2015 Water Facilities Master Plan

Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015

Rancho California Water District Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 2 of 304

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ...... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 8 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 16 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...... 16 1.2 STUDY AREA ...... 19 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING WATER SYSTEMS ...... 20 2.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM ...... 21 2.1.1 Distribution Infrastructure ...... 25 2.2 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ...... 39 2.2.1 Distribution Infrastructure ...... 41 CHAPTER 3. WATER DEMANDS ...... 49 3.1 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION ...... 49 3.2 HISTORIC WATER USE ...... 55 3.3 EXISTING WATER DEMANDS ...... 62 3.3.1 Comparison to District Production Records ...... 65 3.3.2 Recent Trends in Potable Water Demand ...... 65 3.4 DUTY FACTORS ...... 69 3.5 BUILD-OUT WATER DEMANDS ...... 72 3.6 WATER SERVICE OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT’S SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY ..... 85 3.7 POTABLE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BY 5-YEAR INCREMENT ...... 91 3.8 DATA STORAGE FRAMEWORK ...... 97 CHAPTER 4. WATER SUPPLY EVALUATION ...... 98 4.1 IMPORTED WATER ...... 102 4.1.1 Existing Supply Capacity ...... 102 4.1.2 Existing Wheeling Capacity Requirements ...... 106 4.1.2 Historical Purchases of Imported Water ...... 107 4.1.3 Cost ...... 110 4.1.4 Quality ...... 110 4.1.5 Reliability ...... 113 4.1.6 Future Supply Capacity ...... 113 4.1.7 Future Wheeling Capacity Requirements ...... 114 4.2 GROUND WATER ...... 115 4.2.1 Existing Supply Capacity ...... 116 4.2.2 Existing Wheeling Capacity Requirements ...... 117 4.2.3 Historical Production ...... 117 4.2.4 Cost ...... 140 4.2.5 Quality ...... 140 4.2.6 Reliability ...... 144 4.2.7 Future Supply Capacity ...... 144 4.2.8 Future Wheeling Capacity Requirements ...... 145 4.3 SURFACE WATER ...... 145

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 3 of 304

4.3.1 Existing Supply Capacity ...... 146 4.3.2 Historical Production ...... 151 4.3.3 Cost ...... 155 4.3.4 Quality ...... 155 4.3.5 Reliability ...... 155 4.3.6 Future Supply Capacity ...... 155 4.3.7 Future Supply Capacity Alternatives ...... 155 4.4 RECYCLED WATER ...... 158 4.4.1 Existing Supply Capacity ...... 158 4.4.2 Existing Wheeling Capacity Requirements ...... 159 4.4.3 Historical Production ...... 159 4.4.4 Cost ...... 159 4.4.5 Quality ...... 160 4.4.6 Reliability ...... 162 4.4.7 Future Supply Capacity ...... 162 4.4.8 Future Wheeling Capacity Requirements ...... 163 4.4.9 Future Supply Capacity Alternatives ...... 163 4.5 WATER SUPPLY SUMMARY ...... 164 CHAPTER 5. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ...... 169 5.1 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES ...... 169 5.2 IMPORTED WATER MANAGEMENT ...... 174 5.3 OTHER ISSUES ...... 178 5.3.1 Climate Change ...... 178 5.3.2 Water Quality ...... 179 5.3.3 Reliability ...... 179 5.3.4 Peaking ...... 179 5.4 WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ...... 185 5.4.1 Description of Alternatives ...... 185 5.4.2 Evaluation/Ranking of Alternatives ...... 203 5.4.3 Recommended Water Resource Management Strategy ...... 210 CHAPTER 6. DESIGN CRITERIA ...... 213 6.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA ...... 213 6.1.1 Distribution System Design Criteria ...... 213 6.1.2 Fire Flow Criteria ...... 216 6.1.3 Peaking Factors ...... 216 6.1.4 Pump Station Criteria ...... 218 6.1.5 Storage Criteria ...... 218 6.1.5.1 Operational Storage ...... 218 6.1.5.2 Fire Flow Storage ...... 219 6.1.5.3 In-District Emergency Storage ...... 219 6.1.5.4 Reserve Emergency Storage ...... 220 6.2 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA ...... 221 6.2.1 Distribution System Design Criteria ...... 221

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 4 of 304

6.2.2 Peaking Factors ...... 224 6.2.3 Pump Station Criteria ...... 226 6.2.4 Storage Criteria ...... 226 6.2.4.1 Operational Storage ...... 226 CHAPTER 7. HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATES ...... 228 7.1 POTABLE WATER DEMAND ALTERNATIVES ...... 228 7.1.1 Average Day Demands (Steady-State) ...... 229 7.1.2 Maximum Day Demands (Steady-State) ...... 229 7.1.3 Peak Hour Demands (Steady-State) ...... 229 7.1.4 Maximum Day Demands plus Fire Flow (Steady-State) ...... 229 7.1.5 72-Hour Maximum Day (Extended Period Simulation) ...... 230 7.1.6 4-Week Average Day (Extended Period Simulation) ...... 230 7.2 RECYCLED WATER DEMAND ALTERNATIVES ...... 230 7.2.1 Average Day Demands (Steady-State) ...... 231 7.2.2 Peak Hour Demands (Steady-State) ...... 231 7.2.3 72-Hour Maximum Day (Extended Period Simulation) ...... 231 7.2.4 365-Day (Extended Period Simulation) ...... 232 7.3 HYDRAULIC MODEL CALIBRATION ...... 232 CHAPTER 8. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS ...... 235 8.1 EXISTING SYSTEM ...... 235 8.1.1 Average Day Demand ...... 235 8.1.2 Maximum Day Demand ...... 236 8.1.3 Peak Hour Demand ...... 238 8.1.4 Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow ...... 238 8.1.5 4-Week Average Day Demand ...... 238 8.1.6 72-Hour Maximum Day...... 239 8.2 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM ...... 248 8.2.1 Average Day Demand ...... 251 8.2.2 Maximum Day Demand ...... 251 8.2.3 Peak Hour Demand ...... 251 8.2.4 Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow ...... 251 8.2.5 4-Week Average Day Demand ...... 251 8.2.6 72-Hour Maximum Day Demand ...... 252 CHAPTER 9. RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS ...... 267 9.1 EXISTING SYSTEM ...... 267 9.1.1 Average Day Demand ...... 267 9.1.2 Peak Hour Demand ...... 267 9.1.3 72-Hour Maximum Day Demand ...... 268 9.1.4 365-Day Demand ...... 268 9.2 MINIMUM BUILD-OUT SYSTEM ...... 274 9.2.1 Average Day Demand ...... 274 9.2.2 Peak Hour Demand ...... 274 9.2.3 72-Hour Maximum Day Demand ...... 275

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 5 of 304

9.3.4 365-Day Demand ...... 275 9.3 Build-Out System ...... 275 CHAPTER 10. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ...... 283 10.1 UNIT COSTS ...... 283 10.1.1 Pipeline Unit Costs ...... 284 10.1.2 Storage Reservoir Unit Costs ...... 285 10.1.3 Pump Station Unit Costs ...... 285 10.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ...... 286 10.2.1 Cost Estimates for Pipeline Improvements ...... 287 10.2.2 Cost Estimates for Storage Improvements ...... 291 10.2.3 Cost Estimates for Pump Station Improvements ...... 294 10.2.4 Cost Estimates for Water Supply Improvements ...... 299 10.2.5 Summary of Capital Improvement Program ...... 303

APPENDIX A – EXISTING POTABLE WATER FACILITIES MAP

APPENDIX B – EXISTING RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES MAP

APPENDIX C – EXISTING AND BUILD-OUT WATER DEMANDS BY PRESSURE ZONE

APPENDIX D – DATABASE STORAGE FRAMEWORK FOR WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS

APPENDIX E – RESULTS OF EXISTING POTABLE WATER HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

APPENDIX F – EXISTING POTABLE WATER HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS MAP

APPENDIX G – CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS MAP

APPENDIX H – RESULTS OF EXISTING RECYCLED WATER HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

APPENDIX I – EXISTING RECYCLED WATER HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS MAP

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 6 of 304

ABBREVIATIONS AACE American Association of Cost Engineers ACP Asbestos Cement Pipe ADD Average Day Demand AFY Acre Feet per Year APN Assessor’s Parcel Number AWWA American Water Works Association BMP Best Management Practice BO Build-Out Time Increment BWUE Blueprint for Water Use Efficiency CFS Cubic-Feet Per Second CIP Capital Improvement Program CRP Capital Replacement Program CSA Contract Service Area CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council DDW Division of Drinking Water District Rancho California Water District DMM Demand Management Measure DSOD Division of Safety of Damns Du Dwelling Unit DWR California Department of Water Resources EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District ENR-CCI Engineering News Record – Construction Cost Index EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPS Extended Period Simulation EVMWD Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District EWMP Efficient Water Management Practice FPS Feet Per Second FY Fiscal Year GIS Geographic Information System HDPE High Density Polyethylene GPD Gallons Per Day GPM Gallons Per Minute IORP Interim Operation Restriction Plan IPR Indirect Potable Recharge ISO Insurance Services Office KPI Key Performance Indication MDD Maximum Day Demand MGD Million gallons per day MOU Memorandum of Understanding MWDSC Metropolitan Water District of Southern California O&M Operations and Maintenance

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 7 of 304

PCCP Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder PHD Peak Hour Demand PPM Parts Per Million PRV Pressure Reducing Valve PS Pump Station PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RIRP Regional Integrated Resources Plan RCWD Rancho California Water District SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCMLC Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority SRRWD Santa Rosa Ranches Water District SRWRF Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board STL Steel Pipe TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone TVRWRF Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility ULFT Ultra-Low Flow Toilet UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WFMP Water Facilities Master Plan WMWD Western Municipal Water District

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 8 of 304

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Rancho California Water District (District) provides water and wastewater service to portions of the City of Temecula, the City of Murrieta and unincorporated portions of the County of Riverside. The long-term vision of the Rancho California Water District is to effectively and efficiently meet the needs of its service area within the expressed and implied powers provided by law.

Mission Statement The mission of the Rancho California Water District is to deliver reliable, high-quality water, wastewater and reclamation services to its customers and communities in a prudent and sustainable manner.

As an agency in charge of providing water, wastewater, and reclamation service within its jurisdiction, the District periodically reviews and updates its Master Plan for providing services to existing and future customers. This Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) was prepared as an update to the District’s 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan (2005 WFMP).

Existing Water Systems

The District currently obtains water from the following primary water sources: 1) local groundwater from the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin; 2) imported State Water Project (SWP) and Colorado River water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) through the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD); and 3) recycled water from both the District and EMWD facilities.

The District’s potable water distribution system distinctly operates within two divisions, the Santa Rosa Division in the westerly half, and the Rancho Division in the easterly half. Each division provides water through a number of pressure zones ranging from 1305 to 2860 feet in the Santa Rosa Division, and 1305 to 2350 feet in the Rancho Division. The 1305 Zone provides service to the I-15 corridor area and serves as the forebay zone for several pump stations, which deliver water to higher zones within both Divisions. Treated water from MWDSC turnouts and the majority of groundwater production enters the District’s system in this zone.

The District operates 31 potable water pump stations and 48 active potable groundwater production wells. The District maintains 39 potable water storage reservoirs with a capacity of 149.7 million gallons (MG). In addition, the District owns 1 open (surface) reservoir, Vail Lake, with a storage capacity of 45,207 acre- feet (AF) used to help recharge the groundwater basin, using natural runoff. The potable water system includes 903 miles of water pipelines which convey water

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 9 of 304

from its source to water customers. A Map of the Existing Potable Water Facilities is included as Appendix A.

The District’s recycled water distribution system provides water through four pressure zones ranging from 1181 to 1481 feet. With the exception of Superior Ready Mix, recycled water within the District is utilized solely for outdoor irrigation. The District operates 6 recycled water pump stations and 5 active recycled groundwater production wells. The District maintains 4 recycled water storage reservoirs with a combined capacity of 7.5 million gallons (MG), and 6 recycled water storage ponds with a total of 1,495 AFY of storage. The recycled water system includes 58.9 miles of water pipelines which convey water from its source to water customers. A Map of the Existing Recycled Water Facilities is included as Appendix B.

Water Demands

Existing potable and recycled water demands were developed, as were corresponding build-out demand projections. Existing demands were based on the District’s Customer Billing Record, with build-out projections calculated from existing demands, duty factors, acreage and land use classifications.

The existing average potable water demand is calculated to be 63,290 AFY (56.5 MGD), which is 59% of the projected build-out demand. This includes an estimated 38,702 dwelling units and 57,075 acres of potable water use area. Approximately 41,700 parcels are currently receiving potable and/or non-potable water service from the District, which includes 91% of the 45,733 parcels within the District’s service area (excluding Right-of-Way). The existing recycled water average demand is 3,869 AFY (3.5 MGD).

Build-out annual potable water demand is projected to increase by 69% to 106,718 AFY (95.3 MGD), with an estimated 57,209 dwelling units and 100,203 acres of potable water use area, which includes the District’s Contract Service Areas (CSA). It is projected that build-out annual recycled water demand served by the existing recycled water distribution system will be 4,500 AFY (4.0 MGD). The District is projected to provide build-out potable and/or non-potable water service to 45,399 parcels, which includes 99% of the 45,733 parcels within the District’s service area (excluding Right-of-Way).

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 10 of 304

Historically, several Contract Service Areas (CSA) have received water from the District by inter-agency agreement. These include Pechanga, Lake Skinner Park, Rancho Glen Oaks, Nakayama Park and the Rock Mountain Area. Similar to these CSAs, additional in-fill areas identified as annexation areas within the District’s current sphere of influence boundary (e.g. Murrieta Valley and Redhawk South) have also been included in the build-out demand projections.

Water Supply Evaluation

The District’s existing annual potable and recycled water production capacity of 86,649 AFY is greater than the existing annual production requirement of 70,517 AFY, which includes non-revenue water. The existing maximum day production requirement of 221 cfs is less than the 339 cfs maximum day capacity.

It is projected that additional annual groundwater capacity will be generated through increasing artificial recharge of the groundwater basin by 31 cfs. An additional annual supply of 8 cfs (5,319 AFY) of recycled water is also anticipated by build- out. The build-out annual capacity of 115,002 AFY is greater than the projected build-out annual production requirement of 110,714 AFY, which includes non- revenue water and excludes supply for the CSAs. The build-out maximum day production requirement of 346 cfs is less than the 409 cfs maximum day capacity anticipated by build-out.

Water Resource Management

To address issues such as imported water supply availability, system capacity constraints, rising imported water costs, and water quality issues, the District evaluated feasible supply-side and demand-side management opportunities to meet its customers’ needs in an economical and sustainable manner. The District manages water resources based on an on-going analysis of supply and demand management alternatives to satisfy multiple objectives. These objectives include the following:

 To provide water service to the District’s customers in an economical and sustainable manner;

 To provide high quality water to the District’s customers;

 To identify and to minimize risk and uncertainty in meeting peak day water demands; and

 To comply with regulatory requirements for water resource management.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 11 of 304

As summarized in Table 5-9, Water Supply Alternative 1 – Upper VDC Recharge achieved the highest performance rating score. As the highest scoring alternative, the capital projects for this alternative have been included in the recommended Capital Improvement Program. Under this alternative, the District would purchase more untreated water from MWDSC, and deliver it to the Valle de los Caballos (VDC) recharge basins. 10 new wells would be installed at the Upper VDC to increase groundwater production by 22,695 AFY through artificial recharge.

Existing System Analysis

The District’s existing potable water distribution system has sufficient storage, pumping and conveyance. There are 13 hydrants which have static pressures below 20 psi at all times, and there are an additional 16 hydrants which supply between 500 gpm and 1,000 gpm with residual pressures of 20 psi. All other District hydrants can provide 1,000 gpm or more with residual pressures above 20 psi. Disinfection improvements at Ace Bowen Pump Station and Senga Doherty are recommended.

The District’s existing recycled water distribution system has sufficient storage, pumping and conveyance. Accordingly, no recycled water infrastructure improvements are recommended for the existing system.

Build-Out Potable Water System Analysis

The District’s build-out potable water distribution system requires storage, pumping and conveyance improvements. Recommended improvements illustrated in Appendix G –Capital Improvement Projects Map. A summary of all recommendations includes:

 Groundwater Recommendations

o Increase VDC Production by ~15 cfs up to 32.5 cfs, includes new wells, pipelines, a chlorine contact tank and central disinfection in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

o Increase VDC and Pauba Production by 16 cfs, includes new wells and pipelines in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 12 of 304

 Pump Station Recommendations

o New Consolidated 1305/1380 PS with Near-term Firm Capacity of 14,600 gpm (32.5 cfs) and Build-Out Firm Capacity of 19,000 gpm (42 cfs); 5,250 gpm to 1380 (Combined)

o Increase De Luz PS Firm Capacity by 2,965 gpm to 7,365 gpm to the 2160 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Increase Carancho PS Firm Capacity by 6,425 gpm to 7,875 gpm to the 2260 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Baldaray PS Relocation and Increase Firm Capacity by 3,515 gpm to 7,935 gpm to the 2550 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Increase Firm Capacity of Tenaja by 2,100 gpm to 6,300 gpm (One additional pump) to the 2550 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Increase Avocado Mesa PS Firm Capacity by 865 gpm to 1,615 gpm to the 2825 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Increase Avenida Escala PS Firm Capacity by 170 gpm to 1,170 gpm to the 2860 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Increase Alvarez PS Firm Capacity by 610 gpm to 3,110 gpm to the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

o Increase Anza PS Firm Capacity by at least 1,705 gpm to a near-term rated capacity of 6,315 gpm to the 1610 Zone, and a build-out rated capacity of 8,420 gpm (Rancho)

 Storage Reservoir Recommendations

o 4.81 MG Reservoir (Murrieta) in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

o 3.75 MG Reservoir (Avocado Mesa No. 2) in the 2550 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Additional 1.12 MG of Storage Needed in the 2825 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Additional 0.19 MG of Storage Needed in the 2860 Zone (Santa Rosa)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 13 of 304

o 4.81 MG Reservoir (Buck Mesa No. 3) in the 1610 Zone (Rancho)

o 1.30 MG Reservoir (Calaveras No. 2) in the 2350 Zone (Rancho)

o Create New 2600 Hydropneumatic Zone (Rancho)

 Pipeline Recommendations

o 2,500 ft of 30-inch pipeline in Lemon from Hayes to proposed Murrieta Reservoir in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

o Approximately 250 ft of 36-inch Diameter Pipeline to convey flow from 1305/1380 Consolidated PS to 1305 Pressure Zone in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

o 8,500 ft of 24-inch pipeline to Pechanga in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

o 9,800 ft of 24-inch pipeline in Vineyard Parkway in the 1500 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o 3,400 ft of 24-inch pipeline parallel to exist 16-inch in Clinton Keith abandon existing 16-inch in the 1500 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o 4,500 ft of 24-inch pipeline in El Calamar b/w Carancho PS and Via Escalon; and in Via Escalon from El Calamar to Existing 24" in the 2260 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o 10,750 ft of 30-inch pipeline in De Portola Rd from Pauba Rd to Anza Rd in the 1380 Zone (Rancho)

o Approximately 250 ft of 30-inch Diameter Pipeline to convey flow from 1305/1380 Consolidated PS to 1380 Pressure Zone in the 1380 Zone (Rancho)

o 5,400 ft of 16-inch pipeline in Highway 79 in the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

o 1,400 ft of 16-inch in easements from Highway 79 to Los Corralitos in the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

o 2,300 ft of 16-inch pipeline in Los Corralitos in the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 14 of 304

o 3,300 ft of 16-inch pipeline in Pauba in the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

o 5,500 ft of 24-inch in Anza Rd from Calle Linda to Monte Verde Rd in the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

Build-Out Recycled Water System Analysis

The District’s recycled water distribution system has sufficient storage, pumping and conveyance to accommodate the minimum projected build-out water demands of 4,207 AFY, the location of which are known by the District. With a recycled water build-out demand of 4,500 AFY, the location of the additional 293 AFY of recycled water demands has yet to be determined. Depending on the actual site locations and accommodations (e.g. on-site flow equalization) of these demands, future infrastructure improvements may be required, including:

 1381 Storage Capacity Improvement – Required if an additional 185 AFY of recycled water demands without on-site flow equalization is to be served in the 1381 pressure zone.

 1381 Pumping Capacity Improvement – Required if an additional 244 AFY of recycled water demands are to be served in the 1381 and 1441 pressure zones, with associated pipeline improvements throughout the 1381 Pressure Zone to replace PVC C-900 pipeline with pressure class ratings below 165 psi.

 1441 Pumping Capacity Improvement – Required if an additional 126 AFY of recycled water demands are to be served in the 1441 pressure zone, with associated pipeline improvements within the 1381 and 1441 pressure zones to improve conveyance at Redhawk Pump Station.

 1481 Pumping Capacity Improvement – Required if an additional 98 AFY of recycled water demands are to be served in the 1481 Pressure Zone, with associated pipeline improvements within the 1481 Pressure Zone to improve conveyance.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 15 of 304

Phased and Prioritized Capital Improvement Program

Proposed pump, storage and pipeline improvements were assigned to the appropriate Fiscal Year over the next 15 years, or to the build-out time-increment. Estimates of probable capital costs provided herein represent “Conceptual” level costs as established by the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) and represent an accuracy of +50% to -30%. Cost estimates should be verified and updated during the pre-design phase of each project. The total, unescalated cost of the Capital Improvement Program is $119.8 Million, and includes:

 $32.8 Million in Fiscal Year 2016-2017  $1.8 Million in Fiscal Year 2017-2018  $18.0 Million in Fiscal Year 2018-2019  $1.3 Million in Fiscal Year 2019-2020  $18.7 Million in Fiscal Year 2020-2021  $12.7 Million in Fiscal Year 2031-2032  $34.4 Million in Build-Out

Consistent with the practice of infrastructure planning, project identification (including size, time phasing and location) is conceptual, based on projections of future indicators (such as growth, planned development and projected population increases). As such, recommended facilities contained in this hydraulic analysis should undergo additional technical evaluations based on conditions present at the time of proposed project implementation to confirm the recommendations (i.e. size, alignment, length, hydraulics, planned developments, etc.).

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 16 of 304

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

The Rancho California Water District (District) is located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County and its southwestern border lies along the line with the County of San Diego. The District total service area encompasses approximately 99,000 acres (154.7 square miles) and is comprised of the City of Temecula, portions of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated territory in the County of Riverside. The location of the District is shown in Figure 1-1.

The long-term vision of the Rancho California Water District is to effectively and efficiently meet the needs of its service area within the expressed and implied powers provided by law.

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this WFMP is to update current and projected water demands for the potable and recycled water system, as well as to recommend necessary infrastructure improvements. Estimated costs for capital improvements have been included in a phased and prioritized Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The development of an updated land use database, accurate water demand and supply projections, and calibrated potable and recycled hydraulic models were critical components of this master plan effort.

Rancho California Water District

FIGURE 1-1 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 18 of 304

The District previously established an Enterprise Geographic Information System (GIS) database to assist in support of various planning, engineering, and management-related projects. This WFMP was developed in conjunction with the District’s GIS to ensure the compatibility of the digital data and hydraulic models. As part of this master plan effort, the District has completed the following major tasks:

● Created a GIS land use database containing parcel information, land use and billing data using ArcMap;

● Developed existing and build-out time increment potable and recycled water demand projections;

● Compared projected demands to anticipated sources of supply through the build-out time increment;

● Identified Demand Management Measures, Water Supply Scenarios and Water Management Resources Alternatives;

● Updated and calibrated the District’s potable and recycled hydraulic models;

● Analyzed the hydraulic models based on established design criteria;

● Determined existing and future pumping, storage and conveyance deficiencies in the potable and recycled water distribution systems;

● Identified specific pipelines to be included in the District’s Capital Replacement Program; and

● Developed a phased and prioritized Capital Improvement Program.

This WFMP identifies projected growth and provides clear recommendations for proposed facilities. Consistent with the practice of infrastructure planning, project identification (including size, time phasing and location) is conceptual, based on projections of future indicators (such as growth, planned development and projected population increases). As such, recommended facilities contained in this hydraulic analysis should undergo additional technical evaluations based on conditions present at the time of proposed project implementation to confirm the recommendations (i.e. size, alignment, length, hydraulics, planned developments, etc.).

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 19 of 304

1.2 STUDY AREA The District is approximately 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles and 65 miles north of San Diego. The District‘s current service area is bounded on the southeast by the Santa Ana Mountains and on the northeast by Gavilan Hills. The District serves the area known as Temecula/Rancho California, which includes the City of Temecula, portions of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated areas of Riverside County. The total gross acreage within the District’s service area is approximately 99,000 acres (154.7 square miles), and is shown in Figure 1-1.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 20 of 304

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING WATER SYSTEMS The Rancho California Water District is located in southwestern Riverside County, about 40 miles south of Riverside and 60 miles north of San Diego. The District’s existing service area encompasses 99,192 acres and provides retail water supply for a variety of agricultural, residential and commercial uses. Typical agricultural uses include avocados, citrus, and grapes. Most of the new commercial and residential land uses recently developed are within the incorporated areas of the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta.

The Temecula area was developed in the 1880's along the California Southern Railroad. Temecula served as an important shipping center for cut granite from nearby quarries. In the early 1900's 87,000 acres of land within the District were acquired by the Vail Company. These lands were developed by the Vail Company into a very successful cattle ranch. The Vail Ranch used the higher mesa lands for grazing and growing dry farm crops, while in the Pauba Valley irrigated crops such as alfalfa, melons and potatoes were grown. Initially, irrigation was achieved through direct diversion of water from Temecula Creek. Later, artesian and other wells were drilled in the valley. In 1948, Vail Dam was constructed on Temecula Creek in Butterfield Canyon. Vail Lake’s storage capacity provided additional irrigation water for the Pauba Valley.

In 1964, Rancho California was created when the Vail Ranch was purchased by the land development partnership of Kaiser Corporations and Macco Realty Company. The partnership implemented a master development plan with a goal to create a balanced residential, commercial and industrial community while maintaining its rural qualities of open spaces and agricultural production lands. The developers were instrumental in forming two water districts to provide a continued and reliable water supply.

The Rancho California Water District was formed in 1965 over the easterly 41,000 acres, and the Santa Rosa Ranches Water District (SRRWD) was formed in 1968 over the westerly 46,000 acres. Each district was organized as a California Water District, which entitles property owners one vote for each $100 of assessed land valuation in electing a Board of Directors. To provide a supplemental imported water supply, the Rancho California Water District was concurrently annexed to the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) in 1966. EMWD was also granted powers to collect, treat and dispose of wastewater within the District. Similarly, the Santa Rosa Ranches Water District was concurrently annexed into the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) of Riverside County and MWDSC. SRRWD, however, reserved its wastewater service powers.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 21 of 304

MWDSC serves as a regional wholesaler of imported water over a wide area of Southern California from Los Angeles to San Diego. EMWD and WMWD are member agencies of MWDSC and purchase imported water from MWDSC to retail to smaller local jurisdictions. Historically, the District has relied on local groundwater supplemented with MWDSC imported water to meet domestic and agricultural demands.

In 1977, the two districts, Rancho California Water District and Santa Rosa Ranches Water District were consolidated as a single district known as the Rancho California Water District. The original Rancho California Water District had approved a general obligation bond issue of 55 million dollars in 1966, and SRRWD had similarly approved 63 million dollars in bonds in 1968. Since these bond issues are still applicable over the original lands within each district, separate divisions known as the Rancho Division and the Santa Rosa Division have been maintained for accounting purposes.

Over the past decade, a number of areas have been annexed into the District within either division, bringing the total gross area of the District to approximately 99,000 acres. In addition, the 2015 Master Plan Update includes consideration of service to six separate areas adjacent to District boundaries. These Contract Service Areas (CSA) total approximately 1,450 acres, all of which have been determined feasible service areas based on the District’s current system configuration, and the lack of nearby facilities operated by neighboring agencies.

The District currently obtains water from the following primary water sources: 1) local groundwater from the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin; 2) imported State Water Project (SWP) and Colorado River water from the MWDSC through Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD); and 3) recycled water from both District and EMWD facilities.

2.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM The District’s potable water distribution system distinctly operates within the two divisions, the Santa Rosa Division in the westerly half, and the Rancho Division in the easterly half. Each division provides water through a number of pressure zones ranging from 1060 to 2860 feet in the Santa Rosa Division, and 1305 to 2350 feet in the Rancho Division. The 1305 Zone provides service to the I-15 corridor area and serves as the forebay zone for several pump stations, which deliver water to higher zones within both Divisions. Treated water from MWDSC turnouts and the majority of groundwater production enters the District’s system in the 1305 zone. Some additional groundwater also enters the system in the 1380, and 1790 Zones of the Rancho Division. An Existing Potable Water System Facilities Map is included as Appendix A.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 22 of 304

The Santa Rosa Division is generally divided into three areas: the Lower Santa Rosa, Upper Santa Rosa, and Murrieta Valley. The Lower Santa Rosa area includes the 1060, 1160, 1440, 1670, 1990 and 2150 Zones. With the exception of the Cross Creek Golf Course, this area is mostly agricultural with some rural and estate type residential land use. Water is delivered from the 1305 Zone to the 1670 Zone via the Ace Bowen Nos. 1 and 2 and Senga Doherty Pump Stations, and from to 1305 Zone to the 1440 Zone via the Ace Bowen Nos. 3 and 4 Pump Stations. The 1440 Zone also supplies the 1060 and 1160 regulated pressure zones. Water is delivered from the 1670 Zone to the 1990 Zone via the Del Oro, Via Santa Rosa and Via Vaquero Pump Stations. The 2150 Hydropneumatic Zone is supplied from the 1990 Zone.

The Upper Santa Rosa area includes the 1740, 2160, 2220, 2260, 2300, 2550, 2825 and 2860 Zones. A significant portion of the 2160 Zone includes the Santa Rosa Ecological Preserve. The 2220, 2260, 2300, 2550, 2825 and 2860 Zones include rural residential and agricultural uses. Water is delivered from the 1670 to the 2550 Zone either via the 2160 Zone or the 2260 Zone. Water is delivered from the 1670 Zone to the 2260 Zone via the Carancho Pump Station, and then from the 2260 Zone to the 2550 Zone via the recently constructed Tenaja Pump Station. Water is delivered from the 1670 Zone to the 2160 Zone via the De Luz Pump Station, and then from the 2160 Zone to the 2550 Zone via the Baldaray Pump Station. The 2160 Zone also supplies the 1740 regulated pressure zone. Additional flow to the 2160 Zone is also supplied from the Murrieta Valley area, via the Bear Creek Pump Station from the 1500 Zone. Water from the 2550 Zone can be conveyed to either the 2825 Zone via the Avocado Mesa Pump Station, or the 2860 Zone via the Avenida Escala Pump Station. The 2550 Zone also supplies the 2220 and 2300 regulated pressure zones.

The Murrieta Valley area comprises the northerly 1305 Zone and the 1500 Zone. The 1500 Zone includes the Bear Creek, Joaquin Ranch, and the Cal Oaks development regions. The northerly 1305 Zone includes a large business park development. Joaquin Ranch Pump Station supplies the westerly portion of the 1500 Zone from the 1305 Zone, while the Cal Oaks Pump Station supplies the easterly portion of the 1500 Zone. Water from the 1500 Zone is supplied to the 2160 Zone via the Bear Creek Pump Station.

The Rancho Division can also be categorized into three areas: the Core, Mesa Grande, and a remaining portion within the Pauba Valley. The Core area includes the 1305, 1380 and 1485 Zones, and is mostly urban and suburban. Water is delivered to the 1380 Zone from the 1305 Zone via the Winchester, Meadowview and Norma Marshall Pump Stations. Water is delivered to the 1485 Zone from the 1380 Zone via the Rancho California No. 2 Pump Station, and it is delivered to the 1485 Zone from the 1305 Zone via the Butterfield Stage Pump Station.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 23 of 304

The Mesa Grande region is comprised of rural residential and agriculture/vineyard planning land usage within the 1610, 1790, 1880, 2070 and 2350 Zones, and includes the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area. Water is delivered to the 1790 Zone from the 1610 Zone via the Buck Mesa Pump Station, and can be delivered to the 1790 Zone from the 1305 Zone via the Los Caballos Pump Station. Water is conveyed from the 1790 Zone to the 2070 Zone via the Deportola Pump Station. The 2070 Zone supplies the regulated 1880 Zone, as well as provides water for the 2350 Zone via the Calle Breve Pump Station.

The remaining area within the Pauba Valley that is south and east of Highway 79 includes the portions of the 1380 Zone, the 1550 Zone, and Vail Lake. Water is delivered to the 1550 Zone from the 1305 Zone via the Alvarez Pump Station. With some Agriculture/Planning Areas, this area is mostly residential. Service is provide by a separate potable water system to Vail Lake, whose infrastructure has not been included in this WFMP.

The District maintains a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system enabling 24-hour, remote monitoring of water system facilities from a central station located at the District‘s Operation‘s Yard. The central station is accessible remotely by system operators via personal computer. Figure 2-1, which was generated utilizing the District’s 2014 SCADA system, illustrates the step-wise nature of the different Divisions and Zones within the District. Hydropneumatic and regulated Zones are not included in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1 – Existing Potable Water System

2825

2150

Off‐Line

164

1380 Zone Wells

1305 Zone Wells Turnouts EM‐13 and EM‐20 Turnouts WR‐26/28

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 25 of 304

2.1.1 Distribution Infrastructure Tables 2-1 through 2-6 present an inventory of the District’s potable water distribution system. The District‘s operates 31 potable water pump stations and 48 active potable groundwater production wells as presented in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, respectively. The District maintains 39 potable water storage reservoirs with a capacity of 149.7 million gallons (MG) as summarized in Table 2-3. In addition, the District owns one open (surface) reservoir, Vail Lake, with a storage capacity of 45,207 acre-feet (AF) used to help recharge the groundwater basin, using natural runoff. The potable water system includes 903 miles of water pipelines which convey water from its source to water customers. Pipeline lengths are summarized by diameter in Table 2-4, by material in Table 2-5, and by both material and diameter in Table 2-6.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 26 of 304

Table 2-1 - Potable Water Pump Station Database Suction Side Discharge Additional Edison Efficiency Elevation Shutoff Head Design Head Design Flow Low Head High Flow Description (Char) UNITID Pressure Side Pressure Disinfection Test Date (Energy/AF) (ft) (ft) (ft) (gpm) (ft) (gpm) Zone Zone Ace Bowen 1 Pump 1 WPUMP0000000122 No 1305 1670 3/18/2014 600 1,235 660 450 2,400 300 3,100

Ace Bowen 1 Pump 2 WPUMP0000000123 No 1305 1670 3/18/2014 570 1,235 660 450 2,400 300 3,100

Ace Bowen 1 Pump 3 WPUMP0000000124 No 1305 1670 3/18/2014 595 1,235 660 450 2,400 300 3,100

Ace Bowen 1 Pump 4 WPUMP0000000125 No 1305 1670 3/18/2014 573 1,235 660 450 2,400 300 3,100

Ace Bowen 1 Pump 5 WPUMP0000000126 No 1305 1670 3/18/2014 556 1,235 675 405 2,000 265 2,450

Ace Bowen 2 Pump 1 WPUMP0000000008 No 1305 1670 3/30/2012 73.4 therms 1,240 600 385 5,000 330 5,700

Ace Bowen 2 Pump 2 WPUMP0000000130 No 1305 1670 3/30/2012 79.3 therms 1,240 600 385 5,000 330 5,700

Ace Bowen 2 Pump 3 WPUMP0000000131 No 1305 1670 3/30/2012 80.4 therms 1,240 630 450 4,500 345 5,900

Ace Bowen 2 Pump 4 WPUMP0000000132 No 1305 1670 3/30/2012 76 therms 1,240 630 450 4,500 345 5,900

Ace Bowen 3 Pump 1 WPUMP0000000134 No 1305 1440 3/18/2014 214 1,235 324 170 3,500 120 4,200

Ace Bowen 3 Pump 2 WPUMP0000000133 No 1305 1440 3/18/2014 254 1,235 300 240 2,600 135 3,450

Ace Bowen 4 Pump 1 WPUMP0000000135 CL2 1305 1440 3/30/2012 39 therms 1,240 390 250 6,000 160 8,100

Ace Bowen 4 Pump 2 WPUMP0000000136 CL2 1305 1440 3/30/2012 41.1 therms1,240 374 248 6,000 160 8,200 Alvarez Pump 1 WPUMP0000000075 No 1305 1550 4/15/2014 417 1,165 350 275 1,250 220 1,500

Alvarez Pump 2 WPUMP0000000076 No 1305 1550 4/15/2014 422 1,165 350 275 1,250 220 1,500

Alvarez Pump 3 WPUMP0000000077 No 1305 1550 4/15/2014 401 1,165 350 275 1,250 220 1,500

Anza Pump 1 WPUMP0000000018 CL2 1380 1610 10/8/2013 395 1,290 400 235 1,600 120 2,000

Anza Pump 2 WPUMP0000000019 CL2 1380 1610 10/23/2013 405 1,290 350 240 1,500 120 2,000

Anza Pump 3 WPUMP0000000020 CL2 1380 1610 10/5/2013 371 1,290 240 210 1,500 135 2,100

Anza Pump 4 WPUMP0000000078 CL2 1380 1610 10/8/2013 409 1,290 345 210 1,700 150 2,200

Avenida Escala Pump 1 WPUMP0000000137 CL2 2550 2860 9/10/2010 503 2,400 590 430 500 355 600

Avenida Escala Pump 2 WPUMP0000000138 CL2 2550 2860 9/10/2010 588 2,400 590 430 500 355 600

Avenida Escala Pump 3 WPUMP0000000139 CL2 2550 2860 9/10/2010 553 2,400 590 430 500 355 600

Avocado Mesa Pump 1* WPUMP0000000140 CL2 2550 2825 8/19/2010 497 2,515 - 298 950 - -

Avocado Mesa Pump 2* WPUMP0000000141 CL2 2550 2825 8/19/2010 466 2,515 - 297 980 - -

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 27 of 304

Table 2-1 - Potable Water Pump Station Database Suction Side Discharge Additional Edison Efficiency Elevation Shutoff Head Design Head Design Flow Low Head High Flow Description (Char) UNITID Pressure Side Pressure Disinfection Test Date (Energy/AF) (ft) (ft) (ft) (gpm) (ft) (gpm) Zone Zone Baldaray Pump 1 WPUMP0000000142 No 2160 2550 2/14/2011 606 2,140 575 425 1,400 300 2,000

Baldaray Pump 2 WPUMP0000000143 No 2160 2550 2/14/2011 594 2,140 679 420 1,460 308 2,000

Baldaray Pump 3 WPUMP0000000144 No 2160 2550 2/14/2011 539 2,140 728 448 1,560 252 2,080

Baldaray Pump 4 WPUMP0000000145 No 2160 2550 2/14/2011 554 2,140 728 448 1,560 252 2,080

Bear Creek Pump 1 WPUMP0000000146 No 1500 2160 7/10/2012 1,069 1,395 980 690 700 350 1,100

Bear Creek Pump 2 WPUMP0000000147 No 1500 2160 7/10/2012 987 1,395 960 720 600 312 1,100

Bear Creek Pump 3 WPUMP0000000148 No 1500 2160 6/14/2010 970 1,395 1100 702 1,120 520 1,400

Buck Mesa Pump 1 WPUMP0000000021 No 1610 1790 8/8/2013 294 1,515 296 220 1,200 128 1,650

Buck Mesa Pump 2 WPUMP0000000022 No 1610 1790 8/8/2013 278 1,515 296 220 1,200 128 1,650

Buck Mesa Pump 3 WPUMP0000000023 No 1610 1790 8/8/2013 291 1,515 296 220 1,200 128 1,650

Buck Mesa Pump 4 WPUMP0000000024 No 1610 1790 8/8/2013 334 1,515 270 200 2,200 120 2,700

Buck Mesa Pump 5 WPUMP0000000025 No 1610 1790 8/8/2013 279 1,515 270 200 2,200 120 2,700

Buck Mesa Pump 6 WPUMP0000000026 No 1610 1790 8/8/2013 358 1,515 295 236 1,950 155 2,800

Buck Mesa Pump 7 WPUMP0000000027 No 1610 1790 8/13/2013 325 1,515 295 236 1,950 155 2,800

Butterfield Stage Pump 1 WPUMP0000000079 No 1305 1485 - - 1,110 420 211 4,333 175 5,000

Butterfield Stage Pump 2 WPUMP0000000080 No 1305 1485 4/1/2014 345 1,110 280 160 2,600 100 3,450

Butterfield Stage Pump 3 WPUMP0000000081 No 1305 1485 4/1/2014 286 1,110 385 270 4,200 155 5,200

Butterfield Stage Pump 4 WPUMP0000000082 No 1305 1485 4/1/2014 299 1,110 280 160 2,600 100 3,450

Butterfield Stage Pump 5 WPUMP0000000083 No 1305 1485 4/1/2014 357 1,115 260 200 4,000 172 4,500

Butterfield Stage Pump 6 WPUMP0000000084 No 1305 1485 4/1/2014 339 1,115 260 200 4,000 172 4,500

Cal Oaks Pump 1 WPUMP0000000150 CL2 1305 1500 3/29/2012 387 1,170 312 204 1,400 108 2,000

Cal Oaks Pump 2 WPUMP0000000151 CL2 1305 1500 4/5/2010 337 1,170 312 204 1,400 108 2,000

Cal Oaks Pump 3 WPUMP0000000152 CL2 1305 1500 3/29/2012 345 1,170 360 237 1,500 132 2,200

Cal Oaks Pump 4 WPUMP0000000153 CL2 1305 1500 5/10/2012 282 1,170 416 224 1,680 144 2,000

Cal Oaks Pump 5 WPUMP0000000154 CL2 1305 1500 5/10/2012 360 1,170 416 224 1,680 144 2,000

Cal Oaks Pump 6 WPUMP0000000155 CL2 1305 1500 5/10/2012 342 1,170 416 224 1,680 144 2,000

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 28 of 304

Calle Breve Pump 1 WPUMP0000000060 CL2 2070 2350 11/5/2013 454 1,890 585 441 500 270 650

Calle Breve Pump 2 WPUMP0000000067 CL2 2070 2350 5/28/2010 525 1,890 585 441 500 270 650

Calle Breve Pump 3 WPUMP0000000073 CL2 2070 2350 11/5/2013 462 1,890 444 300 700 150 1,050

Calle Breve Pump 4 WPUMP0000000074 CL2 2070 2350 11/5/2013 469 1,890 375 300 500 160 900

Carancho Pump 1* WPUMP0000000156 CL2 1670 2260 9/14/2010 934 1,585 - 687 1,500 - -

Carancho Pump 2** WPUMP0000000157 CL2 1670 2260 12/9/2014 889 1,585 960 654.1 1,450 410 1,875

De Luz Pump 1 WPUMP0000000009 CL2 1670 2160 9/13/2010 684 1,595 620 520 2,000 336 2,560

De Luz Pump 2 WPUMP0000000164 CL2 1670 2160 9/13/2010 721 1,595 620 520 2,000 336 2,560

De Luz Pump 3 WPUMP0000000165 CL2 1670 2160 9/13/2010 731 1,595 616 490 1,200 245 1,800

De Luz Pump 4 WPUMP0000000166 CL2 1670 2160 9/13/2010 747 1,595 616 490 1,200 245 1,800

De Portola Pump 1 WPUMP0000000085 CL2 1790 2070 - - 1,760 455 290 1,500 180 2,075

De Portola Pump 2 WPUMP0000000086 CL2 1790 2070 6/7/2013 476 1,760 475 306.3 1,500 200 1,800

De Portola Pump 3 WPUMP0000000087 CL2 1790 2070 6/7/2013 449 1,760 500 328 1,320 172 2,000

De Portola Pump 4 WPUMP0000000088 CL2 1790 2070 6/7/2013 439 1,760 520 280 1,720 200 2,000

De Portola Pump 5 WPUMP0000000089 CL2 1790 2070 6/7/2013 440 1,760 520 280 1,720 200 2,000 Del Oro Pump 1 WPUMP0000000160 No 1670 1990 6/24/2010 584 1,490 550 350 2,180 200 2,600

Del Oro Pump 2 WPUMP0000000161 No 1670 1990 6/24/2010 554 1,490 440 350 1,200 175 1,800

Del Oro Pump 3 WPUMP0000000162 No 1670 1990 6/24/2010 447 1,495 440 350 1,200 175 1,800

Del Oro Pump 4 WPUMP0000000163 No 1670 1990 6/24/2010 501 1,495 440 350 1,200 175 1,800

Freeman Pump 1 WPUMP0000000179 No 1990 2150 - - 1,955 208 155 500 84 700

Freeman Pump 2 WPUMP0000000180 No 1990 2150 - - 1,955 208 155 500 84 700

Freeman Pump 3 WPUMP0000000181 No 1990 2150 - - 1,955 264 192 200 80 335

Freeman Pump 4 WPUMP0000000182 No 1990 2150 - - 1,955 264 192 200 80 335

Joaquin Ranch Pump 1 WPUMP0000000175 CL2 1305 1500 6/14/2010 380 1,110 493 288 2,800 186 3,475

Joaquin Ranch Pump 2 WPUMP0000000176 CL2 1305 1500 6/14/2010 386 1,110 493 288 2,800 186 3,475

Joaquin Ranch Pump 3 WPUMP0000000177 CL2 1305 1500 6/14/2010 393 1,110 493 288 2,800 186 3,475

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 29 of 304

Table 2-1 - Potable Water Pump Station Database Suction Side Discharge Additional Edison Efficiency Elevation Shutoff Head Design Head Design Flow Low Head High Flow Description (Char) UNITID Pressure Side Pressure Disinfection Test Date (Energy/AF) (ft) (ft) (ft) (gpm) (ft) (gpm) Zone Zone Los Caballos Pump 1 WPUMP0000000090 No 1305 1790 4/8/2014 854 1,255 696 496 1,550 240 3,100

Los Caballos Pump 2 WPUMP0000000091 No 1305 1790 4/8/2014 773 1,255 780 516 2,300 300 3,500

Los Caballos Pump 3 WPUMP0000000005 No 1305 1790 4/8/2014 737 1,255 780 516 2,300 300 3,500

Meadowview Pump 1 WPUMP0000000093 No 1305 1380 7/23/2013 177 1,125 160 114 1,160 56 1,900

Meadowview Pump 2 WPUMP0000000094 No 1305 1380 7/23/2013 188 1,125 184 115 1,500 64 2,000

Meadowview Pump 3 WPUMP0000000095 No 1305 1380 7/23/2013 193 1,125 184 115 1,500 64 2,000

Meadowview Pump 4 WPUMP0000000096 No 1305 1380 7/23/2013 184 1,125 184 115 1,500 64 2,000

Meadowview Pump 5 WPUMP0000000097 No 1305 1380 7/30/2013 170 1,125 260 141 1,500 80 1,840

Meadowview Pump 6 WPUMP0000000098 No 1305 1380 7/23/2013 204 1,125 184 115 1,500 64 2,000

Norma Marshall Pump 1 WPUMP0000000099 No 1305 1380 1/17/2012 172 1,250 168 86 2,850 60 3,500

Norma Marshall Pump 2 WPUMP0000000100 No 1305 1380 1/17/2012 162 1,250 168 86 2,850 60 3,500

Norma Marshall Pump 3 WPUMP0000000101 No 1305 1380 1/17/2012 159 1,250 168 86 2,850 60 3,500

Norma Marshall Pump 4 WPUMP0000000102 No 1305 1380 1/17/2012 163 1,250 168 86 2,850 60 3,500

Norma Marshall Pump 5 WPUMP0000000103 No 1305 1380 1/17/2012 162 1,250 168 86 2,850 60 3,500

Norma Marshall Pump 6 WPUMP0000000104 No 1305 1380 11/1/2007 164 1,250 168 86 2,850 60 3,500

Rancho California 1 Pump 1 WPUMP0000000105 No 1380 1610 11/1/2012 173 1,260 380 257 1,811 165 2,690

Rancho California 1 Pump 2 WPUMP0000000106 No 1380 1610 11/1/2012 164 1,260 380 257 1,811 165 2,690

Rancho California 1 Pump 3 WPUMP0000000107 No 1380 1610 11/12012 185 1,260 380 257 1,811 165 2,690

Rancho California 1 Pump 4 WPUMP0000000108 No 1380 1610 11/2/2012 373 1,260 380 257 1,811 165 2,690

Rancho California 1 Pump 5 WPUMP0000000109 No 1380 1610 11/2/2012 380 1,260 380 257 1,811 165 2,690

Rancho California 1 Pump 6 WPUMP0000000110 No 1380 1610 11/2/2012 352 1,260 380 257 1,811 165 2,690

Rancho California 2 Pump 1 WPUMP0000000111 No 1380 1485 6/1/2010 202 1,255 240 130 1,475 66 1,950

Rancho California 2 Pump 2 WPUMP0000000112 No 1380 1485 6/1/2010 181 1,255 180 120 1,600 75 2,200

Rancho California 2 Pump 3 WPUMP0000000113 No 1380 1485 6/1/2010 171 1,255 237 123 1,525 66 1,975

Redonda Mesa 1 WPUMP0000000218 No 2825 2995 - - 2,802 245 210 100 160 140

Redonda Mesa 2 WPUMP0000000219 No 2825 2995 - - 2,802 245 210 100 160 140

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 30 of 304

Senga Doherty Pump 1 WPUMP0000000186 CL2 1305 1670 2/14/2011 530 1,220 700 436 3,525 218 4,800

Senga Doherty Pump 2 WPUMP0000000187 CL2 1305 1670 2/14/2011 520 1,220 700 436 3,525 218 4,800

Senga Doherty Pump 3 WPUMP0000000188 CL2 1305 1670 2/14/2011 522 1,220 700 436 3,525 218 4,800

Senga Doherty Pump 4 WPUMP0000000189 CL2 1305 1670 2/14/2011 520 1,220 700 436 3,525 218 4,800

Senga Doherty Pump 5 WPUMP0000000190 CL2 1305 1670 2/14/2011 540 1,220 700 436 3,525 218 4,800

Senga Doherty Pump 6 WPUMP0000000191 CL2 1305 1670 2/14/2011 528 1,220 700 436 3,525 218 4,800

Senga Doherty Pump 7 WPUMP0000000192 CL2 1305 1670 1/24/2008 550 1,220 700 436 3,525 218 4,800 Tenaja Pump 1 - Ammonia 2260 2550 7/9/2013 420 2,065 575 335 2,100 180 2,800

Tenaja Pump 2 - Ammonia 2260 2550 7/9/2013 416 2,065 575 335 2,100 180 2,800

Tenaja Pump 3 - Ammonia 2260 2550 7/9/2013 419 2,065 575 335 2,100 180 2,800

Via Santa Rosa Pump 1 WPUMP0000000183 No 1670 1990 6/24/2010 485 1,295 475 335 1,360 220 1,760

Via Santa Rosa Pump 2 WPUMP0000000184 No 1670 1990 6/24/2010 453 1,295 475 335 1,360 220 1,760

Via Santa Rosa Pump 3 WPUMP0000000185 No 1670 1990 6/24/2010 485 1,295 475 335 1,360 220 1,760

Via Vaquero Pump 1 WPUMP0000000193 No 1670 1990 8/10/2010 501 1,535 470 320 1,200 150 1,800

Via Vaquero Pump 2 WPUMP0000000194 No 1670 1990 8/10/2010 494 1,535 470 320 1,200 150 1,800

Via Vaquero Pump 3 WPUMP0000000195 No 1670 1990 8/10/2010 475 1,535 470 320 1,200 150 1,800

Winchester Pump 1 WPUMP0000000116 CL2 1305 1380 6/15/2012 187 1,085 208 108 2,120 80 2,400

Winchester Pump 2 WPUMP0000000117 CL2 1305 1380 6/15/2012 179 1,085 208 108 2,120 80 2,400

Winchester Pump 3 WPUMP0000000118 CL2 1305 1380 6/15/2012 186 1,085 208 108 2,120 80 2,400

Winchester Pump 4 WPUMP0000000119 CL2 1305 1380 8/10/2010 174 1,085 208 108 2,120 80 2,400

Winchester Pump 5 WPUMP0000000120 CL2 1305 1380 6/15/2012 181 1,085 208 108 2,120 80 2,400

Winchester Pump 6 WPUMP0000000121 CL2 1305 1380 6/15/2012 188 1,085 208 108 2,120 80 2,400

*Design Flow Rate and Head obtained from available SCE Edison Pump Tests. Pump curves unavailable. **Edison Pump Test Unavailable. Efficiency obtained from District's SCADA database.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 31 of 304

Table 2-2 - Potable Water Well Pump Database

Ground Shutoff Design Design Low High Additional Discharge Side Description (Char) UNITID Elevation Head Head Flow Head Flow Disinfection Pressure Zone (ft) (ft) (ft) (gpm) (ft) (gpm)

Well 101 WPUMP0000000001 CL2 1305 1,030 560 455 1,100 252 1,800

Well 106 WPUMP0000000006 CL2 1305 1,060 816 600 700 300 901

Well 108 WPUMP0000000002 CL2 1305 1,085 710 560 800 350 1,150

Well 109 WPUMP0000000010 CL2 1305 1,055 480 360 680 216 990

Well 113 WPUMP0000000012 CL2 1790 1,445 600 468 520 288 670

Well 118 WPUMP0000000013 CL2 1305 1,010 710 580 950 310 1,375

Well 119 WPUMP0000000011 CL2 1305 1,035 816 495 2,200 270 3,270

Well 120 WPUMP0000000003 CL2 1305 1,060 826 534 1,500 360 2,090

Well 122 WPUMP0000000029 CL2 1305 1,050 896 581 2,000 336 2,520

Well 123 WPUMP0000000030 CL2 1305 1,245 250 200 500 160 1,200

Well 124 WPUMP0000000031 CL2 1305 1,175 729 600 450 450 630

Well 125 WPUMP0000000032 CL2 1305 1,215 592 475 900 272 1,340

Well 126 WPUMP0000000033 CL2 1305 1,110 699.6 579 1,150 320 1,730 Well 128 WPUMP0000000034 No 1305 1,105 800 500 2,000 275 2,800

Well 129 WPUMP0000000035 No 1485 1,165 1056 720 1,000 480 1,480

Well 130 WPUMP0000000036 CL2 1305 1,175 792 480 2,200 244 3,255

Well 131 WPUMP0000000037 CL2 1305 1,195 702 450 1,370 210 2,200

Well 132 WPUMP0000000038 CL2 1305 1,225 263 190 1,050 100 1,393

Well 133 WPUMP0000000039 CL2 1305 1,230 771 565 700 200 1,100

Well 138 WPUMP0000000041 CL2 1305 1,110 960 610 1,996 360 2,520

Well 139 WPUMP0000000042 CL2 1380 1,350 812 560 1,000 340 1,400

Well 140 WPUMP0000000043 CL2 1380 1,255 720 570 800 360 1,180

Well 141 WPUMP0000000044 CL2 1305 1,150 689 533 580 312 840 Well 143 WPUMP0000000045 No 1305 1,055 860 540 960 380 1,220

Well 144 WPUMP0000000046 CL2 1305 1,050 650 480 750 260 1,040

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 32 of 304

Table 2-2 - Potable Water Well Pump Database

Ground Shutoff Design Design Low High Additional Discharge Side Description (Char) UNITID Elevation Head Head Flow Head Flow Disinfection Pressure Zone (ft) (ft) (ft) (gpm) (ft) (gpm)

Well 145 WPUMP0000000047 CL2 1305 1,065 700 480 830 350 1,150

Well 149 WPUMP0000000049 CL2 1380 1,225 640 480 580 224 1,100

Well 151 WPUMP0000000050 CL2 1305 1,285 774 580 600 340 880 Ammonia Well 152 WPUMP0000000051 1305 1,275 319 200 2,000 150 2,690 (Coming out of VDC) Ammonia Well 153 WPUMP0000000052 1305 1,260 239 154 2,000 100 2,690 (Coming out of VDC) Ammonia Well 154 - 1305 267.3 200 750 80 1,380 (Coming out of VDC)

Well 156 WPUMP0000000054 CL2 1305 1,105 545 393 800 170 1,400 Ammonia Well 157 WPUMP0000000055 1305 1,275 245 150 2,000 100 2,508 (Coming out of VDC) Ammonia Well 158 WPUMP0000000056 1305 1,280 184 110 1,800 72 2,280 (Coming out of VDC)

