Upload
giana-magnoli
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
1/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Santa Cruz City of Central Coast 8% 29.4% 25.2% 41.3 95,224
California Water Service Company King City Central Coast 12% 20.5% 16.1% 51.1 14,999
Goleta Water District Central Coast 12% 28.6% 28.0% 52.8 86,946
Soquel Creek Water District Central Coast 8% 31.3% 26.5% 58.9 39,043
San Luis Obispo City of Central Coast 12% 22.6% 19.2% 60.2 45,802
Morro Bay City of Central Coast 12% 18.2% 17.1% 60.7 10,234
Lompoc City of Central Coast 12% 24.6% 13.5% 64.3 41,541
California Water Service Company Salinas District Central Coast 16% 27.3% 23.2% 66.0 121,530
Marina Coast Water District Central Coast 12% 32.9% 31.9% 68.2 32,375
California-American Water Company Monterey District Central Coast 8% 16.4% 13.2% 70.3 100,623
Santa Barbara City of Central Coast 12% 36.8% 34.8% 72.0 93,091
Watsonville City of Central Coast 20% 23.5% 20.1% 74.1 65,739
Scotts Valley Water District Central Coast 16% 28.7% 26.4% 75.8 10,309
Carpinteria Valley Water District Central Coast 20% 34.1% 34.9% 81.5 14,616
Hollister City of Central Coast 20% 26.4% 27.6% 84.4 20,515
Gilroy City of Central Coast 24% 32.3% 27.8% 90.9 53,306
Santa Maria City of Central Coast 16% 17.6% 14.8% 92.9 102,087
Sunnyslope County Water District Central Coast 28% 36.2% 34.9% 95.7 19,189
Pismo Beach City of Central Coast 24% 24.9% 19.6% 98.7 7,861
Arroyo Grande City of Central Coast 28% 35.6% 31.9% 99.9 17,121Soledad, City of Central Coast 24% 19.5% 13.4% 102.5 16,729
Morgan Hill City of Central Coast 28% 36.9% 35.8% 103.6 41,779
Alco Water Service Central Coast 24% 23.4% 28.5% 104.7 29,179
Paso Robles City of Central Coast 28% 33.0% 29.5% 114.3 30,450
Atascadero Mutual Water Company Central Coast 28% 32.9% 26.9% 123.3 31,432
Nipomo Community Services District Central Coast 28% 33.0% 28.0% 136.9 12,512
Golden State Water Company Orcutt Central Coast 32% 39.7% 37.2% 137.8 31,872
Montecito Water District Central Coast 32% 47.0% 48.3% 211.9 13,500
Coachella City of Colorado River 24% 20.0% 17.9% 97.2 43,917
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 1 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
2/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
Calexico City of Colorado River 20% 13.7% -9.3% 101.8 41,033
Twentynine Palms Water District Colorado River 28% 16.0% 13.2% 104.4 18,795
Joshua Basin Water District Colorado River 28% 26.2% 19.2% 110.1 9,514
El Centro City of Colorado River 24% 16.0% 4.9% 114.5 44,311
Imperial, City of Colorado River 24% 15.4% 7.1% 114.7 18,022
Banning City of Colorado River 32% 31.4% 28.4% 120.7 30,325
Mission Springs Water District Colorado River 28% 18.8% 19.2% 123.4 37,600
Blythe City of Colorado River 32% 13.2% 6.4% 132.7 13,839
Indio City of Colorado River 32% 21.6% 12.0% 143.2 88,411
Brawley City of Colorado River 32% 35.8% 33.4% 150.0 27,743Desert Water Agency Colorado River 36% 30.8% 23.9% 164.6 120,573
Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Colorado River 36% 31.2% 22.9% 261.6 8,948
Coachella Valley Water District Colorado River 36% 27.1% 16.4% 300.9 213,802
Arcata City of North Coast 4% 1.6% 3.2% 55.2 18,464
Eureka City of North Coast 4% 13.0% 11.6% 59.9 27,052
Crescent City City of North Coast 16% 17.3% 19.1% 60.7 18,290
McKinleyville Community Service District North Coast 4% 18.1% 8.8% 64.9 16,900
Humboldt Community Service District North Coast 24% 11.6% 12.8% 66.1 20,032
Sweetwater Springs Water District North Coast 16% 27.7% 27.4% 66.4 7,751
Rohnert Park City of North Coast 16% 17.9% 13.4% 72.2 43,398Santa Rosa City of North Coast 16% 26.7% 22.6% 72.3 170,974
Fortuna City of North Coast 24% 22.0% 20.6% 77.7 12,032
