Mojave Water Agency RAP rev6...Mojave Water Agency 1 Region Acceptance Process Mojave Water Agency...

Mojave Water Agency 1 Region Acceptance Process

Mojave Water Agency Region Acceptance Process Submittal

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3

2.0 MWA Structure and Roles ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 MWA IRWM Composition ................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Stakeholders’ Statutory Authority and Roles .................................................................................... 10

2.3 Working Relationships ..................................................................................................................... 12

3.0 Stakeholder Involvement ...................................................................................................................... 16

3.1 Stakeholder Outreach and Involvement .......................................................................................... 16

3.1.1 DAC Outreach ............................................................................................................................. 17

3.1.2 Outreach Process ....................................................................................................................... 20

3.2 Collaborative Effort .......................................................................................................................... 22

4.0 Public Outreach ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Goal #4—Develop public awareness so that individuals and stakeholder organizations support our

efforts and understand their role in contributing to the Agency’s mission. ...................................... 24

Goal #6—Promote efficient use of the region’s water resources through regional conservation

programs. ............................................................................................................................................ 25

5.0 Governance ........................................................................................................................................... 28

5.1 Structure and Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 28

5.1.1 Structure .................................................................................................................................... 28

5.1.2 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 28

5.2 Decision Making Process ................................................................................................................... 30

5.3 Balance of Interested Parties .......................................................................................................... 30

5.4 Collaborative Effort .......................................................................................................................... 31

6.0 IRWM Regional Boundary ..................................................................................................................... 32

6.1 Determination of the Region Boundary ........................................................................................... 32

6.2 Advantages of the Region Boundary ................................................................................................ 38

7.0 Background/History .............................................................................................................................. 39

7.1 History .............................................................................................................................................. 39

7.2 Issues and Conflicts .......................................................................................................................... 41

7.3 Regional Water Related Components ............................................................................................... 44


8.0 Relationship with Adjacent IRWM Regions .......................................................................................... 46

8.1 Description ....................................................................................................................................... 46

8.2 Region Overlap, Voids, or Exclusions ............................................................................................... 52

8.3 Water Management Differences Between Regions......................................................................... 54

Attachment A – February 16, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Minutes ............................................ 55

Attachment B – Correspondence regarding Proposed Coachella IRWMP ................................................. 57

Attachment C – Technical Advisory Committee Motion for Submitting RAP Application.......................... 61

Attachment D – Letter describing collaboration on MWA/Inyo‐Mono IRWM Boundaries ....................... 62

Attachment E – TAC Support for MWA Implementation of IRWMP .......................................................... 63

Attachment F – Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws ............................................................................. 64

Table 1 ‐ MWA IRWMP Participants – Water Agencies ................................................................................ 5

Table 2 ‐ MWA IRWMP Participants – Municipalities, State and Federal Agencies, Community Interests . 6

Figure 1 ‐ State Water Resources Control Board Regions and Mojave Water Agency ................................. 4

Figure 2 ‐ Groundwater Basins and Water Districts ..................................................................................... 9

Figure 3 ‐ Groundwater Basins and Subbasins ........................................................................................... 13

Figure 4 ‐ Water Delivery Facilities ............................................................................................................. 15

Figure 5 ‐ 2000 Median Income and Disadvantaged Communities ............................................................ 18

Figure 6 ‐ Subarea Boundaries .................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 7 ‐ MWA Director's Divisions ........................................................................................................... 29

Figure 8 – Watersheds ................................................................................................................................ 33

Figure 9 ‐ FEMA 100‐year Flood Plain ......................................................................................................... 35

Figure 10 ‐ Surface Water Bodies ............................................................................................................... 36

Figure 11 – Population ................................................................................................................................ 37

Figure 12 ‐ IRWMPs in Lahontan Funding Area .......................................................................................... 47

Figure 13 ‐ Selected IRWM Region Boundary Crossovers .......................................................................... 48

Figure 14 ‐ IRWMPs in Colorado River Funding Area .................................................................................. 49

Figure 15 ‐ IRWMPs in Santa Ana Funding Area ......................................................................................... 51


1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose

1. This document is submitted on behalf of the Mojave Water

Agency (MWA), the Regional Water Management Group

representing a 4,900 square mile area in the High Desert area of

Southern California. The IRWMP was adopted on February 24,

2005. As shown in Figure 1, the water management area

covered by the Plan includes portions of both the North/South

Lahontan and Colorado River Proposition 84 Funding Areas.

2. MWA provides regional water management services for this

area, and organized the planning group which developed the

IRWMP and the associated Environmental Impact Report. The

planning group includes 44 water agencies, 11 municipal and

county agencies, six state and federal agencies, and over 25

community interest groups. These groups are listed in Table 1

and Table 2.

3. This inclusive group of participants guided development of the

IRWMP through a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC has endorsed MWA’s submittal

of the IRWMP and related documents (e.g. EIR, grant applications, RAP) as the Regional Water

Management Group. The MWA Board of Directors approved submittal of the RAP on April 20,

2009.

4. The contacts for this Region are:

Kirby Brill, General Manager Mojave Water Agency 22450 Headquarters Drive Apple Valley, California 92307 (760) 946‐7000 (760) 240‐2642 (facsimile) [email protected]

Scott Weldy, Chairman MWA Technical Advisory Committee c/o Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company 13252 Winona Road Apple Valley, CA 92308 (760) 240‐8320 [email protected]


Figure 1 ‐ State Water Resources Control Board Regions and Mojave Water Agency


Table 1 ‐ MWA IRWMP Participants – Water Agencies

Participating EntityTechnical Advisory

Committiee

Statutory Authority over Water Supply

or Water Management

Basis and Nature of Authority

Water AgenciesApple Valley Foothill County Water District X X Retail water agencyApple Valley Heights County Water District X X Retail water agencyApple Valley Ranchos Water Company X X Retail water agencyApple Valley View Water District X X Retail water agencyBaldy Mesa Water District X X Retail water agencyBar H Mutual Water Company X X Mutual water companyBar-Len Mutual Water Company X X Mutual water companyBighorn-Desert View Water Agency X X Retail water agencyCenter Water Company X X Retail water agencyChamisal Mutual Water Company X X Retail water agencyDaggett Community Services District X X Retail water agencyDesert Dawn Mutual Water Company X X Mutual water companyDesert Springs Mutual Water Co X X Mutual water companyGordon Acres Water Co X X Retail water agencyHelendale Community Services District X X Mutual water companyHesperia Water District X X Retail water agencyHi Desert Mutual Water Company X X Mutual water companyHi-Desert Water District X X Retail water agencyIndian Wells Valley Water District X X Retail water agencyJoshua Basin Water District X X Retail water agencyJubilee Mutual Water Company X X Retail water agencyJuniper Riviera County Water District X X Retail water agency; County governmentLucerne Valley County Service Area 29 X X Retail water agency; County governmentLucerne Valley Mutual Water Company X X Self-supplied water usersLucerne Vista Municipal Water Company X X Retail water agencyMariana Ranchos County Water District X X Retail water agency; County government

Mojave Water Agency X XSpecial district formed from Mojave Water Agency Act; Wholesale water agency

Navajo Mutual Water Company X X Mutual water companyNewberry Community Services District X X Retail water agencyRancheritos Mutual Water Company X X Mutual water companyRancho Los Flores X Self-supplied water usersRand Communities Water District X X Retail water agencySan Bernardino County Special Districts X X Retail water agency; County governmentSheep Creek Water Company X X Retail water agencySilver Lakes Association X X Self-supplied water usersSouthern California Water Company X X Retail water agencySpring Valley Lake Association X X Self-supplied water usersStoddard Valley Water Company X X Retail water agencyThunderbird County Water District X X Retail water agency; County governmentVictor Valley Water District X X Retail water agencyVictor Valley Water Reclamation Authority X X Wastewater agencyWest End Mutual Water Company X X Mutual water companyWillow Wells Mutual Water X X Mutual water companyYermo Community Services District X X Retail water agency


Table 2 ‐ MWA IRWMP Participants – Municipalities, State and Federal Agencies, Community Interests

Participating EntityTechnical Advisory

Committee

Statutory Authority over Water Supply

or Water Management

Basis and Nature of Authority

Municipalities (cities, county, other)City of Adelanto X X Municipal governmentCity of Barstow X X Municipal governmentCity of Hesperia X X Municipal governmentCity of Victorville X X Municipal governmentLocal Agency Formation Commission Land use authorityMojave Desert & Mountain Waste Management JPA

Municipal government

San Bernardino County Department of Public Works and Flood Control

X XFlood management agency; County government

San Bernardino County Planning Department X X County government; Land use authorityTown of Apple Valley X X Municipal governmentTown of Yucca Valley X X Municipal government

State and Federal AgenciesBureau of Land Management Federal agencyCalifornia Department of Fish and Game X X State agencyCalifornia Department of Water Resources X X Wholesale water agency; State agencyLahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board X X State agencyState Water Resources Control Board X X State agencyU.S. Geological Survey X X Federal agency

Miscellaneous Community InterestsAudubon Society Environmental organizationBarstow Community College Community organizationCitizens for a Better Community X Community organizationCopper Mountain Community College Community organizationEl Mirage Property Owners Association X Community organizationHispanic Chamber of Commerce Community organizationJess Ranch X X Private stakeholderLewis Center for Academic Excellence Community organizationMojave Basin Area Judgment Subarea Advisory Committees

X Community organization

Mojave Basin Area Judgment Watermaster X WatermasterMojave Desert Resource Conservation District Land use authorityMojave Weed Management Area Land use authorityMorongo Basin Judgment Watermaster X WatermasterMWA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) X Community organizationNewberry Springs - Harvard Property Owners X Community organizationPalisades Ranch X Private stakeholderPhelan Pinion Hills Community Services District Community organizationPublic Works Advisory Committee, City of Hesperia

X Community organization

San Bernardino County Fairgrounds County governmentSierra Club X Environmental organizationSilver Lakes Association X Community organizationSilver Valley Realty X Industry organizationSpring Valley Lakes Association X Community organizationThe Bradco Companies (real estate) X Industry organizationUC Cooperative Extension Cooperating agencyVictor Valley Association of Realtors Industry organizationVictor Valley College Community organization


2.0 MWA Structure and Roles 2.1 MWA IRWM Composition A description of the RWMG. Identify members and their role in the RWMG process, regional water

management responsibilities, and the level of IRWM participation. For each entity, identify if they

have adopted, plan to adopt, or will not adopt the IRWM plan.

