HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix+I+-+Water+Supply+Assessment+(reduced)DSRT SURF Specific Plan
EIR (SCH # 2019011044)
Technical Appendices
APPENDIX I
Water Supply Assessment and
Water Supply Verification for the DSRT SURF Project
Prepared by
Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
March 4, 2019
I-1
Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification
for the DSRT SURF Project
Prepared For:
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
P.O. Box 1058
Coachella, California 92236
Prepared By:
Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.®
42635 Melanie Place, Suite #101
Palm Desert, California 92211
May 2019
1
Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification
for the DSRT SURF Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................4
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................5
1.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ..........................................................................................5
1.1.1. LOCATION ...............................................................................................................5
1.1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................5
1.2. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................................14
1.2.1. SENATE BILL 610 ..................................................................................................14
1.2.2. SENATE BILL 221 ..................................................................................................14
1.2.3. 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ..........................................................15
1.2.4. STATE WATER PROJECT DELIVERY CAPABILITY REPORT .....................................15
1.2.5. SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (SGMA) ..............................15
1.3. PURPOSE AND VALIDITY OF DOCUMENT ..........................................................................15
1.4. WATER SYSTEM AND SUPPLY ...........................................................................................16
1.4.1. WATER SYSTEM ....................................................................................................16
1.4.2. WATER SUPPLY ....................................................................................................16
1.5. HISTORICAL CONTEXT ......................................................................................................20
1.5.1. 2010 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE ......................20
1.5.2. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2015 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,
SENATE BILL X7-7, AND WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY ORDINANCE .......................................22
1.5.3. INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN .........................................23
1.5.4. SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT ALTERNATIVE PLAN ............23
1.5.5. CITY OF PALM DESERT .........................................................................................24
1.5.6. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE .........................................................................................24
2. WATER DEMANDS ......................................................................................................................25
2.1. PROJECT-SPECIFIC WATER DEMAND ESTIMATE ............................................................25
2.1.1. PHASE I - DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURF LAGOON PLANNING AREA .......................25
2.1.2. PHASE II - DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOTEL AND VILLAS PLANNING AREA .............28
2.1.3. SWIMMING POOLS/SPAS AND LANDSCAPING ........................................................28
2.2. WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES ................................................................................30
2.2.1. DESERT LANDSCAPING: NATIVE AND OTHER DROUGHT-TOLERANT PLANTS .......30
2.2.2. PROJECT-SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVATION AND GROUNDWATER REDUCTION
MEASURES 30
2.2.1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT WATER DEMAND .............................................................33
3. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................35
3.1. GENERAL ...........................................................................................................................35
3.2. IDENTIFICATION OF WATER SOURCES .............................................................................35
3.3. ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY ...........................................................................................35
3.3.1. GROUNDWATER ....................................................................................................35
3.3.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AQUIFER .............................................................................36
5. INDIO SUBBASIN ANNUAL REPORT FOR WATER YEAR 2017-2018. ...............................................52
3.4. ANALYSIS OF WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ...................................................................52
3.4.1. EFFECTS OF THE 2008-2011 GREAT RECESSION ...................................................54
3.4.2. GROUNDWATER AND GROUNDWATER STORAGE ..................................................55
3.4.3. COACHELLA CANAL WATER .................................................................................56
3.4.4. ADDITIONAL TABLE A AMOUNTS .........................................................................57
2
3.4.5. STATE WATER PROJECT RELIABILITY ...................................................................57
3.4.6. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CALLBACK ..........58
3.4.7. LONG-TERM AVERAGE SWP DELIVERIES ............................................................58
3.4.8. SUMMARY .............................................................................................................61
4. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................62
5. WATER SUPPLY VERIFICATION .................................................................................................64
5.1.1. GENERAL ..............................................................................................................64
5.1.2. WATER SOURCE ....................................................................................................64
5.1.3. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ............................................................................64
5.2. FACTORS OF RELIABILITY ................................................................................................64
5.2.1. GENERAL ..............................................................................................................64
5.2.2. AVAILABILITY OF WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................64
5.2.3. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT’S WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY .....65
5.2.4. REDUCTION OF WATER SUPPLY ............................................................................65
5.3. IMPACTS ON OTHER PROJECTS .........................................................................................66
5.4. RIGHTS TO GROUNDWATER ..............................................................................................66
5.5. VERIFICATION ...................................................................................................................66
6. LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................67
7. REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................68
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map ..........................................................................................................8
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map ..........................................................................................................................9
Exhibit 3 Project Location Map ...........................................................................................................10
Exhibit 4 Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................................................11
Exhibit 5 Planning Area Site Plan .......................................................................................................12
Exhibit 6 CV Groundwater Subbasins .................................................................................................13
Exhibit 7 Indio and Whitewater River Subbasins ................................................................................17
Exhibit 8 2017-2018 Average Groundwater Elevation .......................................................................18
Exhibit 9 Coachella Valley Water District Service Area .....................................................................19
List of Tables
Table 1 DSRT SURF Land Use and Development Standards ..............................................................6
Table 2 DSRT SURF Surf Lagoon Precise Plan Land Uses ................................................................6
Table 3 Surf Lagoon Projected Annual Water Demand .....................................................................25
Table 4 Surf Lagoon Associated Amenities .......................................................................................27
Table 5 Hotel and Villas Planning Area .............................................................................................28
Table 6 Swimming Pools and Spas .....................................................................................................29
Table 7 Projected Annual Landscape Water Demand ........................................................................30
Table 8 Total Area of Golf Course for Turf Reduction ......................................................................31
Table 9 Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping ....................................................................32
Table 10 Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping ...................................................................32
Table 11 Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping ...................................................................32
Table 12 Total Projected Water Demand .............................................................................................34
Table 13 Groundwater Storage Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin ...............................................37
Table 14 Colorado River Exchange Water Delivered to the West Whitewater River Groundwater
Replenishment Facility .........................................................................................................39
3
Table 15 Water Year 2016-17 ..............................................................................................................40
Table 16 Annual Coachella Valley Water District Colorado River Diversions at Imperial
Dam – 1964 to 2017 ..............................................................................................................48
Table 17 Coachella Valley Water District Deliveries Under the Quantification Settlement
Agreement .............................................................................................................................49
Table 18 State Water Project Water Sources (AFY) ...........................................................................50
Table 19 California Department of Water Resources State Water Project Table A Water
Allocations 1988-2017 ..........................................................................................................50
Table 20 Existing Coachella Valley Water District Water Supply Table A Amounts ........................52
Table 21 Current and Projected Average Urban Water Supply (AFY) ...............................................54
Table 22 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ...................................................................59
Table 23 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ...................................................................59
Table 24 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ..............................................................60
Table 25 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ..............................................................60
Table 26 Multiple-Dry Water Years 2010-2035 (AFY) ......................................................................61
Table 27 Multiple-Dry Water Years 2010-2035 (AFY) – Urban Only ...............................................61
Table 28 Impact of Project Demand on Projected Urban Water Supply .............................................62
Table 29 Summary of Coachella Valley Water District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan ............65
List of Appendices
Appendix A Turf Reduction Location Map and Golf Course Landscape Architect’s Analysis .........71
Appendix B 2010 CVWMP Update ....................................................................................................72
Appendix C Cloward H2O Water Perfected ........................................................................................73
4
Executive Summary
This Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) has been prepared to assist the
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) in satisfying the requirements of Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) and Senate
Bill 221 (SB 221) for the DSRT SURF Specific Plan (Project) in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County,
California. The intent of SB 610 was to strengthen the process by which local agencies determine the adequacy,
sufficiency and quality of current and future water supplies in order to meet current and future demands.
SB 610 amended California Water Code (CWC) sections 10910 and 10912 to create a direct relationship
between water supply and land use. In general terms, prior to constructing developments, which meet certain
development thresholds (residential units, square footage or acres of development), SB 610 requires a showing
that there is an adequate 20-year water supply. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has determined
that the Project meets with the intent of CWC Sections 10910 and 10912 and needs to prepare this WSA/WSV.
The Project site consists of approximately 17.69 acres of land in the City of Palm Desert and is under CVWD
jurisdiction. At build-out, the Project will consist of hotel(s), residential villas, a surf lagoon, and surf center
facilities which would generate a total water demand of approximately 165.21 acre-feet per year (AFY), or 9.34
acre-feet (AF) per acre. This represents approximately 0.14 percent of the projected total water demand of
114,600 AF for 2020, and 0.09 percent of the projected total water demand of 194,300 AF for 2040 as shown
in CVWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). According to CVWD’s UWMP, available water
supplies are sufficient to meet the anticipated demand for 2020 through 2040 during normal, single dry, and
multiple dry water years. Use of recycled water could provide source substitution for up to 8.54 AFY of the
Project’s potable water demand (groundwater) with a non-potable water supply. The Project could also
implement a turf reduction program to replace up to 1,035,325 square feet of turf landscaping on two golf
courses on the Desert Willow Golf Course property with desert landscaping, which would offset the Project’s
total water demand by approximately 106.75 AFY, for a net total water demand of approximately 58.46 AFY,
which represents approximately 0.05 percent of the total projected water supply of 114,600 AF for 2020, and
would represent 0.03 percent of the total projected water supply of 194,300 AF in 2040.
Based upon the supply/demand analyses conducted for this Project, CVWD finds that there are sufficient water
supplies available to meet the water demands of the Project for the 20-year period between 2020 and 2040. In
addition, CVWD has and will continue to invest resources in promoting water efficient practices throughout its
service area, thereby reducing overall water demand. Also, through implementation of the landscape ordinance,
turf reduction programs, and building code requirements, more stringent requirements will be placed on new
development for all sectors, thereby further reducing future water demand.
This document will be reviewed every five years, or if CVWD determines that the planning assumptions of this
document are no longer valid in accordance with SB 610, until the Project begins construction. The Project
proponent shall notify CVWD when construction has begun. The review will ensure that the information
included in this WSA/WSV remains accurate and no significant changes to either the Project or CVWD's water
supply have occurred. If neither the Project proponent nor the lead agency contacts CVWD within five years of
approval of this WSA/WSV, it will be assumed that the Project no longer requires the estimated water demand
calculated and the WSA/WSV provided by this document will become invalid.
5
1. Introduction
1.1. Description of the Project
1.1.1. Location
The DSRT SURF Project (Project) site is located on approximately 17.69 acres of land on the west side of
Desert Willow Drive within the Desert Willow Golf Course in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County
(Exhibits 1 through 4).
1.1.2. Project Description
1.1.2.1. Project Background
The Project site was originally part of the North Sphere Specific Plan, which was prepared for approximately
515.5 acres of undeveloped land in 1994. The land covered in the North Sphere Specific Plan was bounded by
Frank Sinatra Drive and undeveloped land on the north, Cook Street and the Desert Falls Country Club on the
east, Country Club Drive and Marriott Desert Springs Resort on the south, and Portola Avenue and the Palm
Desert Greens on the west. The North Sphere Specific Plan divided the 515.5 acres land into fifteen (15)
planning areas to allow mixed-use development. Currently, the majority of the planning areas are developed.
Only three irregular shaped lots are currently undeveloped. The Project site is one of these lots located within
the planning area 10 of the North Sphere Specific Plan.
1.1.2.2. Project Description
The Project site consists of irregular shaped lots (Assessor’s Parcel No. 620-420-023, 620-400-024 and 620-
400-008). The Project site is partially developed and bounded by the Desert Willow Golf Course and a parking
lot on the north; Desert Willow Golf Course and Desert Willow Drive on the east; Desert Willow Golf Course,
the Westin Desert Willow Villas, and Willow Ridge Drive on the west; and Desert Willow Golf Course on the
south (Exhibit 3).
The Project requires a Specific Plan that will guide the overall development of the Project, a Precise Plan for
the lagoon and surf center, and a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the site into 5 parcels. The Specific Plan
will set forth the planning principles, land use policies, development standards, and design guidelines for the
proposed development and public improvements within the Specific Plan area. It will address maximum
development densities (Table 1), which will be analyzed in this Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The land
use, design, and development standards of the proposed surf lagoon will be regulated through a Precise Plan
based on City’s Municipal Code Section 25.72.030. A Precise Plan is similar to a Specific Plan, but further
defines the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan to provide specific designs and plans that ultimately
regulate the construction of the Project (Table 2).
The Project proposes the development of an approximately 5.5-acre surf lagoon and surf center facilities to
include a restaurant, bar, retail and related facilities, up to 350 hotel rooms, and up to 88 residential villas
(Exhibit 5). The Project will be implemented in two phases: Phase I includes development of the Surf Lagoon
Planning Area (Planning Area 1), which will consist a surf lagoon and associated amenities on 11.85 acres.
Phase II includes development of the Hotels and Villas Planning Area (Planning Area 2) which will result in
the construction of the hotel(s) and villas on approximately 5.84 acres (Exhibit 5).
North Sphere Specific Plan (1994).
6
Table 1
DSRT SURF Land Use and Development Standards
Surf Lagoon Planning Area (11.85 acres) Max/Min Allowed
Hotel and Villas Planning Area (5.84 acres) Max/Min Allowed
Table 2
DSRT SURF Surf Lagoon Precise Plan Land Uses
and Development Standards
Land Use/Building SF AC
7
Table 2
DSRT SURF Surf Lagoon Precise Plan Land Uses
and Development Standards
Land Use/Building SF AC
TOTALS 35,810 11.85
The Project site is designated as Resort and Entertainment District on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map,
which allows bed and breakfast inns, recreational facilities, small retail, large retail, lodging, support retail, and
commercial services along with specialized entertainment with a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of up to
0.10, and multi-family residential land uses of up to 10 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The City’s Zoning
Map designates the site as Planned Residential (PR-5), allowing 5 units per acre.
Desert Willow Drive is a public street that provides access to the existing Desert Willow Clubhouse from
Country Club Drive to the south. Desert Willow Drive terminates with a traffic circle at the clubhouse entrance,
immediately northeast of the Project site. Public parking is provided adjacent to the clubhouse and is currently
accessed via the Desert Willow traffic circle. The existing Desert Willow Golf Course parking lot will be
reconfigured and a portion of the existing parking that is removed will be provided on the Project site. Two
access driveways are proposed on Desert Willow Drive – one on the west side of the traffic circle, and one
south of the traffic circle. An emergency access will also be provided at the southwestern portion of the Project,
from the adjacent Westin project Willow Ridge roadway.
The Tentative Parcel Map will subdivide the site into 5 parcels, including the perimeter roadway, the surf lagoon
and its associated buildings and facilities, the hotel(s) parcel, and multiple parcels for the residential villas.
This WSA is prepared because the proposed project meets the requirement of a “Project” under State Water
Code Section 10912 - Senate Bill 610.
1.1.2.3. Off-Site Improvements
The Project will also include off-site improvements and activities, such as stormwater management, pool/lagoon
discharge, golf course turf reduction, landscaping improvements, special events parking, and soil
removal/storage. Golf course turf reduction is designed to offset the proposed Project’s water demand which
will be discussed further in this WSA.
14
1.2. Regulatory Requirements
1.2.1. Senate Bill 610
California Water Code (CWC) section 10910 et seq., commonly referred to as Senate Bill 610 (SB 610),
requires the preparation of a WSA for certain new development projects., As stated in SB 610, the purpose of
a WSA is to determine whether the Public Water System’s (PWS) "total projected water supplies available
during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected
water demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to the PWS's existing and planned future uses,
including agricultural and manufacturing uses."
State Water Code Section 10912 defines a “Project” as any of the following:
1. A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units;
2. A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having
more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;
3. A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than
250,000 square feet of floor space;
4. A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms;
5. A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more
than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of
floor area;
6. A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; and
7. A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water
required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
As the PWS for the project, the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has determined that a WSA is
necessary to comply with the CWC section 10910 et seq.
Effective January 1, 2017, SB 1262 amends CWC Section 10910, the WSA statute, to require that Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)-related information be included in a WSA if a water supply for a
proposed project includes groundwater from a basin that is not adjudicated and is designated medium or high-
priority, as discussed earlier. This Project will use groundwater from the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin,
which is designated medium priority by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and is not
adjudicated.
1.2.2. Senate Bill 221
Senate Bill 221 (SB 221) was enacted in 2001 and became effective as of January 1, 2002. SB 221 amends
Section 11010 of the Business and Professional Code, and amends Section 65867.5 to add Section 66455.3 and
66473.7 to the Government Code. SB221 establishes the relationship between the WSA prepared for a project
and project approval under the Subdivision Map Act. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66473.7,
the PWS must provide a written verification of sufficient water supply prior to the approval of a new
subdivision.
Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001.
See CWC §§ 10910(a), 10912.
See CWC § 10910(c)(3).
Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in
integrating water and land use planning, prepared by the California Department of Water Resources in 2003.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2018 Basin Prioritization Report by California Department of Water Resources
(January 2019).
15
SB 221 states that “a Water Supply Verification (WSV) is required prior to the approval of a tentative
subdivision map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for
a subdivision of property of more than 500 dwelling units, except as specified, including the design of the
subdivision or similar type of improvement.” The proposed Project involves a Tentative Parcel Map and,
therefore, a WSV is required.
1.2.3. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
CVWD completed its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP) in compliance with the Urban Water
Management Planning Act established in 1983 and most recently amended by Senate Bill x7-7 (SBx7-7), which
requires a 20 percent reduction in per-capita water use by 2020. CVWD also maintains a separate water
management planning document, the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update (2010 CVWMP
Update). These two planning documents are the primary reference documents for this WSA.
1.2.4. State Water Project Delivery Capability Report
The DWR issues its Final State Water Project Delivery Capability Report (SWPDCR) generally every two
years. The final 2017 SWPDCR was released in March 2018. The 2015 SWPDCR was utilized in the 2015
UWMP. For this Project, the 2017 SWPDCR contains the most recent information and accounts for the impacts
to water delivery capability through 2035 associated with climate change and recent federal litigation.
According to the draft 2017 SWPDCR, the estimated demands by State Water Project (SWP) contractors for
deliveries of Table A water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) under existing conditions is
assumed to be the maximum SWP Table A delivery amount for the 2017 SWPDCR. Estimated demands for
SWP Table A water is one (1) thousand acre-feet per year (AFY) higher than the 2015 SWPDCR because the
maximum Table A demand amount for some SWP contractors has changed.
1.2.5. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
Effective January 1, 2017, SB 1262 amended Water Code Section 10910, the WSA statute, to require that
information regarding the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) be included in a WSA if a water
supply for a proposed project includes groundwater from a basin that is not adjudicated and is designate d
medium or high-priority. The water supply for this Project will come from the Whitewater River (Indio)
Subbasin, which is an unadjudicated, medium priority subbasin (Exhibit 7, 8, and 9). The Whitewater River
(Indio) Subbasin is located within the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. CVWD is a participating member
of the Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG) and is a cooperating Groundwater
Sustainability Agency (GSA) in the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin. CVWD, Desert Water Agency (DWA),
Coachella Water Authority (CWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA) jointly submitted the 2010 CVWMP
Update to DWR as the Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative Plan) for the Whitewater
River (Indio) Subbasin on December 29, 2016.
1.3. Purpose and Validity of Document
The purpose of this document is to evaluate the water demand and supplies for the proposed Project pursuant
to the requirements of SB 610 and SB 221. The document also evaluates whether the total projected water
supplies available to CVWD during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection
will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project, in addition to CVWD's existing and
planned future uses, including commercial and landscape uses.
California Department of Water Resources; http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/swpreliability/; Accessed January 2018.
Table 4-1- California State Water Project Bulletin 132.
California Department of Water Resources, http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/gsa.cfm; Accessed November 2018.
Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 2017-2018 Mission Creek, West Whitewater River, and
East Whitewater River Subbasin Areas of Benefit.
16
This document must be reviewed every five (5) years or in the event the water planning assumptions have
changed, until the Project begins construction. The Project applicant shall notify CVWD when construction has
begun. The review will ensure that the information included in the WSA/WSV remains accurate and no
significant changes to either the Project or CVWD’s water supply have occurred. If neither the Project applicant
nor the lead agency contacts CVWD within five years of approval of this WSA/WSV, it will be assumed that
the Project no longer exists, and the water supply assessment and verification provided by this documentation
will become invalid.
1.4. Water System And Supply
1.4.1. Water System
The CVWD PWS is the water system that will be used to supply the Project. All the off-site and in-tract water
distribution facilities will be shown on subsequent improvement plans and will be designed and constructed in
accordance with CVWD requirements.
CVWD’s existing water supply and conveyance systems include, or will include, adequate capacity for daily
demands and emergency fire protection. This includes groundwater wells, transmission pipelines, distribution
storage, pump stations, and pipelines proposed within the Project. In the future, CVWD’s supply and
conveyance system may also include delivery of Colorado River water treated for municipal use.
1.4.2. Water Supply
As discussed above, CVWD is the PWS for the area in which the Project site is located. CVWD provides six
services to customers within its service boundaries, including: (1) domestic (drinking) water, (2) wastewater
(sanitation), (3) irrigation (canal water) and drainage, (4) non-potable (recycled) water, (5) storm water
protection, and (6) groundwater replenishment.
The CVWD service area encompasses roughly 640,000 acres and includes the central and eastern portions of
the Coachella Valley within Riverside County, as well as small portions of Imperial and San Diego counties
(Exhibit 9).
CVWD currently has approximately 109,000 domestic water connections. CVWD obtains water from the
Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin and Mission Creek Subbasin which has a total groundwater storage capacity
of 32,400,000. CVWD serves all of the Cities of Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms, Palm Desert, Indian Wells,
La Quinta, and portions of the Cities of Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral City, Indio and Coachella. CVWD also
serves other rural communities, including Thermal, Mecca, Oasis, Desert Shores, Salton Sea Beach, Salton
City, North Shore, Bombay Beach, Hot Mineral Springs and other portions of unincorporated Riverside County
(Exhibits 9).
Development throughout the Coachella Valley has been dependent on groundwater as a source of supply. The
demand for groundwater has annually exceeded the limited natural recharge of the groundwater basin.
Therefore, imported water is used to recharge the aquifer and reduce groundwater overdraft. CVWD and the
DWA work in conjunction with SWP contractors to import SWP water supplies for recharge in the western
Coachella Valley.
CVWD Urban Water Management Plan Final Report (2015).
CVWD Website – Rates – Domestic Water Rates; http://www.cvwd.org/198/Rates; Accessed October 2018.
13 Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2017-2018 (March 2019) - Table 2-1.
20
1.5. Historical Context
The need to enhance the public water supply in the Coachella Valley has been recognized for many years. The
formation of CVWD in 1918 was a direct result of the concern of local residents about a plan to export water
from the Whitewater River to Imperial County. Early on, Coach ella Valley residents also recognized that
action was needed to stem the decline of the water table, which was occurring as a result of local pumping in
the eastern Coachella Valley. As a result, CVWD entered into an agreement for the construction of the
Coachella Branch of the All-American Canal in order to bring Colorado River water to the Coachella Valley.
Since 1949, the Coachella Canal has been providing water for irrigation use in the area that generally
encompasses the Cities of Indio and La Quinta southerly to the Salton Sea. Colorado River water is delivered
to the Coachella Valley via the All-American and Coachella Canals and distributed through an underground
irrigation distribution piping system to farms and a growing number of golf courses in the Coachella Valley. In
recent years, CVWD has begun a program of recharging the aquifer in the eastern Coachella Valley with this
source.
The need for additional water supplies was recognized due to the onset of development in the western Coachella
Valley. As a result, in 1963 CVWD and DWA entered into separate contracts with the State of California in
order to ensure that SWP water would be available. Because a direct pipeline from the SWP system to the
Coachella Valley does not exist, CVWD and DWA entered into an exchange agreement with the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD) to receive water from the MWD Colorado River Aqueduct, which
crosses the northern portion of the Coachella Valley near Whitewater. In exchange, CVWD and DWA have
their SWP water allotment delivered to MWD. Since 1973, in exchange for their SWP water, CVWD and DWA
have been receiving Colorado River water from MWD's Colorado River Aqueduct turnout located at
Whitewater Canyon to replenish groundwater in the Coachella Valley.
In addition, CVWD has recognized the need to provide other sources of water to supplement its water supplies.
CVWD has been recycling reclaimed wastewater since 1967 and currently operates five (5) water reclamation
plants, two (2) of which currently recycle water. Recycled water is currently used for golf course and greenbelt
irrigation in the Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Indio, thereby reducing demand on groundwater in
the basin.
1.5.1. 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update
In the early 1990s, CVWD initiated its first water management planning process to address the overdraft
conditions in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin and to ensure that there would be adequate water
supplies in the future. The plan is a 35-year blueprint for wise water management and the basis for all CVWD’s
efforts to preserve the Coachella Valley’s groundwater source.
On September 2002, the CVWD Board of Directors adopted the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
(CVWMP). A Programmatic Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the CVWMP and certified under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The goal of the CVWMP is to reliably meet current and
future water demands in a cost effective and sustainable manner. This goal will be met by achieving the
following objectives:
• Meet current and future water demands with a 10 percent supply buffer;
• Eliminate long term groundwater overdraft;
• Manage and protect water quality;
• Comply with state and federal laws and regulations;
• Mange future costs; and
• Minimize adverse environmental impacts.
CVWD website updates; http://www.cvwd.org/288/About-CVWD; Accessed October 2018.
21
The CVWD Board of Directors recognized the need to update the CVWMP periodically to respond to changing
external and internal conditions. The 2010 CVWMP Update meets that need. It defines how the CVWMP goal
will be met given changing conditions and new uncertainties regarding water supplies, water demands, and
evolving federal and state regulations.
The 2010 CVWMP Update calls for a multifaceted approach including:
• Increased water conservation by all types of water users;
• Increased imported water supply from the Coachella Canal and State Water Project;
• Increased use of the imported supply and recycled water, instead of groundwater, for irrigation; and
• Expanded groundwater replenishment and source substitution efforts.
The 2010 CVWMP Update identifies several water conservation measures to reach the goal of reducing overall
water consumption by 20 percent by 2020, and the goal of maintaining this level of reduction through 2045.
These measures include water efficient landscaping and irrigation controls, water efficient plumbing, tiered or
seasonal water pricing, public information and education programs, alternative water supplies, water restrictive
municipal development policies, appointing a CVWD conservation coordinator and refining the maximum
water allowance budget for landscaped and recreational areas. The 2010 CVWMP Update reduces reliance on
groundwater sources by fully utilizing Colorado River water, SWP Exchange Water and recycled water
supplies, and implementing more conservation over the long term.
The 2010 CVWMP Update (Executive Summary, Appendix B) emphasizes cooperation with municipalities,
local water agencies, and tribes in regional planning and implementation. The following are among some of the
recommended activities outlined in the update for the CVWD Board of Directors to consider over the next 35
years:
• Provide incentives and support to agricultural customers to conserve water, such as through converting
from flood/sprinkler irrigation to more efficient micro-sprinkler/drip systems;
• Encourage existing golf courses to convert landscaping to meet the most current landscape ordinance,
requiring no more than 4 acres of grass per hole and 10 acres of grass per practice area;
• Expand landscape conversion rebates for domestic customers to encourage less grass and more desert
appropriate landscaping; and
• Complete construction of subsequent phases of the Mid-Valley Pipeline system to provide a blend of
recycled and Colorado River water for up to 50 golf courses in lieu of groundwater.
The 2010 CVWMP Update recognizes that groundwater storage makes up the difference between demand and
supply. The demand not met with imported water used for irrigation and groundwater recharge, or with recycled
water, is obtained from the groundwater basin. The Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin has a capacity of
approximately 29.8 million acre-feet (AF). It is capable of meeting the water demands of the Coachella Valley
for extended periods, thereby buffering the groundwater resource during periods of varying water availability.
The 2010 CVWMP Update discusses many CVWD programs to maximize the water resources available
including:
• Recharge of Colorado River and SWP supplies;
• Recycled wastewater and conversion of groundwater uses to canal water; and
• Water conservation including tiered water rates, landscaping ordinance, outreach and education.
