HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/1991, 1B - WATER SUPPLY STATUS AND 15% MANDATORY CONSERVATION PROGRAM L7/a_."k
MEETING DATE:
�U!iIInIIII��������II�lU lll�lll city of San LUIS OBISPO IT ri1 16, 1991
REM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: William T. Hetland PREPARED BY. Ron Munds�/
Utilities Director Water Conservation Coordinator
SUBJECT. WATER SUPPLY STATUS AND 15% MANDATORY
CONSERVATION PROGRAM
CAO RECOMMENDATION.
Adopt a resolution implementing a 15% mandatory conservation program, to be
effective for all water billing dates after April 15, 1991.
DISCUSSION
At its meeting of April 3, 1991, following a water storage update resulting from the
significant March rains, Council directed staff to return to this meeting with a
proposal for an amended water conservation policy including a 15% mandatory water
conservation level using 1987 as the base year and a recommendation for a cap for
maximum usage.
Staff recommends that Council adopt a 15% mandatory conservation program with a
35 unit ceiling per billing cycle for single family residential accounts and all previously
adopted water waste municipal code remain in place and continue to be enforced.
While the level of mandatory conservation is recommended to be reduced, staff is
also recommending that a more aggressive, long-term approach to water conservation
be undertaken. Proposed programs are listed and discussed in Appendix A.
HISTORY OF WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
The Mandatory Water Conservation Program has been extremely successful in
achieving the City's goal of reducing water consumption. Overall consumption has
averaged 43% to 46% of 1987 consumption levels for the last 15 months while the
City has been under a mandatory 35% conservation program. Because of the
significant savings resulting from the conservation program, water conservation has
become a major component of the City's source of supply program. Attachments 1
and 2 reflect the Water Conservation Program "REPORT CARDS" as of December
1990 and as of March 1991.
25% Mandatory Program
Mandatory water conservation was first implemented in 1989 at the level 25%
reduction from 1987 base year consumption. At that time, average consumption per
single family household was 25 units per billing period. The ceiling was set at 40
units.
35% Mandatory Prop
Mandatory conservation at the 35% level was approved to be implemented in June
1990 and has remained in place to this date. The ceiling was set at 25 units.
��'�h�►nu►,�NIII►III►� IIIIIU city Of San IDIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
15% Mandatory Conservation
Page 2
In April 1989, the City Council enacted Water Waste Municipal Codes, which
prohibited the run-off of water from property, the use of substandard water fixtures,
the use of water from fire hydrants for purposes other than fire fighting or other
emergencies; the serving of water to restaurant customers unless requested, the use of
potable water to wash sidewalks, driveway or parking areas, and the use of potable
water for construction purposes.
A component of the Mandatory Water Conservation Program called for monetary
penalties levied against water accounts that exceed their water allocation. A 100%
surcharge was to be levied, if the customer exceeded their water allocation; a 200%
surcharge was to be levied, if the customer exceeded the base year usage established
by the City. An appeals process was established for review and settlement of
surcharge appeals. These provisions will still apply under the 15% program.
PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY
The Total Storage Curve is part of the City's Annual Water Plan analysis. It is a
model to estimate the City's reservoir storage based on historical water use, reservoir
data and available groundwater supplies. The curve also shows the different action
levels at which various conservation measures are implemented. The model is used to
forecast the City's water supply position and to make certain water policy
recommendations. The curve has been updated since the March rains to take into
account the significant increase in storage.
The model predicts water storage to last until the summer of 1994. Storage is
approximately at the same level that the City was in early 1988, at which time it was
projected that the water in storage would last about three and one half years,
assuming previously adopted conservation levels. Storage is currently in the moderate
conservation (15% conservation) action level.
Attachment 3 shows the impact of 12 months (May 1991 - April 1992) mandatory
conservation at the 15% level, followed by seven months at the 25% conservation
level, then the 35% and 50% conservation levels. Attachment 4 shows the impact of
19 months of mandatory conservation at the 25% level, followed by the same intervals
of increasing mandatory conservation. As can be seen, the model predicts that about
an additional month and a half of water storage is gained, with storage lasting until
late summer, early fall of 1994. While the consumption is 10% less for the first 12
months, the impact of evaporation is more significant when there is more lake surface
area and may be the reason that the curves are further apart in 1993 and seem to be
converging in 1994.
