HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-28; Municipal Water District; 046; Adoption of Water Management Plan.
2MWD - AGENDA BILL 0 I
B# a?%
;TG. f% f/b
TITLE: DEPT. H D..m~
ADOPTION OF WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CITY AlTYE&
EPT. CITY MGR..~
IECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 673 approving the Water Management Plan for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
ITEM EXPLANATION
In May 1990 the Board of Directors forwarded a list of various water conservation measures to the Water Commission for their consideration. Upon their review, two items were added to the list and forwarded to staff for further study. The result is the Water Management Plan for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. The Plan goes into specific detail on all of the proposed conservation measures and will become the fundamental planning tool-'for structuring the District's public information campaign during fiscal year 1990-91.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Inclinins Block Water Rate Structure - A large amount of statistical data is required to set this type of rate structure. Dependent upon the method chosen to formulate the data (i.e. consultant vs. staff), a two to three month period may be needed. This will require a relatively large amount of staff time. It is recommended to pursue this type of rate structure; however, staff would like concurrence from the Board prior to making this commitment.
New Billins Format - Due to the current existence of an inventory of bills, it is recommended to create a new format once the current supply is exhausted. The new billing format could be in use within the next four to six months.
Audit of Users - A complete list of the top 20 users, as well as a breakdown by user category is included in the plan.
Audit of Governmental (Institutional) Users - A list of facilities to be inspected for compliance with water conserving practices is included in the Plan.
Leak Detection - Pursue assistance from the San Diego County Water Authority in the development of a trial program.
Revision of Landscape Manual - Assist Parks 61 Recreation with the revisions currently under study. Completion of the document is scheduled for mid-September.
Ultra Low Flush Toilets - Provide reimbursements for 200 fixtures to be installed by the consumers.
Agenda Bill on Water Management Plan for CMWD (continued)
8.
9.
10.
Hookun Restrictions - Include new language in the existing Stage IV that imposes hookup restrictions.
Residential Water Audits - Conduct free audits of individual dwellings to offer the consumer specific assistance with water conservation measures (similar to S.D.G. & E./s program for energy audits).
Provide funding for 1,300 audits in the 1990-91 fiscal year.
Turf Audits - On-site development of irrigation schedules.
Offer turf audits on large installations in conjunction with current programs offered by the San Diego County Water Auth- ority.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are a number of expenses associated with the aforementioned programs. The estimated costs available for specific recommen- dations mentioned herein total $84,550.00. A significant portion of these costs is for staff time. The remaining costs can be funded by the public information budget included in fiscal year 1990-91. However, if any other subsequent actions tke place, such as the declaration of Stage III water usage restrictions, additional appropriations may be needed to fund these specific activities.
EXHIBITS
1. Director Larson's memorandum of May 8, 1990.
2. Resolution No. 673 adopting the Water Management Plan for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
TO: DIRECTORS, CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
FROM: Director Eric Larson
AGENDA ITEM #2, MEETING OF MAY 8, 1990
While water suppliers can occasionally ask customers to reduce water consumption on an urgency basis, this may prove to be difficult, especially if the urgent need becomes somewhat permanent. Real savings can best be addressed in long-term programs. I would suggest that the Board ask the Water Commission to consider, in addition to all current programs, the following and return with their recommendations:
Water Rates. Increasing block pricing.
Billing Format. Revise billing system to reflect gallons used, not "units".
Audit of Users. Who are CMWD's customers? Knowing the customer base will allow the District to take -aim at potential saving techniques.
Audit of Governmental Users. City of Carlsbad, School District, Cal Trans.
Leak Detection. Some municipalities have found large savings by searching for "lost" water.
Revisions of Landscape Manual. Create mandatory savings (i.e. restrict ornamental turf areas in parkways).
Low-Flush Toilets. Mandatory new construction installation and aggressive retro-fit program.
Hookup Restrictions. Amend Ordinance No. 30 of the CMWD, Stage 3. Add item 11: "The Carlsbad Municipal Water District's Board of Directors shall establish a policy denying all requests for meters which create a new demand on the deliveq system should any use restrictions beyond Stqe .3 be adopted".
8 A . .
ERIC LARSON Director
cc: City Manager City Attorney
.
-_
RESOLUTION NO. 673
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING THE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHICH INCLUDES VARIOUS WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
WHEREAS, various water conservation measures were
considered and recommended by both the Board of Directors and the
Water Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the recommended water conservation measures
were studied by staff and incorporated into a Water Management
Plan for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District: and
WHEREAS, this Plan goes into specific detail on all the
proposed water conservation measures and will be a fundamental
planning tool for the District's public information campaign in
1990-91 (copy of Plan on file in the General Manager's office).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District hereby accepts
and approves the District's Water Management Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District held on the 28th day of
August I 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Board Members Lewis, Larson and Pettine
NOES: None ABSENT: Board Members M
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAU
WATER MANAGEMENT
PLAN PROPOSAL
JUNE 1990
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................... .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................ .3
Recommendations. ............................. 3
Summaries of Proposed Programs. ..................... .5
EVALUATION OF CURRENT PROGRAMS .................. .13
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED PROGRAMS
Explanation of Program Costs ..................................... .15
Water Rates - Increasing Blocks ................................... .16
Billing Format ................................................. 19
Audit of Users ................................................ .22
Audit of Government Users ...................................... .24
System Leak Detection and Repair. ................................ .26
Revisions to Landscape Manual ................................... .29
Ultra-Low-Flush Toilets ......................................... .3 1
Hookup Restrictions ............................................ .35
Residential Water Audits ........................................ .37
TurfAudits ................................................. ..4 1
INTRODUCTION
c
California is faced with what appears to be the worst four-year drought since 1929-34
and, as we move into yet another long, dry summer, many areas throughout the state have
initiated rationing systems that incorporate severe water usage restrictions. However, San
Diego County is in relatively good condition due to the luxury of having access to two major
water supply sources. Although levels in both the State Water Project and the Colorado
River Aqueduct systems are well below normal, the presence of these supplies has limited
water use restrictions within the County to a target reduction of 10 percent. The declaration
of a State II Water Alert is the District’s attempt to achieve this goal. The primary
emphasis of the Stage II enforcement efforts is a strong, well-rounded public education
program. This document will be used as the primary plan for the District’s future education
efforts.
At the May 8, 1990, Board of Directors meeting of the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District, a number of potential programs were referred to the Water Commission for further
study. The intent of this list is to create a new water ethic within the City that promotes the
efficient use of this precious resource. Following a review by the Water Commission, the
initial list of items to be studied was expanded by two. In addition to evaluating the
suggested programs, this document will include all current activities.
The analyses included in this study are mulit-faceted.When applicable, the following
information is included for all of the proposed programs.
A. Project Goal
B. Pertinent Sectors - Users affected by the program
C. Program Description - Detailed components of the program
D. Destribution Method - How the public will be informed of the availability
of the program, and the estimated acceptance
E. Cost Analysis - Specifics regarding the financial aspects of the program
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Each program contained in this analysis has value. All promote water savings and
accomplish that objective in varying degrees. The timing of these programs is something
that must be examined closely, taking into account budget, staff availability, and feasibility
of the program. Fortunately, taking all factors into account, some level of action on all of
the proposed programs can be supported with the current staff and figures included in the
1990-9 1 budget.