Windsor, Town of North Coast 16% 25.4% 23.8% 79.0 27,486
California Water Service Company Redwood Valley North Coast 16% 35.9% 25.9% 81.9 3,198
Healdsburg City of North Coast 24% 28.6% 30.8% 102.9 11,687
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District North Coast 4% -5.5% -2.7% 104.2 602
Yreka, City of North Coast 32% 17.9% 6.5% 124.6 7,840
South Tahoe Public Utilities District North Lahontan 20% 22.6% 15.8% 85.3 33,124
Truckee-Donner Public Utilities District North Lahontan 28% 31.4% 18.3% 107.5 32,776
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 2 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
3/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
Tahoe City Public Utilities District North Lahontan 20% 35.1% 27.5% 120.7 8,347
North Tahoe Public Utility District North Lahontan 28% 27.7% 24.5% 125.4 7,500
Susanville City of North Lahontan 36% 20.5% 1.2% 231.6 8,978
California Water Service Company Oroville Sacramento River 28% 28.2% 20.6% 74.1 10,777
Del Oro Water Company Sacramento River 24% 44.5% 45.1% 84.7 9,615
California Water Service Company Dixon, City of Sacramento River 28% 33.3% 28.4% 100.1 9,984
California-American Water Company Sacramento District Sacramento River 20% 38.1% 30.2% 100.4 201,418
California Water Service Company Marysville Sacramento River 24% 29.8% 23.0% 102.9 12,222
Woodland City of Sacramento River 24% 34.5% 29.2% 103.8 57,223
West Sacramento City of Sacramento River 28% 38.0% 30.4% 109.1 50,836Elk Grove Water Service Sacramento River 28% 37.4% 31.0% 111.9 44,255
Fairfield City of Sacramento River 20% 25.3% 19.8% 112.5 107,540
Davis City of Sacramento River 28% 28.1% 18.2% 113.7 68,315
Sacramento City of Sacramento River 28% 32.5% 26.5% 114.9 480,155
California Water Service Company Willows Sacramento River 28% 34.4% 27.8% 115.0 7,130
Roseville City of Sacramento River 28% 36.8% 30.4% 118.4 122,946
Sacramento County Water Agency Sacramento River 32% 38.5% 33.1% 124.9 173,848
Sacramento Suburban Water District Sacramento River 32% 34.9% 32.7% 126.7 174,847
Shasta Lake City of Sacramento River 28% 36.9% 35.4% 129.7 10,293
Yuba City City of Sacramento River 32% 30.6% 26.8% 130.3 68,379Fruitridge Vista Water Company Sacramento River 36% 38.9% 41.9% 132.3 21,441
California Water Service Company Chico District Sacramento River 32% 41.5% 35.9% 140.4 102,947
Olivehurst Public Utility District Sacramento River 36% 44.6% 54.9% 141.7 19,509
Vacaville City of Sacramento River 32% 35.9% 31.7% 142.1 86,893
Linda County Water District Sacramento River 32% 36.2% 27.5% 143.4 18,808
Red Bluff City of Sacramento River 36% 32.1% 29.1% 146.4 14,076
Georgetown Divide Public Utilities District Sacramento River 32% 33.2% 17.4% 150.8 9,864
Lincoln City of Sacramento River 32% 34.8% 26.4% 152.9 45,837
Placer County Water Agency Sacramento River 32% 31.9% 26.0% 161.9 95,717
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 3 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
4/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
Citrus Heights Water District Sacramento River 32% 38.3% 29.1% 164.0 67,333
Galt City of Sacramento River 32% 35.2% 30.2% 168.0 24,289
Golden State Water Company Cordova Sacramento River 36% 36.2% 29.1% 175.6 43,767
Paradise Irrigation District Sacramento River 36% 43.0% 31.4% 175.9 26,032
Nevada Irrigation District Sacramento River 36% 32.9% 18.5% 183.6 44,761
Rio Vista, city of Sacramento River 36% 31.5% 22.5% 186.0 8,324
Folsom City of Sacramento River 32% 30.2% 21.3% 186.4 63,376
Redding City of Sacramento River 36% 30.0% 23.9% 187.0 91,207
Rio Linda - Elverta Community Water District Sacramento River 36% 35.9% 24.4% 199.4 11,013
Carmichael Water District Sacramento River 36% 34.8% 25.5% 205.6 38,354Fair Oaks Water District Sacramento River 36% 36.2% 25.2% 213.7 36,226
