Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-21; Municipal Water District; 802; Report on Water IssuesCARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AGENDA BILL 16 AB# 802 DATE: 04-21-15 DEPT. PW-UTIL REPORT ON WATER ISSUES DEPT. DIRECTOR' GEN. COUNSEL EXEC. DIREC RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file report on water issues, including update on State of California 2015 Emergency Water Conservation Regulation. ITEM EXPLANATION: Staff will be providing a report on water issues affectingthe City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). The issues addressed in this report include: Recycled Water Program CMWD has been implementing water use efficiency for many years, with programs such as its Recycled Water Program, and a variety of residential water conservation outreach programs. The city established its Recycled Water Program in 1991 and was delivering 2,000 Acre Foot (AF) annually by 1994. By 2008, CMWD had increased its recycled water delivery to approximately 5,000 AF annually. CMWD is in the process of expanding its system to increase delivery to approximately 7,000 AF annually, which will be close to 33 percent of the District's annual water needs. Current Water Usage (Potable and Recycled) Meter Types Rolled Up by Groups Individual Meter Types CY2014 Water Usage in Acre Feet Percent Agricultural AG, AH 237 1% Commercial C 2,914 14% Institutional In 140 1% Irrigation Ir 2,397 11% Residential D, M, Ml, S, SF 10,627 49% Temporary Potable TP 325 1% Fire Protection FP 25 0% Recycled Water RC, TR 4,845 23% Total 21,510 100% DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Wendy Chambers 760-438-2722 x7107 wendv.chambers@carlsbadca.gov FOR SECRETARY USE. BOARD ACTION: APPROVED • CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC • DENIED • CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN • CONTINUED • RETURNED TO STAFF • WITHDRAWN • OTHER - SEE MINUTES • AMENDED • REPORT RECEIVED • Report on Water Issues April 21, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Status of Desalination Water Supply Poseidon Resources and San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) provided an update on the status of the project at the March 10, 2015 City Council meeting. According to their report, the desalination plant is approximately 85 percent complete and beginning the commissioning process. It is anticipated the plant will be complete and ready to begin production water by September 2015, approximately two months ahead of schedule. The pipeline portion of the project is nearing completion. The Macario Tunnel is still under construction and the remaining portion is scheduled for completion by Summer 2015. CMWD and SDCWA are in the process of negotiating the Uniform Contract for Member Agency Purchase of Treated Water from the San Diego County Water Authouity - Carlsbad Desalination Project. In this agreement, CMWD is intending to purchase 2,500 acre feet of treated water per contract year. The terms of this agreement are being reviewed by staff and will be presented to the Board of Directors for approval when the final cost information becomes available. Recent Actions Involving Water Conservation Regulations On January 17, 2014, the Governor of the State of California issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency to exist throughout the state due to severe drought conditions. On March 10, 2014, the Acting CMWD Executive Manager implemented a Stage 1, voluntary supply management of SDCWA's Water Shortage and Drought Response Plan and declared a Drought Response Level 1, Alert, Drought Watch Condition. On April 25, 2014, the Governor proclaimed a continued State of Emergency to exist throughout the state due to the ongoing drought. On July 15, 2014, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a statewide set of emergency regulations focused on reducing the use of potable water on ornamental and turf grass landscapes. On August 19, 2014, the CMWD Board of Directors declared a Drought Response Level 2, Drought Alert Condition. On April 1, 2015, the Governor issued an Executive Order including directing the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) to impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25 percent reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016. On April 7, 2015, the Water Board released a draft regulatory framework to achieve the 25 percent reduction. The draft framework included conservation standards based on the relative per capita water usage, measured in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) in each water supplier's service area and those areas with higher per capita use must achieve proportionally greater reductions. Based Report on Water Issues April 21, 2015 Page 3 of 4 on CMWD's September 2014 usage (133.35 GPCD), this will place us in the 25 percent reduction category. CMWD and SDCWA have serious concerns about the proposed regulatory framework and will be providing these comments to the Water Board by April 13, 2015. The Water Board is tentatively scheduled to hold hearings on the proposed regulations on April 26 and 27, and adopt the regulations at the meeting on May 5 or 6, 2015. Current CMWD Water Use Restrictions The CMWD Board of Directors declared a Drought