09/26/2026
MBCA is wowed by the level of information sharing from JBWD’s interim District leadership on the proposed septic-to-sewer project.
This FAQ brings a great amount of information together in one public resource on a complex issue. The info is from the agenda documents for Monday’s special meeting at 10 AM regarding the proposed project. You can find the agenda on jbwd.com. The public is invited to attend.
We quote the FAQ here in its entirety.
📌 Frequently Asked Questions - Special Meeting, September 28, 2026
”This FAQ summarizes the Director questions submitted to San Bernardino County and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), rather than reproducing each question verbatim. Responses will be updated as additional information
becomes available.
This FAQ reflects information received as of September 24, 2026, at 2:45 p.m.
Substantive responses received after that time will be posted on JBWD.com as supplemental agenda materials.
The FAQ is intended to provide factual information and non-privileged legal information relevant to the Special Meeting.
Attorney-client privileged communications and legal or risk analysis are maintained separately and are not included in this public document.
County Initiative and Board Decision
Q: What is the County asking JBWD to decide?
A: San Bernardino County has asked the Board to state whether JBWD supports or opposes the County continuing its planning and feasibility work for a potential Joshua Tree septic-to-sewer project. At this stage,
the Board is not being asked to approve construction of a sewer system. The requested decision also would not establish the final project area, treatment approach, funding method, governance structure, system operator, or future connection requirements.
Q: What would support for continued planning mean legally?
A: District counsel advises that, by its terms, support for continued County planning would not approve a future sewer system; commit JBWD to build, fund, own, or operate a system; activate broader LAFCO sewer authority; or waive JBWD’s later authority over water-service and current package-treatment-plant decisions. It would support the County completing feasibility and information-gathering work.
Q: Is JBWD legally required to support the County initiative?
A: No. District counsel advises that JBWD has no legal duty to support a County initiative. The
consequences identified by the County for opposition are practical rather than legal sanctions, including the
County’s stated position regarding continuation of County resources and availability of federal planning funds.
Q: What does “constructive agency partner” mean?
A: District counsel advises that this is an undefined County term. In context, it appears to mean good-faith cooperation with the feasibility process, such as providing information and participating in planning, while
governance, boundaries, cost, operator, and other substantive decisions remain open.
Q: What procedural choices are available to the Board?
A: District counsel advises that the Board may support continued planning, adopt qualified support that expressly reserves future District decisions, oppose continued planning, or defer action while additional
questions or information are pursued.
Q: If JBWD supports Phase I planning, does the District retain independent oversight and the ability to disagree later?
A: This remains a question for the County to confirm. President Doolittle has asked whether JBWD may continue to request information, raise concerns, propose changes, disagree with recommendations, and later take positions inconsistent with Phase I work without being treated as opposed to the project or
jeopardizing continued County work or funding.
Q: If JBWD does not adopt the requested resolution, what specifically happens?
A: The County has stated that it would not continue directing significant resources to an initiative the local water agency affirmatively opposes. Additional County clarification is still needed regarding exactly what work would stop or change, what funding would be affected, what decisions would be delayed, what specific JBWD action would trigger those consequences, and who within the County has authority to make those
decisions.
Q: Is the County open to alternative resolution language?
A: Pending. President Doolittle has asked whether, if JBWD is not comfortable with the resolution as drafted, the County would consider alternative language or another approach that allows Phase I to continue while
preserving JBWD concerns and future discretion.
Q: Who has decision-making authority over the County project and the August 20 request?
A: Pending. The County has been asked to clarify the respective roles of the Board of Supervisors, Public Works, Special Districts, and Supervisor Rowe’s office, and whether the Board of Supervisors specifically authorized the August 20 request that JBWD take a binary support-or-oppose position.
Q: What are the actual County and federal funding deadlines?
A: Pending. The County has been asked to identify the specific funding source at risk, any grant agreement, appropriation, Board action, budget provision, fiscal-year deadline, or other requirement making JBWD
action necessary now, and the date by which JBWD must act. The County has also been asked to identify the EPA award and obligation/expenditure deadlines for the $750,000 FY2026 Community Grant /
Community Project Funding and the federal document establishing those deadlines.
Q: What happens to County funding if it is not used for this project?
A: Pending. Questions include whether the funds lapse, revert, remain available to the Third District, or may be reallocated; who has authority to reallocate them; and whether some or all could be made available to
JBWD for District-led wastewater planning or a downtown sewer project.
JBWD Wastewater Authority and Capacity Charges
Q: What is JBWD’s current authority regarding sewer service?
A: District counsel advises that JBWD presently does not have authority to construct a broader sewer collection or treatment system beyond its current package-treatment-plant authority. Activation of broader
latent sewer authority would require LAFCO action.
