Microsoft Word - Water Shortage Report_Final.docPrepared by:
Kyle Petersen
December 2010
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Table of Contents Section 1:
Introduction........................................................................................................1-1
1.1
Background.........................................................................................................1-1
1.2
Purpose................................................................................................................1-1
2.1 Water Conditions
................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Determining the Level of Water Shortage
..........................................................2-2
Section 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
..................................................................5-1
i
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Attachments
2. Press Release
5. Press Release, March 2009
6. Summary of Water Restrictions (distributed as flyer in SCMU
Review)
7. April 2009 SCMU Review
8. Newspaper Articles
11. Chart of Gross Daily Water Consumption
12. Water Production Forecast and Actual Production Volumes
13. UCSC 2009 Water Shortage Plan
14. Photos of Landscapes
ii
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Background In March 2009, the Water
Department presented an updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan to
City Council that set forth an overall strategy to prepare for and
respond to future water shortages. This plan was an outgrowth of
the City’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan which identified the
need to better prepare for future water shortages in advance of the
next major drought. The last time the City had dealt with a water
shortage was during the six-year drought of 1987-1992. Since then,
the City had adopted a long-range plan known as the “Integrated
Water Plan” which incorporated a deliberate management strategy to
temporarily reduce water use by up to 15 percent in dry years when
water is in short supply. Accordingly, one of the fundamental
purposes in developing the updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan
was to flesh out the procedures and actions necessary to achieve
this level of cutback. In the two years preceding the development
of this plan, water conditions throughout the state of California
had fallen below average, and water resources in some areas were
already stressed by drought. Then, in 2009, after a third
consecutive year of below normal rainfall and runoff, it became
necessary to put the contingency plan into immediate effect after
its review and adoption by City Council. As it turned out, the
City’s 2009 water shortage was equal to the 15 percent water
reduction goal envisioned in the 2003 Integrated Water Plan.
Accordingly, the water shortage of 2009 was important not only as
an enactment of the newly created Water Shortage Contingency Plan,
but also as a test of a core idea underpinning the City’s
Integrated Water Plan, namely that the community could achieve and
would tolerate periodic cutbacks in water use by up to 15 percent.
1.2 Purpose The purpose of this report is as follows: • To document
the 2009 water shortage and the City’s response, and to
compile
applicable records for future reference; • To evaluate which
aspects of the plan succeeded, and which didn’t, and why; and • To
make recommendation and refinements to the plan for the next time a
water
shortage occurs.
1-1
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Section 2: Hydrology and Water Supply 2.1 Water Conditions Water
year 2009 (October 1, 2008 – September 30, 2009) was the third year
in which water conditions registered below average, both locally
and statewide. Prior to 2007, Santa Cruz enjoyed an unusually long
period (twelve years!) in which local water conditions were
classified as either normal or wet according to total annual
discharge from the San Lorenzo River. The only exception was water
year 2001 which technically fell into the dry year classification,
but was right on the border of being classified as normal. This
extended normal/wet pattern changed abruptly in 2007 when annual
rainfall measured little more than half the long-term average, and
runoff in the San Lorenzo River was less than one-third the average
amount. Water year 2007 was therefore classified as “critically
dry.” As a precaution, the City adopted a time-of-day irrigation
restriction for the following dry season. Santa Cruz was one the
first (if not the first) water suppliers statewide to raise
customer awareness about the dry conditions and encourage actions
to conserve that year. Water year 2008 also fell below both
rainfall and runoff averages, prompting the Governor to declare a
statewide drought. Locally, water conditions improved somewhat from
the prior year, with rainfall measuring about 82 percent of
average, and river runoff totaling a little above half the average.
This slightly improved condition, coupled with a declining trend in
the City’s total annual water demand, allowed the restriction on
mid- day irrigation to be lifted for the year. (Note: the lower
overall demand beginning in 2005 translated into reduced reservoir
withdrawals during the peak summer season in both 2007 and 2008 and
resulted in higher carryover storage going into 2009 than otherwise
would have been expected.) It was about this time, and against the
backdrop of two consecutive below-normal years, that work was
wrapping up on the updated Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The
2009 water year began alarmingly dry. Up until late January, little
rain had fallen in central California that winter, and the water
supply outlook for the upcoming dry season was as bleak as ever.
The dry weather pattern eventually gave way to a series of late
season storms in February and March that temporarily improved local
stream flows and restored reservoir storage—but the drought was
nowhere near an end. With no way to tell
2-1
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
how long dry weather conditions would persist into the future, the
City formally declared a water shortage at the end of April and
instituted water restrictions beginning in May. As standard
practice, the Water Department prepares three reports over the
course of the winter season that summarizes current water
conditions and evaluate the water supply outlook for the coming
year. The initial report and press release, issued in late January
2009, and the revised report, issued in late February, are included
in this report as Attachments 1-3. They provide a manager’s
perspective on the situation as it evolved over the course of the
wet season. 2.2 Determining the Level of Water Shortage On March
17, 2009, Water Department Section Managers convened a meeting to
evaluate the situation and decide on the appropriate response to
recommend to City Council. This date was selected as the latest
feasible date to obtain the most complete water-year supply
information, yet still leave sufficient time to ramp up water
restrictions by May 1; the situation was still dynamic, but, for
the most part, the wet season had run its course. At the time,
water supply conditions were decidedly mixed: Loch Lomond Reservoir
was full, but runoff was only about one third of normal. As a
result, stream and river sources (the majority of the City’s water
supply) were predicted to dwindle to very low levels by the middle
of summer. The primary issue at this meeting was not whether water
restrictions were needed, but to what degree. The uncertainty
facing managers at this time was how far the reservoir might drop
by the end of the season based on projections of various flowing
sources coupled with water demand. Two separate forecasts, one
called “most conservative” and the other called “most likely,”
about the yield of flowing sources were considered. A memo covering
the data reviewed at this meeting is included as Attachment 4. In
the end, the Department recommended that the City declare a Stage 2
water shortage and impose a 15 percent cutback goal on overall
water consumption for the upcoming dry season. The reason for this
decision was preemptive: should dry conditions persist into a
fourth year, the City’s water supply would be protected by
tightening restrictions that caused only slightly more
inconvenience to customers. The press release notifying the public
of this decision is included as Attachment 5.
2-2
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Section 3: Demand Reduction Program 3.1 Preliminary Actions Work to
implement the demand reduction program commenced immediately
thereafter. A management meeting was held March 18 to inform the
City Manager and Department heads. An internal planning team
consisting of the Water Director, Customer Service Manager,
Principal Management Analyst, and Water Conservation Coordinator
was established and met on a weekly basis to prepare for and
coordinate the program. Some of the key tasks accomplished in the
six week period prior to the commencement of restrictions on May 1
included the following: • Developing, adopting, and publishing a
new water shortage ordinance • Developing a supplemental budget
request • Purchasing, installing, and configuring a water waste
database • Modifying the utility billing system to enable penalties
to be applied to water bills. • Coordinating with City Departments,
public agencies, local governments, school
districts, the University of California and others • Preparing a
newsletter, press release, and web communications • Coordinating
with large customers • Developing a job description and recruitment
of temporary staff • Creating enforcement materials and procedures
to administer exceptions and appeals. On April 28, 2009, City
Council unanimously adopted the newly revised water shortage
ordinance and declared a Stage 2 water shortage starting May 1 and
continuing though October 31. 3.2 Strategy The City’s strategy for
dealing with water shortage, as outlined in the contingency plan,
involves a system of four interrelated elements: • An allocation
system to establish reduction goals for different customer groups •
Customer demand reduction measures that vary depending on the water
shortage
condition • Publicity and communications • Operating actions These
components, as they were carried out in 2009, are described
below.