El Dorado Irrigation District Sacramento River 28% 29.5% 19.4% 223.8 118,500
Orange Vale Water Company Sacramento River 36% 37.8% 27.2% 242.0 14,283
Bella Vista Water District Sacramento River 36% 54.5% 51.4% 281.3 17,619
San Juan Water District Sacramento River 36% 38.8% 29.9% 310.0 32,779
North Coast County Water District San Francisco Bay 8% 32.3% 30.9% 38.1 39,000
California Water Service Company South San Francisco San Francisco Bay 8% 22.8% 19.2% 40.6 61,590
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Bay 8% 15.6% 13.2% 42.8 846,601
Hayward City of San Francisco Bay 8% 26.7% 3.4% 42.9 152,889
Coastside County Water District San Francisco Bay 8% 20.5% 10.6% 44.9 16,668East Palo Alto, City of San Francisco Bay 8% 25.4% 36.8% 46.7 29,143
Westborough Water District San Francisco Bay 8% 24.8% 29.6% 47.0 14,050
Golden State Water Company Bay Point San Francisco Bay 12% 28.9% 24.5% 56.7 22,258
Milpitas City of San Francisco Bay 12% 26.3% 24.5% 57.8 70,817
Daly City City of San Francisco Bay 8% 10.1% 0.1% 57.8 105,810
Estero Municipal Improvement District San Francisco Bay 12% 17.3% 13.1% 61.6 37,165
Mountain View City of San Francisco Bay 16% 32.8% 25.0% 62.6 76,210
Burlingame City of San Francisco Bay 16% 32.9% 29.8% 64.2 30,282
Redwood City City of San Francisco Bay 8% 29.1% 16.5% 64.6 87,696
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 4 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
5/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
Sunnyvale City of San Francisco Bay 16% 33.6% 24.5% 65.7 148,028
California Water Service Company Mid Peninsula San Francisco Bay 16% 28.4% 27.6% 66.3 134,929
Dublin San Ramon Services District San Francisco Bay 12% 42.4% 39.6% 67.4 79,593
Great Oaks Water Company Incorporated San Francisco Bay 20% 35.2% 33.0% 71.6 99,199
Vallejo City of San Francisco Bay 16% 23.3% 18.2% 71.7 124,000
Menlo Park City of San Francisco Bay 16% 49.7% 55.7% 71.8 16,066
Millbrae City of San Francisco Bay 16% 28.3% 30.3% 72.4 21,532
American Canyon, City of San Francisco Bay 20% 26.5% 24.2% 72.9 20,080
East Bay Municipal Utilities District San Francisco Bay 16% 27.9% 22.5% 74.0 1,390,000
Alameda County Water District San Francisco Bay 16% 33.4% 26.9% 74.1 346,000Santa Clara City of San Francisco Bay 16% 23.8% 10.9% 74.2 120,973
San Jose Water Company San Francisco Bay 20% 35.1% 30.8% 76.2 990,000
Petaluma City of San Francisco Bay 16% 26.5% 22.2% 78.8 61,258
Suisun-Solano Water Authority San Francisco Bay 28% 28.2% 29.1% 80.4 28,549
Pittsburg City of San Francisco Bay 20% 24.6% 20.4% 83.4 66,183
Mid-Peninsula Water District San Francisco Bay 20% 30.6% 27.5% 83.6 26,730
San Jose City of San Francisco Bay 20% 32.2% 24.7% 85.0 117,576
Benicia City of San Francisco Bay 20% 35.0% 31.6% 86.0 28,086
North Marin Water District San Francisco Bay 24% 36.3% 40.4% 88.2 61,299
Valley of the Moon Water District San Francisco Bay 20% 29.7% 22.1% 90.2 23,478Palo Alto City of San Francisco Bay 24% 30.7% 20.4% 94.6 64,403
Marin Municipal Water District San Francisco Bay 20% 21.8% 18.3% 96.9 188,200
Napa City of San Francisco Bay 20% 25.6% 19.4% 97.2 86,051
California Water Service Company Livermore San Francisco Bay 24% 44.5% 39.3% 97.4 58,651
Livermore City of Division of Water Resources San Francisco Bay 20% 38.0% 31.5% 101.6 27,588
Contra Costa Water District San Francisco Bay 28% 40.4% 41.1% 102.7 199,680
Pleasanton City of San Francisco Bay 24% 43.3% 37.5% 107.6 73,067
California Water Service Company Los Altos/Suburban San Francisco Bay 32% 37.6% 33.9% 120.3 68,191
Sonoma City of San Francisco Bay 28% 30.5% 16.7% 129.5 11,579
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 5 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
