater storage, and other regional water management responsibilities. The retailer-specific chapters provide the additional information necessary to satisfy the UWMPA requirements for each participating urban water retail supplier.

The Mojave Region’s fundamental water management challenge is that urban, rural, industrial, agricultural, and other water demands have historically exceeded the natural replenishment capacity of local groundwater basins. Groundwater is the foundation of the Region’s water supply portfolio; however, that groundwater supply is actively managed through adjudications, stipulated agreements, imported State Water Project supplies,

recharge operations, return flows, recycled water, transfers, exchanges, and ongoing coordination among MWA, retail water suppliers, watermasters, land use agencies, and other regional partners. Together, these management actions support regional groundwater sustainability and long-term water service reliability.

For purposes of regional supply and demand evaluation, the 2025 RUWMP organizes the Mojave Region into three planning subregions. This subregional framework allows the Plan to recognize hydrologic, infrastructure, and demand differences across the Region while still evaluating overall regional reliability. The subregional framework also supports comparison of regional supplies and demands in a manner that is useful for both MWA’s wholesale planning responsibilities and the participating urban water suppliers’ retail planning responsibilities.

ES-2 Mojave Region Water Service Reliability
The 2025 RUWMP aggregates regional water supplies and demands through MWA’s role as the Region’s wholesale water supplier, State Water Project contractor, Watermaster for the Mojave Basin Area Adjudication, and administrator for the Warren Valley Basin Judgment.

Because the Mojave Region depends primarily on groundwater, regional reliability is not evaluated solely by comparing annual imported water deliveries to annual demands.

Instead, reliability is evaluated based on the coordinated management of groundwater, imported water, return flows, recycled water, stored water assets, transfers, exchanges, and the legal and institutional frameworks that govern water use across the Region.

The 2025 RUWMP extends the regional planning horizon through 2050. This planning horizon allows MWA and the participating urban water suppliers to evaluate long-term population growth, land use changes, water demand trends, imported water reliability, groundwater management conditions, recycled water opportunities, and infrastructure needs. These considerations help improve regional coordination and provide a common planning framework for local and regional water management decisions.

As described in Chapter 3 – Regional Water Supply Characterization, the Mojave Region’s water supply portfolio includes native groundwater, imported State Water Project supplies, return flows, recycled water, and other managed water supplies. These supplies are not all used in the same manner or at the same time. Native groundwater and return flows help support recurring local supply conditions; imported water is used by MWA to support recharge, replacement water obligations, and regional groundwater management; recycled water helps offset potable demands at the retail water supplier level where available; and stored water assets provide an important management tool for addressing hydrologic variability, imported water fluctuations, and dry-year conditions.

Chapter 4 – Water Use Characterization, characterizes current and projected regional water demands, including demands associated with participating urban water retail suppliers and other regional water users. These demands are organized by subregion to support regional

supply and demand comparisons while recognizing that water use, groundwater conditions, infrastructure, and management needs vary across the Mojave Region. The regional demand forecast provides a common planning basis for evaluating long-term reliability and for coordinating wholesale and retail water management actions.

Chapter 5 – Regional Water Service Reliability, evaluates regional water service reliability under normal year, single dry year, and five consecutive dry year conditions through 2050, as well as the five-year Drought Risk Assessment for 2026 through 2030. The analysis demonstrates that the Mojave Region has sufficient managed water supplies to meet projected regional demands under the planning scenarios evaluated in this RUWMP. The analysis also recognizes that reliability depends on continued regional management, including MWA’s importation and recharge of supplemental water supplies, implementation of adjudication requirements, use of stored water assets when needed, local retail supplier management, recycled water development where feasible, and continued demand management.

The Region’s water assets are based understood as a regional reliability and management tool rather than a recurring annual supply that should be added directly to all other annual supplies. MWA stores water in wet and normal years to help manage dry-year risks, imported water variability, and groundwater basin conditions. These stored supplies provide operational flexibility and support long-term resilience, but their use is guided by hydrologic conditions, infrastructure capacity, basin management objectives, adjudication requirements, and regional water management priorities.

Each participating urban water retail supplier also evaluates water service reliability within its own chapter. Those chapters address local supply portfolios, demands, infrastructure, conservation measures, and WSCPs. Together, the regional analysis and retailer-specific analyses demonstrate that the 2025 RUWMP provides a coordinated and locally implementable framework for maintaining reliable water service throughout the Mojave Region.

In summary, the Mojave Region’s coordinated management of groundwater, imported water, return flows, recycled water, transfers, exchanges, and stored water assets provides a reliable water supply portfolio to meet current and projected regional demands through 2050. The 2025 RUWMP demonstrates that the Region has reliable water supplies under normal, single dry, and five consecutive dry year conditions, while also providing the foundation for annual water supply and demand assessments and implementation of retailer-specific WSCPs.

Chapter 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The 2025 Mojave Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2025 RUWMP, RUWMP, or Plan) establishes a long-term, coordinated framework for regional water resources planning and management through the year 2050 for the Mojave Region. The 2025 RUWMP applies to Mojave Water Agency (MWA or Agency) as the regional wholesale water supplier and to participating urban water suppliers within MWA’s service area. This Plan represents the first RUWMP prepared for the Mojave Region and reflects a shared commitment to integrated, collaborative, and forward-looking water management.

The RUWMP provides a consistent assessment of long-term water supply reliability, supports groundwater sustainability, and addresses regional vulnerability to drought, climate change, and population growth. The RUWMP is intended to inform elected officials, water supplier staff, water users, interested community parties, and the State of California regarding current conditions, projected demands, and strategies to ensure reliable and sustainable water supplies.

Participating urban water suppliers include:
• City of Adelanto
• County Service Area 64
• County Service Area 70J
• Hesperia Water District
• Hi-Desert Water District
• Golden State Water Company –
Barstow System
• Joshua Basin Water District
• Liberty Utilities – Apple Valley Water
Company
• Mojave Water Agency (Wholesale)
• Phelan Piñon Hills Community
Services District
• Victorville Water District
While this RUWMP provides regionally consistent planning assumptions and analyses, each urban water supplier will separately prepare and adopt a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) customized for its specific service area. The RUWMP and associated WSCPs will be adopted in accordance with statutory deadlines.

1.1.1 Background and Purpose
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA) requires urban water suppliers serving at least 3,000 connections or delivering more than 3,000 acre-feet of water

annually to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years. The UWMPA authorizes multiple urban water suppliers that share common water supplies to prepare a RUWMP in lieu of individual plans.

Recognizing the benefits of regional coordination, MWA and its urban water retail suppliers jointly elected to prepare this RUWMP. Compared with developing separate agency-specific UWMPs, a regional approach promotes consistent technical assumptions, reduces duplicative effort, improves cost efficiency, enhances data accuracy, and strengthens the region’s ability to pursue state and federal funding opportunities.

1.1.2 Basis for Plan Preparation
The purpose of the 2025 RUWMP is to provide a coordinated evaluation of regional water supplies, demands, and management strategies shared among participating agencies. By developing a single regional planning document, participating agencies leverage collective data resources, technical expertise, and institutional knowledge to support consistent planning and informed long-term decision-making.

This 2025 RUWMP fulfills the reporting requirements established by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to implement the UWMPA and aligns with statewide water management objectives. The Plan satisfies statutory requirements for MWA as a wholesale urban water supplier and for each participating retail urban water supplier.

1.1.3 Coordination and Outreach
Development of the 2025 RUWMP included coordination with local governments, neighboring water agencies, and relevant regulatory entities, as required by the UWMPA. Coordination efforts were undertaken to ensure consistency with applicable city and county General Plans, Water Master Plans, groundwater adjudications and stipulations, and other related planning documents.

In accordance with California Water Code Section (CWC) 10621(b), MWA and the participating urban water suppliers conducted joint public outreach and provided required public notices prior to adoption of the RUWMP by each individual urban water supplier. A summary of coordination and public outreach activities is provided in Table 1-1.

TABLE 1-1: PUBLIC AND PUBLIC AGENCY COORDINATION
Coordinating Agencies
Coordinate
Regarding
Demands
Sent Copy
of Draft
RUWMP
Sent
60-Day
Notice
Notice of
Public
Hearing
Cities, Counties, Customers, and Relevant Parties
Liberty Utilities (Apple Valley Water Company) X X X X
Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency X X X
City of Adelanto X X X X
County Service Area 64 X X X X
County Service Area 70J X X X X
Golden State Water Company - Barstow System X X X X
Helendale CSD X X X
Hesperia Water District X X X X
Hi-Desert Water District X X X X
Joshua Basin Water District X X X X
Mojave Water Agency X X X X
Phelan Piñon Hills CSD X X X X
Victorville Water District X X X X
San Bernardino County Planning Department X X
California Department of Water Resources X X
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for San Bernardino County X X
General Public X

1.1.3.1 Water Supplier Information Exchange
CWC Section 10631 requires wholesale and urban water suppliers to provide each other with information regarding water supply and demand. Since both MWA, as a wholesale supplier that receives water from the California State Water Project (SWP) on behalf of the Mojave Region, and each of the urban water suppliers are already coordinating on this RUWMP, information exchange was happening throughout the RUWMP development, and any separate noticing was unnecessary.

1.1.4 Statutory Requirements for Notice
In accordance with the UWMPA, notification of the RUWMP update was provided to cities and counties within the RUWMP Planning Area at least 60 days prior to the public hearing of the RUWMP as required by CWC Section 10621(b). Electronic copies of the final RUWMP will be provided to the County of San Bernardino no later than 30 days after its submission to DWR.

1.1.5 RUWMP Adoption
Each participating agency has reviewed, approved, and will implement the portions of this RUWMP that are specific and applicable to their service area. While the RUWMP was developed collaboratively to ensure consistency and coordination across the Mojave Region, not all elements of the RUWMP apply equally to every agency. The RUWMP is therefore organized in a modular format, where Chapters 1 through 5 are universal, and Chapters 6 through 16 are unique to each participating agency. This approach allows each agency to adopt Chapters 1 through 5 collectively with their agency-specific chapter and relevant WSCP. As such, the specific timing of adoption for each supplier is referenced within their unique chapter of the RUWMP.

Any future amendments or updates made by individual agencies to their respective chapter will not alter or affect the adopted portions of the RUWMP for other participating agencies.

This structure preserves local autonomy while maintaining the benefits of regional coordination, ensuring that all agencies continue to contribute to a unified framework for sustainable water management within the Mojave Region and the MWA service area.

1.1.6 Document Organization
This RUWMP is organized to reflect the collaborative efforts of all participating agencies, while still allowing each agency to meet its respective statutory reporting requirements. As such, the 2025 RUWMP is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1 – Introduction
• Chapter 2 – The Mojave Region
• Chapter 3 – Regional Water Supply Characterization
• Chapter 4 –Regional Water Use
• Chapter 5 – Regional Water Service Reliability
• Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency (Wholesale Water Supplier) • Chapter 7 – City of Adelanto (Urban Water Supplier)
• Chapter 8 – County Service Area 64 (Urban Water Supplier) • Chapter 9 – County Service Area 70J (Urban Water Supplier)

• Chapter 10 – Golden State Water Company – Barstow (Urban Water Supplier) • Chapter 11 – Hesperia Water District (Urban Water Supplier) • Chapter 12 – Hi-Desert Water District (Urban Water Supplier) • Chapter 13 – Joshua Basin Water District (Urban Water Supplier) • Chapter 14 – Liberty Utilities – Apple Valley Water Company (Urban Water Supplier) • Chapter 15 – Phelan Piñon Hills Community Service District (Urban Water Supplier) • Chapter 16 – Victorville Water District (Urban Water Supplier) Note to DWR:

The MWA and the urban water suppliers within its service area have written this RUWMP primarily as a water resource planning tool to effectively manage water supply, reliability, and demand. This RUWMP also satisfies all the requirements of the UWMPA for MWA (as a wholesale urban water supplier) and for each participating urban water supplier.

The body of the document provides narratives, analysis, and data that DWR requests in its 2025 UWMP Guidebook, including any changes to the CWC since 2020. Efforts have also been made to include enhancements to this document wherever possible as recommended in the 2025 UWMP Guidebook.

To facilitate review by DWR for compliance with the UWMPA, data from the body of the document has been transferred into required DWR submittal tables consistent with the organization of the tables in Appendix E of the 2025 UWMP Guidebook. These tables are separately uploaded to DWR’s web portal for each of the participating urban water suppliers, along with this RUWMP. This RUWMP has been reviewed for adequacy according to the UWMP Checklist as contained in Appendix F of the 2025 UWMP Guidebook.

Chapter 2.0 THE MOJAVE REGION

This chapter provides an overview of the Mojave Region (Region or RUWMP Planning Area) including its population characteristics, land use patterns, and climate conditions. It also introduces the various local entities and water purveyors that play key roles in managing and delivering water resources throughout the Region. As a foundational reason for preparation of this RUWMP, the Mojave Region is also concurrent with the MWA service boundary, which also fully encompasses all participating urban water suppliers that must also comply with the UWMPA. The Mojave Region, as a result, allows this RUWMP to capture the entirety of MWA’s service area, as well as the service areas of each of the urban water suppliers that sit within MWA.

2.1.1 Regional Overview
The Mojave Region encompasses approximately 4,900 square miles of eastern San Bernardino County (Figure 2-1), corresponding to the MWA’s service area. MWA serves as the Region’s wholesale water supplier and as Watermaster for the Mojave Basin Area (MBA) adjudication. Located within the Mojave Desert of southeastern California, the Region includes several large, incorporated communities that collectively drive substantial and growing water demands despite extremely arid conditions.

The intermittent Mojave River is the Region’s principal hydrologic feature. Its episodic flows provide the primary source of natural recharge to underlying groundwater basins and serve as a critical conveyance for imported SWP supplies used for managed groundwater recharge. Regional water management is shaped by a persistent structural water deficit, in which current primarily urban-driven demands exceed the natural replenishment capacity of local aquifers. Imported water is therefore essential to mitigating groundwater overdraft and supporting long-term regional sustainability.

Water management is organized across multiple geographic and administrative scales. At the regional level, MWA is responsible for managing and importing supplemental water supplies and coordinating their integration with local groundwater resources in cooperation with state, regional, and local partners. From a hydrogeographic perspective, the Region overlies all or portions of 36 groundwater basins and subbasins. For planning and management purposes, MWA groups these basins into eight subareas that cover the entire Region. Although the subareas are partially defined by faults and other geologic features, they generally remain hydrologically interconnected. Five subareas—Este, Oeste, Alto

(including the Alto Transition Zone), Centro, and Baja—are within the MBA adjudication and are named for their relative position along the Mojave River. The remaining three subareas lie outside the adjudicated basin and were part of MWA’s original service area or incorporated through subsequent adjudication actions. All eight subareas are managed in a coordinated manner by MWA, the MBA Watermaster and the Warren Valley Basin Watermaster, and the numerous urban water suppliers (Figure 2-2).

At the local level, urban water retail suppliers—particularly those serving the cities of Victorville, Hesperia, Adelanto, and Barstow along the Interstate 15 corridor—are the primary contributors to regional growth and future water demand. Expansion of these service areas directly influences regional demand conditions and the management strategies applied within individual subareas, with the most pronounced effects occurring in incorporated cities.

Groundwater provides the foundation of the Region’s water supply portfolio. Supplies consist of a managed combination of native groundwater and imported water, overseen by MWA on behalf of its constituent retail agencies, used to meet all demands within the Region.

Recharge of native groundwater occurs through multiple mechanisms, including infiltration from the Mojave River and ephemeral streams, percolating rainwater, stormwater runoff, sublateral groundwater flow from surrounding mountains, treated wastewater and return flows, septic and irrigation seepage, and managed recharge of imported SWP supplies. As the SWP contractor for the Mojave Region, MWA manages the delivery and recharge of imported water using both the Mojave River and recharge sites located throughout its service area.

Effective water management in the Mojave Region relies on extensive coordination among MWA, retail water agencies, mutual water companies, adjudication watermasters, tribal entities, rural and self-supplied users, and land use and regulatory agencies. This collaboration supports coordinated infrastructure planning, groundwater monitoring, imported water operations, and drought response within a broader framework of regional and statewide water planning.

