HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/1994, 1 - WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES REGARDING THE URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IIIN�IruI�IIIII�Ii� IIUIIIT MEETING DATE:
ci o
►L san pais osispo July zo 1994
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: /
FROM: John Moss, Utilities Director)
PREPARED BY: Gary Henderson, Water Division Manager bwa
Sue Baasch, Administrative Analyst
Ron Munds, Water Conservation CoordinatorQM�
SUBJECT: Water Conservation Program Analysis and Other Related Issues
Regarding the Urban Water Management Plan
CAO RECONEWENDATION
By Motion, receive report regarding changes and additions to the March 1994 draft of the Urban
Water Management Plan (UWMP)and provide direction to staff to return with an UWMP which
reflects 1 - 5 below:
1. Endorse 145 gallons per person per day as the water use rate to project future
water demand.
i
2. Continue to require new development to retrofit until 100% completion of the
retrofit component of the water conservation program is complete or until a new
water supply project construction is initiated. In addition, staff recommends a
one-to-one offset ratio be endorsed and when adopted remain in effect until one
of the previously mentioned conditions is achieved.
3. Hold in reserve sufficient water supplies for intensification and infill development
within existing City limits as of July 1994.
4. Recover cost for new water supplies necessary for development through impact
fees (Alternative 2).
5. Eliminate the water section of the Water and Wastewater Management Element
of the General Plan, and, the UWMP when adopted will be the single water
policy, planning, and resource document.
REPORT-IN BRIEF
At the March 15, 1994, City Council meeting, Council directed staff to evaluate the potential
water savings and costs associated with an aggressive, comprehensive water conservation
program. In addition, Council requested that staff re-examine the recommendation to change
the water offset ratio from two-to-one to one-tone; study the possibility of including Chapter
Two as the Water Element of the General Plan; and provide an analysis of water rate impacts
for the alternative water supply projects.
city of San Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 2
The focus of the water conservation evaluation included in this report was to determine the
feasibility and impact of a comprehensive water conservation program on per capita water
demand. Based on the reliability of the six conservation measures evaluated, staff recommends
that 145 gallons per person per day (gpd) be used as the future water supply planning figure
which assumes an aggressive ongoing water conservation program.
Since 1989, there has been no water to allocate to new development. To obtain a building
permit, developers must retrofit existing buildings to save water at a ratio of two-to-one. By
adopting 145 gpd as a water supply planning figure, water could be available for development,
eliminating the need for retrofitting. Since the 145 gpd assumes that the retrofit component of
the water conservation program is 100% complete (approximately 43% has been completed as
of July 1994), staff recommends that new development continue to retrofit until the City is
completely retrofitted or a new water supply project comes on line. Staff also recommends that
the offset ratio be revised to one-to-one.
On June 14, 1994, Council approved a policy as part of the annexation policies within the draft
Land Use Element which would reserve water for in-fill development. Staff has provided an
analysis of the impact of this policy at this time.
The question concerning financial impacts associated with development of additional water
supplies has been raised by Council. There are basically three alternatives available for
financing. Under the recommended alternative, a small water rate increase would be experienced
by existing water customers.
Staff initially intended that the water policy section of the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP)replace the current Water Element of the General Plan. If it is included in the General
Plan, the Planning Commission would review the document and hold public hearings prior to
adoption. If it is not included, Council could adopt the UWMP following a public hearing and
would not require Planning Commission review.
In an effort to gain public input concerning the UWMP, staff organized three neighborhood
meetings. As part of the information gathering process, a survey focussing on water service was
also distributed. The information obtained from the survey corresponds with the general
impressions and comments given by the public at the neighborhood meetings.
Summary of Recommendations
1. Endorse 145 gallons per person per day as the water use rate to project future water
demand.
"erg
^�� � ►�IIII�IIp ►�IIII city of San LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 3
2. Continue to require new development to retrofit until 100% completion of the retrofit
component of the water conservation program is complete or until a new water supply
project construction is initiated. In addition, staff recommends a one-to-one offset ratio
be endorsed and when adopted remain in effect until one of the previously mentioned
conditions is achieved.
3. Hold in reserve sufficient water supplies for intensification and infill development within
existing City limits as of July 1994.
4. Recover cost for new water supplies necessary for development through impact fees
(Alternative 2).
5. Eliminate the water section of the Water and Wastewater Management Element of the
General Plan, and, the UWMP when adopted will be the single water policy, planning,
and resource document.
DISCUSSION
Background
At the March 15, 1994 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to evaluate the potential
water savings and costs associated with an aggressive, comprehensive water conservation
program. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the feasibility of implementation of
water demand management strategies, identify future water requirements based on the water
conservation program evaluation and present water supply alternatives, which would include
water demand management. In addition, Council requested that staff re-examine the
recommendation to change the water offset ratio from two-to-one to one-to-one, the possibility
of including Chapter Two as the Water Element of the General Plan, and provide an analysis
of water rate impacts for the alternative water supply projects.
This report is organized into the following key sections:
■ Water Conservation Evaluation
■ Water Offset Ratio
■ Clarification of the General Plan, Section 1.13.4 Development and Services
■ Financial Strategy for Supplemental Water Supply
■ Water Element of the General Plan
■ Public Meeting Summary
������u►��I��P� �I city of San lU1S OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 4
Water Conservation Evabuidoa
The primary focus of the attached evaluation (Attachment 1) is to determine the feasibility and
impacts of a comprehensive water conservation program on per capita water demand. The
evaluation is based on the most current information available from research papers and studies
from around the nation. The results of the analysis indicate that there are many variables and
limited quantitative data available to determine reliable water savings from many of the identified
technologies and programs. This does not mean that water conservation strategies are not
effective in reducing water demand or will not yield water savings. If the City is to rely on the
water savings potential from conservation, the technologies and programs must be evaluated
using criteria which include cost effectiveness and reliability.
A comprehensive evaluation of the potential water savings for each technology or program was
performed and the relative reliability of the estimated savings was established. Staff has
developed a system to rate the reliability of each component. The criteria are listed in
Attachment 1. Based on the reliability of the water conservation measures evaluated and the cost
effectiveness of the proposed programs, staff is recommending that 145 gallons per person per
day (gpd) be used as the future water supply planning figure rather than the 165 gpd in the
previous draft. The adoption of the 145 gpd figure will require an aggressive ongoing water
conservation program. This new quantity could be further revised if long-term water use trends
warrant the modification (per Section 2.3.2 of the draft UWMP).
The recommended program and three alternative programs have been outlined in Table 1 with
more detail provided in Attachment 1. It is important to note that the components of the various
programs use broad assumptions to estimate the water savings potential of the over-all programs.
If Council chooses the staff recommendation of 145 gpd, an enforcement mechanism such as
implementation of a "water conservation" rate structure may be necessary if the per capita target
is not achieved. Also, the lower the per capita planning figure, the higher the probability that
mandatory conservation may be required in the future because the City will have planned for a
lower amount of water supply. As stated previously, when more complete information is
available, and if long-term water use trends indicate a lower per capita water consumption level,
revisions to the UWMP may occur.
���� ►���IIII@Ilp��u���lil city of San LUIS OBISpo
iMA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 5
TABLE 1 Analysis of Cost/Water Savings of Various Levels of Water Conservation Programs
165 gallons/ 155 gallons/ 145 gallons/ 130 gallons/
person/day person/day personiday t person/day
Total Staffing,
Program and Other $305,080 $597,400 $1,172,400 $2,725,200
costs
Estimated water
savings (acre feet) 1,070 19695 29325 3,265
Cost per acre foot
per year $285 $352 $504 $635
Composite Reliability
Factor 5 4.5 2.5 2.5
It is estimated that program and staffing cost to maintain the recommended per capita figure
could be up to$1.17 million per year (Table 1). This is assuming the City decides to implement
an aggressive graywater system program at a cost of approximately $500,000 per year and
maintains a staff of four at a cost of approximately $180,000 per year. A phased-in approach
would be recommended and will be discussed in more detail in the Fiscal Impact section.
