the 2009 water shortage - city of santa cruz | home

Microsoft Word - Water Shortage Report_Final.docPrepared by:
Kyle Petersen
December 2010
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management Strategies, Actions, and Results
Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Background.........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Purpose................................................................................................................1-1
2.1 Water Conditions ................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Determining the Level of Water Shortage ..........................................................2-2
Section 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................5-1
i
Attachments
2. Press Release
5. Press Release, March 2009
6. Summary of Water Restrictions (distributed as flyer in SCMU Review)
7. April 2009 SCMU Review
8. Newspaper Articles
11. Chart of Gross Daily Water Consumption
12. Water Production Forecast and Actual Production Volumes
13. UCSC 2009 Water Shortage Plan
14. Photos of Landscapes
ii
Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Background In March 2009, the Water Department presented an updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan to City Council that set forth an overall strategy to prepare for and respond to future water shortages. This plan was an outgrowth of the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan which identified the need to better prepare for future water shortages in advance of the next major drought. The last time the City had dealt with a water shortage was during the six-year drought of 1987-1992. Since then, the City had adopted a long-range plan known as the “Integrated Water Plan” which incorporated a deliberate management strategy to temporarily reduce water use by up to 15 percent in dry years when water is in short supply. Accordingly, one of the fundamental purposes in developing the updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan was to flesh out the procedures and actions necessary to achieve this level of cutback. In the two years preceding the development of this plan, water conditions throughout the state of California had fallen below average, and water resources in some areas were already stressed by drought. Then, in 2009, after a third consecutive year of below normal rainfall and runoff, it became necessary to put the contingency plan into immediate effect after its review and adoption by City Council. As it turned out, the City’s 2009 water shortage was equal to the 15 percent water reduction goal envisioned in the 2003 Integrated Water Plan. Accordingly, the water shortage of 2009 was important not only as an enactment of the newly created Water Shortage Contingency Plan, but also as a test of a core idea underpinning the City’s Integrated Water Plan, namely that the community could achieve and would tolerate periodic cutbacks in water use by up to 15 percent. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this report is as follows: • To document the 2009 water shortage and the City’s response, and to compile
applicable records for future reference; • To evaluate which aspects of the plan succeeded, and which didn’t, and why; and • To make recommendation and refinements to the plan for the next time a water
shortage occurs.
1-1
Section 2: Hydrology and Water Supply 2.1 Water Conditions Water year 2009 (October 1, 2008 – September 30, 2009) was the third year in which water conditions registered below average, both locally and statewide. Prior to 2007, Santa Cruz enjoyed an unusually long period (twelve years!) in which local water conditions were classified as either normal or wet according to total annual discharge from the San Lorenzo River. The only exception was water year 2001 which technically fell into the dry year classification, but was right on the border of being classified as normal. This extended normal/wet pattern changed abruptly in 2007 when annual rainfall measured little more than half the long-term average, and runoff in the San Lorenzo River was less than one-third the average amount. Water year 2007 was therefore classified as “critically dry.” As a precaution, the City adopted a time-of-day irrigation restriction for the following dry season. Santa Cruz was one the first (if not the first) water suppliers statewide to raise customer awareness about the dry conditions and encourage actions to conserve that year. Water year 2008 also fell below both rainfall and runoff averages, prompting the Governor to declare a statewide drought. Locally, water conditions improved somewhat from the prior year, with rainfall measuring about 82 percent of average, and river runoff totaling a little above half the average. This slightly improved condition, coupled with a declining trend in the City’s total annual water demand, allowed the restriction on mid- day irrigation to be lifted for the year. (Note: the lower overall demand beginning in 2005 translated into reduced reservoir withdrawals during the peak summer season in both 2007 and 2008 and resulted in higher carryover storage going into 2009 than otherwise would have been expected.) It was about this time, and against the backdrop of two consecutive below-normal years, that work was wrapping up on the updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The 2009 water year began alarmingly dry. Up until late January, little rain had fallen in central California that winter, and the water supply outlook for the upcoming dry season was as bleak as ever. The dry weather pattern eventually gave way to a series of late season storms in February and March that temporarily improved local stream flows and restored reservoir storage—but the drought was nowhere near an end. With no way to tell
2-1
how long dry weather conditions would persist into the future, the City formally declared a water shortage at the end of April and instituted water restrictions beginning in May. As standard practice, the Water Department prepares three reports over the course of the winter season that summarizes current water conditions and evaluate the water supply outlook for the coming year. The initial report and press release, issued in late January 2009, and the revised report, issued in late February, are included in this report as Attachments 1-3. They provide a manager’s perspective on the situation as it evolved over the course of the wet season. 2.2 Determining the Level of Water Shortage On March 17, 2009, Water Department Section Managers convened a meeting to evaluate the situation and decide on the appropriate response to recommend to City Council. This date was selected as the latest feasible date to obtain the most complete water-year supply information, yet still leave sufficient time to ramp up water restrictions by May 1; the situation was still dynamic, but, for the most part, the wet season had run its course. At the time, water supply conditions were decidedly mixed: Loch Lomond Reservoir was full, but runoff was only about one third of normal. As a result, stream and river sources (the majority of the City’s water supply) were predicted to dwindle to very low levels by the middle of summer. The primary issue at this meeting was not whether water restrictions were needed, but to what degree. The uncertainty facing managers at this time was how far the reservoir might drop by the end of the season based on projections of various flowing sources coupled with water demand. Two separate forecasts, one called “most conservative” and the other called “most likely,” about the yield of flowing sources were considered. A memo covering the data reviewed at this meeting is included as Attachment 4. In the end, the Department recommended that the City declare a Stage 2 water shortage and impose a 15 percent cutback goal on overall water consumption for the upcoming dry season. The reason for this decision was preemptive: should dry conditions persist into a fourth year, the City’s water supply would be protected by tightening restrictions that caused only slightly more inconvenience to customers. The press release notifying the public of this decision is included as Attachment 5.
2-2
Section 3: Demand Reduction Program 3.1 Preliminary Actions Work to implement the demand reduction program commenced immediately thereafter. A management meeting was held March 18 to inform the City Manager and Department heads. An internal planning team consisting of the Water Director, Customer Service Manager, Principal Management Analyst, and Water Conservation Coordinator was established and met on a weekly basis to prepare for and coordinate the program. Some of the key tasks accomplished in the six week period prior to the commencement of restrictions on May 1 included the following: • Developing, adopting, and publishing a new water shortage ordinance • Developing a supplemental budget request • Purchasing, installing, and configuring a water waste database • Modifying the utility billing system to enable penalties to be applied to water bills. • Coordinating with City Departments, public agencies, local governments, school
districts, the University of California and others • Preparing a newsletter, press release, and web communications • Coordinating with large customers • Developing a job description and recruitment of temporary staff • Creating enforcement materials and procedures to administer exceptions and appeals. On April 28, 2009, City Council unanimously adopted the newly revised water shortage ordinance and declared a Stage 2 water shortage starting May 1 and continuing though October 31. 3.2 Strategy The City’s strategy for dealing with water shortage, as outlined in the contingency plan, involves a system of four interrelated elements: • An allocation system to establish reduction goals for different customer groups • Customer demand reduction measures that vary depending on the water shortage
condition • Publicity and communications • Operating actions These components, as they were carried out in 2009, are described below.