Response Level 2, Drought Alert Condition on August 19, 2014. According to this declaration, the following water conservation measures are in effect: • Comply with Drought Response Level 1 - Drought Watch water conservation practices • Irrigate residential and commercial landscape before 10 AM and after 6 PM only. • Limit residential and commercial landscape irrigation to no more than 3 assigned days per week • Limit lawn watering and irrigation using sprinklers to no more than five minutes per station • Water landscaped areas, including trees and shrubs not irrigated by landscape irrigation system on same schedule as above, using hand held device or low-volume non-spray irrigation • Repair all leaks within 72 hours • Stop operating ornamental fountain or similar decorative water features unless recirculated water is used. Other potential water conservation strategies • Increase enforcement of current water conservation requirements, impose fines • Advance Recycled Water Projects • Construct fill station(s) at CWRF or other locations to allow use of recycled water for construction projects and other uses • Implement rebate programs for install of water conservation devices such as low flow toilets, showerheads, etc... as well as rebates for removal of turf grass and replacement with drought tolerant landscaping • Initiate Water Conservation In-Lieu Fee/off-set Program for new construction projects • Adopt Drought Response Level 3 - Drought Critical Condition • Adjust Water Rates for: Residential (higher rates for Tier 2 and 3), Non-Residential, Agricultural, and Irrigation customers (Subject to legal review according to Prop 218). • Budget Based Billing • Increased Education & Outreach • Addition of new technological solutions to enhance the management of customer water usage Report on Water Issues April 21, 2015 Page 4 of 4 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the staff update. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, this action does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of CEQA in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore does not require environmental review. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: None required. EXHIBITS: 1. Letter from Carlsbad Municipal Water District to State Water Board regarding proposed regulatory framework to achieve a 25 percent statewide reduction. 2. Letter from San Diego County Water Authority regarding proposed regulatory framework to achieve a 25 percent statewide reduction. Exhibit 1 CCarlsbad '^P'"Municipal Water District state Water Board 10011 St, Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 94236 Attn: Jessica Bean Email: Jessica .Bea n#waterboa rds.ca.gov Subject: Carlsbad Municipal Water District's Comments on the Proposed Regulatory Framework to Achieve a 25 percent Statewide Reduction in Potable Urban Water Use Dear Ms. Bean, The City of Carlsbad and Its subsidiary, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, sincerely thank the State Water Board forthe opportunity to comment on the Proposed Regulatory Framework to Achieve a 25 percent Statewide Reduction in Potable Urban Water Use. Proposed Amendments. Carlsbad urges the State to consider amending Its Proposed R^ulatory Framework as follows: • Offset drought-proof potable supplies (like desalination) in the calculations of GPCD. • Utilize a 12-month running GPCD average to measure compliance, tying this average to the rainfall year (October through September). This would facilitate the use of weather data to understand regional differences jn GPCD averages. • Allow for retroactive revision of R-GPCD to make sure the baseline is established wjth the best available data and methods, particularly in the first year as ^encies improve their data colleaion and reporting skills. Comments. Carlsbad submits its comments below for consideration on the Proposed R^ulatory Framework. • By establishir^ the baseline of September 2013, the proposed framework does not provide credit for the consistent efforts to increase water use efficiency in the Carlsbad Municipal Water District service area that have been ongoing for the last two decades. • The proposed framework also overlooks investments in diversification of water supplies that are independent from the State Water project, but crucial for focal reliability and sustalnabilfty. For instance, Carlsbad supported SDCWA in the IID transfer and increased local storage projects. • The proposed framework also overiooks investments in supplies that are completely drought- proof and independent of the State Water Project, such as the Carlsbad Desalination project. Ocean desalination should be allowed to offset the GPCD estimates counting towards the 25 percent statewide reduction. • Overlooking investments tn local self-reliance is a disincentive for future Investments and is m direct conflict to the Califomia Water Action Plan. If the state overlooks these investments, it could be difTecult for local agencies to garner ratepayer support for future projects. Carisbad Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008-8802 j 760-438-2722 | 760-431-0564 f j www.carlsbadca.gov 5 Proposed R^ulatory Fraimwork April 13,2015 Page 2 of 2 • The proposed framework can have significant Impacts In the local