5. The Mojave Water Agency (MWA) is the Regional Water Management Group charged with

developing the IRWMP and the RAP application.

6. MWA was formed in 1960 to provide regional water management to correct declining

groundwater levels in the Mojave Basin Area, El Mirage Basin, and Lucerne Basin. MWA was

expanded to include the Johnson Valley and Morongo Basin areas, and today covers an area of

over 4,900 square miles.

7. As noted in Chapter 2 of the RWMP1, water users form the core of the stakeholder group in the

basin, which includes water districts, cities, private water agencies, and agribusiness. Additional

essential stakeholder involvement includes environmental organizations, regulatory agencies,

development interests, and community associations. The stakeholders listed in Table 1 (water

agencies) and Table 2 (other stakeholders) were notified of and participated in the IRWMP1

process.

8. The RWMP was supported through a March 22, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

with the DWR Integrated Storage Investigation which requires a “Basin Advisory Panel” of local

civic and technical leaders and other stakeholders. The IRWMP was prepared in three phases

with input from a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) convened as the advisory panel.

9. Local water supply agencies within the Mojave Water Agency are shown in Figure 3‐2 of the

IRWMP which is reproduced below as Figure 2.

10. As noted in Table 2, above, State and federal agencies involved in formulation of the Regional

Water Management Plan include the Department of Water Resources, the State Department of

Fish and Game, the U. S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, the State Water

Resources Control Board and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.

11. Most of the Plan area is covered by two completed groundwater adjudications:

1) Mojave Basin Area Judgment

2) Warren Valley Area Judgment

1 The terms Regional Water Management Plan (RWMP) and Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) are used interchangeably in this document. MWA first adopted the term for its 1994 Regional Water Management Plan. The 2004 RWMP Update followed DWR IRWMP guidelines.


These adjudications constitute the rules under which the member agencies participate in

regional water management. These adjudications are described in Paragraphs 120, 121,

and122.

12. The Technical Advisory Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the IRWMP and the

associated Environmental Impact Report at its February 16, 2005 meeting. The minutes from

this meeting are reproduced herein as Attachment A – February 16, 2005 Technical Advisory

Committee Minutes.

13. The TAC membership was not asked to have their various governing bodies adopt the 2004 Plan,

which was not an IRWMP requirement at the time. Individual Urban Water Management Plans

all reference the IRWMP, and numerous letters of endorsement and praise for the Plan were

submitted in support of the group’s Proposition 50 grant application.

14. The MWA Board of Directors, acting as the Regional Water Management Group, adopted the

IRWMP and its EIR at its February 24, 2005 meeting.


Figure 2 ‐ Groundwater Basins and Water Districts


2.2 Stakeholders’ Statutory Authority and Roles

Provide a listing of the local agencies with statutory authority over water supply or water

management and the basis and nature of that authority.

15. As noted in Table 1, Table 2, and paragraph 2, there are 44 water agencies and 11 municipal,

county, state and federal agencies in the IRWM Planning Region with authority over water

supply or water management. These include wholesale and retail water agencies, investor‐

owned water suppliers, mutual water companies, and self‐supplied water user groups, and

municipal and county governments with water supply, water management, and/or flood control

responsibilities. The basis and nature of their water management authority is summarized in

Table 1 and Table 2.

16. The Mojave Water Agency is a public agency formed and operated pursuant to Chapter 2146 of

the California Water Code Statutes of 1959 known as the Mojave Water Agency Law of 1959 of

the State of California. This law authorized the Agency to “do any and every act necessary to be

done so that sufficient water may be available for any present or future beneficial use or uses of

the lands or inhabitants of the agency…2”

Provide a listing of the other participants such as agencies, stakeholders, and others included in the

RWMG and their role in developing and implementing the IRWM Plan.

17. In addition to the water agencies listed in Table 1, miscellaneous other community interests

who participated in the IRWM planning process are shown in Table 1. These include community

organizations, land use authorities, industry groups, and private stakeholders. All of these

groups have participated in IRWM Plan development and its on‐going implementation. A list of

these local agencies and the basin and nature of their authority is presented in Table 1 and

Table 2, above.

18. There are also two Watermaster groups overseeing groundwater adjudications which cover

most of the planning area, each with community‐based advisory groups. The history of these

adjudications is described in Paragraphs 120, 121, and 122.

19. The RWMP was supported through a March 22, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

with the DWR Integrated Storage Investigation which requires a “Basin Advisory Panel” of local

civic and technical leaders and other stakeholders.

20. The IRWMP was prepared in three phases with input from a Technical Advisory Committee

(TAC) convened as the advisory panel. The charges given to the TAC were to:

1) review and revise, as necessary, previous estimates of water supply and demand,

2 Section 1 of Chapter 2146 of the California Water Code Statues of 1959


2) identify and solicit input from stakeholders with interest in long‐term reliable water

supplies for the region, and

3) identify a suite of preliminary alternatives that will help MWA achieve its goals in water

supply management for the next two decades. Each of these proposed projects and

management actions are tailored to address at least one key water management issue

in the basin.

The bylaws of the TAC are included in this application as Attachment F.

21. Chapter 8 of the RWMP provides a detailed list of the stakeholder issues developed from

individual and group meetings and a questionnaire process. The following six key water

management issues emerged as a result of this process:

Current demand exceeds supply; future demand will also exceed supply unless corrective actions are taken

Naturally occurring water quality problems affect drinking water supplies

Many of the groundwater basins are in overdraft

All but two of the subareas have riparian ecosystem maintenance issues

Wastewater infrastructure issues affect the two subareas with the largest water demands

Many subareas within MWA are impacted by activities in other subareas

22. As described in Chapter 9 of the RWMP, Fundamental Objectives established with the input of

the TAC are to:

1) Balance future water demands with available supplies, recognizing the need to:

stabilize the groundwater basin storage balance over long‐term hydrologic cycles

protect and restore riparian habitat areas as identified in Exhibit H of the Mojave Basin Area Judgment and the Department of Fish & Game management by Exhibit H

limit the potential for well dewatering, land subsidence, and migration of poor quality water

maintain a sustainable water supply through extended drought periods; and

select projects with the highest likelihood of being implemented.

2) Maximize the overall beneficial use of water throughout MWA by:

supplying water in quantity and of quality suitable to the various beneficial uses

addressing at a minimum Table 7‐1 issues throughout the MWA service area recognizing the interconnection and interaction between different areas

distributing benefits that can be provided by MWA in an equitable and fair manner


ensuring that costs incurred to meet beneficial uses provide the greatest potential return to beneficiaries of the project(s)

avoiding redirected impacts; and

identifying sustainable funding sources including consideration of affordability.

23. The TAC met approximately monthly during the three‐year IRWM planning period. Attendance

typically reflected 40 stakeholder groups over this period.

24. Policies and plans were first adopted by the TAC before seeking endorsements from the MWA

Board and the agencies and councils represented by the TAC.

25. The TAC continues to meet today to, among other things, set priorities for IRWMP

implementation.

2.3 Working Relationships List and describe the working relationship of identified agencies and stakeholders per CWC §10541(g).

Descriptions of working relationship may include but is not limited to information regarding the

sharing of information, shared infrastructure, or competing interests.

26. The working relationships between MWA IRWM Plan participants are manifold and complex.

Major working relationships are summarized below.

27. Adjudications. Most of the Mojave Water Agency territory is covered by two completed

adjudications. The groundwater basins subject to these adjudications are shown in Figure 3.

This links stakeholders in several important ways, including identification of groundwater

pumping rights, replenishment water purchase obligations, water production allowance

transfers, groundwater level targets, and minimum downstream flow obligations. The

adjudications are discussed in greater detail in Paragraphs 120, 121, and 122.

