Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8 - Feedback on Water Budget Reduction Options related to Drought Response Plan Update CITY OF BOULDER WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 20, 2009 AGENDA TITLE: Feedback on Water Budget Reduction Options related to the Drought Response Plan Update PRESENTERS: Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities ! Carol Ellinghouse, Water Resources Coordinator Joanna Crean, Public Works Administrator Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality Coordinator I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the March 23, 2009 WRAB meeting, it was determined that staff, with input from WRAB, should move forward with the Drought Plan update process and update the Drought Response Plan (Volume 1). Specifically, it was recognized that the Drought Response Plan needs to be updated to include newly-available actions that might be taken at each drought alert level such as using the new water budget rate structure to help reduce water use. These immediate updates wt; I help assure that all available tools for dealing with drought can be used to their full advantage should a drought occur soon. At the April 20, 2009 WRAB meeting, as part of the first step in updating the Drought Response Plan, staff will solicit feedback from WRAB on the preferred option for reducing water budgets during a drought. WRAB's feedback will be considered and later in the summer of 2009, staff will return to WRAB to discuss the details in terms of percent, numeric, etc. reductions related to each stage of the drought. BACKGROUND ON DROUGHT PLAN: The city's "Drought Plan" was completed in February 2003 and revised with new drought triggers in 2004. Since then, a water budget rate structure was implemented in January 2007. The nrought Plan, Volume 1 (Drought Response Plan) needs to be updated so that drought response strategies and public education efforts are consistent with the new water budgei rate structure methodology. A complete copy of the Drought Plan (Volumes 1 and 2) may be found on the city's web site at: htm %yw.houlderculorado.gov;indcx.hh ►p?gj)tion- corn contents.task=viir. t: 4472&Itemid _1 p,4 WATER BUDGET REDUCTION OPTIONS: The following goals will be used in the overall update of the Drought Response Plan: 1) For each drought stage, achieve the total city-wide annual water use percent reduction goal identified as the level necessary to assure demands do not exceed supply in drought years and that reliability criteria are met in the event of multi-year droughts. AGENDA ITEM # 8 PAGE 1 2) Achieve balance between use of water budget reductions, drought surcharge amounts and water use restrictions as appropriate for each drought stage to assure meeting water use reduction goals. 3) Focus on reduction in non-essential water uses before reduction in essential uses in accordance with Council-adopted reliability criteria. 4) Address public concerns to extent possible within reliability criteria: flexibility to choose between water uses, maintaining high use public areas (e.g.-soccer fields), equity between types of users, socio-economic equity. In developing the response to the drought, the following tools will be considered in each stage: • Reducing water budgets - using the water budget rate structure to reduce individual water budgets. • Adding drought surcharge - this is a temporary charge designed to enhance revenue stability and encourage water conservation through price signals. • Implementing mandatory outdoor watering restrictions - this could be specific days of the week in which a customer could do their outdoor watering • Implement efficiency standards for identified customers or uses - this could include establishing mandatory, efficiency standard (or best in practice) water budgets for car wash facilities, hotels/motels, restaurants or supermarkets, etc. ~se res;?cIse option wo:,.Id be considered at each stage of the dio jght The four drought ~~;ge:; `Olitt c e discussed in the Drought Response Plan include tt-ic. E; lowing - I-r)lodorate II.- ~S'_rious,1-d-severe, and IV-extreme. With ea(;h drought stage, there are a number of possible actions that may be taken to reduce water demand as identified in the Drought Response Plan. 'r'-' nl4ifl focus of these actions will be to achieve the required water savings for each drought stage, recognizing that in severe drought years and as a multi-year drought intensifies and gets worse, the required actions will become more restrictive and be less flexible. For example, Table I, on the next page, which is taken from the Drought Plan and updated as to response options, provides a summary of combined indoor and outdoor water use reduction goals during the irrigation season in the different drought stages. AGENDA ITEM # 8 PAGE 2 Table I: Drought Response. Plan Focus Summary Water Use Reduction Goal for Drought Irrigation Season Stage (May 15 - Sept 15) Focus of Response Options Main Focus Stage I 10°~ • Reduce water budgets. Basic conservation Moderate measures. Stage II 20% • Reduce water budgets. Keep the following Serious • Add drought surcharge. vegetation alive: - Trees - Shrubs - Vegetable Gardens - Flower Gardens - Lawns Stage 111 30% Reduce water budgets. Keep the following Severe • Add drought surcharge. vegetation alive: • Implement mandatory - Major Trees watering restrictions. - Major Shrubs • Implement efficiency - Vegetable standards for identified Gardens customers. Stage IV 55% • Reduce water budgets. Sustain some mature trees, Extreme • Add drought surcharge. but recognize there maybe • Implement mandatory a major die-off of lawns, watering restrictions. trees, and shrubs. • Implement efficiency standards for identified customers. The 2002-2003 drought would be categorized in the Stage III - Severe categoiy. One of the approaches to reducing water use is to shrink (reduce) customer's water budgets. There are a number of ways that water budgets could be reduced. The following tables summarize the options by customer class. Staff would like WRAB's feedback on which option should be used for each customer class in order to update the Drought Response Plan. Using the feedback from WRAB, staff will develop a strategy for each customer class in order tureduce water budgets fer each drought stage.. AGENDA ITEM # 8 PAGE: OPTIONS OPTION I - OPTION II - Separate Reduction for Indoor anti Outdoor Total Annual Component. then Add I Tollether for iblonlhl), Bndoet CUSTOMP,R Water Biidbet CLASS Percent -Wonthly Indoor Allocation Monthly Outdoor Allocation Reduction Goal SINGLE- Percent A Numeric B - Annual C D - E - FAMILY Reduction Reduction Percent Annual Application Monthly RESIDENTIAL Goal (e.g., reduce Reduction Percent Rate ET (SFR) (e.g., reduce from 7,000 to (e.g. reduce Reduction Reduction Allocation & total annual 6,600 gallons annual indoor (e.g. (e.g., reduce Reduction MULTIFAMILY. water budget for SFR and budget by reduce from 15 to (e.g., RESIDENTIAL by 10%) reduce 4, 000 5%) annual 12 gallons reduce (MFR) to 3,700 outdoor per square from 20% gallo;:;, pew ba_lget by feet) to 15%for living unit for 20%) the month MFR) of.luly) I CUSTOMER OPTIONS CLASS OPTION I 011-PION II OPTION III IRRIGATION Annual Percent Application Monthly ET Reduction (e.g. Rate Allocation reduce annual Reduction Reduction outdoor budget (e.g., reduce (e.g., reduce by 20%) from 15 to 12 from 20% to gallons per 1 S% for the square ficet) AGENDA ITEM # 8 PAGE 4 OPTIONS CUSTONIER CLASS I OPTION t OPTION 11 F OPTION III OPTION IV Percent Change Reduce Water Reduction of Timeframe of Budget Based on AMU (e.g., Water Budget Industry COMMERCIAL AVERAGE reduce customer's (e.g., 12-month Standard (e.g., INDUSTRIAL & MONTHLY historical average period used to reduce water INSTITUTIONAL USE (AMU) (?f'12 consecutive calculate AMU is budget for cur months by 10%). 2005. Change to wash to industry 2002 droujzht). standards). _ Percent Change Reduce Water Reduction of Timeframe of Budget Based on HISTORICAL HMU (e.g., Water Budget Industry MONTHLY reduce customer's (e.g., change Standard (e.g., USE (HMU) rolling three- rolling average to reduce water month average by include 2002 budget for car 10°;,). drough,). wash to industry standards). Total Water Annual Percent Annual Percent Annual Budget Percent Reduction of Reduction of Percent INDOOR/ Reduction Indoor Indoor Reduction of OUTDOOR (e.g., reduce total Component (e.g. Component & Indoor monthly water reduce AWC by Application Rate Component & budget by 10%) 5%) Reduction of Monthly ET Outdoor Allocation Component (e.g., Reduction of reduce AWC by Outdoor 5% and reduce Component from 15 to 12 (e.g. reduce gallons per square AWC by 5% feet) and, reduce fi-om 20% to 15% for the month of'July) Percent EFFICIENCY- Reduction of STANDARD Water Budget (e.g., reduce customer's water • btrd~er tn?~~t. DROUGHT PLANS FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES WITH WATER BUDGETS: Water budgets, at least the way that the city of Boulder has implemented them, are not used in very many communities. However, two communities that use water budgets that are often mentioned include Irvine Ranch, CA and Highlands Ranch, CO. Staff has contacted both communities to see if they have drought plans that incorporate their water budget methodology. Highlands Ranch does not nor do they plan to incorporate its water budget methodology into its AGENDA ITEM 8 8 PAGE 5 current update to their drought plan. Irvine Ranch has recently updated their drought plan to include its water budget methodology (see Attachment A). NEXT STEPS: Staff will consider feedback from WRAB on the preferred options for reducing water budgets in a drought. Later in the summer of 2009, staff will return to WRAB to discuss the details in terms of percent, numeric, etc. reductions related to each stage of the drought. Input and feedback from WRAB will be considered and a final version of the Drought Response Plan (Volume 1) will be provided to WRAB in the fall of 2009. It is anticipated that Vol-Lime 2 of the Drought Plan (technical information) will be updated in 2010 following the completion of new water system model Dins and studies as recommended in the Source Water Master Plan. Staff will present a draft of Volume 2 to WRAB when complete. ATTACHMENT: A - Irvine Ranch, CA: Water Shortage