Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0228.091• ~.i ,. . April 11, 1991 THE HONORABLE en", COUNCIL Palo Alto, California WATJR STATUS UPDAT, and DISCVSSIOB OP aLT1"A?IYB DROuGHT RBSP058J fLAB Members ot the Council: 'aport in Brief This is an informational staff report which provides an update on Palo Altols water consumption and conservation status and, most importantly, describes t.~e proposed Palo Alto response to San Francisco water Department (SFWD) plans to address this year1s drouqht. The present SFWO adopted plan requires Palo Alto, beqinninq in late May, to reduce its purchases by 53 percent from 1987 consumption. Recent storms and other events may induce the SFWD to ease its adopted reduction requirements.. Nevertheless, the city must be prepared to move forward with its own comprehensive 1991 Drought Response Plan (Plan) to meet the 53 percent reduction mandate.. Additionally, Table 2 has been developed to outline alternative response plans that would be considered if SYWD were to ease their presently adopted reduction requ i relnents • At this time, staff is encouraqing public input and Council direction regarding the ~:roposed. concepts and plans 'Which were developed to achieve a potential 53 percent reduction in SFWD purchases. Those concepts and plans are described in the Plan attached to this report. In the event the SFWD eases its reduction requirements, staff would similarly recommend easing the components of the attached Plan as set forth in Table 2.. No Council a~tion is required at this time; however, a council work ~ession is scheduled on April 15, 1991 to discuss these matters. waTER SUPPLY STATUS On February 26, 1991, the SFWD announced its ·~ndatory Water Conservation Program-(SFWD Plan), which limits Palo Alto's water allocati.on to 45 percent of its 19B7 annual usage (a 53 percent reduction} beginning on May 22,1991. The San Franci5co Public Utilities Commission (SFPUCj has called for a public hearing to CMR:228: 91 ,. '.' , tj -o be held on April 23. 1991, -to consider adopting revisions to the current rationinq proqram" and to adopt new water rates. The current expectation is for these new rates to become effective for Palo Alto purchases from SYWO as of June 22, 1991 and ~ould be r~flected in the July 1991 bill. The SFWD Plan was adopted prior to commencement of the hea~7 March precipitatIon, and before completion ot negotiations for additional water purchases a The effect of the March precipitatlon J the status of purchases, wholesale rates, and actual runoff on the water supply is still uncertain. However, the total amount ot water in usable storage has risen above the threshold used by the SFWD to recommend its overall 45 per~ent reduction. Changes to the allocations and rates ~ay be announced at the April 23, 1991 hearing, but this is not certain. There­ fore, Palo Alto must be prepared to operate under the adopted Sl'WD Plan. An additional effect of the drouqht has been a notable decrease in water quality. The Karch precipitation resulted in silted runoff into SFWD'S reservoirs. As a result, SFWO has had to shift supply sources from mountain reservoirs to local reservoirs. ~so SFWD purchases froD other sources do not have the saae high water quality as normal Retch Hetchy water. This chanqe in supply bas brought about lover water quality and increased chlorination r~quirements. This poorer quality was noted by our customers in mid-March. On March 26, 1991, santa Clara Valley Water District requested water retailers to make an overall redUction of 25 percent from 1987 use. These restrictions limit our combined water supply from wel1s and SFWD to 75 percent of our 1987 water consumption~ eI" or nIp ALTO nUR IIBTORl:CAL CQIiSIDIPTIOIi: DUring the recent dry winter Donths, Palo Alto's consumption exceeded allocations. All previously banked water had heen exhausted by the end of November, and penalties for ov&r consu.ption had been assessed for each month, November 1990 through February 1991. Fortunately, the trend in consumption overall has been decreasing during this time period. In the interim, Palo Alto began operating ~ells in response to the increasing need for alternative water supplies both locally ana regionally. Through continued conservation and vell operation, Palo Alto expects to meet allocations and also continue to bank water prior to the implementation of the austere SFWD Plan. Palo Alto consumption fiqures fc~ recent months are presented in Table 1 below: CMR:228:91 2 • fULl l a.Q~:g.l lilld ~glll1DmtlQA f!i!1: !1111J: &I!O ~I:ouu: XAI:211 1."1. Feran1: il\IV , .. ) IItLf .. hWt "'" .. ttoc.etl~ A<tqo' .. tnItr-(-) ...... 'Y ~I.tian ---RIlL l!I!! icci'>-9fW I'cef).! ,J!\lDCftion <o:d ,-----<!L. ...... frw ["11 .N', ..... " JloIl.,. 20 645,24D 62S,5~ -S.on. 11/'-..... .Ilo1t" 21 .... " 648,"10 61e,051 -4,7(.1. 3C,1'59 .... .... '" Sept 21 66a~ 159 656,6l'5 -f.7l1 4i!,290 •. " ... ,22 Oct" 55T~ '783 S!I1,4n ·'.m 68,601 -Clot" _20 344,259 457,5063 32.91'; ?'9 .. 160 • ... _21 Doe'. 290,174 ]55,0515 l2 .... 191,9tO 0 J~ .,,"'0 J.-.18 .301,65Ci 336,621 1I.S9t 51,16C 0 "b J.,. 19 "lib 19 l1P,on 117,501!. '.m '9,521 , .... 'oO zo ." '" m,6" ,,",.m -12'.2U 39,616 -W ... PenatUH.-Id .t.cc.-..t .. tfve a.ntlng did not DC in~o effect U'ltH Palo Alto'. ,.~t tlH:ins 11"0. SF'oC. om YSB OJU)'P"C'lS The -Gush Busters· continue their patrols seven days a week. The nuaber o£ violations has been dropping steadily and fell even aore sbarply during the Karch rainy period. Flooding is still the most frequent violation, followec:l by hosing down pavemen't .. Very few citations are issued for watering at the wrong times 1 a qood indication that residents and businesses are getting used to the 10:09 a.m. to 6~OO p.m .. irrigation ban. Througb the end of March 1991 1 a total of 538 warning notices were issued.. The public continues to respond to these notices l and stri~ter enforcement action (installation oE a flow restrictor) has been required only in one instance .. CIty r&eILI,!" !'P PA,I' 09RBBRVATIOR The City Parks and Gol~ COurse Division has already implemented extensive water use ~eduction~1 including eliminating sprinkler irriqation in all but a few selected areas.. Please refer to CMR:195:91 for a detailed description of actions taken and the current status of the City's landscaped areas. Parks and CoIf staff have completeQ a water audit on City irrigation systems to facilitate decision-making on where and how to make further reductions. All City building facilities have been, or are currently being, retrofitted with water-saving devices in toilets, sinks and sbowers. Conservation stickers are placed in restroom facilities CIIR:228:91 3 • -".' o o to heighten employee an4 public awareness of the need to use. water carefully and report any leaks. Leak detection and repair are a top priority for fa.cilities maintenance pe'rsonnel. cooling systems are being monitored and operated to minimize water used in this process .. cmrro.JIIR OUTRIACJ[ UP MSISDNCI In addition to a continuing ad campaign, a series of mailings were sent in January to customers ~hose utilities bill showed high usage (residents usinq over 20 ccf/~onth ar~ b~slnesses using over tvice their Baseline consumption Allowance). A mailing was also sent to local corporate CEO's from the Mayor ur9inq increased conservation efforts. Althouqh dry weather continued throuqh February, consumption dropped; and thus it appears this outreach effort was effective. The list below summarizes additiona1 conservation activities and assistance provided by Energy Services staff since the last Council updat.e ira aid-Jan:IJary ~ • Pertormed 117 on-site water audits 4nd consultationst provided 3,238 tel~phon9 consultations: and handled over 430 requests for conservation information and water kits, including distribution ot 240 table cards and stickers to local businesses. In addition to assistance provided by Energy Services staff l it should ~ noted that the Customer Services Center, which bas consistently experienced increased call volu.e during the drought, has handled an average of 100 to 150 extra calls per dey in recent months. • Placed 13 ads in the palo Alto Weekly as part of ongoing drought awareness campaign. Issued five utilities ~ill flyers, and cQmpiled over 200 respon&8S to a bill flyer that requested customers to send in their own water-saving ideas. • An annual luncheon honoring corporate resource management achieveaents, including avards for outstanding ~ater conservation efforts, was held in late March. A workshop on drouqht landscape strategies vas held for large commercial customerst experts on indoor process water use are being brought in to perform audits on major account customers. 