CC 2016-10-11_12b Water Use Restriction Measures and Options
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DROUGHT TEAM:
BOB MCFALL, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
GEOFF ENGLISH, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DEBBIE MALICOAT, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DAVID HIRSCH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
SHANE TAYLOR, UTILITIES MANAGER
KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
NICOLE VALENTINE, ACCOUNTING MANAGER
PATRICK HOLUB, PLANNING INTERN
TIM SCHMIDT, WATER SERVICE WORKER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION
MEASURES AND OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS
DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2016
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
1. Receive and file the updated water supply and demand report;
2. Approve triggers and additional water use restrictions for the next step of
Stage 1 water emergency restrictions and direct staff to bring back an
implementing Resolution;
3. Direct staff to bring back a draft Resolution revising the Stage 1 water
emergency restrictions to increase mandatory conservation for dedicated
irrigation meters from 25% to 50%; and
4. Approve a revised funding plan for water conservation programming and
appropriate an additional $8,450 from the Water Neutralization Fund, as
proposed.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
At the end of Fiscal Year 2015-16, the Water Neutralization Fund had a fund balance of
$32,843. It is estimated that $92,000 in revenues to the Water Neutralization Fund will
be generated in Fiscal Year 2016-17, which includes $50,000 in transfers from the
Water Fund, for a total of approximately $124,843. The City Council has previously
allocated $101,750 from this fund, leaving an unallocated balance of $23,093 that could
be used for additional water conservation programing during the balance of the current
Fiscal Year. Staff recommends appropriating $8,450, for a total appropriation of
$110,200 as discussed later in the report.
Item 12.b. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES AND
OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OCOTBER 11, 2016
PAGE 2
BACKGROUND:
The City of Arroyo Grande continues to experience historic drought conditions. The
drought conditions have negatively impacted the City’s water supply and have
necessitated State-wide water conservation requirements. The City Council has
responded to the drought conditions and water supply reductions by implementing the
City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan as outlined in the City’s Urban Water
Management Plan.
On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted a set of comprehensive strategies to
address the City's short-term and long-term water supply needs. The objectives of these
water supply strategies were to address long-term projected water demand through
increased water conservation measures, and to protect the existing water supply by
pursuing the future use of recycled water.
On February 24, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 669 establishing an
emergency Water Shortage Contingency Plan by adding Chapter 13.07 to the Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code (“AGMC”) providing for Emergency Water Shortage Restrictions
and Regulations, to be put in place in case mandatory water use restrictions became
necessary to meet water demand and to address any potential negative impacts on the
City’s water supply. The Ordinance included two methodologies based upon two stages
of water shortage emergency:
Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency
A Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency shall be declared when there have been impacts
to the City’s water supply and/or it has been determined that it is imminent that the water
supply will be less than projected demand. All customers will then be required to reduce
water usage by a percentage compared to the same billing period in a specified prior
year, which will be established by Resolution. The amount of mandatory water use
reduction established by the Resolution may be increased or decreased by adopting
another Resolution as supply and demand conditions change.
Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergencies
A Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergency shall be declared when it has been determined
that it is imminent that the water supply is or will be equal to or less than amounts
determined necessary to meet basic minimum household health and safety
requirements. Therefore, the purpose of Stage 2 requirements is to limit water usage to
the minimum amount necessary for public health since the City will likely need to make
arrangements for some type of emergency water supply deliveries.
On May 26, 2015, pursuant to the provisions in AGMC Section 13.07.030 and after
holding a noticed public hearing in accordance with the requirements of Water Code
Section 350, the City Council adopted Resolution 4659 declaring a Stage 1 Water
Shortage Emergency and implementing reductions in water usage based upon historical
use. The Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency as established by Resolution of the City
Item 12.b. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES AND
OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OCOTBER 11, 2016
PAGE 3
Council has been implemented, is being enforced and is summarized in the attached
notice to residents. (Attachment 1) The actions by the City Council were enacted due to
local water supply concerns and due to State of California mandated water conservation
requirements for water purveyors.
On May 10, 2016, the City Council considered a comprehensive report on the City’s
water supply and demand and adopted a two-year look-ahead approach to continue
closely monitoring the City’s water supply status. In addition, the Council:
• Approved a funding plan for water conservation programming;
• Directed staff to use existing measures in the City’s Mandatory Water Use
Restrictions Ordinance to direct mandatory plumbing retrofit for commercial
properties; and
• Directed staff to move forward with efforts to place a measure on the
November ballot regarding the potential purchase and use of State Water.
