Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 WATER CONSERVATION UPDATE - NOVEMBER 2015 =T., 1Y 0 Agenda Item 8 AGENDA REPORT Reviewed: alt City Manager GSVI~ I Finance Director �( N/A MEETING DATE: JANUARY 5, 2016 TO: JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER FROM: DOUGLAS S. STACK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: WATER CONSERVATION UPDATE — NOVEMBER 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 November 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 November 2015 and calculated a 20% savings in water production when compared to November 2013. The Water Board is seeking a cumulative 28% reduction between June 2015 and February 2016. The City's current cumulative savings is 28%. Below is the City of Tustin's required report for the month of November 2015, which was submitted to the State on December 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? Water Conservation Update—November 2015 January 5, 2016 Page 2 4. How many complaints of water waste or violation of conservation rules were 16 received during the reporting month? 5. How many contacts(written or verbal)were made with customers for actual or 125 alleged water waste or for a violation of water conservation rules? 6. How many formal warning actions(e.g.: written notifications, warning letter,door 54 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 13 conservation rules? 8. Optional enforcement actions: $1900 in fines 9. This year's total potable water production for the reporting month (including 721.9 AF agricultural supply). 1o. Your 2013 water production for the same reporting month. 911.o AF 11. The quantity of water delivered for all commercial, industrial,and institutional 86.6 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 43.3 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 88% 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. 67,70o 18. Enter your estimate of the residential gallons-per-capita-day(R-GPCD). 101.9 19. You may optionally report any recycled water beneficially used during the None reporting month. Other Actions Taken 1. At the December 3, Municipal Water District of Orange County's (MWDOC) Water Use Efficiency meeting, 16 of the County's water agencies attended and presented their November reduction numbers. Of the agencies present, only one agency stated they met their required goal for the month. In response to not meeting their target, Mesa Water District Board voted on December 15 to implement stricter regulations prohibiting Water Conservation Update—November 2015 January 5, 2016 Page 3 sprinkler systems running at businesses, condos, and apartments in Costa Mesa. Single family homes can use sprinklers one day a week, but all other properties can only water using a hose. The article from the Orange County Register on Mesa's new restrictions is attached. 2. The City and Tustin Unified School District both continued to reduce water usage for their respective facilities. The City reduced water usage by 68% while Tustin Unified reduced water usage by 38%. 3. The MWDOC will begin funding turf removal projects for those customers who submitted an application after July 9, and were placed on a waiting list. There are currently 22 Tustin Water customers on the waiting list. Customers will be notified in December and will need to complete their project by the end of April. 4. Code enforcement statistics for the month of November 2015 have been provided as an attachment to this report. 5. An insert was included in the November billing cycle reminding customers of the one day watering schedule. The City's webpage and Facebook page was updated to include this information. 6. On January 22, 2016 the Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board will be speaking locally at a MWDOC presentation. It is anticipated that she will discuss the likely extension of the current drought regulations to October 2016. The drought • regulations are set to expire in February 2016, and did not provide credit for the County's recycling of sewer water. The new regulations are expected to take such projects into considerations. 7. On December 14, the Poseidon Water desalination plant had a grand opening ceremony in Carlsbad. Once fully operational it will create 50 million gallons of freshwater a day for San Diego County or about 10% of the County's overall supply. The successful launch of the plant is expected to benefit the approval process for a similar facility in Huntington Beach. As part of the Orange County Water District's approval process, Poseidon must demonstrate it can operate the Carlsbad facility for 90 consecutive days. Although the Carlsbad facility was estimated to cost $1 billion the current drought has led to 15 additional desalination projects being considered throughout the state. The San Diego Union Tribune article on the Carlsbad facility is attached. Doy las $. Stack, P.E. e Itor of Public Works/City Engineer Attachment(s): 1. Water Waste Enforcement Statistics August to November 2015 2. Orange County Register, December 15, 2015 San Diego Union-Tribune, December 13, 2015 51Liy council It%na12015Courctl