011<:228:91 .' . Reviewed 25 landscape plans for conformance with city Landscape GUidelines. • Continued conservation videos on cable channel; made a presentation to local school children; sponsored two elementary school teachers to attend water conservation training provided by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Assisted 10 other utilities, the Bay Area Water Users Association l the Santa Clara Valley water District and Stanford university by supplying water conservation planning and program intormation; created a water conservation program database containing program design and development into~ation from throuqhout the state and country. Later this month a workshop will be held to help residents aanaqe their landscaping effectively under drought conditions~ In reqard to the current rate schedule implementation, an additional 43 applications for exemption have been submitted since early January~ To date, a total of 29) applications have been processed and 61 percent have been qranted. PROPOSW UBPOJIfll 'l'O DI anD PBOOllAJ( The attached proposed response, entitled "city of Palo Alto 1991 Drouqht Response Plan-, describes the drastic measures required to .eet the SFWD S3 percent reduction Objective for Palo Alto. The Plan consists of four major co~nents, including the use of local wells plus introduction of mandatory water rationinq, imposition of additional water use restrictions~ and increased promotion of conservation services~ staff recognizes that the SFWD is likely to chanqe its plans and, tharefore~ revisions to Palo Alto's response will be required. The following table outlines alternative response plans~ which viII ~ BOre completely developed when the SFWD Plan oecomes more clearly derined: CIIR: 22 8: 91 5 TABLE 2 PALO ALTO'S ALTERNATIVE DROUGHT RESPONSE PlANS 45% 35% CMR:228:9l 53% Palo A.."to \Iz4udloo 35·4D% 35·40% Staft' Proposal City of Palo Aho 1991 Drough! Rcspon.\e Plan (attllched) Staft" Proposals Va..-i.ations(s) to 199] DrQugb~ R.esponse Plan NO well prodLtCtioa Cooser.'!Itioc required:: 35-40% Drop M:mciatory Water Rationing Re\oi~ residential targets dovorDward from the cum:Dt 7/14 (7 uruLs in winter, 14 units m summer) lostaD flow restrittors OD large residential UloCn. that consume 50 units or more., Of • bWlness that exo::eds its 8CA b)' three times Incr.eas.e price of the highest ral(:block from the curren! S6/ull'it to $2O/unit li1r.rease n:-taiJ rates tc offset SF\\'D wholesaLe: r.lle ioCl"easc: A!!.d. io recover lost revenw= £rom re4uced sales Other;. MAfi'.,'TAIN wdI productlnc at I reduced leve! fr():!D thai: used UDder t.be 53% redudloll sceDuio. Conservation required: 25--.30% Drop Mandatory Waler Rationing Retain currCJ1l: 7/14 res1dentWlaJ"gets Increase retail rates lO offset SFWD wholesale rate increase IlW'ea..o:e price 0( the h.ipest rateblnd: from the current S6/unit to $12/unil lrutaIl flow re&rictors OD large rc&idenriaT U~TS that CQru;.umc 75 tl11it.1 Of" mor~ Ol'" .. businesos that e:teeeds its seA. by foU! limes Drop resuic:.tLoD.! Ofl outdoor watering except for time limlts. 6 · . ./ .~ . Recently, Palo Alto's water use has dropped significantly below monthly tBrqets. Palo Alto was below allocation by 12.24\ in March and A water bank of 39,616 ccf was a~cumulated. Palo Alto ia currently 56~83' below allocation for the first IS billing days in April resulting in ~ bank of 155,162 ccf. The total bank achieved for March and the first part cf April is 194,179 ccf. Staff attributes much of these reductions in water use to active conservation by all customer classes and to activation of the veIls in late March. The attachea Drought Response Plan presents four basic components suqqested to achieve the 53\ reduction required by SFWD. This plan provides the basis for discu$sion only. staff anticipates returning to Council after SFWD finalizes any changes in reduction requirements at their April 23, 1991 PUC hearing. Respectfully submitted, 'I 0·. j' ;r,--n i[)d;:,..". RON BELVAL Manaqer, Ene~ Planning r:i:Una. ~.~ DEBRA KATZ Manaqer, Bnergy services Chair, Water Xanaqeaent committee ~JU~--.-. RANDY BALDSCHUN Asaistant Director, utilities Administration CHR:228:91 7 • . . -, TABE OF CONTESTS 1. OIervieYo' .. ~ ...•.....•.......•....•.............•........ 11 Water Supply Situation .................................... . San Francisco Water Department (SFWD) Drought Plan .•..... Palo Alto's Allocation ..........•...................... Santa Clara Valley Water D'.strkt Drought .•............... Ill. Drought Response Plan De"gn ..................•......••.... IV. Palo Alto's 4-Poinl Drought Response Plan ..................... . Operation of Wells ......••.........•.....•.......... _ Mandato!)" Water Rationing ........................... . Customer Oass Targets ............................... . Alkrnative MWR Plans •...•...•.......•...•.......... Alternative Plan I: Equal Allotment for Each Home ......... . Alternative Plan II: Complete Per Capita Allotment Plan ..•... Alternative Plan Ill: Default Per Capita Plan .....•......... MWR Applicable to Multi-FaIluly Accounts. Businesses, City Department •....•..••.........•............. "' • Water Fund Revenue Analysis Under MWR ....•.......•... Exemptions .••....••.......•................•.•..... CUstomer Conservation Outreach and Assistance ................. . City Facilities and Parks Conservation Program ...•. : ..•.......... Water Use Restrictions •....•...•..........•............•... Restrictions to Prevent Waste .......................... . Restrictions 10 Promote Alternatives ..................... . Restrictions That Set a Tone ........................... . V. Budgel and Staff Impacts ....•...•...•...•.......•......•.... T emponry Staff Need Estimates •........................ Other Budget Impacts '" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•............. VI. Future Notification/Changes to Plan •..............•...•....... Review of Plan Polk)' Issues .•....•................................. Attachment I Criteria 10 Evaluate Drought Response Mao Attachment n 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 J5 17 19 19 2J 22 24 25 n 30 31 32 33 34 • \ / :I. overview The winter of 1990-91 marked the fifth consecutive year of d~ouqht in California. In ~esponse, Palo Alto's primary water supplier the Sa~ francisco Water Department (SFWDJ adopted a strinqent rationing plan in order to preserve a two-year w~ter supply sufficient to meet basic needs in the event of a sixth dry year. Staff has prepared this 1991 Drought Response Plan to meet the most stringent requirements. The proposed plan has four major components designed to reduce the City's water purchases from SFWn by 53\ and total consumption by 38l trom 1997 usage: it use of the four operational wells; 2) introduction ot mandatory water rationing; 3) imposition of additional water use restrictions; and 4) increased promotion of conservation services. n. .ater Supply ait ... U .... SAN FJp.NCISCO WATER DEPARTKENl' (SfWDl DRQUGH1' PLA.~ On February 26, 1991, the San Francisco Public Utilities Co~~ission adopted SFWO's -Mandatory Water conservati~n Program-(Proqram) which imposes systemwide reductions equal to 45' of 1987 water usage. The 45\ systemwide reduction is calculated using a formula of a 33\ systemwide reduction of inside water use and a 90\ reduction of outside water use. Since the inside to outside use ratio differs for • o _," f· .. J­ ~ .. o each suburban retailer, the actual reduction targets vary from the nO!YIinal 4.s.