Contingency Plan i J AGENDA ITEM # 8 PAGE 6 ATTACHMENT A: IRVINE RANCH, CA WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN February 2009 PART 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background IRWD's response to a water supply shortage varies depending on the magnitude and nature of the shortfall- A supply shortage is defined as a reduction in total supplies, typically resulting from one of two conditions: • Drought conditions that limit availability of imported water or local supplies. • System interruptions that result from emergency outage conditions. IRWD's response to any water supply shortage depends on the cause, severity and anticipated duration of the shortage. Use of local supplies, storage and other supply augmentation rneasuits can mitigate shortages, and are assumed to be in use to the maximum extent possible during declared shortage levels. The resultant net shortage levels can be addressed by demand reduction programs, as described in this Plan. This document is intended primarily to address drought supply shortages, however at the discretion of the Board, this Plan may also be used to address system outages, although these are more explicitly addressed in IRWD's Water Supply Reliability Study (June 2008). Supply Shortage Conditions Given the assumption that the level of water supply shortage experienced at any point in time is net of mitigating supply factors, two basic considerations emerge in formulating a water shortage plan: (1) the shortage must be offset by demand reduction, and (2) the demand reduction program must be incremental in nature since shortage conditions are normally progressive. This means that a shortage contingency plan should be designed to address varying levels of supply deficits with recommended actions predicated upon the actual deficit level. Therefore this plan develops a shortage response based upon four levels of supply cutbacks: • Level One is a shortage warning and low level shortage condition with supply reductions of up to 10%. DRAFT -1- • Level Two is a significant shortage condition indicated by shortages between 10 to 25%. • Level Three is a severe shortage condition indicated by shortages ranging from 25 to 40%. • Level Four is a crisis shortage condition resulting when shortages exceed 40%. Each shortage level will trigger a set of response measures aimed at reducing demand to the level of supply- Steps taken within each level should be considered cumulative; that is, Level Two responses will include most if not all the responses in Level One plus the additional actions necessary to meet the Level Two condition. Level Three will include most if not all the responses in Level Two plus the additional measures necessary to meet a Level Three condition, and so on. However, if a shortage condition persisted over an extended period of time, it may be necessary ft~ imp_emPnt,a 1+igher level response to sustain required reducti-ns: 'Th=is both thf. se7r: i - su,pply xcci-,jc ions.aod tl:e- Y.-abon over which th(- reduk;tioris are Pxnerieu-ced vilI deten.n the appropriato response- Supply Shortage Response Measures In addition to basic measures which are always in effect, there are three types of response measures that can be implemented by the District in the event of a supply shortage. • Voluntary measures through increased public outreach, education and awareness (V) • Demand management through the use of the District's allocation-based rate structure (D). • Mandatory measures through restrictions on use and enforcement (M). In general terms, voluntary customer responses and demand management through the use of the allocation-based rate structure will be used in all four shortage levels identified in this plan. A combination of voluntary and demand management strategies are likely to be sufficient to address virtually all shortage levels. Responses to shortages in Levels Three and Four may also include restrictions on use and enforcement. Below is a summary of anticipated supply shortage response measures. DRAFT -2- Supply Shortage Response Measure 1RWD Supply Voluntary (V), Shortage Level Demand Management (D) or Mandatory (M Public Education Always In Effect Prohibition of Gutter Flooding Always In Effect Prohibition of Leaks Always In Effect Prohibition of Water Waste Always In Effect Enhanced Public Awareness Campaign Level One V Target Over-Allocation Customers for Level One V Surveys/Assistance Review and Adjust Customer Allocations Level One/Two D and/or Tiers as necessary Reduce Potable and Untreated Irrigation and Level Two D Agricultural Allocations by 30% or other percentage specified in the shortage level declaration Reduce Potable and Untreated Irrigation Allocations Level Three D ` by 60% or other percentage specified in the shortage level declaration _ Reduce Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Level Three D Potable Allocations by 10% or other percentage s ecifled in the shortage level declaration increase Rates for Over-Allocation Use Tiers Level Three/Four _ D Further reduction of allocations, tightening of tiers Level Four D/M and rate increases to achieve necessary demand reductions Eliminate Outdoor