The Replenish Big Bear water reclamation project which appeared to be on the ropes if not down for the count entirely since August recaptured its potential viability pursuant to a key reversal by Kendi Segovia at the January 22 Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency Board of Directors meeting.
The community of Big Bear Valley, including the City of Big Bear Lake, the even larger unincorporated county area of Big Bear City, the local tourist industry, locally-based commercial enterprises and the lake itself face serious existential challenges from drought conditions and intensifying demands for water as a consequence of development and population growth.
The Replenish Big Bear program is an innovative proposal to utilize what is essentially a bundle of advanced technologies to process the communities wastewater to recover a large enough volume of purified water to offset the loss of water from the lake from diminished natural rain recharge, evaporation and use. While that approach has the enthusiastic support of a fair number of the community’s members, some but not all of its elected officials and what appears to be the overriding majority of the area’s water infrastructure and sewage/sanitation district professionals, there is yet reluctance to go along with and resistance to the proposal, based upon the project’s cost and skepticism over whether what is, in the final analysis, an unproven technique to reclaim sewage that might end up failing spectacularly and leave the lake and its environs in a putrefied state that would destroy Big Bear’s image and reputation and from which it and the local community might never recover.
The Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency, the primary agency in Big Bear Valley overseeing the provision of wastewater, i.e., sewer, service, is the lead agency with regard to the Replenish Big Bear Project. That project will allow the agency, which is known by the acronym BBARWA , to dispense with its current wastewater treatment modality and instead rely on an initial sand filtration process followed by the use of ultrafiltration membranes involving bundles of hollow membrane fibers with pore sizes so small that bacteria and virus cannot pass through them, backed by high pressure pumping of the water through semi-permeable membranes, after which the water is to be subject to ultraviolet disinfection and an oxidation process. That water will then be returned to Big Bear Lake in a quantity sufficient to prevent the level of water in the lake from dropping as it has in recent drought years. Because of the more primitive nature of treatment methods currently used by the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency sewage treatment plant, the wastewater processed there is not now put into the lake. The Replenish Big Bear Project would change that.
The Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency jurisdiction extends beyond the 6.42-square mile, 5,059-population City of Big Bear Lake, which envelopes the land bordering the south side of the lake. The Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency extends into much of Big Bear Valley, which entails Big Bear Lake, Big Bear City, Fawnskin, Holcomb Valley, Sugarloaf, Erwin Lake, Baldwin Lake, Bluff Lake and Lake Williams. Though its name implies that it is a municipality, Big Bear City in actuality is an unincorporated county area, completely separate from and, at 32.03 square miles, larger area-wise than the City of Big Bear Lake and more populous as well, with 12,738 residents.
Water, the elixir of life, is certainly no less and many ways more important to the community of Big Bear than others. Big Bear Lake is a man-made body of water, created as a reservoir to provide irrigation in the area around Redlands in 1884/1885. The Rock Dam was replaced by the 20-feet-higher Eastwood Dam, placed some 200 feet further west, in 1912. Big Bear Lake is a snow and rain-fed lake, having no other means of tributaries or mechanical replenishment. Big Bear Lake provides an attractive setting for many outdoor activities, including trout, bluegill, crappie, catfish and largemouth bass fishing, pleasure boating and water skiing. In addition, there is a natural hot spring in Big Bear, one that was exploited by Emile Jesseru, who in 1921 built the first major resort in Big Bear, the Pan Hot Springs Hotel. By 1924, Big Bear was populated with 44 resorts and a constant stream of vacationers. Winter activities became popular in Big Bear. The first ski jump in Big Bear was erected in 1929, at which a succession of world ski jump records were set. At present, the city is host to two ski resorts, Snow Summit and Bear Mountain.