~ \ .L .. SYWD's reduction target is based on information that WaS available at the time the Program was written and includes available water then in storage, known possible water supply purchases, an~ tbe strong prospect of a very low runoff in 1991 coupled with a more normal runoff in 1992. The intent ot the program was to provide an adequate supply of water for the next two years. • The critical supply situation has caused the SFWD to contract for additional water supply resources. Even with this additi~nal water. data available in February indicated that 45' reductions in usage were needed to bal~nce the water equation. Consequently SFWO's Program urges all its resale customers to adopt water usage restrictions and enforcement programs similar to those which are mandatory in San Francisco. Significantly. the Progra. has a banking pr~vision which allows water savings in any month to be applied aqainst water overages in other months. PALO ALTO'S ALLOCATIQN The allocation formula described in the Program results in a reduction from 1987 usage o£ 53\ for Palo Alto. In other words. Palo Alto's new allocation of vater from SFWD is 3~715.793 hundred cubic feet (CCFj which is less than half of Palo Altors 1987 usage. This new annUal • 2 .'. \ ,....., '-_c- ~llocation beoome5 effective in Palo Alto's June billing period which begins May 22, 1991~ Si'..NTA CLARA VA [·[n WATER DISTRICT DROUGHT PLAN The Santa clara Valley water District (S~"OJ exacts a ~pv~p tax· on underground vater use in Santa Clara county. On ~rch 26 the Board of SCVWD a~pted a rationing plan which imposes reduction targets of 25t of ~ater consumption frOB 1987 usaqe. SCVWD takes an all-source, calendar-year view so this means that the sum of all our water usage from all sources in 1991 cannot be greater than 75\ of our total use of all sources in 1987. Under these guidelines Palo Alto is allowed to supplement its SFWD water allctaent Yith 2,120,144 CCF from its wells. Base~ on operational characteristics, we anticipate that the four wells are able to produce 1 1 229,679 CCF or about 15' of the 1987 usage. This figure is based on the conservative estimate that the wells will operate at maximum capacity 50' of the time. IU. Drought; .... 1Ipc .... P~'" Deai9'l The general underlying qoal of City of Palo Alto Drought Response Plan (Plan) is to provide reasonably priced water for the high priority, most essential end uses. These uses include drinking, bathing, cooking, busines$ production, and requirements for health and 3 • . ' . . o o sanitation~ The Plan recc=mends using all available resourc~s to the fullest extent po~sible so long as safety, health, and security of the ~ater aquifers are protected a The Plan disal1o~s wastefu~ water use and discourages the use of water ~or low priority, less essent~al end uses. Pri~ritization of landscape irriqation is encouraged so that trees and other mature, valuable plantings are preserved to the extent possible a within the constraints of manaqeability, the Plan provides equity in distribution of available water by application of consistent principles across all customer classes. Palo Alto's Drouqht Response Plan incorporates the use of four main elements: 1) use of the four operational wells; 2) introduction of mandatory water rationing: 3) imposition of additional wat~r use ~estrictions: and 4J increased promotion of conservation services. OPERATION OF WELtS- Operation of the vells began on ~arcb 20, 1991 in o~der to take advantage of the SFWO banking provision and respond to SFWD's request to put all au~illary water sources into service. It is estimated that by beginning of June billing period Palo Alto will have bar~ed 350,000 to 400,000 eel. 'l'his bank viII provide a small cushion during the ";,' , " ) , " early start up of the Palo Alto's drought management activities. The Pian assumes operation of the four wells to the fullest extent possi~le subject to safety, health and environmental constraints. Staff conservatively plans for the wells to provide 15\ of the base YQar (1987) total consumption. MANDATORY WATER RATIONING A key element of this Plan is Mandatory Water Rationing (MWR). Given the substantially reduced supply ot vater available to Palo Alto in 1991, it is staff's opinion that .ajar cuts in the City allotment of SFWO water will require MWR within the City. (Of cour-S'9., if SYWD • eases its 53 percent reduction target, staf£ will propose a different course of action than described in this MWR section.) staff evaluated a number of different water rationinq alternatives~ In order to systematically evaluate the various plans and arrhTe at a plan whicb best meets the needs ot Palo Alto, staff used a list of criteria which is described on Attachment I. Staff recommends adoption of Alternative Plan III: Default Per Capita Plan described below~ Similar criteria have been employed by the city in 1977, 1988 and 1990. While each criteria relates to an i~portant objectIve, certain criteria conflict with one another. For example l the ability to meet the ~water usage reduction criteria-is impacted by the ·cost minimizing criteria Q with respect to enforcement and administrativQ staffing COGts. siMilarly. the -equity criteria-may involve the use 5 . ----_ ...... -,=- • '. " o of individual historical data or square rootage data which may be unavailable except at qLeat expense~ Thus, any MWR plan can be viewed as a compromise between partly conflicting objective$~ It is this spirit of compromise which characterizes the staff's proposal to deal with the diversity of needs and water consumption patterns by Palo Alto residents and businesses. CUstomer Class Targets Palo Alto's allocation from srwo is based on a 33/90 formula which assumes a 33 percent reduction in indoor use and a 90 percent reduction in outdoor use for an overall reduction of 53' in use of SFWD supplied water from 1987 levels. However, this 53\ target is reduced to a 38 percent conservation tarqet for Pal~ Alto custo=ers, assuming the City's wells continue in service. In arriving at specific target allocations for Palo Alto customer classes, the question arises whether to use 4 uniform 3ei reduction across the board for all customers or to base the percentage reduction of the customer classes upon the SYWD 33/90 fOrMula~ Requirinq the same percentage reduction of all customer classes sounds fair but in practice may not be. There are six customer c14sses served by the Utiliti&s Oepartment which differ Significantly with regard to their ratio of indoor/outdoor water USe~ For example, the ratio of indoor/outdoor water use for class 1 (single family residential) and class six (city departments) is 57/43 and 33/67 respectively_ The average ratio for indoor/outdoor use for the • , .~. - I , ! \ ;. r""'" remaining classea 2 throu9h 5 (~ulti-tamily, comme~cialt industrial, and public ~acilities) is 79/21~ Requirinq a uniform percentage (i.e., 38 percent) across tha board may result in those customers ~ith higher ratios of outdoor use to indoor use benefitting at th~ expense ot those customers ~ith lower ratios. A uniform percentage iqnores the causal relationship between Palo Alto's allotment from SFWD and the customer class usage patterns responsible for that allocation result. Additionally~ the ability of Palo Alto to ~eet its SrwD target is decreased since a unifol"l'. 38 ~rcent reduction does net recognize t~e fact that seasonal indoor/outdoor water consumption varies by customer class and the potential for reducing water usage is greater vith outdoor use compared to internal use. For the above reasons. the staff believes it 1.s prudent to utilize the same SFWD 33/90 formula applied to Palo Alto customer classes to arrive at customer class tarqets. In thi3 manner, custome~ class targets viII mirror the required indoor/outdoor water reduction goals that exist for the city as a vhole. Accordingly, tor each individual customer class the percentage reduction targets vary in recognition of their relative indoor/outdoor water use characteristics. The resulting targets are illustrated below with and without the wells. Augmenting the SFWD supply with our wells siqnificantly reduces reductions for each customer class. i' ": .. 