Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/30/2003, BUS 4 - EXPANDED WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM council M`J Jan. 30, 2003 j ac Enaa Pepoizt ,Number CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Moss, Utilities Director `ry/A Prepared By: Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation Coordinator PVV- SUBJECT: EXPANDED WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM CAO RECOMMENDATION Consider a report concerning expanding the water conservation program and direct staff to develop a detailed cost analysis to support the programs as part of the 2003-05 Financial Plan. REPORT-IN-BRIEF At the June 11, 2002 City Council meeting, staff presented, as part of the Annual Water Resources Status Report, water supply alternatives to meet the City's General Plan build out requirements. Council grouped potential water supply alternatives into 3 tiers, with Tier 1 projects being the highest priority. One of the Tier 1 projects was to investigate developing new or enhancing existing water conservation programs to gain additional yield from the overall program which, once deemed reliable water savings, would be added to the City's Safe Annual Yield. After evaluating the options available, staff is proposing expanding the water conservation program to include a more dynamic outdoor water efficiency element and new programs focused on non-residential water customers. The outdoor water conservation program would primarily focus on irrigation efficiency but also include information regarding low water using plant material. The components of the program would include: 1. Technical assistance 2. Public information and education 3. Monitoring It is estimated that irrigation water use within the City can be reduced by approximately 270 acre feet per year by implementing a comprehensive irrigation efficiency program. If approved, the program's first year objective would be to decrease irrigation water use by 90 acre feet (approximately 30% of the total yield). In order to allow sufficient time to fully develop the plan, implementation of the program will not occur until spring 2004. Upon full implementation, staff will recommend the addition of the 90 acre feet to the City's Safe Annual Yield when presenting the Annual Water Resources Status Report in June 2004. Each subsequent year, the progress and effectiveness of the irrigation efficiency program will be reported to Council as pan of the Annual Water Resources Status Report. At that time, staff will make recommendations regarding adding additional water saved from the program to the Safe Annual Yield. The estimated annual cost of this component is $29,000. Council Agenda Report—Expanded Water Conservation Program Page 2 The non-residential portion of the water conservation program would use a combination of expanded information materials and financial incentives, all geared specifically to the commercial sector. It is proposed that the financial incentives be used for a number of projects, but assistance be limited to those businesses whose proposals have been fully evaluated, with particular attention given to innovative projects that produce measurable water savings. The goal of this portion of the program is to reduce the overall water use in the commercial sector by 5% or 70 to 75 acre feet per year. Similar to the irrigation efficiency program, the program's first year objective is to reduce water use about 30% of the total estimated water savings or 20 to 25 acre feet per year. Again, it is proposed that this water savings(20 to 25 acre feet) be added to the Safe Annual Yield after implementation of the program and results of the program are reported back to the Council as part of the Annual Water Resources Status Report. The estimated annual cost of this portion of the program is $35,000. DISCUSSION Background At the June 11, 2002 City Council meeting, staff presented, as part of the Annual Water Resources Status Report, water supply alternatives to meet the City's General Plan build out requirements. Council grouped potential water supply alternatives into 3 tiers, with Tier 1 projects being the highest priority. One of the Tier 1 projects was to investigate developing new or enhancing existing water conservation programs to gain additional yield from the overall program which, once deemed reliable water savings, would be added to the City's Safe Annual Yield. For the last twelve years, toilet replacement and other indoor water conservation measures have been the primary focus of the Water Conservation Program. The reasoning behind this strategy was that the water savings gained from water hardware replacement was highly reliable and did not require major behavioral changes by the user. When looking at new or enhanced programs it is important to keep in mind the reliable water savings of any measure or program being considered. In looking at options available, staff determined that programs focusing on outdoor water use would yield the greatest potential savings. Though outdoor water efficiency has always been a component of the overall program, it has never been the focus because of the variability and difficulty in estimating reliable water savings. This report also discusses an expanded non- residential (commercial) program using incentives, education and information to gain additional water savings. City Water Use When developing water efficiency programs, it is important to understand how and where water is actually used within the community. The following is a summary of water use by customer classification. z4 _9 Council Agenda Report—Expanded Water Conservation Program Page 3 Table 1 Customer Classification Percent of Total Water Use Single Family 35% Multifamily 26% Commercial, industrial, Institutional 24% Dedicated Landscape Meters 9% Unaccounted 6% Though these percentages can vary slightly from year to year, this is a fairly consistent representation of water use within the community. Water Conservation Program Evaluation This section of the report will discuss the various alternatives available to the City to develop new programs to achieve a higher level of water