Use (100% reduction) Level Four D/M Mandatory restrictions and enforcement Level Four M These response measures may be applied singly or in combination and may vary according to the severity and duration of the shortage. Other measures may be applied in lieu of or in addition to those described ul this plan. The application of shortage level response measures or restrictions may vary as to type of water service. In the implementation of measures or restrictions on potable water service through the declaration of a shortage level, the District will determine and set forth how and to what extent, if any, such measures or restrictions, or different measures or restrictions, will be applied to nonpotable water services furnished by the District. IRWD's Board of Directors will declare the level of shortage based on water supply conditions- DRAFT 3- Imported Water Supply Shortage An imported water supply shortage represents one of the main causes of a supply shortage for the District. In 2008 approximately one-third of IRWD's water supply was imported through Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). While potential reductions in imported water deliveries from MWD can be mitigated to some extent by the addition of other local supplies, such as increased pumping from groundwater facilities, or the conversion of certain potable water uses to recycled water (see IRWD's Water Resources Master Plan (WRPM) and Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)), the range of shortages projected herein is assumed to be net of those supply augmentation measures. That is, supply shortages identified as, say 20%, is the actual shortage confronted by the District's customers after supply augmentation factors have been implemented. This plan is intended to develop a set of options to reduce demand; the development of supply augmentation options is outside the scope of this analysis and is addressed in the WRMP and UWMP. i In VL.)f-k,a-v 1008 the M`,AM adopi ;d Water Supply Alljw,ttirn Plan based on irs deci ~r d lever of, stage. IR. WD has perfoime(ialysis relating to varying tiydro<obic conditions, availabih - of s ply a,t.gmentation measures and additional conservation. Based on the results of tale modeling, Table i illustrates IRW'D water shortage levels correlated with MWD's allocation shortage plan. '['able 1: IR Q Water Shortage Levels Correlated with MWI) ,allocation States: MWD Supply IRWD Reliability IRWD YJ WD Stage Shortage Range Shortage Level 1 5% 97-100% 1 2 10% 95-100% 1 3 15% 93-100% 1 4 20% 91-100% 1 5 25% 88-99° 0 1 or 2 6 30% 86-97% 2 7 35% 84-95/0 2 8 40% 82-92% 2 9 45% 79-89% 2 DRAFT -4- 10 50`i-~ 77-8SM. 2 or 3 The above table assumes a thy NO hydrology for multiple years zinc[ limited access to . roundwater. Actual con-elations may differ depending on local hydrology at the time of the shortage. I I UK.A FT PART II: SHORTAGE RESPONSE STRATEGIES Basic Measures Always In Effect The following basic measures are considered good water management practices, and are always in effect regardless of whether a shortage level is declared. These measures are contained in IRWD's Rules and Regulations (Section 15): (a) Gutter Flooding - No person shall cause or permit any water furnished to any property within the District to run or to escape from any hose, pipe, valve, faucet, sprinkler, or irrigation device into any gutter or otherwise to escape from the property if such running or escaping can reasonably be prevented. (b) Leaks - No person shall permit leaks of water that he has the authority to eliminate. (c) Washing Hard Surface Areas - Washing down hard or paved surfaces, including, but not :irr°;ted to sidewalks, walkway: ~irivew: ys -parking aAeas, tennis courts, patios or alleys, is rohib;L=!d ex-epi -when necessary to alter:: ; ..;,Aety or ;ani t- -y hazards. (d) Waste - No person shall cause or permit water ender his control to be wasted. Wasteful usage includes, but is not limited to, the uses listed in Section 13(a) of Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California, dated December 11, 2002, as amended from time to time, or the counterpart of said list contained in any successor document. Under the District's allocation-based conservation rate structure that is in effect during non- shortage conditions, customer allocations are limited to the amount that is reasonable for the customer's needs and property characteristics, and reflect the exclusion of these types of wasteful w;ter uses. Water Supply Shortie Resnonse Measures IRWD w6uld employ a range of measures in response to potential shortages depending on the level and duration. While the measures will be applied incrementally, this Plan builds in a level of flexibility to adopt additional measures to ensure the appropriate level of demand reduction. DRAFT -6- The use of 1RWD's allocation-based rates and the assessment of higher rates for over-allocation or wasteful use provides IRWD with an additional strategy to help achieve demand reductions. For illustration purposes, Table 2 shows water reductions requirements that would be required during three shortage conditions, using water demand data from 2007 (See