From a decision making point of view, two months is not significant, since the model
is only a tool in predicting actual consumption and weather conditions over the next
three years, and since only swings of six months or more would modify
u►�����►i�illlllllli° NU1l� City Of San tins OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
15% Mandatory Conservation
Page 3
recommendations regarding timing for implementing more stringent conservation levels
and other water supply programs.
IMPLEMENTING A 15% MANDATORY CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Attachment 5 shows staffs recommendation for a 15% mandatory conservation
program with a 35 unit ceiling maximum for single family residential. (Prior to
conservation, 25 units was the average consumption for single family households with
a family of three.) Under this program, single family households would be restricted
to 85% consumption of 1987 base year levels, while multi-family households would be
restricted to 88% consumption of 1987 base year levels. Commercial and industrial
accounts would be restricted to 95% consumption of 1987 base year levels.
Institutions such as schools and the City would be restricted to 75% of 1987
consumption levels. Landscape and other uses would be restricted to 50% of 1987
consumption levels. Under this program, total consumption would be reduced by a
projected 17%. The additional two percent of savings is related to the 35 unit ceiling
maximum placed on single family residential households recommended as part of the
15% mandatory program
History of Single Family residential allocation Ceilings
To make the City's first phase of mandatory water conservation program more
equitable, Council adopted a single family residential allocation ceiling in October,
1989. The intent of the ceiling was to limit the maximum allocation given to water
customers with a 1987 water use history.
In the initial mandatory conservation program, a ceiling of 40 billing units was
adopted, based on the distribution of customers above and below this number. Only
25% of the customers were affected by the ceiling. A ceiling of 25 billing units was
approved as part of the 35% mandatory conservation program, so adoption of staffs
recommendation of 35 billing units as the new maximum will increase the current
ceiling by 10 units per billing cycle.
FISCAL IMPACT
No change is required in the current water rate structure as a result of the adoption
of the proposed program of 15% mandatory conservation program with a ceiling of 35
units per billing cycles for single family households.
The water rate model used to predict that 0 to 1% rate increase would be required
used the most current 1991/1993 financial plan documents under development. The
1991/1993 financial plan includes three water capital projects, the upgrade of the
Water Treatment Plant in year 1, the expansion of the Salinas reservoir in year 2, and
continuation of the maintenance and upgrade of the water distribution system in both
years.
-3
���n��niii��►IIIIIIIP�' ���III City of San IDIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
15% Mandatory Conservation
Page 4
In addition, as conservation has historically been at 5% to 10% higher levels than has
been mandated, that was taken into account in the revenue projections for the next
two years.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Water Conservation Report Card for 1990
Attachment 2 - Water Conservation Report Card for FY 90/91
Attachment 3 - Total Storage Capacity - 15% for 12 Months
Attachment 4 - Total Storage Capacity - 25% for 19 Months
Attachment 5 - Summary of Percentage Reduction Targets by Account Types
Appendix A - Proposed Water Conservation Programs and Timeline
Appendix B - Resolution Adopting the Mandatory Water Conservation
Implementation Policy Statement
!I3 ��
Appendix B
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING THE MANDATORY WATER
CONSERVATION IMPLEMENTATION POLICY STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has experienced consecutive
years with lower. than normal rainfall which resulted in lower
than normal reservoir storage levels. Using historic water
hydrology and demand information, the City developed and adopted
its Annual Water Operational Plan of 1985 under which reductions
in demand are required when predetermined reservoir storage
levels are reached.
WHEREAS, The City Council acknowledges that water is a limited
resource and therefore desires to improve the effectiveness of
water use within the City' s service area and encourages citizens
to use water wisely. To accomplish this, the City will introduce
a mandatory water conservation program using the following
elements:
SECTION 1. This Council finds that.:
1. Water use classifications are determined and established by
the Director of Finance.
2. The customer of record is responsible for the water service
and extent of water use.
3. The City will establish a life-line water usage allowance
of 22 units per billing cycle for single meter residence.
4. The City will establish a maximum allocation of 35 units
per billing cycle for single meter residence.
5. The City will establish a lifeline allocation of 16 units
per unit per billing cycle for all other users.
6. The City will establish a mandatory water conservation
percentage reduction allotment program for each customer
class.
