Agenda Packet 2001-08-16 SP
CITY COUNCIL B-&f/
AGENDA ~17~
Michael A. Lady Mayor
Tony M. Ferrara Mayor Pro Tern Steven Adams City Manager
Thomas A. Runels Council Member Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Jim Dickens Council Member Kelly Wetmore Director, Administrative Services
Sandy Lubin Council Member
NOTICE OF CONTINUED SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA SUMMARY
THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 2001
6:30 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
3. FLAG SALUTE
4. CITIZENS" INPUT, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS on Special Meeting
Agenda Items. Members of the public wishing to address the Council on any
item described in this Notice may do so when recognized by the Presiding
Officer.
5. CONSIDERATION OF THE 2001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE POLICY
DOCUMENTS AND ELEMENTS AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (FEIR)
The City Council will continue the Public Hearing from July 31, 2001 to reyiew
comments, responses, and consider the FEIR and adoption of the General Plan
Update and related maps.
6. ADJOURNMENT to a Special City Council Meeting of Tuesday, August 23, 2001
at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 215 East Branch Street.
www.arrovoQrande.org
--.-- .j--
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KERRY MCCANTS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
AND ROB STRONG, 2001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND EIR
CONSUL T ANT
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND
THE SAFETY ELEMENT AND FINAL EIR FOR 2001 GENERAL
PLAN
DATE: AUGUST 16, 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
1 . Consider the Planning Commission supplemental report on the Safety
Element of the final EIR for the 2001 General Plan.
DISCUSSION:
On August' 7, the Planning Commission held its fourth meeting regarding
2001 General Plan Update recommendations to the City Council. At prior
meetings the Commission resolved recommendations on all elements except
the Safety Element and optional comments regarding the final EIR, reported
to the 'City Council on July 31, 2001. The Commission submits the
following supplemental report regarding the 2001 General Plan and Final EIR:
Safety Element
The Commission recommends the Safety Element policy document as
outlined in the 5/21/01 public review and comment distribution draft with
the addition of an implementation measure: "S5 -1.3 Review evacuation
plans within the City's Emeraencv Plan for ability to complete an evacuation
in an anticipated radiological event. If evacuation plans are determined to be
inadequate, alternative measures must be provided."
The Commission also recommends that the Countywide Technical
Background Report and the relevant Arroyo Grande area maps and materials
Planning Commission Supplemental Report
Safety Element & EIR General Plan Update
August 16, 2001
Page 2
be part of an Appendix on file in a Reference Library at City Hall and the
South County Library reference desk.
The vote was 3 - 1 with Fowler, Guthrie and Keene for, Brown against and
Costello absent.
Land Use Element
By consensus the Commission also corrected the July 31, 2001 report to
Council regarding Land Use Study Area 7E b) East Myrtle/East Cherry, South
of Arroyo Grande Creek including Lierly Lane (Stillwell, Estes, et al) -
reclassify from Residential Rural (RR) to Single Family Residential, Medium
Density (SFR-MD) the entire 22 acre area subject to consideration of
infrastructure improvements (streets, water, sewer, drainage, parks, etc.)
and providing for an agriculture buffer to the southeast and
Conservation/Open Space along Arroyo Grande Creek to the north and east.
(The prior report implied a "neighborhood development plan" requiring
cooperation of area property owners not intended by the Commission and a
typographic error regarding C/OS classification.) The underlined works are
the corrected recommendation.
Final Environmental Impact Report
The Commission recommends the adequacy of the Final EIR, as drafted
5/21/01 and completed by response to comments dated 7/18 and 7/19/01,
for all topics except water resources, air quality and
transportation/circulation which were determined to be potentially significant
impacts.
The vote was 3 - 1 with Guthrie, Fowler and Keene for, Brown against and
Costello absent.
Regarding Air Quality, the Commission recommends the adequacy of the
Final EIR and the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations based
upon regional impacts that are beyond the control of the City to mitigate to
less than significant.
The vote was 3 -1 with Guthrie, Fowler and Keene for, Brown against and
Costello absent.
Regarding Water Resources and Transportation/Circulation, the Commission
was unable to reach a decision with respect to these issues and in order to
..--.
Planning Commission Supplemental Report
Safety Element & EIR General Plan Update
August 16, 2001
Page 3
avoid causing significant additional delay in the City Council deliberations on
the General Plan Update will not make a recommendation on Water
Resources and Transportation/Circulation unless directed to do so by the City
Council.
In addition Staff has prepared a response to Mayor Pro Tern Farrara's Memo
of July 20, 2001 on the Draft General Plan (Attachment I). Staff has not
attempted to deal with those items which require policy direction from the
City Council.
The Director of Publ.ic Works will summarize the available water supply,
water consumption patterns, and identify several possible water
conservation measures. In addition a Memorandum of Understanding
regarding Urban Water Conservation in California has been attached
(Attachment 2). This document describes various water conservation
measures and in some cases provides information on the effectiveness of the
measures.
The T ransportation/Ci rcul atio n issues and consideration of Circulation
Element policies should be continued to August 23, 2001 when Keith
Higgins, traffic engineering consultant will present the Traffic Model Analysis
of key Circulation Element proposals and alternatives.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Response to Councilman Ferrara's Memorandum re Draft General Plan
Update.
2. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation
in California
-
,-----.----------- ---- I
A TT ACHMENT 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: TONY FERRARA, MAYOR PRO TEM
FROM: ROB STRON~ GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND EIR
CONSULTANT-
SUBJECT: CONSUL T ANT'S RESPONSE TO COUNCILMAN FERRAR'S
MEMORANDUM RE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND EIR
DATE: AUGUST 16, 2001
In responding to the questions, observations and concerns outlined in your
14-page memo regarding the Draft General Plan and EIR, I will be as brief as
possible and reference each point by element and policy number. The basic
purpose of the General Plan is to summarize Citv Council objectives and
policies regarding community development. The fundamental function of the
Environmental Impact Report is to identify possible significant adverse
impacts of the Plan and consider ways that these impacts could be reduced
or avoided. In most instances, the response requires City Council policy
direction for any change to the draft.
AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Aa 1-1 Eliminating the stated exception phrase, in my opinion, does not
change the intent of this policy to preserve all undeveloped prime farmland
soils. Nonconforming parcels may be interpreted as potential exceptions due
to size or location. Only one exception appears to exist as "widowed" based
on the criteria of policy Ag 3-14. Request Council direction.
Aa 1-4.2 If the Dorfman and JWA parcels are allowed to convert 12 acres of
prime farmland soils, this policy would require 24 acres of other prime soils
in the City or its planning area to be Dermanentlv preserved as minimum
"mitigation" . Ag 1-4.3 would require that the City Council consider such
conversion a significant adverse impact and conclude overriding
considerations allowed by CEQA, in addition to mitigation. Request Council
direction.
Mayor and City Council
Response to Councilman Ferrara's Memo
August 16, 2001
Page 2 of 5
Aa 2. Aa 2-1 & Aa 2-1.1 The objective and policies require interpretation.
Agriculture, potential Fringe Area and urban developments utilize the same
ground and surface water resources. The policy proposes to "minimize"
development that would divert water from agriculture. Regional use of water
resources mav exceed current estimates of safe yield, as concluded by the
EIR, thus a Statement of Overriding Considerations is reauired by CEQA.
Request Council direction.
Aa 3-1 This policy does not refer to prime ag land but all land in ag use, thus
more exceptions exist (e.g. Land Use Study Area 10, Farrell Avenue).
Request Council direction.
Aa 5-2.2 The Planning Commission recommends a 200 foot agricultural
buffer with site specific design variables.
C/OS 1-1.1 No basic objection to added wording. Request Council direction.
C/OS 6 Water resources are uncertain and regional in nature. The City alone
cannot mitigate possible impacts to less than significant despite policy of
managing land use and limiting urban development to that which can be
sustained by 3590 af.ft./yr. Request Council direction.
FRINGE AND URBAN AREA LAND USE ELEMENT
LU 2-5 No basic objection to additional policy regarding hillside residential
development. Request Council direction.
LU 3-9 Concur: Locate policy in LU 4-3.
LU 4-2 No basic objection to deletion of "campus like" and addition of
pedestrian oriented design features including "landscaped street yards and
off-street parking areas." Request Council direction.
LU 5-2 No basic objection to revised wording. Request Council direction.
LU 5-6 & LU 8-2 Nonconforming businesses will be determined during
Development Code revision and rezoning.
LU 5-7 Correct spelling.
2
Mayor and City Council
Response to Councilman Ferrara's Memo
August 16, 2001
Page 3 of 5
LU 5-8 Concur with deletion of "high density". Do not support 5-8.4 re
"problematic intersections and road segments", nor "mindful of circulation
impacts", implicit with all development review. Request Council direction
LU 5-10 Concur if City wants sole responsibility. Request Council direction.
LU 5-10.2 Residential density, height and coverage do not require use of
Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Council should determine policy regarding 3-story
buildings.
LU 5-11 Similar to LU 5-8. Request Council direction.
LU 7 'Business Park' classification derived from 1990 plan, but not applied in
2001. No basic objection to if criteria are not relevant to Regional
Commercial. Request Council direction.
LU 7-1 Prefer general wording versus specific suggested.
LU 7-2 "Power center" is what Arroyo Grande has with several anchor big
box stores in same center not arranged as a retail shopping mall.
LU 7-3 50,000 sq.ft. is an anchor for Regional Commercial. City Council
should determine policy.
LU 7-4 throuah 7-8 City Council should determine policy.
LU 8 Intent was to permit existing auto dealer expansion In MU by
conditional use permit but not in Village Core.
LU 8-2 Council should clarify policy to enable or facilitate expansion.
LU 9 Concur with rewrite or edit.
LU 9-6 & 9-7 Concur with deletion.
LU 11-2.2 Include hyphen after LU 11-2.2 through 11-2.5.
LU 11-3.3 City policy should be clarified to refer to "peak periods" vs. the
peak hour.
LU 11-3.6 Intent is to ensure capacity. Request Council direction.
3
Mayor and City Council
Response to Councilman Ferrara's Memo
August 16, 2001
Page 4 of 5
LU 11-4.1 , LU 4.3 and LU 4.5 There may be overriding considerations or
difficult distinction of what is feasible or adequate. Request Council
direction.
LU 11-6.10.1 b, d & h Council should determine policy.
LU 12-2 Council should determine policy re 3-story buildings and other
components of rural setting and small town character.
LU 12-3.2 Concur
LU 12-3.8 No basic objection to proposed policy addition. Request Council
direction.
LU 12-4.2 & 4.3 Senior and other special needs housing may be exceptions
to multiple family residential design criteria.
LU 12-13.9 & 13.10 on Concur with revision and renumbering.
CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
The comments on CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATIN ELEMENT have been
sent to Higgins Associates for response at the special council meeting of
August 23 regarding traffic model analysis.
HOUSING ELEMENT
H 1-4 "Identified housing needs" refers to state and SLOCOG determinations
of individual City responsibility for addressing regional estimates. The
wording is from adopted City policy.
SAFETY ELEMENT
This element already contains "Implementation Measures" supporting each
policy and/or objective.
S 5-5.1 Concur
S 5-2.1 Concur.
S 5-5: Concern with trees is the hazard of unhealthy trees requiring removal
for human safety.
4
Mayor and City Council
Response to Councilman Ferrara's Memo
August 16, 2001
Page 5 of 5
NOISE ELEMENT
Will correct typos - wording is adopted City policy. Could not find
referenced statements on pages cited.
PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT
PR 2-2.3 Council should determine policy.
cc: City Council
Kerry McCants
Steve Adams
5
"
ATTACHMENT 2
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING
URBAN WATER CONSERVATION
IN CALIFORNIA
As Amended September 21,2000
- 1 -
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING
URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECiTALS.................................................................................................................. .4
TERMS........................................... .............................................................................5
SECTION 1. DEFIN ITIONS ..................... ......................:............................................ 5
SECTION 2. PURPOSES........................................................................................... 6
SECTION 3. LIMITS TO APPLICABILITY OF MOU ...................................................6
SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ..............7
SECTION 5. BAY/DEL TA PROCEEDINGS.............................................................. 10
SECTION 6. CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL .............11
SECTION 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS ................. ...... ..... ..... .................................. .12
EXHIBIT 1. BMP DEFINITIONS, SCHEDULES, AND REQUIREMENTS. ................14
EXHIBIT 2. CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL................56
EXHIBIT 3. PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE PERFORMANCE OF BMP ECONOMIC
(COST -EFFECTIVENESS) ANAL YSES.... ..........................................58
EXHIBIT 4. FORM LETTER TO SWRCB.................................................................. 60
EXHIBIT 5. SWRCB ANNUAL REPORT OUTLINE ................................................ 62
EXHIBIT 6. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING
ESTIMATES OF RELIABLE WATER SAVINGS FROM THE
INST ALLA TION OF ULF TOILETS.................... ................................. 64
EXHIBIT 7. BYLAWS OF THE CUWCC....................................................................83
- 2-
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING
URBAN WATER CONSERVATION IN CALIFORNIA
This Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water
Conservation in California ("'MOU") is made and entered into on the dates
set forth below among the undersigned parties ("signatories"). The signatories
represent urban water suppliers, public advocacy organizations and other
interested groups as defined in Section 1 of this MOU.
AMENDED
September, 1991
February 10, 1993
March 9,1994
September 30, 1997
April 8, 1998
December 9, 1998 (By-Laws only)
September 16, 1999
September 21,2000
-3-
RECITALS
A. The signatories to this MOU recognize that California's economy, quality of life and
environment depend in large part upon the water resources of the State. The signatories
also recognize the need to provide reliable urban water supplies and to protect the
environment. Increasing demands for urban, agricultural and environmental water uses call
for conservation and the elimination of waste as important elements in the overall
management of water resources. Many organizations and groups in California have an
interest in urban water conservation, and this MOU is intended to gain much needed
consensus on a complex issue.
B. The urban water conservation practices included in this MOU (referred to as "Best
Management Practices" or "BMPs") are intended to reduce long-term urban demands from
what they would have been without implementation of these practices and are in addition to
programs which may be instituted during occasional water supply shortages.
C. The combination of BMPs and urban growth, unless properly accounted for in water
management planning, could make reductions in urban demands during short-term
emergencies such as droughts or earthquakes more difficult to achieve. However,
notwithstanding such difficulties, the signatory water suppliers will carry out the urban water
conservation BMP process as described in this MOU.
D. The signatories recognize that means other than urban water conservation may be needed
to provide long-term reliability for urban water suppliers and long-term protection of the
environment. However, the signatories may have differing views on what additional
measures might be appropriate to provide for these needs. Accordingly, this MOU is not
intended to address these issues.
E. A major benefit of this MOU is to conserve water which could be used for the protection of
streams, wetlands and estuaries and/or urban water supply reliability. This MOU leaves to
other forums the issue of how conserved water will be used.
F. It is the intent of this MOU that individual signatory water suppliers (1) develop
comprehensive conservation BMP programs using sound economic criteria and (2) consider
water conservation on an equal basis with other water management options.
G. It is recognized that present urban water use throughout the State varies according to many
factors including, but not limited to, climate, types of housing and landscaping, amounts and
kinds of commercial, industrial and recreational development, and the extent to which
conservation measures have already been implemented. It is further recognized that many
of the BMPs identified in Exhibit 1 to this MOU have already been implemented in some
areas and that even with broader employment of BMPs, future urban water use will continue
to vary from area to area. Therefore, this MOU is not intended to establish uniform per
capita water use allotments throughout the urban areas of the State. This MOU is also not
intended to limit the amount or types of conservation a water supplier can pursue or to limit
a water supplier's more rapid implementation of BMPs.
H. It is recognized that projections of future water demand should include estimates of
anticipated demand reductions due to changes in the real price of water.
- 4-
TERMS
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply:
1.1 Best Manaaement Practices. A Best Management Practice ("BMP") means a policy,
program, practice, rule, regulation or ordinance or the use of devices, equipment or facilities
which meets either of the following criteria:
(a) An established and generally accepted practice among water suppliers that results in
more efficient use or conservation of water;
(b) A practice for which sufficient data are available from existing water conservation
projects to indicate that significant conservation or conservation related benefits can be
achieved; that the practice is technically and economically reasonable and not
environmentally or socially unacceptable; and that the practice is not otherwise
unreasonable for most water suppliers to carry out.
Although the term "Best Management Practices" has been used in various statutes and
regulations, the definitions and interpretations of that term in those statutes and regulations
do not apply to this MOU. The term "Best Management Practices" or "BMPs" has an
independent and special meaning in this MOU and is to be applied for purposes of this MOU
only as defined above.
1.2 Implementation. "Implementation" means achieving and maintaining the staffing, funding,
and in general, the priority levels necessary to achieve the level of activity called for in the
descriptions of the various BMPs and to satisfy the commitment by the signatories to use
good faith efforts to optimize savings from implementing BMPs as described in Section 4.4
of this MOU. Section B of Exhibit 1 to this MOU establishes the schedule for initial
implementation of BMPs.
1.3 Sianatorv Groups. For purposes of this MOU, signatories will be divided into three groups
as follows:
(a) Group 1 will consist of water suppliers. A "water supplier" is defined as any entity,
including a city, which delivers or supplies water for urban use at the wholesale or retail
level.
(b) Group 2 will consist of public advocacy organizations. A "public advocacy organization"
is defined as a non profit organization:
(i) whose primary function is not the representation of trade, industrial, or utility
entities, and
(ii) whose prime mission is the protection of the environment or who has a clear
interest in advancing the BMP process.
-5-
TERMS
(c) Group 3 will consist of other interested groups. "Other interested groups" is defined as
any other group which does not fall into one of the two groups above.
1.4 California Urban Water Conservation Council. The California Urban Water Conservation
Councilor "Council" will have responsibility for monitoring the implementation of this MOU
and will be comprised of signatories to this MOU grouped according to the definitions in
Section 1.3 above. The duties of the Council are set forth in Section 6 and in Exhibit 2 to
this MOU.
SECTION 2. PURPOSES
2.1 This MOU has two primary purposes:
(1) to expedite implementation of reasonable water conservation measures in urban areas;
and
(2) pursuant to Section 5 of this MOU, to establish assumptions for use in calculating
estimates of reliable future water conservation savings resulting from proven and
reasonable conservation measures. Estimates of reliable savings are the water
conservation savings which can be achieved with a high degree of confidence in a
given service area. The signatories have agreed upon the initial assumptions to be used
in calculating estimates of reliable savings. These assumptions are included in Exhibit 1
to this MOU. It is probable that average savings achieved by water suppliers will exceed
the estimates of reliable savings.
SECTION 3. LIMITS TO APPLICABILITY OF MOU
3.1 Relationship Between Water Suppliers. No rights, obligations or authorities between
wholesale suppliers, retail agencies, cities or other water suppliers are created or expanded
by this MOU. Moreover, wholesale water suppliers are not obligated to implement BMPs at
the retail customer level except within their own retail service area, if any.