The 2010 CVWMP Update and CVWD’s Groundwater Replenishment Program establish a comprehensive and
managed effort to eliminate overdraft. These programs allow CVWD to maintain the groundwater basin as its
Engineer's Report On Water Supply And Replenishment Assessment 2018-2019 Mission Creek, West Whitewater River, and
East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit by CVWD.
22
primary water supply and to recharge the groundwater basin with imported water allocations from the Colorado
River and SWP. For reference, the Executive Summary of the 2010 CVWMP Update is provided in Appendix
B.
CVWD prepared the 2014 and 2016 CVWMP Status Reports to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2010 CVWMP
Update, including progress on eliminating overdraft for CVWD’s Mission Creek Subbasin, West Whitewater
River Subbasin, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Areas of Benefit (AOBs). Both Status Reports
demonstrated that the 2010 CVWMP Update is working and that continued implementation ensures that
overdraft will be eliminated within 10 years. The status of the Annual Change in Water Storage has been
updated annually in CVWD’s Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, and also in
the Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2016-2017 prepared in accordance with the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Over the ten-year period preceding 2014, there was no overdraft
mainly as a result of increases in urban conservation and increases in imported water deliveries to the Coachella
Valley. Between 2014 and 2017, imported water deliveries were significantly reduced as a result of the
statewide drought; however, groundwater pumping was also significantly reduced due to the Governor’s
drought restrictions.
Groundwater levels have increased in the City of Palm Springs area and in the eastern Coachella Valley.
However, water levels are still declining in the mid-Coachella Valley areas near the Cities of Rancho Mirage,
Palm Desert, and Indian Wells. Groundwater levels in this area will continue to decline until full
implementation of mid-Coachella Valley (between eastern and western Coachella Valley) programs that reduce
pumping take effect. These programs include source substitution programs including non-potable water system
expansion to golf courses and additional recharge. The 2014 and 2016 CVWMP Status Reports are publicly
available at CVWD’s website.
1.5.2. Coachella Valley Water District 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Senate Bill
X7-7, and Water Shortage Contingency Ordinance
The 2015 CVWD UWMP was approved by the State on September 29, 2016. CWC Section 10910 (c)(2) states
that, if demand from potential future growth is accounted for in the most recently adopted 2015 UWMP, the
water supplier may incorporate the requested information from the 2015 UWMP in preparing WSAs. CVWD
demand projections contained in the 2015 UWMP take into account the increased growth throughout its service
area.
In November 2009, SBx7-7 was approved and adopted by the State. DWR provides alternative water use
reduction targets for urban water suppliers to select, and guidance to achieve the target goal. The legislation
includes requirements to improve the management of CVWD water resources by monitoring groundwater
basins, developing agricultural water management plans, reducing statewide per capita water consumption by
2015 and 2020, and reporting water diversions and uses in the Delta.
SBx7-7 creates a framework of future planning and actions by urban and agricultural water suppliers to reduce
California’s water use. This bill requires the development of agricultural water management plans and requires
urban per capita water consumption to be reduced by 20 percent by the year 2020.
The recent drought that began in 2013 resulted in record low precipitation both statewide and in the Coachella
Valley, and in implementation of severe water use restrictions mandated by the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB).
On January 17, 2014, the governor proclaimed a State of Emergency and on April 1, 2015, the governor issued
Executive Order B-29-15, which ordered the SWRCB to adopt emergency regulations imposing restrictions to
achieve a 25 percent reduction in potable urban water usage across the State. Agencies assigned to Tier 9,
including CVWD, having residential water use above 215 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), were required to
23
reduce water use by 36 percent compared to 2013 water use. This reduction was reduced to 32 percent in
February 2016 and became locally implemented in May 2016.
On April 7, 2017, Governor Brown proclaimed an end to the drought state of emergency, with the exception of
Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Tuolumne counties. Water reporting requirements and prohibitions on wasteful
practices remain in place.
On May 31, 2018, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bills (AB) 1668 and SB 606, which are jointly designed
to overhaul California’s approach to conserving water and to make water conservation a “way of life” in
California.
CVWD’s urban water shortage contingency planning efforts are described in detail in Section 8 of CVWD’s
2015 UWMP and Chapter 2 of CVWD’s Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment
2018-2019, including a description of each ordinance CVWD adopted during Governor Brown’s drought
emergency declaration, stages of implementation, and restrictions and prohibitions on end users.
Currently, none of the subbasins in the Coachella Valley are listed as being in “critical overdraft” by the DWR .
Even though the State is not currently in an "exceptional drought,” and the Coachella Valley’s subbasins are
not being “critically-overdrafted,” CVWD and other agencies continue to control overdraft in the subbasins by
implementing water management and landscape policies.
1.5.3. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) is a collaborative effort to identify and implement water
management solutions on a regional scale that increase regional self-reliance, reduce conflict, and manage water
to concurrently achieve social, environmental, and economic objectives. IRWM is the application of Integrated
Water Management (IWM) principles on a regional scale.
In 2008, the five public water agencies in the Coachella Valley (including CVWD) formed the Coachella Valley
Regional Water Management Group (CVRWMG). In 2010, they adopted the Coachella Valley Integrated
Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). The IRWMP was updated in 2014 and 2018. These efforts
ensure that the Coachella Valley as a whole will focus on sustainable water resources. All water agencies in
the Coachella Valley work together, share information, discuss concerns and viewpoints, and build consensus
in supporting future projects that benefit the entire region. Since its formation, the CVRWMG has added Valley
Sanitary District (VSD) as a member.
1.5.4. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Alternative Plan
In September 2014, Governor Brown signed three-bills into law: AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1319 and SB 1168
(Pavley), that became collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), creating
a framework for sustainable, local groundwater management for the first time in California history.
The SGMA was adopted by the California Legislature in 2014 in response to the severe over-pumping of
groundwater in what was then the third year of an historic drought. That overdraft led to groundwater subsidence
of several feet in some parts of the state, and the drying up of more than 1,500 wells in Tulare County
(accounting for more than half of dry wells in the state), leaving thousands of Californians without water from
their taps. The final legislation created a framework that requires the most heavily used groundwater basins in
California Water Boards Website - California Statutes on Making Conservation a California Way of Life - Assembly Bill (AB)
1668 and Senate Bill (SB) 606-May 31, 2018.
“Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2016-2017” prepared by Stantec, March 2019.
VOLUME 1: IRWM/SWR Plan Chapters 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater
Resource Plan – Public Draft August 2018, http://www.cvrwmg.org/docs/2018_08_20_CVRWMG-2018IRWM-
SWRPlanPublicDraft_150844.pdf, Accessed November 2018.
24
the state (127 of the 515 basins identified by the DWR in its Bulletin 118 Groundwater Update) to be managed
sustainably by 2042 (or 2040 for the most critically overdrafted basins). SGMA was amended in 2015 by SB
13 (Pavley).
SGMA established a process for local agencies to develop an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(Alternative Plan) (see Water Code §10733.6) for evaluation by DWR. According to the SGMA, an Alternative
Plan is required to be submitted to DWR for review no later than January 1, 2017, and every 5 years thereafter.
In general, Alternative Plans must be consistent with one of the following (Water Code §10733.6(b)):
1. A plan developed pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750) or other law
authorizing groundwater management;
2. Management pursuant to an adjudication action; or
3. An analysis of basin conditions that demonstrates that the basin has operated within its
sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years.
SGMA requires local agencies to establish a new governance structure, known as Groundwater Sustainability
Agencies (GSA), and to develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or Alternative Plans for groundwater
basins or sub-basins that are designated as medium or high priority.
The Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin has been designated by DWR as a medium priority subbasin. Pursuant
to CWC section 10723.8 of the SGMA, CVWD filed a notice on November 6, 2015 of its election to serve as
a GSA for the portions of the Indio Subbasin (DWR Sub-Basin No. 7-21.01) underlying the CVWD boundary.
DWA, CWA, and IWA separately filed a notice of election to serve as a GSA for the portions of the Indio
Subbasin underlying their service boundaries.
CVWD, DWA, CWA, and IWA jointly submitted the 2010 CVWMP Update to DWR as an Alternative Plan
for the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin.
1.5.5. City of Palm Desert
The City of Palm Desert has adopted by reference the CVWD Ordinance No. 1302.3 and incorporates CVWD’s
water management planning efforts in the City’s General Plan Updates.
1.5.6. County of Riverside
The County of Riverside Ordinance No. 859, Water Efficient Landscape Requirements Ordinance, establishes
provisions for water management practices and water waste prevention for new and rehabilitated landscapes
and to implement the requirements of the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act 2006 and the
California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7. The County also incorporates CVWD’s water
management planning efforts in its General Plan Updates.
Notice of Election to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency;
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/gsa_notification/039_Coachella_Valley_Water_District_GSA_2015-11-06.pdf;
Accessed November 2018.
SGMA Alternative GSP – Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin (2016), prepared by Stantec in 2016.
25
2. Water Demands
2.1. Project-Specific Water Demand Estimate
The DSRT SURF Project (Project) proposes a mixed-use development with land uses consisting of a surf lagoon
and associated amenities, up to 350 hotel rooms, and up to 88 residential villas on approximately 17.69 acres.
The Project will be implemented in two phases: Phase I includes development of the Surf Lagoon Planning
Area (Planning Area 1), and Phase II includes development of the Hotel and Villas Planning Area (Planning
Area 2) (see Exhibit 5). Project-related water demands and proposed water conservation measures are discussed
below.
2.1.1. Phase I - Development of the Surf Lagoon Planning Area
The Surf Lagoon Planning Area will be developed in Phase I to include a surf lagoon and associated amenities
on 11.85 acres.
Surf Lagoon
The surf lagoon will be a water pool of approximately 236,720 square feet area in which consistent surfing
waves of variable height would be generated in quick succession. Currently, no standard water demand factor
for surf lagoons is available; therefore, Cloward H2O Water Perfected (Cloward H2O) prepared a water demand
analysis for the proposed surf lagoon (Appendix C). Based on the Cloward H2O analysis, the proposed surf
lagoon will require approximately 6,900,000 gallons of water for the initial filling. It would lose an average of
1,121 gallons/day from backwash and 45,177 gallons/day from evaporation, for a total of 46,298 gallons/day
(16,898,770 gallons/year). Total annual water demand for the operation of the lagoon would be approximately
23,798,770 gallons, or 73.04 acre-feet per year (AFY), as shown below in Table 3. This is a conservative
estimate that assumes the surf lagoon will require complete filling each year.
Table 3
Surf Lagoon Projected Annual Water Demand
Annual
Filling
(gallons)
Replacement Water
(water lost to backwash and
evaporation)1
(gallons/year)
Total Water
Demand
(gallons/year)
Total Water
Demand
(AFY)
Surf Lagoon
It should be noted that water loss at an open pool like the proposed surf lagoon is dependent on the surface area
of the pool and factors that increase or decrease evaporation, like temperature and humidity level.
Proposed Onsite Well
The Project will provide water for the surf lagoon in one of three ways: installation of a new groundwater well
at the southeastern corner of the site; connection to the existing Desert Willow groundwater well located south
of the site near Country Club Drive; or utilization of potable water from CVWD.
Water demand for the surf lagoon is projected to be approximately 73.04 AFY. If the Project installs a new
groundwater well on the site, then the groundwater well will be metered and reported in compliance with
requirements of CVWD’s Groundwater Replenishment Program in accordance with California Water Code
Sections 31630-31639. CVWD is permitted by the California Water Code to replenish the groundwater basin
and to levy and collect water replenishment assessments from any non-exempt groundwater producer or surface
water diverter (> 25 AFY) within its jurisdiction who benefits from replenishment of groundwater. Other
components of the Project will be connected to CVWD’s water distribution system.
26
If the Project connects to the existing Desert Willow groundwater well located south of the site near Country
Club Drive, then the Project would need construction and extension of underground pipes to supply
approximately 73.04 AFY.
Otherwise, CVWD would provide approximately 73.04 AFY of water for the surf lagoon.
Surf Lagoon Associated Amenities
The Surf Lagoon Planning Area will also include a surf center building, ancillary restrooms/changing
rooms/locker buildings, ancillary rental building(s), East lagoon café and bar, and maintenance and equipment
buildings. Based on the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF) water demand
factors, the surf lagoon associated amenities would generate a water demand of approximately 15.28 AFY.
27
Table 4
Surf Lagoon Associated Amenities
Projected Annual Water Demand
Land Use/Building
Size/Unit
Number Factor Total Water
Demand
(gallons/year)
Total Water
Demand
(AFY) Square
Feet Quantity Basis
Total Water Demand (AFY) 15.28
Planning Area 1 will also include a swimming pool/spa and landscaping which will consume water. Water
consumption estimates for these features are discussed in Section 2.1.3.
Summary
Based on the analyses shown in Tables 3 and 4, the Planning Area 1 (Surf Lagoon Planning Area) surf lagoon
and associated amenities would generate a water demand of approximately 88.32 AFY. This is a conservative
estimate that assumes the surf lagoon would require complete filling each year.
28
2.1.2. Phase II - Development of the Hotel and Villas Planning Area
The Hotel and Villas Planning Area will be developed in Phase II to include a hotel(s), hotel spa, villas, villa
clubhouse, maintenance and equipment buildings, and swimming pools on 5.84 acres. Based on the water
demand factors for similar types of development in recent CVWD-approved WSAs, Phase II of the project,
excluding the swimming pools and landscaping irrigation (see Section 2.1.3), would generate a water demand
of approximately 60.99 AFY.
Table 5
Hotel and Villas Planning Area
Projected Annual Water Demand
Land Use/Building
Size/Unit Number Factor Water
Demand
(gallons
per year)
Water
Demand
(AFY) Square
Feet Rooms Quantity Basis
Hotels****
Hotel Spa***
Villas§
Villa Clubhouse§
Maintenance and
Equipment Buildings
Total Water Demand (AFY) 60.99
§ PD 80 Project’s Residential Water Demand Factor. For analysis purposes, water consumption by the Villa
Clubhouse is considered to be equivalent to water consumption of one villa.
***CVWD Travertine WSA Water Demand Factor.
Planning Area 2 II will also include swimming pools/spas and landscaping which will consume water. Water
consumption estimates for these features are addressed in Section 2.1.3.
2.1.3. Swimming Pools/Spas and Landscaping
Both Planning Area 1 and 2 will include swimming pools/spas and landscaping that will consume water. Water
consumption estimates for both phases (combined) are provided below.
Swimming Pools and Spas
Planning Area 1 and 2 propose a combined total of 26,725 square feet of pools and spas with an average depth
of 6 feet. The number of square feet that will be built in Planning Area 1versus Planning Area 2 is unknown at
this time; therefore, total square footage for both planning areas are analyzed as a single value. Currently, there
is no standard water demand factor for swimming pools and spas. Water consumption by these facilities depends
on their size and type (open or closed), the evaporation rate, and site-specific activities. For this Project, water
demand for swimming pools and spas is projected based on the assumptions used in a similar CVWD-approved
project (Millennium Village Palm Desert Master Plan WSA). As shown in Table 6, 26,725 square feet of
swimming pools and spas would generate a water demand of approximately 7.36 AFY.
29
Table 6
Swimming Pools and Spas
Projected Annual Water Demand
Land
Use
Area
(SF)
Average
Depth
(feet)
Water Volume
(cubic feet)
Water
Demand
(gallons per
year)*
Water Lost
due to
100%
evaporation
(gallons per
year)
Annual
Water
Demand
(gallons per
year)**
Annual
Water
Demand
(AFY)**
Total Water Demand (AFY)7.36
Landscape Irrigation Water Demands
Average annual precipitation in the Coachella Valley can vary from four (4) inches on the valley floor to more
than thirty (30) inches in the surrounding mountains. The region can experience extremely high temperatures
with large daily temperature fluctuations; in the summer months, monthly average temperatures can exceed 100
degrees Fahrenheit (F). Total potential evapotranspiration levels are well above total rainfall amounts due to
high temperatures and abundant sunlight. The Coachella Valley never experiences a water surplus condition
with respect to precipitation versus evapotranspiration. Prime evapotranspiration sites include lakes, golf
courses, and well-watered lawns.
The Project landscape plans will include low water demand landscaping, such as shrubs, cactus, succulents,
groundcover, and vines. It is assumed that the Project’s plant species would comply with City, County of
Riverside, CVWD, and State of California water conservation requirements by including water efficient and
drought-tolerant plant species. These include, but are not limited to:
• City of Palm Desert Ordinance, Chapter 25.52 (Landscaping);
• County of Riverside Ordinance No. 859 (Water Efficient Landscape Requirements);
• County of Riverside Storm Water Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook for Low
Impact Development; and
• State of California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7 (Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance).
These elements will be further detailed at the submittal of site development plans or other discretionary permits
for each phase of development.
Landscape water demand for the Project is estimated in Table 7 using the Project’s landscape irrigation area
and water usage equations of the CVWD’s Ordinance No.1302.3 (Landscape and Irrigation System Design
Criteria). The overall goal of the ordinance is to reduce landscape water use, reduce or eliminate runoff in
streets, and limit turf use. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) formula, as outlined in the
ordinance, is a calculative tool used to estimate outdoor irrigation usage.
As planned, the Project will have approximately 120,159 square feet of landscaped area, including 11,795
square feet of turf and 108,364 square feet of native plant materials. Based on the MAWA equation, the annual
water demand for Project landscaping is projected to be 8.54 AFY, as shown below.
Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Assessment 2017-2018 Mission Creek, West Whitewater River, and East Whitewater
River Subbasin Areas of Benefit by CVWD.
30
Table 7
Projected Annual Landscape Water Demand
ETo ETAF LA
(SF)
Conversion
Factor
(gal per SF)
Conversion
Factor
(CCF)
MAWA
(CCF)
MAWA
(AFY)
Total Water Demand (AFY)8.54
Currently, the Desert Willow Golf Course is using CVWD’s recycled water for landscaping. The Project
landscaping pipelines will also be connected to the existing CVWD’s recycled water system at Desert Willow
Golf Course. It is anticipated that the Project will use up to 8.54 AFY of recycled water for landscaping in-lieu
of potable water sources.
To reduce water waste, the City of Palm Desert has adopted a water efficient landscaping ordinance as part of
its Municipal Code that addresses all landscaping for residential and non-residential developments, public
parkways, median islands, and landscaping maintenance requirements in the City. The ordinance was adopted
in accordance with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and CVWD’s Ordinance 1302.3.
The guidelines used by the City encourage use of low water demand plants for landscaping; such plants would
be used in the Project’s landscaping to minimize water consumption.
2.2. Water Conservation Measures
2.2.1. Desert Landscaping: Native and Other Drought-Tolerant Plants
Over the last several years, CVWD has expanded conservation outreach, education, and other strategies to
provide public and private consumers with information necessary to help conserve water through the use of
drought-tolerant plant species native to the desert (xeriscape), efficient irrigation systems, indoor water usage
rebates, and turf removal rebate programs. The Project’s adherence with the CVWD conservation programs
will further enforce the water conservation ideology. As discussed in Section 3.1.2.4., the 2010 CVWMP
Update identifies conservation measures with the objective of reducing urban water demand by 20 percent by
2020.
2.2.2. Project-Specific Water Conservation and Groundwater Reduction Measures
Turf Reduction Plan
On April 1, 2015, the Governor’s Executive Order B-29-15 was passed to initiate Turf Reduction Programs in
California. This program directs the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to lead a statewide
initiative, in partnership with local agencies, to collectively replace 50 million square feet of lawns and
ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscapes. The DWR also provides funding to allow for lawn
replacement programs in underserved communities.
California Drought - Executive Order B-29-15, Directive #3, April 1, 2015 (Turf Replacement Initiative).
31
The Project site is located on the Desert Willow Golf Course property which has two golf courses: Firecliff
Course and Mountain View Course. The City is planning to replace turf areas on both golf courses with desert
landscaping (low water demand plants) which will reduce irrigation water consumption and offset the water
demand of the proposed Project (See Appendix A). Table 8 quantifies the number of square feet proposed for
conversion to desert landscaping.
Table 8
Total Area of Golf Course for Turf Reduction
Firecliff Golf Course
Holes 1-9 Total Area
(Square Feet) Holes 10-18 Total Area
(Square Feet)
Totals #1-#18 439,162
Mountain View Golf Course
Holes 1-9 Total Area
(Square Feet) Holes 10-18 Total Area
(Square Feet)
Totals #1-#18 596,163
Total Turf Area to be Converted to Desert Landscaping 1,035,325
As shown in Table 9, replacement of 439,162 square feet of turf with desert landscaping (drought tolerant
plants) in the Firecliff Golf Course will save approximately 45.28 AFY of water which could be used to offset
the proposed Project’s water demand.
32
Table 9
Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping
Firecliff Golf Course
ETo PF
LA
(square
feet)
Conv.
Factor
(gal per
SF)
Conv.
Factor
(CCF)
IE ETWU
(CCF)
ETWU
(AF)
Difference 45.28
In addition, replacement of 596,163 square feet of turf with desert landscaping in the Mountain View Golf
Course could save approximately 61.46 AFY of water which could be used towards the proposed Project’s
water demand (Table 10).
Table 10
Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping
Mountain View Golf Course
ETo PF
LA
(square
feet)
Conv.
Factor
(gal per
SF)
Conv.
Factor
(CCF)
IE ETWU (CCF) ETWU
(AF)
Difference 61.46
Table 11
Water Demand of Turf vs. Desert Landscaping
Both Golf Courses (Combined)
AFY
Difference 106.75
Currently, approximately 143.08 AFY of water is being used to irrigate the 1,035,325 square feet of turf at both
the Firecliff and Mountain View Golf Courses (Table 11). If the turf is replaced with desert landscaping,
approximately 36.33 AFY would be required, resulting in water usage reductions of approximately 106.75
AFY. This water savings could be used to offset water demand by the proposed Project. Project water demand
is estimated to be 165.21 AFY (Table 12). If the 106.75 AFY of water “saved” from the Turf Reduction Program
is redirected to the proposed Project, the Project’s water demand would be 58.46 AFY (Table 12).
33
2.2.1. Summary of Project Water Demand
Table 28 provides a summary of the Project’s projected total water demand. In total, the Project would require
approximately 165.21 AFY, or 9.34 AF per acre, of water at buildout. This is approximately 0.14 percent of
CVWD’s anticipated 2020 total urban water demand of 114,600 AF, and approximately 0.09 percent of
CVWD’s anticipated 2040 total urban water demand of 194,300 AF. After applying the water demand offsets
associated with implementation of the proposed turf reduction program at the Desert Willow Golf Course
(106.75 AFY), the net total water demand for the Project is expected to be 58.46 AFY. This represents
approximately 0.05 percent of the total projected water supply of 114,600 AF for 2020, and would represent
0.03 percent of the total projected water supply of 194,300 AF for 2040.
CVWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
34
Table 12
Total Projected Water Demand
Land Use/Building
Size/Unit Number Factor Water
Demand
(gallons per
day/AFY)
Water
Demand
(AFY)
Square
Feet Rooms Quantity Source/Basis
PLANNING AREA 1
Total Water Demand (AFY) 88.32
PLANNING AREA 2
Total Water Demand (AFY) 60.99
Total Project Water Demand (AFY) 165.21
WATER DEMAND REDUCTIONS/OFFSETS
Net Total Project Water Demand (AFY) 58.46
35
3. Water Supply Assessment
3.1. General
Having established in Section 1 of this Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) that
the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP) Update, Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD) 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Senate Bill 1262 (SB 1262), and the Whitewater
River (Indio) Subbasin Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative Plan) are applicable to
this Project, the next requirement of a WSA/WSV is to identify and describe the water supply sources available
to the CVWD that will serve the Project. California Water Code (CWC) Section 10910(d) requires a WSA/WSV
to include identification of any existing water supply: groundwater; water rights; water service contracts; State
Water Project (SWP) Table A amounts; and alternate sources (recycled water) relevant to the identified water
supply for the Project. The WSA/WSV must also include a description of the quantities of water received in
prior years by the Public Water System (PWS). According to the CVWD’s 2015 UWMP, the aquifer and other
sources of supply are adequate for an average year, single dry year, and multiple dry years for a twenty-year
period.
3.2. Identification of Water Sources
The primary source of water supply for this Project is groundwater obtained from the Whitewater River (Indio)
Subbasin. The Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin is dependent on both natural and artificial recharge. In the
Coachella Valley, the groundwater basin is recharged by Colorado River water, reclaimed water, and SWP
Exchange Water. Colorado River water is also available for potential direct domestic use if treated. Colorado
River water via the Coachella Canal supplies water for irrigation of the eastern Coachella Valley, for
groundwater recharge, and for in-lieu recharge in the mid-Coachella Valley via the Mid-Valley Pipeline.
The western portion of the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin is recharged with SWP Exchange Water at the
Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility (WRGRF) just north of the City of Palm Springs.
3.3. Analysis of Water Supply
3.3.1. Groundwater
Since the early part of the 20th century, the Coachella Valley has been dependent primarily on groundwater as
a source of domestic water supply. Groundwater is also used to supply water for crop irrigation, fish farms,
duck clubs, golf courses, greenhouses, and industrial uses in the Coachella Valley.
CWC Section 10910(f) requires that additional information be included in the analysis when a groundwater
basin is cited as the water supply source for a project. Information should include: a description of the basin;
the rights of the Public Water System (PWS) to use the basin; the overdraft status of the basin; any past or
planned overdraft mitigation efforts; historical use of the basin by the PWS; projected use of the basin by the
project; and a sufficiency analysis of the basin that is to supply the project.
CWC Section 10910(f) was also amended by Senate Bill (SB) 1262 (Pavley) to require that where projects
would be drawing water from basins designated as high or medium priority, a WSA/WSV shall provide
information regarding the following:
• Whether the groundwater basin has been identified as being subject to critical conditions of overdraft;
SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin (December 2016).
Engineer's Report Groundwater Replenishment and Assessment Program for the Garnet Hill Subbasin Desert Water Agency
2015/2016 by DWA.
36
• If a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) has adopted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)
or has an approved Alternative Plan; and
• A copy of the GSP or Alternative Plan.
3.3.2. Description of the Aquifer
As discussed above, groundwater is the principal source of municipal water supply in the Coachella Valley.
CVWD provides domestic water to most of the developed portions of the Coachella Valley and along
approximately two thirds of both sides of the Salton Sea in the Imperial Valley. CVWD obtains water from the
Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin and Mission Creek Subbasin.
The San Andreas Fault drives a complex pattern of branching fault lines within the Coachella Valley that define
the boundaries of the four (4) subbasins that make up the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin : the Mission
Creek, Whitewater River (Indio), San Gorgonio Pass, and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins. The Whitewater
River (Indio) is shared by CVWD, Desert Water Agency (DWA), the Cities of Indio and Coachella, Myoma
Dunes Water Company, and numerous private groundwater users.
As described by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the Coachella Valley Groundwater
Basin is bounded on the north and east by non-water bearing crystalline rocks of the San Bernardino and Little
San Bernardino Mountains and on the southwest by the crystalline rocks of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains. A bedrock constriction separates the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin from the San Gorgonio
Pass Subbasin on the northwest. The Salton Sea is the eastern boundary and the subbasin’s primary discharge
area. A low drainage divide forms a short boundary with the West Salton Sea Groundwater Basin to the
southeast.
The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin can be described as a giant tilted bathtub full of sand, with the high
end at the northwest edge of the Coachella Valley near the community of Whitewater and the low end at the
Salton Sea. The aquifer underlies the Cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert,
Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella, and the unincorporated communities of Thousand Palms,
Thermal, Bermuda Dunes, Oasis, and Mecca.