Well 164 - CL2 1380 1,245 419.1 282 1,100 188 1,400

Well 203 WPUMP0000000058 CL2 1380 1,240 900 600 500 320 730

Well 205 WPUMP0000000061 CL2 1305 1,065 710 540 1,300 390 1,720

Well 210 WPUMP0000000063 CL2 1380 1,210 365 279 709 84 1,100

Well 211 WPUMP0000000064 CL2 1305 1,090 875 490 1,600 308 2,200

Well 215 WPUMP0000000066 CL2 1610 1,335 887 782 600 400 1,050

Well 216 WPUMP0000000057 CL2 1380 1,155 824 610 600 390 825

Well 217 WPUMP0000000059 CL2 1305 1,045 773.1 540 750 200 1,065

Well 231 WPUMP0000000062 CL2 1305 1,045 505 347 650 244 820

Well 232 WPUMP0000000068 CL2 1305 1,185 325 180 1,040 140 1,280

Well 233 WPUMP0000000069 CL2 1380 1,210 620 400 1,960 240 2,520

Well 234 WPUMP0000000070 CL2 1380 1,165 492 408 900 300 1,200

Well 235 WPUMP0000000071 CL2 1305 1,070 695 560 1,200 325 1,738

Well 309 WPUMP0000000072 CL2 1305 1,055 821 540 2,000 260 3,000

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 33 of 304

Table 2-3 - Potable Water Storage Reservoir Database Rancho Division Reservoir Mixing System Additional Disinfection Flexible Coupling Address Material System Total Capacity (MG) Shell Height (ft) Shell Diameter (ft) Ace Bowen Res 1 Tideflex None Yes 29025 Via Santa Rosa RWSTL POTABLE 2.7 32.0 120.0 Ace Bowen Res 2 No None Yes 29025 Via Santa Rosa WSTL POTABLE 4.8 32.0 160.0 Alvarez Res 1 Tideflex None Yes 19003 Los Caballos WSTL POTABLE 1.1 38.8 70.0 Anza Res 1 Tideflex None Yes 42260 Anza Rd WSTL POTABLE 2.2 30.8 110.0 Anza Res 2 Tank Shark None 42260 Anza Rd PSC POTABLE 3.0 35.0 132.0 Buck Mesa Res 1 Tideflex None Yes 37805 Rancho California Rd WSTL POTABLE 1.5 30.8 95.0 Buck Mesa Res 2 Tideflex None Yes 37805 Rancho California Rd WSTL POTABLE 4.8 32.0 160.0 Calaveras Res 1 Proposed None No 38795 Esplendida Way WSTL POTABLE 0.5 33.5 52.0 Calle Contento Res 1 Proposed CL2 Yes 41750 Calle Contento BSTL POTABLE 2.2 31.5 110.0 Calle Contento Res 2 Proposed CL2 Yes 41750 Calle Contento WSTL POTABLE 3.5 32.5 140.0 De Portola Res 1 Tank Shark None Yes 40110 Via Cordova WSTL POTABLE 2.2 30.8 110.0 De Portola Res 2 Proposed None Yes 40110 Via Cordova WSTL POTABLE 3.2 32.0 130.0 El Chimisal Res 1 Tideflex None Yes 34695 El Mirador Court WSTL POTABLE 6.2 32.5 182.0 El Chimisal Res 2 Tideflex None Yes 34695 El Mirador Court WSTL POTABLE 6.3 32.5 182.0 El Chimisal Res 3 Proposed None Yes 34695 El Mirador Court WSTL POTABLE 2.3 38.0 102.0 General Kearny 2 Tideflex None Yes 3100 Rancho California Rd WSTL POTABLE 7.7 32.0 210.0 Glenoaks Res 1 Tank Shark None Yes 39200 Camino Sierra WSTL POTABLE 2.2 32.0 110.0 Glenoaks Res 2 Tideflex None Yes 37990 Ladera Vista WSTL POTABLE 2.2 31.6 110.0 Norma Marshall Res Tideflex None Yes 41520 Margarita Rd WSTL POTABLE 4.8 32.0 160.0 Stan Kemp Res Tideflex None Yes PSC POTABLE 3.5 35.0 131.0 Tucalota Res Tideflex None Yes PSC POTABLE 3.5 31.5 144.0 Winchester Res 1 Proposed None Yes WSTL POTABLE 5.0 30.8 166.0 Santa Rosa Division Antelope Res Tideflex CL2 Yes 24280 Hancock WSTL POTABLE 5.5 32.0 172.0 Avocado Mesa Res Tank Shark + OSG CL2 Yes 19265 Avocado Mesa WSTL POTABLE 5.7 33.0 175.0 Baldaray Res Tank Shark + OSG CL2 Yes 35850 Avenida La Cresta WSTL POTABLE 2.2 32.0 110.0 Bear Creek 1 Tideflex None Yes 36500 Clinton Keith BSTL POTABLE 2.2 32.0 110.0 Calle Paramo Res Proposed None Yes 42101 Calle Paramo WSTL POTABLE 1.0 32.0 75.0 Carancho Res 3 Tideflex None Yes 43695 El Calamar WSTL POTABLE 5.3 31.0 170.0 De Luz Res 1 Proposed None Yes 52635 De Luz Rd RWSTL POTABLE 3.0 36.8 120.0 De Luz Res 2 Proposed None Yes 52635 De Luz Rd RWSTL POTABLE 3.0 36.8 120.0 El Prado Res 1 Tank Shark None Yes 24885 Camino Del Valle WSTL POTABLE 5.0 33.5 160.0 El Prado Res 2 Tideflex None Yes 24885 Camino Del Valle WSTL POTABLE 6.4 33.5 180.0 Freeman Res 1 Tideflex None Yes 27330 Calle Escadera RWSTL POTABLE 3.0 36.5 120.0 Freeman Res 2 Tideflex None Yes 27330 Calle Escadera WSTL POTABLE 5.0 36.5 155.0 La Cresta Res Proposed None Yes 18505 Vista De Montanas WSTL POTABLE 1.0 33.0 72.0 Redonda Mesa Res PAX None Yes 39400 Redondo Mesa WSTL POTABLE 0.5 24.0 62.0 Senga Doherty Res Tideflex None No 43250 Elm Street PSC POTABLE 10.0 32.0 235.0 Tenaja Res Tideflex None Yes 19570 Tenaja WSTL POTABLE 2.2 31.0 110.0 Via Vaquero Res Tideflex None Yes 43175 Via Barranca WSTL POTABLE 5.6 31.0 175.0

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 34 of 304

Table 2-4 - Potable Water Pipeline Length by Diameter Diameter (in.) Length (miles) 4.0 5 6.0 32 8.0 356 8.5 12 10.0 3 12.0 171 12.5 10 14.0 13 16.0 80 17.0 1 17.5 3 18.0 7 20.0 43 22.0 1 24.0 68 25.5 4 25.8 1 30.0 27 35.0 1 36.0 32 38.0 1 39.0 9 42.0 8 48.0 10 54.0 5 60.0 1 Total 903

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 35 of 304

Table 2-5 Potable Water Pipeline Length by Material Material Length (miles)

Asbestos Cement 107.5

Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 471.5

High Density Polyethylene 0.1

Polyvinyl Chloride 292.7

Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder 23.8

Steel 7.4

Unknown 0.1

TOTAL 903.1

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 36 of 304

Table 2-6 Potable Water Pipeline Length by Material and Diameter Diameter (in.) Material Length (miles)

Asbestos Cement 1.1

Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder 0.0

Polyvinyl Chloride 0.1 4 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 1.1

Steel 2.8

4-inch Diameter Subtotal 5.1

Asbestos Cement 17.5

Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder 0.0

Polyvinyl Chloride 2.5 6 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 11.9

Steel 0.3

6-inch Diameter Subtotal 32.3

Asbestos Cement 61.8

Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder 0.0

Polyvinyl Chloride 208.7

8 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 84.9

Steel 0.9

Unknown 0.1

8-inch Diameter Subtotal 356.3

8.5 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 11.5

Asbestos Cement 0.3

Polyvinyl Chloride 0.0 10 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 2.8

10-inch Diameter Subtotal 3.2

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 37 of 304

Table 2-6 Potable Water Pipeline Length by Material and Diameter Diameter (in.) Material Length (miles) Asbestos Cement 19.4 Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder 0.2 Polyvinyl Chloride 65.7 12 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 85.3 Steel 0.1 12-inch Diameter Subtotal 170.7 12.5 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 9.9 Polyvinyl Chloride 0.0 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 12.6 14 Steel 0.9 14-inch Diameter Subtotal 13.5 Asbestos Cement 2.8 Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder 0.0 Polyvinyl Chloride 14.7 16 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 59.7 Steel 2.5 16-inch Diameter Subtotal 79.6 17 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 0.9 17.5 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 2.6 Polyvinyl Chloride 0.0 18 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 6.9 18-inch Diameter Subtotal 6.9 Asbestos Cement 1.1 Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder 0.0 20 Polyvinyl Chloride 0.0 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 42.3 20-inch Diameter Subtotal 43.4

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 38 of 304

Table 2-6 Potable Water Pipeline Length by Material and Diameter Diameter (in.) Material Length (miles)

Asbestos Cement 0.0

22 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 0.7

22-inch Diameter Subtotal 0.7

Asbestos Cement 3.4

Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder 0.1

Polyvinyl Chloride 0.9 24 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 63.2

Steel 0.0

24-inch Diameter Subtotal 67.6

25.5 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 4.3

25.75 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 0.8

Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder 3.7

Polyvinyl Chloride 0.0 30 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 23.1

30-inch Diameter Subtotal 26.8

32 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 0.0

35 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 1.0

Asbestos Cement 0.0

High Density Polyethylene 0.1

36 Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder 18.7

Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 13.1

36-inch Diameter Subtotal 32.0

38 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 1.1

39 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 9.1

42 Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder 1.1

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 39 of 304

Table 2-6 Potable Water Pipeline Length by Material and Diameter Diameter (in.) Material Length (miles)

Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 6.5

42-inch Diameter Subtotal 7.5

Polyvinyl Chloride 0.0

48 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 10.1

48-inch Diameter Subtotal 10.1

54 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 4.7

60 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 1.4

TOTAL 903.1

2.2 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM The District’s recycled water distribution system provides water through four pressure zones ranging from 1181 to 1481 feet. Recycled water is conveyed from the forebay to either the 1181 or 1381 Zones via the Elm Street No. 2 or Elm Street No. 3 Pump Stations, respectively. With the exception of the Superior Ready Mix, recycled water within the District is utilized solely for outdoor irrigation.

Water is delivered from the 1181 Zone to the 1481 Zone via the Cole Creek Pump Station, and from to 1381 Zone to the 1441 Zone via the Redhawk Pump Station. Water in the 1181 Zone can be also be stored in the Cole Creek Storage Pond, and transferred back into the 1181 Zone via the Cole Creek Transfer Pump Station. An Existing Recycled Water Facilities Map is included as Appendix B. Figure 2-2, which was generated utilizing the District’s 2014 SCADA system, illustrates the step-wise nature of the different Zones within the recycled water system.

Figure 2-2 – Existing Recycled Water System

1481

1381

Off‐Line (121)

Pond #5

1049

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 41 of 304

2.2.1 Distribution Infrastructure Tables 2-7 through 2-12 present an inventory of the District’s recycled water distribution system. The District‘s operates 6 recycled water pump stations and 5 active recycled groundwater production wells as presented in Tables 2-7 and 2-8, respectively. The District maintains 4 recycled water storage reservoirs with a combined capacity of 7.5 million gallons (MG) as summarized in Table 2-9. The District owns 6 recycled water storage ponds with a total of 1,495 AFY of storage, including the Cole Creek Storage Pond. The recycled water system includes 58.9 miles of water pipelines which convey water from its source to water customers. Pipeline lengths are summarized by diameter in Table 2-10, by material in Table 2- 11, and by both material and diameter in Table 2-12.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 42 of 304

Table 2-7 - Recycled Water Pump Station Database Suction Side Discharge Shutoff Design Design Low High Elevation Description Pressure Side Pressure Head Head Flow Head Flow (ft) Zone Zone (ft) (ft) (gpm) (ft) (gpm) Cole Creek P1 1181 1481 1,150 502 405 900 270 1,290 Cole Creek P2 1181 1481 1,150 502 405 900 270 1,290 Cole Creek P3 1181 1481 1,150 502 405 900 270 1,290 Cole Creek Transfer P1 * 1181 1,150 194 144 1,000 94 1,347 Cole Creek Transfer P2 * 1181 1,150 194 144 1,000 94 1,347 Elm St 1 P1 1041 1381 1,041 550 370 1,600 240 2,000 Elm St 1 P2 1041 1381 1,041 550 370 1,600 240 2,000 Elm St 1 P3 1041 1381 1,041 585 363 2,600 225 3,457 Elm St 1 P4 1041 1381 1,041 585 363 2,600 225 3,457 Elm St 2 P1 1041 1181 1,040 210 150 1,600 118 2,086 Elm St 2 P2 1041 1181 1,040 210 150 1,600 118 2,086 Elm St 2 P3 1041 1181 1,040 210 150 1,600 118 2,086 Elm St 2 P4 1041 1181 1,040 210 150 1,600 118 2,086 Elm St 3 P1 * 1041 1,040 110 102 1,750 50 2,500 Elm St 3 P2 * 1041 1,040 110 102 1,750 50 2,500 Elm St 3 P3 * 1041 1,040 110 102 1,750 50 2,500 Redhawk P1 1381 1441 1,109 125 100 860 55 1,320 Redhawk P2 1381 1441 1,109 125 100 860 55 1,320 Redhawk P3 1381 1441 1,109 125 100 860 55 1,320

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 43 of 304

Table 2-8 - Recycled Water Well Pump Database Shutoff Design Design Low High Discharge Side Elevation Description Head Head Flow Head Flow Pressure Zone (ft) (ft) (ft) (gpm) (ft) (gpm) Well 102 1381 1,014 840 520 1,480 320 2,000

Well 121 1381 1,027 868 616 1,700 336 2,350

Well 135 1381 1,040 548 380 800 225 1,140

Well 146 1181 1,047 405 307 300 180 500

Well 155 1181 1,054 794 470 510 239 704

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 44 of 304

Table 2-9 - Recycled Water Storage Reservoir Database Rancho Division Flexible Total Shell Shell Reservoir Address Material System Coupling Capacity (MG) Height (ft) Diameter (ft)

El Chimisal Res 4 Yes 34695 El Mirador Court WSTL RECYCLED 2.0 32.5 182.0

General Kearny 1 Yes 3100 Rancho California Rd WSTL RECYCLED 2.2 30.8 110.0

Santa Rosa Division Flexible Total Shell Shell Reservoir Address Material System Coupling Capacity (MG) Height (ft) Diameter (ft)

Bear Creek 2 Yes 36500 Clinton Keith BSTL RECYCLED 1.1 31.5 75.0

Cole Creek Recycled Res Yes 42533 Tenaja Road WSTL RECYCLED 2.2 31.0 110.0

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 45 of 304

Table 2-10 - Recycled Water Pipeline Length by Diameter Diameter (in.) Length (miles)

4 0.41

6 3.32

8 8.68

10 0.05

12 10.30

14 0.01

16 8.25

18 1.63

20 15.43

24 10.76

36 0.01

48 0.08

TOTAL 58.94

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 46 of 304

Table 2-11 - Recycled Water Pipeline Length by Material Material Length (miles)

Cement Mortar Lined and Coated Steel 16.8

Polyvinyl Chloride 40.7

Unknown 1.4

TOTAL 58.9

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 47 of 304

Table 2-12 Recycled Water Pipeline Length by Material and Diameter Diameter (in.) Material Length (miles)

4 Polyvinyl Chloride 0.4 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated 4 0.1 Steel Sub-Total 4-inch Diameter 0.4

6 Polyvinyl Chloride 3.2 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated 6 0.0 Steel 6 Unknown 0.0

Sub-Total 6-inch Diameter 3.3

8 Polyvinyl Chloride 8.5 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated 8 0.2 Steel 8 Unknown 0.0

Sub-Total 8-inch Diameter 8.7

10 Polyvinyl Chloride 0.0 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated 10 0.0 Steel 10 Unknown 0.0

Sub-Total 10-inch Diameter 0.1

12 Polyvinyl Chloride 8.0 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated 12 2.1 Steel 12 Unknown 0.2

Sub-Total 12-inch Diameter 10.3

16 Polyvinyl Chloride 7.3 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated 16 0.8 Steel 16 Unknown 0.1

Sub-Total 16-inch Diameter 8.2

18 Polyvinyl Chloride 1.6

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 48 of 304

Table 2-12 Recycled Water Pipeline Length by Material and Diameter Diameter (in.) Material Length (miles)

20 Polyvinyl Chloride 9.2 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated 20 6.0 Steel 20 Unknown 0.2

Sub-Total 20-inch Diameter 15.4

24 Polyvinyl Chloride 2.4 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated 24 7.4 Steel 24 Unknown 0.9

Sub-Total 24-inch Diameter 10.8 Cement Mortar Lined and Coated 48 0.04 Steel 48 Unknown 0.04

Sub-Total 48-inch Diameter 0.08

Total 58.9

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 49 of 304

CHAPTER 3. WATER DEMANDS Existing potable and recycled water demands were developed, as were corresponding build-out demand projections. Existing demands were based on the District’s Customer Billing Record, with build-out projections calculated from existing demands, duty factors, gross acreage and land use classifications.

The existing average potable water demand is calculated to be 63,290 AFY (56.5 MGD), which is 59% of the projected build-out demand. This includes an estimated 38,702 dwelling units and 57,075 acres of potable water use area. Approximately 41,700 parcels are currently receiving potable and/or non-potable water service from the District, which includes 91% of the 45,733 parcels within the District’s service area (excluding Right-of- Way). The existing recycled water average demand is 3,869 AFY (3.5 MGD).

Historically, several Contract Service Areas (CSA) have received water from the District by inter-agency agreement. These include Pechanga, Lake Skinner Park, Rancho Glen Oaks, Nakayama Park and the Rock Mountain Area. Similar to these CSAs, additional in- fill areas identified as annexation areas within the District’s current sphere of influence boundary (e.g. Murrieta Valley and Redhawk South) have also been included in the build-out demand projections.

3.1 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION In December 2013, the District obtained the most recent copy of the parcel database maintained by the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. Within the District’s service area 47,764 parcels were identified. Based on the location of each parcel, the agency with jurisdiction over each parcel’s general plan land use classification was identified as either the City of Temecula, the City of Murrieta, or the County of Riverside. Similar to the methodology of the 2005 WFMP, each local land use classification was consolidated into a corresponding District land use classification, as shown in Table 3-1.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 50 of 304

There are eight (8) new classifications in Table 3-1 that did not previously appear in the 2005 WFMP. Three (3) of these correspond to recently adopted Water Supply Assessments (WSA) that have been subsequently approved by the District and the City of Temecula, and include the Altair Specific Plan, the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and the Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan. Two (2) classifications indicate projects that are also within the District’s sewer service area, and were identified as the Vineyard Specific Plan and the Temecula Water Park in the District’s 2015 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan - Draft. Commercial land use classification previously included Schools in the 2005 WFMP, while the Business Park classification previously included Civic/Institutional and Industrial Classifications. These have been separated for this Master Plan effort, creating separate Industrial and Civic/Institutional Land Use Classifications. Parcels that create public Right-of-Way (e.g. streets and roads) have been also been identified with a Right- of-Way Land Use classification. There are also two (2) additional Open Space land use classifications: Open Space – Conservation Habitat and Open Space – Conservation. Those parcels identified as Open Space – Conservation Habitat are Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) acquisitions and currently have no associated water meters, nor are they anticipated to have any future water demands. Open Space – Conservation were identified as Public/Quasi Public Land that will be allowed to have only one dwelling unit per parcel per staff’s conversation with County of Riverside staff.

The delineation between “Open Space – Native” and “Open Space – Recreational” in the cities of Temecula and Murrieta was based on the presence of an existing water meter, potable or non-potable. Those parcels having either a potable or non-potable water meter were classified as “Open Space – Recreational”, while those Open Space parcels without an associated water meter were classified as “Open Space – Native.”

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 51 of 304

Ag/Vineyard Planning Area Agriculture (AG) Vineyards/Agricultural

Estate 20 Residential Open Space – Rural (20 Ac min) (OS - RUR)

Estate 10 Residential Rural Mountainous Hillside Residential (10 Ac min) (RM) (10 Ac min)

Estate 5 Residential Rural Residential Rural Residential (5 Ac min) (RR) (Up to 0.2 DU/Ac) Rural Community - Estate 2 Residential Residential - Very Low Density Rural Residential Estate Density (2 Ac min) (0.2 - 0.4 DU/Ac) (2.5 Ac min) Residential (RC - EDR) Residential - Low Density Very Low Density Residential - Low Density (1-2 Acres) Residential (VLDR) (0.5 - 2.0 DU/Ac)

Residential - Medium Density Medium Density Residential - Low-Medium Single-Family 1 Res (2-5 DU/Acre) Residential (MDR) Density (3-6 DU/Ac) (2.1 - 5.0 DU/Ac)

Residential - Medium High Density Medium High Density (5-8 DU/Acre) Residential (MDR)

Residential - High Density Residential - Medium Density Single Family 2 Res (8-14 DU/Acre) (7-12 DU/Ac) (5.1 - 10.0 DU/Ac) Very High Density Residential - High Density Multi-Family Res Residential (13-20 DU/Ac) (10.1 -15.0 DU/Ac) Multi-Family Residential (VHDR) (>14 Dus/Acre) Multi-Family 2 Res (15.1 -18.0 DU/Ac)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 52 of 304

Altair Specific Plan Altair Specific Plan

Temecula Creek Inn Specific Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan Plan

Uptown Jefferson Specific Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Plan

Vineyard Specific Plan Vineyard Specific Plan

NON-RESIDENTIAL

Commercial Tourist (CT) Community Commercial Commercial

Community Commercial - Retail, Highway/Tourist Commercial Commercial – Office Retail, Neighborhood Commercial, Tourist Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial

Tribal Trust Lands Regional Commercial

Industrial Park Business Park

Business Park – Professional Office Professional and Office Office, Business Park

Service Commercial

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 53 of 304

General Industrial

Industrial - Industrial General Industrial - A

District Infrastructure Public/Institutional Facilities Civic/Institutional Civic/Institutional – Schools, Hospitals, District Infrastructure District Infrastructure District Infrastructure

Right-Of-Way APN identified as RW APN identified as RW APN identified as RW

Open Space - Conservation Habitat (OS - CH)

Open Space – Open Space – Conservation Conservation (OS - C)

Public/Quasi-Public Land

Open Space – Regional Conservation Conservation Habitat Authority Acquisition

Open Space – Open Space - Water Open Space (with no water Open Space (with no water Native (OS-W) meter) meter)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 54 of 304

Table 3-1 - Summary of District Land Use Classifications Based on Local Agency General Plan Land Use Classifications Riverside County City of Temecula City of Murrieta District Land Use Classification General Plan General Plan General Plan Open Space - Open Space (with potable or Open Space (with potable or Recreation (OS - R) recycled water meter) recycled water meter)

Parks and Open Space (with potable or recycled water meter) Open Space - Recreational Parks and Recreation

Private Recreation

Temecula Water Park Public/Institutional Facilities*

* - APN 909-370-002 has been identified as a potential site of a future water park.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 55 of 304

3.2 HISTORIC WATER USE Figures 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 illustrate the historic annual water production from FY1977-78 through FY 2014-15 for the Rancho Division, Santa Rosa Division and the District as a whole, respectively. This time period reveals an increase in total District water production from 13,000 acre-feet (AF) to 66,100 AF, including recycled water production, for the 37-year span.

Water production in the Santa Rosa Division rapidly increased during the period from 1977 to 1987 as thousands of acres of avocado groves were cultivated. Water production increased from about 3,500 AF in FY1977-78 to 24,000 AF in FY1986- 87. Since 1987, the demand within the Santa Rosa Division has leveled off considerably, and is currently at a total of 25,400 AF for FY 2014-15. In the Rancho Division, water production increased steadily from about 9,500 AF in FY1977-78 to 40,800 AF in FY 2014-15.

Traditionally, water consumption within the District has been substantially from agricultural uses. However, this trend appears to be changing. As presented in Table 3-2 and illustrated in Figure 3-4, the percent of total District potable water usage has been identified as either Agricultural (Ag), Ag/Domestic, Residential or Other.

Rainfall has an effect on water demand and the corresponding need for water production, and Figure 3-5 illustrates rainfall effects on required water production. The side-by-side comparison of water production and rainfall for the Temecula area verifies a distinct inverse relationship. Rainfall data presented in Figure 3-5 was obtained from a Peet Brothers Ultimeter 2100 Weather Station in the Redhawk area of Temecula, near the intersections of Wolf Valley Road and Redhawk parkway, and can be located at the following link: http://weathercurrents.com/temecula/ArchivePrecipitation.do.

Figure 3‐1 ‐ Rancho Division Historic Water Production 60.0

50.0

40.0 (1000's) 30.0 Feet ‐ Acre

20.0

10.0

0.0

Fiscal Year

Series2 Figure 3‐2 ‐ Santa Rosa Historic Water Production 45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0 (1000's) Feet ‐ 20.0 Acre

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

Fiscal Year

Series1 Figure 3‐3 ‐ Historic Water Production 100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0 52.5

60.0 45.2 46.0 46.9 39.1 43.2 44.1 37.5 45.0 (1000's) 38.4 40.4 50.0 40.1 37.9 37.5 Feet 36.0 ‐ 40.8 37.0 35.0 26.3 32.0

Acre 40.0 26.0 21.5 24.0 27.1 21.0 16.0 24.7 30.0 18.0 13.3 16.0 14.0 13.0

20.0 38.2 39.9 12.0 11.0 9.0 36.3 30.8 35.2 34.5 33.7 35.6 34.8 31.8 29.9 29.9 30.9 12.0 26.7 27.5 27.3 28.5 26.6 26.8 28.3 24.0 23.9 25.4 9.5 21.5 20.3 20.5 22.0 22.4 10.0 20.0 23.5 9.5 17.0 23.1 12.5 13.5 13.5 8.0 3.5 5.5 0.0

Fiscal Year

Santa Rosa Division Rancho Division Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 59 of 304

Table 3-2 - Breakdown of Historic Water Usage by Usage Type Land Use District-Wide Santa Rosa Division Rancho Division Category 1990 1996 2003 2013 1990 1996 2003 2013 1990 1996 2003 2013 Agriculture 59% 44% 38% 29% 85% 73% 70% 58% 25% 19% 6% 8% Ag/Domestic 10% 7% 8% 10% 4% 7% 10% 17% 18% 6% 6% 5% Residential 22% 28% 47% 45% 8% 11% 17% 18% 39% 43% 78% 64% Other 9% 21% 7% 16% 3% 9% 3% 7% 18% 32% 10% 23%

Figure 3‐4 – 2013 Water Usage by Service Type

Districtwide

Other 16% Agriculture 29%

Ag/Domestic Residential 10% 45%

Santa Rosa Division Agriculture Rancho Division 8% Ag/Domestic Other 5% 7% Other 23% Residential 18%

Ag/Domestic Agriculture 17% 58% Residential 64% Figure 3‐5 ‐ Historic Water Production versus Rainfall 100.0

92.4 90.0 83.4 80.6 81.6 78.9 80.0 78.4 75.4 75.7 72.0 71.3 70.2 70.0 70.0 67.8 65.8 66.1 64.5 63.6 61.8 59.3 60.0

52.7 53.7

(1000's) 49.5 50.0 47.1 46.7 45.4

Feet 44.5 ‐

Acre 38.5 40.0 36.3 36.7 32.6 31.0 28.9 30.0

23.0

18.3 20.0 17.2 16.7 15.6 16.2 16.5 15.8 11.8 12.4 11.7 9.5 9.3 10.3 9.6 10.1 9.1 8.2 8.1 8.8 10.0 7.3 6.3 3.4 3.8

0.0 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Fiscal Year

RCWD Water Production Rainfall (inches) Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 62 of 304

3.3 EXISTING WATER DEMANDS The District identified 44,048 individual potable and non-potable meters in the District’s Customer Billing Record on December 3, 2013. These included 61 floating meters; 1 temporary meter; 94 construction meters; 43 meters for customers within our service area but supplied by WMWD; and 139 meters which were Vacant Long Term (VLT) that had no associated water demand for the past 4 years. Accordingly, the District identified and located the remaining 43,753 active potable and non-potable water meters. For each of these 43,753 water meters, annual water demands for 2013 were calculated, based on monthly billing data for October 2012 through September 2013 (the most recent full month of billing data available at the time of this master plan effort). Similar calculations were completed to also quantify 2010, 2011 and 2012 demands for each meter.

Each of the 43,753 meters were assigned to the appropriate parcel(s) for which they provide service. Some meters provide service to multiple parcels, while some parcels receive service from multiple meters. Each parcel’s potable and non- potable water demands were calculated for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Parcel’s with no associated water meters, that clearly showed development in the District’s 2013 Orthophotography (e.g. agriculture usage, residential development, etc.) were identified as being served solely by a private groundwater well. The District estimates that 103 parcels are currently being served solely by groundwater wells parcels in the Santa Rosa Division.

Table 3-3 summarizes the District’s 2013 potable water demands, with the District’s 2013 non-potable (recycled) water demands summarized in Table 3-4. Appendix C presents the potable water demands by potable water pressure zone and land use, as well as, summarizes these demands by District Division (e.g. Rancho or Santa Rosa). Maximum day potable water demands were calculated utilizing the “System- Wide” peaking factor of 2.2, as developed in the 2005 WFMP.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 63 of 304

Table 3-3 - Summary of 2013 District-Wide Potable Water Demands Maximum Day Potable Average Annual Potable Water Demand Additional Area Served Demand* Potable Water Use Estimated Dwelling Master Plan Duty Land Use Solely by Groundwater Area (ac) Units (DU) Factor Wells (ac) MGD AFY CFS MGD CFS

Residential Ag/Vineyard Planning Areas 5,703 - 744 1.50 AFY/ac 2.86 3,207 4.430 6.30 9.745 Estate 20 - - 0 0.75 AFY/ac 0.00 0 0.000 0.00 0.000 Estate 10 20,006 839 1,925 10,275 gpd/du 19.76 22,136 30.578 43.48 67.271 Estate 5 4,332 - 807 3,000 gpd/du 2.42 2,711 3.745 5.32 8.239 Estate 2 4,216 - 1,884 2,000 gpd/du 3.77 4,221 5.830 8.29 12.827 Low Density 262 - 385 1,285 gpd/du 0.49 553 0.765 1.09 1.682 Medium Density 5,770 - 18,451 880 gpd/du 16.24 18,187 25.124 35.72 55.272 Medium High Density - - 0 400 gpd/du 0.00 0 0.000 0.00 0.000 High Density 695 - 7,316 260 gpd/du 1.90 2,131 2.943 4.18 6.476 Multi-Family 438 - 7,191 210 gpd/du 1.51 1,691 2.336 3.32 5.140

Commercial 1,117 - - 1,585 gpd/ac 1.91 2,144 2.962 4.21 6.516 Business Park 1,098 - - 1,365 gpd/ac 1.63 1,831 2.529 3.60 5.564 Industrial 51 5 - 1,000 gpd/ac 0.03 38 0.052 0.07 0.115 Civic/Institutional 1,293 - - 910 gpd/ac 0.84 937 1.295 1.84 2.848 Right-of-Way 7,043 - - 0 gpd/ac 0.03 32 0.044 0.06 0.097 Open Space - Conservation 346 - - 1 du / parcel 0.22 244 0.338 0.48 0.743 Open Space - Conservation Habitat 1,159 - - 0 gpd/ac 0.00 0 0.000 0.00 0.000 Open Space - Native 1,855 - - 0 gpd/ac 0.00 0 0.000 0.00 0.000 Open Space - Recreational 1,112 - - 2.10 AFY/ac 2.27 2,545 3.516 5.00 7.734 Altair Specific Plan - - - - 0.00 0 0.000 0.00 0.000 Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan 309 - - - 0.13 141 0.195 0.28 0.428 Temecula Water Park - - - - 0.00 0 0.000 0.00 0.000 Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 269 - - - 0.48 541 0.747 1.06 1.644 Vineyard Specific Plan - - - - 0.00 0 0.000 0.00 0.000

TOTAL 57,075 844 38,702 56.50 63,290 87.428 124.30 192.341 * - Maximum day potable water demands were calculated utilizing the "system-wide" peaking factor of 2.2, as presented in the 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 64 of 304

Table 3-4 - Summary of 2013 Recycled Water Demands Average Recycled Water Demand Land Use MGD AFY CFS Zone 1181 Business Park 0.01 16 0.022 Civic/Institutional 0.10 110 0.152 Industrial 0.02 21 0.029 1181 Subtotal 0.13 147 0.203 Zone 1381 Ag/Vineyard Planning Area 0.08 87 0.120 Business Park 0.17 185 0.256 Civic/Institutional 0.21 232 0.321 Commercial 0.39 439 0.606 Estate 2 Residential 0.12 130 0.179 Multi-Family Residential 0.01 17 0.023 Open Space - Recreational 0.77 857 1.184 Residential - High Density 0.00 0 0.000 Residential - Medium Density 0.06 67 0.093 Residential - Very Low Density 0.01 8 0.011 Right-Of-Way 0.00 4 0.006 Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan 0.27 298 0.412 1381 Subtotal 2.07 2,324 3.210 Zone 1441 Civic/Institutional 0.00 3 0.005 Open Space - Recreational 0.56 625 0.864 Residential - Medium Density 0.03 38 0.053 1441 Subtotal 0.60 667 0.921 Zone 1481 Civic/Institutional 0.00 0 0.000 Open Space - Recreational 0.65 732 1.011 1481 Subtotal 0.65 732 1.011 TOTAL 3.45 3,869 5.345

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 65 of 304

3.3.1 Comparison to District Production Records The 2013 potable water demands were compared by Division to the monthly production records for the same 12 month period, from October 2012 to September 2013. Table 3-5 presents this comparison, and indicates a District- wide potable water loss of 4%, with the Rancho Division experiencing a slightly higher 4.6% water loss. A conservative estimate of 5% water loss ensures that infrastructure simulations in each Division do not underestimate water loss, while allowing for District-wide supply scenarios to accommodate slight water loss increases in the future.

Table 3-5 - Comparison of 2013 Potable Water Production and Demands Division Production (AFY) Demands (AFY) % Difference

Rancho Division 39,093 37,276 4.6%

Santa Rosa 26,803 26,015 2.9%

TOTAL 65,896 63,290 4.0%

3.3.2 Recent Trends in Potable Water Demand In order to examine recent trends in potable water use, the District identified those parcels currently receiving potable water service that also received potable water service in 2007. District staff had previously identified 2007 as the year of peak potable water production for the District. Of the 42,016 parcels currently receiving potable water service, 37,023 parcels or 88% were also receiving potable water service in 2007. Table 3-6 presents the historical potable water demands for these 37,023 parcels delineated by land use classifications. As shown, 2013 potable water demands are down 24% from 2007 potable water demands, while 2011 potable water demands were the lowest, as they were down 31% from the 2007 water demands. The District experiences monthly variations in potable and non-potable water demands due to the regional Mediterranean climate with hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. The area’s temperature is influenced by prevailing onshore winds from the Pacific Ocean and the rain shadow effect from the Santa Rosa Mountains. Table 3-7 presents the average percentage of annual monthly demand by Division, based on four calendar years of data from the District’s Customer Billing Record, specifically 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. Figure 3-6 illustrates these monthly percentages over a similar time period.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 66 of 304

Table 3-6 - Recent Trends in Potable Water Demands

2013 2012 2011 2010 2007

Land Use MGD AFY MGD AFY MGD AFY MGD AFY MGD AFY

Residential Ag/Vineyard Planning Areas 2.4 2,720 2.2 2,515 2.0 2,277 2.1 2,394 3.1 3,455 Estate 10 17.2 19,269 16.4 18,395 15.0 16,838 15.2 17,035 24.7 27,697 Estate 5 2.2 2,428 2.0 2,208 1.8 2,018 1.8 2,055 2.8 3,169 Estate 2 3.3 3,747 3.1 3,478 3.0 3,378 3.2 3,551 4.6 5,112 Very Low Density 0.4 449 0.4 419 0.4 402 0.4 415 0.5 516 Medium Density 14.4 16,182 14.0 15,651 13.6 15,279 14.5 16,231 18.0 20,218 Medium High Density 0.5 567 0.5 551 0.5 547 0.5 552 0.5 611 High Density 1.5 1,688 1.4 1,611 1.4 1,581 1.5 1,684 1.7 1,897 Multi-Family 0.6 713 0.6 694 0.6 622 0.6 695 0.6 619

Commercial 0.9 1,013 1.0 1,087 1.0 1,090 1.0 1,123 1.1 1,201 Business Park 0.7 834 0.7 819 0.6 708 0.6 723 0.6 723 Industrial 0.0 17 0.0 17 0.0 13 0.0 16 0.0 19 Civic/Institutional 0.3 331 0.3 306 0.3 315 0.3 322 0.2 248 Open Space - Conservation 0.2 244 0.2 230 0.2 226 0.0 51 0.2 275 Open Space - Recreational 1.5 1,648 1.3 1,467 1.2 1,368 1.3 1,444 2.1 2,324 Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan 0.1 141 0.1 134 0.1 126 0.1 130 0.2 183 Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 0.3 335 0.3 321 0.3 298 0.3 312 0.3 356

TOTAL 46.7 52,326 44.6 49,902 42.0 47,085 43.5 48,733 61.3 68,624

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 67 of 304

Table 3-7 - Average Percentage of Annual Monthly Demand by Division (2010 – 2013) Division January February March April May June July August September October November December

Rancho Division 41% 54% 55% 78% 98% 131% 143% 155% 163% 120% 94% 69%

Santa Rosa Division 47% 49% 44% 68% 93% 130% 154% 145% 187% 130% 97% 57%

District Total 43% 52% 50% 74% 96% 131% 148% 150% 173% 124% 95% 64%

Figure 3‐6 ‐ Percentage of Annual Monthly Demand by Division 250%

200% (%)

150% Average

Monthly

Annual 100% of

Percent

50%

Rancho Division Santa Rosa Division District Total Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 69 of 304

3.4 DUTY FACTORS In order to estimate future water demands, it is necessary to project future water use based on the specific land use classification, number of proposed dwelling units and/or gross acreage of a parcel. This is accomplished by multiplying a parcel’s gross acreage or estimated dwelling units, by a water usage duty factor (i.e. gpd/ac or gpd/du) specific to its zoning classification. As presented in Table 3-8, each District land use classification was analyzed to determine existing potable water demands, existing gross acreage served, as well as the average number of dwelling units per acre.

Duty factors for each District Land Use classification were most recently developed as part of the 2005 WFMP, which updated the duty factors developed as part of the 1991 WFMP. Similar to the 2005 WFMP, water duty factors have been updated as part of this master plan effort utilizing two (2) full years of available water demands from the District’s Customer Billing Record.

When calculating duty factors, the water demand for each parcel was assigned as the parcel’s largest annual demand recorded in either 2012 or 2013. By proceeding in this manner, average water demands are not artificially lowered for parcels with recently activated or deactivated accounts (i.e. including months of non-usage decreases calculated annual averages). The District’s 2013 annual potable water demand was approximately 56.5 MGD. By allowing either the 2012 or 2013 demands to be utilized as a parcel’s potable water demand (whichever was greater), the existing potable water demand utilized for Duty Factor calculations is calculated to be 61.9 MGD, an increase of approximately 10% above 2013 potable demands.

Parcels were grouped by land use classification, with the aggregate potable water demand divided by the sum of the gross acreage of those parcels currently receiving potable service. As non-potable water usage comprised a significant portion of the total water demands for both Open Space – Recreational and Industrial, non-potable water demands for these two (2) land use classifications were also included in the duty factor calculations presented in Table 3-8. Table 3-9 presents the 2015 WFMP recommended water duty factors, and compares these to the duty factors utilized in the 2005 WFMP.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 70 of 304

Table 3-8 - Derivation of Recommended 2015 WFMP Water Duty Factors Calculated Existing Potable Assumed Total Water Number of Existing Potable Water Dwelling Demand per 2015 Master Plan Land Use Existing Area Water Demand per Units per Dwelling Duty Factor Parcels (ac) Demands Acre Acre (DU/ac) Unit (gpd) (gpd/ac) (gpd/DU) Residential Ag/Vineyard Planning Areas 769 5,777 3,127,554 541 - - 1.50 AFY/ac Estate 20 0 0 0 N/A 0.05 N/A 0.75 AFY/ac Estate 10 2,439 19,793 20,328,593 1,027 0.10 10,270 10,275 gpd/du Estate 5 1,081 4,332 2,566,851 593 0.20 2,963 3,000 gpd/du Estate 2 1,802 4,219 4,218,959 1,000 0.50 2,000 2,000 gpd/du Low Density 417 262 505,624 1,926 1.50 1,284 1,285 gpd/du Medium Density 28,490 5,305 16,300,383 3,072 3.50 878 880 gpd/du High Density 3,852 695 1,989,081 2,864 11.00 260 260 gpd/du Multi-Family 274 438 1,543,079 3,524 17.00 207 210 gpd/du

Commercial 542 1,117 1,769,681 1,584 - - 1,585 gpd/ac Business Park 741 1,098 1,499,161 1,365 - - 1,365 gpd/ac Industrial* 14 69 34,213 762 - - 1,000 gpd/ac Civic/Institutional 88 1,293 1,176,838 910 - - 910 gpd/ac Right-of-Way 2,037 7,043 28,950 4 - - 0 gpd/ac Open Space - Conservation 5 346 231,774 671 - - 1 du / parcel Open Space - Conservation Habitat 46 1,031 180 0 - - 0 gpd/ac Open Space - Native 287 2,362 0 0 - - 0 gpd/ac Open Space - Recreational* 810 2,320 2,365,836 1,872 - - 2.10 AFY/ac * - Open Space - Recreational and Industrial totals for existing potable water demands include 1,976,661 gpd and 18,646 gpd of non-potable water demand respectively, as non-potable demand comprises a significant portion of each land use classification's total water demand.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 71 of 304

Table 3-9 - Comparison of Recommended Duty Factors

2005 Master Plan Duty 2015 Master Plan Duty Land Use Factor Factor

Residential Ag/Vineyard Planning Areas [1] 1.50 AFY/ac Estate 20 0.75 AFY/ac 0.75 AFY/ac Estate 10 0.75 AFY/ac 10,275 gpd/du Estate 5 [2] 3,000 gpd/du Estate 2 [2] 2,000 gpd/du Low Density 3,000 gpd/du 1,285 gpd/du Medium Density 800 gpd/du 880 gpd/du Medium High Density 400 gpd/du 400 gpd/du High Density 400 gpd/du 260 gpd/du Multi-Family 400 gpd/du 210 gpd/du

Commercial 1,500 gpd/ac 1,585 gpd/ac Business Park 1,500 gpd/ac 1,365 gpd/ac Industrial - 1,000 gpd/ac Civic/Institutional - 910 gpd/ac Right-of-Way - 0 gpd/ac Open Space - Conservation - 1 du / parcel Open Space - Conservation Habitat - 0 gpd/ac Open Space - Native 0 gpd/ac 0 gpd/ac Open Space - Recreational 4.00 AFY/ac 2.10 AFY/ac [1] - Varied between the Santa Rosa Division (2.50 AFY/ac) and the Rancho Division (1.50 AFY/ac) [2] - Varied between District Divisions. 3,000 gpd/du in Santa Rosa Division, and 2,000 gpd/du in Rancho Division.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 72 of 304

The District evaluated the effect of adjusting the 2015 WFMP duty factors to account for the lower than average precipitation (and corresponding higher production) experienced in 2012 and 2013. As illustrated in Figure 3-5, the water demands recorded from October 2011 through September 2013 correspond to periods with lower than average annual precipitation, estimated at 12.7” at http://weathercurrents.com/temecula/ArchivePrecipitation.do. This implies that the recorded demands would be higher than average, and would therefore serve as a conservative foundation for calculating the District’s duty factors.

To quantify the effect that the lower than average annual precipitation had on increasing the 2012 and 2013 water demands, the District analyzed the daily evapotranspiration (ET) rates for over 300 micro-zones within the District’s service area. The ET rate represents the sum of evaporation and plan transpiration from the land and water bodies within each micro-zone, and provides a benchmark to predict water demand fluctuations based on changes in precipitation. Each parcel’s water demand was associated with a corresponding average annual ET rate for either 2012 or 2013. The District began collecting daily ET rates in 2011 to assist with developing tiered water allocations for each parcel within the District’s service area. As 3 of the 4 years of ET data (2012- 2014) correspond to dryer than average precipitation years, each parcel’s average annual ET rates for 2012 and 2013 were within 1 standard deviation of the 4 years of available ET data. Accordingly, the proposed Water Duty Factors represent a conservative estimate of existing and future water demands, and no further adjustments are justified due to the limited ET data currently available.

3.5 BUILD-OUT WATER DEMANDS All parcels within the District’s service area were assigned a build-out potable and non-potable water demand. For those parcels currently provided water by the District, build-out potable demands were calculated as their largest annual demand experienced in either 2012 or 2013. A similar calculation was done to determine build-out non-potable demands. By proceeding in this manner, build-out water demands are not artificially lowered for parcels with recently activated or deactivated accounts (i.e. including months of non-usage decreases calculated existing and build-out demands). The District’s 2013 annual potable water demand was approximately 56.5 MGD. By allowing either the 2012 or 2013 demands to be utilized as a parcel’s water demand (whichever was greater), the build-out potable water demand for parcels with existing demands is calculated to be 61.9 MGD, an increase of approximately 10% above 2013 potable demands.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 73 of 304

For parcels within the Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan, the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and the Altair Specific Plan, build-out potable and non-potable water demands were based on the appropriate Water Supply Assessment (WSA). For the Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan, the larger Build-Out PA1 Option 1 (a specific development alternative for a portion of the specific plan) was utilized to determine build-out potable water demands.

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 28903, as prepared in 1998, identifies the Vineyard Specific Plan as having a total of 1,114 Residential Lots, one (1) day care center, and 14.3 acres of parks and landscaped open space. The day care center has a gross acreage of 1.0 acre, and corresponds to a land use classification of Commercial (1,585 gpd/ac). The 14.3 acres of parks and landscaped open space correspond to a land use classification of Open Space – Recreational (2.1 AFY/ac). A portion of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 28903 has already been developed. As Vesting Tentative Tract No. 28903 identified 108 residential lots for this area, a remaining 1,013 Single-Family Homes are projected for The Vineyard Specific Plan. As these 1,013 Single-Family Homes are allocated to 395.4 gross acres (2.5 du/ac), the residential parcels within the Vineyard Specific Plan are assigned a land use classification of Residential – Medium Density (880 gpd/du). Accordingly, the build-out average day demand for the Vineyard Specific Plan is calculated to be 919,838 gpd.

Over the past decade, several private recreational developments have been proposed for a 32.4 acre parcel (APN 909370002) on the West side of Diaz Rd, between Dendy Parkway and Cherry St. These included a recreational water park. A recently constructed 21.3 acre water park in a neighboring agency began operation in 2014, and had a maximum month (August 2014) demand of 45,000 gpd. Utilizing this demand per acre, it is estimated that the average day demand of the Temecula Water Park is 68,450 gpd. This is a seasonal demand, as the water park is anticipated to be closed 6 months of the year. Total potable water supply requirements of the Temecula Water Park are therefore estimated to be 38 AFY.

For those parcels identified as Open Space – Conservation without an existing potable water meter, the parcel was allocated one dwelling unit of demand, with the gpd/DU based on the underlying residential land use classification.

There are no build-out potable and non-potable demands attributed to those parcels currently being served solely by groundwater wells in the Santa Rosa Division, as it is assumed that they will continue to be served by private wells. As explained later in this section, there is a build-out water demand alternative (Build- Out – Well Conversion) which allowed for these parcels to convert from private groundwater wells to be served by the District’s potable water system.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 74 of 304

For all remaining parcels which did not have an existing potable or non-potable water meter, build-out water demand was based on a calculation using the appropriate land use classification, duty factor and acreage.

To account for conservation area due to the County of Riverside’s Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), MSHCP criteria cells were utilized. MSHCP criteria cells encompass land not currently identified for conservation in the County of Riverside General Plan, and thereby do not include Public/Quasi Public Land or RCA Acquisition Land. Among other goals, the conservation in these criteria cells are motivated to provide corridors between, and expand, existing conservation areas. The County of Riverside’s Transportation and Land Management Agency’s website reports a high and low end estimated for developable land area allowable in each criteria cell. The low end estimate was used if it was equal to or greater than 15 percent. For example, if a criteria cell is anticipated to have 25 to 35 percent conservation, then parcels within that criteria cell that do not have an existing water meter are consider to have 25 percent conservation at build-out. As such, 25 percent of that parcel’s potable water area was assumed to have no water demand, with the remaining portion of the parcel anticipated to have a water demand based on the appropriate duty factor. For parcel’s that overlap multiple criteria cells, conservation area was “weighted” based on area in a given criteria cell. For example, if 25 percent of a parcel fell in a criteria cell with a low end of 35 percent conservation, and the remaining 75 percent of the parcel fell in a criteria cell with a low end of 65 percent, then the amount of conservation anticipated for that parcel was estimated to be 57.5 percent (0.25*35 + 0.75*65). MSHCP percent conservation was not applied to parcels with a low end conservation less than 15%, nor was it applied to any parcels with an existing potable or non-potable water meter.

The County of Riverside amended the Southwest Area Plan (GPA No. 1077) to describe the Temecula Valley Wine Country Policy Area, including the Winery, Residential and Equestrian Districts. Each District within the Wine Country Policy Area was identified based on Figure 4B of the Southwest Area Plan (GPA No. 1077). The Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 2014-044, adopting the Wine County Community Plan and Certifying Program EIR No. 524, which details the expanded hospitality development allowed in the Winery District. To account for the additional hotel development that may occur within the Winery District, all projected water demands for these parcels were increased by an additional 10%.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 75 of 304

In addition to developing build-out demand projections based on existing water demand usage patterns, the District also developed several alternatives allowing for potential changes in long-term agricultural demand. Two (2) alternatives to the District’s projected build-out water demands were developed to allow 25% or 50% of the District’s avocado growers to switch to other, less water intensive crops. Table 3-10 summarizes the demand for all accounts classified as either Agriculture or Agriculture/Domestic in the District’s Customer Billing Record. Utilizing the District’s GIS database, specifically the LandcoverAG feature class, 1,765 parcels were identified which have either an Agriculture or an Agriculture/Domestic bill classification. As shown in Table 3-10, approximately 55% of these parcels by area have avocados as their major crop, with these parcels accounting for approximately 75% of all water demands associated with Agriculture and Agriculture/Domestic accounts.

In order to correlate water demands usage to area of crop cultivation, it was necessary to utilize records from the Customer Billing Records which have meters which serve only one parcel. Of the original 1,765 parcels with Agriculture and Agriculture/Domestic accounts, 1,230 of these had meters which served only one parcel. These parcels represent 70% of the total parcels with Agriculture and Agriculture/Domestic accounts, and account for 58% of the total demands associated with Agriculture and Agriculture/Domestic accounts. This provides a valid sample size to be utilized for this analysis, and ensures that demands are associated with the specific, well-defined usage areas. Table 3-11 summarizes this representative sample, and presents the Average Usage per Acre (gpd/ac) for parcels where the major crop is either avocado, citrus, grass/turf or wine grape. Avocado has the highest average demand per acre (1,725 gpd/ac), with citrus having the second highest average demand per acre (1,225 gpd/ac).

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 76 of 304

Table 3-10 - Summary of the District's Agriculture and Agriculture/Domestic Demands from the Customer Billing Record Area 2013 Water 2012 Water 2011 Water 2010 Water Existing Water Land Use Major Crop (Ac) Demand (gpd) Demand (gpd) Demand (gpd) Demand (gpd) Demand (gpd)

Avocado 75 170,177 146,902 150,901 146,307 170,213

Ag/Vineyard Planning Citrus 351 325,169 356,682 340,217 396,342 397,519 Area

Wine Grape 1,347 714,747 603,139 478,583 504,193 722,635

Avocado 9,177 14,772,880 14,197,564 12,991,397 12,900,385 15,870,412

Estate 10 Residential Citrus 663 689,412 602,295 561,550 601,865 732,981 (10 Ac min)

Wine Grape 179 77,794 73,700 58,059 51,827 86,576

Citrus 39 58,699 53,570 50,985 50,733 60,371 Estate 2 Residential (2 Ac min) Wine Grape 47 34,873 30,709 26,908 25,787 36,195

Avocado 65 75,528 71,207 61,609 62,980 80,086

Estate 5 Residential Citrus 384 482,314 419,693 362,862 380,666 503,816 (5 Ac min)

Wine Grape 327 241,499 223,903 184,002 183,932 248,338

All Remaining Agriculture and 4,107 2,511,651 2,285,845 2,115,450 2,317,652 2,631,931 Agriculture/Domestic Demands

TOTAL 16,760 20,154,743 19,065,209 17,382,522 17,622,669 21,541,073

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 77 of 304

Table 3-11 - Representative Sample of District's Agriculture and Agriculture/Domestic Demands from the Customer Billing Record

Major Crop Area (Ac) Existing Water Demand (gpd) Calculated Use per Acre (gpd/ac) Average Use per Acre (gpd/ac)

Avocado 6,617 11,386,863 1,721 1,725

Citrus 480 587,136 1,224 1,225

Grass/Turf/Groundcover 662 358,530 542 545

Wine Grape 175 86,576 496 500

Total 7,933 12,419,104 - -

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 78 of 304

As previously presented in Table 3-3, the District’s existing potable water use area for Residential – Estate 10 is 20,006 acres, which has an existing demand of 19.8 MGD. This includes 9,177 acres with avocado as the major crop, 663 acres where citrus is the major crop and 179 acres with wine grape as the major crop. Table 3- 12 presents these areas with the average use per acre, and illustrates that there are 9,987 acres of Residential – Estate 10 with existing potable demands, that have neither avocado, citrus nor wine grape as their major crop. Table 3-13 calculates that this 9,987 acres has an average water use per acre of 303 gpd/ac. Based on these calculations, the District was able to quantify the impacts to build-out water demands if either 25% or 50% of the District’s avocado growers switch to the crop which is the next largest water intensive crop, citrus.

The first alternative accounting for potential changes in long-term agricultural demand, anticipates that 25% of the District’s parcels with avocado as the major crop switch to citrus as the major crop. Citrus was selected as it is the next most water intensive crop, and presents the most conservative option when quantifying water demand reductions. This alternative results in lowering the District’s build-out water demands by 2,074 AFY and includes:

 A 1,286 AFY (1.2 MGD) decrease in water demands as 25% of existing Residential – Estate 10 parcels (2,294 acres) with avocado as the major crop (1,725 gpd/ac) switch to citrus as the major crop (1,225 gpd/ac).

 A 788 AFY (0.8 MGD) decrease in water demands as the Residential – Estate 10 parcels that do not currently have water demands (13,342 ac) will develop with a lower duty factor. As presented in Table 3-8, the 2015 Master Plan recommended duty factor for Residential – Estate 10 is 1,027 gpd/ac. As shown in Table 3-13, the 9,177 ac of parcel’s with avocado as the major crop comprise 46.4% of the existing Residential – Estate 10. If 25% of parcels with avocado as the major crop (1,725 gpd/ac) switch to citrus as the major crop (1,225 gpd/ac), then 11.6% of Residential – Estate 10 would switch from an average water usage of 1,725 gpd/ac to 1,225 gpd/ac. This results in lowering the Residential – Estate 10 duty factor from 1,027 gpd/ac to 969 gpd/ac. Accordingly, the build-out water demand for the 13,342 ac of Residential – Estate 10 with no existing water demand would decrease from 13.4 MGD to 12.6 MGD.

The second alternative accounting for potential changes in long-term agricultural demand, anticipates that 50% of the District’s parcels with avocado as the major crop switch to citrus as the major crop. This alternative results in lowering the District’s build-out water demands by 4,159 AFY and includes:

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 79 of 304

 A 2,572 AFY (2.3 MGD) decrease in water demands as 50% of existing Residential – Estate 10 parcels (4,589 acres) with avocado as the major crop (1,725 gpd/ac) switch to citrus as the major crop (1,225 gpd/ac).

 A 1,587 AFY (1.4 MGD) decrease in water demands as the Residential – Estate 10 parcels that do not currently have water demands (13,342 ac) will develop with a lower duty factor. As presented in Table 3-8, the 2015 Master Plan recommended duty factor for Residential – Estate 10 is 1,027 gpd/ac. As shown in Table 3-13, the 9,177 ac of parcel’s with avocado as the major crop comprise 46.4% of the existing Residential – Estate 10. If 50% of parcels with avocado as the major crop (1,725 gpd/ac) switch to citrus as the major crop (1,225 gpd/ac), then 23.2% of Residential – Estate 10 would switch from an average water usage of 1,725 gpd/ac to 1,225 gpd/ac. This results in lowering the Residential – Estate 10 duty factor from 1,027 gpd/ac to 911 gpd/ac. Accordingly, the build-out water demand for the 13,342 ac of Residential – Estate 10 with no existing water demand would decrease from 13.4 MGD to 12.0 MGD.

Table 3-14 summarizes the build-out average annual water demands by land use classification. In addition, Table 3-14 shows a comparison of the projections reported in the 1997 and 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan Updates. Table 3-14 also includes two (2) additional alternatives for build-out potable water projections, including the Full Redevelopment and Well Conversion Alternatives. For the Well Conversion Alternative, build-out potable water demands were calculated using the same methodology previously described, with the exception of those parcels identified as being served solely by private, groundwater wells. Parcels being served solely by groundwater wells were assumed to convert over to the District’s potable water system by Build-out, with build-out potable water demands for these parcels calculated from the appropriate land use classification, duty factor and parcel’s gross acreage. For the Full Redevelopment Alternative, every parcel’s build-out potable water demand was based on a calculation using the appropriate land use classification, duty factor and acreage. . Appendix C presents the potable water demands by potable water pressure zone and land use, as well as, summarizes these demands by District Division (i.e. Rancho or Santa Rosa).

Build-out recycled water demands were assumed to equal the existing recycled water demands plus an additional 630 AFY, for a total non-potable build-out demand of 4,500 AFY.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 80 of 304

Figure 3-7 illustrates projected water production, which is influenced by the lower than average precipitation (and corresponding higher production) experienced in 2012 and 2013. As illustrated in Figure 3-5, the water demands recorded from October 2011 through September 2013 correspond to periods with lower than average annual precipitation, estimated at 12.7” at http://weathercurrents.com/temecula/ArchivePrecipitation.do. This implies that the recorded demands would be higher than average, and would therefore serve as a conservative foundation for the production curve presented in Figure 3-7. The production projection range presented in Figure 3-7 includes potable (106,718 AFY including the District’s Sphere Boundary and Contract Service Areas) and non- potable (4,500 AFY) demands, as well as an associated 5% water loss. Future demand from Contemplated Contract Service Areas has not been included.

Similar to the 2005 and 1997 WFMPs, the estimated low and high end water production projections create an envelope around the anticipated build-out production of 116,779 AFY, with the high-end estimate accounting for 125% of the low-end estimate. As illustrated in Figure 3-7, this approach has historically bracketed recorded water demands which are known to fluctuate with changes in precipitation.

