Fall-Winter 2005-2006 California Water Conservation News

7/31/2019 Fall-Winter 2005-2006 California Water Conservation News

1/16

Water Conservation News Fall/Winter 2005-06

Department o Water Resources Ofce o Water Use Efciency

waterconservationnewsIn this issue...

CUWCC and DWR Join Forces onUrban CIMIS Stations...........................1

Five New Stations Added to the CIMISNetwork...................... ...................... .....3

Managing Agricultural IrrigationDrainage Water............... ....................3

The Price of Water Efciency Is Eternal

Vigilance...............................................4

EPA Creates A National WaterEfciency Organization......................5

DWR Announces Second Round ofFunding for Water Desalination........5

Agricultural Water ManagementInformation Resource Directory.......6

Energy Workshops...............................6

Olivenhain Municipal Water Districtis Changing the Face of ConservationOne Yard at a Time ............................7

The Proposition 50 Water UseEfciency Funded Projects..................9

SRCSDs Master Plan...........................10

Task Force Tackles LandscapeWater Waste.........................................11

Estimating Urban LandscapeWater Use.............................................12

On-Site Self Regenerative WaterSofteners and Recycled Water............13

Building sustainability, reliability, and accountability through efficient water use

With the recent award of a Proposition 50Water Use Efciency Grant to the Califor-nia Urban Water Conservation Council,we are pleased to report that CaliforniaDepartment of Water Resources will joinforces CUWCC to implement non-idealsites for urban California Irrigation Man-agement Information System (CIMIS)weather stations.

CIMIS manages anetwork ofover 125automatedweatherstationsthat collectweather datafrom regions throughout California. Thecollected data is transferred to a centralcomputer in Sacramento and used toestimate reference evapotranspiration(ETo). ETo is the amount of water that islost to the atmosphere by the combinedprocesses of evaporation and transpirationfrom standardized grass and/or alfalfa sur-faces. The data is then made available tothe public atwww.cimis.water.ca.gov.

The siting of weather stations requiresstandardization of the surface on whichthe weather stations sit. This standardiza-tion is necessary because of the spatialand temporal variability of factors affecting

evapotranspiration (ET), and the difcultythis variability creates in formulating equa-tions for estimation of ET. Factors affectingET include solar radiation, air temperature,relative humidity, and wind speed. Theseparameters are interdependent, spatiallyand temporally variable, and highly de-pendent on the nature and properties ofsurfaces over which their measurementsare taken.

Researchers originally specied using grassand alfalfa as standard surfaces because oftheir adaptability to various climates andtheir biophysical similarity to many agricul-tural crops. The standardized grass and/oralfalfa surfaces on which the weather sta-tions rest are known as reference cropsand the weather stations that are sited onthe surfaces are referred to as reference

stations. This standardization requiresthat the reference crops have adequatefetch in alldirections, com-pletely shadethe ground,and have amplesupply of water.

These requirements weredesigned to simulate microclimates thatare common over most irrigated surfaces.

Originally designed for agricultural pur-poses, CIMIS has adopted these weatherstation standards and has developed theother following major criteria in selectingsites for its weather stations:

Site a station within the region it ismeant to represent.

Do not locate a station in a transitionarea between different climates.

Avoid topographic depressions andhigh points.

Avoid abrupt crop/vegetation changesor roads within 50 yards, wind obstruc-

tions or small rivers within 100 yards,larger rivers within 200 yards, andlakes within 1,000 yards of the site.

Weather stations not conforming to thebasic denition of reference stations arecommonly known as non-standardized ornon ideal sites. Urban regions are oneof the environments that are likely to havea shortage of standardized reference sites

CUWCC and DWR Join Forces on Urban CIMIS StationsBy Kent Frame, Department of Water Resources

Continued on Page 15


2/16


3/16


4/16


CALIFORNIA URBAN WAteR CONSeRVAtION COUNCIL

The Price of Water Efciency IsEternal Vigilance

We have won many battles in water con-servation. Water efcient showerheads,once viewed to be inadequate for hy-giene, are now universally accepted andeven required by law. In the 1980s, the1.6-gallon per ush toilet was promotedby the water conservation community,but the plumbing industry denouncedit as a faulty concept that would causerampant clogs and sewer line obstruc-tions throughout the nation. Now, morethan 30 percent of toilets in the nation

meet the 1.6-gallon per ush standard,yet the wastewater ows are uninter-rupted and consumer satis-faction is excellent. Greatprogress in water efcien-cy has been achieved thusfar, but additional threatsremain.

Non-Water SuppliedUrinalsUnfortunately, plumbing

codes have sometimes unfortunatelyimpeded water efciency advance-ments; new code amendments canunintentionally (or purposely) restrictwater conservation measures. As anexample, the legality of non-water sup-plied urinals has been ambiguous in theUniform Plumbing Code (UPC) versionsto date. It is understandable that thecode cannot anticipate every innovationin plumbing xtures and it is reasonablefor conicts to occur when new and safe

innovations rst come into the market-place.

The International Association of Plumb-ing and Mechanical Ofcials (IAPMO)recently approved amendments for the2006 version of the UPC. It was antici-pated by the entire water conservationcommunity that the 3-year code amend-ment process would clarify and accom-

modate new and safe innovation to beincluded in the next version of the UPC.

However, IAPMO has chosen to amendthe code to purposefully bar all installa-tions of non-water supplied urinals, con-trary to all scientic evidence in support ofthe safety and reliability of these xtures. Ifthe State of California, its counties and cit-ies adopt the 2006 version of the UPC, ascurrently written, an important measure toimprove water efciency will no longer beavailable to the State, water suppliers and

consumers unless a legislative overrideis passed.

ShowerheadsThe battle for efcient shower-

heads was won long ago--or so we thought. Stateand federal laws restrictow rates to 2.5 gallonsper minute (GPM). The

water conservation com-munity believed thatthe law applied to theshower experience.

The industry believes otherwise.