The subbasins present in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin are the Mission Creek, Desert Hot Springs,
San Gorgonio Pass, and Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasins. The Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin includes
five subareas: Palm Springs, Thermal, Thousand Palms, Garnet Hill, and Oasis. The Palm Springs Subarea is
the forebay or main area of recharge to the subbasin, and the Thermal Subarea comprises the pressure or
confined area within the basin (Exhibit 6). The other three are peripheral areas having unconfined groundwater
conditions. The subbasins with their groundwater storage reservoirs are defined without regard to water quantity
or quality. They delineate areas underlain by geologic formations, which readily yield stored water through
water wells and offer natural reservoirs for the regulation of water supplies. In the western portion of the
Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin, groundwater is unconfined, whereas to the south and southeast groundwater
is mostly confined except on the edges of the subbasin where unconfined conditions are found. Depth to
groundwater varies widely in the southeast part of the subbasin. Some wells near the Salton Sea historically
delivered artesian flow, and returns to artesian flow have been seen in recent years.
The Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin comprises a major portion of the Coachella Valley floor and
encompasses approximately 400 square miles. The historical fluctuations of water levels within the Whitewater
River (Indio) Subbasin indicate a steady decline in levels throughout the subbasin prior to 1949. Post 1949
levels in the lower Thermal Subarea (south of Point Happy in La Quinta), which is where imported Colorado
River water is used for crop irrigation, rose sharply. However, water levels continued to decline elsewhere in
the subbasin. With the use of Colorado River water from the Coachella Branch Canal, the demand on the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (2003).
United States Geological Survey (USGS)(1974).
SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin (December 2016).
37
groundwater basin declined in the east Coachella Valley (generally southeast of Washington Street and Point
Happy). Water levels in the deeper aquifers rose from 1950 to 1980. However, afterwards these levels began
to decline again due to increasing urbanization and groundwater usage. The 2014 and 2016 CVWMP Status
Reports provided an analysis of progress in eliminating the overdraft and explained that although groundwater
levels are declining in the Cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage areas, groundwater levels are increasing
in the east Coachella Valley and in the vicinity of the City of Palm Springs. The reports further discussed how
the period from 2003 to 2013 involved no occurrence of overdraft and actually resulted in slightly more water
being recharged back into the aquifer than what was pumped or lost through flows to the Salton Sea.
As shown in Table 13, DWR estimated that the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin contained a total of
approximately 39.2 million acre-feet (AF) of water in the first 1,000 feet below the ground surface, much of
which originated from runoff from adjacent mountains. However, the amount of water in the aquifer has
decreased over the years due to pumping to serve urban, rural and agricultural development in the Coachella
Valley, which has withdrawn water from the aquifer at a rate faster than its natural rate of recharge.
Table 13
Groundwater Storage Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin
Subbasin Subarea Storage (AF)
Whitewater (Indio)
TOTAL 39,200,000
Source:
The historic declining water table in the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin led to a determination by CVWD
and Desert Water Agency (DWA) that a management program was required to stabilize water levels and prevent
other adverse effects such as water quality degradation and land subsidence. CVWD’s East and West
Whitewater River Subbasin Groundwater Replenishment Programs are reducing declining water levels in this
subbasin. Groundwater recharge in the West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit began in 1973 and the
benefits of recharge can be seen in recent groundwater level measurements.
As presented in the CVWD’s Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Assessment 2018-2019 for the Mission
Creek, West Whitewater River, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Areas of Benefit (AOBs), groundwater
production was estimated to be 208,439 AF during 1999 for the West Whitewater River Subbasin Management
Area. The reported production for 2016 and 2017 was 148,395 AF and 155,543 AF, respectively. Groundwater
production within the East Whitewater River Subbasin AOB was estimated to be 168,300 AF during 1999. The
reported production for 2015, 2016, and 2017 was 113,706 AF, 113,333 AF, and 117,444 AF, respectively.
Surface runoff and subsurface inflow are significant sources of recharge to the Whitewater River (Indio)
Subbasin. Average historical natural recharge is approximately 49,000 acre-feet per year (AFY). In addition,
the Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility (WRGRF) northwest of the City of Palm Springs
receives SWP Exchange Water from the Colorado River Aqueduct, which has a maximum capacity of 300,000
Coachella Valley Water District Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for the Mission Creek
Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of
Benefit 2018-2019 (Table VI-3 and VII-1).
Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 CVWMP Update (December 2010).
38
AFY. In 2016, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) delivered approximately
35,699 AF to the WRGRF. In 2017, MWD's delivery to the WRGRF consisted of 35,000 AF of water under
CVWD's "35 TAF" Agreement, 244,698 AF of Advance Delivery Water, and 106,296 AF of SWP Exchange
and Carry-Over Water, for a total of 385,994 AF which is the largest quantity of replenishment water ever
delivered in a single year to the WRGRF.
Of the total amount of SWP Exchange Water, on average, 90% has been delivered to the West Whitewater
River Subbasin Management Area, and 10% has been delivered to the Mission Creek Subbasin Management
Area. However, the production comparison between these management areas is currently 92% to 8%,
respectively. In 2017, the total amount of water delivered for replenishment within the West Whitewater River
Subbasin Management Area was 385,994 AF, total recharge of 3,318,182AF, since 1973.
In addition to direct replenishment activities at the WRGRF, CVWD has implemented a program of non-potable
in-lieu replenishment via source substitution. According to CVWD's records, there are approximately 80 golf
courses in the West Whitewater River Subbasin Management Area and 69 golf courses in CVWD's West
Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit (AOB). In 2010, CVWD developed a new non-potable water use
agreement requiring golf courses with access to Coachella Canal or recycled water to meet a minimum of 80%
of irrigation demand from those sources. To date, there are 22 water users within the West Whitewater River
Subbasin AOB which have been converted from groundwater extraction to non-potable Coachella Canal or
recycled water for irrigation water use. Three of these 22 golf courses (Desert Falls Country Club and Palm
Valley Country Club Challenge and Championship courses) were converted in 2017, and two additional golf
courses in the West Whitewater River Subbasin AOB (Marriott's Shadow Ridge Resort and Emerald Desert
Country Club) are proposed for conversion by the end of FY 2018. CVWD plans to continue installing
facilities needed to increase non-potable water deliveries as a substitute for groundwater pumping.
As mentioned above, a direct recharge program is currently operating in the East Whitewater River Subbasin
AOB. Colorado River water is conveyed to the subbasin via the Coachella Branch of the All-American Canal,
which is used primarily for agricultural use. The Coachella Canal also delivers supplies to the Thomas E. Levy
Groundwater Replenishment Facility (TELGRF) located in the southwestern part of the subbasin. The TELGRF
is located one mile south of Lake Cahuilla and upslope of Bureau of Reclamation Dike 4, a major flood control
dike, near Avenue 62 and Madison Street. This location is ideally suited for a large-scale recharge facility for
the Thermal Subarea, given its proximity to Lake Cahuilla and its relative freedom from the aquitard, which is
a barrier to groundwater recharge. CVWD recently began construction on a new groundwater replenishment
facility in the City of Palm Desert that will add up to 25,000 AFY of Colorado River water into the aquifer.
Since 1997, 343,398 AF of water has been recharged at the TELGRF. The CVWMP indicates this facility
should be able to recharge approximately 40,000 AFY. CVWD replenished 37,495 AF and 34,614 AF in 2016
and 2017 at the TELGRF, respectively. CVWD also completed construction of a pilot recharge facility and
several monitoring wells at the base of the Martinez Canyon alluvial fan in March 2005. This facility is now
out of service but was designed to recharge approximately 4,000 AFY and received 665 AF of recharge water
in 2012 and 441 AF in 2013.
No water has been delivered to the Martinez Canyon site since 2013. CVWD continues to monitor groundwater
in the Martinez Canyon area to assess any changes in water quality or supply conditions that would support
Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, Indio Subbasin,
(February 27, 2004).
32 Coachella Valley Water District Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for the Mission Creek
Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of
Benefit 2018-2019.
Ibid.
Coachella Valley Water District Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, Upper Whitewater River
Subbasin Area of Benefit 2013-2014, 2014-2015.
39
groundwater replenishment at this site in the future. Total water replenished at the East Whitewater River
Subbasin AOB facilities is 343,398 AF since 1997.
The annual amounts of water delivered for recharge at the WRGRF are shown in Table 14, below.
Table 14
Colorado River Exchange Water Delivered to the West Whitewater River
Groundwater Replenishment Facility
Year
Recharge
Delivery
(AF/Y)
Year
Recharge
Delivery
(AF/Y)
Year
Recharge
Delivery
(AF/Y)
TOTAL 3,318,182
Source: Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 2017-2018. Mission Creek,
West Whitewater River, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Areas of Benefit.
Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 2018-2019. Mission Creek, West
Whitewater River, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Areas of Benefit.
1. Delivered water quantities vary as a result of varying State Water Project delivery reliability, drought
3.3.2.1. Aquifer Adjudication
The Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin is not adjudicated. CVWD has divided the portion of the subbasin
within its service area into two AOBs: the West Whitewater River Subbasin AOB and the East Whitewater
River Subbasin AOB. The dividing line between the AOBs is an irregular line trending northeast to southwest
between the Indio Hills north of the City of Indio and Point Happy in La Quinta. The West Whitewater River
Subbasin Management Area is jointly managed by CVWD and DWA under the terms of the 2014 Whitewater
Water Management Agreement. The East Whitewater River Subbasin AOB is managed by CVWD.
CVWD shares a common groundwater source with other PWSs, including DWA, Coachella Water Authority
(CWA), Indio Water Authority (IWA), and the Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company. Other groundwater
users include some individual residents mostly in rural areas, farmers, golf courses, businesses, and commercial
facilities. DWA and CVWD both operate groundwater replenishment programs in which groundwater pumpers
(other than minimal pumpers) pay a per acre-foot charge that is used to pay the cost of importing and recharging
the aquifer.
Coachella Valley Water District Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for the Mission Creek
Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of
Benefit 2018-2019.
40
3.3.2.2. Status of the Aquifer
The Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin is the largest of the four subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater
Basin that has been designated by DWR as medium priority subbasin. The groundwater supply of the
Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin consists of a combination of natural runoff, inflows from adjacent basins,
and returns from use of groundwater, recycled water, and imported water. The groundwater supply is
supplemented with artificial recharge using imported SWP Exchange Water and Colorado River water. The
long-term average of natural inflow from mountain-front runoff is about 46,000 AFY.
In 2016, Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Emergency Regulations were developed by DWR under the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to regulate groundwater basins. The GSP Emergency
Regulations require that an annual report be prepared for non-adjudicated groundwater basins to be submitted
to DWR on April 1 of each year, following adoption of a GSP or submission of an Alternative Plan.
Currently, the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin is managed by four agencies: CVWD, CWA, DWA, and
IWA. In response to the SGMA requirements, these four agencies prepared the first Indio Subbasin Annual
Report for Water Year 2016-2017 (Annual Report) in 2018. According to the Annual Report, CVWD, CWA,
DWA, and IWA maintain a total of 54 California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM)
(Exhibit 8) wells and 270 additional wells in this subbasin. During Water Year 2016-2017, approximately
266,247 acre-feet (AF) of groundwater have been extracted from the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin from
wells that report production as required by the CWC (Graph 1). CVWD and DWA are authorized agencies to
collect replenishment assessments from groundwater producers. Their respective legislations mandate the
installation of water meters on all wells producing more than 25 acre-feet per year (AFY) for CVWD and 10
AFY for DWA. In addition, the subbasin lost up to 11,614 acre-feet of water due to evaporation,
evapotranspiration, and subsurface outflow to adjacent basins (Table 15).
Table 15 and Graph 1 show the groundwater balance in the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin for Water Year
2017 (October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017). During Water Year (WY) 2017, approximately 563,169
AF of water was delivered for direct use within the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin and 305,232 AF was
delivered for aquifer recharge, for a total of 868,401 AF. In addition, the subbasin received approximately
157,020 AF from infiltration of applied irrigation water, septic tanks percolation, and wastewater percolation
and 59,094 from natural flows. Because of the large amount of recharge, the change is storage for the subbasin
was positive 192,900 AF for WY 2016-2017.
Table 15
Water Year 2016-17
Groundwater Balance in the Indio Subbasin
Inflows
Infiltration of natural runoff
Subsurface inflows from adjacent basins
Infiltration of applied irrigation water
Wastewater percolation
Septic tank percolation
Artificial recharge
2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resource Plan, prepared by Coachella Valley
Regional Water Management Group In Collaboration with the Planning Partners.
41
Table 15
Water Year 2016-17
Groundwater Balance in the Indio Subbasin
Outflows
Groundwater pumping
Net drain flow to Salton Sea
Evaporative losses
Evapotranspiration from the shallow aquifer
Change in Groundwater Storage +192,900
Graph 1: Water Year 2016-2017 Water Balance - Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin
Outflows from the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin were significantly higher than groundwater production
in the 1970s and early 1980s due to high drain flows when water levels were high. After extended periods of
decline, both the ten- and twenty-year running average change in storage have shown upward trends since 2009.
According to the historical data, this subbasin was at its minimum storage in 2009, which was the first year of
operation for the TEL GRF and before significant water conservation efforts were implemented. Since 2009,
groundwater production has reduced by 25 percent and replenishment activities have increased. Consequently,
the subbasin has recovered over 650,000 AF of groundwater in storage, about one-third of the depletion in
2009. This demonstrates the progress made through implementation of the CVWMP.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 108 (1964) and Bulletin 118 (2003) are the most
current bulletins published by the DWR that characterize the condition of the aquifer as a whole. In Bulletin
108, DWR noted that the amount of usable supply in the overdrafted aquifer was decreasing. CVWD estimates
annual overdraft in its Engineer’s Reports on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report For Water Year 2016-2017.
2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resource Plan, prepared by Coachella Valley
Regional Water Management Group In Collaboration with the Planning Partners.
42
Over the last ten-year period, urban per capita water use has decreased as a result of ongoing conservation
programs. In addition, imported water supplies have increased. As a result, the 2014 CVWMP Status Report
shows that overdraft has not occurred between 2003 and 2013, and with continued implementation of 2010
CVWMP Update Programs overdraft will be eliminated by 2022. The recent 2016 CVWMP Status Report is
implementing more stringent conservation strategies (e.g. Turf Reduction Programs) to eliminate the overdraft.
Historical overdraft in the Coachella Valley has caused groundwater levels to decrease in portions of the
Coachella Valley, particularly in the mid-Coachella Valley region of Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, and Indian
Wells, and has raised concerns about water quality degradation and land subsidence. Groundwater overdraft is
manifested not only as a prolonged decline in groundwater storage, but also through secondary adverse effects
including decreased well yields, increased energy costs, water quality degradation, and land subsidence.
Groundwater levels in the west Coachella Valley near Palm Springs have also historically decreased. However,
in the last ten years, groundwater level increases have been seen in the Palm Springs area where artificial
recharge has successfully raised water levels.
The effectiveness of the Groundwater Replenishment Program has been demonstrated by rising water levels in
the Palm Springs area and by slowing water level declines in the mid-Coachella Valley portion of the
Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin. According to the 2016 CVWMP Status Report, it is anticipated that long-
term groundwater overdraft will be eliminated by 2022 in the Coachella Valley with increased groundwater
levels in the Palm Springs area and the eastern Coachella Valley, which exceeds the goal set by the CVWMP
to eliminate overdraft by 2030. However, groundwater levels in the mid-Coachella Valley area will continue to
decline until programs are implemented in this area to reduce groundwater pumping.
3.3.2.3. Changing Climate Conditions and New Water Use Efficiency
Framework for California
California has experienced extremes of drought and flood. Recent climate change model forecasts reflect that
it will continue to see these extreme conditions. It is imperative that the State finalize and implement a strong
and consistent conservation and efficiency framework to help assure a resilient and secure water future.
The four-year period between fall 2011 and fall 2015 was the State's driest since record keeping began in 1895.
High temperatures worsened its effects, with 2014 and 2015 being the two hottest years in the State's recorded
history. Between 2014 and 2015, a state of emergency was declared, followed by several executive orders
continuing the state of emergency and extending government assistance. On May 9, 2016, the Governor issued
another executive order establishing a new water use efficiency framework for California. The order established
longer-term water conservation measures, including permanent monthly water use reporting, new urban water
use targets customized to fit the unique conditions of each water supplier, requirements to reduce system leaks
and eliminate clearly wasteful practices, strengthen urban drought contingency plans, and improve agricultural
water management and drought plans. In late 2016 and early 2017, a series of winter storms produced record-
level rainfall, resulting in the removal of the "exceptional drought" designation from the State's drought monitor
and the Governor's declaration ending the Statewide drought emergency.
On May 18, 2016, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a Statewide water conservation
approach (effective from June 2016 through January 2017) that replaced the prior percentage reduction-based
water conservation standard with a localized "stress test" approach. This approach mandates that urban water
suppliers act to ensure at least a three-year supply of water to their customers under drought conditions similar
to those experienced from 2012 through 2015.
In response to the "stress test" regulation, CVWD, DWA, Mission Springs Water District (MSWD), CWA,
IWA, and Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company (MDMWC) all self-certified that sufficient water had been
identified to meet all anticipated demands with existing conservation programs and plans in place, effectively
placing their local conservation targets at 0%.
2017/2018 Groundwater Replenishment & Assessment Program by DWA.
43
Based on reports to the SWRCB, CVWD's cumulative water savings (as compared to 2013) through January
2017 was 22.6%, that of DWA 23.9%, that of MSWD 16.9%, that of CWA 21.1%, that of the City of Indio
22.7%, and that of MDMWC 29.1%.
In March 2017, about 76% of the State was identified as drought-free; and, on April 7, 2017, after 22 months
of restrictions, Governor Brown proclaimed an end to the drought state of emergency, with the exception of
Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Tuolumne counties. Water reporting requirements and prohibitions on wasteful
practices remain in place.
On May 31, 2018, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1668 and SB 606, which are jointly designed
to overhaul California’s approach to conserving water. The measures impose a number of new or expanded
requirements on state water agencies and local water suppliers and provide for significantly greater State
oversight of local water suppliers’ water use, even in non-drought years. They were adopted in response to
Governor Brown’s May 2016 executive order, which called to make water conservation a “way of life” in
California.
AB 1668 and SB 606 require the SWRCB, in coordination with the DWR, to establish long-term urban water
use efficiency standards by June 30, 2022. Those standards will include components for indoor residential use,
outdoor residential use, water losses, and other uses.
For indoor residential use, the new laws set a standard of 55 gallons per person per day through January 1,
2025. After that, the amount will be incrementally reduced over time. For the development of outdoor
residential use standards, the bills require DWR to conduct studies of landscaping and climate throughout the
State by 2021. DWR will then provide the resulting data to SWRCB and local water suppliers for development
of urban water use objectives. In addition, the bills will require local water suppliers to calculate and comply
with their water use objectives and report those objectives and actual use to DWR. New five-year drought risk
assessments and water shortage contingency plans must also be incorporated into Urban Water Management
Plans (UWMPs). CVWD continues to stay engaged in the regulatory activity related to this and other legislation.
The calendar year 2017 turned out to be the third hottest year in the State's recorded history after 2014 and
2015, and it had the hottest summer in the State's recorded history. However, the 2016-2017 water year was the
second wettest water year in California history, exceeded in total runoff only by the 1982-1983 water year.
DWR’s eight-station precipitation index for 2016-2017 set a new record of nearly 95 inches, as compared to
the long-term average of 50 inches. The record precipitation of 2016-2017 led to record deliveries of SWP
Exchange Water at the WRGRF during 2017. However, despite a promising beginning to the water year in late
2017, rainfall in the early months of 2018 has been below average, and dry conditions are beginning to resume.
According to the National Integrated Drought Information System (2018), about 66% of the State is
experiencing "abnormally dry" conditions, and about 37% of the State is experiencing moderate to severe
drought conditions.
Even though the State is out of the "exceptional drought" designation, CVWD and other agencies continue to
control overdrafts in the subbasins by implementing water management and landscape policies, as discussed
below.
California Water Boards Website - California Statutes on Making Conservation a California Way of Life - Assembly Bill (AB)
1668 and Senate Bill (SB) 606-May 31, 2018.
California Legislative Information Website - Assembly Bill No. 1668 – Chapter 15
Water Year 2017: What a Difference a Year Makes by California Department of Water Resources (2017).
44
3.3.2.4. Overdraft Mitigation Efforts
Water Management and Conservation Programs
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update
CVWD maintains water management policies within its 2010 CVWMP Update to comprehensively protect and
augment the groundwater supply. As discussed in the 2010 CVWMP Update, CVWD is reducing reliance on
groundwater sources by fully utilizing available Colorado River Water, SWP water, and recycled water
supplies. In addition, CVWD implements source substitution and conservation measures to reduce demands on
the aquifer. The goal is to reach a 20 percent reduction in the overall water demand by 2020, pursuant to SBx7-
7. CVWD anticipates this water use reduction level will be permanent. In compliance with the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), CVWD has submitted the 2010 CVWMP Update to DWR for
approval as its Alternative Plan.
Coachella Valley Water District Landscape Ordinance 1302.3
CVWD’s Landscape Ordinance 1302.3, revised in August 2017 in compliance with the State of California
drought revisions, requires a series of reduction methods, including requirements that new developments install
weather-based irrigation controllers that automatically adjust water allocation. Additional requirements include
setbacks of spray emitters from impervious surfaces, as well as use of porous rock and gravel buffers between
grass and curbs to eliminate run-off onto streets. With the exception of turf, all landscaping, including
groundcover and shrubbery, must be irrigated with a drip system. Also, the maximum water allowance for
landscaped areas through CVWD’s service area has been reduced. This new reduction goal requires that
developers maximize the use of native and other drought-tolerant landscape materials and minimize use of more
water-intensive landscape features, including turf and fountains.
Source Substitution
Source substitution is the delivery of an alternate source of water to users currently pumping groundwater. The
substitution of an alternate water source reduces groundwater extraction and allows the groundwater to remain
in storage, thus reducing overdraft. Alternative sources of water include municipal recycled water from Water
Reclamation Plants (WRP)-7 and WRP-10 and the City of Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant, Colorado
River Water, and re-use of water used in aquaculture. CVWD’s long-term source substitution projects include
the following:
• Conversion of existing and future golf courses in the eastern Coachella Valley from groundwater to
Colorado River Water;
• Conversion of existing and future golf courses in the western Coachella Valley from groundwater to
recycled water and/or Colorado River water via SWP Exchange water;
• Conversion of existing and future golf courses in the eastern Coachella Valley from groundwater to
Colorado River water via the Mid-Valley Pipeline;
• Conversion of agricultural irrigation from groundwater to Colorado River water, in both the Oasis
Subarea and Mecca Subarea; and
• Conversion of some municipal use from groundwater to treated Colorado River water within
Improvement District No. 1(ID-1).
Examples of effective alternative source substitution efforts already undertaken include the following:
• CVWD has a non-potable water system that delivers treated recycled water from three water
reclamation plants, blends it with canal water and delivers to golf courses, schools, and open spaces for
irrigation. Approximately 8,750 AF of recycled water was delivered in 2015.
Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan (2002) by CVWD.
45
• CVWD has completed construction of a 54-inch diameter pipeline to deliver Colorado River water to
the Mid-Coachella Valley area for use with CVWD’s recycled water for golf course and open space
irrigation. Over 50 golf courses within CVWD’s service area now use either recycled or canal water,
or a combination of both. This reduces pumping from the groundwater basin.
• CVWD has secured rights to Colorado River water and participated in the construction of the All-
American Canal and the Coachella Branch of the All-American Canal. Beginning in the late 1940’s,
CVWD worked with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and constructed a distribution system to
deliver Colorado River water to the farms in the eastern Coachella Valley. This system delivered
245,894 AF of Colorado River Water in 2006, and increased deliveries to approximately 342,000 AF
in 2015.
• CVWD recharges the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin with Colorado River water at three
locations. The largest recharge program is operated at the WRGRF. The TELGRF recharges up to
40,000 AFY in the eastern Coachella Valley. The Mission Creek Groundwater Replenishment Facility
(MCGRF) recharges up to 35,000 AFY in the Mission Creek Subbasin. A new groundwater
replenishment facility is under construction in Palm Desert and is expected to add up to 25,000 AFY
of Colorado River water into the aquifer.
• CVWD has secure rights to SWP water and negotiated exchange and advanced delivery agreements
with the MWD to exchange CVWD’s SWP water for MWD’s Colorado River water source. The SWP
Exchange Water is used to recharge the aquifer in the western Coachella Valley. This recharge program
was started in 1973 and has replenished the aquifer with almost three (3) million AF of water.
• CVWD plans to utilize treated semi-perched brackish groundwater for irrigation purposes. A
desalination pilot study was completed in 2007.
• CVWD has worked with an aquaculture farm and developed water efficiency programs that include
water treatment and reuse.
• CVWD intends to implement expansion of the Oasis Subarea irrigation system. This project will reduce
groundwater pumping by extending Colorado River Water delivery to the Oasis Slope.
Conservation Programs
CVWD continues to work with the cities in its jurisdiction to limit the amount of water that is used for outdoor
landscaping, and maintains an ongoing turf rebate program (when funds are available) to encourage
homeowners to replace turf areas with desert-friendly landscaping. As a result of the adoption of Statewide
indoor water conservation measures requiring low flush toilets, shower and faucet flow restrictors, and other
devices, the amount of water used inside homes has been significantly reduced.
CVWD adopted water budget-based tiered rates in 2010 to discourage excessive water use and implemented a
20 percent urban water use reduction target by 2020. The most current CVWD budget-based tiered rates were
adopted in July 2016, under CVWD Ordinance 1430. CVWD is also working with the golf course industry to
reduce water use at local courses. In 2014, CVWD began a partnership with the Southern California Golf
Association and formed the Golf and Water Task Force to reduce overall golf course water use by 10 percent.
Key activities being implemented are the establishment of water budgets to limit golf course groundwater
pumping and a region-wide golf course turf reduction program. With the large number of new communities
constructed around golf course throughout the service area, these conservation programs have reduced impacts
of new development on the aquifer.
46
The Project will be required to implement the CVWD conservation measures in order to assure the most
efficient use of water resources and to meet and maintain the 2020 water conservation goals throughout the life
of the Project. In addition, the Project will strictly adhere to CVWD’s landscape ordinance.
Currently, there are more than 120 golf courses in the Coachella Valley. Roughly 115 golf courses are within
CVWD boundaries and use either groundwater, recycled water, or Colorado River water (Canal water) for
irrigation. CVWD is currently providing non-potable water (recycled water and Canal water) in-lieu of
groundwater to 60 golf courses, and CVWD is working to convert and additional 42 golf courses from
groundwater to non-potable water supplies. CVWD has adopted a landscape and irrigation ordinance that
establishes maximum allowable turf areas and sets water budgets for all new golf courses. In addition, CVWD
has introduced the Golf Course Turf Removal Program to further reduce water demands by the Coachella
Valley’s golf courses. In November 2016, CVWD was awarded a $1 million grant from the USBR to implement
this program. By 2018, CVWD had assisted in the removal of 24 acres of turf from golf courses.
The City of Palm Desert also plans to adopt a Golf Course Turf Removal Program at the Desert Willow Golf
Course surrounding the proposed Project, and is anticipated to remove up to 1,035,325 square feet of turf and
replace it with low water demand landscaping. This will reduce irrigation water consumption and offset the
proposed Project’s water demand by approximately 106.75 AF every year (see Section 2.2.2).
Historical Groundwater Use
The 2002 CVWMP, 2010 CVWMP Update, and CVWD’s and DWA’s annual Engineer’s Report on Water
Supply and Replenishment Assessment review the historical use of groundwater in the Coachella Valley. In
1936, groundwater use was estimated to be 92,400 AFY and it increased steadily to about 376,000 AFY in
1999. The groundwater use in 2009 dropped to about 358,700 AFY due to a combination of water conservation
efforts, source substitution projects and the effects of the ongoing economic recession.
Historically, approximately 93,357 AF, 175,673 AF, 186,690 AF, and 211,014 AF of groundwater had been
produced from the West Whitewater River Subbasin Management Area in 1977, 1987, 1997, and 2007,
respectively. In 2017, approximately 155,543 AF was produced from the West Whitewater River Subbasin
Management Area, a reduction of 55,471 AF (26 percent) since 2007.