efficiency throughout the community. Landscape Programs As previously mentioned, landscape related programs present the greatest opportunity for future water savings above what has been accomplished. On an average about 1,800 acre feet of water is used annually on landscapes within the City. Irrigation water use can vary greatly depending on the weather. An example would be in 1997, which was a very wet year, about 1,300 acre feet was used for irrigation purposes. In the 1998, a year when any significant rain abruptly stopped in January, irrigation water use increased to about 2,100 acre feet. Based on available data and past experience, staff is recommending that a two pronged approach be used in achieving additional outdoor water conservation. First and the most important, an irrigation efficiency outreach program should be developed and implemented. Currently, staff does provide irrigation evaluation services but only when requested by a customer. A more aggressive approach is needed to educate both the water customer and landscape professionals on how to irrigate efficiently. This would include on site visits to identify irrigation system deficiencies and instruction on how to properly program irrigation controllers. Secondly, a program to promote low water using plant material needs to developed. Though water savings from this program can not be measured, education and awareness would be the focal point. An analysis and components of the recommended program are as follows: Irrigation Efficiency Program Analysis Based on water use information from 1996 to 2001, it is estimated that on an average 1,800 acre feet of water is used annually for landscape irrigation. The approximate irrigation water use breakdown by customer classification is shown in the following table. 4-3 Council Agenda Report—Expanded Water Conservation Program Page 4 Table 2 Customer Classirication Irrioation Water Use in Acre:Feet Single Family Residential 840 Multi-family Residential 312 Dedicated Landscape Meters 540 Commercial 108 Total 1800 Again, the numbers in Table 2 are estimations based on the available water use data and assumption made by staff in regards to the percentage breakdown by customer classification. In order to estimate the potential water savings from an irrigation efficiency outreach program, staff assumed that irrigation efficiency could reduce city-wide irrigation water use by 15% (California Urban Water Conservation Council estimation). Applying the 15% reduction to the water use estimation in Table 2, Table 3 shows the estimated potential water savings that can be attributed to an irrigation efficiency program for each customer class. Table 3 Customer Classification Estimated Water Savings in Acre Feet Single Family Residential 126 Multi-family Residential 47 Dedicated Landscape Meters 81 Commercial 16 Total 270 As previously stated, the 270 acre feet may be the maximum potential of the program but because irrigation water use can vary greatly based on weather, irrigation system design and irrigation controller scheduling, staff would recommend a conservative approach in estimating the actual water savings during the startup of the program. To this end, it is recommended that a third of the potential yield, or 90 acre feet, be the water use reduction goal during the first year. In order to allow sufficient time to fully develop the plan, implementation of the program will not occur until spring 2004. Upon full implementation, staff will recommend the addition of the 90 acre feet to the City's Safe Annual Yield when presenting the Annual Water Resources Status Report in June 2004. Each subsequent year, the progress and effectiveness of the irrigation efficiency program will be reported to Council as part of the Annual Water Resources Status Report. At that time, staff will make recommendations regarding adding additional water saved from the program to the Safe Annual Yield. Landscape Irrigation Efficiency Program Components Based on the information in Table 3, the primary focus of the initial program should be directed at single family residential and dedicated landscape metered customers, though some effort should be directed at all customer classifications. The key to reaching each customer classification is a one-on-one interface with City staff. This can be accomplished either in a group setting, such as a workshop, or on site, either at a home in the case of single family Council Agenda Report—Expanded Water Conservation Program Page 5 customers or a site visit for the other customer classes. Staff is proposing an expanded program which will provide additional technical assistance, more informational and educational materials, and ongoing monitoring of the program effectiveness. Though each component would need to be slightly modified for each customer group, the general concepts applied to each class would be similar. • Program Components 1. Technical Assistance- Technical assistance is the key to obtaining the water use reduction goals associated with this program. The Utilities Conservation Office's (UCO) staff has many tools available to assist customers in the evaluation of their systems and in determining irrigation schedules. Currently, staff is aware of a number of areas within the City where significant irrigation runoff is a problem. Due to a lack of resources, it has not been possible to perform the necessary observations and follow-up to solve the inefficient irrigation practices. It is staff's opinion that focusing resources on these areas would have a significant impact in decreasing the amount of water used by these customers. Stepped up enforcement of the City's water waste code regarding irrigation runoff is one strategy that will be used to identify customers in need of assistance. Though staff has not aggressively enforced this code since mandatory water conservation in the early 1990's, it has been a useful tool when a concerned citizen registers a complaint regarding what they believe to be excessive runoff from another customer's irrigation system. Staff is able to contact the responsible party and work with them to solve their irrigation problem. In cases where the responsible party is reluctant to cooperate, the code allows staff to be more assertive in gaining their cooperation. Having a greater presence in the community and using the "carrot and the stick" approach should provide the water use reduction results the program is striving for. A second strategy will be to query the Utility Billing Program and identify the top water users in different customer classifications and offer assistance directly when applicable. This could be in the form of a mailing with suggestion on how to improve irrigation efficiency or direct contact by the UCO staff. For dedicated landscape meter customers this will involve creating water budgets for each account and preparing an analysis to determine if the customers water use is within an acceptable range of water use compared to the water budget. Further assistance will be provided where appropriate. 