Agenda packet — Redlands City Council, June 2, 2026 (part 3 of 9)

8.4 POINT OF CONTACT
Comments or suggestions regarding this plan may be submitted to:

Fire Department; Emergency Management Division
Esther Martinez, Emergency Management Specialist
35 Cajon Street, Suite 12
Redlands, Ca 92373
(909) 798-7600 / [email protected]

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
124
APPENDIX 1 ADOPTION RESOLUTION

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
125
APPENDIX 2 PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS
Agency Department Staff Position
City of Redlands Airport Shaffer, Carl Airport Supervisor City of Redlands City Manager’s Office Baker, Carl Public Information Officer City of Redlands City Manager’s Office McConnell, Janice Assistant City Manager City of Redlands Development Services Esparza, Cruz Economic Development Manager
City of Redlands Development Services Foote, Brian Planning Director City of Redlands Facilities and Community
Services
Sullivan, Tim Assistant Director
City of Redlands Finance Jenner, Farrah Assistant Finance Director City of Redlands Fire Anderson, Vincent Fire Marshal
City of Redlands Fire Crews, Carly EMS Coordinator
City of Redlands Fire Martinez, Esther Emergency Operations Specialist
City of Redlands Fire Reyes, Bruni Management Analyst
City of Redlands Fire Sessler, Rich Deputy Chief
City of Redlands Human Resources Ng, Tommi Assistant Director City of Redlands Innovation and Technology Resh, Tom GIS Supervisor/Web Administrator
City of Redlands Innovation and Technology Sanchez, Sandra Information Technology City of Redlands Library McCue, Don Director
City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and
Engineering
Watson, Kevin Operations Manager
City of Redlands Planning Lin, Catherine Principal Planner City of Redlands Police Reiss, Mike Deputy Chief
City of Redlands Police Tolber, Rachel Commander
City of Redlands Purchasing Abramovitz, Dana Manager
Amazon Morales, Linda
Amazon Notthingham, Greg
American Red Cross San Bernardino County Anderson, Robert Disaster Program Manager Arrowhead
Christian Academy
Bell, Nrian Upper school Principal
Assemblyman
James Ramos
Leyva, Jessie Field Representative
CA Public Utilities
Commission
Windbigler, Sandy Business and Community
Outreach
CALFire Ahmad, Abdul Division Chief
CALFire Malinowski, Grant Chief
Cal Trans Sadler, Jason
California
Governor's Office of
Emergency Services
Brown, Sonia Senior Emergency Services
Coordinator
California Highway
Patrol
Seldon, Rod Captain
Carollo Deslauriers, Sarah
Carollo Roquebert, Vincent
Carollo Sobeck, Dave Senior Vice President

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
126
Church of Jesus
Christ Latter Day
Saints
Cannon, Judy Redlands Area Interfaith
Council
City of Highland Daniely, David Administrative Analyst
City of Loma Linda Kendal, Shannon Joint Emergency Services Coordinator
City of Moreno
Valley
Bricker, Zuzzette Emergency Manager
City of San
Bernardino
Oldendorf, Nick Emergency Manager/
Sergeant
City of Yucaipa O'Connell, Sherrie Emergency Services
Coordinator
Com Center Franke, Tim Com Center Supervisor
ESRI Abushanab, Dan CIO
ESRI Berry, Don Operations Manager
ESRI Kelling, Daniel Physical Security and Safety
ESRI Nowlin, Chris
Jonbe Care
Retirement
Community
Elshof, Richard
Loma Linda Hospital Ngo, Ehren Emergency Operations
Manager
Metrolink Rodriguez, Richard Emergency Manager
Montessori in
Redlands
Camarillo, Ellen Safety Coordinator
North Redlands
Visioning
Committee
Saucedo, Mario
Office of
Representative Pete
Aguilar
Lewis, Curt Grant Program Director
Office of Senator
Mike Morrell
Bogh, Madison Field Representative
Office of Senator
Mike Morrell
Cornejo-Reynoso, Pacal Field Representative
Omni Trans Erwin, Barbara Safety, Security, and
Regulatory Compliance
Manager
Packinghouse
Christian Academy
Conner. Michelle Safety Coordinator
Plymouth Village
Retirement
Community
Michaels, Julie Executive Director
Redlands Adventist
Academy
York, Glynda Safety Coordinator
Redlands Bowl
Summer Music
Festival
Noerr, Beverly Executive Director
Redlands Chamber
of Commerce
Alvarez, Christopher Executive Director

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
127
Redlands Christian
Center
Wallace, Don Redlands Area Interfaith
Council
Redlands
Community Hospital
Olmos, Melissa Emergency Management
Coordinator
Redlands Historical
Society
Nelda, Stuck
Redlands Unified
School District
Arrellano, Mauricio Superintendent
Redlands Unified
School District
Mackamul-Covey,
Carianne
Redlands Unified
School District
Morse, Ken Coordinator of Operations
and Facility Planning
Rochford
Foundation
Timothy, Ellen
San Bernardino
County
Congjuico, Ashley Medical Emergency
Planning Specialist
San Bernardino
County
Cruz, Carrie Emergency Services Officer
San Bernardino
County
Ramirez, Michael Emergency Services
Supervisor Officer
San Bernardino
County School
Districts
Marmolejo, Daniel Safety Manager/
Intergovernmental
Relations
Simpler Life Snedaker, Bob Owner
Southern California
Gas
Scott, Kristine Public Affairs Manager
Southern California
Edison
Cloud, Mark Government Affairs
Representative
United States Post
Office
Andrews, Janet National Preparedness
Specialist
University of
Redlands
Abbey, Leonette Project Management
Coordinator
University of
Redlands
Rogers, Michelle Vice President
Administration
University of
Redlands
Talbott, Jeff Director of Public Safety
University of
Redlands
Walsh, John Chaplain
Valley Preparatory
School
Black, John School Principal
Valley Preparatory
School
Schutz, Derrick Assistant Head of School

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
128
APPENDIX 3 PLANNING TEAM MEMBER MEETING ATTENDANCE MATRIX City of Redlands
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Team
Department / Agency 6/16/2020 8/18/2020 9/21/2020 10/19/2020 11/16/2020 1/11/2021 3/16/2021 4/7/2021 5/25/2021 Airport X
City Manager's Office X X X X X X X
Development and Planning Services X X X X X X X X X
Facilities and Community Services X X
Finance X X
Fire Department X X X X X X X X X
Human Resources X X
Information Technology X X X X X X X X X
Library X X X X
Municipal Utilities and Engineering X X X X X X
Police X X X X X
Purchasing X
Amazon
American Red Cross
Arrowhead Christian Academy
Assemblyman James Ramos
CA Public Utilities Commission
CAL Fire
Cal Trans
California Governor's Office of Emergency Services
California Highway Patrol X X X X X X X X X
Carollo X X X X X X X X X
City of Highland
City of Loma Linda X
City of Moreno Valley X X
City of San Bernardino
City of Yucaipa X X X X X
Com Center

ESRI X X X X X X X X
Jonbe Care Retirement Community
Loma Linda Hospital X X X
Metrolink
Montessori in Redlands
North Redlands Visioning Committee
Office of Representative Pete Aguilar X
Updated 6/01/2021
City of Redlands
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Planning Team
Department / Agency 6/16/2020 8/18/2020 9/21/2020 10/19/2020 11/16/2020 1/11/2021 3/16/2021 4/7/2021 5/25/2021 Office of Senator Mike Morrell
Omni Trans X
Packinghouse Christian Academy
Plymouth Village Retirement Community
Redlands Adventist Academy
Redlands Area Interfaith Council X X
Redlands Bowl Summer Music Festival
Redlands Chamber of Commerce X X X X X
Redlands Christian Center
Redlands Community Hospital X X X X X
Redlands Historical Society
Redlands Unified School District X
Rochford Foundation
San Bernardino County Office of Emergency Services X
San Bernardino County Public Health
San Bernardino County School Districts
Simpler Life
So Cal Gas X X X X X X X
Southern California Edison
United States Post Office X X X X X X
University of Redlands X X X X X X
Valley Preparatory School
Updated 6/01/2021

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
129
APPENDIX 4 PUBLIC OUTREACH ANNOUNCEMENTS AND

PRESENTATIONS
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Goutam Dobey of Municipal Utilities/Engineering Department at (909) 798-7584 ext. 5. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II)

A G E N D A
This will be a teleconference meeting via Zoom.

The following information comprises the agenda for a regular meeting of the DISASTER COUNCIL of the City of Redlands at the time noted:

Monday, October 26, 2020
4:00 P.M. – 5:00 P.M.

Join Zoom Meeting
o https://cityofredlands.zoom.us/j/92594494297?pwd=TlQ3dy8vUFlCWHpWdDVma2llW mVSdz09
o Meeting ID: 925 9449 4297
o Passcode: 10262020
o One tap mobile
 +16699006833,,92594494297#,,,,,,0#,,10262020# US (San Jose)  +13462487799,,92594494297#,,,,,,0#,,10262020# US (Houston) o Dial by your location
 +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
 +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
 +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
 +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
 +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
 +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
 888 788 0099 US Toll-free
 877 853 5247 US Toll-free
o Meeting ID: 925 9449 4297
o Passcode: 10262020
o Find your local number: https://cityofredlands.zoom.us/u/adZ8Ocsdxg HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Following public health recommendations to limit public gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic, City Manager Charles M. Duggan Jr., acting as the City of Redlands Emergency Services Director has directed that Commission/Board meetings be closed to the public until further notice or until the current local State of Emergency has been lifted.

In order to have your public comment read into the public record at the meeting, members of the public are asked to submit comments (250 words or less) prior to Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. to Esther Martinez by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (909) 307-7313.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Goutam Dobey of Municipal Utilities/Engineering Department at (909) 798-7584 ext. 5. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Individuals with a disability, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, who need assistance with public comment, may contact Esther Martinez by telephone (909) 307-7313 or by email at [email protected] at least two hours before the meeting to make alternate arrangements.

A. Call to Order (Mayor Paul W. Foster )
B. Pledge of Allegiance (Mayor Paul W. Foster)
C. Public Comment (Mayor Paul W. Foster)
(At this time, the Disaster Council chair will read all public comments, up to 250 words, into record if they are received in accordance with the deadlines stated above. Please Note: The Disaster Council may not discuss or take action on any public comment made..

D. Introductions / Welcome (Chief Sessler)
E. Approval of Minutes (Mayor Paul W. Foster)
F. Old Business

1. No Follow-up items
G. New Business

1. Presentation by Andy Petrow from APetrow Consulting “City of Redlands Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update”
a. https://www.cityofredlands.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/redlands_final_hmp_april_2015.pdf?1552928023 H. Member Announcements (Roundtable)
I. Possible agenda items for next meeting (?)
J. Adjournment
(The next Disaster Council Meeting will be held on January 25, 2021) 5/28/2021
1 City of Redlands
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

PUBLIC KICKOFF MEETING/PRESENTATION
OCTOBER 26, 2020
Purpose of the Meeting/Presentation
▪ Introduce the Project
◦ What and Why were are doing it
▪ Gain Common Understanding of:
◦ Mitigation
◦ Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMP)
▪ Increase Awareness of the City of Redlands LHMP and Update Process ◦ What hazards are being addressed
◦ How the LHMP will be updated
▪ Set expectations moving forward
◦ How you can keep updated on progress
Agenda
▪ Background
▪ Definition of Mitigation
▪ Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMP) Overview
▪ City of Redlands LHMP Overview
▪ Public Outreach Effort
▪ Next Steps
Background
▪ FEMA provides funds after disasters to mitigate future impacts ▪ Historically difficult to identify eligible projects
◦ pressure to obligate funds
▪ In 2000, FEMA revised regulations to require an LHMP to received mitigation funds
▪ LHMP must be comprehensive and identify projects
▪ Project must be in LHMP to be eligible for funding
Definition of Mitigation
▪ Part of the Disaster Cycle
▪ FEMA defines Mitigation as the “effort to reduce and/or eliminate loss of life and property by lessening the impacts from hazards”
▪ Benefits of mitigation include:
◦ Saved lives
◦ Reduced damage to property
◦ Reduced economic losses
◦ Minimized social disruption
◦ Shorter recovery period for the community
Respond
Recover
Mitigate
Prevent
Prepare
Local Hazard Mitigation Plans
Goal-
▪ To develop a strategy to reduce and/or eliminate impacts from hazards Objectives-
▪ Apply a comprehensive planning approach
◦ Involve the Whole Community (regional stakeholders)
◦ Address Multi-hazards
◦ Engage the public
▪ Understand capabilities and vulnerabilities to hazards ◦ Identify Key Assets
▪ Identify projects and actions
▪ Integrated with other planning efforts
5/28/2021
2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (cont)
LHMP Requirements
▪ Locals prepare, adopt, and maintain….must be update every 5 years ▪ Cal OES reviews
▪ FEMA approves
What are Cal OES/FEMA are looking for……
◦ Proper documentation of planning process
◦ Current community, hazard, and impact information
◦ Validation/Identification of projects and actions
◦ Method for plan review (updating) and implementation
◦ Verification plan was adopted
▪ Last Approved and Adopted in 2015
▪ Can be found on the City’s website
https://www.cityofredlands.org/pod/emergency-plans
▪ Analyzed the following hazards
▪ Mitigation Actions (projects) focused on priority hazards City of Redlands LHMP
o Chemical Agents
o Chemical/Hazardous Materials Spill
o Crop Losses/Freezing
o Dam Breach
o Disease
o Drought
o Earthquake
o Energy/Power Outage/Excessive Heat
o Flooding
o Infestation
o Mudslide/Landslide
o Tornado
o Wildfire
o Windstorm
City of Redlands LHMP (cont)
2 months 1-2 months 1-2 months 2-3 months 2-3 months Ongoing- 5-years City of Redlands LHMP (cont)
Planning Team
▪ Representatives from the City Departments
▪ Representatives from Regional Stakeholders
◦ State
◦ County
◦ Special Districts
◦ Non-governmental Organizations
◦ Lifelines
◦ Hospitals/Care Facilities
◦ Businesses (large employment corporations)
▪ Consultant Team
Public Outreach Effort
▪ Because of COVID-19 challenges with, outreach will be done virtually ▪ Two (2) public meetings
◦ Project kickoff….this meeting
◦ Draft plan review
▪ Status Updates
◦ City Social Media (Website, FaceBook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter) ◦ Other Social Media (NextDoor, stakeholder social media platforms) ◦ Leverage City Council/Community meetings
◦ Possibly Newspapers/letters (local, regional, city, community organizations) ◦ Possibly Flyer Announcements (inserts in invoices/bills) Next Steps
▪ Review public comments
▪ Hold additional Planning Team meetings
▪ Prepare and Review draft LHMP sections
▪ Provide status updates to the public
5/28/2021
3 Contacts
▪ Esther Martinez
◦ (909) 798-7600
◦ [email protected]
▪ Andy Petrow
◦ (818) 294-5472
◦ [email protected]
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Goutam Dobey of Municipal Utilities/Engineering Department at (909) 798-7584 ext. 5. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II)

A G E N D A
This will be a teleconference meeting via Zoom.

The following information comprises the agenda for a regular meeting of the DISASTER COUNCIL of the City of Redlands at the time noted:

Monday, April 26, 2021
4:00 P.M. – 5:00 P.M.

Join Zoom Meeting
https://cityofredlands.zoom.us/j/97062400382?pwd=akJJM1IxajNJM1lEUGxrSVlhV2lYdz09 Meeting ID: 970 6240 0382
Passcode: 906782
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,97062400382#,,,,*906782# US (San Jose)
+12532158782,,97062400382#,,,,*906782# US (Tacoma)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington D.C)
877 853 5247 US Toll-free
888 788 0099 US Toll-free
Meeting ID: 970 6240 0382
Passcode: 906782
Find your local number: https://cityofredlands.zoom.us/u/amB3lchzX HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Following public health recommendations to limit public gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic, City Manager Charles M. Duggan Jr., acting as the City of Redlands Emergency Services Director has directed that Commission/Board meetings be closed to the public until further notice or until the current local State of Emergency has been lifted.

In order to have your public comment read into the public record at the meeting, members of the public are asked to submit comments (250 words or less) prior to Thursday, April 23, 2021 at In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Goutam Dobey of Municipal Utilities/Engineering Department at (909) 798-7584 ext. 5. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) 5:00 p.m. to Esther Martinez by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (909) 307-7313.

Individuals with a disability, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, who need assistance with public comment, may contact Esther Martinez by telephone (909) 307-7313 or by email at [email protected] at least two hours before the meeting to make alternate arrangements.

A. Call to Order (Mayor Paul Barich )
B. Pledge of Allegiance (Mayor Paul Barich)
C. Public Comment (Mayor Paul Barich)
(At this time, the Disaster Council chair will read all public comments, up to 250 words, into record if they are received in accordance with the deadlines stated above. Please Note: The Disaster Council may not discuss or take action on any public comment made..

D. Introductions / Welcome (Chief Sessler)
E. Approval of Minutes (Mayor Paul Barich)
F. Old Business

1. No Follow-up items
G. New Business
a. Presentation by Andy Petrow from APetrow Consulting “City of Redlands Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Draft”
i. Overview of draft plan for public review.

H. Member Announcements (Roundtable)
I. Possible agenda items for next meeting (?)
J. Adjournment
(The next Disaster Council Meeting will be held on July 26, 2021) 5/28/2021
1 City of Redlands
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

PUBLIC KICKOFF MEETING/PRESENTATION
APRIL 26, 2021
Purpose of the Meeting/Presentation
▪ Quick Overview of the Project
◦ What is a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)
◦ Why are we updating the LHMP
▪ Review Information in the draft LHMP
◦ Federal Requirements
◦ List of Community Hazards
◦ Proposed Mitigation Measures/Actions
▪ Discuss Next Steps
◦ What is left to do
Overview
▪ FEMA provides funds to mitigate hazard impacts but
require a LHMP
◦ Mitigation measure/action must be in LHMP to be eligible ▪ LHMP = City’s strategy to mitigate impacts from hazards ◦ Must include a comprehensive planning process
◦ Must understand capabilities and vulnerabilities
◦ Must include mitigation measures/actions
▪ LHMP must be updated every 5 years
◦ City of Redlands last updated in 2015
Federal Requirements
▪ Locals prepare, adopt, and maintain
▪ Cal OES reviews
▪ FEMA approves
What are Cal OES/FEMA are looking for……
◦ Documentation of planning process
◦ List of current capabilities and hazards
◦ Understanding of impacts (vulnerability)
◦Identification of mitigation measures/actions
◦ Plan for maintaining and implementing LHMP
Capability Assessment
▪ What tools are in your mitigation toolbox
▪ Resources
◦Personnel- who works (can work) on mitigation efforts
◦Governance- what rules are in place to support mitigation ◦ Technical- what special skills are available to support mitigation ◦ Fiscal- what kind of funding is available for mitigation efforts ▪ Analyze all hazards in the community
◦ Provide Description, History, Location, other information ▪ Screen (prioritize) all hazards
◦ Probability vs Impact
▪ Hazards in the LHMP; Priority hazards in bold
Hazards in the Draft LHMP
o Aircraft Accident/Incident
o Chemical Agent Release
o Civil Disturbance
o Dam Breach
o Drought
o Earthquake
o Energy Shortage/Power Outage
o Extreme Temperature
o Flood
o Hazardous Material Accident
o Infectious Disease
o Infestation
o Landslide
o Technology Disruption
o Train Accident/Incident
o Wildfire
o Windstorm
5/28/2021
2 Vulnerability Assessment
▪ Quantitative Impacts
◦ Damage Assessment models (Hazus)
◦ Exposure Assessment (hazard footprint)
▪ Qualitative Impacts
◦ Population
◦ Built Environment
◦ Lifelines
◦ Economy
◦ Environment
Mitigation Strategy
▪ Only need to address priority hazards
▪ Includes actions that cut across multiple hazards
▪ Actions need to be prioritized
◦ Assessed against typical challenges to projects (feasibility assessment) ▪ Must have an implementation plan
◦Identify lead Department
◦ Estimate on how long it will take
◦ Estimate how much it may cost
◦Identify possible funding sources
Proposed Mitigation Measures/Actions
▪ Develop a Key Asset Database
▪ Adopt policy to incorporate hazards into relevant city plans/programs ▪ Develop/Expand MOUs and Public-Private Partnerships
▪ Develop/Expand Public Outreach efforts regarding hazards ▪ Develop/Expand Emergency Management Training and Exercises ▪ Assess City-owned Facilities (structural/non-structural retrofitting) ▪ Develop Mitigation Reference Guide for privately-owned Facilities ▪ Build Closer Working Relationship with utilities, government (State, County, locals), Airports/Rail, Citrus Growers, local Businesses, Faith-based organizations
▪ Improve Drainage throughout the City
Proposed Mitigation Measures/Actions (cont.)
▪ Develop/Expand Plans/Assessments; implement recommendations • Business Continuity Plan
• Emergency Circulation Plan
• Emergency Operations Plan
• Emergency Public Communications Plan
• Energy Strategic Plan
• Extreme Temperature Plan
• Infectious Disease Response/Recovery Plan
• Technology Master Plan; including an IT Incident Response Plan • Vegetation Management Plan
• Water Conservation/Drought Emergency Plan
Next Steps
▪ Review public comments
◦ Draft LHMP can be found on City website by end of the week ▪ Finalize draft LHMP with the Planning Team
▪ Submit and Review draft LHMP with Cal OES/FEMA
◦ Revise as needed
▪ City Council Adoption
Contacts
▪ Esther Martinez
◦ (909) 798-7600
◦ [email protected]
▪ Andy Petrow
◦ (818) 294-5472
◦ [email protected]

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
130
APPENDIX 5 KEY ASSETS
The City of Redlands has identified the following key building assets (Table APP1). Table3.6 captures the Redlands Unified School District by campus; however, there are several permanent and temporary structures on each campus. Table APP2 depicts the number of permanent and temporary structures on each campus.

Table APP1 Key Building Assets
Facility Name Address Year
Built
Bldg.

Sq. Ft
Structure
Type
Replacement Cost
Fire Station 261 525 E. Citrus Ave. 2001 4,200 Wood
Frame
$1.98M
Fire Station 262 1716 Garden St. 1969 2,500 Wood
Frame
$1.18M
Fire Station 263 10 W. Pennsylvania Ave. 1985 3,000 Wood Frame
$1.42M
Fire Station 264
Police Dispatch 1270 W. Park Ave 1984 8,800 Wood
Frame
$4.16M
Emergency Operations Center 1270 West Park Ave 1985 6,200 Concrete Block/
Reinforced
Masonry
$3.0M
Police Annex 30 Cajon Street 20,000
Animal Control 504 N. Kansas St. 750
Joslyn Senior Center 21 Grant St. 8,700
Community Center 111 W. Lugonia Ave. 27,500
Corporate Yard, including
HAZMAT Storage
1270 W. Park Ave 67,400 $3.4M
Henry Tate Water Treatment
Plant
3050 Mill Creek Rd.,
Mentone
N/A $20.0M
Hinkley Surface Water
Treatment Plant
1604 Crafton Ave. 26,614 $20.0M
Highland Ave. Water Complex Highland Ave. N/A $30.0M
Redlands Wastewater
Treatment Facility
1950 N. Nevada St. N/A
City Hall 35 Cajon Street 20,054 $7.82M
Redlands Municipal Airport 1745 Sessums Dr Various Various Wood and Metal
Framed
$103M
San Bernardino International
Airport
1601 E 3rd St #100 1,329
acres
A.K. Smiley Library 125 W Vine St 1898 64,000 $40M
Contemporary Club 173 S Eureka St 4,000 $6M
Power Plant- Redlands 2492 W San Bernardino Ave 1893 $2B Lincoln Shrine 125 W Vine St 1932 3800 $8M
Agate Ave. Reservoir Agate Ave & Salerno Ave
Arroyo Reservoir Arroyo Crest & Smiley
Heights Dr

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
131
Country Club Reservoirs Country Club Dr & Verde
Vista Dr
Crafton College Reservoir Crafton Hills Ridge Cir
Dearborn Reservoir 500 N Dearborn St
Fifth Ave. Reservoir Valencia Dr & King St
Highland Avenue Reservoir Parkford Dr & Marshall St
Margarita Reservoir Margarita Dr & Marilyn ln
Mill Creek Reservoir 3040 Mill Creek Rd
Sand Canyon Reservoir Campus Dr & Sand Canyon
Rd
Smiley Heights Reservoir Smiley Heights Dr & Calle de
Las Palmas
South Ave. Reservoir Sunset Dr & Felisa Ct
Sunset Reservoir 13198 Helen Ct
Texas Grove Reservoir 1660 Texas St
Texas Street Site Reservoir 1321 Texas St
Ward Way Reservoir 1369 Fairview ln
Water Quality Lab 1950 Nevada St
Julian Way Effluent Valve
(Tate) 3050 Mill Creek Rd
Ward Way Valve 2594 Mill Creek Rd
Well 38 11143 Nevada St
24" Highline Transmission
Pipeline Various
Zone 1570 Piping/water
distribution system Various
Zone 1750 Piping/water
distribution system Various
Zone 1900 Piping/water
distribution system Various
University of Redlands
Kaiser Permanente Redlands
Medical
1301 California Street
Redlands Community Hospital 350 Terracina Boulevard
ESRI 380 New York Street 1969
Beaver Medical Group 2 West Fern Avenue
Arroyo Verde Elementary
School)
7701 Church Street,
Highland, CA 92346
1989-
1990
50,911 7,564.68*
Beattie Middle School 7800 Orange St., Highland
CA, 92346
2004 92,310 26,053.12*
Bryn Mawr Elementary School 11680 Whittier Ave., Loma
Linda CA, 92354
1990 63,605 10,806.60*
Citrus Valley High School 800 West Pioneer Ave.,
Redlands, CA, 92374
2009 N/A N/A
Clement Middle School 501 East Pennsylvania Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92374
1961
1964
133,124 20,428.36*
Cope Middle School 1000 West Cypress Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92373
1956-
1957
160,739 25,046.61*
Crafton Elementary School 311 North Wabash Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92374
1936-
1965
69,931 9,224.26*
Cram Elementary School 29700 Water St., Highland 1997 52,814 7,696.27*

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
132
CA, 92346
Franklin Elementary School 850 East Colton Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92374
1955
1969
70,450 11,455.98*
Highland Grove Elementary
School
7700 Orange St., Highland
CA, 92346
2005 46,549 11,375.73*
Judson & Brown Elementary
School
1401 E Pennsylvania Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92374
2006 42,344 13,216.96*
Kimberly Elementary School 301 West South Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92373
1956-
1963
74,670 9,357.75*
Kingsbury Elementary School 600 Cajon St., Redlands CA, 92373
1968 62,205 8,618.97*
Lugonia Elementary School 202 East Pennsylvania Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92374
1955
1963
58,856 9,258.99*
Mariposa Elementary School 30800 Palo Alto Dr.,
Redlands CA, 92373
1964 56,613 7,664.47*
McKinley Elementary School 645 West Olive Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92373
1938
1966
52,529 8,222.37*
Mentone Elementary School 1320 Crafton Ave.,
Mentone CA, 92359
1949 43,566 6,651.36*
Mission Elementary School 10568 California Street,
Redlands, CA 92374
1938,
1965
1970
62,341 11,004.51*
Moore Middle School 1550 East Highland Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92374
1965 144,730 22,765.39*
Orangewood High School
(Continuation)
515 Texas St., Redlands CA,
92374
1940,
1955,
1990
1992
42,142 5,845.34*
Redlands East Valley High
School
31000 East Colton Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92374
1995 326,895 55,068.16*
Redlands High School 840 East Citrus Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92374
1928
1970
393,384 64,529.62*
Smiley Elementary School 1210 West Cypress Ave.,
Redlands CA, 92373
1952,
1963
1980
68,896 9,502.79*
Victoria Elementary School 1505 Richardson St., San
Bernardino CA, 92408
1949
1967
49,264 7,027.26*
Central Administration/
Enrollment Center
7 West Delaware St,
Redlands, CA 92374
1970
1991
11,830 1,744.39*
District Office -North 20 West Lugonia Ave.,
Redlands, CA 92346
1970 30,213 5,793.59*
District Office - South 25 West Lugonia St.,
Redlands, CA 92346
1937
1992
13,979 2,699.90*
Supply Center 250 Church Street,
Redlands, CA 92374
1973 37,192 3,744.82*
Transportation 956 East Citrus Ave.,
Redlands, CA 92374
1929 6,670 527.12*
*- Replacement Value ($1,000)

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
133
Table APP2 Number of Structures on Redlands Unified School District Campuses Name # of Buildings
Permanent Portable
Arroyo Verde Elementary School 24 11
Beattie Middle School 8 3
Bryn Mawr Elementary School 26 11
Citrus Valley High School N/A N/A
Clement Middle School 35 25
Cope Middle School 42 24
Crafton Elementary School 21 12
Cram Elementary School 27 19
Franklin Elementary School 7 2
Highland Grove Elementary School 6 0
Judson & Brown Elementary School 9 0
Kimberly Elementary School 21 13
Kingsbury Elementary School 12 6
Lugonia Elementary School 19 7
Mariposa Elementary School 16 10
McKinley Elementary School 12 6
Mentone Elementary School 26 19
Mission Elementary School 11 6
Moore Middle School 25 15
Orangewood High School (Continuation) 19 8
Redlands East Valley High School 83 69
Redlands High School 83 48
Smiley Elementary School 11 1
Victoria Elementary School 22 12
Central Administration/ Enrollment Center 3 0
District Office -North 4 3
District Office - South 9 5
Supply Center 5 2
Transportation 3 1
TOTAL 592 338

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
134
Appendix 6 List of Significant Earthquakes in California Since 1700 Date Magnitude Name, Location, or Region
Affected
Loss of Life and Property
1700, Jan. 26 9.0 Offshore, somewhere between
Cape Mendocino and Canada
Limited data available, magnitude is an estimate.

Shook northern California, Oregon, Washington,
and southern British Columbia; caused tsunami
damage to villages in Japan and western US
1857, Jan 9 7.9 Great Fort Tejon earthquake 1 dead; damage from Monterey to San Bernardino County
1906, Apr 18 7.8 Great 1906 San Francisco
Earthquake and Fire
3,000 dead; $524 million in property damage
(includes damage from fire)
1838, Jun 7.4 San Francisco to San Juan
Bautista
Limited data available, magnitude is an estimate.

Damage to San Francisco and Santa Clara
1872, Mar 26 7.4 Owens Valley 27 dead; 56 injured; $250,000 in property damage
1980, Nov 8 7.4 West of Eureka 6 injured; $2 million in property damage 1812, Dec 8 7.3 Wrightwood Limited data available, magnitude is an estimate. 40 dead at San Juan Capistrano
1892, Feb 24 7.3 Laguna Salida, Baja California Damage to San Diego and Imperial Valley 1922, Jan 31 7.3 Offshore, about 70 mi W of
Eureka
1952, Jul 21 7.3 Kern County earthquake 12 dead; $60 million in property damage 1954, Dec 16 7.3 Fairview Peak, near Fallon, NV
1992, Jun 28 7.3 Landers 1 dead; 402 injured; $91.1 million in property damage
1923, Jan 22 7.2 Off Cape Mendocino Destructive in Humboldt County; strongly felt in Reno
1932, Dec 21 7.2 Cedar Mountain, near Gabbs,
NV
1992, Apr 25 7.2 Petrolia 356 injured; $48.3 million in property damage 1812, Dec 21 7.1 Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa
Barbara
Limited data available, magnitude is an estimate.
1 dead
1927, Nov 4 7.1 40 km west of Lompoc Damage in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties
1954, Dec 16 7.1 Dixie Valley, near Fallon, NV
1868, Oct 21 7.0 Hayward Fault 30 dead; $350,000 in property damage 1899, Apr 16 7.0 Offshore, about 80 miles west
of Eureka
1934, Dec 31 7.0 In Mexico, about 100 miles SE
of El Centro
1940, May 19 7.0 Imperial Valley 9 dead; $6 million in property damage 1991, Aug 17 7.0 Offshore, about 100 miles NW
of Eureka
Preceded by two quakes (M 6.3 and 6.2) on Aug.
16 and 17
1994, Sep 1 7.0 Offshore, about 70 miles W of
Cape Mendocino
1873, Nov 23 6.9 Crescent City region Damage in California-Oregon border area 1989, Oct 17 6.9 Loma Prieta 63 dead; 3,737 injured; $6 billion in property damage

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
135
1872, Mar 26 6.8 Owens Valley Aftershock of previous entry 1872, Apr 11 6.8 Owens Valley Aftershock of March 26, 1872 quake 1890, Feb 9 6.8 San Jacinto fault? Little damage
1918, Apr 21 6.8 San Jacinto 1 dead; several injuries; $200,000 in property damage
1925, Jun 29 6.8 Santa Barbara 13 dead; $8 million in property damage 1954, Jul 6 6.8 Rainbow Mountain, near
Fallon, NV
1999, Oct 16 7.1 Bullion Mountains (Hector
Mine)
Minimal injuries and damage due to sparse
population in affected area
1954, Aug 24 6.8 Rainbow Mountain, near
Fallon, NV
1976, Nov 26 6.8 Offshore, about 100 mi WNW
of Eureka
1898, Apr 15 6.7 Fort Bragg - Mendocino Limited data available, magnitude is an estimate.

Damage from Fort Bragg to Mendocino; 3
houses collapsed; landslides reported
1899, Dec 25 6.7 San Jacinto and Hemet 6 dead; $50,000 in property damage 1994, Jan 17 6.7 Northridge 57 dead; more than 9,000 injured; about $40 billion in property damage
1892, Apr 19 6.6 Vacaville 1 dead; $225,000 in property damage 1915, Nov 21 6.6 In Mexico, about 60 miles S of
El Centro
1941, Feb 9 6.6 Offshore, about 65 miles W of
Eureka
1954, Dec 21 6.6 East of Arcata 1 dead; several injured; $2.1 million in property damage
1968, Apr 8 6.6 Borrego Mountain
1971, Feb 9 6.6 San Fernando 65 dead; more than 2,000 injured; $505 million in losses
1987, Nov 24 6.6 Superstition Hills part of above damage 1992, Apr 26 6.6 Petrolia Aftershock of the Apr. 25 quake 1992, Apr 26 6.6 Petrolia Another aftershock of Apr. 25 quake 1852, Nov 29 6.5 Near Fort Yuma, Arizona Limited data available, magnitude is an estimate. 1860, Mar 15 6.5 Carson City Limited data available, magnitude is an estimate. 1865, Oct 8 6.5 Santa Cruz Mountains $0.5 million in property damage 1918, Jul 15 6.5 Offshore, about 40 W of Eureka
1934, Jul 6 6.5 Offshore, about 100 mi WNW
of Eureka
1934, Dec 30 6.5 In Mexico, about 40 miles S of
El Centro
1947, Apr 10 6.5 East of Yermo
1956, Feb 9 6.5 In Mexico, about 80 miles SW
of El Centro
1979, Oct 15 6.5 Imperial Valley 9 injured; $30 million in property damage 1992, June 28 6.5 Big Bear Included with Landers losses, above 2003, Dec 22 6.5 San Simeon

LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
136
1836, Jun 10 6.4 Near San Juan Bautista Limited data available, magnitude is estimate.

Older reports reported quake as possibly larger
and centered near Oakland
1898, Mar 31 6.4 Mare Island $350,000 in property damage 1991, Jul 12 6.6 Offshore west of Crescent City
1899, Jul 22 6.4 Wrightwood Chimneys knocked down; landslides reported 1911, Jul 1 6.4 Morgan Hill area
1933, Mar 11 6.4 Long Beach 115 dead; $40 million in property damage 1942, Oct 21 6.4 About 25 miles W of
Westmoreland
1983, May 2 6.4 Coalinga
1986, Jul 21 6.4 Chalfant Valley
1800, Nov 22 6.3 San Diego/San Juan Capistrano
region
Limited data available, magnitude is an estimate.

Damaged adobe walls of missions in San Diego
and San Juan Capistrano
1922, Mar 10 6.3 Parkfield
1995, Feb 19 6.3 Offshore, about 70 miles W of
Cape Mendocino
1980, May 25 6.2 Mammoth Lakes
1984, Apr 24 6.2 Morgan Hill $8 million in property damage 1908, Nov 4 6.0 SW of Death Valley
1948, Dec 4 6.0 East of Yermo
1980, May 25 6.0 Mammoth Lakes
1987, Oct 1 6.0 Whittier Narrows 8 dead; $358 million in property damage to 10,500 homes and businesses
City of Redlands Attachment 3
Water Shortage Contingency Plan 24
Attachment 3
Adoption Resolution
3 City Council AGENDA ITEM NO. K3.

DATE: June 2, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 8785 adopting Part 1, Part 2- Chapter 4, Part 3 and Part 4- Appendix D of the 2025 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director Heredia)
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING:

1. Mayor declares the meeting open as a public hearing.

2. Mayor calls upon Department Director for report.

3. Mayor calls for questions/comments from members of the City Council.

4. Mayor calls for comments/questions/testimony from members of the public (3 minutes per speaker)

5. Mayor calls upon City Clerk to note any written comments received.

6. Mayor closes the public hearing.

7. City Council considers the motion and votes.

MOTION:

If the City Council determines that staff's recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 8785
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends City Council adopt Resolution No. 8785, and determine that this action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act.

DISCUSSION:

Every five (5) years, the City is required to develop an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The Act states that "every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers, or that provides more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, should make every effort to ensure an appropriate level of reliability in its water service area sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years." The plan must be formally adopted by City Council and submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) no later than July 1, 2026. In 2025, regional agencies located within the Bunker Hill basin began developing a regional UWMP, rather than individual agency UWMPs. This approach benefits all agencies involved by consolidating UWMP development efforts, which reduces costs for each agency.

The City of Redlands and regional water suppliers developed individual chapters as required by DWR reporting requirements into a single comprehensive planning document known as the 2025 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (Plan). Resolution No. 8785 adopts Part 1, Part 2- Chapter 4, Part 3, and Part 4- Appendix D of the Plan. Part 1 and Part 3 include regional context and supporting information. Part 2 and Part 4 include individual agency UWMPs and supporting information. Adoption of these specific portions of the UWMP allows future amendments by individual agencies without the need for all agencies to adopt an entirely new Plan.

Adoption of Resolution No. 8785 is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act as it has no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may choose to deny adoption of Resolution No. 8785; however, elements of the Plan included in adoption of the resolutions are mandated by the State.

SUBMITTED BY:

Monica Heredia, Municipal Utilities and Engineering Director RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Janice McConnell, Assistant City Manager
James Garland, Interim Management Services/Finance Director PREPARED BY:

Paul Mariscal, Water Utility Manager

FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal Year: FY 2025/26
Revenue Generating: No
Amount: N/A
Budgeted Y/N: N/A
Account No.: N/A
Additional Appropriation Required: No
Discussion:

There is no direct fiscal impact.

Attachments
RUWMP_Resolution_No_8785.pdf
Part_1-_SBV_2025_Regional_UWMP_ES_Public_Draft.pdf
Part_1-_SBV_2025_RUWMP-_Part_1_Regional_Context-_Public_Draft.pdf Part_2-_Redlands-_UWMP-_Public_Draft.pdf
Part_3_-_RUWMP-_Regional_Supporting_Information-_Public_Draft.pdf Part_4-_Appendix_D-_Redlands-_Public_Draft.pdf
1 I:\cmo\Resolutions\RUWMP Resolution No. 8785.bm.05.18.2026.docx RESOLUTION NO. 8785

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS ADOPTING THE 2025 UPPER SANTA ANA RIVER WATERSHED

REGIONAL URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Redlands and other water managers in the upper Santa AnaRiver watershed have long recognized the importance of regional collaboration and integration of single purpose efforts and regularly work across jurisdictional boundaries to implement regional multibenefit projects and programs that address multiple water resource management issues, including local and imported water supplies, recycled water, storm water management, groundwater management, water use efficiency, habitat and open space management, and many others; and WHEREAS, The California Urban Water Management Planning Act, Water Code Section 10610 et seq. (“UWMP Act”), mandates that every urban supplier of water providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (“UWMP”); and WHEREAS, City of Redlands meets the definition of an urban water supplier for purposes of the UWMP Act; and
WHEREAS, the UWMP Act requires that said UWMP be updated and adopted at least once every five years on or before July 1, in years ending in six and one; and WHEREAS, the UWMP Act allows for water suppliers to work together to develop a cooperative regional UWMP and in 2010, 2015, and 2020, the San Bernardino Valley Regional UWMP (RUWMP) was prepared collaboratively by multiple water suppliers to collectively meet the requirements of the UMWP Act; and
WHEREAS, the 2025 RUWMP document is organized into four parts: Part 1 – Regional Context, Part 2 – Individual Agency UWMPs, Part 3 – Regional Supporting Information and Part 4 – Individual Agency Supporting Information; and
WHEREAS, as a participant in the 2025 RUWMP, the City of Redlands has prepared those portions of the RUWMP applicable to the City of Redlands to meet the requirements of the UWMP Act and other applicable laws and regulations, which include Part 1, Part 2 Chapter 4: City of Redlands UWMP, Part 3, and Part 4 Appendix D: City of Redlands Supporting Information; and WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable legal requirements, the City of Redlands has undertaken certain coordination, notice, public involvement, public comment, and other procedures in relation to the 2025 RUWMP; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the UWMP Act, The City of Redlands has prepared the 2025 RUWMP with staff from its own agency, with the assistance of consulting professionals, and in cooperation with other governmental agencies, and has utilized and relied upon industry standards and the expertise of industry professionals in preparing its 2025 RUWMP, and has also utilized the DWR Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers to Prepare 2025 Urban Water 2 I:\cmo\Resolutions\RUWMP Resolution No. 8785.bm.05.18.2026.docx Management Plans; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, a Notice of a Public Hearing regarding the City of Redlands’ adoption of Part 1, Part 2-Chapter 4, Part 3 and Part 4-Appendix D of the 2025 RUWMP was published within the jurisdiction of the City of Redlands on April 10, 2026, and April 17, 2026; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, including but not limited to Water Code sections 10608.26 and 10642, a public hearing was held on June 2, 2026, at 6:00 P.M., or soon thereafter, in order to provide members of the public and other interested entities with the opportunity to be heard in connection with proposed adoption of the 2025 RUWMP and issues related thereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said public hearing on the 2025 RUWMP, the City of Redlands, among other things, encouraged the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic members of the community within the City of Redlands’ service area with regard to the preparation of the Plan, and encouraged community input regarding the 2025 RUWMP; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the purposes and requirements of the UWMP Act, the contents of the 2025 RUWMP, and the documentation contained in the administrative record in support of the 2025 RUWMP, and has determined that the factual analyses and conclusions set forth in the 2025 RUWMP are legally sufficient; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt Part 1, Part 2 Chapter 4, Part 3 and Part 4, Appendix D of the 2025 RUWMP in order to comply with the UWMP Act.

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

Section 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from review and under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that this Urban Water Management Plan will have no significant impact on the environment.

Section 2. Part 1, Part 2-Chapter 4, Part 3 and Part 4-Appendix D of the 2025 RUWMP is hereby adopted as amended by changes incorporated by the City Council as a result of input received (if any) at the public hearing and ordered filed with the Clerk of the City Council.

Section 3. The Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department Director (“MUED Director”) is hereby authorized and directed to include a copy of this Resolution in the 2025 RUWMP.

Section 4. The MUED Director is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with Water Code sections 10621(d) and 10644(a)(1)-(2), to electronically submit a copy of the City of Redlands’ portions of the 2025 RUWMP to DWR no later than July 1, 2026.

Section 5. The MUED Director is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with 3 I:\cmo\Resolutions\RUWMP Resolution No. 8785.bm.05.18.2026.docx Water Code section 10644(a), to submit a copy of the 2025 RUWMP to the California State Library, and any city or county within which the City of Redlands provides water supplies no later than thirty (30) days after this adoption date.

Section 6. The MUED Director is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with Water Code section 10645, to make the 2025 RUWMP available for public review at the City of Redlands’ offices during normal business hours and on the City of Redlands’ website no later than thirty (30) days after filing a copy of the 2025 RUWMP with DWR.

Section 7. The MUED Director is hereby authorized and directed, in accordance with Water Code Section 10635(b), to provide that portion of the 2025 RUWMP prepared pursuant to Water Code Section 10635(a) to any city or county within which The City of Redlands provides water supplies no later than thirty (30) days after submitting a copy to DWR; Section 8. The MUED Director is hereby authorized and directed to implement the 2025 RUWMP in accordance with the UWMP Act and to provide recommendations to the City Council regarding the necessary budgets, procedures, rules, regulations, or further actions to carry out the effective and equitable implementation of the 2025 RUWMP in collaboration with the regional partners.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 2nd of June, 2026.
________________________
Mario Saucedo, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
4 I:\cmo\Resolutions\RUWMP Resolution No. 8785.bm.05.18.2026.docx I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of June, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
2025 San Bernardino Valley
Regional Urban Water
Management Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Executive Summary
2025 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan Due to the dedicated and collaborative efforts of the regional water managers, water resources in the San Bernardino Valley continue to support thriving communities and are vital to protect and enhance natural resources. Water supply reliability over the next 25 years continues to remain strong and will be able to withstand uncertainties, including extended drought conditions.

The 2025 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP or Plan) was prepared as a collaborative effort by nine Participating Agencies: San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, City of Colton, City of Loma Linda, City of Redlands, City of Rialto, City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, Riverside Highland Water Company, South Mesa Water Company, and West Valley Water District.
2 Purpose of the Plan
The California Water Code requires urban water suppliers within the state to prepare and adopt Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) for submission to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every 5 years. A UWMP describes water supply planning for a 25-year planning period in five-year increments and identifies water supplies needed to meet existing and future demands. The demand analysis identifies supply reliability under three hydrologic or rainfall conditions: an average (or normal) year, a single-dry year, and multiple-dry years.

A UWMP is intended to function as a planning tool to guide broad-perspective decision making by water supply managers. It is a long-term, general planning document, rather than an exact blueprint for supply and demand management. Water management in California is not a matter of certainty, and planning projections may change in response to a number of factors. The long term perspective provided by a UWMP supports decisions by water managers to invest in feasible and cost-effective options and opportunities to maintain water supply reliability into the future.

This UWMP addresses several planning objectives, including:

1. Identification of the potential sources of water supply and the reasonable amount of supply available from each source.

2. Estimation of probable water demand based on a reasonable set of assumptions regarding growth and the implementation of good water management practices.

3. Evaluation of how current and future water supply and demand compare, based on the supplies anticipated to be pursued.

3 Regional Collaboration
Beginning with the 2010 UWMP cycle, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (San Bernardino Valley), the region’s wholesale water supplier, and several retail water agencies in the region have collaborated to prepare a San Bernardino Valley Regional UWMP (RUWMP) that addresses the entire San Bernardino Valley service area (Region).

The purpose of jointly preparing the RUWMP is to facilitate a consistent evaluation of water sources common to the various agencies, to take advantage of group knowledge and experience, and to reduce collective preparation costs. The unique document structure of the RUWMP preserves each agency’s ability to independently convey unique water management considerations for their service area while leveraging the regional information and activities that are applicable to all.

In addition to the Participating Agencies, this RUWMP incorporates data from other agencies within the San Bernardino Valley that rely wholly or partially on the shared water resources analyzed in this Plan. While these agencies are not signatories to this RUWMP, their water demands and associated supply needs are included to accurately evaluate regional water supply reliability through 2050.

Key Takeaways
• Coordinated regional planning: Since 2010, San Bernardino Valley and regional retailers have jointly prepared a Regional UWMP to consistently evaluate shared water resources and reduce planning costs. • Local flexibility with regional consistency: The RUWMP structure supports agency‑specific planning while relying on common regional analyses and data.
• Complete view of shared water demands: The Plan includes demands from both participating and non‑signatory agencies to accurately assess regional water supply reliability through 2050.
4 Service Area
San Bernardino Valley and eight retail water agencies collaborated to produce this 2025 RUWMP spanning the San Bernardino Valley service area.

The Region encompasses more than 350 square miles and includes a vast metropolitan area that is home to approximately 725,000 residents and a robust and diverse economy.

RIALTO

RIVERSIDE
SAN

BERNARDINO

YUCAIPA

REDLANDS
Santa Ana
River
Seven Oaks
Dam
15 60
10 215
210
Riverside
Narrows
COLTON
LOMA
LINDA
Recharge Basins
San Bernardino Valley Service Area
Upper Santa Ana River Watershed
0 1 2 4
Miles
0 10,000 20,000
Feet
N
5 Organization of the Plan
The organization of the 2025 RUWMP is depicted below.

Each Participating Agency adopted the Regional Context and Supporting Information, Parts 1 and 3, and their respective chapters and appendices of Parts 2 and 4.

Regional Context
Part 1 contains the
information needed to
meet a portion of the
UWMP Act requirements
for the local agencies
who are using this Plan to
meet their 2025 UWMP
Requirements.

1. Introduction

2. Region Description

3. Regional Water
Sources and
Management

4. Regional Water Use

5. Comparison of
Regional
Supplies and Demands

CONTENTS
2025 San Bernardino Valley
Regional Urban Water Management Plan
Part I: Regional Context
Local Agency
UWMPs
Part 2 provides
supplemental
information for the
nine local agencies who
are using this Plan to
meet their 2025 UWMP
requirements.

1. San Bernardino
Valley
Municipal Water
District

2. City of Colton

3. City of Loma Linda

4. City of Redlands

5. City of Rialto

6. Riverside Highland
Water Company

7. San Bernardino
Municipal Water
Department

8. South Mesa Water
Company

9. West Valley Water
District
2025 Urban Water
Management Plan
Public Draft
Part 2 Chapter 9
APRIL 2026 WEST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Regional Supporting
Information
Part 3 includes all
of the supporting
documentation
referenced in Part 1
that is applicable to the
region as well as the
regulatory compliance
guide that DWR will
use to verify that Part 1
meets requirements.
2020 IRUWMP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
PA R T 3 : R E G I O N A L 2025 SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Photo Credit: San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District

SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY

REGIONAL URBAN

WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
UWMP Agency
Supporting
Information
Part 4 includes a set of
supporting documentation
for each Participating
Agency corresponding to
their respective chapters
in Part 2. Documents will
include the regulatory
compliance guide that
DWR will use to verify the
agency has met the UWMP
Act requirements, the
agency’s Water Shortage
Contingency Plan and
other documents specific
to each agency.
2020 IRUWMP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
PA R T 4 : U WM P A G E N C Y

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY
2025

REGIONAL URBAN

WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Photo Credit: San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District

CONTENTS
6 Outreach and Engagement
Management of water resources in the Region takes place within a complex legal and institutional framework. Development of this RUWMP involved the cooperation of many parties engaged in regional water management as well as the public.

In accordance with the UWMP Act, the Participating Agencies issued a Notice of Plan Preparation to cities and counties, as well as other entities in the region, engaged in water management on March 3, 2026, more than 60 days prior to the public hearings. This notice informed stakeholders that the 2025 RUWMP was being prepared and invited input.

The Participating Agencies encouraged public participation in the preparation of this Plan to incorporate public feedback on water management and reliability in the Region. Public comments on the draft RUWMP were invited via email announcements, website postings and newspaper notices, and during the public hearing prior to each Participating Agency adopting the RUWMP.

In addition, two workshops with the
Participating Agencies were conducted to
align the approach for RUWMP preparation
and to review the results of the regional
water supply and demand analysis. Direct
engagement with non-participating agencies
who rely wholly or partially on the shared
water resources was conducted to share
information and promote consistency with
individual retail agency UWMPs that are not
part of this RUWMP.

Key Takeaways
• Developed with regional partners
and public input.
• Notice of Plan Preparation sent
more than 60 days before hearings.
• Comments gathered via email, web,
newspaper, and public hearings.
• Two workshops aligned approach and
reviewed supply/demand results.
7 Regional Growth
The Region has experienced rapid growth in the past, adding approximately 8,000 people each year from 1990 to 2010. Growth slowed from 2010 to 2020 and is projected to continue at a more moderate rate than previously projected, according to the recent growth forecast developed by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the 2024 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan (2024 RTP).

SCAG’s 2024 population growth projections have declined from the last Connect SoCal RTP in 2020 due to ongoing economic impacts of COVID-19, pandemic-related death increases, increasingly negative net domestic migration, decline in births, and near-zero level of foreign immigration. SCAG’s 2024 update uses a 2019 base year and incorporates a broader data range from 2016 to 2022, capturing key post-COVID shifts in population, employment, and household trends.

Figure ES-1: Population Projection for the San Bernardino Valley Service Area 8 While the 2024 SCAG RTP projects
slower growth, the population
within the San Bernardino Valley
service area is expected to grow
by about 140,000 by 2050 from a
2020 Census value of 709,858. By
2050, the San Bernardino Valley
service area is expected to have
a population of approximately
847,000 people.

Key Takeaways
• The Region grew rapidly from 1990 to 2010,
then slowed from 2010 to 2020. Future
growth is projected to remain moderate.
• SCAG’s 2024 projections are lower than the
2020 RTP, reflecting post‑COVID shifts
• Despite slower growth, the service area
population is still projected to rise by
approximatley 140,000 by 2050.
9 Figure ES-2: Regional Demand Projections for Regional Supplies in the RUWMP Regional Demand
As a result of slower projected population growth, and continued gains in water use efficiency, the total demand projections in this RUWMP are also slightly lower than the projections from 2020, totaling approximately 209,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) by 2050, including demands for potable water, recycled water and non-potable groundwater.

These totals include demands from all entities within the San Bernardino Valley that rely wholly or partially on the shared water resources analyzed in this RUWMP. For agencies who rely only partially on supplies evaluated in the Plan, the demand projection only includes their use of Regional supplies analyzed in this Plan to ensure a consistent comparison of supplies and demands.
10 Figure ES-3: San Bernardino Basin Precipitation Index Regional Climate
Climate in the Region is characterized by
relatively hot, dry summers and cool winters
with intermittent precipitation. The historical
record indicates that periods of below-average
precipitation can last more than 30 years, such
as the dry period that extended from 1939 to
1969. The Region has been experiencing an
ongoing drought since 1999, indicated by a
long term downward trend in the Precipitation
Index, except for a few wet years.
11 Regional Water Sources
The Region’s diverse water supplies support the regional economy, environment and quality of life.

Securing a reliable water supply is the primary mission of San Bernardino Valley and the Participating Agencies. The Region relies on a diversified portfolio of water supplies to meet the needs of its residential, commercial, and institutional customers. The Region’s water supply portfolio consists of imported water, local groundwater, local surface water and recycled water.

CHINO
RIVERSIDEARLINGTON
RIALTOCOLTON
SAN

BERNARDINO

YUCAIPA
SAN

TIMOTEO
Santa Ana
River
Seven Oaks
Dam
15 60
10 215
210
Riverside
Narrows
Sterling Natural
Resource Center
Water Treatment Plant
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Recharge Basins
Groundwater Basins
San Bernardino Valley Service Area
Upper Santa Ana River Watershed
0 1 2 4
Miles
0 10,000 20,000
Feet
N
12 Imported Water
San Bernardino Valley’s imported water comes
from the State Water Project (SWP). San Bernardino
Valley is the fifth largest State Water Contractor,
with a maximum annual entitlement of 102,600
acre foot (AF). However, the amount of SWP water
delivered in a given year depends on a number
of factors, including the demand for the supply,
amount of rainfall, snowpack, runoff, water in
storage, pumping capacity from the Delta, and
legal/regulatory constraints on SWP operation.

Regulatory and environmental constraints have
changed over time, becoming more restrictive and
impacting SWP availability. According to modeling projections provided in the DWR 2025 SWP Delivery Capability Report (DCR), future long-term average SWP deliveries are expected to be 54% of total allocations under current conditions and 46% under 2043 conditions, when accounting for the impacts of climate change. During very dry years, allocations have been as low as 5%, which occurred in 2014, 2021 and 2022. During a 5-year drought, allocations are expected to average 15% over that period.

However, during wet years, a much larger portion of the allocation is available; this Plan is based on 83% for a wet year, but in 2023, SWP allocations reached the full 100%.

Due to the broad range of SWP supply availability in different year types, storage is a fundamental component of regional water management that enables the Region to maximize beneficial use of SWP supplies when they are available and store them for use in future droughts. Local groundwater basins have over 10 million AF of total storage capacity to support optimization of SWP supplies.

Sites Reservoir
The Sites Reservoir Project
is a proposed 1.5 million
AF water storage project in
northern California that would
capture extra water from the
Sacramento River and store it
in a large off stream reservoir
for use during dry years. San
Bernardino Valley is one of the
proponents of Sites Reservoir
and would receive a share of
the water during average and
drier years, with a long term
average of 11,200 AFY.
13 Local Surface Water
Local surface water is diverted from
the Santa Ana River and two of its
tributaries — Mill Creek and Lytle Creek
— and either treated for potable use,
delivered as non-potable irrigation
water, or routed into spreading basins
for groundwater recharge.

Surface water flows can be highly
variable from year to year. When
surface water flows are low, retail
agencies shift their supply strategy to
use groundwater and/or SWP water
instead of local surface water. During
wet periods when local surface water
flows are high, retail agencies typically
prioritize this supply, and excess flows
are captured for recharge to maximize
local storage for use in future dry years.

Enhanced Recharge
In 2025, San Bernardino Valley,
in partnership with Western
Municipal Water District,
Riverside Public Utilities, and
San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District, proudly
marked the completion of the
Santa Ana River Enhanced
Recharge Phase 1B Project, which
will allow up to 80,000 AF of local
stormwater per year during wet
years to be captured and stored
in the local aquifer, creating a
critical supply of groundwater for
future drought years.
14 Groundwater
Local groundwater provides about
80% of the supply for Participating
Agencies in an average year. All of the
Region’s groundwater is produced from
four distinct groundwater basins: San
Bernardino, Rialto-Colton, RiversideArlington, and Yucaipa. Together, these four basins provide over 140,000 AFY
of annual supply and a total of 10
million AF of local storage capacity. The
Region's primary drought resilience
strategy is to recharge water into these
basins when it is available to provide
stored water for use in dry years.