3-1
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
3.3 Allocation System Under the contingency plan, an overall water
cutback of 15 percent is attained by reducing outdoor use by about
one third and by reducing indoor domestic and business use by five
percent during the peak season months. Every major customer
category is assigned a specific demand reduction goal based on its
water consumption profile (See Table 3-6 of the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan). Actual water supply allocation for 2009 deviated
from the contingency plan in a few ways. First, the level of water
demand in recent years had been trending somewhat lower than the
normal peak season demand of 2,473 million gallons listed in the
plan. Second, the contingency plan envisioned demand reduction
occurring over a seven-month, 214 day period beginning in April. In
reality, we were only able to implement water restrictions at the
beginning of May for a total of six months or 184 days. As a result
of these two factors, the Department set an overall demand
reduction goal of 300 million gallons for 2009. Equal to a daily
demand reduction of 1.6 mgd, this goal was based on the previous
year’s actual consumption instead of the plan’s higher system-wide
cutback of 362 million gallons. Certain large customers received
“water budgets” to manage their consumption over the entire dry
season. These included the following:
Table 1. Large Customer Water Budgets Customer Delivery Volume (mg)
Cutback (%) Comments1
University of California 100 – both main and marine science
campuses
15% Based on 2002-07 ave, Jun-Nov of 117 mg
Golf Courses 31 - De Laveaga 36 – Pasatiempo
27% Based on 2002-04 ave, Jun-Nov
Cemeteries 3.6 - Santa Cruz Memorial 1.9 – Oakwood
27% Based on 2006-08 ave, Jun-Nov
City Parks 25 – Total of regional and neighborhood parks
33% Based actual water consumption in 2008
City Schools 24 – Total of all school sites
14% business accounts 5%;
Based actual water consumption in 2008
Numerous in both sites and accounts, City Parks and schools were
given flexibility to use water as needed throughout the shortage so
long as they met their budget by the end of
1 The reference period for basing cutbacks among customers varied
depending on available data.
3-2
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
the season. Similarly, all dedicated irrigation accounts were
directed to reduce water use by one-third in accordance with the
allocation system, but were not held to individual water budgets.
3.4 Customer Demand Reduction Measures Customer demand reduction
measures included mandatory restrictions of outdoor water use (see
Attachment 6). Three primary restrictions limited irrigation by: •
controlling the number of watering days (2 assigned days per week),
• regulating the time of day customers were allowed to water
(before 10:00 a.m. or
after 5:00 p.m.), and • imposing irrigation time limits (up to15
minutes per station for spray heads). Drip irrigation systems were
exempted, and customers with edible gardens were allowed to hand
water as needed. Assigned watering days were scheduled for all
seven days of the week to even-out peak demand and keep treatment
plant operations running smoothly. Residential customers were
assigned watering days based on their odd or even address number. A
separate schedule was assigned to residential properties with
common area landscaping. All of the residential properties were
given one weekend day and one weekday to water. Commercial, public,
and industrial customers received a Monday and Friday schedule so
landscapers could manage irrigation needs during the work week. In
addition to irrigation restrictions, other mandatory measures
included: • serving drinking water upon request only, • offering
hotel guests the option to forego daily laundering services, and •
requiring shut-off nozzles on all hoses. Customers were also
prohibited from washing down sidewalks and buildings (unless not
doing so caused unsanitary conditions), and draining and refilling
swimming pools. Water waste restrictions remained in effect and
were actively enforced during the restriction period. Day-to-day
operations of these restrictions will be discussed in Section 3.6,
Operating Actions.
3-3
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Under a Stage 2 water shortage, large commercial and industrial
customers (defined as using over one million gallons per year) were
directed to conduct water use audits and implement site-specific
water use plans. Although this measure was listed on the
restrictions guidelines and in the City ordinance, Conservation
staff did not enforce this particular requirement due to time and
labor constraints. 3.5 Publicity and Communications Restriction
publicity and communications consisted of three main types: mass
communication, targeted communication, and daily communication.
Mass communications employed a variety of media, including: •
Articles in the
SCMU Review and an additional flyer insert defining the
restrictions (See Attachments 6, 7);
• A color graphic depicting declining water levels over 3 dry
years;
• Press releases and legal notices in the newspaper, intentionally
timed just ahead of the California snow survey results;
This graphic illustration of rainfall and runoff was a helpful
public communication tool:
• Paid advertising in the Sentinel including the restrictions
flyer, the “Fix a Leak Week” promotion, and Water Conservation
Coalition ads;
• Notes on utility bills; • Radio, TV, and newspaper interviews and
news segments (see Attachment 8); • Information on the City-wide
website, Water Department page, and Conservation
page; • Spanish translation of the water restrictions; Targeted
communications involved phone calls, meetings, group presentations,
in-person visits and correspondence to a variety of groups. Most
targeted communications occurred before the restrictions began in
order to give specific customers advance warning of what the season
would entail. Those customers included: City departments,
especially Parks and Water department staff; the County; the City
of Capitola; adjoining water districts;
3-4
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
UCSC; the Port District; Caltrans; customers with dedicated
irrigation meters including businesses and home owner associations
(see Attachment 9); restaurants; hotels; coast agriculture
customers; cemeteries; the golf courses; school districts; the
Capitola Mall; landscapers; and garden centers/nurseries. After
restrictions ended, we met with UCSC, City Parks staff, and local
landscapers to get feedback regarding restriction impacts and
benefits. Mass and targeted communications kept staff busy at the
onset of restrictions, but most communications occurred on a daily
basis throughout the restriction period. Conservation and customer
service field staff had daily contact with the public. Field
communications included restrictions awareness and reminders,
irrigation timer and water waste prevention assistance, and an
occasional site assessment for customers protesting penalties.
During restrictions, the office received a high volume of phone
calls. Customers contacted staff to clarify restrictions, report
water waste, discuss (and vent about) violation letters and
penalties, ask for photo documentation, and request appeal forms.
In addition to the online water waste form, a separate phone line
(420-LEAK) was set up for customers to report water waste.
Customers and City employees left water waste messages on a daily
basis. Email correspondence included sending violation photos,
forms, and restrictions information. Customers also stopped by the
office to discuss violations and request photo evidence. 3.6
Operating Actions The 2009 water shortage caused several
operational changes in the Water Conservation section, but in many
other sections of the Water Department as well. Once the initial
work of coordination and public notification had been accomplished,
primary operations revolved around administration and enforcement
of water restrictions. Two additional temporary staff members were
hired in early May and quickly trained to patrol the entire service
area seven days a week from five to nine a.m. Their duties included
collecting field notes, records, and photographs of code
violations, explaining water shortage requirements to the public,
and assisting customers in complying with water restrictions.
Later, their responsibilities expanded to assist with
administration of enforcement cases in the office. In addition to
two temporary field patrol, the City’s two regular field utility
service representatives assisted greatly in locating and
identifying water waste violations and generating reports,
explaining restrictions to members of the public, and maintaining
vigilance over outdoor water use the entire season.
3-5
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
In the meantime, office staff had to configure new water waste
enforcement software, draft penalty letters, and develop processes
for adding penalties to utility bills. Daily enforcement cases
generated by field personnel soon overwhelmed office staff to the
point that most other regular duties were placed on hold. Examples
of enforcement correspondence are presented in Attachment 10. Daily
routine within the water conservation office revolved around
logging and entering new cases, researching billing records,
preparing enforcement letters and associated documentation, and
responding to public inquires in person and on the telephone. The
emotional level of interactions with customers regarding water
restrictions varied from polite, understanding, and cooperative to
hostile, argumentative, and confrontational. Throughout the
season—but not without considerable difficulty at times—water
conservation staff maintained a courteous, responsive, and
efficient demeanor with the public.
Excess water running to waste from landscape irrigation
system:
A first violation at a property would result in a water
conservation notice being sent to the responsible customer that a)
informed them of the situation, b) gave them an opportunity to
correct the problem, and c) explained the consequences of any
future violations. If further violations were logged at the
property, a penalty notice was sent to the customer, along with one
or more photographs of the violation that summarized the water
restrictions and informed them that the penalty would appear on
their next utility bill. The penalty amounts levied in 2009 were as
follows: • Second offense: $100 • Third offense: $250 • Fourth
offense: $500
3-6
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Triple fines were applied to customers using over 1,000,000 gallons
per year. Early on, the office encountered an unforeseen
enforcement issue: How to handle properties with multiple or
ongoing violations? In order to give customers a reasonable time to
receive the notice and take corrective action, repeat offenders
received two weeks from the date a violation notice was sent before
receiving a subsequent penalty. Violations noted within the interim
two week period were still logged and entered on the database, but
not penalized. Significant water waste problems, however, were
addressed directly with a telephone call or a visit by a Water
Department representative. Accordingly, a biweekly schedule was set
up to review multiple penalty cases and generate penalty lists for
the customer service section to apply to the next bill.
