July 2013- Independent Technical Panel Information Item

Urban Water Supplier Compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act Demand Management Measures, AB 1420 and 20%x2020

Introduction

This briefing paper written for the Independent Technical Panel on Demand Management Measures provides an overview of the demand management measure (DMM) compliance requirements in California. The document describes the DMM requirements for urban water management plans (UWMP), and AB 1420 and SBx7-7 requirements. A short summary of conservation requirements in Arizona is provided in Appendix A. This document is intended as a summary document, for additional details refer to the respective sections of the California Water Code.

UWMP Background

The Urban Water Management Planning (UWMP) Act, California Water Code (CWC) section (10610656) was passed in 1983 requiring urban water suppliers to undertake long range planning to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service area to protect both the people of the state and its resources. The Legislature enacted the UWMP Act six years after the 1976-77 drought, the driest single water year on record for most of California. The drought’s impact on urban municipalities varied widely across the state. Some water suppliers, especially those on groundwater with deep aquifers, had no cutbacks or shortages, while others faced shortages severe enough to raise public health and safety concerns. The legislature recognized the wide variability in local conditions and in the impact of drought Section 10610.2.2 states

“The conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies are of statewide concern; however, the planning for that use and the local implementation of those plans can best be accomplished at the local level.”

The UWMP Act has been amended and revised numerous times since it was first enacted; the core purpose and intent of requiring local planning to ensure water supply reliability and efficient use of water remains intact.

UWMP Act Requirements

Urban water suppliers who supply more than 3000 ac-ft of potable water or serve more than 3000 customers are required to submit updated water management plans every five years. Plans are to be adopted through a public process by the agency’s board of directors. Adopted plans are submitted to the California State Library, California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and made available for public review. In 2010, DWR determined that there were 443 water suppliers required to submit plans. As July 2013, 396 suppliers have submitted plans. DWR reviews the UWMPs to determine if the required elements have been addressed. DWR does not comment on the content of the UWMPs. DWR

1 July 2013- Independent Technical Panel Information Item reviews the SBx7-7 baseline and target calculations to determine if the calculations follow the guidelines established in the “Methodologies for Calculating Baseline Compliance Urban Per Capita Water Use.”

There are 7 core elements required in an urban water management plan:

1. A description of the water suppliers service area including estimates of current and future population

2. Quantification of current and future supplies, including recycled water and other water supply enhancement projects

3. Quantification of past, current and future demands

4. Description of implementation of demand management measures

5. Water shortage contingency planning

6. Quantification of water supply reliability

7. SBx7-7 baseline and target water calculations and data

Quantification of future supply and demand is to be in five year increments over a 20-year time period. The 2010 UWMPs required water planning through the year 2030. Some suppliers have extended the projected supply and demand time frame out through the expected “build out” of their service area.

Water suppliers estimate future water demand by using population projections and water use estimates based on the planned implementation of conservation programs and expected changes in water use in their service area. Future water supply estimates include assessments of the reliability of current supplies, the potential to increase current supplies or add additional sources and an evaluation of the potential to use or increase the use of recycled water or other alternative sources, such as desalination.

The UWMP Act also requires water suppliers to consider the vulnerability of supplies to drought by evaluating the supply available in an average year, a single dry year and multiple dry years based on previous climatic history.

Water suppliers take their estimates of future demand, water supply and supply vulnerability and combine the estimates in a series of tables reflecting the supplier’s future water supply reliability. The tables compare the supply and demand projections for an average water year, a single dry and multiple dry years in five year increments over the 20 year planning time period (Appendix B has an example of water demand and water supply projection tables and a water supply reliability table).

Demand Management Measure Section

The California Water Code CWC 10631 (f) and (g) requires water suppliers to describe the water conservation measures they are implementing or plan to implement in terms of 14 demand management measures listed below.

2 July 2013- Independent Technical Panel Information Item

(A) Water survey programs for single-family residential and multifamily residential customers.

(B) Residential plumbing retrofit.

(C) System water audits, leak detection, and repair.

(D) Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections.

(E) Large landscape conservation programs and incentives.

(F) High-efficiency washing machine rebate programs.