3.2 Aariculture. This MOU is intended to apply only to the delivery of water for domestic,
municipal and industrial uses. This MOU is not intended to apply directly or indirectly to the
use of water for irrigated agriculture.
3.3 Reclamation. The signatory water suppliers support the reclamation and reuse of
wastewater wherever technically and economically reasonable and not environmentally or
socially unacceptable, and agree to prepare feasibility studies on water reclamation for their
respective service areas. However, this MOU does not apply to that aspect of water
management, except where the use of reclaimed water may otherwise qualify as a BMP as
defined above.
3.4 land Use Plannina . This MOU does not deal with the question of growth management.
However, each signatory water supplier will inform all relevant land planning agencies at
least annually of the impacts that planning decisions involving projected growth would have
- 6-
TERMS
upon the reliability of its water supplies for the water supplier's service area and other areas
being considered for annexation.
3.5 Use of Conserved Water. A major benefit of this MOU is to conserve water which could be
used for the protection of streams, wetlands and estuaries and/or urban water supply
reliability. This MOU leaves to other forums the issue of how conserved water will be used.
SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
4.1 The Best ManaQement Practices List. Schedule of Implementation and Assumptions.
Exhibit 1 to this MOU contains:
(a) In Section A: A list identifying those practices which the signatories believe presently
meet the definition of a BMP as set forth in Section 1.1 of this MOU.
(b) In Section B: A schedule for implementing the BMPs to be followed by signatory water
suppliers unless exempted under Section 4.5 of this MOU or an alternative schedule is
prepared pursuant to Section 4.6 of this MOU.
(c) In Section C: Coverage requirements for implementing BMPs. Coverage requirements
are the expected level of implementation necessary to achieve full implementation of
BMPs. Coverage requirements may be expressed either in terms of activity levels by
water suppliers or as water savings achieved.
(d) In Section D: Reporting Requirements for Documenting BMP Implementation. These
requirements vary by BMP, are considered the minimum record keeping and reporting
requirements for water suppliers to document BMP implementation levels, and will
provide the basic data used evaluate BMP implementation progress by water suppliers.
(e) In Section E: Criteria to determine BMP implementation status of water suppliers. These
criteria will be used to evaluate BMP implementation progress. Evaluation criteria vary
by BMP, and are derived from the implementation guidelines and schedules presented
in Sections A, B, and C.
(f) In Section F: Assumptions for use in developing estimates of reliable savings from the
implementation of BMPs. Estimates of reliable savings are the water conservation
savings which can be achieved with a high degree of confidence in a given service
area. The estimate of reliable savings for each BMP depends upon the nature of the
BMP and upon the amount of data available to evaluate potential savings. For some
BMPs (e.g., public information) estimates of reliable savings may never be generated.
For others, additional data may lead to significant changes in the estimate of reliable
savings. It is probable that average savings achieved by water suppliers will exceed the
estimates of reliable savings.
(g) In Section G: A list of "Potential Best Management Practices" ("PBMPs"). PBMPs are
'possible conservation practices which have not been promoted to the BMP list.
-7-
TERMS
4.2 Initial BMPs. PBMPs. Schedules. and Estimates of Reliable Savinas. The initial position
of conservation practices on the BMP and PBMP lists, the initial schedule of implementation
and study for the BMP list, the initial schedule of study for the PBMP list, and the initial
estimates of reliable savings represent compromises by the signatories to move the process
forward both for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings as defined in Section 5 and
to promote water conservation generally. The signatories agree that as more and better
data are collected in the future, the lists, the schedules, and the estimates of reliable savings
will be refined and revised based upon the most objective criteria available. However, the
signatories agree that the measures included as initial BMPs in Section A of Exhibit 1 are
economically justified on a statewide basis.
4.3 Future Revision of BMPs. PBMPs. Schedules. and Estimates of Reliable Savinas.
After the beginning of the initial term of the MOU as provided in Section 7.1, the California
Urban Water Conservation Council ("Council") will, pursuant to Section 6 of this MOU and
Exhibit 2, alter the composition of the BMP and PBMP lists, redefine individual BMPs, alter
the schedules of implementation, and update the assumptions of reliable savings as more
data becomes available. This dynamic BMP assessment process includes the following
specific commitments:
(a) The assumptions of reliable savings will be updated at least every 3 years.
(b) The economic reasonableness of a BMP or PBMP will be assessed by the Council
using the economic principles in Sections 3 and 4 of Exhibit 3.
(c) A BMP will be removed from the BMP list if, after review of data developed during
implementation, the Council determines that the BMP cannot be made economically
reasonable or determines that the BMP otherwise fails to conform to the definition of
BMPs in Section 1.1.
(c) A PBMP will be moved to the BMP list and assigned a schedule of implementation if,
after review of data developed during research, and/or demonstration projects, the
Council determines that the PBMP is economically reasonable and otherwise
conforms to the definition of BMPs in Section 1.1.
[Note: In 1997, the Council substantially revised the BMP list, definitions, and schedules
contained in Exhibit 1. These revisions were adopted by the Council September 30, 1997.].
4.4 Good Faith Effort. While specific BMPs and results may differ because of varying local
conditions among the areas served by the signatory water suppliers, a good faith effort to
implement BMPs will be required of all signatory water suppliers. The following are included
within the meaning of "good faith effort to implement BMPs":
(a) The proactive use by a signatory water supplier of legal authorities and
administrative prerogatives available to the water supplier as necessary and
reasonable for the implementation of BMPs.
(b) Where implementation of a particular BMP is not within the legal authority of a
signatory water supplier, encouraging timely implementation of the BMP by other
-8-
TERMS
entities that have the legal authority to carry out the BMP within that water supplier's
service area pursuant to existing legal authority. This encouragement may include,
but is not limited to, financial incentives as appropriate.
(c) Cooperating with and encouraging cooperation between other water suppliers and
other relevant entities whenever possible and within existing legal authority to
promote the implementation of BMPS.
(d) Optimizing savings from implementing BMPs.
(d) For each signatory water supplier and all signatory public advocacy organizations,
encouraging the removal of institutional barriers to the implementation of BMPs
within that water supplier's service area. Examples of good faith efforts to remove
institutional barriers include formal presentations and/or written requests to entities
requesting approval of, or amendment to, local ordinances, administrative policies or
legislation which will promote BMP implementation.
4.5 Exemptions. A signatory water supplier will be exempt from the implementation of specific
BMPs for as long as the supplier substantiates each reporting period that based upon then
prevailing local conditions, one or more of the following findings applies:
(a) A full cost-benefit analysis, performed in accordance with the principles set forth in
Exhibit 3, demonstrates that either the program (i) would not be cost-effective overall
when total program benefits and costs are considered; OR (ii) would not be cost-
effective to the individual water supplier even after the water supplier has made a
good faith effort to share costs with other program beneficiaries.
(b) Adequate funds are not and cannot reasonably be made available from sources
accessible to the water supplier including funds from other entities. However, this
exemption cannot be used if a new, less cost-effective water management option
would be implemented instead of the BMP for which the water supplier is seeking
this exemption.
(c) Implementation of the BMP is (i) not within the legal authority of the water supplier;
and (ii) the water supplier has made a good faith effort to work with other entities that
have the legal authority to carry out the BMP; and (iii) the water supplier has made a
good faith effort to work with other relevant entities to encourage the removal of
institutional barriers to the implementation of BMPs within its service area.
Signatory water suppliers shall submit exemptions to the Council within two months
following the start of the reporting period for which the exemptions are being claimed.
4.6 Schedule of Implementation. The schedule of implementation for BMPs is set forth in
Section B of Exhibit 1 to this MOU. However, it is recognized by the signatories that
deviations from this schedule by water suppliers may be necessary. Therefore, a water
supplier may modify, to the minimum extent necessary, the schedule for implementation of
BMPs if the water supplier substantiates one or more of the following findings:
- 9-
TERMS
(a) That after a good faith effort to implement the BMP within the time prescribed,
implementation is not feasible pursuant to the schedule. However, implementation of
this BMP is still required as soon as feasible within the initial term of this MOU as
defined in Section 7.1.
(b) That implementation of one or more BMPs prior to other BMPs will have a more
positive effect on conservation or water supplies than will adherence to the schedule.
(c) That implementation of one or more Potential BMPs or other conservation measures
prior to one or more BMPs will have a more positive effect on conservation or water
supplies than will adherence to the schedule.
SECTION 5. SA Y/DEL T A PROCEEDINGS
[Note: The following section was adopted with the initial MOU and has been retained in subsequent
revisions. The "present proceedings" refers to the State Water Resources Control Board water
rights process then underway to implement new Bay-Delta flow and export standards. As of the
date this note was adopted (April 8, 1998), proceedings to implement updated standards are still
underway. Therefore, the joint recommendations of the signatories to the SWRCB contained in this
letter continue to apply.]
5.1 Use of MOU for Bav/Delta ProceedinQs. The BMPs, the estimates of reliable savings and
the processes established by this MOU are agreed to by the signatories for purposes of the
present proceedings on the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary
("BaylDelta") and in order to move the water conservation process forward. "Present
BaylDelta proceedings" is intended to mean those BaylDelta proceedings presently
underway and those conducted until a final water rights decision is reached by the State
Water Resources Control Board ("State Board"). The willingness of the signatories to enter
into this MOU for purposes of the present BaylDelta proceedings in no way limits the
signatories' ability to propose different conservation practices, different estimates of savings,
or differen~ processes in a forum other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings, or for non-
urban water suppliers or for other water management issues. By signing this MOU, public
advocacy organization signatories are not agreeing to use the initial assumptions of reliable
conservation savings in proceedings other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings. The
signatories may present other assumptions of reliable conservation savings for non-
signatory water suppliers in the present BaylDelta proceedings, provided that such
assumptions could not have adverse impacts upon the water supplies of any signatory water
supplier. Furthermore, the signatories retain the right to advocate any particular level of
protection for the BaylDelta Estuary, including levels of freshwater flows, and do not
necessarily agree on population projections for California. This MOU is not intended to
address any authority or obligation of the State Board to establish freshwater flow
protections or set water quality objectives for the Estuary, or to address any authority of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
5.2 Recommendations for Bav/Delta ProceedinQs. The signatories will make the following
recommendations to the State Board in conjunction with the present BaylDelta proceedings
and to the EPA to the extent the EPA concerns itself with the proceedings:
- 10 -
TERMS
(a) That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings, implementation of the BMP
process set forth in this MOU represents a sufficient long-term water conservation
program by the signatory water suppliers, recognizing that additional programs may
be required during occasional water supply shortages;
(b) That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings only, the State Board and
EPA should base their estimates of future urban water conservation savings on the
implementation of all of the BMPs included in Section A of Exhibit 1 to this MOU for
the entire service area of the signatory water suppliers and only on those BMPs,
except for (I) the conservation potential for water supplied by urban agencies for
agricultural purposes, or (ii) in cases where higher levels of conservation have been
mandated;.
(c) That for the purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the State Board and
EPA should make their estimates of future urban water conservation savings by
employing the reliable savings assump~ions associated with those BMPs set forth in
Section C of Exhibit 1 to this MOU;
(d) That the State Board should include a policy statement in the water rights phase of
the Bay/Delta proceedings supporting the BMP process described in this MOU and
that the BMP process should be considered in any documents prepared by the State
Board pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as part of the present
Bay/Delta proceedings.
5.3 Letter to State Board. Within 30 days of signing this MOU, each signatory will jointly or
individually convey the principles set forth in SeCtions 5.1 and 5.2 above by sending a letter
to the State Board, copied to the EPA, in the form attached to this MOU as Exhibit 4.
5.4 Withdrawal from MOU. If during the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the State Board or
EPA uses future urban water conservation savings that are inconsistent with the use of
BMPs as provided in this MOU, any signatory shall have the right to withdraw from the MOU
by providing written notice to the Council as described in Section 7.4(a)(I) below.
SECTION 6. CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL
6.1 Oraanization. The California Urban Water Conservation Council ("Council") will be
comprised of all signatories to this MOU grouped according to the definition in Section 1.
The signatories agree to the necessary organization and duties of the Council as specified
in Exhibit 2 to this MOU. Within 30 days of the effective date of this MOU, the Council will
hold its first meeting.
6.2 BMP Implementation Reports. The signatory water suppliers will submit standardized
reports every other year to the Council providing sufficient information to inform the Council
on the progress being made towards implementing the BMP process. The Council will make
annual reports to the State Board. An outline for the Council's annual report to the State
Board is attached as Exhibit 5 to this MOU.
- 11 -
TERMS
SECTION 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.1 Initial Term of MOU. The initial term of this MOU shall be for a period of 10 years. This
initial term shall commence on September 1, 1991.
7.2 Sianatories. Signatories shall consist of three groups: water suppliers, public advocacy
organizations and other interested groups, arranged according to the definition in Section
1.3. Such arrangement will be made by a Council membership committee comprised of
three representatives from the water suppliers' group and three representatives from the
public advocacy organizations' group.
('.3 Renewal of MOU. The MOU shall be automatically renewed after the initial term of 10
years on an annual basis as to all signatories unless a signatory withdraws as described
below in Section 7.4.
7.4 Withdrawal from MOU. Signatories to the MOU may withdraw from the MOU in three
separate ways as described in sections (a), (b) and 8 below.
(a) Withdrawal prior to expiration of initial term. Before the exp'iration of the initial
term of 10 years, a signatory may withdraw by providing written notice to the Council
declaring its intent to withdraw. This written notice must include a substantiated
finding that one of the two provisions (i) or (ii) below applies:
(i) During the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the State Board or EPA used
future urban water conservation savings that are inconsistent with the use of
BMPs as provided in this MOU; OR
(ii) After a period of 5 years from the commencement of the initial term of the
MOU:
(1) Specific signatory water suppliers representing more than 10 percent of the
population included within the combined service areas of the signatory
water suppliers have failed to act in good faith pursuant to Section 4.4 of the
MOU; and
(2) The signatory wishing to withdraw has attached findings to its past two
annual reports to the Council beginning no earlier than the fourth annual
report identifying these same signatory water suppliers and giving evidence
based upon the information required to be submitted in the annual reports to
the Council to support the allegations of failure to act in good faith; and
(3) The State Board has failed to require conservation efforts by the specific
water suppliers adequate to satisfy the requirements of this MOU; and
- 12-
TERMS
(4) Discussions between the signatory wishing to withdraw and the specific
signatories named have failed to satisfy the objections of the signatory
wishing to withdraw.
After a signatory declares an intent to withdraw under Section 7.4(a), the MOU shall remain
in effect as to that signatory for 180 days.
(b) Withdrawal after expiration of initial term. After the initial term of 10 years, any
signatory may declare its intent to withdraw from the MOU unconditionally by
providing written notice to the Council. After a signatory has declared its intent to
withdraw as provided in this section, the MOU will remain in effect as to that
signatory for 180 days.
(c) Immediate withdrawal. Any signatory who does not sign a modification to the MOU
requiring a 2/3 vote as described in Exhibit 2 of this MOU may withdraw from the
MOU by providing written notice to the Council. The withdrawing signatory's duties
under this MOU will be terminated effective immediately upon providing such written
notice.
If a signatory withdraws from the MOU under any of the above methods, the MOU shall
remain in effect as to all other signatories.
7.5 Additional Parties. Additional parties may sign the MOU after September 1,1991 by
providing written notice to and upon approval by the Council. Additional parties will be
assigned by the Council to one of the three signatory groups defined in Section 1.3 before
entry into the Council. All additional signatory water suppliers shall be subject to the
schedule of implementation provided in Exhibit 1.
7.6 Leaal Authoritv. Nothing in this MOU is intended to give any signatory, agency, entity or
organization expansion of any existing authority. No organization formed pursuant to this
MOU has authority beyond that specified in this MOU.
7.7 Non-Contractual Aareement. This MOU is intended to embody general principles agreed
upon between and among the signatories and is not intended to create contractual
relationships, rights, obligations, duties or remedies in a court of law between or among the
signatories.
7.8 Modifications. The signatories agree that this writing constitutes the entire understanding
between and among the signatories. The general manager, chief executive officer or
executive director of each signatory or their designee shall have the authority to vote on any
modifications to this MOU and its exhibits. Any modifications to the MOU itself and to its
exhibits shall be made by the Council as described in Exhibit 2.
- 13-
EXHIBIT 1. BMP DEFINITIONS, SCHEDULES AND REQUIREMENTS
This Exhibit contains Best Management Practices (BMPs) that signatory water suppliers
commit to implementing. Suppliers' water needs estimates will be adjusted to reflect
estimates of reliable savings from this category of BMPs. For some BMPs, no estimate of
savings is made.
It is recognized by all parties that a single implementation method for a BMP would not be
appropriate for all water suppliers. In fact, it is likely that as the process moves forward,
water suppliers will find new implementation methods even more effective than those
described. Any implementation method used should be at least as effective as the methods
described below.
Best Management Practices will be implemented by signatory water suppliers according to
the schedule set forth in Section B of each BMP's definition. These schedules set forth the
latest dates by which implementation of BMPs will be underway. It is recognized that some
signatories are already implementing some BMPs, and that these schedules do not prohibit
signatories from implementing BMPs sooner than required.
"Implementation" means achieving and maintaining the staffing, funding, and in general, the
priority levels necessary to achieve the level of activity called for in Section A of each
BMP's definition, and to satisfy the commitment by the signatories to use good faith efforts
to optimize savings from implementing BMPs as described in Section 4.4 of the MOU.
BMPs will be implemented at a level of effort projected to achieve at least the coverages
specified in Section C of each BMP's definition, and in accordance with each BMP's
implementation schedule.
Section D of each BMP definition contains the minimum record keeping and reporting
requirements for agencies to document BMP implementation levels and efforts, and will be
used to guide Council development of BMP implementation report forms and database.
The evaluation criteria presented in Section E of each BMP definition shall be used to
evaluate compliance with the implementation definitions, schedules, and coverage
requirements specified in Sections A, B, and C of each BMP definition.
Section F of each BMP definition contains the assumptions of reliable savings to be used in
accordance with Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the MOU
.' .
- 14-
EXHIBIT 1
1. WATER SURVEY PROGRAMS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
AND MUL TI-FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
A. Implementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
a) Develop and implement a strategy targeting and marketing water use
surveys to single-family residential and multi-family residential customers.
b) Directly contact via letter or telephone not less than 20% of single-family
residential customers and 20% of multi-family residential customers each
reporting period.
c) Surveys shall include indoor and outdoor components, and at minimum shall
have the following elements:
Indoor
i) Check for leaks, including toilets, faucets, and meter check
ii) Check showerhead flow rates, aerator flow rates, and offer to replace or
recommend replacement, as necessary
iii) Check toilet flow rates and offer to install or recommend installation of
displacement device or direct customer to ULFT replacement program,
as necessary; replace leaking toilet flapper, as necessary
Outdoor
iv) Check irrigation system and timers
v) Review or develop customer irrigation schedule
Recommended but not required
vi) Measure currently landscaped area
vii) Measure total irrigable area
d) Provide customer with evaluation results and water saving
recommendations; leave information packet with customer.
e) Track surveys offered, surveys completed, survey results, and survey costs.