Photo of water waste during early a.m.:
Other operating actions within the Department included the
following: • The Water Production section revamped its operations
to minimize lake withdrawal
and allow pumping during peak power use times. Water production
personnel were also instrumental in monitoring and reporting daily
and monthly production levels.
• The Water Distribution section suspended flushing activities for
the year and
intensified distribution system leak repair. Distribution personnel
also assisted in reporting instances of water waste to the water
conservation office, particularly during duty periods (evening,
weekends).
• The Customer Service section assisted in answering questions
about watering
restrictions in both the office and the field. It was also
responsible for applying penalties to utility bills and processing
payments.
3-7
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Section 4: Summary of Outcome 4.1 Effect of Water Restrictions on
Water Production The effect water restrictions had on dampening
daily water production was evident early on. Daily water production
was monitored regularly and charted in comparison with the daily
values for 2008. Not only was daily water production down by
roughly 1.5 mgd for the entire season, but day-to-day production
amounts were more stable compared to 2008 when no restrictions were
in place, which benefitted plant operations. We attribute this
stability to the way that different customers were given specific
days of the week to water, and therefore could not all irrigate at
the same time if the weather became hot, as usually occurs when the
temperatures rises. In recent years, daily water production hovered
a little above 12 mgd during the peak summer months of June, July,
and August. Under water restrictions, daily water production
averaged closer to 10.5 mgd. Only on a handful of occasions did
daily production ever reach 11 mgd. A chart comparing daily water
production for 2008 and 2009 is included in Attachment 11. Compared
to the same six-month (May to October) period the year before,
water production lowered by a total of 296 million gallons, very
close to the savings goal of 300 million gallons set earlier in
spring. This volume equates to an average reduction of 1.6 mgd,
which turns out to be precisely the same level of reduced daily
water consumption as called for six months before. 4.2 Effect of
Water Restrictions on Reservoir Withdrawal and Level As it turned
out, this level of reduced consumption/daily production allowed
plant operators to run the system almost exclusively on the City’s
flowing and groundwater supplies, and minimized the need to
withdraw from Loch Lomond Reservoir. In the end, only a little over
100 million gallons was needed from the reservoir to meet demand
during the season. This is about half of the 196 million gallons
budgeted for the year and a fraction of the estimated amount (481
million gallons) needed without water restrictions. Our projection
was to end the season at 85 percent of capacity. Because less water
was needed from the lake, the lowest it got in 2009 was to 90
percent of capacity in early October. Then, on October 13, an
unexpected storm, the remnant of the tropical typhoon Melor, dumped
over 10 inches of rain in the City’s watershed that ended up
raising the
4-1
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
water level in Loch Lomond by 2.5 feet. On October 31, the last day
of water restrictions, the reservoir was at 94 percent of capacity,
almost completely full. 4.3 Comparison of Actual versus Forecast
Production Water production and consumption were monitored
regularly throughout the 2009 season and compared with forecast
amounts on a daily and monthly basis. The following table shows the
relative accuracy between forecast and actual water production and
consumption over the entire seven-month period from April through
October2.
Table 2. Forecast and Actual Water Production, April – October,
2009 Source Projected (mg) Actual (mg) Variance (mg) Variance
(%)
North Coast (net) 346 418 72 20.8
San Lorenzo River 1,438 1,409 -29 -2.0
Live Oak Wells 142 154 12 8.4
System Demand 2,046 2,072 26 1.2
Loch Lomond 196 107 -89 -45.0
Not surprisingly, the production for the north coast is the least
accurate, since there is little on which to estimate flows other
than past production volumes in similar rainfall years, and
difficulty predicting losses and uses on the coast line. As a
result, forecasting of the north coast tends to be conservative. In
addition, flows were boosted somewhat by a late spring storm that
occurred after the forecast was made. Estimates of river production
came in very close to actual volumes for the season, but multiple
forecasting errors tended to cancel each other out. Early in the
season, lower than expected demand kept monthly river production
down compared to forecast amounts. Later in the season, actual
river production ran higher than expected during August, September
and October when the forecast indicated river flow would likely
drop below 12 cfs, limiting production. It never did, partly due to
reservoir releases made during that time. Also, part of this
underestimation of river production may have been due to reasonable
albeit overly conservative forecasting in which expected flows were
further reduced by 10 percent to account for the two preceding dry
years. Finally, late in the season, total water demand dropped
suddenly following the big storm in mid October, which lessened the
amount of water needed from the river to meet daily demand. All 2
Even though restrictions took effect in May, the City’s initial
estimate of water supply availability prepared in mid March covered
the period April through October.
4-2
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
these factors combined made predictions for river production seem
accurate, when they really weren’t. Actual system demand, on the
other hand, turned out to be almost exactly what was budgeted for
the season. As a result of all these factors—but mainly due to
lower early season demand and higher than expected production from
flowing sources—water production from the lake totaled half of what
had been budgeted for 2009. The forecast and actual water
production amounts are tabulated by month in Attachment 12. 4.4
General Awareness of and Success with Water Restrictions In
general, the overwhelming majority of customers seemed to
understand and follow the City water restrictions. We attribute
this to frequent newspaper coverage, our own utility newsletter,
periodic coverage on the evening television news, and word of
mouth. Of the more than 24,300 customer accounts in 2009, only
about 8 percent, or slightly fewer than 2,000 properties, were in
violation of the restrictions over the course of the season. Most
of the time, violations were resolved with a single warning letter
and/or personal contact. Follow up phone calls and providing the
photo evidence also cleared up several violations. Only six percent
of the total cases progressed to a penalty. See Sections 4.9
Enforcement of Water Shortage Ordinance and 4.13 Customer Survey
for further information. A key driver of peak season water use is
landscape irrigation, and a great deal of irrigation occurs on
landscapes with automatic irrigation systems. Restricting days,
times of day, and watering duration produced two additional
benefits during the season. First, restrictions forced those with
automatic irrigation systems to re-familiarize themselves with the
run-time3 and day-interval functions of their controller. Based on
the overall demand reduction, we can say most customers made the
required changes. However, field visits to single-family residences
during this period revealed many noncompliant timers, especially
with the days of the week restriction. In a few cases, older
controllers were incapable of operating according to the assigned
two days of the week and had to be replaced with more modern
equipment. 3 Most customers with automatic irrigation systems
already watered in early am hours and did not need to change start
times.
4-3
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
The second benefit produced by the irrigation restrictions likely
continues today. Once customers reset their controllers for the
season, the outdoor water reduction was essentially “locked in” for
the rest of the year. In fact, many customers discovered that
twice-weekly irrigation was adequate to maintain plant health in
our coastal climate, and have continued to irrigate on that
schedule. As mentioned above, it was primarily the restriction on
the days, times, and duration of irrigation that resulted in a
steady reduction of 1.6 mgd. 4.5 Categorical Water Use and
Performance Compared to Allocation One test of the water shortage
contingency plan is to compare the reduction in water use achieved
by different customer groups in 2009 against the goal listed in the
plan, keeping in mind that both the basis (or reference period) and
duration deviated somewhat from the allocation schedule presented
in the plan. The figures in Table 3 below represent metered water
consumption for major customer categories during the six month
period while water restrictions were in effect:
Table 3. Comparison of Cutbacks Achieved and Customer Reduction
Goals Set Forth in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Consumption (mil gal) Customer Category
2008 2009 Difference Percent of prior year
Reduction Goal
Multiple Residential 424.1 369.1 -55.3 87 87
Business 361.2 311.8 -49.4 86 95
UCSC 117.2 84.7 -32.5 72 85
Municipal 46.3 33.4 -12.9 72 76
Irrigation 110.7 66.1 -44.6 60 64
Golf Course 94.0 76.0 -18.0 81 73
Coast Irrigation 20.4 14.8 -5.6 73 95
The residential sector came in virtually on target. The business
sector performed far better than expected, but how much of that
decline was due to the broader economic downturn is uncertain. The
most notable category to exceed its reduction goal was the
University of California. Early on, the University formed its own
task force to oversee
4-4
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
reduction efforts and developed a water shortage plan for the 2009
season that included the following elements: • campus-wide
irrigation cutbacks, • water use targets and consumption data to
key water users • a water conservation awareness and education
campaign, and • acceleration of high priority water conservation
projects. The University’s plan is included for reference as
Attachment 13. The municipal category slightly exceeded their
target, as did the irrigation category. The two golf courses, on
the other hand, both cut back substantially, but golf was the only
customer group that failed to achieve their cutback goal, in spite
of being given a specific water budget to help manage water
consumption for the season. The overall conclusion from this
analysis is that the suite of water restrictions, coupled with
Conservation’s outreach, publicity, and enforcement activities,
succeeded in almost every customer category in accomplishing the
desired demand reduction for Stage 2. 4.6 Successes and Challenges
with Large Customer Water Budgets As mentioned above (Section 3.1),
several large customers, including UCSC, the golf courses, two
large cemeteries, City Parks and City Schools, were given “water
budgets” to help manage water consumption. The idea was to let
these customers make their own choices about what (or what not) to
irrigate, so long as they met their assigned budget at the end of
the season. Besides UCSC, Santa Cruz City Schools did a commendable
job managing its water consumption on 25 separate water connections
covering ten sites consisting of 6 elementary schools, two middle
schools, and two high schools. They were directed to reduce water
use by 14 percent overall and, instead, accomplished a 35 percent
cutback. In spite of this notable achievement, the school district
received some negative publicity when filling their newly
constructed swimming pool, even though: 1) landscape savings vastly
offset the amount of water required to fill the new pool, and 2)
public pool filling was not restricted under Stage 2. City Parks
reduced its overall water use at 27 accounts on 21 park properties
by 30 percent, nearly achieving its goal of 33 percent. Within the
framework of a water budget, Parks decided which facilities to
maintain (or “brown”) based on revenue, attendance, and other
considerations. As a Department of the City, and a large, highly
visible water user, Parks staff understood their responsibility to
carefully manage water use to maintain
4-5
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
good public perception. They also seized the opportunity to
complete some irrigation equipment upgrades. The two cemeteries
successfully came in between 5 to 8 percent below their assigned
water budget. The golf courses had the most difficult time cutting
back to their assigned budget. Without any consequences for
overuse, the importance of landscape health and appearance seemed
to matter more to course managers than achieving their assigned
water saving goal. Both courses stopped irrigating their driving
ranges. The water shortage also prompted the Pasatiempo golf course
to cease irrigating several acres of turf on the perimeter of its
course and begin replacing those areas with native plant materials.