On June 28, 2016, the City Council adopted a Resolution calling for the placement of a
ballot measure regarding the authority for the purchase of water from the California
State Water Project under emergency conditions at the General Municipal Election to be
held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
On August 23, 2016, the City Council considered the imposition of a moratorium on
development and annexation, but no action was taken. However, the Council did direct
staff to place on a future City Council agenda, the consideration of refined water supply
condition “triggers” that will prompt implementation of the next steps for further
reductions to the use of the City’s water supply. Council subsequently requested
additional information to be part of this report. The next steps are discussed further in
the report below.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
I. EXPANDED WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND REPORT
The City’s long term water supply continues to be of concern as the drought endures
and the two primary water sources, Lopez Reservoir (Lopez) and groundwater, are
depleting. The extended drought has resulted in a reduction in deliveries of Lopez
water. In anticipation of the Lopez Reservoir reaching the 10,000 Acre Foot (AF) level,
in April of 2016, staff proactively reduced deliveries by 20 percent of the City’s annual
allotment. A copy of the Lopez Reservoir Storage Projection dated September 30, 2016
is attached. (Attachment 2)
A monthly report on the status of the Lopez water supply is provided to the City Council
that includes up to date supply and demand information, but does not include additional
challenges to the water supply that are not quantified in monthly Water Supply and
Demand reports. As the level of the Lopez Reservoir declines, new operational
Item 12.b. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES AND
OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OCOTBER 11, 2016
PAGE 4
challenges have arisen. Current challenges and issues that may affect the Lopez
Reservoir water supply are the following:
• Water Quality: Due in part to the low water levels, there has been an increase in
water hardness and pH causing a buildup of scale throughout the treatment
plant which, in turn, results in clogged sample lines, valves and pumps. The
County has provided increased levels of maintenance to the effected
components, which is expensive and labor intensive. The solution may include
the need for additional advanced water treatment components including
commercial grade water softening equipment. As the reservoir level continues
to decline, water quality issues will increase.
• Minimum Pool determination: Establishing the exact level of the minimum pool,
or the level of the reservoir at which water drains through gravity to the treatment
plant, has not been definitively established. Information previously provided by
the County has stated that the minimum pool is 4,000 AF as this is the level at
which the reservoir water will no longer “gravity feed” into the treatment plant.
The Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee has requested that the County initiate
a study as soon as possible to determine the exact level of minimum pool and to
provide options on how to access this water if necessary. As an example, at
Lake Cachuma, a barge and pump assembly to pump water to the treatment
plant is now required. This information will be forth-coming in the next few
months.
• Water Supply Accounting: As the remaining supply in the reservoir is depleting,
accounting and “ownership” of this supply is becoming more important. City staff
are working with the Zone 3 Technical Advisory Committee and County Public
Works staff to establish a clear understanding of the accounting of the remaining
supplies so that the various Zone 3 agencies can determine their respective
available supplies. As each member agency is not utilizing full allocations and
storing the unused allocations, and as downstream releases will be decreased in
accordance with the Low Reservoir Response Plan, it is currently projected that
the previously allocated municipal diversions of 3,624 AF for water years 16/17
and the 17/18 municipal diversions will be available for delivery. Any water
deliveries from the Lopez Reservoir beyond April 1, 2018 will be dependent on
reservoir replenishment from stormwater runoff.
In addition, the ongoing drought has negatively impacted groundwater levels. Despite
having limited impact on increasing reservoir levels, the 2015/16 winter storms did result
in some improvements to the groundwater recharge and have allowed for a shift in
water use strategy to increase groundwater pumping. Notwithstanding the recent and
modest improvements, groundwater conditions are still precarious and the potential for
seawater intrusion into the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) groundwater still
poses a concern. Prudent pumping regimes continue to be maintained by the NCMA
agencies.
Item 12.b. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES AND
OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OCOTBER 11, 2016
PAGE 5
Staff had previously calculated that based on the current condition of its water sources,
the City has adequate water supply to meet the anticipated demand for the next two
years. Following is the projected two-year water supply “Look-Ahead” that was
presented to the City Council on May 10, 2016. It was recommended at the time that
the two-year water supply and demand look-ahead be reviewed every spring, following
the annual winter storms to reassess the condition of the City’s water supplies.
