Water Conservation on a Larger Scale Mary Ann Dickinson Executive Director California Urban Water Conservation Council September 28, 2006.

Water ConservationWater Conservation on a Larger Scale on a Larger Scale

Mary Ann DickinsonExecutive Director

California Urban Water Conservation Council

September 28, 2006

Water ConservationWater Conservation

• Incentive programs in place since 1991• Best Management Practices in a

Memorandum of Understanding• CUWCC exists to promote voluntary

incentives from water agencies• Standard for investment is local cost-

effectiveness

Council TodayCouncil Today• Currently 370 signatories:

– 205 water agencies (80% of water supplied statewide)

– 34 environmental groups– 131 “other”

• BMP List revised to 14 in 1997• Yearly BMP revisions• Now revising: BMPs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13

& 14

Council ActivitiesCouncil Activities• Technical Assistance (studies & workshops)• Analysis of BMP costs and water savings• Guidelines for Cost-Effectiveness • Database-backed Web Site for BMP Reporting• Statewide Conservation Programs• Standards and Code Setting• Green Building and Energy Research• Grant Assistance to Water utilities, including

IOU’s

Savings CalculationsSavings Calculations• Conservation calculation of BMP Actions• Adjustments for:

– Savings decay

– Natural replacement

– Freeridership

• BMP by BMP on web site• 1,333,406 AF since 1991

But Progress is SlowBut Progress is Slow

• Few water utilities have met 100% of the BMP goals

• Projected savings not realized• Reliable savings are coming from standards,

not voluntary programs• CALFED Report reviewing four years of

urban water use efficiency programs showed the strongest gains from standards

AB 2496AB 2496• Lowers flush volume from 1.6 gpf to 1.3 gpf

“high efficiency toilet”• Lowers urinal volume to .5 gpf• Dates:

– 1/1/2009 tank type in new construction

– 1/1/2009 urinals sold or installed

– 1/1/2010 tank type sold or installed in stores

– 1/1/2011 flushometer sold or installed

Water Energy UsageWater Energy Usage• California’s water systems energy-intensive• 7-8% energy use for large water systems • If consumer end use is included:

– 19% of electric energy load in California

– 32% of natural gas energy load in California

• 33% of city’s budget can be for water pumping• 34% of water facility’s O&M budget for

energy

Energy Partnership NeededEnergy Partnership Needed

• Energy efficiency well funded and regulated: $700 million/year over next three years

• Water efficiency not well funded or regulated• CEC Report: 95% of the energy efficiency

goals could be met in water efficiency programs at 58% of the cost

• Need better utility as well as consumer recognition of benefits

Many Efficiency OpportunitiesMany Efficiency Opportunities

• Residential Clothes Washers• Commercial Clothes Washers• Commercial Ultra Low Flow Toilets• Landscape Conservation• Residential Audits and Retrofits for

Energy and Water• Commercial Dishwashers• Pre-rinse spray valves

Water Factor StandardsWater Factor Standards• Council provided CEC with data on water

and energy savings, rebate experience• CEC set water factor standard for commercial

clothes washers: 9.5 or lower• Water factor standard for residential clothes

washers:– 8.5 or lower by 2007– 6.0 or lower by 2010

• Federal waiver petition filed with DOE

600,000 people and over 200,000 homes per year

Green Building IssuesGreen Building Issues• LEED only awards 6 points for water efficiency

• Technical Advisory Group working on significant changes (Council chairs)

• Other green building initiatives similarly weak on water efficiency

• “California Friendly” and “Smart from the Start” pilot programs in California

• EPA “Water Sense” Homes Project

• HETs, HEWs, Showers, Landscape, Hot Water Design

Hot Water Design IssuesHot Water Design Issues

• CEC recognition of energy and water savings opportunity

• Prop 50 research project by Lawrence Berkeley Labs

• Developing new building standards for hot water systems in residential and commercial as partnership opportunity with LEED, CEC, CUWCC, and developers

AB 2717AB 2717• Became law September, 2004• CUWCC formed Landscape Task Force to

review landscape water issues, make recommendations for improvements

• Representatives from water suppliers, landscape & building industries, cities & counties, environmental groups, and state & federal agencies

TECHNICAL WORK GROUPSProcess, Institutions, & Coordination IrrigationLandscape Design, Plants, Turf Grass & SoilsEconomics

We Finished It!We Finished It!

• 43 recommendations • 76 specific actions

to implement the recommendations

• Top 12 • AB 1881 submitted

Top 12 Top 12 RecommendationsRecommendations

1. Adopt water conserving rate structures

2. Reduce the ET Adjustment Factor

3. Enforce and monitor compliance

4. Require dedicated landscape meters

5. Promote use of recycled water

6. Local ordinances at least as effective as the State Model Ordinance

Top 12 Top 12 RecommendationsRecommendations

7. Increase the public’s awareness

8. Require smart controllers

9. Prohibit overspray & runoff statewide

10. Certify landscape professionals

11. Upgrade the CIMIS

12. Adopt performance standards for irrigation equipment

Property Owners Associations should not restrict use of native plants

AB 1881AB 1881• Landscape Task Force recommendations

which require state policy change:– Require DWR to adopt new AB 325 Model

Ordinance by 1/1/2009 and local agency adoption by 1/1/2010; report to the Legislature about compliance 1/31/2011

– Require CEC to adopt standards and labeling for irrigation equipment and to report to the Legislature by 1/1/2010

AB 1881AB 1881• More:

– Require separate dedicated irrigation meters on new construction after 1/1/2008, on properties more than 5,000 sq ft of irrigated landscape and excluding Single family residential

– Prohibit HOA restrictions on drought landscapes

CALFED?CALFED?• Rearranging the organizational structure• Water Use Efficiency no longer a separate

program• Folded into the “Integrated Water Resources

Management Program”• Still considering urban certification

– Locally-cost effective conservation under the MOU

– State Water Resources Control Board to decide?

• Stakeholders pressed for water labeling program as companion to Energy Star label

• Benefits of energy labeling needed to be experienced in water

• Marketing surveys and focus groups showed high level of consumer interest

Purpose of LabelingPurpose of Labeling• WaterSense labeling program is intended to

stimulate market transformation• Consumers need clear signals as to which

products are more water efficient• Labeling not meant to deter market

competition, but to enhance it• EPA’s “specifications” are not standards, but

labeled products can be testing ground for future standards

“ “Water Star” LabelingWater Star” Labeling• Market research and trademark by East Bay

Municipal Utility District• Desire close coordination with EPA “Water

Sense” labeling program• CA Startup Funding awarded by grant:

$217,000 • Pending request for additional $1.3 million• Target year for planning: 2006-2007

Recommendations Recommendations for the Bay Area Agencies for the Bay Area Agencies• Define true maximum conservation potential• Consider incentives for water conservation in

agency contracts, rates, capital budget planning and IRP

• Develop non-competitive cooperation between wholesalers and retailers

• Consider legislative and programmatic strategies to benefit the region

• Require all retailers to sign the MOU