State Water Resources Control Board Conservation Report

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