Current and Projected Water Supply – Acre Feet per Water Year (AFY)
Water Supply Sources Entitlement
2015/16
Actual
Use
2016/17
Projected
Use
2017/18
Projected
Use
Groundwater – Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin 1,323 43 150 220
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 2,100 2,200
*- Based on 20% reduction to municipal deliveries
Based on the above projections, the City’s water supply is sufficient to meet the
anticipated demand through April 1, 2018. Options for temporary water purchases are
being explored for 2018 and will be brought forward for Council consideration should the
need arise.
The estimated cost of State water for current State water sub-contractors is
approximately $1,250 to $1,350 per acre foot; however the actual per acre foot cost to
the City for State water that may be available from State water subcontractors within
San Luis Obispo County is unknown and subject to variations at the time of purchase.
Additionally, the amount of water that may be needed to supplement the City’s existing
supply will be dependent on future weather conditions. Purchases of supplemental
water supplies are expected to be covered in large part by the water customers at the
time of the purchase; however, there is approximately $1.4 million available in the Water
Availability Fund to cover costs for acquisition of a new water supply should it be
needed to supplement the water supply available at the time.
In an effort to clarify the difference between the City’s water entitlement and water
available to use, the following chart has been prepared. A comparison was made
between 2008, a year in which the amount of entitled water and the available supply
were identical and 2016, a year in which the entitlement and available supply represent
different quantities.
Item 12.b. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES AND
OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OCOTBER 11, 2016
PAGE 6
Context Definitions:
Entitlement Water in the context of the chart above refers to a quantity of a specific
water source that is legally determined by a court, a legally binding agreement or based
on appropriative rights as determined by California water law.
Available Conservation Supply in the context of the chart above refers to the amount
of water from the City’s entitled sources that are managed by the City based on current
conditions and limitations resulting from actual reservoir supplies or groundwater levels.
Limitations may also be placed by a regulatory agency such as the Low Reservoir
Response Plan imposed by the County of San Luis Obispo.
Demand in the context of the chart above refers to the amount of the available water
supplies that were distributed to all water customers for all purposes through the City’s
distribution system.
(Additional information regarding the City’s water supply condition and responses to several
technical questions is provided in Attachment 3.)
Of significant note in the chart above is the sharp reduction in customer water demand
from 2008 to 2016. The average household consumption of water per year in Arroyo
Grande from 2000 to 2015 is compared below:
2000 0.52 AF/yr.
2010 0.42 AF/yr.
2015 0.31 AF/yr. (40.4% per household reduction compared to 2010)
Item 12.b. - Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES AND
OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OCOTBER 11, 2016
PAGE 7
Arroyo Grande’s water conservation achievements are also shown in the chart below:
In addition to conservation by residential and commercial properties, the City has
removed over 51,000 square feet of turf in the past two years. A list of the turf removal
by park and landscaping facility is provided in Attachment 4. This turf reduction is
calculated to save approximately 6 Acre Feet of water per year and represents a
cumulative savings of approximately 40% per year over 2015 water use statistics. Staff
continues to identify appropriate areas for turf removal projects at the City’s park and
landscape areas.
II. RECOMMENDED TRIGGERS FOR NEXT STEP IN WATER RESTRICTIONS
In May 2016, general parameters regarding potential implementation of a development
moratorium were presented and staff recommended enacting building restrictions under
any of the following conditions unless other water supplies are 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%; or
Item 12.b. - Page 7
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES AND
OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OCOTBER 11, 2016
PAGE 8
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.
Development projects currently in the entitlement process would account for an
increase of approximately 35 AF/year or less than 2% of the anticipated 2,300 AF
citywide annual water demand. However, in conjunction with other strategies to provide
meaningful reductions should any of the triggers occur, it may help reduce demand to
the furthest extent possible during continuing drought conditions.
At the direction of Council, refinement to the conditions that would require additional
conservation measures, including building restrictions, are shown below. The proposed
modified conditions, if met, would trigger a modification of Stage 1 restrictions in order
to forestall the necessity of a Stage 2 declaration. Additionally, the proposed modified
triggers include consideration of recent information from the Zone 3 Flood Control
District regarding future water quality impacts due to potential lower levels at Lopez
Reservoir.