FIGURE 2-1: THE MOJAVE REGION

FIGURE 2-2: SUBAREAS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS WITHIN THE MOJAVE REGION

For the purposes of this RUWMP and evaluation of water supply reliability, the eight subareas are combined into the following three Subregions of the Mojave Region (Figure 2-3). • Subregion 1 – Includes the subareas of Oeste, Alto (and Alto Transition), and Este: This subregion includes seven of the 10 participating RUWMP urban water suppliers (City of Adelanto, County Service Area 64, County Service Area 70J, Hesperia Water District, Liberty Utilities – Apple Valley, Phelan-Piñon Hills Community Service District, and Victorville Water District), as well as other demands reliant on MWA including other small urban water suppliers, Helendale Community Services District, rural pumpers, agriculture, and industry.
• Subregion 2 – Includes the subareas of Centro, Baja, Cuddeback Lake, and Superior Lake: This subregion includes one of the participating RUWMP urban water suppliers (Golden State Water Company-Barstow), as well as other demands reliant on MWA including other small urban water suppliers, rural pumpers, agriculture, and industry. • Subregion 3 – Includes the subarea of Morongo: This subregion includes two of the 10 RUWMP urban water suppliers (Joshua Basin Water District and Hi-Desert Water District), as well as other demands reliant on MWA including other small urban water suppliers, Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency, rural pumpers, agriculture, and industry.

These Subregions are used to summarize demand and supply conditions in areas with generally similar groundwater conditions and MWA imported water opportunities.

FIGURE 2-3: 2025 RUWMP SUBREGIONS

2.1.2 Water Suppliers of the Mojave Region
The Mojave Region is geographically diverse but generally characterized as the High Desert.

Most of the region sits between 2,000 and 5,000 feet in elevation and extends across incorporated cities, unincorporated communities, tribal lands, and large expanses of undeveloped open space. Within this Region there are several water suppliers that must comply with the UWMPA, with MWA having responsibilities as a wholesale water supplier, and several others having responsibility as urban water retail suppliers.

2.1.2.1 Mojave Water Agency
MWA serves as the wholesale water supplier for the Mojave Region and manages water supply reliability across its approximately 4,900‑square‑mile service area. The Agency’s core responsibility is to address the Region’s structural water management challenges, including limited local runoff and chronic groundwater overdraft within underlying basins and subbasins.

To support long-term sustainability for its retail agency partners and other customers, MWA manages the importation of SWP supplies from the California Aqueduct. In addition, MWA serves as the court-appointed Watermaster for the MBA Adjudication Judgment (MBA Judgment) (see Chapter 3 – Water Supply Characterization), where it regulates groundwater production and coordinates water management activities across the adjudicated subareas.

Although MWA does not provide retail water service, it fulfills a central regional function by integrating imported supplies with local groundwater management to enhance supply reliability, facilitate groundwater recharge, and improve drought resilience. This role requires ongoing coordination with retail water purveyors, adjudication watermasters, and other regional stakeholders to align imported water operations with groundwater sustainability objectives and broader regional planning efforts.

2.1.2.2 Urban Water Retail Suppliers
There are a variety of small-to-large state-permitted Public Water Systems, also referred to as urban water suppliers, located in the Mojave Region. As noted above, MWA does not sell water directly to these retailers or to any consumers; rather, it supplies water to areas of the Region used to recharge local aquifers for specific retailers as needed to satisfy the MBA Judgment’s replenishment requirements, as stipulated by the MBA Watermaster, as requested to meet needs in other adjudicated areas, and as needed to maintain overall groundwater basin health or requested to address local circumstances or retail requests. Of the twelve (12) large urban water suppliers within the Region, ten (10) are required to complete an UWMP pursuant to the UWMPA detailed in CWC Section 10610 et al. The 12 large urban water suppliers are shown in Figure 2-4.

For the ten large suppliers required to prepare a UWMP, they collectively opted to pursue a coordinated RUWMP with MWA in lieu of ten individual UWMPs, hence this 2025 Regional UWMP document. Table 2-1 lists the 10 suppliers that participated in this RUWMP, approximate service areas, and estimated total number of connections. Both Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency and Helendale Community Services District are incorporated into MWA’s wholesale demand forecast presented in Chapter 6 - Mojave Water Agency, as they both have not reached the UWMPA compliance threshold of 3,000+ service connections and/or do not supply more than 3,000 acre-feet of water per year, but have significant demands and are active coordinators within the Region.

TABLE 2-1: URBAN WATER RETAIL SUPPLIERS WITHIN THE MOJAVE REGION Urban Water Retail Supplier Service Area
(sq. miles)
Approximate
Connections
City of Adelanto 53 8,300
Liberty Utilities - Apple Valley Water Company 51 21,000 County Service Area 64 4 4,000
County Service Area 70J 28 3,400
Golden State Water Company - Barstow System 33 9,000
Hesperia Water District 78 27,600
Hi-Desert Water District 57 11,000
Joshua Basin Water District 97 4,900
Phelan Piñon Hills Community Service District 118 7,200 Victorville Water District 85 38,000
Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency 52 < 2,000
Helendale Community Services District 116 < 3,000

Several additional urban water suppliers dependent on MWA’s supplies and management are not specifically discussed within unique chapters of this RUWMP as their size does not yet require completion of a UWMP. However, these smaller suppliers, as well as numerous other water users dependent on groundwater throughout the Region such as agriculture, industry, and rural domestic pumpers, are reflected in MWA’s Wholesale chapter (Chapter 6 - Mojave Water Agency) and are incorporated into the Region’s overall water demand characterization.

FIGURE 2-4: URBAN WATER RETAIL SUPPLIERS WITHIN THE MOJAVE REGION

2.1.3 Mojave Region Groundwater Basins
The Mojave Region overlies all or a portion of 36 groundwater basins and subbasins as defined by DWR Bulletin 118. Collectively, these basins and subbasins are broadly grouped into two larger hydrogeologically distinct areas – the South Lahontan Hydrologic Region and the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. Groundwater basins along the Mojave River and adjacent areas are referred to as the Mojave River Groundwater Basin. Remaining basins and subbasins in the southeastern Mojave Region are generally referred to as the Morongo Basin/Johnson Valley Area or “Morongo Area,” with the exception of the Lucerne Valley. The Lucerne Valley Subbasin is divided along the Helendale Fault with the southwest portion in the Mojave River Groundwater Basin and the northeast portion in the Morongo Area. Surface

water drainage of Lucerne Valley is in the Colorado River Hydrologic Region but is not included in the Morongo Basin Area, isolating this area due to the hydrogeologic conditions.

Of the two main areas, the Mojave River Groundwater Basin is the largest. The 36 groundwater basins and subbasins are listed in Table 2-2 and grouped by the South Lahontan (Region 6) and Colorado River (Region 7) Hydrologic Regions. The Mojave Region also overlaps a small portion of a DWR basin in the South Coast Hydrologic Region (Region 8) as shown by the last subbasin listed in Table 2-2 – the Upper Santa Ana Valley. These basins are also shown in Figure 2-5.

T
ABLE 2-2: GROUNDWATER BASINS WITHIN THE MOJAVE REGION
DWR Basin Groundwater Basin Name DWR Basin Groundwater Basin Name South Lahontan Hydrologic Region Colorado River Hydrologic Region 6-35 Cronise Valley 7-10 Twentynine Palms Valley
6-36 Langford Valley 7-11 Copper Mountain Valley
6-37 Coyote Lake Valley 7-12 Warren Valley
6-38 Caves Canyon Valley 7-13 Deadman Valley
6-40 Lower Mojave River Valley 7-13 Deadman Valley
6-41 Middle Mojave River Valley 7-15 Bessemer Valley
6-42 Upper Mojave River Valley 7-16 Ames Valley
6-43 El Mirage Valley 7-17 Means Valley
6-44 Antelope Valley 7-18 Johnson Valley
6-46 Fremont Valley 7-18 Johnson Valley
6-47 Harper Valley 7-19 Lucerne Valley
6-48 Goldstone Valley 7-20 Morongo Valley
6-49 Superior Valley 7-50 Iron Ridge Area
6-50 Cuddeback Valley 7-51 Lost Horse Valley
6-51 Pilot Knob Valley 7-62 Joshua Tree
6-52 Searles Valley 8-2 Upper Santa Ana Valley
6-53 Salt Wells Valley
6-54 Indian Wells Valley
6-77 Grass Valley
6-89 Kane Wash Area

FIGURE 2-5: GROUNDWATER BASINS WITHIN THE MOJAVE REGION

Challenges in managing overdrafted groundwater resources along with the high cost of importing water drove the first adjudication efforts in the Region in the 1960s. In 1965, Morongo Basin was annexed into MWA’s service area adding 35.5 square miles to MWA’s boundary.

The Morongo Basin was a sixth but separate area that added management and delivery obligations beyond the five other distinct hydrological subareas within the Mojave Basin Area:

Este (East Basin), Oeste (West Basin), Alto (Upper Basin), Centro (Middle Basin) and Baja (Lower Basin).

2.1.3.1 Mojave River Basin
The Mojave River Basin (Mojave Basin Area or MBA) is the principal water management area of the Region. For management purposes, the MBA is separated into five distinct hydrologic divisions defined in previous studies (DWR, 1967), evolving over time based on a combination of hydrologic, geologic, engineering, and political considerations (Figure 2-6).

A second effort at adjudication within the MBA starting in 1990 proved more successful than attempts in the 1960s. The effort resulted in full adjudication of the MBA in 2002. 6 It began
when the City of Barstow and the Southern California Water Company filed a complaint against upstream (and up-basin) water users claiming that lowering groundwater levels and water availability due to withdrawals reduced the amount of water available to downstream users. A year later, MWA filed a cross-complaint declaring that native waterflow of the Mojave River and basin area groundwater was not sufficient to meet current and future demands.

The cross-complaint asked the court to determine surface and groundwater rights for the Mojave Basin Area. Negotiations over the next two years produced a Stipulated Judgment in January 1996 that formed a class of producers which used 10 acre-feet or less per year that were dismissed from litigation and offered an equitable solution for the remaining water producers that use over 10 acre-feet per year (aka Minimal Producers). The Riverside Superior Court appointed MWA as Watermaster for the area as part of the MBA Judgment. Appeals by non-stipulated parties continued over the next several years with the California Supreme Court finally ruling on the case in August 2000. Most of the appealing parties have stipulated to the MBA Judgment since the 1996 ruling.

The MBA Judgment helps maintain proper water balances between the Mojave Basin Area’s five distinct, but interrelated, subareas (Este, Oeste, Alto, Centro, Baja). The Alto Transition Zone was also defined as a sub-management unit to better understand the water flow from Alto to Centro. Some subareas were also recognized to historically receive natural water flow from upstream subareas; to maintain that relationship, annual obligations are set according to average annual natural flow baselines defined in the MBA Judgment as Base Annual Production (BAP). The MBA Judgment established a Free Production Allowance (FPA) allocation to Producers based on each Producer’s percentage share of the BAP which is set 6 The MBA Judgment can be accessed at Mojave Water Agency’s website:
https://www.mojavewater.org/basin-management/watermaster/reports/

each year by the MBA Watermaster. FPA is reduced over time until it comes within 5% of the Production Safe Yield (PSY) defined by the MBA Judgment. All water produced in excess of any Producer’s share of the FPA must be replaced by the Producer, either by payment to the Watermaster of funds sufficient to purchase Replacement Water, or by transfer of unused FPA from another Producer. The court can review and adjust the FPA for each Subarea on an annual basis as appropriate. The dynamics of the FPA and resulting forecasts of available native groundwater for the general subareas are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 - Water Supply Characterization.

F
IGURE 2-6: ADJUDICATED SUBAREAS AND DEFINED MANAGEMENT AREAS WITHIN THE MOJAVE REGION

2.1.3.2 Morongo Area
The Morongo Area includes 15 groundwater basins and subbasins that cover portions of the Morongo Area as defined in this RUWMP and shown in Figure 2-5. Several of these basins lie mostly outside of the Mojave Region, have low populations, and are essentially undeveloped

with respect to groundwater. The remaining basins have been grouped into six within the Morongo Area, with two of primary importance: the Warren Valley Basin and Ames Valley Basin.

2.1.3.3 Warren Valley Basin
The Warren Valley Basin covers an area of approximately 17,200 acres and consists of water- bearing sediments beneath the Town of Yucca Valley and surrounding area. The Warren Valley Basin (Figure 2-6) is geologically defined by the Pinto Mountain Fault to the north; a bedrock outcrop of the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the south; a bedrock constriction called the ‘Yucca Barrier’ to the east; and by a bedrock constriction and topographic divide to the west. Natural recharge to the Warren Valley Basin includes direct percolation of precipitation and percolation of ephemeral streamflow from Water Canyon and Covington Canyon.

After extractions began exceeding supplies in the 1950s, the area was adjudicated in 1977 in a decision known as the Warren Valley Judgment. Hi-Desert Water District (HDWD) was appointed Watermaster in the Judgment (the “Warren Valley Watermaster”) and was ordered to help develop solutions to halting overdraft. A comprehensive approach was developed by the Warren Valley Watermaster Board which included adopting a Basin Management Plan that called for SWP water delivery from MWA through the Morongo Basin Pipeline (MBP) to address demand and replenish overdraft. Native groundwater supplies associated with the Warren Valley Judgment are described in more detail in Chapter 3 - Water Supply Characterization.

2.1.3.4 Ames Valley Basin
In 2014 the Ames/Reche Groundwater Storage and Recovery Program and Management Agreement replaced and superseded the original adjudication called Ames Valley Basin Water Agreement between HDWD and Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency (BDVWA) established in 1991. It was created for the construction and operation of the HDWD Mainstream Well located in the Ames Valley Basin (Figure 2-6). The 2014 Agreement was established by BDVWA, HDWD, and County of San Bernardino, with administrative support provided by MWA, and the Stipulation and Amended and Restated Judgment (Ames/Reche Judgment) was finalized by the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside in September 2014. The Ames/Reche Management Area includes 95 square miles encompassing the communities of Flamingo Heights, Landers, Pioneertown, and Yucca Mesa. Native groundwater supplies associated with the Ames/Reche Judgment are described in more detail in Chapter 3 - Water Supply Characterization.

2.1.4 Major Regional Infrastructure
This sub-chapter focuses specifically on MWA’s water delivery infrastructure. Individual infrastructure assets, such as distribution pipelines, well locations or other attributes, associated with each urban water supplier are discussed in their corresponding chapter.

2.1.4.1 State Water Project
The SWP or California Aqueduct is the largest state-built, multi-purpose water project in the country. It was authorized by the California State Legislature in 1959, with the construction of most facilities completed by 1973. Today, the SWP includes 28 dams and reservoirs, 26 pumping and generating plants, and approximately 660 miles of aqueducts.

The primary water source for the SWP is the Feather River, a tributary of the Sacramento River.

The water flowing into the Feather River is captured by the SWP in Oroville Dam and Reservoir.

Storage released from Oroville Dam flows down natural river channels to the Sacramento- San Joaquin River Delta (Delta). While some SWP supplies are pumped from the northern Delta into the North Bay Aqueduct or diverted by SWP contractors upstream, the vast majority of SWP supplies are pumped from the southern Delta into the 444-mile-long California Aqueduct. The California Aqueduct conveys water along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to the Edmonston Pumping Plant, where water is pumped over the Tehachapi Mountains. From there the California Aqueduct divides into the East and West Branches. MWA takes its SWP deliveries from the East Branch, which was completed in 2003. MWA delivers its SWP supplies to recharge local groundwater basins through transmission pipelines, recharge facilities, and direct releases from Silverwood Lake – a SWP regulating reservoir. Figure 2-7 depicts the SWP facilities that deliver water to MWA and details the sections of the Mojave Division Reaches of the California Aqueduct.

The initial SWP storage and conveyance facilities were designed to meet contractors’ water demands with the construction of additional storage facilities planned as demand increased.

However, few additional SWP storage facilities have been constructed since the early 1970’s and a portion of the original conveyance design was never completed. SWP conveyance facilities were generally designed and have been constructed to deliver Table A amounts to all contractors. The maximum Table A Annual Amount of all SWP Contractors totals approximately 4.133 million acre-feet but full Table A Annual Amount deliveries rarely occur.

Details regarding MWA’s characterization of SWP reliability is discussed in MWA’s wholesale Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency.

MWA diverts its SWP water from the East Branch of the California Aqueduct, which includes six turnout locations utilized by MWA (identified west to east): Sheep Creek Turnout, White Road Turnout, Highway 395 Turnout, Antelope Siphon Turnout, Unnamed Wash, and Cedar Springs Dam (Silverwood Lake). These turnouts are used to deliver water to recharge facilities located

throughout the MWA service area. Figure 2-8 below depicts the MWA water turnout and delivery facilities.