Another variable to consider is the overall goal of the plan. Some unforeseen
variables such as precipitation and water supply availability cannot be easily factored into
the analysis conclusions. However, as the District is attempting to modify customer water
usage patterns, many of these programs can continue to be set in motion even if water
supplies increase. A summary of the conclusions derived from the development of this
analysis follows:
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Continue all current public education efforts including:
A. “Watch Our Water! ” (W.O.W.) Educational Program Within the CUSD System
B. Annual Water Quality Report
C. Distribution of Materials at Civic Events
2. Pursue all proposed efforts including in the following manner:
A. Increasing Block Water Rate Structure - Immediately develop material required
to set a new rate system
B. New Billing Format - Utilize the existing inventory of water bills prior to initiation
of new format. Emphasize pertinent information of narrative portion of
existing bills
C. Audit of Users - Completed, Monitor on a continuing basis
D. Audit of Governmental Users - Staff will coordinate inspections of facilities listed
on page 13 & 14
E. Leak Detection - Pursue assistance from S.D.C.W.A. in trial program. If proven
to be effective, include specific funding in future budgets
3
F. Revision to Landscape Manual - Scheduled for completion in mid-September
G. Ultra Low Flush Toilets - Provide funding for the installation of 200 fixtures
H. Hookup Restrictions - Include new language in existing Stage IV - Water
Emergency imposing restrictions
I. Residential Water Audits - Provide funding for 1,300 audits in the 1990-91 fiscal
Y=
J. Turf Audits - Immediately utilize resources of the S.D.C.W.A. to initiate turf
audits on large installations
Some programs proposed are more difficult to put in terms of water savings and/or
total cost of the program due to lack of data and unknown variables and costs. Additionally,
many of these proposed measures are so new that they have not been in practice either long
enough or at all in order to develop available data. Even the above prioritized programs
are fairly innovative and, therefore, do not have years of experimentation on which to base
solid conclusions.
Another point that must be kept in mind is that one of the goals of this plan is to
produce a well-rounded program in which all measures receive some attention. All
budgeted money should not be put toward one particular program. Some approaches may
only be partially implemented in an attempt to cover a wide range of possibilities.
Consideration should be given to other programs that are yet unavailable but are
under consideration by the San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water
District. The District should evaluate each of these programs as they present themselves
and take advantage of those whose benefits are substantial and costs are minimal. There
is the potential to participate in a number of other water conservation measures other than
those described in this report. The staff feels that the District should not limit itself to these
programs. Following is the detail that assisted staff in developing these recommendations.
POGRAM SUMMARIES
Program: Water Rates - Increasing Blocks
Estimated Cost: $10,150 for the first year
Estimated Savings: 222,345 gallons in the first year
Explanation of Analysis
In evaluating this particular alternative, it is necessary to attempt the development
of an equitable rate structure and, at the same time, provide enough incentive to encourage
customers to conserve. The difficulties lie in the establishment of percentages over or below
the base level, as well as in the method in which they will be executed. It should be
emphasized that increasing block rates are not intended to substantially increase or decrease
revenues from water sales. If this were to occur, alterations to the rate structure would be
necessary. However, any minor increases in revenues could be earmarked for use in future
public education programs.
When looking at the direct costs associated with this program, it is assumed that staff
time amounting to $10,150 in the first year would be needed to design the rates, prepare
alternatives, and predict revenue and use impacts of increasing block rates. Billing hardware
and/or software revisions would also have to be made. This is included in the above figure.
The costs over the ten-year period covered by the plan will total $30,450, and the total
amount of water saved will be 2,222,345gallons, not factoring in growth rate or inflation.
This means that 73 gallons are saved for every dollar that is spent on this program, which
happens to be the second highest amount. The gallons of water saved were computed by
looking at residential use and assuming a 5 percent savings as an average (data from the
California Department of Water Resources). Commercial savings are much harder to
establish, due to the number of other variables involved, and very little data is available on
even an estimate as to what the savings could be.
Price sensitivity of customers will decrease over time, so the lifetime of this program
is estimated to be three years. At the end of three years, or if changes to the water supply
occur, the block rates must be reexamined and updated to correspond to the current
situation. At this time, new rates should be established, if necessary, and customer
awareness will again be heightened.
Staff strongly recommends this program due to its high rate of gallons saved per
dollar spent over the lifetime of the program. Even in the first year, 22 gallons is saved for
every dollar expended in the development and implementation of the increased block rates.
A modest amount of capital is needed to fund this program compared to the significant
6
water savings possible. This doesn’t include agricultural, industrial and commercial usage
reductions, which could contribute substantially more in terms of savings.
The cost of the program ($10,150) can easily be funded in next year’s budget. Staff
proposes that this program be investigated fully and implemented as soon as possible. The
following is an example of a possible rate structure. The blocks would apply to increasing
levels of water use, after which point the customer would be charged at the appropriate rate.
For example, customers using from 148 to 14,210 gallons would actually benefit by paying
5 percent less than the base rate. Those who use 14,211 to 21,690 gallons per month would
be in Block 2 and pay 5 percent over the base rate. The next three blocks increase their
rates by an additional 10 percent each time. An average usage in Carlsbad of 18 units is
used to determine the base block amount. The following graph depicts the blocks and
subsequent rates. Each block represents a 10% increase over the “baseline” usage.
JNCLINING BLOCK RATE SCHEDULE
CURRENT BASE RATE: $1.01
RATE
1.2 / 1 /
1 1
0.8
0 I -
-5% ($.96) +5% ($1.06) +15% ($1.16) +25% ($1.26) +35% ($1.36)
BLOCKS
1.6
0.6
0.4
0.2
Percentage is calculated from base rate
7
Program: Billing Format
Estimated Cost: $25,000
Estimated Savings: N/A
Explanation of Analysis
Revising the billing format has been looked at before by the Finance Department,
and costs have been estimated based on the amount of staff time needed to amend the
software, the addition of equipment, and the reprinting of the bills. If a complete change
were to be implemented utilizing a laser-printed invoice, separate envelopes, and folding
and stuffing machine, the costs would exceed $400,000. For the size of the billing performed
every month (approximately 16,OOOinvoices), it is not advantageous to adopt the this format
when other solutions are possible.
Included in the above $25,000 estimate is the cost of staff time necessary to makes
changes in the current software to accommodate the following information: conversion of
units to gallons, comparison between water usage this time last year and water usage this
year, percentage of usage increase or decrease, itemization of charges, and a larger message
area. Also contained in the $25,000 is the loss of current inventory amounting to
approximately six months’ worth of bill forms. Each month’s bills costs about $2,000.
Therefore, staff recommends that, in order to decrease the cost of the program, the
City continue to use the current inventory until exhausted. Until such time that the new
format can be adopted, a note about the conversion can be reemphasized in the message
area. It is already displayed in the upper right-hand corner, but it can be reiterated in the
narrative portion.
There is no way to determine what the savings might be from the increased
awareness of customers of their water usage patterns. However, public education in any
form generally produces positive results, as has been evidenced in the past two months of
increased customer awareness.
Program: Audit of Users
Estiiated Cost: Undetermined, but minimal
Estimated Savings: N/A
Explanation of Analysis
This program has, in effect, already been completed. The top twenty water users in
Carlsbad have been identified, as follows. Programs can be marketed to them in the future
in order to reduce their water consumption.
Program: Audit of Government Users
Estimated Cost: N/A
Estimated Savings: N/A
Explanation of Analysis
As the water usage of the government facilities has been determined, the first step
in this program has been accomplished. The second phase is to perform an audit on each
of the facilities to determine where water usage reductions can be realized through
conservation methods. Staff time will be required in this process, and it is not yet
determined how much time will be needed, nor what the total cost of the program will be.
Even in light of the fact that costs have not been estimated, Staff recommends that
this program be implemented immediately. It is very important that the City set a good
example for its customers, as they will take greater interest in observing the City’s actions
during the Stage II Water Alert.
Program: Leak Detection and Repair
Estimated Costs: $55,200 for the second year
Estimated Savings: 88,938 when implemented
Explanation of Analysis
The effective lifetime of this program is two years. Once a system audit is completed,
its results will last approximately two years. During the lifetime of this plan, it
9
will be necessary to complete system audits five times. The District has approximately 300
miles of pipeline. The estimated cost of auditing and repairing one mile of pipeline,
according to DWR, is $184. Therefore, the cost of each audit is $55,200 (disregarding
inflation), so the total cost of the plan will be $276,000. Assuming a savings of 6 percent
of the system supply (average according to DWR), an annual savings of 88,938 gallons can
be achieved by leak detection and repair, which results in a total savings of 889,380 gallons
over ten years.
This program is one of the more costly ones, and the savings per dollar is the lowest
at three gallons. Due to the superior cost savings of the other programs analyzed in this
plan, Staff recommends that they be implemented before the system audit is conducted.