Key Takeaways
• The Region has a diverse portfolio of
imported water, groundwater, local
surface water, and recycled water.
• Groundwater provides
approximately 80% of the Region's
supply in an average year and 10
million AF of local groundwater
storage capacity provides a critical
resource for drought resilience.
• Local surface water and imported
water supplies are highly variable
but can be captured and recharged,
along with recycled water, to
increase local groundwater storage
for use during dry years.
15 Recycled Water
The development and use of recycled
water is another important water
supply strategy for the Region.

Recycled water supply is highly reliable
because wastewater flows to treatment
plants remain relatively constant
during dry hydrologic conditions. For
this reason, recycled water is often
considered a drought-proof supply.

Some of the retail agencies in the
Region provide recycled water to their
customers for non-potable uses, such
as irrigation and industrial cooling
water. The Region also recently began
recharging recycled water into the
San Bernardino Basin to increase
groundwater storage. The agencies
in the Region plan to expand recycled
water use in the future, both for
non-potable uses and groundwater
recharge, to increase long- term
regional water supply reliability and
drought resilience.

Regional Recycled Water System
In 2024, the first phase of the
Regional Recycled Water System
was completed when highly
treated water from East Valley
Water District’s Sterling Natural
Resource Center began recharging
the San Bernardino Basin at the
newly constructed Weaver Basins
to store local water for future use.
16 Water Supply Reliability
Every urban water supplier is required to assess the reliability of its water service under normal year, single-dry year, and multipledry year hydrologic conditions. Multiple factors can impact supply reliability, including legal, environmental, water quality, and climatic factors. These factors can result in immediate, near-term, or long-term impacts to reliability and must be considered in future planning.

The Region’s ongoing efforts to maximize capture of supplies in wet years for later use in dry years is the most important step toward improving the long term reliability of supplies. In addition to the core supplies included in the supply reliability analysis, the Region continues to invest in additional supply and storage projects to improve long term resilience and supply reliability,
including ongoing and expanded recharge
of recycled water, imported water, and
local stormwater. By 2050, these collective
investments in recharge are projected to
contribute over 60,000 AF of additional
groundwater storage each year, on average.

Key Takeaways
• Reliability is assessed for normal,
single‑dry, and multiple‑dry (5‑dry)
years.
• The Region improves reliability by
storing water in wet years through
groundwater recharge.
• The Region projects sufficient
supplies under normal, single‑dry,
and 5‑dry conditions, with no
anticipated shortages over the next
25 years.
17 Imported Water Reliability
Of the supplies in the San Bernardino Valley service area, imported water has the highest sensitivity to hydrologic conditions and is subject to reduced availability due to drought, environmental factors, and climate change. These projected supply impacts are included in this analysis and have the potential to limit the amount of water available for groundwater recharge over time, with the impacts being essentially the same in single dry and 5-dry year periods. However, the implementation of the planned Sites Reservoir, which is incorporated into this analysis beginning in 2040, would significantly increase dry year imported water supplies to offset the impacts of SWP reductions.

Local Water Reliability
Groundwater in the local basins can be considered drought resistant, as long as sufficient water is stored during wet periods for use during dry periods, which is the Region’s core water management strategy. Although local surface water is reduced during drought, it is included in the safe yield of the San Bernardino Basin, so it is not evaluated separately in this analysis.

Recycled water is similarly drought resistant, and available recycled water supplies exceed planned uses. Therefore, groundwater and recycled water are assumed to have the same yield in normal year, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year drought scenarios.

Long Term Supply Reliability
As shown in Figure ES-4 (Normal Year Supply and Demand Balance) and Figure ES-5 (Single Dry and 5-Dry Year Supply and Demand Balance) on the next page, the Region projects to have sufficient supplies to meet demands under normal year supply and demand conditions as well as single-dry year and 5-dry year conditions, with a surplus in all years types. 18 Due to long standing and ongoing collaborative efforts of the regional water managers, water resources in the San Bernardino Valley continue to be reliable, with no anticipated shortages in the next 25 years, including during extended drought conditions.

Figure ES-5: Single Dry and 5-Dry Year Supply and Demand Balance (AFY) Figure ES-4: Normal Year Supply and Demand Balance (AFY) 19 Water Efficiency and
Conservation
The Region has invested in expanding and optimizing local water resources to improve enhance long term water supply reliability for its residents. At the same time, the Region continues to advance water use efficiency and conservation programs that have meaningfully reduced per-capita demand and strengthened long-term supply reliability.

These conservation efforts are a core component of the Region’s resource management strategy and help maximize the value of available supplies.

Since 2005, there have been several regulatory changes related to conservation, including new standards for plumbing fixtures, a new landscape ordinance, a state universal retrofit ordinance, metering and billing requirements, new green building standards, demand reduction goals and permanent State-mandated restrictions that were implemented in response to the most recent statewide drought.

Each of the eight participating retail agencies maintain conservation programs to reduce water waste and manage customer demand and San Bernardino Valley provides support at a regional level. These proactive conservation programs, in conjunction with passive conservation due to changes in codes and ordinances, have resulted in significant reductions in retail water use within the Region.
20 The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-
7) required a 20% reduction in urban per
capita water use in California by December
31, 2020 (20 by 2020). The bill required
each urban retail water supplier to determine
their baseline per capita water use (gallons
per capita per day or gpcd), develop an urban
water use target for year 2020 and set a 2015
interim urban water use target. Each of the
agencies participating in this Plan met their
2020 targets, and some have continued to
reduce their per capita water demand beyond
the 2020 target. These reductions in per capita water use essentially expand the water supply for the Region by reducing use of regional supplies to meet existing demands.

Going forward, retail suppliers continue to improve water use efficiency and align with the State’s urban water use management strategy (Making Conservation a California Way of Life), the result of two 2018 policy bills enacted by the California Legislature (SB 606 and AB 1668).

Figure ES-6: SB X7-7 Compliance and Water Use Efficiency Improvements Key Takeaways
• The Region’s conservation programs
have reduced per‑capita demand
and strengthened long‑term supply
reliability
• Under SB X7‑7, agencies exceeded
the required 20% per‑capita
reduction by 2020, and the Region
continues to align with “Making
Conservation a California Way of
Life” requirements.
21 Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
The Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) is a strategic plan that the participating agencies use to prepare for and respond to foreseeable and unforeseeable water shortages.

Although the Plan demonstrates the Region’s strong long term supply reliability, agencies must still plan for potential short term shortages. A shortage may occur due to several reasons, such as water supply quality changes, climate change, drought, regional power outage, and catastrophic events (e.g., earthquake). Additionally, the State may declare a statewide drought emergency and mandate that water suppliers reduce demands, as occurred in 2014 and 2022. Each agency’s WSCP serves as an operating manual that it will use to prevent catastrophic service disruptions through proactive, rather than reactive, mitigation of water shortages. Each WSCP provides a process for an annual water supply and demand assessment and structured steps designed to respond to actual conditions.

Although the water agencies in the Region do not foresee implementing water shortage levels under normal conditions, this level of detailed planning and preparation provide accountability and predictability and help the Region’s water agencies maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of any supply shortages and/or interruptions. 22 23
2025 San Bernardino Valley
Regional Urban Water Management Plan
Part I: Regional Context

SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY
2025 RUWMP
Part 1: Regional Context
APRIL 2026
Prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc
With support from Blua Consulting
Table of Contents
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................vi List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... viii Acronyms & Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................x

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

1.1 Background and Purpose.......................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Regional UWMP ................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1.2 Integrated Regional Water Management and Other Regional Planning ............. 1-3

1.2 Plan Organization ..................................................................................................... 1-4

1.3 Plan Preparation and Coordination ........................................................................... 1-6

1.4 Plan Adoption ........................................................................................................... 1-8

2.0 Region Description ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Location.................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 Water Agencies in the Region................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.1 2025 RUWMP Participating Agencies................................................................ 2-6

2.2.1.1 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (San Bernardino Valley).... 2-6

2.2.1.2 City of Colton .............................................................................................. 2-7

2.2.1.3 City of Loma Linda...................................................................................... 2-7

2.2.1.4 City of Redlands ......................................................................................... 2-7

2.2.1.5 City of Rialto ............................................................................................... 2-8

2.2.1.6 Riverside Highland Water Company ........................................................... 2-8

2.2.1.7 San Bernardino Municipal Water Department ............................................. 2-8

2.2.1.8 South Mesa Water Company ...................................................................... 2-9

2.2.1.9 West Valley Water District........................................................................... 2-9

2.2.2 Other Regional Water Suppliers......................................................................... 2-9

2.3 Population and Demographics ................................................................................ 2-11

2.3.1 Historic Population and Projected Growth in the Region .................................. 2-11

2.3.2 Future Population Projections in the Plan Area................................................ 2-12

2.3.3 Economic Condition and Social and Cultural Composition of the Region ......... 2-15

2.4 Land Uses .............................................................................................................. 2-17

2.5 Regional Climate .................................................................................................... 2-19

2.5.1 Current Regional Climate................................................................................. 2-19 Table of Contents
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | iii

2.5.2 Potential Effects of Climate Change................................................................. 2-20

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management .................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Imported Water......................................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.1 SWP Overview................................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.2 Imported Water Supply Reliability ...................................................................... 3-5

3.1.2.1 Normal Year and Long-Term State Water Project Availability ..................... 3-6

3.1.2.2 Dry Year, Multiple Dry Year, and Wet Year State Water Project Availability 3-8

3.1.3 Sites Reservoir and Delta Conveyance Project................................................ 3-10

3.1.4 General Imported Water Strategy .................................................................... 3-11

3.2 Groundwater........................................................................................................... 3-13

3.2.1 Regional Groundwater and Surface Water Management ................................. 3-13

3.2.1.1 Western Judgement & Orange County Judgment ..................................... 3-13

3.2.1.2 Seven Oaks Accord .................................................................................. 3-17

3.2.1.3 Annual Regional Water Management Plan and Cooperative Recharge .... 3-17

3.2.2 San Bernardino Basin...................................................................................... 3-18

3.2.2.1 Lytle Creek Sub basin............................................................................... 3-18

3.2.3 Rialto-Colton Sub basin ................................................................................... 3-20

3.2.4 Riverside-Arlington Sub basin.......................................................................... 3-25

3.2.5 Yucaipa Sub basin........................................................................................... 3-25

3.2.6 San Timoteo Sub basin.................................................................................... 3-26

3.2.6.1 Beaumont Groundwater Basin .................................................................. 3-29

3.2.7 Recharge Area Programs ................................................................................ 3-30

3.3 Surface Water......................................................................................................... 3-33

3.4 Stormwater ............................................................................................................. 3-34

3.5 Recycled Water ...................................................................................................... 3-35

3.5.1 Wastewater...................................................................................................... 3-35

3.5.2 Recycled Water Programs ............................................................................... 3-37

3.5.2.1 Regional Recycled Water System............................................................. 3-37

3.5.2.2 Recycled Water Use for Redlands ............................................................ 3-38

3.5.2.3 Recycled Water Use for City of Rialto ....................................................... 3-39

3.6 Transfers and Exchanges ....................................................................................... 3-40

3.6.1 Transfers and Exchanges ................................................................................ 3-40

3.6.1.1 Exchange Plan.......................................................................................... 3-40

3.6.1.2 Metropolitan Coordinated Operating Agreement....................................... 3-40

3.7 Groundwater Banking Programs............................................................................. 3-41

3.7.1 SARCCUP and BHCUP................................................................................... 3-41 Table of Contents
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | iv

3.8 Development of Desalination .................................................................................. 3-41

3.8.1 Opportunities for Brackish Water and/or Groundwater Desalination................. 3-41

3.8.2 Opportunities for Seawater Desalination.......................................................... 3-42

3.9 Water Quality.......................................................................................................... 3-42

3.9.1 Imported Water Quality .................................................................................... 3-42

3.9.2 Groundwater Quality........................................................................................ 3-43

3.9.2.1 Ambient Water Quality .............................................................................. 3-43

3.9.2.2 Groundwater Plumes ................................................................................ 3-48

3.9.3 Surface Water Quality...................................................................................... 3-51

3.9.4 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan ................................................................ 3-54

3.9.5 Water Quality Impacts on Supply Reliability..................................................... 3-55

3.10 Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs.................................................... 3-58

3.10.1 Recycled Water ............................................................................................... 3-58

3.10.2 Groundwater Recharge.................................................................................... 3-58

3.10.2.1 Santa Ana River Tributary Active Recharge Projects and Program for Expansion of Recharge Capacity (PERC) Projects..................................................... 3-58

3.10.2.2 Santa Ana River Enhanced Recharge Project .......................................... 3-59

3.10.2.3 Cactus Basin Recharge ............................................................................ 3-60

3.10.2.4 Riverside North Aquifer Storage and Recovery......................................... 3-60

4.0 Regional Water Use ..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Total Regional Water Demand.................................................................................. 4-2

4.2 Demands for Local Groundwater and Surface Water Supplies ................................. 4-5

4.2.1 San Bernardino Basin........................................................................................ 4-5

4.2.2 Rialto-Colton Basin .......................................................................................... 4-10

4.2.3 Riverside North Basin ...................................................................................... 4-11

4.2.4 Yucaipa Basin.................................................................................................. 4-12

4.3 Demands for Imported Water.................................................................................. 4-13

4.3.1 Direct Deliveries............................................................................................... 4-13

4.3.2 In-Lieu Deliveries ............................................................................................. 4-13

4.3.3 Groundwater Recharge.................................................................................... 4-14

4.3.4 Total Imported Water Demands ....................................................................... 4-14

4.4 Demands for Recycled Water ................................................................................. 4-14

4.5 Water Use Efficiency............................................................................................... 4-15

4.5.1 Reducing Per Capita Water Use ...................................................................... 4-15

4.5.2 New Water Conservation Legislation ............................................................... 4-16

4.5.2.1 Water Loss ............................................................................................... 4-17 Table of Contents
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | v

4.5.3 Regional Demand Management Measures ...................................................... 4-18

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands.......................................................... 5-1

5.1 Water Supply Reliability ............................................................................................ 5-2

5.1.1 Imported Water Supply Reliability ...................................................................... 5-2

5.1.1.1 Dry Year Direct Delivery Reductions........................................................... 5-4

5.1.1.2 Imported Water Recharge........................................................................... 5-5

5.1.2 Local Water Supply Reliability............................................................................ 5-7

5.2 Summary of Regional Supplies and Demands .......................................................... 5-8

5.2.1 Normal Year ...................................................................................................... 5-8

5.2.2 Single Dry Year................................................................................................ 5-12

5.2.3 5-Year Drought ................................................................................................ 5-14

5.2.4 Long-Term Drought.......................................................................................... 5-15 References ................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Figures
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Upper Santa Ana River Watershed and RUWMP Boundary ................................. 2-4 Figure 2-2: Water Management Agencies in the Region ......................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3: San Bernardino Valley Service Area Historic Census Population, 1990-2020 ..... 2-11 Figure 2-4: Population Projection for the San Bernardino Valley Service Area with Local Agency Input (Official) ....................................................................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2-5: Land Use within the Region ................................................................................ 2-18 Figure 2-6: San Bernardino Basin Precipitation Index ........................................................... 2-19 Figure 3-1: Modeled SWP Table A Availability for Dry Year, Six Consecutive Dry Years, Wet Year, Based on Historical Hydrologic Data and Existing Conditions...................................... 3-10 Figure 3-2: Groundwater Basins of the Region...................................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-3: Rialto Decree % Adjustable Pumping Rights Reductions .................................... 3-23 Figure 3-4: Yucaipa Basin Groundwater Management Zones ............................................... 3-26 Figure 3-5: San Timoteo Subbasin Management Areas ........................................................ 3-29 Figure 3-6: Groundwater Recharge Basins, from San Bernardino Basin Context Summary (WSC, 2024)......................................................................................................................... 3-32 Figure 3-7: Regional Recycled Water Facilities ..................................................................... 3-38 Figure 3-8: Groundwater Management Zones in the Region................................................. 3-46 Figure 3-9: Groundwater Contaminant Plumes in the Region................................................ 3-47 Figure 4-1: Comparison of 2020 and 2025 Demand Projections for Participating 2025 RUWMP Agencies................................................................................................................................. 4-3 Figure 4-2: Regional Demand Projections for Regional Supplies in the RUWMP 15 Agencies plus Other/Private San Bernardino County Entities ................................................................. 4-4 Figure 4-3: Existing and Proposed SBB Supply Improvement Projects (AFY)......................... 4-9 Figure 4-4: 20x2020 Compliance .......................................................................................... 4-16 Figure 4-5. Urban Water Use Objectives Regulation Overview ............................................. 4-17 Figure 5-1: Normal Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance (AFY)................................ 5-11 Figure 5-2: Existing and Proposed SBB Supply Improvement Projects (AFY)....................... 5-12 Figure 5-3: Single Dry Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance (AFY)........................... 5-13 List of Figures
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | vii
Figure 5-4: Five Consecutive Dry Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance.................... 5-15 Figure 5-5: Modeled Table A Allocation at 95% Climate Change Level of Concern Based on Historic Hydrology (2025 DCR)............................................................................................. 5-16 Figure 5-6: San Bernardino Basin Groundwater Change in Storage (AFY) ........................... 5-17 List of Tables
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: RUWMP Participating Agencies ............................................................................. 1-2 Table 2-1: 2025 RUWMP Population .................................................................................... 2-12 Table 2-2: SCAG Population Projection for the San Bernardino Valley Service Area (Not Used) ............................................................................................................................................. 2-13 Table 2-3: Households and Employment Projection for the San Bernardino Valley Service Area ............................................................................................................................................. 2-13 Table 2-4: Population Projection for the San Bernardino Valley Service Area with Local Agency Input (Official) ....................................................................................................................... 2-14 Table 2-5: Average Number of Days per Year Exceeding 95℉............................................. 2-21 Table 3-1: Overview of Water Sources Used by Retail Agencies in the Region....................... 3-2 Table 3-2: Historical State Water Project Deliveries to San Bernardino Valley and Final SWP Table A Allocations ................................................................................................................. 3-5 Table 3-3: SWP Long-term Average (1922-2021) Modeled Anticipated Table A Allocations to San Bernardino Valley ............................................................................................................ 3-7 Table 3-4: Estimated SWP Table A Supply Reliability in Dry, Multiple Dry, and Wet Years..... 3-9 Table 3-5: Sites Reservoir Yield to SBVMWD ....................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-6: Adjusted SBBA Rights Due to New Conservation Allocation ................................ 3-16 Table 3-7: 1961 Decree Adjudicated Rights to the Rialto Basin ............................................ 3-21 Table 3-8: Historic Reductions to Pumping Rights in the Rialto Decree Area ........................ 3-22 Table 3-9: 2018 Settlement Agreement Updated Adjudicated Rights to the Rialto Basin ...... 3-24 Table 3-10: Regional Recharge Basins................................................................................. 3-31 Table 3-11: Wastewater Treatment Plans in the Region ....................................................... 3-36 Table 3-12: Total Dissolved Solids Water Quality Objectives, Ambient Water Quality, and Assimilative Capacity ............................................................................................................ 3-44 Table 3-13: 303(d) Listed Water Bodies in the Region .......................................................... 3-52 Table 3-14: SAR Basin Surface Water Quality Objectives (WQO) in mg/L............................ 3-53 Table 3-15: Average Historic Surface Water Quality for Locations on the SAR (1990-2001) (mg/L) ................................................................................................................................... 3-54 List of Tables
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | ix
Table 3-16: Potential Groundwater Recharge Projects.......................................................... 3-60 Table 4-1: Regional Demand Projections, 2030 - 2050 (AFY)................................................. 4-2 Table 4-2: Planned Pumping and Diversions from San Bernardino Basin (AFY)..................... 4-6 Table 4-3: SBB Supply and Demand Balance (AFY)............................................................... 4-7 Table 4-4: Existing and Proposed SBB Supply Improvement Projects (AFY) .......................... 4-8 Table 4-5: Planned Pumping from Rialto-Colton (AFY) ......................................................... 4-10 Table 4-6: Planned Pumping from Riverside North Basin (AFY) ........................................... 4-11 Table 4-7: Planned Pumping from Yucaipa Basin (AFY)....................................................... 4-12 Table 4-8: Normal Year Imported Water Direct Deliveries (AFY)........................................... 4-14 Table 4-9: Recycled Water Use Projections (AFY)................................................................ 4-15 Table 5-1: San Bernardino Valley Anticipated Imported Water Supplies (AFY) ....................... 5-2 Table 5-2: Example Reductions in Imported Water Direct Deliveries (AFY) ............................ 5-4 Table 5-3: Proposed Long-term Average Imported Water Recharge (AFY)............................. 5-5 Table 5-4: Imported Water Recharge and Available Supply in Different Year Types (AFY)..... 5-6 Table 5-5: SBB Storage Increase in Wet Years....................................................................... 5-7 Table 5-6: Normal Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance ............................................. 5-9 Table 5-7: Single Dry Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance (AFY) ............................ 5-13 Table 5-8: Five Consecutive Dry Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance (AFY)........... 5-14 Acronyms & Abbreviations
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | x

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit
AF Acre-Foot
AFY Acre-Feet per Year
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure
AMR Automatic Meter Reader
AWWA American Water Works Association
BTAC Basin Technical Advisory Committee
BVMWC Bear Valley Mutual Water Company
CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
CWC California Water Code
CWOL Making Conservation a California Way of Life
DCR DWR SWP Delivery Capacity Report
DMM Demand Management Measure
DRA Drought Risk Assessment
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FUWC Fontana Union Water Company
GC General Council
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day
GPM Gallons per Minute
GPMD Gallons per Mile of Pipe per Day
GPSCD Gallons per Service Connection per Day
IRUWMP Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan
LOC Level of Concern
LRIP Local Resources Investment Program
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MSL Mean Sea Level
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RHWC Riverside Highland Water Company
RIX Rapid Infiltration and Extraction
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan
SAR Santa Ana River
SARCCUP Santa Ana River Conservation and Conjunctive Use Program SBB San Bernardino Basin/Bunker Hill Subbasin
SBMWD City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department SBVMWD San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
SBX7-7 Senate Bill 7 of Special Extended Session 7
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SGPWA San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
SGVWC San Gabriel Valley Water Company
SWP California State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWTP Surface Water Treatment Plant
Acronyms & Abbreviations
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | xi
TTS Tertiary Treatment System
UV Ultraviolet
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
UWMP Act Urban Water Management Planning Act
UWUO Urban Water Use Objective
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WFF Water Filtration Facility
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WVWD West Valley Water District
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
SGPWA San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-1

1.0 Introduction
This Regional Urban Water Management Plan was prepared by San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, a wholesale water agency and State Water Contractor, and eight retail water agencies including City of Colton, City of Loma Linda, City of Redlands, City of Rialto, Riverside Highland Water Company, San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, South Mesa Water Company, and West Valley Water District to
satisfy the requirements of the Urban Water Management Plan Act. This chapter describes the purpose of the 2025 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, how it is organized, and its relationship to other regional planning efforts in the San Bernardino Valley. This chapter also describes the collaborative process to develop the plan and coordination with stakeholders and the public prior to adoption.

IN THIS S ECTION
• Background and
Purpose
• Plan Organization
• Plan Preparation
and Coordination
• Plan Adoption

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-1
This document presents the 2025 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (Plan or RUWMP).

1.1 Background and Purpose

1.1.1 Regional UWMP
The California Water Code requires urban water suppliers within the state to prepare and adopt Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) for submission to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The UWMPs, which are required to be filed every five years, must satisfy the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act) of 1983, including amendments that have been made to the UWMP Act and other applicable regulations.

The UWMP Act requires urban water suppliers serving 3,000 or more connections or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water annually, to prepare an UWMP. For wholesale water agencies without retail connections, the requirement is triggered by the annual delivery of 3,000 AF or more. Since the original UWMP Act was passed, it has undergone significant expansion in response to droughts, groundwater overdraft, regulatory revisions, and changing climatic conditions that affect the reliability of each water supplier. Implementation of the UWMP Act is overseen by DWR.

An UWMP is intended to function as a planning tool to guide broad-perspective decision making by water supply managers. A UWMP is a long-term, general planning document, rather than an exact blueprint for supply and demand management. Water management in California is not a matter of certainty, and planning projections may change in response to a number of factors.

From this perspective, it is appropriate to look at an UWMP as a general planning framework, not a specific action plan.

It is an effort to generally answer a series of planning questions including:

1. What are the potential sources of supply and what is the reasonable amount of supply available from each of them?

2. What is the probable demand, given a reasonable set of assumptions about growth and implementation of good water management practices?

3. How well do supply and demand figures match up now and, in the future, based on the supplies that are anticipated to be pursued?
Using these “framework” questions and resulting answers, the implementing agency may pursue a range of feasible and cost-effective options and opportunities to meet projected demands.

Water purveyors within a region are permitted by DWR to work together to develop a cooperative Regional UWMP or RUWMP. In 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2025, a regional approach was used by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (San Bernardino Valley or SBVMWD), a wholesale water supplier, and several retail water agencies who coordinated to prepare the San Bernardino Valley RUWMP. The purpose of jointly preparing the RUWMP is to

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-2
facilitate a consistent evaluation of water sources common to the various agencies, to take advantage of group knowledge and experience, and to reduce collective preparation costs. The RUWMP is focused on meeting reporting requirements established by DWR to implement the California Water Code. The unique document structure of the RUWMP preserves each agency’s ability to independently convey unique water management considerations for their service area while leveraging the regional information and activities that are applicable to all.

Some of the retail water agencies in the San Bernardino Valley prepare separate UWMPs that are not directly included in this Plan. Table 1-1 provides a summary of RUWMP participation for each urban water supplier in the region for prior RUWMPs and this 2025 UWMP. Participating Agencies and other water agencies in the region are described further in Section 2.2.

Table 1-1: RUWMP Participating Agencies
PARTICIPATING AGENCY 2010
RUWMP
2015
RUWMP
2020
IRUWMP
2025
RUMWP
Bear Valley Mutual Water Company
City of Colton ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
City of Loma Linda ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
City of Redlands ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
City of Rialto ✓ ✓ ✓
City of San Bernardino Municipal
Water Department ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
East Valley Water District ✓ ✓ ✓
Fontana Water Company
Riverside Highland Water Company ✓ ✓ ✓
San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
South Mesa Water Company ✓ ✓
West Valley Water District ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Western Heights Water Company
Yucaipa Valley Water District ✓ ✓ ✓
In addition to the Participating Agencies, this RUWMP incorporates data from other agencies within the San Bernardino Valley that rely wholly or partially on the shared water resources analyzed in this Plan. While these agencies are not participants in this RUWMP, their water demands and associated supply needs are included to accurately evaluate regional water supply reliability through 2050. For the agencies preparing separate 2025 UWMPs (East Valley Water District, Fontana Water Company and Yucaipa Valley Water District), updated projections

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-3
from their respective 2025 UWMPs were incorporated into this Plan. For the agencies who are not urban water suppliers and do not prepare UWMPs, their demands and associated supply needs were estimated and incorporated into this Plan based on direct input from the agency, records of prior water use, or assumed to be the same as projections from the 2020 IRUWMP.

1.1.2 Integrated Regional Water Management and Other Regional Planning
Integrated Regional Water Management
State lawmakers created the Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Planning Act in 2002 to encourage local entities to improve water quality and water supply reliability to meet the state’s overall agricultural, domestic, industrial, and environmental water needs. IRWM is an efficient model for inclusive and equitable water management planning and delivers higher value for investments by utilizing early and collaborative stakeholder processes to develop multi-benefit projects that help diversify a region’s water management portfolio to achieve multiple social, economic, and environmental benefits and to prioritize funding that may become available from the State. The primary purpose of an IRWM Plan is to encourage integrated planning among the agencies in a region. The IRWM Plan provides a comprehensive look at the area’s water resources and includes integrated management strategies to help meet the longterm water needs of the area.

The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) is the DWR recognized IRWM Regional Agency for the entire Santa Ana watershed and has led collaborative process to prepare and regularly updated the watershed wide IRWM Plan known as One Water One Watershed (OWOW). The OWOW plan was last updated in 2018 and the OWOW Plan Update 2018 still serves as the official IRWM Plan for the Santa Ana Watershed.

In 2005, the San Bernardino Valley and 15 other agencies in the Upper Santa Ana River (SAR) watershed (Region or Upper SAR Region) decided to voluntarily develop the first IRWM Plan for its subarea of the watershed to collaboratively develop water management strategies for the communities of the Upper SAR watershed; the plan was completed in 2007. The agencies that developed the 2007 Upper SAR IRWM Plan formed a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to implement the plan, which later became the Basin Technical Advisory Committee (BTAC). The BTAC is still actively collaborating to manage regional water resources, and the region has since formed several additional collaborative forums that focus on specific regional topics.

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-1
Agencies that participate in the BTAC at the time of this Plan include:
• Bear Valley Mutual Water Company
• City of Colton
• City of Loma Linda
• City of Redlands Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department • City of Rialto
• City of Riverside Public Utilities Department (Riverside Public Utilities) • East Valley Water District
• Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (Meeks and Daly Water Company) • Fontana Water Company
• San Bernardino County Flood Control District
• San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
• San Bernardino Valley
• San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
• West Valley Water District
• Western Municipal Water District
• Yucaipa Valley Water District
The Upper SAR IRWM Plan is a critical document for prioritizing regional investments in water management and facilitating the use of state and federal grant funds for those projects. In 2020, both the Upper SAR IRWM Plan and the San Bernardino Valley Regional UWMP were due to be updated and there is significant overlap in the content of the two plans. Rather than updating these overlapping documents independently, San Bernardino Valley and its regional partners decided to combine them into a single new, single cohesive document. This combined document, the 2020 Upper Santa Ana Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan (IRUWMP) was the first of its kind in California and met all of the requirements of both the UWMP Act and the IRWM Planning Act.

The IRWM Roundtable of Regions, a group comprised of all IRWM regions in the State, has been working for over 20 years to advocate to the State for continued funding and commitment to sustaining and strengthening the IRWM program. However, with the 2023 California Water Plan, the state demonstrated a move toward a watershed approach, leaving the future of IRWMs unclear. Prop 4, the $10 billion climate bond that was approved by voters in 2024, allocated just $100 million specifically for IRWM for the entire State. However, IRWMs may still compete for other Prop 4 funds in groundwater, watershed resilience, nature-based solutions, flood, drought and other multi-benefit projects. In 2025 the Roundtable of Regions completed the IRWM Transition Plan, proposing a framework by which the IRWMs may transition into, and collaborate within, the State’s proposed Watershed Resilience Program, which is discussed in the following section. DWR continues to attend Roundtable of Regions meetings and has accepted and discussed the Transition Plan with the Roundtable Steering Committee.

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-2
For the 2025 UMWP update cycle, due to uncertainty about the evolution of the IRWM program, the stakeholders in the region decided not to update the combined IRUWMP. Instead, this 2025 RUWMP was prepared, similar the 2010 and 2015 RUWMPs. Integrated regional water management remains a critical priority for the region and is being addressed through multiple ongoing collaborative efforts and anticipated future watershed scale planning.

Watershed Resilience
DWR recently developed the 2024 Watershed Resilience Program Guidelines to advance the vision and framework laid out in the State’s California Water Plan Update 2023 to better prepare and plan for a future with climate extremes. The Watershed Resilience Program re-orients the State’s priorities around more equitable and climate-resilient water systems by defining three updated themes: Addressing Climate Urgency, Strengthening Watershed Resilience and Achieving Equity.

While the Watershed Resilience Program is fundamentally similar to IRWM, it appears that the State is moving toward Watershed Resilience Plans as the vehicle to provide State support and funding to increase regional climate resilience.

Prop 4 allocates over $1.8 billion to support planning and holistically integrated projects in the categories of climate change resiliency including groundwater sustainability, water supply and storage, flood management, wildfire prevention, habitat enhancement and watershed restoration. Five two-year pilot projects on how watersheds may work collaboratively to identify and develop strategies to address climate risks in specific watersheds are reaching completion as of spring 2026.

Through continued regional and watershed wide collaboration with SAWPA, San Bernardino Valley and the retail water agencies in the region will continue to conduct integrated regional water management and adapt to evolving State frameworks and position the region for future State funding of critical water needs. In 2024, San Bernardino Valley adopted a Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan that will serve as a bridge document for the region in transitioning to the new State framework.

San Bernardino Basin Optimization and Stewardship Program In 2024, the BTAC agencies completed Phase 1 of the San Bernardino Basin Optimization and Stewardship Program (SBBOSP) and are currently in the beginning stages of Phase 2, which is envisioned to define a new framework for basin management and ultimately identify the projects, actions, and funding mechanisms needed to achieve sustainability, equity, and optimization of local water resources.

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-3
While focused initially on the San Bernadino Basin, the SBBOSP is ultimately expected to more broadly address regional water needs and define an integrated strategy to achieve basin sustainability through optimized management of existing and new water resources and infrastructure. SBBOSP Phase 2 will address many of the aspects of the current IRUWMP and will also help position the Upper SAR Watershed for a potential future transition to the State’s new Watershed Resilience Program.

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-4

1.2 Plan Organization
This Plan is organized to meet the requirements of the UWMP Act. Each participating agency has reviewed, adopted, and will implement portions of this Plan relevant to their agency. To streamline reporting and avoid redundant information, this Plan is organized into four parts:

Part 1: Regional Context
Part 1 contains the information needed to meet a portion of the UWMP Act requirements and provides regional context. Many of the participating agencies utilize the same water resources and have similar water uses. Part 1 is organized into the following chapters:
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Region Description
• Chapter 3: Regional Water Sources and Management
• Chapter 4: Regional Water Use
• Chapter 5: Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands Part 2: Individual Agency UWMPs
Part 2 includes a chapter for each of the nine participating retail agencies. Each chapter is supplemental to the regional information presented in Part 1 and contains the additional information and analysis for each agency needed to meet the UWMP Act requirements. Each agency chapter provides service area information, past water use, projections of population, demand, and supply for a 25-year planning period, an evaluation of water supply reliability and drought risk assessment, a description of demand management measures and a summary of the agency’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Part 2 is organized into the following chapters:
• Chapter 1: San Bernadino Valley
• Chapter 2: City of Colton
• Chapter 3: City of Loma Linda
• Chapter 4: City of Redlands
• Chapter 5: City of Rialto
• Chapter 6 Riverside Highland Water Company
• Chapter 7 San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
• Chapter 8 South Mesa Water Company
• Chapter 9 West Valley Water District
Part 3: Regional Supporting Information
Part 3 includes all the supporting documentation referenced in Part 1 that is applicable to the region.

Part 4: Local Agency Supporting Information
Part 4 includes a set of supporting documentation for each UWMP Agency corresponding to their respective chapters in Part 2. Documents for each agency will include the regulatory

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-5
compliance guide that DWR will use to verify the agency has met the UWMP Act requirements, proof of public hearing notices, water supply agreements specific to that agency, the Water Shortage Contingency Plan and the completed tables that are required to be submitted to DWR.

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-6

1.3 Plan Preparation and Coordination
Management of water resources in the Region takes place within a complex legal and institutional framework. Development of this RUWMP involved the cooperation of many parties engaged in regional water management as well as the public.

In accordance with the UWMP Act, the Participating Agencies issued a Notice of Plan Preparation to cities and counties, as well as additional stakeholders within the region at least 60 days prior to the public hearing (notice was distributed on 3/4/2026). This notice informed stakeholders that the 2025 RUWMP was being prepared and invited input. A copy of the 60- day Notice letter is included in Part 3.

The Participating Agencies encouraged public participation in the preparation of this Plan to incorporate public feedback on water management and reliability in the Region. The Participating Agencies solicited public involvement in the planning process by presenting updates at regularly scheduled BTAC meetings and at some of their regularly scheduled Board and Council meetings, as well as soliciting public comments on the draft RUWMP via email announcements, website postings and newspaper notices. Copies of each agency’s newspaper notice is included in their respective appendix in Pat 4.

In addition, 2 workshops with the Participating Agencies were conducted to align the approach for RUWMP preparation and to review the results of the regional water supply and demand analysis.

The following Regional Land Use Planning and stakeholder agencies received the 60-Day Notice of Plan Preparation:
• Bear Valley Mutual Water Company
• Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District
• Cal. State San Bernardino/Institute for Watershed Resiliency • City of Calimesa
• City of Colton
• City of Fontana
• City of Grand Terrace
• City of Highland
• City of Loma Linda
• City of Redlands
• City of Rialto
• City of San Bernardino
• City of Yucaipa
• County of Riverside
• County of San Bernardino
• Crafton Hills College
• East Valley Water District
•

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-7
• Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
• Fontana Water Company
• Inland Empire Resources Conservation District
• Muscoy Mutual Water Company
• Rialto Water Services, LLC-Veolia
• Riverside Highland Water Company
• Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
• Riverside Public Utilities
• Rubidoux Community Services District
• San Bernardino County Flood Control District
• San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) • San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
• San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
• San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
• San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
• Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
• South Mesa Water Company
• Terrace Water Company
• United States Forest Service
• West Valley Water District
• Western Heights Mutual Water Company
• Yucaipa Valley Water District
• Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District

1.0 Introduction
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 1-8

1.4 Plan Adoption
Each participating agency has reviewed, adopted, and will implement the portions of this Plan relevant to their agency. Not all parts of the plan are applicable to every participating agency and any subsequent changes made to individual agency UWMP Chapters, if any, should not affect the other agencies who participated in Plan preparation. In recognition of this, the Plan was organized so that agencies could adopt only the parts of the plan that are applicable.

All participating agencies adopted Part 1 and Part 3, which comprise the information needed to provide the regional context. In addition to Part 1 and Part 3, participating agencies adopted their respective chapters of Part 2 and their respective Appendices in Part 4. Additional information on each UWMP Agency’s adoption process in accordance with the UWMP Act is provided in each agency chapter in Part 2.

The Plan participants adopted the relevant parts of the Plan beginning in May and June 2026.

Following adoption, the Plan was submitted to DWR, the California State Library, and a copy was provided to all stakeholders identified in Section 1.3. Resolutions adopting the RUWMP are provided in each agency’s appendix in Part 4.

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-1

2.0 Region Description
This section describes the characteristics of the Region and the San Bernardino Valley service area, including population, land use, and climate. This section also describes the many local agencies and water companies that have a role in managing water resources within the Region. Water resources within the Region are described in Section 3.

IN THIS S ECTION
• Location
• Water Agencies in
the Region
• Population and
Demographics
• Land Uses
• Regional Climate

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-2

2.1 Location
The SAR watershed is the largest stream system in Southern California. The headwaters originate in the San Bernardino Mountains and are discharged to the Pacific Ocean approximately 100 miles to the southwest between Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. The SAR watershed covers over 2,650 square miles of widely varying forested, rural, and urban terrain and covers the more populated urban areas of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties, as well as a lesser portion of Los Angeles County. Disputes over the use of water in the SAR led to the subdivision of the watershed into the Upper SAR watershed and Lower SAR watershed just upstream of Prado Dam.

The Upper SAR watershed covers 852 square miles, approximately 32% of the total SAR watershed, and is primarily located in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The Region includes the Big Bear Valley as well as the cities and communities of San Bernardino, Yucaipa, Redlands, Highland, Rialto, Mentone, Colton, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Beaumont, and Riverside.

The Upper SAR watershed is defined by the area that contributes surface runoff to the Riverside Narrows at U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gage 11066460. There are numerous tributaries that contribute flow to the main stem of the SAR in the Region, including Mill Creek, City Creek, Plunge Creek (a tributary of City Creek), Mission Zanja Creek (located just upstream of the San Timoteo Creek), San Timoteo Creek, East Twin Creek, Warm Creek, and Lytle Creek.

For the purpose of this RUWMP, the Region is defined as the wholesale service area of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, which comprises a large portion of the Upper SAR Watershed in San Bernardino County, as shown in Figure 2-1.

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-3

2.2 Water Agencies in the Region
The Region is home to dozens of cities, water districts, mutual water companies, flood control districts, and other local water management agencies with an interest in the responsible management of water supply resources (e.g., storage, conveyance, treatment, flood protection, and recreation) and sustainable stewardship (e.g., water quality and biological resource protection) of the watershed. The challenges facing water agencies in the Upper SAR include the effects of population growth that increase water demand and decrease natural hydrological processes and groundwater recharge, the reduction of imported water availability, the effects of climate change, water quality, a changing regulatory environment, and affordability of water infrastructure projects. Water agencies in the Region are shown in Figure 2-2 and described in Section 2.2.1.

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-4
Figure 2-1: Upper Santa Ana River Watershed and RUWMP Boundary

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-5
Figure 2-2: Water Management Agencies in the Region

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-6

2.2.1 2025 RUWMP Participating Agencies
This section describes the water supply agencies participating in this 2025 RUWMP.

2.2.1.1 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (San Bernardino Valley)
San Bernardino Valley was formed in 1954, under the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 (California Water Code Section 71000 et seq.) as a regional agency to plan a long-range water supply for the San Bernardino Valley. San Bernardino Valley imports water into its service area through participation in the State Water Project (SWP) and manages groundwater storage within its boundaries. Its enabling act includes a broad range of powers to provide water, wastewater and stormwater disposal, recreation, and fire protection services. San Bernardino Valley does not deliver water directly to retail water customers.

San Bernardino Valley covers about 353 square miles mainly in southwestern San Bernardino County, about 60 miles east of Los Angeles. It spans the eastern two-thirds of the San Bernardino Valley, the Crafton Hills, and a portion of the Yucaipa Valley and includes the cities and communities of San Bernardino, Colton, Loma Linda, Redlands, Rialto, Fontana, Bloomington, Highland, East Highland, Grand Terrace, Mentone, and Yucaipa.

San Bernardino Valley is responsible for long-range water supply management, including importing supplemental SWP water to meet orders from retail agencies, and facilitating the management of groundwater basins within its boundaries. San Bernardino Valley also represents the San Bernardino Entities in mitigating extractions over the production amounts specified in the Orange County and Western Judgments explained below. San Bernardino Valley has specific responsibilities for monitoring groundwater supplies in the SBB and RialtoColton Subbasin, and for a portion of the minimum SAR flow required at the Riverside Narrows under the Orange County and Western Judgments.

San Bernardino Valley takes delivery of SWP water at the Devil Canyon Power Plant Afterbay, which is located just within its northern boundary. The SWP water is conveyed 17 miles eastward to various spreading grounds and agricultural and wholesale delivery points. Water is also conveyed westward for direct delivery in the SBB and Rialto-Colton Subbasin.

In the 1960s, dry conditions resulted in the over-commitment of water resources in the SAR watershed which led to lawsuits between water users in the upper and lower watersheds regarding both surface flows and groundwater. The lawsuits culminated in 1969 in the Orange County and Western Judgments. Under the terms of the judgments, San Bernardino Valley became responsible for providing a portion of the specified SAR base flow to Orange County and for providing replenishment in the Rialto-Colton Basin and SBB under certain conditions. If the conditions of either judgment are not met by the natural water supply, including new conservation, San Bernardino Valley, on behalf of the San Bernardino Entities, is required to deliver supplemental water to offset the deficiency. The judgments resolved the major water

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-7
rights issues that had prevented the development of long-term, region-wide water supply plans and established specific objectives for the management of the groundwater basins.

Court-appointed Watermaster committees administer both Judgments; as a member of the Watermaster committees, San Bernardino Valley is directly responsible for ensuring that groundwater and surface water resources are effectively managed per the terms of the Judgments for the benefit of the region.

This Plan includes the San Bernardino Valley UWMP; see Part 2, Chapter 1 for more information.

2.2.1.2 City of Colton
The City of Colton (Colton) is a community founded in 1875 and incorporated in 1887. Colton, through the Water and Wastewater Division of its Public Utilities Department, provides water service to a majority of the residents and businesses located within Colton's corporate boundary, as well as to those in certain adjacent unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. All of Colton’s water supply is local groundwater pumped from the SBB, the RialtoColton subbasin, and the Riverside North subbasin.

This Plan includes the Colton UWMP; see Part 2, Chapter 2 for more information.

2.2.1.3 City of Loma Linda
The City of Loma Linda (hereafter Loma Linda) was incorporated in 1970. The Public Works Department provides potable water service to an area of approximately 7.8 square miles that includes the Veterans Administration Hospital and the Loma Linda Community Hospital. Loma Linda does not provide water service to the Loma Linda University Campus or Medical Center facilities, which operate on a separate self-contained system. Loma Linda’s primary water supply is groundwater from the SBB. Loma Linda also has two emergency connections to the City of San Bernardino and one to the City of Redlands to meet its supplemental needs. Loma Linda also provides wastewater collection service.

This Plan includes the Loma Linda UWMP; see Part 2, Chapter 3 for more information.

2.2.1.4 City of Redlands
For more than 90 years, the City of Redlands (hereafter Redlands) has been providing highquality drinking water to the Redlands, Mentone area, Crafton Hills College, and a portion of unincorporated San Bernardino County known as the donut hole. The water utility service area generally coincides with the area designated by the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) as the City and its sphere of influence. The service area encompasses 36 square miles inside the Redlands city boundaries and a relatively small area outside the city boundaries, but within the sphere of influence. Redlands supplies a blend of local groundwater, local surface water, and imported water purchased from San Bernardino Valley. Redlands owns and operates two water treatment plants, Tate and Hinckley, which receive either surface water or imported water and treat it to potable standards. Redlands also owns and operates a sewer

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-8
collection system and the Redlands Wastewater Treatment Facility, which produces recycled water for industrial and irrigation purposes, including supplying water to the Southern California Edison Mountainview Power Plant.

This Plan includes the Redlands UWMP; see Part 2, Chapter 4 for more information.

2.2.1.5 City of Rialto
The City of Rialto (hereafter Rialto) is provided water service by three different water agencies:

The City of Rialto municipal water system through its water system operator (Veolia, through Rialto Water Services), the West Valley Water District (WVWD), and the Fontana Union Water Company (FUWC). Each agency has its own water supply and resources and must meet its demands through those resources. The City of Rialto municipal water system provides potable, non-potable, and recycled water at retail to customers primarily within the City of Rialto and serves approximately one-half of the population of the City. The service area is essentially the incorporated area of the City of Rialto located between Interstate 10 and State Route 210.

Rialto’s water supply sources include local surface water from Lytle Creek, groundwater from four local groundwater basins, and water purchased from San Bernardino Valley and delivered through the Baseline Feeder. Surface water treatment of Lytle Creek water is provided by the Oliver P. Roemer Water Filtration Facility owned and operated by WVWD. Rialto owns a portion of the capacity of that plant. Rialto also has an agreement to purchase excess SBB water from SBMWD, when available. Rialto provides wastewater collection and treatment services for its residents and some residents of the City of Fontana through an Extra-Territorial Agreement.

This Plan includes the Rialto UWMP; see Part 2, Chapter 5 for more information.

2.2.1.6 Riverside Highland Water Company
The Riverside Highland Water Company (RHWC) provides domestic and irrigation water services to the City of Grand Terrace, portions of the City of Colton, and portions of the unincorporated areas of the Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside. 51% of RHWC’s service area lies within the San Bernardino Valley service area and the remainder is within the service area of Western Municipal Water District (Western). RHWC obtains water from the Lytle Creek Subbasin, the SBB, the Rialto-Colton Subbasin, Riverside North, and Riverside South Basins.

This Plan includes the RHWC UWMP; see Part 2, Chapter 6 for more information.

2.2.1.7 San Bernardino Municipal Water Department
The City of San Bernardino is served by a municipal utility, the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD). SBMWD was created as a municipal utility by the City of San Bernardino Charter. The SBMWD water service area is approximately 45 square miles, providing water to approximately 210,000 persons in the City of San Bernardino and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. SBMWD produces all of its water supply from wells in the SBB. In addition to potable water, SBMWD provides wastewater collection and

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-9
treatment services and is developing a recycled water system for groundwater recharge and non-potable reuse.

This Plan includes the SBMWD UWMP; see Part 2, Chapter 7 for more information.

2.2.1.8 South Mesa Water Company
South Mesa Water Company (SMWC) is a mutual water company, which was established in 1912 as a successor to the earliest land and water companies in the area dating back to the 19th Century. SMWC provides domestic and irrigation water service to its shareholders within its service territory, which comprises a portion of the City of Yucaipa in San Bernardino County and a portion of the City of Calimesa in Riverside County. 55% of SMWC is within SBVMWD’s service area in San Bernardino County, and 45% is within San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency’s service area in Riverside County. SMWCʹs water supply includes locally produced groundwater from the Yucaipa Sub‐basin, and also groundwater produced from the adjacent adjudicated Beaumont Basin in accordance with SMWCʹs adjudicated water rights.

This Plan includes the SMWC UWMP; see Part 2, Chapter 8 for more information.

2.2.1.9 West Valley Water District
West Valley Water District (WVWD) is a County Water District, a public agency of the State of California, organized and existing under the County Water District Law (Division 12, Section 30,000 of the Water Code) of the State of California. WVWD provides domestic water service to customers throughout southwestern San Bernardino County and a small portion within northern Riverside County. 92% of WVWD’s service area lies within San Bernardino Valley’s boundaries (the remainder is in IEUA’s boundaries). WVWD’s service area is approximately 31 square miles, serving portions of the Cities of Rialto, Fontana, Colton, and Jurupa Valley, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. WVWD utilizes water from five groundwater basins and treats surface water from Lytle Creek and SWP water at its Oliver P. Roemer Water Filtration Facility.

This Plan includes the WVWD UWMP; see Part 2, Chapter 9 for more information.

2.2.2 Other Regional Water Suppliers
In addition to the Participating Agencies, this RUWMP incorporates data from other agencies within the San Bernardino Valley that rely wholly or partially on the shared water resources analyzed in this Plan. While these agencies are not participants in this RUWMP, their water demands and associated supply needs are included to accurately evaluate regional water supply reliability through 2050.

For the agencies preparing separate 2025 UWMPs, updated projections from their respective 2025 UWMPs were incorporated into this Plan. These agencies are:
• East Valley Water District (EVWD) (wholly within SBVMWD service area) • Fontana Water Company (FWC) (partially within SBVMWD service area)

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-10
• Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) (partially within SBVMWD service area) Some of the supply projections shown in this RUWMP for YVWD differ from those shown in YVWD’s 2025 UWMP. YVWD’s 2025 UWMP shows all potentially available supplies and a supply surplus at the retailer level, whereas this RUWMP uses a different approach to the regional supply analysis that focuses on specific supplies that agencies intend to use to meet future demands and evaluates total supply surplus on a regional level. This RUWMP includes assumptions about future supply use for YVWD to align with this regional methodology, but all retailers have the flexibility to modify their supply strategies to meet their demands.

FWC and YVWD also use other supplies from outside the region to meet their demands that are not evaluated in this RUWMP so the analysis in this Plan include only the portion of their demands that are expected to be met by supplies evaluated in this Plan.

For the agencies who are not urban water suppliers and do not prepare UWMPs, their demands and associated supply needs were estimated and incorporated into this Plan based on direct input from the agency, water supply agreements, records of prior water use, or assumed to be the same as projections from the 2020 IRUWMP. These agencies are:
• Bear Valley Mutal Water Company
• Marygold Mutual Water Company
• Muscoy Mutual Water Company
• Western Heights Water Company
• Other Private Pumpers/Users within the Region

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-11

2.3 Population and Demographics

2.3.1 Historic Population and Projected Growth in the Region The population of the Region (San Bernardino Valley service area) has experienced rapid growth in the past. Figure 2-3 shows the Census populations for the Region from 1990 to 2020.

The Region grew by approximately 8,000 people each year between 1990 and 2010, which is about 1.4% growth annually for 20 years. Growth from 2010 to 2020 slowed to 0.7% annually.

As of the 2020 Census, the total population within the San Bernardino Valley service area was 709,585 people.

As noted above, this RUWMP comprises nine water suppliers, eight of which directly supply water to customers. The 2025 population estimates for each participating agency are provided in Table 2-1. For details on how the population estimate was developed, refer to the agency’s corresponding UWMP chapter in Part 2. The total 2025 population for the Region was estimated by summing the estimated 2025 population for each Participating Agency that lies within the SBVMWD boundary (plus YVWD and EVWD who provided 2025 population estimates) and assuming the portion of the population outside these collective boundaries grew at the same rate between 2020 and 2025 (0.68% annually from 2020 to 2025).

Figure 2-3: San Bernardino Valley Service Area Historic Census Population, 1990-2020 502,866
577,886
661,580
709,585
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1990 2000 2010 2020
Population

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-12
Table 2-1: 2025 RUWMP Population
AGENCY
2025 AGENCY

POPULATION

ESTIMATE
2025 POPULATION

ESTIMATE WITHIN
SBVMWD
City of Colton 49,038 49,038
City of Loma Linda 26,273 26,273
City of Redlands 84,183 84,183
City of Rialto 59,264 59,264
Riverside Highland Water Company
(51% in SBVMWD)
24,467 12,566
San Bernardino Municipal Water Department 207,872 207,872 South Mesa Water Company
(55% in SBVMWD) 12,761 7,007
West Valley Water District
(92% in SBVMWD) 96,123 87,972
Non-Participating Areas within SBVMWD 199,712
Total RUWMP 2025 Population for SBVMWD 733,887

2.3.2 Future Population Projections in the Plan Area
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed a growth forecast for the 2024 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan (2024 RTP). The 2024 RTP includes population, households, and employment projections for the SCAG region for years 2019, 2035, and 2050 across approximately 13,062 transportation analysis zones (TAZs) within the SCAG region. These forecasts are based on land use data, the 2020 Census, and the Cycle 6 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

In 2022, SCAG launched the Local Data Exchange (LDX), a tool where jurisdictions can directly input their data. This change has increased data input, participation, and validation for the 2019, 2035, and 2050 projections. SCAG’s projections undergo extensive local review, incorporating zoning information from city and county general plans, input from local planners and jurisdictions, and coordination with local or regional land use authorities.

SCAG publishes jurisdiction- and TAZ-level data as GIS shapefiles of their projections on a granular local level. These values were used to derive a SCAG population growth rate for the Region by intersecting the SCAG GIS data with the San Bernardino Valley service area.

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-13
SCAG’s 2024 population growth projections have declined from the last Connect SoCal RTP in 2020, due to ongoing economic impacts of COVID-19, pandemic-related death increases, increasingly negative net domestic migration, decline in births, and near-zero level of foreign immigration. SCAG’s 2024 update uses a 2019 base year and incorporates a broader data range from 2016 to 2022, capturing key post-COVID shifts in population, employment, and household trends.

While 2024 SCAG projects slower growth, the result still shows an increase in population within the San Bernardino Valley service area, which is estimated to grow by about 100,000 people by 2050 from a 2020 Census value of 709,585. By 2050, the San Bernardino Valley service area is expected to have a population of approximately 810,000 people, per SCAG. This population projection trend is shown in Table 2-2. Table 2-3 shows SCAG projections of households and employment for the San Bernardino Valley service area.

Table 2-2: SCAG Population Projection for the San Bernardino Valley Service Area (Not Used) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Population 723,975 737,697 751,420 771,510 791,600 811,689 Average Annual
% Increase 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
Annual Average
Change, per year
2,745 2,745 4,018 4,018 4,018
Table 2-3: Households and Employment Projection for the San Bernardino Valley Service Area 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Households 222,821 235,338 247,856 256,576 265,297 274,018 Average Annual
% Increase 1.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6%
Annual Average
Change, per year 2,503 2,503 1,744 1,744 1,744
Employment 314,459 329,949 345,439 356,329 367,219 378,109 Average Annual
% Increase 1.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
Annual Average
Change, per year 3,098 3,098 2,178 2,178 2,178

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-14
A separate set of population projections was also made for San Bernardino Valley that based on the total of the population projection forecasts of the agencies within it. In general, participating agencies in this Plan forecasted population based on known upcoming developments and SCAG’s household growth rate, assuming a consistent rate of persons per household in the future. This led to higher population projections than SCAG projected, as shown by comparing Table 2-4 to Table 2-2. The population projections in Table 2-4 are used for this RUWMP.

Table 2-4: Population Projection for the San Bernardino Valley Service Area with Local Agency Input (Official)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Population 733,887 762,280 782,611 805,910 829,974 847,127 Average Annual
% Increase 0.76% 0.53% 0.59% 0.59% 0.41%
Annual Average
Change, per year
5,679 4,066 4,660 4,813 3,430
As shown in Figure 2-4, future population is expected to increase at a similar but slower rate, compared to previous estimates from the 2020 IRUWMP, which were based on SCAG’s 2020 RTP.

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-15
Figure 2-4: Population Projection for the San Bernardino Valley Service Area with Local Agency Input (Official)

2.3.3 Economic Condition and Social and Cultural Composition of the Region
Like most communities in Southern California, the Region has seen a continued increase in population and change in the economic base as agricultural and vacant land is replaced with residential housing, leading to urban and service sector jobs.

Much of the population growth of the Region since the 1970s is linked with the economies of Los Angeles and Orange Counties because they are within commuter range, and the housing prices in the Region are more affordable. Also, population growth over the past three decades is attributed to a marked increase in immigration from Mexico, Latin America, and the Pacific Rim.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, employment in the Inland Empire was increasing at a steady pace, according to California’s Employment Development Department and U.C. Riverside School of Business Center for Economic Forecasting. The latest economic briefing from SCAG for San Bernardino County notes that in 2025, the economy advanced more slowly. The unemployment rate increased slightly to 5.9%, similar to the entire SCAG region. The Inland Empire added 6,400 nonfarm jobs and 14,600 jobs. SCAG projections indicate that unemployment may continue to rise and job growth may slow down due to political and social impacts (Southern California Association of Governments, December 2025). -
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Population
2020 IRUWMP
2025 RUWMP

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-16
According to the State of Workers in the Inland Empire 2025 (Inland Empire Labor and Community Center, 2025) report prepared by the Inland Empire Labor and Community Center at UC Riverside, the Inland Empire workforce is younger, more racially diverse, and more heavily concentrated in low‐wage sectors compared to the rest of California. A significant portion of the workforce lacks access to colleges, universities, and other skills‐training opportunities, which contributes to continued employment in low‐wage industries and limits opportunities for upward mobility.

