HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/1991, 4 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA IIINIIIpNI�III�I ii�IUIII city Of San LUIS OBISPO Sept MEETING
September 3, 1991
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: William T. Hetland, Utilities Director '
PREPARED BY: Ron Munds, Water Conservation Coordinator
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water
Conservation in California
CAO RECOMMENDATION
By motion, approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the "Memorandum
of Understanding" regarding urban water conservation and the
implementation of the "Best Management Practices" .
DISCUSSION
Background
This historic agreement and resulting Memorandum of Understanding
(Attachment II) have been in the developmental. process for the past
two and a half years. The original intent of this process was to
create a dialogue and an understanding between various public and
private groups in regard to water rights issues surrounding the
San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta proceedings. This
document represents the efforts of these water agency
representatives and public advocacy organizations whose prime
mission is the protection of the environment and/or having a clear
interest in advancing the "Best Management Practices" (BMP)
process. The State Department of Water Resources is requesting
water agencies statewide to sign the Memorandum of Understanding.
The end goal of this process is to achieve maximum water system
efficiency statewide.
The BMPs are sixteen (16) water conservation measures, agreed upon
by all participating groups, that would yield reliable water
savings thus helping insure short and long-term water supplies.
The proclaimed benefits to the City of San Luis Obispo include: 1)
increased water reliability; 2) establishment of a state-wide water
conservation standard; 3) a more orderly process for implementing
proven water conservation measures; and 4) demonstrate the City's
continued leadership in water conservation. By signing this
document, the City will also confirm our continued commitment to
improved water efficiency. It is important for Council to note
that the City has already or is in the process of implementing a
majority of the listed BMPs.
Summary
Staff has compiled a brief summary of the sixteen measures (BMPs)
recommended for implementation (Attachment I) . Because of the
City's commitment to water conservation, there are only two (2)
measures that have not been considered at this time. All other
y-/
Iliidilii��� illillllll' ' Cl O San ...SIS OBISPO
IlillAlllh► � � p
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
BMPs
I
measures are in the process of being implemented and expanded or
in the developmental process. Of the two (2) measures, not
currently being performed, No. 9, commercial and industrial water
conservation audit, can easily be included in the present water
audit program. The other measure, No. 10, new commercial and
industrial water use review will be researched to determine the
practicality for implementation.
Significant Impacts
i
Though this is not a binding agreement between the City and the
other signatory agencies, to remain within the. spirit of the
document will require significant long-term water conservation !
policy commitment. As stated previously, the City has already
embarked upon a majority of the listed measures. A periodic
analysis of the implementation process will be required and a
determination will have to be made on staffing and funding
requirements upon review.
Consequences of Not Taking Recommended Action
The City of San Luis Obispo has been at the forefront of the state-
wide water conservation program development effort. If the
City chooses not to sign the Memorandum of Understanding, it will
potentially send the wrong signal to the State regarding the strong
commitment our City has to water conservation. If the drought
continues and the City is in need of State support or assistance,
not signing could have a possible negative impact on such aid.
CONCURRENCES
j The Community Development Department concurs with the
recommendation presented in this report.
I
FISCAL IMPACT
The BMP's listed, if not currently budgeted in the 1991/93
Financial Plan, will be presented individually for Council.
i consideration. No additional funding is required at this time.
Attachment I- Best Management Practices Summary
Attachment II- Memorandum of Understanding - in Council office for i
inspection
I
Attachment I
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Water Conservation in California
The following is a list of the Best Management Practices and the
implementation status as the measure relates to the City' s Water
Conservation Program:
1. Interior and exterior water audits and incentive programs for
single family residential, multi-family residential, and
governmental/institutional customers.
Status - Implemented July, 1990
2. Plumbing, new and retrofit
a. Enforcement of water conserving plumbing fixture standards
including requirements for Ultra Low Flush toilets in all new
construction beginning January 1, 1991.
b. Support of state and federal legislation prohibiting the
sale of toilets using more than 1.6 gallons per flush.
C. Plumbing retrofit-showerheads, etc.
Status - Water conserving fixture standards implemented January
1989 ; Showerhead replacement program initiated in 1988
3. Distribution system water audits, leak detection and repair
Status - Implemented during 1988
4. Metering with commodity rates
Status - All services already metered
S. Large landscape water audits and incentives
Status - Implemented May, 1991
6. Landscape water conservation requirements
Status - In the research and development process
7. Public Information
Status - Ongoing
�-3
Attachment I
S. School education
Status - Implemented May, 1989
9. Commercial and industrial water conservation
Status - Under consideration
10. New commercial and industrial water use review
Status - Under consideration
11. Conservation pricing
Status - Two tier billing system; Surcharge penalties during
mandatory water conservation
12. Landscape water conservation for new and existing single
family homes.
Status - Plant tagging program implemented September 1991;
information workshops implemented August 1991; and other landscape
information made available since April 1989.
13. Water waste prohibition.
Status - Implemented January, 1987
14. Water Conservation Coordinator
Status - Full time position since November, 1988
15. Financial Incentives.
Status - Toilet Rebate Program implemented June, 1990; rate
structure with life-line rate for low use; other programs in the
research and development phase.
16. Ultra-Low Flush toilet replacement.
Status - Water Offset (retrofit) Program implemented August 1988 ;
Toilet Rebate Program implemented June 1990.
-T �7
AMCHMM II
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING
URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA
Septembef 1991'
6/11/91
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECITAL.S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SECTION 1: DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1 Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Signatory Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 California Urban Water Conservation Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SECTION 2: PURPOSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
SECTION 3: LIMITS TO APPLICABILITY OF MOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 Relationship Between Water Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3 Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4 Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5 Use of Conserved Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
SECTION 4: IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES . . . 5
4.1 The Best Management Practices List, Schedule of
Implementation and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2 Initial BMPs, PBMPs, Schedules, and Estimates
of Reliable Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3 Future Revision of BMPs, PBMPs, Schedules, and
Estimates of Reliable Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
-i-
y�
6/11/91
4.4 Good Faith Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5 Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
- 4.6 Schedule of Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
SECTION 5: BAY/DELTA PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1 Use of MOU for Bay/Delta Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2 Recommendations for Bay/Delta Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3 Letter to State Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4 Withdrawal from MOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
SECTION 6: CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL . . 10
6.1 Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . 10
6.2 Annual Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
SECTION 7: GENERAL PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1 Initial Term of MOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2 Signatories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3 Renewal of MOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4 Withdrawal from MOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.5 Additional Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.6 Legal Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.7 Non-Contractual Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . 13
7.8 Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
-ii-
y-7
6/11/91
EXHIBITS
1. EXHIBIT 1: Best Management Practices, Implementation Schedules, Assumptions,
and Potential Best Management Practices for Urban Water
Conservation in California
2. EXHIBIT 2: California Urban Water Conservation Council
3. EXHIBIT 3: Principles to Guide the Performance of BMP Economic (Cost-
Effectiveness) Analyses
4. EXHIBIT 4: Form of Letter to State Water Resources Control Board
5. EXHIBIT 5: Urban Water Conservation Annual Report Outline
-iii-
y-sr
6/11/91
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING
URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING URBAN WATER
CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA ("MOU") is made and entered into on the dates set
forth below among the undersigned parties ("signatories"). The signatories represent urban
water suppliers, public advocacy organizations and other interested groups as defined in
Section 1 of this MOU.
RECITALS
A. The signatories to this MOU recognize that California's economy, quality of
life and environment depend in large part upon the water resources of the State. The signa-
tories also recognize the need to provide reliable urban water supplies and to protect the
environment. Increasing demands for urban, agricultural and environmental water uses call
for conservation and the elimination of waste as important elements in the overall manage-
ment of water resources. Many organizations and groups in California have an interest in
urban water conservation, and this MOU is intended to gain much needed consensus on a
complex issue.
