CC 2016-05-10_11a Update_Status of Water Supply and Demand
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GEOFF ENGLISH, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DEBBIE MALICOAT, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SHANE TAYLOR, UTILITIES MANAGER
RYAN CORNELL, ACCOUNTING MANAGER
KELLY HEFFERON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE
CITY’S WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND STATUS, WATER USE
RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS
DATE: MAY 10, 2016
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
1. Receive and file the updated water supply and demand report;
2. Approve funding plan for water conservation programming as proposed;
3. Receive and file report on status of baseline adjustment form requests;
4. Direct staff to use existing measures in the City’s Mandatory Water Use
Restrictions Ordinance to direct mandatory plumbing retrofit for commercial
properties; and
5. Provide direction to staff regarding options for the potential purchase and use
of State Water.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
Staff continues to spend a substantial amount of staff resources enforcing the City’s
emergency water shortage restrictions and regulations, including processing baseline
adjustment requests and water use penalties.
Staff time dedicated to the City’s water conservation incentive programs has decreased
with the elimination of several programs and exhaustion of funds. Currently, the only
active incentive programs include the Plumbing Retrofit Program and the Cash for
Grass Rebate Program, although funding for the latter is almost depleted. The budget
and expenditures for all programs funded by the Water Neutralization Fund are provided
on the following page, which includes Council-approved adjustments on July 28, 2015
and administrative reclassifications.
In addition, due to projected decreases in available funding, further reductions in
conservation program allocation for the FY 2016-17 is proposed as reflected on the
following page.
Item 11.a. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 2
Program
FY 2015-16
Budget
Balance
Remaining
Proposed
FY 2016-17
Budget
Turf Removal Program $ 321,000 $ 15,295 $ 0-
Washing Machine Rebates 8,000 - 0-
Smart Irrigation Controller Program 2,000 1,391 0-
Landscape Irrigation Retrofit 1,000 1,000 0-
Plumbing Retrofit Program 78,550 25,238 40,000
Irrigation Contract 15,000 - -
City Landscape Irrigation 35,000 - 19,000
Public Education Campaign 31,750 9,706 0
School Education Program 5,500 5,500 5,500
Water Conservation Workshops 3,000 2,215 0
GardenSoft Website License 500 - 500
Total: $ 501,300 $ 60,345 $ 65,000
BACKGROUND:
Overview of City Council Actions to Address Drought Conditions
The City has implemented a comprehensive approach to meeting projected water
demand and water conservation goals. In May 2003, the City Council adopted a Water
Conservation Program. Phase I of the program began in April 2004, which focused on
retrofitting existing residential plumbing with low flow fixtures. In 2008, the City Council
appropriated $50,000 from the Water Neutralization Fund to initiate water conservation
rebate programs for turf removal, high efficiency washing machines and smart irrigation
controllers.
During the June 10, 2014 City Council meeting, staff updated comprehensive strategies
to address the City's long-term water supply needs. The primary objectives of the
recommendations were to address long-term projected water demand through
increased water conservation measures, to protect existing water supply by pursuing
initial studies for a project that will use recycled water to prevent seawater intrusion, and
to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to manage the overall water supply in the
most effective manner possible.
It was also emphasized that the water supply recommendations were designed to
address future projected demand under normal weather and supply conditions and any
project aimed at preventing seawater intrusion could take up to 10 years to implement.
Therefore, an extended drought would likely cause water supply challenges for the City
that could not be addressed by water conservation measures alone. As a result, staff
was directed to establish a Water Shortage Emergency Plan.
Item 11.a. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 3
On August 26, 2014, the City Council directed staff to prepare a contingency Water
Emergency Ordinance that was adopted on February 24, 2015. Subsequently, on April
1, 2015 the Governor issued the fourth in a series of Executive Orders on actions
necessary to address California's severe drought conditions, which directed the State
Water Board to implement mandatory water reductions in urban areas to reduce potable
urban water usage by twenty-five percent (25%) statewide. On May 5, 2015, the State
Water Board adopted an emergency conservation regulation in accordance with the
Governor's directive which mandates that the City of Arroyo Grande reduce its water
use by twenty-eight (28%) percent for each month as compared to the same month in
2013. On May 26, 2015, the City Council declared a Stage 1 Water Shortage
Emergency and implemented water restrictions and regulations to residential and
irrigation water services.