There is a growing trend among xturemanufacturers, builders, plumbers andconsumers to sidestep the law by install-ing multiple showerheads in one shower.Some disguise the subversion by callingthe water wasting showers home spas.While each individual showerhead meetsthe legal requirements, the multiple show-erheads will use 30 to 100 gallons for everyshower. As a result, California may enactseparate restrictions disallowing multiple

showerheads. Another strategy for correc-tion would be to amend the Federal En-ergy Policy Act of 1992, where the originalshowerhead standard was passed. In anyevent, the water conservation communitymust continue to ght a battle it thought itwon more nearly fteen years ago.

Energy Efciency or WaterEfciency?

The energy shortage in California em-phasized the conicts between energyconservation and water conservation. Therapid rise in energy costs have changedconsumer choices in appliance purchases,and products are being developed toensure great energy savings. Additionalwater consumption being exchanged forenergy efciency is especially likely tooccur during the peak water use times ofsummer. While the water supplier imple-ments intensive campaigns to reduce peak

summer water use, new appliances mayactually exacerbate the problem. Someappliances, such as ice makers and homeair-conditioners, can yield great electricalsavings by using water to remove the heatfrom the refrigerant in condenser coils,but can simultaneously increase water us-age. Water-cooled air conditioners werenot an economically viable product forhomeowners in the past due to the highcost of the equipment. Now that electricalcosts have risen, the savings of electricitymore than justies the high initial cost ofthe equipment.

CUWCC is currently working in coopera-tion with energy policy decision makersat the California Energy Commission toassure water is valued appropriately whentraded for energy conservation. Waterconservation is a long-term commitment.Great water ef-ciency improve-ments havebeen achieved,

but there is noguarantee theseimprovements will bemaintained. The challenge to the wa-ter conservation community is to maintainconstant vigilance to ensure that the pastsavings gains will not be lost.


5/16


6/16


The Agricultural Water Management Coun-

cil is developing an informa-tion-clearing-house anddatabase directory for watermanagement resources.With access to this informa-tion water providers canmake informed decisionsthat maximize water use ef-ciency effectiveness, reducecosts and enhance environ-mental conditions as well asto improve district service to

its users.

Currently, information relevant to agricul-tural water management is decentralizedand scattered; there is no index that iden-ties what resources are available. Eachagency, rm, or organization conducts itsown research and studies with no coordi-

nated mechanism to bring the information

back to the agricultural water communityfor application and use. As a result, it isdifcult for water suppliers to have ac-cess to all the tools for optimal watermanagement efciency and conservationplanning. The Council seeks to ll thiscommunication gap by serving the agricul-tural water community with the promo-tion of information sources to meet theirneeds for education and reference.

The Council will research and identify

available agricultural water managementinformation sources and organize the nd-ings into an online database and directory.This will include the review of modelsused to describe various water manage-ment activities, such as canal seepage, andregulating reservoir sizing that have a di-rect connection to cost-effective solutions

Agricultural Water Management Information Resource DirectoryHow Do You Know What Information is Out There to Assist You in Your Next Project?

By Mike Wade

for implementing the AB 3616 Efcient

Water Management Practices. The Agricul-tural Water Management Directory will bea collection of information services thatare focused to the needs of agriculturalwater managers. The directory will alsobe accessible online. Users will be able tosearch the database byauthor, title, subject,and date. Timely ac-cess is required toenable the agriculturalwater community to

properly manage itswater resources.

Look for the Agricultural Water Manage-ment Resources Directory Fall 2006. Formore information visitwww.agwatercoun-cil.org.

Energy WorkshopsBy Dave Todd

In 2005, At the request of the GovernorsOfce, the California Department

of Water Resources sponsoreda series of workshops entitledEnergy Workshops for Waterand Wastewater Agencies toask utilities (and their custom-

ers) to shift water use off thepeak energy demand period during

Summer 2005.

A task force that included representatives

from DWR, the California Energy Com-mission, Flex Your Power, Association ofCalifornia Water Agencies, energy utilities,

water and wastewater agencies, and con-sultants developed an agenda designed toexplain why even though there is enough

energy during the summer, the potentialstill existed for periodic regional shortages.Agenda topics included:

Discussing and understanding therelationship between water use andenergy demand

Explaining why it is necessary to shiftwater use off the peak energy demandperiod

Sharing strategies for shifting peakdemand and identifying what utilitiesand their customers can do to preparefor 2006

The Ofce of Water Use Efciency andTransfers staff coordinated and partici-

pated in the series of three workshopsconducted in Los Angeles, San Diego andSan Jose. Approximately 48 representativesfrom water, wastewater, and energy utili-ties attended the Los Angeles workshop,60 attended the San Diego workshop,and 103 attended the San Jose workshop.Media coverage included the Copley NewsService in Los Angeles, KPBS public radioin San Diego, and KCBS news radio in SanJose.

Additional information about the work-shops is available on the Ofce of WaterUse Efciency and Transfers Flex YourPower at the Tap Web site at:www.owue.

water.ca.gov.


7/16


BEFORE

The Olivenhain Municipal Water Districthas changed its water conservation effortsto focus more on the outdoor aspectsas 60 percent of residential water use istypically outdoors. To commence thisprogram, the District undertook a Califor-nia-Friendly Landscape makeover for oneof its customers, wherein a front lawn wasconverted into a California-Friendly yardthat uses less water.

In April 2005, the District selected En-

cinitas residents Anne Michaux and herhusband Joan Ceuterick as the winnersof a free water-wise landscape makeovercontest advertised to all District custom-ers. Their yard was transformed from a 100percent grass lawn to a California-Friendlylandscape that meets the needs of the resi-dents, is beautiful and saves water. Thisyard serves as a community demonstration

garden of the richness and beauty thatCalifornia-Friendly planting and landscapethemes have to offer, stated Board Direc-tor Mark A. Muir. San Diego residents andgardening professionals are discoveringthe value of a yard that can bloom yearround and use less water.