However, leak detection and repair within the District’s system is very important, and this
program should definitely be set in motion some time during the ten years of this plan. The
costs could be spread over more than two years, if necessary. All 300 miles of main would
not have to be completed in one year. Sections could be performed at a time, and this
would reduce the costs of the program.
Program: Revision to Landscape Manual
Estimated Costs: Undetermined
Estimated Savings: Unknown
Explanation of Analysis
The expected completion date for the revisions to the Landscape Manual is August
15. Therefore, there is no recommendation needed, as the program is already underway.
The water savings cannot be determined easily. DWR says that the savings would
be approximately 50 percent per household and per commercial establishment. This is
calculated only for existing usage, and does not forecast savings for new developments.
Residential water use is 42 percent, and commercial is 25 percent. Together they account
for 67 percent of the water usage in Carlsbad. However, usage for these two groups is not
broken down by interior and exterior consumption. Therefore, it would be difficult to
predict how much savings would be possible.
Program: Ultra-Low-Flush Toilets
Estimated Costs: $10,000 for the first year
Estimated Savings: 44,000 gallons in the first year
10
Explanation of Analysis
Strictly using an incentive payment per toilet installed of $100, and assuming that only
5 percent of the customers would participate, the total costs over ten years would be
$1,611,813. Th’ f is igure takes into account a 5 percent growth rate per year and a $23,287
contribution from MWD for 220 acre feet of savings over the lifetime of the program.
The total water savings over ten years would be 71,617,38Ogallons. This figure was computed in the following way. According to data from DWR, a savings of 12 gallons per
toilet per day can be obtained if low-flush toilets are replaced by ultra-low-flush toilets.
With 1,300 toilets installed, the water savings results in 15,000per day or 5,694,OOOgallons
per year. The ten-year savings is 71,617,38Ogallons. Per dollar spent, 44 gallons is saved.
Staff is recommending to target older residential dwellings in the initial periods of the
program.
In summary, staff recommends that at least a portion of this program be implemented
soon. The high number of gallons saved per dollar spent is appealing. The administrative
time for this program would involve a proposal to MWD requesting funding for acre feet
Saved.
Program: Hookup Restrictions
Estimated Cost: Unknown
Estimated Savings: Unknown
Explanation of Analysis
After researching the ramifications and liabilities the District would be faced with
should it restrict new hookups, it is recommended that this measure be taken only in
extreme cases, such as the declaration of a Stage IV Water Emergency. All other attempts
at water conservation should be made before proclaiming limitations on new hookups.
However, staff is recommending inclusion of such language in Stage IV. This may be
accomplished next time the Emergency Water Management Program is revised for any rason
or if a Stage III is declared. Other agencies should be strongly encouraged to do the same.
Program:
Estimated Cost:
Residential Water Audit
$36,400 for the first year
11
Estimated Savings: 14,775,93Ogallons in the first year
Explanation of Analysis
In addition to providing public relations benefits through face-to-face involvement
with the community, this program was found to be the most cost effective. Per every dollar
spent, 406 gallons are saved. Staff recommends that this program be implemented, at least
partially, as soon as possible. The annual cost of $36,400 is based on DWR estimates that
each audit will amount to $56. If 1,300 audits are done in the first year, $36,400 will be
spent. A total of $457,828 for the ten-year duration of the plan are estimated. It should be
noted that every dollar the District spends for this program will be matched by MWD,
providing the proposal is approved. The calculations for the total cost have taken this into
account.
The water savings computations are as follows. A toilet tank displacement bag saves
approximately 4.2 gallons per toilet per day, according to DWR statistics. Assuming that
1,300 kits are installed into an average 1.8 toilets per installation, that amounts to a savings
of 3587,220 per year. The shower flow restrictors reduce water consumption by 3.72
gallons a day times 2.7 people per household time 365 days. This equals 3,666 gallons a
year per installation, resulting in a total savings per year of 4,765,878. The leak detection
tablets will, on average, find that 20 percent of the toilets leak. Providing that 80 percent
of these toilets will be repaired, and that 47 gallons on the average will be saved per day
per toilet fixed, a savings of 6,422,832 gallons per year will be achieved. These three
measures together account for the 14,775,93Ogallons of water saved per year. A total ten-
year savings is 185,846,18Ogallons.
Program: Turf Audits
Estimated Cost: $3,000 each year
Estimated Savings: 53,400 gallons each year
Explanation of Analysis
The $3,000 cost to the District per year is for public education and promotion of the
turf audits. The administrative and operative costs of this program are covered by the San
Diego County Water Authority. Mission Resource Conservation District is performing large
turf area audits free of charge to member agencies, of which the District is a part. Staff
recommends that the District take advantage of this opportunity as soon as possible and
develop a public education program targeted to homeowners associations and commercial
customers in order to obtain immediate water savings. The cost of the program is minimal.
12
DETAILED EVALUATIONOF CURRENT PROGRAMS
The following programs were completed during 1990 on the dates below. Some
programs, such as the Colorado River Tour and the Watch Our Water (W.O.W.) Poster
Contest, were initiated well in advance of the completion date. Until this point, most water
conservation measures have been delivered in terms of public information and education.
The increased emphasis on the severity of the drought has called for a more aggressive
program to be developed and implemented by the District. The programs marked with an
asterisk (*) will be continued in future water conservation plans due to either 1) their low
cost (such as the distribution of table tents furnished by the San Diego County Water
Authority), 2) requirement by law (the Annual Water Quality Report), or their success in
the past (the W.O.W. poster contest). The programs marked with a pound sign (#) are
those that were necessary to the success of the Stage II Water Alert declaration. Should the
need arise to declare Stage III, similar procedures would be implemented.
February
24 Organized Colorado River Tour
March
22* Published and mailed Annual Water Quality Report for 1989
April
22* Earth Day booth at Mira Costa College with Olivenhain Municipal Water District
and San Dieguito Water District. Distributed 150 Waterhog buttons, magnets and
stickers.
6” Carlsbad Village Faire table at Chamber of Commerce Booth at State and Grand.
Distributed 750 Waterhog buttons, 400 Waterhog balloons, 800 Waterhog magnets,
600 conservation kits, 550 Waterhog stickers, 75 Home and Garden Landscaping
booklets, 200 miscellaneous brochures, informational pamphlets and comic books.
8# Declaration of Stage II Water Alert.
Approval of Mandatory Use Ordinance for reclaimed water.
9* Water Conservation Presentation - Cub Scout Pack Meeting .
13
10 Completion and delivery of low-interest loan application for reclaimed water
facilities.
16* Distribution of 645 water conservation table tents to 10 local restaurants.
19* Helped coordinate conservation kit distribution by providing 300 kits to a Boy Scout
Troop to distribute in the areas of Trieste, Kelly, La Portalada and Sierra Morena.
29* Cultural Arts Center Award Ceremony - W.O.W. Poster Contest
Third and Fourth Grade Students of:
Hope Elementary
Kelly School
Magnolia Elementary
l-8 Displayed winning posters of the W.O.W. contest at Plaza Camino Real.
18# Mailed Stage II information brochure to customers.
14-16# Placed ad in San Dieao Union-Tribune - Stage II notification.
13-19# Placed ad in the Blade-Citizen - Stage II notification.
14
DETAILED EVALUATIONOF PROPOSED PROGRAMS
EXPLANATION OF PROGRAM COSTS
When developing the cost analyses for the following programs, several points were
considered. The majority of these programs can be funded partially or completely through
either the San Diego County Water Authority or the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (MWD). MWD presently pays the lesser of one-half the cost of a water
conservation project or an amount per acre-foot of imported water saved based on the
avoided cost of State Water Project aqueduct pumping costs. This program is subject to a
minimum payment of $106 per acre-foot. In order to qualify for the above Credits Program,
a water conservation project must generate verifiable savings that reduce demands for water
from MWD. In addition, the local agency must demonstrate that MWD’s participation is
necessary to make the project economically and financially feasible. It has since been
recommended by the General Manager of MWD that the incentive rate be increased to
$154 per acre-foot saved.
To participate in the Credits Program, the District must submit a proposal to MWD.