B. The urban water conservation practices included in this MOU (referred to as
"Best Management Practices" or "BMPs") are intended to reduce long-term urban demands
from what they would have been without implementation of these practices and are in addi-
tion to programs which may be instituted during occasional water supply shortages.
C. The combination of BMPs and urban growth, unless properly accounted for
in water management planning, could make reductions in urban demands during short-term
emergencies such as droughts or earthquakes more difficult to achieve. However, notwith-
standing such difficulties,the signatory water suppliers will carry out the urban water conser-
vation BMP process as described in this MOU.
D. The signatories recognize that means other than urban water conservation may
be needed to provide long-term reliability for urban water suppliers and long-term protec-
tion of the environment. However, the signatories may have differing views on what addi-
tional measures might be appropriate to provide for these needs. Accordingly, this MOU
is not intended to address these issues.
E. A major benefit of this MOU is to conserve water which could be used for the
protection of streams, wetlands and estuaries and/or urban water supply reliability. This
MOU leaves to other forums the issue of how conserved water will be used.
-1-
y-�
6/11/91
F. It is the intent of this MOU that individual signatory water suppliers (1)
develop comprehensive conservation BMP programs using sound economic criteria and (2)
consider water conservation on an equal basis with other water management options.
G. It is recognized that present urban water use throughout the State varies
according to many factors including, but not limited to, climate, types of housing and land-
scaping, amounts and kinds of commercial, industrial and recreational development, and the
extent to which conservation measures have already been implemented. It is further recog-
nized that many of the BMPs identified in Exhibit 1 to this MOU have already been imple-
mented in some areas and that even with broader employment of BMPs, future urban water
use will continue to vary from area to area. Therefore, this MOU is not intended to
establish uniform per capita water use allotments throughout the urban areas of the State.
This MOU is also not intended to limit the amount or types of conservation a water supplier
can pursue or to limit a water supplier's more rapid implementation of BMPs.
H. It is recognized that projections of future water demand should include
estimates of anticipated demand reductions due to changes in the real price of water.
TERMS
SECTION 1
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply:
1.1 Best Management Practices A Best Management Practice ('BMP") means
a policy, program, practice,,rule, regulation or ordinance or the use of devices, equipment
or facilities which meets either of the following criteria:
(a) An established and generally accepted practice among water suppliers
that results in more efficient use or conservation of water;
(b) A practice for which sufficient data are available from existing water
conservation projects to indicate that significant conservation or con-
servation related benefits can be achieved; that the practice is techni-
cally and economically reasonable and not environmentally or socially
unacceptable; and that the practice is not otherwise unreasonable for
most water suppliers to carry out.
-2- .
6/11/91
Although the term "Best Management Practices" has been used in various statutes
and regulations, the definitions and interpretations of that term in those statutes and regula-
tions do not apply to this MOU. The term "Best Management Practices" or TMPs" has an
independent and special meaning in this MOU and is to be applied for purposes of this
MOU only as defined above.
1.2 Implementation. "Implementation" means achieving and maintaining the
staffing, funding, and in general, the priority levels necessary to achieve the level of activity
called for in the descriptions of the various BMPs and to satisfy the commitment by the
signatories to use good faith efforts to optimize savings from implementing BMPs as
described in Section 4.4 of this MOU. Section B of Exhibit 1 to this MOU establishes the
schedule for initial implementation of BMPs.
13 Signatory Groups. For purposes of this MOU, signatories will be divided into
three groups as follows:
(a) Group 1 will consist of water suppliers. A "water supplier" is defined
as any entity, including a city, which delivers or supplies water for
urban use at the wholesale or retail level.
(b) Group 2 will consist of public advocacy organizations. A"public advo-
cacy organization" is defined as a non profit organization:
(i) whose primary function is not the representation of trade,
industrial, or utility entities, and
(ii) whose prime mission is the protection of the environment or
who has a clear interest in advancing the BMP process.
(c) Group 3 will consist of other interested groups. "Other interested
groups" is defined as any other group which does-not fall into one of
the two groups above.
1.4 California Urban Water Conservation Council. The California Urban Water
Conservation Council or "Council" will have responsibility for monitoring the implemen-
tation of this MOU and will be comprised of signatories to this MOU grouped according
to the definitions in Section 1.3 above. The duties of the Council are set forth in Section
6 and in Exhibit 2 to this MOU.
-3-
6/11/91
SECTION 2
PURPOSES
2.1 This MOU has two primary purposes: (1) to expedite implementation of
reasonable water conservation measures in urban areas; and (2) pursuant to Section 5 of this
MOU, to establish assumptions for use in calculating estimates of reliable future water con-
servation savings resulting from proven and reasonable conservation measures. Estimates
of reliable savings are the water conservation savings which can be achieved with a high
degree of confidence in a given service area. The signatories have agreed upon the initial
assumptions to be used in calculating estimates of reliable savings. These assumptions are
included in Exhibit 1 to this MOU. It is probable that average savings achieved by water
suppliers will exceed the estimates of reliable savings.
SECTION 3
LIMITS TO APPLICABILITY OF MO
3.1 Relationship Between Water SuI212liers. No rights, obligations or authorities
between wholesale suppliers, retail agencies, cities or other water suppliers are created or
expanded by this MOU. Moreover, wholesale water suppliers are not obligated to imple-
ment BMPs at the retail customer level except within their own retail service area, if any.
3.2 Agriculture. This MOU is intended to apply only to the delivery of water for
domestic, municipal and industrial uses. This MOU is not intended to apply directly or indi-
rectly to the use of water for irrigated agriculture.
3.3 Reclamation. The signatory water suppliers support the reclamation and reuse
of wastewater wherever technically and economically reasonable and not environmentally
or socially unacceptable, and agree to prepare feasibility studies on water reclamation for
their respective service areas. However, this MOU does not apply to that aspect of water
management, except where the use of reclaimed water may otherwise qualify as a BMP as
defined above.
6/11/91
3.4 Land Use Planning, This MOU does not deal with the question of growth
management. However, each signatory water supplier will inform all relevant land planning
agencies at least annually of the impacts that planning decisions involving projected growth
would have upon the reliability of its water supplies for the water supplier's service area and
other areas being considered-for annexation. — — - -
3.5 Use of Conserved Water. A major benefit of this MOU is to conserve water
which could be used for the protection of streams, wetlands and estuaries and/or urban
water supply reliability. This MOU leaves to other forums the issue of how conserved water
will be used.
SECTION 4
IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
4.1 The Best Management Practices List. Schedule of Implementation and
Assumptions, Exhibit 1 to this MOU contains:
(a) In Section A: A list identifying those practices which the signatories
believe presently meet the definition of a BMP as set forth in Section
1.1 of this MOU.
(b) In Section B:' A schedule for implementing the BMPs to be followed
by signatory water suppliers unless exempted under Section 4.5 of this
MOU or an alternative schedule is prepared pursuant to Section 4.6
of this MOU.
(c) In Section C: Assumptions for use in developing estimates of reliable
savings from the implementation of BMPs. Estimates of reliable
savings are the water conservation savings which can be achieved with
a high degree of confidence in a given service area. The estimate of
reliable savings for each BMP depends upon the nature of the BMP
and upon the amount of data available to evaluate potential savings.
For some BMPs (e.g., public information) estimates of reliable savings
may never be generated. For others, additional data may lead to
significant changes in the estimate of reliable savings. It is probable
that average savings achieved by water suppliers will exceed the
estimates of reliable savings.