7. The City will establish an optional base-line standard
water allocation program adjusted by the target for
commercial accounts and a city average plus per capita
adjustment water allocation program for residential
accounts. The following conservation targets, alternative
Base Units/Standard, and Adjusted Units for billing units
per billing cycle are established by customer class:
Resolution (1991 Series)
Page 2
A. RESIDENTIAL Target Optional Allocation
Single Meter 15% 22 unit (lifeline) for 3
permanent residents + 2 . 0
additional permanent resident
Multi-Family 12% 16 unit (lifeline) for 3
permanent residents per Dwelling
Unit + 2. 0 additional units for
each additional permanent
resident
B. COMMERCIAL 5%
Commercial accounts will reduce over-all water consumption by 5%
for each classification.
C. INSTITUTIONAL 25%
D. LANDSCAPE 50%
8.. To encourage compliance with the mandatory water conservation
program, there will be a surcharge added to the water bill if
the customer exceeds the required reduction amount. The
surcharge will be 100 percent of the total water bill on
which the target allocation is exceeded. In the event that
the customer's consumption exceeds the established base year
usage, the surcharge will be 200 percent of the total water
bill. If the customer exceeds the allotment on two billing
cycles within a twelve month period, a flow-restrictor may be
installed in the customer's water supply line at cost to the
customer, or the surcharge may be increased to a higher
value. If the customer exceeds the allotment three or more
billing cycles within a twelve month period, the City may
reserve the right to terminate the water service. Prior to
the termination of water service, the City will provide a due
process hearing before the Water Conservation Adjustment
Board.
9. The City, pursuant to Chapter 13.07 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code which prohibits wasting of water, will impose
the following penalties to consumers in violation. The City
may:
* Issue a written "warning" for the first 'of.fense;
* Issue a written citation or complaint for the second offense;
* Install a flow-restrictor at the cost of the customer for the
third offense; and,
* Terminate water service for a fourth offense. Prior to the
termination of water service, the City will provide a due
process hearing before the Water Conservation Adjustment
Resolution (1991 Series)
Page 3
Board. The charge for water service termination and
restoration shall be 100 dollars.
10. The City shall establish a Water Conservation Adjustment
Board, which may grant exceptions for uses of water otherwise
prohibited by Section 13 .07. 070. The procedure for filing a
request for exception is:
* Completely fill, out an application form which will be
evaluated in accordance with established criteria as approved
by the City Administrative Officer.
* The first review will be by the Utilities Director or
designees. The customer will be notified of the decision by
letter.
* If the water customer is not satisfied with the decision, it
may be appealed to the Water Conservation Adjustment Board.
* If the customer is not satisfied with the decision of the
Water Conservation Adjustment Board, it may be appealed to
the City Administrative Officer whose decision shall be
final.
11. Requests for exemptions and any subsequent appeals can only
be made by the service customer or property owner.
12. The mandatory water conservation program will be reviewed
annually by the City Council in connection with the Annual
Water Operational Plan. Current guidelines exist based upon
reservoir storage levels which dictate when restrictions will
be reduced, increased, or eliminated.
SECTION 2. Effective Date.
This program will become effective for all water billing
dates after April 15, 1991.'
a - 7
Resolution (1991 series)
Page 4
On motion ofseconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES: ,
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted the day of
1991.
MAYOR RON DUNIN
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK PAM VOGES
APPRO
CITY A NISTRATIVE OFFICER
FINANCE DIRECTOR
UTILITIES DIRECTOR
1111 1
:l}C4ti•A•JJ.s•
%r7 rC S��f�\�• O�
• h 7
N orr.
.til}
nm •
• rs
- 4 _ }
- :::: .-_'..-:. '--tiJil .'.-.:....'.,•- .. �.rvr^-sem._.--:r.��
s_ r rN g•;•;S: •
t.r v r rr�.� ° •
• • • o e e • s e s
w
1 II 1
•
I \
r :
• :• •
r • �
:d
'"-- �- ��•YT i iiS•i i�i V � •
f-�1 •
j /
Attachment 3
rn
_
0
T
T�
(D�\
70
0) C
C
.I- p = W Q
v N
n� '�
: <
T
L o p
n O . 00
O Cl r
>
UT o �
T
Wz nz
� p NO Q
� U y
~ � T
QQ Cli w
rr �
rT o
O
W TC
o
z _
C) CL
cit c� T
O �,
U b
Qo _
T O
W T6 6 n v T v T
N N T T T T T T T T T T
Co (spuesnoLW
Q Q jaaj - away
Attachment 4
v
0
T
!1
U) _j
O
T J �
~ � G) LJLJ Q
UT
c L-
Q �-
n 00
fh T
< Z
O =
U N a 0 — a)
• 1 O T
W z Viz .