3-1
3.3 Allocation System Under the contingency plan, an overall water cutback of 15 percent is attained by reducing outdoor use by about one third and by reducing indoor domestic and business use by five percent during the peak season months. Every major customer category is assigned a specific demand reduction goal based on its water consumption profile (See Table 3-6 of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan). Actual water supply allocation for 2009 deviated from the contingency plan in a few ways. First, the level of water demand in recent years had been trending somewhat lower than the normal peak season demand of 2,473 million gallons listed in the plan. Second, the contingency plan envisioned demand reduction occurring over a seven-month, 214 day period beginning in April. In reality, we were only able to implement water restrictions at the beginning of May for a total of six months or 184 days. As a result of these two factors, the Department set an overall demand reduction goal of 300 million gallons for 2009. Equal to a daily demand reduction of 1.6 mgd, this goal was based on the previous year’s actual consumption instead of the plan’s higher system-wide cutback of 362 million gallons. Certain large customers received “water budgets” to manage their consumption over the entire dry season. These included the following:
Table 1. Large Customer Water Budgets Customer Delivery Volume (mg) Cutback (%) Comments1
University of California 100 – both main and marine science campuses
15% Based on 2002-07 ave, Jun-Nov of 117 mg
Golf Courses 31 - De Laveaga 36 – Pasatiempo
27% Based on 2002-04 ave, Jun-Nov
Cemeteries 3.6 - Santa Cruz Memorial 1.9 – Oakwood
27% Based on 2006-08 ave, Jun-Nov
City Parks 25 – Total of regional and neighborhood parks
33% Based actual water consumption in 2008
City Schools 24 – Total of all school sites
14% business accounts 5%;
Based actual water consumption in 2008
Numerous in both sites and accounts, City Parks and schools were given flexibility to use water as needed throughout the shortage so long as they met their budget by the end of
1 The reference period for basing cutbacks among customers varied depending on available data.
3-2
the season. Similarly, all dedicated irrigation accounts were directed to reduce water use by one-third in accordance with the allocation system, but were not held to individual water budgets. 3.4 Customer Demand Reduction Measures Customer demand reduction measures included mandatory restrictions of outdoor water use (see Attachment 6). Three primary restrictions limited irrigation by: • controlling the number of watering days (2 assigned days per week), • regulating the time of day customers were allowed to water (before 10:00 a.m. or
after 5:00 p.m.), and • imposing irrigation time limits (up to15 minutes per station for spray heads). Drip irrigation systems were exempted, and customers with edible gardens were allowed to hand water as needed. Assigned watering days were scheduled for all seven days of the week to even-out peak demand and keep treatment plant operations running smoothly. Residential customers were assigned watering days based on their odd or even address number. A separate schedule was assigned to residential properties with common area landscaping. All of the residential properties were given one weekend day and one weekday to water. Commercial, public, and industrial customers received a Monday and Friday schedule so landscapers could manage irrigation needs during the work week. In addition to irrigation restrictions, other mandatory measures included: • serving drinking water upon request only, • offering hotel guests the option to forego daily laundering services, and • requiring shut-off nozzles on all hoses. Customers were also prohibited from washing down sidewalks and buildings (unless not doing so caused unsanitary conditions), and draining and refilling swimming pools. Water waste restrictions remained in effect and were actively enforced during the restriction period. Day-to-day operations of these restrictions will be discussed in Section 3.6, Operating Actions.
3-3
Under a Stage 2 water shortage, large commercial and industrial customers (defined as using over one million gallons per year) were directed to conduct water use audits and implement site-specific water use plans. Although this measure was listed on the restrictions guidelines and in the City ordinance, Conservation staff did not enforce this particular requirement due to time and labor constraints. 3.5 Publicity and Communications Restriction publicity and communications consisted of three main types: mass communication, targeted communication, and daily communication. Mass communications employed a variety of media, including: • Articles in the
SCMU Review and an additional flyer insert defining the restrictions (See Attachments 6, 7);
• A color graphic depicting declining water levels over 3 dry years;
• Press releases and legal notices in the newspaper, intentionally timed just ahead of the California snow survey results;
This graphic illustration of rainfall and runoff was a helpful public communication tool:
• Paid advertising in the Sentinel including the restrictions flyer, the “Fix a Leak Week” promotion, and Water Conservation Coalition ads;
• Notes on utility bills; • Radio, TV, and newspaper interviews and news segments (see Attachment 8); • Information on the City-wide website, Water Department page, and Conservation
page; • Spanish translation of the water restrictions; Targeted communications involved phone calls, meetings, group presentations, in-person visits and correspondence to a variety of groups. Most targeted communications occurred before the restrictions began in order to give specific customers advance warning of what the season would entail. Those customers included: City departments, especially Parks and Water department staff; the County; the City of Capitola; adjoining water districts;
3-4
UCSC; the Port District; Caltrans; customers with dedicated irrigation meters including businesses and home owner associations (see Attachment 9); restaurants; hotels; coast agriculture customers; cemeteries; the golf courses; school districts; the Capitola Mall; landscapers; and garden centers/nurseries. After restrictions ended, we met with UCSC, City Parks staff, and local landscapers to get feedback regarding restriction impacts and benefits. Mass and targeted communications kept staff busy at the onset of restrictions, but most communications occurred on a daily basis throughout the restriction period. Conservation and customer service field staff had daily contact with the public. Field communications included restrictions awareness and reminders, irrigation timer and water waste prevention assistance, and an occasional site assessment for customers protesting penalties. During restrictions, the office received a high volume of phone calls. Customers contacted staff to clarify restrictions, report water waste, discuss (and vent about) violation letters and penalties, ask for photo documentation, and request appeal forms. In addition to the online water waste form, a separate phone line (420-LEAK) was set up for customers to report water waste. Customers and City employees left water waste messages on a daily basis. Email correspondence included sending violation photos, forms, and restrictions information. Customers also stopped by the office to discuss violations and request photo evidence. 3.6 Operating Actions The 2009 water shortage caused several operational changes in the Water Conservation section, but in many other sections of the Water Department as well. Once the initial work of coordination and public notification had been accomplished, primary operations revolved around administration and enforcement of water restrictions. Two additional temporary staff members were hired in early May and quickly trained to patrol the entire service area seven days a week from five to nine a.m. Their duties included collecting field notes, records, and photographs of code violations, explaining water shortage requirements to the public, and assisting customers in complying with water restrictions. Later, their responsibilities expanded to assist with administration of enforcement cases in the office. In addition to two temporary field patrol, the City’s two regular field utility service representatives assisted greatly in locating and identifying water waste violations and generating reports, explaining restrictions to members of the public, and maintaining vigilance over outdoor water use the entire season.
3-5
In the meantime, office staff had to configure new water waste enforcement software, draft penalty letters, and develop processes for adding penalties to utility bills. Daily enforcement cases generated by field personnel soon overwhelmed office staff to the point that most other regular duties were placed on hold. Examples of enforcement correspondence are presented in Attachment 10. Daily routine within the water conservation office revolved around logging and entering new cases, researching billing records, preparing enforcement letters and associated documentation, and responding to public inquires in person and on the telephone. The emotional level of interactions with customers regarding water restrictions varied from polite, understanding, and cooperative to hostile, argumentative, and confrontational. Throughout the season—but not without considerable difficulty at times—water conservation staff maintained a courteous, responsive, and efficient demeanor with the public.
Excess water running to waste from landscape irrigation system:
A first violation at a property would result in a water conservation notice being sent to the responsible customer that a) informed them of the situation, b) gave them an opportunity to correct the problem, and c) explained the consequences of any future violations. If further violations were logged at the property, a penalty notice was sent to the customer, along with one or more photographs of the violation that summarized the water restrictions and informed them that the penalty would appear on their next utility bill. The penalty amounts levied in 2009 were as follows: • Second offense: $100 • Third offense: $250 • Fourth offense: $500
3-6
Triple fines were applied to customers using over 1,000,000 gallons per year. Early on, the office encountered an unforeseen enforcement issue: How to handle properties with multiple or ongoing violations? In order to give customers a reasonable time to receive the notice and take corrective action, repeat offenders received two weeks from the date a violation notice was sent before receiving a subsequent penalty. Violations noted within the interim two week period were still logged and entered on the database, but not penalized. Significant water waste problems, however, were addressed directly with a telephone call or a visit by a Water Department representative. Accordingly, a biweekly schedule was set up to review multiple penalty cases and generate penalty lists for the customer service section to apply to the next bill.
Photo of water waste during early a.m.:
Other operating actions within the Department included the following: • The Water Production section revamped its operations to minimize lake withdrawal
and allow pumping during peak power use times. Water production personnel were also instrumental in monitoring and reporting daily and monthly production levels.