-5-
y-/3
6/11/91
(d) In Section D: A list of "Potential Best Management Practices"
("PBMPs"). PBMPs are possible conservation practices which have not
been promoted to the BMP list.
4.2 Initial BMPs. PBMPs. Schedules. and Estimates of Reliable Savirigs, The ini-
tial position of conservation practices on the BMP and PBMP lists, the initial schedule of
implementation and study for the BMP list, the initial schedule of study for the PBMP list,
and the initial estimates of reliable savings represent compromises by the signatories to
move the process forward both for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings as
defined in Section 5 and to promote water conservation generally. The signatories agree that
as more and better data are collected in the future, the lists, the schedules, and the esti-
mates of reliable savings will be refined and revised based upon the most objective criteria
available. However, the signatories agree that the measures included as initial BMPs in
Section A of Exhibit 1 are economically justified on a statewide basis.
43 Future Revision of BMPs. PBMPs. Schedules. and Estimates of Reliable
Savings, After the beginning of the initial term of the MOU as provided in Section 7.1, the
California Urban Water Conservation Council ("Council") will, pursuant to Section 6 of this
MOU and Exhibit 2, alter the composition of the BMP and PBMP lists, redefine individual
BMPs,alter the schedules of implementation,and update the assumptions of reliable savings
as more data becomes available. This dynamic BMP assessment process includes the fol-
lowing specific commitments:
(a) The assumptions of reliable savings will be updated at least every 3
years.
(b) The economic reasonableness of a BMP or PBMP will be assessed by
the Council using the economic principles in Sections 3 and 4 of
Exhibit 3.
(c) A BMP will be removed from the BMP list if, after review of data
developed during implementation, the Council determines that the
BMP cannot be made economically reasonable or determines that the
BMP otherwise fails to conform to the definition of BMPs in Section
1..1.
(d) A PBMP will be moved to the BMP list and assigned a schedule of
implementation if, after review of data developed during research,
and/or demonstration projects, the Council determines that the PBMP
is economically reasonable and otherwise conforms to the definition of
BMPs in Section 1.1.
-6-
6/11/91
4.4 Good Faith Effort. While specific BMPs and results may differ because of
varying local conditions among the areas served by the signatory water suppliers, a good
faith effort to implement BMPs will be required of all signatory water suppliers. The follow-
ing are included within the meaning of "good faith effort to implement BMPs":
(a) The proactive use by a signatory water supplier of legal authorities and
administrative prerogatives available to the water supplier as necessary
and reasonable for the implementation of BMPs.
(b) Where implementation of a particular BMP is not within the legal
authority of a signatory water supplier,encouraging timely implementa-
tion of the BMP by other entities that have the legal authority to cant'
out the BMP within that water supplier's service area pursuant to exist-
ing legal authority. This encouragement may include, but is not limited
to, financial incentives as appropriate.
(c) Cooperating with and encouraging cooperation between other water
suppliers and other relevant entities whenever possible and within
existing legal authority to promote the implementation of BMPS.
(d) Optimizing savings from implementing BMPs.
(e) For each signatory water supplier and all signatory public advocacy
organizations, encouraging the removal of institutional barriers to the
implementation of BMPs within that water supplier's service area.
Examples of good faith efforts to remove institutional barriers include
formal presentations and/or written requests to entities requesting
approval of, or amendment to, local ordinances, administrative policies
or legislation which will promote BMP implementation.
4.5 Exemptions. A signatory water supplier will be exempt from the implementa-
tion of specific BMPs for as long as the supplier annually substantiates that based upon then
prevailing local conditions, one or more of the following findings applies:
(a) A full cost-benefit analysis, performed in accordance with the princi-
ples set forth in Exhibit 3, demonstrates that either the program (i) is
not cost-effective overall when total program benefits and'costs are
considered; OR(ii) is not cost-effective to the individual water supplier
even after the water supplier has made a good faith effort to share
costs with other program beneficiaries.
-7-
y-�s
6/11/91
(b) Adequate funds are not and cannot reasonably be made available from
sources accessible to the water supplier including funds from other
entities. However, this exemption cannot be used if a new, less cost-
effective water management option would be implemented instead of
_.__the._BMP for which the.water supplier is-seeking.this exemption.
(c) Implementation of the BMP is (i) not within the legal authority of the
water supplier; and (ii) the water supplier has made a good faith effort
to work with other entities that have the legal authority to carry out
the BMP; and (iii) the water supplier has made a good faith effort to
work with other relevant entities to encourage the removal of institu-
tional barriers to the implementation of BMPs within its service area.
4.6 Schedule of Implementation. The schedule of implementation for BMPs is
set forth in Section B of Exhibit 1 to this MOU. However, it is recognized by the signa-
tories that deviations from this schedule by water suppliers may be necessary. Therefore,
a water supplier may modify, to the minimum extent necessary, the schedule for implemen-
tation of BMPs if the water supplier substantiates one or more of the following findings:
(a) That after a good faith effort to implement the BMP within the time
prescribed, implementation is not feasible pursuant to the schedule.
However, implementation of this BMP is still required as soon as fea-
sible within the initial term of this MOU as defined in Section 7.1.
(b) That implementation of one or more BMPs prior to other BMPs will
have a more positive effect on conservation or water supplies than will
adherence to the schedule.
(c) That implementation of one or more Potential BMPs or other conser-
vation measures prior to one or more BMPs will have a more positive
effect on conservation or water supplies than will adherence to the
schedule.
-8-
y-/G
6/11/91
SECTION 5
BAY/DELTA PROCEEDINGS
5.1 Use of MOU for Bay/Delta Proceedings. The BMPs, the estimates of reliable
savings and the processes established by this MOU are agreed to by the signatories for pur-
poses of the present proceedings on the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Estuary ("Bay/Delta") and in order to move the water conservation process forward.
"Present Bay/Delta proceedings" is intended to mean those Bay/Delta proceedings presently
underway and those conducted until a final water rights decision is reached by the State
Water Resources Control Board ("State Board"). The willingness of the signatories to enter
into this MOU for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings in no way limits the
signatories' ability to propose different conservation practices, different estimates of savings,
or different processes in a forum other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings, or for non-
urban water suppliers or for other water management issues. By signing this MOU, public
advocacy organization signatories are not agreeing to use the initial assumptions of reliable
conservation savings in proceedings other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings. The
signatories may present other assumptions of reliable conservation savings for non-signatory
water suppliers in the present Bay/Delta proceedings,provided that such assumptions could
not have adverse impacts upon the water supplies of any signatory water supplier.
Furthermore, the signatories retain the right to advocate any particular level of protection
for the Bay/Delta Estuary, including levels of freshwater flows, and do not necessarily agree
on population projections for California. This MOU is not intended to address any
authority or obligation of the State Board to establish freshwater flow protections or set
water quality objectives for the Estuary, or to address any authority of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
5.2 Recommendations for Bay/Delta Proceedings, The signatories will make the
following recommendations to the State Board in conjunction with the present Bay/Delta
proceedings and to the EPA to the extent the EPA concerns itself with the proceedings:
(a) That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings, implementa-
tion of the BMP process set forth in this MOU represents a sufficient
long-term water conservation program by the signatory water suppliers,
recognizing that additional programs may be required during occa-
sional water supply shortages;
(b) That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings only, the State
Board and EPA should base their estimates of future urban water con-
servation savings on the implementation of all of the BMPs included
in Section A of Exhibit 1 to this MOU for the entire service area of
-9-
JI-17
9-
J/-/ 7
6/11/91
the signatory water suppliers and only on those BMPs, except for (i)
the conservation potential for water supplied by urban agencies for
agricultural purposes, or (ii) in cases where higher levels of con-
- -- - -- servation have--been mandated;-
(c) That for the purposes of the present-Bay/Delta proceedings, the State
Board and EPA should make their estimates of future urban water
conservation savings by employing the reliable savings assumptions
associated with those BMPs set forth in Section C of Exhibit 1 to this
MOU;
(d) That the State Board should include a policy statement in the water
rights phase of the Bay/Delta proceedings supporting the BMP process
described in this MOU and that the BMP process should be
considered in any documents prepared by the State Board pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act as part of the present
Bay/Delta proceedings.