- 15-
EXHIBIT 1
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing theMOU prior to December 31,1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1998.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the year following
the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
c) Agencies shall develop and implement a strategy targeting and marketing water
use surveys to single-family residential and multi-family residential customers by
the end of the first reporting period following the date implementation was to
commence.
d) The coverage requirement for this BMP, as specified in Section C of this Exhibit,
shall be realized within 10 years of the date implementation was to commence.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
a) Not less than 15% of single-family residential accounts to receive water use
surveys within 10 years of the date implementation was to commence. For the
purposes of calculating coverage, 15% of single-family residential accounts
means the number of accounts equal to 15% of single-family accounts in 1997
or the year the agency signed the MOU, whichever is later.
b) Not less than 15% of multi-family residential units to receive water use surveys
within 10 years of the date implementation was to commence. For the purposes
of calculating coverage, 15% of multi-family residential units means the number
of units equal to 15% of multi-family units in 1997 or the year the agency signed
the MOU, whichever is later.
D. Reauirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
a) Number of single-family residential accounts in service area.
b) Number of multi-family residential accounts in service area.
c) Number of single-family residential surveys offered during reporting period.
d) Number of single-family residential surveys completed during reporting period.
e) Number of multi-family residential surveys offered during reporting period.
f) Number of multi-family residential surveys completed during reporting period.
- 16-
EXHIBIT 1
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
a) Agency has developed and implemented a strategy targeting and marketing
water use surveys to single-family residential and multi-family residential
customers by the end of the first reporting period following the date
implementation was to commence.
b) Agency has directly contacted not less than 20% of single-family residential
accounts and 20% of multi-family residential units during period being reported.
c) Agency is on schedule to complete surveys for 15% of single-family residential
accounts and 15% of multi-family units within 10 years of the date
implementation was to commence. Agencies will receive credit against the
coverage requirement for previously completed residential water use surveys
according to the following schedule*:
% Credit
Before 1990 0.0%
1990 12.5%
1991 25.0%
1992 37.5%
1993 50.0%
1994 62.5%
1995 75.0%
1996 87.5%
1997 100.0%
d) Agencies will be considered on track if the percent of single-family accounts and
the percent of multi-family accounts receiving water use surveys equals or
exceeds the following: 1.5% by end of first reporting period following date
implementation to commence; 3.6% by end of second reporting period; 6.3% by
end of third reporting period; 9.6% by end of fourth reporting period; and 13.5%
by end of fifth reporting period.
* .In its study "What is the Reliable Yield from Residential Home Water Survey Programs: The Experience of
LADWP' (AWWA Conf. Proceedings, 1995), A & N Technical Services, Inc., found that the average level of
savings from home water surveys decreased over time, reaching about 50% of initial yield by the fourth year
following the survey, on average. The above decay schedule used for crediting past surveys utilizes these
findings to recognize and account for the limited persistence of water savings over time from home water use
surveys
- 17-
EXHIBIT 1
F. Water SavinQs Assumptions
Pre-1980 Post-1980
Construction Construction
Low-flow showerhead retrofit 7.2 gcd 2.9 gcd
Toilet retrofit (five year life) 1.3 gcd 0.0 gcd
Leak repair 0.5 gcd 0.5 gcd
Landscape survey (outdoor use reduction) 10% 10%
- 18-
EXHIBIT 1
2. RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING RETROFIT
A. Implementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
a) Identify single-family and multi-family residences constructed prior to 1992.
Develop a targeting and marketing strategy to distribute or directly install high-
quality, low-flow showerheads (rated 2.5 gpmor less), toilet displacement
devices (as needed), toilet flappers (as needed) and faucet aerators (rated
2.2 gpm or less) as practical to residences requiring them.
b) Maintain distribution and/or direct installation programs so that devices are
distributed to not less than 10% of single-family connections and multi-family
units each reporting period, or require through enforceable ordinance the
replacement of high-flow showerheads and other water using fixtures with their
low-flow counterparts, until it can be demonstrated in accordance with Section E
of this Exhibit that 75% of single-family residences and 75% of multi-family units
are fitted with high-quality, low-flow showerheads.
c) Track the type and number of retrofits completed, devices distributed, and
program costs.
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31, 1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1998.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the year following
the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
c) Agencies shall develop and implement a strategy targeting the distribution
and/or installation of high-quality, low-flow plumbing devices to single-family
residential and multi-family residential customers by the end of the first reporting
period following the date implementation was to commence.
d) An agency may elect to discontinue its device distribution programs without filing
a formal budget or cost-effectiveness exemption when it can demonstrate that
75% of its single-family residences and 75% of its multi-family units constructed
prior to 1992 are fitted with high-quality, low-flow showerheads.
- 19-
EXHIBIT 1
C. Coveraae Reauirements
a) Plumbing device distribution and installation programs to be maintained at a
level sufficient to distribute high-quality, low-flow showerheads to not less than
10% of single-family residences and 10% of multi-family units constructed prior
to 1992 each reporting period; or the enactment of an enforceable ordinance
requiring the replacement of high-flow showerheads and other water use fixtures
with their low-flow counterparts.
b) Plumbing device distribution and installation programs to be operated until it can
be demonstrated in accordance with Section E of this Exhibit that 75% of single-
family residences and 75% of multi-family units are fitted with high-quality, low-
flow showerheads.
D. Reauirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
a) The target population of pre-1992 single-family residences and multi-family units
to be provided showerheads and other water saving devices.
b) The number of showerhead retrofit kits distributed during previous reporting
period.
c) The number of device retrofits completed during the previous reporting period.
d) The estimated percentage of pre-1992 single-family residences and multi-family
units in service area fitted with low-flow showerheads.
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
a) Agency has developed and implemented a strategy targeting and marketing
water use surveys to single-family residential and multi-family residential
customers by the end of the first reporting period following the date
implementation was to commence.
b) Agency has tracked the type and number of retrofits completed, devices
distributed, and program costs.
c) Agency EITHER
i) has distributed or directly installed high-quality, low-flow showerheads and
other low-flow plumbing devices to not less than 10% of single-family
residences and 10% of multi-family units constructed prior to 1992 during
the reporting period; and/or has enacted an ordinance requiring the
- 20-
EXHIBIT 1
replacement of high-flow shower-heads and other water use fixtures with
their low-flow counterparts.
OR
ii) can demonstrate through customer surveys with 95% statistical confidence
and a :1:10% error that 75% of single-family residences and 75% of multi-
family units constructed prior to 1992 are fitted with low-flow showerheads.
F. Water Savinas Assumptions
Pre-1980 Post-1980
Construction Construction
Low-flow showerhead retrofit 7.2 gcd 2.9 gcd
Toilet retrofit (five year life) 1.3 gcd 0.0 gcd
.
- 21 -
EXHIBIT 1
3. SYSTEM WATER AUDITS, LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR
A. Implementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
a) Annually complete a prescreening system audit to determine the need for a
fullscale system audit. The prescreening system audit shall calculated as
follows:
i) Determine metered sales;
ii) Determine other system verifiable uses;
iii) Determine total supply into the system;
iv) Divide metered sales plus other verifiable uses by total supply into the
system. If this quantity is less than 0.9, a fullscale system audit is indicated.
b) When indicated, agencies shall complete water audits of their distribution
systems using methodology consistent with that described in AWWA's Water
Audit and Leak Detection Guidebook.
c) Agencies shall advise customers whenever it appears possible that leaks exist
on the customer's side of the meter; perform distribution system leak detection
when warranted and cost-effective; and repair leaks when found.
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31, 1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1998.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the year following
the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
a) Agency shall maintain an active distribution system auditing program.
b) Agency shall repair identified leaks whenever cost-effective.
- 22-
EXHIBIT 1
D. Reauirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
a) Prescreening audit results and supporting documentation;
b) Maintain in-house records of audit results or the completed AWWA Audit
Worksheets for each completed audit period.
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
a) Agency has annually completed a pre-screening distribution system audit.
b) Agency has conducted a full system audit consistent with methods described by
AWWA's Manual of Water Supply Practices, Water Audits and Leak Detection
whenever indicated by a pre-screening audit.
F. Water Savinas Assumptions
Unaccounted water losses assumed to be no more than 10% of total water into the
water supplier's system.
- 23-
EXHIBIT 1
4. METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW
CONNECTIONS AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS
A. Implementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
a) Requiring meters for all new connections and billing by volume of use.
b) Establishing a program for retrofitting existing unmetered connections and billing
by volume of use.
c) Identifying intra- and inter-agency disincentives or barriers to retrofitting mixed
use commercial accounts with dedicated landscape meters, and conducting a
feasibility study to assess the merits of a program to provide incentives to switch
mixed use accounts to dedicated landscape meters.
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31, 1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1999.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the second year
following the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
c) A plan to retrofit and bill by volume of use existing unmetered connections to be
completed by end of the first reporting period following the date implementation
was to commence.
d) A feasibility study examining incentive programs to move landscape water uses
on mixed-use meters to dedicated landscape meters to be completed by end of
the first reporting period following the date implementation was to commence.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
100% of existing unmetered accounts to be metered and billed by volume of use
within 10 years of date implementation was to commence.
- 24-
EXHIBIT 1
D. Reauirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
a) Confirmation that all new connections are metered and are being billed by
volume of use.
b) Number of unmetered accounts in the service area. For the purposes of
evaluation, this shall be defined as the baseline meter retrofit target, and shall
be used to calculate the agency's minimum annual retrofit requirement.
c) Number of unmetered connections retrofitted during the reporting period.
d) Number of CII accounts with mixed-use meters.
e) Number of CII accounts with mixed-use meters retrofitted with dedicated
irrigation meters during reporting period.
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
a) Agency with existing unmetered connections has completed a meter retrofit plan
by end of first reporting period following the date implementation was to
commence.
b) Agency has completed a feasibility study examining incentive programs to move
landscape water uses on mixed-use meters to dedicated landscape meters by
end of first reporting period following the date implementation was to commence.
c) Agency with existing unmetered connections is on track to meter these
connections within 10 years of the date implementation was to commence. An
agency will be considered on track if the percent of unmetered accounts
retrofitted with meters equals or exceeds the following: 10% by end of first
reporting period following date implementation to commence; 24% by end of
second reporting period; 42% by end of third reporting period; 64% by end of
fourth reporting period; and 90% by end of fifth reporting period.
F. Water Savinas Assumptions
Assume meter retrofits will result in a 20% reduction in demand by retrofitted
accounts.
- 25-
EXHIBIT 1
5. LARGE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND
INCENTIVES
A. Implementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
Customer Support, Education and Assistance
a) Agencies shall provide non-residential customers with support and
incentives to improve their landscape water use efficiency. This support
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
Accounts with Dedicated Irrigation Meters
a) Identify accounts with dedicated irrigation meters and assign ETo-based
water use budgets equal to no more than 100% of reference
evapotranspiration per square foot of landscape area in accordance with the
schedule given in Section B of this Exhibit.
b) Provide notices each billing cycle to accounts with water use budgets
showing the relationship between the budget and actual consumption in
accordance with the schedule given in Section B of this Exhibit; agencies
may choose not to notify customers whose use is less than their water use
budget.
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Accounts with Mixed-Use Meters or
Not Metered
a) Develop and implement a strategy targeting and marketing large landscape
water use surveys to commercial/industrial/institutional (CII) accounts with
mixed-use meters. Each reporting period, directly contact via letter or
telephone not less than 20% of CII accounts with mixed-use meters and
offer water use surveys. (Note: CII surveys that include both indoor and
outdoor components can be credited against coverage requirements for
both BMP 5 and BMP 9.)
b) Unmetered service areas will actively market landscape surveys to existing
accounts with large landscapes, or accounts with landscapes which have
been determined by the purveyor not to be water efficient.
c) Offer the following measures when cost-effective:
i) Landscape water use analysis/surveys
- 26-
EXHIBIT 1
ii) Voluntary water use budgets
iii) Installation of dedicated landscape meters
iv) Training (multi-lingual where appropriate) in landscape maintenance,
irrigation system maintenance, and irrigation system design.
v) Financial incentives to improve irrigation system efficiency such as
loans, rebates, and grants for the purchase and/or installation of water
efficient irrigation systems.
vi) Follow-up water use analyses/surveys consisting of a letter, phone call,
or site visit where appropriate.
d) Survey elements will include: measurement of landscape area;
measurement of total irrigable area; irrigation system check, and distribution
uniformity analysis; review or develop irrigation schedules, as appropriate;
provision of a customer survey report and information packet.
e) Track survey offers, acceptance, findings, devices installed, savings
potential, and survey cost.
New or Change of Service Accounts
Provide information on climate-appropriate landscape design, efficient irrigation
equipment/management to new customers and change-of-service customer
accounts.
Recommended
a) Install climate appropriate water efficient landscaping at water agency
facilities, and dual metering where appropriate.
b) Provide customer notices prior to the start of the irrigation season alerting
them to check their irrigation systems and make repairs as necessary.
Provide customer notices at the end of the irrigation season advising them
to adjust their irrigation system timers and irrigation schedules.
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31, 1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1999.
- 27':'
EXHIBIT 1
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the second year
following the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
c) Develop ETo-based water use budgets for all accounts with dedicated irrigation
meters by the end of the second reporting period from the date implementation
was to commence.
d) Develop and implement a plan to target and market landscape water use
surveys to CII accounts with mixed-use meters by the end of the first reporting
period from the date implementation was to commence.
e) Develop and implement a customer incentive program by the end of the first
reporting period from the date implementation was to commence.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
a) ETo-based water use budgets developed for 90% of CII accounts with dedicated
irrigation meters by the end of the second reporting period from the date
implementation was to commence.
b) Not less than 20% of CII accounts with mixed-use meters contacted and offered
landscape water use surveys each reporting period.
c) Irrigation water use surveys completed for not less than 15% of CII accounts
with mixed-use meters within 10 years of the date implementation was to
commence. (Note: CII surveys that include both indoor and outdoor
components can be credited against coverage requirements for both BMP 5 and
BMP 9.) For the purposes of calculating coverage, 15% of CII accounts means
the number of accounts equal to 15% of CII accounts with mixed-use meters in
1997 or the year the agency signed the MOU, whichever is later.
D. Reauirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
Dedicated Landscape Irrigation Accounts
Agencies shall preserve water use records and budgets for customers with
dedicated landscape irrigation accounts for a period of not less than two reporting
periods. This information may be used by the Council to verify the agency's reporting
on this BMP .
a) Number of dedicated irrigation meter accounts.
b) Number of dedicated irrigation meter accounts with water budgets.
- 28-
EXHIBIT 1
c) Aggregate water use for dedicated landscape accounts with budgets.
d) Aggregate budgeted water use for dedicated landscape accounts with budgets.
Mixed Use Accounts
a) Number of mixed use accounts.
b) Number, type, and dollar value of incentives, rebates, and no, or low interest
loans offered to, and received by, customers.
c) Number of surveys offered.
d) Number of surveys accepted.
e) Estimated annual water savings by customers receiving surveys and
implementing recommendations.
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
a) Agency has developed water use budgets for 90% of accounts with dedicated
irrigation meters by end of second reporting period from date implementation
was to commence.
b) Agency has implemented irrigation water use survey program for CII accounts
with mixed-use meters, and directly contacts and offers surveys to not less than
20% of accounts each reporting period. (A program to retrofit mixed-use
accounts with dedicated landscape meters and assigning water use budgets, or
a program giving mixed-use accounts ETo-based budgets for irrigation uses
satisfies this criterion.)
c) Agency is on track to provide water use surveys to not less than 15% of CII
accounts with mixed-use meters within 10 years of the date implementation was
to commence. Agency may credit 100% of the number of landscape water use
surveys for CII accounts with mixed-use meters completed prior to July 1, 1996,
that have received a follow-up inspection against the coverage requirement; and
50% of surveys that have not received follow-up inspections. Agency may credit
100% of the number of landscape water use surveys completed for CII accounts
with mixed-use meters after July 1, 1996 against the coverage requirement. (A.
program to retrofit mixed-use accounts with dedicated landscape accounts, or a
program giving mixed-use accounts ETo-based budgets for irrigation uses
satisfy this criterion.)
- 29-
EXHIBIT 1
d) An agency will be considered on track if the percent of CII accounts with mixed-
use meters receiving a landscape water use survey equals or exceeds the
following: 1.5% by end of first reporting period following date implementation to
commence; 3.6% by end of second reporting period; 6.3% by end of third
reporting period; 9.6% by end of fourth reporting period; and 13.5% by end of
fifth reporting period. (A program to retrofit mixed-use accounts with dedicated
landscape accounts, or a program giving mixed-use accounts ETo-based
budgets for irrigation uses satisfy this criterion.)
e) Agency has implemented and is maintaining customer incentive program(s) for
irrigation equipment retrofits.
F. Water SavinQs Assumptions
Assume landscape surveys will result in a 15% reduction in demand for landscape
uses by surveyed accounts.
.
- 30-
EXHIBIT 1
6. HIGH-EFFICIENCY WASHING MACHINE REBATE PROGRAMS
A. Implementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
Council Actions and Responsibilities
a) Within 6 months from the adoption of this BMP, the Council will develop interim
estimates of reliable water savings attributable to the use of high-efficiency
washing machines based on the results of the THELMA Study and other
available data. Water purveyors may defer implementing this BMP until the
Council has adopted these interim estimates. [NOTE: INTERIM ESTIMATE OF
RELIABLE WATER SAVINGS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL PLENARY APRIL 8,
1998, SEE SECTION F.]
b) Within two years from the adoption of this BMP, the Council will complete
studies quantifying reliable savings attributable to the use of high-efficiency
washing machines.
c) At the end of two years following the adoption of this BMP, the Council will
appoint a committee to evaluate the effectiveness of triggering high-efficiency
washing machine financial incentive programs operated by MOU signatories
with programs operated by energy service providers. This committee will consist
of 2 group 1 representatives, 2 group 2 representatives, and the Council
Administrator or Executive Director or his/her designee. This BMP will be
modified by the appointed committee to require agencies to implement financial
incentive programs for high-efficiency washing machines whenever cost-
effective and regardless of the absence of a program operated by an energy
service provider if the committee concludes from available evidence the
following:
i) the Council has verified that significant water savings are available from
high-efficiency washing machines;
ii) there is widespread product availability; and
iii) financial incentive programs offered by energy service providers in
California have either not materialized, been largely discontinued or
significantly scaled back.
- 31 -
EXHIBIT 1
Water Purveyor Responsibilities
a) In conjunction with the Council, support local, state, and federal legislation to
improve efficiency standards for washing machines.
b) If an energy service provider or waste water utility within the service territory is
offering a financial incentive for the purchase of high-efficiency washing
machines, then the water agency shall also offer a cost-effective financial
incentive based on the marginal benefits of the water savings. Incentive levels
shall be calculated by using methods found in A Guide to Customer Incentives
for Water Conservation prepared by Barakat and Chamberlain for the CUW A,
CUWCC, and US EPA, February 1994. A water purveyor is not required to
implement a financial incentive program if the maximum cost-effective rebate is
less than $50.
