Water Use Efficiency Implementation: Lessons Learned in California

1. Water Use Efficiency Implementation:Lessons Learned in California Tom Peters Mary Lou Cotton

2. Overview/History MOU Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California • Initiated in 1991 (during last major drought) • Agreement between water suppliers, environmental/public interest groups, consulting firms and other interested parties = California Urban Water Conservation Council (Kennedy/Jenks is a member) • Instituted Best Management Practices (BMPs) • Two types of BMPs: quantifiable and non-quantifiable (water savings)

3. Overview/History (Cont.) BMPs • Water survey programs for single-family residential and multi-family residential customers (non-quantifiable) • Residential plumbing retrofit (quantifiable) • System water audits, leak detection and repair (quantifiable) • Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections (quantifiable) • Large landscape conservation programs and incentives (quantifiable)

4. Overview/History (Cont.) BMPs (Cont.) • High-efficiency clothes washing machine financial incentive programs (quantifiable) • Public information programs (non-quantifiable) • School education programs (non-quantifiable) • Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) accounts (quantifiable) • Wholesale agency assistance programs (non-quantifiable)

5. Overview/History (Cont.) BMPs (Cont.) • Retail conservation pricing (quantifiable) • Water Conservation Coordinator (non-quantifiable) • Water waste prohibition (non- quantifiable) • Residential ULFT replacement programs (quantifiable)

6. Observed Trends • BMPs have worked well for about 17 years, but recent events are driving future conservation efficiency programs in California • Many conservation programs have relied heavily (or only) on public outreach and school education • Conservation technologies have diversified • Technologies are appropriate for some geographic areas and not for others (diversity)

7. Observed Trends (Cont.) • CUWCC is in the midst of a major revision of the MOU and BMPs in response to these various drivers • Lesson Learned: Emphasis on increased flexibility for water agencies to design “savings-based” conservation programs, rather than the proscriptive “widget counting” approach used since 1991

10. Observed Trends (Cont.) • Analysis demonstrates the heavy focus that California water agencies have placed on residential indoor devices. Landscape and CII programs have not yet matched these efforts. • However, recent efforts in landscape and CII sectors have been increasing as efforts in indoor residential programs have begun to decrease. • Lesson Learned: Programs like ULFT replacements are nearing saturation, plus passive savings from changes to State plumbing code have started to accumulate.

11. Overview/Drivers • California facing new and constant water shortages • Natural/Hydrologic: Colorado River, Sierra Nevada (global warming-related) • Regulatory/Legal: Endangered Species Act, Court Decisions • Increasing demands on infrastructure • State Water Project (major M&I supplier) nearly 50 years old, serves a larger population than expected • Continuing energy crisis • Increasing legislative focus on conservation • State Urban Water Management Planning Act requirements for description of progress in conservation activities: required to qualify for State grant funding

12. Overview/Drivers (Cont.) • Water conservation (water use efficiency) policies, planning, technologies and practices are evolving rapidly • Many water agencies are promoting comprehensive long term water use efficiency planning: “Conservation Master Plans” • Moving from a voluntary to a “near-mandatory” model: recent State legislation

13. Overview/Drivers (Cont.) • Continued legislative focus as California wrestles with increased population and decreased water supplies: current session contains at least four water conservation-related bills • Requirements for all new residential and commercial development building standards • Requirements for energy conservation programs to include a water conservation component, partner with water agencies • Allocation-based rate structures guidance • Requirements for a 20% gpcd reduction in overall State water demand, and individual agency reductions • …in addition to requirements of bills chaptered in last two sessions

14. Impacts on Utilities • Water conservation is changing from “behavior-based” to “hardware-based” • Lesson Learned: “Hardware-based” measures require more sophisticated technical analysis • Cost-effectiveness • Rate structure/pricing evaluations • Service area/customer sector saturation levels analysis • Industrial process evaluation • Landscape conservation techniques/equipment

15. Impacts on Utilities (Cont.) • Utility conservation staff often not “technical” staff • Technical staff may not be available for or inclined toward non-capital project work • Increased up-front staff costs for pre-implementation analysis • Implementation of measures more expensive as conservation programs get more “aggressive”

16. Summary • As water supplies in the West become more limited, more and more water agencies will be looking for conservation potential in all sectors • Flexibility in program components is needed to reflect differences in water agency service area characteristics • “Low-hanging fruit” programs, especially those associated with plumbing code changes and device standards, are those that should be implemented first: least cost for highest savings • Rate structure evaluation, submetering, commercial/ industrial processes and uses, cooling retrofits and landscape sector will provide greatest savings, but will require more rigorous analysis and increased utility commitments

17. Questions?