The ski season runs from mid-December to mid-March in Big Bear Lake, and the town transforms into a forum for warmer weather diversions usually in May, with boating, water-skiing and swimming taking place on the lake into October. In addition, the nearby forest attracts campers and hikers for much of the year and the hunting season for pronghorn and bighorn sheep generally runs between early December and early February, bear hunting from early October to late December and quail hunting from late October until mid-to-late-January. Thus, the City of Big Bear Lake has become San Bernardino County’s, and one of San Bernardino County’s, premier tourist destinations. The tourism industry is thus the lifeblood of Big Bear and water is a central component of that industry.
While there is a degree of tension between that element of the Big Bear Community’s population who see the city as a place to live and those who make their living by catering to tourists, both sides have a vital interest in ensuring the community as a whole has sufficient water. The tourist industry over the years has made substantial investments in the political careers of those who have acceded to elected office in the City of Big Bear Lake, which was incorporated in 1980. Those elected officials who are personally involved or otherwise have a stake in the tourist industry or were elected with heavy support from the tourist industry, have come out in favor of the Replenish Big Bear Project. There is concern among many of the residents of Big Bear Valley who have no real ties to the tourist industry with regard to the cost of the Replenish Big Bear Project, which was originally pegged at $56 million. By 2023, that cost estimate had shot up to $75 million. At present, officials say that if the project is undertaken with no further shilly-shallying around, the cost will run to $86.7 million in 2025 dollars. A good number of Big Bear Valley residents are wary, however, of the tourist industry’s hold on certain elected officials, and the consideration that in arriving at the ultimate financing arrangements for the project, those militating on behalf of the large corporations with major investments in the operations that cater to tourists will influence the process such that the major burden of paying for the Replenish Big Bear Project will fall to the region’s homeowners rather than on the business owners who will see the primary monetary benefit from the program.
This concern is exacerbated by a multitude of unknowns as pertain to the project. Two of those layers of unknowns are interwoven with one another, compounding those issues further still. That first interwoven layer is the cost. Some have suggested that before the project is fully completed, its cost will have escalated to $100 million or beyond, and that when the cost of financing the project – the interest on the debt the community will assume to complete the project – the price will escalate to well over $200 million. The second interwoven layer is the effectiveness of the sewage treatment modality the project is to entail. On more than one score, that methodology could prove inadequate. The assumption of the project’s proponents is that the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency will be able to take raw sewage and run it through its completely revamped treatment plan and deliver water that will be indistinguishable from rainwater, pure, palatable and without any olfactory offense. At present, those who visit the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency’s website encounter a “Report an Odor” link as one of the five primary features on its home page. If the sand filtration, ultrafiltration membranes, high pressure pressing through semi-permeable membranes, ultraviolet disinfection and oxidation processing does not render the water absolutely odor free, the system will need to be augmented with another process or processes, which will undoubtedly escalate the overall cost. Moreover, of late, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances – commonly referred to as PFAS and otherwise known as forever chemicals – have turned up in Big Bear Valley’s water supply. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances are compounds with water-repellent and oil-repellent properties which are used in the production of both industrial and everyday household products such as stain-resistant carpets and furniture, waterproof clothing, shoes and outdoor gear, cosmetics and personal care products, food packaging, firefighting foam, cleaning products, industrial surfactants and non-stick cookware. They are commonly used in the aerospace, construction and electronics and in military and firefighting contexts. If absorbed by humans or animals in substantial or beyond-safe-threshold quantities, they can alter the metabolisms of humans and animals, impact fertility, reduce fetal growth, decrease birth weight, cause changes in liver enzymes and increase the risk of obesity and certain cancers, impact immune response, increase cholesterol levels, decrease vaccine response in children and increase the risk of high blood pressure or pre-eclampsia in pregnant women. The Environmental Protection Agency recently reduced downward the threshold level for PFAS considered to be safe in water. There is a belief on the part of some that before the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency commits to a $100 million or $200 million or $250 million outlay on a new water treatment facility it should wait to include PFAS filtration devices.
