HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1688City of Palo Alto (ID # 1688)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 8
(ID # 1688)
Summary Title: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
Title: Utilities Advisory Commission’s Recommendation to Approve a Resolution
to Adopt the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance
Strategy
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that Council approve a
Resolution to adopt the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and the SBx7-7 compliance
strategy.
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto (City) is required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
every five years under the California Urban Water Management Planning Act. The UWMP
assesses the reliability of water sources over a 20-year planning horizon under both normal and
dry hydrologic conditions to ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and
future water demands.
The proposed 2010 UWMP is very similar to the City’s 2005 UWMP except for two noteworthy
differences. First, the 2010 UWMP includes a plan to meet the requirement to reduce per
capita water usage by 20% by 2020 under the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7).
Second, the proposed water efficiency measures are expected to reduce demand by 13% by
2030 while the 2005 UWMP’s water reduction goal was 4.3% of demand by 2030. Additionally,
the 2010 UWMP describes the 2009 water supply agreement with San Francisco, including the
recently adopted allocation formula for water supply shortages such as droughts. The UAC
reviewed the proposed 2010 UWMP in May 2011 and unanimously recommends Council
adoption.
Background
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires every California water agency
supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water per year or providing service to more than
3,000 connections to prepare an UWMP. The UWMP is prepared every five years by urban
water suppliers to assess the reliability of water sources over a 20-year planning horizon under
both normal and dry hydrologic conditions to ensure adequate water supplies are available to
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 8
(ID # 1688)
meet existing and future water demands. The City must adopt the 2010 UWMP by July 1, 2011
and submit it to the California Department of Water Resources within 30 days of adoption.
Senate Bill x7-7 (SBx7-7), adopted in November 2009, mandates a statewide per capita water
use reduction of 20% by the year 2020. Urban water suppliers are required to identify a
baseline usage (expressed in gallons per capita per day, or GPCD) for their service area,
calculate a target usage level to meet the 20% reduction, and include a plan for compliance in
the 2010 UWMP.
The City has not experienced significant changes in the water supply distribution system and
reliability since the preparation of the 2005 UWMP. For the 2010 UWMP, the City has updated
the 2005 UWMP and addressed the changes to the UWMP Act since 2005. This plan includes all
information necessary to meet the requirements of California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6
(Urban Water Management Planning) as well as requirements of the California Water Code
Division 6, Part 2.55 (Water Conservation Bill of 2009).
To provide information and encourage community participation, the City prepared an UWMP
webpage with background information and the proposed schedule leading up to adoption of
the UWMP1. The webpage link was sent to local and regional groups for wider distribution2.
On March 24, 2011, the Utilities Department held a public participation meeting (Attachment D
contains the sign-in sheet from that meeting) with the community to discuss the 2010 UWMP,
the proposed SBx7-7 strategy, and to encourage input from the community on the Draft
UWMP.
Discussion
The UAC reviewed the proposed 2010 UWMP at its May 2011 meeting. The report to the UAC
summarizing the 2010 UWMP is provided as Attachment B to this report.
The UWMP describes the City’s water system, supply sources, and demand-side (water
efficiency) measures. Preparation of the 2010 UWMP was coordinated with the Bay Area
Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), which supplied descriptions of the new 25-
year Water Supply Agreement executed with San Francisco in 2009 as well as the recently
approved formulae for dividing the available water in a drought between San Francisco and the
BAWSCA agencies and between the BAWSCA agencies.
1 www.cityofpaloalto.uwmp2Tuolumne River Trust, Canopy, Community Environmental Action Partnership, Sierra Club, Acterra, Local Agency
Formation Commission, Wholly H2O, Sustainable Silicon Valley, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission, Santa Clara County, Stanford University, Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation
Agency, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Cities of East Palo Alto,Menlo Park,Mountain View,Redwood City,San
Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale, the Purissima Hills Water District,Bay Area Water Conservation Coordinators,
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and Mayor Sid Espinosa’s Monthly newsletter.
June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 8
(ID # 1688)
One key for Council to be aware of is the use of the 2009 Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) forecasts for population and employment to develop the water use forecasts. Figure 1
below presents the population forecast used compared to the forecast used in the 2005 UWMP
and the actual population as of the 2010 Census. Also shown is the preliminary population
projection used by the Planning Department in an update to Council on the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (CMR: 152:10). However, this projection was not adopted or approved by the
Council. Using the 2009 ABAG projections does not indicate that the City agrees with these
projections. In fact, staff is aware that many believe these projections are too high. However,
for purposes of planning water supply needs, using the 2009 ABAG projections is a conservative
assumption.
Figure 1: Population Projections used in the 2010 UWMP
A notable element of the 2010 UWMP is the addition of the SBx7-7 (20% reduction by 2020)
targets and the proposed expansion of water efficiency measures.
The projections of water purchases from San Francisco are shown in Figure 2 below. Note that
the projection is very similar to the projection included in the 2005 UWMP. Also shown in the
figure is the City’s permanent entitlement to water from San Francisco, also known as the
Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG).
June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 8
(ID # 1688)
Figure 2: Water Purchase Forecast
One of the major changes in the 2010 UWMP from the 2005 UWMP is the level of estimated
savings over the 20-year planning horizon. As shown in Figure 3 below, in the 2005 UWMP,
water savings from efficiency measures was expected to be 4.3% by 2030,while the updated
2010 UWMP forecasts water efficiency savings to account for 13% of projected water demand
by 2030. Staff is comfortable with these increased savings projections since actual savings from
water efficiency programs were higher than the savings targets established in the 2005 UWMP.
Figure 3: Actual and Projected Water Efficiency Savings
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Fiscal Year
Cumulative Water Savings (Acre-Feet)
Actual Savings 2005-2010 Projected Savings from 2005 UWMP Projected Savings from 2010 UWMP
4% of
water demand
13% of
water demand
June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 8
(ID # 1688)
The increased savings from water efficiency measures is expected to cost more than the
programs in the 2005 UWMP. Figure 4 below shows the projected annual costs for the water
efficiency programs in the 2010 UWMP compared to the cost estimates in the 2005 UWMP.
Figure 4: Projected Water Efficiency Program Costs
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Fiscal Year
Annual Implementation Costs to Utility and Cost-
Sharing Partners
Projected Costs from 2005 UWMP Projected Costs from 2010 UWMP
Due to the aggressive water efficiency programs proposed in the 2010 UWMP, the City is
expected to meet the SBx7-7 (20% savings by 2020) targets as shown in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5: SBx7-7 Compliance Target and Water Use Projections
June 13, 2011 Page 6 of 8
(ID # 1688)
Commission Review and Recommendations
On May 4, 2011, staff presented the Draft 2010 UWMP and proposed SBx7-7 compliance
methodology to the UAC. The UAC asked about the regulatory drivers behind the 2010 UWMP
and the level of discretionary control the City has over the content of the UWMP. Staff
explained that the 2010 UWMP contains all the elements required by law and does not contain
any dramatic departures in policy since the 2005 UWMP, but did mention two differences from
the 2005 UWMP worth noting –the new efficiency program targets and the SBx7-7 compliance
program.
For the 2010 UWMP and future savings projections, the City plans to use new measures to
achieve the significant increase in water conservation savings when compared to the 2005
UWMP. Regarding the proposed SBx7-7 compliance strategy, staff noted that the City has the
flexibility to review progress prior to the 2015 UWMP and make adjustments to the compliance
target methodology in the 2015 UWMP.
The UAC discussed the role of the increased cost of SFPUC water in encouraging conservation
potential and the opportunity for staff to proactively work with residents and businesses to
capture additional savings. Staff outlined the current conservation program and outreach
methodologies and highlighted the increased conservation potential included in the 2010
UWMP. Staff also agreed that quantifying some conservation savings will be a challenge and
will need to be monitored closely.
The UAC inquired if the UWMP is consistent with the City’s current water reduction goals, and if
there was any risk the UWMP may be referenced as justification for more prescriptive water
reduction measures in the City. Staff clarified the UWMP is largely a planning document with a
focus on future dry and normal year supply balances. There are no plans at present to propose
any new measures since the Council recently adopted an ordinance including both the 2010
State Green Building Code (CALGreen)and the Department of Water Resources Water Efficient
Landscape ordinance. The 20% by 2020 reduction plan that was approved by Council on April
19, 2010 (CMR 212:10) and the UWMP are structurally consistent.
No members of the community presented comments during the UAC meeting and no written
comments have been received from the community to-date.
The UAC voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend that Council approve the proposed 2010
UWMP and SBx7-7 target methodology. The excerpted minutes from the UAC May 2011
meeting are provided as Attachment E.
Recent Updates to the Draft 2010 UWMP
Since the UAC meeting, staff made several minor changes to the draft UWMP to update or
clarify various discussion points. The changes are summarized as follows:
June 13, 2011 Page 7 of 8
(ID # 1688)
1.Section 1 –
a.A table depicting the City’s coordination with other agencies for development
of the UWMP was updated to include recent activity.
b.Staff inserted language to emphasize the UWMP serves an important role in
informing ongoing and future City planning and policy efforts, including the
Comprehensive Plan Update and the Urban Forest Master Plan.
2.Section 3 –The description of potential desalination opportunities was shortened to
remove extraneous information.
3.Section 5 -An additional description was added to the Demand Management
Measures (DMM) section to reinforce the direct link between the City’s conservation
measures and ability to meet the SBx7-7 targets.
4.Section 7 –A table illustrating the approximate share of available water for Palo Alto
during single and multiple year water shortages was adjusted to reflect the fact the
new Tier II drought allocation formula requires a minimum 10% cutback for the
BAWSCA agencies. An earlier version depicted Palo Alto’s share of available water
during a 10% system-wide cutback to be greater than the required minimum reduction
The draft UWMP has been available online for public review and comment since the May 4 UAC
meeting. No public input has been received to-date.
Resource Impact
The Water Enterprise Funds for FY 2011 DMM programs included in this UWMP are allocated in
the Utilities Demand Side Management Operating Budget. Additional funds, as necessary, will
be included in future budget requests for Council review and potential adoption. The
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Santa Clara Valley Water District may be
presented to Council for potential approval in subsequent years to assist the City in its ability to
offer cost-effective water efficiency programs to residential and business customers. Water
efficiency measures may be evaluated annually for conservation potential leading up to the
2015 UWMP. Over time, the program offerings may change based on technology, efficiency
potential or community interest, though the overall savings goal will remain constant.
The City continues to examine methods to expand the use of recycled water. The City expects
that the costs of implementing expanded recycled water use can be reduced through a
combination of regional coordination and state and federal matching funds. Staff will
continually evaluate opportunities for program partnership with BAWSCA and other regional
alliances to assist in meeting the City’s water reduction goals and community interest.
Policy Implications
This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key
Strategy 6: “Provide targeted customer and environmental programs and service” and the
Council policy to reduce water usage by 20% by 2020 (CMR: 212:10).
June 13, 2011 Page 8 of 8
(ID # 1688)
Environmental Review
Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and SBx7-7 compliance strategy is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public
Resources Code Sections 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural
Resources) and 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment).
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Resolution (PDF)
·Attachment B: UAC Report_2010 UWMP (PDF)
·Attachment C: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (PDF)
·Attachment D: Public Meeting Sign-in Sheet (PDF)
·Attachment E_Excerpted Minutes of May 4_2011 Special UAC Meeting (PDF)
Prepared By:Catherine Elvert, Utility Account Representative
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Page 1 of 12
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
FROM: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
DATE: MAY 4, 2011
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Council to Approve and Adopt the 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
REQUEST
Staff requests the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the City Council
approve and adopt the 2010 UWMP and the recommended SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
BACKGROUND
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires every California water agency
supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (AF) of water per year or providing service to more than
3,000 connections to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP is
prepared every five years by urban water suppliers to assess the reliability of water sources over
a 20-year planning horizon under both normal and dry hydrologic conditions and to ensure
adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands.
Senate Bill x7-7 (SBx7-7), adopted in November 2009, mandates a statewide per capita water
use reduction of 20% by the year 2020. Urban water suppliers are required to identify a baseline
usage (expressed in gallons per capita per day, or GPCD) for their service area, calculate a target
usage level to meet the 20% reduction, and include a plan for compliance in the 2010 UWMP.
In compliance with SBx7-7, the City of Palo Alto’s (City’s) 2010 UWMP addresses these items.
Normally, UWMPs must be adopted by each water supplier by December 31 of years ending in
five and zero. However, due to recent changes in the UWMP requirements, the state extended
the deadline by six months for the 2010 UWMP. The City must adopt the 2010 UWMP by July
1, 2011 and submit it to the California Department of Water Resources within 30 days of
adoption. The City began preparing this update of the UWMP in winter 2010.
DISCUSSION
For the 2010 UWMP, the City has updated the 2005 UWMP and addressed any changes as
required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act and related legislation. In terms of
water supply sources, the 2010 UWMP does not contain a departure in policy or direction from
the 2005 UWMP. Apart from state requirements for reporting, the City already undergoes water
resource planning on an ongoing basis. The main approach the City uses is to prepare a Water
Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP), in which all water resource options are evaluated, as well as a
Demand Side Management Implementation Plan, which includes projections and plans for
implementing water efficiency measures. The 2010 UWMP provides background on the WIRP
Page 2 of 12
as well as an updated analysis of current and planned demand side management measures
developed to meet new State requirements for potable water use reductions. The 2010 UWMP
contains much more aggressive targets for water conservation in order to meet State and City
water reduction goals. A detailed description of these measures is included in the Demand
Management Measures (DMM)1 section of this report and in the UWMP.
The 2010 UWMP contains the following sections:
Public involvement and coordination with other agencies;
Description of current and potential water sources, including the potential for expanded
use of recycled water in the City;
The City's water demand projections;
Plans to implement water efficiency (conservation) programs;
Discussion of (non-drought) emergency plans;
The sufficiency of supplies from San Francisco, particularly in droughts; and
Drought response plans for droughts of varying severity.
Each of these sections, including new developments since the 2005 UWMP, is summarized
below.
Public Involvement and Coordination with Other Agencies
The City has actively encouraged community participation in its urban water management
planning efforts. The City also coordinates its planning activities with neighboring communities
and water agencies. Various stakeholders including environmental organizations and community
groups were notified of the City’s plan to review and update the UWMP in December 2010.
Letters explaining how to access the City’s draft 2010 UWMP were also sent to the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA), the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the County of Santa
Clara, the Cities of Mountain View, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Redwood City, the
Purissima Hills Water District, Stanford University and the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP) for review and comments. Concurrently, the City developed a web site
with background information and links to related resources to educate the public and encourage
participation in the process (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp).
On March 24, 2011, the City of Palo Alto Utilities staff held a public participation meeting to
solicit feedback from the community. The attendance sheet from the meeting is included as
Attachment B. Members of the public were also encouraged to review the 2010 UWMP and
provide written comments.
Prior to the meeting when the City Council considers adoption of the plan, notices will be placed
in the local daily and weekly newspapers informing the public of the opportunities to comment
on the City’s 2010 UWMP update. The draft 2010 UWMP is available on the City’s web site,
and hard copies are available at City Hall for public review.
1 Although commonly referred to as Demand Side Management (DSM) measures, the California Water Code
specifically requires an urban water supplier to report on Demand Management Measures (DMM), therefore this
terminology is used throughout the 2010 UWMP and related reports.
Page 3 of 12
Current and Potential Water Sources
The City’s potable water is supplied by the SFPUC from the Hetch Hetchy system. In June
2009, the City signed a new Water Supply Agreement (WSA) with the City and County of San
Francisco. The new contract expires in 2034, and the City anticipates maintaining the current
level of reliance on SFPUC supplies for the foreseeable future.
In order to enhance the ability of the SFPUC water supply system to meet service goals for water
quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability and water supply, the SFPUC has undertaken the
Water System Improvement Program (WSIP), which was approved October 31, 2008. The
WSIP is aimed at enhancing the SFPUC’s ability to meet its water service mission of providing
high quality water to customers in a reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable manner.
Many of the water supply and reliability projects evaluated in the WSIP were originally put forth
in the SFPUC’s 2000 Water Supply Master Plan. The WSIP is scheduled to be completed in
December 2015.
The City is implementing the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project (Project). When
complete, the Project components will include five refurbished wells, three new wells and a new
2.5 million gallon storage tank. The primary purpose of the Project is to provide water supply
and fire suppression in the event of a catastrophic disruption of supply. However, the Project
will also enable the use of groundwater for supplemental supplies in droughts, as was done on
several occasions during previous water shortages. The decision to use groundwater as a
supplemental supply during a drought is not addressed in the 2010 UWMP. There are no plans
to use groundwater in normal (non-drought) years for water supply.
The City currently uses recycled water for certain non-potable uses. The largest current uses are
for irrigation of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and Greer Park and in processes at the Palo
Alto RWQCP. Additional uses of recycled water in Palo Alto that do not replace potable water
include for wetlands enhancement at Emily Renzel Marsh and in additional processes at the
RWQCP. Although there are no current plans to expand the use of recycled water in Palo Alto,
the City has completed several studies and reports on the feasibility of extending the recycled
water delivery system to the Stanford Research Park. The City is in the process of preparing an
Environmental Impact Report for the project.
Other supply options include executing water transfer agreements with other agencies and
constructing a desalination plant. The City has no current plans for either of these options, but is
participating with BAWSCA and the SCVWD on efforts to identify and evaluate new supply
sources.
Water Demand
To forecast water usage through 2030, the City uses an “end use” model that determines water
use for each customer class down to the water-using fixture level. The model is calibrated to a
baseline year that is representative of normal water usage, and then incorporates population and
employment growth, efficiency measure penetration, plumbing code changes and other metrics
to build a long-term water usage forecast.
Page 4 of 12
The key inputs to the model used for the 2010 UWMP are the population and employment
projections, which are based primarily on a hybrid of two sources. Census 2010 data was used
for baseline population modeling purposes, but the Census 2010 employment numbers were not
available in time for this report. For pre-2010 employment numbers, and also for future
population and employment projections through 2030, staff relied upon projections prepared in
2009 by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The Planning Department is in the process of updating its population forecast for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. As part of this process, the Planning Department released
preliminary projections (CMR:152:10), as illustrated in Table 1 below. The mid-growth forecast
is largely based on internal growth expectations, while the high-growth scenario is based on the
ABAG 2009 projections. In March 2011, data from Census 2010 indicated that Palo Alto’s
population in 2010 was 64,403.
Table 1: High and Mid-Growth Scenarios
While Planning provided these projections, there was no Council action to “adopt” a specific
growth scenario, and Council action is not expected on the Comprehensive Plan projections until
late 2011. For the purposes of projecting water demand for the 2010 UWMP, staff used the 2009
ABAG projections, which are the same as the “high growth” scenario. Using the 2009 ABAG
projections does not indicate that the City agrees with these projections. In fact, staff is aware
that many believe these projections are too high. However, for purposes of planning water
supply needs, using the 2009 ABAG projections is a conservative assumption. It is prudent to
ensure that the City accounts for unexpected growth and other unforeseen factors for future water
demand projections. The population and employment projections used for the 2010 UWMP are
shown in Table 2 below starting with the population figure for 2010 from the 2010 Census.
Page 5 of 12
Table 2: Population - Current and Projected
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Service Area Population 64,403 66,200 70,400 73,400 80,400 84,000
Five year change (percent) 2.79% 6.34% 4.26% 9.54% 4.48%
Total Employment 76,480 76,740 77,010 78,550 80,320 82,160
Five year change (percent) 0.34% 0.35% 2.00% 2.25% 2.29%
Based on these projections, Palo Alto’s population is expected to grow about 30.4%, or 1.22%
per year on average, from 64,403 in 2010 to about 84,000 in 2030. The total employment in Palo
Alto’s service area is expected to grow by 7.43%, or 0.30% per year on average, from about
76,480 in 2010 to 82,160 in 2030. With these growth projections, future water consumption is
expected to grow by 22% from 2010 to 2030. This result is largely due to the effect of planned
water conservation program activities, in addition to the impacts of “natural conservation”
resulting from changes to the plumbing and appliance codes and permanent conservation savings
from behavioral changes.
The City has a contractual entitlement (Individual Supply Guarantee, or “ISG”) from the SFPUC
regional water system of 17.07 million gallons per day (mgd), or 19,118 acre-feet per year
(AFY). At present, demands are considerably lower than the ISG and the City does not
anticipate water usage will exceed the contractual entitlement in the foreseeable future.
The City purchased about 12,263 AF from the SFPUC in 2010. Before the last drought in 1985,
the City’s purchases were 18,700 AF. In 1976, the City purchased over 20,000 AF. This level
of water use reduction can be attributed to many factors, including early adoption of efficiency
measures and conservation. Table 3 provides the projection for SFPUC purchases for the 2010
UWMP planning horizon.
Table 3: City of Palo Alto Supply/Demand Balance (AFY)
2015 2020 2025 2030
Projected SFPUC demand 14,253 14,157 14,353 14,971
Individual Supply Guarantee 19,118 19,118 19,118 19,118
Difference 4,866 4,962 4,766 4,148
In water supply shortages (droughts), supply cutbacks will depend on the severity of the drought.
The percentage reduction to Palo Alto depends on two predetermined allocation formulas that
are discussed in more detail in subsequent sections.
The 2010 UWMP addresses the City’s requirements under the Water Conservation Bill of 2009
(SBx7-7). The statute requires water suppliers to reduce average per capita daily water
consumption by 20% by December 31, 2020. Water suppliers can choose one of four different
methods to calculate the baseline from which the 20% reduction is calculated. Staff has
evaluated the four methods based on several criteria and has determined that the method that is
most suitable for the City is Method 1, a 20% reduction from a selected baseline period. This
method allows water suppliers to select a baseline of the average use over a 10-year period
Page 6 of 12
ending no earlier than 2004 and no later than 2010. For the City, the optimal 10-year period is
from 1994 to 2004. Using future water usage and population projections, staff has determined
that the planned water efficiency measures will result in enough savings to meet the SBx7-7
target as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: SB 7 Compliance Projection
While staff is providing an initial evaluation of the SBx7-7 baseline and target for the 2010
UWMP, it is important to note that SBx7-7 allows water suppliers to make additional
adjustments to their compliance methodology and future forecasts in the 2015 UWMP. Staff
will re-evaluate the current approach and make necessary adjustments in the 2015 UWMP.
Demand Management Measures (DMM)
A water supplier’s UWMP must document implementation of its DMMs by either providing the
required information for each DMM or submitting a copy of its 2009-2010 approved California
Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Best Management Practices (BMP) report2. The
2010 UWMP describes the 25 water efficiency programs that Palo Alto plans to implement over
the next 20 years and includes a report on the BMPs to the CUWCC. As part of the overall
water conservation efforts to comply with the BMPs, the City and SCVWD have partnered over
the last nine years to promote and cost-share water efficiency programs for Palo Alto customers.
A majority of the DMMs included in the 2010 UWMP are currently funded through a
2 The City of Palo Alto is a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding with CUWCC. The CUWCC
developed a set of BMPs for urban water conservation that member agencies report biennially.
Page 7 of 12
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for water conservation program administration with
SCVWD3. Through this cost-sharing agreement, the City pays roughly half of the cost to
administer the programs. The City also administers some DMMs in-house or through separate
contracts with outside vendors. The City continues to evaluate opportunities for program
partnership opportunities with BAWSCA and other regional alliances.
In 2004, BAWSCA and its member agencies analyzed over 32 different measures using the same
end-use model developed for calculating the long-term forecast. The City selected programs
most likely to achieve the greatest water savings, while still being cost-effective for the utility
and community as a whole. These programs were reflected in the 2005 UWMP. Following the
2005 UWMP, a number of the City’s DMMs have changed. Program changes are the result of
increased water reduction goals, updates to correspond with State reporting requirements,
changes in technology for water using fixtures and changes in county-wide program offerings by
SCVWD, including those that the City cost-shares with SCVWD.
The following measures address the DMMs identified in the Urban Water Management Planning
Act, BMP coverage requirements, and the City’s SBx7-7 compliance target:
A. Water Survey Programs for Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential Customers
B. Residential Plumbing Retrofit
C. System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair
D. Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing
Connections
E. Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives
1. Landscape Survey Program for Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Customers
2. Weather-Based (Evapotranspiration) Irrigation Controller Rebates
3. Large Landscape Turf Replacement
4. Residential Turf Replacement
5. Financial Incentives for Irrigation Hardware Upgrades
F. High-Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs
1. Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
2. Commercial and Multi-Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
G. Public Information Programs
H. School Education Programs
I. Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Accounts
1. Commercial Water Audits
2. Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program
3. Water Efficient Technologies Rebate Program
4. CII High Efficiency Toilet Direct Installation Program
J. Conservation Pricing
K. Water Conservation Coordinator
L. Water Waste Prohibition
M. Residential Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Replacement
3 In July 2010, Council approved an MOU with SCVWD to provide up to $271,785 per fiscal year for a total of
$815,355 over three fiscal years for the administration of and funding for water conservation programs for City of
Palo Alto Utilities customers (CMR: 295:10).
Page 8 of 12
N. New Development Indoor and Outdoor Regulations
O. Irrigation Classes for Homeowners
P. Rainwater Harvesting Incentives
Q. Residential Graywater Reuse
Descriptions and implementation details of each program are provided in the 2010 UWMP. The
water savings4, utility implementation costs and program participation targets are also provided.
Utility implementation costs include total unit and administrative costs borne by the City and its
cost-sharing partners, including the SCVWD5.
Table 4 below shows the cumulative water savings and total annual program costs for all DMMs
to be implemented over the next twenty years in five-year increments. Utility implementation
costs are expected to decline over time as the number of new participants in current efficiency
programs decreases. Participation is expected to decrease with market saturation of efficient
devices that will become the standard option for consumers. Plus, state and local building and
plumbing codes continue to mandate increased efficiency standards for indoor and outdoor water
use in new construction and renovated properties. For these reasons, a number of conservation
incentives will either become unnecessary or will no longer be cost-effective to implement. The
City will continue to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and applicability of conservation incentives
to ensure it is meeting City and State water efficiency goals.
Table 4: Cumulative Water Savings and Program Costs
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Cumulative Water Savings
(AFY) 415 1,083 1,651 1,810 2,247
Program Costs6 $580,160 $754,058 $370,843 $364,762 $387,604
Figure 2 below depicts the City’s historic water purchases from the SFPUC, use of recycled
water, the forecast water demand as well as the water savings expected from the planned DMMs.
4 Water savings for some measures are still yet to be determined; e.g. water waste prohibition, conservation pricing,
rainwater harvesting, and graywater reuse systems; and are not quantified in the 2010 UWMP. 5 Total program costs include unit and administrative costs to all utilities involved in delivering the program.
Annual costs to the City are roughly half of the total program costs provided here. 6 Costs include budgeted conservation funding through the MOU with SCVWD for administration of conservation
programs, administrative costs borne by the SCVWD and the City, and costs for programs administered by the City
in-house or by an outside vendor.
Page 9 of 12
Figure 2: Past and Forecasted Potable and Recycled Water Use
and Water Efficiency Program Savings
Reliability and Emergency Planning
The reliability of the City’s water system depends upon two basic factors: (1) the reliability of
the local distribution system under the City’s control, and (2) the reliability of the regional water
system under the control of the SFPUC. The regional system’s reliability deficiencies are being
addressed as part of the WSIP. However, until the WSIP is complete, which is not expected until
2015, the regional system is vulnerable to outages of up to 60 days in a disaster, such as large
earthquake.
Since the SFPUC regional water system is vulnerable to earthquakes, at least until the WSIP is
completed, local distribution system reliability is important. In addition, the SFPUC regional
water system is subject to temporary outages due to such factors as water quality events that
could mean that service from SFPUC could be cut off for short periods. In 1999, a study of Palo
Alto’s distribution system revealed that it was deficient and needed additional storage and the
capability of reliably using groundwater to endure such an emergency.7 The study also identified
capital improvements to allow the City to provide eight-hour emergency water supplies.
Subsequent studies showed that the capital improvements recommended by the study could assist
in shortages such as a multi-year drought and 30 to 60 day outages as well as the 8-hour outage
they were designed to handle.8
7 Carollo Engineers, Water Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution Study, December 1999. 8 Carollo Engineers, Long-Term Water Supply Study, May 2000. Carollo Engineers, Groundwater Supply
Feasibility Study, April 2003.
Page 10 of 12
To address the deficiency, City Council approved the Emergency Water Supply and Storage
Project, which is currently under construction. Until these local improvements are completed,
the City is vulnerable to outages of up to 60 days in a catastrophic event, such as a large
earthquake, that could prevent water deliveries from the SFPUC regional water system.
Drought-time Availability of SFPUC Supplies
In July 2009, as part of the WSA, the wholesale customers9 and San Francisco adopted a Water
Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) to allocate water from the regional water system to retail and
wholesale customers during system-wide shortages of 20% or less (the “Tier 1 Plan”)10. The
Tier 1 Plan allows for voluntary transfers of shortage allocations between the SFPUC and any
wholesale customer and between wholesale customers themselves. In addition, water “banked”
by a wholesale customer through reductions in usage greater than required, may also be
transferred. The Tier 1 Plan will expire at the end of the term of the WSA on June 30, 2034,
unless extended by San Francisco and the wholesale customers.
The wholesale customers recently adopted the “Tier 2 Plan”, which allocates the collective
wholesale customer share among each of the 26 wholesale customers. The Tier 2 allocation plan
is based on a formula that takes into account multiple factors for each wholesale customer. The
Tier 2 Plan requires that the water allocation factors for each agency be calculated each year in
preparation for a potential water shortage emergency. The Tier 2 Plan will expire in 2018 unless
extended by the wholesale customers.
As the wholesale customers change their water use characteristics (e.g., increases or decreases in
SFPUC purchases and use of other water sources, changes in monthly water use patterns or
changes in residential per capita water use), the final allocation for each wholesale customer will
also change. It is difficult to predict what that allocation may be in the future. For illustration
purposes, staff is providing one possible outcome using the example provided in the Tier 2 Plan
adopted by the City Council11, as calculated for FY 2009. Table 5 below illustrates how much
water would be available to the City from the regional system under different reduction
scenarios using actual water purchases from FY 2009.
Table 5: Palo Alto Share of Available Water - AFY
Deliveries During Multiple
Dry Years
Demand
(FY
2009)
One
Critical
Dry Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
System-wide Shortage 0% 10% 10% 20% 20%
BAWSCA Allocation (AF) 182,885 164,596 164,596 133,796 133,796
City of Palo Alto (AF) 13,026 12,328 12,328 10,021 10,021
Availability of Water for Palo
Alto (Percent of Normal)
100% 94.65% 94.65% 76.94% 76.94%
9 The wholesale customers are the entities that purchase water from the SFPUC regional system and are members of BAWSCA 10 The previous water shortage allocation plan expired in 2009 with the termination of the previous Water Supply Agreement
with the SFPUC. Details of the previous allocation plan are provided in the 2005 UWMP. 11 Drought Implementation Plan, ID # 1308
Page 11 of 12
Drought Contingency Plan
Palo Alto has experience with severe droughts that resulted in rationing of water from the
SFPUC. During those droughts, residents and businesses were able to cut back water
consumption to meet the reduction targets. The City’s actions in those droughts included the
introduction of rate schedules to promote reduced usage, the implementation of emergency water
restrictions and focused public outreach campaigns to provide information on the shortage as
well as ways to efficiently use available water.
The 2010 UWMP outlines actions that the City would take in droughts of varying degree of
severity. This is unchanged from the actions outlined in the 2005 UWMP. Table 6 below shows
the plan for the different levels of shortage.
Table 6: Drought Response Strategy
Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV
Target Water
Savings
5% - 10%
10% -20%
20%- 35%
35% - 50%
Information
Outreach
and Audit
Program
Continuation of
existing
programs plus a
low level media
campaign
Increased advertising,
availability of kits with
low-cost devices
Escalated outreach
efforts and media
campaign. High
water users targeted.
Further escalated
outreach efforts. Focus
on survival strategies
and prioritization of
water use.
Demand-Side
Management
Programs
Continuation of
existing
programs,
evaluation of
new programs
Augmented programs as
necessary to achieve
reduction targets
Programs continued
with monitoring of
reductions to
determine whether
to increase program
incentive levels
Additional program
efforts targeted to
indoor water use, if that
area shows potential.
Rate
Structures
Standard rates
already
encourage
conservation
Implementation of rates
with consumption tiers
for non single-family
residential customers
Rates as in Stage II
with steeper prices
for higher usage
tiers
Allotment method
introduced for first
time.
Water Use
Restrictions
Only permanent
water use
ordinance – no
new restrictions
apply.
More vigilant
enforcement of water use
restrictions and addition
of new restrictions.
Commence issuance of
warning citations.
Additional
emergency water
use restrictions
added.
Enforcement efforts
increased.
Severe emergency
water use restrictions.