53 Letter to State Board. Within 30 days of signing this MOU, each signatory
will jointly or individually convey the principles set forth in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 above by
sending a letter to the State Board, copied to the EPA, in the form attached to this MOU
as Exhibit 4.
5.4 Withdrawal from MOU. If during the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the
State Board or EPA uses future urban water conservation savings that are inconsistent with
the use of BMPs as provided in this MOU, any signatory shall have the right to withdraw
from the MOU by providing written notice to the Council as described in Section 7.4(a)(i)
below.
SECTION 6
CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL
6.1 Organization. The California Urban Water Conservation Council ("Council')
will be comprised of all signatories to this MOU grouped according to the definition in
Section 1. The signatories agree to the necessary organization and duties of the Council as
specified in Exhibit 2 to this MOU. Within 30 days of the effective date of this MOU, the
Council will hold its first meeting.
-10- Al-/8'
6/11/91
62 Annual Reports. The signatory water suppliers will submit standardized
reports annually to the Council providing sufficient information to inform the Council on
the progress being made towards implementing the BMP process. The Council will also
make annual reports to the State Board. An outline for the Council's annual report to the
State Board is attached as Exhibit 5 to this-MOtt— - --- — - ---- - --
SECTION 7
GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.1 Initial Term of MOU. The initial term of this MOU shall be for a period of
10 years. This initial term shall commence on September 1, 1991.
7.2 Signatories. Signatories shall consist of three groups: water suppliers, public
advocacy organizations and other interested groups, arranged according to the definition in
Section 13. Such arrangement will be made by a Council membership committee comprised
of three representatives from the water suppliers' group and three representatives from the
public advocacy organizations' group.
73 Renewal of MOU. The MOU shall be automatically renewed after the initial
term of 10 years on an annual basis as to all signatories unless a signatory withdraws as
described below in Section 7.4.
7.4 Withdrawal from MOU. Signatories to the MOU may withdraw from the
MOU in three separate-ways as described in sections (a), (b) and (c) below.
(a) Withdrawal prior to expiration of initial term. Before the expiration
of the initial term of 10 years, a signatory may withdraw by providing
written notice to the Council declaring its intent to withdraw. This
written notice must include a substantiated finding that one of the two
provisions (i) or (ii) below applies:
(i) During the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the State Board or
EPA used future urban water conservation savings that are
inconsistent with the use of BMPs as provided in this MOU;
OR
(ii) After a period of 5 years from the commencement of the initial
term of the MOU:
-11-
6/11/91
(A) Specific signatorywater suppliers representing more than
10 percent of the population included within the
combined service areas of the signatory water suppliers
have failed to act in good faith pursuant to Section 4.4
of the MOU; and -
(B) The signatory wishing to withdraw has attached findings
to its past two annual reports to the Council beginning
no earlier than the fourth annual report identifying these
same signatory water suppliers and giving evidence based
upon the information required to be submitted in the
annual reports to the Council to support the allegations
of failure to act in good faith; and
(C) The State Board has failed to require conservation
efforts by the speciic water suppliers adequate to satisfy
the requirements of this MOU; and
(D) Discussions between the signatory wishing to withdraw
and the specific signatories named have failed to satisfy
the objections of the signatory wishing to withdraw.
After a signatory declares an intent to withdraw under Section 7.4(a), the MOU shall
remain in effect as to that signatory for 180 days.
(b) Withdrawal after expiration of initial term. After the initial term of 10
years, any signatory may declare its intent to withdraw from the MOU
unconditionally by providing written notice to the Council. After a
signatpry has declared its intent to withdraw as provided in this section,
the MOU will remain in effect as to that signatory for 180 days.
(c) Immediate withdrawal. Any signatory who does not sign a modifica-
tion to the MOU requiring a 2/3 vote as described in Exhibit 2 of this
MOU may withdraw from the MOU by providing written notice to the
Council. The withdrawing signatory's duties under this MOU will be
terminated effective immediately upon providing such written notice.
If a signatory withdraws from the MOU under any of the above methods, the MOU
shall remain in effect as to all other signatories.
7.5 Additional Parties. Additional parties may sign the MOU after September 1,
1991 by providing written notice to and upon approval by the Council. Additional parties
-12-
6/11/91
will be assigned by the Council to one of the three signatory groups defined in Section 1.3
before entry into the Council. All additional signatory water suppliers shall be subject to the
schedule of implementation provided in Exhibit 1.
7.6 Legal Authority. Nothing in this MOU is intended to give any signatory,
agency, entity or organization expansion of any existing authority. No organization formed
pursuant to this MOU has authority beyond that specified in this MOU.
7.7 Non-Contractual Agreement. This MOU is intended to embody general prin-
ciples agreed upon between and among the signatories and is not intended to create con-
tractual relationships, rights, obligations, duties or remedies in a court of law between or
among the signatories.
7.8 Modifications. The signatories agree that this writing constitutes the entire
understanding between and among the signatories. The general manager, chief executive
officer or executive director of each signatory or their designee shall have the authority to
vote on any modifications to this MOU and its exhibits. Any modifications to the MOU
itself and to its exhibits shall be made by the Council as described in Exhibit 2.
-13-
y-�l
6/11/91
EXHIBIT 1
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULES, ASSUMPTIONS AND POTENTIAL BEST
"—
MANAGEMENT-PRACTICES FOR URBAN-WATER CONSERVATION -"
IN CALIFORNIA
SECTION A. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
This section contains those Best Management Practices ("BMPs")that signatory water
suppliers commit to implementing. Suppliers' water needs estimates will be adjusted to
reflect estimates of reliable savings from this category of BMPs. For some BMPs, no esti-
mate of savings is made.
It is recognized by all parties that a single implementation method for a BMP would
not be appropriate for all water suppliers. In fact, it is likely that as the process moves for-
ward,water suppliers will find new implementation methods even more effective than those
described. Any implementation method used should be at least as effective as the methods
described below.
1. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WATER AUDITS AND INCENTIVE PRO-
GRAMS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY RESI-
DENIIAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL/INSTITUTIONAL CUSTOMERS.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as identifying the top
20% of water users in each sector, directly contacting them (e.g., by mail
and/or telephone) and offering the service on a repeating cycle; providing
incentives sufficient to achieve customer implementation (e.g., free shower-
heads, hose end sprinkler timers, adjustment to high water use bills if cus-
tomers implement water conservation measures, etc.). This could be a
cooperative program among organizations that would benefit from its imple-
mentation.
2. PLUMBING, NEW AND RETROFIT.
a. ENFORCEMENT OF WATER CONSERVING PLUMBING FIX-
TURE STANDARDS INCLUDING REQUIREMENT FOR ULTRA
LOW FLUSH ("ULF') TOILETS IN ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION
BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1992.
1-1
6/11/91
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as contacting the local
building departments and providing information to the inspectors; and con-
tacting major developers and plumbing supply outlets to inform them of the
_requirement___.
b. SUPPORT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION PROHIBI-
TING SALE OF TOILETS USING MORE THAN 1.6 GALLONS.
PER FLUSH.
C. PLUMBING RETROFIT.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as delivering retrofit kits
including high quality low-flow showerheads to pre-1980 homes that do not
have them and toilet displacement devices or other devices to reduce flush
volume for each home that does not already have ULF toilets; offering to
install the devices; and following up at least three times.
3. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER AUDITS, LEAK DETECTION AND
REPAIR.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as at least once every
three years completing a water audit of the water supplier's distribution sys-
tem using methodology such as that described in the American Water Works
Association's "Manual of Water Supply Practices, Water Audits and Leak
Detection;" advising customers whenever it appears possible that leaks exist
on the customers' side of the meter; and performing distribution system leak
detection and repair whenever the audit reveals that it would be cost effective.
4. METERING, WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW
CONNECTIONS AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS.
Implementation methods shall be requiring meters for all new connections
and billing by volume of use; and establishing a program for retrofitting any
existing unmetered connections and billing by volume of use; for example,
through a requirement that all connections be retrofitted at or within six
months of resale of the property or retrofitted by neighborhood. .
5. LARGE LANDSCAPE WATER AUDITS AND INCENTIVES.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as identifying all irriga-
tors of large (at least 3 acres) landscapes (e.g., golf courses, green belts,
common areas, multi-family housing landscapes, schools, business parks,
1-2
y-� 3
6/11/91
cemeteries, parks and publicly owned landscapes on or adjacent to road
rights-of-way); contacting them directly (by mail and/or telephone); offering
landscape audits using methodology such as that described in the Landscape
Water Management Handbook prepared for the California Department of
WatesBesources;and.cost�ef iue.incentives-sufficient4o.achieve-customer
implementation; providing follow-up audits at least once every five years; and
providing multi-lingual training and information necessary for implementation.
6. LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW
AND EXISTING COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL,
GOVERNMENTAL, AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
Implementation methods shall be enacting and implementing landscape water
conservation ordinances, or if the supplier does not have the authority to
enact ordinances, cooperating with cities, counties and the green industry in
the service area to develop and implement landscape water conservation
ordinances pursuant to the "Water Conservation in Landscaping Act" ("Act")
(California Government Code §§ 65590 gi =Q.). The ordinance shall be at
least as effective as the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance being
developed by the Department of Water Resources. A study of the
effectiveness of this BMP will be initiated within two years of the date local
agencies must adopt ordinances under the Act.
7. PUBLIC INFORMATION.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as ongoing programs
promoting water conservation and conservation related benefits including pro-
viding speakers to community groups and the media; using paid and public
service advertising;using bill inserts;providing information on customers' bills
showing use in gallons per day for the last billing period compared to the
same period the year before; providing public information to promote other
water conservation practices; and coordinating with other governmental agen-
cies, industry groups and public interest groups.
8. SCHOOL EDUCATION.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as ongoing programs
promoting water conservation and conservation related benefits including
working with the school districts in the water supplier's service area to provide
educational materials and instructional assistance.
1-3
y-off
6/11/91
9. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER CONSERVATION.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as identifying and con-
tacting the top 10% of the industrial and commercial customers directly (by
mail and/or telephone); offering audits and incentives sufficient to achieve
customer implementation; and providing follow-up audits at least once every
five years if necessary.
10. NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USE REVIEW.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as assuring the review
of proposed water uses for new commercial and industrial water service and
making recommendations for improved water use efficiency before completion
of the building permit process.
11. CONSERVATION PRICING.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as eliminating noncon-
serving pricing and adopting conserving pricing. For signatories supplying
both water and sewer service, this BMP applies to pricing of both water and
sewer service. Signatories that supply water but not sewer service shall make
good faith efforts to work with sewer agencies so that those sewer agencies
adopt conservation pricing for sewer service.
Nonconserving_vncing provides no incentives to customers to reduce use.
Such pricing is characterized by one or more of the following components:
a. Rates in which the unit price decreases as the quantity used increases
(declining block rates);
b. Rates that involve charging customers a fixed amount per billing cycle
regardless of the quantity used;
C. Pricing in which the typical bill is determined.by high fixed charges and
low commodity charges.
Conservation pricing provides incentives to customers to reduce aveiage or
peak use, or both. Such pricing includes:
a. Rates designed to Tecover the cost of providing service; and
b. Billing for water and sewer service based on metered water use.
1-4
6/11/91
Conservation pricing is also characterized by one or more of the following
components:
C. Rates in which the unit rate is constant regardless of the quantity used
(uniform rates) or increases as the quantity'iised'increases (increasing
block rates);
d. Seasonal rates or excess-use surcharges to reduce peak demands during
summer months;
e. Rates based upon the long-run marginal cost or the cost of adding the
next unit of capacity to the system;
f. Lifeline rates.
12. LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION FOR NEW AND EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as providing guidelines,
information and incentives for installation of more efficient landscapes and
water saving practices (e.g., encouraging local nurseries to promote sales and
use of low water using plants, providing landscape water conservation mate-
rials in new home owner packets and water bills, sponsoring demonstration
gardens); and enacting and implementing landscape water conservation
ordinances or, if the supplier does not have the authority to enact ordinances,
cooperating with cities, counties, and the green industry in the service area to
develop and implement landscape water conservation ordinances pursuant to
the "Water Conservation in Landscaping Act ("Act") (California Government
Code §§ 65590gI =.). The ordinance shall be at least as effective as the
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance being developed by the
Department of Water Resources.
13. WATER WASTE PROHIBITION.
Implementation methods shall be enacting and enforcing measures prohibiting
gutter flooding, sales of automatic (self-regenerating) water softeners, single
pass cooling systems in new connections, nonrecirculating systems in all new
conveyer car wash and commercial laundry systems, and nonrecycling
decorative water fountains.
1-5
�-ZG
6/11/91
14. WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as designating a water
_ ._ _ _conserv_ation coordinator responsible for preparing the conservation. plan,
managing its implementation, and evaluating the results. For very small water
suppliers, this might be a part-time responsibility. For larger suppliers this
would be a full-time responsibility with additional staff as appropriate. This
work should be coordinated with the supplier's operations and planning staff.
15. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES.
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as:
a. Offering financial incentives to facilitate implementation of conserva-
tion programs. Initial recommendations for such incentives will be
developed by the Council within two years of the initial signing of the
MOU, including incentives to improve the efficiency of landscape
water use; and
b. Financial incentives offered by wholesale water suppliers to their custo-
mers to achieve conservation.
16. ULTRA LOW FLUSH TOILET REPLACEMENT.
Water suppliers agree to implement programs for replacement of existing
high-water-using toilets with ultra-low-flush toilets (1.6 gallons or less) in resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial buildings. Such programs will be at least
as effective as offering rebates of up to S 100 for each replacement that would
not have occurred without the rebate, or requiring replacement at the time of
resale, or requiring replacement at the time of change of service. This level
of implementation will be reviewed by the Council after development of the
assumptions included in the following two paragraphs using the economic
principles included in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Exhibit 3.
a. Assumptions for determining estimates of reliable savings from
installation of ultra-low-flush toilets in both existing and new resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial structures will be recommended by
the Council to the State Water Resources Control Board ("State
Board") by December 31, 1991 for use in the present Bay/Delta pro-
ceedings.
1-6
6/11/91
b. Should the Council not agree on the above assumptions, a panel will
be formed by December 31, 1991 to develop such assumptions. The
panel shall consist of one member appointed from the signatory public
advocacy group; one member appointed from the signatory water
supplier group; and one member mutually agreed to by the two
appointed members. The assumptions to be used for this BMP will be
determined by a majority vote of the panel by February 15, 1992 using
the criteria for determining estimates of reliable savings included in
this MOU. The decision of the panel will be adopted by the Council
and forwarded to the State Board by March 1, 1992.