Going back more than two years, there have been many in the community who have questioned the wisdom of proceeding with the Replenish Big Bear Project and the adequacy of the vetting of the project from multiple angles, including its cost, adequacy and its environmental implication. By the summer of 2024, the project’s proponents, insisting that the details with regard to the project had been sufficiently presented to the public and examined by the community’s elected and appointed decision-makers scheduled a vote by the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency Board of Directors with regard to the environmental impact report for the project, which was to be, essentially, an up or down vote with regard to whether the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency should proceed with the project. It was widely anticipated that the vote, scheduled to take place at the board’s August 12, 2024 meeting, would be a mere formality in which it would be given majority, if not unanimous, approval.
The Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency Board of Directors is composed of two representatives from the City of Big Bear Lake, who have traditionally been elected members of the Big Bear Lake City Council; two members of the Big Bear City Community Services District; and one member representing San Bernardino County Service Area 53B. At present, Big Bear Lake City Council members Rick Herrick and Kendi Segovia, Big Bear City Community Services District Board members John Russo and Larry Walsh, and Jim Miller, a resident within San Bernardino County Service Area 53B round out the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency Board of Directors
In response to the concerns expressed by some of her constituents to inadequacies in the environmental impact report that the agency had arranged to have drafted for the proposed project and a lack of clarity with regard to certain aspects of the program, at the August 12, 2024, Segovia voted, along with Russo and Walsh against accepting the Replenish Big Bear Program’s final environmental impact report and its parallel mitigation monitoring and reporting program as integral and satisfactory. A majority ‘yes’ vote on the environmental certification would have essentially approved the project. Instead, Russo, Walsh and Segovia consigned the project to further delays and refinements before it can proceed, if it was to be pursued at all.
Herrick and the other Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency member, Jim Miller had voted in favor of the environmental impact report and approving the program.
Insofar as Segovia was concerned, the board’s action did not knell the death of the Replenish Big Bear Program as much as it signaled the need for every I to be dotted and all Ts to be crossed, such that the project would not have a deleterious impact on the environment and there would be crystal clarity as to what the program was to entail. Her vote, however, raised immediate alarm within the tourism industry and its support network, as well as the members of the Big Bear Lake City Council whose political interests coincide with and parallel those of the tourism industry: Herrick, Councilman Randy Putz and Mayor Perri Melnick. By mid-September, there was talk about removing Segovia as the city’s representative on the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency Board of Directors. On December 11, at the city council’s last regularly scheduled meeting in 2024, at Putz’s instigation and with the support of Herrick and the implied support of Melnick, the city council took up a discussion of instituting a policy of imposing upon the council a requirement that when the council’s members represent the City of Big Bear on adjunct governmental and intergovernmental boards and joint powers authorities such as the San Bernardino County Transportation Agency, the Mountain Transit Board of Directors, Southern California Association of Governments, the California League of Cities or the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency Board of Directors that they cast votes that reflect the will of the city council majority rather than their own view if their personal decision does not match the majority preference. Subtly, Putz and Herrick used the forum of the discussion to, essentially, threaten Segovia with removal from the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency Board of Directors if she did not prove amenable to adjusting – i.e., changing – her August 12 vote with regard to the Replenish Big Bear Project. When Segovia openly stated that she recognized that the issue of requiring council member compliance with the majority council sentiment on adjunct board votes was a pointed effort to pressure her into changing her position, Putz dropped his initial pretense of claiming otherwise and acknowledged that his goal was just that, while Herrick came across with a statement that he too was convinced that Segovia had made a decision fundamentally at odds with the interest of the community. Without explicitly stating so, Herrick and Putz delivered the message that together with Melnick, they had the political muscle to remove Segovia from the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency Board of Directors at will.