Table 2 identifies the cost ranges associated with other water supply alternatives. A detailed
analysis of these costs is provided in Attachment 3 to this report.
TABLE 2 Water Supply Alternatives - per acre foot costs
Cost Range
Low Middle High
Salina 5 Reservoir Expansion $452 $452 —
Water R ler,.wenn Distribution System 1 $206 $310 $413
Nacimiento Pipeline $522 $635 $1,000
Conservation $150 $257 $504
Recommendation
Endorse the 145 gallons per person per day figure as the water use rate to project future water
demand.
city of San LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 6
Water Offset Ratio
In Section 17.89.030 B.(5a) of the Water Allocation Regulations, a water allocation is not
required if a.developer retrofits existing structures or facilities to reduce existing water use by
twice the estimated water use of the proposed development (2 to 1). This section of the Water
Allocation Regulations has been utilized by developers since allocations were not available. If
the Council chooses a per capita water use figure below the initial recommendation of 165
gallons per person per day, there could be water available for development. If so, water
hardware retrofitting for development would not occur until the available water has been
allocated. For instance, if Council adopts the recommended 145 gpd as a planning figure for
supplemental water requirements, there would be 684 of of water available for development
based on the current population (43,415) and the current safe annual yield (7,735 of/year).
It is critically important for the Community to realize that the 145 gpd assumes that the hardware
retrofit component (toilets and showerheads) of the water conservation program is 100%
complete. As of'July 1994 approximately 42% of the potential water savings from retrofitting
has been achieved. Table 3 summarizes the retrofit activity and estimated water savings.
TABLE 3 Estimate of Water Savings from Retrofit Program
Total Completed Current Savings to
Potential to Date Savings (est.) be Achieved
Toilet Retrofit 935 acre feet 30% 280 acre feet 655 acre feet
Showerhead Retrofit 300 acre feet 80% 240 acre feet 60 acre feet
TOTAL 1,235 acre feet 520 acre feet 715 acre feet
Estimated water surplus assuming 145 gallons per person per day 684 acre feet
Recommendation
Staff recommends that new development continue to retrofit with a one-to-one offset ratio until
100% completion of the retrofit component of the water conservation program is complete or
until a new water supply project construction is initiated.
Clarification of the Geneml Plan, Section 1.13.4 Development and Services
During consideration of the General Plan Land Use Element update on June 14, 1994, Council
discussed the issue of reserving water supply capacity for projects comprising build-out within
n�IJJJU city o f San LUIS OBISPO
��1 ��H►1Illll��p
OftoA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 7
current city limits (as opposed to giving such projects and projects in newly annexed areas equal
access to additional water service capacity). Council approved the following policy:
1.13.4 Development and Services. Actual development in an annexed area may be approved
only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the
level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and build-out
within the City limits as of July 1994, in accordance with the City's water management
policies. Water for development in an annexed area may be made available by any one or
any combination of the following:
A. City water supply, including reclaimed water,
B. Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will be no net
increase in long-term water usage;
C. On-site well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of an
approved addition to City water sources, and when it is demonstrated that use of
the well water will not diminish the City's municipal groundwater supply.
Using the 145 gpd planning figure and assuming the City reserves water for in-fill development
within the City limits as July 1994, staff determined how much water would be required to
support full build-out. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4 Water Demand Projections
Assuming Water Planning Figure of 145 Gallons/Capita/Day:
Current Population 439415 7,052 acre feet/year
Full Build-out of City
(existing city boundaries) 479420' 7,702 acre feet/year
Safe Annual Yield 7,735 acre feetlyear
Annexation 33 acre feet/year
Note. =Population Jkure based on land use policies endorsed by Council as of June 4, 1994.
As indicated, there is approximately 33 acre feet of water available to newly annexed areas. To
put this amount of water into perspective for new development, a single family dwelling uses
0.37 acre feet per year (would equate to approximately 90 new homes) and a large warehouse
type store uses approximately 10 acre feet per year (would equate to three stores of this type).
city of San Luis OBlspo
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 8
Recommendation
Hold in reserve a sufficient amount of water supply to serve intensification and infill within
existing City limits as of July 1994, which includes water available through the retrofit offset
program. Available water supplies beyond . that necessary for intensification and infill
development will be made available for annexation areas.
KnancW Strategy for Supplemental Water Supply Projects
The question concerning financial impacts associated with development of additional water
supplies was raised during the Council's review of the draft Urban Water Management Plan.
Staff has evaluated various methods for financing development of additional water resources and
has summarized the options in the following paragraphs.
There are basically three alternatives available for financing the development of additional water
supplies necessary to support new development.
1. Cost recovered entirely through water rates.
2. Cost recovered through impact fees which are set at a rate sufficient to cover the annual
debt service cost.
3. Cost recovered through the formation of assessment districts.
Current City policy is for new development to pay for the impacts caused by development.
Current water impact fees are set to recover the cost of additional water supplies necessary for
new development. As development occurs, the impact fees will recover the cost of the
supplemental supplies necessary for the new development (Alternative 2 above).
There is a large percentage of the projected additional water supply needs for the City which are
not related to new development. The additional water necessary to provide for the "reliability
reserve" (2,000 acre feet) and the projected loss of safe annual yield due to siltation (500 acre
feet) amount to more than half the projected supplemental water supply needs for the City. The
costs associated with these supplies should be borne by the entire community.
Another consideration is the "Multi-Source Water Policy" which was adopted by the City
Council during the recent drought and is intended to diversify the City's water resources and
thereby strengthen the reliability of our water supplies for the entire community. The pursuit
of the Nacimiento and Salinas Reservoir Expansion Projects will benefit the entire community
by increasing the City's overall water supply reliability.
0111111111fP11111 city of San LUIS OBISPO
WaS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 9
Alternative Financial Strategies for Supplemental Water Supply Projects
1. Cost recovered entirely through water rates - This method of financing was the
typical way water supply projects were paid for in the past. The Whale Rock Reservoir
was financed in this manner through the issuance of bonds which are being paid off over
a forty year period through the water rates. This method does not require new
development to pay for the impacts associated with the development and does not comply
with current City policy. Water rate increases would initially be necessary to cover the
cost associated with future development.
Implications: Places no burden on development to fund the high cost of additional water
resources necessary to serve the development and would not comply with the implied
intent of section 1.13.4 of the draft annexation policies endorsed by Council on June 14,
1994. Significant rate increase would initially be required to fully recover cost of
additional water supplies, although these would decline over time as the customer rate
base increases.
2. Cost recovered through impact fees which are set at a rate sufficient to cover the
annual debt service cost - This alternative would require establishment of water impact
fees based on the amount of annual debt service associated with the water necessary for
new development and the estimated growth rate of the City each year. If projected
growth occurs at the rate estimated in establishing the impact fees, then this method
would insure that existing rate payers would not be required to subsidize new
development. The impact fees may require periodic adjustment if development does not
occur at the anticipated rate.
Implications: This alternative would comply with the implied intent of section 1.13.4
of the draft annexation policies endorsed by Council on June 14, 1994 if development
occurs at the assumed rate on which the impact fees are based.
3. Cost recovery through the formation of assessment districts - This method would
involve the development of assessment districts for undeveloped areas which would then
be assessed a fee to recover the cost for development of the water supplies necessary to
serve the property in the future. This would require undeveloped properties to pay for
the supplies prior to needing the water. This policy could also be viewed as linking a
particular source of supply to a specific area. This may be in conflict with the City's
"Multi-Source Water Policy" which asserts the idea that the entire community benefits
from the diversification of our water supply sources.
Implications: While this method would insure cost recovery for associated development
of additional water supplies necessary for new development, the cost recovery may occur
l' !