The Inland Empire also exhibits a strong commuter dynamic, with many residents traveling to neighboring regions such as Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego counties for employment.

Nearly 25 percent of Inland Empire residents commute to other parts of California for work. In addition, shifts following the COVID‐19 pandemic have resulted in 12 percent of workers engaging in remote work arrangements.

While the Inland Empire shares several major industries with the broader Southern California region, warehousing and truck transportation are especially prominent. Construction and educational services also rank among the region’s leading industries. Overall, the Inland Empire economy remains highly reliant on logistics‐related employment.

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-17

2.4 Land Uses
The Region recognizes the importance of collaboration between land use planning and water resources management. Within the Region, local planning is conducted by counties, cities, local agencies, and special districts. San Bernardino County, cities, and water agencies within the Region coordinate as part of the San Bernardino Countywide Vision Process. Part of this process involves collaboration between water resource managers and land use planners on the water element to create mutually beneficial opportunities that ensure adequate water supplies and quality to support future population and economic growth within the County.

Additionally, SCAG prepares demographic forecasts based on land use data through an extensive process that emphasizes input from local planners in coordination with local or regional land use authorities, incorporating essential information to reflect anticipated future populations and land uses. SCAG’s projections undergo extensive local review, incorporate zoning information from city and county general plans, and are supported by Environmental Impact Reports. The future water needs for the Region evaluated in this Plan are informed by SCAG’s population, housing and employment growth projections are therefore rooted in regional land use planning.

Figure 2-5 presents the current land use within the Region based on SCAG’s regional land use dataset. The total area of the Region is approximately 225,675 acres, of which 69,500 acres, or about 31%, are covered by the national forest located in the easterly and northerly areas of the Region. Single family residential makes up the next largest land use of approximately 21%, followed by specific plan designations of 11%.

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-18
Figure 2-5: Land Use within the Region

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-19

2.5 Regional Climate

2.5.1 Current Regional Climate
Climate in the Region is characterized by relatively hot, dry summers and cool winters with intermittent precipitation. The largest portion (73%) of average annual precipitation occurs during December through March and rainless periods of several months are common in the summer. Precipitation is nearly always in the form of rain in the lower elevations and mostly in the form of snow above about 6,000 feet mean sea level (msl) in the San Bernardino Mountains.

Mean annual precipitation ranges from about 12 inches in the vicinity of Riverside, to about 20 inches at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains, to more than 35 inches along the crest of the mountains.

The historical record indicates that period of below-average precipitation can last more than 30 years, such as the dry period that extended from 1938 to 1968. As shown by precipitation data in Figure 2-6, the Region has been experiencing an ongoing drought since 1999, indicated by a long-term downward trend in the Precipitation Index, except for a few wet years.

Figure 2-6: San Bernardino Basin Precipitation Index
-225
-175
-125
-75
-25
25 75
125
175
225
275
325
375
425
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
1930-311933-341936-371939-401942-431945-461948-491951-521954-551957-581960-611963-641966-671969-701972-731975-761978-791981-821984-851987-881990-911993-941996-971999-002002-032005-062008-092011-122014-152017-182020-212023-24 Precipitation Index
Average Annual Precipitation (in.)
Average of Lytle Creek / SAR / Mill Creek Precip
Safe Yield Period Avg (1934-1960) (27-yr period)
Historical Avg (1931-Present) (94-yr period)
Past 27-yr Avg (1999-2025)
Precipitation Index (Cumulative Departure from Safe Yield Period Avg)

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-20

2.5.2 Potential Effects of Climate Change
Climate change modeling for the SAR watershed suggests that a changing climate will have multiple effects on the Region. Adaptation and mitigation measures will be necessary to account for these effects to maintain long term water supply reliability.

San Bernardino Valley completed a Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan (2024 CARP) in 2024 to strengthen water reliability and address existing and future climate change impacts. The 2024 CARP identified the following key climate risks for the San Bernardino Valley service area (San Bernardino Valley, 2024):
• Drought: Drought duration and intensity is expected to increase in the future, limiting water supply, increasing water demand and straining local groundwater resources and ecosystems.
• Extreme Heat: Extreme heat events are projected to become more common, which will lead to more frequent regional power disruptions, increased wildfire risk, increased evapotranspiration, higher water demand, and degraded ecosystems. • Wildfire: Wildfire events are expected to become more likely in the future, which will increase the risk of damaged infrastructure, operational disruptions, power outages, and damaged ecosystems, particularly in the Upper SAR Watershed. • Extreme Precipitation and Flooding: Extreme precipitation and flooding events are projected to become more likely, increasing landslide, soil erosion and mudflow, and liquefaction risk in certain locations.
• Sea Level Rise: Climate impacts to the SWP, including wildfire, reduced snowpack, sea-level rise, and increased temperatures, may disrupt SWP operations and infrastructure and will increase the variability and risk of imported water deliveries. • Landslides: Landslides can be triggered by an increase in the frequency and severity of wildfire and heavy precipitation events that threaten assets and infrastructure situated on or near slopes, particularly at the hills and valley interface.

Additionally, the State’s Cal-Adapt website provides a number of tools to use to estimate the effects of climate change at a local level. The Cal-Adapt Extreme Heat tool shows that in the future the number of days over 95°F will increase in multiple locations. The Region chose three cities with different temperature ranges to compare the increase across the upper watershed.

The cities of Riverside, San Bernardino and Big Bear were used to see the projections of the number of days that would be above 95°F and the results are shown in Table 2-5. The numbers of high temperature days in Riverside and San Bernardino are believed to double between the present and 2070. Similar increases in temperature can be anticipated throughout the inland valleys. These increased temperature levels will increase water demands across the watershed mainly for agricultural and irrigation purposes. Although not projected to be above 95°F, higher temperature days in Big Bear have the potential to affect the forest ecosystem and the snow related recreational activities in the area.

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-21
Table 2-5: Average Number of Days per Year Exceeding 95℉ CITY OBSERVED HISTORICAL (1961-
1990) 2050 2070
Riverside 39 81 96
San
Bernardino 30 68 82
Big Bear 0 0 0
Source: Cal-Adapt, Extreme Heat Days & Warm Nights tool: https://cmip5.cal-adapt.org/tools/extremeweather/. Accessed June 2025; the link has been updated since it was accessed. Scenario: RCP 4.5.

Threshold temperature: 95°F. Models: Default GCMs.

The forest ecosystems in the San Bernardino National Forest are currently on the decline.

Alpine and subalpine forests are anticipated to decrease in area by fifty to seventy percent by 2100. It is believed that increased greenhouse gas emissions are a primary factor contributing to the decline of these fragile ecosystems. Wildfire risk is anticipated to increase particularly in the urban-wildland interface communities. Wildfires can pose serious threats not only to forest ecosystems, but also to critical water infrastructure. More frequent wildfires may also increase sediment and contaminant flows within the watershed, consequently degrading the quality of surface water bodies that are an important part of the ecosystem and Region’s water supply.

While high elevation ecosystems decrease, the severity of future floods is likely to increase. The likelihood of a 200-year storm event or longer is anticipated to be significantly higher in 2070.

This increases the potential for negative impacts on nearby infrastructure. Furthermore, storms are expected to be more severe but less frequent. Despite these assumptions, the aftermath of a severe storm is highly variable. It is known that there are significant variabilities in the results of storm severity.

In addition to changes in ecosystems and storm severity, warmer temperatures may also decrease the annual amount of snow fall and increase the instance of rain in higher elevations.

This alteration of precipitation type is likely to cause negative impacts for snow related recreational activities characteristic of the area’s ski resorts. From a local standpoint, Big Bear and Snow Valley both lie below 3000 m and are anticipated to experience a decline in snowpack by 2070. Furthermore, it is projected that there will be a decrease in overall winter precipitation of the area by 2070, which will impact mountain runoff and surface water availability, which is an important part of the Region’s water supply.

On a larger scale, the increased temperatures could affect the Sierras in a similar way, threatening the reliability of the SWP. Water quality could also suffer due to changes in precipitation and rising temperatures. Potential impacts such as increased contaminant concentrations and algal growth could increase water treatment needs.

2.0 Region Description
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 2-22
Regional efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change on water supply reliability are discussed in Chapter 5.0.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-1

3.0 Regional Water Sources and
Management
This Section describes the current and planned water resources available within the region for the 25-year period covered by the Plan. Management of the various water sources is also described, including legal judgements and regional
management groups.

IN THIS S ECTION
• Imported Water
• Groundwater
• Surface Water
• Recycled Water
• Other Supplies
• Water Quality
• Planned Projects

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-2
Securing a reliable water supply is the primary mission of San Bernardino Valley and the Participating Agencies. The Region relies on a diversified portfolio of water supplies to meet the needs of its residential, commercial, and institutional customers. The Region’s water supply portfolio consists of imported water, local groundwater, local surface water and recycled water.

This chapter describes the current and planned water resources available to the Region through 2050. It also details the management frameworks – including legal judgments, Watermasters, and regional agreements – that govern how these resources are extracted, stored, and shared among the agencies. Table 3-1 provides a high-level overview of the water sources currently utilized by each agency and producer within the San Bernardino Valley service area.

Table 3-1: Overview of Water Sources Used by Retail Agencies in the Region

AGENCY GROUNDWATER

IMPORTED
WATER
DIRECT

DELIVERIES
LOCAL

SURFACE
WATER

RECYCLED
WATER
Participating Agencies
City of Colton ✓
City of Loma Linda ✓
City of Redlands ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
City of Rialto ✓ ✓ ✓
Riverside Highland Water Company ✓
San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department
✓ ✓
South Mesa Water Company ✓
West Valley Water District ✓ ✓ ✓
Other Retail Agencies
East Valley Water District ✓ ✓ ✓
Fontana Water Company ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Yucaipa Valley Water District ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Other Water Agencies
Bear Valley Mutual Water Company ✓ ✓ ✓
Private Parties ✓ ✓

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-3

3.1 Imported Water
Imported water from the California State Water Project (SWP), is available to the Region from the East Branch through San Bernardino Valley, the Region’s State Water Contractor.

San Bernardino Valley is the fifth largest State Water Contractor, with an annual entitlement of 102,600 AF. SBVMWD takes delivery of SWP water at the Devil Canyon Afterbay. From this location, SBVMWD can deliver water to the west via the Devil Canyon – Azusa Pipeline (owned by San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and that SBVMWD owns conveyance capacity within) or to the east via the Foothill Pipeline (owned by SBVMWD). SBVMWD can also deliver to YVWD and San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency through the East Branch Extension of the SWP downstream of the Foothill Pipeline.

San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency is downstream of SBVMWD on the East Branch of the California Aqueduct. See the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency 2025 UWMP for more information. SBVMWD and the SGPWA coordinate work as they both share capacity along the East Branch Extension. Two retail water districts included in this plan (YVWD and SMWC) are co-located within the SBVMWD and SGPWA service areas. In addition to operating some mutually used facilities, the SBVMWD and SGPWA have an agreement in place to share excess imported supplies when available, which is included in Part 3 Appendix B.

Metropolitan provides SWP water to portions of the Region through their member agencies, Western and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Western does not currently deliver imported water to its retail agencies within the Region but may in the future. FWC and WVWD are colocated within both the SBVMWD and IEUA service areas and FWC uses imported water from both IEUA and SBVMWD.

In 2021, SBVMWD entered into a new Coordinated Operating Agreement (COA) with Metropolitan that would sell them most of SBVMWD’s surplus imported water; this COA replaced the previous version that expired in 2016. One of the terms of the COA requires Metropolitan to offer 50% of any surplus water purchased under this agreement to their member agencies in the SARCCUP Program. The COA is included in Part 3 Appendix B. Metropolitan and its member agencies that are part of the SARCCUP have also developed a companion agreement that describes how SARCCUP will function within Metropolitan’s existing policies.

3.1.1 SWP Overview
Imported water is available to the Region from the California State Water Project (SWP), which is the largest state-built, multi-purpose water project in the country; it is paid for by the 29 State Water Contractors, including SBVMWD, SGPWA and MWDSC and operated and maintained by DWR. It was authorized by the California State Legislature in 1959, with the construction of most initial facilities completed by 1973. The SWP is a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs, aqueducts, power plants and pumping plants. Its main purpose is to capture and store water at Lake Oroville and distribute it to the 29 State Water Contractors in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-4
Southern California. Of the contracted water supply, approximately 70 percent goes to urban users and 30 percent goes to agricultural users. The SWP makes deliveries to two-thirds of California's population. The SWP is also operated to improve water quality in the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta, control Feather River flood waters, provide recreation, and enhance fish and wildlife.

The SWP includes 34 storage facilities, reservoirs, and lakes, 20 pumping plants, four pumpinggenerating plants, five hydro-electric plants, and approximately 701 miles of aqueducts and pipelines. The primary water source for the SWP is the Feather River, a tributary of the Sacramento River. Water released from Oroville Dam on the Feather River 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, 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 Edmonston Pumping Plant, where water is pumped over the Tehachapi Mountains. The aqueduct then divides into the East and West Branches.

Each SWP contractor’s SWP Water Supply Contract includes a “Table A,” which lists the maximum amount of water an agency is entitled to throughout the life of the contract. The Table A amount is each contractor’s proportionate share, or “allocation,” of the SWP water supply.

However, actual deliveries of SWP water each year vary, based mainly on the amount of precipitation (for other factors, see Section 3.1.2 below).

While the primary supply of water available from the SWP is allocated Table A supply, SWP supplies in addition to Table A water are periodically available, including “Article 56C” carryover water, “Article 21” water, “Article 57” water from other State Water Contractors via the Water Management Tool, and DWR “Dry Year Purchase Programs”. Pursuant to the long-term water supply contracts, SWP contractors have the opportunity to carry over a portion of their allocated water approved for delivery in the current year for delivery during the next year (Article 56C) with advance notice when they submit their initial request for Table A water, or within the last three months of the delivery year. The carryover program was designed to encourage the most efficient and beneficial use of water and to avoid obligating the contractors to “use or lose” the water by December 31 of each year. The water supply contracts outline the criteria for carrying over Table A water from one year to the next. Normally, carryover water is water that has been exported during the year, has not been delivered to the contractor during that year, and has remained stored in the SWP share of San Luis Reservoir to be delivered during the following year. Storage for carryover water no longer becomes available to the contractors if it interferes with storage of SWP water for project needs.

Article 21 water (which refers to the SWP contract provision defining this supply) is water that may be made available by DWR when excess flows are available in the Delta (i.e., when Delta outflow requirements have been met, SWP storage south of the Delta is full, and conveyance capacity is available beyond that being used for SWP operations and delivery of allocated and scheduled Table A supplies). Article 21 water is made available on an unscheduled and

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-5
interruptible basis and is typically available only in average to wet years, generally only for a limited time in the late winter.

In wet periods, the amount of water available may exceed the amount of storage in the SWP system. During these times, State Water Contractors may have excess SWP water. San Bernardino Valley has agreements, in place, to sell surplus water to SGPWA and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Delta Conveyance Project
Consistent with Executive Order N-10-19, in early 2019, the state announced a new single tunnel project, which proposed a set of new diversion intakes along Sacramento River in the north Delta for SWP. In 2019 DWR initiated planning and environmental review for a single tunnel Delta Conveyance Project (DCP) to protect the reliability of SWP supplies from the effects of climate change and seismic events, among other risks. DWR’s current schedule for the DCP environmental planning and permitting extends through the end of 2027 and additional steps are needed before construction can start by 2030. DCP will potentially be operational in 2050 following extensive planning, permitting and construction.

3.1.2 Imported Water Supply Reliability
This section presents the imported water supply reliability assumptions used in San Bernardino Valley’s water supply reliability analysis to meet the requirements of the UWMP Act.

The amount of SWP water delivered to State Water Contractors in a given year depends on a number of factors, including the demand for the supply, amount of rainfall, snowpack, runoff, water in storage, pumping capacity from the Delta, and legal/regulatory constraints on SWP operation. Water delivery reliability depends on three general factors: the availability of water, the ability to convey water to the desired point of delivery, and the magnitude of demand for the water. Urban SWP contractors’ requests for SWP water, which were low in the early years of the SWP, have been steadily increasing over time. Regulatory constraints have changed over time, becoming more restrictive. The last 15 years of SWP deliveries to San Bernardino Valley are presented in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Historical State Water Project Deliveries to San Bernardino Valley and Final SWP Table A Allocations

CALENDAR YEAR TOTAL DELIVERIES (AF) FINAL TABLE A ALLOCATION 2010 30,310 50%
2011 29,129 80%
2012 40,216 65%
2013 31,020 35%

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-6

CALENDAR YEAR TOTAL DELIVERIES (AF) FINAL TABLE A ALLOCATION 2014 19,223 5%
2015 35,430 20%
2016 62,600 60%
2017 78,396 85%
2018 44,307 35%
2019 78,478 75%
2020 23,504 20%
2021 16,822 5%
2022 12,781 5%
2023 61,756 100%
2024 76,914 40%
2025 70,190 50%
Note: As of 1/29/26, the 2026 Table A allocation is at 30%, but has not yet been finalized for 2026.

3.1.2.1 Normal Year and Long-Term State Water Project Availability DWR prepares a biennial report to assist SWP contractors and local planners in assessing the availability of supplies from the SWP. DWR issued its most recent update, the 2025 Draft DWR State Water Project Delivery Capability Report (DCR), in December 2025. In this update, DWR provides SWP supply estimates for SWP contractors to use in their planning efforts, including for use in their 2025 UWMPs.

The 2025 DCR includes DWR’s estimates of SWP water supply availability under both existing (2025) and future conditions (2043). The 2025 DCR also included three climate change scenarios that impact future conditions based on the percent level of concern (LOC) projected by 2043, which vary change in temperature, change in average precipitation, change in precipitation intensification, and sea level rise. Of the three scenarios (50%, 75%, and 95% LOC), the 75% LOC was chosen for this report to represent future SWP water supply availability.

The following is a plain-language description excerpt from the Draft 2025 DCR:

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-7
The 75th percentile LOC scenario represents a 2043 worse-than-average future for the SWP. It includes the following changes relative to current conditions:
- 1.7°C (~3°F) temperature increase.
- Similar average precipitation.
- 12% increase in the 99th percentile daily precipitation event (more intensity). - 30 cm (~12 in) of sea level rise at the Golden Gate Bridge.

Land use is representative of existing levels of development and regulations are represented by current regulations, including the 2019 US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinions, its associated Incidental Take Permit, and the 2018 addendum to the Coordinated Operations Agreement between the SWP and Central Valley Project. Ongoing processes, such as the Agreements to Support Healthy Rivers and Landscapes and the 2021 Reinitiation of Consultation for Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, are not included in the modeling.

Users of this scenario should assume that current climate model simulations indicate that actual 2043 climate conditions would have about a 25% change of being worse than the conditions represented in this scenario. Put another way, there is an approximate 25% chance that planning to only this scenario would leave an agency under-planned and potentially under prepared for the actual climate change conditions to which they need to operate. This scenario may be considered a moderate risk aversion scenario, as it provides significantly more challenging future conditions than the 50th percentile LOC but does not provide the most extreme planning conditions.

Based on the 75th percentile LOC, long-term average SWP deliveries are 54% under current conditions and 46% under 2043 conditions. In-between and out years were calculated using linear interpolation. Long-term average SWP deliveries represent both the long-term average and normal year supply conditions and are presented in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: SWP Long-term Average (1922-2021) Modeled Anticipated Table A Allocations to San Bernardino Valley

STATE WATER PROJECT
SUPPLIES 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
% of Table A Amount
Available 54% 51% 49% 46% 43% 41%
Anticipated Deliveries
(AFY) 55,404 52,668 49,932 47,196 44,460 41,724
Source: 2025 Draft DWR Delivery Capability Report

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-8

3.1.2.2 Dry Year, Multiple Dry Year, and Wet Year State Water Project Availability
DWR’s 2025 Delivery Capability Report indicates that the modeled single dry year SWP water supply allocations for 1977, 2014, and 2021 are 6%, 8%, and 10% under existing conditions.

Under 75th percentile LOC 2043 conditions, the allocations are 1%, 6%, and 7%, respectively.

Historically, the lowest final SWP allocations were 5% in 2014, 2021, and 2022.

Each year by October 1, SWP contractors submit their requests for SWP supplies for the following calendar year. By December 1, DWR estimates the available water supply for the following year and sets an initial supply allocation based on the total of all contractors’ requests, current reservoir storage, forecasted hydrology through the next year, and target reservoir storage for the end of the next year. The most uncertain of these factors is the forecasted hydrology. In setting water supply allocations, DWR uses a conservative 90% hydrologic forecast, where nine out of ten years will be wetter and one out of ten years drier than assumed.

DWR re-evaluates its estimate of available supplies throughout the runoff season of winter and early spring, using updated reservoir storage and hydrologic forecasts, and revises SWP supply allocations as warranted. Since most of California’s annual precipitation falls in the winter and early spring, by the end of spring the supply available for the year is much more certain, and in most years DWR issues its final SWP allocation by this time. While most of the water supply is certain by this time, runoff in the late fall remains somewhat variable as the next year’s runoff season begins. A drier than forecasted fall can result in not meeting end-of-year reservoir storage targets, which means less water available in storage for the following year.

Water year 2013 was a year with two hydrologic extremes. October through December 2012 was one of the wettest fall periods on record but was followed by the driest consecutive 12 months on record. The supply allocation for 2013 was a low 35% allocation. However, the 2013 hydrology ended up being even drier than DWR’s conservative hydrologic forecast, so the SWP began 2014 with reservoir storage lower than targeted levels and less stored water available for 2014 supplies. Compounding this low storage situation, 2014 also was a critically dry year, with runoff for water year 2014 the fourth driest on record.

The exceedingly dry sequence from the beginning of January 2013 through the end of 2014 was one of the driest two-year periods in the historical record. As noted above, the circumstances that led to the low SWP water supply allocation were unusual, however extremely low precipitation in 2021 and 2022 led to additional years of 5% allocations. San Bernardino Valley’s UWMP assumes 5% for all future single dry years.

For consecutive dry years, this Plan assumes conditions from the 6-year drought period 1929- 1934. For wet years, this Plan assumes conditions from 2017. Single dry, multiple dry, and wet year SWP allocations are presented in Table 3-4 and the modeled range of water supply availability by year used in each scenario is shown in Figure 3-1. Note that the values in Figure 3-1 are based on “existing conditions” and not the 75% level of concern climate change scenario, so these values will be higher than the values chosen for the UWMP analysis in Table 3-4.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-9
Table 3-4: Estimated SWP Table A Supply Reliability in Dry, Multiple Dry, and Wet Years State Water Project Supplies 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Dry Year (2014, 2021,
2022)
% of Table A Amount Available1 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Anticipated Deliveries (AFY) 5,130 5,130 5,130 5,130 5,130 Multiple Dry Year (1929-1934)
% of Table A Amount Available 15% 14% 14% 14% 14%
Anticipated Deliveries (AFY) 15,105 14,820 14,535 14,250 13,965 Wet Year (1983)
% of Table A Amount Available 84% 83% 83% 82% 82%
Anticipated Deliveries (AFY) 86,184 85,158 85,158 84,132 84,132

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-10
Figure 3-1: Modeled SWP Table A Availability for Dry Year, Six Consecutive Dry Years, Wet Year, Based on Historical Hydrologic Data and Existing Conditions

3.1.3 Sites Reservoir and Delta Conveyance Project
Sites Reservoir is a proposed new 1,500,000 acre-feet off-stream storage reservoir in northern California near Maxwell. Sacramento River flows will be diverted in wet, normal, dry, and critically dry years when Shasta Dam releases and/or unregulated flow from tributaries between Keswick Dam and Sites Reservoir diversion points exceed minimum flow requirements.

Typically, releases will be made during dry periods, but some releases will be made in all years types (Sites Project Authority, 2023). Sites Reservoir also will accommodate exchanges between Lake Shasta and Sites, and Lake Oroville and Sites. The proponents of Sites Reservoir include 31 entities including San Bernardino Valley, who has made financial contributions to its planning and development. As a financial contributor to the project, SBVMWD would receive a share of deliveries to South of Delta agencies.

The final EIS/EIR for Sites Reservoir has been approved. Sites Reservoir is funded through a combination of state and federal funding, including California Proposition 1 (2014), Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN), Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and an Environmental Protection Agency Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan, as well as funding support from project participants.

The Delta Conveyance Project (DCP) is a proposed water supply tunnel beneath the Delta that would add two additional diversion structures on the Sacramento River, north of the Delta, to work in combination with the South of Delta diversion facility at Clifton Court Forebay near Tracy 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1922192519281931193419371940194319461949195219551958196119641967197019731976197919821985198819911994199720002003200620092012201520182021 Table A Allocation Modeled to Existing Conditions Based on Historic Hydrology Highest delivery in a wet
year in 1983
Lowest delivery in a
single dry year in 2014
and 2021
Lowest average
deliveries in six
consecutive dry years in
1929-1934

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-11
to allow DWR increased operational flexibility when moving SWP water to State Water Contractors South of Delta. By diverting water further up river, the salinity levels are less impacted by sea level rise, leading to reduced carriage water losses used to manage salinity at the current intakes. The Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Delta Conveyance Project report suggests that the DCP would increase long-term average total SWP Table A allocations by 403,000 AFY (approximately 9 percentage points) (Berkeley Research Group, 2024). The DCP forecasted operation date is after 2050, so it is outside the scope of this RUWMP.

Sites Reservoir and the DCP would increase SWP supplies over the long-term average, leading to more groundwater recharge, and would decrease the likelihood of SWP curtailments in direct deliveries to local agencies during dry years. Based on CalSIM3 modeling done in March 2026, the estimated long-term average deliveries from Sites Reservoir to SBVMWD are 11,200 AFY.

For purposes of this Plan, it is estimated that the Sites Reservoir Project will begin producing delivery benefits for San Bernardino Valley in 2040. DWR estimates of SWP supply reliability in its 2025 Delivery Capability Report are based on existing facilities, and do not include the proposed Sites Reservoir. For supply projections made for years 2030 through 2035, it is assumed that SWP reliability is equal to values shown in Table 3-3 (for normal years) and Table 3-4 (for dry, consecutive dry, and wet years). For supply projections made for years 2040 and beyond, 11,200 AFY deliveries from Sites Reservoir are included for normal years and single dry years. For the five consecutive dry year scenario, it is assumed that SBVMWD will have 50,000 AFY in storage at the beginning of the period and will use 10,000 AFY in each of the five dry years (Table 3-5). Section 5.1 discusses Sites Reservoir impacts to water supplies in more detail.

Table 3-5: Sites Reservoir Yield to SBVMWD
Year Type Sites Reservoir Yield
Long-Term Average 11,200 AFY
Normal Year 11,200 AFY
Single Dry Year 11,200 AFY
Five Consecutive Dry Years 10,000 AFY

3.1.4 General Imported Water Strategy
As described in Section 3.1.1, there are several programs that give SBVMWD flexibility to increase deliveries above the Table A allocation in a given year, including the use of carry over water. As urban contractor demands increase in the future, the amount of water turned back and available for purchase will likely diminish. In critical dry years, DWR has formed Dry Year

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-12
Water Purchase Programs for contractors needing additional supplies. Through these programs, water is purchased by DWR from willing sellers in areas that have available supplies and is then sold by DWR to contractors willing to purchase those supplies. Because the availability of these supplies is somewhat uncertain and do not represent a large quantity of water, they are not included as supplies available to San Bernardino Valley in this Plan.

However, San Bernardino Valley’s access to these supplies when they are available may enable it to improve the reliability of its SWP supplies in extremely dry years to help meet its direct delivery demands. The main strategy San Bernardino Valley will use to supplement supplies in dry years is wet year water stored in local groundwater basins and water banks. San Bernardino Valley is already implementing conjunctive use in the SBB and there are plans to develop additional conjunctive use programs.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-13

3.2 Groundwater
Local precipitation that runs off as surface water and soaks into the ground, called “groundwater”, meets about 80% of the demand of participating agencies in an average year.

This section provides a description of local groundwater and surface water management in the San Bernardino Valley, including court judgments, groundwater management plans, and groundwater pumping rights. The groundwater basins utilized by agencies in the region are depicted in Figure 3-2.

3.2.1 Regional Groundwater and Surface Water Management There are several court judgments, agreements, settlements and groundwater management plans that apply to multiple groundwater basins and surface water supplies in the region. These broader regional water management frameworks are described in this section and additional court judgments and agreements that apply only to a single basin are described in the applicable subsection for that basin.

3.2.1.1 Western Judgement & Orange County Judgment
The Western Judgment, entered simultaneously with the Orange County Judgment, proportioned the water resources within the upper Santa Ana River watershed amongst the residents of the watershed.

The Orange County Judgment ensures minimum flows in the Santa Ana River to Orange County and the Western Judgment generally provides for:
• A determination of safe yield of the San Bernardino Basin Area (SBBA) at 232,100 AFY, which includes surface water from the SAR, Mill Creek and Lytle Creek. • Allocation of 27.95 percent of the safe yield, which equates to 64,862 AFY, to the Plaintiffs (agencies within Riverside County or Riverside Entities). An obligation of the non-plaintiff parties (agencies within San Bernardino County or San Bernardino Entities) to provide replenishment anytime their cumulative extractions exceed 72.05 percent of the safe yield, which equates to 167,238 AFY, but no limit on total extractions. • An obligation of the Riverside Entities to replenish the Colton Basin Area and the Riverside North Basins if extractions for use in Riverside County in aggregate exceed the amount recorded during the base period (1959-1963), which was 3,381 AFY and 21,085 AFY, respectively.
• An obligation of the San Bernardino Entities to replenish the Colton Basin Area and Riverside North Basin Areas if water levels are lower than 822.04 MSL in specified index wells.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-14
Figure 3-2: Groundwater Basins of the Region

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-15
The Riverside Entities include the City of Riverside (the successor to the Riverside Water Company and the Gage Canal Company), Riverside Highland Water Company, Meeks & Daley Water Company, and Regents of the University of California and each have an assigned fixed pumping right based on an allocation of the safe yield for the Riverside Entities. According to the Western Judgment, the Riverside Entities must not extract more than their respective portions of the safe yield on a 5-year average basis, adjusted for any net gains or losses of water to the SBBA. San Bernardino Entities do not have individual assigned pumping rights and are collectively allowed to extract more than their portion of the safe yield. The Judgment requires the San Bernardino Entities to provide replenishment water whenever the cumulative extractions exceed the cumulative safe yield. If the cumulative extractions are less than the cumulative safe yield, a “credit” is earned. When cumulative extractions are greater than the cumulative safe yield, a “debit” is taken. To date, the cumulative extractions have been less than the cumulative safe yield since the judgment was signed so that the San Bernardino Entities have never been required to recharge the basin under the terms of the Western Judgment.

San Bernardino County Entities are represented by San Bernardino Valley and Riverside County Entities are represented by Western Municipal Water District (Western). The Judgments establish a Watermaster to be responsible, on behalf of the numerous parties bound thereby, for ensuring implementation of the judgments. The Watermaster for the Western Judgment is made up of one representative from San Bernardino Valley and Western.

The Western Judgment contemplates that the parties will develop “new conservation” which is defined as any increase in replenishment from natural precipitation which results from operation of works and facilities not in existence as of 1969, other than works installed to offset losses from flood control channelization. The Western Judgment specifies that the parties to the Judgment have the right to participate in any new conservation projects, provided they pay the appropriate share of the cost. The net effect of new conservation is an increase in safe yield for both the Plaintiffs and non-Plaintiffs. A copy of the Western Judgment is provided in Part 3 Appendix B.

In 2013, both the Plaintiffs and Non-Plaintiffs agreed to participate in the cost to capture some of the water that historically flowed to the ocean. This New Conservation was due to the construction and operation of the Seven Oaks Dam. The 2015 Annual Report for the WesternSan Bernardino Annual Report effectively increases the safe yield for both Parties as shown in Table 3-6.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-16
Table 3-6: Adjusted SBBA Rights Due to New Conservation Allocation Parties Percentage
Safe Yield
Allocation
(AF)
New
Conservation
Allocation
(AF)
Adjusted
Right (AF)
Non- Plaintiffs 72.05% 167,238 5,507 172,745
Plaintiffs 27.95% 64,862 2,136 66,998
City of Riverside 52,199 1,719 53,918
Riverside Highland Water
Company 4,294 141 4,435
Meeks & Daley Water
Company 7,833 258 8,091
Regents of the University of
California 536 18 554
Total Sum of Extractions 100% 232,100 7,643 239,743
The Western-San Bernardino Watermaster provides an annual accounting of both the plaintiff and non-plaintiff extractions and a comparison to the safe yield. . As of the accounting performed for the 2025 Annual Western-San Bernardino Watermaster Report, the Non-Plaintiffs have 623,692 AF of net credit accumulated in the SBB and are, therefore, not required to recharge. Although there is no recharge requirement under the Judgment, the San Bernardino Entities have continued to recharge the SBB voluntarily since 1973.

Orange County Judgment
In 1963, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) filed suit against substantially all water users in the area tributary to Prado Dam seeking adjudication of water rights on the Santa Ana River. The litigation ultimately involved over 4,000 served water users and water agencies, the four largest of which were OCWD, San Bernardino Valley, Western, and the Chino Basin Municipal Water District (now the Inland Empire Utilities Agency). Given the magnitude of the potential litigation, these four districts and other parties developed a settlement that was approved by the Orange County Superior Court in a stipulated judgment entered on April 17, 1969, Orange County Water District v. City of Chino et al., Case No. 117628 (Orange County Judgment). The Orange County Judgment imposes a physical solution that requires parties in the upper Santa Ana River watershed to deliver a minimum quantity of water to points

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-17
downstream including Riverside Narrows and Prado Dam. A provision of the Orange County Judgment related to conservation establishes that, once the flow requirements are met, the Upper Area parties “may engage in unlimited water conservation activities, including spreading, impounding, and other methods, in the area above Prado Reservoir”. The Orange County Judgment is administered by the five-member Santa Ana River Watermaster that reports annually to the court and the four representative agencies. San Bernardino Valley, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and Western nominate one member each to the Watermaster, OCWD nominates two members, and members are appointed by the court. A copy of the Orange County Judgment is provided in Part 3 Appendix B.

3.2.1.2 Seven Oaks Accord
On July 21, 2004, San Bernardino Valley, Western, the City of Redlands, EVWD, Bear Valley Mutula Water Company (BVMWC), Lugonia Water Company, North Fork Water Company, and Redlands Water Company signed a settlement agreement known as the Seven Oaks Accord (Accord). The Accord calls for San Bernardino Valley and Western to recognize the prior rights of the water users up to 88 cubic feet per second from the natural flow of the Santa Ana River.

In exchange, the water users agreed to withdraw their protests to the water right application submitted by San Bernardino Valley on behalf of itself and Western. All the parties to the Accord have agreed to support the granting of other necessary permits to allow San Bernardino Valley and Western to divert water from the Santa Ana River for direct use, groundwater recharge, or exchanges. By means of the Accord, San Bernardino Valley agreed to modify its water right applications to incorporate implementation of the Accord. Additionally, the Accord requires San Bernardino Valley and Western to develop a groundwater spreading program in cooperation with other parties, “that is intended to maintain groundwater levels at the specified wells at relatively constant levels, in spite of the inevitable fluctuations due to hydrologic variation”. As part of compliance with the Seven Oaks Accord, the BTAC has prepared a Regional Water Management Plan annually since 2008.

3.2.1.3 Annual Regional Water Management Plan and Cooperative Recharge As discussed in Section 1.1.2, the BTAC was formed by the first IRWMP to implement the IRWMP and provide a forum to discuss technical issues regarding water management. BTAC works cooperatively and strives to make decisions by consensus. Currently, BTAC meets quarterly or as needed.

Each year, BTAC develops the Regional Water Management Plan that is considered by the two agencies that make up the Western Watermaster: San Bernardino Valley and Western Municipal Water District. The plan generally establishes a recharge threshold to ensure water levels do not increase liquefaction potential or move contamination plumes. The primary purpose of the Plan is for the coordinated use of available water resources and to cooperatively manage recharge without causing undesirable impacts. Since 2020, BTAC members have recharged over 180,000 acre-feet of local stormwater, recycled water, and SWP water largely

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-18
through facilities operated by the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District.

The latest version of the BTAC Regional Water Management Plan is available at http://www.sbvmwd.com/about-us/local-water-conditions.

3.2.2 San Bernardino Basin
The San Bernardino Basin (SBB) boundary used in this Plan is the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118 Boundary for the San Bernardino subbasin (8-002.06) of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Region. The SBB was previously referred to by DWR as the Bunker Hill subbasin until 2018, when the name was formally changed to the San Bernardino subbasin.

The majority of the northeastern and southeastern boundaries of the SBB coincide with the groundwater adjudication boundary in the 1969 Western-San Bernardino Judgment (Western Judgment), which refers to the “San Bernardino Basin Area” or SBBA, as discussed in Section

3.2.1.1. The SBB has a surface area of approximately 141 square miles and lies between the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults. The basin is bordered on the northwest by the San Gabriel Mountains and Cucamonga fault zone; on the northeast by the San Bernardino Mountains and San Andreas fault zone; on the east by the Banning fault and Crafton Hills; and on the south by a low, east-facing escarpment of the San Jacinto fault and the San Timoteo Badlands. Alluvial fans extend from the base of the mountains and hills that surround the valley and coalesce to form a broad, sloping alluvial plain in the central part of the valley.

3.2.2.1 Lytle Creek Sub basin
Lytle Creek Basin is part of the SBB, and it is not identified as a separate sub-basin in DWR Bulletin 118; however, the sub basin is an integral part of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin. Historically, local agencies have recognized Lytle Creek sub basin as a distinct groundwater sub basin, and it is subject to a separate court judgement as described in the following section. In the Western Judgment, the Bunker Hill and Lytle Creek sub basins are combined into the SBBA. The 1969 Western Judgment did not incorporate, supersede, or reopen the 1924 Lytle Creek Basin Judgment. The Lytle Creek Basin remains governed by its own adjudication, although it is commonly grouped within the SBBA for administrative, hydrologic, and reporting purposes.

However, the three separate water-bearing zones and intervening confining zones of the Bunker Hill sub basin are not observed in the Lytle sub basin. Sediments within the Lytle sub basin are, for the most part, highly permeable, and the aquifer has a high specific yield. High permeability and specific yield tend to result in an aquifer that responds rapidly to changes in inflow (precipitation and streamflow) and outflow (groundwater pumping, streamflow, and subsurface outflow).

Lytle Creek sub basin is adjoined on the west by the Rialto-Colton sub basin along the Lytle Creek fault, and on the east and southeast by the Bunker Hill sub basin along the Loma Linda

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-19
fault and Barrier G. The northwestern border of the sub basin is delineated by the San Gabriel Mountains, and runoff from the mountains flows south/southeast through Lytle and Cajon Creeks into the basin.

Numerous groundwater barriers are present within Lytle Creek sub basin, resulting in six compartments within the sub basin. Barriers A through D divide the northwestern portion of the sub basin into five sub-areas and the southeastern portion of the sub basin comprises the sixth sub-area. Barrier F divides the northwestern sub-areas from the southeastern sub-area. Studies have shown that the groundwater barriers are less permeable with depth. When groundwater levels are high during wet years, more leakage occurs across the barriers than when groundwater levels are lower (i.e., during dry years). The amount of pumping in each sub-area, in large part, controls the movement of groundwater across the barrier within the older alluvium but not the younger alluvium.

3.2.2.1.1 1924 Lytle Creek Basin Judgment
The Lytle Creek Basin Judgment (1924 Judgment) was issued by the Superior Court of San Bernardino County on January 28, 1924, in City of San Bernardino v. Fontana Water Co. et al. (Judgment No. 17030). The judgment establishes a foundational legal framework governing groundwater rights and related surface water operations within the Lytle Creek Region, a defined area downstream of Lytle Creek Canyon.

The judgment was intended to resolve competing claims among municipal, private, and mutual water companies. Consistent with adjudicated basin practice, it did not create new water rights, but instead recognized and quantified existing rights as they existed at the time. Importantly, the judgment incorporates and builds upon prior surface water rights established under the 1897 McKinley Decree, while focusing more directly on the allocation and management of groundwater resources.

The 1924 Judgment defines the Lytle Creek Region as a geographically bounded area influenced by flows from Lytle Creek and recognizes the hydraulic connection between surface flows and groundwater within this region. Groundwater is treated as a shared resource, with quantified extraction rights assigned to a defined group of appropriators.

A key operational feature of the judgment is the regulation of diversions at the Fontana Power Company intake. The decree imposes conditions to ensure that sufficient flows continue downstream into the Lytle Creek channel and wash, particularly during variable flow conditions.

These provisions are intended to support natural groundwater recharge through spreading in the creek’s alluvial system. During certain periods (including the winter season), flows are prioritized to meet downstream domestic and irrigation needs, with excess water allowed to pass for recharge when available.

To oversee implementation, the judgment established a five-member Watermaster committee, responsible for administering the decree, including oversight of diversion practices and recharge activities. Administration of these responsibilities continues today through successor entities,

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-20
including the Lytle Creek Water Conservation Association, which coordinates basin operations among the parties.

The 1924 Judgment assigns quantified groundwater rights to twelve appropriators, expressed in “miner’s inches,” with one inch defined as a continuous flow equal to 1/50 of a cubic foot per second. The original appropriators primarily consisted of water companies and a limited number of public entities, including:
• City of San Bernardino
• City of Colton
• Rialto Domestic Water Company (rights later acquired by the City of Rialto) • Fontana-related water companies
• Citizens Water Company
• Riverside Highland Water Company
• Terrace Water Company
• Rancheria Water Company
• Other mutual water companies
• One identified individual appropriator (James Barnhill) While the 1924 Judgment remains an important component of water rights administration in the area, it functions as part of a broader legal and operational framework that has evolved over time, including subsequent adjudications and modern groundwater management practices. A copy of the 1924 Judgment is provided in Part 3, Appendix B.

3.2.3 Rialto-Colton Sub basin
The Rialto-Colton sub basin (DWR 8-02.04) underlies a portion of the upper Santa Ana Valley in southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern Riverside County. This sub basin is about 10 miles long and varies in width from about 3.5 miles in the northwestern part to about

1.5 miles in the southeastern part. This sub basin is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains on the northwest, the San Jacinto fault on the northeast, the Badlands on the southeast, and the Rialto-Colton fault on the southwest. The Santa Ana River cuts across the southeastern part of the basin. The basin generally drains to the southeast, toward the Santa Ana River. Warm and Lytle Creeks join near the southeastern boundary of the basin and flow to meet the Santa Ana River near the center of the southeastern part of the sub basin.

The principal natural recharge areas are Lytle Creek, Reche Canyon in the southeastern part, and the Santa Ana River in the south-central part. Lesser amounts of recharge are provided by percolation of precipitation to the valley floor, underflow, and irrigation and septic returns.

Underflow occurs from fractured basement rock and through the San Jacinto fault in younger Santa Ana River deposits at the south end of the sub basin and in the northern reaches of the

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-21
San Jacinto fault system. Groundwater recharge has historically been augmented through the use of spreading basins, however the original spreading basins used are no longer in operation due to ineffectiveness. The region is working on new spreading basins at the Cactus Basins east of the former Rialto Airport.

The groundwater extractions in the Rialto-Colton sub basin are governed by the Rialto Basin Decree, the Rialto Basin Settlement Agreement, and the Western Judgment. The basin was adjudicated under the 1961 Decree No. 81,264 of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County and is managed by the Rialto Basin Management Association (stipulated parties of the judgment). The Rialto Basin Decree only provides the rights of the stipulated parties to pump out of the Rialto Basin, which is an area defined within the Decree that is smaller than the Rialto-Colton sub basin and includes only a portion of the northwestern half of the Rialto-Colton Basin. The boundary of the Rialto Basin is described in the Rialto Decree as Exhibit 1. A copy of the Rialto Basin Decree is provided in Part 3 Appendix B.

When the basin’s three index wells (WVWD Well No. 11, and 16, and Rialto’s Well 4) have average mean groundwater level elevations above 1002.3 feet mean sea level (msl) when measured during March, April, or May, the stipulated parties have no restrictions on yearly extractions. When the average standing water levels in the three index wells falls below 1002.3 feet msl but is above 969.7 feet msl, the Rialto Basin Decree stipulated parties are restricted to total extraction rights of 15,290 AFY distributed amongst the parties as shown in Table 3-7.

When the average of the three index wells drops below 969.7 feet msl, ground water extractions are reduced for all parties stipulated in the decree by 1 percent per foot below the 969.7-foot level, but not to exceed 50-percent reduction. Historic reductions to adjustable rights are summarized in Table 3-8.

Table 3-7: 1961 Decree Adjudicated Rights to the Rialto Basin Member Adjustable
Rights
Fixed Rights Total Rights
Water Rights
Allocation
Percentage
Colton 3,010 890 3,900 25%
Rialto 2,846 1,520 4,366 29%
WVWD 5,594 510 6,104 40%
FUWC 550 370 920 6%
Total 12,000 3,290 15,290 100%

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-22
Table 3-8: Historic Reductions to Pumping Rights in the Rialto Decree Area Water Year % Reduction
2009-10 7
2010-11 14
2011-12 19
2012-13 17
2013-14 27
2014-15 32
2015-16 30
2016-17 31
2017-18 38
2018-19 39
2019-20 29
2020-21 29
2021-22 40
2022-23 41
2023-24 49
2024-25 50

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-23
Figure 3-3: Rialto Decree % Adjustable Pumping Rights Reductions Fontana Water Company and the City of Rialto extract water from a small area referred to as “No Man’s Land” that is outside the boundary of the Rialto Basin in the 1961 Decree but is still believed to be within the Rialto-Colton sub basin. In 2018, Rialto, Colton, WVWD, San Bernardino Valley, Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Fontana Water Company entered into a Settlement Agreement that resulted in Fontana’s No Man’s Land production of 5,014-acre feet/year being counted as part of the Rialto Basin production limits in the 1961 Decree in addition to the total established decree rights of 15,290 AFY. The Settlement Agreement also obligates Fontana Water Company to recharge 61,000 acre-ft of supplemental water into the Rialto Basin. San Bernardino Valley agreed to facilitate obtaining and delivering up to 61,000 acre feet of replenishment water to recharge the Rialto Basin using the proceeds of a Replenishment and Sustainability Assessment (RSA), paid by the Fontana Water Company on an annual basis. Per the intent of the agreement, the replenishment water must be from an imported water source “outside” of San Bernardino Valley’s SWP Table A allocation, unless San Bernardino Valley declares a portion of its Table A surplus. Furthermore, the agreement contemplated that San Bernardino Valley may accomplish the replenishment by means of exchanges, in-lieu recharge, direct recharge, direct delivery or other means reasonably acceptable to the settlement parties. The rights of the parties of the Settlement Agreement to extract water from the Rialto Basin based on the 1961 Decree and the Settlement Agreement are provided in Table 3-9. As part of the Settlement Agreement, these parties also agreed to form a Rialto Basin Groundwater Council (RBGC), which was established in February 2021.

The purposes of the RBGC is to provide for the funding, integration, and coordination of managing the Rialto Basin groundwater supply, including maintenance of conveyance and groundwater recharge facilities, and developing groundwater management strategies with other agencies in the region (Rialto Basin Groundwater Council, 2025). A Draft Rialto Basin Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) has been developed to evaluate Rialto Basin 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
Rialto Decree Adjustable Rights Available Rialto Decree Adjustable Rights Reduction

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-24
conditions and perform hydrogeologic modeling analysis of current and potential future conditions. Preliminary results indicate that groundwater replenishment is needed to raise groundwater levels and reverse reduced water rights allocation from year to year.

Table 3-9: 2018 Settlement Agreement Updated Adjudicated Rights to the Rialto Basin Member Adjustable
Rights Fixed Rights
No Man’s
Land
Adjustable
Rights
Total Rights
Water Rights
Allocation
Percentage
Colton 3,010 890 0 3,900 19%
Rialto 2,846 1,520 0 4,366 22%
WVWD 5,594 510 0 6,104 30%
FUWC 550 370 5,014 5,934 29%
Total 12,000 3,290 5,014 20,304 100%
The Rialto-Colton sub basin is named the “Colton Basin Area” in the Western Judgment.

The Western Judgment requires the average lowest static water levels in three index wells in the Rialto-Colton Basin and Riverside North Basins to be no lower than 822.04 feet above msl.

If the water levels fall below 822.04 feet above msl, the non-plaintiffs are obligated to recharge the basin with imported water or reduce extractions. Extractions by the plaintiffs are limited to 3,381 AFY.

The safe yield for the Rialto-Colton Basin was not defined by the Western Judgment or the Rialto Basin decree. For the purpose of the supply reliability analysis in this Plan, the available supply from the Rialto-Colton Basin for the San Bernardino Entities is assumed to be equal to their Base Period Production (1959-1963) in the Western Judgment, which was 8,235 AFY.

However, the Western Judgment does not limit pumping so extractions can exceed this value.

The groundwater elevations in the three index wells fell below the threshold of 822.04 feet above msl from 2018 to 2022 but have since increased to 852.93 feet above msl as of calendar year 2024 so no recharge is required and current extractions can continue. However, understanding the increasing variability in the frequency and quantity of precipitation in the region, the Watermaster agencies continue to work towards long-term sustainability of the basins. In addition to the Judgment-provided actions to achieve compliance, San Bernardino Valley and Western Water are working cooperatively to develop a response plan with specific actions to increase water levels in the Colton and Riverside North Basin Areas. Actions in the

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-25
Plan will be triggered when the static level in the key wells falls below San Bernardino Valley’s replenishment threshold in the Judgment.

Riverside Highland Water Company is considered a Riverside County Entity in the Western Judgment, and its production is capped at 227 AFY, its portion of the 3,381 AFY extraction limit specified in the judgment.

3.2.4 Riverside-Arlington Sub basin
The Riverside-Arlington sub basin, (DWR 8-02.03) underlies part of the Santa Ana River Valley in northwest Riverside County and southwest San Bernardino County. This sub basin is bounded by impermeable rocks of Box Springs Mountains on the southeast, Arlington Mountain on the south, La Sierra Heights and Mount Rubidoux on the northwest, and the Jurupa Mountains on the north. The northeast boundary is formed by the Rialto-Colton fault, and a portion of the northern boundary is a groundwater divide beneath the community of Bloomington. The Santa Ana River flows over the northern portion of the sub basin. Annual average precipitation ranges from about 10 to 14 inches. The Riverside-Arlington sub basin is replenished by infiltration from Santa Ana River flow, underflow past the Rialto-Colton fault, intermittent underflow from the Chino sub basin, return irrigation flow, and deep percolation of precipitation.

The Western Judgment includes the Riverside Basin Area which consists of a portion of the Riverside-Arlington sub-basin upstream of Riverside Narrows. Groundwater extractions in the Riverside North Groundwater Basin (the portion of the Riverside Basin Area in San Bernardino County) are governed by the Western Judgment. Extractions from the Riverside North Basin by Riverside County Entities are limited to 21,085 AFY by the Judgment. Extractions by San Bernardino County Entities are unlimited, provided that water levels at three index wells in the Rialto-Colton and Riverside North Basins stay above 822.04 feet above msl. For the purpose of the supply reliability analysis in this Plan, the available supply from the Riverside Arlington Basin for the San Bernardino Entities is assumed to be equal to their Base Period Production (1959- 1963) in the Western Judgment, which was 9,609 AFY. However, the Western Judgment does not limit pumping so extractions can exceed this value. As described for the Rialto-Colton Basin, the groundwater elevations in the three index wells were above the recharge threshold as of calendar year 2024 so no recharge is required and current extractions can continue.

Riverside Highland Water Company is considered a Riverside County Entity in the Western Judgment, and its production in Riverside North is capped at 3,752 AFY, its portion of the 21,085 AFY extraction limit specified in the judgment. The Riverside County Entities can also extract a total of 29,663 AFY from Riverside South, of which Riverside Highland Water Company is entitled to 555 AFY.

3.2.5 Yucaipa Sub basin
The Yucaipa sub basin (DWR 8-02.07) underlies the southeast part of San Bernardino Valley. It is bounded on the northeast by the San Andreas fault, on the northwest by the Crafton fault, on

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-26
the west by the Redlands fault and the Crafton Hills, on the south by the Banning fault, and on the east by the Yucaipa Hills. The average annual precipitation ranges from 12 to 28 inches.

This part of the San Bernardino Valley is drained by Oak Glen, Wilson, and Yucaipa Creeks south and west into San Timoteo Wash, a tributary to the Santa Ana River.

Natural recharge to the sub basin is from percolation of precipitation and infiltration within the channels of overlying streams, particularly Yucaipa and Oak Glen Creeks; underflow from the fractures within the surrounding bedrock beneath the sub basin; and artificial recharge of local stormwater and imported water at spreading grounds.

The Yucaipa Subbasin is a DWR high‐priority groundwater basin and is subject to SGMA. In July 2017, San Bernardino Valley, the City of Calimesa, City of Redlands, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (Pass), South Mesa Water Company, South Mountain Water Company, Western Heights Water Company, City of Yucaipa, and Yucaipa Valley Water District formed the Yucaipa Sustainable Groundwater Management Agency (Yucaipa-SGMA) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The City of Calimesa and the City of Redlands later withdrew from the Yucaipa SGMA. The Yucaipa-SGMA Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) was completed in January 2022 and received approval from DWR in January 2024.

The Yucaipa GSP evaluated supplies and demands on the basin, established sustainability goals including recharge obligations to address any shortages between supplies and demands, and identified management actions and impacts of the GSP. The GSP establishes a framework for how the basin will be managed collaboratively by all entities who rely upon the basin.

Figure 3-4: Yucaipa Basin Groundwater Management Zones

3.2.6 San Timoteo Sub basin
The San Timoteo Sub basin (DWR 8-02.08) is largely outside of the San Bernardino Valley service area but is one of the sources used by YVWD and SMWC (SMWC produces groundwater from the adjudicated Beaumont Basin area discussed below). The San Timoteo

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-27
sub basin underlies Cherry Valley and the City of Beaumont in southwestern San Bernardino and northwestern Riverside counties. The sub basin is bounded to the north and northeast by the Banning fault and impermeable rocks of the San Bernardino Mountains, Crafton Hills, and Yucaipa Hills; on the south by the San Jacinto fault; on the west by the San Jacinto Mountains; and on the east by a topographic drainage divide with the Colorado River hydrologic region. The surface is drained by Little San Gorgonio Creek and San Timoteo Canyon to the Santa Ana River. Average annual precipitation ranges from 12 to 14 inches in the western part to 16 to 18 inches in the eastern part of the sub basin.

Holocene-age alluvium, which consists of unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and gravel, is the principal water-bearing unit in this sub basin. The alluvium, which is probably thickest near the City of Beaumont, thins toward the southwest and is not present in the central part of the sub basin. The Pliocene-Pleistocene-age San Timoteo Formation consists of alluvial deposits that have been folded and eroded. These deposits are widely distributed and principally composed of gravel, silt, and clay, with comparatively small amounts of calcite-cemented conglomerate.

The clasts are chiefly granitic, with lesser amounts of volcanic and metamorphic pebbles and cobbles. The total thickness of the San Timoteo Formation is estimated to be between 1,500 and 2,000 feet, but logs of deep wells near the central part of the sub basin indicate waterbearing gravels to depths of only 700 to 1,000 feet.

The Banning and Cherry Valley faults and two unnamed faults in the northeast part of the sub basin offset impermeable basement rocks, stepping down to the south. Water levels change across the Banning fault, dropping 100 to 200 feet to the south. In the western part of the sub basin, water levels drop to the south about 75 feet across the Loma Linda fault and about 50 feet across the San Timoteo barrier. In the northeastern part of the sub basin, water levels drop to the south across two unnamed faults. Each of these faults appears to disrupt groundwater movement in the sub basin.

Groundwater is replenished by subsurface inflow and percolation of precipitation, runoff, wastewater discharge, and imported water. Runoff and imported water are delivered to streambeds and spreading grounds for percolation. The San Timoteo Subbasin is not adjudicated, and reliable estimates of total groundwater extractions are not available. However, water table elevations within the San Timoteo Subbasin have not declined over the years which is likely due to the constant flow of treated wastewater from YVWD that flows through San Timoteo Creek.

The San Timoteo Subbasin was originally designated by DWR as a medium‐priority groundwater basin subject to SGMA. In 2017, the San Timoteo Groundwater Sustainability Agency was formed by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Redlands, SGPWA, BCVWD and YVWD to manage the non-adjudicated portion of the San Timoteo Subbasin. In 2018, Eastern Municipal Water District submitted a Basin Boundary Modification Request for the San Timoteo Subbasin that was subsequently approved by DWR.

In 2019, the basin was reprioritized as a very low priority by DWR and therefore preparation of a GSP is not required by SGMA, but encouraged and authorized. In 2020, a revised MOA was

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-28
adopted by YVWD, the City of Redlands, BCVWD and the City of Banning reforming the San Timoteo GSA to further the shared intent of the parties to maximize funding opportunities, increase transparency and foster cooperation. It was agreed by the Parties of the San Timoteo GSA to establish Management Areas for the GSA for each agency’s respective boundaries and to initially create separate GSPs for each Management Area that could be consolidated into a single GSP in the event that the priority of the basin is changed by DWR and a GSP is required.

The lead agency for each management area, shown in Figure 3-5, is independently responsible for the development of a GSP for their respective Management Areas. The parties agreed to work together and with local stakeholders to carry out the policy, purposes, and requirements of SGMA within the boundaries of the San Timoteo GSA.