There were a couple of unanticipated problems with large customer
water budgets. First, having the water restrictions start later in
May instead of April created a different consumption reduction goal
than was stated in the published plan. This meant going back and
recalculating budgets based on a six, not a seven, month period.
Second, we had to figure out the starting and ending read dates for
each customer and let them know which meter readings they would be
held to. Not only do meter readings not coincide with the beginning
of the month, but different accounts are read on different days of
the month. This meant that restrictions for customers on a water
budget didn’t really begin until sometime later in May, and didn’t
end until sometime later in November. We didn’t think all this
through in advance and had to figure it out along the way. 4.7
Effect of Water Restrictions on Landscape Condition Because the
primary restrictions targeted outdoor irrigation, it was important
to evaluate landscape impacts. After restrictions ended,
conservation staff interviewed landscapers working for the public,
UCSC, and City Parks. We also photographed various landscapes
across the county (see Attachment 14 for examples). Both landscape
contractors and visual assessments indicated no wide-scale loss and
little permanent damage. However, the restrictions were not impact
free. While drought tolerant plants and established trees and
shrubs generally looked no worse for wear, the restrictions browned
lawns to varying degrees. For customers operating on a budget, such
as the golf courses and parks, certain turf areas were allowed to
go fallow. It’s worth noting that personal landscape aesthetics and
standards will influence a person’s perception of the damage
resulting from restrictions. One Parks manager reported that weeds
invaded the stressed turf, costing Parks time and labor for
4-6
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
eradication. UCSC mentioned having to reseed a playing field a
result of the restrictions. Another Parks manager mentioned visual
changes to the park, but said that, overall, the landscape went
unscathed due to the resiliency of turf. Once rains returned, the
landscapes greened back up. The restrictions also prompted some
customers to change their landscape or replace irrigation equipment
with water saving options. Examples include the Capitola Mall and
Chaminade, which replaced annual color planting areas with
perennials; UCSC, Parks, and May’s Sushi, which retrofitted their
irrigation with MP rotators; and an HOA on the Westside that ripped
out a large mounded turf area and replaced it with drought tolerant
plantings and drip irrigation. There is no way to quantify this
effect, but substantial anecdotal evidence showed people rethinking
and changing their landscapes toward less water intensive plant
materials. 4.8 Restaurant Water Restrictions During the 2009
shortage, restrictions prohibited the automatic service of drinking
water in restaurants and commercial food establishments; customers
would have to ask for water to be provided. In 2008, the Water
Conservation Office provided free informational table tents to food
service locations throughout the service area on a voluntary basis.
In 2009, however, restaurants were notified of the mandatory
restriction. As a result, many more restaurants requested and
received the table tents. Adherence to, and opinions about, this
new policy were mixed, however. In a survey conducted midway (Aug.
4-7) through the restriction period, 101 restaurants were
questioned about the water-on-demand rule, table tents, and their
overall experience of the restrictions. The purpose of the survey
visits was twofold: to remind or make restaurant managers aware of
restrictions and to redistribute more table tents where needed.
Results were mixed. Of the survey population (101 respondents): •
49 restaurants, about half those surveyed, were aware of and
practiced the
restrictions, and actively used the table tents provided; • 38 were
aware of the restriction, but not necessarily using the table
tents, and not
always practicing the restriction ( it was the practice, not the
table tent, that was mandated);
• 16 restaurants claimed to be unaware of restriction, but some of
those were practicing the restriction regardless;
• the remaining 3 gave conflicting responses
4-7
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
In terms of customer feedback: • Most restaurants (66) did not
encounter negative nor positive reviews of restrictions; • 17 cited
positive customer feedback or had a positive opinion of
restaurant
restrictions; • 12 cited negative customer feedback or had a
negative opinion of restaurant
restrictions; • a few encountered both negative and positive
reviews of restaurant restrictions. Some of the positive comments
from restaurant mangers included the following: • Offering water
upon request is already a policy • Customers appreciate “green” or
“eco” efforts • Less dishwashing, less staff time • Increased drink
sales General negative comments included: • Customer complaints,
lower tips • Tourists had less understanding for restriction policy
• Felt like poor service to not provide water • Wait staff had to
change habits Many of the local restaurants have since incorporated
serving drinking water upon request as an ongoing practice and
continue to use the table tents. 4.9 Enforcement of Water Shortage
Ordinance As mentioned above, the Water Department dispatched two
temporary staff, assisted by two regular utility service
representatives, to patrol the service area, collect field reports
of violations, and enforce the water restrictions seven days a
week. Nine distinct types of violations were noted, including the
following: • Watering on the wrong day • Watering at the wrong time
of day • Watering longer than 15 minutes • Watering to excess
(runoff, overspray) • Broken irrigation system • Use of hose
without a shutoff valve • Hosing off pavement • Plumbing leak •
Other
4-8
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
From May 1, 2009 to October 31, 2009, the Water Conservation Office
logged a total of 2,233 separate cases on the water violation
tracking database, named ConserveTrack. Of these 2,233 total cases,
2,926 distinct violations were noted (some sites had more than one
problem observed by staff). A breakdown of the total number of
violations, by type and by customer category, is summarized in
Table 4 below:
Table 4 – Breakdown of Water Restriction Violations by Violation
Type and Customer Category
Customer Category:
W ro
T ot
al s
Single Family Residential 884 66 36 538 83 20 14 5 38 1,684
Multiple Residential 135 17 6 130 15 5 3 3 7 321
Business 242 13 8 234 30 1 30 8 9 575
Industrial 2 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 9
Municipal 16 1 0 7 6 0 1 0 0 31
Irrigation 102 11 14 137 27 1 4 2 3 301
Other 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5
Total 1,383 108 65 1052 162 27 52 19 58 2,926
Single family accounts had the majority of violations: 1,684
violations, or 58 percent of all violations. Business accounts had
the next-highest number of violations with 575 problems noted,
representing 20 percent of all violations. The most common
violation was watering on the wrong, or non-assigned, day, with
1,383 reported instances. This violation was strictly enforced to
make sure that customers were watering only on their two assigned
days of the week, and not more frequently. Excess water running to
waste was the other most frequently noted problem (but often the
most egregious), with 1,052 reported instances. The geographic
distribution of these violations is illustrated on a map included
in Attachment 15.