Many people believe that a colorful, lush,and vibrant garden needs lots of water.In reality, the same ends can be achievedthrough the application of California-

Friendly gardening principles, resulting ina 35- to 70-percent water savings. Water-wise gardens often require less mainte-nance than a traditional yard so you willsave time too. You can have almost anygarden style you like and still save water.If important to your lifestyle, even higherwater using materials such as turf or rosescan be incorporated as long as materials

Olivenhain Municipal Water District isChanging the Face of Conservation One Yard at a Time

By Olivenhain Municipal Water District Staff

with the same water requirements are ir-rigated on the same line. Since up to 60percent of residential water in San Diego isused outdoors for landscape, this projectis designed to motivate people to replaceultra thirsty lawns with attractive, droughtresistant plants, states Muir.

Anyone interested in California-Friendlylandscaping principles can visitwww.bewaterwise.com for information on irriga-tion schedules, plant selection, and much

more. Please visitwww.omwd.com tolearn more about the project, its partners,their services, and landscape and irrigationsystem design.


8/16

Ag:Implementation

Urban:Implementation

Urban:Research&Developement

Ag:Re

search&Developement

APPLICANT PROJECT REC APPSHR ADJCOST COM


1 Lost Hills Water District 4129 7NCanalLining $245,760 $61,440 $307,200 Approve2 Lost Hills Water District4130 4CanalLining $559,140 $186,380 $745,520 Approve3 Amador Water Agency4163 CanaltoMainline $500,000 $14,532,281 $15,032,281 Applicant4 Western Canal Water District4008 Replacement & Automation of Elevation Control Structure 875 $104,929 $314,786 $419,715 Fully fund5 Patterson Irrigation4038 Decision Supp for Impl & Eval of Ag Wtr Reuse BMPs to Improve Dist-Lvl Irrig Eff $775,000 $725,000 $1,500,000 Approve6 Yolo County Fld Control & Water Cons Dist.4128 Yolo County Flow Monitoring Network $272,000 $327,144 $599,144 Fully fund7 Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District4161 CanalModernization $1,775,266 $40,000 $1,815,266 Approve8 Modesto Irrigation District4168 Ditch Pipeline Replacement $500,000 $529,000 $1,029,000 Fully fund9 Deer Creek Irrigation District4013 Deer Creek Ag Water Use Eff Prog Near-Term Sys Impr Proj $1,154,25 4 $0 $1,154,25 4 Approve10 Stevinson Water District4164 Lateral Canal Piping $896,000 $107,200 $1,003,200 Approve

11 South Feather Water and Power Agency4090 Canal Seepage Reduction Program $0 $0 $0 Do not fu12 Oakdale Irrigation District4116 Tailwater Recovery Program $731,500 $1,377,75 0 $2,109,25 0 Fully fund

$7,513,849 $18,200,981 $25,714,830 State gra

1 University of California, Davis 4032 Monitor Wetting Front Advance Rate for Irri Manage in Flood Irri Alfalfa Prod Sys $197,343 $0 $197,343 Complet2 Regent of the University of California4089 Benets and Costs of Decit Irrigation in Alfalfa $632,000 $0 $632,000 Reduce c3 University of California, Davis 4070 Water Use Efciency in Sacramento Valley Rice Cultivation $428,000 $39,005 $467,005 Eliminate4 California State University, Monterey Bay - Foundation 4063 Developing of the VITicultural Informatio n System (VITIS) for Vineyards $118,590 $0 $118,590 Fund ver5 University of California, Davis 4115 Calif Regulated Decit Irrigation Prog & Remote Sensing to Quantify Evapotrans $563,000 $563,000 $1,126,000 6 sites to6 United States Department of Agriculture 4015 Improved Water Use Efciency for Vegetables Grown in the San Joaquin Valley $248,000 $260,000 $508,000 Fund proj7 University of California, Davis 4046 Ground-Based Remote Sensing Tech for Improved Ag Water Use Eff In Furrow Irr $0 $0 $0 No more 8 California Poly Technic State University Foundation 4047 Technology Transfer to Irrigation Districts $387,500 $127,800 $515,300 Min 25 ra9 Glenn Colusa Irrigation District4133 Regulating Reservoir Feasibility $257,000 $51,400 $308,400 Fully fund10 University of California, Davis4102 Updating Crop Coeff Information to Improve Crop Water Est $0 $0 $0 No more 11 San Joaquin County Resources Conservation Dist 4158 Expanded Mobile Irrig Lab and Irrig Workshops in Spanish $60,000 $67,560 $127,560 Fund 40 e12 Anderson-cottonwood Irrigation District4166 Churn Creek Lateral Improvement $144,000 $5,000 $149,000 Fully fund13 Deer Creek Irrigation District4021 Deer Creek Ag Water Use Eff Prog Long-Term Sys Impr Feas Invest $288,180 $0 $288,180 Outreach14 Orland Unit Water Users Association4022 Orland Project Regulating Reservoir Feasibility Investigation $168,153 $8,000 $176,153 Approve15 Biggs-West Gridley Water District4170 Regional Water Measurement Program $50,000 $27,000 $77,000 Fund Tas16 Reclamation District 1084126 Reclamation/BWMP Cooperative Water Measurement Study $318,803 $161,000 $479,803 Fund Tas

17 Yolo County Resource Conservation District 4095 Yolo/Colusa Mobile Wtr Lab Integr Water Qual, On-Farm Irrig Wtr Manage Impr $100,500 $14,000 $114,500 Do 60 ev18 Agricultural Water Management Council4096 Ag Water Management Informational Resources Directory $62,680 $0 $62,680 Fully fund19 University of California, Davis4101 California Irrigation Management Information System Phase II $0 $0 $0 No more 20 California State University, Fresno4113 Optimizing a Tailwater Return System to Improve Water Quality $0 $0 $0 No more 21 Reclamation District 1084162 Sac River BWMP Sub-Basin-Lvl Water Man Prog Demo Proj $200,193 $264,700 $464,893 Fund at $