4-1
OU
(MD O N P Q
QQ cm w �
OC > T
pW T � U
� U) EP o
O T •O
M E
coo a� Cit
ca y LO
� p�
J U cn �
o
Q 4 � T
•�.
T � T � T O wN N T T T T T T T T T T
U)
(spuesnoy.L)
1,g-M-
Attachment 5
11 r r r r r r r r r � r
II r H W • 1� .} r r r ' a0 O. Y1 I .} r (� M f� r •O • M r M
un rr rM r rpNMWV Q7 COO v OM r O P r M r �MO
CO
n r K N r r • r r . r • r . r
11 r 6 7 r N •O r CO • CO O O P r .} r M N N • at) r ap r O N r A
11 1 r r r �- O M U1 r r W O M r •O r •O • N CO r 00
11 Z r r 'S M r Q r r r r IR
11 Q r r . r r r • r r r r
II aC r r r • r r r r r r r N r N
Qt 11 01 r r r r
01
11 Q X X X X X X X X r X X X X • X r X r X
L n d r H 2 r N N • .} r N V\ U1 U1 r U1 r V1 U1 U\ r N r O r U1 f�
m
11 11'1 U f r • r •
W 11tl w r U r r r r r
to r W 7 r r • r •
C 11 r d 0 r • r
q 11W
L 11 K
11 • r r r r r r
11 r • r r r r r r r r
Y u
lu n
m n
L u
m n
Y n
u
lu n
u
tl
0
n • r r r r r r . r
n H W r A �• N r M O •0 r P r GO r .{ pO r •Q
0 V Q r r N r •O p� r N r 1�1 0 • fV r �} r N P � N
Op O r A r M a0 P r A m 00 r v r M • •C .0 P
p r OC Vl r • r . r r r r r
tl r 6 O • O U1 r •Q r V1 P O N r P r N U1 r .} r a• r �. U1 r U1
0 r F r Ul P r �{ • O O M O r !V • .} •p m N r M r �} • C f� r C
W v r M • r M r Uf r r r r • O r r
11 r r r r r r r r r v r
11 • r r r r r r r r r N r r
11 V r r r r r • r r
11 O r � r r r •
u
n If r r r r r • • r r
d • r i i i i r r r r
II • r X X r X r X X X X • X r ][ X X r X r X r X r X
11 2 r H S r U1 co r M r U1 O O r m • 0 0 r O • O • N r !A
11 • W O • M N r M r N N • r .t .t .i r .} r A r M r M
n C r U H r r r r r
11 r
no, U r r r r r r
W O r r r r r •
1 6 w r
a r W r r • r r
11 r K • •
Y
0
n
of u
C n
n
u
T a
u n
u u
n
Y u
n
n
n r r r r r r r r r
11 r h- N r M /�m r ' A r r U1 r v
N 11 r 2 H r O O r O • d P M r r •O r .p r P r \ r n
M Y r W r CO .0 N r P r P
11 • J S r r r r r r r r
\ II r Q O • O A r ' r r r r r • r r A r I�
N p •+ �! • r r r r r r r
2 11 r r r r r r r • r r r
6 n v 7 r r r • r r r
� u r O r • r r r r •
V 11 Q r W r r r r r
O 11
K 0Q r r r r r r
d u O � • r r r � r � r
n r • r r r r r r
P r'-0
X 11 • N r M M •O •O CO. N r N r S p A • •O r yl .} .}
V1 11 O • I- • O O r p r �t M r CO • tp •0 r •O r r P r A
tl P 2 r m r P r O • r• r r r N Yt .t
u v r r CO r P r r r r r r .-
G 0 r U r r r • • r r
W tl S r V r r r • • r
V! 11 6 r 6 � r � � r • r
O p W r r r r •
Ou • r r r r r r r r r
aC a W r r • r r r r
d o yr ae w .O • A • �. N • •0 r N O •O r O r U1 r •O r A
Y Q • W V • pp N .! • v • N In N • o • N • M
O u m r F 6 r P A r A i M •O A r O r N 1� C2 r O r n) r •p •p
z n • 6 N r • • i i i i
6 n . _ r q [0 r A r v N 00 m A I•i v 1n .p .p
u • r O O r D. r ^ O MA Fn
O r O
r p r M r P M r N • • O O
Z a r r r r r
M1 p
� 0 r
U 4 r
p
O n •
Y r
rn n r
� u
w n r J
V p Q
K n r
Q u OC
1- a r H
S 11 6 i
a
0 r 2 H J
I- r .+ z
in
W A r = N Q 4 N N J
N N 01
H ry • W D W V K W
W Q v
2 II r O y Hp S W
U tl r d' Y N i S N O m 0 W Q
OC tl r W J W O N 6to
F-
W
d n • W 2 6 2 2 6 2 6 = S 1�
p • J Z Q J Q me
Q J 2 J Q C
LL 0 • = W < J 4 O N 6 O W pC
O 0 • W r I- c VJ O K H J ti W U W
n H J O J < O K O H CkeW O d
Y p Z V 1� H 4J W H 2 W H � Y W. H a fN
K
a O• W 2 J w f V!W 6 7 = U O
0 • O W H � H N 2
VJ 0 r a< J H
Appendix A
PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
AND IMPLEMENTATION TIME-LINE
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PROGRAMS
1. Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance- The State of California
will require every water supplier to adopt a water efficient plant