1-7
6/12/91
SECTION B. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES
Best Management Practices will be implemented by signatory water suppliers
according.to the schedule. set forth below: "Implem_e..ntation".means achieving and_main-.__ ,.. ..
taining the staffing, funding, and in general, the priority levels necessary to achieve the level
of activity called for in the descriptions of the various BMPs and to satisfy the commitment
by the signatories to use good faith efforts to optimize savings from implementing BMPs as
described in section 4.4 of the MOU. BMPs will be implemented at a level of effort
projected to achieve at least the coverages specified in Section C of this Exhibit within the
initial ten year term of the MOU.
This schedule sets forth the latest dates by which implementation of BMPs will be
underway. It is recognized that some signatories are already implementing some BMPs, and
that this schedule does not prohibit signatories from implementing BMPs sooner than
required.
The following BMPs will be implemented by the end of the first year of the initial
term (numbers correspond to those in the list set forth in Section A above):
2a. ENFORCEMENT OF WATER CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURE
STANDARDS INCLUDING REQUIREMENT FOR ULTRA LOW FLUSH
TOILETS IN ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING JANUARY 1,
1992.
2b. SUPPORT OF STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITING
SALE OF TOILETS USING MORE THAN 1.6 GALLONS PER FLUSH.
3. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER AUDITS. (LEAK DETECTION AND
REPAIR to be implemented by end of second year.)
7. PUBLIC INFORMATION.
8. SCHOOL EDUCATION.
13. WATER WASTE PROHIBITION.
14. WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR.
The following BMPs will be implemented by the end of the second year of the initial
term:
2c. PLUMBING RETROFIT.
1-8
�-x 9
6/11/91
3. LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR. (DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER
AUDITS to be implemented by end of first year.)
4. METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW
-- -- - CONNECTIONS AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS.
6. LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENT'S FOR NEW
AND EXISTING COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL,
GOVERNMENTAL, AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
11. CONSERVATION PRICING. (All components except billing for sewer
service based on metered water use.)
12. LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION FOR NEW AND EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
16. ULTRA LOW FLUSH TOILET REPLACEMENT.
The following BMPs will be implemented by the end of the third year of the initial
term:
1. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WATER AUDITS AND INCENTIVE PRO-
GRAMS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY RESI-
DENTIAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL/INSTITUTIONAL CUSTOMERS.
5. LARGE.LANDSCAPE WATER AUDITS AND INCENTIVES.
9. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER CONSERVATION.
10. NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USE REVIEW.
11. CONSERVATION PRICING. (Billing for sewer service based on metered
water use.)
15. FINANCIAL INCENTIVES.
1-9
y- 3d
6/11/91
SECTION C: ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING RELIABLE
SAVINGS FROM BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Estimated Water Savings
Pre-1980 Post-1980
Best Management Practice Construction Construction
1. Interior and Exterior Water Audits and Incentive
Programs for Single Family Residential, Multi-
family Residential and Governmental/Institutional
Customers
Single Family and Multi-family
Reduction factors
Low-flow showerhead 72 gcd 2.9 gcd
Toilet retrofit' 1.3 gcd 0
Leak repair 0.5 gcd OS gcd
Landscape audit, percent outdoor use 10% 10%
Coverage factor
Target, top percent of users 20% 20%
Accept audit 20% 20%
Governmental/Institutional
Reduction Factors
Interior retrofit, percent indoor use 5% 0
Landscape audit, percent outdoor use 10% 10%
Coverage Factor
Target, top percent of users 20% 20%
Accept audit 70% 70%
1-10
y-3/
6/11/91
2. Plumbing, New and Retrofit
a. Enforcement of Water Conserving Plumbing
Fixture Standards Including Requirement
for Ultra Low Flush Toilets in All New
Construction Beginning January 1, 1992
Reduction factor b b
Coverage factor
All new homes and buildings built after N/A N/A
January 1992
b. Support state and federal legislation
prohibiting sale of toilets using more than
1.6 gallons per flush
Reduction factor b b
Coverage factor NQ NQ
C. Plumbing Retrofit
Single family canvass
Reduction factors
Toilet retrofit' 1.3 gcd N/A
Low-flow showerhead 7.2 gcd N/A
Coverage factor
Installation Rate 75% N/A
Multi-family owner contact
Reduction factors
Toilet retrofit 1.3 gcd N/A
Low-flow showerhead 7.2 gcd N/A
Coverage factor
Installation rate 80% N/A
1-11
y-32
6/11/91
3. Distribution System Water Audits, Leak Detection FACTOR
and Repair
Reduction factor
Lower unaccounted for water to no more 10%
than percent total use
(All other utilities remain at current levels)
Coverage factor
Total number of utilities participating in 100%
audits
Utilities participating in leak detection and varies based on cost-
repair effectiveness analysis
4. Metering with Commodity Rates for All New
Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections
Reduction factor
Unmetered portion of utility, percent of 20%
applied water
Coverage factor
Unmetered customers 100%
5. Large Landscape Water Audits and Incentives
Reduction factor
Landscape audit for multi-family, 15%
commercial, industrial, institutional, and
public users, with 3 acres of landscaping or
more, percent of irrigation water use
Coverage factor
Applies to all sites three acres or more
1-12
1. 33
6/11/91
6. Landscape Water Conservation Requirements for
New and Existing Commercial, Industrial,
Institutional, Governmental, and Multi-family
Developments
Reduction factor
Reduced landscape water use, percent of 20%
new irrigation use
Coverage factor
All new landscape areas
7. Public Information
Reduction factor NQ
Coverage factor NQ
S. School Education
Reduction factor NQ
Coverage factor NQ
9. Commercial and Industrial Water Conservation
Commercial water reduction results from Best
Management Practices such as Interior and
Landscape Water Audits, Plumbing Codes, and
Other Factors but exclude Ultra Low Flush Toilet
Replacement. Estimated reduction in gallons per
employee per day in year 2000 use occurring over
the period 1980.2000. 12%c
Industrial water reduction results from Best
Management Practices, Waste Discharge Fees,
New Technology, Water Audits, Plumbing Codes
and Other Factors, but exclude Ultra Low Flush
Toilet Replacement. Estimated reduction in
gallons per employee per day in year 2000 use over
the period 1980-2000. 15%c
10. New Commercial and Industrial Water Use Review
Reduction factor NQ
NQ
Coverage factor
1-13
. y-3�
6/11/91
11. Conservation Pricing
Reduction factor NQ
Coverage factor NQ
12. Landscape Water Conservation for New and
Existing Single Family Homes
Reduction factor NQ
Coverage factor NQ
13. Water Waste Prohibition
Reduction factor NQ
Coverage factor NQ
14. Water Conservation Coordinator
Reduction factor NQ
Coverage factor NQ
15. Financial Incentives
Reduction factor NQ
Coverage factor NQ
16. Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement Programs
Reduction factor b
Coverage factor b
1-14
y-,�s
6/11/91
NOTES AND DEFINITION OF TERMS
a five year life (toilet retrofit)
b refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Best Management Practice No. 16
c includes savings accounted for in other Best Management Practices
gcd = gallons per capita per day
Reduction factor = unit water savings
Coverage factor = installation and/or compliance rate
Low flow showerhead = 2.5 gallons per minute maximum flow
Ultra low flush toilet = 1.6 gallons per flush maximum
Unaccounted for water = authorized (unmetered uses), leakage and meter error
Outdoor use = summer - winter use, on an average annual basis
Irrigation use = water used solely for irrigating, excluding cooling water use .
Target = customers offered an incentive or audit.