2. Public Information and Education- The UCO has maintained a public information and education program through the years with mixed results. When reviewing what has worked and the potential for new opportunities, the following are the recommended alternatives for the ongoing irrigation efficiency programa • New landscape and irrigation workshops geared toward individual neighborhoods. • Direct mail information to areas where irrigation water runoff is prevalent. • Direct mail information to professional landscape maintenance companies/individuals. Council Agenda Report—Expanded Water Conservation ram Pro g9 Page 6 • Continued public service announcements and paid advertising. • Continued professional landscape maintenance personnel training. • Develop "drop off' information for water customers experiencing irrigation problems. • Enlisting community organizations and businesses to participate where appropriate. As with the technical assistance portion of the program, the UCO staff want to become more visible within the community and create a higher awareness of the importance of the efficient water use. Utilizing combinations of the above public outreach options will keep the"irrigation efficiency message" in front of the community. 3. Monitoring- To evaluate the effectiveness of the program, a monitoring system will have to be developed to verify and document water savings attributable to the program. This would involve reviewing water use records before and after the consultation and perform any necessary follow-up with the customer. Results of the monitoring program will be provided as part of the Annual Water Resources Status Report. Low Water Using Plant Material Program As previously mentioned, the second component of the overall landscape program should be an education and awareness program which promotes the use of low water using plants. The UCO has many printed resources already available to the public. The components of the program would include: • Printed information and brochures on low water using plant material distributed by City staff. • Forming partnerships with other organizations and businesses with similar interests such as the SLO Botanical Garden group, local nurseries, etc. Though water savings from this component may not be quantifiable, it is staff's opinion that ongoing information and education presenting the value of low water using landscapes is an important part of the overall landscape program. Non-Residential(Commercial) Water Conservation Program When trying to identify water conservation programs for the non-residential sector, it became apparent that it would be difficult to ascertain what would be useful, in the way of programs, for this sector. Though some resources have been directed to the non-residential sector, the focus has been primarily on toilet replacement (as with the residential sector). Staff is proposing an expanded program that will provide additional informational and educational materials, and financial incentives for the commercial class. The goal of this portion of the water conservation program is to reduce non-residential water use by 5% which equates to about 70 to 75 acre feet per year. Again, being conservative, it is recommended that the first year goal be about a third of this total or 20 to 25 acre feet. Council Agenda Report—Expanded Water Conservation Program Page 7 • Program Components 1. Financial Incentives- In the past, businesses have approached the UCO asking if rebates or other financial incentives were available to implement a specific water conservation measure but funds have not been available to support these activities. Historically, rebates have only been given for toilet and shower head replacement, and for high efficiency washing machines. Staff would propose budgeting money for non-residential water conservation measures. The financial incentives may be used for a number of projects such as, retrofit of appliances, installation of toilet flow diverters, etc.. This program is not intended to subsidize the normal rotation of equipment or materials in the business community. To this end, assistance will be limited to those businesses that have been evaluated, and particular attention will be given to innovative projects that produce measurable ongoing water savings. Currently, UCO budget includes $25,000 for toilet and high efficiency washing machine rebates. This amount could be increased to reflect the anticipated participation of the non-residential customers. Water savings from this component will depend on the number and types of projects submitted for evaluation. Staff would institute a monitoring program to ascertain water savings. 2. Information and Education Materials- Currently, most of the printed information and brochures distributed by the UCO are geared towards residential customers and landscaping issues. Staff would propose focusing additional resources in developing information for non-residential customers such as hotels/motels, restaurants, etc.. High end water users will be identified through utility billing records and individually evaluated for a targeted package of assistance and consultation. 