I1enA114120151Consen,ahou update ovmer2015 t x ATTACHMENT 1 Water Waste Enforcement Statistics August to November 2015 Ln O 4- N 0 CD N O O Ln N O Z ®tet � 1.0m O C: �n Li N � et C) O q* r- O O 0 N Ln Ln r -r O M ® N Ln a' r-1 O 0 m N O c m N cN i®N 0 � N O r -i N d 00 M O cn cN m W N r4 O 0 r -i 8 0 O O O O L �B�N o� Vm LL. 8M Ln 00 0 0 _ o ®M Ln f -i O 3 ® M 00 qCT �4 O Q v n ® Ln M Ph 0 0 F— c 0 � M N O1 e1 O W c Z' H N aLn r\ n O O LLM 00 Ln O O Y� i © M r- N O W ; © M N N O Qc© N N to qt O O c N +J vi NLn � c an Q O p L Q O U O O4J �Q c > c H v Q O '> 3 UJ LO v 3U U wY L +.1 VI Ln O O C O > >>� > U- Z U U- V w Lit — o N 0 � O O ON rNj CT) 3 � 00 � O O aim cf 00 M e -I 00 c 0 �� M Ln N N O =e �0M ®rnrH ® M r- 00 3 ®N ®�kD ��o ®N M N O c m 41M i ii N Un N 0 N i O �8N M v 0 Ln '0 v , ltd* 00 lczr 0 0 ® M Ln N O O 0 >. 0 B M ,'-'1 Ln .-+ 0 � o 41 M LL ® I� M 0 0 N 00 LD O O M N N QICT c o � N ) (�--� LL M N M O t�1% ©N TM4 Nr -4 O N 3 ©M Q1 tD .-i O ©q*LnRTOO �N �V) V) QOC� s L Q Q O L N 4 1� Q O WV,:- J uvii O ,U N "O W 0 0 C ' � Z U w Ln N O d ,-I M N N V) �w ;.Mo O O O O 8 O d N O N v0 BO�cn-40 ® NMMOO 0 N M O c�Z3 fn LL ®.� Vl rl� -4 O r -I (31 Ln O lD O O l r -I .1 It* N N i O � Nn N o O CDy- ® CJ 01 M .-4 O Ln N 0 O �8N (� (� LL O lD N N O LJ T V1 O e-1 O Lf) © O O d' O O O M O -j O O m r L^� ©r -I r-.4 O O O �o LL N N Lf) O © Q `H T O O v wwm U v o v ,N � 2VI O L� L r 1 o �• O N v o U L f0 p > O > LLZ U Li- V w LM !-4 o NrN., U) r -I oi M O rn •-+ o 0 LL 8 0 M O .-i 00 0 v1 ct O O O X80 E 0 T-1 00 O O 0 _®oN 5. 8 _ m {� n LL® 0 Ln r -i 0 0 O f- .-4 N O l! c �l, cu 3 ® 0 O O O O IL 0 C) 0o�0 LL © N N .--I ri 0 N n ( i �`i -0 c 0 © N 01 LA v-4 O � " c fr c N � N N -a.o O up /L� C- uQ � •� L Lo Q) Q .�..i •> fL u 0 O a U v p o 0 0 > w Z U w /\ 11 U ACll UU�%UEHY 7- Orange - Oo ran o e County Re o osier — Mesa Water Mstr t December 15,9 MIS Sin Di - :o Union T ib�ane, C�rlsb�c•� Des�lin�tion Plant December 23, 20aS Orange Couny Reg'MW Ao watering for Casa Maas apar cma v and businesses after water dojaf Ncc Mc reales Tars NcUan By JORDAN GRAHAM 2015-12-15 20:00:20 COSTA MESA — Businesses, condos and apartment buildings in Costa Mesa can no longer run sprinkler systems to water their lawns and plants after the Mesa Water District Board voted Tuesday evening to increase its drought restrictions. The board ordered the heightened restrictions in response to news that Mesa Water missed its state -mandated water reduction target of 20 percent for the third consecutive month, managing to conserve only 5.6 percent in November. While the district's high water savings in the summer initially compensated for low fall conservation, the meager November numbers finally dropped Mesa Water's cumulative savings to 19 percent — below the state -required threshold. The board's decision marks the third time since May it has voted to increase drought restrictions. In May, Mesa Water limited irrigation -system watering to two days per week. In November, it lowered it to one day. "That didn't have the impact that we had hoped," said Mesa Water General Manager Paul Shoenberger. "And our December usage (so far)....is not meeting the 20 percent that we need. We knew the status quo was not going to get us there." The new restrictions will apply to commercial, industrial, public and multi -family customers irrigating with potable water. Residents of single-family homes will not be affected by the new rule, and can continue to run sprinklers before 8 a.m. and after 5 p.m. on Saturdays. Plants and lawns at single-family homes can be watered any day at anytime using a hose outfitted with a spray nozzle. But at any other type of property, watering can be done only with a hand-held watering can or container. The new restriction expires at the end of February, when the board may consider whether to extend it. Costa Mesa will not be affected by the new rule, because it irrigates city land only with reclaimed water, said city spokesman Tony Dodero. Mesa Water officials have said that conserving water has been more difficult this fall because it has been hotter than those months in 2013, the year that current savings are measured against. But Mesa Water's 7.7 percent savings were by far the lowest conservation rate in Orange County— about half the rate of the county's second-lowest saver, neighboring Newport Beach at 14.2 percent. Contact the writer: jgraham(a�ocregister.com or 714-796-7960 ©Copyright 2015 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved. The San Diego Union-Tribune State's biggest desal plant to open: What it means California, county enter new era with opening of Poseidon Water plant in Carlsbad i By Bradley J. Fikes 6:28 a.m. Dec. 13, 2015 Poseidon Water's desalination plant in Carlsbad is poised to begin regular operations within days — decades after water officials first considered harvesting drinking water from the sea and 14 years after they formally took the first steps toward its construction. The opening, to be celebrated with an anticipatory ceremony Monday, will be a milestone for the company, for arid San Diego County and for all of California. The San Diego