Rigorous enforcement
Recycled
Water Use
Advertise availability
of recycled water for
trucked delivery
Additional
Expense
$30,000 $55,000 $100,000 $150,000
Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
B. March 24, 2011 Public meeting sign-in sheet
PREPARED BY: Nicolas Procos, Senior Resource Planner
Catherine Elvert, Utility Account Representative
REVIEWED BY: Joyce Kinnear, Manager, Utilities Marketing Services
Jane Ratchye, Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management
APPROVED BY: _________________________________
Valerie O. Fong
Director of Utilities
City of Palo Alto Utilities
2010
Urban Water
Management Plan
June 2011
i
Table of Contents
List of Appendices ............................................................................. vi
List of Tables .....................................................................................vii
List of Figures .....................................................................................ix
List of Acronyms.................................................................................ix
Contact Sheet.....................................................................................1
Section 1 – Plan Development and Adoption......................................2
Plan Structure ..........................................................................................................2
Plan Adoption ..........................................................................................................2
Public Participation..................................................................................................2
Agency Coordination................................................................................................4
Coordination Within the City................................................................................................... 4
Interagency Coordination ........................................................................................................ 5
Section 2 – Service Area......................................................................9
Demographics..........................................................................................................9
Climate Characteristics ..........................................................................................10
Section 3 – System Supplies.............................................................. 12
Historical Background............................................................................................12
SFPUC Supply.........................................................................................................16
Description of SFPUC Regional Water System .......................................................................16
Water System Improvement Program...................................................................................17
2009 Water Supply Agreement..............................................................................................19
Interim Supply Allocation.......................................................................................................20
BAWSCA and Its Role .............................................................................................20
Water Conservation Implementation Plan............................................................................21
Regional Coordination for Demand Management.................................................................22
Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy ...........................................................................22
ii
Groundwater..........................................................................................................23
Recent Analysis ......................................................................................................................24
Transfer or Exchange Opportunities......................................................................26
Water Recycling.....................................................................................................27
Participation in Regional Recycled Water Planning...............................................................28
Wastewater Collection and Treatment in Palo Alto..............................................................28
Wastewater Generation, Collection & Treatment.................................................................29
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) ....................................................29
Wastewater Disposal and Recycled Water Uses ...................................................................30
Disposal of Wastewater.........................................................................................................30
Recycled Water Currently Being Used...................................................................................31
Potential Uses of Recycled Water..........................................................................................32
Recycled Water Market Survey..............................................................................................32
Recycled Water Facility Plan..................................................................................................33
Encouraging Recycled Water Use..........................................................................................35
Current and Proposed Actions to Encourage Use of Recycled Water...................................35
Recycled Water Optimization Plan ........................................................................................36
BAWSCA Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy............................................................37
RWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan.........................................................................................37
Indirect Potable Reuse...........................................................................................................37
Desalinated Water.................................................................................................37
Section 4 – Water Demand............................................................... 39
Historical Water Usage ..........................................................................................39
Current Water Usage.............................................................................................40
Water Sales............................................................................................................41
Demand Projection Development..........................................................................................42
Share of Total Consumption by Customer Type....................................................................42
Sales to Other Agencies .........................................................................................................44
iii
Additional Water Uses ‐ Recycled Water Use........................................................................44
Non‐Revenue Water ..............................................................................................................44
Total Water Use .....................................................................................................................45
Projected Low to Moderate Income Water Use....................................................45
Water Conservation Bill of 2009............................................................................47
Measures, Programs and Policies to Achieve SBx7‐7 Water Targets....................................50
Economic Impacts of SBx7‐7 Compliance..............................................................................50
Section 5 – Demand Management Measures.................................... 52
Measures to Comply with SBx7‐7 ..........................................................................52
Documenting Demand Management Measure Implementation...........................53
Methods Used to Evaluate Effectiveness of Demand Management Measures.....54
Marketing of Demand Management Measures.....................................................56
Demand Management Measures ..........................................................................57
Demand Management Measure A ‐ Water Survey Programs for Single‐Family and Multi‐
Family Residential Customers................................................................................................58
Demand Management Measure B ‐ Residential Plumbing Retrofit......................................59
Demand Management Measure C ‐ System Water Audits, Leak Detection, and Repair......60
Demand Management Measure D ‐ Metering with Commodity Rates for all New
Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections.................................................................61
Demand Management Measure E ‐ Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives
................................................................................................................................................62
E‐1. Landscape Survey Program for Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Customers.........62
E‐2. Weather‐Based (Evapotranspiration) Irrigation Controller Rebates.............................63
E‐3. Large Landscape Turf Replacement...............................................................................64
E‐4. Residential Turf Replacement........................................................................................65
E‐5. Financial Incentives for Irrigation Hardware Upgrades.................................................66
Demand Management Measure F – High Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs...67
F‐1. Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives.................................................67
F‐2. Commercial and Multi‐Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives...................68
iv
Demand Management Measure G – Public Information Programs......................................69
Demand Management Measure H – School Education Programs ........................................70
Demand Management Measure I – Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and
Institutional (CII) Accounts.....................................................................................................71
I‐1. Commercial Water Audits...............................................................................................71
I‐2. Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program .................................................................72
I‐3. Water Efficient Technologies Rebate Program................................................................73
I‐4. CII High Efficiency Toilet and Urinal Direct Installation Program ...................................74
Demand Management Measure J – Conservation Pricing.....................................................75
Demand Management Measure K – Water Conservation Coordinator................................76
Demand Management Measure L – Water Waste Prohibition.............................................77
Demand Management Measure M ‐ Residential Ultra Low Flush Toilet Replacement
Programs................................................................................................................................78
Demand Management Measure N – New Development Indoor and Outdoor Regulations.79
Demand Management Measure O – Water Efficiency Classes for Homeowners.................80
Demand Management Measure P – Rainwater Harvesting Incentives.................................81
Demand Management Measure Q – Residential Graywater Reuse......................................82
Section 6 – Water Supply Reliability ................................................. 83
Water Supply Reliability.........................................................................................83
Frequency and Magnitude of Supply Deficiencies.................................................84
Reliability of the Regional Water System...............................................................85
Water Supply – All Year Types ...............................................................................................86
Water Supply – Dry‐Year Types..............................................................................................86
Projected SFPUC System Supply Reliability ...........................................................................87
Impact of Recent SFPUC Actions on Dry Year Reliability of SFPUC Supplies.........................87
Reduction in Demand.............................................................................................87
Increase in Rationing..............................................................................................................88
Supplemental Supply .............................................................................................................88
Meeting the Level of Service Goal for Delivery Reliability.....................................................89
2018 Interim Supply Limitation..............................................................................................89
v
Climate Change ......................................................................................................................89
Plans to Assure a Reliable Water Supply................................................................91
Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan................................... 92
Background............................................................................................................92
Catastrophic Interruption of Supply.......................................................................92
Regional System Reliability....................................................................................................93
Local Distribution System Reliability......................................................................................96
Emergency Response Plan .....................................................................................................96
Water Shortage Contingency Analysis...................................................................98
Palo Alto’s Experience with Drought Management...............................................................98
Regional Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan.................................................................99
Palo Alto’s Water Shortage Contingency Planning..............................................................101
Water Shortage Mitigation Options.....................................................................101
Supply Side Options .............................................................................................................102
Demand Side Options...........................................................................................................103
Stages of Action ...................................................................................................107
STAGE I: Minimum Water Shortage – 5% to 10% target water savings..............................108
STAGE II: Moderate Water Shortage – 10% to 20% target water savings...........................109
STAGE III: Severe Water Shortage – 20% to 35% target water savings...............................110
STAGE IV: Critical Water Shortage – 35% to 50% target water savings...............................111
Revenue and Expenditure Impacts and Measures to Overcome Impacts ...........112
Impact on Expenditures.......................................................................................................112
Impact on Revenues.............................................................................................................112
Reduction Measuring Mechanism .......................................................................113
Water Shortage Contingency Ordinance/Resolution...........................................114
Section 8 – Supply and Demand Comparison Provisions ................. 115
Supply and Demand Comparison.........................................................................115
vi
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Resolution Adopting UWMP
Appendix B
Public Participation Notices
Appendix C
CUWCC Best Management Practices Reports
Appendix D
CUWCC BMP’s and Corresponding DMM’s
Appendix E
City of Palo Alto Resolution Approving Water Shortage Implementation Plan (w/
Attachments)
Appendix F
Water Shortage Contingency Plan Draft Ordinance
Appendix G
Water Shortage Contingency Plan Evaluation Criteria
Appendix H
Water Shortage Contingency Use Restrictions
Appendix I
Single and Multi Year Delivery Shortages
vii
List of Tables
Table 1: Calendar for Adoption................................................................................3
Table 2: Coordination with Appropriate Agencies...................................................8
Table 3: Population ‐ Current and Projected..........................................................10
Table 4: Climate .....................................................................................................10
Table 5: Current and Planned Water Supply Sources ............................................16
Table 6: Wastewater Treatment............................................................................29
Table 7: Wastewater Collected and Treated – MGD..............................................30
Table 8: Disposal of Wastewater (non‐recycled) – MGD.......................................31
Table 9: Potential Future Use of Recycled Water ‐ Potential AFY..........................32
Table 10: Past, Current and Projected Water Sales (Before DMMs)......................41
Table 11: Recycled Water Use (AFY)......................................................................44
Table 12: Non‐Revenue Water...............................................................................45
Table 13: Total Water Use (AFY)............................................................................45
Table 14: Projected Lower Income Water Demands (AFY)....................................46
Table 15: Baseline daily per capita water use — 10 year Range............................49
Table 16: 2010 UWMP SBx7‐7 Performance Metrics (GPCD) ................................49
Table 17: DMM Water Savings Summary...............................................................56
Table 18: Residential Water Surveys......................................................................58
Table 19: Residential Plumbing Retrofit.................................................................59
Table 20: Landscape Survey Program ....................................................................62
Table 21: Weather‐Based (ET) Controller Rebates.................................................63
Table 22: Large Landscape Turf Replacement........................................................64
Table 23: Residential Turf Replacement ................................................................65
Table 24: Irrigation Hardware Rebate....................................................................66
Table 25: Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives..........................67
Table 26: Commercial and Multi‐Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
...............................................................................................................................68
Table 27: Public Information..................................................................................69
Table 28: Commercial Water Audits ......................................................................71
Table 29: Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program.........................................72
Table 30: Water Efficient Technologies Rebate.....................................................73
Table 31: Commercial High Efficiency Toilet and Urinal Direct Installation...........74
Table 32: Rebates for High Efficiency Toilets.........................................................78
viii
Table 33: Water Efficiency Classes for Homeowners.............................................80
Table 34: Goals and Objectives of WSIP.................................................................85
Table 35: SFPUC System Water Availability – Year 2010 (AFY)..............................86
Table 36: Water Deliveries in SFPUC Service Area.................................................88
Table 37: Interties with other Agencies.................................................................96
Table 38: SFPUC and Wholesale Customer Share of Available Water ...................99
Table 39: Palo Alto Share of Available Water – AFY.............................................101
Table 40: SFPUC System Supply and Demand Comparison..................................115
Table 41: City of Palo Alto Supply/Demand Balance (AFY) ..................................116
Table 42: SFPUC Water Supply Options for Years 2010 through 2030 (AFY).......116
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Water System Improvement Program....................................................18
Figure 2: Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Facilities.........................25
Figure 3: Phase III Recycled Water Project.............................................................34
Figure 4: Historical Water Supplies – Actual and Forecast.....................................40
Figure 5: 2010 Water Use by Customer Class........................................................43
List of Acronyms
AF Acre Feet
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AF/Y Acre Feet per Year
BAWAC Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
BCA Baseline Consumption Allowance
BMP Best Management Practices
CAFR City Audited Financial Report
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
ccf Centi Cubic Feet (hundred cubic feet)
CCSF City and County of San Francisco
CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System
COM Commercial
CPAU City of Palo Alto Utilities
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
DHS Department of Health Services
DSM Demand Side Management
DMM Demand Management Measures
DSS Demand Side Management Least Cost Planning Decision Support System
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ET Evapotranspiration
ETO Reference Evapotranspiration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FY Fiscal Year
x
gpm Gallons per minute
HET High Efficiency Toilets
ICI Industrial Commercial and Institutional
WIRP Integrated Resource Plan
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
IT Information Technology
IWSAP Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan
MF Multi‐family
mg/L Milligrams per liter
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OES Office of Emergency Services
RWQCP Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
RWS Regional Water System
SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
SF Single‐family
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SFWD San Francisco Water Department
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TRC Total Resource Cost
UAC Utilities Advisory Commission
UER Utilities Emergency Response
ULF Ultra Low Flow
ULFT Ultra Low Flow Toilet
URS United Research Services, Consultant Firm
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WIRP Water Integrated Resource Plan
WPL West Pipeline
WSIP Water System Improvement Program
WSMP Water Supply Master Plan
City of Palo Alto Utilities
2010 Urban Water Management Plan
Contact Sheet
Date plan submitted to the Department of Water Resources:
Name of persons preparing this plan:
Nicolas Procos, Senior Resource Planner
Catherine Elvert, Utility Account Representative
Phone:
(650) 329‐2214
(650) 329‐2417
Fax: (650) 326‐1507
E‐mail address:
Nicolas.Procos@CityofPaloAlto.org
Catherine.Elvert@CityofPaloAlto.org
Utility services provided by the City include: electric, natural gas, commercial fiber, refuse,
recycled water, storm drain, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal.
Is This Agency a Bureau of Reclamation Contractor? No
Is This Agency a State Water Project Contractor? No
Section 1 – Plan Development and Adoption
Plan Structure
The City of Palo Alto (City) has not experienced significant changes in the water supply
distribution system and reliability since the preparation of the 2005 Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP) and has determined the 2005 UWMP provided sufficient guidance to meet the
City’s needs during the 2005 UWMP cycle. For the 2010 UWMP update, the City has updated
the 2005 UWMP and addressed any changes to the UWMP Act since 2005 as outlined in Section
B of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) UWMP Guidebook.
Plan Adoption
The City began preparing this update of its Urban Water Management Plan in winter 2010. The
updated plan will be considered by City Council before June 30, 2011 and submitted to the
California Department of Water Resources within 30 days of Council adoption. This plan
includes all information necessary to meet the requirements of California Water Code Division
6, Part 2.6 (Urban Water Management Planning) as well as requirements of the California
Water Code Division 6, Part 2.55 (Water Conservation Bill of 2009).
Public Participation
The City actively encourages community participation in its urban water management planning
efforts. The City held a public participation meeting on March 24, 2011 to seek input on the
2010 UWMP in addition to public hearings before the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and
City Council prior to adoption. An UWMP webpage (www.cityofpaloalto.org/UWMP) was
created to educate the public about the UWMP process, provide outreach for public meetings
and opportunities to participate, as well as to make available background materials on the
City’s urban water management planning activities.
Table 1: Calendar for Adoption
Date Meeting/Activity Topic
Review and Discussion on UWMP
March 24, 2011
Public Meeting; 7 to 9 p.m. Palo Alto
Art Center Auditorium Review and Discussion on SBx7‐7
Reduction Targets
May 4, 2011 Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) Review and Recommendation on
UWMP
Newspaper (Council meeting) on
UWMP May 30, 2011 Published Notice of Public Hearing Newspaper (Council meeting) on
SBx7‐7 Reductions
Review and Discussion on SBx7‐7
Reduction Targets June 13, 2011 City Council
Review and Adoption of UWMP
July 12, 2011 Final UWMP and Council Resolution Copy to DWR and Stakeholder
Agencies
July 12, 2011 Final UWMP and Council Resolution Available to the Public
Appendix B contains the public participation notices. The Notices will be added to the Final
Draft UWMP that will be presented to Council for approval.
The City’s Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) provides advice to the City Council on acquisition
and development of electric, gas and water resources; joint action projects with other public or
private entities which involve electric, gas or water resources; wastewater collection and fiber
optic issues; environmental implications of electric, gas or water utility projects, as well as
conservation and demand management. The UAC meets once per month and reviews the
activities of the various utility services. One of the primary tasks of the UAC is to assist with the
review and development of long‐term plans for the City’s utilities. The UAC meetings are open
to the public and agendas are posted for public review prior to each meeting. The draft
schedule for approval of the 2010 UWMP provides the opportunity for the UAC to review and
comment on the Draft UWMP prior to submittal to the City Council for final approval.
In addition to the review of the UWMP, the UAC has been very active in the review of several
other water supply and water management documents. Since the adoption of the 2005
UWMP, this review during public meetings has included discussion and presentations on the
following:
Annual Public Benefits Plan Update (January 2005)
Recycled Water Market Survey Proposal (August 2005)
Recycled Water Market Survey Results (October 2006)
Recycled Water Facility Plan ( June 2008)
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Water System Improvement Program
(2005‐2009)
Stanford Medical Center Water Supply Assessment (March 2009)
Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Supply Contract with the City and County
of San Francisco (May 2009)
Updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (January 2010)
Report on Ways to Reduce Potable Water Use in Palo Alto 20% by 2020 (April 2010)
Recommendation to Integrate Water Efficient Landscape, Recycled Water, and Energy
Efficiency Ordinances into the California Green Building Code (September 2010)
Agency Coordination
Law
California Water Code section 106201 (a) Every urban water supplier shall
prepare and adopt an urban water management plan in the manner set forth in
Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640).
(d) (1) An urban water supplier may satisfy the requirement of this
part by participation in area wide regional, watershed, or basis wide urban
water management planning where those plans will reduce preparation costs
and contribute to the achievement of conservation and efficient water use.
(2) Each urban water supplier shall coordinate the preparation of its
plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water
suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and
relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.
(f) An urban water supplier shall describe in the plan water
management tools and options used by that entity that will maximize resources
and minimize the need to import water from other regions.
Coordination Within the City
Many members of City staff met to coordinate development of this plan, including
representatives from all divisions of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) and other
City departments, including the Planning and Community Environment Department; the City
Manager’s Office; the City Attorney’s Office; and the Public Works Department (Palo Alto
Regional Water Quality Control Plant). The UWMP is coordinated with other City planning and
policy level documents to ensure the water policy direction in the UWMP informs future
decisions within the City of Palo Alto, including the Urban Forest Master Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan Update.
1 Unless noted, all statutory references herein are to the California Water Code.
Since completion of the 2005 UWMP, CPAU has completed several important water supply and
planning milestones, including:
Recycled Water Facility Plan (March 2009) – This study defined the recycled water
alternatives and identified a recommended project alignment. The study also provided
a funding strategy and an implementation plan for the recommended project.
City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply & Storage Project Final Environmental
Impact Report (February 2007) – The City certified the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) to locate a site and construct a 2.5 million gallon underground water reservoir and
pump station in Palo Alto to meet emergency water supply and storage needs. In
addition to this water reservoir, the project includes the siting and construction of
several emergency supply wells and the upgrade of five existing wells and the existing
Mayfield Pump Station. The City is currently in the construction phase for the project.
Water Supply Assessment for the Stanford University Medical Center (March 2009) –
SB 610 requires a nexus between regional land use planning and an assessment of
whether water supplies are sufficient to serve demand generated by a projection. The
City performed a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the project during the EIR process
and used information from the 2005 UWMP to guide normal and dry year supply
assessment.
Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Supply Contract (May 2009) – The Palo
Alto City Council approved the new Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Sales
Contract with the City and County of San Francisco. The new contract specifies the
contractual relationship with the City’s primary wholesale water supplier, the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and addresses the terms of service for the City.
The new contract has a 25 year term and expires in 2034.
The Water Shortage Implementation Plan (January 2010) – The Palo Alto City Council
approved a new Water Shortage Implementation plan that allocates water from the
SFPUC regional system between the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA) members.
The completion of the plans and agreements listed above required the cooperation of all
divisions within the CPAU and several other departments within the City. Data and information
from these reports was used in this document.
Interagency Coordination
The City is an active member of the California water community and is particularly active in the
following organizations:
The City is a very active member of the BAWSCA. The BAWSCA members, including the
City, receive water from the City and County of San Francisco through a contract that is
administered by the SFPUC.
The City is represented on the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Commission,
the SCVWD Water Retailers Group, the SCVWD Recycled Water Subcommittee, and the
SCVWD Water Conservation Subcommittee group.
The City has actively participated on several initiatives in relation to the SFPUC,
including:
Preparation of the SFPUC’s Program EIR for its Water System Improvement
Program (WSIP)
The Interim Supply limitation established by the SFPUC during adoption of
the WSIP to limit deliveries from the regional system until 2018.
Through BAWSCA, the City is represented in the Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition
(BAWAC), a group of the seven largest water agencies in the Bay Area. BAWAC was
established to develop regional water planning objectives, coordinate projects and
programs that would meet the regional objectives to improve water supply reliability
and water quality, and document, coordinate and communicate existing and planned
programs and activities being implemented in the Bay Area region in the areas of water
use efficiency and water treatment.
The City has been a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban
Water Conservation with the California Urban Water Conservation Council since 1992.
The City is a member of the Bay Area Water Conservation Coordinators group, a
consortium of water conservation professionals formed to discuss and share policy and
program implementation strategies and research.
The City is a member of the WateReuse Association, an organization of governmental,
non‐profit and private sector entities working together to encourage increased recycled
water use in California.
The City is a member of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), through which
water and power agencies strive to evaluate and promote water and energy efficient
appliances and technologies.
The City is a member of the Alliance for Water Efficiency.
The City is a Partner in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) WaterSense
program, which promotes water efficient products and assists utilities in marketing its
programs for water use efficiency.
The City Council adopted the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land
Use on October 17, 2005.2 These principles were developed by the Local Government
Commission, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to create healthy, walkable,
and resource‐efficient communities.
The City continually coordinates water‐planning activities with neighboring communities and
water agencies.
2 CMR 367:05
The Water Supply Master Plan ‐ One early example of interagency coordination and planning
was the development of the Water Supply Master Plan (WSMP). From 1996 through 1999, the
BAWSCA agencies and the SFPUC worked cooperatively to develop a WSMP. A representative
from Palo Alto was on the steering committee for this project. The WSMP is intended to
address the future water supply needs of the water agencies and 2.3 million people, who are
served via the SFPUC water system. On April 25, 2000 the SFPUC formally adopted the WSMP
including the implementation schedule for identified, selected projects.
Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP) ‐ The City has evaluated all its water supply
alternatives in an effort to determine what long‐term direction the City should take for water
resource planning. In 2000, this effort resulted in the publication of a document describing in
detail all the identified alternatives. Besides BAWSCA, the agencies that have received this
document include: the City of Mountain View, Alameda County Water District, Stanford
University, the City of San Jose, California Water Company, the City of Redwood City, the City of
Daly City, the Purissima Hills Water District, the City of Santa Clara, the City of Milpitas and the
City of Sunnyvale. In addition, the City continuously interacts with the 26 other BAWSCA
agencies in the development of water efficiency programs to be implemented regionally, as
well as the regional evaluation of water supply alternatives.
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan – The Association of Bay Area Government
(ABAG) convened a broad‐based group of stakeholders to develop an Integrated Regional
Water Management Plan (IRWMP) for the Bay Area. The Bay Area IRWMP will facilitate
regional cooperation on issues of water supply, quality and reliability, water recycling and
conservation, stormwater and flood water management, wetlands and habitat restoration and
creation, recreation and access. The plan was finalized in November 2006.
The City was involved in the development of the Bay Area IRWMP on the water supply and
reliability areas through BAWSCA’s representation in BAWAC. In addition, the City also
coordinates water recycling and wastewater for the IRWMP implementation through the City’s
membership in the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA).
BAWSCA Long Term Water Reliable Water Supply Strategy ‐ The BAWSCA agencies have
identified a need for normal and dry year supplies to meet future demands. The study will
identify cost‐effective regional and local projects that will meet individual BAWSCA member
needs. At this time, the City has submitted two local and regional projects for consideration in
the study: The Phase III recycled water project to serve the Stanford Research Park and a broad
regional recycled water program to distribute recycled water from the Palo Alto Regional Water
Quality Control Plant.
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Long Range Facilities Plan ‐ Palo Alto’s Regional
Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) has been in operation since 1934 and now serves the six
communities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Stanford, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.
Aging equipment, new regulatory requirements, and the movement to full sustainability will
require rehabilitation, replacement and new processes. The Long Range Facilities Plan will map
out these changes and focus on biosolids treatment and disposal, waste‐to‐energy
technologies, energy use, major pipeline repairs, recycled water treatment, carbon footprint
impacts, and the best alternatives for rehabilitation, replacement or improvement.
Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan ‐ The City is
participating with other stakeholders in the preparation of a Master Plan to address long range
water supply and reliability needs in Santa Clara County. The Water Master Plan will include an
implementation program that schedules projects based on finances, risk, and water supply and
infrastructure needs.
The City coordinated the 2010 update of the Urban Water Management Plan with the following
agencies:
Table 2: Coordination with Appropriate Agencies
AGENCIES
Participated
in Plan
development
Sent notice
of Plan
preparation
Commented
on the draft
Attended
public
meetings
Contacted
for
assistance
Received
copy of
draft
Sent notice
of public
hearing
Not involved
/ No
information
SFPUC X X X
BAWSCA X X X
SCVWD X X X
City of East Palo
Alto
X X
City of
Mountain View
X X
City of Menlo
Park
X X
Purissima Hills X X
City of Redwood
City
X X
Stanford
University
X X
All other
BAWSCA
agencies
X
County of Santa
Clara
X X
Section 2 – Service Area
Law
10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do all
of the following:
(a) Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected
population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier's
water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be
based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population
projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in
five‐year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available….
Demographics
Palo Alto is located in northern Santa Clara County approximately 35 miles south of the City of
San Francisco. The City’s population in 2010 was approximately 64,4033. The City is roughly 26
square miles in area and is a part of the San Francisco Bay metropolitan area. The City is one of
the area's most desirable residential communities with approximately 28,2914 housing units.
The City’s desirability is partly due to the excellent public schools, comprehensive municipal
services, shopping, restaurants and the community's aesthetics.
The City is considered the birthplace of the high technology industry and the Silicon Valley.
Located directly adjacent to the City is Stanford University, which attracts major corporations
from around the world. The City's 630‐acre Stanford Research Park includes among its tenants
such prestigious and innovative high‐tech leaders as Hewlett‐Packard, Lockheed, Varian, Tesla
Motors, TIBCO and Genencor. The City has 27.3 million square feet of commercial and
industrial floor‐space, 36 parks and preserves (comprising 157 acres of urban parks and 3,744
acres of open space), tennis courts (51), community centers (4), theaters (3), swimming pools
(1), nature centers (3), athletic centers (4), a golf course, an art center, and a junior museum
and zoo (2010)5.
Table 3 shows the population and employment projections for the City from 2010 to 2030
based on actual 2010 Census data and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2009
projections. The City relied on ABAG population and employment projections for the 2005
UWMP and several recent water supply and demand forecasts and continues to primarily rely
on ABAG projections in this plan6. According to these projections, total expected growth in
3 2010 Census
4 City of Palo Alto 2009‐2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
5 City of Palo Alto 2009‐2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
6 The City is in the process of updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan and will publish revised population and
population from 2010 to 2035 is about 30.4 %, or 1.22% per year on average. From 2001 to
2005, the City experienced significant “dot com” related job losses that has resulted in lower
than anticipated employment numbers. In addition, the recent economic slowdown may result
in further losses, though there is no data available on the extent of any impact at this time. The
job situation is expected to improve albeit at a modest rate. Total growth in employment from
2010 to 2035 is expected to be 7.43%, or 0.30% per year on average.
Table 3: Population ‐ Current and Projected
20107 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Service Area Population 64,403 66,200 70,400 73,400 80,400 84,000
Five year ‐ Percent increase 2.79% 6.34% 4.26% 9.54% 4.48%
Total Employment 76,480 76,740 77,010 78,550 80,320 82,160
Five year ‐ Percent increase 0.34% 0.35% 2.00% 2.25% 2.29%
Climate Characteristics
The City enjoys a mild climate surrounded by the San Francisco Bay on the east, and coastal
mountains on the west. The monthly average temperature, rainfall and ETo (Reference
Evapotranspiration) for the area are presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Climate
Standard Monthly
Average ETO 8
Average
Rainfall
(inches) 9 Average Temperature (Fahrenheit) 10
Jan 1.4 3.2 48.0
Feb 1.9 2.9 51.3
Mar 3.5 2.2 53.6
employment data in late 2011 or early 2012. In the interim, the City’s Planning Dept. has issued preliminary
population and employment forecasts (City Manager’s Report 152:10,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=18918). The forecast provides a mid‐growth
and high‐growth population projection, with the high growth scenario based on ABAG 2009. In consideration of
the complexities and challenges of forecasting future water use, the 2010 UWMP demand projections are based on
ABAG 2009 projections. The City has adjusted the ABAG 2009 forecasts to account for the Census 2010 results.
7 The City is using 2010 population data from the recent Census. At the time of publication of this document, the
Census employment results were not available.
8 Average ETO data for closest active station (San Jose) reported by CIMIS website
http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/welcome.jsp
9 Average rainfall and temperature data for Palo Alto reported by NOAA website
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html
10 Average temperature data for Palo Alto reported by NOAA website
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html
Table 4: Climate
Standard Monthly
Average ETO 8
Average
Rainfall
(inches) 9 Average Temperature (Fahrenheit) 10
Apr 5.0 1.0 56.6
May 5.9 0.4 60.7
June 6.7 0.1 65.0
July 7.1 0.0 66.5
Aug 6.3 0.1 66.6
Sept 4.8 0.2 65.5
Oct 3.6 0.7 60.6
Nov 1.8 1.8 53.5
Dec 1.4 2.7 48.0
Section 3 – System Supplies
Law
10631. (b) Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and
planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five year
increments described in subdivision (a)…..
Historical Background
The water utility was established on May 9, 1896, two years after the City was incorporated.
Local water companies were bought out at that time with a $40,000 bond approved by the
voters of the 750‐person community. These private water companies operated one or more
shallow wells to serve the nearby residents. The City grew and the well system expanded until
nine wells were in operation in 1932.
In December 1937, the City signed a 20‐year contract with the City and County of San Francisco,
administered by the San Francisco Water Department (SFWD), for water deliveries from the
newly constructed pipeline bringing Hetch Hetchy water from Yosemite to the Bay Area. Water
deliveries from San Francisco commenced in 1938 and well production declined to less than
half of the total citywide water demand.
A 1950 engineering report noted, "the capricious alternation of well waters and the SFWD
water . . . has made satisfactory service to the average consumer practically impossible."
However, groundwater production increased in the 1950s, leading to lower groundwater tables
and water quality concerns. In 1962, a survey of water softening costs to City customers
determined that the City should purchase 100% of its water supply needs from the SFWD. A
20‐year contract was signed with San Francisco, and the City’s wells were placed in a standby
condition. The SFWD later became known as the SFPUC. Since 1962 (except for some very
short periods) the City’s entire supply of potable water has come from the SFPUC.
BAWSCA coordinates most of the collective activities of the SFPUC’s suburban customers.
BAWSCA comprises SFPUC’s 26 suburban customers. The City largely works through BAWSCA
to manage its SFPUC contract and to interact with the SFPUC.
In 1993, the City completed a water Integrated Resources Plan (IRP). This IRP was completed
because the City was facing a decision regarding participation in a recycled water project. In
the 1993 IRP, the City calculated the value of recycled water for water supply. At that time, the
City decided not to participate in the recycled water project because the costs exceeded the
benefits of the project.
In 1999, the City began to prepare a new Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP). As a first
step, staff completed a high level overview of each of the City’s water resource options and
helped identify the most promising alternatives to be further analyzed in subsequent phases.
The second phase in the WIRP process was the development and evaluation of water supply
portfolios so policy makers can determine the proper balance between cost, quality, reliability,
and environmental factors. At the conclusion of the second phase of the WIRP in 2003, several
pieces of missing information were identified that needed to be further developed in order to
further analyze the City’s water resource options and alternatives.
The WIRP work has been coordinated with infrastructure work by the City to increase the
distribution system reliability. Under a contract with the City, Carollo Engineers completed
several studies of the water distribution system. These studies are discussed in Section 3,
“System Supplies,” under the heading “Groundwater.”
The City and other Santa Clara County water retailers coordinated with the SCVWD to examine
extending the SCVWD West Pipeline (WPL) that currently ends at Miramonte Road and Foothills
Expressway to a point in Palo Alto to serve the City and other neighboring water agencies. In
addition, the study examined creating an intertie between the WPL and the SFPUC’s Bay
Division Pipelines at Page Mill Road. The SCVWD West Pipeline Conceptual Evaluation,
completed in March 2003, concluded that the conceptual projects were constructible, but that
no decisions could be made until SCVWD concluded additional studies. These ongoing studies
include the SCVWD project to evaluate its system reliability, asset management program, and
Water Treatment Plant Master Plan Project. These studies, completed in the fall of 2004,
concluded that extending the WPL to serve the City could not be justified from a county‐wide
reliability aspect when evaluated against more cost‐effective alternatives.
The information obtained from the studies completed on the groundwater and SCVWD’s
conceptual study on the WPL Extension was used to characterize the supply options examined
in the WIRP.
In mid‐2003, the WIRP concluded, based on available information, that supplies from the SFPUC
are adequate in normal years, but additional supplies are needed in drought years to avoid
shortages. Additionally, the WIRP contained a recommendation not to seek additional supplies
for use on a continuous basis unless there is another benefit that can be identified. As a result,
the City did not pursue a connection to the SCVWD’s treated water line for ongoing water
needs nor evaluate further the use the wells on a continuous basis. The WIRP noted that
expanded use of water efficiency programs and recycled water might be worthwhile for the
environmental benefits and to reduce the drought‐time deficit.
Based on the WIRP analysis, the City Council adopted a set of WIRP guidelines in December
2003. The WIRP guidelines include:
1. Preserve and enhance SFPUC supplies: With respect to the City’s primary water supply
source, the SFPUC, continue to actively participate in the BAWSCA to assist in achieving
BAWSCA’s stated goal: “A reliable supply of water, with high quality, and at a fair price.”
2. Advocate for an interconnection between SFPUC and the SCVWD: Work with SCVWD
and the SFPUC to pursue the extension of the SCVWD’s West Pipeline to an
interconnection with the SFPUC Bay Division Pipelines 3&4. Continue to reevaluate the
attractiveness of a connection to an extension of the SCVWD’s West Pipeline.
3. Actively participate in development of cost‐effective regional recycled water plans: Re‐
initiate discussions with the owners of the Palo Alto RWQCP on recycled water
development. In concert with the RWQCP owners, conduct a new feasibility study for
recycled water development. Since the feasibility of a recycled water system depends
upon sufficient end‐user interest, determine how much water Stanford University and
the Stanford Research Park would take.
4. Focus on water DSM programs to comply with BMPs: Continue implementation of
water efficiency programs with the primary focus to achieve compliance with the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) promoted by the California Urban Water Conservation
Council.
5. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of droughts:
Review, retain, and prioritize CPAU’s emergency water conservation measures that
would be put into place in a drought emergency.
6. Retain groundwater supply options in case of changed future conditions: Using
groundwater on a continuous basis does not appear to be attractive at this time due to
the availability of adequate, high quality supplies from the SFPUC in normal years.
However, SFPUC supplies are not adequate in drought years and circumstances could
change in the future such that groundwater supplies could become an attractive, cost‐
effective option. Examples of changing circumstances could be that the amount of
water available from the SFPUC system is reduced due to regulatory or other actions.
