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

Water Conservation Water 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 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 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 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 Slow But 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 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 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 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 Opportunities Many 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 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 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 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 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 GROUPS Process, Institutions, & Coordination Irrigation Landscape Design, Plants, Turf Grass & Soils Economics

We Finished It! 43 recommendations 76 specific actions to implement the recommendations Top 12 AB 1881 submitted

Top 12 Recommendations 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 Recommendations Top 12 Recommendations 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 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 1881 AB 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? 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 Labeling Purpose 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” Labeling “Water 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:

Recommendations for the Bay Area Agencies Recommendations 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