economy. Carisbad has a diverse business community and the ranrrifications of the proposed regulatory framework could adversely impact the recovering local economy. Conservation Efforts. The City and District are committed to water conservation and understand the urgency of increased consen/ation efforts durir^ California's Emeigency Drought situation. Carisbad has made numerous efforts over the decades to consenre water. Several of these efforts are highlighted below. • Carisbad has been implementii^ water use efflciency for many years, with programs such as its recycled water program, and a variety of residential water conservation outreach programs. Carisbad established its recycled water program In 1991 and was delivering 2000AF annually by 1994. By 2008, Carlsbad had increased its recycled water delivery to approximately 5000AF annually. The Oty is in the process of expanding Its system to increase delivery to approximately 7000AF annually, which will be close to 25 percent of the District's annual water needs. Since 1991, Carlsbad's service area population has increased by approximately 35 percent while the potable water demand has remained fairiy steady. This Is largely due to Carisbad's conservation efforts, and production and use of recycled water. • Carisbad Is a member ^ency of the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and has been supportive of the SDCWA efforts and investments to reduce dependency on supplies from the sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta. These efforts and investments are significant and represent an increasingly larger percent of San Dl^o County's water supply portfolio. • Carlsbad Municipal Water District's ratepayers have supported local and regional investments for the last 25 years, understanding the fmportance of reducir^ dependency on imported water. Carlsbad is scheduled to receive 2500 AFY of drought-proof ocean desalination waterin December 2015. • Carlsbad's efforts over the years are consistent with the actions latd out by Governor Jerry Brown in the California Water Action Plan, emphasizing conservation, increasing self-reliance and preparing for dry periods. • Carisbad strives to provide a h%h level of quality water operations by inves^r^ in Advanced Metering Technolc^y that improves the efficiency of its infrastructure and also reduces water waste. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Regulatory Framework to achieve a 2S percent Statewide Reduction in Potable Urban Water Use. We look forward to reviewing the final regulatory framework. If you have any questions specific to our agency, please feel free to contact us. Wendy Qfejmbers General Manager cc: Steve sarkozy, Qty Manager Pat Thomas, Public Works Director Exhibit 2 San Diego County Water Authority 4677 Overland Avenue • San Diego, California 92123-1233 (858) 522-6600 FAX (858) 522-6568 www.sdcwa.org April 13,2015 MEMBER AGENCIES Miin-cinai Wafer District C^t^r i>t DKI Mar Cir>- oi 'Eicmdldo Cily J Natfonsti Ci'y City nl Oceorivvde Cifi d S^in Diego FHibk' Ut% DiUdc! Heii* Wate' Distffi'J lai*t?side Wcjtei Pi;trtcl My(ikipa! Watef DtilficJ Otoy Wofei Pishic! Pud.e D=i:« Camp Pfi^irilotOf^ MujifW Cofps Base Miinsfiipal Water Dbtfjc! Mun -.ipGi Water Distrid Mun ctpai Water Districl 'i-ar, Dieyuilo Watei [Jj^liicl ;;«ijih Roy lir^yntiun D^Ucct Vyiiey Center Viila Sfrigation DiitJict Miir.icifsaf Water DKttist OTHER REPRESENTATIVE ('.Oijnty of -San Dtt-go Felicia Marcus, Chair State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 Sent via email to: jessica.bean@waterboards.ca.gov Dear Chair Marcus, With Califomia experiencing a fourth consecudve year of drought and the possibility that it could continue into 2016 and beyond, the San Diego County Water Authority supports the Governor's call for increased water conservation and has called upon residents across the region to significandy increase their conservation efforts. The Water Authority does have serious concerns regarding the State Water Board's proposed regulatory htunework to achieve the additional conservation savings. The proposed fhunework would deter development of future local water supplies, unnecessarily threaten state and regional economies and doesn't take into account the climatic variable found in California. This comment letter provides recommendations on how the State Water Board can address these issues and achieve the increased savings called for in the Governor's April 1,2015 Executive Order. The recommendations we provide are based on the Water Authority's leadership and experience in preparing and planning for water shortages due to drought. Through our 2006 Water Shortage and Drought Response Plan, we have established a comprehensive and orderly approach to managing droughts that reduces the impacts of supply shortages to our region. During shortages, the plan also includes a fair and equitable means to allocate available supplies to our member agencies. The Water Authority worked closely witii its member agencies in 2008 to also develop a model drought response ordinance to provide consistent drought response actions throughout the region. The water-use restrictions in the model focus on reducing discretionary water use to avoid economic impacts and protect health and safety. All of our 24 member