28. The Agency was appointed by the Superior Court of Riverside as the initial Watermaster in the

Mojave Basin Area groundwater adjudication in 1994. The Agency staff functions as

administrative staff for the Watermaster. The seven directors of the Watermaster are also board

members of Mojave Water Agency. Under this arrangement, Mojave Basin Area Watermaster

(the “Watermaster”) is considered and presented as an independent component unit of the

Agency.


Figure 3 ‐ Groundwater Basins and Subbasins


29. State Water Project Imports. The Agency signed a contract with the State of California

Department of Water Resources in 1963 for the delivery of Feather River water to secure a

supply of supplemental water for the Agency. Additional State Water Project supplies were

obtained in 1998. As shown in Figure 4, the California Aqueduct traverses the southwestern

portion of the IRWM planning area.

30. Major Infrastructure.

1) Delivery of replenishment water has been made possible through the construction of

the Mojave River Pipeline, the Morongo Basin Pipeline, and associated pump stations

and groundwater percolation ponds. The MWA has also made use of release structures

in Cedar Springs Dam to take delivery of SWP water from Lake Silverwood. As shown in

Figure 4, these facilities make it possible to deliver replenishment water to the

populated areas in the planning area.

2) MWA is currently completing design on the Regional Recharge and Recovery (R3)

Project, which will allow large quantities of water to be recharged in the southernmost

reaches of the Mojave River aquifer.

3) A regional waste treatment facility serving the cities in the Victor Valley was the

completed in 1977, A regional entity, the Victor Valley Water Reclamation Authority

operates the facility.

31. The Morongo Basin Pipeline Commission meets quarterly to address the business of operating

the Morongo Basin Pipeline. The Commission includes representatives from each of the entities

that are participants in the Pipeline (MWA, Bighorn‐Desert View Water Agency, County of San

Bernardino, Joshua Basin Water District, Hi‐Desert Water District). The Commission has a

published agenda and is open to the public. There is also a formal contract between the MWA

and the participants regarding debt service, operations and maintenance of the MBP. An MOU

has also been developed with the Hi‐Desert Water District that provides for conjunctive use

storage of imported SWP supplies.

32. The MWA Technical Advisory Committee, described above in Paragraphs 3, 8, 17, 20, and 24,

provides a forum for sharing of information and discussion of water management issues and

solutions.


Figure 4 ‐ Water Delivery Facilities


3.0 Stakeholder Involvement 3.1 Stakeholder Outreach and Involvement

Discuss how the outreach efforts address the diversity of water management issues, geographical

representation, and stakeholder interests in the region.

33. RWMP Chapter 9 describes the development of Basin Management Objectives, formulation of

alternatives, and selection and prioritization of projects and management actions. A total of 53

distinct projects and management actions were identified and screened. Each project was first

described with costs and yield described on a comparable basis. Each project was tested using a

Decision Support Model for the MWA service area. Combinations of projects and actions were

evaluated based on their ability to meet Evaluation Criteria that were developed to measure

success in obtaining the project objectives. The adopted plan identifies 19 primary projects or

actions (Table 9‐9), 60 Management Actions (Chapter 10), and 43 mitigation measures (PEIR

Appendix A) to implement these strategies.

34. The RWMP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was active in all phases of this process. The

TAC developed the objectives, provided input on development of evaluation criteria, selected

projects for implementation, and assigned a priority to each. The TAC was also active in

development and review of the Program EIR and selection of the Environmentally Superior

Project.

35. There has been a concerted effort to contact all communities and groups within the Plan area.

TAC meetings are open to all, with meeting agendas and minutes posted on the internet. The

MWA also maintains a regular mail and email list of entities and individuals for distribution of

TAC Agendas and meeting materials.

36. Community, Governmental, and Industry Groups. Examples of involvement with these groups

include:

There has been considerable interaction with the Building Industry Association (BIA) on the

Plan and have outreach efforts with them, and have discussed the potential for an MWA

developer impact fee.

The San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission is a source for planning

data and was contacted as part of Plan development. The LAFCO references the Plan

frequently and their staff regularly coordinates with the MWA regarding water supply

service issues.

There was considerable cement company involvement in the RWMP and their

representative served as TAC vice‐president. He represents a number of cement companies

involved in the Mojave Basin Area adjudication.


The City of Victorville is involved in the development of the Southern California Logistics

Airport and has addressed the Board on several occasions regarding water supply for the

airport and environs.

The Agency has Memoranda of Understanding in place with local colleges (Victor Valley

Community College, Copper Mountain Community College, and Barstow Community

College) and provides funding and assistance for development of conservation

demonstration gardens and water resource related educational programs.

The Agency has an MOU with the Lewis Center for Academic Excellence that covers training

for students, equipment, etc. for water supply and environmental studies.

The Agency has outreach and information exchange MOUs with the

o Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and

o Victor Valley Association of Realtors

The Agency has MOUs with the Mojave Desert Resource Conservation District for

o operation of CIMIS stations, and

o removal and management of invasive plants from the Mojave River.

The Agency is a signatory to the Mojave Weed Management Area MOU.

3.1.1 DAC Outreach A description of how stakeholders, including DACs, are identified and invited to participate.

37. Disadvantaged communities (DACs) within the IRWM planning region include both rural and

urban areas. The DACs, shown on Figure 5, were delineated based on comparison of 2000

census data to 80 percent of the statewide median household income3.

38. All DACs have been involved with development of the MWA IRWMP through the Technical

Advisory Committee (TAC).

39. Considerable portions of the Plan area meet the definition of Disadvantaged Communities

(DACs). These DACs are shown on Figure 5. Examples of DAC participation and outreach

include:

There is regular representation at the TAC and sometimes Board meetings from Newberry

Springs property owners (individuals and the Property Owners Association), the El Mirage

area, Phelan, Lucerne Valley, Joshua Basin, Johnson Valley, Landers and sometimes Hinkley4.

MWA staff regularly attend the Watermaster Subarea Advisory Committee meetings that

represent all five Subareas of the Mojave Basin Area (see Figure 6).

One MWA Board member regularly attends Lucerne Valley Economic Development

Association meetings and staff periodically present to them on various topics.

3 $37,994 4 The Hinkley community is seeking opposition to a sludge disposal proposal


Figure 5 ‐ 2000 Median Income and Disadvantaged Communities

MWA has an active program with the Hinkley school to improve their water supply

situation5.

The MWA Regional Recharge and Recovery (R3 ) Project (see Paragraph 30) will assist the

DAC parts of Victorville and Adelanto. The Agency is discussing the possibility of providing

financing to assist Adelanto with participation in the project.

MWA is assisting the City of Adelanto with retrofit of their City Hall landscape.

MWA has pledged funds from its General Fund to assist Joshua Basin Water District,

Bighorn‐Desert View Water Agency and Hi‐Desert Water District with their water supply

projects; their projects are included in MWA’s DWR grant applications.

MWA provides DACs (and the whole Agency) with General Fund money and staff time for

water conservation incentive programs (WCIP).

5 The Hinkley school was having trouble meeting demand. MWA studied the local hydrology and the water system and then

focused on improving their sports field turf and irrigation system.


Figure 6 ‐ Subarea Boundaries


The Agency secured grant funding to build the Mojave River Pipeline at no cost to local

residents, including DACs, who all benefit from the facility.

MWA helped Lucerne Valley get grant funds and provided local match to perform a sewer

system feasibility study.

The Morongo Pipeline was funded by bond sale, with MWA expending considerable time

and money to build it.

MWA now supports the operation, maintenance, and replacement costs for both pipelines

from general fund revenues.

MWA has funded a number of studies by the USGS, installed wells and perform our own and

consultant prepared geohydrology studies that benefit DAC areas. Monitoring wells that

benefit these areas have been installed and are regularly monitored by MWA staff.

3.1.2 Outreach Process List the procedures, processes, or structures that promote access to and collaboration with people or

agencies with diverse views within the region.

40. The RWMP incorporates all required elements of an Integrated Regional Water Management

Plan (RWMP p.1‐7), a Groundwater Management Plan (RWMP p.1‐8), and an Urban Water

Management Plan (RWMP p.1‐9) – there is significant overlap in the requirements of these

plans. The development of the RWMP and associated Program EIR were public processes that

included open meetings with posted agendas and minutes, and noticed public hearings.

41. Recent laws6 now require UWMPs of water suppliers that utilize groundwater (all urban

suppliers in MWA use groundwater) to include a description of the groundwater basin and

location and amounts of groundwater pumped. Seven water supply agencies (RWMP p.7‐5)

within the MWA have developed Urban Water Management Plans that were reviewed and

incorporated into the RWMP. The publication and adoption of these plans are noticed, public

processes.

42. Land use plans in the basin are developed by a number of different entities including the county

and each of the cities through their General Plans, General Plan Amendments and Public

Facilities Elements.

43. Twenty‐four regional entities have banded together to form the Alliance for Water Awareness

and Conservation (RWMP p.7‐1) to educate local communities on the importance of water

conservation, provide tools to reduce per capita consumption, and reduce regional water use by

10 percent (5 percent in the more water efficient Morongo Basin) by 2010, 15 percent by 2015,

and 20 percent by 2020. The MWA provides staff to and manages the program.