6/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
California Water Service Company Bear Gulch San Francisco Bay 36% 35.7% 29.0% 151.8 70,035
California Water Service Company Stockton San Joaquin River 20% 25.5% 18.8% 73.3 170,703
Calaveras County Water District San Joaquin River 16% 35.5% 28.8% 78.7 48,630
Amador Water Agency San Joaquin River 24% 32.2% 28.2% 78.9 23,347
Patterson City of San Joaquin River 28% 28.7% 43.1% 93.1 21,094
Diablo Water District San Joaquin River 28% 33.8% 30.2% 100.2 38,194
Lathrop, City of San Joaquin River 20% 32.5% 28.4% 101.8 19,831
Ceres City of San Joaquin River 28% 24.4% 18.9% 104.5 47,639
Brentwood City of San Joaquin River 32% 42.1% 36.5% 104.6 56,493
Tuolumne Utilities District San Joaquin River 24% 37.7% 31.4% 104.8 28,997
Antioch City of San Joaquin River 28% 35.0% 31.4% 108.1 108,298
Mountain House Community Services District San Joaquin River n/a 27.8% 27.8% 111.9 14,675
Stockton City of San Joaquin River 28% 32.4% 25.4% 113.7 177,808
Groveland Community Services District San Joaquin River 24% 32.5% 25.6% 123.9 3,400
Manteca City of San Joaquin River 32% 31.6% 28.7% 126.2 75,408
Tracy City of San Joaquin River 28% 30.7% 24.0% 128.8 85,146
City of Newman Water Department San Joaquin River 24% 26.0% 19.0% 130.1 10,668
Livingston City of San Joaquin River 32% 10.8% 14.3% 131.1 14,898
Los Banos, City of San Joaquin River 28% 25.8% 24.2% 134.1 37,168
Madera City of San Joaquin River 28% 29.7% 21.7% 134.9 63,961Lodi City of Public Works Department San Joaquin River 32% 28.1% 22.4% 135.5 63,651
Turlock City of San Joaquin River 32% 27.1% 26.3% 142.8 71,181
Winton Water & Sanitary District San Joaquin River 36% 23.9% 16.3% 149.2 8,500
Riverbank City of San Joaquin River 32% 15.3% 27.3% 149.4 23,298
Oakdale City of San Joaquin River 32% 40.6% 31.7% 155.4 22,058
Modesto, City of San Joaquin River 36% 28.6% 16.4% 159.4 220,916
Merced City of San Joaquin River 36% 41.3% 36.8% 176.6 83,400
Atwater City of San Joaquin River 36% 35.5% 32.5% 187.3 29,500
Ripon City of San Joaquin River 36% 28.3% 22.5% 218.7 14,915
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 6 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
7/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
Madera County San Joaquin River 36% 33.7% 29.3% 242.6 14,326
California Water Service Company East Los Angeles South Coast 8% 17.1% 17.2% 44.3 158,993
Vernon City of South Coast 8% 3.8% 6.6% 45.3 112
Huntington Park City of South Coast 8% 15.4% 16.3% 46.6 64,219
El Monte City of South Coast 8% 16.6% 18.8% 51.9 22,968
Golden State Water Company Florence Graham South Coast 8% 12.8% 12.7% 53.3 65,492
Oxnard City of South Coast 12% 20.0% 19.6% 54.4 196,720
Golden State Water Company Bell-Bell Gardens South Coast 8% 16.0% 16.5% 54.5 57,934
Seal Beach City of South Coast 8% 22.9% 27.1% 57.4 25,561
Compton City of South Coast 8% 13.5% 8.3% 59.2 81,963
Orchard Dale Water District South Coast 12% 20.8% 24.3% 59.6 25,605
California-American Water Company San Diego District South Coast 8% 27.7% 27.5% 59.6 95,358
Fountain Valley City of South Coast 20% 25.5% 27.0% 59.8 59,227
Sweetwater Authority South Coast 12% 25.4% 24.0% 60.7 191,500
Valley County Water District South Coast 16% 25.3% 26.2% 62.0 71,003
Inglewood City of South Coast 12% 17.7% 17.0% 62.3 86,418
Golden State Water Company Southwest South Coast 12% 15.1% 15.6% 62.4 271,677
Santa Ana City of South Coast 12% 20.4% 21.3% 62.6 332,005
San Gabriel Valley Water Company South Coast 16% 34.5% 23.8% 63.3 271,817
Golden State Water Company S San Gabriel South Coast 12% 15.0% 17.5% 64.1 27,656City of Big Bear Lake, Dept of Water & Power South Coast 16% 18.5% 12.6% 64.7 25,628
Pomona City of South Coast 20% 26.9% 28.8% 65.1 152,419