The adjudicated portion of the San Timoteo Subbasin, the Beaumont Basin Adjudicated Area, is managed by the Beaumont Basin Watermaster and not the San Timoteo GSA, as discussed in the following section.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-29
Figure 3-5: San Timoteo Subbasin Management Areas

3.2.6.1 Beaumont Groundwater Basin
DWR considers the Beaumont Groundwater Basin to be composed of two other groundwater basins, primarily the San Timoteo sub basin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR 8-02.08) and the San Gorgonio Pass Sub basin (No. 7-21.04). Locally, the Beaumont Basin is treated as a distinct basin. The Beaumont Basin is one of the sources used by YVWD and SMWC.

The Beaumont Basin is located in northwestern Riverside County, south of the Yucaipa Basin.

The basin eventually drains to San Timoteo Creek, a tributary of the Santa Ana River, and covers approximately 26 square miles. Groundwater elevations generally slope from the northeast to southwest in the basin.

Groundwater within the basin is predominantly found in Holocene age alluvium and in the San Timoteo Formation. While the San Timoteo Formation extends to depths in excess of 1,500 feet, water bearing sediments within the Beaumont Basin exist to depths of 700 to 1,000 feet.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-30
Estimates for total groundwater storage capacity within the basin vary. The Beaumont Basin storage capacity is estimated at approximately 1,000,000 AF.

In February 2004, the San Timoteo Watershed Management Authority filed a judgment adjudicating the groundwater rights in the Beaumont Basin and assigned the Beaumont Basin Watermaster (BBW) with the authority to manage the groundwater basin. The Beaumont Basin Watermaster is comprised of managers from the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District, City of Banning, City of Beaumont, SMWC, and YVWD. The Beaumont Basin Watermaster originally established a long-term yield for the Beaumont Basin of 8,560 AFY. The adjudication of the Beaumont Basin has defined overlying and appropriator pumping rights and also allows for supplemental water to be stored and recovered from the basin.

The safe yield is reevaluated every ten years and on April 1st, 2015, the BBW approved the adoption of Resolution 2015-01 (2013 Reevaluation of the Beaumont Basin Safe Yield Report and Redetermination of the Safe Yield of the Beaumont Basin), which reduced the safe yield to 6,700 AFY. The 2023 Reevaluation of the Beaumont Basin Safe Yield recommended a Safe Yield of 7,100 AFY for 2024 through 2033.

The Beaumont Basin Watermaster Website provides copies of the Judgment, Annual Reports and related information: https://beaumontbasinwatermaster.org/.

The Judgement includes a controlled overdraft (temporary surplus) provision that allows extraction up to 160,000 AF over the 10-year period immediately following the Judgement inception. During the first 10 years, the agencies could extract 16,000 AFY; after the first 10 years, extractions are limited to the amount each agency has in storage or credit. Agencies must provide the BBW with funds necessary to replace any amount of overproduction that may have occurred over a 5-year consecutive period.

3.2.7 Recharge Area Programs
Conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater is a long-standing practice in the Region with artificial recharge of the Region’s groundwater basins occurring as early as 1912. Storage of imported water and local surface water during wet years, as well as recycled water, helps the Region be resilient to drought and agencies have already invested in groundwater wells to produce the stored water. Numerous groundwater spreading grounds have been developed to recharge the groundwater basins when adequate surface water supply is available. See Chapters 4 and 5 for a summary of estimated recharge for each groundwater basin in the Region and the volume of SWP expected to be available for recharge.

Because of the extremely permeable sand and gravel deposits in the Region’s groundwater basins, maximum instantaneous recharge rates are high. Because of the size of several of the recharge basins and exceptionally permeable material, a larger quantity of water could be imported and recharged along the base of the San Bernardino Mountains, if necessary. Any additional recharge is carefully planned and implemented to avoid liquefaction and unacceptable decreases or increases in groundwater levels in the basins.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-31
Numerous existing groundwater recharge facilities (spreading grounds or spreading basins) are located in the SBB, Rialto-Colton, and Yucaipa Subbasins. Existing and proposed recharge basins are shown in Figure 3-6 and selected characteristics are summarized in Table 3-10.

SBVWCD facilities are used for both native water (Safe Yield), additional stormwater (new Santa Ana River water rights), and SWP recharge. In addition to incidental stormwater capture, existing turnouts provide SWP water to most recharge facilities.

Table 3-10: Regional Recharge Basins
Facility Name Owner
Underlying GW
Basin Recharge Water Sources
Waterman Basin SBCFCD SBB/Bunker Hill A Stormwater, SWP East Twin Creek
Spreading Grounds SBCFCD SBB/Bunker Hill A Stormwater, SWP Redlands Recharge
Basins Redlands SBB/Bunker Hill B Treated Wastewater (disposal) Lytle Creek North
WRP Effluent
Disposal Ponds
San Bernardino
County Special
Districts
Department
(SBCSDD)
SBB/Lytle Basin Treated Wastewater
(disposal)
Wilson Basin SBCFCD Yucaipa Basin Stormwater, SWP
Sweetwater Basins SBCFCD Bunker Hill Stormwater, SWP
Santa Ana SBVWCD SBB/Bunker Hill B Local surface water, SWP Santa Ana Low SBVWCD SBB/Bunker Hill B Local surface water, SWP Mill Creek SBVWCD SBB/Bunker Hill B Local surface water, SWP Oak Glen SBCFCD, YVWD Yucaipa Basin Stormwater, SWP
County Line Road
Recharge Basin

SMWC, SBVMWD,
SGPWA Yucaipa Basin SWP
Weaver Basins San Bernardino
Valley SBB/Bunker Hill B Recycled Water for groundwater recharge

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-32
Figure 3-6: Groundwater Recharge Basins, from San Bernardino Basin Context Summary (WSC, 2024)

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-33

3.3 Surface Water
As described in Section 3.2.1.13.2.1 and 3.2.2, surface water supplies in the Region include flows from the Santa Ana River and two if its tributaries, Mill Creek and Lytle Creek. All these sources are managed in conjunction with SBB groundwater per the terms of the Western Judgment and the 1924 Lytle Creek Basin Judgment.

The retail water agencies in the Region that divert and treat local surface water as part of their potable water supply are West Valley Water District (who also diverts surface water rights on behalf of the City of Rialto), the City of Redlands, East Valley Water District and Fontana Water Company. Additionally, there are numerous other surface water rights holders in the Region that divert water for non-potable irrigation use.

Surface water flows can be highly variable from year to year. The largest monthly flows typically occur in February and March, and the lowest monthly flows typically occur between August and October. When surface water is available, retail water agencies typically prioritize this supply due to the typically high quality and low cost gravity conveyance to the treatment plants. When surface water flows are low, or the quality is degraded due to high storm flows, fires, or other impacts, retail agencies and other water rights holders shift their supply strategy to use groundwater and/or SWP water instead of local surface water. The associated water rights can be produced as either surface water or groundwater so the total supply available to these agencies does not change. SAR and Mill Creek surface water flows that are not diverted by retail suppliers for treatment, are generally recharged to retain the supply for future use as groundwater.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-34

3.4 Stormwater
As discussed previously, stormwater capture is a critical component of the Region’s conjunctive use and groundwater management strategy. Stormwater management has been an ongoing challenge in the Region and flood control facilities, such as detention basins, have provided much needed control of these flows. While conveying flood water safely through the upper SAR watershed is of critical importance, detaining runoff for recharge is also desirable. The region’s groundwater managers are working with flood control agencies to optimize the use of these flood control facilities to increase the recharge of stormwater into the groundwater basin. The goal is to strike a balance between flood control and recharge that will ensure protection from flooding, while providing additional supplies to meet growing future demands and to supplement these supplies during drought years. San Bernardino Valley has had an agreement with SBCFCD since 1972 which allows San Bernardino Valley to recharge water in flood control detention basins. Additionally, the Conservation District has a Planning Memorandum of understanding (MOU) with SBCFCD that identifies SBCFCD facilities where stormwater may be diverted for recharge purposes, granted that diversion does not impact SBCFCD’s facilities functionality and purpose to maintain protection from floods. Future studies pertaining to eligible facilities, the amount and quality of storm water flows for recharge, the location and capacity of SBCFCD facilities, recharge impacts to groundwater levels, migration of contaminant plumes, sand and gravel extraction or other land uses in the vicinity, subsidence protection, endangered and sensitive species habitat preservation, and any other concerns will need to be evaluated (San Bernardino County Flood Control District, January 2021).

The native water historically captured and recharged at the existing recharge facilities is embedded in the natural safe yield calculations for the SBB, except for the additional amount the Watermaster determined to be New Conservation because of the construction of Seven Oaks Dam. For proposed recharge activities that were not part of the safe yield calculation, the Western -San Bernardino Watermaster evaluates whether the recharge will result in a net increase to the SBB that would be considered New Conservation under the Western Judgment.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-35

3.5 Recycled Water
The development and utilization of recycled water is another important water supply strategy for the Region. Although implementing recycled water infrastructure requires significant capital investment, the supply is highly reliable because wastewater flows to treatment plants remain relatively constant during dry hydrologic conditions. For this reason, recycled water is often considered a "drought-proof" supply.

Some retail agencies in the Region provide recycled water to their customers for non-potable use, such as irrigation and industrial cooling water. The Region has also recently begun using recycled water for groundwater recharge in the SBB. Recycled water produced in the San Bernardino Valley service area that is not currently used for non-potable reuse or groundwater recharge is either disposed of in disposal ponds that overlie SBB or discharged to the SAR or its tributaries. Recycled water discharges have become a critical source of water that sustains habitat in natural rivers and streams, including the Santa Ana Sucker, which is a Federally listed endangered species. Development of new recycled water supplies in the upper SAR watershed must be balanced with the need to conserve and maintain this habitat in accordance with the Upper Santa Ana River Habitat Conservation Plan (River HCP), which is under review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and is anticipated to be approved in 2026. Additionally, recycled water discharges to SAR are used to meet the Region’s downstream obligations. San Bernardino Valley contracted with the City of San Bernardino and the City of Colton to ensure that the RIX facility continues to release quantities of treated effluent to the SAR adequate to fulfill San Bernardino Valley service area’s obligation to provide 15,250 AF of baseflow each year at the Riverside Narrows as called for in the Orange County Judgment.

Wastewater treatment facilities in the Region are described in the next section, followed by a description of existing and planned recycled water programs in the Region. Potential recycled water supplies for each retailer are described in their respective chapters in Part 2. Anticipated recycled water supplies are included in the regional summary of supplies in Chapters 4 and 5.

3.5.1 Wastewater
There are 8 publicly owned WWTPs located within the Region as shown in Table 3-11.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-36
Table 3-11: Wastewater Treatment Plans in the Region

FACILITY INFLUENT FLOW
SOURCE

CAPACITY
(MGD)
2025

AVERAGE
FLOW
(MGD)

EFFLUENT USE
San Bernardino
County Special
Districts Department
Lytle Creek North
WRP

SBCSDD,
WVWD 1.75 0.4 (est.)
Non-potable reuse for
Irrigation and Dust
Control
Remaining discharged
onsite disposal ponds
Rialto WWTP Rialto 11.7 7
Discharged to Rialto
Channel/SAR
Colton WRP Colton &
RHWC 10.4 5 Conveyed to RIX

SBMWD WRP SBMWD,
Loma Linda 33 15
Conveyed to RIX.

Planned TTS will
produce RW for
groundwater recharge
RIX WWTP Colton WRP &
SBWRP 40 19 100% Discharged to SAR
Redlands WWTF Redlands 9.5 5
Non-potable reuse for
Irrigation and Industrial
Remaining discharged
to onsite disposal ponds
YVWD WRWRF YVWD 8 3.8 (est.)
Non-potable reuse for
irrigation
Remaining discharged
to San Timoteo Creek
Groundwater recharge
(planned)
EVWD SNRC EVWD 8 6 Groundwater recharge

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-37

3.5.2 Recycled Water Programs
Several agencies in the Region have existing recycled water programs or plans to improve recycled water production capacity and use in the future, as discussed in the following subsections.

3.5.2.1 Regional Recycled Water System
SBVMWD, SBMWD, City of Redlands and EVWD have partnered to form the Bunker Hill Regional Recycled Water Coalition to facilitate recharge or disposal of recycled water into the SBB and to construct a Regional Recycled Water System.

In 2024, EVWD began operating the Sterling Natural Resource Center (SNRC), a water reclamation plant which produces tertiary treated recycled water that is used for groundwater recharge at the Weaver Basins, a set of recharge basins on the north side of the Santa Ana River that are owned by SBVMWD. SNRC’s treatment train includes headworks, fine screens, membrane bioreactor (MBR) with aeration tanks, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The facility also includes a food waste handling system, odor control, and anaerobic digesters for solids.

SNRC’s current capacity is 8 MGD with provisions to be expanded to 10 MGD (11,200 AFY) under buildout conditions within EVWD’s service area. SNRC came online in early 2024, operating at 6 MGD after all planned flow had been diverted to SNRC. Since the Weaver Basins are the only discharge point, all 6 MGD is being recharged into SBB and all future flows are planned to be discharged there as well.

SBMWD’s Water Reclamation Plant (SBWRP) is a 33 MGD secondary water reclamation facility located at 399 Chander Place, San Bernardino, CA 92408 that treats wastewater from the cities of Loma Linda and San Bernardino and nearby San Bernardino County areas. The SBWRP formerly also treated wastewater from EVWD until the construction of SNRC. The SBWRP was constructed in 1958 and produces secondary effluent through a treatment train consisting of headworks, primary clarifiers, aeration basins, and secondary clarifiers. The SBWRP currently treats approximately 15 MGD.

Effluent from the SBWRP is conveyed to a separate facility where it combines with secondary effluent from the City of Colton’s WWTP and is treated to tertiary standards at the Rapid Infiltration and Extraction (RIX) facility. The RIX process works by distributing effluent to percolation basins adjacent to the Santa Ana River, where it undergoes soil aquifer treatment and is then extracted by downgradient wells, treated by UV disinfection, then discharged to the Santa Ana River. The RIX facility also has cloth filtration and granular media filtration systems that can be used when additional capacity is needed. Effluent from the RIX plant is considered tertiary by CCR Title 22 standards. The RIX discharge to the Santa Ana River is used to meet flow obligations from both the 1969 Orange County Judgment and the River HCP, although the discharge is currently more than what is required to meet those commitments and can be reduced.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-38
The Tertiary Treatment System (TTS) adds tertiary treatment after the secondary treatment train on the SBWRP site. TTS Phase 1 is complete and produces recycled water for onsite use only at the SBWRP. Phase 2 of TTS would consist of additional cloth disk filters, UV disinfection, discharge pumping facilities, and an extension of the Regional Recycled Water Pipeline to the SBWRP so tertiary effluent can be recharged at the Weaver Basins. SBMWD is also considering a future TTS Phase 3 to produce additional recycled water for recharge, provided there is excess flow beyond the discharge obligations.

SBVMWD owns the Weaver Basins and the Regional Recycled Water Pipeline, which conveys recycled water from SNRC to the Weaver Basins. A future phase may expand the pipeline to ultimately convey TTS Phase 2 recycled water from TTS to the Weaver Basins. The Regional Recycled Water System is shown in Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-7: Regional Recycled Water Facilities

3.5.2.2 Recycled Water Use for Redlands
Redlands operates the Redlands Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF), a 9.5 MGD water reclamation facility that treats wastewater from the City of Redlands. The WRF was constructed in the 1960s and produces both secondary and tertiary effluent through a 6.5 MGD capacity MBR plant and a 3.0 MGD capacity conventional activated sludge plant. Tertiary effluent is provided to customers for irrigation and industrial use. Secondary effluent from the conventional plant is disposed of in a set of disposal ponds (the Redlands Basins) that overlie SBB south of the Santa Ana River. Redlands recently finished a preliminary design to expand recycled water deliveries within their 1350 pressure zone to assist in meeting peak irrigation demands in their blended non-potable/recycled system.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-39

3.5.2.3 Recycled Water Use for City of Rialto
The City of Rialto operates the Rialto WWTP which was originally constructed in 1955 and serves the City of Rialto, portions of the Cities of Colton and Fontana, and unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. It has been upgraded and expanded multiple times, most recently in 2020. Following secondary treatment, the current treatment train includes cloth disk filters and chlorination with sodium hypochlorite to meet California Title 22 tertiary recycled water standards. The City of Rialto uses plant effluent for various functions around the WWTP and formerly delivered water to Caltrans for irrigation of the I-10 median but does not currently use or sell recycled water. Rialto currently discharges all of its tertiary treated effluent to the Rialto Channel, which is tributary to the SAR.

The City of Rialto currently has a requirement to provide 7 cfs or 3.8 MGD for the benefit of the habitat in the Rialto Channel/Santa Ana River. For the protection of the habitat in the Santa Ana River, the River HCP identified that it is desirable to remove the Rialto WWTP flows from the Rialto Channel during the summer months, when the temperature of the water has an adverse impact on native species. The City of Rialto is currently designing the Habitat Nature Center Project, a roughly 8-acre lake and wetland facility located on the south side of the Rialto WWTP property. The lake will be filled with dechlorinated effluent from the Rialto WWTP via a series of fill laterals on the north and west sides of the lake and will be drained using a pump station in the southeast corner of the lake which will discharge into the Rialto Channel at the same location as the Rialto WWTP’s existing discharge point. Habitat Nature Center’s purpose is to provide wetland habitat, improve water quality, remove salt and nitrogen from the Santa Ana River ecosystem, and reduce discharge temperatures for downstream sensitive fish species, while also providing walking space and educational opportunities. The required inflow for Habitat Nature Center is not yet finalized but is estimated to be approximately 1 MGD.

The City of Rialto also entered into a long-term recycled water purchase agreement with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) in 2022. Under the agreement, which has a 50-year term, Rialto sells a portion of its excess tertiary recycled water supply that would otherwise be discharged to the Santa Ana River, particularly during the summer months when removing the discharge from the Rialto Channel provides habitat benefits. Under the agreement, IEUA will have exclusive rights to divert a constant flow of 7 MGD of Rialto’s recycled water into the IEUA recycled water system annually from May 1st to October 31st, and IEUA may purchase additional recycled water when available.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-40

3.6 Transfers and Exchanges

3.6.1 Transfers and Exchanges
Regional exchange programs are discussed in this section and agency specific transfers and exchanges are discussed in chapters for each individual agency in Part 2.

3.6.1.1 Exchange Plan
On May 3, 1976, the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District (Conservation District), San Bernardino Valley, BVMWC, City of Redlands, Crafton Water Company, EVWD, Lugonia Water Company, North Fork Water Company (now owned by EVWD), Redlands Water Company, and YVWD entered into the Santa Ana River – Mill Creek Cooperative Water Project Agreement (Exchange Plan). The Exchange Plan provided a way for San Bernardino Valley to provide SWP water to the Yucaipa area, by exchange, before San Bernardino Valley had a pipeline to deliver SWP water directly to Yucaipa. Since the construction of the State Water Project East Branch Extension and the Crafton Hills Pump Station, SWP water deliveries can be made directly to Yucaipa so that San Bernardino Valley no longer requires the Exchange Plan.

In 2019, the parties to the Exchange Plan began the process of reviewing the plan to determine if it would be beneficial to amend the agreement to enable exchanges that may help the region overcome issues like varying surface water quality, or an outage on the State Water Project.

The discussions did not result in an amendment to the Exchange Plan but may be revisited again in the future. The original Exchange Plan is still in effect.

3.6.1.2 Metropolitan Coordinated Operating Agreement
In 2021, SBVMWD entered into a new Coordinated Operating Agreement (COA) with Metropolitan that would sell them SBVMWD’s surplus imported water when available; this COA replaced the previous version that expired in 2016. One of the terms of the COA requires Metropolitan to offer 50% of any surplus water purchased under this agreement to their member agencies in the SARCCUP Program. The COA is included in Part 3 Appendix B.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-41

3.7 Groundwater Banking Programs
As stated previously, storing water in local groundwater basins during wet years for later use during droughts is one of the primary management strategies in the Region.

3.7.1 SARCCUP and BHCUP
The five regional water agencies in the Santa Ana River Watershed have identified a watershed scale project, the Santa Ana River Conservation and Conjunctive Use Program (SARCCUP), a cooperative program with Metropolitan and other agencies in the Santa Ana Watershed to store imported water during wet years for use during dry years.

The group includes representatives from the following regional water agencies:
• San Bernardino Valley
• Western
• Eastern Municipal Water District
• IEUA
• Orange County Water District
The program goals of SARCCUP include:
• Providing watershed-wide benefits based upon regional collaboration • Creating significant new dry-year yield
• Increasing the resiliency and reliability of the water supply SARCCUP includes four separate groundwater banks located in different groundwater basins within the Santa Ana Watershed, including a comprehensive conjunctive use program in the SBB. SARCCUP will provide water for the SBB and the companion project, Bunker Hill Conjunctive Use Program (BHCUP) provides the extraction facilities for the SBB.

Conjunctive use will benefit the retail water agencies with wells in the San Bernardino Basin by increasing water levels and reducing pumping costs. The portion of these projects ultimately available to agencies in the San Bernardino Valley can provide up to 29,500 acre-feet of dry year yield (single year) for up to three years.

3.8 Development of Desalination

3.8.1 Opportunities for Brackish Water and/or Groundwater Desalination
Desalination, or desalting, is a process to create drinking water from water containing higher salt levels. Desalination can use a thermal distillation process or a membrane process (such as electrodialysis or reverse osmosis). All desalination processes produce a brine waste stream that must be disposed of. Brackish groundwater desalting is not currently needed in the San Bernardino Valley.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-42

3.8.2 Opportunities for Seawater Desalination
Because the San Bernardino Valley is an inland area and has developed less costly management strategies to achieve a reliable water supply, the region is not pursuing this option.

3.9 Water Quality
This section discussed the water quality of each of the Region’s supplies, along with associated impacts to supply reliability.

3.9.1 Imported Water Quality
San Bernardino Valley imports water through the SWP which is Sierra snow melt with consistently low TDS levels of 200 to 300 mg/L (DWR 2003a) except during periods of drought, flood events, reservoir management practices, and salt input from local streams.

DWR has conducted water quality monitoring for the SWP since 1968. Initially, this program sought to monitor eutrophication (an increase in chemical nutrients) and salinity in the SWP.

Over time, the water quality program expanded to include parameters of concern for drinking water, recreation, and wildlife. Water quality samples are collected at regular intervals throughout the year for chemical, physical, and biological parameters. The SWP water has moderate total organic carbon levels, resulting in higher disinfection byproduct (DBP) formation, and also has some taste and odor causing compounds. Real time data and forecasting for SWP water quality is available on DWR’s website (https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-WaterProject/Operations-and-Maintenance/Water-Quality). SWP quality is suitable for treatment and potable use and for groundwater recharge.

In order to protect against any water quality impacts from imported water, the City of Corona, City of Riverside, Eastern Metropolitan Water District, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Orange County Water District, San Bernardino Valley, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, and Western (Recharge Parties) entered into the “Cooperative Agreement to Protect Water Quality and Encourage the Conjunctive Uses of Imported Water in the Santa Ana River Basin” with the SARWQCB in 2007. The initial term of the agreement was 10 years, and it has been extended to January 18, 2028 and is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

This order states that long-term conjunctive use of groundwater in the Region requires that the quality of water in groundwater basins in the region be managed to meet the water quality objectives for nitrogen and TDS (collectively, the Salinity Objectives) adopted by the SARWQCB in the 1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin, as amended in 2004 by R8- 2004-0001 (Basin Plan).

The parties that recharge imported water within the Santa Ana Region (Recharging Parties) agree to collect, compile, and analyze the total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) and TDS water quality data necessary to determine whether the intentional recharge of imported water in the region may have a significant adverse impact on compliance with the Salinity Objectives within the Region.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-43
This agreement provides a framework for groundwater recharge of imported water and will facilitate conjunctive management in the region while protecting water quality. A copy of the agreement is included in Part 3 Appendix B.

3.9.2 Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality varies among the Region’s groundwater basins due to geology and faulting patterns and recharge points, and from anthropogenic sources of contamination.

3.9.2.1 Ambient Water Quality
The Basin Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8) requires the implementation of a watershed-wide TDS and nitrogen groundwater monitoring program to determine ambient water quality (AWQ) in groundwater, assess compliance with groundwater quality objectives, and determine if assimilative capacity exists in groundwater management zones (GMZs). To date, seven AWQ determinations have been made with the most recently completed for the 1998 to 2018 time period. The AWQ computation for the period through 2021 is expected to be complete in 2026, after which the AWQ will be recomputed every 5 years. The AWQ computation for the period through 2026 is expected to be complete in 2028. The GMZs are shown in Figure 3-8.

According to the Basin Plan (RWQCB, 2016a): “TDS and nitrate-nitrogen water quality objectives for each management zone are based on historical concentrations of TDS and nitrate-nitrogen from 1954 through 1973 and are referred to herein as the ‘antidegradation’ objectives. This period brackets 1968, when the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted the state’s antidegradation policy in Resolution No. 68-16, “Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Waters”. This Resolution establishes a benchmark for assessing and considering authorization of degradation of water quality.

By definition, assimilative capacity is determined to be the difference between the objective and the current AWQ: if the current quality of the GMZ is better than the water quality objective, then assimilative capacity exists. Assimilative capacity does not exist if the current quality of a GMZ is the same as or poorer than the water quality objectives.

According to the Basin Plan (RWQCB, 2016a), when a GMZ has little or no assimilative capacity: “The Regional Board addresses such situations by providing dischargers with the opportunity to participate in TDS offset programs, such as the use of desalters, in lieu of compliance with numerical TDS limits. These offset provisions are incorporated into waste discharge requirements . . . An alternative that dischargers might pursue in these circumstances is revision of the TDS or nitrogen objectives, through the Basin Plan amendment process.

Consideration of less stringent objectives would necessitate comprehensive antidegradation review, including the demonstrations that beneficial uses would be protected and that water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State would be maintained . . . a number of dischargers have pursued this ‘maximum benefit objective’ approach, leading to the inclusion of ‘maximum benefit’ objectives and implementation strategies in this Basin Plan.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-44
Discharges to areas where the ‘maximum benefit’ objectives apply will be regulated in conformance with these implementation strategies.”
The 2021 AWQ for the GMZs with “maximum benefit” objectives were determined in 2023 for the Yucaipa GMZ and the San Timoteo GMZ. The 2021 AWQ for the remaining GMZs is expected to be complete in 2026, after which the AWQ will be recomputed every 5 years. The AWQ computation for the period through 2026 is expected to be completed in 2028 (West Yost, October 2023). Table 3-12 shows the water quality objectives for both TDS and Nitrate for the nine (9) groundwater GMZs used within the Region. As shown in the table below, the San Timoteo and Yucaipa GMZs have “maximum benefit” water quality objectives that require the implementation of certain projects and programs by specific dischargers as part of their maximum benefit demonstrations is required for the continued application of the “maximum benefit” objectives. The bold orange numbers in the table indicate that the 2018 AWQ is above the WQO and assimilative capacity does not exist.

Table 3-12: Total Dissolved Solids Water Quality Objectives, Ambient Water Quality, and Assimilative Capacity

GROUNDWATER

MANAGEMENT ZONE

DWR BASIN
NAME
WATER

QUALITY

OBJECTIVE
2018

AMBIENT
TDS
WATER

QUALITY

OBJECTIVE

NITRATE
2018

AMBIENT

NITRATE
Bunker Hill-A SBB 310 330 2.7 3.9
Bunker Hill-B SBB 330 280 7.3 5.8
Lytle SBB 260 240 1.5 2.4
Colton Rialto-Colton 410 490 2.7 3.3
Rialto Rialto Colton 230 240 2.0 3.4
Riverside A RiversideArlington 560 440 6.2 5.6
San Timoteo,
“maximum benefit” San Timoteo 400 420 5.0 2.0
San Timoteo,
“antidegradation” San Timoteo 300 420 2.7 2.0
Yucaipa, “maximum
benefit” Yucaipa 370 320 5.0 6.2

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-45

GROUNDWATER

MANAGEMENT ZONE

DWR BASIN
NAME
WATER

QUALITY

OBJECTIVE
2018

AMBIENT
TDS
WATER

QUALITY

OBJECTIVE

NITRATE
2018

AMBIENT

NITRATE
Yucaipa,
“antidegradation” Yucaipa 320 320 4.2 6.2

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-46
Figure 3-8: Groundwater Management Zones in the Region

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-47
Figure 3-9: Groundwater Contaminant Plumes in the Region

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-48

3.9.2.2 Groundwater Plumes
The Region has the following groundwater contaminant plumes, described further below and depicted in Figure 3-9:
• The Crafton-Redlands plume, with trichloroethylene (TCE) and lower levels of perchloroethylene (PCE), debromochloropropane (DBCP) and perchlorate (SBB) • The Norton Air Force Base TCE and PCE plume (SBB)
• The Muscoy and Newmark plumes near the Shandin Hills, which are Superfund sites with TCE and PCE (SBB)
• The Santa Fe plume with PCE, TCE, and 1,2 dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE) (SBB) • Rialto Area Perchlorate Plume (Rialto-Colton Basin)
• North Riverside Basin MTBE Contamination (Riverside North Basin) Separately from the foregoing remediation efforts, Fontana Water Company currently operates and maintains a groundwater remediation project at its Plant F10 pursuant to a long-term agreement with San Bernardino County, the owner and operator of the Mid Valley Sanitary Landfill and corresponding Clean-Up and Abatement Order issued to San Bernardino County by the RWQCB. The 5,000-gallons per minute (gpm) treatment plant utilizes liquid phase granular activated carbon to treat for volatile organic compounds including, but not limited to, PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE, and cis-1,2-DCE. The plant treats and removes those contaminants from groundwater extracted from both the Rialto-Colton and No Man’s Land sub basins.

3.9.2.2.1 Crafton-Redlands Plume
Two commingled plumes, comprising the Crafton-Redlands plume, have impacted water supply wells for the cities of Riverside, Redlands, and Loma Linda, including Loma Linda University wells since they were discovered in 1980. One plume contains TCE and the other perchlorate; both are in the upper 300 to 400 feet of groundwater. Both plumes are attributed to the former Lockheed Propulsion Company site located at the eastern end of the SBB. The site comprises 495 acres and was in operation from 1954 to 1974. Current RWQCB orders regarding the Crafton-Redlands plumes issued to Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed) include Investigation Order No. 94-11, Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 94-37, and Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 97-58 (as amended by RWQCB Order No. 01-56). The Investigation Order No. 94-11 applies to the former Lockheed Propulsion Company site. Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 94-37 and Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 97-58 (as amended by Order No. 01-56) apply to the Crafton-Redlands TCE plume and perchlorate plume, respectively, both downgradient of the former Lockheed Propulsion Company site.

As required by the SARWQCB, Lockheed has prepared contingency plans to address impacts of the plume on water supply wells. These include blending, treatment, and/or providing alternative water supply sources. The remedy consists of four regional treatment plants and one wellhead treatment facility that are intended to treat water containing TCE and/or perchlorate with concentrations above the maximum contaminant level (MCL), which is 5 ppb for TCE and 6 ppb for perchlorate. Three of the treatment plants (Raub, Tippecanoe and Sunnyside) and the

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-49
wellhead treatment facility (Gage 46-1R-IX) are connected to City of Riverside water supply wells. One of the treatment plants (Richardson) is connected to City of Loma Linda water supply wells (Tetra Tech, Inc., 2022). In 2004, Lockheed installed a temporary perchlorate treatment system on the City of Redlands’ Rees well to remove perchlorate. This system remained in operation until 2007 and was removed in 2009. In 2010, Lockheed funded the conversion of a portion of the existing granular activate carbon (GAC) treatment facility at the Rees well to ion exchange (IX) treatment for perchlorate removal and this system is currently in service, operated by City of Redlands.

As a result of the cleanup operation, the plumes have been contained and the quality of groundwater is improving. The mass of TCE and perchlorate in Basin groundwater has been on a 20- year declining trend and continues to decline. The areas of the TCE and perchlorate plumes have been shrinking for 20 years and continue to decline. The highest concentrations of trichloroethene and perchlorate in the Basin have also been on a general downward trend.

Finally, the number of water supply wells that exceed the maximum contaminant level for trichloroethene and perchlorate have been declining. Based on 2021 data, four water supply wells exceed the MCL for TCE (Gage 51-1, Gage 29-3R, Richardson #5, and Mountain View #6). Based on 2021 data, several water supply wells currently exceed the MCL for perchlorate of industrial origin (Gage 29-3R, Gage 51-1, Gage 92-1, Richardson #5, Mountain View #6) (Tetra Tech, Inc., 2022). The maximum TCE concentration detected during the 2020 comprehensive groundwater sampling event was 13 ppb and the maximum perchlorate concentration detected during the 2020 comprehensive groundwater sampling event was 47 μg/L (Tetra Tech, 2020).

3.9.2.2.2 Norton Air Force Base Plume
The Norton Air Force Base plume, located just to the southwest of the former installation in the City of San Bernardino, is a major contaminant plume, consisting primarily of TCE and PCE.

The plume has impaired 10 wells owned by the City of Riverside and the City of San Bernardino. Cleanup efforts by the Air Force, consisting of soil removal, soil gas extraction, and groundwater treatment, have significantly reduced this plume. The treatment plants now operate in a standby mode.

3.9.2.2.3 Newmark and Muscoy Plumes
Within the City of San Bernardino, the Newmark plume and the Muscoy plume consist primarily of PCE and TCE. The plumes have impacted San Bernardino water supply wells. Under the federal Superfund Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented cleanup of these plumes, including use of groundwater extraction and treatment using granulated activated carbon. The treated water is then used to supplement the City of San Bernardino’s potable water supply.

3.9.2.2.4 Sante Fe Plume
The Santa Fe groundwater plume consists primarily of 1,2-DCE, TCE, and PCE. This plume is currently being monitored.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-50

3.9.2.2.5 Rialto Area Perchlorate Plume
Since 2002, the SARWQCB has been conducting an investigation of groundwater contamination in the area of the City of Rialto. The focus of the investigation has been facilities located on a 160-acre site in Rialto. The site has also been designated as a Superfund site by the US EPA. In 2005 the SARWQCB Executive Officer issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order and subsequent amendments naming a number of responsible parties. Since that time, the Cleanup and Abatement Order has been the subject of challenges in petitions filed by entities named as parties responsible for the contamination.

In September 2010, EPA issued the Interim Action Record of Decision to the Source Area Operable Unit (SAOU) of the B.F. Goodrich Superfund Site, now referred to as the “Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares Superfund Site”. The EPA’s Remedy required Emhart Industries to install, operate, and maintain a groundwater pump and treatment system to intercept and control the spread of contaminated groundwater from the 160-acre parcel. The EPA Remedy is designed to capture and remove perchlorate and Trichloroethylene (TCE) in the groundwater in the RialtoColton Groundwater Basin emanating from a 160-acre parcel located in north Rialto.

On August 12, 2015, the Rialto, Colton, the County of San Bernardino and Emhart Industries (Emhart), entered into a Four-Party Implementation Agreement to implement the interim remedial action plan as required by the Consent Decree as entered on July 2, 2013. The remedial action required by the Work Consent Decree was selected and approved and overseen by the EPA. A copy of the Four Party Agreement is included in Part 3 Appendix B.

The County and Emhart agreed that the EPA Remedy would be combined with an existing groundwater extraction and treatment remedy designed and constructed by the County to capture and remove perchlorate and TCE in the Basin due to the landfill and required by the SARWQCB. This combined project is referred to as the “Combined Remedy” project.

The Combined Remedy includes:

1. Installing a new extraction well (EW-1), located at the northwest corner of Jerry Eves Park and piping to the water treatment system,

2. Expanding the existing County groundwater treatment system at the Rialto 3 well site to treat extracted water from EW-1,

3. Upgrading the chlorination station at the Combined Remedy site,

4. Constructing an inter-tie between Rialto and Colton to deliver Colton’s water rights produced out of EW-1 and,

5. System improvements to the Colton’s drinking water distribution system, specifically modifications made by Emhart to a reservoir and pump station.

3.9.2.2.6 North Riverside Basin MTBE Contamination
In 1988, the SARWQCB issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order to the SFPP Colton Fuel Terminal (owned by Kinder Morgan) located in Bloomington, California. The Terminal, which is located just south of the I-10 freeway on the east side of Riverside Avenue, is a bulk petroleum

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-51
storage and distribution facility which was built in the 1950s. It currently occupies 82 acres and contains 32 refined petroleum product tanks and fuel-loading racks where transport tanker trucks are filled.

In response to the Cleanup and Abatement Order, a monitoring and extraction well network for the Terminal was constructed. It consists of 131 wells in and around the Terminal as well as 14 soil vapor extraction wells. The site samples for Benzene, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA).

3.9.3 Surface Water Quality
Three reaches of the SAR run through the Region: Reach 6, which spans from the headwaters of the watershed to Seven Oaks Dam, Reach 5 which spans from Seven Oaks Dam to the San Jacinto Fault in San Bernardino and Reach 4 which spans from the San Jacinto Fault to Mission Blvd. in Riverside. Surface water is diverted from Reaches 5 and 6 for treatment, irrigation use and groundwater recharge. Treated wastewater effluent is discharged to Reach 4.

Reaches 1 and 2 of Mill Creek also run through the Region: Reach 1 spans from the confluence with Santa Ana River to the Bridge Crossing Route 38 at Upper Powerhouse and Reach 2 spans from the Bridge Crossing Route 38 at Upper Powerhouse to the Headwaters. Surface water is diverted for treatment, irrigation use and groundwater recharge.

Water quality within the Upper SAR watershed is addressed through several plans, regulations and guidelines including the Basin Plan, which includes beneficial use designations and water quality objectives. Those water bodies not meeting the Basin Plan water quality objectives and determined to have beneficial uses are listed on the State’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies and require a TMDL to be developed. Table 3-13 shows the water bodies in the Region watershed that are listed on the State’s 303(d) list for water quality impairments.

Two TMDLs have been adopted to address the above impairments in the Upper SAR:
• TMDLs for Bacterial Indicators in the Middle Santa Ana River Watershed (February 3, 2005):

Addresses pathogens in the Santa Ana River, Reach 3.
• Nutrient TMDL for Dry Hydrological Conditions for Big Bear Lake (April 21, 2006):

Addresses nutrients in Big Bear Lake.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-52
Table 3-13: 303(d) Listed Water Bodies in the Region

WATER BODY IMPAIRMENTS
Big Bear Lake Mercury, Noxious Aquatic
Plants, Nutrients, PCBs
Lytle Creek Pathogens
Mill Creek, Reach 1 Pathogens
Mill Creek, Reach 2 Pathogens
Santa Ana River, Reach 6 (Seven Oaks Dam to
Headwaters)
Cadmium, Copper, Lead
Santa Ana River, Reach 4 (Mission Blvd. in Riverside
to San Jacinto Fault)
Pathogens
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 (Prado Dam to Mission Blvd.
– Baseflow)
Copper (wet weather only),
Lead, Pathogens
The SARWQCB states that the quality of the SAR is a function of the quantity and quality of the various components of the flows (SARWQCB 1995). Three components make up the flow of the water in the SAR: (1) storm flows, (2) baseflow, and (3) non-tributary flow. The relative proportion of these components varies throughout the year.

The first component, storm flows, results directly from rainfall, usually occurring between the months of December and April. Much of the rainfall and surface water runoff from the storms is captured and percolated into the groundwater basins. The quality of storm flow water is highly variable.

Baseflow makes up the second component of water flow in the SAR, a large portion coming from the discharge of treated wastewater into the river in addition to rising groundwater in the basin. This baseflow includes the non-point source discharges as well as the uncontrolled and unregulated agricultural and urban runoff. Water quality objectives are set in relation to the baseflow in the river, not to the total flow in the river (see Table 3-14). The intent of these objectives is to protect the river’s groundwater recharge beneficial use. Compliance with these objectives is verified by annual measurement of the baseflow quality.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-53
Table 3-14: SAR Basin Surface Water Quality Objectives (WQO) in mg/L

INLAND SURFACE
STREAMS TDS HARDNESS (CaCO3)
SODIUM
(Na)

CHLORIDE
(Cl)
TOTAL

INORGANIC

NITROGEN
(TIN)1

SULFATE
(SO4)

CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
SAR Reach 4 550 --- --- --- 10 --- 30
SAR Reach 5 300 190 30 20 5 60 25
SAR Reach 6 200 100 30 10 1 20 5
Mill Creek
Reach 1 200 100 30 10 1 20 5
Mill Creek
Reach 2 110 100 25 5 1 15 5
Source: SARWQCB 2019
Note: 1Total nitrogen, filtered sample.

The SARWQCB sets discharge requirements on wastewater discharges, the major source of baseflow in the SAR. Waste discharge requirements are developed on the basis of the limited assimilative capacity of the river. Non-point source discharges, generally from urban runoff and agricultural tailwater, are regulated by requiring compliance with Best Management Practices (BMPs), where appropriate.

The third component of flow in the SAR that influences water quality is characterized by the SARWQCB as non-tributary flow. Non-tributary flow is generally imported water released in the upper basin for recharge in the lower basin (SARWQCB 1995).

Streams on the Santa Ana Basin generally have increasing dissolved minerals as one goes downstream. This effect is due to the fact that water is used, recycled, and used again. The magnitude or amount of TDS concentration rises with each use of water. Groundwater also enters basin streams in some reaches, and their sampling indicated that some of the highest TDS (and in some cases nitrates) may occur at sites on the valley floor that are dominated by rising groundwater (USGS 2006). Nitrate concentrations are higher in Santa Ana Basin streams receiving treated wastewater than in streams without treated wastewater. The principal source of nitrate is fertilizer from historic agricultural operations.

Table 3-15 provides a summary of the available historical surface water quality data for TDS and nitrogen at points along the SAR (USGS 2007).

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-54
Table 3-15: Average Historic Surface Water Quality for Locations on the SAR (1990-2001) (mg/L)

WATER QUALITY CONSTITUENT

METROPOLITAN

CROSSING GAGE
(REACH 3)A

RIX-RIALTO

EFFLUENT OUTFALL
(REACH 4)A

MENTONE GAGE
(REACH 5)A
TDS 560b 520c 230b
TDS Basin Plan Objective by
Reach 700 550 300
Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) 7.3b 8.5c 0.3b
TIN Basin Plan Objective by
Reach 10d 10 5
Notes: a. USGS gage data. Data for River Only Mentone Gage begins in October 1998. Data for Riverside Narrows Gage begins in August 1997.
b. USGS 2004.
c. The TDS and TIN values assigned for RIX-Rialto are the maximum values that occurred during 2001- 2002 as reported in Table 4.4-9 of the SBMWD RIX Facility Recycled Water Sales Program Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), March 2003.
d. Total nitrogen, filtered sample.

3.9.4 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
The Basin Plan includes a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the SAR watershed as a whole. In addition, the stakeholders who use groundwater from basins in the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed have formed an SNMP Workgroup and are collaboratively investigating the salt and nutrient loading to several of the underlying groundwater basins, particularly SBB.

Prolonged droughts have highlighted the need for an enhanced water supply portfolio, which includes plans to increase stormwater capture and recycled water use. Without access to sufficient assimilative capacity for TDS, existing and new recycled water projects in the SBB may be subject to costly salt removal using advanced treatment such as reverse osmosis (RO).

The SNMP Workgroup is considering preparing a Subregional SNMP as part of a comprehensive approach that would offset TDS in the future as needed to support continued use of recycled water in the SBB. Through regional collaboration and additional technical analysis and commitments, a Subregional SNMP could support the use of TDS assimilative capacity and provide flexibility in the implementation timing of the selected salinity management strategies, subject to approval by the Santa Ana Water Board. A Subregional SNMP would further evaluate the impacts of recycled water recharge projects on the BH-B GMZ, provide for enhanced monitoring of the quality of the basin, and establish specific commitments to offset the impacts of the recycled water projects. A Subregional SNMP would include sufficient

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-55
antidegradation analysis and demonstration of maximum benefit to people of the State to justify a request to use assimilative capacity. This would inform future permitting efforts for recycled water projects discharging to the BH-B GMZ.

Preliminary actions to prepare a Subregional SNMP were taken from 2021 through 2023, including the development of the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Salt and Nutrient Management Strategy Study (SNMSS) by the SNMP Workgroup, which is currently comprised of a series of 5 Technical Memorandums (TMs):
• Phase 1 TM #1 – Water Quality Characterization
• Phase 1 TM #2 – Nitrogen Losses During Recycled Water Recharge in the Upper Santa Ana Watershed, Technical Workplan
• Phase 2 TM #1 – Volume and Quality of Imported Water and Stormwater Captured by Active Recharge Projects in the San Bernardino Basin
• Phase 2 TM #2 – Recycled Water Evaluation
• Phase 2 TM #3 – Characterize the Probable Cumulative Impacts to Groundwater Quality Following completion of the Phase 2 TM #3, the Bunker Hill Regional Recycled Water Coalition prepared the Bunker Hill Regional Recycled Water Salinity Management Feasibility Study, which was completed in February 2025. The purpose of the Feasibility Study is to identify, screen, and evaluate multiple salinity management strategies to protect the beneficial uses of the BH-B GMZ while supporting continued and expanded use of recycled water. The Feasibility Study concluded that a regional recycled water desalter would ultimately be needed to maintain compliance with the WQO in the SBB. However, prior to initiating implementation of a regional desalter, the Feasibility Study recommended that the Coalition and the SNMP Workgroup complete several ongoing and near-term planning efforts that will enable them to refine the future groundwater quality analysis, the total TDS offset requirements, the timing of when the desalter would be needed, and the sizing of the desalter (Water Systems Consulting, Inc., 2025).

In early 2026, the SNMP Workgroup (which includes the Coalition members) initiated Phase 3 of the SNMSS, which will use updated hydrology and planning inputs to update and refine the future groundwater quality analysis. Following the completion of Phase 3, it is anticipated that the Coalition and the SNMP Workgroup, in collaboration with the Regional Board, will determine whether to move forward with preparation of a Subregional SNMP.

3.9.5 Water Quality Impacts on Supply Reliability
Imported water quality from the SWP is typically suitable for potable use following conventional treatment and for groundwater recharge. Even during drought periods when TDS can be elevated, the water quality does not constrain the use of SWP locally because it is well below the MCLs and groundwater quality is managed over a 20-year period, allowing for natural variations in water quality.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-56
Groundwater quality is monitored, tracked, and addressed by implementing treatment or blending, as necessary. In addition to the groundwater plumes described above, there are other contaminants in the basin, including but not limited to nitrate and DBCP, which can require treatment. There are also emerging contaminants and new water quality regulations which could increase the level of required treatment, particularly per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

PFAS are manmade fluorinated organic compounds found in and used in the manufacturing of common items such as carpet, clothing, fabric, food packaging, nonstick cookware, and fireretardant foams. PFAS are synthetically made to be resistant to both water and liquids, are not easily broken down and destroyed, and are believed to have adverse health effects. At the federal level, EPA finalized National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for certain PFAS compounds in April 2024, establishing enforceable MCLs of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA also adopted MCLs for several additional PFAS compounds and a mixture-based hazard index in the 2024 rule; however, in May 2025, EPA announced its intent to retain the PFOA and PFOS MCLs while reconsidering or rescinding the remaining PFAS standards and extending compliance deadlines, with further rulemaking anticipated. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board has not yet adopted state-specific MCLs for PFAS but has established notification levels and response levels for multiple PFAS compounds, including PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS, which trigger required actions when exceeded. California has identified PFAS drinking water standards as a highest regulatory priority and is in the process of adopting federal PFAS MCLs and evaluating additional California-specific regulatory approaches, including potential treatment-based standards.

Water agencies are responsible for providing treatment to ensure their potable water supply meets all applicable water quality regulations. When new drinking water rules are implemented, or when contaminant concentrations in wells increase unexpectedly, water suppliers must either blend affected wells with other sources to meet the MCLs or take the wells offline until treatment can be employed to meet the MCLs. It can take several years to fund, design and construct new treatment facilities so supply reliability can be impacted on a short term basis until corrective measures can be implemented. When this occurs, agencies typically shift to other water sources or rely on excess well capacity that is not affected.

Local surface water supply is generally of very high quality and is suitable for groundwater recharge and potable use following conventional treatment. TDS levels typically are typically consistent, averaging 178 mg/l. However, there are times when water quality is degraded by high storm flows and other conditions in the upper portion of the watershed, such as the 2024 Line Fire that burned nearly 44,000 acres of the Santa Ana Watershed. During these conditions, the water is often not suitable for treatment and potable use because the treatment processes are not designed to handle high turbidity and other constituents typically present in storm flows.

During these periods, water agencies with treatment plants must stop diverting surface water and either use imported water at their treatment plants or shift to groundwater pumping to meet demands.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-57
For recharge, the first flush of storms flows with the highest levels of debris and turbidity are typically allowed to flow by to limit maintenance needs, with recharge diversions beginning a few hours after the initial storm. Sediment buildup in the recharge basins is expected for stormwater capture and sediment removal is part of routine basin operation, so stormwater quality is generally not a concern for recharge.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-58

3.10 Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs
The agencies in the Region have collaborated to manage the region’s unique water supply, water quality, flood, and habitat challenges. These challenges are key considerations in the implementation of new water supply projects in the Region, as described in this section.

3.10.1 Recycled Water
Planned recycled water projects are described in Section 3.5.

3.10.2 Groundwater Recharge
One of the primary water supply strategies of the region is to recharge groundwater through spreading of imported water or through direct use of imported water which results in in-lieu recharge, managing floods and increasing stormwater recharge, and percolating recycled water.

The region utilizes multiple spreading basins to recharge imported water and excess surface water, percolates effluent from multiple wastewater treatment facilities, and receives some recharge through percolation of stormwater. Potential new recharge projects under development are described in the following subsections and summarized in Table 3-16. The implementation timing for these projects has not yet been finalized by the Region. For the purposes of this Plan, it is assumed that one new project will be constructed in each 5-year period. The average long term yield of all of the projects is approximately 2,000 AFY so it is assumed that volume of new stormwater capture will be implemented every 5 years.

3.10.2.1 Santa Ana River Tributary Active Recharge Projects and Program for Expansion of Recharge Capacity (PERC) Projects
The Active Recharge Project is a collection of potential stormwater capture projects envisioned to help enhance capture and recharge of surface water into the SBB.

In 2015, a stormwater flow and capture analysis was performed to determine:
• The volume of surface water which has historically migrated out of the SBB. • The volume of surface water that is generated internally within the SBB as the result of historical and on-going urbanization of the SBB.
• The quantity of stormwater that is generated by the major tributary creeks to the Santa Ana River.
• The location and preliminary (conceptual) designs of potential new stormwater capture facilities that could maximize the capture and recharge of surface water flows. • Potential environmental constraints for each of the selected tributaries. • Potential modifications to existing retention basins and spreading grounds to further increase surface water capture and recharge.
• The volume of potential additional recharge to the SBB and the effect to surface water volumes leaving the SBB that will occur as a result of implementation of an active recharge project (this remaining flow out of the SBB would be available for recharge in

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-59
the proposed Riverside North Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project; see Section

3.10.2.4).

The study included preparation of proposed conceptual designs for new and improved existing surface water capture and recharge facilities in areas of the tributary creeks having the greatest stormwater flows and the least number of environmental constraints.

A Partnership Agreement for joint Active Recharge Project development under the River HCP was entered into by SBVMWD and the Conservation District in January 2019 (2019 Agreement). This Agreement built upon the past history between the two agencies for cooperating and pooling resources for the regional betterment of the availability, quality and flexibility of groundwater supplies and management. SBVWCD sought conservation easements on 295 acres of Conservation District property for use as mitigation under the River HCP, which includes the Active Recharge Projects as Covered Activities. The 2019 Agreement established payment from SBVMWD to Conservation District for a total of $36,950,000 for these conservation easements, and provided that these funds would be used by the Conservation District in furtherance of water conservation efforts, land acquisitions, water quality or supply facilities development, such as implementation of a subset of the Active Recharge Projects in the Conservation District Service area, which were later renamed as the Program for Expansion of Recharge Capacity (PERC) projects. In addition, a PERC Policy Committee (Policy Committee) was established to review and advise the Conservation District on the development of the PERC projects. The Policy Committee includes the general managers and one Board appointed member of both the Conservation District and SBVMWD, or their designees, and one representative of the BTAC.

In late 2025, the Conservation District completed the Final Draft PERC Comprehensive Feasibility Study (PERC CFS), which consists of Volumes 1 through 4. The PERC CFS evaluated ten PERC project alternatives in the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed located at six recharge sites within the Waterman, Twin, Lynwood, Oak Creek, Plunge Creek, and Mill Creek watersheds, all of which would recharge local runoff into the Basin. Each site was evaluated for hydrology, grading design, operational potential, and environmental conditions. The updated long term yields from the PERC CFS are included in this Plan.

3.10.2.2 Santa Ana River Enhanced Recharge Project
The Enhanced Recharge Project is located on the Santa Ana River and has the capacity to divert up to 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) and up to approximately 80,000 AFY downstream of Seven Oaks Dam. The first phase of the project (upstream diversion and sedimentation facilities) was completed in 2019, the second phase of the project (enhanced recharge basins and facilities) was completed in 2024, and a future third phase will complete additional flexibility and redundancy improvements to optimize the diversion and delivery of diverted water for direct use and recharge.

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-60

3.10.2.3 Cactus Basin Recharge
San Bernardino Valley and the members of the Rialto Groundwater Council are working with SBCFCD to pursue recharge of imported SWP water into the existing Cactus Basins, which overlie the Rialto-Colton basin and are currently used for flood control only. The proposed project includes recharging imported water into Cactus Basins 3/3A and 5 and construction of the Cactus Basins Pipeline, approximately 2,200 feet from the Devil Canyon Azusa Pipeline to Cactus Basins. Recharge is planned to occur only during the dry season when the basins are not needed for flood control.

3.10.2.4 Riverside North Aquifer Storage and Recovery
The Riverside North Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project is a proposed storm water capture project located in the southern portion of the City of Colton and north of the City of Grand Terrace. The project consists of proposed in-channel and off-channel recharge. The proposed off-channel recharge facility location is along the west side of the Santa Ana River and proposes the construction of up to eight individual recharge basins encompassing approximately 25 acres. The in-channel recharge basin proposes construction of an inflatable dam across the Santa Ana River channel, which can be raised and lowered depending on the amount of water flowing in the river. This project is estimated to provide up to 6,000 acre-feet of new water per year. The in-channel and off-channel water captured will be recharged into the Riverside North sub basin and a portion of the retained water will be diverted to the Riverside Canal pipeline for direct use.

Proposed new recharge projects under development are described in the following subsections and summarized in Table 3-16.

Table 3-16: Potential Groundwater Recharge Projects

PROJECT NAME BASIN ESTIMATED YIELD
(AFY)

WATER SOURCE

RECHARGED
Cactus Basins Rialto-Colton 3,000 SWP
Lynwood Basins SBB 687 Stormwater
Mill Creek Basin Grading (Alternatives
1, 2, or 3) SBB 2,248 - 3,751 Stormwater
Oak Creek Basins SBB 1,020 Stormwater
Plunge Creek – Interim Alternative SBB 1,790 Stormwater Plunge Creek – Ultimate Alternative SBB 3,656 Stormwater

3.0 Regional Water Sources and Management
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 3-61

PROJECT NAME BASIN ESTIMATED YIELD
(AFY)

WATER SOURCE

RECHARGED
Twin Creek (Small or Large Grading
Alternatives) SBB 480 – 1,900 Stormwater
Waterman Basin Grading SBB 2,171 Stormwater
Devil Creek Basin SBB 2,051 Stormwater
Cable Creek Basins SBB 2,389 Stormwater
Cajon Creek SBB TBD Stormwater
Cajon – Vulcan 1 Basins SBB 579 Stormwater
Vulcan 2 SBB 782 Stormwater
Daley Canyon SBB TBD Stormwater
Little Sand Creek SBB TBD Stormwater
Enhanced Recharge in SAR Basins,
Phases 1C SBB N/A Stormwater
Lytle Creek Basin SBB/Lytle 3,620 Stormwater
Lytle – Cajon Basin SBB/Lytle 1,090 Stormwater
Riverside North Aquifer Storage &
Recovery (Rubber Dam)
RiversideArlington 6,000 Stormwater
Oak Glen and Wilson Creek Yucaipa TBD Stormwater
San Timoteo Creek Yucaipa TBD Stormwater
Sand Creek Yucaipa TBD Stormwater
Wildwood Creek Yucaipa TBD Stormwater
Yucaipa Creek Yucaipa TBD Stormwater
Zanja Creek Yucaipa TBD Stormwater

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-1

4.0 Regional Water Use
This chapter provides a summary of the projected water
demands for the Region through 2050, by agency and source.

This chapter also describes the significant improvements in water use efficiency that have been achieved within the Region as well as planned water use efficiency programs.

IN THIS S ECTION
• Total Regional
Water Demand
• Demand by
Source
• Water Use
Efficiency

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-2

4.1 Total Regional Water Demand
As described in Part 1 Chapter 2, the most recent population projections for the Region show slower growth than projected in previous plans. Accordingly, the total demand projections in this Plan are slightly lower than the projections from 2020 due to slower growth and increased water use efficiency.

Figure 4-1 shows a comparison of the 2020 IRUWMP vs. 2025 RUWMP demand projections and Table 4-1 summarizes the 2025 demand projections for Participating Agencies for a normal year from 2030 to 2050. This includes potable, non-potable, and recycled water demands, but excludes demands for water going into groundwater recharge. For the three Participating Agencies which are partially outside of SBVMWD (WVWD, RHWC, and SMWC), their entire service area demand is represented.

Table 4-1: Regional Demand Projections, 2030 - 2050 (AFY) AGENCY 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Colton1 9,445 9,703 9,882 10,060 10,239
Loma Linda 5,195 5,318 5,434 5,553 5,676
Redlands 28,820 29,882 30,678 31,474 32,271
Rialto 9,475 9,610 9,745 9,880 10,015
RHWC 5,269 5,216 5,245 5,275 5,305
SBMWD 38,925 40,044 41,233 42,421 43,610
SMWC 2,348 2,502 2,532 2,561 2,591
WVWD 21,907 23,071 23,903 24,783 24,783
Total, Participating Agencies 121,384 125,346 128,652 132,007 134,490 Note 1: Terrace Water Company demands are included in Colton’s demands.

