Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Water Use Efficiency > Water Conservation Practitioner III > Flashcards

Water Conservation Practitioner III Flashcards

1
Q

What influence demand forcast?

A

Population

Weather

Program Saturation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What does the Certification Grade III cover?

A
  1. Integrated Planning - a broader perspective
  2. Program Design
  3. Program Monitoring
  4. Program Evaluation
  5. Program Cost-Effectiveness
  6. Rate design
  7. Drought Planning and Management
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

WUE Grade 3: Need Need-To -Know Criteria

  1. Program Design
A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

WUE Grade 3: Need Need-To -Know Criteria

  1. Program Monitoring
A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

WUE Grade 3: Need Need-To -Know Criteria

  1. Program Cost-Effectiveness Analysis/Issues
A

/

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

WUE Grade 3: Need Need-To -Know Criteria

  1. Program Design
A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Water Planning in California - years

A

Since 1993 UWMP

Since 2002 IWRMP: integrated Water Resource Management Plan

Since 2014: Groundwater Sustainability Plan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What does water planning look like in California?

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Integrated Resource Planning parts

A
  • Integrated Resource Planning – For Your Agency
  • Analyzing Water Supply Reliability
  • Comparing Total Cost of All Supply Options
  • Include Water Use Efficiency In Water Portfolios
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are the general categories of Integrated Resource Planning?

A
  1. • Integrated Resource Planning – For Your Agency
  2. • Analyzing Water Supply Reliability
  3. • Comparing Total Cost of All Supply Options
  4. • Include Water Use Efficiency In Water Portfolios
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What does Analyzing Water Supply Reliability look like?

A

Analyzing Water Supply Reliability
–Current and future water supply reliability
–Normal, Dry and Critical Dry Year reliability
–Impacts from different Water Use Efficiency scenarios
–Timing of future reliability investments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How do you compare Total Cost of All Supply Options

A

–Water use: annual, seasonal, monthly and daily by sector
–Saturation of conservation measures during planning period
–Capital and operation costs, comparison tools

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Comparing Total Cost of All Supply Options

A

Include Water Use Efficiency In Water Portfolios
–Assess other water agency programs
–Consider CUWCC Best Management Practices
–Address local water use targets

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Include Water Use Efficiency In Water Portfolios

A

– Assess other water agency programs
– Consider CUWCC Best Management Practices
– Address local water use targets

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Water Policy Coordination

A

California: [Plans updated every five years]
State Water Plan (with water portfolios) Integrated Regional Water Management Plans Groundwater Sustainability Plans
GSPs
Urban Water Management Plans
Water Loss Control (DWR/SWRCB)

Drinking Water Compliance

Groundwater Cleanup

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

State Water Plan – 2018 Update

Managing Water Resources For Sustainability

A

The California Water Plan (Water Plan) is the State’s strategic plan for sustainably managing and developing water resources for current and future generations

Required by California Water Code Section 10005(a), plan presents status and trends of state’s water-dependent natural resources; water uses and supplies; and future agricultural, urban, and environmental water demands and supplies for a range of plausible climate and socio-economic scenarios.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Statewide Applied Water Use - how water was used … in millions of acre-feet

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Statewide Dedicated and Developed Water Supply - where it came from … in millions of acre-feet

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

M50 Definition

A

A comprehensive long range resource management approach that considers least cost analyzes of demand and supply side management options, stakeholder input, and water resource alternatives that address utility, environmental and societal costs and benefits.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

IRP: AWWARF Definition

A

IRP is a continuous process that results in the development of a comprehensive water resource management plan.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

IRP: California DWR Definition

A

a comprehensive plan for a defined geographic area, the specific development, content, and adoption of which shall satisfy requirements developed pursuant to this part. At a minimum, an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan describes the major water-related objectives and conflicts within a region, considers a broad variety of resource management strategies, identifies the appropriate mix of water demand and supply management alternatives, water quality protections, and environmental stewardship actions to provide long-term, reliable, and high-quality water supply and protect the environment, and identifies disadvantaged communities in the region and takes the water-related needs of those communities into consideration.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

IRP: Model Process

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Traditional vs. IRP Approach

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Traditional vs. IRP Approach

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Urban Water Demand Forecasting More Important Than EverL wHAT IS THE PURPOSE?

A

– Sizing water system and new water supply
– Sizing/staging treatment & distribution system improvements
– WUE Program tracking and evaluation
– IMPORTANT for WUE targets and program design
– System operations management and optimization
– Water rate setting, revenue forecasting, and budgeting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

AWWA 2013: Demand Forecasting: What is unique and difficult about Demand Forcasting?

A

• “Water demand is inherently difficult to forecast because water is a complex, multidimensional commodity.”

“Each water system has a unique set of data; there is no single model that can fit all systems.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Future Urban Water Supplier Water Use Targets (SB606/AB1668)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

SWRCB Policy: Indoor Use standard reduced from ___ to ___

A

55 gpd in 2020 and 42 in 2030

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Urban Retail Water Supplier’s Urban water use objective:

A

Aggregate efficient indoor residential water use

Aggregate efficient outdoor residential water use

Aggregate efficient outdoor irrigation with dedicated irrrigation meters

Aggregate estimated efficient water losses

Aggregate estimated water use for variances approved by the State Water Board

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Allowable bonus Incentive Adjustments: (CWC 10609.20(d)): which shall be limited in accordance with one of the following:

A
  • volume of potable reuse water from existing utility with, completed environmental review by Jan 1st, 2019, that becomes operational by Jan 1st, 2022, not to exceed 15% or urban water use objective
  • volume of potable reuse water from new facility, not to exceed 10% of urban water use objective
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Urban Retail Water Supplier’s Urban Water Use Objective, Adjusted for Bonus incentive . . .

A

for annual reporting purposes & comparison to the actual water use in the previous year.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Tendency: Overestimate Demands

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

AWWA 2013: Importance

A

• The Importance of Water Demand for Operations and Planning
• Water demand and resultant water sales represent a water system’s economic engine. Demand projections form the basis of several complex financial and strategic decisions including capital investments.
– Based on daily/seasonal system flow projections
– Short term (1-5 yrs.) vs. long term (15+ yrs.) horizon
– Asset Management decisions – capacity, R&R

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

AWWA 2013: Forecast Considerations

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

CA State Water Project
Water Supply Reliability Perspective

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

CA State Water Project Estimated Future Exports

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

IRP: Emerging Areas

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

IRP: Context

A

California:
State Water Plan (updated every five years) Integrated Resource Water Management

  • About 50 planning regions state-wide
  • Now GSA regions with GSPs…

Nevada:
State Water Plan (Nevada Revised Statute 540) Integrated Water Management

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Typical IRP (IRWMP) - CA

A
  • Executive Summary
  • References
  • Section 1 - Introduction
  • Section 2 - Region Description
  • Section 3 - Existing & Future Conditions
  • Section 4 - Water & Land Use Planning
  • Section 5 - Challenges & Opportunities Summary
  • Section 6 - Goals & Objectives
  • Section 7 - Resource Management Strategies (Incl. WUE)
  • Section 8 - Project Review & Prioritization
  • Section 9 - Impacts & Benefits
  • Section 10 - Coordination
  • Section 11 - Implementation Framework
  • Section 12 - Acronyms & Glossary
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

IRP: Policy Coordination

A

California:
State Water Plan (updated every five years) Integrated Regional Water Management Plans Urban Water Management Plans (every five years) Water Portfolio Documentation
Water Conservation Plans WCP
SB 606/AB 1668

–Water Use Targets

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

2013 Draft California Water Plan Comparison of Water Management Options - (San Diego Area – 2010)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Metropolitan Water District 2010 IRP Dry Year Resource Goals

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Bay Area Water Users Demands

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Bay Area Water Users Water Use Efficiency Targets

A

PEIR is Program Environmental Impact Report
WCIP is water conservation implementation plan**

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Southern Nevada Water Authority: water sources and porfolio.