Appendix A for total treated and untreated water demands). Table 2: Water Conservation Requirements - Acre-Feet: Shortage Percentage 10% 25% 40% Treated and Untreated Water 6,673 16,683 26,693 Treated Water Only 5,874 14,686 23,497 In order to. achieve the necessary demand reductions, IR WD's measures will progress from voluntary reductions to reduction of discretionary uses through financial incentives or restrictions to reduction of non-discretionary uses through financial incentives or restrictions based on the level of the shortage. Most shortages, unless extreme (Level Four or system outage), can be addressed with a combination of voluntary measures and a reduction of discrnionary uses through financial incentives. Response Measures: Voluntary The single most important step the District can take in implementing voluntary measures is to inform the public consciousness in order to help reduce water demand. It should be noted that the District has implemented on-going water use efficiency and outreach programs since the early 1990's, and those efforts combined with the allocation-based tiered rates, have resulted in somewhat hardened levels of demand. The District will employ additional strategies to achieve the necessary demand reductions in a shortage situation. Most of the effort will be focused.on providing additional outreach to high usage tier customers. 1. Public Outreach: An outreach program will educate the public and local leaders on the water supply situation; what actions are proposed, what the intended achievements are; and how these actions are to be implemented. This will be accomplished by having key District personnel present to groups such as the city council, community associations, DRAFT -7- i The public at large will be informed through press releases, billing inserts, water conservation booths, community association meetings, newsletters, church groups, etc. Literature will be provided on the shortage condition, conservation methods, and water- saving devices and be distributed through the fire and police stations, libraries, city hail, schools, shopping center, recreation facilities, etc. Certain behavior modifications, such as those listed below, can help address the need for immediate conservation. • Survey plumbing every two months and eliminate water loss resulting from leaky plumbing fixtures. • Restrict showers to five minutes or less; fill the bath tub no more than one-quarter full • -Do not Rw -,rater unnecessarily vwhile shaving,': ,7.ishi(ig teeth, bathing, prepra+,kng foou, etc. • Run only full loads of laundry and dishes. • Reduce landscape watering. • Fill swimming pools to a lower level to minimize water loss due to splashing. 2. Education Programs: School programs will focus on the water shortage situation. In addition to the usual District background information, the supply situation and conservation methods will be highlighted. Demonstrations using sample water-saving devices can be given; literature will. be distributed. 3. Logo: A water conservation or shortage response logo will be adopted and vigorously promoted as a symbol to influence public attitudes toward water use. 4_ Media: Extensive use of all available forms of media will be employed and coordinated with other agencies. This includes public service messages on radio and television and DRAFT -8- 5. Target Over-Allocation Customers: District staff will ramp up its ongoing outreach efforts to more aggressively target over-allocation customers. Over-allocation use is considered wasteful use; customers in these tiers will be contacted via letter, telephone, e- mail and other means. On-site assistance/audits will help identify the source of the over- allocation use and provide recommendations to address the problem. 6. Custorner Service: Anyone observing potential over-use within iRWD's service area will be encouraged to call in to IRWD's Customer Service Department for assistance. A customer service representative will generate a customer service request (CSR) linked to the account to ensure appropriate follow-up and resolution by the District. ResFri- Measures: Demand Management and- Use ofAllocation-Based Rates -;4 The allocation-based tiered rate structure adopted by IRWD in 1991 is intended to function as a - tool to promote ongoing water use efficiency. Water is allocated on an individual customer basis established upon specific indoor uses and outdoor irrigation needs. The structure includes a five- tiered system for residential customers and a four-tiered system for non-residential customers, and charges progressively higher rates for progressively higher amounts of water used. Use within a customer's allocation is encouraged through a significantly tiered commodity pricing system which discourages wasteful use. The allocation-based tiered rates provide IRWD with an effective mechanism to alter demand through pricing. Analysis of Usage and Tiers A detailed analysis of the usage and tiers, with the most recently available data, is one of the first steps that should be undertaken in developing demand management strategies, including potential adjustments to the tiers and allocations. Appendix A: 2007 