Projects will be considered on an individual basis. Projects under $75,000 will be approved
by staff at MWD; funding for projects over $75,000 will be requested upon project approval
by the Board of Directors of MWD.
In many cases, the programs proposed for water conservation are too expensive to
local districts such as ours, due to new staffing and hardware demands, administrative
overhead, and loss of rate revenue by retail water purveyors. These costs are not offset by
the local benefits of conservation which include reduced sewer loadings, reduced use of
electricity and natural gas for heating water, and reduced water distribution costs. In these
cases, costs can be shared between local entities and MWD.
Therefore, in this analysis, it is assumed that MWD or the San Diego County Water
Authority will fund portions of the following programs: System Leak Detection and Repair,
Ultra-Low-Flush Toilets, Residential Water Audits, and Turf Audits.
The majority of the data used in this analysis were taken from studies conducted by
the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The plan covers a ten-year span,
although each program’s lifetime varies. The particular length of each program will be identified.
15
WATERRATES - INCREASING BLOCKS
Goal: Conservation
Pertinent Sectors: Existing residential
Existing commercial
Existing industrial
Program Description
In the past, water agencies often used declining block rate schedules; i.e., customers
were charged less per unit of water as water consumption rose, which encouraged water
consumption. However, this rate structure can be altered to encourage conservation. A
uniform commodity rate structure charges the same amount per unit of water consumed.
Additional incentives to conserve water can be created by implementing increasing block
rates. Increasing block rates encourage conservation by charging more per unit of water as
consumption rises. The customer is encouraged to use water wisely and install water-
conserving devices to avoid the high per unit charge for water. The most effective
increasing block rates have a small customer service charge, resulting in a higher per unit
water rate.
Obviously, the greatest challenge is creating an equitable rate structure. A fine line
is created when considering the differentials between the increasing blocks. They need to
be significant enough to create “meaningful” incentives to encourage conservation while, at
the same time, not becoming too extreme. The severity of the water supply situation must
also be taken into account. As the situation worsens, the differential in costs between blocks
should be increased. If the Board of Directors desires to pursue this option further, staff
would investigate this topic into greater detail. This future analysis would include specific
topics such as methodologies for determining average consumption rates and the possibility
of offering exemptions under particular circumstances.
Distribution Method
This is a regulatory program in which the rate schedules are established by the water
agency and regulatory bodies.
Cost Analysis
Water Use and Savings
In 1982, the city of Phoenix switched from a uniform commodity rate structure with
a constant rate per unit of water consumed to an increasing block rate structure. A five
percent decline (per capita) in water consumption was subsequently recorded during 1983.
Calculating an overall decline in per capita water consumption due to a change in rate
16
structure is complicated by the effects of weather and other water conservation programs
during the same measurement period. Another mitigating effect on the initial percentage
drop in water use is that as customers become accustomed to the new water prices, their
incentive for conservation will lessen over time.
The drop in consumption due to a change in the type of rate structure is a function
both of the amount of the increase in water bills, and of the price sensitivity of these same
customers. For residential customers, the response to an increase in water bills tends to
vary with income.
For a 10 percent increase in price, inside residential water use has been reported in
research studies to drop about 2.6 percent and outside residential water use has been
reported to drop about 4 percent. However, more conservative empirical observations put
the inside residential water use drop at l/2 to 1 percent, and the outdoor residential water
use drop at 2 percent, for a 10 percent increase in price. That is, residential landscape
irrigation is more sensitive to an increase in water price than indoor residential use.
Without knowing the actual level of price change to each class of water user, we will
assume an initial 5 percent savings for converting to a uniform or increasing block rate.
This water savings percent will be higher as water rates increase.
Direct Cost and Lifetime
The major cost of a new type of rate schedule is the staff or consultant time needed
to prepare alternatives, design the rates, and predict revenue and use impacts of the
increasing or uniform block rates. Also, any revisions to billing hardware or software must
be considered. If the change in rate structure is proposed during the regular rate increase
process, it is estimated that an additional two months of staff time would be incurred, at a
cost of $10,150. The non-staff labor and capital expense is estimated to be $2,000.
The increasing block rate program has a lifetime of three years. Assuming that a 10
percent increase per block is the step at which customers begin to take notice and cut water
usage by 5 percent, it is estimated that annual water savings in gallons for the first year will
be 222,245. Assuming that this level of water savings will continue for the following ten
years, a total of 2,222,345 gallons will be saved. However, as customers become more
accustomed to the increased block rates, their price sensitivity will lessen. That is one
reason for the short lifetime of only three years, and why the pricing system must be
reevaluated three times during the life of the plan. However, for purposes of this analysis,
it is assumed that the total of 2,222,345gallons will be saved, which results in 23 gallons
saved per dollar spent in the first year and 73 gallons per dollar over the course of the
program.
17
Market Penetration
Since rates are set by the water agency and regulatory bodies, customer acceptance
is 100 percent.
Secondary Benefits
Savings from a rate program will result from both landscape irrigation and inside
measures. Because outside uses are more elastic, it is assumed that 25 percent of the
savings from a change in rate structure are from inside measures. Wastewater savings, then,
are 25 percent of the water savings. The amount of hot water saved is unknown, so no
estimate is made of the energy savings. All of the reduction occurs in fluids, not in the
solids content. Overall, solids content is not changed and more of the sewer treatment costs
are associated with solids settling, oxidation, handling, and disposal.
18
BILLING FORMAT
Goal: Conservation
Public Education
Pertinent Sectors: Existing residential
Existing commercial
Existing industrial
Program Description
The current water bill mailed by the City of Carlsbad displays water usage in units
(100 cubic feet of water or 748 gallons per unit). This measurement is not easily interpreted
by the general public; using gallons as the measurement unit would increase the
comprehension of the customers. The present billing format does not lend itself to lengthy
messages from the City or the District, nor does it provide the capability to enclose a stuffer
that could include water conservation suggestions as well as other relevant information.
The reformatting of the bill would allow the City to include such items as the
previous year’s water usage, an itemization of charges to contain dollar amount per gallon
and standby fee, more room for messages at the bottom of the bill, and the capability to
insert informational bill stuffers.
Water bills that show the water use for the same billing period the previous year in
addition to current use would supply the customer with a comparison of his/her past
experience that would, in turn, help increase awareness of water use patterns and prevent
a gradual increase in per capita use. An explanation of the changes to the bill should be
included in the first new formatted statement. A draft of a sample water bill follows this
program analysis.
This program’s end result can be obtained in several ways. The most costly method
would be to purchase all new equipment to include a special laser printer to produce a
clean, precise bill. This route would necessitate completely new software, envelopes, and
an automatic letter folder and stuffer. The estimated cost of this revamping is $400,000.
A less expensive, yet effective way of achieving the same result would be to simply
reformat the current software to include the desired information. This could be
accomplished in about 30 days, from inception to completion. The same basic form of the
bill would be retained, with only format changes needed to accommodate the additional
information. This could probably be done at a cost of approximately $20,000, which consists
of ordering all new bills and losing the cost of the current inventory of the old format bills -
if the change were to be requested before the present bill supply was exhausted (now about
six months’ reserve). The $20,000 cost could be reduced by using all of the current
inventory. However, this option would not allow a stuffer to be inserted into the bill, unless
19
a different folder were used. The self-mailer is available with a slit in the back where a
stuffer could be enclosed. However, staff time would be needed to tape each of the slits
closed, even if a stuffer wasn’t included.
A third choice is to contract out the billing process to an outside agency. This
alternative has been investigated, and the turn-around time of two weeks was found to be
unacceptable.
Distribution Method
This is an information program designed to increase awareness of water use patterns
and communicate more frequently with customers.
Cost Analysis
Water Use and Savings
There is no current data indicating the amount of water use savings that could be
obtained from a revised billing format. If utilized by the District, staff would monitor the
situation in an effort to develop such data.
Direct Cost and Lifetime
An estimate of the capital cost, installation cost, operations and maintenance cost,
and administrative development cost is $25,000. The administrative time needed to make
the software revisions is estimated to cost approximately $5,000. The remaining $2O,OOOis
the estimated cost of printing of the new bills, plus the sunk cost of the old format bills that
won’t be used (about $2,000 worth every month). Therefore, if the program is implemented
after using the old inventory, the cost of the program decreases substantially. Once
implemented, the life expectancy is infinite; minor adjustments can be made to the program
to adapt to changing conditions. This program has a non-staff labor and capital expense of
$8,000.