On July 28, 2015, the City Council appropriated $131,000 from the Water Neutralization
Fund for the Cash for Grass Program for FY 2015-16 given the popularity and success
of the program, and eliminated funding for other water conservation incentive programs:
On September 22, 2015, the City Council considered an amendment to the consultant
services agreement with Verdin Marketing with a reduced scope of work for the Water
Conservation Public Education Program. Council action was to reallocate the $30,000
funding intended for the public education and marketing to the Cash for Grass Program.
On October 27, 2015, Council considered several alternatives to address the drought
conditions, including a Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergency and a building moratorium.
No formal action was taken and the report was received and filed.
On November 10, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 4696 amending Exhibit A
of Resolution 4659 relating to the mandatory penalties for failing to meet declared Stage
1 water shortage emergency water use requirements. The revised Exhibit A deleted the
provision that subjects customers whose bi-monthly use is ten (10) units or less to
penalties if their use increases from their assigned baseline amount.
On January 12, 2016, the City Council adopted by reference the State Model Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which will save water for new developments in the form
of irrigation efficiencies and planting requirements.
Item 11.a. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 4
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
A. WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND REPORT
Table 1 below shows the City’s current water supply portfolio and the amount of water
used from each respective supply in calendar year 2015.
Table 1. Current and Projected Water Supply – Acre Feet per Year (AFY)
Water Supply Sources: 2015
Entitlement
2015
Actual Use
Groundwater – Santa Maria Groundwater
Basin 1,323 43
Groundwater – Pismo Formation 200 44
County of San Luis Obispo
Lopez Reservoir Project 2,290 2152
TOTAL 3,813 2,239
Due in part to aggressive water conservation measures previously intended to attain the
City’s 2020 water use goal and also the mandatory Council-adopted Emergency Water
Restrictions, water consumption for the City of Arroyo Grande has dropped significantly
when compared to the baseline year of 2013. Overall water consumption dropped
approximately 35% when compared to the baseline year. Continued emphasis on water
conservation will be necessary as the City’s water supply continues to be negatively
impacted by the on-going drought conditions. Below are summaries of the conditions of
our primary water supplies.
Lopez Reservoir Supply
As of March 31, 2016, the Lopez reservoir storage level was 14,630 Acre Feet (AF),
29.7% of the total reservoir capacity (Attachment 1). The current storage level is
approximately 5,000 AF lower than the reservoir level on March 31, 2015, when the
reservoir was at 19,840 AF or 40.7% of capacity. The past winter’s rainfall was below
average and much of the rainfall received did not generate stormwater run-off due to the
dry ground conditions. The Lopez Reservoir is currently being operated under the Low
Reservoir Response Plan (LRRP). Under the LRRP, municipal deliveries have been
reduced by 10% because the reservoir is under the 15,000 AF trigger as prescribed in
the LRRP.
On May 2, 2016, the Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) considered a
proposal to recommend a proactive initiation of an additional 10% reduction in municipal
deliveries due to the fact that the next automatic LRRP reduction trigger, 10,000 AF, is
Item 11.a. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 5
projected to be reached in late fall of 2016 unless alternative water supply strategies are
developed to extend the current Lopez supply. Table 2 below shows the automatic
water use reductions outlined in the LRRP.
Table 2. Lopez Reservoir Automatic Water Use Reductions
Amount of Water In
Storage (AF)
Municipal Diversion
Reduction
Total Municipal
Diversion (AFY)
20,000 0% 4,530
15,000 10% 4,077
10,000 20% 3,624
5,000 35% 2,941
4,000 100% 0
Additionally, the LRRP allows participating agencies to “store” water not used from the
previous year’s entitlement. This past water year, the City did not use 91 AF of the
2015/16 entitlement as detailed on the Lopez Water Supplies under the LRRP for
2016/2017. (Attachment 2) This was added to the previously stored 845 AF in the Lopez
Reservoir, increasing the total Lopez supply to 2,942 AF, which is sufficient to meet
customer demand in water year 2016/17. The following graph illustrates Lopez
Reservoir storage projections.
Groundwater Supply
Item 11.a. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 6
A significant portion of the groundwater aquifer under the City is within the boundaries
of the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) of the Santa Maria Groundwater
Basin (SMGWB). Beginning in the fall of 2013, the NCMA groundwater monitoring
program identified monitoring well depths below sea level. In response, the NCMA
Technical Group, which includes representatives of the overlying municipal water
purveyors, implemented a strategy to reduce groundwater pumping in the NCMA
portion of the SMGWB, and to shift to the greatest extent possible, to utilization of
surface water. Under this strategy the City used only 3.2% of our SMGW allotment in
2015 as show in the table below.