FIGURE 2-7: SWP MOJAVE DIVISION AQUEDUCT REACH SECTIONS

FIGURE 2-8: MWA TURNOUTS ALONG THE EAST BRANCH

2.1.4.2 Delivery System
MWA relies on the SWP contracted supplies to supplement local groundwater supplies throughout the Region using the Mojave River and two primary pipelines. The Mojave River Pipeline (MRP) is approximately 76 miles long, extending from the California Aqueduct in the Phelan area to four groundwater recharge basins along the Mojave River. These recharge basins are located in Hodge, Lenwood, Daggett/Yermo, and Newberry Springs. The MRP delivers up to 45,000 acre-feet of water per year to the Region. An additional pilot recharge basin is also currently under construction: the West Victorville Recharge Basin, located at the turnout of the MRP and adjacent to the California Aqueduct.

The second major pipeline linking the SWP to the subareas in the Region is the Morongo Basin Pipeline, which currently delivers water to groundwater recharge sites in Landers, Yucca Valley, and Joshua Tree to help address supplemental water needs for the Ames/Reche Judgment and the Warren Valley Judgment. The pipeline also allows MWA to deliver imported water into the Mojave River at the Deep Creek and Rock Springs discharge locations that serve the needs of the MBA Judgment. These two facilities are in areas of the River with high percolation rates, allowing water to recharge the aquifer directly upstream of the area with the highest groundwater pumping demand in MWA’s service area (the Alto subarea).

The facility includes a pipeline which extends south along the river from the MBP, a flow control facility and outlet. It can recharge a maximum of approximately 40,000 acre-feet per year.

The Amethyst Basin Facility, completed in 2019, delivers SWP water to recharge the Oro Grande Wash in Victorville just east of Sycamore Street and Amethyst Road in Victorville. It provides flood control and allows recharge through a series of dikes and recharge ponds.

Water from the SWP is delivered to the recharge ponds through a pipeline that connects to the California Aqueduct at the Highway 395 turnout. Recharge capacity is about 8,000 acre- feet per year.

The Ames/Reche Recharge Facility delivers water from the SWP directly to the Pipes Wash in Landers, located north of Yucca Valley. The Ames/Reche facility consists of a pipeline extending west from the MBP at Winters Road to an outlet in Pipes Wash. Construction of the pipeline, flow control facility, and outlet was completed in 2014. The turnout is planned to flow up to a maximum capacity of five cubic feet per second, recharging a maximum of approximately 1,500 acre-feet per year.

Silverwood Lake is a reservoir owned and operated by the State of California and DWR. At the California Aqueduct terminus in Hesperia, water is siphoned into the lake where it is stored for use in San Bernardino and Inland Empire areas. MWA takes deliveries of SWP from the lake via the Cedar Springs Dam which releases into the Mojave River.

Reflecting a more recent addition to the Region’s infrastructure, MWA constructed and operates the Regional Recharge and Recover Project (R-Cubed). This conjunctive use project

stores SWP deliveries in recharge sites in the Floodplain Aquifer along the Mojave River near Hesperia and southern Apple Valley (Figure 2-9). When needed, MWA-owned production wells on both sides of the Mojave River, immediately downstream of the recharge area, can recover and deliver the stored water through pipelines directly to local urban water retail suppliers. Current beneficiaries of R-Cubed include Liberty Utilities (Apple Valley), City of Adelanto, City of Hesperia, and Victorville Water District.

Phase 1 of the R-Cubed Project was partially completed in 2013. It currently produces approximately 15,000 acre-feet per year, with expansion plans under consideration.

FIGURE 2-9: R-CUBED FACILITIES

2.1.5 Regional Climate
Located in the High Desert region of San Bernardino County, the climate in the Mojave Region is more extreme than the lowland areas of Southern California. As is typical of the Mojave Desert, the region is very arid because of the rain shadow effect of the surrounding mountains. The summers are extremely hot and dry with occasional monsoonal thunderstorms that can bring flash flooding and hail. Most of the precipitation happens in the winter, with snowfall possible, although much lighter than what occurs in the surrounding mountains and melting quickly.

The major settlements in the Region are along the Highway 15 corridor which generally parallels the Mojave River, primarily within the southern end of the Region including cities and communities of Hesperia, Victorville, Adelanto, and Apple Valley. Thirty-two miles to the north, also along the Highway 15 corridor, is the City of Barstow. The elevation variance across the Region leads to slight differences in reported climate data for various areas, but not significantly different for purposes of this discussion. Therefore, the following figures report data representing the southern area of the Region (using Victorville), with some discussion of the minor climate differences via reference to conditions in Barstow.

Historical averages show January as the coolest and wettest month, and July as the hottest and driest. The wet season is from December to March with a 30-year annual average rainfall of 5.8 inches for Victorville and 5 inches for Barstow. The annual mean temperature is about 62 degrees, but the High Desert climate leads to extreme temperature ranges with highs during the summer months regularly hitting the upper 90s and lows in winter dropping to averages in the lower 30s.

Other climate characteristics of the Region include monsoonal moisture in the later summer, which can cause thunderstorms. These thunderstorms do not deliver nearly as much rainfall as desert regions further east and the region receives only a small fraction of the annual precipitation compared to the eastern areas. Snowfall in Victorville during the winter, if it occurs, is light and tends to melt before accumulating. Snow in Barstow is much rarer and occurs infrequently. Autumn averages very warm and dry conditions still and becomes cooler by November with rainfall beginning as California’s traditional rainy season begins. Winter conditions usually appear by late November. Spring is usually warm during the days although low temperatures are still quite cool. Rainfall usually tapers off by May.

Figure 2-10 shows the average monthly temperature, rainfall, and evapotranspiration (ETo) for the service area. This figure reports data from Victorville. Actual annual rainfall totals deviate quite significantly from the 30-year average as illustrated in Figure 2-11. In most years, precipitation totals fall below the mean.

FIGURE 2-10: AVERAGE CLIMATE CONDITIONS

FIGURE 2-11: ANNUAL PRECIPITATION VARIABILITY (1996-2024)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Temp 46.5 48.6 53.5 58.5 66.4 75.0 81.9 81.0 74.9 64.0 53.1 45.7 Precip 0.82 1.15 0.56 0.31 0.09 0.02 0.20 0.24 0.18 0.34 0.36 1.04 ETo 2.26 2.96 4.91 6.45 8.00 9.11 9.58 8.90 6.62 4.57 2.79 2.01 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 January February March April May June July August September October November December Precipitation, ET o (inches)
Mean Monthly Temp (°F)
Temp (degrees F) Precip (inches) ETo

2.1.5.1 Climate Change
The CWC does not prescribe specific climate change planning and management measures for water suppliers; however, urban water suppliers should consider climate change when evaluating water supply availability and customer water use trends. For example, drier conditions or drought can lead to more residential irrigation and increased water use compared to wetter years.

Climate change will likely alter precipitation patterns, resulting in consequential externalities like reductions in Sierra Nevada snowpack. Given the region's reliance on imported water, particularly from the State Water Project, which relies on melting snowpack, any effect from climate change on Sierra Nevada snowpack levels and inflows to Northern California reservoirs and the Delta will have a serious impact on water availability. As shown by the trendlines in Figure 2-12, the region has experienced gradual warming in average temperatures over the last 100 years. Increasing temperatures locally within the Region can result in higher evapotranspiration, leading to additional water demand. Although annual median precipitation levels remain relatively consistent, projected changes in the frequency, magnitude, and volume of precipitation show large variability, which has implications for uncertainties in stormwater runoff and peak flow rates.

F
IGURE 2-12: HISTORICAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE AND TRENDS (YEARS)

2.1.6 Current and Projected Population
Service area population and land use projections are critical to developing a useful planning framework as population dynamics and growth are a primary influence on water use within the Mojave Region. These projections directly influence planning measures for system supply, delivery, infrastructure, and demand management. The projections also provide the Region with the necessary data-driven means for assessing whether MWA is accomplishing its purpose of providing sufficient water to meet the Region’s current and future needs.

Similarly, the Region’s economic, social, and demographic trends provide valuable insight to water management and planning. This sub-chapter of the RUWMP addresses these factors to provide a supportable basis for forecasting future water use.

2.1.6.1 Current Population and Historical Trends
The Mojave Region has undergone a dramatic demographic transformation over the past century. In the early 20th century, the Region was sparsely populated, with an economy anchored by agriculture and the railroads, supporting only modest communities in Barstow and the Victor Valley. Following World War II, the Region began developing as Southern California’s suburban boom began pushing development eastward from Los Angeles into the Inland Empire. However, it was the housing affordability crisis in coastal California during the 1980s and 1990s that truly ignited the region’s expansion, as middle-class families sought more affordable housing opportunities. Relatively affordable housing continued to drive growth through the early 2000s, as the City of Victorville and neighboring communities in the Victor Valley entered a period of explosive residential growth, with tens of thousands of new residential homes constructed across former scrubland. This rapid expansion, however, came with significant challenges, including long commutes to employment centers, infrastructure strain, and acute vulnerability during the 2008 Housing Crisis.

The Region slowly recovered following the 2008 housing crisis, fueled by a booming logistics and warehouse industry and a rebounding real estate market. Much of this growth has been concentrated along the Interstate 15 corridor as fulfillment centers and warehouse operations locate themselves near highways and the railroads. Another notable incident was the COVID- 19 pandemic that brought an unexpected tailwind to the Planning Area as remote work flexibility and record low interest rates allowed more households to acquire affordable housing in the High Desert. Taken together, the Planning Area’s growth has stabilized in recent years, with population and sprawl tempered by water conservation and growth limitations.

In terms of population, the estimated population of the Region in 2025 was 586,000. This accounts for 26% of the total population San Bernardino County and a 19.6% increase from MWA’s 2020 UWMP population for the Region of just over 490,000.

This is a significant increase from the turn of the 21st Century when the Region only accounted for 16% of the County’s entire population. There was a sizable migration into the

Region’s incorporated cities between 2000 and 2010; their annual average growth rate outpacing the overall County rate of 1.9%. Between 2011 and 2019, that growth rate slowed to

1.1% for Adelanto and 1.0% for Victorville, still outpacing the 0.8% rate for the County. Table 2-3 provides a representation of the Region’s population over the past several decades.

TABLE 2-3: HISTORICAL POPULATION7
1990 2000 2010 2020 2025
266,232 321,264 453,649 507,000 586,000

2.1.6.2 Projected Population
As part of its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) development, MWA commissioned a population forecast by the Center for Economic Forecasting and Development at the University of California, Riverside, which was completed in 2020 (UCR Study or Beacon Economics Study). The population forecast provided population estimates for the entire Mojave Region, organized in multiple ways, as estimates for the large urban water retail suppliers, incorporated cities, and adjudicated subareas within the MWA service area. The following sections detail the population projections built from the UCR Study and subsequently used to estimate water use within the expansive Mojave Region.

Methodology
The UCR Study estimated that the Region’s population would increase by 39% over the next 35 years, surpassing San Bernardino County’s projected 21% increase as well as the State’s 13% increase for the same period – resulting in a population increase of about 200,000 people by 2065.
8 Absent an updated UCR Study but given the release of 2020 Census data subsequent to the UCR Study’s completion, a review and update to the UCR Study was warranted to allow updated forecasts for this RUWMP. An update to the UCR Study and comparison with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) data was undertaken as follows:
• 2020 Census Data Update – The UCR Study’s 2020 incorporated city population totals were compared to the subsequently available 2020 Census values, organized for the same incorporated city areas. This comparison allowed for differences between the two datasets to be captured and ultimately resulted in the derivation of refined population projections for the large urban water retail suppliers and the remaining 7 The 2020 and 2025 population values for the Mojave Region reflects the refined UCR Study projections described in the later portions of this chapter.
8 The UCR Study projected the Region’s population to increase by approximately 205,284 people by 2065.

Note: this estimation was derived prior to the release of 2020 Census population data.

portion of the Region to reflect actual 2020 populations. This update is referred to as the Adjusted UCR Study.
• Alternative Data Comparison – The original UCR Study values as well as Adjusted UCR Study values were compared with projections from the SCAG. This comparison focused on assessing whether the magnitude of projected population growth within the Region by the Adjusted UCR Study was adequately characterized. 2020 Census Data Comparison
As depicted in Table 2-4, the 2020 Census population totals for five of the six incorporated cities within the Mojave Region were greater than their respective UCR Study population totals, with differences ranging from 2% to 6%. These differences were used to adjust the UCR Study population projections of the six large urban water suppliers associated with these particular incorporated cities (Table 2-5). The remaining six large urban water suppliers that do not serve an incorporated city were not adjusted as part of this validation since Census data is not available at the water retailer service area boundary level. Furthermore, the six large urban water retail suppliers associated with this adjustment collectively represent 96% of the total projected growth between 2020 – 2065.
9 Lastly, the refined population projections presented in Table 2-5 were used to adjust the UCR Study population projection of the entire Region, as depicted in Table 2-6.

TABLE 2-4: COMPARISON OF INCORPORATED CITY POPULATION DATA

9 The projected growth rate referenced is from the un-adjusted UCR Study population projections.

Incorporated City 2020 UCR 2020 Census Percent
Difference
Adelanto 35,800 38,000 6%
Apple Valley 74,200 75,800 2%
Barstow 24,200 25,400 5%
Hesperia 97,800 99,800 2%
Victorville 127,700 134,800 6%
Yucca Valley 22,200 21,700 -2%

TABLE 2-5: URBAN WATER SUPPLIER POPULATION PROJECTIONS – UCR STUDY AND ADJUSTED UCR STUDY10

TABLE 2-6: MOJAVE REGION POPULATION PROJECTIONS – UCR STUDY AND ADJUSTED UCR STUDY

10 The following six water districts which do not supply an incorporated city did not have their population projections adjusted as part of the population validation: Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency, County Service Area 64, County Service Area 70 J, Helendale CSD, Joshua Basin Water District, and Phelan Piñon Hills CSD.

Large Urban Water
Retail Supplier
UCR Study Adjusted UCR Study
2020 2065 2020 2065
City of Adelanto 35,800 52,100 38,000 55,200
Liberty Utilities - Apple Valley Water
Company 62,100 80,900 63,300 82,500
Golden State Water Company -
Barstow System 32,200 35,100 33,800 36,900
Hesperia Water District 97,400 151,400 99,300 154,500
Victorville Water District 134,300 228,100 142,300 241,700 Hi-Desert Water District 25,700 31,000 25,100 30,300
Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency 4,100 4,600 N/A N/A
County Service Area 64 11,200 13,700 N/A N/A
County Service Area 70 J 10,200 11,500 N/A N/A
Helendale CSD 6,600 7,300 N/A N/A
Joshua Basin Water District 10,200 11,300 N/A N/A
Phelan Piñon Hills CSD 20,800 23,000 N/A N/A
UCR Study Adjusted UCR Study
2020 2065 2020 2065
492,000 698,000 507,000 722,000

Comparison to SCAG
The Adjusted UCR Study population projections were compared to population projections found in the 2024 SCAG SoCal Connect Report.11 The purpose of this comparison was to ensure that the magnitude of the Adjusted UCR Study projected population growth as used for this RWUMP was within a reasonable range of SCAG’s projections, which used a different analysis and forecast method than the UCR Study. As depicted in Table 2-7, the SCAG provided a population projection specific to the Region through 2050.

T
ABLE 2-7: ADJUSTED UCR STUDY AND SCAG POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Results
The intent of the update and comparison was to provide confidence for a population projection critical to the water demand forecast method further described in Chapter 4 – Water Use Characterization. Population data is a key indicator used to understand per-capita demand and thus becomes the source for demand forecasts when more specific housing developments are less clear. For purposes of the RUWMP, the Adjusted UCR Study projections are used for each participating retail urban water supplier and for MWA, with the latter reflecting all the remaining small water suppliers and rural domestic users that are reliant on the water resources available to the Region. Table 2-8 summarizes the population estimates for each participant.

11 Link to the 2024 SoCal Connect Report: https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal-2024-read-draft-plan. The SCAG SoCal Connect Report is updated every four years and utilizes 2020 Census data as an input for establishing its population projections.

Mojave Region 2020 2050 2065
Adjusted UCR Study 507,000 673,000 722,000
SCAG 498,000 638,000 N/A

TABLE 2-8: 2025 RUWMP POPULATION PROJECTIONS

2.1.7 Land Use, Economy, and Demographics
Land use in the Mojave Region is undergoing a fundamental shift from its historical agricultural roots toward rapid urbanization and industrial expansion. The region’s once thriving agricultural sector has declined as developmental pressures and geographic 12 Projected population estimates for the City of Victorville presented in this table were further refined by the City using the methodology described in its retail-chapter. 13 The Mojave Water Agency population shown in this table represents the portion of the Mojave Region located outside the service areas of the participating urban water retail suppliers. The projected decline reflects the assumption that future population growth will be increasingly served within the urban water retail supplier service area, rather than by areas represented under MWA’s wholesale population category.