$4,223,942 $1,588,465 $5,812,407 Grant re

1 Contra Costa Water District 4014 High Efciency Toilet and Urinal Replacemen t Program $647,446 $647,446 $1,294,89 2 Fully fund2 Inland Empire Utilities Agency 4110 Multi-Family UFL Toilet Direct - Install Program $1,650,13 3 $2,436,65 9 $4,086,79 2 Fully fund3 Municipal Water District of Orange County4131 Industrial Process Water Use Reduction Program $404,801 $414,208 $819,009 Fully fund4 City of Los Angeles4172 Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller Replacement Program $350,000 $675,000 $1,025,00 0 Fully fund5 California Urban Water Conservation Council4139 Statewide Rebate Prog for Cooling Tower Conduct Controllers $349,714 $606,000 $955,714 Limit to a6 City of Los Angeles 4134 Los Angeles City Park Irrigation Efciency Program $362,000 $778,970 $1,140,97 0 Fully fund7 California Urban Water Conservation Council4156 Statewide Urban Water Agency One-Stop Rebate Program $1,250,000 $1,441,000 $2,691,000 DWR sta8 City of West Sacramento4173 Parks Irrigation Retrot $324,551 $0 $324,551 Applicant9 El Dorado Irrigation District4091 EID CII/Multi-Fam Lands Sub-Meter & ET Controller Install Proj $83,098 $84,201 $167,299 Fully fund10 City of Sacramento4025 Park Irrigation Infrastructure Improvements $754,000 $143,000 $897,000 Limit $1011 San Benito County Water District4081 Water Softener Rebate Program $300,000 $305,560 $605,560 Fully fund12 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California4029 Residential High Efciency Clothes Washer Rebate Program $1,660,000 $1,992,000 $3,652,000 Data & e13 City of Pittsburg4033 Innovative Irrigation Saving Our Delta I2SOD $0 $0 $0 Applican14 City of Port Hueneme4071 Citywide Meter Retrot and System Audit Program $345,324 $1,037,973 $1,383,297 Fund one

15 City of Cathedral City4005 Landscape Irrigation System Upgrade $36,900 $54,450 $91,350 Fully fund16 Newhall County Water District4073 Residential ET Controller Rebate Program $55,332 $165,997 $221,329 Applicant17 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 4064 California Friendly Communities $423,150 $154,000 $577,150 Fund mu18 City of Los Angeles4142 Large Landscape Smart Irrigation Program $183,750 $187,420 $371,170 Fund at 519 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 4067 High-Efciency Toilet Rebate Program $1,000,000 $840,000 $1,840,000 Limit to $20 Los Angeles County Waterworks District4031 Residential Water Use Audits Program $386,640 $313,000 $699,640 Fund volu21 Richgrove Community Services District4039 Richgrove Water Meter Retrot Program $119,683 $0 $119,683 Fully fund22 West Basin Municipal Water District4080 West Basin Municipal Water District Restroom Retrot Project $294,834 $294,834 $589,668 Fund one23 Electric and Gas Industries Association4127 Regional Resource - Efcient Clothes Washer Rebate Prog $1,534,342 $2,175,816 $3,710,158 Initial fun24 Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts4042 Comm, Indust, Instit Water Use Audits & Ded Lands Meter Install Prog $108,681 $326,046 $434,727 Fund 1,725 Friars Village Homeowners Association4069 Landscape Irrigation System Upgrade $46,870 $64,220 $111,090 Fully fund

$12,671,249 $15,137,800 $27,809,049 1 California Urban Water Conservation Council 4109 California WaterStar Initiative: Water Efciency Product Rating & Labeling $217,000 $108,600 $325,600 Approve 2 Alameda Point Collaborative4086 Water Efcient Landscaping $308,000 $0 $308,000 Fund irrig3 Irvine Ranch Water District 4054 Statewide Study of Water Use Efciency $761,668 $235,000 $99 6,668 Fully fund4 California Urban Water Conservation Council4132 Urban Water Efciency Technical Assistance Program $506,913 $159,664 $666,577 Some tas5 South Yuba River Citizens League4112 The Great Water Mystery Assemblies & School Water Audit $51,717 $53,718 $105,435 Fund one6 Irvine Ranch Water District 4017 Rotary Nozzle Retrot Study $71,819 $60,166 $131,985 Fully fund7 Alameda Point Collaborative4085 Plowshares Demonstration Garden $193,460 $0 $193,460 Fully fund

8 California Urban Water Conservation Council4136 Smart From the Start $104,496 $21,583 $126,079 Fund Ne9 UC Regents - Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab 4174 Determin Waste of Water & Energy in Res Hot Water Dist Sys $500,000 $543,725 $1,043,72 5 Fund new10 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California4114 Online/Web-Base d Irrigation Efciency Training $77,500 $77,500 $155,000 Fund 1 re11 Santa Clara Valley Water District4083 Water Efciency Demonstration Garden $146,000 $48,173 $194,173 Fund one12 Central Basin Municipal Water District4020 Comm Lands Wireless Valve End Use Manage Research Proj $164,052 $138,000 $302,052 Fund 45 13 Clovis Botanical Garden Committee4036 Clovis Botanical Garden Expansion $72,362 $24,603 $96,965 Fund exh14 East Bay Municipal Utility District4141 New Business Plan Review Program For Water Use Eff $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 Fund por15 Efciency Partnership4118 Flex Your Power at the Tap $38,551 $5,560 $44,111 Fund Ma16 UC Regents, Agr & Nat Res/UCCE San Bern Co4049 Cons Water & Improving Plant Health in Large So Calif Lands $130,009 $39,668 $169,677 Fund Yea17 Pacic Inst for Studies in Dev, Environ, & Security4157 Dev of a Water Use Efciency Impl Cost & Cost Effect Model $142,385 $0 $142,385 Approve18 California State University, Fresno Foundation4111 Irrigation System Audits by Students $159,392 $0 $159,392 Fund proj19 East Bay Municipal Utility District4143 Multi-Family Submeter Pilot Study $150,000 $150,000 $300,000 Fully fund20 Stockton East Water District4119 Children Museum WUE $54,000 $6,000 $60,000 Fully fund21 City of San Diego4057 Recirculating Hot Water Systems: Res Survey & Feas Study $30,100 $0 $30,100 Fully fund22 University of California, Davis 4034 Improvement in CIMIS Calif Statewide Potential Evap Maps $214,919 $0 $214,919 Fund at r23 Water Education Foundation4151 Project Wet (Urban Focus) $79,599 $0 $79,599 Fund Pro

$4,223,942 $1,721,960 $5,945,902 Grant re


9/16


and CALFED benets are less and indirect. Fund at $0.5 M. Applicant to submit a complete UWMP to DWR by 12/31/05.