Market Penetration
Since this program will affect every customer that receives a water bill, the market
penetration will be 100 percent.
20
SAMPLE WATER BILL
CITY OF CARLSBAD
P.O. BOX 9009
Description Amount
345,667 438,685 93,018 Water Usage 141.68
Stand-by Charge 10.00
This Billing Gallons Gallons
Month Days Billed Per Day Sewer 36.50
This Year 31 93,018 3,000.6
Last Year 29 96,689 3334.1
I % Increase/Decrease - 10.0%
Account Number
I
I I
Service Address BALANCE DUE
I
86088-000 I 5950 El Camino Real I $188.18 I
i
MESSAGE AREA
21
Goal:
Pertinent Sectors:
Program Description
AUDIT OF USERS
Conservation
Reduction of peak demands
Existing residential
Existing commercial
Existing industrial
The top twenty water users have been identified with the help of the
Utilities/Maintenance Department. Knowing who these users are will help the District
target special programs toward them, such as the other programs described in this report.
Tailoring certain water conservation methods for these large water users will increase water
savings and promote an educational approach at the same time.
Large turf audits can be specifically marketed to these users and, because the service
is free, will only cost the District administrative time in terms of public information. This
option is specifically evaluated in a subsequent section.
The following is a list of the top twenty water users in Carlsbad, expressed in gallons
per month in March.
1. La Costa Hotel & Spa
2. Hughes Aircraft
3. Frazee Flowers
4. S.D.G. & E.
5. City of Carlsbad
6. Lakeshore Gardens
7. Tabata Brothers
8. CUSD
9. Ukegawa Brothers
10. Ranch0 Carlsbad Trailer Park
11. Encina Water Pollution Control
12. Beckman
13. Pinto, Salvador
14. Kato Farms
15. Army/Navy Academy
16. Francisco Valdivia
17. Culligan
18. State Parks
19. Juan Navarro
20. The Green House
17,955,740
9,656,680
8,233,984
7640,820
4,590,476
3,897,828
3,788,620
2,975,544
2,573,120
2,446,708
1,775,752
1,750,320
1644,104
1,598,476
1,107,040
991,848
989,604
814,572
813,076
749,496
22
Information may also be generated relating to the type of users within the District.
In percentage, the major user categories are as follows:
Single Family Residence 30.1%
Commercial 18.5
Agriculture 15.0
Irrigation 12.0
Multi-Family Residences 11.0
Industrial 5.2
Motels 3.5
Restaurants 3.0
Duplex 0.9
Institutional 0.8
Total 100.0%
Distribution Method
This is an information program designed to increase awareness of water use patterns.
Cost Analysis
Water Use and Savings
This program is primarily an identification of the top users to increase awareness
among the District as to who these users are. There is a potential for substantial water
savings if programs are marketed directly to these agencies. However, there is no current
data available to suggest what those savings might be.
Direct Cost and Lifetime
Costs for this program will be minimal, if any, as the identification process has
already been completed. Further administrative time will be needed for public education.
23
AUDIT OF GOVERNMENT USERS
Goal: Conservation
Peak Reduction
Pertinent Sectors: Existing government users
Program Description
A list of the government water users in Carlsbad has also been developed with the
help of the Utilities/Maintenance Department. This program is designed to take an inward
focus and concentrate on City/Government users. As customers are asked to cut back on
their water consumption, public agencies will be under greater scrutiny. It is necessary for
the City to do a complete audit of public facilities to be certain that every measure is being
taken to conserve water within these facilities. This initial step would be to inspect all
governmental facilities to ensure that all feasible steps are being taken to reduce water
demands.
The following are the government facilities and their monthly usage in gallons for
March 1990.
1. Water Pollution Control 1,195,304
2. Army/Navy Academy 788,392
3. Cal Trans 739,772
4. State Parks 736,780
5. Hope Elementary 685,916
6. Monroe High 667,720
7. Valley Junior High 427,108
8. Pine Elementary 344,828
9. Kelly Elementary 267,036
10. Cultural Arts Center 255,068
11. Valley Elementary 250,580
12. Magnolia Junior High 195,228
13. Buena Vista Elementary 189,244
14. Magnolia Elementary 176,528
15. Community Swim Complex 160,072
16. Safety Center 88,264
17. City Hall 87,516
18. Jefferson Elementary 86,768
19. Senior Center 77,044
20. Fire Station 5 57,596
21. Municipal Water District 31,416
22. Fire Station 1 28,424
23. Community Dev/Util/Maintenance 27,676
24
24. Calavera Hills Park 21,692
25. Fire Station 2 17,952
26. Fire Station 4 15,708
27. Library 11,968
28. Fire Station 3 11,220
29. Fleet Maintenance 2,244
Distribution Method
This is an information program designed to increase awareness of water use patterns.
Cost Analysis
Water Use and Savings
This program is primarily an identification of the top government users to increase
awareness among the District as to who these users are. There is a potential for some water
savings following the inspections. However, there is no current data available to suggest
what those savings might be.
Direct Cost and Lifetime
Costs associated with this program will be the amount of staff time needed to audit
each government facility and determine water saving measures for each. This amount has
not yet been determined.
25
SYSTEM LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR
Goal: Conservation
Pertinent Sectors: Water Distribution System
Existing residential
Existing commercial
Existing industrial
Program Description
Underground leaks are detected by using electronic amplifying equipment to listen
for particular types of sounds along all water mains and at all valves, hydrants and meters.
Water distribution system leaks which are discovered are repaired. In the course of a water
audit when leaks are discovered on the customer side of the meter, the customer would be
notified immediately.
If, based on the results of a distribution system water audit, an agency has 10 percent
or more unidentified water losses, a leak detection and repair program is warranted. The
District’s current water loss totals approximately 6% for its 300+ miles of pipeline and
almost 16,000 services.
Water distribution system leak detection can be ongoing or periodic and can cover
an agency’s entire service area or just localized problem areas. Up to 50 percent of a typical
agency’s unidentified water losses have been attributable to correctable leakage.
Distribution Method
This is an agency program in which system leak detection and repair is determined
by water agency policy.
Cost Analysis
Emmples
Three examples of leak detection and repair programs are:
1. East Bay Municipal Utility District conducted a leak detection and repair
program which used four workers to cover 3,690 miles of main and over 322,000 service
connections in about four years. In this case, 2.5 percent of the system’s water production
was saved due to the detection and repair of leaks for both the urban water distribution
system and the system branches to individual households. The East Bay Municipal Utility
District program described above cost $157,000 per year, or $170 per mile of main covered
per year, and is reported to have had a benefit-cost ratio value of 7.7.
26
2. Marin Municipal Water District covered 52,000 service connections and 800 miles
of main in four years. On average, 560 leaks per year were detected and repaired through
their leak detection program. The Marin Municipal Water District program cost $57,900
per year, or $289 per mile of main covered per year, and reportedly had a benefit-cost ratio
value of 3.5.
3. The City of Santa Cruz covered 19,700 service connections and 300 miles of main
in one year. The City of Santa Cruz leak detection program cost $82,9OOper year, or $276
per mile of main covered per year, and is reported to have had a benefit-cost ratio value
of 4.8.
In 1985-86, under a leak detection grant program sponsored by the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR), 3,300 leaks were detected on 5,100 miles of water
main in 47 water systems accounting for 2,575 million gallons per year. The median cost
was $184 per mile of main covered per year.
A leak detection survey needs to be preceded by testing of large customer’s meters
(3 inches and larger) during a water audit. Meter underregistration might erroneously
appear to be leakage if the amount of unrecorded usage is significant. The effects of underregistration in smaller meters has been mitigated by the recent completion of the
City’s meter replacement program. All 5/8” meters that have been in operation for more
than 15 years were replaced.