CPAU should retain the option of using groundwater in amounts that would not result in
land surface subsidence, saltwater intrusion, or migration of contaminated plumes.
7. Survey community to determine its preferences regarding the best water resource
portfolio: Seek feedback from all classes of water customers on the question of
whether to use groundwater during drought to improve drought year supply reliability.
At the same time, seek feedback on the appropriate level of water treatment for
groundwater if it is to be used during drought. Survey all classes of water customers to
determine their preferences as to the appropriate balance between cost, quality,
reliability, and environmental impact.
Since the major conclusion reached in the WIRP was that SFPUC supplies are adequate except
in drought years, the focus turned to the options to reduce the supply deficit during droughts.
These options include using groundwater, connecting to the SCVWD’s treated water pipeline,
developing recycled water, and expanding water efficiency programs. The goal was to find the
proper balance between the key factors of cost, availability in a drought, water quality, and
environmental impacts in determining the best portfolio for the community.
Following Council’s adoption of the WIRP Guidelines, and to gain insight into the question of
whether to use groundwater as supplemental supply in droughts, the City surveyed its
residential customers. Respondents were asked to rank three options for water supply in a
drought:
A. Blend Groundwater – Blend the groundwater with water from SFPUC in droughts.
Water customers would still need to cut back water usage by 10% in droughts.
B. No Groundwater – Use no groundwater during droughts. Instead, community is
subjected to larger water usage cutbacks in droughts (20% cutback).
C. Treat Groundwater – Highly treat the groundwater (reverse osmosis treatment) before
introducing it into distribution system. Water customers would still need to cut back
water usage by 10% in droughts.
Survey respondents generally preferred Options B (no groundwater) and C (treat groundwater),
but Option A (blend groundwater) was not soundly rejected. Based on the survey, any of the
three options would probably be accepted by the City’s water customers under drought
conditions.
Based on the WIRP and the results of the community survey, staff made the following
conclusions and recommendations in June 2004:
1. Do not install advanced treatment systems for the groundwater at this time. This
option is simply too expensive, both in capital and in operating costs.
2. Blending at an SFPUC turnout is the best way to use groundwater as a supplemental
drought time supply while maintaining good water quality.
3. Staff should await the conclusion of the environmental review process for selecting
any new emergency well sites before developing a recommendation on whether to
use groundwater in droughts. In the selection process for new well sites, the costs
for blending with SFPUC water in droughts should be considered. The least
expensive location is a well at El Camino Park due to its proximity to an SFPUC
turnout.
4. Actively participate in the development of long‐term drought supply plans with
SFPUC and BAWSCA.
5. Continue in the efforts identified in the Council‐approved WIRP Guidelines:
a. Evaluate a range of demand‐side management (DSM) options for their ability to
reduce long‐term water demands;
b. Evaluate feasibility of expanding the use of recycled water; and
c. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of
droughts.
At this time, no decision has been made regarding whether or not to use groundwater as a
supplemental supply in droughts, though the City is proceeding with the Emergency Water
Supply and Storage project which will provide the City the flexibility to rely on groundwater
during a drought if necessary.
Table 5 below shows the current and planned water supply sources for the City for normal
years.
Table 5: Current and Planned Water Supply Sources
Water Supply Sources in AFY 2010
(actual) 2015 2020 2025 2030
SFPUC11 12,263 14,253 14,157 14,353 14,971
Local Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0
Local Surface Water 0 0 0 0 0
Recycled Water 802 850 850 850 850
Transfers in or out 0 0 0 0 0
Exchanges in or out 0 0 0 0 0
Desalination 0 0 0 0 0
Other Sources 0 0 0 0 0
Total 13,065 15,103 15,007 15,203 15,821
SFPUC Supply
Description of SFPUC Regional Water System
Palo Alto receives water from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System
(RWS), operated by the SFPUC. This supply is predominantly from the Sierra Nevada, delivered
through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC
from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties.
The amount of imported water available to the SFPUC’s retail and wholesale customers is
constrained by hydrology, physical facilities and the institutional limitations that allocate the
water supply of the Tuolumne River. Due to these constraints, the SFPUC is very dependent on
reservoir storage to ensure water supply availability in dry years.
The SFPUC serves its retail and wholesale water demands with an integrated operation of local
Bay Area water production and imported water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. In practice,
the local watershed facilities are operated to capture local runoff.
11 Data from end use model, except for 2010 actual usage data, as indicated.
Water System Improvement Program
In order to enhance the ability of the RWS to meet identified level of service goals for water
quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability and water supply, the SFPUC has undertaken the
WSIP, which was approved October 31, 2008. The WSIP will deliver capital improvements
aimed at enhancing the SFPUC’s ability to meet its water service mission of providing high
quality water to customers in a reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable manner.
Many of the water supply and reliability projects evaluated in the WSIP were originally put forth
in the SFPUC’s Water Supply Master Plan (2000).
A Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act for the WSIP. The PEIR, certified in 2008, analyzed the broad
environmental effects of the projects in the WSIP at a program level and the water supply
impacts of various alternative supplies at a project level. Individual WSIP projects are also
undergoing individual project specific environmental review as required.
The approved WSIP includes full implementation of all proposed WSIP facility improvement
projects to insure that the public health, seismic safety and delivery reliability goals were
achieved as soon as possible.
As of July 1, 2010, the overall WSIP was 27% complete while the planning and design work was
more than 90% complete. The WSIP is scheduled to be completed in December 2015 (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Water System Improvement Program58
Source: SFPUC
58 For more information on individual WSIP projects, please visit the SFPUC website at www.sfwater.org.
2009 Water Supply Agreement
The relationship between San Francisco and its wholesale customers is largely defined by the
Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale
Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County entered into in July
2009. The new Water Supply Agreement (WSA) replaced the Settlement Agreement and
Master Water Sales Contract that expired in June 2009. The WSA addresses the rate‐making
methodology used by SFPUC in setting wholesale water rates for its wholesale customers in
addition to addressing water supply and water shortages for the system. The WSA has a 25‐
year term.
In terms of water supply, the WSA provides for a “Supply Assurance” to the SFPUC’s wholesale
customers of 184 million gallons per day (MGD, expressed on an annual average basis), subject
to reduction, to the extent and for the period made necessary by reason of water shortage, due
to drought, emergencies, or by malfunctioning or rehabilitation of the regional water system.
The WSA does not guarantee that San Francisco will meet peak daily or hourly customer
demands when their annual usage exceeds the Supply Assurance. The SFPUC’s wholesale
customers have agreed to the allocation of the 184 MGD Supply Assurance among themselves,
with each entity’s share of the Supply Assurance, or Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG), set forth
on Attachment C to the WSA. Palo Alto’s ISG is 17.07 MGD (or approximately 19,118 acre feet
per year). The Supply Assurance survives termination or expiration of the WSA and Palo Alto’s
Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco.
The Water Shortage Allocation Plan between the SFPUC and its wholesale customers, adopted
as part of the WSA in July 2009, addresses shortages of up to 20% of system‐wide use. The Tier
1 Shortage Plan allocates water from the RWS between San Francisco Retail and the wholesale
customers during system‐wide shortages of 20% or less. The WSA also includes a Tier 2
Shortage Plan, which would allocate the available water from the SFPUC system among the
wholesale customers.
In August 2010, the BAWSCA agencies reached agreement on a new Tier 2 Shortage Plan to
recommend to their respective governing bodies. On February 7th, 2011, the Palo Alto City
Council approved the new Tier 2 Water Shortage Implementation Plan13 (Appendix E). As of
early April 2011, all the BAWSCA agencies have approved the new Tier 2 plan. The new Tier 2
plan provides the framework for allocating the wholesale Tier 1 water allocation between the
different BAWSCA agencies. The new Tier 2 Water Shortage Implementation Plan is in effect
until 2018.
13 City of Palo Alto Staff Report, Drought Implementation Plan, ID # 1308
Interim Supply Allocation
When it adopted the WSIP and certified the PEIR on October 30, 2008, the SFPUC approved a
water delivery limitation from the SFPUC system of 265 MGD until 2018. This 265 MGD Interim
Supply Limitation (ISL) for the system allocated 184 MGD to the BAWSCA agencies and 81 MGD
to San Francisco. The ISL does not impact the seismic, public health and deliverability level of
service goals that were identified in the WSIP. The intent of the ISL was to establish an interim
water supply planning horizon that defers decisions on long term water supply issues until after
2018, when more current information will be available. The penalty mechanism in the ISL,
which provides for a substantial “Environmental Enhancement Surcharge,” is only triggered if
the SFPUC and the BAWSCA agencies collectively exceed the 265 MGD limitation.
In December 2010, the SFPUC finalized the distribution of the 184 MGD BAWSCA ISL allocation
to the individual BAWSCA members. Palo Alto’s Interim Supply Allocation (ISA) is 14.70 MGD.
During the pending FY 2012 rate setting process, the SFPUC will finalize the rates that will be
charged to those agencies that exceed their ISA if the 265 MGD limitation is exceeded. Section
4 of this 2010 UWMP includes updated demand projections. Based on these projections, the
City does not anticipate exceeding the 14.70 MGD ISA during the ISL period ending in 2018.
The ISA is distinct from the ISG. The ISG is a perpetual entitlement for water delivered from the
SFPUC system that survives the expiration of the current water delivery contract. The ISA is an
interim water delivery limitation intended to accomplish the goals outlined in the adopted
WSIP, and it automatically expires in 2018 (see SFPUC Resolution 10‐0213, adopted
12/14/2010).
BAWSCA and Its Role
BAWSCA was created on May 27, 2003 to represent the interests of 26 cities and water
districts, and two private utilities, in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties that
purchase water on a wholesale basis from the San Francisco Regional Water System.
BAWSCA directly represents the needs of the cities, water districts and private utilities that
depend on the regional water system. BAWSCA provides these customers with an ability to
work with SFPUC on an equal basis to ensure reliable operation of the regional system and
collectively and efficiently meet local responsibilities.
BAWSCA has the mandate to coordinate water conservation, supply and recycling activities for
its agencies; acquire water and make it available to other agencies on a wholesale basis; finance
projects, including improvements to the regional water system; and build facilities jointly with
other local public agencies or on its own to carry out the agency’s purposes.
Compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act is within the jurisdiction of each
agency that delivers water to its customers. In this instance the responsibility for completing an
UWMP lies with the individual BAWSCA member agencies. BAWSCA’s role in the development
of the 2010 UWMP updates is to work closely with its member agencies and the SFPUC to
maintain consistency between the multiple documents being developed and to ensure overall
consistency with the WSIP and the associated environmental documents.
As a member of BAWSCA, the City is formally represented on the BAWSCA Board of Directors
on matters involving decision‐making, policy setting and issues of interest to the BAWSCA
members. On the staff level, the City participates on several advisory and policy committees,
including the Water Quality Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee. Staff also
represents the City with the other BAWSCA members on other issues that may arise from time
to time.
Water Conservation Implementation Plan
In September 2009, BAWSCA completed the Water Conservation Implementation Plan (WCIP).
The goal of the WCIP is to develop an implementation plan for BAWSCA and its member
agencies to attain the water efficiency goals that the agencies committed to in 2004 as part of
the PEIR for the WSIP. At that time, over 32 water conservation measures were evaluated. The
WCIP’s goal was expanded to include identification of how BAWSCA member agencies could
use water conservation as a way to continue to provide reliable water supplies to their
customers through 2018 given the SFPUC’s 265 MGD Interim Supply Limitation.
Based on the WCIP development and analysis process, BAWSCA and its member agencies
identified five additional water conservation measures, which, if implemented fully throughout
the BAWSCA service area, could potentially save an additional 8.4 MGD by 2018 and 12.5 MGD
by 2030. The demand projections for the BAWSCA member agencies, as transmitted to the
SFPUC on June 30, 2010, indicate that collective purchases from the SFPUC will stay below 184
MGD through 2018 as a result of revised water demand projections, the identified water
conservation savings, and other actions.
The City actively manages its conservation program to adjust to customer needs and provide a
mechanism for the utility to achieve the greatest water savings possible at the lowest cost. The
City has made several adjustments to the programs that were identified in 2004 and the 5 new
measures that were identified in the WCIP. For example, starting in FY 2011, the City has
reduced the emphasis on high efficiency toilet and washing machine rebates in favor of several
new measures that will achieve substantially the same level of savings. Some of these
programs focus on outdoor water savings while others incentivize innovative water efficiency
projects in the community. The new measures are discussed in more detail in Section 5 –
Demand Management Measures.
Regional Coordination for Demand Management
BAWSCA and its member agencies look for opportunities to work with other water agencies
including the SFPUC and the SCVWD, and leverage available resources to implement water use
efficiency projects. For example, in 2005, BAWSCA and the SFPUC entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) regarding the administration of a Spray Valve Installation Program.
Through this MOU, BAWSCA and the SFPUC worked cooperatively to offer and coordinate the
installation of water conserving spray valves to food service providers throughout the BAWSCA
service area. In addition, BAWSCA participates in the Bay Area Efficient Clothes Washer Rebate
Program, which is a residential rebate program offered by all of the major Bay Area water
utilities. Through participation in this program, BAWSCA and its participating member agencies
were the recipients of $187,500 in Proposition 50 grant funds, which became available in Fiscal
Year 2007.
More recently, as part of the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, BAWSCA
and other major Bay Area water utilities, including the SCVWD submitted a Proposition 84
Implementation Grant Proposal in January 2011 to support regional water conservation efforts
that offer drought relief and long‐term water savings. The proposed project includes a package
of water conservation programs to improve water use efficiency throughout the San Francisco
Bay Area. The project provides direct funding, financial incentives (rebates), and/or subsidies
for the implementation of programs that achieve reduced water demand, by all classes of
water users: residential, and commercial, industrial and institutional. Four specific programs
were selected for the project because they were determined to provide the most quantifiable
and sustainable water savings, including: 1.) Water‐Efficient Landscape Rebates, Training and
Irrigation Calculator, 2.) High‐Efficiency Toilet/Urinal Direct Install and/or Rebates, 3.) High‐
Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebates, and 4.) Efficient Irrigation Equipment Rebates.
The SCVWD is the primary wholesale water agency in Santa Clara County. Since Palo Alto is
located in Santa Clara County, CPAU partners with the SCVWD for conservation program
implementation and does not participate in the programs offered by BAWSCA at this time.
CPAU and SCVWD mutually benefit from a cost‐sharing agreement for administration of
residential and commercial conservation programs in Palo Alto. BAWSCA and its member
agencies will continue to look for ways to partner with each other and the other Bay Area water
utilities, as appropriate, to develop regional water conservation efforts that extend beyond
local interests to examine costs, benefits and other related issues on a system‐wide level. The
goal is to maximize the efficient use of water regionally by capitalizing on variations in local
conditions and economies of scale.
Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy
BAWSCA’s water management objective is to ensure that a reliable, high quality supply of
water is available where and when people within the BAWSCA service area need it. A reliable
supply of water is required to support the health, safety, employment, and economic
opportunities of the existing and expected future residents in the BAWSCA service area and to
supply water to the agencies, businesses, and organizations that serve those communities.
BAWSCA is developing the Long‐Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy (Strategy) to meet the
projected water needs of its member agencies and their customers through 2035 and to
increase their water supply reliability under normal and drought conditions.
The Strategy is proceeding in three phases. Phase I was completed in 2010 and defined the
magnitude of the water supply issue and the scope of work for the Strategy. Phase II of the
Strategy is currently under development and will result in a refined estimate of when, where,
and how much additional supply reliability and new water supplies are needed throughout the
BAWSCA service area through 2035, as well as a detailed analysis of the water supply
management projects, and the development of the Strategy implementation plan. Phase II will
be complete by 2013. Phase III will include the implementation of specific water supply
management projects. Depending on cost‐effectiveness, as well as other considerations, the
projects may be implemented by a single member agency, by a collection of the member
agencies, or by BAWSCA in an appropriate timeframe to meet the identified needs. Project
implementation may begin as early as 2013 and will continue throughout the Strategy planning
horizon, in coordination with the timing and magnitude of the supply need.
The development and implementation of the Strategy will be coordinated with the BAWCSA
member agencies and will be adaptively managed to ensure that the goals of the Strategy, i.e.,
increased normal and drought year reliability, are efficiently and cost‐effectively being met.
The City is participating in the Strategy and has submitted several potential projects for review.
The City anticipates these projects will be evaluated during subsequent project phases, but also
as part of several other regional efforts that are simultaneously underway. These efforts
include the Palo Alto RWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan and the SCVWD Water Supply and
Infrastructure Master Plan. The City is actively participating on all of these efforts in
conjunction with the BAWSCA study.
Groundwater
The City is located in Santa Clara County. SCVWD is the groundwater management agency in
Santa Clara County as authorized by the California legislature under the SCVWD Act, California
Water Code Appendix, Chapter 6014. Groundwater conditions throughout the County are
generally very good, as SCVWD efforts to prevent groundwater basin overdraft, curb land
surface subsidence, and protect water quality have been largely successful. Groundwater
elevations have generally recovered from overdraft conditions throughout the basin, inelastic
land subsidence has been curtailed, and groundwater quality supports beneficial uses. The
groundwater basin is not adjudicated.
14 SCVWD Groundwater Management Plan, July 2001.
The City’s existing water well system consists of five wells (Hale, Rinconada, Peers Park,
Fernando, and Matadero) with a combined total rated capacity of 4,300 gpm. These wells were
constructed in the mid‐1950s and were operated continuously until 1962. In 1988, the wells
were operated to provide supplemental supplies as SFPUC implemented mandatory rationing.
Two of the wells were operated for about a month and a half in 1991 when it appeared that the
City was facing a severe (45%) cutback requirement. Besides normal annual operational
testing, the wells have not been used since 1991.
From 1999 to 2003, the City completed numerous studies that provided significant analysis of
City‐owned wells and the local distribution system. The analysis is discussed in detail in the
2005 UWMP. The results of the studies provided a significant amount of information regarding
the costs and operational issues of wells for emergency use, drought‐only supply and full‐time
operation.
Recent Analysis
Since the publication of the 2005 UWMP, the City completed the environmental review and
permitting process for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. The project consists
of the repair and rehabilitation of the five existing wells, construction of three new wells,
potentially equipping one well for use as a supplemental water supply, construction of a new
2.5 million gallon storage reservoir and associated pump station, and other upgrades to the
system (Figure 2). The groundwater quality of the City’s wells is considered fair to good quality,
though significantly less desirable in comparison to the imported SFPUC supply. The
groundwater is approximately six times higher in total dissolved solids (TDS) and hardness. The
Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project’s primary goal is to correct the deficiency in the
City’s emergency water supply. The project would support a minimum of eight hours of normal
water use at the maximum day demand level and four hours of fire suppression at the design
fire duration level. The groundwater system may also be used to a limited extent for water
supply during drought conditions (up to 1,500 acre feet per year), and would be capable of
providing normal wintertime supply needs during extended shutdowns of the SFPUC system.
The proposed project would provide up to 11,000 gpm of reliable well capacity and 2.5 million
gallons (MG) of water storage for emergency use.
Figure 2: Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project Facilities
Source: Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project EIR, 2007
In March 2007, the City Council certified the Final EIR and authorized staff to proceed with the
Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. The Notice to Proceed for the project was issued
in October 2009.
In April 2010, the California Department of Public Health15 (CDPH) approved a permit
amendment to add the new Library/Community Center Well and the Eleanor Pardee Park Wells
to the City’s existing water supply permit. As part of the permit process, both wells were tested
for primary and secondary water quality standards. The results of the test indicate both wells
currently meet primary and secondary water quality standards, but the potential remains for
exceedance of secondary standards for manganese, iron and TDS. However the wells will
remain standby sources for the foreseeable future and as such no additional treatment to
ensure compliance with secondary standards is required at this point.
In an emergency situation, the City can provide emergency chlorination treatment at several of
the new and existing Well sites, including the Library/Community well, Eleanor Pardee well,
Hale Well, Peers Well, and Rinconada well.
The City has identified the wells as a potential supply source for use during a prolonged
drought. As specified in the EIR for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, concern
15 CDPH issues and has the authority to revise domestic water supply permits pursuant to Health and Safety Code
section 116525 (City of Palo Alto permit # 4310009).
over prolonged groundwater pumping in the area resulted in a maximum production limitation
of 1,500 AFY during a drought16. If the wells were to be used as a dry year supply option, the
City would need to coordinate with CDPH to ensure the necessary treatment was in place to
meet regulatory standards for this purpose. In addition, several other issues will need to be
addressed prior to the use of the wells during a drought, including the capital costs of any
treatment or blending upgrades that may need to occur, water quality issues compared to the
City’s SFPUC source, customer acceptance, SCVWD groundwater production costs, and the
exact mechanism for how groundwater production would form a part of any drought response
portfolio. At this time, the City has no plans to use groundwater during a drought. Once the
Emergency Water Storage and Supply Project is complete, the City will re‐evaluate the
feasibility of using groundwater as a supplemental supply during a drought.
Transfer or Exchange Opportunities
Law
10631 (d) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a
short‐term or long‐term basis.
Because the existing San Francisco regional water system does not have sufficient supplies in
dry years, dry‐year water transfers are potentially an important part of future water supplies.
The City has undertaken three activities to support such transfers:
1) From 1996 to 2000, the City participated in the development of the SFPUC‐BAWSCA Water
Supply Master Plan (WSMP) which identified dry‐year purchases as an important part of the
future water supply. The discussion in the WSMP includes purchasing additional Tuolumne
River water and water from willing sellers located geographically south of the Delta who
possess water rights or contractual entitlements to water diverted from the Delta. In
addition, the WSMP identifies potential opportunities for water purchases from willing
sellers upstream of the Delta along the Sacramento, Feather, Yuba, American, and San
Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries.17 The WSMP was formally adopted by the SFPUC and
implementation of the WSMP (including investigating dry‐year transfers) is ongoing.
2) In January 2011, the Palo Alto City Council approved a new Water Shortage Implementation
Plan to allocate water between the BAWSCA members. This plan includes the ability to
transfer water allocated to the BAWSCA agencies between BAWSCA members during
drought periods. As of April 2011, all the BAWSCA agencies have unanimously adopted the
plan.
16 Final Environmental Impact Report, City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, SCH #
2006022038
17 Draft SFPUC 2005 UWMP 100507, Section 5, Page 34
3) The City is monitoring the development of a water transfer market in California, including a
mechanism for BAWSCA members to transfer contractual entitlements on the SFPUC
system. The City supports SFPUC’s efforts to pursue cost‐effective dry‐year water transfers
as part of the overall water supply for the SFPUC system. BAWSCA has the ability to pursue
water transfers on its own as long as a wheeling arrangement can be negotiated with the
SFPUC.
Water Recycling
Law
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled
water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the
urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan
shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning
agencies and shall include all of the following:
10633 (a) A description of the wastewater collection and treatment systems in
the supplier's service area…
The City operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment
plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto,
and Stanford University. Wastewater from these communities is treated by the RWQCP prior
to discharge to the Bay. Approximately 220,000 people live in the RWQCP service area. Of the
wastewater flow to the RWQCP, about 60 percent is estimated to come from residences, 10
percent from industries, and 30 percent from commercial businesses and institutions. The
RWQCP uses physical, biological, and chemical treatment to remove about 99 percent of the
solids and organic materials from influent wastewater.
In 1992, the City and the other RWQCP partners completed a Water Reclamation Master Plan
(Master Plan). This Master Plan identified a five‐year, three‐stage implementation for recycled
water development in the service area of the RWQCP.
In 1995, City Council certified the final PEIR for the Master Plan projects. At the same time, the
City decided not to pursue any of the recommended expansion stages of a water recycling
system as the cost of the projects could not be justified. In addition, Council adopted a Water
Recycling Policy, which includes continuation of the existing recycled water program and
monitoring of the conditions that would trigger an evaluation of the Master Plan projects
studied in the Program EIR. The Water Recycling Policy described five conditions that would
trigger evaluation of the Master Plan projects:
1. Changes in the RWQCP discharge requirements;
2. Increased mass loading to the RWQCP;
3. Requests from partner agencies or other local agencies;
4. Availability of federal or other funds; and
5. Water supply issues – Issues which may lead to an increase in the value of recycled
water from a water supply perspective include:
a. Water supply availability shortages;
b. Regulatory or legislative initiative; or
c. Advanced treatment for potable reuse.
Participation in Regional Recycled Water Planning
The City has participated in various regional recycled water planning initiatives:
The City completed the Water Reclamation Master Plan (1992) for the service territory of
the RWQCP.
The City is a stakeholder in the ABAG‐led effort to secure grant funding for a Bay Area
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) and for projects identified in that
IRWMP.
CPAU and the partners of the RWQCP committed to assist in the funding of a project to
build a new recycled water pipeline from the RWQCP to Mountain View. This project will
not have new connections to end uses in the City, but the pipeline is sized to accommodate
future expansion of recycled water use in the City. The project was completed in summer
2009.
The City is a member of the California WateReuse Association, which helps promote and
implement water recycling in California.
The City is a member of the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, a group of regional recycled
water project proponents that advocate for and seek funding from the Federal Bureau of
Reclamation under Title 16.
The City actively participates on the SCVWD recycled Water Sub‐Committee. The
Committee is a group of recycled water retailers and wholesalers that meets bimonthly to
discuss issues and challenges surrounding the use and promotion of recycled water.
Wastewater Collection and Treatment in Palo Alto
The City’s wastewater flows to the RWQCP. The RWQCP is an EPA award winning Class V
tertiary treatment facility featuring primary treatment (bar screening and primary
sedimentation), secondary treatment (fixed film reactors, conventional activated sludge,
clarification and filtration), and tertiary treatment (filtration through a sand and coal filter and
UV disinfection). Through these treatments, 99% of ammonia, organic pollutants, and solid
pollutants are removed. While the plant was not designed to remove metals, the treatment
process through optimization has reduced the quantity of mercury, silver, and lead by 90%. The
removal rates for other heavy metals range from 20 to 85%.
The plant's discharge meets very high standards that are among the most stringent discharge
standards in the nation18. The quality of the water leaving the plant approaches the standards
for drinking water. In fact, the heavy metal content in the plant's discharge is low enough that
the water would be appropriate for reuse with only one additional disinfection step. Table 6
provides some data on the RWQCP. A full description of the treatment facility is included in the
1992 Water Reclamation Master Plan and is not reproduced here.
Table 6: Wastewater Treatment
Treatment
Plant Name
Location
(City)
Average
Daily
(2010)
Maximum
Daily
(2009)
Year of
Planned
Build‐out
Planned Maximum Daily Volume
RWQCP City of
Palo Alto
21.5 MGD 68 MGD Plant built
out
80 MGD = Maximum Design Daily Flow
39 MGD = Average Design Daily Flow (Dry
weather capacity)
Wastewater Generation, Collection & Treatment
Law
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled
water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the
urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan
shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning
agencies and shall include all of the following:
10633 (a) A […] quantification of the amount of wastewater collected and
treated…
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP)
The RWQCP has an average dry weather flow design capacity of 39 MGD with full tertiary
treatment, and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 80 MGD with full secondary treatment.
Current average flows are approximately 22 MGD. The plant capacity is sufficient for current
dry and wet weather loads and for future load projections. There are no plans for expansion or
to “build‐out” the plant.
All of the wastewater treated at the RWQCP can be recycled. The plant already has some
capability to produce recycled water that meets the Title 22 unrestricted use standard
(approximately 4.5 MGD of capacity of which 4.5 MGD is presently available). In September
18 City of Palo Alto’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit No: CA 0037834
2010, the RWQCP completed installation of a new ultraviolet disinfection facility which will
allow a gradual increase in the amount of recycled water that meets the Title 22 unrestricted
use standard (Table 7). The remaining treated wastewater meets the restricted use standard
and can also be recycled.
Table 7: Wastewater Collected and Treated – MGD
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Wastewater Collected and Treated 22.3 23.5 24.6 25.8 27.4
Quantity that meets recycled water
“restricted use” standard 18.3 17 16.6 17.8 19.4
Quantity that meets recycled water
“unrestricted use” (Title 22) standard 4 6.5 8 8 8
Wastewater Disposal and Recycled Water Uses
Law
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled
water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the
urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan
shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning
agencies and shall include all of the following:
10633 (a) A description of the […] methods of wastewater disposal.
10633 (b) A description of the recycled water currently being used in the
supplier's service area, including but not limited to, the type, place and quantity
of use.
10633 (c) A description and quantification of the potential uses of recycled
water, including, but not limited to, agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation,
wildlife habitat enhancement, wetlands, industrial reuse, groundwater
recharge, and other appropriate uses, and a determination with regard to the
technical and economic feasibility of serving those uses.
10633 (d) The projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area
at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years
Disposal of Wastewater
The City of Palo RWQCP currently discharges treated wastewater to the San Francisco Bay
(Table 8).
Table 8: Disposal of Wastewater (non‐recycled) – MGD
Method of Disposal Treatment Level 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Discharge to San Francisco Bay Tertiary (restricted
use standard)
19.4 19.8 20.9 22.1 23.7
Discharge to Bay after going
through Emily Renzel Marsh
Tertiary (restricted
use standard)
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Total 20.6 21.0 22.1 23.3 24.9
Recycled Water Currently Being Used
The recycled water produced by the RWQCP is currently being used for the following:
Irrigation water for Greer Park in Palo Alto (87 AFY19)
Irrigation water for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course (109 AFY 20)
Various uses at the Palo Alto Municipal Service Center, including use in street sweepers,
dust control at construction sites, vehicle washing, and for irrigating road median strips
A new pipeline to serve Shoreline Park and other customers in Mountain View was
completed in Summer 2009. The new pipeline delivered approximately 391 AFY of
recycled water in 2010 and is projected to deliver approximately 1,500 AFY at peak
production21.
Water for enhancements at the Emily Renzel Marsh in Palo Alto. The RWQCP pumps
from 1.0 to 1.5 MGD of water into the 14‐acre freshwater marsh. This water does not
get the full, recycled water treatment, just the standard tertiary treatment from the
plant (restricted use standard). The recycled water used in the marsh enhancement
project does not replace potable water (average of 1.2 MGD, or 1,344 AFY).
Water for the Duck Pond in Palo Alto (36.83 AFY22)
Water for irrigation in and around the RWQCP and in processes at the plant itself. The
amount of recycled water that replaces potable water for this use is about 0.5 MGD, or
560 AF/Y. That usage can be broken down as about 0.2 MGD for landscape irrigation
and about 0.3 MGD for mechanical seals and cooling water for the oil cooler on the
blowers. An additional 1 MGD (1,120 AFY) of recycled water is used at the RWQCP as
stack scrubber water, but this use does not replace potable water.
Water that can be collected by trucks at the plant to be used for dust control at
construction projects, for irrigation, and in street sweepers. The quantities of this use
vary, but can be up to 5,000 gallons per day23.
19 Greer park usage from metered data for calendar year 2010.
20 Golf Course usage from metered data for calendar year 2010.
21 Since the City of Mountain View provides potable water service within Mountain View, the recycled water
deliveries for the Mountain View project are not included in the Palo Alto UWMP.
22 Duck Pond usage from metered data for calendar year 2010.
23 Current uses include service road dust suppression at the Palo Alto landfill (ending July 2011); East Palo Alto
Irrigation water for CALTRANS, which may use up to 50,000 gallons per day in the
summer for irrigating (by truck) the median strips on local highways.
Potential Uses of Recycled Water
After finalizing the 2005 UWMP, the City completed several new studies on potential uses for
recycled water and updated recycled water demand estimates accordingly. Based on these
studies, the City has updated the recycled water projections previously included in the 2005
UWMP. The potential uses in Palo Alto for recycled water are shown in Table 9 below. The
table shows current use continuing for 2010 and the potential for expansion is shown in the
totals for 2015 and beyond.
Recycled Water Market Survey
Since the Council adopted the Water Recycling Policy in 1995, several things have occurred that
prompt a review of the feasibility of recycled water use in the City, including the following:
1. The SFPUC has begun implementing the WSIP to repair and improve the regional water
system’s infrastructure. This $4.6 billion program has resulted in steadily increasing
wholesale water rates. Wholesale water rates are projected to double from the current
(FY 2011) rates of $848/AF to over $1850/AF in FY 2016. In addition, the recent
Sanitary District sewer main flushing; and Caltrans median and shoulder irrigation during water shortages.
Table 9: Potential Future Use of Recycled Water ‐ Potential AFY
Treatment
Level
Type of Use 2010
(Actual)
2015 2020 2025 2030
Agriculture 0 0 0 0 0
Landscape 421 1321 1321 1321 1321
Industrial 336 336 336 336 336
Groundwater Recharge 0 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Duck Pond 36 24 24 24 24
Trucked uses for dust control
and/or landscape irrigation
10 3 3 3 3
Tertiary
treatment plus
additional
disinfection
(Title 22
unrestricted
use standard)
Total 803 1,684 1,684 1,684 1,684
Wildlife Habitat/Wetlands
Enhancement (Emily Renzel
Marsh)
1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344 1,344
Industrial 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120
Tertiary
treatment
(restricted use
standard)
Total 2,464 2,464 2,464 2,464 2,464
Grand Total 3,267 4,148 4,148 4,148 4,148
economic downturn and conservation efforts have negatively impacted water sales that
may result in additional upward revisions on supply costs. At these prices, and
considering the local benefits of a recycled water supply source, recycled water is
increasingly competitive with the cost of SFPUC water.
2. The RWQCP completed a project to replace an existing deteriorating pipeline to
Shoreline Golf Course in Mountain View and to extend the pipeline to the Mountain
View‐Moffett area. The pipeline replacement restored the golf course connection and
will provide recycled water services to the Shoreline community. CPAU paid $1 million
of the cost for this pipeline to ensure the pipeline will be sized to meet possible future
needs in the City. In addition, CPAU has committed to pay another $1 million if and
when it taps into the new pipeline.
3. There are potential partners for expanding the use of recycled water in the City. Since
there is a regional benefit to maximizing local sources, neighboring communities and the
Bay Area at large may wish to participate financially in an expansion of recycled water
use in the City, especially if there are no feasible sites in their own communities.