The pattern and rate of growth presented in Figure 3-7 is currently under review by the District. The District is currently developing the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP), which includes working closely with neighboring agencies to determine anticipated growth rates. Once this work is completed as part of the 2015 UWMP, Figure 3-7 will be updated to reflect the actual growth rates anticipated for the District.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 81 of 304

Table 3-12 - Summary of the 20,006 Acres of Existing Residential - Estate 10 Parcels in the District's Service Area Major Crop Area (Ac) Average Use per Acre (gpd/ac) Total Water Usage (gallons)

Avocado 9,177 1,725 15,830,325

Citrus 663 1,225 812,175

Wine Grape 179 500 89,596

Remaining Parcels 9,987 Unknown Unknown

Total 20,006 - 19,488,765

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 82 of 304

Table 3-13 - Derivation of the Water Usage Estimate for the 10,371 Acres of Existing Residential - Estate 10 Parcels Without an Identified Major Crop in the District's Service Area Major Crop Area (Ac) Average Use per Acre (gpd/ac) Total Water Usage (gallons)

Avocado 9,177 1,725 15,830,325

Citrus 663 1,225 812,175

Wine Grape 179 500 89,596

Remaining Parcels 9,987 303 3,029,556

Total 20,006 - 19,761,652

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 83 of 304

Table 3-14 - Summary of the District's Build-Out Potable Water Demands 2015 2015 Estimated Additional Average Annual Water 2015 Maximum Day Potable 2015 Master Master Master MSHCP Potable Estimated Area Served Demand* Master Demand** Master Plan Plan - Full Plan - 25% Plan - 50% Conservation*** Land Use Water Use Dwelling Solely by Plan - Well Duty Factor Redevelopment Avocado Avocado Area (ac) Units (DU) Groundwater Conversion MGD AFY CFS (AFY) Conversion Conversion MGD AFY CFS CFS Acre Wells (ac) (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) Residential Ag/Vineyard Planning Areas 7,504 972 0 1.50 AFY/ac 5.93 6,639 9.171 11,757 6,639 6,639 6,639 13.04 14,607 20.177 0.368 178 Estate 20 7,202 30 0 0.75 AFY/ac 1.56 1,747 2.413 1,747 1,747 1,747 1,747 3.43 3,843 5.308 5.050 4,874 Estate 10 33,348 3,450 839 10,275 gpd/du 35.37 39,620 54.730 37,568 40,619 37,591 35,513 77.89 87,243 120.516 1.259 792 Estate 5 7,238 1,410 0 3,000 gpd/du 4.23 4,739 6.546 4,946 4,739 4,733 4,728 9.31 10,425 14.401 0.437 471 Estate 2 6,005 2,911 0 2,000 gpd/du 5.82 6,520 9.007 6,806 6,520 6,520 6,519 12.81 14,345 19.816 0.027 17 Low Density 525 796 0 1,285 gpd/du 1.02 1,146 1.582 1,134 1,146 1,146 1,146 2.25 2,520 3.481 0.000 0 Medium Density 6,140 21,035 0 880 gpd/du 18.51 20,734 28.642 21,139 20,734 20,734 20,734 40.72 45,616 63.013 0.013 3 High Density 857 9,569 0 260 gpd/du 2.49 2,787 3.850 2,732 2,787 2,787 2,787 5.47 6,131 8.469 0.023 5 Multi-Family 516 8,936 0 210 gpd/du 1.88 2,102 2.904 1,994 2,102 2,102 2,102 4.13 4,625 6.388 0.062 11 Commercial 1,636 - 0 1,585 gpd/ac 2.64 2,960 4.089 2,869 2,960 2,960 2,960 5.81 6,513 8.996 0.050 21 Business Park 1,622 - 0 1,365 gpd/ac 2.22 2,489 3.438 2,413 2,489 2,489 2,489 4.89 5,476 7.564 0.093 44 Industrial 95 - 5 1,000 gpd/ac 0.06 66 0.091 105 71 66 66 0.13 145 0.201 0.001 1 Civic/Institutional 1,775 - 0 910 gpd/ac 1.01 1,129 1.559 1,806 1,129 1,129 1,129 2.22 2,483 3.430 0.007 5 Right-of-Way 7,113 - 0 0 gpd/ac 0.03 33 0.045 33 33 33 33 0.06 72 0.099 0.000 0 Open Space - Conservation 9,888 - 0 1 du / parcel 0.47 523 0.723 296 523 523 523 1.03 1,151 1.590 0.000 0 Open Space - Conservation Habitat 1,362 - 0 0 gpd/ac 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0 Open Space - Native 2,430 - 0 0 gpd/ac 0.00 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0 Open Space - Recreational 2,227 - 0 2.10 AFY/ac 2.41 2,699 3.728 4,654 2,699 2,699 2,699 5.30 5,937 8.201 0.050 17 Altair Specific Plan 269 1,750 0 - 0.74 831 1.148 831 831 831 831 1.63 1,828 2.525 0.000 0 Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan 309 535 0 - 0.75 845 1.167 845 845 845 845 1.66 1,859 2.568 0.000 0 Temecula Water Park 32 - 0 - 0.07 77 0.106 38 38 38 38 0.15 169 0.233 0.000 0 Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 320 4,576 0 - 1.99 2,227 3.076 2,227 2,227 2,227 2,227 4.37 4,898 6.767 0.000 0 Vineyard Specific Plan 410 1,013 0 - 0.92 1,030 1.423 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,030 2.02 2,267 3.131 0.000 0 2015 WFMP Update Total 98,824 56,983 844 90.12 100,942 139.439 106,970 101,908 98,869 96,783 198.33 222,153 306.876 7.440 6,438 2015 WFMP Update Total (including CSA) 100,203 57,209 844 95.27 106,718 147.418 112,746 107,684 104,645 102,559 209.60 234,780 324.320 7.440 6,438 2005 WFMP Update+ 96,648 83,393 - 115.65 129,545 178.930 - - - - 254.31 284,866 393.480 - - 2005 WFMP Update (Including CCSA) 103,341 83,885 - 125.05 140,079 193.480 - - - - 275.00 308,041 425.490 - - 1997 Master Plan Update+ 95,218 72,089 - 92.57 103,688 143.220 - - - - 247.36 277,084 382.730 - -

* - Annual average water demand after removing the estimated MSHCP Conservation shown herein. ** - Maximum day water demands were calculated utilizing the "system-wide" peaking factor of 2.2, as presented in the 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan. *** - Representative water demand that would have impacted District resources, but is now conservation due to the MSHCP. + - Does not include CSA, CCSA or Sphere

Figure 3‐7 ‐ Production Projections Through Build‐Out 140.00

129,755 AFY 120.00

116,779 AFY

100.00

103,804 AFY

80.00 (1000's) Feet ‐ 60.00 Acre

40.00

20.00

0.00 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Estimated Range of Annual Water Production (Low) Estimated Range of Annual Water Production (High) Historical Water Production Production Curve Based on Recent Precipitation Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 85 of 304

3.6 WATER SERVICE OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT’S SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY Historically, several Contract Service Areas (CSA) outside of the District’s service area and sphere of influence have received water from the District by inter-agency agreement. These include Pechanga, Lake Skinner Park, Rancho Glen Oaks, Nakayama Park and the Rock Mountain Area. These are illustrated in Figure 3-8. The 2015 WFMP includes consideration of increased water demands from the CSAs, as well as consideration of remaining in-fill annexation areas within the District’s current sphere of influence boundary, identified as Murrieta Valley and Redhawk South. The CSAs including additional in-fill annexation areas represent a total build-out water demand of 6,493 AFY, of which 713 AFY is already provided via existing water connections. Table 3-15 presents build-out potable water projections for Contemplated CSAs (CCSA) that do not necessarily have quantified plans for future water service. As such, CCSAs have not been included in the District’s build-out water projections presented in Figure 3-7 or Table 3-15. With the exception of CSA 5 – Pechanga, Table 3-15 references only potable water demands. Pechanga is the only CSA currently receiving non-potable water from the District. Accordingly, the 2013 water demand from Pechanga of 431,178 gpd (483 AFY) includes 70,179 gpd of potable and 360,999 gpd of non-potable demands. Based on the Draft Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement dated December 2013, the total Tribal Water Right is 4,994 AFY, and is to be made up of groundwater and MWDSC imported water (This does not include recycled water or local granitic wells). Wolf Valley groundwater basin is to be shared, with 75% going to Pechanga and 25% going to the District. Current safe yield capacity of the Wolf Valley basin is 2,100 AFY. Under the groundwater current and future management agreement, the District will pump and deliver groundwater to Pechanga’s system. In addition, MWDSC water is to be wheeled through the District’s system to deliver to Pechanga. The District’s EM-20 turnout was upsized from 100 CFS to 111 CFS to accomplish this. The District currently wheels and delivers EMWD’s recycled water to Pechanga, up to 1,000 AFY. It is anticipated that Pechanga will not use the full entitlement and the District may use approximately 300-475 AFY of the unused recycled water.

Figure 3-9 illustrates the District’s build-out potable and non-potable water production accounting for the CSAs, and assuming a 5% water loss. Table 3-16 summarizes the District’s existing and build-out potable and recycled water demands.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 86 of 304

Table 3-15 - Potable Water Demand Summary of for Sphere Boundary, CSA and CCSAs 2013 Build-Out Proposed Potable Water Potable Water Areas Description Land Use Area (ac) Duty Factor Estimated Estimated Pressure Zone Demand Dwelling Units Demand Dwelling Units gpd AFY (DU) gpd AFY (DU) Business Park 40.3 1,365 gpd/ac 0 0 0 55,003 62 0 Civic/Institutional 2.3 910 gpd/ac 0 0 0 2,048 2 0 Murrieta Valley (In-Fill) 1305 Commercial 41.8 1,585 gpd/ac 0 0 0 66,190 74 0 Estate 2 - Residential 95.6 2,000 gpd/du 0 0 0 95,580 107 48 Sphere Industrial 65.5 1,000 gpd/ac 0 0 0 65,520 73 0 Boundary Sub-Total - Murrieta Valley 245.4 0 0 0 284,340 319 48 Estate 2 - Residential 68.9 2,000 gpd/du 0 0 0 68,912 77 34 Redhawk South (In-Fill) 1485 Low Density - Residential 54.8 1,285 gpd/du 0 0 0 105,706 118 82 Sub-Total - Redhawk South 123.7 0 0 0 174,618 196 117 Sub-total - In-Fill Annexations in District's Sphere of Influence 369.1 0 0 0 458,958 514 165 CSA 1 Rock Mountain Area* 1670 - ~10 - 4,461 5 0 4,461 5 0 CSA 2 Lake Skinner Park** 1790 Open Space - Recreational N/A - 165,972 186 0 178,427 200 0 CSA 3 Rancho Glen Oaks*** 2350 - 724.0 - 32,537 36 54 69,000 77 115 CSA 4 Nakayama Park+ 1380 Open Space - Recreational 0.6 2.1 AFY/ac 2,113 2 0 2,113 2 0 CSA 5 Pechanga++ 1305 Commercial 275.0 - 431,178 483 0 5,079,803 5,694 0 CCSA 6 WMWD Murrieta Division - Sauer Property^ 1550 Estate 2 - Residential 58.7 2,000 gpd/du 0 0 0 58,708 66 29 Rock Mountain Area* (Water to be Supplied CCSA 7 1670 - ~1,273 - 0 0 0 1,869,018 2,095 0 by WMWD) Estate 2 - Residential 274.2 2,000 gpd/du 0 0 0 274,180 307 137 La Cresta West+++ 2550 CCSA 8 Estate 20 - Residential 211.2 0.75 AFY/ac 0 0 0 141,440 159 211 Sub-Total - La Cresta West 485.4 0 0 0 415,620 466 348 CCSA 9 Lake Skinner South^^ 1790 Estate 5 - Residential 304.6 3,000 gpd/du 0 0 0 182,774 205 61 Industrial 80.4 1,000 gpd/ac 0 0 0 80,400 90 0 Rainbow Gap^^^ (Water to be Supplied by Open Space - Conservation 128.3 1 du/parcel 0 0 0 9,000 10 0 N/A CCSA 10 WMWD) Estate 2 - Residential 17.1 2,000 gpd/du 0 0 0 17,130 19 9 Estate 10 - Residential 858.2 10,275 gpd/du 0 0 0 881,780 988 86 Sub-Total - Rainbow Gap 1,084.0 0 0 0 988,310 1,108 94 N/A Open Space - Conservation 361.6 1 du/parcel 0 0 0 27,000 30 0 Highway 79 South^^^ (Water to be Open Space - Recreational 129.7 2.1 AFY/ac 0 0 0 243,244 273 0 CCSA 11 Supplied by WMWD) Estate 5 - Residential 567.2 3,000 gpd/du 0 0 0 340,332 381 113 Estate 10 - Residential 706.7 10,275 gpd/du 0 0 0 726,134 814 71 Sub-Total - Highway 79 South 1,765.2 0 0 0 1,336,710 1,498 184

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 87 of 304

* - The contract potable demand is limited to 500 gpm per Inter-Agency Agreement between the District and WMWD, dated 1/19/2005. Estimated annual average demand currently is 5 AFY based on the highest annual use in 2011. Contemplated build-out demand is based on a combination of agricultural and rural residential water use estimated at 2,100 AFY (3 AFY/ac on 700 irrigated acres). ** - The contract potable demand is limited to 360 gpm per Inter-Agency Agreement between the District and EMWD, dated 4/21/1981 and Amendment No. 1 dated 7/8/2013. Contemplated build-out demand is not anticipated to increase above current demand.

*** - The contract potable demand is limited to approximately 600 gpd/parcels per the Inter-Agency Agreement between the District and EMWD, dated 1/20/1993 and Amendment No. 1 dated 2/16/2006 for the customers within Rancho Glen Oaks Assessment District. Based on the provision of a maximum 115 metered service connections the build-out demand is 69,000 gpd or 77 AFY. + - Build-out represents no additional demand. ++ - 2013 Pechanga Demands include 70,179 gpd of potable and 360,999 gpd of non-potable demands. Build-out demands obtained from the Draft Water Rights Settlement Agreement dated December 2013. +++ - Not currently located within any District's Sphere of Influence. ^ - In WMWD Service Area. ^^ - Currently located within EMWD and contemplated for service by the District. ^^^ - Area located in another District service area and is not anticipated to be served by the District.

215 FWY \ EVMWD Service Area

EVMWD Service Area

WMWD Service Area EVMWD Service Area Lake Skinner Park Interagency Agreement 15 FWY

Lake Skinner Cleveland National Forest EMWD Service Area

La Cresta West Potential Service Area

Nakayama Park Lake Skinner South

HWY 79 Interagency Agreement Potential Service Area WMWD WMWD Sauer Property Murrieta Division Rancho Glen Oaks Interagency Agreement

Murrieta Valley Sphere Area EMWD Sphere Area Santa Rosa Division Rancho Division

San Diego County Line

Vail RCWD Service Area Lake RCWD Sphere Redhawk South HWY 79 EMWD Sphere Service Area Sphere Area WMWD Service Area

15 FWY 15 Highway 79 South EMWD Service Area SMR Ecological Potential Service Area Reserve EVMWD Sphere Service Area WMWD PECHANGA TRIBAL LAND Rock Mountain WMWD - Rainbow Gap Dorland Family WMWD Sphere Service Area Interagency Agreement Trust Water Bodies San Diego County Line Parks Cleveland National Forest San Diego County Line Pechanga Tribal Land 0 1 2 4 Miles Highways Figure 3-8 - Expanded Service Area Analysis Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Figure 3‐9 ‐ Build‐Out Water Production by Land Use Classification

120,000 Water Loss - 5,561 AFY

Recycled Water- 4,500 AFY

CSA and Sphere - 6,493 AFY

100,000 Non-Residential - 14,909 AFY

Multi-Family - 2,102AFY

High Density - 2,787 AFY 80,000

Medium Density - 20,734 AFY (AFY)

Low Density - 1,146 AFY 60,000 Estate 2- 6,520 AFY Production Estate 5 - 4,739 AFY Residential - 86,034 AFY Water 40,000

Estate 10 - 39,620 AFY

20,000

Specific Plans - 5,010 AFY Open Space Recreational - 2,699 AFY Estate 20 - 1,747 AFY Business Park - 2,489 AFY Ag/Vineyard Planning Area 6,493 AFY 4,500 AFY 5,561 AFY 6,639 AFY Commercial - 2,960 AFY 0 Residential Non‐Residential Contract Service Areas Recycled Water Water Loss Total and Sphere District Landuse Category Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 90 of 304

Table 3-16 – Existing and Build-Out Water Demand Summary Existing Build-out Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual Potable Water Additional Recycled Water Estimated MSHCP Conservation*** Potable Water Demand Demand** Division Potable Area Served Estimated Demand* Potable Estimated Water Use Solely by Dwelling Water Use Dwelling Percent Area (ac) Groundwater Units (DU) Area (ac) Units (DU) Increase MGD AFY CFS MGD AFY CFS MGD AFY CFS MGD AFY CFS Acre Wells (ac) from Existing

Rancho Division 31,005 0 30,478 2.4 2,736 3.8 32.8 36,721 50.7 49,080 45,418 49.2 55,134 76.2 50% 4.1 4,567 6.3 5,738

Santa Rosa Division 26,070 844 8,224 1.0 1,133 1.6 23.7 26,569 36.7 49,744 11,566 40.9 45,809 63.3 72% 0.7 819 1.1 700

TOTAL 57,075 844 38,702 3.5 3,869 5.3 56.5 63,290 87.4 98,824 56,983 90.1 100,942 139.4 59% 4.8 5,386 7.4 6,438

TOTAL ------100,203 57,209 95.3 106,718 147.4 69% 4.8 5,386 7.4 6,438 Including CSA*

* - Existing demands from currently served CSAs are included in the existing Division totals. ** - Annual potable water demand after removing the estimated MSHCP conservation shown herein. *** - Representative potable water demand that would have impacted District resources, but is now conservation due to the MSHCP.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 91 of 304

3.7 POTABLE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BY 5-YEAR INCREMENT Utilizing the 2013 and Build-Out water demands, the District’s potable water demands have been projected by 5-Year increments through 2050. Consistent with the practice of demand forecasting, projections are based on future indicators (such as growth, planned development and projected population increases). As such, projected water demands should undergo consistent and timely re- evaluation based on conditions that change over time. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a regional planning agency that encompasses six counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura) and 191 cities. SCAG has produced two sets of transportation analysis zones (TAZ) for the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan, which include residential and employment population projections for 2008, 2020 and 2035. The District’s service area is contained within 32 Tier 1 TAZ zones, whose boundaries are not identical to the service area boundaries. Accordingly, it is assumed that the geographic percentage of the TAZ zone within the service area represented the percentage of the residential and employment population within the service area. For example, if 35 percent of a TAZ zone is within the District’s service area, then it was assumed that 35 percent of the residential and employment population of that TAZ zone is also within the District’s service area. Table 3-17 summarizes the annual residential and employment population growth rates for the District’s service area by Division.

Table 3-17 - SCAG Residential and Employment Population Projections for the District's Service Area from the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan Rancho Division Santa Rosa Division

Period Residential Employment Residential Employment Population Population Population Population Annual Growth Annual Growth Annual Growth Annual Growth Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) Rate (%) 2008 - 2020 0.80% 2.44% 0.90% 1.96%

2020 - 2035 0.42% 1.59% 0.87% 1.72%

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 92 of 304

2013 water demands for each pressure zone were identified as either residential or non-residential in Appendix C. Based on the Division of each pressure zone, the appropriate residential and employment growth rates were multiplied by the 2013 water demands to project residential and non-residential water demands, respectively. Table 3-18 summarizes the District’s projected potable water demands by 5-Year time increment and pressure zone. Figure 3-10 illustrates the District’s current projected build-out year as 2087, which was calculated by assuming that the 2020-2035 annual growth rates continue past 2035.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 93 of 304

Table 3-18 - Potable Water Demand Projections by 5-Year Increment (AFY) Pressure Zone 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Rancho Division

VAIL 0 150 155 158 163 170 190 219 264

1305 8,180 8,345 8,992 9,548 10,178 10,891 11,778 12,696 13,630

1380 8,715 8,900 9,364 9,675 9,955 10,120 10,295 10,476 10,662

1485 11,307 11,513 11,899 12,117 12,336 12,554 12,785 13,024 13,269

1550 916 929 963 983 1,005 1,030 1,050 1,075 1,106

1610 3,273 3,307 3,440 3,528 3,625 3,732 3,825 3,937 4,072

1610R 0 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

1635 0 0 182 182 182 182 182 182 182

1790 2,206 2,233 2,341 2,418 2,504 2,601 2,697 2,806 2,931

1880 220 223 232 237 242 247 252 257 263

2070 1,727 1,745 1,818 1,866 1,918 1,978 2,021 2,078 2,155

2350 179 181 189 193 199 204 212 219 225

2600 0 0 0 75 79 82 92 105 127

Rancho Subtotal 36,721 37,541 39,590 40,996 42,401 43,807 45,395 47,090 48,901

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 94 of 304

Table 3-18 - Potable Water Demand Projections by 5-Year Increment (AFY) Pressure Zone 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Santa Rosa Division

1060 10 10 10 11 12 12 12 12 12

1160 232 236 245 257 274 289 311 306 345

1305S 554 579 638 701 788 880 998 981 1,235

1440 6,103 6,213 6,487 6,788 7,089 7,388 7,720 7,818 7,818

1500 3,779 3,863 4,060 4,281 4,385 4,474 4,629 4,850 5,087

1670 10,078 10,268 10,742 11,254 11,735 12,216 12,747 13,305 13,516

1740 56 57 60 62 62 62 62 62 62

1990 3,413 3,474 3,617 3,787 4,027 4,277 4,511 4,976 5,468

2150 34 35 36 38 40 42 47 55 62

2160 93 95 100 105 111 118 127 142 161

2220 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2260 372 379 394 413 440 467 494 545 708

2300 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2550 1,803 1,836 1,912 2,002 2,128 2,260 2,385 2,632 2,945

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 95 of 304

Table 3-18 - Potable Water Demand Projections by 5-Year Increment (AFY) Pressure Zone 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

2825 6 6 6 7 7 7 10 12 13

2860 35 35 37 39 40 44 44 46 52

2995 0 0 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Santa Rosa Subtotal 26,569 27,087 28,383 29,780 31,177 32,575 34,133 35,780 37,523

Total 63,290 64,628 67,972 70,776 73,578 76,382 79,528 82,870 86,424

Figure 3‐10 ‐ Average Annual Potable Water Demand Including CSAs (AFY) 110,000

105,000

100,000

95,000 (AFY)

90,000 Demand

85,000 Water

Annual 80,000

Average 75,000

70,000

65,000

60,000 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 Year

Average Annual Water Demand (AFY) Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 97 of 304

3.8 DATA STORAGE FRAMEWORK A Database Storage Framework was developed for the water demand projections. By outlining the input and construction of the water demand projection database, the District is ensured that the final database can function as a Geographical Information System (GIS)-enabled, parcel-based integrated water demand forecasting model for potable and non-potable (i.e. recycled water) water service. The Data Storage Framework for the Water Demand Projections is included as Appendix D.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 98 of 304

CHAPTER 4. WATER SUPPLY EVALUATION The District obtains water from the following primary water sources: 1) groundwater from the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin; 2) recycled water from the District’s Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility and EMWD’s Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility; and 3) imported SWP and Colorado River water from the MWDSC through its member agencies, EMWD and WMWD.

Table 4-24 summarizes the District’s existing annual and maximum day water supply capacities. The existing annual capacity of 86,649 AFY is greater than the existing annual production requirement of 70,517 AFY, which includes non-revenue water. The existing maximum day production requirement of 221 cfs is less than the 339 cfs maximum day capacity presented in Table 4-24.

Table 4-25 summarizes the District’s build-out annual and maximum day water supply capacities. It is projected that additional annual groundwater capacity will be generated through increasing artificial recharge of the groundwater basin by 31 cfs. An additional annual supply of 8 cfs (5,319 AFY) of recycled water is also anticipated by build-out. The build-out annual capacity of 115,002 AFY is greater than the projected build-out annual production requirement of 110,714 AFY, which includes non-revenue water and excludes water supplied to the CSAs. The build- out maximum day production requirement of 346 cfs is less than the 409 cfs maximum day capacity anticipated by build-out presented in Table 4-26.

Figures 4-6 and 4-7 illustrate the District’s annual and maximum day production requirements and water supply capacities. The pattern and rate of growth presented in Figures 4-6 and 4-7 is currently under review by the District. The District is developing the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP), which includes working closely with neighboring agencies to determine anticipated growth rates.

The historical water production from the District’s water sources from FY 1977/78 to FY 2014/15 is shown in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1. Each of these water sources are described in the following sections.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 99 of 304

Table 4-1 - Historic Water Production by Type Total Groundwater Fiscal Imported Water Recycled Water Production Native Artificial Recharge Year (AF) AF % AF % AF % AF % 77-78 13,319 10,631 79.8% - 2,688 20.2% - 78-79 14,799 8,377 56.6% - 6,422 43.4% - 79-80 19,856 12,061 60.7% - 7,795 39.3% - 80-81 24,738 13,485 54.5% - 11,253 45.5% - 81-82 30,262 14,804 48.9% - 15,458 51.1% - 82-83 24,044 12,721 52.9% - 11,323 47.1% - 83-84 21,734 16,646 76.6% - 5,088 23.4% - 84-85 34,861 26,550 76.2% - 8,311 23.8% - 85-86 37,335 27,111 72.6% - 10,224 27.4% - 86-87 41,118 29,116 70.8% - 12,002 29.2% - 87-88 38,484 31,923 83.0% - 6,561 17.0% - 88-89 42,996 20,086 46.7% - 22,910 53.3% - 89-90 52,692 33,306 63.2% - 19,217 36.5% 169 0.3% 90-91 53,650 29,479 54.9% - 23,879 44.5% 292 0.5% 91-92 44,493 28,184 63.3% - 15,982 35.9% 327 0.7% 92-93 45,334 29,329 64.7% - 15,654 34.5% 351 0.8% 93-94 47,065 32,711 69.5% - 12,806 27.2% 1,548 3.3% 94-95 46,696 31,579 67.6% - 13,420 28.7% 1,697 3.6% 95-96 59,330 34,918 58.9% - 22,358 37.7% 2,054 3.5% 96-97 64,524 38,267 59.3% - 23,690 36.7% 2,567 4.0% 97-98 49,515 26,845 54.2% 1,322 2.7% 19,206 38.8% 2,142 4.3% 98-99 63,606 29,720 46.7% 8,307 13.1% 22,843 35.9% 2,736 4.3% 99-00 75,436 20,819 27.6% 18,277 24.2% 33,621 44.6% 2,719 3.6%

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 100 of 304

Table 4-1 - Historic Water Production by Type Total Groundwater Fiscal Imported Water Recycled Water Production Native Artificial Recharge Year (AF) AF % AF % AF % AF % 00-01 69,864 21,351 30.6% 19,997 28.6% 26,070 37.3% 2,446 3.5% 01-02 74,208 22,110 29.8% 15,078 20.3% 33,765 45.5% 3,255 4.4% 02-03 73,241 21,927 29.9% 15,953 21.8% 32,190 44.0% 3,171 4.3% 03-04 82,146 19,694 24.0% 16,765 20.4% 41,312 50.3% 4,375 5.3% 04-05 74,271 25,039 33.7% 15,661 21.1% 29,921 40.3% 3,650 4.9% 05-06 79,962 22,783 28.5% 17,259 21.6% 35,969 45.0% 3,951 4.9% 06-07 90,885 22,100 24.3% 16,398 18.0% 47,479 52.2% 4,908 5.4% 07-08 83,316 28,257 33.9% 12,003 14.4% 38,858 46.6% 4,198 5.0% 08-09 74,698 20,520 27.5% 16,223 21.7% 34,289 45.9% 3,666 4.9% 09-10 66,234 23,225 35.1% 12,187 18.4% 26,993 40.8% 3,829 5.8% 10-11 66,031 27,556 41.7% 12,371 18.7% 22,792 34.5% 3,311 5.0% 11-12 65,775 26,128 39.7% 13,800 21.0% 22,376 34.0% 3,472 5.3% 12-13 71,292 25,246 35.4% 14,181 19.9% 27,614 38.7% 4,251 6.0% 13-14 75,746 27,021 35.7% 12,764 16.9% 31,467 41.5% 4,494 5.9% 14-15 66,126 25,076 37.9% 12,196 18.4% 24,817 37.5% 4,037 6.1%

Figure 4‐1 ‐ Historic Water Production by Type 100,000

90,000 4,908

4,198 80,000 4,375 3,951 3,255 2,719 4,494 3,171 3,650 3,666 70,000 2,446 4,251 3,311 3,829 3,472 4,037 2,567 2,736 47,479 60,000 2,054 41,312 35,969 33,621 38,858

(AF) 22,792 27,614 292 32,190 34,289 169 26,070 23,690 22,843 29,921 22,376 50,000 24,817 2,142 33,765 26,993 1,548 31,467 19,217 327 351 1,697

Production 22,358 40,000 23,879 12,806 12,002 19,206 13,420 6,561 15,982 12,764 8,307 19,997 15,953 12,003 12,371 10,224 15,654 15,661 14,181 22,910 12,196 30,000 8,311 15,078 16,398 12,187 13,800 1,322 16,765 15,458 18,277 17,259 16,223 38,267 11,253 20,000 5,088 31,923 33,306 32,711 34,918 7,795 11,323 19,694 20,520 25,246 29,116 29,479 29,720 2,688 26,550 29,329 31,579 26,128 21,351 25,039 28,257 23,225 25,076 6,422 14,804 27,111 20,086 21,927 10,000 28,184 27,021 16,646 26,845 22,100 8,377 13,485 27,556 12,721 10,631 12,061 20,819 22,110 22,783 0

Fiscal Year

Groundwater ‐ Native Groundwater ‐ Artificial Recharge Imported Water Recycled Water Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 102 of 304

4.1 IMPORTED WATER Imported water is water that originated from outside of the Santa Margarita River Watershed (generally water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project). Imported water is acquired from the member agencies of the MWDSC. For the District, its member agencies are WMWD for the Santa Rosa Division and EMWD for the Rancho Division, as shown on Figure 4-2.

Imported water provided to the District is from MWDSC’s Lake Skinner Reservoir and Water Treatment Facility with back-up storage provided by Diamond Valley Lake. MWDSC has six pipeline facilities which depart from MWDSC’s Lake Skinner Reservoir and Water Treatment Facility and convey water south towards San Diego County as shown on Figure 3. These include two (2) raw water pipelines (Pipeline Nos. 5 and 6) and two treated water pipelines (Bypass Pipeline No. 3 and Pipeline No. 4). Bypass Pipeline No. 3 is a treated water pipeline ultimately planned to connect to Pipeline No. 3 in its conversion to potable water.

4.1.1 Existing Supply Capacity The District’s connection point on MWDSC’s pipeline facilities are identified as turnout facilities and are labeled WR for WMWD and EM for EMWD. The District currently has capacity for up to 205 cfs (peak flow) of treated water from Bypass Pipeline No. 3 and Pipeline No. 4. WR-26 and WR-28 are each designed to deliver 40 cfs via WMWD, and EM-13 is designed to deliver another 40 cfs via EMWD. Due to system constraints, WR-26 and WR-28 have a reduced summer peak capacity of 65 cfs. Untreated water is delivered to the District from MWDSC‘s Pipeline No. 5 through turnout WR-34 and Pipeline No. 6 through turnout EM-21. Untreated water from EM-21 is conveyed through the Pauba Valley Transmission Main in De Portola Road to the District‘s Recharge and Recovery System. Untreated water from WR- 34 is conveyed through an outfall pipeline to release makeup water into the Santa Margarita River at the Gorge pursuant to the Cooperative Water Resource Management Agreement. As such, WR-34 is not directly utilized to meet water demands for potable water deliveries. The capacity of the District’s turnout facilities are presented in Tables 4-2 and 4-3.

MWDSC’s Division IV Water Service Policies places additional capacity limitations on the operation of the imported water turnouts. Section 4504 stipulates that flow changes at the turnout facilities are limited to a 10% limit above or below the previous 24-hour average.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 103 of 304

Table 4-2 - Existing Water Supply Capacity for Imported Untreated Water Turnout MWDSC's Pipeline No. Status Rated Capacity (cfs) WR-25 3 Inactive 25 WR-34 5 Active 15 EM-19 5 Inactive 40 EM-21 6 Active 80 Total Active Capacity 95

Table 4-3 - Existing Water Supply Capacity for Imported Treated Water MWDSC's Rated Restricted Capacity Operational Capacity Turnout Pipeline Status Capacity Agreements (cfs) Limitations (cfs) No. (cfs) 30 (During Peak 25 (During Low WR-26 4 Active 40 Flows in SDP#4) Demand Periods) 35 (During Peak 25 (During Low WR-28 4 Active 40 Flows in SDP#4) Demand Periods)

EM-13 4 Active 40 40 -

EM-20 3 Active 111* 111* -

Total Active Capacity 231* 216* -

* - Includes 11 cfs to be wheeled to Pechanga (CSA)

Imported treated water flow rates varies seasonally at the District’s turnouts. During winter months when demand is typically lower, the District relies mostly on local groundwater resources. During these periods, the District may turn off all the imported water turnouts. As demands increase throughout the year, groundwater sources are augmented with imported water supplies to meet daily demand variations. Peak hourly water demand variations are supplied via District storage reservoirs.

As presented in Table 4-3, there are capacity limitations on turnouts WR-26 and WR-28 during different usage periods. During high demand periods, San Diego Pipeline No. 4 is over-subscribed, and the District has agreed to limit flow rates to 30 cfs and 35 cfs, respectively. WR-26 and WR-28 can each supply 25 cfs without exhibiting the operational constraints which can restrict higher flow rates during low demand periods.

Figure 4‐2 – Member Agencies of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

Obtained from MWD website at http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/memberag/member03.html Figure 4-3 - Metropolitan Water District Service Connections

WRANGLER DR ALLEN ST BOOTLEGG RD Legend

MARY PL SHADY LN AROSA ST

NAVION RD NAVION

FAIRBROOK DR GREYWOOD DR ° EM13 - Treated Water Turnout *# WILLIE LN HUNTER RD BOREL RD BOREL RD

WHITEWOOD EM19RD - Untreated Water Turnout UT POURROY RD )" VIA TAFFIA DAPHNE DR ROSALES AVE *# EM20 - Treated Water Turnout SH-79/WINCHESTER RD *# EM21 - Untreated Water Turnout )" MCGOWANS PASS BRANWIN ST EM20 )" WR25 MURRIETA- Untreated HOT Water SPRINGS Turnout RD WR26 - Treated Water Turnout UT *# SWEETWATER CIR BUCK RD SAVANNAWR28 WAY - Treated Water Turnout SERAPHINA RD Ú[UT *# LAS UVAS DR WR34 - Untreated Water Turnout )" ALADDIN CIR TORREY PINES RD WILLOWS AVE CALISTOGA DR LIEFER RD MWDSC's Bypass Pipeline No. 3 CALLE CABERNET CALLE GIRASOL BONAIRE WAY JOSEPH RD VINO WAY MWDSC'sDATE PipelineST No. 1

CALLE MEDUSA MANZANITA ST MANZANITA MWDSC's Pipeline No. 2 SOUTH LOOP RD

EMERY DR BERENDA RD MWDSC's Pipeline No. 3 NICOLAS RD RD CANTRELL MWDSC's Pipeline No. 4 VISTA DEL MONTE RD VILLAGE RDÚ[ EQUITY DR CORTE COELHO MWDSC's Pipeline No. 5 VIA NORTE RORIPAUGH RD RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD MWDSC's Pipeline No. 6 KAHWEA RD LA SERENA WAY I-15

Existing Potable Water Pipeline CILURZO RD HEITZ LN SAINT CROIX MEADOWS PKWY JEFFERSON AVE N GENERAL KEARNY RD DEL REY RD UT ExistingWINCHESTER Potable RD Water Reservoir REID CT REID CT TEMEKU DR OVERLAND DR RUE JADOT MADERA DE PLAYA DR UT Ú[

SOLANA WAY CORTE CANTERA AVENIDA LESTONNAC UTUT SANDHILL LN BIG SAGE CT DIAZ RD MORAGA RD HONORS DR SAGE CT CALLE VISTA ALTANOS RD DEL RIO RD Ú[ DANBY RD UTUT HUMBER DR HUMBER LINDA ROSEA RD Ú[

CORTE ANZA ANZA RD #AGENA ST RANCHO VISTA RD *UTÚ[ ROYAL CREST PL Ú[ I-15 VIA ALHAMA WOLFE ST VIA CEJITA EM13 CROWNE HILL DR YNEZ RD CAMPO DR

RIDGE PARK DR OLD TOWN FRONT ST

AMARITA WAY COLINA VERDE PAUBA RD DE PORTOLA RD PREECE LN

DODARO DR DODARO BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD

CALLE CALLE CONTENTO )"

LEENA WAY EM21 SANTIAGO RD Ú[ )" LOLITA RD SH-79 PUJOL ST

MANZANO DR MARGARITA RD FAVARA DR EM19 CALLE LINDA CABRILLO AVE Ú[ SUMMIT VIEW PL CAMPANULA WAY WR34 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD NIGHTHAWK PASS )" WOLF STORE RD Ú[ VALLEJO AVE VAIL RANCH PKWY TEMECULA PKWY HISLOP WAY VIATORNADO VIA HORCA MORGAN HILL DR PRIS LN WR28*# I-15 " MONTE VERDE RD ) RIO LINDA RD SANTA RITA RD CAMINO ESTRIBOWR26UTUT REGINA DR Ú[Ú[ WR25 VIA SALTIO

LOMA LINDA RD MILAT ST PECHANGA PKWY VIA CORDOBA VIA JACA RHINE AVE UT UT UT CAMINO RUBI ZUMA DR ANZA RD VIA NOVILLO WOLF VALLEY RD Miles VIA PASCAL VIA 0 0.25 0.5 1

The information shown on this map was compiled from the Riverside County GIS and the Rancho California GIS. The land base and facility information on this Rancho California Water District map is for display purposes only and should not be relied upon without independant verification as to 42135 Winchester Road its accuracy. Riverside County and Rancho California Water District will not be held responsible for any Temecula, Ca. 92590 claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of this map. (951) 296-6900 Location Map Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 106 of 304

4.1.2 Existing Wheeling Capacity Requirements Historically, several Contract Service Areas (CSA) outside of the District’s existing service area and sphere of influence have received water from the District by interagency agreement. These include Pechanga, Lake Skinner Park, Rancho Glen Oaks, Nakayama Park and the Rock Mountain Area. The 2015 WFMP includes consideration of increased water demands from the CSAs, as well as consideration of remaining in-fill annexation areas within the District’s current sphere of influence boundary, identified as Murrieta Valley and Redhawk South. The CSAs including additional in-fill annexation areas represent a total existing water demand of 713 AFY. A summary of the interagency agreements and agreed upon wheeling arrangements includes:

 CSA 1 – Rock Mountain Area: The contract potable demand is limited to 500 gpm per Inter-Agency Agreement between the District and WMWD, dated 1/19/2005. Estimated annual average demand currently is 5 AFY based on the highest annual use in 2011.

 CSA 2 – Lake Skinner Park: The contract potable demand is limited to 360 gpm per Inter-Agency Agreement between the District and EMWD, dated 4/21/1981 and Amendment No. 1 dated 7/8/2013.

 CSA 3 – Rancho Glen Oaks: The contract potable demand is limited to approximately 600 gpd/parcels per the Inter-Agency Agreement between the District and EMWD, dated 1/20/1993 and Amendment No. 1 dated 2/16/2006 for the customers within Rancho Glen Oaks Assessment District.

 CSA 4 – Nakayama Park: Existing potable water demand is 2 AFY.

 CSA 5 – Pechanga: Based on the Draft Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement dated December 2013, the total Tribal Water Right is 4,994 AFY, and is to be made up of groundwater and MWDSC imported water (This does not include recycled water or local granitic wells). All water currently supplied to Pechanga from the District is part of the Groundwater Management Agreement.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 107 of 304

4.1.2 Historical Purchases of Imported Water The District initiated the purchase of imported water from MWDSC in 1977. The quantities of treated and untreated water purchased from EMWD and WMWD from 1999 to 2013 is presented in Table 4-4. Based on the quantities purchased at each turnout, the MWDSC Interim Ag Water Program (IAWP) Credits and MWDSC Replenishment Credits, the total Tier 1 and Tier 2 water purchases by Calendar Year are presented in Table 4-5. The IAWP Program has since been discontinued by MWDSC.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 108 of 304

Table 4-4 - Historical Imported Water Data in Acre-Feet

Treated Untreated

Calendar Year Eastern Municipal Water District Western Municipal Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Western Municipal Water District

EM-13 EM-20 IAWP Credits WR-26 WR-28 IAWP Credits EM-19 EM-21 IAWP Credits Replenishment Credits WR-34 IAWP Credits

1999 9,371 0 (1,826) 18,078 (15,406) 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000 9,895 0 (2,329) 19,587 (14,271) 0 0 0 0 0 0

2001 7,488 0 (1,514) 17,018 (10,592) 6,885 0 0 (2,582) 0 0

2002 12,328 6,068 (2,654) 20,884 (17,529) 17,125 0 (782) (3,151) 15 (6)

2003 8,026 8,353 (1,662) 8,841 5,999 (14,036) 16,206 0 (634) 0 5,434 (1,931)

2004 21,295 (2,418) 9,772 10,286 (15,786) 15,809 0 (876) 0 2,475 (893)

2005 9,571 9,107 (4,492) 8,002 5,243 (9,528) 15,731 0 0 (14,527) 4,401 (1,593)

2006 10,308 12,290 (6,370) 8,734 6,818 (11,097) 19,567 0 (251) (18,291) 3,946 (1,399)

2007 11,997 14,147 (6,103) 10,642 10,567 (15,085) 1,921 15,239 (8,255) 0 3,478 (1,255)

2008 8,397 11,494 (3,035) 8,308 8,773 (11,169) 0 12,898 (5,307) 0 1,436 (401)

2009 4,894 11,018 (1,077) 7,307 7,120 (6,864) 0 13,209 (3,917) 0 4,444 (983)

2010 4,327 6,913 (783) 5,993 4,972 (4,331) 0 12,110 (2,509) 0 3,976 (753)

2011 4,377 8,210 (1,718) 4,573 4,777 (3,826) 0 15,400 (2,263) (4,981) 4,271 (853)

2012 4,497 7,996 (1,270) 5,895 6,903 (5,046) 0 12,792 (3,070) 0 3,323 (702)

2013 6,602 6,998 (155) 7,283 6,475 (5,234) 0 12,442 0 0 2,561 (500)

2014 6,026 11,473 (155) 8,027 6,001 0 0 11,929 0 0 4,010 0

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 109 of 304

Table 4-5 - Historical Tier 1 and Tier 2 Imported Water Data

Supplier Classification 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Treated 9,371 9,895 7,488 18,395 16,378 21,295 18,677 22,598 26,143 19,891 15,912 11,240 12,587 12,493 13,599 17,499

Treated - IAWP Credits (1,826) (2,329) (1,514) (2,654) (1,662) (2,418) (4,492) (6,370) (6,103) (3,035) (1,077) (783) (1,718) (1,270) (155) (155)

Untreated 0 0 6,885 17,125 16,206 15,809 15,731 19,567 17,160 12,898 13,209 12,110 15,400 12,792 12,442 11,929

Untreated - IAWP Credits 0 0 0 (782) (634) (876) 0 (251) (8,255) (5,307) (3,917) (2,509) (2,263) (3,070) 0 0 EMWD Untreated - Replenishment Credits 0 0 (2,582) (3,151) 0 0 (14,527) (18,291) 0 0 0 0 (4,981) 0 0 0

Subtotal 7,545 7,566 10,278 28,933 30,288 33,811 15,390 17,254 28,946 24,447 24,126 20,058 19,025 20,945 25,887 29,274

EMWD - Tier 1 7,545 7,566 10,278 28,933 30,288 33,811 15,390 17,254 17,573 17,572 17,878 20,058 19,025 20,212 21,406 21,627

EMWD - Tier 2 - 11,374 6,875 6,248 - - 733 4,481 7,647

Treated 18,078 19,587 17,018 20,884 14,840 20,058 13,246 15,551 21,208 17,081 14,427 10,965 9,350 12,798 13,758 14,029

Treated - IAWP Credits (15,406) (14,271) (10,592) (17,529) (14,036) (15,786) (9,528) (11,097) (15,085) (11,169) (6,864) (4,331) (3,826) (5,046) (5,234) 0

Untreated 0 0 0 15 5,434 2,475 4,401 3,946 3,478 1,436 4,444 3,976 4,271 3,323 2,561 4,010

WMWD Untreated - IAWP Credits 0 0 0 (6) (1,931) (893) (1,593) (1,399) (1,255) (401) (983) (753) (853) (702) (500) 0

Subtotal 2,672 5,316 6,426 3,363 4,307 5,854 6,525 7,000 8,347 6,947 11,023 9,857 8,942 10,375 10,585 18,039

WMWD - Tier 1 2,672 5,316 6,426 3,363 4,307 5,854 6,525 7,000 8,347 5,667 11,023 9,857 8,942 10,375 10,585 18,039

WMWD - Tier 2 ------1,280 ------

Tier 1 10,217 12,882 16,704 32,296 34,595 39,665 21,915 24,254 25,919 23,239 28,901 29,916 27,967 30,587 31,991 39,665 Total Tier 2 ------11,374 8,155 6,248 - - 733 4,481 7,647

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 110 of 304

4.1.3 Cost As of January 2015 the cost of MWDSC imported water is as follows:

 Untreated water, Tier 1 - $582/AF  Untreated water, Tier 2 - $714/AF  Treated water, Tier 1 - $923/AF  Treated water, Tier 2 - $1,055/AF  Untreated water, replenishment rate - $442/AF (Program discontinued after 2012)

As per Section 4507(p) of the MWDSC’s Division IV Water Service Policies, deliveries to the District shall be charged at the Tier 2 Supply Rate when the cumulative total of full service deliveries to the District for the year exceeds 60 percent of the member agency’s Base Firm Demand. Water purchased through a Purchase Order shall also be charged at a Tier 2 Supply Rate when the cumulative total of full service to the District for the year exceeds 90 percent of the District’s Base Firm Demand. In CY2014, the District’s Tier 1 allocation for EMWD is 21,626.7 AFY, and is 22,620.6 for WMWD. These amounts belong to the EMWD and WMWD, which as member agencies of MWDSC, determine an allocation methodology among their wholesale customers. The District has been negotiating with WMWD and its other customers for a larger share of WMWD’s firm base.

4.1.4 Quality Federal regulations require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to safeguard drinking water by establishing standards that limit the amount of substances in drinking water. In California, Title 22 Drinking Water Standards (Title 22) incorporates the federal requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and compliance with Title 22 is required by all water service providers. In California, the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) also safeguards drinking water by establishing standards that are as stringent as the EPA‘s. The District safeguards its water supply by collecting and analyzing more water samples than required by the EPA and SWRCBDDW. As reported in the District‘s Annual Consumer Confidence Report for calendar year 2014, all water produced and delivered by the District meets or goes above the standards for public drinking water.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 111 of 304

Imported water provided to the District from MWDSC’s Lake Skinner Reservoir and Water Treatment Facility is a blend of State Project water and Colorado River water. The historical blend ratio for the past 6 years is shown in Table 4-6, where the percentage of Blend presented represents the percentage of State Water Project (SWP) Water to the total water imported (including Colorado River Water). The untreated and treated water quality parameters for MSDWC imported water for CY2014 are shown in Table 4-7. The untreated water is affected by invasive species such as Quagga mussels. The treated water is chloraminated by MWDSC based on 2.5 to 2.7 Parts Per Million (PPM).

Table 4-6 - Historic Percentage of SWP Water in MWDSC Imported Water Supplies Treated Blend Percentage (%) Untreated Blend Percentage (%) Calendar Year Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Average Average Month Month Month Month

2008 31 20 42 32 21 44

2009 20 6 52 20 8 29

2010 24 3 36 18 3 36

2011 56 36 81 55 29 81

2012 63 43 78 63 42 81

2013 32 12 80 34 13 82

2014 18 0 55 19 0 61

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 112 of 304

Table 4-7 - 2014 Calendar Year Water Quality Parameters of Imported Water Supplies from MWDSC Untreated Water

Month Silica Ca Mg Na K CO3 HCO3 SO4 Cl NO3 F TDS Hardness Alkalinity CO2 pH Conduct Turbidity Temp Br TOC %Blend Jan 8.2 64 23 77 4.3 0 101 195 79 0.9 0.3 529 262 126 1.5 8.24 891 0.54 14 0.06 3.05 10 Feb 8.1 69 25 83 4.3 0 160 218 82 1.1 0.3 571 275 131 1.9 8.14 953 0.45 13 0.05 2.94 0 Mar 8.1 67 24 82 4.2 0 156 198 80 0.9 0.3 542 266 128 1.6 8.21 920 0.36 16 0.07 3.12 6 Apr 7.7 68 24 83 4.3 0 159 205 81 1.1 0.3 554 270 130 1.3 8.32 905 0.72 19 0.08 3.13 8 May 7.8 72 25 83 4.2 0 162 218 82 1.1 0.3 574 283 133 1.4 8.30 942 0.31 21 0.07 2.98 3 Jun 8.6 69 24 84 4.3 0 155 205 82 0.6 0.3 555 267 127 1.6 8.22 899 0.56 22 0.09 3.2 11 Jul 8.8 41 18 67 3.7 0 122 109 75 0.4 0.2 384 180 100 2.3 7.95 666 0.43 22 0.17 2.8 58 Aug 9 41 17 64 3.6 0 126 107 75 0.3 0.2 380 173 103 3 7.85 668 0.55 23 0.18 2.62 61 Sep 8.7 57 22 79 4.2 0 143 164 81 0.2 0.2 488 228 117 1.4 8.23 812 0.56 27 0.13 3.13 31 Oct 9.3 63 23 83 4.4 0 151 185 84 0.5 0.3 528 252 124 1.7 8.17 874 0.42 27 0.12 2.97 23 Nov 9.5 67 25 87 4.5 0 154 191 86 0.7 0.3 548 268 126 1.9 8.14 916 0.36 22 0.11 2.97 17 Dec 9.3 72 26 91 4.7 0 160 230 89 0.8 0.3 603 286 131 1.4 8.29 970 0.39 18 0.08 3.17 0

AVG 8.59 63 23 80 4 0.00 146 185 81 0.72 0.28 521 251 123 1.75 8.17 868 0.47 20 0.10 3.01 19 Max 9.5 72 26 91 5 0 162 230 89 1.1 0.3 603 286 133 3 8.32 970 0.72 27 0.18 3.2 61 Min 7.7 41 17 64 4 0 101 107 75 0.2 0.2 380 173 100 1.3 7.85 666 0.31 13 0.05 2.62 0 Treated Water

Month Silica Ca Mg Na K CO3 HCO3 SO4 Cl NO3 F TDS Hardness Alkalinity CO2 pH Conduct Turbidity Temp Br Langelier %Blend Jan 8.3 67 24 88 4.3 0 150 204 88 1 0.8 560 264 123 2 8.09 951 0.06 16 0 0.47 10 Feb 7.9 70 25 90 4.3 0 156 209 90 1.1 0.9 576 278 128 2.3 8.06 971 0.06 17 0 0.49 0 Mar 8.4 64 23 84 4.1 0 146 191 89 1 0.8 538 261 120 2 8.09 890 0.06 19 0 0.51 15 Apr 8.0 70 25 86 4.3 0 155 211 90 1.3 0.8 574 276 127 2.2 8.07 947 0.05 21 0 0.53 6 May 7.9 70 24 89 4.3 0 156 209 90 1.2 0.8 574 276 128 2.2 8.08 944 0.05 24 0 0.61 8 Jun 8.9 57 21 82 4.0 0 137 163 87 0.9 0.8 493 226 112 1.9 8.08 831 0.06 26 0 0.5 32 Jul 9 43 17 72 3.6 0 121 121 84 0.5 0.8 411 180 99 1.6 8.09 726 0.05 26 0 0.36 55 Aug 9 49 19 76 3.9 0 128 141 88 0.4 0.8 451 202 105 1.8 8.07 777 0.05 28 0 0.44 46 Sep 9 63 23 90 4.4 0 143 195 94 0.8 0.8 551 247 117 2 8.08 902 0.06 29 0 0.59 25 Oct 9.2 65 24 90 4.5 0 150 187 93 0.7 0.8 549 264 123 2 8.1 913 0.05 26 0 0.61 17 Nov 9.5 71 26 97 4.7 0 155 224 97 0.9 0.8 608 286 127 2 8.1 978 0.05 22 0 0.56 5 Dec 8.9 72 26 98 4.7 0 152 236 100 1.2 0.9 624 284 125 2.1 8.08 1010 0.06 18 0 0.51 0

AVG 8.67 63 23 87 4 0.00 146 191 91 0.92 0.82 542 254 120 2.01 8.08 903 0.06 23 0.00 0.52 18 Max 9.5 72 26 98 5 0 156 236 100 1.3 0.9 624 286 128 2.3 8.1 1010 0.06 29 0 0.61 55 Min 7.9 43 17 72 4 0 121 121 84 0.4 0.8 411 180 99 1.6 8.06 726 0.05 16 0 0.36 0

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 113 of 304

4.1.5 Reliability The reliability of MWDSC’s water supply is dependent on a variety of factors. Per Section 4503 of MWDSC’s Division IV Water Service Policies, the District should have sufficient resources (local reservoir storage, groundwater production capacity, system interconnections or alternate supply sources) to sustain a seven-day interruption in MWDSC’s deliveries from raw and treated turnout facilities based on average annual demands. There are no other significant interconnections that exist between the District and either EMWD or WMWD for alternative sources of imported water beyond the existing turnout connections.

4.1.6 Future Supply Capacity For the District’s master planning purposes, the future supply capacity will be based on the existing turnout capacity, with WR-25 and EM-19 remaining inactive. Previous MWDSC planning studies anticipated completing the second and final phase of San Diego Pipeline No. 6 which would also include converting the existing San Diego Pipeline No. 3 with connection of Bypass Pipeline No. 3 from an untreated water pipeline to a treated water pipeline, which would change the WR-25 turnout to a treated water facility. Based on current San Diego County Water Authority supply projections, the District anticipates that the second and final phase of San Diego Pipeline No. 6 will not be completed. The build-out capacity of the District’s turnout facilities are presented in Tables 4-8 and 4-9.

Table 4-8 - Build-out Water Supply Capacity for Imported Untreated Water Turnout MWDSC's Pipeline No. Status Rated Capacity (cfs)

WR-25 3 Inactive 25

WR-34* 5 Active 15

EM-19 5 Inactive 40

EM-21** 6 Active 80

Total Active Capacity 95 * - Used for the CWRMA discharge into the Santa Margarita River **- Used for the VDC Recharge/Recovery Facility and Vail Lake storage operations

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 114 of 304

Table 4-9 - Build-out Water Supply Capacity for Imported Treated Water Rated Restricted Operational MWDSC's Turnout Status Capacity Capacity Capacity Limitations Pipeline No. (cfs) Agreements (cfs) (cfs) 30 (During Peak 25 (During Low WR-26 4 Active 40 Flows in SDP#4) Demand Periods) 35 (During Peak 25 (During Low WR-28 4 Active 40 Flows in SDP#4) Demand Periods)

EM-13 4 Active 40 40 -

EM-20 3 Active 111* 111* -

Total Active Capacity 231* 216*

* - Includes 11 cfs to be wheeled to Pechanga (CSA)

4.1.7 Future Wheeling Capacity Requirements Several Contract Service Areas (CSA) outside of the District’s existing service area and sphere of influence have received water from the District by inter-agency agreement. These include Pechanga, Lake Skinner Park, Rancho Glen Oaks, Nakayama Park and the Rock Mountain Area. The CSAs including additional in-fill annexation areas represent a total build-out water demand of 6,493 AFY. A summary of the interagency agreements and agreed upon wheeling arrangements includes:

 CSA 1 – Rock Mountain Area: The contract potable demand is limited to 500 gpm per Inter-Agency Agreement between the District and WMWD, dated 1/19/2005. Contemplated build-out demand is based on a combination of agricultural and rural residential water use estimated at 2,100 AFY (3 AFY/ac on 700 irrigated acres).

 CSA 2 – Lake Skinner Park: The contract potable demand is limited to 360 gpm per Inter-Agency Agreement between the District and EMWD, dated 4/21/1981 and Amendment No. 1 dated 7/8/2013. Contemplated build-out demand is not anticipated to increase above 200 AFY.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 115 of 304

 CSA 4 – Nakayama Park: Build-out demand is estimated to be equal to the existing potable water demand of 2 AFY.

 CSA 5 – Pechanga: Based on the Draft Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement dated December 2013, the total Tribal Water Right is 4,994 AFY, and is to be made up of groundwater and MWDSC imported water (This does not include recycled water or local granitic wells). MWDSC water is to be wheeled through the District’s system to deliver to Pechanga.

4.2 GROUND WATER Groundwater pumping has historically provided a significant portion of the overall District water demand. The District overlies two major aquifers, the Temecula and the Pauba, which have been the subject of a number of studies over the years. The Pauba aquifer, covering approximately 18 square miles, is “comprised of younger alluvial sediments that occur along the principal streams of the watershed. Unconfined groundwater occurs within the sediments of the highly porous Pauba aquifer, and well yields typically range from 500 to 2,000 gpm. The Pauba aquifer reaches depths of up to 500 feet.” (Local Agency Management Programs Recommendations, Initial Draft Review, July 29, 2014). The Pauba aquifer is underlain by the confined Temecula aquifer. The Temecula aquifer, approximately 100 square miles, “consists of unconsolidated sediments that extend from 500 feet in depth to depths exceeding 2,000 feet.” (Local Agency Management Programs Recommendations, Initial Draft Review, July 29, 2014).