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31, 1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1999.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the second year
following the year the agency signed or became subjectto the MOU.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
Cost-effective customer incentive for the purchase of high-efficiency washing
machine offered if incentives are being offered by local energy service providers or
waste water utility.
D. Reauirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
a) Customer incentives to purchase high-efficiency washing machines being
offered by local energy service providers, if any.
b) Customer incentives to purchase high-efficiency washing machines being
offered by agency, if any.
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
a) Agency has determined if energy service providers or waste water utilities
operating within service territory offer financial incentives for the purchase of
high-efficiency washing machines.
- 32-
EXHIBIT 1
b) If energy service provider or waste water utility operating within agency's service
territory is offering financial incentives, agency has calculated cost-effective
customer incentive using methods found in A Guide to Customer Incentives for
Water Conservation prepared by Barakat and Chamberlain for the CUW A,
CUWCC, and US EPA, February 1994, and is offering this incentive to
customers in service territory.
F. Water Savinas Assumptions
The interim estimate of reliable annual water savings per replacement of a low-
efficiency washing machine with a high-efficiency washing machine is 5,100 gallons,
which is the mean yearly water savings derived from THELMA study data on water
savings and washing machine load frequencies. Signatory water suppliers may use
an estimate of annual water savings exceeding 5,100 gallons at their discretion I and
may also select a lower estimate, so long as it is not below 4,600 gallons per year
per retrofit, and there is a data supported reason for adopting an estimate lower than
5,100 gallons.
- 33-
EXHIBIT 1
7. PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS
A. 1m plementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
a) Implement a public information program to promote water conservation and
water conservation related benefits.
b) Program should include, but is not limited to, providing speakers to employees,
community groups and the media; using paid and public service advertising;
using bill inserts; providing information on customers' bills showing use in
gallons per day for the last billing period compared to the same period the year
before; providing public information to promote water conservation practices;
and coordinating with other government agencies, industry groups, public
interest groups, and the media.
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31, 1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1998.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the first year
following the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
Agencies shall maintain an active public information program to promote and
educate customers about water conservation.
D. Reauirements for DocumentinQ BMP Implementation
a) Number of public speaking events relating to conservation during reporting
period.
b) Number of media events relating to conservation during reporting period.
c) Number of paid or public service announcements relating to conservation
, produced or sponsored during reporting period.
d) Types of information relating to conservation provided to customers.
e) Annual budget for public information programs directly related to conservation.
- 34-
.
EXHIBIT 1
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
Agency has implemented and is maintaining a public information program consistent
with BMP 7's definition.
F. Water SavinQs Assumptions
Not quantified.
- 35-
EXHIBIT 1
8. SCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
A. Implementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
a) Implement a school education program to promote water conservation and water
conservation related benefits.
b) Programs shall include working with school districts and private schools in the
water suppliers' service area to provide instructional assistance, educational
materials, and classroom presentations that identify urban, agricultural, and
environmental issues and conditions in the local watershed. Education materials
shall meet the state education framework requirements, and grade appropriate
materials shall be distributed to grade levels K-3, 4-6, 7-8, and high school.
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31,1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1998.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the first year
following the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
Agencies shall maintain an active school education program to educate students in
the agency's service areas about water conservation and efficient water uses.
D. Reauirements for Documenfina BMP Implementation
a) Number of school presentations made during reporting period.
b) Number and type of curriculum materials developed and/or provided by water
supplier, including confirmation that curriculum materials meet state education
framework requirements and are grade-level appropriate.
c) Number of students reached.
d) Number of in-service presentations or teacher's workshops conducted during
reporting period.
e) Annual budget for school education programs related to conservation.
- 36-
EXHIBIT 1
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
Agency has implemented and is maintaining a school education program consistent
with BMP 8's definition.
F. Water Savinas Assumptions
Not quantified.
- 37-
EXHIBIT 1
9. CONSERVATION PROGRAMS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL,
AND INSTITUTIONAL (CII) ACCOUNTS
A. Implementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
BOTH (a) AND (b)
(a) CII Accounts
Identify and rank commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) accounts (or
customers if the agency chooses to aggregate accounts) according to water use.
For purposes of this BMP, CII accounts are defined as follows:
Commercial Accounts: any water use that provides or distributes a product or
service, such as hotels, restaurants, office buildings, commercial businesses or
other places of commerce. These do not include multi-family residences,
agricultural users, or customers that fall within the industrial or institutional
classifications.
Industrial Accounts: any water users that are primarily manufacturers or
processors of materials as defined by the Standard Industrial Classifications
(SIC) Code numbers 2000 through 3999.
Institutional Accounts: any water-using establishment dedicated to public
service. This includes schools, courts, churches, hospitals, and government
facilities. All facilities serving these functions are to be considered institutions
regardless of ownership.
(b) CII ULFTs
Within one year of the adoption of this BMP, the Council shall establish long-
term implementation targets for the replacement of high-water-using toilets with
ULFTs in the CII sector. Implementation targets will be based on the findings of
the Council CII ULFT Water Savings Study.
AND EITHER (c) OR (d)
(c) CII Water-Use Survey and Customer Incentives Program
Implement a CII Water-Use Survey and Customer Incentives Program. Develop
a customer targeting and marketing strategy to provide water use surveys and
customer incentives to CII accounts such that 10% of each CII sector's
- 38-
EXHIBIT 1
accounts are surveyed within 10 years of the date implementation is to
commence. Directly contact (via letter, telephone, or personal visit) and offer
water use surveys and customer incentives to at least 10% of each CII sector on
a repeating basis. Water use surveys must include a site visit, an evaluation of
all water-using apparatus and processes, and a customer report identifying
recommended efficiency measures, their expected payback period and available
agency incentives. Within one year of a completed survey, follow-up via phone
or site visit with customer regarding facility water use and water saving
improvements. Track customer contacts, accounts (or customers) receiving
surveys, follow-ups, and measures implemented. The method for crediting
water use surveys completed prior to the revision of this BMP is described in
Section E.
(d) CII Conservation Performance Targets
Achieve a water use reduction in the CII sectors equaling or exceeding the CII
Conservation Performance Target. Implement programs to achieve annual
water use savings by CII accounts by an amount equal to 10% of the baseline
use of CII accounts in the agency's service area over a ten year period. The
target amount of annual water use reduction in CII accounts is a static value
calculated from the baseline amount of annual use. Baseline use is defined as
the use by CII accounts in 1997. Water purveyors may justify to the Council the
use of an alternative baseline year.
B. Implementation Schedule
(a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31,1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1999.
(b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no 'later than July 1 of the second year
following the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
(c) The coverage requirement for this BMP, as specified in Section C of this Exhibit,
shall be realized within 10 years of the date implementation was to commence.
- 39-
EXHIBIT 1
C. Coverage ReQuirements
EITHER
(a) CII Water Use Survey and Customer Incentives Program
10% of each of the CII sector's accounts to accept a water use survey within 10
years of the date implementation is to commence. For the purposes of
calculating coverage, 10% of CII accounts means the number of accounts equal
to 10% of CII accounts in 1997 or the year the agency signed the MOU,
whichever is later.
OR
(b) CII Conservation Performance Targets
Reduce annual water use by CII accounts by an amount equal to 10% of the
annual baseline water use within 10 years of the date implementation is to
commence.
D. ReQuirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
(a) CII Accounts
The number of accounts (or customers) and amount of water use within each of the
CII sectors.
AND EITHER (b) OR (c)
(b) CII Water Use Survey and Customer Incentives Program
1) The number of CII accounts (or customers) offered water use surveys during
the reporting period.
2) The number of new water use surveys completed during the reporting
period.
3) The number of follow-ups completed during the reporting period.
4) The type and number of water saving recommendations implemented.
5) Agency's program budget and actual program expenditures.
- 40-
EXHIBIT 1
(c) CII Conservation Performance Target
The estimated reduction in annual water use for all CII accounts due to agency
programs, interventions, and actions. Agencies must document how savings were
realized and the method and calculations for estimating savings.
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
(a) CII Accounts
Agency has identified and ranked by water use its CII accounts.
AND EITHER (b) OR (c) OR (d)
(b) CII Water Use Survey and Customer Incentives Program
1) Agency has developed and implemented a strategy targeting and marketing
water use surveys to CII accounts (or customers) by the end of the first
reporting period following the date implementation is to commence.
2) Agency is on schedule to complete surveys for 10% of commercial
accounts, 10% of industrial accounts, and 10% of institutional accounts
within 10 years of the date implementation is to commence. Agencies may
credit 50% of the number of surveys completed prior to July 1, 1996 that
have not received follow-up verification of implementation, and 100% of the
number of surveys completed prior to July 1, 1996 that have received a
follow-up survey. Agencies may credit 100% of the number of surveys
completed after July 1, 1996 against the coverage requirement.
3) Agencies will be considered on track if the percent of CII accounts receiving
a water use survey, in aggregate, equals or exceeds the following: 0.5% of
the total number of surveys required by end of first reporting period following
date implementation is to commence; 2.4% by end of second reporting
period; 4.2% by end of third reporting period; 6.4% by end of fourth reporting
period; and 9.0% by end of fifth reporting period.
(c) CII Conservation Performance Targets
1) Agency is on schedule to reduce water use by CII accounts by an amount
equal to 10% of baseline use (as defined in Section A) for CII accounts
within 10 years of the date implementation is to commence.
2) Agencies will be considered on track if estimated savings as a percent of
baseline water use equals or exceeds the following: 0.5% by end of first
- 41 -
EXHIBIT 1
reporting period following date implementation is to commence; 2.4% by end
of second reporting period; 4.2% by end of third reporting period; 6.4% by
end of fourth reporting period; and 9.0% by end of fifth reporting period.
3) Credited water savings must be realized through agency actions performed
to increase water use efficiency within the CII sector. Agencies may credit
100% of estimated annual savings of interventions since 1991 that have
been site verified, and 25% of estimated annual savings of interventions that
have not been site verified.
4) Agencies may claim the estimated savings for regulations, ordinances, or
laws intended to increase water use efficiency by the CII sector, subject to
the review and approval of the savings estimates by the Council. To avoid
double counting, agencies justifying savings on the basis of rate structure
changes may not claim savings from any other actions undertaken by CII
customers, third parties, or the agency.
(d) Combined Targets
Agencies may choose different tracks for different CII sectors, and will be
considered in compliance with this BMP if they are on track to meet each
applicable coverage requirement for each sector. In addition, agencies may
implement both tracks for a given CII sector, and will be considered in
compliance with this BMP if the percent of surveys completed and the percent of
water savings realized, when added together, equals or exceeds the applicable
compliance requirement. For example, at the end of the second reporting cycle
an agency would be considered on track to meet the coverage requirement if the
percent of surveys completed and the percent of water savings achieved, when
added together, equaled or exceeded 2.4%. Agencies may combine tracks only
if they make a convincing demonstration that savings attributable to counted
surveys are not also included in their estimate of water savings for meeting the
water savings performance track.
F. Water SavinQs Assumptions
Commercial water reduction results from Best Management Practices such as
Interior and Landscape Water Surveys, Plumbing Codes, and Other Factors but
exclude Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement. (Includes savings accounted for in
other BMPs) Estimated reduction in gallons per employee per day in year 2000 use
occurring over the period 1980-2000: 12%.
- 42-
EXHIBIT 1
Industrial water reduction results from Best Management Practices, Waste
Discharge Fee, New Technology, Water Surveys, Plumbing Codes and Other
Factors, but exclude Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement. (Includes savings
accounted for in other BMPs) Estimated reduction in gallons per employee per day
in year 2000 use occurring over the period 1980-2000: 15%.
- 43-
EXHIBIT 1
10. WHOLESALE AGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
A. Implementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
Financial Support
a) Wholesale water suppliers will provide financial incentives, or equivalent
resources, as appropriate and beneficial, to their retail water agency customers
to advance water conservation efforts and effectiveness.
b) All BMPs implemented by retail water agency customers which can be shown to
be cost-effective in terms of avoided cost of water from the wholesaler's
perspective, using Council cost-effectiveness analysis procedures, will be
supported.
Technical Support
Wholesale water agencies shall provide conservation-related technical support and
information to all retail agencies for whom they serve as a wholesale supplier. At a
minimum this requires:
c) Conducting or funding workshops addressing the following topics:
i) Council procedures for calculating program savings, costs and cost-
effectiveness.
ii) Retail agencies' BMP implementation reporting requirements.
iii) The technical, programmatic, strategic or other pertinent issues and
developments associated with water conservation activities in each of
the following areas: ULFT replacement; residential retrofits; commercial,
industrial and institutional surveys; residential and large turf irrigation;
and conservation-related rates and pricing.
d) Having the necessary staff or equivalent resources available to respond to retail
agencies' technical and programmatic questions involving the Council's BMPs
and their associated reporting requirements.
- 44-
EXHIBIT 1
Program Management
e) When mutually agreeable and beneficial, the wholesaler may operate all or any
part of the conservation-related activities which a given retail supplier is
obligated to implement under the BMP's cost-effectiveness test. The inability or
unwillingness of the wholesaler to perform this function, however, in no way
relieves or reduces the retailer's obligation to fully satisfy the requirements of all
BMPs which are judged cost-effective from the retailer's perspective.
Water Shortage Allocations
f) Wholesale agencies shall work in cooperation with their customers to identify
and remove potential disincentives to long-term conservation created by water
shortage allocation policies,; and to identify opportunities to encourage and
reward cost-effective investments in long-term conservation shown to advance
regional water supply reliability and sufficiency.
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31, 1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1999.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the second year
following the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
a) Cost-effectiveness assessments completed for each BMP the agency is
potentially obligated to support. The methodology used will conform to Council
standards and procedures, and the information reported will be sufficient to
permit independent verification of the cost-effectiveness calculations and of any
exemptions claimed on cost-effectiveness grounds.
b) Agency avoided cost per acre-foot of new water supplies. The methodology
used will conform to Council standards and procedures, and the information
reported will be sufficient to permit independent verification of the avoided cost
calculations.
c) The total monetary amount of financial incentives and equivalent resources
provided to retail members to assist, or to otherwise support, the implementation
of BMPs.
- 45-
EXHIBIT 1
d) The total amount of verified water savings achieved by each wholesaler-assisted
BMP.
D. Reauirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
a) The total monetary amount of financial incentives and equivalent resources
provided to retail members to assist, or to otherwise support, the implementation
of BMPs, subtotaled by BMP.
b) The total amount of verified water savings achieved by each wholesaler-assisted
BMP.
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
a) Timely and complete reporting of all information as provided for above under
"Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements."
b) Offering workshops covering all topics listed above under "Technical Support."
c) Timely reconciliation of wholesaler and retailer BMP reports as provided for
above under "BMP Reporting."
F. Water Savinas Assumptions
Not quantified.
- 46-
EXHIBIT 1
11. CONSERVATION PRICING
A. Implementation
Implementation methods shall be at least as effective as eliminating non-conserving
pricing and adopting conserving pricing. For signatories supplying both water and
sewer service, this BMPapplies to pricing of both water and sewer service.
Signatories that supply water but not sewer service shall make good faith efforts to
work with sewer agencies so that those sewer agencies adopt conservation pricing
for sewer service.
a) Non-conserving pricing provides no incentives to customers to reduce use. Such
pricing is characterized by one or more of the following .components: rates in
which the unit price decreases as the quantity used increases (declining block
rates);rates that involve charging customers a fixed amount per billing cycle
regardless of the quantity used; pricing in which the typical bill is determined by
high fixed charges and low commodity charges.
b) Conservation pricing provides incentives to customers to reduce average or
peak use, or both. Such pricing includes: rates designed to recover the cost of
providing service; and billing for water and sewer service based on metered
water use. Conservation pricing is also characterized by one or more of the
following components: rates in which the unit rate is constant regardless of the
quantity used (uniform rates) or increases as the quantity used increases
(increasing block rates); seasonal rates or excess-use surcharges to reduce
peak demands during summer months; rates based upon the longrun marginal
cost or the cost of adding the next unit of capacity to the system.
c) Adoption of lifeline rates for low income customers will neither qualify nor
disqualify a rate structure as meeting the requirements of this BMP.
CUWCC Rate Impact Study
Within one year of the adoption of this BMP revision, the Council shall undertake a
study to determine the relative effect of conservation rate structure influence on
landscape and indoor water use. The study shall develop sample areas that
incorporate varying rate structure environments (e.g., low, uniform commodity rates,;
high uniform commodity rates; increasing block rates, etc.). As praCtical, the study
shall utilize direct metering of customer end uses, and shall control for weather,
climate, land use patterns, income, and other factors affecting water use patterns. If
the study shows significant potential savings, as determined by a balanced
committee of voting Council representatives, a revised pricing BMP containing
numeric targets or other appropriate standards shall be developed for a Council
vote.
- 47-
EXHIBIT 1
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31, 1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1998.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the first year
following the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
Agency shall maintain rate structure consistent with BMP 11's definition of
conservation pricing.
D. Reauirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
a) Report annual revenue requirement by customer class for the reporting period.
b) Report annual revenue derived from commodity charges by customer class for
the reporting period.
c) Report rate structure by customer class for water service and sewer service if
provided.
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
Agency rate design shall be consistent with the BMP 11's definition of conservation
pricing.
F. Water Savinas Assumptions
Not quantified.
- 48-
EXHIBIT 1
12. CONSERVATION COORDINATOR
A. Implementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
a) Designation of a water conservation coordinator and support staff (if necessary),
whose duties shall include the following:
i) Coordination and oversight of conservation programs and BMP
implementation;
ii) Preparation and submittal of the Council BMP Implementation Report;
iii) Communication and promotion of water conservation issues to agency
senior management; coordination of agency conservation programs with
operations and planning staff; preparation of annual conservation budget;
participation in the Council, including regular attendance at Council ,
meetings; and preparation of the conservation elements of the agency's
Urban Water Management Plan.
b) Agencies jointly operating regional conservation programs are not expected to
staff duplicative and redundant conservation coordinator positions.
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31,1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1998.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the first year
following the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
Agency shall staff and maintain the position of conservation coordinator and provide
support staff as necessary.
D. Reauirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
a) Conservation Coordinator name, staff position, and years on job.
b) Date Conservation Coordinator position created by agency.
- 49-
EXHIBIT 1
c) Number of Conservation Coordinator staff.
d) Duties of Conservation Coordinator and staff.
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
a) Creating and staffing a Conservation Coordinator position within the agency
organization.
b) Providing the Conservation Coordinator with the necessary resources to
implement cost-effective BMPs and prepare and submit Council BMP
Implementation Reports.
F. Water Savinas Assumptions
Not quantified.