agencies have updated their ordinances based on the model and enacted them in a unified manner consistent with the State Water Board's existing emergency regulations. The Water Authority's model ordinance is included in the Governor's Office of Planning and Research March 2014 drought toolkit as a model to be used by agencies throughout the state. The Water Authority and its member agencies have also long supported water conservation as a foundational action to improve supply reliability for the San Diego region. Since 1991, die Water Authority's water use efficiency programs and initiatives cumulatively have conserved more than 930,000 acre-feet of water. These savings have been achieved through measures ranging from incentives on water-efficient devices, to legislative efforts, to outreach campaigns and programs. The San Diego residents and businesses have responded to these efforts, with potable per capita water use in San Diego County having declined 31 percent since 1990 and 24 percent from 2007. The region has already met the state's 2009 mandate to reduce per capita water use 20 percent by 2020. A public agency providing a safe and reliable water supply to the San Diego region Felicia Marcus, Chair April 13, 2015 Page 2 Below are our key concerns regarding the proposed regulatory framework with Attachment A containing our recommendations for the draft emergency regulations. Key Concerns: 1. The proposed framework is contrary to State policy to reduce dependence on the Bay Deha by discouraging investment in local water supplies. The Governor's Califomia Water Action Plan encourages agencies to increase self-reliance, manage and prepare for dry periods and reduce dependence on the Bay-Delta. Following the drought of the 1990s and continuing today, the San Diego Region has been investing to diversify our water supply and reduce dependence on imported supplies from the Metropolitan Water District. This has been done at a substantial cost through a historic water conservation and transfer agreement for independent Colorado River supplies and constmction of the Carlsbad Desalination Project. The diversification strategy has received strong support from the public and our business community on the basis that it would reduce impacts to customers during water shortages and drought periods. The $1 billion Carlsbad Desalination Project is the largest in the westem hemisphere, will produce up to 56,000 acre-feet of water annually when it begins production in fall 2015 and is funded by local ratepayers. Water suppliers in the region will continue to ask ratepayers to support drought proof supplies, such as potable reuse or desalination, and need to explain the benefits of local supply reliability. State action to eliminate those benefits creates an impediment to development of drought proof supplies when customers must reduce water even though the supplies they invested in may be available. 2. The proposed framework fails to consider the economic impacts of targeting the commercial, institutional and industrial ("GIF) sector. California's $2 trillion economy cannot survive without a reliable water supply for its business and industry. A water supply cut of 25 percent across the board to Californian's commercial and industrial customers would have a devastating impact on the State's economy. Many, if not a majority, of Califomia businesses have already increased efficiency in their processes and save water. Further cuts to these customers will gravely impact their ability to provide services and products, and may encourage them to leave the State. The Governor's Executive Order requires CIl properties, such as campuses, golf courses and cemeteries, to reduce water use by 25%. While the Governor appears to be focused on discretionary outdoor use in the CII sector, the State Board is focused on reducing aU CII use, which would include process water and other essential water use necessary to support business in this State. Manufacturing, the largest contributor to San Diego County's $206 billion economy, will be seriously harmed by these proposed reductions. 3. The proposed framework will have a devastating impact on agricultural production in areas served by urban water suppliers, which have already suffered significant reductions. The Govemor has publicly stated that the current mandatory reduction program is not aimed at Califomia agriculture. In 2013, San Diego County had the most small farms, and was the 19th largest agricultural economy of any county in the United States, with a value totaling $1.9 billion. San Diego County produces the highest dollar value per acre crop of any county in California. Some of these farms may be served by residential meters, driving up the residential per capita use numbers. Under the proposed framework, these micro-farms would be restricted just like Felicia Marcus, Chair April 13, 2015 Page 3 residential ornamental landscape. Since 2007, agricultural deliveries have fallen 50% in San Diego County because farmers have been hit hard by the economic recession and drought. Including San Diego County agricultural in the mandated 25% reduction in potable urban water use is inconsistent with the Governor's Executive Order and ignores the fact that agriculture is a major economic driver in our region. If left unchanged, local agriculture would be devastated under the proposed framework. 