|
WATER
DEMAND COMMITTEE |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
ITEM: |
ACTION
ITEMS |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
3. |
DEVELOP RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD REGARDING FIRST |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
Meeting
Date: |
October 1, 2009 |
Budgeted: |
N/A |
||
|
|
|||||
|
From: |
|
Program/ |
|
||
|
|
General
Manager |
Line Item No.: |
N/A |
||
|
|
|||||
|
Prepared
By: |
|
Cost
Estimate: |
N/A |
||
|
|
|||||
General Counsel Review: Counsel has reviewed the ordinance |
|||||
Committee Recommendation: |
|||||
|
CEQA Compliance: This ordinance is exempt as it is not a
Project under CEQA. |
|||||
SUMMARY: The Board referred a final review of the proposed Conservation Regulation revision (Regulation XIV) to the Water Demand Committee and to the Policy Advisory Committee/Technical Advisory Committee (PAC/TAC). A copy of the draft ordinance is attached as Exhibit 3-A. The Water Demand Committee has reviewed the proposed revisions several times over the past year. At issue is the effect the revisions have on the availability of Water Credits, particularly as water from Jurisdiction’s allocations are expended, the regulatory restrictions continue/increase and no new water supply is anticipated in the near-term that would loosen the current limitations.
Without water from a Jurisdiction’s
allocation, Water Use Credits and On-Site Water Credits (Rule 25.5) are
essentially the only means to add water fixtures in a home or to expand the
square-footage or use in a Non-Residential use.
Residential credit is based on the Fixture Unit value and a specific
list of water fixtures available for credit and their value is listed in Table
4: Ultra-Low Consumption Appliance Credits.
Non-Residential credit must be documented through a more rigorous
procedure outlined in Rule 25.5-F-4-d.
Both practices are based on quantified and permanent demand reductions that
can be used to offset any intensification caused by the remodel. Because of limitations in data available to
the District, the long-term accuracy of these savings assumptions is not
available. Savings could be greater (or
less) than expected.
The specific issue of how water credits will be impacted by increased conservation requirements was discussed at the April 13, 2009 Water Demand Committee meeting when the committee referred the credit discussion back to the Board. The Board discussed the issue at its July 20, 2009 meeting and referred it to the PAC/TAC. PAC/TAC asked for delay in consideration of the ordinance to allow for more public input.
Rule 25.5-B disallows Water Use
Credits for water savings resulting from mandatory District
programs, including water savings resulting from the fixtures/appliances
required by the District’s New Construction, Remodel/Addition, Change of
Ownership and Change of Use retrofit requirements. Rule 25.5-B is quoted below:
“Water savings resulting from mandatory
District programs, including water savings resulting from the installation of
Low Water Use Plumbing Fixtures Mandated by the District, shall not result in a
Water Use Credit. Such savings shall be set aside as permanent water
conservation savings essential to the District’s 15 percent conservation goal
approved by the Board in March 1984.”
It
should be noted that the District and California American Water received
funding of around $3 million in 2009 to reduce water use over the next three
years. The programs that will be enacted
using this PUC-approved funding will not result in a “credit” that can be used
to expand use. The District’s
endorsement of on-site credits discourages participation in significant
projects that will contribute to community water savings, thereby reducing the
area’s dependence on unlawful water supplies and enabling the area to manage
with less water.
In consideration of Ordinance No. 125 in September 2006, there was discussion about the appropriateness of allowing savings to be reused. During review of the ordinance with respect to the Superior Court decision in SOCR v. MPWMD (H029242), legal counsel identified several areas of the proposed ordinance that could be vulnerable to challenge during the adoption process. A legal opinion was submitted on July 7, 2006 by District Associate Counsel that indicated that the proposed modifications to Rule 25.5 did not conflict with the court’s determination. However, a confidential follow-up memo was distributed to the Board on July 11, 2006, with a second follow-up memo on July 11, 2006. The July 11, 2006 memo suggested that further review of Rule 25.5 should be conducted. It was further discussed in a memorandum to staff dated August 1, 2006. At that time, staff took the position that water savings beyond the retrofits required by Regulation XIV could be reused.
To ensure achievement of conservation savings, two additions were made to Rule 25.5 by Ordinance No. 125. First, new language was added to Rule 25.5-B, “Water savings resulting from mandatory District programs, including water savings resulting from the installation of Low Water Use Plumbing Fixtures Mandated by the District, shall not result in a Water Use Credit. Such savings shall be set aside as permanent water conservation savings essential to the District’s 15 percent conservation goal approved by the Board in March 1984.” Second, the ordinance was amended to include a provision that when actual water consumption records are used to assess a Water Use Credit (in the case of non-residential retrofits), and when the project applicant cannot demonstrate that the credit site has continuously met the District’s mandated conservation requirements for the entire water use record, the District will reduce the water savings estimate by 15 percent to meet the original intent of the conservation goal.
However, the most recent version of the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Cease and Desist Order (CDO), the
recently-approved conservation budget adopted by the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC), and recent correspondence from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board clearly expect ongoing and expanding water conservation
programs on the
It is apparent from these three sources that the District’s proactive conservation program, including the proposed expansion and revisions, is necessary for the continued well-being of the community during our current water supply crisis. It is also apparent that the the reuse of water savings associated with mandated retrofits should be disallowed. However, staff acknowledges that there are limited circumstances that may justify the addition of water fixtures, such as the second bathroom provision.
Staff offers the following options for consideration:
1. The Board could support the goal that any reduction in demand results in increased well-being of the community and the environment, and that savings resulting from mandated conservation programs should contribute to this goal and not be reused to offset potential increases in demand.
2. The Board could adopt a goal that the community relies on conservation to ensure its current and future well-being and that water savings resulting from mandated conservation programs should be used to maintain water use at its current level while allowing for modest expansion such as the second bathroom protocol.
3. The Board could allow the reinvestment of water savings as it has, despite increased calls for conservation and efficiency, acknowledging that modest expansions contribute to the economic well-being of the community.
4. Implement new programs that allow individuals and groups to contribute to community conservation programs to offset modest expansions. A modest expansion would have to be defined, but could be something such as a single bathroom that would be offset with “community water credits.” Three programs to consider are (1) fund a High Efficiency Clothes Washer (HECW) program where HECW are provided at no cost to lower income high occupancy/use resident (saves water and energy and lowers the low-income occupants cost for water); (2) fund a low income/high occupancy/use retrofit program where an installation team could replace inefficient water fixtures at no cost (same savings as #1); (3) fund high impact local programs, such as stand pipes to provide Subpotable water supply for dust control, soil compaction and irrigation. This third alternative would not achieve significant reductions during rationing stages as potable water use would be prohibited for these activities.
5. Consider the community position if rationing is underway and a water credit system continues. Is it fair to allow retrofit credits? Have a discussion about water credits versus the relocation or reinstallation of existing water fixtures.
The proposed revisions to Regulation XIV are intended to reduce
consumptive use of potable water. This action
benefits the community and the environment.
The District should reconsider its conservation goal in light of current
and future community water supply restrictions and future growth projections. The efficient use of water is mandated
throughout the state of
RECOMMENDATION: The Water Demand Committee should discuss the items summarized above and provide direction to staff. The committee should also make a recommendation to the Board.
EXHIBITS
3-A Draft
Ordinance No. 141
U:\staff\word\committees\waterdemand\2009\20091001\03\item3.doc
[1] September 8, 2009 response by Roger Briggs, Executive Office, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, to Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rancho Del Robledo Water Distribution System in Carmel Valley.