City of Arroyo Grande Groundwater pumping from Santa Maria Groundwater Basin- 2015
The water supply strategy to limit ground water pumping and to maximize surface water,
(Lopez Reservoir and State Water) was intended to help prevent sea water intrusion
into the aquifer. This regional strategy was employed by the all of the NCMA municipal
water purveyors for most of 2014 and 2015. Despite below-average rainfall, the
2015/16 winter rainfall did have a positive impact on groundwater levels. Recent well
level measurements in the NCMA have shown an increase in groundwater elevations, in
part due to reduced pumping and from the minor improvement in rainfall this past
winter.
Compared to one year ago (April 2015), groundwater levels in all wells are currently
higher, up an average of more than 2.5 feet from one year ago. This rise will allow an
increase in groundwater pumping and a corresponding decrease in the City’s use of
Lopez Reservoir supplies. This shift in water use strategy will help extend the City’s
Lopez supplies. The City, through the NCMA Technical Group, will continue with vigilant
groundwater level monitoring efforts and will be prepared to reduce groundwater
pumping if necessary.
Item 11.a. - Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 7
Projected Two-year Water supply “Look-Ahead”
It is projected that sufficient water supply exists for anticipated customer demand for the
next two (2) years as shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Current and Projected Water Supply – Acre Feet per Year (AFY)
Water Supply Sources 2015
Entitlement
2015
Actual
Use
2016
Projected
Use
2017
Projected
Use
Groundwater – Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin 1,323 43 350 320
Groundwater- Pismo
Formation* 200 44 120 150
County of San Luis Obispo
Lopez Reservoir Project 2,290 2,152 1,830** 1,830**
TOTAL 3,813 2,239 2,300 2,300
* - Estimate of available capacity
**- Based on anticipated 20% reduction to municipal deliveries
It is recommended that each year in April or May, this two-year water supply projection
should be prepared so that alternate water supply arrangements can be made if supply
is projected to be less than demand. As indicated above, the City’s water supply is
sufficient for the next two (2) calendar years, and temporary supplemental supply is not
needed at this time. Options for temporary water supplies, should they be needed in
2018, are being explored and will be further discussed in this report.
Water Use Trends – Consumption
Mandatory water use restrictions, along with Emergency water use restrictions
previously enacted by the City Council declaration of a Stage 1 Water Shortage
Emergency, have contributed to a substantial reduction in water use demand by Arroyo
Grande customers. Water use has consistently been within the 28% reduction
requirement imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board for the City (shown
as Supplier 2015-16) as shown in Table 4 below.
Item 11.a. - Page 7
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 8
During the last drought (2007-2010), water use went down to 156 gallons per person
per day (gpd) in 2010 and then quickly went up the following year in 2011 to 170 gpd,
following heavier than normal rainfall. Average water consumption by Arroyo Grande
water customers in 2015 was 117 gpd.
Item 11.a. - Page 8
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 9
Total projected annual water demand for 2016 and 2017 is based on the ability to
maintain this per capita use. Based on staff evaluation of consumption data for January
through March 2016, the per capita gallons per day consumption is currently on track to
be lower than the 2015 average. No additional water use restrictions are recommended
at this time.
Supplemental Water Supply Options
As previously presented to Council, staff continues to pursue cooperative efforts on
regionally-focused, long-term supplemental water supply options. Given the City’s
current water condition and the unpredictability of future supplies, the Council has
previously directed staff to pursue drought-resistant water supplies to be included in
the City’s water supply portfolio. Below is a summary of the current status of three
supplemental water supply projects:
Pismo Beach Regional Groundwater Sustainability Project:
The City of Pismo Beach is currently preparing preliminary design and environmental
impact evaluation for an advanced treatment upgrade to its existing Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP). The project also includes construction of a distribution
system that will inject advanced purified water into the Santa Maria Groundwater
Basin. This proposed project will allow the City and its regional partners to increase
the recharge to the basin, improve water supply reliability and help prevent future
occurrences of seawater intrusion. Pismo Beach is currently evaluating two potential
locations for the advanced treatment facility: at the existing wastewater treatment plant;
and at an offsite location, closer to the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation
District (SSLOCSD) WWTP. The advanced treatment facility is currently scheduled to
be completed in 2019.
SSLOCSD Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study:
SSLOCSD and the City of Arroyo Grande are currently partnering on a Recycled Water
Facilities Planning Study (RWFPS) to evaluate potential opportunities to upgrade
SSLOCSD’s wastewater treatment process to provide water for agriculture irrigation or
groundwater recharge. The RWFPS will evaluate construction of upgrades at its
existing WWTP or developing an offsite advanced treatment facility, co-located with the
previously mentioned City of Pismo Beach project. According to the Regional
Recycled Water Study (Cannon 2014), a combined advanced treatment facility could
possibly provide 2,400 AFY of advanced purified water to recharge the groundwater
basin.