• The Water Distribution section suspended flushing activities for the year and
intensified distribution system leak repair. Distribution personnel also assisted in reporting instances of water waste to the water conservation office, particularly during duty periods (evening, weekends).
• The Customer Service section assisted in answering questions about watering
restrictions in both the office and the field. It was also responsible for applying penalties to utility bills and processing payments.
3-7
Section 4: Summary of Outcome 4.1 Effect of Water Restrictions on Water Production The effect water restrictions had on dampening daily water production was evident early on. Daily water production was monitored regularly and charted in comparison with the daily values for 2008. Not only was daily water production down by roughly 1.5 mgd for the entire season, but day-to-day production amounts were more stable compared to 2008 when no restrictions were in place, which benefitted plant operations. We attribute this stability to the way that different customers were given specific days of the week to water, and therefore could not all irrigate at the same time if the weather became hot, as usually occurs when the temperatures rises. In recent years, daily water production hovered a little above 12 mgd during the peak summer months of June, July, and August. Under water restrictions, daily water production averaged closer to 10.5 mgd. Only on a handful of occasions did daily production ever reach 11 mgd. A chart comparing daily water production for 2008 and 2009 is included in Attachment 11. Compared to the same six-month (May to October) period the year before, water production lowered by a total of 296 million gallons, very close to the savings goal of 300 million gallons set earlier in spring. This volume equates to an average reduction of 1.6 mgd, which turns out to be precisely the same level of reduced daily water consumption as called for six months before. 4.2 Effect of Water Restrictions on Reservoir Withdrawal and Level As it turned out, this level of reduced consumption/daily production allowed plant operators to run the system almost exclusively on the City’s flowing and groundwater supplies, and minimized the need to withdraw from Loch Lomond Reservoir. In the end, only a little over 100 million gallons was needed from the reservoir to meet demand during the season. This is about half of the 196 million gallons budgeted for the year and a fraction of the estimated amount (481 million gallons) needed without water restrictions. Our projection was to end the season at 85 percent of capacity. Because less water was needed from the lake, the lowest it got in 2009 was to 90 percent of capacity in early October. Then, on October 13, an unexpected storm, the remnant of the tropical typhoon Melor, dumped over 10 inches of rain in the City’s watershed that ended up raising the
4-1
water level in Loch Lomond by 2.5 feet. On October 31, the last day of water restrictions, the reservoir was at 94 percent of capacity, almost completely full. 4.3 Comparison of Actual versus Forecast Production Water production and consumption were monitored regularly throughout the 2009 season and compared with forecast amounts on a daily and monthly basis. The following table shows the relative accuracy between forecast and actual water production and consumption over the entire seven-month period from April through October2.
Table 2. Forecast and Actual Water Production, April – October, 2009 Source Projected (mg) Actual (mg) Variance (mg) Variance (%)
North Coast (net) 346 418 72 20.8
San Lorenzo River 1,438 1,409 -29 -2.0
Live Oak Wells 142 154 12 8.4
System Demand 2,046 2,072 26 1.2
Loch Lomond 196 107 -89 -45.0
Not surprisingly, the production for the north coast is the least accurate, since there is little on which to estimate flows other than past production volumes in similar rainfall years, and difficulty predicting losses and uses on the coast line. As a result, forecasting of the north coast tends to be conservative. In addition, flows were boosted somewhat by a late spring storm that occurred after the forecast was made. Estimates of river production came in very close to actual volumes for the season, but multiple forecasting errors tended to cancel each other out. Early in the season, lower than expected demand kept monthly river production down compared to forecast amounts. Later in the season, actual river production ran higher than expected during August, September and October when the forecast indicated river flow would likely drop below 12 cfs, limiting production. It never did, partly due to reservoir releases made during that time. Also, part of this underestimation of river production may have been due to reasonable albeit overly conservative forecasting in which expected flows were further reduced by 10 percent to account for the two preceding dry years. Finally, late in the season, total water demand dropped suddenly following the big storm in mid October, which lessened the amount of water needed from the river to meet daily demand. All 2 Even though restrictions took effect in May, the City’s initial estimate of water supply availability prepared in mid March covered the period April through October.
4-2
these factors combined made predictions for river production seem accurate, when they really weren’t. Actual system demand, on the other hand, turned out to be almost exactly what was budgeted for the season. As a result of all these factors—but mainly due to lower early season demand and higher than expected production from flowing sources—water production from the lake totaled half of what had been budgeted for 2009. The forecast and actual water production amounts are tabulated by month in Attachment 12. 4.4 General Awareness of and Success with Water Restrictions In general, the overwhelming majority of customers seemed to understand and follow the City water restrictions. We attribute this to frequent newspaper coverage, our own utility newsletter, periodic coverage on the evening television news, and word of mouth. Of the more than 24,300 customer accounts in 2009, only about 8 percent, or slightly fewer than 2,000 properties, were in violation of the restrictions over the course of the season. Most of the time, violations were resolved with a single warning letter and/or personal contact. Follow up phone calls and providing the photo evidence also cleared up several violations. Only six percent of the total cases progressed to a penalty. See Sections 4.9 Enforcement of Water Shortage Ordinance and 4.13 Customer Survey for further information. A key driver of peak season water use is landscape irrigation, and a great deal of irrigation occurs on landscapes with automatic irrigation systems. Restricting days, times of day, and watering duration produced two additional benefits during the season. First, restrictions forced those with automatic irrigation systems to re-familiarize themselves with the run-time3 and day-interval functions of their controller. Based on the overall demand reduction, we can say most customers made the required changes. However, field visits to single-family residences during this period revealed many noncompliant timers, especially with the days of the week restriction. In a few cases, older controllers were incapable of operating according to the assigned two days of the week and had to be replaced with more modern equipment. 3 Most customers with automatic irrigation systems already watered in early am hours and did not need to change start times.