4. The proposed framework incorrectly assumes that higher per capita water use is always due to inefficient and inappropriate water use and fails to consider climate and weather. Water use is significantly impacted by weather, economy and local land uses. Under the tiered water reduction approach, coastal communities with naturally lower water use are being rewarded, while inland rural communities are being penalized. In addition to inappropriately penalizing inland communities, the proposed framework fails to consider average differences in temperature and rainfall, local land uses, such as agriculture, residential ownership of livestock and other urban and rural land uses. The proposed regulation requires one third of the State's water suppliers to require their customers to reduce water use by 35%. This is inappropriately based on a single month of use in September 2014. Although weather is the largest short-term driver of water use during a single month, the proposed criteria fails to consider this when determining compliance. As it is currently written, the approach taken in the proposed mandatory conservation framework creates policy that does not promote safe, sustainable and integrated water management. During these times of critical water supply shortages, the State Water Board's actions will have a significant impact on future water supply reliability. Similar to our model drought response ordinance, we recommend that the framework focus on reducing discretionary water use in order to preserve water to protect public health and safety, and to support the $2 trillion Califomia economy. With the rapid time frame for developing criteria, we appreciate that State Board releasing a conceptual regulatory framework to the public for comment before drafting actual regulations. Attachment A includes the Water Authority's specific recommendations for changes to the Mandatory Conservation Framework. We hope these recommendations will help guide the State Board's development of emergency regulations that can preserve the State's water supply, encourage local water supply development, and be reasonably implementable by water suppliers. Sincerely, Maureen A. Stapleton General Manager Attachment A cc: State Water Resources Control Board Members A Son CMeep County Attachment A San Diego County Water Authority's Recommendations for Changes to the Mandatory Conservation Framework A. Include Development of Drought-Proof Supplies as a Means for Agencies to Demonstrate Compliance. • One of the ultimate goals in managing California's drought is to decrease reliance on Bay-Delta supplies severely impacted by four consecutive dry years. Reducing an agency's demand on these supplies can be accomplished in two ways: (1) conservation savings; and (2) development of local drought proof supplies. The Governor's Executive Order highlights the Importance of developing local water supply projects by requiring state agencies to prioritize permitting of water infrastructure projects and programs that increase local supplies. • Increasing regional self-reliance through the development of local supplies Is a key action included in the Governor's California Water Action Plan to ensure water security at the local level. • The proposed regulatory framework must take into account investments being made in local drought-proof supplies; otherwise agencies will have no incentive to continue developing these supplies. Recommendation: The emergency regulations should exclude from the June 2015 through February 2016 monthly water production reporting any local or regional drought-proof supplies, such as desalination or potable reuse projects that begin production after 2013. Communities should be able to reach their identified tier cutback target through any combination of demand reduction or demand displacement through creation of new drought-proof supplies. B. Focus reductions in the Commercial. Industrial and Institutional (CII) sectors on discretionarv landscape uses, not CII uses needed to support the economy. Encourage State leadership in institutional sector. • The Governor's Executive Order asked for a 25% reduction in CII uses, such as campuses, golf courses, and cemeteries. The Executive Order is focused on discretionary uses and not critical uses, such as process water, required to support economic output. Attachment A April 13, 2015 Page 2 • The proposed regulatory framework targets CII water uses that are critical to maintaining the livelihood of businesses and our economy. If implemented as regulations, the framework could hamper economic recovery in San Diego and statewide. • Most institutions, such as state universities, community colleges, schools, and prisons are State funded, putting the State in a better position than local agencies to encourage or mandate conservation activities. ffecommendot/ons; (1) The CII water use reductions goals should be focused on discretionary outdoor irrigation use as measured by dedicated landscape meters and reported to the State. Other reporting of CII water use should not be mandated. (2) The State should take a leadership role on obtaining compliance for reductions for institutional customers subject to State