The historical fluctuations of groundwater levels within the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin indicate a steady
decline in the levels throughout the subbasin prior to 1949. With the use of Colorado River water from the
Coachella Canal after 1949, groundwater demand on the groundwater subbasin declined in the east Coachella
Valley (generally east and south of Washington Street) below Point Happy and the groundwater levels rose
sharply. Water levels in the deeper aquifers rose from 1950 to 1980. However, since the early 1980s, water
levels in this area have again declined, at least partly due to increasing urbanization and groundwater usage.
Groundwater Sufficiency Analysis
The 2015 UWMP reports CVWD’s actual service area urban water demand at 92,974 AF in 2015. Projected
urban water demand in the 2015 UWMP for the year 2040 is anticipated to be 194,300 AF.
As described in Section 2, buildout water demand of the Project is estimated to be approximately 165.21 AFY,
or 9.34 AF per acre, of which approximately 106.75 AFY could be offset by the turf reduction program on the
surrounding Desert Willow Golf Course.
Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2017-2018, Table 8-1.
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update - Final Report (January 2012);
https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/265; Accessed October 2018.
Coachella Valley Water District Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for the Mission Creek
Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of
Benefit 2018-2019.
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update - Final Report (January 2012);
https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/265; Accessed October 2018.
47
With almost 30 million AF of combined storage followed by groundwater management planning adopted in the
2015 UWMP and 2010 CVWMP Update, the aquifer has sufficient available water to supply the Project and
other present and anticipated needs for normal year, as well as one or more multiple dry years, over the next 20
years.
Additional Water Sources
Groundwater will provide the primary water supply for the Project. This WSA/WSV focuses on the adequacy
of groundwater to meet the water demands of this Project. Additional water sources are considered as a
supplement to groundwater in that they are used to recharge the aquifer, serve as a source substitution for
groundwater, or are used for irrigation in other locations in the subbasin.
The Project is implementing a Golf Course Turf Removal Program to offset its water demand by approximately
106.75 AFY. In addition, the Project will install a groundwater well on the site to fulfill the surf lagoon’s water
demand, which is estimated at 73.04 AFY.
Colorado River Water
The Coachella Branch Canal is an extension of the All-American Canal, which brings Colorado River water
into the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. Under the 1931 California Seven Party Agreement, CVWD has water
rights to Colorado River water as part of the first 3.85 million AF allocated to California. CVWD is in the third
priority position along with the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). This priority is ahead of the 550,000 AF
allocation to the MWD, which has the lowest priority of the California Seven Parties.
California's Colorado River supply is protected by the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act, such that the
Colorado River supplies to Arizona and Nevada after 1968 must be reduced to zero before California’s supply
will be reduced below 4.4 million AF in any year. It is estimated that this reduction is about 1.5 million AF.
This reduction together with the reduction by California agencies with lower priorities than CVWD results in a
reduction in excess of 2 million AF in Colorado River Water available to the Lower Basin States before the
Colorado River supply available to CVWD is impacted. This assumes that the California agricultural agencies
with rights to Colorado River Water are using less than 3.85 million AF.
Historically, CVWD has received approximately 330,000 AFY, the base entitlement, of Priority 3a Colorado
River Water. Table 16, below, shows the diversions of Colorado River water after measured returns at Imperial
Dam to CVWD for the period from 1964 through 2015. The 2003 Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA),
involving several of the California Colorado River contactors, provides contractual obligation for the supply to
CVWD. A number of lawsuits have unsuccessfully challenged the QSA agreements and transfers in State and
federal courts, and thus the validity of the QSA has been upheld.
The 2003 QSA was entered into and between CVWD, IID and the San Diego County Water Authority
(SDCWA). The QSA quantifies distribution allotments of Colorado River water rights in California, including
CVWD’s Colorado River rights, for the next 75 years. The agreements provide for additional transfer of
Colorado River allocations to CVWD from the IID and MWD. Under the QSA, as shown in Table 17, CVWD
will receive up to 459,000 AFY of Colorado River Water.
Water from the Coachella Canal provides a significant supply source for the east Coachella Valley. In 1999,
the Coachella Canal supplied over 60 percent of the water used in the east Coachella Valley, but provided less
than one (1) percent of the water supply to the west Coachella Valley. Most of the canal water was used for
crop irrigation in the east Coachella Valley.
48
Table 16
Annual Coachella Valley Water District Colorado River Diversions at Imperial
Dam – 1964 to 2017
(After Measured Returns)
Year
Diversion
Volume
(AF)
Year
Diversion
Volume
(AF)
Year
Diversion
Volume
(AF)
Year
Diversion
Volume
(AF)
In 1995, CVWD began operating the Dike No. 4 pilot recharge facility in La Quinta. This facility successfully
demonstrated the adequacy of this site to recharge the aquifer. The Dike No. 4 site was expanded in 2009, put
into full operation, and renamed the TELGRF. Future development and associated increases in water demand,
as well as quality concerns, are expected to increase use of Colorado River water for domestic purposes.
Determining the best way to treat this water in order to substitute for and decrease the area's dependency on
groundwater is an important objective of the 2010 CVWMP Update and the 2015 UWMP. The 2010 CVWMP
Update calls for the annual treatment and distribution of as much as 62,000 AF of Colorado River water for
domestic use.
49
Table 17
Coachella Valley Water District Deliveries Under the Quantification Settlement
Agreement
Component 2015 amount
(AFY)
2026-2047
Amount
(AFY)
2048-2077
Amount
(AFY)
Total Allocation 392,000 459,000 456,000
Total Deliveries to CVWD 378,000 445,000 442,000
Source: CVWD 2015 UWMP Table 6-3.
State Water Project Water
CVWD and DWA are SWP contractors for the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin. The SWP includes 660
miles of aqueduct and conveyance facilities extending from Lake Oroville (near Sacramento) in the north to
Lake Perris (near Riverside) in the south. The SWP has contracts to deliver 4.1 million AFY to 29 contracting
agencies. CVWD's original SWP water right (Table A amount) was 23,100 AFY and DWA's original SWP
Table A amount was 38,100 AFY for a combined Table A amount of 61,200 AFY. In 2004, CVWD purchased
an additional 9,900 AFY of SWP water from the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District located in the central
San Joaquin Valley, which brought CVWD's SWP allotment to 33,000 AFY.
In addition, CVWD and DWA have also negotiated an exchange agreement with MWD for 100,000 AFY of
SWP Table A water. MWD has permanently transferred 88,100 AFY and 11,900 AFY of its SWP Table A
amounts annually to CVWD and DWA, respectively. This exchange agreement increases the total SWP Table
A amount for CVWD and DWA to 178,100 AFY, with CVWD's portion equal to 126,350 AFY. This agreement
provides that CVWD and DWA generally receive this SWP Exchange Water during wet years, which allows
the two agencies to recharge the groundwater basin and operate a conjunctive use program, storing water in wet
years and pumping the groundwater basin in dry years.
In 2007, CVWD and DWA made a second purchase of SWP water from the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage
District. CVWD purchased 5,250 AFY and DWA purchased 1,750 AFY. In 2007, CVWD and DWA completed
the transfer of 12,000 AFY and 4,000 AFY, respectively, from the Berrenda Mesa Water District (southern San
Joaquin Valley) for a total Table A amount of 16,000 AFY. Therefore, the total SWP Table A amount for
CVWD and DWA is 194,100 AFY, with CVWD's portion equal to 138,350 AFY. Table 18 summarizes CVWD
and DWA total allocations of Table A SWP water to be delivered when available.
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update, Final Report (2012).
50
Table 18
State Water Project Water Sources (AFY)
Original
SWP
Table A
Tulare
Lake
Basin 2004
Transfer
Tulare
Lake
Basin 2007
Transfer
Metropolitan
Water
District 2003
Transfer
Berrenda
Mesa
2007
Transfer
Total
Total 61,200 9,900 7,000 100,000 16,000 194,100
Source: Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (Table ES-2), Final Report (2012).
SWP contractors make annual requests to the DWR for water allocations and DWR makes an initial SWP Table
A allocation for planning purposes, typically in the last month before the next water delivery year. Throughout
the year, as additional information regarding water availability becomes available to DWR, its
allocation/delivery estimates are updated. Table 19 outlines the historic reliability of SWP allocation deliveries,
including their initial and final allocations.
Table 19
California Department of Water Resources State Water Project Table A
Water Allocations 1988-2017
Year
Initial
Allocation
(%)
Final
Allocation
(%)
Year
Initial
Allocation
(%)
Final
Allocation
(%)
Average 31 61
Source: California Department of Water Resources, State Water Project, Notices to Water
Contractors.
* 2017 State Water Project Allocation –http://www.water.ca.gov/swpao/docs/notices/17-01.pdf;
Accessed November 2018.
** 2018 data provided by CVWD on 4/23/19.
As noted previously, CVWD and DWA do not directly receive SWP water. CVWD and DWA have entered
into an exchange agreement with MWD that allows MWD to take delivery of CVWD and DWA SWP Table A
water. In exchange, MWD provides an equal amount of Colorado River water (SWP Exchange Water) that
MWD transports through its Colorado River Aqueduct, which crosses the north end of the Coachella Valley
near the Whitewater River. The delivery agreement allows for advanced delivery and storage of water, thereby
providing better and more efficient water management. Water is only recharged when SWP Exchange Water is
51
available. The large storage capacity of the Coachella Valley aquifer and the large volume of water in storage
allow CVWD and DWA to pump from the aquifer for a number of years without recharging. Large amounts of
water can be recharged into the aquifer when the water is available.
Factors Potentially Impacting State Water Project Delivery Reliability
DWR issues the State Water Project Delivery Capability Report (SWPDCR) every two years, with the most
recently adopted 2017 SWPDCR. This report accounts for impacts to water delivery capability associated with
climate change and recent federal litigation (Appendix B). The 2017 average long-term reliability of future
SWP Table A deliveries through 2035 is projected to be 62 percent.
This allocation percentage is based on computer modeling of the State’s watersheds, and past hydrology
adjusted for factors that affect capability. In considering future water supply needs in the 2010 CVWMP Update,
CVWD considered an even lower SWP delivery capability to allow for the uncertainty of future court decisions,
SWRCB actions, the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts and other restrictions, modeling errors, levee
failure, and relaxation in the Biological Opinions for endangered species as the result of better science.
There are three significant factors contributing to uncertainty in the delivery capability of SWP water: 1)
possible effects from climate change and sea level rise; 2) the vulnerability of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta levees to failure, and 3) greater operation restrictions imposed by the United States Forest Service and
National Marine Fishery Service in response to decreasing populations of endangered fish species.
CVWD also considers purchases of additional Table A amounts from SWP contractors as they become
available.
Surface Water
Surface water supplies come from several local rivers and streams, including the Whitewater River, Snow
Creek, Falls Creek, and Chino Creek, as well as a number of smaller creeks and washes that discharge into the
Coachella Valley. In 1999, surface water supplied approximately three percent of the total water supply to the
western Coachella Valley to meet municipal demand, and virtually none to the eastern Coachella Valley.
Because the surface water supply is directly affected by variations in annual precipitation, the annual supply is
highly variable. Since 1936, the estimated historical surface water supply has ranged from approximately 1,400
to 9,000 AFY, averaging about 5,800 AFY.
The majority of local surface water is derived from runoff from the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains,
with lesser amounts from the Santa Rosa Mountains. This runoff either percolates in the streambeds or is
captured in mountain-front debris basins where it recharges the groundwater basin. According to the estimates
developed for the 2010 CVWMP Update, since 1993, an average of approximately 60,000 AFY of surface
water recharged the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin.
Recycled Water
Wastewater, when highly treated and disinfected, can be reused for landscape irrigation and other purposes;
treated wastewater is not suitable for potable use, but is suitable for groundwater recharge. Recycled wastewater
has historically been used for irrigation of golf courses and municipal landscaping in the Coachella Valley since
the early 1960s. In addition, fish farm effluent is available in certain localized areas of the eastern Coachella
Valley and is being recycled for reuse. The Project is anticipated to use approximately 8.54 AFY of recycled
water for landscaping.
Desalinated Semi-Perched Brackish Groundwater
The 2010 CVWMP Update identifies desalinated semi-perched brackish groundwater as a future additional
local water supply available for use in the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin. CVWD plans to use treated semi-
perched brackish groundwater for irrigation purposes. It is planned that semi-perched brackish groundwater
will be desalinated to a quality equivalent to that of canal water for irrigation use. The amount of semi-perched
brackish groundwater that would be treated and recycled in the future depends on supply availability, the
amount of additional water supplies needed, and the cost of treatment and brine disposal. According to the 2010
CVWMP Update, the amount of water recovered through semi-perched brackish groundwater desalination
could range from 55,000 to 85,000 AFY by 2045.
52
Treated semi-perched brackish groundwater could be delivered to the Canal water distribution system and used
as a non-potable supply for agricultural, golf course and landscape irrigation, and potentially for potable water
supply. Since the desalinated semi-perched brackish groundwater is local water, it would be available for use
throughout CVWD’s service area.
A brackish groundwater treatment pilot study and feasibility study was completed in 2008 and recommended a
combined source water strategy involving wells and direct connection to the open drain outfalls. Such a
combined approach will provide additional flexibility and reliability to this new water supply. This study
concluded that semi-perched brackish groundwater can effectively be treated for reuse as non-potable water
and potentially as new potable water.
Permanent Water Purchases
To further help meet its long-term supply needs, CVWD purchases Table A Amounts (allotments) from SWP
contractors as they have become available. Additional purchases from the SWP and from others with water
rights, mainly in the Central Valley of California, will be evaluated as they become available to determine
whether they meet CVWD's needs. If they do, CVWD may purchase additional SWP water rights.
Summary of Primary and Additional Water Sources
Table 20, below shows CVWD's existing water supply entitlements, rights, and service contracts.
Table 20
Existing Coachella Valley Water District Water Supply Table A Amounts
Water Rights and Water Service Contracts
Supply
Existing
Supplies
AFY
Entitlement Right Contract Other Ever
Utilized?
Groundwater
Coachella
Canal
Colorado
River Water
SWP
Exchange
Water3
Recycled
Water
Source: CVWD 2015 UWMP.
1. CVWD shares a common groundwater source that has not been adjudicated.
2. As quantified in the Quantification Settlement Agreement between IID, MWD and DVWD, October 2003.
3. Imported SWP Exchange Water is not used as a direct water supply source, but rather is used to recharge groundwater in the
Coachella Valley.
4. Includes Original Table A Amount, Tulare Agreement and MWD Agreement.
3.4. Analysis of Water Supply and Demand
Analysis of water supply and demand for the Project WSA/WSV is based on the 2015 UWMP and the 2010
CVWMP Update. In accordance with SBx7-7, CVWD’s 2015 UWMP sets interim and final urban water use
targets for complying with California’s 2020 conservation program based on DWR’s defined Target Method
53
No. 1 which provides for an agency goal of 80 percent of baseline demands. The 2015 UWMP relies on and
summarizes the water supplies and water supply program details in the 2010 CVWMP Update.
The 2010 CVWMP Update is a 35-year plan to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost
effective and sustainable manner. The Planning Areas for the 2010 CVWMP Update is the Whitewater River
(Indio) Subbasin, including Salton City in Imperial County and areas north of the Banning Fault that are within
the MSWD/DWA service areas. The 2010 CVWMP Update evaluates all of the water demand and supplies
in the Planning Area through 2045, for all water users including urban, agricultural, and golf, and provides a
preferred alternative water supply plan for meeting demands. The 2010 CVWMP Update evaluates long-term
risks to water supplies, such as reduced SWP capability and reduced SWP supplies, and provides contingencies
for addressing these risks. The elements of the preferred alternative are imported water supplies, recharge,
source substitution, and conservation. The preferred alternative identifies projects and programs that implement
these plan elements.
In 2005, Riverside County was experiencing rapid growth. Recognizing the need for more accurate growth
forecasts, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint
efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley
Association of Governments, and the University of California Riverside for the development of demographic
data and related support products to serve all of Riverside County. The RCCDR was tasked with developing
the Riverside County Population Projections 2006 (RCP-2006) growth forecast to provide agencies with a
consistent and standard set of population, housing, and employment forecasts. The Southern California
Association of Governments adopted the RCP-2006 for use in its regional growth forecasts.
The 2010 CVWMP Update relies on the RCP-2006. The 2014 CVWMP Status Report updated the population
projections based on the RCP-2010, which are lower. These updated projections are relied on in the 2015
UWMP.
Although the growth forecast indicated significant future growth for the Coachella Valley, these forecasts were
based on potential development that had not yet been approved by the County or by cities within the Coachella
Valley. Prior to 2008, there was substantial development pressure to transition from agricultural to urban land
uses. As agricultural land converts to urban uses, the characteristic of its water demands and infrastructure will
change. The 2010 CVWMP Update reflects these changes in its water demand projections and the ways that
water is used in this area. As urban development occurs, land that currently is irrigated with untreated Coachella
Canal water could begin utilizing groundwater replenished with canal water or use treated canal water for indoor
use and untreated canal water for outdoor use.
Tribal land in the Coachella Valley makes up over 49,000 acres. While much tribal land in the western
Coachella Valley has been developed to varying degrees, a substantial amount of tribal land in the eastern
Coachella Valley is undeveloped. An understanding of the timing and degree of development on tribal lands is
important. All of the Coachella Valley tribes have developed one or more casinos, which have provided tribes
with important economic opportunities. As development continues in the Coachella Valley, it is expected that
additional growth will occur on the remaining tribal lands.
In other portions of the Coachella Valley, development of tribal land is closely coordinated with the Coachella
Valley cities in which it is located. RCP-2006 and RCP-2010 growth forecasts are assumed to include
development of these lands.
According to the CVWD’s 2015 UWMP, CVWD anticipates using treated Canal water as an urban potable
supply starting in 2025 to reduce the amount of groundwater pumping; by 2040, Canal water is projected to
meet 28 percent of total urban potable demand, while the rest is met by groundwater. CVWD also intends to
supply untreated Canal water and desalinated semi-perched brackish groundwater for urban landscaping to
offset groundwater pumping. Recycled water currently serves golf customers, with a small portion of the total
recycled water supply serving Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) and minor landscapers totaling less than 400
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update, Figure 1-1;
http://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2130; Accessed October 2018.
54
AFY. The projected growth in recycled water supplies consists of golf and agriculture customers that are
currently served by private groundwater wells.
As shown in Table 21, the 2015 UWMP projects that the percentage of water from each of the current water
supply sources will change significantly by 2040, relative to current conditions.
Table 21
Current and Projected Average Urban Water Supply (AFY)
Water Supply Additional Detail
on Water Supply
Projected Water Supply
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (opt)
Urban Potable Subtotal 113,400 120,100 130,700 137,600 141,000
Urban Non-potable Subtotal 1,200 16,000 27,000 41,300 53,300
Recycled Water Subtotal 14,300 27,700 30,800 33,900 36,300
Total Retail Supply 128,900 163,800 188,500 212,800 230,600
Total Wholesale Supply 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Source: CVWD 2015 UWMP, Table ES-3.
1. Total Colorado River allotment will increase from 397,000 AF in 2016 to 459,000 AF in 2026. Colorado River water supply
does not sum to total right because of nonurban supply not shown on this table and projected wholesale to other agencies.
2. Recycled water safe yield is based on total projected flows at each WWTP; surface discharge and percolated wastewater
effluent is not included in the reasonably available supply estimates.
3.4.1. Effects of the 2008-2011 Great Recession
Riverside County was hit particularly hard by the economic downturn that started in 2008. The recession
resulted in a lower than projected growth rate for the Coachella Valley and, because the planning period for the
2010 CVWMP Update is through 2045, the effects of the recession on growth in the Coachella Valley have
begun and will continue to attenuate over the long-term. The 2010 CVWMP Update incorporates these factors
as it is assumed that development within the Coachella Valley will continue and that the Riverside County
Planning growth forecast is applicable in the long term.
In CVWD’s 2010 CVWMP Update (2014 CVWMP Status Report), the RCP-2010 population projections were
considered, and future water demands were reevaluated. Using RCP-2010 results in an estimated 22 percent
lower urban water demand in 2035 and a 13 percent higher agricultural water demand. Overall demand would
be about 14 percent lower in 2045. It is important to note that this is not an elimination of demand but a deferral
of demand to later years. Growth will continue but at a slightly slower rate.
Water conservation is a major component of future water management. CVWD is committed to reducing its
urban water use by 20 percent by 2020. Therefore, CVWD has been conservative in the calculation of 2015
55
and 2020 urban conservation targets. 2010 U.S. Census data was not available to be used in the preparation of
the 2015 UWMP. CVWD used 2000 Census data. CWC Section 10608.2 allowed urban water suppliers to
update 2020 urban targets in the 2015 UWMP based on the availability of 2010 Census data. Because CVWD’s
recalculated urban conservation targets were higher than those committed to in the 2010 UWMP, CVWD
retained its 2010 targets of 540 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2015, and 473 gpcd by 2020, which will
result in greater water savings. CVWD’s actual 2015 water use was 383 gpcd. Drought restrictions played a
significant role in achieving this reduction.
The golf industry represents a significant water demand sector in the Coachella Valley and is expected to remain
so in the future. CVWD, working in cooperation with the Southern California Golf Association and the local
golf community, has established a Golf and Water Task force to reduce overall golf course water use by ten
percent.
The 2010 CVWMP Update assumes that fish farm and duck club growth will be much lower than projected in
the 2002 CVWMP. Some of the large fish farms have moved from the traditional fish farming business. The
replacement use at these farms is suspected to significantly reduce the water demand. Based on available
information, fish farm demand of 8,500 AFY and duck club demand of 2,000 AFY was assumed.
It was also assumed that growth occurring on tribal land will be similar to other areas in the Coachella Valley,
and land uses will be proportional to growth that occurs on non-tribal land in the eastern Coachella Valley.
Corresponding water demands are calculated based on this growth assumption.
The 2010 CVWMP Update increases the water conservation requirement during the next 35 years. A 14 percent
reduction in agricultural water use is targeted by 2020. For urban water use, CVWD’s Landscape Ordinance
1302.3, updated in 2017, will govern the irrigation demands of new golf courses as well as reduce the demands
of existing golf courses by 10 percent.
The 2010 CVWMP Update water demand projections for the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin, for the period
of 2010 to 2030 in five-year intervals, increases from 678,000 AFY in 2010 to 783,300 AFY in 2030, or 15
percent. During this same period, using RCP-2006 projections, the population in the Coachella Valley is
estimated to increase by over 100 percent, or about four percent per year. In the 2014 CVWMP Status Report,
RCP-2010 projections were used and the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin water demand was revised to
691,500 AFY in 2030, a 12 percent reduction.
The Great Recession also affected the CVWD’s improvement projects. However, on June 13, 2017, CVWD
Board of Directors approved a $369 million operating and capital improvement budget for fiscal year 2017-18
to keep domestic water rates stable. CVWD is allocating sufficient budgets for improvement project within
the Coachella Valley to provide water services to its customers.
3.4.2. Groundwater and Groundwater Storage
As supply and demand change, the amount of groundwater in storage changes to make up the difference
between demand and supply. Other than canal water and recycled wastewater, all water delivered to urban water
users is obtained from the groundwater basin. The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has the capacity of
approximately 39.2 million AF. It currently contains about 25 million AF and acts as a very large reservoir. It
is capable of meeting the water demands of the Coachella Valley for extended periods.
As discussed in the 2010 CVWMP Update, CVWD has many programs to maximize the water resources
available to it, including groundwater recharge with its Colorado River and SWP supplies, recycled wastewater,
substitution of groundwater uses with canal water, and conservation, including tiered water rates, a landscaping
Status Report for the CVWD’s 2010 CVWMP Update, https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/474.
CVWD Website News- CVWD approves budget, keeps domestic water rates stable,
http://www.cvwd.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=213.
56
ordinance, and outreach and education. The 2010 CVWMP Update and CVWD groundwater replenishment
programs establish a comprehensive and managed effort to eliminate overdraft.
Graph 2 illustrates the long-term progression towards eliminating overdraft with successful implementation of
the 2010 CVWMP Update and 2015 UWMP programs. These programs allow CVWD to maintain the
groundwater basin as its primary water supply and to recharge the groundwater basin as other supplies are
available.
The 2014 CVWMP Status Report evaluated progress on eliminating overdraft. The report illustrates the
effectiveness of the CVWMP programs and shows that overdraft did not occur in the ten years from 2003 to
2013. The report also shows that, with continued implementation of CVWMP programs, overdraft will be
eliminated in 2022. The effectiveness of CVWD’s programs is clear and shows that there will be a steady
increase in water in storage with limited disruption to this pattern through 2045.
Graph 2. Status of the Overdraft – Annual Change in Storage
3.4.3. Coachella Canal Water
Colorado River supplies available to CVWD under the 1931 Seven Party Water Priority 43 Agreement and
QSA are considered in the 2015 UWMP and 2010 CVWMP Update. CVWD has maximized delivery of these
supplies by participating in canal lining projects. In 2008 the canal was fully lined.
The annual reporting of CVWD Colorado Diversions at Imperial Dam for the period 1964 to 2008 were
prepared as required by the U.S. Supreme Court decree. CVWD’s average annual diversion for this 45-year
period was 402,702 AFY. CVWD’s average annual diversion for the period 1983 to 2008 (26 years of decree
records) was 328,698 AFY. The difference of 74,004 AFY is the result of the water conserved by the lining of
the first 49 miles of the Coachella Branch of the American Canal by the USBR under repayment contract with
CVWD.
The QSA assures that CVWD receives a quantified allotment of Colorado River supplies. The QSA has been
unsuccessfully challenged in State and federal courts and remains in effect. In the most recent 6-year period
(2008 to 2013), the annual average diversion was 313,971 AFY.
57
3.4.4. Additional Table A Amounts
As SWP contractors, CVWD and DWA have a combined allocation of 194,100 AF. According to the 2017
SWPDCR update, there is 77% likelihood that more than 2.235 million AFY of SWP Table A water will be
delivered under the current estimates to the SWP contractors.
According to the CVWD’s Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 2018-2019
Mission Creek, East Whitewater River, and West Whitewater River Subbasin AOBs, in its efforts to maintain
water supplies in the Coachella Valley, CVWD has requested its maximum 2017 Table A SWP allocation of
138,350 AF pursuant to the SWP Contract. DWA also requested its maximum 2017 Table A water allocation,
which is currently 55,750 AF. During 2017, DWR allocated 85% of each Contractor's Table A Amount.
However, CVWD, DWA, and MWD carried over 110,768 AF in SWP reserves for delivery during 2018.
3.4.5. State Water Project Reliability
The 2017 SWPDCR provides the SWP delivery amounts based on computer modeling that incorporates the
historic range of hydrologic conditions (i.e., precipitation and runoff) that occurred from water years 1922
through 2003. Historic hydrologic conditions are adjusted to account for land-use changes (i.e., the current level
of development) and upstream flow regulations that characterized 2017, and current sea levels reflecting sea
level rise. By using this 82-year historical flow record, the delivery estimates modeled for existing conditions
reflect a reasonable range of potential hydrologic conditions from wet years to critically dry years.
The DWR issues the SWPDCR every two years to assist SWP contractors in the assessment of the adequacy of
their water supply. SWP delivery reliability is of direct interest to them and those they serve because it is an
important element of their overall water supply. The most recent report, the 2017 SWPDCR, was released on
December 15, 2017.
Many of the same specific assumptions on SWP operations described in the 2015 SWPDCR remained the same
in the 2017 SWPDCR Update. These included, most notably, the effects on the timing and the amount of SWP
and Central Valley Project (CVP) Delta diversions, by operating the system to meet the constraints spelled out
in the 2008 and 2009 federal biological opinions (BOs). Hence, the differences between the 2015 and 2017
reports can be attributed primarily to inputs on operating assumptions that result in a realistic simulation study,
with the least amount of foresight on the historical hydrology (October 1921-September 2003) used in the
simulation.
