|
WATER
DEMAND COMMITTEE |
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
ITEM: |
ACTION
ITEMS |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
2. |
REVIEW DRAFT CONTINGENCY
PLAN TO IMPLEMENT STAGES 4 THROUGH 7 OF THE EXPANDED CONSERVATION AND STANDBY
RATIONING PLAN IN CASE OF DROUGHT |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Meeting Date: |
September 18, 2007 |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||
|
From: |
David A. Berger, |
|
|
||
|
|
General Manager |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Prepared By: |
|
|
|||
SUMMARY: The Water Demand Committee discussed the draft Implementation Plan for Stages 4-7 of the Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan at its September 11, 2007 meeting. At that meeting, the committee reviewed the plan, provided input, and asked staff to make revisions and obtain additional information for consideration at this meeting. Details of the committees actions are shown in Item 1, Minutes of the September 11, 2007 Water Demand Committee meeting.
Attached as Exhibit 2-A is a revised draft of the Implementation Plan for Stages 4 through 7 of the Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan (i.e. MPWMD Regulation XV). Exhibits to the Implementation Plan were provided in the September 11, 2007 Water Demand Committee packet and are not attached. A preliminary timeline for implementing pre-rationing actions (shown on page 3 of the plan) will be provided at the September 18 meeting.
DISCUSSION: Staff
has restructured the Implementation Plan to pull out the decisions that must be
made prior to implementation. These
policy matters are discussed below and include (in bold) the input of
the Water Demand Committee (WDC) on September 11, 2007.
1.
Board
Policy Questions related to Personnel
A.
The Board should consider the organizational structure. As proposed, the Water Demand Manager leads
the rationing program through a newly-created Rationing Program Administrator
and subordinate staff positions.
WDC agrees with the organizational structure proposed.
B. The Board should consider fringe benefits to be received by rationing staff as recommended by the District’s Human Resources Specialist.
WDC prefers that rationing staff not be hired as contract employees. They should be considered temporary employees that receive fringe benefits. Their job classifications would be outlined in an MOU negotiated with the employees’ union and subject to the District’s reduction in force policy.
C. The Board should consider the efficiency of temporarily relocating the Water Demand Division to the same building/space as the rationing program vs. two distinct locations utilizing shared files, or authorize a massive electronic filing effort prior to rationing.
WDC prefers that rationing and Water Demand Division staff work together in the current District office. WDC suggested that field staff assigned work space in the MPWMD office move to another location such as the Carmel Valley field office, to make room for temporary rationing personnel. The conference room might also be used as office space and Board/committee meetings could be conducted at the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency.
Since the September 11, 2007 meeting, staff has reviewed the existing office layout to identify how the current space could be utilized to house rationing staff. As part of this effort, staff did not consider using the existing conference room, as this space is used for staff, Board and committee meetings, and for meetings with other agencies, permit applicants and others. The loss of a meeting space would impact staff’s ability to comply with the District’s mission. The existing building could accommodate the proposed rationing staff, but there would be an impact on existing staffing and services, as well as costs to renovate the spaces for this purpose that have not been considered. Alterations to the existing District building would result in the following spaces for rationing personnel:
1. Convert the existing first floor garage to office space for eight employees.
2. Relocate the office specialists to the second floor, relocate the copy and supply rooms, remove a wall between the supply room and the copy room, and remove a wall between the reception area and the copy room. This would create office space for six employees on the first floor. Reception duties for the District would then fall entirely on the Water Demand Division.
3. Rearrange three workstations on the second floor in the Planning and Engineering Division area. The employees that use these workstations (generally field staff) would have to work at the field office full time. This would create office space for three employees on the second floor.
4. Relocate fisheries staff and the hydrographer to a temporarily-leased field office. This would free up office space for four employees on the second floor.
Staff recommends that the Water Demand Division temporarily be relocated to another office space for the duration of the rationing program. This would ensure that there is continuity in the implementation of the rationing program and integration of the files for both programs.
1.