�ufl�► I��p��� uil�`� city of San lues OBISp0
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 10
at a time when property owners could least afford it. This would greatly discourage
annexation and development and presumes annexation and development is of no
community benefit. In addition, it could lead to a perception of a somewhat "balldnized"
community with different geographic areas of town "owning" their own resources. In
a time of mandatory water conservation, for, example, an area totally fronting and
supporting the cost of their water supply may feel less inclined to reduce or "share their
resources". This alternative would comply with the implied intent of section 1.13.4 of
the draft annexation policies endorsed by Council on June 14, 1994.
The alternatives listed above outline the various options available for financing the development
of additional water resources necessary for new development. It should be noted that a
significant amount of the needed supplemental water supplies identified in the Urban Water
Management Plan are associated with the needs of existing residents. Therefore, existing water
rates will increase in the future to pay for the development of additional water supplies to insure
adequate water resources for the community.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Alternative 2 above to provide recovery of the costs for development of
additional water supplies that are required due to new development. The financial implications
associated with this recommendation are outlined in the following section.
Fiscal Impact of the Recommended Financial Strategy
An analysis has been prepared (Attachment 3) to identify the financial impacts associated with
the various alternative water supply projects. The analysis assumes a per capita planning figure
of 145 gpd, a 2,000 afy reliability reserve and 500 of of safe annual yield loss due to siltation
for projecting the associated financial impacts. Approximately 32.5% of the projected water
supply requirements are needed for existing residents. This primarily results from an allocation
of 77.5% of the reliability reserve and siltation components of the new water resources required
based on the ratio between existing development and total future demand. An estimated rate
increase between 8.1% and 18.4% would be required for existing rate payers to pay for only
their share of new water supply requirements depending on which water supply projects are
accomplished.
The attached schedules also include an analysis of the impact fees which would be required to
ensure that new development does not impact existing residents. The impact fees necessary to
pay the annual debt service for the supplemental water supplies, as recommended in Alternative
2 above, range from $5,510 to $12,549 per single family residence. The mid-range estimate
is $7,008.
N10
����n►►►�►►��IIIIIII�I�° ��lll city of San SUIS OBISpo
OWN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 11
Water Eleneent of the Geneml Plea
At the January study session, staff received direction from Council to have chapter two of the
UWMP eliminate the current water section of the Water and Wastewater Management Element
and not be part of the General Plan. At the March 15, 1994 meeting, Council requested that
staff re-examine the issue of chapter two being part of the General Plan. The Water Element
is not a State required component of a general plan. The current Water Element was adopted
in February 1987, and- was amended in October 1987, to update information, make minor
revisions to policies on use of groundwater, and to incorporate the wastewater section. At that
time it was anticipated that the element would be updated about every five years or more
frequently as needed.
Staff initially intended that the water policy section of the UWMP would replace the current
Water Element, with an annual update provided in the Water Operational Plan. Before adopting
or revising any general plan element, the Planning Commission and Council must hold public
hearings. This ensures community participation in the decision making process. Revisions or
changes of an element can occur four times a year and must follow the hearing.
If Council chooses not to include the water policy section.in the general plan, the UWMP would
replace the water section of the Water and Wastewater Management Element but leave intact the
wastewater section. Any necessary revisions to the water policies could be adopted by Council
following a public hearing, but would not need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
In summary, the primary benefit of including the UWMP as an element of the General Plan is
that it could provide increased opportunity for community input for any recommended revisions.
The benefit of not including the UWMP as an element of the General Plan would be to simplify
the overall.process for modification of the City's water policy and to maintain all water policy
and other water related issues and information in a single , up-to-date document. The current
efforts to adopt the UWMP would indicate that a significant level of public input and review will
occur with only Council level hearings.
Recommendation
Eliminate the water section of the Water and Wastewater Management Element of the General
Plan, and, the UWMP when adopted will be the single water policy, planning, and resource
document.
Public Meetiag Summary
In an effort to gain public input concerning the UWMP, staff organized three neighborhood
meetings. It was staff's intent to communicate what the City was doing to secure additional
���H�► ��Iillf���� i��d�U city of San tuts OBISpo
Nia; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 12
water supplies and to understand what level of water service the community desires. Attendance
at each meeting ranged from 30 to 40 people with a high level of participation at each meeting.
As part of the information gathering process, a survey focusing on water service was distributed.
The results of the survey are presented in Attachment 2. The survey indicates that the
community feels that the City needs to secure additional water for our current as well as future
needs (question 12 & 13). The results also indicate that a large percentage of the respondents
are familiar with the City's future water supply options (question 14).
The information obtained from the survey corresponds with the general impressions and
comments given by the public at the neighborhood meetings. Staff's perception of the meeting
results was that the community in general feels that we will not return to the high water use that
the City experienced prior to the drought. However, they are also not satisfied with current
water availability and feel the City should pursue development of additional water supplies.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development and Finance Departments have reviewed and concur with the
information provided in this report. In addition, the Department of Water Resources Water
Conservation Division and the Rocky Mountain Institute have reviewed and concur with the
findings presented in the water conservation program evaluation (Attachment 1) portion of the
report.
FISCAL EWPACT
The recommended water conservation program identifies costs which represent the most
aggressive program to maintain water use at the 145 gpd level on a long term basis. In order
to present a more realistic approach to the water conservation program implementation, a
phasing-in strategy would be recommended. The following are the costs associated with this
type of strategy:
1995/1997 Financial Plan
Annual staffing cost/three regular positions $135,000
Retrofit Rebate Program 1379500
Public Information & Education 45,000
Retrofit Upon Sale Enforcement 400
Office Supplies, Training, etc. 30.000
TOTAL $3479900
1994/1995 Budget $2699500
Increase $ 78,400
ll
������►�►i�IIIIIIIIIUp �IIU city of San Luis osIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Conservation Program Analysis
Page 13
If water consumption levels rise significantly, staff would return to Council requesting
supplementary funds to implement additional programs identified in Exhibit B-2 of this report.
The $1.17 million dollar figure in Exhibit B-2 reflects the worst case scenario if water
consumption levels rise during the planning period (20 Years).
SUMMARY OF RECONEWENDATIONS.
1. Endorse 145 gallons per person per day as the water use rate to project future water
demand.
2. Continue to require new development to retrofit until 100% completion of the retrofit
component of the water conservation program is complete or until a new water supply
project construction is initiated. In addition, staff recommends a one-to-one offset ratio
be endorsed and when adopted remain in effect until one of the previously mentioned
conditions is achieved.
3. Hold in reserve sufficient water supplies for intensification and infill development within
existing City limits as of July 1994.
4. Recover cost for new water supplies necessary for development through impact fees
(Alternative 2). .
5. Eliminate the water section of the Water and Wastewater Management Element of the
General Plan, and, the iTWMP when adopted will be the single water policy, planning,
and resource document.
ATTACEMffNTS:
ATTACHMENT 1 - Water Conservation Program Alternatives
ATTAC11MENT 2 - Summary of Results of Community Water Planning Survey
ATTACHMENT 3 - Water Source of Supply Funding Concepts
/-/3
Attachment 1
Wafer
Cons¢rvafion
progra►n
f4(f¢rnafives
July 1994
Clt! of San IU1S OBISPO
�IIIIII I IIIII
WATER CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES
Evaluation of Reliability, Water Savings, Cost
In evaluating the water savings potential from water conservation technologies and programs, the
reliability of the potential savings must be considered. Many components of a comprehensive water
conservation program have not been adequately studied to determine reliable water savings. Staff
has attempted to objectively evaluate the potential for each technology or program and then
determine the reliability of the estimated savings. Staff has developed a rating system to measure
the reliability of each component. The rating system is based on the following criteria:
1. Availability of quantitative data
2. Ongoing dependability of the water efficiency measure
3. Public acceptance of the water efficiency measure
The reliability factor will be on a scale of one to five and will reflect the criteria previously
outlined. A factor of five means that the savings can be definitely counted on as permanent ongoing
water savings.