Annual Usage and Tier Break-Down shows the annual usage and tier break-down information for treated and untreated DRAFT -9- water sources, based on data from calendar year 2007. The first two tiers shown (1 and 2) indicate usage within allocation. Tiers 3 to 5 indicate over-allocation use_ Basic water allocations should be reviewed on a periodic basis taking into consideration changes since the most recent review of these allocations, including changes to the plumbing code that improve water use efficiency, water conservation devices and more efficient irrigation systems available to the average customer. Beyond this, there are several mechanisms that can be employed either separately or in combination to achieve the necessary level of'denjand reductions. Allocation Adjustment Strategies for Demand Management 1. Adjusting the Tier Thresholds: This strategy does not adjust the actual allocation formula itself, but rather adjusts the percentage thresholds for the over-allocation tiers. The 1.irrent.tiers anti thresholds for the various account types are shown in Table 3. Adju.qting the- :i.:r "hreshw; Is dowrv,.ard would have the effect of .alfting more ase ID-to the oven-asfouatic ie1. Customers in these tiers would Lti Lr'ojccted to uzcrease l ia:u-y depending on the extent of their use (percentage of use above allocation). Reducing the tier thresholds .vould send stronger price signals by moving over-using customers into the higher tiers. Table 3: Allocation-Based Rates Tier Thresholds av r. O.. e - 1 A~ R ! 1 t 1 ' - i! • ntiA side Low Volume 0-40% 0-40 OX, N/A Base - - - - 41-100% 41-100% 0-100% inefficient 101--- 150% 101 -110% 101-110% Excessive 151 -200% 111-120% _ 111-120% Wasteful J 1201%+ 121%+ 121%+ 2. Allocation Adjustments: An adjustment to the allocation entails refining the allocation formula. This can be done either as a simple percentage adjustment or by adjusting a specific portion of the formula. For example, residential allocations are made up of an DRAFT -10- 3. Rate Increases for Over-Allocation Use: This approach entails adopting higher rates for over-allocation use, and would be linked to purchases of imported water at Metropolitan's penalty rates, among other things. These three types of allocation adjustments can b~-, established and refined bused on customer response in such a way that specified uses are discouraged. The allocations can be established in z such a way that certain uses are not included in the allocation. Customers engaging in these uses would receive over-allocation tier charges on their water bill. In Levels One and Two, a combination of adjusting the tier thresholds and/or the allocations, as necessary, is likely to be sufficient to achieve the required demand reductions. In Levels Three and Four, those strategies, plus the use of rate increases with stronger price signals for over- allocation use, could be used to achieve further demand reductions. In all cases, adjustments to the allocations, tiers and rates will be at the discretion of the Board, and will be based on an assessment of the supply shortage, customer response and need for demand reductions. Enforcement Mechanism: Application of any or a combination of the allocation adjustment strategies will place customers into the higher_usage tiers, which acts as a reporting and enforcement mechanism by creating a strong financial incentive for customers to reduce demands. The higher rates for above allocation use reflect and incorporate the cost of additional demand management measures, as well as the additional cost to IRWD of acquiring water supplies in a shortage. DRAFT -ll- Response Measures: Mandatory Extreme shortage conditions (severe Level Three and Level Four) may require that the District adopt restrictions and/or ration water for health and safety purposes only. A system outage requires a rapid response based on the fact that there is typically a need for more immediate action to deal with an emergency situation. In a system outage emergency, the IRWD Board of Directors will declare a shortage based upon the projected impact of the system outage. Since adjustments to tiers and allocations typically have a time lag in implementation and effect, those measures will be of limited usefulness in a system outage. Therefore, in addition to the measures always in effect, the Board may impose any combination of the following mandatory measures and rationing to alleviate demands. 1. Potable Irrigati.)n Ban: Outdoor irrigation would be the initial target fc~'any demand reductions. Demand reductions or eliminations that cannot be met through voluntary measures and financial incentives related to adjustments in the allocation based rate °'x.-~;ture; :0 ~~1.. :`Aain - aou-h a i an n potable irrigation. Table 4 ipdicates the pottu-mal.. -mand n:.ducuon.; that Gould be attained :r,.,i: and cump.ei . elimination of outdoor irrigation. This includes dedicated landscapes, mixed use commercial accounts and residential outdoor ftrigati _,n. Table 4: Potential Water Savings (AF) Based on Irrigation Cutbacks:. % Irrigation Cutback 30% 60% 100% Potable Irrigation 8,980 17,959 29.932 Untreated Irrigation 351 701 1,169 Total. 