SWP Delta exports have decreased since 2005, although the bulk of the change occurred by 2009 as the federal
BOs went into effect, restricting operations of the CVP and SWP diversion pumps. The most salient findings
in the 2017 SWPDCR are as follows:
• Under existing conditions, the average annual delivery of SWP Table A water estimated for the 2017
SWPDCR is 2.571 million AFY, 21 million AF more than the 2.550 million AFY estimated for the
2015 SWPDCR; and
• The likelihood of existing-condition SWP Article 21 deliveries (supplemental deliveries to Table A
water) being greater than 20 million AFY has decreased by 2% relative to the likelihood presented in
the 2015 SWPDCR.
Based on the 2017 SWPDCR Update, the current combined maximum SWP Table A amount is 4.173 million
AFY. The estimated demands by SWP Contractors for deliveries of Table A water from the Delta under existing
conditions is assumed to be the maximum SWP Table A delivery amount for the 2017 SWPDCR. Estimated
demand for SWP Table A water is 1 million AFY higher than the 2015 SWPDCR since the maximum Table A
demand amount for some SWP Contractors has changed in Table 4-1, according to the California State Water
Project Bulletin 132. Please see Table 4-1 in 2017 SWPDCR for the maximum annual SWP Table A water
58
delivery amounts for SWP Contractors. Due to the fact that SWP Contractors have been requesting the full
amount in recent years, the 2015 and 2017 SWPDCRs more accurately reflect the trend in demand.
3.4.6. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Callback
In 1984, MWD, DWA, and CVWD entered into an advanced delivery agreement, which allowed MWD to store
water from its Colorado River Aqueduct in the Coachella Valley. Prior to this agreement, DWA and CVWD
were exchanging their annual SWP Table A amount with MWD for the same amount of water from MWD's
Colorado River Aqueduct (SWP Exchange Water). This exchange is necessary because the SWP conveyance
system does not extend into the Coachella Valley. The 1984 agreement allows MWD to deliver more water into
the Coachella Valley during wet periods, or periods when it has excess water, and to build a credit that it can
use to provide the water in exchange for DWA’s and CVWD's Table A amounts during dry periods. This ability
for advanced delivery and exchange creates a conjunctive use program among the three agencies.
In 2003, MWD, DWA, and CVWD entered into an exchange agreement whereby MWD transferred title to
100,000 AF of its SWP Maximum Table A amount to DWA and CVWD. Under the agreement, MWD obtained
the right to callback the SWP water for its use for a maximum number of times in a given period of years. The
100,000 AF was divided into two 50,000 AF blocks. The 2015 UWMP assumes that MWD will periodically
exercise its option to callback the 100,000 AFY. This is also in accordance with the 2010 CVWMP Update.
The actual callback would depend on availability of MWD's supplies to meet its demands. Since 2003, MWD
exercised its callback option one time, in 2005.
3.4.7. Long-Term Average SWP Deliveries
The amount of SWP supply that is available to CVWD for its own use was considered as the long-term average
SWP supply. The published capability of the SWP water has decreased over time. Factors that could affect
SWP capability considered in the 2015 UWMP and the 2010 CVWMP Update are:
• Uncertainty in modeling restrictions associated with biological opinions,
• Risk of levee failure in the Delta;
• Additional pumping restrictions resulting from biological opinions on new species of revisions to
existing biological opinions;
• Impacts associated with litigations such as State and federal Endangered Species Act lawsuits, and
• Climate change impacts.
Due to these factors and the need to plan for higher contingency, the planning assumption in the 2010 CVWMP
Update and the 2015 UWMP is that the long-term future average SWP capability will be at 50 percent until
successful completion of the Bay-Delta conservation Plan and Delta conveyance facilities.
Groundwater basin recharge through direct and in-lieu (indirect) recharge is a major element of CVWD's water
management activities. CVWD has spent over $43.5 million on the construction of the TELGRF in the eastern
Coachella Valley and over $42 million on the construction of the Mid-Valley Pipeline to move canal water into
the northern Coachella Valley for source substitution of groundwater. The Palm Desert Groundwater
Replenishment Facility, currently under construction, is estimated to cost $9.8 million; much of its funding is
from replenishment assessment charges paid by public and private entities that use wells to pump groundwater.
The protection of the aquifer storage will be addressed through additional water supply purchases, water
conservation, and source substitution similar to the ones described in the 2010 CVWMP Update.
Available supplies and water demands for CVWD's service area were analyzed in the water supply conditions
of the 2015 UWMP to assess the region's ability to satisfy current and future urban water demands, including
those of the Project, under three scenarios: a normal water year, a single dry year, and multiple dry years.
According to the 2015 UWMP, the urban water demands in the CVWD service area (retail supply totals) are
estimated to grow from 114,600 AFY in 2020 to 194,300 AFY in 2040. Total buildout water demand of the
59
Project is estimated to be approximately 165.21 AFY, or 9.34 AF per acre, from which approximately 106.75
AFY could be offset by the turf reduction program and 8.54 AFY would be provided from the use of non-
potable water for landscaping water demands.
The following tables provide CVWD’s projected water supplies and demands in a normal year, single dry year,
and multiple dry years. These tables combine retail and wholesale numbers to simplify the presentation. It
should be noted that the retail supplies and demands presented in the tables below include recycled water
delivered to CVWD’s non-urban customers based on DWR’s standardized tables and the 2015 UWMP
Guidebook. However, as discussed in Sections 4 and 6 of the 2015 CVWD UWMP, recycled water is not
considered an urban water supply and is not delivered to CVWD’s urban water customers. Instead, recycled
water is used to offset the groundwater pumping of private well owners (mainly golf courses) to eliminate
overdraft. The wholesale demand and supply listed is the anticipated sale of raw Colorado River water to the
IWA. These tables indicate that CVWD will be able to meet current and future urban water demand needs
through groundwater pumping, recharge with Colorado River water, and distribution of treated Colorado River
water during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years.
DWR requires the supply reliability tables to include both potable and recycled water; this is summarized below
in Table 22 for the average year.
Table 22
Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Water Years 2020-2040
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (Opt)
Retail
Wholesale
Source: CVWD 2015 UWMP, Table ES-2 and 3.
CVWD does not use recycled water in its urban water supply; therefore, a version of this table without recycled
water is presented in Table 23, which more accurately represents CVWD’s urban water supply reliability.
Table 23
Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Urban Supply Only
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (Opt)
Retail
Wholesale
Source: CVWD 2015 UWMP, Table ES-1 and 2.
Urban water supplies during the single dry year are 100% reliable. Thus, the supply and demand comparison
for the single dry year, shown in Table 24, is the same as the average year.
60
Table 24
Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Water Years 2020-2040
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (Opt)
Retail
Wholesale
Source: CVWD 2015 UWMP, Table 7-3.
Table 25 presents the urban supply and demand comparison without recycled water.
Table 25
Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Urban Supply Only
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (Opt)
Retail
Wholesale
Source: CVWD 2015 UWMP, Table ES-1 and 2.
Similar to the single dry year, the multiple dry year urban water supply reliability is 100 percent. Table 26
summarizes the multiple dry year supply and demand comparison.
61
Table 26
Multiple-Dry Water Years 2010-2035 (AFY)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (Opt)
Retail
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Wholesale
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Source:
Table 27 presents the urban supply and demand comparison without recycled water.
Table 27
Multiple-Dry Water Years 2010-2035 (AFY) – Urban Only
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (Opt)
Retail
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Wholesale
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Source:
3.4.8. Summary
As summarized below in Table 28, projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project is
approximately 165.21 AFY, or 9.34 AF per acre, which represents 0.09 percent of CVWD's total projected
62
Urban Water demand in 2040. After accounting for offsets associated with implementation of the turf reduction
program at the Desert Willow Golf Course (106.75 AFY), the net total water demand for the Project is expected
to be 58.46 AFY. This represents approximately 0.03 percent of the total projected water supply of 194,300 AF
in 2040.
Per the 2015 UWMP and the 2010 CVWMP Update, CVWD included water for new development that it
assumed would occur within its service area. The projected demand for the project will therefore account for
only a small fraction of the projected demands.
Total CVWD Projected Supply 194,300 AF
Project Demand 165.21 AF
Project Demand 9.34 AF per acre
% of Total Projected Supply 0.09
Net Project Demand with
Implementation of Turf
Reduction Program
58.46 AF
(3.30 AF per acre)
% of Total Projected Supply 0.03
Total supply extrapolated from 2015 UWMP, Table 7-4.
4. Conclusions
Based on the analysis in this Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV), the projected
total water demand for the DSRT SURF Project (Project) will be 165.21 acre-feet per year (AFY), or 9.34 acre-
feet (AF) per acre. This represents approximately 0.14 percent of the total projected water supply of 114,600
AF for 2020, and would represent 0.09 percent of the total projected water supply of 194,300 AF for 2040 as
shown in the Coachella Valley Water District’s (CVWD’s) 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
According to CVWD’s 2015 UWMP, available water supplies are sufficient to meet the anticipated demand for
2020 through 2040 during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years. In addition, after applying the water
demand offsets associated with implementation of the proposed turf reduction program at the Desert Willow
Golf Course (106.75 AFY), the net total water demand for the Project is expected to be 58.46 AFY. This
represents approximately 0.05 percent of the total projected water supply of 114,600 AF for 2020, and would
represent 0.03 percent of the total projected water supply of 194,300 AF in 2040. CVWD has sufficient water
supplies to meet the total water demands of the Project for the next 20 years. This result is derived based on the
volume of water available in the aquifer, CVWD's Colorado River contract supply, State Water Project (SWP)
Table A amounts, water rights and water supply contracts, and CVWD’s commitment to eliminate overdraft
and reduce per capita water use in CVWD’s service area.
The domestic water supply (potable) for the Project will be from the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin in the
Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. Groundwater storage will be used in dry years to make up the difference
between the demand and the supply. This groundwater subbasin has a storage capacity of approximately 29.8
million acre-feet (AF), simulating the benefit of a very large reservoir, and is capable of meeting the water
demands of the Coachella Valley for extended normal and drought periods.
CVWD 2015 UWMP (page 8-14).
63
It is anticipated that the Project will incorporate elements of CVWD’s water conservation plan as required by
SBx7-7. These include conservation elements for indoor and outdoor use. This may further reduce the ultimate
Project water demands.
64
5. Water Supply Verification
5.1.1. General
A Water Supply Verification (WSV) has also been prepared for the DSRT SURF Project (Project) pursuant to
the requirements of Senate Bill 221 (SB 221) because it includes a Tentative Parcel Map.
The purpose of SB 221 is to authorize the legislative body (or advisory agency) with tentative map approval
authority to include as a condition in any tentative subdivision map a requirement that "a sufficient water supply
will be available." (Gov. Code §66437.7(b)(1).) "Sufficient water supply" means the total water supplies
available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection that will meet the
projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses,
including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses. (Gov. Code §66437.7(a)(2).)
5.1.2. Water Source
As discussed in Section 2, Project domestic water supplies and associated landscape irrigation supplies will be
provided from groundwater extracted from the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin. The Whitewater River
(Indio) Subbasin is the largest of the four subbasins in the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin; the change
is storage was a positive 192,900 acre-feet (AF) for water year 2017 (October 1, 2016 through September 30,
2017).
Currently there are approximately 324 monitored wells in the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin. The Project
is proposing to install a groundwater well on the site to withdraw up to 73.04 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water
from the Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin for the surf lagoon.
5.1.3. Supporting Documentation
This WSV relies on the Coachella Valley Water District’s (CVWD’s) 2010 Coachella Valley Water
Management Plan Update (2010 CVWMP Update) and 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP),
as permitted by Gov. Code §66437.7.
5.2. Factors of Reliability
5.2.1. General
Government Code Section 66473.7(a) requires that the following factors must be considered in the WSV:
1. The availability of the water supply over 20 years;
2. The applicability of CVWD’s Water Shortage Contingency Analysis;
3. The reduction of water supply to a specific user by ordinance or resolution; and
4. The reasonable amount of groundwater supply that can be relied upon (i.e. natural sources as well as
the supporting recharge water sources within agreements for Colorado River water and State Water
Project (SWP) water.
5.2.2. Availability of Water Supply
The Coachella Valley has been primarily dependent on groundwater as a source of domestic water for several
decades. The 2010 CVWMP Update and the 2015 UWMP both reviewed the historical use of water in the
2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resource Plan, prepared by Coachella Valley
Regional Water Management Group In Collaboration with the Planning Partners.
65
Coachella Valley through 2015. In 1936, groundwater use totaled 92,400 AFY and increased steadily to about
376,000 AFY in 1999 and 398,510 AFY in 2007 in the Coachella Valley. Most recent annual water use for
CVWD’s total service area is approximately 639,857 AF (based on year 2015). Deliveries of Colorado River
water and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) SWP transfer water assist in offsetting
groundwater use. Colorado River water deliveries have averaged approximately 332,301 AFY over the past
five years, with MWD deliveries to the Coachella Valley expected to average over 60,000 AFY.
5.2.3. Coachella Valley Water District’s Water Shortage Contingency
The CVWD developed its Water Shortage Contingency Plan during the 1986-92 drought pursuant to the
requirements of the Government Code 10632. CVWD implemented its water shortage contingency plan
through a series of ordinances with phased water use restrictions and a drought penalty rate structure:
• Ordinance 1414 – Stage 2 – 10% Mandatory Reduction;
• Ordinance 1419 – Stage 3 – 36% Mandatory Reduction;
• Ordinance 1422 – Stage 3 – Adopt Additional Watering Restrictions; 36% Mandatory Reduction; and
• Ordinance 1426 – Stage 3 – Replace Previous Ordinances, 32% Mandatory Reduction.
After the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) adoption of revised regulations in May 2016,
CVWD repealed these ordinances and adopted Ordinance 1422.3 which establishes Stage 2 restrictions that
remain in effect until the SWRCB rescinds its emergency regulations.
The key element of CVWD's water shortage contingency plan is an ordinance with phased water use restrictions
and a drought-related rate structure as summarized in Table 29.
Table 29
Summary of Coachella Valley Water District’s Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Stage* % Supply
Reduction Water Supply Condition
Source:
5.2.4. Reduction of Water Supply
The Project is within the CVWD’s service area. No reduction of water supply is expected to the Project area
due to this Project's use of water resources, or due to CVWD's ongoing management of water resources and
planning for growth within its service area and throughout the Coachella Valley. CVWD's Colorado River water
rights and SWP Table A allotments will provide supplemental water for direct use and groundwater recharge
to the Coachella Valley.
CVWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
66
In addition, CVWD proposes to develop direct treatment of Colorado River Water for potable uses in the future.
The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has the capacity to meet future demands. Based on the information
provided in the 2015 State Water Project Delivery Capability Report (2015 SWPDCR), CVWD's Colorado
River water rights, recycled water, and water conservation program, water supplies will be sufficient to meet
the Project’s demands and CVWD’s existing and future demands. In the event that additional conservation
and/or limitations are necessary, the Project would adhere to any and all limitations associated with this
potential reduction in supply.
5.3. Impacts on Other projects
The Project involves residential, commercial, retail, recreational, and surf lagoon uses. The CVWD’s 2015
UWMP considered residential, commercial, and retail for future water demand projections. In addition,
recreational land uses (e.g., swimming pools, lakes, and duck ponds) are considered in CVWD’s 2015 UWMP.
A surf lagoon is a unique land use that was not specifically included in the CVWD’s future water projections;
however, it falls under the broader recreational land use category, and CVWD does not discourage distinctive
recreational land uses.
As discussed above, the Project site is located within the Desert Willow Golf Course where approximately
143.08 AFY of water has been used to irrigate turf landscaping at the Firecliff and Mountain View Golf Courses.
As part of the Project, these turf areas will be replaced with desert landscaping which would offset Project’s
water demand by up to 106.75 AFY.
Based on the Project’s water consumption, and CVWD’s available water supply, the Project will not impact
other users’ water needs. The Project will comply with CVWD conservation measures and its water-efficient
landscaping requirements and could be required to fund additional supplies if demand increases substantially.
5.4. Rights to Groundwater
CVWD has the legal authority to manage the groundwater basins within its service area under the County Water
District Law (California Water Code, Division 12). The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is not
adjudicated. CVWD has the right to extract the groundwater as needed to supply this Project. In 2015, CVWD
filed a Notice of Election with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to become a Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), and has submitted the
2010 CVWMP Update as the Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Alternative Plan) for the
Whitewater River (Indio) Subbasin.
5.5. Verification
This document provides verification that adequate water supply for the Project is available, as required by
California Government Code Section 66473.7.
67
6. List of acronyms
AF Acre-Feet
AFY Acre-Feet per Year
AOB Area of Benefit
AWWARF American Water Works Association Research Foundation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFS Cubic Feet per Second
CVRWMG Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group
CVSC Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CVWMP Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
CWC California Water Code
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWR California Department of Water Resources
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
IID Imperial Irrigation District
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
IWA Indio Water Authority
MAWA Maximum Applied Water Allowance
MDMWC Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company
MGD Millions Gallons per Day
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
PWS Public Water System
QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement
RWRCB Regional Water Resources Control Board
SB 221 Senate Bill 221
SB 610 Senate Bill 610
SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWSC Supplemental Water Supply Charge
USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WRP Water Reclamation Plant
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSV Water Supply Verification
68
7. References
1. North Sphere Specific Plan (1994).
2. Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001.
3. See CWC §§ 10910(a), 10912.
4. See CWC § 10910(c)(3).
5. Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to assist water
suppliers, cities, and counties in integrating water and land use planning, prepared by the California
Department of Water Resources in 2003.
6. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2018 Basin Prioritization Report by California
Department of Water Resources (January 2019).
7. California Department of Water Resources; http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/swpreliability/;
Accessed January 2018.
8. Table 4-1- California State Water Project Bulletin 132.
9. California Department of Water Resources, http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/gsa.cfm;
Accessed November 2018.
10. Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 2017-2018 Mission Creek, West
Whitewater River, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Areas of Benefit.
11. CVWD Urban Water Management Plan Final Report (2015).
12. CVWD Website – Rates – Domestic Water Rates; http://www.cvwd.org/198/Rates; Accessed
October 2018.
13. Coachella Valley Water District Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment
for the Mission Creek Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit,
and East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2018-2019.
14. CVWD website updates; http://www.cvwd.org/288/About-CVWD; Accessed October 2018.
15. Engineer's Report On Water Supply And Replenishment Assessment 2018-2019 Mission Creek, West
Whitewater River, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit by CVWD.
16. California Water Boards Website - California Statutes on Making Conservation a California Way of
Life - Assembly Bill (AB) 1668 and Senate Bill (SB) 606-May 31, 2018.
17. “Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2016-2017” prepared by Stantec, March 2019.
18. VOLUME 1: IRWM/SWR Plan Chapters 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water
Management & Stormwater Resource Plan – Public Draft August 2018,
http://www.cvrwmg.org/docs/2018_08_20_CVRWMG-2018IRWM-
SWRPlanPublicDraft_150844.pdf, Accessed November 2018.
19. Notice of Election to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency;
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/sgm/gsa_notification/039_Coachella_Valley_Water_District_
GSA_2015-11-06.pdf; Accessed November 2018.
20. SGMA Alternative GSP – Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin (2016), prepared by Stantec in
2016.
21. Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Assessment 2017-2018 Mission Creek, West Whitewater
River, and East Whitewater River Subbasin Areas of Benefit by CVWD.
22. California Drought - Executive Order B-29-15, Directive #3, April 1, 2015 (Turf Replacement
Initiative).
23. CVWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
24. SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin
(December 2016).
25. Engineer's Report Groundwater Replenishment and Assessment Program for the Garnet Hill Subbasin
Desert Water Agency 2015/2016 by DWA.
26. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (2003).
27. United States Geological Survey (USGS)(1974).
28. SGMA Alternative Groundwater Sustainability Plan Bridge Document for the Indio Subbasin
(December 2016).
69
29. Coachella Valley Water District Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment
for the Mission Creek Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit,
and East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2018-2019 (Table VI-3 and VII-1).
30. Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 CVWMP Update (December 2010).
31. Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Coachella Valley
Groundwater Basin, Indio Subbasin, (February 27, 2004).
32. Coachella Valley Water District Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment
for the Mission Creek Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit,
and East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2018-2019.
33. Ibid.
34. Coachella Valley Water District Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment,
Upper Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2013-2014, 2014-2015.
35. Coachella Valley Water District Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment
for the Mission Creek Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit,
and East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2018-2019.
36. 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resource Plan,
prepared by Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group In Collaboration with the Planning
Partners.
37. Indio Subbasin Annual Report For Water Year 2016-2017.
38. 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resource Plan,
prepared by Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group In Collaboration with the Planning
Partners.
39. 2017/2018 Groundwater Replenishment & Assessment Program by DWA.
40. California Water Boards Website - California Statutes on Making Conservation a California Way of
Life - Assembly Bill (AB) 1668 and Senate Bill (SB) 606-May 31, 2018.
41. California Legislative Information Website - Assembly Bill No. 1668 – Chapter 15
42. Water Year 2017: What a Difference a Year Makes by California Department of Water Resources
(2017).
43. Coachella Valley Final Water Management Plan (2002) by CVWD.
44. Indio Subbasin Annual Report for Water Year 2017-2018, Table 8-1.
45. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update - Final Report (January 2012);
https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/265; Accessed October 2018.
46. Coachella Valley Water District Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment
for the Mission Creek Subbasin Area of Benefit, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit,
and East Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2018-2019.
47. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update - Final Report (January 2012);
https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/265; Accessed October 2018.
48. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update, Final Report (2012).
49. Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update, Figure 1-1;
http://www.cvwd.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2130; Accessed October 2018.
50. Status Report for the CVWD’s 2010 CVWMP Update,
https://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/474.
51. CVWD Website News- CVWD approves budget, keeps domestic water rates stable,
http://www.cvwd.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=213.
52. CVWD 2015 UWMP (page 8-14).
53. 2018 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management & Stormwater Resource Plan,
prepared by Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group In Collaboration with the Planning
Partners.
54. CVWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
71
Appendix A
Turf Reduction Location Map and Golf Course Landscape Architect’s Analysis
HSA Design Group February 11, 2015
PRELIMINARY
Golf Course Landscape Architect’s Analysis
of
Desert Willow Golf Resort
Palm Desert, California.
The following is a summary of observations made by HSA Design Group regarding the golf course
landscape at Desert Willow Golf Resort. The review, completed during a three day review of the golf
courses, was initiated by turf reduction recommendations outlined in a golf course design review
conducted by Hurdzan Golf Design in April of 2014.
Eventually, our comments will include recommended planting styles for the new desert areas, but we
have also reviewed the overall appearance, maintenance and general maturation of the landscape
throughout the golf course and the golf course boundaries.
General Recommendations:
Many of the large plants throughout the course have become overgrown and are reaching their
maturity. The baccharis pilularis continues to invade into many of the large desert landscape
beds and in many areas has become terribly overgrown and obtrusive. We recommend that this
plant be removed from all of the golf course areas. The encilia farinosa is also invading
profusely as it gets irrigated from overspray from turf heads.
Hurdzan’s recommendations include a significant amount of area that is proposed for
conversion of turf to desert landscape. We are proposing that the first 10 to 20 feet of border
along the turf edge be converted to a “Sparse DG” zone. This zone would consist of mainly
compacted DG with very sparse planting of upright type desert plants. The intent of this zone is
to allow golf balls to roll through and back down into the turf, or if they do stay in the DG, they
are “findable” and playable. This will maintain speed of play and reduce costs associated with
trimming and maintaining plants in this playable zone.
Beyond this zone the converted landscape areas will be planted with a desert palette consistent
with the existing landscape throughout the course.
Overspray of irrigation into the landscaped areas – especially around tees – promotes vigorous
growth of many desert plants that become overgrown and require consistent maintenance to
keep them under control. Overspray into landscape zones should be minimized at all costs in an
effort to save money and maintain a natural desert environment.
The golf course landscape that is closely adjacent to the clubhouse should reflect a more
carefully maintained appearance. The areas adjacent to the first tees and the finishing holes
should have more colors and textures to enhance the golfing experience.
HSA Design Group February 11, 2015
Due to budget restraints and a reduced maintenance budget, the course has created
maintenance zones within the boundary of the project. Out of play zones essentially receive no
maintenance at all, while some desert areas immediately next to play receive maintenance once
a month or less. This approach is acceptable, as long as the out of play areas are not
immediately visible to the golfing public. We recommend that a representative from the golf
course and/or the City review the appearance of the landscape on a regular basis to determine
zones that require more maintenance or specific attention.
The maintenance personnel and operations department must be more diligent in reviewing
course appearance on public courses. Private courses have members that play regularly and
provide comments to the staff regarding issues that arise on the course. On a public course, the
golfer is less likely to provide suggestions for maintenance or operational improvements for
landscaped zones.
HSA Design Group February 11, 2015
Hole by Hole observations:
The following observations go beyond the recommendations of the Hurdzan report to address issues
that we feel should be considered as part of any work proposed for the course.
The Firecliff Course
Hole 1
Improve the overall appearance of the #1 tees by introducing more colorful and textural plants.
With the addition of the new tee to the left, does the tee on the right get eliminated?
Recommend pruning, removal and/or replacement of various overly mature shrubs around the
tee area.
Add some color to backdrop planting at the green.
Hole 2
Add screening to left of back sets of tees
Selective removal of palms along lake edge behind green to open up filtered views to lake.
Hole 3
Trim or remove trees along left side to open up views to left hand bunker.
Remove turf connection to #2 to left of cartpath by green.
Expand turf reduction at left of green.
Hole 4
Trim tree front right of tees to view waste area.
Third tee will be difficult to expand to right per the Hurdzan plans. Can expand left easily.
Leave turf access to front left of green for carts
Add small desert planting behind greenside bunker to screen traffic .
Hole 5
Large sandy areas left of tees are unsightly, add landscape.
Convert greenside turf removal to waste.
Add trees behind green to screen views to 3 fairway.
Hole 6
Remove and trim trees to open up view from tees to lake.
Remove invasive palms from lake edge.
Add screening shrubs to block views to pump station.
Hole 7
Add dense screening plants along perimeter wall
HSA Design Group February 11, 2015
Add low shrubs on slope below tees.
Opportunity to add more desert scape at front left of green along cartpath.
Hole 8
Create isolated tee tops similar to all other holes.
Hole 9
Remove stalks and tall plants as part of regular maintenance.
Add desert landscape right side of new tees
Selective pruning of trees and shrubs to promote bunker views
Expand turf near fairway entry to reduce wear on grass.
Create colorful, textural landscape at intersection of cartpath and main clubhouse path.
Hole 10
Overspray is causing undesirable growth around tees.
Hole 11
Selective shrub removal to open up fairway views but screen blowoff.
Remove and clean out mature and dead plants at tees.
Improve access and visibility to tees from cartpath.
Shift 4th set of tees 10’ to 15’ to left to save tree to front right.
Trees on right block view of fairway bunkers and golf hole
Don’t remove turf under tree canopies – lots of play in this area.
Hole 12
Trim and remove shrubs blocking views from tees.
Remove turf from steep slopes along cartpath.
Hole 13
Convert area right of cartpath to waste area to make it playable.
Change turf removal plan along cartpath to make fairway access more appropriate.
Remove turf behind green and add landscape to screen cartpath and separate hole from 14.
Hole 14
Shrubs left of 14 tees to be removed and replaced with a selection of lower growing, textural
desert plants.
Views to lake are stunning on this hole and are totally blocked now.
Hole 15
Remove mature and unsightly plants at tees.
Slope on right of landing area is very steep. Needs to be regraded to convert to desert scape.
HSA Design Group February 11, 2015
Hole 16
Add tall screening shrubs at wall to block view to adjacent area.
Hole 17
Very difficult to expand tee to right due to grading.
Selective removal of plants and palms to open up views to stream and GFRC.
Hole 18
Selective removal and trimming of plants to open up tee shots and views to fairway.
Palms and invading plants growing in stream need to be removed to open up views at tees and
along fairway.