Since enough has changed and because it has been over 13 years since the 1992 Water
Reclamation Master Plan was complete, the City engaged a consultant to complete a Recycled
Water Market Survey (Market Survey). The Recycled Water Market Survey began in July 2005
and was completed in 2006. The objectives of the study were to review and update the list of
potential recycled water users identified in the 1992 Master Plan and to update the estimated
recycled water use potential and the cost estimates for the delivery of recycled water. The
Market Survey included site investigations, market analysis, conceptual project design, and
preparation of a preliminary financing and revenue plan.
Recycled Water Facility Plan
Following completion of the recycled Water Market Survey, the City applied for and secured
grant funding for the project planning from the SWRCB through the Regional Water Recycling
Facilities Planning Grant Program. The grant provided a 50% cost share with the City for up to
$75,000 to fund the preparation of a Facilities Plan for the recycled water project. The purpose
of the facility plan was fourfold:
1. Define recycled water alternatives (i.e. reuse sites and demands, distribution alignment,
sizing, construction alternatives, etc) and identify a Recommended Project;
2. Develop a realistic funding strategy for the Recommended Project;
3. Develop an implementation strategy for the Recommended Project; and
4. Provide the basis for any future State and Federal grant requests for the Recommended
Project.
The City engaged a consultant in April 2007 to assist in preparing the Facility Plan. Based on the
analysis in the Facility Plan, the report identified a Recommended Project to serve customers in
the Stanford Research Park area and potentially offset the need to import approximately 900
AFY of potable water. Figure 3 below illustrates the areas currently being provided recycled
water (Phases 1&2) and the future potential Phase 3 project to serve the Stanford Research
Park.
Figure 3: Phase III Recycled Water Project
The Facility plan provided a comprehensive analysis of the Stanford Research Park project,
including detailed costs estimates. The Facility Plan identified a gross project cost of
approximately $2700/AF, as compared to a current SFPUC projection in 2016 of approximately
$1850/AF. The City is in the process of pursuing potential grant and low cost financing
opportunities and anticipates the cost to the City for the project will decrease, depending on
the alternative funding sources and amounts.
In December 2008, the Facility Plan was deemed complete by the State Water Resources
Control Board. Since completion of the Facility Plan, the City has been evaluating the Phase 3
extension of the existing recycled water delivery system to serve the Stanford Research Park.
The City began preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase 3 project in May 2009.
During preparation of the MND, elevated salinity levels in the recycled water were identified as
an area of concern to stakeholders. Based on subsequent discussions on the salinity issue, the
City decided to prepare an EIR for the project. The City anticipates releasing a draft EIR in
September 2011 and seeking City Council approval in late 2011. Following this, the City will
continue to pursue grant and others funding sources and will seek City Council approval of the
project once the business plan and project financing are complete.
Encouraging Recycled Water Use
Law
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled
water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the
urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan
shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning
agencies and shall include all of the following:
10633 (e) A description of actions, including financial incentives, which may be
taken to encourage the use of recycled water, and the projected results of
these actions in terms of acre‐feet of recycled water used per year.
The City encourages Recycled Water usage in the following ways:
Participating in the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan process
Encouraging businesses and City departments to utilize the existing recycled water
capability within the City
Participating as an active member of the WateReuse Association, including hosting
meetings of the Northern California Chapter of the Association
Offering recycled water for free to users willing to pick it up at the RWQCP by truck
Adoption of the Recycled water Mandatory Use Ordinance
Adoption of the Salinity Reduction Policy
Current and Proposed Actions to Encourage Use of Recycled Water
Since completion of the 2005 UWMP, the City has pursued several approaches to encourage
recycled water use.
The City Council adopted the Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use on
October 17, 2005. One of those principles is that new construction should be plumbed with
purple pipe to facilitate the use of non‐potable water for outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and
commercial and industrial processes in anticipation of the future availability of recycled water.
The City approved a Mandatory Use Ordinance24 to require customers to prepare for recycled
water delivery in the future25. For most new construction and some renovations that meet
24 City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16.12
25 The Ordinance applies to non‐residential customers. The City has no plans to provide recycled water to
certain criteria, the applicant must install dual‐plumbing and prepare the site for irrigation with
recycled water. Compliance with the new ordinance is administered through the permit
process with the Building Department. The CPAU provides plan review services of landscape
and irrigation design plans, in order to ensure compliance with outdoor water efficiency and
recycled water requirements.
The City Council approved a Salinity Reduction Policy26in January 2010 to address the elevated
salinity levels in the recycled water. The policy identified inflow and infiltration as a likely
contributor to the elevated salinity levels, and provided a target salinity level based on
minimum inflow and infiltration into the wastewater collection system. The approved policy
outlined several future implementation steps to lower the TDS levels in the recycled water
towards the goal of increased customer acceptance of the use of recycled water.
The RWQCP will continue to monitor potential saltwater intrusion "hotspots" and
communicate the results to the RWQCP partners;
The RWQCP will develop a database to track salinity data and perform other
investigative work to support the effort;
CPAU will coordinate implementation of the recently approved Sanitary Sewer
Management Plan to manage the Palo Alto wastewater collection system and identify
inflow and infiltration reduction actions; and
The RWQCP will develop a groundwater management plan to coordinate salinity
reduction activities with the RWQCP partners and prepare for expanded recycled water
application. This groundwater management plan27 will be coordinated with the SCVWD,
which has jurisdiction over the groundwater basins in Santa Clara County.
Though no decision has been made at this time regarding retail recycled water pricing, the City
may implement financial incentives and other mechanisms to encourage the use of recycled
water. One common method to promote recycled water is to provide recycled water at a
discount to potable water.
Recycled Water Optimization Plan
Law
10633. The plan shall provide, to the extent available, information on recycled
water and its potential for use as a water source in the service area of the
urban water supplier. To the extent practicable, the preparation of the plan
shall be coordinated with local water, wastewater, groundwater, and planning
agencies and shall include all of the following:
residential customers
26 City Council Resolution 9035.
27 The SCVWD is in the process of updating its existing groundwater management plan.
10633 (f) A plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's
service area, including actions to facilitate the installation of dual distribution
systems and to promote recirculating uses.
The City continues to examine methods to expand the use of recycled water. Completion of the
Recycled Water Market Survey and Facility Plan is a step in that direction. The City expects that
the costs of implementing expanded recycled water use can be reduced through a combination
of regional coordination and state and federal matching funds.
BAWSCA Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy
Palo Alto is a participating agency on the BAWSCA Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy.
The Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy will evaluate potential new supply sources to
meet normal and dry year BAWSCA member needs. Palo Alto has submitted for inclusion in the
strategy the Phase 3 project and a regional recycled water program with the recycled water
supply from the RWQCP. These projects will be evaluated during subsequent phases of the
BAWSCA effort.
RWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan
The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department is in the process of preparing a Long Range
Facilities Plan for the Palo Alto RWQCP. Aging equipment, new regulatory requirements, and
the movement to full sustainability will require rehabilitation, replacement and new processes.
The Long Range Facilities Plan will map out these changes and focus on biosolids treatment and
disposal, waste‐to‐energy technologies, energy use, major pipeline repairs, recycled water
treatment, carbon footprint impacts, and the best alternatives for rehabilitation, replacement
or improvement.
Indirect Potable Reuse
The City has no plans at present to evaluate Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) to meet future
demands. Since the SCVWD is the principle agency responsible for the groundwater in Santa
Clara County, any IPR analysis will most likely be managed by the SCVWD, in close coordination
with the water retailers in the County. The City anticipates that the SCVWD’s Water Supply and
Infrastructure Master Plan will evaluate IPR as part of any future supply portfolio. This
evaluation may identify the RWQCP as a potential future IPR supply source.
Desalinated Water
The City has no plans for development of desalinated water at this time. It is possible a
desalination facility may be part of a preferred supply portfolio identified in the BAWSCA Long
Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy. The City is currently aware of one regional collaborative
effort between different water agencies to evaluate a large scale Bay Area desalination project,
The Bay Area Regional Desalination Project. The Bay Area Regional Desalination Project is a
collaboration between the East Bay Municipal Utility District, SCVWD, the SFPUC, Contra Costa
Water District, and Zone 7 Water Agency to jointly explore developing the feasibility of a
regional desalination facility that could directly or indirectly benefit 5.4 million San Francisco
Bay Area residents and businesses served by these agencies.
Section 4 – Water Demand
Law
10631 (e) (1) Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current
water use, over the same five‐year increments described in subdivision (a), and
projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors including,
but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses:
(A) Single‐family residential; (B) Multifamily; (C) Commercial; (D) Industrial; (E)
Institutional and governmental; (F) Landscape; (G) Sales to other agencies; (H)
Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or
any combination thereof; and (I) Agricultural.
(2) The water use projections shall be in the same 5‐year increments to 20
years or as far as data is available.
10631.1 (a) include projected water use for single‐family and multi‐family
residential housing for lower income households, as identified in the housing
element of any City, County, or City and County in the service area of the
supplier.
10608.2 Provide baseline daily per capita water use target, interim urban water
use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the basis for
determining those estimates.
Historical Water Usage
The two drought periods since 1975 have had a profound effect on City and customer attitudes
as well as how water is used. Substantial capital investments were made in 1977 toward more
water‐efficient equipment in the commercial and industrial sectors. New construction in every
sector is subject to increasingly stringent regulations regarding water‐using appliances and
fixtures.
Overall water use per account decreased by 27% during the last nine years (from 332 hundred
cubic feet (ccf) in 2000 to 242 ccf in 2010). In fact, all customer classes showed a significant
reduction in annual water use per account. During this period, water use per account
decreased by 46% for industrial customers, by 32% for commercial customers, by 12% for
public facilities, and by 35% for City facilities. Single‐family residential water use decreased by
22% and multi‐family residential water use decreased by 34%.
The relative share of the total water usage made up by the residential customers has continued
to grow since the late 1980s. The residential single‐family customer class increased its share
from 41% to 47%. Including multi‐family residential and multi‐family commercial accounts,
water consumption in the residential sector in total increased its share from 50% to 62% of
total citywide consumption. The commercial sector share increased slightly from 20% to 21%,
while the industrial sector share dropped significantly from 20% to 8%. Public facilities share
4% of total consumption. This is unchanged since the late 1980s, although the percent of total
use dropped to 2% in 2004, then rose again in subsequent years. City facilities’ share of
consumption decreased slightly from 6% to 5%.
Current Water Usage
Figure 4 below shows the City’s potable water use since 1965 and a projection of water supplies
until the year 2030. Present water consumption is higher than FY 1993 (a drought year), but
significantly lower than the 1987 (pre‐drought) usage, and even lower in 2010 as a result of the
drier than normal conditions from 2006 to 2009, increased water conservation, and concurrent
economic recession. The reduction in present water consumption, compared to pre‐drought
levels, appears to be the result of several factors, including permanent water conservation
measures implemented during the past 25 years.
Figure 4: Historical Water Supplies – Actual and Forecast
In June 2008, in response to deteriorating water supply conditions, customers of the SFPUC
system were asked to voluntarily reduce water use by 10%. City of Palo Alto water use
decreased 16% from 2007 to 2010. The City’s water consumption is forecast to remain
relatively stable in the future, with a slight increase due to a rebound in the economy and
continued, albeit gradual, increase in population and employment numbers. Future projections
are uncertain, but large increases in consumption are unlikely. The following discussion
explains water use trends.
Water Sales
Total water sales decreased by 22%, from 14,335 AF to 11,236 AF per year between 2000 and
2010. For the forecast period, Table 10 shows demand projections by customer type before
incorporating the impact of planned DMMs discussed in Section 5 – Demand Management
Measures. Total demand projections after netting out the impact of DMMs are shown at the
bottom of Table 10.
Table 10: Past, Current and Projected Water Sales (Before DMMs)
Actual Sales Data Forecast Segment
2000 2005 2010 ’00‐’10
Change
2015 2020 2025 2030
Single‐family
Accounts 14,737 14,941 15,458 5%16,237 17,268 18,003 19,720
Units (AFY) 6,494 5,927 5,334 ‐18%7,106 7,429 7,640 8,269
Multiple‐family
Accounts 1,919 1,947 2,248 15%2,110 2,244 2,339 2,563
Units (AFY) 2,469 1,986 1,806 ‐27%2,374 2,459 2,510 2,699
Commercial
Accounts 1,621 1,755 1,870 13%1,476 1,481 1,511 1,545
Units (AFY) 2,933 2,465 2,311 ‐21%2,367 2,321 2,319 2,331
Industrial
Accounts 245 254 251 3%224 225 229 234
Units (AFY) 1,518 1,007 847 ‐44%1,262 1,264 1,287 1,313
City Facilities
Accounts 232 299 322 28%319 340 354 388
Units (AFY) 607 564 544 ‐11%679 723 753 830
Public Facilities
Accounts 62 85 89 30%71 76 79 86
Units (AFY) 314 268 395 26%413 441 461 507
Total Retail Sales
Accounts 18,815 19,281 20,238 7%20,438 21,633 22,516 24,536
Units (AFY) 14,335 12,217 11,236 ‐22%14,201 14,970 14,970 15,949
Future Planned Demand Management Measure Impact
Units (AFY) Included 1,083 1,651 1,810 2,247
Net Water Sales: Projected Water Sales After Subtracting Planned DMM Impacts
Units (AFY) 13,118 12,986 13,160 13,702
Demand Projection Development
The water demand projections for this 2010 UWMP were developed with the same “end use”
model that was used to develop the projections in the 2005 UWMP. Two main steps are
involved in developing an end use model: (1) Establishing base‐year water demand at the end‐
use level (such as toilets, showers) and calibrating the model to initial conditions; and (2)
Forecasting future water demand based on future demands of existing water service accounts
and future growth in the number of water service accounts.
Establishing the base‐year water demand at the end‐use level is accomplished by breaking
down total historical water use for each type of water service account (single‐family, multi‐
family, commercial, irrigation, etc.) to specific end uses (such as toilets, faucets, showers, and
irrigation). Forecasting future water demand is accomplished by determining the growth in the
number of water service accounts in a wholesale customer service area. Once these rates of
change were determined, they were input into the model and applied to those accounts and
their end water uses.
The end use model (also known as the Demand Side Management Least Cost Planning Decision
Support System, or DSS model) also incorporates the effects of the plumbing codes on fixtures
and appliances including toilets, showerheads, and clothes washers on existing and future
accounts. The water sales projections presented in Table 10 were developed without the
impact of planned DMM programs. These programs are discussed in detail in Section 5 of this
report. At the bottom of Table 10 the projected water sales after netting out the impact of the
DMMs is shown.
Using baseline projections, it is expected that total water consumption in the City will remain
somewhat constant, and without the DMMs increase by about 29% from its current level of
11,236 AF per year in 2010 to 15,949 AF per year by the end of 2030. This forecast includes an
expected 17% increase in total number of accounts. This baseline projection includes
anticipated effects of the plumbing code on overall water use as well as expected ongoing
conservation efforts among customers. After incorporating the impact of DMMs, total sales are
expected to increase by 17% from the period 2010 to 2030.
Share of Total Consumption by Customer Type
Examination of 2010 consumption levels reveals that the residential sector (single‐ and multi‐
family residential and commercial multi‐family dwellings) is responsible for 62% of total water
consumption in the City. The business sectors including commercial and industrial customers
consume 29%, while public and City facilities consume the remaining 9%. Figure 5 below shows
the breakdown of 2010 consumption by customer type.
Figure 5: 2010 Water Use by Customer Class
Public Facilities
4%
Industrial
8%
Commercial
21%
Multi-family
16%
Residential Single
Family
46%
City Facilities
5%
Residential Sector
Water use in the residential sector (residential single‐family, residential multi‐family, and
commercial multi‐family) has decreased by 20% in total volume and percentage of overall
usage between 2000 and 2010, despite a considerable increase in total number of accounts.
This anomaly is particularly noticeable in the multi‐family accounts, where during the period of
2000 to 2010 the total number of accounts increased 15%, but water use decreased 27%. The
reduction in water use has many potential sources, including increased conservation, the recent
economic downturn and weather‐related impacts.
Commercial Sector
Water use per account in the commercial sector has declined dramatically despite a slight
increase in the total number of accounts from 2000 to 2010. This reduction in water use is
primarily attributed to water conservation efforts and enforcement of water efficient landscape
designs for new construction and renovation projects in the non‐residential sector.
Industrial Sector
Between 2000 and 2010, water use in the industrial sector decreased in percentage of overall
usage and in total water volume. During this period, the total number of accounts increased by
3%, while water use decreased by 44%. The City provided significant support for water
efficiency measures at several industrial facilities, including efficiency improvements in process
water use and landscape design, which is a contributing factor for this dramatic decline in water
use. In addition, the RWQCP has an active pretreatment program that has been in place since
the early 1980s to identify and reduce pollutant loading to the RWQCP. The pretreatment
program has resulted in additional water efficiency gains.
City Facilities
Between 2000 and 2010, water use at City facilities has decreased in total overall volume by
11%. This is despite a 28% increase in number of accounts. The City has engaged in several
water conservation projects throughout its facilities to reduce its overall consumption.
Public Facilities
Between 2000 and 2010, overall water use and consumption per account decreased at public
facilities, although the total share of water sales among the customer classes remained the
same since 2000.
Sales to Other Agencies
The City does not plan on selling water supplies to other agencies.
Additional Water Uses ‐ Recycled Water Use
Recycled water use is discussed in Section 3, “System Supplies,” under the heading “Water
Recycling.” Past use and future recycled water use projections are presented in Table 11
below. The City has not made a commitment to expand the use of recycled water in the City
and, therefore, the table reflects no increase in the use of recycled water in the future.
Table 11: Recycled Water Use (AFY)
2000 (actual) 2010 (actual) 2030 (forecast)
Water Trucks 7 10 3
Greer Park 28 87 76
Golf Course 23 109 187
Duck Pond 0 36 24
RWQCP 560 560 560
Total 618 802 850
Non‐Revenue Water
Non‐Revenue water, or unaccounted‐for water, is the difference between the amount of water
purchased and the amount sold to customers. Non‐revenue water typically amounts to about
7% of total purchases. From CY 2005 to 2008, the City’s non‐revenue water volumes
significantly increased, with a peak in CY 2006 of 12.45%. In response, the City initiated a
comprehensive leak detection, meter locating and meter calibration program. As of 2009, the
non‐revenue water volumes have returned to expected levels. Table 12 presents the historical
and projected non‐revenue volumes for the City’s water system.
Table 12: Non‐Revenue Water
2005 2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Non‐Revenue Water (AFY) 1,320 910 1,027 1,135 1,170 1,192 1,269
Total Water Use
Table 13 shows total water use in the City.
Table 13: Total Water Use (AFY)
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Retail Sales 11,236 13,118 12,986 13,160 13,702
Non‐Revenue Water 1,027 1,135 1,170 1,192 1,269
Recycled Water Use 802 850 850 850 850
Total Water Use 13,065 15,103 15,007 15,203 15,821
Projected Low to Moderate Income Water Use
Palo Alto was one of the first jurisdictions in California to establish an official low to moderate
income housing requirement in 1974. The Below Market Rate (BMR)28 program now requires
developers of projects with five or more units to comply with the City’s BMR requirements. The
BMR program objective is to obtain actual housing units or buildable parcels within each
development rather than off‐site units or in‐lieu payments. At least 15% of the housing units
developed in a project involving fewer than five acres of land must be provided as BMR units.
Projects involving the development of five or more acres must provide at least 20% of all units
developed as BMR units. (Projects that cause the loss of existing rental housing may need to
provide a 25 percent BMR component). The BMR units must be comparable to other units in
the development.
Due to the BMR requirements and the cost of housing in Palo Alto, the City has few single‐
family BMR units and does not anticipate this will change in the future. Approximately 1,945
units in the City meet lower income levels as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health
and Safety code29. Of these, 433 rental and ownership units, or 1.7% of the total housing units
28 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4 – Housing Element
29 The difference between the total BMR units and the units that meet the requirements in the UWMP Act is due to
the inclusion of additional units that meet 81% to 120% of the Average Median Income in Santa Clara County. The
City provides these additional units in recognition of high cost of housing in Palo Alto.
meet the BMR requirements. The remaining 1,512 units, or 5.8% of total housing units, are
subsidized housing.30
The City is the only city in California that provides natural gas, water, wastewater, and electric
services to businesses and residents in the City. Through the electric and natural gas utilities,
the city provides a 25% rate reduction as assistance to those entities that meet income
requirements and other financial conditions31. As of February 2011, the City had approximately
1,000 electric accounts and 612 natural gas accounts receiving discounts under the program.
The discrepancy between the electric and gas accounts that receive financial assistance and the
BMR housing units is primarily related to different qualifying income limits.
For purposes of the current lower income projections, the 2010 UWMP has the following
assumptions:
1,512 units out of the total housing stock are considered for affordable housing
as determined by the classification of lower to moderate incomes.
These units are categorized as multi‐family.
The forecast model assumes an average of 1.9632 individuals per multi‐family
unit, or approximately 2,971, individuals. This corresponds to 4.82
% of the total population
The forecast model indicates multi‐family usage in Palo Alto averages 96 GPCD
Current projections for housing stock growth will continue to be heavily
weighted toward higher density, multi‐family housing.
Water consumption by low‐income customers should decrease due to higher
retail costs by elimination of the 25% utility discount provided on water rates.
Table 14: Projected Lower Income Water Demands (AFY)
2015 2020 2025 2030
Single‐family residential 0 0 0 0
Multi‐family residential 328 349 364 399
Total 328 349 364 399
The City anticipates the current low income BMR program will remain in effect in its current
form for the foreseeable future. Future housing and population projections inherently assume
that increases in housing stock will include growth in lower income households through the
BMR program. Based on future projected demand forecasts, the City expects to have ample
water supplies to meet all customers’ demands during a normal year. During a drought, the
City will follow the steps outlined in Section 8 (Water Shortage Contingency Plan). The Water
30 Current figures provided by the City of Palo Alto Planning Department.
31Eligibility for rate assistance is based on qualifying income limits as specified in HUD Program Income Limits
(Section 8, Section 221(d)(3) BMIR, Section 235 and Section 236)
32 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, assumes an average of 2.43 persons per multi‐family dwelling unit.
Shortage Contingency Plan addresses the City’s response depending on the severity of the
drought. The City will implement measures to maximize potential savings while at the same
time minimizing the impact to the well being of the citizens and businesses in Palo Alto. As
part of this process, the City Council will have an opportunity to balance the needs of different
customer classes with the need to achieve meaningful reductions33.
Water Conservation Bill of 2009
The Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (SBx7‐7) was enacted in November 2009. It requires water
suppliers to reduce the statewide average per capita daily water consumption by 20% by
December 31, 2020. To monitor the progress towards achieving the 20% by 2020 target, the
bill also requires urban retail water providers to reduce per capita water consumption 10% by
2015. Water agencies that are not in compliance with the provisions of the bill could be
ineligible for State grants and/or a low cost financing program.
Water suppliers have some flexibility in setting and revising water use targets leading up to the
2020 compliance period, including:
A water supplier may set its water use target and comply individually, or as part of a
regional34 alliance. The City is in discussions with BAWSCA and SCVWD regarding a
potential future alliance with other water agencies.
A water supplier may revise its water use target in its 2015 or 2020 urban water
management plan or in an amended plan.
A water supplier may change the method it uses to set its water use target and report
through an amendment to the 2010 plan or in its 2015 urban water management plan.
Urban water suppliers are not permitted to change target methods after they have
submitted their 2015 urban water management plan.
SBx7‐7 provided four potential compliance methods that are summarized below:
1. 80% of the urban water user’s baseline gallons per capita per day (GPCD) water use;
2. The per capita daily water use that is estimated using several performance measures,
subdivided between different customer classes;
3. Ninety‐five percent of the applicable state hydrologic region target, as set forth in the
state’s draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan (dated April 30, 2009); or
33 Water Utilities typically do not possess income information for their customers and are limited in their ability to
offer differential rate treatment for low income customers due to Proposition 218 restrictions. During a drought, it
is more common for water utilities to differentiate between customers in a Class based on water usage patterns
and relative efficiency. For example, accounts with extremely low water use could be exempted from penalty rate
treatment.
34 SBx7‐7 allows entities to comply individually or as a group. The intent of this provision is to ensure there is
equity among small agencies and large water agencies or districts that serve large areas that may span different
socioeconomic and evapotranspiration zones.
4. A method that was identified and developed by the department, through a public
process, and released on February 18, 2011. The fourth method uses a combination of
metered sales data and achieved water use reductions across the different customer
classes.
The City is providing a draft methodology to ensure compliance with the requirements of SBx7‐
7. However, the City may adjust both the methodology and the compliance target in its 2015
UWMP. City staff evaluated the four potential options based on several criteria, including, ease
of implementation, community compatibility, benefits/costs, and consistency with the City’s
own water efficiency goals and policies.
Based on this evaluation, the City is adopting a preliminary compliance methodology based on
the first option, or 80% of an urban water user’s baseline GPCD. Under this methodology, the
City is required to prepare the following calculations for compliance purposes:
Baseline daily per capita water use — The City must determine for baseline purposes
how much water is used within an urban water supplier’s distribution system area on a
per capita basis. It is determined using water use and population estimates from a
defined range of years. For the City, the range selected is from calendar year 1994 to
2004 (Table 15).
Urban water use target — This value is equal to 80% of the baseline daily per capita
water use value.
Interim urban water use target — The planned daily per capita water use in 2015 is
halfway between the baseline daily per capita water use and the urban water use
target.
Compliance daily per capita water use ‐ The gross water use during the final year of the
reporting period, reported in gallons per capita per day. This value will be adjusted
during the 2015 and 2020 compliance period based on actual usage data.
Table 15 illustrates the methodology to calculate the 10‐year average baseline per capita water
use.
Based on future water use and population growth projections, Table 16 summarizes Palo Alto’s
2010 UWMP SBx7‐7 target and compliance goals.
SBx7‐7 requires UWMP preparers to meet both the interim 2015 and 2020 targets. As stated
previously in this section, an urban water retailer has the flexibility to adjust the compliance
target and to adjust the methodology in 2015. After 2015, the urban water supplier may not
adjust the methodology, but there is the potential to adjust the compliance target as more
current water use data becomes available. In addition, an agency that is at risk of non‐
compliance may, under limited circumstances36, seek to adjust its compliance daily per capita
water use. Eligible circumstances include:
Differences in evapotranspiration and rainfall in the baseline period compared to the
compliance reporting period;
35 ABAG 2009
36 CA Water Code; Section 10608.24 (d) (1)
Table 15: Baseline daily per capita water use — 10 year Range
Calendar Year Distribution System
Population35
Daily system gross
water use (MG)
Annual daily per capita
water use (GPCD)
57,249 4,376 210
57,519 4,522 216
57,789 4,737 226
58,058 4,999 237
58,328 4,491 212
58,598 4,870 229
58,898 5,021 235
59,459 4,937 230
60,019 4,838 223
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 60,579 4,576 209
Base Daily Per Capita Water Use 223.3
Table 16: 2010 UWMP SBx7‐7 Performance Metrics (GPCD)
2015 2020
SBx7‐7 2015 Interim and Final Targets
Baseline Daily per capita water use 223 223
Interim Target (10% reduction from Baseline)200.6 N/A
Final Target (20% reduction from Baseline)N/A 178.4
City of Palo Alto
Projected Compliance Daily per capita water use 191.9 179.3
Substantial changes to commercial or industrial water use resulting from increased
business output and economic development that have occurred during the reporting
period; and
Substantial changes to institutional water use resulting from fire suppression services or
other extraordinary events, or from new or expanded operations, that have occurred
during the reporting period.
Measures, Programs and Policies to Achieve SBx7‐7 Water Targets
Table 16 provides a preliminary analysis of the City’s SBx7‐7 metrics. The City will continue to
monitor progress towards the goal, and make program adjustments during the 2015 UWMP
cycle. Potential adjustment to meet any shortfall could include the following:
The City is currently evaluating an extension of the current recycled water system to
serve customers in the Stanford Research Park area. This project was discussed in
Section 3, but has not been included in the long‐term water use projection identified in
the 2010 UWMP, largely due to the uncertainties surrounding project feasibility. Full
build‐out of the project would result in an anticipated yield of approximately 900 AFY37
The City is currently operating or is in the process of launching several new conservation
programs with particular emphasis on outdoor irrigation efficiency including high water
use landscape conversion, and improved efficiency measures for the commercial,
industrial, and institutional sectors. Additionally, the use of graywater reuse, rainwater
harvesting systems, and other water efficiency measures may be evaluated further for
conservation potential leading up to the 2015 UWMP. The City is committed to
promoting all cost‐effective conservation programs that meet both the City’s water
reduction goals and community interest. Palo Alto shifts emphasis between different
conservation programs depending on various factors, including community acceptance.
Over time, the program mixture may change, though the overall savings goals will
remain constant.
BAWSCA recently completed for its members an evaluation of different regional
compliance structures. There are several scenarios which would enable Palo Alto to
enter into beneficial relationships that could minimize any identified shortfall by
adjusting the baseline use and future target water uses. In the event a shortfall
appears, the City will evaluate potential relationships in the period leading up to the
2015 UWMP.
Economic Impacts of SBx7‐7 Compliance
There are no incremental economic impacts associated with SBx7‐7 compliance at this time.
The decision to implement additional conservation measures in the future will not necessarily
depend on the need to comply with SBx7‐7; Palo Alto typically evaluates all measures that are
37 City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Facility Plan, June 2008
cost‐effective compared to the incremental cost of purchasing additional water supplies from
the SFPUC system 38 .
The schedule for the recycled water project could be accelerated in response to a deficiency
identified during the 2015 UWMP cycle. The City will evaluate the cost and benefits of the
recycled water project with consideration for all legal and regulatory compliance benefits it
may provide.
For a regional alliance, the City does not know the cost of any partnership that may allow it to
comply with SBx7‐7. However, the City will continue to evaluate a regional alliance and
provide additional information during the 2015 UWMP cycle.
38 These measures are discussed in detail beginning on page 72.
Section 5 – Demand Management Measures
Law
10631 (f) Provide a description of the supplier’s water demand management
measures. This description shall include all of the following:
(1) A description of each water demand management measure that is
currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation,
including the steps necessary to implement any proposed
measures, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (the
law then lists the fourteen demand management measures).
A Demand Management Measure (DMM) 39 is a specific action taken by a water supplier to
reduce water demand in support of its water conservation efforts. The Urban Water
Management Planning Act identifies 14 DMMs that are to be evaluated in each Urban Water
Management Plan (Water Code § 10631(f). The DMMs identified in the statute include:
A. Water Survey Programs for Single‐Family and Multi‐Family Residential Customers
B. Residential Plumbing Retrofit
C. System Water Audits, Leak Detection, and Repair
D. Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing
Connections
E. Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives
F. High‐Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs
G. Public Information Programs
H. School Education Programs
I. Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Accounts
J. Wholesale Agency Assistance Programs
K. Conservation Pricing
L. Water Conservation Coordinator
M. Water Waste Prohibition
N. Residential Ultra‐Low‐Flush Toilet Replacement Programs
Measures to Comply with SBx7‐7
The following sections provide general information on the measures the City plans to
implement to meet its urban water use target. The estimated water savings from these
39 Although the industry commonly uses the terminology Demand Side Management (DSM) programs, the Urban
Water Management Planning Act in the California Water Code specifically references these as Demand
Management Measures (DMM). This language is used throughout this section to describe the City’s conservation
measures, but may be referred to in other sections as Demand Side Management programs.
measures, when available, have been incorporated into the City’s assessment of future water
demand. The DMMs described below have been evaluated and selected both for cost‐
effectiveness and potential to reduce water use to a level that will allow the City to meet its
interim and final per capita water reduction targets. These targets are identified in Section 4,
“Water Demand,” under the heading “Water Conservation Bill of 2009.”
Documenting Demand Management Measure Implementation
Law
10631.5(e) The urban water supplier may submit to the department copies of
its annual reports and other relevant documents to assist the department in
determining whether the urban water supplier is implementing or scheduling
the implementation of water demand management activities. In addition, for
urban water suppliers that are signatories to the Memorandum of
Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California and submit
annual reports to the California Urban Water Conservation Council in
accordance with the memorandum, the department may use these reports to
assist in tracking the implementation of water demand management measures.
An urban water supplier’s UWMP must document implementation of its DMMs by either
providing the required information for each DMM or submitting a copy of its 2009‐2010
approved California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Best Management Practices
(BMP) report, if the supplier is a signatory to the CUWCC Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) regarding urban water conservation in California. The City has been a signatory to the
MOU with the CUWCC since 1991. Since becoming a signatory to the MOU and member of the
CUWCC, the City has saved more than 4,135 acre‐feet (AF) of water through conservation
programs. The City will strive to continue to implement programs that meet or exceed the
current BMPs as directed in the MOU.
Appendix C includes the City’s reports to the CUWCC for the last two years regarding the
implementation of the BMPs. The reports list the foundational BMPs a signatory water supplier
is required to report on, as well as documentation of compliance with the BMP water savings
goals. Compliance can be accomplished in one of three ways, including: accomplishing specific
measures, or programmatic BMPs; accomplishing a set of measures which achieves equal or
greater water savings, referred to as a “flex track” approach; and accomplishing set water
savings goals as measured in GPCD consumption. Agencies which choose the GPCD compliance
approach will count overall water savings of the quantifiable measures from the BMP
programmatic list or flex track option, plus additional savings achieved through implementation
of the foundational BMPs. The City has elected to pursue the GPCD approach as it aligns with
the City’s identified SBx7‐7 interim and final target for water reduction goals. The City also
provides a detailed explanation in this 2010 UWMP of each DMM included in the Urban Water
Management Planning Act applicable to urban retail water suppliers. The CUWCC recently
restructured the organization of the BMPs to group them according to type. Appendix D
demonstrates how the DMMs correlate to the BMPs.