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-3
Figure 4-1: Comparison of 2020 and 2025 Demand Projections for Participating 2025 RUWMP Agencies
In addition to the Participating Agencies, this RUWMP incorporates data from other agencies within San Bernardino Valley that rely wholly or partially on the shared water resources analyzed in this Plan. While these agencies are not participants in this RUWMP, their water demands and associated supply needs are included to accurately evaluate regional water supply reliability through 2050.

For the urban water suppliers preparing separate 2025 UWMPs (EVWD, FWC, and YVWD), demand projections from their respective 2025 UWMPs were incorporated into this Plan. For agencies who use external supplies not evaluated in this Plan, only the portion of their demand that will be met by supplies in this Plan are included in the regional demand totals.

Fontana Water Company’s demands within the region are set to their projected use of regional water resources (SWP water from SBVMWD, Lytle Creek surface water, Lytle groundwater [SBB], and Rialto-Colton groundwater), but exclude demands met by other external sources.

Similarly, YVWD’s demands within the Region are based on the projected use of groundwater from SBB and Yucaipa Basin and SWP from SBVMWD only. Some of the supply projections shown in this RUWMP for YVWD differ from those shown in YVWD’s 2025 UWMP. YVWD’s 2025 UWMP shows all potentially available supplies and a supply surplus at the retailer level, whereas this RUWMP uses a different approach to the regional supply analysis that focuses on specific supplies that agencies intend to use to meet future demands and evaluates total supply surplus on a regional level. This RUWMP includes assumptions about future supply use for 124,612 130,059
135,508 140,051 144,598
121,385 125,345 128,651 132,009 134,489
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Normal Year Demands
Regional Normal Year Demand Projections – 8 Participating Retail Agencies
2020 IRUWMP
2025 RUWMP
Actual 2025 Demand – 116,130 AFY

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-4
YVWD to align with this regional methodology, but all retailers have the flexibility to modify their supply strategies to meet their demands.

SMWC total demands are included in their UWMP Chapter in Part 2, but for the regional demand analysis, only their projected use of Yucaipa Basin Groundwater is included.

RHWC’s use of SBB groundwater is not included in the regional demands because the Riverside Entities’ portion of the SBB supply is not evaluated in this Plan.

Figure 4-2 shows demand projections for regional supplies for all regional agencies for a normal year from 2030 to 2050. This includes potable, non-potable, and recycled water demands, but excludes demands for water used for groundwater recharge. The total projected water demands of participating and non-participating agencies within SBVMWD’s service area are expected to increase by approximately 17,000 AFY between 2030 and 2050.

Figure 4-2: Regional Demand Projections for Regional Supplies in the RUWMP 15 Agencies plus Other/Private San Bernardino County Entities
191,547
198,065
202,675
205,546
209,141
180,000
185,000
190,000
195,000
200,000
205,000
210,000
215,000
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Normal Year Demands (AFY)
Total Normal Year Demands on Regional Supplies
2025 RUWMP

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-5

4.2 Demands for Local Groundwater and Surface
Water Supplies
This section summarizes the anticipated demand for each water source based on the planned use by each agency in the Region. For basins subject to the Western Judgement, demands are subtotaled by San Bernardino County Entities and compared to the pumping provisions in the Western Judgement specific to the San Bernardino County Entities. For agencies participating in this Plan, demand projections were developed for normal years, and then a breakdown of which supplies would be used to meet those demands was prepared, providing planned production from each supply source. For agencies not participating in this plan, projected production from each supply source was either based on information provided by that agency, or on 2020 IRUWMP projections.

4.2.1 San Bernardino Basin
As detailed in Part 1 Chapter 3, local groundwater sustainability under the Judgment is generally maintained by providing supplemental recharge whenever cumulative extractions exceed cumulative safe yield or when groundwater levels are lower than certain specific water level elevations in specified wells. In the SBB, any supplemental supply determined by the Watermaster as “New Conservation” (which can include recycled water or stormwater recharge) increases the safe yield and any “return flow” from sources outside of the safe yield calculation are credited against cumulative extractions for the purpose of determining the recharge obligation.

For the SBB, the Watermaster assumes a 36% return flow for extractions above safe yield and imported water use. In this Plan, the 36% return flow is not credited to supply in the SBB to be conservative and avoid potential double-counting. Although ongoing and future recycled water recharge and stormwater capture projects do add water to the SBB, they are also not credited as supplies in addition to the safe yield established by the Judgment, because they have not been determined to be “New Conservation” by the Watermaster.

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-6
Table 4-2: Planned Pumping and Diversions from San Bernardino Basin (AFY) AGENCY 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
SBB Groundwater 106,773 112,113 115,927 118,001 120,797 Colton1 1,950 2,208 2,387 2,565 2,744
Loma Linda 5,195 5,318 5,434 5,553 5,676
Redlands 14,963 15,872 16,537 17,202 17,867
Rialto 5,917 6,052 6,187 4,722 4,857
SBMWD 37,581 38,700 39,889 41,077 42,266
WVWD 6,759 7,923 8,755 9,635 9,635
East Valley Water District 14,789 16,372 16,871 17,378 17,885 Fontana Water Company 6,390 6,390 6,390 6,390 6,390
Muscoy Mutual Water Co. 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600
Other/Private SB Pumpers 10,878 10,878 10,878 10,878 10,878 Yucaipa Valley Water District 750 800 1,000 1,000 1,000 SBB Surface Water 21,665 21,767 21,799 21,831 21,864
Redlands 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500
Rialto 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
WVWD 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800
Bear Valley Mutual Water Co. 1,557 1,557 1,557 1,557 1,557 East Valley Water District 948 1,050 1,082 1,114 1,147
Fontana Water Company 4,860 4,860 4,860 4,860 4,860
Total SBB Production, San
Bernardino County Entities 128,428 133,880 137,726 139,862 142,661 RHWC (Riverside County Entity) 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 Note 1: Terrace Water Company production is included in Colton’s production.

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-7
SBB planned production and Judgment safe yield are compared in Table 4-3. RHWC is a Riverside County entity in the Judgment which has numerical rights to the SBB and pumps within them. Their production is captured in Table 4-2, but their production and rights are not included in the San Bernardino County Entities obligations in the Judgment, so they are not reflected in Table 4-2.

Table 4-3: SBB Supply and Demand Balance (AFY)
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ENTITIES 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Total Planned Pumping and
Diversions 128,428 133,880 137,726 139,862 142,661
Adjusted Safe Yield with New
Conservation1
172,745 172,745 172,745 172,745 172,745
Judgment-based Need for Imported
Water Recharge
Not
required
Not
required
Not
required
Not
required
Not
required
Judgment-based Surplus Supply 44,307 38,865 35,019 32,913 30,084 Note 1: Per the Western-San Bernardino Judgment, 36% of direct deliveries and extractions over safe yield are credit as a return flow that increase SBB production rights. That is not reflected in this analysis to be conservative.

Despite not being obligated to recharge the SBB under the terms of the Judgment, the region is proactively investing in projects to recharge the SBB to protect the sustainability of the Basin.

Table 4-4 and Figure 4-3 shows existing and proposed projects which would supplement storage in the SBB. The recycled water and stormwater capture projects have not been evaluated by the Watermaster to determine whether they are “New Conservation” under the Judgment. While these projects do increase recharge into the SBB, at the time of the Judgment was made most of the area was on septic systems and more of the area was undeveloped, so a portion of the water recharged due to current stormwater capture and recycled water projects may have already been included in the original safe yield number. Therefore, they are excluded from the supply totals in this Plan to avoid double counting supplies. Table 4-4 also includes recycled water projects which offset the use of potable supplies in the SBB.

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-8
Table 4-4: Existing and Proposed SBB Supply Improvement Projects (AFY) 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Existing SBB Local Supply Projects 17,738 18,064 18,354 18,649 18,951 SNRC Recharge at Weaver Basins 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Redlands WRF Recharge (disposal)4
4,037 4,210 4,368 4,532 4,702
Redlands Recycled Water Direct Use 3,357 3,510 3,642 3,773 3,905 SBMWD TTS Phase 1 (1.2 MGD)1
1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344
Potential SBB Local Supply Projects 6,256 8,256 10,256 12,256 18,736 SBWRP TTS Phase 2 (3.8 MGD)1
4,256 4,256 4,256 4,256 4,256
SBWRP TTS Phase 3 (4.0 MGD) 4,480
Stormwater Capture Projects 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Potential SBB Imported Supply Projects 16,000 16,000 27,200 27,200 27,200 Imported Water Recharge2
16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000
Sites Reservoir – Long-term
Average3 11,200 11,200 11,200
Total Existing and Potential SBB Supply
Projects 39,994 42,320 55,810 58,105 64,887
Notes: 1Tertiary Treatment System Phase 1 (1.2 MGD) is active and produces recycled water for onsite use only and does not include recycled water recharge. Phase 2 is the first phase with recharge. Phase 3 is anticipated by 2050.
216,000 AFY is the current average annual voluntary imported water recharge into the SBB from 2000- 2025.
3Latest CalSIM3 model predicts 11,200 AFY long-term average yield to SBVMWD from Sites Reservoir.

Most of this supply would go toward the SBB in the form of direct recharge or in-lieu recharge from decreased pumping.
4Bunker Hill Salinity Management Feasibility Study (Water Systems Consulting, Inc., 2025).

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-9
Figure 4-3: Existing and Proposed SBB Supply Improvement Projects (AFY) -
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
SBWRP TTS Phase 3
Sites Reservoir
SBWRP TTS Phase 2
Stormwater Capture Projects
Imported Water Recharge
SBWRP TTS Phase 1 (Existing)
SNRC Recycled Water
Recharge (Existing)
Redlands Tertiary Recycled
Water (Existing)
Redlands WRF Recharge
(Existing)

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-10

4.2.2 Rialto-Colton Basin
Planned normal year production from the Rialto-Colton Basin is summarized in Table 4-5. Due to low groundwater levels, pumping within the Rialto Basin Decree boundary is assumed to remain at a 50% curtailment throughout the planning period for this Plan (see Section 3.2).

Colton has two wells outside of the Decree boundary, and Other/Private wells are outside the scope of the Decree.

Table 4-5: Planned Pumping from Rialto-Colton (AFY)
AGENCY 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Colton 3,395 3,395 3,395 3,395 3,395
Rialto2 1,343 1,343 1,343 2,943 2,943
WVWD 3,307 3,307 3,307 3,307 3,307
Fontana Water Company2 4,750 4,750 4,750 3,150 3,150
Other/Private SB Pumpers 70 70 70 70 70
Total Rialto-Colton Basin Production,
San Bernardino County Entities 12,865 12,865 12,865 12,865 12,865 Notes: 1San Bernardino County entities base period production (1959-1963) was 8,235 AFY. Even when production exceeds base period production, recharge is not required as long as the three index wells water level is above 822 ft.
2After 2040, a 1,600 AFY lease of Rialto Basin production rights from Rialto to FWC will end so a like amount of production is assumed to shift from FWC back to Rialto.

There is no current obligation to recharge the Rialto-Colton Basin under the Western Judgment, because the mean water level of three index wells is above 822.04 ft (see Section 3.2).

However, to restore water levels in the Rialto Basin Decree area, the following recharge efforts are planned:
• Up to 2,500 AFY via in-lieu recharge by FWC through the Summit WTP In accordance with the Settlement Agreement described in Section 3.2.3, this in-lieu recharge approach is part of the FWC’s obligation to deliver 61,000 AF of replenishment water to recharge the Rialto Basin. Per the intent of the agreement, the replenishment water must be from an imported water source “outside” of San Bernardino Valley’s Table A allocation, unless San Bernardino Valley declares a portion of its Table A surplus. • 3,000 AFY long-term average recharge through SWP spreading at Cactus Basins.

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-11
In addition to the recharge required by the Settlement Agreement, members of the Rialto Groundwater Council can voluntarily purchase SWP from SBVMWD’s Table A supply to recharge the Rialto-Colton Basin, once the Cactus Basin Recharge project is implemented.

4.2.3 Riverside North Basin
Planned normal year production from the Riverside North Basin is summarized in Table 4-6.

There is no current obligation to recharge the Riverside North Basin under the Western Judgment, because the mean water level of three index wells is above 822.04 ft (see Section

3.2). There are currently no recharge efforts planned, however two possible recharge methods have been proposed: the Riverside North Aquifer Storage and Recovery (Rubber Dam) project (discussed in Section 3.10.2.4) and imported water spreading at turnout WR-23.

Table 4-6: Planned Pumping from Riverside North Basin (AFY) AGENCY 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Colton 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100
Rialto 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
WVWD 1,041 1,041 1,041 1,041 1,041
Other/Private SB Pumpers 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520 1,520
RIX Over-extractions2 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700
Total Riverside North Basin
Production, San Bernardino County
Entities
10,561 10,561 10,561 10,561 10,561
RHWC3 3,219 3,166 3,195 3,225 3,255
Notes: 1San Bernardino County entities base period production (1959-1963) was 9,609 AFY. Even when production exceeds base period production, recharge is not required as long as the three index wells water level is above 822 ft.
2RIX Over-extractions are groundwater extractions by RIX treated with UV disinfection and discharged to the Santa Ana River in excess of groundwater infiltrations from the RIX plant in order to maintain hydraulic control. The estimate of 2,700 AFY is from the year 2040 estimate from the SBMWD SBWRP 2020 Facilities Master Plan.
3RHWC is a Riverside County entity in the Judgment which has numerical rights to the SBB and pumps within them.

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-12

4.2.4 Yucaipa Basin
Planned normal year production from the Yucaipa Basin is summarized in Table 4-7. The Yucaipa Basin is managed by a Groundwater Sustainability Plan which established the sustainable yield at 10,980 AFY. Planned production is below the safe yield, so recharge is not required. However, YVWD and Western Heights Water Company are planning voluntary recharge projects, which are estimated to recharge 5,500 AFY long-term average into the Yucaipa Basin.

Table 4-7: Planned Pumping from Yucaipa Basin (AFY)
AGENCY 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
South Mesa Water Company 1,878 2,002 2,025 2,049 2,073
Yucaipa Valley Water District 3,045 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Western Heights Water
Company 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200
South Mountain Water
Company 540 540 540 540 540
Total 7,663 8,242 8,765 9,289 9,813
Yucaipa Basin GSP Safe Yield 10,980 10,980 10,980 10,980 10,980 Supply Surplus 3,317 2,738 2,215 1,691 1,167

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-13

4.3 Demands for Imported Water
In the Region, imported water is used for direct deliveries to several retail water producers, direct delivery to Bear Valley Mutual Water Company in-lieu of releases from Big Bear Lake, and groundwater recharge.

4.3.1 Direct Deliveries
Several retail water producers have water treatment plants to treat imported water. The following agencies are planning to continue taking direct delivery of imported water in the future:

EVWD, Redlands, WVWD, YVWD, FWC, CLAWA, and Marygold Mutual Water Company (via WVWD).

4.3.2 In-Lieu Deliveries
Bear Valley Mutual Water Company constructed the original Bear Valley Dam in 1884 to create Big Bear Lake as a storage reservoir for their customers, downstream farmers. In 1964, the residents of Big Bear Lake formed the Big Bear Municipal Water District (Big Bear Municipal) in an effort to eliminate Lake releases to Bear Valley Mutual so that the lake level would remain high for recreational use and tourism. After more than a decade of litigation, a Judgment was executed in 1977 which reduced the amount of Lake releases to Bear Valley Mutual. Under the terms of the 1977 Judgment, Big Bear Municipal purchased from Bear Valley Mutual the lake bottom, Bear Valley Dam, and the right to utilize and manage the surface of Big Bear Lake for recreation and wildlife. In return, deliveries to Bear Valley Mutual were capped at a total of 65,000 AF in any ten-year period. These deliveries can be made in the form of Lake releases or can be provided from other sources “in-lieu” of Lake releases (in-lieu deliveries). In-lieu deliveries to Bear Valley Mutual are preferable to Big Bear Municipal since they do not result in water being removed from the lake.

In 1996, Big Bear Municipal Water District entered into a water purchase agreement with San Bernardino Valley that reduces the amount of water Big Bear Municipal must release from Big Bear Lake. For an annual payment to San Bernardino Valley, San Bernardino Valley provides SWP water for the downstream water needs that would have historically been met by lake releases whenever the Lake is at specified levels. San Bernardino Valley may also provide water from other sources when the SWP supply is limited. This historic agreement helped Big Bear Municipal achieve its mission of Lake level stabilization for recreation while providing Bear Valley Mutual with the water it needs for its customers. Under the terms of the Agreement, Bear Valley Mutual may request any amount of delivery for a given year, provided that the total of all their requested deliveries do not exceed 65,000 AF in any ten-year period. Bear Valley Mutual typically limits its request to no more than the ten-year average, or 6,500 AFY. SBVMWD may also provide water from other sources, such as groundwater in storage, when the SWP supply is limited.

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-14

4.3.3 Groundwater Recharge
One of the primary water management strategies in the Region is to store imported water when it is available so that it can be used during drought periods. Any unused San Bernardino Valley SWP water is available to be purchased by retail agencies and other customers to be stored in the regional groundwater basins for later pumping.

4.3.4 Total Imported Water Demands
Requests for delivery of supplemental imported water in the SBVMWD service area are subject to approval as set forth in SBVMWD Resolution 888. Table 4-8 summarizes projected normal year direct and in-lieu demands for imported water during the period of this Plan. Planned deliveries may be higher or lower depending on SWP Table A allocation and available carryover water. Projected uses of imported water for groundwater recharge is discussed further in Section 5.1.1.2.

Table 4-8: Normal Year Imported Water Direct Deliveries (AFY) AGENCY 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Redlands 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
CLAWA 60 60 60 60 60
WVWD 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000
BVMWC 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500
EVWD 3,223 3,568 3,677 3,788 3,898
FWC 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200
Marygold MWC 320 320 320 320 320
YVWD 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Total 27,303 27,648 27,757 27,868 27,978

4.4 Demands for Recycled Water
Some water agencies in the Region are currently using recycled water to meet non-potable demands and for groundwater recharge. Additional recycled water production and use is planned in the future. Table 4-9 summarizes the anticipated future uses of recycled water and additional details are included in each agency’s respective chapter in Part 2.

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-15
Table 4-9: Recycled Water Use Projections (AFY)
AGENCY1 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Direct Use (Non-Potable) 4,716 4,869 5,001 5,132 5,264
Redlands 3,357 3,510 3,642 3,773 3,905
Rialto 15 15 15 15 15
SBMWD 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344
Groundwater Recharge (all in SBB) 17,293 17,466 17,624 17,788 22,438 Redlands2 4,037 4,210 4,368 4,532 4,702
SBMWD 4,256 4,256 4,256 4,256 8,736
EVWD 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Notes: 1 While YVWD and FWC are included in other supply tables that are shared supplies with participating agencies, they are excluded from this table because their direct non-potable recycled water use is independent of participating agencies.
2Bunker Hill Salinity Management Feasibility Study (Water Systems Consulting, Inc., 2025).

4.5 Water Use Efficiency
The Region has invested in expanding and optimizing local water resources to improve long term water supply reliability for its residents. At the same time, the Region continues to advance water use efficiency and conservation programs that have meaningfully reduced per-capita demand and strengthened long-term supply reliability. These conservation efforts are a core component of the Region’s resource management strategy and help maximize the value of available supplies.

Since 2005, there have been several regulatory changes related to conservation including new standards for plumbing fixtures, a new landscape ordinance, a state universal retrofit ordinance, metering and billing requirements, new Green Building standards, demand reduction goals and more.

4.5.1 Reducing Per Capita Water Use
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) required a 20-percent reduction in urban per capita water use in California by December 31, 2020 (20 by 2020). The bill required each urban retail water supplier to determine their baseline per capita water use (gallons per capita per day

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-16
or gpcd), develop an urban water use target for year 2020 and set a 2015 interim urban water use target. Each of the agencies participating in this Plan have met their 2020 targets, as shown in Figure 4-4 and some have continued to reduce their per capita water demand beyond the 2020 target. These significant reductions in per capita water use essentially expand the water supply for the Region by reducing use of local groundwater supplies.

Figure 4-4: 20x2020 Compliance

4.5.2 New Water Conservation Legislation
Going forward, Participating Agencies that are retail suppliers are continuing to align with new water use efficiency standards from the CWOL Regulation, which supersede SBX7-7 standards.

In 2018, two policy bills were enacted by the California Legislature, Assembly Bill 1668 (AB1668, Friedman) and Senate Bill 606 (SB606, Hertzberg), collectively referred to as the “2018 Water Conservation Legislation.” Based on the 2018 Water Conservation Legislation, related legislation, and subsequent adoption of the CWOL Regulation, each urban retail water supplier must calculate and comply with its specific Urban Water Use Objective (UWUO), with efficiency standards becoming increasingly stringent through 2040. DWR and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) have developed a reporting framework for calculating the UWUO and compliance annually. The UWUO is composed of several standards to create one comprehensive objective, as shown in Figure 4-5 and described further below. Additionally, each urban retail water supplier must submit an Annual Water Use Report (AWUR) starting January 1, 2024 to document progress toward complying with the UWUO regulations. The 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Colton Loma
Linda
Redlands Rialto RHWCo SBMWD SMWC WVWD
Per Capita Water Use (GPCD)
Baseline GPCD 20x2020 Target Actual 2020 GPCD Actual 2025 GPCD

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-17
required calculations and reporting associated with the CWOL Regulations are complex and extensive and are therefore not required to be included in the UWMP.

Figure 4-5. Urban Water Use Objectives Regulation Overview Indoor Residential
The indoor residential water use standard was set as part of Senate Bill (SB) 1157, which adopts recommendations made by DWR and the State Water Board to reduce indoor water use targets from 55 gpcd to 47 gpcd by 2025 and 42 gpcd by 2030.

Outdoor Residential
Outdoor residential use is expected to be based on the amount of irrigable area and an increasingly stringent landscape efficiency factor with compliance progress measured annually through 2035, when the efficiency factor is proposed to remain constant. The SWRCB assists agencies in calculating outdoor residential use budgets by providing aerial imagery that delineates irrigable irrigated, irrigable but not irrigated, and non-irrigable areas. This data has been provided to suppliers and is expected to be updated in five-year cycles.

Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Landscape
Commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) standards will be based on total gallons used and will require implementation of dedicated irrigation meters or in-lieu technologies, and other performance measures for conservation. Additionally, CII customer accounts will need to be classified into specific and general categories for reporting and compliance over the course of several years yet to be determined by the State.

4.5.2.1 Water Loss
The water loss component of the UWUO is a standalone component that must be met on its own beginning in 2028, as described in this section.

Distribution system water losses are the physical potable water losses from the water system, calculated as the difference between water produced and the amount of water billed to customers plus other authorized uses of water. Sources of water loss include:
- Leaks from water lines – Leakage from water pipes is a common occurrence in water systems. A significant number of leaks remain undetected over long periods of time as

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-18
they are very small; however, these small leaks contribute to the overall water loss.

Aging pipes typically have more leaks.
- Water used for flushing and fire hydrant operations.
- Unauthorized uses or theft of water.
- Customer Meter Inaccuracies – Customer meters can under-represent actual consumption in the water system
In accordance with DWR requirements, the individual retail agencies have quantified their water losses, using the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Audit process, in their respective UWMPs. Water lost through leaks represents a loss of revenue for the retail agencies and increases the amount of groundwater or surface water that must be produced.

Because the region relies so heavily on groundwater, this water is not permanently lost; it eventually contributes to recharge of the local groundwater basin.

CWC Section 10608.34 required the State Water Board to develop water loss performance standards for urban retail water suppliers to minimize water waste through system leaks. Water loss performance standards were developed through a rulemaking that became effective in 2023. Under the regulations, each supplier will be required to comply, by 2028, with an individualized volumetric water loss standard based on real loss, using the economic model developed by the State Water Board and the supplier’s own unique data. Real loss is the physical loss of water from water distribution systems, as opposed to apparent losses, which are revenue losses due to meter inaccuracies, billing errors or unauthorized consumption. A supplier’s baseline water loss is calculated as the average water loss from at least 3 of the 4 water loss audits from 2017 – 2020. The real water loss performance standard is based on gallons per service connection per day (gpscd), or gallons per mile of pipe per day (gpmd), depending on how the supplier reports real loss. Post-2028 compliance with volumetric water loss standards will be assessed every three years based on the average of the supplier’s real loss from the preceding three years, with an allowed variation of 5 gallons per connection per day above the supplier’s water loss standard. Apparent loss standards are equal to the baseline apparent loss and compliance is evaluated at the same time as compliance with the Real Water Loss Performance Standard.

Although the compliance period has not yet started, CWC Section 10631 (d)(3)(C) requires water suppliers to provide data in the UWMP to show whether the supplier met its State Water Board water loss performance standard. Each supplier’s 2025 UWMP includes a discussion water loss performance and actions that are being taken to reduce water loss.

4.5.3 Regional Demand Management Measures
San Bernardino Valley has consistently invested in water conservation efforts since its Water Conservation Master Plan was first adopted in 2007. The demand reduction measures in the Master Plan were incorporated into the 2010 RUWMP, 2015 RUWMP, and 2020 IRUWMP updates and are making a measurable impact on demand reduction.

4.0 Regional Water Use
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 4-19
In 2021, SBVMWD developed an enhanced Demand Management Program that will use demand management measures (DMMs) as the basis for funding and assessing the performance of water conservation measures, programs, and incentives within the Region. This data-oriented and performance-based approach will allow SBVMWD to fund a wide range of water conservation measures, programs and incentives proposed by retail suppliers that will have a greater impact on reducing the total amount of water use.

The overarching goal is consistent demand management into the future. The proposed program includes both demand-side and supply-side conservation and is cost effective through economies of scale and leveraging grant funding for the service area. The program focuses on enhancing the technical, managerial, and financial capacity of retail agencies to deliver on urban water conservation and utilize broad-based partnerships and public engagement to help the retail agencies meet their upcoming water use objectives.

Demand Management Measures being implemented by individual retail agencies are described in their respective UWMPs.

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-1

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies
and Demands
This chapter compares the total supplies and demands in the Region under various hydrologic scenarios, including an average (or “normal”) year, single dry year, 5-year drought.

Wet year impacts and water quality impacts are also
discussed. The analysis concludes that the Region has sufficient supplies to meet demands through 2050 in all analyzed
hydrologic scenarios.

IN THIS S ECTION
• Regional Supply
and Demand
Balance
• Imported Water
Recharge
• Dry and 5-Dry
Year Balances

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-2
The UWMP Act requires urban water suppliers to assess water supply reliability by comparing total projected water use with the projected water supply over the next twenty years or beyond in 5-year increments. The UWMP Act also requires an assessment for a single-dry year and 5- year drought.

5.1 Water Supply Reliability
Chapter 3 provided information about regional water supplies and Chapter 4 provided information on total projected demands during a normal year. This section compares the total supplies and demands in the Region under the different hydrologic conditions listed above. A discussion of the supplies and demands for each participating retail agency are described in their respective chapters in Part 2, or the respective UWMPs of non-participating agencies.

5.1.1 Imported Water Supply Reliability
Imported water supply reliability is discussed in detail in Section 3.1. According to the 2025 Delivery Capability Report, SBVMWD expects its Table A allocation to vary depending on the type of year, and generally be reduced in the future. For single dry years, SBVMWD anticipates taking delivery of 10,000 AFY of carryover water stored from previous years to supplement Table A deliveries. During 5-year droughts, it is assumed that carryover water will not be available. SBVMWD prioritizes direct deliveries to surface water treatment plants when supplies are limited and coordinates with the requesting agencies to allocate available supplies if full delivery requests cannot be met. For purposes of this Plan, an example of direct delivery curtailments are given during dry years, however this Plan does not prescribe how supplies will actually be distributed when all delivery requests cannot be met. As described in Section 3.1, SBVMWD has invested in Sites Reservoir, which is anticipated to provide deliveries by 2040 and will supplement water supplies during single dry and multiple dry years.

Table 5-1: San Bernardino Valley Anticipated Imported Water Supplies (AFY) 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Normal Year (1922-2021)
% Table A Available (Table 3-3) 51% 49% 46% 43% 41%
Anticipated Deliveries (Table 3-3) 52,668 49,932 47,196 44,460 41,724 Carryover from Previous Table A
(Section 5.1.1) - - - - -
Storage from Sites Reservoir
(Section 3.1.4) - - 11,200 11,200 11,200
Total Normal Year Supply 52,668 49,932 58,396 55,660 52,924

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-3
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Single Dry Year (2014, 2021, 2022)
% Table A Available (Table 3-4) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Anticipated Deliveries (Table 3-4) 5,130 5,130 5,130 5,130 5,130 Carryover from Previous Table A
(Section 5.1.1) 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Storage from Sites Reservoir
(Section 3.1.3)
- - 11,200 11,200 11,200
Total Single Dry Year Supply 15,130 15,130 26,330 26,330 26,330 5 Consecutive Dry Years (Table 3-4)
% Table A Available (Table 3-4) 15% 15% 14% 14% 14%
15,105 14,820 14,535 14,250 13,965
Carryover from Previous Table A
(Section 5.1.1) - - - - -
Storage from Sites Reservoir
(Section 3.1.3)
- - 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total 5 Dry Year Supply 15,105 14,820 24,535 24,250 23,965 Wet Year (Table 3-4)
% Table A Available (Table 3-4) 84% 83% 83% 82% 82%
Anticipated Deliveries (Table 3-4) 86,184 85,158 85,158 84,132 84,132 Carryover from Previous Table A
(Section 5.1.1) - - - - -
Storage from Sites Reservoir
(Section 3.1.3) - - - - -
Total Wet Year Supply 86,184 85,158 85,158 84,132 85,132

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-4

5.1.1.1 Dry Year Direct Delivery Reductions
Direct delivery imported water demands are met by normal year Table A allocations. In both single dry and consecutive dry years, approximately 15,000 AFY of imported water is available (excluding Sites Reservoir), as shown in Table 5-1. The numbers differ slightly; single dry years have lower Table A allocations but have carryover water available, and multiple dry years have higher Table A allocations and are assumed to have no carryover water available. Normal year direct delivery demands are projected to be 27,648 AFY in 2035 (see Section 4.3.1). Direct deliveries would need to be reduced from normal year levels in response to lower imported water availability until Sites Reservoir is online in 2040. Table 5-2 provides an example of how direct deliveries could be reduced in dry years to align with available supply. However, this Plan does not prescribe how supplies will be distributed when all delivery requests cannot be met (actual deliveries would be determined by SBVMWD in collaboration with the retailers requesting direct delivery in a given year). These example reductions were applied in each participating agency’s UWMP dry year water supply reliability analysis.

BVMWC typically receives 6,500 AFY of imported water in-lieu of receiving Big Bear Lake releases (see Section 4.3.2). SBVMWD can deliver SBB groundwater to BVMWC instead of imported water if imported water supplies are not available. In 2022, which was a very dry year with 5% Table A allocation, BVMWC took 1,750 AFY of imported water and 6,500 AFY of SBB groundwater. There may be operational requirements that prevent Bear Valley Mutual from taking any less imported water, so 1,750 AFY was considered the minimum quantity of imported water that could be given to BVMWC, with the balance of its in-lieu demand met by SBB groundwater. The remaining agencies would distribute the remaining imported water proportionally to normal year supplies, each receiving approximately 40% less than normal year deliveries.

Starting in 2040, Sites Reservoir would provide supplemental imported water supplies in dry years that would avoid the need for a reduction in direct deliveries to any agency except for BVMWC, which would have varying reductions of up to 4,000 AFY through 2050 that would be made up with in-lieu SBB groundwater.

Table 5-2: Example Reductions in Imported Water Direct Deliveries (AFY) AGENCY 2035 NORMAL YEAR

DELIVERY
2035 DRY YEAR

DELIVERY
Redlands 1,000 600
CLAWA 60 36
WVWD 7,000 4,200
BVMWC 6,500 1,750

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-5
AGENCY 2035 NORMAL YEAR

DELIVERY
2035 DRY YEAR

DELIVERY
EVWD 3,568 2,141
Marygold MWC 320 192
FWC 320 1,920
YVWD 6,000 3,600
Total Demand 27,648 14,439
2035 Single Dry Year Imported Water Available 15,130
2035 Five Consecutive Dry Year Imported Water
Available 14,820

5.1.1.2 Imported Water Recharge
While recharge is not currently required under the Western Judgment or under the Yucaipa GSP for any groundwater basin in this Plan, the regional water agencies remain committed to proactively recharging groundwater basins with imported water, when available in excess of direct delivery demands. Table 5-3 shows the proposed voluntary recharge amounts for each basin over a long-term average, totaling 22,500 AFY. Recharge typically does not occur in dry years since Table A supplies are prioritized for direct deliveries, therefore during wet years, more recharge must occur to achieve the desired long-term average.

Table 5-3: Proposed Long-term Average Imported Water Recharge (AFY)

BASIN QUANTITY NOTES
San Bernardino Basin 16,000 AFY 2000-2025 average imported water recharge Rialto-Colton Basin 3,000 AFY Cactus basin spreading
Yucaipa Basin 3,000 AFY YVWD purchases, 2021-2025 average Yucaipa Basin 500 AFY WHWC ASR well

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-6

BASIN QUANTITY NOTES
Total 22,500 AFY Long-term average
1FWC in-lieu Rialto-Colton Basin recharge through the Summit WTP is excluded because it generally does not use Table A supplies.

Table 5-4 the amount of imported water available for recharge in normal years and wet years.

During wet years, agencies may also take more imported water as direct deliveries above their normal year amounts, which would have an in-lieu recharge effect as they use less groundwater.

Table 5-4: Imported Water Recharge and Available Supply in Different Year Types (AFY) 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Normal Year / Long-Term Average
Available Imported Water Supplies 52,668 49,932 58,396 55,660 52,924 Direct Delivery Demands 27,303 27,648 27,757 27,868 27,978 Available for Recharge 25,365 22,284 30,639 27,792 24,946 Wet Year
Available Imported Water Supplies 86,184 85,158 85,158 84,132 84,132 Direct Delivery Demands 27,303 27,648 27,757 27,868 27,978 Available for Recharge 58,881 57,510 57,401 56,264 56,154 The Region has enough imported water supplies to meet direct delivery demands and the 22,500 AFY of proposed recharge. Starting in 2040, due to falling Table A allocations with climate change, long-term average Table A allocations alone would not provide enough for normal year direct deliveries and 22,500 AFY of recharge. However, with Sites Reservoir yielding deliveries starting in 2040, the region would be able to meet normal year direct deliveries and 22,500 AFY of recharge, as shown in years 2040-2050 in Table 5-4. Without Sites Reservoir, the region would be more susceptible to reduced long-term average recharge and reductions in direct deliveries in dry years, resulting in increased reliance on groundwater.

Additional local stormwater capture projects could be considered to achieve the desired groundwater recharge (see Section 3.10.2).

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-7

5.1.2 Local Water Supply Reliability
During multi-year and single-year droughts, total SWP supplies and local surface water supplies are reduced so the Region is more reliant upon groundwater.

Although local and imported surface water supplies are highly dependent on local and statewide hydrology, the Region benefits from more than 5.6 million acre-feet of available groundwater storage capacity in the San Bernardino Basin,1.7 million acre-feet of available groundwater storage in the Rialto-Colton Basin, and 2.8 million acre-feet of available groundwater storage in the Yucaipa Basin (Geoscience, 2020). The San Bernardino Basin and Yucaipa Basin can be recharged with imported water and are used to store water when supplies are available and then pumped in dry years. The Rialto Basin will also soon be able to be recharged with imported water. By maximizing deliveries of SWP water in wet years when those supplies are available and supplementing that with other local supplies like stormwater capture and recycled water, the Region expects to accrue sufficient storage to enable a high level of water supply reliability, even during extended droughts.

Annual change in storage evaluations prepared by San Bernardino Valley show that the SBB experiences significant increases in storage during wet years such as 2005, 2011, 2019, and 2023, as shown in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5: SBB Storage Increase in Wet Years

YEAR INCREASE IN GROUNDWATER IN STORAGE (AF)
2005 223,000
2011 159,000
2019 161,000
2023 223,000
In addition to existing recharge programs, SBVMWD, SBVWCD, Western, SBMWD and RPU are currently developing Projects for Enhanced Recharge Capacity (PERC) and additional Active Recharge Projects (see Section 3.10.2). The list of projects has not been prioritized or scheduled for construction, but for purposes of this Plan, it is assumed that one recharge project will come online every five years starting in 2030, with an average long-term yield of 2,000 AFY per project.

Storing local surface water and imported SWP water in the local groundwater basins in wet years for later use during dry periods will continue to be one of the foundational water management strategies in the Region. As a result of this strategy and the demonstrated success, the available supply from the local groundwater basins in this analysis is not reduced in dry and multiple dry years.

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-8

5.2 Summary of Regional Supplies and Demands

5.2.1 Normal Year
In a normal year, SWP and local surface water supplies are used at retail agency treatment plants and any unused SWP supply is available to be recharged. Some non-potable demands in the region are met with recycled water and additional recycled water is recharged into the SBB.

The remaining demands are met from local groundwater sources.

Table 5-6 and Figure 5-1 provide a comparison of regional water supplies and demands for a normal year and demonstrate that adequate regional supplies are anticipated for years 2030 to 2050 under normal/average conditions. In a normal year across all of the supplies available in the region, there is a surplus of supply, which results in accumulated storage in local groundwater basins for use in dry years.

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-9
Table 5-6: Normal Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
San Bernardino Basin
Surface Water
Production 21,665 21,767 21,799 21,831 21,864
Groundwater Production1 106,773 112,113 115,927 118,001 120,797 Total Production 128,438 133,880 137,726 139,832 142,661 Safe Yield with New
Conservation 172,745 172,745 172,745 172,745 172,745
San Bernardino Basin Balance 44,307 38,865 35,019 32,913 30,084 Rialto-Colton Basin
Groundwater Production 12,865 12,865 12,865 12,865 12,865 Baseline Period Pumping 8,235 8,235 8,235 8,235 8,235
Rialto-Colton Basin Balance2(4,630) (4,630) (4,630) (4,630) (4,630) Riverside North Basin
Groundwater Production 10,561 10,561 10,561 10,561 10,561 Baseline Period Pumping 9,609 9,609 9,609 9,609 9,609
Riverside North Basin Balance1,2 (952) (952) (952) (952) (952) Yucaipa Basin
Groundwater Production 7,663 8,242 8,765 9,289 9,813
Safe Yield 10,980 10,980 10,980 10,980 10,980
Yucaipa Basin Balance 3,317 2,738 2,215 1,691 1,167
Imported Water
Direct Deliveries 27,303 27,648 27,757 27,868 27,978

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-10
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Imported Water Available3 52,668 49,932 58,396 55,660 52,924 Imported Water Balance4 25,365 22,284 30,639 27,792 24,946 Recycled Water Direct Use5
Recycled Water Demands 4,716 4,869 5,001 5,132 5,264
Recycled Water Supplies 4,716 4,869 5,001 5,132 5,264
Total Demands 191,547 198,065 202,675 205,546 209,141
Total Supplies 258,953 256,370 264,966 262,361 259,757
Total Supply Balance 67,407 58,306 62,290 56,814 50,615 Notes: 1Excludes RHWC demands on each supply source and its rights to produce from those basins. 2Rialto-Colton and Riverside North Basins are not under recharge obligations because the three key index wells are above 822 ft. If projected pumping above baselines leads to falling groundwater levels and triggers a recharge obligation, imported water supplies can be used to recharge the basins. 3Includes Sites Reservoir starting in 2040.
4Balance of imported water is available for recharge.
5Excludes recycled water recharge, summarized in Section 4.4.

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-11
Figure 5-1: Normal Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance (AFY) While the Region currently has sufficient supplies, it continues to invest in additional water supply projects to ensure it has enough for the future. Figure 5-2 shows that the Region currently has invested in over 17,000 AFY of recycled water recharge and direct use in the SBB and has identified projects to provide an additional 45,000 AFY in recharge of stormwater, imported water, and recycled water by 2050.
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
San Bernardino Basin
(Groundwater and Surface
Water)
Imported Water
Yucaipa Basin
Riverside North Basin
Rialto-Colton Basin
Recycled Water Direct Use
Total Demands

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-12
Figure 5-2: Existing and Proposed SBB Supply Improvement Projects (AFY)

5.2.2 Single Dry Year
In addition to population and employment, two major factors that affect water usage are weather and water conservation. Historically, when the weather is hot and dry, water usage increases due to outdoor irrigation uses. The increases vary according to the number of consecutive years of hot, dry weather and the conservation activities imposed. For this analysis it is estimated that total regional demands will increase by approximately 5 percent during dry years, based on an average of dry year demand increases across all Participating Agencies.

Table 5-7 and Figure 5-3 provide a comparison of regional water supplies and demands for a single dry year and demonstrate that adequate regional supplies are anticipated for years 2030 to 2050 even under dry conditions.

Total dry year demands in Table 5-7 do not appear significantly higher than normal year demands in Table 5-6 despite the 5% increase in demands during dry years. This is because some non-participating agencies receive less supplies from this region during dry years but make up those supplies by relying on supplies outside the scope of this Plan, therefore the demand on those supplies does not appear in this table. For instance, FWC receives approximately 6,500 AFY less in dry years from SBB Groundwater (Lytle), SBB Surface Water (Lytle Creek), and Imported Water from SBVMWD, but makes up those supplies as well as weather-related demand increases with Chino Basin groundwater and/or imported water from IEUA, which are not recorded as demands in this table.
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
SBWRP TTS Phase 3
Sites Reservoir
SBWRP TTS Phase 2
Stormwater Capture Projects
Imported Water Recharge
SBWRP TTS Phase 1 (Existing)
SNRC Recycled Water
Recharge (Existing)
Redlands Tertiary Recycled
Water (Existing)
Redlands WRF Recharge
(Existing)

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-13
Table 5-7: Single Dry Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance (AFY) 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
San Bernardino Basin Supply 172,745 172,745 172,745 172,745 172,745 Rialto-Colton Basin Supply 8,235 8,235 8,235 8,235 8,235 Riverside North Basin Supply 9,609 9,609 9,609 9,609 9,609 Yucaipa Basin Supply 10,980 10,980 10,980 10,980 10,980 Imported Water Supply 15,130 15,130 26,330 26,330 26,330 Recycled Water Supply 4,716 4,869 5,001 5,132 5,264
Total Single Dry Year Supplies 222,621 222,775 234,105 234,237 234,368 Total Dry Year Demands 194,299 201,143 205,984 208,999 212,773 Total Supply Balance 28,322 21,632 28,122 25,238 21,595 Figure 5-3: Single Dry Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance (AFY) 0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
San Bernardino Basin
(Groundwater and Surface
Water)
Imported Water
Yucaipa Basin
Riverside North Basin
Rialto-Colton Basin
Recycled Water Direct Use
Total Demands

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-14

5.2.3 5-Year Drought
For this analysis, it is estimated that total regional demands will increase by approximately 5 percent during dry periods, including a 5-year drought. Although conservation efforts may be effective in reducing demands during the later years of a 5-year drought, a 5% increase is assumed to be constant through the 5-year drought to be conservative.

During a 5-year drought, Table A supplies are, on average, higher than a single dry year, but carryover water is assumed not to be available. Because of this, slightly less imported water is available in each year of a 5-year drought as a single dry year. Starting in 2040, supplemental imported water supplies from Sites Reservoir help to meet the demands of direct deliveries.

Table 5-8 and Figure 5-4 provide a comparison of regional water supplies and demands for a 5- year drought and demonstrate that adequate regional supplies are anticipated for years 2030 to 2050 even under extended dry conditions.

Total dry year demands in Table 5-8 do not appear significantly higher than normal year demands in Table 5-6 despite the 5% increase in demands during dry years. This is because some non-participating agencies receive less supplies from this region during dry years but make up those supplies by relying on supplies outside the scope of this Plan, therefore the demand on those supplies does not appear in this table, as explained in the Single Dry Year analysis.

Table 5-8: Five Consecutive Dry Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance (AFY) 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
San Bernardino Basin Supply 172,745 172,745 172,745 172,745 172,745 Rialto-Colton Basin Supply 8,235 8,235 8,235 8,235 8,235 Riverside North Basin Supply 9,609 9,609 9,609 9,609 9,609 Yucaipa Basin Supply 10,980 10,980 10,980 10,980 10,980 Imported Water Supply 15,105 14,820 24,535 24,250 23,965 Recycled Water Supply 4,716 4,869 5,001 5,132 5,264
Total 5-Year Drought Year Supplies 221,390 221,259 231,105 230,951 230,798 Total Dry Year Demands 194,299 201,143 205,984 208,999 212,773 Total Supply Balance 27,091 20,116 25,121 21,952 18,024

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-15
Figure 5-4: Five Consecutive Dry Year Regional Supply and Demand Balance

5.2.4 Long-Term Drought
Analysis of a long-term drought is not required by the UWMP Act but was included in this Plan as a qualitative discussion to be comprehensive and demonstrate how the Region responds to extended droughts. Figure 5-5 shows how imported water supplies may be impacted during a period of 20 dry years, assuming a 95% level of concern of climate change risk (95% likely to not be worse than this), to be conservative. The most recently modeled 20-year period had average SWP Table A allocations of 37%, and the lowest 20-year allocation period modeled was 1922-1941 with a 35% allocation. Long-term droughts typically have average higher supply than a single dry year or five-year drought, because there are typically some wetter years scattered throughout a long-term drought, as shown in Figure 5-5. 0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
San Bernardino Basin
(Groundwater and Surface
Water)
Imported Water
Yucaipa Basin
Riverside North Basin
Rialto-Colton Basin

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-16
Figure 5-5: Modeled Table A Allocation at 95% Climate Change Level of Concern Based on Historic Hydrology (2025 DCR)
In an extended drought, the Region would continue to prioritize direct deliveries with imported water. A 35% average SWP allocation equates to 35,910 AFY of Table A supply and would be sufficient to meet SBVMWD’s demand for direct deliveries, but with little leftover to recharge compared to the region’s recharge targets in Section 5.1.1.2. Higher temperatures and lower rainfall during drought would also lead to higher outdoor water use in many years, similar to a 5- year drought.

The Region has invested in groundwater recharge to prepare for extended droughts and currently has 4.9 million acre-feet stored in the San Bernardino Basin and 2.2 million acre-feet stored in the Yucaipa Basin as of 2025, and an additional 2.2 million acre-feet between the Rialto-Colton Basin and Riverside Basin (as of 2020), which can all be drawn upon if needed.

Over the course of a drought, groundwater levels would decline as natural and supplemental recharge is limited and groundwater pumping is higher than usual. However, wetter years within the long-term drought period would provide critical opportunities to recharge groundwater supplies drawn down over time. Figure 5-6 shows how during the last extended drought, which started around 2000, the San Bernardino Basin experienced reduced groundwater in storage over time. It also shows that in the occasional wet years such as 2005, 2011, 2019, and 2023, storage levels temporarily rebounded due to natural and supplemental recharge, which helped support ongoing reliance on groundwater storage during subsequent dry years. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1922192519281931193419371940194319461949195219551958196119641967197019731976197919821985198819911994199720002003200620092012201520182021 SWP Table A Delivery Percent of Maximum SWP Table A
1922-1941 average: 35% 2002-2021 average: 37%

5.0 Comparison of Regional Supplies and Demands
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | 5-17
Figure 5-6: San Bernardino Basin Groundwater Change in Storage (AFY) Finally, each supplier in the region has also prepared Water Shortage Contingency Plans that outline demand management actions that could be implemented if needed in an extended drought to help reduce demand and stretch available supplies. The Region has invested in a diverse set of supplies and infrastructure and has focused on maximizing groundwater storage to prepare itself for future dry periods. The Region intends to further expand recharge opportunities to provide additional supply reliability during future long-term droughts. -800,000
-600,000
-400,000
-200,000
0 200,000
400,000
200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023 Annual Change in Storage Cumulative Change in Storage
References
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | REF-1
References
Berkeley Research Group. (2024). Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Delta Conveyance Project.

Geoscience. (2020). Usable Groundwater in Storage Estimation for the San Bernardino, RialtoColton, Riverside, and Arlington Groundwater Basins – Summary Report.

Inland Empire Labor and Community Center. (2025). State of Workers in the Inland Empire.

Rialto Basin Groundwater Council. (2025). DRAFT Rialto Basin Groundwater Management Plan.

San Bernardino County Flood Control District. (January 2021). Planning Memorandum of Understanding by and between the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District Contract Number 21-140.

San Bernardino Valley. (2024). Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan.

Sites Project Authority. (2023). Sites Reservoir Project Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement.

Southern California Association of Governments. (December 2025). 2025 Southern California Economic Update. Southern California Association of Governments.

Tetra Tech. (2020). 2020 Comprehensive Groundwater Sampling Event Report, Former LPC Site Invesitgation Order 94-11 and Crafton-Redlands Plume Cleanup and Abatement Orders 94-37 and 97-58, as amended by 01-56.

Tetra Tech, Inc. (2022). CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CRAFTON-REDLANDS PROJECT. Prepared for Lockheed Martin Corporation.

Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (2025). Bunker Hill Regional Recycled Water Salinity Management Feasibility Study. Prepared for the Bunker Hill Regional Recycled Water Coaliton.

West Yost. (October 2023). 2021 Ambient Water Quality Pilot Study. Prepared for the Basin Monitoring Program Task Force, administered by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority.

WSC. (2024). San Bernardino Basin Optimization and Stewardship Program Framework – Basin Context Summary.
2025 Urban Water
Management Plan
Public Draft
Part 2 Chapter 4
MAY 2026 CITY OF REDLANDS

CITY OF REDLANDS
2025 Urban Water
Management Plan Public
Draft
MAY 2026
Prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The 2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft was prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. The primary authors are listed below.

Laine Carlson, PE
Aaron Morland, PE
Patricia Parks, PE
Ariana Lopez
Madeline Blua
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the City of Redlands. The primary contributors are listed below.

Paul Mariscal, Water Utility Manager
Kimberly Tra, Regulatory Compliance Officer
Table of Contents
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 City of Redlands............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 System Description................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Water Use................................................................................................................. 4-6

4.3 SBX7-7 Compliance & Future Water Use Efficiency Requirements ........................ 4-18

4.4 Water Supply .......................................................................................................... 4-20

4.5 Water Service Reliability Assessment..................................................................... 4-30

4.6 Drought Risk Assessment....................................................................................... 4-34

4.7 Water Shortage Contingency Plan .......................................................................... 4-36

4.8 Demand Management Measures............................................................................ 4-37

4.9 Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation................................................................ 4-40 List of Figures
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft | ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1: City of Redlands Water Service Area Map ............................................................ 4-3 Figure 4-2: Land Uses Within the City of Redlands ................................................................. 4-5 Figure 4-3: City of Redlands 2021-2025 Water Consumption by Customer Class................... 4-9 Figure 4-4: City of Redlands Projected Water Demand, by Customer Class ......................... 4-16 Figure 4-5: City of Redlands Projected Supply and Demand Comparison............................. 4-28 List of Tables
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft | iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1: DWR 3-1R Current and Projected Population ........................................................ 4-4 Table 4-2: City of Redlands 2021-2025 Connections by Customer Class................................ 4-7 Table 4-3: 2021-2025 Actual Water Use (AF) ......................................................................... 4-8 Table 4-4: DWR 4-5R Month Water Loss Audit Reporting..................................................... 4-10 Table 4-5: DWR 4-6R Progress Towards 2028 Water Loss Standard ................................... 4-12 Table 4-6: Demand Projection Assumptions ......................................................................... 4-14 Table 4-7: DWR 4-2R Projected Demands for Potable, Non-Potable, and Recycled Water (AFY) ............................................................................................................................................. 4-15 Table 4-8: DWR 4-3R Total Gross Water Use (AFY)............................................................. 4-16 Table 4-9: DWR 4-3R Inclusion in Water Use Projections..................................................... 4-17 Table 4-10: SBX7-7 2020 Target Progress ........................................................................... 4-18 Table 4-11: DWR 6-1R Groundwater Volume Pumped (AF) ................................................. 4-20 Table 4-12: DWR 6-2R Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2025 (AF)................... 4-23 Table 4-13: DWR 6-3R Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2025 (AF) ............................................................................................................................................. 4-24 Table 4-14: DWR 6-8R Actual Water Supplies in 2025 (AF).................................................. 4-26 Table 4-15: DWR 6-9R Projected Water Supplies (AF)......................................................... 4-27 Table 4-16: DWR 7-2R Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF)........................ 4-28 Table 4-17: Basis of Water Year Data................................................................................... 4-31 Table 4-18: DWR 7-3R Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) ................... 4-32 Table 4-19: DWR 7-4R Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF)............... 4-33 Table 4-20: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment (AF).......................................................... 4-35 2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-1
4 City of Redlands
This chapter describes information specific to the City of Redlands (Redlands or City), its supplies, demands, and water use efficiency programs. The information and analysis in this chapter are supplemental to the regional information presented in Part 1 of the 2025 RUWMP and is provided to meet the City of Redlands’ reporting requirements for 2025 under the UWMP Act.

IN THIS S ECTION
• System Description
• Water Use
• SBX7-7 Compliance
• Water Supply
• Water Service Reliability
• Drought Risk Assessment
• Water Shortage Contingency
Plan Summary
• Demand Management Measures
• Adoption, Submittal, and
Implementation
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-2

4.1 System Description
Redlands has provided water services to the community since 1910. Redlands is a retail public water supplier that meets the definition of an urban water supplier with over 23,500 municipal water service connections in 2025.

The water utility service area generally coincides with the City’s incorporated area and sphere of influence. The service area encompasses 36.25 square miles inside the City’s corporate boundaries and 13.85 square miles outside City boundaries. Water use is largely attributed to landscape irrigation due to arid climate and large residential lots, and some residential lots with agricultural irrigation demands.

A small part in the southeastern section of the City is currently served by Western Heights Mutual Water Company and is not part of this UWMP. Figure 4-1 shows the Redlands water service area.

All volumes of water in this chapter are presented in units of Acre-Feet (AF). One AF is the volume of water required to cover one acre with one foot of water, or approximately 325,851 gallons.

This section describes the population and land uses within Redlands’ service area. The regional climate, which includes Redlands’ service area, is described in Part 1, Chapter 2 of the 2025 RUWMP.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-3
Figure 4-1: City of Redlands Water Service Area Map
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-4

4.1.1 Population
Estimates of population served by Redlands are based on the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) (Governments, Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), 2024). A geographic information systems (GIS) analysis of 2020 Census data was used to determine the Redlands 2020 service area population. The 2020 population and the number of residential connections served by Redlands in 2020 were used to derive a 2020 persons per residential connection factor of 3.96. This factor was then multiplied by the number of residential connections in 2024 to estimate the 2024 population served by Redlands. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, connection data can be irregular due to billing cycles, so the 2024 calculated population is the official 2025 population is reported in this plan.

To project the population served by Redlands from 2030 to 2050, average annual household growth rates from SCAG projections were applied to the 2024 population estimate. SCAG prepared population, household, and employment estimates for 2019, 2035, and 2050 as part of the 2024 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan based on land use data in the region through extensive processes that emphasizes input from local planners and is done in coordination with local or regional land use authorities, incorporating essential information to reflect anticipated future populations and land uses. SCAG’s projections undergo extensive local review, incorporate zoning information from city and county general plans, and are supported by Environmental Impact Reports.

A GIS analysis of SCAG projection data was used to determine the SCAG growth rates specific to the Redlands service area. SCAG projected an increase in the number of households from 2019 to 2035 averaging 0.84% per year and from 2035 to 2050 averaging 0.45% per year.

Estimated current and projected populations of the Redlands service area are included in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: DWR 3-1R Current and Projected Population
POPULATION SERVED 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
TOTAL: 84,183 88,516 92,297 94,910 97,597 100,361

4.1.2 Land Use
Per the 2017 Redlands General Plan, 27% of the land within Redlands city limits is single-family residential, 3% is multi-family residential, 3% is commercial, 5% is industrial, 4% is public and institutional facilities, 16% is parks and open space, 4% is agricultural, and 5% is other uses including the Redlands Municipal Airport, utilities facilities, and public parking lots. The balance is made up of vacant land and public and private rights of way (railroads and private roads).

This is shown in Figure 4-2. While the city limits is a smaller area than the water service area, it still generally represents the land uses of the water service area.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-5
Figure 4-2: Land Uses Within the City of Redlands
27%
3%
5% 3%
4%
16%
4%
5%
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public and Institutional Facilities
Parks and Open Space
Agricultural
Other
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-6

4.2 Water Use
This section describes the current and projected water uses within Redlands’ service area.

4.2.1 Potable versus Non-Potable Water Use
In addition to serving potable water for domestic use, Redlands provides non-potable groundwater and recycled water to customers in its service area for irrigation and industrial uses. Recycled water from the City of Redlands Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is used by the Mountain View Power Plant and the California Street Landfill. Recycled water that is not used by those two customers is used by some landscape customers. This recycled water supply to landscape customers is sometimes augmented by non-potable water from wells. Redlands also maintains other separate non-potable systems that are supplied exclusively by non-potable groundwater, which also deliver to non-potable landscape customers, as well as non-potable agricultural irrigation and non-potable commercial/industrial customers.