Board
Policy Questions related to Policy Changes
A. Moratorium timing. The Board should consider adoption of some flexibility to the October 1 Stage 5 and Stage 6 moratorium implementation dates when necessary to reduce future water demand at dates other than the May Board meeting. No noticeable reduction in construction will occur for some time after a moratorium is initiated. Therefore, the effect of this action is minimal unless rationing is prolonged, although instituting a moratorium provides a message to the community that the water shortage is serious.
If
the Board were to implement a moratorium on issuance of water permits, a
four-month period should elapse before the moratorium would be in effect.
B. CAW’s unaccounted for water use above seven percent is considered “Non-essential water use.” CAW is in the process of having a professional evaluation of its system to identify where the unaccounted for water may be, but that report is not expected to be completed before early 2008. In Stage 5, CAW is subject to a water waste citation for non-essential water use for continuing to exceed the seven percent threshold. Suspension of a water waste violation may be prudent pending completion of the second phase and development of conclusions from the system-wide audit. The Board may want to calendar a report on the system audit and schedule a time/date for action on modifying the unaccounted for water target as an assurance that CAW will complete its audit in a timely manner. Without action resulting from the audit by a predetermined date, CAW would be subject to water waste fees.
The
CAW unaccounted for water use goal of seven percent should not be modified at
this time. When the results of CAW’s
study on its unaccounted for water use are available, the Board could consider
modifying the goal.
C. The CAW and non-CAW resource limits (i.e. production limits) described in Rule 32 (Exhibit 3) are used as the basis for calculating the water available to meet the percentage reduction in Stages 5-7 for distribution systems located within the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System (MPWRS). The current production limits do not reflect either SWRCB Order No. 95-10 or the Seaside Ground Water Adjudication decision. The Board should consider decreasing CAW’s production limit (codified in Rule 32) from the MPWRS to reflect these resource limitations. Reducing the production limit would increase the water savings the community would have to achieve to stay within the rations.
The
WDC agreed that the production limits should be adjusted to reflect the current
limits, including SWRCB Order No. 95-10 and the
D. Similarly, production limits for non CAW users subject to the Seaside Basin Adjudication decision (i.e. Bishop, Ryan Ranch, Hidden Hills and Seaside Municipal) should be considered for adjustment based on the court’s ruling. Other water distribution systems within the constricted areas should also be included in any production limit adjustments. As with the MPWRS, a reduction in the production limit would increase the level of effort the community would be required to undertake to stay within the rations.
SEE PREVIOUS POLICY QUESTION
E. The Board should consider directing staff to establish production limits for all water distribution systems subject to rationing.
a. Prioritize production limit review to higher use systems.
b. Assign staff to review uses and assign production limits on systems that have no production limit.
c. Use actual use as the base for a specified time period. This is problematic in that it benefits water users that don’t conserve.
F. Include CAW Laguna Seca sub-systems (i.e., Bishop, Hidden Hills and Ryan Ranch) in rationing of the main CAW system due to the Seaside Adjudication decision. The Board has already directed that this action be considered as a separate strategic objective.
G. Add emergency excess use rate to CAW sub-systems (i.e., Bishop, Hidden Hills and Ryan Ranch) effective upon implementation of Stage 5. CAW has given a preliminary indication that they support this action and has recommended that the District is the appropriate party to file a special application with the CPUC. Without CPUC action to authorize excess use rates for rationing purposes, excess use rates cannot be implemented during Stage 4 and above.
The
WDC supported emergency rates for Stages 4-7.
Action by the District and CAW will be required to bring about CPUC
approval.
H. Consider grouping multiple meters that service one user together. The grouped meters would be assigned a single ration.
I. Approve a list of Best Management Practices for various non-residential uses. Staff is in the process of developing a list of BMPs for discussion at the November WDC meeting.
J. Approve administrative guidelines for Water Rationing Variances (Rule 169) developed in consultation with Water Demand Committee and approved by the Board. Rationing variances are considered for things such as livestock drinking water and emergency, extreme or unusual circumstances. Guidelines need to be developed to provide direction to staff on when and how to grant these variances and for what quantities of water. The guidelines should also address when variance requests should be reviewed by the Board or Water Demand Committee. Staff is in the process of developing administrative guidelines for consideration by the WDC in November.