7 -/. o customer CI ft.U Approximate CUrrent , Reduction from 1987 \ Re~uction , Reduction WithQ~t Wells ~4t Wells 1 2 3 4 5 5 Sinqle Family Residential 29 59 44 Multi-Family Residential 16 49 32 Commercial 25 49 32 Industrial 37 49 32 public Facilities 25 49 32 city Departments 24 72 56 Total SystE!lll 25 5) J8 As discussed above the relative percentaqe reductions by customer class vary because the indoorioutdoor water use characteristics vary between the customer classes. Classes 2 through 5 will be combined to make it easier tor the public and the staff to understand by avoiding too many targets and because they are all served under the same Rate Schedule (W-7J. As expected, the largest percentaqe reduction is required by the City of Palo Alto Departments since approximately 67 percent of their total use is for outdoor wa~erinq (parks, golf course, island dividers, etc.). Tba SFW~ allotment and resultinq Palo Alto allocations for residents and businesses is based on a 90\ ~eduction in outdoor water usage. Realistically, such a substantial reduction in outdoor landscaping water use will likely ~esult in a loss of investment in turf and other plant life due to the lack of water in this fifth year of drought. CUstomers will be ~a~ing important decisions between internal and external needs. Investment in efficient indoor and Qutdoor water systems can make 8 • • a difference and should re~aive strong consideration by those customers who have yet to install such conservation oriented Qevices~ To mitigate the loss of our valuable trees, tanker trucks will be used to transport and deliver reclaimed water to trees located along the street curbs in Palo Alto~ Reclaimed wate.r will also be available for residential and cOii:1mercial irrigation when acquired by parties with proper permits issued by the Regional Wate.r QualIty control Plant4 Alternative MWR plAns is section of the report discusses three alternativQ HWR Plans applicable to .inqle-family residents. While staff recommends adoption of the third plan, the first two alternative plans have. merit as well and are presented for Council consideration. With regard to multi-family residents and busineeses, a separate MWR Plan is addressed in a followinq section_ Attachment JI illustrates a comparison ot allotments between the three alternative plans. It also indicates how each plan affects households varying in fa.ily size. However, this information is preliminary. includinq the rates and rateblock endings. until the SFWD announces its final ~atas, Palo Alto retail rates cannot be finalized. The city's current drouqht rate schedule charqes are between $1 and $6 per unit depending on the rateblocx. A preliminary estimate of the rates associated with the MWR plans .;., . • • \ / o o discussed in this report Is betwe~n $1 and $20 per unit and a moderate price is approxi.ately $1.50 per unit. One unit of water equals 748 qallons. Before discussing the three alternatives below, it is worth mentioning that consideration vas also qiven to MWR Plans which base an allotment on a percentage ot past use. Such plans are sometimes perceived as fair an<:. easy to administer. However, staff believes these plans have two significant shortcomjnqs. First, there is the problem of selecting the base year. If a year is chosen when conservation was extensively promoted, those customers wbo complied may feel penalize~ for conserving since their allotment will be less than had they not conserved. In Palo Alto 6 we have aggressively promoted water co~servation for at least the past five years. To avoid the afore~entioned inequity we would have to base allot.ents on 1986 consumption data. Here lies the second problem. Each year the turnover of new accounts is approximately 20 to 30 percent (mostly mUlti­ family residents). Thus there is a large percentage of water customers vhich would h~ve an allotment based on a previous occupant's usage or some other method. The high volume of such cases .creates administrative difficulties and perceptions of inequjties as revised o. new allocations are assigned for many residents. Therefore, MWR Plans which base allotment on a percentaqe of past use were eliminated f.om for their consideration. 10 • "0,"; 00-__ _ Alternatiye PlOD I; Equal Allotment FqC EAch Hom, Since all bomes would te treated the same, this plan suggests equity and fairness a In addition it would be inexpensive to administer, uncomplicated to understand and easy to i.plement. On the negative side it would probably be perceived as unfair by those customers with relatively large families (5 persons or more) or witb la~e lots. By the same tcken# this plan would tend to be fa~ored by famili~s of three persons or less since the allot~ent tor them would be larqer than under the two per capi~a plans discussed later. To translate this into a customer count, approximately 10,240 sinqle family homes out of 14,900 would benefit under this plan compared to the per capita plans~ (See Attachment II for a comparison of the three plans). Approximately 3,000 homes (4 person families) would receive the same allotment under plans one and three. Finally, approximately 1,360 to 4,660 homes vould benefit by the per capita plans because of additional allotments. Based on the SFWD allotment and Palo Alto's available well supply, the single family class target {or the year is 1:670,000 units. This translates to 9 units per month per home for 14,900 water service accounts. Thus, there exists a direct relationship betvee~ this target of 9 units per home and the single family residential class required target~ A second rateblock is rQcoamended to price the next two units in excess of the 9 unit 11 • . --- \ ) o c allotment. This second ~atebl~k is needed to serve as a ~buffer· bet~een the third and last rateblock which may be referred to as the penalty rateblock. The -buffer-rateblock allows usage in the third rateblock to be pricea very high which i$ needed to provide strong price siqnals for e~cess u&aqe. W3ter usage in the third rateblock is usually for outdoor requirements or indoor needs of customers who have not been conserving effectively. (In this exa~ple, the buffer suggested is only two units. The actual size of the buffer will require more revenue analysis with actual rates). Onder ~ proposed allotment target, there will be large numbers of customers using less units or using .ore unit6 than the target. It is this aspect which justifies a larqe rate differe~tial for usage above the class target~ This same aspect also makes it difficult to forecast water fund revenue under a MWR plan. Under this plan_ hardship exemptions would be limited to those who require more water for he51th or safety reasons. No additional allowances would be provided for the number of persons living in the household nor the landscaping requirements of the particular size lot.. None of the plans presented in this report recommend an additional allotment for lot size because of a lack of data and the shortaqe of wate~ for outdoor use. Hoyever$ staff plans to evaluate the feasibility of using lot size data in future HWR plans. It may be possible to link lot size 12 • , ., . .', / ". in~ormation contained 1n the Utilities Geographical Information System (GIS) with the billinq .y.te~. Enforcement under this plan would involve identifying those accounts above the 9 unit allotment tbrough special reports qene~ated by the Utilities Billing System with ~ollow up contact by the staff. If customers continue to exceed the allotment beyor.d a 2 month period, a flow ra5trictor say be installe~ on the customers water s~rvice for an appropriate period of time. The impact of a flow reetrictor will va~ tor a qiven residence depending on su~ factors as pressure in the areas distribution system# type of sprinkler system employed# number of stories (1, 2, or Jj and method used to restrict the flow. As a minimum, it would be staff's intention to render outdoor watering by sprinklers a futile endeavor. The cost of flow restrictot'" installati~n and reBOval would be borne by the violating customer and established batween $S~ and $100. Conceptually, the rate structure referred to above would be as follows: Rateblock 10 -11 units OVer 11 units Moderate Price (MF) 2 times MP S to 10 times MP (or $10 to $20 per unit) • o Alternative Plan II; Complete P¢r capito Allotment Plan Onder this plan each person yould be allotted two units per month which translates to approximately 50 gallons per day per person. In addition, each household would be allotted 2 units 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 into~ation supplied by the customers throuqh a special mailing. Up to a. maximum of 10 persons would be provided additional allowances. The strength of this plan is that it woul~ probably be more hoceptable to the community than Plan I because it takes into account the relationship between water usaqe and the number of persons living in a household. Prom