4-9
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
The majority of cases (1,953) were resolved with a single warning
letter and/or telephone contact. In theses cases, no penalty was
levied. Some customers were cooperative, just unaware that a
problem existed, and appreciated being notified. For others, the
threat of a penalty for any subsequent violation probably served as
a motivating factor to resolve the issue. From contacting the
customer to imposing fines, various actions were taken to abate
repeated violations at various sites. A total of 113 customers
received a $100 penalty (or in the case of a large water user, a
$300 penalty) on their utility bill for a second violation. Twelve
customers received a $250/$750 penalty for a third violation, and
three of those customers received a $500 fine for a fourth
violation. A total of 83 other cases were logged as “many
previous,” indicating that a second (or third, or fourth)
infraction was observed at a previously notified property. As
mentioned above, customers were given two weeks from the violation
notice mail date to receive the notice and correct the violation.
There were 56 enforcement cases that were ultimately cancelled, for
various reasons, including the following: • Wrong address (problem
may have originated from a neighbor, problem property did
not belong to addressee, etc.) • Wrong account holder (violation
may have occurred with a previous holder of the
account, no contact/account holder identified) • Problem was not
water waste (i.e. runoff from sump pumps, natural springs in
neighborhood) • Lack of picture evidence/insufficient detail of
violation gathered Water service was shut off at only one property
the entire season due to a problem at a vacant home with an
irrigation valve stuck open. 4.10 External Challenges The 2009
water restrictions involved many unforeseen implementation
challenges for staff. A few of the restrictions generated confusion
for customers. Although car washing was not restricted, staff
received several calls asking if car washing was allowed, and, if
so, did it need to be on their assigned day. This confusion may
have carried over from the
4-10
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
2007 restrictions. Car washing was not restricted then, either, but
the newspaper repeatedly printed articles stating that no car
washing was allowed from10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The common area
landscaping category also puzzled customers. In general,
residential customers with and without common area landscape were
confused by the term. Properties falling into this category,
including home owner associations and mobile home parks, were
unclear about the common area boundaries and which day of the week
they should be watering. Defining common areas was not always clear
to field staff either. The office received many calls from
customers of mobile home parks, wondering which address number—the
street address or their individual unit number—they should use for
their watering day. The assigned watering days were unclear to some
churches since they were not specifically listed in the commercial
category. Early in the season, the Spanish-language restrictions
flyer posted incorrect days of the week for the even numbered
residential customers. The correction was made immediately, but it
is unknown if this error resulted in any violations. Customers
unwilling to take responsibility for violations at their property
presented another obvious challenge. Power outages, faulty
irrigation timers, poor landscape design, negligent landlords,
landscapers, employees—all were blamed for a customer’s
noncompliance. Some flatly denied that a violation even occurred.
Including photos with warning letters reduced argumentative phone
calls and allowed customers to better address water waste issues.
Communicating with absentee customers (account holders who did not
live at the property) presented additional challenges. Customers
with second homes in Santa Cruz took a long time to correct
violations. Account-holding renters sometimes received penalties
even though the owner was responsible for the landscape. Field
staff recorded a number of violations at properties with ‘for sale’
signs. Because of the high number of foreclosures during this time,
cases at these properties often went unresolved since no one was
directly responsible for the property. Violations linked to
corporate customers were among the most difficult to resolve.
Corporate customers often accrued multiple violations due to a lack
of communication between the account holder, landscaper, and office
management. Many of the corporate offices were out of state, and
the chain of command was slow to act. Conservation staff had
difficulty reaching the correct corporate contact, and local
employees were either unable or unwilling to make any on-site
changes to prevent further violations from occurring.
4-11
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Penalties generated a lot of negative emotion from customers. Some
called to vent their frustration or make excuses. Others told us
they could not afford penalties. A few customers threatened to not
pay the penalty. However, because the penalty was applied to the
bill, late charges accrued if they refused to pay. Emerald Bay
appealed their penalties, and then failed to appear at the Water
Commission Hearing after staff had spent a fair amount of time
preparing the case. Consequently, their unwillingness to pay led to
an automatic 10% late charge. Landscape contractors dealt with
several challenges regarding restrictions. For large sites with
multiple irrigation timers, landscapers experienced the “scheduling
nightmare” of completing irrigation cycles within the restricted
time frame. Many said they would have liked more flexibility.
Similarly, hand watering multiple sites before 10:00 a.m. was
tricky. Residents also had difficulty with the time of day
restriction, especially later in the season when daylight waned.
Some landscapers were unhappy that multiple, unrelated violations
at a property led to additional penalties, especially when a good
faith effort was being made to correct the violations. Common area
landscapers had to charge customers an emergency fee for problems
that occurred on Saturdays (one of the assigned day for common area
irrigation). Landscapers requested more detailed violation
descriptions to help them locate and address problems. Although
only Ewing Irrigation complained for having to reprogram an ET
controller to fit restrictions, this could become a refrain if ET
controllers become more common place. Restrictions had a large,
albeit temporary, impact on landscapers’ day to day duties. Many
had to change their maintenance and staffing schedules, juggle an
increased workload (to reschedule irrigation timers and/or address
violations), and sometimes modify plant choices or delay
installations. A few landscapers used the restrictions to their
advantage by encouraging clients to upgrade landscapes and
irrigation. Some companies lost client accounts after penalties
were incurred. Landscapers and the general public faced challenges
with poorly designed sites. Spray heads located next to curbs, too
close to shrubs, in narrow or oddly-shaped planting areas, and on
slopes invariably created water waste violations. For some
properties, using multiple start times to prevent water waste
wasn’t feasible because runoff would occur within a minute or two
of operation. Customers were not always willing or able to make
retrofits to their irrigation systems. Irrigation scheduling
presented a challenge to many customers. Previous home water
surveys show that a majority of customers don’t know how to make
changes to their timers, or are unfamiliar with common features
used to prevent runoff. A few customers
4-12
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
had basic timers that did not offer a day of the week option.
Customers were also unaware that power outages can make some timers
run on a daily default schedule until reprogrammed. Staff offered
to help customers with rescheduling, but this service was not as
broadly advertised as it might have been. One additional unforeseen
challenge was a conflict between a federal law—the Virginia Graeme
Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act—and the local water restriction on
draining and refilling residential swimming pools. This federal law
required pool drains be equipped with anti-entrapment drain covers
to meet current safety standards by a certain date. The deadline
had already ended, yet the County Health Department was enforcing
on outstanding properties. Eventually, an arrangement was made
between the City and county to allow a case-by-case exception to
the drain-fill restriction for pools that needed to comply with the
act, provided that: a) the swimming pool contractor considered
alternatives that did not involve draining the pool, and b) they
include a copy of Environmental Health's approval letter that they
have complied with the Act. 4.11 Internal Challenges Internally,
the two biggest challenges were the managing the increased workload
and the stress related to the restrictions. Enforcing restrictions
consumed all available staff time. The office processed over two
thousand cases over the course of the season, and keeping up with
the volume of violations was difficult. There was only a two week
window between sending an enforcement notice and the possibility of
applying a (new) penalty. Some customers continued to accrue
violations during this two week window. These violations were not
enforced, but were still documented and entered into the database.
Hundreds of cases were actively managed at the same time, in
various violation stages, along different tracks and timelines,
some moving from one violation stage to the next while others were
batched for customer service to apply penalties, while still others
were getting resolved through customer contact. The office was
non-stop busy from May through October. It wasn’t just busy; it was
at times, overwhelming. The deadlines never stopped and the work
kept coming in. Consequently, many things fell through the cracks
during this period. The office had planned to continue publicity.