materials and irrigation ordinance by January 1993 . The City does
have in place landscape standards which will be used as a basis for
the development of the ordinance. Staff will present to council
an ordinance prior to the State's required implementation date.
2. Irrigation audits on all City turf areas- Staff recommends
that the Utilities Department and Public Works Department work hand
in hand to perform the necessary audits and repairs on park
irrigation systems to ensure the City is doing its part in
conserving water at the these facilities. This program can start
immediately. The City has the required equipment and staff to
perform these audits.
3. Drip irrigation incentive program- Inefficient sprinkler
irrigation systems account for a large portion outdoor water waste.
To encourage irrigation efficiency, staff recommends an incentive
program for the conversion of these inefficient sprinkler systems
to drip systems where applicable.
Alternatives:
A. offer, at no cost, a limited number of drip retrofit conversion
kits which would require verification by staff of installation.
B. Offer cash rebates to residents that convert to drip system.
This would require a "pre" and "post" inspection of installation
by staff.
C. Offer a water bill credit to residents that convert to drip
systems using the same procedure discussed above.
Depending on the approach to this program, implementation time will
vary. A rebate or credit program would require the least amount
of time. It would require the development of procedures,
guidelines, and information. Estimated implementation time is two
(2) to three (3) months. The distribution of conversion kits
timeline will depend on the availability and turn around time in
shipping the product.
4. Demonstration Seriscape Gardens (possible retrofitting of City
park facilities to lower maintenance costs and water consumption)
In order to heighten public awareness and set an example to the
community, staff recommends the establishment of demonstration
xeriscape gardens ' at various City owned sites throughout the
community. After staff identifies the potentials sites for the
gardens, staff will solicit cooperation from the private sector for
design, plant materials, and installation to minimize the expense
to the City. Estimated implementation time is 2 months.
PROPOSED INTERIOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Staff has determined that the replacement of existing plumbing
fixtures with ultra-low flow water fixtures is a key element in
sustaining our water supply. Most of the water hardware staff
proposes to retrofit requires no change in lifestyle to the user,
thus creating long term water savings with minimal effort. The
following is a discussion of several approaches to achieving this
goal:
1. Expanded Toilet Rebate Program- Currently the Toilet Rebate
Program limits the number of toilets per customer eligible for a
rebate. This program could be opened up to include any toilet
replaced in the City. An increase in the amount of the rebate
would add extra incentive but would require additional funds. All
staffing and forms are in place.
2. Showerhead and Faucet Aerator Installation Program= In 1988
the City in conjunction with P.G.& E. provided, at no charge,
approximately 4,000 showerheads to city residents. Installation
was voluntary and there was no installation verification process.
At this time it is difficult to estimate how many low-flow
showerheads and faucet aerators have been installed in the City.