region, which imports most of its water, will enter a new era in its quest for a reliable supply of this precious and increasingly pricey commodity. For the first time, a significant portion of its water supply will come from the sea. Poseidon will sell the fresh water it produces to the San Diego County Water Authority, the region's main provider. The authority will resell that water to retail districts that serve residents, schools and businesses. The Poseidon plant can create up to 5o million gallons of fresh water a day; that's about 8 percent to 10 percent of the county's overall supply. For California, the Poseidon plant represents the mainstreaming of seawater desalination in California. Ocean desalination has long been used in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Australia and Israel, where the company that designed the Carlsbad plant, Israel Desalination Enterprises, is based. Israel's extensive use of desalination to conquer a seemingly perpetual drought has become an internationally recognized success story. California may be poised to join the trend. About 15 other desalination projects have been proposed for the state's coastline, from the San Francisco Bay Area to Southern California. The figure doesn't include those in Mexico that would serve San Diego County to varying degrees. And for Poseidon, successfully operating the largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere would demonstrate that large-scale ocean desalination is feasible in California. It could strengthen the company's case for building a similar facility in Huntington Beach. While desalination of brackish water has been common, seawater desalination has been mostly confined to niche applications where no other source of water is available, such as on Catalina Island. Along with other steps that San Diego County officials have taken or hope to take, from buying water from Imperial Valley farmers to potentially recycling wastewater into tap water, ocean desalination could give the region greater control over its water destiny. That prospect comes at a steep price: Altogether, the undertakings will cost billions of dollars. Business, agricultural and residential water utility customers will bear these expenses. Water from the Poseidon plant costs about twice as much as water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the region's largest water wholesaler. Ocean desalination is also more expensive than the drinking water recycled from sewage, from which the city of San Diego plans to get one-third of its drinkable water by 2035. Previous city leaders rejected the option, fearing a public backlash over what some dubbed "toilet to tap." San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer — urged on by regulators, environmentalists, the life-sciences industry and others — has decided that the need for water recycling is too great to continue passing it up. He and the City Council last month supported a multi-year increase in water bills partly to pay for expansion of the recycling infrastructure, which is expected to grow from a single-site pilot project to a network of filtration plants, pumps and pipelines. Critics of the Poseidon plant in Carlsbad said its technology uses enormous amounts of electricity, harms marine life and locks San Diegans into a costly option that they could have avoided entirely. They said for years the region's elected officials and water managers should have put more stress on everyday conservation while being more aggressive in starting water recycling. End of the pipeline San Diego County has always been vulnerable to drought because it has little water of its own and is located at the end of the pipeline for imported water. This vulnerability didn't hit home until the late 198os. Until then, the Metropolitan Water District had proved to be an extremely reliable source of water. In most years, there was an abundance, and in lean years there was still enough to scrape by. That changed with the severe drought of 1987 to 1992. By 1991, Metropolitan board members were seriously discussing a proposal to cut water deliveries to its member agencies by 5o percent. Since the agency supplied about 95 percent of the water used in the county, that would have represented a ruinous cutback. By contrast, the city of Los Angeles was less vulnerable. The city had secured its own municipal supply decades ago from the Owens Valley, and used Metropolitan water as a secondary source. That 5o percent cut never materialized, thanks to the last-minute storms that produced what went down in history as "Miracle March" in 1991. The county water authority resolved to get the county out of that vulnerable position by diversifying its supply. This included conserving water and securing supplies from outside Metropolitan. Ocean desalination became part of that mix of options. The Poseidon plant arose out of two events at the turn of the century. One, Poseidon began a feasibility study in 2000 about building a desalination plant in Carlsbad by the Encina power plant, the location that was ultimately chosen. Two, the San Diego County Water Authority voted