Luckily for us, several news interviews aired about the
restrictions, including a ride along with field staff. But after
the initial publicity campaign, staff was too swamped to
administrate additional ads. A lack of restriction notification
also occurred when new customers signed up for water service via
fax. Customers signing up in person received a restrictions flyer,
but those requesting water service by fax were never sent any
restriction information. Due to workloads, neither
4-13
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Customer Service nor Conservation resolved this issue. Before
restrictions began, the Conservation Office discussed setting up a
special drought restrictions webpage. The webpage never went beyond
the initial planning phase. At the time of restrictions, all
website actions required coordination with water administration and
IT staff4. Other projects left unfinished included a tip sheet for
avoiding irrigation runoff, a City-wide email letting employees
know about the restrictions, and an exceptions form. Consequently,
Conservation’s usual work was put on hold. Rebate applications took
longer to process, home water surveys were suspended, and the
development of new conservation programs was delayed. Several
deadlines, both internal and external (such as completing BMP
reports to the California Urban Water Conservation Council) were
missed. It took a long time to recover from the restrictions and
catch up with the postponed work. The stress level prior to and
during the restrictions was high. Gearing up, the office had a very
short lead time between declaring the restrictions and notifying
the public. The SCMU Review was in press at the time Council
declared a Stage 2 shortage. Getting the word out fast was our
initial priority as enforcement would begin the next week. Work did
not slow down after the declaration. The office environment shifted
from quiet and friendly to fast-paced and frenzied. Customers,
usually polite and friendly, called to vent their frustrations over
receiving a violation letter, or worse, a penalty. Turning the plan
into practice required staff to continually refine the enforcement
process. Adding fuel to the fire, a mandatory 9-hour, 4-day
furlough schedule was implemented in July. Losing a day to process
violations and answer phones significantly added to the workload
during the rest of the week. A new ConserveTrack database program
was used to manage violation cases. It worked, but not without
quite a few glitches. The office used paper files for almost two
months before ConserveTrack was up and running, and entering all of
those past cases was a chore! ConserveTrack’s screen configuration
changed a couple of times, requiring staff to reorient themselves
with the program’s functions. Photos associated with penalties had
to be retrieved from the original image file, rather than batched
and printed from ConserveTrack. The program was supposed to track
and move cases from stage to stage; but this feature never worked
well, and a wall calendar was used instead. Throughout the entire
restriction period, ConserveTrack failed to grab and update fresh
utility billing data. More than once, violation letters were sent
to a previous tenant because of outdated account information. This
last issue has since been resolved.
4 The City since then has created a new website which is far easier
to update and expand.
4-14
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Field personnel experienced a number of difficult challenges, both
on patrol and back in the office. In the field, connecting the
source of water waster and the responsible customer was not always
obvious or easy. Many violations required secondary or tertiary
field assessments before they could be determined as such. For
instance, in order to determine whether a “Landscape [was] being
watered on [the] wrong day,” field staff had to first determine a)
the irrigation source and b) the irrigation source’s address, and
connect the two. Waste occurrences around condominium complexes
and/or housing developments with both common and individual
irrigation presented obvious interpretive dilemmas. Similarly, the
second most common violation, “Excess water running to waste,”
required field staff to constantly define and redefine “waste.”
Early on, field staff developed the “rule of property lines”
metric, defining waste as “water that ran in the gutter beyond the
property lines of the source.” Obviously, when it came to large
properties in the upper elevations of the service area (of which
many feature large, sloping landscapes and, thus, runoff), this
metric stretched like the driveways leading up to these homes. All
in all, field staff interpreted waste very conservatively as the
office was always up to its neck in the enforcement of egregious
cases. Another challenge worth mentioning was the
photo-documentation process. A majority of violations occurred in
the dim, early morning hours. While field staff did a fine job
capturing these violations, the cameras did not work well in the
dark, making it difficult to enforce penalties on early morning
violators. Even though contacts between enforcement personnel and
the public in the field were not all that common due to the early
hours, some customers reacted negatively to enforcement. In
retrospect, wearing a City uniform might have cooled some of these
reactions. In the office, the task of linking violation reports to
the appropriate customer presented a whole new set of difficulties.
In some situations, the violation address recorded in the field was
not found in the Eden utility billing system, and determining the
responsible customer required research involving the city GIS, or
asking the Engineering or Customer Service sections for their
assistance. In others, difficulties identifying or even contacting
the appropriate person, such as what occurred with corporate
offices situated in different states, or accounts listed under a
property manager’s name, made enforcement challenging. Managing the
enforcement workload required constant evaluation of our priorities
and practices. For example, late in the season, when system water
demand stabilized, the office decided to stop penalizing all the
“watering on wrong day” cases and, instead, call
4-15
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
customers and ask for their cooperation. This helped bring the
enforcement workload down to a more manageable level. 4.12 Effect
of Water Restrictions on Revenue One of the negative consequences
of demand reduction is the corresponding reduction in water sales
revenue to the City’s Water Fund. Not including the added costs of
temporary staff, services and supplies, the Water Shortage
Contingency Plan conservatively estimated $1.65 million in revenue
loss during a seven-month, Stage 2 water shortage. For the entire
2009 calendar year, with no change in water rates from the year
before, revenue was down about $2.5 million, from $24.6 million in
2008 to $22.1 million in 2009. It is hard to say precisely how much
revenue was lost over the six months that restrictions were in
place because meter reading and billing practices differed between
2008 and 2008, making a month-to-month comparison impractical. The
bottom line: 2009 revenues declined 50 percent more than expected.
Consumption levels continued to remain low systemwide in 2010
partly due to an unseasonably wet spring and a cool summer, but
also likely due to a lingering effect of 2009 water restrictions,
namely long-term changes in irrigation practices and awareness.
This, coupled with the broader economic downturn, has indicated a
slow recovery to previous consumption/revenue levels. 4.13 Customer
Survey After the official end date (10/31/09) of the restriction
period, customer feedback was sought through an online survey
created by staff and the IT Department. The survey instrument, with
tabulated results and added comments, can be found as Attachment
16. Unfortunately, too few surveys were received to reliably
represent public sentiment about the water restrictions. Only 13
surveys were received, but they do provide some insight as to how
the general public experienced restrictions. The results are
summarized by category of questions below: General The majority of
respondents lived in a house and paid the water bill (11). The main
sources notifying customers of restrictions were: SCMU Review (5),
newspaper (4), word of mouth (2), utility bill (1).
4-16
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Most respondents did not find the restrictions confusing or unclear
(11); of the two that did, reasons cited were that it was hard to
remember right day to water, and hand- watering with hose policy
was unclear. Effect of Water Restrictions on Landscape Regarding
the two day a week watering, respondents were split: 5 felt it was
enough, 5 felt is was not enough. Regarding the effects of
restrictions on lawn, results varied: the majority saw some effect
on the lawn with either a little or moderate yellowing. Of
respondents who have irrigation controllers, most did change the
controller schedule and found it easy (6). When asked about
additional efforts to conserve, responses were varied:
landscape/irrigation changes were made, leaks fixed, some
behavioral changes made. No respondents made fixture changes.
Utility Bill Most respondents did not notice any significant change
on the utility bill (9). Only 1 person stated that the utility bill
increased. The majority of respondents said that water usage
decreased a little bit (10). Enforcement Most respondents never
received a notice of having violated restrictions (11). Most
respondents never saw conservation staff patrolling (10). Of the
three that did see staff patrols, the customers were glad to see
City actively enforcing the restrictions. No respondents cited
feeling indifferent, uncomfortable, or a lack of privacy.
Reactions/Responses Seven of those who responded felt enthusiastic
about restrictions, four felt neutral, and two had negative or
angry reactions. The majority of respondents felt it was easy to
adhere to restrictions (7). Most of those surveyed did not
experience any personal hardships (4). Some felt logistical (3),
aesthetic (2), or emotional (1) hardships. None cited economic
hardship. Regarding schedule conflicts with watering, most did not
have a problem as irrigation was controlled by a timer (7). Others
who controlled watering themselves acknowledged some difficulty. No
business owners responded to this survey (questions 17 &
18).
4-17
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Overall Impressions Most felt that restrictions called for an
appropriate level of conservation (8). The remainder was split
between too much (2) and too little (3). Seven respondents noticed
no difference in water waste; five noticed less waste. The majority
of respondents cited preserving the reservoir as the reason for
restrictions (11); two felt that it happened because the reservoir
was too low. Some comments made by the surveyed cited actions that
they would like to see: • More promotion of lawn replacement,
graywater use, rain catchment • Higher billing tiers • Leak
detection service • Target heavy users Due to the lack of
sufficient responses, the survey results should not be considered
indicative of general public sentiment. It may be more helpful to
gather responses mid- restriction period or offer an incentive for
completing the survey.