WATER CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES
Water conservation technologies have advanced significantly over the last several years. Most of
the developments have been a response to the recent drought. This analysis is limited to
technologies which are associated with the largest indoor water use, graywater systems, landscape
and public information programs which can potentially yield reliable water savings:
Reliability Factor
Section 1. ULTRA-LOW FLUSH TOILETS 4.5
Section 2. LOW-FLOW SHOWERHEADS 3.5
Section 3. GRAYWATER SYSTEMS 2.0
Section 4. HOT WATER RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS 1.0
Section S. LANDSCAPING 2.0
Section 6. INFORMATION & EDUCATION 2.0
Section 1. ULTRA-LOW FLUSH TOILETS (ULF) Reliability Factor: 4.5
As of January 1993, all toilets sold in the State of California must meet the ULF standard of 1.6
gallons per flush or less. A study was completed in June 1992, funded by the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, to evaluate toilet replacement programs and establish reliable water
savings projections. This study has been endorsed by the California Urban Water Conservation
Council (which the City is a member of) and is now recognized as a state-wide standard for toilet
replacement programs. The reliability rating of 4.5 is based on the quantitative data available from
the Metropolitan Water District's ULF toilet replacement study completed in June 1992, the 20 to
30 year operational life of a toilet and the public's approval of the technology derived from a City
survey conducted in 1991.
Water Conservation Technologies
ULTRA-LOW FLUSH TOILET
Estimated Water Savings
Single Family 1/ 350 afy Assumes 41.9 gallons/day/household
multiplied by 7,500 households.
Multi-Family 1/ 325 afy Assumes 53 gallons/day/dwelling
multiplied by 5,500 dwellings.
All Others 2/ 260 afy Assumes 27 gallons/per toilet/per day
multiplied by 8,750 toilets.
TOTAL 935 acre feet per year ("afy")
Notes:
I/ Single family and multi-family gallons/day/household derived from information contained
in the Metropolitan Water District toilet replacement study.
2/ Based on average water use factors for retrofitted ULF toilets.
Table 1
Based on the figures provided in the study, it is estimated that water savings at 100% toilet retrofit
in the City is 935 acre feet (af) per year and is summarized in Table 1. In performing the cost
evaluation, staff examined the total amount of capital required to fund the current Retrofit Rebate
Program to 100% completion of retrofitting and the cost of a program where the City pays the full
cost of the toilet retrofit. Table 2 summarizes the results of the analysis which includes the cost per
acre foot to the City.
ULTRA-LOW FLUSH TOILET
Cost Evaluation
Assumptions. (installation costs do not include floor covering changes or sub-floor rehabilitation.)
1. Cost per toilet $85 to $300
2. Cost for installation $50 to $100
Alternative A Voluntary Retrofit Rebate Program
(Assumes 26% change-out of existing toilets as of 4194 and$100 rebate)
Total $2.37 million
Cost per acre foot $755 over a ten year period
Alternative B Mandatory Retrofit Program
(Assumes City pays all costs; cost to replace standard toilet and labor is
estimated at$165/toilet. Costs for flooring changes and additional charges for
custom toilets not included)
Total $3.9 million
Cost per acre foot $420 over a ten.year period
Table 2
Water Conservation Technologies 2 H/0
Section 2. LOW-FLOW SHOWERHEADS Reliability Factor: 3.5
The current State standard for a low-flow showerheads is a flow rate of 2.5 gallons per minute.. In
order to calculate long range water savings from showerhead.replacement, the projected savings are
based on water use and population figures from 1993.
The CARE Program, (joint effort with PG&E) initiated in LOW-FLOW SHOWERHEADS
1987 and implemented in 1988, replaced an estimated Estimated Water Savings
27% of the showerheads in the City during that year. 1993 Population 43,415
Since 1988, low-flow showerheads have been a
requirement in new construction and thousands were Average savings 6.2 gallons/
replaced during mandatory water conservation. It is person/day
estimated that 70% to 80.% of the showerheads are
currently low-flow. TOTAL
Estimated savings 300 of/year
It is estimated that 300 acre feet per year of water
savings will be achieved at 100% retrofit of showerheads. (b on Rocky Mountain Institute data)
Table 3
Table 3 summarizes the total estimated water savings and
assumptions used to calculate the estimated water savings.
Section 1. GRAYWATER Reliability Factor: 2.0
Graywater is defined as untreated household waste water which includes water from bathtubs,
showers, bathroom wash basins, and water from clothes washing machines and laundry tubs. It
doesnot include water that has come into contact with toilet waste, kitchen sinks, dishwashers or
laundry water from soiled diapers. Up until 1989, the use of graywater was not regulated in the
State of California and was viewed as an illegal use of household wastewater by local health
agencies. During 1989/1990, several counties:and cities, including San Luis Obispo, legalized the
use of.graywater as a drought emergency measure. In July 1992 legislation was passed which
directed the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to develop graywater use regulations. DWR
working with the Department of Health Services and other concerned organizations and individuals,
spent 18 months developing standards which protect public Health while establishing a uniform set of
Statewide standards. On March 8, 1994 the California Building Standards Commission approved
the Graywater Standards as part.of the California Plumbing Code. These standards were published
on May 8, 1994 and will take effect in every California city and county in six months.
The new regulations restrict the application of graywater to single family dwellings and is allowed
only under certain conditions and circumstances. The primary limitations are 1) the water
application setback requirements from adjoining properties, 2) application can only be sub-surface,
3) soil conditions must allow for adequate infiltration without puddling or runoff, and 4) at a
sufficient distance above the groundwater level to avoid potential water contamination. The
reliability factor of 2.0 is based on. the wide range of water savings estimates from the various
sources of graywater, the ability of user to discontinue the.use of the systems, the limitations placed
on graywater use by State law and the degree of commitment from the user to maintain the systems.
Water Conservation Technologies 3 /4'
GRAYWATER
Estimated Water Savings
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY 1/
Assumes a total of 7,500 single family dwellings. Slab foundations are assumed on 75% of the dwellings
and raised foundations on 25% of the dwellings. (75% of 7,500 = 5,625; 25% of 7,500 = 1,875)
Raised Foundation 220.5 afy 2/ Assumes 105 gallonsldaylhousehold
multiplied by 1,875 dwellings.
Slab Foundation 283.5 afy 3/ Assumes 45 gallons/day/household
multiplied by 5,625 dwellings.
TOTAL 504 acre feet per year ("afy")
Less Seasonal Demand (4 Months) 336 acre feet per year 4/
Notes:
1/ Multi-Family excluded. Currently, State law does not allow the use of graywater at multi-family
complexes. Legislation has been introduced in the State legislature to legalize the use of
graywater in multi-family and certain commercial situations.
2/ Assumes 35 gal/person/day and an average of 3 persons per household for all graywater sources
(this is an average of the State's published guidelines and a study performed by LADWP completed
in June 1993.
3/ Based on the recently adopted State guidelines for graywater use for laundry wash water (15
gallons per person per day).
4/ These savings assume that all the graywater is needed for irrigation; that this amount of
potable water would have been used and that all potential locations are able to use graywater.
Table 4
The results of the analysis indicate that graywater systems can yield 336 of/year of water savings.
Table 4 summarizes the assumptions and results of the analysis.
Cost Evaluation
The cost of a graywater system varies greatly with its complexity and capabilities. Approximate
price ranges, corresponding capabilities of systems and installation cost, as suggested by
manufacturers and installers are listed below:
System costing between $400 to $800
This range applies to systems that tap the discharge from the washing machine only, connected to a
low-tech system. The lower end of the price range applies to the do-it-yourself installation, and the
upper end to professional installation.
Systems costing between $1,000 to $1,500
In this price range, all graywater sources are usually connected to the system which generally
requires installation by a professional contractor. The graywater collection and distribution system is
Water Conservation Technologies 4 /_/�
still relatively simple and low-tech, and the total cost depends on the number of graywater sources
connected.