Rights to utilize surface water and groundwater determined to be contributing to the Santa Margarita River are governed by the Modified Final Judgment and Decree (Judgment) entered on April 6, 1966 by the U.S. District Court. The Modified Final Judgment incorporates the 1940 Stipulated Judgment and several subsequent orders have been entered that provide provisions for administering the water rights and managing surface water and groundwater resources in the watershed. The District currently maintains 53 production wells, including inactive and off-line wells.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 116 of 304

Other agencies also pump from the basins in addition to the District, including WMWD, Pechanga and other private pumpers. Accounting for these users, the total natural yield available to the District varies, and is estimated to average approximately 29,500 AFY.

In addition to the extraction of the natural yield of the basins, the District artificially recharges the Pauba Valley Basin with untreated imported water for enhanced groundwater production. The District’s Valle de Los Caballos Recharge/Recovery Facility (VDCR/RF) features two groundwater recharge sites: the “Upper” VDC in the easternmost area of the Pauba Valley and the “Lower” VDC approximately 2 miles to the west. Untreated MWDSC water and/or Vail Lake surface water are introduced into the VDCR/RF Infiltration ponds for recharge into the ground. Over the past 15 Years, this supplemental water provided an average of 15,000 AFY of artificial groundwater recharge through the VDC recharge basins.

4.2.1 Existing Supply Capacity The annual supply capacity of the District’s groundwater sources is limited by the natural yield of the groundwater basin, in conjunction with the artificial groundwater recharge the District achieves at the VDC recharge basins. The District evaluates each groundwater well based on hydrogeologic subunit and aquifer, to determine an annual pumping budget. As presented in Table 4-10, the sustainable yield of the District’s groundwater basin (including artificial recharge allotments) has averaged to 38,159 AFY over the past five years. This includes an average 13,823 AFY of artificial recharge water over a similar five year period. Tables 4-11 and 4-12 present the historic usage and budgets for the past 15 years for the groundwater wells which supply the potable and recycled water systems, respectively.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 117 of 304

While annual groundwater capacity is determined by the sustainable yield of the hydrogeologic subunit and aquifer, peak usage capacity is determined by infrastructure capacity and hydrodynamic conditions. Table 4-13 summarizes the most recent Edison Hydraulic Test Results for each of the District’s groundwater wells, based on hydrogeologic subunit and aquifer. Tables 4-14 and 4-15 present the Edison Hydraulic Test results for the groundwater wells which supply the potable and recycled water systems, respectively. The total operational capacity presented in Tables 4-13 through 4-15 does not include wells that are inactive or off-line. As the Edison Hydraulic Tests are preformed sequentially, the operating capacity totals might be reduced if all active groundwater wells were operated simultaneously (due to a decrease in the pumping water level). The groundwater wells which supply the potable water system are estimated to have a peak usage operational capacity of 95.1 cfs, with the groundwater wells which supply the recycled water system are estimated to have a peak usage operational capacity of 6.3 cfs. Tables 4-16 summarizes the existing annual and peak usage capacity of the District’s groundwater wells.

4.2.2 Existing Wheeling Capacity Requirements The annual supply capacity of the Wolf Valley basin has been shared by agreement between the District and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians (Pechanga). The Wolf Valley groundwater basin is currently shared, with 50% going to Pechanga and 50% going to the District. Under the groundwater current and future groundwater management agreement, the District will pump and deliver groundwater to Pechanga’s system. Current safe yield capacity of the Wolf Valley basin is approximately 2,100 AFY. As shown in Tables 4-10 and 4-11, the District’s annual budget for the Wolf Valley basin, allocated to Wells 119, 122, and 211, has been 1,500 AFY. As presented in Table 4-16, the District’s annual groundwater budget is estimated to be 38,581 AFY, accounting for the reduced capacity available to the District from the Wolf Valley basin.

4.2.3 Historical Production The quantities of groundwater pumped (both native and artificial recharge) are shown in Table 4-10. Tables 4-11 and 4-12 summarize the historic usage over the past 15 years for the groundwater wells which supply the potable and recycled water systems, respectively. Well 102 currently supplies water to the recycled water system, but will begin supplying the potable water system after the site is augmented with well head treatment.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 118 of 304

Table 4-10 - Historic Usage and Budgets of District Groundwater Wells by Subunit and Aquifer Hydro- Young Alluvial FY2005- FY2006- FY2007- FY2008- FY2009- FY2010- FY2011- FY2012- FY2013- FY2014- 5-Year Number geologic Aquifer Well Description Flow Percentage 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Subunit Usage 1,295 1,544 1,278 544 1,312 1,540 1,773 1,487 1,762 1,426 1,598 Well 120 0.0% Budget 1,468 1,149 1,000 1,000 800 800 1,200 800 800 1,200 960 Difference 173 (395) (278) 456 (512) (740) (573) (687) (962) (226) (638) Usage 363 607 467 411 370 343 349 277 370 361 340 Well 124 0.0% Budget 629 522 700 700 725 400 300 300 400 480 376 Difference 266 (85) 233 289 355 57 (49) 23 30 119 36 Usage 1,236 971 700 431 247 540 0 0 0 0 108 Well 125 0.0% Budget 1,258 1,044 1,000 800 450 400 750 500 200 0 370 Difference 22 73 300 369 203 (140) 750 500 200 0 262 Usage 1,416 1,485 910 1,333 991 580 790 948 687 973 796 Well 126 0.0% Budget 1,468 1,462 1,400 1,400 700 700 600 600 800 800 700 Difference 52 (23) 490 67 (291) 120 (190) (348) 113 (173) (96) Usage 518 493 855 937 851 482 1,130 1,170 1,016 839 927 Well 130 0.0% Budget 524 522 500 500 500 500 750 500 900 1,200 770 Difference 6 29 (355) (437) (351) 18 (380) (670) (116) 361 (157) Usage 753 806 981 1,104 1,053 1,007 1,080 1,187 1,078 601 991 Well 131 0.0% Budget 577 522 500 500 500 500 750 500 500 1,200 690 Difference (176) (284) (481) (604) (553) (507) (330) (687) (578) 599 (301) 1001 Pauba Temecula Usage 811 660 708 709 683 541 293 620 757 790 600 Well 133 0.0% Budget 419 418 400 400 500 500 500 500 500 600 520 Difference (392) (242) (308) (309) (183) (41) 207 (120) (257) (190) (80) Usage 429 545 561 759 709 617 533 701 896 698 689 Well 143 0.0% Budget 627 522 500 450 500 500 700 500 500 600 560 Difference 198 (23) (61) (309) (209) (117) 167 (201) (396) (98) (129) Usage 366 425 343 384 259 49 366 241 301 247 241 Well 149 0.0% Budget 261 261 250 250 400 400 600 400 400 360 432 Difference (105) (164) (93) (134) 141 351 234 159 99 113 191 Usage 36 50 471 657 577 451 534 742 807 687 644 Well 203 0.0% Budget 209 157 150 150 400 400 500 600 600 720 564 Difference 173 107 (321) (507) (177) (51) (34) (142) (207) 33 (80) Usage 737 550 957 1,033 929 912 888 796 613 867 815 Well 217 0.0% Budget 1,045 835 800 550 550 1,000 900 900 900 900 920 Difference 308 285 (157) (483) (379) 88 12 104 287 33 105 Usage 7,960 8,136 8,231 8,302 7,981 7,062 7,736 8,169 8,287 7,489 7,749 1001 Sub-Total Budget 8,485 7,415 7,200 6,700 6,025 6,100 7,550 6,100 6,500 8,060 6,862 Difference 525 (721) (1,031) (1,602) (1,956) (962) (186) (2,069) (1,787) 571 (887)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 119 of 304

Table 4-10 - Historic Usage and Budgets of District Groundwater Wells by Subunit and Aquifer Hydro- Young Alluvial FY2005- FY2006- FY2007- FY2008- FY2009- FY2010- FY2011- FY2012- FY2013- FY2014- 5-Year Number geologic Aquifer Well Description Flow Percentage 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Subunit Usage 624 912 667 702 513 372 352 623 581 454 476 Well 109 84.0% Budget 366 783 750 750 800 800 600 600 800 700 700 Difference (258) (129) 83 48 287 428 248 (23) 219 246 224 Usage 1,657 1,157 1,360 1,344 1,312 1,217 1,231 1,136 373 813 954 Well 110 97.0% Budget 1,881 2,089 1,800 1,800 1,600 1,600 1,200 1,200 1,200 900 1,220 Difference 224 932 440 456 288 383 (31) 64 827 87 266 Usage 590 462 462 526 462 542 484 514 521 489 510 Well 141 0.0% Budget 418 470 500 500 500 500 625 625 600 500 570 Difference (172) 8 38 (26) 38 (42) 141 111 79 11 60 Usage 2,928 2,694 2,111 2,109 1,938 1,704 1,926 1,789 2,865 2,461 2,149 Well 152 90.8% Budget 2,684 2,256 2,700 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,700 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,040 Difference (244) (438) 589 391 562 796 (226) 11 (865) (261) (109) Usage 2,269 2,156 1,298 1,574 1,071 1,364 1,862 1,955 2,415 2,659 2,051 Well 153 99.0% Budget 1,839 1,838 2,200 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,500 1,800 1,800 2,200 1,830 Difference (430) (318) 902 276 779 486 (362) (155) (615) (459) (221) Usage 1,757 2,256 1,782 2,183 1,601 1,533 2,396 2,152 1,656 1,414 1,830 Well 157 96.8% Budget 1,923 1,420 1,700 2,100 2,100 2,100 1,800 2,500 2,500 2,200 2,220 1002 Pauba Pauba Difference 166 (836) (82) (83) 499 567 (596) 348 844 786 390 Usage 1,731 1,389 1,421 1,520 1,790 1,599 1,991 2,502 1,669 2,057 1,964 Well 158 96.5% Budget 1,003 1,253 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,800 1,800 2,000 2,200 1,860 Difference (728) (136) 79 (20) (290) (99) (191) (702) 331 143 (104) Usage 453 600 472 559 634 626 536 843 835 698 708 Well 210 94.0% Budget 366 522 500 575 575 600 600 600 800 850 690 Difference (87) (78) 28 16 (59) (26) 64 (243) (35) 152 (18) Usage 493 571 360 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 231 0.0% Budget 941 627 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 448 56 140 395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 761 1,217 1,724 1,965 1,442 580 1,776 1,581 1,408 864 1,242 Well 233 88.0% Budget 941 1,149 1,100 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,800 1,900 1,500 1,680 Difference 180 (68) (624) (365) 158 1,020 (176) 219 492 636 438 Usage 13,263 13,414 11,657 12,587 10,763 9,537 12,554 13,095 12,323 11,909 11,884 1002 Sub-Total Budget 12,361 12,407 13,250 13,675 13,025 13,050 11,425 12,725 13,600 13,250 12,810 Difference (902) (1,007) 1,593 1,088 2,262 3,513 (1,129) (370) 1,277 1,341 926

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 120 of 304

Table 4-10 - Historic Usage and Budgets of District Groundwater Wells by Subunit and Aquifer Hydro- Young Alluvial FY2005- FY2006- FY2007- FY2008- FY2009- FY2010- FY2011- FY2012- FY2013- FY2014- 5-Year Number geologic Aquifer Well Description Flow Percentage 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Subunit Usage 144 157 216 153 191 178 161 294 240 157 206 Well 123 65.0% Budget 314 146 140 250 150 150 150 150 300 250 200 Difference 170 (11) (76) 97 (41) (28) (11) (144) 60 93 (6) Usage 1,222 1,394 1,184 1,330 1,311 1,112 1,339 1,124 496 646 943 Well 132 82.0% Budget 1,045 1,044 1,000 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,400 1,450 1,450 1,200 1,360 Difference (177) (350) (184) (30) (11) 188 61 326 954 554 417 Usage 574 628 901 901 843 965 1,109 998 1,005 677 951 1003 Pauba Combined Well 232 92.0% Budget 523 627 600 750 750 750 1,200 1,250 1,200 1,100 1,100 Difference (51) (1) (301) (151) (93) (215) 91 252 195 423 149 Usage 545 554 303 360 300 334 254 383 266 182 284 Well 234 74.0% Budget 209 627 600 500 500 500 300 300 300 300 340 Difference (336) 73 297 140 200 166 46 (83) 34 118 56 Usage 2,485 2,733 2,604 2,744 2,645 2,589 2,863 2,799 2,007 1,662 2,384 1003 Sub-Total Budget 2,090 2,444 2,340 2,800 2,700 2,700 3,050 3,150 3,250 2,850 3,000 Difference (395) (289) (264) 56 55 111 187 351 1,243 1,188 616 Usage 0 0 0 0 284 543 644 781 732 798 700 Well 151 0.0% Budget 0 0 0 0 300 400 600 600 600 800 600 Difference 0 0 0 0 16 (143) (44) (181) (132) 2 (100) Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 201 0.0% Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 208 0.0% Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upper 1004 Temecula Mesa Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 209 0.0% Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 146 789 623 316 367 291 195 0 0 0 97 Well 215 0.0% Budget 209 209 700 850 200 400 350 350 0 0 220 Difference 63 (580) 77 534 (167) 109 155 350 0 0 123 Usage 146 789 623 316 651 834 839 781 732 798 797 1004 Sub-Total Budget 209 209 700 850 500 800 950 950 600 800 820 Difference 63 (580) 77 534 (151) (34) 111 169 (132) 2 23

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 121 of 304

Table 4-10 - Historic Usage and Budgets of District Groundwater Wells by Subunit and Aquifer Hydro- Young Alluvial FY2005- FY2006- FY2007- FY2008- FY2009- FY2010- FY2011- FY2012- FY2013- FY2014- 5-Year Number geologic Aquifer Well Description Flow Percentage 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Subunit Usage 910 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 128 0.0% Budget 941 522 200 400 400 600 800 700 0 0 420 Difference 31 522 200 400 400 600 800 700 0 0 420 Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 129 0.0% Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 2,641 1,684 1,840 2,215 1,949 2,151 1,949 1,754 2,416 2,262 2,106 Well 138 0.0% Budget 1,463 1,671 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 Difference (1,178) (13) (240) (615) (349) (551) (349) (154) (816) (662) (506) Usage 756 903 500 877 323 1,111 1,023 1,263 1,291 1,060 1,150 Well 139 0.0% Budget 836 835 800 800 800 700 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,060 Lower Difference 80 (68) 300 (77) 477 (411) 177 (263) (91) 140 (90) 1005 Temecula Mesa Usage 558 319 834 973 1,103 1,001 919 197 691 1,157 793 Well 140 0.0% Budget 0 522 300 700 700 700 1,100 1,000 850 850 900 Difference (558) 203 (534) (273) (403) (301) 181 803 159 (307) 107 Usage 599 577 601 245 239 172 157 0 0 0 66 Well 216 0.0% Budget 732 679 650 650 500 400 250 250 0 0 180 Difference 133 102 49 405 261 228 93 250 0 0 114 Usage 593 877 1,057 1,246 812 600 1,273 1,307 1,276 1,502 1,192 Well 235 0.0% Budget 1,045 731 700 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,120 Difference 452 (146) (357) (246) 188 400 (273) (107) (76) (302) (72) Usage 6,057 4,360 4,832 5,556 4,426 5,035 5,321 4,521 5,674 5,981 5,306 1005 Sub-Total Budget 5,016 4,960 4,250 5,150 5,000 5,000 5,950 5,750 4,850 4,850 5,280 Difference (1,041) 600 (582) (406) 574 (35) 629 1,229 (824) (1,131) (26) Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South 1006 Temecula Well 207 0.0% Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mesa Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 620 588 562 558 551 541 535 452 352 157 407 1007 Palomar Temecula Well 113 0.0% Budget 679 679 650 650 650 600 550 550 480 480 532 Difference 59 91 88 92 99 59 15 98 128 323 125

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 122 of 304

Table 4-10 - Historic Usage and Budgets of District Groundwater Wells by Subunit and Aquifer Hydro- Young Alluvial FY2005- FY2006- FY2007- FY2008- FY2009- FY2010- FY2011- FY2012- FY2013- FY2014- 5-Year Number geologic Aquifer Well Description Flow Percentage 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Subunit Usage 1,572 743 0 9 1,558 1,824 1,844 1,743 1,892 1,576 1,776 Well 205 0.0% Budget 1,986 1,671 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,600 1,520 Difference 414 928 1,500 1,491 (58) (324) (344) (243) (392) 24 (256) Usage 2,665 3,132 2,825 2,583 2,669 2,612 2,712 2,757 2,453 2,217 2,550 Santa 1008 Temecula Well 309 0.0% Budget 2,090 2,611 2,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,700 2,700 2,880 Gertrudis Difference (575) (521) (325) 417 331 388 288 243 247 483 330 Usage 4,237 3,875 2,825 2,592 4,227 4,436 4,556 4,500 4,345 3,793 4,326 1008 Sub-Total Budget 4,076 4,282 4,000 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,200 4,300 4,400 Difference (161) 407 1,175 1,908 273 64 (56) 0 (145) 507 74 Usage 259 163 296 338 297 276 239 245 268 181 242 Well 106 0.0% Budget 523 313 300 300 200 400 200 300 300 300 300 Difference 264 150 4 (38) (97) 124 (39) 55 32 119 58 Usage 312 49 327 850 698 684 694 617 660 636 658 Santa 1010 Combined Well 108 0.0% Budget 209 209 200 200 300 500 600 600 700 600 600 Gertrudis Difference (103) 160 (127) (650) (398) (184) (94) (17) 40 (36) (58) Usage 571 212 623 1,188 995 960 933 862 928 817 900 1010 Sub-Total Budget 732 522 500 500 500 900 800 900 1,000 900 900 Difference 161 310 (123) (688) (495) (60) (133) 38 72 83 0 Usage 555 1,338 1,496 986 347 474 396 389 385 508 430 Well 122 0.0% Budget 627 1,253 1,200 900 650 350 500 500 500 450 460 Difference 72 (85) (296) (86) 303 (124) 104 111 115 (58) 30 Usage 0 0 0 382 337 665 424 363 363 505 464 1011 Wolf Valley Temecula Well 211 0.0% Budget 0 0 0 600 650 350 500 500 500 450 460 Difference 0 0 0 218 313 (315) 76 137 137 (55) (4) Usage 555 1,338 1,496 1,368 684 1,139 820 752 748 1,013 894 1011 Sub-Total Budget 627 1,253 1,200 1,500 1,300 700 1,000 1,000 1,000 900 920 Difference 72 (85) (296) 132 616 (439) 180 248 252 (113) 26 Usage 1,498 1,497 1,588 1,239 377 572 531 371 421 565 492 1012 Wolf Valley Pauba Well 119 0.0% Budget 1,568 1,358 1,300 1,300 700 350 500 500 500 450 460 Difference 70 (139) (288) 61 323 (222) (31) 129 79 (115) (32) Usage 492 716 668 325 310 39 798 830 811 474 590 Well 101 0.0% Budget 366 418 300 300 300 300 300 300 600 800 460

Southern Difference (126) (298) (368) (25) (10) 261 (498) (530) (211) 326 (130) 1014 Temecula Murrieta Usage 221 185 469 379 159 173 51 58 177 272 146 Well 102* 0.0% Budget 105 209 200 300 400 400 400 500 0 0 260 Difference (116) 24 (269) (79) 241 227 349 442 (177) (272) 114

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 123 of 304

Difference (85) 64 338 (296) 199 486 193 297 (139) (46) 158 1014 Con’t Usage 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 121* 0.0% Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 1,843 1,777 1,700 1,500 1,270 726 1,456 1,391 1,927 1,592 1,418 1014 Sub-Total Budget 1,515 1,566 1,400 1,100 1,700 1,700 1,500 1,600 1,400 1,600 1,560 Difference (328) (211) (300) (400) 430 974 44 209 (527) 8 142 Usage 27 69 29 211 54 71 16 38 28 96 50 Well 135* 0.0% Budget 26 21 50 50 100 100 100 0 0 0 40 Difference (1) (48) 21 (161) 46 29 84 (38) (28) (96) (10) Usage 461 416 538 502 461 436 463 526 614 484 505 Well 144 0.0% Budget 157 366 450 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 Difference (304) (50) (88) (102) (61) (36) (63) (126) (214) (84) (105) Usage 765 589 737 793 726 693 509 358 390 37 397 Well 145 0.0% Budget 627 522 600 500 500 500 700 700 600 600 620 Difference (138) (67) (137) (293) (226) (193) 191 342 210 563 223 Usage 194 203 0 36 15 2 5 13 32 37 18 Well 155* 0.0% Budget 209 157 150 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 20 Northern Difference 15 (46) 150 14 35 48 45 (13) (32) (37) 2 1017 Temecula Murrieta Usage 0 0 396 673 864 739 791 759 961 803 811 Well 156 0.0% Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 0 0 (396) (673) (864) (739) (791) (759) (961) (803) (811) Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 301 0.0% Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 302 0.0% Budget 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 1,447 1,277 1,700 2,215 2,120 1,941 1,784 1,694 2,025 1,457 1,780 1017 Sub-Total Budget 1,071 1,065 1,250 1,000 1,050 1,050 1,250 1,100 1,000 1,000 1,080 Difference (376) (212) (450) (1,215) (1,070) (891) (534) (594) (1,025) (457) (700) Usage 18 46 57 95 53 40 0 40 16 39 27 Northern 1018 Pauba Well 146* 0.0% Budget 21 21 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 20 Murrieta Difference 3 (25) (7) (45) (3) 10 50 (40) (16) (39) (7)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 124 of 304

Budget 38,450 38,180 38,090 39,775 37,700 37,500 39,075 38,825 38,380 39,440 38,644

Difference (2,250) (1,862) (408) (485) 957 2,088 (853) (602) (1,405) 2,168 279

TOTAL Imported Raw 17,259 16,398 12,003 16,223 12,187 12,371 16,301 12,034 12,834 12,254 13,159 Water Recharge Young Alluvial 10,871 11,415 10,386 11,572 10,103 9,132 12,051 12,556 10,162 9,962 10,773 Flow Native Groundwater 23,441 23,644 26,495 24,037 24,556 23,041 23,627 27,393 26,951 25,018 25,206 Used * - Groundwater well discharges into the non-potable (recycled) water distribution system.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 125 of 304

Table 4-11 - Historic Usage and Budget of Groundwater Wells Discharging into the Potable Water System by Subunit and Aquifer Hydro- FY2005- FY2006- FY2007- FY2008- FY2009- FY2010- FY2011- FY2012- FY2013- FY2014- 5-Year Number geologic Aquifer Well Description 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Subunit Usage 1,295 1,544 1,278 544 1,312 1,540 1,773 1,487 1,762 1,426 1,598 Well 120 Budget 1,468 1,149 1,000 1,000 800 800 1,200 800 800 1,200 960 Difference 173 (395) (278) 456 (512) (740) (573) (687) (962) (226) (638) Usage 363 607 467 411 370 343 349 277 370 361 340 Well 124 Budget 629 522 700 700 725 400 300 300 400 480 376 Difference 266 (85) 233 289 355 57 (49) 23 30 119 36 Usage 1,236 971 700 431 247 540 0 0 0 0 108 Well 125 Budget 1,258 1,044 1,000 800 450 400 750 500 200 0 370 Difference 22 73 300 369 203 (140) 750 500 200 0 262 Usage 1,416 1,485 910 1,333 991 580 790 948 687 973 796 Well 126 Budget 1,468 1,462 1,400 1,400 700 700 600 600 800 800 700 Difference 52 (23) 490 67 (291) 120 (190) (348) 113 (173) (96) Usage 518 493 855 937 851 482 1,130 1,170 1,016 839 927 Well 130 Budget 524 522 500 500 500 500 750 500 900 1,200 770 Difference 6 29 (355) (437) (351) 18 (380) (670) (116) 361 (157) Usage 753 806 981 1,104 1,053 1,007 1,080 1,187 1,078 601 991 Well 131 Budget 577 522 500 500 500 500 750 500 500 1,200 690 Difference (176) (284) (481) (604) (553) (507) (330) (687) (578) 599 (301) 1001 Pauba Temecula Usage 811 660 708 709 683 541 293 620 757 790 600 Well 133 Budget 419 418 400 400 500 500 500 500 500 600 520 Difference (392) (242) (308) (309) (183) (41) 207 (120) (257) (190) (80) Usage 429 545 561 759 709 617 533 701 896 698 689 Well 143 Budget 627 522 500 450 500 500 700 500 500 600 560 Difference 198 (23) (61) (309) (209) (117) 167 (201) (396) (98) (129) Usage 366 425 343 384 259 49 366 241 301 247 241 Well 149 Budget 261 261 250 250 400 400 600 400 400 360 432 Difference (105) (164) (93) (134) 141 351 234 159 99 113 191 Usage 36 50 471 657 577 451 534 742 807 687 644 Well 203 Budget 209 157 150 150 400 400 500 600 600 720 564 Difference 173 107 (321) (507) (177) (51) (34) (142) (207) 33 (80) Usage 737 550 957 1,033 929 912 888 796 613 867 815 Well 217 Budget 1,045 835 800 550 550 1,000 900 900 900 900 920 Difference 308 285 (157) (483) (379) 88 12 104 287 33 105 Usage 7,960 8,136 8,231 8,302 7,981 7,062 7,736 8,169 8,287 7,489 7,749 1001 Sub-Total Budget 8,485 7,415 7,200 6,700 6,025 6,100 7,550 6,100 6,500 8,060 6,862 Difference 525 (721) (1,031) (1,602) (1,956) (962) (186) (2,069) (1,787) 571 (887)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 126 of 304

Table 4-11 - Historic Usage and Budget of Groundwater Wells Discharging into the Potable Water System by Subunit and Aquifer Hydro- FY2005- FY2006- FY2007- FY2008- FY2009- FY2010- FY2011- FY2012- FY2013- FY2014- 5-Year Number geologic Aquifer Well Description 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Subunit Usage 624 912 667 702 513 372 352 623 581 454 476 Well 109 Budget 366 783 750 750 800 800 600 600 800 700 700 Difference (258) (129) 83 48 287 428 248 (23) 219 246 224 Usage 1,657 1,157 1,360 1,344 1,312 1,217 1,231 1,136 373 813 954 Well 110 Budget 1,881 2,089 1,800 1,800 1,600 1,600 1,200 1,200 1,200 900 1,220 Difference 224 932 440 456 288 383 (31) 64 827 87 266 Usage 590 462 462 526 462 542 484 514 521 489 510 Well 141 Budget 418 470 500 500 500 500 625 625 600 500 570 Difference (172) 8 38 (26) 38 (42) 141 111 79 11 60 Usage 2,928 2,694 2,111 2,109 1,938 1,704 1,926 1,789 2,865 2,461 2,149 Well 152 Budget 2,684 2,256 2,700 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,700 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,040 Difference (244) (438) 589 391 562 796 (226) 11 (865) (261) (109) Usage 2,269 2,156 1,298 1,574 1,071 1,364 1,862 1,955 2,415 2,659 2,051 Well 153 Budget 1,839 1,838 2,200 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,500 1,800 1,800 2,200 1,830 Difference (430) (318) 902 276 779 486 (362) (155) (615) (459) (221) Usage 1,757 2,256 1,782 2,183 1,601 1,533 2,396 2,152 1,656 1,414 1,830 1002 Pauba Pauba Well 157 Budget 1,923 1,420 1,700 2,100 2,100 2,100 1,800 2,500 2,500 2,200 2,220 Difference 166 (836) (82) (83) 499 567 (596) 348 844 786 390 Usage 1,731 1,389 1,421 1,520 1,790 1,599 1,991 2,502 1,669 2,057 1,964 Well 158 Budget 1,003 1,253 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,800 1,800 2,000 2,200 1,860 Difference (728) (136) 79 (20) (290) (99) (191) (702) 331 143 (104) Usage 453 600 472 559 634 626 536 843 835 698 708 Well 210 Budget 366 522 500 575 575 600 600 600 800 850 690 Difference (87) (78) 28 16 (59) (26) 64 (243) (35) 152 (18) Usage 493 571 360 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 231 Budget 941 627 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 448 56 140 395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 761 1,217 1,724 1,965 1,442 580 1,776 1,581 1,408 864 1,242 Well 233 Budget 941 1,149 1,100 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,800 1,900 1,500 1,680 Difference 180 (68) (624) (365) 158 1,020 (176) 219 492 636 438 Usage 13,263 13,414 11,657 12,587 10,763 9,537 12,554 13,095 12,323 11,909 11,884 1002 Sub-Total Budget 12,361 12,407 13,250 13,675 13,025 13,050 11,425 12,725 13,600 13,250 12,810 Difference (902) (1,007) 1,593 1,088 2,262 3,513 (1,129) (370) 1,277 1,341 926

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 127 of 304

Table 4-11 - Historic Usage and Budget of Groundwater Wells Discharging into the Potable Water System by Subunit and Aquifer Hydro- FY2005- FY2006- FY2007- FY2008- FY2009- FY2010- FY2011- FY2012- FY2013- FY2014- 5-Year Number geologic Aquifer Well Description 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Subunit Usage 144 157 216 153 191 178 161 294 240 157 206 Well 123 Budget 314 146 140 250 150 150 150 150 300 250 200 Difference 170 (11) (76) 97 (41) (28) (11) (144) 60 93 (6) Usage 1,222 1,394 1,184 1,330 1,311 1,112 1,339 1,124 496 646 943 Well 132 Budget 1,045 1,044 1,000 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,400 1,450 1,450 1,200 1,360 Difference (177) (350) (184) (30) (11) 188 61 326 954 554 417 Usage 574 628 901 901 843 965 1,109 998 1,005 677 951 1003 Pauba Combined Well 232 Budget 523 627 600 750 750 750 1,200 1,250 1,200 1,100 1,100 Difference (51) (1) (301) (151) (93) (215) 91 252 195 423 149 Usage 545 554 303 360 300 334 254 383 266 182 284 Well 234 Budget 209 627 600 500 500 500 300 300 300 300 340 Difference (336) 73 297 140 200 166 46 (83) 34 118 56 Usage 2,485 2,733 2,604 2,744 2,645 2,589 2,863 2,799 2,007 1,662 2,384 1003 Sub-Total Budget 2,090 2,444 2,340 2,800 2,700 2,700 3,050 3,150 3,250 2,850 3,000 Difference (395) (289) (264) 56 55 111 187 351 1,243 1,188 616 Usage 0 0 0 0 284 543 644 781 732 798 700 Well 151 Budget 0 0 0 0 300 400 600 600 600 800 600 Difference 0 0 0 0 16 (143) (44) (181) (132) 2 (100) Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 201 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 208 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upper Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1004 Temecula Mesa Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 209 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 146 789 623 316 367 291 195 0 0 0 97 Well 215 Budget 209 209 700 850 200 400 350 350 0 0 220 Difference 63 (580) 77 534 (167) 109 155 350 0 0 123 Usage 146 789 623 316 651 834 839 781 732 798 797 1004 Sub-Total Budget 209 209 700 850 500 800 950 950 600 800 820 Difference 63 (580) 77 534 (151) (34) 111 169 (132) 2 23

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 128 of 304

Table 4-11 - Historic Usage and Budget of Groundwater Wells Discharging into the Potable Water System by Subunit and Aquifer Hydro- FY2005- FY2006- FY2007- FY2008- FY2009- FY2010- FY2011- FY2012- FY2013- FY2014- 5-Year Number geologic Aquifer Well Description 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Subunit Usage 910 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 128 Budget 941 522 200 400 400 600 800 700 0 0 420 Difference 31 522 200 400 400 600 800 700 0 0 420 Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well 129 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 2,641 1,684 1,840 2,215 1,949 2,151 1,949 1,754 2,416 2,262 2,106 Well 138 Budget 1,463 1,671 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 Difference (1,178) (13) (240) (615) (349) (551) (349) (154) (816) (662) (506) Usage 756 903 500 877 323 1,111 1,023 1,263 1,291 1,060 1,150 Well 139 Budget 836 835 800 800 800 700 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,060 Difference 80 (68) 300 (77) 477 (411) 177 (263) (91) 140 (90) Lower 1005 Temecula Mesa Usage 558 319 834 973 1,103 1,001 919 197 691 1,157 793 Well 140 Budget 0 522 300 700 700 700 1,100 1,000 850 850 900 Difference (558) 203 (534) (273) (403) (301) 181 803 159 (307) 107 Usage 599 577 601 245 239 172 157 0 0 0 66 Well 216 Budget 732 679 650 650 500 400 250 250 0 0 180 Difference 133 102 49 405 261 228 93 250 0 0 114 Usage 593 877 1,057 1,246 812 600 1,273 1,307 1,276 1,502 1,192 Well 235 Budget 1,045 731 700 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,120 Difference 452 (146) (357) (246) 188 400 (273) (107) (76) (302) (72) Usage 6,057 4,360 4,832 5,556 4,426 5,035 5,321 4,521 5,674 5,981 5,306 1005 Sub-Total Budget 5,016 4,960 4,250 5,150 5,000 5,000 5,950 5,750 4,850 4,850 5,280 Difference (1,041) 600 (582) (406) 574 (35) 629 1,229 (824) (1,131) (26) Usage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South 1006 Temecula Well 207 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mesa Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 620 588 562 558 551 541 535 452 352 157 407 1007 Palomar Temecula Well 113 Budget 679 679 650 650 650 600 550 550 480 480 532 Difference 59 91 88 92 99 59 15 98 128 323 125

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 129 of 304

Table 4-11 - Historic Usage and Budget of Groundwater Wells Discharging into the Potable Water System by Subunit and Aquifer Hydro- FY2005- FY2006- FY2007- FY2008- FY2009- FY2010- FY2011- FY2012- FY2013- FY2014- 5-Year Number geologic Aquifer Well Description 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Subunit Usage 1,572 743 0 9 1,558 1,824 1,844 1,743 1,892 1,576 1,776 Well 205 Budget 1,986 1,671 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,600 1,520 Difference 414 928 1,500 1,491 (58) (324) (344) (243) (392) 24 (256) Usage 2,665 3,132 2,825 2,583 2,669 2,612 2,712 2,757 2,453 2,217 2,550 Santa 1008 Temecula Well 309 Budget 2,090 2,611 2,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,700 2,700 2,880 Gertrudis Difference (575) (521) (325) 417 331 388 288 243 247 483 330 Usage 4,237 3,875 2,825 2,592 4,227 4,436 4,556 4,500 4,345 3,793 4,326 1008 Sub-Total Budget 4,076 4,282 4,000 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,200 4,300 4,400 Difference (161) 407 1,175 1,908 273 64 (56) 0 (145) 507 74 Usage 259 163 296 338 297 276 239 245 268 181 242 Well 106 Budget 523 313 300 300 200 400 200 300 300 300 300 Difference 264 150 4 (38) (97) 124 (39) 55 32 119 58 Usage 312 49 327 850 698 684 694 617 660 636 658 Santa 1010 Combined Well 108 Budget 209 209 200 200 300 500 600 600 700 600 600 Gertrudis Difference (103) 160 (127) (650) (398) (184) (94) (17) 40 (36) (58) Usage 571 212 623 1,188 995 960 933 862 928 817 900 1010 Sub-Total Budget 732 522 500 500 500 900 800 900 1,000 900 900 Difference 161 310 (123) (688) (495) (60) (133) 38 72 83 0 Usage 555 1,338 1,496 986 347 474 396 389 385 508 430 Well 122 Budget 627 1,253 1,200 900 650 350 500 500 500 450 460 Difference 72 (85) (296) (86) 303 (124) 104 111 115 (58) 30 Usage 0 0 0 382 337 665 424 363 363 505 464 Wolf 1011 Temecula Well 211 Budget 0 0 0 600 650 350 500 500 500 450 460 Valley Difference 0 0 0 218 313 (315) 76 137 137 (55) (4) Usage 555 1,338 1,496 1,368 684 1,139 820 752 748 1,013 894 1011 Sub-Total Budget 627 1,253 1,200 1,500 1,300 700 1,000 1,000 1,000 900 920 Difference 72 (85) (296) 132 616 (439) 180 248 252 (113) 26 Usage 1,498 1,497 1,588 1,239 377 572 531 371 421 565 492 Wolf 1012 Pauba Well 119 Budget 1,568 1,358 1,300 1,300 700 350 500 500 500 450 460 Valley Difference 70 (139) (288) 61 323 (222) (31) 129 79 (115) (32) Usage 492 716 668 325 310 39 798 830 811 474 590 Well 101 Budget 366 418 300 300 300 300 300 300 600 800 460

Southern Difference (126) (298) (368) (25) (10) 261 (498) (530) (211) 326 (130) 1014 Temecula Murrieta Usage 1,130 876 562 796 801 514 607 503 939 846 682 Well 118 Budget 1,045 940 900 500 1,000 1,000 800 800 800 800 840 Difference (85) 64 338 (296) 199 486 193 297 (139) (46) 158

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 130 of 304

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 131 of 304

Table 4-12 - Historic Usage and Budget of Groundwater Wells Discharging into the Non-Potable (Recycled) Water System by Subunit and Aquifer Hydro- FY2005- FY2006- FY2007- FY2008- FY2009- FY2010- FY2011- FY2012- FY2013- FY2014- 5-Year Number geologic Aquifer Well Description 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Subunit Usage 221 185 469 379 159 173 51 58 177 272 146 Well 102 Budget 105 209 200 300 400 400 400 500 0 0 260 Difference (116) 24 (269) (79) 241 227 349 442 (177) (272) 114 Usage 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southern 1014 Temecula Well 121 Budget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Murrieta Difference 0 0 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Usage 221 185 470 379 159 173 51 58 177 272 146 1014 Sub-Total Budget 105 209 200 300 400 400 400 500 0 0 260 Difference (116) 24 (270) (79) 241 227 349 442 (177) (272) 114 Usage 27 69 29 211 54 71 16 38 28 96 50 Well 135 Budget 26 21 50 50 100 100 100 0 0 0 40 Difference (1) (48) 21 (161) 46 29 84 (38) (28) (96) (10) Usage 194 203 0 36 15 2 5 13 32 37 18 Northern 1017 Temecula Well 155 Budget 209 157 150 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 20 Murrieta Difference 15 (46) 150 14 35 48 45 (13) (32) (37) 2 Usage 221 272 29 247 69 73 21 51 60 133 68 1017 Sub-Total Budget 235 178 200 100 150 150 150 0 0 0 60 Difference 14 (94) 171 (147) 81 77 129 (51) (60) (133) (8) Usage 18 46 57 95 53 40 0 40 16 39 27 Northern 1018 Pauba Well 146 Budget 21 21 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 20 Murrieta Difference 3 (25) (7) (45) (3) 10 50 (40) (16) (39) (7) Usage 460 503 556 721 281 286 72 149 253 444 241 TOTAL Budget 361 407 450 450 600 600 600 500 0 0 340 Difference (99) (96) (106) (271) 319 314 528 351 (253) (444) 99

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 132 of 304

Table 4-13 – Peak Usage Capacity of Groundwater Wells by Subunit and Aquifer Based on Edison Hydraulic Tests Measured Flow Rate Measured Flow Rate Calculated Efficiency Number Hydro-geologic Subunit Aquifer Well Status Edison Test Date (gpm) (cfs) (Energy/AF) Well 120 Active 2/24/2012 1,347 3.0 786 Well 124 Active 4/11/2013 470 1.0 948 Well 125 Off-Line 5/11/2009 570 1.3 997 Well 126 Active 10/23/2013 1,185 2.6 769 Well 130 Active 3/11/2014 913 2.0 541 Well 131 Active 2/7/2011 1,080 2.4 865 1001 Pauba Temecula Well 133 Active 8/8/2012 779 1.7 684 Well 143 Active 4/29/2014 597 1.3 1055 Well 149 Active 4/22/2014 328 0.7 821 Well 203 Active 5/22/2013 516 1.1 868 Well 217 Active 5/22/2013 660 1.5 806 1001 Sub-Total 7,875 17.5 Well 109 Active 6/10/2013 495 1.1 549 Well 141 Active 6/2/2009 429 1.0 903.4 Well 152 Active 4/11/2013 2,595 5.8 195 Well 153 Active 1/17/2013 1,786 4.0 178 Well 157 Active 3/20/2012 1,655 3.7 308 1002 Pauba Pauba Well 158 Active 3/20/2012 1,090 2.4 117 Well 164 Active - 1,100 2.5 - Well 210 Active 5/22/2013 567 1.3 438 Well 231 Off-Line 7/22/2008 696 1.6 539** Well 233 Active 7/29/2011 1,378 3.1 378 1002 Sub-Total 11,095 24.7 Well 123 Active 11/9/2012 383 0.9 367 Well 132 Active 2/4/2014 851 1.9 268 1003 Pauba Combined Well 232 Active 4/22/2014 585 1.3 475 Well 234 Active 4/15/2014 290 0.6 736 1003 Sub-Total 2,109 4.7 Well 151 Active 1/30/2014 650 1.4 1028 Well 201 Inactive - - - - Well 208 Inactive - - - - 1004 Upper Mesa Temecula Well 209 Inactive - - - - Well 215 Off-Line 2/7/2011 515 1.1 1207 1004 Sub-Total 650 1.1

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 133 of 304

Table 4-13 – Peak Usage Capacity of Groundwater Wells by Subunit and Aquifer Based on Edison Hydraulic Tests Measured Flow Rate Measured Flow Rate Calculated Efficiency Number Hydro-geologic Subunit Aquifer Well Status Edison Test Date (gpm) (cfs) (Energy/AF) Well 128 Off-Line 7/19/2005 1,439 3.2 923.8 Well 129 Off-Line 1/22/2001 504 1.1 1499.9 Well 138 Active 7/30/2014 1,830 4.1 852 Well 139 Active 7/30/2013 800 1.8 1011 1005 Lower Mesa Temecula Well 140 Active 1/30/2014 998 2.2 865 Well 216 Off-Line 2/10/2012 380 0.8 1243 Well 235 Active 1/7/2011 990 2.2 1158 1005 Sub-Total 4,618 10.3 1006 South Mesa Temecula Well 207 Inactive - - - - 1007 Palomar Temecula Well 113 Active 4/22/2014 369 0.8 989 Well 205 Active 8/13/2013 1,302 2.9 788 1008 Santa Gertrudis Temecula Well 309 Active 3/11/2014 1,811 4.0 741 1008 Sub-Total 3,482 7.8 Well 106 Active 1/24/2011 625 1.4 847 1010 Santa Gertrudis Combined Well 108 Active 4/15/2014 681 1.5 849 1010 Sub-Total 1,306 2.9 Well 122 Active 4/29/2014 2,617 5.8 637 1011 Wolf Valley Temecula Well 211 Active 6/13/2014 1,880 4.2 498 1011 Sub-Total 4,497 10.0 1012 Wolf Valley Pauba Well 119 Active 4/29/2014 2,934 6.5 550 Well 101 Active 7/9/2012 947 2.1 774 Well 102* Active 1/28/2011 1,207 2.7 * 1014 Southern Murrieta Temecula Well 118 Active 4/23/2013 945 2.1 775 Well 121* Off-Line - - - - 1014 Sub-Total 3,099 6.9 Well 135* Active 6/13/2013 743 1.7 614 Well 144 Active 3/18/2011 520 1.2 877 Well 145 Active 1/7/2011 712 1.6 877 Well 155* Active 7/5/2013 421 0.9 891 1017 Northern Murrieta Temecula Well 156 Active 3/4/2014 613 1.4 684 Well 301 Inactive - - - - Well 302 Inactive - - - - 1017 Sub-Total 3,009 6.7 1018 Northern Murrieta Pauba Well 146* Active 1/24/2011 473 1.1 369 TOTAL 45,516 101.1 * - Groundwater well discharges into the non-potable (recycled) water distribution system. ** - Well 164 flow rate based on pump design curve

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 134 of 304

Table 4-14 - Peak Usage Capacity of Groundwater Wells Discharging into the Potable Water System by Subunit and Aquifer Based on Edison Hydraulic Tests Measured Flow Rate Measured Flow Rate Calculated Efficiency Number Hydro-geologic Subunit Aquifer Well Status Edison Test Date (gpm) (cfs) (Energy/AF) Well 120 Active 2/24/2012 1,347 3.0 786 Well 124 Active 4/11/2013 470 1.0 948 Well 125 Off-Line 5/11/2009 570 1.3 997 Well 126 Active 10/23/2013 1,185 2.6 769 Well 130 Active 3/11/2014 913 2.0 541 Well 131 Active 2/7/2011 1,080 2.4 865 1001 Pauba Temecula Well 133 Active 8/8/2012 779 1.7 684 Well 143 Active 4/29/2014 597 1.3 1055 Well 149 Active 4/22/2014 328 0.7 821 Well 203 Active 5/22/2013 516 1.1 868 Well 217 Active 5/22/2013 660 1.5 806 1001 Sub-Total 7,875 17.5 Well 109 Active 6/10/2013 495 1.1 549 Well 141 Active 6/2/2009 429 1.0 903.4 Well 152 Active 4/11/2013 2,595 5.8 195 Well 153 Active 1/17/2013 1,786 4.0 178 Well 157 Active 3/20/2012 1,655 3.7 308 1002 Pauba Pauba Well 158 Active 3/20/2012 1,090 2.4 117 Well 164* Active - 1,100 2.5 - Well 210 Active 5/22/2013 567 1.3 438 Well 231 Off-Line 7/22/2008 696 1.6 539** Well 233 Active 7/29/2011 1,378 3.1 378 1002 Sub-Total 11,095 24.7 Well 123 Active 11/9/2012 383 0.9 367 Well 132 Active 2/4/2014 851 1.9 268 1003 Pauba Combined Well 232 Active 4/22/2014 585 1.3 475 Well 234 Active 4/15/2014 290 0.6 736 1003 Sub-Total 2,109 4.7 Well 151 Active 1/30/2014 650 1.4 1028 Well 201 Inactive - - - - Well 208 Inactive - - - - 1004 Upper Mesa Temecula Well 209 Inactive - - - - Well 215 Off-Line 2/7/2011 515 1.1 1207 1004 Sub-Total 650 1.4

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 135 of 304

Table 4-14 - Peak Usage Capacity of Groundwater Wells Discharging into the Potable Water System by Subunit and Aquifer Based on Edison Hydraulic Tests Measured Flow Rate Measured Flow Rate Calculated Efficiency Number Hydro-geologic Subunit Aquifer Well Status Edison Test Date (gpm) (cfs) (Energy/AF) Well 128 Off-Line 7/19/2005 1,439 3.2 923.8 Well 129 Off-Line 1/22/2001 504 1.1 1499.9 Well 138 Active 7/30/2014 1,830 4.1 852 Well 139 Active 7/30/2013 800 1.8 1011 1005 Lower Mesa Temecula Well 140 Active 1/30/2014 998 2.2 865 Well 216 Off-Line 2/10/2012 380 0.8 1243 Well 235 Active 1/7/2011 990 2.2 1158 1005 Sub-Total 4,618 10.3 1006 South Mesa Temecula Well 207 Inactive - - - - 1007 Palomar Temecula Well 113 Active 4/22/2014 369 0.8 989 Well 205 Active 8/13/2013 1,302 2.9 788 1008 Santa Gertrudis Temecula Well 309 Active 3/11/2014 1,811 4.0 741 1008 Sub-Total 3,482 7.8 Well 106 Active 1/24/2011 625 1.4 847 1010 Santa Gertrudis Combined Well 108 Active 4/15/2014 681 1.5 849 1010 Sub-Total 1,306 2.9 Well 122 Active 4/29/2014 2,617 5.8 637 1011 Wolf Valley Temecula Well 211 Active 6/13/2014 1,880 4.2 498 1011 Sub-Total 4,497 10.0 1012 Wolf Valley Pauba Well 119 Active 4/29/2014 2,934 6.5 550 Well 101 Active 7/9/2012 947 2.1 774 1014 Southern Murrieta Temecula Well 118 Active 4/23/2013 945 2.1 775 1014 Sub-Total 1,892 4.2 Well 144 Active 3/18/2011 520 1.2 877 Well 145 Active 1/7/2011 712 1.6 877 Well 156 Active 3/4/2014 613 1.4 684 1017 Northern Murrieta Temecula Well 301 Inactive - - - - Well 302 Inactive - - - - 1017 Sub-Total 1,845 4.1 TOTAL 42,672 95.1 * - Well 164 Flow Rate based on Pump Design Curve.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 136 of 304

Table 4-15 - Peak Usage Capacity of Groundwater Wells Discharging into the Recycled Water System by Subunit and Aquifer Based on Edison Hydraulic Tests Measured Flow Rate Measured Flow Rate Calculated Efficiency Number Hydro-geologic Subunit Aquifer Well Status Edison Test Date (gpm) (cfs) (Energy/AF)

Well 102 Active 1/28/2011 1,207 2.7 *

1014 Southern Murrieta Temecula Well 121 Off-Line - - - -

1014 Sub-Total 1,207 2.7

Well 135 Active 6/13/2013 743 1.7 614

1017 Northern Murrieta Temecula Well 155 Active 7/5/2013 421 0.9 891

1017 Sub-Total 1,164 2.6

1018 Northern Murrieta Pauba Well 146 Active 1/24/2011 473 1.1 369

TOTAL 2,844 6.3

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 137 of 304

Table 4-16 - Existing Annual and Peak Usage Capacity of Groundwater Wells by Subunit and Aquifer Annual Capacity Peak Usage Capacity Primary/Secondary Health Number Subunit Aquifer Well Status 5-Year Average Annual Budget (AFY) Edison Pump Test (gpm) Edison Pump Test (cfs) Concerns Well 120 Active 960 1,347 3.0 Well 124 Active 376 470 1.0 Well 125 Off-Line 370 570 1.3 Well 126 Active 700 1,185 2.6 Primary - Arsenic and Fluoride Well 130 Active 770 913 2.0 Well 131 Active 690 1,080 2.4 1001 Pauba Temecula Well 133 Active 520 779 1.7 Well 143 Active 560 597 1.3 Primary - Arsenic Well 149 Active 432 328 0.7 Well 203 Active 564 516 1.1 Well 217 Active 920 660 1.5 1001 Sub-Total 6,862 7,875 17.5 Well 109 Active 700 495 1.1 Well 141 Active 570 429 1.0 Well 152 Active 2,040 2,595 5.8 Well 153 Active 1,830 1,786 4.0 Well 157 Active 2,220 1,655 3.7 1002 Pauba Pauba Well 158 Active 1,860 1,090 2.4 Well 164*** Active 1,480 1,100 2.5 Well 210 Active 690 567 1.3 Well 231 Off-Line 0 696 1.6 Well 233 Active 1,680 1,378 3.1 1002 Sub-Total 13,070 11,095 24.7 Well 123 Active 200 383 0.9 Well 132 Active 1,360 851 1.9 1003 Pauba Combined Well 232 Active 1,100 585 1.3 Well 234 Active 340 290 0.6 1003 Sub-Total 3,000 2,109 4.7 Well 151 Active 600 650 1.4 Primary - Arsenic and Fluoride Well 201 Inactive 0 - - Well 208 Inactive 0 - - 1004 Upper Mesa Temecula Well 209 Inactive 0 - - Well 215 Off-Line 220 515 1.1 1004 Sub-Total 820 650 1.4

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 138 of 304

Table 4-16 - Existing Annual and Peak Usage Capacity of Groundwater Wells by Subunit and Aquifer Annual Capacity Peak Usage Capacity Primary/Secondary Health Number Subunit Aquifer Well Status 5-Year Average Annual Budget (AFY) Edison Pump Test (gpm) Edison Pump Test (cfs) Concerns Well 128 Off-Line 420 1,439 3.2 Well 129 Off-Line 0 504 1.1 Well 138 Active 1,600 1,830 4.1 Well 139 Active 1,060 800 1.8 1005 Lower Mesa Temecula Well 140 Active 900 998 2.2 Well 216 Off-Line 180 380 0.8 Well 235 Active 1,120 990 2.2 1005 Sub-Total 5,280 4,618 10.3 1006 South Mesa Temecula Well 207 Inactive 0 - - 1007 Palomar Temecula Well 113 Active 532 369 0.8 Well 205 Active 1,520 1,302 2.9 1008 Santa Gertrudis Temecula Well 309 Active 2,880 1,811 4.0 1008 Sub-Total 4,932 3,482 7.8 Well 106 Active 300 625 1.4 Primary - Arsenic 1010 Santa Gertrudis Combined Well 108 Active 600 681 1.5 1010 Sub-Total 900 1,306 2.9 Well 122 Active 175** 2,617 5.8 1011 Wolf Valley Temecula Well 211 Active 175** 1,880 4.2 1011 Sub-Total 350 4,497 10.0 1012 Wolf Valley Pauba Well 119 Active 175** 2,934 6.5 Well 101 Active 460 947 2.1 Secondary - Manganese Well 102* Active 260 1,207 2.7 Southern 1014 Temecula Well 118 Active 840 945 2.1 Secondary - Manganese Murrieta Well 121* Off-Line 0 - - 1014 Sub-Total 1,560 3,099 6.9 Well 135* Active 40 743 1.7 Well 144 Active 400 520 1.2 Well 145 Active 620 712 1.6 Well 155* Active 20 421 0.9 1017 Northern Murrieta Temecula Well 156 Active 0 613 1.4 Well 301 Inactive 0 - - Well 302 Inactive 0 - - 1017 Sub-Total 1,080 3,009 6.7 1018 Northern Murrieta Pauba Well 146* Active 20 473 1.1

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 139 of 304

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 140 of 304

4.2.4 Cost Costs associated with both native and artificial recharge groundwater production include pumping costs, disinfection (chemical) costs, labor and maintenance costs. These costs were all determined as part of the District’s 2015 Water Rate Study Report for the Rancho Division at $173/AF, and as part of the District’s 2015 Water Rate Study Report for the Santa Rosa Division at $175/AF. An average value of $174/AF was utilized as the cost of native groundwater for the master planning effort.

For artificial recharge groundwater, there is the additional cost of purchased untreated imported water from MWDSC. As of January 2015 the cost of MWDSC imported, untreated water is as follows:

 Untreated water, Tier 1 - $582/AF  Untreated water, Tier 2 - $714/AF

Accordingly, the estimated costs per acre-foot of native and artificial recharge water are:

 Native Groundwater - $174/AF  Artificial Recharge Groundwater (with Tier 1 Untreated Water) - $756/AF  Artificial Recharge Groundwater (with Tier 2 Untreated Water) - $888/AF

For the District’s master planning purposes, the future rate escalation for all groundwater is assumed to be 3.5%.

4.2.5 Quality The District safeguards its water supply by collecting and analyzing more water samples than required by the EPA and SWRCB DDW. The District collects more than 2,000 samples a year for analysis of 120 different contaminants including bacteria, metals, organic chemicals, pesticides, and aesthetic-related substances. As reported in the District‘s Annual Consumer Confidence Report for calendar year 2014, all water produced and delivered by the District meets or exceeds the standards for public drinking water.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 141 of 304

Constituents of concern include TDS, nitrate, VOCs, perchlorate, arsenic, fluoride and manganese. Groundwater in most of the Pauba aquifer and the Temecula aquifer is generally suitable for domestic and irrigation uses. While the District‘s water meets the standards for arsenic and fluoride, it does contain low levels of both constituents. However, high concentrations have been detected in two groundwater wells causing the District to remove them from production and consider possible future treatment. After well water is extracted it is blended with other well water and imported water. The distribution system’s lowest monthly average is well below the standard of 10 mg/L for arsenic. Fluoride occurs in the groundwater basins as a result of natural erosion, and water samples exhibiting high concentrations of arsenic often show high concentrations of fluoride. The distribution system lowest monthly average level of fluoride is below 2.0 mg/L. Manganese is present in the groundwater as a result of leaching from natural deposits. Sampling in the distribution system has indicated that blending reduces the manganese concentration to the non-detect level. Two wells which have high levels of magnesium are addressed through sequestration and blending: Well 101 and Well 118.