That message settled in with Segovia over a period of more than six weeks. The Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency Board of Directors at its Wednesday, January 22 meeting was asked to revisit the Replenish Big Bear Program proposal and respond to staff’s request for “direction on how to proceed.” To facilitate this clarification, staff laid out three options. The first option was to “Unwind the Replenish Big Bear Program” and to notify consultants, all funding agencies with pending agreements, grant agencies with finalized agreements and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board that the Program will be closed out. In doing so, the board was to withdraw its pending application for permits pertaining to the project and, in somewhat of a contradictory fashion, certify the program’s environmental impact report. This would, according to the agency’s staff report entail forfeiting approximately $23.6 million of pending grant funding and $52 million of pending low interest financing committed to the program.
Option 2 called for having agency staff “evaluate potential program scope reductions and cost scenarios.” In this venue, the board was told it could direct staff to initiate evaluation of potential options to reduce the scope of the program for the purpose of reducing the total program cost and bring these options back to the governing board for consideration, at which point the governing board could provide further direction based on the findings. Using previously completed studies and materials, staff could work with the program team to develop a range of options for reduced scope alternatives for project implementation such as: reduced operational flexibility, reduced program yield, seasonal operation, a phased implementation of the project and others. Staff would evaluate the potential feasibility of reduced scope alternatives, develop estimated cost reductions and identify the associated reduction to program benefits. A range of potential outcomes could be developed and presented to the governing board for consideration.
Option 3 called for directing staff to update the project financing plan to reflect changes to the program scope and additional grant awards and to then bring it back to the governing board for consideration, at which point the governing board is to provide further direction based on the updated findings.
According to the staff report, “The January 2023 Replenish Big Bear Financing Plan included an estimated total project cost of $86.7 million based on the best available information at that time. Since the plan was developed, the project has been further defined through ongoing planning efforts, including the completion of the pilot study which evaluated the efficacy of various project treatment processes.
At present, project cost estimates have not been updated to reflect the increased maturity of project design. Additionally, total grant funding for the project included in the 2023 financing plan was assumed to be $16.9 million based on the grant awards that were known at that time. This value is now much higher at nearly $27 million, with additional grant funding opportunities still possible. Option 3 would update anticipated project costs and the financing plan to inform anticipated impacts to ratepayers with the most up-to-date information. Alternative funding sources to lower the overall cost of the program for ratepayers could include leasing part of the Lucerne Valley site to a solar generator to help offset annual operations and maintenance expenses, the City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power purchase a portion or all the program’s water, the City of big Bear Lake cover the cost of the advanced treatment portion of the project.”
Option 3 further called for finalizing the preliminary design report, which was to leverage findings from the pilot study and identify the final recommended treatment process and associated equipment, update project cost estimates based on the design for the plant, updated market conditions and the cost escalation observed over the past two years for similar projects in the state.
Herrick, who has demonstrated himself over time to be among the most enthusiastic Replenish Big Bear supporters in the community, comported himself throughout the January 22 meeting as if he had total confidence that the outcome of having the project revived was not in doubt. He expressed no qualms about the estimated $3.8 million design cost for a revamped version of the program, and willingly conceded at one point that the overall cost would escalate on a massive scale, perhaps to five times its original proposed cost and approaching two-and-a-half times its current estimated cost.
Herrick said, “If we don’t do this, we’re stuck in this limbo of ‘it’s $50 million, it’s $100 million.’ Some might say it’s $200 million. … I really think we need to move forward with this to answer your questions, to answer questions from the public, and at that stage then, we do have the decision point of: ‘Is it too much?’”
Not present at the meeting was Board Member John Russo, whose vote on August 12, 2024 had been crucial in arresting the progression toward undertaking the construction of the modernized processing facilities at the heart of the Replenish Big Bear Program. Based upon the August 12 vote outcome, the prospect for a reversal that would revive Replenish Big Bear on January 22 seemed dim, given that a repeat on January 22 of what had previously occurred would have ended in a 2-to-2 deadlock, which would not have been sufficient to re-jumpstart the project. It was thus apparent to many of those there or otherwise observing the meeting, that Herrick had a reversal of Segovia’s August 12, 2024 vote locked up.