Q: Do the wastewater capacity charges require JBWD to build a wastewater system?
A: No. District counsel advises that Government Code section 66013 governs wastewater capacity charges and that collecting such charges does not, by itself, create a legal obligation or commitment to construct a
future wastewater collection or treatment system.
Q: How much is currently held in restricted Wastewater Capacity Charge funds?
A: $3,212,265.07 as of June 30, 2026.
Q: What fiscal requirements apply to these funds?
A: Counsel advises that the revenues must be maintained in a separate capital facilities fund, used solely for the purposes for which the charges were collected, with interest retained in the fund, and subject to the annual disclosures required by Government Code section 66013. Counsel further advises that section 66013 does not impose a construction deadline or refund trigger solely because funds remain unexpended.
Q: What happened with the 2020 Wastewater Treatment Strategy update?
A: Dudek & Associates prepared an update in 2020, and the District used $60,711 in Wastewater Capacity Charge funds for that effort. The update was never adopted by the Board, so it may provide technical and planning background but should not be characterized as adopted District policy. The 2009 Strategy remains the Board-adopted historical strategy unless and until the Board takes further action.
Q: Does the County project financial plan assume use of JBWD Wastewater Capacity Charge funds?
A: Pending. Supervisor Rowe’s August 20 correspondence referenced the District’s wastewater-capacity-charge reserves. The County has been asked why those funds were cited, whether its financial planning assumes any contribution from JBWD, and whether the County is relying on any District communication or agreement committing those funds.
Groundwater, Nitrate and Well 10
Q: What is known about nitrate conditions at Well 10?
A: Operations reports that nitrate levels increased somewhat around 2024-2025 and recommends more frequent monitoring than the current annual sampling practice. A 2006 USGS investigation found evidence of septic-system influence in groundwater entering the upper portion of Well 10, but it did not identify the particular septic source responsible and does not establish the source of current nitrate increases.
Q: Is water from Wells 10, 14 and 15 “blended”?
A: The wells feed the same distribution zone and their water mixes within the distribution system. Operations has clarified that this is not controlled blending before water enters the distribution system. Customers nearer Well 10 may therefore receive a greater proportion of Well 10 water.
Q: What options are being considered for Well 10?
A: Operational concepts identified for further evaluation include increased nitrate sampling; sampling inactive Wells 2 and 11 and/or future monitoring wells; profiling Well 10 to identify nitrate-bearing intervals
and possible temporary isolation; nitrate-specific treatment; and longer-term replacement-well planning. These are evaluation concepts, not final mitigation recommendations.
Q: How old is Well 10, and why does that matter?
A: Well 10 was drilled in 1968 and is approximately 58 years old, with its original steel casing and sanitary seal. Its age and condition are relevant when considering whether to invest in treatment or rehabilitation at
the existing well, pursue replacement-well planning, or use a combination of near-term and long-term measures.
Q: Would the Chromium-6 treatment currently being considered also remove nitrate?
A: Operations advises that the Strong Base Anion technology currently being considered for Chromium-6 uses different resin/media from nitrate treatment and, as presently contemplated, would not remove both constituents in a single treatment process.
Q: How will groundwater and regulatory criteria affect the proposed project boundaries?
A: Pending. The County has been asked to identify the groundwater-quality standards, regulatory requirements, findings, or other water-resource criteria that will be used to determine where sewering is warranted, and how the proposed boundaries or scope would change if available groundwater data do not
demonstrate a regulatory or water-quality need in portions of the study area.
Q: What is the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s current assessment of Joshua Tree
wastewater and groundwater conditions?
A: Pending. Staff has requested the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s current assessment of septic-
system and nitrate impacts, applicable Basin Plan provisions, and whether additional groundwater assessment, monitoring, coordination, or regional wastewater planning is recommended.
Questions Pending - Regional Water Quality Control Board
Q: What is the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s current assessment of wastewater and
groundwater-quality conditions in the Joshua Tree area?
A: Pending RWQCB response. Staff has asked the Regional Water Board to address current wastewater and groundwater-quality conditions in Joshua Tree, particularly with respect to nitrate impacts from onsite wastewater treatment systems.
Q: Does the Regional Water Board recommend additional groundwater assessment, monitoring, coordination, or regional wastewater planning?
A: Pending RWQCB response. The question asks whether, in light of current development activity, including the proposed Lovemore Ranch package wastewater treatment plant, and the County’s developing Septic-to-
Sewer Initiative, additional assessment, monitoring, interagency coordination, or regional wastewater planning is warranted before JBWD makes longer-term decisions regarding potential wastewater collection, treatment, ownership, or operation.