A

• Nevada Water Sources
– 60% surface water (all surface water allocated)
– 40% groundwater (local and regional)
• SNWA Water Portfolio
– Colorado River surface water allocations
– Groundwater (continue developing)
– Planning for lower gpcd water use efficiency target

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

2009-13 SNWA Conservation Plan: THE ROLE OF CONSERVATION IN RESOURCE PLANNING

A

Water conservation plays a critical role in water-resource planning and management. The ability to increase efficient water use and reduce water waste has a direct impact on the amount of resources that will be needed in the future. The more successful a community’s conservation, the lower the community’s projected demand for water (relative to levels that would have occurred in the absence of conservation) becomes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Sample Water Portfolio – Long Term

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Sample Water Portfolio -2020

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

RP: Water Option Evaluation (NPV)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Water Source Diversification Is Here: ex. City of Santa Barbara

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Recycled Water An Expanding Part of State Water Portfolio…

A

State
wide recycled water production
increased from about 500,000 afy in
2003 to 714,000 afy in 2015. New
recycled water projects are being
added to the recycled water portfolio
on an on going basis.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Recycled Water An Expanding Part of State Water Portfolio…

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Cost Comparison Methodologies

A
  • Annualized Costs – Annualized Capital/O&M Costs – Application: ranking projects based on utility costs
  • Net Present Value (NPV) – Current and future costs and benefits – Discount rate (expected future inflation rate) – Ranking projects based on current value
  • Benefit/Cost (B/C) – Measure of project economic feasibility
  • Internal Rate Of Return (IRR) – Means of screening project economic feasibility
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Sample: Annualized Costs

A

Assumptions:
––$5 million capital costs
–6% interest rate
–40 year project useful life
Annualized Capital Costs= $332,308
Annualized O&M Costs= $250,000
Total Annualized Costs= $582,308

•Simple method for comparing similar projectsces for different projects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Sample: Net Present Value

A

• Assumptions:
– Future value
– Discount rate
– Periods ranging from year 1 to project useful life

Method for selecting preferred projects and allocating limited resources for different projects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Sample: NPV Calculation

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Sample: Benefit/Cost Ratio

A

Assumptions:
–Present value of benefits
–Present value of costs
–Discount rate
–Generally: B/C ratio > 1 (feasible)

Alternative method for determining the economic
feasibility of a resource option.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Sample: B/C Calculation

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Sample: Internal Rate of Return

A

Assumptions:
–Present Value (PV) equation
–Set PV to zero
–Discount rate
–Calculate rate of return vs. other alternatives

Alternative method for screening projects for
economic feasibility (not for ranking projects).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Discount Rate (Rate)

A
  • Influential on PV/NPV calculations
  • Should reflect either
    – Best alternative use of available funds or
    – Cost of capital (rate on long term debt)
    Rate
    – High: future values diminish more quickly
    – Low: future values diminish less quickly and have greater influence in present value calculation
  • Other Perspectives
    – Utility (based on long term tax exempt bonds)
    – Society (based on Treasury bonds)
    – Ratepayer (based on rate of return for investments)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

CA Statewide Urban Water Use: Eight-Year Average, 1998-2005:

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Water Use Efficiency – Sample Costs

A

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

Discount Rate (Rate)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

IRP: In Summary

A

• Accepted planning approach: dynamic process
• Evaluate All Options – Supply Alternative & WUE Scenarios
• Select Best Options – multiple considerations
– Utility
– Society
– Rate Payer
• Water Use Efficiency
– Incorporated into the long-term water portfolio
– Included in regional water management planning
– Considers further reductions in per capita water use
– Drivers: regulation, technology, programs, utility practices

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

PROGRAM DESIGN parts

A

• Knowledge and interpretation of Conservation Program Designs

– Other water agency programs
– CUWCC Best Management Practices
– Local water agency water use targets

• Understanding Criteria To Design Programs

– Past Conservation Program efforts
– Assessment of current service area data and characteristics
– Water use impacts from regulations
– Future water use targets
– Program costs and benefits

• Identify potential savings in your area

– By sector
– Saturation of conservation measures
– Assess annual, seasonal and monthly water use patterns

• Design based on where savings need to be realized

– Indoor vs. outdoor uses
– Utility system improvement potential
– Sector focus
– Regulation impacts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

Program Design – Framework

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Program Design
EPA Water Conservation Plan Guidelines

A

Program design can be part of a water utility’s water conservation planning process.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

WUE Program Design Process

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

Program Design
AWWA Residential End Use Study Updates

A

AWWA Residential End Use Study 1999 vs. update in 2016 indicating declining residential water use trends to consider in program design as part of a water utility’s water conservation planning process.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

Program Design
AWWA Residential End Use Study Updates

A

AWWA Residential End Use Study 1999 vs. update in 2016 indicating declining residential water use trends to consider in program design as part of a water utility’s water conservation planning process.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

What should be considered when you are designing a program?

A

– Understand current Program
– Account for local water use targets
– Assess other Programs
– Consider BMPs
– Identify utility system potential
– Document regulation impacts
– Technology (AMI, leak detection, etc.)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

Program Design – Target Approaches

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

Map of CA - Average Baseline Water Use

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

CA-GPCD Baseline Water Use (2010)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

California Water Plan 2020 Projected Savings

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

Urban Water Demand Forecasting.

What are the basic steps to estimate a water demand model?

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

Urban Water Demand Forecasting

What are the key parameters that can impact forecasts?

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

Urban Water Demand Forecasting

Accurate forecasting = optimal WUE Design

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

Urban Water Demand Forecasting

A

Accurate forecasting equals optial design

  1. Surface Water
  2. Groundwater
  3. Outdoor Savings
  4. Indoor Savings
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

URBAN WATER DEMAND FORECASTING: Surface, Groundwater and charts to show future;

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

Program Design – Future WUE Target

What are the sample future water use targets?

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

SNWA WUE Target

A

86 GPCD by 2035

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

California Urban Water Conservation Council Best Management Practices

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

Program Design - Time

A

• Toilets (2014: 30%+ still have high use models)
– 1992 1.6 gpf new construction standard
– Rebate Programs statewide since 1980s
– 2011 Green Code Standards
• Showers (2014: 80%+ saturated)
– 1992 Federal Energy Act changes
• Clothes Washer (2014: 50%+ ? Saturated)
– State BMP
– Rebate Programs statewide since 1990s
• Leaks (2014: 30%?, AMI deployment dependent)
• Outdoor Savings (2014: 30%?, programs/rates)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

2013 SNWA WUE Program

Water Pricing/Other Influence Coefficients

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

2013 Contra Cost Water District Comprehensive Program

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

Estimated Indoor Residential - CA Water Uses (2000)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

Program Design – Sample Screening

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

Program Design – Screening Criteria

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

Program Design - Utility

A

• System metering practices/AMI deployment
• System leak detection and repair program
• Effective main flushing program
• Customer leak/high user notification program
• Agency facility water management program
– Indoor
– Outdoor
• Water rates: conservation-oriented rate structure
• Utility billing: online access water use history
• System pressure regulation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
91
Q

Program Design - Regulation

A

• California Green Code Standards
• Urban Water Management Planning Act
– Residential indoor and outdoor use, water loss control
• DWR Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
– 0.7 to 0.55 Evapotranspiration water budget
• SWRCB Water Loss Control Performance Standard
• SBx7.7/SB606-AB1668
• Funding Program criteria (e.g. SWRCB)
• Incorporate into final program design

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
92
Q

CA Residential End Use Study (2008) – 12 agencies

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
93
Q

Consider Demand Hardening - Lower WUE Targets – Tougher Savings - Where does your water utility stand?

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
94
Q

Program Design Sample Selection Criteria

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
95
Q

Program Design - GPCD – Selection Impacts

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
96
Q

Program Design. what additional information should you look at?