RECOMMENDED MODIFIED TRIGGERS FOR ADDITIONAL WATER USE
RESTRICTIONS
Any one of the following events would trigger additional water use restrictions:
1) Interruption to local water deliveries, water delivery system or State mandated
reductions.
2) Lopez Reservoir level at or below 10,000 AF.
3) Six quarterly continuous monitoring events of Sentry well water level readings in
the SMGWB 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.
(Note: this is based on the opinion of the NCMA Hydrogeological consulting firm,
GSI, relative to the potential impacts with sustained low groundwater levels.)
If adopted by Council, when one or more of the above listed water supply conditions are
present, then one or more of the below listed water use restrictions would be imposed
by Resolution of the Council.
The following are staff's recommendations for additional water use restrictions that
could be put into place before enacting a Stage 2 Water Emergency. It is requested
that the City Council review and provide direction on these specific additional water use
reduction measures.
Item 12.b. - Page 8
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES AND
OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OCOTBER 11, 2016
PAGE 9
POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL STAGE 1 RESTRICTION RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Building moratorium and restrictions
2. One day per week outdoor watering for residential properties
3. Prohibition on private vehicle washing
4. Further reduce overall irrigation of City-owned non-sports field turf areas to 25%
of the 2015 use
5. Increase the mandatory water use reductions for residential water customers by
5% for each of the three water rate tiers
The above stated triggers and additional restrictions would require a Council adopted
Resolution to implement.
It should be noted that in 2009 the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance
establishing a moratorium on the approval of development projects under the authority
of Government Code Section 65858. That Section is in the State Planning and Zoning
laws, and allows a city to adopt an interim ordinance prohibiting uses that may be in
conflict with contemplated general plan, specific plan or zoning changes to be
considered or studied within a reasonable time. Based upon the water conditions at
that time, the 2009 Urgency Ordinance provided for a moratorium on development
projects while the City studied potential changes to the General Plan related to the
impacts of the water shortage and potential seawater intrusion on development in the
City.
More recently, the City has adopted Chapter 13.07, adding Emergency Water Shortage
Restrictions and Regulations to the AGMC. That Section provides procedures for
declaring water shortage emergencies that utilize the authority in Water Code Section
350, et seq. The current Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency was adopted pursuant to
those procedures. After adopting a Water Code Section 350 water shortage emergency
condition, the City is empowered to adopt regulations and restrictions on the use of
water. Water Code Section 356 provides that the regulations and restrictions may
include denying applications for new or additional service connections. Accordingly,
since the City is now using the procedures in the Water Code, staff recommends that
any moratorium be adopted pursuant to that authority instead of Government Code
Section 65858.
Building Restrictions (Moratorium):
Restrictions to building may occur at various stages of the process ranging from halting
acceptance of planning applications to restricting water meter connections after
entitlement. A typical methodology (recently enacted by the neighboring City of Pismo
Beach) would allow continued processing of permit applications, however, building
permit issuance for projects requiring new water meters would not occur until the
Council lifts the restrictions. In such case, the moratorium would apply as follows:
Item 12.b. - Page 9
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES AND
OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OCOTBER 11, 2016
PAGE 10
• Existing planning permit applications deemed complete as of the date of a
Resolution imposing a building moratorium would be processed and building
permits issued for those projects.
• New planning permit applications for vacant parcels not otherwise deemed
complete by the date of a Resolution modifying Stage 1 restrictions will be
accepted and processed; however, building permits for those projects would not
be issued until Stage 1 is declared over.
• New commercial/retail use of existing buildings, or redevelopment of existing
buildings will be allowed, but only such that water demand will be less than or
equal to the existing water demand.
Off-set programs:
There are several possibilities for offset programs that may be customized to
permanently save water by retrofitting existing facilities. However, the City already
requires in-lieu fees to offset new water use at a 1:1 ratio. If, due to uncertainties related
to the severity of the current drought and unpredictability of drought relief, the Council
desires to require a different ratio offset for new development, staff recommends that
such an increased offset requirement be based upon an analysis of data relating to the
actual implementation of offset requirement to be legally sustainable. Staff will also
explore other ways to structure offset requirements in order to achieve the maximum
water savings possible. It is suggested that this type of program apply to projects that
meet General Plan priorities such as attainable housing units and projects that foster
economic development initiatives. Turf retrofits, commercial or institutional plumbing
fixtures, washing machines and dishwashers may be options for an offset program (see
Attachment 5.) Should the Council want to pursue this program, it will be brought back
with a Resolution modifying Stage 1 restrictions.