Of note was that BBARWA General Manager David Lawrence’s primary rationale for approving the environmental impact report for the project was that it would hopefully obviate the necessity that the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency refund some of the grants it has received tied into the program. Lawrence also indicated the approval of the preliminary environmental impact report would allow the design work for the project to be carried out.
Lawrence left unexplained how the environmental impact report for the project could have been completed for a not yet designed project.
A precise design scheme for the project would go a good way toward determining the cost of the project.
A central argument posited against the Replenish Big Bear Program has been that the only certain way of knowing whether it will adequately treat the region’s sewage to transform it into water pure enough and aesthetic enough to be used to shore up the lake’s level would be to invest approaching $100 million to create the modern treatment facilities. That investment would be squandered if the technology proved to be insufficient in delivering potable water, those naysayers suggested.
On January 22, Board Member Walsh sought to articulate the rationale for holding off on committing to the Replenish Big Bear project. His reasoning only obliquely and tangentially related to the reliability of the technology, the effectiveness of the program’s treatment modalities and whether the water delivered would be pure enough to use in the lake. Rather, he dwelt extensively on the cost of the program, the lack of clarity as to what the precise cost was to be and how financing the program through loans or bonds to be debt serviced by Big Bear Valley’s residents might prove to be to much of a burden on them. Walsh enunciated his concern over the escalating costs associated with the project.
Lawrence responded by asserting that inflation over time has always been an issue in carrying out public improvements, stating, “You’re talking about the fact that right now inflation is affected the way our projects are [financed]. The way they were evaluated in the past, a lot of our projects, a lot of our equipment was put into our depreciation system based off of when it was installed and the cost to install it at that point. That has been carried forward for almost 50 years now. So, when we put those into a capital improvement plan, when we actually go to bid, they turn out to be quite a bit higher than they were originally and that has to do with inflation and cost of materials and a bunch of different costs involved with that.”
Accordingly, Lawrence sought to assure Walsh that the projections the agency was making with regard to the cost of the Replenish Big Bear Program were not underestimating the overall cost by only considering the base cost with also calculating interest and inflation. “This project has already taken those situations into account, so we’re not faced with that,” Lawrence said. “That’s already included in our estimates at this point.”
Walsh was skeptical.
“Except that,” Walsh retorted, “what I’m hearing, which is that it is the same kind of issue, when you change things, change the focus, change what you are going to do, [costs escalate]. Mainly remember, I voted against that [on August 12] because it was too variable. I would like to see some concrete numbers instead of ‘Well, we think it could be this. We think it could be that.’ You did send out an email that you couldn’t tell us for sure what was going to happen. But, you at least gave us some round numbers, which was the same numbers we had a month ago. Yes, I understand inflation. Yes, I understand that things change, but the CSD [Community Services District] had a rude awakening on that. We used to propose replacement costs on vehicles and equipment based on the day it was purchased. Finally, that was changed to not spread it out over, if it had a 10-year lifespan, one-tenth of the purchase. Instead, it was one-tenth of the replacement cost that year. So, in closing, I don’t know how anybody could think that it was appropriate to base projected replacement on something that was purchased 50 years ago at a 50-year-old price. Now, we’ve gone over the last seven years from a $40 million project to an $80 million plus project. I know things change, but it’s also a case of we were told, ‘Well, we’ll get input from other stakeholders.’ One of those stakeholders is MWD [the Big Bear Municipal Water District], who finally put a full-page ad in the paper that said, ‘This was absolutely of no value to them.’”
Lawrence interrupted him at that point, saying, “I don’t think they actually said there was no value to them at all. I think the page that they took out in the paper was, that was their view, we didn’t have any input on it. But I don’t believe it actually said there was no value to them. I think they’ve always seen the value in it for the valley, and I think they’ve always seen the value in the project overall. I just think at that point — the last word I got from the general manager — was that they weren’t ready to make a financial commitment to the project yet.”