past experience the three most vocal ratepayers regarQing MWR are: (1) customers with large families, (2) customers with significant landsc~ping investments and/or large lots and (3) customers who have conserved and do not want allotments based on past u6age~ It~-weaknesses are higher administrative costs associated yith processing per capita data (14,900 data entries reQUired) and verification of per capita information. To enter per capita data for 14,900 accounts will require approximately 130 hours of data entry~ This level of data entry would siqnificantly impact the ., .' • ':,~ .. t of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 / stafffs ability to perform their normal everyday Quties and is corsidered a major drawback of this plan. However, once the data is entered into the billing system, the billinq system would be able to accommodate 10 different rate schedules. The principal difference between Pl~n I and II is the recognition of the number ot persons in a household. After the per capita allctment is established, the rate structure would include a buffer and hiqh priced excess usaqe rateblocks as described under Plan I~ The hardship exeaption process would also be the same since per capita allowances are already built into the rate structure. Finally, enforcement would be as described under Plan I. Conceptually, the rate structure referred to above ~ould be as follows: Rateblock 1 Moderate price Rateblock 2 Rateblock 3 Persons eMf) 2 timgs MP 5 to 10 times _MP 0-3 4-5 over 5 0-5 6-7 • 7 0-7 8-9 • 9 0-9 10-11 • 11 0-11 12-13 • 13 0-13 14-15 • 15 0-15 16-17 • 17 0-17 18-19 • 19 0-19 20-21 • 21 0-21 22-23 • 23 Alternative Plan kII: Default Per capita Plan 15 • i / o sta.tt 1. r-ecommencUnq this Alternative. .as the most effect,ive, equitable and ~dministratlvely feasible overall. Ur~er this plan each household Yould receive an allotmQnt of 7 units per month, an allo~ance by default ror families of three less. For households of four or more persons, an additional two units per montt, is provided. Up to a maximu~ ot 10 persons yould be provided additional allo~ances. This plan shares the same advantage~ over Plan I as the other per capita plan. In comparison with Plan II, this plan provides more water tor households ot one or two persons £7,800 accounts) and represents a compromise between Plans I and rI for households of one or two persons. It also substantially reduces the number of per capita data entries trrm about 14,9~O to 5,000. Thus this plan has the advantage of reduced implementation C09t and Is administratively more feasible. Its weakness is its lack of detail or tine tuninq for households of one or tva persons in comparison to Plan II. Under this plan, like plan one, households of one or two persons would receive a higher allotment than the standard 50 gallons per day per person. This may be perceived as unfair by larger househo~ds. However, it could be argued that ~ven with this plan, households of one or two persons are receiving less ~ater than if all households were allocated water equally (Plan Il. Furthermors, the staff does ... ._--- not believe that households of one or two persons will be any less conserving under this plan. A difference in allotment o~ only 1 to ) unit~ between Plans II and III 1s not likely to triqqer a perception by these customers that they can afford to waste watera Besides that, they would not always be suee that they will stay within their allotment unless they periodically read their own meter. MWR Applicahle to MUlti-family Accoynts. Businesses, City Departments With regard to MWR tor the five remaining customer classes, staff p~oposes to utilize the Baseline Consumption Allowance (BCA) concept which is already familiar to those customers. Each custome~ account currently has a BCA which represents the indoor usage =equireaents of their facility. This database is already developed. rt is important for any MWR pl~n to ta~e into account the specific needs tor these customer classes because of the diversity and unique requirements of these customers. The Be."­ does this. As previously discussed, the redUction targets from 1981 usage levels for these customers are as follows: 17 • -;. . . / o o Required Percentage Reduction From 19a1 Class 2 Multi-Family Residential 32 Class 3 Commercial 32 Class 4 Industrial 32 Class 5 Public Facility J2 Class 6 city Departments 56 Given a reduction target ot )2' for classes 2-5, a rate structure has been developed which will incorporate a very high rate for usaqe above 68% of current consumption levels. Our analysis indicate that this threshold is at 140 percent of the seA for classes 2-5 as a whole. Accordinqly the proposed KWR rate structure for classes 2-5 is as follows: o .90 over Rateblock .. 90 BCA 1.4 BCA 1.4 BCA Moderate Price eMP) 2 times HP 5 to 10 times HP With regard to City Departments, a reduction tarqet from 1987 use of 56% is recommended. Again, this reduction target is higher than the other customer class targets because of the relatively high outdoor use by City facilities. To achieve a 56\ reduction, 18 • a BCA threshold of 120 percent is recommended. Accordingly, the propose4 MWR rate structure for Class 6 is as follows: Rateblock o .90 BCA .90 1.2 BCA 1.2 BCA Water Fund Reyenue Analysis Under MWR Moderate Price {MP) :2 times MP 5 to 10 times HP with any MWR plan there will be more uncertainty with regard to forecasting revenue than under the normal water service rate schedules. The uncertainty arises due to the difficulty in predicting human behavior in responding to a water crisis. The fact that the MWR rate structure would be introduced for the first time necessarily eliminates any benefits in forecasting based on historical experience. Some key questions are: 1) How many customers ~ill use less than their al1ot~ent? 2) How many customers will use more than their allotment? 3J To what extent will excess uS4qe be offset by water conserved by other customers in order to avoid SFWD penalties on a system wide basis? Recognizinq the uncertainty of foreeastinq revenues, it is important to track revenues very closely each month~ A revenue , . / o surplus in one Month(s) may be eroded in the following month{s) ~ It is sta~~·. intention to design ratEs to be on the conservative side wherp~y a revenue surplus would be more li~ely to result than a deficit. The reason is due to tha tact that after five years of drouqht and low sales, the Water Fund's reserves (Transfer stabilization Reserve and System rmprovement Reserve) are below their .inimums and could not absorb a deficit. In the event a revenue surplus should a~ise beyond acceptable levels (i.e. reserve level guidelines), state would propose to return the excess to the ratepayers in the form of a rate decrease or ere-oit. Ex,Lmot i ens Although the rates have been designed to minimiz~ the need for cu~tomers to seek exemptions, exemption applications are expected and will be reviewed usinq strict and equ.itable criteria. The burden of proof for exemption applications or reconsideration of allocations viII be on the customer. When appropriate, the installation of conservation devices will be required before granting exemptions. A mUlti-account exemption will be available for those customers with multiple facilities who wish to sacrifice in one area or in one buildinq to use .ore in another. The City itself viII likely e:~ercise this option by lookinq at all facilities and 20 • '\ .