4.2.2 Water Use by Sector
Redlands categorizes its water customers into six categories for potable deliveries: SingleFamily, Multi-Family, Commercial/Institutional, Landscape, Agricultural Irrigation, and Other, which includes fire suppression, construction water, and bulk water sales. Redlands also makes deliveries of non-potable water to three customer categories: Commercial/Institutional, Landscape, and Agricultural/Landscape Irrigation. Redlands delivers recycled water to Mountain View Power Plant and a landfill. There are also 70 approved and 67 active landscape customers that receive a blend of non-potable groundwater and recycled water, listed as recycled water customers throughout this Plan. The number of connections by customer class from 2021 to 2025 is presented in Table 4-2. Redlands utilizes bi-monthly billing which can cause inconsistencies in some categories of connections data, as shown by a perceived reduction in connections from 2021 to 2022 and 2024 to 2025.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-7
Table 4-2: City of Redlands 2021-2025 Connections by Customer Class CUSTOMER CLASS 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Single-Family 19,274 19,139 19,250 20,087 19,590
Multi-Family 972 973 1,001 1,185 1,005
Commercial/Institutional 1,378 1,361 1,373 1,399 1,327
Landscape 533 536 545 544 571
Agricultural Irrigation 16 16 17 17 20
Other 693 684 708 661 766
Non-Pot –
Commercial/Institutional 11 11 12 11 12
Non-Pot – Landscape 136 139 144 147 148
Non-Pot – Agricultural
Irrigation
3 1 1 - -
Total Potable and Non-Pot 23,016 22,860 23,051 24,051 23,439 Recycled Water 60 60 62 65 67
TOTAL: 23,076 22,920 23,113 24,116 23,506

4.2.2.1 Past Water Use
Redlands’ actual water use by customer class from 2021-2025 is shown in Table 4-3 and Figure 4-3. Approximately 89% of Redlands deliveries are potable water. Of potable deliveries, approximately 58% are to single-family connections, followed by 13% to multi-family connections, 14% to commercial and institutional connections, with the balance going to landscape, irrigation, and other connections.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-8
Table 4-3: 2021-2025 Actual Water Use (AF)
CUSTOMER CLASS 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Single-Family 13,079 12,440 10,912 11,732 12,467
Multi-Family 3,053 2,959 2,700 2,836 2,887
Commercial/Institutional 2,855 3,046 2,942 4,198 3,040
Landscape 2,347 2,325 1,941 2,255 2,353
Agricultural Irrigation 339 401 295 356 476
Other 235 159 167 166 212
Non-Pot –
Commercial/Institutional 166 189 217 165 209
Non-Pot – Landscape 1,404 1,426 1,467 1,211 1,383
Non-Pot – Agricultural Irrigation 2 2 - - -
Water Losses 2,954 2,880 1,026 915 1,202
TOTAL POTABLE AND NONPOTABLE:
26,433 25,828 21,667 23,835 24,229
Recycled Water – Direct 1,986 3,042 2,854 2,329 1,705
TOTAL DEMAND: 28,419 28,870 24,521 26,164 25,934
Notes: Recycled Water – Direct customers include Mountain View Power Plant, California Street Landfill, and some Landscape customers. These recycled water Landscape customers occasionally receive a blend of non-potable groundwater (max of 760 AFY annually from 2021-2025; 40 AFY in 2025) depending on operational needs. This non-potable groundwater is included in the Recycled Water – Direct line item. All customer categories listed as Non-Pot only receive non-potable groundwater.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-9
Figure 4-3: City of Redlands 2021-2025 Water Consumption by Customer Class

4.2.2.2 Distribution System Water Losses
Distribution system water losses are the physical potable water losses from the point of water entry to the distribution system to the point of delivery to the customer’s system. Water loss can result from aging infrastructure, leaks, seepage, theft, metering inaccuracies, data handling errors, and other causes. Addressing water losses can increase water supplies and recover revenue. Redlands monitors its water loss and prepares an annual American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Audit to estimate the volume of water loss. Redlands has submitted all required water loss audits to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), as shown in Table 4-4.
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Actual Water Use (AFY)
Recycled Water
Calculated Water Loss
Non-Pot – Agricultural
Irrigation
Non-Pot – Landscape
Non-Pot –
Commercial/Institutional
Other
Agricultural Irrigation
Landscape
Commercial/Institutional
Multi-Family
Single Family
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-10
Table 4-4: DWR 4-5R Month Water Loss Audit Reporting
Public Water System ID #
Reported in Table 2-1R
Reporting Period Submitted to DWR Water Loss
Audit Program
CA3610037 2020 Yes
CA3610037 2021 Yes
CA3610037 2022 Yes
CA3610037 2023 Yes
CA3610037 2024 Yes
DWR NOTES:
2020 AWWA: Copy of 2020 Redlands Calendar Year Water Loss Audit_Final.xlsx 2021 AWWA: Redlands 2021 CY Water Loss Audit - Final.xlsx 2022 AWWA: Redlands 2022 CY Water Loss Audit (FWAS v6.0) FINAL.xlsx 2023 AWWA: PWSID CA3610037 - Redlands - 2023 - Water Loss Audit (FWAS v6.0) FINAL.xlsx 2024 AWWA: Redlands 2024 CY Water Loss Audit (FWAS_V6.1).xlsx

4.2.2.3 Progress Toward Meeting the Water Loss Performance Standard California Water Code (CWC) Section 10608.34 required the SWRCB to develop water loss performance standards for urban retail water suppliers to minimize water waste through system leaks. Water loss performance standards were developed through a rulemaking that became effective in 2023. Under the regulations, each supplier will be required to comply, by 2028, with an individualized volumetric water loss standard based on real loss, using the economic model developed by the SWRCB and the supplier’s own unique data. Real loss is the physical loss of water from water distribution systems, as opposed to apparent losses, which are revenue losses due to meter inaccuracies, billing errors, or unauthorized consumption. A supplier’s baseline water loss is calculated as the average water loss from at least three of the four water loss audits from 2017 – 2020. The real water loss performance standard is based on gallons per service connection per day (gpscd), or gallons per mile of pipe per day (gpmd), depending on how the supplier reports real loss. Post-2028 compliance with volumetric water loss standards will be assessed every three years based on the average of the supplier’s real loss from the preceding three years, with an allowed variation of five gpscd above the supplier’s water loss standard. Apparent loss standards are equal to the baseline apparent loss and compliance is evaluated at the same time as compliance with the Real Water Loss Performance Standard.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-11
Although the compliance period has not yet started, CWC Section 10631 (d)(3)(C) requires water suppliers to provide data in the UWMP to show whether the supplier met its SWRCB water loss performance standard.

Based on data released by the SWRCB on January 30, 2026, Redlands’ baseline water loss is

46.1 gpscd, which is made up of the baseline real water loss standard of 24.8 gpscd, and the baseline apparent loss standard of 29.6 gpscd. As shown in Table 4-5, based on the most recent water loss audit from 2024, Redlands has met the real water loss and apparent water loss performance standards. Section 4.1 discusses Redlands’ programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-12
Table 4-5: DWR 4-6R Progress Towards 2028 Water Loss Standard Public
System ID
# Reported
in
Submittal
Table 2-1R
Did the
Water
Board
Calculate
a Water
Loss
Standard
for this
Public
System?
2028
Real
Water
Loss
Standar
d per
Unit per
day
Units for
Real
Water
Loss
Standard
Numbe
r of
Units
Volume
of Total
Real
Water
Loss
(from
AWWA
Water
Loss
Audit)
2025 or
Most
Recent
Year
Real
Water
Loss per
Unit per
Day
2028
Apparent
Water
Loss
Standard
per Unit
per Day
Units for
Apparent
Water Loss
Number of
Connections
Volume of
Total
Apparent Loss
(from AWWA
Water Loss
Audit)
2025 or
Most
Recent
Year
Apparent
Water
Loss per
Unit per
Day
CA361003
7 Yes 24.8 gpscd 22,859 618 24.1 29.6 gpscd 22,859 328 12.8 gpscd = gallons per service connection per day
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-13

4.2.3 Projected Water Use
Various demand projection scenarios and conditions were considered for this UWMP. Historic demand trends and water use per connection for each connection type (single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, etc.) were assessed along with expected growth rates to project demand through 2050. The major assumptions used to develop demand projections are listed below and summarized in Table 4-6.

Baseline Water Use: A historic baseline period is used to approximate “normal” demand patterns representative of what is expected in the future given normal conditions for influential factors impacting demand, known as “demand drivers.” A key demand driver is rainfall. Baseline years incorporate impacts of dry and wet years since demand typically fluctuates with rainfall due to the need for more irrigation in dry years and less in wet years. For this UWMP, a baseline period of 2021-2024 is used, which captures two dry years and one wet year. A baseline water use per connection was established for each connection type.

Connection Growth Rate: Indoor residential usage is considered separately from outdoor usage since indoor use is associated with people in a housing unit and outdoor use is associated with the landscape of a housing unit. Therefore, the growth of “indoor residential connections” and “outdoor residential connections” are considered separately just for purposes of projecting demand (residential services only have one connection, except multi-family units may have dedicated landscape irrigation connections). Indoor residential “connections” are projected to scale with population and outdoor residential “connections” are projected to scale with household projections. Since Redlands is basing population growth off household growth (see Section 4.1.1), these rates will be the same. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) and Landscape connections were assumed to grow at the SCAG employment growth rate.

Water Loss: 2021-2024 losses ranged from 4% to 11%. This demand projection assumes water losses will be 8% through 2050.

Total Projected Demand (“status quo”): For each connection type, the baseline water use per connection was multiplied by the projected future number of connections to estimate future water use by connection type. The water loss percentage was applied to the subtotal of demand for all connection types to determine the total projected future demand. This represents a “status quo” future demand assuming demand patterns remain the same as the baseline period.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-14
Table 4-6: Demand Projection Assumptions
Parameter Assumption Value
Baseline 2021-2024 N/A
Residential Growth Rate SCAG Households

0.84% by 2035

0.56% 2035 - 2050
CII Growth Rate SCAG Employee Growth Rate
SCAG Employee Growth Rate

0.84% by 2035

0.52% 2035 - 2050 Landscape Growth Rate
Water Losses Baseline average 8%
Improvements in Per-Connection Water Use: To reflect that Urban Water Use Objective (UWUO) requirements, building code changes, and social behavior changes may impact future water use, the following assumptions were made for how existing and future connections’ water use will change:
• Existing Connections
o Indoor residential use will become 1% more efficient by 2030. o Outdoor residential use will become 1% more efficient by 2030. o Landscape use will become 1% more efficient by 2030.
• Future Connections
o Residential indoor water use will become 9% more efficient by 2030, reflecting that indoor water use in future connections should be 42 gpcd (or less) due to water efficiency standards and building codes.
o Residential outdoor water use will become 10% more efficient by 2030. o Landscape water use will become 10% more efficient by 2030.

Recycled Water Direct Use: Projected recycled water use by the Mountain View Power Plant and California Street Landfill is based on 2021-2024 average deliveries throughout the planning horizon. Projected recycled water use by landscape connections is based on 2021-2024 deliveries and is expected to grow as new connections come online per the SCAG employee growth rate. Some existing Non-Pot – Landscape customers currently served all non-potable groundwater are assumed to be converted to recycled water as the recycled water system is improved. For simplicity, the recycled water demand projections assume that the blended system will not need to be augmented with non-potable groundwater, however under certain operating conditions this may still occur.

Projected future demands by customer class are presented in Table 4-7, Table 4-8, and Figure 4-4.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-15
Table 4-7: DWR 4-2R Projected Demands for Potable, Non-Potable, and Recycled Water (AFY) CUSTOMER CLASS 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Single-Family 12,806 13,285 13,642 13,999 14,356
Multi-Family 3,435 3,564 3,659 3,755 3,851
Commercial/Institutional 3,447 3,588 3,685 3,782 3,879
Landscape 2,300 2,386 2,445 2,504 2,563
Agricultural Irrigation 360 360 360 360 360
Other 175 175 175 175 175
Non-Pot – Commercial/Institutional 180 180 180 180 180
Non-Pot – Landscape 820 820 820 820 820
Non-Pot – Agricultural Irrigation - - - - -
Water Losses 1,941 2,015 2,072 2,128 2,184
Recycled Water – Direct 3,357 3,510 3,642 3,773 3,905
TOTAL: 28,821 29,882 30,678 31,474 32,271
Notes: Recycled Water – Direct customers include Mountain View Power Plant, California Street Landfill, and some Landscape customers which in this projection are assumed to only receive recycled water. All customer categories listed as Non-Pot only receive non-potable groundwater.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-16
Table 4-8: Total Gross Water Use (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Potable and Non-Potable Water
From Table 4-1R and 4-2R
24,229 25,463 26,372 27,036 27,702 28,367
Recycled Water Demand1
From Table 6-4R
1,705 3,357 3,510 3,642 3,773 3,905
TOTAL WATER USE: 25,934 28,821 29,882 30,678 31,474 32,271 1Mountain View Power Plant, California Street Landfill, and Landscape recycled water demands.

Figure 4-4: City of Redlands Projected Water Demand, by Customer Class -
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Normal Year Demands (AFY)
Recycled Water
Water Losses
Non-Pot – Ag Irrigation
Non-Pot – Landscape
Non-Pot – Comm/Inst
Other
Ag Irrigation
Landscape
Commercial/Institutional
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-17

4.2.4 Water Use for Lower Income Households
Senate Bill 1087 requires water use projections in a UWMP include the projected water use for single-family and multi-family residential housing for lower income households as identified in the housing element of any city or county in the service area of the supplier. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) establishes housing needs for each jurisdiction over the applicable planning period. SCAG adopted the 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan, which covers the planning period from October 2021 through October 2029 (Governments, Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), 2021)). SCAG’s population and household projections inform the RHNA Allocation Plan and are used in the determination and allocation of housing needs, including lower income housing, for individual jurisdictions. The growth projections in this UWMP are based on SCAG projections for the service area and therefore also incorporate the lower income housing projections. The projected demands in this UWMP represent water use from all future growth and are inclusive of water use for lower income households. Table 4-9 demonstrates compliance with Senate Bill 1087.

Table 4-9: DWR 4-3R Inclusion in Water Use Projections
Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections? Yes
Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included in Projections? Yes

4.2.5 Climate Change Considerations
A topic of growing concern for water planners and managers is climate change and the potential impacts it could have on California’s future water supplies.

Recent climate change modeling for the Santa Ana River watershed suggests that a changing climate will have multiple effects on the Region. Adaptation and mitigation measures will be necessary to account for these effects. Part 1, Chapter 2 of the 2025 RUWMP includes an assessment of the potential impacts of climate change.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-18

4.3 SBX7-7 Compliance & Future Water Use Efficiency
Requirements
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7-7) was incorporated into the UWMP Act in 2009 and required that all water suppliers increase water use efficiency with the overall goal to decrease per-capita water consumption within the state by 20 percent by the year 2020.

SBX7-7 required DWR to develop certain criteria, methods, and standard reporting forms through a public process that water suppliers could use to establish their baseline water use and determine their water conservation targets. SBX7-7 and DWR's Methodologies for Calculating Baseline and Compliance Urban Per Capita Water Use (State of California Department of Water Resources, 2021) specify methodologies for determining the baseline water demand, 2015 interim urban water use target, and the 2020 urban water use target for Redlands as described in the 2020 IRUWMP. This section also demonstrates that Redlands achieved its 2020 water use target.

Table 4-10 below establishes Redlands’ 2020 actual and 2020 target gallons per capita per day (GPCD). As shown, Redlands met its 2020 target. Most recently, in 2025, the water use was 257 GPCD, which is well below the 2020 target of 285 GPCD.

Table 4-10: SBX7-7 2020 Target Progress
2020 Target GPCD 2020 Actual GPCD Did Supplier Achieve Target? 2852 2791 Yes
1The 2020 Actual GPCD value was calculated in the 2020 IRUWMP using a population for the City of Redlands that was artificially low, which made the reported value of 279 artificially high. This was because the 2020 IRUWMP used the city limits of Redlands to determine 2020 population, rather than the water service area. The water service area is larger and has a larger population. 2The 2020 Target GPCD was calculated during the 2015 RUWMP Update, which used the correct water service area. The correct water service area was also used in determining 2025 GPCD. Redlands met the SBX7-7 requirements in 2020 and in 2025. No action is required.

New water use efficiency standards from the “Making Conservation a California Way of Life Regulation” (CWOL Regulation) supersede SBX7-7 standards. In 2018, two policy bills were enacted by the California Legislature, Assembly Bill 1668 (AB1668, 2018), and Senate Bill 606 (SB606, 2018), collectively referred to as the “2018 Water Conservation Legislation.” Based on the 2018 Water Conservation Legislation, related legislation, and subsequent adoption of the CWOL Regulation, each urban retail water supplier must comply with its UWUO. DWR and the SWRCB have developed a reporting framework for calculating the UWUO and compliance annually with efficiency standards becoming increasingly stringent through 2040.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-19
Redlands has an agreement with Bear Valley Mutual Water Company (BVMWC) under which BVMWC lets Redlands use some of its water rights to the Santa Ana River to be treated and delivered to potable customers, and in exchange Redlands serves a set of BVMWC customers off their potable water system. There are approximately 139 single-family residential connections served under this arrangement, and many of them also irrigate agricultural land on their property. These connections account for approximately 8% of single-family water use, but account for less than 1% of single-family connections. This arrangement leads to an inflation of per capita water demand for Redlands.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-20

4.4 Water Supply
Redlands’ water supply is composed primarily of surface water from the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek and supplemented by groundwater extracted from the Bunker Hill Basin (part of the San Bernardino Basin) and Yucaipa Basin (through 2023) and a small amount of imported water. More information about local groundwater basins is included in Part 1, Chapter 3 of the 2025 RUWMP.

4.4.1 Purchased or Imported Water
Imported water from the State Water Project (SWP) is available for Redlands to purchase from San Bernardino Valley Mutal Water District (San Bernardino Valley or SBVMWD) when needed.

Redlands has purchased supplemental SWP water only in years when surface water flows have not been able to meet demands and on occasion when surface water supplies are turbid and require blending or for other operational purposes. Redlands will continue to request SWP water in these situations. However, during SWP outages or extended dry periods, Redlands will prioritize use from other sources.

If SWP water is not available in a future year, Redlands will shift to increase groundwater production and may implement conservation measures to reduce demands if needed. Redlands contributes to regional efforts to recharge the Bunker Hill groundwater basin with SWP water and local surface water in wet years when available so that storage is available for use in dry years when other supplies may be limited.

4.4.2 Groundwater
Redlands extracts groundwater from the Bunker Hill Subbasin (also known as San Bernardino Basin or SBB). Redlands’ historical production for the past five years is shown in Table 4-11.

Extractions shown include both potable and non-potable water. Redlands was the majority shareholder in South Mountain Water Company through 2023 and received water from South Mountain Water Company wells producing from the Yucaipa Subbasin. Redlands has sold its majority interest in South Mountain Water Company and no longer receives water from the Yucaipa Subbasin.

Table 4-11: DWR 6-1R Groundwater Volume Pumped (AF)

GROUNDWATER TYPE

LOCATION OR

BASIN NAME
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Alluvial Basin
Bunker Hill (part of
SBB) 18,392 18,293 13,067 13,215 18,232
Alluvial Basin Yucaipa 697 906 422 - -
TOTAL: 19,089 19,199 13,489 13,215 18,232
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-21

4.4.3 Surface Water
The City receives its surface water from the following sources:
• Mill Creek Watershed: Water from the Mill Creek watershed is treated at Henry Tate (Tate) Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP).
• Santa Ana River Watershed: Water from the Santa Ana River watershed is treated at the Horace P. Hinckley SWTP.

Redlands has ownership in a variety of mutual water companies to supply water to Redlands’ Tate and Hinckley SWTP’s. For decades, the City has increased its ownership in these companies in an effort to increase its access to a reliable local source of water. Based on a 10- year average from 2016-2025, surface water totals 44% of Redland’s annual potable production.

As discussed in Section 4.4.1, Redlands sometimes supplements surface water supplies with SWP water, which is then treated at Tate or Hinckley SWTP and distributed for potable use.

4.4.4 Stormwater
Redlands is participating in regional project planning efforts to capture additional stormwater for purposes of groundwater recharge to increase sustainability of the basins Redlands produces water from. These regional projects are discussed in Part 1, Chapter 3 of the 2025 RUWMP.

4.4.5 Wastewater and Recycled Water
Redlands is a sewer agency that treats approximately 5.1 million gallons of wastewater daily as of 2025. Redlands’ Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) has the capability of treating 9.5 million gallons per day (MGD) to a secondary level. Of that, 6.5 MGD can be treated to a Title 22 tertiary recycled water level.

Redlands utilizes all wastewater collected and treated at its WWTP in its service area for:
• Distribution to customers
• Percolation into Bunker Hill
Treated wastewater distributed to customers is tertiary treated, known as Title 22-Recycled Water. Redland’s recycled water customers include Southern California Edison (SCE) Company, California Street Landfill, and recycled/non-potable water customers located in the 1350 pressure zone. SCE uses recycled water as cooling water at its Mountain View Power Plant and recycled/non-potable water customers use recycled water for irrigation when supply is available. All remaining wastewater is treated to a secondary level and released into spreading basins located east of the WWTP for recharge back into Bunker Hill basin. Based on 2025 volumes, approximately 1.5 MGD of treated wastewater was used as recycled water supply for customers, and 3.3 MGD was used for recharge. The remaining water was used within the WWTP or accounted for as losses through the process, meter inaccuracies or evaporation.

Information about wastewater collected and treated is presented in Table 4-12 and Table 4-13.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-22

4.4.5.1 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycled Water Uses The expansion of the recycled water system is limited by its supply, as well as infrastructure development and the Title 22-Recycled Water permitting process. However, because Redlands requires new commercial development to provide dual metering for irrigation systems, to accommodate the use of recycled/non-potable water, all recycled water may be utilized for distribution to recycled/non-potable water customers in the 1350 zone and eventually the 1570 pressure zone, as demand and infrastructure increases. Redlands recently developed a preliminary design to expand recycled water deliveries to the 1350 zone for irrigation use.

Recycled water system expansion is expected to include additional storage to meet peak irrigation demands in the blended non-potable/recycled system. These facilities will decrease reliance on non-potable groundwater from the San Bernardino Basin and/or accommodate more non-potable/recycled irrigation customers and demands. Redlands also has plans for a second recycled water reservoir and distribution system upgrades to increase utilization of recycled water supplies.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-23
Table 4-12: DWR 6-2R Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2025 (AF)

NAME OF

WASTEWATER

COLLECTION
AGENCY

WASTEWATER

VOLUME METERED

OR ESTIMATED

WASTEWATER VOLUME

COLLECTED FROM UWMP
SERVICE AREA IN 2025

NAME OF WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) AND

PLACE ID NUMBER

WASTEWATER TREATMENT

PLANT LOCATED WITH

UWMP AREA
City of Redlands Metered 5,685 Redlands WWRF, Place ID 259148 Yes TOTAL: 5,685
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-24
Table 4-13: DWR 6-3R Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2025 (AF)

WASTEWATER

TREATMENT

PLANT NAME &

PLACE ID
NUMBER

DOES THIS

PLANT TREAT

WASTEWATER

GENERATED

OUTSIDE THE

UWMP SERVICE
AREA
2025 VOLUME
OF

WASTEWATER

RECEIVED FROM

UWMP SERVICE
AREA
TOTAL
2025
VOLUME

OF WATER

TREATED

WATER RECYCLED WITHIN

UWMP SERVICE AREA

WATER RECYCLED OUTSIDE

OF UWMP SERVICE AREA

EFFLUENT DISCHARGE

THAT IS NOT A PERMITTED

RECYCLED WATER USE

REQUIRED DISCHARGE FOR

INSTREAM FLOW

DELIVERED TO ANOTHER ENTITY

FOR ADDITIONAL TREATMENT

TREATMENT
LEVEL
VOLUME

TREATMENT
LEVEL
VOLUME
NAME
OF
OTHER
ENTITY
Redlands WWRF,
Place ID 259148 No 5,685 5,685 Tertiary 1,665 -
Secondary,
Disinfected233,663 - -
TOTAL: 5,685 5,685 1,665 - 3,663
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-25

4.4.6 Water Exchanges and Transfers
Redlands exchanges water with San Bernardino Valley and local water companies through various agreements.

4.4.6.1 Emergency Interties
Redlands has two interties with neighboring water agencies, Western Heights Water Company and the City of Loma Linda.

4.4.7 Future Water Projects
The City is planning to construct recycled water system improvements to replace irrigation demands on potable and non-potable supplies with recycled water (see Section 4.4.5.1).

Additionally, the City completed a seismic assessment of its water infrastructure that identified projects to strengthen the infrastructure to further enhance reliability during a catastrophic earthquake. Based on the results of this assessment, Redlands is designing replacement reservoirs for the existing Sunset Reservoir. Construction of two replacement reservoirs is planned for 2028-2029.

Redlands is replacing the Tate SWTP influent Mill Creek pipeline crossing to improve supply reliability, with construction schedule for 2028-2029.

Redlands is drilling one new potable well (Alta Well) in the San Bernardino Basin which is planned to be constructed in 2026-2027. Redlands is also equipping existing Wells 38 and 39 with ion exchange wellhead treatment to combat water quality issues, also expected in 2026- 2027. These projects will improve Redlands’ ability to access its San Bernardino Basin groundwater supply.

4.4.8 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water
Redlands’ water supply is composed primarily of surface water from the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek and supplemented by groundwater extracted from the Bunker Hill Basin (part of the San Bernardino Basin) and a small amount of imported water when needed. This same mix of supplies is anticipated to be used in the future.

The volume of water utilized from each source in 2025 is summarized in Table 4-14 and projected supply by source is summarized in Table 4-15. In 2025, Santa Ana River supplies were interrupted due to poor water quality after the Line Fire, and San Bernardino Basin groundwater was relied on to make up the balance. Supply reliability is discussed in more detail in Section 4.5.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-26
Table 4-14: DWR 6-8R Actual Water Supplies in 2025 (AF)

WATER SUPPLY ADDITIONAL DETAIL ACTUAL VOLUME WATER QUALITY

TOTAL RIGHT OR SAFE

WATER YIELD
Groundwater (Not Desalinated) Bunker Hill (Part of SBB) 17,043 Drinking Water Groundwater (Not Desalinated) Bunker Hill (Part of SBB) 1,189 Other Non-Potable Water Surface water (Not Desalinated)
Santa Ana River (Part of
SBB)
1,033 Drinking Water
Surface water (Not Desalinated) Mill Creek (Part of SBB) 4,097 Drinking Water Purchased or Imported Water SWP – Direct 907 Drinking Water Recycled Water Recycled Water – Direct 1,665 Recycled Water TOTAL: 25,934
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-27
Table 4-15: DWR 6-9R Projected Water Supplies (AF)
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

WATER SUPPLY ADDITIONAL DETAIL

REASONABLY

AVAILABLE
VOLUME

REASONABLY

AVAILABLE
VOLUME

REASONABLY

AVAILABLE
VOLUME

REASONABLY

AVAILABLE
VOLUME

REASONABLY

AVAILABLE
VOLUME
Groundwater (Not
Desalinated)
Bunker Hill (Part of SBB),
Potable
13,963 14,872 15,537 16,202 16,867
Groundwater (Not
Desalinated)
Bunker Hill (Part of SBB),
Non-potable
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Surface water (Not
Desalinated)
Santa Ana River (Part of
SBB)
4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Surface water (Not
Desalinated)
Mill Creek (part of SBB) 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500
Purchased or
Imported Water
SWP – Direct 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Recycled Water Recycled Water – Direct 3,357 3,510 3,642 3,773 3,905 TOTAL: 28,821 29,882 30,678 31,474 32,271
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-28
Table 4-16: DWR 7-2R Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Supply Totals
From Table 6-9R
28,821 29,882 30,678 31,474 32,271
Demand Totals
From Table 4-2R
28,821 29,882 30,678 31,474 32,271
DIFFERENCE: - - - - -
Note: Redlands has sufficient supplies to meet all normal year demands. When surface water supplies are interrupted or unavailable due to low rainfall, Redlands can switch to utilize San Bernardino Basin groundwater to meet demands. Redlands can also utilize imported water from the SWP when it is available. Supply reliability is discussed further in Section 4.5.

Figure 4-5: City of Redlands Projected Supply and Demand Comparison -
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Normal Year Supply Production (AFY)
Recycled Water (MVPP,
Landfill, and Landscape
Users)
SBB Groundwater – NonPotable
SBB Groundwater –
Potable
Mill Creek
Santa Ana River
Imported Water (SWP)
Normal Year Demands
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-29

4.4.9 Energy Intensity
Redlands monitors energy consumed at its facilities. In 2025, Redlands used approximately 12,735,307 kWh on production of imported water, groundwater, and surface water; treatment of imported water and surface water; and distribution of potable water supplies. Over this period, Redlands produced 22,637 AF of potable water, for an average energy intensity of 563 kWh/AF.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-30

4.5 Water Service Reliability Assessment
This section considers Redlands’ water supply reliability during normal years, single dry years, and up to five consecutive dry water years. The supply reliability assessment discusses factors that could potentially limit the expected quantity of water available from Redlands’ current source of supply through 2050.

4.5.1 Constraints on Water Sources
Redlands has three water sources that may be constrained:
• Imported SWP water: supplies reduced in dry years.
• Mill Creek surface water: supplies reduced in dry years OR when high turbidity prevents treatment.
• Santa Ana River surface water: supplies reduced in dry years OR when high turbidity prevents treatment.

Poor water quality in the Mill Creek and Santa Ana River watersheds can be due to flooding.

4.5.2 Year Type Characterization
In general, groundwater is less vulnerable to seasonal and climatic changes than surface water (i.e., local and imported) supplies. The Western-San Bernardino Watermaster, in collaboration with the Basin Technical Advisory Committee (BTAC), monitor groundwater levels and implement supplemental recharge to maintain long term sustainability of local groundwater sources. Further discussion of regional water resource management is included in Part 1, Chapter 3 of the 2025 RUWMP.

Per UWMP requirements, Redlands has evaluated reliability for an average year, single dry year, and a five consecutive dry year period.

The UWMP Act defines these years as:
• Normal Year: This condition represents the water supplies a supplier considers available during normal conditions. This could be a single year or averaged range of years that most closely represents the average water supply available. • Single Dry Year: The single dry year is recommended to be the year that represents the lowest water supply available.
• Five-Consecutive Year Drought: The driest five-year historical sequence for the Supplier, which may be the lowest average water supply available for five years in a row.

4.5.3 Water Service Reliability
The results of the reliability assessment are summarized in the tables below.

Under single dry and consecutive dry year conditions, the assessment assumes that demands will increase by as much as 4% due to increased outdoor water use. Although water use may decrease in the later years of a multiple year drought due to implementation of conservation City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-31
measures and drought messaging, the assessment is based on a 4% increase throughout the 5-year drought to be conservative.

As described in Part 1, Chapter 3 of the 2025 RUWMP, the effects of a local drought are not immediately recognized since the region uses the local groundwater basins to simulate a large reservoir for long term storage. If surface water flows and SWP supplies are reduced in dry years, the City will shift to increase groundwater production in Bunker Hill and increase conservation measures to reduce demands if needed. The City contributes to regional efforts to recharge the Bunker Hill groundwater basin with SWP water and local surface water in wet years when available so that storage is available for use in dry years. As a result, Redlands’ total supplies are not reduced in dry years so 2025 is considered the base year for all year types. Based on the analysis, Redlands does not anticipate any shortage due to single or consecutive dry years. Even though localized drought conditions should not affect supply, Redlands participates in several ongoing water conservation measures and regional recharge projects to optimize and enhance the use and reliability of regional water resources. Redlands also has a water shortage contingency plan to put into action as appropriate to reduce the demand during critical drought years or other supply emergencies.

A summary of the basis of water year data is presented in Table 4-17. The percent of average supply increases in drought years because Redlands’s groundwater production will increase to meet an assumed increase in demands.

Table 4-17: Basis of Water Year Data

YEAR TYPE BASE YEAR

AVAILABLE SUPPLY IF YEAR TYPE REPEATS

AS PERCENT OF AVERAGE SUPPLY
Average Year 2025 100%
Single Dry Year 2025 104%
Consecutive Dry Year 1st Year 2025 104%
Consecutive Dry Year 2nd Year 2025 104%
Consecutive Dry Year 3rd Year 2025 104%
Consecutive Dry Year 4th Year 2025 104%
Consecutive Dry Year 5th Year 2025 104%
The projected supply and demand during a normal year are shown in Figure 4-5. The projected supply and demand during a single dry year are shown in Table 4-18. Redlands’ demands in single dry years are assumed to increase by 4% above normal year demands. The local groundwater basins Redlands produces water from have storage for use in dry years so City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-32
Redlands can produce the volume of water needed to meet 100% of demands in single dry years. Redlands’ supplies are 100% reliable during single dry years.

Table 4-18: DWR 7-3R Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Supply Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
Demand Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
DIFFERENCE: - - - - -
The projected supply and demand during five consecutive dry years are shown in Table 4-19.

Redlands’ demands in multiple dry years are assumed to increase by 4% above normal year demands. The local groundwater basins Redlands produces water from have storage for use in dry years so Redlands can produce the volume of water needed to meet 100% of demands in multiple dry years. Redlands’s supplies are 100% reliable during multiple dry years.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-33
Table 4-19: DWR 7-4R Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (AF) 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
FIRST
YEAR
Supply Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
Demand Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
DIFFERENCE: - - - - -
SECOND
YEAR
Supply Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
Demand Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
DIFFERENCE: - - - - -
THIRD
YEAR
Supply Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
Demand Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
DIFFERENCE: - - - - -
FOURTH
YEAR
Supply Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
Demand Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
DIFFERENCE: - - - - -
FIFTH
YEAR
Supply Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
Demand Totals 30,085 31,193 32,024 32,855 33,687
DIFFERENCE: - - - - -
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-34

4.6 Drought Risk Assessment
The Drought Risk Assessment focuses on the five-year consecutive drought scenario beginning in 2026. Because Redlands has access to groundwater basins with significant storage, total available supplies do not vary on a monthly or seasonal basis, so this analysis is conducted on an annual basis. Projected demands and supplies from 2026-2030 are shown in Table 4-20.

Demands for 2026-2030 were assumed to increase at a uniform rate between the 2025 actual use and 2030 projected use. The 2025 and 2030 values were increased by 4% to reflect higher anticipated demands during dry years, based on the same methodology when calculating the five-dry consecutive years scenario.

Although projections in this Plan show that the regional water supplies are sufficient to meet the demands of Redlands and the Region as a whole, even during a 5-year drought (see Part 1, Chapter 5 of the 2025 RUWMP), Redlands remains committed to water conservation and to being a good steward of regional water resources to preserve supplies for the future due to the possibility of experiencing more severe droughts than anticipated in this Plan.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-35
Table 4-20: Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment (AF)
2026
Gross Water Use 27,674
Total Supplies 27,674
SURPLUS: -
2027
Gross Water Use 28,277
Total Supplies 28,277
SURPLUS: -
2028
Gross Water Use 28,880
Total Supplies 28,880
SURPLUS: -
2029
Gross Water Use 29,482
Total Supplies 29,482
SURPLUS: -
2030
Gross Water Use 30,085
Total Supplies 30,085
SURPLUS: -
City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-36

4.7 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
The Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) is a strategic plan that Redlands uses to prepare for and respond to foreseeable and unforeseeable water shortages. A water shortage occurs when water supply available is insufficient to meet the normally expected customer water use at a given point in time. A shortage may occur due to a number of reasons, such as water supply quality changes, climate change, drought, regional power outage, and catastrophic events (e.g., earthquake). Additionally, the State may declare a statewide drought emergency and mandate that water suppliers reduce demands, as occurred in 2014 and 2022. The WSCP serves as the operating manual that Redlands will use to prevent catastrophic service disruptions through proactive, rather than reactive, mitigation of water shortages. The WSCP provides a process for an annual water supply and demand assessment and structured steps designed to respond to actual conditions. The level of detailed planning and preparation provide accountability and predictability and will help Redlands maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of any supply shortages and/or interruptions.

The WSCP was prepared in conjunction with the 2025 RUWMP and is a standalone document that can be modified as needed. Redlands’ WSCP is attached in Part 4 Appendix D of the 2025 RUWMP.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-37

4.8 Demand Management Measures
Redlands is committed to an effective water conservation program and has had a program in place since 1997. The Demand Management Measures (DMMs) section outlines the water conservation framework Redlands has utilized over the past five years, currently is implementing, and plans to implement to reduce demand. By successfully achieving its SBX7-7 targets in 2020 and 2025, Redlands has demonstrated the effectiveness of its conservation strategy. Moving forward, these measures will serve as the foundation for meeting new urban water use objectives and ensuring long-term supply reliability.

4.8.1 Existing Demand Management Measures
Consistent with CWC requirements, the following details the specific demand management measures within the service area. These programs represent Redlands’ ongoing commitment to water use efficiency and are designed to maintain consumption levels below established benchmarks. Redlands intends to continue programs for the foreseeable future to provide stable, sustainable water management for all customers.

4.8.1.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
In 1991, Redlands enacted Municipal Code Chapter 13.06 which established Redlands’ Water Conservation Plan to address water waste and shortages (see Part 4 Appendix D of the 2025 RUWMP). The ordinance prohibits the unreasonable use of water and assures the maximum beneficial use of water supplies in addition to outlining conservation stages based on water supply availability. However, Stage I requires only voluntary conservation from June 1-October 1 and does not require any specific prohibition of water waste. As State mandates on water use practices increase, Redlands intends to modify the Ordinance by adding additional stages as well as require specific prohibitions of water waste at all times.

4.8.1.2 Metering
Redlands’ water distribution system is fully metered and supported by a maintenance and replacement program established in 2008. Following a 2020 accuracy study involving randomized testing, Redlands launched a five-year capital improvement project to replace all inaccurate meters. Currently, Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) is utilized for all customer meters, and Redlands continues to conduct annual testing focused on large meters.

4.8.1.3 Conservation Pricing
Redlands currently uses a traditional tiered rate structure that promotes water conservation at an accurate price for the service provided. The traditional tiered rate structure has two components, a service charge, which is based on meter size, and a commodity charge. The commodity charge is based on the amount of water delivered and increases as the amount of water delivered increases, based on the cost of providing the additional amounts of water. This increase is due to Redlands utilizing its least expensive sources first before using more costly sources. The amount of water available within each of the three tiers is based on a 10-year City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-38
average of water utilized from each source. Regardless of the customer type, each customer receives the same amount of water from each tier throughout the year.

4.8.1.4 Public Education and Outreach
Redlands continues to advance its conservation framework through public education and outreach, driven by the mandates of SBX7-7, lessons from recent droughts, and evolving urban water use objectives. This framework reinforces customer responsibility while ensuring Redlands provides the essential educational outreach needed to drive successful conservation.

Redlands uses multiple methods to reach customers and improve engagement in conservation programs and include:
• High-User Outreach: Direct notification and consultation for the top 10% of water users. • Sustainable Landscapes: Design and maintenance of four local demonstration gardens to model climate-appropriate landscaping.
• Regional Collaboration: Active participation in regional water-saving marketing campaigns.
• Educational Programming: Hosting community-wide outreach and instructional events. • Direct Billing: Inclusion of bill messages and year-over-year water use comparison charts.
• Print Media: Bulk postcard mailers, Consumer Confidence Report advertisements, and local newspaper placements.
• Digital Outreach: Updates via Redlands’ website, social media channels, and smartphone app.
• Physical Signage: Electronic signboards, street banners, and a consistent presence at community events.

In 2017, Redlands created an educational program focused on educating children on water waste and efficiency outdoors. The program is built on the story of sibling alligators--Ira the irriGATOR and Eva the investiGATOR, who go on adventures to teach children about proper outdoor irrigation techniques for turf and low water use plants and how to identify water waste.

Approximately 70% of water use in Redlands is attributed to outdoor irrigation. This campaign expects to yield long-term water savings as its focus assists in shifting mindsets to view water efficiency and water saving landscapes as the “new normal” for California.

In addition, Redlands prioritizes resident education through on-site technical assistance, including Irrigation Timer Scheduling and Water Use Analysis. These programs help customers understand their water meter, usage, and optimal irrigation scheduling.

4.8.1.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Water Loss From 2019 to 2025, Redlands replaced approximately 29 miles of pipeline to maintain reliability of the distribution system. As a result of the aggressive water pipeline replacement program, approximately 50 leaks occur each year on the distribution mainlines. Additionally, conducting City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-39
the annual water loss audits has allowed Redlands to identify areas needing improvement and develop plans to further reduce system water loss.

4.8.1.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support Redlands’ water conservation program currently staffs two full-time employees. One full-time staff person has been dedicated to water conservation since 2007. Since 2015, one additional full-time staff has been added to assist with implementing and enforcing water conservation mandates.

Efforts to implement these DMM’s have been both significant and successful. Since implementation of State restrictions in 2014, Redlands has nearly tripled its water conservation budget. From 2020 to 2025, over $1.8 million has been spent on conservation rebates, messaging, and programs. Additionally, Redlands has watering restrictions in place with active enforcement by our water waste investigators, which has resulted in the issuance of about 250 violations during the last five years.

4.8.2 Other Demand Management Measures
Redlands also maintains a robust rebate program which includes:
• Weather Based Irrigation Controllers (WBIC’s)
• Drought Tolerant Lawn Conversions
• Synthetic Turf Replacement
• Water Efficient Clothes Washers
• High Efficiency Sprinkler Nozzles
• High Efficiency Toilets
Additionally, Redlands offers free water saving products to customers to assist in water conservation. These products have included:
• Hose nozzles
• Toilet leak detection tablets
• Lawn/plant moisture meters
• Low water use plants (at local events)
• Shower timers
• Faucet aerators
• Water efficiency educational collateral
From 2020 to 2025, over 515 devices have been issued to customers.

Redlands is also removing all turf from the remaining Redlands-owned medians and converting over 200 Redlands-operated irrigation controllers to weather-based irrigation controllers connected to a centralized system. Significant water savings are anticipated from this conversion as these controllers control the irrigation for large areas of Redlands-owned right of way, trails, facilities, parks, and community fields.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-40

4.9 Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation
This section describes Redlands’ process for adopting, submitting, and implementing the 2025 RUWMP and Redlands’ WSCP.

4.9.1 Notice of Public Hearing
A joint notice was provided on behalf of all agencies whose 2025 UWMPs are part of the 2025 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) to all cities and counties and other stakeholders within the region that the 2025 RUWMP is being prepared for. This notice was sent at least 60 days prior to Redlands’ public hearing. The recipients are identified in Part 1, Chapter 1 of the 2025 RUWMP and include all cities and counties within Redlands’ service area. A second notice was provided to these cities and counties with the date and time of the public hearing and the location where the report was available for review.

Redlands provided notice to the public through its website and published announcements of the public hearing in a newspaper on two occasions before the hearing. Copies of the proof of publication are included in Part 4 Appendix D of the 2025 RUWMP.

4.9.2 Public Hearing and Adoption
Redlands held a public hearing on June 2, 2026, to hear public comment and consider adopting this 2025 RUWMP and Redlands’ WSCP.

As part of the public hearing, Redlands provided information on their baseline values, water use targets and compliance, and implementation plan required in the Water Conservation Act of 2009. The public hearing on the 2025 RUWMP took place before the adoption of the Plan, which allowed Redlands the opportunity to modify the 2025 RUWMP in response to any public input before adoption. After the hearing, the Plan was adopted as prepared or as modified after the hearing.

Redlands’ adoption resolution for the 2025 RUWMP and Redlands’ WSCP is included in Part 4 Appendix D of the 2025 RUWMP.

4.9.3 Plan Submittal
Redlands will submit the 2025 RUWMP and Redlands’s WSCP to DWR, the State Library, and cities and counties within 30 days after adoption. The 2025 RUWMP submittal to DWR will be done electronically through WUEdata, an online submittal tool.

4.9.4 Public Availability
No later than 30 days after filing a copy of its Plan with DWR, Redlands will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours in the City’s Municipal Utilities and Engineering Department located at 35 Cajon Street, Suite 15 A, Redlands, California 92373, and by posting the plans on the City’s website for public viewing.

City of Redlands
2025 Urban Water Management Plan Public Draft 4-41

4.9.5 Amending an Adopted UWMP or Water Shortage Contingency Plan
If the adopted 2025 RUWMP or Redlands’ WSCP is amended, each of the steps for notification, public hearing, adoption, and submittal will also be followed for the amended plan. 2020 IRUWMP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
PA R T 3 : R E G I O N A L 2025 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY

REGIONAL URBAN WATER

MANAGEMENT PLAN
Photo Credit: San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendices
A: Notices
B: Agreements
Notices
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | A
Appendix A Notices

1 From: Adekunle Ojo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 12:11 PM
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Regional Stakeholder,
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and its partners (Participating Agencies) are in the process of preparing the 2025 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and its Participating Agencies’ UWMP is required every five (5) years.

Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as notice that the Participating Agencies that are using the 2025 RUWMP, plan to adopt and submit the 2025 RUMWP by July 1st, 2026. The Participating Agencies will also be adopting their respective updated WSCPs as part of the 2025 RUWMP.

A copy of the 2025 RUWMP, which will include the WSCPs for each of the Participating Agencies, will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting on the Participating Agencies’ websites. Each Participating Agency will hold an individual public hearing on their respective chapters of the 2025 RUWMP and WSCP. The public hearings will be noticed and announced by each Participating Agencies’ public meeting agenda; each agency’s website address is shown in the table below.

Participating
Agency
Agency Website Agency Direct Contact
City of Colton www.ci.colton.ca.us
Cecilia Griego
[email protected]
City of Loma
Linda www.lomalinda-ca.gov
Jarb Thaipejr
[email protected]
City of
Redlands www.cityofredlands.org
Paul Mariscal
[email protected]
City of Rialto www.rialtoca.gov
Toyasha Sebbag
[email protected]
Riverside
Highland Water
Company
www.rhwco.com
Don Hough
[email protected]
2 San Bernardino
Municipal
Water
Department
www.sbmwd.org
Jonathon Schoenen
[email protected]
San Bernardino
Valley
Municipal
Water District
www.sbvmwd.com
Adekunle Ojo
[email protected]
South Mesa
Water
Company
https://southmesawater.com
Brittany Lim
[email protected]
West Valley
Water District www.wvwd.org
Rocky Welborn
[email protected]
If you have any questions or input regarding these documents, please contact me by email or reach out to the agency direct contact.

Sincerely,
Adekunle Ojo
Manager of Integrative Planning
Phone: 909-387-9231
Mobile: 909-435-1526
Email: [email protected]
San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District
380 East Vanderbilt Way
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Agreements
2025 RUWMP
San Bernardino Valley | B
Appendix B Agreements

B-1
Appendix B - Agreements

1. Orange County Judgment

2. Western Judgment

3. 1961 Rialto Basin Decree

4. Rialto Basin Groundwater Council Agreement

5. Seven Oaks Accord

6. Lytle Creek Judgement

7. 1996 In-Lieu Agreement Valley District and Big Bear Municipal Water District

8. Surplus Water Sale Agreement – Valley District and SGPWA 2018

9. Four Party Implementation Agreement and Amendments

10. Agreement Between OCWD City of Riverside Concerning Water Rights

11. Cooperative Agreement to Protect Water Quality and Encourage the Conjunctive Uses of Imported Water in the Santa Ana River Basin (Exchange Plan)

12. San Bernardino Basin Groundwater Council Framework

13. MOU Between and SBCFCD and SBVWCD

14. Fully Executed Settlement Agreement and Amendments with Quick Guide (Rialto Basin Settlement agreement)

15. Agreement Relating to the Diversion of Water from the Santa Ana River System Among Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County, Valley District and City of Riverside (LF 2151)

16. Cooperative Agreement to Protect Water Quality and Encourage the Conjunctive Uses of Imported Water in the Santa Ana River Basin– January 2008 (LF2181)

17. San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and Crestline-Lake Arrowhead Water Agency Demonstration Project Water Exchange Agreement-November 2008 (LF 2206)

18. Understanding Agreement Regarding the Contribution to Replenishment and Deliveries– September 2009 (LF2255)

19. Permit for Diversion and Use of Water – Valley District and Western (LF 2276)

20. Agreement between Kern Delta Water District and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District for a Water Management Program-October 2011 (LF 2327)

21. Agreement to Develop and Operate Enhanced Recharge Facilities between the Conservation District, Valley District and Western -October 2012 (LF 2382)

22. Agreement for the Cooperative Use of Unused Well Capacity, the Texas Grove Reservoir and the Central Feeder-April 2013 (LF 2392)

23. Agreement Regarding Additional Extractions of New Conservation Water from the San Bernardino Basin Area-July 2013 (LF 2402)

24. Planning Memorandum of Understanding between the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District-July 2013 (LF 2404)

25. Amendment to Agreement to Form the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Land Management and Habitat Conservation Plan Task Force-September 2013 (LF 2407)

26. Coordinated Operations Agreement between the San Bernardino Municipal Water Department and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District -September 2013 (LF 2415)

-1- 01180.0023/614491.1

RIALTO BASIN GROUNDWATER COUNCIL

FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT
This RIALTO BASIN GROUNDWATER COUNCIL FRAMEWORK
AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into and effective this ___ day of ____________, 2020 by and among the City of Colton (“Colton”), the City of Rialto (“Rialto”), Fontana Union Water Company (“FUWC”) and West Valley Water District (“WVWD”), each of which is referred to as a “Party,” for the purpose of coordinating, developing, and implementing groundwater management activities that individually or cumulatively address groundwater management in, and groundwater sustainability throughout, the Rialto Basin as defined in Section 1.1.8 below.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on and after September 12, 2018, in an effort to commit to sustainable groundwater management principles, the Parties, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, Fontana Water Company and Cucamonga Valley Water District (“Cucamonga”) entered into a Settlement Agreement as defined in Section 1.1.9 below;
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement requires completion of this Framework Agreement within one year of the final Settlement Agreement amendments executed in February 2019;
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement contained Condition 3, titled “Cooperative and Sustainable Groundwater Management of the Rialto-Colton Basin;” WHEREAS, Condition 3 (1.) of the Settlement Agreement requires the parties to develop, adopt and implement a sustainable groundwater management plan.

WHEREAS, Condition 3 (l.) of the Settlement Agreement states that if the Parties agree, the sustainable groundwater management plan is to include a new index well regime, the possibility of establishing an operating safe yield, and/or other groundwater management tools.

WHEREAS, by joining the Settlement Agreement, the Parties to this Agreement accepted and agreed to the Recitals, Definitions, Principles and Agreements set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including Condition 3 (l.).

WHEREAS, the Parties to this Agreement all overlie, produce water from, or are otherwise invested in the management and long-term sustainability of the groundwater of the Rialto Basin as identified on the Map attached hereto as Exhibit A; WHEREAS, The Rialto Basin is part of the Rialto Subbasin which underlies a portion of the upper Santa Ana Valley in southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern Riverside County. This Subbasin is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains on the north, the San Jacinto -2- 01180.0023/614491.1
fault on the east, the Rialto Basin boundary on the south, and the Rialto fault on the west. Lytle Creek flows through this part of the valley southeastward to its confluence with the Santa Ana River in the southern part of the Subbasin;
WHEREAS, the groundwater supplies of the Rialto Basin are governed by a court decree dated December 22, 1961 (the “1961 Decree”) in the case styled The Lytle Creek Water and Improvement Company v. Fontana Ranchos Water Company, et al., San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. 81264. A copy of the 1961 Decree is attached hereto as Exhibit D; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, FUWCs No Man’s Land production of 5,014 acre feet/year will be counted as part of the Rialto Basin production limits in the 1961 decree, and it is the intention of the Parties in forming the Rialto Basin Groundwater Council to apply, administer, and conform to the requirements and provisions of the 1961 Decree.

WHEREAS, Water Code Section 10720.8(a) identifies the Rialto Basin as an adjudicated groundwater basin. As such, the Rialto Basin is exempt from the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) passed by the California Legislature in September 2014, other than providing certain kinds of data to the Department of Water Resources per Water Code Section 10720.8(f);
WHEREAS, notwithstanding that the Rialto Basin is not required to comply with SGMA, the Parties to this Agreement wish to coordinate their efforts to identify their respective access to, and application of, water supplies, and to harmonize use of such supplies with available groundwater in the Rialto Basin. Working to ensure that the water imported into the Rialto Basin and the facilities used to apply both imported and native water supplies to productive beneficial uses for groundwater replenishment, will allow the Rialto Basin to be maintained and managed in a sustainable manner over the long-term. The Parties recognize that the key to success in this effort is a coordinated effort with other groundwater management entities as well as the development of a strategy for coordination of recharge activities throughout the Rialto Basin;
WHEREAS, ensuring water supply reliability and long-term effectiveness and viability of recharge facilities has become increasingly important, and proactive efforts are needed to improve and mitigate low groundwater levels in the Rialto Basin through the spreading of imported water supplies, which at times are limited in availability, due to drought, environmental, and other restrictions. One purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate the cooperation of the Parties which is essential to prevent overdraft or other negative impacts during an extended drought, and for the foreseeable future;
WHEREAS, the Parties, individually and collectively, are committed to cost effective and cooperative groundwater management that respects the interests and concerns of all of the parties and the communities that they serve and which rely on the Rialto Basin for their water supply;.

WHEREAS, the Parties hereby enter into this Agreement for the purpose of establishing the Rialto Basin Groundwater Council (“RBGC”) to take the preliminary steps necessary to prepare for and coordinate the management of groundwater supply resources throughout the -3- 01180.0023/614491.1
Rialto Basin, coordinate maintenance of conveyance and recharge facilities, and coordinate with existing groundwater agencies in the Rialto Basin to expedite such management strategies. The RBGC will ensure overall coordination and sustainable management of the Rialto Basin; and, WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that the preliminary steps for establishing RBGC will include preparation of formation documents and procedures, the engagement of necessary experts, and the development of a budget and funding procedure for the RBGC as memorialized in this Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the matters recited and the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS

1.1 Definitions. In addition to the terms that may be defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows:

1.1.1 “Agreement” means this Rialto Basin Groundwater Council Agreement.

1.1.2 “Annual Rialto Basin Groundwater Report” shall mean the annual report prepared by the RBGC, to cover topics including, but not limited to, the following:
annual production, recharge, environmental issues, exchanges, and all other actions and topics material to groundwater conditions in the Rialto Basin. In preparing such report, the RBGC may consult with, and draw from, data and information provided by Santa Ana River and Western/ San Bernardino Watermasters and/or other reliable sources regarding annual groundwater conditions.

1.1.3 “BTAC” shall mean the Basin Technical Advisory Committee, as originally created under the auspices of the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, as such Committee may be modified from time to time to allow for the additional participation of one or more Parties to this Agreement. The RBGC may request BTAC to undertake specified actions in support of the RBGC’s efforts.

1.1.4 “Cost Share” shall mean that portion of the overall annual operating costs of the RBGC assigned to a Party pursuant to the Equitable Allocation, as based on the annual budget of the RBGC.

1.1.5 “Effective Date” shall mean the date that the last Party executes this Agreement.

1.1.6 “Equitable Allocation” shall mean the manner of determining the facilities’ operations and maintenance (“O&M”) costs and supplemental water cost, for each Party based on an annual approved budget. This allocation will be shared equally by the Parties for the applicable RBGC budget year.
-4- 01180.0023/614491.1

1.1.7 No Man’s Land” shall mean that portion of the Rialto-Colton Basin that is outside the Rialto Basin as shown on the maps attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement.

1.1.8 “Rialto Basin” shall mean that portion of the Rialto-Colton Basin defined in the 1961 Decree.

1.1.9 “Settlement Agreement” shall mean the settlement agreement dated September 12, 2018, as amended, that concluded the litigation styled San Bernardino Municipal Water District et al v. San Gabriel Water Company et al, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C to this Agreement.

2. TERM
This Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date.

3. COUNCIL CREATION AND PURPOSE

3.1 Creation of the RBGC. There is hereby created the Rialto Basin Groundwater Council. The RBGC shall be, to the extent permitted by law, the forum within which the Parties shall coordinate the access to and utilization of native and imported water supplies for application to the recharge and replenishment of the Rialto Basin, and for the maintenance, and repair of recharge and conveyance facilities for both native and imported supplies to replenish the Rialto Basin, consistent with applicable law and judicial decrees. The RBGC is not a public agency subject to Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.,nor is it a joint exercise of powers agreement as defined by Government Code sections 6300 et seq.

3.2 Purpose of the Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement, and the creation of the RBGC, is to provide for the funding, integration, and coordination of the management of native and imported water and associated groundwater replenishment facilities within the Rialto Basin. The purpose is also the facilitation of implementation of policies and initiatives through the legal authorities of one or more Parties for the purpose of cooperatively managing certain aspects of the Rialto Basin including, but not limited to, accessing and applying imported water supplies to augment and complement native water supplies toward the goal of maintaining the long-term yield of the Rialto Basin, ensuring that overdraft or other negative impacts are prevented in the future and eliminated over time, and undertaking supply reliability activities that are approved by the RBGC and included in the annual approved budget.

3.3 Membership of the RBGC. The RBGC shall consist of one representative and one alternate from each Party. RBGC members shall be appointed in the manner set forth in Section 3.4 of this Agreement.

3.4 Appointment of Members to the RBGC. For Colton, Rialto and WVWD, the representative member of the RGBC shall be a publicly elected official of the Party and for FUWC the representative shall be a member of its Board of Directors. Each Party shall also appoint one alternate representative who shall be a publicly elected official of the Party or a member of its Board of Directors or senior management level employee of the Party. -5- 01180.0023/614491.1
Members of the RBGC shall serve throughout the term of this Agreement, provided that such members may be subject to removal and replacement by the appointing Party.

4. COUNCIL MEETINGS AND ACTIONS

4.1 Initial Meeting. The initial meeting of the RBGC shall be held at a location overlying the Rialto Basin. The RBGC shall select a President to chair its meetings, a Vice President to serve if the President is unavailable, a Secretary to record RBGC proceedings and actions, and any other officers it deems appropriate for the successful and efficient conduct of its business.

4.2 Regular Meeting Schedule and Rules of Proceeding. The RBGC shall establish a regular meeting time and place. The RBGC may vote to change the regular meeting time and place, provided that the new location remains at a place overlying the Rialto Basin.

