Big Bear Lake officials review water ownership, treatment options and status of ‘Replenish Big Bear’ project

City of Big Bear Lake officials and regional water managers spent a special Feb. 11 meeting outlining the tangled history of Big Bear Lake’s water rights, the city’s groundwater system, and the status of the Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency’s (BARWA) “Replenish Big Bear” program to treat and retain reclaimed water on the mountain.

The presentations, led by Sean Sullivan and featuring Bear Valley Mutual Water Company managers George Hansen and Sam Fuller, Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power (DWP) General Manager Reggie Lampson and BARWA General Manager David Lawrence, framed the technical and legal choices the valley faces as water supplies tighten and regulatory standards evolve.

Why it matters: the valley relies entirely on local groundwater for drinking water, the lake is both a recreation asset and a shared storage reservoir with multiple legal owners, and BARWA’s proposal would treat secondary effluent to a very high standard and return roughly 2,200 acre-feet per year back to the mountaintop for storage and recharge rather than sending it to Lucerne Valley for disposal.

Bear Valley Mutual, the lake and the 1977 judgment

George Hansen, general manager of Bear Valley Mutual Water Company, told the council Bear Valley Mutual was incorporated in 1903 “to supply agricultural water to shareholders down the hill,” and he described the company’s long‑standing role in building and operating the dams and conveyance facilities that created Big Bear Lake. Sam Fuller, Bear Valley’s consultant and the watermaster appointee, summarized the 1977 stipulated judgment that resolved years of litigation between local water interests and established the current accounting system for lake storage and in‑lieu deliveries.

Fuller said the 1977 judgment gave Big Bear Municipal Water District control of the dam and reservoir facilities and provided that Bear Valley Mutual retain the natural inflows and a right to take up to 65,000 acre-feet in any 10-year period unless in-lieu water is provided. Fuller said the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District now supplies most in-lieu deliveries under a 1996 agreement.

“How much did Big Bear Municipal pay to keep water in the lake?” Council members asked. Fuller and Hansen said Big Bear Municipal has paid about $34 million to San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District since 1996 to fund in-lieu supplies that keep water in the lake rather than releasing it down the hill.

City water system and groundwater status

Reggie Lampson, general manager of the City of Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power, described the city’s water system: roughly 90 miles of pipes, more than 55 wells with a collective pumping capacity the presentation listed in gallons per minute, about 10.1 million gallons of storage and an AMI meter system that has helped the utility detect thousands of leaks a year. Lampson said the city’s water supply is “100% groundwater” and that none of the DWP’s drinking water comes directly from the lake.

Lampson also reviewed the state’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) process: the Bear Valley Basin formed a Groundwater Sustainability Agency and prepared a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP). He said the basin was reprioritized by the Department of Water Resources from “medium” to “very low” priority in 2019 and that the valley’s GSP work was grant-funded.

BARWA’s ‘Replenish Big Bear’ concept and pilot results

David Lawrence, BARWA’s general manager, and Sean Sullivan outlined the agency’s concept for advanced treatment of BARWA effluent to create program water for local recharge and storage. Under the plan described to the council, BARWA would treat roughly 2 million gallons per day — about 2,200 acre-feet a year — using an advanced water purification train that includes nutrient removal, ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet disinfection. The pilot study results BARWA reported to the council showed about a 98.7% water recovery rate for the treatment train.

Sullivan said the programmatic idea is to allocate treated water to three principal uses: (1) groundwater recharge (BARWA and local water agencies identified Sand Canyon as an early recharge site with roughly 380 acre-feet per year of conservative capacity), (2) meeting stream and habitat needs (including the stickleback ponds), and (3) irrigation uses such as reducing golf-course pumping so that native groundwater remains in the basin.

BARWA’s preferred storage location for program water is Big Bear Lake; Fuller and Hansen explained how “lake accounting” under the 1977 judgment and subsequent agreements treats water placed in the lake as belonging to the agency that brought it in unless specifically assigned otherwise.

Permitting, financing and where the project stands

BARWA is the lead agency on the project and has prepared a programmatic environmental impact report (EIR). The presentation traced the recent procedural history: - The BARWA board considered the EIR in August 2024 and voted 3–2 against certification at that meeting. - On Jan. 22, 2025, the BARWA board voted 3–1 to revisit certification at its February 2025 meeting; BARWA staff said the EIR was scheduled to return to the BARWA board in late February 2025.

Lawrence and Sullivan said the project’s financing plan includes a WIFIA-style loan element that requires an amended joint powers agreement among BARWA’s three member agencies. The city council approved that JPA amendment on Feb. 14 (4–0), but the Big Bear City Community Services District (CSD) voted against the amendment on March 4, 2024 (5–0), staff said. BARWA staff told the council the county will consider the JPA amendment only after approval by both the city and the CSD.

BARWA staff noted program costs and a series of staging decisions remain unresolved. The presentations made clear BARWA would be the agency to approve final project contracts, construction authorization and any sewer-user fee adjustments that fund repayment.

Concerns raised by residents and council members

Public commenters and several council members pressed several themes during the meeting: cost and long-term debt, regulatory compliance and water quality (including concern about “forever chemicals” or PFAS), whether lower‑cost treatment options could be permitted for lake discharge, and the fairness of historic water rights.

- Resident Jeff Hollbeck asked for updated financials and who would pay for increased costs. He also asked whether discharges to the stickleback ponds could flood nearby horse properties. - Resident Tom Sitton and others urged caution about the project and criticized its costs and technology; Sitton said, “I cannot believe that we would think about going that much in debt.” (public comment) - Several council members asked BARWA and DWP to clarify capacity, seasonal limits on using the ski-resort snowmaking pipeline for moving water to Sand Canyon, and how much recharge Sand Canyon could accept in dry vs. wet years.

Regulatory limits and technical constraints

BARWA and state regulators’ positions shaped several key limits explained at the meeting. Lawrence said state requirements for releasing treated water into Big Bear Lake are strict; BARWA staff and Reggie Lampson said regulators essentially require advanced treatment at a high standard (reverse osmosis plus disinfection) before any discharge to Big Bear Lake would be permitted. BARWA staff also noted that if evolving drinking-water or groundwater-protection standards (for example, PFAS limits) change, BARWA could be required to add tertiary treatment even to the flow currently discharged to Lucerne Valley.

DWP, Bear Valley Mutual and BARWA officials repeatedly emphasized that many of the project’s operational details — who owns treated volumes, how evaporation and storage are accounted for, and how much recharge will be realized each year — are governed by prior legal judgments, mutual agreements and ongoing annual accounting by the Big Bear Watermaster.

Where this leaves the city council

No formal City of Big Bear Lake council vote was taken at the Feb. 11 meeting; the session was informational and intended to allow council members to hear technical, legal and regulatory detail before future decisions. BARWA’s EIR and financing steps will need additional action by BARWA’s board and the member agencies before construction could begin.

“This meeting helped put a lot of moving parts in one place,” Councilmember Randy said during final remarks, calling the session “a holistic understanding of how water works in our valley.”