Methods Used to Evaluate Effectiveness of Demand Management Measures
It is the goal of the City to continue to look for opportunities, innovative technologies, and cost‐
effective programs that best utilize the water conservation budget. The City has been working
with other BAWSCA agencies, SCVWD, and other water agencies in the Bay Area to investigate
methods for regional implementation of certain BMPs. In 2002, the City entered into an
agreement with SCVWD to cost‐share the development and implementation of water
conservation programs. Prior to 2002, the City offered several of the conservation programs in‐
house, or encouraged residents and businesses to participate in the conservation programs
offered county‐wide by SCVWD. As part of the overall water conservation efforts to comply
with the CUWCC BMPs, the City and SCVWD have partnered over the last nine years to
promote and cost‐share water conservation programs for Palo Alto customers. The City also
continues to evaluate opportunities for program partnership opportunities with BAWSCA and
other regional alliances.
To achieve its goals for cost‐effective water management, in 2004 BAWSCA, working with its
member agencies, developed a Water Conservation Implementation Plan (WCIP) that analyzed
over 32 different measures40 using the same end‐use model developed for calculating the long‐
term water demand forecast. The City selected programs most likely to achieve the greatest
water savings, while still being cost‐effective for the utility and community as a whole. These
programs were reflected in the 2005 UWMP. These measures include audits and financial
incentives designed to achieve “active” water conservation savings, beyond the “passive” water
conservation savings achieved through enforcement of current and proposed plumbing codes.
The measures that were found to be cost‐effective and chosen by the City to be implemented
in future years included the following:
Residential Water Surveys
Residential Retrofit
Washing Machine Rebates
Public Information
Evapotranspiration (ET) Controller Rebates
Low‐Flow Restaurant Spray Nozzles
Large Landscape Conservation Audits
Rebates for Dual‐Flush Toilets
Water Audits Hotels‐Motels
40 SFPUC Wholesale Customer Water Conservation Potential Technical Report, December 2004.
Commercial Water Audits
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Ultra‐Low Flush (ULF) Toilet Rebate
Incentives for Replacement of Coin Operated Washers
Award Program for Commercial Water Savings
Since 2004, the City revised some of the DMMs originally evaluated and selected for the WCIP.
Following the 2005 UWMP, the City continued to implement a number of the selected
measures while others were discontinued and several new measures were introduced.
Program changes are the result of increased State and City water reduction goals, updates to
correspond with the BMPs, changes in technology for water using fixtures, and changes in
county‐wide program offerings by SCVWD, including those that the City cost‐shares with
SCVWD. Based upon these changes, the City has identified the following DMMs that are
currently implemented or are planned for future implementation following adoption of the
2010 UWMP:
A. Water Survey Programs for Single‐Family and Multi‐Family Residential Customers
B. Residential Plumbing Retrofit
C. System Water Audits, Leak Detection, and Repair
D. Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing
Connections
E. Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives
1. Landscape Survey Program for Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Customers
2. Weather‐Based (Evapotranspiration) Irrigation Controller Rebates
3. Large Landscape Turf Replacement
4. Residential Turf Replacement
5. Landscape Rebates for Irrigation Hardware Upgrades
F. High‐Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs
1. Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
2. Commercial and Multi‐Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
G. Public Information Programs
H. School Education Programs
I. Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Accounts
1. Commercial Water Audits
2. Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program
3. Water Efficient Technologies Rebate Program
4. CII High Efficiency Toilet Direct Installation Program
J. Conservation Pricing
K. Water Conservation Coordinator
L. Water Waste Prohibition
M. Residential Ultra‐Low‐Flush Toilet Replacement
N. New Development Indoor and Outdoor Regulations
O. Irrigation Classes for Homeowners
P. Rainwater Harvesting Incentives
Q. Residential Graywater Reuse
These DMMs were evaluated as a group for effectiveness towards achieving the water
reduction goals necessary for compliance with SBx7‐7. Table 17 below shows the total water
and wastewater savings for DMMs for 2010 and every 5 years until 2030. Utility
implementation costs include per unit and administrative costs to CPAU and any of its cost‐
sharing partners.
Table 17: DMM Water Savings Summary
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Total Water Savings
(MGD) 0.37 0.97 1.47 1.62 2.02
Total Wastewater Savings
(MGD) 0.21 0.57 0.85 0.91 1.05
Total Outdoor Savings
(MGD) 0.16 0.40 0.62 0.71 0.97
Savings as a Percent of
Water Demand 2% 7% 10% 11% 13%
Utility Implementation
Cost ($2010) $580,160 $754,058 $370,843 $364,762 $387,604
Utility implementation costs are expected to decline over time as the number of new
participants in current conservation programs decreases. Participation is expected to decrease
with market saturation of efficient devices that will become the standard option for consumers.
Plus, state and local building and plumbing codes continue to mandate increased efficiency
standards for indoor and outdoor water use in new construction and renovated properties. For
these reasons, a number of conservation incentives will either become unnecessary or will no
longer be cost‐effective to implement. While participation in the DMMs listed above is
expected to decline over time, the City will continually evaluate its conservation program
offerings, including the introduction of new measures that will assist in meeting State and City
water reduction goals.
Marketing of Demand Management Measures
Through an operating agreement with the SCVWD that is updated annually, a variety of water
audits, landscape and irrigation rebates and incentives for appliances, toilets/urinals, and
operational reductions are provided to all customers. The City actively markets all its efficiency
programs to residents and businesses in the community through use of bill inserts, utility bill
envelope messaging, community announcements on utility bills, quarterly newsletters for the
community, efficiency programs brochures, print advertisements, website information, facility
manager and community meetings, and public outreach events. The City also leverages the
aggressive county‐wide conservation marketing campaigns administered by the SCVWD. In
addition to the SCVWD partnership with water retailers for bill messaging, the SCVWD also
promotes its conservation programs through use of television and radio ads, bus and billboard
signage, program literature, website information, and public outreach events. Although
programs are actively marketed year‐round, the City strives for timely, season‐appropriate
messaging. For example, during the spring and summer months, outdoor landscape irrigation
efficiency is a key focus for bill inserts and community announcements. During the winter
months, indoor water conservation programs are highlighted in public outreach.
Demand Management Measures
The following sections discuss each DMM in detail. These measures correlate to the current
BMPs identified by the CUWCC. The DMMs listed below are organized in the order as identified
in the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code § 10631(f)). For each program, the
benefit/cost ratio from the Total Resource Cost (TRC) perspective is shown. The TRC cost‐
effectiveness test compares the total cost of implementing a measure, regardless of who pays.
The costs, therefore, include the cost of the device, any installation cost and the
implementation cost (e.g. advertising, tracking, performance monitoring, rebate processing,
etc.) of the program. The benefits include the avoided cost of additional water purchases. In
addition, the cost to CPAU, the “program cost,” is shown for each measure. This is the cost that
CPAU would incur to implement the program and may include rebate costs as well as any other
administrative costs borne by CPAU or its cost‐sharing partner(s) to conduct the program.
Demand Management Measure A ‐ Water Survey Programs for Single‐Family
and Multi‐Family Residential Customers
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 1998. The program is
currently active and expected to continue indefinitely.
Description of Measure: Program provides free site surveys ($110 value) to residential
customers in both single‐family and multi‐family dwellings. The survey includes a review of
customer water use history, water meter check for leak detection assistance, and thorough
evaluation of indoor and outdoor water use. A technician provides each customer with free
low‐flow showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet dye tablets, and/or toilet flappers when needed.
The landscape survey includes an evaluation of the entire irrigation system, catch‐can test for
distribution uniformity, and site‐specific recommendations including changes to the irrigation
schedule. The program is actively marketed to residents by CPAU and the SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM A of the UWMP Act, as well as
both BMP 3.1 – Residential Assistance Program, and BMP 3.2 – Landscape Water Survey. CPAU
plans to complete approximately 300 audits a year, for a market penetration of 2.55% per year
of current single and multi‐family accounts. SCVWD administers the program, collects
participant data to determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking
results to CPAU on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 3.07 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.06 million gallons of water per day (MGD) or 21.90 million gallons of water annually.
This is based on the assumption that on a per unit basis, the measure saves 5% of indoor and
10% of outdoor water use.
Table 18: Residential Water Surveys
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
278 SF
62 MF
328 SF
37 MF
328 SF
37 MF
323 SF
37 MF
329 SF
37 MF
330 SF
37 MF
351 SF
40 MF
Program Costs $41,400 $46,166 $46,009 $45,552 $46,372 $46,552 $49,474
SF: Single‐family residential
MF: Multi‐family residential
Demand Management Measure B ‐ Residential Plumbing Retrofit
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 1992. The program is
currently active. This program is expected to continue indefinitely, although requests for
devices outside of the residential water survey program are expected to decline significantly
after 2010 due to market saturation and advancements in the plumbing code.
Description of Measure: The program consists of free distribution of water saving devices ($15
to $30 value) to residents, consisting primarily of showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet flappers
and toilet leak dye tablets through the residential water surveys. Other means of distribution
are through SCVWD and CPAU public outreach events or through direct request by residents.
The program is actively marketed by CPAU and the SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM B of the UWMP Act as well as
BMP 3.1 – Residential Assistance Program. SCVWD administers the distribution through the
residential water survey program and direct requests from residents, collects participant data
and provides participation tracking results to CPAU on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 7.39 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.01 MGD or 3.65 million gallons of water per year. This is based on the assumption
that on a per unit basis, the measure reduces water use of 21% in showers and 2% in faucets
and toilets.
Table 19: Residential Plumbing Retrofit
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
276
SF/MF ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $6,280 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SF: Single‐family residential
MF: Multi‐family residential
Demand Management Measure C ‐ System Water Audits, Leak Detection, and
Repair
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure was required to commence before
July 1, 2009, in accordance with the CUWCC BMP implementation schedule. The program is
currently active and is expected to be continued indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM C of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 1.2 – Water Loss Control – which requires water agencies to quantify their
current volume of apparent and real water loss, their causes by quantity and type, cost impact
of these losses on utility operations, and reduce real losses to the extent cost‐effective. A
component analysis to support the economic selection of intervention tools, and validated data
set for water audits and balances using the AWWA Water Loss software is also required.
Customers are advised whenever it appears possible that leaks exist on the customer side of
the meter.
Program Goals: CPAU will compile the standard water audit and balance worksheets annually,
demonstrate continued progress in water loss control performance, keep and maintain records
of audit results, methodologies, and component analyses of losses and their economic value.
CPAU will prepare a yearly summary of this information for submission to the CUWCC during
years two through five of implementation, unless extended by the CUWCC.
Cost Effectiveness: Analysis is not currently available.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: Water savings assumptions are unavailable, as the City has
not yet completed a benchmark period to compare and track progress toward improving
performance in water loss control.
Demand Management Measure D ‐ Metering with Commodity Rates for all New
Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections
Implementation Status: CPAU has always metered water service connections in its service
territory. The practice is expected to be continued indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM D of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 1.3 – Metering with Commodity Rates for all New Connections and Retrofit of
Existing Connections. The City installs meters for all new service connections; has an
established program for retrofitting existing unmetered service connections; reads meters and
bills customers by volume of use; and has prepared a written plan, policy or program that
includes:
o a census of all meters by size, type, year installed, customer class served and
manufacturer’s warranty accuracy when new;
o a currently approved schedule of meter testing and repair by size, type, and customer
class; and
o a currently approved schedule of meter replacement by size, type, and customer class.
In the future, the City may conduct a feasibility study to assess the merits of a program to
provide incentives to switch mixed‐use accounts to dedicated landscape meters and identify
intra and inter‐agency disincentives or barriers to retrofitting mixed‐use commercial accounts
with dedicated landscape meters.
Program Goals: In its BMP report, CPAU provides detailed testing criteria and practices, repair,
maintenance, and replacement criteria, and use of automatic metering technology.
Documentation consists of: confirmation that all new service connections are metered and
billed by volume of use; number of metered accounts; number of metered accounts read;
number of metered accounts billed by volume of use; frequency of billing; number of estimated
bills per year by type of metered customer versus actual meter readings; number of unmetered
accounts in the service area and minimum annual retrofit requirement; number of unmetered
service connections retrofitted during the reporting period; estimated number of CII accounts
with mixed‐use meters; and number of CII accounts with mixed‐use meters retrofitted with
dedicated irrigation meters during the reporting period.
Target Compliance: Since CPAU signed the MOU prior to December 31, 1997, the target date
for “on track” compliance with BMP 1.3 is 100% of unmetered accounts retrofitted by July 1,
2009. CPAU met the deadline to remain on track for compliance with this DMM and BMP.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that meter retrofits and volumetric rates
combined will result in a 20% reduction in demand for metered accounts. The City has not
performed an analysis of water use between metered versus unmetered accounts, therefore
past savings estimates for this measure are unavailable.
Demand Management Measure E ‐ Large Landscape Conservation Programs and
Incentives
E‐1. Landscape Survey Program for Commercial, Industrial, Institutional
Customers
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 1995 and is currently active.
Description of Measure: The program offers free site‐specific technical irrigation assistance
through full landscape surveys ($650 to $800 value) and free weather‐based irrigation
controller surveys ($340 value) to evaluate water use and improve irrigation efficiency. The
program is targeted to large landscapes of 5,000 square feet or greater at commercial and
multi‐family properties within the City. Irrigation auditors evaluate the entire water delivery
system for inefficiencies, including precipitation rates, distribution uniformity, hardware
condition, and irrigation schedule, to help a site manager understand system performance and
efficient irrigation scheduling strategies. Site managers are provided with an ETo‐based water
budget and comparison of actual water use to budgeted water use, with an estimate of water
and cost savings for efficiency improvements. The program is actively marketed by CPAU and
the SCVWD. Effective in 2011, SCVWD expects to launch a database‐backed website to deliver
real time water budget information to landscape and property managers via the internet.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM E of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 5 – Landscape ‐ that requires water service providers to provide non‐residential customers
with support and incentives to improve their landscape water use efficiency. SCVWD
administers the program, collects participant data to determine usage and water savings, and
provides participation tracking results to CPAU.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 2.42 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.03 MGD or 10.95 million gallons annually. This is based on the assumption that the measure
will result in a 15% to 20% reduction in demand for landscape irrigation by affected accounts.
Table 20: Landscape Survey Program
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
18
CII/MF
19
CII/MF
19
CII/MF
19
CII/MF
19
CII/MF
20
CII/MF
20
CII/MF
Program Costs $15,960 $23,752 $23,752 $23,752 $23,752 $23,752 $23,752
MF: Multi‐family residential CII: Commercial/Industrial/Institutional
E‐2. Weather‐Based (Evapotranspiration) Irrigation Controller Rebates
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2006. The program is
currently active, but is expected to end in 2023 with the assumption that at that time all or
most irrigation controllers manufactured will use weather‐based technology.
Description of Measure: The weather‐based irrigation controller rebate program provides
rebates ($300 to $1,000 value) for upgrading existing conventional irrigation controllers to
qualifying weather‐based (evapotranspiration or ET) controllers with rain sensor technology.
Rebates are available for residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional account
customers. Applicants must participate in a landscape survey prior to receiving approval for the
rebate. The program is actively marketed by CPAU and SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM E of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 5 – Landscape ‐ that requires water service providers to implement and maintain
programs for improving landscape water use efficiency such as through offering technical
assistance and financial incentives for irrigation equipment retrofits. SCVWD administers the
program, collects participant data to determine usage and water savings, and provides
participation tracking results to CPAU on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.77 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.003 MGD or 1.10 million gallons annually. This is based on the assumption that on a per unit
basis, the measure will result in up to an average 6% to 15% reduction in exterior water use41.
Table 21: Weather‐Based (ET) Controller Rebates
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
7 SF
3 MF/CII
8 SF
1 MF/CII
8 SF
2 MF/CII
8 SF
2 MF/CII
8 SF
1 MF/CII ‐ ‐
Program Costs $2,336 $2,387 $3,002 $3,048 $3,226 ‐ ‐
SF : Single‐family residential
MF: Multi‐family residential
CII: Commercial/Industrial/Institutional
41 Mayer, Peter, et al. Evaluation of California Weather‐Based “Smart” Irrigation Controller Programs. 2009.
Presented to the California Department of Water Resources.
E‐3. Large Landscape Turf Replacement
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2006. The program is
currently active. In 2009, SCVWD combined all landscape incentive programs into one, the
Landscape Rebate Program. This new program offers rebates for both high‐efficiency
landscape conversion and installation of efficient irrigation equipment.
Description of Measure: The large landscape conversion program provides rebates to business
owners for replacing irrigated turf grass with a low water use landscape design, including use of
approved plants, mulch and other ground covers, and permeable hardscape. Applicants must
participate in a landscape survey prior to receiving approval to proceed with a re‐landscaping
project for this rebate. Rebates are offered based on area of turf grass removed and replaced
with qualifying plants or materials. SCVWD offers a rebate of $75 per 100 square feet, which
CPAU matches for a combined rebate to Palo Alto customers of up to $150 per 100 square feet.
Businesses and other non‐residential facilities are eligible to receive up to $30,000, not to
exceed project costs. If used, irrigation systems within the converted area must be high‐
efficiency (low volume) in good working order with no overspray or runoff. The program is
actively marketed by CPAU and the SCVWD to large landscape customers.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM E of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 5 – Landscape ‐ that requires that water service providers implement and maintain
customer incentive programs to promote landscape water efficiency. SCVWD administers the
program, collects participant data to determine usage and water savings, and provides
participation tracking results to CPAU on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any
administrative costs borne by CPAU and SCVWD. The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 6.21
under the Total Resource Cost Test.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.14 MGD or 51 million gallons of water annually.
Table 22: Large Landscape Turf Replacement
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
8 MF/CII 3 MF/CII 4 MF/CII 4 MF/CII 3 MF/CII 3 MF/CII 3 MF/CII
Program Costs $41,400 $15,015 $20,030 $20,060 $15,083 $15,120 $15,158
MF: Multi‐family residential
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
E‐4. Residential Turf Replacement
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2006. The program is
currently active. In 2009, SCVWD combined all landscape incentive programs into one, the
Landscape Rebate Program. This new program offers rebates for both high‐efficiency
landscape conversion and installation of efficient irrigation equipment.
Description of Measure: The residential landscape conversion program provides rebates to
residents for replacing irrigated turf grass with a low water use landscape design, including use
of approved plants, mulch and other ground covers, and permeable hardscape. Applicants
must participate in a landscape survey prior to receiving approval to proceed with a re‐
landscaping project for this rebate. Rebates are offered based on area of turf that has been
removed and replaced with qualifying plants or materials. The SCVWD offers a rebate of $75
per 100 square feet, which CPAU matches for a combined rebate to Palo Alto residents and
businesses of up to $150 per 100 square feet. Residents can receive a maximum of up to
$3,000, not to exceed project costs. If used, irrigation systems within the converted area must
be high‐efficiency (low volume) in good working order with no overspray or runoff. The
program is actively marketed by CPAU and SCVWD to appropriate customers.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM E of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 5 – Landscape ‐ that requires that water service providers implement and maintain
customer incentive programs for landscape water efficiency. SCVWD administers the program,
collects participant data to determine usage and water savings, and provides participation
tracking results to CPAU on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any
administrative costs borne by CPAU and SCVWD. The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.96
under the Total Resource Cost Test.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.05 MGD or 18 million gallons of water annually.
Table 23: Residential Turf Replacement
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
61 SF 50 SF 50 SF 50 SF 50 SF 50 SF 50 SF
Program Costs $30,515 $25,025 $25,038 $25,075 $25,138 $25,201 $25,264
SF: Single‐family residential
E‐5. Financial Incentives for Irrigation Hardware Upgrades
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2006. The program is
currently active. In 2009, SCVWD combined all landscape incentive programs into one, the
Landscape Rebate Program. This new program offers rebates for both high‐efficiency
landscape conversion and installation of efficient irrigation equipment.
Description of Measure: This program provides rebates for replacement of inefficient or
defective irrigation hardware. Rebates are issued for replacement with approved high‐
efficiency irrigation hardware components. To qualify for the rebate, applicants must
participate in a landscape survey prior to receiving approval to replace irrigation hardware.
Rebates vary based upon project scope and hardware costs. The program is actively marketed
by CPAU and the SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program assists in meeting the requirements of DMM E of the UWMP Act,
Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives, as well as BMP 5 – Landscape ‐ that
requires water service providers to implement and maintain customer incentive programs to
improve landscape water use efficiency. SCVWD administers the program, collects participant
data to determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking results to CPAU
on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.80 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that this measure will save 0.001 MGD or
0.365 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption that on a per unit
basis, the measure will result in a 30% water reduction during peak irrigation months.
Table 24: Irrigation Hardware Rebate
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
1 MF
0 CII
1 MF
0 CII
1 MF
1 CII
1 MF
1 CII
1 MF
1 CII
1 MF
1 CII
1 MF
1 CII
Program Costs $183 $109 $583 $574 $582 $580 $560
MF: Multi‐family residential
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
Demand Management Measure F – High Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate
Programs
F‐1. Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 1995. The program is
currently active. It is expected to be continued until 2018 when it is assumed the rebate will no
longer be necessary as most clothes washers will be high efficiency.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM F of the UWMP Act, as
well as BMP 3.3 – High Efficiency Clothes Washers ‐ that requires water agencies to provide
financial incentives for the purchase of high efficiency clothes washers that meet a minimum
average water factor value of 5.0. Based on criteria from Energy Star and the Consortium for
Energy Efficiency (CEE), CPAU offers a rebate ($125 value) based on the modified energy factor
and water factor as set by the CEE Residential Clothes Washer Initiative. Currently, the City
offers incentives for the purchase of clothes washers that meet a water factor of 4.5 or less and
modified energy factor of 2.2 and greater. CPAU cost‐shares the water efficiency portion of the
rebate with SCVWD and provides the energy efficiency portion of the rebate through the CPAU
Smart Energy Rebate Program. This program is actively marketed by CPAU and SCVWD to
single‐family residents.
Program Goals: CPAU targets a market penetration rate of 35% per year of residential
customers for this program. CPAU administers the program, collects participant data to
determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking results to SCVWD on a
quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 2.12 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.05 MGD or 18.25 million gallons of water per year. This is based on the assumption
that on a per unit basis, the measure reduces laundry water use by 35%.
Table 25: Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
514 SF 618 SF 621 SF 631 SF ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $64,250 $84,939 $85,411 $86,825 ‐ ‐ ‐
SF: Single‐family residential
F‐2. Commercial and Multi‐Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2000. The program is
currently active. It is expected to be continued until 2018 when it is assumed the rebate will no
longer be necessary as most clothes washers will be high efficiency.
Description of Measure: The program currently offers rebates ($400 value) towards installation
of large commercial high efficiency clothes washers in laundromats and common area laundry
rooms. This program targets the requirements of DMM F of the UWMP Act, as well as BMP 3.3
– High Efficiency Clothes Washers ‐ that requires water agencies to provide financial incentives
for the purchase of high efficiency clothes washers that meet a minimum average water factor
value of 5.0. This program may also meet the qualifications of BMP 4 –Commercial, Industrial,
and Institutional (CII) – that requires agencies to provide measures to CII customers to meet
water savings goals. Based on criteria from Energy Star and the Consortium for Energy
Efficiency (CEE), Inc., CPAU offers a rebate based on the modified energy factor and water
factor as set by the CEE Commercial Clothes Washer Initiative. Currently, the City and SCVWD
offer incentives for the purchase of clothes washers that meet a water factor of 4.5 or less and
modified energy factor of 2.2 and greater. This program is actively marketed by CPAU and
SCVWD to commercial and multi‐family property managers.
Program Goals: CPAU targets a market penetration rate of 15% per year of commercial and
multi‐family customers for this program. SCVWD administers the program, collects participant
data to determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking results to CPAU
on a quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.72 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.01 MGD or 3.65 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption that on a
per unit basis, the measure will result in a 35% reduction in washing machine water use.
Table 26: Commercial and Multi‐Family High Efficiency Clothes Washer Incentives
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
24
MF/CII
34
MF/CII
35
MF/CII
35
MF/CII ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $9,600 $14,449 $14,529 $14,770 ‐ ‐ ‐
MF: Multi‐family residential
CII: Commercial/Industrial/Institutional
Demand Management Measure G – Public Information Programs
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure started in 1991. The program is
currently active.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM G of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 2.1 – Public Information Programs ‐ that requires agencies to maintain an active
public information program to promote and educate customers about water conservation.
Through various types of outreach events, multiple media outlets, and marketing pieces, CPAU
strives to inform residents and business owners of the value of conserving water and encourage
participation in efficiency programs.
Program Goals: The City has contact with the public and media at least four times per year,
actively maintains its website which is updated regularly, and provides an annual budget for
public outreach programs. The goal of this program is for CPAU to attend multiple local events
throughout the year such as environmental fairs at local businesses and schools, farmers
markets, community events and professional speaking engagements. Staff coordinates an
average of up to ten workshops on residential efficiency throughout the year, regularly updates
the website with new water supply and conservation program information, and provides timely
press releases to the media with information on current activities. CPAU administers the
program and collects participant data to estimate water savings. SCVWD also conducts county‐
wide public outreach for seasonal and general water conservation campaigns via the use of
television, radio and print advertisements, and website messaging.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 4.35 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit and administrative costs to CPAU.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.04 MGD or 14.6 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption
that on a per unit basis, the measure will result in a 1% water use reduction per participant.
Table 27: Public Information
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
4,485 5,957 5,990 6,089 6,475 6,751 7,395
Program Costs $17,942 $23,827 $23,959 $174,35
6
$175,30
1
$177,00
5
$179,58
0
Demand Management Measure H – School Education Programs
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure started in 1991. The program is
currently active.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM H of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 2.2 – School Education Programs ‐ that requires agencies to implement a school
education program to promote water conservation and water conservation‐related benefits.
The program includes working with school districts and private schools to provide instructional
assistance, educational materials, and classroom presentations that identify urban, agricultural,
and environmental issues and conditions in the local watershed. Educational materials are
designed to be grade‐appropriate and correspond to state education framework requirements.
CPAU works with the SCVWD to offer in‐classroom presentations, large group assemblies,
tabling at festivals and events, teacher training workshops, field trips to water treatment
facilities, and water conservation art contests. SCVWD has offered these programs to the
community since 1991. The presentations and materials provided are appropriate for grades
kindergarten through college. SCVWD administers the countywide educational program,
collects participation data, and provides tracking results to CPAU. CPAU also has a designated
representative on the local school district sustainability committee. This committee strives to
promote resource efficiency throughout all schools in the district.
Program Goals: This program has a goal of providing educational opportunities to all schools in
the City and continuing to work with school administrators to coordinate integration of the in‐
classroom presentations, contests, and/or field trips into curriculum.
Cost Effectiveness: This measure has yet to be evaluated using a Total Resource Cost test, as
savings estimates have not been quantified.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: Water savings assumptions are not quantified for this
measure, as it is difficult to monitor changes in behavior and activities that affect water use.
Impacts from school education programs may extend beyond initial contact with students to
the families and neighbors in the community.
Demand Management Measure I – Conservation Programs for Commercial,
Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Accounts
I‐1. Commercial Water Audits
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2005. It is currently active.
Description of Measure: The program offers free site visits (up to $5,500 value) to commercial,
industrial, and institutional facilities to evaluate potential water savings, recommend a series of
site‐specific water efficiency measures, and calculate potential savings in water, sewer, and
energy charges as a result of implementing the measures. A thorough analysis of all indoor
water use on‐site, as well as a brief assessment of the landscape is conducted at each facility.
Facility managers are provided with a full report with recommendations and information on
other free programs or financial incentives available to assist with the efficiency measures. This
program was formerly administered by SCVWD and cost‐shared with CPAU, but is now offered
solely by CPAU in the Palo Alto service area. The program is actively marketed by CPAU to
appropriate customers.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM I of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 4 –Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional ‐ that requires water service providers to
implement measures to achieve water savings for CII accounts. This program assists CPAU
customers in identifying eligible equipment upgrades and facility process changes, including
unique conservation measures to achieve water saving goals, and contributes to the goal of
reducing overall CII water use. CPAU administers the program and collects participant data to
determine usage and water savings.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.00 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit and administrative costs to CPAU.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.02 MGD or 6 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption that on a per
unit basis, the measure will result in a 12% reduction in water use.
Table 28: Commercial Water Audits
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
22 CII 15 CII 15 CII 15 CII 15 CII 15 CII 15 CII
Program Costs $41,400 $43,000 $43,000 $43,000 $54,723 $55,108 $58,059
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
I‐2. Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2011. It is expected to
continue through 2012.
Description of Measure: This program offers free direct installation of low‐flow pre‐rinse spray
valves, low‐flow faucet aerators, and low‐flow rotating showerheads in food service
establishments and at other eligible commercial sites. The City has contracted with a third
party consultant to provide the “direct install” approach, which involves going door‐to‐door
asking owners and managers of commercial locations if they are interested in receiving efficient
devices that save both water and energy. The consultant will then install the devices free of
charge (up to $188 value). The devices replace existing fixtures and are more efficient than
what is mandated through existing baseline plumbing and building codes. The program is
actively marketed by CPAU and third party consultant to appropriate customers.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM I of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 4 –Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional ‐ that requires water service providers to
implement measures to achieve water savings for CII accounts. This program is estimated to
install 100 low‐flow pre‐rinse spray valves, 1,000 low‐flow faucet aerators, and 400 low‐flow
rotating showerheads, and assists CPAU customers and the City with the goal of reducing
overall CII water use. CPAU administers the program and with the assistance of the third party
consultant, collects participant data to determine usage and water savings.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.44 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit and administrative costs to CPAU.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.002 MGD or 1 million gallons of water annually.
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
Table 29: Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
0 CII 300 CII ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $0 $41,025 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
I‐3. Water Efficient Technologies Rebate Program
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2002. The program is
currently active and is expected to be continued indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program provides performance‐based incentives for water
efficiency improvements in the CII sector, and is designed to encourage innovative water
efficiency projects among the local business community. Rebates are offered for custom
projects not currently offered through the City’s prescriptive programs, when measurable
water savings can be identified for equipment retrofits or upgrades and/or facility process
changes. Eligible water efficiency projects need to save a minimum of 100 hundred cubic feet
(ccf) per year to qualify for participation in this program. The SCVWD offers a rebate of $4 per
ccf saved for eligible projects. Effective in FY 2011, CPAU agreed to match this rebate amount
through the cost‐sharing agreement with SCVWD for a total rebate to customers of $8 per ccf
saved. Through this program, facility managers can implement efficiency projects appropriate
for the water use operations on‐site.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM I of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 4 –Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional ‐ that requires water service providers to
implement measures to achieve water savings for CII accounts This program assists CPAU
customers with performance‐based water efficiency improvements, and contributes to the goal
of reducing overall CII water use. SCVWD administers the program, collects participant data to
determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking results to CPAU on a
quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 11.21 under the Total Resource
Cost Test. Program costs include unit as well as administrative costs to CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.23 MGD or 85 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption that on a per
unit basis, the measure will result in a 15% reduction in process water use for participating
facilities.
Table 30: Water Efficient Technologies Rebate
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of
accounts)
2 CII 2 CII 2 CII 2 CII 2 CII 2 CII 2 CII
Program Costs $10,005 $10,010 $10,015 $10,030 $10,055 $10,080 $10,106
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
I‐4. CII High Efficiency Toilet and Urinal Direct Installation Program
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2000. This program is
currently active and is expected to continue until 2019 at which time it is assumed that most
toilets manufactured will be high efficiency. Prior to direct installation, the SCVWD offered an
ultra low flush toilet (ULFT) rebate program county‐wide from 1992 to 1999. The program
changed to direct installation in 2000, and beginning in 2005 SCVWD began installing only high
efficiency toilets (HETs).
Description of Measure: The program provides full service toilet replacement ($300 value) to
commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi‐family facilities. High volume, non‐ULFT toilets
flushing at 3.5 or greater gallons per flush (gpf) are replaced with high efficiency toilets that
flush at 1.28 or less gpf. Since 2007, this program has also offered free high efficiency flush
valve retrofit kits (0.5 gpf) to replace flush valves in high volume urinals that flush at greater
than 1.0 gpf. Free installation is included in this service for both toilets and urinals. The
program is actively marketed by CPAU and SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM I of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 4 –Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional ‐ that requires water service providers to
implement measures to achieve water savings for CII accounts This program assists CPAU
customers with high volume water using fixture replacement, and contributes to the goal of
reducing overall CII water use. SCVWD administers the program, collects participant data to
determine usage and water savings, and provides participation tracking results to CPAU on a
quarterly basis.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.47 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City will save
0.04 MGD or 14.60 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption that on a
per unit basis, the measure will result in a 60% reduction in water use.
Table 31: Commercial High Efficiency Toilet and Urinal Direct Installation
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
26 MF/CII 26 MF/CII 26 MF/CII 26 MF/CII ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $57,900 $36,008 $36,008 $36,008 ‐ ‐ ‐
MF: Multi‐family residential
CII: Commercial/ Industrial/Institutional
Demand Management Measure J – Conservation Pricing
Implementation Status: The City has implemented conservation‐based pricing for water rates
since 1990. Conservation pricing is expected to be continued indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM K of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 1.4 – Retail Conservation Pricing ‐ that requires water agencies to provide
economic incentives (price signal) to customers to use water efficiently, by using a minimum
percentage of water sales revenue from volumetric rates to recover the maximum amount of
water sales revenue that is consistent with utility costs, financial stability, revenue sufficiency,
and customer equity. The City implements a retail water rate structure through tiered rates in
which the volumetric rate increases as the quantity used increases. The allocation for rates
effective FY 2011 is 6% recovered through the fixed charge and 94% revenue recovery from the
volumetric charge.
Program Goals: The City strives to encourage conservation while recovering cost of service and
ensuring customer equity through its water pricing structure. City staff will continually evaluate
the effectiveness of its rate structure and ability to recover cost of service each fiscal year, and
change the water rates for customer classes as necessary.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: Water savings assumptions have not yet been quantified for
this measure. In the future, the City may conduct an analysis of changes in water demand over
time in relation to differing rate structures, in order to estimate potential water savings
resulting from conservation pricing.