Item 11.a. - Page 9
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 10
Diablo Desalination:
The County of San Luis Obispo is currently working with PG&E and the Zone 3
member agencies to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing the existing desalination
infrastructure at the Diablo Canyon power plant to produce additional water that could
be delivered to the Lopez pipeline. The initial evaluation indicated that it is feasible to
construct a pipeline from the desalination facility to the Lopez pipeline and deliver
either 500 or 1,300 AFY of water to the Zone 3 member agencies. The current
estimated timeline for the Diablo Desalination project is to complete the environmental
and permitting process by January 2018 and to move into construction following that.
Project costs for these potential supplemental supply projects will be shared by the
regional partners who agree to participate and the costs divided proportionally in a
manner yet to be determined. In the near future, at key decision making points, staff will
bring back project updates for the three projects listed above for further Council review
and approval, including any financial commitments.
Following are preliminary cost estimates for the Pismo Beach Regional Groundwater
Sustainability project and the Diablo Desalination project. Both cost estimates are
based on initial design studies and will change based on further plan development.
Project Estimated Capital
Cost
Projected Yield (AFY) Approximate Unit
Cost ($/AF)
Pismo Beach Regional
Groundwater
Sustainability Project
~$30M ~700 AFY $2,120 - $2,790
Diablo Desalinization ~$30M ~1300 AFY $2,800 – $3,300
Lopez Reservoir
(current)
NA NA $1,500
The projects listed above will require several years of development, design,
environmental review and arrangement for financing.
Short-term water purchase arrangements
Short term options may include the purchase of temporary water supplies from other
local water purveyors. Water purveyors in San Luis Obispo County who have excess
water supplies may be willing to sell water to the City. For example, the City purchased
water from the Oceano Community Services District as recently as two years ago.
Similar short-term purchases may be negotiated in the future as the need arises.
Neighboring agencies currently have excess water supplies as shown in Attachment 3.
City staff will be meeting soon with representatives of all of the municipal water
purveyors in San Luis Obispo County to begin discussions about the potential
Item 11.a. - Page 10
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 11
mechanics and necessary advanced arrangements should the drought continue and
some agencies begin to encounter water supply shortfalls.
One additional supplemental water supply currently being discussed as an option is the
use of available State Water. Due to the nature of the rainfall patterns this past winter,
some of the larger reservoirs on the State Water system in Northern California have
filled. In fact, some water in Northern California reservoirs is being released to make
room for snow melt. This increased water supply has caused the State to increase its
allocation to State Water contractors. The percentage of State Water distribution for
2016 has recently been increased to 60% of the contracted amount, compared to a 20%
distribution in 2015. The County water managers are looking at options to increase use
of State Water in the County and to preserve local water supplies. Due to limited
conveyance capacity of the State Water pipeline into San Luis Obispo County and the
existence of intricate agreements for State Water use, arriving at an agreed-upon water
costs for the extra water, will be challenging.
Additionally, as the result of the 1990 voter approved Measure A, the City of Arroyo
Grande is currently prevented from purchasing State Water unless a ballot measure is
approved by a majority of the Arroyo Grande voters. Later in this report, options for the
potential use of State Water for temporary supply purposes by the City will be
discussed.
It is recommended that the City continue as previously directed by Council, with the
three potential regional supplemental water projects: the Pismo Beach Regional
Groundwater Project, the SSLOCSD Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study, and the
Diablo Desalination Project. Periodic updates on the status of these three crucial water
supply projects will be brought to Council for consideration at key decision-making
points. Additionally, it is projected that the City’s water supply is sufficient for the next
two (2) calendar years and temporary supplemental supply is not needed at this time;
however, potential arrangements for temporary water supplies from other water
purveyors are being explored in case the need arises.
B. WATER CONSERVATION INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
Due to recurring drought cycles, the City’s goal has consistently been to maintain a
sustaining conservation ethic resulting in the same level of water consumption after the
drought is over. In order to do this, the City implemented several water conservation
programs that provide relatively permanent water use reductions. The tables on the
following page summarize the success of these programs.