6 SB 221 and SB 610


44. Significant public outreach efforts were made during development of the RWMP. These efforts

involved distribution and evaluation of stakeholder questionnaires, and conducting meetings

with individuals, groups, agencies, and a Technical Advisory Committee. The TAC met regularly

during development of the Regional Water Management Plan, reviewing and providing

comments and suggestions on the Plan.

45. Outreach efforts were directed at stakeholders from local water agencies, state and federal

agencies, municipalities, San Bernardino County, and 25 local community groups. A list of

stakeholder groups involved in the Plan process is included as Table 1 and Table 2, above.

46. RWMP Management Actions (RWMP Chapter 9) related to planning and stakeholder

involvement include:

MWA will provide information regarding regional water balances and availability of

supplemental supply to local purveyors to allow them to reach appropriate conclusions

regarding the sufficiency of supply for SB 221 and SB 610 assessments

New developments within the Mojave Basin Area will be assessed the Replacement Water

cost by the Watermaster, who will request MWA to import State Water Project water to

replace the pumped water.

MWA will work with local planning agencies to ensure that areas that should be set aside to

recharge the groundwater basin are reserved for that purpose and are not subject to

development.

MWA will coordinate with local planning agencies to ensure that growth projections,

proposed land use changes, and types of proposed developments are consistent with water

planning efforts, as required by SB 221 and SB 610. Significant deviations from projected

growth and water needs will be noted and corrective action taken. Corrective actions could

include securing additional sources of water, or making a finding pursuant to SB221 or SB

610 that an adequate water supply does not exist and notifying the water purveyor.

MWA will work with the Alliance for Water Awareness and Conservation (AWAC) and serve

as a clearinghouse for water conservation measures and performance data. Water

conservation programs will be evaluated through the AWAC and actions taken as needed.

Increased water conservation efforts will be identified and plans developed for

implementation of cost‐effective demand management measures based on the reports on

effectiveness.

MWA will continue to coordinate, participate in, and implement recommendations of the

Alliance for Water Awareness and Conservation.

MWA has organized and held three water symposia with local water leaders and regulators

in Victorville, Morongo Basin, and Lucerne Valley and plans to make the water symposium

an annual event.

MWA will continue its outreach and education efforts through continued funding of the

Community Liaison Officer.


MWA will continue to develop and publish its newsletter, The Panorama. Regular updates

on the development of the Regional Water Management Plan have been included.

MWA will maintain its Speakers Bureau to provide timely water related information to the

public.

MWA’s web site (http://www.mojavewater.org/) contains information on MWA projects,

water supplies and resources, water education, Watermaster, Agency publications, a

calendar of events, meeting agendas, and general information about MWA. MWA will

continue to provide this service.

3.2 Collaborative Effort Explain how the IRWM region is inclusive and utilizes a collaborative, multi‐stakeholder process that

provides mechanisms to assist DAC; address water management issues; and develop integrated,

multi‐benefit, regional solutions that incorporate environmental stewardship to implement future

IRWM plans.

47. As noted in Table 2, above, State and federal agencies involved in formulation of the Regional

Water Management Plan include the Department of Water Resources, the State Department of

Fish and Game, the U. S. Geological Survey, the State Water Resources Control Board and

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. The RWMP was supported through a 2001

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DWR Integrated Storage Investigation.

48. MWA is in the second year of a multi‐year program to remove tamarisk, arundo, Russian olive

and other invasive non‐native plants within the Mojave River riparian corridor, as part of a

cooperative effort with the Mojave Weed Management District. The current effort is funded by

MWA and will include funding from the Agency’s Proposition 50 grant. This program also will be

part of Proposition 84 submittals.

49. Identified required approvals (PEIR p.2‐37) include:

CalTrans for encroachment permits in state rights of way

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Section 404 permits within jurisdictional wetlands

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Section 7 permits for actions affecting federally listed

species

California Department of Fish and Game for actions within streambeds and Section 2081

permits for actions affecting state listed species

Regional Water Quality Control Board for construction storm water runoff permits, water

recycling requirements for reclamation projects, and 401 certification for Army Corps 404

permits

Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District for air emissions permits for large

generators and treatment plant operations.


50. In addition, assistance of DWR and its State Water Project in facilitating water banking programs

could allow greater flexibility in operations and wider regional benefit.

51. MWA has made an on‐going commitment to monitor progress on IRWMP implementation and

to update the plan on a regular basis.


4.0 Public Outreach

A description of the process being used that makes the public both part of and aware of the regional

management and IRWM efforts. Discuss ways for the public to gain access to the RWMG and IRWM

process for information and provide input.

52. The Plan will, to the maximum extent possible, be implemented through collaborative regional

and local efforts.

53. Since Plan inception in 2001, the Mojave Water Agency has been developing and implementing

the Regional Water Management Plan (its IRWMP) as a cooperative effort between water

suppliers, regulators, and other stakeholders. Oversight of the Plan implementation is being

performed by the same local Technical Advisory Committee that formulated the Plan.

54. As noted in RWMP Chapter 2, water users form the core of the stakeholder group in the basin,

which also includes water districts, cities, private water agencies, and agribusiness. Additional

essential stakeholder involvement includes environmental organizations, regulatory agencies,

development interests, and community associations. The stakeholders listed in Table 1 and

Table 2 were notified of and participated in the RWMP process. RWMP Chapter 8 provides a

more detailed list of stakeholder issues developed from individual and group meetings and a

questionnaire process.

55. Ways the public can participate include:

Attend Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings; review posted agendas and minutes

Review the Plan and Program EIR posted on the web page,

Review the State of the Basin reports posted on the web page,

Participate in Plan updates and public hearings.

56. The following public outreach activities are identified in the MWA Strategic Plan Update:

Goal #4—Develop public awareness so that individuals and stakeholder organizations support our efforts and understand their role in contributing to the Agency’s mission.

57. Ongoing activities:

1) ABCs of Water Educational series, sessions held in Jan, Mar, May, Jul, Sep and Nov;

5:30—7:00 p.m.

2) Bi‐annual “Mini‐Tour,” conducted in May & Nov (special Rotary tour Mar 09)

3) Newly‐Electeds Orientation, conducted each November within 10‐days after the

election

4) Regular contributor to the “High Desert Report”, 600 regular subscribers + 1,500

additional mailings per quarter


5) Coordination with MWA’s five strategic partners7

58. Sponsored & presented at Second Annual San Bernardino County Water Conference (Ontario

Convention Center, August 14, 2008; 430 in attendance)

59. Coordinated third Water Symposium in Joshua Tree, October 9, 2008; 76 in attendance

60. Oversaw development and implementation of Public Education Outreach Program for the R3

Project, by TMG Communications

61. Disseminated eight news releases

62. Published & distributed four electronic newsletters (Mojave Messenger, now a periodic

publication)

63. Joined Newberry Springs Chamber of Commerce

64. Water management articles written for:

1) Victor Valley Association of Realtors

2) Newberry Springs Chamber of Commerce

65. New/developing endeavors:

1) Development of a Regional Legislative Alliance w/region‐wide water purveyors

2) Development of a Strategic Partnership with High Desert Hispanic Chamber of

Commerce

3) Steps taken to participate in “Social Media;” MWA Facebook page has been created

(augments Agency website)

4) “Virtual Tour” video in final editing for use with Mini‐Tour

5) Two video projects (Water Quality & Non‐Native Species Removal) in final editing as

well

6) Cooperating with other Southern California water agencies to develop a regional

response to state‐wide legislation and planning efforts

Goal #6—Promote efficient use of the region’s water resources through regional conservation programs.

66. The Alliance for Water Awareness and Conservation (AWAC) is still actively pursuing its three

goals:

7 Barstow Community College, Copper Mountain Community College, Lewis Center, Mojave Desert Resource Conservation District, Victor Valley Community College


1) Educate the local community with the understanding of the importance of water

conservation

2) Provide the local community with the tools to effectively reduce per capita consumption

to targeted goals

3) Reduce regional water use by 10 percent gross per capita by 2010 and 15 percent gross

per capita by 2015 (5 percent in the Morongo Basin by 2015) to achieve a sustainable,

reliable supply to meet regional water demands

67. MWA and the AWAC developed a model water conservation ordinance that has since been

adopted by the Town of Apple Valley, City of Victorville, City of Adelanto, City of Hesperia and

City of Barstow.

68. MWA has a full‐time Water Conservation Program (WCIP) manager on staff.

69. Water Conservation Incentive Program:

1) management and support for 945 cash for grass applications totaling 1,871,498 square

feet of turf removal,

2) 1,005 high efficiency toilet applications and

3) 553 high efficiency clothes washer applications

Total program expenditure of $1.5 million through March 2009. Management includes frequent

coordination w/consultant Niagara Conservation & 20 participating agencies.

70. Quarterly Face‐to‐Face Update meetings w/agencies participating in Water Conservation

Incentive Program.