A
  • Customer feedback
  • Expert feedback
  • Survey results
  • Adequate resources for marketing/outreach
  • Program budget adequacy
  • On track to meet long term water use targets
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
97
Q

Program Design-Final Determination

A
  • Selection criteria results
  • Budget/funding outlook
  • Water use target status
  • Process/schedule for program approvals
  • Staffing/program support
  • Other factors: drought, revenue reliability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
98
Q

Program Design - Schedule

A

• Plan development/approval (1 year)
• Implementation (1-5+ years)
• Impacts by staff/support service levels
• Regional planning processes
• State laws/regulations/requirements
• Regulatory Reporting – SWRCB/DWR
• Timing of rate adjustments (1+ year)
– Single or multi-year increase

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
99
Q

S101: Program Implementation

A

• Formal Adoption of Plan
• Budget
• Prioritization
– Based on Board/Council approvals & preferences
– Staff limitations: need to hire staff/consultants
– Timing and sequencing considerations for measures
– Cash flow
• Schedule
– Major milestones and deadlines
– Timing of Plan development and approval
– Budget approvals and Board/Council timing
– Internal and external funding/financing processes
• Other Considerations
– Agreements and partnering
– Adoption of local ordinance/codes/policies
– Training

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
100
Q

Program Design - Options

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
101
Q

Program Design - Adjustments

A

• May require additional process with stakeholders
• Board/Council approvals
• Budget adjustments
• Programmatic
– More/less targeted approach
– Changes to marketing/outreach efforts
– Customer/political support

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
102
Q

Program Design - Continuous

A
  • Evaluate programs annually
  • Modify program design as needed to meet targets
  • Design new programs if necessary
  • Consider more targeted program designs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
103
Q

What do you monitor as you are running a Program?

A

• Knowledge of methods and issues involved in planning for and developing and implementing drought management plans and policies
– Identify drought triggers and thresholds
– Importance of pre-planning/design for response to future drought conditions
– Mid course corrections during droughts
– Involvement of stakeholders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
104
Q

Program Monitoring. What is your knowledge of methods and issues involved?

A

• Knowledge of methods and issues involved in monitoring conservation programs
– Identify models
– Water Utility specific metrics
– Importance of pre-planning/design
– Mid course corrections
– Involvement of stakeholders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
105
Q

Types of Program Monitoring/Follow-up

A

Tracking program impacts

Meeting WUE targets

Program costs: actual trakcing with planned

Customer acceptance

Regulatory compliance: meeting RC parameters

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
106
Q

Monitoring – Primary Approaches

A

• Specific End Use Calculations

– Document each measure by customer
– Assign account levels savings for each measure
– Doesn’t account for changes in other uses

• General Per Capita Water Use Calculations

– Focus on overall per capita water use levels
– More emphasis on total program water use impacts
– Some individual account/sector validation needed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
107
Q

Monitoring Approach – Key Data

A

End Use

Specific account information
Accurate documentation of measures Additional metered data preferred (e.g. AMI) Identified end use water saving assumptions

  • ex. replace 1 or 2 toilets

Per Capita

Total water supply
Total water demand
Population served
Programmatic savings estimate information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
108
Q

Tracking Program Impacts

A

• Water Supply Data
– Monthly, seasonal, annual water deliveries
• Water Demand Data
– Monthly, seasonal, annual demands
– By sector
– Program participants vs. status quo customers
– Annual per capita water use trends
• Program participation levels
– Rebates, surveys, leaks, landscape changes
• Marketing/outreach efforts
– Cost/timing/effectiveness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
109
Q

Monitoring Approach – Key Data

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
110
Q

Monitoring – Annual Production

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
111
Q

Monitoring – By Sector

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
112
Q

Monitoring – Monthly Data

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
113
Q

Monitor other than water

A

Monitor wastewater flows if was indoor fixtutes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
114
Q

Changes In Water Demand

A
  • Weather/population related
  • Programmatic savings
  • Behavior-based water use changes
  • New customer standards – indoor/outdoor
  • Long term vs. short term demand changes
  • Gray water/rain harvesting
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
115
Q

Monitoring – Savings Reliability

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
116
Q

Monitoring – How do you Account For Trends

A

Population

– New construction: more efficient water use
– Growing number of ‘aging in place’ households
– Other demographics

Development

– Slower growth rates
– Overall smaller lot sizes/less outdoor use per acct.
– More mixed-use development

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
117
Q

Monitoring - Customer Target

A

• “All Customers” Mostly low users (< median use)
– Already conservation minded
– Retrofit/survey program participants
– Lower beginning water usage levels
– Low water savings potential
• “Targeted” Mostly higher users (> avg. use)
– Pre 1993 accounts for indoor retrofit programs
– Larger lot sizes/turf dominated landscapes
– Historically low program participation
– Higher beginning water usage levels
– Higher water savings potential

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
118
Q

Monitoring - Sampling

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
119
Q

Residential Indoor Use Drivers

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
120
Q

123S: Average Indoor Residential Use Data

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
121
Q

Monitoring – Weather/Climate

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
122
Q

Monitoring – Weather Impacts

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
123
Q

Monitoring – Weather Impacts

Compare seasonal/annual data)

Water Budget Indices – WUCOLS Study

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
124
Q

End Use Calculations

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
125
Q

Estimate: Existing Penetration of Low Flow Plumbing Devices, City of Davis

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
126
Q

Monitoring – Annual GPCD Trend

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
127
Q

Monitoring – GPCD By Sector

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
128
Q

Monitoring – GPCD Targeting

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
129
Q

“WUE Account” – EPA Water Sense

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
130
Q

Metered Water Use Data

A

• Understand reading/billing cycle
• Different periods represented (not ‘monthly’)
• Typically Available Monthly Data
- Water production data (normally daily)
- Weather data (normally daily)
- Demand data (can be variable)
- Demand data not synchronized with production
• Synchronize production/demand/weather data

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
131
Q

Trace Wizard: Measuring End Uses

A
132
Q

Single Family Residential Monitoring

A
133
Q

Sample Program Monitoring

Toilet Replacement – goal 100% by 2025

A
134
Q

Sample Monitoring
Toilet Replacement Program

A

• Accurate Accounting of Replacements
– By installation or rebate date
– By Sector
– By Type (1.28 gpf, dual flush, other)
– Regional vs. local program accounting
• Be Consistent throughout Program Period
– Document any changes in Program monitoring practices (keep apples-to-apples accounting)

135
Q

Monitoring – Budget/Costs

A

Program Budget
– Recommended budget
– Authorized budget
– Budget adjustments
– Capital funding
– Funding timing and contributions
• Program Costs
– YTD tracking for major cost categories including program and human resources (staff, consultant
services)
– Over/under budget: opportunities for enhancing program participation
– Re-allocation to meet annual program goals

136
Q

Monitoring – Capital Costs

A

Typical Funding/Financing Sources
– Long term tax-exempt bonds
– SRF funding
– State grant funds (match)
– Private placement (third party)
• Securing Sources
– Can take several years
– May requires timely/commensurate rate increases
– May be required to implement certain WUE measures

137
Q

Monitoring – Sample Program Costs

A
138
Q

Monitoring – Costs

A

Establish Separate Accounting System

– Labor
– Contracts
– Materials
– Rebate disbursements
– Marketing/Outreach
– Training
– Other expenses
• Monitor Program Costs
– Monthly
– Quarterly
– Annually

139
Q

Cost Management

A

Rebate Funds
– Not meeting participation targets (under budget)
– Exceeding participation targets (exceeding budget)
• Planning/Regulatory Costs
– Periodic Plan updates (local, regional)
– State mandated planning
– Compliance with funding programs
– Compliance with BMP reporting/requirements
– Membership/outside organization costs
• Timing of budget/program authorizations
• Marketing/Outreach – additional efforts required

140
Q

Customer Acceptance

A

Rebate Programs
– Rebate program (like/dislike)
– Rebate amounts (too low/high)
– Customer costs too high
• Marketing/Outreach
– Feeling ‘targeted’
– Encouraging program participation
– Perception of ‘waste of public dollars’
– Keeping up with social media/Gen Y
– Diversified approach may be needed
• Per Capita Water Use Targets
– Pro: clear message on goal; Con: perceived as regulatory
– Increases premium on customer water demand data
• Water Rates
– Program acceptance can rest with rates

141
Q

Regulatory

A

• Urban Water Management Plans – next due 2025
– Water agencies with at least 3,300 connections
– Annual use at least 3,300 afy
– Every five years (0 and 5)
• WUE Inclusion in Regional Water Planning
– IRWMPs/Other regional efforts
• Compliance
– Green Code Standards
– State new construction landscaping laws
– Related laws/regulations
• State Funding – may have WUE requirements

142
Q

Categories of Water Conservation Program Monitoring

A

• Develop Monitoring Framework
– Units and metrics
– Short vs. long term
– Review and interpretation
• Do What Works Best For Your Water Utility
– Prioritize and right size your monitoring efforts
• Periodically Update Monitoring Parameters
– In accordance with UWMP updates
– Based on available utility information
– Use technology to automate the process
• Monitoring – It’s Up To You!