. Cost reduced. Local share: $725,000. Project was revised & grant reduced to $705,579 and local share to $659,970.

Total approved for phase 1 & 2 $775,266. Applicant share: $1,000,000. Unused funds to be used in phase 3.

nt ($46,545) funded under Sec B. Management reduced by $30,000. One cooperator declined.Grant was reduced to $453,035.$107,200.

ends on the applicants Section B project (4056) which was not funded.

roposed budgetthree-year program. Fund eld assistants at 50% time, Do not fund Eddy covariance equipment. Fund for a total of $632,000.

n future. Applicant may compare pesticide application loads vs cultural practices. ground data and remote sensing. Do not fund meterological work, investigators, students. Supplies: $19,000. Travel: $2,000.

Sac Valley site), 1 pistachio, 1 citrus, and 2 winegrapes. . Monitoring and verication to measure ET under RDI.o years is $260,000.

to Quantiable Objectives ($15,500 a site). Local share: 33% or $127,800.

workshops at $1,500 ea, $5,000 admin, $60,000 total.

ment reduced to $30,000. Fund for a total of $288,180. One cooperator declined. Grant was reduced to $172,8850.bility study, near nal design ($37,418) & environmental work ($17,714) should be done as part of three step project agreement.al Task 3 ($13,120). Plus $7,640 for report & project management. Total of $50,000. Applicant share: $27,000.8,803. Applicant to nd other source of funding to complete project.

workshop and $9,000 for admin, total of $100,500. Coordinate with Ag Waiver Monitoring Programs.

000 for install/$13,000 for admin). Applicant cost share data collection. Local share increased to $264,700.

it admin costs to less than 20%. Rebate for 200 and 20% admin costs, limit grant to $349,714.

less than 20%. Take into consideration similar rebate programs to determine rebate amount.ve requested funds. Applicant must submit a complete UWMP by December 31, 2005.

port writing. Limit of $428,620 for Group 2 part of the proposal for a total of $754,000. Proposed local share is prorated.

t Locally Cost Effective. Limit grant to two third, two years of the program at $1,660,000. Applicant cost share: $1,992,000.t the project will have broad transferable benets or accelerates implementation. Recommend do not fund.y cost effective, fund at 25% or $345,324.

t to 25% state share. Applicant to submit a complete Urban Water Management Plan by December 31, 2005.

0 ULFTs. Was found to be not locally cost effective.% of district customers instead of 20%. Project does not meet Disadvantaged Community criteria.

reduced to fund eligible projects with higher score. Fund one year only, DWR to negotiate approximately 25,000 rebates.ective. Fund at 25% ($108,681). Project does not meet Disadvantaged Community criteria.

, limit admin costs to 20%. Fund for a total of $217,000.r materials (eligible cost only). Applicant to pay for ineligible costs.

d state share at 76%. Fund for a total of $506,913.r audits. Applicants share was prorated.

mponent only.houses study for $682,550), reduce meetings and deliverable and other costs, for state share of $500,000.the professional course.

m, monitoring, and assessment. No plant materials funded.

pinion survey, e-Newswire, Web site, Database, Translation Contractors. Applicant declined the award.t management practices training.

A, SWRCB, and USBR to participate in the Public Advisory Committee

tasks.udents.

The Proposition 50Water Use Efciency

Funded ProjectsBy Manucher Alemi

In November 2002, California voterspassed Proposition 50, The Water Security,Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and BeachProtection Act of 2002. This created a newgrant program to implement the WaterCode Chapter 7, Section 79550 (g) ofProposition 50. Then on November 15,2004, the California Department of WaterResources issued a Proposal SolicitationPackage (PSP) with a deadline for applica-tion of January 11, 2005. The PSP solicitedproposals from local public agencies for

implementation or research and develop-ment projects.

A total of 168 proposals were ac-cepted requesting $146.5 million in grants.In 2004, DWR had about $34 million forits rst cycle of Proposition 50 grant fund-ing. The approved projects are shown inTable I-IV. As a result, DWR awarded $28.6million in grant funding to 75 projects.This represents $11.7 million in grantfunding to 28 agricultural projects with anestimated $19.8 million in local match and$16.8 million in grant funding to 47 urbanprojects with an estimated $16.9 million

in local match. DWR has since developedagreements with the grantees to imple-ment the projects. The next cycle of wateruse efciency grants is expected in scalyear 2006-07. For more information visitwww.owue.water.ca.gov/finance/index.cfm


10/16


0

SRCSDs Master Plan:Water Recycling Planning for the

Next Two DecadesBy Sacramento Regional County Sanitation

District Staff

Recognizing the importance of recycledwater as part of the water portfolio, theSacramento Regional County SanitationDistrict has initiated the Water RecyclingProgram. This program is therst of its kind in SacramentoCounty and provides foran environmentallyresponsible and safewater supply for ir-rigation, industrialuses and environ-mental restoration.Using recycled waterto meet these needsreduces the regionsdependence ongroundwater and surface water sup-plies for non-potable purposes.

In 2004, the SRCSD Board of Directorsapproved a goal of expanding the WaterRecycling Program to 30-40 million gallonsper day (MGD) in the Sacramento Region

over the next 20 years. Ultimately, SRCSDstrives to achieve an appropriate balancebetween discharge of highly treated waste-water to the Sacramento River and waterrecycling expansion within the SacramentoRegion. District staff and an experiencedwater-recycling consultant team are ac-tively pursuing potential future water recy-cling projects to meet the large-scale waterrecycling goal through the development ofa Water Recycling Master Plan (WRMP)--adraft of the plan is anticipated for comple-

tion in 2006.The WRMP will explore water-recycling opportunities through:

Having open dialogue with stakehold-ers, such as cities, land use authorities,and water purveyors that serve themto develop water recycling opportuni-ties within SRCSDs service area

Investigating potential uses of recycledwater for traditional landscape uses,such as irrigation of parks, golf cours-es, recreational elds and, potentially,

industrial demands Investigating potential use of recycled

water for irrigation of non-food crops.This could include replacing or aug-menting use of surface or groundwaterfor agricultural purposes such as irriga-

tion of alfalfa and other animal foddercrops Examining the possibility of installing

purple pipes in new developmentsduring construction when recycledwater infrastructure (piping, pumpingand storage tanks) is the least expen-sive. WRMP planning estimates indi-cate that purple pipe installation intoexisting developments can be double

or triple the cost of installationwith new developments Determining where the most

logical place is to treat andsupply communities withrecycled water. Treatment

could be at the existing SRC-SD water recycling plant, a new

satellite facility closer to the user,or possibly both.