San Diego City of South Coast 16% 24.1% 21.7% 65.4 1,314,290
South Gate City of South Coast 12% 14.7% 21.9% 65.4 96,057
Golden State Water Company Norwalk South Coast 12% 20.2% 17.0% 65.8 44,466
Golden State Water Company West Orange South Coast 16% 26.0% 27.6% 66.7 111,904
Hawthorne City of South Coast 16% 10.9% 11.1% 66.9 44,537
Golden State Water Company Artesia South Coast 16% 18.0% 19.8% 68.6 47,978
Port Hueneme City of South Coast 8% 20.6% 18.0% 68.6 21,555
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 7 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
8/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
Irvine Ranch Water District South Coast 16% 16.6% 12.8% 69.2 387,773
Long Beach City of South Coast 16% 18.7% 18.6% 69.2 474,225
Golden State Water Company Culver City South Coast 16% 19.2% 20.5% 69.4 36,215
Montebello Land and Water Company South Coast 16% 18.7% 18.5% 69.6 32,219
Hemet City of South Coast 32% 24.8% 21.4% 70.3 29,982
Paramount City of South Coast 12% 18.6% 10.2% 71.0 55,051
La Palma City of South Coast 20% 26.8% 30.3% 72.1 15,896
Pico Rivera City of South Coast 16% 21.3% 21.6% 73.1 39,002
California Water Service Company Hermosa/Redondo South Coast 20% 19.9% 21.8% 73.3 95,853
San Buenaventura City of South Coast 16% 35.9% 25.4% 73.9 113,478
Santa Fe Springs City of South Coast 16% 25.9% 24.8% 74.5 18,199
Santa Monica City of South Coast 20% 22.6% 23.1% 76.0 93,283
Padre Dam Municipal Water District South Coast 20% 33.3% 34.8% 76.2 90,101
Big Bear City Community Services District South Coast 16% 19.9% 3.2% 76.6 12,411
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power South Coast 16% 19.0% 21.8% 77.0 4,016,064
California Water Service Company Dominguez South Coast 16% 15.9% 22.8% 77.7 142,283
Otay Water District South Coast 20% 27.3% 29.0% 78.1 217,800
Oceanside City of South Coast 20% 26.6% 27.3% 78.5 171,183
Helix Water District South Coast 20% 27.9% 28.0% 78.5 270,375
Mesa Water District South Coast 20% 23.6% 17.8% 78.7 108,000Vista Irrigation District South Coast 20% 28.9% 29.4% 80.1 124,746
Rowland Water District South Coast 20% 18.3% 18.9% 80.4 62,106
Garden Grove City of South Coast 20% 24.3% 29.3% 80.4 177,020
Perris, City of South Coast 24% 27.2% 31.6% 80.4 9,000
El Segundo City of South Coast 20% 4.3% 3.0% 80.4 16,654
Manhattan Beach City of South Coast 20% 22.9% 23.2% 80.5 35,996
Lakeside Water District South Coast 20% 32.0% 33.6% 80.7 35,500
Bellflower-Somerset Mutual Water Company South Coast 20% 19.9% 20.7% 80.9 46,300
Westminster City of South Coast 20% 20.0% 20.1% 80.9 93,322
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 8 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
9/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
Azusa City of South Coast 20% 24.6% 25.0% 81.1 110,000
Monterey Park City of South Coast 20% 18.7% 21.6% 81.2 62,183
San Gabriel County Water District South Coast 20% 25.0% 26.5% 81.7 45,000
Buena Park City of South Coast 20% 26.2% 31.5% 82.1 82,767
Golden State Water Company Placentia South Coast 24% 30.7% 29.9% 82.7 46,543
Glendale City of South Coast 20% 25.1% 24.5% 83.7 193,300
Downey City of South Coast 20% 24.6% 27.9% 83.9 111,931
Anaheim City of South Coast 20% 25.8% 23.7% 84.0 360,142
Lakewood City of South Coast 20% 29.1% 29.5% 84.3 59,081
Escondido City of South Coast 20% 33.1% 26.5% 84.6 134,053
Vallecitos Water District South Coast 24% 33.8% 39.6% 85.4 95,634
Lomita City of South Coast 20% 20.5% 17.2% 85.4 20,463
Colton, City of South Coast 20% 20.3% 22.0% 85.7 47,612
Golden State Water Company S Arcadia South Coast 24% 30.0% 29.9% 86.2 26,827
Huntington Beach City of South Coast 20% 25.5% 26.7% 86.6 196,041
Newport Beach City of South Coast 28% 22.1% 20.1% 87.9 66,219