Alternatives:
A. In order to qualify for a toilet rebate, showerheads and faucet
aerators must be installed and inspected at the same time as the
toilet. The City could supply the hardware at no cost or have the
customer supply these items themselves. If water saving devices
are already in place, staff could verify and release the payment
of the rebate for the toilet. This plan could be implemented
quickly, within a month, with minor modifications in information,
forms and guidelines.
B. The City could contract out the installation of such devices to
plumbing contractors to ensure installation. These contractors
would provide staff with documentation of where and how . many
devices were installed and be reimbursed accordingly. A systematic
schedule would be created to cover the entire city. This would be
a voluntary program and would require an extensive public relations
campaign preceding the implementation. This process would take
approximately five (5) months.
C. The City could purchase and offer free of charge showerheads and
aerators to be distributed from the Water Conservation office upon
I
request. This option can be implemented as soon as funding is
established, and the product purchased and shipped.
3. Mandatory Compliance Ordinance- Council could decide to make
it mandatory that every water fixture be retrofitted with ultra-
low flow plumbing fixtures. A compliance date would be set and the
City would have the option to maintain monetary incentives as an
aid to residents.
Alternatives:
A. Monetary incentives could be offered in declining dollar value.
For instance, offer a larger cash incentive at the start of the
program and decrease the amount in stipulated time intervals. This
would encourage compliance at the offset of the program. A
computer data base could be established and upon the reaching the
deadline for compliance a cross check could be made to determine
who has not complied. The amount of the rebate would be a single
amount and apply to the toilet, showerheads, and faucet aerators.
A project such as this would take approximately 3 to 4 months to
develop and implement. The compliance deadline date could be as
long two (2) years.
B. No monetary incentives would be offered and it would be the
responsibility of the water customer to provide documentation
indicating compliance. An informational campaign would have to be
developed and the compliance deadline date would determine when the
program ends.
4. Water Re-Use Promotion (greywater)- The city is in a unique
position to promote the use of greywater as a long term water
source. Since minimal research statewide has been performed in
this area, staff proposes the City initiate a pilot program to
quantify water savings associated with greywater use. The City
could work with the private sector to establish test locations and
the Water Conservation Office would monitor water use.
Implementation would be contingent upon finding participants and
organizing a system to evaluate the data collected.
EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
Past policy has been to provide the public with a variety of
informational and educational materials. Staff feels this is
essential to the future of the water conservation program and
should become even more of priority. The following are some new
ideas and old avenues the City may want to consider to achieve its
water conservation goals.
1. Continued Media Campaign- Television, Radio, and Newspaper
advertising must be continued to ensure public knowledge of the
water situation and the need to conserve. Staff recommends the
continuance of the present media campaign.
2. Continued Public Information Campaign- Presently, staff
organizes the Water awareness Fair, and participates in such events
as the SLO Expo, and Earth Day. The purpose of this participation
is to make staff available to the public to answer questions and
disseminate water conservation materials. Also, Utilities staff
has made itself available to speak at community groups meetings and
other community events. This an important component of the over-
all program and should be maintained.
3. Workshops of Water Saving Topics- Staff recommends that a
series of workshops be organized to help citizens understand how
to conserve water. Topics could range from fixing plumbing
problems like leaky toilets to pruning trees and shrubs during
drought conditions. Ideally the development and scheduling could
be arranged during the summer when interest would be higher.
Implementation time, approximately two (2) months after approval.
4. Seriscape Awareness Campaign- This element would tie in with
the Xeriscape demonstration garden. An educational and
informational campaign would be developed to show the public why
and how to use water efficient plant materials and irrigation
systems. This could be a joint effort with the private sector to
help ensure its success. Development of a program could start
immediately.
WATER RATE STRUCTURE TO ENCOURAGE LONG-TERM WATER CONSERVATION
Numerous communities and water districts throughout California use
water rate structures to encourage long-term water conservation.
With direction from Council, staff will examine the alternatives
and present these at a future date.
FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
The financial impact of the proposed programs will vary depending
on the programs Council chooses to consider. Staff will return
with the actual financial impacts of specific programs as per
council direction. Until future water supply projects are on line,
the development of water conservation programs are very important
to extending existing supplies. The following is a summary of
potential programs and implementation time-line:
PROGRAM APPROXIMATE IMPLEMENTATION TIME
*Water Efficient Landscape by January 1993
Ordinance
*Irrigation Audits Immediately
*Drip Irrigation Incentive 2-3 Months
Program
*Demonstration Xeriscape 2 Months
Garden
*Expanded Toilet Rebate Program Contingent of Funding
*Showerhead & Faucet Aerator 1 to 5 months
Installation Program
*Mandatory Retrofit Compliance 1 Month for Proposed
Ordinance Ordinance
*Water Re-use Promotion Open
*Media Campaign Continuation
*Public Information Continuation
*Workshops 2 -Months
*Xeriscape Awareness Campaign Immediately
*Water Rate Structure Open
FARRELL SMYTH , INC . TEL No .805-543-4801 Apr 16 .91 9 :28 No .001 P .01
MEETING AGENDA
DATE. 4 nW# 16
Mr. Larry D. Smyth
171 Anacapa Circle
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
April 16, 1991
Council Members
City of San Luls Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dear Council Members:
Last week several articles appeared in the Telegram Tribune indicating water
restrictions have been eased in several areas including Atascadero, Santa Margarita,
Santa Maria and Santa Barbara.
As of this date the City of San Luis Obispo has continued water restrictions while we
"study the situation". I would like to urge each council member to follow the staff
advise and roll back regtrictions to the 150A level so that the residents of San Luis
Obispo can return to a semi-normal existence. 1 for one am tired of watering shrubs
and flushing toilets with buckets full of laundry rinse water just to barely most our
allocation.
I feel It Is time for the City to free itself from the 'Paralysis of analysis" and move
forward to ease restrictions and to develop additional sources so we can avoid this
type of situation in the future. The citizens have done their share now lets see the
City staff and council do theirs.
COPM70.
Sincerely, Actkm Q It
DR
i 0 �cAo ❑ rW aH
D. Sm
RECEIVED oluc o �
�vn �
❑ MCMT.T&,m ❑ p�
APR y 1991 L n
CoCLERK
BA1�
Wo
�QBISPO.CA
--------------
COFIESM:
Da'°tn Acdon MEETING AGENDA
{ 'o d�� DATE ITEM# 1695)
CHIEF
Ron Dunin p_ �O �D
TAY �� � � ��V E D.
Mayor PC1ERK/OR3c. ❑ FOUCECH
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ MCMT.TFA.M DIJI
E3 CREADFILE 1d'_J,1I1t1991
D APR 7 h
April 15, 1991 '
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Subject: Water Allocation Policy
This letter is written to discuss certain aspects of the current
water rationing program in the City of San Luis Obispo. As a
resident of the City, the drought has impacted the quality of my
life, just as it has impacted others who ,live, or work, in the
community. It has also illustrated, that with proper effort, we
can all enjoy a good standard of living, even with limited
resources. In essence, although the drought continues to prove to
be a hardship, it is -forcing us to modify our lifestyles--
lifestyles, 'that in the long run, will result in a more efficient
and better use of a precious resource.
More specifically though, the purpose of this letter is to discuss
allocation rules associated with the mandatory rationing program.
The allocation rules determine permissible water use for each
customer.
It is in regard to the allocation rules that my problem exists. I
have no problem with conserving, nor do I have a problem with
modifying my behavior so that I continue to use water wisely once
the drought ends, but I do have a problem when the implementation
of the rules unjustly requires greater forbearance on my part, and
limits my fundamental property rights to a greater extent, than do
the application of those same rules on other citizens.
Let me give some examples.
a. I purchased and moved into my current residence in July
of 1990. Upon obtaining water service, I was 'informed
that I could not use the prior property owners 1987 water
usage as a basis for my allocation. I do know for fact,
however, that there are . several other customers in the
City that did not live in their homes in 1987, but who
are nevertheless permitted to use the property's 1987
water usage as the basis for their allocation.
Apparently the rules changed in October 1989.
This example illustrates that I am in a class of
customers who did not occupy their current residences in
1987; some of the class can use the property's 1987 usage
as an allocation basis, some of us cannot--it all depends
on when the customer moved into their residence. This
rule effectively places greater restrictions on those who
moved into their residences after October 1989 (by
limiting the options available on which to base an
allocation) .
b. I am an owner of a single family residence with three
adult occupants. A neighbor of mine is also an owner of
a single family residence, but with only two adult
occupants. Our lots sizes are both between fifteen and
twenty thousand square feet. Our allocations differ by
as much as 56$. Our water bills for the same consumption
could differ by as much as 200%. The allocation rules
have effectively placed us into seperate water customer
classifications. He is in the enviable classification.
