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

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

3. Overview/History (Cont.) BMPs 1.Water survey programs for single-family residential and multi-family residential customers (non- quantifiable) 2.Residential plumbing retrofit (quantifiable) 3.System water audits, leak detection and repair (quantifiable) 4.Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections (quantifiable) 5.Large landscape conservation programs and incentives (quantifiable)

4. Overview/History (Cont.) BMPs (Cont.) 6.High-efficiency clothes washing machine financial incentive programs (quantifiable) 7.Public information programs (non-quantifiable) 8.School education programs (non-quantifiable) 9.Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) accounts (quantifiable) 10.Wholesale agency assistance programs (non- quantifiable)

5. Overview/History (Cont.) BMPs (Cont.) 11.Retail conservation pricing (quantifiable) 12.Water Conservation Coordinator (non-quantifiable) 13.Water waste prohibition (non- quantifiable) 14.Residential ULFT replacement programs (quantifiable)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. Questions?