Golden State Water Company Simi Valley South Coast 24% 37.1% 37.9% 88.1 43,351
Pico Water District South Coast 24% 24.8% 27.8% 88.4 25,284
San Bernardino County Service Area 70 South Coast 28% 28.1% 19.0% 88.6 11,407
Laguna Beach County Water District South Coast 24% 22.8% 24.5% 89.0 19,121Sunny Slope Water Company South Coast 24% 29.4% 31.3% 89.5 30,611
Santa Paula City of South Coast 28% 30.0% 27.7% 90.0 30,009
Fullerton City of South Coast 28% 25.2% 27.1% 90.2 138,000
Norwalk City of South Coast 20% 18.3% 19.1% 92.1 18,361
San Clemente City of South Coast 24% 28.2% 30.0% 92.3 51,385
Chino City of South Coast 24% 24.3% 23.9% 93.3 78,073
San Fernando City of South Coast 24% 24.5% 27.3% 93.4 23,645
El Toro Water District South Coast 24% 26.6% 31.1% 93.8 48,628
South Coast Water District South Coast 24% 31.4% 30.0% 94.0 35,004
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 9 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
10/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
Valencia Water Company South Coast 24% 36.9% 38.1% 95.1 118,224
Suburban Water Systems San Jose Hills South Coast 24% 27.3% 28.3% 96.3 178,500
Camarillo City of South Coast 20% 24.3% 25.1% 97.2 47,389
Whittier City of South Coast 20% 21.1% 21.7% 97.6 49,954
Moulton Niguel Water District South Coast 20% 24.1% 26.2% 98.0 172,068
Alhambra City of South Coast 24% 26.8% 27.1% 98.3 85,068
Burbank City of South Coast 24% 28.2% 30.5% 98.8 106,084
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District South Coast 28% 29.4% 38.9% 99.1 149,507
Carlsbad Municipal Water District South Coast 28% 26.7% 28.5% 99.4 84,838
San Gabriel Valley Fontana Water Company South Coast 28% 31.4% 35.1% 99.6 209,035
Monte Vista Water District South Coast 24% 28.3% 23.3% 99.7 56,039
La Habra City of Public Works South Coast 28% 24.3% 22.4% 101.3 63,118
Orange City of South Coast 28% 28.1% 29.7% 102.6 139,463
Eastern Municipal Water District South Coast 28% 21.0% 23.8% 102.9 539,410
Santa Margarita Water District South Coast 24% 29.3% 30.0% 103.6 156,949
Lincoln Avenue Water Company South Coast 28% 31.9% 32.3% 103.8 16,126
Rubidoux Community Service District South Coast 28% 22.7% 27.0% 104.3 32,000
Brea City of South Coast 24% 22.3% 32.6% 105.9 43,328
Suburban Water Systems Whittier/La Mirada South Coast 28% 27.1% 30.1% 106.4 115,000
San Juan Capistrano City of South Coast 28% 26.9% 27.7% 106.6 39,047San Jacinto City of South Coast 32% 33.5% 33.3% 107.4 15,582
Pasadena City of South Coast 28% 24.2% 24.7% 107.5 166,482
Covina City of South Coast 28% 25.9% 27.8% 108.3 33,300
Ramona Municipal Water District South Coast 28% 33.8% 37.3% 108.4 36,564
South Pasadena City of South Coast 28% 31.5% 34.7% 108.8 25,899
Tustin City of South Coast 28% 30.0% 34.7% 109.2 67,700
Golden State Water Company San Dimas South Coast 28% 34.4% 33.9% 109.5 54,872
Lee Lake Water District South Coast 32% 35.2% 39.6% 111.5 15,543
Riverside City of South Coast 28% 26.1% 27.9% 114.1 299,626
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 10 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
11/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
San Bernardino City of South Coast 28% 30.7% 30.9% 115.2 198,163
Chino Hills City of South Coast 28% 29.1% 37.8% 115.2 77,596
Cerritos City of South Coast 28% 25.9% 26.8% 115.9 49,041
Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 South Coast 28% 30.5% 32.8% 116.7 90,687
Thousand Oaks City of South Coast 28% 32.6% 33.7% 117.8 51,609
Rialto City of South Coast 28% 19.6% 22.5% 118.3 54,036
La Verne City of South Coast 32% 32.3% 34.0% 118.5 32,228
Rincon Del Diablo Municipal Water District South Coast 32% 34.1% 34.9% 119.5 29,955
Monrovia City of South Coast 28% 26.7% 34.0% 121.0 39,147