.50 -
EXHIBIT 1
13. WATER WASTE PROHIBITION
A. Implementation
Implementation methods shall be enacting and enforcing measures prohibiting gutter
flooding, single pass cooling systems in new connections, non-recirculating systems
in all new conveyer car wash and commercial laundry systems, and non-recycling
decorative water fountains.
Signatories shall also support efforts to develop state law regarding exchange-type
water softeners that would: (1) allow the sale of only more efficient, demand-initiated
regenerating (DIR) models; (2) develop minimum appliance efficiency standards that
(a) increase the regeneration efficiency standard to at least 3,350 grains of hardness
removed per pound of common salt used; and (b) implement an identified maximum
number of gallons discharged per gallon of soft water produced; (3) allow local
agencies, including municipalities and special districts, to set more stringent
standards and/or to ban on-site regeneration of water softeners if it is demonstrated
and found by the agency governing board that there is an adverse effect on the re-
claimed water or groundwater supply.
Signatories shall also include water softener checks in home water audit programs
and include information about DIR and exchange-type water softeners in their
educational efforts to encourage replacement of less efficient timer models.
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31,1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1998.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOUafter December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the first year
following the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
Agency shall adopt water waste prohibitions consistent with the provisions for this
BMP specified in Section A of this Exhibit.
D. Reauirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
Description of water waste prohibition ordinances enacted in service area.
- 51 -
EXHIBIT 1
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
Agency's water waste prohibition ordinances meet the requirements of the BMP
definition.
F. Water Savinas Assumptions
Not quantified.
- 52-
EXHIBIT 1
14. RESIDENTIAL ULFT REPLACEMENT PROGRAMS
A. Implementation
Implementation shall consist of at least the following actions:
a) Implementation of programs for replacing existing high-water-using toilets with
ultra-Iow- flush (1.6 gallons or less) toilets in single-family and multi-family
residences.
b) Programs shall be at least as effective as requiring toilet replacement at time of
resale; program effectiveness shall be determined using the methodology for
calculating water savings in Exhibit 6 of this MOU.
After extensive review, on July 30 1992, the Council adopted Exhibit 6,
"ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING ESTIMATES OF
RELIABLE SAVINGS FROM THE INSTALLATION OF ULF TOILETS." Exhibit 6
provides a methodology for calculating the level of effort required to satisfy BMP 14.
B. Implementation Schedule
a) Agencies signing the MOU prior to December 31,1997, implementation shall
commence no later than July 1, 1998.
b) Agencies signing the MOU or becoming subject to the MOU after December 31,
1997, implementation shall commence no later than July 1 of the first year
following the year the agency signed or became subject to the MOU.
c) The coverage requirement for this BMP, as specified in Section C of this Exhibit,
shall be realized within 10 years of the date implementation was to commence.
C. Coveraae Reauirements
Water savings from residential ULFT replacement programs to equal or exceed
water savings achievable through an ordinance requiring the replacement high-
water-using toilets with ultra-low-flow toilets upon resale, and taking effect on the
date implementation of this BMP was to commence and lasting ten years.
D. Reauirements for Documentina BMP Implementation
a) The number of single-family residences and multi-family units in service area
constructed prior to 1992.
- 53-
EXHIBIT 1
b) The average number of toilets per single-family residence; the average number
of toilets per multi-family unit.
c) The average persons per household for single-family residences; the average
persons per household for multi-family residences.
d) The housing resale rate for single-family residences in service area; the housing
resale rate for multi-family residences in service area.
e) The number of ULFT installations credited to the agency's replacement program,
by year.
f) Description of ULFT replacement program
g) Estimated cost per ULFT replacement.
h) Estimated water savings per ULFT replacement
E. Criteria to Determine BMP Implementation Status
Calculated ULFT replacement program water savings at the end of each reporting
period are within 10% of calculated retrofit-on-resale water savings, using Exhibit 6
methodology and water savings estimates.
F. Water Savinas Assumptions
See Exhibit 6.
- 54-
EXHIBIT 1
POTENTIAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
This section contains Potential Best Management Practices (PBMPs) that will be studied. Where
appropriate, demonstration projects will be carried out to determine if the practices meet the criteria
to be designated as BMPs. Within one year of the initial signing of this MOU, the Council will
develop and adopt a schedule for studies of these PBMPs.
1. Rate Structure and other Economic Incentives and Disincentives to Encourage
Water Conservation.
This is the top priority PBMP to be ~tudied. Such studies should include seasonal rates;
increasing block rates; connection fee discounts; grant or loan programs to help finance
conservation projects; financial incentives to change landscapes; variable hookup fees tied
to landscaping; and interruptible water service to large industrial, commercial or public
customers. Studies on this PBMP will be initiated within 12 months from the initial signing of
the MOU. At least one of these studies will include a pilot project on incentives to encourage
landscape water conservation.
2. Efficiency Standards for Water Using Appliances and Irrigation Devices
3. Replacement of Existing Water Using Appliances (Except Toilets and
Showerheads Whose Replacements are Incorporated as Best Management
Practices) and Irrigation Devices.
4. Retrofit of Existing Car Washes.
5. Graywater Use
6. Distribution System Pressure Regulation.
7. Water Supplier Billing Records Broken Down by Customer Class
8. SwjmmingPool and Spa Conservation including Covers to Reduce
Evaporation
9. Restrictions or Prohibitions on Devices that use Evaporation to Cool Exterior
Spaces.
10. Point of Use Water Heaters, Recirculating Hot Water Systems and Hot Water
Pipe Insulation.
11. Efficiency Standards for New Industrial and Commercial Processes.
- 55-
EXHIBIT 2. CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL
1. The California Urban Water Conservation Council (the "Council") will be comprised of a
representative of each of the signatories to the MOU.
2. The Council will be housed by California Urban Water Agencies ("CUWA"). The Council will
act independently of CUWA on all technical and policy issues. CUWA will be responsible for
the initial funding and ensuring that the Council's administrative and general office needs are
met. CUW A will retain the right to withdraw from this relationship at any time upon 180 days
written notice to the Council. The Council recognizes that its funding requirements may
exceed what CUWA is prepared to contribute and that alternative funding may be needed.
3 The Council's responsibilities and authorities include:
a. Recommending study methodologies for Best Management Practices ("BMPs"),
including procedures for assessing the effectiveness and reliability of urban water
conservation measures.
b. Developing guidelines including discount rate to be used by all signatories in computing
BMP benefits and costs pLirsuant to Exhibit 3.
c. Reviewing and modifying the economic principles set forth in Exhibit 3.
d. Collecting and summarizing information on implementation of BMPs and Potential Best
Management Practices ("PBMPs").
e. Adopting or modifying BMPs and PBMPs lists.
f. Adopting or modifying reliable water conservation savings data for BMPs.
g. Adopting or modifying the schedules of implementation for existing and new BMPs.
h. Adopting or modifying the schedules for research and demonstration projects for BMPs
and PBMPs.
I. Coordinating and/or making recommendations regarding BMPs study and
demonstration projects.
j. Accepting or denying requests for additional parties to join the MOU and assigning
additional parties to one of the three signatory groups as described in Section 1.3 of the
MOU.
k. Reviewing and modifying report formats.
I. Making annual reports to the State Water Resources Control Board and the Council
Members on the above items based on the format described in Exhibit 5.
- 56-
EXHIBIT 2
m. Within two years of the initial signing of this MOU, developing and implementing
procedures and a funding mechanism for independent evaluation of the MOU process at
the Council and signatory levels.
n. Undertaking such additional responsibilities as the Members may agree upon.
4. The Council will make formal reports to the State Water Resources Control Board and to the
governing bodies of all Council Members. Such reports shall include a formal annual written
report. Other reports such as status reports and periodic updates may be prepared as
deemed appropriate. by the Council. Any Member of the Council will be entitled to review
draft reports and comment on all reports. Such comments shall be included in any final
report at the Member's request.
5. It is anticipated that the Council will develop a committee structure, which will include a
Membership Committee as described in Section 7.2 of the MOU. A Steering Committee and
one or more technical committees may also be needed.
6. For purposes of the Council, signatories will be divided into three groups: water suppliers
("Group 1"), public advocacy organizations ("Group 2") and other interested groups ("Group
3") as those terms are defined in Section 1 of the MOU. Members of Groups 1 and 2 shall
be members of the Council and shall possess all voting rights. Members of Group 3 shall not
have voting rights, but shall act in an advisory capacity to the Council.
7. Decisions by the Council to undertake additional responsibilities; to modify the MOU itself; or
to modify Exhibits 2 or 3 require the following:
a. The Council will provide notice to all signatories giving the text of the proposed action or
modification at least 60 days in advance of the vote by the Council.
b. To pass the action or modification, there must be a vote in favor of the action or
modification, by at least 2/3 of the members of Group 1 voting, including votes made in
person or in writing, and a vote in favor of the action or modification by at least 2/3 of
the members of Group 2 voting, including votes made in person or in writing.
8. All other modifications and Council actions shall be undertaken as follows: There must be a
vote in favor of the modification or action by a simple majority of the members of Group 1
voting, including votes made in person or in writing, and a vote in favor of the modification or
action by a simple majority of the members of Group 2 voting, including votes made in
person or in writing.
- 57-
EXHIBIT 3. PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE PERFORMANCE OF
BMPECONOMIC (COST-EFFECTIVENESS) ANAL YSIS
1. The total cost-effectiveness of a conservation measure will be measured by comparing the
present value of the benefits of the measure listed in paragraph 3 below to the present value
of the costs listed in paragraph 4. The measure will be cost-effective if the present value of
the benefits exceeds the present value of the costs.
2. The cost-effectiveness of a conservation measure to the water supplier will be measured by
comparing the present value of the benefits described in paragraph 5 to the present value of
the costs described in paragraph 6. The measure will be cost-effective if the present value of
the benefits exceeds the present value of the costs.
3. Total benefits exclude financial incentives received by water suppliers or by retail customers.
These benefits include:
a. avoided capital costs of production, transport, storage, treatment, wastewater treatment
and distribution capacity.
b. avoided operating costs, including but not limited to, energy and labor.
c. environmental benefits and avoided environmental costs.
d. avoided costs to other water suppliers, including those associated with making surplus
water available to other suppliers.
e. benefits to retail customers, including benefits to customers of other suppliers
associated with making surplus water available to these suppliers.
4. Total program costs are those costs associated with the planning, design, and
implementation of the particular BMP, excluding financial incentives paid either to other
water suppliers or to retail customers. These costs include:
a. capital expenditures for equipment or conservation devices.
b. operating expenses for staff or contractors to plan, design, or implement the program.
c. costs to other water suppliers.
d. costs to the environment.
e. costs to retail customers.
5. Program benefits to the water supplier include:
a. costs avoided by the water supplier of constructing production, transport, storage,
treatment, distribution capacity, and wastewater treatment facilities, if any.
b. operating costs avoided by the water supplier, including but not limited to, energy and
labor associated with the water deliveries that no longer must be made.
- 58-
EXHIBIT 3.
c. avoided costs of water purchases by the water supplier.
d. environmental benefits and avoided environmental costs.
e. revenues from other entities, including but not limited to revenue from the sale of water
made available by the conservation measure and financial incentives received from
other entities.
6. Program costs to the water supplier include:
a. capital expenditures incurred by the water supplier for equipment or conservation
devices.
b. financial incentives to other water suppliers or retail customers.
c. operating expenses for staff or contractors to plan, design, or implement the program.
d. costs to the environment.
7. The California Urban Water Conservation Council ("Council") will be responsible for
developing guidelines that will be used by all water suppliers in computing BMP benefits and
costs. These guidelines will include, but will not be limited to, the following issues:
a. analytical frameworks.
b. avoided environmental costs.
c. other impacts on the supply system that may be common to many water suppliers.
d. time horizons and discount rates.
e. avoided costs to non-water supply agencies.
f. benefits and costs to retail customers.
g. benefits of water made available to other entities as a result of conservation efforts.
These guidelines will recognize the uniqueness of individual water suppliers and will
therefore not impose excessive uniformity.
[Note: In September 1996, the Council adopted "Guidelines for Preparing Cost-
Effectiveness Analyses of Urban Water Conservation Best Management Practices"]
8. Within these guidelines, each water supplier will be responsible for analyses of the cost-
effectiveness of particular BMPs on its system. These analyses will be reviewed by the
Council.
9. The Council will also be responsible for periodically reviewing the overall framework set forth
in this Exhibit.
- 59-
EXHIBIT 4. FORM LETTER TO SWRCB
John Caffrey, Chairman, and Members
State Water Resources Control Board
901 "P" Street
Sacramento, California 95801
Subject: Bay/Delta Proceedings:
Urban Water Conservation
Dear Chairman Caffrey and Members:
We are pleased to forward to you a copy of a "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban
Water Conservation in California" recently entered into by many urban water suppliers, public advocacy
organizations, and other interested groups.
This Memorandum of Understanding was developed over a period of many months of fact-gathering
and intensive negotiations. It commits the signatory water suppliers to good faith implementation of a program
of water conservation which embodies a series of "Best Management Practices" for California's urban areas.
It also commits all of the signatories to an ongoing, structured process of data collection through which other
conservation measures, not yet in general use, can be evaluated as to whether they should be added to the
list of Best Management Practices. Finally, it commits all signatories to recommending to this Board that the
Best Management Practices identified in this Memorandum of Understanding be taken as the benchmark for
estimating reliable savings for urban areas which utilize waters affected by the Bay/Delta proceedings, An
important part of this program is the signatories' recognition of the need to provide long-term reliability for
urban water suppliers and long-term protection of the environment.
To carry out these commitments, please be advised that each of the signatories has endorsed
making the following recommendations to this Board:
1. That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings, implementation of the Best Management
Practices process set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding represents a sufficient long-term water
conservation program by the signatory water suppliers, recognizing that additional programs may be
required during occasional water supply shortages.
2. That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings only, the Board should base its estimates of
future urban water conservation savings on implementation of all of the Best Management Practices
included in Section A of Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding for the entire service area of the
signatory water suppliers and only on those Best Management Practices, except for (a) the conservation
potential for water supplied by urban agencies for agricultural purposes, or (b) in cases where higher
levels of conservation have been mandated.
3. That for purposes of the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the Board should make its estimates of future
urban water conservation savings by employing the reliable savings assumptions associated with those
Best Management Practices set forth in Section C of Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding.
Measures for which reliable savings assumptions are not yet available should not be employed in
estimating future urban water use.
4. That the Board should include a policy statement in the water rights phase of the present Bay/Delta
proceedings supporting the Best Management Practices process described in the Memorandum of
Understanding and should also consider that process in any documents it prepares pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act as part of the present Bay/Delta proceedings.
- 60-
EXHIBIT 4
It should be emphasized that the Memorandum of Understanding does not contain projections of
population for California and, accordingly, none of the signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding are
agreeing to recommend that any specific population levels be used by the Board in estimating future water
demands. Furthermore, it should be noted that the signatories have retained the right to advocate any
particular level of protection for the Bay/Delta Estuary, including levels of freshwater flows, and that the
Memorandum of Understanding is not intended to address any authority or obligation of the Board to establish
freshwater flow protections or to set water quality objectives for the Estuary. The Memorandum of
Understanding is also not intended to address any authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Finally, as described in Section 5.1 of the MOU, the signatories have not limited their ability to
propose different conservation practices, different estimates of savings or different processes in a forum other
than the present BaylDelta proceedings or for non-urban water suppliers or for other water management
issues. Public advocacy organization signatories have not agreed to use the initial assumptions of reliable
conservation savings in proceedings other than the present Bay/Delta proceedings. The signatories may
present other assumptions of reliable conservation savings for non-signatory water suppliers in the Bay/Delta
proceedings, provided that such assumptions could not adversely impact the water supplies of signatory
water suppliers.
The Memorandum of Understanding establishes an ongoing process for study and research in the
field of urban water conservation and an organizational structure to support this effort, which is described in
Exhibit 2 to the Memorandum of Understanding. The process is dynamic and contemplates periodic revisions
to the list of Best Management Practices, as well as refinements to the savings assumptions based on
continuing field studies. The California Urban Water Conservation Council will forward updated lists of Best
Management Practices and updated savings assumptions to the Board as they become available. However,
for the present Bay/Delta proceedings, the measures and savings assumptions listed on Exhibit 1 should be
used as described above.
The Memorandum of Understanding is a significant accomplishment and one of which all tt.le parties
are proud. We hope it will be of value to the Bo.ard in the complex and important Bay/Delta proceedings. By
copy of this letter, we are forwarding these recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Very Truly Yours,
Name of Signatory
By:
cc: Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Regional Adminisfrator, Region IX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
- 61 -
EXHIBIT 5. SWRCB ANNUAL REPORT OUTLINE
I. Executive Summary
II. Implementation Assessment
Water Suppliers' Report
Findings
Comments
Progress
Public Advocacy Organizations' Report
Findings
Comments
Progress.
III. Survey Results for 199X
Summary of Survey Responses
Table _' Per Capita Usage [by region]
Table _' Status of BMP Implementation [by supplier]
Table _' Proposed Implementation Schedules
Interpretation of Survey Responses
Lack of Data
Climatic Influences
. Implementation Difficulties
Evaluation of Results
IV. Trend Analysis
Comparison with Prior Years
Table _' Per Capita Usage [by region]
Projected Conservation
Table _' Schedule of Implementation
Updated Estimates of Future Savings [by region]
Evaluation of Progress .
V. Studies of Best Management Practices
Assessment of Current BMPs
Table _' Evaluation of Effectjveness [by measure and region]
- 62-
EXHIBIT 5
Assessment of Potential BMPs
Status of Current Studies
Proposed Future Studies
Revision of Lists of Current and Potential BMPs.
Additions and Deletions
Other Modifications to MOU or Exhibits
VI. Recent Developments
Legislative Update
Program Funding
Case Studies
Residential Conservation
Industrial Conservation
Irrigation Efficiency
Legal Actions
National Practices
Technical Advances
Publications
VII. Council Committee Activities
VIII. Funding Levels
IX. Staffing Levels
X. Substantiated Findings by Signatory Water Supplier in Support of Use of
Exemptions
XI. Substantiated Findings in Support of Use of Alternative Schedule of
Implementation
Appendices
List of Signatories [subcommittee members noted]
Key Correspondence and Comments
- 63-
EXHIBIT 6. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING
ESTIMATES OF RELIABLE WATER SAVINGS FROM THE
INSTALLATION OF ULF TOILETS.
July 1992
Approved June 30,1992
California Urban Water Conservation Council
SUMMARY
On June 30, 1992, the California Urban Water Conservation Council (Council) adopted the
assumptions and methodology described in this report for determining estimates of reliable water
savings from the installation of ULF toilets. The Council voted to provide only a method for
estimating ULF toilet conservation potential, not specific estimates for different regions or agencies.
The methodology presented here was explicitly developed to balance simplicity and accuracy. The
method allows a water agency to customize the estimate of conservation potential by using service-
area-specific information on household demographics, composition of housing stock, and turnover
rates of real estate. Agencies lacking service area specific information can use regional averages.