Item 11.a. - Page 11
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 12
Table 5. Cash for Grass Rebate Program Summary
Calendar
Year
# Applications
Submitted
# Grass
Conversions
Completed
Square
Footage of
Grass
Removed
Estimated
Gallons of
Water Saved
per Year
2009 94 65 81,238 1,462,284
2010 24 22 21,131 380,358
2011 23 21 30,333 545,994
2012 17 13 14,348 258,264
2013 14 10 15,472 278,496
2014 137 92 119,099 2,143,782
2015 306 219 302,083 5,437,494
2016 Applications not accepted in 2016
Total:
615
442
583,704
(13.4 acres)
10,506,672
(32.2 AFY)
Table 6. Water Efficient Washing Machine Rebate Program Summary
Year # Rebates Issued *Estimated Gallons of Water Saved per
Year
2009 36 108,000
2010 20 60,000
2011 22 66,000
2012 15 45,000
2013 2 6,000
2014 17 51,000
2015 70 210,000
Total:
182
546,000
(1.68 AFY)
*Based on an average savings of 10 gallons/load from older washers, and an estimated 300
loads per household per year (average of 3,000 gallons per year per machine).
Item 11.a. - Page 12
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 13
Table 7. Smart Irrigation Controller and Sensor Program Summary
Year # Smart Irrigation
Controllers Installed
Estimated Water Savings
2009 32 The standard water savings is 15%. The
number of gallons saved depends on
individual irrigation design and area.
2010 13
2011 5
2012 7
2013 2
2014 20
2015 33
Total:
112
As can be seen in the tables above, participation in the City’s water conservation rebate
programs was well-received in 2009 when they were first implemented. Advertisement
for these programs was strong during this time, but then tapered off for the next several
years. Participation increased dramatically when the City increased the rebate amounts
for the Cash for Grass and Washing Machine Rebate Programs in 2014. Success can
also be attributed to the increased awareness of the drought, an initial robust marketing
effort, and water use restrictions and penalties for non compliance. As stated above,
City funding for these incentive programs is almost exhausted.
Note that the State has implemented turf removal and toilet replacement programs, and
that new Plumbing Code regulations and landscape irrigation requirements will further
result in permanent reductions in water usage. The energy efficiency and water
standards approved today require water appliances to consume less water, thereby
using less energy, while performing the same function.
It should also be noted that since 2009, the City has contributed funding for large area
irrigation retrofits for commercial, institutional and homeowner association (HOA) water
users. W ith the contracting of Sprinkler King, Inc., the City has retrofitted the following
properties:
• Oak Park Blvd Landscaping
• Vista del Mar HOA
• Woodland Pocket Park
• Wildwood Ranch HOA
• Strother Park
• Five Cities Center
• St. Patrick’s School
• Kmart Center
• Sunrise Terrace Mobilehome
Park
• Cemetery District
• Paulding School
• Rancho Grande Park
• Ocean View Elementary
Item 11.a. - Page 13
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 14
It is estimated that 17.39 AFY is saved from the Strother Park, Paulding School, Ocean
View School, Cemetery District and Rancho Grande Park irrigation retrofits (audits for
determining post-project water savings have not been completed for the other
properties).
The City-owned Property Landscape Irrigation Retrofit Program has provided a
comprehensive effort to reduce water use at City parks and other landscaped areas.
This program involves removing turf combined with retrofitting irrigation systems and
installing drought tolerant plants. It is estimated that this program generates a water
savings of approximately 14 AFY.
Regarding the City’s water conservation education program, it is important to clarify that
the purpose of the public education program is to help meet water conservation goals to
address the City's long-term future projected water demand. It is not simply designed to
educate the public about the immediate need to conserve water due to the drought.
Although the City currently does not retain a marketing firm to promote the water
conservation campaign, staff from Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande have been
maintaining the ThinkH2O website and the Twitter account, although at a minimum
level.
Additional City public education programs included a South County Water Symposium
at the Regional Center on August 13, 2015, educational booths at various local events,
water conservation school education program for grades K-6 through Science
Discovery, and participation in a regional collaborative effort to maintain the GardenSoft
website. Staff recommends that the City maintain the following water conservation
programs: Plumbing Retrofit, City Landscape Irrigation, School Education, and
GardenSoft Website licensing. Due to an anticipated reduction in available funding, all
other previously-funded water conservation programs are not recommended for funding
in FY 16-17, as shown in the table below.