San Dieguito Water District South Coast 28% 22.3% 24.5% 121.2 37,168
Lake Hemet Municipal Water District South Coast 28% 41.0% 46.5% 121.5 52,914
Castaic Lake Water Agency Santa Clarita Water Division South Coast 32% 35.4% 37.6% 122.5 121,688
Triunfo Sanitation District / Oak Park Water Service South Coast 32% 38.1% 43.8% 124.9 12,200
Fallbrook Public Utility District South Coast 36% 28.1% 33.3% 125.6 34,894
Western Municipal Water District of Riverside South Coast 32% 29.2% 32.4% 127.4 96,139
Corona City of South Coast 28% 23.9% 27.9% 127.8 168,070
Jurupa Community Service District South Coast 28% 26.8% 30.9% 128.6 118,731
Trabuco Canyon Water District South Coast 28% 34.3% 37.0% 129.2 13,175
Fillmore City of South Coast 28% 27.0% 23.9% 129.3 15,222
Glendora City of South Coast 36% 35.7% 36.4% 129.6 51,463Ventura County Waterworks District No 1 South Coast 32% 28.3% 29.2% 131.1 38,703
Sanger City of South Coast 28% 24.4% 21.6% 134.0 25,664
Golden State Water Company Claremont South Coast 32% 44.0% 42.3% 135.1 37,160
Loma Linda City of South Coast 32% 24.5% 25.8% 137.3 23,614
Casitas Municipal Water District South Coast 32% 29.3% 12.1% 138.1 9,603
Yorba Linda Water District South Coast 36% 41.6% 43.7% 139.6 72,500
Newhall County Water District South Coast 28% 31.7% 34.4% 139.7 45,036
Poway City of South Coast 32% 36.7% 35.7% 140.7 48,774
Olivenhain Municipal Water District South Coast 32% 32.9% 30.5% 142.3 78,713
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 11 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
12/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
California-American Water Company Los Angeles District South Coast 28% 31.2% 34.0% 143.1 102,889
California-American Water Ventura District South Coast 32% 28.4% 31.8% 143.1 62,144
East Valley Water District South Coast 28% 31.2% 24.2% 145.4 101,733
West Valley Water District South Coast 32% 22.7% 26.0% 154.5 73,836
Upland City of South Coast 36% 32.0% 33.0% 157.6 75,670
Beverly Hills City of South Coast 32% 20.4% 20.5% 161.0 42,157
Arcadia City of South Coast 36% 30.1% 33.5% 161.6 57,639
Rancho California Water District South Coast 36% 31.2% 35.7% 164.9 168,978
Valley Center Municipal Water District South Coast 36% 42.1% 49.3% 166.1 25,458
Rainbow Municipal Water District South Coast 36% 43.0% 55.3% 166.7 19,495
Norco City of South Coast 36% 27.4% 32.6% 167.0 25,891
Riverside Highland Water Company South Coast 36% 34.4% 36.6% 167.5 14,949
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District South Coast 36% 34.0% 36.2% 177.1 75,384
California Water Service Company Palos Verdes South Coast 36% 32.0% 34.8% 184.4 69,937
Rubio Canyon Land and Water Association South Coast 36% 30.0% 25.8% 186.4 9,600
Sierra Madre City of South Coast 32% 23.0% 19.3% 188.0 11,094
East Orange County Water District South Coast 36% 39.6% 41.8% 192.6 3,247
Yucaipa Valley Water District South Coast 36% 25.0% 23.3% 202.6 44,656
Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District South Coast 36% 27.0% 31.1% 203.1 43,111
California Water Service Company Westlake South Coast 36% 35.4% 39.0% 218.8 19,447Golden State Water Company Cowan Heights South Coast 36% 38.7% 39.7% 232.2 7,254
Redlands City of South Coast 36% 25.1% 30.2% 235.4 77,852
Los Angeles County Public Works Waterworks District 29 South Coast 36% 24.2% 25.0% 247.4 22,216
Valley Water Company South Coast 36% 31.8% 34.7% 267.2 9,900
Serrano Water District South Coast 36% 43.2% 43.6% 271.2 6,641
Santa Fe Irrigation District South Coast 36% 39.9% 38.0% 357.8 19,839
Crestline Village Water District South Lahontan 8% 24.0% 25.8% 52.1 7,565
San Bernardino County Service Area 64 South Lahontan 32% 35.2% 39.8% 53.4 14,031
Lake Arrowhead Community Services District South Lahontan 16% 34.1% 35.9% 62.0 21,052