(G) Public information programs.

(H) School education programs.

(I) Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts.

(J) Wholesale agency programs.

(K) Conservation pricing.

(L) Water conservation coordinator.

(M) Water waste prohibition.

(N) Residential ultra-low-flush toilet replacement programs.

If a water supplier is not implementing and does not plan to implement one or more of the DMM’s, the supplier must include a cost benefit analysis for each measure not implemented. If the cost benefit analysis is locally cost effective water suppliers can still choose not to implement the measure. An example is a desert water agency where 80% of the water supply is used for landscape irrigation. The agency chose to focus its conservation on landscape water use and did not fund toilet rebates which were cost effective, but less cost effective than the landscape programs. Appendix C has California Water Code section 10631 (f) and (g).

California Urban Water Conservation Council BMP Report Submittal

The California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) is a non -profit organization with the goal of increasing water use efficiency statewide through partnerships between urban water suppliers, public

3 July 2013- Independent Technical Panel Information Item interest organizations and private entities. Water suppliers who join the CUWCC agree to meet the best management practices (BMPs) coverage requirements as listed in the CUWCC’s Memorandum of Understanding. Originally, the CUWCC BMPs matched the 14 DMMs in the urban water management plans. In 2008, the CUWCC amended the MOU and changed BMP compliance to require the implementation of 6 foundational BMPs with 3 different compliance options for the remaining programmatic BMPs. The UWMP Act allows CUWCC members who are in full compliance with the CUWCC BMP coverage requirements to submit their CUWCC BMP reports in lieu of describing the DMMs in their UWMP.

Demand Management Measure Implementation Requirements

Assembly Bill 1420 (2007)

Assembly Bill 1420 (2007) (AB1420) contained in CWC section 10631.5 required urban water suppliers to implement DMM to be eligible for State water management grants and loans. The Department of Water Resources was directed to define the level of implementation required for grant eligibility. DWR rather than establishing a second set of standards adopted the CUWCC MOU coverage requirements. Water suppliers who are not members of the council as well as council members have to meet the CUWCC coverage requirements. In documenting AB1420 compliance, water suppliers submit self certification reports to DWR stating their compliance with the CUWCC MOU coverage requirements.

Water suppliers who are currently not meeting all the coverage requirements can still be eligible for grant funding if they submit an implementation plan, schedule and budget for the measure(s) not currently being implemented.

The AB 1420 grant eligibility requirements will no longer be in effect after July 1st, 2016 following which water supplier grant eligibility will be based on compliance with the SBx7-7 water use targets.

SBx7-7: 20%x2020

SBx7-7 (CWC 10608 and 10800-10850), passed as part of a five bill legislative water package in 2009, set a goal of reducing urban per capita water use by 20% by 2020. To achieve this goal, urban retail water suppliers are required to calculate a 10 year baseline water use and then using one of 4 target methods provided in the legislation set a 2020 water use target. Water suppliers are also required to set 2015 interim water use targets which is the midpoint between baseline water use and 2020 target.

Water suppliers provided their baseline water use and 2015 and 2020 water use target in the 2010 UWMPs. Based on data from 367 retail water suppliers who submitted UWMPs, the State’s average baseline water use was 192 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), the average target was 163 gpcd. The State’s 20%x2020 goal based on a 20% reduction from 192 gpcd is 154 gpcd.

Suppliers not meeting their 2015 or 2020 water use target will be ineligible for State water management grants and loans. Like AB1420, Suppliers not meeting the compliance target, can become eligible for grants by submitting a plan, schedule and budget to meet the target.

Appendix A: Water Conservation Requirements in Other States: Arizona

In 1980, the State of Arizona, in response to declining groundwater levels in some regions established water management programs titled Active Management Areas (AMA) in the regions that overlay the declining aquifers. There were initially 4 AMAs established with a fifth being added at a later date. In establishing the AMAs the state instituted a number of regulatory requirements for water use in these areas. The first municipal requirements restricted the amount of water each supplier could pump from the aquifer based on per capita water use. Since the initial requirements, the state has revised the regulatory requirements 4 times and added additional water conservation compliance programs that include best management practice implementation. A description of the different compliance programs and a table showing which municipalities are using which program is provided below.