Agency 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060
City of Adelanto 44,588 45,913 47,239 48,565 49,890 51,216 52,542 53,867 County Service
Area 64 11,691 12,099 12,390 12,646 12,884 13,103 13,304 13,490 County Service
Area 70J 10,356 10,554 10,721 10,876 11,021 11,153 11,275 11,387 GSWC
Barstow 35,947 37,744 39,542 43,137 46,731 54,209 57,861 61,513 Hesperia Water
District 120,530 124,771 129,012 133,252 137,493 141,733 145,974 150,214 Hi-Desert
Water Agency 27,139 27,538 27,938 28,338 28,737 29,137 29,537 29,937 Joshua Basin
Water District 10,375 10,536 10,673 10,800 10,919 11,029 11,131 11,225 Liberty Utilities
Apple Valley12 70,707 72,184 73,661 75,138 76,615 78,092 79,569 81,045 Phelon-Piñon Hills
CSD 21,136 21,465 21,744 22,003 22,245 22,469 22,676 22,869 Victorville Water
District 148,323 157,229 166,135 175,042 183,948 192,855 201,542 210,689 Mojave Water
Agency
13 85,602 84,485 83,152 79,907 76,230 68,100 64,002 59,422 Total Region 586,395 604,519 622,207 639,704 656,713 673,095 689,412 705,659

proximity to Southern California have transformed the High Desert into a major commuter community and logistics hub. Broad land use trends reflect a mix of continued suburban growth, logistics and industrial expansion, and large-scale renewable energy development.

Incorporated communities such as Hesperia, Victorville, Apple Valley, and Adelanto have seen ongoing residential development, particularly single-family residential housing, driven by relatively affordable housing. At the same time, the Interstate 15 corridor has attracted significant warehouse, distribution, and manufacturing projects due to regional freight movement between Southern California and the Inland Empire, reinforcing the High Desert’s role as a logistics hub. In outlying areas, land use has increasingly shifted toward utility-scale solar energy and related infrastructure, supported by state renewable energy policies and the availability of large tracts of land. However, growth is occurring alongside planning efforts tied to groundwater sustainability in the Mojave River Basin, which are influencing development patterns, water supply planning, and the pace of new projects, particularly in communities that rely heavily on groundwater in overstressed portions of the Region’s many groundwater subbasins.

This transition is fueled by the Region’s relatively affordable housing and its strategic location along major interstate and rail corridors, leading to a projected 40% population increase over the next four decades that continues to transform the High Desert from rural to urban.

Specific land use and demographic trends are discussed in each individual retailer’s chapter.

This sub-chapter provides a region-wide outlook on its land use and demographic trends over the last several decades to present-day.

2.1.7.1 Current and Projected Land Use
Anchored by the rapidly growing incorporated communities of Victorville, Hesperia, and Apple Valley, the region continues to attract large master-planned residential developments and millions of square feet in new industrial and logistics facilities, fueled by affordable land and strategic infrastructure access. Utility-scale solar energy projects are simultaneously converting vast stretches of desert land to solar farms. The planned high-speed Brightline West rail station in Apple Valley is expected to further accelerate transit-oriented growth in the region. Underlying all these planned growth trends is a critical constraint: the basin’s groundwater supply.

Trends in future land use will be largely influenced by urbanization as more of the High Desert landscape is transformed into residential developments. Most residential development will be concentrated in the communities in the surrounding Victor Valley at the southern end of the Region, and in and around the City of Barstow. These two growth areas are also the region’s largest economic engines, where the region’s burgeoning logistics and transportation industries are expanding. In addition to these broader trends, several large-scale development projects have been identified that are expected to further accelerate growth within the Region. As shown in Table 2-9, these projects are anticipated to significantly

influence population growth, job creation, and land use patterns, and have been incorporated into the population and water demand projections that underpin this RUWMP.

TABLE 2-9: KNOWN LAND USE PLANS IN THE MOJAVE REGION

2.1.7.2 Economic Trends and Other Social and Demographic Factors
California’s High Desert region, anchored by the Cities of Victorville and Barstow, is one of the state’s most consequential emerging growth corridors. Since the end of the Great Recession, it has seen some of the strongest employment growth in California, with the third largest workforce of the state’s metropolitan areas. Straddling the convergence of Interstate 15 and Interstate 40, the region sits at a geographic crossroads between Greater Los Angeles, the Las Vegas metro, and the broader American Southwest. What was once characterized primarily as a pass-through zone, famous for Route 66, is now experiencing a structural economic transformation driven by a booming demand for logistics and warehouses, affordable housing, and multiple landmark infrastructure projects that stand to reshape the Region’s role in the national supply chain and passenger mobility network.

The most consequential economic development in the region is the emergence of large- scale logistics and warehousing infrastructure, driven by the exhaustion of industrial land in the traditional Inland Empire to the south and the availability of vast, inexpensive parcels in the High Desert. Over the last four years, approximately 4.5 million square feet of new industrial construction has been completed in the High Desert. Major investors include Prologis, Clarion, and LINK, with significant leasing activity from Amazon and Home Depot. The City of Victorville recently welcomed a 1.3-million square foot Goodyear Tire distribution center and an Amazon Fulfillment Center at the Southern California Logistics Airport (SCLA), with additional industrial projects totaling over 1.35 million square feet planned along Mojave Drive. The SCLA is already home to Boeing and General Atomics, giving it a dual identity as both an aerospace hub and an e-commerce distribution node.

Railroads have long played a foundational role in the economic development of the High Desert. The Cities of Barstow and San Bernardino first emerged as railroad hubs for local farmers to ship agricultural goods to market and as stopovers for trains heading into the Los Existing or Planned Project Project Area (acres) Residential Housing Units BNSF Barstow International Gateway 4,500 N/A
Brightline West Station 300 N/A
Rancho Lucerne Planned Development 1,376 4,257
Silverwood Specific Plan 9,336 15,663

Angeles Basin. Recently, railroads have re-emerged as a transformative force in the region’s economy with the advent of the BNSF Barstow International Gateway (BIG) and the Brightline West high-speed rail line. BNSF Railway has announced plans to invest more than $1.5 billion in a master-planned rail facility designed to revolutionize cargo movement from Southern California ports. BIG will integrate a rail yard, intermodal facility, and warehouses to transfer containers directly from ships to rail for inland transit. It will directly connect the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to Barstow via rail, allowing for faster transit of goods to the rest of the US. By moving containers by rail rather than trucks, BIG aims to reduce freeway traffic and cut emissions while creating 20,000+ jobs. Upon completion, BIG will be the largest intermodal transportation hub in North America – twice as large as any existing facility.

Passenger rail in the High Desert region anticipates a major tailwind from Brightline West. The privately financed 218-mile high-speed passenger rail line will connect Las Vegas to Rancho Cucamonga, with two planned railway station stops in Apple Valley and Hesperia. The project broke ground in 2024 and is projected to begin passenger service by 2028, with construction expected to generate more than 10,000 jobs and 1,000 permanent jobs. The Victor Valley station in Apple Valley is designed to accommodate commuter rail use, allowing High Desert residents to access employment in the Inland Empire and Los Angeles Basin at lower housing costs – a pattern that could accelerate population growth and transit-oriented development around the station.

Affordable housing is a critical driver of economic growth in the High Desert. As housing costs in coastal Southern California markets continue to rise, the High Desert has emerged as a population residential alternative for moderate household incomes. This popularity and proximity have spawned a large commuter population that works in nearby Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The number of residents commuting to jobs in neighboring counties is expected to increase in the near-term as housing prices continue to rise and supply remains constrained. Despite benefiting from population growth linked to affordable housing and commuters, the High Desert faces several structural economic and fiscal risks. With such a large proportion of the population commuting to coastal job centers in Los Angeles and Orange County, downturns in those economies can quickly ripple inland, reducing household income and housing stability. Moreover, dependence on commuters can distort land use and housing patterns. Effectively a “bedroom community,” where housing growth outpaces job creation, this imbalance can make it harder to attract employers seeking proximity to locally available workforce. However, the rise in remote workers and multiple major infrastructure developments have the potential to disrupt the High Desert’s legacy status as a bedroom community into a burgeoning employment hub.

The High Desert is at an inflection point. Victorville has already become a significant logistics and population center, the fastest-growing large city in inland Southern California, though its economic gains are concentrated in lower-wage warehouse and distribution work rather than higher-value sectors that would diversify and deepen its tax base. Generally, the Region has experienced strong job growth and sectoral restructuring around the logistics industry, shaped by both regional dynamics in the High Desert and broader economic shocks such as

the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the past decade, the employment growth rate for non-farm labor in the San Bernardino County outpaced all other regions in Southern California and sustained less economic impact from the Covid-19 recession than Los Angeles, Orange, or San Diego Counties (Figure 2-13). Logistics, driven by the rise of e-commerce and the region’s transportation infrastructure, has been the dominant sector, growing by approximately 80% over the decade, while healthcare and education have grown by roughly 30-40%, reflecting population growth and increasing service demand. These trends highlight a broader structural shift toward a service and distribution-oriented economy, with logistics serving as the region’s primary economic engine.

At the same time, the labor market has shown improving stability compared to earlier decades. Unemployment rates, which were historically elevated in the Inland Empire, declined significantly following the post-Great Recession recovery and remained relatively moderate in the late 2010s. Although unemployment spiked sharply during the pandemic, reaching nearly 10% in 2020, the county experienced a strong recovery, with rates falling back to around 5% by 2024–2025, near statewide averages. This indicates a resilient labor market capable of rebounding from economic disruptions. However, more recent data suggest emerging signs of slowing growth and sectoral unevenness. Between 2022 and 2023, some key sectors, including logistics, manufacturing, and professional services, experienced modest employment declines, while healthcare and education continued to expand. This divergence reflects both post-pandemic normalization, particularly in goods movement, and broader economic headwinds affecting higher-wage industries.

Another defining feature of the past decade is the region’s continued reliance on lower-wage and goods-moving sectors, even as wages have begun to rise across industries. While salary growth has been notable, especially in professional and healthcare fields, job concentration in logistics and warehousing has reinforced concerns about job quality and economic diversification. Overall, the High Desert has grown significantly and become more diversified over the past decade. Between the region’s two largest cities, Victorville and Barstow, the High Desert is poised to leverage its emerging logistics industry and affordable housing stock to become a prosperous regional economy with its own identity.

FIGURE 2-13: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY EMPLOYMENT DATA 2015-2025

2.1.8 Summary
The Mojave Region is one of the fastest growing regions in California. As discussed, relatively affordable housing and strategic infrastructure corridor access continue to accelerate population and economic growth. However, limited water supplies, further exacerbated by mounting hydrological and regulatory limitations, continue to adversely constrain the Region.

Adequate water supplies and long-term resource management are paramount to the region’s outlook. This 2025 RUWMP helps MWA and the large urban water retail suppliers coordinate and collectively plan to meet an optimistic future condition.

Chapter 3.0 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY

CHARACTERIZATION

This chapter describes the Mojave Region’s water supply sources, which include imported surface water supplies managed by the Mojave Water Agency, and local surface and native groundwater supplies managed collectively by MWA, retail water suppliers, and designated watermasters in the adjudicated areas of the Region.

The more specific characterization of water available for import is presented in Chapter 6 - Mojave Water Agency, while the detailed characterization of retailer-specific groundwater is discussed within each urban water retail specific chapter (Chapters 7 through 16).

The available regional supplies discussed in this chapter reflect a summary of the more specific MWA and retailer supply conditions and are organized into the three Subregions described in Chapter 2 – The Mojave Region. Organizing supplies for each specific subregion facilitates the integration with subregional demands (Chapter 4 – Water Use Characterization), providing for supply reliability analysis to be presented by subregion (Chapter 5 – Regional Water Service Reliability). This subregional approach allows the entire Mojave Region to be viewed in a more aggregated form, while still reflecting important geographic, hydrologic and management circumstances that are lost if the analysis were completed for just the entire Mojave Region. Each of the retailer-specific chapters (Chapters 7 through 16) reflect each retailer’s reliance on the managed groundwater that results from two primary categories: (1) annually available sources including State Water Project (SWP) imports delivered through six turnouts on the East Branch of the California Aqueduct and subsequently recharged throughout the region, and (2) groundwater supplies comprised of natural recharge from the Mojave River and San Bernardino Mountains, return flows from water use, and imported wastewater from mountain communities. Recycled water is an important third component that is being deployed within the Mojave Region at the urban water retail supplier level and will continue to expand as an important supply source into the future.

3.1.1 Mojave Region Water Supply Sources
As described in Chapter 2 – The Mojave Region, the Mojave Region is situated in the High Desert of eastern San Bernardino County in a mostly closed topographic basin where water

supply is derived almost entirely from pumped groundwater from the various basins, subbasins and aquifers within its service area. Beyond the minimal precipitation in the Region, natural recharge of the aquifers occurs primarily from flows originating in the San Bernardino Mountains to the south that infiltrate into the basin-fill sediments along the mountain front. The Mojave River also contributes to groundwater recharge through streambed infiltration during wet periods and after significant mountain snowmelt that flows to the Mojave River and its tributaries. Augmentation of the native groundwater is dependent on State Water Project imports and transfers and exchanges conveyed to the Region.

Additional local groundwater recharge occurs from irrigation return flows, wastewater imports, and recycled water.

The system is essentially a large underground reservoir where water moves slowly through interconnected aquifers creating the vital water supply for the region. For purposes of this RUWMP, water supplies available to the Region fall into the following major categories, each of which is described in detail throughout this chapter:
• Groundwater
• Imported Water
• Return Flows
• Treated Wastewater and Recycled Water
• Water Transfers and Exchanges
• Planned Water Suppliers

3.1.1.1 Groundwater
Groundwater is the principal source of municipal water supply in the Mojave Region. All retail water suppliers operating within the Region rely on managed groundwater – a blend of natural inflows and recharged imported water – to meet current and projected demand. As noted above, the MWA supports groundwater management in the Region by importing water supplies that are used to replenish groundwater extractions and help manage groundwater basin health.

Natural inflows into the groundwater aquifers are fed through direct percolated precipitation across the basin area and infiltration and storm runoff into stream systems during wet weather. The primary source of natural inflow is infiltration of stormflow runoff water from the San Bernardino Mountains into the Mojave River. The Mojave River is formed by the confluence of the West Fork Mojave River and Deep Creek, both originating in the northwestern San Bernardino Mountains. This mountain-front recharge provides the majority of natural groundwater replenishment to the basin and enters the system in the Alto subarea.

During Water Year 2024, natural water supplies exceeded historical averages, with total flow at the Mojave River Forks reaching 102,389 acre-feet. After accounting for 14,825 acre-feet of

SWP water that MWA imported to the West Fork Mojave River system, natural inflow was measured at 87,564 acre-feet compared to a Base Period average of 65,540 acre-feet.

Despite this above-average year, the Region continues to experience long-term drought impacts, with native water supply conditions over the past 13 years averaging only 69.4% of the historical baseline (1931-1990).

As mentioned in Chapter 2, the Mojave Region overlies all or a portion of 36 groundwater basins and subbasins, as presented in Figure 2-5. Those situated along the Mojave River and adjacent areas are collectively referred to as the Mojave River Groundwater Basin, otherwise known as the Mojave Basin Area. The remaining basins in the southeastern portion of the Region are generally designated as the Morongo Basin/Johnson Valley Area (Morongo Area), with the exception of the Lucerne Valley, which is treated as a distinct management unit.

MWA characterizes a long-term average of the natural supplies for the region, including both the Mojave Basin area and the Morongo Basin Area, as 57,349 acre-feet per year. This value is derived from previous assessments of natural supply available and groundwater basin conditions.

Most groundwater production in the Region relies on three primary aquifers: the Floodplain Aquifer, Regional Aquifer, and Morongo Aquifer (Figure 3-1). Each aquifer system has distinct hydrogeologic characteristics and recharge mechanisms. The Floodplain Aquifer is composed of sand and gravel weathered from metamorphic and granitic rocks of the San Gabriel and the San Bernardino Mountains, respectively, and deposited in a fluvial environment. Recharge occurs primarily through direct infiltration of Mojave River surface flows during the wet season, with the greatest recharge rates occurring near the mountain front where surface flows are most frequent and vigorous.

