300 likes | 511 Views
Water Conservation on a Larger Scale. Mary Ann Dickinson Executive Director California Urban Water Conservation Council September 28, 2006. Water Conservation. Incentive programs in place since 1991 Best Management Practices in a Memorandum of Understanding
E N D
Water Conservation on a Larger Scale Mary Ann Dickinson Executive Director California Urban Water Conservation Council September 28, 2006
Water Conservation • Incentive programs in place since 1991 • Best Management Practices in a Memorandum of Understanding • CUWCC exists to promote voluntary incentives from water agencies • Standard for investment is local cost-effectiveness
Council Today • Currently 370 signatories: • 205 water agencies (80% of water supplied statewide) • 34environmental groups • 131 “other” • BMP List revised to 14 in 1997 • Yearly BMP revisions • Now revising: BMPs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13 & 14
Council Activities • Technical Assistance (studies & workshops) • Analysis of BMP costs and water savings • Guidelines for Cost-Effectiveness • Database-backed Web Site for BMP Reporting • Statewide Conservation Programs • Standards and Code Setting • Green Building and Energy Research • Grant Assistance to Water utilities, including IOU’s
Savings Calculations • Conservation calculation of BMP Actions • Adjustments for: • Savings decay • Natural replacement • Freeridership • BMP by BMP on web site • 1,333,406 AF since 1991
But Progress is Slow • Few water utilities have met 100% of the BMP goals • Projected savings not realized • Reliable savings are coming from standards, not voluntary programs • CALFED Report reviewing four years of urban water use efficiency programs showed the strongest gains from standards
AB 2496 • Lowers flush volume from 1.6 gpf to 1.3 gpf “high efficiency toilet” • Lowers urinal volume to .5 gpf • Dates: • 1/1/2009 tank type in new construction • 1/1/2009 urinals sold or installed • 1/1/2010 tank type sold or installed in stores • 1/1/2011 flushometer sold or installed
Water Energy Usage • California’s water systems energy-intensive • 7-8% energy use for large water systems • If consumer end use is included: • 19% of electric energy load in California • 32%of natural gas energy load in California • 33% of city’s budget can be for water pumping • 34% of water facility’s O&M budget for energy
Energy Partnership Needed • Energy efficiency well funded and regulated: $700 million/year over next three years • Water efficiency not well funded or regulated • CEC Report: 95% of the energy efficiency goals could be met in water efficiency programs at 58% of the cost • Need better utility as well as consumer recognition of benefits
Many Efficiency Opportunities • Residential Clothes Washers • Commercial Clothes Washers • Commercial Ultra Low Flow Toilets • Landscape Conservation • Residential Audits and Retrofits for Energy and Water • Commercial Dishwashers • Pre-rinse spray valves
Water Factor Standards • Council provided CEC with data on water and energy savings, rebate experience • CEC set water factor standard for commercial clothes washers: 9.5 or lower • Water factor standard for residential clothes washers: • 8.5or lower by 2007 • 6.0or lower by 2010 • Federal waiver petition filed with DOE
Green Building Issues • LEED only awards 6 points for water efficiency • Technical Advisory Group working on significant changes (Council chairs) • Other green building initiatives similarly weak on water efficiency • “California Friendly” and “Smart from the Start” pilot programs in California • EPA “Water Sense” Homes Project • HETs, HEWs, Showers, Landscape, Hot Water Design
Hot Water Design Issues • CEC recognition of energy and water savings opportunity • Prop 50 research project by Lawrence Berkeley Labs • Developing new building standards for hot water systems in residential and commercial as partnership opportunity with LEED, CEC, CUWCC, and developers
AB 2717 • Became law September, 2004 • CUWCC formed Landscape Task Force to review landscape water issues, make recommendations for improvements • Representatives from water suppliers, landscape & building industries, cities & counties, environmental groups, and state & federal agencies
TECHNICAL WORK GROUPS Process, Institutions, & Coordination Irrigation Landscape Design, Plants, Turf Grass & Soils Economics
43 recommendations 76 specific actions to implement the recommendations Top 12 AB 1881 submitted We Finished It!
Top 12 Recommendations • Adopt water conserving rate structures • Reduce the ET Adjustment Factor • Enforce and monitor compliance • Require dedicated landscape meters • Promote use of recycled water • Local ordinances at least as effective as the State Model Ordinance
Top 12 Recommendations • Increase the public’s awareness • Require smart controllers 9. Prohibit overspray & runoff statewide 10. Certify landscape professionals 11. Upgrade the CIMIS 12. Adopt performance standards for irrigation equipment
Property Owners Associations should not restrict use of native plants
AB 1881 • Landscape Task Force recommendations which require state policy change: • Require DWR to adopt new AB 325 Model Ordinance by 1/1/2009 and local agency adoption by 1/1/2010; report to the Legislature about compliance 1/31/2011 • Require CEC to adopt standards and labeling for irrigation equipment and to report to the Legislature by 1/1/2010
AB 1881 • More: • Require separate dedicated irrigation meters on new construction after 1/1/2008, on properties more than 5,000 sq ft of irrigated landscape and excluding Single family residential • Prohibit HOA restrictions on drought landscapes
CALFED? • Rearranging the organizational structure • Water Use Efficiency no longer a separate program • Folded into the “Integrated Water Resources Management Program” • Still considering urban certification • Locally-cost effective conservation under the MOU • State Water Resources Control Board to decide?
Stakeholders pressed for water labeling program as companion to Energy Star label • Benefits of energy labeling needed to be experienced in water • Marketing surveys and focus groups showed high level of consumer interest
Purpose of Labeling • WaterSense labeling program is intended to stimulate market transformation • Consumers need clear signals as to which products are more water efficient • Labeling not meant to deter market competition, but to enhance it • EPA’s “specifications” are not standards, but labeled products can be testing ground for future standards
“Water Star” Labeling • Market research and trademark by East Bay Municipal Utility District • Desire close coordination with EPA “Water Sense” labeling program • CA Startup Funding awarded by grant: $217,000 • Pending request for additional $1.3 million • Target year for planning: 2006-2007
Recommendations for the Bay Area Agencies • Define true maximum conservation potential • Consider incentives for water conservation in agency contracts, rates, capital budget planning and IRP • Develop non-competitive cooperation between wholesalers and retailers • Consider legislative and programmatic strategies to benefit the region • Require all retailers to sign the MOU