Demand Management Measure K – Water Conservation Coordinator
Implementation Status: The City has employed a designated Conservation Coordinator for
close to 20 years, and expects to continue to do so indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM L of the UWMP Act, as
well as BMP 1.1.1 – Conservation Coordinator ‐ that requires water agencies to designate a
person as the agency’s responsible conservation coordinator for program management,
tracking, planning, and reporting on BMP implementation. The City currently retains one full‐
time equivalent employee to perform these necessary duties. This employee is responsible for
water conservation program development, implementation, evaluation, outreach, and
reporting activities.
Program Goals: The City will staff and maintain the position of a trained conservation
coordinator, and/or equivalent consulting support, and provide that function with the
necessary resources to implement the BMPs.
Conservation Coordinator Contact Information:
Catherine Elvert
Utility Account Representative
City of Palo Alto
Catherine.Elvert@CityofPaloAlto.org
(650) 329‐2417
Estimate of Conservation Savings: Water savings assumptions are not quantified for this
measure. The City attributes some portion of savings from its water conservation programs to
the employment of a conservation coordinator dedicated to program development and
deployment.
Demand Management Measure L – Water Waste Prohibition
Implementation Status: Implementation of water waste prohibition has been in effect since
1989. This practice is expected to continue indefinitely.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM M of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 1.1.2 – Water Waste Prevention ‐ that requires water agencies to enact and
enforce an ordinance or establish terms of service that prohibit water waste such as, but not
limited to: single‐pass cooling systems; conveyor and in‐bay vehicle wash and commercial
laundry systems which do not reuse water; non‐recirculating decorative water fountains;
irrigation, landscape, industrial, commercial, and other design inefficiencies or misuse of water.
Implementation also includes enforcement of water shortage response measures and permit
requirements for water efficiency design in new development.
Program Goals: The City has had a water waste ordinance in effect since 1989 (Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 12.32). Enforcement includes written warning notices to violators and
may result in installation of a flow restrictor on the service connection of the customer or
purchaser of water whose service connection was used in the violations observed or
established, and bill the costs of such installation to said customer or purchaser. The City has
developed water shortage response measures, which are discussed within this UWMP.
Additionally, in 2010, the City adopted the new State Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen), which sets permit requirements for water efficiency design, including irrigation
systems, in new development.
Cost Effectiveness: This measure has yet to be evaluated using a Total Resource Cost test, as
savings are not quantified for this measure.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: No formal analysis has been conducted to quantify water
savings resulting from implementation of this measure.
Demand Management Measure M ‐ Residential Ultra Low Flush Toilet
Replacement Programs
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure started in 1992. This program is
currently active and is expected to continue until 2019 at which time it is assumed that most
toilets manufactured will be high efficiency.
Description of Measure: The residential program provides rebates ($125 value) to single and
multi‐family customers for replacement of high volume toilets flushing at 3.5 or greater gallons
per flush (gpf) with approved High Efficiency Toilets (HET) that flush no more than 1.28 gpf.
Approved HET models are certified by the EPA WaterSense Specification label. Pre‐approval is
required prior to replacing the toilet for the rebate. The program is actively marketed by CPAU
and the SCVWD.
Program Goals: This program targets the requirements of DMM N of the UWMP Act, as well as
BMP 3.4‐ WaterSense Specification (WSS) Toilets ‐ that requires water agencies to provide
incentives or ordinances requiring the replacement of existing toilets using 3.5 or more gpf with
a toilet meeting the WaterSense specification. This program has a goal of replacing toilets at or
above the level achieved through a retrofit on resale ordinance, or a market saturation of 75%
is demonstrated, whichever is sooner.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.00 under the Total Resource Cost
Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and SCVWD, as well as any administrative costs
borne by CPAU and SCVWD.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.09 MGD or 32.85 million gallons of water annually. This is based on the assumption
that on a per unit basis, the measure will result in a 60% reduction in water use per toilet.
Table 32: Rebates for High Efficiency Toilets
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
229 SF 571 SF 571 SF 571 SF ‐ ‐ ‐
Program Costs $39,388 $193,592 $193,592 $193,592 ‐ ‐ ‐
SF: Single‐family residential
Demand Management Measure N – New Development Indoor and Outdoor
Regulations
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in January 2011. Enforcement
of the regulations is expected to continue indefinitely.
Description of Measure: The City adopted the State Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) in 2010, which went into effect in 2011. This code sets permit requirements for
water efficient design in residential and non‐residential new developments for both indoor and
outdoor water use. New construction and renovation projects must adhere to the water
efficiency and conservation regulations. Indoor regulations include prescriptive measures
requiring water using fixtures meet or exceed the plumbing standard minimum or document
performance based water conservation measures. Outdoor regulations include establishment
of a reference evapotranspiration (ETo) based water budget with a low water use landscape
design, low volume irrigation, separate water meters, weather‐based irrigation controllers for
automatic systems and other low water use landscape design measures.
Program Goals: The regulations are designed to reduce indoor water use by at least 20%.
Landscapes must be designed to reduce the use of potable water to a quantity that does not
exceed between 55% to 70% of ETo for the landscape area. All new construction and
renovation projects required to apply for a building permit are subject to these requirements.
Cost Effectiveness: This measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 3.65 under the Total Resource Cost
Test.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: The assumption is that on a per unit basis, the regulations
save 20% of indoor water use. Water use reductions for landscape projects will vary.
Demand Management Measure O – Water Efficiency Classes for Homeowners
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2006. The program is
currently active.
Description of Measure: This program targets the requirements of DMM G of the UWMP Act,
as well as BMP 2.1 – Public Information Programs ‐ that requires agencies to maintain an active
public information program to promote and educate customers about water conservation. This
program offers free indoor water conservation, landscape and irrigation design classes to
residents, contractors, and landscape professionals in the community.
Program Goals: CPAU offers several residential efficiency workshops each year, coordinates
landscape workshops through BAWSCA, Bay‐Friendly, and SCVWD, and advertises other local
water efficiency workshops to the community. SCVWD has offered water efficiency classes for
homeowners in Santa Clara County for nearly 20 years. The City began coordinating workshops
with BAWSCA in 2006. City staff partners with various agencies to coordinate an average of up
to ten residential efficiency workshops throughout the year, and frequently presents
information on water efficient practices at community events, conferences and professional
seminars. Participation targets below reflect the number of new City accounts participating
each year in water efficient landscape classes offered throughout the community. Homeowner
accounts that participate more than once are not included in the totals below.
Cost Effectiveness: The measure has a benefit/cost ratio of 203.93 under the Total Resource
Cost Test. Program costs include unit cost to CPAU and BAWSCA, as well as any administrative
costs borne by CPAU and BAWSCA.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: It is estimated that through this program the City’s residents
will save 0.44 MGD or 160.6 million gallons of water annually.
Table 33: Water Efficiency Classes for Homeowners
2010 2011 2012 2015 2020 2025 2030
Program
Participation
Target (# of accounts)
1,500 4,236 3,044 1,172 386 196 391
Program Costs $3,450 $3,450 $3,450 $3,450 $3,450 $3,450 $3,450
Demand Management Measure P – Rainwater Harvesting Incentives
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2008. The program is
currently active.
Description of Measure: This program offers rebates to residents, businesses and institutions
for installation of rain barrels and cisterns used to capture water for reuse in landscape
irrigation. By storing and diverting rainfall runoff from roofs, these devices reduce the
undesirable impacts of runoff that would otherwise flow swiftly into gutters and storm drains,
thus contributing to flooding and erosion problems in creeks. Due to the relatively small
volume, rain barrels are most commonly used as a secondary source of water for gardening in
residential areas. If larger water storage volumes are desired, larger tanks called cisterns can
be used to collect rooftop runoff. Rain barrels can be used to reduce the demand on the
municipal water system, especially during the hot summer months.
Program Goals: The primary goal of this program is to implement measures that reduce the
amount of runoff that flows into the storm drain system and improve the water quality of that
runoff. This program also assists the City in meeting its water efficiency goals by providing a
supplemental source of water for landscape irrigation, particularly when seasonal water
demands are highest.
Cost Effectiveness: The program is funded with revenue from monthly storm drainage fees.
This measure has yet to be evaluated using a Total Resource Cost test, as savings estimates
have not been quantified.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: This is a relatively new program offered by water utilities,
therefore savings assumptions cannot be quantified until pilot studies of actual installations can
be analyzed to estimate potential savings.
Demand Management Measure Q – Residential Graywater Reuse
Implementation Status: Implementation of this measure began in 2009.
Description of Measure: Since the adoption of the State regulations in 2009 that permitted
installation and use of residential graywater systems, the City has seen several graywater
systems installed in its service area. Graywater includes water captured from bathroom sinks,
showers, and clothes washers, which is reused to irrigate plants. It can be viewed as a
beneficial tool for conservation since graywater provides a supplemental source of water for
landscape irrigation, particularly when seasonal demands are highest. Currently the City does
not offer any incentives for installation of a graywater system, but permits systems on a case‐
by‐case basis.
Program Goals: This program may assist the City with meeting its water efficiency goals. The
City is currently in the process of evaluating the graywater code and permitting processes for
implementation in Palo Alto. As more graywater systems are installed, the City hopes to
evaluate the water conservation savings potential from this measure.
Cost Effectiveness: This measure has yet to be evaluated using a Total Resource Cost test, as
savings estimates have not been quantified.
Estimate of Conservation Savings: This is a relatively new program offered by water utilities,
therefore savings assumptions cannot be quantified until pilot studies of actual installations can
be analyzed to estimate potential savings.
Section 6 – Water Supply Reliability
Law
10631 (c) Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to
seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable.
Provide data for each of the following:
(1) An average water year, (2) A single dry water year, (3) Multiple dry
wateryears.
For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use,
given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe
plans to replace that source with alternative sources or water demand
management measures, to the extent practicable.
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
(2) An estimate of the minimum water supply available during each of the next
three water years based on the driest three‐year historic sequence for the
agency's water supply.
Water Supply Reliability
The weather‐related reliability of the City’s water supply is very dependent upon the reliability
of SFPUC’s regional water supply system. The SFPUC defines reliability by the amount and
frequency of water delivery reductions (deficiencies) required to balance customer demands
with available supplies in droughts. The SFPUC plans its water deliveries anticipating that a
drought worse than the worst drought yet experienced may occur. This section discusses these
system‐wide deficiencies.
The SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy supply is vulnerable to periodic, short‐term outages. Due to the fact
that Hetch Hetchy water is not filtered, it is subject to strict water quality standards set by the
California Department of Public Health (CDPH). As a result of weather events, turbidity levels
can exceed standards requiring the Hetch Hetchy supply to be shut off until levels drop to
within standards. Hetch Hetchy supply outages can last a week or longer. During these
periods, the entire SFPUC supply comes from the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant and the
Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant, both of which are supplied by local reservoirs.
The City, working in cooperation with SFPUC and BAWSCA, completed several studies and
reports analyzing weather‐ and climate‐related reliability of the water supply. Several of these
are described in previous sections of this UWMP, including the following:
Water Wells, Regional Storage and Distribution System Study (1999) – This study
examined the ability of the City’s water system to supply water during an 8‐hour
disruption of SFPUC supply. The study concluded the City should invest in certain capital
projects. These projects became part of the City’s Emergency Water Supply and Storage
Project, which is currently under construction.
The Water Supply Master Plan (2000) – The WSMP was a joint study by BAWSCA and
the SFPUC to address the future water supply needs of the 30 agencies and 2.3 million
people who are served via the SFPUC water system. The City was actively involved in
the development of this plan, participating on the WSMP Steering Committee. This plan
is further described below.
Alternative Emergency Water Supply Options Study (2001) – This study examined the
ability of the City’s distribution system to supply water during various lengths of supply
disruption (e.g., 1 day, 3‐days, 30 days) and included an analysis of the vulnerability of
the City’s water distribution system. The study concluded that the capital projects in
the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, specifically related to groundwater
wells, would result in the ability to supply sufficient water in disruptions of SFPUC
supply.
City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply & Storage Project Final Environmental
Impact Report (2007) – The City certified the EIR to locate a site and construct a 2.5
million gallon underground water reservoir and pump station in Palo Alto to meet
emergency water supply and storage needs. In addition to this water reservoir, the
project includes the siting and construction of several emergency supply wells and the
upgrade of five existing wells and the existing Mayfield Pump Station. The City is
currently in the construction phase for the project.
Frequency and Magnitude of Supply Deficiencies
The City experienced severe droughts during 1976‐77 and 1987‐93. In response to these
droughts the City adopted a number of water conservation strategies. Full descriptions of the
City’s water conservation programs are included in Section 5, “Demand Management
Measures,” and in Appendix C, “CUWCC Best Management Practices (BMP) Reports.”
The magnitude of future supply deficiencies is difficult to estimate. The total amount of water
the SFPUC has available to deliver during a defined period of time is dependent on several
factors which generally reduce to a comparison of 1) the amount of water that is available to
the SFPUC system from natural runoff and reservoir storage and 2) the amount of that water
that must be released from the SFPUC’s system for commitments to purposes other than
customer deliveries (e.g., releases below Hetch Hetchy reservoirs to meet Raker Act and fishery
purposes).
The 1987‐93 drought profoundly highlighted the deficit between SFPUC’s water supplies and
the demands on the SFPUC system. Based on the 1987‐93 drought experience, the SFPUC
assumes its “firm” capability to be the amount the system can be expected to deliver during
historically experienced drought periods. In estimating this firm capability, the SFPUC assumes
the potential recurrence of a drought such as occurred during 1987‐93, plus an additional 18
months of limited water availability. The SFPUC used this “design drought” to develop the level
of service goals for the Water System Improvement Program of meeting at least 80% of
customer demands during periods of water shortage.
Reliability of the Regional Water System
The WSIP is a program to address system deficiencies primarily related to seismic vulnerability.
The SFPUC is currently in the construction phase for the regional WSIP and is on schedule to
complete the program in 2015. The WSIP provides goals and objectives to improve the delivery
reliability of the regional system, including water supply reliability. The goals and objectives of
the WSIP related to water supply are included in Table 34 below.
Table 34: Goals and Objectives of WSIP
Program Goal System Performance Objective
Water Supply –
meet customer
water needs in
non‐drought
and drought
periods
Meet average annual water demand of 265 million gallons per day
(MGD) from the SFPUC watersheds for retail and wholesale
customers during non‐drought years for system demands through
2018.
Meet dry‐year delivery needs through 2018 while limiting rationing to
a maximum 20 percent system‐wide reduction in water service
during extended droughts.
Diversify water supply options during non‐drought and drought
periods.
Improve use of new water sources and drought management,
including groundwater, recycled water, conservation, and transfers.
The adopted WSIP had several water supply elements to address the WSIP water supply goals
and objectives. The following provides the water supply elements for all year types and the
dry‐year projects of the adopted WSIP to augment all year type water supplies during drought.
Water Supply – All Year Types
The SFPUC historically has met demand in its service area in all year types from the three
watersheds that provide the source water for the SFPUC system:
Tuolumne River watershed
Alameda Creek watershed
San Mateo County watersheds
In general, 85 percent of the supply comes from the Tuolumne River supplies stored in the
Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and the remaining 15 percent comes from the local watersheds
through the San Antonio, Calaveras, Crystal Springs, Pilarcitos and San Andreas Reservoirs. The
adopted WSIP retains this mix of water supply for all year types.
Water Supply – Dry‐Year Types
The adopted WSIP includes the following water supply projects to meet dry‐year demands with
no greater than 20 percent system‐wide rationing in any one year:
Restoration of Calaveras Reservoir capacity;
Restoration of Crystal Springs Reservoir capacity;
Westside Basin Groundwater Conjunctive Use;
Water Transfer with Modesto Irrigation District (MID) / Turlock Irrigation District (TID)
In order to achieve its target of meeting at least 80 percent of its customer demand during
droughts, the SFPUC must successfully implement the dry‐year water supply projects included
in the WSIP.
Based on the adopted WSIP, the available supplies for the SFPUC system under normal and dry
years is represented in Table 35.
Table 35: SFPUC System Water Availability – Year 2010 (AFY)
Multiple Dry Water Years
Average/Normal
Water Year
Single Dry
Water Year
Year 1
2011
Year 2
2012
Year 3
2013
296,800
100% of Normal
267,120
90% of Normal
267,120
90% of Normal
237,440
80% of Normal
237,440
80% of Normal
Projected SFPUC System Supply Reliability
The SFPUC has provided projected System Supply Reliability Based on Historical Hydrologic
Period representing the projected system supply reliability (Appendix J).42 This table assumes
that the wholesale customers purchase 184 MGD from the system through 2030 and the SFPUC
implements the dry‐year water supply projects included in the WSIP. The numbers represent
the wholesale share of available supply during historical year types per the Tier 1 Water
Shortage Allocation Plan. This table does not reflect any potential yield impacts from the
additional fishery flows required as part of Calaveras Dam Replacement Project and the Lower
Crystal Springs Dam Improvements Project.
Impact of Recent SFPUC Actions on Dry Year Reliability of SFPUC Supplies
In adopting the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project and the Lower Crystal Springs Dam
Improvements Project, the SFPUC committed to providing fishery flows below Calaveras Dam
and Lower Crystal Springs Dam as well as bypass flows below Alameda Creek Diversion Dam.
The fishery flow schedules for Alameda Creek and San Mateo Creek represent a potential
decrease in available water supply of an average annual 3.9 MGD and 3.5 MGD, respectively
with a total of 7.4 MGD average annually. These fishery flows could potentially create a
shortfall in meeting the SFPUC demands of 265 MGD and slightly increase the SFPUC’s dry‐year
water supply needs. If a shortfall occurs, it is anticipated at the completion of construction of
both the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project and the Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements
project in approximately 2015 and 2013, respectively when the SFPUC will be required to
provide the fishery flows.
The adopted WSIP water supply objectives include (1) meeting a target delivery of 265 MGD
through 2018; and (2) rationing at no greater than 20 percent system‐wide in any one year of a
drought. As a result of the fishery flows, the SFPUC may not be able to meet these objectives
between 2013 and 2018 without a reduction in demand, an increase in rationing, or a
supplemental supply. The following describes these actions.
Reduction in Demand
The current projections for total system purchases through 2018 remain at or below 265 MGD.
In addition, in the last few years, SFPUC deliveries have been significantly below this level, as
illustrated in Table 36 below. If this trend continues, the SFPUC may not need 265 MGD from
its watersheds to meet purchase requests through 2018. As a result, the need for supplemental
supplies of 3.5 MGD starting in 2013 and increasing to 7.4 MGD in 2015 to offset the water
supply loss associated with fish releases may be less than anticipated.
42 Projected System Supply Reliability Based on Historical Hydrologic Period (from 2/22/10 letter from P. Kehoe to
Nicole Sandkulla, Senior Water Resources Engineer, BAWSCA).
Table 36: Water Deliveries in SFPUC Service Area
FY2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010
Total Deliveries (MGD) 247.5 257 254.1 243.4 225.2
Increase in Rationing
The adopted WSIP provides for a dry year water supply program that, when implemented,
would result in system‐wide rationing of no more than 20 percent. The PEIR identified the
following drought shortages during the “design drought”; 3.5 out of 8.5 year period would
require 10 percent rationing and 3 out of 8.5 years would require 20 percent rationing. If the
SFPUC did not develop a supplemental water supply in dry years to offset the effects of the
fishery flows on water supply, rationing would increase during dry years. If the SFPUC
experiences a water shortage between 2013 and 2018 in which rationing would need to be
imposed, rationing would increase by approximately 1 percent in shortage years. Rationing
during the design drought would increase by approximately 1 percent in rationing years.
Supplemental Supply
The SFPUC may be able to manage the water supply loss associated with the fishery flows
through the following actions and considerations:
Development of additional conservation and recycling
Development of additional groundwater supply
Water transfer from MID and/or TID
Increase in Tuolumne River supply
Revising the Upper Alameda Creek Filter Gallery Project capacity43
Development of a desalination project
43 The adopted WSIP included the Alameda Creek Fishery Enhancement project, since renamed the Upper Alameda
Creek Filter Gallery (UACFG) project, which had the stated purpose of recapturing downstream flows released
under a 1997 California Department of Fish and Game MOU. Implementation of the UACFG project was intended
to provide for no net loss of water supply as a result of the fishery flows bypassed from ACDD and/or released from
Calaveras Dam. At the time the PEIR was prepared, the UACFG was described in the context of recapturing up to
6300 AF per year. The UACFG will undergo a separate CEQA process in which all impacts associated with the
project will be analyzed fully.
Meeting the Level of Service Goal for Delivery Reliability
Through the level of service goals outlined in the WSIP, the SFPUC has assured its wholesale
customers that it is committed to meeting its contractual obligation to them of 184 MGD and
its delivery reliability goal of 265 MGD with no greater than 20 percent rationing in any one
year of a drought. In Resolution No. 10‐0175 adopted by the Commission on October 15, 2010,
the Commission directed staff to provide information to the Commission and the public by
March 31, 2011 on how the SFPUC has the capability to attain its water supply levels of service
and contractual obligations. This directive was in response to concerns expressed by the
Commission and the Wholesale Customers regarding the effect on water supply of the instream
flow releases required as a result of the Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvement Project and
the Calaveras Dam Replacement Project. In summary, the SFPUC has a projected shortfall of
available water supply to meet its Level of Service goals and contractual obligations. The SFPUC
has stated that current decreased levels of demand keep this from being an immediate
problem, but that in the near future, the SFPUC must resolve these issues. Various activities
are underway by the SFPUC to resolve the shortfall problem. SFPUC staff will report back to the
Commission by August 31, 2011 to provide further information on actions to resolve the
shortfall problem.
2018 Interim Supply Limitation
As part of its adoption of the WSIP in October 2008, the SFPUC adopted a water supply
element, the Interim Supply Limitation (ISL), to limit sales from the SFPUC watersheds to an
average annual of 265 MGD through 2018. See Section 3, “System Supplies,” under “SFPUC
Supply.” The wholesale customers’ collective allocation under the ISL is 184 MGD, and San
Francisco’s allocation is 81 MGD. The City’s portion of the wholesale allocation is 14.70 MGD.
Although the wholesale customers did not agree to the ISL, the WSA provides a framework for
administering the ISL. The SFPUC is in the process of developing the methodology and amount
of the volume‐based charge if the ISL is exceeded. The Environmental Enhancement Surcharge
will become effective beginning FY 2012.
BAWSCA has developed a strategy to address each of its member agencies’ unmet needs
through its Water Conservation Implementation Plan and the Long‐term Reliable Water Supply
Strategy, separately addressed herein.
As stated in the WSA, the wholesale customers do not concede the legality of the Commission’s
establishment of the ISAs and Environmental Enhancement Surcharge and expressly retain the
right to challenge either or both, if and when imposed, in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Climate Change
The issue of climate change has become an important factor in water resources planning in the
State, although the extent and precise effects of climate change remain uncertain. As
described by the SFPUC in its October 2009 Final Water Supply Availability Study for the City
and County of San Francisco, there is evidence that increasing concentrations of greenhouse
gasses have caused and will continue to cause a rise in temperatures around the world that
could result in a wide range of changes in climate patterns. These changes are expected to
have a direct effect on water resources in California. Climate change could result in the
following types of water resource impacts, including impacts on the watersheds in the Bay
Area:
Reductions in the average annual snowpack due to a rise in the snowline and a
shallower snowpack in the low and medium elevation zones, such as in the Tuolumne
River basin, and a shift in snowmelt runoff to earlier in the year;
Changes in the timing, intensity and variability of precipitation, and an increased
amount of precipitation falling as rain instead of as snow;
Long‐term changes in watershed vegetation and increased incidence of wildfires that
could affect water quality;
Sea level rise and an increase in saltwater intrusion;
Increased water temperatures with accompanying potential adverse effects on some
fisheries and water quality;
Increases in evaporation and concomitant increased irrigation need; and
Changes in urban and agricultural water demand.
According to the SFPUC’S October 2009 study, other than the general trends listed above, there
is no clear scientific consensus on exactly how climate change will quantitatively affect the
state’s water supplies, and current models of water systems in California generally do not
reflect the potential effects of climate change.
Initial climate change modeling completed by the SFPUC indicates that about seven percent of
runoff currently draining into Hetch Hetchy Reservoir will shift from the spring and summer
seasons to the fall and winter seasons in the Hetch Hetchy basin by 2025. This percentage is
within the current interannual variation in runoff and is within the range accounted for during
normal runoff forecasting and existing reservoir management practices. The predicted shift in
runoff timing is similar to the results found by other researchers modeling water resource
impacts in the Sierra Nevada due to warming trends associated with climate change.
The SFPUC has stated that based on this preliminary analysis, the potential impacts of climate
change are not expected to affect the water supply available from the San Francisco Regional
Water System (RWS) or the or the overall operation of the RWS through 2030.
The SFPUC views assessment of the effects of climate change as an ongoing project requiring
regular updating to reflect improvements in climate science, atmospheric/ocean modeling, and
human response to the threat of greenhouse gas emissions. To refine its climate change
analysis and expand the range of climate parameters being evaluated, as well as expand the
timeframes being considered, the SFPUC is currently undertaking two additional studies. The
first utilizes a newly calibrated hydrologic model of the Hetch Hetchy watershed to explore
sensitivities of inflow to different climate change scenarios involving changes in air temperature
and precipitation. The second study will seek to utilize state‐of‐the‐art climate modeling
techniques in conjunction with water system modeling tools to more fully explore potential
effects of climate change on the SFPUC water system as a whole. Both analyses will consider
potential effects through the year 2100.
Plans to Assure a Reliable Water Supply
The City has completed several studies regarding water reliability. These studies are described
in previous sections. Of note, the City is in the construction phase of the Emergency Water
Supply and Storage Project and is in the environmental review phase of the Palo Alto Phase 3
recycled water project
In addition, the City is continuing to evaluate other water supply alternatives as part of its
ongoing Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP). This analysis will include the impact of long‐
term water supply shortage on the total water supply.
Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
(1) Stages of action to be undertaken by the urban water supplier in response
to water supply shortages, including up to a 50 percent reduction in water
supply, and an outline of specific water supply conditions that are applicable to
each stage.
Background
Except for recycled water, the City does not currently produce any of its own water supplies,
but is dependent upon its suppliers. The City’s primary supplier is the SFPUC. The SFPUC is the
only supplier in normal years. The City’s wells are in the process of being refurbished and the
City is drilling three new wells, but the wells will remain standby wells for use during
emergencies and potentially to supplement the SFPUC supply during a severe drought. The
SCVWD manages the county’s groundwater and levies a pump tax for all water produced by the
wells. The City has also approved and signed a mutual aid agreement for emergency water
supplies with California’s Water Agency Response Network (Coastal group) that has over 75
signatories.
To meet the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act and for the purposes
of this document, a distinction will be made between a catastrophic interruption of water
supplies and a water shortage due to drought. A catastrophic interruption of water supplies
may occur due to natural disaster such as an earthquake or due to a sudden problem with
water quality or because of sabotage or terrorism. A water shortage due to drought is the
more likely occurrence. The City has experienced two drought water shortages in the past 35
years, in l976‐77 and from l987 to l993.
Catastrophic Interruption of Supply
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
(3) Actions to be undertaken by the urban water supplier to prepare for, and
implement during, a catastrophic interruption of water supplies including, but
not limited to, a regional power outage, an earthquake, or other disaster.
Regional System Reliability
The City has been very active in working with the SFPUC to analyze the supply reliability needs
of the SFPUC system and has begun to implement the most urgent reliability improvements.
The City participated in San Francisco’s Facility Reliability Study completed in 1999. This study
was conducted by SFPUC to examine the vulnerability of its system to catastrophic events (e.g.,
earthquakes). The City was represented on the BAWSCA Facility Reliability Committee that was
actively involved in the development of this study.
The City also participated in the development of the BAWSCA Local Resources Management
Program. This project examined methods for developing local projects that increase supply and
reliability within the SFPUC service territory.
The City was actively involved in the review of the SFPUC System Vulnerability Report. This
study examined the vulnerability of the SFPUC system to catastrophic events (e.g.,
earthquakes). The study, released in January 2000, indicated that some areas in the regional
system could be without water for up to 60 days.
To address these deficiencies, the SFPUC developed the WSIP to repair and upgrade the
regional system. The program contains projects that will repair, replace and seismically
upgrade the regional water system’s aging pipelines and tunnels, reservoirs and dams. The City
has been actively involved with BAWSCA in the review of the WSIP as it is developed, revised
and approved.
Planning, Training and Exercise
Following San Francisco’s experience with the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, the SFPUC created
a departmental SFPUC Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The SFPUC EOP, originally released in
1992, has been updated on average every two years. The latest EOP update will be released in
Spring 2011. The EOP addresses a broad range of potential emergency situations that may
affect the SFPUC, and it supplements the City and County of San Francisco’s EOP, which was
prepared by the Department of Emergency Management and last updated in 2008. Specifically,
the purpose of the SFPUC EOP is to describe the SFPUC’s emergency management organization,
roles and responsibilities and establish emergency policies and procedures.
In addition, SFPUC divisions and bureaus have their own EOPs that are in alignment with the
SFPUC EOP and describe their respective emergency management organization, roles and
responsibilities and emergency policies and procedures. The SFPUC tests its emergency plans
on a regular basis by conducting emergency exercises. Through these exercises the SFPUC
learns how well the plans will or will not work in response to an emergency. Plan
improvements are based on exercise and sometime real world event response and evaluation.
Also, the SFPUC has an emergency response training plan that is based on federal, state and
local standards and exercise and incident improvement plans. SFPUC employees have
emergency training requirements that are based on their individual emergency response roles.
Emergency Drinking Water Planning
In February 2005, the SFPUC Water Quality Bureau published a City Emergency Drinking Water
Alternatives report. The purpose of this project was to develop a plan for supplying emergency
drinking water in the City after damage and/or contamination of the SFPUC raw and/or treated
water systems resulting from a major disaster. The report addresses immediate response after
a major disaster. Since the publication of this report, the SFPUC has implemented a number of
projects to increase its capability to support the provision of emergency drinking water during
an emergency. These projects include:
Public Information and materials for home and business
Designation and identification of 67 emergency drinking water hydrants throughout San
Francisco
Purchase of emergency related equipment including water bladders and water bagging
machines to help with distribution post disaster
Coordinated planning with City Departments, neighboring jurisdictions and other public
and private partners to maximize resources and supplies for emergency response
With respect to emergency response for the SFPUC Regional Water System, the SFPUC has
prepared the SFPUC Regional Water System Emergency Response and Recovery Plan (ERRP),
completed in 2003 and updated in 2006. The purpose of this plan is to describe the SFPUC RWS
emergency management organizations, staff roles and responsibilities within those
organizations, and emergency management procedures. This contingency plan addresses how
to respond to and recover from a major RWS seismic event or other major disaster. The ERRP
complements the other SFPUC emergency operations plans at the Department, Division and
Bureau levels for major system emergencies.
The SFPUC has also prepared an SFPUC‐Suburban Customer Water Supply Emergency
Operations and Notification Plan. The plan was first prepared in 1996 and has been updated
several times – most recently in July of 2010. The purpose of this plan is to provide contact
information, procedures and guidelines to be implemented by the following entities when a
potential or actual water supply problem arises: the SFPUC Water Supply and Treatment
Division, Water Quality Bureau, SFPUC wholesale customers, BAWSCA, and City Distribution
Division (considered to be a customer for the purposes of this plan). For the purposes of this
plan, water quality issues are treated as potential or actual supply problems.
Power Outage Preparedness and Response
SFPUC’s water transmission system is primarily gravity fed, from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to
the City and County of San Francisco. Within San Francisco’s in‐city distribution system, the key
pump stations have generators in place and all others have connections in place that would
allow portable generators to be used.
Although water conveyance throughout the regional system would not be greatly impacted by
power outages because it is gravity fed, the SFPUC has prepared for potential regional power
outages as follows:
The Tesla disinfection facility, the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant, and the San
Antonio Pump Station, have backup power in place in the form of generators or diesel
powered pumps. Additionally, both the Sunol Treatment Plant and the San Antonio
Pump Station would not be impacted by a failure of the regional power grid because it
runs off of the SFPUC hydro‐power generated by the regional system
Both the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant and the Baden Pump Station have backup
generators in place.
Additionally, the WSIP includes projects which will expand the SFPUC’s ability to remain
in operation during power outages and other emergency situations.
Capital Projects for Seismic Reliability and Overall System Reliability
The SFPUC is undertaking the WSIP to enhance the ability of the SFPUC water supply system to
meet identified service goals for water quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability, and water
supply. As illustrated previously in Figure 1, the WSIP include several projects located in San
Francisco to improve the seismic reliability of the in‐city distribution system, as well as many
projects related to the SFPUC RWS to address both seismic reliability and overall system
reliability. All WSIP projects are expected to be completed by 2016. In addition to the
improvements that will come from the WSIP, San Francisco has already constructed the
following system interties for use during catastrophic emergencies, short‐term facility
maintenance and upgrade activities, and in times of water shortages:
A 40 MGD system intertie between the SFPUC and the SCVWD (Milpitas Intertie); and
One permanent and one temporary intertie to the South Bay Aqueduct, which would
enable the SFPUC to receive State Water Project water.
The WSIP includes intertie projects, such as the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)‐
Hayward‐SFPUC Intertie. The SFPUC and EBMUD have completed construction of this 30 MGD
intertie between their two systems in the City of Hayward, as part of the WSIP.
The WSIP also includes projects related to standby power facilities at various locations. These
projects will provide for standby electrical power at six critical facilities to allow these facilities
to remain in operation during power outages and other emergency situations. Permanent
engine generators will be provided at four locations (San Pedro Valve Lot, Millbrae Facility,
Alameda West, and Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant), while hookups for portable engine
generators will be provided at two locations (San Antonio Reservoir and Calaveras Reservoir).
Local Distribution System Reliability
Given the vulnerabilities of the regional water system managed by the SFPUC, the City has
examined how it would fare if the system sustained damage due to a catastrophic emergency
such as a large earthquake. The City has completed several studies to identify any vulnerability
in its local distribution system and to identify solutions to reduce or eliminate those
vulnerabilities. Those studies are described above in the “Groundwater” section of Section 3,
“System Supplies.”
These studies identified a deficiency in the ability of the City’s local system to meet water
demands during a temporary shutoff of water from the regional water system operated by the
SFPUC. The California Department of Health Services issued a recommendation that local
systems be capable of providing water supplies to meet the system’s water demands for an 8‐
hour period in addition to having enough water in storage to meet fire suppression demands.