HSA Design Group February 11, 2015
Mountain View Course
General Observations
The Moutain View course has a much more lush appearance to it since turf extends well beyond the
normal play area of the golfer. There is an opportunity to remove more turf throughout this course and
still maintain this lusher, greener feel.
Hole 1
No immediate comments.
Hole 2
More study of access to golf hole along fire access road is required.
Add trees along right side to screen pads from golf hole.
Hole 3
Selective trimming and removal of plants at tees.
Add plants or vines along wall at tees.
Remove and replace baccharis along right side of fairway.
Do not remove turf along cartpath past fairway bunkers on left – leave for fairway access.
Possibly remove turf next to path short of 2nd landing area.
Hole 4
Remove non‐naturalized trees that have invaded.
Do not remove as much turf on left of fairway as shown.
Add trees on left in landscape to screen adjacent pad.
Hole 5
Tees on this hole have DG around them. Not consistent with remaining Mountain View course.
Consider this approach at other holes for additional turf reduction.
Remove stalks on agaves
Expand desert scape along path.
Hole 6
Selective palm removal from stream edge to open up views to stream.
Bunker near 2nd landing area is not shown in Hurdzan plan – does it get removed?
Selective shrub removal and trimming at lake by green to open views to green.
Hole 7
Remove turf at cartpath corner after it crosses fairway.
Do not remove turf along path 200 yards off the tees.
Create desert scape behind green to screen views to 8 tees.
HSA Design Group February 11, 2015
Hole 8
Remove palm in front of tees.
Consider converting fairway to waste or SDS.
The cartpath realignment near the green could be more aggressive to allow adjacent property
pad to expand.
Hole 9
Remove additional turf along cartpath on left in front of the resort.
Remove turf along stream on right to help define golf hole.
Remove turf in between rock along streambed.
Expand turf removal behind bunker complex on the left.
Remove turf behind green to screen cartpath.
Hole 10
Trim plant material in arroyo area in front of tees.
Convert turf to desert scape along path next to cartpath (3 areas)
Hole 11
Extend desert scape at front right of tees to create separatation from 10 green.
Do not remove as much turf as shown next to fairway.
Option to move cartpath closer to fairway and provide access to fairway from south.
Expand turf reduction behind fairway at green and provide narrow turf walk‐on to green.
Hole 12
Remove nose of turf in waste area.
Expand turf removal along right side to provide more landscape buffer to pads.
Remove additional turf behind left side fairway bunker complex and near green.
Add trees behind green to screen views to 13 tees.
Leave turf at right side of green since it is too steep to remove.
Hole 13
Opportunity for additional turf removal on noses by tees.
Opportunity for additional turf removal along left side by cartpath and at back left of green.
Hole 14
Additional turf removal along left side of cartpath past fairway bunker complex.
Maintain turf behind bunker on left for definition.
Additional turf removal to back right of green.
Hole 15
Trim trees at tees to allow better views to left side of golf hole.
Additional turf removal at tees and to back right of green.
HSA Design Group February 11, 2015
Hole 16
Trim trees at tees to allow better views to right side of golf hole.
Convert waste area to desert scape to reduce maintenance.
Remove additional turf by cartpath past left side bunker complex.
Hole 17
Add low planting in waste to convert to desert scape.
Remove lantana “hedge” at lake and convert to turf.
Remove additional turf at cartpath access to fairway.
Expand narrow waste to make it more natural.
Opportunity to remove additional turf behind green – review in field.
Hole 18
Opportunity to remove additional turf in front of forward tees next to the stream.
Proposed turf removal near bridge crossing to access fairway.
Recommended turf removal in out of play areas on right side of stream and lakes.
Opportunity for turf removal behind fairway bunker complex on left.
Remove turf behind bunkers to back right of green and along stream to back left.
Add plant material to screen parking lot from golfers exiting the 18th green.
72
Appendix B
2010 CVWMP Update
Executive Summary
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The Coachella Valley Water Management Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors,
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) in September 2002. The goal of the Water
Management Plan is to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost-effective and
sustainable manner. The Board recognized the need to update the Plan periodically to respond to
changing external and internal conditions. This 2010 Water Management Plan Update (2010
WMP Update) meets that need. It defines how the goal will be met given changing conditions
and new uncertainties regarding water supplies, water demands, and evolving federal and state
laws and regulations.
ES-1 THE COACHELLA VALLEY
The Coachella Valley is located in the central portion of Riverside County. For purposes of this
Water Management Plan, the Coachella Valley is divided into the West Valley and the East
Valley. Geographically, the East Valley is southeast of a line extending from Washington Street
and Point Happy northeast to the Indio Hills near Jefferson Street, and the West Valley is
northwest of this line (Figure ES-1).
The West Valley includes the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Indian
Wells, and Palm Desert, a portion of the city of Indio, and the unincorporated communities of
Sun City and Thousand Palms. The West Valley has a predominately resort/recreation-based
economy. Water demand in the West Valley is supplied by several sources: groundwater,
surface water from local streams, and recycled water. The East Valley includes the cities of
Coachella, Indio, and La Quinta, and the unincorporated communities of Bermuda Dunes,
Mecca, Oasis, Thermal, and Vista Santa Rosa. Historically, the East Valley has had an
agricultural-based economy. Urban growth is occurring in the East Valley and is projected to
continue in the future. East Valley water sources consist primarily of Coachella Canal water and
groundwater, with a small amount of recycled fish farm effluent for agricultural uses.
The Coachella Valley’s principal groundwater basin, the Whitewater River (Indio 1) Subbasin,
extends from Whitewater in the northwest to the Salton Sea in southeast. The basin has an
estimated storage capacity of approximately 30 million acre-feet 2 (AF) (DWR, 1964). Water
placed on the ground surface in the West Valley will percolate through the sands and gravels
directly into the groundwater aquifer. In the East Valley, however, several impervious clay
layers lie between the ground surface and the main groundwater aquifer. Water applied to the
surface in the East Valley does not readily reach the lower groundwater aquifers due to these
impervious clay layers. The only outlets for groundwater in the Coachella Valley are through
subsurface outflow under the Salton Sea or through collection in drains and transport to the
Salton Sea via the Coachella Valley Storm Channel (CVSC).
1 The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) assigned the name “Indio Subbasin” in its Bulletin 108.
CVWD and Desert Water Agency use the designation “Whitewater River Subbasin.” 2 One acre-foot (AF) is the amount of water that would cover one acre of land (approximately the size of a
football field), one foot deep or about 326,000 gallons.
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-1
Executive Summary
ES-2 WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY
Water management in the Valley began as early as 1915. With groundwater levels falling, the
need for a supplemental water source was recognized for the Valley to continue to flourish.
The Coachella Valley Stormwater District was formed in 1915 followed by formation of CVWD
in January 1918. CVWD’s first directors quickly filed paperwork to secure rights to all
unclaimed Whitewater River water, an important source for aquifer recharge. In 1918, a contract
was awarded for construction of water spreading and recharge facilities in the Whitewater River
northwest of Palm Springs.
CVWD next focused on obtaining imported Colorado River water. In 1934, negotiations with the
federal government were completed, and plans were put in place for the construction of the
Coachella Branch of the All American Canal. Construction of the Canal began in 1938, but was
interrupted by World War II. The first deliveries of imported Colorado River water to East
Valley growers began in 1949. The service area for Canal water delivery under the CVWD’s
contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is defined as Improvement District
No. 1 (ID-1). The impact of imported water on the Valley was almost immediate. By the early
1960s, water levels in the East Valley had returned to their historical high levels.
Although groundwater levels in the East Valley had stabilized, water levels in the West Valley
continued to decline as growth occurred. Desert Water Agency (DWA) was formed in 1961 to
import State Water Project (SWP) water into the Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs areas. In
1962 and 1963 respectively, DWA and CVWD entered into contracts with the State of California
for 61,200 acre-feet per year (AFY) of SWP water. To avoid the then estimated $150 million
cost of constructing an aqueduct to bring SWP water directly to the Valley, CVWD and DWA
entered into an agreement with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) to exchange SWP water for Colorado River water.
Starting in 1973, the CVWD and DWA began exchanging their annual SWP allocation with
Metropolitan for Colorado River water to recharge West Valley groundwater at the Whitewater
River Recharge Facility. CVWD, DWA, and Metropolitan also signed an advance delivery
agreement in 1984 that allows Metropolitan to store additional water in the Valley. Since 1973,
the spreading facility had percolated in excess of 2.6 million AF of Colorado River water
exchanged for SWP water.
By the 1980s, groundwater demand in the East Valley had again exceeded supplies, resulting in
significant groundwater level decreases in some parts of the East Valley. Because relatively
impervious clay layers in the Valley floor impede groundwater recharge in the East Valley,
CVWD began looking for sites sufficiently far away from the main clay layer to allow
groundwater recharge. In 1995, the CVWD began operating the Dike No. 4 pilot recharge
facility located on the west side of the East Valley in La Quinta. The pilot successfully
demonstrated the feasibility of East Valley groundwater recharge. The facility was expanded in
1998 to determine the ultimate recharge capacity at this location. In October 2009, the Thomas
E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility (Levy facility, formerly Dike 4) was dedicated. It
has a current recharge capacity of 32,000 AFY, upgradable to 40,000 AFY.
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-3
Executive Summary
Recycled water has been a priority water supply in the Valley since 1965. Currently, CVWD
and DWA provide more than 14,000 AFY of recycled water for golf course and greenbelt
irrigation purposes from four wastewater treatment facilities. While recycled water is available
in the East Valley, it is not currently treated to sufficient levels for unrestricted reuse. Water
conservation is also a key element of managing water demands.
ES-3 CURRENT CONDITION OF COACHELLA VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN
The demand for groundwater has annually exceeded the limited natural recharge of the
groundwater basin. The condition of a groundwater basin in which the outflows (demands)
exceed the inflows (supplies) to the groundwater basin over the long term is called “overdraft.”
Overdraft has caused groundwater levels to decrease in significant portions of the East Valley.
Groundwater levels in the West Valley have also decreased substantially, except in the areas near
the Whitewater Recharge Facility where artificial recharge has successfully raised water levels.
Overdraft has serious consequences. The immediate and direct effect is increased groundwater
pumping costs for all water users. With continued overdraft, wells will have to be deepened,
pumps that are more powerful will have to be installed, and energy costs will increase as the
pump lifts increase. The need for deeper wells and more powerful pumps will increase the cost
of water for agriculture, municipalities, resorts, homes, and businesses. Continued decline of
groundwater levels could result in a substantial and possibly irreversible degradation of water
quality in the groundwater basin due to the intrusion of lower quality, high TDS water applied at
the surface for irrigation and reduced drain flows carrying the salts out of the basin. Continued
overdraft also increases the possibility of land subsidence. As groundwater is removed, the
dewatered soil begins to compress from the weight of the ground above, causing subsidence.
Subsidence can cause ground fissures and damage to buildings, homes, sidewalks, streets, and
buried pipelines – all of the structures that make the Valley livable. Subsidence also reduces
storage capacity in the aquifer. Continued overdraft would eventually stifle growth in the
Valley, as it would not be possible to demonstrate that adequate water supplies exist to support
growth.
The 2010 WMP Update uses a calculation of change in storage based on long-term local
hydrology and imported water deliveries to estimate long-term overdraft. Since the local
hydrology varies significantly from year to year, a long term average provides a better method
for estimating the local inflows, which are dampened by the large storage volume of the basin.
Because imported water recharge deliveries in the West Valley also vary widely from year to
year, recharge is based on estimated long-term average SWP Exchange reliability rather than
year-to-year values. Other inflows and outflows are estimated using the groundwater model.
This approach dampens the variations in the annual change in storage and gives a more accurate
indication of long-term overdraft. Based on these adjustments, the average annual overdraft for
2000 through 2009 is estimated to be 70,000 AFY. When the 2010 WMP Update was adopted in
January 2012, CVWD and DWA experienced two years of very high recharge with nearly
461,000 AF recharged at Whitewater (including advanced deliveries).
Page ES-4 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
ES-4 THE 2002 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Continued decline of groundwater levels and ongoing overdraft is unacceptable. CVWD and
DWA are charged with providing a reliable, safe water supply now and in the future. In order to
fulfill obligations to Valley residents, these agencies must take action to prevent continuing
decline of groundwater levels and degradation of water quality on a long-term basis. To meet
responsibilities for ensuring adequate water supplies in the future, the CVWD and DWA initiated
planning in the early 1990s. The comprehensive Water Management Plan developed in 2002
guides CVWD and DWA in efforts to eliminate overdraft, prevent groundwater level decline,
protect water quality, and prevent land subsidence.
The 2002 Water Management Plan clearly identified the significant groundwater overdraft that
had occurred over decades and, equally important, the threat of continued overdraft to the
economy and quality of life in the Valley. It was based on then current projections of growth
and corresponding water demand. The Plan identified the actions needed to eliminate overdraft
while maintaining the quality of life and avoiding adverse impacts to the environment. The Plan
area originally included the Whitewater River and Garnet Hill Subbasins. Portions of Desert Hot
Springs Subbasin east of Indio and Coachella were added to the planning area for this Update, as
shown in Figure ES-1.
ES-4.1 Goals and Objectives
The goal of the 2002 Water Management Plan is to reliably meet current and future water
demands in a cost effective and sustainable manner. To meet this goal, four objectives were
identified for the 2002 WMP:
1. Eliminate groundwater overdraft and its associated adverse impacts, including:
• groundwater storage reductions
• declining groundwater levels
• land subsidence, and
• water quality degradation,
2. Maximize conjunctive use opportunities,
3. Minimize adverse economic impacts to Coachella Valley water users, and
4. Minimize environmental impacts.
The 2002 WMP included five major elements:
• water conservation (urban, golf course, and agricultural),
• substitution of surface water supplies (Colorado River water, SWP water, recycled water)
for urban, agricultural, and golf course uses in lieu of pumping groundwater,
• continued groundwater recharge at the Whitewater Recharge Facility and development of
two new groundwater recharge facilities in the East Valley,
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-5
Executive Summary
• increasing surface water supplies, and
• monitoring of groundwater production, levels, water quality and land subsidence.
Within each element, the 2002 WMP identified specific actions to aid in eliminating overdraft.
Many of the elements of the 2002 WMP have been accomplished as described in Section ES-
4.2.
ES-4.2 Accomplishments Since 2002
The actions to eliminate overdraft pursuant to the 2002 WMP taken by CVWD, DWA, other
water agencies, municipalities, and tribes are summarized below.
ES-4.2.1 Water Conservation
A broad range of water conservation actions was included in the 2002 WMP. Most of those
actions have been achieved, some ahead of schedule.
Urban Conservation
CVWD first passed a Landscape Ordinance in 2003. The ordinance was updated in 2007, and
changes were made in 2009 for consistency with the State’s updated model landscape ordinance.
The ordinance has been adopted by nearly all Valley cities. The ordinance sets a maximum
applied water allowance for new developments, requires efficient irrigation systems, specifies
the use of climate appropriate plant materials, reduces applied water runoff and overflow,
reduces non-recreational turf at golf courses, and mandates smart irrigation controllers on all new
landscapes. The ordinance, in combination with other water conservation measures, results in a
significant reduction in existing and new water use.
CVWD established an urban water conservation program in 1988. A water conservation
coordinator was appointed in 2007, and the program now has a full-time staff of twelve
employees. In 2009, CVWD established tiered domestic water pricing for customers based on
individual water budgets. A turf buy-out partnership was established with the cities of Cathedral
City, La Quinta, and Palm Desert. CVWD also provides weather-based irrigation controllers to
eligible customers in participating cities. CVWD maintains water efficient demonstration
gardens at the CVWD offices in Coachella and Palm Desert. CVWD sponsors well-attended
semi-annual landscape workshops and tours, and creates displays for special events. CVWD
produces the popular book, “Lush & Efficient: Landscape Gardening in the Coachella Valley,”
and various other publications. Analysis of water use for CVWD’s 2011 Urban Water
Management Plan shows water usage has declined by 18 percent compared to average usage
from 1996 through 2005.
DWA offers large water users (condominiums, public parks, and businesses) comprehensive
irrigation system water audits at no charge and assists in implementing recommended
improvements. In partnership with CVWD and Cathedral City, DWA furnishes irrigation
controllers at cost to customers. Free controllers are provided with new water meter installation.
In addition, DWA recently installed artificial turf and recycled water drip-irrigation for
Page ES-6 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
xeriscaping at its operations center (DWA website, 2010). The City of Palm Springs also
promotes water efficiency programs including landscape water training programs and rebates for
water efficient toilets (City of Palm Springs website, 2010). Analysis of per capita water use for
DWA’s 2011 Urban Water Management Plan indicates a comparable 18 percent reduction in
water use. Indio and Coachella have also implemented water conservation programs that are
described in their respective Urban Water Management Plans. Their plans show 14 percent and
20 percent per capita demand reductions compared to their respective demand baselines.
Agricultural Conservation
The 2002 WMP established a goal of seven (7) percent agricultural water use reduction through
conservation. Based on a comparison of the average water use per acre in the 2000 through 2002
period, agricultural water use has generally declined about 9.9 percent through 2008. While this
estimate may be due in part to variations in weather conditions, crop water needs, and crop
patterns, it represents a significant decrease in agricultural water use over the period.
Agricultural water conservation measures included irrigation scheduling, salinity management,
and irrigation uniformity evaluation programs for irrigators.
Golf Course Conservation
The 2002 WMP goal was to reduce water demand at existing courses by at least five percent by
2010 and for new courses by up to 25 percent compared to historical use by existing courses.
Actual use per irrigated acre in the West Valley, where data are available, indicates a reduction
of about 14 percent compared to the 2000 to 2002 average. Adoption of the 2009 Landscape
Ordinance throughout the Valley is expected to reduce water use by new courses through turf
limitations by about 22 percent compared to existing courses. CVWD initiated a program of
monitoring golf course water use to ensure that maximum water allowances are not exceeded. A
symposium for golf course operators to promote golf course water conservation is held each
year.
Stakeholder Review and Input
In 2006, CVWD completed, with extensive stakeholder involvement, a Water Management Plan
Implementation Program. This effort included review, evaluation, and prioritization of water
conservation programs and other elements of the 2002 WMP by stakeholders with
recommendations to the CVWD Board (Water Consult, 2006). The Board uses the
recommendations in the Implementation Program to guide development of annual budgets.
ES-4.2.2 Additional Water Supplies
The 2002 WMP identified the need for CVWD and DWA to acquire additional water supplies to
manage current and future groundwater overdraft. Supplies identified included the Colorado
River, State Water Project, other transfers, recycled water, and desalinated drain water.
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-7
Executive Summary
Quantification Settlement Agreement
In 2003, CVWD, IID, and Metropolitan, along with the State of California and Reclamation,
successfully completed negotiation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). The
QSA quantifies the Colorado River water allocations of California’s agricultural water
contractors for 75 years and provides for the transfer of water between agencies. Under the
QSA, CVWD has a base allocation of 330,000 AFY. In accordance with the QSA, CVWD has
entered into water transfer agreements with Metropolitan and IID that increase CVWD supplies
by an additional 159,000 AFY as shown in Table ES-1.
As of 2010, CVWD received 368,000 AFY of Colorado River water deliveries under the QSA.
This includes the base allocation of 330,000 AFY, the Metropolitan/IID transfer of 20,000 AFY,
12,000 AFY of the IID/CVWD First transfer, and 35,000 AFY of Metropolitan/SWP transfer.
CVWD’s allocation will increase to 459,000 AFY of Colorado River water by 2026. After
deducting conveyance and distribution losses, approximately 428,000 AFY will be available for
CVWD use.
Table ES-1
CVWD Deliveries under the Quantification Settlement Agreement
Component 2010 Amount
(AFY)
2045 Amount
(AFY)
Base Allocation 330,000 330,000
1988 Metropolitan/IID Approval
Agreement 20,000 20,000
Coachella Canal Lining (to SDCWA) -26,000 -26,000
To Miscellaneous/Indian PPRs -3,000 -3,000
IID/CVWD First Transfer 12,000 50,000
IID/CVWD Second Transfer 0 53,000
Metropolitan/SWP Transfer 35,000 35,000
Total Diversion at Imperial Dam 368,000 459,000
Less Conveyance Losses 1 -31,000 -31,000
Total Deliveries to CVWD 337,000 428,000
Note:
1 Assumed total losses after completion of All-American and Coachella Canal lining projects
State Water Project
CVWD and DWA have made significant progress toward meeting the 2002 WMP goal of
140,000 AFY average delivery target (103,000 AFY to Whitewater Recharge Facility; 37,000
AFY via Mid-Valley Pipeline (MVP)) of SWP Exchange water in the Whitewater River
Subbasin. CVWD’s and DWA’s SWP Table A Amounts 3 are used to replenish both the Upper
Whitewater River and the Mission Creek subbasins. Per an interagency agreement, water for
3 Each SWP contract contains a “Table A” exhibit that defines the maximum annual amount of water each
contractor can receive excluding certain interruptible deliveries. Table A Amounts are used by DWR to
allocate available SWP supplies and some of the SWP project costs among the contractors.
Page ES-8 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
recharge is allocated in proportion to pumping in each subbasin. CVWD’s and DWA’s Table A
water is exchanged with Metropolitan for a like amount of Colorado River water from
Metropolitan’s Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA).
Under the 2003 Exchange Agreement, CVWD and DWA acquired 100,000 AFY (88,100 AFY
and 11,900 AFY, respectively) of Metropolitan’s SWP Table A water as a permanent transfer.
In any given year, the agreement allows Metropolitan to call-back the 100,000 AFY and assume
the entire cost of delivery if it needs the water. This transfer became effective in January 2005.
In 2004, CVWD purchased an additional 9,900 AFY of SWP Table A water from the Tulare
Lake Basin Water Storage District (Tulare Lake) in Kings County, CA. In 2007, CVWD and
DWA made a second purchase of 7,000 AFY of SWP Table A water from Tulare Lake: 5,250
AFY for CVWD and 1,750 AFY for DWA. In 2007, CVWD and DWA completed the transfer
of 16,000 AFY of SWP Table A water (12,000 AFY and 4,000 AFY, respectively) from the
Berrenda Mesa Water District (Berrenda Mesa), effective in January 2010. With these transfers,
the combined SWP Table A Amounts for CVWD and DWA total 194,100 AFY, with CVWD’s
portion equal to 138,350 AFY and DWA’s portion equal to 55,750 AFY. Table ES-2
summarizes CVWD and DWA total allocations of SWP Table A water.
Table ES-2
State Water Project Sources
Original SWP
Table A
(AFY)
Tulare Lake
Basin 2004
Transfer
(AFY)
Metropolitan
2003
Transfer1
(AFY)
Tulare Lake
Basin 2007
Transfer2
(AFY)
Berrenda
Mesa 2007
Transfer2
(AFY)
Total
(AFY)
CVWD 23,100 9,900 88,100 5,250 12,000 138,350
DWA 38,100 — 11,900 1,750 4,000 55,750
Total 61,200 9,900 100,000 7,000 16,000 194,100
Notes:
1 Transfer became effective on January 1, 2005.
2 Transfer became effective on January 1, 2010.
SWP supplies vary annually due to weather and runoff variations and regulatory limitations on
exports from the Delta. When the 2002 WMP was prepared, average SWP supply reliability was
estimated to be about 82 percent. Under current conditions, DWR estimates the SWP can only
provide about 60 percent of the Table A Amounts indicated in CVWD’s and DWA’s contracts
based on an 82-year hydrologic average (DWR, 2011). The current availability of SWP Table A
Amounts is presented in Table ES-3. In the absence of state and federal actions in the Bay Delta
to improve supply reliability and to protect and enhance the Delta ecosystem, it is anticipated
that long-term average SWP reliability (deliveries) could decrease to 50 percent of the Table A
Amounts over the next twenty years. Additionally, growth and associated groundwater
production increases in the Mission Creek Subbasin will result in more SWP Exchange water
being delivered to that subbasin reducing supplies for the Whitewater River.
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-9
Executive Summary
Other Water Transfers
In March 2008, CVWD and DWA entered into separate agreements with DWR for the purchase
and conveyance of supplemental SWP water under the Yuba River Accord Dry Year Water
Purchase Program. This program provides dry year supplies. The amount of water available for
purchase in a given year varies and is based on DWR’s determination of the Water Year
Classification. The available water is allocated among participating SWP contractors based on
their Table A Amounts. CVWD and DWA may be able to purchase up to 5,600 AFY, and 1,820
AFY, respectively. These agreements provide for the exchange of these supplies with
Metropolitan for Colorado River water in accordance with the existing exchange agreements.
CVWD and DWA received a total of 5,300 AF of water from this source in 2008 and 2009.
Table ES-3
Current (2010) SWP Supply Availability (60% Reliability)
SWP Components AFY 1
Table A Amount (Base) 194,100
Average Deliveries with Current SWP Reliability (60%) 2 116,500
Less Average Metropolitan Callback 3 (32,900)
Net Average SWP Supply 4 83,600
Whitewater River Subbasin Recharge (93% of net) 5 77,800
Mission Creek Subbasin Recharge (7% of net) 5,800
Notes:
1 Values shown are rounded to nearest 100 AFY.
2 Current reliability is based on California DWR’s 2009 SWP Reliability Report.
3 Average supply conservatively assumes Metropolitan calls back its 100,000 AFY transfer in four wet years during
a 10-year period.
4 Net supply is calculated by deducting the Metropolitan callback from the Table A Amount with current SWP
Reliability.
5 Allocation of SWP water to Upper Whitewater River and Mission Creek subbasins is based on production in each
basin.
In 2008, CVWD also executed an agreement with Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District
(Rosedale) in Kern County for a one-time transfer of 10,000 AF of banked Kern River flood
water that is exportable to CVWD. Deliveries to CVWD began in 2008 and will be completed
by December 31, 2012.
Desalinated Drain Water
The 2002 WMP recommended that a drain water desalination facility commence operation
between 2010 and 2015 with a 4,000 AFY facility to treat agricultural drainage water for
irrigation purposes. The facility would be expanded to 11,000 AFY by 2025. Product water
would be delivered to the Coachella Canal distribution system for non-potable use.
A brackish groundwater treatment pilot study and feasibility study was completed in 2008
(Malcolm-Pirnie, 2008a and 2008b). Reverse osmosis (RO) was recommended to meet water
quality goals and provide additional flexibility in the level of water quality produced should the
facility’s objectives change in the future. The recommended approach to brine management was
Page ES-10 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
to convey the RO concentrate via pipeline to constructed wetlands located at the north shore of
the Salton Sea. This study concluded that agricultural drainage water can be treated for reuse as
non-potable water and potentially as new potable water.
Recycling of Municipal Effluent
CVWD and DWA currently deliver approximately 14,000 AFY of recycled water in the West
Valley for golf course and other large irrigation uses. Wastewater generated in the West Valley
that is not reused for irrigation is percolated into the groundwater basin. Current recycled water
usage in the East Valley is approximately 700 AFY for agricultural irrigation. East Valley
wastewater that is not reused is discharged to the CVSC.
ES-4.2.3 Source Substitution
Source substitution involves the delivery of alternative water supplies, such as Coachella Canal
water or recycled water, to replace of groundwater pumping. Significant efforts have been made
to implement source substitution projects in the Valley.
Mid-Valley Pipeline (MVP)
In the West Valley, the demand for non-potable water typically exceeds the available recycled
water supply, especially in the summer months. Golf courses using recycled water currently
must supplement that supply with local groundwater to meet their demands. This limits the
amount of overdraft reduction that is possible to the available recycled water supply.
Groundwater modeling shows a local pumping deficit (overdraft condition) that cannot be
remedied by recharge at Whitewater. The MVP is a pipeline distribution system to deliver
Colorado River water to the Mid-Valley area for use with CVWD’s recycled water for golf
course and open space irrigation. This source substitution project will reduce groundwater
pumping for these uses. Construction of the first phase of the MVP from the Coachella Canal in
Indio to CVWD’s Water Reclamation Plant No. 10 (WRP-10) (6.6 miles in length) was
completed in 2009.