4-3
The second benefit produced by the irrigation restrictions likely continues today. Once customers reset their controllers for the season, the outdoor water reduction was essentially “locked in” for the rest of the year. In fact, many customers discovered that twice-weekly irrigation was adequate to maintain plant health in our coastal climate, and have continued to irrigate on that schedule. As mentioned above, it was primarily the restriction on the days, times, and duration of irrigation that resulted in a steady reduction of 1.6 mgd. 4.5 Categorical Water Use and Performance Compared to Allocation One test of the water shortage contingency plan is to compare the reduction in water use achieved by different customer groups in 2009 against the goal listed in the plan, keeping in mind that both the basis (or reference period) and duration deviated somewhat from the allocation schedule presented in the plan. The figures in Table 3 below represent metered water consumption for major customer categories during the six month period while water restrictions were in effect:
Table 3. Comparison of Cutbacks Achieved and Customer Reduction Goals Set Forth in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Consumption (mil gal) Customer Category
2008 2009 Difference Percent of prior year
Reduction Goal
Multiple Residential 424.1 369.1 -55.3 87 87
Business 361.2 311.8 -49.4 86 95
UCSC 117.2 84.7 -32.5 72 85
Municipal 46.3 33.4 -12.9 72 76
Irrigation 110.7 66.1 -44.6 60 64
Golf Course 94.0 76.0 -18.0 81 73
Coast Irrigation 20.4 14.8 -5.6 73 95
The residential sector came in virtually on target. The business sector performed far better than expected, but how much of that decline was due to the broader economic downturn is uncertain. The most notable category to exceed its reduction goal was the University of California. Early on, the University formed its own task force to oversee
4-4
reduction efforts and developed a water shortage plan for the 2009 season that included the following elements: • campus-wide irrigation cutbacks, • water use targets and consumption data to key water users • a water conservation awareness and education campaign, and • acceleration of high priority water conservation projects. The University’s plan is included for reference as Attachment 13. The municipal category slightly exceeded their target, as did the irrigation category. The two golf courses, on the other hand, both cut back substantially, but golf was the only customer group that failed to achieve their cutback goal, in spite of being given a specific water budget to help manage water consumption for the season. The overall conclusion from this analysis is that the suite of water restrictions, coupled with Conservation’s outreach, publicity, and enforcement activities, succeeded in almost every customer category in accomplishing the desired demand reduction for Stage 2. 4.6 Successes and Challenges with Large Customer Water Budgets As mentioned above (Section 3.1), several large customers, including UCSC, the golf courses, two large cemeteries, City Parks and City Schools, were given “water budgets” to help manage water consumption. The idea was to let these customers make their own choices about what (or what not) to irrigate, so long as they met their assigned budget at the end of the season. Besides UCSC, Santa Cruz City Schools did a commendable job managing its water consumption on 25 separate water connections covering ten sites consisting of 6 elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools. They were directed to reduce water use by 14 percent overall and, instead, accomplished a 35 percent cutback. In spite of this notable achievement, the school district received some negative publicity when filling their newly constructed swimming pool, even though: 1) landscape savings vastly offset the amount of water required to fill the new pool, and 2) public pool filling was not restricted under Stage 2. City Parks reduced its overall water use at 27 accounts on 21 park properties by 30 percent, nearly achieving its goal of 33 percent. Within the framework of a water budget, Parks decided which facilities to maintain (or “brown”) based on revenue, attendance, and other considerations. As a Department of the City, and a large, highly visible water user, Parks staff understood their responsibility to carefully manage water use to maintain
4-5
good public perception. They also seized the opportunity to complete some irrigation equipment upgrades. The two cemeteries successfully came in between 5 to 8 percent below their assigned water budget. The golf courses had the most difficult time cutting back to their assigned budget. Without any consequences for overuse, the importance of landscape health and appearance seemed to matter more to course managers than achieving their assigned water saving goal. Both courses stopped irrigating their driving ranges. The water shortage also prompted the Pasatiempo golf course to cease irrigating several acres of turf on the perimeter of its course and begin replacing those areas with native plant materials. There were a couple of unanticipated problems with large customer water budgets. First, having the water restrictions start later in May instead of April created a different consumption reduction goal than was stated in the published plan. This meant going back and recalculating budgets based on a six, not a seven, month period. Second, we had to figure out the starting and ending read dates for each customer and let them know which meter readings they would be held to. Not only do meter readings not coincide with the beginning of the month, but different accounts are read on different days of the month. This meant that restrictions for customers on a water budget didn’t really begin until sometime later in May, and didn’t end until sometime later in November. We didn’t think all this through in advance and had to figure it out along the way. 4.7 Effect of Water Restrictions on Landscape Condition Because the primary restrictions targeted outdoor irrigation, it was important to evaluate landscape impacts. After restrictions ended, conservation staff interviewed landscapers working for the public, UCSC, and City Parks. We also photographed various landscapes across the county (see Attachment 14 for examples). Both landscape contractors and visual assessments indicated no wide-scale loss and little permanent damage. However, the restrictions were not impact free. While drought tolerant plants and established trees and shrubs generally looked no worse for wear, the restrictions browned lawns to varying degrees. For customers operating on a budget, such as the golf courses and parks, certain turf areas were allowed to go fallow. It’s worth noting that personal landscape aesthetics and standards will influence a person’s perception of the damage resulting from restrictions. One Parks manager reported that weeds invaded the stressed turf, costing Parks time and labor for
4-6
eradication. UCSC mentioned having to reseed a playing field a result of the restrictions. Another Parks manager mentioned visual changes to the park, but said that, overall, the landscape went unscathed due to the resiliency of turf. Once rains returned, the landscapes greened back up. The restrictions also prompted some customers to change their landscape or replace irrigation equipment with water saving options. Examples include the Capitola Mall and Chaminade, which replaced annual color planting areas with perennials; UCSC, Parks, and May’s Sushi, which retrofitted their irrigation with MP rotators; and an HOA on the Westside that ripped out a large mounded turf area and replaced it with drought tolerant plantings and drip irrigation. There is no way to quantify this effect, but substantial anecdotal evidence showed people rethinking and changing their landscapes toward less water intensive plant materials. 4.8 Restaurant Water Restrictions During the 2009 shortage, restrictions prohibited the automatic service of drinking water in restaurants and commercial food establishments; customers would have to ask for water to be provided. In 2008, the Water Conservation Office provided free informational table tents to food service locations throughout the service area on a voluntary basis. In 2009, however, restaurants were notified of the mandatory restriction. As a result, many more restaurants requested and received the table tents. Adherence to, and opinions about, this new policy were mixed, however. In a survey conducted midway (Aug. 4-7) through the restriction period, 101 restaurants were questioned about the water-on-demand rule, table tents, and their overall experience of the restrictions. The purpose of the survey visits was twofold: to remind or make restaurant managers aware of restrictions and to redistribute more table tents where needed. Results were mixed. Of the survey population (101 respondents): • 49 restaurants, about half those surveyed, were aware of and practiced the
restrictions, and actively used the table tents provided; • 38 were aware of the restriction, but not necessarily using the table tents, and not
always practicing the restriction ( it was the practice, not the table tent, that was mandated);
• 16 restaurants claimed to be unaware of restriction, but some of those were practicing the restriction regardless;
• the remaining 3 gave conflicting responses
4-7
In terms of customer feedback: • Most restaurants (66) did not encounter negative nor positive reviews of restrictions; • 17 cited positive customer feedback or had a positive opinion of restaurant
restrictions; • 12 cited negative customer feedback or had a negative opinion of restaurant
restrictions; • a few encountered both negative and positive reviews of restaurant restrictions. Some of the positive comments from restaurant mangers included the following: • Offering water upon request is already a policy • Customers appreciate “green” or “eco” efforts • Less dishwashing, less staff time • Increased drink sales General negative comments included: • Customer complaints, lower tips • Tourists had less understanding for restriction policy • Felt like poor service to not provide water • Wait staff had to change habits Many of the local restaurants have since incorporated serving drinking water upon request as an ongoing practice and continue to use the table tents. 4.9 Enforcement of Water Shortage Ordinance As mentioned above, the Water Department dispatched two temporary staff, assisted by two regular utility service representatives, to patrol the service area, collect field reports of violations, and enforce the water restrictions seven days a week. Nine distinct types of violations were noted, including the following: • Watering on the wrong day • Watering at the wrong time of day • Watering longer than 15 minutes • Watering to excess (runoff, overspray) • Broken irrigation system • Use of hose without a shutoff valve • Hosing off pavement • Plumbing leak • Other
4-8
From May 1, 2009 to October 31, 2009, the Water Conservation Office logged a total of 2,233 separate cases on the water violation tracking database, named ConserveTrack. Of these 2,233 total cases, 2,926 distinct violations were noted (some sites had more than one problem observed by staff). A breakdown of the total number of violations, by type and by customer category, is summarized in Table 4 below:
Table 4 – Breakdown of Water Restriction Violations by Violation Type and Customer Category
Customer Category:
W ro
T ot
al s
Single Family Residential 884 66 36 538 83 20 14 5 38 1,684
Multiple Residential 135 17 6 130 15 5 3 3 7 321
Business 242 13 8 234 30 1 30 8 9 575
Industrial 2 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 9
Municipal 16 1 0 7 6 0 1 0 0 31
Irrigation 102 11 14 137 27 1 4 2 3 301
Other 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5
Total 1,383 108 65 1052 162 27 52 19 58 2,926
Single family accounts had the majority of violations: 1,684 violations, or 58 percent of all violations. Business accounts had the next-highest number of violations with 575 problems noted, representing 20 percent of all violations. The most common violation was watering on the wrong, or non-assigned, day, with 1,383 reported instances. This violation was strictly enforced to make sure that customers were watering only on their two assigned days of the week, and not more frequently. Excess water running to waste was the other most frequently noted problem (but often the most egregious), with 1,052 reported instances. The geographic distribution of these violations is illustrated on a map included in Attachment 15.