143
Q

What is the purpose of evaluating programs?

A

• Purpose:
– To evaluate all considerations in finalizing a water conservation plan that meets all goals and objectives.

144
Q

Program Evaluation: methods and issues involved in
evaluating conservation programs

A

• Knowledge of methods and issues involved in
evaluating conservation programs
– Identify models
– Importance of pre-planning/design
– Mid course corrections
– Involvement of stakeholders

145
Q

Evaluate Best Way To Meet
Your Water Use Target

A
146
Q

S152: Evaluation Process On-going

A
147
Q

Three basic perspectives that should be considered in the Benefit/Cost evaluation:

A

Water utility

Utility Customer

Community

148
Q

S155: Benefit/Cost Evaluation-Analysis

A
149
Q

Benefit/Cost Evaluation

A
  • Common Utility screening tool for WUE evaluation process
  • Benefits/Costs = benefit cost ratio
  • B/C ratio: >=1.0 is considered feasible
  • Compute present worth of time stream of benefits and costs
  • Can add qualitative benefits as percentage bonus (e.g. environmental, socioeconomic)
150
Q

S158: Benefit/Cost Evaluation-Analysis

A
  • One tool for assessing water conservation measures that best meet Agency water use goal
  • Balance short & long term water savings impact
  • Consider measures from utility, customer and community perspectives
151
Q

Typical Benefits and Costs

A

• Reduced water purchase costs
• Reduced O&M costs (energy, chemical)
• Reduced/deferred treatment plant capital costs
• Reduced water storage costs
• Reduced wastewater processing costs
• Other capital cost savings (downsizing)
• Cost of WUE programs
– Implementation costs
– Reduced revenue cost impacts to utilities
– Customer costs
• Qualitative
– Environmental
– Socioeconomic
– Other

152
Q

Estimating Benefits/Costs - Sample

A

• Cost Savings From Reduced O&M Expenses -Energy
– VUCE = [AEC – (12 x MFEC) – (ECNP)] / UWU

VUCE = variable unit cost of energy
AEC = annual energy bill
MFEC = monthly fixed charges for energy
ECNP = energy costs not related to water production UWU = annual units of water used
153
Q

Estimating Benefits/Costs - Sample 1

A

• Cost Savings From Reduced Purchase of Water
AWC = UPW x UCPW
AWC = annual water cost
UPW = units purchased annually

UCPW = unit cost of purchased water
• Cost Savings From Reduced O&M Expenses - Energy
VUCE = [AEC – (12 x MFEC) – (ECNP)] / UWU VUCE = variable unit cost of energy
AEC = annual energy bill
MFEC = monthly fixed charges for energy
ECNP = energy costs not related to water production UWU = annual units of water used
• Cost Savings From Reduced O&M Expenses - Chemicals
– VUCC = [ACC – CCNP] / UWU
VUCC = variable unit cost of chemicals ACC = annual chemical bill
CCNP = chemical costs not related to production UWU = annual units of water used

– AWC = UPW x UCPW

AWC = annual water cost
UPW = units purchased annually UCPW = unit cost of purchased water
154
Q

Evaluation – Sample Program Costs

A
155
Q

Evaluation – Annual Progress

A
156
Q

S172: Program Evaluation - Considerations

A
  • Recent rate increase (larger than normal)
  • Drought conditions
  • Program saturation levels
  • Local and regional program/incentive levels
  • Impact from new development/code changes
157
Q

Program Evaluation – AWWA Survey

A
158
Q

Program Evaluation - Forecasts

A

• Typical Water Demand Forecast Estimate Methods
– Regression Generated Confidence Intervals
– Risk or Monte Carlo Simulation
– Alternative Scenarios
• Water Rates
– Current rates
– Future Rates
– Impacts on long term WUE efforts
– Impacts on revenue forecasts

159
Q

Chart which shows Evaluation or program – Forecast Summary

A
160
Q

Program Evaluation - Forecasts

A

• Forecast Evaluation Methods
– Means Squared Error (difference between predicted & actual)
– Means Absolute Deviation (equal weight the errors)
– Mean Absolute % Error (for each measured error)
– Bias (amount/direction of avg. estimated value from avg.)
• Water Rates
– Current rates
– Future Rates
– Impacts on long term WUE efforts
– Impacts on revenue forecastss

161
Q

Program Evaluation – Improving Forecasts

A

• Evaluate Past Forecasting Results
– Reveal size and pattern of past forecast errors
– Suggests ways to improve updated forecasts
– Compare prior forecasts with actual events
• When Uncertainty About Future Is Great
– Average alternative forecasts of future water use
– Develop a range of outcomes using several scenarios
– Weigh costs/benefits of improving forecasts

162
Q

Program Evaluation – Improving Forecasts

A

• Revenue Forecasting Challenges
– Updating of rates to reflect changing demands
– Inflection points for changes in rate structure
– Actual vs. planned WUE program implementation
• Dealing With Future Uncertainty
– Average alternative forecasts of future water use
– Develop a range of outcomes using several scenarios
– Consider likely changes in demands (e.g. Green Code)

163
Q

Program Evaluation – Formal Forecasts

A

• Improving Demand/Revenue Forecasting
– Formalize approach
– Basis for continuous update process
– Develop better (not perfect) forecast evaluation tools
• Other Considerations
– Availability of detailed demand/revenue information
– Independent forecasting function
– Account for utility operating policies and programs
– May/may not agree with management expectations

164
Q

Program Evaluation – Survey Methods

A

• Sources Of Information
– Customer Feedback (current & prospective customers)
– Expert Opinion (local leaders/consultants/others)
– Sample Surveys
– Combine with other topics (e.g. water quality)
• Customer Survey Approaches
– Mail
– Telephone
– Online/social media
– Concern: non-responsiveness

165
Q

Program Evaluation – Improving Methods

A

• Better Information
– Customer feedback/surveys
– Expert opinion
– Updated utility/customer information
• Regular Updating
– Use Formal Forecast Model(s)
– Continuous evaluation
– Calibrate approach/modeling tools on a regular basis

166
Q

Program Evaluation – Improve Forecasting

A

• Account For Significant Events
– City of Santa Barbara lingering severe drought impacts
– 1987-1992 drought forever impacted demands
– Annual Demands (pre-drought) = 17,000 afy
– Annual Demands (today) = 11,000 afy
• Account For Regulatory Impacts
– New construction (water efficient) accounts
– Pre-1993 account retrofitting schedule
– Likely future changes in per capita water use

167
Q

City of Santa Barbara - Demands

• The 1987-92 Drought Changed Demands Forever!

A
168
Q

City of Santa Barbara – Future Demands

A
169
Q

City of Santa Barbara - Demands

• Evaluating Future Demands To 2030

A
170
Q

CA – CIMIS Weather Map

A
171
Q

Evaluate Weather Variations

Davis, CA CIMIS Station Data
July Comparison

A
172
Q

Program Evaluation – Other Factors

A

• Utility
– Availability of accurate program information
– State of technology/computer systems
– Staffing levels/consultant support
– Changes in leadership
• Regulatory
– Actively implementing all regulations
– All relevant programs/policies/codes up-to-date
– Accurate records and documentation

173
Q

Program Evaluation – Other Factors

A

• Conservation vs. Other Options
– Water re-use
– Desalination
– Water marketing/transfers
– New surface/groundwater supplies
• Conservation Reliability
– Proven reliance on long term conservation target
– Rate changes over time (+/-)
– Maintaining public/political support for investments
– Premium on more accurate forecasting

174
Q

Program Evaluation – Other Factors

A

• Local Program Comparison
– Other agencies
– Regional
– State
– Federal
• Funding/Financing Availability
– Local (rates)
– Regional cost-sharing
– State (SRF, Propositions, Other)
– Federal (WRDA, CVPIA, Infrastructure, Othe

175
Q

Cost Effectiveness

A

There is an old saying that water flows
uphill to money.
Providing a safe reliable water supply is typically
based in part on the cost-effectiveness of the
preferred water portfolio.