Program
FY 2015-16
Budget
Balance
Remaining
Proposed
FY 2016-17
Budget
Turf Removal Program $ 321,000 $ 15,295 $ 0
Washing Machine Rebates 8,000 - 0
Smart Irrigation Controller Program 2,000 1,391 0
Landscape Irrigation Retrofit 1,000 1,000 0
Plumbing Retrofit Program 78,550 25,238 40,000
Irrigation Contract 15,000 - -
City Landscape Irrigation 35,000 - 19,000
Public Education Campaign 31,750 9,706 0
School Education Program 5,500 5,500 5,500
Item 11.a. - Page 14
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 15
Water Conservation Workshops 3,000 2,215 0
GardenSoft Website License 500 - 500
Total: $ 501,300 $ 60,345 $ 65,000
C. BASELINE ADJUSTMENT STATISTICS
As shown in Table 8 below, the City has completed a total of 853 baseline adjustment
requests and issued 3,565 penalties. The City also held 8 water school classes since
December with a total of 135 residents participating.
Table 8. Summary of Baseline Adjustments
Jul/Aug
Sep/Oct
Nov/Dec
Jan/Feb
Mar/Apr
Total
# of Billed
Accounts NA 6,129 6,121 6,046 6,015 6,078
# of Baseline
Adjustment
Processed 145 128 177 206 197 853
# of Water
Appeals Board
Reviews - - 18 21 12 51
# of City
Manager
Appeals - - - - 2 2
# of Warning
Notices Issued - 1,185 738 217 162 2,302
# of $50
Penalties Issued - - 604 196 147 947
# of $100
Penalties Issued - - - 166 89 255
# of $200
Penalties Issued - - - - 61 61
Total: - 1,185 1,342 579 459 3,565
# of Water
School
Attendees - - 49 62 24 135
Response to customer requests for baseline adjustments have required a significant
staff time commitment; however it has been an effective tool at responding to changed
Item 11.a. - Page 15
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 16
conditions on properties that warrant an increased baseline. No changes are
requested or recommended to the baseline adjustment process at this time.
D. MANDATORY WATER USE RESTRICTION ORDINANCE OPTIONS AND
ALTERNATIVES
On May 26, 2015, the City Council adopted a Resolution declaring a Stage 1 Water
Shortage Emergency and implemented emergency water shortage restrictions and
regulations in accordance with California Water Code Section 350 and Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code Section 13.07.030; adopted an Urgency Ordinance amending Section
13.07.090 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code relating to Penalties and Enforcement
for Violations of Emergency Water Shortage Restrictions and Regulations; approved the
expansion of the City’s Turf Removal Rebate program to include Commercial properties
not currently served by an irrigation meter; and appropriated $30,000 from the Water
Fund for the hiring of temporary employees and other costs associated with
implementation of the water use restrictions.
These Council-approved actions were intended in large part to reduce water demand
below the Governor’s Executive Order for Arroyo Grande to reduce water consumption
by 28%. The Council’s measures have achieved water use savings beyond the 28%,
and additional water use restrictions are not recommended at this time. The Council
may, however, wish to direct staff to implement additional measures to further reduce
customer water consumption in order to extend the City’s water supplies. Following are
two potential areas in which the City Council may provide direction to staff to implement
further water use restriction measures.
Commercial Customer Water Restriction options
There has been some concern expressed by members in the community that
commercial/non-residential customers have not contributed to the City’s water
conservation efforts. Non-residential customers, which includes commercial,
institutional, and City buildings, represent just 15% of the total water use by Arroyo
Grande water customers as shown in the following chart:
Item 11.a. - Page 16
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 17
Additionally, non-residential customers have contributed to the City’s overall water
conservation effort by saving 22% of water use when compared to the baseline year of
2014 as shown in the chart and the graph below.
Item 11.a. - Page 17
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 18
Commercial properties were previously excluded from the mandatory water use
reduction requirements in Stage 1, in part because residents were encouraged to use
businesses that have water conserving technologies and practices such as car washes
that reuse water. Additionally, the unpredictable nature of such businesses as hotels
and restaurants would make it difficult to manage water use. These businesses also
contribute to the economic vitality of the City and reductions in business would
potentially have a negative financial impact on the City. Due to these factors, and also
because the vast majority of water use is from residential customers, the City’s water
use restrictions were primarily targeted at residential customers.
(Note: Dedicated irrigation meters were required to reduce water use by 25%. Many
commercial properties have dedicated irrigation meters.)