4-9
The majority of cases (1,953) were resolved with a single warning letter and/or telephone contact. In theses cases, no penalty was levied. Some customers were cooperative, just unaware that a problem existed, and appreciated being notified. For others, the threat of a penalty for any subsequent violation probably served as a motivating factor to resolve the issue. From contacting the customer to imposing fines, various actions were taken to abate repeated violations at various sites. A total of 113 customers received a $100 penalty (or in the case of a large water user, a $300 penalty) on their utility bill for a second violation. Twelve customers received a $250/$750 penalty for a third violation, and three of those customers received a $500 fine for a fourth violation. A total of 83 other cases were logged as “many previous,” indicating that a second (or third, or fourth) infraction was observed at a previously notified property. As mentioned above, customers were given two weeks from the violation notice mail date to receive the notice and correct the violation. There were 56 enforcement cases that were ultimately cancelled, for various reasons, including the following: • Wrong address (problem may have originated from a neighbor, problem property did
not belong to addressee, etc.) • Wrong account holder (violation may have occurred with a previous holder of the
account, no contact/account holder identified) • Problem was not water waste (i.e. runoff from sump pumps, natural springs in
neighborhood) • Lack of picture evidence/insufficient detail of violation gathered Water service was shut off at only one property the entire season due to a problem at a vacant home with an irrigation valve stuck open. 4.10 External Challenges The 2009 water restrictions involved many unforeseen implementation challenges for staff. A few of the restrictions generated confusion for customers. Although car washing was not restricted, staff received several calls asking if car washing was allowed, and, if so, did it need to be on their assigned day. This confusion may have carried over from the
4-10
2007 restrictions. Car washing was not restricted then, either, but the newspaper repeatedly printed articles stating that no car washing was allowed from10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The common area landscaping category also puzzled customers. In general, residential customers with and without common area landscape were confused by the term. Properties falling into this category, including home owner associations and mobile home parks, were unclear about the common area boundaries and which day of the week they should be watering. Defining common areas was not always clear to field staff either. The office received many calls from customers of mobile home parks, wondering which address number—the street address or their individual unit number—they should use for their watering day. The assigned watering days were unclear to some churches since they were not specifically listed in the commercial category. Early in the season, the Spanish-language restrictions flyer posted incorrect days of the week for the even numbered residential customers. The correction was made immediately, but it is unknown if this error resulted in any violations. Customers unwilling to take responsibility for violations at their property presented another obvious challenge. Power outages, faulty irrigation timers, poor landscape design, negligent landlords, landscapers, employees—all were blamed for a customer’s noncompliance. Some flatly denied that a violation even occurred. Including photos with warning letters reduced argumentative phone calls and allowed customers to better address water waste issues. Communicating with absentee customers (account holders who did not live at the property) presented additional challenges. Customers with second homes in Santa Cruz took a long time to correct violations. Account-holding renters sometimes received penalties even though the owner was responsible for the landscape. Field staff recorded a number of violations at properties with ‘for sale’ signs. Because of the high number of foreclosures during this time, cases at these properties often went unresolved since no one was directly responsible for the property. Violations linked to corporate customers were among the most difficult to resolve. Corporate customers often accrued multiple violations due to a lack of communication between the account holder, landscaper, and office management. Many of the corporate offices were out of state, and the chain of command was slow to act. Conservation staff had difficulty reaching the correct corporate contact, and local employees were either unable or unwilling to make any on-site changes to prevent further violations from occurring.
4-11
Penalties generated a lot of negative emotion from customers. Some called to vent their frustration or make excuses. Others told us they could not afford penalties. A few customers threatened to not pay the penalty. However, because the penalty was applied to the bill, late charges accrued if they refused to pay. Emerald Bay appealed their penalties, and then failed to appear at the Water Commission Hearing after staff had spent a fair amount of time preparing the case. Consequently, their unwillingness to pay led to an automatic 10% late charge. Landscape contractors dealt with several challenges regarding restrictions. For large sites with multiple irrigation timers, landscapers experienced the “scheduling nightmare” of completing irrigation cycles within the restricted time frame. Many said they would have liked more flexibility. Similarly, hand watering multiple sites before 10:00 a.m. was tricky. Residents also had difficulty with the time of day restriction, especially later in the season when daylight waned. Some landscapers were unhappy that multiple, unrelated violations at a property led to additional penalties, especially when a good faith effort was being made to correct the violations. Common area landscapers had to charge customers an emergency fee for problems that occurred on Saturdays (one of the assigned day for common area irrigation). Landscapers requested more detailed violation descriptions to help them locate and address problems. Although only Ewing Irrigation complained for having to reprogram an ET controller to fit restrictions, this could become a refrain if ET controllers become more common place. Restrictions had a large, albeit temporary, impact on landscapers’ day to day duties. Many had to change their maintenance and staffing schedules, juggle an increased workload (to reschedule irrigation timers and/or address violations), and sometimes modify plant choices or delay installations. A few landscapers used the restrictions to their advantage by encouraging clients to upgrade landscapes and irrigation. Some companies lost client accounts after penalties were incurred. Landscapers and the general public faced challenges with poorly designed sites. Spray heads located next to curbs, too close to shrubs, in narrow or oddly-shaped planting areas, and on slopes invariably created water waste violations. For some properties, using multiple start times to prevent water waste wasn’t feasible because runoff would occur within a minute or two of operation. Customers were not always willing or able to make retrofits to their irrigation systems. Irrigation scheduling presented a challenge to many customers. Previous home water surveys show that a majority of customers don’t know how to make changes to their timers, or are unfamiliar with common features used to prevent runoff. A few customers
4-12
had basic timers that did not offer a day of the week option. Customers were also unaware that power outages can make some timers run on a daily default schedule until reprogrammed. Staff offered to help customers with rescheduling, but this service was not as broadly advertised as it might have been. One additional unforeseen challenge was a conflict between a federal law—the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act—and the local water restriction on draining and refilling residential swimming pools. This federal law required pool drains be equipped with anti-entrapment drain covers to meet current safety standards by a certain date. The deadline had already ended, yet the County Health Department was enforcing on outstanding properties. Eventually, an arrangement was made between the City and county to allow a case-by-case exception to the drain-fill restriction for pools that needed to comply with the act, provided that: a) the swimming pool contractor considered alternatives that did not involve draining the pool, and b) they include a copy of Environmental Health's approval letter that they have complied with the Act. 4.11 Internal Challenges Internally, the two biggest challenges were the managing the increased workload and the stress related to the restrictions. Enforcing restrictions consumed all available staff time. The office processed over two thousand cases over the course of the season, and keeping up with the volume of violations was difficult. There was only a two week window between sending an enforcement notice and the possibility of applying a (new) penalty. Some customers continued to accrue violations during this two week window. These violations were not enforced, but were still documented and entered into the database. Hundreds of cases were actively managed at the same time, in various violation stages, along different tracks and timelines, some moving from one violation stage to the next while others were batched for customer service to apply penalties, while still others were getting resolved through customer contact. The office was non-stop busy from May through October. It wasn’t just busy; it was at times, overwhelming. The deadlines never stopped and the work kept coming in. Consequently, many things fell through the cracks during this period. The office had planned to continue publicity. Luckily for us, several news interviews aired about the restrictions, including a ride along with field staff. But after the initial publicity campaign, staff was too swamped to administrate additional ads. A lack of restriction notification also occurred when new customers signed up for water service via fax. Customers signing up in person received a restrictions flyer, but those requesting water service by fax were never sent any restriction information. Due to workloads, neither
4-13
Customer Service nor Conservation resolved this issue. Before restrictions began, the Conservation Office discussed setting up a special drought restrictions webpage. The webpage never went beyond the initial planning phase. At the time of restrictions, all website actions required coordination with water administration and IT staff4. Other projects left unfinished included a tip sheet for avoiding irrigation runoff, a City-wide email letting employees know about the restrictions, and an exceptions form. Consequently, Conservation’s usual work was put on hold. Rebate applications took longer to process, home water surveys were suspended, and the development of new conservation programs was delayed. Several deadlines, both internal and external (such as completing BMP reports to the California Urban Water Conservation Council) were missed. It took a long time to recover from the restrictions and catch up with the postponed work. The stress level prior to and during the restrictions was high. Gearing up, the office had a very short lead time between declaring the restrictions and notifying the public. The SCMU Review was in press at the time Council declared a Stage 2 shortage. Getting the word out fast was our initial priority as enforcement would begin the next week. Work did not slow down after the declaration. The office environment shifted from quiet and friendly to fast-paced and frenzied. Customers, usually polite and friendly, called to vent their frustrations over receiving a violation letter, or worse, a penalty. Turning the plan into practice required staff to continually refine the enforcement process. Adding fuel to the fire, a mandatory 9-hour, 4-day furlough schedule was implemented in July. Losing a day to process violations and answer phones significantly added to the workload during the rest of the week. A new ConserveTrack database program was used to manage violation cases. It worked, but not without quite a few glitches. The office used paper files for almost two months before ConserveTrack was up and running, and entering all of those past cases was a chore! ConserveTrack’s screen configuration changed a couple of times, requiring staff to reorient themselves with the program’s functions. Photos associated with penalties had to be retrieved from the original image file, rather than batched and printed from ConserveTrack. The program was supposed to track and move cases from stage to stage; but this feature never worked well, and a wall calendar was used instead. Throughout the entire restriction period, ConserveTrack failed to grab and update fresh utility billing data. More than once, violation letters were sent to a previous tenant because of outdated account information. This last issue has since been resolved.