III. IMMEDIATELY RECOMMENDED WATER CONSERVATION MANDATES
An additional area of potential near-term water savings is to increase the mandatory
water conservation requirement for dedicated irrigation meters. Resolution 4659,
adopted on May 26, 2015, declared a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency and
implemented reductions in water usage based upon historical use. The Resolution
included an additional mandate that dedicated irrigation meters reduce water use by
25%.
While commercial properties have reduced water use overall, field observations indicate
that a significant amount of turf remains in landscape and parkway medians in the City.
Based on current water use statistics, an increase from 25% to 50% mandatory water
use reductions would generate a savings of approximately 40 Acre Feet of water per
year.
Staff recommends that the City Council amend the existing Stage 1 Water Shortage
Emergency to include this additional water conservation measure. This action would
Item 12.b. - Page 10
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES AND
OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OCOTBER 11, 2016
PAGE 11
require modifications to Resolution 4659 and would need to be brought back to the City
Council at a future meeting if so directed.
IV. WATER CONSERVATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM OPTIONS
City-offered water conservation program statistics, including the number of participants,
were previously shared with the Council and are shown in Attachment 5. Most of these
water conservation incentive programs were successful, but were discontinued last year
when the funding was exhausted. Currently, the City only offers incentives through the
Plumbing Retrofit Program, which has a budget of $59,000.
It is anticipated that the Water Neutralization Fund will have a balance of about $24,500
at the end of Fiscal Year 2016-17 that could be allocated for additional water
conservation incentive programs. Below are three (3) recommended rebate program
options for Council’s consideration:
Rebate Program Annual Cost Offset Potential (AFY)
High Efficiency Residential
Clothes Washer
$10,000
(50 rebates at $200 each)
1.0
Water Efficient Commercial
Dishwasher
$10,000
(10 rebates at $1,000 each)
1.8 – 3.0
Greywater Systems $4,500
(30 rebates at $150 each)
1.3
Total: $24,500 4.1 – 5.3
Water conservation rebate programs that have been utilized in other communities and
offer alternatives for Council consideration are provided in Attachment 6. Below is a
table showing the current and proposed water conservation programs:
Program
Current FY
2016-17
Budget
Proposed
FY 2016-17
Budget
Office supplies, postage, etc. $2,800 $2,800
Washing Machine Rebates 0 10,000
Plumbing Retrofit Program 59,000 59,000
Commercial Dishwasher Rebate program 0 10,000
City Landscape Irrigation 19,000 19,000
Greywater System Incentive program 0 4,500
School Education Program 5,500 5,500
GardenSoft Website License 900 900
Unspecified Rebates/Conservation Programs 14,550 0
Anticipated revenue through June 30, 2017* 8,450 0
Total: $ 110,200 $110,200
*Recommended for appropriation and allocation to conservation projects
Item 12.b. - Page 11
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES AND
OPTIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
OCOTBER 11, 2016
PAGE 12
Staff recommends that the Council approve the proposed funding for additional Water
Conservation Rebate Program alternatives for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2016-17.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Approve the recommendations as listed above and provide direction to staff as
requested;
2. Receive and file and take no action at this time;
3. Provide other direction to staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Customer Notification- Stage 1 Water Use Reduction Mandate
2. Lopez Reservoir Supply Projections
3. Supplemental Water Supply information
4. List of City owned turf removal areas
5. Previous City Water Conservation program offerings.
6. Alternative Water Conservation Rebate program information.
Item 12.b. - Page 12
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
I
t
e
m
1
2
.
b
.
-
P
a
g
e
1
3
ATTACHMENT 2
Item 12.b. - Page 14
WATER SUPPLY QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
PAGE 1 ATTACHMENT 3
Additional questions and information regarding the City’s water supply condition:
1. How much water supply is currently available compared to the City’s water
Entitlements?
The City Entitlement in 2016 was 2,061 AFY for Lopez (10% reduction from full
entitlement of 2,290 AFY), 1,323 AFY for Santa Maria Groundwater, and 160 AFY for
the Pismo Formation groundwater. Availability could change depending upon Lopez
reservoir levels, rainfall and recharge, groundwater levels, and water quality (includes
seawater intrusion).