As presented in Table 4-16, there are several District wells which currently have primary or secondary health concerns resulting from measured levels of either arsenic, fluoride and/or Manganese. Table 4-17 presents the State Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) on all measured constituents in the District’s groundwater sources. There are four wells which exceed, or are close to exceeding, the arsenic levels, including: Well 106, Well 126, Well 143 and Well 151. There are two wells which exceed, or are close to exceeding, the fluoride levels: Well 126 and Well 151. There are also two wells which have high levels of magnesium, which is addressed through sequestration and blending, including: Well 101 and Well 118. The limits and constituents from Table 4-17 were obtained from the District‘s Annual Consumer Confidence Report for calendar year 2014.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 142 of 304

Table 4-17 - Water Quality Parameters Measured for District Groundwater Supplies

Constituent State Maximum Containment Level Maximum Containment Level Goal

Primary Drinking Water Standards

Effluent Turbidity Less Than or Equal to 0.3 NTU -

Inorganic Materials

Aluminum Less Than or Equal to 200 g/L Less Than or Equal to 600 g/L

Arsenic Less Than or Equal to 10 g/L Less Than or Equal to 0.004 g/L Barium Less Than or Equal to 1000 mg/L Less Than or Equal to 2000 mg/L

Fluoride Less Than or Equal to 2.0 mg/L Less Than or Equal to 1.0 mg/L

Nitrate Less Than or Equal to 45 mg/L Less Than or Equal to 45 mg/L

Perchlorate Less Than or Equal to 6 g/L Less Than or Equal to 6 g/L

Selenium Less Than or Equal to 50 g/L Less Than or Equal to 30 g/L Radionuclides

Gross Alpha Less Than or Equal to 15 pCi/L 0 pCi/L

Gross Beta Less Than or Equal to 50 pCi/L 0 pCi/L

Radium-228 Less Than or Equal to 5 pCi/L 0.019 pCi/L

Uranium Less Than or Equal to 20 pCi/L 0.43 pCi/L

Disinfection By-Products

Total Trihalomethanes Less Than or Equal to 80 g/L -

Haloacetic Acids Less Than or Equal to 60 g/L - Total Chlorine Residual Less Than or Equal to 4 mg/L Less Than or Equal to 4 mg/L

Lead and Copper Survey

Lead Less Than or Equal to 15 g/L Less Than or Equal to 0.2 g/L

Copper Less Than or Equal to 1300 g/L Less Than or Equal to 0.3 g/L Secondary Drinking Water Standards

Chloride Less Than or Equal to 500 mg/L -

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 143 of 304

Table 4-17 - Water Quality Parameters Measured for District Groundwater Supplies

Constituent State Maximum Containment Level Maximum Containment Level Goal

Color Less Than or Equal to 15 CU -

Foaming Agents Less Than or Equal to 500 g/L -

Iron Less Than or Equal to 300 g/L -

Manganese Less Than or Equal to 50 g/L Notification Level = 50 g/L Odor Less Than or Equal to 3 TON -

Specific Conductance Less Than or Equal to 1600 S/cm - Sulfate Less Than or Equal to 500 mg/L -

Total dissolved solids Less Than or Equal to 1000 mg/L -

Turbidity Less Than or Equal to 5 NTU Less Than or Equal to 5 NTU

Unregulated Constituents

Boron Notification Level = 1000 g/L - Chromium, Hexavalent - -

Vanadium - Notification Level = 50g/L Federal Unregulated Constituents (UCMR2)

N-Nitrosodimethylamine Notification Level = 10 ng/L Less Than or Equal to 3 ng/L

Additional Parameters

Alkalinity - -

Bromate Less Than or Equal to 10 g/L Less Than or Equal to 0.1 g/L Calcium - -

Chlorate Notification Level = 800 g/L - Hardness - -

Magnesium - -

pH - -

Potassium (total) - -

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 144 of 304

Table 4-17 - Water Quality Parameters Measured for District Groundwater Supplies

Constituent State Maximum Containment Level Maximum Containment Level Goal

Sodium (total) - -

Total Organic Carbon - -

4.2.6 Reliability Groundwater provides a local and independent water supply source for the District. Groundwater levels are dependent on natural factors such as precipitation and natural recharge. District controlled factors include groundwater management activities, such as scheduled pumping and monitoring water quality, levels and subsidence.

The District is working in cooperation with the Santa Margarita River Watershed Watermaster and multiple stakeholders to achieve water supply reliability, water quality and watershed management goals for the Upper Santa Margarita Watershed. The District’s Recommended Groundwater Production report is an annual audit prepared for the District to recommend a groundwater production program for the upcoming fiscal year. The recommended ground water production program involves the operation of the groundwater basin within safe yield limits so not to create permanent overdraft or other undesirable conditions that could degrade water quality or violate legal restrictions. The recommendation also includes information gained from workshops held between the District, WMWD and consultant staff. Information includes discussion of previous audits, instantaneous yield, natural and artificial recharge, water quality, pump settings, and well construction factors.

4.2.7 Future Supply Capacity The natural safe yield of the District’s groundwater basin varies, however it is not anticipated to change significantly. Additional groundwater capacity can be generated through artificial recharge. Build-out capacity of the Upper VDC wells are assumed to increase to 42 cfs of recovered recharge consistent with Phase III of the 2012 Upper VDC Conjunctive Use Optimization Study. As the existing annual budgets of the VDC wells are 7,710 AFY (11 cfs), this results in an increase of 31 cfs of future supply capacity.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 145 of 304

4.2.8 Future Wheeling Capacity Requirements The annual supply capacity of the Wolf Valley basin has been adjudicated between the District and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians (Pechanga). Based on the Draft Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Water Rights Settlement dated December 2013, the Wolf Valley groundwater basin is to be shared, with 75% going to Pechanga and 25% going to the District.

4.3 SURFACE WATER The District owns and operates one surface water reservoir located approximately 10 miles east of Temecula having a watershed area of 318 square miles. The primary purposes of Vail Lake are water supply and recreation. The natural inflow to Vail Lake is from Temecula Creek, Wilson Creek, Kolb Creek and Arroyo Seco Creek. Vail Lake and Vail Dam were acquired by the District in 1978. Vail Lake was created with the construction of Vail Dam in 1948-1949. Vail Dam is a variable radius, double curvature, concrete arch structure spanning between concrete and rock abutments. Vail Lake and Vail Dam were acquired by the District in 1978.

The SRWRCB issued an appropriation permit (No. 7032) in 1948 and amended permit in 2009. Permit No. 7032 grants an appropriate storage right of 40,000 AFY from November 1st to April 30th, points of diversion and re-diversion, place and purpose of use. During these months, water releases from Vail Lake are discharged into Temecula Creek, which either percolate into the groundwater basin or continue downstream to the Santa Margarita River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. The contribution of the Vail Lake water supply is reflected in the groundwater produced from the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin and is not accounted for as a separate water source. From May through October, existing State permits prohibit storage and require inflow to pass through Vail Lake to Temecula Creek.

The District completed the Vail Lake Transmission Main, Pump Station and Quagga Mussel Control Facilities in 2013. These facilities allow the District to acquire imported water from MWDSC for storage in Vail Lake.

Vail Dam is operated under an Interim Operation Restriction Plan (IORP) as submitted to the Division of Safety of Damns (DSOD) in 2014. The spillway elevation for Vail Dam is 1472.59 ft (NAVD88), the maximum operating level under the IORP is 1457.6 ft. (NAVD88). The dam has a maximum height of 152 feet from the dam crest to the lowest point in the foundation.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 146 of 304

4.3.1 Existing Supply Capacity Based on the 2013 Vail Lake Bathymetric and Topographic Mapping Project Report, the storage capacity of Vail Lake is 45,206.7 AF at the spillway crest. Table 4-18 presents the calculated surface area and volume of Vail Lake based on of the water elevation. Figure 4-4 is the Vail Lake Operating Chart, which identifies portions of the lake storage as Wet Weather Storage, Operational Storage, Emergency Drought Storage and Dead Storage.

Table 4-18 - Vail Lake Capacity Curve Data from the 2013 Vail Lake Bathymetric and Topographic Mapping Project (NAVD88) Surface Area Surface Area Total Volume at Elevation (ft) Volume (AF) (ft2) (ac) Elevation (ft3) 1373 80,860 2 53,429 1 1374 429,155 10 308,437 7 1375 855,872 20 950,950 22 1376 1,250,108 29 2,003,940 46 1377 1,653,722 38 3,455,855 79 1378 2,080,161 48 5,322,796 122 1379 2,445,271 56 7,585,512 174 1380 2,709,973 62 10,163,134 233 1381 2,960,355 68 12,998,298 298 1382 3,208,105 74 16,082,528 369 1383 3,468,152 80 19,420,657 446 1384 3,685,144 85 22,997,305 528 1385 3,891,549 89 26,785,652 615 1386 4,100,847 94 30,781,849 707 1387 4,306,348 99 34,985,447 803 1388 4,525,223 104 39,401,232 905 1389 4,779,407 110 44,053,547 1,011 1390 5,055,552 116 48,971,027 1,124 1391 5,355,719 123 54,176,662 1,244 1392 5,634,584 129 59,671,813 1,370 1393 5,918,803 136 65,448,507 1,503 1394 6,228,746 143 71,522,282 1,642 1395 6,566,957 151 77,920,133 1,789 1396 6,925,089 159 84,666,156 1,944 1397 7,317,482 168 91,787,442 2,107 1398 7,740,514 178 99,316,440 2,280 1399 8,242,872 189 107,308,133 2,464

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 147 of 304

Table 4-18 - Vail Lake Capacity Curve Data from the 2013 Vail Lake Bathymetric and Topographic Mapping Project (NAVD88) Surface Area Surface Area Total Volume at Elevation (ft) Volume (AF) (ft2) (ac) Elevation (ft3) 1400 8,772,088 201 115,815,613 2,659 1401 9,319,306 214 124,861,310 2,866 1402 9,819,176 225 134,430,550 3,086 1403 10,294,570 236 144,487,423 3,317 1404 10,736,330 246 155,002,873 3,558 1405 11,155,651 256 165,948,863 3,810 1406 11,554,622 265 177,304,000 4,070 1407 11,931,664 274 189,047,143 4,340 1408 12,295,210 282 201,160,580 4,618 1409 12,654,543 291 213,635,456 4,904 1410 12,995,978 298 226,460,717 5,199 1411 13,326,918 306 239,622,165 5,501 1412 13,648,905 313 253,110,076 5,811 1413 13,942,482 320 266,905,769 6,127 1414 14,236,716 327 280,995,368 6,451 1415 14,532,809 334 295,380,130 6,781 1416 14,838,310 341 310,065,690 7,118 1417 15,136,729 347 325,053,209 7,462 1418 15,467,537 355 340,355,342 7,814 1419 15,801,552 363 355,989,886 8,172 1420 16,162,947 371 371,972,135 8,539 1421 16,544,060 380 388,325,639 8,915 1422 16,918,991 388 405,057,164 9,299 1423 17,348,202 398 422,190,761 9,692 1424 17,903,620 411 439,816,672 10,097 1425 18,518,102 425 458,027,533 10,515 1426 19,143,193 439 476,858,181 10,947 1427 19,840,319 455 496,349,937 11,395 1428 20,531,647 471 516,535,920 11,858 1429 21,177,349 486 537,390,417 12,337 1430 21,810,667 501 558,884,425 12,830 1431 22,400,119 514 580,989,818 13,338 1432 22,992,361 528 603,686,058 13,859 1433 23,632,302 543 626,998,390 14,394

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 148 of 304

Table 4-18 - Vail Lake Capacity Curve Data from the 2013 Vail Lake Bathymetric and Topographic Mapping Project (NAVD88) Surface Area Surface Area Total Volume at Elevation (ft) Volume (AF) (ft2) (ac) Elevation (ft3) 1434 24,193,322 555 650,911,202 14,943 1435 24,781,572 569 675,398,649 15,505 1436 25,492,259 585 700,535,565 16,082 1437 26,138,436 600 726,350,912 16,675 1438 26,566,248 610 752,703,254 17,280 1439 27,012,293 620 779,492,524 17,895 1440 27,495,327 631 806,746,334 18,520 1441 27,950,830 642 834,469,413 19,157 1442 28,364,833 651 862,627,244 19,803 1443 28,878,946 663 891,249,134 20,460 1444 29,470,845 677 920,424,029 21,130 1445 29,985,027 688 950,151,965 21,813 1446 30,508,008 700 980,398,483 22,507 1447 30,990,570 711 1,011,147,772 23,213 1448 31,515,179 723 1,042,400,646 23,930 1449 31,989,986 734 1,074,153,228 24,659 1450 32,450,960 745 1,106,373,701 25,399 1451 32,954,037 757 1,139,076,199 26,150 1452 33,449,118 768 1,172,277,777 26,912 1453 33,939,745 779 1,205,972,208 27,685 1454 34,445,698 791 1,240,164,929 28,470 1455 34,942,881 802 1,274,859,219 29,267 1456 35,452,616 814 1,310,056,968 30,075 1457 36,007,242 827 1,345,786,897 30,895 1458 36,545,100 839 1,382,063,067 31,728 1459 37,074,241 851 1,418,872,738 32,573 1460 37,594,313 863 1,456,207,015 33,430 1461 38,122,882 875 1,494,065,613 34,299 1462 38,696,791 888 1,532,475,449 35,181 1463 39,260,371 901 1,571,454,031 36,076 1464 39,785,915 913 1,610,977,174 36,983 1465 40,294,302 925 1,651,017,282 37,902 1466 40,801,369 937 1,691,565,118 38,833 1467 41,328,920 949 1,732,630,263 39,776

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 149 of 304

Table 4-18 - Vail Lake Capacity Curve Data from the 2013 Vail Lake Bathymetric and Topographic Mapping Project (NAVD88) Surface Area Surface Area Total Volume at Elevation (ft) Volume (AF) (ft2) (ac) Elevation (ft3) 1468 41,885,559 962 1,774,237,502 40,731 1469 42,397,874 973 1,816,379,219 41,698 1470 42,884,437 984 1,859,020,374 42,677 1471 43,323,743 995 1,899,684,167 43,611 1472 43,871,064 1,007 1,943,281,570 44,612 1472.59 44,307,221 1,017 1,969,204,752 45,206.7

Figure 4‐4 Vail Lake Operating Chart 50,000

Volume = 45,207 AF at Spillway Level of 1472.6 ft (1470) 45,000

40,000 Wet Weather Storage (13,812 AF)

35,000

Volume = 31,395 AF at DSOD Interim Operation Restriction Plan Maximum Operating Level of 1457.6 ft (1455)

30,000 Ft) ‐ (Acre 25,000

Operational Storage (19,727 AF) Capacity 20,000

15,000 Emergency Storage ‐ Volume = 11,668 AF at 1427.59 ft (1425) Not Recommended To Operate Due To Debris 10,000 (2,680 AF) Emergency Drought Storage ‐ Potential Water Quality Issues (8,988 AF) 5,000 Volume = 2,680 AF at Intake 7 of 1400.1 ft (1397.5) Volume = 0 AF at Level of 1372 ft (Dead Storage Below Intake 8) 0

Stage Elevation (ft) ‐ North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88)

Notes: 1. Elevation Datum is NAVD88 Vertical Datum (NAV 29 in Parenthesis). 2. Target Operating level is 1442.6 ft (1440) with Storage Volume (20,197 AF) for water quality purposes (e.g. salinity, algae, plant growth). Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 151 of 304

4.3.2 Historical Production Since completion of Vail Dam in 1949, the spillway has only overflowed twice, in 1980 and 1993. As of this date, the District has not stored any imported water from MWDSC into Vail Lake. Historic annual yields for Vail Lake are provided in Table 19, and illustrated in Figure 5. The average annual yield over the past 5 years is 1,843 AFY. There have been several years where the annual yield was 0 AFY, and maximum yield of 35,552 AFY in 1993 (excluding releases from the overflow spillway).

Table 4-19 - Historic Annual Yield from Vail Lake Calendar Year Discharge (AFY)

1949 190

1950 236

1951 241

1952 2,044

1953 6,857

1954 4,679

1955 4,102

1956 1,788

1957 420

1958 4,111

1959 3,190

1960 2,014

1961 0

1962 0

1963 0

1964 0

1965 10

1966 185

1967 1,136

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 152 of 304

Table 4-19 - Historic Annual Yield from Vail Lake Calendar Year Discharge (AFY)

1968 398

1969 697

1970 1,597

1971 784

1972 456

1973 768

1974 609

1975 379

1976 0

1977 0

1978 0

1979 2,750

1980 8,194

1981 7,832

1982 4,915

1983 14,145

1984 8,130

1985 6,413

1986 8,869

1987 8,155

1988 3,878

1989 0

1990 0

1991 7,838

1992 1,816

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 153 of 304

Table 4-19 - Historic Annual Yield from Vail Lake Calendar Year Discharge (AFY)

1993 35,552

1994 4,708

1995 18,653

1996 5,648

1997 2,464

1998 9,678

1999 1,182

2000 400

2001 0

2002 0

2003 0

2004 0

2005 485

2006 2,023

2007 414

2008 5,061

2009 2,393

2010 2,132

2011 2,271

2012 2,612

2013 1,419

2014 781

5-Year Average 1,843

15-Year Average 1,333

Historical Average 3,299

Figure 4‐5 ‐ Historic Yield from Vail Lake 40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000 (AFY)

20,000 Yield

Annual 15,000

10,000

5,000

0 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Calandar Year Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 155 of 304

4.3.3 Cost Excluding costs related to Vail Dam, the water provided by Vail Lake to recharge the groundwater basin is provided at no additional cost.

4.3.4 Quality Vail Lake is currently free of invasive species such as quagga or zebra mussels. The water quality in Vail Lake varies depending on the quantity of inflow, the lake water depth, and upland activities that contribute to sedimentation and pollutant loading. Water quality data for Vail Lake is recorded at two meter locations: Station No. 3 (M) and Station No. 3 (MAB). The Station No. 3 M meter is located 1 meter below the surface of the lake, while the Station No. 3 MAB meter is located 1 meter above the bottom of the lake. The water quality parameters for the Vail Lake Station No. 3 M meter are summarized in Table 4-20, with the water quality parameters for the Vail Lake Station No. 3 MAB meter are summarized in Table 4-21.

4.3.5 Reliability Vail Lake provides a local water supply source for recharging the Murrieta- Temecula Groundwater Basin. Inflow into Vail Lake is dependent upon upland precipitation and diversion in the approximately 318 square mile watershed.

4.3.6 Future Supply Capacity No increases in storage capacity are anticipated for Vail Lake. Future activities are being contemplated, as described in subsequent sections.

4.3.7 Future Supply Capacity Alternatives Several alternatives will be evaluated in the future to utilize the storage capacity of Vail Lake. The Capital Improvement Program in Chapter 10 does not include any estimated project costs attribute to any of the following alternatives:

 Alternative 1 – Increase the natural yield with the storage of untreated imported water (MWDSC replenishment water only).

 Alternative 2 – Increase the natural yield with the storage of untreated imported water (any untreated MWDSC water).

 Alternative 3 - Dredging the lake bottom to remove sediments in order to restore and/or improve the capacity of the lake.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 156 of 304

 Alternative 4 – Potential seismic and hydrologic modifications to Vail Dam to comply with DSOD requirement

Table 4-20 - Water Quality Parameters Measured for Vail Lake Station No. 3M (1 meter Below the Surface) Number Constituent of Average Minimum Maximum Samples Inorganic Ammonium (as N) 15 0.31 mg/L < 0.10 mg/L 0.67 mg/L Bicarbonate (as HCO3) 38 240 mg/L 150 mg/L 300 mg/L Carbonate (as CO3) 38 14.3 mg/L < 3.0 mg/L 48 mg/L Chloride 38 360.8 mg/L 100 mg/L 8700 mg/L Hydroxide (as OH) 38 n/a < 3.0 mg/L < 3.0 mg/L Inorganic Nitrogen 15 0.67 mg/L < 0.20 mg/L 0.67 mg/L Nitrate (as N) 15 n/a < 0.20 mg/L < 0.20 mg/L Nitrite (as N) 38 0.15 mg/L < 0.10 mg/L 0.15 mg/L o-Phosphate (as P) 15 0.064 mg/L < 0.050 mg/L 0.064 mg/L Sulphate 39 371.8 mg/L 110 mg/L 9300 mg/L Micro-Organisms < 1.0 > 2,400 Enterococcus (MPN / PA) 15 3.0 MPN/100mL MPN/100mL MPN/100mL Escherichia coli / E. coli (MPN / < 1.0 3.1 15 1.3 MPN/100mL PA) MPN/100mL MPN/100mL < 1.1 3.4 Fecal coliforms (MPN / PA) 13 1.4 MPN/100mL MPN/100mL MPN/100mL 367.4 83 > 2,400 Total coliforms (MPN / PA) 15 MPN/100mL MPN/100mL MPN/100mL Organic Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen / TKN 18 1.687 mg/L 0.77 mg/L 3.2 mg/L Total Nitrogen 23 0.35 mg/L 0.3 mg/L 0.4 mg/L Physical Alkalinity (total, as CaCO3) 38 212.4 mg/L 180 mg/L 260 mg/L Suspended Solids 38 10.5 mg/L < 5 mg/L 25 mg/L Total dissolved solids / TDS 24 616.7 mg/L 490 mg/L 700 mg/L

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 157 of 304

Table 4-21 - Water Quality Parameters Measured for Vail Lake Station No. 3MAB (1 meter Above the Bottom) Number Constituent of Average Minimum Maximum Samples Inorganic

Ammonium (as N) 15 3.2 mg/L 0.15 mg/L 14 mg/L

Bicarbonate (as HCO3) 38 298.4 mg/L 220 mg/L 430 mg/L

Carbonate (as CO3) 38 n/a < 3.0 mg/L < 3.0 mg/L

Chloride 38 945.5 mg/L 110 mg/L 31000 mg/L

Hydroxide (as OH) 38 n/a < 3.0 mg/L < 3.0 mg/L

Inorganic Nitrogen 15 3.2 mg/L 0.2 mg/L 14 mg/L

Nitrate (as N) 15 n/a < 0.20 mg/L < 0.20 mg/L

Nitrite (as N) 38 0.16 mg/L < 0.10 mg/L 0.16 mg/L

o-Phosphate (as P) 15 0.49 mg/L < 0.050 mg/L 1.5 mg/L

Sulphate 38 572.5 mg/L 24 mg/L 18000 mg/L

Organic

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen / TKN 18 3.9 mg/L 1.4 mg/L 12 mg/L

Total Nitrogen 23 3.0 mg/L 0.3 mg/L 9.1 mg/L

Physical

Alkalinity (total, as CaCO3) 38 244.7 mg/L 180 mg/L 360 mg/L

Suspended Solids 38 9.4 mg/L < 5 mg/L 23 mg/L

Total dissolved solids / TDS 24 617.5 mg/L 510 mg/L 700 mg/L

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 158 of 304

4.4 RECYCLED WATER Recycled water is municipal wastewater that is purified for beneficial reuse. The State of California has declared that recycled water is safe and is a reliable and cost-effective resource to meet California’s water supply needs. Recycled water used by the District is produced at the District’s Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF) or purchased from EMWD’s Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). Both facilities produce disinfected tertiary recycled water meeting the State of California Title 22 regulations for such uses as recreational impoundments and surface irrigation for landscaping, golf courses, agriculture, parks and playgrounds.

4.4.1 Existing Supply Capacity The District’s SRWRF produced 2,721 AFY of recycled water in 2014, as reported by the District Reclamation Manager. The District also utilizes groundwater production to meet peak day recycled water demands. As presented in Table 4-12, the 5-Year average of District groundwater that supplied the recycled water system is 241 AFY, while the average annual supply budgeted for these groundwater wells is 340 AFY.

The District also purchases recycled water from EMWD per the December 2013 Agreement and the March 2009 Three Party Agreement between the District, EMWD and EVMWD. Per these agreements, the District currently purchases a net quantity of approximately 1,100 AFY of recycled water from EMWD. Table 4-22 summarizes the existing available recycled water supply total of 4,355 AFY.

Table 4-22 - Existing Supply Capacity for Recycled Water Annual Capacity Maximum Day Capacity Source AFY MGD gpm MGD cfs SRWRF 2,721 2.4 1,687 2.4 3.8 EMWD 1,100 1.0 682 1.0 1.5 Groundwater 340 0.3 2,844 4.1 6.3 Storage Ponds 0 0.0 4,500 6.5 10.0 Total 4,161 3.7 9,713 14.0 21.6

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 159 of 304

Table 4-22 also presents the existing maximum day recycled water supply, which includes the Edison Test Flow Rates available from the groundwater wells, as presented previously in Table 4-16. It is assumed that on a maximum day, flow is available from the District recycled water storage ponds and that system demand allows for the maximum flows to be removed from the storage ponds. Allowing for storage pond levels below the level of the forebay, available flow from the ponds near the SRWRF is limited by the 3,500 gpm rated capacity of the Elm St Recycled Pump Station 3. The available flow from Cole Creek Pond is limited by the 1,000 gpm rated capacity of the Cole Creek Transfer Station.

4.4.2 Existing Wheeling Capacity Requirements The District and EMWD entered into an agreement in February 2008 for the District to deliver (wheel) recycled water produced by EMWD for use by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians (Pechanga). The District uses it recycled water distribution system facilities to convey up to 1,000 AFY (with a corresponding minimum flow rate of 800 GPM and a maximum flow rate of 1,300 GPM). Historically, Pechanga has averaged an annual use of 370 AFY, with a 2013 usage of 405 AFY. EMWD and Pechanga have amended their Recycled Water Agreement, dated August 2009, to allow Pechanga to transfer its unused recycled water allocation (estimated to be 300 to 475 AFY) to a third party, such as the District. Implementation of this provision is dependent upon the proposed water rights settlement involving Pechanga, the District and the United States.

4.4.3 Historical Production As presented in Table 4-1, and illustrated in Figure 4-1, recycled water provided by the District has varied from 3,311 AF to 4,908 AF over the past ten fiscal years. The variability of recycled water provided is primarily due to the impact of weather on the customer’s use of recycled water. Thus, the District utilizes seasonal storage ponds for recycled water in order to balance the fluctuations between recycled water supply and demand.

4.4.4 Cost The recycled water purchased from EMWD is charged per EMWD’s wholesale recycled water rate (rate code R4RC), which is currently $255.01/AF. The proposed recycled water allocation per the Pechanga Agreement from EMWD, is estimated to be charged per EMWD’s wholesale recycled water rate (rate code R4RC).

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 160 of 304

The recycled water produced by the SRWRF has an estimated cost of $527/AF for the cost of tertiary treatment, based on the $1,746,552 per 1,000,000 gallons of estimated cost outlined in the District’s Fiscal Year 2014/15 Operating and Non- Operation Budgets. The cost for secondary treatment is borne by the wastewater customers. For the District’s master planning purposes, the future rate escalation for both recycled water sources is estimated to be 3.5%.

The District is currently provided a $154/AF credit from MWDSC for each AF of water sold. This credit will expire in the next few years.

4.4.5 Quality Titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations (California Department of Public Health’s Recycled Water Regulations, January 2009) describes the treatment requirements for recycled water as well as the approved uses based on the level of treatment. Also included in Title 22 are the use area requirements which describe restrictions on its use and the requirement to notify the public through signage that a site is using recycled water. From Section 60301.230:

"’Disinfected tertiary recycled water’ means a filtered and subsequently disinfected wastewater that meets the following criteria:

(a) The filtered wastewater has been disinfected by either:

(1) A chlorine disinfection process following filtration that provides a CT (the product of total chlorine residual and modal contact time measured at the same point) value of not less than 450 milligram-minutes per liter at all times with a modal contact time of at least 90 minutes, based on peak dry weather design flow; or

(2) A disinfection process that, when combined with the filtration process, has been demonstrated to inactivate and/or remove 99.999 percent of the plaque forming units of F-specific bacteriophage MS2, or polio virus in the wastewater. A virus that is at least as resistant to disinfection as polio virus may be used for purposes of the demonstration.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 161 of 304

(b) The median concentration of total coliform bacteria measured in the disinfected effluent does not exceed an MPN of 2.2 per 100 milliliters utilizing the bacteriological results of the last seven days for which analyses have been completed and the number of total coliform bacteria does not exceed an MPN of 23 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample in any 30 day period. No sample shall exceed an MPN of 240 total coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters.”

The primary water quality component that affects the beneficial use of recycled water in the District’s service area is the level of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), which generally classifies how salty the water is. The recycled water produced by the SRWRF and the TVRWRF generally averages a TDS value of 730 mg/L. Within the District’s service area, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Basin Plan limits the use of recycled water to hydrologic sub-basins with a TDS limit of 750 mg/L. For hydrologic sub-basins with a TDS limit of 500 mg/L, the use of recycled water in these areas requires the de-mineralization of recycled water or an approved recycled water use plan based on the assimilative capacity of the sub- basin. Other constituents that the District monitors in the recycled water produced at the SRWRF include:

 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)  Boron  Chloride  Color  Iron  Manganese  Methylene Blue-Activated Substances (MBAS)  Nitrate  Nitrogen  Percent Sodium  pH  Title 22 Modal Contact Time (CT) for Chlorine Residual  Total Coliform  Total Suspended Solids (TSS)  Turbidity

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 162 of 304

4.4.6 Reliability Recycled water is generally considered a reliable and drought-proof water source. Variability of the recycled water supply is primarily related to conservation measures applied to indoor water use.

4.4.7 Future Supply Capacity The projected capacity of the recycled water supply is estimated to be 9,819 AFY. This includes 4,730 AFY from the SRWRF, 340 AFY from local groundwater sources and 4,749 AFY from EMWD. The projection of the SRWRF effluent is based upon the build-out projection of 5.0 MGD of the wastewater flow influent to the SRWRF from the District, WMWD and EVMWD, as well as the current rate of 84.4% of tertiary effluent produced to SRWRF influent.

The projection of recycled water purchased from EMWD is based on 1) a net capacity of 863 AFY from the Three Party Agreement; 2) a minimum capacity of 300 AFY from the proposed Pechanga Agreement; and 3) an additional 3,586 AFY from the EMWD Recycled Water Agreement (assuming no additional wet-weather recycled water). The existing annual groundwater supply of 340 AFY to the recycled water system is assumed to remain the same at build-out. Table 4-23 summarizes the build-out annual recycled water supply total of 9,819 AFY.

Table 4-23 - Build-Out Supply Capacity for Recycled Water Annual Capacity Maximum Day Capacity Source AFY MGD gpm MGD cfs SRWRF 4,730 4.2 2,932 4.2 6.5 EMWD 4,749 4.2 2,944 4.2 6.6 Groundwater 340 0.3 2,844 4.1 6.3 Storage Ponds 0 0.0 6,250 9.0 13.9 Total Capacity 9,819 8.8 14,971 21.6 33.4

Table 4-23 also presents the existing maximum day recycled water supply, which includes the Edison Test Flow Rates available from the groundwater wells, as presented previously in Table 4-16. It is assumed that on a maximum day, flow is available from the District recycled water storage ponds and that system demand allows for the maximum flows to be removed from the storage ponds. Allowing for pond levels below the level of the forebay, the available flow from the ponds near the SRWRF is limited by the build-out rated capacity of 5,250 gpm of the Elm St Recycled Pump Station 3. The available flow from Cole Creek Pond is limited by the 1,000 gpm current rated capacity of the Cole Creek Transfer Station.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 163 of 304

4.4.8 Future Wheeling Capacity Requirements As presented previously, the District has an existing agreement to convey up to 1,000 AFY (with a corresponding minimum flow rate of 800 GPM and a maximum flow rate of 1,300 GPM) of recycled water from EMWD to Pechanga. It is also projected that the District will utilize approximately 300 AFY of that recycled water supply for its beneficial use.

4.4.9 Future Supply Capacity Alternatives The demand for recycled water (tertiary treatment without demineralization) at build-out is projected to be approximately 4,500 AFY, an increase of 631 AFY over the existing recycled water demand. Based upon the projected recycled water supply of 9,819 AFY, as presented in Table 4-23, the District is projected to have a surplus capacity of approximately 5,319 AFY. The following alternatives will be evaluated in the future to utilize the surplus capacity of recycled water:

 No Project Alternative – Acquire Less Recycled Water from EMWD. This alternative would reduce the future purchase of recycled water from EMWD by 3,886 AFY, which includes 3,586 AFY (3.2 MGD) from the EMWD Recycled Water Agreement and 300 AFY (0.3 MGD) from the Pechanga Agreement. This reduces the projected recycled water supply to 5,933 AFY. The District would then expand the existing recycled water distribution system as necessary to increase the recycled water demand to match the supply of 5,933 AFY. This alternative does not maximize the use of recycled water which in turn does not increase the reliability of the District’s total water supply.

 Alternative No. 1 – Implement an Indirect Potable Reuse Project. An Indirect Potable Reuse Project would utilize the available surplus recycled water (~5,000 AFY) for groundwater recharge through surface spreading and/or injection. Alternative No. 1 is more fully described Chapter 5.

 Alternative No. 2 – Implement Expansion of the Recycled Water Distribution System and Demineralization of the Recycled Water Supply with a parallel distribution system. This alternative would demineralize the available surplus recycled water (~5,000 AFY) and convey the demineralized water through a parallel distribution system. The parallel system would supply flow to the lower VDC, as well as to a new 1611 Pressure Zone. Alternative No. 2 is more fully described Chapter 5.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 164 of 304

 Alternative No. 3 – Implement Expansion of the Recycled Water Distribution System and Demineralization of the Recycled Water Supply. This alternative would demineralize the entire recycled water supply and would expand the recycled water distribution system. Alternative No. 3 is estimated to be significantly more expensive than Alternative No. 1 and 2, in addition to having insufficient seasonal storage pond capacity.

4.5 WATER SUPPLY SUMMARY Table 4-24 summarizes the District’s existing annual and maximum day water supply capacities. The existing annual capacity of 86,649 AFY is greater than the existing annual production requirement of 70,517 AFY, previously presented in Chapter 3. The existing maximum day production requirement of 221 cfs is less than the 336 cfs maximum day capacity presented in Table 4-24.

Table 4-25 summarizes the District’s build-out annual and maximum day water supply capacities. It is projected that additional annual groundwater capacity will be generated through increasing artificial recharge of the groundwater basin by 31 cfs. An additional annual supply of 8 cfs (5,319 AFY) of recycled water is also anticipated by build-out. The build-out annual capacity of 115,002 AFY is greater than the projected build-out annual production requirement of 110,714 AFY, presented previously in Chapter 3. The build-out maximum day production requirement of 346 cfs is less than the 408 cfs maximum day capacity anticipated by build-out presented in Table 4-26. Figures 4-6 and 4-7 illustrate the District’s annual and maximum day production requirements and water supply capacities.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 165 of 304

Table 4-24 - Existing Water Supply Capacity Summary Annual Capacity (Not Including Maximum Day Available Tier II Imported Treated Water*) Source AFY MGD CFS AFY MGD CFS

Imported Water- EMWD Turnouts** 21,627 19 30 109,311 98 151

Imported Water- WMWD Turnouts** 22,621 20 31 47,055 42 65

Native Groundwater+ 25,422 23 35 73,200 65 101 Groundwater Recharge 13,159 12 18

Recycled Water+ 3,821 3 5 15,637 14 22

Total Capacity 86,649 77 120 245,203 219 339

* - Tier 2 imported treated water was not included in the Annual Capacity evaluation, although it is available to the District at a cost of $1,055/ AF as of August 2015, 16% more than the cost of Tier 1 imported water. ** - Maximum day capacity includes 11 cfs on the EMWD Turnout (EM-20) which is to be wheeled to Pechanga. + - The 340 AFY of groundwater supplied to the Recycled Water System has been included in Native Groundwater, and not in Recycled Water.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 166 of 304

Table 4-25 - Build-out Water Supply Capacity Summary Annual Capacity (Not Including Maximum Day Available Tier II Imported Treated Water*) Source AFY MGD CFS AFY MGD CFS

Imported Water- EMWD Turnouts** 21,627 19 30 109,311 98 151

Imported Water- WMWD Turnouts** 22,621 20 31 47,055 42 65

Native Groundwater+ 25,422 23 35 115,827 103 160++ Groundwater Recharge 35,854 32 50

Recycled Water+ 9,479 8 13 24,179 22 33

Total Capacity 115,002 103 159 296,372 265 409

* - Tier 2 imported treated water was not included in the Annual Capacity evaluation, although it is available to the District at a cost of $1,032/ AF as of August 2014, 16% more than the cost of Tier 1 imported water. ** - Maximum day capacity includes 11 cfs on the EMWD Turnout (EM-20) which is to be wheeled to Pechanga. Build-out Tier I imported water supply capacity was assumed to be the same as the existing supply capacity. Annual capacity may fluctuate over time. + - The 340 AFY of groundwater supplied to the Recycled Water System has been included in Native Groundwater, and not in Recycled Water. ++ - Groundwater recharge is anticipated to increase 31 cfs by build-out, increasing total groundwater supply capacity by 58% (Native plus Recharge). Maximum day capacity for total groundwater supply was assumed to also increase by 58%. Actual increase will be determined by many factors, including pump selection, ground water levels, well location, etc.

Figure 4‐6 ‐ Annual Water Supply Capacity (Excluding Available Tier II Imported Treated Water) 120.00 115,002 AFY

110,714 AFY 100.00

(13,159 AFY) Groundwater Recharge (35,854 AFY) 86,649 AFY 80.00

(3,821 AFY) Recycled Water (9,479 AFY) (1000's) 60.00 Feet ‐ (25,422 AFY) Native Groundwater (25,422 AFY) Acre

40.00

(22,621 AFY) Imported Water - WMWD Turnouts (22,621 AFY)

20.00

(21,627 AFY) Imported Water - EMWD Turnouts (21,627 AFY)

0.00 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2087 Estimated Annual Water Production (Baseline) Figure 4‐7 ‐ Maximum Day Water Supply Capacity 450

409 CFS 400

350 346 CFS 339 CFS (101 CFS) Groundwater - Native and (160 CFS) Artificial Recharge (CFS)

300

Production 250

Day (22 CFS) Recycled Water (33 CFS) 200 Maximum (65 CFS) Imported Water - WMWD Turnouts (65 CFS)

150 Projected

100

(151 CFS) Imported Water - EMWD Turnouts (151 CFS) 50

0 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2087

Estimated Maximum Day Water Production (Baseline) Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 169 of 304

CHAPTER 5. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT To address issues such as imported water supply availability, system capacity constraints, rising imported water costs, and water quality issues, the District is taking a long-term perspective that examines all reasonably possible supply-side and demand-side management opportunities to meet its customers’ needs in an economical and sustainable manner.

The District manages water resources based on an on-going analysis of supply and demand management alternatives to satisfy multiple objectives. These objectives include the following:

 To provide water service to the District’s customers in an economical and sustainable manner;

 To provide high quality water to the District’s customers;

 To identify and to minimize risk and uncertainty in meeting peak day water demands; and

 To comply with regulatory requirements for water supply and water resource management.

5.1 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES Demand Management Measures (DMM) are non-structural options that include additional purchases of imported water, water conservation and water transfers. These options would make best use of existing facilities or reduce demands in order to defer supply investments. Over the long term, DMMs have been generally justified and accepted by the industry as providing a “reliable” reduction in water demand. DMMs are generally based on what is technically and economically reasonable and environmentally and socially acceptable, and are not otherwise unreasonable for most water suppliers to implement.

Water Conservation

The District recognizes water use efficiency, both urban and agricultural, as an integral component of its current and future water resource strategy for its service area. Increasing water conservation provides additional water supply for the District by reducing demands.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 170 of 304

In June 2015, the District’s Board of Directors adopted the Blueprint for Water Use Efficiency (BWUE), which delivered a comprehensive review of conservation and water use efficiency in the District’s service area. The BWUE recommended implementable, cost effective water use efficiency and conservation programs that provide substantial water savings, thereby allowing District to meet and maintain its various regulatory requirements for the urban and agricultural sectors. These programs have consistently produced a relatively inexpensive source of supply, estimated in the 2015 BWUE at an average cost of less than $300/AF.

For urban water uses, the District has made implementation of DMMs the cornerstone of its urban water conservation programs and became Signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding Best Management Practices for Urban Water Conservation with the CUWCC on March 9, 2005. The District has committed to use good-faith efforts to implement the 14 cost-effective DMMs, which include both Foundational and Programmatic measures. Foundational measures include operations practices and customer information/education. Programmatic measures offer customers a portfolio of efficiency incentives and programs based on cost-effective indoor and outdoor water efficiency devices and improvement measures.

Many of the DMMs are implemented by the District in coordination with WMWD or EMWD. As a member agency of WMWD and EMWD, the District cooperates with and benefits from regional programs implemented by these agencies on behalf of its member agencies.

As signatory to the MOU, the District is responsible for completing and submitting Activity Reports to the CUWCC every three years. The District’s Activity Report is a comprehensive document that shows implementation of each DMM. The District has maintained full compliance to date, and the Coverage Report indicates that the District is on track per the MOU.

Efficient Water Management Practices (EWMPs) for agriculture were established as part of California Assembly Bill 3616, Agricultural Efficient Water Management Act of 1990, and were officially defined on January 1, 1999. These EWMPs were later included in SBx7-7 (2009) as mandated water use efficiency targets for agricultural water suppliers.

The District has made implementation of EWMPs the cornerstone of its agricultural water use efficiency programs and efforts. EWMPs refer to policies, programs, rules, and other activities conducted by a water supplier that, over the long-term, have been generally justified and accepted by the industry as providing for the advancement of the efficient use of water used for agricultural purposes in California.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 171 of 304

The District has committed to use good-faith efforts to implement all 16 of the EWMPs. While many of the EWMPs are implemented exclusively by the District, some EWMPs are implemented through funding partnerships with other agencies. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, DWR, MWDSC, and WMWD cost share with the District on providing water management services to its agricultural water users and for financing capital improvement for on-farm irrigation systems. Reclamation has provided significant funding for the construction of the Vail Lake Pipeline and Pump Station, which allows for conjunctive use and distribution system flexibility. In addition, Southern California Edison provides free pump testing services that allow the District and its customers to evaluate the efficiency of their well and booster pumps.

Further detail of the District’s efforts related to the implementation of each EWMP can be found in Section 6 of the District’s 2012 Agricultural Water Management Plan.

The District conservation campaign also encourages all customers to use water wisely. The District sponsors workshops on California-friendly plants and Water Management, and provides a mobile application and web link to report water wasters where staff responds by sending customers letter to correct the wasteful use of water. New customers receive a welcome letter, a quarterly newsletter containing seasonal tips and ideas for water conservation.

Water Transfers

The District could engage in water transfers to increase their water supply. Water transfers are the voluntary exchange of water between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Types of water transfer vary and include:

 Spot Transfers - a one-time purchase of water, usually are purchased on an as needed basis to offset the effects of drought.

 Option Transfers - buyers purchase a certain amount of water any time during the life of the agreement, paying costs only in those years in which the water is needed.

 Core Transfers - multi-year contracts designed to make a specific amount of water available to the purchaser annually. Buyers must normally pay the costs of transfer every year whether the water is needed or not.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 172 of 304

 Storage Transfers - purchasers can place water into storage for future delivery. Storage transfers can be accomplished through either core or option contracts.

Previously the District evaluated the cost of purchase water from water districts north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta or the Southern Central Valley, as well as the estimated cost of purchasing desalinated water from a future Desalination Project. Water could be acquired by either stored water purchases, groundwater substitution, or crop idling agreements. The District would then negotiate a price, transfer amount, and delivery schedule with the seller.

Prices for water transfers vary depending on the size and location of the transfer. Water transfer prices in a normal precipitation year can vary slightly from north of the Delta Region to the Central Valley region, with an average cost of $150/AF. During a dry year, this cost can increase greatly, and is currently estimated at $700/AF.

Desalination is the process of removing dissolved salts from water, thus producing fresh water from seawater or brackish water. In times of water scarcity and an ever- growing demand for fresh water due to population growth, and given current climate trends, water resources will become even more unevenly distributed as water- scarce regions experience more frequent and prolonged droughts. Desalination can be a reliable water supply alternative and a part of the solution for meeting current and future water needs. The past ten years has seen a rapid rise in installed capacity. This is primarily due to dramatic improvements in membrane technology and the increasing cost of conventional water supply delivery. Desalination is viewed as a way to develop a local, reliable source of water that assists agencies reduce their demand on imported water and make unusable groundwater available for municipal uses. Potential water transfer prices from a future Desalination Project are estimated to be $2,300 during both wet and dry years (based on the San Diego County Water Authority Carlsbad Desalination 2012 water purchase price).

Delivering the transferred water may require use of State Water Project (SWP), Central Valley Project (CVP), and/or MWDSC conveyance facilities, also known as wheeling. California state law requires that an agency must allow wheeling if excess capacity is available, given that fair compensation is paid for use of the system.

MWDSC has developed wheeling rates, based on their un-bundled water rate schedule. Member agencies (and sub-agencies such as the District) will pay MWDSC’s system access charge, water stewardship charge, and system power charge.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 173 of 304

There are 2 kinds of transfers to consider, wet year transfers which would only be available during normal and wet hydrology year types, and dry year transfer options, which would be available in years that MWDSC cuts deliveries of untreated imported water. Accordingly, dry year MWDSC wheeling rates also include a water treatment surcharge.

The estimated cost for a wet year water transfer from water districts north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta or the Southern Central Valley in today’s dollars is:

Wet Year Water Supply = $150/AF MWD Wheeling Charge = $424/AF Total Water Transfer Cost = $574/AF

The estimated cost for a wet year water transfer from a future Desalination Project in today’s dollars is:

Wet Year Water Supply = $2,250/AF MWD Wheeling Charge = $424/AF Total Water Transfer Cost = $2,674/AF

The estimated cost for a dry year water transfer from water districts north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta or the Southern Central Valley in today’s dollars is:

Dry Year Water Supply = $700/AF MWD Wheeling Charge = $765/AF* Total Water Transfer Cost = $1,465/AF * Includes MWDSC treatment surcharge

The estimated cost for a dry year water transfer from a future Desalination Project in today’s dollars is:

Dry Year Water Supply = $2,250/AF MWD Wheeling Charge = $765/AF* Total Water Transfer Cost = $3,015/AF * Includes MWDSC treatment surcharge

The dry year water transfer would very likely have a fixed annual option cost, that the District would have to pay to “reserve” the right to call the option in a dry year. For purposes of this master plan effort, it was assumed that this option payment would be $75/AF.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 174 of 304

5.2 IMPORTED WATER MANAGEMENT All of the water supply scenarios presented in the following section have the District purchasing imported water from MWDSC via EMWD and WMWD. MWDSC’s water rates are broken down into full service and discounted rates (e.g. Replenishment Water). There are two tiers for the full service rate, with the second tier being set at MWDSC’s marginal cost for new supplies. Therefore, the more full service water that the District purchases from MWDSC, the greater the costs as more purchased water will be at Tier 2 pricing levels.

The District’s connection point on MWDSC’s pipeline facilities are identified as WR for WMWD and EM for EMWD. Turnouts WR-26 and WR-28 deliver treated water via WMWD, while turnouts EM-13 and EM-20 deliver treated water via EMWD. Untreated water is delivered to the District through turnout WR-34 and through turnout EM-21. Untreated water from EM-21 is conveyed through the Pauba Valley Transmission Main in De Portola Road to the District‘s Recharge and Recovery System. Untreated water from WR-34 is conveyed through an outfall pipeline to release makeup water into the Santa Margarita River at the Gorge pursuant to the Cooperative Water Resource Management Agreement. As such, WR-34 is not directly utilized to meet water demands for potable water deliveries.

In Calendar Year 2014, deliveries exceeding 22,621 AFY via imported water turnouts WR-26, WR-28 and WR-34 were subject to MWD’s Tier 2 full service water rates. Similarly, deliveries exceeding 21,627 AFY via imported water turnouts EM- 13, EM-20 and EM-21 were subject to MWD’s Tier 2 full service water rates. Table 5-1 and 5-2 summarize projected water rates for MWDSC. These projections utilize MWDSC’s forecast through 2024 as presented in Table 10 of MWDSC’s Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. The average annual increase projected through 2024 was calculated, and utilized to extrapolate costs through 2065.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 175 of 304

Table 5-1 - Treated Imported MWDSC Water Rates ($/AF) Year Full-Service Tier 1 Full-Service Tier 2

2015 $923 $1,055

2016 $942 $1,076

2017 $973 $1,107

2018 $999 $1,133

2019 $1,027 $1,161

2020 $1,069 $1,199

2021 $1,108 $1,234

2022 $1,146 $1,268

2023 $1,188 $1,307

2024 $1,233 $1,347

2025 $1,273 $1,384

2035 $1,757 $1,816

2045 $2,424 $2,383

2055 $3,345 $3,126

2065 $4,615 $4,101

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 176 of 304

Table 5-2 - Untreated Imported MWDSC Water Rates ($/AF)

Year Full-Service Tier 1 Full-Service Tier 2

2015 $582 $714

2016 $594 $728

2017 $615 $749

2018 $639 $773

2019 $667 $801

2020 $709 $839

2021 $748 $874

2022 $786 $908

2023 $828 $947

2024 $873 $987

2025 $913 $1,023

2035 $1,434 $1,467

2045 $2,252 $2,102

2055 $3,536 $3,014

2065 $5,552 $4,320

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 177 of 304

In addition to the commodity rates shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, MWDSC also levies a system capacity charge for peak summer use. The current capacity charge is $11,100 per cfs. By 2020, it is projected that this current charge could be $12,100/cfs; while in 2065 the projected charge could be $25,450/cfs. Table 5-3 illustrates the capacity charge projections which utilize MWDSC’s forecast through 2024 as presented in Table 10 of MWDSC’s Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. The average annual increase projected through 2024 was calculated, and utilized to extrapolate costs through 2065.

Table 5-3 - MWDSC Capacity Charge ($/cfs) Year Capacity Charge ($/cfs)

2012 $7,400

2013 $6,400

2014 $8,600

2015 $11,100

2016 $10,900

2017 $10,900

2018 $11,500

2019 $12,100

2020 $12,100

2021 $12,100

2022 $12,200

2023 $12,400

2024 $12,500

2025 $12,719

2035 $15,127

2045 $17,992

2055 $21,398

2065 $25,450

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 178 of 304

5.3 OTHER ISSUES

The District works collaboratively with EMWD, WMWD, the Santa Margarita Watershed Watermaster and other interested stakeholders to achieve the highest quality of water, safeguard the groundwater supply, and to ensure reliability of water supplies. In addition to minimizing capital and water purchase costs, other factors included in the water supply scenario evaluations include climate change, water quality, water reliability and demand peaking.

5.3.1 Climate Change The District‘s climate is a semi-arid environment with mild winters, warm summers and moderate rainfall, consistent with coastal and inland Southern California. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The usually mild to warm climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.

Climatological data in California has been recorded since the year 1858. During the twentieth century, California has experienced four periods of severe drought: 1928- 34, 1976-77, 1987-91 and 2011-14. Southern California and, in particular, the southwest Riverside County area, sustained few adverse impacts from the 1976-77 drought, due in large part to the availability of Colorado River water and groundwater. In contrast, the 1987-91 and 2011-14 drought created considerably more concern for agencies throughout Southern California.

In response to the unprecedented four year drought, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced Executive Order B-29-15 in April 2015, in order to save water, increase enforcement to prevent wasteful water use, streamline the state’s drought response and invest in new technologies that will make California more drought resilient. On April 14, 2015, MWDSC announced a 15% reduction in wholesale deliveries to its 26 member public agencies beginning July 2015.

It is anticipated that the frequency of severe weather patterns may increase in the future, including less snowfall in Northern California and increased rainfall in Southern California. This may result in even further reductions of imported water supplies. The ability to minimize costs and ensure supply during multiple dry-year hydrology cycles are essential elements to the District’s water resource management.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 179 of 304

5.3.2 Water Quality Imported water treated and delivered from MWDSC is consistently of good quality, resulting in a reliable supply of imported water. Through its management strategies and in coordination with member agencies, MWDSC is able to provide member agencies supply options that may help local agencies meet regulatory standards. Currently known and foreseeable water quality issues are incorporated into existing management strategies to maintain the reliability of MWDSC‘s supplies for the next 25 years. However, unforeseeable water quality issues could potentially alter MWDSC‘s imported water and potentially impact its supply reliability.

The groundwater quality in the Murrieta-Temecula Basin is considered good, especially where recharge occurs. Early monitoring and implementation of programs help producers maintain the groundwater production ability in accordance with the Basin goals.

5.3.3 Reliability

Water supply reliability reflects the ability of District water supplies to meet water demands for all hydrologic conditions. Multiple dry years may result in imported water restrictions and/or cost increases of water supplies. Water supply scenarios were evaluated in each month of the hydrologic cycle, in order to quantify seasonal supply deficits that may occur, and estimated increased costs to obtain supplies during dry-year periods.

5.3.4 Peaking Each water supply scenario was evaluated to determine if water supplies would meet water demands under all hydrologic conditions and peak day conditions. 2014 hydrology was selected because it represents a year in which demands were high, precipitation was low, and it was a year in which MWDSC subsequently attempted to cut deliveries through excessive usage penalties and conservation efforts.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 180 of 304

Monthly average supplies of recycled water, imported water and extracted groundwater were analyzed during the 2014 hydrological cycle. Figures 5-1 through 5-3 present the percentage of the average month supplied in 2014 for recycled water, groundwater extracted and imported water, respectively. These monthly supply patterns were utilized for all water resource management alternatives, as well as the monthly water demand variation presented in Figure 5-4, also based on 2014 hydrology.

Figure 5‐1 ‐ Monthly Recycled Water Supply as a Percentage of Average Monthly Supply in 2014 Hydrology Year 180%

160%

140% (%)

120% Supply

100% Month

Average 80% of

60% Percentage

40%

20%

0% January February March April May June July August September October November December Month Figure 5‐2 ‐ Monthly Groundwater Extracted as a Percentage of Average Monthly Extraction in 2014 Hydrology Year 140%

120%

(%) 100% Extraction

80% Monthly

60% Average of

40% Percentage

20%

0% January February March April May June July August September October November December Month Figure 5‐3 ‐ Monthly Imported Treated Water Supply as a Percentage of Average Monthly Supply in 2014 Hydrology Year 250%

200% (%)

Supply 150% Month

Average of 100% Percentage

50%

0% January February March April May June July August September October November December Month Figure 5‐4 ‐ Monthly Water Demand as a Percentage of Average Monthly Water Demand in 2014 Hydrology Year 180%

160%

140% (%) 120% Demand

100% Month

80% Average of

60% Percentage

40%

20%

0% January February March April May June July August September October November December Month Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 185 of 304

5.4 WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Each water supply alternative was evaluated to determine water supply availability, water purchase costs, capital improvements, reliability and water quality impacts. With the exception of the No Project Alternative, each alternative focuses on increasing a specific water supply (e.g., groundwater or untreated imported water) in order to decrease the need for treated, imported water to 44,258 AFY at build- out. This would allow the District to avoid purchasing MWDSC treated water at Tier 2 rates.

5.4.1 Description of Alternatives Each alternative, including the No Project Alternative, incorporates the same water conservation measures and DMMs. Accordingly, all alternatives include the same passive savings, which occur as a result of plumbing code requirements, and the following DMMs:

 High-efficiency clothes washers (MWDSC incentive only)

 Ultra-low-flush toilet replacement

Table 5-4 summarizes the passive water savings that reduce the water demands in all alternatives below the water demands presented in Chapter 3.

Table 5-4 - Water Savings for Baseline Conservation Measures High-efficiency Ultra-low-flush Passive Savings Total Year Clothes Washer toilet replacement Total* (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) (AFY) 2020 18 9 250 277 2025 21 9 500 530 2030 21 9 750 780 2035 21 9 1,000 1,030 2040 21 9 1,250 1,280 2045 21 9 1,500 1,530 2050 21 9 1,750 1,780 2055 21 9 2,000 2,030 2060 21 9 2,250 2,280 2065 21 9 2,500 2,530 * - Passive savings based on California Plumping Code, requiring ultra-low-flush toilets and low flow showerheads in all new construction, which was previously estimated as 50 AFY per year in the District's 2005 Regional Integrated Resource Plan

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 186 of 304

No Project Alternative

The No Project Alternative represents the District’s current operations with water efficiency programs carried into the future. This alternative does not include expanding the recharge/recovery facility, nor does it include utilizing additional recycled water capacity beyond 4,500 AFY. As presented in Figure 4-6, the current supply mix includes average groundwater production of approximately 38,600 AFY (with 13,000 AFY of artificial recharge with untreated imported water), approximately 4,500 AFY of recycled water, and treated imported water. Figure 5-5 shows monthly water supplies and deficit for the year 2087 (calculated as Build-out in Section 3.7), under a repeat of 2014 hydrology for the No Project Alternative.

An annual water supply of 20,725 AFY would be supplied by purchasing Tier 2 treated water from MWDSC. All of the alternatives would reduce the quantity of Tier 2 treated water purchase by 2087, when compared to the No Project Alternative.

Under the No Project Alternative, the District faces a peak day supply deficit of 7 cfs by year 2087. By 2087, Figure 4-7 illustrates a maximum day demand requirement of 346 cfs, with a current maximum day supply capacity of 339 cfs (excluding 11 cfs of turnout capacity reserved for Pechanga). All of the alternatives would reduce the peak day deficit relative to the No Project Alternative.

Figure 5‐5 ‐ Monthly Supplies and Defecit Projected for Year 2087 No Project Alternative with 2014 Hydrology Year 16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000 Month per

8,000 Feet ‐

Acre 6,000

4,000

2,000

0 January February March April May June July August September October November December Month

Recycled Water Groundwater Extraction Imported Treated Water Tier 1 Imported Treated Water Tier 2 Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 188 of 304

Alternative 1 – Maximize Groundwater Production with Recharge from Untreated Imported Water

Under this alternative, the District would purchase more untreated water from MWDSC, and deliver it to the Valle de los Caballos (VDC) recharge basins. 10 new wells would be installed at the Upper VDC to increase groundwater production by 22,695 AFY through artificial recharge. Pumping would occur year round. This alternative eliminates both the need to purchase Tier 2 treated water from MWDSC, as well as the projected peak supply deficit, by increasing recharge into the groundwater basin. This alternative includes no additional recycled water use beyond 4,500 AFY.

The recharge goal under this alternative is 35,854 AFY, with the build-out capacity of the Upper VDC wells assumed to increase to 42 cfs of recovered recharge consistent with Phase III of the 2012 Upper VDC Conjunctive Use Optimization Study. As the existing annual budgets of the VDC wells are approximately 11 cfs, this represents an increase of 31 cfs of future supply capacity at the Upper VDC.

The District currently receives imported water for recharge from turnout EM-21, which has a capacity of 80 cfs, and is sufficient to provide the additional imported water for recharge. Groundwater recharge may be accomplished by either conveying imported water directly to the VDC basins, similar to current operations, or temporarily storing Water at Vail Lake and then releasing it to the VDC basins.

Figure 5-6 shows the monthly water supplies for this alternative, projected for year 2087 assuming a 2014 hydrology. Table 5-5 presents the estimated capital cost of this alternative as $49.3 Million. Costs presented in Table 5-5 are developed in Chapter 10, with Tables 10-2, 10-6 and 10-7 summarizing the pipeline, pump station and water supply improvement costs.

This alternative utilizes Vail Lake for storage, which allows the District to lower imported water costs by taking advantage of MWDSC’s replenishment rates, when available. This also provides a level of reliability, as Vail Lake water may be available for release during dry weather periods when MWDSC imposed mandatory reductions, thereby minimizing any excessive usage penalties MWDSC may impose. MWDSC requires any replenishment water to remain in Vail Lake for a minimum of one-year.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 189 of 304

If no additional Vail Lake water is available during a dry year in which MWDSC has imposed excessive usage fines, it would be necessary to purchase tier 2 untreated water for recharge. During the current 15% MWDSC cutback, this rate is $714/AF plus a surcharge of $1,480 (assuming a need of only 15% above allocated MWDSC supply). Once the additional District pumping costs of $174/AF are also accounted for, this multiple dry year water source currently costs $2,368/AF, with no additional annual costs to option the supply source in years when it is unnecessary.