Water Use and Savings
Water savings from leak detection and repair will be agency specific. At the high
end, if an agency has 20 percent unidentified water losses, and 50 percent of this is
determined to be repairable leakage, then water savings would be 7.5 percent (20 percent
unidentified water losses times 50 percent average detectable and correctable leaks). This
includes the savings from leaks repaired by customers on their side of the meter in response
to notification by the agency. At the low end of the range, North Marin Water District
identified water savings of 0.3 percent from leak detection. The reported range of savings
is 0.3 percent to 30 percent of system supply. We will assume a savings of 3 percent of
system supply, on average, for leak detection.
Direct Cost and Lifetime
In 1985-86, under a leak detection grant program sponsored by DWR, the median
cost was $184 per mile of main covered per year. Costs ranged from $47 to $400 per mile.
This included labor, equipment, and administrative costs for leak detection and repair
programs. An average of 2.8 miles of main per day was covered in the DWR program.
The District has approximately 300 miles of pipeline. Assuming that the average cost
to inspect and repair leaks is $184 per mile, the estimated cost for the program is $55,200
27
each year it is performed. The average of 2.8 miles of main per day coverage will allow the
program to be completed in approximately 107 days. The total annual water savings in
gallons is 88,938,presuming a 2 percent savings. This amount can be used throughout the
ten-year lifetime of the plan, resulting in a total water savings of 889,380 gallons.
Since the expected effective duration of the program is two years, the District will
have to conduct the system leak detection and repair every two years, for a total program
cost of $276,OOO,not accounting for inflation. Therefore, for every dollar spent in one year
of the program, 1.61 gallons are saved. Over the lifetime of the plan, 3.22 gallons are saved
for every dollar spent.
28
REVISIONS TO LANDSCAPE MANUAL
Goal: Decreased Existing and Future Landscape Demands
Pertinent Sectors: All existing consumers
All future consumers
Program Description
The City of Carlsbad currently utilizes its Landscape Guidelines Manual as the
primary document to condition development regarding exterior planting materials. The
document is now under review by the Parks and Recreation department. The intent of this
review is to mandate as many water conserving measures as possible. The new document
will update the list of Xeriphytic (water conserving) planting materials and promote efficient
irrigation techniques. The review is anticipated to be concluded in mid-August. It is
envisioned that information contained in the revised manual could be developed into a
document that would assist existing residents in the retrofitting of their landscapes.
The basic revisions will include:
1. Addition of water conservation standards.
2. Review of median planting design standards.
3. Updating of standards with input from Planning and Engineering.
4. Revision of format to simplify and highlight important issues.
Distribution Method
This is a regulatory program in which the City can mandate water conserving
landscapes in future developments. Current residents may be informed of the availability of
this information through advertising, mass mailings or including notification in the water
bills.
Cost Analysis
Water Use and Savings
The water savings from the use of the Landscape Manual and incorporation of
xeriscaping is estimated to be 50 percent per household and per commercial establishment.
This estimate is based on using weather data for Contra Costa County in Northern
California. A typical resident with 1,500 square feet of turfgrass and 300 square feet of
ornamental beds or trees is assumed. A typical establishment is assumed to have one acre
of turfgrass and 4,370 square feet of ornamental plants.
29
Direct Cost and Lifetime
The majority of the costs to revise the Landscape Manual will be incurred by the
City of Carlsbad. Some administrative costs that have yet to be determined will be assumed
by the District. Another potential cost to be considered is that of the customer. The
estimated cost to the homeowner is $5,850, including capital costs and installation, for a
complete replacement of residential landscaping (1,800 square feet), 30 percent of which is
estimated to be plant material costs. These figures include new irrigation system costs,
which are assumed to be 15 percent of capital and 60 percent of labor costs. The cost of
xeriscaping a new site is comparable to a conventionally landscaped home. For a
commercial establishment, the estimated cost of xeriscaping is $101,500, including capital
and installation costs, for a complete replacement of commercial landscaping (47,930 square
feet), at an average site, 30 percent of which is estimated to be plant material costs.
However, the District does not anticipate that many homeowners or commercial
establishments will completely replace their landscaping. The main target market for this
plan is new development, for which xeriscaping is at a comparable cost to conventional
landscaping.
A lifetime of 15 years is assumed for this program.
Market Penetration
The current saturation for new and existing residential landscaping assumes that an
average of 5 percent already practice xeriscaping, and 10 percent for new and existing
commercial and multifamily landscapes. This value may range from a low of 1 percent to
a high of 15 percent in recent drought areas. For a regulatory program, the customer
acceptance rate would be 100 percent. The removal (or “stop using”) rate is assumed to be
20 percent of those initially adopting the program.
Secondary Benefits
No secondary benefits of using this measure are estimated. Savings due to reduced
landscape irrigation will impact wastewater flow somewhat in that infiltration into sewer
laterals will be reduced. However, information on this type of infiltration is limited, so no
estimate is made of the sewer savings.
30
Goal:
Pertinent Sectors:
ULTRA-LOW-F’LUSHTOILET
Conservation
New residential
New commercial
Existing residential
Existing commercial
Program Description
Ultra-low-flush toilets use special designs to reduce water used for toilet flushing to
about 1.5 gallons per flush, down from 5.5 gallons per flush in a non-conserving toilet and
3.5 gallons in a low-flush toilet. Two main types of ultra-low-flush toilets are currently
available. The first type retains the gravity flush concept, operating very efficiently because
of improvements in design. Toilets with this design typically use 1 .O to 1.5 gallons per flush.
A second category eliminates the gravity flush concept. One model of this type features a
pressurized flush tank, in which water is forced into the bowl using pressure from the water
system.
Distribution Method
Information Program
Promote the installation of ultra-low-flush toilets in new construction to developers
and contractors and to owners of existing homes and buildings.
Incentive Program
Incentive payment or connection fee discount to contractors or developers who install
ultra-low-flush toilets and to owners of homes or buildings who install ultra-low-flush toilets.
Regulatory Program
Require installation of ultra-low-flush toilets in new construction and upon resale of
home or building. Currently, the City of Carlsbad Building Code requires low-flush toilets
in all new construction. These toilets use about 3.5 gallons per flush.
Cost Analysis
Water Use and Savings
As part of the HUD Survev of Water Fixture Use, data on frequency of flushes and
water use in toilets were collected from eight groups of 25 single-family households each in
31
California and across the country. These groups were monitored for two weeks each over
a 20-month period. A flush meter was installed in each toilet in participants’ homes. Based
on the data collected, an average flush rate of four flushes per person per day was
estimated. The study also found an average of 1.8 toilets per household. The 1980 Census
estimates 2.7 persons per household in California. This implies that each toilet is flushed
six times per day. Combining this figure with information on gallons per flush results in an
estimate of water use per toilet as follows:
Gallons Water Use Per
Per Flush Toilet Per Day
Non-Conserving Toilet 5.5 33.0
Low-Flush Toilet 3.5 21.0
Ultra-Low-Flow 1.5 9.0
The default value for water use by ultra-low-flush toilets is 9 gallons per toilet per
day, based on a toilet that uses 1.5 gallons per flush.
These figures are for residential installations. We have used the same data for
commercial installations as an estimate of usage. There is no research available on
commercial toilet usage.
Direct Cost and Lifetime
An estimate of the capital cost, installation cost, operations and maintenance (O&M)
cost, and lifetime was obtained by contacting manufacturers and/or vendors of this measure. The cost of ultra-low-flush toilets has been dropping as more manufacturers sell more of
these units. The incremental cost is the difference between the cost of ultra-low-flush toilets
($120 retail, $75 wholesale) and comparable low-flush toilets ($90 retail, $50 wholesale).
The installation cost is $40 (1 hour x $40/hour). A life expectancy of 25 years is expected
for ultra-low-flush toilets.
If the District implements strictly an incentive program of a $100 rebate per ultra-
low-flush toilet installed by the customer, a total of $130,000 of annual costs will be
incurred. This is assuming that 200 will be distributed the first year. The total costs to the
District will be $10,000 with portions contributed by MWD. The water savings in the first
year will be 44,000 gallons. For every dollar spent, approximately 44 gallons will be saved.
