HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 WATER CONSERVATION UPDATE - OCTOBER 2015AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2015
TO: JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER
Agenda Item °
Reviewed
City Manager
Finance Director N/A
FROM: DOUGLAS S. STACK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: WATER CONSERVATION UPDATE — OCTOBER 2015
SUMMARY
As a result of the drought, the City of Tustin is required to provide the State Water Resources
Control Board with data that will be used to determine if the City is meeting the required 28%
conservation target and the various methods being utilized to ensure compliance with the
State's mandates. This report summarizes the information provided to the State for the month
of October 2015 and provides the City Council and the public with general information on
previous and upcoming actions taken by the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
CORRELATION TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN
This item contributes to the fulfillment of the City's Strategic Plan Goal D: Strong Community
and Regional Relationships. Specifically, by implementing Strategy 2, which is to work
collaboratively with agencies within and outside of Tustin on issues of mutual interest and
concern.
DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
Staff has provided the Water Board with production data for October 2015 and calculated a 29%
savings in water production when compared to October 2013. The Water Board is seeking a
cumulative 28% reduction between June 2015 and February 2016. The City's current
cumulative savings is 30%.
Below is the City of Tustin's required report for the month of October 2015, which was submitted
to the State on November 13, 2015.
State Report Questionnaire
1.
Which Stage of your Water Shortage Contingency Plan have you invoked?
Stage 2
2.
Does this Stage include mandatory restrictions on outdoor irrigation?
Yes
3.
How many days per week is watering allowed for outdoor irrigation?
2
Water Conservation Update — October 2015
December 1, 2015
Page 2
4.
How many complaints of water waste or violation of conservation rules were
56
received during the reporting month?
5.
How many contacts (written or verbal) were made with customers for actual or
155
alleged water waste or for a violation of water conservation rules?
6.
How many formal warning actions (e.g.: written notifications, warning letter, door
96
hangers) were issued for water waste or for a violation of conservation rules?
7.
How many penalties (fines) were issued for water waste or for a violation of
20
conservation rules?
8.
Optional enforcement actions:
$2600 in
fines
9.
This year's total potable water production for the reporting month (including
815.8 AF
agricultural supply).
10.
Your 2013 water production for the same reporting month.
1092.2 AF
11.
The quantity of water delivered for all commercial, industrial, and institutional
89.7 AF
users for the reporting month.
12.
The quantity of water used exclusively for commercial agriculture (this water will
o
be subtracted from the total monthly potable water production for purposes of
determining compliance with conservation requirements).
13.
The quantity of water used exclusively for commercial agriculture during the same
o
month in 2013.
14.
You may optionally report the total amount of water (e.g.: leakage) calculated for
48.9 AF
this past month for which you do not receive revenue.
15.
Enter your estimate of the percentage going to residential use only for this
89%
reporting month's production (l00% assumed otherwise).
16.
Please include any information the Board should be aware of when using this data.
CII use is
estimate
17.
Total Population Served.
67,700
18.
Enter your estimate of the residential gallons -per -capita -day (R-GPCD).
112.7
19.
You may optionally report any recycled water beneficially used during the
None
reporting month.
Other Actions Taken
1. The State Water Resource Control Board issued fines to four water agencies on October
29, 2015. The agencies of Beverly Hills, Indio, Redlands and Coachella Valley Water
District were each fined $61,000 for not conserving enough water. The agencies face
$10,000 a day fines if improvements are not made in the following months. A copy of
the article in the USA Today has been provided as an attachment to this report.
Water Conservation Update — October 2015
December 1, 2015
Page 3
2. The City worked with the County of Orange to hold an Orange County Garden Friendly
event on October 24, at Home Depot. Vendors were on hand to discuss water topics
and provide information on products and services to aid in residential and commercial
water conservation.
3 Code enforcement statistics for the month of October 2015 have been provided as an
attachment to this report.
A postcard was mailed to customers in October with a reminder that watering days will
be decreased to one day per week beginning November 1 and asking them to remain
vigilant about indoor water use and the need to continue conservation efforts. Generally,
we use less water outdoors during the winter. Therefore, it may be difficult to sustain the
impressive conservation numbers that were achieved during the summer without looking
for ways to save water indoors.
5. Message boards have been placed throughout the service area letting customers know
that the watering schedule changed on November 1 and which days they will be allowed
to water their landscapes.
On Friday, November 13, 2015 the State Water Resources Control Board held a third workshop
regarding the emergency drought regulations. Board members Felicia Marcus and Tam Dudoc
along with State Board staff also attended. State Board staff announced that a public workshop
would be held on December 7 and any changes to the regulations would be taken to the
February 2, 2016 Board meeting. Presentations were given by Coastkeepers and the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) more or less saying they wanted permanent regulations
and did not want to make any changes to the emergency regulations. Current regulations, per
the Governor's Executive Order B-29-15, to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in potable urban
water usage remain in full force and effect through February 28, 2016.
During the same day the Governor came out with an extension of the current drought regulation,
however, the following verbiage is significant:
"if drought conditions persist through January 2oi6, the Water Board shall extend until October 31,
2o16, restrictions to achieve a statewide reduction in urban potable water usage. The Water Board
shall consider modifying its existing restrictions to address uses of potable and non -potable water,
as well as to incorporate insights gained from existing restrictions."
This allows, if the state has a wet winter and solid snowpack, for restrictions to be reduced or
lifted. The second sentence perhaps paves the way for a credit for Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR)
water. The General Manager of the Orange County Water District will be attending the
December 7 workshop and continue advocacy regarding the credit for IPR water.