Q: Are there existing or anticipated Basin Plan requirements, regulatory actions, studies, or other RWQCB initiatives that JBWD and the County should consider now?
A: Pending RWQCB response. Staff has requested identification of any current or anticipated regulatory requirements, actions, studies, or initiatives relevant to planning for Joshua Tree’s future wastewater needs.
Q: Are the Yucca Valley OWTS (onsite wastewater treatment system) prohibition and related compliance dates applicable to Joshua Tree?
A: This distinction should be confirmed in the RWQCB response. The Basin Plan provisions previously
reviewed identify the cited 2028/2031 OWTS prohibition as applying to Yucca Valley.
Joshua Tree is
separately identified as an unsewered community with high septic density for investigation and possible prioritization for sewering. The FAQ should not characterize Joshua Tree as currently subject to the Yucca
Valley prohibition unless the Regional Water Board identifies an applicable requirement.
Future Wastewater System and Development
Q: Who would own, finance and operate a future wastewater system?
A: That has not been determined. Counsel advises that responsibilities will depend on the governance structure ultimately approved through LAFCO. Potential structures could include JBWD, a County Service
Area, a joint powers agency involving the County and JBWD, or another regional approach. Financing could involve State and federal grants and local financing mechanisms, with ongoing user rates and charges depending on the structure selected.
Q: Is a County/JBWD Joint Powers Authority currently proposed?
A: No. JBWD staff identified a County/JBWD Joint Powers Authority as one concept for future exploration. Counsel confirms that a joint powers agency could be among the possible governance structures. It is not a current proposal or commitment.
Q: How does Lovemore Ranch relate to this discussion?
A: The Lovemore Ranch proposal includes a package wastewater treatment plant and is undergoing District plan check (review). The 2009 Strategy contemplated developer-related localized/package treatment facilities that
could potentially relate to or transition toward larger future wastewater infrastructure. Review of a private
package-treatment proposal should remain distinct from any future policy decision for JBWD to own or operate a community wastewater system.
Q: What Phase I work has been completed by the County, and what are the remaining deliverables?
A: Pending. The County has been asked for progress since the April 1 presentation, work completed or
underway, findings or developments to date, expenditures and remaining funds, specific Phase I
deliverables, schedule, and any opportunities identified to reduce cost, improve affordability, or refine the service area.
Q: What must occur before the project moves from Phase I to Phase II?
A: Pending. The County has been asked to identify the required decision points, whether there will be a formal public review before Phase II, and the specific opportunities and dates for JBWD and community review of boundaries, governance, funding, project management, affordability, and other Phase I issues.
Q: How can the public track the County project?
A: Pending. Staff has requested identification of WBSE 30.30.0214, the responsible County department and
project manager, and the County project number or other publicly accessible mechanism for tracking expenditures, contracts, documents, schedule, and progress.
Q: What is the status of any County RFP or consultant procurement?
A: Pending. Directors have requested the status and scope of any County RFP, solicitation, or consultant procurement associated with the planning effort, the anticipated procurement schedule, and the expected start of consultant work.
Q: What happened to the collaborative process described by the County in April?
A: Pending. President Doolittle has asked why the level of County engagement since April has differed from the regular updates and collaborative process previously described, whether the County will commit to regular communication going forward, and how the County can engage with JBWD and its Water & Growth Committee earlier in Phase I.
Q: Would the County support a District-led wastewater project if JBWD pursued one?
A: Pending. President Doolittle has asked whether the County would act as a constructive partner if JBWD pursued a District-owned and managed sewer project, including potential County financial support and
assistance securing additional funding.
Q: When and how will affordability impacts be evaluated?
A: Pending. The County has been asked when Phase I will evaluate potential property-owner and ratepayer costs, impacts on disadvantaged households, and available funding or affordability assistance.
Information Still Being Developed
Q: What information is still outstanding?
A: Outstanding items include County project status, expenditures, remaining funding, specific County and federal funding deadlines, decision-making authority, Phase I deliverables and the Phase I-to-Phase II process, JBWD/community review opportunities, project tracking, any County RFP or consultant
procurement, the County’s assumptions regarding JBWD capacity-charge funds, groundwater/regulatory
criteria and project boundaries, RWQCB input, the Brian Hammer nitrate presentation, future
governance/ownership/financing/operation/affordability, and future County-JBWD collaboration.
Q: Will the Special Meeting necessarily result in a final resolution?
A: The current staff recommendation is to receive information, discuss the County initiative and requested
resolution, identify additional information needed, and provide direction. The preliminary staff report contemplates that any final support/opposition resolution may be brought back at a subsequent regular
Board meeting.”