Systems costing between $2,000 to $3,700
Graywater systems in this price range are fully automatic, high-tech systems, connected to nearly all
sources of graywater in the home and possibly backed up by potable water systems for periods when
graywater may not be available.
Based on this information, Table 5 summarizes the results of the graywater system cost analysis.
GRAYWATER
Cost Evaluation Summary 1/
Alterative A Washing Machine Water Only Systems
Based on 15 gallons per person per day, during irrigation
demand months.
Total System Cast $ 400 to $2,000
Cost per acre foot $1,200 to $5,950
Alternative B AR Source Systems
Based on 105 gallons per household, during irrigation months.
Total System Cost $1,000 to$3,700
Cost per acre foot $1,275 to$4,720
Note:
1/ These costs do not include the cost of the specialized irrigation
equipment required to apply graywater to the landscape.
Table 5
"Low Tech" systems require regular maintenance, such as filter cleaning, by the resident to
minimize graywater system failure. On the other hand, fully automated systems require little or no
maintenance on the part of the user. It is a concern with low tech systems that if routine
maintenance is not performed, the system will experience problems which will ultimately lead to a
failure and the system being turned off. Low tech systems require a commitment from the user in
order to retain reliability and thus achieve long term water savings. In order to determine a reliable
water savings from graywater systems, it is recommended that only fully automated systems be part
of any City sponsor graywater program. Though automated systems require a greater initial
expense, long term water savings can be reasonably predicted with greater,reliability. Table 6
summarizes the cost of a rebate program and the cost of a program where the City pays full cost of
the "High Tech" graywater systems.
Water Conservation Technologies 5 _/�
GRAYWATER - "l3igh Tech" Systems
Cost Evaluation
Assumptions. 1. Cost for laundry only systems $2,000 1/
2. Cost for all source systems $2,000 to $3,700 1/
3. See Note 1.
Alternative A Rebate Program
Cost per acre foot reflects City's willingness to pay $1,500 per acre foot.
Therefore, the City would pay a rebate of$500 for laundry only systems and
$1,175 for all source systems. 2/
Laundry Only Systems
Total $2,812,500
All Source Systems
Total $2,203,125
TOTAL $5,015,625
Cost per acre foot $ 1,500
Alternative B Full system cost paid by City
Laundry Only Systems
Total $11,250,000
All Source Systems
Total $3.750.000 to $ 6.937.500
TOTAL $15,000,000 to $18,187,500
Cost per acre foot $4,460 to $5,410
Note:
1/ Laundry only systems are assumed to be possible in all single family dwellings on
slab foundations. Slab foundations are assumed to be on 75% of single family
dwellings(75% X 7,500 = 5,625). All source systems are assumed to be possible
in single family dwellings on raised foundations(25% X 7,500 = 1,875).
2/ Customer Cost (after rebate)
• Laundry only systems $1,500 Payback period 32 years
• All source systems $825 to $2,525 Payback period 12-34 years
Table 6
Section 4. Hot Water Recirculating Systems Reliability Factor: 1.0
Hot water recirculating systems work on the principal of providing hot water on demand at all
locations in a house. By drawing hot water from the hot water heater and recirculating the cold
water from the hot water line back to the heater, a significant amount of water may be saved. Staff
has researched the availability of retrofit hot water recirculating systems and found only one
Water Conservation Technologies 6 �O
company which rpanufactures such a product. There are several variables which effect the amount
of water savings which can be derived from these systems. The variables include:
■ Size of household
■ Plumbing layout
■ Square footage of dwelling
■ Customer habits
Of these variables, plumbing layout is the most significant. After consulting with plumbing
professionals, it is estimated that less than 50% of the existing homes would benefit from the
installation of this type of system. Most older homes are not plumbed with complete looping of hot
and cold water lines which means more than one of these systems would be required to recirculate
all the hot and cold water within the dwelling. Table 7 summarizes the results of the potential water
savings analysis.
HOT WATER RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS
Estimated Water Savings
Based on manufacturer information and discussions with plumbing
contractors and product users, the following water savings may
be achieved:
Existing 43 to 105 afy Assumes 10 to 25
Single Family gallons/day/household;
50% of existing dwellings.
New Construction 44 to 117 afy Assumes 3 to 8
gallons/day/household,
and additional population-
13,100—at buildout.
TOTAL 87 to 222 acre feet per year ("afy")
Table 7
These systems are not fully automated and rely on the user to activate the recirculating pump.
Because of the number of variables, it is difficult to derive a reliable water savings amount from this
type of system.
Table 8 summarizes the cost analysis for both a rebate program and a program where the City pays
for the system and installation.
Water Conservation Technologies 7
HOT WATER RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS
Cost Evaluation
Assumption: The cost of a retrofit hot water circulating system is approximately $300. Installation cost is
estimated at approximately $150 to $250 depending on the location of the unit. The calculations
use$200 for labor. Estimates are based on 50% of existing homes.
Alternative A Rebate Program - Existing Single Family
Estimated program cost(City paid rebate of$425).
TOTAL $425 X 3,750 dwellings $1,593,750
Cost per Acre Foot $1,500 based on 105 afy savings
Alternative B. Full Cast paid by City
TOTAL $500 X 3,750 dwellings $1,875,000
Cost per Acre Foot $1,785 based on 105 afy savings
Table 8
Section 5. LANDSCAPE PROGRAMS Reliability Factor: 2.0
Predicting water savings from landscape efficiency programs is difficult and can vary from 30% to
70% when conventional landscapes are replaced with water efficient plants (RMI Water Efficient
Landscaping 1994). Another, often less expensive component of a landscape efficiency program is
improved irrigation management and upgrades of irrigation hardware. Water savings from
landscape irrigation improvements is estimated to be up to 30176 (Cal Poly Pomona for Chino Basin).
To date, landscaping programs do not provide readily predictable or measurable water savings due
to lack of data on projects that have been carried out and the difficulties in distinguishing landscape
water savings from those caused by indoor water efficiency projects and behavioral changes in
reaction to drought situations (RMI 1994).
The reliability factor of 2.0 is based lack of quantitative data regarding water savings, the fact that
landscape plant materials can be changed to higher water using plants depending on customer
preference, and that the efficiency of irrigation systems can vary depending on the customer's
irrigation knowledge and management practices. Water efficient landscape programs, though
difficult to predict water savings, should be a component of an aggressive ongoing water
conservation program.
Single Family Landscape Water Use
In order to attempt to establish a baseline for landscape water use in single family residences, staff
utilized an analysis performed by the Finance Department prior to the implementation of mandatory
water conservation in April 1989. This analysis indicated that during the summer months (April
through October) an average of 29 units of water (748 gallons per unit) were consumed per
household. Estimating that 40% of this water was used for landscape irrigation equates to 800 acre
feet per year for landscape use. Using an estimated water savings of 30% from irrigation efficiency
Water Conservation Technologies 8
f '.Z�-
measures would equate to a potential savings of 240 acre feet per year from a single family
irrigation efficiency program for the irrigation period. Using similar methodology for winter
irrigation, an additional 27 of/year of water savings can be achieved for a total of 267 af/year.
This assumes that all landscapes and irrigation systems are currently inefficient and can be improved
to meet the projected water savings goal.
Table 9 summarizes the results of the single family landscape water use analysis.
Commercial and Institutional Landscape
Water Use. LANDSCAPE-Single Family
Estimated Water Savings
Additional water savings can be achieved in
the commercial and institutional sectors but Summer Irrigation Use g00 afy
are more difficult to identify. For instance, Winter Irrigation Use 62 afy
City parks consume large quantities of water Total 862 afy
because of the large amount of turf acreage.
Water Conservation and Parks Division staff 30% reduction due to
have audited all of the major turf areas and irrigation efficiency
found that the irrigation schedules used by the Summer 240 afy
City were more efficient than the schedules winter 27 afy
recommended by irrigation professionals. Tore► 267 afy
This coupled with the capital improvements
currently under way, an additional 30% TOTAL savings
reduction from efficiency measures may not due to irrigation efficiency 267 afy
be possible. Further research and analysis Table 9
will be required to establish a potential water
savings for this sector.