N/A = not applicable
NQ = not quantified at this time
1-15
6/11/91
SECTION D. POTENTIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
This Section contains Potential Best Management Practices ("PBMPs") that will be
studied. Where appropriate, demonstration projects will be carried out to determine if the
practices meet the criteria to be designated as BMPs. Within one year of the initial signing
of this MOU, the Council will develop and adopt a schedule for studies of these PBMPs.
1. RATE STRUCTURES AND OTHER ECONOMIC INCENTIVES AND DISIN-
CENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE WATER CONSERVATION. This is the top
priority PBM?to be studied. Such studies should include seasonal rates;increasing
block rates; connection fee discounts; grant or loan programs to help finance
conservation projects; financial incentives to change landscapes; variable hookup
fees tied to landscaping; and interruptible water service to large industrial,
commercial or public customers. Studies on this PBMP will be initiated within
12 months from the initial signing of the MOU. At least one of these studies
will include a pilot project on incentives to encouarage landscape water
conservation.
2. EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR WATER USING APPLIANCES AND
IRRIGATION DEVICES.
3. REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WATER USING APPLIANCES(EXCEPT
TOILETS AND SHOWERHEADS WHOSE REPLACEMENTS ARE
INCORPORATED AS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES) AND
IRRIGATION DEVICES.
4. RETROFIT OF EXISTING CAR WASHES.
5. GRAYWATER USE.
6. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PRESSURE REGULATION.
7. WATER SUPPLIER BILLING RECORDS BROKEN DOWN BY CUSTOMER
CLASS (E.G., RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL).
8. SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CONSERVATION INCLUDING COVERS
TO REDUCE EVAPORATION.
9. RESTRICTIONS OR PROHIBITIONS ON DEVICES THAT USE
EVAPORATION TO COOL EXTERIOR SPACES.
10. POINT-OF-USE WATER HEATERS, RECIRCULATING HOT WATER
SYSTEMS AND HOT WATER PIPE INSULATION.
11. EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR NEW INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL
PROCESSES.
�/_ 3 7
SIGNATURE PAGE
The Tbyor of the City of San Luis Obispo
hereby executes the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation
in California (the"MOU"), dated June 11, 1991 (with an initial term commencing September
1, 1991), and becomes a party thereto in accordance with its terms.
Dated:
By:
Ron Damn
Authorized Signatory
Title:
Mayor
6/11/91
EXHIBIT 2
CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCI
L The California Urban Water Conservation Council (the "Council")will be comprised
of a representative of each of the signatories to the MOU.
2. The Council will be housed by California Urban Water Agencies ("CUWA").
The Council will act independently of CUWA on all technical and policy issues. CUWA will
be responsible for the initial funding and ensuring that the Council's administrative and general
office needs are met. CUWA will retain the right to withdraw from this relationship at any
time upon 180 days written notice to the Council. The Council recognizes that its funding
requirements may exceed what CUWA is prepared to contribute and that alternative funding
may be needed.
3. The Council's responsibilities and authorities include:
(a) Recommending study methodologies for Best Management Practices
("BMPs"), including procedures for assessing the effectiveness and reliability
of urban water conservation measures.
(b) Developing guidelines including discount rate to be used by all signatories
in computing BMP benefits and costs pursuant to Exhibit 3.
(c) Reviewing and modifying the economic principles set forth in Exhibit
3.
(d) Collecting and summarizing information on implementation of BMPs
and Potential Best Management Practices ("PBMPs").
(e) Adopting or modifying BMPs and PBMPs lists.
(f) Adopting or modifying reliable water conservation savings data for BMPs.
(g) Adopting or modifying the schedules of implementation for existing and
new BMPs.
(h) Adopting or modifying the schedules for research and demonstration
projects for BMPs and PBMPs.
(i) Coordinating and/or making recommendations regarding BMPs study
and demonstration projects.
2-1
y- �s
6/11/91
(j) Accepting or denying requests for additional parties to join the MOU
and assigning additional parties to one of the three signatory groups as
described in Section 1.3 of the MOU.
(k) Reviewing and modifying report formats.
(1) Making annual reports to the State Water Resources Control Board and
the Council Members on the above items based on the format described
in Exhibit 5.
(m) Within two years of the initial signing of this MOU, developing and
implementing procedures and a funding mechanism for independent
evaluation of the MOU process at the Council and signatory levels.
(n) Undertaking such additional responsibilities as the Members may agree
upon.
4. The Council will make formal reports to the State Water Resources Control
Board and to the governing bodies of all Council Members. Such reports shall include a formal
annual written report. Other reports such as status reports and periodic updates may be prepared
as deemed appropriate by the Council. Any Member of the Council will be entitled to review
draft reports and comment on all reports. Such comments shall be included in any final report
at the Member's request.
5. It is anticipated that the Council will develop a committee structure,which will
include a Membership Committee as described in Section 7.2 of the MOU. A Steering
Committee and one or more technical committees may also be needed.
6. For purposes of the Council,signatories will be divided into three groups: water
suppliers("Group 1"),public advocacy organizations ("Group 2") and other interested groups
("Group 3") as those terms are defined in Section 1 of the MOU. Members of Groups 1 and
2 shall be members of the Council and shall possess all voting rights. Members of Group 3
shall not have voting rights, but shall act in an advisory capacity to the Council.
7. Decisions by the Council to undertake additional responsibilities; to modify the
MOU itself; or to modify Exhibits 2 or 3 require the following:
(a) The Council will provide notice to all signatories giving the text of the
proposed action or modification at least 60 days in advance of the vote
by the Council.
(b) To pass the action or modification, there must be a vote in favor of the
action or modification by at least 2/3 of the members of Group 1 voting,
2-2
Z/
6/11/91
including votes made in person or in writing, and a vote in favor of the
action or modification by at least 2/3 of the members of Group 2 voting,
including votes made in person or in writing.
8. All other modifications and Council actions shall be undertaken as follows:
There must be a vote in favor of the modification or action by a simple majority of the members
of Group 1 voting, including votes made in person or in writing, and a vote in favor of the
modification or action by a simple majority of the members of Group 2 voting, including votes
made in person or in writing.
2-3
y -y/
6/11/91
EXHIBIT 3
PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE PERFORMANCE OF
BMP ECONOMIC (COST-EFFECTIVENESS) ANALYSES
1. The total cost-effectiveness of a conservation measure will be measured by comparing
the present value of the benefits of the measure listed in paragraph 3 below to the
present value of the costs listed in paragraph 4. The measure will be cost-effective
if the present value of the benefits exceeds the present value of the costs.
2. The cost-effectiveness of a conservation measure to the water supplier will be measured
by comparing the present value of the benefits described in paragraph 5 to the present
value of the costs described in paragraph 6. The measure will be cost-effective if the
present value of the benefits exceeds the present value of the costs.
3. Total benefits exclude financial incentives received by water suppliers or by retail
customers. These benefits include:
(a) avoided capital costs of production, transport, storage, treatment, wastewater
treatment and distribution capacity
(b) avoided operating costs, including but not limited to, energy and labor
(c) environmental benefits and avoided environmental costs
(d) avoided costs to other water suppliers, including those associated with making
surplus water available to other suppliers
(e) benefits to retail customers, including benefits to customers of other suppliers
associated with making surplus water available to these suppliers
4. Total program costs are those costs associated with the planning, design, and
implementation of the particular BMP, excluding financial incentives paid either to
other water suppliers or to retail customers. These costs include:
(a) capital expenditures for equipment or conservation devices
(b) operating expenses for staff or contractors to plan, design, or implement the
program
(c) costs to other water suppliers
3-1
q yz
6/11/91
(d) costs to the environment
(e) costs to retail customers
5. Program benefits to the water supplier include:
(a) costs avoided by the water supplier of constructing production, transport, storage,
treatment, distribution capacity, and wastewater treatment facilities, if any.