71. Water conservation messages are placed on electronic message boards (Victor Valley College,

San Bernardino County Fairgrounds and Victorville City Hall)

72. Disseminated four news releases on WCIP and water conservation strategies

73. Plant of the Month articles in Daily Press (eight in Daily Press and one in the Hi‐Desert Star)

74. Ten workshops conducted throughout the region (two in Morongo Basin), covering

1) water‐efficient landscaping,

2) water‐efficient irrigation practices and training, and

3) plant/soil management

Average of 30 participants per workshop

75. 17th year of participation in the Desert Communities Water Awareness Expo (held in

conjunction w/High Desert Home & Garden Show)

76. Developed and distributed seven new handouts on water‐wise practices for homeowners


77. 2009 Calendars now contain water conservation information and tips for desert‐adaptive

planting and watering.

78. AWAC & WCIP websites provides 24/7 access to water conservation resources and information

79. Revised Alliance for Water Awareness and Conservation (AWAC) Operational Plan in

development, expected May 2009


5.0 Governance 5.1 Structure and Purpose

5.1.1 Structure A description of the RWMG governance structure and how it will facilitate the sustained development

of regional water management and the IRWM process, both now and beyond the state grant IRWM

funding programs.

80. Mojave Water Agency was organized July 21, 1960 by an act of the legislature of the State of

California known as the Mojave Water Agency Act (see Paragraph 114). The Act gives MWA

broad powers to manage water resources within the Mojave Basin and Morongo areas.

81. The Agency is governed by a seven‐member Board of Directors elected by geographic division

(see Figure 7).

82. The Agency’s Directors are advised by numerous advisory committees, including the Technical

Advisory Committee (TAC). The MWA Technical Advisory Committee (described above in

Paragraphs 3, 8, 17, 20, and 24) provides a forum for sharing of information and discussion of

water management issues and solutions. Stakeholder groups that participate in the TAC are

listed in Table 1 and Table 2.

83. The TAC oversaw development of the IRWMP, and recommend adoption to the Board of

Directors (see Attachment A – February 16, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Minutes). The

TAC continues to be active in the implementation of the IRWM Plan.

5.1.2 Purpose 84. Within the limits of its power and authority set forth in the Mojave Water Agency Act (see

Paragraph 114), the purpose of the Agency is to do any and every act necessary to be done so

that sufficient water may be available for any present or future beneficial use of the lands and

inhabitants of the Agency, including, but not limited to, the construction, maintenance,

alteration, purchase, and operation of any and all works or improvements within the Agency

necessary or proper to carry out any object or purpose of the Act; and the gathering of data for,

and the development and implementation of, after consultation and coordination with all public

and private water entities who are in any way affected, management and master plans to

mitigate the cumulative overdraft of groundwater basins, to monitor the condition of the

groundwater basins, to pursue all necessary water conservation measures, and to negotiate for

additional water supplies from all state, federal, and other sources.


Figure 7 ‐ MWA Director's Divisions


5.2 Decision Making Process Discuss how decisions are made. Identify the steps in which RWMG arrives at decisions and how

RWMG members participate in the decision‐making process. Examples of RWMG decisions to consider

in discussion:

• Establishing IRWM plan goals and objectives

• Prioritizing projects

• Financing RWMG and IRWMP activities

• Implementing plan activities

• Making future revisions to the IRWM plan

• Hiring & managing consultants

85. The MWA Technical Advisory Committee oversaw development of the IRWMP, and was

involved in every stage of developing objectives (see Paragraph 22), prioritizing projects for

implementation (see Paragraphs 33 and 34), and continue to oversee Plan implementation.

86. The TAC employs a consensus‐based process of decision making, and elects its own officers.

87. The TAC met approximately monthly during the three‐year IRWM planning period. Attendance

typically reflected 40 stakeholder groups over this period.

88. RWMP Chapter 9 describes the development of Basin Management Objectives, formulation of

alternatives, and selection and prioritization of projects and management actions. A total of 53

distinct projects and management actions were identified and screened. The adopted plan

identifies 19 primary projects or actions (RWMP Table 9‐9), 60 Management Actions (RWMP

Chapter 10), and 43 mitigation measures (PEIR Appendix A) to implement these strategies.

89. The adopted IRWMP Management Actions include provisions for periodic review and update of

the IRWM Plan.

5.3 Balance of Interested Parties Describe how the RWMG will incorporate new members into the governance structure. Explain the

manner in which a balance of interested persons or entities representing different sectors and

interests have been or will be engaged in the process, regardless of their ability to contribute

financially to the plan.

90. All stakeholder and interest groups within the MWA boundary are welcomed into the TAC

review and advisory process.

91. Mojave Water Agency as the regional water manager derives revenue from its tax base and

from water sales. No member agencies are required to provide funds toward the development


or administration of the IRWM planning process. Agencies contribute their staff time to these

efforts, which can involve considerable distances and travel times.

92. In addition to the TAC, the Mojave Basin Area Judgment established Subarea Advisory

Committees, forums where geographically‐linked entities can share information and develop

strategies.

5.4 Collaborative Effort Describe how the governance structure facilitates development of a single collaborative water

management portfolio, prioritized on the regional goals and objectives of the IRWM region.

93. The consensus‐based TAC process, and geographical division‐based elected Directors of the

MWA have been very successful in collaboratively developing the Region’s goals, objectives,

management plans, and in putting those plans into action.

94. The MWA IRWM Plan is a living document that continues to guide development and

implementation of water project and management actions to meet the region’s objectives.


6.0 IRWM Regional Boundary 6.1 Determination of the Region Boundary Present the IRWM regional boundary. Indicate in the submittal which boundaries are included and

if/how they affect the determination of the region boundary.

95. The Mojave Water Agency is an appropriate area for regional water management for the

following reasons:

MWA was formed by the State legislature to provide regional water management to correct declining groundwater levels in the Mojave Basin Area, El Mirage Basin, and Lucerne Basin. MWA was expanded to include the Johnson Valley and Morongo Basin areas, and today covers an area of over 4,900 square miles, roughly the size of Connecticut.

MWA encompasses nearly the entire Mojave River watershed (see Figure 6, p.19). The RWMP was developed in consultation with adjacent water management agencies.

MWA fully encompasses 44 water agencies and 11 municipalities with water supply responsibilities (see Figure 2, p.9).

The MWA boundary includes 15 groundwater basins or subbasins (see Figure 3, p.13). Because of mountain outcrops and geologic faulting, there is little subflow across the Plan area boundaries. The mountains and bedrock outcrops also define the regional watersheds (see Figure 8). Other than inflow of the Mojave River and its occaisional outflow to terminal lake beds just outside the manamgement area boundary, there is little surface flow acroos the boundary.

96. The Regional Water Management area is coincident with the Mojave Water Agency

jurisdictional boundary as defined in the Mojave Water Agency Act (see Paragraph 114). The

water management area covered by the Plan includes portions of both the South Lahontan and

Colorado River RWQCB boundaries (see Figure 1, p.4).

97. Major water‐related infrastructure is shown on Figure 48 (p.15) and includes:

The East Branch of the California Aqueduct supplies MWA with its State Water Project supply of up to 75,800 acre‐feet per year.

The 71‐mile Morongo Basin Pipeline conveys SWP water to recharge ponds in the Landers area.

The Mojave River Pipeline conveys State Water Project conveys water from the California Aqueduct to the Hodge, Lenwood, Dagget, and recharge sites downstream of Barstow.

The Hi‐Desert Extension conveys water another eight miles from the Morongo Basin Pipeline terminus to recharge ponds in Yucca Valley.

Reach 1 of the Morongo Basin Pipeline was constructed with additional capacity to recharge the upper Mojave River through the Rock Springs Outlet. This outlet is a discharge site into the river bed in Hesperia.

8 Also on RWMP Figure 2‐3


Figure 8 – Watersheds


98. Floodplains (see Figure 9) in this desert environment are few and were not an important

consideration in selecting the region boundary.

99. Land use divisions. The Mojave Basin Area is adjudicated under a stipulated judgment issued in

January 1996 and affirmed in 2000. The court Judgment identifies the amount of groundwater

that can be extracted by major groundwater producers and generally excludes from the

Judgment minor producers using 10 AF/yr or less. The purpose of the Stipulated Judgment is to

achieve a water supply and demand balance approximating safe production practices and to

address the general conditions of groundwater overdraft in the Mojave Basin subareas. These

management subareas are illustrated in Figure 69 (p.19).

100. The Warren Valley portion of the Morongo Basin/Johnson Valley area is adjudicated pursuant

to a 1977 judgment. A court‐approved stipulation declared the relative rights and obligations of

basin pumpers, and a Watermaster was appointed to develop a physical solution to overdraft

conditions. The physical solution adopted in 1991 includes import of water. The Morongo Basin

Pipeline began delivering water to the area in 1995.

101. Water supply. The natural supplies of surface water and groundwater, and imported

wastewater in the Mojave Basin Area were estimated by Watermaster as averaging 63,400 acre‐

feet per year and were summarized in RWMP Table 4‐2. Natural supplies in the Morongo

Basin/Johnson Valley are estimated to average 4,600 acre‐feet per year and were summarized in

RWMP Table 4‐5. MWA has Table A contract rights for up to 75,800 acre‐feet per year of

imported water from the State Water Project.