Cost Evaluation Summary
Staff has not been able to establish a cost associated with water efficient landscape programs because
of lack of a quantitative data and conclusive studies. Additionally, staff has researched the available
literature and was unable to find examples of landscape programs which would be applicable to San
Luis Obispo. It is recommended that a strong educational program be established and that additional
research be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of a monetary incentive program using a
combination of graywater systems and alternative irrigation technologies. For analysis purposes, the
cost of a water efficient landscape program will accounted for in the public education and water
audits components of the various comprehensive water conservation program alternatives.
Section 6. INFORMATIONAL & EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS Reliability Factor: 2.0
During mandatory water conservation, the informational and educational component of the
water conservation program provided an essential service to our citizens by offering educational
materials and assistance on how to save water. Though water planning professionals agree these
types of programs are necessary to promote water efficiency, quantitative data is not available to
predict reliable water savings. Because reliable water savings cannot be determined, cost of such
support programs should be factored into the total cost of an over-all water conservation program.
Water Conservation Technologies 9
/-023
During mandatory water conservation, the City had a very comprehensive public relations program
which included the following:
Public Workshops
In-school programs
Media advertising & promotion
Water efficient landscape awareness/plant tagging program
Demonstration garden development (City parks)
Public event participation
Consumer product information
Indoorlirrigation water audits
Free printed information
Of these components, only water audits and printed information are currently offered upon request
due to budget and staff reductions.
Cost Evaluation Summary
Staff has not been able to determine a water savings value to perform a cost per acre foot analysis.
As with water efficient landscape programs, the cost of educational and information programs will
be accounted for in the various comprehensive water conservation program alternatives.
Water Conservation Technologies 10 /I��
EXHIBIT A
City of San Luis Obispo
WATER CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATION SUMMARY
Estlmatedgs Program Cost per Reliability
Water Savin Cost Acre Foot Factor
1. Ultra-Low Flush Tollets (ULF) 935 afy 4.5
Alternative A $2.37 million $255/al
Alternative B $3.9 million $420/at
2. Low Flow Showerheads 300 afy included in included in 3.5
ULFT program ULFT program
3. Graywaler Systems 336 afy 2.0
Alternative A $5 million $1,500/af
Alternative B $15 to$18 million $4,460-
$5,41 0/af
4,460-
$5,410/af
4. Hot Water Recirculating 40 to 105 afy 1.0
Systems
Alternative A $1.6 million $1,500/af
Alternative B $1.9 million $1,785/af
S. Landscape Programs 267 afy unknown unknown 2.0
6. Information& Educatlonal unknown unknown unknown 2.0
Programs
TOTAL ESTIMATED
WATER SAVINGSF1,943 AFY
EXHIBIT B-1
City of San Luis Obispo
WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
The four alternatives shown below project program costs and estimate potential water savings. In addition,
a reliability factor has been established based on staffs evaluation of the various programs and technologies.
The over-all program costs assume that the City continues to use monetary incentives as a means to promote
water-efficent technologies, allocate funds for education and informational programs and provide support
for the level of staffing recommended in the alternatives. It is important to recognize the assumptions used
to determine the estimates are based on past experiences during mandatory water rationing. The identified
financial commitment is the potential long term costs during the planning period(20 years).
The water savings estimates are based on reduced demand from the previous high water use period from
1986 through 1987. Exhibit B-1 is a summary of the detailed program information provided in Exhibit B-2.
165 Gallons/ 155 Gallons/ 145 Gallons/ 130 Gallons/
Person/Day Person/Day Person/Day Person/Day
Total Staffing, Program $305,080 $597,400 $1,172,400 $2,725,200
and Other Costs
Estimated Water Savings 1,070 1,695 2,325 3,265
(in acre feet)
Cost per Acre Foot $285 $352 $504 $835
(acre feet per year)
Composite Reliability Factor 5.0 4.5 2.5 2.5
EXHIBIT B-2
City of San Luis Obispo
WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
165 Gallons/ I 1SS Gallons/11 1 145 Gallons/ 130 Gallon
I
Person/Day Lt!2!.n/Dayjj Person/C al
I I Person/Day
STAFFING 2 3 4 5
Water Conservation Coordinator x x x x
Wader Conservation Specialist x x x x
............................................................... x x
Water Conservation Specialist
.............. ...........
Water Conservation Specialist .......... x0�%Mrk
SK: x
Office Assistant x
X x
Total Ainnual Staffing Costs(see Exhibit B-3) $102,180 $135,000 $180,000 $219,800
PROGRAMS
Retrofit rebate $137,500 $237,000 $237,000 $390,000
Wader Offset current level
Retrofit Upon Sale $400 $400 $400 $400
Public Education/Information
Media promotion&advertising $25,000 $35,000 $45,000 $60,000.
Brochures and publications $10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000
Workshops/public events $5,000 $10,000
Wader Audits
Code enforcement/inigation audits
Other Water Efficiency Programs
M
Hot water recirculating systems
M
X
$160,000 $190,000
Graywater systems
$150,000 $500,000 $1,800,000
Total IdentIffed Programs Costs(see Note 1) $172,900 $432.400 $962,400 $2,466,400
OTHER:- Office Supplies,Training
Total Other $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000
TOTAL STAFFING,PROGRAM&OTHER COSTS $305,080 $597,400 $1,172,400 $2,725,200
Notes:
I/ WATER CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES 1-A,2,5,6 1-A,2,5,6& 1-A.2,3-A,4-A,5,6 1-B,2,3-8,48,5,6
included in costs(see detail in Exhibit A) Pilot for 3
2/ ***Indicates costs are included in other line items.
3/ Shading indicates particular component not included in this alternative.
EXHIBIT B-3
City of San Luis Obispo
WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES - Staffing Analysis
165 Gallons/ 155 Gallons/ 145 Gallons/ 130 Gallons/
Person/Day Person/Day L Person/Day Person/Day
TASK DESCRIPTION Hours per week
1. Interior/exterior/low 10 20 25 35
income water audits.
2. Customer Incentive Program 10 10 25 25
3. Retrofit Upon Sale Program 15 15 20 20
4. Water Offset Program 5 10 10 10
5. Public Information and 10 10 10 25
education.
6. Program Development, 15 25 25 35
Education &Administration.
7. General Customer Service 10 15 25 25
8. Water Waste Code 5 15 20 25
Enforcement/irrigation Audits.
TOTAL HOURS PER WEEK 80 120 160 200
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS 2 3 4 5
AV&
Attachment 2
a
d
t
C M
m
d
yO
C
w m
d m
w r
O
L M d M
m ^ C
Ly0
7W d N O
rz
O m � •«
m m L m L
L L W L m
7 Y L Y N
mC z r mC 0 _
7 n m r. •m C m in
-- a r 0
m u
W m m
« m E L
LO
Y m m «CC m
.� c M W O L f� Y O• C } f� Z f�
6 M O N Cc Co 0
yYj v r O 3
N L YW L W
v m s m Y
m
Z 7 0 7 J
d 0MM m m O a0 O «m 00 O N V Qp� O N O W O O W M
d ~ Z u ' Z 3 M Z 'N 21 P Z N Z 2 •O •E
3 �a Ncc
Z
O.
_ 7
W
L
« c i
41
°«' 3 udi
YENEN V1 s 0 ° N Y If1 y M
40,
Y Y O N
T Y M � M •� � � m � v � � V�1 � �t C .�T
W C •pY Y u
L C 40i W
N
CJ
>
L
7
m
N
d g
, w04 0°
CD
�
w7
O W •m O C L L L
N m m m m 7 W
•L w L 7 L a J 3 L W
Y 3 u g m v cc s
d N m W O^ 00 t W
W V � 7 N 7p •Y •« Y
1f1 W cc
a 7 L L m C m W m _
> m u u
m > L c m
p j r _ o m u E
\ 7 m W �► �► J L L d 7 W M
A W 2 — N ]: N d W 3
.19 O < 90 u: •e f: aD P o rz Fl; LA
Attachment 3
WATER SOURCE OF SUPPLY FUNDING CONCEPTS
DEMAND PROJECTIONS .