Given the large supply of conserved water that ULF toilets represent, the Council feels that the
method's adjustments of estimated conservation potential for different local conditions is well worth
the extra effort.
The first step required to estimate a given area's conservation potential is to assess water savings
likely to result per ULF toilet retrofit. We provide a scheme for adjusting estimates of water savings
that were realized by first-year participants in the Los Angeles and Santa Monica toilet rebate
programs to make these estimates suitable for other service areas. Water savings estimates for
participating households in Los Angeles and Santa Monica were derived through sophisticated
statistical models based on data provided by over 23,000 households covering a seven year
period1. These reliable estimates of conservation form the best basis for extrapolating to other
service areas. These estimates should not be used directly, but must be adjusted for three service-
area-specific factors: 1) people per household; 2) toilet retrofits per household; and 3) the mix of
pre-1980 and post-1980 toilets.
The method and assumptions presented here apply to three separate ULF-toilet-related Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
BMP 14 requires water suppliers to implement programs for replacement of existing high water-
using toilets with ultra-low-flush toilets (1.6 gallon or less) in residential commercial, and
industrial buildings. As per BMP 14, such programs should be at least as effective as offering
rebates of up to $100 for each replacement that would not have occurred without the rebate, or
1See The Conserving Effect of Ultra Low Flush Toilet Rebate Programs, Chesnutt, T., A. Bamezai, C.
McSpadden, A & N Technical Services, June 1992, and related reports listed in Appendix A.
- 64-
EXHIBIT 6
requiring replacement at the time of resale, or requiring replacement at the time of change of
service. BMP 14 lists three alternatives that indicate compliance. The Subcommittee selected
the second alternative, a bill requiring replacement of non-ULF toilets with ULF toilets when a
property exchanges hands, as a quantifiable way for determining each service area's water
conservation target. Furthermore, this framework allows the assessment of both the total water
conservation target for each service area and the rate at which these targets must be met.
BMP 14 differs from other BMPs in that it is defined in terms of water savings instead of a level of
activity.
Restated, water savings targets implied by BMP 14 come from calculating the effect of ULF
replacement of all non-ULF toilets at the time of resale or exchange. This requires combining
information about estimated per-household water savings with information about housing turnover
rates and the natural toilet replacement rate. We present detailed analyses for a hypothetical
service area to describe the methodology in detail.
According to the MOU, water suppliers will commit to saving water that is implied by BMP 14
through ULF toilet retrofit programs. This should not be interpreted to mean that such a legislation
will actually be in place. It is a hypothetical scenario that is to be used for determining urban water
conservation targets for each service area. Any water conservation program will be acceptable as
long as it saves water that is implied by BMP 14; these program choices rest solely with each
service area2. Water suppliers will calculate the amount of water to be saved for BMP 14 using the
method described herein, and then achieve that targeted amount using a ULF program of their own
choice.
As stated in the MOU, the Council voted and agreed that estimates of reliable savings potential are
to be used. The Council agreed that the reliable estimate lies in the 50 percent to 90 percent range
of statistical confidence. The Council did not reach consensus on the exact level of reliability to be
used in calculating estimates of ULFT conservation potential. This issue is to be resolved at the
next plenary session in September. Until such time as a precise level of desired reliability in
estimated savings can be formally addressed by the Council, it should be noted that the magnitude
of ULFT conservation potential does not change substantially under different assumptions. Due to
the high quality of the statistical data, the agreed 50 to 90 percent range translates to a difference in
estimated conservation of only three percent. The Council recognizes that the estimates of reliable
savings can be changed as better information become available.
The Council has decided to postpone a formal recommendation on estimates of ULFT conservation
potential for the commercial/industrial retrofits. Presently available data is too weak to support a
2 For example, although a legislation that requires ULF retrofits upon resale'or exchange implies that all
non-ULF toilets in a home must be replaced when it is sold, this need not be the actual goal of a toilet retrofit
program. The evaluation of ULF toilet rebate programs shows that the first toilet retrofit in a home is far more
effective than subsequent retrofits, and that retrofits in multiple family complexes are more effective than
retrofits in single family households. Thus, by increasing the coverage of ULF toilet rebate programs instead
of within-household penetration, and emphasizing retrofits in multiple family complexes over retrofits in
single family households, a water supplier may be able to achieve water savings implied by BMP 14 using a
smaller number of ULF toilet replacements.
- 65-
EXHIBIT 6
reliable estimate. Studies are currently underway to address the conservation potential of
commercial/industrial ULFT retrofits, and the Council expects to address this issue next year.
I. INTRODUCTION
There are several ways that currently proposed BMP's can produce savings from ULF toilets. The
1991 plumbing code requires installation of ULF toilets in new construction. Additionally, if the State
of California enacts legislation banning the sale and installation of non-ULF toilets, the result will be
the natural replacement of existing toilets with ULF toilets as and when existing toilets begin to
malfunction, are damaged, or households decide to remodel their bathrooms. Programs that affect
the replacement of non-ULF toilets with ULF toilets (BMP 14), would additionally affect the existing
housing stock.
This report describes a methodology for quantifying the conservation targets under BMP 14. In
particular, the ULF Toilet Subcommittee has selected ULF replacement-upon-resale-or-exchange
legislation as a quantifiable way for determining ULF conservation targets (under BMP 14) over a
period of 10 years. The calculations required to quantify this legislation, and hence BMP 14, also
yield information on the water saving potential of the other ULF-related BMP's. To keep estimates of
ULF conservation potential accurate, it is important not to double count conservation from the
different types of ULF programs.
Our basic method can be described as multiplying how much water ULF toilets save in a household
by the number of households affected. Both of these quantities will vary in different service areas
and are discussed in turn.
First, the quantity of water likely to be saved by a ULF toilet retrofit will vary in different service
areas because of differences in household characteristics and age of the housing stock. Section II
describes how we estimate water savings from ULF retrofits for different service areas.
Second, the number of affected homes will vary in different service areas due to differences in
housing turnover rates and differences in the rate at which toilets are naturally replaced because of
either damage, malfunction, or bathroom remodeling. Since, at the time of malfunction or
breakdown some toilets are likely to be retrofitted with ULF toilets, the net water saving effect of
BMP-14 will be overstated if this is not taken into account. Section III deals with this second set of
issues. Section IV contains illustrative calculations for a hypothetical service area.
II. ESTIMATING PER-HOUSEHOLD WATER SAVINGS
The household water saving estimates are based on the evaluation of Los Angeles' and Santa
Monica's ULF toilet rebate programs. Using the results of this evaluation it was possible to quantify
how household water savings vary with the number of people that reside in a household, the
number of toilets that are retrofitted in a home, and the type of toilet replaced. Thus, to extrapolate
water savings estimates to other service areas requires three pieces of information at the service
area level:
- 66-
EXHIBIT 6
. Average number of people per household
. Average number of toilets per household
. Mix of pre-1980 and post-1980 toilets
To simplify the calculation of how these factors are related to expected household water savings,
planning tables are provided for single and multiple family households. Table 1 shows expected
average water savings per single family household per day corresponding to different service area
characteristics (persons per household and toilets per household.) Table 2 shows similar
information for multiple family units. So, for example, if in a service area the average number of
people that reside in single family homes is 2.7 and the average number of toilets per single family
home is 2, then approximately 43.3 gallons of water will be saved per day if both toilets are
replaced with ULF toilets3.
The water savings estimates shown in Tables 1 and 2 make no adjustment for differences in the
mix of pre-1980 and post-1980 toilets4. If information about the existing mix of toilets is available
the water saving estimates can be further refined. The default values implied by the planning tables
reflect the combined experience of Los Angeles and Santa Monica--approximately 7.5 percent of all
toilets replaced in single family households and 12.5 percent replaced in multiple family units were
of the post-1980 (3.5 gallon/flush) variety. If water planners know how their service area differs from
this mix of toilets, the following section describes how to incorporate that information.
Based on the data available from the first year of ULF rebate programs, we estimate that retrofitting
a post-1980 (3.5 gl./flush toilet) saves 20 percent less than retrofitting a pre-1980 toilets. If one
does know the proportion of post-1980 toilets in a service area, then this information can be used
3If in a service area, the average number of people residing in single family homes exceeds 3, we
recommend choosing a water savings estimate from Table 1 assuming the average is 3. This is because we
had only a handful of households that reported having greater than 3 residents and therefore we were unable
to derive reliable estimates of water savings for these larger households. The error this approximation is likely
to produce is minimal because we found that, in general, water savings grow less than linearly as population
density increases in a household.
4Effective January 1, 1978, all new dwelling units and lodging rooms in California were required to have
toilets that used no more than 3.5 gallons per flush. Though there was no grace period in the law, it is widely
believed that implementation and enforcement of this law was initially spotty. We have selected 1980 as the
effective year of implementation. The requirement for 3.5 gallon-per-flush toilets was extended to virtually
all new construction, effective January 1, 1983. (An exemption was allowed for blowout toilets used in some
public restrooms.)
5 Our estimate is an empirical one based on observed retrofits in Los Angeles and Santa Monica. It can
differ from theoretical calculations based upon design specifications of toHets meeting the 1980 plumbing
code versus those that do not for several reasons. Toilets may use less on average if they were designed
conservatively or they may use more if the earlier 1980-compliant designs resulted in more double flushes.
Many supposedly 5-7 gl./flush toilets actually use 4-5 gl/flush in laboratory tests. Furthermore, the average
rate at which toilets develop leaks and the preexisting installation of toilet dams or bags can alter theoretical
calculations. Since no one knows, or can know, the true average amount of water used per flush across the
mix of installed toilets in a service area, we believe this issue is moot.
- 67-
EXHIBIT 6
to adjust any of the estimates of conservation. Since the overall mean net conservation provided in
Tables 1 and 2 is a weighted average of pre- and post 1980 toilets, we can back out separate
savings estimates for pre-1980 and post-1980 toilets. These estimates can then be applied to the
proportion of the housing stock that has each type of toilet.
The adjustment factors come from combining our knowledge of the proportion of post- 1980 toilets
(7.5 percent in single family homes) with how much less water retrofits of post-80 toilets save
relative to pre-1980 toilets (about 20 percent). We state the following two equations:
NSF = ~ost-80 *_.075*+ Npre-8o * .925
post-80 -.8 Npre-8o
and solve for Npre-80 and Npost-80 in terms of the overall single family mean NSF:
Npre-80 = NSF + (.8 * .075 + .925) == NSF * 1.015
Npost-80==NSF* 1.015*.8 ==NSF * .812
(1 )
Changing for the proportion of post-80 toilets in the multiple family sample (about 12.5 percent), we
can find the comparable relationships between the multiple family overall savings and pre-/post-80
toilet savings:
Npre-8o = NFM + (.8 * .125 + .875) == NMF *1.0255
Npost-80 == NMF * 1.026 * .8 == NMF * .8205
(2)
Thus, if there is information on the mix of pre-/post-1980 toilets in a service area, the overall mean
water savings given in Tables 1 and 2 should be separated into its two components: the mean for
pre-1980 toilets and the mean for post-1980 toilets. For single family households, the mean for pre-
1980 toilets can be derived by multiplying the overall mean from Table 1 by 1.015 and the mean for
post-1980 toilets can be derived by multiplying the overall mean from Table 1 by 0.812. For multiple
family households, the mean for pre-1980 toilets can be derived by multiplying the overall mean
from Table 2 by 1.0255 and the mean for post-1980 toilets can be derived by multiplying the overall
mean from Table 2 by 0.8205.
...
- 68-
~ 0 m ~ ~ 0 M M m N N ~
N ~ ~ ~ ~ m m m ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"'C
o "': <'!<D....."!m"!~C!~<D~
..c: N N~<DI'-,....~~~,....<D~
Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(J)
:;,
o M NM~m<DONO<D~<D
I N ~M~~<O~~~<D~";
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c
~ N ~~~~N,....mm~~~
~ N m..... M ..; ~ ~ ~ Lri ~ ~ M '^
~ M~~~~~~~~~~ C,
o ~
..c: ..... ~~mO~~<D<.o~~m ~
~ N ~O.....MM";~~";MN CJ)
3: M~~~~~~~~~~ '-
Q)
(J) -
ca
m 0 om"':<D",:~~~.....,....m ~
L... N I'-~O.....NNMMMN"'" "'C
<( MM~~~~~~~~~ Q)
-
Q) ~ ca
.2 ~ ~ ~ "': ~ C! m ~ ~ m CC! ~ CC! .~
2: 0 ..... ~,....~oo.........................o en
Q) " MMM~~~~~~~~ Q)
L... -
C/) Q) 0 Q)
c C. -; ~ .....O"':Ll:!MOMLl:!~"!<'! -g
en '"""'-"'C !!!..... ~ <D I'- ~ moo 0 0 0 m E
en 0 ~_... M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M
CD rn ~ .- 0 0 -
c en E..c: ::I: 0
!:: 'S; '55 co ~ ;,.... ,.... ~ ~ 0 co "': cc! C! ..... cc! "': C I
m co_LL:;, Q,..... N ~ ~ I'- I'- ~ ~ m m ~ ~ ~ 0>
- C/)OQ)O III MMMMMMMMMMM ~ co
X co- - Q) I
>< L... L... rnI Q) a.
W $ co .~ L... '0 <D M C! ~ ...s: N ~ ~ ~ <'! ...s: "'"': Lt)
co~C/)~ 1-..... ..... M ~ ~ <D <D,....,....,....""'''''' +1
>\.J..... M M M M M M M M M M M C
> (J) ~
g> g ~ ~~~~<'!"!<'!~C!OI'-: ~
~ ..... m.....NM~~~~<D<D~ Q)
co co NMMMMMMMMMM_
E ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ONNmLOOM~~N B
W ..... ~O.....NNM~~~~"; ~
N M M M M M M M M M M W
L... Q)
o '-
LL M .....~<'!~"!~M<D~~I'-: ~
Q) ..... l'-~mO..........NNNNN .0-
::c NNNMMMMMMMM ca
co -
...- N ,....OO~LOOLO~O......O ~
. . .. .. .+oJ
rn ..... LOI'-~~cnooo............... _
C NNNNNMMMMMM 0
C ~
ffi ..... M...s:"':.....I'-:"!<'!~.....N~ -g
..... ~~<DI'-I'-~~~mmm .0
a.. NNNNNNNNNNN Q)
.c
~ -
Q) C! ~ ~ <'! M ~ "': ~ "'"': M ~ ~ .~
_ ..... NM~~LO<D<DI'-I'-""'''''' CJ)
.c NNNNNNNNNNN Q)
~ ro
.... .- E
III I .-
s:: Q) -
O;III:E 0 ..... N M ~ ~ <D ,.... ~ m 0 ~
~ Q,S,g N N N N N N N N N N M
:. ::I:
"'C
"0
.!:
(])
tJJ
::J
o
I
~ ~
c ~
(]) ~
~ >
(]) ro
~ ~
.- ~
o 2
.!: ro
~ ~
.~ "0
Q)
tJJ I{) C\I <0 T"" I{) 0') (t) <0 0 (t) I'- 0 (t) <0 ex:> T"" (t) ro
co..-. T"" a> 0 C\I (t) ..;. <0 r--: 0') 0 T"" M ~ I{) <6 ex:> a> E
(]) >. (t) "<t "<t "<t ~ ~ ~ "<t I{) I{) L(') I{) I{) I{) L(') I{) ._
~ co ~
o ~ T"" I{) 0') (t) <0 0 (t) <0 0 (t) <0 ex:> T"" ~ <0 ex:> Q)
~ ~(]) ....: ex:> a> 0 N M I{) <6 I'- a> 0 T"" C\I ~ Lri <6 r--: Q)
. _ (t) (t) "<t "<t "<t ~ ~ "<t ~ I{) I{) I{) I{) I{) I{) I{) "0
C: a. ~ 0
(]) ~ :5 (t) I'- 0 ~ I'- C? (t) <'! ~ C\I I{) I'- 0 C\I ~ <0 0') ~
C/) ...... ... T"" <0 ex:> 0') 0 C\I (t) "<t I{) I'- ex:> 0') T"" C\I (t) ~ I{) 0
c ~ ~ (t) (t) (t) "<t ~ "<t "<t "<t "<t ~ ~ I{) L(') I{) L(') I{) ~
tJJ ~ Q. 53
(Q ~~ ~ J!! "! 0 C"':! ~ co ..... (t) L(') ~ 0 "! ~ ": 0') 0 C\I ~ ~
tJJ ~ T"" I{) <0 I'- ex:> 0 T"" C\I (t) I{) <0 I'- ex:> 0') T"" C\I ('I') Q)
I- .~ .- tJJ._ (t) (t) . (t) (t) "<t "<t "<t ~ "<t ~ "<t "<t "<t I{) I{) L(') a.
m >055 t=. L{) ~
~ ~ 1:5 = T"" 0 C\I ~ <0 ex:> 0') ..... (t) I{) <0 ex:> 0') T"" C\I "<t I{) +1,....
... co co T"" (t) "<t I{) co I'- ex:> 0 T"" C\I (t) ~ I{) r-- ex:> a> 0 c: I
>< 05 m <.9 (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) ~ ~ ~ "<t "<t "<t ~ "<t "<t I{) :5
w ~ .!: -- .~
g () >. 0 I'- ex:> ~ 0 ..... C\I ~ I{) <'! I'- ex:> ex:> 0') 0 T"" "! Q)
> ~ T"" 0 T"" C\I "<t I{) <0 I'- ex:> 0') 0 ..... C\I (t) L(') <0 I'- ~
C) E (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "<t ~
C co ---- B
~ ~ ... u
co (]) ~ ro
E ~ Q)
a. 1/)- ~
~ ~ c~ I{) <0 ": ex:> 0') 0 ..... C\I (t) ~ L(') <'! r-- ex:> 0') 0 ro
~ S ~~ T"" T"" T"" T"" T"" C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I ('I') Q)
00:::::: ~ .Q
~ ~ ~ ro
o c.. ~
~ Q)
(]) :5
-
~ 0
co ~
~ "0
C) E
C Q)
C ~
C ~
co c:
~ ~
~
N ro
E
~ ~
- ~
~ w
m
I-
EXHIBIT 6
Reliability
The estimates given in Tables 1 and 2 represent the expected value of household savings in an
entire service area--i.e., there is a fifty percent chance that the realized savings will exceed the
estimate and a fifty percent chance that the realized savings will be less than the estimate. Suppose
that a different kind of estimate is desired--one that can be met or exceeded 90 percent of the time.
The second estimate incorporates the idea of reliability; sometimes SO/50 odds of being right or
wrong are not good enough. The charter of many public utilities requires them to provide a public
good in a reliable fashion. Also, the MOU on Water Conservation calls for the use of "estimates of
reliable water savings" for water resource planning that incorporates urban water conservation
achievements. If a water utility wants to incorporate estimates of the water saved through ULF toilet
programs as a means of reliably meeting future wat~r demand, then the water utility needs an
estimate of water savings that incorporates the desired level of reliability.