The RBGC may adopt, promulgate, repeal, or revise further rules of debate, presentation of motions, voting and proxies, process, or proceedings, as it may deem appropriate. The Parties agree that the RBGC and its Board of Directors is and shall be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Government Code section 54953 et seq.,) (“Brown Act”) and that meetings and other applicable operations of the RBGC will be undertaken in compliance with the Brown Act..

4.3 Quorum. A quorum of the RBGC shall consist of three members. In the absence of a quorum, no business may be transacted beyond the adjournment of a meeting by the remaining members. For efficiency, business may be discussed and action recommended for the consent calendar ratification at the next regular meeting. A member shall be deemed present for the determination of a quorum if the member is present at the meeting in person, or if the member participates in the meeting telephonically upon such rules and procedures as the RBGC may promulgate.

4.4 RBGC Voting Rights. Each member of the RBGC shall have an equal voting right and three votes are required to pass any proposals for organizational, procedural, and administrative purposes only.

4.4.1 Fiscal items, including but not limited to, approval of the annual budget of the RBGC and any expenditures for O& M expenses related to groundwater recharge and replenishment activities, costs of such facilities, and the cost of purchasing, transporting, and delivering supplemental water for groundwater recharge shall require the unanimous vote of the members and the subsequent approval by their respective governing boards or councils.

4.4.2 Subject to the Equitable Allocation and Cost Share requirements, any change in annual assessments necessary to support the work of the RBGC shall require the unanimous vote of the members and the subsequent approval by their respective governing boards or councils.

4.5 Minutes. The RBGC shall cause minutes to be kept of all meetings of the RBGC and any appointed Ad Hoc or Standing Committees. The RBGC shall further cause a copy of draft minutes to be forwarded to each member of the RBGC and to each Party, which may be done electronically, or by way of posting to a commonly available website or digital portal.
-6- 01180.0023/614491.1

5. ANNUAL BUDGETING AND EXPENDITURE APPROVAL

5.1 The fiscal year of the RBGC shall be July 1 through June 30. The RBGC shall develop, circulate, and approve an annual budget for the funding of native supply capture and bringing water supply to the Rialto Basin, and for the maintenance and repair of groundwater recharge or water conveyance facilities serving replenishment of the Rialto Basin. The RBGC shall coordinate with BTAC to determine the likely allocation of available State Water Project imported water supplies, and other available non-native sources of water, the likely unit cost of such water, and the recharge needs of the Rialto Basin, in terms of quantities of water, locations where Rialto Basin conditions would most benefit from recharge, condition and availability of facilities to accomplish such recharge, and cost. From these sources, the RBGC shall prepare a budget that recommends all of the following:
(a) the amount of water supplies available to be purchased or otherwise acquired by RBGC members in the coming year;
(b) the recommended application or distribution of such water supplies to various parts of the Rialto Basin as recharge or as in-lieu supplies; (c) the estimated cost of all ongoing maintenance, repair, and operation costs for then-existing and future groundwater recharge and conveyance facilities serving to replenish the Rialto Basin;
(d) any capital improvement projects approved by the RBGC (e) any administrative costs of the RBGC; and
(f) proposed allocation of all expenditures in the budget among RBGC members as their portion of the Cost Share based upon the Equitable Allocation and Cost Share Requirements in this Agreement.

5.1.2 No later than March 1 prior to the beginning of the year for which the budget is to operate, the proposed budget shall be presented and circulated to all RBGC members for review and analysis. The circulated budget shall include the underlying presumptions and worksheets upon which it is based.

5.1.3 No later than sixty (60) days after each member agency’s budget has been approved by their respective governing bodies, the RBGC shall meet to deliberate and pass upon the budget. The RBGC may accept, reject, or modify in any way the budget as proposed. Adoption of the budget shall require unanimous approval by the members and the subsequent approval by their respective governing boards or councils.

5.2 The RBGC shall appoint an entity that is responsible for the accounting and revenue collection functions of the RBGC by tracking and securing the funding from the RBGC members pursuant to the approved annual budget, and consistent with the approved cost allocations among the RBGC members therein, for all imported water supplies. The appointed -7- 01180.0023/614491.1
entity shall perform the accounting and revenue collection functions of the RBGC in tracking and securing the funding from its members pursuant to the approved annual budget, and consistent with the approved cost allocations among the RBGC members therein, for all facilities costs. In the event of any delinquency, the approved entity may request the RBGC to appoint it, or any other RBGC member or group of members, to represent the RBGC in securing collection of unpaid and owing amounts from any delinquent member or members. The reasonably incurred costs of such collection efforts may be reimbursed to the agent the RBGC authorized to go forward with them, and may be added as an administrative cost to other members, or as a credit against future amounts owing to the RBGC from such authorized agent.

5.3 No later than six (6) months into the budget year for which any budget is adopted by the RBGC, the RBGC shall prepare a year-in-process budget review, to assess the validity and accuracy of the presumptions upon which the budget was based, identify any budget savings or additional expenditures, assess any additional opportunities for groundwater replenishment that may have come available since the passing of the budget, and otherwise assess and recommend to the RBGC any potential amendment to the existing year budget, or suggestions for the following year’s budget, as changing conditions may warrant.

6. COUNCIL POWERS AND DUTIES

6.1 The RBGC shall exercise the following powers:

6.1.1 To adopt rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the RBGC.

6.1.2 To produce an Annual Rialto Basin Groundwater Report, using as may be appropriate data regarding groundwater conditions available from Western Municipal Watermaster, or other sources. The Annual Report shall include data showing each Party’s production from the Rialto Basin and recharge or replenishment, if any, to the Rialto Basin.

6.1.3 To monitor groundwater production and extractions in coordination with BTAC.

6.1.4 To make, after consultation with BTAC, annual recommendations for the amount of additional artificial recharge for the Rialto Basin from imported sources as a complement to native sources, and to plan for the development and application of such additional sources of recharge.

6.1.5 To establish as-needed Ad Hoc and Standing Committees for the purpose of making recommendations to the RBGC. Committees shall exist for the term specified in the action creating the committee, and the RBGC may dissolve a committee at any time through a majority vote of three voting members.

6.1.6 To contract, on behalf of the RBGC, for the services of engineers, attorneys, planners, financial consultants, and separate and apart therefrom, to appoint agents and representatives to employ such other staff persons as necessary. The BTAC will provide technical support for the RBGC, upon such terms as the RBGC and BTAC shall agree in writing. -8- 01180.0023/614491.1

6.1.7 To collect and monitor all data related and beneficial to the development, adoption and implementation of appropriate groundwater level management for the Rialto Basin.

6.1.8 To collect assessments from RBGC members as authorized in the approved budget.

6.1.9 To cooperate, act in conjunction, and contract with the United States, the State of California, or any agency thereof, counties, municipalities, public and private corporations of any kind (including without limitation, investor-owned utilities), and individuals, or any of them, for any and all purposes necessary or convenient for the purposes of this Agreement.

6.1.10 To accumulate operating and reserve funds and invest the same as allowed by law for the purposes of the RBGC.

6.1.11 As may be permitted by law, to apply for and accept grants, contributions, donations and loans, including under any federal, state or local programs for assistance in developing or implementing any of its projects or programs in connection with any project untaken in the RBGC’s name.

6.1.12 To implement the Cost Share in a manner that qualifies as a pass through charge under the Constitutional requirements of Proposition 218, California Public Utilities Commission ratemaking policies and procedures, and similar revenue-raising requirements.

6.1.13 To exercise any power necessary or incidental to the foregoing powers in the manner and according to the procedures provided for under the law applicable to the Parties to this Agreement.

7. FUNDING RBGC ACTIVITIES

7.1 Funding for RBGC activities shall be as provided in Section 1.1.6. This mechanism is based in part on a regional sharing of Operation and Maintenance costs for Rialto Basin recharge activities, as those Operation and Maintenance costs shall be determined by the RBGC in its annual budgeting, in conjunction with BTAC. All Parties shall share in the Operation and Maintenance cost components in accordance with the provisions in Section 1.1.6 of this Agreement.

8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

8.1 The Parties recognize that there may be disputes regarding the obligations of the Parties or the interpretation of this Agreement. The Parties agree that they may attempt to resolve disputes as follows:

8.2 Statement Describing Alleged Violation of Agreement. A Party or Parties alleging a violation of this Agreement (the “Initiating Party(ies)”) shall provide a written -9- 01180.0023/614491.1
statement describing all facts that it believes constitute a violation of this Agreement to the Party(ies) alleged to have violated the terms of this Agreement (the “Responding Party(ies)”).

8.3 Response to Statement of Alleged Violation. The Responding Party(ies) shall have sixty (60) days from the date of the written statement to prepare a written response to the allegation of a violation of this Agreement and serve that response on the Initiating Party(ies) or to cure the alleged violation to the reasonable satisfaction of the Initiating Party(ies). The Initiating Party(ies) and the Responding Party(ies) shall then meet within thirty (30) days of the date of the response to attempt to resolve the dispute amicably.

8.4 Mediation of Dispute. If the Initiating Party(ies) and the Responding Party(ies) cannot resolve the dispute within ninety (90) days of the date of the written response, they shall engage a mediator, experienced in water-related disputes, to attempt to resolve the dispute. Each Party shall ensure that it is represented at the mediation by a representative with authority to settle. These representatives of the Initiating Party(ies) and the Responding Party(ies) may consult with staff and/or technical consultants during the mediation and such staff and/or technical consultants may be present during the mediation. The costs of the mediator shall be divided evenly between the Initiating Party(ies) and the Responding Party(ies). The decision of the mediator shall be non-binding.

8.5 Reservation of Rights. Subject to the above requirements, in the event that mediation fails, each Party retains and may exercise all legal and equitable rights and remedies it may have to enforce the terms of this Agreement; provided, that prior to commencing litigation, a Party shall provide at least five (5) calendar days’ written notice of its intent to sue to all Parties.
9 RELATIONSHIP TO WATER RIGHTS AND PRIOR AGREEMENTS

9.1 Water Rights and Existing Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to modify the water rights of the Parties, whether existing under a judgment, proceedings of the State Water Resources Control Board, or the common law, other than incorporating production right from No Man’s Land Basin into the Rialto Basin. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to modify any existing agreements between and among the Parties, unless expressly stated herein.

9.2 Agreements Among Water Users. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to modify the rights of the signatories of this Agreement among themselves.

9.3 Judgments. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to modify the rights of the Parties under the terms of the 1961 Decree.. However, FUWC’s production capacities of 5,014 acre-feet/year from No Man’s Land shall be acknowledged and incorporated into the Rialto Basin production capacity limits in the 1961 decree.. It is the intention of the Parties in forming the RBGC to apply, administer, and conform to the requirements and provisions of the 1961 Decree. In the event of any conflict, except for incorporating FUWC’s production in No Man’s Land into the Rialto Basin production capacity limits in the 1961 decree, between the actions of the RBGC and the requirements and provisions of the 1961 Decree, the latter shall control.
-10- 01180.0023/614491.1

9.4 No Admissions. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an admission by any Party regarding any subject matter of this Agreement, including but not limited to the water rights or priorities of the Parties.

9.5 Preservation of Rights. The Parties agree that this Agreement, to the extent allowed by law, preserves all rights of the Parties as they may exist as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. Except as provided in Section 9.3, nothing in this Agreement is to be construed as altering the priorities or entitlements of water right holders among themselves to water from the Santa Ana River or the Rialto Basin.

10. MISCELLANEOUS

10.1 Authority. Each signatory of this Agreement represents that s/he is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Party for which s/he signs. Each Party represents that it has legal authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform all obligations under this Agreement, and that by doing so, such Party is not in breach or violation of any other agreement or contract.

10.2 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written instrument approved by all voting members.

10.3 Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any suit, action, or proceeding brought under the scope of this Agreement shall be brought and maintained to the extent allowed by law in the Superior Court, County of San Bernardino, California and shall be deemed related to the 1961 Rialto Basin Decree, San Bernardino County Superior Court Action No. 81264 and to San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District et al. v. San Gabriel Water Company et al..

10.4 Headings. The paragraph headings used in this Agreement are intended for convenience only and shall not be used in interpreting this Agreement or in determining any of the rights or obligations of the Parties to this Agreement.

10.5 Construction and Interpretation. This Agreement has been arrived at through negotiations, and each Party has had a full and fair opportunity to revise the terms of this Agreement. As a result, the normal rule of construction that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not apply in the construction or interpretation of this Agreement.

10.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to its subject matter, and supersedes any prior oral or written agreement, understanding, or representation relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.

10.7 Partial Invalidity. If, after the date of execution of this Agreement, any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws or adjudicatory decisions effective during the term of this Agreement, such provision shall be fully severable. However, in lieu thereof; there shall be added a provision as similar in terms to such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision as may be possible and be legal, valid and enforceable.
-11- 01180.0023/614491.1

10.8 Successors and Assigns. To the extent authorized by law, this Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the respective Parties to this Agreement. No Party may assign its interests in or obligations under this Agreement without the written consent of the other Parties, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

10.9 Waivers. Waiver of any breach or default hereunder shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach either of the same or of another provision of this Agreement, and forbearance to enforce one or more of the remedies provided in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of that remedy.

10.10 Necessary Actions. Each Party agrees to execute and deliver additional documents and instruments and to take any additional actions as may be reasonably required to carry out the purposes of this Agreement.

10.11 Compliance with Law. In performing their respective obligations under this Agreement, the Parties shall comply with and conform to all applicable laws, rules, regulations and ordinances.

10.12 Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement shall not create any right or interest in any non-Party or in any member of the public as a third party beneficiary.

10.13 Notices. All notices, requests, demands or other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing unless provided otherwise in this Agreement and shall be deemed to have been duly given and received on: (i) the date of service if served personally or served by facsimile transmission on the Party by delivery to the person(s) at the address(es) designated below, which designation may be changed from time to time by a Party in writing; (ii) on the first day after mailing, if mailed by Federal Express, U.S. Express Mail, or other similar overnight courier service, postage prepaid, and addressed as provided below, or (iii) on the third day after mailing if mailed to the Party to whom notice is to be given by first class mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To CITY OF COLTON: CITY OF COLTON
Attn: Utilities Director
650 N. La Cadena Drive
Colton, CA 92324
To CITY OF RIALTO:

To WEST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT:

CITY OF RIALTO
Attn: Utilities Manager
150 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376

WEST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Attn: General Manager
855 W. Baseline Road
Rialto, CA 92376

FONTANA UNION WATER COMPNY
-12- 01180.0023/614491.1
To FONTANA UNION WATER
COMPANY:

Attn: President
15966 Arrow Route
Fontana, CA 92335
With Copy to: FONTANA UNION WATER COMPANY
Attn: Director of Operations 15966 Arrow
Route
Fontana, CA 92335

10.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

DATED: ____________________, 2020

CITY OF COLTON,
a California general law city and
municipal corporation
By:__________________________________
William R. Smith, City Manager
[Signatures continued on next page]
-13
- 01180.0023/614491.1
-14- 01180.0023/614491.1
DATED: ____________________, 2020

CITY OF RIALTO
a California general law city and
municipal corporation
By:__________________________________
Sean Grayson, Acting City Manager
[Signatures continued on next page]
-15- 01180.0023/614491.1
DATED: ____________________, 2020

WEST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
By:__________________________________
Clarence Mansell,
General Manager
[Signatures continued on next page]
-16- 01180.0023/614491.1
DATED: ____________________, 2020

FONTANA UNION WATER COMPANY
By:__________________________________
John Bosler, President
01180.0023/614491.1

EXHIBIT A
Map of Rialto Basin
01180.0023/614491.1
Exhibit B

WATER RIGHTS SUMMARY
The Parties to this agreement have agreed to the following water rights allocation:

Member
Adjustable
Rights
Fixed
Rights
No Man’s
Land
Adjustable
Rights
Total
Rights
Water Rights
Allocation
Percentage
Colton 3,010 890 0 3,900 19%
Rialto 2,846 1,520 0 4,366 22%
WVWD 5,594 510 0 6,104 30%
FUWC 550 370 5,014 5,934 29%

1 FOUR PARTY IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT
This Implementation Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on the Effective Date (as defined herein) by and between Emhart Industries, Inc. (“Emhart”), the City of Rialto and the Rialto Utility Authority (collectively, “Rialto”), the City of Colton, (“Colton”), and the County of San Bernardino (“County”). Emhart, Rialto, Colton and the County are referred to individually herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
The Purpose of this Agreement
A. This Agreement facilitates implementation of the interim remedial action required by the Consent Decree (Dkt. No. 1820) entered on July 2, 2013, by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “District Court”), in City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, Inc.‐West, et al., Case No. ED CV 09‐01864 PSG (SSx), and related consolidated actions (the “Work Consent Decree”).

B. The remedial action required by the Work Consent Decree was selected and approved, and will be overseen, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA” or “EPA”) pursuant to its authority under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq. (the “EPA Remedy,” as defined below). The EPA Remedy is designed to capture and remove perchlorate and trichloroethylene (“TCE”) in groundwater in the Rialto‐Colton Groundwater Basin (“Basin”) emanating from a 160‐acre parcel located in Rialto, California (the “160‐Acre Parcel”).

C. As set forth herein and in the County/Emhart Implementation Agreement, the EPA Remedy will be combined with an existing groundwater extraction and treatment remedy designed and constructed by the County to capture and remove perchlorate and TCE in the Basin as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (the “Regional Board Remedy,” as defined below).

D. Upon Emhart’s completion of construction and permitting necessary to combine the EPA Remedy and the Regional Board Remedy (“Combined 2 Remedies,” as defined below), Rialto will operate the Combined Remedies to provide potable drinking water to Rialto’s and, if necessary, Colton’s municipal water supply systems.

The Regional Board Remedy
E. In January 2003, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (“Regional Board”) adopted Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R8‐ 2003‐0013, which required the County to develop and implement a remedial action to abate perchlorate in groundwater in the Basin allegedly migrating from County property (“Cleanup Order”). In September 2004, the Regional Board adopted Order No. R8‐2004‐0072, amending the Cleanup Order to require the County to provide Rialto with replacement water for City of Rialto Well No. 3 (“CR‐3”) (“Water Replacement Order”). The Cleanup Order and the Water Replacement Order are collectively referred to herein as the “Regional Board Order.”
F. In 2005, pursuant to the Regional Board Order, the County completed a remedial investigation and feasibility study (“RI/FS”) which identified a former bunker area where munitions had been stored during the Second World War (“Bunker Area”) and the Stonehurst Property (which is not owned or operated by the County) as potential source areas of perchlorate subject to the Regional Board Order. The RI/FS and subsequent studies by the County concluded that current and past disposal units of the Mid‐Valley Sanitary Landfill (“MVSL”) were not sources of perchlorate contamination. The RI/FS concluded that perchlorate and VOC impacts to groundwater near CR‐3 likely originated in source areas located in the vicinity of Unit 5 of the MVSL and/or the Stonehurst Property.

G. In 2005, the County and Rialto entered into an agreement titled “Water Replacement Order Implementation Agreement and Water Rights Lease,” effective April 1, 2005 (“County/Rialto Implementation Agreement”), which, among other things, facilitates the County’s compliance with the Regional Board Order.

H. In 2006, the County commenced operation of the Regional Board Remedy under the oversight of the Regional Board pursuant to the Regional Board Order. In December 2007, the County issued an updated design report that proposed to install two additional groundwater extraction wells, now known as 3 Miro‐2 and Miro‐3, to be connected to the treatment plant at CR‐3. In February 2008, the Regional Board approved this plan as proposed by the County. In July 2011, the County submitted to the Regional Board an Operations, Monitoring and Maintenance Plan (“OMMP”), which among other things, proposed to vary the production rate from the Regional Board Remedy by season, to enable the output from the County’s groundwater treatment plant to better match the Rialto seasonal water demand (compared to operating at a fixed rate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year). In February 2012, the Regional Board approved the OMMP pumping schedule as proposed by the County. As the permitee under its Domestic Water Supply Permit No. 71‐009, Rialto operates the County’s groundwater treatment plant located on Linden Avenue adjacent to CR‐3 as set forth in the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement.

I. In August 2010, the County, Colton, and Rialto entered into a Standby Agreement whereby the County leased certain water rights from Colton (“County/Colton/Rialto Standby Agreement”), which, among other things, further facilitates the County’s compliance with the Regional Board Order.

The EPA Remedy
J. In January 2009, USEPA commenced its RI/FS process for the 160‐ Acre Parcel, which is located immediately north and east of the County’s MVSL.

In September 2009, USEPA listed the 160‐Acre Parcel on the National Priorities List (“NPL”) as the B.F. Goodrich Superfund Site. By placing the B.F. Goodrich Superfund Site on the NPL, USEPA assumed jurisdiction and control over its cleanup. On December 11, 2013, USEPA changed the name of the B.F. Goodrich Superfund Site to the Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares Superfund Site.

K. In September 2010, the USEPA issued the Interim Action Record of Decision for the Source Area Operable Unit (“SAOU”) of the B.F. Goodrich Superfund Site (“2010 ROD”), requiring the installation, operation, and maintenance of a groundwater pump‐and‐treat system to intercept and control the spread of contaminated groundwater from the 160‐Acre Parcel.

Federal Court Actions
L. In 2004, Rialto filed an action in the District Court, known as City of Rialto v. United States Department of Defense et al., Civil Action No. ED CV 04‐ 00079‐PSG‐SSx. In early 2005, Colton filed a similar action in the District Court, 4 known as City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, Inc.‐West, et al., Civil Action No. ED CV 05‐01479 PSG (SSx). Rialto and Colton brought their respective actions against a number of defendants, including the County and Emhart, seeking response costs and injunctive relief to, among other things, ensure that perchlorate and TCE in the Basin would be cleaned up.

M. In February 2010, the United States, on behalf of USEPA, filed an action in the District Court under CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq., known as United States of America v. Goodrich Corporation et al., CV 10‐8245 PSG (SSx), seeking, among other things, from a number of defendants, including Emhart but not the County, response costs and performance of the necessary response actions at the B.F.

Goodrich Superfund Site (the “United States Action”). Emhart and other defendants sued by the United States then filed Third‐Party Complaints and Cross‐Claims against the County and others.

N. In June 2010, the District Court consolidated the United States Action with actions which had been re‐filed by: Rialto, Case No. 09‐07501 PSG (SSx) in October 2009; Colton, Case No. CV 09‐01864 PSG (SSx) in October 2009; Emhart, Case No. 09‐07508 PSG (SSx) in October 2009, the County, Case No. 09‐06632 PSG (SSx) in September 2009, and two additional cases related to groundwater contamination in the Basin, also re‐filed in late 2009, as City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, Inc.‐West, et al., Case No. 09‐01864 (SSx) (the “Consolidated Actions”).

O. Between 2011 and 2014, the claims, which had been brought by and against the United States, the County, Rialto, Colton, Emhart, and most other parties in the Consolidated Actions, were resolved by settlements memorialized in the Work Consent Decree, the County Consent Decree entered in January 2012, the PSI Consent Decree entered in March 2013, the Goodrich/UTC Consent Decree entered in July 2013, and other settlements.

The Combined Remedies
P. In June 2013, the USEPA approved Emhart’s proposal for a Combined Capture System. In May 2014, the USEPA approved the final design of the Combined Remedies including a Combined Treatment Plant. 5 Q. In accordance with Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Work Consent Decree, this Agreement sets forth the Parties’ respective rights and obligations regarding implementation of the Combined Remedies. The Parties have separately entered into additional agreements (e.g., the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement, the County/Colton/Rialto Standby Agreement, the County/Emhart Implementation Agreement, and the County Consent Decree) which address, among other things, certain rights and obligations among the parties to those agreements related to the Regional Board Remedy, the EPA Remedy, and/or the Combined Remedies.

Recitals A through Q, above, are not intended to and do not create any rights or obligations among the Parties to this Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

I. Definitions
A. “1961 Decree” means the Decree entered on December 22, 1961, in The Lytle Creek Water and Improvement Co. v. Fontana Ranchos Water Co. et al., San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. 81264, as it may be modified.

B. “Basin” means the Rialto‐Colton Groundwater Basin.

C. “Claims” means any third‐party claim for losses, damages, actions or liability.

D. “Closure” means, for Emhart, EPA’s determination that the Performance Standards set forth in the Work Consent Decree have been met so that Emhart has no further obligation to operate any portion of the Combined Remedies; and, for the County, the Regional Board’s determination that the County has met its remedial obligations so that the County has no further obligation to operate any portion of the Combined Remedies.

E. “Colton Water Budget” means a document, detailing Colton’s anticipated month‐by‐month minimum needs and maximum capacity to accept water generated by the Combined Remedies for the upcoming Water Year, subject to the Colton Water Rights, that Colton will provide annually to Rialto, the 6 County, and Emhart to assist the Parties in their development of the annual Water Management Plan for the Combined Remedies.

F. “Colton’s DDW Permit” means domestic water supply Permit No. 03‐ 13‐96P‐001 issued to Colton by DDW on June 28, 1996, as it has been and may be amended in the future.

G. “Colton Water Rights” means Colton’s water rights in the Basin under the 1961 Decree.

H. “Combined Capture System” means the extraction wells and associated conveyance piping connected to the Combined Treatment Plant necessary for operation of the Combined Remedies. There are currently three existing extraction wells (Miro‐2, Miro‐3, and CR‐3) and one planned extraction well (EW‐1) that will be connected to the Combined Treatment Plant; the locations of these wells and associated piping are shown on Exhibit C (Conceptual Diagram of Combined Capture System). This definition includes any additional extraction wells and associated piping that may be added in the future, as necessary or appropriate to comply with the Work Consent Decree or Regional Board Order.

I. “Combined Remedies” means the Combined Capture System and the Combined Treatment Plant, but does not include groundwater monitoring wells.

J. “Combined Treatment Plant” or “CTP” means a system of groundwater treatment components, consisting of (1) the County treatment plant at CR‐3, in place as of the Effective Date, constructed by the County to comply with the Regional Board Order; (2) the expansion of the County treatment plant constructed by Emhart, after the Effective Date, to comply with the Work Consent Decree (as described in detail in the final design approved by EPA on May 19, 2014); and (3) any future expansion of such treatment plant as necessary or appropriate to comply with the Work Consent Decree or the Regional Board Order.

K. “Combined Treatment Plant Lease Area” means the Combined Treatment Plant Lease Area as defined in Exhibit J hereto.

L. “County Consent Decree” means the Consent Order and Judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on 7 January 31, 2012 in City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, Inc‐West et al., Case No. 09‐1864 PSG (SSx) (Dkt. No. 1258).

M. “County/Emhart Implementation Agreement” means the separate Implementation Agreement entered into between the County and Emhart in accordance with Paragraph 12 of the Work Consent Decree concurrently with this Agreement.

N. “County/Rialto Implementation Agreement” means the agreement titled “Water Replacement Order Implementation Agreement and Water Rights Lease,” entered by Rialto, the Rialto Utility Authority, and the County, effective April 1, 2005.

O. “CR‐3” means City of Rialto well No. 3.

P. “DDW” means the California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water, formerly, the California Department of Public Health Division of Drinking Water.

Q. “Effective Date” means the date the last Party executes this Agreement.

R. “EPA” or “USEPA” means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

S. “EPA Remedy” means the system of extraction wells, conveyance pipelines, and the expansion of the County’s groundwater treatment plant to be constructed by Emhart required by the Work Consent Decree.

T. “Regional Board Order” means Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R8‐2003‐0013, adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (“Regional Board”), on January 17, 2003, as amended by Order No. R8‐2004‐0072, adopted by the Regional Board, on September 17, 2004, and as Order No. R8‐2003‐0013 may be amended in the future.

U. “Regional Board Remedy” means the system of extraction wells, conveyance pipelines, and groundwater treatment plant operated by the County in compliance with the Regional Board Order.
8 V. “Replacement Water” means potable water acquired from a water purveyor other than Rialto holding a DDW domestic water supply permit and delivered to Rialto, or the acquisition of additional water rights in the Basin, by the County for use by Rialto.

W. “Rialto Water Budget” means a document, detailing Rialto’s anticipated month‐by‐month minimum needs and maximum capacity to accept water generated by the Combined Remedies for the upcoming Water Year, subject to the Rialto Water Rights, that Rialto will provide annually to Colton, the County, and Emhart to assist the Parties in their development of the annual Water Management Plan for the Combined Remedies.

X. “Rialto Water Rights” means certain water rights in the Basin that Rialto has leased to the County as set forth in the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement.

Y. “Rialto’s DDW Permit” means domestic water supply Permit No. 71‐ 009 issued to Rialto by DDW on January 8, 1971, as amended by Permit Amendment No. 05‐13‐06PA‐005 issued on May 8, 2006, Permit Amendment No. 05‐13‐09PA‐042 issued on January 4, 2010, and as permit No. 71‐009 may be amended in the future.

Z. “SOW” means the Statement of Work attached as Appendix F to the Work Consent Decree.

AA. “Summer Months” means May through September, inclusive.

BB. “Water Year” means October 1 through the following September 30.

CC. “Winter Months” means October through the following April, inclusive.

DD. “Work” means all activities and obligations Emhart is required to perform under the Work Consent Decree, except the activities required under Section XXIII (Retention of Records) of the Work Consent Decree.

EE. “Work Consent Decree” means the Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 2, 2013 in City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, Inc‐West et al., Case No. 09‐1864 PSG (SSx) (Dkt. No. 1820) as it may be amended in the future. 9 II. The Remedial Objectives of the Combined Remedies
A. Emhart is responsible for meeting the remedial action objectives set forth in the Work Consent Decree.

B. The County is responsible for complying with the Regional Board Order, including meeting the remedial action objectives developed pursuant thereto.

C. If, in the future, in connection with their respective responsibilities to meet the remedial action objectives the Regional Board Order or the Work Consent Decree, the County or Emhart needs to modify or expand the Combined Remedies, associated conveyance pipelines, monitoring wells, or any part thereof, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to discuss any such necessary expansion or modification in accordance with their obligations under the Work Consent Decree, the County Consent Decree and the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement. Nothing in this Paragraph limits or expands the rights and obligations of the Parties under such agreements.

III. The Design, Permitting, Installation, and Construction of the Work A. Emhart’s Responsibilities

1. Emhart shall ensure that knowledgeable representatives are available, as reasonably necessary, to consult with Rialto, Colton, and the County during the design, permitting, installation, and construction phases of the Work.

2. Subject to the terms of the Work Consent Decree, Emhart is responsible for the cost of the design, permitting, installation, and/or construction of:
a. the new extraction well(s) necessary to perform the
Work;
b. the expansion of the County’s groundwater treatment
plant at CR‐3 necessary to perform the Work;
c. the additional piping and infrastructure necessary to:
i. connect the new extraction well(s) to the
Combined Treatment Plant;
10 ii. connect the Combined Treatment Plant to the
existing Rialto municipal water supply system;
iii. deliver water to the Colton municipal water
supply system pursuant to Emhart's lease of Colton Water Rights either through the existing Rialto municipal water supply system or by some other means agreed to by the Parties in writing; and
iv. deliver water to a water purveyor (other than
Colton) which is to receive water pursuant to a lease of water rights to Emhart, either through the existing Rialto municipal water supply system or by some other means agreed to by the Parties;
d. obtaining modification of Colton and Rialto’s DDW
Permits as necessary for operation of the Combined Remedies to satisfy Emhart’s obligations under the Work Consent Decree; and
e. any expansion or modification of the Combined
Remedies required to satisfy Emhart’s obligations under the Work Consent Decree.

3. During the design, permitting, installation, construction, startup and shakedown phases of the Work, and prior to obtaining modification of Colton and Rialto’s DDW Permits as necessary for operation of the Combined Remedies, Emhart shall not interfere with the County’s ability to operate the Regional Board Remedy in a manner consistent with and without degradation to the County’s obligations under the Regional Board Order and the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement.

4. During the design, permitting, installation, and construction phases of the Work within the jurisdiction of Rialto or Colton, Emhart shall comply with the applicable permitting and approval processes required by the Rialto or Colton municipal codes, as applicable, as set forth in Paragraphs VII. A and B, below.

B. Colton’s Responsibilities

1. During the design, permitting, installation, and construction phases of the Work, Colton shall (a) ensure that knowledgeable representatives 11 are available, as reasonably necessary, to work with Emhart, Rialto, and the County; and (b) provide Emhart access as set forth in Paragraph VII.A, below.

C. Rialto’s Responsibilities

1. During the design, permitting, installation, and construction phases of the Work, Rialto shall ensure that knowledgeable representatives are available, as reasonably necessary, to work with Colton and the County.

2. During the design, permitting, installation, and construction phases of the Work, Rialto shall ensure that knowledgeable representatives are available, as reasonably necessary, to work with Emhart, provided that Emhart reimburses Rialto for:
a. the cost of time incurred by Rialto’s consultant Peter Fox (or Rialto’s designated alternate consultant, West Yost Associates) reasonably required to provide information, evaluate information provided, or attend meetings, as needed, during the design, permitting and construction phases of the Work, except for the first 10 hours of the consultant’s time, on a “time and materials” basis (the procedure for reimbursement of these costs is set forth in Exhibit A); and
b. any other Rialto personnel or consultant costs, including, but not limited to, costs to conduct any required plan checks, engineering checks, and/or reviews associated with permits issued by Rialto which are necessary during the design, permitting, and construction phases of the Work, up to a total amount not to exceed $20,000, which, as of the Effective Date, Emhart has paid to Rialto.

3. During the design, permitting, installation and construction phase of the Work, Rialto shall provide Emhart access as set forth in Paragraph VII.B, below.

D. County Responsibilities
During the design, permitting, installation, and construction phases of the Work, the County shall: (a) not unreasonably deny the availability of knowledgeable representatives to work with Rialto, Colton, and Emhart; and (b) provide Emhart with access to the County’s groundwater treatment plant at CR‐3 as necessary to expand the treatment plant consistent with the 12 County/Emhart Implementation Agreement. Upon the effective date of the lease attached hereto as Exhibit J, Rialto consents to the County’s grant of such access to Emhart in accordance with Paragraph 10.a.v of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement and Paragraph 36 of Exhibit K thereto.

IV. Operation and Maintenance of the Combined Remedies
A. Commencement of Rights and Obligations in Paragraph IV

1. The Parties’ rights and obligations in this Paragraph IV shall be effective upon approval by DDW of the amendment of Colton and Rialto’s DDW Permits necessary to allow water generated by the Combined Remedies to be delivered to Rialto and Colton customers.

2. Prior to issuance of the amendment of Rialto’s DDW Permit to operate the Combined Remedies, Emhart is required by DDW to demonstrate effective operation of the new treatment components of the Combined Treatment Plant. Emhart shall be responsible for all costs of energy used by Emhart as a result of that demonstration. Following completion of the demonstration period, Emhart, the County and Rialto shall meet and confer to determine the costs of energy, for which Emhart and the County shall reimburse Rialto consistent with the cost allocation methodology set forth in Paragraphs IV.F.2.d.ii and iii.

B. Party Coordination During the Operation and Maintenance of the Combined Remedies
Emhart, the County, Rialto, and Colton shall not unreasonably deny the availability of knowledgeable representatives to consult with each other during the operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies.

C. Operation and Maintenance of the Combined Treatment Plant

1. Rialto, as the operator of the Combined Treatment Plant and permitee under Rialto’s DDW Permit, shall, in its sole discretion, operate and maintain the Combined Treatment Plant.

2. Rialto shall employ or contract with a qualified person or persons who is/are authorized by law to operate the Combined Treatment Plant. 13 3. The Anticipated Combined Remedies Operation and
Maintenance Activities are set forth in Exhibit B, hereto.

4. As set forth in Paragraph IV.F, below, Emhart and the County shall pay to Rialto the cost to operate and maintain the Combined Treatment Plant.

D. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of the Combined Capture System

1. Rialto shall, in its sole discretion, operate and maintain the Combined Capture System, except that Emhart and the County shall determine the pump rates for each extraction well necessary to achieve the remedial objectives of the Combined Remedies.

2. As set forth in Paragraph IV.F, below, Emhart and the County shall pay to Rialto the cost to operate and maintain the Combined Capture System.

3. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing between Rialto, the County and Emhart (at the sole discretion of each), Rialto shall be responsible for collecting and analyzing all groundwater samples as required under Rialto’s DDW Permit; provided, however, as of the Effective Date (and until otherwise agreed in writing by Rialto and the County), the County shall be responsible for collecting and analyzing groundwater samples from County‐installed monitoring wells, as required by Rialto’s DDW Permit, and providing that data to Rialto.

4. As between Rialto and the County, this Paragraph IV and Exhibits B (Anticipated Combined Remedies Operation and Maintenance Activities) and H (Annual Allocation of CR‐3/CTP Energy Costs and Reconciliation of Combined Remedies Energy Costs) supersede and supplant Paragraphs 4, 5.a.i and 5.b and Exhibit I of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement.

E. Transport and Distribution of Water

1. The treated water generated by the Combined Remedies shall be delivered to the Rialto municipal water supply system. Rialto shall transport water through its existing municipal water supply system: (a) for distribution to Rialto’s customers pursuant to County's lease of Rialto Water Rights; (b) to Colton's municipal water supply system pursuant to Emhart and the County's 14 leases of Colton Water Rights (to the extent the piping and infrastructure for such transport exist or are constructed by Emhart pursuant to Paragraph IV.E.2); and (c), if necessary, to a water purveyor other than Colton, if the piping and infrastructure exists for such transport and if such water purveyor agrees to accept such water at no increased cost to Rialto. Nothing in this Paragraph precludes the Parties from arranging, by written agreement, for the transportation of water to Colton or any other water purveyor by other means, in accordance with the requirements in Paragraph V.B.1.a.

2. To the extent that Rialto’s existing piping and infrastructure are insufficient to allow transport of the volume of water necessary to meet Emhart’s remedial obligations under the Work Consent Decree to the Colton municipal water supply system, or, if necessary, the municipal water supply system of a water purveyor other than Colton, and the Parties do not otherwise arrange for delivery of water to Colton or another water purveyor by other means, Emhart shall install reasonably necessary additional piping and infrastructure to allow such transport (between Rialto and Colton or between Rialto and another water purveyor, at locations within the jurisdictional boundaries of Rialto approved by Rialto in its sole discretion).

3. Nothing in this Agreement alters, limits, or otherwise affects Rialto’s authority to properly and safely operate and maintain, in its sole discretion, the Rialto municipal water supply system. Nothing in this Agreement, including the preceding sentence, alters, limits, or otherwise affects Rialto's obligation to deliver water as set forth in the Work Consent Decree.

4. Water Quality Requirements
a. Rialto Resolution No. 5248 (June, 21, 2005), attached as Exhibit E, requires Rialto groundwater production wells to be shut down and prohibits water from entering Rialto’s municipal water supply system when standard water testing techniques show any detectable levels of perchlorate in such water.
b. Treated water generated by the Combined Remedies:
(i) shall meet all federal and state statutory and regulatory requirements governing municipal drinking water; (ii) shall be non‐detect for perchlorate under the California state detection limit for purposes of reporting (“DLR”) set forth in Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 64432(d), Table 64432‐A, 15 which is currently 0.004 mg/L; and (iii) shall not be blended with any water in which perchlorate was detected in a test using the DLR. c. The Parties recognize that the DLR for perchlorate may change. If such a change occurs and the treated water from the Combined Remedies is unable to satisfy the requirements of Paragraph IV.E.4.b.ii, above, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to discuss whether any potential modification to the Combined Treatment Plant is feasible in order to meet the requirements in Paragraph IV.E.4.b.ii, above and, if not, whether any potential modification to Paragraph IV.E.4.b.ii, above, is appropriate. Nothing in this Paragraph IV.E.4.c affects Paragraph IV.E.4.f., below.
d. If the Parties are unable to reach an agreement on any dispute arising under Paragraph IV.E.4.c, above, that dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions set forth in Paragraph 10.2 of the County Consent Decree. While Emhart is not a party to the County Consent Decree, it hereby agrees, with regard to disputes arising under Paragraph IV.E.4.c, above, to be bound by the dispute resolution process set forth in Paragraph 10.2 of the County Consent Decree.
e. Notwithstanding the requirements of
Paragraph IV.E.4.b.ii, or the outcomes of the processes described in Paragraphs IV.E.4.c or d, above, the water generated by the Combined Remedies shall be treated to obtain a water quality consistent with (but not greater than) the level of the water quality obtained by other treatment systems used by Rialto to treat water produced from its other groundwater production wells impacted by perchlorate.
f. Nothing in this Paragraph IV.E.4 modifies the rights of the County, Rialto, or Colton in Paragraphs 4.2 and 10.2 of the County Consent Decree.

F. Cost of Operating and Maintaining the Combined Remedies

1. Governing Principles
a. As provided for in Paragraphs IV.C.1 and IV.D.1, above, Rialto shall operate and maintain the Combined Remedies as described in Exhibit B, hereto, subject to Emhart’s and the County’s responsibility for the actual costs of such operation and maintenance as set forth in this Paragraph IV.F. 16 Exhibit B describes the anticipated activities for operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies and is for illustration and budgeting purposes only and does not create any legal rights, obligations, responsibilities or duties, contractual or otherwise, among the Parties or any third party.
b. Emhart is responsible, as set forth in the Work Consent Decree, for the costs to operate and maintain the Combined Remedies to meet the remedial action objectives described in Paragraph 3.1 of the SOW. c. The County is responsible, as set forth in the Regional Board Order, for the costs to operate and maintain the Combined Remedies to meet the remedial action objectives set forth in the Regional Board Order. d. The County and Emhart have agreed to allocate the
costs of operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies as set forth in the County/Emhart Implementation Agreement. Nothing in the County/Emhart Implementation Agreement supersedes, abrogates or modifies Emhart’s or the County’s responsibility for the costs to operate and maintain the Combined Remedies as set forth herein.

2. Billing and Payment of Operation and Maintenance Costs a. Administrative Costs: Following the submission of an invoice by Rialto, Emhart and the County shall pay Rialto for its annual administrative staff costs on the first business day following October 1 of each year, or within sixty days of receipt of the invoice from Rialto, whichever occurs later. This payment is to compensate Rialto for its annual administrative staff costs incurred in implementing this Agreement.
i. For the first five years of operation of the
Combined Remedies, the amount of the administrative cost shall be $25,000. ii. The administrative cost shall be adjusted annually
by the percentage change, if any, in the fully burdened rate for Rialto’s Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
iii. After the first five years of operation of the
Combined Remedies, and every five years thereafter, the County, Emhart, and Rialto shall meet and confer in good faith to determine whether the administrative cost shall be modified to more accurately reflect actual annual 17 administrative staff costs incurred by Rialto in implementing this Agreement. If the County, Emhart, and Rialto are unable to agree, the payment for Rialto’s administrative staff costs set forth in Paragraphs IV.f.2.a.i. and ii shall not change. iv. Upon termination of participation in the
Combined Remedies by either the County or Emhart pursuant to Paragraph XIII.

A., the non‐terminating Party and Rialto shall meet and confer to determine an appropriate administrative cost to accurately reflect Rialto’s administrative staff costs to implement this Agreement thereafter.  If Rialto and the non‐terminating Party are unable to agree, the dispute shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions of Paragraph XII.
b. Operation and Maintenance Costs:  Emhart and the
County shall pay Rialto the cost to operate and maintain the Combined Remedies, as follows:
i. By August 1 of each year, Rialto (or its third party contractor) shall prepare and submit to Emhart and the County a budget for the work necessary to operate and maintain the Combined Remedies in a cost‐ effective manner (“Annual O&M Budget”).  The form to be used for the Annual O&M Budget is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
ii. If no changes are proposed, the Annual O&M
Budget for the prior year shall continue in effect for the coming year. iii. Within 10 business days of Emhart’s and the
County’s receipt of the Annual O&M Budget from Rialto, the County and Emhart shall submit their joint comments on the Annual O&M Budget in good faith, which Rialto shall review and consider in good faith.  Within 10 business days of submission of the joint comments, Emhart, the County, and Rialto shall, if necessary, meet and confer to discuss those comments.  Any disputes regarding the appropriateness of the Annual O&M Budget shall be raised within 10 business days of that meeting and shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions of Paragraph XII.
iv. Upon resolution of the Annual O&M Budget,
Rialto shall send a single invoice to both Emhart and the County for 50% of the total budgeted amount set forth therein.  Within 60 days of receipt of Rialto’s invoice, Emhart and the County shall pay Rialto that invoiced amount.  On or after 18 February 1 of the following year, Rialto shall invoice Emhart and the County for the balance of the total budgeted amount set forth in the Annual O&M Budget.

Within 60 days of Rialto’s invoice, Emhart and the County shall pay Rialto that invoiced amount. Rialto shall deposit and maintain the monies paid in these installments in a separate restricted fund that is committed to be used only for the purpose of paying for items set forth in the Annual O&M Budget. v. Rialto shall timely pay invoices for the costs of
operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies.
vi. For purposes of tracking the monthly costs
incurred pursuant to the Annual O&M Budget, Rialto shall submit to the County and Emhart, on or before the fifth day of each month, copies of invoices for the costs of work paid in the preceding month in accordance with the Annual O&M Budget, along with any supporting documentation reasonably requested by Emhart and/or the County.
vii. On or before October 1 of each year, Rialto, the
County, and Emhart shall meet and confer to reconcile any variance between actual costs of operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies incurred and paid by Rialto and the Annual O&M Budget and corresponding payments made by Emhart and the County for the preceding year.

1. If, pursuant to Paragraph IV.F.2.b.vii, Rialto,
the County, and Emhart agree that the actual costs of operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies incurred and paid by Rialto were greater than the Annual O&M Budget and corresponding payments made by Emhart and the County, Emhart and the County shall, within 45 days of such determination, make an additional payment equal to the amount by which the actual costs incurred and paid by Rialto exceeded the Annual O&M Budget.

2. If, pursuant to Paragraph IV.F.2.b.vii, Rialto,
the County, and Emhart agree that the actual costs of operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies incurred and paid by Rialto were less than the Annual O&M Budget and corresponding payments made by Emhart and the County, Emhart and the County shall reduce the next installment payment due under Paragraph IV.F.2.b.iv by an amount equal to the amount by which the actual costs incurred and paid by Rialto were less than the Annual O&M Budget. 19 3. To the extent Rialto, the County, and
Emhart are unable to agree as provided for in Paragraph IV.F.2.b.vii.1 and 2, above, any undisputed amount shall be paid as provided above, and the disputed amount shall be resolved pursuant to Paragraph XII, below.  If, upon resolution of the dispute, a payment is due to Rialto, the County and Emhart shall pay Rialto the amount due within 45 days.  If, upon resolution of the dispute, a credit is due to the County and Emhart, that credit shall be applied against the next installment payment due under Paragraph IV.F.2.b.iv.
c. Vendor Costs:  Operation and maintenance of the
Combined Remedies will require, from time to time, materials, services, and equipment repair or replacement provided by third‐party vendors (“Vendor Services”).  Rialto, or its third party contractor, as operator of the Combined Remedies, shall have authority to approve or reject any contracted Vendor Services in its sole discretion.  Prior to DDW’s issuance of the amendments to Rialto and Colton’s DDW Permits necessary for operation of the Combined Remedies and Rialto’s commencement of such operation, the County and Emhart shall contract (either together or separately) with Rialto, Rialto’s third party contractor, or another third‐party contractor to obtain, pay for, and bill the County and Emhart directly for such Vendor Services.
d. Energy Costs:  The Parties shall allocate the energy costs to operate the Combined Remedies as set forth in this Paragraph IV.F.2.d, as follows:
i. Combined Capture System Lifting Costs

1. Colton shall reimburse Emhart for the lifting
cost of each acre foot of water delivered to Colton (pursuant to Emhart’s lease of Colton Water Rights under Paragraph V.B) at the rate of the electrical costs that Colton would otherwise incur to lift an acre foot of water when operating its extraction wells in the Basin (“Colton’s Baseline Lifting Cost”). The procedure for determining Colton’s Baseline Lifting Cost is set forth in Exhibit G.

2. Colton shall reimburse the County for the
lifting cost of each acre foot of water delivered to Colton (pursuant to the County’s lease of Colton Water Rights under Paragraph V.A) at the rate of Colton’s Baseline Lifting Cost.
20 3. Because Rialto pays the energy costs
metered at CR‐3, the County shall reimburse Rialto for all costs to lift water pumped at CR‐3 and delivered to Colton for compliance with the Regional Board Order.

4. Because Rialto pays the energy costs
metered at CR‐3, Emhart shall reimburse Rialto for all costs to lift water pumped at CR‐3 and delivered to Colton for compliance with the Work Consent Decree.

5. Emhart shall reimburse the County for the
cost of lifting water pumped at Miro‐2 and/or Miro‐3 and delivered to Colton for compliance with the Work Consent Decree, if any, equal to the actual lifting costs for such water.

6. The County shall reimburse Rialto for the
net incremental cost of lifting water pumped at CR‐3 for compliance with the Regional Board Order and delivered to Rialto, which is intended to represent the additional cost of lifting groundwater at CR‐3 for compliance with the Regional Board Order during Southern California Edison’s peak demand period when Rialto would not normally operate, as partially offset by the reduced electrical costs that are related to pumping groundwater from CR‐3 to an open reservoir rather than to Rialto’s pressurized pipeline.

7. Rialto shall reimburse the County for the
cost of lifting water that Rialto receives for its use from wells for which the County initially pays the lifting costs (i.e., Miro‐2 and Miro‐3) pursuant to the County’s lease of Rialto Water Rights equal to (a) the cost Rialto would otherwise incur to lift such water at CR‐3 absent the Combined Remedies, or (b) the actual costs to the County, whichever is less.
ii. Combined Treatment Plant Energy Costs:

Because Rialto initially pays the energy costs metered at CR‐3, which include both energy used to operate the Combined Treatment Plant components and energy used to pump groundwater at CR‐3, the County and Emhart shall reimburse Rialto for all energy costs to operate the Combined Treatment Plant. iii. Procedures for Reimbursement of Energy Costs
21 1. Exhibit H sets forth the procedures for
reimbursement of the energy costs identified in Paragraphs IV.F.2.d.i. and ii, above.

2. The energy cost allocations in this
Paragraph VI.F.2.d and Exhibit H are not intended to affect or impair the ability of the County and Emhart to agree on a different allocation between themselves. e. Dispute Resolution Regarding Costs of Operation and
Maintenance of the Combined Remedies: If the County and/or Emhart believe that any cost of operation and/or maintenance of the Combined Remedies as provided in this Paragraph IV.F incurred by Rialto is unnecessary, the County, Emhart, and Rialto shall meet and confer in good faith to resolve the dispute. If the Parties are unable to agree, Emhart and the County shall nevertheless pay the disputed amount, subject to any reimbursement or credit from Rialto upon a determination, pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions in Paragraph XII, that such work was unnecessary.

V. The Lease of Colton and Rialto Water Rights Necessary for the Combined Remedies
A. Rialto and Colton Water Rights Leased to the County

1. Rialto has leased its water rights in the Basin to the County to the extent set forth in the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement.

2. Colton has leased 200 acre‐feet (AF) per Water Year of its water rights in the Basin to the County as set forth in the County/Colton/Rialto Standby Agreement.

3. To the extent Emhart does not use all Colton Water Rights leased to Emhart as described below, in a given Water Year, the County may, in that Water Year, utilize such rights on the same terms that Colton leases those rights to Emhart as set forth in this Paragraph V so long as an equivalent volume of water is delivered to Colton in that Water Year consistent with the WMP.

B. Colton Water Rights Leased to Emhart

1. Colton hereby leases to Emhart its water rights in the Basin necessary to perform the Work to the maximum extent Colton has such rights 22 under the 1961 Decree, less the 200 AF leased to the County in the County/Colton/Rialto Standby Agreement, as follows:
a. In each Water Year, Colton shall receive an amount of potable water, either from the Rialto municipal water supply system or by some other means agreed to by the Parties in writing, equal to the amount of water rights utilized by Emhart in that Water Year as provided in this Paragraph V. b. Colton shall, at Emhart’s request, take all reasonable actions to manage its municipal water supply system, including, if necessary, curtailing production at other Colton‐owned water production wells in the Basin, to ensure that its water rights leased to Emhart as provided in this Paragraph V can be utilized for the Work.
c. To the extent that the County does not use all of the 200 AF of Colton Water Rights leased to the County in a given Water Year, Emhart may utilize the remainder to pump and treat water for compliance with the Work Consent Decree so long as an equivalent volume of water is delivered to Colton in that Water Year consistent with the WMP.

C. General Terms Related to County and Emhart Leases of Colton Water Rights

1. In any given Water Year, Emhart and the County may deliver water to Colton, pursuant to their respective water rights leases on a schedule designed to maximize the efficiency and minimize the cost of the operation of the Combined Remedies subject to Colton’s seasonal water demands and the WMP in accordance with Paragraph VI.

2. In any given Water Year, to the extent that Emhart and the County do not utilize all of Colton’s available water rights in the Basin pursuant to their respective water rights leases and this Agreement, Colton shall have the right to use or sell any of its remaining water rights in the Basin as it sees fit.

3. If Emhart terminates its participation in this Agreement pursuant to Paragraph XIII and the County continues to operate the Combined Remedies, or any portion thereof, the County shall, at its option, succeed to Emhart’s lease of Colton water rights.
23 VI. Management and Distribution of Treated Water
A. Recitals

1. This Paragraph VI.A provides background to guide the Parties’ in their development of an ongoing water management plan that balances the extraction requirements of the Combined Remedies, the Rialto and Colton Water Rights, and the water supply needs of Colton and Rialto (“Water Management Plan” or “WMP”).

2. The County believes that delivery of water leased by the County and Emhart from Rialto and Colton on a coordinated schedule may reduce the need for the County to provide Replacement Water to Rialto as provided in the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement while meeting Rialto’s water demands as set forth in the Rialto Water Budget.

3. The County desires to minimize the use of Rialto Water Rights in the low demand Winter Months by prioritizing distribution of the Combined Treatment Plant output to Colton during the Winter Months, thereby maximizing the availability of Rialto Water Rights in the Summer Months.

4. Emhart, Colton, and Rialto support including the County’s desired prioritized distribution of water in the WMP, as set forth in this Paragraph VI. A and subject to the provisions in this Paragraph VI.

5. Nothing in this Paragraph VI. A. creates any rights or obligations among the Parties.

B. The Water Management Plan
The Water Management Plan (WMP) is the Microsoft Excel file contained in the compact disc (CD) attached as Exhibit I. To assist and guide the Parties in their annual preparation of the WMP, Exhibit I also includes a paper copy of a WMP with sample inputs and a paper copy of the WMP displaying the spreadsheet formulas used in the file.

1. Information Exchange
a. On or about April 15 of each year, Colton, Rialto, the County, and Emhart shall meet and confer to develop the WMP for the upcoming 24 Water Year.  At least one week prior to this meeting, the Parties shall exchange the following information for input into the WMP (Exhibit I) as follows:
i. Step 1:  the County and Emhart shall provide the
Parties with their planned month‐by‐month water output from the Combined Remedies (i) by well and (ii) allocated between the volume of water required to achieve the remedial obligations of Emhart and the County, respectively, as provided in the County/Emhart Implementation Agreement. ii. Step 2:  Colton shall provide the Parties with the
Colton Water Rights that Colton anticipates will be available.  Rialto shall provide the Parties with the Rialto Water Rights that Rialto anticipates will be available. iii. Step 3:  Colton shall provide the Parties with its anticipated month‐by‐month minimum needs for water generated by the Combined Remedies during the Summer Months and maximum ability to accept water from the Combined Remedies during the Winter Months (“Colton Water Budget”) as follows:

1. In determining its minimum needs for water
generated by the Combined Remedies during the Summer Months, Colton shall consider the availability and cost of utilizing its out‐of‐Basin resources during the Summer Months. To the extent such utilization does not, in a material way, increase costs or administrative burdens, or otherwise restrict Colton’s ability to manage its water resources, Colton will endeavor to utilize those resources during the Summer Months.

2. If Colton determines that its use of out‐of‐
Basin resources would result in such material costs, burdens, or restrictions, Colton and the County shall meet and confer, if the County so requests, to provide the County with the opportunity to compensate Colton for such costs, burdens, and/or restrictions in exchange for Colton’s use of those resources to facilitate the County’s desired water distribution schedule.  If the County elects not to so compensate Colton, Colton shall have no obligation to use its out‐of‐ Basin resources pursuant to this Paragraph.
iv. Step 4:  Rialto shall provide the Parties with the
(1) the monthly maximum volume of water deliverable to the Rialto municipal water supply system from the Combined Remedies; and (2) the maximum 25 monthly operational flow rate for delivery of water to Colton through the Rialto municipal water supply system unless the Parties agree in writing for delivery of water to Colton by some other means.  If the Parties agree in writing for delivery of water to Colton by some other means, the Parties shall provide the maximum monthly operational flow rate for delivery of water to Colton by those means. v. Step 5:  Rialto shall provide the Parties with its
anticipated month‐by‐month minimum needs for water generated by the Combined Remedies, subject to the Rialto Water Rights that Rialto anticipates will be available (“Rialto Water Budget”).
b. During the period of demonstration required for
amendment of Rialto’s DDW Permit necessary for operation of the Combined Remedies, the Parties shall meet and confer to discuss initiation of the WMP commencing with the issuance of such amendment.