176
Q

Cost-Effectiveness definitions

A

• Knowledge/Process Involved In Determining Cost-Effectiveness
– Determining Avoided Cost
– Present worth cost-effectiveness analysis
– Benefit/Cost ratio of program or device
– Water Savings
• Issues and Methods To Determine Avoided Cost
– Capital Costs
– Operational Costs
– Administrative Costs
– Timing of future reliability investments
• Cost-Benefit Ratio
– Basis for ratio
– Assessing reliability of projected costs and benefits
– Savings Decay
– Natural Replacement
– Life of Measure
• Review/Approval Process
– Involvement of stakeholders
– Importance of external “ peer” review

177
Q

Cost-Effectiveness

A

• Knowledge/Process Involved In Determining Cost-Effectiveness
– Determining Avoided Cost
– Present worth cost-effectiveness analysis
– Benefit/Cost ratio
– Water Savings
• Issues and Methods To Determine Avoided Cost
– Capital Costs
– Operational Costs
– Administrative Costs
– Timing of future reliability investments
• Cost-Benefit Ratio
– Basis for ratio
– Assessing reliability of projected costs and benefits
– Savings Decay
– Natural Replacement
– Life of Measure
• Review/Approval Process
– Involvement of stakeholders
– Importance of external “ peer” review

178
Q

Cost-Effectiveness – Why Do We Care?

A

• Providing Policy Makers With Least Cost Options
– Political Support
– Community Support
– Stakeholder Support
• Identify Acceptable WUE Program
– Evaluate all WUE measures
– Select most cost-effective bundle
– Timing of future WUE investments
• Select Most Cost-Effective Approaches
– For achieving regulatory or policy objectives (e.g. implementing BMPs)
– For implementing measures favored by electeds and/or stakeholders
• Keeping Rates Affordable

179
Q

Cost-Effectiveness Process

A
180
Q

Cost-Effectiveness Key Factors

A

• Cost-effective ranking of possible WUE measures
– B/C ratio > 1 considered (benchmark)
– Compare available measures in meeting savings goal
• Rank of WUE Program vs. Other Resource Options
– Program B/C ratio vs. Other Options
– B/C ratio > 1 measures included in Program analysis
• Exceptions To The Rule: done the low-hanging fruit ones
– Few measures with B/C ratio > 1
– B/C ratio > 1 measures will not meet savings goal

181
Q

2013 Draft California Water Plan Comparison of Water Management Options for San Diego

A
  • Imported water $875-%975
  • Surface water $400-$800
  • Groundwater $375-$1,100
  • Desalinated water $1,800-$2,800
  • Recycled water $1,200 - $2,600
  • Conservation $150-$1,000
182
Q

October 2008 – CA Legislatures Office

A
183
Q

Cost Effectiveness - Time

A
184
Q

Program Cost-Effectiveness

A

• Important Element in Program Design
– How various measures compare
• Part of Measure Selection/Prioritization Process
– Select most cost-effective Program
• Acceptance by Stakeholders/Policy makers
– Review options
– Accept basis for Program selection/approvals
• Common Industry Practice
– Integrated planning element
– Urban Water Management Plans
– Local assessment for ratepayer

185
Q

IRP: Water Option Evaluation (NPV)

A
186
Q

Cost-Effectiveness - WUE

A

• Evaluate all possible measures in WUE Program
– How various measures compare
• Evaluating how WUE compares with other resource option
– Select most cost-effective Program
• Gathering Data For the Analsysis
– Updated benefit information
– Updated cost information
– Factor in option timing

187
Q

Water Use Efficiency – Sample Costs

A
188
Q

Fixture/Appliance Useful Life

A
189
Q

Cost-Effectiveness and what is savings decay

A

He does not worry about it. It is a small factor. We have racheted down the savings so much I doon’t worry about it:

– Water savings decay is the reversal of the water use reductions achieved through implementing a conservation measure. Water savings decay occurs in two ways: (1) as a result of an end user’s behavioral change and (2) as a result of a fixture’s loss of water use efficiency.
– Consider when forecasting water demands

190
Q

Notes On Useful Life/Savings Decay

A

– Toilet Efficiency Pre-1982=5.0 gpf
– Toilet Efficiency 1982-3.5 gpf
– Toilet Efficiency 1992-1.6 gpf
– Toilet Efficiency 2011-1.28 gpf

191
Q

Cost effectiveness B/C ration

A

want it to be greater than 1 but if grant funding available may have less than 1

192
Q

Benefit/Cost Evaluation-Analysis

A

• Cost-effectiveness is relied on most often to compare and evaluate water conservation measures that may be included in a Plan.
– Establishes who benefits/pays for conservation
– Can separately evaluate for customer and utility
– Assess ability to defer, downsize, or eliminate future water system improvements

193
Q

What does Benefits Analysis Methodology look like in chart form?

A
194
Q

What does Benefits Analysis Methodology look like in 2nd chart form?

A
195
Q

Benefit/Cost Evaluation

A

• Common Utility screening tool for WUE
evaluation process
• Benefits/Costs = benefit cost ratio
• B/C ratio =/> 1.0 is considered feasible
• Compute present worth of time stream of
benefits and costs
• Can add qualitative benefits as percentage
bonus (e.g. environmental, socioeconomic)

196
Q

Typical Benefits and Costs

A

• Reduced water purchase costs
• Reduced O&M costs (energy, chemical)
• Reduced/deferred treatment plant capital costs
• Reduced water storage costs
• Reduced wastewater processing costs
• Other capital cost savings (downsizing)
• Cost of WUE programs
– Implementation costs
– Reduced revenue cost impacts to utilities
– Customer costs
• Qualitative
– Environmental
– Socioeconomic
– Other

197
Q

Cost Effectiveness: Internal Costs

A

Capital Costs + O&M Costs = Internal Costs

198
Q

Internal Costs: Capital Costs

A
  • Capital costs are all expenditures necessary to create a productive asset
  • Many capital costs are financed by the Utility
  • Tends to be projects over $1 million
  • Capital costs can increase over time for a given project due to regulatory, environmental, cost of capital, or other forces that increase capital costs.
  • Normally associated with Utility CIP Plan
  • Typical projects: treatment, pipelines, storage, meters, larger repair/replacement
199
Q

Internal Costs: O&M Costs

A
  • On-going Utility costs associated with operating a productive asset
  • O&M costs tend to be continuous throughout the Project’s useful life
  • Utilities may employ internal or consultant support to perform necessary O&M functions
  • Some O&M costs are subject to pricing increases such labor, energy and chemicals
  • Typical projects: rehab, replacement, upgrade, and preventative or other maintenance activities
200
Q

External Costs: Imposed Costs

A
  • A production facility or process that has the potential to impose costs on third parties (such as Air Quality impacts from a Chemical Factory)
  • A farmer who causes pesticides to runoff into a river that is used for drinking water. The Utility would incur additional costs to remove the pesticides from the drinking water before delivery.
  • Any imposed costs should be calculated and considered in the cost-effectiveness analysis of any project.
201
Q

External Costs: Environmental Costs

A
  • Valuation of the loss of habitat or endangered species
  • Screen projects for environmental effects
  • May include mitigation or special monitoring costs associated with a given action or project
202
Q

Internal benefits

A

• The value of increased production, energy generation, sales, additional service, or service
reliability
• Many capital costs are financed by the Utility
• Tends to be projects over $1 million
• Capital costs can increase over time for a given project due to regulatory, environmental, cost
of capital, or other forces that increase capital costs.
• Normally associated with Utility CIP Plan
• Typical projects: treatment, pipelines, storage,
meters

203
Q

Internal Benefits of Water Resource Projects

A
  • Indirect benefits from a project may be generated through avoiding certain costs the Utility is incurring. A good example is a Utility who develops a new surface water supply that replaces a groundwater supply that is seriously over drafted and causing salt water intrusion
  • Avoided costs can be realized through avoidance of capital and/or O&M expenditures
  • Example: Adding a 500 acre-foot surface water supply can avoid the need to build a desalination facility costing $5M. Both the capital and O&M costs would be avoided in the calculation.
  • These costs should be adjusted to reflect the time value of money

Ex. AMI metering:

204
Q

External Benefits

A

• Example: creating or increasing the capacity of a lake for water supply purposes may also provide recreation, habitat for fish and wildlife, or flood control benefits
• External benefits should be included in the calculation of total project benefits when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of various water resource options