Water Supply Sources Projected Water Supply (afy)
Water Source
Wholesale
Supplied Volume 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Lopez Project Yes 2,061 2,290 2,290 2,290 2,290
Groundwater-Santa Maria
Valley Groundwater Basin No 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323 1,323
Groundwater-Pismo
Formation 1 No 160 200 200 200 200
Transfers In No 0 0 0 0 0
Exchanges In No 0 0 0 0 0
Recycled Water No 0 0 0 0 0
Desalinated Water No 0 0 0 0 0
Total 3,544 3,813 3,813 3,813 3,813
1 Assumes 80 afy of groundwater from Well No. 9, 80 afy from Well No. 10, and 40 afy from Well No. 11 will be
available as a reliable source of supply from 2016 through 2030.
Source: 2015 UWMP, Table 5-1
2. If water from the Lopez reservoir was unavailable, what would be the total demand
on ground water for all NCMA uses, including agriculture?
In 2015, the total groundwater demand for all water uses, including agriculture, without
Lake Lopez would have been 6,818 AFY (~72% of total allocation of 9,500 AFY), as
shown in an amended Table 14 below. However, only 38.5% of allocations for
groundwater were pumped in 2015 (Table 6 below). See the figures below for
reference.
Item 12.b. - Page 15
WATER SUPPLY QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
PAGE 2 ATTACHMENT 3
2015 NCMA Annual Report, Table 14. 2015 Water Demand by Source (AF)
Urban Area Lopez Lake State Water
Project
SMGB
Groundwater
Other
Supplies Total
SMGB +
Lopez
Demands
Arroyo Grande 2,152.08 0.00 42.51 44.0 2,238.59 2,194.59
Grover Beach 790.59 0.00 474.81 0.0 1,265.40 1,265.40
Pismo Beach 219.20 1,231.73 284.77 0.0 1,735.70 503.97
Oceano CSD 0.00 571.38 131.88 0.0 703.26 131.88
Urban Water Use
Total 3,161.87 1,803.11 933.97 44.0 5,942.95 4,095.84
Applied Irrigation 0.0 0.0 2,685 0.0 2,685 2,685
Rural Water Users 0.0 0.0 37.5 0.0 37.5 37.5
Total 3,161.87 1,803.11 3,656.47 44.0 8,665.45 6,818.34
Item 12.b. - Page 16
WATER SUPPLY QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
PAGE 3 ATTACHMENT 3
2015 NCMA Annual Report, Table 6. NCMA Groundwater Pumpage from SMGB 2015
Agency
Groundwater
Allotment + Ag
Conversion Credit
(AF)
2015 Groundwater
Use (AF)
Percent Pumped of
Groundwater
Allotment
City of Arroyo Grande 1,202 + 121 = 1,323 42.51 3.2%
City of Grover Beach 1,198 + 209 = 1,407 474.81 33.7%
City of Pismo Beach 700 284.77 40.7%
Oceano CSD 900 131.88 14.7%
Total Urban Groundwater
Allotment / Use
4,000 + 330 = 4,330 933.97 21.6%
Applied Irrigation -- 2,685 --
Rural Water Users -- 37.5 --
Total NCMA Groundwater
Allotment / Use
9,500 3,656.47 38.5%
3. What measures are currently being taken to plan for risk to salt water intrusion for
our ground water availability?
- Water quality monitoring program for the sentry wells and Oceano CSD observation
wells
- Voluntarily reduced coastal groundwater pumping
- Decreased overall water use via local water conservation measures
- Initiated plans, studies, and institutional arrangements to secure additional surface
water supplies
- Reduced groundwater use between 25 and 90% from 2007 to 2010. In 2015,
municipal groundwater use was 933.97 AF, which constitutes 21.6% of the urban
user’s groundwater allotment (including agricultural conversion credits) of the safe
yield as identified in the Management Agreement and an approximate reduction of
60% from 2009.
Source: 2015 NCMA Annual Report, 7.1.3
4. If indicators for salt water are detected, at what point would a cessation of
groundwater pumping be initiated. Would any pumping restrictions also apply to
agricultural well water pumping activities?