2. Prioritization of Water Production and Distribution
a. Step 6:  Emhart and the County shall seek to prioritize production of water in the Summer Months over production in the Winter Months, and the Parties shall seek to prioritize distribution of that produced water to Colton during the Winter Months, to the extent that such prioritization:
i. does not exceed the total necessary annual
output of the Combined Remedies for the Water Year as determined in Step 1 of the WMP;
ii. meets Colton’s minimum water needs as set forth
in Step 3 of the WMP;
iii. does not exceed Colton’s maximum water needs
during the Winter Months as set forth in Step 3 of the WMP; iv. does not exceed the  maximum operational flow
rates set forth in Step 4 of the WMP;
v. meets Rialto’s minimum water needs during the
Winter Months, as set forth in Step 5 of the WMP;
26 vi. does not require Emhart, Colton, or Rialto to incur additional material costs it would not otherwise incur; vii. does not impair Emhart’s ability to comply with
the terms of the Work Consent Decree; and
viii. provides that Emhart has priority to deliver water associated with its pumping to Colton, up to the maximum operational flow rate for delivery of water to Colton as set forth in Step 4 of the WMP to the extent such operational flow rate exists as a result of infrastructure improvements funded by Emhart.
ix. provides that, in any month, to the extent that
water pumped by Emhart does not meet Colton’s minimum water needs as set forth in Step 3 of the WMP, the County shall preferentially utilize the Colton Water Rights it has leased from Colton and an equivalent amount of water shall be delivered to Colton, provided such a shift does not require the County to incur additional material costs it would not otherwise incur. b. Step 7:  The Parties shall make any necessary
modifications to the WMP as required by the limitations of Paragraph VI.B.2.a. c. If the Parties agree upon a prioritized production and distribution schedule for the WMP, that plan shall be memorialized in Table 1 of Exhibit I and water shall be produced and distributed as set forth therein, subject to any modifications made pursuant to the Parties’ monthly review described in Paragraph VI.C.

3. Default Distribution and Production of Water
a. If, after completing the process described in
Paragraph VI.B.2, the Parties are unable to agree upon a prioritized distribution and production schedule for the WMP for the upcoming Water Year, the WMP shall default to the schedule provided in Table 2 of Exhibit I (Default Water Delivery Schedule), as follows:
i. During the Winter Months, Colton shall receive, in
each month: (a) a volume of water equivalent to that pumped by Emhart to achieve its remedial obligations during that month as set forth in Step 1 of the WMP, subject to Colton’s seasonal water needs; and (b) 28.6 AF (200 AF divided 27 by seven Winter Months) of Colton Water Rights leased to the County, as pumped to achieve the County’s remedial obligations, subject to the limitations in Paragraph VI.B.3.b. To the extent that such 28.6 AF cannot be delivered in a Winter Month, the balance of such water shall be distributed to Colton in Summer Months, subject to the limitations in Paragraph VI.B.3.b; ii. During the Winter Months, Rialto shall receive, in
each month, a volume of water equivalent to that pumped by the County to achieve its remedial obligations during that month as set forth in Step 1 of the WMP, minus the amount delivered to Colton for the County as set forth in Paragraph VI.B.3.a.i;
iii. During the Summer Months, Colton shall receive,
in each month, a volume of water equivalent to that pumped by Emhart to achieve its remedial obligations during that month as set forth in Step 1 of the WMP;
iv. During the Summer Months, Rialto shall receive,
in each month, a volume of water equivalent to that pumped by the County to achieve its remedial obligations during that month; and v. If Emhart does not use all of the Colton Water
Rights in a Water Year, the County may pump and treat that unused water for delivery to Colton if needed for the County remedial obligations or negotiate with Colton regarding other use of such water.
b. Any default WMP shall:
i. not exceed the total necessary annual output of
the Combined Remedies for the Water Year as determined in Step 1 of the WMP; ii. meet Colton’s minimum water needs as set forth
in Step 3 of the WMP;
iii. not exceed Colton’s maximum water needs during
the Winter Months as set forth in the Colton Water Budget; iv. not exceed the maximum operational flow rates
set forth in Step 4 of the WMP;
28 v. meet Rialto’s minimum water needs during the
Winter Months, as set forth in the Rialto Water Budget; and vi. provide that Emhart has priority to deliver water
associated with its pumping to Colton, up to the maximum operational flow rate for delivery of water to Colton set forth in Step 4 of the WMP to the extent such operational flow rate exists as a result of infrastructure improvements funded by Emhart.
c. For Step 7 of the WMP, the Parties shall make any
necessary modifications to the WMP as required by the limitations of Paragraph VI.B.3.b.
d. If the Parties have not agreed upon a production and distribution schedule, the default production and distribution schedule for the WMP shall be memorialized in Table 2 of Exhibit I and water shall be produced and delivered according to that schedule for that Water Year until an alternative schedule is agreed upon by the Parties.

4. Other Limitations Applicable to All WMPs
a. The Combined Remedies shall not produce more water
than is required to meet the County’s and Emhart’s respective remedial obligations, absent an agreement of the Parties to do so. b. The amount of water delivered to Rialto for use by and distribution to Rialto customers from the Combined Remedy in each Winter Month shall not exceed the volume of water pumped for compliance with the Regional Board Order in that month.

5. Effect of Rialto Water Budget on Replacement Water
Obligations Under County/Rialto Implementation Agreement a. As between Rialto and County:  If the Rialto Water
Budget, subject to Rialto Water Rights, in a given Water Year will not be satisfied by treated water from the Combined Remedies on a per month basis, then the requirements and procedures relating to Replacement Water as set forth in the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement shall apply as between the County and Rialto to the extent those provisions require the County to provide Replacement Water to Rialto.  In the event Rialto’s Water Budget requires more than 100 AF 29 per month in the Winter Months, then the County will not have a Replacement Water obligation for the water Rialto receives pursuant to Rialto’s Water Budget in excess of 100 AF per month in the Winter Months.  In the event that Rialto receives 100 AF per month or less in a Winter Month consistent with the Rialto Water Budget, the County shall not have a Replacement Water obligation to Rialto associated with those water rights.
b. As between Rialto and the County:  The annual planning meeting required pursuant to Paragraph VI.B.1.a of this Agreement shall occur in conjunction with the annual planning meeting required pursuant to Paragraph 2.a of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement and that all references to “annual planning meeting” in the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement shall mean the annual planning meeting required pursuant to Paragraph VI.B.1.a.  This Agreement hereby supersedes subparts (a), (b), and (c) of the first sentence of Paragraph 2.a, at page 9, of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement.

C. Monthly Review of WMP

1. On or about the fifth day of each month (other than the one in which the annual planning meeting occurs), the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to review the WMP for the balance of the Water Year and determine whether any adjustments to the WMP are needed based on any changes in (a) anticipated output from the Combined Remedies; (b) the Rialto Water Budget; (c) the Colton Water Budget; (d) available Rialto Water Rights; or (e) available Colton Water Rights.

2. In the event that a change in the anticipated output of the Combined Remedies would result in the Combined Remedies not meeting Colton’s minimum water needs, Emhart and the County shall provide Colton with at least four (4) months’ notice prior to implementing such change in output.

3. If pursuant to Paragraph VI.C.1. the Parties determine that adjustments to the WMP, consistent with Paragraphs VI.B.2.a. (for prioritized delivery) or VI.B.3.a. (for default delivery), are necessary, the Parties shall modify the WMP for that Water Year accordingly.

4. If the Parties are unable to agree upon a requested
modification to the WMP for that Water Year under this Paragraph VI.C, such dispute shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of 30 Paragraph XII. Until any such dispute is resolved, water shall be delivered, to the extent feasible, pursuant to the most recently agreed upon WMP.

5. As between Rialto and the County, the monthly planning meeting required pursuant to Paragraph 2.c of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement shall occur in conjunction with the monthly meeting required pursuant to Paragraph VI.C.1 of this Agreement. This Paragraph IV.C.5 does not otherwise modify Paragraph 2.c of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement.

D. Delivery and Acceptance of Treated Water

1. The water generated by the Combined Remedies shall be delivered to the Rialto municipal water supply system in volumes and at times in accordance with the WMP. Rialto shall meter and record the volume of water extracted from the Combined Capture System in accordance with the WMP and report those metered totals to the Parties at the monthly meetings described in Paragraph VI.C.1.

2. If its municipal water supply system has sufficient capacity, Rialto shall accept the total output delivered from the Combined Remedies to the Rialto municipal water supply system in volumes and at times in accordance with the WMP.

3. Subject to Paragraph IV.E, Rialto shall deliver water from its municipal water supply system to the Colton municipal water supply system in volumes and at times in accordance with the WMP, provided that Rialto receives the necessary volume of water from the Combined Remedies as provided for in the WMP. Rialto shall meter and record the volume of water delivered to Colton and report those metered totals to the Parties at the monthly meetings described in Paragraph VI.C.1. Alternatively, the Parties may agree in writing for some other means of delivering some or all of such water to Colton.

4. Colton shall accept, in each Water Year, water delivered from the Rialto municipal water supply system to the Colton municipal water supply system, or by some other means agreed to by the Parties in writing, in volumes and at times in accordance with the WMP.

5. Rialto shall receive, in each Water Year, a volume of water from the Combined Remedies equivalent to the Rialto Water Rights utilized by the County for the Combined Remedies in accordance with the WMP. If, in any Water 31 Year, Rialto receives less water from the Combined Remedies than the Rialto Water Rights, the County shall notify Rialto that it may pump a volume of water equivalent to those remaining Rialto Water Rights from its other wells in the Basin.

6. Colton shall receive, in each Water Year, a volume of water from the Combined Remedies equivalent to the Colton Water Rights utilized by the County and Emhart for the Combined Remedies in accordance with the WMP.

If, in any Water Year, Colton receives less water from the Combined Remedies than the Colton Water Rights, the County and Emhart shall notify Colton that it may pump a volume of water equivalent to those remaining Colton Water Rights from its other wells in the Basin.

7. Nothing in this Agreement supersedes, abrogates or modifies the County’s obligation to provide Replacement Water to Rialto as provided in the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement, except as provided in Paragraph VI.B.5.

8. As between the County and Rialto, water delivered to Colton pursuant to this Agreement is not subject to Paragraph 3.c of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement.

VII. Access to Colton and Rialto Property
A. Emhart Access to Colton Property

1. Colton shall provide Emhart with access to and use of Colton real property and/or public rights of way for construction (at Emhart’s cost) of the piping and infrastructure necessary to provide for delivery of water to the Colton municipal water supply system as set forth in Paragraph VI. This access shall be provided in the form of a Right‐of‐Way Permit issued by Colton in accordance with Chapter 12.12 of the Colton Municipal Code.

2. As provided for in Paragraph 10. a. 1) of the Work Consent Decree, Colton shall provide Emhart access to the Colton real property and/or rights‐of‐way as described in Paragraph VII. A. 1. for no fee, cost, or charge of any kind that would otherwise be required by the Colton Municipal Code. 32 B. Emhart Access to Rialto Property; Rialto Permitting, Review and Approvals

1. Rialto shall provide Emhart with access to certain real property and public rights of way owned and/or controlled by Rialto to be used for the following:
a. Up to two groundwater extraction wells (EW‐1 and
EW‐2) to be reviewed and approved pursuant to Rialto’s “Conditional Development Permit” in accordance with Chapter 18.66 of the Rialto Municipal Code and “Precise Plan of Design” approval process as provided in Rialto City Council Resolution No. 2507, dated April 5, 1983.  This access shall be documented in an encroachment permit issued by Rialto in accordance with Chapter 11.04 of the Rialto Municipal Code and a lease agreement to be executed following the foregoing approval in the form attached hereto as Exhibit J. b. Conveyance piping connecting the extraction well(s) to the Combined Treatment Plant, to be reviewed and approved pursuant to Rialto’s “Conditional Development Permit” in accordance with Chapter 18.66 of the Rialto Municipal Code and “Precise Plan of Design” approval process as provided in Rialto City Council Resolution No. 2507, dated April 5, 1983.  Upon such approval, this access shall be documented in an Encroachment License Agreement in accordance with Chapter 11.05 of the City of Rialto Municipal Code.  The conveyance piping connecting EW‐1 to the Combined Treatment Plant shall be installed (i) prior to, or (ii) at the same time and in coordination with Rialto’s project to widen Ayala Drive from Baseline Road to Renaissance Parkway. c. Development and/or future modification of the
Combined Treatment Plant, within the footprint depicted in Exhibit K, to be reviewed and approved pursuant to Rialto’s “Conditional Development Permit” in accordance with Chapter 18.66 of the Rialto Municipal Code and “Precise Plan of Design” approval process as provided in Rialto City Council Resolution No. 2507, dated April 5, 1983.  This access shall be documented in a lease agreement to be executed following the foregoing approval in the form attached hereto as Exhibit J.
d. Distribution piping and any necessary valves connecting the Combined Treatment Plant to Rialto’s municipal water supply system, to be reviewed and approved pursuant to Rialto’s “Conditional Development Permit” in 33 accordance with Chapter 18.66 of the Rialto Municipal Code and “Precise Plan of Design” approval process as provided in Rialto City Council Resolution No. 2507, dated April 5, 1983.  Upon such approval, this access shall be documented in an Encroachment Permit issued by Rialto in accordance with Chapter 11.04 of the City of Rialto Municipal Code.  The location of the currently anticipated new pipeline needed to connect the Combined Treatment Plant to Rialto's municipal water supply system shall be consistent with the location/alignment of the piping depicted in the conceptual diagram included as Exhibit D. e. If needed, distribution piping (including sampling
station) and infrastructure necessary for the delivery of water to Colton’s municipal water supply system to be reviewed and approved pursuant to Rialto’s “Conditional Development Permit” in accordance with Chapter 18.66 of the Rialto Municipal Code and “Precise Plan of Design” approval process as provided in Rialto City Council Resolution No. 2507, dated April 5, 1983.  Upon such approval, this access shall be documented in an Encroachment Permit issued by Rialto in accordance with Chapter 11.04 of the City of Rialto Municipal Code. f. If needed, and as reasonably necessary, distribution piping and infrastructure necessary for the delivery of water to a water purveyor other than Colton, to be reviewed and approved pursuant to Rialto’s “Conditional Development Permit” in accordance with Chapter 18.66 of the Rialto Municipal Code and “Precise Plan of Design” approval process as provided in Rialto City Council Resolution No. 2507, dated April 5, 1983.  Upon such approval, this access shall be documented in an Encroachment Permit issued by Rialto in accordance with Chapter 11.04 of the City of Rialto Municipal Code. g. Up to seven monitoring wells, two piezometers required by DDW for EW‐1, one piezometer required by DDW for CR‐3, and additional piezometers as may be required by DDW upon installation of EW‐2; installation of these wells and piezometers shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to encroachment permits issued by Rialto in accordance with Chapter 11.04 of the City of Rialto Municipal Code.

2. All wells, pipelines, and other facilities described above and within the jurisdictional boundaries of Rialto, shall: (a) be located, to the maximum extent feasible, in public rights of way; (b) be consistent with Rialto’s land use and development plans and entitlements for such properties; and (c) be in locations approved by Rialto in its sole discretion. 34 3. Costs of Access, Permitting, Review, and Approvals:
a. Because Emhart has paid Rialto $20,000 as described in Paragraph III.C.2.b., Rialto shall not charge Emhart any additional fee or cost in providing the access, review, and approvals described in Paragraph VII.B.1. b. Access for monitoring and sampling of wells and
piezometers located on Rialto real property or rights of way shall be documented in an Encroachment License Agreement in accordance with Chapter 11.05 of the City of Rialto Municipal Code; provided that Rialto shall not charge Emhart any fee or cost associated with such agreement or sampling.
c. Nothing in this Agreement modifies Rialto’s and
Emhart’s rights and obligations under the Work Consent Decree regarding access, permitting, review, and approvals necessary to perform the Work beyond that identified in Paragraph VII.B.1.

4. Emhart shall pay Rialto, within 60 days of the Effective Date, $50,000 to (a) un‐encumber the land within the Combined Treatment Plant Lease Area that is subject to Rialto’s agreements with Lewis‐Hillwood Rialto Company, LLC (“LHR”); and (b) satisfy all aesthetic requirements of Rialto and/or LHR (or any subsequent developer) for the Combined Treatment Plant Lease Area.

C. County Access to Rialto Property

1. Rialto shall provide the County access to certain Rialto property as set forth in the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement, the lease executed pursuant to that agreement, and any amendment to that lease.

2. The County shall pay Rialto, within 60 days of the Effective Date of the Agreement, $50,000 to (a) un‐encumber the land within the Combined Treatment Plant Lease Area that is subject to Rialto’s agreements with LHR; and (b) satisfy all aesthetic requirements of Rialto and/or LHR (or any subsequent developer) for the Combined Treatment Plant Lease Area.

VIII. Ownership of Combined Remedies Components
A. Ownership of the components of the Regional Board Remedy by Rialto and the County is controlled by the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement.
35 B. Upon DDW issuance of the amendment to Rialto’s DDW Permit required by this Agreement:

1. Rialto shall own (i) the conveyance pipelines connecting the Combined Treatment Plant to the Rialto municipal water supply system; and (ii) that portion of any conveyance pipeline and infrastructure, constructed by Emhart within the jurisdictional boundaries of Rialto, connecting the Rialto and Colton municipal water supply systems. By owning such components, Rialto does not assume any of Emhart’s obligations under this Agreement for the costs to operate and maintain such components.

2. Colton shall own that portion of any conveyance pipeline and infrastructure, constructed by Emhart within the jurisdictional boundaries of Colton, connecting the Rialto and Colton municipal water supply systems. By owning such components, Colton does not assume any of Emhart’s obligations under this Agreement for the costs to operate and maintain such components.

3. In the event the Parties agree in writing to deliver water to Colton by means other than a connection between the Rialto and Colton municipal water supply systems, that agreement shall control ownership of any pipelines, valves or other components constructed pursuant thereto.

4. All other components of the Combined Remedies installed and/or constructed by Emhart, including but not limited to extraction well EW‐1, the conveyance pipeline from EW‐1 to the Combined Treatment Plant, and the Combined Treatment Plant expansion components, shall be owned by Emhart.

IX. Indemnification
A. Emhart’s Indemnification Obligations

1. Emhart shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Rialto, Colton, and the County, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives from any and all Claims arising out of any negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Emhart and its officers, agents, employees, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives in performing any activities under this Agreement.

2. Emhart shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Rialto and its officials, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives, 36 from any Claims against Rialto, based solely on Rialto’s status as an owner of real property or its status as an operator of the Combined Treatment Plant or the Combined Capture System, arising out of the release of a hazardous substance caused by Emhart or its officers, agents, employees, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives in performing any activities under this Agreement, after the Effective Date of this Agreement, brought under any federal or state environmental law.

3. Emhart shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Rialto, Colton, and the County from mechanics’ liens and other liens levied against property owned by Rialto, Colton, or the County for any labor or material furnished to Emhart, its agents, or contractors in connection with Emhart’s performance of any activities under this Agreement. In the event any such liens are recorded, then upon written demand by Rialto, Colton, or the County, Emhart shall promptly obtain and record releases of any such liens.

4. Emhart shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County, Colton, and Rialto, and their elected officials, employees, and agents, from any Claims arising out of the failure of Emhart, its agents, or contractors to comply with any federal or state prevailing wage law in performing any activities under this Agreement. For purposes of this Paragraph, Colton, Rialto, and the County are not contractors or agents of Emhart.

B. The County’s Indemnification Obligations

1. The County shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Rialto, Colton, and Emhart, and their officials or officers, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives from any and all Claims arising out of any negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of the County and its officials, agents, employees, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives in performing any activities under this Agreement.

2. The County shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Rialto, Colton, and Emhart from mechanics’ liens and other liens levied against property owned by Rialto, Colton, or Emhart for any labor or material furnished to the County, its agents, or contractors in connection with the County’s performance of any activities under this Agreement. In the event any such liens are recorded, then upon written demand by Rialto, Colton, or Emhart, the County shall promptly obtain and record releases of any such liens.
37 3. The County shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Colton, Rialto, and Emhart, and their elected officials or officers, employees, and agents, from any Claims arising out of the failure of the County, its agents, or contractors to comply with any federal or state prevailing wage law in performing any activities under this Agreement. For purposes of this Paragraph, Colton, Rialto, and Emhart are not contractors or agents of the County.

4. Paragraph 11 of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement sets forth existing defense and indemnification obligations of the County to Rialto.

Nothing in this Agreement supersedes, abrogates, or modifies those obligations as to activities covered therein.

C. Rialto’s Indemnification Obligations

1. Rialto shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Colton and Emhart and their officials or officers, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives from any and all Claims arising out of any negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Rialto and its officers, agents, employees, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives in performing any activities under this Agreement.

2. Rialto shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County, and its officials, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives, from any and all Claims arising out of any negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Rialto and its officials, agents, employees, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives in performing any activities under this Agreement not covered by the defense and indemnity obligations in Paragraph 11 of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement.

3. Rialto shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Colton, the County, and Emhart from mechanics’ liens and other liens levied against property owned by Colton, the County, or Emhart for any labor or material furnished to Rialto, its agents, or contractors in connection with the Rialto’s performance of any activities under this Agreement. In the event any such liens are recorded, then upon written demand by Colton, the County, or Emhart, Rialto shall promptly obtain and record releases of any such liens.

4. Rialto shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Colton, the County, and Emhart and their elected officials or officers, employees, and agents, 38 from any Claims arising out of the failure of Rialto, its agents, or contractors to comply with any federal or state prevailing wage law in performing any activities under this Agreement. For purposes of this Paragraph, Colton, the County, and Emhart are not contractors or agents of Rialto.

5. Paragraph 11 of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement sets forth existing indemnification obligations of the County to Rialto. Nothing in this Agreement supersedes, abrogates, or modifies those obligations as to activities covered therein.

D. Colton’s Indemnification Obligations
Colton shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Rialto, Emhart, and the County, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives, from any and all Claims arising out of any negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of Colton and its officials, agents, employees, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, and representatives in performing any activities under this Agreement.

E. Defense of Claims

1. Any Party seeking to enforce any indemnification right or obligation under Paragraph IX (the “Indemnified Party”) shall give prompt written notice of the Claim to the Party against which it seeks to enforce such rights (the “Indemnifying Party”).

2. Upon receipt of such notice, the Indemnifying Party shall, within 30 days, provide written notice of its acceptance or rejection of the tendered defense. If the Indemnifying Party rejects the tendered defense, it shall provide a detailed explanation for the rejection. If the tendered defense is accepted, the Indemnifying Party shall defend the Claim.

3. The Indemnified Party shall be entitled, at its own expense, to participate in the defense of the Claim.

4. The Indemnifying Party shall obtain written approval from the Indemnified Party prior to entering into any settlement agreement regarding the Claim that imposes any obligation, duty, limitation or restriction of any kind on the Indemnified Party.
39 5. An Indemnified Party will not admit any liability or agree to settle or compromise any Claim without the written consent of the Indemnifying Party.

6. In the event an Indemnifying Party rejects or fails to act upon a tendered defense as provided for in Paragraph IX, the dispute shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions in Paragraph XII without any obligation to comply with any governmental tort claim procedure.

F. Released Claims
The indemnification rights and obligations of the Parties under Paragraph IX do not extend to any Claims released or the subject of a covenant not to sue in the Work Consent Decree or the County Consent Decree.

X. Insurance Requirements
A. Emhart’s Insurance Obligations
Emhart shall secure insurance coverage, to the extent comparable insurance is not already in place, as follows:

1. Occurrence‐based Commercial General Liability insurance coverage:
a. to be secured no later than 15 days following the
Effective Date and maintained until the first anniversary of Emhart’s termination of its participation in this Agreement;
b. with limits of $5,000,000 in the aggregate;
c. that includes each other Party as an additional insured (including coverage within the products‐completed operations hazard); d. under which the insurer waives any right to subrogation as to claims against each other Party; and
e. which applies on a primary and non‐contributory basis.

2. Occurrence‐based Automobile Liability insurance coverage:
40 a. to be secured no later than 15 days following the Effective Date and maintained until the first anniversary of Emhart’s termination of its participation in this Agreement;
b. with a per occurrence combined single limit of
$2,000,000;
c. with each other Party included as an additional insured; d. under which the insurer waives any right to subrogation as to claims against each other Party; and
e. which applies on a primary and non‐contributory basis.

3. Worker’s Compensation insurance: To be secured and
maintained as required by all applicable laws and regulations.

4. Occurrence‐Based Contractor’s Pollution Liability insurance:
a. to be secured at least 15 days prior to the
commencement, by Emhart, of construction, operation, and/or maintenance activities on any portion of the Combined Remedies, and maintained until the completion of such activities; and
b. with a per‐occurrence combined single limit of
$1,000,000.

5. Professional Liability insurance. In the event Emhart or its agents uses professional engineering or land surveyor services in connection with the design, permitting, construction, and physical modification of the Combined Remedies, Emhart or its agents shall require the providers of such services to secure and maintain professional liability insurance with limits of $1,000,000 per claim covering negligent acts, errors, or omissions in the performance of such services. For a period of three years after the completion of its services, the professional engineering or land surveying contractor shall either maintain coverage or purchase an extended reporting period on the policy required by this Paragraph.

6. First‐Party Property insurance:
41 a. to be secured upon EPA’s Certification of Completion of Construction as provided in the Work Consent Decree and maintained until the first anniversary of the Emhart’s termination of its participation in this Agreement;
b. covering equipment and facilities owned by Emhart (as set forth in Paragraph VIII) in sufficient amounts to cover replacement value of the property involved.

B. County’s Insurance Obligations
The County shall secure insurance coverage, to the extent comparable insurance not already in place, as follows:

1. Occurrence‐based Commercial General Liability insurance coverage:
a. to be secured no later than 15 days following the
Effective Date and maintained until the first anniversary of the County’s termination of its participation in this Agreement
b. with limits of $5,000,000 in the aggregate;
c. that includes each other Party as an additional insured (including coverage within the products‐completed operations hazard); d. under which the insurer waives any right to subrogation as to claims against each other Party; and
e. which applies on a primary and non‐contributory basis.

2. Occurrence‐based Automobile Liability insurance coverage:
a. to be secured no later than 15 days following the
Effective Date and maintained until the first anniversary of the County’s termination of its participation in this Agreement;
b. with a per occurrence combined single limit of
$2,000,000;
c. with each other Party included as an additional insured; 42 d. under which the insurer waives any right to subrogation as to claims against each other Party; and
e. which applies on a primary and non‐contributory basis.

3. Worker’s Compensation insurance:

To be secured and maintained as required by all applicable laws and regulations.

4. Occurrence‐Based Contractor’s Pollution Liability insurance:
a. to be secured, in the event that the County performs construction, operation, and/or maintenance activities on any portion of the Combined Remedies, at least 15 days prior to the commencement of such activities, and maintained until the completion of such activities; and b. with a per‐occurrence combined single limit of
$1,000,000.

5. Professional Liability insurance: In the event the County or its agents uses professional engineering or land surveyor services in connection with the design, permitting, construction, and physical modification of the Combined Remedies, the County or its agents shall require the providers of such services to secure and maintain professional liability insurance with limits of $1,000,000 per claim covering negligent acts, errors, or omissions in the performance of such services. For a period of three years after the completion of its services, the professional engineering or land surveying contractor shall either maintain coverage or purchase an extended reporting period on the policy required by this Paragraph.

6. First‐Party Property insurance:
a. to be secured no later than 15 days following the
Effective Date and maintained until the first anniversary of the County’s termination of its participation in this Agreement;
b. covering equipment and facilities owned by the County (as set forth in Paragraph VIII) in sufficient amounts to cover replacement value of the property involved.
43 C. Rialto’s Insurance Obligations
Rialto shall secure insurance coverage, to the extent comparable insurance is not already in place, as follows:

1. Occurrence‐based Commercial General Liability insurance coverage:
a. to be secured, at least 15 days prior to commencement of Rialto’s operation of the Combined Treatment Plant and Combined Capture System, and maintained until the first anniversary of Rialto’s termination of its participation in this Agreement;
b. with limits of $5,000,000 in the aggregate;
c. that includes each other Party as an additional insured (including coverage within the products‐completed operations hazard); d. under which the insurer waives any right to subrogation as to claims against each other Party; and
e. which applies on a primary and non‐contributory basis.

2. Occurrence‐based Automobile Liability insurance coverage:
a. to be secured, prior to commencement of Rialto’s
operation of the Combined Treatment Plant and Combined Capture System, and maintained until the first anniversary of Rialto’s termination of its participation in this Agreement;
b. with a per occurrence combined single limit of
$2,000,000;
c. with each other Party included as an additional insured; d. under which the insurer waives any right to subrogation as to claims against each other Party; and
e. which applies on a primary and non‐contributory basis.

3. Worker’s Compensation insurance: To be secured and
maintained as required by all applicable laws and regulations. 44 4. Occurrence‐Based Pollution Liability insurance:
a. to be secured, at least 15 days prior to commencement of Rialto’s operation of the Combined Treatment Plant and Combined Capture System and maintained until Rialto’s termination of its participation in this Agreement; and
b. with a per‐occurrence combined single limit of
$1,000,000.

5. Professional Liability insurance. In the event Rialto or its agents uses professional engineering, consulting or land surveyor services in connection with Rialto’s operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies, Rialto or its agents shall require the providers of such services to secure and maintain professional liability insurance with limits of $1,000,000 per claim covering negligent acts, errors, or omissions in the performance of such services.

For a period of three years after the completion of its services, the professional engineering or land surveying contractor shall either maintain coverage or purchase an extended reporting period on the policy required by this Paragraph.

6. First‐Party Property insurance:
a. to be secured upon EPA’s Certification of Completion of Construction as provided in the Work Consent Decree and maintained until the first anniversary of the termination of this Agreement; b. covering equipment and facilities owned by Rialto (as set forth in Paragraph VIII) in sufficient amounts to cover replacement value of the property involved.

D. Colton’s Insurance Obligations
Colton shall secure insurance coverage, to the extent comparable insurance is not already in place, as follows:

1. Professional Liability insurance. In the event Colton or its agents uses professional engineering, or land surveyor services in connection with the design, permitting, construction, and physical modification of the Combined Remedies, Colton or its agents shall require the providers of such services to secure and maintain professional liability insurance with limits of $1,000,000 per 45 claim covering negligent acts, errors, or omissions in the performance of such services. For a period of three years after the completion of its services, the professional engineering or land surveying contractor shall either maintain coverage or purchase an extended reporting period on the policy required by this Paragraph.

2. First‐Party Property insurance:
a. to be secured upon EPA’s Certification of Completion of Construction as provided in the Work Consent Decree and maintained until the first anniversary of the termination of this Agreement; b. covering equipment and facilities owned by Colton (as set forth in Paragraph VIII) in sufficient amounts to cover replacement value of the property involved.

E. General Terms Applicable to Insurance as Required by this Agreement

1. The insurance company or companies with which the Parties contract (either directly or, for governmental entities, indirectly through a joint powers authority) for insurance as required by this Paragraph X shall: (1) be legally authorized to engage in the business of furnishing insurance in the State of California; and (2) have a current A.M. Best Rating not less than “A‐VIII” and “BBB” in Standard & Poor’s.

2. In the event that a Party concludes the limits or terms of the coverage identified above are no longer adequate or the policies as described herein are no longer available under then‐existing market conditions or, for government entities, no longer available through a joint powers insurance authority, that Party shall so notify the other Parties and the Parties shall meet and confer to discuss the need to adjust such insurance coverage requirements.

In the event the Parties are unable to agree, the dispute shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions of Paragraph XII.

3. Each Party may satisfy its obligations in Paragraph X by demonstrating that any contractor or subcontractor it engages to perform the activities for which it is responsible under this Agreement maintains the appropriate types and amounts of required insurance coverage for those activities including, if required above, additional insured certificates. 46 4. Upon request, each Party shall provide any other Party with certificates of insurance, or other documentation, necessary to evidence the existence and maintenance of the insurance coverage required in this Agreement.

The responding Party shall include information regarding deductibles and self‐ insurance, if any. If a Party is satisfying an insurance coverage obligation in this Agreement using (1) a self‐insured retention (“SIR”) of $500,000 or greater or (2) a deductible of $500,000 or greater, any other Party may request documentation that the insured Party has dedicated funds or another financial assurance that demonstrates the ability of such Party to pay such deductible or SIR. Unless agreed to in writing by the other Parties, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld, a Party may not satisfy an insurance coverage requirement of this Agreement solely through self‐insurance without an excess insurance policy in place over the self‐insurance. Disputes arising under this Paragraph shall be subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions of Paragraph XII.

XI. Record Retention
A. Emhart shall reimburse Rialto for costs it incurs for record retention relating to the Work, and the copying or production of such records to EPA as may be required from time to time under the Work Consent Decree. To the extent it incurs such costs, Rialto shall annually submit an invoice for such costs to Emhart.

Emhart shall pay such invoices within 30 days of receipt.

XII. Dispute Resolution
A. Except as provided in Paragraph B, below, any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be resolved pursuant to Paragraph 86 of the Work Consent Decree, which provides:

86.   Dispute Resolution By or Between Settling Work
Defendant [Emhart], Rialto, Colton, and or the County of San Bernardino Regarding Implementation Agreements
Entered Pursuant to Paragraphs 10 and 12.
a.   Informal Dispute Resolution.  Any dispute
regarding the implementation agreements entered into
by and between Rialto, Colton, the County of San
Bernardino, and Settling Work Defendant as provided
for in Paragraphs 10 and 12 initially shall be the subject 47 of informal negotiations between the parties to the
dispute.  The period for informal negotiations shall not exceed twenty (20) Days from the time the dispute
arises, unless it is modified by written agreement of the parties to the dispute.  The dispute shall be considered to have arisen when one party send the other parties a
written Notice of Dispute, a copy of which shall be
provided to EPA, Rialto, Colton, the County of San
Bernardino, the Settling Federal Agencies, and the
Settling Work Defendant.
b.   Resolution by this Court.  If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute through informal dispute
resolution, any party to the dispute may commence a
proceeding in this action [the Consolidated Federal
Actions] before this Court [the United States District
Court for the Central District of California] by motion as provided for in the Local Rules of the Central District of California.
c.   Standard for Dispute Resolution.  This Court shall resolve any dispute brought before it under this
Paragraph under California contract law.

B. As set forth in Paragraph IV.E.4.d, disputes regarding application of Rialto’s water quality standards arising under Paragraph IV.E.4.c shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions set forth in Paragraph 10.2 of the County Consent Decree.

XIII. Termination
A. Duration of the Agreement

1. This Agreement will continue in effect until both the County and Emhart have terminated their participation in this Agreement under this Paragraph XIII.

2. If the County believes it has met the requirements for Closure, it shall, at least 60 days prior to seeking Regional Board approval of such Closure, provide written notice to Emhart, Rialto, and Colton of its intention to do so. 48 Within 30 days after such notice, the Parties shall meet and confer to discuss the steps, following the Regional Board’s approval of the County’s request for Closure, to be taken to effectuate the County’s termination of participation in this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the requirements of Paragraph XIII.B.1 and B.2, and, as necessary, what, if any, provisions of this Agreement should continue in effect to address any ongoing post‐Closure requirements (e.g., groundwater monitoring). If the Parties are unable to so agree, the dispute shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions of Paragraph XII.

3. If Emhart believes it has met the requirements for Closure, it shall, at least 60 days prior to seeking EPA approval of such Closure, provide written notice to the County, Rialto, and Colton of its intention to do so. Within 30 days after such notice, the Parties shall meet and confer to discuss the steps, following EPA’s approval of Emhart’s request for Closure, to be taken to effectuate Emhart’s termination of participation in this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the requirements of Paragraph XIII.B.1 and B.3. and, as necessary, what, if any, provisions of this Agreement should continue in effect to address any ongoing post‐Closure requirements (e.g., groundwater monitoring). If the Parties are unable to so agree, the dispute shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions of Paragraph XII.

4. If either the County or Emhart obtains approval for Closure, provided that it has notified the Parties as set forth above, all of its obligations under this Agreement shall terminate 30 days after receipt of such approval, except its obligations set forth in Paragraphs IX (Indemnification), X (Insurance) XIII.A.2. and 3. (ongoing post‐closure requirements), XIII.B. (termination by either Emhart or the County), and XIII.C (termination by both Emhart and the County). Unless otherwise agreed, the meet and confer process referenced in Paragraphs XIII.A.2. and 3. shall conclude by this date.

5. Nothing in this Agreement supersedes, modifies, or abrogates the rights and obligations of the County and Emhart to each other set forth in the termination provisions of the County/Emhart Implementation Agreement.

6. As between the County and Rialto, this Paragraph XIII supersedes Paragraph 7.b of County/Rialto Implementation Agreement and Paragraph 11.b of Exhibit K of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement. 49 B. Effect of Termination by Either Emhart or the County

1. Termination by the County or Emhart: From the date either the County or Emhart terminates its participation in this Agreement as provided in Paragraph XIII.A.3, while the other (the “Non‐Terminating Party”) continues to participate:
a. The Non‐Terminating Party shall have the right to
continue to use the Combined Remedies and any distribution piping and infrastructure constructed to allow delivery of water to Colton’s municipal water supply system, as necessary; and
b. The Non‐Terminating Party shall assume all rights,
responsibilities, and obligations under this Agreement associated with the operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies, including the costs to operate and maintain the Combined Remedies as provided in Paragraph IV.F.

2. County Termination Before Emhart:  If the County terminates its participation in this Agreement before Emhart terminates its participation:
a. Disposition and/or use of components of the Combined Remedies owned by the County that are located on real property owned by Rialto shall be addressed as follows:
i. Emhart may, at its option, assume ownership of
some or all of such components.
ii. To the extent Emhart does not elect to assume
ownership of some or all of such components, the County shall have the right to remove such components.  If the County so elects, the County shall remove at its expense such components of the Combined Remedies and restore such ground surface to pre‐construction conditions.
iii. To the extent that Emhart does not elect to
assume such ownership and the County does not elect to remove such components, Rialto, at its option, may elect to assume ownership of such components.  Upon transfer of ownership, Rialto shall be responsible for the use, costs, operation, maintenance, and/or subsequent abandonment of all such components for which it has assumed ownership.
50 iv. To the extent that Emhart and Rialto do not elect to assume such ownership pursuant to Paragraphs XIII.B.2.a.i and XIII.B.2.a.iii, the County shall remove such components at the County’s expense, and restore the ground surface to pre‐construction conditions.
v. As part of the meet and confer pursuant to
Paragraph XIII.A.1, the Parties shall discuss any transfer of ownership provided for in this Paragraph XIII.B.2, and execute any documents necessary to effectuate such transfer.  Unless otherwise agreed, any removal of components and restoration shall be completed within one year of the County’s termination.  In connection with the removal and restoration required by this paragraph, the Parties shall cooperate in good faith to minimize the impact on the Combined Remedies and the components to be left in place.
b. Disposition and/or use of components of the Combined Remedies owned by the County that are located on real property owned by the County shall be addressed as follows:
i. Emhart may, at its option, elect to use some or all
of such components. This election shall be made during the meet and confer process provided for in Paragraph XIII.A.1.  The County and Emhart shall thereafter negotiate appropriate terms for access to County‐owned land to permit Emhart to use such components, including standard terms for security, insurance, maintenance, repair, termination and other reasonable terms.  Such access shall be provided without the need for payment of rent or other similar monetary consideration.
ii. If Emhart does not elect to use some or all of such components, the County shall have the right to use, or grant the right to use, such components at its discretion.
c. Emhart shall not succeed to the County’s lease of Rialto Water Rights.

3. Emhart Termination Before County:  If Emhart terminates its participation in this Agreement before the County terminates its participation:
a. The County may, at its option, succeed to Emhart’s lease of Colton Water Rights.  Such election shall be discussed as part of the meet and confer pursuant to Paragraph XIII.A.2; and
51 b. The County may, at its option, assume ownership of some or all of the components of the Combined Remedies owned by Emhart.  To the extent the County does not elect to assume such ownership, Rialto may, at its option, elect to assume ownership of remaining components of the Combined Remedies previously owned by Emhart, and shall thereafter be responsible for the use, operation, maintenance, and/or subsequent abandonment of such components for which it has assumed ownership.  To the extent neither the County nor Rialto elects to assume such ownership, Emhart shall remove such components, at its expense, and restore the ground surface to pre‐construction conditions.
c. As part of the meet and confer pursuant to
Paragraph XIII.A.2, the Parties shall discuss any transfer of ownership provided for in this Paragraph XIII.B.3., and execute any documents necessary to effectuate such transfer.  Unless otherwise agreed, any removal of components and restoration shall be completed within one year of the Emhart’s termination.  In connection with the removal and restoration required by this paragraph, the Parties shall cooperate in good faith to minimize the impact on the Combined Remedies and the components to be left in place.

C. Ownership/Removal of Infrastructure Upon Termination by Both County and Emhart

1. Once both the County and Emhart have terminated their respective participation in this Agreement, the owner of any portion of the Combined Remedies (i.e., Emhart and/or the County), at its sole expense as provided in the County/Emhart Implementation Agreement and the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement, shall have the right to remove any and all components of the Combined Remedies within one year and to restore the ground surface to pre‐construction conditions.

2. To the extent that the County and/or Emhart do not elect to exercise such right to remove any component of the Combined Remedies as provided in Paragraph XIII.C.1, Rialto shall either (a) require Emhart, at Emhart’s sole expense, to remove any remaining component of the Combined Remedies and restore the ground surface to pre‐construction conditions, or (b) elect to take possession of all such remaining components of the Combined Remedies which shall thereupon become the property of Rialto. Thereafter, Rialto shall be 52 responsible for the use, operation, maintenance, and/or subsequent abandonment of such components for which it has assumed ownership.

3. In removing components of the Combined Remedies, Emhart and the County shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Rialto Municipal Code.

XIV. Notice
Whenever, under the terms of this Agreement, written notice is required to be given or a document is required to be sent by one Party to another, it shall be directed to the individuals at the addresses specified below, unless those individuals or their successors give notice of a change to the other Parties in writing. All notices and submissions shall be considered effective upon receipt, unless otherwise provided.

As to Colton: City Manager
Attn: Bill Smith
City of Colton
650 North LaCadena Dr.

Colton, CA  92324
‐and‐
City Attorney
Attn:  Carlos Campos
Best Best & Krieger LLP
74760 Highway 111, Suite 200
Indian Wells, CA  92210
As to the County: Director, Department of Public Works
825 East Third Street
San Bernardino, CA  92415‐0835
‐and‐
County of San Bernardino
Office of County Counsel
385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 4th Floor
San Bernardino, CA  92415‐0140
53 ‐and‐
The Gallagher Law Group, a Professional
Corporation (for notice only, not for service
of process)
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1550
Los Angeles, CA  90067
Attn:  Timothy V.P. Gallagher
As to Emhart: Joseph W. Hovermill, Esq.

Miles & Stokbridge PC
100 Light Street
Baltimore, MD  21202
As to Rialto: City Attorney for City of Rialto
Attn:  Fred Galante
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
3880 Lemon St., Suite 520
Riverside, CA  92501
‐and‐
Paul Hastings LLP (for notice only, not for
service of process)
55 Second Street
Twenty‐Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA  94105
Attn:  Peter H. Weiner
XV. Miscellaneous Terms
A. Headings.

All paragraph headings in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall have no effect on the interpretation of any paragraph or provision of this Agreement.
54 B. Exhibits.

All exhibits to in this Agreement are incorporated as binding parts of this Agreement unless otherwise stated in the exhibit. The documents labeled “example” in Exhibits F, H, and I are for illustration purposes only and are not binding parts of this Agreement. The notes in italic and underline format in the spreadsheets attached as parts of Exhibits H and I are for guidance only and are not intended to be binding parts of this Agreement. To the extent any notes in those spreadsheets conflict with the terms of the body of this Agreement, the terms of the body of this Agreement shall control. The formulas in those spreadsheets are intended to be binding parts of this Agreement.

C. Construction.

This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed as drafted by all Parties with equal participation in its drafting.

D. Force Majeure.

1. For purposes of this Agreement, “Force Majeure” means any event arising from causes beyond the control of a Party or its contractors that delays or prevents the performance of any obligation under this Agreement despite that Party’s best efforts to fulfill the obligation or avoid the event. Force Majeure includes, but is not limited to: acts of God; fire, flood, windstorm, or earthquake; explosion, riot, or sabotage; war, terrorism, threat of terrorism, or any resulting security measures; strikes, lockouts, or other concerted work stoppages; injunctions; inability to obtain raw material, supplies, or energy; or unscheduled outages, shutdowns, or other loss of any necessary utility.

2. The Party whose performance is delayed or prevented by Force Majeure shall inform the other Parties: (1) orally as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours of learning of the possible delay; and (2) in writing no more than five working days from the commencement of the Force Majeure.

3. The Party whose performance is delayed or prevented by Force Majeure shall use best efforts to minimize the effect and duration of such Force Majeure.
55 4. Any delay in or failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement by a Party caused by Force Majeure shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement or give rise to any claim for damages.

E. Assumption of Certain Emhart Obligations by Black & Decker Inc.

Black & Decker Inc. agrees to assume Emhart’s obligations set forth in Paragraphs IV.F, IX.A, X.A. and XIII of this Agreement in the event Emhart defaults on those responsibilities or obligations.

F. Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

The Parties shall deal with each other in good faith and fairly in all matters arising under this Agreement. The presence or absence of a specific reference to good faith in any paragraph of this Agreement does not affect the obligation of the Parties to deal with each other in good faith and fairly in all matters arising under this Agreement.

G. Governing Law.

This Agreement should be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

H. Signatories.

Each signatory of this Agreement represents that s/he is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Party for which s/he executes this Agreement. Each Party represents that it has the legal authority to enter into this Agreement.

I. Multiple Counterparts.

This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original.

J. Effect of this Agreement on Other Existing Agreements Among the Parties.

1. Nothing in this Agreement supersedes, abrogates, amends, or modifies the provisions of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement, the terms of which are preserved, except as expressly set forth herein. 56 2. As between Rialto and the County, Rialto and the County agree that execution of this Agreement does not implicate Paragraph 10.a.vi of the County/Rialto Implementation Agreement.

3. Rialto and Colton are not parties to, nor are they bound in any way by, the County/Emhart Implementation Agreement.

4. To the extent that this Agreement conflicts with the Rialto/Emhart Cost Agreement dated October 4, 2013, this Agreement shall control.

K. Amendment.

This Agreement may be amended at any time, but only by written agreement executed by all Parties then participating in the Agreement.

Exhibit A
Procedure for Reimbursement of Rialto Consultant Costs
Under Paragraph III.C.2.a
The procedure for Rialto to submit requests for reimbursement of Rialto consultant costs as provided for in Paragraph III.C.2.a incurred during the design, permitting, and construction phases of the Work, (“Reimbursement Request”) shall be as follows:

1. Peter Fox and West Yost Associates Costs: No more frequently than once per quarter, Rialto shall submit its Reimbursement Request to Emhart for costs of time incurred by Peter Fox or West Yost Associates as reasonably required to provide information, evaluate information provided, or attend meetings, as needed, during the design, permitting, and construction phases of the Work, at the ordinary and customary hourly rates charged by Peter Fox and West Yost Associates to perform other such work for Rialto, and supporting documentation. The Reimbursement Request shall include:
a. A written summary of the tasks performed, the time and costs associated with each task, and supporting documentation; b. Confirmation of Rialto’s payment of the invoices described in Paragraph 1, above; and
c. But, in no event, shall Rialto seek payment for (i) the cost of the first 10 hours of time incurred by Peter Fox or West Yost Associates; (ii) the next $8,057.20 of such costs beyond those addressed in Paragraph 1.c.(i); or (iii) costs resolved by the Agreement for Resolution of Emhart/Rialto Cost Issues entered on October 4, 2013, by Emhart and Rialto.

2. Within 30 days after Emhart’s receipt of a Reimbursement Request, Emhart shall pay the appropriate reimbursement amount to Rialto.

Exhibit B
Anticipated Combined Remedies Operation and Maintenance Activities San Bernardino County, California
I. Introduction
This document describes the anticipated activities for operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies. This document is for illustration and budgeting purposes only and does not create any legal rights, obligations, responsibilities or duties, contractual or otherwise, among the Parties to the Four Party Implementation Agreement or any third party. To assist in preparation of an Annual O&M Budget for the Combined Remedies, this document will be evaluated annually and updated as necessary.

The design and operation of the Combined Remedies merge the existing Regional Board Remedy with the planned groundwater extraction well and treatment plant expansion. Emhart Industries, Inc. (“Emhart”) and the County of San Bernardino (the “County”) anticipate that the operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies will achieve the remedial objectives of: (1) the Work Consent Decree, which Emhart is required to meet; and (2) the Regional Board Order, which the County is required to meet.

The activities to operate and maintain the Combined Remedies as described herein, are: (1) operation and maintenance of the Combined Capture System; (2) operation and maintenance of the Combined Treatment Plant; (3) assisting the Parties in implementation of the Water Management Plan; (4) compliance with Rialto’s DDW Permit (including compliance sampling monitoring and compilation and distribution of monthly reports in accordance with the DDW permit); and (5) overall project management and oversight of all of the above.

II. Definitions
A. “Annual O&M Budget” means the budget prepared Rialto (or its third party contractor) and submitted to Emhart and the County by August 1 of each year shall for the work necessary to operate and maintain the Combined Remedies in a cost‐effective manner.

B. “Combined Capture System” means the extraction wells and associated conveyance piping connected to the Combined Treatment Plant necessary for operation of the Combined Remedies. There are currently three existing extraction wells (Miro‐2, Miro‐3, and Rialto‐3) and one planned extraction well (EW‐1) that will be connected to the Combined Treatment Plant; the locations of these wells and associated piping are shown on Attachment B‐1 (Locations of Combined Treatment Plant and Combined Capture System). This definition includes any additional extraction wells and associated piping that may be added in the future, as needed.

C. “Combined Remedies” means the Combined Capture System and the Combined Treatment Plant, but does not include groundwater monitoring wells.

D. “Combined Treatment Plant” means a system of groundwater treatment components, consisting of (1) the County treatment plant at CR‐3, in place as of the Effective Date, constructed by the County to comply with the Regional Board Order; (2) the expansion of the County treatment plant constructed by Emhart, after the Effective Date, to comply with the Work Consent Decree (as described in detail in the final design approved by EPA on May 19, 2014); and (3) any future expansion of such treatment plant as necessary or appropriate to comply with the Work Consent Decree or the Regional Board Order.

E. “DDW” means the California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water, formerly, the California Department of Public Health Division of Drinking Water.

F. “Parties” means the County, Rialto, Colton, and Emhart.

G. “Rialto‐3” means City of Rialto Well No. 3, also referred to as “CR‐3.” H. “Rialto’s DDW Permit” means domestic water supply Permit No. 71‐ 009 issued to Rialto by DDW on January 8, 1971, as amended by Permit Amendment No. 05‐13‐06PA‐005 issued on May 8, 2006, Permit Amendment No. 05‐13‐09PA‐042 issued on January 4, 2010, and as Permit No. 71‐009 may be amended in the future.

I. “Water Management Plan” or “WMP” means the water management plan developed by the Parties pursuant to Paragraph VI of the Four Party Implementation Agreement.

III. Background Information
A. Site Setting
The locations of the Combined Remedies facilities are displayed in Attachment B‐1. A Process Flow Diagram is included as Attachment B‐2.

B. Combined Treatment Plant Operational Information
As designed, the Combined Remedies will consist of the following equipment:
 Four groundwater extraction well pumps with variable frequency drives (at extraction wells Rialto‐3, Miro‐2, Miro‐3, and EW‐1);  100,000‐gallon steel bolted reservoir (equalization tank);  Desander unit (for Rialto‐3);
 Six bag filter units (for all influent water);
 An ultraviolet (UV) system (for Rialto‐3);
 Two booster pumps – 250 horsepower (hp), 150 pounds per square inch (psi) rated at 2,250 gpm each;
 Sulfuric acid injection unit (pH adjustment) – this unit is not operational at this time and there is no requirement to resume its operation;
 Six ion exchange resin (IX) vessels;
 Eight granular activated carbon (GAC) vessels; and
 Hypochlorination injection system.

C. Untreated Groundwater Constituents of Concern
The Combined Treatment Plant is designed to remove the following constituents of concern from extracted groundwater:
 Perchlorate; and
 VOCs, including trichloroethene (TCE)
The influent stream of the Combined Treatment Plant is expected to contain VOCs and perchlorate. The influent from CR‐3 may also contain coliform bacteria on an intermittent basis, which if present is treated prior to the water entering the equalization tank to protect the downstream treatment vessels.

IV. Anticipated Operation and Maintenance Activities
A. Combined Capture System
Operation of the Combined Capture System includes, but is not limited to, regulating extraction rates as directed by Emhart and the County to (1) achieve Emhart’s and the County’s respective remedial requirements; and (2) ensure that the volume of water extracted does not exceed the water rights leased to the County by Rialto and Colton, and to Emhart by Colton. Attachment B‐3 identifies routine (daily) and non‐routine (periodic) operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities.

B. Combined Treatment Plant
Operation of the Combined Treatment Plant includes, but is not limited to, those routine (daily) and non‐routine (periodic) activities identified in Attachment B‐3.

C. DDW Permit Compliance
Operation of the Combined Remedies shall, at all times, be in compliance with Rialto’s DDW Permit (including compliance sampling monitoring and compilation and distribution of monthly reports in accordance with Rialto’s DDW Permit). Compliance with Rialto’s DDW Permit is anticipated to include, at a minimum, compliance monitoring and sampling at the following locations:
 The influent stream from operating extraction wells
(Attachment B‐2);
o Rialto‐3 – Location 1A;
o Miro‐2 – Location 1B;
o Miro‐3 – Location 1C; and
o EW‐1 ‐ Location 1D.
 The effluent point of the UV system (Attachment B‐2, Location 2);  The effluent point of each of the two lead perchlorate removal (IX) vessels (Attachment B‐2, Location 4) (two sample locations);  The effluent point of each of the first lag IX vessels (Attachment B‐2, Location 5) (two sample locations);
 The effluent point of each of the second lag IX vessels (Attachment B‐2, Location 6) (two sample locations);
 The midpoint between each of the four pairs of GAC vessels (Attachment B‐2, Location 7) (four sample locations);
 The post‐treatment effluent stream (Attachment B‐2, Location 9) (two sample locations); and
 Near‐field monitoring wells (as identified by Rialto to be sampled by the Operator upon issuance of the amendment to Rialto’s DDW Permit).

D. Assisting in Implementation of the Water Management Plan During operation of the Combined Remedies, the operator will attend meetings to assist in the development and documentation of the WMP as directed by the Parties and to thereafter implement the WMP.

E. Overall Management and Oversight
Operation of the Combined Remedies includes overall management and oversight of the activities described in Paragraphs IV.A through D, above.

F. Excluded Activities
The following activities are excluded from operation and maintenance of the Combined Remedies:
 Determination of extraction well pump rates required for the County and Emhart to meet their respective remedial objectives of the Regional Board Order (for the County) and the Work Consent Decree (for Emhart) and the corresponding interaction with the Regional Board and USEPA;
 Collection of groundwater monitoring data from County‐installed monitoring wells and piezometers pursuant to Paragraph IV.D.3 of the Four Party Implementation Agreement;
 Collection of groundwater monitoring data from Emhart‐installed monitoring wells and piezometers that Emhart may, in the future, elect to collect itself as provided for in Paragraph IV.D.3 of the Four Party Implementation Agreement;
 Preparation of quarterly monitoring reports to the Regional Board on behalf of the County;
 Preparation of compliance reporting to USEPA on behalf of Emhart; and
 Major equipment replacement and/or capital improvements.

G. Contractor Qualifications
It is anticipated that the Combined Treatment Plant will be classified as a T3 or T4 treatment facility. The operator must be authorized by law to operate and maintain the Combined Remedies including all operator and shift operator qualification requirements set forth in Rialto’s DDW Permit. The operator also must be 40‐Hour HAZWOPER‐trained, excluding subcontractors, and all operator personnel must possess valid drivers’ licenses at the appropriate levels as necessary to perform essential job functions.

V. Attached Support Documents and Reports
The following are attached as referenced herein:
 Attachment B‐1 – Locations of Combined Treatment Plant and Combined Capture System
 Attachment B‐2 – Process Flow Diagram
 Attachment B‐3 Combined Remedies Operation and Maintenance Activities
ATTACHMENT B‐1
²A
²A
A²
DE
Combined
TreatmentPlant
North Ayala Drive
WestLeiskeDrive
North Fitzgerald Drive
North Linden Avenue
Rialto
MunicipalAirport
MIRO-2
MIRO-3
EW-1
RIALTO3
¯
0400
ScaleinFeet

SOURCEAREAOPERABLEUNIT

ROCKETS,FIREWORKS,ANDFLARESSITE
PREPAREDBY:

AJP(ERM)
JOBNO.0179962
FILE:AttachmentB1.mxd
M:\Projects\Emhart_Rialto\Portland\GIS\IA\Attachment B1.mxd AJP 5/6/2015 AttachmentB-1

LOCATIONSOFCOMBINED

TREATMENTPLANTAND

Legend
A²
ProposedExtractionWellLocation
DE
CityofRialtoProductionWell
²A
MiroWells
PipelineConnectingEW-1to
CombinedTreatmentPlant
PipelineConnecting
Miro-2andMiro-3tothe
CombinedTreatmentPlant
ATTACHMENT B‐2

SOURCE AREA OPERABLE UNIT
Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares Superfund Site
ATTACHMENT B-2

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
PREPARED BY:

B.SWENSON (ERM)
JOB NO. 0179962
FILE: Rialto 0x Process Flow.dwg
PREPARED BY:

B.SWENSON (ERM)
JOB NO. 0179962
FILE: Rialto 0x Process Flow.dwg

SOURCE AREA OPERABLE UNIT
Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares Superfund Site
ATTACHMENT B-2

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
ATTACHMENT B‐3

COMBINED REMEDIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Daily Activities
Description
Standard in‐house
operations to be
performed by Operator
Per Fixed Price Contract
Third Party
Contractor Cost to
be reimbursed as
Needed Notes
D1 Check operational status. Operator to perform
work. Third party not
needed.

None
D2 Visually inspect and record
reservoir level and verify
that level does not exceed
high‐high or low‐low levels.