4 The City since then has created a new website which is far easier to update and expand.
4-14
Field personnel experienced a number of difficult challenges, both on patrol and back in the office. In the field, connecting the source of water waster and the responsible customer was not always obvious or easy. Many violations required secondary or tertiary field assessments before they could be determined as such. For instance, in order to determine whether a “Landscape [was] being watered on [the] wrong day,” field staff had to first determine a) the irrigation source and b) the irrigation source’s address, and connect the two. Waste occurrences around condominium complexes and/or housing developments with both common and individual irrigation presented obvious interpretive dilemmas. Similarly, the second most common violation, “Excess water running to waste,” required field staff to constantly define and redefine “waste.” Early on, field staff developed the “rule of property lines” metric, defining waste as “water that ran in the gutter beyond the property lines of the source.” Obviously, when it came to large properties in the upper elevations of the service area (of which many feature large, sloping landscapes and, thus, runoff), this metric stretched like the driveways leading up to these homes. All in all, field staff interpreted waste very conservatively as the office was always up to its neck in the enforcement of egregious cases. Another challenge worth mentioning was the photo-documentation process. A majority of violations occurred in the dim, early morning hours. While field staff did a fine job capturing these violations, the cameras did not work well in the dark, making it difficult to enforce penalties on early morning violators. Even though contacts between enforcement personnel and the public in the field were not all that common due to the early hours, some customers reacted negatively to enforcement. In retrospect, wearing a City uniform might have cooled some of these reactions. In the office, the task of linking violation reports to the appropriate customer presented a whole new set of difficulties. In some situations, the violation address recorded in the field was not found in the Eden utility billing system, and determining the responsible customer required research involving the city GIS, or asking the Engineering or Customer Service sections for their assistance. In others, difficulties identifying or even contacting the appropriate person, such as what occurred with corporate offices situated in different states, or accounts listed under a property manager’s name, made enforcement challenging. Managing the enforcement workload required constant evaluation of our priorities and practices. For example, late in the season, when system water demand stabilized, the office decided to stop penalizing all the “watering on wrong day” cases and, instead, call
4-15
customers and ask for their cooperation. This helped bring the enforcement workload down to a more manageable level. 4.12 Effect of Water Restrictions on Revenue One of the negative consequences of demand reduction is the corresponding reduction in water sales revenue to the City’s Water Fund. Not including the added costs of temporary staff, services and supplies, the Water Shortage Contingency Plan conservatively estimated $1.65 million in revenue loss during a seven-month, Stage 2 water shortage. For the entire 2009 calendar year, with no change in water rates from the year before, revenue was down about $2.5 million, from $24.6 million in 2008 to $22.1 million in 2009. It is hard to say precisely how much revenue was lost over the six months that restrictions were in place because meter reading and billing practices differed between 2008 and 2008, making a month-to-month comparison impractical. The bottom line: 2009 revenues declined 50 percent more than expected. Consumption levels continued to remain low systemwide in 2010 partly due to an unseasonably wet spring and a cool summer, but also likely due to a lingering effect of 2009 water restrictions, namely long-term changes in irrigation practices and awareness. This, coupled with the broader economic downturn, has indicated a slow recovery to previous consumption/revenue levels. 4.13 Customer Survey After the official end date (10/31/09) of the restriction period, customer feedback was sought through an online survey created by staff and the IT Department. The survey instrument, with tabulated results and added comments, can be found as Attachment 16. Unfortunately, too few surveys were received to reliably represent public sentiment about the water restrictions. Only 13 surveys were received, but they do provide some insight as to how the general public experienced restrictions. The results are summarized by category of questions below: General The majority of respondents lived in a house and paid the water bill (11). The main sources notifying customers of restrictions were: SCMU Review (5), newspaper (4), word of mouth (2), utility bill (1).
4-16
Most respondents did not find the restrictions confusing or unclear (11); of the two that did, reasons cited were that it was hard to remember right day to water, and hand- watering with hose policy was unclear. Effect of Water Restrictions on Landscape Regarding the two day a week watering, respondents were split: 5 felt it was enough, 5 felt is was not enough. Regarding the effects of restrictions on lawn, results varied: the majority saw some effect on the lawn with either a little or moderate yellowing. Of respondents who have irrigation controllers, most did change the controller schedule and found it easy (6). When asked about additional efforts to conserve, responses were varied: landscape/irrigation changes were made, leaks fixed, some behavioral changes made. No respondents made fixture changes. Utility Bill Most respondents did not notice any significant change on the utility bill (9). Only 1 person stated that the utility bill increased. The majority of respondents said that water usage decreased a little bit (10). Enforcement Most respondents never received a notice of having violated restrictions (11). Most respondents never saw conservation staff patrolling (10). Of the three that did see staff patrols, the customers were glad to see City actively enforcing the restrictions. No respondents cited feeling indifferent, uncomfortable, or a lack of privacy. Reactions/Responses Seven of those who responded felt enthusiastic about restrictions, four felt neutral, and two had negative or angry reactions. The majority of respondents felt it was easy to adhere to restrictions (7). Most of those surveyed did not experience any personal hardships (4). Some felt logistical (3), aesthetic (2), or emotional (1) hardships. None cited economic hardship. Regarding schedule conflicts with watering, most did not have a problem as irrigation was controlled by a timer (7). Others who controlled watering themselves acknowledged some difficulty. No business owners responded to this survey (questions 17 & 18).
4-17
Overall Impressions Most felt that restrictions called for an appropriate level of conservation (8). The remainder was split between too much (2) and too little (3). Seven respondents noticed no difference in water waste; five noticed less waste. The majority of respondents cited preserving the reservoir as the reason for restrictions (11); two felt that it happened because the reservoir was too low. Some comments made by the surveyed cited actions that they would like to see: • More promotion of lawn replacement, graywater use, rain catchment • Higher billing tiers • Leak detection service • Target heavy users Due to the lack of sufficient responses, the survey results should not be considered indicative of general public sentiment. It may be more helpful to gather responses mid- restriction period or offer an incentive for completing the survey.