Figure 5‐6 ‐ Monthly Supplies Projected for Year 2087 Alternative 1 with 2014 Hydrology Year 16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000 Month per

8,000 Feet ‐

Acre 6,000

4,000

2,000

0 January February March April May June July August September October November December Month

Recycled Water Groundwater Extraction Imported Treated Water Tier 1 2065 Water Supply Required Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 191 of 304

Table 5-5 - Alternative 1 Capital Cost Estimate Description Estimated Cost($)

Regional 1305/1380 Pump Station $7,930,000

Approximately 250 ft of 36-inch diameter pipeline to convey flow from $176,000 Regional 1305/1380 Pump Station to 1305 Pressure Zone Approximately 250 ft of 30-inch Pipeline to convey flow from Regional $148,000 1305/1380 Pump Station to 1380 Pressure Zone Replace 10,750 ft of 20-inch diameter pipeline with 30-inch diameter $6,880,000 pipeline in De Portola Rd from Pauba Rd to Anza Rd

Upper VDC Supply Improvements

OSG Facility $2,155,000

Chlorine Contact Tank $1,724,000

5 New Wells $11,500,000

Rebowl Existing Wells $215,000

4,000 ft of 48-inch pipeline from wells to centralized treatment, and $4,000,000 replumb well discharge pipeline to centralized disinfection facility

4 USGS Monitoring Wells* $2,600,000

Phase I Upper VDC Supply Improvements - Subtotal $22,194,000

5 New Wells $11,500,000

24-inch pipeline from new wells (adjacent property) to centralized $463,000 treatment

Phase II Upper VDC Supply Improvements - Subtotal $11,963,000

Total Upper VDC Supply Improvements $34,157,000

TOTAL $49,291,000

* - Total USGS Monitoring Well estimated cost is $1,600,000 with the District's allocated portion estimated to be $650,000.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 192 of 304

Alternative 2 – Maximize Groundwater Production with Indirect Potable Recharge

Under this alternative, the District would purchase more recycled water from EMWD, and deliver it to the Lower VDC recharge basins after Advanced Water Treatment (AWT). This alternative would increase groundwater pumping year round and recharge the aquifer with microfiltration/reverse osmosis (MF/RO) treated recycled water, which would provide approximately 5,000 AFY (8 cfs) of recharge. This alternative does not include expanding the upper VDC recharge/recovery facility.

In contrast to the No Project Alternative, this alternative reduces the quantity of water purchased as Tier 2 treated water from MWDSC, by increasing recharge into the groundwater basin. However, it does not reduce the maximum day supply deficit of 7 cfs. Three main goals and objectives for the Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) project and are:

 Increase Water Supply Reliability

 Maximize Recycled Water Use

 Improve Water Quality in the Santa Margarita River Watershed

A 5,000 AFY project would make use of all of the available effluent available to the District from both the Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF) and Temecula Valley Regional Water Recycling Facility (TVRWRF). The existing recycled water distribution system would continue distributing approximately 4,500 AFY. Based on the recommended approach identified in the 2013 Indirect Potable Reuse Project Feasibility Study Report, this alternative includes:

 Surface spreading of 3,000 AFY at the Lower VDC recharge basins

 Injection of 2,000 AFY in the Lower Mesa or Pauba Valley Groundwater basins

 Partial RO followed by Soil Aquifer Treatment (SAT) for surface spreading

 Full Advanced Treatment (FAT) for injection

 Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) located at or near the SRWRF site

 A separate pipeline and pump station (rated capacity of at least 3,100 gpm) for conveyance of advanced treated water to surface spreading or injection

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 193 of 304

 Brine minimization facilities at SRWRF

 Ocean disposal of brine through Fallbrook systems (Southern Alternative)

Recharging with recycled water is subject to stricter regulations that raw water recharge. To meet California Department of Health Services (DHS) regulations, reclaimed water would be blended with at least an equal amount of imported water. Reclaimed water would be further treated using MF/RO to meet all water quality regulations, particularly in terms of TDS, total nitrogen, and total organic carbon (TOCs).

For a surface spreading project, DHS also requires that all the recharge water shall be retained underground for a minimum of six months prior to extraction for use as a drinking water supply, and shall not be extracted within 500 feet of the point of recharge.

Figure 5-7 illustrates that distribution improvements included in Alternative 2, with Table 5-6 summarizing the estimated capital costs of this alternative, as developed in the 2013 Indirect Potable Reuse Feasibility Report, and the 8/13/2015 District Board Packet – Southern Alternative for Brine Comparison. The 2013 Indirect Potable Reuse Feasibility Report estimated the unit cost of IPR water at $1,765/AF.

Figure 5-8 shows the monthly water supplies for this alternative, projected for year 2087 assuming a 2014 hydrology, including a projected annual water supply of 15,725 AFY to be supplied by purchasing Tier 2 treated water from MWDSC. The maximum day deficit of 7 cfs is the same as the No Project Alternative. This alternative provides a reliable, high-quality source of 5,000 AFY of additional supply during multi-dry years.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 194 of 304

Table 5-6 - Summary of Capital Costs for Alternative 2* IPR Project Component Estimated Cost ($)

Additional Planning $2,300,000

Regulatory and Permitting $1,100,000

Brine Concentrate Disposal** $29,600,000

Advanced Water Treatment $20,900,000

Conveyance Facilities $35,700,000

Subtotal $89,600,000

Contingency at 15 percent $13,100,000

TOTAL $102,700,000

* - Costs obtained from Table 9 of the 2013 Indirect Potable Reuse Project Feasibility Report (with the exception of Brine Concentrate Disposal) ** - Item No. 10 of the 8/13/2015 District Packet - Southern Alternative for Brine Cost Comparison

Figure 5-7 - Alternative 2 (Indirect Potable Recharge 5,000 AFY)

I-15 SBON

I-215 COMMERCE CT SWEETWATER CIR MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD BUCK RD SAVANNA WAY SERAPHINA RD

SOLIDAGO RD HILT RD I-215 JAYLENELINCOLN ST AVE LAS UVAS DR CAMINO CIELO MONROE AVE

° SALINAS DR TORREY PINES RD WILLOWS AVE JACKSON AVEFIG ST LIEFER RD BAHAMA WAY JACKSON AVE CALLE CABERNET GUAVA ST MADISON AVE CALLE GIRASOL BANYAN ST BONAIRE WAY JOSEPH RD VINO WAY ADAMS AVE DATE ST

CALLE MEDUSA HOOVER AVE SOUTH LOOP RD SRWRF and VIA LOBO EMERY DR VISTA DE ORO FIG ST KNOLLRIDGE DR NICOLAS RD BERENDA RD Elm St. No. 1 HARVESTON DR Pump Station VISTA DEL MONTE RD

VILLAGE RD NICK LN EQUITY DR CORTE COELHO NEWTON AVE WALCOTT LN VIA DEL PONTE HOBIE CIR VIA NORTE RORIPAUGH RD RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD ELM ST ADAMS AVEPEAR ST STARLING ST KAHWEA RD LA SERENA WAY [ I-15 AVENIDA DEL REPOSO CEBU DR ÚDIAZ RD LOS AMANTES RD CALLE CANCION SAINT CROIX CILURZO RD LOS NOGALES RD WINCHESTER RD CALLE KATERINEHEITZ LN I-15 MEADOWS PKWY AVENIDA BIONA I-15 NBOFF General Kearney Tank UT N GENERAL KEARNY RD DEL REY RD UT JEFFERSON AVE REID CT 1381 Zone REID CT CHERRY ST TEMEKU DR CALLE NOPAL HAYES AVE CAMINO VERDE UT RUE JADOT UT OVERLAND DR MADERA DE PLAYA DR UT COMMERCE CENTER DR UT

DENDY PKWY SOLANA WAY CORTE CANTERA AVENIDA LESTONNAC NOEL CIR HUMBER DR SANDHILL LN BIG SAGE CT CALLE CAMPO

ZEVO DR MORAGA RD CAMINO NUNEZ DIAZ RD HONORS DR SAGE CT ALTANOS RD WINCHESTER RD COSMIC DR CALLE VISTA ROICK DR DEL RIO RD STONEWOOD RD

SARAH WAY DANBY RD LINDA ROSEA RD

CORTE ANZA ANZA RD RIO NEDO BUSINESS PARK DR AGENA ST RANCHO VISTA RD DAHL DR AVENIDA ALVARADOVIA CEJITA I-15 SBOFF ROYAL CREST PL

VIA VUELTAS VIA EL GRECO GREEN TREE RD LN JOE BILLY WOLFE ST VIA RAMI CROWNE HILL DR VIA CERRO VISTA YNEZ RD VIA BONILLA CAMPO DR

JOLLE CT LINDA VIA RIDGE PARK DR CABALLOS DR MCCABE DR SYCAMORE MESA RD AMARITA WAY

MIRA LOMA DR PAUBA RD FOX RD DE PORTOLA RD PREECE LN

DODARO DR DODARO BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD Lower

SIXTH ST CONTENTO CALLE CORBIE ST Legend OLD TOWN FRONT ST VDC MAIN ST FIRST ST LEENA WAY CALLE ARNAZ SANDIA CREEK DR SANTIAGO RD Existing ReservoirVIA SANTA ROSA UT I-15 LOLITA RD PUJOL ST

MANZANO DR MARGARITA RD FAVARA DR CALLE LINDA Ú[ Existing Pump Station CABRILLO AVE TEMECULA CREEK RD VIA HORCA VALLEJO AVE VIA DESTELLO SH-79 PIO PICO RD JOHN WARNER RD TEMECULA PKWY CALLE ESCADERAProposed 24-inch Diameter Pipeline JEDEDIAH SMITH RD LOS CABALLOS RD SH-79 NIGHTHAWK PASS Existing Recycled Water Pipeline WOLF STORE RD CALLE CANTU REIDEL ST MONTE VERDE RD

TEMECULA PKWY

VIATORNADO OVERLAND TRL

The information shown on this map was compiled from the Riverside County GIS and the Rancho California GIS. The land base and facility information on this map is for display purposes only and should not be 1 inch = 4,876 feet relied upon without independant verification as to Rancho California Water District its accuracy. Riverside County and Rancho California 42135 Winchester Road Water District will not be held responsible for any Temecula, Ca. 92590 claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of this map. 0 2,300 4,600 Feet (951) 296-6900 Location Map Figure 5‐8 ‐ Monthly Supplies and Defecit Projected for Year 2087 Alternative 2 with 2014 Hydrology Year 16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000 Month

per 8,000 Feet ‐

Acre 6,000

4,000

2,000

0 January February March April May June July August September October November December Month

Recycled Water Groundwater Extraction Imported Treated Water Tier 1 Imported Treated Water Tier 2 Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 197 of 304

Alternative 3 – Expanding Non-Potable Reuse and Indirect Potable Recharge

Under this alternative, the District would purchase more recycled water from EMWD, and deliver it to the Lower VDC recharge basins and to a future 1611 Pressure Zone after Advanced Water Treatment (AWT). Alternative 3 would expand non-potable reuse with treated recycled water by delivering an additional 5,000 AFY of non-potable water to the Rancho Division, with 2,000 AFY conveyed to a future 1611 Pressure Zone, and 3,000 AFY conveyed to the lower VDC to recharge the groundwater basin. This alternative does not include expanding the upper VDC recharge/recovery facility.

In contrast to the No Project Alternative, this alternative reduces the quantity of water purchased as Tier 2 treated water from MWDSC, by increasing recharge into the groundwater basin. This alternative eliminates the maximum day supply deficit of 7 cfs.

Non-potable (recycled) water would be conveyed from the recycled water storage ponds at the Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF) to the lower VDC and the proposed 1611 Storage Reservoir by a parallel recycled water distribution system. Similar to Alternative 2, there is a separate pipeline for conveyance of tertiary effluent from the TVRWRF to the AWT facility, as well as approximately 61,250 ft of additional pipeline through the 1381 Pressure Zone to convey flow from the AWT facility to the intersection of Anza Rd and De Portola Rd. An additional 34,150 ft of pipeline would convey flow from this intersection to both the lower VDC, as well as the proposed 1611 Storage Reservoir via the proposed 1611 pump station. All recycled water facilities which would convey these flows were analyzed, including pipelines, pumping stations and storage reservoirs, as illustrated in Figure 5-9.

The pump station conveying water from the AWT facility into the proposed parallel distribution system should have a rated capacity of 6,195 gpm, while the proposed 1611 Pump Station will require a rated capacity of 4,340 gpm. The proposed 1611 Zone would require a 2.40 MG Tank, assuming that demands in the 1611 Zone do not have on-site flow equalization.

A summary of the infrastructure improvements identified include those presented in Alternative 2, as well as:

 34,150 ft of 24-inch diameter pipeline

 A 1611 Pump Station with a rated capacity of 4,340 gpm

 2.40 MG of Reservoir Storage for the proposed 1611 Zone

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 198 of 304

Table 5-7 summarizes the estimated capital costs of the infrastructure required in Alternative 3, with a total current probable cost of $126.8 Million.

Figure 5-10 shows the monthly water supplies for this alternative, projected for year 2087 assuming a 2014 hydrology, including a projected annual water supply of 15,725 AFY to be purchased as Tier 2 treated water from MWDSC. This alternative provides a reliable, high-quality source of 5,000 AFY of additional supply during multi-dry years.

Table 5-7 - Summary of Capital Cost for Alternative 3 IPR Project Component Estimated Cost ($)

Alternative 2 Costs $102,700,000

34,150 of 24-inch pipeline $17,600,000

1611 Pump Station $2,500,000

1611 Storage Tank $4,000,000

TOTAL $126,800,000

Figure 5-9 - Alternative 3 (Indirect Potable Reuse and Non-Potable Reuse of 5,000 AFT)

I-15 SBON

I-215 COMMERCE CT SWEETWATER CIR MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD BUCK RD SAVANNA WAY SERAPHINA RD UT SOLIDAGO RD HILT RD I-215 JAYLENELINCOLN ST AVE LAS UVAS DR CAMINO CIELO MONROE AVE

° SALINAS DR TORREY PINES RD WILLOWS AVE JACKSON AVEFIG ST LIEFER RD Proposed BAHAMA WAY JACKSON AVE CALLE CABERNET GUAVA ST MADISON AVE CALLE GIRASOL JOSEPH RD 1611 Reservoir BANYAN ST BONAIRE WAY VINO WAY ADAMS AVE DATE ST

CALLE MEDUSA HOOVER AVE SOUTH LOOP RD SRWRF and VIA LOBO EMERY DR VISTA DE ORO FIG ST KNOLLRIDGE DR NICOLAS RD BERENDA RD Elm St. No. 1 HARVESTON DR Pump Station VISTA DEL MONTE RD

VILLAGE RD NICK LN EQUITY DR CORTE COELHO NEWTON AVE WALCOTT LN VIA DEL PONTE HOBIE CIR VIA NORTE RORIPAUGH RD RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD ELM ST ADAMS AVEPEAR ST STARLING ST KAHWEA RD LA SERENA WAY [ I-15 AVENIDA DEL REPOSO CEBU DR ÚDIAZ RD LOS AMANTES RD CALLE CANCION SAINT CROIX CILURZO RD LOS NOGALES RD WINCHESTER RD CALLE KATERINEHEITZ LN I-15 MEADOWS PKWY AVENIDA BIONA I-15 NBOFF N GENERAL KEARNY RD DEL REY RD General Kearney Tank

JEFFERSON AVE REID CT 1381 Zone REID CT CHERRY ST TEMEKU DR CALLE NOPAL HAYES AVE CAMINO VERDE RUE JADOT OVERLAND DR MADERA DE PLAYA DR COMMERCE CENTER DR UT

DENDY PKWY SOLANA WAY CORTE CANTERA AVENIDA LESTONNAC NOEL CIR HUMBER DR SANDHILL LN BIG SAGE CT CALLE CAMPO

ZEVO DR MORAGA RD CAMINO NUNEZ DIAZ RD HONORS DR SAGE CT ALTANOS RD WINCHESTER RD COSMIC DR CALLE VISTA ROICK DR DEL RIO RD STONEWOOD RD

SARAH WAY Proposed 1611 DANBY RD LINDA ROSEA RD Ú[

CORTE ANZA Pump Station ANZA RD RIO NEDO BUSINESS PARK DR AGENA ST RANCHO VISTA RD DAHL DR AVENIDA ALVARADOVIA CEJITA UT I-15 SBOFF ROYAL CREST PL

VIA VUELTAS VIA EL GRECO GREEN TREE RD LN JOE BILLY WOLFE ST Legend VIA RAMI CROWNE HILL DR VIA CERRO VISTA YNEZ RD VIA BONILLA CAMPO DR Proposed JOLLE CT LINDA VIA RIDGE PARK DR CABALLOS DR MCCABE DR UT ProposedSYCAMORE MESA RD Reservoir AMARITA WAY 1381 Reservoir MIRA LOMA DR PAUBA RD FOX RD DE PORTOLA RD UT Existing Reservoir PREECE LN

DODARO DR DODARO BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD Lower

SIXTH ST CONTENTO CALLE CORBIE ST OLD TOWN FRONT ST VDC MAIN ST Ú[ Proposed Pump Station FIRST ST LEENA WAY CALLE ARNAZ SANDIA CREEK DR SANTIAGO RD VIA SANTA ROSA Ú[ Existing Pump Station I-15 LOLITA RD PUJOL ST

MANZANO DR MARGARITA RD FAVARA DR CALLE LINDA Proposed 24-inch Diameter Pipeline CABRILLO AVE TEMECULA CREEK RD VIA HORCA VALLEJO AVE VIA DESTELLO SH-79 PIO PICO RD JOHN WARNER RD TEMECULA PKWY CALLE ESCADERAProposed 30-inch Diameter Pipeline JEDEDIAH SMITH RD LOS CABALLOS RD SH-79 NIGHTHAWK PASS Existing Recycled Water Pipeline WOLF STORE RD CALLE CANTU REIDEL ST MONTE VERDE RD

TEMECULA PKWY

VIATORNADO OVERLAND TRL

The information shown on this map was compiled from the Riverside County GIS and the Rancho California GIS. The land base and facility information on this map is for display purposes only and should not be 1 inch = 4,876 feet relied upon without independant verification as to Rancho California Water District its accuracy. Riverside County and Rancho California 42135 Winchester Road Water District will not be held responsible for any Temecula, Ca. 92590 claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of this map. 0 2,300 4,600 Feet (951) 296-6900 Location Map Figure 5‐10 ‐ Monthly Supplies and Defecit Projected for Year 2087 Alternative 3 with 2014 Hydrology Year 16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000 Month per

8,000 Feet ‐

Acre 6,000

4,000

2,000

0 January February March April May June July August September October November December Month

Recycled Water Groundwater Extraction Imported Treated Water Tier 1 Imported Treated Water Tier 2 Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 201 of 304

Other Alternatives for Future Evaluation

The District developed a Regional Integrated Resources Plan (RIRP) in October 2005, in order to provide a long-range water supply plan to reliably meet the needs of the District. The 2005 RIRP examined different alternatives such as increased water conservation, additional groundwater, conversion of agriculture currently using treated imported water to raw imported water and/or advanced-treated recycled water, groundwater recharge using advanced-treated recycled water, and water transfers. The alternatives presented in this section were evaluated as part of the 2005 RIRP, and based on their overall 2005 RIRP ranking, were updated as part of this master plan effort. Alternatives that were previously evaluated in the 2005 RIRP and were not updated include:

 Conversion of treated deliveries of imported water to agriculture to untreated deliveries: The District would convert treated imported water deliveries for agriculture to untreated imported water deliveries. Delivery to western region agriculture requires conveyance from EM19 to Pressure Zones 1440 and 1670; and delivery to eastern agriculture requires conveyance from EM21 to Pressure Zone 1610 and 1790. The District could directly deliver raw water to eastern agricultural users or could first store it in Vail Lake, then deliver it to agriculture.

 Local treatment (New District Treatment Plan) of untreated imported water: The construction of a new 80 cfs water treatment plant (WTP) to treat raw imported from EM19 and EM21. The District would build the treatment plant near EM19, which has a capacity of 40 cfs. Because this alternative includes an 80 cfs treatment plant, the District would need to install a new water pipeline from turnout EM21 to the plant. This alternative also requires a new pump station to pump water from 1,070 feet to 1,305 feet.

 New treated imported water connection (MWDSC turnout): The District would purchase additional treated imported water from a new treated water turnout with a capacity of 109 cfs. The District’s existing San Diego aqueduct treated water turnouts include WR26, WR28, EM13 and EM20. The facilities needed would be a new imported water turnout and conveyance from this turnout into the District’s distribution system.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 202 of 304

Other alternatives that may be considered in a future RIRP could include:

 Direct potable reuse (DPR): This involves the planned introduction of recycled water either directly into a public water system or into a raw water supply upstream of a water treatment plant. DPR can be used to augment current drinking water supplies (such as surface water, groundwater, or imported water) with a local, abundant, and reliable source of water. There are two forms of planned DPR. In the first form, advanced treated water is introduced into the raw water supply immediately upstream of a drinking water treatment facility. To date, permitted operational DPR projects in the United States involve the use of this form of DPR. In the second form of DPR, advanced treated water is introduced directly into a drinking water supply distribution system. Because of the many unknowns associated with the management of finished water, this form of DPR requires additional studies to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the practice.

 Cloud Seeding: This is a weather modification process designed to increase precipitation amounts by dispersing chemicals into the clouds. But research now reveals that the common practice of cloud seeding with materials such as silver iodide and frozen carbon dioxide may not be as effective as it had been hoped. In the most comprehensive reassessment of the effects of cloud seeding over the past fifty years, new findings from Prof. Pinhas Alpert, Prof. Zev Levin and Dr. Noam Halfon of Tel Aviv University's Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences have dispelled the notion that seeding is an effective mechanism for precipitation enhancement, as reported in the Atmospheric Research 97 (2010) 513-525.

 Land Acquisition for Water Rights: There may be opportunities to acquire land with accompanying water rights that would provide an additional sustainable and reliable source of water for the District. When identified, specific parcels of land should be evaluated for purchase by the District based on current market conditions and projected water transfer costs.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 203 of 304

5.4.2 Evaluation/Ranking of Alternatives In the District’s 2005 Regional Integrated Resources Plan, a series of performance indicators were identified, in order to rank potential water supply alternatives. The following seven broad objectives were identified:

 Reliably Meet Demand

 Maximize Local Control

 Provide Sustainable Supply

 Manage Costs

 Manage Water Quality

 Maintain Quality of Life

 Maximize Implementation Potential

The District used a similar evaluation approach to evaluate and rank the water supply alternatives, with each equally weighted performance measure assigned a rating from 1 to 5, as detailed in Table 5-8.

Table 5-8 - Rating Scale for Each Performance Measure

Performance Measure Rating Description

5 Exceeds all Requirements

4 Exceeds some Requirements

3 Meets all Requirements

2 Fails some Requirements

1 Fails all Requirements

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 204 of 304

Reliably Meet Demands

Supply reliability was evaluated based on the ability to meet projected average and peak demands during wet and dry year demands. During wet years and single dry years, all alternatives have sufficient supplies to meet demands through the purchase of additional Tier 2 treated water from MWDSC. Alternatives 1 and 3 have no maximum day deficits projected for 2087, while the No Project Alternative and Alternative 1 are projected to have a 7 cfs supply deficit on maximum days.

 No Project Alternative: Purchase an additional 20,725 AFY of treated Tier 2 water from MWDSC by 2087. Includes a 7 cfs maximum day supply deficit.

 Alternative 1 – Purchase an additional 20,725 AFY of untreated Tier 2 water from MWDSC by 2087 in order to increase artificial recharge. This alternative does not have a maximum day supply deficit.

 Alternative 2 - Purchase an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water from EMWD for IPR, and 15,725 AFY of treated Tier 2 water from MWDSC by 2087. Includes a 7 cfs maximum day supply deficit.

 Alternative 3 - Purchase an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water from EMWD for both IPR and expanding non-potable reuse, as well as purchasing 15,725 AFY of treated Tier 2 water from MWDSC by 2087. This alternative does not have a maximum day supply deficit.

During multiple dry years in which MWDSC imposes excessive usage fines or reduces wholesale deliveries, all alternatives would require purchasing tier 2 water at a higher rate. The District could pursue dry year water transfer rights in order to increase reliability. Alternatives 2 and 3 maximize use of recycled water for a portion of their water supply, and as such, would be affected less, providing the highest level of reliability during multiple dry years.

Maximize Local Control

Greater local control was evaluated on the District’s ability to control how and when the supply water is used. Local water resources are defined as groundwater, recycled water and conservation. Imported water that is used for groundwater recharge does not count towards local resources. The greater the percentage of local water resources, the greater the local control.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 205 of 304

All alternatives assume the same amount of passive savings from conservation, and the same annual amount of native groundwater in order to ensure a sustainable basin. Alternatives 2 and 3 increase the amount of recycled water the District will purchase from EMWD, and therefore increase the amount of local control.

Provide Sustainable Supply

This performance measure is based on protecting groundwater resources and maximizing the efficient use of resources and local assets. A detailed groundwater model has been developed for the District by GEOSCIENCE, and is used annually to determine the relationship between groundwater pumping, natural safe yield and levels of artificial recharge. It is the intent of the District to use the groundwater basins assertively through groundwater basin conditioning. This allows the basins to be replenished more efficiently with imported water or advance treated recycled water, than would normally occur through natural recharge.

While all alternatives extract a sustainable safe yield of native groundwater, alternatives 2 and 3 increase basin recharge annually with recycled water, a sustainable and constant source. All alternatives can utilize the groundwater basin for storage, to provide a short-term sustainable supply during a multiple dry year period.

Manage Costs

Managing costs was evaluated by comparing capital costs and purchased water costs for each supply alternative to the No Project Alternative. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs were not included in the analysis, nor was the ability to obtain outside or non-traditional funding to further reduce District costs.

During normal and wet years, Alternative 1 provides the cheapest source of water. Assuming all additional purchased water is at a Tier 2 rate from MWDSC, the following includes projected costs in 2087 in “today’s dollars”:

 No Project Alternative: Purchase an additional 20,725 AFY of treated Tier 2 water from MWDSC by 2087 (current price of $1,055/AF). No capital costs for additional supply.

 Alternative 1 – Purchase an additional 20,725 AFY of untreated Tier 2 water from MWDSC by 2087 in order to increase artificial recharge (current price of $888/AF which includes purchase price and District pumping costs). Capital costs estimated at $49.3 Million.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 206 of 304

 Alternative 2 - Purchase an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water from EMWD for IPR (current price estimate of $1,765/AF) and 15,725 AFY of treated Tier 2 water from MWDSC by 2087 (current price of $1,055/AF). Capital costs estimated at $102.7 Million.

 Alternative 3 - Purchase an additional 5,000 AFY of recycled water from EMWD for both IPR and expanding non-potable reuse (current price estimate of $1,765/AF), as well as purchasing 15,725 AFY of treated Tier 2 water from MWDSC by 2087 (current price of $1,055/AF). Capital costs estimated at $126.8 Million.

Alternative 1 requires an estimated $49.3 Million of capital costs, but results in a minimum net savings of $167/AF. If water raw water is purchased and banked in a wet year, the savings could be $299/AF, with savings as high as $881/AF if water naturally collected in Vail Lake was available and released to offset imported Tier 2 purchases. Assuming the lowest savings rate of $167/AF, it would take 295,808 AF to recoup initial capital costs. At 20,725 AFY, that would indicate a maximum of 14.3 years to offset initial capital costs.

Both capital costs and water unit costs are greater for Alternatives 2 and 3, then for the Non Project Alternative and Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 would produce 5,000 AFY of advance treated recycled water to be banked in the groundwater basin at $1,765/AF. With no capital costs, the No Project Alternative would provide this water at a lower tier 2 treated cost of $1,055 AFY. Alternative 1 would provide for more recharge of untreated water at a maximum cost of $888/AF (includes untreated tier 2 imported water purchase price and District pumping costs).

All alternatives utilize Vail Lake and the groundwater basin for storage, which allows the District to lower imported water costs by taking advantage of MWDSC’s replenishment rates, when available. This also provides a level of reliability, as Vail Lake water or banked ground water may be available for release or extraction during dry weather periods when MWDSC imposes mandatory reductions. This minimizes any excessive usage penalties the District might incur. MWDSC requires any replenishment water to remain in Vail Lake for a minimum of one-year. Alternative 1 allows Vail Lake and the groundwater basin to provide the most reliability to the District, by increasing the amount of recharge water that can be extracted in any given year.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 207 of 304

During multiple dry years in which MWDSC imposes excessive usage fines, it would be necessary to continue purchasing tier 2 water at a higher rate, unless the District had, or could obtain, dry year water transfer rights. Alternatives 2 and 3 utilize additional recycled water for a portion of their water supply, and as such, would not be affected during multiple dry years. However, water purchased from MWDSC in all the alternatives would be affected.

For untreated Tier 2 water during the current 15% MWDSC cutback, the rate of $714/AF was increased by a surcharge of $1,480 (assuming a need of only 15% above allocated MWDSC supply). Once the additional District pumping costs of $174/AF are also accounted for, tier 2 untreated water above MWDSC allocation currently costs $2,368/AF, with no additional annual costs to option the supply source in years when it is unnecessary. For treated tier 2 water the current price with an excessive use fine (assuming a need of only 15% above allocated MWDSC supply) is $3,165/AF. At an estimated $2,674/AF for water transfers of untreated water from Northern California and an estimated $3,015/AF for treated water transfers from a future Desalination Project, it is currently cheaper to purchase excessive water from MWDSC than avail of a water transfer during dry years. Dry year water transfers may not be available, and might require an annual option fee to ensure availability when needed.

Manage Water Quality

The water quality assessment was based on the concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) estimated for each water supply source. The District considers water quality in two ways: (1) safe drinking water regulations, such as TOC and disinfection by-products; and (2) salinity management. Due to MWDSC’s improvements to their regional water treatment facilities that serve the District, such as ozone improvements, all alternatives are assumed to meet all safe drinking water regulations. In terms of salinity management, water in excess of 500 total dissolved solids (TDS) is not sustainable for groundwater recharge.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would produce the lowest salinity for the groundwater basin, as advance treated recycled water would have a lower TDS value than imported water from MWDSC.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 208 of 304

Maintain Quality of Life

There are two components of the quality of life objective: maintain agriculture and provide for open space and recreation. Maintaining agriculture was assessed in terms of reliability in supply and cost of supply. All alternatives preserve the existing quality of life by ensuring supply for agriculture and open space recreation, although Alternatives 2 and 3 provide for a more reliable source for Agriculture, and therefore may provide for a slightly higher quality of life during multiple dry years.

Maximize Implementation Potential

There are three components of the implementation potential objective: maximize potential for public/consumer/institutional acceptance, minimize legal obstacles, and minimize regulatory/environment permitting obstacles. The potential for public/consumer/institutional acceptance performance measure was assessed by how well public/consumer/institutions might accept and/or implement the supply option. The legal and regulatory/environment permitting obstacles performance measures were assessed by how easy or difficult it would be to implement the option legally.

The District could face public resistance with alternatives that include advance treated recycled water for groundwater recharge and agricultural application because of negative opinions regarding reclaimed water as a potential drinking source. Alternatives that use groundwater with imported water recharge or maximize the use of treated imported water would likely have the highest levels of public support.

The alternatives perform similarly regarding legal-related obstacles, as most alternatives would likely require little effort to overcome any legal challenges. Regulatory obstacles include CEQA/NEPA compliance and regulatory permitting. An Advanced Water Treatment facility (Alternatives 2 and 3) would require significant environmental documentation, primarily because of potential negative effects of brine disposal. Additionally, using advance treated recycled water for groundwater recharge would require meeting strict health standards. The District would need to leave the water in the groundwater basin for at least 1 year before use, and monitor groundwater extraction very closely. Also, Alternative 3 would have expanded conveyance facilities for recycled water, which also have additional CEQA/NEPA permitting challenges.

Table 5-9 presents the performance measure ratings for each of the District’s water supply alternatives.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 209 of 304

Table 5-9 - Summary of Performance Measure Ratings for the District's Water Supply Alternatives Maximize Provide Manage Maintain Maximize Reliably Meet Manage Supply Alternative Local Sustainable Water Quality of Implementation Total Demands Costs Control Supply Quality Life Potential

No Project 2 3 3 3 3 3 5 22 Alternative

Alternative 1 – 5 3 3 5 3 3 4 26 Upper VDC Recharge

Alternative 2 – 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 22 IPR at Lower VDC

Alternative 3 – Expand Non-Potable 4 4 4 1 4 4 1 22 Reuse and IPR at Lower VDC

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 210 of 304

5.4.3 Recommended Water Resource Management Strategy The District’s existing water supply capacity, including Tier 2 treated MWDSC water, is adequate to meet the projected water demands at build-out. However, to act upon the District’s Mission Statement to deliver reliable, high-quality water, wastewater and reclamation services to its customers and communities in a prudent and sustainable manner, the following water resource management goals and implementation strategy is proposed.

Goal No. 1: To enhance water use efficiency in order to comply with State regulations (SB X7-7 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan & the Governor’s current drought declaration). District actions to implement this goal include:

 Continue the implementation of the District’s Blueprint for Water Use Efficiency

 Continue monitoring compliance with State regulations and revise the District’s policies and programs as necessary to ensure compliance

Goal No. 2: To use fiscal responsibility to minimize the cost of purchased water supplies. District actions to implement this goal include:

 Minimize the purchase of MWDSC Tier II imported treated water by increasing recharge/recovery at the Upper VDC (Alternative 1)

 Continue to monitor opportunities to purchase economically advantageous water supplies, such as:

o MWDSC replenishment water or other MWDSC reduced price water supply program

o Water transfers

o Future desalination projects

Goal No. 3: Enhance the water quality of the District’s water supply sources. District actions to implement this goal include:

 Continue compliance with Federal and State water quality regulations

 Continue the implementation of the District’s Salt & Nutrient Management Plan

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 211 of 304

 Consider the demineralization of the District’s groundwater and/or recycled water supply sources to reduce salt loading within the watershed

o Acquire capacity rights for future brine waste disposal (currently underway)

o Evaluate the potential for groundwater demineralization (future planning study, date TBD)

o Consider the implementation of the District’s Conceptual Design Study for Indirect Potable Reuse (future re-evaluation, scheduled for FY 2017-18)

Goal No. 4: Enhance the reliability/sustainability of the District’s water supply. District actions to implement this goal include:

 Minimize the purchase of MWDSC Tier II imported treated water; due to potential climate change impacts, uncertainty of the State Water Project and Colorado River water supply, and potential long-term drought scenarios

 Maximize the use of local water supplies, approximately 5,300 AFY of recycled water capacity.

o Develop opportunities to assist with the conversion of existing potable water customers to recycled water use (currently underway)

o Consider the implementation of the District’s Conceptual Design Study for Indirect Potable Reuse (future re-evaluation, scheduled for FY 2017-18)

 Maximize the storage/banking of water in the Temecula/Murrieta groundwater basin and in Vail Lake.

o Implement the VDC water supply improvement project as identified in Chapter 10 (Alternative 1)

o Develop a storage/banking operations plan for both Vail Lake and the Temecula/Murrieta groundwater basin (future plan document, date TBD)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 212 of 304

o Monitor the storage capacity of Vail Lake and the rate of sedimentation and make provisions for a future sedimentation removal project (future project, date TBD)

As summarized in Table 5-9, Alternative 1 – Upper VDC Recharge achieved the highest performance rating score. As the highest scoring alternative, the capital projects for this Alternative have been included in the recommended Capital Improvement Program in Chapter 10. Under this alternative, the District would purchase more untreated water from MWDSC, and deliver it to the Valle de los Caballos (VDC) recharge basins. 10 new wells would be installed at the Upper VDC to increase groundwater production by 22,695 AFY through artificial recharge.

Alternative 1 eliminates the projected peak supply deficit by increasing recharge into the groundwater basin. Vail Lake and the groundwater basin are utilized for storage, which allows the District to lower imported water costs by taking advantage of MWDSC’s replenishment rates, when available. This also provides a level of reliability, as Vail Lake water or banked groundwater may be available for release or extraction during dry weather periods when MWDSC imposes mandatory reductions. MWDSC requires any replenishment water to remain in Vail Lake for a minimum of one-year.

During normal and wet years, Alternative 1 provides the least expensive source of water. This alternative requires an estimated $49.3 Million of capital costs, but results in a minimum net savings of $167/AF. If water raw water is purchased and banked in a wet year, the savings could be $299/AF, with savings as high as $881/AF if water naturally collected in Vail Lake was available and released to offset imported Tier 2 purchases

Economic and hydrological conditions can change significantly over time, which can affect not only the price to purchase water, but also the need to treat water to changing standards in order to protect the groundwater basin. As such, the District should continue to evaluate the benefits and costs of utilizing recycled water for IPR. As this project is not currently recommended, the costs have been excluded from the Capital Improvement Program in Chapter 10. However, as the District may exercise the rights to purchase additional water from EMWD, the additional recycled water is reflected in the District’s build-out water supply in Chapter 4.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 213 of 304

CHAPTER 6. DESIGN CRITERIA All potable and recycled water hydraulic model results developed as part of this master plan effort were evaluated against the District’s master plan design criteria, in order to identify system deficiencies and recommend capacity improvements. Consistent with the District’s previous master plan efforts, the master plan design criteria is not identical to the project specific design criteria outlined in the District’s Water System Facility Requirements and Design Guidelines, as the District’s pump stations and reservoirs must also be evaluated in this master plan.

6.1 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA The District’s Water System Facility Requirements and Design Guidelines, 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan, criteria from neighboring agencies and industry best management practices were all analyzed and evaluated, in order to develop the recommended potable water system design criteria.

6.1.1 Distribution System Design Criteria Distribution system criteria addresses system pressure and pipeline requirements for District-owned distribution and transmission mains, excluding laterals. These criteria are established to ensure that the proposed distribution system will provide adequate, but not excessive, water pressure and the conveyance system can accommodate peak demands without excessive wear or energy usage. It should be noted that the criteria recommended below are planning criteria that are calculated such that they will protect the distribution system under repeated normal operation and water pipes with maximum operational pressure ratings of 165 psi to be used for construction of the distribution system. These criteria are not recommended to limit, for example, pipeline velocities during intermittent activity such as flushing. Furthermore, higher pressures can be accommodated if the appropriate Class of water pipeline is selected, with the desired pressure remaining 30 psi below the maximum pressure rating of the selected pipeline.

The water service pressure requirements include:

 Maximum desired pressure: 150 psi  Minimum desired pressure: 60 psi  Minimum allowable pressure : 40 psi  Minimum allowable pressure with maximum day demands plus fire flow: 20 psi

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 214 of 304

In order to supply peak demands and sufficient fire flows while avoiding excessive velocities and head loss within the distribution system, the District’s pipeline design criteria includes:

 Minimum diameter for distribution and transmission mains 8 inch  Maximum velocity at peak hour demand: 7 fps  Maximum velocity at maximum day demand plus fire flow: 15 fps  Maximum head loss gradient allowed for flows < 20 cfs: 0.003  Maximum head loss gradient allowed for flows 20 to 40 cfs: 0.002  Maximum head loss gradient allowed for flows > 40 cfs: 0.001  Hazen-Williams Friction Coefficient for PVC Pipe 130  Hazen-Williams Friction Coefficient for non-PVC Pipe 120

As shown in Table 6-1, the District’s criteria is similar to those used by neighboring agencies and to those previously recommended by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the State of California Department of Public Health. By allowing for a reasonable head loss restriction and simultaneously restricting maximum velocities, these criteria allow the District’s pipelines to provide adequate flow rates, without excessive wear or energy dissipation.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 215 of 304

Table 6-1 -Potable Water Distribution System Master Plan Design Criteria State of AWWA Manual San California Fallbrook Elsinore Valley M32: Computer Rancho California Water Eastern Municipal Water Western Municipal Dieguito Ten States Department of Criteria Public Utility Municipal Water Carlsbad Modeling Of Water District District Water District Water Standards* Public Health - District District Distribution District Waterworks Systems Standards Pressure Minimum Desired Pressure at 60 60 - - - - 50 - 40 Peak Flow (psi) (Static) Minimum Allowable Pressure at 40 (Downstream of 40 40 - 40 40 40 40 35 Peak Flow (psi) RPDA) (Pumps On) 110 120 80 Maximum Desired Pressure (psi) 150 (Static - Upstream of - 150 150 110 100 (Pumps On) (Without PRV) Meter) Typical Service Pressure Range - (psi) Minimum Pressure with Maximum 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Day Demand and Fire Flow (psi)

Pipelines

Maximum Fire Flow Velocity (ft/s) 15 15 7.5 10 10 15 - - - - 3 for Diameters 12-inch and Maximum Peak Hour Velocity 7 10 7.5 5 Greater; 7 8 5 - - (ft/s) 6 for Diameters less than 12-inch Maximum Desired Headloss 5 5 - (ft/1000 ft) 3 for flows < 20 cfs 3 for flows < 20 cfs Maximum Allowable Headloss 3.5 for during PHD 3 (Transmission) 2 for flows b/w 20 - 50 cfs 2 for flows b/w 20 - 50 cfs 10 10 6 (ft/1000 ft) 5.0 for MDD + FF 15 (Distribution) 1 for flows ≥ 50 cfs 1 for flows ≥ 50 cfs 120 (except for PVC Hazen Williams Coefficient ( C ) 120 - C=130) 6 Minimum Pipe Diameter (in) 8 8 8 8 - - 4 (Residential) * - Design Criteria for 10 states including Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 216 of 304

6.1.2 Fire Flow Criteria As per the District’s Water System Facility Requirements and Design Guidelines, fire flow requirements for future projects shall be based on the type of development proposed, and shall be determined by either the Riverside County Fire Department, City of Murrieta Fire Department or the City of Temecula Fire Department. Fire flow requirements are in accordance with the applicable standards of the Insurance Services Office (ISO) and the California Fire Code. These general standards are applied by local jurisdictions, and account for the type of construction, type of occupancy, a building’s exposure and ability to “communicate” between neighboring buildings.

In order to apply the specific ISO standards for a District-wide fire flow evaluation, minimum fire flows for general land use types were developed. Assuming newer construction materials with fire sprinklers, it is recommended that the values in Table 6-2 be used for planning-level analysis.

Table 6-2 – District Fire Flow Requirements for Planning Minimum Required Required Land Use Type Fire Flow (gpm) Duration (hr) Single Family Residential 1,500 2 Multi-Family Residential 3,000 3 Store-front Commercial, Office and Restaurants 3,000 3 Schools and Civic/Public Facilities 3,000 3 Regional Commercial Centers 5,000 4 Hospitals 5,000 4 Industrial 5,000 4

6.1.3 Peaking Factors System peaking factors of the various pressure zones operated by the District were last studied as part of the 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan. Two types of maximum-day peaks were considered – individual pressure zone peaks and overall District peaks, with water production data utilized to investigate maximum daily demands for each individual pressure zone. The District-wide Maximum Day Demand (MDD) peaking factor (ratio of Maximum Day Demand: Average Day Demand or MDD:ADD) was determined to be 2.2, with zone specific MDD peak factors ranging from 2.0 for the larger zones to 3.0 for small zones. Peak Hour demands were identified as 1.5 times Maximum Day Demand, as presented in Table 6-3.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 217 of 304

Table 6-3 - Potable Water Distribution System Master Plan Peaking Factors Rancho California Rancho California Water District - State of California Western Fallbrook Elsinore Valley San Diego Water Water District - 2005 Water Facility Eastern Municipal Water San Dieguito Department of Public Category Municipal Public Utility Municipal Water Carlsbad Agencies' Water Facility Master Requirements District Water District Health - Waterworks Water District District District Standards Plan and Design Standards Guidelines

Minimum 0.10 times 0.5 times - - - - 0.45 times ADD - - Month MDD ADD

Maximum ------Month

3.0 for Zones 3.0 for Small Zones, 2.5 1440, 1610, 2.2 (District-wide), for Medium Zones (500 1670, 1790 and 1.70 (Non- Maximum Day 2.0 -3.0 for each gpm < ADD < 2,000 1.75 1.9 2.0 1.65 1.30 - 2.40 1.50 – 2.25 1900 Agriculture) zone gpm), and 2.0 for large 2.5 for all other zones zones

1.62 times MDD 1.71 times 1.6 times 1.76 times 1.63 - 1.70 times Peak Hour 1.5 times MDD 2 times MDD 2 times MDD 2.25 times MDD (Non- At Least 1.5 times MDD MDD MDD MDD MDD Agriculture)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 218 of 304

6.1.4 Pump Station Criteria Pump stations are sized to handle maximum day demand for the area to be served including pump-through demand for all higher pressure zones and regulated zones, if applicable. Pump stations will have a minimum of two pumps, with each station sized to provide the required total (firm) capacity with the largest capacity pump on standby (inactive).

6.1.5 Storage Criteria District potable water reservoirs should provide storage in order to meet four (4) main objectives:

 Moderate fluctuations during normal operations between supply and demand in the distribution system (Operational Storage);

 Provide storage for fire protection in each pressure zone (Fire Flow Storage);

 Provide water supply during short-term emergencies within the District (In-District Emergency); and

 Provide water supply during regional emergencies, when water supply is disrupted from either the Eastern Municipal Water District and/or Western Municipal Water District (Regional Emergency/Planned Shutdown).

Storage Required = 63.75% of Maximum Day Demand + Fire Flow Storage

6.1.5.1 Operational Storage Under normal operating conditions, operational storage balances the differences between daily water supply and daily variations in demand. The District currently obtains potable water from the following primary water sources: 1) local groundwater from the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin; and 2) imported SWP and Colorado River water from the MWDSC through EMWD and WMWD. The District receives its imported water (treated and untreated) directly through six MWDSC water turnouts, three in EMWD‘s service area and three in WMWD‘s service area.

 Daily Equalization Storage - The District needs to maintain the difference between maximum day water demands and the maximum demand that can be supplied in each zone. As water demands fluctuate, the District can currently increase supplies every eight (8)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 219 of 304

hours from the MWDSC turnouts, up to 216 cfs. In conjunction with District groundwater supplies, this allows for a maximum day supply of 339 cfs. As discussed in Chapter 8, the rated capacity of the pump stations, groundwater wells and imported water turn-outs supplying a pressure zone are greater than MDD of the Zone plus the MDD of all pump-through zones. As such, no pressure zones require daily equalization storage.

 Peak Hour/Time of Use Storage - The District’s operational storage should also be able to balance the difference between peak hour and maximum day demands.

. Allowing for no time-of-use restriction, the District requires storage to accommodate 6 consecutive peak hours of demand, with an additional 6 hours of demands of 125% maximum daily average. Specifically, the difference between peak hour and maximum day supply is: Peak Hour Storage (No TOU) = [(150% of maximum day demand – maximum day demand)*6 hours/24 hours per day] + [(125% of maximum day demand – maximum day demand)*6 hours/24 hours per day] = 18.75% of maximum day demand in each pressure zone

Operational Storage = 18.75% of Maximum Day Demand

6.1.5.2 Fire Flow Storage Fire flow storage requirements are based upon the maximum fire flow requirement within each pressure zone. For example, if a pressure zone contains both residential properties and a Hospital, then as shown in Table 2, the Hospital would have the larger fire flow requirement of 5,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for a duration of four (4) hours. This would require an additional 1.2 MG of storage for Fire Flow Storage for that pressure zone, with each pressure zone allocated fire flow storage in a similar manner.

6.1.5.3 In-District Emergency Storage The In-District emergencies would typically include supply, conveyance or power outages, with a relatively short duration. In-District emergency storage should provide enough capacity to give District staff sufficient time to repair facilities and return them to service. Typically, these in-District emergencies can be rectified within a few days.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 220 of 304

During these days, wells and pump stations with a back-up power supply source would still be operational. These facilities can help satisfy the In-District emergency storage requirement as they are a reliable source of supply during an emergency situation that does not interrupt groundwater extraction. If there is enough back-up power supply to consistently provide the average day demand, then the need for additional In-District emergency storage in a zone may be mitigated.

In addition to maintaining several MWDSC turn-outs and access to substantial groundwater reserves, the District also has access to an emergency interconnection with the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The District also ensures that all pressure zones have at least two (2) independent sources of supply. As such, the District maintains several water supply options in an emergency. There are few in-District emergencies which could jeopardize the District’s ability to deliver treated water to its customers.

In the event that localized emergency, it is recommended that the District maintain one (1) ADD of emergency storage (45% of Maximum Day Demand) in each zone, which in conjunction with the District’s multiple water supply sources, would provide sufficient storage and supply until the In-District emergency is mitigated.

6.1.5.4 Reserve Emergency Storage In the event of a loss of supply from either EMWD and/or WMWD, the District would be entirely dependent on its In-District water supply, inter-agency connections and storage to meet supply requirements. Currently, the District has constructed one inter-connection for emergency transfers with EMWD. This inter-tie is intended only for water supply emergencies and is not intended for long-term water transfer.

The temporary loss of water supply could be replaced in the short term by a combination of increased well production of groundwater and an increase in emergency, water conservation efforts. This master plan effort will identify the maximum daily demand which could be supported solely from District groundwater production. Assuming that emergency conservation efforts can lower daily demand to this level, no additional Reserve/Emergency Storage is necessary.

Total Storage Required Per Pressure Zone = 18.75% of Maximum Day Demand (Operational Storage) + 45% of Maximum Day Demand (Emergency Storage) + Fire Flow Storage = 63.75% of Maximum Day Demand + Fire Flow Storage. In the 2005 WFMP, the criterion of 16 hours (66%) of maximum-day demand was determined to be an adequate volume of storage in each pressure zone.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 221 of 304

6.2 RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA The District’s Water System Facility Requirements and Design Guidelines, the 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan Update, the On-Site Recycled Water Irrigation Systems Manual, criteria from neighboring agencies and industry best management practices were all analyzed and evaluated, in order to develop the recommended recycled water system design criteria.

6.2.1 Distribution System Design Criteria Distribution system criteria addresses engineering Level of Service (LOS) and infrastructure requirements. These criteria are established to ensure that the proposed distribution system will provide adequate, but not excessive, water pressure and the conveyance system can accommodate peak demands without excessive wear or energy usage.

It should be noted that the criteria recommended below are planning criteria that are calculated such that they will protect the distribution system under repeated normal operation and enable Class 150 water pipes to be used for construction of the distribution system. Higher pressures can be accommodated if a pipeline with the appropriate operational pressure rating is selected. The recycled water service pressure requirements include:

 Maximum desired pressure: 150 psi  Minimum desired pressure: 60 psi  Minimum allowable pressure : 40 psi

To avoid excessive velocity and headloss within the distribution system, the following pipeline design criteria is also recommended:

 Maximum velocity allowed: 10 fps  Maximum head loss gradient allowed for flows < 20 cfs: 0.003  Maximum head loss gradient allowed for flows 20 to 50 cfs: 0.002  Maximum head loss gradient allowed for flows > 50 cfs: 0.001  Hazen-Williams Friction Coefficient for PVC Pipe 130  Hazen-Williams Friction Coefficient for non-PVC Pipe 120  Minimum diameter for distribution and transmission mains 6 inch

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 222 of 304

Table 6-4 compares the District’s recycled water design criteria to the criteria from the AWWA, as well as several neighboring agencies. By allowing for larger headloss and simultaneously restricting maximum velocities, District pipelines will provide adequate, but not excessive, flow rates without excessive wear or energy usage.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 223 of 304

Table 6-4 - Recycled Water Distribution System Mater Plan Design Criteria City of San Diego - Eastern Municipal Water Yucaipa Valley Water RCWD - Water City of Milpitas - City of Roseville - RCWD - On- Recycled Water District - District - & Recycled Recommended Recycled Water Criteria AWWA1 Recycled Water Recycled Water Site Recycled Hydraulic Design Recycled Water Recycled Water Water System System Design Criteria Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Water Manual Criteria 2 Planning Criteria 3 Criteria 6 Design Criteria 7 Demand Distribution Distributed Typical commercial usage Distributed uniformly over 24 Non-Landscape Demands ------uniformly over pattern from hours 24 hours 6 am to 5 pm Landscape Demands without 10 pm to 6 am (8 Distributed uniformly over 9 9 pm to 6 am 9 pm to 6 am - - 9 pm to 6 am (9 hours) 9 pm to 6 am (9 hours) - on-site storage hours) hours (9 hours) (9 hours) Landscape Demands with on- Distributed uniformly over 24 ------site storage hours Pressure Pressure requirements should be based on Maximum Desired Static (psi) system design and 125 110 - - 125 150 150 150 Minimum Allowed Static (psi) practice. Minimum 65 40 45 - 40 40 30 40 pressure should be Min Operating (psi) maintained at peak 50 40 44 50 40 - - - Max Operating (psi) hour demand. 10 psi or 100 110 - - 125 - - - more below the Typical Service Pressure potable water supply 60 to 80 - 60 to 130 - - - - - Range (psi) pressure. Pipelines 5 for MDD 5 for minimum hr demand Maximum Velocity (ft/s) - 8 to 10 8 5 10 - 10 10 for PHD 8 for PHD Desirable Velocity (ft/s) - 3 to 5 ------Maximum Allowable 3 for flows < 20 cfs 10 for pipes < 16" diam 3 for flows < 20 cfs - 10 2 for flows between 20 - 50 cfs - - 3 - 2 for flows between 20 - 50 cfs Headloss (ft/1000 ft) 1 for flows ≥ 50 cfs 5 for pipes ≥ 16" in diam 1 for flows ≥ 50 cfs 130 for all new cement-line, PVC C- Hazen Williams Coefficient 900, and ductile iron pipes 120 (except for - 120 - 110 120 - 120 (except for PVC C=130) ( C ) 130 for all existing pipes ≥ 16" diam PVC C=130) 120 for all existing pipes ≤ 12" diam Minimum Pipe Diameter (in) - - - 8 6 4 - - 8 Typically stores 2/3  If pressure zone (PZ) is 100% Maximum Day Non-Landscape, storage = In general, water pipelines, Demand, with 0.20 MDD tanks, pump stations, pressure reducing stations, potable water  If PZ is 75% Non-Landscape, 1 1/2 to 2 times the storage =0.3 MDD and appurtenances shall be connections for 2/3 Maximum Operational Reservoir Storage average summer day  If PZ is 50% Non-Landscape, - - sized to handle the highest - 2/3 Maximum Day Demand emergency supply Day Demand demand volume. storage =0.5 MDD demand on the system within with approved air  If PZ is 25% Non-Landscape, the sphere of influence and gap separation or storage =0.6 MDD shall provide capacity for the maximum hourly flow and CDHS-approved  If PZ is 0% Non-Landscape, the maximum daily flow plus connection. storage =0.75 MDD fire flow. Pump Station – Min No. of Pumps - 3 - - - - 2 Combined capacity of the pumps Pump stations will be sized to plus the seasonal storage ponds handle maximum day demand for Pumping Plant Capacity - - will equal the MDD with the largest - - 125% of the MDD - - the area to be served including pump out of service. pump-through demand for the next higher pressure zone 1 From Guidelines for Distribution of Non-potable Water by the California-Nevada Section American Water Works Association (AWWA) 2 From the City of San Diego Recycled Water Master Plan Update 2005 3 From "Chapter V - Planning Criteria" Draft of EMWD's Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan 4 From Section XV of the City of Milpitas Engineering Design Guidelines 5 From the City of Roseville Design Standards, January 2010

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 224 of 304

6.2.2 Peaking Factors Recommended peak factors were determined by utilizing the District’s Water System Facility Requirements and Design Guidelines, the District’s ProductionCraigWorking2.0.xls spreadsheet, and the 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan Update. Table 6-5 shows a summary of the recommended peak factors as they compare to those used by other municipalities.

Maximum Month: According to the District’s ProductionCraigWorking2.0.xls spreadsheet, the maximum recycled water month of consumption was 1.8 times the average daily demand.

Maximum Day: The District’s Water System Facility Requirements and Design Guidelines presents specific peaking factors to be used for recycled water system hydraulic analysis. The maximum day flow is recommended to be 3.5 times the average day demand.

Peak Hour: The District’s Water System Facility Requirements and Design Guidelines presents specific peaking factors to be used for recycled water system hydraulic analysis. Accordingly, the maximum day flow is recommended to be 2 times the maximum day demand or 7.0 times average day demand.

Annual Variation: To simulate 365-Day Extended Period Simulation, monthly peaking factors for recycled water demand were applied as patterns in the model along with diurnal patterns for SRWRF and EMWD recycled water supply, which were developed based on the District’s ProductionCraigWorking2.0.xls spreadsheet, currently maintained by the District.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 225 of 304

Table 6-5 - Recommended Recycled Water Peaking Factors RCWD - RCWD - Recycled Recommended Category City of San Diego City of Oceanside City of Roseville City of Yucaipa EMWD Recycled Water Water 1 Factor 2

Maximum Month ------1.776 1.8

Maximum Day 2.00 2.12 July day demand 2.50 2.00 3.50 - 3.5

peak day as a constant flow 2.0 for demands rate over 24 hours for with a 24-hour customers with on-site watering window storage

Peak Hour 6.00 5.10 6.67 7.00 - 7 5.3 for demands no less than peak day as a with a constant flow rate over 9 9-hour watering hours for customers without window on-site storage 1 From Water System Facilities Requirements and Design Guidelines, December 2010 2 From the District's 2005 Water Facilities Master Plan Update

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 226 of 304

6.2.3 Pump Station Criteria Pump stations are sized to handle maximum day demand for the area to be served including pump-through demand for all higher pressure zones and regulated zones, if applicable. Pump stations will have a minimum of two pumps, with each station sized to provide the required total (firm) capacity with the largest capacity pump on standby (inactive). Pump Stations may require larger rated capacities to mitigate in- zone operational storage deficiencies.