funding. C. Exempt All Agricultural Deliveries from Mandatorv 25% Reduction in Urban Water Use. The Governor's Executive Order clearly excludes agricultural water usage from the directive requiring a 25% statewide reduction in potable urban water use. San Diego County has a $1.9 billion agriculture economy and is the 19* largest agricultural county in the United States. "Urban water suppliers" within San Diego's North County provide the water necessary to sustain this agricultural production. There are urban water suppliers and small water suppliers within the county whose agricultural demands account for the majority of their water deliveries. In San Diego County, supply shortages from Metropolitan Water District will occur in 2015 and agricultural customers will experience supply cutbacks equal to or greater than municipal and industrial customers. Under the proposed framework, San Diego County farmers supplied by urban water agencies would experience economic hardship greater than other farms in California. Recommendations: (1) The emergency regulations must clearly exempt California agriculture across the state from the mandated 25% statewide reduction in urban water use. (2) Urban water suppliers that exclude their agricultural deliveries must have adopted 2010 urban water management plans that identify their agricultural demands and contain a water shortage contingency plan. Attachment A April 13, 2015 Page 3 D. Agencies should be provided adequate time to enforce water use reduction and enforcement penalties should consider agencies' compliance efforts; penalties should be used to support local drought response. • Water suppliers understand the seriousness of the drought and the important and urgent need to reduce demands. • Water suppliers need to have time to educate customers on the water reduction requirements and provide customers with due process. • A phased-in approach to reaching the goals will be most effective to create both short-term and permanent long-term water use reductions • Compliance determinations should be based on results of actions taken by water suppliers and their customers, not short-term fluctuations based on weather. • An industry-accepted scientific approach to model monthly weather normalization has already been developed by Department of Water Resources and could be used by the State Board. • Water supplier penalties should be reduced if they are aggressively pursuing actions to comply with the goals. Recommendations: The emergency regulations should contain the following approach regarding assessing compliance and enforcement: (1) Reaching the conservation standard should be progressive in the following 90 day increments: Time frame Average water use reduction(a) First 90 days 15% (if applicable) Second 90 days 25% (if applicable) Third 90 days 35% (if applicable) (a) Average of monthly weather normalized data during 90 day period, as compared to average of monthly 2013 water use data during same time period. (2) The water suppliers should report monthly on water use, and the actions and approach they are taking to reduce water use. (3) If an agency is not meeting their targets as described in the above table, water suppliers should be ordered to prepare a "corrective action plan" identifying measures to be implemented to come into compliance. (4) Failure to achieve required water use reductions should be finally determined only at the end of the 270-day duration of the emergency regulation and water production data should be weather-normalized to accurately reflect water reductions obtained through a water supplier's actions to require conservation and their customer response. (5) Penalties should be reduced on a sliding scale based on amount conserved. This will encourage all agencies to take immediate action toward achieving their goals. Attachment A April 13, 2015 Page 4 (6) Any penalties collected for violations should be allowed to remain with the local or regional agency where the violation occurred for use in local conservation programs or development of local drought proof water supplies. E. The State Board should not use a single month to determine an agency's conservation standard. • The Governor's Executive Order established a baseline year of 2013. • Utilizing September 2014 residential per capita water use to establish an agency's conservation standard is not an accurate measure of an agency's overall water usage and unfairly targets areas of the state with warmer climates. • Agencies will be measured over the course of nine months, so therefore an average per capita water use would be more appropriate for determining their conservation target. Recommendation: Instead of a single month, the emergency regulations should use a 12-month average of water use during the baseline year of 2013, to establish the rankings for the required percent reduction of per capita use for each water agency. 1 Carlsbad Municipal Water District April 21, 2015 Update on State of California 2015 Emergency Water Conservation Regulations (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) Presentation by: Dana Friehauf, Water Resources Manager April 1, 2015 Manual Snow Survey 2 Northern Sierra Snowpack (As of April 1, 2015) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Normal 2014-2015Water Content (in)5% of Normal Snowpack's Water Content at Record Low 3 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015*2016 173% 53%60%65% 91% 146% 62%59% 35%40% Average Water Year Statewide Runoff Percent of Average (Water Year: Oct 1 –Sept 30) *DWR Apr. 1, 2015 Forecast for Water Year 4th Consecutive Dry-Year 2012-2015 ? 