in 2001 to spend $50,000 to search for good locations for a desalination plant. The Carlsbad site had the significant advantage of being able to piggyback on an existing seawater intake and return system, used to cool the power plant. That meant the desalination plant should have less of an environmental impact than at other coastal locations. Moreover, the city of Carlsbad was interested in securing the water. Then as now, desalination cost more than other sources of water. But the difference had narrowed considerably by 2001. In 1991, Southern California Edison shut down an experimental seawater desalination plant it built on Catalina Island. The desalted water produced by that facility cost about $3,000 per acre-foot. In 2001, Poseidon reported having reduced that expense to about $560 per acre- foot, about 7 percent more than the $521 per acre-foot that members of the county water authority paid for water at the time. An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons of water — what two average single-family households use in a year. Busting the budget In the early woos, the Poseidon plant was estimated to cost about $270 million, a figure that rose to $300 million, to $53o million and finally to about $1 billion. One environmentalist critic, Peter Gleick, named it one of the "zombie" water projects that would never get built, but never die. However, the price for other sources of water also went up, and continued shortages of imported water drove home the desirability of a local source. Now, 14 years later, the actual cost of Poseidon's desalination water turned out to be about $2,000 an acre-foot, while water from Metropolitan costs about half that. Plans for the desalination plant were changed, environmental mitigation added in, and energy costs to run the plant also rose. Years of planning reviews and public hearings lay ahead, along with protests and lawsuits over potential environmental harm, along with a temporary halt to talks between the county water authority and Poseidon in 2006. This was prompted by a decision of the power plant's owner to replace it with a new facility that didn't need seawater for cooling. The switch made an environmental impact report based on the earlier assumption no longer valid. "Please know that this board is fully committed to seawater desalination as an important water supply for the county, but we will no longer pursue such a facility in Carlsbad.," wrote then-water authority Chairman James Bond in an opinion article in the North County Times. "Rather, we will focus our seawater desalination efforts in other parts of the county and work closely with our member agencies on other local water supply projects." At that time, it looked like Poseidon and the city of Carlsbad might conclude their own deal. But Carlsbad by itself lacked the financial heft the county water authority carried, essential for financing the project. Poseidon pushed ahead, and in 2008 won a critical approval from the California Coastal Commission, which had previously been skeptical of the project. Other good news for Poseidon swiftly followed. In 2009, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board unanimously approved a permit for the plant, lawsuits against the plant were rejected and various local water agencies signed on to buy water from Poseidon. However, those agencies struggled to conclude a workable deal, so they asked the county water authority to help. That agency stepped in, and after months of negotiations approved a term sheet setting the general conditions, followed by more negotiations. Final approval came on Nov. 29, 2012 New environment The three years since that approval have both confirmed and challenged assumptions that went into the desalination project. Extended drought has confirmed that San Diego County needs more local sources of water to provide a reliable supply. But now that the water is available, local water agencies may not benefit as they anticipated — at least in the short term. Under Gov. Jerry Brown's executive order for the drought, water agencies must cut back an average of 25 percent from residential water use of two years ago. That mandate is strictly based on past usage, and doesn't take into account any new sources of water that a region may have been able to secure. The county water authority and other civic leaders said this arrangement is unfair, pointing to the billions of dollars they have spent on water reliability programs during the past 25 years. Those efforts have allowed the region to lower its demand for water from Northern California and the Metropolitan Water District. Such investments should be recognized with lower conservation targets, the local leaders said. Brown has given general assurances that he will make adjustments once the existing conservation mandate expires in February. He hasn't specified whether San Diego County's water-reliability programs, including the new supply from the Poseidon facility in Carlsbad, will influence his calculations. And if the much-heralded El Nino storms don't relieve the drought by January, Brown said he will extend the conservation mandate.