Are we receiving equal protection under the law?
I understand the difficulties associated with a mandatory rationing
program. I might have been inclined to. begin pursuing this issue
earlier, except that until just recently, it appeared that we were
heading to 50% rationing. Anticipating a 50% rationing level, the
communities overall water problem took precedent over my specific
problem as a water customer. Now however, it seems that the
situation has become more moderate on an overall basis, and so I
must pursue my individual case.
Since the City Council will be considering less restrictive water
rationing requirements, it would be only fair if they also made
some of the allocation rules less restrictive. Specifically, a
simple measure would be to once again allow customers the option of
basing their allocation on the property's 1987 usage. This is
especially fair considering that 50% of water use typically relates
to the property itself, for landscaping. By not reestablishing
this option, some new residents will continue to see already
existing landscaping die.
Once again, I recognize the need for conservation. Conservation,
greywater applications, drip irrigation, and drought resistant
landscaping can go a long way towards reducing water consumption.
City staff has been helpful and courteous, and I hope that everyone
involved is continuing to look at ways of improving the rationing
program, and its rules.
Respectfully,
"Pu.•�o G. C7 ..._
Paavo A. Oren
1736 LeeAnn Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(H) 543-2130
cc:City Council Members & Mayor
Bill Hetland, Utilities Director
Ron Munds, Conservation
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
lC E NG !�-9 AGENDA
ATE
Q -x.71 MN#L
hPR 1 F 1991
Architectural Offices of
CITY GLFRK Barry Lorenz Williams
r AN LUIS OBi��' Associates
AN OPEN LETTER REGARDING WATER RATIONING
Dear Mayor Dunin and Members of the City Council:
I 'm writing you this letter as I won ' t be able to make the Council
meeting tonight. I'm hoping that you' ll at least take my concerns
and ideas under consideration.
I, too, am very pleased at the rain fall we had in March. I wouldn ' t
mind if it rained for another month. I haven ' t heard from any of my
clients about leaks, so let it continue.
I = concerned about getting overly optimistic about the amount of
water we now have. I realize that you are working with calculated
conservancy and I appreciate that. The past few years I 've learned a
great deal about the amount of water I use. I 've learned that it 's
not a non-depletable source. I can tell you how much water I use
before the water is hot enough to wash with. I can tell you where
all of my water goes. In short, I 'm now at least quasi-water
conscious. What I feel is even more important is that my 10 year old
daughters are also as water conscious as I am. Perhaps if I and my
whole generation had learned to conserve when we were ten we wouldn't
have had to do any rationing. I appreciate the idea of loosening up
the rationing that is being considered, but I'd like to make the
following proposal.
San Luis Obispo has, on several occasions, taken the initiative to be
first with various ideas. Case in point is the local smoking ban. I
would propose that we might become the first to have water rationing
incentives. Award people for going beyond the call of duty in saving
water. What if we had an acceptable margin for water usage. , As an
example, we might lower the upper rationing level limit from the
current 35°4 to 3096 and then we set the lower limit at the 1596 as has
been discussed. Then we continue to penalize anyone that goes under
the mininmum 15% rationing level and we reward people who conserve
more than 30%. The reward might be autographed pictures of the
councilmember of their choice, or, perhaps even better, a reduced
water rate. I think that there are a variety of incentives that
would have significance. The bottom line of this method is that it
has the possibility to be a really positive measure that a certain
percentage of us might like to take on as a challenge. If
successful, the by-product would be a more secure water supply in the
future.
Again, this is just a thought. Thanks for your consideration, and
good luck.
COPIES TO:
Respectfully submitted, ❑�DenctesAc&n ❑'FYI
13ccoDax
C9�t`Ao B'i:w.ocn.
o ❑ FIRECMU
B$rry L. Williams 0 FOJC
(805)541-0997 ORIG. ❑ FOLICE�l.
MCMI TEAM U RLC DIR
1110 California Boulevard Suite E
San Luis Obispo,California 93401