SRCSDs investment in water recycling be-gan with construction of a water recyclingplant located at the Sacramento RegionalWastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) in

Elk Grove, CA. The water recycling plantbegan operation in April 2003 and cur-rently delivers a daily peak production of3 MGD with an average daily productionof 1.0-1.5 MGD. The plant is expandable to10 MGD. All recycled water produced bySRCSD is tertiary treated and meets Title22 requirements for unrestricted reuse.Currently, recycled water is being used inthe Laguna West/Stonelake Communitiesof Elk Grove to irrigate parks, schoolyards,commercial landscapes, roadway mediansand freeway interchanges. Additionally,recycled water is used for landscape ir-rigation and other non-potable water usesthroughout SRWTP.

SRCSD is currently conducting a 12-monthmembrane ltration pilot study as part ofits continual pursuit of a more efcientand innovative water recycling facility.There are four micro/ultra-ltration mem-brane technologies being tested for future

expansion of the existing water recyclingplant. SRCSDs goal is to increase the pro-duction of future recycled water in a safeand cost effective manner to reliably meetfuture demands. The pilot study is antici-pated to be completed in 2006.

Lastly, as public involvement is a key toa successful water recycling program, in1998 SRCSD began a proactive publicoutreach program to help educate the

public about water recycling and promotethe future of SRCSDs water recyclingprogram. Focus groups and a communityadvisory committee (consisting of publicofcials, community and industry leaders,commercial, industrial, and residentialusers of recycled water and SRCSD staff)developed public education materials,including brochures, community eventexhibits, fact sheets, and a school educa-tion program. Additional outreach wasconducted through customer mailing, bill-board advertising campaign, and articles inarea media outlets.

Find more information on SRCSDs WaterRecycling Program atwww.purplepipes.com, or contact Kent Craney at (916) 876-6018 or email at [email protected].

SRCSD won two Gold Cappie Awards from theSacramento Public Relations Association forboth its overall water recycling public relationsprogram and for its water recycling booth


11/16


Task Force TacklesLandscape Water Waste

By Katie Shulte Joung

Water, water everywhere: Sprinklers are

watering driveways, not plants. Nativeplants suffer death from drowning. AreCalifornia cities running out of water or doour landscapes have a drinking problem?

In Assembly Bill 2717 sponsored by JohnLaird (D-Santa Cruz) the California Legisla-ture and Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggerasked the California Urban Water Conser-vation Council to convene a LandscapeTask Force with representatives from thelandscape and building industries, water

suppliers, environmental groups, and gov-ernment agencies to evaluate landscapewater use efciency and to make recom-mendations for improvements. Californiauses more water on landscape irrigationthan all other residential water uses com-bined, says Marsha Prillwitz, the projectmanager for the Task Force. And much ofthis water is being wasted, not benetingour plants or lawns.

The report follows several other important

studies, including the most recent draft ofthe California Water Plan, that says waterconservation, especially in landscaping,could be the largest new source of waterto meet Californias growing thirst. Weknow improving water use efciency isone of the most cost-effective ways toextend existing water supplies and protectour environment by keeping more waterin streams, rivers and lakes so it will bethere for sh and wildlife, says Mary AnnDickinson, Executive Director of CUWCC.This report give us a road map as to how

we can have attractive, California-friendlylandscaping, save water, and save moneyfor consumers and water suppliers.

The stakeholder-based Landscape TaskForce convened in February 2005 with 30members, including representatives of theCalifornia Department of Water Resources,State Water Resources Control Board,California Bay-Delta Authority, United

States Bureau of Reclamation, landscapeindustry groups, manufacturers, the build-ing and construction industry, urban watersuppliers, environmental advocacy andenvironmental justice groups, the Leagueof California Cities, the California State As-

sociation of Counties, and the Universityof California. Four technical work groups,comprised of 84 participants, conducted30 meetings over the past year. Two publicworkshops were conducted to solicit pub-lic comment. CUWCC facilitated the meet-ings, provided staff support and raisedfunds to nance this project.

The recommendations in the report ac-knowledge and reect the improvementsin landscape technology and management

in California over the past 15 years (sinceadoption of the California Model WaterEfcient Landscape Ordinance), but antici-pates the need to improve landscape wa-ter use efciency even more over the next25 years. The recommendations includechanges to California law, revisions to theModel Ordinance, and amendments tothe California Urban Water ConservationCouncils Memorandum of Understandingand Best Management Practices. The legis-lative process, regulatory process, and CU-

WCCs governing rules all entail extensivefact gathering and public participation.The Landscape Task Force recommenda-tions are not intended to supersede theexisting processes, but rather to provideideas and impetus to these institutionsbased on broad support from the stake-holder groups involved in the task forceprocess. The Task Force hopes that ampleweight be given to the extensive delibera-tions and collaborative process leading tothese recommendations.

The report recommends pricing water topromote water conservation, designinglandscapes to meet more stringent waterbudgets, and enforcing existing landscapewater conservation ordinances. The reportalso recommends increasing the use ofrecycled water for irrigating landscapes,installing separate meters for landscapes,and requiring the use of smart irrigationcontrollers.

The Top 12 Recommendations supported bythe Landscape Task Force are:

1. Adopt water conserving rate structuresas dened by the Task Force.

2. Reduce the ET Adjustment Factor inthe Model Ordinance and review the

ET Adjustment Factor every ten yearsfor possible further reduction.