K. The District and CAW entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement in June 2000 to protect the ratepayers from public disclosure of their water use (Exhibit 4). The agreement takes the place of a formal proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission to obtain access to customer records for specific purposes. The rationale for the agreement was to facilitate District access to confidential customer consumption information for two purposes: (1) to analyze the past efficacy of its water transfer programs and (b) to enable the District to enforce its Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan (Regulation XV). However, the agreement falls short in that it allows access to consumption information for specific CAW customers subject to enforcement procedures under Regulation XV or other investigations identified by the District’s General Manager, rather than allowing MPWMD staff complete access to all unspecified customer consumption data as is required to implement Stage 5 rationing. The Board should direct staff to amend the agreement with CAW.
L. The WDC recommended that a moratorium on construction meters occur in Stage 6 and above.
RECOMMENDATION: The Water Demand Committee should continue discussion of the Implementation Plan and provide comments to staff for inclusion in the draft report for consideration by the Board.
BACKGROUND:
Personnel
The need for additional operational support during Stages 4-7 is apparent based on the District’s experience with rationing in the past. During the last rationing program in 1989-91, the highest Phase III rationing (20%) required a full-time staff of 14 to administer. Public criticism early in the program led to an increase in staff that eventually included a manager, a Supervising Conservation Representative, seven Conservation Representatives, a Hearing Coordinator, an Office Specialist, a Clerical Assistant, an Applications Programmer and a Data Management Assistant. Even with this level of staffing, field work (e.g., inspections and water waste investigations) was basically non-existent and hearings were delayed.
Based on this last experience, the District should assume for planning purposes that rationing at Stages 4-7 could last for a period of 3 years. The District must also realize that the success of a rationing program is based on the ability of the staff to carry out their mission without the strain of inadequate staffing. It was apparent after the last rationing program that quality staff, capable of handling the workload, is a critical component of the program. This is achieved by providing sufficient compensation for the level of work, and by providing adequate training, supervision, workspace and equipment. It is also imperative that this staff work side-by-side with the existing Water Demand Division staff to facilitate record sharing and cohesion of the program objectives.
The Expanded Water Conservation and Standby Rationing Plan (Regulation XV) was adopted in 1998 and its rationing Stages 4-7 have not been implemented to date. For this reason, the exact level of service that will be required to successfully fulfill the operational needs of the program are unidentified. However, using the lessons learned from the last rationing period, the staffing for Stages 5-7 must include at a minimum:
Recommended
Supervisory Staff
1) Water Rationing Administrator reporting to the Water Demand Manager
2)
Senior Rationing Specialist reporting to the Water
Rationing Administrator
These positions would be filled competitively. Both internal and external candidates would be considered for both positions. If a current Water Demand staff member was selected for either position, they would be given a temporary promotion and allowed to return to their former position upon the end of rationing work.
Recommended Non-supervisory Staff
1) Two or more Water Rationing Specialists to handle each of the following areas:
a. Hearing coordination/preparation
b. Research
c. Conservation/Inspections
d. Public communications
1) Two or more Water Rationing Technicians (data managers)
2) Two Office Specialists
The lack of benefits was a demoralizing factor in the District’s rationing history. Staff was hired as “contract employees” with no benefits. There was substantial turnover and rationing staff protest regarding legal benefit entitlement. After review, it was also concluded that PERS retirement coverage and health insurance benefits were required under California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS) for all full-time employees hired on appointments for over 1,000 hours in a fiscal year. In addition CALPERS Health Insurance regulations required coverage for employees who worked full time on appointments over 6 months.
In light of this history, and the likelihood that staff hired would have tenures of 1-3 years, it is recommended that rationing staff be brought on as regular staff, with the appropriate benefit package. The functions of the individuals occupying these new positions would be similar to some of those performed by the Conservation Technician and Conservation Representatives in the Water Demand Division. However, the scope of duties would be largely confined to the implementation and enforcement of water rationing ordinances, with a much more narrow scope and shorter learning curve. Because of this narrow scope of function, it is recommended the majority of positions be placed in newly created Water Rationing job classifications, set at a lower place on the District salary chart. The exception would be the clerical support staff, whose general office would make placement in the District’s current Office Specialist classification appropriate.