4-18
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Section 5: Conclusions and Recommendations In many ways, the effort
to reduce customer water use during 2009 can be considered a
success. Consumption reduction goals were achieved. The
overwhelming majority of the City’s customer complied with water
restrictions. Reservoir storage was preserved. Little if any,
lasting damage to public and private landscapes was done. Credit
for this success goes to the public, for rising to the challenge
and taking action to save water when called upon to do so for the
collective good of the community. In the end, water conditions
improved substantially in 2010. But had it not, the water saved
from restrictions enacted in 2009 would have meant a good deal less
hardship dealing with a potentially 4th dry year. A key ingredient
to this success was the public’s understanding, awareness, and
belief that the City was confronted with a true water shortage
problem. Media coverage of water problems across California
reinforced the situation. Without that sense of a real and imminent
problem, it’s likely the level of cooperation and willingness
demonstrated by the community in making changes they did might have
been considerably reduced. Much progress was made with putting
enforcement systems, procedures, and tools in place, like Conserve
Track database and the GIS Water Viewer, that were not in place
prior to 2009 and will help in the future. Even so, there were
numerous lessons learned from this experience and several areas
where improvements could be made to better manage water shortages
in the future. Our recommendations are as follows: 1. Regarding the
timeline for declaring a water shortage, keep some flexibility in
the
when water restrictions take effect, and how long they remain in
effect. The April 1 date referenced in the contingency plan may be
too soon for restrictions to take effect in the first year of a
water shortage, but is more appropriate for longer lasting
events.
2. In holding large customers to a water budget, it should be
expected that usage will
change over time. Future budgets will need to be recalculated,
communicated, and agreed to well in advance, and timelines adjusted
according to meter reading schedules.
3. As identified in the 2009 Contingency Plan, continue to focus on
developing the large
landscape program so that water budgets can be used to manage large
irrigation accounts the next time a water shortage arises. Ideally,
water usage for large
5-1
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
landscapes during a water shortage, including golf courses, should
be charged according to a tiered pricing system, based on the
assigned budget.
4. Increase marketing and publications via all media, including
web, and maintain
repeated communications throughout the restriction period. Consider
employing a public relations professional early on when
implementing the plan to manage publicity and marketing. Consider
using street signage at strategic locations to remind the community
of water restrictions.
5. Increase workforce commensurate with the level of field
enforcement needed to
better manage the volume of office work generated. 6. Always
provide photographic documentation of any violation of water
restrictions,
including initial contact with customers, so customers may better
locate and address issues. Include more details with all violation
notices.
7. Consider penalizing only those violations that go uncorrected,
and treat new or
different types of problems on the same property as a separate and
distinct enforcement process.
8. Market water conservation services (such as home water surveys),
and provide more
customer assistance (for example, technical support with irrigation
controllers) in the field, through workshops, and with website
information.
9. Counterbalance water restrictions with landscape water
conservation opportunities
and incentives. Offer solutions to permanently shift irrigation
practices and address poor landscape/irrigation design.
10. Clarify the definition and location of common area landscapes
for Home Owner
Associations. 11. Offer flexibility in time of day and day of week
watering for professional landscapers
managing large or multiple sites with many irrigation circuits. 12.
Increase direct communications with landscape contractors and hard
to reach (i.e.,
corporate or out of state) customers.
5-2
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
13. Provide all field personnel with uniforms to facilitate
identification of employees and present a professional image to the
public (This is something we didn’t do and should have).
14. Consider revenue impacts of water shortage in the next water
rate study and identify
ways to overcome financial costs and losses caused by reduced water
sales.
5-3
The 2009 Water Shortage An Evaluation of Water Management
Strategies, Actions, and Results
Attachments
2. Press Release
5. Press Release, March 2009
6. Summary of Water Restrictions (distributed as flyer in SCMU
Review)
7. April 2009 SCMU Review
8. Newspaper Articles
11. Chart of Gross Daily Water Consumption
12. Water Production Forecast and Actual Production Volumes
13. UCSC 2009 Water Shortage Plan
14. Photos of Landscapes
16. Survey Questionnaire With Response Information
W A T E R D E P A R T M E N T M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 26, 2009 TO: Water Commission FROM: Toby Goddard,
Water Conservation Manager SUBJECT: Water Supply Conditions,
Initial Estimate of Water Supply Availability for 2009
RECOMMENDATION: For information and discussion by the Water
Commission. Rainfall: As of the end of January 2009, total rainfall
for the 2008-09 season measures only 7.5 inches in the city, less
than 50 percent of the long-term average amount -16 inches - for
this time of year. In the Loch Lomond watershed, a scant 13.4
inches of rain has fallen through the end of January, compared to
long-term average of 27 inches, also less than half of normal.
January is normally the wettest month of the year. Up until January
22, when it rained 1.2 inches in town, the National Weather Service
and news media had begun comparing it to the driest January on
record. So far, only 1.8 inches has fallen this month in the city
compared to a normal monthly total of 6.5 inches. In the Loch
Lomond watershed only 1.7 inches has been recorded this January,
compared to a normal monthly total of 10.3 inches. Runoff: With
hardly any wet weather recently other than a few showery days, and
no powerful winter storms as yet to recharge the watershed, the San
Lorenzo River continues to flow at levels that are far below normal
and among the lowest on record for the month of January. The river
is currently flowing at 23 cubic feet per second (cfs), compared to
a long-term average flow of over 300 cfs for the month of January.
Both Laguna and Majors Creeks on the North Coast are also flowing
at unseasonably low levels. Reservoir Storage: The reservoir is
currently holding steady at elevation 566.2, about eleven feet
below the spillway elevation. This elevation translates to a
storage volume of 2,229 million gallons, or about 78 percent of its
2,830 million gallon capacity. There has been no substantial
natural runoff into the reservoir as yet, nor has it been feasible
thus far to pump water up to the reservoir from Felton Diversion -
or even to inflate the dam - due to the exceptionally low flows in
the San Lorenzo River. Water Year Classification: The 2008-09 water
year continues to be classified as Critically Dry, and we do not
expect any change in this status when the U.S. Geological Survey
updates its figures at the end of the month. Only 4,400 acre-feet
of runoff has been recorded on the San
A1-1
Lorenzo River since the new water year began October 1, 2008.
Runoff must exceed 29,000 acre-feet for the water year to be
classified as Dry and 49,000 acre-feet to be considered Normal.
Initial Estimate of Water Supply Availability The City’s water
supply outlook, as of the end of January 2009, is bad. As with the
rest of California, water conditions during the last two years have
been below average, and it appears a third dry year is underway.
Much will depend on how much rainfall occurs over the next 2 to 3
months, but the chances of getting even average rainfall and runoff
for the year grow less and less with each passing day. The primary
problem is with the flowing sources, which normally provide about
three quarters of the City’s annual water supply. There are only a
few instances on record when the San Lorenzo River has flowed so
low in January. Without a major change in the weather - and none is
foreseen in the short term - we would expect the river and coast
sources to dwindle to historic lows this summer. For the San
Lorenzo River, the threat is that flows will sooner or later drop
below 12 cubic feet per second (cfs), limiting production. For the
north coast sources, the threat is keeping the line operational
throughout the entire season if the flow reaching the coast pump
station gets too low. Coast production is already reduced by
voluntary bypass flows. The worst case is if the second half of
winter follows the same pattern as last year: of completely drying
up early in the season. Attached are 2 tables that represent an
attempt to project our water supply availability for the upcoming
dry season. Our confidence in these estimates is low given that we
know little about when the river might drop below 12 cfs. Scenario
1 uses actual production volumes from 1977 to estimate both the
north coast (gross) and San Lorenzo River production. Normally, the
coast provides about 4 mgd in the spring, dropping off to about 2
mgd in the fall. Under current conditions, it is likely that the
net coast flow reaching the pump station will drop off to less than
1 mgd for the entire season. With the river, normal production is
about 8 mgd or about 230 million gallons per month, all year long.
Actual production volumes in 1977 were about half that, as the
river dropping below 12 cfs as early as May and falling off to
about 6 cfs in summer. Scenario 2 differs only in the projection
for the San Lorenzo River, in which production is indirectly
estimated based on 1977 flows, as opposed to actual 1977 production
volumes. Both scenarios show that, in trying to balance demand -
which is assumed to be the same as in 2008 - against available
supply, the lake would be drawn down to an unacceptable low level.
Under Scenario 1, the lake would drop from 2.2 to less than 1.0
billion gallons, or less than 30 percent, by the end of October.