The City’s system only has the ability to meet 2.5 hours of the City’s water demands while
maintaining sufficient reserve for fire flows.
The City Council has approved a capital improvement program consisting of several
improvements related to addressing the City’s emergency water supply deficiency including
rehabilitating the five existing wells, drilling up to three new wells, and building an additional
water storage reservoir. The City is in the process of implementing those improvements and is
currently in the construction stage of siting a new reservoir and new groundwater wells.
The City also maintains several critical interconnections with neighboring water utilities as
shown in Table 37. These interties can be activated during critical events to ensure water
supplies are not impacted and also to provide mutual aid to neighboring communities
Table 37: Interties with other Agencies
Name Number Diameter (inches)
East Palo Alto 1 6
Mountain 2 6
Stanford 2 8
Purissima Hills WD 2 8,12
Emergency Response Plan
Response to a catastrophic interruption of supply is handled through a series of interconnected
plans. All Disaster or Act of War Plans, from the state to local levels, use the Federal Civil
Defense and Emergency Planning systems as role models with additions that take into
consideration any unique conditions or situations that may exist within their jurisdictions.
At the national level, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) controls all functions
of Civil Defense or Emergency Planning for the Federal Government. FEMA will not assume
control of an emergency until the President declares a State of Emergency or an Act of War
occurs. At that point FEMA will assume control through the State of California Office of
Emergency Services (State OES) and make available all of its resources.
At the state level, the State OES will control any disaster within the state and make its resources
available after a State of Disaster has been declared by the governor. The State OES further
controls the Master Mutual Aid Agreement that can also be used in a local disaster (the City is a
member of California’s Water Agency Response Network, Region 2, a mutual aid system for
water utilities, in accordance with State requirements).
At the county level, the Santa Clara County OES will control the unincorporated areas of the
County. It will coordinate mutual aid within the County and act as an intermediary between
local governments or utilities and the State mutual aid office.
On the city level, the City will control all emergencies according to its Emergency Response
Plan. The Mayor, City Council or City Manager may declare an emergency at which time
representatives of all City departments will report to the Emergency Operations Center.
The City’s Emergency Response Plan incorporates the CPAU Water, Gas and Wastewater
Operations Emergency Response Plan (the UER Plan), which covers any emergency curtailment
of water supplies. The UER Plan is a detailed outline of actions to be taken and procedures to
be followed by utility personnel in event of a water emergency. This plan is maintained in the
office of Water, Gas and Wastewater Operations and must be updated every 12 months.
The UER Plan is designed as both an outline and a procedures manual. It covers the following
primary functions:
1) Notification Procedures
2) Water Mutual Aid Agreement
3) Radio/Telephone /Communications
4) Water Receiving Station and Reservoir Check List
5) Boil Water Notifications
6) Highest Water Use Customer Load Reduction List
7) Water Interconnect Locations
8) Disinfecting of Water Mains
All CPAU personnel whose duties include work on the system through maintenance or
construction operations, or as Utilities Dispatchers, are highly trained and experienced in
performing their normal or “common emergency” duties. If a disaster or Act of War were to
occur, the City’s construction standards may have to be lowered to make temporary repairs to
expedite the restoration of the system, but the procedures and safety rules by which the work
would be accomplished will not change. These temporary repairs would be upgraded and
made permanent or replaced, as necessary, at a later date. The City’s primary concern is the
safety of the general public and all City personnel.
To that end, CPAU is in the process of acquiring diesel emergency power generation equipment
in order to enhance the water system response reliability during a catastrophic seismic event
causing severance from the City’s primary supply source. Lease acquisition of these emergency
generators will fulfill this reliability goal for the medium and the long‐term. At the same time,
given the uncertainty of the future, acquisition through lease agreements for these emergency
gen sets will reduce the City’s risk of generator inoperability.
Potential Applicable Scenarios for the use of the emergency generators:
1. Supply issue ‐ Hetch Hetchy complete shutdown; no water supply source other than City
wells and reservoirs.
2. Transmission issue – Complete power grid failure; no way to deliver water to Foothills.
Water Shortage Contingency Analysis
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
(4) Additional, mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices
during water shortages, including, but not limited to, prohibiting the use of
potable water for street cleaning.
(5) Consumption reduction methods in the most restrictive stages. Each urban
water supplier may use any type of consumption reduction methods in its
water shortage contingency analysis that would reduce water use, are
appropriate for its area, and have the ability to achieve a water use reduction
consistent with up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply.
(6) Penalties or charges for excessive use, where applicable.
Palo Alto’s Experience with Drought Management
The City has had considerable experience implementing action plans during a period of water
shortage, such as a drought. The City has always been able to comply with any rationing
requirement imposed by SFPUC. During the 1976 to 1977 drought period, the City achieved
reductions in citywide consumption of 16% in FY 1976‐77 and 37% in FY 1977‐78 compared to
consumption in FY 1975‐76. In the 1987‐1993 drought period, the City’s consumption was
lower than consumption in 1987, the year just before SFPUC instituted mandatory rationing, by
from 19% (in FY 1988‐89) to over 35% (in FY 1991‐92). In response to the voluntary 10% call for
rationing in 2008‐2009, the City responded with reductions of approximately 18% relative to
2004 consumption.
During these periods of water shortage, the community has responded exceedingly well to
requests to use water in the most efficient way possible. As a result of experiencing these
drought‐time water supply shortages, many residents and businesses have implemented
permanent improvements in water use efficiency.
During a water shortage period, the Director of Utilities is responsible for executing the Water
Shortage Contingency Plan. Representatives from appropriate City Departments and Utilities
Divisions would need to be involved to oversee outreach and monitoring efforts. Additional
resources will need to be dedicated to this effort both for internal and external execution of the
plan.
A key element to developing water shortage contingency plans for the City is close coordination
and cooperation with SFPUC, BAWSCA, and the SCVWD. It is critical to develop a coherent and
coordinated regional response to water shortages in order to provide a consistent message to
customers.
Regional Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan
Tier 1 Drought Allocations
In July 2009, as part of the WSA, the wholesale customers and San Francisco adopted a Water
Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) to allocate water from the regional water system to retail and
wholesale customers during system‐wide shortages of 20% or less (the “Tier 1 Plan”)44. The Tier
1 Plan allows for voluntary transfers of shortage allocations between the SFPUC and any
wholesale customer and between wholesale customers themselves. In addition, water
“banked” by a wholesale customer, through reductions in usage greater than required, may
also be transferred.
The Tier 1 Plan, which allocates water between San Francisco and the wholesale customers
collectively, distributes water based on the level of shortage:
Table 38: SFPUC and Wholesale Customer Share of Available Water
Share of Available Water Level of System Wide Reduction in
Water Use Required SFPUC Share Wholesale Customer Share
5% or less
6% through 10%
11% through 15%
16% through 20%
35.5%
36.0%
37.0%
37.5%
64.5%
64.0%
63.0%
62.5%
The Tier 1 Plan will expire at the end of the term of the WSA on June 30th, 2034, unless
extended by San Francisco and the wholesale customers.
44 The previous water shortage allocation plan expired in 2009 with the termination of the previous Water Supply
Agreement with the SFPUC. Details of the previous allocation plan are provided in the 2005 UWMP.
Tier 2 Drought Allocations
The wholesale customers have negotiated and adopted the “Tier 2 Plan”, which allocates the
collective wholesale customer share among each of the 26 wholesale customers. This Tier 2
allocation is based on a formula that takes multiple factors for each wholesale customer into
account, including:
Individual Supply Guarantee;
Seasonal use of all available water supplies; and
Residential per capita use.
Under the Tier 2 Plan, the wholesale customers’ shares will be allocated among them in
proportion to each wholesale customer’s Allocation Basis, which is the weighted average of two
components. The first component is the wholesale customer’s Individual Supply Guarantee and
is fixed. The second component, the Base/Seasonal Component, is variable and is calculated
using the monthly water use for three consecutive years prior to the onset of the drought for
each of the wholesale customers for all available water supplies. The second component is
accorded twice the weight of the first, fixed component in calculating the Allocation Basis.
Minor adjustments to the Allocation Basis are then made to ensure a minimum cutback level, a
maximum cutback level, and a sufficient supply for certain wholesale customers.
The Allocation Basis is used in a fraction, as numerator, over the sum of all wholesale
customers’ Allocation Bases to determine each wholesale customer’s Allocation Factor. The
final shortage allocation for each wholesale customer is determined by multiplying the amount
of water available to the wholesale customers’ collectively under the Tier 1 Plan, by the
wholesale customer’s Allocation Factor.
The Tier 2 Plan requires that the Allocation Factors be calculated by BAWSCA each year in
preparation for a potential water shortage emergency. As the wholesale customers change
their water use characteristics (e.g., increases or decreases in SFPUC purchases and use of other
water sources, changes in monthly water use patterns, or changes in residential per capita
water use), the Allocation Factor for each wholesale customer will also change. However, for
long‐term planning purposes, the City is using the value identified in the Tier 2 Plan adopted by
the City Council, as calculated for FY 2009. Table 39 below illustrates how much water would
be available to Palo Alto from the regional system under different reduction scenario’s using
actual water demand from FY 2009.
Table 39: Palo Alto Share of Available Water – AFY
Current Deliveries During Multiple Years Demand
(FY 2009)
One Critical
Dry Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
System‐wide Shortage 0% 10% 10% 20% 20%
BAWSCA Allocation 182,885 164,596 164,596 133,796 133,796
City of Palo Alto 13,026 11,723 11,723 10,021 10,021
Percent of Normal 100% 90.00% 90.00% 76.94% 76.94%
The Tier 2 Plan will expire in 2018 unless extended by the wholesale customers.
Palo Alto’s Water Shortage Contingency Planning
The City’s primary response to a water supply shortage will be to reduce consumption. The
City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan describes the response at four water supply shortage
stages. (Water use restrictions discussed in these stages can be found in Appendix H)
- Stage I (5% to 10% supply reductions) calls for a low level of informational outreach and
enforcement of the permanent water use ordinances.
- In Stage II (10% to 20%) there will be a stepped up outreach effort and the adoption of
some additional water use restrictions. Drought rate schedules will be implemented.
- Stage III (20% to 35%) calls for increased outreach activities and additional emergency
water use restrictions. Drought rates in each block would increase from those in Stage
II. Fines and penalties would be applied to users in violation of water usage restrictions.
In some cases, water flow restriction devices would be installed on customers’ meters.
- Stage IV (35% to 50%) requires very close management of the available water supplies.
Allocations of water for each customer will be introduced. Informational outreach
activities would be operating at a very high level. Severe water use restrictions and a
restrictive penalty schedule would be implemented.
Water Shortage Mitigation Options
Water shortage mitigation options can be classified under two categories: Supply Side Options
and Demand Side Options. This section provides descriptions of many different actions and
activities that are possible in reaction to a water supply shortage situation. The City’s response
to drought‐time shortages depends upon the severity of the shortage. Following this section,
specific actions are outlined for the various stages of a potential shortage.
Supply Side Options
The City’s options to increase its short‐term water supply are limited. The City’s long‐term
supply options are discussed in Section 3, “System Supplies.” The section below discusses
short‐term alternatives to increase supply in the event of a water supply shortage.
City Wells
The status of the City’s emergency wells is discussed in the Groundwater area of Section 3,
“System Supplies.” During a drought period, it would be possible to use some water from the
existing or new wells to supplement the supply from the SFPUC. However, no decision has
been made to use the groundwater for this purpose.
Recycled Water
During a drought or a short‐term water emergency, recycled water would be available to the
City, however, a wide distribution of recycled water would require substantial infrastructure
that would be difficult to construct in a short period of time. The City itself or private
companies with tanker trucks can obtain permits to utilize recycled water from the RWQCP.
These companies can pick up recycled water and deliver it to customers who will pay for this
service. Public awareness could be enhanced by greater publicity of the availability of this
alternative to customers. At the same time, the availability of recycled water will be balanced
with the need to comply with all regulations and laws surrounding the use of recycled water.
This recycled water would be available except in a catastrophic disaster (severe earthquake)
that severs all sources of water (SFPUC, wells and storage) to the system thereby eliminating
the source of water to the RWQCP. However, in the event of a severe earthquake the delivery
of recycled water would be a low priority.
Water Purchases from Other Suppliers
The City could conceivably purchase water from a new supplier in an extreme water supply
shortage situation. However, any such purchase would have to be consistent with the
requirements specified in the WSA45 and be coordinated with all other jurisdictions between
the source and the City to ensure the supply meets deliverability requirements. The SFPUC has
made such purchases of water from various suppliers in times of water shortages. The City and
all other BAWSCA member agencies have received this water through the SFPUC delivery
systems. It is unlikely that the City could negotiate a better deal than the SFPUC or BAWSCA in
these extremely complicated arrangements, and therefore it is unlikely that the City would seek
to purchase water on its own. The City is a participant in several regional efforts to evaluate
and develop new supply sources, including purchasing water from other sources. The SFPUC
system has several interties with adjacent water agencies, including EBMUD and the SCVWD.
45 WSA, Section 3.12
These interties could be used to “wheel” water that is purchased from other sources or
agencies.
Demand Side Options
In droughts, the City expects to achieve significant amounts of demand reduction through its
use of demand side options, or DMMs, as that term is used in the California Water Code. (See,
for example, §§ 371, 10631.) These options include a combination of information outreach
programs, drought rate schedules, demand side programs and water use restrictions.
Demand Side Management Programs:
Demand side management programs can be offered using many different program design
options and delivery mechanisms. Some examples are listed below.
Information Outreach Programs
When customers are asked to reduce their water consumption, they will be provided
information on ways to achieve the reduction. Informational outreach efforts address this need
by communicating to the customers how best to prioritize their water use needs and
implement alternative ways to receive the same level of service while using less water.
Information and public outreach programs include utility bill inserts, information on CPAU’s
website, local print media campaigns, commercial targeted mailings, workshops and
demonstrations, fact sheets on conservation technologies and practices, and coordination with
product manufacturers and suppliers.
Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs
In a persistent water shortage, most customers will take the “quick and easy” actions early on.
More complex and expensive incentive programs to provide demand side management would
be needed to achieve additional results. Although incentive programs require time to develop
and promote, they can result in significant water savings. Depending upon current market
saturations, some programs such as delivery of relatively inexpensive hardware (e.g. low‐flow
faucet aerators and showerheads) and services such as leak detection and irrigation system
audits can offer quick drought‐time savings. Other programs may include a toilet rebate
program or incentives to replace high water use landscapes with water efficient landscape
designs and installation of efficient irrigation hardware.
Customer Water Use Audit Programs
Water audits are provided as an informational service to customers and typically include an
individualized, one‐on‐one analysis and site‐specific recommendations for both indoor and
outdoor water efficiency improvements. Audits can be enhanced by the delivery of relevant,
action‐oriented information the customer can use to change behavioral practices or participate
in additional audit or rebate programs. In a water emergency or shortage, additional staff
would be needed to provide water audits, rebate program administration, and outreach
assistance to residential and commercial customers. These personnel could be temporary or
contract employees.
Drought Rate Schedules
Pricing is one of the most powerful tools that a utility can use to promote its conservation goals.
Certain rate structures as well as water allotment plans can be developed to encourage
conservation. Criteria to consider include those listed in Appendix G, “Criteria to Evaluate
Water Shortage Response Plan.” These criteria have different weights depending on the water
reduction goals. While each criterion relates to an important objective, certain criteria need to
be balanced against one another. For example, the ability to meet the “water usage reduction”
criterion is impacted by the “cost minimizing” criterion with respect to enforcement and
administrative staffing costs. Similarly, the “equity” criterion may involve the use of individual
historical data or square footage or census data that may be unavailable except at great
expense. Thus any rate structure or water allotment plan can be viewed as a balance between
partly conflicting objectives in order to deal with the diversity of water needs and consumption
patterns by Palo Alto residents and businesses.
Rate‐based incentives have proved both efficient and effective during past water shortage
periods. Based on the amount of reduction required by the SFPUC and the capabilities and
limitations of the City’s computerized billing system, strategies will be determined for each
customer class.
In determining drought rate structures, the most likely division is of single‐family residential
customers as one basic group and all other customer classes in another. The number of tiers in
the schedules, the increase in cost per unit and the amount of a “penalty” rate would be set
according to the required amount of water reduction.
Customer Class Targets
Customer class targets will mirror the required indoor/outdoor water reduction goals that may
be established during a drought. However, whether there will be different rate schedules for
each customer class or different rate increase percentages applied to existing customer rate
classes will be determined by: (a) the severity of the water shortage, and (b) the capabilities
and limitations of the utility billing system. Experience has shown that separating the single‐
family residential customers – which are more homogeneous than any other customer group –
from all other customer groups is generally the only distinction needed46.
Allocation/Allotment Methods
Any allocation/allotment plan or rate incentive plan would take into consideration the criteria
listed in Appendix G. These criteria will be a guide to selecting the most efficient and effective
water use reduction method under the particular circumstances of a specific drought situation.
46 The City will design rates and Class targets to achieve the highest possible water savings. Any changes will be
consistent with “cost of service” principles and satisfy Proposition 218 requirements.
Allocations Based on Percentage of Past Use
Plans that base a customer’s allotment on a percentage of past use are sometimes perceived as
fair and easy to administer. However, these plans have three significant shortcomings. First,
selection of a base year is problematic. There have been two water shortage periods in the City
since l976. It would be difficult to pick a base year unaffected by shortage year programs on
the one hand, or gradually increasing water use after a drought (the “rebound effect”) on the
other. The second problem is that each year the turnover of new accounts is approximately 20
to 30% (mostly multi‐family residents). In addition, many businesses have changed their
practices to some extent over the years. Therefore to use this plan in 2010 and beyond would
mean that a large percentage of water customers would have an allotment based on a previous
occupant’s usage, a previous operation, or some alternative situation. Handling the large
volume of such cases can create administrative difficulties and perceptions of inequities as
revised or new allocations are assigned to these customers. The third major flaw in the
“percent of past use” concept is that, regardless of base year selected, historically
conservation‐minded customers may feel penalized for their past efforts while profligate users
may have too large an allocation.
Equal Allotment for Each Home (for single‐family residential)
This plan would set an identical allotment for each home designed to meet the target reduction
for the class. The first tier in the rate structure would be set at this target amount. The second
tier would be a “buffer” tier designed to accommodate seasonal water needs. The third and
last tier would be a penalty rate block price considerably higher than the first two tiers.
Since all homes would be treated the same, this plan suggests equity and fairness. In addition,
it would be inexpensive to administer and easy to understand and implement. However, it
could be perceived as unfair by relatively large families or customers with large lots.
Under this plan, hardship exemptions would be limited to those who require more water for
health or safety reasons. No additional allowances would be provided for the number of
persons living in the household or the landscaping requirements of the particular size lot.
Enforcement of this plan would involve installing a flow restrictor on those customers who
continue to exceed the allotment beyond a two‐month period.
Complete Per Capita Allotment Plan (for single‐family residential)
Under this plan each person would be allotted a certain amount of water per month. In
addition, each household would be allotted a certain amount of water per month for other
essential needs including a base minimum amount for outdoor watering of shrubs and trees.
Per capita information would be based on information supplied by the customers through a
special mailing. The strength of this plan is that it would probably be more acceptable to the
community than the equal allotment per household plan because it takes into account the
relationship between water usage and the number of persons living in a household. Its
weaknesses are the inability of the Utilities Customer Information System to record or manage
“per capita” data and verification of per capita information.
Default Per Capita Allotment Plan (for single‐family residential)
Under this plan each household would receive an allotment that would be sufficient for families
of a default size. For households over that size, an additional amount would be allotted per
month for the number of people over the default size. This plan is easier to administer than a
complete per capita plan since the number of data entries is significantly reduced. Based on
year 2000 population estimates, of the approximately 15,000 single‐family residential accounts,
about 10,000 accounts have households of three persons or fewer. Therefore, if the default
size were three persons, only about 5,000 accounts would need additional allotments. Thus the
plan has the advantage of reduced implementation cost and is administratively more feasible
than the complete per capita allotment. The plan’s weakness is its lack of detail or fine‐tuning
for households under the default size, which may be perceived as unfair by larger households.
Mandatory Water Rationing Plans Applicable to Multi‐Family Accounts, Business, and City
Departments
Due to the differences between customer classes, it is difficult to construct rationing plans that
meet all the criteria listed in Appendix G. During the 1987‐1993 drought period, the City
introduced Baseline Consumption Allowances (BCAs) for all customer classes except single‐
family residential accounts. This includes multi‐family residential, commercial, industrial,
institutional, and city facilities accounts. The BCA was intended to represent the indoor
consumption of each customer.
It is important for any allocation plan to take into account the specific needs of these customer
classes because of their diversity and unique requirements. The BCA does this. Rate structures
using the BCAs can be constructed as appropriate to meet the reduction targets required and to
provide the economic incentive necessary to prompt customer action. And, the targets and the
associated rate block prices could be changed as the reduction requirement changes.
Weaknesses of this method are that it may not accurately represent indoor water use. For
example, exemptions would have to be considered for customers with cooling towers, since
lack of water for cooling towers would effectively end the customers’ ability to cool their
building interiors, resulting in possible health and safety impacts of employees. Another
alternative in extreme cases (Stage 3 or higher) could be an allocation per fixture plus a cooling
tower credit, which is similar to the per capita method for residences.
Excessive Use Penalties
Penalties for excessive use are expected to vary according to the customer class. For single‐
family residential customers exceeding percent‐of‐past‐use, equal‐allotment‐per‐home, or per
capita water use, the penalty could be installation of a flow restrictor when usage continued to
exceed the allotment beyond a 2‐month period or specifically‐designed punitive drought rates.
Enforcement of this penalty would only occur after customers had been notified and any
reasonable appeals had been processed.
For customers under a BCA allotment (all classes except single family residential), the primary
penalty and enforcement mechanism is in the rate structure itself. At six to ten times the basic
per unit cost, excessive use results in an immediate financial penalty to the customer.
Water Use Prohibitions, Mandatory Restrictions
Adopting water use restrictions is another way to manage how customers use a limited
resource. Restrictions can be classified as those preventing water waste, those “setting a tone”,
and those that prohibit low priority use in times of severe shortages.
Again, close coordination with SFPUC is necessary. One of the considerations for selecting
which water use restriction ordinances to adopt is what our suppliers recommend for the
region. Both the SFPUC and SCVWD provide recommendations, and the City will attempt to
follow those recommendations so that regional consistency is achieved.
The City’s ability to enforce restrictions is also a critical variable in the selection of water use
regulations. For restrictions to be credible and obeyed, they must be enforceable and the City
must be willing to enforce them. Therefore certain restrictions, such as limits on indoor uses
such as showering, are not practical.
Water use restrictions are achieved by using the methods, prohibitions and penalties described
in the sections below. Appendix H lists permanent water use restrictions that the City currently
has in place and those that could be adopted on an emergency basis in times of water
shortage47.
Stages of Action
Actions to be taken in response to a water shortage depend on the severity of the shortage.
The staged responses (Stage I to Stage IV) depend to some extent upon the local conditions and
the length of time that customers have had to focus their attention on the water shortage. For
each stage noted below, activity levels in several key areas are described. Reduction targets
referred to below would use the most recent non‐drought year as the base year. If a different
base year were to be selected, the programs might require modification. In all stages, action
will be taken to ensure City facility water use is reduced by the appropriate amount.
Some factors which influence the effectiveness of any water management plan include: (1) the
customer’s behavior and perception of the need to conserve; (2) weather variables; (3) the
length of the drought; (4) the customer’s economic situation; (5) the extent to which the City
47 Section 12.32.015 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, pertaining to emergency water use regulations, previously
codified and containing portions of Ordinance Nos. 3960, 3984 and 4038, was suspended, but specifically not
repealed, by Ordinance No. 4150, § 2. In pertinent part, Section 2 of Ordinance No. 4150 states that Section
12.32.015 is "suspended until such time as water shortage emergency conditions shall be subsequently found,
determined, and declared by the Council to exist."
achieves its utility revenue targets; (6) the percentage of exemptions or variances granted; (7)
the role of the media; and (8) the customer’s acceptance of the need for the program.
One lesson learned from the 1987‐93 drought is that the longer the water shortage, the greater
the water use reduction achieved. This is likely due to a combination of factors including: (1)
acknowledgement by the community that the situation is serious since it seems to be lasting;
(2) realization that maintaining green lawns or other relatively unimportant landscaping is
costly and not necessarily in the community’s interest; (3) time for more people to get the
message, a culture change over time; (4) increasing availability of conservation devices in local
stores; (5) increasing examples of successful water conservation methods; and (6) more
sophisticated response from the City as experience is gained.
Therefore, there is a need for some flexibility in selecting the exact strategy to be used to
respond to a particular water shortage situation. Even with the same reduction target, the
strategy in the first year of a drought would be different than that recommended for an
additional year of a long running drought. It is very important early in a drought period to
determine outreach messages and policy directions using a longer‐term perspective. In this
way, communications with customers throughout the drought period will be consistent and
appropriate.
STAGE I: Minimum Water Shortage – 5% to 10% target water savings
The SFPUC requested voluntary reductions in this range in 1987, and again in 2009, which the
City was able to achieve. In those years, SFPUC did not impose rationing.
Information Outreach and Audit Programs
The City provides ongoing informational outreach and audit programs. At this water shortage
stage, the focus of these programs would be on water saving information. A low level media
information campaign would begin with the emphasis on reducing waste. As water
consumption is monitored, the level of emphasis would be adjusted in order to meet the
reduction goal.
The City has permanent ordinances in place that prohibit the waste of water. These ordinances
are sufficient for this stage of water shortage. Enforcement would be on an “as reported” basis
and mostly via reminder notices.
Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs
Programs designed to assist customers in demand side management would be continued and
augmented, to the extent necessary to provide the savings required by the City’s water
supplier. These programs may include a toilet rebate program or incentives to remove lawn
turf for less water‐thirsty landscaping or to install advanced irrigation controllers. The City
would continue to monitor programs being developed by other utilities in order to take
advantage of regional momentum and shorten internal development time.
Drought Rate Structures
No special drought rate structure is needed at this water shortage stage. The City’s standard
single‐family rate structure already encourages conservation by having a relatively small fixed
charge and increasing block rates based on water consumption.
STAGE II: Moderate Water Shortage – 10% to 20% target water savings
The City was able to achieve this level of water reduction (19.1%) when rationing was imposed
by the SFPUC in FY 1989. The program used at that time is basically the one outlined below.
Information Outreach and Audit Programs
The frequency of advertising and events comprising the information campaign would be
increased. Water kits with low‐cost conservation devices will be available to customers.
Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs
Programs designed to assist customers in demand side management would be continued and
augmented, to the extent necessary to provide the savings required by the City’s water
supplier. These programs may include incentives for replacing high water using fixtures such as
toilets, clothes washers, and irrigation devices, as well as incentives to retrofit landscapes for a
low water use, drought tolerant design. The City would continue to monitor programs being
developed by other utilities in order to take advantage of regional momentum and shorten
internal development time.
Drought Rate Structures
In response to previous water shortage conditions due to drought, the City established separate
drought rate schedules for single‐family residential and all other customers and increased the
price difference between lower and higher consumption tiers. For all customers except single‐
family residential customers, the consumption tiers were based on a Baseline Consumption
Allowance (BCA) concept. This concept is described in the section, Water Shortage Mitigation
Options, as applicable to multi‐family, commercial, industrial, public facilities and City facilities
accounts. These strategies have worked effectively in the past and will be the basis for
developing future strategies.
Water Use Restrictions
The City would be more vigilant in enforcing the water use restrictions. A system of warning
citations leading to possible installation of a flow restrictor would be followed. A small number
of emergency water use restrictions would be added. (See Appendix H)
STAGE III: Severe Water Shortage – 20% to 35% target water savings
The City achieved consumption reductions of 31.5%, 35.4%, and 32.7% in FY 1991, FY 1992, and
FY 1993, respectively, when the SFPUC instituted rationing. The water conservation program
implemented at that time included the following major components:
Information Outreach and Audit Programs
All activities from Stage II would continue at escalated levels. In addition, emphasis would be
put on targeted outreach to high water users and special categories of water users (e.g., car
washes, restaurants, etc.).
Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs
Existing demand side management programs would be continued. Staff would continue to
closely monitor overall water savings in order to determine if additional levels of rebate
amounts would provide additional savings, or whether other programs would be necessary.
Drought Rate Structures
This plan does not include rationing or customer allocations. Instead, inverted rates can
provide the incentive to achieve the desired results along with an extensive information
outreach effort. As in Stage II, rate schedules are likely to be separate for single‐family
residential customers and all others. Rateblocks would be structured to fit the overall water
usage reduction requirement. Price signals within the rate structure would serve to alert
customers of their reduction target.
For other than single‐family residential customers, the rate schedule could relate to the BCAs
assigned to each customer if the BCA strategy were to be used. Prices for each of the rate tiers
would increase at a greater rate than in Stage II in order to provide an incentive and rate signal.
In addition, the tiers themselves would decrease in size providing for customer targets
reflective of the increased reduction requirement. The exact pricing mechanism would be
developed according to the capabilities and limitations of the utility billing system.
The exact rates and rate blocks would be established upon receipt of the actual information
from the SFPUC regarding both the reduction requirement and applicable penalties and based
on the utility’s overall revenue requirements.
Water Use Restrictions
Additional “emergency” water use restrictions would be added to the existing permanent
ordinances as provided in Appendix H. The amount of staff time dedicated to enforcement
would be increased.
STAGE IV: Critical Water Shortage – 35% to 50% target water savings
A program to meet this level of water use reduction has not yet been implemented in the City.
However, in the spring of 1991, the SFPUC adopted a program calling for reductions in this
range. Although ultimately replaced with a less restrictive program, the City discussed what
actions would be taken to meet the critical reduction targets. The program below outlines the
major components of the plan to meet such a target.
Information Outreach and Audit Programs
All activities from Stage III would continue at further escalated levels. A greater focus will be
placed on survival strategies and prioritization assistance for all customer classes.
Incentive‐based Demand Side Management Programs
Depending on what programs have been implemented prior to this stage, or current market
saturations for certain devices, a selected number of indoor conservation incentives will be
offered. These may include rebates for and/or free distribution of showerheads and faucet
aerators, toilet modifications or retrofits, process water use modifications and use of recycled
water.
Drought Rate Structures
At this level of reduction, an allotment method would be considered for each customer. The
allotments would be sufficient for the most critical, high priority uses of water and the
availability of water for outside use would be dramatically reduced. As in Stage III, rate
schedules are likely to be separate for single‐family residential and all other customer classes.
Various allotment methods are discussed in the previous section, Allocation/Allotment
Methods.
For non single‐family residential customer classes, the size of the rate blocks would decrease
from Stage III as appropriate to meet the reduction goal.
Water Use Restrictions
Severe “emergency” water use restrictions, many of which will supersede less stringent
restrictions imposed in a less critical phase, will be added. Enforcement will be more rigorous
in terms of hours of enforcement, number of staff involved, and the speed with which penalties
are applied. (See Appendix H.)
Recycled Water Use
Recycled water offers an alternative source of water to those customers with valuable
landscaping. The availability of contractors who can haul recycled water will be advertised. In
addition, the City will rent tanker trucks to irrigate valuable City landscaping and street trees
that will undoubtedly be stressed by a long‐term drought, the likely precursor to this stage of a
water shortage.
Groundwater
In the event of a water shortage emergency, the City will evaluate the use of groundwater to
meet any SFPUC supply deficiency. The City is limited in the amount of water that can be
withdrawn from the local aquifer, so any decision to rely on groundwater will include
consideration for operational limitations.
Revenue and Expenditure Impacts and Measures to Overcome Impacts
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
which includes each of the following elements which are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
…(7) An analysis of the impacts of each of the actions and conditions described
in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, on the revenues and expenditures of the
urban water supplier, and proposed measures to overcome those impacts, such
as the development of reserves and rate adjustments.
Impact on Expenditures
Water utility expenditures can be generally categorized as fixed or variable expenses. The
variable costs are almost entirely related to the costs of purchasing water supplies. Although
the SFPUC supply costs are expressed as a variable commodity rate, the SFPUC system, like
many water delivery systems, is almost exclusively a fixed cost conveyance and treatment
system. As a retail provider, the City’s fixed costs primarily relate to the cost of operating and
maintaining the City’s distribution system.
As consumption falls, the fixed expenses must be spread over fewer units sold which can trigger
a rate increase (see below). In addition, costs for the informational outreach programs during a
water shortage increase. During a Stage I shortage, the costs for voluntary demand‐side
management programs may only increase slightly on a per‐unit basis with an anticipated rise in
program participation levels. Estimates for those costs are relatively small for voluntary
programs – $30,000 for Stage I and $55,000 for Stage II. For mandatory programs, enforcement
and advertising efforts are escalated and the costs rise. Estimates are $100,000 for Stage III and
$150,000 for Stage IV. The net effect is an increase in the expenses per unit of water sold.
Impact on Revenues
From a utility perspective, there is a downside to water conservation – the erosion of sales
revenue. As consumers reduce their usage in response to the drought, the utility will
experience a decline in sales. This decline in sales revenue will necessarily be greater than the
associated decline in fixed expenses due to the volumetric retail rate structure. The impact of
decreased revenues on operations can be mitigated to some extent by drawing upon cash
reserve balances or enacting a rate increase.
An approach for short‐term revenue shortfalls is to draw upon the utility’s cash reserves, if they
are sufficient, to cover the financial obligations of the utility. One longer‐term approach is to
establish a reserve for this purpose and to earmark penalty surcharge revenue (applicable for
usage above allotment or target levels) as a funding source for this reserve. Other options
include short term borrowing or financing long‐term capital projects through revenue bonds
rather than through current rates. Each of these approaches has its advantages and
disadvantages. The appropriate response depends upon the specific circumstances facing the
utility at that moment and other factors.
Reduction Measuring Mechanism
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
…(9) A mechanism for determining actual reductions in water use pursuant to
the urban water shortage contingency analysis.