205
Q

External Benefits: Calculations

A
  • Increased habitat = acres
  • Protected farmland = acres
  • Flood control = peak event/premium reduction
  • Fish = source enhancements and creation of new habitat areas or protections that increase fish populations
  • Recreation = increased rafting, boating, other recreational uses
  • Lower water use = improved water quality for fish populations
206
Q

Estimating Water Savings

A

• Art and Science involved
• More data available, the better…
• One approach: E = R x C x V
E = estimated annual reductions in water use from

measure
R = estimated reduction in water use from measure for all customers
C = % coverage of measure for the group of water users targeted

V = volume of water use w/out water efficiency measure

207
Q

Estimating Benefits/Costs Sample

A

• Cost Savings From Reduced Purchase of Water
– AWC = UPW x UCPW
AWC = annual water cost
UPW = units purchased annually
UCPW = unit cost of purchased water

208
Q

Estimating Benefits/Costs - Sample

A

• Cost Savings From Reduced O&M Expenses -
Energy
– VUCE = [AEC – (12 x MFEC) – (ECNP)] / UWU
VUCE = variable unit cost of energy
AEC = annual energy bill
MFEC = monthly fixed charges for energy
ECNP = energy costs not related to water production
UWU = annual units of water used

209
Q

Estimating Benefits/Costs Sample

A

• Cost Savings From Reduced O&M Expenses -
Chemicals
– VUCC = [ACC – CCNP] / UWU
VUCC = variable unit cost of chemicals
ACC = annual chemical bill
CCNP = chemical costs not related to production
UWU = annual units of water used

210
Q

Sample: B/C Calculatio

A
211
Q

Discount Rate (Rate)

A

• Influential on PV/NPV calculations
• Should reflect either
– Best alternative use of available funds or
– Cost of capital (rate on long term debt)
• Rate
– High: future values diminish more quickly
– Low: future values diminish less quickly and have greater influence in present value
calculation
• Other Perspectives
– Utility (based on long term tax exempt bonds)
– Society (based on Treasury bonds)
– Ratepayer (based on rate of return for investments)

212
Q

Sample B/C Analysis - Santa Barbara County Prop. 84
Untreated Water Landscape Irrigation Project

A
213
Q

Cost-Effectiveness: Trends

A
214
Q

Timing of Rate Adjustments Varies Widely

A
215
Q

CA-NV Section AWWA Water Rate Surveys

A
  • Recent Surveys: increasing rates
  • California and Nevada water utilities
  • Rates & connection charges
  • 15 ccf/month assumed
  • Billing Information
216
Q

2017 CA-NV Section Water Rate Survey

A

Water agencies and utilities need to charge customers for water service through water rates based on the short and long-term costs of operating and maintaining water service to all current and future water customers. The revenue collected must be adequate to cover the costs of water resiliency and changing hydrologic conditions. Rate equity and rates that are easy to understand and implement are major considerations.

217
Q

Proposition 218 Rate Setting Process

A
218
Q

2017 CA-NV Section Water Rate Survey 2015 and 2017 Billing Frequency.

A
219
Q

2017 CA-NV Section Water Rate Survey service charge and commodity charge breakdown in percentage.

A
220
Q

2017 CA-NV Section Water Rate Survey - what was change in number of rates in “Budget, Tiered, Uniform, & Other”

A
221
Q

2017 CA-NV Section Water Rate Survey

A
222
Q

2017 CA-NV Section Water Rate Survey

A
223
Q

2017 CA-NV Section Water Rate Survey

A
224
Q

Rate Making 101

A
225
Q

Rate Making 101

A

Revenue Requirements

Operation and Maintenance Costs Capital Improvement Costs Capacity Costs
Customer Costs
Administrative Costs

Cost of Service

Allocate costs amongst different types of users

Rate Design

Reflects cost of service
Horizontal Equity: similar costs = similar rates Vertical Equity: dissimilar costs = dissimilar rates

226
Q

Rate Making 101

A

🞎 Revenue Requirements
🞑Operation and Maintenance Costs
🞑Capital Improvement Costs
🞑Capacity Costs
🞑Customer Costs
🞑Administrative Costs

🞎 Cost of Service
🞑Allocate costs amongst different types of users

🞎 Rate Design
🞑Reflects cost of service
🞑Horizontal Equity: similar costs = similar rates
🞑Vertical Equity: dissimilar costs = dissimilar rates

227
Q

Rate Making 101

A

Financing

Existing Debt Service (sources/terms)
Future Utility Funding/Financing Needs Financing Plan For Five Year CIP Program Evaluation of best funding/financing package

Paying for WUE

Pursue both capital and operational sources

Outside Funding Opportunities

Regional cost sharing for WUE Program priorities State Proposition Funds/Other grants
Combine with capital financing

228
Q

Rate Design - Structures

– 3 to 5 tiers
– With a base/meter fixed charge

Upcoming: Water Budgets

– Most common in Southern California

Commercial

Fewer tiers perferred

Small and Large or Commercial and Industrila

Common User Classes

SFR, MFR, Com, Irr, Agency Facilit

A

Most Common: Tiered Rates (Inclining Block)

229
Q

Increasing Block Rate - Example

A
230
Q

Increasing Block Rate – City of Davis : single tier

A
231
Q

Increasing Block Rate – City of Santa Barbara

A
232
Q

Increasing Block Rate - LVVWD

A
233
Q

How does City of Napa charge rates?

A

$4.04/1,000 gallons for all use

then they wen to

  • Revenue fluctuates directly with demand
  • Rate stabilization fund important
  • Easy to explain to customers
  • Customer equity not as refined vs. tiers
  • Not common today…
234
Q

Increasing Block Rate - City of Napa Water Rates

A
235
Q

Other Rates

A

• City of Davis Sewer Rate: base + consumption charges
• Consumption based on average water use Nov. – Feb.
• Consumption based sewer rates can have
positive/reinforcing impact on water use practices and behaviors
• Slowly gaining in popularity
• Not common today…
• Can be controversial…
• “Not all water consumed ends up in the sewer”

236
Q

…and still more Rates/Charges/Fees

A
  • Wholesale water rates/charges
  • Wheeling charges (using someone else’s system)
  • Outside service area charge (e.g. City of Napa)
  • Water Connection Fees (new service)
  • Typically for system capacity improvements
237
Q

% Revenue: Fixed/Variable Charges

A

Fixed Charges – a portion of the bill remains the same (fixed), regardless of the amount of water used
Service Charge, Meter Charge, Minimum Charge
Variable Charge – “consumption charge” –rates applies to the amount of water used
Water units, Energy, Zones, Pumping
Water rate BMP looks to have more than 60% of water system revenue collected from the variable
charge components of a rate structure.
• The higher the % of revenue collected from the variable charges of a rate structure, the more
responsive demand would be to rate
changes.

238
Q

Consider Weather in the Rate Setting Process

A
  • Water Use/Rate tiers are influenced by weather
  • Weather will effect irrigation accounts
  • (use fluctuations, summer vs. winter)- “sticker shock”
  • Weather could be causing a large peaking factor
  • Regional historic records - Rainfall and ET patterns
  • Helpful to understand weather influences
  • Water conservation staff need to understand local weather and water use patterns
  • Keep track – are weather patterns changing?
239
Q

MWELO Water Budget %

A

55% ETO

240
Q

Typical Monthly Evapotranspiration Rates
in California – Varies Locally

A
241
Q

City of Davis Example

A

89% meters/connections are SFR

Very few large meters and accounts

  • Lots of open space/irrigation
  • Central Valley climate
  • July water production 2.5x winter production
242
Q

Conservation-Oriented Water Rates

A
  • Block Rates (tiered rate concept)
  • Budget Based (water allocation based)
  • Drought Rates (short term to reflect shortage)
  • Monthly vs. bi-monthly meter reading practices
    • soften the “sticker shock”
  • Don’t forget regulatory forces: PUC
243
Q

Price Elasticity of Demand

A
  • An academic indicator…
  • Price Elasticity of Demand is defined as the measure of responsiveness in the quantity demand of a commodity as a result of change in price of the same commodity. It is a measure of how consumers react to a change in price
  • Indoor use is more inelastic than outdoor use (less immediate conservation potential for indoor use)
  • DWR 1998 study: 10% increase in price would reduce aggregate water demand by 1.6% (example)
  • Factors include current price and demand and income
  • Rate structure and climate can also influence this factor
244
Q