102. Though supplies are generally suitable for most purposes, MWA’s groundwater basins have

numerous areas with water quality issues, as described in RWMP Chapters 4 (p.4‐28) and 8. Key

contaminants include arsenic, nitrates, iron, manganese, chromium VI, total dissolved solids,

petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile organic compounds. Accumulation of salt is another

potential water quality issue.

103. The most important environmental resources in the area are the riparian and wetland habitat

areas (RWMP p.3‐19), mostly along the Mojave River and in the vicinity of lake beds. Other

important environmental resources are catalogued in Chapter 3 of the RWMP Program EIR. The

Mojave River and surface water bodies are shown on Figure 10.

104. Population demographics are presented in RWMP Chapter 5 (p.5‐2, 5‐18). Cultural resources

are described in Section 3.9 of the Program EIR. Economic trends are described in Section 3.4 of

the Program EIR. Population within the area is summarized in Figure 11. Disadvantaged

communities are shown in Figure 5 (p.18).

9 Also RWMP Figure 2‐3


Figure 9 ‐ FEMA 100‐year Flood Plain


Figure 10 ‐ Surface Water Bodies


Figure 11 – Population


6.2 Advantages of the Region Boundary

Explain how the IRWM region encompasses the service areas of multiple local agencies and will

maximize opportunities to integrate water management activities related to natural and man‐made

water systems, including water supply reliability, water quality, environmental stewardship, and flood

management. On a CD, provide map(s) that present the regional boundaries in UTM (Zone 10 or 11),

NAD 27 format, including the above information, if applicable.

105. The Mojave Water Agency IRWM encompasses:

1) Over 4,900 square miles, an area the size of Conneticuit and about three percent of

California’s land area

2) Nearly the entire Mojave River watershed

3) 44 water suppliers, 6 cities, and a populaiton of 321,00010

106. Other than inflow of the Mojave River and its occaisional outflow to terminal lake beds,

mountains and bedrock outcrops limit surface and groundwater flows into and out of the Plan

boundary.

107. Mojave Water Agency was formed to provide regional water management activites, and its

boundaries selected based on watershed functions. The Agency is empowered (see Paragraph

114) to take any and all actions necessary to be done so that sufficient water may be available

for any present or future beneficial use of the lands and inhabitants.

108. The Agency holds the State Water Project contract for imported water, and acts as Watermaster

for administering the Mojave Basin Area Judgment. The Agency therefore is an appropriate

political body for administering regional water management.

10 2000 census data


7.0 Background/History 7.1 History

A description of the history of IRWM efforts in the region. Describe how the region boundary relates

to the current water resources and historic water management issues in the region.

109. The Mojave Water Agency lies in the California High Desert, which is part of the Mojave

Desert11. The High Desert Area is located on the northeastern flanks of the San Bernardino and

San Gabriel Mountains, which separate the High Desert from the coastal basins and inland

valleys of the greater Los Angeles area.

110. As noted in Paragraph 1 and shown in Figure 1 (p.4), the water management area covered by

the Plan includes portions of both the North/South Lahontan and Colorado River Proposition 84

Funding Areas.

111. Average rainfall within the lower lying areas of the Mojave Basin Area and Morongo

Basin/Johnson Valley area is roughly five inches per year12. The 1980 edition of the Department

of Water Resources’ Bulletin 118 states that there is evidence of overdraft in the following

basins: Lower Mojave River Valley, Middle Mojave River Valley, Upper Mojave River Valley,

Harper Valley, Warren Valley and Lucerne Valley.

112. All water suppliers share a keen interest in their local and regional water supplies. The economic

health of a region is tied to its ability to demonstrate that affordable high quality water will be

available as the region develops.

113. Overdraft in 2000 averaged approximately 34,300 acre‐feet per year, and is projected to

increase to 50,600 acre‐feet by 202013. Consumptive use in the MWA service area is currently

approximately 108,000 acre‐feet per year, and is expected to grow to approximately 124,000

acre‐feet by 202014. Less than half of 2020 demands would be met without RWMP

implementation and full implementation of the Judgments.15 Relative impacts would be severe

in some subareas, with less than 20 percent of demands met.

114. Mojave Water Agency (the “Agency”) was organized July 21, 1960 by an act of the legislature of

the State of California known as the Mojave Water Agency Act. Within the limits of its power

and authority set forth in this act, the purpose of the Agency is to do any and every act

necessary to be done so that sufficient water may be available for any present or future

beneficial use of the lands and inhabitants of the Agency, including, but not limited to, the

11 RWMP Figure 3‐1 12 RWMP p.3‐23 13 RWMP Tables 5‐6 and 5‐12 with current SWP imports level of 8,000 acre‐feet per year 14 RWMP Tables 5‐9 and 5‐10 15 PEIR p.6‐15


construction, maintenance, alteration, purchase, and operation of any and all works or

improvements within the Agency necessary or proper to carry out any object or purpose of this

act; and the gathering of data for, and the development and implementation of, after

consultation and coordination with all public and private water entities who are in any way

affected, management and master plans to mitigate the cumulative overdraft of groundwater

basins, to monitor the condition of the groundwater basins, to pursue all necessary water

conservation measures, and to negotiate for additional water supplies from all state, federal,

and other sources.

115. 1963 Feather River Water – The Agency signed a contract with the State of California

Department of Water Resources for the delivery of Feather River water to secure a supply of

supplemental water for the Agency.

116. 1994 Mojave Basin Area Watermaster – The Agency was appointed by the Superior Court of

Riverside County as the initial Watermaster in the Mojave River Basin Area groundwater

adjudication. The Agency staff functions as administrative staff for the Watermaster. The seven

directors of the Watermaster are also board members of Mojave Water Agency. Under this

arrangement, Mojave Basin Area Watermaster (the “Watermaster”) is considered and

presented as a discretely presented component unit of the Agency.

117. How Proposed Projects were Selected16. RWMP Chapter 9 describes the development of Basin

Management Objectives, formulation of alternatives, and selection and prioritization of projects

and management actions. A total of 53 distinct projects and management actions were

identified and screened. Each project was first described with costs and yield described on a

comparable basis. Each project was tested using a Decision Support Model for the MWA service

area built using the STELLA modeling platform. Combinations of projects and actions were

evaluated based on their ability to meet Evaluation Criteria that were developed to measure

success in obtaining the project objectives. The adopted plan identifies 19 primary projects or

actions (RWMP Table 9‐9), 60 Management Actions (RWMP Chapter 10), and 43 mitigation

measures (PEIR Appendix A) to implement these strategies.

118. The RWMP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was active in all phases of this process. The

TAC developed the objectives, provided input on development of evaluation criteria, selected

projects for implementation, and assigned a priority to each. The TAC was also active in

development and review of the Program EIR and selection of the Environmental Superior

Project.

119. MWA also adopted a earlier Regional Water Management Plan in 1994.

16 RWMP Chapters 9, 10


7.2 Issues and Conflicts A description of the regional water management issues, and conflicts in the region. Issues and

conflicts may relate to water supply, water quality, flood management, environmental stewardship,

imported water, waste water, conjunctive use, etc. Also describe efforts to develop multi‐benefit

integrated programs and projects that meet regional priorities.

120. Adjudications. Scarcity of water in the Mojave region and rapid growth in water use led to two

adjudications within the MWA service area: the Mojave Basin Judgment, and the Warren Valley

Judgment.

121. Mojave Basin Area Judgment. Fearing uncontrolled overdraft of the Mojave Basin, adjudication

proceedings were initiated in the mid‐1960s that resulted in a failed attempt to adjudicate

water rights. In May of 1990 the City of Barstow filed a complaint against upstream pumpers,

and in 1991 the Mojave Water Agency filed a cross‐complaint that resulted in a general stream

adjudication for the Mojave River Basin (i.e. areas both upstream and downstream of Barstow)

and added the El Mirage and Lucerne Valley areas. This effort ultimately resulted in a 1993

Stipulated Judgment that:

1) formed a minimal class of producers using 10 acre‐feet or less per year who were

dismissed from the litigation, and

2) 2) offered a physical solution for water production by the remaining producers.

The case went to trial with final entry by the Riverside County Superior Court in January 1996.

The decision was appealed and the Appellate Court issued a decision in June 1998. The case was

subsequently taken to the California Supreme Court which provided a decision in August 200017.

The Mojave Basin Judgment assigned Base Annual Production (BAP) quotas to each producer

using 10 acre‐feet per year or more, based on historical production. Users are assigned a variable

Free Production Allowance (FPA), which is a uniform percentage of BAP set for each subarea.

This percentage is reduced, or “ramped‐down” over time until total FPA comes into balance with

available supplies. This percentage was set at 60 percent for Municipal and Industrial producers

in the Alto Subarea, 80 percent for agricultural producers in the Alto Subarea, 80 percent for all

users in the Oeste, Este, and Centro Subareas, and 70 percent for the Baja Subarea as of June

2008. Any water user that pumps more than their FPA is compelled to purchase replenishment

water from MWA equal to the amount of production in excess of the FPA.

122. Warren Valley Judgment. Groundwater from the Warren Valley Basin is used to supply Yucca

Valley and its environs. Extractions from the Basin began exceeding extractions in the 1950s.