9.330 Ll 31,101 1 Ban on car-washing and pool filling: Demand reductions on car-washing and pool filling that cannot be achieved through voluntary measures and financial incentives related to adjustments in the allocation-based rate structure would be attained through a ban on these actions. DRAFT -12- Enforcement Measures I . Flow restrictors: Under extreme conditions of noncompliance, the District could install flow restrictors in individual service lines. Thus, water would be available for drinking, cooking, sponge baths, and slow fill of toilet tanks, but showers and other high volume type uses would not be possible. Under these conditions individual customer reaction would be severe. It-would probably be necessary to augment the customer service field service staff to maintain surveillance of these services to assure that unauthorized changes are'not made by the customer.' 2. Mandatory Restrictions and Fines: The District's ability to establish restrictions on water use and to possibly discontinue non-health and safety related service in the case of repeat violators is provided for under the Water Code of the State of California Chapters 3 and 3.5). DRAFT -13- PART III: SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLAN IRWD Water Supply Shortage Levels In the event of a shortage, IRWD's Board of Directors, in accordance with the provisions of the California Water Code, will determine and declare the shortage level based on an assessment of the available supplies and demands, and may adjust the measures applied based on response in order to achieve the appropriate level of reduction. The following are the levels of shortage which may be declared; the approximate ranges of conditions the levels represent; and the reductions to be achieved: Level One (Shortage Warning -cap to 14% shortage): Measures selected could be designed to achieve the following objectives: Objectives: • Public awareness of water supply situation and conservation opportunities Ejwnr-rage dilzs..arit repair of Nate, leak.o keduce , Yer ;ijr.cc.A40Tl 11so Reduce outdoor over-irrigation Measures: The measures used in. Level One are primarily voluntary actions that modify customer behavior resulting from an enhanced public awareness campaign. In addition, increased outreach targeted toward over-allocation customers to help them identify the source of their overuse, and correct the problem should be sufficient to meet the objectives in Level One. Costs and Outcomes: Based on 2007 data, a supply shortage of 10% represents approximately 6,600 AF. Information from the 2001 Annual Usage and Tier Break-Down LesPnted in pendi'_kA indicates that ovor allocation use (sum of usage in tiers 3-5) accounts for approximately 4,200 AF of non-recycled water usage. Therefore, reducing the over-allocation use, combined with a strong public awareness campaign is expected to be sufficient to achieve the necessary reductions in Level One. The cost to implement voluntary responses is minimal, especially considering the return in reduced demand on the investment. None of the recommended steps would be difficult to implement or administer. The District has the basic infrastructure to pursue most voluntary measures through the Public Affairs and Conservation DRAFT 1 14- Departments. however, the District may need to conduct training and adjust its staff resources to effectively provide additional outreach to high usage tier customers. Level Two (Significant Shortage Condition - 10-25% shortage): Measures selected would be designed to incorporate the objectives listed under Level One, and achieve the following further reduction in use: Objectives: Review of allocations and potential adjustments to reduce outdoor irrigation and agricultural uses by 30%, or a percentage to be specified ux the shortage declaration, based on a supply and demand analysis. • Discourage filling of fountains, pools and water features and other- discretionary uses. I Measures: Use of allocation and tier threshold adjustments is expected to be sufficient to achieve the necessary demand reduction objectives in a Level Two shortage. Adjustments to the allocations would employ the demand management/allocation adjustment strategies described in Part II -f the document (pages 8-9). Casts and Outcomes: A Level Two shortage can be offset by voluntary public response and perhaps minimal additional measures, such as reducing water allocations for non-crucial water uses including irrigation demands. Again using the 2007 Annual Usage and Tier Break-Down in Appendix A, a 30% reduction in potable irrigation and agricultural use (potable and untreated) would reduce the demands by an additional 9,300 AF , which combined with the Level One measures would result in a reduction in total demand of approximately 25%. Currently, there are some agricultural users using treated water within IRWD's service area. However, in the fixture, this demand is anticipated to decline to zero, in which case additional measures and adjustments to the allocations may be necessary to achieve the necessary Level 2 reductions. Depending on the duration and severity of the Level Two shortage, additional temporary staff in water conservation may be required to increase water awareness campaigns and assist customers with reduced irrigation allocations. DRAFT -15- Level Three (Severe Shortage Condition - 25-40% shortage): Measures selected would be designed to incorporate the objectives listed under Level Two, and achieve the following further reduction in use. Objectives: • Further reductions in and/or eliminations of non-essential uses. • Further reduce outdoor irrigation and agricultural uses by 60%, or a percentage to be specified in the shortage declaration, based on an analysis of supply and demand. • Reduction in commercial, industrial and institutional use by 10%, or a percentage to be specified in the shortage declaration, based on an analysis of supply and demand. • Elimination of specific municipal uses such as street cleaning, hydrant flushing, water- based recreation, etc. Activation of a District Task Force to investigate and consult with high-volume users (i.e. public authorities, universities, community associations, etc.) to assist in reducing the u ^t°r demand- Measures.- ,r~nert;P~ Again, its... of the-d' . °nand nianagernent/allocat is r -based .(!t.. djustment strategies described in Part U of this document (pa,es 8-9) will used as a key tool to achieve these objectives. For example, allocations can be reduced to minimize outdoor use and other discretionary uses by excluding those types of uses from the allocation. If necessary, higher rates for over-allocation use could also be adopted, at the discretion of the Board. Costs and Outcomes: While it is difficult to precisely estimate the total reduction in demand that would be -realized from the cumulative measures taken in Levels One, Two and Three, a Level Tlut:e sb rtage condition could entail significant adjustments to allocations and the unl;tlcmaaiation of inaudatory measures to meet the District's reduction needs. In addition to increasing over-allocation tier charges, all common area landscape irrigation and agricultural irrigation should be reduced drastically, or eliminated completely if necessary by adjusting the water use allocations. Reduction of allocations of treated and untreated water serving irrigation (including residential landscapes) by 60% would reduce total demand by approximately 27%. (see Appendix A: 2007 Annual Usage and Tier Break-Down). When one meter serves both internal use and landscaping, monitoring and public support would be needed to ensure that no DRAFT -16- irrigation takes place. An expanded irrigation group would be effective in these efforts. Untreated or recycled water use would only be reduced as needed based on the impact of reduced wastewater (lows to recycled water production. Commercial, industrial and institutional customer allocations would be reduced by up to 10%. Level Four (Crisis Shortage Condition - more than 40% shortage): Measures selected would be designed to incorporate the objectives listed under Level Three, and achieve the following further reductions in use: Objectives: • Cease all outdoor water uses for landscape and agriculture, subject to reserved rights relatiszg to local wells. .Measures: --A Level Four shortage would likely require further adjustments to allocations and the - use of all 'he Demand Management/Allocation-Based Rates strategies described in Part II (pages 8-Q ) at tb;~ : iscretion of the Board. In addition, the Board may determine that it is necessary to use maims A- y restrictions and possible discontinuation of non-health and safety related service in order to achieve the necessary demand reductions in a Level Four shortage. Costs and Outcomes: If over-allocation charges had been previously avoided, this tool would almost certainly be needed at this level of supply deficiencies. Increasing the over-allocation tier charge, formulated upon projected penalty charges imposed by outside supply agencies, could be added to the allocation-based tiered rate structure, sufficient to encourage demand reduction to required levels, pay for an equivalent water conservation project designed to meet the required 1 reduction in demands and provide a source of revenue to purchase additional supplies at penalty rates. Over-allocation usage tier charges would also offset the additional administrative and implementation costs to the district including increased staffing to address shortages and enhancement and expansion of the District's water conservation programs and projects. DRAFT -17- Appendix A 2007 Annual Treated and Untreated Water Usaize and Tier Break-Down Z y. r 6 1 ti ~ Yy r Ir S _ f ' J FC S' AG-'t-P, f.:A.Tf:1_) AG-UN"1'I MATED 6,669 6,669 0 0 0 0 COMM-TREATED 8,431 8,153 163 114 0 COl\,!M-UNTREATED 9 9 0 0 0 0 CONS"1 RUCTION 8821 882 0 0 41 0 rNDUST-TREATED 5,273 5,034 50 32 1156 0 LAKE _ 141 141 0 0 0 0 IRRIG-TREATED _ 6,313 4,442 1,450 _ 81 60 280 IRRl -IJC4TRE kTET) 1,164 647 396 22 16 83 _MULTI-rT;SIDENi1Ar 10,681 6,608 3,473 415 93 _ 82 PUBLIC ;,.iJTIIORI'TN -TREATED ~1 , 2,463 - 26 - -21 _ 14 _ 0 SINGLE-RESIDENTIAL 23,537 13,138 7,784 1,878 450 - 287 TOTAL Here-Feet- 66,731 49,166 13,341 2,575 917 733 Percentage - - 100°h, 75% 20`%u 4% 2%, - 1% ~ DRAFT -18-