Description of Arizona Water Conservation Regulatory Programs 1. G a ll o n s p er - C a pi t a p e r Day (GPCD) – base program established in the Groundwater Code and first implemented 1987 as part of the First Management Plan. Providers are assigned an annual total gallons per-capita per day allotment that is calculated using the component method (including single family, multi-family, non-residential and lost-and-unaccounted-for water). 2. Al t erna t i v e C o ns e r v ati o n Pr o g r a m ( ACP ) – first established in the Second Management Plan and was continued into the Third Management Plan. This program is a blend of the GPCD and the NPCCP.

3. N o n - P er C a pi t a C o n s er v ati o n Pr o gram ( NPCCP ) - established in 1992. This program requires implementation of “Reasonable Conservation Measures” from the Third Management Plan and a reduction in groundwater use. Providers must have a designation of assured water supply or be a member of a groundwater replenishment district. 4. M o d i f i ed N on - P e r C a pi t a C o n ser v ati o n Pr o gram (M NPCCP ) – established in 2008 and first implemented in January 2010. This program is mandatory for all large municipal water providers in AMAs that do not have a Designation of Assured Water Supply; it is optional for those that do. The MNPCCP requires providers to implement a basic public education program and choose one or more additional water conservation Best Management Practices (BMPs) from a list of 53. The number of BMPs that a provider must implement depends on the provider’s size as determined by its total number of residential and non-residential connections: Tier 1: up to 5000 connections; Tier 2: 5000 – 30,000 connections; Tier 3: more than 30,000 connections. 5. I nstit u t i o n al P r o v i d e r P r o g r am ( I PP ) – (for large institutional facilities such as prisons, military installations, schools and airparks that use greater than 90% of their water deliveries for non- residential purposes). The IPP assigns a GPCD requirement for residential use and conservation measures for the specific institutional water uses in the provider’s service area. 6. L a r g e U nt r e a t ed P r o v i d e r Pr o gram ( L U P ) – (for a city, town, or irrigation district that delivers non- potable water for landscape irrigation to at least 500 people or at least 100 acre-feet of water). Providers must limit the amount of water delivered in a year. (Note: A provider could be regulated under this program in addition to one of the others above.)

Table 1: Large Municipal Providers in Regulatory Programs by AMA  - has a Designation of Assured Water Supply GPCD MNPCCP NPCCP ACP IPP LUP Total Gallons Modified Non-per Alternative Institutio Large per Non- per Capita Conservati nal Untreat Capita per Capita Conservati on Provider ed Day Conservatio on Program Program Provider n Program Program Phoenix AMA 11 27 3 0 0 21 62 (9 ) (1 ) (3 ) (13 )

Pinal AMA 0 5 0 1 2 2 10 (2 ) (1 ) (3 )

Prescott AMA 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 (1 ) (1 )

Santa Cruz AMA 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 (1 ) (1 )

Tucson AMA 6 18 0 0 1 0 25 (5 ) (1) (6 ) 18 55 3 1 3 13 103 (15) (5 ) (3 ) (1 ) (0 ) (0) (24 )

Appendix B: Example of Water Demand, Water Supply and Water Supply Reliability Tables

Table 1 Alternate Water Use Projection – No Further Conservation (ac-ft/yr) Water 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Use Total Water Use (Table 3-11) 29,520 25,981 28,668 28,312 28,201 28,301 28,381 Total Water Use with Baseline 29,520 25,981 31,058 31,536 31,997 32,459 32,856 gpEstimacd ted Conservation 0 0 2,391 3,224 3,796 4,158 4,476 Savings

Table 2 Water Supplies — Current and Projected (ac-ft/yr)

Water Supply Sources 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Sonoma County Water Agency1 6,521 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 Supplier-Produced Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 Supplier-Produced Surface Water 19,077 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Transfers In 0 0 0 0 0 0 Exchanges In 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled Water 514 534 763 765 766 768 Desalinated Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 26,112 29,034 29,263 29,265 29,266 29,268