4-18
Section 5: Conclusions and Recommendations In many ways, the effort to reduce customer water use during 2009 can be considered a success. Consumption reduction goals were achieved. The overwhelming majority of the City’s customer complied with water restrictions. Reservoir storage was preserved. Little if any, lasting damage to public and private landscapes was done. Credit for this success goes to the public, for rising to the challenge and taking action to save water when called upon to do so for the collective good of the community. In the end, water conditions improved substantially in 2010. But had it not, the water saved from restrictions enacted in 2009 would have meant a good deal less hardship dealing with a potentially 4th dry year. A key ingredient to this success was the public’s understanding, awareness, and belief that the City was confronted with a true water shortage problem. Media coverage of water problems across California reinforced the situation. Without that sense of a real and imminent problem, it’s likely the level of cooperation and willingness demonstrated by the community in making changes they did might have been considerably reduced. Much progress was made with putting enforcement systems, procedures, and tools in place, like Conserve Track database and the GIS Water Viewer, that were not in place prior to 2009 and will help in the future. Even so, there were numerous lessons learned from this experience and several areas where improvements could be made to better manage water shortages in the future. Our recommendations are as follows: 1. Regarding the timeline for declaring a water shortage, keep some flexibility in the
when water restrictions take effect, and how long they remain in effect. The April 1 date referenced in the contingency plan may be too soon for restrictions to take effect in the first year of a water shortage, but is more appropriate for longer lasting events.
2. In holding large customers to a water budget, it should be expected that usage will
change over time. Future budgets will need to be recalculated, communicated, and agreed to well in advance, and timelines adjusted according to meter reading schedules.
3. As identified in the 2009 Contingency Plan, continue to focus on developing the large
landscape program so that water budgets can be used to manage large irrigation accounts the next time a water shortage arises. Ideally, water usage for large
5-1
landscapes during a water shortage, including golf courses, should be charged according to a tiered pricing system, based on the assigned budget.
4. Increase marketing and publications via all media, including web, and maintain
repeated communications throughout the restriction period. Consider employing a public relations professional early on when implementing the plan to manage publicity and marketing. Consider using street signage at strategic locations to remind the community of water restrictions.
5. Increase workforce commensurate with the level of field enforcement needed to
better manage the volume of office work generated. 6. Always provide photographic documentation of any violation of water restrictions,
including initial contact with customers, so customers may better locate and address issues. Include more details with all violation notices.
7. Consider penalizing only those violations that go uncorrected, and treat new or
different types of problems on the same property as a separate and distinct enforcement process.
8. Market water conservation services (such as home water surveys), and provide more
customer assistance (for example, technical support with irrigation controllers) in the field, through workshops, and with website information.
9. Counterbalance water restrictions with landscape water conservation opportunities
and incentives. Offer solutions to permanently shift irrigation practices and address poor landscape/irrigation design.
10. Clarify the definition and location of common area landscapes for Home Owner
Associations. 11. Offer flexibility in time of day and day of week watering for professional landscapers
managing large or multiple sites with many irrigation circuits. 12. Increase direct communications with landscape contractors and hard to reach (i.e.,
corporate or out of state) customers.
5-2
13. Provide all field personnel with uniforms to facilitate identification of employees and present a professional image to the public (This is something we didn’t do and should have).
14. Consider revenue impacts of water shortage in the next water rate study and identify
ways to overcome financial costs and losses caused by reduced water sales.
5-3
Attachments
2. Press Release
5. Press Release, March 2009
6. Summary of Water Restrictions (distributed as flyer in SCMU Review)
7. April 2009 SCMU Review
8. Newspaper Articles
11. Chart of Gross Daily Water Consumption
12. Water Production Forecast and Actual Production Volumes
13. UCSC 2009 Water Shortage Plan
14. Photos of Landscapes
16. Survey Questionnaire With Response Information
W A T E R D E P A R T M E N T M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 26, 2009 TO: Water Commission FROM: Toby Goddard, Water Conservation Manager SUBJECT: Water Supply Conditions, Initial Estimate of Water Supply Availability for 2009 RECOMMENDATION: For information and discussion by the Water Commission. Rainfall: As of the end of January 2009, total rainfall for the 2008-09 season measures only 7.5 inches in the city, less than 50 percent of the long-term average amount -16 inches - for this time of year. In the Loch Lomond watershed, a scant 13.4 inches of rain has fallen through the end of January, compared to long-term average of 27 inches, also less than half of normal. January is normally the wettest month of the year. Up until January 22, when it rained 1.2 inches in town, the National Weather Service and news media had begun comparing it to the driest January on record. So far, only 1.8 inches has fallen this month in the city compared to a normal monthly total of 6.5 inches. In the Loch Lomond watershed only 1.7 inches has been recorded this January, compared to a normal monthly total of 10.3 inches. Runoff: With hardly any wet weather recently other than a few showery days, and no powerful winter storms as yet to recharge the watershed, the San Lorenzo River continues to flow at levels that are far below normal and among the lowest on record for the month of January. The river is currently flowing at 23 cubic feet per second (cfs), compared to a long-term average flow of over 300 cfs for the month of January. Both Laguna and Majors Creeks on the North Coast are also flowing at unseasonably low levels. Reservoir Storage: The reservoir is currently holding steady at elevation 566.2, about eleven feet below the spillway elevation. This elevation translates to a storage volume of 2,229 million gallons, or about 78 percent of its 2,830 million gallon capacity. There has been no substantial natural runoff into the reservoir as yet, nor has it been feasible thus far to pump water up to the reservoir from Felton Diversion - or even to inflate the dam - due to the exceptionally low flows in the San Lorenzo River. Water Year Classification: The 2008-09 water year continues to be classified as Critically Dry, and we do not expect any change in this status when the U.S. Geological Survey updates its figures at the end of the month. Only 4,400 acre-feet of runoff has been recorded on the San
A1-1
Lorenzo River since the new water year began October 1, 2008. Runoff must exceed 29,000 acre-feet for the water year to be classified as Dry and 49,000 acre-feet to be considered Normal. Initial Estimate of Water Supply Availability The City’s water supply outlook, as of the end of January 2009, is bad. As with the rest of California, water conditions during the last two years have been below average, and it appears a third dry year is underway. Much will depend on how much rainfall occurs over the next 2 to 3 months, but the chances of getting even average rainfall and runoff for the year grow less and less with each passing day. The primary problem is with the flowing sources, which normally provide about three quarters of the City’s annual water supply. There are only a few instances on record when the San Lorenzo River has flowed so low in January. Without a major change in the weather - and none is foreseen in the short term - we would expect the river and coast sources to dwindle to historic lows this summer. For the San Lorenzo River, the threat is that flows will sooner or later drop below 12 cubic feet per second (cfs), limiting production. For the north coast sources, the threat is keeping the line operational throughout the entire season if the flow reaching the coast pump station gets too low. Coast production is already reduced by voluntary bypass flows. The worst case is if the second half of winter follows the same pattern as last year: of completely drying up early in the season. Attached are 2 tables that represent an attempt to project our water supply availability for the upcoming dry season. Our confidence in these estimates is low given that we know little about when the river might drop below 12 cfs. Scenario 1 uses actual production volumes from 1977 to estimate both the north coast (gross) and San Lorenzo River production. Normally, the coast provides about 4 mgd in the spring, dropping off to about 2 mgd in the fall. Under current conditions, it is likely that the net coast flow reaching the pump station will drop off to less than 1 mgd for the entire season. With the river, normal production is about 8 mgd or about 230 million gallons per month, all year long. Actual production volumes in 1977 were about half that, as the river dropping below 12 cfs as early as May and falling off to about 6 cfs in summer. Scenario 2 differs only in the projection for the San Lorenzo River, in which production is indirectly estimated based on 1977 flows, as opposed to actual 1977 production volumes. Both scenarios show that, in trying to balance demand - which is assumed to be the same as in 2008 - against available supply, the lake would be drawn down to an unacceptable low level. Under Scenario 1, the lake would drop from 2.2 to less than 1.0 billion gallons, or less than 30 percent, by the end of October. Under Scenario 2, the lake drops to 1.1 billion gallons, or 41 percent of capacity. Neither of these situations leaves adequate water in the reservoir in case dry conditions were to continue beyond 2009. Therefore, it is almost inevitable that cutbacks in water use will be required this summer unless there is a major improvement in water conditions. The question is how much? Our estimate at this point is that a 25 to 35 percent cutback in demand may be
A1-2
required to avoid depleting storage below 1.6 billion gallons. This shortfall would constitute an emergency water shortage and trigger either a Stage 3 or Stage 4 response under the updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan, perhaps as soon as April. With no guarantee of improvement, staff will be working in the meantime on various actions that would need to be implemented this spring, which include: • Crafting an updated water shortage ordinance (City Attorney is leading this effort) • Testing/improving the utility billing capabilities and utility bill layout for possible water
rationing • Internal and external communication and coordination • Water shortage web site development The Water Department will continue to monitor water supply conditions and reevaluate the water supply outlook at the end of February. The timeline for publicly announcing a water shortage condition would be in mid-March, and formal declaration by City Council in mid-April. A public hearing on the Water Shortage Contingency Plan is scheduled for February 10, 2009, at which time staff will brief City Council on current water conditions and the water supply outlook for the coming year.