17 RWMP p.2‐1


The progressively increasing overdraft led to adjudication of the Basin in 197718. In its

Judgment, the court appointed the Hi‐Desert Water District as Watermaster and ordered it to

develop a physical solution for halting overdraft. Objectives identified by the Watermaster

Board included managing extraction, importing water supplies, conserving stormwater,

encouragement of conservation and reclamation, and protecting groundwater quality. A Basin

Management Plan19 was adopted that called for importing SWP water from MWA through the

then‐proposed Morongo Basin Pipeline to balance demand and replenish past overdraft.

123. Key Water Management Issues20. Identification of the area’s key water management issues

stemmed from evaluation of recent hydrogeologic data, the RWMP update of supply and

demand estimates, and a stakeholder outreach and assessment process. The following six key

water management issues emerged from this process:

1) Demand Exceeds Supply. The projected year 2020 water balance shows a water deficit in MWA service area of over 50,000 acre‐feet per year.

2) Water Quality. Water quality problems affect drinking water supplies throughout the MWA service area. Key constituents of concern include arsenic, nitrates, iron, manganese, chromium VI and TDS.

3) Overdraft of the Groundwater Basins. Declining groundwater levels occur in all subareas of the Mojave Basin Area and in the Morongo Basin/Johnson Valley Area.

4) Riparian Ecosystem Maintenance. All but two of the subareas (Oeste and Morongo Basin/Johnson Valley) have potential riparian maintenance issues to consider, such as invasive species and habitat preservation.

5) Wastewater Infrastructure. Wastewater infrastructure issues affect the two subareas with the largest urban water demands within the Mojave Basin Area (Alto and Centro).

6) Subarea Interaction. Many subareas within the MWA service area are impacted by activities in other subareas. These impacts include water supply and water quality issues.

124. The primary Statewide Priority addressed by the MWA Regional Water Management Plan is the

reduction of conflict between water users within the region. The decades‐long conflict

between area water users is well documented in the process that resulted in the two area

adjudications (RWMP p.2‐6). RWMP implementation is a key part of the overall objective of

building the sustainable water supply dictated by these adjudications while working

collaboratively rather than antagonistically.

125. Typical of southwestern arid environments, the Mojave Watershed has limited water resources.

Surface water from the headwaters in the San Bernardino Mountains quickly percolates into the

porous sands of the young Mojave River alluvium. Thus, groundwater is the primary source of

18 Hi‐Desert Water District v. Yucca Water Company Ltd., Case Number 172103, San Bernardino, California, September 16, 1977. 19 Warren Valley Basin Management Plan, Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton, January 31, 1991. Adopted by Watermaster May 10, 1991. 20 RWMP p.8‐12


water supply in most of the watershed. In a constant state of overdraft since the 1950's, the

groundwater resources of the Mojave Watershed were formally adjudicated in 1996 through a

stipulated judgment. The stipulated judgment was appealed shortly thereafter. The California

Supreme Court issued a decision in the case on August 22, 2000 that affirmed water rights

priority in cases of competing water apportionment.

126. Physical Solution. The court Judgment identifies the amount of groundwater that can be

extracted by major groundwater producers. The purpose of the Stipulated Judgment is to

achieve a water supply and demand balance approximating safe production practices and to

address the general condition of groundwater overdraft in the Mojave Basin subareas.

127. The Judgment sets limits on the amount of groundwater production that can occur in each

subarea without incurring an obligation to buy imported water to offset “excess” groundwater

use. Each major producer has an established Free Production Allowance (FPA) that is derived

from its highest annual use verified for the 5‐year base period from 1986‐90 (see Paragraph

121). The allocated FPA represents each producer’s share of the water supply available in a

subarea.

128. The Judgment requires that reductions in FPA occur in increments not to exceed five percent

per year until the available production in each subarea is in balance with the available water

supply. Producers are required to replace any water pumped above their FPA determined for

the year. Replacement can occur either by paying the Mojave Basin Area Watermaster to

purchase supplemental water from MWA or by transferring unused production rights within

that subarea from another party to the Judgment. Obligations also exist between subareas that

may result in the purchase of imported water or transfers between parties if the obligations are

not met.

129. The Warren Valley portion of the Morongo Basin/Johnson Valley area is adjudicated pursuant to

a 1977 judgment. A court‐approved stipulation declared the relative rights and obligations of

basin pumpers, and a Watermaster was appointed to develop a physical solution to overdraft

conditions. The physical solution adopted in 1991 included import of water. The Morongo Basin

Pipeline began delivering water to the area in 1995.

130. The rights and obligations of area water users is generally understood and accepted.

Nonetheless, without implementation of the RWMP there would be substantial mandatory

cutbacks in allowable water production which would produce substantial economic impact and

conflict. The Regional Water Management Plan implementation will reduce or eliminate such

conflict by establishing a long‐term balance between water supply and demand. The Mojave

Basin Area Judgment acknowledges the MWA RWMP and incorporates implementation into the

physical solution to overdraft in the adjudicated area.


7.3 Regional Water Related Components A description of the water related components of the region. The submittal must consider two

different types of components, the physical components and the groups that manage or have input to

those components. Physical components of a water system include natural and manmade

infrastructure. Some of the components we expect to see included are watersheds, surface water

impoundments, ground water basins, water collection systems, distribution systems, wastewater

systems, flood water systems, and recharge facilities. 1. Physical components 2. Groups that

manage or have input to those components. The submittal should explain how water arrives in the

region, how it is used, and how it is handled after it is used.

131. Multiple Benefits and Project Integration. Chapter 9 of the RWMP identifies 53 projects and

management actions that could help meet Program objectives. A key finding of the RWMP

modeling is that there is no single project that will meet Plan objects ‐‐ multiple projects are

required. The projects proposed for priority implementation provide multiple benefits and are

integrated with other actions in the RWMP by several factors, including:

Interconnected regional groundwater system

Nearly the entire Mojave River watershed included in the plan area

Two Stipulated Judgments defining the linkages and obligations of the various subareas

The MWA State Water Project contract for imported water supplies for the region

The Mojave River Pipeline and Morongo Pipeline constructed by MWA to deliver SWP supplies

A complex geologic environment with multiple faults and areas with shallow bedrock that force groundwater to the surface creating unique desert riparian communities

The regional Alliance for Water Awareness and Conservation, formed as an outgrowth of the RWMP Technical Advisory Committee to promote increased regional water use efficiency

132. Groundwater basins in the Mojave Water Agency service area extend over hundreds of square

miles and are interconnected hydrogeologically, by the Mojave River, and through MWA’s

Mojave and Morongo pipeline system. The various subregions delineated in the Mojave Basin

are further interlinked by requirements of the Mojave Basin Area Judgment which defines

obligations of upstream water users to downstream users, and specifies payment mechanisms

for purchase of State Water Project (SWP) water for individual water users taking more than

their production allowance. SWP water is also conveyed to the Morongo Basin to meet

obligations of the Warren Valley Judgment. The SWP California Aqueduct passes through the

southwestern corner of the MWA service area, linking the Agency to water supplies from the

north and potential groundwater banking partners to the south.

133. Projects and management actions implemented anywhere in the MWA service area will have a

corollary beneficial effect elsewhere via these linkages and obligations.


134. Stabilizing or increasing groundwater elevations in the Mojave River floodplain aquifer will help

to maintain unique riparian resources identified in Appendix H of the Mojave Basin Judgment.

Today, most of the Mojave River channel is dry downstream of Victorville except during flood

events. Historically, some areas contained water surface water throughout most of the year,

which were primarily located where faults or other geologic structures force ground water to

the surface. Due to years of overdraft conditions, the ground water table has been lowered to a

point where most areas no longer contain surface water. The Stipulated Judgment for the

adjudication of the watershed attempts to address this issue by developing a fund for evaluation

and restoration of these riparian vegetation areas. The California Department of Fish and Game

is responsible for implementation of the fund, and has developed a habitat water supply

management plan for the riparian areas identified in the Judgment. The ultimate goal of the

program will be to maintain and restore some of the historic areas that provide critical habitat

for wildlife21.

135. Conservation programs will provide more efficient use of the areas limited water resources.

Reclamation projects, while not adding water to the system, will allow the overall system to be

managed to better provide water of a quality appropriate to its use.

136. RWMP Chapter 10 presents MWA’s priorities for the proposed projects. This prioritization is

consistent with the priorities assigned by the TAC during RWMP development22.

137. Conservation programs will provide more efficient use of the areas limited water resources.

Reclamation projects, while not adding water to the system, will allow the overall system to be

managed to better provide water of a quality appropriate to its use.

138. Stabilizing or increasing groundwater elevations in the Mojave River floodplain aquifer will help

to maintain unique riparian resources identified in Appendix H of the Mojave Basin Judgment.

21 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/WMI/WMI_Index.htm, p.2‐5‐9 22 RWMP Table 9‐9, p.9‐42


8.0 Relationship with Adjacent IRWM Regions 8.1 Description

A description of the IRWM region’s relationship and coordination with adjacent existing or developing

IRWM regions.

