Urban Water
Management
Plan and
Water Shortage
Contingency
Plan Updates
June 16, 2026
9.A.
What is an
Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP)?
2 • UWMPs are required by the California Water Code
• Long-range water planning document evaluating
water supply and demand through 2050
• Planning tool to ensure adequate availability and
reliability of water supplies to meet current and
projected future demands
• Serves as a foundational document for Water
Supply Assessments for proposed development
projects (as required by SB 610 and SB 221)
The 2025 UWMP is due to
the California Department
of Water Resources (DWR)
by July 1, 2026
Why is an UWMP required?
3 • Urban Water Management Planning Act
(AB 797 enacted in 1983, California Water
Code Sections 10610-10657)
– Applies to urban water suppliers serving
more than 3,000 customers or 3,000 acre-
feet/year (AFY) of deliveries
– Required to be updated every 5 years
– Required to remain eligible for State grants
and loans
In 2025, the City served
25,500 connections and
delivered 12,211 acre-feet of
potable water to customers.
The City’s 2020 UWMP was
adopted in December 2021.
Key Components of 2025 UWMP
4 • Lay Description (Executive Summary)
• System Description (Chapter 3)
• Water Demand Projections (Chapter 4)
• Conservation Target Compliance (SB X7-7) (Chapter 5)
• Water Supply Availability and Reliability (Chapters 6 & 7) • Drought Risk Assessment (Chapter 7)
• Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Chapter 8, Appendix J) • Demand Management Measures (Chapter 9)
Water Conservation Act of 2009
(SB X7-7)
5 • Enacted in 2009 and first included in 2010 UWMPs
• Required retail urban water suppliers to adopt per
capita water use targets for 2015 and 2020
• In 2020, COVID-19 pandemic and dry conditions
increased use slightly above the 2020 target
• In 2025, the target was easily met (119 gpcd)
6 Per Capita Water Use Trend
7 Potable Water Demands
Population Served
8 Recycled Water Demands within
City Service Area (served by NapaSan)
Projected Water Supplies
2045 and 2050
projections
incorporate climate
change impacts
based on DWR
analyses.
• Local Surface Water
– Lake Hennessey
– Milliken Reservoir
• State Water Project
– Table A entitlements
– Other types:
• Carryover
• North of Delta Allocation
• Advanced Table A
• Article 21
• Dry Year Water
10 30,026 30,026 30,026
26,710 26,710
13,560 14,035 14,110 14,510 14,810
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Acre-Feet
Supply Demand
Supply vs. Demand (Chapter 7)
Normal Year
11 17,962 17,962 17,962
16,204 16,204
13,560 14,035 14,110
14,510 14,810
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Acre-Feet
Supply Demand
Supply vs. Demand (Chapter 7)
Single-Dry Year
No Shortfalls
12 14,355 14,355 14,355
12,188 12,188
13,560 14,035 14,110 14,510 14,810
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Acre-Feet
Supply Demand
Shortfalls 16%-18%
Supply vs. Demand (Chapter 7)
Multiple-Dry Years 2-5
13 Supply Reliability through 2050
• Supplies can meet projected water demands
dur
ing normal and single-dry water years
through 2050
• In multiple-dry year conditions, minor
demand reductions are necessary:
– Five-year droughts starting in 2045 and 2050:
16-18%
Shortfalls can be addressed via Stage 2 of
Water Shortage Contingency Plan and/or
Dry Year Water Purchases
14 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
• City’s plan to prepare and respond to water
short
ages
• Appendix to the UWMP (Appendix J)
– May be updated independently from the
UWMP
– Adopted by separate resolution
• Conforms to:
– State’s six standard water shortage
stages
– Requirements for annual water supply
and demand assessment
15 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
(Appendix J)
Stage Percent
Shortage Key Response Actions
1 up to 10% Voluntary demand reduction; Promote existing water waste prohibitions and conservation programs
2 up to 20% Water Waste Patrols; No irrigation on consecutive days; Drain & refill pools for repairs only; Restaurants/Hotels 3 up to 30% Irrigation limited to 2 days per week; Pool and spa covers required; Possible Drought Rate/Surcharge
4 up to 40%
Irrigation limited to 1 day per week; Interruptible Ag
services suspended; Construction/dust control water
prohibited; Possible Bimonthly Water Use Allocations
5 up to 50%
All landscape irrigation prohibited; New turf installation prohibited; No street cleaning, line flushing, fire
sprinkler testing; Conservations plans for largest users 6 >50% Exceptions for drip, micro-spray, hand watering
rescinded; All agricultural irrigation prohibited
16 This Photo by Unknown Author is
licensed under CC BY
Questions?
Recommended Action #1
June 16, 2026
17 • Adopt a Resolution adopting the 2025 Urban
Water Management Plan, a summary of City
policies and procedures addressing water
supply, demand, and conservation required
by the State Department of Water Resources,
and determining that the actions authorized
by this resolution are exempt from CEQA.
Recommended Action #2
June 16, 2026
18 • Adopt a Resolution adopting the Water
Shortage Contingency Plan, a strategic plan
for preparing for and responding to water
shortages required by the State Department
of Water Resources, and determining that the
actions authorized by this resolution are
exempt from CEQA.