3. Enforce and monitor compliance withlocal ordinances and the state modelordinance.

4. Require dedicated landscape meters.5. Promote the use of recycled water in

urban landscapes.6. Require that local ordinances be at

least as effective as the state modelordinance.

7. Increase the publics awareness of theimportance of landscape water use

efciency and inspire them to action.8. Require Smart Controllers.9. Adopt and enforce statewide

prohibitions on overspray and runoff.10. Provide training and certication op-

portunities to landscape and irrigationprofessionals.

11. Support upgrading the CaliforniaIrrigation Management InformationSystem Program.

12. Adopt performance standards forirrigation equipment.

In addition to the legislative, regulatory, andadministrative changes proposed by the TaskForce, there are recommendations regardingpublic education, training and certication,research, and nancial incentives. Whentaken together, implementation of the rec-ommendations and corresponding actionswill chart a bright future for water efcientCalifornia landscapes.

For a copy of the report and additional in-formation on the Landscape Task Force visit

www.cuwcc.org/ab2717_landscape_task_force.lasso. For more information about CU-WCC contact Katie Shulte Joung at(916) 552-5885.


12/16


Estimating UrbanLandscape Water UseBy Simon O. Eching and Richard L. Snyder

In California, the landscape industry is

huge and there is constant increased com-petition among water users. Consequently,managing irrigation to optimize efcientwater use is critically important to stretchexisting water supplies. To help with this,a Microsoft Excel application programLandscape Irrigation Management Pro-gram (LIMP) has been designed to helplandscape professionals and homeown-ers to calculate evapotranspiration (ETo)rates, determine landscape coefcient(KL) values, estimate landscape evapo-

transpiration (ETL) and determine irriga-tion schedules. LIMP is part of an effort tomake urban landscape water managementmore scientic by accounting for factorthat affects it.

LIMP accounts for microclimate, vegeta-tion type, plant density, stress conditions,slope, orientation, and rainfall effect onET. Regional ETo rates are estimated byentering monthly average weather datafrom a good site (such as the California Ir-

rigation Management Information System)or by entering daily mean ETo by monthdirectly into the program. If weather dataare input, then daily meanETo is estimated using themonthly Penman-Monteithequation. A mi-croclimate coef-cient (Km) isused to adjust the ETofor the local microclimatedifferences from the regionalETo. The regional and local

ETo values are compared todetermine the microcli-mate coefcient (Km).

In addition to accounting for local andregional weather differences, one

can adjust the Km factorfor slope and aspect of

the local site. Slope isused to describe

how steepness the landscape is, and ori-entation describes whether the landscapefaces east, south or west. A vegetationcoefcient (Kv), referred to in WUCOL asspecies coefcient, is used to account forthe difference in well-watered vegetation

ET and the ETo. To account for sparsecanopies, a plant density coefcient (Kd),which is based on percentage ground cov-er, is used. LIMP uses a stress coefcient(Ks) to adjust for reductions in ET due towater stress. Using a model to estimatesoil evaporation as a function of ETo rateand rainfall frequency, LIMP estimates theevaporation expected from bare soil in aparticular location. Then an evaporationcoefcient (Ke) is computed as the ratioof the bare soil evaporation to ETo. This

provides a baseline (i.e., minimum value)for KL. LIMP calculated KL can be usedin controllers or the program can use toschedule irrigation.

The KL value is determined as:KL = Km Kv Kd Ks > Ke.

Landscape ET is calculated as:ETL = ETo KL.

The LIMP Excel le consists of the follow-

ing worksheets: weather ETo Output RT CRT KL_Mult RT_Mult CRT_Mult.

There are some additional hid-den worksheets that are usedfor internal calculations. The

worksheet weather is used to es-

timate regional ETo and local ETo.Various adjustment coefcients are

also input or determined in the worksheetweather. Daily ETo rates are estimatedfrom the monthly data by a hidden work-sheet and displayed in the worksheet ETo.The worksheet OUTPUT contains all coef-cients and ET calculations. LIMP also sup-plies information for irrigation schedulingsuch as daily sprinkler runtimes needed

to replace the ETLlosses). The in-formation isdisplayedin theworksheet

RT. Cu-mula-tive runtime minutes are displayed in theworksheet CRT. LIMP allows for schedul-ing of up to 20 zones by inputting KLvalues in the worksheet KL_MULT. OnceKL values are entered into the worksheet,a column of runtime values for each ofthe 20 zones is created in the worksheetRT_Mult and the corresponding cumula-tive runtime requirement is provided inthe worksheet CRT_Mult. The coefcients

and ET values are then plotted on variouscharts.For additional information contact Dr.Richard Snyder at e-mail [email protected] or Simon Eching at e-mail [email protected]. A copy of LIMP.XLS isavailable on Dr. Richard Snyders Web siteat http://biomet.ucdavis.edu.


13/16


14/16


Water Hardness is dened in SB 1006 asthe total of all dissolved calcium, magnesium, iron and other heavy

metals, that interact with soaps and detergents in a manner that theefciency of soaps and detergents for cleaning purposes is impaired.

Harness is expressed in grains per gallon or milligram per liter as if

all such salts were present as calcium carbonate.

On-Site from Page 13(Costa, 1999) which amended SB 2148to set a framework for the restriction ofself-regenerative water softeners. Then in2003, Assembly Bill 334 -Water Softeningand Conditioning Appliances - amended

SB 1006 to allow local agencies exibilityimprove recycled water quality throughsource control measures.

The water softener industry met the chal-lenge by designing new water softenerswhich meet the criteria An appliance in-stalled on or after January 1, 2002, shall becertied by a third party rating organiza-tion using industry standard to have a saltef- ciency rating of no less than 4,000

grains of hardness removed per

pound of salt used in regenera-tion. Still, the salt generated

from watersoftenerscontinues

to challengethe recycled

water industry. SB 1006and AB 334 do not apply

to existing water softenersproduced and installed prior to the

adoption of any ordinance. The appliances

are grandfathered in and can operate asusual. Also, even the most efcient watersoftener system still requires a regulardischarge of salt brine into local wastewa-ter stream. Although some headway hasbeen made, alternative strategies are stillneeded.