The Regional Aquifer underlies and surrounds the Floodplain Aquifer, comprising interconnected alluvial fan and basin fill deposits. Its primary recharge source is groundwater migrating laterally from the Floodplain Aquifer. Additional recharge is contributed by runoff from the higher elevations of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, supplemented by smaller runoff volumes from local ephemeral streams and desert washes.

The Morongo Basin Area encompasses several interconnected basins in southern San Bernardino County. It is a vital water source, managed by the MWA and the local retail water suppliers, for the benefit of communities in the eastern portion of the Region. Groundwater supplies in the Morongo Area are supplemented by imported water conveyed through the 71- mile Morongo Basin Pipeline (MBP) that delivers water from the SWP’s California Aqueduct to recharge basins in the Morongo Basin Area. The MBP serves a dual purpose: reducing overdraft in the Warren Valley Basin and Ames Valley Basin, and supporting groundwater

levels in the Joshua Tree Basin (see Chapter 2 – The Mojave Region).14 Groundwater flow in the Morongo Area is complex but is generally from south to north in Johnson Valley and from west to east-northeast elsewhere in the area. Natural recharge originates primarily from the mountains on the southern and western boundaries of the Morongo Area, resulting in groundwater flow gradients to the north, east, and south adjacent to the boundaries, before turning to the east-northeast. Groundwater flow is complicated locally by pumping, faulting, shallow bedrock, and enhanced recharge basins. For example, in the vicinity of the developed area of Yucca Valley, groundwater flow is controlled to some extent by local recharge basins.

F
IGURE 3-1: FLOODPLAIN AND OTHER REGIONAL AQUIFERS

14 The following agencies jointly financed the MBP and currently rely on it for portions of their water supply:

Hi-Desert Water District, Joshua Basin Water District, Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency, and CSA 70 W-4 Pioneer Town

3.1.1.2 Groundwater in the MBA Judgment Area
The MBA Judgment (see Chapter 2 – The Mojave Region) established a Production Safe Yield (PSY) system that defines sustainable groundwater pumping levels for each Subarea subject to the Judgment. Specifically, PSY is defined as the maximum production level that can be maintained over a sequence of years representative of long-term average natural water supply conditions, accounting for natural outflow, and under established patterns of water production, applied water, return flows, and consumptive use, while ensuring no long-term net reduction in groundwater storage. The MBA Judgment also assigned Base Annual Production (BAP) rights to each producer using 10 acre-feet or more, based on historical production during the period 1986-1990. Parties to the MBA Judgment are assigned a variable Free Production Allowance (FPA), which is a percentage of the BAP set annually by the Court for each Subarea based on the recommendation of the Watermaster. The BAP is reduced or “ramped-down” over time until FPA comes within 5% of the Judgment-defined PSY. The FPA changes over time as the MBA Watermaster assesses supply availability for all adjudicated purveyors against the long-term health and PSY.

The FPA is set as follows for each Subarea for water year 2025-2026:
15 • Alto Subarea – 50.4% of BAP
• Oeste Subarea – 45% of BAP
• Este Subarea – 45% of BAP
• Centro Subarea – 56% of BAP
• Baja Subarea – 19.5% of BAP
Any Producer that pumps more than their FPA must purchase Replacement Water from the Watermaster equal to the amount of production in excess of their total available FPA or transfer unused FPA from another party within their Subarea. Funds collected for Replacement Water are then used by MWA for purchase of SWP supplies and recharged into the Subarea they were produced from. In addition to purchasing water to offset the Replacement Water Obligations under the Judgment, MWA purchases and stores water in the Mojave Basin Area for future obligations (see Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency).

In Chapters 7 through 16, the projected FPA for each urban water retail supplier participating in the 2025 RUWMP, consistent with the UWMPA requirements, is provided. 16 Using the
Subregions described in Chapter 2 – The Mojave Region, the summary of available native groundwater is presented in Table 3-1. These totals represent the native groundwater (i.e.

FPA) in Subregions 1 and 2 and are inclusive of FPA available to the urban water retail 15 Water Year 2024-2025 Mojave Basin Area Watermaster Annual Report, June 2026 16 For instance, see values for Hesperia Water District in Table 11-8 and Table 11-9 in Chapter 11 – Hesperia Water District.

suppliers participating in the 2025 RUWMP as well as all other groundwater users within each subregion outside of a participating retailer’s service area.

TABLE 3-1: PROJECTED NATIVE GROUNDWATER FOR EACH SUBREGION THROUGH 2050 (AFY)

3.1.1.3 Groundwater in the Morongo Subarea
As described in Chapter 2 – The Mojave Region, the Morongo Subarea encompasses both the Ames Valley Judgment and the Warren Valley Judgment. While these Judgments function differently than the MBA Judgment, they reflect conditions where native groundwater use exceeded natural recharge. Unlike the MBA Judgment Area, the Morongo Subarea does not have a single regional framework that establishes a quantified native groundwater production allowance appliable across all basins and users. The Morongo Subarea is composed of multiple groundwater basins with varying levels of development, monitoring, adjudication, and management. As a result, the amount of native groundwater reasonably available across the entire Morongo Subarea is not conclusively quantified for purposes of this RUWMP.

3.1.1.4 Imported Water
MWA relies on a diverse portfolio of imported surface water supplies. Imported water is delivered to the Mojave Region via the SWP California Aqueduct. As one of 29 SWP Contractors, MWA’s primary imported supply source is its Annual Table A Allocation, followed by supplementary supplies obtained by various contractual agreements, transfers, and exchanges. Upon delivery of imported water, by the East Branch of the California Aqueduct, to the Agency’s service area, MWA delivers this blend of imported water to various recharge sites throughout its service area. Fundamentally, MWA’s mission is to provide the region with imported water to supplement local groundwater supplies and recharge local groundwater basins. A summary of the MWA’s imported water supplies is provided in Table 3-2. Additional details on the SWP supplies and forecast reliability are detailed in Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency.

Projected Native Groundwater
For All Year Types 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Subregion 1 70,389 70,389 70,389 70,389 70,389
Subregion 2 39,602 39,602 39,602 39,602 39,602

TABLE 3-2: MWA’S PROJECTED IMPORTED WATER SUPPLIES (AFY) Total Supply Percent
Allocation 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Normal 54% 48,492 48,492 48,492 48,492 48,492
Single Dry Year 5% 4,490 4,490 4,490 4,490 4,490
Multi-Year
Drought
Year 1 35% 31,430 31,430 31,430 31,430 31,430
Year 2 5% 4,490 4,490 4,490 4,490 4,490
Year 3 5% 4,490 4,490 4,490 4,490 4,490
Year 4 20% 17,960 17,960 17,960 17,960 17,960
Year 5 35% 31,430 31,430 31,430 31,430 31,430

3.1.1.5 Return Flows
When water supplies are extracted from the groundwater basins, a portion of the water pumped is consumed and another portion of the extracted water is returned to the groundwater aquifer and becomes part of the available water supply. This “return flow” is an important component of the Region’s managed groundwater supply. For example, nearly all indoor water use is assumed to be returned to the basin either by percolation from septic tanks or treated wastewater effluent produced by municipal wastewater facilities. The MBA Watermaster Report calculates consumptive use for each producer in each Subarea of the MBA Judgment. The calculation is based on production amount, type of use, and an evaluation of processes that consume water.

Return flows shown in Table 3-3 are calculated as a percentage of the previous years’ water production for each water use category, as defined by the MBA Watermaster. Return flow factors, on a regional basis, average approximately 40% of the groundwater production, although this amount can vary significantly by Subarea and on an annual basis. Importantly, as water extractions increase in the Region, the return flows will also increase over time.

However, as system efficiencies improve, return flows may begin to slowly decline.

Nevertheless, for purposes of this 2025 RUWMP, return flows are assumed to be a percentage of the total Water Year Verified Production for each Subarea for the most recent reported Water Year.
17 This value is then held constant in all future year types and all years through 2050. A return flow is not calculated for the Morongo Subarea (Subregion 3). 17 Water Year 2024-2025 Watermaster Report, June 2026, Verified Projection by Subarea, Appendix B, p.15 of 16. This methodology is consistent with the investigation of consumptive use by the MBA Watermaster.

While this is a recognized source of water affecting determinations of available FPA within the MBA Judgment Subareas, for purposes of this RUWMP, this supply source is ignored. This is a conservative assumption that allows this value to be refined while the interaction among FPA, Return Flows, and Managed Stored Groundwater continues to be evaluated to avoid inadvertently double-counting supplies in the Region’s overall water reliability assessment.

T
ABLE 3-3: SUMMARY OF RETURN FLOW FOR SUBREGION 1 AND SUBREGION 2 THROUGH 2050 (AFY) Subregion18 Verified Production Estimated Return Flow
Subregion 1 78,278 31,300
Subregion 2 23,605 9,500

3.1.1.6 Treated Wastewater and Recycled Water
The Region’s self-sufficiency includes development of recycled and reusable water supplies combined with a region-wide emphasis on water use efficiency. Additionally, the Region also accepts treated wastewater imported into certain subareas.

Treated wastewater effluent is imported from three wastewater entities outside the Region.

Specifically, treated wastewater from the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District is imported into the Alto Subarea, while effluent from Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency is imported to the Este Subarea. Wastewater from Crestline Sanitation District is also imported but already accounted for in the natural groundwater recharge. This water is considered indirect potable reuse. The MBA Watermaster recognizes these imports in its annual reporting, recognizing almost 3,400 acre-feet in the Water Year 2024-2025 Report.

However, over half of this came from the Big Bear facility, which is currently implementing a local recycled water program that will result in this source rarely being available to the Region. For the purposes of this 2025 RUWMP, the recycled water is only assumed available to Region 1 and will be limited to approximately 1,200 acre-feet annually (continuing from Lake Arrowhead CSD and Crestline CSD).

The Region also relies upon and anticipates increasing the local recycled water portfolio to provide both direct use, direct recharge, and indirect aquifer replenishment within the Region, particularly in Subregion 1, where the Region’s largest population base drives wastewater generation and, in turn, recycled water supply availability.

The primary recycled water source is the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA) with recycled water production from its Regional Water Reclamation Plant (Regional 18 As discussed in Chapter 2 – The Mojave Region, Subregion 1 includes the Alto, Este, and Oeste Subareas while Subregion 2 includes the Centro and Baja Subareas.

WRP) and two additional Subregional WRPs, one in Hesperia, and one in Apple Valley. There are currently five permitted recycled water users in the service area: American Organics, the City of Victorville, High Desert Power Plant, the City of Hesperia, and the Town of Apple Valley. 19 The VVWRA also contributes recycled water through wastewater effluent discharges to the Mojave River to replenish the downstream aquifer and to support the riparian corridor that lies within the Alto Transition zone. In the Water Year 2024-2025 Watermaster Report, Victorville and VVWRA contributed approximately 14,000 acre-feet of recharge to the Mojave River. While only permitted to discharge 14 million gallons per day (MGD) 20, the main
Victorville facility is designed to produce up to 22 MGD of water and is capable of discharging up to 18 MGD. The Apple Valley21 and Hesperia22 facilities are designed to be operational in phases, with Phase I having a capacity of 1 MGD, Phase II having a capacity of 2 MGD, and Phase III having a capacity of 4 MGD. Water from the main VVWRA facility is used to both provide flows in the Mojave River and recharge the aquifer as well as cooling in a nearby power plant. The Hesperia Subregional facility is used for irrigation at the Hesperia Golf Course and local area parks (see Chapter 11 – Hesperia Water District). The Apple Valley Subregional Facility at Brewster Park is expected to produce irrigation water for Brewster Park, the Civic Center and Apple Valley Golf Course among other locations.

Recycled water is subject to certain restrictions within the law, and localized use requires specific infrastructure investments. The recycled water facilities are governed by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit restrictions. Additionally, the facilities are permitted only for the following beneficial uses: Municipal and Domestic Supply, Agricultural Supply, Industrial Service Supply, Freshwater Replenishment, and Aquaculture.

Future recycled water projects will play a central role in enabling the Region to continue demonstrating reduced reliance on Delta imports.

For the purposes of this 2025 RUWMP, Subregion 1 will conservatively only represent the estimated recycled water volume that is available to Hesperia Water District and the City of Victorville, as further detailed in their individual retail chapters. Table 3-4 presents projected recycled water supplies for Subregion 1 through 2050.

T
ABLE 3-4: RECYCLED WATER SUPPLIES FOR SUBREGION 1 THROUGH 2050 (AFY)

19 VVWRA 2024 Annual Recycled Water Report, Table 2.
20 https://www.vvwraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/194/637694937439730000 21 https://www.vvwraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/200/637694940317370000 22 https://www.vvwraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/204/637694942003170000 Subregion 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Subregion 1 2,004 3,238 3,834 4,408 4,908

3.1.1.7 Water Transfers and Exchanges
As discussed in Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency, MWA engages in water transfers and exchanges involving its SWP assets and other SWP Contractors’ SWP assets. Historically, MWA has both received and delivered water through these transfers and exchanges with various agencies throughout California. These transfers are essentially spot market transfers where short-term opportunities are identified and then actions taken for purchase and acquisition.

These transfers help support management of MWA’s and its retail agencies’ water supply portfolios. Future MWA transfers and exchanges depend upon allocations available to MWA and other water purveyors and are not considered an available supply for purposes of this RUWMP.

3.1.1.8 Planned Water Supplies
Potential future water supply projects, supplementary to existing supplies, consist of the MWA’s participation in Sites Reservoir, Delta Conveyance Project, and potential recharge projects. All of these focus on helping MWA improve the reliability and management of SWP supplies and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency.

3.1.2 Water Quality
Water quality is a critical consideration in the Mojave Region. Because local potable supplies are derived from blended groundwater sources, well locations, recharge activities associated with imported water, and other key system components are actively coordinated and managed among participating retailers and MWA.

3.1.2.1 Imported Water Quality
Generally, the imported surface water conveyed through the California Aqueduct and recharged throughout the Region is considered to be good quality. Many retailers rely on the imported supplies to help manage the quality of water delivered to customers, using the benefits of the imported water as a blending supply to the native groundwater. Water quality delivered to the Region is monitored by the DWR Division of Operations and Maintenance within the California Aqueduct. More details regarding the specific quality information are included in Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency.

3.1.2.2 Groundwater Quality
MWA has implemented a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program to improve understanding of both water quantity and quality across the Mojave Region’s groundwater basins. In coordination with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), this program includes an 850-well monitoring network. Water levels from these wells are recorded on a regular basis and several of the wells are tested for water quality on a rotating sampling schedule.

Numerous studies dating back to the early 1900's have been conducted by various agencies to characterize groundwater quality in the Region and further the understanding of the Mojave River and Morongo Groundwater Basins. The most recent study was the Mojave Salt and Nutrient Management Plan completed in 2015.
23 Despite local groundwater quality
degradation, these studies generally confirmed the suitability of groundwater for beneficial uses in the Region. Groundwater quality data, including intrinsic tracers, have been used to confirm sources of groundwater recharge and travel times along interpreted flow paths in the Floodplain and Regional aquifers. Investigations have also been conducted to identify the source and occurrence of key naturally occurring groundwater contaminants, including hexavalent chromium (Cr-VI) and arsenic, in the Mojave Desert region.

The impairment of groundwater from the perspective of its beneficial use as drinking water is determined by comparing concentrations of constituents of concern in the groundwater against drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and agricultural water quality parameters needed for specific crops. Key groundwater constituents of concern in the Region include arsenic, nitrates, iron, manganese, Cr-VI, fluoride, and total dissolved solids (TDS).

Some of these constituents are naturally occurring in desert environments while others are associated with human (anthropogenic) activities. Measurements exceeding drinking water standards have been found for some of these constituents within the Mojave River Basin and the Morongo Basin. If necessary, groundwater in these areas may require treatment prior to consumption.

MWA’s Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) provides an evaluation of potential groundwater quality issues that may result from sources of salts and nutrients. The SNMP addresses whether these constituents would unreasonably degrade groundwater quality and potentially decrease the beneficial uses of groundwater within the basin. For the MWA SNMP, TDS and nitrate were analyzed as appropriate indicator constituents of salts and nutrients.

Total salinity is commonly expressed in terms of TDS as milligrams per liter (mg/L). TDS concentrations in the groundwater are influenced by the chemistry of the aquifer and quality of water recharging the aquifer. TDS is not a health hazard at typical groundwater 23 Relevant water quality studies are available at http://www.mojavewater.org/regional-studies.html.