A1-3
W A T E R D E P A R T M E N T
212 Locust St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 • 831 420-5200 • Fax: 831 420-5201• [email protected]
PRESS RELEASE
January 30, 2009 CONTACT: Bill Kocher FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Water Director (831) 420-5200
WATER SUPPLY CONDITIONS
As of the end of January 2009, total rainfall for the 2008-09 season measures only 7.5 inches in the city,
less than 50 percent of the long-term average amount -16 inches - for this time of year. In the Loch
Lomond watershed, a scant 13.4 inches of rain has fallen through the end of January, compared to long-
term average of 27 inches, also less than half of normal.
With hardly any wet weather recently other than a few showery days, and no powerful winter storms as
yet to recharge the watershed, the San Lorenzo River continues to flow at levels that are far below
normal and among the lowest on record for the month of January. The river is currently flowing at 19
cubic feet per second (cfs), compared to a long-term average flow of over 300 cfs for the month of
January. The city’s North Coast sources are also flowing at unseasonably low levels. The San Lorenzo
River and North Coast sources normally provide three-quarters of the City’s annual water supply.
Loch Lomond Reservoir currently stands at about 78 percent of its 2,830 million gallon capacity. There
has been no substantial natural runoff into the reservoir as yet, nor has it been feasible thus far to pump
water up to the reservoir from Felton Diversion due to the exceptionally low flows in the San Lorenzo
River.
The 2008-09 water year continues to be classified as Critically Dry. Only 4,400 acre-feet of runoff has
been recorded on the San Lorenzo River since the new water year began October 1, 2008. Runoff must
A2-1
exceed 29,000 acre-feet for the water year to be classified as Dry and 49,000 acre-feet to be considered
Normal.
As with the rest of California, water conditions in Santa Cruz during the last two years have been below
average, and it appears a third critically dry year is well underway. Much will depend on how much
rainfall occurs over the next 2 to 3 months, but the chances of getting even average rainfall and runoff
for the year grow less and less with each passing day. The National Weather Service, Monterey Forecast
Office, is predicting dry weather conditions will persist for at least another week.
The City’s water supply outlook for 2009 will be discussed at the Santa Cruz City Water Commission,
Monday, February 2, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Santa Cruz City Hall, 809 Center
Street, Santa Cruz. The lack of rainfall and runoff this winter may result in an emergency water
shortage, requiring systemwide cutbacks in water use of as much as 35 percent.
A public hearing on the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan is scheduled for February 10, 2009, at
which time staff will brief City Council on current water conditions and the water supply outlook for the
coming year.
The Water Department will continue to monitor water supply conditions and reevaluate the water supply
outlook at the end of February. The timeline for publicly announcing a water shortage condition would
be in mid-March, and formal declaration by City Council in mid-April.
# # #
A2-2
W A T E R D E P A R T M E N T M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 24, 2009 TO: Water Commission FROM: Toby Goddard, Water Conservation Manager SUBJECT: Water Supply Conditions, Revised Estimate of Water Supply Availability for
2009 RECOMMENDATION: For information and discussion by the Water Commission. Rainfall: A series of wet weather systems finally arrived to the Central Coast region beginning February 4, 2009. As of February 24, the monthly rainfall total in Santa Cruz measured 9.8 inches to date, bringing the seasonal total up to 17.4 inches, or just under 79 percent of normal. The monthly total in the Newell Creek watershed measured 16.0 inches, for a seasonal total of 29.1 inches, or about 80 percent of normal. The National Weather Service is forecasting a chance of more showers off and on through the end of the month. Runoff: The San Lorenzo River began to respond to rainfall received in early February, but because conditions were so dry through January, flows at the Big Trees gage in Felton during the first half of the month peaked at less than 200 cubic feet per second (cfs) and only for brief periods of time. However, these early February rains were highly beneficial in helping to saturate the watershed, so by the 15th and the 23rd, two fairly significant runoff events were observed. It is estimated that when the monthly report on stream flow is received from the U.S. Geological Survey at the beginning of March, the mean monthly stream flow for February will come close to the long-term average monthly level of 400 cfs. Production levels from the north coast sources have also begun to see some improvement in recent days as a result of higher flows following the recent rains. Reservoir Storage: Since the end of January, Loch Lomond Reservoir has risen over six feet, adding about 330 million gallons of water to storage, and currently stands at elevation 572.6, less
A3-1
than five feet below the spillway elevation of 577.3 feet. This elevation translates to a storage volume of 2,559 million gallons, or about 90 percent of its 2,830 million gallon capacity, up from 78 percent full at the beginning of the month. The diversion dam at Felton was successfully inflated February 16 and supplemental pumping up to Loch Lomond began about one week ago. Water Year Classification: In spite of all the rain this month, the 2008-09 water year continues to be classified as Critically Dry. From October 1, 2008 through the end of January, only about 5,800 acre-feet of runoff had been recorded on the San Lorenzo River. It is estimated that another 15,000 acre-feet or so of runoff has occurred since February 1, putting the cumulative discharge for the water year at close to 21,000 acre-feet. Discharge must exceed 29,000 acre-feet for the water year to be classified as Dry and 49,000 acre-feet to be considered Normal. It is possible that the 2008-09 water year classification could be upgraded to Dry in the coming weeks if the wet weather pattern experienced over the past few weeks continues. We’ll have a better idea of what the total discharge is when the U.S. Geological Survey report is received in early March. Revised Estimate of Water Supply Availability The City’s water supply outlook, as of the end of February is considerably improved from just one short month ago 2009, even though rainfall continues to be below average for the season, and the water year remains critically dry. Reservoir storage has risen to 90 percent and recent rains have restored at least some prospect of improved flows for both the coast and river sources relative to January. However, the wet weather has all occurred over a relatively short time frame, so it is difficult to accurately say how the north coast streams and San Lorenzo River will flow through summer, especially considering that 2009 is shaping up as the third consecutive year of below normal rainfall and runoff. The good news is that there is still another six weeks or so of the rainy season and that the forecast calls for continuing unsettled or wet weather for the foreseeable future. This time last year, unbeknownst to anyone, the wet weather season ended abruptly. So there is the possibility of more storms that potentially could lead to Loch Lomond Reservoir refilling to full capacity and bolstering local stream flows. Attached is a table that conservatively forecasts water supply availability, demand, and utilization of water storage through the upcoming dry season. It is based on what we know now, and a reasonable assumption about how much additional storage could be added by pumping from Felton Diversion. Coast production is assumed to be similar to actual production from last year, reduced by ten percent, to account for how dry the first half of winter was and the fact that total rainfall last year was higher than it is this year to date. The San Lorenzo River is expected to remain above 12 cubic feet per second at least through the month of June, allowing full production of 7.5 million gallons per day for the first half of the dry season. Thereafter, the river can be expected to decline below the level that requires production to be scaled back. This revised forecast indicates that Loch Lomond Reservoir would be drawn down to less than 2.0 billion gallons by the end of October, ending close to two-thirds full. This is a marked improve

the 2009 water shortage - city of santa cruz | home

Documents