Under normal water supply conditions, the amount of water coming into the City from the
SFPUC regional supply line is metered at the Arastradero, California, Page Mill, Sand Hill and
Lytton turnouts. The daily meter readings are maintained at the Utility Control Center. Totals
are reported monthly to CPAU’s Resource Management Division for comparison to the billing
amounts from the SFPUC.
In water shortage periods, the Director of Utilities would form an ad hoc Water Committee with
representatives of all divisions to oversee outreach and monitoring efforts. During curtailment
stages in a water shortage, supply figures are reported to the Utilities Resource Management
Division on a daily basis with copies to the Utility Marketing Services office. The Water
Committee would provide timely reports to the City Council on the shortage and success of
measures taken.
If curtailment reaches Stage III or Stage IV, daily supply figures are reported to the Director of
Utilities in addition to the Resource Management Division with copies to Utility Marketing
Services and the Water Committee. The Water Committee would report monthly to City
Council or as frequently as information is requested by the City Council.
Water Shortage Contingency Ordinance/Resolution
Law
10632. (a) The plan shall provide an urban water shortage contingency analysis
that includes each of the following elements that are within the authority of
the urban water supplier:
…(8) A draft water shortage contingency resolution or ordinance.
The City has experienced two instances of water shortage due to drought in the last 35 years. A
shorter duration drought occurred in l976‐77, and a longer water supply deficit occurred
between l987 and l993. Appendix F provides a draft model Ordinance that could be
implemented during a water shortage emergency.
Section 8 – Supply and Demand Comparison Provisions
Law
10635 (a) Every urban water supplier shall include, as part of its urban water
management plan, an assessment of the reliability of its water service to its
customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. This water supply
and demand assessment shall compare the total water supply sources available
to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years,
in five‐year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and
multiple dry water years. The water service reliability assessment shall be
based upon the information compiled pursuant to Section 10631, including
available data from the state, regional, or local agency population projections
within the service area of the urban water supplier.
Supply and Demand Comparison
Since the City’s primary water supply is the SFPUC, it is useful to examine the supply‐demand
comparison for the entire SFPUC system.
Table 40 Illustrates total system deliveries for both the retail and wholesale SFPUC customers.
It indicates that during normal precipitation years, the SFPUC has adequate supplies to meet its
contractual obligation to the wholesale customers of 184 MGD.
Table 40: SFPUC System Supply and Demand Comparison48
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Wholesale Supply Total 184 184 184 184 184
SFPUC Retail Supply 81 81 81 81 81
System Supply Totals 265 265 265 265 265
Unit of Measure: MGD
In adopting the WSIP, the SFPUC approved a water supply plan that provides for an Interim
Supply Allocation with an automatic sunset in 2018. For the period up to the sunset of the ISL
in 2018, Palo Alto’s Interim Supply Allocation is 14.70 MGD49. The SFPUC has deferred
consideration of several supply issues until 2018 pending additional studies and analysis of the
48 Letter from Paula Kehoe, SFPUC Director of Water Resources, to Nicole Sandkulla, BAWSCA, dated February 22,
2010
49 As stated in earlier sections, the SFPUC unilaterally imposed the ISL on the BAWSCA agencies without prior
agreement or discussion. The legality of the ISL is a potential future issue if deliveries from the regional system
exceed the 265 MGD threshold for the ISL. Palo Alto’s ISG is a perpetual entitlement that can only be reduced
pursuant to the terms outlined in the WSA. For planning purposes the City relies solely on the ISG.
SFPUC system. For purposes of the 2010 UWMP, the SFPUC has provided a supply commitment
of 184 MGD for the wholesale agencies through 2030. The City has an ISG of 17.07 MGD (or
19,118 AFY) and projects demands will remain below the City’s ISG through the 2010 UWMP
planning horizon. Table 41 represents the City’s Supply and Demand balance for the 2010
planning Horizon based on the City’s contractual entitlement with the SFPUC.
Table 41: City of Palo Alto Supply/Demand Balance (AFY)
2015 2020 2025 2030
Projected SFPUC demand 14,253 14,157 14,353 14,971
Individual Supply Guarantee 19,118 19,118 19,118 19,118
Difference 4,866 4,962 4,766 4,148
As previously discussed, projects as described in the WSIP will be required to meet demands
during multiple dry years. The new water sources assumed to be available, with
implementation dates, are summarized in Table 42.
Table 42: SFPUC Water Supply Options for Years 2010 through 2030 (AFY)
Water Supply Option 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Crystal Springs Reservoir Storage
Recovered to 22.28 billion gallons x
Westside Basin Groundwater x 8,100 8,100 8,100 8,100
Calaveras Reservoir Storage Recovered
to. 31.5 billion gallons x
Water Transfer 2240 2240 2240 2240 2240
Given the additional supplies assumed to be available, Appendix I Illustrates the level of single
and multi year water delivery shortages that can be expected in the future based on historical
hydrologic periods and assuming the Wholesale customer normal year demand remains at 184
MGD.
Appendix J depicts anticipated SFPUC shortages on a system‐wide basis. The impact on the City
will depend on how the shortage is applied to the City. For water shortages up to 20%, the Tier
1 water shortage plan will be applied. The formula included in the Tier 1 plan indicates that
the cutback for the City will be similar to the system‐wide cutback, but less than the average
BAWSCA cutback. For system‐wide shortages greater than 20%, the SFPUC will follow the Tier 1
plan up to the 20% reduction, and meet and discuss incremental reductions above the Tier 1
plan with the wholesale customers. The SFPUC has the authority to make final allocation
decision for the portion above 20%, though the wholesale customers have the contractual right
to challenge the proposed approach.50
During a severe drought the City could utilize groundwater to supplement SFPUC supplies, but
the City anticipates that even in dire circumstances only a small amount of groundwater would
be served (e.g. < 10% of overall demand). In response to a severe drought the City would work
with residents and businesses to significantly reduce water use, and groundwater from City
wells would be considered a supplemental resource. Additional information on the City’s
drought response is included in Section 7, “Water Shortage Contingency Plan.”
50 WSA, Section 3.11 (c )(3)
APPENDIX A ‐ Resolution Adopting UWMP
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
APPENDIX B – Public Participation Notices
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
URBAN WATER USE TARGETS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing at the
regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near thereafter as
possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto for the following purposes:
1. To consider the City of Palo Alto (City) adoption of the draft 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan (Draft 2010 Plan) in compliance with the California Urban Water
Management Planning Act; and
2. To allow community input regarding the City’s implementation plan for compliance with
the California Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7), consider the economic impacts
of its implementation, and adopt a method for determining the City’s urban water use
target as required under SBx7-7.
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires the City to review and update
its Urban Water Management Plan every five years. The City’s Draft 2010 Plan includes an
evaluation of methods to comply with the requirements of SBx7-7. The Draft 2010 Plan is
available for public review and comment through the end of the public hearing described above.
The Draft 2010 Plan is available online for public review at www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp, in
print at the City libraries, and in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
DONNA J. GRIDER, MMC
City Clerk
Publish on Friday, May 27, 2011 and Friday, June 3, 2011
.
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Paula Kehoe
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
1145 Market Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Ms. Kehoe,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Jody Hall Esser
County of Santa Clara
Planning and Development Department
70 West Hedding
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Ms. Jody Hall Esser,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public
hearing at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
or as near thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto, to Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
California law requires that the City review and update the Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community
be given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an
urban water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local
economy, and the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are
addressed in the City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review
and adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Sandy Oblonsky
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expwy
San Jose, CA 95118
Dear Ms. Oblonsky,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Art Jensen
BAWSCA
155 Bovet Road, Suite 302
San Mateo, CA 94402
Dear Mr. Jensen,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Margaret Laporte
Stanford University
Utilities for Water Resources & Environmental Quality
327 Bonair Siding
Stanford, CA 94305
Dear Ms. Laporte,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
James Allen
City of Palo Alto RWQCP
2501 Embarcadero Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Allen,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Justin S. Ezell
City of Redwood City
1400 Broadway
Redwood City, CA 94063
Dear Mr. Ezell,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Patrick Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
26375 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Dear Mr. Walter,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Elizabeth Flegel
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Dear Ms. Flegel,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public
hearing at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
or as near thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto, to Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
California law requires that the City review and update the Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review
and adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Rebecca Fotu
City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Dear Ms. Fotu,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing
at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or as near
thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, to
Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. California law
requires that the City review and update the Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review and
adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Anthony Docto, Jr.
City of East Palo Alto
1960 Tate Street
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Docto, Jr.,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public
hearing at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
or as near thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto, to Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
California law requires that the City review and update the Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method for
determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with the
Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the City of
Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020. California law
requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP, the community be
given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for adopting an urban
water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to the local economy, and
the City’s method of determining its urban water use target are addressed in the
City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review
and adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Department
P.O. Box
Divisions Administration Director’s Office 650.329.2277 650.321.0651 fax Public Relations 650.329.2656 650.321.0651 fax Customer Support Services Customer Service Center 650.329.2161 650.617.3142 fax Credit and Collection 650.329.2333 650.617.3142 fax Utility Marketing Services 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Fiber Optics 650.329.2241 650.617.3140 fax Engineering Electric 650.566.4500 650.566.4536 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.566.4501 650.566.4536 fax Resource Management 650.329.2689 650.326.1507 fax Operations Electric 650.496.6934 650.493.8427 fax Water-Gas-Wastewater 650.496.6982 650.496.6924 fax
Palo Alto, CA 94303
10250
May 26, 2011
Catherine Martineau
Canopy
3921 East Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Ms. Martineau,
Re: City of Palo Alto Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Urban Water
Management Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
This is to notify you that the City of Palo Alto City Council will hold a public
hearing at the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 7:00
p.m. or as near thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton
Avenue, Palo Alto, to Consider Adoption of the 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan. California law requires that the City review and update the Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) every five years.
At this public hearing, the City Council will also consider adoption of a method
for determining the City’s urban water use target as directed for compliance with
the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). As part of the 2010 UWMP, the
City of Palo Alto must develop an urban water use target for the year 2020.
California law requires that in conjunction with the City’s update to the UWMP,
the community be given an opportunity to provide input on the City’s strategy for
adopting an urban water use target. The urban water use target, any impacts to
the local economy, and the City’s method of determining its urban water use
target are addressed in the City’s update to the UWMP.
The Palo Alto City Council will accept public comments at this hearing to review
and adopt the 2010 UWMP and SBx7-7 compliance strategy.
The draft update to the Plan is available online for public review and comments at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/uwmp and in print in the Council Chambers of Palo Alto
City Hall.
Questions and comments can be directed to Catherine Elvert at (650) 329-2417 or
Nicolas Procos at (650) 329-2214.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto Utilities
APPENDIX C ‐ CUWCC Best Management Practices Report
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Primary Contact Catherine Elvert Telephone Email: catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org
Compliance Option Chosen By Reporting Agency:(Traditional, Flex Track or GPCD)
GPCD if used: GPCD in 2010 171
GPCD Target for 2018 179
Year Report Target
Not on Track if 2010 GPCD is > than target
% Base GPCD % Base GPCD GPCD in 2010 171
2010 1 96 4%210 100%218
(650) 329-2417
Highest Acceptable Bound
Highest2010196.4%210 100%218
2012 2 92.8% 202 96% 210 218
2014 3 89.2% 194 93% 202
2016 4 85.6% 186 89% 194 On Track
2018 5 82.0% 179 82% 179
Highest
Acceptable GPCD
for 2010
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Foundational BMPs
BMP 1.1 Operational Practices
2009 2010
Name Amanda Cox Elvert
Title Utility Account Representative Utility Account Representative
Email
On Track On Track
2. Water waste prevention documentation
Descriptive File
On Track if any one of the 6 ordinance actions done, plus
documentation or links provided
1.Conservation Coordinator
provided with necessary
resources to implement BMPs?
Conservation Coordinator provided with necessary resources to implement BMPs?
Catherine
catherine.elvert@
Water Shortage Contingency Plan Draft Ordinance, Water Shortage
Water Shortage Contingency
Descriptive File 2010
URL URL 2010 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/clk/municipal_code.asp
Describe Ordinance Terms
On Track On Track
Describe Ordinance Terms 2010 Chapter 12.32 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) establishes water use regulations prohibiting water waste. This ordinance is
Chapter 12.32 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) bli h
Chapter 12.32 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC)
Contingency Plan Evaluation Criteria, and Water Shortage Contingency
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
BMP 1.2 Water Loss Control
2009Complete a prescreening Audit no Not on Track On Track if YesMetered Sales 11,377Verifiable Other Uses 0Total Supply 13,040
0.87 Not on Track On Track if =>.89, Not on Track if No
no
(Metered Sales + System uses)/
Total Supply >0.89
If ratio is less than 0.9, complete a full
scale Audit in 2009?
Verify Data with Records on File?no Not on Track On Track if Yes
Operate a system Leak Detection Program?no Not on Track On Track if Yes
2010
No Not on Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
AWWA file provided to CUWCC? 0 Not on Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
AWWA Water Audit Validity Score? 0 Info only until 2012
no
Compile Standard Water Audit using
AWWA Software?
Completed Training in AWWA Audit Method?no Info only until 2012
No
Complete Component Analysis? No Info only until 2012
Yes On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
Yes On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
Info only until 2012
Method?
Maintain a record-keeping system for the repair of reported
leaks, including time of report, leak location, type of leaking
pipe segment or fitting, and leak running time from report to
Completed Training in Component Analysis Process?
Repaired all leaks and breaks to the
extent cost effective?
Locate and repair unreported leaks to
the extent cost effective.
Provided 7 types of Water Loss Control Info
Leaks Repaired Miles Surveyed Press Reduction Water Saved
00Off0-$
Value Real Losses
-$ -$
pp g g, g p
repair.
Info only until 2012Cost of InterventionsValue Apparent Losses
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
2009 2010
2008 0 On Track 0 On Track On Track if no unmetered accounts
Yes On Track Yes On TrackMetered Accounts billed by volume of Volumetric billing required for all connections on same
If signed MOU prior to 31 Dec 1997, On Track if all connections
metered; If signed after 31 Dec 1997, complete meter
installations by 1 July 2012 or within 6 yrs of signing and 20%
biannual reduction of unmetered connections.
1.3 METERING WITH COMMODITY RATES FOR ALL NEW CONNECTIONS AND RETROFIT
OF EXISTING CONNECTIONS
Exemption or 'At least as Effective As'
accepted by CUWCC
Numbered Unmetered Accounts
0 0 Info only
No On Track No On Track Due in 2011, next reporting period
Feasibility Study provided to CUWCC? Yes On Track No On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
Yes On Track Yes On Track On Track if Yes, Not on Track if No
use Volumetric billing required for all connections on same schedule as metering
Completed a written plan, policy or program
to test repair and replace meters
Number of CII accounts with Mixed Use meters
Conducted a feasibility study to assess
merits of a program to provide incentives to
switch mixed-use accounts to dedicated landscape meters?
to test, repair and replace meters
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
Primary Contact Catherine Elvert Email: catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org
1.4 Retail Conservation Pricing
MdWRS
On Track if: Increasing Block, Uniform,
Allocation, Standby Service; Not on Track if
th iMetered Water Rate Structure
Customer Class 2009 Rate Type Conserving Rate? Customer Class 2010 Rate Type Conserving Rate?
Single-Family Yes Single-Family Yes
Multi-Family Yes Multi-Family Yes
Commercial Yes Commercial Yes
Institutional Yes Institutional Yes
Industrial Yes Industrial Yes
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Increasing Block Increasing Block
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
otherwise
On Track On Track
Info only
Agencies with Partially Metered Service Areas: If signed MOU prior to 31 Dec. 1997, implementation starts no later
than 1July 2010. If signed MOU after 31 Dec. 1997, implementation starts no later than 1July 2013, or within seven
years of signing the MOU,
Year Volumetric Rates began for Agencies with some Unmetered
Accounts
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Adequacy of Volumetric Rates) for Agencies with No Unmetered Accounts
Agency Choices for rates:
Customer Class 2009 Rate Type 2010 Rate Type 2010 Volumetric
Revenues $1000s
2009 Volumetric
Revenues $1000s Agency Choices for rates:
Single-Family Increasing Block
Multi-Family Uniform Uniform
Commercial Uniform Uniform
Institutional Uniform Uniform
Industrial Uniform Uniform
Dedicated Irrigation Uniform Uniform
Fire Lines Uniform Uniform
Increasing Block 11,413$
2,160$
30$
A) Agencies signing MOU prior to 13
June2007, implementation starts 1
July2007: On Track if (V / (V + M) ≥
70% x .8 = 56% for 2009 and
70%x0.90 = 63% for 2010; Not on
track if (V / (V + M)) < 70%;
Revenues $1000sRevenues $1000s
4,108$
11,242$
3,578$
4,148$
1,404$
1,512$
2,661$
60$
3,600$
1,566$
1,560$
Total Revenue Commodity Charges (V):
Total Revenue Fixed Charges (M):1,717$
Calculate: V / (V + M):94% 93% B) Use Canadian model.
On Track On Track
No No
24,073$
1,798$
24,969$
Agencies signing MOU
after 13June2007Canadian Water & Wastewater Rate Design Model No No after 13June2007,
implementation starts
July 1 of year following
signing.
Canadian Water & Wastewater Rate Design Model
Used and Provided to CUWCC
If Canadian Model is used, was 1 year or 3 year
period applied?
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Retail
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Wastewater Rates 2009 2010
Does Agency Provide Sewer Service?yes Yes
Customer Class Conserving Rate? Customer Class Conserving Rate?
Si l F il NVl tiFltRt N Si l F il NNVl tiFltRt
2009 Rate Type 2010 Rate Type
If 'No', then wastewater rate info not
required.
Single-Family Non-Volumetric Flat Rate No Single-Family No
Multi-Family Non-Volumetric Flat Rate No Multi-Family Non-Volumetric Flat Rate No
Commercial Uniform Yes Commercial Uniform Yes
Institutional Uniform Yes Institutional Uniform Yes
Industrial Uniform yes Industrial Uniform Yes
Not on Track
Non-Volumetric Flat Rate
On Track if:
'Increasing Block',
'Uniform', 'based on
long term marginal
cost' or 'next unit of
capacity'Not on Track
Comments: The City of Palo Alto assesses a wastewater charge to
its residential customers based upon an analysis of average winter
baseline consumption. The fixed rate is therefore assessed with an
analysis of volumetric use as a contributing factor. There is the
possibility that the City will consider a different rate structure for this
customer class in the future, but there are a number of technical
and legal challenges to our agency implementing a volumetric rate
for our residential customers
Comments: The City of Palo Alto assesses a wastewater charge to its
residential customers based upon an analysis of average winter baseline
consumption. The fixed rate is therefore assessed with an analysis of
volumetric use as a contributing factor. There is the possibility that the
City will consider a different rate structure for this customer class in the
future, but there are a number of technical and legal challenges to our
agency implementing a volumetric rate for our residential customers.
for our residential customers.
California Urban Water Conservation Council cuwcc.org MOU Coverage Report 2009-2010
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name:City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #:71
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Coverage Report Date:
Primary Contact Catherine Elvert Telephone Email: catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org
BMP 2. EDUCATION PROGRAMS
BMP 2.1 Public Outreach Actions Implemented and Reported to CUWCC
2009 2010
10 14
#N/A
May 19, 2011
1) Contacts with the public (minimum = 4 10 14
44
Yes yes All 6 action types
implemented and
)p(
times per year)
2) Water supplier contacts with media (minimum = 4
times per year, i.e., at least quarterly).
3) An actively maintained website that is updated
regularly (minimum = 4 times per year, i.e., at least
quarterly).
Newsletter articles on conservation
General water conservation information
Website
Email Messages
Articles or stories resulting from outreach
News releases
Newspaper contacts
Editorial board visits
p
reported to CUWCC
to be 'On Track')
Newsletter articles on conservation
Newsletter articles on conservation
General water conservation information
Website
Articles or stories resulting from outreach
Editorial board visits
News releases
4) Description of materials used to meet minimum
requirement.
Written editorials
5) Annual budget for public outreach program.4,985$
6) Description of all other outreach programs
OnTrackfor 6 Actions OnTrack for 6 Actions
Description is too large for text area. Data
will be stored in the BMP Reporting database
when online.
8,000$
California Urban Water Conservation Council cuwcc.org MOU Coverage Report 2009-2010
Agency:City of Palo Alto District Name: City of Palo Alto CUWCC Unit #: 71
Coverage Report Date:May 19, 2011
4
CUWCC BMP RETAIL COVERAGE REPORT 2009-2010
Foundation Best Management Practices for Urban Water Efficiency
2.2 School Education Programs Implemented and Reported to CUWCC
2009 2010
Yes Yes
Name of Wholesale Supplier?
Does a wholesale agency implement School Education
Programs for this unility's benefit?
Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District
Yes/ No
Water-Wise curriculumWater resources education, water supply
and conservation education. Materials
include water awareness kits, interactive
software, field trips, reading materials.
1) Curriculum materials developed and/or provided by
agency
Yes Yes
3) Materials Distributed to K 6?yes Yes
2) Materials meet state education framework
requirements and are grade-level appropriate?All 5 actions types implemented
and reported to CUWCC to be
'On Track'3) Materials Distributed to K-6?yes Yes
Describe K-6 Materials
Oac
Water awareness kits, interactive software,
field trip resources, reading materials,
videos.
Conservation lessons grades 1-5,
flood lesson, water walk game,
watershed geography activity with
hands-on learning tools and games,
solar drinking fountain, water
awareness kits, reading materials,
videos.
Describe materials to meet
minimum requirements
Materials distributed to 7-12 students? No No Info Only
4) Annual budget for school education program.5,613$ 50,000$
5) Description of all other water supplier education
See Wholesale Report See Wholesale Report
01
On Track On Track
Canoe in the Slough, in-classroom
presentations, Green Touch Screen Project
programs
APPENDIX D ‐ CUWCC BMPs and Corresponding DMMs
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
APPENDIX E – City of Palo Alto Resolution Approving Water
Shortage Implementation Plan (w/attachments)
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
APPENDIX F ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Draft
Ordinance
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
APPENDIX G ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Evaluation
Criteria
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
Page 1 of 2
CRITERIA TO EVALUATE WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLAN
This appendix lists criteria expected to guide the selection of allocation/allotment
strategies whenever water use reductions are needed. Not all of them may be applicable
to every strategy but customer perception of equity is important in achieving the necessary
reductions.
1. Reduce overall City consumption by reduction target required – this is the effective goal of
any plan. To accomplish this goal the percentage reduction for the various customer classes
will necessarily vary because their ratios of indoor / outdoor use varies.
2. Sufficient water available for personal use – the most important use of water is for basic
drinking, health, and sanitary uses, and therefore, this is given the highest priority of use.
This prioritization will drive both rate schedules and water use restrictions. However, within
allowed limits (i.e., water use restriction ordinances), customers will be able to choose how
they use their allotment between indoor and outdoor uses.
3. Acceptance by the community – many people tend to evaluate or accept a particular water‐
rationing plan in terms of how it would directly affect them. It is this aspect which makes it
difficult to gain a popular consensus on any one plan. However, any plan must be generally
accepted by the community to be successful. One important aspect of acceptance is the
public’s understanding of the program; thus, it is viewed as important to make the plan as
uncomplicated as possible.
4. Minimize unemployment or business loss – water is extensively used in both commercial
and industrial functions. If water is severely limited to these consumers, increased
unemployment and business losses could result. Staff intends that, wherever possible, this
should be avoided. Still, outside water use must be sacrificed greatly if only minimal indoor
reductions are required. Cooling tower use for air conditioning must also be considered.
5. Landscaping investment losses – in cases of critical or severe shortage of water, it is
expected that significant landscaping losses may arise. The use of recycled water should be
encouraged for certain applications. In some cases, using the City’s well system to augment
the SFPUC supply will be an option to provide a minimum amount of water for landscaping.
In this case, the goal should be to keep valuable and mature trees and plantings alive.
Shrubs and lawns will be considered a lower priority.
6. Workable plan – the plan must be workable in order to accomplish its goal. It must take the
following factors into account:
a. Cost ‐ the cost of any water plan to the public should be minimized.
Page 2 of 2
b. Enforcement ‐ enforcement is viewed as a key component of any plan. Those plans
requiring fewer resources for enforcement would be preferable. However, the success
of a plan is contingent upon effective enforcement and the utility must be provided the
resources to meet the enforcement objective. The current staff can only absorb a
certain level of additional responsibilities without unreasonably impacting service to the
customer.
c. The plan must be practical and feasible from a data processing viewpoint and not
subject to erroneous results due to incomplete or inaccurate databases. A realistic
timeframe must be allowed to perform any necessary data entry or customer
programming functions.
9. Flexibility – the water shortage is a dynamic situation and may get better or worse. Thus, it
is necessary that any plan be adaptable to changes in targets or adjustable if original
expectations are not being met.
10. Allowance for new services – some provision must be made in any plan to serve new
establishments or those under construction.
12. Recover penalties applied by suppliers – revenue should be collected to the extent
necessary to recover any penalties that may be charged by suppliers.
APPENDIX H ‐ Water Shortage Contingency Plan Use
Restrictions
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
Page 1 of 2
WATER USE RESTRICTIONS
This appendix lists the current long‐term water use restrictions and additional restrictions that
could be applied during a water supply shortage situation.
Existing Permanent Water use Regulations
1. Flooding or runoff of potable water is prohibited.
2. A shut‐off valve is required for hoses used to wash vehicles, sidewalks, buildings, etc.
3. Potable water for construction uses is prohibited if recycled water is available.
4. Broken or defective plumbing and irrigation systems must be repaired or replaced within a
reasonable period.
Additional Regulations for Emergency Water Shortage Situations
Water Use restrictions added for Water Shortage Stage II:
1. Landscape irrigation shall not be allowed between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except for drip
irrigation, soaker hoses and hand watering.
2. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon
request.
Water Use Restrictions added for Water Shortage Stage III:
All water use restrictions for Stage II above and the following:
1. Potable water other than when used from containers of five gallons or less, shall not be
used to clean hard surfaced areas or building structures.
2. Potable water shall not be used to operate, clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative
fountains or ponds.
3. Newly constructed pools, spas and hot tubs may not be filled.
4. Signs providing notice of water shortage emergency shall be displayed in all public
restrooms and restaurants, and in hotel guestrooms.
5. Outdoor water use audits are required for those customers continuing to use more than
target allotments for three months.
6. Commercial car washes must use recycled water systems, if economically feasible.
7. Verified water waste will serve as prima facie evidence that the allocation assigned to the
water account is excessive and subject to reduction.
8. The use of potable water on golf courses is limited to putting greens and tees.
9. The use of potable water for street sweepers/washers is prohibited.
Water Use Restrictions added for Water Shortage Stage IV:
1. No new water service hookups unless customer pays for sufficient conservation elsewhere
to offset anticipated water use.
Page 2 of 2
3. No new landscaping installed at new construction sites. Bonds to be posted for landscaping
after water shortage emergency is lifted.
4. Turf irrigation prohibited.
5. Owners/operators of private wells must adhere to the same water use restrictions as other
residents and businesses dependent upon the City’s potable supply.
6. Once‐through cooling systems must be converted to recycling systems.
7. The washing of all vehicles is prohibited outside of a commercial washing facility that
recycles its water.
8. Irrigation by sprinklers is prohibited at all times
APPENDIX I – Single and Multi Year Delivery Shortages
Page left intentionally blank for double‐sided printing.
Page 1 of 3
Wholesale Demand
184 MGD
Delivery For Fiscal Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
1920 184 184 184 184 184
1921 184 184 184 184 184
1922 184 184 184 184 184
1923 184 184 184 184 184
1924 184 184 184 184 184
1925 154.6 184 184 184 184
1926 184 184 184 184 184
1927 184 184 184 184 184
1928 184 184 184 184 184
1929 184 184 184 184 184
1930 184 184 184 184 184
1931 184 184 184 184 184
1932 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1933 184 184 184 184 184
1934 184 184 184 184 184
1935 154.6 184 184 184 184
1936 184 184 184 184 184
1937 184 184 184 184 184
1938 184 184 184 184 184
1939 184 184 184 184 184
1940 184 184 184 184 184
1941 184 184 184 184 184
1942 184 184 184 184 184
1943 184 184 184 184 184
1944 184 184 184 184 184
1945 184 184 184 184 184
1946 184 184 184 184 184
1947 184 184 184 184 184
1948 184 184 184 184 184
1949 184 184 184 184 184
1950 184 184 184 184 184
1951 184 184 184 184 184
1952 184 184 184 184 184
1953 184 184 184 184 184
1954 184 184 184 184 184
1955 184 184 184 184 184
1956 184 184 184 184 184
1957 184 184 184 184 184
1958 184 184 184 184 184
Page 2 of 3
Wholesale Demand
184 MGD
Delivery For Fiscal Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
1959 184 184 184 184 184
1960 184 184 184 184 184
1961 152.6 184 184 184 184
1962 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1963 184 184 184 184 184
1964 184 184 184 184 184
1965 184 184 184 184 184
1966 184 184 184 184 184
1967 184 184 184 184 184
1968 184 184 184 184 184
1969 184 184 184 184 184
1970 184 184 184 184 184
1971 184 184 184 184 184
1972 184 184 184 184 184
1973 184 184 184 184 184
1974 184 184 184 184 184
1975 184 184 184 184 184
1976 184 184 184 184 184
1977 152.6 184 184 184 184
1978 136.2 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1979 184 184 184 184 184
1980 184 184 184 184 184
1981 184 184 184 184 184
1982 184 184 184 184 184
1983 184 184 184 184 184
1984 184 184 184 184 184
1985 184 184 184 184 184
1986 184 184 184 184 184
1987 184 184 184 184 184
1988 152.6 184 184 184 184
1989 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1990 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1991 132.5 132.5 132.5 132.5 132.5
1992 132.5 152.6 152.6 152.6 152.6
1993 136.2 132.5 132.5 132.5 132.5
1994 184 184 184 184 184
1995 154.6 184 184 184 184
1996 184 184 184 184 184
1997 184 184 184 184 184
1998 184 184 184 184 184
Page 3 of 3
Wholesale Demand
184 MGD
Delivery For Fiscal Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
1999 184 184 184 184 184
2000 184 184 184 184 184
2001 184 184 184 184 184
2002 184 184 184 184 184
ATTACHMENT E
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 4, 2011
ITEM 2: ACTION: Recommendation to Council to Approve and Adopt the 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan and SBx7-7 Compliance Strategy
Senior Resource Planner Nicolas Procos and Utility Account Representative Catherine Elvert prepared a
presentation to deliver to the UAC. Prior to beginning the presentation, Chair Waldfogel inquired about the
regulatory requirements behind the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and if it were pertinent for the
Commission to discuss the highlights of the 2010 UWMP including any changes since 2005. In response,
Commissioner Melton explained that the UWMP is a legislative requirement, and made a motion for the
Commission to move ahead with approval of the plan and proposed SBx7-7 compliance methodology.
Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. Commissioner Melton then asked if there were any new
legislative actions included in the plan. Staff explained that the 2010 UWMP does not contain any dramatic
departures in policy since the 2005 UWMP, but did mention two differences from the 2005 UWMP worth
noting – the new efficiency program targets and the SBx7-7 compliance program. The Commission asked
staff to present the efficiency and SBx7-7 issues.
Elvert proceeded to discuss the current and past water conservation measures and savings achieved by
the Utilities Dept. For the 2010 UWMP and future savings projections, Elvert discussed the new measures
that the City will use to achieve the significant increase in water conservation savings when compared to
the 2005 UWMP.
Procos discussed the proposed SBx7-7 compliance strategy. Procos noted that there are four possible
methods and the rationale behind staff’s recommended methodology. Procos further discussed the City’s
compliance strategy, including the plan to review progress prior to the 2015 UWMP.
Commissioner Keller asked if the rising cost of water will result in a higher conservation potential, especially
with regards to outdoor conservation potential. Elvert responded that rising water costs should continue to
make a number of efficiency measures cost-effective, and in the future should be a contributing factor
toward additional water savings.
Commissioner Melton noted his skepticism with one savings measure in particular, “workshops.” Elvert
responded that there are certain assumptions involved in estimating water savings as a result of contacts
with the public, and that staff has noticed a dramatic increase in attendance at workshops and this trend
may continue. Utility Director Fong responded that staff agreed that savings from workshops and
educational classes was difficult to quantify and staff will track this measure closely.
Commissioner Keller discussed the extensive educational outreach to residents and asked if there was
anything more the City could do to work with businesses for water efficiency. Elvert replied that a number
of workshops are open to professionals in the community, and the City continues to diversify the
educational opportunities and incentives offered to this sector. Utility Director Fong replied that the Utilities
Department has Key Account representatives that work with large customers on a regular basis to identify
potential efficiency improvements. Elvert mentioned programs particularly beneficial to large customers
including the Water Efficient Technologies and outdoor irrigation rebate programs.
Chair Waldfogel asked whether the 2010 UWMP was consistent with the City’s current water reduction
policies. Staff clarified that the Chair was referring to the City Council approved 20% by 2020 reduction
plan that was approved by Council on April 19th 2010 (CMR 212:10). Procos responded that the timing for
the City’s reduction plan was not synchronized to the SB7x-7 effort, but noted the alignment between the
2010 UWMP and the City’s own effort.
Chair Waldfogel inquired if there was anything in the plan that might result in a future recommendation to
the UAC to approve mandated water use restrictions. Procos responded that the SBx7-7 program may
change in 2015 and it does not at this time set specific use restrictions on any customer class. Other than
that, there is no intention at this time to use the 2010 UWMP as a basis to impose additional water use
restrictions. Utility Director Fong mentioned that new development regulations are included as part of the
demand management measures in the 2010 UWMP. Elvert added that the City adopted these new
regulations for indoor and outdoor water efficient design through its adoption of the new State Green
Building Standards Code, CALGreen, which went into effect at the first of this year. These regulations do
not require existing properties to change landscape design or water use practices. Utility Director Fong
mentioned the one exception would be water use during a drought.
ACTION: Commissioner Melton repeated the motion to recommend Council approval of the proposed
UWMP and SBx7-7 target methodology. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously (6-0).