139. The Mojave Water Agency IRWM Plan encompasses the area within the MWA boundary which

was established largely based on watershed function. The northwestern portion of the Agency

approximates the watershed of the Mojave River. The southeastern portion of the Agency

encompasses several internal drainages within the greater Colorado River hydrologic area. This

area includes the Town of Yucca Valley, the community of Joshua Tree and portions of Joshua

Tree National Park within San Bernardino County. These areas drain to terminal dry lake beds

and have little if any hydrologic connection to the greater Colorado River drainage.

140. The MWA IRWM planning region is adjacent to four existing or proposed IRWM regions:

1) The proposed Antelope Valley IRWM region is immediately to the west of the MWA

IRWM region in the Lahontan Funding Area (see Figure 12).

i. This western MWA boundary approximates the extent of the Mojave River

Oeste subbasin (see Figure 3, p.13) and little if any water moves across this

boundary.

ii. The north‐south line of rock outcrops also isolates the surface drainages along

the western MWA boundary (see Figure 8, p.33).

iii. The actual watershed boundary meanders along this north‐south line, and may

become the boundary of the Antelope Valley IRWM planning area (see Figure

13). This overlap is not considered significant. Portions of the MWA service

territory that are included in the Antelope IRWM area will remain subject to the

Mojave Basin Area adjudication.

iv. The California Aqueduct crosses from the Antelope Valley region into the

Mojave region (see Figure 4, p.15).

v. MWA has participated in the Antelope IRWM planning process and will continue

to coordinate mutually relevant activities.


Figure 12 ‐ IRWMPs in Lahontan Funding Area


Figure 13 ‐ Selected IRWM Region Boundary Crossovers


2) The Salton Sea IRWM region shares a common boundary with the southeastern part of

MWA IRWM region in the Colorado River Funding Area (see Figure 14).

i. This southeastern boundary approximates the drainage divide in mountainous

terrain, and little or no water, surface or groundwater, is likely to move across

this boundary.

ii. The San Bernardino Mountains (and Little San Bernardino Mountains) are a

hydrologic divide between the MWA and Coachella IRWM planning areas, which

is well approximated by the southern MWA boundary and the Riverside/San

Bernardino county line. We thus believe that there is little hydrologic

connection or watershed function in common between our planning areas, and

the MWA boundary is appropriate for an integrated analysis of water resources

in the region.

Figure 14 ‐ IRWMPs in Colorado River Funding Area


3) The proposed Coachella Valley Water Group IRWM region has not yet been defined,

but will be a subset of the Salton Sea IRWM region.

i. Our understanding is that the Coachella IRWM Plan is in the early stages of

development, but will likely include the northern portions of the Coachella

Valley Water District encompassing Indio Water Authority, Desert Water

Agency, and the City of Coachella, plus the Mission Springs Water District which

serves Desert Hot Springs (see Attachment B – Correspondence regarding

Proposed Coachella IRWMP).

ii. These areas are generally within Riverside and Imperial counties, though

tributaries to Mission Creek (notably Morongo Creek) extend into San

Bernardino County.

iii. The San Bernardino Mountains (and Little San Bernardino Mountains) are a

hydrologic divide between the MWA and Coachella IRWM planning areas, which

is well approximated by the southern MWA boundary and the Riverside/San

Bernardino county line. We thus believe that there is little hydrologic

connection or watershed function in common between our planning areas, and

the MWA boundary is appropriate for an integrated analysis of water resources

in the region.

4) The Santa Ana Watershed IRWM (see Figure 15) is immediately to the south of the

MWA IRWM region, but is separated by the crest of the San Bernardino Mountains.

There is little hydrologic connection or watershed function in common between the

planning areas, and the MWA boundary is appropriate for an integrated analysis of

water resources in the region.


Figure 15 ‐ IRWMPs in Santa Ana Funding Area


8.2 Region Overlap, Voids, or Exclusions

Identify any overlapping areas and explain the basis for the overlap. Discuss whether there is a clear

relationship and acknowledgement by both regions that the overlap is acceptable. Explain whether

the regional boundary will leave any uncovered or void areas immediately outside or within the

boundary. Describe any areas within the region that are excluded or create a void area and explain

why this is reasonable and appropriate.

141. There are two minor IRWM planning region overlaps of the MWA IRWM region.

1) See Paragraph 140‐1) for discussion of the Antelope Valley IRWMP (see Figure 13, p. 48)

which abuts the western MWA IRWM planning boundary.

2) There is an overlap on MWA’s existing northern IRWM planning boundary and the

proposed boundary of the Inyo‐Mono IRWMP. The existing MWA IRWM planning

boundary is jurisdictional, while the proposed Inyo‐Mono boundary is based on

watershed delineation. Both the MWA RWMG and the Inyo‐Mono RWMG acknowledge

the existence of the overlap and have agreed to work collaboratively to address

common interests as both areas advance their planning efforts (see Attachment D).

142. There are no IRWM planning regions adjacent to the eastern boundaries of the MWA IRWM

region (see Figure 12 and Figure 14).

1) These are largely unsettled Federal lands in the mountain and desert portions of the

Mojave Desert.

2) These lands are administered primarily by the Bureau of Land Management and the

Department of Defense.

3) Historically Fort Irwin has relied upon USGS to assist them with their water management programs. In general, the military uses the USGS to determine whether they will have enough water for a period of years, and assert Federal reservation of water rights that will supersede State law. BLM and USFS follow similar actions. The water uses of these entities is very small and can reasonably be excluded from regional water management planning.

143. The mountain area south of the MWA boundary and north of the Santa Ana watershed (see

Figure 15, p.51) is covered by two planning efforts:

1) Planning in the area around Lake Arrowhead is being performed by the Lake Arrowhead

Community Services District (LACSD).

The District’s December 2007 “Integrated Water Resources Program Report”

describes water supply issues, the formation of a “Project Advisory Committee”,

and a preferred alternative for meeting water supply needs through 2030.

A 2006 decision by the State Water Resources Control Board (Order WR 2006‐

01) has determined the quantity of water that may be used by the LACSD from

Lake Arrowhead, Little Bear Creek and Grass Valley Creek, which are tributary

to the Mojave River.


The rights to water from the Creek were also determined in a 1966 Court Order

(Mojave River County Water District v. Lake Arrowhead Development Company,

et al.) The MWA became the successor in interest to the Plaintiff Mojave River

County Water District in 1996.

Order WR 2006‐01 also addressed diversions from Grass Valley Creek and Little

Bear Creek (also tributary the Mojave River).

Adjacent areas are under the jurisdiction of the Crestline‐Lake Arrowhead Water

Agency (CLAWA; a State Water Project contractor).

State Water Resources Control Board Decision 1619 provided an appropriation

from Houston Creek (a tributary to Lake Silverwood and the Mojave River),

rejected a number of filings for appropriations and declared the entire Mojave

River system (the River and tributaries) to be fully appropriated. This Decision

was affirmed by State Water Board Orders 89‐25 and 91‐07.

Further, the LACSD is within the Local Agency Formation Commission

designated CLAWA sphere of Influence.

Therefore we conclude that all resource management interrelationships

pertinent to our region have already been addressed and further issues, if any,

should be addressed utilizing the existing institutional relationships specific to

the mountain region, the CLAWA and LACSD.

2) Water supplies in the area of Wrightwood, near the southwestern border of the MWA

IRWM planning area, are provided by Golden State Water Company (GSWC).

GSWC was an active member of the TAC during development and adoption of

the existing MWA IRWMP.

MWA continues to coordinate water supply planning within this area, which is

within the LAFCO‐designated MWA sphere of influence, and has provided

temporary emergency water supply assistance in the recent past.

There is a current cooperative effort with GSWC to develop a permanent

emergency supply program.

A representative from GSWC continues to participate on the MWA Technical

Advisory Committee, which will include future updates to the MWA IRWMP.

The remainder of this mountain area is mostly unpopulated and managed by the U.S. Forest

Service.


8.3 Water Management Differences Between Regions

Are there distinct water management differences between adjacent or overlapping IRWM regions and

the proposed IRWM region to support being separate IRWM regions?

144. The MWA region is defined by the watershed function of the Mojave River and several

intermountain groundwater basins. None of the adjacent area have significant hydrologic

connection to the MWA IRWM planning region.

145. The MWA region has an existing comprehensive governance structure that will allow it to take

any and all actions necessary for managing the water resources of the region. MWA does not

have these powers over adjacent areas.

146. The Mojave Water Agency has a State Water Project contract for up to 75,800 acre‐feet per year

of imported SWP water that can be used anywhere within the MWA IRWM planning region.

MWA does not have the legal right to use this water outside its boundaries.


Attachment A – February 16, 2005 Technical Advisory Committee Minutes


Attachment B – Correspondence regarding Proposed Coachella IRWMP


Attachment C – Technical Advisory Committee Motion for Submitting RAP Application


Attachment D – Letter describing collaboration on MWA/InyoMono IRWM Boundaries


Attachment E – TAC Support for MWA Implementation of IRWMP


Attachment F – Technical Advisory Committee Bylaws

Mojave Water Agency RAP rev6...Mojave Water Agency 1 Region Acceptance Process Mojave Water Agency...

Documents

Transcript of Mojave Water Agency RAP rev6...Mojave Water Agency 1 Region Acceptance Process Mojave Water Agency...