The actual stopping point for pumping groundwater, should indicators for incipit sea
water intrusion be detected, would depend upon numerous factors. Likely, agencies
and agricultural users closest to the coast would experience increased salt
concentrations first and would be forced to stop pumping at the point that the water
quality exceeded the limits for drinking water or their crops’ salt tolerance. However,
prior to this occurring, strategies would be evaluated to shift pumping inland in an
attempt to limit the extent of the seawater intrusion and/or to establish exchange
agreements to allow the coastal agencies to take additional surface water and inland
agencies to rely more heavily upon groundwater.
Item 12.b. - Page 17
WATER SUPPLY QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
PAGE 4 ATTACHMENT 3
Additionally, for municipal agencies, strategies to treat the contaminated or brackish
groundwater would be evaluated. The energy requirements to remove salts from
brackish groundwater are significantly less than for seawater and may be a cost
effective option for obtaining water in an extended drought. However, continued
pumping and treating of brackish groundwater could lead to further degradation of
the groundwater basin.
5. What potential additional supplies exist and how much relief (acre feet) could we
access, how long would it take and how much would it cost?
The following potential water supplies with estimated costs and timeframes are
identified, however detailed analysis of each option not been completed at this time.
• Lopez Lake Spillway Raising
o 500-1,000 AFY additional yield, but requires rainfall over a long period
of time to achieve the benefit
o Potentially could be constructed in two years, but could take an
additional 2 years to obtain necessary permits
o $1,250 per acre-foot
• Supplemental State Project Water via the Coastal Branch and Lopez
Pipelines
o Approximately 8,000 AFY of additional water that could potentially
become available
o No new infrastructure would be required, but would require
negotiations with the Department of Water Resources, Central Coast
Water Authority, San Luis Obispo County and the existing SWP
subcontractors
o Price yet to be determined, would need to be negotiated with parties
described above
• PG&E Desalinated Water
o 500 AFY to 1,300 AFY
o Potentially could be constructed in one to two years, but permitting
could take significant additional time. Additionally, PG&E is not an
interested party at this time.
o $2,500 - $3,500 per acre-foot
• Regional Recycled Water Opportunities- SSLOCSD
o Up to 2,390 AFY of additional water supply for groundwater recharge
o Implementation schedule is unknown
o ~ $2,000 per AF
• Regional Recycled Water Opportunities- City of Pismo Beach
o 645 AFY: If the City of Pismo Beach were to produce excess recycled
water, the City could utilize the recycled water for irrigation demand,
and/or work with interested NCMA agencies to apply the recycled
water for groundwater recharge within the NCMA.
o Projected implementation by 2020
o ~$2,800 per AF
Item 12.b. - Page 18
WATER SUPPLY QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
PAGE 5 ATTACHMENT 3
• Independent Package Desalinated Water Treatment facility
o 2,300 AFY (Wallace, 2005)
1,500 AFY Arroyo Grande
800 AFY Grover Beach
o Located at the SSLOCSD WTP.
o Up to seven years to permit and construct
o $2,676 per AF(2005), $4,200 per AF (2017)
6. Is there an emergency plan if Lopez water was not available for an extended
period such as in the event of an earth quake and is it coordinated with the other
Northern Cities partners?
Currently there is not a fully developed plan in the event of a loss of the Lopez
Treatment Plant and Pipeline. However, short-term outages of the Lopez
Treatment Plant and Pipeline have occurred in the past. During these outages,
the NCMA agencies have utilized their groundwater and State Water sources to
continue providing water. Additionally, if the Treatment Plant is out of
commission but the Pipeline is still active, State Water Project water could still be
delivered to the Zone 3 agencies.
7. When and how would we expect to move to a Stage 2 Water Emergency, and is
that a “health and safety emergency”?
Under AGMC Section 13.07.040(A), after holding a noticed public hearing in
accordance with the requirements of Water Code Section 350 et seq., the City
Council may declare a Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergency based upon a
determination that the City’s projected water supply is or will become equal to or
less than amounts that have been determined necessary to meet basic minimum
household health and safety requirements, and restrictions and limits through the
implementation of water allocations are necessary for continued water use that is
reliable and sustainable by providing a minimum supply for the most essential
purposes for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection during the
emergency situation. Health and safety water allocations are generally
considered to be 50 gallons per person per day.