-..... "- prioritizing water use aaong taciliti~s. Multi-account cU9tome~s will be able to add their individual account allocations and redistri~ute ~here most appropriate as they see tit. CUSTOMER CQNSPYATION ~CH AND ASSISTANcE Using 1981 as the base year, over 3,000,000 CCF/year or 38' conservation is needed to reach the SFWD 53\ requirement assuming that wells can provide 15' of 1997 consumption. For comparison, with restrictions in effect for 7 months, P~10 Alto achieved 23' red"lctions in calendar year 1990. To state the obvious, staying within the required allocation limits will require significant conservation efforts by residents and businesses alike. The City proposes to offer a variety of direct services and assistance to ease the transi~ion to a more highly water-efLicient li~estyle. All curr~nt services (~ater audits t h~mQ ~ate~ kits, school proqrams, infonaation and refoel:ral, consulting, workshops, etc.) will be continued, and expanded~ OUtreach and pro~tional ac1verti.!;inq will be increased to maintain consumer awareness of hew Palo Alto is responding to the drought, and how to best manage water use~ ... -: • o In general, reclaimed ~at~r has been made more re~dily available for public use by 1) treating it to a hiqher standard BO that it can readily be used for almost all residential and commercial landscaping applications, and 2) adding a hydrant for city truck -fill up· at Greer Park to reduce the truck t~affic waiting at tbe Regional water Quality control Plant. Because ',,"ater trucks are necessary to pick up the reclaimed water, staff yill help coordinate residential and business qroups "a"ho want to m",ke use of reclaimed ~ater trucksa The feasibility of additional reclaimed "'·at.er Iffill-\lp· locations is beinq investigated. one goal of this y~rts drouqht response strateqy is to preserve valuable matu~e and historic landscaping to the greatest extent possible. Of particular concern are the trees that help give Palo Alto its unique character. To this end, the City proposes to operate a reclaimed vater truck service during the summer season to irrigate street trees. This effort will help preserve these valuable trees and reduce the watering burden on residents and businesses, which will leave them more water to preserve other trees en their property. The street tree irrigation prcgram will be available to people willing to mulch the ground near their street trees. The City Hall plaza would be used as a p+~lic demonstration of mulching techniques and materials. In addition to short-term drought strategies, st~ff will seek to promote long-term water conservation retrofits through 22 • / residential and commercial incentive programs. Taken from the recently approved Urba~ Water Management Plan (CMR:129:91J. these new programs will focus on ind~r reduction me~sures that will directly improve customer ability to meet allocations4 These new proq~ams will be presented for Council approval throuqh the aid- cycle budget process later this fiscal year. CITY FACII.ITIES l\,lIlD PARKS CONSER\?,TIOtJ PRPGRM Tl'Le City itself has already installed a full range of ind-eor conservation retrofits4 These have been described in the periodic water manaqement status update sent to Council. To meet the new S~1) allocations, City water use will have to be cut over 60t from 1987 use levels. This new reduction level can only be achieved through the extensive loss of landscaped areas and by extensively using reclaimed water in other areas~ Hore specifically. the only turf areas that will be effectively maintaine~ are playing fields and the qolf course greens, tees, and key fairways. Initially~ two water trucks will be rented to provide reclaimed water irrigation for trees and shrubs at selected Park facilities. It is not yet known whether two tru~ks ultimately will be sufficient. Projects to pipe reclaimed water directly to the golf course and the City Municipal services Center will be developed. Projects .. • / will be pursued to upgrade aging irrigation e~~ipment and link tacilities to the Central control Systea~ WAtER USE RESTRICTIONS Currently. Palo Alto has tyO water use ordinances in effect! one establishing lonqterz £i.e.1 not drouqht-motivatedJ restrictions and the other imposing emergency ~estrictions specifically because of the drouqht. (CMR:305:9 and 302:0~ respectively.) In meeting SFWDts increased reduction requirements, some chanqes in these ordinanc9s are warranted. Even though all customers will be limited by their allocations~ there are many good reasons to maintain restrictions on the way allocated water can be used. First of all, regardless of orouqht conditions, it is good sceial policy for Palo Alto to prohibit water waste l such as gutter floodi.ng~ Secondly, restrictions can stretch L~e available potable ~ater supply by encouraging people to use alternatives (e4q., brocms to clean driveways, or reclaimed ~ater on construction projects}. Thirdly, some restrictions are designed to set a tone and/or create visual reminders that drouqht conditions are severe anG c&reful water use is essential. These latter restrictions, which include l for example, fountain or lawn watering bans, can also help maintain a -level playinq field-between equally conservIng custom~rs whose 24 di£ferent circumstances (family size, bUsiness necds l etc.}, affect the amount ot water they have for outdoor use. The policy quastion is to what extent should control be exerted over the way water is used versus the amount of water used. A balance ~Gt be struck between social 90als and respectinq individual rights and business economic needs. Another factor that most water aqencies throughout the state have some restrictions, although they vary both in content and means of enforcement. There is benefit in trying to be consistent with the restrictions of other agencies in the region. The ordinance changes presented herein all fall into one of the three categories mentione4 above. The least controversial restrictions are those preventing wasteful practices and axe strongly recommended without reservation. The next qroup of restriction changes promote alternatives to potable water use and are also recommended without reservation. The last two categories of restriction changes are less straiqhtforward: therefore, they are presented with a description of pros and cons to facilitate Council and public discusaion of their merits. Rest.rict i ODS to Prevent waste The existin9 water use ordinances contain five provisions which fall into this category. staff recommends those provisicns be • --'-~---- continued with the aoditications indicated. (Additions, in underline, deletions in B~~ikee~_ type.) • Except tor drip irriqation systems, so~ker hose irrigation systems and handwatering, landscape irrigation ~ith potabla ~ shall not be allo~ed between 10:00 a.m. and S;OO p.m. Irrigation at all times mtlst conform wit.:.'l the cityts existing water use requlations. ur run off into qutters, driveways, sidewalks, streets or other unlandscaped areas. • ca!"9, }:lea's, t.railers, )''ttlles; ether vzllieles, aieieoJal-ks,- of water through a bose without an operating automatic shut- of.! va.lve. • Res~aurants and other {QQg service operations shall serve water to customers only upon request. • Any broken or defective plumbing, sprinklers, watering or irrigation S)"ste.s which permit the escape or leakage of ./ -, \ '- water shall be repaired or replaced as soon as possible, and not later than the time period established by the Director of utilities# or his desiqnee, as reasonable after observation of the broken or detective sys~em. The falloYing two new ordinance provisions Are also recommended: • Violation of any of the restrictions above may be considel"ed prima tacie evidence that the customers allocation is excessive and needs to ~e reviewed~ • No change in allocations will be granted to accommodate the need to top-off, or refill eXisting pools, spas, hot tubs or decorative ponas. Exemptions for refilling may be granted for multi-user public and private pools which must be drained for health or safety-related repairs. B@strictioDS to Promote Alternatiy~ AI ternat.ives to the use of potable 'Water are nWlle,rous and include recirCUlation of water, use of pressurized vater, use ot reclaimed water and use of non-water consuming devices {e~q~ a broom instead of a hose~) The following recommended restrictions are d~si9ned to promote use of alternatives where p~actical~ The first three restrictions are in Palo Alto's existing ordinances; \ recommended additions are in italie~ an~ del~tions in e~~ikee~~ type. • Potable water for consolid~tion of backfill and other non- d~mestic uses in construction shall not be used if other methods or water sources such as reclaimed water are available, as determined by the Director of Utilities or his designee. Applicants for hydrant permits from the City of Palo Alto shall be deemed to have consented to restrictions on water use which may be imposed by the Director of Utilities or his desiqnee. • Potable water other than when used trom containers o£ five (5) qallons or less, shall not be used to clean vabicles, sidewalks, walkways, driveways, patios, parking lots, and other hard surfaced areas or