(b) operating costs avoided by the water supplier, including but not limited to, energy
and labor associated with the water deliveries that no longer must be made
(c) avoided costs of water purchases by the water supplier
(d) environmental benefits and avoided environmental costs
(e) revenues from other entities,including but not limited to revenue from the sale
of water made available by the conservation measure and financial incentives
received from other entities
6. Program costs to the water supplier include:
(a) capital expenditures incurred by the water supplier for equipment or conservation
devices
(b) financial incentives to other water suppliers or retail customers
(c) operating expenses for staff or contractors to plan, design, or implement the
program
(d) costs to the environment
7. The California Urban Water Conservation Council ("Council")will be responsible for
developing guidelines that will be used by all water suppliers in computing BMP benefits
and costs. These guidelines will include, but will not be limited to,the following issues:
(a) analytical frameworks
(b) avoided environmental costs
(c) other impacts on the supply system that may be common to many water suppliers
(d) time horizons and discount rates
3-2
-�l3
6/11/91
(e) avoided costs to non-water supply agencies
(f) benefits and costs to retail customers
(g) benefits of water made available to other entities as a result of conservation
effort
These guidelines will recognize the uniqueness of individual water suppliers and will therefore
not impose excessive uniformity.
8. Within these guidelines, each water supplier will be responsible for analyses of the
cost-effectiveness of particular BMPs on its system. These analyses will be reviewed
by the Council.
9. The Council will also be responsible for periodically reviewing the overall framework
set forth in this Exhibit.
3-3
y - yy
6/11/91
EXHIBIT 4
[Date]
W. Don Maughan, Chairman, and Members
State Water Resources Control Board
901 "P" Street
Sacramento, California 95801
Subject: Bay/Delta Proceedings:
Urban Water Conservation
Dear Chairman Maughan and Members:
We are pleased to forward to you a copy of a"Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Urban Water Conservation in California"recently entered into by many urban water suppliers,
public advocacy organizations, and other interested groups.
This Memorandum of Understanding was developed over a period of many months
of fact-gathering and intensive negotiations. It commits the signatory water suppliers to good
faith implementation of a program of water conservation which embodies a series of "Best
Management Practices" for California's urban areas. It also commits all of the signatories
to an ongoing, structured process of data collection through which other conservation measures,
not yet in general use, can be evaluated as to whether they should be added to the list of Best
Management Practices. Finally, it commits all signatories to recommending to this Board
that the Best Management Practices identified in this Memorandum of Understanding be
taken as the benchmark for estimating reliable savings for urban areas which utilize waters
affected by the Bay/Delta proceedings. An important part of this program is the signatories'
recognition of the need to provide long-term reliabilityfor urban water suppliers and long-term
protection of the environment.
To carry out these commitments, please be advised that each of the signatories has
endorsed making the following recommendations to this Board:
4-1
6/11/91
1. That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings, implementation of
the Best Management Practioes process set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding represents
a sufficient long-term water conservation program by the signatory water suppliers,recognizing
that additional programs may be required during occasional water supply shortages.
2. That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings only,the Board-should.
base its estimates of future urban water conservation savings on implementation of all of the
Best Management Practices included in Section A of Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of
Understanding for the entire service area of the signatory water suppliers and only on those
Best Management Practices, except for (a) the conservation potential for water supplied by
urban agencies for agricultural purposes, or (b) in cases where higher levels of conservation
have been mandated.
3. That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings,the Board should make
its estimates of future urban water conservation savings by employing the reliable savings
assumptions associated with those Best Management Practices set forth in Section C of Exhibit
1 to the Memorandum of Understanding. Measures for which reliable savings assumptions
are not yet available should not be employed in estimating future urban water use.
4. That the Board should include a policy statement in the water rights phase of
the present Bay/Delta proceedings supporting the Best Management Practices process described
in the Memorandum of Understanding and should also consider that process in any documents
it prepares pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as part of the present Bay/Delta
proceedings.
It should be emphasized that the Memorandum of Understanding does not contain
projections of population for California and, accordingly, none of the signatories to the
Memorandum of Understanding are agreeing to recommend that any specific population levels
be used by the Board in estimating future water demands. Furthermore, it should be noted
that the signatories have retained the right to advocate any particular level of protection for
the Bay/Delta Estuary, including levels of freshwater flows, and that the Memorandum of
Understanding is not intended to address any authority or obligation of the Board to establish
freshwater flow protections or to set water quality objectives for the Estuary. The Memorandum
of Understanding is also not intended to address any authority of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Finally, as described in Section 5.1 of the MOU, the signatories have not limited their
ability to propose different conservation practices, different estimates of savings or different
processes in a forum other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings or for non-urban water
suppliers or for other water management issues. Public advocacy organization signatories
have not agreed to use the initial assumptions of reliable conservation savings in proceedings
other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings. The signatories may present other assumptions
of reliable conservation savings for non-signatory water suppliers in the Bay/Delta proceedings,
4-2
q- y�
6/11/91
provided that such assumptions could not adversely impact the water supplies of signatory
water suppliers.
The Memorandum of Understanding establishes an ongoing process for study and research
in the field of urban water conservation and an organizational structure to support this effort,
which is described in Exhibit 2 to the Memorandum of Understanding. The process is dynamic
and contemplates periodic revisions to the list of Best Management Practices, as well as
refinements to the savings assumptions based on continuing field studies. The California Urban
Water Conservation Council will forward updated lists of Best Management Practices and
updated savings assumptions to the Board as they become available. However,for the present
Bay/Delta proceedings, the measures and savings assumptions listed on Exhibit 1 should be
used as described above.
The Memorandum of Understanding is a significant accomplishment and one of which
all the parties are proud. We hope it will be of value to the Board in the complex and important
Bay/Delta proceedings. By copy of this letter, we are forwarding these recommendations
to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Very Truly Yours,
Name of Signatory
By:
cc: Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Regional Administrator, Region IX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
4-3
�- Al
6/11/91
EXHIBIT 5
URBAN WATER CONSERVATION ANNUAL REPORT
OUTLINE
1. Executive Summary
II. Implementation Assessment
Water Suppliers' Report
Findings,
Comments
Progress
Public Advocacy Organizations' Report
Findings
Comments
Progress
III. Survey Results for 199X
Summary of Survey Responses
Table _ Per Capita Usage [by region]
Table _. Status of BMP Implementation [by supplier]
Table _. Proposed Implementation Schedules
Interpretation of Survey Responses
Lack of Data
Climatic Influences
Implementation Difficulties
Evaluation'of Results
IV. Trend Analysis
Comparison with Prior Years
Table _ Per Capita Usage [by region]
Projected Conservation
Table _ Schedule of Implementation
5-1
�- ys
6/11/91
Updated Estimates of Future Savings [by region]
Evaluation of Progress
V. Studies of Best Management Practices
Assessment of Current BMPs
Table _. Evaluation of Effectiveness [by measure and region]
Assessment of Potential BMPs
Status of Current Studies
Proposed Future Studies
Revision of Lists of Current and Potential BMPs
Additions and Deletions
Other Modifications to MOU or Exhibits
VI. Recent Developments
Legislative Update
Program Funding
Case Studies
Residential Conservation
Industrial Conservation
Irrigation Efficiency
Legal Actions
National Practices
Technical Advances
Publications
VII. Council Committee Activities
VIII. Funding Levels
IX Staffing Levels
X Substantiated Findings by Signatory Water Supplier in Support of Use of Exemptions
5-2
y -yy
6/11/91
M. Substantiated Findings in Support of Use of Alternative Schedule of Implementation
Appendices
List of Signatories [subcommittee members noted]
Key Correspondence and Comments
5-3
y_ ro