At WRP-10, Canal water supplements recycled water for delivery to large irrigators. There are
eight golf courses and five other users in the West Valley currently connected to the WRP-10
recycled water system that can receive both recycled water and Canal water via the MVP. If
these courses meet at least 90 percent of their irrigation needs with non-potable water,
2,700 AFY of additional groundwater pumping will be eliminated. There are four golf courses
adjacent to the MVP that can be connected to the system with minimal construction, thus making
them ideal candidates to receive Canal water through the MVP. Construction of Phase 1 of the
MVP included outlets along the pipeline to serve these courses. However, pipeline connections
to deliver Canal water from the MVP to each course have yet to be constructed. When these four
courses are connected, about 4,500 AFY of additional pumping could be eliminated. At least ten
additional courses can be connected to the MVP downstream of WRP-10 with relatively simple
pipeline connections, reducing pumping by another 11,200 AFY. When fully implemented, the
MVP system will be capable of eliminating about 50,000 AFY of groundwater pumping.
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-11
Executive Summary
Pilot Study of Canal Water Treatment for Urban Use
As projected growth occurs in the East Valley and farms are converted to urban land uses,
agricultural demand for Canal water will decrease. To avoid increased urban groundwater
pumping and to use the Valley’s Colorado River water supply fully, there will be a need to treat
Canal water for urban use. The 2002 WMP anticipated this need and proposed that treatment be
provided beginning in the late 2020s with about 32,000 AFY being treated by 2035. Present
projected domestic water demand coupled with reduced agricultural demand is expected to
increase this amount substantially. Potable use will require Canal water treatment to meet
drinking water standards. In anticipation of constructing potable water treatment facilities,
CVWD completed a pilot treatability study for Canal water in 2008 (Malcolm-Pirnie, 2008c).
This study investigated alternative approaches to treatment of Colorado River water delivered for
urban use. The study recommended that blending treated Colorado River water with local
groundwater be further evaluated to ensure customer satisfaction.
ES-4.2.4 Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater recharge is a critical component of basin management that involves putting water
directly into the groundwater basin through surface percolation ponds. The 2002 WMP included
continuing recharge at the existing Whitewater Recharge Facility in the West Valley, proposed
recharge in the East Valley using Colorado River water at Dike 4, now the Thomas E. Levy
Groundwater Replenishment Facility ( Levy facility), and recommended another major recharge
facility at Martinez Canyon.
Whitewater Recharge Facility – West Valley
The 2002 WMP established a future average annual recharge target at this facility of about
100,000 AFY. The Whitewater River Recharge Facility has a recharge capacity in excess of
300,000 AFY. Because this capacity is enough to capture the full SWP Table A amount with
additional capacity for supplemental recharge, no recharge capacity expansion is required. The
available capacity is valuable for conjunctive use operations by CVWD and DWA as well as
Metropolitan or other interested parties. Currently, the SWP Exchange supply is expected to
provide about 78,000 AFY for the Whitewater facility on average. Under future conditions, it is
possible that average recharge at Whitewater could be limited to the available future supply of
about 61,400 AFY of SWP Exchange, unless it is augmented with other supplies. To reach the
100,000 AFY recharge goal for the Whitewater facility, CVWD and DWA would need to
acquire additional SWP Table A Amounts or other imported water sources.
Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility - East Valley
Construction of the full-scale Levy facility was completed in mid-2009. Located on the west
side of the Valley in La Quinta, this facility has an estimated average recharge capacity of
40,000 AFY. The current capacity may be limited by hydraulic, water delivery, and maintenance
constraints within the Canal water distribution system to an average of about 32,000 AFY.
Construction of an additional pipeline to the Levy facility and pumping station from Lake
Cahuilla may be required in the future to reach the 40,000 AFY capacity on a consistent basis.
Page ES-12 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
Martinez Canyon Pilot Recharge Facility Feasibility Assessment – East Valley
The Martinez Canyon pilot recharge facility began operation in 2005 and currently recharges
about 3,000 AFY. When this project is expanded to full scale, it is expected to recharge up to
40,000 AFY.
ES-4.2.5 Groundwater/Subsidence Monitoring
CVWD maintains an extensive ongoing groundwater production, level, and water quality
monitoring program throughout the Valley. The program includes monitoring of potential
saltwater intrusion from the Salton Sea. The data are periodically reviewed to determine impacts
of management actions on overdraft and water quality. The data are also applied to re-calibrate
the groundwater model that assesses the impact of proposed management actions.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS), working with CVWD, completed subsidence
monitoring reports for the Coachella Valley in 2001 and 2007. The reports indicated that
subsidence was taking place in varying degrees throughout the Valley.
These studies to date have not confirmed the relationship between land subsidence and declining
water levels. The USGS Scientific Investigation Report 2007-5251 states, “Although the
localized character of the subsidence signals is typical of the type of subsidence characteristically
caused by localized ground-water pumping, the subsidence may also be related to tectonic
activity in the valley.” This report also concludes additional monitoring is needed to permit
meaningful interpretations of the aquifer-system response to water level changes. CVWD’s
Board of Directors has approved additional funding to continue these cooperative subsidence
studies with the USGS. Future studies include additional monitoring designed to evaluate the
potential relationship between declining water levels and land subsidence. Potential land
subsidence caused by declining water levels was addressed by mitigation measures described in
the 2002 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
(CVWMP PEIR).
ES-5 2010 WMP UPDATE
Significant actions have been taken since 2002 to alleviate overdraft in the long term. Changes
in internal and external factors mandate new activities and increased levels of current activities to
eliminate overdraft and assure reliable long term water supplies to the Valley. These new
activities are identified in the 2010 WMP Update.
ES-5.1 Population and Water Demand
Since 2002, significant changes have occurred in projections of population and future water
demands, including:
• Significantly increased population growth, mainly in the East Valley (Figure ES-2);
• Changes in land use from agricultural to urban land use and water demand in terms of
both quantity and quality;
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-13
Executive Summary
• Development on tribal lands and related water demands;
• Potential development located northeast of the San Andreas fault in the spheres of
influence (SOI) of the cities of Indio and Coachella;
• Projected urban development outside the 2002 WMP study area and corresponding
increases in water demands;
• Uncertainty in the timing of growth and water demands.
Figure ES-2 shows the difference in population projections used in the 2002 WMP and
projections used in the 2010 WMP Update. The 2010 WMP Update provides water for
approximately 500,000 more people in 2045 than the 2002 WMP.
Figure ES-2
Comparison of Population Projections
for the Coachella Valley
ES-5.1.1 Future Water Demands
Projected water demands for 2045 resulting from projected population growth and associated
assumptions regarding land uses and water demands for land uses are shown by economic sector
in Table ES-4. Water use by new development is expected to be more efficient due to plumbing
code requirements and the Landscape Ordinance. Consequently, water demands are expected to
be less than projected in the 2002 WMP. Factoring potential variations in future land use and
growth forecasts into these demand projections, water demands in 2045 could range from
793,600 AFY to 971,500 AFY with a mid-range planning value of 885,400 AFY as shown on
Figure ES-3. If the growth projection in the 2002 WMP, with assumed water conservation
measures, were projected to 2045, the projected demand would be approximately 950,000 AFY.
East Valley
West Valley
Outside Basin
2002 WMP
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Year
Page ES-14 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
The reduction in projected demand results primarily from the conversion of agricultural lands to
urban use and increased water conservation factored into the 2010 WMP Update.
Table ES-4
2045 Baseline Water Demand Projection for the Coachella Valley
Component 2045
Agricultural
Crop Irrigation 166,300
Total Agricultural Demand 166,300
Urban
Municipal 537,000
Industrial 2,300
Total Urban Demand 539,300
Golf Course Demand 169,500
Fish Farms and Duck Clubs
Fish Farms 8,500
Duck Clubs 2,000
Total Fish Farms and Duck Clubs 10,500
TOTAL DEMAND 885,400
Figure ES-3
Projected Water Demands in the Study Area
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-15
Executive Summary
ES-5.1.2 Demand Uncertainty
Future water demands are based on the latest approved population growth projections (2006) by
Riverside County and assumptions regarding impacts of population growth on land uses, impacts
of water conservation on water uses, and resulting water demand associated with each type of
land use. There are a number of uncertainties inherent in the demand projections, including:
• Growth forecasts or rates of growth may be too high or too low
• Impacts of economic booms and busts
• Reductions in fish farm operations
• Rates of development on Tribal lands
• Rate of agricultural/vacant land conversion to urban use
• Future water demand factors for various land uses
• Growth outside the Whitewater River subbasin
• Number of future golf courses developed in the East Valley
• Acceptance and effects of water conservation measures
Figure ES-3 shows the range in potential future water demands for the study area.
ES-5.2 Future Water Supply Needs
In addition to changing water demands, changing external factors could affect Valley water
supplies:
• SWP allocations fluctuate annually due to snowpack and runoff variations, and the
environmental needs in the Bay-Delta.
• Recent environmental rulings have restricted the State’s ability to move water through the
Delta to the SWP, potentially decreasing supply reliability and deliveries. The degree to
which the long-term supply of the SWP will be affected is uncertain.
• The outcome of efforts underway to prepare the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP),
which is intended to restore the Delta’s ecosystem and improve water supply reliability,
is uncertain.
• The QSA has been upheld in the appeals court but, as of plan adoption, environmental
litigation is still pending, creating uncertainty in future Colorado River supplies.
• Climate change could affect the long term supplies of both the SWP and Colorado River
and water demands within the Valley.
These changing conditions and uncertainties reinforce the need for a flexible long term Plan and
for updating the Plan periodically.
Page ES-16 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
Additional water supplies needed by 2045 are evaluated for four water supply scenarios that
incorporate the uncertainties associated with current supply sources, with the exception of
climate change. A 10 percent supply buffer addresses potential climate change impacts and
other currently unforeseeable factors affecting future water supplies. Table ES-5 shows the
future water supply needs range from 300,000 to 461,000 AFY. The 2010 WMP Update
identifies how this future need will be met through a combination of water conservation
measures and new supply development. Figure ES-4 presents the future water supply plan
assuming Scenario 2 without the supply buffer.
Table ES-5
Water Supply Needs – 2045
Scenario QSA
Validated
Delta
Conveyance
Improvements
Demand
(AFY)
Demand
with 10%
Buffer
(AFY)
Available
Supply
(AFY) 1
Additional
Supply
Required
(AFY)
1 Yes Yes 885,400 974,000 674,300 299,700
2 Yes No 885,400 974,000 640,900 333,700
3 No Yes 885,400 974,000 546,300 427,700
4 No No 885,400 974,000 512,900 461,100
Note:
1 Available supplies consist of local runoff and streamflow, recycled water, returns from use, Canal water and SWP
Exchange water minus anticipated drain flows and subsurface outflows from the basin as explained in Section
7.2.
Figure ES-4
Water Supply Mix for 2010 WMP Update
Canal Water
Net Groundwater
Pumping
SWP Exchange Surface Water
Recycled Water
Desal Drain Water
New Sources &
Transfers
Water Conservation
QSA Build-up
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
AF
Y
Year
Historical Forecast
Baseline Demand
Note: Excludes Supply Buffer
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-17
Executive Summary
ES-5.3 What is New in the 2010 WMP Update?
The 2010 WMP Update identifies proposed ways and means of meeting future water needs in
light of changing conditions and uncertainties. To meet future needs, the 2010 WMP Update
includes many new features in the areas of water conservation, source substitution, new supplies,
and groundwater recharge. The 2010 WMP Update emphasizes enhanced cooperation in Plan
implementation. The 2010 WMP Update incorporates a “bookends” approach to define target
ranges for each major supply group and incremental “building blocks” of projects to deal with
uncertainties in future demands and supplies.
Revised Goals: The basic goal of the WMP remains the same but has been modified to reflect a
more holistic planning approach: “to reliably meet current and future water demands in a cost-
effective and sustainable manner.” The underlying objectives of the WMP have been refined as
follows to reflect the water resources uncertainties facing the Valley:
• Meet current and future demands with a 10 percent supply buffer
• Eliminate long-term groundwater overdraft
• Manage and project water quality
• Comply with state and federal laws and regulations
• Manage future costs
• Minimize adverse environmental impacts
Bookends on Demands and Supplies: To account for the uncertainty and potential variability
in demands, the 2010 WMP Update assigns bookend targets (ranges) for each of the major
categories of water supplies (see Section 6). The book-ends represent reasonable minimum and
maximum amounts for potential supply and project development. Depending on the actual
demands that are encountered in the future, the 2010 WMP Update elements can be implemented
within these ranges to meet demands.
Building Block Approach: The 2010 WMP Update incorporates a flexible approach to meeting
future needs that reflects uncertainties in supplies, demands and future circumstances by
combinations of Plan elements. For example, the 2010 WMP Update includes an aggressive
program of water conservation for urban, golf course and agricultural water users. However,
there are limits in terms of cost, effectiveness, and acceptability of water conservation activities.
As those limits are reached, other Plan elements for meeting future needs also can be adjusted.
One source of supply is desalination of drain water, the most expensive alternative for providing
new supplies. This source will only be implemented as other sources of supplies reach practical
limits. Therefore, the Plan includes a range of 55,000 to 85,000 AFY for desalination of drain
water. The actual amount of water from this source will depend upon how much can be obtained
first from other, lower cost sources.
Enhanced Cooperation in Plan Implementation: The Plan emphasizes cooperation among
municipalities, local water agencies and tribes in regional planning and implementation. This
occurs through the implementation of activities described in the 2010 WMP Update,
Page ES-18 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
implementation of related planning activities (see Section 1.0), and the development of
monitoring and data sharing programs among CVWD, other water agencies, cities, and tribes to
better manage Valley water resources.
ES-5.4 2010 WMP Update Elements
In developing the 2010 WMP Update, CVWD evaluated the success of 2002 WMP elements and
determined future needs, supplies, and uncertainties. Like the 2002 WMP, the 2010 WMP
Update has the same five major elements:
• Water conservation (urban, golf course, and agricultural)
• Increasing surface water supplies for the Valley from outsides sources
• Substitution of surface water supplies for groundwater (source substitution)
• Groundwater recharge
• Monitoring and evaluation of subsidence and groundwater levels and quality to provide
the information needed to manage the Valley’s groundwater resources
Activities included in the 2010 WMP Update in each of these elements are described below.
ES-5.4.1 Water Conservation
New water conservation targets and actions are included for agriculture, urban, and golf course
water users. In addition to the water conservation included in the baseline demand projections,
the 2010 WMP Update includes a minimum water conservation target of 117,300 AFY by 2045
as shown in Table ES-6. This amount could increase to 147,000 AFY to provide a portion of the
supply buffer.
Table ES-6
Ranges of Potential Water Conservation Savings – 2045
Type of Conservation Low Range 1
(AFY)
High Range 2
(AFY)
Urban 82,400 106,200
Agriculture 3 23,300 23,300
Golf Courses 11,600 17,400
Total 117,300 146,900
Notes:
1 The low range represents the minimum amount of demand reduction required assuming successful completion
of the BDCP and provides a portion of the supply buffer.
2 The high range represents the amount of demand reduction required if the BDCP is not successful and provides
a portion of the 10 percent supply buffer.
3 Agricultural savings decline over time as agricultural land is converted to urban uses.
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-19
Executive Summary
Agricultural Conservation
The new agricultural conservation target is a 14 percent savings by 2020 utilizing a phased
approach. The first phase will involve low cost voluntary programs. Depending on the success
of those programs, more expensive and vigorous programs could be implemented, as needed. If
the 14 percent target can be achieved, the agricultural conservation program is expected to save
about 39,500 AFY of water in 2020, decreasing to 23,300 AFY by 2045 as agricultural land uses
transition to urban uses. Progress toward meeting agricultural conservation goals will be
evaluated and reported every five years.
Urban Conservation
The urban water conservation program will be expanded and enhanced in order to meet changing
demands and to comply with the State’s requirement of a 20 percent reduction in per capita water
use by 2020 compared to average per capita usage for the period of 1995 through 2004. This
program could save at least 39,700 AFY by 2020 and achieve a 39 percent reduction in per
capita demand by 2030 as it is applied to new growth.
Achievement of the state’s 20 percent conservation target in conjunction with on-going
conservation programs could result in urban water savings of 82,400 to 106,200 AFY by 2045
depending on the water supply scenario. Progress toward achieving the urban water
conservation goals will be reported in urban water management plans prepared on five year
intervals.
Golf Course Conservation
The golf course conservation target is a savings of 11,600 to 17,400 AFY by 2045. For existing
courses, the minimum target is a 10 percent reduction in water use through golf course irrigation
system audit, and soil moisture monitoring services. The 2009 Landscape Ordinance will apply
to all new golf courses with turf limitations of 4 acres of per hole and 10 acres for practice areas.
Progress toward meeting golf course conservation goals will be evaluated and reported every
five years.
ES-5.4.2 Additional Supplies
Table ES-7 summarizes the range of additional supplies that will be developed.
Acquisition of Imported Supplies
CVWD and DWA will continue to acquire additional imported SWP water supplies by transfer
or lease where cost-effective, given Delta environmental restrictions and conveyance capacity
limitations. For this update, a planning range of 50,000 to 80,000 AFY of average annual supply
has been identified to meet future needs including the supply buffer. This amount includes about
35,000 AFY to meet estimated demand east of the San Andreas fault; the amount will be refined
as planning proceeds for this area. Changes to the assumed call-back frequency for the MWD
100,000 AFY SWP transfer could provide up to 33,000 AFY of additional supply to the
Page ES-20 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
Whitewater River Subbasin. Option-type contracts could be considered to meet a portion of the
supply buffer.
Table ES-7
Range of Additional Supplies Through 2045
Action Low Range
(AFY)
High Range
(AFY)
Bay-Delta Conveyance Improvements 0 33,400
Purchases and Transfers 1 50,000 80,000
Changes to MWD Call-back Provisions 1 0 32,700
Increased Recycled Water - East and West
Valleys
14,000 63,000
Recycled Water Use East of San Andreas Fault 10,800 10,800
Canal Water Loss Reduction 0 10,000
Desalinated Drain Water 55,000 85,000
Stormwater Capture – East Valley 0 5,000
Groundwater for Non-potable Use East of San
Andreas Fault
9,700 9,700
Total 139,500 329,600
Note:
1 High range represents potential supplies with Bay Delta conveyance improvements and no call-back.
Increased Recycled Water Use
Recycled water in the West Valley is currently used beneficially, either through direct non-
potable use or percolation for wastewater disposal. At least 90 percent of all wastewater
generated in the West Valley will be recycled for direct non-potable use. All wastewater
generated by new growth in the East Valley will be recycled. All wastewater from development
east of the San Andreas fault could be recycled for irrigation or groundwater recharge to meet
demands in that area and reduce the need for additional imported water supplies. Up to 34,500
AFY of recycled water could be utilized in the West Valley, and 33,000 AFY of recycled water
could be utilized in the East Valley. Up to 10,800 AFY of recycled water could be utilized in the
new growth area east of the San Andreas fault for direct non-potable uses by 2045.
Canal Water Loss Reduction
Water losses in the All-American Canal in the first 49 miles of the Coachella Canal may be as
high as 10,000 AFY. Reducing this loss could increase the amount of water delivered to the
Valley. CVWD will determine water lost to leakage in the first 49 miles of the Coachella Canal,
evaluate the feasibility of corrective actions to capture the lost water, implement cost-effective
water saving measures, and work with IID to share losses.
Desalinated Drain Water
A demonstration scale facility will be constructed to gain operational experience in desalinating
drain water and brine disposal. Between 55,000 and 85,000 AFY of drain water and shallow
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-21
Executive Summary
groundwater will be recovered, desalinated, and distributed for non-potable and potable uses in
the East Valley. The amount of desalinated water needed will depend upon the resolution of
Bay-Delta issues and the resulting amount of SWP water available.
Stormwater Capture
Stormwater capture has been identified as a potential method for increasing local water available
for either groundwater recharge or direct use. CVWD will conduct a study to investigate the
feasibility of additional stormwater capture in the East Valley. Feasible stormwater capture
projects will be developed in conjunction with new flood control facilities as development occurs
in the East Valley. For planning purposes, the potential yield is assumed to be 5,000 AFY based
on a reduction in evaporation losses with more efficient capture and percolation.
Development of Local Groundwater Supplies for Non-Potable Use
Growth in the areas northeast of the San Andreas fault will create additional demands for both
potable and non-potable water. CVWD, the City of Coachella, and the City of Indio will jointly
conduct an investigation of groundwater in Fargo Canyon Subarea of the Desert Hot Springs
Subbasin to determine the available supply and suitability for use in meeting non-potable
demands (outdoor irrigation) of development east of the San Andreas fault. Based on assumed
development, up to 9,700 AFY of groundwater could be developed in this area.
ES-5.4.3 Source Substitution
Due to the expected changes in water use patterns from continued development, source
substitution will receive increased emphasis in the future to eliminate overdraft and ensure full
use of the Valley’s available surface water supplies. The ranges of reduction in groundwater
overdraft due to source substitution programs are shown in Table ES-8.
Table ES-8
Range of Groundwater Pumping Reductions Due To Source Substitution
Action Low Range
(AFY)
High Range
(AFY)
Mid-Valley Pipeline 37,000 52,000
Agricultural Canal Water Conversion 5,300 32,000
Oasis Area Conversion to Canal Water 0 27,000
East Valley Golf Course Conversion 43,900 51,700
West Valley Golf Course Conversion 15,200 17,800
Canal Water for Indoor Urban Use – East Valley 48,000 90,000
Canal Water Use for Outdoor Use – East Valley 95,000 115,000
Total 244,400 385,500
Page ES-22 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
Mid-Valley Pipeline
The MVP system delivers Canal water and recycled water to golf courses in lieu of their
pumping groundwater. Activities to fully implement the MVP include preparing an MVP system
master plan to lay out the future pipeline systems, near-term expansions to connect golf courses
along the MVP alignment and extensions of the existing non-potable distribution system, and
completion of construction of the remaining phases of the MVP system by 2020 to provide up to
37,000 AFY of Canal water and 15,000 AFY of WRP-10 recycled water on average to West
Valley golf courses.
Conversion of Agricultural and Golf Course Use to Canal Water
It is expected that agricultural use of groundwater could decrease from about 66,000 AFY in
2009 to about 7,000 AFY by 2045, a decrease of 59,000 AFY or 89 percent. A large portion of
this reduction could come from the Oasis area that does not currently have access to Canal water.
The Oasis area distribution system feasibility study will be updated to include future conversion
to serve urban non-potable water. Cost-effective facilities will be constructed. If conversion of
the Oasis system is feasible, it could deliver up to 27,000 AFY of Canal and desalinated drain
water for irrigation.
In the 2010 WMP Update, it is estimated that for existing East Valley golf courses having Canal
water access, Canal water use will increase to 90 percent of demand by 2015. Conversion to
Canal water by East Valley golf courses will reduce groundwater use by 43,900 AFY or more.
Colorado River Water for Urban Use
In light of the projected increase in population and change of land use from agricultural to urban
in the East Valley, treated Colorado River water for indoor residential use will be essential. In
addition, untreated Colorado River water will be used in the future in large developments in the
East Valley for outdoor purposes, i.e., lawn and park irrigation. These measures are necessary to
reduce overdraft and to insure continued full use of the Valley’s Colorado River water supplies.
This program will offset the reduced Canal water use by agriculture as agricultural land use
transitions to urban development in the East Valley. Canal water will be treated to meet future
indoor urban water demands in the East Valley. The target for urban indoor use of Canal water
ranges from 48,000 and 90,000 AFY by 2045.
Dual source plumbing systems will be a feature of new development in the East Valley to
provide outdoor use of untreated Canal water. Untreated canal water should provide 67 percent
to 80 percent of the landscape demand for new development. This will result in the utilization of
95,000 to 115,000 AFY of non-potable Canal water by 2045. Where found to be cost-effective,
existing developments will be retrofitted with distribution systems to provide for outdoor use of
untreated Canal water.
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-23
Executive Summary
ES-5.4.4 Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater recharge will be expanded to reduce overdraft. The ranges of groundwater
recharge operations at various facilities under the 2010 WMP Update are shown in Table ES-9.
Table ES-9
Range of Groundwater Recharge
Facility Low Range
(AFY)
High Range
(AFY)
Whitewater 61,000 1 100,000
Levy 40,000 40,000
Martinez Canyon 2 20,000 40,000
Indio 0 10,000
Total 121,000 190,000
Notes:
1 Recharge is limited by available supply.
2 High range will depend on overdraft conditions and implementation of East Valley source substitution projects.
Whitewater Recharge Facility
Operation of the Whitewater Recharge Facility will continue with the goal of recharging an
average of at least 100,000 AFY of SWP exchange water over the long-term. Unused SWP
water and available desalinated drain water from the QSA will be transferred to the Whitewater
Recharge Facility. Additional water acquired by transfer or lease will augment the existing SWP
exchange water.
Thomas E. Levy Recharge Facility
The Levy facility will recharge 40,000 AFY on average. A second pumping station and pipeline
will be constructed if needed to achieve and sustain 40,000 AFY of deliveries for recharge.
Martinez Canyon Recharge
Siting studies, land acquisition, environmental compliance, design, and construction will be
conducted for the full-scale Martinez Canyon facility. The project will be implemented in
phases with an initial capacity of 20,000 AFY with potential future expansion to as much as to
40,000 AFY based on groundwater overdraft conditions and implementation of East Valley
source substitution projects.
Groundwater Recharge in Indio
The City of Indio will evaluate the feasibility of a nominal 10,000 AFY groundwater recharge
project in Indio and construct if feasible. The final capacity will be based on pilot studies
conducted by Indio.
Page ES-24 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
Investigation of Groundwater Storage Opportunities with IID
CVWD will work with IID to identify options for storing Colorado River water on behalf of IID
with currently planned Valley recharge facilities or additional facilities, including facilities to
recover the stored water for use by Canal water users if necessary when IID calls for its stored
water.
ES-6 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ES-6.1.1 Additional Groundwater Treatment for Arsenic
CVWD will work with other agencies to assist communities having high levels of arsenic in
groundwater supplies to connect to the potable water system. As needed, CVWD will expand its
arsenic treatment facilities to allow treatment of additional wells and construct water
transmission pipelines as needed to meet future demands.
ES-6.1.2 Development of Salt/Nutrient Management Plan
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requires preparation of a salt/nutrient
management plan by 2014 as part of the 2009 State Recycled Water Policy. As stated in the
Policy, its purpose is to “establish uniform requirements for recycled water use and to develop
sustainable water supplies throughout the state” (SWRCB, 2009). CVWD will work with other
Valley water agencies, tribes, and stakeholders to develop a salt/nutrient management plan that
meets the State requirements and allows the cost-effective recycling of municipal wastewater in
the Valley.
ES-6.1.3 Drainage Control
For both basin management (groundwater level and salt export), as well as the prevention of
adverse impacts, the existing drainage system should be maintained, replaced as needed, or
expanded as urban development occurs. CVWD will investigate alternative methods for funding
the drainage system, conduct an investigation of the improvements needed to continue system
operation in the future, and maintain and expand the drainage system.
ES-7 MONITORING AND DATA MANAGEMENT
Monitoring and data management programs aid in evaluating the effectiveness of the water
management programs and projects identified in the Plan and to identify needed changes in
management strategy and/or implementation.
The existing hydrologic monitoring program of weather data, streamflow data, well data (drilling
logs, production, water levels), surface and ground water quality monitoring, and subsidence
monitoring should be maintained and expanded. Key features of the expanded program are
described below.
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-25
Executive Summary
ES-7.1 Water Quality
CVWD will work with water agencies, tribes and cities to develop a coordinated water quality
monitoring program to ensure that local water quality concerns and state/federal regulatory
issues are addressed.
ES-7.2 Subsidence
CVWD will continue the USGS subsidence monitoring/reporting program and construct
additional extensometers at critical locations to monitor subsidence, as needed.