building structures. (Exemptions may be made to allow high-pressure 9teamcleaninq from a self-contained water supply.) • Potable ~ater shall not be used to operate. clean~ fill or maintain levels in deoorative fountains or ponds, unless supporting water fowl or aquatic life; 1f reclaimed water is used, a sign so stating must be posted, 28 • r '~ • Comm~rcial car wasbes must use recycled vater systems or demonstrate to tha city's satisfaction that it would be economically unfeasible to do so. Restrictions That Set a Tone Staff believe.s the followinq restrictions JI'Ierit consideration. Issues pro and con are presented to rac111tate discussion. There is one provision in the eAistinq ordinance which falls into this category. It is recommended with indicated modifications: o Newly constructed pools, spas and hot tubs may not be filled with water supplied by Palo Alto Water utility ¥RIess a lie} i., 1999 or adjacent jurisdictions 'Which have s1.lIar drought restrictions in effect. EXeffi~~ions may be granted for therapeutic/medical reasons. Discussion: The reason to have this restricti~n is to discourage the building of non-essential water-based recreational facilities. On the other hand, few if any customer allocations Would be sufficient to cover the rillinq of such facilities and so the rastriction could be considered redundant. The restriction ~ay hurt pool­ industry cantractors~ Hovever r in consideration of the pool 29 • ------"" .-./' o o industry, new construction itself is not banned, only the tillinq of the ~acility with palo Alto water is prObibited~ Several new provisions not in the current ordinances are also presented for consider~tion~ The first three, dealing with ne~ landscaping and turf irrigation are only belnq proposed under the conditions ot SFWD's 53' reduction requirement. The last three provisions however, would be cons ide rea even if SFWO's restrictions are eased. o New landscape requirements associated with city building permit approval will be deferred until drought restrictions are lifted, at whiCh time the requirements must be fulfilled. o All new landscaping is discouraqed while drought restrictions are in effect. The irrigation of new landscape must conform to all other water use restrictions and allocations will not be adjusted to accommodate such irri9ation~ Discussion: New landscaping takes a signific~nt amount of water to become established, .ven if ~he plants a~e low-water-using once established. The qoal of the first prOVision above is to allow a project to be completea without new landscaping, 30 , /\ yet guarantee that the landscaping deferral von't be used as a Deans of permanently avoiding city requirements. Bonds ~ay be required to enQure this guarantee and this process creates a staffing burden fer the Planning Department. The second provision above represents a compromise alternative to a tctal ban on new plantinq, the latter of which would be difficult to enforce and hits the -green- industry very hard. Most residences and some businesses do not need to get a city permit for landscaping changes. The goal of this provision is to raise awareness about the water demands o~ new plantings and clarify that, while not forbidding new landscaping, the City will not encourage it by making allowances for the extra water needed. o Turf irrigation with potable water is prohibited except for golf qreenS I tees and landinq areas and recreational activity facilitie~ such as park and school playing fields of daycare centers. variation 1: Apply ban to sprinkler irrigation of turn. Variation 2: Apply ban to sprinkler irrigation in qeneral. Discussion: The reality is that very little turf irrigation will be possible for most customers if they are to stay within their 31 .. ... /' allocations during the dry season. $0 it can be argued that any sucb bans are unnecessary. Ho~ever, it is much easier (less staff and dollar intensive, as well as quicker) to enforce lrriqation limits than to enforce allocation limits and, as already indicated, customers watering their lawns will almost invariably be exceedinq their allocations. A turf irrigation ban would not be in lieu of enforcing al1c~ation limits, but could be a major support to that effort. Also, such a ban decreases the peer pressure among residents and businesses because if everyone -goes brown w , then one person's property doesn't look bad compared to another's. On the other hand, there is the strong sentiment that if customers are within their al1ocati~ns, thay should be allowed co vater turf if they 50 choose. A policy issue is also raised about whether axemptions to a turf irrigation ban should be Dade for public or general use facilities. On a pure equity basis, the answer is 'no'. The reason to allow the exception is to provide functional, aesthetic, recreational opportunities which may be even more valuable when individual landscapes are deteriorated. An alternative course to banning turf irrigation 1s to focus on the ~ of irriqation instead. Hence, the 5ugqested variations limiting sprinkler irrigation~ The theory here is that sprinkler irrigation is more likely to be wasteful, 32 • /' Que to evaporation end unsupervised operation. Banning sprirJclers wou14 force customers to more consciously carefully water manually. However" this limitation would be burdensome, especially to the city and large businesses th~t wocld incur significant extra labor costs if all waterinq ha~ to be by hand. o Commercial establiShments, particularly hotels, motels 1 and si.ila~ busines~es, must place notices of the drought condition in restrooms and other public locations. Discussion; This prOVision makes a re~4irement out o~ what many establishments would want or need to do anyway to meet severe cutback tarqets. The benefit to the city as a whele is tbe heiqhtened public awareness of the constant need to be careful with vater use. Smaller businesses who were concerned about the costs of developing aesthetic postings would be supplie~ with camera-ready artwork. o OWner/operators of private wells must adhere to the same water use restrictions as other residents and businesses dependent on the city's potable 5upply. Discussion; 33 i"" .~~ ~'i~~ ~ ____ . Private wella are not a factor in setting Palo Altot. reduction targets and so restriction of water drawn from them is not required. The proposed provision would not limit the quality of water used from private wells, but would subject that use to the water use ordinances, e,g., no watering between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM, etc. It can be argued that certain uses of any potable water during a drought are not acceptable. On the other hand, such a provision can be considered too controlling ot individual rights. o Grey water, defined as waste water produced by home applianceo other than toilets, may be captYred and used as long as no plumbing aystem changes are made in violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code. D i "CUSS ion: This provision doesn't chanqe current law, and so could be considered redundant and unnecessary. However, it would serve to reinforce the city's policy on the use of grey water. Previously. enforcement of the water use ordinances has consisted of issuinq a series of warning notices, followed by installation of a flow reatrictor for repeated violations. While current procedures have been sufficiently &ffective thus far, staff \ --<.: 1 r.