It is recognized however that a small number of commercial customers still do not have
low-flow indoor plumbing fixtures. Some additional water savings may be generated by
mandating that commercial properties participate in the City funded Plumbing Retrofit
program to convert to low-flow plumbing fixtures. AGMC Stage 1 Water Shortage
Emergency resolution Section 13.07.060 provides the following language allowing for a
directive to such commercial properties, “intended to preclude excessive water usage:”
“13.07.060 Additional Requirements and Restrictions during Stage 1 or Stage 2 Water
Shortage Emergency. Upon adoption of a resolution declaring a Stage 1 or Stage 2
Water Shortage Emergency the following shall apply:
1. Commercial, industrial or irrigation meter customers shall immediately follow
any directive issued or declared by the City's Water Department to conduct
water use audits, prepare water conservation plans and immediately repair
any identified water system leaks, including leaks attributable to faulty pipes
or fixtures. Commercial customers shall not violate any other water use
restrictions intended to preclude excessive water usage, as adopted by the
City.”
It is proposed that the foregoing provision be used to require commercial users who
have not already participated in the City’s mandatory plumbing retrofit program be
required to do so. Approximately 90% of the commercial customers have already
participated in the retrofit program. It is recommended that notification be provided to
all commercial properties, through the process of issuing a “directive” in accordance
with Section 13.07.060(1), requiring that those commercial customers conduct a “water
use audit”.
Thereafter, they would be required to prepare a water conservation plan that would
include participation in the plumbing retrofit program if they had not already done so,
with a specific deadline for conversion, in addition to addressing any other issues
Item 11.a. - Page 18
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 19
disclosed by the water use audit. Commercial properties that need to convert to low-
flow toilets can be directed to the City’s Plumbing Retrofit project which covers the cost
of the conversion.
Building Restriction Options
Building restrictions for new development remains an option to reduce water demand.
This tool was implemented in 2009 on development applications requiring new water
meters precipitated by a serious water supply condition as well as concern regarding
water quality samples that indicated constituents consistent with incipit of seawater
intrusion.
Moratoriums related to water shortages may be implemented in a variety of ways.
Restrictions could be placed on the acceptance of new planning applications, new
building permit applications, and/or water connections (that entail the installation or
upgrade of a water meter). As described above, current projected supply meets
anticipated demand for the next two water years. However, given continued drought
conditions, building restrictions may still be prudent when anticipated drought supply
does not meet anticipated build-out demand.
As described above, the City’s water supply is 3,813 acre feet and projected demand is
at 2,300AF, or 59% of the City’s entitlement supply. Lopez supply is reduced by 10%
currently under the LRRP and projected to be reduced by 20% in future months.
Groundwater levels in the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (SMGWB) are above the
established index level of 7.5. feet. However, pumping will conservatively remain
reduced given recent conditions below 7.5 feet. Based upon projected Lopez reduction
of 20% (1,830 AF), and total groundwater supplies based on conservative pumping
regime of the SMGWB groundwater basin of approximately 1,000 AF, the City’s
reduced supply would be approximately 2,830 AF.
Current projections indicate that build-out demand is between 2,800 and 2,900 AF,
given current demand, permanent water conservation reductions and expected per
capita increases in post drought conditions. A significant factor not calculated into
supply numbers includes 936 acre-feet of carryover water. Given these conditions,
building restrictions are not recommended at this time; however, continued close
monitoring and two-year water supply projections will be prepared for Council
consideration annually. Additionally, the City’s Urban Water Management Plan is
currently being prepared and will be brought forward to Council next month, which will
provide more detailed information on the City’s water demand and supply balance
during consecutive drought years.
Item 11.a. - Page 19
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 20
Looking forward, it is recommended that the City consider enacting building restrictions
under the following conditions unless other supply is identified:
1) Declaration of a Stage 2 water supply condition per the City’s existing ordinance
(this could occur based upon a threat to a local water supply, water delivery
system, State mandated reductions, or a combination):
2) Reduction of Lopez supply of 35%:
3) The SMGWB continually falls below the deep well index trigger level of 7.5 feet in
conjunction with Lopez supply reduction of 20% or indications of sea water
intrusion are detected.
As previously reported, recent updates to the General Plan Housing and Economic
Development Elements prioritize continued modest infill development to meet housing
needs and achieve economic sustainability. Both priorities would be seriously
jeopardized by the implementation of a moratorium as impacts would include a housing
shortfall and a further risk to the City's image as a reliable place to invest and do
business. Halting improvements to buildings and properties within the City also
diminishes the community's ability to economically develop and re-purpose existing
vacant tenant spaces. Although there are many variables depending upon how a
moratorium is enacted, it could seriously jeopardize economic development
opportunities within the City.
E. OPTIONS FOR POTENTIAL USE OF STATE WATER
At the November 6, 1990 General Municipal Election, the voters of Arroyo Grande
approved Measure “A”, as stated in the text of the measure below, which stipulates that
an affirmative vote of the voters of Arroyo Grande is required before the City of Arroyo
Grande is authorized to participate in the California State Water Project.