Under Scenario 2, the lake drops to 1.1 billion gallons, or 41
percent of capacity. Neither of these situations leaves adequate
water in the reservoir in case dry conditions were to continue
beyond 2009. Therefore, it is almost inevitable that cutbacks in
water use will be required this summer unless there is a major
improvement in water conditions. The question is how much? Our
estimate at this point is that a 25 to 35 percent cutback in demand
may be
A1-2
required to avoid depleting storage below 1.6 billion gallons. This
shortfall would constitute an emergency water shortage and trigger
either a Stage 3 or Stage 4 response under the updated Water
Shortage Contingency Plan, perhaps as soon as April. With no
guarantee of improvement, staff will be working in the meantime on
various actions that would need to be implemented this spring,
which include: • Crafting an updated water shortage ordinance (City
Attorney is leading this effort) • Testing/improving the utility
billing capabilities and utility bill layout for possible
water
rationing • Internal and external communication and coordination •
Water shortage web site development The Water Department will
continue to monitor water supply conditions and reevaluate the
water supply outlook at the end of February. The timeline for
publicly announcing a water shortage condition would be in
mid-March, and formal declaration by City Council in mid-April. A
public hearing on the Water Shortage Contingency Plan is scheduled
for February 10, 2009, at which time staff will brief City Council
on current water conditions and the water supply outlook for the
coming year.
A1-3
W A T E R D E P A R T M E N T
212 Locust St, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 • 831 420-5200 • Fax: 831
420-5201•
[email protected]
PRESS RELEASE
January 30, 2009 CONTACT: Bill Kocher FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Water
Director (831) 420-5200
WATER SUPPLY CONDITIONS
As of the end of January 2009, total rainfall for the 2008-09
season measures only 7.5 inches in the city,
less than 50 percent of the long-term average amount -16 inches -
for this time of year. In the Loch
Lomond watershed, a scant 13.4 inches of rain has fallen through
the end of January, compared to long-
term average of 27 inches, also less than half of normal.
With hardly any wet weather recently other than a few showery days,
and no powerful winter storms as
yet to recharge the watershed, the San Lorenzo River continues to
flow at levels that are far below
normal and among the lowest on record for the month of January. The
river is currently flowing at 19
cubic feet per second (cfs), compared to a long-term average flow
of over 300 cfs for the month of
January. The city’s North Coast sources are also flowing at
unseasonably low levels. The San Lorenzo
River and North Coast sources normally provide three-quarters of
the City’s annual water supply.
Loch Lomond Reservoir currently stands at about 78 percent of its
2,830 million gallon capacity. There
has been no substantial natural runoff into the reservoir as yet,
nor has it been feasible thus far to pump
water up to the reservoir from Felton Diversion due to the
exceptionally low flows in the San Lorenzo
River.
The 2008-09 water year continues to be classified as Critically
Dry. Only 4,400 acre-feet of runoff has
been recorded on the San Lorenzo River since the new water year
began October 1, 2008. Runoff must
A2-1
exceed 29,000 acre-feet for the water year to be classified as Dry
and 49,000 acre-feet to be considered
Normal.
As with the rest of California, water conditions in Santa Cruz
during the last two years have been below
average, and it appears a third critically dry year is well
underway. Much will depend on how much
rainfall occurs over the next 2 to 3 months, but the chances of
getting even average rainfall and runoff
for the year grow less and less with each passing day. The National
Weather Service, Monterey Forecast
Office, is predicting dry weather conditions will persist for at
least another week.
The City’s water supply outlook for 2009 will be discussed at the
Santa Cruz City Water Commission,
Monday, February 2, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers,
Santa Cruz City Hall, 809 Center
Street, Santa Cruz. The lack of rainfall and runoff this winter may
result in an emergency water
shortage, requiring systemwide cutbacks in water use of as much as
35 percent.
A public hearing on the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan is
scheduled for February 10, 2009, at
which time staff will brief City Council on current water
conditions and the water supply outlook for the
coming year.
The Water Department will continue to monitor water supply
conditions and reevaluate the water supply
outlook at the end of February. The timeline for publicly
announcing a water shortage condition would
be in mid-March, and formal declaration by City Council in
mid-April.
# # #
A2-2
W A T E R D E P A R T M E N T M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: February 24, 2009 TO: Water Commission FROM: Toby Goddard,
Water Conservation Manager SUBJECT: Water Supply Conditions,
Revised Estimate of Water Supply Availability for
2009 RECOMMENDATION: For information and discussion by the Water
Commission. Rainfall: A series of wet weather systems finally
arrived to the Central Coast region beginning February 4, 2009. As
of February 24, the monthly rainfall total in Santa Cruz measured
9.8 inches to date, bringing the seasonal total up to 17.4 inches,
or just under 79 percent of normal. The monthly total in the Newell
Creek watershed measured 16.0 inches, for a seasonal total of 29.1
inches, or about 80 percent of normal. The National Weather Service
is forecasting a chance of more showers off and on through the end
of the month. Runoff: The San Lorenzo River began to respond to
rainfall received in early February, but because conditions were so
dry through January, flows at the Big Trees gage in Felton during
the first half of the month peaked at less than 200 cubic feet per
second (cfs) and only for brief periods of time. However, these
early February rains were highly beneficial in helping to saturate
the watershed, so by the 15th and the 23rd, two fairly significant
runoff events were observed. It is estimated that when the monthly
report on stream flow is received from the U.S. Geological Survey
at the beginning of March, the mean monthly stream flow for
February will come close to the long-term average monthly level of
400 cfs. Production levels from the north coast sources have also
begun to see some improvement in recent days as a result of higher
flows following the recent rains. Reservoir Storage: Since the end
of January, Loch Lomond Reservoir has risen over six feet, adding
about 330 million gallons of water to storage, and currently stands
at elevation 572.6, less
A3-1
than five feet below the spillway elevation of 577.3 feet. This
elevation translates to a storage volume of 2,559 million gallons,
or about 90 percent of its 2,830 million gallon capacity, up from
78 percent full at the beginning of the month. The diversion dam at
Felton was successfully inflated February 16 and supplemental
pumping up to Loch Lomond began about one week ago. Water Year
Classification: In spite of all the rain this month, the 2008-09
water year continues to be classified as Critically Dry. From
October 1, 2008 through the end of January, only about 5,800
acre-feet of runoff had been recorded on the San Lorenzo River. It
is estimated that another 15,000 acre-feet or so of runoff has
occurred since February 1, putting the cumulative discharge for the
water year at close to 21,000 acre-feet. Discharge must exceed
29,000 acre-feet for the water year to be classified as Dry and
49,000 acre-feet to be considered Normal. It is possible that the
2008-09 water year classification could be upgraded to Dry in the
coming weeks if the wet weather pattern experienced over the past
few weeks continues. We’ll have a better idea of what the total
discharge is when the U.S. Geological Survey report is received in
early March. Revised Estimate of Water Supply Availability The
City’s water supply outlook, as of the end of February is
considerably improved from just one short month ago 2009, even
though rainfall continues to be below average for the season, and
the water year remains critically dry. Reservoir storage has risen
to 90 percent and recent rains have restored at least some prospect
of improved flows for both the coast and river sources relative to
January. However, the wet weather has all occurred over a
relatively short time frame, so it is difficult to accurately say
how the north coast streams and San Lorenzo River will flow through
summer, especially considering that 2009 is shaping up as the third
consecutive year of below normal rainfall and runoff. The good news
is that there is still another six weeks or so of the rainy season
and that the forecast calls for continuing unsettled or wet weather
for the foreseeable future. This time last year, unbeknownst to
anyone, the wet weather season ended abruptly. So there is the
possibility of more storms that potentially could lead to Loch
Lomond Reservoir refilling to full capacity and bolstering local
stream flows. Attached is a table that conservatively forecasts
water supply availability, demand, and utilization of water storage
through the upcoming dry season. It is based on what we know now,
and a reasonable assumption about how much additional storage could
be added by pumping from Felton Diversion. Coast production is
assumed to be similar to actual production from last year, reduced
by ten percent, to account for how dry the first half of winter was
and the fact that total rainfall last year was higher than it is
this year to date. The San Lorenzo River is expected to remain
above 12 cubic feet per second at least through the month of June,
allowing full production of 7.5 million gallons per day for the
first half of the dry season. Thereafter, the river can be expected
to decline below the level that requires production to be scaled
back. This revised forecast indicates that Loch Lomond Reservoir
would be drawn down to less than 2.0 billion gallons by the end of
October, ending close to two-thirds full. This is a marked improve