Table 3 Supply Reliability — Historic Conditions (ac-ft/yr) Single Dry Multiple Dry Water Years Average / Normal Water Water Year Year Year Year Year (200 1 2 3 (197 28,50 26,13 25,(19677 21,(19771 26,(19779 0 4 9 7 0 Percent of 91.7 90.1 76.2 94.0 Average/Normal Year % % % %

Table 4 Supply and Demand Comparison — Normal Year (ac-ft/yr) 201 202 202 203 203 5 0 5 0 5 Supply Totals (from Table 4-1) 29,034 29,263 29,265 29,266 29,268 Demand Totals (From Table 3-11) 28,668 28,312 28,201 28,301 28,381 Difference 366 951 1,064 966 887 Difference as % of Supply 1.3% 3.3% 3.6% 3.3% 3.0% Difference as % of Demand 1.3% 3.4% 3.8% 3.4% 3.1%

Table 5 Supply and Demand Comparison — Single Dry Year (ac-ft/yr) 201 202 202 203 203 5 0 5 0 5 Supply Totals 26,680 26,909 26,911 26,912 26,914 Demand Totals 26.344 26,036 25,935 26,026 26,100 Difference 336 873 976 886 814 Difference as % of Supply 1.3% 3.2% 3.6% 3.3% 3.0% Difference as % of Demand 1.3% 3.4% 3.8% 3.4% 3.1%

Table 6 Supply and Demand Comparison — Multiple Dry-Year Events (ac-ft/yr) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Multiple-Dry Year Supply Totals 26,160 26,366 26,367 26,369 26,370 First Year Supply Demand Totals 25,830 25,509 25,409 25,499 25,571 Difference 330 857 958 870 799 Difference as % of Supply 1.3% 3.3% 3.6% 3.3% 3.0% Difference as % of Demand 1.3% 3.4% 3.8% 3.4% 3.1%

Multiple-Dry Year Supply Totals 21,845 21,574 21,489 21,565 21,626 Second Year Demand Totals 21,845 21,574 21,489 21,565 21,626 Supply Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Supply Totals 27,292 27,507 27,509 27,510 27,512 Multiple-Dry Year Third Year Supply Demand Totals 26,948 26,613 26,509 26,603 26,678 Difference 344 894 1,000 908 834 Difference as % of Supply 1.3% 3.3% 3.6% 3.3% 3.0% Difference as % of Demand 1.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.1%

Appendix C: California Water Code Section 10631 (g) and (h) Urban Water Management Plan Demand Management Measures.

(f) Provide a description of the supplier's water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following: (1) A description of each water demand management measure that is currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, including the steps necessary to implement any proposed measures, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (A) Water survey programs for single-family residential and multifamily residential customers. (B) Residential plumbing retrofit. (C) System water audits, leak detection, and repair. (D) Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections. (E) Large landscape conservation programs and incentives. (F) High-efficiency washing machine rebate programs. (G) Public information programs. (H) School education programs. (I) Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts. (J) Wholesale agency programs. (K) Conservation pricing. (L) Water conservation coordinator. (M) Water waste prohibition. (N) Residential ultra-low-flush toilet replacement programs. (2) A schedule of implementation for all water demand management measures proposed or described in the plan. (3) A description of the methods, if any, that the supplier will use to evaluate the effectiveness of water demand management measures implemented or described under the plan. (4) An estimate, if available, of existing conservation savings on water use within the supplier's service area, and the effect of the savings on the supplier's ability to further reduce demand. (g) An evaluation of each water demand management measure listed in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) that is not currently being implemented or scheduled for implementation. In the course of the evaluation, first consideration shall be given to water demand management measures, or combination of measures, that offer lower incremental costs than expanded or additional water supplies. This evaluation shall do all of the following: (1) Take into account economic and noneconomic factors, including environmental, social, health, customer impact, and technological factors. (2) Include a cost-benefit analysis, identifying total benefits and total costs. (3) Include a description of funding available to implement any planned water supply project that would provide water at a higher unit cost.

(4) Include a description of the water supplier's legal authority to implement the measure and efforts to work with other relevant agencies to ensure the implementation of the measure and to share the cost of implementation.