File final documents with DWR and State Library
by July 1, and provide to local agencies, make
available for public review within 30 days.
From: [email protected]
To: Jonathen Sakamoto; Clerk; [email protected] Subject: Fw: Public Comment – CDBG Funding Request + Imola Ave Traffic & Pedestrian Safety + Petition (35 Residents) Date: Saturday, June 13, 2026 07:08:52 AM
Attachments: neighborhood petition 2026.pdf
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Public Comment Regarding CDBG Funding Priorities and
Neighborhood Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements Dear Mr. Jonathen Sakamoto and Members of the Napa City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment.
I am writing as a resident of the Imola Avenue and Coronado Avenue neighborhood to respectfully request that the City of Napa consider allocating available Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, where eligible, to address long-standing pedestrian and traffic safety concerns affecting our neighborhood.
This request is not only about specific infrastructure improvements, but about addressing the cumulative impacts of land use decisions, annexation, and incremental development that have significantly changed the safety conditions of this residential corridor.
A central concern is that this corridor now functions with residential, commercial, and institutional traffic demands without the pedestrian and roadway infrastructure originally intended to support that level of use.
Annexation and Existing Site Conditions
At the time of annexation, the area included primarily the Economy Market property, three residential parcels associated with that site, and residential units located above the market. The property already existed and had undergone changes and operational expansions over time prior to full City oversight.
Over the years, residents observed incremental changes at the site, including expansion of commercial activity and supporting infrastructure such as food service operations and refrigeration and storage elements.
Concerns were raised within the community regarding whether all modifications were subject to full permitting review at the time they occurred, or whether some changes were later incorporated into the site through subsequent approvals or nonconforming status determinations following annexation.
Following annexation into the City of Napa in approximately 2019, the property was incorporated into City jurisdiction with these existing site conditions already in place. While nonconforming use provisions allow existing conditions to remain under certain circumstances, the practical effect has been that long-standing site and operational impacts were not comprehensively evaluated through a single coordinated planning process.
As a result, cumulative impacts were not fully mitigated in advance and continue to affect the surrounding residential neighborhood today.
Traffic Safety and Visibility Concerns
Vehicles frequently enter and exit the Economy Market parking area directly onto Imola Avenue, where visibility is limited due to parked vehicles, utility poles, and roadway constraints. Residents have experienced repeated near-miss and conflict situations involving vehicles entering or exiting the roadway.
Traffic volumes along Imola Avenue have increased due to surrounding residential development, nearby public facilities, and broader regional circulation patterns. Future development in the Skyline Park area may further increase demand on this already constrained corridor.
Garbage Collection and Traffic Conflicts
A continuing safety concern involves frequent commercial garbage collection serving the market, occurring approximately five days per week. When garbage trucks are stopped along Imola Avenue, traffic often backs up, and residents have witnessed drivers attempting unsafe passing maneuvers around stationary vehicles. These incidents have created near head-on conflicts in the roadway and present a serious risk to motorists, pedestrians, and nearby residents.
Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure Deficiencies
Imola Avenue currently lacks adequate pedestrian infrastructure.
Residents, including seniors and families, are forced to walk alongside active traffic without the protection of a sidewalk. This creates an ongoing safety hazard, particularly given increasing traffic volumes and limited roadway width.
Although speed limits have been reduced and signage installed, these measures alone have not adequately addressed the underlying safety concerns.
Requested Improvements
We respectfully request that the City conduct a comprehensive traffic safety evaluation of the corridor and consider the following improvements:
Installation of a sidewalk along Imola Avenue
Installation of a stop sign at the intersection of Coronado Avenue and Imola Avenue
Evaluation of a double yellow centerline and no-passing restrictions where appropriate
Additional traffic calming measures and enforcement as needed A formal traffic engineering review of Imola Avenue and surrounding access points
Neighborhood Petition
A neighborhood petition signed by approximately 35 residents has been submitted and is attached to this comment for the City’s review. The petition reflects shared and ongoing concerns regarding pedestrian safety, traffic conditions, and neighborhood livability.
The petition was developed through neighborhood discussion and submitted in an effort to work collaboratively with the City of Napa. The effort reflects broad neighborhood participation, with residents contributing a range of concerns including traffic safety, garbage collection impacts, noise, and general livability conditions along the corridor.
The petition represents a meaningful cross-section of nearby residents and reflects sustained concern regarding conditions affecting daily safety and quality of life.
We respectfully request that this petition be included as part of the public record and considered alongside this request for infrastructure improvements.
Closing
The concerns outlined in this letter reflect long-term cumulative impacts of land use decisions, annexation, and incremental development that were not fully evaluated as part of a comprehensive planning process at the time they occurred. As a result, the surrounding residential neighborhood continues to experience traffic safety risks and a lack of adequate pedestrian infrastructure.
While development and growth are expected in a changing city, it is essential that infrastructure keeps pace with those changes to ensure public safety and neighborhood livability.
We respectfully ask the City Council to view this as an opportunity to address long-standing infrastructure gaps and invest in meaningful improvements that will improve pedestrian safety, reduce traffic conflicts, and restore the quality of life for residents.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to the residents of Napa.
Sincerely,
Sam Aldridge
Resident, Imola Avenue and Coronado Avenue Neighborhood