Walsh pushed forward with his point that the Big Bear Municipal Water District was not going to directly share in defraying the cost of the Replenish Big Bear Program.
“I go back to the meeting here when their acting GM [general manager] said, ‘No, they had no intention of contributing.’ They never promised it, understood,” Walsh said. “But when I asked, ‘Okay, you’re willing to accept the water but pay nothing for it until such time as we want to take it out of the lake and put it into Sand Canyon. Then you would charge us something in the area of three grand [$3,000] an acre-foot [325,851.43 gallons],’ if I remember right, and the answer was, ‘Yes, we will charge you.’”
Walsh’s point was that the Big Bear Municipal Water District was willing to “contribute nothing” toward the cost of the Replenish Big Bear Project.
Walsh continued, “These other participants, stakeholders: I don’t see any money coming from the [U.S.] Forest Service of Fish & Game. Each time we hear a Replenish [Big Bear] report, the numbers have changed. I realized these are estimates. I realize these are engineers’ – I am sorry if it angers them – best guesses. You are asking the people to take on a debt for the next 30 years and realize at about that time you might have to start rebuilding the plant and take out another loan. I look at this and realize this debt will go on for the rest of my lifetime. I will never see this paid through. A lot of people here have invested in their homes, their livelihood and yet we come along and we didn’t just double their fees, we increased it by 147 percent plus.”
Walsh said he did not want to be in the position of telling those who live in Big Bear Valley who are saddled with exorbitant property tax bills to cover the bonds floated to pay for the Replenish Big Bear Program, “If you don’t like it, move. If that is the attitude I should take with my constituents, bring on the tar and feathers, because I’m sure that’s what will happen. For me, it is important to know how much this is going to cost, not just ‘Well, we think it is going to cost this much.’ The target keeps moving, and that concerns me.”
Lawrence called for the board to approve paying the $3.8 million to complete the design phase of the project, saying, “We can go out to bid and actually get an estimate on the project. And again, the board could choose to award a project at that point or not.”
Walsh responded, “But it’s still a case of borrow the money without knowing how much it’s going to cost.”
Lawrence then said, “Anytime you construct a project, you really don’t know until you go out to bid, and unfortunately, the legal requirement for public agencies that we have funding in place based on those engineers’ estimate before we can actually go out to bid.”
During the meeting it grew apparent that since December, Segovia had been convinced that she needed to rethink her August 12 vote that had interrupted the progression toward the realization of the Replenish Big Bear Program.
In her statements at the January 22 meeting, Segovia indicated she had been lobbied heavily in favor of the project and that she was sensitive to the assertion that the agency would be called upon to refund the grants relating to the project it had received if it did not approve the preliminary environmental impact report.
“I’m just trying to get us to where we’re not having to pay this money for nothing, have nothing, and at least we have more information to look at that got paid for with grants,” she explained.
“I’ve made it clear to David [Lawrence] that if we do move forward to plan that we’re going to continue to look for state grants, which we really haven’t done a lot of yet.”
Lawrence said, “Yes,” clarifying that in order to make such applications the agency needed a complete an environmental impact report and have in hand “a shovel-ready project.”
“I would like us to get to where we can approve the PEIR [preliminary environmental impact report] and get it to design so that then we will know 100 percent what cost is going to be. All this debate that’s gone on in the community would end. If we were to move forward with the EIR [environmental impact report] tonight, I just want to clarify that it doesn’t mean that the loan is being approved, it doesn’t mean construction has been approved. It means we would look at the figures and that the board still has to vote on whether or not we’re going to proceed with it.”
She thereafter said, “I would like to make a motion to bring it direct to staff to place it on the February agenda for certification with language and a resolution revisiting the brine pond environmental impacts after design is complete.”
Herrick provided what he said was “an enthusiastic second” to her motion, which, in essence called for the approval of option 3.
The motion passed, with Miller, Herrick and Segovia in support and Walsh dissenting.