Water rationing positions would be subject to the provisions of the Memorandums of Understanding with LIUNA UPEC Local 270, regarding Reduction in Force, when they were no longer needed. These provisions specify that employees are placed on a layoff list within their job classification. Therefore, eventual elimination of the rationing staff would not effect any classifications currently in use at the District, with the exception of Office Specialist. In that case, the last hired regular full-time Office Specialist would be the first laid off.
Space Planning
Option 3: Use of Existing District office space:
The existing
District office facility does not have space available to accommodate a
rationing office. Off-site space will be
needed, preferably within the
Access to the property files in the Water Demand Division is essential to successful implementation of the rationing program. These files are not currently in digital form, although electronic files are a goal of the Water Demand Division Database Project. The need to retrieve hard files from the Water Demand Division is a dilemma. To accommodate this need, the following options are offered:
1. A dedicated rationing office staff-member could work in the Water Demand Division with the sole duty of retrieving, scanning and emailing property files as needed in the rationing office. This staff member would also ensure that all paperwork generated in the rationing office is filed in the Water Demand Division files;
2. A concentrated effort could be made to scan and electronically file the Water Demand Division’s property files. This effort will be undertaken as part of the database project, although the specific parameters of the electronic filing system are not known at this time. It is anticipated that the database project will be under contract by December 2007, at which time this option could be pursued with direction from the programmer.
3. The Water Demand Division could be temporarily relocated to the site where the rationing office is located, allowing for continuity between the two programs. However, this would result in vacant space at the District’s main office for the duration of the rationing program.
Data Management
Two public criticisms of the previous 1989-91 rationing had to do with inadequate computer hardware and programming staff turnover. The information system utilized by the Rationing Office in 1989-91 was designed to monitor the consumption of the District’s water users, match it against their ration derived from their base year history, census, optional baseline or variance allocation, and generate letters for those accounts exceeding their ration. It also provided a record of water usage, excess usage, variances, hearing panel decisions, and surcharges for each account. At one time, the information system included 57 different databases; these were eventually reduced to six.
The rationing databases were DOS-based Foxbase+ databases. The main rationing database used daily CAW dumps of consumption data. During the 28 months of rationing, the office employed five different computer programmers. This rapid turnover led to disorganization and confusion. During the last nine months of rationing, information management improved considerably when a programmer was hired who stayed through the conclusion of rationing.
The former Foxbase+ system could be dusted off and used in the event that rationing is required before a modern web-based system could be completed. The former DOS-based system does not provide the web-based applications that will enable rationing staff to respond to customers in a judicious manner and to which the public is accustomed to. The old database would require modifications to adjust to changes CAW made in its data system in 2001 if it were required as an interim system during development of a web-based system. The old system would also require regular oversight from the District’s Information Technology Manager. There would be significant impacts related to shifting the IT Manager’s workload to accommodate the rationing database. These impacts and costs are not quantified at this time. The cost of developing a modern web-based system is preliminarily estimated at $100,000.
As a final point, access to the Water Demand Division database(s) is essential to successfully managing rationing data. In 2007, there are three databases used to record property information related to conservation: Permits, Conservation (i.e. change of ownership/use) and Rebates. The terminals used by rationing staff must have access to these databases to avoid conflicts between the rationing and conservation/permit programs.
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed implementation plan is estimated to have a one-time cost of approximately $263,300 initially. Ongoing annual costs are estimated at approximately $1.55 million per year for the length of the program. According to CAW’s rates manager, costs associated with the Implementation Plan are approved for reimbursement by CAW to the District via a memorandum account approved by the CPUC in 2003.
EXHIBITS
2-A Preliminary Draft Implementation Plan
U:\staff\word\committees\waterdemand\2007\20070918\02\item2.doc