Water Budget Approach

A
  • Irvine Ranch Water District: 5-tier rate structure
  • Allocation based (% of allocation) - # people + landscaped area (4 persons, 1300 sqft)
  • [condo 425sqft]
  • Per unit charge increases substantially with use
  • Concept: reward efficiency, penalize high use
  • Higher tier charges pay for conservation efforts
  • Very intensive set-up/higher on-going admin. costs
  • Not very common today…
245
Q

Drought Rates (Surcharges)

A
  • Short term during water shortage period
  • Per unit charge increase with shortage severity
  • Tier ranges can be adjusted when drought rates in effect
  • Rate stabilization fund important – use during droughts
  • Higher conservation levels can result in lower revenue
  • Not popular, additional customer outreach required
246
Q

Rate Impacts on Water Use

A
  • City of Davis (1990): 230 gpcd (unmetered, flat rates)
  • City of Davis (2010): 167 gpcd (metered, 2-tier rates)
  • LVVWD: 2004 SFR Indoor Use = 65 gpcd
  • LVVWD: Efficient Indoor Use = 39 gpcd
  • Largest impact: metering, charging for water use
  • Additional program savings more incremental
  • Identify type of savings: annual, average, peak, other
  • Other examples?
247
Q

Understand Rate/Use Connection

A
  • Know where your rates have been, where they are going…
  • Rate policy can be helpful in designing, implementing and monitoring your water conservation programs
  • Know where you stand on the water savings curve: already have high saturation levels?, or a new program?…
  • Identify customer water use sensitivity to rate changes
  • Rates can be a big factor in meeting organization conservation program goals and long-term use targets
248
Q

Rate Making and Adoption Processes

A
  • Each organization has their own preferences
  • Rates must be legally defensible
  • Conservation is one of many factors determining rates
  • Conservation staff should be involved in the rate making process
  • Rates impact conservation; conservation impacts rates
  • Customer notification required – Prop. 218 notice
  • Board/Council adoption required, private - (PUC)
  • Timing of increases varies: usually in July or Jan.
  • Many water bills include other charges as well
  • Ex. City of La Verne - “Paramedic” fee
249
Q

Sample Rate Setting/Adoption Schedule

A
  • Prepare Rate Study – with recommended rates 4-6 months
  • Finalize Recommended Rates – up to 5 Years 1-2 onths
  • Prepare/Distribute Prop. 218 notice to customers 2-3 months
  • Board/Council adoption process, public comment 1-2 months
  • New rates effective in July or when legally allowed 1-2 months
  • Fall – Customer sees new rates on utility bill
  • Other special meetings/public outreach
  • Single or multi-year rate adjustment process
  • Normal focus on rate impact (e.g. $/month increase)

Typical Timeline (6 month minimum) 9-15 months

250
Q

Changing Rate Structure?

A

Requires planning, customer outreach
Same (or more) sensitivity than rate changes Typically part of initial water meter installation
Uniform Rate to Increasing Block Rate
“before” and “after” on bill before it takes effect
implement during low use period (cool weather)
Public outreach is critical

Accurate demand forecasting will reduce potential legal challenges…

251
Q

Sample Utility Bill – Is Your Utility Bill Effective?

A
252
Q

Water Rates: Important Part of Water Conservation Program

A
  • Charging full cost of service
  • Rate structures that increase charges with consumption tend to encourage water conservation behavior
  • Water budget approach: growing type of rate policy
  • AMI and rates together can help provide “cost controls” to customers
  • Water rates fund water conservation programs
  • Know your rates, the history and future direction…
253
Q

AMI Metering System – Emerging Technology

A
  • Provides customer hourly meter reading data
  • Early leak detection benefit
  • Meter tampering alarms
  • More consumption data available to customer
  • Customer access to AMI meter data important
  • Some meter vendors offer cloud-based access
  • Per Account meter reads per year

Monthly Meter Reading = 12

AMI hourly meter reading = 8,760

254
Q

AMI Metering System – Total Process

A
255
Q

Drought Planning and Management

A

Purpose: to prepare utilities to respond to drought conditions and to plan to minimize future drought impacts

256
Q

M60 - Drought Definition

A

A deficiency of precipitation (snowfall) over an extended period of time, resulting in a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental purpose. A water shortage occurs when supply is reduced to a level that cannot support existing demands. Natural forces, system component failure or interruption, or regulatory actions may cause these shortages. Such conditions could last a few months or extend over many years.

257
Q

Drought Planning and Management Information Sources

A
  • M60: AWWA Drought Preparedness and Response Manual
  • 2020 DWR UWMP Guidebook
  • Other Sources
258
Q

DWR 2020 UWMP Guidebook Water Shortage Contingency Plan

A
259
Q

DWR 2020 UWMP Guidebook Water Shortage Contingency Plan Table

A
260
Q

Drought Planning - Checklist

A
  • Utility Team
  • Water Supply
  • Water Quality
  • Water Demands
  • Water Shortage Contingency Plan
  • Community Involvement
  • Supplier Capabilities and Resources
261
Q

Drought Planning Understand your shortage risk

A
  • Document normal, dry and critically dry year water supply conditions and service reliability
  • Update view of water demand patterns, trends and future water demand forecasts to overlay on water supply reliability work
  • Determine role of WUE in dealing with short term drought conditions and preventing or mitigating future drought impacts on the Utility
262
Q

DWR Reservoir Conditions – August 2021

A
263
Q

Drought History - CA

A

1918-20 1923-26 1928-35 1947-50 1959-62

264
Q

External Benefits

A
  • Example: creating or increasing the capacity of a lake for water supply purposes may also provide recreation, habitat for fish and wildlife, or flood control benefits
  • External benefits should be included in the calculation of total project benefits when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of various water resource options
265
Q

Drought Conditions - CA

A
266
Q

Drought Conditions - CA

A
267
Q

2013 Rainfall Deficits - CA

A

• Precipitation deficits (vs. average) were severe:
– Occidental, Calif.: -41.54”
– Big Sur, Calif.: -37.62”
– Crescent City, Calif.: -35.11“
– Ukiah, Calif.: -29.85”
– Eugene, Calif.: -24.91”
• Other Examples:
– Paso Robles, Calif. (1.92”…yearly avg. = 12.78”)
– King City, Calif. (1.98”…yearly avg. = 12.06”)
– Hanford, Calif. (1.99”…yearly avg. = 10.10”)
– Los Angeles, Calif. (3.6” ….yearly avg. = 11”)
– Sacramento, Calif. (6.5” ….yearly avg. = 19”)

268
Q

2013 Dry Year – Sacramento, CA

A

The August 2021 24-Month Study projects the January 1, 2022 Lake Mead
elevation to be at or below 1,075 feet and at or above 1,050 feet. Consistent with Section 2.D.1 of
the Interim Guidelines, a Shortage Condition consistent with Section 2.D.1.a will govern the
operation of Lake Mead for calendar year 2022.

In addition, Section III.B of Exhibit 1 to the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) Agreement
will also govern the operation of Lake Mead for calendar year 2022.
USBR Declares Phase 1 Drought Condition and Operational Changes For Bureau Contractors
(August 2021)
Las Vegas Region Water Supply at risk, note that USBR did not declare drought
conditions during 2012-2016 drought cycle…

269
Q

Lake Shasta Reservoir – 36% Jan. 2014

A
270
Q

Lake Shasta Reservoir Storage Data

A
271
Q

Folsom Lake Storage Data – Jan. 2014

A
272
Q

Lake Mead – NV (On-going drought)

A
273
Q

Lake Mead – NV (On-going drought)

A

The August 2021 24-Month Study projects the January 1, 2022 Lake Mead
elevation to be at or below 1,075 feet and at or above 1,050 feet. Consistent with Section 2.D.1 of
the Interim Guidelines, a Shortage Condition consistent with Section 2.D.1.a will govern the
operation of Lake Mead for calendar year 2022.