\ halieves that under more severe drought conditi~ns, stricter enforcemen~ procedures are warranted~ Basically, the less water there is available l the less we can afford numerous viol~tions or longer time frames ~or corrective action. Stricter enforcement shoul~ reduce both the numbar of initial violations and the number of repeat violations. Therefore it is recommended that, in addition to warning notices, penalty tines be added to the violatorts utilities bill after a second violation of the same restriction. After a third violation, the cost of installing a t'low restrictor as well as penalty fines 'Would be added to t1':Ie violator's utilities bill charqes. rt is also reco~ended that the Ordinances as a wbole be modified to allow exemptions from any of the provlsiGns in the case ot proven health o~ safety need. Enforcement procedures are only as good as the ability of staff to implement thea. Currently two temporary employees work as -Gush Busters· to watch for violations. Staff recommends an additional two temporary employees be hired full time through the end of the summer season (October, 1991). Implementing the proposed drought plan will require an even greater shift in staff priorities than has already been made to respond to current SFWD restrictions. Most of the work needing 35 • to be done can be h.ndled by existing .tatt. However. additional help will be requir~d and can De provided by sbort-term l temporary e=ployees. rEMPORAEX STAfF HEED ESTIMATES Positions D-..lration 6/91 -10/91 2 5/91 -10/91 1 5/91 -E/n 1 6/91 -10/91 Department/PUrpose Utilities/Gush 8usters Utilities/Processing exemptions, meter reading, and flow restrictor inst.allatioTls Utilities/Same as above, but less etatf wilL be needed after 10/91 because of the lower work volume utilities/Clerical and field support for additional conservation outreach programs 37 . 2 6/91 -10/91 Parks/Reclaimed water truck operation and manual irriqation 1 6/91 -10/91 !'ubI!e worksl Irrigating street Works/Irrigating street trees with re1:1aimed water (Minimum to sta.rt proqram) Temporary staff costs througb June 30, 1991 can be covered by the existing utilities crouqbt burlqet. Total temporary st3ff costs tor.FY 91/92, est}.mated at approximately $100 .. 000. will be proposed as PY 91/92 bUd-qet adjustmellts4 OTHER BQDGET IKPACTS The followinq list is an estimated extra-cost breakdown for drought-plan t.plementation (covering the period from May 1991 through June 1992): Direct CUstomer Hailings $ 22,000 38 • -/ Publicity , Outreach ~aterials $ 150,.000 Supplies (Water Xits, workshops, etc., $ 30,000 Reclaimed water Truck Rental $-35,000 (2 for Parks and 1 for street Trees for 6 months minilllWi to Gtart proqram) Computer Work Station (CUstomer Services) $ S,OOO TOTAL $152,000 The funds to cover drouqht-plan implementation expenditures can come from several 50urces, such as the general water rates or from reserves built from excess use charqes. There will be a proposal coming before Council requesting funds to cover drought plan implementation as part of the normal buclqet process. Additional costs associated with new water conservation programs to be proposed in the FY 91/92 bu~et are not included in the figures above because they are not part of the drought plan itself. REVIEW OF PLAN 39 -. A.· ......" if the Orouqht Plan 4S proposed is not producing the required reductions, it will be reviewed to identify the cause of the problem. The solution., of course., 'Wi 11 depend upon what tbe probleMs are. but the following ~ctions may be required it the proposed plan is not offective: i. Reduce allocations for certain or all customers. 2. Expand the list of wa~er use restrictions. 3. Raise the penalty rates at the highest rateblocks. 4. Step up the speed and severity of the enforcement process. POIJ ex-ISSUES 1. Many other Suburban Purchasers of SYWD water do not have alternatives such 8S wells. Critics claim that Palo Alto is not doing its part in sharinq the burden of conservation. However, if we choose not to use the wells, others may claim that we are not pitchinq by utilizing an available resource. SFWD has, indeed, requested that Palo Alto use its wells to assist in mitigating the area-wide cearth of imported water. 40 • r\ 2. The proposed Drouqbt Plan allows for outside use of ~ater tor v~luable plantings inclu4inq trees. Palo Alto valu~s its many mature trees and, in f~~t, is symbolized by a tree. The concept behind the proposed plan is that the 15t available from the wells allows alloca:tior:s large enough to ;"eep this large urban forest alive. 3. ~ycnd limiting the quantity of water, the question remains whether to have a few, many, or no restrictjons on the ways watQr is used. On the assumption that some vater use restrictions are desirable, the text of the plan discusses the issues surrounding the more controversial ones. -, ·"' .attacbment r Criteri4 to Evaluate Drought Response Plan 1~ Reduce oVerall city consumption by 38 percent from 1997 usaqa Leyel -thi& is the etfective goal of the plan. To accomplish this goal the percentage reduction for the various customer classes will necess3rily vary becau~e their ratios of indoor/outdoor use var-ies .. 2.. SUfficient water Av§ilable for oersQnal use -the most important use of water is for hasic drinking, health, and sanitary uses, and therefore, this is qiven the highest priority of use. 3. Equity -it is important for any pl~~ to attempt to be fair to all consumers of vater by treating custom~~z in similar circumstances in an equal manner. The plan should not penalize those who have already been conserving significantly. To the extent practicable, additional water allotments should be made available based on the number of persons in a household. 4. AcceptaDCe by the community -many people tend to evaluate or ~ccept a particular water rationing plan in terms of how it ~ould directly affect them. It is this aspect which makes it difficult to qain a popular consensus on a plan. Ho~ever, any plan must be accepted by the community to ~ successful. One i.portant 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. '\ . " !, f."?£i: ~~', s. Minimize uDemplPVment or business loss -vher 1s extensively used in both commercial and industrial functions. If water is severely limited to these consumers, increased unemployment and business losses could resu~t. Staff intends that wherever poSSible, this should be avoided. Still, outsi~e water use must be sacrificed greatly if .iniau. indoor reductions sre required. 6. Landscaping investpent 1Qssn -because of the shortage of water, it is expected thet significant landscaping losses may arise~ Throuqh utilization of the Palo Alto well system it is possible to euqment the SFWO supply and provide a .inimun amount of water for landscapinq. This amount should be enough to keep trees alive. Some shrubs and lawns may die. CUstomers will be able to choos~ how they use their allotment between indoor and outdoor uses. The use of reclai.ed water should be encouraged for certain applications. 7. provision tor hardship exceptions -any plan will not automatically cover all special hardships and e~emptions; therefore I a procedure &ust be inclUded to address grievances and grant .xemptions .~en appropriate. However, tha plan should not trigger an unmanageable number of requests for exemptions. Each exemption granted stymies achievement ~f our consumption goal. B. Workable plan -in terms of having a plan actually accomplish its qoal, it must be workable. This relates to the four areas below: a. Cost -t~cost of any water be minim1%eQ~ -""''''---:......-~- ,r\ plan t~''"'the public should b. Enforcement -enforcement is vi~ved as a key component of any plan~ Those plans cequirinq less resources for enforcement vould be preterable~ Hov~v~~. the success or a plen is contingent upon effective enforcement, then the utility must be provided the resources to meet the enforcement objective unless the cur~ent sta~f can absorb such 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 data bases. A realistic ti2eframe must be allowed for to ~rform any necessary data entry or customer programming functions. 9. Flexi~ility -the water shortage is a dynamic situation and may get better or worse. Thus, it is necessary that any plan be adaptable to & chanqe in target or adjusted to meet expectations. ~O. Consistency with other Bay di§tricts -in the interest of dissemination of public information. it is important to have plans that are basically consistent with plans in surrounding communities. 11. Allowance for Dey services -some provision must be made in any plan to serve new establishments or those under construction. 12. ~ Beppyer srwp Pe~ti.s -revenue should be ~bllected to the extent neQessary to recover any SFWD penalties which may arise. -,>,',-. '" • ® a.tt&ClU.nt. II '-' JNIIl)er oL IIoDthl)' Mont-Ill), XODth1), Jru:.iaber 0 f BOlls.hold. Allotaellt Allotaent Allot.eDt. Pe.raons 1D !fitll IX) Oa.4erVJUlBa" Pla.a Vnder .laa Sou •• hold ".raoU-l (Units) II CO»1\., t111 cpnit.) 1 1800 9 4 7 2 5800 9 6 7 3 2600 9 8 7 4 3000 9 10 9 5 1200 9 12 11 6 300 9 14 13 7 70 9 16 1S 8 70 9 18 17 9 10 9 20 l' 10 --.JJ! 9 22 21 14#860 *Ba3ed on sample of 1,200 sinqle family residents taken by Utilities Department in 1990.