Hereafter “2015 Salt and Nutrient Plan”).

concentrations but can be an aesthetic issue and can shorten the useful life of pipes and water-based appliances in homes and businesses. TDS monitoring data are widely available for source waters (both inflows and outflows) in the Region, and because TDS is a general indicator of total salinity, TDS is an appropriate indicator of salt loading. TDS concentrations generally increase in downgradient portions of the Mojave River Basin and along groundwater flow paths away from the primary recharge source in the basin, the Mojave River. Elevated TDS concentrations (greater than 1,000 mg/L) are generally associated with natural processes including mineralization and evaporation beneath dry lake beds. In the Morongo Basin, groundwater TDS concentrations generally increase along groundwater flow paths away from the southwestern margins of the basin where mountain-front recharge occurs.

Nitrate is a widespread contaminant in California groundwater. High levels of nitrate in groundwater are associated with agricultural activities, septic systems, confined animal facilities, landscape fertilization, and wastewater treatment facilities. Nitrate does occur naturally in groundwater – however, natural nitrate levels in groundwater are generally very low (typically less than about 10 mg/L as nitrate-NO3).

The volume-weighted average of existing TDS and nitrate-NO3 concentrations were calculated for each of the 22 analysis subregions. Results are summarized in Table 3-5.

Average subregional TDS concentrations vary considerably, ranging from 153 mg/L to 1,716 mg/L across the Region. Average TDS concentrations are very low in the upgradient portions of the Mojave River Basin (less than 300 mg/L) and increase along the pathways along and away from the Mojave River due to natural processes (e.g., mineralization) and impacts from anthropogenic loading. Eight of the nine downgradient analysis subregions composing the Alto Transition Zone, Centro, and Baja Subareas have average TDS concentrations at or above 500 mg/L (Baja - Floodplain is the lone exception). In the Morongo Basin, average TDS concentrations are generally below the recommended secondary MCL for TDS of 500 mg/L.

Exceptions include Lucerne Valley (north) (1,716 mg/L) and Johnson Valley (678 mg/L), where elevated TDS concentrations primarily reflect a high degree of mineralization and dry lakebed evaporation. Elevated TDS concentrations are naturally characteristic of dry lakes in arid desert environments.

Nitrate-NO3 concentrations are generally low across the Region. Average SNMP subregional concentrations are approximately 6.0 mg/L. Average nitrate-NO3 concentrations exceed 15 mg/L in Centro – Floodplain and Warren Valley. Additionally, nitrate-NO3 concentrations are slightly elevated (between 7.5 and 10 mg/L) in Centro – Regional (west), Alto Transition Zone – Floodplain (Helendale), and Alto – Right Regional. In the Centro Subarea, elevated nitrate concentrations are associated with historical and existing agricultural operations (crop field and dairies) and other naturally occurring processes. In the Alto subarea, septic tank return flows are likely the most significant contributing factor to slightly elevated groundwater nitrate concentrations. In the Warren Valley Basin, elevated nitrate concentrations are associated with historical entrainment of septage following managed aquifer recharge operations and a high density of septic tanks in the subarea.

The emerging water quality constituents of concern are per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). These chemical constituents are generally produced through chemical manufacturing of items like Teflon pans, stain resistant carpet, and fast-food packaging. Acceptable levels for PFAS and PFOA compounds are regulated by the State of California and have recently been lowered. As such, the regulatory actions may have some impact on the regional availability of groundwater supplies. MWA and the regional purveyors are addressing this emerging issue in the region-wide management of groundwater resources and imported supplies that augment the local sources.

T
ABLE 3-5: AVERAGE EXISTING TDS AND NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS BY SNMP SUBREGION SNMP Analysis Subregion Average Existing TDS
Concentration (mg/L)
Average Existing Nitrate‑NO3
Concentration (mg/L)
Mojave River Basin
Baja ‑ Floodplain 401 3 .9
Baja ‑ Regional 617 1 .4
Centro ‑ Floodplain 711 20. 7
Centro ‑ Regional (east) 618 3 .2
Centro ‑ Regional (west) 711 7.7
Centro ‑ Regi onal (Harper Dry Lake) 1, 028 4.0
Alto Transition Zone ‑ Floodplain
(Helendale) 915 10.0
Alto Transition Zone ‑ Flo odplain 500 3 .4
Alto Transition Zone ‑ Re gional 529 3. 9
Alto ‑ Floodplain (Narrows) 205 4 .3
Alto ‑ Floodplain 177 3. 3
Alto ‑ Left Regional 31 0 0.9
Alto ‑ Mid Regional 153 3 .5
Alto ‑ Right Regional 579 7.5
Oeste ‑ Regi onal 78 1 2.5
Este ‑ Regional 29 9 4.3
Morongo Basin
Lucerne Valley (north) 1,716 5.6
Lucerne Valley (south) 472 5.7
Johnson Valley 678 6.2
Ames‑Means Valley 33 0 5.7
Warren Valley 243 15.4
Copper Mountain‑Gi ant Rock 247 7 .5
Joshua Tree 202 14.7

3.1.2.3 Groundwater Monitoring and Protection
The general goal of groundwater protection activities is to maintain the groundwater and the aquifer to ensure a reliable high quality water supply. Activities to meet this goal include continued and increased monitoring, data sharing, education and coordination with other agencies that have local or regional authority or programs. The current MWA groundwater monitoring program includes groundwater quality data collected by MWA and the USGS through their cooperative water resources program and through the Drinking Water Program directed by the State Water Resources Control Board Department of Drinking Water (SWRCB DDW).

The SWRCB DDW enforces the monitoring requirements established in Title 22 of the CCRs for drinking water wells and all the data collected must be reported to the DDW (note: each participating retailer’s specific Consumer Confidence Report is included within its respective Chapter). Title 22 also designates regulatory limits (e.g., MCLs) for various water contaminants, including volatile organic compounds, non-volatile synthetic organic compounds, inorganic chemicals, radionuclides, disinfection byproducts, general physical constituents, and other parameters. Title 22 testing applies to potable public drinking water systems. MWA performs Title 22 testing only on water produced for the R-Cubed distribution system which supplies wholesale potable water to a few retail water suppliers in the Alto Subarea.
24 All retail water purveyors are subject to drinking water standards set by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB DDW.

MWA has developed and actively maintains a Key Well program to support ongoing groundwater management activities, including monitoring of groundwater levels and water quality throughout the Region. Wells in the Key Well program include a combination of dedicated monitoring wells, scientific investigation wells, domestic water supply wells, and agricultural irrigation wells. Retailer’s public water supply wells are not included in the Key Well program but data from these wells are tracked and included in the MWA database.

Important wells identified or installed during scientific studies are continually added to the Key Well program.

There are a range of groundwater contamination sites across the region. These sites are regulated by the Lahontan and Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

The potential detriments to water supply from these sites are being monitored by MWA and potentially effected retailers on a regional basis.

24 Groundwater quality data are submitted electronically and are available for download online at the SWRCB water quality analyses data and download page:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/EDTlibrary.shtml

3.1.3 Desalination Opportunities
The California UWMP Act requires a discussion of potential opportunities for use of desalinated water (Water Code Section 10631(i)). In the past, MWA has evaluated potential options for developing desalination projects. However, none of the opportunities are currently practical or economically feasible for MWA or the Mojave Region, and MWA has no current plans to pursue them. Therefore, desalinated supplies are not included in the supply summaries in this RUWMP.

As discussed elsewhere in this document, the groundwater supplies in the Region are not considered brackish in nature, and desalination is not required. There are brackish supplies near the dry lakes, but it is not practical to pump, treat and potentially induce migration of better-quality water to the dry lake areas. However, MWA and the retail water purveyors could partner with other SWP contractors and provide financial assistance in construction of other regional groundwater desalination facilities in exchange for SWP supplies. The desalinated water would be supplied to users in communities near the desalination plant, and a similar amount of SWP supplies would be exchanged and allocated to MWA from the SWP contractor for use in the Mojave Region. In addition, should an opportunity emerge with a local agency other than an SWP contractor, an exchange of SWP deliveries would most likely involve a third party, such as Metropolitan Water District. Most local groundwater desalination facilities would be projects implemented by retailers of SWP contractors and, if an exchange program were implemented, would involve coordination and wheeling of water through the contractor’s facilities to MWA.

Because the MWA service area is not in a coastal area, it is neither practical nor economically feasible for MWA to implement a seawater desalination program.

3.1.4 Delta Reliance
The Mojave Region continues to demonstrate reduced reliance on water supplies derived from the Delta and regional self-sufficiency through the actions of the retail agencies and MWA. The reduced reliance and regional self-sufficiency are attributable to significant advances in developing recycled and reusable water supplies combined with a region-wide emphasis on water use efficiency among MWA and the retail agencies. Table 3-6 presents the reduced reliance analysis for the Mojave Region. The Reduced Delta Reliance and improved regional self-sufficiency are detailed in Appendix 2.

TABLE 3-6: REDUCED DELTA RELIANCE
Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Total Water Supplies from the
Delta Watershed 34.2% 34.2% 31.0% 26.1% 24.6% 23.5% 22.9% 22.3% 21.7% Change in Water Supplies from
the Delta Watershed
-0.1% -3.3% -8.2% -9.6% -10.7% -11.4% -12.0% -12.5%

3.1.5 Climate Change
While the CWC does not prescribe specific climate change planning and management measures for water suppliers, it does emphasize that climate change is appropriate to consider when assessing drought risk assessment, water conservation and use efficiency, and demand management and supply – both in an historical and future – projection context.

The Region’s primary climate change concern involves MWA’s capability of providing imported SWP water for groundwater recharge and changes to the pattern and intensity of rainfall within the Region and snowfall in the mountains that feed the Mojave River and various local ephemeral streams.

As discussed in Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency, MWA uses DWR’s 2025 Delivery Capability Report (DCR) to assess current and future reliability of SWP Contract Table A supplies. MWA’s representation of supply availability during single dry and multiple dry years reflects its consideration of climate change impacts on its Table A water supplies.

3.1.6 Summary of Existing and Planned Water Supplies
Available wholesale water supplies in the RUWMP Planning Area consist of supplies managed exclusively by MWA and other supplies managed by constituent retail water agencies. MWA coordinates with its retailers to meet regional demands. Each retail water agency in the RUWMP Planning Area uses a unique mix of supplies and not all supply comes from MWA.

The projected total water supplies required to meet the demands of all of MWA’s retail agencies and other water uses within the Mojave Region are summarized below in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8. While MWA does not anticipate meeting all regional demands solely through collective water assets it directly manages, the Agency will work collaboratively with retail agencies and other stakeholders to manage available water supplies and ensure that projected regional demands can be met. The Region’s overall water asset portfolio consists of same-year SWP Table A allocations, Article 56 Carryover (and Article 21 Interruptible Water), Stored SWP supplies as managed by MWA, Water Transfers and Exchanges, local native groundwater, local surface water, return flows, and recycled supplies.

TABLE 3-7: PROJECTED TOTAL WATER SUPPLY FOR THE MOJAVE REGION FOR THE NEXT 5-YEARS (AFY) Year Type All Sources
(Native Groundwater, Recycled Water, SWP Table A)
Normal 162,812
Single Dry Year 118,810
Multi-Year Drought 2026 (1st Year) 145,759
2027 (2nd Year) 118,810
2028 (3rd Year) 118,810
2029 (4th Year) 132,280
2030 (5th Year) 145,759

TABLE 3-8: PROJECTED TOTAL WATER SUPPLY FOR THE MOJAVE REGION THROUGH 2050 (AFY) Year Type
All Sources 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Normal 162,812 164,046 164,642 165,216 165,716
Single Dry Year 118,810 120,044 120,640 121,214 121,714 Multi-Year Drought Year 1 145,759 146,993 147,589 148,163 148,663 Year 2 118,810 120,044 120,640 121,214 121,714
Year 3 118,810 120,044 120,640 121,214 121,714
Year 4 132,280 133,514 134,110 134,684 135,184
Year 5 145,759 146,993 147,589 148,163 148,663

Chapter 4.0 WATER USE

CHARACTERIZATION

Understanding water use characteristics across the Mojave Region is fundamental to evaluating long-term water supply reliability and informing regional water management strategies. As described in Chapter 2, the Region encompasses a diverse range of communities with varying population densities, land use patterns, and economic drivers, all of which influence water use behavior and demand. This chapter characterizes current water use across the region and develops projections of future water demand over the planning horizon.

Consistent with the coordinated regional approach established for the 2025 RUWMP, population, land use, and economic assumptions described in Chapter 2 form the basis for demand projections presented herein. Retailer-specific demand characteristics, including customer class distributions and system water use profiles, are developed within their respective retailer chapters and incorporated into the regional demand projections presented in this chapter. Demands occurring outside the service area boundaries of participating urban water retail suppliers – including agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses, as well as demands from small water systems and rural domestic pumpers – are characterized within the Mojave Water Agency’s wholesale planning framework as described in Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency.

Projected water demands developed in this chapter serve as the analytical framework for integrating regional water use with available supplies described in Chapter 3 – Water Supply Characterization. Together, these elements support the evaluation of system reliability under normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions presented in Chapter 5 – Water System reliability and Drought Risk Assessment.

This chapter therefore provides a comprehensive and consistent framework for quantifying regional water use, supporting both near-term and long-term planning requirements and water resource management across the Mojave Region.

4.1.1 Current Regional Water Use
Water use within the Mojave Region reflects a diverse mix of urban, rural, industrial, recreational, and agricultural demands supported by a combination of managed

groundwater and supplemental supplies. Understanding how water is currently used across the Region provides critical context for evaluating demand trends, informing future projections, and assessing long-term water supply reliability.

Water use within the Mojave Basin Area is tracked and reported through Mojave Watermaster Verified Production reports, which document production across the five Subareas in accordance with the terms of the adjudication. In addition, urban water suppliers track and report their production to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through monthly reporting requirements. For areas outside of the Mojave Basin Area, such as Subregion 3, water use data for Hi-Desert Water District and Joshua Basin Water District is derived from agency production records and State Water Resources Control Board reporting. Historic demand data for other uses within Subregion 3, including smaller systems and non-urban demands, are based on estimates developed as part of MWA’s chapter, Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency.

Collectively, these data sources are synthesized to characterize recent and current water use across the Mojave Region. Table 4-1 presents a summary of regional water use for the period 2021 through 2025 by major use categories, including (1) urban water retail suppliers, (2) small potable water systems and rural domestic users, (3) other uses such as industrial, commercial, and recreational demands, and (4) agricultural uses. To further illustrate spatial variability in water use Table 4-2 through Table 4-4 provide a breakdown of these same categories by subregion.

This characterization of recent and current water use provides insight into regional demand patterns, the relative magnitude of different water use sectors, and the influence of long-term demand management measures and regulatory frameworks. These observed trends form the basis for developing and evaluating future water demand projections presented in the later portions of this chapter.