Market Penetration
Ultra-low-flush toilets are a relatively new technology. The current saturation of this
technology in existing homes and buildings is nearly zero. An estimate of zero percent
market saturation of ultra-low-flush toilets is used for the existing residential and
32
commercial sectors. Similarly, very few new homes or buildings built today install ultra-low-
flush toilets. The estimated saturation of this technology in residential and commercial new
construction is also zero. The market penetration of this measure in a particular agency’s
service area depends on the activity of past agency programs including this measure. Past
occurrence of agency programs for this measure would be expected to result in a higher
current penetration of this measure.
A limited amount of experience is available on customer acceptance of ultra-low-
flush toilets. A small market share of 3 percent of new construction could be achieved using
an information program. This is lower than the customer acceptance rate estimated in
Water Conservation due to possible customer resistance to ultra-low-flush toilets. An
information program in existing construction would have two impacts -- influence customer
acceptance at the time of normal replacement and entice some customers to replace their
toilets early. The customer acceptance rate for ultra-low-flush toilets at the time of normal
replacement due to an information program is estimated at 3 percent, the same as for new
construction. An early retirement rate of 2 percent of the normal retirements is assumed
to result from an information program.
An aggressive incentive program could have a large impact on the customer
acceptance rate for ultra-low-flush toilets. If the incentive payment or connection fee
discount is high enough to cover the entire incremental cost of ultra-low-flush toilets, a 70
percent acceptance rate could be achieved for new construction and for normal retirements
in existing construction. In addition, the incentive program would result in an early
retirement rate of 10 percent of the normal retirement rate.
Regulations can also be an effective method of achieving installation of ultra-low-
flush toilets. The code for new construction could require such toilets in all new homes and
buildings, resulting in a virtually 100 percent installation rate for new construction. Over
a dozen California agencies now have such an ordinance. For existing construction, a
regulation requiring all homes or buildings sold to be retrofitted with ultra-low-flush toilets
could result in a 100 percent customer acceptance rate for all homes or buildings sold.
Customer dissatisfaction with ultra-low-flush toilets is likely to result in a portion of
those installed being removed and replaced with low-flush toilets. The removal rate is
estimated to be 2 percent of those installed.
Secondary Benefits
Because toilets do not use water heating energy, the major secondary benefit of
increased toilet efficiency is reduced wastewater flows. Reductions in toilet water use equals
reductions in wastewater flow because all water used to flush a toilet enters the sewer
33
system. All of the reduction occurs in fluids, not in the solids. Overall, solids content is not
changed and most of the sewer treatment costs are associated with solids settling, oxidation, handling, and disposal.
The amount of chemicals and energy used to treat wastewater, though, will be
reduced. Chemicals and energy, however, are a small proportion of sewer operation and
maintenance costs. In a study conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a
50 percent reduction in wastewater flow reduced operation and maintenance costs by a
maximum of 3 percent.
34
HOOKUP RESTRICTIONS
Goal: Reduce Additional Demands Under Severe Water Shortage Conditions
Pertinent Sectors: All future consumers
Program Description
A significant issue is raised when existing residents are asked to reduce their
demands while new development continues within the area. This surfaced during the recent
declaration of the Stage II-Water Alert. At that time, it was recommended to approach this
very delicate issue from a regional perspective. Specifically, Carlsbad’s representatives on
agencies such as the San Diego County Water Authority and the San Diego Association of
Governments could use those organizations as a forum to initiate discussions regarding
hookup restrictions during periods of water shortage. By developing regional policies, a true
benefit could be realized when compared to the effects of a unilateral action taken by one
independent agency. This type of activity would only reduce that specific agency’s demands
while the potential exists that no real net savings would occur within the County because
development would continue in other areas.
Unfortunately, sufficient time was not available during the preparation of this
document to investigate the full legal ramifications of imposing hookup restrictions. Cursory
research has shown that in light of the serious economic impact of such an action a legal
challenge can be expected. No water agency can immunize itself from these attacks;
however, by understanding and anticipating the possibility of such challenges, we can place
ourselves in the best position to defend such claims.
Courts and affected property owners often face a fundamental misconception
regarding hookup restrictions and how such a measure relates to water rationing and other
conservation measures. By its nature, hookup restrictions are generally prompted by long-
term supply and demand considerations. If the supply of water that can realistically be
counted upon during a planned-for drought period exceeds the water commitments made
by the agency to its customers, restrictions are appropriate (Swanson v. Marin Municipal
Water District - 1976).
The use of the term “emergency” to address long term supply/demand imbalances
often provokes substantial confusion when litigating issues relating to hookup restrictions.
An agency can be expected to be faced with questions such as the following:
1. If an “emergency” condition is prompting hookup restrictions, how can such a
condition last for years?
35
2. How can there be a water shortage “emergency” if water stored in reservoirs
is still available?
3. If there is an “emergency, ” why has the water agency failed to impose rationing
(or more stringent rationing) to eliminate the emergency?
The confusion engendered by using the term “emergency” to justify hookup
restrictions based upon long-term supply/demand considerations is compounded because the
term “emergency” is also used in the Water Code to authorize imposition of water rationing.
Yet, the conditions giving rise to these rationing “emergencies” are very different. As noted
above, hookup restrictions are normally prompted by a long-term imbalance of supply and
demand. By contrast, a rationing emergency is ordinarily motivated by more short-term
circumstances such as the immediate consequences of a drought or other water supply
problem which can be expected to last only a limited duration.
In summary, the overriding issue still seems to be the pursuit of this topic from a
regional perspective. When considering the aforementioned legal issues, they seem to only
compound if actions are taken by individual jurisdictions, especially when viewed in light of
the fact that the entire county is primarily dependent upon the same water source.
This information depicts the fact that restricting hookups creates some legal
vulnerabilities. However, under extreme situations such as a Stage IV Water Emergency,
imposing restrictions would have the greatest possibility of withstanding a legal challenge.
If prohibiting new hookups is desired, some decisions are needed regarding the limits of
restrictions, specifically, at what point these limits would be imposed. If building permit or
tentative map denials were performed, they would affect future, demands within the water
system. No immediate impact would be felt, since these additional demands would not be
realized within the system until construction is completed. However, if restrictions were
imposed on the setting of new meters, an immediate benefit would occur.
Distribution Method
This is a regulatory program in which the restrictions would be imposed by local
agencies.
Cost Analysis
There is not an appropriate method to develop a financial evaluation for this
measure.
36
RESIDENTIAL WATERAUDIT
Goals: Conservation
Peak Reduction
Pertinent Sector: Existing residential
Program Description
A residential water audit is conducted by an agency representative at the request of
the homeowner. The specific design of an audit may vary. The following discussion is based
on a water audit that consists of three components. First, water uses are identified and
discussed with the homeowner. Second, an offer is made to install showerhead flow
restrictors, tank displacement bags, and to use leak detection tablets on the toilets. Third,
information on further actions that can be taken to conserve water, including a lawn
watering guide, is provided.
Distribution Method
This is an incentive program promoting the availability of free water audits, including
installation of water conservation measures, to homeowners through bill stuffers, direct mail,
advertising or other forms of mass communication.
Cost Analysis
Water Use and Savings and Secondary Benefits
Savings from a water audit depend on the measures installed and actions taken by
homeowners in response to the audit. Estimates are provided of the water savings per
conservation measure.
As previously mentioned, part of the HUD Survev of Water Fixture Use collected
data on frequency of flushes and water use in toilets from eight groups of 25 single-family
households each in California and across the country. These groups were monitored for two
weeks each over a 20-month period. A flush meter was installed in each toilet in
participants’ homes. Based on the data collected, an average flush rate of four flushes per
person per day was estimated. The study also found an average of 1.8 toilets per household.
The 1980 Census estimates 2.7persons per household in California. This implies that each
toilet results in an estimate of water use per toilet as follows:
Gallons ner Flush Water Use ner Toilet/Day
Non-Conserving 5.5 33.0 With Tank Displacement Bag 4.8 28.8
37
c
The default savings for a tank displacement bag over a non-conserving toilet is 4.2
gallons per toilet per day.