One local agency, Monterey RegionalWater Pollution Control Agency suppliesrecycled water to irrigate almost 12,000acres of food crops. Although the ve yearMonterey Wastewater Reclamation Studyfor Agriculture did not see a decrease in

soil health or crop yields, the long termeffects of recycled waters salt content isa major concern to growers. Asa result of growers concerns,MRWPCA has examined therecycled water quality andfound that sodium levels werenearing the upper limits of theacceptable range. MRWPCA found that 37percent of the source-waters salt load wasfrom residential, commercial and indus-trial water softener brine.

The State has also addressed the issue ofsalt from SRW softeners. The RecycledWater Task Force (RWTF) report recom-mended to the State legislature that localagencies be empowered through legisla-tion to regulate the discharge of residen-tial water softeners in the same manneras other sources of discharge into sewersand encouraged water softener studiesto develop alternatives for salt reductionin recycled water. Another RWTF recom-

mendation asked local agencies to educateconsumers regarding the impacts of SRWsofteners through publicity campaigns andto offer nancial incentives to upgradeolder inefcient appliances. Assembly Bill334 (Goldberg, 2003) Water Softening andConditioning Appliances was adopted in

response to the RWTF recommendations.

The State has supported further effortsto reduce salt loading when theCalifornia Department of WaterResources awarded Santa Clara

Valley Water District with a

2002 Proposition 13 Grant for theirPilot Water Softener Rebate Program.This award winning pilot program provid-ed 400 residents with a rebate of $150 forthe replacement of their inefcient pre-

1999 water softener system. The newermodels, demand-initiated regenerationwater softeners, more efciently sensewhen the resin must be recharged withsalt and regenerate the resin as needed.Thus, these types of water softeners useless water and less salt.


15/16


Urban from Page 1because of space limitations for adequatefetch and obstructions from buildingsand other structures. Weather data fromnon-standardized sites are likely to be er-roneous in representing the microclimates

of irrigated surfaces. Air temperature onwarm summer days, for example, can behigher in an urban environment by asmuch as 8oF compared to adjacent veg-etated surfaces with no water stress. Thisdifference is mainly because of what isknown as an urban heat island, a phe-nomenon resulting from buildings andpaved surfaces in thecity absorbing moresolar energy and con-verting it to heat.

Yet weather stationsin the urban environ-ments have become in-creasingly necessary to efciently managewater resources. Consequently, becauseof the increased demands for CIMIS datafrom urban users, the difculty of ndingstandardized sites in these areas, and theadvent of new technologies, such as auto-mated landscape irrigation controllers, ithas become necessary to undertake a non-

ideal site studies using paired non-idealand reference weather stations.

A recent study by the University of Califor-nia, Davis extension program has outlinedscenarios under which non-ideal weatherstations can be effectively sited and used.Although this study was conducted on asmaller scale, it has clearly indicated thepotential for using weather data fromnon-ideal sites for irrigation purposes.The study also suggested a scenario in

which certain weather parameters canbe measured at the non-ideal sites andthe remaining parameters taken from anearby CIMIS station, provided it has beendetermined that the latter do not changesignicantly on a regional scale. It shouldbe noted these non ideal sites can besituated on surfaces other than grassbut still need to have upwind fetch anduninterrupted solar radiation. The study

concluded by recommending an extensivefeasibility study by DWR and other agen-cies in different regions of California.

Accordingly, CIMIS, in cooperation withthe Council, is planning to conduct a state-

wide project to investigate the possibilityof installing stations in non-ideal environ-ments and converting the collected datainto an equivalent ideal condition. Thiswill be achieved by setting up pairedideal and non-ideal stations in a givenstudy area. Data from the non-ideal sitesof the pairs will be correlated with the cor-

responding data from idealsites. These correlations willthen be used to convert thenon-ideal site data into an

equivalent ideal site dataafter the completion of thestudy. The converted valuesthus represent values that

would have occurred at the non-ideal sitesif surfaces were ideal.

CUWCC and DWR will be forming a techni-cal advisory committee consisting of manymembers from different regions of theState. This committee will meet regularlyduring the project period. We welcome

any one or any group interested in takingpart in this important investigative projectand encourage those interested to contactDWRs Kent Frame at (916) 651-7030,Bekele Temesgen at (916) 651-9679, orCUWCCs Karl Kurka at (916) 552-5885.

Managing from Page 3

Five Points and in Buttonwillow,California. Workshop presentersprovided information of varioustopics on the design and operationof an IFDM system including: FDM system description IFDM system design drainage water and plant

selection laws and regulations/monitor-

ing, and soils

The manual contains an empiricalanalysis and spreadsheet to assistpotential IFDM owners determinefarm-specic costs, benets, and

the net nancial impact of imple-menting IFDM. An Appendix CDconsists of a PowerPoint presenta-tion by DWR on the Design ofthe Solar Evaporator for the IFDMsystem at Red Rock Ranch. At-tendees who participated in theeld tours at Red Rock Ranchand AndrewsAg, Inc. were veryimpressed with the IFDM systemlayout and operation referenced inboth manuals.

The impacts of the IFDM manuals,workshops, and eld tours: Increased the awareness of IFDM

technology. Facilitated the training of farmers

and professionals in IFDMconcept.

Expanded the sharing andtransfer of IFDM technology.

The release of the new manual will

help to meet the need of provid-ing landowners and professionalsinformation and technical supporton how to operate an IFDM sys-tem. To order a free copy (limitedquantity printed), contact LisaBasinal, Center for Irrigation Tech-nology at (559) 278-2066. To geta copy visitwww.sjd.water.ca.gov/drainage/ifdm/manual/index.cfm .


16/16


WATER CONSERVATION NEWSP. O. Box 942836Sacramento, CA 94236-0001

This newsletter is printed on recycled paper.

STATE

OF CALIFORN

IA

DE

PAR

TMENT

OFWATER

RESOURC

ES

Address Correction Requested

Fall-Winter 2005-2006 California Water Conservation News

Documents

Transcript of Fall-Winter 2005-2006 California Water Conservation News