TABLE 4-1: REGIONAL WATER USE 2021-2025 (AFY)
Water Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Urban Water Retail Supplier
City of Adelanto 4,487 4,640 4,570 4,636 5,044
County Service Area 64 2,793 2,677 2,561 2,597 2,666
County Service Area 70 J 1,794 1,725 1,633 1,146 1,742
Golden State Water Company - Barstow 6,004 5,604 5,421 5,591 5,437 Hesperia Water District 14,253 13,645 12,604 13,724 13,852 Hi-Desert Water Company 2,909 2,919 2,800 2,874 2,817
Joshua Basin Water District 1,333 1,299 1,276 1,307 1,292 Liberty Utilities - Apple Valley Water Company 10,014 9,538 9,399 9,698 9,642 Phelan Piñon Hills CSD 3,094 2,863 2,555 2,674 2,717
Victorville Water District 22,346 22,071 20,079 20,389 20,956 Subtotal Urban Water Retailer 69,028 66,981 62,897 64,636 66,164 Other
Small Water Systems and Rural Domestic 17,836 15,869 15,215 16,699 17,050 Industrial 10,435 10,135 9,035 9,235 7,335
Golf Course 4,615 4,715 3,515 4,415 5,215
Recreational 9,050 9,250 8,250 7,850 7,250
Agricultural 21,700 16,200 15,300 15,100 14,500
Subtotal Other 63,636 56,169 51,315 53,299 51,350
Total Water Use in Mojave Region 132,664 123,150 114,212 117,934 117,514

TABLE 4-2: SUBREGION 1 WATER USE 2021-2025 (AFY)
Water Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Urban Water Retail Supplier
City of Adelanto 4,487 4,640 4,570 4,636 5,044
County Service Area 64 2,793 2,677 2,561 2,597 2,666
County Service Area 70 J 1,794 1,725 1,633 1,146 1,742
Hesperia Water District 14,253 13,645 12,604 13,724 13,852 Liberty Utilities - Apple Valley Water Company 10,014 9,538 9,399 9,698 9,642 Phelan Piñon Hills CSD 3,094 2,863 2,555 2,674 2,717
Victorville Water District 22,346 22,071 20,079 20,389 20,956 Subtotal Urban Water Retailer 58,781 57,159 53,400 54,864 56,619 Other
Small Water Systems and Rural Domestic 12,243 10,893 10,444 11,463 11,704 Industrial 5,600 5,100 4,900 5,500 4,400
Golf Course 4,400 4,500 3,300 4,200 5,000
Recreational 7,000 7,400 6,400 6,000 5,400
Agricultural 4,700 3,800 3,400 3,400 3,000
Subtotal Other 33,943 31,693 28,444 30,563 29,504
Total Water Use in Subregion 1 92,724 88,852 81,844 85,427 86,122

TABLE 4-3: SUBREGION 2 WATER USE 2021-2025
Water Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Retailer
Golden State Water Company - Barstow 6,004 5,604 5,421 5,591 5,437 Subtotal Urban Water Retailer 6,004 5,604 5,421 5,591 5,437 Other
Small Water Systems and Rural Domestic 2,971 2,644 2,535 2,782 2,840 Industrial 4,500 4,700 3,800 3,400 2,600
Golf Course 0 0 0 0 0
Recreational 2,000 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800
Agricultural 17,000 12,400 11,900 11,700 11,500
Subtotal Other 26,471 21,544 20,035 19,682 18,740
Total Water Use in Subregion 2 32,476 27,148 25,456 25,273 24,178

TABLE 4-4: SUBREGION 3 WATER USE 2021-202525
Water Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Retailer Hi-Desert Water Company 2,909 2,919 2,800 2,874 2,817 Joshua Basin Water District 1,333 1,299 1,276 1,307 1,292 Subtotal Urban Water Retailer 4,243 4,218 4,076 4,180 4,109 Other
Small Water Systems and Rural Domestic 2,621 2,332 2,236 2,454 2,506 Industrial 335 335 335 335 335
Golf Course 215 215 215 215 215
Recreational 50 50 50 50 50
Agricultural 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal Other 3,221 2,932 2,836 3,054 3,106
Total Water Use Subregion 3 7,464 7,150 6,912 7,234 7,214 25 Subregion 3 “Other” water use categories were estimated by Zanjero using available spatial and water-use indicators as no single Watermaster or centralized reporting source tracks all non-urban retail water use throughout Subregion 3.

4.1.2 Forecasting Regional Water Use
Forecasting water use leverages the current understanding of prevailing regional water needs and trends while considering factors directly influencing more recent urban water use efficiency regulatory pressures and regional population trends. The following discusses the assumptions used to forecast water use at both the regional and subregional levels.

4.1.2.1 Forecasting Urban Water Retail Supplier Use
There are several factors significantly impacting the projection of future water use for the urban water retail suppliers ultimately informing the majority of the water use within the Mojave Region. These factors include State and local landscape regulations, building code requirements, and residential water-use mandates, as well as changes in types of housing products offered. These factors are incorporated into determining appropriate per-customer connection water demand values for use in forecasting future water needs. Relevant factors include:
• California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
26 • Green Building Standards Code (hereafter the “CAL Green Code)27 • Per-capita Urban Water Conservation Objectives28
A significant portion of the projected growth in water demand includes a range of residential and non-residential uses within the urban water retail supplier’s service areas, driven by the varied development proposals already approved (but not yet built) as well as future proposals, to meet regional population increases. Residential customers will include both single-family dwelling units, some with accessory dwelling units, built under a variety of densities, as well as multi-family residential dwelling units. Non-residential uses are expected to include a blend of commercial, institutional, industrial, and active landscapes such as parks, in ratios similar to current residential-to-non-residential connections. The forecasted future demands of the 10 RUWMP urban water retail suppliers will reflect the needs of existing customers and future new customers. The methodology repeats that used for the 2020 Mojave Water Agency UWMP, where existing customer use and forecasted new customer use are primarily based upon multiplying the population by a gallons-per-capita-per day water factor for residential and non-residential uses.

26 Information regarding the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) can be accessed here.
27 Information regarding the Green Building Standards Code (CAL Green Code) can be accessed here. 28 Information regarding Per-capita Urban Water Conservation Objectives can be accessed here.

Forecasting Existing Customer Future Use
For each urban water retail supplier, data submitted to the SWRCB to satisfy monthly reporting requirements was obtained to establish the current water use characteristics, as presented in Table 4-1. The current total annual production values were then divided by each retailer’s current population to generate gallons-per-capita-per-day (gpcd) values which are representative of each retailer’s total gpcd when considering all residential and non- residential uses. The “current” gpcd values for these populations were then used to generate representative gpcd values for new customers as discussed below.

For existing customers’ future use, the gpcd was either (1) held constant or (2) reduced slightly to reflect expected conservation through replacement of fixtures and appliances, continued adoption of a conservation ethic, and modifications of irrigated landscapes, as well as a function of continued implementation of the retailer’s ongoing conservation programs.

Forecasting New Customer Future Use
One element of the information reported to SWRCB is the percentage each retailer serves to residential customers, a key value for the SWRCB’s determination of the “residential gallons- per-capita-per-day” water use – or “r-gpcd.” Using the total r-gpcd value as well as the wintertime r-gpcd values, which are often lower than during summer months, an estimate of the (1) residential versus non-residential per-capita use and (2) the residential indoor versus outdoor per-capita water use factor was derived for each retail supplier. The estimated gpcd values were then used to establish an anticipated gpcd value for each new customer using the following criteria:
• As stipulated by the CWC, each new residential user should have an indoor factor of 47 gpcd, dropping to 42 gpcd in the future.
29 For purposes of this forecast, 47 gpcd is
used for all new customers until 2030 and 42 gpcd is used for growth beyond 2030. • Using the residential indoor versus outdoor gpcd estimate from the existing customer data, an outdoor gpcd value was determined (as the difference between total r-gpcd and the estimated indoor r-gpcd). This outdoor value was added to the indoor value of 47 gpcd or 42 gpcd to generate a total residential gpcd value for future customers. • The difference between the residential gpcd and the total gpcd created a representative non-residential gpcd value unique to each retailer. This non-residential 29 CWC Section 10609.4(a)(2) establishes the indoor residential water use ‘standard’ to be 47 gpcd beginning in 2025 through January 1, 2030 while CWC Section 10609.4(a)(3) establishes the indoor residential water use ‘standard’ to be 42 gpcd beginning in 2030. These values represent average values across the entire customer base served by any urban water supplier.

gpcd was added to the residential gpcd to create an expected total gpcd for each new customer.
• The new gpcd value was multiplied by the incremental additional population anticipated during each five-year increment through 2050. • The existing customer future demand and the new future customer demand were combined to represent the total demand for each large water retail supplier.

Projected water use for each participating urban water retail supplier is presented in the Water Use Characterization sub-chapter of each respective retailer chapter (Chapters 7 – 16). Each sub-chapter describes the retail-specific assumptions, customer use trends, existing and new customer demand forecasts, distribution system losses, and other factors used to develop each retailer’s projected water use. The regional demand summaries presented in this chapter rely on those retail-specific forecasts and aggregate them, where appropriate, to support the broader regional water use characterization and reliability analysis.

4.1.2.2 Forecasting Non-Urban Water Retail Supplier Uses In addition to the demands associated with participating urban water retail suppliers, the Mojave Region includes other water uses such as agricultural, industrial, golf, recreational, small systems, rural domestic, and other non-retailer demands. Historical use associated with these categories is summarized in this chapter to provide a more complete accounting of regional water use.

Future demands for non-urban water retail supplier uses were developed separately from the participating retailer demand projections. The methodology and assumptions used to forecast these demands are described in Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency. The regional demand projections presented later in this chapter aggregate these retailer and non-retailer forecasts to provide a total regional demand forecast for use in Chapter 5 – Regional Water Service Reliability.

4.1.3 Summary of Future Regional Water Use
The preceding sections identify the forecast sources used to develop future water use projections for the Mojave Region, including participating urban retail water supplier demands and non-urban/non-retailer demands. For regional planning purposes, these forecasts are aggregated in this section to present total projected water use for the Mojave Region.

Table 4-5 through Table 4-7 summarize projected water use from 2030 through 2050 by subregion. Table 4-8 summarizes projected regional water use from 2030 through 2050 and provides the long-term regional demand forecast used to evaluate supply and demand conditions in Chapter 5 – Regional Water Service Reliability.

The projections presented in Table 4-5 through Table 4-8 reflect baseline planning demands, do not include an additional adjustment for climate change, and are rounded to the nearest five acre-feet.

TABLE 4-5: PROJECTED SUBREGION 1 WATER DEMAND 2030-2050 (AFY)

TABLE 4-6: PROJECTED SUBREGION 2 WATER DEMAND 2030-2050 (AFY)

TABLE 4-7: PROJECTED SUBREGION 3 WATER DEMAND 2030-2050 (AFY)

Subregion 1 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year 1 89,700 91,070 92,150 93,155 93,530
Year 2 89,975 91,290 92,355 93,220 93,560
Year 3 90,250 91,500 92,545 93,305 93,585
Year 4 90,525 91,715 92,750 93,375 93,610
Year 5 90,795 91,930 92,950 93,450 93,635
Subregion 2 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year 1 24,270 24,480 24,875 25,510 26,120
Year 2 24,315 24,560 25,000 25,630 26,270
Year 3 24,355 24,635 25,130 25,755 26,415
Year 4 24,395 24,715 25,255 25,875 26,565
Year 5 24,435 24,795 25,380 25,995 26,715
Subregion 3 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year 1 7,280 7,290 7,245 7,175 6,985
Year 2 7,285 7,275 7,225 7,140 6,965
Year 3 7,280 7,270 7,210 7,100 6,955
Year 4 7,285 7,260 7,205 7,060 6,935
Year 5 7,285 7,250 7,190 7,025 6,920

TABLE 4-8: PROJECTED REGIONAL WATER DEMAND 2030-2050 (AFY)

Mojave Region 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year 1 121,250 122,840 124,270 125,840 126,635
Year 2 121,575 123,125 124,580 125,990 126,795
Year 3 121,885 123,405 124,885 126,160 126,955
Year 4 122,205 123,690 125,210 126,310 127,110
Year 5 122,515 123,975 125,520 126,470 127,270

Chapter 5.0 REGIONAL WATER SERVICE

RELIABILITY

This chapter outlines the Mojave Region’s general water system reliability findings as required under CWC §10635 and provides reliability information that the MWA and its constituent retail agencies may use in completing an annual supply and demand assessment under CWC §10632.1.

Assessing water service reliability is the fundamental purpose for MWA and the participating retail suppliers in preparing this 2025 RUWMP. Water service reliability reflects the Region’s ability to demonstrate that the regional water needs may be satisfied under projected hydrological and regulatory conditions. The Region’s 2025 RUWMP considers the reliability of meeting water demands by analyzing plausible hydrological variability, regulatory variability, climate conditions, and other factors that impact the regional water supplies. The reliability assessment looks beyond past experiences and considers what could be reasonably foreseen in the future in order to reflect potential water supply planning scenarios. This chapter synthesizes the details imbedded in Chapters 3 and 4, which each on their own reflect synthesis of Chapters 6 through 16, and provides a rational basis for future decision- making related to supply management, demand management, and project development.

This chapter presents two regional water reliability findings:
30 • Five Year Drought Risk Assessment: the 2026 through 2030 Drought Risk Assessment (“DRA”) for the Mojave Region;
• Long-Term Service Reliability: the reliability findings for a Normal Year, Single Dry Year, and Five Consecutive Dry Years in five-year increments through 2050; In summary, regional water supplies are sufficient to meet regional water demands during normal, single dry, and five consecutive dry years through 2050.

30 These findings are also used by Mojave Water Agency to represent reliability for their “wholesale water supplier” responsibilities under the UWMPA.

5.1.1 Mojave Region Five-Year Drought Risk
Assessment
The Region is characterized by a unique portfolio of water supplies and infrastructure components. As noted in Chapter 3 – Regional Water Supply Characterization and Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency, the regional supplies that are available include MWA’s SWP Table A Annual Amount, Native Groundwater, Imported Wastewater, Return Flows, Recycled Water and Stored and Carryover supplies (such as Article 56). These supplies are managed throughout each of the Subregions. For example, although MWA brings its annual SWP Table A allocation into its service area for delivery into the Subregions, it also may store some of its Table A allocation within the SWP system under the Carryover provisions in its SWP Contract or may store portions of the Table A allocation in regional groundwater basins for use in later years. As such, the annual management of the diverse water supply sources in the regional water supply portfolio forms the supply reliability assessment described in this Chapter.

The Region, as coordinated through MWA, the participating retailers and other users, manages its water supplies to address projected dry conditions. Specifically, MWA captures and stores surplus imported water in normal and wet years to use those water assets to meet regional demands in dry years. These strategic management actions stabilize annual fluctuations in supplies that may not meet regional demands under certain dry conditions. In other words, any surplus imported water supplies are captured and stored for future delivery to improve long-term supply reliability. As discussed in Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency, MWA has preemptively stored over 250,000 acre-feet of water to mitigate against dry conditions.

Table 5-1 below shows the Region’s Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) which integrates all of the regional water supplies for 2026 through 2030 as described in Chapter 3 – Regional Water Supply Characterization and reflects the water uses described in Chapter 4 – Water Use Characterization. As presented in the table, the Region maintains surplus water assets in the first, fourth, and fifth years of a projected five-year dry period but also indicates how stored water supplies are required to meet demands in the second and third years of the projected dry year period.

TABLE 5-1: MWA FIVE YEAR DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT (AFY)
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Supply 145,759 118,810 118,810 132,280 145,759
Demand 119,390 119,856 120,351 120,832 121,252
Difference 26,369 -1,046 -1,541 11,448 24,507
Use of Managed
Groundwater Storage 0 1,046 1,541 0 0
Revised Difference 0 0 0 0 0

The key takeaway is that MWA uses a portion of its stored water assets in the middle of a multi-year drought period to address deficits in the otherwise predictable water supplies (e.g. native groundwater, recycled water, and current-year SWP Table A). In shoulder years, where imported supplies in combination with other supplies exceed the demands, MWA has the option for excess water to be stored for future use as either carryover supply in the SWP system (e.g., San Luis Reservoir) or banked underground in local groundwater basins.

5.1.2 MWA Long-Term Service Reliability
The UWMPA directs urban water purveyors to analyze water supply reliability in normal, single dry, and five consecutive dry years over a 20-year planning horizon. The 2025 UWMP Guidebook recommends extending that period to 25 years to provide a guiding document for future land use and water supply planning through the next UWMP Cycle. The following sub- chapters describe the long-term water service reliability for the Region through 2050.

5.1.2.1 Normal and Single Dry Conditions 2030-2050
The Region’s long term service reliability is characterized in normal, single dry, and five consecutive dry years through 2050. The future water supplies in normal and single dry conditions depicted in this section reflect the same hydrological, regulatory, and institutional criteria associated with each water asset as described in Chapter 3 – Regional Water Supply Characterization. In normal years, for example, SWP supplies are generally constrained only by the projected Table A allocations derived from DWR’s DCR. Under the normal conditions, the same-year SWP Table A allocation, combined with other supplies, is adequate to fully meet demand without using any of the locally pre-stored Managed Groundwater. In dry years, additional hydrological, regulatory, and institutional issues may constrain the availability of water that reduce SWP supply availability based on reduced allocation percentages as noted in Chapter 3. In these years, Managed Groundwater Storage is available to address any shortfall forecast absent the stored groundwater. Additionally, other future water supplies, like return flow, tend to grow in annualized volumes as annualized

demands grow in parallel. However, as described in Chapter 3, many of these other supplies are not reflected as an annually available predictable supply to allow this RUWMP to make a conservative estimate of reliability. This information is described in detail in Chapter 3 and is incorporated into the supply and demand tables presented below.