Water use for showerheads depends on the actual flow rate (as compared to the
rated flow rate), the length of the shower, and the frequency of showers. The HUD Survey
of Water Fixture Use collected data on actual showerhead flow rates and shower use habits
from eight groups of 25 single-family households each in California, Seattle, Colorado, and
Washington, D.C. These groups were monitored for two weeks each over a 20-month
period. Based on this research, the following estimates were made:
D!JE
Rated Flow Observed Flow
Rate (gallons Rate (gallons
per minute) per minute)
Duration
(minutes per
capita-day)
Non-conserving 5-8 3.4 4.8
With Restrictor 3 2.1 6.0
Observed showerhead flows were lower than rated flows due to throttling back of the
flow by the user.
The duration of showers in the above table is expressed in minutes per capita-day.
This combines information on shower length and frequency into a single variable. For
example, if a person took one ten-minute shower every other day, the shower duration per
capita-day would be five minutes.
As part of the HUD Survey, data on water usage were collected from eight groups
of 25 single-family households each. These groups were monitored for two weeks each over
a 20-month period. Approximately half of the toilets included in the study were tested for
leaks using leak detection tablets. Overall, 20 percent of the toilets tested leaked. Thus,
an estimate of 20 percent is used for the share of toilets that leak.
An estimate of water use due to a leaking toilet was made in Water Saved bv Low-
Flush Toilets and Low-Flow Showerheads. The study of leaking toilets focused on three
apartment buildings in the Washington, D.C., area with low-flush toilets that were known
to leak. An estimate of 47 gallons of water per day per leaking toilet was made in this
study.
Market Penetration
Participation by eligible customers in energy audit programs varies from less than
one percent to 10 percent in a single year, based on actual experience with audit programs.
A mean estimate of 5 percent participation per year is used for water audit programs, based
on this experience. The market penetration of this measure in a particular agency’s service
area depends on the activity of past agency programs including this measure. Past
38
occurrence of agency programs for this measure would be expected to result in a higher
current penetration of this measure.
The savings from a water audit depend on the actions taken as a result of the audit.
It is assumed that 80 percent of the audited households, originally have non-conserving
devices, will have tank displacement bags, showerhead flow restrictors, and faucet aerators
installed. Leak detection tablets will be used in 100 percent of the toilets, 20 percent of
which will leak. Leaks will be repaired in 80 percent of the cases identified. Twenty-five
percent of the households are assumed to utilize a lawn water guide to schedule lawn
watering.
Direct Cost and Lifetime
The direct cost per audit depends on the devices which will be installed. Currently,
the San Diego County Water Authority is offering a program involving residential water
audits. Consultants are hired by the Water Authority to cover the top lo-15 percent water
consumers. Interior and exterior audits are performed. The Water Authority will furnish
50 percent of the funding for this program. Almost all of the administrative costs will be
incurred by the Water Authority.
The lifetime of this program is five years. That is an average based on the length
of time each device installed is estimated to last.
For this program, a 5 percent growth rate in population is assumed. Therefore, the
number of installations will increase by 5 percent each of the ten years of the program. Again, a 5 percent market penetration is estimated, so 1,300 installations will occur the first
year. Presuming that MWD will contribute half of the cost of the program, and an estimate
of $56 per home is adopted, the cost to the District for the first year will be $36,400. The
first year’s water savings will be approximately 14,775,930 gallons, using the numbers
estimated in the Water Use and Savings and Secondary Benefits section above. As the
number of installations increases, so do the water savings. By the end of the ten-year
project, a total of 185,846,18Ogallons will have been saved. This makes this project very
cost effective in that for every dollar spent, 406 gallons of savings will be realized.
Delivery Costs
A residential audit is essentially a deliver plus install program because the main
purpose of the audit is to install retrofit conservation devices. Two examples of deliver plus
install campaigns in the residential sector were described in the 1984 HUD report:
East Bay Municipal Utility District spend $11,000 in 1982, of which 60 percent was
labor, to retrofit 175 homes with conservation measures, or $44.37 (1987 dollars).
39
North Tahoe Public Utility District retrofitted single-family homes, hotels, and
motels with conservation measures in 1976-78 at a reported cost of $25 per
installation or $43.5 1 (1987 dollars).
We estimate that for an audit, the agency representative will spend an additional half
hour discussing wise use of water. This will cost half an hour of a professional staffperson’s
time at approximately $28 per hour. Thus, the estimated cost of a residential water audit
is $56 per home. However, this cost will only by $28 per home to the District, as 50 percent
will be covered by the Water Authority.
Contra Costa Water District conducted a residential water audit program in 1988.
Actual delivery cost, including scheduling the audit and conducting field labor, but
excluding program management, was $23.00 for 2.3 hours of labor per audit at $10
per hour. At a labor rate of $25 per hour, the cost would be $55.20.
40
TURF AUDITS
Goals: Conservation
Peak reduction
Pertinent Sectors: Existing commercial/multifamily
Program Description
An irrigation audit is conducted by consultants (Mission Resource Conservation
District). This service is provided free to San Diego County Water Authority member
agencies. The program is a joint sponsorship between the San Diego County Water
Authority and the State Department of Water Resources. The consultants would perform
an on-site audit of the irrigation system and produce customized irrigation schedules for
each site, based on the procedures, software and training handbook developed by the
Department of Water Resources for the Landscape Water Management Program.
Program implementation would entail:
1. Public information program consisting of direct mail to relevant customers
informing them of the availability of the service.
2. Determine priority of sites, based on irrigated acreage and past water use.
3. Direct mail of audit program letter and commercial irrigation guides.
4. Audits performed by an agency representative which produce a customized
schedule for the building owner or landscape manager.
5. Continued support of the program by future monitoring of water use and
savings.
The objective is to provide landscape managers with information to enable them to
do timely equipment maintenance and to apply accurate irrigation amounts throughout the
year based on explicit customized reports. During the audit process, brochures describing
the causes and cures of maintenance and management problems in large turf irrigation
systems should be included with the agency’s irrigation guide.
Distribution Method
This is an information program designed to promote on-site irrigation audits by water
agency representatives to assess landscape water conservation opportunities.
Cost Analysis
Water Use and Savings
The water savings from using irrigation audits is estimated to be 20 percent for
systems with automatic controllers and 15 percent for others. This estimate is based on
41
using weather data for Contra Costa County in Northern California. This assumes an
establishment with one acre (43,560 square feet) of typical turfgrass and 4,370 square feet
of ornamental plants.
Direct Cost and Lifetime
There are no direct costs to the District for this program, as it is sponsored by the
San Diego County Water Authority, although the District pays for this program, and others
like it, indirectly by being a member of the Water Authority. For purposes of this analysis,
it is assumed that the District will have no direct costs other than approximately $3,000 for
public information.
A lifetime of 5 years is assumed for this measure. An estimated administration and
public information cost of $3,0OOeach year amounts to $30,000 of direct costs to the District
over the ten-year plan. An approximation of 20 percent savings among 25 percent of the
irrigation meters totals 53,400 gallons of water savings per year, equalling 534,000 gallons
over the life of the plan. For every dollar spent, 18 gallons of water is saved.
Market Penetration
There are no definitive studies detailing the extent of irrigation efficiency throughout
the various landscape sectors of California. This analysis defines current penetration as the
percent of facilities already irrigating near the recommended level. A low estimate of
current saturation would be 10 percent, a high estimate is 30 percent (for example, new
areas with many automatic controllers and recent drought experience). The default estimate
is 25 percent for existing facilities.
The customer acceptance rate for on-site irrigation audits is estimated between 20
percent and 80 percent of the service area adopting irrigation guidelines after contact by the
water agency auditors. The default rate is set at 50 percent for existing construction. The
removal (or “stop using”) rate is assumed to be 20 percent of those initially adopting the
measure.
Secondary Benefits
No secondary benefits of using this measure are estimated. Savings due to reduced
landscape irrigation will impact wastewater flow somewhat in that infiltration into sewer
laterals will be reduced. However, information on this type of infiltration is limited, so no
estimate is made of the sewer savingsand the development of communications to the target
market can be accomplished in a short amount of time. The benefits are clear.
42