6.2.4 Storage Criteria Recycled water storage tanks located within the District’s service area should provide storage in each pressure zone in order to moderate fluctuations during normal operations between supply and demand in the distribution system (operational storage).

Storage Required = 38% of Maximum Day Demand of the demands without on-site flow equalization OR = 10% of all Maximum Day Demands (Whichever is Greater)

6.2.4.1 Operational Storage Under normal operating conditions, operational storage balances the differences between daily water supply and daily variations in demand. The District currently obtains recycled water from the following primary water sources: 1) Recycled water produced at the SRWRF; 2) Recycled water produced by EMWD at the TVRWRF; and 3) local groundwater from the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin;

 Daily Equalization Storage - The District needs to maintain the difference between maximum day water demands and the maximum demand that can be supplied in each zone. Since the rated capacity of the pump stations and groundwater wells supplying a pressure zone are greater than MDD of the Zone plus the MDD of all pump-through zones, no pressure zones require daily equalization storage.

 Peak Hour/Time of Use Storage - The District’s operational storage should also be able to balance the difference between peak hour and maximum day demands.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 227 of 304

. Allowing for no time-of-use restriction and assuming 9 consecutive peak hours of demand, the difference between peak hour and maximum day supply is: Peak Hour Storage (No TOU) = [(Peak Hour Demand + Pump-Through Maximum Day Demands) – (Maximum Day Demands + Pump-Through Maximum Day Demands)]* 9 hours/24 hours per day = (200% of maximum day demand – maximum day demand)*9 hours/24 hours per day = 38% of maximum day demand in each pressure zone

 Some pressure zones have recycled water demands that do not vary throughout the day (e.g. golf courses with on-site storage ponds). For these Maximum Day Demands (MDDon-site storage), there is no difference between peak hour and maximum day supply.

 Zone storage should be at least 10% the total maximum day demand, regardless of available on-site flow equalization.

Storage Required = 38% of Maximum Day Demand of the demands without on-site flow equalization OR = 10% of all Maximum Day Demands (Whichever is Greater)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 228 of 304

CHAPTER 7. HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATES The District maintains two (2) InfoWater hydraulic models which accurately represent all District-owned facilities which store and distribute potable and recycled water. As the hydraulic models contain all distribution system water mains, pump stations, tanks, wells, pressure reducing valves and turn-outs, they serve as accurate physical representations of the potable and recycled water systems.

Both Steady-State and Extended Period Simulations (EPS) were updated as part of this hydraulic modeling effort. A steady-state simulation is a “snapshot” of one point in time, and as such, is utilized to model specific demand alternatives which significantly “stress” a water distribution system. The steady-state or static simulations are used to identify existing and future meter locations which are unable to satisfy the District’s pressure criteria, as well as investigate pipeline velocity and headloss criteria.

Dynamic or extended period simulations (EPS) typically apply a demand curve over a 24-hour period. The EPS will show demand variation over time, reservoirs filling and draining, and pumps turning on and off over the simulation period. The EPS or dynamic simulations are used to analyze system operations, validate water storage and pumping criteria, and evaluate water quality over time.

7.1 POTABLE WATER DEMAND ALTERNATIVES The following model scenarios, originally developed in 2011, were updated to reflect any changes in the District’s GIS database, as-built records and/or pump curves:  Average Day Demands (Steady-State)  Maximum Day Demands (Steady-State)  Peak Hour Demands (Steady-State)  Maximum Day Demands plus Fire Flow (Steady-State)  1-Month Average Day Extended Period Simulation (EPS)  72-hour Maximum Day Extended Period Simulation (EPS) The average daily water demands in the existing and build-out time increments were allocated on a parcel-level in the hydraulic model to the appropriate location in the potable water distribution system. Each water demand maintained its associated land use classification and billing rate from the District’s Customer Billing Record. Average day water demands were universally increased by 5% to account for non-revenue water.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 229 of 304

Maximum Day and Peak Hour demands are created by applying the peaking factors developed as part of the 2005 WFMP, and previously summarized in Chapter 3. These include a Maximum Day Peaking Factor of 2.2 (ratio of Maximum Day Demand to Average Day Demand), as well as a Peak Hour Peaking Factor of 3.3 (ratio of Peak Hour Demand to Average Day Demand).

7.1.1 Average Day Demands (Steady-State) Average daily water demands in each time increment are simulated with all active tanks at high water levels. Pump stations are simulated as off in order to identify pressures greater than 150 psi, as well as investigate all pipeline velocity and headloss criteria. For those facilities identified as deficient, recommended replacement sizes are based on satisfying the District’s design criteria in the Build- out time-increment.

7.1.2 Maximum Day Demands (Steady-State) Average daily water demands in each time increment are multiplied by the maximum day peaking factor of 2.2. Pump stations are simulated as off with storage tanks 25% full, in order to identify pressures less than 40 psi, as well as investigate all District pipeline velocity and headloss criteria. For those facilities identified as deficient, recommended replacement sizes are based on satisfying the District’s design criteria in the Build-out time-increment.

7.1.3 Peak Hour Demands (Steady-State) Average daily water demands in each time increment are multiplied by the peak hour peaking factor of 3.3. Pump stations are operated at firm capacity with storage tanks 25% full, in order to identify pressures less than 40 psi and/or greater than 150 psi, as well as investigate all District velocity, headloss and pumping criteria. For those facilities identified as deficient, recommended replacement sizes are based on satisfying the District’s design criteria in the Build- out time-increment.

7.1.4 Maximum Day Demands plus Fire Flow (Steady-State) Average daily water demands in each time increment are multiplied by the maximum day peaking factor of 2.2. Pump stations are operated at rated capacity with storage tanks 25% full, in order to confirm the ability of the District’s hydrants to deliver the required fire flow. Fire flow demands for each hydrant were identified based on the land use of the parcels served by the hydrant, and the fire flow requirements identified in Chapter 6. Hydrant residual pressures less than 20 psi

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 230 of 304

are identified. For those facilities identified as deficient, recommended replacement sizes are based on satisfying the District’s design criteria in the Build- out time-increment.

7.1.5 72-Hour Maximum Day (Extended Period Simulation) Average daily water demands are adjusted based on an appropriate 24-hour demand usage pattern, which are subsequently multiplied by the maximum day peaking factor of 2.2. Demand usage patterns were developed for Residential, Agriculture, Agriculture/Domestic, Non-Residential and Irrigation water demands. Pump stations are operated based on storage tank levels, in order to evaluate system operations, and validate water storage and pumping criteria.

7.1.6 4-Week Average Day (Extended Period Simulation) In order to analyze water circulation and quality over time, a 30-Day EPS was created to evaluate water age and trace supply sources during periods when the District is transitioning from all groundwater supply to a blend of groundwater and imported water. Average daily water demands are adjusted based on the appropriate 24-hour demand usage pattern. Pump stations are operated based on storage tank levels.

7.2 RECYCLED WATER DEMAND ALTERNATIVES The following model scenarios, originally developed in 2012, were updated to reflect any changes in the District’s GIS database, as-built records and/or pumping curves:  Average Day Demands (Steady-State)  Peak Hour Demands (Steady-State)  72-hour Maximum Day Extended Period Simulation (EPS)  365-Day Extended Period Simulation (EPS)

The average daily water demands in the existing and build-out time increments were allocated on a parcel-level in the hydraulic model to the appropriate location in the recycled water distribution system. Each water demand maintained its associated land use classification and billing rate from the District’s Customer Billing Record. Average day water demands were universally increased by 5% to account for system-wide water loss.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 231 of 304

Maximum Day and Peak Hour demands are created by applying the peaking factors developed as part of the 2005 WFMP. These include a Maximum Day Peaking Factor of 3.5 (ratio of Maximum Day Demand to Average Day Demand), as well as a Peak Hour Peaking Factor of 7.0 (ratio of Peak Hour Demand to Average Day Demand).

7.2.1 Average Day Demands (Steady-State) Average daily water demands in each time increment are simulated with all active tanks at high water levels. Pump stations are simulated as off in order to identify pressures greater than 150 psi, as well as investigate all pipeline velocity and headloss criteria. For those facilities identified as deficient, recommended replacement sizes are based on satisfying the District’s design criteria in the Build- out time-increment.

7.2.2 Peak Hour Demands (Steady-State) For those locations without on-site flow equalization (e.g. recycled water ponds), average daily water demands in each time increment are multiplied by the peak hour peaking factor of 7.0. For those locations with on-site flow equalization, average daily water demands are multiplied by the maximum day peaking factor of 3.5. Pump stations are simulated as off, with storage tanks 25% full, in order to identify pressures less than 40 psi and/or greater than 150 psi, as well as investigate all District velocity, headloss and pumping criteria. For those facilities identified as deficient, recommended replacement sizes are based on satisfying the District’s design criteria in the Build-out time-increment.

7.2.3 72-Hour Maximum Day (Extended Period Simulation) In order to analyze the recycled water system over time, diurnal patterns for recycled water usage are utilized. Average daily water demands are adjusted based on an appropriate 24-hour demand usage pattern, which are subsequently multiplied by the maximum day peaking factor of 3.5. Demand usage patterns were developed for typical irrigation, the Legends Golf Course, all other golf courses, the cement mixing plant, Pechanga Resort and Casino and two schools (Thompson Middle School and Murrieta Valley High School). Pump stations are operated based on storage tank levels, in order to evaluate system operations, and validate water storage and pumping criteria.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 232 of 304

7.2.4 365-Day (Extended Period Simulation) In order to analyze reservoir storage capacity, a 365-Day EPS was created to calculate storage pond volumes based on total annual demands and supply. To simulate 365-Day Extended Period Simulation, monthly peaking factors for recycled water demands are applied as patterns in the model, along with diurnal patterns for the SRWRF and EMWD recycled water supplies, as well as evaporative and percolation losses.

7.3 HYDRAULIC MODEL CALIBRATION Hydraulic model calibration is the process by which the simulated results of the model are compared to measured data, so that the accuracy of the simulations can be confirmed. This model was calibrated utilizing the District’s available Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) data collected in December 2014. Although no definitive standard exists for hydraulic model calibration, it is generally agreed upon that 90% of all field measurements lying within 10% of hydraulic model results indicates a successful calibration effort. For the District, all boundary condition flow rates and static pressure model results were within 10% of the SCADA data. In addition, 95% of all pressure measurements were within four (4) psi of those predicted by the hydraulic model, indicating a well calibrated hydraulic model.

The first step of hydraulic model calibration is verifying facility information for pumps, storage tanks, pipelines and MWDSC’s potable water supply turn-outs. Tables 2-1 through 2-3, summarize the facility geometries, operational set points and pump design points utilized in all hydraulic simulations. As shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2, three design points were obtained from the manufacturer’s pump performance curves and used to define a pump curve for each pump. Additionally, the most recent Edison Pump Performance Tests have been summarized in Table 2-1, including the reported Efficiency (Energy/AF) which determines the order of operations for each pump station.

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Data is recorded throughout the distribution system, and was utilized to complete the hydraulic model calibration. Flow rate and pressure information is available at the pumping stations, wells, MWDSC water supply turn-outs and pressure reducing stations. The water levels at the storage reservoirs are also recorded.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 233 of 304

These results and those generated by the potable water model were then compared in order to insure the desired calibration tolerance. Utilizing the latest available 13 weeks of SCADA data available on December 8, 2014, the calibration goals presented in Table 7-1 were calculated as a series of Key Performance Indicators (KPI). No calibration points for the boundary conditions fell outside of the acceptable tolerance range.

These results and those generated by the recycled water model were then compared in order to insure the desired calibration tolerance. Utilizing the latest available 13 weeks of SCADA data available on May 21, 2015, the calibration goals presented in Table 7-1 were calculated as a series of KPIs. No calibration points for the boundary conditions fell outside of the acceptable tolerance range.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 234 of 304

Table 7-1- Potable and Recycled Water Hydraulic Model Hydraulic Model Calibration Key Performance Indicators Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Name KPI Goal Definition

Suction Side Pressure at Pump Station (Pmeasured - PModel)/Pmeasured -.05< KPI < 0.05

Discharge Side Pressure at Pump Station (Pmeasured - PModel)/Pmeasured -.05< KPI < 0.05

Discharge Side Pressure at Well (Pmeasured - PModel)/Pmeasured -.05< KPI < 0.05

Suction Side Pressure at Pressure Reducing Station (Pmeasured - PModel)/Pmeasured -.05< KPI < 0.05

Discharge Side Pressure at Pressure Reducing Station (Pmeasured - PModel)/Pmeasured -.05< KPI < 0.05

Flow Rate at Pump Station (Qmeasured - QModel)/Qmeasured -.05< KPI < 0.05

Flow Rate at Well (Qmeasured - QModel)/Qmeasured -.05< KPI < 0.05

Flow Rate at Pressure Reducing Station (Qmeasured - QModel)/Qmeasured -.05< KPI < 0.05

Flow Rate at MSWDC Water Supply Turnout (Qmeasured - QModel)/Qmeasured -.05< KPI < 0.05

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 235 of 304

CHAPTER 8. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS

The following four (4) Steady-State and two (2) Extended Period Simulation (EPS) scenarios were utilized to analyze existing and build-out potable water demands:  Average Day Demands (Steady-State)  Maximum Day Demands (Steady-State)  Peak Hour Demands (Steady-State)  Maximum Day Demands plus Fire Flow (Steady-State)  1-Month Average Day Extended Period Simulation (EPS)  72-hour Maximum Day Extended Period Simulation (EPS)

8.1 EXISTING SYSTEM The District’s existing distribution system has sufficient storage, pumping and conveyance. There are 13 hydrants which have static pressures below 20 psi at all times, and there are an additional 16 hydrants which supply between 500 gpm and 1,000 gpm with residual pressures of 20 psi. All other District hydrants can provide 1,000 gpm or more with residual pressures above 20 psi. As previously identified in the Pump Station Booster Disinfection Project, modeling results confirmed the need for booster disinfection on the west side of the system. Disinfection improvements at Ace Bowen Pump Station and Senga Doherty are recommended.

8.1.1 Average Day Demand There are 1,585 junctions in the hydraulic model which have water demands, and achieve maximum pressures above 150 psi. These junctions, and the resulting pressures, are summarized in Table E-1 of Appendix E – Results of the Existing Potable Water Hydraulic Analysis. The locations of these junctions are illustrated in Appendix F –Existing Potable Water Hydraulic Analysis Map. Table 8-1 identifies the groundwater wells that were simulated as active during this scenario, and which provide approximately 53.2 cfs to the potable water distribution system. An additional 40 cfs of imported, treated water is simulated as supplied via the MWDSC turn-outs.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 236 of 304

8.1.2 Maximum Day Demand There are 20 junctions in the hydraulic model which have water demands, and maintain minimum pressures below 40 psi. As presented in Table A-2 of Appendix A, the areas of low pressure are attributed to geographic constraints, as there is an insufficient elevation difference between the meter locations and the high water levels of each pressure zone. The locations of these junctions are illustrated in the Appendix B – Existing Potable Water Facilities Map. Table 8-5 identifies the groundwater wells that were simulated as active during this scenario, and which provide approximately 92.7 cfs to the potable water distribution system. An additional 105 cfs of imported, treated water is simulated as supplied via the MWDSC turn-outs.

Table 8-1 - Potable Well Operation Status During Existing Hydraulic Simulations Simulated as Operational During Well Number 1-Month Average Average Day Steady- Maximum Day and Peak Day EPS Scenario State Scenarios Hour Scenarios Well 101 No No Yes Well 102 No No No Well 106 No No Yes Well 108 No No Yes Well 109 Yes Yes Yes Well 113 Yes Yes Yes Well 118 No Yes Yes Well 119 No No Yes Well 120 No No Yes Well 121 No No No Well 122 No No Yes Well 123 No No Yes Well 124 Yes Yes Yes Well 125 No No No Well 126 No No Yes Well 128 No No No Well 129 No No No Well 130 No No Yes Well 131 No No Yes Well 132 Yes Yes Yes Well 133 No No Yes Well 135 No No No Well 138 Yes Yes Yes Well 139 Yes Yes Yes

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 237 of 304

Table 8-1 - Potable Well Operation Status During Existing Hydraulic Simulations Simulated as Operational During Well Number 1-Month Average Average Day Steady- Maximum Day and Peak Day EPS Scenario State Scenarios Hour Scenarios Well 140 No Yes Yes Well 141 Yes Yes Yes Well 143 No Yes Yes Well 144 No No Yes Well 145 No No Yes Well 146 No No No Well 149 Yes Yes Yes Well 151 No No Yes Well 152 Yes Yes Yes Well 153 Yes Yes Yes Well 154 Yes Yes Yes Well 156 Yes Yes Yes Well 157 Yes Yes Yes Well 158 Yes Yes Yes Well 164 No No No Well 201 No No No Well 203 No No Yes Well 205 Yes Yes Yes Well 207 No No No Well 208 No No No Well 209 No No No Well 210 Yes Yes Yes Well 211 No No Yes Well 215 No No No Well 216 No No No Well 217 Yes Yes Yes Well 231 No No No Well 232 Yes Yes Yes Well 233 Yes Yes Yes Well 234 Yes Yes Yes Well 235 Yes Yes Yes Well 301 No No No Well 302 No No No Well 309 Yes Yes Yes

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 238 of 304

8.1.3 Peak Hour Demand There are no junctions in the hydraulic model which have water demands with pressures outside the range of 40 psi to 150 psi, that were not previously identified in the Average Day and Maximum Day Steady-State Simulations. Table 8-1 indicates identifies the groundwater wells that were simulated as active during this scenario, and which provide approximately 92.7 cfs to the potable water distribution system. An additional 105 cfs of imported, treated water is simulated as supplied via the MWDSC turn-outs.

8.1.4 Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow There are 13 hydrants which have static pressures below 20 psi at all times, and there are an additional 16 hydrants which supply between 500 gpm and 1,000 gpm with residual pressures of 20 psi. All other District hydrants can provide 1,000 gpm or more with residual pressures above 20 psi. The locations of these hydrants are illustrated in the Appendix F – Map of the Existing Potable Water System Hydraulic Analysis. Table 8-1 indicates identifies the groundwater wells that were simulated as active during this scenario, and which provide approximately 92.7 cfs to the potable water distribution system. An additional 105 cfs of imported, treated water is simulated as supplied via the MWDSC turn-outs.

8.1.5 4-Week Average Day Demand Table 8-1 identifies the groundwater wells that were simulated as active during this scenario, and which provide approximately 53.2 cfs to the potable water distribution system. An additional 40 cfs of imported, treated water is simulated as supplied via the MWDSC turn-outs. While this scenario will be utilized in the future by the District to evaluate system water quality, the District recently commissioned the Pump Station Booster Disinfection Project, completed in October 2014, to identify necessary infrastructure.

As presented on pages ES-3 and ES-4 of the Pump Station Booster Disinfection Project, “Water quality problems are more likely to occur when roughly equal amounts of free chlorine and chloramine are present, since mixing a chloraminated water with a free-chlorinated water shifts the chlorine-to-ammonia ratio. This can result in oxidation of the chloramine by the excess free chlorine and a loss of disinfectant residual. The source tracing/blending analysis was used to determine where blends occur, and identify areas where blends are more likely to cause water quality problems.

“Modeling results confirmed the need for booster disinfection on the west side of the system. . . This is consistent with the water quality data reviewed for this study and with the District’s experience. The analysis also found that even with future

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 239 of 304

expansion of the Upper VDC Recharge/Recovery Facility, which has chloramination facilities, very little water from that facility reaches the west side of the system, indicating that booster chlorination is needed for the west side. Future plans to improve chloraminated water supplied from the Upper VDC Recharge/Recovery Facility will improve chloraminated water supply to the east side of the system, to mitigate water age issues with maintaining disinfection residual. Construction of the booster disinfection stations will provide Operations with more flexibility and less operational complexity to maintain disinfect residual in the west side of the distribution system.

“Improvements at Ace Bowen Pump Station (PS) and Senga Doherty PS are recommended to be constructed first, followed by Joaquin Ranch. With the implementation of improvements at Ace Bowen PS and Senga Doherty PS, it may be possible to reduce chloramination at the Tenaja PS, which will result in energy and chemical cost savings at that facility. The need for Joaquin Ranch disinfection improvements will be determined after the District gains operational experience with Ace Bowen and Senga Doherty PS disinfection improvements. The analysis found that the Rancho California PS disinfection facility provides less benefit than the other proposed stations.”

8.1.6 72-Hour Maximum Day Table 8-1 indicates the groundwater wells which are simulated as active during this scenario, and which provide approximately 92.7 cfs. An additional 105 cfs of imported, treated water is simulated as supplied via the MWDSC turn-outs to accommodate the water demands presented in Table 8-2. Based on the existing pumping analysis presented in Table 8-3, all District pump stations have sufficient pumping capacity in the existing time increment. Figure 8-1 illustrates the pumping surplus available in each zone, as well as the existing Maximum Day Demands for each pressure zone.

As discussed Chapter 6, reservoir storage for each pressure zone is sufficient to provide for 63.75% of maximum demands plus the required fire flow. Fire flow storage requirements are based upon the maximum fire flow requirement within each pressure zone, based upon land use classifications. Table 8-4 presents the storage analysis for the District’s Potable Water Distribution System, and indicates that there is sufficient storage in each pressure zone. Figure 8-2 illustrates the storage surplus available in each zone. .

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 240 of 304

Table 8-2 - Average and Maximum Day Existing Potable Water Demands Percent of Division Zone ADD (gpd) ADD (cfs) MDD (mgd) MDD (cfs) MDD (gpm) Build-out (%) Combined 1,305 7,798,000 12.07 17.16 26.55 11,914 45%

1,380 7,775,000 12.03 17.11 26.47 11,878 79%

1,485 10,099,000 15.63 22.22 34.38 15,429 88%

1,550 817,000 1.26 1.80 2.78 1,248 38%

1,610 2,922,000 4.52 6.43 9.95 4,464 54% Rancho 1,790 1,969,000 3.05 4.33 6.70 3,008 53%

1,880 196,000 0.30 0.43 0.67 299 81%

2,070 1,542,000 2.39 3.39 5.25 2,356 70%

2,350 160,000 0.25 0.35 0.54 244 23%

1,060 9,000 0.01 0.02 0.03 14 83%

1,160 207,000 0.32 0.46 0.70 316 42%

1,440 5,449,000 8.43 11.99 18.55 8,325 78%

1,500 3,373,000 5.22 7.42 11.48 5,153 72%

1,670 8,997,000 13.92 19.79 30.63 13,745 75%

1,740 50,000 0.08 0.11 0.17 76 91%

1,990 3,047,000 4.71 6.70 10.37 4,655 62%

Santa Rosa 2,150 30,000 0.05 0.07 0.10 46 59%

2,160 83,000 0.13 0.18 0.28 127 20%

2,220 1,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 1%

2,260 332,000 0.51 0.73 1.13 507 32%

2,300 1,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0%

2,550 1,610,000 2.49 3.54 5.48 2,460 23%

2,825 5,000 0.01 0.01 0.02 8 0%

2,860 31,000 0.05 0.07 0.11 47 4%

TOTAL 56,503,000 87.43 124.31 192.34 86,324 61%

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 241 of 304

1380 89% 10,543 Well 101 947 1,100 ------947

Well 106 625 700 ------625 Well 108 681 800 ------681 Well 109 495 680 ------495 Well 118 945 950 ------945

Well 119 2,934 2,200 ------2,934

Well 120 1,347 1,500 ------1,347 1485 100% 15,421 Well 122 2,617 2,000 ------2,617 Well 123 383 500 ------383

Well 124 470 450 ------450

Well 125 - 900 ------Well 126 1,185 1,150 ------1,150 Well 128 - 2,000 ------Well 130 913 2,200 ------913 Combined 1305 11,914 84,571 128,309 43,738 1610 100% 4,464 Well 131 1,080 1,370 ------1,080 Well 132 851 1,050 ------851 Well 133 779 700 ------779 Well 138 1,830 1,996 ------1,830

Well 141 429 580 ------429

Well 143 597 960 ------597 Well 144 520 750 ------520 1790 97% 2,928 Well 145 712 830 ------712 Well 151 650 600 ------650

Well 152 2,595 2,000 ------2,595 Well 153 1,786 2,000 ------1,786 Well 154 403 750 ------403 1060, 1160, 1550, Well 156 613 800 ------613 1880, 2070, 2350, Well 157 1,655 2,000 ------1,655 1440, 1500, 1570, 1740, 1990, 2150, 100% 39,301 Well 158 1,090 1,800 ------1,090 2160, 2220, 2260, Well 205 1,302 1,300 ------1,302 2300, 2550, 2825 Well 211 1,880 1,600 ------1,880 and 2860 Well 217 660 750 ------660

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 242 of 304

Table 8-3 - Existing Potable Water System Pumping Analysis Percentage Flow Required Max Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 4 Pump 5 Pump 6 Pump 7 Available of Flow Through Rated Edison Rated Day Design Design Design Design Design Design Design Zone Pumping Discharge Flow Through Through Max Capacity Flow Capacity Division Demand Pumping Source Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Rated Surplus Zone Zone(s) Demands Day to Supply Test of Source in Zone Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Capacity (gpm) Allocated to Demand Zone (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) Pumps (gpm) (gpm) Combined Well 232 585 1,040 ------585 Cont. Well 235 990 1,200 ------990 Well 309 1,811 2,000 ------1,811 Meadowview PS6 1,160 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 - 7,160 Norma Marshall PS1 2,850 2,850 2,850 2,850 2,850 2,850 - 14,250 1485 15% 2,268 Winchester PS6 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 - 10,600 Well 139 800 1,000 ------800 Well 140 998 800 ------998 Well 149 328 580 ------328 1380 11,886 1610 100% 4,464 22,735 37,987 15,252 Well 164 - 1,100 ------1,100 Well 203 516 500 ------516 Well 210 567 709 ------567 1790, 1880, 2070 Well 216 - 600 ------70% 4,117 and 2350 Well 233 1,378 1,960 ------1,378 Well 234 290 900 ------290 Rancho - Butterfield Stage 4,333 2,600 4,200 2,600 4,000 4,000 - 17,400 1485 15,421 - - 15,421 Rancho California 2 1,475 1,600 1,525 - - - - 3,000 20,400 4,979 - Well 129 - 1,000 ------1550 1,248 - - 0 1,248 Alvarez 1,250 1,250 1,250 - - - - 2,500 2,500 1,252 Anza 1,600 1,500 1,500 1,700 - - - 4,600 1790, 1880, 2070 1610 4,464 70% 4,117 8,581 Rancho California 1 1,811 1,811 1,811 1,811 1,811 1,811 - 9,055 13,655 5,074 and 2350 Well 215 - 600 ------Buck Mesa 1,200 1,200 1,200 2,200 2,200 1,950 1,950 9,700 1880, 2070 and 1790 3,008 100% 2,900 5,908 Los Caballos 1,550 2,300 2,300 - - - - 3,850 13,919 8,011 2350 Well 113 369 520 ------369 1880 299 - - 0 ------2070 2,356 1880 and 2350 100% 544 2,900 De Portola 1,500 1,500 1,320 1,720 1,720 - - 6,040 6,040 3,140 2350 244 - - 0 244 Calle Breve 500 500 700 500 - - - 1,500 1,500 1,256 Ace Bowen 3 3,500 2,600 - - - - - 6,100 1440 8,325 1060 and 1160 - 330 8,655 12,100 3,445 Santa Ace Bowen 4 6,000 6,000 - - - - - 6,000 Rosa 2220, 2300, 2550, 18% 458 Cal Oaks 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,680 1,680 1,680 - 7,660 1500 5,153 2825 and 2860 5,657 13,260 7,603 1740 and 2160 23% 46 Joaquin Ranch 2,800 2,800 2,800 - - - - 5,600 1990, 2150 and 1670 13,745 100% 5,208 21,170 Ace Bowen 1 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,000 - - 9,200 44,350 23,180 2260

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 243 of 304

Del Oro 2,180 1,200 1,200 1,200 - - - 3,600 1990 4,655 2,150 100% 46 4,701 Via Santa Rosa 1,360 1,360 1,360 - - - - 2,720 8,720 4,019 Via Vaquero 1,200 1,200 1,200 - - - - 2,400 2150* 46 - - - 69 Freeman 500 500 200 200 - - - 200 200 131 2220, 2300, 2550, Santa 78% 1,959 Bear Creek 700 600 1,120 - - - - 1,300 2160 127 2825 and 2860 2,162 5,700 3,538 Rosa 1740 100% 76 De Luz 2,000 2,000 1,200 1,200 - - - 4,400 Cont. 2220 2 - - 0 ------2220, 2300, 2550, 2260 507 22% 559 1,066 Carancho 1,500 1,450 - - - - - 1,450 1,450 384 2825 and 2860 2300 2 - - 0 ------2220, 2300, 2825 Tenaja 2,100 2,100 2,100 - - - - 2,100 2550 2,460 100% 58 2,518 6,520 4,002 and 2860 Baldaray 1,400 1,460 1,560 1,560 - - - 4,420 2825 8 - - 0 8 Avocado Mesa 950 980 - - - - - 950 950 942 2860 47 - - 0 47 Avenida Escala 500 500 500 - - - - 1,000 1,000 953 * - The rated capacity of a hydropneumatic zone is required to supply the peak hour demand. High flow fire pumps are not included in determining the rated capacity of a hydropneumatic booster station.

Figure 8-1 – Existing Potable Water Pumping

1,500 gpm / 244 gpm / 1,256 gpm

2825 1,000 gpm / 47 gpm / 953 gpm 244 gpm 950 gpm / 8 gpm / 942 gpm Legend 47 gpm XX gpm / XX gpm / XX gpm 8 gpm 6,040 gpm / 2,900 gpm / 3,140 gpm XX gpm – Rated Pumping Capacity Available to Zone 2,356 gpm XX gpm – Required Pumping Capacity to Zone 1,500 gpm 6,520 gpm / 2,518 gpm / 4,002 gpm XX gpm – Pumping Surplus Available to Zone XX gpm – Pressure Zone Maximum Day Demand 950 gpm 1,000 gpm 2,460 gpm 13,119 gpm / 5,908 gpm / 8,011 gpm XX gpm – Rated Pumping Capacity of Pump Station or MWDSC Turnout 3,008 gpm 6,040 gpm XX gpm – Well Pump SCE Test Results (gpm) 1,450 gpm / 1,066 gpm / 384 gpm

2150 507 gpm 2,100 gpm 5,700 gpm / 2,162 gpm / 3,538 gpm 369 gpm 46 gpm 4,420 gpm 13,655 gpm / 8,581 gpm / 5,074 gpm 127 gpm 8,900 gpm 8,720 gpm / 4,701 gpm / 4,019 gpm 4,464 gpm 2,500 gpm / 1,248 gpm / 1,252 gpm

4,655 gpm 1,248 gpm 900 gpm

3,600 gpm 4,400 gpm 20,400 gpm / 15,421 gpm / 4,979 gpm

44,350 gpm / 21,170 gpm / 23,180 gpm 15,421 gpm

13,745 gpm 2,720 gpm 2,400 gpm Off‐Line 9,055 gpm 1,450 gpm Off‐Line 37,987 gpm / 22,735 gpm / 15,252 gpm 13,260 gpm / 5,657 gpm / 7,603 gpm 11,886 gpm 12,100 gpm / 8,655 gpm / 3,445 gpm 5,153 gpm 4,600 gpm 3,000 gpm 1,300 gpm 164 8,325 gpm 0 gpm 9,200 gpm 7,6600 1380 Zone Wells = 5,977 gpm

128,309 gpm / 84,571 gpm / 43,738 gpm

11,914 gpm 6,100 gpm 6,000 gpm 14,000 gpm 21,150 gpm 5,600 gpm 10,600 gpm 7,160 gpm 14,250 gpm 17,400 gpm 2,500 gpm 3,850 gpm 1305 Zone Wells = 36,305 gpm Turnouts EM‐13 and EM‐20 = 62,832 gpm Turnouts WR‐26/28 = 29,172 gpm

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 245 of 304

Table 8-4 - Existing Potable Water Storage Analysis Operational In-District Max Day Demand Fire Flow Hours of Max Day Storage Emergency Required Total Storage Storage Surplus Currently Held in Division Zone Includes Flow Fire Flow Storage in Reservoir Available in 18.75% of 45% of MDD Duration (MG) Operational Storage MGD Additional Rate Storage Zone (MG) Zone (MG) MDD (MG) (MG) (hours) (Hours) Zones (gpm) (MG) Norma Marshall Res 4.81

Senga Doherty Res 10.38 Combined 1305 17.16 - 3.22 7.72 5,000 4 1.20 12.14 10.57 25.1 Ace Bowen Res 1 2.71

Ace Bowen Res 2 4.81

Anza 1 Res 2.18

Anza 2 Res 3.00 1380 17.12 - 3.21 7.70 5,000 4 1.20 12.11 5.75 20.5 General Kearny Res 7.70

Winchester Res 1 4.98

Calle Contento Res 1 2.24

Calle Contento Res 2 3.74

1485 22.21 - 4.16 9.99 3,000 3 0.54 14.70 El Chimisal Res 1 6.32 7.45 18.3

El Chimisal Res 2 6.32

Stan Kemp Res 3.53

Rancho Alvarez Res 1 1.11 1550 1.80 - 0.34 0.81 1,500 2 0.18 1.33 2.11 38.5 El Chimisal Res 3 2.32

Buck Mesa Res 1 1.63 1610 6.43 - 1.21 2.89 1,500 2 0.18 4.28 2.16 19.0 Buck Mesa Res 2 4.81

De Portola Res 1 2.18

1790 4.33 - 0.81 1.95 1,500 2 0.18 2.94 De Portola Res 2 3.18 6.25 40.5

Tucalota Res 3.84

Glenoaks Res 1 2.27 2070 3.82 1880 0.72 1.72 1,500 2 0.18 2.62 1.90 22.3 Glenoaks Res 2 2.24

2350 0.35 - 0.07 0.16 1,500 2 0.18 0.40 Calaveras Res 1 0.53 0.13 27.3

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 246 of 304

1060 and El Prado Res 1 5.04 1440 12.46 2.34 5.61 1,500 2 0.18 8.13 3.28 16.4 1160 El Prado Res 2 6.37

Antelope Res 5.56 1500 7.42 - 1.39 3.34 3,000 3 0.54 5.27 2.56 19.8 Bear Creek Res 2.27

Via Vaquero Res 5.57

Carancho Res 5.26 1670 19.79 - 3.71 8.91 1,500 2 0.18 12.80 4.26 16.8 De Luz Res 1 3.11 Santa Rosa De Luz Res 2 3.11 Freeman Res 1 3.09 1990 6.77 2150 1.27 3.05 1,500 2 0.18 4.50 3.74 24.0 Freeman Res 2 5.15

2160 0.29 1740 0.05 0.13 1,500 2 0.18 0.37 Baldaray Res 2.27 1.91 146.0

2260 0.73 - 0.14 0.33 1,500 2 0.18 0.65 Tenaja Res 2.20 1.56 58.5

2220 and Avocado Mesa Res 5.93 2550 3.55 0.66 1.60 1,500 2 0.18 2.44 4.50 35.6 2300 La Cresta Res 1.00

2825 0.01 - 0.00 0.00 1,500 2 0.18 0.19 Redondo Mesa Res 0.54 0.35 829.1

2860 0.07 - 0.01 0.03 1,500 2 0.18 0.22 Calle Paramo Res 1.06 0.83 292.1

Figure 8-2 – Existing Potable Water Storage Summary

0.53 MG / 0.40 MG / 0.13 MG

2825 1.06 MG / 0.22 MG / 0.83 MG 0.53 MG 0.54 MG / .019 MG / 0.35 MG 1.06 MG Legend 4.51 MG / 2.62 MG / 1.90 MG 0.54 MG XX MG / XX MG / XX MG

2.27 MG 2.24 MG XX MG ‐ Total Nominal Storage Available 6.93 MG / 2.44 MG / 4.50 MG in Pressure Zone XX MG – Required Storage in Pressure Zone 5.93 MG 1.00 MG XX MG – Storage Surplus Available in Pressure Zone 9.20 MG / 2.94 MG / 6.25 MG XX MG ‐ Total Nominal Storage in Storage Tank 2.18 MG 3.18 MG 3.84 MG

2.20 MG / 0.65 MG / 1.56 MG

2150 2.20 MG 2.27 MG / 0.37 MG / 1.91 MG 6.44 MG / 4.28 MG / 2.16 MG 2.27 MG 8.24 MG / 4.50 MG / 3.74 MG 1.63 MG 4.81 MG 3.43 MG / 1.33 MG / 2.11 MG

3.09 MG 5.15 MG 1.11 MG 2.32 MG

22.15 MG / 14.70 MG / 7.45 MG

17.05 MG / 12.80 MG / 4.26 MG 2.24 MG 3.74 MG 6.32 MG 6.32 MG 3.53 MG

3.11 MG 3.11 MG 5.26 MG 5.57 MG

17.86 MG / 12.11 MG / 5.75 MG 7.83 MG / 5.27 MG / 2.56 MG 7.70 MG 2.18 MG 3.00 MG 4.98 MG 11.41 MG / 8.13 MG / 3.28 MG 2.27 MG 5.56 MG

164 5.04 MG 6.37 MG

22.71 MG / 12.14 MG / 10.57 MG

2.71 MG 4.81 MG 4.81 MG 10.38 MG

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 248 of 304

8.2 BUILD-OUT SYSTEM The District’s build-out distribution system requires storage, pumping and conveyance improvements. Recommended improvements are presented in Tables 8-10 through 8-13, and illustrated in Appendix G – Map of Capital Improvement Projects. As presented in Table 8-16, there are several pipelines which are identified to be upsized at the end of their useful life as part of the District’s Capital Replacement Program. A summary of all recommendations includes:

 Groundwater Capital Improvements

o Increase VDC Production by ~15 cfs up to 32.5 cfs, includes new wells, pipelines, a chlorine contact tank and central disinfection in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

o Increase VDC and Pauba Production by 16 cfs, includes new wells and pipelines in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

 Pumping Capital Improvements

o New Consolidated 1305/1380 PS with Near-term Firm Capacity of 14,600 gpm (32.5 cfs) and Build-Out Firm Capacity of 19,000 gpm (42 cfs); 5,250 gpm to 1380 (Combined)

o Increase De Luz PS Firm Capacity by 2,965 gpm to 7,365 gpm to the 2160 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Increase Carancho PS Firm Capacity by 6,425 gpm to 7,875 gpm to the 2260 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Baldaray PS Relocation and Increase Firm Capacity by 3,515 gpm to 7,935 gpm to the 2550 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Increase Firm Capacity of Tenaja by 2,100 gpm to 6,300 gpm (One additional pump) to the 2550 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Increase Avocado Mesa PS Firm Capacity by 865 gpm to 1,615 gpm to the 2825 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Increase Avenida Escala PS Firm Capacity by 170 gpm to 1,170 gpm to the 2860 Zone (Santa Rosa)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 249 of 304

o Increase Alvarez PS Firm Capacity by 610 gpm to 3,110 gpm to the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

o Increase Anza PS Firm Capacity by at least 1,705 gpm to a near-term rated capacity of 6,315 gpm to the 1610 Zone, and a build-out rated capacity of 8,420 gpm (Rancho)

 Storage Capital Improvements

o 4.81 MG Reservoir (Murrieta) in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

o 3.75 MG Reservoir (Avocado Mesa No. 2) in the 2550 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Additional 1.12 MG of Storage Needed in the 2825 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Additional 0.19 MG of Storage Needed in the 2860 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o 4.81 MG Reservoir (Buck Mesa No. 3) in the 1610 Zone (Rancho)

o 1.30 MG Reservoir (Calaveras No. 2) in the 2350 Zone (Rancho)

o Create New 2600 Hydropneumatic Zone (Rancho)

 Pipeline Capital Improvements

o 2,500 ft of 30-inch pipeline in Lemon from Hayes to proposed Murrieta Reservoir in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

o Approximately 250 ft of 36-inch Diameter Pipeline to convey flow from 1305/1380 Consolidated PS to 1305 Pressure Zone in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

o 8,500 ft of 24-inch pipeline to Pechanga in the 1305 Zone (Combined)

o 9,800 ft of 24-inch pipeline in Vineyard Parkway in the 1500 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o 3,400 ft of 24-inch pipeline parallel to exist 16-inch in Clinton Keith abandon existing 16-inch in the 1500 Zone (Santa Rosa)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 250 of 304

o 4,500 ft of 24-inch pipeline in El Calamar b/w Carancho PS and Via Escalon; and in Via Escalon from El Calamar to existing 24" in the 2260 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o 10,750 ft of 30-inch pipeline in De Portola Rd from Pauba Rd to Anza Rd in the 1380 Zone (Rancho)

o Approximately 250 ft of 30-inch Diameter Pipeline to convey flow from 1305/1380 Consolidated PS to 1380 Pressure Zone in the 1380 Zone (Rancho)

o 5,400 ft of 16-inch pipeline in Highway 79 in the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

o 1,400 ft of 16-inch in easements from Highway 79 to Los Corralitos in the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

o 2,300 ft of 16-inch pipeline in Los Corralitos in the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

o 3,300 ft of 16-inch pipeline in Pauba in the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

o 5,500 ft of 24-inch in Anza Rd from Calle Linda to Monte Verde Rd in the 1550 Zone (Rancho)

 Pipeline Capital Replacements

o Replace 2,400 ft of 8-inch Diameter Pipeline with 12-inch Diameter Pipeline to Minimize Pressure Loss in the 1440 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Replace 44,000 ft of Pipeline with 48-inch Diameter Pipeline to Increase Conveyance in 1670 Zone in the 1670 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Replace 1,600 ft of 20-inch Diameter Pipeline with 30-inch Diameter Pipeline to Minimize Energy Loss at Baldaray PS in the 2550 Zone (Santa Rosa)

o Replace 2,750 ft of 20-inch Diameter Pipeline with 24-inch Diameter Pipeline to Increase Conveyance in 1380 Zone in the 1380 Zone (Rancho)

o Replace 7,500 ft of 16-inch Diameter Pipeline with 24-inch Diameter Pipeline to Increase Conveyance in 2070 Zone in the 2070 Zone (Rancho)

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 251 of 304

8.2.1 Average Day Demand No additional high pressure junctions were identified, that were not previously identified in the existing hydraulic analysis, and presented in Appendix E. Groundwater wells were simulated as providing approximately 82 cfs. An additional 65 cfs of imported, treated water is simulated as supplied via the MWDSC turn-outs.

8.2.2 Maximum Day Demand No additional low pressure junctions were identified, that were not previously identified in the existing hydraulic analysis, and presented in Appendix E. Groundwater wells were simulated as providing approximately 129 cfs. An additional 195 cfs of imported, treated water is simulated as supplied via the MWDSC turn-outs.

8.2.3 Peak Hour Demand No additional low or high pressure junctions were identified, that were not previously identified in the existing hydraulic analysis, and presented in Appendix E. Groundwater wells were simulated as providing approximately 129 cfs. An additional 195 cfs of imported, treated water is simulated as supplied via the MWDSC turn-outs.

8.2.4 Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow

Similar to the existing hydraulic analysis, there are 13 hydrants which have static pressures below 20 psi at all times, and there are an additional 16 hydrants which supply between 500 gpm and 1,000 gpm with residual pressures of 20 psi. All other District hydrants can provide 1,000 gpm or more with residual pressures above 20 psi. Groundwater wells were simulated as providing approximately 129 cfs. An additional 195 cfs of imported, treated water is simulated as supplied via the MWDSC turn-outs.

8.2.5 4-Week Average Day Demand

While this 28 Average Day EPS scenario will be utilized in the future by the District to evaluate system water quality, the District recently commissioned the Pump Station Booster Disinfection Project, completed in October 2014, to identify necessary build-out improvements motivated by water quality. As presented in the Pump Station Booster Disinfection Project, build-out projects will be identified once the results of implementing the improvements at Ace Bowen PS and Senga Doherty PS have been completed. Accordingly, disinfection improvements at Joaquin Ranch PS may be necessary prior to build-out.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 252 of 304

As presented on pages ES-3 and ES-4 of the Pump Station Booster Disinfection Project, ““With the implementation of improvements at Ace Bowen PS and Senga Doherty PS, it may be possible to reduce chloramination at the Tenaja PS, which will result in energy and chemical cost savings at that facility. The need for Joaquin Ranch disinfection improvements will be determined after the District gains operational experience with Ace Bowen and Senga Doherty PS disinfection improvements. The analysis found that the Rancho California PS disinfection facility provides less benefit than the other proposed stations.”

8.2.6 72-Hour Maximum Day Demand

Based on the build-out pumping analysis presented in Table 8-14, all District pump stations will have sufficient pumping capacity in the build-out time increment after completing the pumping improvements identified in Table 8-10. Well pump production was estimated based on design points of existing pumps. Production for future wells 236, 237, 238, 239 and 240 were estimated as 80% of the existing wells that will be destroyed and/or replaced (e.g. Well 210, 215, 216, 231 and 205 respectively). Figure 8-3 illustrates the pumping surplus available in each zone, as well as the build-out Maximum Day Demands for each pressure zone.

As discussed in Technical Memorandum – Potable and Recycled Water Design Criteria, reservoir storage for each pressure zone is sufficient to provide for 63.75% of maximum demands plus the required fire flow. Fire flow storage requirements are based upon the maximum fire flow requirement within each pressure zone, based upon land use classifications. All pressure zones will have sufficient storage capacity in the build-out time increment after completing the storage improvements identified in Table 8-11. Figure 8-4 illustrates the storage surplus available in each zone.

Table 8-12 summarizes the recommended build-out pipeline improvements, required to increase conveyance throughout the distribution system. Groundwater wells were simulated as providing approximately 129 cfs. An additional 195 cfs of imported, treated water is simulated as supplied via the MWDSC turn-outs to accommodate the water demands presented in Table 8-9. Table 8-13 summarizes the groundwater well improvements required to satisfy the increased build-out water demands.

There are several pipelines which are identified to be upsized at the end of their useful life as part of the District’s Capital Replacement Program, and are not included in the Capital Improvement Program. These pipelines have been summarized in Table 8-16 as part of the District’s Capital Replacement Program.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 253 of 304

Table 8-9 - Average and Maximum Day Build-Out Potable Water Demands Division Zone ADD (gpd) ADD (mgd) ADD (cfs) MDD (mgd) MDD (cfs) Combined 1,305 17,586,118 17.59 27.21 37.82 58.51 0000 (Vail Lake) 1,559,316 1.56 2.41 3.43 5.31 1,380 9,890,009 9.89 15.30 21.76 33.67 1,485 11,703,651 11.70 18.11 25.75 39.84 1,550 1,869,680 1.87 2.89 4.11 6.36 1,610 5,416,401 5.42 8.38 11.92 18.44 1610R 14,411 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 Rancho 1,635 162,680 0.16 0.25 0.36 0.55 1,790 3,718,104 3.72 5.75 8.18 12.66 1,880 240,715 0.24 0.37 0.53 0.82 2,070 2,214,998 2.21 3.43 4.87 7.54 2,350 689,178 0.69 1.07 1.52 2.35 2,600 305,841 0.31 0.47 0.67 1.04 1,060 10,896 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 1,160 489,133 0.49 0.76 1.08 1.67 1,440 6,979,307 6.98 10.80 15.35 23.76 1,500 4,671,510 4.67 7.23 10.28 15.90 1,670 12,062,054 12.06 18.66 26.54 41.06 1,740 54,927 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.19 1,990 4,881,778 4.88 7.55 10.74 16.62 2,150 50,496 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.17 Santa Rosa 2,160 422,312 0.42 0.65 0.93 1.44 2,220 123,450 0.12 0.19 0.27 0.42 2,260 1,028,012 1.03 1.59 2.26 3.50 2,300 248,862 0.25 0.39 0.55 0.85 2,550 7,121,115 7.12 11.02 15.67 24.24 2,825 1,022,146 1.02 1.58 2.25 3.48 2,860 761,750 0.76 1.18 1.68 2.59 2,995 32,348 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 TOTAL 95,331,198 95.33 147.51 208.85 323.17

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 254 of 304

Table 8-10 - Recommended Pump Station Improvements Division Zone Project Number 2005 WFMP Project Number Description

New Consolidated 1305/1380 PS with Near-term Firm Capacity of 14,600 gpm (32.5 cfs) and Build- Combined 1305/1380 VDC-PS-1 1380-105 Out Firm Capacity of 19,000 gpm (42 cfs); 5,250 gpm to 1380

1670 1670-PS-1 - Disinfection Improvements at Ace Bowen No.1 and No. 2 Pump Stations

1670 1670-PS-2 - Disinfection Improvements Senga Doherty Pump Station

2160 2160-PS-1 - Increase De Luz PS Firm Capacity by 2,965 gpm to 7,365 gpm

2260 2260-PS-1 2260-1 Increase Carancho PS Firm Capacity by 6,425 gpm to 7,875 gpm Santa Rosa 2550 2550-PS-1 2550-6 Baldaray PS Relocation and Increase Firm Capacity by 3,515 gpm to 7,935 gpm

2550 2550-PS-2 2550-1 Increase Firm Capacity of Tenaja by 2,100 gpm to 6,300 gpm (One additional pump)

2825 2825-PS-1 2850-100 Increase Avocado Mesa PS Firm Capacity by 870 gpm to 1,620 gpm

2860 2860-PS-1 - Increase Avenida Escala PS Firm Capacity by 170 gpm to 1,170 gpm

1550 1550-PS-1 - Increase Alvarez PS Firm Capacity by 610 gpm to 3,110 gpm Rancho Increase Anza PS Firm Capacity by at least 1,705 gpm to a near-term rated capacity of 6,315 1610 1610-PS-1 1610-6 gpm, and a build-out rated capacity of 8,420 gpm

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 255 of 304

Table 8-11 - Recommended Storage Improvements Division Zone Project Number 2005 WFMP Project Number Description

Combined 1305 1305-RES-1 1305-18 4.81 MG Reservoir (Murrieta)

2550 2550-RES-1 2550-100 3.75 MG Reservoir (Avocado Mesa No. 2)

Santa Rosa 2825 2825-RES-1 2850-101 Additional 1.12 MG of Storage Needed

2860 2860-RES-1 - Additional 0.19 MG of Storage Needed

1610 1610-RES-1 1610-4 4.81 MG Reservoir (Buck Mesa No. 3)

Rancho 2350 2350-RES-1 2350-2 1.30 MG Reservoir (Calaveras No. 2)

2600 2600-RES-1 2600-1, -2, -3 Create New 2600 Hydropneumatic Zone

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 256 of 304

Table 8-12 - Recommended Pipeline Improvements Division Zone Project Number 2005 WFMP Project Number Description

1305 1305-PIPE-1 1305-17 2,500 ft of 30-inch pipeline in Lemon from Hayes to proposed Murrieta Reservoir Combined 1305 1305-PIPE-2 - Approximately 250 ft of 36-inch Diameter Pipeline to convey flow from 1305/1380 Consolidated PS to 1305 Pressure Zone

1500 1500-PIPE-1 1500W-6 9,800 ft of 24-inch pipeline in Vineyard Parkway

Santa Rosa 1500 1500-PIPE-2 1500W-7 3,400 ft of 24-inch pipeline parallel to exist 16-inch in Clinton Keith abandon existing 16-inch

2260 2260-PIPE-1 2260-2 4,500 ft of 24-inch pipeline in El Calamar b/w Carancho PS and Via Escalon; and in Via Escalon from El Calamar to existing 24"

1305 1305-PIPE-3 - 8,500 ft of 24-inch pipeline to Pechanga

1380 1380-PIPE-1 - 10,750 ft of 30-inch pipeline in De Portola Rd from Pauba Rd to Anza Rd

1380 1380-PIPE-2 - Approximately 250 ft of 30-inch Diameter Pipeline to convey flow from 1305/1380 Consolidated PS to 1380 Pressure Zone

1550 1550-PIPE-1 1550-4 5,400 ft of 16-inch pipeline in Highway 79 Rancho 1550 1550-PIPE-2 1550-5 1,400 ft of 16-inch in easements from Highway 79 to Los Corralitos

1550 1550-PIPE-3 1550-6 2,300 ft of 16-inch pipeline in Los Corralitos

1550 1550-PIPE-4 1550-7 3,300 ft of 16-inch pipeline in Pauba

5,500 ft of 24-inch Pipeline in Anza Rd from Calle Linda to Monte Verde Rd to replace 10-inch and 14-inch pipeline to improve conveyance with 1550 1550-PIPE-5 - Alvarez PS Improvement

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 257 of 304

Table 8-13 - Recommended Well Improvements

Division Zone Project Number 2005 WFMP Project Number Description

1305 VDC-SUPPLY-1 WRMP-101 Increase VDC Production by ~15 cfs up to 32.5 cfs, includes new wells, pipelines, a chlorine contact tank and central disinfection. Combined 1305 VDC-SUPPLY-2 WRMP-102 Increase VDC and Pauba Production by 16 cfs, includes new wells and pipelines.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 258 of 304

EM13 17,952 ------17,952

EM20 44,880 ------44,880

WR26/28 29,172 ------29,172

Well 101 1,100 ------1,100 1380 83% 12,470 Well 102 1,480 ------1,480 (Moved from RW System)

Well 106 700 ------700

Well 108 800 ------800

Well 109 680 ------680

Well 118 950 ------950

Well 119 2,200 ------2,200

Well 120 1,500 ------1,500 Combined 1305 26,261 140,338 151,310 10,972 1485 95% 17,045 Well 122 2,000 ------2,000

Well 123 500 ------500

Well 124 450 ------450

Well 125 900 ------900

Well 126 1,150 ------1,150

Well 128 2,000 ------2,000

Well 130 2,200 ------2,200

1610 97% 8,024 Well 131 1,370 ------1,370

Well 132 1,050 ------1,050

Well 133 700 ------700

Well 138 1,996 ------1,996

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 259 of 304

Well 143 960 ------960

Well 144 750 ------750

1610R and 1790 96% 5,492 Well 145 830 ------830 Well 151 600 ------600

Well 152 2,000 ------2,000

Well 153 2,000 ------2,000

Combined 1305 Well 154 750 ------750 Cont. Cont. Well 156 800 ------800

Well 157 2,000 ------2,000

Well 158 1,800 ------1,800 1550, 1635, 1880, Well 240** 1,040 ------1,040 2070, 2350, 2600, (Replaces Well 205) 1060, 1160, 1440, Well 211 1,600 ------1,600 1500, 1570, 1740, 100% 71,045 1990, 2150, 2160, Well 217 750 ------750 2220, 2260, 2300, Well 239** 2550, 2825, 2860 520 ------520 and 2995 (Replaces Well 231) Well 232 1,040 ------1,040

Well 235 1,200 ------1,200

Well 309 2,000 ------2,000 Additional VDC Wells 14,360 ------14,360 (Including Well 161) Meadowview PS6 1,160 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 - 7,160

Norma Marshall PS1 2,850 2,850 2,850 2,850 2,850 2,850 - 14,250 Rancho 1380 15,110 1485 14% 2,507 33,457 45,147 11,690 Winchester PS6 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120 - 10,600 1305/1380 Consolidated 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 5,250 Pump Station

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 260 of 304

Well 140 800 ------800 1610 100% 8,275 Well 149 580 ------580

Well 164 1,100 ------1,100 1380 Cont. Well 203 500 ------500 Well 236** 567 ------567 (Replaces Well 210) 1610R, 1790, 1880, Well 238** 480 ------480 2070, 2350 and 69% 7,566 (Replaces Well 216) 2600 Well 233 1,960 ------1,960

Well 234 900 ------900 Butterfield Stage 4,333 2,600 4,200 2,600 4,000 4,000 - 17,400

1485 17,881 - - - 17,881 Rancho California 2 1,475 1,600 1,525 - - - - 3,000 21,400 3,519

Well 129 1,000 ------1,000

1550 2,856 1635 100% 249 3,105 Alvarez 1,555 1,555 1,555 - - - - 3,110 3,110 5

Rancho Anza 2,105 2,105 2,105 2,105 - - - 6,315 1610R, 1790, 1880, Cont. 1610 8,275 2070, 2350 and 69% 7,566 15,841 Rancho California 1 1,811 1,811 1,811 1,811 1,811 1,811 - 9,055 15,850 9 2600 Well 237** 480 ------480 (Replaces Well 215) 1610R 22 - - 0 ------New Hydropneumatic 1635* 249 - - 0 373 380 380 1,500 - - - - 380 380 7 Station Buck Mesa 1,200 1,200 1,200 2,200 2,200 1,950 1,950 9,700 1610R, 1880, 2070, 1790 5,680 100% 5,294 10,974 Los Caballos 1,550 2,300 2,300 - - - - 3,850 14,070 3,096 2350 and 2600 Well 113 520 ------520 1880 368 - - 0 ------1880, 2350 and 2070 3,384 100% 1,888 5,272 De Portola 1,500 1,500 1,320 1,720 1,720 - - 6,040 6,040 768 2600 2350 1,053 2600 100% 467 1,499 Calle Breve 500 500 700 500 - - - 1,500 1,500 1 New Hydropneumatic 2600* 467 - - 0 701 355 355 355 1,500 - - - 710 710 9 Station

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 261 of 304

Table 8-14- Build-Out Potable Water System Pumping Analysis Max Percentage of Flow Required Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 4 Pump 5 Pump 6 Pump 7 Rated Available Day Flow Through Through Rated Design Design Design Design Design Design Design Capacity Zone Pumping Discharge Flow Through Division Demand Demands Max Day Capacity to Pumping Source Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow of Rated Surplus Zone Zone(s) in Zone Allocated to Demand Supply Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Source Capacity (gpm) (gpm) Pumps (gpm) Zone (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) Ace Bowen 3 3,500 2,600 - - - - - 6,100 1440 10,663 1060 and 1160 100% 764 11,427 12,100 673 Ace Bowen 4 6,000 6,000 - - - - - 6,000 2220, 2300, 2550, 2825, 2860 and 8% 1,118 Cal Oaks 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,680 1,680 1,680 - 7,660 1500 7,137 2995 8,364 13,260 4,896 1740 and 2160 15% 109 Joaquin Ranch 2,800 2,800 2,800 - - - - 5,600 1990, 2150 and 100% 9,106 Ace Bowen 1 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,000 - - 9,200 2260 2220, 2300, 2550, 1670 18,428 2825, 2860 and 92% 13,105 41,259 Ace Bowen 2 5,000 5,000 4,500 4,500 - - - 14,000 44,350 3,091 2995 1740 and 2160 85% 620 Senga Doherty 3,525 3,525 3,525 3,525 3,525 3,525 3,525 21,150 1740 84 - - 0 ------Del Oro 2,180 1,200 1,200 1,200 - - - 3,600 1990 7,458 2,150 100% 77 7,535 Via Santa Rosa 1,360 1,360 1,360 - - - - 2,720 8,720 1,185 Santa Via Vaquero 1,200 1,200 1,200 - - - - 2,400 Rosa 2150 77 - - - 116 Freeman 500 500 200 200 - - - 900 900 784 2220, 2300, 2550, 2825, 2860 and 56% 7,928 Bear Creek 700 600 1,120 - - - - 1,300 2160 645 2995 8,657 8,665 8 1740 100% 84 De Luz 2,455 2,455 2,455 2,455 - - - 7,365 2220 189 - - 0 ------2220, 2300, 2550, 2260 1,571 2825, 2860 and 44% 6,295 7,865 Carancho 2,625 2,625 2,625 2,625 - - - 7,875 7,875 10 2995 2300 380 - - 0 ------2220, 2300, 2825, Tenaja 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 - - - 6,300 2550 10,879 100% 3,344 14,223 14,235 12 2860 and 2995 Baldaray 2,645 2,645 2,645 2,645 - - - 7,935 2825 1,562 2995 100% 49 1,611 Avocado Mesa 810 810 810 - - - - 1,620 1,620 9 2860 1,164 - - 0 1,164 Avenida Escala 585 585 585 - - - - 1,170 1,170 6 Redonda Mesa 2995* 49 - - 0 74 100 100 - - - - - 100 100 26 Hydropneumatic Station * - The rated capacity of a hydropneumatic zone is required to supply the peak hour demand. High flow fire pumps are not included in determining the rated capacity of a hydropneumatic booster station. ** - Future well pump design point estimated as 80% of the existing design point of the well to be replaced and/or destroyed.