The estimates in Tables 1 and 2 can be adjusted to reflect any desired level of reliability. We
estimate a within-sample standard error surrounding the estimates in Tables 1 and 2 of about two
and a half percent. A standard normal Z table can be used to translate the desired level of reliability
into a Z-value--the number of standard errors away from the expected value that one must move to
attain a higher level of reliability. A desired reliability of 90 percent, for example, implies that the
expected value of household savings should be lowered about 1.28 standard errors. In our case,
this translates into an estimate that is (1.28*2.5 percent =) 3.2 percent lower. In other words, there
are sufficient data in this case so that this expression of "reliable savings" is quite close to the
expected values shown in the tables. However, estimates of water savings likely to be achieved
from other BMPs may be much less well defined and as a result may differ significantly from the
expected values. In such cases, the concept of planning for reliable savings will assume
qualitatively more importance.
III. ESTIMATING TOILETS REPLACED BECAUSE OF HOUSING
TURNOVER
Existing non-ULF toilets can be replaced with ULF toilets for reasons other than a legislation that
requires retrofit upon resale or exchange. For example, toilets break down, malfunction, and are
usually replaced when households remodel their bathrooms. Given that the State of California is
considering another separate piece of legislation that would ban the sale and installation of non-
ULF toilets in the state, it is very likely that a large number of old toilets will be replaced with ULF
toilets purely as a result of the normal toilet replacement cycle. If this is not taken into account, one
will overstate the water-saving effectiveness of a legislation that requires retrofit upon resale or
exchange. To account for these complexities, we estimate the water-saving effectiveness of retrofit
upon sale or exchange legislation by calculating the water that will be saved if it were in place and
the amount of water that would be saved anyway in the absence of such legislation. There are at
least seven factors that can affect estimates of net water savings attributable to a legislation that
requires ULF toilet retrofits upon resale or exchange.
. Housing demolition rate
. Housing turnover rate
. Natural toilet replacement rate
. Existing mix of toilets
- 71 -
EXHIBIT 6
. Type of new toilet used for replacement
. Average number of people and toilets per household
. Changes in household size over time
Of these seven factors, changes in average household size over time can be safely ignored
because it is unlikely to change appreciably over a period of ten years which is the focus of this
analysis. Information about the average number of people and toilets per household, and the
existing mix of pre-1980 and post-1980 toilets are required to forecast per-retrofit water savings--
this was discussed in detail in Section II.
For the remaining factors--that is, the housing demolition rate, the housing turnover rate, the natural
toilet replacement rate, and type of new toilet used for replacement--water planners should use data
that is relevant to their own service area. Although some amount of uncertainty naturally surrounds
estimates of the above factors, it is largest in the case of the natural toilet replacement rate and the
type of new toilet that is likely to be used for replacement. To assess the extent to which this
uncertainty affects estimates of the water-saving potential of BMP 14, we performed detailed
sensitivity analyses. A total of six scenarios were considered for the sensitivity analysis.
It is generally agreed that, on average, a toilet lasts anywhere from 20 to 30 years, although some
claim to have seen toilets as old as 50-60 years. Assuming that toilets are replaced at an annual
rate of 3 percent implies that after 30 years approximately 40 percent [(1-0.03)30] of toilets of this
vintage would still be around; with a replacement rate of 7 percent this number declines to 11
percent [(1-0.07)30] which can be considered the other end of the range. We performed sensitivity
analyses assuming the natural toilet replacement rate is 3 percent,S percent and 7 percent. The
sensitivity analyses also considered two additional scenarios corresponding to each natural toilet
replacement rate that pertain to the type of toilets that are likely to be used to replace old
malfunctioning toilets. In the first scenario we assume that all toilets that are naturally replaced are
retrofitted with 1.6 gallon ULF toilets. This is a very likely scenario given that legislation banning the
sale and installation of non-ULF toilets is being considered in the state of California. In the other
scenario, we assumed that 50 percent of toilets naturally replaced are retrofitted with ULF toilets in
the base year and that this proportion increases to 100 percent by the end of the 10-year analysis
period. We found that the results were relatively insensitive to these assumptions. The 10-year
cumulative water savings derived from these six scenarios were within 015 percent of the average.
The ULFT subcommittee proposes that service areas use a natural toilet replacement rate of 4
percent and assume that all toilets naturally replaced will be retrofitted with 1.6 gallon/flush ULF
toilets for their area-specific calculations. The next section describes illustrative calculations
performed for a hypothetical service area.
SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR A HYPOTHETICAL SERVICE AREA
In this section, we present detailed calculations for a hypothetical service area to demonstrate the
method of calculating conservation targets. Single family and multiple family homes are analyzed
separately. This scenario is based on a natural rate of toilet changeout of 4 percent per year, and
that all new retrofits are of the 1.6 gallon-per-flush variety.
- 72-
EXHIBIT 6
Table 3 shows the data used for this sample calculation. For example, in this service area,-publicly
available data on real-estate sales suggest that 30 percent of all single family homes and 42
percent of all multiple family complexes were sold at least once in the last five years. This is
typically the format in which real-estate transactions data are available. This five-year estimate can
be transformed into an annual turnover rate using the following formula:
(1 - p)5 = (1 - S)
Where S is the proportion of the stock that was sold at least once during the five year period and P
is the annual turnover rate. We apply a different turnover rates for the single family and the multiple
family housing stock.
Table 3 Data Used in Sample Calculation
Parameter Single Family Multiple .
Familv
Annual housinQ demolition rate 0.5% 0.5%
Annual housinQ turnover rate 6.9% 10.3%
.
Annual toilet replacement rate 4.0% 4.0%
No. of homes with old pre-1980 toilets 700,000 420,000
No. of homes with 3.5 gal. (post-1980) 250,000 210,000
toilets
No. of homes with 1.6 Qal. toilets 50,000 70,000
AveraQe persons per household 3.25 2.47
Average toilets per household 2.16 1.20
NOTE: Homes already with 1.6 gallon/flush toilets are excluded from the analysis.
After establishing the home turnover rate, the next step is to estimate average water savings per
household per day using information contained in Section II. For single family households (Table 1),
average household water savings corresponding to 3.25 people per household (refer footnote 1)
and 2.16 toilets per household is approximately 43.4 gallons per day. As mentioned earlier,
estimated water savings represent a weighted mix of pre-1980 and post-1980 (3.5 gl./fl.) toilets. To
illustrate how to adjust these estimates for a specific service area, use the relations listed in Section
II to incorporate the service area specific data in Table 3. From Equation (1) for single family
homes, pre-1980 toilet retrofits are estimated to save approximately 44 gallons/day and post-1980
toilets are estimated to save 35.2 gallons/day. For a 90 level of reliability, these estimates are
lowered 3.2 percent to 42.6 gallons/day and 34.1 gallons per day. The similar calculation for
- 73-
EXHIBIT 6
multiple family complexes uses Table 2 and Equation (2), savings pre-1980 toilet retrofits are
estimated to save approximately 48.2 gallons/day and post-1980 toilets are estimated to save 38.6
gallons/day. Changing this expected value to a 90 percent reliable value gives 46.7 gallons per day
and 37.4 gallons per day.
We first calculate water savings assuming no retrofit-upon-resale legislation is in effect and that all
savings result from the normal cycle of toilet replacements (Tables 4 and 6). These results can be
interpreted as savings that would result from a legislation that bans the sale and installation of non-
ULF toilets in the State of California. Next we estimate water savings that result from the combined
effect of natural changeout combined with a retrofit-upon-resale-or-exchange legislation (Tables 5
and 7). The difference between the two then is the net water-saving effect of a legislation that
requires replacement of non-ULF toilets with ULF toilets at the time of resale or exchange
(BMP 14).
Table 8 shows these estimates of net water conservation (or conservation targets) that the
particular service area in question will have to achieve over the course of the next 10 years. For
example, in 1993 the total target is (2822 single family net + 3026 multiple family net =) 5848 acre
feet. In the next year, additional conservation of (2412 single family net + 2487 multiple family net =)
4899 acre feet is added to the previous year's target for a total cumulative savings target of (5848
AF + 4899 AF =) 10747 acre-feet. Figures 1 through 3 plot the cumulative savings targets for BMPs
2B and 14 over the course of 10 years. Note that the conservation targets implied by BMP14
(Figure 3) has a curved shape. This is a complete result of the assumed ULF retrofits--in the later
years, more and more of the homes that are sold have already been retrofitted with ULF toilets.
Note that the conservation targets are listed in acre-feet per year not toilets per year. To meet the
water conservation targets, that ampunt of water specified in Table 8 must conserved through ULF
efforts. Since multiple family retrofits save more than single family retrofits and the first toilet retrofit
per household saves more than the second or third retrofits, it is possible to design ULF
conservation programs that conserve the same amount of water using fewer toilets. Thus, issues of
program design are intimately linked with the effort and costs that will have to be incurred to meet
these conservation targets.
- 74-
EXHIBIT 6
Table 4 Single Family Natural Replacement Only BMP 2b
Homes Toilets Annual Annual
Year Housing Naturally Naturally Water Savings Cumulative
Stock Retrofitted Retrofitted (AF/yr) Savings (AF/yr)
1992 950,000 0 0 0 0
1993 912,190 37,810 81,670 1,709 1,709
1994 875,885 36,305 78,419 1,641 3,350
1995 841,025 34,860 75,298 1,576 4,926
1996 807,552 33,473 72,301 1,513 6,439
1997 775,411 32,141 69,424 1 ,453 7,891
1998 744,550 30,861 66,661 1,395 9,286
1999 714,917 29,633 64,007 1,339 10,626
2000 666,483 28,454 61,460 1,286 11,912
2001 659,142 27,321 59,014 1,235 13,147
2002 632,908 26,234 56,665 1,186 14,333
Note: Water savings are from a weighted mix of pre-1980 and post-1980 toilets,
Table 5 Single Family: Natural Replacement and Housing Turnover (BMP2b and
BMP 14)
Year Housing Homes Home Total Total Annual Annual
Stock Naturally Turnove Homes Toilets Water Cumulative
Retrofitted r Retrofitted Retrofitted Savings Savings
(AF/yr) (AF/yr)
1992 950,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1993 849,758 37,810 62,432 100,242 216,522 4.531 4,531
1994 760,094 33,820 55,844 89,665 193,675 4,053 8,584
1995 679,890 30,252 49,952 80,203 173,239 3,625 12,209
1996 608,150 27,060 44,681 71,740 154,959 3,243 15,452
1997 543,979 24,204 39,966 64,171 138,608 2,901 18,352
1998 486,580 21,650 35,749 57,399 123,983 2,594 20,947
1999 435,237 19,366 31,977 51,343 110,900 2,321 23,267
2000 389,312 17,322 28,603 45,925 99,198 2,076 25,343
2001 348,232 15,495 25,585 41,079 88,731 1,857 27,200
2002 311,488 13,860 22,885 36,745 79,369 1,661 28,861
- 75-
EXHIBIT 6
Table 6 Multiple Family: Natural Replacement Only -
Year Housing Homes Toilets Annual Annual
Stock Naturally Naturally Water Cumulative
Retrofitted Retrofit Savings (AF/yr) Savings
1992 630,000 0 0 0 0
1993 604,926 25,074 30,089 1,224 1,224
1994 580,850 24,076 28,891 1,175 2,369
1995 557,732 23,118 27,741 1,129 3,528
1996 535,534 22,198 26,637 1,064 4,611
1997 514,220 21,314 25,577 1,040 5,652
1998 493,754 20,466 24,559 999 6,651
1999 474,103 19,651 23,582 959 7,610
2000 455,233 18,869 22,643 921 8,531
2001 437,115 18,118 21,742 884 9,416
2002 419,718 17,397 20,877 849 10,265
Table 7 Multiple Family: Natural Replacement and Housina Turnover
Year Housing Homes Home Total Total Annual Annual
Stock Naturally Turnov Home Toilets Water Cumulative
Retrofitted er Retrofitte Retrofitte Savings Savings
d d (AF/yr) (AF/yr)
1992 630,000 0 . 0 0 0 0 0
1993 542,943 25,074 61,983 87,057 . 104,468 4,250 4,250
1994 467,916 21,609 53,418 75,027 90,032 3,663 7,912
1995 403,257 18,623 46,036 64,659 77,591 3,156 11,069
1996 347,533 16,050 39,675 55,724 66,869 2,720 13,789
1997 299,509 13,832 34,192 48,024 57,629 2,344 16,133
1998 258,121 11,920 29,467 41,388 49,665 2,020 18,154
1999 258,121 10,273 25,395 35,669 42,802 1,741 19,895
2000 222,452 8,854 21,886 30,740 36,888 1,501 21,395
2001 165,221 7,630 18,862 26,492 31,790 1,293 22,689
2002 142,390 6,576 16,255 22,831 27,397 1,115 23,803
- 76-
o ~ ~ "<t 0 N M ~ ~ ~ ~
~ "<t "<t N ~ "<t ~ N ~ N ~
en _g> a.. ~ ~ ~ ..- ~ ..- ~ N M 0
~ I~ ~~ ri ci ~ ~ ci M ~ ~ ~ ~
'S;: ca m ..-..-..-NNNNNN
ca U)
C/)
C1>
> _ ~ 0..- ~ ~ ..- ~ 0 N ~ ~ "<t
1ii~ ca ~ a..~ ~ ~ ~ "<t ~ 0 ~ M ~ ~
3~ ~+o ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
E<3: m E mm ~ ~ M ~ "<t ~ M ~ ~ N
~ Z ~ N ..- N N M M "<t "<t "<t ~
()
ro _ 0 M ~ MOM ~ ~ M M ~
~ ca M"<t~~"<tMM"<t~~
.. C ~ ~m ~~. "<t. q ~ ~ ~ "<t. ~ ~.
-::::; .5 m ""N N ~ ~ ..- M ~ ~ 0 N "<t
- - Z ~ ..- ..- ..- ..- N N N
:E
'C 01 O~~~~N..-M~"-O
e _c: a.. "<t ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ M "<t
~ I~~ ~~ ~ ~ 0 M ~ N ~ M 0 ~
CI) ~ J1J m ri"<t~MNN"""'''''''''''''''
- C'-
.- >-
>-
e cau. _ G5 '<t 0 ..- ~ N M ~ ~ N ~ 0 ~
,^ C/) <3: ca > a.. ..- ~..- ~ ~ "<t ..- ~ ~ ~ ~
v, _ _ ~ 0 """ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ 0 ~ ..- ~
... cau. -+c: "",+ ~ ~ ~ ri ri ~ -: M M N
o ~::E ca ~ mm "
.... C Z I- N
.5 + -
e -u.
o roC/) 0 M ~ "<t ~ M "<t ~ ~ ~ ~
.- __ _ M ..- 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ..- M
~ ~ e:! ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N. ~ q
r:= 2 mN N N N N N N N N N N
CO CI) ~
~ ~ .
;:;;;: 0 ~ o~~~~"<t..-N~~~ I
.... _01 a.. N ~ N M 0 N ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
_ 0 en Q) .!: ~ '<t 0 "<t 0 ~ M 0 ~ ~ "<t N ~
::J: - OJ z~ m.... M N N ....... ....... ....... I
>< CI) .5 U)
Z >
W .. ~ ~ OOM~O"<tO..-..-M~
>- ~ ~ a..~ ~ ~ ~ N "<t N "<t 0 ~ ..-
= ~+o ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ ..-
E m E mm "<t "<t M N N N ..- ..- ..- ..-
~ Z ~ N
C1>
~ _ 0 "<t ~ ~ "<t 0 ~ ~ ..- "<t ~
~ ca N ~ N ~ "<t ~ ~ N ~ "<t
~ ~ ~m ~ ~ ~ q q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
::E m mN ..-..-..-..-..-
:; Z
l-
e ~ ONNOO~O..-ON~
o _01 a.. N..- ~ M "<t 0 ~ ~ N ~
._ enQ) .!: ~ '<t ~ "<t 0 ~ "<t N ~ ~ ~ "<t
~ OJ z~ m.... N N N ....... ....... .......
r:= .~ U)
CI) ca
fn C/) ~ O..-M~M..-"<t..-~~..-
e >- ~ ~ a..~ M ~ N "<t 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~
o = ~ 0 ~+ ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~. ~
o E m+E mm "<t "<t M M N N N N ..- ..-
ca Z :::J N
co U. I-
C1>
CI) 0>_ O~..-~MM~~~~~
.c .5 ca a.. O"<t~..-~~M~M~
~ C/) ~ ~m ~~. ~ ~ "<t. ~ ~ ~ ~ ..-
~ co aJC\I ..................................................
Z
~ N M '<t ~ ~ ~ ~ m 0 .... N
ca m m m m m m m moo 0
>-Q) m m m m m m m moo 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N C\I N
, , , , ,
. , , , , N
, , , , 0
, , , , 0
, , , , N
. , . ,
, , , . ,
, , , . , ...-
, , , . , 0
, , . , 0
, , . , N
. , . ,
. , . .
. , . , 0
. , , . 0
. , , , 0
. , , , N
. , , ,
. , , ,
. , , , 0')
- . , , , 0')
C . , , , 0')
Q) . , . , ...-
E . , , ,
Q) . , , , ,
u ~ . , , , 00
ro ro . , , , 0')
- Q) . , , ,. 0')
~>- . , , , ...-
a:: ~ . , , ,
Q) , , , ,
c.. , , , , ,.... ~
ro
~ - , , , , 0') ro
CD :J Q) , , , , 0') Q)
- Q) , , . , , ...- >-
!::: ro u.. . , . , ,
m z I , , , , , I
Q) . , . , co
- E ~ CD r--
J: u , , . , 0') I
>< 0 <( , , , , 0')
~
u.. , , , , ...-
W c . , , , :?:>
CJ) , , , , c:
C> Q) , 0
> , , , It) -
c , , , . c:
> :;:; 0') Q)
ro . , , , 0') E
ro , , , , ...- Q)
(f) :J , , , . ()
E , , , , ctJ
"'C :J , , , , a.
Q) ~ Q)
- () , , , . 0') ....
ro , . , . ~
E , , , . 0')
...- :J
:;:; . . , . Cii
CJ) , , , , c:
W , . , . E
, . , . C") e
. , , . . 0')
0) -
, , , . , (/J
, , , . , ...- C>>
c:
, , , . , .;;:
, , , . . ctJ
, , , . , N (/J
, , , . , 0') "0
0') Q)
. , . . , -
, , . . , ...- ctJ
E
+:;
(/J
UJ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 ..-
0 0 0 0 0 0 Q)
0 It) 0 It) 0 It) ....
:J
C") N N ...- ...- C>>
u:
JeaMaa.::l-aJ::>V U! s6u!^es a^nelnwn8
. . . . ~ '"
.' 0
: . . . 0
. . . . '"
, .
. . , '
. . . .
. . . . ..-
. ' , . 0
.' . 0
. . . , C'1
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .' 0
. . . . 0
, . . . 0
. . ~ . . <"
~ ....'
0> .....
" ..... 0>
o ..... 0>
C . ..' 0>
~ . .' ~
" . ~.' ~
..... . .' .