Measure “A” “Shall an affirmative vote of the voters of Arroyo Grande be required
before the City of Arroyo Grande is authorized to participate in the
California State Water Project?”
Furthermore, the full text of Measure A states that the City of Arroyo Grande shall not
participate, in any way, including but not limited to, the expenditure or commitment of
any funds, in the California State Water project without and an affirmative vote of a
majority of the voters voting on such a measure. The full text of Measure “A” is shown
on the following page:
Item 11.a. - Page 20
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 21
Full Text of Measure “A”
The People of the City of Arroyo Grande do hereby ordain as follows:
Section #1. The City of Arroyo Grande shall not participate, in any way, including
but not limited to, the expenditure or commitment of any funds, in the California State
Water Project without an affirmative vote of the majority of the voters voting upon
such a measure.
Section #2. This ordinance shall not be amended nor repealed without a vote of the
voters of Arroyo Grande.
City Council Resolution No. 2383 placing Measure A on the ballot and Resolution No.
2432 accepting the results of the ballot measure are included as Attachments 4 and 5
respectively.
Due to wet winter conditions in Northern California, several of the largest State
Reservoirs have filled significantly improving the State water supply. As a result, the
State of California has increased the allocation to State Water Contractors to 60% of
their full allocations. The County of San Luis Obispo has a State Water allocation of
25,000 AFY, substantially beyond the State water contracts within the County as listed
below:
SLO County State Water Entitlement: (in Central Valley Aqueduct) 25,000 ac-ft
SLO County Capacity in Coastal Branch of State Water Project: 4,750 ac-ft
Northern Cities Entitlements to State Water: Pismo Beach - 1,240 ac-ft
Oceano CSD- 750 ac-ft
County water managers are currently working on an effort to bring some of the County’s
excess State Water allocation into the County and to conserve our local water
resources. Challenges to the use of this available water supply are significant, including
but not limited to: purchase and conveyance costs, contractual limitations and the
carrying capacity of the existing coastal branch of State W ater pipeline that also serves
Santa Barbara County. Despite the challenges, given the diminishing local water
supplies, this opportunity is being given serious consideration by the County. Even if
the hurdles to the importation of this potential water supply can be addressed, the City
would not be able to use this water due to the passage of the voter approved Measure
A in 1990.
Item 11.a. - Page 21
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF UPDATE AND COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE CITY’S WATER
SUPPLY STATUS, WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
MAY 10, 2016
PAGE 22
It is recommended that the Council direct staff to continue exploring the requirements
for allowing the City to purchase and use State Water, which would include the
preparation of a future ballot measure for voter consideration. Such a ballot measure
would require substantial staff time to develop cost estimates as well as language and
arguments in favor of the ballot measure. Given the fact that supplemental water supply
needs are not projected in the next two years and due to the short time frame before
measures are due, it is not recommended to place this measure on the November 2016
ballot.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Receive and file the status report and take no action at this time;
2. Increase funding for water conservation incentive programs;
3. Suspend all water conservation programs since the City has already achieved its
goal as mandated by the State’s 20 by 2020 Water Conservation Plan and is
meeting the 28% State reduction target.
4. Require mandatory plumbing retrofit for commercial properties at a date certain;
5. Pursue a permanent supplemental supply of water through the State Water
project;
6. Direct staff to return to the City Council with options to implement a water
restriction moratorium for new development tied to stages of water availability; or
7. Provide other direction to staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, May 5, 2016. The Agenda
and staff report were posted on the City’s website on Friday, May 6, 2016. No public
comments were received.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Lopez Reservoir Storage Projection
2. Lopez Water Supplies under the LRRP for 2016/2017
3. LRRP Water Accounts – Water Year 16-17
4. Resolution No. 2383- State Water
5. Resolution No. 2432- State Water
Item 11.a. - Page 22
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 11.a. - Page 23
ATTACHMENT 2
Item 11.a. - Page 24
ATTACHMENT 3
Item 11.a. - Page 25
ATTACHMENT 4
Item 11.a. - Page 26
Item 11.a. - Page 27
Item 11.a. - Page 28
ATTACHMENT 5
Item 11.a. - Page 29
Item 11.a. - Page 30
Item 11.a. - Page 31
Item 11.a. - Page 32
Item 11.a. - Page 33
Item 11.a. - Page 34
Item 11.a. - Page 35
Item 11.a. - Page 36
Item 11.a. - Page 37
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 11.a. - Page 38