Figure 8-3 – Build-Out Potable Water Pumping Summary

2600 1,500 gpm / 1,499 gpm / 1 gpm 2995 467 gpm 49 gpm 2825 1,170 gpm / 1,164 gpm / 6 gpm 1,053 gpm 1,620 gpm / 1,611 gpm / 9 gpm New 2600 Hydro Zone New 2350 Storage Tank 1,164 gpm 1,562 gpm 6,040 gpm / 5,272 gpm / 768 gpm 2995 Hydro Increase Calle Paramo Storage Legend Redonda Mesa Increase Redondo Mesa Storage 3,384 gpm XX gpm / XX gpm / XX gpm Pump Station 14,235 gpm / 14,223 gpm / 12 gpm 1,500 gpm XX gpm – Rated Pumping Capacity Available to Zone 100 gpm XX gpm – Required Pumping Capacity to Zone 10,879 gpm Upsize to 1,620 gpm Upsize to XX gpm – Pumping Surplus Available to Zone 14,070 gpm / 10,97 gpm / 3,096 gpm XX gpm – Pressure Zone Maximum Day Demand 1,170 gpm New 2550 Storage XX gpm – Rated Capacity pof Pum Station or Turnout Deportola 5,680 gpm 6,040 gpm XX gpm – Well Pump SCE Test Results (gpm) 7,875 gpm / 7,865 gpm / 10 gpm Recommended Pumping Improvement

2150 1,571 gpm One (1) 2,100 gpm 1635 Pump for Total 8,665 gpm / 8,657 gpm / 8 gpm 520 gpm 249 gpm 77 gpm Rated Capacity of Upsize to 15,850 gpm / 15,841 gpm / 9 gpm 645 gpm 6,300 gpm 7,935 gpm 9,700 gpm 8,720 gpm / 7,535 gpm / 1,185 gpm 8,275 gpm 3,110 gpm / 3,105 gpm / 5 gpm New 7,458 gpm 2,856 gpm 1635 900 gpm Hydro Zone

3,600 gpm Upsize to 21,400 gpm / 17,881 gpm / 3,519 gpm 7,365 gpm 43,350 gpm / 41,259 gpm / 3,091 gpm 17,881 gpm

18,428 gpm 237 Upsize to 2,720 gpm 2,400 gpm 480 gpm 9,055 gpm 7,875 gpm 1,000 gpm 45,147 gpm / 33,457 gpm / 11,690 gpm 13,260 gpm / 8,364 gpm / 4,896 gpm 15,110 gpm Upsize to 12,100 gpm / 11,427 gpm / 673 gpm 7,137 gpm 3,000 gpm 1,300 gpm 6,315 gpm 164 236 238 New 10,663 gpm 1380 0 gpm 10,600 gpm 9,200 gpm 7,660 gpm 1380 Zone Wells = 7,887 gpm Pump Station Upsize to Winchester 5,250 gpm 3,110 gpm 151,310 gpm / 140,338 gpm / 10,972 gpm New 1305 Storage Tank 26,261 gpm 6,100 gpm 6,000 gpm 14,000 gpm 21,150 gpm 5,600 gpm 1305 Zone Wells = 59,306 gpm (Additional 14,360 gpm from VDC) 7,160 gpm 14,250 gpm 17,400 gpm 3,850 gpm

Turnouts EM‐13 and EM‐20 = 62,832 gpm Turnouts WR‐26/28 = 29,172 gpm 102 240 239 Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 263 of 304

Table 8-15 - Build-Out Potable Water Storage Analysis Operational In-District Max Day Demand Fire Flow Storage Emergency Required Total Storage Hours of Max Day Held Storage Surplus Division Zone Includes Flow Fire Flow Storage in Reservoir Available in in Operational Storage 18.75% of 45% of MDD Duration (MG) MGD Additional Rate Storage Zone (MG) Zone (MG) (Hours) MDD (MG) (MG) (hours) Zones (gpm) (MG) Norma Marshall Res 4.81 Senga Doherty Res 10.38 Combined 1305 37.82 - 7.09 17.02 5,000 4 1.20 25.31 Ace Bowen Res 1 2.71 2.20 11.4 Ace Bowen Res 2 4.81 New Tank (Murrieta) 4.81 Anza Res 2.18 General Kearny Res 7.70 1380 21.76 - 4.08 9.79 5,000 4 1.20 15.07 2.79 16.2 Winchester Res 1 4.98 Anza 2 Res 3.00 Calle Contento Res 1 2.24 Calle Contento Res 2 3.74 1485 25.75 - 4.83 11.59 3,000 3 0.54 16.95 El Chimisal Res 1 6.32 5.19 15.8 El Chimisal Res 2 6.32 Stan Kemp Res 3.53 Alvarez Res 1 1.11 1550 4.47 1635 0.84 2.01 1,500 2 0.18 3.03 0.40 15.5 Rancho El Chimisal Res 3 2.32 Buck Mesa Res 1 1.63 1610 11.92 - 2.23 5.36 1,500 2 0.18 7.78 Buck Mesa Res 2 4.81 3.47 18.0 New Tank (Buck Mesa No. 3) 4.81 De Portola Res 1 2.18 1790 8.21 1610R 1.54 3.70 1,500 2 0.18 5.41 De Portola Res 2 3.18 3.78 21.4 Tucalota Res 3.84 Glenoaks Res 1 2.27 2070 5.40 1880 1.01 2.43 1,500 2 0.18 3.62 0.89 15.8 Glenoaks Res 2 2.24 Calaveras Res 1 0.53 2350 2.59 2600 0.49 1.17 1,500 2 0.18 1.83 0.00 13.3 New Tank (Calaveras No. 2) 1.30

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 264 of 304

Table 8-15 - Build-Out Potable Water Storage Analysis Operational In-District Max Day Demand Fire Flow Storage Emergency Required Total Storage Hours of Max Day Held Storage Surplus Division Zone Includes Flow Fire Flow Storage in Reservoir Available in in Operational Storage 18.75% of 45% of MDD Duration (MG) MGD Additional Rate Storage Zone (MG) Zone (MG) (Hours) MDD (MG) (MG) (hours) Zones (gpm) (MG) 1060 and El Prado Res 1 5.04 1440 16.45 3.09 7.40 1,500 2 0.18 10.67 0.74 12.4 1160 El Prado Res 2 6.37 Antelope Res 5.56 1500 10.28 - 1.93 4.62 3,000 3 0.54 7.09 0.74 14.3 Bear Creek Res 2.27 Via Vaquero Res 5.57 Carancho Res 5.26 1670 26.54 - 4.98 11.94 1,500 2 0.18 17.03 0.02 10.2 De Luz Res 1 3.11 De Luz Res 2 3.11 Santa Freeman Res 1 3.09 Rosa 1990 10.85 2150 2.03 4.88 1,500 2 0.18 7.10 1.14 15.0 Freeman Res 2 5.15 2160 1.05 1740 0.20 0.47 1,500 2 0.18 0.85 Baldaray Res 2.27 1.42 40.7 2260 2.26 - 0.42 1.02 1,500 2 0.18 1.62 Tenaja Res 2.20 0.58 18.9 Avocado Mesa Res 5.93 2220 and 2550 16.49 3.09 7.42 1,500 2 0.18 10.69 La Cresta Res 1.00 0.00 12.0 2300 New Tank (Avocado Mesa No. 2) 3.75 2825 2.32 2995 0.43 1.04 1,500 2 0.18 1.66 Increase 2825 Storage* 1.66 0.00 13.7 2860 1.68 - 0.31 0.75 1,500 2 0.18 1.25 Increase 2860 Storage* 1.25 0.00 14.3

* - To Be Determined Based on Actual Development Conditions

Figure 8-4 – Build-Out Potable Water Storage Summary

2600 1.83 MG / 1.83 MG / 0.00 MG 2995 2825 1.25 MG / 1.25 MG / 0.00 MG 0.53 MG 1.30 MG New 2600 Hydro Zone 1.66 MG / 1.66 MG / 0.00 MG New 2350 Storage Tank – Calaveras No. 2 1.25 MG 4.51 MG / 3.62 MG / 0.89 MG 2995 Hydro 1.66 MG Increase Calle Paramo Storage Legend Redonda Mesa Increase Redondo Mesa Storage 2.27 MG 2.24 MG XX MG / XX MG / XX MG Pump Station 10.69 MG / 10.69 MG / 0.00 MG XX MG ‐ Total Nominal Storage Available in Pressure Zone 5.93 MG 1.00 MG 3.75 MG 9.20 MG / 5.41 MG / 3.78 MG XX MG – Required Storage in Pressure Zone

New 2550 Storage Tank XX MG – Storage Surplus Available in Pressure Zone Avocado Mesa No. 2 2.18 MG 3.18 MG 3.84 MG Deportola XX MG ‐ Total Nominal Storage in Storage Tank 2.20 MG / 1.62 MG / 0.58 MG Recommended Storage Improvement

2150 2.20 MG 2.27 MG / 0.85 MG / 1.42 MG 1635 11.25 MG / 7.78 MG / 3.47 MG 2.27 MG 8.24 MG / 7.10 MG / 1.14 MG 1.63 MG 4.81 MG 4.81 MG 3.43 MG / 3.03 MG / 0.40 MG

New 1610 Storage Tank New 3.09 MG 5.15 MG 1.11 MG 2.32 MG Buck Mesa No. 3 1635 Hydro Zone 22.15 MG / 16.95 MG / 5.19 MG

17.05 MG / 17.03 MG / 0.02 MG 2.24 MG 3.74 MG 6.32 MG 6.32 MG 3.53 MG

3.11 MG 3.11 MG 5.26 MG 5.57 MG 237

17.86 MG / 15.07 MG / 2.79 MG 7.83 MG / 7.09 MG / 0.74 MG 7.70 MG 2.18 MG 3.00 MG 4.98 MG 11.41 MG / 10.67 MG / 0.74 MG 2.27 MG 5.56 MG 164 5.04 MG 6.37 MG 236 238 New 1380 Winchester Pump Station New 1305 27.51 MG / 25.31 MG / 2.20 MG Storage Tank Murrieta 2.71 MG 4.81 MG 4.81 MG 10.38 MG 4.81 MG

102 240 239 Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 266 of 304

Table 8-16 - Recommended for Inclusion in the Pipeline Replacement Program Division Zone Project Number Description

1440 1440-CRP-1 Replace 2,400 ft of 8-inch Diameter Pipeline with 12-inch Diameter Pipeline to Minimize Pressure Loss

Santa Rosa 1670 1670-CRP-1 Replace 44,000 ft of Pipeline with 48-inch Diameter Pipeline to Increase Conveyance in 1670 Zone

2550 2550-CRP-1 Replace 1,600 ft of 20-inch Diameter Pipeline with 30-inch Diameter Pipeline to Minimize Energy Loss at Baldaray PS

1380 1380-CRP-1 Replace 2,750 ft of 20-inch Diameter Pipeline with 24-inch Diameter Pipeline to Increase Conveyance in 1380 Zone Rancho 2070 2070-CRP-1 Replace 7,500 ft of 16-inch Diameter Pipeline with 24-inch Diameter Pipeline to Increase Conveyance in 2070 Zone

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 267 of 304

CHAPTER 9. RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS The following two (2) Steady-State and two (2) Extended Period Simulation (EPS) scenarios were utilized to analyze existing and minimum build-out water demands:  Average Day Demands (Steady-State)  Peak Hour Demands (Steady-State)  72-hour Maximum Day Extended Period Simulation (EPS)  365-Day Extended Period Simulation (EPS)

9.1 EXISTING SYSTEM The District’s existing recycled water distribution system has sufficient storage, pumping and conveyance. Accordingly, there are no infrastructure recommendations identified for the existing time-increment.

9.1.1 Average Day Demand There are 16 junctions in the hydraulic model which have recycled water demands, and achieve maximum pressures above 150 psi. These junctions, and the resulting pressures, are summarized in Table H-1 of Appendix H – Results of the Existing Recycled Water Hydraulic Analysis. The locations of these junctions are illustrated in Appendix I –Existing Recycled Water System Hydraulic Analysis Map. As referenced in Table 9-1, all groundwater wells were simulated as inactive during this scenario.

9.1.2 Peak Hour Demand There are 4 junctions in the hydraulic model which have recycled water demands, and achieve minimum pressures below 40 psi. As presented in Table H-2 of Appendix H, the areas of low pressure are attributed to geographic constraints, as there is an insufficient elevation difference between the meter locations and the high water levels of each pressure zone. The locations of these junctions are illustrated in the Appendix I – Map of the Existing Recycled Water System. Table 9-1 identifies the groundwater wells that were simulated as active during this scenario, providing approximately 6.3 cfs to the recycled water distribution system.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 268 of 304

Table 9-1 - Recycled Well Operation Status During Existing Hydraulic Simulations Simulated as Operational During Well Average Day Steady- Maximum Day and Number 365-Day EPS Scenario State Scenarios Peak Hour Scenarios Well 102 On During Certain Months No Yes Well 121 No No No Well 135 On During Certain Months No Yes Well 146 On During Certain Months No Yes Well 155 On During Certain Months No Yes

9.1.3 72-Hour Maximum Day Demand Table 9-1 identifies the groundwater wells which are simulated as active during this scenario, and which provide approximately 6.3 cfs to accommodate the water demands presented in Table 9-2. Based on the existing pumping analysis presented in Table 9-3, all District pump stations have sufficient pumping capacity in the existing time increment. Figure 9-1 illustrates the pumping surplus available in each zone, as well as the existing MDD for each pressure zone.

As presented in Chapter 6, reservoir storage for each pressure zone is sufficient to provide for 38% of maximum demands for those demands without on-site flow equalization, or 10% of the entire zone’s maximum day demand, whichever is greater. Table 9-4 presents the storage analysis for the District’s recycled water distribution system, and indicates that there is sufficient storage in each pressure zone. Figure 9-2 illustrates the storage surplus available in each zone.

9.1.4 365-Day Demand In order to analyze storage pond capacity, a 365-Day EPS was created to calculate storage pond volumes based on total annual demands and supply. To simulate 365-Day Extended Period Simulation, monthly peaking factors for recycled water demands are applied as patterns in the model, along with diurnal patterns for the SRWRF and EMWD recycled water supplies. Evaporative and percolation losses are included, and based on historical averages.

The district’s water storage ponds are sufficient, based on historical evaporative losses and an average year of precipitation. In the future, this hydraulic scenario will be utilized to evaluate anticipated storage needs during 10-year and 20-year wet weather events.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 269 of 304

Table 9-2 - Existing Average, Maximum Day and Peak Hour Recycled Water Demands Average Day Demand Maximum Day Demand Peak Hour Demand Zone mgd cfs mgd cfs gpm mgd cfs gpm

1181 0.13 0.19 0.44 0.68 305 0.88 1.36 609

1381 1.98 3.07 6.95 10.75 4,824 11.89 18.40 8,258

1441 0.59 0.91 2.06 3.18 1,428 2.82 4.37 1,960

1481 0.65 1.01 2.29 3.54 1,588 2.40 3.72 1,670

Total 3.35 5.19 11.73 18.15 8,145 18.00 27.85 12,498

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 270 of 304

Table 9-3 - Existing Recycled Water System Pumping Analysis Required Rated Available Max Day Flow Through Pump 1 Design Pump 2 Capacity of Capacity of Booster Pump 3 Design Pump 4 Design Zone Surplus/Deficit Discharge Zone Demand in Max Day Pumping Source Flow Rate* Design Flow Booster Station Station/Well** Flow Rate (gpm) Flow Rate (gpm) Capacity (gpm) Zone (gpm) Demand (gpm) (gpm) Rate (gpm) or Well (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) Elm Street 3 1,750 1,750 1,750 - 3,500

1041 - 8,145 4,301 EMWD*** 682 - - - 682 5,869 1,568

SRWRF*** 1,687 - 1,687

Elm Street 2 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 4,800

Well 146 473 - - - 473 1181 305 1,588 1,893 6,694 4,801 Well 155 421 - - - 421

Cole Creek 1,000 1,000 - - 1,000 Transfer

Elm Street 1 1,600 1,600 2,600 2,600 5,800

Well 102 1,207 - - - 1,207 1381 4,824 1,428 6,252 7,750 1,498 Well 121 - - - - -

Well 135 743 - - - 743

1441 1,428 - 1,428 Redhawk 860 860 860 - 1,720 1,720 292

1481 1,588 - 1,588 Cole Creek 900 900 900 - 1,800 1,800 212

* - Pump rates for wells obtained from recent Edison Flow Tests ** - Flows supplied by Cole Creek Transfer Station and Wells do not need to be supplied via Elm Street 1 and 2 Pump Stations. *** - Flows presented are based on average values supplied by each source, and do not reference a specific pump.

Figure 9-1 – Existing Recycled Water Pumping Summary

1481 1,800 gpm / 1,588 gpm / 212 gpm Legend 1441 XX gpm / XX gpm / XX gpm 1,720 gpm / 1,428 gpm / 292 gpm 1,588 gpm XX gpm – Rated Pumping Capacity Available to Zone 1,428 gpm XX gpm – Required Pumping Capacity to Zone 1181 XX gpm – Pumping Surplus Available to Zone XX gpm – Pressure Zone Maximum Day Demand 1381 6,694 gpm / 1,893 gpm / 4,801 gpm 1381 XX gpm – Rated Pumping Capacity of Pump Station 7,750 gpm / 6,252 gpm / 1,498 gpm 305 gpm 1,800 gpm XX gpm – Well Pump SCE Test Results (gpm) 4,824 gpm 1,720 gpm

1,000 gpm 421 gpm Off‐Line

473 gpm 1,207 gpm 743 gpm

Pond #5

1049

3,500 gpm

4,800 gpm 5,800 gpm

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 272 of 304

Table 9-4 - Existing Recycled Water Storage Analysis Max Day Demand in Zone Without Max Day Demand in Zone With Total Storage Total Nominal Total Operational Days of Max Day Currently On-Site Flow Equalization On-Site Flow Equalization Surplus/ Zone Required by Zone Reservoir Storage Available Storage Available Held in Operational Storage Deficit (MG) gpm MGD gpm MGD (MG) in Zone (MG) in Zone (MG) (days)

1181 305 0.44 0 0.00 0.17 Cole Creek 2.20 1.78 2.03 4.1

1381 3,435 4.95 1,389 2.00 1.88 General Kearny 2.27 1.78 0.39 0.3

1441 532 0.77 897 1.29 0.29 El Chimisal 2.07 1.62 1.78 0.8

1481 82 0.12 1,506 2.17 0.22 Bear Creek 1.04 0.83 0.82 0.4

Figure 9-2 – Existing Recycled Water Storage Summary

1481 Legend 1441 0.2 MG / 0.8 MG XX MG / XX MG 0.3 MG / 1.8 MG XX MG – Required Operational Storage in Pressure Zone XX MG – Storage Surplus Available in Pressure Zone XX MG ‐ Total Nominal Storage in Storage Tank 1.0 MG 1181 XX MG – Available Reservoir Storage 2.1 MG 1381 0.2 MG / 2.0 MG 1381 1.9 MG / 0.4 MG

2.2 MG 2.3 MG

150 AF

Pond #5

255 AF 1049 350 AF 500 AF 240 AF

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 274 of 304

9.2 MINIMUM BUILD-OUT SYSTEM The District’s recycled water distribution system has sufficient storage, pumping and conveyance to accommodate projected minimum build-out water demands. Accordingly, there are no Capital Improvement Projects identified for the minimum build-out time-increment.

In Chapter 3, build-out recycled water demands were assumed to equal the existing recycled water demands plus an additional 630 AFY, for a total non-potable build- out demand of 4,500 AFY. As summarized in Table 9-5, minimum build-out average day demands are projected to increase to 4,207 AFY, and include the following:

 Pechanga - The District currently wheels and delivers Eastern Municipal Water District’s (EMWD) recycled water to Pechanga, up to 1,000 AFY. It is anticipated that Pechanga will use 700 AFY, and not their full entitlement.

 Altair Specific Plan – Consistent with the Altair Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment, adopted by the District in May 2015, a projected recycled water demand of 99 AFY is anticipated.

 Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan - Consistent with the Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment, adopted by the District in January 2013, recycled water demand is anticipated to increase by 6 AFY.

9.2.1 Average Day Demand No additional high pressure junctions were identified, that were not previously identified in the existing hydraulic analysis, and presented in Appendix H. No groundwater wells were simulated as active during this scenario.

9.2.2 Peak Hour Demand No additional low or high pressure junctions were identified, that were not previously identified in the existing hydraulic analysis, and presented in Appendix H. Groundwater wells were simulated as providing approximately 6.3 cfs.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 275 of 304

9.2.3 72-Hour Maximum Day Demand Based on the build-out pumping analysis presented in Table 9-6, all District pump stations will have sufficient pumping capacity in the minimum build-out time increment. Groundwater wells were simulated as providing approximately 6.3 cfs. Figure 9-3 illustrates the pumping surplus available in each zone, as well as the existing Maximum Day Demands for each pressure zone. Table 9-7 presents the storage analysis for the District’s recycled water distribution system, and indicates that there is sufficient storage in each pressure zone. Figure 9-2 illustrates the storage surplus available in each zone.

9.3.4 365-Day Demand The district’s water storage ponds are sufficient, based on historical evaporative losses and an average year of precipitation. In the future, this hydraulic scenario will be utilized to evaluate anticipated storage needs during 10-year and 20-year wet weather events.

9.3 Build-Out System The demand for recycled water (tertiary treatment without demineralization) at build-out is projected to be approximately 4,500 AFY, an increase of 631 AFY over the existing recycled water demand, and 293 AFY over the minimum build-out demands. The location of the additional 293 AFY of recycled water demands has yet to be determined. Depending on the actual site locations and accommodations (e.g. on-site flow equalization) of these demands, future capital improvement projects may be required, including:

 1381 Storage Capacity Improvement - If an additional 185 AFY of recycled water demands without on-site flow equalization is required in the 1381 pressure zone, the 0.22 MG of storage surplus identified in Table 11 will no longer be sufficient. Potential projects may include switching the potable water General Kearney Reservoir No.2 over to the recycled system, and/or constructing additional storage. If the additional water demands in the 1381 Pressure Zone have on-site flow equalization, this project may not be necessary.

 1381 Pumping Capacity Improvement - If an additional 244 AFY of recycled water demands are required in the 1381 and 1441 pressure zones, the 528 gpm of pumping surplus identified in Table 10 will no longer be sufficient. Potential projects may include additional pumping capacity at Elm Street 1 Pump Station, with associated pipeline improvements throughout the 1381 Pressure Zone to replace PVC C-900 pipeline with pressure class ratings below 165 psi.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 276 of 304

 1441 Pumping Capacity Improvement - If an additional 126 AFY of recycled water demands are required in the 1441 pressure zone, the 273 gpm of pumping surplus identified in Table 10 will no longer be sufficient. Potential projects may include additional pumping capacity at Redhawk Pump Station, with associated pipeline improvements within the 1381 and 1441 pressure zones to improve conveyance.

 1481 Pumping Capacity Improvement - If an additional 98 AFY of recycled water demands are required in the 1481 Pressure Zone, the 212 gpm of pumping surplus identified in Table 10 will no longer be sufficient. Potential projects may include additional pumping capacity at Cole Creek Pump Station, with associated pipeline improvements within the 1481 Pressure Zone to improve conveyance.

Based upon a projected recycled water supply of 9,819 AFY, as presented in Table 4-23, the District is projected to have a surplus capacity of approximately 5,319 AFY. The following alternatives were identified in Chapter 5 as part of the District’s on-going effort to utilize the surplus capacity of recycled water:

 Alternative No. 2 – Implement an Indirect Potable Reuse Project. An Indirect Potable Reuse Project would utilize the available surplus recycled water (~5,000 AFY) for groundwater recharge through surface spreading and/or injection. Alternative No. 1 is more fully described Chapter 5.

 Alternative No. 3 – Implement Expansion of the Recycled Water Distribution System and Demineralization of the Recycled Water Supply with a parallel distribution system. This alternative would demineralize the available surplus recycled water (~5,000 AFY) and convey the demineralized water through a parallel distribution system. The parallel system would supply flow to the lower VDC, as well as to a new 1611 Pressure Zone. Alternative No. 2 is more fully described Chapter 5.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 277 of 304

 Alternative No. 4 (Not included in Chapter 5) – Implement Expansion of the Recycled Water Distribution System and Demineralization of the Recycled Water Supply. This alternative would demineralize the entire recycled water supply and would expand the recycled water distribution system. Alternative No. 3 is estimated to be significantly more expensive than Alternative No. 1 and 2, in addition to having insufficient seasonal storage pond capacity.

Estimated probable costs for these alternatives have not been included in the Capital Improvement Program presented in Chapter 10, as future re-evaluation of each alternative is required prior to final selection.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 278 of 304

Table 9-5 - Minimum Build-Out Average, Maximum Day and Peak Hour Recycled Water Demands Average Day Demand Maximum Day Demand Peak Hour Demand Zone mgd AFY cfs mgd cfs gpm mgd cfs gpm

1181 0.13 147 0.20 0.46 0.71 318 0.92 1.42 636

1381 2.38 2,664 3.68 8.32 12.87 5,775 14.24 22.03 9,889

1441 0.60 667 0.92 2.08 3.22 1,447 2.88 4.45 1,997

1481 0.65 732 1.01 2.29 3.54 1,588 2.40 3.72 1,670

Total 3.76 4,210 5.81 13.15 20.34 9,129 20.44 31.62 14,192

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 279 of 304

Table 9-5 - Build-Out Recycled Water Pumping Analysis Capacity of Available Max Day Flow Through Required Rated Pump 1 Design Pump 2 Design Pump 3 Design Pump 4 Design Booster Station Zone Surplus/Deficit Discharge Zone Demand in Max Day Capacity of Booster Pumping Source Flow Rate Flow Rate Flow Rate Flow Rate or Well Capacity (gpm) Zone (gpm) Demand (gpm) Station/Well* (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) Elm Street 3 1,750 1,750 1,750 - 3,500

1041 - 9,129 5,159 EMWD*** 2,944 - - - 2,944 9,376 4,217

SRWRF*** 2,932 - 2,932

Elm Street 2 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 4,800

Well 146 300 - - - 300 1181 318 1,588 1,906 6,610 4,704 Well 155 510 - - - 510

Cole Creek 1,000 1,000 - - 1,000 Transfer

Elm Street 1 1,600 1,600 2,600 2,600 5,800

1381 5,775 1,447 7,222 Well 121** 1,360 - - - 1,360 7,960 738

Well 135 800 - - - 800

1441 1,447 - 1,447 Redhawk 860 860 860 - 1,720 1,720 273

1481 1,588 - 1,588 Cole Creek 900 900 900 - 1,800 1,800 212

* - Flows supplied by Cole Creek Transfer Station and Wells do not need to be supplied via Elm Street 2 and 3 Pump Stations. ** - Future well pump design point for Well 121 estimated as 80% of the existing design point of the current Well 121 pump. *** - Flows presented are based on average values supplied by each source, and do not reference a specific pump.

Figure 9-3 – Minimum Build-Out Recycled Water Pumping Summary

1481 1,800 gpm / 1,588 gpm / 212 gpm Legend 1441 XX gpm / XX gpm / XX gpm 1,720 gpm / 1,447 gpm / 273 gpm 1,588 gpm XX gpm – Rated Pumping Capacity Available to Zone 1,447 gpm XX gpm – Required Pumping Capacity to Zone 1181 XX gpm – Pumping Surplus Available to Zone XX gpm – Pressure Zone Maximum Day Demand 1381 6,694 gpm / 1,906 gpm / 4,788 gpm 1381 XX gpm – Rated Pumping Capacity of Pump Station 7,750 gpm / 7,222 gpm / 528 gpm 318 gpm 1,800 gpm XX gpm – Well Pump SCE Test Results (gpm) 5,775 gpm 1,720 gpm

1,000 gpm 510 gpm 1,360 gpm

300 gpm 800 gpm

Pond #5

1049

3,500 gpm

4,800 gpm 5,800 gpm

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 281 of 304

Table 9-7– Minimum Build-Out Recycled Water Storage Analysis Max Day Demand in Zone Without Max Day Demand in Zone With Total Storage Total Nominal Total Operational Days of Max Day Currently On-Site Flow Equalization On-Site Flow Equalization Surplus/ Zone Required by Zone Reservoir Storage Available Storage Available Held in Operational Storage Deficit (MG) gpm MGD gpm MGD (MG) in Zone (MG) in Zone (MG) (days)

1181 318 0.46 0 0.00 0.17 Cole Creek 2.20 1.78 2.03 3.9

1381 3,734 5.38 2,042 2.94 2.05 General Kearny 2.27 1.78 0.22 0.2

1441 550 0.79 897 1.29 0.30 El Chimisal 2.07 1.62 1.77 0.8

1481 82 0.12 1,506 2.17 0.22 Bear Creek 1.04 0.83 0.82 0.4

Figure 9-4 – Minimum Build-Out Recycled Water Storage Summary

2.2 MG 2.3 MG

150 AF

Pond #5

255 AF 1049 350 AF 500 AF 240 AF

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 283 of 304

CHAPTER 10. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM All projects in the District’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) were previously presented in Chapter 8. Table 10-11 summarizes the estimated probable costs for the CIP by infrastructure type, fiscal year and District funding division. The total estimated probable cost of the Capital Improvement Program is $119.8 Million, and includes:

10.1 UNIT COSTS Unit costs used to develop capital cost estimates for proposed facilities were developed using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index and recently completed projects of a similar nature. These estimates are based on the best available data at the time of this report; however, since prices of materials and labor fluctuate with time, new estimates should be obtained during pre-design for proposed facilities to confirm budget amounts. Recent market trends have indicated substantial volatility in the price of construction materials such as steel and concrete. These factors, coupled with the high level of similar work currently being performed, have on occasion resulted in a generally unpredictable bidding environment.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 284 of 304

The Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index used for this report was for the 20-city national average. The ENR-CCI is an inflation index used to adjust prices from one time period to another. The cost estimates presented in this report are based upon an ENR-CCI cost index of 10,037 for July 2015. Costs estimated herein for recommended facilities should be adjusted in the future either by making new estimates or by comparing the future ENR-CCI index to 10,037. A factor of 20 percent of total construction cost has been used for engineering and administration, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

 Planning and design reports  Design  CEQA compliance  Permits  Surveying  District Project Management  Service during construction (submittals, as-builts)  Inspection

A factor of 30 percent has been added for contingencies. These engineering, administration and contingency factors have been incorporated into all unit costs. Estimates of probable capital costs provided represent Order of Magnitude level costs as established by the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) and represent an accuracy of +50% to -30%. Costs have not been escalated.

10.1.1 Pipeline Unit Costs Pipe materials, pavement saw cutting, removal and replacement, traffic control, installation of miscellaneous appurtenances, excavation, bedding and backfill were taken into consideration in developing unit costs for potable water pipeline construction. Unit costs for pipelines reflect a maximum operational pressure rating of 165 psi, with unit costs increasing 33% for those pipelines requiring maximum operational pressure ratings of 325 psi. Table 10-1 shows the pipeline unit costs used to determine the costs of recommended pipeline improvements.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 285 of 304

Table 10-1 - Pipeline Unit Costs

Pipe Diameter (inches) Pipe Unit Cost ($/ft)

6 $130 8 $170 10 $215 12 $260 14 $300 16 $345 18 $385 20 $430 24 $515 27 $575 30 $640 36 $770 42 $900 48 $1,025 Note: Costs include Engineering, Legal, Administration and Contingencies

10.1.2 Storage Reservoir Unit Costs The cost estimates for storage reservoirs include an allowance for site preparation and grading, yard piping, valving, ringwall footing, fencing, and landscaping. Additionally, allowances for demolition, if required, have also been included. It has been assumed that reservoirs will be constructed aboveground, and have a nominal water depth of 24 to 32 ft. Furthermore, a cost of $140,000 per acre for land acquisition has been included, when applicable. Specific estimates for each recommended storage reservoir allocate costs for demolition, earthwork, tank, and site piping, with each including engineering, legal, administration and contingency costs.

10.1.3 Pump Station Unit Costs The cost estimates for pump stations include an allowance for pumps and motors (including standby), pump station building, grading, miscellaneous piping and valving, fencing, landscaping, instrumentation, and controls. Specific estimates for each recommended booster station improvement allocate costs for pumps, mechanical, electrical, building and site preparation, with each including engineering, legal, administration and contingency costs.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 286 of 304

10.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The District’s existing recycled water distribution system has sufficient storage, pumping and conveyance. Depending on the location of approximately 300 AFY build-out recycled water demands, future capital improvement projects may be required as specific performance indicators are approached. As aggregate demands in each pressure zone approach certain limits, several capital improvement projects have been identified. With the exact size, nature and scope of these projects dependent upon build-out demand location, estimated probable costs for these projects could not be developed. The potential recycled water capital improvement projects, as well as each project’s associated project performance indicator, include:

 1381 Storage Capacity Improvement - Required if an additional 185 AFY of recycled water demands without on-site flow equalization is required in the 1381 pressure zone. May include switching the potable water General Kearney Reservoir No.2 over to the recycled system, and/or constructing additional storage. If the additional water demands in the 1381 Pressure Zone have on-site flow equalization, this project may not be necessary.

 1381 Pumping Capacity Improvement - Required if an additional 244 AFY of recycled water demands are required in the 1381 and 1441 pressure zones. Potential projects may include additional pumping capacity at Elm Street 1 Pump Station, with associated pipeline improvements throughout the 1381 Pressure Zone to replace pipelines with operational pressure ratings below 165 psi.

 1441 Pumping Capacity Improvement - Required if an additional 126 AFY of recycled water demands are required in the 1441 pressure zone. Potential projects may include additional pumping capacity at Redhawk Pump Station, with associated pipeline improvements within the 1381 and 1441 pressure zones to improve conveyance.

 1481 Pumping Capacity Improvement - Required if an additional 98 AFY of recycled water demands are required in the 1481 Pressure Zone. Potential projects may include additional pumping capacity at Cole Creek Pump Station, with associated pipeline improvements within the 1481 Pressure Zone to improve conveyance.

The District’s existing potable water distribution systems has sufficient storage, pumping and conveyance. There is an existing need for booster disinfection on the west side of the system, with disinfection improvements at Ace Bowen Pump Station and Senga Doherty recommended.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 287 of 304

The District’s build-out distribution system requires storage, pumping and conveyance improvements. Proposed pump, storage and pipeline improvements have been previously identified in Chapter 8, and have been assigned to the appropriate Fiscal Year based on the water demand projections presented in Table 3-18. Estimates of probable capital costs provided herein represent “Conceptual” level costs as established by the American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) and represent an accuracy of +50% to -30%. Cost estimates should be verified and updated during the pre-design phase of each project. Capital cost estimates for these entities are discussed in the following sections.

10.2.1 Cost Estimates for Pipeline Improvements Table 10-2 presents the cost estimates for the recommended pipeline capital improvements. A total of 11.0 miles of linear pipeline is recommended, including: 2.1 miles of linear pipeline for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, 0.6 miles of proposed for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, 5.8 miles proposed for Fiscal Year 2018-2019, 1.3 miles proposed for Fiscal Year 2031-2032, and 1.0 miles proposed for the Build-Out time increment. With the exception of the discharge pipelines for the proposed 1305/1380 Pump Station (1305-PIPE-2 and 1380-PIPE-2), cost estimates for each project were developed based upon the unit costs presented in Table 10-1.

Cost estimates for the discharge pipelines for the proposed 1305/1380 Pump Station (1305-PIPE-2 and 1380-PIPE-2) were obtained from the Draft 2015 Upper VDC Economic Analysis, prepared by Black & Veatch, and include 30% contingency and 25% soft costs. Costs were based on the 2015 costs projected in the Draft 2015 Upper VDC Economic Analysis. Table 10-3 summarizes the pipeline capital improvement projects by Fiscal Year and District Funding Division.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 288 of 304

Table 10-2 - Estimated Pipeline Improvement Costs Existing Proposed Project Length Unit Price Project ID Zone Diameter Replacement Description Duration Pressure Constraints Total ($) (ft) ($/ft) (in) Diameter (in) (years)

FY 2016-2017 Improvements

Combined Pipeline to convey flow from 1305/1380 Consolidated PS to 1305-PIPE-2 1305 - 36 250 2 - * $176,000 1305 Pressure Zone Rancho

1380-PIPE-1 1380 20 30 10,750 Pipeline in De Portola Rd from Pauba Rd to Anza Rd 2 - $640 $6,880,000 Pipeline to convey flow from 1305/1380 Consolidated PS to 1380-PIPE-2 1380 - 30 250 2 - * $148,000 1380 Pressure Zone FY 2016-2017 Subtotal 11,250 - - - - $7,204,000

FY 2017-2018 Improvements

Santa Rosa Pipeline parallel to exist 16-inch in Clinton Keith abandon 1500-PIPE-2 1500 16 24 3,400 1 - $515 $1,751,000 existing 16-inch FY 2018-2019 Improvements

Santa Rosa 825 ft of 175 psi max (from existing pipeline in Tenaja $515 - 1500-PIPE-1 1500 - 24 9,800 Pipeline in Vineyard Parkway 1 $5,187,210 Rd to Wood Knot Dr), remaining is 161 psi max $685** Rancho

1305-PIPE-3 1305 - 24 8,500 Pipeline to Pechanga 2 - $515 $4,377,500

1550-PIPE-1 1550 - 16 5,400 1380-1550 PZ Conversion Pipeline in Highway 79 2 - $345 $1,863,000 1380-1550 PZ Conversion Pipeline in easements from 1550-PIPE-2 1550 - 16 1,400 2 - $345 $483,000 Highway 79 to Los Corralitos 1550-PIPE-3 1550 - 16 2,300 1380-1550 PZ Conversion Pipeline in Los Corralitos 2 - $345 $793,500

1550-PIPE-4 1550 - 16 3,300 1380-1550 PZ Conversion Pipeline in Pauba 2 - $345 $1,138,500

FY 2018-2019 Subtotal 30,700 - - - - $13,842,710

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 289 of 304

FY 2031-2032 Improvements

Combined Pipeline in Lemon from Hayes to proposed Murrieta 1305-PIPE-1 1305 - 30 2,500 2 - $640 $1,600,000 Reservoir Santa Rosa Pipeline in El Calamar b/w Carancho PS and Via Escalon; Half between 185 and 270 psi, and the other half $515 - 2260-PIPE-1 2260 12 24 4,500 2 $3,082,275 and in Via Escalon from El Calamar to Existing 24" between 270 psi and 325 psi $685** FY 2031-2032 Subtotal 7,000 - - - - $4,682,275

Build-Out Improvements

Rancho 10 and Pipeline upsizing to improve conveyance with Alvarez PS 1550-PIPE-5 1550 24 5,500 2 - $515 $2,832,500 14 Improvement TOTAL 57,850 - - - - $30,312,485

* - Cost estimates for 1305/1380 PS Discharge Pipeline Obtained from the Draft 2015 Upper VDC Economic Analysis prepared by Black &Veatch, and include a 30% contingency and 25% soft costs. 2015 costs were utilized. ** - Unit costs increased by 33% to account for Higher Pressure Class Rating of Pipeline

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 290 of 304

Table 10-3 - Summary of Estimated Pipeline Improvement Costs by Fiscal Year and Division Fiscal Year Division Total

Combined $176,000 FY 2016-2017 Rancho $7,028,000

FY 2017-2018 Santa Rosa $1,751,000

Santa Rosa $5,187,210 FY 2018-2019 Rancho $8,655,500

Combined $1,600,000 FY 2031-2032 Santa Rosa $3,082,275

Build-Out Rancho $2,832,500

TOTAL $30,312,485

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 291 of 304

10.2.2 Cost Estimates for Storage Improvements Table 10-4 presents the cost estimates for the recommended storage improvements. 5.0 MG is recommended for Fiscal Year 2020-2021, 5.0 MG is recommended for Fiscal Year 2031-2032, and 5.1 MG is recommended for the Build-Out time increment. Specific projects to address projected build-out storage requirements have not been identified in the 2825 and 2860 zones, and as such, estimated costs for these projects have not been included in Table 10-4. Table 10-5 summarizes the storage reservoir capital improvement projects by Fiscal Year and District Funding Division.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 292 of 304

Table 10-4 - Estimated Storage Reservoir Improvement Costs

Proposed Storage Estimated Probable Cost ($) Project ID Zone Improvement in Details Project Duration Price per Zone (MG) Earthwork Tank Site Piping Land Acquisition Total Gallon ($) FY 2020-2021 Improvements

Rancho

1610-RES-1 1610 4.81 New Reservoir (Buck Mesa No. 3) 2 $1,095,000 $5,530,000 $725,000 $700,000 $8,050,000 $1.67

2600-RES-1 2600 0.05 New Hydropneumatic Tank and Pump Station 2 - - - - $500,000 $10.00

FY 2020-2021 Sub-Total $8,550,000

FY 2031-2032 Improvements

Combined

1305-RES-1 1305 4.81 New Reservoir (Murrieta) 2 $1,095,000 $5,530,000 $725,000 $700,000 $8,050,000 $1.67

Build-Out Improvements

Santa Rosa

2550-RES-1 2550 3.75 New Reservoir (Avocado Mesa No. 2) 2 $925,000 $4,250,000 $650,000 - $5,825,000 $1.55 TBD - Based on 2825-RES-1 2825 1.12 Additional Storage Needed/Exact Project TBD ------Improvement TBD - Based on 2860-RES-1 2860 0.19 Additional Storage Needed/Exact Project TBD ------Improvement Rancho

2350-RES-1 2350 1.30 New Reservoir (Calaveras No. 2) 2 $550,000 $1,800,000 $435,000 - $2,785,000 $2.14

Build-Out Sub-Total $8,610,000

TOTAL $25,210,000 -

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 293 of 304

Table 10-5 - Summary of Estimated Storage Reservoir Improvement Costs by Fiscal Year and Division Fiscal Year District Funding Division Total

FY 2020-2021 Rancho $8,550,000

FY 2031-2032 Combined $8,050,000

Santa Rosa $5,825,000 Build-Out Rancho $2,785,000

TOTAL $25,210,000

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 294 of 304

10.2.3 Cost Estimates for Pump Station Improvements Table 10-6 presents the cost estimates for the recommended pump station improvements. With the exception of the 1305/1380 Pump Station (VDC-PS-1) and the disinfection improvements for the Ace Bowen No. 1 and 2 (1670-PS-1) and Senga Doherty (1670-PS-2) Pump Stations, pump station cost estimates identify costs for pumps, mechanical, electrical, building and site preparation.

Table 10-7 presents the cost estimate for the 1305/1380 Pump Station (VDC-PS-1), which was obtained from the Draft 2015 Upper VDC Economic Analysis, as prepared by Black & Veatch, and include 30% contingency and 25% soft costs. Costs were based on the 2015 costs projected in the Draft 2015 Upper VDC Economic Analysis.

Cost estimates for the disinfection improvements for the Ace Bowen No. 1 and 2 (1670-PS-1) and the Senga Doherty (1670-PS-2) Pump Stations were obtained from the 2013 Preliminary Design Report for Ace Bowen Pump Station Disinfection System Improvements and the 2013 Preliminary Design Report for Sengha Doherty Pump Station Disinfection System Improvements, respectively. Costs were adjusted to the July 2015 ENR-CCI 20-City National Average Index, and include the following improvements at both pumping stations:

 Sodium Hypochlorite Generation System and Tank  Brine Makeup Tank  Sodium Hypochlorite Metering Pumps and Piping  Aqua Ammonia Storage Tank  Ammonia Scrubber  Aqua Ammonia Metering Pumps and Piping  Inline Chemical Mixer  Chlorine and Ammonia Analyzers  Equipment Building and HVAC

Table 10-8 summarizes the pump station capital improvement projects by Fiscal Year and District Funding Division.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 295 of 304

Table 10-6 - Estimated Pumping Station Improvement Costs

Estimated Probable Cost ($) Project Project Booster Station Zone Details ID Duration Demo/ Mechanical/ Pumps Electrical Building Site Total Conversion Disinfection

FY 2016-2017 Improvements

Combined

New Consolidated 1305/1380 PS with Near-term Firm VDC- New Regional 1305/1380 1305/1380 2 Capacity of 14,600 gpm (32.5 cfs) and Build-Out Firm ------$7,930,000 PS-1 Capacity of 19,000 gpm (42 cfs); 5,250 gpm to 1380*

Santa Rosa

1670- Ace Bowen No. 1 and 2 1670 1 Disinfection Improvements (Construction Only)** ------$2,990,000 PS-1

1670- Senga Doherty 1670 1 Disinfection Improvements (Construction Only)*** ------$2,028,000 PS-2

FY 2016-2017 Subtotal $12,948,000

FY 2018-2019 Improvements

Santa Rosa

2550- Relocation and Increase Firm Capacity by 3,515 gpm to Baldary 2550 2 $180,000 $600,000 $530,000 $580,000 $410,000 $560,000 $2,860,000 PS-1 7,935 gpm

FY 2020-2021 Improvements

Rancho

Increase Firm Capacity by at least 1,705 gpm to a near- 1610- Anza 1610 2 term rated capacity of 6,315 gallons per minute (gpm), $180,000 $500,000 $400,000 $600,000 $350,000 $1,220,000 $3,250,000 PS-1 and a build-out rated capacity of 8,420 gpm.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 296 of 304

Table 10-6 - Estimated Pumping Station Improvement Costs

Estimated Probable Cost ($) Project Project Booster Station Zone Details ID Duration Demo/ Mechanical/ Pumps Electrical Building Site Total Conversion Disinfection

Build-Out Improvements

Santa Rosa

2160- De Luz 2160 2 Increase Firm Capacity by 2,965 gpm to 7,365 gpm $180,000 $550,000 $500,000 $530,000 $270,000 $250,000 $2,280,000 PS-1

2260- Carancho 2260 2 Increase Firm Capacity by 6,425 gpm to 7,875 gpm $180,000 $600,000 $530,000 $640,000 $530,000 $250,000 $2,730,000 PS-1

2550- Increase Firm Capacity by 2,100 gpm to 6,300 gpm Tenaja 2550 2 $0 $180,000 $120,000 $190,000 $0 $0 $490,000 PS-2 (One additional pump)

2825- Avocado Mesa 2825 2 Increase Firm Capacity by 865 gpm to 1,615 gpm $180,000 $360,000 $350,000 $530,000 $270,000 $125,000 $1,815,000 PS-1

2860- Avenida Escala 2860 2 Increase Firm Capacity by 170 gpm to 1,170 gpm $180,000 $360,000 $350,000 $410,000 $250,000 $125,000 $1,675,000 PS-1

Rancho

1550- Alvarez 1550 2 Increase Firm Capacity by 610 gpm to 3,110 gpm $0 $425,000 $475,000 $530,000 $300,000 $300,000 $2,030,000 PS-1

Build-Out Subtotal $11,020,000

TOTAL $30,078,000

* - Cost estimates for 1305/1380 PS obtained from the Draft 2015 Upper VDC Economic Analysis prepared by Black &Veatch, and include a 30% contingency and 25% soft costs. 2015 costs were utilized, and itemized based on the 2013 Los Caballos Pump Station No. 2 Preliminary Design Technical Memorandum for Alternative 2 (Consolidated). ** - Cost estimates for the disinfection improvements at Ace Bowen PS obtained from the 2013 Preliminary Design Report for Ace Bowen Pump Station Disinfection System Improvements *** - Cost estimates for the disinfection improvements at Senga Doherty PS obtained from the 2013 Preliminary Design Report for Senga Doherty Pump Station Disinfection System Improvements

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 297 of 304

Table 10-7 - Regional 1305/1380 Booster Station Costs from the Draft 2015 Upper VDC Economic Analysis prepared by Black &Veatch, and itemized based on the 2013 Los Caballos Pump Station No. 2 Preliminary Design Technical Memorandum for Alternative 2 (Consolidated). Facility/Equipment Cost Estimate ($)

Pumps and VFD's $955,000

Pump Station (excl pumps) $530,000

Primary Valves $212,000

Surge Suppression System $530,000

Electrical and Controls $530,000

Stand‐by Generator $319,000

Forebay (1.0 Mgal)2 $1,061,000

Site Work / Earthwork $530,000

Appurtenances / Misc. $212,000

Pump Station Subtotals $4,879,000

30% Contingency $1,464,000

25% Soft Costs $1,587,000

Total $7,930,000

* - Costs were obtained from the Draft 2015 Upper VDC Economic Analysis prepared by Black &Veatch, and include a 30% contingency and 25% soft costs. 2015 costs were utilized, and itemized based on the 2013 Los Caballos Pump Station No. 2 Preliminary Design Technical Memorandum for Alternative 2 (Consolidated).

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 298 of 304

Table 10-8 - Summary of Estimated Pump Station Improvement Costs by Fiscal Year and Division Fiscal Year Division Total

Combined $7,930,000 FY 2016-2017 Santa Rosa $5,018,000

FY 2018-2019 Santa Rosa $2,860,000

FY 2020-2021 Rancho $3,250,000

Santa Rosa $8,990,000 Build-Out Rancho $2,030,000

TOTAL $30,078,000

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 299 of 304

10.2.4 Cost Estimates for Water Supply Improvements Table 10-9 presents the cost estimates for the recommended water supply improvements. From Fiscal Year 2016-2017 through Fiscal Year 2020-2021, water supply projects are identified to increase VDC production by approximately 15 cfs, for a total of 32.5 cfs (VDC-SUPPLY-1), including new wells, pipelines, a chlorine contact tank and central disinfection. In the build-out time increment, VDC and Pauba production are projected to increase by 16 cfs, with a total VDC production capacity of 42 cfs (VDC-SUPPLY-2).

Estimated probable costs for the Chlorine Contact Tank, OSG Facility and VDC well field piping in Table 10-9 were obtained from the Draft 2015 Upper VDC Economic Analysis, as prepared by Black & Veatch, and include 30% contingency and 25% soft costs. Costs were based on the 2015 costs projected in the Draft 2015 Upper VDC Economic Analysis. Estimated probable costs for well rebowling in Table 10-9 were obtained from the 2012 Upper VDC Conjunctive Use Optimization Study, and include 20% for engineering, construction management, permitting, and administrative costs, and 20% for contingency. Costs were adjusted to the July 2015 ENR-CCI 20-City National Average Index.

Based on recent experience, the estimated cost of a District Well is $2,300,000, with an estimated cost for USGS Monitoring Wells of $1,600,000. The District anticipates sharing the cost of all USGS monitoring wells in Table 10-9, with the District's allocated portion estimated to be $650,000. These costs include a factor of 20 percent for engineering and administration, and a factor of 30 percent for contingencies.

Table 10-10 summarizes the water supply capital improvement projects by Fiscal Year and District Funding Division.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 300 of 304

Table 10-9 - Estimated Water Supply Improvement Costs

Project ID Zone Description Project Duration (years) Total ($)

FY 2016-2017 Improvements

Combined

Upper VDC 2 Wells (W162, W163) 2 $4,600,000

Upper VDC OSG Facility* 2 $2,155,000

VDC-SUPPLY-1 Upper VDC Chlorine Contact Tank* 2 $1,724,000

Upper VDC ReBowl Existing Wells** 2 $215,000

4,000 ft of 48-inch pipeline from wells to centralized treatment, and replumb well discharge pipeline to centralized Upper VDC 2 $4,000,000 disinfection facility.**

FY 2016-2017 Sub-Total $12,694,000

FY 2018-2019 Improvements

Combined

VDC-SUPPLY-1 (cont.) Upper VDC 2 USGS Monitoring Wells*** 2 $1,300,000

FY 2019-2020 Improvements

Combined

VDC-SUPPLY-1 (cont.) Upper VDC 2 USGS Monitoring Wells*** 2 $1,300,000

FY 2020-2021 Improvements

Combined

VDC-SUPPLY-1 (cont.) Upper VDC 3 Wells (W167, W169 and W171) 2 $6,900,000

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 301 of 304

Table 10-9 - Estimated Water Supply Improvement Costs

Project ID Zone Description Project Duration (years) Total ($)

Build-Out Improvements

Combined

Upper VDC Drill and Equip 5 New Wells (W172B, W173B, W174B, W175B AND W178) $11,500,000 VDC-SUPPLY-2 Upper VDC 24-inch pipeline from new wells (adjacent property) to centralized treatment** $463,000

Build-Out Sub-Total $11,963,000

TOTAL $34,157,000

* - Cost estimates for these facilities were obtained from the Draft 2015 Upper VDC Economic Analysis prepared by Black &Veatch, and include a 30% contingency and 25% soft costs. 2015 costs were utilized. ** - Cost estimates for these facilities obtained from the 2012 Upper VDC Conjunctive Use Optimization Study, and include 20% for engineering, construction management, permitting, and administrative costs, and 20% for contingency. Costs were adjusted to the May 2015 ENR-CCI 20-City National Average Index. *** - Total USGS Monitoring Well estimated cost is $1,600,000 with the District's allocated portion estimated to be $650,000.

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 302 of 304

Table 10-10 - Summary of Estimated Water Supply Improvement Costs by Fiscal Year and Division Fiscal Year District Funding Division Total

FY 2016-2017 Combined $12,694,000

FY 2018-2019 Combined $1,300,000

FY 2019-2020 Combined $1,300,000

FY 2020-2021 Combined $6,900,000

Build-Out Combined $11,963,000

TOTAL $34,157,000

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 303 of 304

10.2.5 Summary of Capital Improvement Program Table 10-11 summarizes the estimated probable costs for the Capital Improvement Program by infrastructure type, fiscal year and District funding division. Costs presented in Table 10-11 are in “today’s dollars,” and should be adjusted for inflation accordingly. The total estimated probable cost of the Capital Improvement Program is $119.8 Million, and includes:

Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan December 2015 Page 304 of 304

Table 10-11 - Summary of Capital Improvement Costs by Infrastructure Type, Fiscal Year and Division Fiscal Year District Funding Division Pipeline ($) Pump Station ($) Storage Reservoir ($) Water Supply ($) Sub-Total ($) Total ($) Combined $176,000 $7,930,000 - $12,694,000 $20,800,000 FY 2016-2017 Santa Rosa - $5,018,000 - - $5,018,000 $32,846,000 Rancho $7,028,000 - - - $7,028,000 Combined - - - - - FY 2017-2018 Santa Rosa $1,751,000 - - - $1,751,000 $1,751,000 Rancho - - - - - Combined - - - $1,300,000 $1,300,000 FY 2018-2019 Santa Rosa $5,187,210 $2,860,000 - - $8,047,210 $18,002,710 Rancho $8,655,500 - - - $8,655,500 Combined - - - $1,300,000 $1,300,000 FY 2019-2020 Santa Rosa - - - - - $1,300,000 Rancho - - - - - Combined - - - $6,900,000 $6,900,000 FY 2020-2021 Santa Rosa - - - - - $18,700,000 Rancho - $3,250,000 $8,550,000 - $11,800,000 Combined $1,600,000 - $8,050,000 - $9,650,000 FY 2031-2032 Santa Rosa $3,082,275 - - - $3,082,275 $12,732,275 Rancho - - - - - Combined - - - $11,963,000 $11,963,000 Build-Out Santa Rosa - $8,990,000 $5,825,000 - $14,815,000 $34,425,500 Rancho $2,832,500 $2,030,000 $2,785,000 - $7,647,500 TOTAL $30,312,485 $30,078,000 $25,210,000 $34,157,000 $119,757,485 $119,757,485