4 Water Authority Drought Response Orderly and Coordinated Approach to Managing Droughts 2006 Water Shortage and Drought Response Plan Regional actions taken to lessen severity of shortage conditions in San Diego region Includes allocation methodology Activated February 2014 2008 Model Drought Response Ordinance Levels with corresponding water-use restrictions Consistent region-wide response Declared Drought Alert Level in July 2014 5 Current Activities Influencing Potential Drought Response Actions in 2015/2016 Supply availability from MWD MWD allocation based on Level 3, 15% cutback July 1, 2015 –June 30, 2016 allocation period Demand reductions required statewide Governor's April 1 Executive Order: 25% water savings mandate SWRCB emergency conservation regulations Establishes individual reduction targets for each member agency 6 Governor Executive Order State Water Board Directives Adopt restrictions requiring 25% reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016 Impose restrictions requiring commercial, industrial and institutional sectors to reduce usage by 25% Prohibit irrigation of ornamental turf on public street medians with potable water Prohibit irrigation with potable water in new construction that is not delivered by drip or microspray systems 7 Agencies assigned urban savings target of 4% to 36% Assigned based on July –Sept 2014 residential per capita Reduce total potable urban usage as compared to 2013 Doesn’t include development of drought-proof supplies as means to achieve compliance along with conservation Urban water suppliers can exempt commercial agricultural deliveries Urban agency serves 20% or more commercial agricultural Drought management plan and quantification of supplies State Water Board Mandatory Conservation Draft Emergency Regulation 8 32% 20% 36% 20% 24% 20% 36% 16% 28% 32% 36% 28% 32% 16% 28% 36% 12% 24% 36% 24% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% SWRCB Proposed Conservation Standards Draft Drought Emergency Conservation Regulation *Conservation standard currently under review 9 Agencies required to report monthly total potable urban usage Compared to same month in 2013 Commercial, industrial, institutional usage included in monthly total and reported separately State Water Board Mandatory Conservation Draft Emergency Regulation (Continued) Compliance measured monthly beginning June 2015, but assessed on cumulative basis If not in compliance, SWRCB may issue conservation order Include additional actions to come into compliance 10 State Water Board Draft Emergency Regulation Primary Concerns and Recommendation Must take into account investments in new drought-proof supplies Ratepayers are not receiving supply benefit from local investment Gaining support from ratepayers for future projects will be a challenge Investments consistent with Governor's Water Action Plan for California Increase regional self-reliance through local supply development 11 Drought Management Actions Tentative Schedule Date Action April 14 MWD Board approved Level 3, 15% MWD supply cutback April 18 SWRCB Draft regulations released for comment April 22 Deadline for comments on draft regulations April 28 SWRCB emergency rulemaking formal notice May 5-6 SWRCB hearing and adoption May 14 Water Authority Special Board meeting June 1 Mandatory conservation regulation takes effect July 1 MWD allocation period begins 12 Questions? Dana Friehauf Water Resources Manager Phone: (858) 522-6749 dfriehauf@sdcwa.org Report on Water Issues and State of California 2015 Emergency Water Conservation Regulation City Council Meeting April 21, 2015 Pat Thomas Public Works Director April 1, 2015 Manual Snow Survey (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) Agenda •Presentation by the San Diego County Water Authority •Recycled Water Program •Current Water Usage •Current Water Restrictions •Potential Conservation Strategies •Managing Water Waste 2 Recycled Water •758 metered connections in system •Where possible recycled water is used for construction grading •Phase III Recycled Water Project will add 18 miles of pipeline and 156 new connections 3 4 Current Water Usage •Our robust recycled program accounts for 23% of our water supply portfolio •Desal -winter 2015 5 Current Water Use Restrictions 6 •Irrigate between 6 p.m. and 10 a.m., no more than 5 minutes per station, 3-days per week •Repair all leaks within 72 hours •Turn off fountains unless recirculated water is used •Wash vehicles with a bucket and hose equipped with a shut-off nozzle •Wash down paved surfaces only when necessary for safety or sanitation Conservation Strategies •Two-day per week watering •Increase Education & Outreach •Management through implementation of technology –“App” •Rebates programs •Adopt “Drought Critical” condition •Adjust water rates •Increased enforcement, implement fines Managing Water Waste Violations 1.Verbal Notice 2.Written Notice 3.$100 Fine 4.$200 Fine 5.$500 Fine Questions? 9