The Region’s future water demands in normal and single dry conditions through 2050 reflect the same considerations described in previous sections of this chapter. In both normal and dry conditions, demands tend to reflect anticipated uses based upon the climatological conditions in the Region. Future water demands are generally predicted to increase as land uses and populations grow within the Region. This information is detailed in Chapter 4 – Water Use Characterization and reflected in the values shown in the tables below. In normal years, the Region projects surplus water conditions, allowing MWA to recharge and store available supplies for future dry-year needs or coordinate with other SWP contractors to manage surplus supplies. The 2027 Master Plan, currently under development, is expected to reflect MWA’s continued efforts to establish an imported water policy that helps provide further clarity regarding decisions during such circumstances.

Table 5-2 shows the normal year and single dry-year supplies and demands from 2030 through 2050. The single-dry conditions reflect the use of Managed Groundwater Storage to meet forecast shortfalls (shown as a negative difference), where the volume of Managed Groundwater Storage is set to resolve any shortfall to zero. 31 31 As described in Chapter 6, MWA currently has over 250,000 acre-feet of Managed Groundwater Storage throughout the three Subregions. This supply is also available to help retail suppliers meet demands during future periods where demands may exceed the supply shown in their retail chapters in interim years but fall within the total 2050 supply shown in this RUWMP.

TABLE 5-2: NORMAL AND SINGLE DRY YEAR WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND THROUGH 2050 (AFY) Normal Year 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Supply 162,812 164,046 164,642 165,216 165,716
Demand 121,250 122,840 124,270 125,840 126,635
Difference 41,562 41,206 40,372 39,376 39,081

Single Dry Year 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Supply 118,810 120,044 120,640 121,214 121,714
Demand 121,250 122,840 124,270 125,840 126,635
Difference -2,440 -2,796 -3,630 -4,626 -4,921
Use of Managed
Groundwater Storage 2,440 2,796 3,630 4,626 4,921
Revised Difference 0 0 0 0 0

5.1.2.2 MWA Five Consecutive Dry Years through 2050
The Region defines a drought condition lasting five consecutive years as one that constrains MWA from obtaining some of the water supplies within its water supply portfolio due to hydrological, regulatory, and institutional constraints. These conditions include more restrictive regulatory constraints that limit its Table A allocation but do not limit the availability of groundwater resources or wastewater imports. As more thoroughly described in Chapter 6 – Mojave Water Agency, the multiple dry years are assumed to use the following consecutive Table A allocations: 35%, 5%, 5%, 20%, 35%. These assumptions set forth the available same-year Table A supply that is added to the native groundwater and other local supplies, as summarized in Chapter 3 – Regional Water Supply Characterization.

The future dry year projections show the Region relying more on Managed Groundwater Storage as its population grows and water demands increase. Specifically, the Region continues to increase its use of MWA’s Managed Groundwater Storage supplies in years two and three of a five consecutive year drought through the entire planning horizon. This gradual decrease in supply availability and eventual reduction in Managed Groundwater Storage in years one, four, and five would also impact MWA’s ability to store surplus water in those years.

Accordingly, although MWA will have adequate water supplies to meet the regional demands for five consecutive dry years in 2050, the Region will be using more of MWA’s Managed Groundwater Storage supplies to handle those conditions. These issues are described in significant detail in Chapter 3 – Regional Water Supply Characterization and reflected in the

monthly reliability table below. Table 5-3 presents the water supply and demand conditions for MWA’s service area in five consecutive dry years from 2030 through 2050.

TABLE 5-3: FIVE CONSECUTIVE DRY YEARS WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND THROUGH 2050 (AFY) 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year 1
Supply 145,759 146,993 147,589 148,163 148,663
Demand 121,250 122,840 124,270 125,840 126,635
Difference 24,509 24,153 23,319 22,323 22,028
Year 2
Supply 118,810 120,044 120,640 121,214 121,714
Demand 121,575 123,125 124,580 125,990 126,795
Difference -2,765 -3,081 -3,940 -4,776 -5,081
Use of Managed
Groundwater Storage 2,765 3,081 3,940 4,776 5,081
Revised Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Year 3
Supply 118,810 120,044 120,640 121,214 121,714
Demand 121,885 123,405 124,885 126,160 126,955
Difference -3,075 -3,361 -4,245 -4,946 -5,241
Use of Managed
Groundwater Storage 3,075 3,361 4,245 4,946 5,241
Revised Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Year 4
Supply 132,280 133,514 134,110 134,684 135,184
Demand 122,205 123,690 125,210 126,310 127,110
Difference 10,075 9,824 8,900 8,374 8,074
Year 5
Supply 145,759 146,993 147,589 148,163 148,663
Demand 122,515 123,975 125,520 126,470 127,270
Difference 23,244 23,018 22,069 21,693 21,393

5.1.3 Water Supply Reliability Summary
The Mojave Region’s water supply portfolio is capable of meeting the water uses in Region in normal, single dry, and five consecutive dry years from 2025 through 2050.

Chapter 6.0 MOJAVE WATER AGENCY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sub-Chapter 6.1 – Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 6-6

6.1.1 Background and Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................... 6-7

6.1.2 Basis for Plan Preparation ..................................................................................................................................................... 6-7

6.1.3 Coordination and Outreach ................................................................................................................................................ 6-8

6.1.4 RUWMP Adoption ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6-9

6.1.5 Document Organization ......................................................................................................................................................... 6-9 Sub-Chapter 6.2 – Water Service and System Description ................................................................................................6-10

6.2.1 Service Area Climate ................................................................................................................................................................ 6-11 Sub-Chapter 6.3 – Population, Land Use, Economy, and Demographics ................................................................ 6-12

6.3.1 Small Water System and Rural Domestic User Population ............................................................................ 6-12 Sub-Chapter 6.4 – Imported Water Supply and Reliability Characterization ......................................................6-14

6.4.1 State Water Project ...................................................................................................................................................................6-14

6.4.2 SWP Restrictions ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6- 20

6.4.3 Delta Conveyance Project .................................................................................................................................................. 6- 22

6.4.4 Evaluating and Managing Supply Reliability Risks ............................................................................................. 6-22

6.4.5 Evaluating Future Risk Scenarios ....................................................................................................................................6- 23 Sub-Chapter 6.5 – Managed Groundwater Storage ............................................................................................................. 6- 25

6.5.1 Alto Subarea ................................................................................................................................................................................ 6- 25

6.5.2 Centro Subarea ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6- 25

6.5.3 Baja Subarea .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6- 26

6.5.4 Este Subarea ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6- 26

6.5.5 Oeste Subarea ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6- 26

6.5.6 Morongo Basin ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6- 26

6.5.7 Summary of Managed Groundwater Storage by Subregion ...................................................................... 6-27

6.5.8 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6- 27

6.5.9 Recycled Water Supplies ...................................................................................................................................................... 6- 31

6.5.10 Desalination Opportunities .................................................................................................................................................. 6- 31

6.5.11 Water Transfers and Exchanges ...................................................................................................................................... 6- 31

6.5.12 Supply Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6- 31

6.5.13 Groundwater within the Remaining Areas of the Mojave Region ............................................................ 6-33 Sub-Chapter 6.6 – Water Use Characterization ....................................................................................................................... 6- 35

6.6.1 Forecasting Water Demands Outside Participating Retailer Service Areas ..................................... 6-35 Sub-Chapter 6.7 – Water Conservation and Shortage Response ............................................................................... 6-40

6.7.1 Demand Management Measures ..................................................................................................................................6- 41

6.7.2 Foundational Demand Management Measures ..................................................................................................6- 41

6.7.3 Water Shortage Contingency Plan............................................................................................................................... 6- 43 Sub-Chapter 6.8 – Water System Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment ..................................................... 6-46 Sub-Chapter 6.9 – Energy Intensity Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 6- 47

LIST OF TABLES
Table 6-1: Public Water System Information ...................................................................................................................................... 6-8 Table 6-2: Projected Small Water System and Rural Domestic User Population 2030-2050 .......................... 6-13 Table 6-3: MWA’s Historic SWP Table A Allocations and Deliveries .................................................................................. 6-16 Table 6-4: SWP Allocation Compared to Actual Deliveries into MWA Service Area ...............................................6-19 Table 6-5: MWA Water Supply Portfolio Summary ......................................................................................................................6- 32 Table 6-6: MWA’s Projected SWP Supply for 2026 – 2030 (AFY) .........................................................................................6- 32 Table 6-7: MWA’s Projected SWP Supply Through 2050 (AFY) ............................................................................................ 6- 33 Table 6-8: Projected Small Water System and Rural Domestic Demand 2030-2050 (AFY) ........................... 6-37 Table 6-9: Projected Agricultural Demand 2030-2050 (AFY).............................................................................................. 6- 38 Table 6-10: Projected Industrial, Recreational, and Golf Course Demand 2030-2050 (AFY) ......................... 6-39 Table 6-11: Energy Intensity – Total Utility Approach for Month Year through Month Year .............................. 6-47

LISTS OF FIGURES
Figure 6-1: Example Representation of MWA’s Annual Management of SWP Supplies ...................................... 6-20 Figure 6-2: Check 66 Electrical Conductivity 2015-2025 ......................................................................................................... 6- 28 Figure 6-3: Check 66 Water Temperature 2015-2025 .............................................................................................................. 6- 29 Figure 6-4: Check 66 Water Turbidity 2015-2025 ......................................................................................................................... 6- 29 Figure 6-5: Check 41 (Kern) pH Value (2015-2025) .................................................................................................................... 6- 30 Figure 6-6: Pacheco Pumping Plant Fluorescence 2015-2025 ........................................................................................... 6- 30

Sub-Chapter 6.1 – Introduction
The Mojave Water Agency (MWA or Agency) was formed in 1960 as a special act district codified in Chapter 97 of the California Water Code (CWC) Appendix as the Mojave Water Agency Law (MWA Law).
32 The MWA Law states that MWA was created, in part, “to do any and every act necessary to be done so that sufficient water may be available for any present or future beneficial use of the lands and inhabitants of the agency….” 33 That statutory charge
has long been shaped by the region’s fundamental water management challenge:
groundwater use in excess of natural replenishment. The aquifers in MWA’s service area have been in overdraft since the early 1950s, as residents and other water users have historically used more water than is naturally replaced by limited rainfall and surface flows from the Mojave River and its tributaries originating in the San Bernardino mountains to the south. The Mojave Basin Area (MBA) Adjudication further reaffirmed MWA’s role in managing local water supplies and tasked MWA with seeking and securing supplemental water supplies to help address groundwater overdraft and support the quality of life within its boundaries.

The MWA service area encompasses approximately 4,900 square miles of eastern San Bernardino County (County) and is concurrent with the Mojave Region (Region or RUWMP Planning Area) boundary as that is used for purposes of this 2025 RUWMP. Its service area is divided into eight Subareas, each one affiliated with a hydrological groundwater basin or boundary defined through adjudications or resulting from other practical basis (see Figure 2- 1).

As discussed in Chapter 3 – Regional Water Supply Characterization, water supply for the Region is sourced almost entirely from pumped groundwater. As a State Water Project (SWP) contractor and MBA Watermaster, MWA acts as a wholesale supplier to large and small retail water agencies as well as many other individual users and uses throughout its service area by importing water supplies and placing them into the various groundwater basins to support on-going groundwater basin health needs – whether stipulated by judgments or based upon pre-emptive and anticipatory actions – to support the Region’s reliance on pumped groundwater.
32 California Water Code Appendix, Mojave Water Agency Law, Section 97-1 et seq., 1960. 33 MWA Law Section 97-1.5, July 21, 1960

6.1.1 Background and Purpose
The Agency has ensured compliance with the Urban Water Management Plan Act (UWMPA) requirements for urban water suppliers through its participation in the 2025 RUWMP and preparation of this wholesale-specific chapter.
34 The UWMPA requires urban water suppliers
to evaluate the adequacy of their water supplies to meet projected demands under average conditions, single dry years, and multiple dry year scenarios through a 20-year planning horizon. This chapter, in conjunction with critical Regional summary tables presented in Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5, presents MWA’s evaluation of these requirements and demonstrates its ability to meet anticipated water demands under near-term and long-term normal and drought conditions.

The 2025 RUWMP, together with this wholesale-specific chapter, updates MWA’s 2020 Wholesale Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and incorporates new data, analyses, and regulatory guidance issued since 2020 by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) pursuant to the CWC. In addition to satisfying statutory requirements, the 2025 RUWMP serves as a comprehensive planning document describing existing and future water supplies, projected water demands, demand management progress, and actions necessary to maintain long-term supply reliability. The regional approach also documents cooperative efforts among participating agencies to efficiently manage shared resources and address future water needs across the RUWMP Planning Area.

6.1.2 Basis for Plan Preparation
With one exception, MWA does not operate as a Public Water System (PWS) as described in California Health and Safety Code Section 116275. Rather, it is solely classified as an Urban Water Supplier pursuant to CWC Section 10617, as it provides water for wholesale water supplies for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 service connections and supplies more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually through the management of imported water supplies on behalf of the Region. These qualifications require the preparation and adoption of a UWMP every five years. Under CWC Section 10620 (d)(1), these requirements may be satisfied through participation in a RUWMP, which the MWA and the other Urban Water Suppliers within the RUWMP Planning Area have elected to prepare collaboratively.

The one exception of a PWS is MWA’s Regional Recharge and Recover Project (R-Cubed) which is a conjunctive use project that pumps a combination of participating retailers’ MBA Judgement FPA and MWA’s Managed Groundwater Storage within the Floodplain Aquifer along the Mojave River in Hesperia and southern Apple Valley (see Figure 2-9 and Figure 3-1).

When needed, MWA-owned production wells on both sides of the Mojave River, immediately 34 California Water Code Sections 10610 through 10657

downstream of the recharge areas, can recover and deliver the FPA or stored water through pipelines directly to local retail suppliers. Details of the MWA’s PWS are provided in Table 6-1.

TABLE 6-1: PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION
Public Water System Number Public Water System Name Number of Municipal Connections CA3610129 Mojave Water Agency
(R-Cubed) 5

6.1.3 Coordination and Outreach
Preparation of the 2025 RUWMP involved coordination among the participating Urban Water Suppliers and MWA. This coordination ensured consistency in assumptions, methodologies and regional analyses. MWA actively participated in this collaborative process through technical meetings, data sharing, and review of draft materials addressing regional conditions as well as MWA- and retailer-specific operations, As required by the UWMPA, MWA coordinated with nearby agencies during development of this chapter to ensure consistency with related land use and water resource planning efforts, including City General Plans, Water Master Plans, and Specific Plans associated with anticipated development.

Consistent with CWC Section 10641, MWA encouraged active participation from a broad cross-section of the community representing diverse social, cultural, and economic interests within its service area during preparation of this chapter. Public notice of the plan’s availability and the scheduled public hearing was provided, and a public hearing was conducted prior to adoption to solicit input from customers, stakeholders, and interested parties.

Comprehensive documentation of the regional planning process, including interagency coordination, formal notifications provided in accordance with CWC Section 10621(b), stakeholder engagement, and outreach activities conducted on behalf of all participating agencies is provided in Sub-Chapter 1.1.3 Coordination and Outreach of Regional Chapter 1 - Introduction.

6.1.3.1 Water Supplier Information Exchange
Compliance with CWC Section 10631 is described in Sub-Chapter 1.1.3 Coordination and Outreach of Regional Chapter 1 – Introduction.

6.1.4 RUWMP Adoption
The Agency held a public hearing regarding the 2025 RUWMP on June 11, 2026. Before the hearing, the Agency made a draft of the 2025 RUWMP available for public inspection at 13846 Conference Center Drive Apple Valley, CA 92307, and posted on MWA’s website. Pursuant to CWC Section 10642, general notice of the public hearing was provided through publication of the hearing date and time in the local press as required under the UWMPA.

The Agency’s elected body adopted this 2025 RUWMP on June 11, 2026. A copy of the 2025 RUWMP will be submitted to DWR, provided to the County and the California State Library, and posted onto MWA’s website.

MWA plans to submit all required documentation related to the UWMPA through the DWR submittal website soon after adoption, including the on-line submittal of information associated with the following DWR Excel workbooks:
“FINAL Submittal 2025 UWMP Tables – MWA – 06.01.2026.xls” “Appendix F 2025 Checklist – MWA – 06.01.2026.xls”

6.1.5 Document Organization
This chapter is organized as follows:

Sub-Chapter 6.2 Water Service and System Description
Sub-Chapter 6.3 Population, Land Use, Economy, and Demographics Sub-Chapter 6.4 Imported Water Supply and Reliability Characterization Sub-Chapter 6.5 Managed Groundwater Storage
Sub-Chapter 6.6 Water Use Characterization
Sub-Chapter 6.7 Water Conservation and Shortage Response Sub-Chapter 6.8 Water System Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Sub-Chapter 6.9 Energy Intensity Analysis