Under a Stage 2 Water Shortage Emergency, all residential customers will be
allocated units of water deemed necessary for an average household size (one
unit of water is equal to one hundred (100) cubic feet or seven hundred forty-
eight (748) gallons). Any residential customer using over the assigned baseline
unit amount shall be subject to a citation and the imposition of mandatory
financial penalties, which shall be set forth in the Resolution adopted by the City
Council and be based upon the severity of the water shortage emergency. Each
household shall be allowed twelve (12) units of water per two-month billing period
(which is equivalent to one hundred fifty (150) gallons per household per day).
Households with over five to seven people will be allowed twenty (20) units of
water per two-month billing period (two hundred fifty (250) gallons per day).
Item 12.b. - Page 19
WATER SUPPLY QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
PAGE 6 ATTACHMENT 3
Households with over seven people will be allowed twenty-eight (28) units of
water per two-month billing period (three hundred fifty (350) gallons per day). The
allocations may be adjusted by the city council by resolution.
Source: 2015 UWMP, Section 7.1
8. Please provide a comparison to water use restrictions for the Cambria
Community Services District (CSD)
For Cambria CSD, each permanent resident is allowed two units (200 cubic feet,
or about 1,500 gallons) per month, or four units per two-month billing period.
Homes with part-time residents get two units a month, irrespective of the number
of residents. The maximum commercial allotment is equal to 80% of the average
monthly use for the three years prior to the January 2014 Stage 3 declaration.
Intent to serve letters by the Cambria CSD were suspended as of May 2014.
Item 12.b. - Page 20
ATTACHMENT 4
TURF REMOVAL PROJECTS
City owned and maintained parks and landscape areas
Park/ Landscape area SF of Turf Removed
Dower Park 3640
Tigertail Park 2958
Fire Station 6982
Olohan Alley 221
Strother Park 1802
Oro Park 90
Loomis Planters 1491
Council Chambers 1809
Old City Hall/ Remax 504
City Hall 247
Parque Pequeno 3234
Parkside Park 4887
Newport Planter 5625
Foremaster/ Oak Park Frontage 17,800
Total Sq. Ft. of turf removed 51290
Item 12.b. - Page 21
ATTACHMENT 5
WATER CONSERVATION INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
The tables below summarize the activities of the City’s previous water conservation
incentive programs.
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 12.b. - Page 22
CITY COUNCIL
WATER CONSERVATION INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
OCTOBER 11, 2016
PAGE 2
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
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
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.
Item 12.b. - Page 23
SUPPLIMENTAL WATER CONSERVATION INFORMATION ATTACHMENT 6
Rebate Type Annual Cost Offset Potential References
Air-cooled Ice Machine $10,000 (10
units)
Approximately 100
gallons per 100 pounds of
ice
http://www.ocwatersmart.com/ice
Soil Moisture Sensor $1,750 (50 units) Up to 20% of current
irrigation demand
http://socalwatersmart.com/com
mercial/?page_id=4865
Water Efficient
Commercial Washing
Machine
$6,000 (30 units) 15,000 - 30,000 gallons
per year per unit
depending on use
25-40% average annual
savings
http://www.ebmud.com/water-
and-drought/conservation-and-
rebates/commercial/rebates/com
mercial-clothes-washer-rebates/
Greywater
Can be used for:
1. Laundry
(no building permit
required)
2. Shower (building
permit required)
3. Bathroom Sink
(building permit
required)
$4,500 (30
connections)
Savings potential of
approximately 17 gallons
per person per day.
Average of 14,500
gallons saved per
household per year
http://www.valleywater.org/Gray
waterRebate.aspx
http://www.soquelcreekwater.org
/conserving-
water/rebates/graywater-
landscape
http://greywateraction.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/12/GW_St
udy_revised-2013.pdf
Rain Barrel $5,000 (100
units)
623 gallons per inch of
rain per 1,000 sqft of roof.
Harvested Water (Gal) =
Catchment Area (sqft) X
Rainfall Depth (inch) X
Conversion Factor
(0.623)
http://www.socalwatersmart.com/
qualifyingproducts/rain-barrels/
Water Efficient
Commercial
Dishwasher
$10,000 (10
units)
60,000 - 100,000 gallons
per year per unit
depending on use
25% average annual
savings
http://www.montereywaterinfo.or
g/NonResidential.html
http://www.allianceforwaterefficie
ncy.org/commercial_dishwash_i
ntro.aspx
Item 12.b. - Page 24