3. Monitoring As with the landscape program, a monitoring system will have to be developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Results of the monitoring_ program will be provided as part of the Annual Water Resources Status Report. As with the irrigation efficiency program, it is proposed that this water savings (20 to 25 acre feet) be added to the Safe Annual Yield after implementation of the program and results of the program reported back to the Council on yearly basis as part of the Annual Water Supply Status Report. Resources Required(Landscape and Non-Residential Programs) In order to implement the water conservation programs proposed in this report, it is estimated that the following additional resources will be required. 4.r) Council Agenda Report—Expanded Water Conservation Program Page 8 Table 4 Description 2 Temporary Employees (2,000 hours) $28,000.00 Printed Material/Mailing $ 10,000.00 Office &Misc. Expenses $ 500.00 Training $ 500.00 Non-Residential Financial Incentives $20,000.00 Computer Programming& Support $ 5,000.00 Vehicle $15,000.00 Total $799000.00 The temporary employees would assist the two existing Utilities Conservation Technicians in customer contacts and other logistical tasks. The non-residential incentive cost is merely an estimate and would have to be re-examined after the first year of implementation. The computer programming and support is the estimated cost of developing a monitoring and tracking system, as well as, purchasing software that would be used in the landscape program. These figures will be refined through the preparation of the 2003-2005 Financial Plan. These programs, unlike hardware retrofit, require an ongoing effort to maintain their effectiveness and therefore, the above costs will be ongoing annual expenses. Summary By expanding the Water Conservation Program to incorporate a more aggressive landscape component and focusing more resources on the non-residential sector, the following is a summary of the estimated water savings and cost of the program. Table 5 Description Estimated Water V Year Goal Estimated Cost Savinus in Acre Feet Landscape Pro am 270 90 $419000 Non-residential 70 to 75 20 to 25 $38,000 Program Total 340 to 345 110 to 115 $799000 Based on the estimated water savings and program costs; the cost per acre foot of the water saved would be between$200 and$700. It is important to understand that the numbers in Table 5 are estimates that will need to be further evaluated after the implementation of the programs. If the expanded program is approved, staff will begin the development of the programs in July 2003. The landscape component will most likely be fully implemented in early Spring 2004. Upon full implementation of all the components of the expanded program, staff will return to the Council, as part of the Annual Water Resources Status Report, with a recommendation for adding the reliable water savings to the City's Safe Annual Yield. (} 4 b Council Agenda Report—Expanded Water Conservation Program Page 9 FISCAL IMPACT There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the recommendations made in this report. Staff will refine the program components and cost estimates when preparing the UCO portion of the 2003-05 Financial Plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Development of a water rate structure that would further encourage water conservation. The current rate structure is commodity based with two tiers for all customer classifications. Staff explored the possibility of adding a third tier for single family residential customers which would encourage more efficient use of water on landscapes. This concept could also be applied to dedicated landscape metered customers by developing water budgets for each site and if the customer exceeded the water budget the third tier pricing would take effect. It is staff's view that the implementation of the additional programs recommended in this report should remedy the need to institute a different rate structure at this time. If the estimated water use reductions are not realized, staff.will return to the Council with a more thorough analysis of the cost and water savings of an alternative water rate structure for the Council's consideration. 2. ET Controllers-New Technology. The latest technology being studied at this time is evapotransporation (ET) controllers for residential customers. These controllers use actual weather information broadcast to them through an electronic signal using pager technology. Many water agencies in California are performing pilot studies using ET controllers but results have not been substantiated. Though the preliminary data indicates the controllers can reduce water use, the underlying problem in determining reliable water savings (using ET controllers) is the performance of the existing irrigation systems. A vast majority of the residential systems are poorly designed and/or improperly installed which results in poor sprinkler coverage. The effect of this is the need to increase watering times to compensate for the areas not receiving enough water therefore over watering the other areas. These deficiencies must be corrected in order for the controllers to be effective. Until the previously proposed irrigation efficiency program has an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and studies being performed around the state are complete, staff would not.recommend introducing the new technology at this time. 3. Other Future Irrigation Efficiency Incentives Programs. As previously discussed, ,there are new technologies currently being studied. In addition, other landscape and irrigation programs are being implemented by water purveyors throughout California, but results to date are inconclusive. As more information becomes available, staff may return to the Council to request funding for programs that prove to have quantifiable water savings. These could include: • Large landscape rebate program for selected irrigation equipment upgrades. !I q i " 1 Council Agenda Report—Expanded Water Conservation Program Page 10 • Residential landscape rebate program for irrigation equipment upgrades. • Financial incentives for large landscapes to decrease water use below their water budget on an annual basis. 4- ( D