~ . ~.' ~ ~
c . ..' 0> c
.. . ..' 0> '"
~; . ..' ~ ~
c -' .' '"
0> . C
o>~. .' -
E~ · ~.' ~ "I
o>~. .' t-" 0
" '" . ..' 0> 0> .c
.. 0. . ..' 0> r -0 '
'" __ . ..' ~ Ii '"
'l;",' " - ~
'"' ~ ",' .' c'
::;; ~u..' .' ~ ·
~ <ii in .' " 0> E
... ~ ~ .' .' 0> II
o " " .' .' ~ '"
!:\ -.;<( .' .' 0.
... C" " !
-z. .- .' .' '" -.
~ '" .' .' 0> "
~ > ..' ' _ S!
0,- .' v,-
-' . ~ ..
u:. ., ..' · c
::> ..' . E
., .' 0
",10 ~.' ....00
C ::> .' 0>.
.-" .' _ '"
,,~ .' v' C
.. ..' ~"
'" ..., \\1
-- .'
v ..' _-0
0> · .' ,",.
c .' · 0> c
._ .... 0>:J5
"' .... ~ E
t':. .'
~ . " 0
o .' .' 0
o .' ~ · · '" -0
.' .' 0> S
. . . . . 0> ·
. . ~ ' . ~ E
.' .' -.
. . . '"
O 0 ~
o 0 ~
000 000 "
000 000 ~o 0 0 0 0 0 .-
000 ~ '" ~ ~
<0 \.0 ~
,ea ]J\aa~-a'~'V U\ s6U\~es aN"'\""'''::!
. 0 0 0 .
0 . 0 0 0 N
. . 0 0 . 0
. 0 0 . 0 0
0 . . . . N
0 . . 0 .
0 0 . . 0
0 0 0 0 . T'""
0 0 . . 0 0
0 0 . . . 0
. 0 . . . N
0 0 . . 0
. 0 . 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 N
. 0 0 .
0 0 0 .
. 0 0 .
. . 0 0 0)
. . . . 0)
0 . 0 . 0)
0 . . T'""
.
0 . . 0
-::t 0 . . .
T'"" ~ . 0 . . . ro
a.. C'CI . 0 . . . 0)
:2: Q) . 0 . 0 0)
ca >- 0 . . 0 T'""
~ . 0 . 0
E Q) . . 0 0
0 C- o 0 0 0 t-- ~
~ .... 0 0 0 0 0) C'CI
CD LL Q) 0 . 0 0 0) Q)
.- Q) 0 0 0 . T'"" >- ~
C/)LL 0 0
- C> I 0 . T"" I
m c: Q) 0 0 . . C- O
- .- ~ 0 0 0 0 CD :2 ex:>
J: > u . . 0 . 0) I
>< C'CI <( 0 0) CD
en 0 . -
W c: . . . T'"" ~
""0 .- 0 0 0 c::
Q) Q) 0 I . . 0
.... > ...
C'CI 0 0 . 0 10 Q)
~ . I . . 0) >
E C'CI 0
0 0 . 0 0) c::
~ ::J . 0 . . T'"" ...
:J
C/) E 0 0 0 . ....
w . I . . . OJ
.... ::J 0 0 . c::
0 0 -::t '00
Q) . 0 . 0 0) :J
Z 0 0 . 0 0) 0
..c::
. 0 . 0 T'""
0 0 . 0 E
0 . 0 e
I . . -
0 0 0 ('i) In
0) OJ
. I . 0) c::
. 0 . 0 T'"" 'S;
co
0 0 . . In
0 0 0 0 'tJ
0 . . I . Q)
0 . . 0 0 N ....
0) co
0 . I I 0 0) E
0 . 0 0 0 +J
. T'"" In
. . . . Q)
....
Q)
z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
0 10 0 10 0 10 :J
('i) N N T'"" T'"" .2>
LL
Je8An88:;j-8J:::>V' U! S6U!AeS 8A!lelnwn~
EXHIBIT 6
V. ESTIMATING WATER SAVINGS FROM NEW CONSTRUCTION
The analysis described above can be extended to evaluate water savings that will be achieved from
new construction. For this analysis each service area will be required to forecast the rate of growth
of new construction by type (single family, multiple family, and so on). The water savings
calculations would be based on installation of 1.6 ULF toilets, assuming the implementation of the
1991 plumbing code, as opposed to installation of 3.5 gallon/flush toilets.
- 81 -
EXHIBIT 6
Appendix A. Overview of the ULF Toilet Rebate Evaluation Reports
There are several reports that document the ULF toilet rebate evaluation in Los Angeles
and Santa Monica. Each has a different focus and different intended audience.
Ultra Low Flush Toilet Rebate Proarams in Southern California: Lessons For Water
Manaaers and Planners. This is an overview report that presents the key findings from Los
Angeles and Santa Monica related to ULF program design, justification, and evaluation.
The Conservina Effect of Ultra Low Flush Toilet Rebate Proarams. This report contains the
summary of findings about how much water was saved by the Los Angeles and Santa
Monica ULF toilet rebate programs. This study requires no technical background and
presents the evaluation and its findings in plain English.
Continuous-Time Error Components Models of Residential Water Demand. This technical
report documents the formal structure of the models of household water demand used in
the evaluation of the Los Angeles and Santa Monica ULF toilet rebate programs. This study
should be of interest to a technical audience concerned with statistical and analytic issues
involved in estimating household water demand models from billing system data.
Mappina the Conservina Effect of Ultra Low Flush Toilets: Implications for Plannina. This
technical report presents an empirical approach to quantifying the conservation potential of
ULF toilet retrofits. The analysis presented in this report can be used to provide
quantitative answers to such questions as how much water would be saved by differently
designed programs, or how much water ULF retrofit programs would save in other service
areas. This study should be of interest to water planners and program managers interested
in estimating the conservation potential of ULF retrofit programs in other service areas.
Data Used in the Evaluation of the Los Anaeles and Santa Monica Ultra Low Flush Toilet
Rebate Proarams. This backup report presents the inspection and telephone survey
instruments that were used to collect the data, as also the tabulations of responses.
- 82-
EXHIBIT 7
BYLAWS
OF
CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL
ARTICLE I
Name, Principal Office, Purpose and Restrictions
1.01 Name The name of the corporation is California Urban Water Conservation Council, a
California nonprofit public benefit corporation (Council).
1.02 Principal Office The Board of Directors (Board) shall determine the location of the principal
office of the corporation.
1.03 Purpose The purpose of the Council is to implement the Memorandum of Understanding
Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California dated September 1991, as amended
from time to time, among signatories comprised of water suppliers, public advocacy
organizations and other interested groups (the MOU).
1.04 Restrictions All policies and activities of the Council shall be consistent with and limited by
the MOU and shall also be consistent with: (a) Applicable federal, state and local antitrust
and trade regulation laws; (b) Applicable tax-exemption requirements including that no part
of the Council's net earnings inure to the benefit of any private individual; and (c) All other
legal requirements including the California Nonprofit Corporation Law under which the
Council is incorporated and to which its operations are subject, as amended from time to
time.
ARTICLE II
MOU Signatory Groups
2.01 MOU SiQnatorv Groups. All participants in the Council must be signatories to MOU.
Eligible signatories are: (1) water suppliers, (2) public advocacy organizations, and (3) other
interested groups, as defined below.
2.02 Water Supplier Group. This group ("Group 1 ") consists of water suppliers, defined as any
entity, including a city, which delivers or supplies water for urban use at the wholesale or
retail level.
2.03 Public Advocacy OrQanization Group. This group ("Group 2") consists of public advocacy
organizations. A public advocacy organization is defined as a nonprofit organization whose
primary mission is protection of the environment, or who has a clear interest in advancing
- 84-
Exhibit 7.
the Best Management Practices, and whose primary function is not the representation of
trade, industrial or utility entities.
2.04 Other Interested Group. This group ("Group 3") includes other organizations with an
interest in the purposes of the Council which are not included in Group 1 or Group 2.
2.05 Representatives. Each MOU signatory shall designate one representative to the Council.
The signatory shall be responsible for informing the Council of the identity of its
representative at all appropriate times. Signatories may also name substitute
representatives to attend meetings in place of the designated representative. Substitute
representatives have the same voting rights as the designated representative, but may not
take th,e place of an officer of the Council. Only one representative from any signatory may
vote within the Board, the Executive Committee or any other Council committee at any time.
Designated and substitute representatives may be referred to collectively as
"representatives" .
2.06 Membership This corporation shall have no members.
ARTICLE III
Fees
3.01 Fees The Board of Directors may recommend fees and assessments and set the terms of
payment, which will be voluntary to the signatories.
ARTICLE IV
Board of Directors
4.01 Board of Directors The Board of Directors is the governing body of the Council and has
authority and responsibility for the supervision, control, and direction of the Council. A
meeting of the full Board may be referred to as a "Plenary session" or "Plenary meeting".
4.02 Composition. The Board shall consist of the representatives of Group 1 and Group 2
signatories. Representatives of Group 3 signatories shall be advisory directors. Advisory
directors may attend and participate in meetings, but do not have a vote.
4.03 Term of Office. All representati~es will serve until replaced by the signatory they represent.
4.04 Meetings. The President, the Vice-president, the Secretary or 10 percent or more of the
directors of each of Group 1 and Group 2 may call meetings of the Board. The Board shall
hold its quarterly meeting(s) at the time and place it selects and may hold other regular
meetings each year at the time and place it selects.
4.05 Notice. The Board may hold regular meetings without additional notice if the time and place
of such meetings has been fixed by the Board and communicated to all Board members.
- 85-
Exhibit 7.
The Board may hold special meetings upon seven days notice by first class mail or 48 hours
notice delivered personally or by telephone or electronic media.
4.06 Quorum. A quorum of the Board shall be at least 30 representatives with voting rights,
provided that at least 10 percent of the directors from each of Group 1 and Group 2 are
present.
4.07 Board Action. Any decision by the Board to undertake responsibilities in addition to those
listed in Exhibit 2, Section 3, of the MOU; to modify the MOU itself; or to modify Exhibits 2 or
3 of the MOU must be carried out according to the procedures in Exhibit 2, Section 7, of the
MOU. All other Board actions, including modification of MOU Exhibits other than Exhibits 2
or 3 and modification of the Bylaws, require that a quorum be present at a properly noticed
meeting of the Board, that a majority of the directors voting from Group 1 vote in favor of the
action, and that a majority of the directors voting from Group 2 vote in favor of the action.
The Board may modify the Bylaws and take other actions only to the extent that such
actions are consistent with the then current version of the MOU.
ARTICLE V
Executive Committee
5.01 Executive Committee. The Board may delegate any of its authorities to an Executive
Committee, provided the Committee shall report its actions to the Board at its next meeting.
The Executive Committee may be referred to as the "Steering Committee".
5.02 Composition. Selection and Term The Executive Committee shall consist of voting and
non-voting signatory members as follows: Board members representing Group 1 signatories
shall select from among themselves up to eight signatories, whose representatives shall
serve as voting members of the Executive Committee. Board members representing Group
2 signatories shall select from among themselves up to eight signatories, whose
representatives shall serve as voting members of the Executive Committee. Advisory Board
members representing Group 3 signatories shall select from among themselves up to four
signatories, whose representatives shall serve as non-voting members of the Executive
Committee. In addition, all officers of the Council are members of the Executive Committee
and have the same voting rights on the Committee as other representatives of their
respective Groups. The outgoing President shall be a non-voting member of the Executive
Committee for the following term. The numbers of members of the Executive Committee
shall be increased by the number of officers, except when one or more officers' have been .'
independently selected as members of the Executive Com.mittee. Executive Committee
members shall be selected at the last Board meeting of the calendar year and shall assume
office starting January 1 of the following year for a term of two years. The terms will be
staggered with half of the positions of each group being elected each year. Unlimited
consecutive terms may be served.
Group 1 and 2 Board members shall nominate from among themselves candidates for the
Executive Committee in person or in writing at the third Plenary of the year prior to the start
of a new two-year term. Write-in nominations must be received by the Council prior to the
- 86-
Exhibit 7.
start of the Plenary session. Any nomination must be seconded by a Board member in
person or in writing, and accepted by the nominee in person or in writing to be included on
the ballot.
The ballot of Group 1 and 2 candidates for the Executive Committee shall be included in the
Plenary Packet of the final Plenary of the year prior to the start of a new two-year term. The
Board shall vote on the ballot at the final Plenary of each year. Votes may be made in
person or in writing. Write-in votes must be received prior to the start of the Plenary session
to be counted. Group 1 and 2 Board members may vote for up to eight candidates from their
respective Groups.
The top eight candidates from Group 1 and the top eight candidates from Group 2, as
ranked by number of votes received, shall be elected to the Executive Committee. If either
Group 1 or Group 2 nominates less than eight candidates, all candidates from that Group
shall be elected to the Executive Committee.
5.03 Vacancy. If a vacancy occurs on the Executive Committee for any reason, the remaining
members of the affected Group will select a replacement for the un-expired term, subject to
approval by the Executive Committee.
5.04 Number of Meetinas. The President of the Council, and any other persons designated by
the Executive Committee, may call meetings of the Executive Committee.
5.05 Notice The Executive Committee may hold regular meetings without additional notice if the
time and place of such meetings has been fixed by the Executive Committee and
communicated to all members of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee may
hold special meetings upon seven days notice by first class mail or 48 hours notice
delivered personally or by telephone or electronic media.
5.06 Quorum. A quorum of the Executive Committee shall be at least 50% of the total number
of Group 1 and Group 2 Executive Committee members, provided that at least 2 members
are present from each of Group 1 and Group 2.
5.07 Committee Action. All Executive committee actions require that a quorum be present, that
a majority of the Executive Committee members voting from Group 1 vote in favor of the
action, and that a majority of the Executive Committee Members voting from Group 2 vote in
favor of the action. The Executive Committee may also act without meeting, provided that
(1) the taking of the vote has previously been authorized by the Executive Committee; (2)
the vote has received seven days notice by firs~ class mail or 48 hours notice delivered
personally or by telephone or electronic media; and (3) the proposed action is approved by
50% or more of the Group 1 and 50% or more of the Group 2 members of the Executive
Committee voting. The Executive Committee may take action without seeking Board
approval only where the Board has delegated such authority to the Executive Committee
and only to the extent that the action is consistent with the then current version of the MOU.
ARTICLE VI
- 87-
Exhibit 7.
Officers
6.01 Officers. The officers of the Council are President, Vice-President, Secretary and
Treasurer. The President and Vice-President may be referred to as Convener and Vice-
Convener, respectively.
6.02 Qualifications. Only designated representatives of signatories may serve as officers. In
addition, the offices of President and Vice President may only be held by directors
representing Group 1 or Group 2 signatories. No person may hold more than one office at
the same time, except that one person may hold the offices of Secretary and Treasurer
concurrently.
6.03 Selection and Term of Office. The officers shall be selected at the last Board meeting of
the calendar year and assume office starting January 1 of the following year for a term of
one year. The offices of President and Vice-President shall not be held by designees from
the same Group. The office of President shall alternate between Group 1 and Group 2. The
Board may specify that the Secretary and/or Treasurer will be members of Group 3. If so,
then Group 3 will select these officers, subject to approval by the Board.
The Board shall nominate candidates for the offices of President, Vice-President, Secretary,
and Treasurer in person or in writing at the third Plenary of each year not less than 60 days
prior to the Plenary during which the nominations are voted upon. Written nominations must
be received by the Council prior to the start of the Plenary session. Any nomination must be
seconded by a Board member in person or in writing, and accepted by the nominee in
person or in writing to be included on the ballot. For the offices of President and Vice-
President, Group 1 and 2 Board members may only nominate candidates for the office their
Group will hold in the coming term.
The ballot for the offices of President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer shall be
included in the Plenary Packet of the final Plenary of each year. The Board shall vote on the
ballot at the final Plenary of each year. Votes may be made in person or in writing. Write-in
votes must be received prior to the start of the Plenary session to be counted. For the
offices of President and Vice-President, Group 1 and 2 Board members may only vote for
candidates for the office their Group will hold in the coming term.
For each office, the candidate receiving the most votes will be awarded the office.
6.04 Duties. The officers perform those duties that are usual to their positions and that are
assigned to them by the Board, including those duties that are set forth in the position
descriptions for each officer as adopted by the Board from time to time. In addition, the
President of the Council acts as Chair of the Board and the Executive Committee; the Vice-
President acts in place of the President when the President is not available; and the
Treasurer is the chief financial officer of the Council.
6.05 Vacancies. If a vacancy occurs among the officers, for any reason, the Executive
Committee shall elect another designee from the same Group for the unexpired portion of
the term. Signatories whose designee serves as an officer may not substitute another
individual into that office.
- 88-
Exhibit 7.
ARTICLE VII
Executive Director
7.01 The Board of Directors may hire an Executive Director to perform such duties and be
granted such powers as described and agreed upon by the Board. The Board may
authorize the Executive Director to hire other such staff as may be necessary to perform
business and management functions of the Council. The Executive Director serves at the
pleasure of the Executive Committ-ee. The Executive Director has sole responsibility for
management, control and retention of other staff.
ARTICLE VIII
Indemnification and Insurance
8.01 Indemnification To the fullest reasonable extent permitted by the law, the Council shall
indemnify and hold harmless any agents subjected to a claim by reason of any alleged or
actual action or inaction in the performance of their duties performed in good faith on behalf
of the Council. "Agent" for this purpose shall include Directors, officers and employees.
8.02 Insurance. The Council shall have the right and shall purchase and maintain insurance on
behalf of its agents against any liability asserted against or incurred by the agent in such
capacity arising out of the agent's status as such.
ARTICLE IX
Policies, Rules, Interpretation
v
9.01 Policies and Rules. The Board may establish policies, procedures and rules that are
consistent with these Bylaws for the governance of the Council and its programs.
9.02 Interpretation. These Bylaws should be interpreted consistent with the California Nonprofit
Corporation Law and must be interpreted so as to conform with that Law, as it is interpreted
and amended from time to time. In cases of conflict between these Bylaws and the MOU,
the language of the MOU shall prevail.
ARTICLE X
Nondiscrimination
10.01 Nondiscrimination. The corporation shall ensure equal employment opportunity for all
persons, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical condition or
disability, or other conditions within the limits imposed by law. These principles shall apply
- 89-
Exhibit 7.
to all employment practices, to selection of consultants, contractors, and suppliers, and to all
other applicable business practices of the corporation.
ARTICLE XI
Adoption of Bylaws
11.01 The Bylaws may be adopted, provided that: (1) a quorum of the signatories, as defined in
Section 4.06 of the Bylaws, is present at a meeting noticed according to the requirements of
Section 4.05 of the Bylaws; (2) a majority of the directors voting from Group 1 vote in favor
of adoption; and (3) a majority of the directors voting from Group 2 vote in favor of the
adoption. These Bylaws were adopted by the California Urban Water Conservation Council
on December 7,1994 and were last amended on December 9,1998.
- 90-