A.Pro' cted Demand Based on Per Capita Water Demand Ratios
Annual AF @
145 gal per day Percent
Population per capita %of Total
Existing Development 43,415 7,052 775%
New Development 12,585 2,044 22.5%
TOTAL 56,000 9,096 100.0%
B. New Water Supply Requirements
Required safe annual yield 9,096
Current safe annual yield 7,735
Additional safe annual yield required based on per capita water demand ratios 1,361
Reliability reserve 2,000
Siltation reserve 500
TOTAL- 3,861
G Allocation of New Water Supply Requirements Between Exisdazza and New Develo meat
Existing New
See notes Development Development TOTAL
New supplies based on water demand ratios O (683) 2,044 1,361
Reliability reserve 1) 1,551 449 2,000
Siltation reserve ® 388 112 500
TOTAL 1 5 2,606 3.861
PERCENT 1 32S4b 67-5% 1 100.0%
1. Credit allocated to existing development based on current safe annual yield is eacea of current demand(7735 of vs 7052 at)
2 Reliabilitynnd siltation reswm allocated to existing development based on its ratio to total projected demand(77-f%)
CONCEP'T'UAL SOURCE OF SUPPLY SOLUTION
Source of Supply AF SAY
Salinas Reservoir Expansion(1650 ac ft safe annual yield less 100 acre feet for WW Dist No 6) 1,550
Water Reclamation Distribution System 1,000
Nacimiento Pipeline 1,311
TOTAL -3,861
COST ALTERNATIVES - ANNUAL BASIS
Cost Range
Low Middle High
Salinas Reservoir Expansion 700,000 700,000
Water Reclamation Distribution System 320,000 480,000 640,000
Nacimiento Pipeline 684,300 832,500 2,861,000
Conservation includes current cost of$269,500) 347,900 597,400 1 172 400
TOTAL $2.052,200 $2,60 00 $4 673 400
ALLOCATION OF COSTS BETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT
Percent Cost Range
of Total Low Middle I HiAh
Existing Development 32.59a 666,958 848,208 1,518,839
New Development 6759c 1,385,242 1761692 3,154,561
TOTAL 100.091? $2,052,200 $2,609,900 $4,673,400
/-So
WATER SOURCE OF SUPPLY FUNDING CONCEPTS (continued)
FUNDING STRATEGIES — NEW DEVELOPMENT
A.E uAWent Dwellia Units U's
Ddsting Pop Per SFR Annual EDU
Units Household Equivalent EDU's Growth @ 1%
Single Family Residential 8,500 2.61.0 8,500 85
Multi—Fa ". Residential 9 800 2.1 0.8 7,840 78
Total Residential 163
Total Non—residential @ 35% of total water use 88
TOTAL EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS 251
B. Water Supply Impact Fee Requirement
Annual SFR Fee @
Requirement 251 EDU's
Low Cost Range $1,385,242 $5,510
Middle Cost Range 1,761,692 7,008
Ifigh Cost Range 3,154,561 12 549
Current Water Impact Fee less treatment plantportion) $2,416
FUNDING STRATEGIES — EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Annual 'Rate
Requirement Increase
Low Cost Range $666,958 8.1%
Middle Cost Range 848,208 103%
lEgh Cost Range 1,518,839 18.4%
' Based on projected rate base revenues of$8,2540010 in 1996-97perJune 6,1994 water rate analysis(assumes 2096 conservation)
Impact on 'Average"Single Family Customer
Average monddy bill @ 10 bffing units per months — ro ected rates in 1996-97
Billing $ Increase
Without allocated share of source of supply projects $28.46 $ ——
Low Cost Range 30.76 230
Middle Cost Range 3139 2.93
High Cost Range 33.70 5.24
KEY ASSUMPTION
Specific water sources are not allocated between ezfsting and new
development based on multi—source water policy
COST ALTERNATIVES — ANNUAL BASIS
Annual Costs
Cost Range
SCC notes Low Middle ffigh
Salinas Reservoir Expansion 700,000 700,000
Water Reclamation Distribution System 320,000 480,000 640,000
Nacimiento Pipeline O 684,300 832,500 2,861,000
Conservation includes current cost of$269,500) 347,900 597,400 1 172 400
TOTAL $2,052,200 1 $2, 09,900 $4 673 400
Per Acre Foot Costs
Cost Range
see notes Low Middle ffigh
Salinas Reservoir Expansion 452 452 --
Water Reclamation Distribution System 206 310 413
Nadmiento Pipeline 522 635 1,000
Conservation includes current costs ® 150 257 504
TOTAL $332 $422 $755
NOTES
O Nacimiento Pipeline Costs
Cost ranges for the Nacimiento pipeline project are not based on differing construction cost estimates,but on
differing assumptions regarding the apportionment of cost components(supply vs treatment — capital vs
operations&maintenance)in order to make appropriate cost comparisons. Rather than supporting one
allocation methdology over another at this time,these different apportionment approaches are reflected in
the"low,middle,or high"cost range.
The following is a summary of cost components of the Nacimiento project at this time based on very preliminary
cost information developed by the County Engineer:
Cost Per Acre Foot
Function
Supply
eline Treatment Total
Fatalities 522 113 635
QR2rations&Maintenance 302 63 365
Total $824 $176 $1000
• The"low cost range"is based on the facility cost of the pipeline ($522 per acre foot)
• The"middle cost range"is based on the facility cost of the pipeline and treatment plant($635 per acre feet)
• The"high cost range"is based on the facility and O&M costs for the pipeline and treatment
plant($1,000 per acre foot)
® Conservation acre foot yields
Savings from conservation are based on a yield of 2,321 acre feet per year computed as follows:
• Per capita demand ratio without any conservation(gallons per day) 182
• Per capita demand with recommended conservation program(gallons per day) 145
• Per capita savings(gallons per day) 37
0 Annual acre foot savings Ca)56,000 population 2S
ALTERNATIVE RELIABILITY RESERVE — 500 ACRE FEET
Allocaon of New Water Supply Requirements Between Esisting and New Development
Existing New
Development Development TOTAL
New supplies based on per capita water demand ratios (683) 2,044 1,361
Reliability reserve "" 388 112 500
Siltation reserve" 388 112 500
TOTAL 92 269 2,361
PERCENT 3.9% 1 96.1% 100.0%
CONCEPTUAL SOURCE OF SUPPLY SOLUTION
Source of Supply AF SAY
Salinas Reservoir Expansion(1650 ac ft safe annual yield less 100 acre feet for WW Dist No 6) 1,550
Water Reclamation Distribution System 1,000
TOTAL 2.550
COST ALTERNATIVES — ANNUAL BASIS
Cost Range
Low Middle ffigh
Salinas Reservoir Expansion 700,000 700,000
Water Reclamation Distribution System 320,000 480,000 640,000
Nacimiento Pipeline 1,361,000
Conservation includes current cost of$269,500) 347,900 597,400 1 172 400
TOTAL $1,367,900 1 $1,777,400 $3,173,400
ALLOCATION OF COSTS BETWEEN EXISITNG AND NEW DEVELOPMENT
Percent Cost Razze
Of Total Low Middle High
Existing Development .3.990 53,179 69,098 123,369
New Development 96.1% 1,314,721 1708 302 3,050,031
TOTAL 100.0% $1,367,900 $1,777,400 $3,173,400
FUNDING STRATEGIES — NEW DEVELOPMENT
Water Supply ct Fee Requirement
Annual SFR Fee @
Requirement 251 EDU's
Low Cost Range $1,314,721 $5,230
Middle Cost Range 1,708,302 6,796
HiA Cost Range 3,050,031 1133
Current Water Impact Fee(less treatment plantportion) $2416
FUNDING STRATEGIES — EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
Annual *Rate
Requirement Increase
Low Cost Range $53,179 0.6%
Middle Cost Range 69,098 0.8%
Cost Range 123,369 1.5% i
• Based on projected rate base revenues of f8.254000 in 1996-97perfune 6.1994 water rate analysis(assumes 20%conservation)
MLAG AITEM #
GENDA
DATE 7-Dl
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council
FROM: Pat Veesart >ZECEIVED
DATE: 20 July, 1994
SUBJECT: . Draft Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) J11'_
CITY COUNCIL
WATER CONSERVATION SAN LUIS OBISPo. CA
The city's highest water usage was 182 gppd in 1986. During the drought, that
usage came down to as low as 85 gppd in 1991 . how was this tremendous
drop in water usage achieved? Through conservation. The city did an
outstanding job of educating the public and the public rose to the occasion by
drastically changing their water habits. Staff claims (on p.1-23) that
"...quantitative data is not available to predict reliable water savings." A
reduction in usage from 1 82to 85 gppd in 5 years seems pretty quantitative to
me. Obviously conservation works much better than staff is giving it credit for.