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 12 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
13/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
Mammoth Community Water District South Lahontan 20% 38.8% 31.2% 64.7 16,739
Phelan Pinon Hills Community Services District South Lahontan 32% 18.5% 23.0% 90.3 25,160
Golden State Water Company Barstow South Lahontan 24% 25.9% 18.9% 96.1 31,209
Adelanto City of South Lahontan 20% 14.7% 18.2% 97.4 28,723
Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company South Lahontan 28% 32.5% 32.9% 102.6 62,602
Rosamond Community Service District South Lahontan 28% 31.8% 33.8% 116.9 17,700
Palmdale Water District South Lahontan 32% 29.6% 30.2% 120.1 116,183
Victorville Water District South Lahontan 28% 27.8% 24.7% 126.9 125,896
Hesperia Water District City of South Lahontan 32% 24.9% 23.0% 133.1 91,627
California Water Service Company Antelope Valley South Lahontan 36% 45.0% 54.2% 135.3 3,391
Los Angeles County Public Works Waterworks District 40 South Lahontan 32% 36.6% 27.4% 148.6 207,304
Indian Wells Valley Water District South Lahontan 36% 24.7% 18.8% 202.7 31,120
Quartz Hill Water District South Lahontan 36% 38.4% 35.2% 211.1 20,352
Lemoore City of Tulare Lake 32% 23.2% 34.6% 79.0 25,281
Delano City of Tulare Lake 24% 22.8% 18.0% 81.4 54,318
Reedley City of Tulare Lake 24% 23.4% 22.4% 87.5 24,194
Arvin Community Services District Tulare Lake 28% 32.3% 23.1% 90.3 20,499
Wasco City of Tulare Lake 36% 24.8% 22.1% 114.4 26,159
Tehachapi, City of Tulare Lake 28% 30.0% 26.3% 117.5 8,839
California Water Service Company Kern River Valley Tulare Lake 28% 18.8% 21.5% 117.6 5,595West Kern Water District Tulare Lake 28% 18.2% 1.6% 122.8 21,181
Lamont Public Utility District Tulare Lake 28% 27.9% 23.5% 127.8 20,009
California Water Service Company Selma Tulare Lake 32% 40.7% 39.6% 127.8 25,065
Pinedale County Water District Tulare Lake 36% 27.6% 26.0% 128.1 16,735
Porterville City of Tulare Lake 32% 35.0% 34.5% 130.3 61,946
Fresno City of Tulare Lake 28% 28.0% 22.3% 137.4 520,159
California Water Service Company Bakersfield Tulare Lake 32% 34.6% 36.3% 140.3 279,143
California Water Service Company Visalia Tulare Lake 32% 25.1% 21.6% 144.8 139,027
Kerman, City of Tulare Lake 32% 26.0% 21.4% 155.2 14,359
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 13 of 14
7/24/2019 State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report
14/14
September 2015 Water Conservation Report by Supplier(by hydro region, then R-GPCD)
389 suppliers reporting for September
Conservation
Standard
Cumulative
Percent Saved
(as compared
to 2013)
Monthly
Percent Saved
(as compared
to Sep-13)
Estimated
Monthly
R-GPCD
Total
Population
Served
Supplier Name Hydrologic Region
Cumulative Savings
(June 2015 - September 2015)*Monthly Savings
(September 2015)
Exeter City of Tulare Lake 36% 32.3% 27.9% 155.4 10,572Hanford City of Tulare Lake 28% 11.0% 15.5% 155.5 57,050
Coalinga City of Tulare Lake 32% 31.8% 19.2% 168.7 16,529
Shafter City of Tulare Lake 36% 29.1% 23.8% 177.2 19,100
Clovis City of Tulare Lake 36% 32.0% 27.6% 180.6 108,227
Bakman Water Company Tulare Lake 36% 31.9% 25.8% 186.9 16,756
East Niles Community Service District Tulare Lake 36% 30.7% 26.0% 189.6 31,772
Corcoran, City of Tulare Lake 36% 31.8% 25.5% 191.5 24,154
Oildale Mutual Water Company Tulare Lake 36% 30.6% 33.8% 192.1 33,163
Kingsburg, City of Tulare Lake 36% 40.1% 44.5% 194.0 11,685
Bakersfield City of Tulare Lake 36% 31.5% 29.0% 207.9 143,148
Vaughn Water Company Tulare Lake 36% 28.9% 24.2% 359.0 30,861
* Cumulative savings is used to assess supplier compliance with mandatory 25 percent statewide conservation.
Data pulled 16 October 2015 Page 14 of 14