ES-7.3 Water Resources Database
CVWD will work with water agencies, cities and tribes to develop a shared water resources
database. The database could include well ownership data, well logs, groundwater production,
water level and water quality data.
ES-7.4 Groundwater Model Update and Recalibration
Prior to the next Plan update, the CVWD groundwater model will be updated, recalibrated and
peer reviewed.
ES-7.5 Water Quality Model
CVWD will initiate development of a model capable of simulating the water quality changes in
coordination with preparation of the salt/nutrient management plan.
ES-7.6 Water Demand and Conservation Monitoring
Water purveyors will monitor and report demands by water use sector and correlate demands
with implementation of water conservation measures to determine the effectiveness of water
conservation measures in achieving goals and the need for additional measures.
ES-8 PLAN COSTS
The cost of not eliminating overdraft would be far more than the cost of the actions needed for
eliminating overdraft identified in the 2010 WMP Update. Cost of overdraft includes increased
subsidence with its impacts on individual homes, commercial structures, and infrastructure
(streets, highways, water and sewer lines, and other utilities), water quality degradation, and
increased pumping costs. Colorado River supplies would go unused as agricultural land is
converted to urban land, and groundwater pumping would increase without alternative sources of
supplies. At some point, it would not be possible to demonstrate the availability of water
supplies to support new growth.
The estimated cost to implement the 2010 WMP Update is shown in Table ES-10 for the period
2011 through 2045. Capital, operation and maintenance cost, total cost, and average annual cost
are shown for each Plan element in 2010 dollars. These are total costs, not incremental costs,
Page ES-26 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
and include the costs of many current activities such as groundwater pumping, acquisition of
Colorado River water, current levels of recycling and water conservation, and groundwater
recharge. The costs shown are the total costs for the entire Valley.
Table ES-10
Cost by Plan Component
2011-2045
Component
Total Capital
Cost
$millions
Total O&M
Cost
$millions
Total Cost
$millions
Average
Annual Cost1
$millions
Water Conservation $ 1 $ 230 $ 231 $ 6.6
Recycled Water 161 153 314 9.0
Colorado River Water
409 409 11.7
SWP Water
1,907 1,907 54.5
Delta Conveyance
472 472 13.5
Desalinated Drain Water 462 277 739 21.1
Groundwater Pumping and
Treatment 135 1,950 2,085 59.6
Water Transfers 0 282 282 8.1
Other New Water
262 262 7.5
Source Substitution 1,142 782, 1,924 55.0
Recharge 48 181 229 6.5
Total Cost $1,949 $6,907 $8,856 $253.0
Average Annual Cost 1 $56 $197 $253
Note:
1 Average annual cost is the total cost divided by 35 years.
The total estimated capital cost through 2045 is $1.95 billion. Total O & M cost is $6.91 billion
bringing the total cost of the Plan implementation to $8.86 billion over 35 years. The average
annual cost is $253 million. This annual cost does not reflect the amortized cost of capital
projects that may be bond-funded over several decades, thus increasing the annual cost of capital
projects.
ES-9 IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
In developing the 2010 WMP Update, CVWD relied on the latest population projections
developed by Riverside County. CVWD does not develop population growth projections for use
in water management planning. The 2006 Riverside County projections were prepared before
the recent recession, which has slowed growth and is expected to have negative effects on
growth in the near term. Over the long term, growth will continue. Future population projections
will be adjusted in terms of the timing and magnitude of growth. These realities necessitate
adjustment of Plan implementation to meet actual near term needs and continued updates of the
Water Management Plan in the future to reflect revised population projections.
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-27
Executive Summary
Near Term Projects to Meet Water Management Needs
Even with the current recession and lack of growth, continuation of existing projects and a few
new projects are needed to reduce overdraft and its adverse affects. Ongoing projects that will
be continued include:
• Whitewater Recharge with SWP Exchange Water and SWP purchases
• Implementation of the QSA
• Levy Recharge operating at current level of 32,000 AFY
• Martinez Pilot Recharge at current level of 3,000 AFY
• Water conservation programs at current levels, including implementation of the
Landscape Ordinance
• Recycling in the West Valley
• Increased use of Canal water by golf courses with Canal water connections
• Conversion of East Valley agriculture to Canal water as opportunities arise
• Groundwater production/level/quality monitoring
• Cooperative subsidence monitoring with USGS
Assuming that growth remains relative low during the next five years, CVWD will focus on
three new or expanded activities to reduce overdraft and comply with state regulations:
• Increased use of the Mid-Valley Pipeline project to reduce overdraft in the West Valley
by connecting golf courses and reducing groundwater pumping by those courses.
• Implementation of additional water conservation measures, including the Landscape
Ordinance, to meet the State’s requirement of 20 percent conservation by 2020.
• Preparation of a salt/nutrient management plan for the Valley by 2014 to meet SWRCB
Recycled Water Policy requirements
Long Term Projects
Projects to eliminate and control overdraft that are likely to be needed as future growth occurs
are described in the 2010 WMP Update. These projects include:
• Additional water conservation.
• Desalinated drain water.
• Additional water transfers.
• Additional recycled water.
• Canal water treatment for urban indoor use.
• Canal water treatment for urban outdoor irrigation.
• Recharge in the Indio area.
As growth ramps up, the projects will be implemented based on cost effectiveness and need.
Page ES-28 Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update
Executive Summary
Implementation Costs
In 2010, Valley water agencies expended approximately $414 million on all water and
wastewater management activities. This total cost includes approximately $106 million per year
on activities associated with eliminating overdraft. Since 2002, CVWD and DWA have invested
over $240 million in water conservation, supply acquisition and facilities to reduce overdraft.
During the next five years (2011-2015), it is estimated that Valley water agencies will expend an
additional $5.4 million on activities to eliminate overdraft, assuming growth remains slow.
As growth occurs, additional projects to control overdraft will be needed. Ultimately, costs
associated with growth to eliminate and control overdraft could approach an additional $100
million per year in capital project and annual operations and maintenance costs.
Much of the future costs, both capital and operation and maintenance, will not be borne by
CVWD. These costs will be borne by developers, other water organizations, and Valley
municipalities. Capital costs and operation and maintenance costs associated with new growth
will be paid by new growth. For example, the entire cost of systems for treating and delivering
Colorado River Canal water for indoor use in East Valley developments and development of dual
plumbing systems to provide untreated water to those developments for outdoor use will be paid
for by new development.
ES-10 CONCLUSION
Groundwater overdraft is a significant problem in the Coachella Valley. The 2002 Water
Management Plan was developed to identify and guide the long term implementation of
measures to eliminate groundwater overdraft in the Valley. Since completion of the 2002 Water
Management Plan, much has been accomplished by Valley water agencies and agricultural,
municipal/residential, and golf course water users to reduce overdraft. Water conservation
efforts have expanded, out-of-basin water supplies have increased, surface water and recycled
water use is being used in lieu of groundwater, and new groundwater recharge facilities are
online and an additional facility is being developed.
However, changing future demands and water supply uncertainties require additional actions to
eliminate groundwater overdraft in the future, which are identified in the 2010 WMP Update.
Continued implementation of the Water Management Plan will result in unavoidable costs for
water users and water agencies alike. Each agency, including CVWD, will consider costs,
available resources, funding mechanisms and priorities to eliminate overdraft in a timely manner.
The success of the Plan to date indicates broad support for eliminating overdraft and the threats
to the economy and quality of life in the Coachella Valley.
The CVWD Board of Directors certified the Supplemental Program EIR and adopted the 2010
WMP Update on January 24, 2012.
Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update Page ES-29
73
Appendix C
Cloward H2O Water Perfected
Water Demand Analysis
2696 N. University Ave., Ste 290, Provo, UT 84604 USA ● T: +1.801.375.1223 ● www.clowardh2o.com
Desert Wave Surf Resort
Preliminary Engineering Review & Comments
Date: 05 July 2018
Prepared by: Dan Aldred, M.E.
Reviewed by: Allen Clawson, P.E.
2696 N. University Ave., Ste 290, Provo, UT 84604 USA ● T: +1.801.375.1223 ● www.clowardh2o.com
Table of Contents
Introduction & Overview ............................................................................................................. 1
Preliminary Structural & Waterproofing Review .......................................................................... 1
Geotech Report prepared by Sladden Engineering:................................................................ 1
Wavegarden Structural & Waterpoofing Design: ..................................................................... 2
Concrete Coatings .................................................................................................................. 2
Acrylic Viewing Panel Option ..................................................................................................... 3
Water Quality Management System ........................................................................................... 4
Review of Wavegarden Proposed Treatment System Approach............................................. 4
Vacuuming ............................................................................................................................. 4
Water Demand Analysis ............................................................................................................. 5
Review of Wavegarden Water Demand Analysis .................................................................... 5
CH2O Water Demand Analysis .............................................................................................. 5
Water Temperature & Cooling Analysis ..................................................................................... 6
Preliminary Engineering Review & Comments
05 July 2018
Page 1 of 6
2696 N. University Ave., Ste 290, Provo, UT 84604 USA ● T: +1.801.375.1223 ● www.clowardh2o.com
Introduction & Overview
CLOWARD H2O was engaged by Desert Wave Ventures to provide assessment of the current
engineering approach and estimates provided by Wavegarden and others regarding
construction of the Surf Resort Lagoon at Desert Willow Resort, Palm Desert, CA and to give
our professional comments regarding the 5 following items.
1. Preliminary Structural Engineering, Waterproofing and related issues
2. Option of including an underwater acrylic viewing panel
3. Water Quality Management System Approach and related issues
4. Water Demand Analysis
5. Water Temperature & Cooling Estimates
It is our intent to offer our professional assessment based on our knowledge, experience and
our interpretation of the end goals. Our objective is to ensure the best possible surf lagoon for
the owners in terms of safety, functionality, quality, maintenance, and cost.
Preliminary Structural & Waterproofing Review
Geotech Report prepared by Sladden Engineering:
The report is dated October 18, 2006 and specifically addresses the construction of villas. It
does not address the construction of the proposed Surf Lagoon. Although most of the
information is still applicable, the report should be updated to address the unique features and
load of the Proposed Surf Lagoon.
The surf lagoon has a still water level that is as much as 9 ft (2.75 m) deep in the center. 9 ft of
water weighs 562 pounds per square foot (psf), which is a very heavy load (a uniform freeway
load is only 250 psf, as comparison). The load will fluctuate with the wave and will cause a
dynamic loading. There is currently 3 to 4 feet of loose material on site. The geotechnical
engineer needs to provide subgrade preparation requirements, including fill requirements and
compaction requirements for an allowable bearing pressure that will accommodate the actual
loading conditions.
The site is located in relatively close proximity of potentially active seismic faults. The walls may
need to be designed for the additional lateral pressure due to seismic forces. The geotechnical
engineer needs to provide the equivalent fluid pressure for lateral seismic forces to be added to
the active and at-rest pressures provided in the report.
The type of cement recommended in the report may need to be revised based on the surf
lagoon structure and systems.
The slab-on-grade recommendations in the report are for typical paving areas, similar to parking
lots and roads. The slab-on-grade recommendations need to be expanded to include the slabs
that will be associated with the proposed structure, specifically addressing the loads on the
slabs as well as the expansion and contraction and shrinkage of the 6-acre facility.
Preliminary Engineering Review & Comments
05 July 2018
Page 2 of 6
2696 N. University Ave., Ste 290, Provo, UT 84604 USA ● T: +1.801.375.1223 ● www.clowardh2o.com
Wavegarden Structural & Waterpoofing Design:
The Wavegarden design does not appear to be based on actual soil bearing pressures with in-
situ soil conditions but rather on presumed conditions that might be typical of a target
construction site. Specific bearing pressures or other site conditions (or presumed conditions)
are not referenced and no calculations are provided. Thus, the structural systems employed are
difficult to evaluate other than to point out potential areas of concern or alternative approach.
• The report establishes a “construction level” of +3.5m. The sections show wall profiles
that are +4.0m with footings that are 1.3m thick. Please clarify if the quantities and
volumes in the report are based on the actual heights of the walls and thicknesses and
widths of the footings
• Are the footing widths shown in the drawings based on a soil bearing pressure that
would be reasonable for this site.
• Are footings quantities included in the included take-off?
• Are any site subgrade preparation costs included in the take-off?
• This structure most likely would need to comply with ADA regulations. The main beach
access as shown has a slope of 11.8% which exceeds the maximum 8% slope that is
allowed for ADA accessibility. It may be that an alternative accessible access ramp will
be necessary to provide for compliance with ADA standards.
• More information needs to be provided with regards to the construction, reinforcing,
jointing, and waterproofing of the slab-on-grade Lagoon Floor.
• Concrete mix should comply with the ACI durability requirements for structures that
retain water.
• We recommend that concrete exposed to water be reinforced for water-tightness, with
proper cover, similar to a water tank, and or protected with waterproofing. A liner could
also be installed below the slab as secondary waterproofing. An alternate design would
be to use the slab as a ballast, with less reinforcing, but epoxy coated or equal, and the
liner be the primary waterproofing.
• Shrinkage cracks should be avoided or minimized by the use of a low shrinkage
concrete mix, properly placed pour strips with water-stops, and proper curing and
reinforcing. Friction can be minimized by using one or two sheets of vapor barriers as
slip sheets below the slabs. A liner could also be used below the slab as secondary
waterproofing as well as acting as a slip sheet.
• All construction will need to comply with the California Building Code.
Concrete Coatings
Polyurea and/or Polyurethane hybrids will work. We have worked with and know most of the N.
American polyurea manufacturers and their product differentiations relatively well. However, it is
important to note that when polyurea is applied to concrete, (with the proper surface prep
specified by the manufacturer), the real work horse is the primer. It is critical for proper
application and durability that all concrete cracks, bug holes, voids, etc. be filled/repaired prior to
the application. To get adequate coverage, a minimum of 60 mil coating is strongly
recommended.
The PRO’s for polyurea are:
• Elastomeric
• Fast gel / cure time
Preliminary Engineering Review & Comments
05 July 2018
Page 3 of 6
2696 N. University Ave., Ste 290, Provo, UT 84604 USA ● T: +1.801.375.1223 ● www.clowardh2o.com
• Chemistry is generally ‘more’ forgiving to environmental conditions
• Contiguous monolithic layer.
• Good Re-coat windows.
The CON’s for polyurea are:
• Any concrete outgassing will cause blisters, bubbling & delamination.
• Difficult to repair should future needs be required.
• The application is applied high pressure, with a heated hose with equal (50%-50%)
pump distribution of resin to catalyst. Any equipment mix-ratio hiccup will cause future
product delamination issues. (6.5 acres ~ 283,000 ft2 – likely that something will
happen…)
• Odorous - Isocyanate pre-polymers
An alternate product that we have been recommending is Polymorphic Polymer Coatings [PPC].
Our coating consultant partner Specialty Coating Services [SCS] has used this product on
+millions ft2 over the years with superior results in primary containment applications. SCS
recommends a 2 coat application with a 15 mil minimum thickness per application.
The PRO’s for PPC Resin are:
• Has virtually the same coefficient of expansion as concrete. Does not peel/ crack.
• pH 1-14 continuous immersion, 2 - 4 hour full cure, -40 to 160F application temps.
• 18,600 PSI compressive strength
• No re-coat windows….very simple to repair should future needs be required.
• The PPC Resin does not require a primer and is used to repair concrete slab flaws.
The CON’s for PPC Resin are:
▪ Odorous - styrene is the PPC Resin carrier.
Acrylic Viewing Panel Option
Preliminary evaluation of the impact of incorporating an acrylic viewing panel in one or both of
the side walls was carried out. This would be structurally very similar to a large aquarium
viewing panel placed in a submerged or partially submerged condition. In this case we
postulated a full, standard sized acrylic sheet which would result in a total viewing area about
20’ wide and 6’ high. Four qualified vendors were contacted for comparison of application
approach and cost – each being told it was for a large commercial pool in Southern California
but with no further detail.
The panel would be embedded within the side wall, supported on all 4 sides which reduces the
total thickness necessary. A recessed area in the deck, or an underground viewing area would
then need to be constructed along the side of the lagoon.
The sill, jams and header of this window would be designed to be integral with the reinforced
concrete structure of the lagoon wall such that no structural load is placed on the acrylic. The
acrylic is then placed within the opening secured and sealed. Costs obtained include supply,
delivery, setting and sealing of the acrylic and were all very comparable as might be expected.
Total installed cost range of the 6’x20’ window, based on the 4 companies contacted, is:
$49,000 - $52,000
Preliminary Engineering Review & Comments
05 July 2018
Page 4 of 6
2696 N. University Ave., Ste 290, Provo, UT 84604 USA ● T: +1.801.375.1223 ● www.clowardh2o.com
Water Quality Management System
Review of Wavegarden Proposed Treatment System Approach
The Wavegarden standardized and containerized system has been developed by their in-house
team with input from other industry professionals and tested at their facility in Spain. Though no
specific details are provided our knowledge of the prototyping and evaluation process that
Wavegarden has been engaged in for the last several years allows us to presume with
reasonable certainty. Their basis of design and statements related to clarity, chemical residuals
and the appropriate use of UV and ozone are right on target. Their approach to evaluating the
specific requirements based on location, water source and other constraints is also well
conceived. W e find only one concern, while commendable, it is unlikely that the system fits
within a standard 40’ container.
The proposed system is similar in most respects to a standard pool water treatment system
employing a screening stage, high rate filtration, water chemistry chemical monitoring and
dosing along with the appropriate use of ozone and UV sanitation.
However, depending on environmental analysis (primarily water source and local soils) there
may need to be additional filtration stages or polishing. Most standard filters remove particles
down to 10-20 micron. This works well in a high turnover environment such as a swimming pool
but in the large volume surf lagoon with high turnover measured in days not hours or minutes
the rate of contamination entering the pool can be much greater than the removal rate. This
requires high efficiency filtration technologies that are not typical in swimming pool application.
Depending on the results of this analysis, the treatment process might look something like the
one or the other of the following:
A: Screening [1/4”] → Pre-Filter [100 micron] → Ozone → Post Filter [<10 micron] → UV
[optional] → Polishing Filter Side-stream → Chemical (chlorine & pH adjustment) dose
B: Screening [1/8”] → Ozone → High Rate Ballasted Clarifier → Post Filter [<10 micron] →
Chemical (chlorine & pH adjustment) dose
C: Screening [1/8”] → Flocculation → High Rate Ballasted Clarifier → Ozone →Chemical
(chlorine & pH adjustment) dose
Regardless of the exact system components, the flow rate (based on a 24 hr turnover) is 4,000 -
5,000 gpm requiring pipe sizes on the order of 20” and a 75 Hp pump (or multiple smaller
pumps adding to a similar total) to drive it. The stage one screen alone will need to be about 40
ft2 with an auto-cleaning mechanism such as a drum filter.
While it is likely that a portion of the system could be containerized there would still be a
considerable amount that is built in place. Within the limits and constraints mentioned above,
and without the benefit of a more detailed design, we estimate the required footprint of the
complete treatment system to be in the range of 700 to 1,200 ft2 including some working space
for operations staff and required utilities, chemical storage, air handling, etc.
Vacuuming
Wavegarden mentions the importance of a system to vacuum the lagoon bottom removing
material settled to the bottom when the wave is not operating. Typical pool vacuums range from
12” – 41” wide, not nearly large enough to be effective for this application.
Vacuum systems with enough size and capacity to accomplish this task are still in early stages
of implementation. We have been involved in design and testing of several prototypes and are
Preliminary Engineering Review & Comments
05 July 2018
Page 5 of 6
2696 N. University Ave., Ste 290, Provo, UT 84604 USA ● T: +1.801.375.1223 ● www.clowardh2o.com
aware of and working with (to some degree) at least three manufacturers who are in some stage
of development. Within the next year or so we expect that this technology may be available and
will be of great benefit to operating these large bodies of water with low turnover rates.
Water Demand Analysis
Review of Wavegarden Water Demand Analysis
The Wavegarden water demand analysis is based on a highly simplified equation given in their
report but not identified or validated in any way; 𝐸=90 ∗𝑡+500 where E is annual evaporation
in mm, t is average temperature in °C. Despite the lack of documentation of this simplified
approach the results are within a reasonable range and thus we would consider them valid.
Wavegarden goes on to attribute various adjustments to the base evaporation including wave
action (+30-60%), average rainfall (117 mm/yr), spills, leaks, drag-out, filter backwash, and
other maintenance activities (2 m3/day) for a grand total of 82,770 m3 (~22 million gallons)
annually.
Other than the overly simplified evaporation calculation, we believe the Wavegarden analysis of
water demand to present an accurate explanation of the various water loss vectors and
challenges.
CH2O Water Demand Analysis
In our internal analysis we calculated two different methods: The first method uses 25+ year
weather data for average monthly temperatures, humidity, wind, cloud cover and solar radiation
rates. This method is a part of a fairly evolved routine we use in our standard analysis of pools
to calculate energy balance and has proven over the years to be very accurate. The second
method utilizes published monthly pan evaporation rates for the area. Both methods result in a
base value for E that is then adjusted based on similar factors to the Wavegarden analysis for
wave operation losses and operational factors. These factors are intentionally conservative to
account for peak values as opposed to averages.
The results of the two estimating methods were comparable though the pan evaporation derived
values were about 20% higher than the theoretical weather – based estimates. Our calculations
for monthly values and annual totals are given in Table 1.
Table 1: Water Loss, Temperature and Cooling Estimates
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Water Loss Estimates
Average Montly Water Loss
(gal/month) 555,800 748,100 1,261,100 1,624,500 2,137,500 2,436,700 2,351,200 2,094,700 1,282,500 1,197,000 726,800 491,700
Average Daily Water Loss
(gal/day) 17,929 26,481 40,681 54,150 68,952 81,223 75,845 67,571 42,750 38,613 24,227 15,861
Total Annual Water Loss
Estimate (gal/yr)
Temperature Estimates
Avg. Steady State Water
Temperature Estimate (F) 67.5 72.7 77.4 83.0 87.8 91.0 92.7 90.8 85.1 78.0 69.9 66.0
Chilling Estimates
Chilling Capacity Req'd to
maintain < 85 F (BTU/hr) - - - - 1,006,000 3,821,000 6,207,000 3,668,000 - - - -
Tons of Chilling - - - - 84 318 517 306 - - - -
Total Montly Power
Equivalent (kWh) - - - - 132,038 501,506 814,669 481,425 - - - -
Water to cool with
Evaporation alone (gal) - - - - 4,677,900 17,767,650 28,862,550 17,056,200 - - - -
16,907,600
Preliminary Engineering Review & Comments
05 July 2018
Page 6 of 6
2696 N. University Ave., Ste 290, Provo, UT 84604 USA ● T: +1.801.375.1223 ● www.clowardh2o.com
Water Temperature & Cooling Analysis
In estimating water demand we modified our standard energy balance routine to derive
anticipated steady state average monthly water temperatures, assuming no cooling is applied
(see table above). A maximum target operating water temperature of 85 F was chosen. The
resulting differential temperature was then used to calculate daily chilling power necessary to
cap the water temperature at the maximum value. An operational day of 10 hours is used to
compensate for peak demand and the fact that the majority of heating occurs during mid-day.
In this way we were able to determine the cooling load and approximate equipment size and
power required to maintain water temperatures below the maximum target value. See Table 1.
Three key methods of chilling mechanics are commonly used in large water bodies either
independently or in combination with each-other to create the best efficiency possible for the
application.
1. Refrigeration cycle cooling (air, water or ground source)
This method employs mechanical chillers the same used in air conditioning systems and
are commonly called heat pumps. Refrigerant circulating through a heat exchanger is
expanded and absorbs heat from the lagoon water. On the other end of the refrigeration
cycle the heat is expelled through condensing coils to an in-exhaustible heat sink such
as ambient air, large body of water or to coils in the ground. Water source heat sinks are
commonly either a large lake, ocean or cooling tower chilled water loops. The ground
source refrigeration can be somewhat more efficient in warm environments but is also
dependent on soil type and soil moisture content.
2. Evaporative cooling (Cooling Tower)
Cooling towers operate by circulating warm water through a packed column with a large
volume of airflow in a counter current setup. Thus, as water is falling through the
column, air moving through the column causes high rates of evaporation to occur thus
cooling the water. These are commonly used in many industrial processes and building
services. The main drawback is the high volume of water loss through evaporation. 1 ton
of chilling is equivalent to 12,000 BTU/h and consumes approximately 3 gpm of water.
The Lagoon could be fit with cooling towers to operate when water temperatures rise
near the target maximum. This would dramatically increase water demand
3. Geothermal cooling
This method refers to using the ground as a heat sink – either directly or more
commonly, in conjunction with a refrigeration cycle heat pump to improve efficiency.
Either horizontal tubing coils or deep boreholes can be employed depending on geology
of the site.
There is a great deal of work to be done to determine the best efficiency mode of operation if it
is decided that the lagoon should be cooled. Local empirical studies should be carried out to
validate the estimates prior to this engineering effort. Real world temperature rise data from
existing bodies of water of similar depth in the region would help to hone in on the best practice
approach to cooling.
Average Power Power Power
ft2 gal min gpm gpm ft2 gal gal day gal/day gal/day gal/day gal/day gal/day kW kW kW BTU/hr ft2 BTU/hr tons
100 Surf Lagoon 236,720 6,900,000 1,800 3,833 0 2 1625 841 3,364 3 1,121 84,654 45,177 46,298 3,364 159 0 159 0 2,600 3,000,000 250
200 East Villa Pool 725 21,700 180 121 400 1 117 181 362 21 17 178 101 118 362 58 5 63 300,000 171 120,000 10
300 Taco Bar Pool 1,200 36,000 120 300 400 1 117 181 362 21 17 294 167 185 362 100 5 105 511,500 200 240,000 20
400 Surf Center Pool 2,500 74,900 120 624 200 1 812 441 882 21 42 614 349 391 882 115 2 117 926,000 266 240,000 20
500 Surf Center Spa 325 8,600 25 344 500 1 27.7 - 2,493 3.5 712 80 45 758 2,493 22 6 28 300,000 295 0 0
600 North Hotel Pool 1,400 41,900 120 349 400 1 294 181 362 21 17 344 195 213 362 63 5 68 511,500 206 120,000 10
700 North Hotel Spa 80 2,100 25 84 400 1 7.07 - 636 2.5 255 20 11 266 636 7 5 12 106,000 149 0 0
800 Northwest Hotel Pool 2,600 77,800 120 648 300 1 812 441 882 21 42 638 363 405 882 108 4 112 926,000 318 240,000 20
900 Northwest Hotel Spa 150 4,000 25 160 500 2 14.14 - 2,545 2.5 1,018 37 21 1,039 2,545 12 6 18 150,000 206 0 0
1000 Spa Pool 900 27,000 180 150 900 1 146 181 362 21 17 221 126 143 362 14 11 25 415,625 175 120,000 10
1100 Clubhouse Pool (Adjacent to Westin)850 25,500 180 142 200 1 146 181 362 21 17 209 119 136 362 14 2 16 415,625 175 120,000 10
1200 East Villa Spa 80 2,100 25 84 200 1 7.07 - 636 2.5 255 20 11 266 636 28 3 31 61,440 135 0 0
1300 Spa at the Spa 80 2,100 25 84 200 1 7.07 - 636 2.5 255 20 11 266 636 28 3 31 61,440 135 0 0
Estimated Utility Loads
Chilling Loads
Electrical Loads
CombinedEvaporation Loss
Peak
Peak Sewer
Flows
Treatment Feature
Est.
Room
SizeFilters
per
Module
Water Usage Heat
Loads
Series
#
Area Volume Turnover
Time
Treatement
Flow Rate
Feature
Flow Rate Max UsageRMF Tank
Volume
Filter
Surface
Area
Feature Properties
Sanitary
Sewer
Loads
Feature Description
Backwash
per System
Estimated
Filter Run
Average
backwash
Total Average
Water Usage