Current usage is 102 gppd and the response to the survey (p.1 -29) indicates a
high willingness on the part of city residents to continue to conserve.
If the future billing structure was based on a sliding scale that rewarded
conservation and punished excessive use, the city could maintain current water
usage levels. This would also be an important factor when people select
landscaping. I'm not talking about imposing Draconian measures. I think that the
council should choose a water usage figure that a majority of citizens would feel
comfortable with, and then offer financial incentives to encourage people to
stay within this amount.
PER CAPITA WATER USAGE
Staff has came down from 195 gppd to 165 gppd. Now they are suggesting
145 gppd. This is a move in the right direction, but not for enough. Current
usage (1993) in San Luis Obispo is 102 gppd. This is not an anomaly. Here are
1993 water usages for some other Central Coast cities that have conservation
programs:
Grover Beach - 125 gppd
Morro Ba 125 d QAuNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
Bay - gppd ��cno ❑ FIN ow
Monterey - 117 gppd IB'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Santa Cruz - 105 d [ATTORNEY O PW DIR
9PP �LEP.KlORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
Santa Barbara - 104 gppd ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑}FEC DIR
' �❑ C EAD FILE UTIL DIR
�� ❑ PERS DIR
4g.11&7 eo00Z17
/Q- Au.,�s
I would think that city residents could be quite comfortable with 115 gppd as a
planning figure. This is approximately 15% higher than current usage. The survey
results (p. 1-29, question #8) indicate that a large majority respondents have no
intention of increasing water use in the future.
If the council chooses to use 115 gppd as a planning figure, what will the city
need to service the water needs of the population at build-out?
115 gppd x 365 days x 56,000 pop _ 325,829 gal/af = 7,214 of
Projected Water Demand 7,214 of
Reliability Reserve 2,000 of
Total Water Requirement (at build-out) 9,214 of
Safe Annual Yield 7,735 of
Siltation Reserve -500 of
Safe Annual Yield (at build-out) 7,235 of
Potential Water Through Reclamation 1,000 of
New Water Supply Requirements 979 of
POTENTIAL NEW WATER SOURCES
Even using 115 gppd as a planning figure, the city has a deficit of 1 ,979 of at
build out. All of this is Reliability Reserve. Where should we look for new sources
of water? Obviously, questions of cost, reliability, and environmental impact
come into play. Staff says that, conservatively, we can count on 1 ,000 of from
reclamation. That brings the deficit down to 979 of.
Staff is recommending both the Salinas Dam Expansion and participation in the
Nacimiento Water Project. Both projects will have negative environmental
impacts associated with them. Nacimiento is probably more reliable, but the
price tag is estimated at $63 million vs $10 million for Salinas. There is growing
opposition to the Salinas Expansion in the North County due to worries about
what the project will do to water supplies downstream. Salinas will also inundate
4,000 mature Oak trees and flood a beautiful county park.Until the EIR is
complete for Nacimiento, we won't know what the environmental impacts will
be, but I'm sure it will entail loss of trees and habitat also.
Either project would, by itself, satisfy the city's need for additional
water.Therefore, it makes no sense to participate in both given the cost and
environmental impacts.Clearly, the city should not take more water than it
needs to service its population at build-out plus a 2,000 of reserve in case of
drought.
Which one to choose? It is the council's responsibility to choose the most cost-
effective alternative in order to limit the costs to both city residents and future
development. If the council goes with the staff recommendation, water bills will
rise by 18% (1 think this estimate is way too low) and Water Impact Fees will
rise to somewhere between $5,500 and $12,500 dollars.This will make it even
more difficult for somebody with moderate income to afford to build or buy a
house.
Given that both the Salinas Expansion and the Nacimiento projects will likely
have unavoidable negative environmental impacts, and given that the Salinas
expansion will cost $50 million less than the participation in the Nacimiento
project, it only makes sense to choose the Salinas expansion over Nacimiento.
That is, of course, only if the council and staff can't figure out some other
way to cover the 979 of deficit.
There are other sources of water that haven't been discussed in any detail. In
the Council Agenda Report for September 3, 1991 , staff indicates that " It may
be possible to identify an additional 500 of of ground water for safe annual
yield." There is no discussion of that 500 of at this time.
Where does de-salinization fit into the picture? Is it cost-effective at this time?
Would it be reliable?
Is it feasible for the city to purchase irrigated farmland in the Edna, Chorro, or
Los Osos Valleys and use the water that had traditionally been used for
irrigation for city use? The city could then restore wildlife habitat and leave the
land as Open Space or lease the land to someone who wanted to dry land farm
it. It may be possible to get enough water this way to cover the 979 of deficit,
save some money, and acquire some greenbelt. Staff seems to think that there
might be problems with water rights, but it seems to me that cities and water
companies do this all the time. If the State can take water from the Delta and
pipe it to Los Angeles, surely the city could pipe water from the Chorro Valley.
RETROFIT
None of the water supply options are ready to come on line and, since we
don't have a crystal ball to look into, we don't know what problems or delays
will be encountered. Doesn't it just make good common sense to continue the 2-
1 retrofit program until we have either 100% retrofit or a major new source of
water comes on line?
WATER ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Given the controversial nature of water policy and the city's poor track record
in abiding by the wishes of its citizens when it comes to water, it seems to me
that the council should insure that the public has all the opportunities possible for
public review before changes are made. Keeping city water policy in the
General Plan would give the Planning Commission the opportunity to review
proposed changes and would give the public an opportunity to comment on
those changes before they went to council. I strongly recommend keeping city
water policy within the General Plan. Frankly, I can't believe that anyone would
seriously even consider taking something as important as water policy out of the
General Plan.
RELIABILITY RESERVE
I am concerned that the Reliability Reserve could be used for new development
someday. All it would take is three votes of a future council. Is there some way
that use of the Reliability Reserve could be written into the city's charter and
require a vote of the people before it is used? If not, I would like to see some
other safeguard built into the Reliability Reserve.
CONCLUSION (main points)
• Use a per capita planning figure based on reality (actual usage).
• Reinstate billing policy that rewards conservation and penalizes waste.
• Obligate the city to only the amount of water needed to service the
population at build-out.
• Meet our water needs with the most cost-effective and least
environmentally damaging source(s).
• Take a 2000 of Reliability Reserve but insure that it will not be used for
new development.
• Keep water policy in the General Plan.
• Keep the 2-1 retrofit program until new sources of water come on line or
until 100% retrofit is achieved.
• Insure that the cost of water for new development is paid for by new
development, but don't "gouge" development by taking expensive or
excessive water.
Thank you for wading through all this,
V
Pat Veesart
976 Buchan Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel. 546-0518
Please send copies of this to:
John Moss
Gary Henderson
Ron Munds