Stack, P. E.
Public Works/City Engineer
Attachment:
1. USA Today October 30, 2015
2. Water Waste Enforcement Statistics October 2015
51Ciry Cntd IbmV015 Carcllle,¢111D3AIACa¢eva'm IY�kTMda At56v
ATTACHMENT 1
USA Today October 30, 2015
California fines 4 water agencies $61K for
waste
USA Today Network Sammy Roth, The (Palm Springs, Calif.) Desert Sun 12:40 a.m. EDT October 31, 2015
COACHELLA, Calif. — California's water board brought the hammer down on four Southern
California water agencies Friday, fining the Coachella Valley Water District and Indio $61,000
apiece for failing to meet Gov. Jerry Brown's conservation mandate.
The fines were a long time coming. From June through September, homes and businesses served
by the Coachella Valley Water District cut back just 27.1 %, short of their 36% target. Indio was
at 21.6%, far from its 32% goal.
Two other water agencies in California also are being fined: the cities of Beverly Hills and
Redlands, which also will pay $61,000 each.
"People have been trying. I just think some have been trying harder than others," said Felicia
Marcus, State Water Resources Control Board chairwoman.
State officials didn't mince words in criticizing the desert for not saving enough water.
Cris Carrigan, the water board's director of enforcement, said the Coachella Valley Water
District's poor numbers "illustrate a lack of sustained commitment to conservation." The district's
recent decision to postpone raising penalties for water wasters, "shows an unwillingness to take
all possible actions."
Carrigan also slammed both agencies for not issuing a single fine to customers who violated
water -waste rules from June through September despite receiving nearly 1,000 complaints in that
time. The Coachella Valley Water District issued its first two $50 fines this week.
"Millions of Californians have demonstrated their commitment to saving water during this
drought," Carrigan said. "Nevertheless, we could have saved even more water if some of the
homes, businesses and institutions in these communities had stepped up in the way that their
fellow Californians have."
John Powell Jr., president of the Coachella Valley Water District's board of directors, pushed
back against the state's criticisms. The 27% conservation that the district's customers have
managed thus far, he said, is "unprecedented."
"The representation that we haven't done enough — I think it is at odds with what we have done,
and frankly the efforts our customers have made to save a tremendous amount of water," Powell
said. "Our customers should be thanked for their response and stewardship of this precious
resource."
September was a good month for the state overall with California cities cutting their water use
26%. From June through September, urban areas used 28.1 % less water than they did during the
same months in 2013 — well above Brown's statewide mandate, which requires an overall 25%
reduction from June through February.
While the state as a whole is on track to meet its goal, the Coachella Valley is another story:
None of the area's six water agencies met their individual targets over the first four months,
meaning they could see more fines from the state, possibly as high as $10,000 a day. Five valley
water agencies have higher targets than the statewide 25% goal because per -capita water use is
so high in the desert.
Carrigan acknowledged that the $61,000 tines won't be a major deterrent for any of the four
agencies being penalized.
"We want to work with these entities that have received these fines to get them to do better,"
Carrigan said. "We don't want the fine money. We want them to do better."
The state water board chose to fine the Coachella Valley Water District and Indio $500 a day for
the 122 days from June through September, for a total of $61,000. The agencies have two weeks
to appeal their fines to the five -member water board.
Powell said the district will "challenge" the state water board on several of its concerns although
he wouldn't say whether the agency would appeal the fine. General Manager Brian Macy of the
Indio Water Authority said city officials haven't yet decided whether to appeal.
"Indio is one of the fastest growing cities in California, and we are committed to continuing
outreach to our customers as well as implementing programs to reduce water usage," City
Manager Dan Martinez said in a statement. "In the meantime, this is a reminder that we need all
our residents and businesses to join the conservation effort and help reduce water use."
Mission Springs Water District, which serves Desert Hot Springs, is even further from its
conservation goal than the Coachella Valley Water District. In August, the state water board
ordered Mission Springs to study the feasibility of adding a "drought surcharge" to water bills.
But the water board chose not to fine Mission Springs or seven other agencies that have received
similar conservation orders. Those agencies, Carrigan said, serve smaller populations and have
fewer staff members than the ones fined Friday.
ATTACHMENT 2
Water Waste Enforcement Statistics October 2015
_VY/ Z,% Sj U F_ S C [A U Cc- S
L�=
October Days of the month
2015
Total
56
155
96
20
2600
Thu
Fri Sat
Sun Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu Fri
Sat Sun Mon
Tue
Wed Thu Fri Sat
Sun Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu Fri Sat
Sun Mon
Tue
Wed Thu
Fri Sat
Enforcement Type
MMm®
ma®
Waste Water complaints
4
2
0
2
4 0
5
6
4
0 4
3
1
5
7 1
4
2
0 0
2
Follow-up Inspections
10
21
10
3
0
5 6
10
11
7
9 11
4
1
0
3 5
8
9
10 12
0
Notices of Violations issued
4
5
0
10
4
0 2
5
6
4
3 9
7
4
6
8 7
2
3
3 4
0
Civil citations issued
0
1
0
0
0
1 2
2
0
0
1 3
0
2
0
1 1
3
0
1 2
0
Fines Levied
0
100
0
0
0
500 200
200
0
0
100 400
0
2
0
100 100
400
0
100 200
2
2015
Total
56
155
96
20
2600