In addition, Section III.B of Exhibit 1 to the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) Agreement
will also govern the operation of Lake Mead for calendar year 2022.
USBR Declares Phase 1 Drought Condition and Operational Changes For Bureau Contractors
(August 2021)
Las Vegas Region Water Supply at risk, note that USBR did not declare drought
conditions during 2012-2016 drought cycle…

274
Q

Lake Mead – NV (On-going drought)

A
275
Q

Drought Plan Response
Ever Changing Conditions - 2021
• CA: State Water and Central Valley Projects

A
276
Q

Annual Rainfall Patterns: 1872-2004

A
277
Q

Sample Water Supply Reliability Curve

A
278
Q

Sample Water Supply Reliability Risk

A

• Agency 1: 100% groundwater (one source)
• Agency 2: 100% surface water (one source)
• Agency 3: Diversified portfolio
Diversified water portfolios are required for long term water resource
sustainability and resiliency for most water agencies in CA and NV.

279
Q

Sample Water Supply Reliability Risk

A
280
Q

Understand Drought Shortage Triggers

A

• 100% Groundwater
– Declining groundwater levels due to extended dry
conditions, stages triggered by declining water
level thresholds.
– City of Davis - 2000 UWMP
• Stage I: -110 foot static water levels
• Stage II: -120 foot static water levels
• Stage III: -130 foot static water levels
• Stage IV: -140 foot static water levels

281
Q

Understand Drought Shortage Triggers

A

• More than 27 million Californians receive at
least part of their water from surface water supplies (including the CVP/SWP).
• During drier years, SWP deliveries of less than
approximately 1,721 TAF would occur about 20% of the time (50% of current avg. deliveries)

282
Q

SWP Drought Deliveries

A
283
Q

SWP Delivery Reliability

A
284
Q

Understand Drought Shortage Triggers

A

• 100% Surface Water
– Subject to dry year water allocation reductions
– City of Yuba City: SWP Feather River source
• Stage I: Tied to dry year SWP allocation reductions
• Stage II: Tied to dry year SWP allocation reductions
• Stage III: Tied to dry year SWP allocation reductions
• Stage IV: Tied to dry year SWP allocation reductions

285
Q

Understand Drought Shortage Triggers

A
286
Q

SCVWD Water Use Trends

A
287
Q

SCVWD Future Demand Forecast

A
288
Q

Drought Planning Triggers
• Types of Drought Plan Criteria

A
289
Q

Drought Planning Approach
• Approach For Achieving Drought Shortages

A
290
Q

Drought Planning Approach
• Potential Savings/Impacts

A
291
Q

Drought Planning Approach
• Demand Reduction and Supply Augmentation

A
292
Q

Drought Plan Response Low Hanging Fruit

A

• Expand toilet/clothes washer rebate programs
– Water efficient homes use 24 gpcd less indoor use
• Leak detection and repair
– Customer (data driven – AMI)
– Utility (more detection, faster repair)
• Water audits – customer assistance
• Landscaping
– Consider turf removal/low volume irrigation incentives during the drought period

293
Q

Drought Plan Response
3 Methods of Demand Reduction

A

• Restrictions on water use practices
– Watering days/times
– Hosing hard surfaces
– No irrigation runoff
• Price restructuring – use and revenue drivers
– Higher pricing during drought periods
– Target uses/timing of reductions through pricing
• Rationing – setting limits on customer usage
– Gallons/account limits on customer use (0-4 ccf)

294
Q

Drought Plan Response Rationing Allocations

A

• % Reduction Allotments – all accounts
– Useful for nonresidential vary based on efficiency
– Easy to determine and administer
– Establish min./max. amounts to limit extremes
– Penalizes conservers
– Rewards above average users
– Promotes water use during non-shortage periods

295
Q

Drought Plan Response Rationing Allocations

A

% Reduction Allotments – all accounts
– Useful for nonresidential vary based on efficiency
– Easy to determine and administer
– Establish min./max. amounts to limit extremes
– Penalizes conservers
– Rewards above average users
– Promotes water use during non-shortage periods

Per Connection – all accounts

– Easy to establish allotments
– No relationships between customer characteristics and water use
– Not equitable
– Does not recognize historical use

• Per Capita Allotment: residential
– Suitable for extreme shortages
– Equitable base allotment, sewer charges # residents
• Must determine/update per account occupancy
• Water for essential inside use only
• Does not recognize historical use
– Fixed amount of water per person, can be staff intensive

Hybrid Per Capita/Percentage: residential
– Equitable recognizes various uses
– Flexibility suitable to all stages
– Provides customers greatest control
– Recognizes factors like lot size, historic use, and
economics
• Additional staff/computer work to determine allotments
• Requires more public education

296
Q

Drought Management - Enforcement

A

• Enforcement Options
– Citations
– Fines
– Special ordinances/policies in place
– Additional staff required
• Usually part of mandatory stage actions

297
Q

Drought Management

A
  • Not all user classes can save the same amount of water
  • Especially important in later stages of drought response effort
298
Q

Monitoring – GPCD By Sector

A
299
Q

Variation In Staged Reduction Savings

A
300
Q

Drought Management - Communications

Clear messaging and feedback to customers

A
301
Q

Drought Management - Communications

A
  • Newsletters
  • Newspaper
  • Utility Bill Stuffers
  • Utility Bill Messages
  • Direct mail
  • Internet
  • Social Media
  • Speakers Bureau
  • Workshops/Events
  • Drought Team Meetings/outreach
  • Starts-Ends with meeting water use target
302
Q

Drought Management

A

• Usual sequence of events
– Jan/Feb: awareness of impending drought
– Mar/Apr: rollout initial stage and response info.
– Apr/May: begin stage responses
– May: verify shortage magnitude/targets
• Every drought cycle is different
• Each Utility affected differently

303
Q

Drought Management

A

• Not all user classes can save the same amount of water – especially true in later stages
• Allow time for rate adjustments if part of the drought response plan
– Have drought rates in advance; or
– Develop new drought rates to fit current shortage
– Stakeholder involvement could affect schedule
• Normally drought stages will unfold over years

304
Q

Drought Management - Wastewater

A
  • Inform wastewater agencies of water supplier plans to reduce indoor demands
  • Assess any potential impacts in the event of severe water demand cutbacks
305
Q

Monitoring – Wastewater Flows

A
306
Q

Sample Drought Surcharges

A
307
Q

Implementing Drought Plans Requires Adequate Resources

A
308
Q

Provided to those taking the AWWA CA-NV Section WUE Exams…

A
309
Q

Math Building Blocks – Fractions

A
310
Q

Math Building Blocks – Fractions

A
311
Q

Unit Conversion – Ex. [IMPORTANT]

A
312
Q

Unit Conversion – Ex. [IMPORTANT]

A
313
Q

ater Distribution Exam Math Cheat Sheet – Unit Conversion

A
314
Q

Unit Conversion – Using Your Cheat Sheet

A
315
Q

Question – Unit Conversion

  1. Convert 113 miles to feet
A
316
Q

Question – Unit Conversion

A
317
Q

Question – use your cheat sheet…

A

4 ft3/sec.

318
Q

Question – use your cheat sheet

A

answer 4 ft3/sec

319
Q

Question – use your cheat sheet

A

Answer 3.3 ft3

320
Q

Question – use your cheat sheet

A

Answer 3.3 ft3

321
Q

Question – use your cheat sheet

A

Answer 1,953 gallons

322
Q

Question – use your cheat sheet…

A

answer 1,953
gals.

323
Q

How does CA need to adapt to increasing drought intensity?

A

California needs to adapt to increasing drought intensity. Agriculture relies heavily on groundwater during
droughts to maintain this key drought reserve. An increase in tree and vine crops—which need to be watered every year—is making farming more vulnerable to water shortages. State law now requires water users to bring their
groundwater basins into long-term balance by the early 2040s. This will likely require farm water use to fall in regions that have been over-pumping, including the southern Central Valley and the Central Coast. In urban areas, the greatest potential for further water savings lies in long-term reductions in landscape irrigation—a shift requiring changes in plantings and watering habits. Finally, state and federal regulators will need new approaches to reduce
harm to fish and wildlife during increasingly intense droughts. This will require better drought planning, investments in new habitat, and setting aside water during wet years for ecosystem uses in dry years.

324
Q

CA law for GPCD

A

55 GPCD IN Jan 2025 and
50 GPCD in 2030

325
Q

CA law for GPCD

A

55 GPCD IN Jan 2025 and
50 GPCD in 2030

Water Use Efficiency (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions