CITY COUNCIL
AMENDED ERRATA SHEET
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: 01/12/2022
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Agenda- Errata Sheet
Attached is additional information for your consideration at the January 12, 2022 City Council Special Meeting:
Agenda Item Information Provided/Corrected
3A
At the request of Councilmember Coletti, the following documents are added to the project record and attached hereto: CalAm Presentation (September 2021), MPWMD Board Meeting Agenda Item (October 2018), CalAm Final Urban Water Management Plan (June 2021) AND Ct. of Appeals Case Save Our Carmel River, et al. v. MPWMD, etal.
Attachments
CalAm PPT
MPWMD Agenda Item
Final Urban Water PPT
Court of Appeal Lawsuit
1 Water Supply and
Drought Update
September 2021
2 We deliver clean, safe, reliable water and wastewater to about 675,000 people statewide. In Monterey County we
serve more than 100,000 people.
Water Quality/Consumer Confidence Reports
(CCR) show perfect compliance.
Throughout COVID pandemic, we
increased employee safety protocols,
while continuing capital
improvement projects.
Currently more than 40% spend
with diverse vendors
MONTEREY
Historic Water Supply
3 CARMEL RIVER WATERSHED
SEASIDE BASIN
4 Carmel River Authorized Diversions
0 2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
WY 09-10 WY 10-11 WY 11-12 WY 12-13 WY 13-14 WY 14-15 WY 15-16 WY 16-17 WY 17-18 WY 18-19 WY 19-20 WY 20-21 WY 21-22 WY 22-23 8,310 AFY
7,310 AFY
4,110 AFY
3,376 AFY
10,209 AFY
ACTUAL HSTORIC PUMPING
5 Seaside Basin Water Reduction
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000 3,333 AFY
2,816 AFY
2,229 AFY 1,820 AFY
1,474 AFY
WY 09-10 WY 10-11 WY 11-12 WY 12-13 WY 13-14 WY 14-15 WY 15-16 WY 16-17 WY 17-18 WY 18-19 WY 19-20 WY 20-21
ACTUAL HSTORIC PUMPING
774 AFY
6 Supplies
Currently Available:
- Groundwater from Carmel Valley Aquifer
- Groundwater from Seaside Basin
- Sand City Desalination Plant
- Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)
- Pure Water Monterey indirect potable reuse
7 California Drought
First six months of 2021 are fourth
driest on record.
July 2021, Gov. Newsom extended drought
emergency to Monterey County.
8 Reservoir Levels
California Seaside Basin Los Padres Dam
Aquifer Storage & Recovery program stored only 66 AF in WY20-21 with 1,234 AF of ASR water currently banked in Seaside Basin.
9 Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Stage One
Prohibition on Water Waste
Stage Two
Voluntary Conservation
Stage Three
Conservation Rates
Stage Four
Water Rationing
10 WY 2021-22: Authorized Diversions
2021 2022
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
FUTURE WATER YEARS
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
4,110 AFY
3,376 AFY
EDL ENDS
By year end, Cease and Desist Order ramp-down schedule concludes, post-Effective Diversion Limit (EDL) Carmel River pumping limit imposed. 11 Water Sources at max capacity
WY 2016-17 WY 2020-21 WY 2022-23
12,000 AF
10,000 AF
8,000 AF
6,000 AF
4,000 AF
2,000 AF
12 Future Supply & Demand
CURRENT SUPPLIES PURE WATER MONTEREY EXPANSION
13 Water Supply Projects
• ASR Bank and parallel pipeline
• New Sand City Desal intake well
• PWM operating reserve and
additional peaking supply
• PWMe WPA
• Desal
14 Voluntary Conservation is Critical
SWRCB asks all Californians to please reduce:
Watering of outdoor landscapes that causes incidental runoff onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures.
Individuals washing privately-owned cars with a hose, unless they are using positive action shut-off nozzle.
Applying potable water directly to driveways and sidewalks.
Using potable water in ornamental fountain or other decorative water feature.
Using water to irrigate turf and ornamental landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall.
Serving drinking water that was not requested in eating or drinking establishments.
Irrigating turf on public street medians or publicly owned and/or maintained landscaped areas between the street and sidewalk.
Demand Management Measures Include: Tiered rate structure, Public outreach and education, Reducing water loss, Audits, Rebates, Retrofits –Range of Programs to encourage water use efficiency 15 Thank you
ITEM: ACTION ITEM
17. CONSIDER DETERMINATION OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR 125 OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA
Meeting Date: October 15, 2018 Budgeted: N/A
From: David J. Stoldt, Program/ N/A
General Manager Line Item:
Prepared By: David J. Stoldt Cost Estimate: N/A
General Counsel Review: N/A
Committee Recommendation: N/A
CEQA Compliance: This action does not constitute a project as defined by the California Environment Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.
SUMMARY: District Rule 24-B requires that Non-Residential Water Use Capacity for a proposed project be calculated using “Table 2: Non-Residential Water Use Factors” adjusted for any verified Water Use Credit or On-Site Water Credit. However, District Rule 24-E-1 allows that “The General Manager may reduce (or increase) the Adjusted Water Use Capacity when Special Circumstances exist” (emphasis added.)
The property at 125 Ocean View Boulevard, Pacific Grove, has a verified Water Use Capacity of
18.53 acre-feet annually (AFA). The owner and a developer seek to develop a 225-room hotel on the site which, under normal circumstances, might result in a post-project Water Use Capacity higher than
18.53 AFA using the traditional factors from Table 2. Through the use of innovative design and construction methods (see Exhibit 17-A, attached) the developer believes that the Table 2 factors are too high and that the post-project Water Use Capacity will not exceed the existing capacity of 18.53 AFA.
As a result, the Board is being asked to determine that the proposed project be allowed to proceed with a finding of Special Circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION: The General Manager recommends the Board determine Special Circumstances exist for the proposed project at 125 Ocean View Boulevard, Pacific Grove and that the developer shall provide the District with a water demand and efficiency study documenting the project will not exceed 18.53 AFA of Water Use Capacity prior to permitting. Upon submission of the study and completed construction plans, staff shall review the project to determine that sufficient Water Use Capacity is available before a Water Permit is issued.
DISCUSSION: The District’s definition of “Special Circumstances” is as follows:
“Special Circumstances” shall mean (1) a list of specific circumstances shown in Rule 24-E where the General Manager may adjust the anticipated water demand calculation for a Water Permit, or (2) unusual, uncommon, peculiar, unique or rare situations that require Board consideration.
The discretion of the General Manager under (1) above is limited to projects that use non-potable supply for exterior uses, projects that utilize water in conjunction with a manufacturing process, or Non-Residential projects owned by a Public entity. The proposed project at 125 Ocean View Boulevard, Pacific Grove is none of these. Hence, it is the Board’s discretion to determine Special Circumstances exist under section (2) of the definition.
When Special Circumstances exist, projected water use figures must be supported either by historical use or other relevant documentation. To that end, the District should require a water demand and efficiency study prepared by a reputable outside consultant documenting the project will not exceed
18.53 AFA of Water Use Capacity.
When a Water Permit is issued under Special Circumstances, water use will be reviewed annually after occupancy. If actual water use exceeds the preliminary Water Use Capacity estimate, then the District will debit the Jurisdiction’s Allocation. Prior to issuance of the Water Permit by the District, the Jurisdiction must acknowledge in writing the potential debit to its Allocation, as well as authorize the District to issue a Water Permit based on a finding of Special Circumstances consistent with CEQA compliance for the proposed Project.
EXHIBIT
17-A Letter to District from Project Owner and Developer U:\staff\Boardpacket\2018\20181015\ActionItems\17\Item-17.docx U:\dstoldt\Board Items and Exhibits\2018\10-15\Exhibit 16-A EXHIBIT 17-A U:\dstoldt\Board Items and Exhibits\2018\10-15\Exhibit 16-A EXHIBIT 17-A Submitted by Staff at 10/15/18 Board Meeting
Item 17
5 Harris Court, Building G, Monterey, CA93940P.O. Box 85, Monterey, CA93942-0085 831-658-5600 Fax 831-644-9560http://www.mpwmd.net
FINAL
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
October 15, 2018
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm in the MPWMD conference room.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Directors Present:
Andrew Clarke – Chair, Division 2
Ralph Rubio – Vice Chair, Mayoral Representative
Brenda Lewis, Division 1
Molly Evans – Division 3
Jeanne Byrne – Division 4
Robert S. Brower, Sr. – Division 5
Mary Adams – Monterey County Board of Supervisors Rep.
Directors Absent: None
General Manager present: David J. Stoldt
District Counsel present: David Laredo
The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE No action taken. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO
AGENDA
The following comments were directed to the Board during Oral Communications. (a) Phyllis Muerer stated that email she received from General Manager Stoldt cast doubt on the District’s neutrality with respect to Measure J. (b) Tom Rowley, representing the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers
Association, stated that the Association’s Board was
opposed to Measure J because it lacked a definition for the “feasibility” requirement. (c) Paul Bruno, resident of
Monterey, expressed disappointment with the “Decades of Excellence” advertisement published by the District. He described it as a political piece, due to the timing of its publication. He also thanked Director Brower for his service to the community. (d) Alvin Edwards, a candidate for the Division 1 seat on the District’s Board of Directors, thanked Director Brower for his focus on increasing the water supply during his time on the Board. He thanked the District for the “Decades of Excellence” advertisement that described the accomplishments of the agency. (e) Jody Hanson, President of the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, stated
that the Chamber was opposed to Measure J, and that there
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Final Minutes – MPWMD Regular Board Meeting – October 15, 2018 -- 2 of 5 was no correlation between reducing the cost of water and Measure J. She thanked Director Brower for his years of hard work as a member of the Board of Directors. (f) Judi Lehman, thanked Director Brower for his years of dedicated service on the board of directors.
On a motion by Rubio and second of Byrne, the Consent
Calendar was adopted on a vote of 7 – 0, except for items 3 and 7 that were pulled for separate consideration. The
motion was approved by Directors Adams, Brower, Byrne,
Clarke, Evans, Lewis and Rubio.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approved. 1. Consider Adoption of Minutes of the
September 17, 2018 Regular Board
Meeting
Approved an expenditure of $15,650. 2. Consider Extension of Cooperative Agreement with the United States
Geological Survey for Streamflow
Gaging in Water Year 2019
On a motion by Rubio and second of Byrne, the Board
approved an expenditure of $10,066 to Zimm Industries. The motion was approved on a unanimous vote of Rubio, Byrne, Adams, Brower, Clarke, Evans and Lewis.
3. Consider Approval of Additional
Funds for Work Completed on
Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well
Number 1
Approved. 4. Consider Approval of Two
Temporary Field Staff Positions to be
Funded through a Second Interagency
Contract between MPWMD and
National Marine Fisheries Service to
Provide for a Cooperative Research
and Monitoring Project in Los Padres
Reservoir
Approved. 5. Consider Converting the River
Maintenance Specialist Classification
to Resources Maintenance Specialist
Approved. 6. Consider Expenditure of Budgeted
Funds to Contract for a Limited-Term
Project Manager in the Water
Demand Division During FY 2018-
2019
On a motion by Byrne and second of Adams, the Board
approved an expenditure of $30,000 for completion of the conservation demonstration garden. The motion was
approved on a unanimous vote of 7 – 0 by Byrne, Adams,
Brower, Clarke, Evans, Lewis and Rubio.
7. Consider Request for Funding to
Complete the Broadway Water
Conservation Demonstration Garden
at Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary
School, 173 Broadway Ave., Seaside
Adopted. 8. Consider Adoption of Resolution
2018-20 Amendment to MPWMD
Conflict of Interest Code
Final Minutes – MPWMD Regular Board Meeting – October 15, 2018 -- 3 of 5 Adopted. 9. Consider Adoption of June 2018
Treasurer's Report
Received. 10. Receive and File Fourth Quarter
Financial Activity Report for Fiscal
Year 2017-2018
Approved. 11. Consider Approval of Fourth Quarter
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Investment
Report
Adopted. 12. Consider Adoption of July 2018
Treasurer's Report
Adopted. 13. Consider Adoption of August 2018
Treasurer’s Report
Chair Clarke presented Director Brower with an engraved plaque in honor of his eleven years of service on the Board of Directors. Mr. Stoldt presented Director Brower with a golden shovel in recognition of the water supply projects that were constructed during Director Brower’s time on the
Board. Mr. Stoldt also narrated a PowerPoint presentation that focused on achievements in local water supply
development. The directors individually thanked Director Brower for his service, enthusiasm, kindness, guidance and efforts integral to moving water projects forward. Director Brower stated that he was deeply humbled by the comments and the Bob Brower shovel. He noted the hard work of Mr.
Stoldt and Director Byrne in coordinating with farmers to cross the “lettuce curtain” to prove that there is a will to work as one county to achieve water supply goals, including development of the Wastewater Reclamation Project.
PRESENTATION TO ROBERT S.
BROWER, SR, DIRECTOR DIVISION 5,
RECOGNIZED FOR 11 YEARS OF
SERVICE ON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
Mr. Stoldt reported that the Water Year ended on September 30, 2018. He stated that water production in the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System at the end of the Water Year was 232 acre-feet below the target of 9,338 acre-feet.
Production in relation to the Cease and Desist Order resulted in a carry-over of 567 acre-feet. The carry-over credits could benefit the community, should further reductions be
mandated. Mr. Stoldt reported the following: rainfall was at
13.5 inches for the year which was 64% of long-term
average; unimpaired flow was below normal at 48% of longterm average. By the end of the Water Year, District staff had rescued 5,000 fish from drying reaches of the Carmel River and tagged 2,400 of them.
14. Status Report on California American
Water Compliance with State Water
Resources Control Board Order 2016-
0016 and Seaside Groundwater Basin
Adjudication Decision
ATTORNEY’S REPORT
District Counsel Laredo reported that two matters had been filed regarding the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project: (a) Marina Coast Water District v. California Public Utilities Commission, and (b) City of Marina v. California Public Utilities Commission. Both cases were consolidated under S251935. A status report was provided to the Board,
15. Report on 5:30 pm Closed Session of
the Board
Final Minutes – MPWMD Regular Board Meeting – October 15, 2018 -- 4 of 5 and on a motion by Brower and second by Rubio, the Board voted unanimously to intervene in both actions.
3. Conference with Legal Counsel –
Existing Litigation (Gov Code
54946.9 (a))
Application of California American
Water to CPUC (No. 12-04-019) –
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project
4. Conference with Legal Counsel –
Threatened Litigation (Gov.
Code 56956.9 (b)) – One Case
DIRECTORS’ REPORTS (INCLUDING
AB 1234 REPORTS ON TRIPS,
CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE AND
MEETINGS)
No comments. 16. Oral Reports on Activities of County,
Cities, Other Agencies/Committees/
Associations
No Public Hearing items were submitted for Board
consideration
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ACTION ITEMS
Byrne offered a motion to determine that Special
Circumstances exist for the proposed project. The motion was seconded by Evans and approved on a unanimous vote
of 7 – 0 by Byrne, Evans, Adams, Brower, Clarke, Lewis
and Rubio.
Public Comment: Mike Zimmerman, Owner of Foursome
Development Company, the property owner. He stated that the developer’s intent was to work closely with District staff to design a project that would remain within the water use capacity estimated for the site.
17. Consider Determination of Special
Circumstances for 125 Ocean View
Blvd., Pacific Grove, CA
Rubio offered a motion to nominate Evans to the position of Vice Chair to the Board of Directors. The motion was
seconded by Brower and approved on a unanimous vote of 7 – 0 by Rubio, Brower, Adams, Byrne, Clarke, Evans and
Lewis. No comments were directed to the Board during the public comment period on this item.
18. Consider Appointment of Director
Evans to the Position of Vice Chair to
the Board
Rubio offered a motion to authorize the Board of Directors to appoint the Division 5 representative. The motion was seconded by Lewis and approved on a vote of 7 – 0 by
Rubio, Lewis, Adams, Brower, Byrne, Clarke and Rubio.
Byrne made a motion to extend the deadline for acceptance of Statements of Interest and Qualifications to November 7, 2018. There was no second to the motion. No action taken.
Public Comment: Judi Lehman addressed the Board. She
suggested that Director Brower could extend the date of his retirement from the Board to November, thereby resetting
19. Specify Method for Selection of
Director to Fill Vacancy in Voter
Division 5 and Consider Extension of
Deadline for Statements of Interest
and Qualifications
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER – MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT | JUNE 2021
URBAN WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
FINAL
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER CENTRAL
DIVISION – MONTEREY COUNTY DISTRICT
2020 Urban Water
Management Plan
JUNE 2021
Prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc.
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District i 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... v Acronyms & Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ vii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 The California Water Code ........................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2 UWMP Organization....................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts ............................................................................................. 1-4
1.4 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility.......................................................................................... 1-4
1.5 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions...... 1-4
2. Plan Preparation...................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Plan Preparation............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Basis for Preparing a Plan.............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Coordination and Outreach............................................................................................................ 2-2
3. System Description................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 General Description ......................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Service Area Boundary ................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Service Area Climate....................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics............................................................................... 3-5
3.4.1 Service Area Population......................................................................................................... 3-5
3.4.2 Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors........................................................... 3-5
3.5 Land Uses within Service Area ....................................................................................................... 3-5
4. Water Use Characterization ................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water Use ..................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water Use...................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Water Use Sectors .................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2.2 Past and Current Water Use................................................................................................. 4-2
4.2.3 Distribution System Water Losses......................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.4 Projected Water Use .............................................................................................................. 4-5
4.3 Water Use for Lower Income Households................................................................................. 4-10
4.4 Climate Change Considerations.................................................................................................. 4-11 Table of Contents
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District ii 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
5. SB X7-7 Baseline, Targets and 2020 Compliance............................................................................5-1
5.1 SB X7-7 Forms and Summary Tables............................................................................................5-2
5.2 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMP..................................................................5-2
5.3 Population and Gross Water Use .................................................................................................5-3
5.3.1 Service Area Population.........................................................................................................5-3
5.3.2 Gross Water Use.....................................................................................................................5-3
5.4 2020 Compliance Daily Per-Capita Water Use (GPCD).........................................................5-3
5.5 Regional Alliance..............................................................................................................................5-4
6. Water Supply Characterization ...........................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Carmel River Aquifer.......................................................................................................................6-2
6.2 Seaside Groundwater Basin...........................................................................................................6-3
6.3 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)...........................................................................................6-7
6.4 Surface Water..................................................................................................................................6-9
6.5 Stormwater ........................................................................................................................................6-9
6.6 Wastewater and Recycled Water................................................................................................6-9
6.6.1 Monterey One Water.............................................................................................................6-9
6.6.2 Carmel Area Wastewater District..................................................................................... 6-13
6.6.3 California American Water Wastewater........................................................................ 6-14
6.6.4 City of Pacific Grove ........................................................................................................... 6-14
6.6.5 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycled Water Uses............................................... 6-16
6.7 Sand City Desalination ................................................................................................................. 6-17
6.8 Water Exchanges and Transfers ................................................................................................ 6-18
6.9 Future Water Projects................................................................................................................... 6-18
6.9.1 Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Ocean Desalination ................................. 6-18
6.9.2 Pure Water Monterey Expansion ...................................................................................... 6-18
6.10 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water.......................................................... 6-18
6.10.1 Climate Change Effects..................................................................................................... 6-20
6.10.2 Regulatory Conditions and Project Development......................................................... 6-20
6.11 Energy Intensity............................................................................................................................ 6-21
7. Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment ..................................................................7-1
7.1 Water Service Reliability Assessment...........................................................................................7-1
7.1.1 Constraints on Water Sources...............................................................................................7-1
7.1.2 Water Supply Management .................................................................................................7-3
7.1.3 Year Type Characterization..................................................................................................7-3
7.1.4 Water Service Reliability.......................................................................................................7-6
7.2 Drought Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................... 7-11 Table of Contents
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District iii 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
8. Water Shortage Contingency Plan ......................................................................................................8-1
9. Demand Management Measures..........................................................................................................9-1
9.1 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail ..................................................................9-2
9.1.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances.................................................................................9-2
9.1.2 Metering....................................................................................................................................9-2
9.1.3 Conservation Pricing................................................................................................................9-2
9.1.4 Public Education and Outreach .............................................................................................9-3
9.1.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real.............................................9-4
9.1.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support...............................9-4
9.1.7 Other Demand Management Measures..............................................................................9-4
9.2 Reporting Implementation ...............................................................................................................9-7
9.2.1 Implementation Over the Past Five Years...........................................................................9-7
9.2.2 Implementation to Achieve Water Use Targets.................................................................9-9
9.3 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements) .............................................................................9-9
10. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation ....................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Inclusion of all 2020 Data......................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Notice of Public Hearing............................................................................................................ 10-1
10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption ................................................................................................... 10-1
10.4 Plan Submittal .............................................................................................................................. 10-2
10.5 Public Availability ....................................................................................................................... 10-2
10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission............................................................................... 10-2
10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or WSCP .............................................................................. 10-2
11. References...................................................................................................................................... 11-1 Appendix A. 2020 UWMP Checklist........................................................................................................... A Appendix B. DWR Standardized Tables.....................................................................................................B Appendix C. SBx7-7 Tables and Verification Forms ............................................................................... C Appendix D. AWWA Water Audits............................................................................................................ D Appendix E. State Water Resources Control Board Order No. WR-95-10 ........................................ E Appendix F. State Water Resources Control Board Order No. WR 2016-0016 .............................. F Appendix G. Seaside Groundwater Basin Adjudication.........................................................................G Appendix H. Pure Water Monterey and Expansion Reliability Analysis TMs..................................... H Appendix I. Water Shortage Contingency Plan ......................................................................................... I Appendix J. Public Notices............................................................................................................................. J Appendix K. Adopting Resolution .................................................................................................................K Table of Contents
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District iv 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure E-1. Monterey Main Historic Annual Demand.............................................................................. E-2 Figure E-2. Monterey Main Projected Water Use .................................................................................. E-3 Figure 3-1. Monterey Main Service Area.................................................................................................3-3 Figure 4-1. Monterey Main Historic Annual Demand.............................................................................4-3 Figure 4-2. Monterey Main Historic Monthly Production .......................................................................4-3 Figure 6-1. Carmel River Aquifer and Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin .......................................6-5 Figure 6-2. Seaside Groundwater Basin Aquifer ...................................................................................6-6 Figure 6-3. Injection and Recovery Volumes from ASR..........................................................................6-8 Figure 6-4. Correlation between Water Demand and Wastewater Flows and Reduced Source Water for PWM (Hazen and Sawyer, 2020).......................................................................................................... 6-11 Figure 6-5. Seasonal Supply and Demand Balance for PWM, PWM Expansion, CSIP, and RUWAP (Hazen and Sawyer, 2020) ..................................................................................................................... 6-12 Figure 6-6. Sand City Desalination Plant (Desalination Plant Helps Save a California Coastal Community, 2010). ......................................................................................................................................................... 6-17 Table of Contents
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District v 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table E-1. Projected Water Supplies........................................................................................................ E-4 Table E-2. Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison.................................................................. E-5 Table 2-1. DWR 2-1R Public Water Systems..........................................................................................2-2 Table 2-2. DWR 2-2 Plan Identification...................................................................................................2-2 Table 2-3. DWR 2-3 Agency Identification .............................................................................................2-2 Table 2-4. DWR 2-4 Water Supplier Information Exchange...............................................................2-3 Table 3-1. Average Climate Data.............................................................................................................3-4 Table 3-2. DWR 3-1R Current and Projected Service Area Population ............................................3-5 Table 4-1. DWR 4-1R Actual Demands for Water................................................................................4-4 Table 4-2. DWR 4-4R 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting ............................................................4-4 Table 4-3. Previously Quantified Factors Impacting Future Demand..................................................4-6 Table 4-4. Projected Demands, 2025 through 2045.............................................................................4-8 Table 4-5. DWR Table 4-2R Projected Demands for Water...............................................................4-9 Table 4-6. DWR Table 4-3R Gross Water Use................................................................................... 4-10 Table 4-8. Projected Low-Income Demands, AFY ................................................................................ 4-11 Table 5-1. DWR 5-1R Baselines and Targets Summary........................................................................5-2 Table 5-2. DWR 5-2R 2020 Compliance.................................................................................................5-4 Table 6-1 DWR 6-1R Groundwater Volume Pumped ...........................................................................6-4 Table 6-2. Projected Groundwater Volume ............................................................................................6-4 Table 6-3. Historic and Projected Normal Year Supply from ASR (AFY)...........................................6-8 Table 6-4. PWM and PWM Expansion Projected Supply Reliability.............................................. 6-13 Table 6-5. DWR 6-2R Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020................................ 6-15 Table 6-6. DWR 6-3R Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2020..... 6-15 Table 6-7. Projected Uses of Recycled Water in CAW’s Service Area (AFY)............................... 6-16 Table 6-8. DWR 6-5R 2015 Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual ......... 6-16 Table 6-9. DWR 6-8DS Source Water Desalination .......................................................................... 6-17 Table 6-10. Projected Supply from Sand City Desalination Plant (AFY) ........................................ 6-18 Table 6-11. DWR 6-8R Actual Water Supplies................................................................................... 6-19 Table 6-12. Projected Water Supplies.................................................................................................. 6-19 Table 6-13. Energy Use and Estimated Energy Intensity .................................................................. 6-21 Table 7-1. DWR 7-1R Basis for Water Year Data and Supply Reliability.......................................7-4 Table 7-2. Pure Water Monterey Basis for Supply Reliability............................................................7-5 Table 7-3. Pure Water Monterey Expansion Basis for Supply Reliability.........................................7-5 Table 7-4. DWR 7-2R Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ............................................7-6 Table 7-5. DWR 7-3R Single-Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison.......................................7-7 Table of Contents
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District vi 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 7-6. DWR 7-4R Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand (Average Annual, AFY)..............7-8 Table 7-7. 2021-2025 DRA Supply and Demand Assumptions....................................................... 7-11 Table 7-8. Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment, AFY ........................................................................... 7-12 Table 9-1. Demand Management Measures ...........................................................................................9-1 Table 9-2. Water Rate Structures..............................................................................................................9-3 Table 9-3. DMM Implementation ...............................................................................................................9-8 Table of Contents
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District vii 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
AF Acre Foot
AFY Acre Feet per Year
AMBAG Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery
AWWA American Water Works Association
BIRP Begonia Iron Removal Plant
CAW California American Water
CAWD Carmel Area Wastewater District
CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Irrigation System CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CSA County Service Area
CSIP Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project
CWC California Water Code
DDW SWRCB Division of Drinking Water
DMM Demand Management Measure
DRA Drought Risk Assessment
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ESA Energy Savings Assistance Program
ETo Reference Evapotranspiration
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day
GPD Gallons Per Day
IN Inch
IOU Investor-Owned Utility
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
ITP Independent Technical Panel
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LOR Lots of Record
M1W Monterey One Water
MCWD Marina Coast Water District
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MOWRTP Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant
Table of Contents
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District viii 2020 Urban Water Management Plan MPWRA Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
MPWSP Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
NRW Non-Revenue Water
OPA Other Public Authority
PBCSD Pebble Beach Community Services District
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PGLWP Pacific Grove Local Water Project
PWM Pure Water Monterey
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RO Reverse Osmosis
RUWAP Regional Urban Augmentation Project
RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan
SB Senate Bill
SB X7-7 Senate Bill 7 of Special Extended Session 7
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SRWTP Satellite Recycled Water Treatment Plant
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
UWMP Act Urban Water Management Planning Act
WAC Water Awareness Committee
WBIC Weather Based Irrigation Controller
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
E-1
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Executive
Summary
This section summarizes the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the California American Water (CAW) Central Division – Monterey County District. It describes the 2020 UWMP in a manner that is accessible to non-technical readers. This summary describes the fundamental purposes of the UWMP, including water service reliability, future challenges, and strategies for managing water reliability risks.
This plan comprises the 2020 UWMP for CAW Central Division - Monterey County District, as required by the California Urban Water Management Planning Act. CAW is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the American Water Works Company, one of the largest investor-owned water and wastewater utility companies in the United States, and is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.
CAW has coordinated the preparation of its 2020 UWMP with the cities within its service area, Monterey County, nearby water agencies, and community members to develop a UWMP that
meets the requirements of the California Water Code and plans for a resilient water future.
IN THIS SECTION
• Service Area
Description
• Water Use
• Water Sources
• Water Supply
Reliability
Executive Summary
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District E-2 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Service Area
The Monterey County District includes the Monterey System and eight satellite systems. This UWMP covers the Monterey System, the Ryan Ranch and Bishop Systems (which are currently supplied by the Monterey System), and the Hidden Hills System (which is expected to be served by the Monterey System in the future). These four systems are referred to as Monterey Main.
The Monterey Main climate is characterized by warm summers and mild winters. The current population in Monterey Main is just under 92,000 and is expected to grow to close to 101,000 by 2045.
Water Use
Monterey Main serves potable water to mostly residential and commercial customers in the service area. The historic water demand for Monterey Main is shown in Figure E-1. Since 2007 water demand has declined from a high of 14,600 acre-feet per year (AFY) to the 2016 - 2020 average of 9,300 AFY.
Water use has remained steady over the past six years. The decline in water use since 2007 is attributed to highly effective conservation programs and a drought rate structure which has resulted in the substantial drop in water use.
Figure E-1. Monterey Main Historic Annual Demand
The projected water use for Monterey Main is shown in Figure E-2. Demand projections incorporated several factors that will affect future water use, including:
1. Changes in behavior by current customers.
2. New government regulations
3. Growth and new development
4. Changes in commercial activity
5. Climate change 14,212 14,644
14,460
13,192
12,270
12,129
11,549
11,356
10,250
9,545
9,285
9,421
9,398
9,234
9,138
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Demand (AFY)
Executive Summary
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District E-3 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Figure E-2. Monterey Main Projected Water Use
Water Sources
Monterey Main is dependent on local water sources for its supply, including groundwater from the Carmel River Aquifer, Seaside Groundwater Basin, Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR), indirect potable reuse from Pure Water Monterey (PWM), and desalinated water from the Sand City Desalination Plant. Future supply sources include water from the PWM Expansion and the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Ocean Desalination Plant. Table E-1 lists the projected water supply from each source.
CAW has a contractual agreement for 3,500 AFY from PWM, which treats wastewater to purified levels and injects it into the Seaside Basin for subsequent extraction by CAW. The PWM Project is projected to provide the full contractual amount in normal hydrologic years, but it is not currently 100 percent reliable in dry years due to source water constraints. The PWM Expansion is anticipated to be operational by 2025, however due to the source water constraints it is not projected to be able to provide its design supply of 2,250 AFY in normal years until 2030 when the MPWSP Desalination Plant is operational and will provide the drought-proof supply needed for water demands and wastewater flows to increase. The MPWSP Desalination Plant is expected to produce 6,252 AFY for the Monterey Peninsula.
10,443
11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Demand (AFY)
Executive Summary
E-4
Table E-1. Projected Water Supplies
AVAILABLE SUPPLY, AF
WATER SUPPLY ADDITIONAL DETAIL ON
WATER SUPPLY 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater Carmel River Aquifer 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 Groundwater Seaside Basin1 1,474 774 774 774 774
Desalinated
Water
Sand City Desalination 94 94 94 94 94
Other Aquifer Storage and
Recovery
920 920 920 920 920
Recycled Water Pure Water Monterey 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Recycled Water PWM Expansion 528 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 Total 9,892 10,914 10,914 10,914 10,914
MPWSP Desalination 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252
Total with MPWSP 17,166 17,166 17,166 17,166
Notes:
1. The CAW Monterey Main System has a total entitled right of 1,474 AFY from the Seaside Groundwater Basin, however CAW has an agreement in place to not pump 700 AFY of this right for 25-years once a new supply source is operational. This Plan assumes the reduced pumping will beginning in 2030 and continue through 2055. The reduced pumping repayment volume or duration of payment is subject to increase in the future.
2. The PWM Expansion in 2025 during a normal hydrologic year is only anticipated to supply up to 528 AFY due to source water limitations. The reliability of the project increases in the future once the MPWSP Desalination Plant is operational because it provides a drought-proof supply that allows water demands to increase which will increase wastewater flows and the source water for the PWM Expansion Project.
Water Supply Reliability
The constraints and reliability of each of Monterey Main’s water supplies were evaluated to determine the total available supply in a normal year, single-dry year, and five-consecutive dry years. The supply from the Carmel River Aquifer, Seaside Groundwater Basin, Sand City Desalination Plant, and MPWSP Desalination Plant are all anticipated to be reliable and provide their contractual or design supply in all year types. Supplies from the PWM Expansion are expected to be limited by available source water (wastewater flows) until the MPWSP is online (Hazen and Sawyer, 2020). Until the MPWSP is online, it is expected that demands will need to be constrained through the enaction of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP).
A comparison of anticipated demands and supplies is shown in Table E-2. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District
Executive Summary
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District E-5 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table E-2. Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (AFY) - 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Demand Totals 10,443 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
Water Supply Without MPWSP
Desalination
9,892 10,914 10,914 10,914 10,914
SHORTFALL WITHOUT WSCP ACTION -551 -969 -1,560 -2,151 -2,742
ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLY FROM
MPWSP DESALINATION, AFY
0 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252
Total Water Supply 9,892 17,166 17,166 17,166 17,166
Operational Buffer (10%) -989 -1,717 -1,717 -1,717 -1,717 Surplus/ Shortfall without WSCP Action -1,540 3,566 2,975 2,384 1,793 WSCP Demand Reduction 1,540 0 0 0 0
DIFFERENCE: 0 3,566 2,975 2,384 1,793
ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLY FROM
MPWSP DESALINATION, AFY
0 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252
Demand Management
CAW has implemented an extensive water conservation program and demand management measures to promote water use efficiency, reduce demands, and prepare for future requirements. These include water waste prevention ordinances, metering water use, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing, and other demand management measures. The water conservation programs that CAW has implemented for the past five years, is currently implementing, and plans to implement to continue meeting its SB X7-7 water use target and position for future water use efficiency standards are described in Chapter 9.
1-1
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Introduction
This plan comprises the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the California-American Water Company’s (CAW) Central Division - Monterey County District, as required by the California Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act).
The UWMP Act requires all urban water suppliers with more than 3,000 connections or distributing more than 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) to complete an UWMP every five years. The UWMP Act is administered by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), who is responsible for compiling data for statewide and regional analysis and publishing the accepted documents online for public access. This report was prepared according to the requirements of the California Water Code (CWC), UWMP Act, and the 2020 UWMP Guidebook.
The UWMP is a valuable planning document used for multiple purposes:
Serves as a valuable resource to the community and other interested parties regarding water supply and demand,
conservation and water related information
Meets a statutory requirement of the CWC
Provides a key source of information for Water Supply Assessments (WSAs) and Written Verifications of Water Supply Supports regional long-range planning documents including City and County General Plans
Provides a standardized methodology for water utilities to assess their water resource needs and availability
Serves as a critical component in developing Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs)
Provides a resource for regional involvement in the California Water Plan
Provides for a plan during water drought situations
IN THIS SECTION
California Water Code
UWMP Organization
Introduction Section 1
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 1-2 2020 Urban Water Management Plan CAW is a privately owned public utility providing water services to over 630,000 people in 50 communities throughout California. CAW is organized into three divisions: Northern, Central and Southern. The Northern Division includes the Sacramento and Larkfield Districts, the Central Division includes the Monterey County District, and the Southern Division includes the Ventura County, Los Angeles County and San Diego County Districts.
The Monterey County District includes the Monterey System and eight satellite systems. This UWMP covers the Monterey System, Ryan Ranch and Bishop Systems (which are currently supplied by the Monterey System), and the Hidden Hills System (which is expected to be served by the Monterey System in the future). These four systems are referred to as Monterey Main.
1.1 The California Water Code
CWC Section 10620 (a) of the UWMP Act, states “Every urban water supplier shall prepare and adopt an urban water management plan in the manner set forth in Article 3 (commencing with Section 10640)”. These plans are to be updated every five years and submitted to DWR. Requirements for the UWMP include:
• Assessment of current and projected water supplies
• Evaluation of demand and customer types
• Evaluation of the reliability of water supplies
• Description of conservation measures implemented by the urban water supplier • Response plan, in the event of a water shortage
• Comparison of demand and supply projections
In November of 2009, the State legislation passed Senate Bill (SB) 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session, referred to as SB X7-7 or the Water Conservation Act of 2009. SB X7-7 set the goal of achieving a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use statewide by 2020. Retail water agencies were required to set targets and track progress toward decreasing daily per capita urban water use in their service areas, which would assist the State in meeting its 20 percent reduction goal by 2020. This law requires that every UWMP include:
• Baseline per capita water use
• Urban water use target for 2020
• Compliance daily per capita water use
Since the time the 2015 UWMP was completed and submitted to DWR, the Legislature has passed additional requirements that need to be incorporated in 2020 UWMPs. Major new requirements include:
• A Water Reliability Assessment for five consecutive dry years, more than the three consecutive dry years previously required.
• A Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) that assesses the water supply reliability over a five-year period from 2021 to 2025 under a reasonable prediction for five consecutive dry years. • A seismic risk assessment and a mitigation plan for a Supplier’s infrastructure. • A Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) with prescribed elements. • Coordination on groundwater supply planning with plans being completed to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Most of Monterey Main’s groundwater comes from basins that have already been adjudicated, and therefore the SGMA process is not applicable. • Lay Description to describe the fundamental determinations of the UWMP in lay-person’s language.
Introduction Section 2
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 1-3 2020 Urban Water Management Plan This 2020 UWMP has been prepared to comply with the UWMP Act and SB X7-7. In addition to meeting the requirements of the Act, this report will be used to support water supply assessments and written verifications of water supply required by SB 610 and SB 221 of 2001. These bills require that water supply information be provided to counties and cities for projects of a certain size, prior to discretionary project approval. Both bills allow an UWMP to be used as a source document to fulfill these legislative requirements.
This 2020 UWMP was developed to incorporate these new requirements, under the guidance of DWR’s 2020 UWMPs Guidebook for Urban Water Suppliers. A checklist to document compliance of this 2020 UWMP with the Act and the CWC is provided in Appendix A.
This UWMP includes required DWR standardized tables within relevant chapters, and they are compiled in Appendix B. Within the UWMP chapters, DWR’s standardized tables include the DWRassigned table number in the caption. This UWMP also includes all required SB X7-7 tables in Appendix C to verify compliance with the SB X7-7 targets.
1.2 UWMP Organization
This 2020 UWMP is organized into the following chapters. • Chapter 1 - Introduction and Overview: This chapter provides a discussion of the purpose and content of the 2020 UWMP and the extent of the CAW’s water management planning efforts. • Chapter 2 - Plan Preparation: This chapter provides information on the CAW’s development of the 2020 UWMP including the basis for plan preparation, planning type, data format, and coordination and outreach to nearby agencies.
• Chapter 3 - System Description: This chapter provides a description of Monterey Main’s water system including service area maps, climate information, service population and demographic information.
• Chapter 4 - Customer Water Use: This chapter describes Monterey Main’s historic, current, and projected water uses, system losses, and water use by lower income households. • Chapter 5 – Conservation Target Compliance: This chapter includes a description of Monterey Main’s chosen method for calculating their baseline, calculated baseline water use and 2020 target and compliance with the target.
• Chapter 6 - System Supplies: This chapter includes a discussion of Monterey Main’s water system supplies including groundwater, wastewater, recycled water, desalinated water, and Monterey Main’s future water projects. This chapter presents a summary of existing and future water sources. • Chapter 7 - Water Supply Reliability Assessment: This chapter describes the reliability of the water supply through a 25-year planning horizon including a supply and demand assessment and regional reliability. Supply reliability is described for normal, single dry year and five-consecutive dry years.
• Chapter 8 - Water Shortage Contingency Planning: This chapter provides an outlined summary of Monterey Main’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
• Chapter 9 - Demand Management Measures: This chapter explains CAW’s existing and historic efforts to promote water conservation and CAW’s plans to use Demand Management Measures to achieve water use targets.
• Chapter 10 - Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation: This chapter details the steps taken by CAW to adopt the 2020 UWMP in accordance with the CWC and make it available to the public and the plan to implement the 2020 UWMP.
• Appendices: These include additional information to support and clarify information included within the 2020 UWMP.
Introduction Section 1
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 1-4 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
1.3 UWMPs in Relation to Other Efforts
CAW previously prepared a 2005 UWMP, 2010 UWMP, and 2015 UWMP for Monterey Main. This 2020 UWMP serves as an update to the 2015 UWMP and complies with new requirements and regulations. CAW participates in other regional planning efforts related to water supply reliability and potential water recycling opportunities.
1.4 UWMPs and Grant or Loan Eligibility
A water supplier must have a completed UWMP on file with DWR to be eligible for some state grant and loan programs.
1.5 Demonstration of Consistency with the Delta Plan for Participants in Covered Actions
Monterey Main does not receive water from the State Water Project or the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and it is therefore not required to demonstrate reduced reliance on supplies from the Delta. 2-1
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Plan Preparation
CAW has coordinated the preparation of its 2020 UWMP with the cities within its service area, Monterey County, nearby water agencies, and community members to develop a UWMP that adheres to the requirements of the CWC and plans for a resilient water future.
2.1 Plan Preparation
This plan was prepared based on guidance from DWR’s UWMP Guidebook 2020 (UWMP Guidebook), DWR Urban Water
Management Plans Public Workshops and Webinars,
Methodologies for Calculating Baseline and Compliance Urban Per Capita Water Use (SB7 Guidebook), and the 2020 DWR
Checklist (Appendix A). The 2020 UWMPs are to be submitted by urban water suppliers by July 1, 2021.
2.2 Basis for Preparing a Plan
CAW is an investor-owned utility (IOU) regulated by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). Therefore, its facilities, operations, and financial structure are subject to extensive regulation by the CPUC, as well as environmental, health, safety, and water quality regulations by federal, state and local governments. The CPUC sets rules and regulates public utility companies in California. The intent of the regulations set by the CPUC is to ensure provision of highquality water service at a fair price. All increases in service rates are directly related to the cost of providing quality service and are subjected to a public review process and approval by the CPUC.
IN THIS SECTION
• Coordination and
Outreach
Plan Preparation Section 2
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 2-2 2020 Urban Water Management Plan California water systems are regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The systems included in this UWMP are shown in Table 2-1.
Additional details about the plan are shown in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3.
Table 2-1. DWR 2-1R Public Water Systems
PUBLIC WATER
SYSTEM NUMBER PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM NAME NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL CONNECTIONS 2020
VOLUME OF WATER
SUPPLIED 2020 (AFY)
CA2710004 Cal Am Water Company - Monterey 38,644 8,808
CA2701882 Cal Am Water Company - Bishop 418 147
CA2710022 Cal Am Water Company - Hidden Hills 452 134
CA2701466 Ryan Ranch Water System 214 49
Total: 39,728 9,138
Table 2-2. DWR 2-2 Plan Identification
TYPE OF PLAN MEMBER OF RUWMP MEMBER OF REGIONAL
ALLIANCE
NAME OF RUWMP OR
REGIONAL ALLIANCE
Individual UWMP No No N/A
Table 2-3. DWR 2-3 Agency Identification
TYPE OF SUPPLIER YEAR TYPE FIRST DAY OF YEAR UNIT TYPE
Retailer Calendar Years DD MM Acre Feet (AF)
01 01
2.3 Coordination and Outreach
CAW coordinated with multiple neighboring and stakeholder agencies in the preparation of this UWMP.
The coordination efforts were conducted to: 1) inform the agencies of CAW activities; 2) gather high quality data for use in developing this UWMP; and 3) coordinate planning activities with other related regional plans and initiatives. The coordination activities conducted by CAW are shown in Table 2-4.
Plan Preparation Section 2
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 2-3 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 2-4. DWR 2-4 Water Supplier Information Exchange
AGENCY NOTIFIED 60 DAYS PRIOR
TO PUBLIC HEARING
NOTIFIED OF PUBLIC DRAFT
14 DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING
County of Monterey
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
City of Del Rey Oaks
City of Monterey
City of Pacific Grove
City of Sand City
City of Seaside
Presidio of Monterey
Pebble Beach Community Services District
Carmel Area Wastewater District
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Alisal Water Corporation
Monterey County CSA 75
3-1
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
System Description
This chapter describes the CAW Monterey Main System, including its service area, climate characteristics, demographics, and population.
CAW is a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Water
Works Company (American Water), one of the largest investorowned water and wastewater utility companies in the United States. American Water is headquartered in Camden, New
Jersey, and CAW is headquartered in San Diego, California.
CAW was incorporated under California law in 1966 when
American Water acquired California Water and Telephone
3.1 General Description
CAW is operated by three Division Offices: the Northern Division; Central Division; and Southern Division. The Central Division includes the Monterey County District, which includes the Monterey System and eight satellite systems. This UWMP covers the Monterey System, Ryan Ranch and Bishop Systems (which are currently supplied by the Monterey System), and the Hidden Hills System (which is expected to be served by the Monterey System in the future). These four systems are
referred to as Monterey Main.
Monterey Main provides water service to most of the Monterey Peninsula, including the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside, and the unincorporated areas of Carmel Highlands, Carmel Valley and Pebble Beach. Over the course of the study period, it is anticipated that there will be some growth within portions of the system. For this UWMP, CAW used the Association of
Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) Regional Growth
Forecast to determine the expected growth rate in number of households and number of employees in the service area.
IN THIS SECTION
• Service Area
• Land Uses
• Water System
• Population and
Demographics
System Description Section 3
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 3-2 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
3.2 Service Area Boundary
Monterey Main serves most of the population on the Monterey Peninsula, located along the coast of Central California. Monterey Main includes the incorporated cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside as well as unincorporated communities of Pebble Beach, Carmel Valley, Carmel Highlands, and the Presidio of Monterey. The Monterey Main system encompasses 33,950 acres and can be accessed from Highway 1 or State Route 68 off Highway 101. A map of the Monterey County District and Monterey Main service area can be found in Figure 3-1.
System Description Section 3
California American Water Central Division – Monterey County District 3-3 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Figure 3-1. Monterey Main Service Area
System Description Section 3
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 3-4 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
3.3 Service Area Climate
The climate along the Monterey Peninsula and within the Carmel Valley is characterized as Mediterranean with warm summers and mild winters. The Monterey County District’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean and geological features result in several climatic zones within the relatively small service area. The average overall temperature for the coastal areas is 55.5° while the overall average temperature for Carmel Valley is 55.4°. The warmest time of the year for both Monterey and the Carmel Valley falls between August and September, averaging 59.1° and 60.2° respectively. The coolest time of the year is between December and January, averaging for 52.3° and 50.9° for Monterey and the Carmel Valley, respectively.
The average annual precipitation in Monterey is 12.68 inches per year, while the Carmel Valley experiences 16.52 inches per year on average. Being in a coastal zone, a majority of the precipitation is in the form of rainfall with only a few isolated incidences of snowfall. Most of the rain (approximately 90 to 95 percent) falls between November and April. Detailed average monthly precipitation, temperature, and evapotranspiration (ETo) data can be found in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Average Climate Data
PACIFIC GROVE CARMEL PACIFIC
GROVE
CARMEL PACIFIC
GROVE
CARMEL
MONTH AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE
(°F) 1
AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE
(°F) 2
AVERAGE
PRECIP (IN.) 1
AVERAGE
PRECIP (IN.) 2
AVERAGE
STANDARD
ETO (IN.) 1
AVERAGE
STANDARD
ETO (IN.) 2
January 52.5 51.1 2.46 2.90 1.75 1.75
February 52.8 51.4 1.91 2.33 2.36 2.24
March 53.4 52.7 2.74 3.33 3.34 3.33
April 53.9 53.9 1.06 1.39 4.08 4.18
May 54.8 55.3 0.28 0.53 4.46 4.52
June 57.9 57.4 0.06 0.18 4.31 4.96
July 57.4 59.1 0.05 0.02 3.83 4.86
August 59.0 60.1 0.04 0.03 3.44 4.31
September 59.2 60.2 0.08 0.06 3.31 3.94
October 57.8 58.9 0.46 1.87 2.75 3.37
November 54.8 53.6 1.26 1.34 1.98 2.07
December 52.2 50.7 2.29 2.53 1.76 1.60
Notes:
1CIMIS Weather Station 193 Pacific Grove - Monterey; https://cimis.water.ca.gov/. Averages taken for 2011-2020. 2CIMIS Weather Station 210 Carmel - Monterey; https://cimis.water.ca.gov/. Averages taken for 2010-2020.
System Description Section 3
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 3-5 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
3.4 Service Area Population and Demographics
This section describes projected population in the service area and demographic factors that could impact water use.
3.4.1 Service Area Population
The 2020 population served by Monterey Main is estimated to be 91,717 using the DWR Population tool. Estimates of future population were developed using the regional growth forecast prepared by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). The estimated current and projected populations served by Monterey Main are shown in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. DWR 3-1R Current and Projected Service Area Population POPULATION SERVED 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Monterey Main 91,717 93,577 95,437 97,297 99,157 101,017
3.4.2 Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors
Most recently, the service area is experiencing significant impacts due to the global pandemic caused by COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In March 2020, the State issued a stay-at-home order that forced many businesses to close and other businesses to require residents to continue work only from their home to slow the spread of the virus. Additionally, the forced closure of several businesses caused a historic increase in unemployment across the U.S. and a resulting economic recession. While all the impacts of COVID-19 are not entirely known at this time, it has caused a shift in water use by customer class. In 2020, residential demands increased from 2019 demand, while commercial and industrial water use decreased. This shift is expected to be temporary with an anticipated return to previous levels once all stay at home orders are lifted and businesses can reopen. However, the economic recession could have longer term impacts to the region.
3.5 Land Uses within Service Area
The land uses within Monterey Main include residential, commercial, institutional, and open space conservation areas. AMBAG coordinated with local land use jurisdictions in the development of its regional growth forecast to ensure that local land use was considered. The projections of future water demand have included the expected impact of future changes in land use through the use of the regional growth forecast.
4-1
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Water Use Characterization
This chapter describes and quantifies the current and projected water uses within the service area.
4.1 Non-Potable Versus Potable Water
Use
Monterey Main serves its customers potable water from a range of supply sources. This chapter focuses on potable demands produced and delivered by CAW. Multiple wastewater agencies provide wastewater collection and treatment within the area.
Some of these agencies provide recycled water for use within the service area; the largest, Monterey One Water, operates the Pure Water Monterey (PWM) Project that is used as an
important supply source for the Monterey Peninsula. Supply sources and recycled water use are discussed in Chapter 6.
4.2 Past, Current, and Projected Water
Use
4.2.1 Water Use Sectors
Records of historical water consumption and meter data serve as the basis for developing the existing water demands by sector. Water consumption is the volume of water measured at each metered service, which includes all water delivered to customers. CAW tracks water consumption across different water use sectors, some of which are listed in the California Water Code (CWC). CAW’s billing system changed in 2013, and the new billing system breaks down water use into eight sectors as follows:
IN THIS SECTION
• Distribution System
Water Losses
• Past and Current
Water Use
• Projected Water Use
Water Use Characterization Section 4
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 4-2 2020 Urban Water Management Plan • Residential – This encompasses both single- and multi-family residential water use. • Commercial
• Industrial
• Fire – includes both fire hydrants and fire services. • Other Public Authority (OPA) – this includes government accounts and schools. • Co Acct. – This represents the California American Water company account. • Resale – This includes sales to other agencies
• Miscellaneous – Primarily consists of construction meter usage. • Distribution System Losses – this is not tracked in Monterey Main’s billing database; however, this is a tracked water use based on the difference between produced water and metered usage.
In addition to the water uses listed above, Monterey Main pumps excess Carmel River flows during the winter months and injects them into the Seaside Groundwater Basin as part of its Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Program to be pumped back out and used in the summer months or stored for dry years. This is a type of conjunctive use management strategy. Monterey Main does not currently provide water for other groundwater recharge activities, saline water intrusion barriers or agricultural uses, exchanges or transfers or provide water for surface water augmentation or wetlands or wildlife habitat.
4.2.2 Past and Current Water Use
The historic water demand for Monterey Main since 2006 is shown in Figure 4-1. The water demand is equal to the production, or total amount of water that is pumped into the distribution system. Most of this water is delivered to customers and will appear as metered consumption, however, some production will be lost to leaks and authorized non-metered use. The difference between production and metered consumption is characterized as non-revenue water (NRW). The term “demand” is used to quantify water consumption plus an appropriate allowance for NRW. In this way total demand for all customer types will equal total production.
As shown in Figure 4-1, the demand in the Monterey Main peaked at about 14,600 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2007 and has steadily declined since then. The decline in water use since 2007 is attributed to highly effective conservation programs and a drought rate structure which has resulted in a substantial drop in water use. The five-year average demand between 2016 – 2020 was about 9,300 AFY. In 2020 demands dropped to 9,138 AFY, but the drop from 2019 to 2020 was influenced by reduced tourism and commercial activity during the COVID-19 pandemic, and those restrictions are expected to ease in future years.
Monthly production data since 2010 is shown in Figure 4-2. There is a seasonal fluctuation in water use, with higher production during the summer months. The annual trend was declining from 2010 through approximately 2014. Since 2015, water use has been fairly consistent.
Water Use Characterization Section 4
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 4-3 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Figure 4-1. Monterey Main Historic Annual Demand
Figure 4-2. Monterey Main Historic Monthly Production 14,212 14,644 14,460 13,192 12,270 12,129 11,549 11,356
10,250
9,545
9,285
9,421
9,398
9,234
9,138
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Demand (AFY)
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
7/6/2009 11/18/2010 4/1/2012 8/14/2013 12/27/2014 5/10/2016 9/22/2017 2/4/2019 6/18/2020 10/31/2021 Production (AF)
Water Use Characterization Section 4
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 4-4 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 4-1 provides the breakdown of actual water use by sector type in calendar year 2020.
Table 4-1. DWR 4-1R Actual Demands for Water
USE TYPE ADDITIONAL
DESCRIPTION
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
WHEN DELIVERED
2020
VOLUME
(AFY)
Residential Single Family and Multifamily Residential Drinking Water 5,133 Commercial Drinking Water 3,001
Industrial Drinking Water 13
Other Public Authority Institutional/ Governmental. Includes government accounts and schools
Drinking Water 393
Company Accounts CAW Accounts Drinking Water 13
Sales for Resale Sales to other agencies Drinking Water 6 Fire Fire Service Drinking Water 443
Miscellaneous Sales Construction meter usage Drinking Water 13 Losses Drinking Water 124
Total: 9,138
4.2.3 Distribution System Water Losses
The 2016 through 2020 system losses are presented in Table 4-2. The 2016 through 2019 water losses are taken from the validated AWWA Water Audit Software and include both apparent losses and real losses. The AWWA Audits are included in Appendix D. CAW conducts annual water loss calculations and uses these calculations to monitor a number of aspects of the system. The AWWA Audits consider both production and customer meter inaccuracies and system data handling errors to determine the system water losses. The AWWA Audits were not completed for 2020 prior to the submittal of this plan, and the volume of water loss is estimated as the difference between water produced and metered water consumption for the calendar year. These water loss volumes will be updated once the AWWA Water Loss Audit is complete and may explain the negative water loss estimated in the Bishop system in 2020. Based on the losses presented in Table 4-2, the average water losses for the last 5 years in Monterey Main were 406 AFY, which is approximately 4 percent of the total production.
Table 4-2. DWR 4-4R 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting REPORT PERIOD START DATE VOLUME OF WATER LOSS, AF1,2
MM YYYY MONTEREY HIDDEN HILLS RYAN RANCH BISHOP TOTAL
01 2016 607 27 3.8 -0.4 637
01 2017 290 34 2.5 6.3 332
01 2018 366 26 7.2 7.9 406
01 2019 458 30 5.0 16 509
01 2020 94 32 4.9 -6.8 124
Notes:
1. 2016 through 2019 Water Losses taken from the field "Water Losses" (a combination of apparent losses and real losses) from the AWWA worksheet.
2. 2020 Water Losses estimated based on metered production and consumption records. These values do not account for metering inaccuracies and data handling errors that are considered in the AWWA Audits, and are likely responsibly for the negative water loss in the Bishop System.
Water Use Characterization Section 4
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 4-5 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
4.2.4 Projected Water Use
In accordance with the CWC, this UWMP provides projections for water use in five-year increments through 2045, providing 20-year projections through the next UWMP cycle (2025).
4.2.4.1 Projection Methodology
Future demands were projected by evaluating monthly historic trends in customer water usage and incorporating estimated future changes in water use due to behavior, new water use regulations, projected growth, and tourism water use. Based on a review of the historic monthly consumption by customer class, the production and consumption have been relatively stable for the past six years.
During 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and government restrictions led to many people spending more time at home and less time at offices and businesses. In addition, many people with second homes in areas like the Monterey Peninsula spent more time at the second home and less time at their primary residence (e.g., in the Bay Area). These factors contributed to an increase in annual residential water use of approximately 500 AF from 2019 to 2020, and a reduction in non-residential use of approximately 600 AF. It is not yet clear whether these changes will persist as pandemic-related restrictions are lifted.
There are several reasons that future water use could be different than seen over the past six years:
1. Changes in behavior by current customers.
a. CAW has implemented an aggressive water conservation program and has maintained a five-tier rate structure that incentivizes customers to reduce their water use. At some point the conservation program may see diminishing impact as some programs, such as fixture or appliance replacement, reach saturation. Customers may begin to increase their water use, particularly if the tiered rate structure is modified.
2. New government regulations
a. The State of California is developing water use efficiency standards that will require suppliers to limit water use to allowable levels for indoor use, landscape irrigation, and other categories. The allowable indoor residential use is scheduled to reduce to 50 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) by 2030. The regional residential water use within Monterey Main (counting both indoor and outdoor) ranged from 48 to 52 GPCD from 2016 to 2020. The new State water use efficiency standards are not expected to affect water use in Monterey Main because the current water use is already at or below the State targets.
3. Growth and new development
a. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) prepares forecasts of regional growth that is expected to bring new population and employment to each jurisdiction. These projections can be analyzed to estimate future increases in population, households, and employment that are expected to occur. b. For residential development, a backlog of properties has accumulated that are not able to be developed because of limited water supply. The demand for these Lots of Record (LOR) has been calculated as 1,180 AF. The pace at which these properties could be developed if water were available would depend on economic factors and government policies.
c. The region has a need for more affordable housing. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by the State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan. The RHNA quantifies the need for affordable housing, and communities must plan to meet low income housing requirements. In February 2020, the City of Monterey projected a future need for 250 Water Use Characterization Section 4
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 4-6 2020 Urban Water Management Plan AFY of water based on its RHNA allocation, and a need for 255 AFY for additional housing units (40 percent of them affordable) based on a study by Economic Planning Systems. Additionally, MPWMD has recently submitted a request to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for relief from the current moratorium on new connections in order to allocate 75 AFY for affordable housing. Because this water use is pending approval from the SWRCB, it has not been incorporated in the projected water demands.
d. Pebble Beach Entitlements. The Pebble Beach Company has entitlements to approximately 325 AFY that can be sold to other Del Monte Forest property owners.
These entitlements constitute an existing obligation by CAW to serve the properties when developed.
4. Changes in Commercial Activity
a. The region has historically been a popular destination for business and leisure travelers.
In recent years, an economic slowdown contributed to reductions in visitor activity. The potential water demand increase due to a tourism bounce-back has been estimated by the CPUC as 500 AFY.
5. Climate change
a. Future weather patterns may include warmer and dryer conditions on the Monterey Peninsula, and is anticipated to increase outdoor water use by customers and could increase the maximum month and day peak demands in the summer due to higher irrigation demands. More discussion on climate change impacts on water demand is discussed in Chapter 4.4.
The three factors that have previously been quantified in terms of their future demand are summarized in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3. Previously Quantified Factors Impacting Future Demand
FACTOR ANNUAL DEMAND (AF)
Lots of Record 1,180
Tourism bounce-back 500
Pebble Beach entitlements 325
Total 2,005
The timeline over which development may occur to realize the demands shown in Table 4-3 will depend on a variety of factors, including government policies and economic conditions. The projected demands are shown in Table 4-4. The key assumptions in the calculations are listed below:
• For the purposes of this projection, the growth in population and employment projected by AMBAG was used to drive estimates of future water use:
o For residential customers, the baseline residential water use from the last five years is 48 GPCD, and is anticipated to rebound 10 percent to 52.8 GPCD by 2030 when new supply sources are online, and then remain constant through 2045. The CPUC recommends using a 10-year baseline for conservative demand projections, which equates to an average demand of 10,324 AFY, and estimated residential demand of 53.5 GPCD. However, demands in Monterey Main have reduced significantly over the last 10 years and remained steady for the last six years. Residential use increased approximately 10 percent from 2019 to 2020, likely due to higher occupancy rate of second homes, which may be permanent. For conservative demand projections, a 10 percent residential demand rebound is applied to the baseline 48 GPCD, which increases average residential water use to 52.8 GPCD. This would represent a return of per-capita water use to its 10-year average and corresponds to an additional 500 AFY of Water Use Characterization Section 4
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 4-7 2020 Urban Water Management Plan demand by 2030. The residential demand is expected to meet the state water use standard of 50 GPCD for residential indoor use by 2030 since the residential 52.8 GPCD includes both indoor and outdoor water use.
o The service area population will increase at the rate forecasted by AMBAG. o For non-residential customers, water use will increase at the rate of employment growth forecasted by AMBAG. The 2016 to 2020 average non-residential water use of 4,372 AFY is the baseline for non-residential water projections.
• For the development of previously quantified factors impacting future demand, these are independent and additive to the AMBAG projections. These estimates include:
o The Pebble Beach Entitlements are anticipated to be developed between 2030 and 2050 at a rate of 65 AFY every five years.
o The Lots of Record are expected to be developed from 2030 to 2050. Due to pent-up demand, the demand from these lots is expected to be 300 AFY by 2030 and then increase at a rate of 220 AFY every five years between 2035 and 2050 as lots are developed. o Tourism activity will bring an increased number of business and leisure travelers to the region, generating economic activity in related businesses. The 500-AFY of tourism rebound determined by the CPUC is expected by 2030, with 250 AFY of tourism rebound by 2025.
Additionally, water use for fire service increased in 2019 and 2020 to an average of 400 AFY, when prior to 2019 the average fire demand was only 3 AFY. The increase is attributed to both better metering of fire services in 2019 and 2020, when some demand may have been tracked as water loss previously, as well as a warmer and drier climate increasing fire potential and lengthening the fire season, resulting in more fire flow use. Water use for fire service is projected to remain at about 400 AFY in the future.
Water losses dropped in year 2019 and 2020, and averaged about 2 percent of the total demand. Prior to 2019, water losses average about 4 percent of the total demand. The drop in water loss is attributed to CAW’s investments in reducing water waste and enhanced metering. These investments have been incorporated into the projections by including water losses as 2 percent of the total demand. The projected demands through 2045 are shown in Table 4-4.
Water Use Characterization Section 4
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 4-8 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 4-4. Projected Demands, 2025 through 2045
BASELINE
(2016-2020)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Demographics
Service Area Population 91,717 93,577 95,437 97,297 99,157 101,017 Annual Population Growth Rate 0.41% 0.40% 0.39% 0.38% 0.38% Service Area Employment 64,307 67,020 69,732 72,445 75,157 77,870 Residential Demand
Residential Demand (GPCD) 48 48 52.8 52.8 52.8 52.8
Residential Demand (AF) 4,931 5,031 5,644 5,754 5,865 5,975 Non-Residential Demand
Non-Residential Demand (AF) 4,372 4,556 4,741 4,925 5,110 5,294 Fire Service Demand (AF) 400 400 400 400 400
Other Future Demand
Pebble Beach Entitlements (AF) 0 65 130 195 260
Tourism Rebound (AF) 250 500 500 500 500
Legal Lots of Record (AF) 0 300 520 740 960
Losses 205 233 245 256 268
Average Annual Demand (AFY) 10,443 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656 Table 4-5 lists the total projected demands by customer type based on the projections described above.
Monterey Main does not have any significant sales to other agencies as a wholesaler.
Water Use Characterization Section 4
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 4-9 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 4-5. DWR Table 4-2R Projected Demands for Water
USE TYPE ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION
PROJECTED WATER USE, AFY
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Residential1 Single Family and Multifamily
Residential 5,031 6,009 6,404 6,800 7,195
Commercial 4,212 4,622 4,783 4,943 5,103
Industrial 27 28 29 30 31
Other Public
Authority
Institutional/ Governmental. Includes
government accounts and schools 533 555 577 598 620
Company
Accounts
CAW Accounts 23 24 25 26 27
Sales for
Resale
Sales to other agencies 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Fire Service 400 400 400 400 400
Miscellaneous
Sales
Construction meter usage 11 11 12 12 13
Losses 205 233 245 256 268
TOTAL: 10,443 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
Note:
1. Residential demand includes the projected residential demand due to AMBAG population growth plus Pebble Beach Entitlements and the Legal Lots of Record projections in Table 4-4.
Table 4-6 lists the gross water use in Monterey Main and includes potable demand projections plus recycled water use that offsets potable supplies.
In addition to the demand in Table 4-5, the Seaside Basin Watermaster has identified the need for an additional 1,000 AFY for 25 years for the protection of the groundwater basin from seawater intrusion.
The Seaside Watermaster Board of Directors has reached out to CAW and Monterey One Water (M1W) to determine whether supplies are available for the basin. CAW is not under obligation to provide this water currently, but future negotiations are expected in an effort to help provide water for the Seaside Basin or further reduce Seaside Basin pumping.
These projections characterize normal water use and are used in Chapter 7 to estimate water supply reliability in the event of a normal year and single dry year.
Water Use Characterization Section 4
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 4-10 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 4-6. DWR Table 4-3R Gross Water Use
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable and Raw Water 9,138 10,443 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656 Recycled Water Demand1
Non-potable reuse subtotal
Table 6-7
1,155 1,178 1,202 1,223 1,243 1,264
Total Water Use: 10,293 11,621 13,085 13,697 14,308 14,920 Other Regional Needs2
(Seaside Basin) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Notes:
1. Recycled Water Demand excludes indirect potable reuse from the Pure Water Monterey and Expansion Projects because this supply contributes to the potable water use.
2. CAW is not under obligation to provide regional water for the Seaside Basin, and this is not included in the total water use. However, the Seaside Basin Watermaster has asked CAW to enter into negotiations to help supply this regional demand.
4.2.4.2 Characteristic Five-Year Water Use
A new component of the 2020 UWMP is to prepare a five-year drought risk assessment (DRA) to evaluate water service reliability for a drought lasting five years from 2021 through 2025. The five-year DRA is presented in Section 7.2. Under this five-year drought scenario, the DRA projects that potable demands would exceed the available supply beginning in year 2022, continuing through 2025. CAW would need to enact the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to reduce demands in every year after 2021 to close the gap between supply and demand.
4.3 Water Use for Lower Income Households
Changes to the CWC section 10631.1 since 2005 require demand projections to include projected water use for residential housing needed for lower income households. Low-income households are defined as households making less than 80 percent of Statewide median income.
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan 2014-2023 for Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties prepared by AMBAG, separated regional housing goals by City and Income Category (Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, 2014). According to the 2014-2023 RHNA, the percentage of households identified as low-income and very low-income equaled 24.1% and 15.7% of Monterey County, respectively. The Monterey Peninsula has a significant need for more affordable housing to meet the RHNA goals. The demand from the housing goals was estimated by applying the projected growth in residential demand and applying it to the housing goals set by AMBAG. The RHNA 2014-2023 housing goals were also applied to years beyond 2023 to estimate low-income demands beyond the RHNA planning period, however the RHNA will be updated before 2023 and the updated housing goals should be used to update future low-income demands. Table 4-7 shows the anticipated demand from low-income housing using the 2020-2022 RHNA goals applied to future years.
Water Use Characterization Section 4
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 4-11 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 4-7. Projected Low-Income Demands, AFY
RHNA 2014-2023 FORECAST PROJECTED LOW-INCOME DEMAND BASED ON CURRENT
RHNA HOUSING GOALS
2020 2021 2023 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Residential Demand Projection1 4,931 4,951 4,971 5,031 6,009 6,404 6,800 7,195 Residential Demand Growth2 0 20 20 60 978 395 395 395
Low-Income Demand2 0 5 5 14 236 95 95 95
Very-Low Income Demand2 0 3 3 9 154 62 62 62
Notes:
1. Residential Demand Projection from Table 4-4. Demand for years 2021-2023 are interpolated between 2020 and 2025
2. Demand growth from previous year listed in the table. Growth in residential demand between 2020-2023 is annual residential demand growth.
For years 2025-2045 residential demand growth shown is 5-year residential demand increases.
4.4 Climate Change Considerations
Climate change impacts to future water demands were considered in the demand projections. As described in the 2019 Final Draft Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), based on the Cal-Adapt climate model interpretation tool, the projected increase in average temperature by the end of the century in the Monterey Main service area ranges from 6.6 – 6.8°F (Final Draft Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, 2019). There are also studies that predict coastal fog is declining, which will contribute to average temperature and ETo increases.
Different climate models predict varying changes in rainfall, some with increases in average rainfall and other with average decreases in rainfall, but all agree precipitation patterns will change. The Climate Change Report technical study for the Carmel River Floodplain Restoration and Environmental Enhancement Project compares four climate models. Although there is considerable variability in the projected precipitation values, the average projected precipitation suggests an increase in January precipitation of approximately 2.5 inches and slightly less precipitation in the spring and fall months.
These results are consistent with the academic literature which indicates that winter storms will likely increase in magnitude and frequency in wet months.
As listed in the IRWMP, the potential impacts to water demand due to climate change include:
• Agricultural water use is expected to increase to offset higher temperatures and ETo. • Rangelands are expected to be drier.
• Domestic landscaping water needs will be higher due to increased temperatures and ETo and shifting rainfall patterns.
• Sea level rise and higher groundwater extractions will lead to increased rates of saltwater intrusion.
• Droughts will be more frequent and severe.
CAW does not provide water for agricultural use, however, customers within the service area do rely on CAW to provide water for landscaping. There is some recycled water in the service area used for landscape irrigation, discussed in Chapter 6, however, climate change impacts are projected to mainly affect demands for outdoor water use.
DWR’s SGMA Data Viewer1, developed using data previously compiled for the California Water Commission Water Storage Investment Program to assist Groundwater Management Agencies 1 SGMA.water.ca.gov
Water Use Characterization Section 4
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 4-12 2020 Urban Water Management Plan incorporate climate change into their Groundwater Sustainability Plans, was leveraged to evaluate climate change impacts to Monterey Main’s projected water demand. The SGMA Data Viewer includes the projected change in precipitation and ETo by 2030 and 2070 due to climate change for grid cells across California. A shapefile of the Monterey Main System was uploaded to the Data Viewer and intersected with the grid cells to understand the projected climate change impacts within the service area. The data estimates that ETo will only increase by 3 percent by 2030 and 16 percent by 2070.
Using linear interpolation, the estimated increase in ETo in 2045 is about 5 percent. Irrigation demand is estimated to represent 20 percent of the total demand in the service area and applying a 5-percent increase in outdoor water use translates to a total 1 percent increase in water use by 2045 due to climate change. This increase due to climate change is within the range of accuracy of current projections. Climate impacts will increase if irrigation demand increases in the service area. 5-1
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
SB X7-7 Baseline, Targets and
2020 Compliance
This Chapter describes the Monterey Main SB X7-7 2020 baseline and per capita water use targets. Based on 2020 water use and current population, Monterey Main has met its 2020 per capita water use target.
On November 10, 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
signed Senate Bill X7-7 (SB X7-7) into law. The legislation requires California to achieve a total reduction in per capita water use of 20 percent by December 31, 2020, with an interim target of 10 percent reduction by December 31, 2015. The legislation requires each urban water supplier to develop and include in its UWMPs, estimates of:
2. Baseline daily per capita water use;
3. Daily per capita water use target;
4. Daily per capita water use interim target; and
5. Compliance daily per capita water use.
The UWMP must also include bases for determining the
estimates, with references to supporting data. However, SB X7- 7 did not include a detailed description of the allowable methodologies for determining the required values. Instead, it required DWR to develop appropriate methodologies and
criteria, and to make them available to water suppliers.
The baseline per capita water use and targets were calculated in the 2015 UWMP and are provided in Appendix C. There
have not been significant changes in the Monterey County District’s service area since 2015, thus the calculations of baselines and targets included in the 2015 Plan are still valid for compliance in this 2020 UWMP.
IN THIS SECTION
• Updated Calculations
• Baselines & Targets
• 2020 Compliance
SB X7-7 Baseline, Targets and 2020 Compliance Section 5 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 5-2 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
5.1 SB X7-7 Forms and Summary Tables
CAW has completed the standard forms required by DWR to document calculation of the baseline, targets, and 2020 compliance. These forms are included in Appendix C.
5.2 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMP
The Monterey County District has multiple service areas. Consistent with the requirements outlined in DWR’s Guidebook to Urban Water Management Guidebook 2020, compliance is calculated for the Monterey County District as a whole. Methodologies consistent with those described in the Methodologies for Calculating Baseline and Compliance Urban Per Capita Water Use guidebook (Methodologies Guidebook) were used in developing baselines and targets. The selected procedure used to develop the required SB X7-7 estimates includes the following basic steps:
1. Calculate baseline water use, which is the average gross daily water use per capita, reported in gallons per capita per day, based on gross water use and service area population for a continuous 10-year period ending no earlier than December 31, 2004
2. Calculate urban water use target using one of the four methods described below
3. Check and confirm the urban water use target using the five-year running average
4. Calculate the interim urban water use target (equal to the average of the baseline and confirmed urban water use target)
5. Calculate the compliance daily per capita water use (equal to the gross daily water use per capita during the final year of the reporting period (i.e. 2010) CAW prepared updated calculations of its baseline and targets for the 2015 UWMP cycle. CAW used the DWR Population Tool to re-calculate its service area population, baseline per-capita use, and compliance targets in the 2015 UWMP.
In the 2015 UWMP, per capita water use was calculated using gross water use values and the population estimates. The per capita water use baseline value was averaged across 10-year periods ranging from 1998-2007 through 2001-2010. The water use target was then calculated by subtracting total savings including residential indoor, metering, commercial industrial institutional (CII), and landscape and water loss savings. The water use target for 2020 was calculated at 118 GPCD with an interim target of 131 interpolated for 2015.
For the 2020 UWMP, CAW is not recalculating its baselines or targets. Monterey Main’s baselines and targets are summarized in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. DWR 5-1R Baselines and Targets Summary
BASELINE PERIOD START
YEAR
END
YEAR
AVERAGE BASELINE
GPCD1
CONFIRMED 2020
TARGET2
10-15 Year 1996 2005 144
118
5 Year 2004 2008 143
Notes:
1. All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD)
2. All cells in this table are populated manually from the supplier's SB X7-7 Verification Form.
SB X7-7 Baseline, Targets and 2020 Compliance Section 6 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 5-3 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
5.3 Population and Gross Water Use
5.3.1 Service Area Population
To accurately calculate the compliance of the 2020 GPCD target, the population served by Monterey Main must be determined. In the 2015 UWMP, the population estimates for California American Water’s service areas were calculated using DWR’s online Population Tool, which utilizes Geographical Information Systems (GIS) service area boundaries, service connection data and Census data. The DWR Population Tool overlaps GIS shapefiles with Census populations by Census block for 1990, 2000 and 2010. The calculated population of each block within California American Water’s service area is summed up to provide populations for 1990, 2000, and 2010. Populations are divided by the total service connections in each respective census year to come up with a persons per connection factor for the purposes of projecting populations from 2010-2015. Linear interpolation was used to determine the population for years in between the census years.
To stay consistent with the 2015 UWMP while also utilizing Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) growth projections from Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) data, the DWR population tool was used to determine the 2020 service area population and then projected through 2050 using the growth percentages calculated from the AMBAG TAZ data.
5.3.2 Gross Water Use
SB X7-7 defines gross water use as:
“The total volume of water, whether treated or untreated, entering the distribution system of an urban retail water supplier, excluding all of the following: (1) Recycled water that is delivered within the service area of an urban retail water supplier or its urban wholesale water supplier; (2) The net volume of water that the urban retail water supplier places into long-term storage; (3) The volume of water the urban retail water supplier conveys for use by another urban water supplier.; (4) The volume of water delivered for agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in subdivision (f) of Section 10608.24.”
The gross water use is calculated as the sum of the production into the potable system from all supply sources.
5.4 2020 Compliance Daily Per-Capita Water Use (GPCD)
The determination of 2020 Target compliance is based on gross water use for the 2020 calendar year.
In 2020, Monterey Main had a gross water use of 9,138 AFY and a service area population of 91,717.
Utilizing the noted gross water use and service area population values, the resultant actual per capita water use for Monterey Main in calendar year 2020 was 89 GPCD. As such, Monterey Main has met the 2020 target of 118 GPCD.
No extraordinary events or economic adjustments have taken place that would cause any adverse effects with regards to overall water usage. As was previously mentioned, no adjustments to the 2020 gross water use were made as is permissible with Water Code 10608.24 cited above.
The overall water usage trends have been greatly reduced due to the drought and the conservation measures that have been enacted. Attainment of the 2020 target has been influenced by: proactive education and outreach to the citizens and by the mandated water use reductions from the State Water Resources Control Board. These factors have played a significant role in the CAW’s ability to meet and surpass the 2020 target. The values are summarized in Table 5-2.
SB X7-7 Baseline, Targets and 2020 Compliance Section 5 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 5-4 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 5-2. DWR 5-2R 2020 Compliance
ACTUAL 2020 GPCD*
2020 GPCD
2020 CONFIRMED
TARGET GPCD
SUPPLIER ACHIEVED
TARGETED REDUCTION
IN 2020
2020 TOTAL
ADJUSTMENTS
ADJUSTED
2020 GPCD*
89 0 89 118 Yes
*All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD)
5.5 Regional Alliance
CAW calculated compliance with SB X7-7 as an individual agency and did not participate in a Regional Alliance.
6-1
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Water Supply
Characterization
The Monterey Main System is entirely dependent on local water sources for its supply. This chapter identifies and quantifies, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water supplies for the Monterey Main System through 2045.
CAW’s current and planned sources of supply for the Monterey Main System are:
1) Groundwater from Upper and Lower Carmel Valley
Aquifers,
2) Groundwater from the Seaside Groundwater Basin and
its sub-basins;
3) Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR);
4) Pure Water Monterey, a water recycling project;
5) Sand City Desalination; and
6) A New Ocean Desalination Plant as part of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP).
The following sections characterize each supply source.
IN THIS SECTION
• Existing Water
Supply Sources
• Future Water
Projects
• Projected Water
Supplies
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-2 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
6.1 Carmel River Aquifer
The Monterey Main System extracts water from wells located in the Carmel Valley Aquifer. The Carmel Valley Aquifer is located along the Carmel River, southeast of the Monterey Peninsula. The Monterey Main system’s service area overlies the Carmel Valley Aquifer. The aquifer is comprised of the alluvial deposits that form the valley floor underlying the Carmel River. Figure 6-1 shows the Carmel Valley Aquifer and the Monterey Main Service Area. The Carmel Valley Aquifer is identified by DWR as a high-priority basin. Because withdrawals are being regulated by the SWRCB through surface water rights, the basin is not currently being managed through SGMA.
Prior to 1995, the CAW diverted on average about 14,106 AFY from the Carmel River. In 1995, following three years of hearings, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) found CAW to be diverting on average 10,730 AFY from the river without a valid basis of right under Order No. WR95-10, provided in Appendix E (California State Water Resources Control Board, 1995). The Carmel Valley Aquifer underlies, and closely parallels, the surface water course of the Carmel River, flowing in a subterranean stream subject to the jurisdiction of the SWRCB. In 1995, the SWRCB issued order WR 95-10, requiring CAW to reduce its Carmel River diversions from an estimated 14,000 AFY to its authorized diversion limits totaling 3,376 AFY, based on CAW’s pre-1914 appropriative rights, riparian rights, and License #0011866.
On October 20th, 2009, the SWRCB issued an order to CAW to cease and desist all unauthorized diversions of water from the Carmel River (California State Water Resources Control Board, 2009).
Among the conditions from the order, CAW will diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions and ultimately terminate all unlawful diversions by December 31, 2016.
In October 2013, the SWRCB authorized the additional diversion and use of water from the Carmel River by issuing a permit number 21330 to CAW. The water appropriated from the permit is limited to the quantity which can be beneficially used from December 1 of each year to May 31 of the succeeding year and cannot exceed a rate of 4.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a maximum annual diversion of 1,488 AF. The seasonal diversion under the permit is subject to specific minimum mean daily instream flow requirements, and as such may not always be available year to year.
In 2014, it became clear that more time was required to develop a CPUC-approved lawful alternative supply before all unlawful diversion of the Carmel River could be stopped. In April 2016, a coalition of stakeholders, including California American Water, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPWRA), Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), Pebble Beach Company, and the City of Pacific Grove, submitted a revised request to the SWRCB seeking more time to develop alternative water supplies for the communities of the Monterey Peninsula before significant cutbacks on pumping from the Carmel River took effect. In July 2016, the SWRCB issued Order WR 2016-0016 (Appendix F) to amend the 2009 order and extended the deadline to terminate all unlawful diversions from the river to no later than December 31, 2021. Starting with a base of 8,310 AFY for water year 2015-2016, CAW was required to follow a scheduled diversion reduction structure, reducing their diversions by 1,000 AFY until the legal limit of 3,376 AFY would be reached by December 31, 2021.
The 2016 Order also included a schedule of milestones and deadlines for the purposes of calculating the diversion reductions, including construction and completion milestones for the MPWSP Desalination Plant. In September 2020, CAW missed a milestone because of Coastal Commission delays, and a court-ordered stay on construction of the desalination plant facility. Nevertheless, the SWRCB responded that regardless of fault a 1,000 AFY reduction was an appropriate and intended consequence of missing the milestone. CAW determined that sufficient supplies were available to meet demand in water year 2020-2021 even with the 1,000 AF cutback, and continues its efforts to move forward with the MPWSP to provide a reliable and permanent long-term water supply for the Peninsula.
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-3 2020 Urban Water Management Plan The Monterey Main System pumps from both the Upper and Lower Carmel River Aquifer. State Board Order 95-10 has placed seasonal limits on the allowable production from the wells in the Upper Carmel Valley aquifer. The wells are operated during the winter months (November through April) and when the Carmel River flows are above 40 cfs. If the river flow at Don Juan Bridge is less than 20 cfs for five consecutive days, then a “low flow period” is triggered, and the upper valley wells cannot be used. If the river flow is above 40 cfs between November and April, then CAW is able to operate the upper valley wells but is required to minimize extractions from the Seaside aquifer to the maximum extent possible.
The wells in the Upper Carmel River Aquifer are of good water quality and discharge directly into the distribution system with disinfection at the wellhead. The wells in the Lower Carmel River Aquifer do not have seasonal production limitations, but they pump into a common raw water transmission main, which transfers the groundwater to the Begonia Iron Removal Plant (BIRP) for treatment and removal of iron and manganese before being pumped into the distribution system.
Table 6-1 shows the historic and current supply from the Carmel River Aquifer. Table 6-2 shows the projected supply for the Carmel River Aquifer to be 3,376 AFY as authorized under the SWRCB cease and desist order.
6.2 Seaside Groundwater Basin
After the Carmel River, the Monterey Main’s next largest source of supply is the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The Seaside Groundwater Basin overlies and is a subbasin to the Salinas Groundwater Basin, however it is adjudicated and has a different defined boundary in the adjudication than as defined by DWR.
The Salinas Valley Basin is made up of eight subbasins that span Monterey County and northern San Luis Obispo County. The Monterey and Laguna Seca Systems are located within and utilize water from the Seaside Area Subbasin of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (California Department of Water Resources, 2004). Figure 6-1 shows the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin and its subbasins with the Monterey Main service area. The Seaside Area Subbasin, as described by DWR and shown in Figure 6-1, is bounded by 180/400 Foot Aquifer subbasin to the north, the Corral de Tierra sub-basin to the south and east, and by the Pacific Ocean to the west.
The Seaside Basin Adjudication Order, filed in March 2006, defines the boundaries of the Seaside Groundwater Basin Aquifer as shown in Figure 6-2, which differ from the boundaries defined by DWR.
The Seaside Groundwater Basin is located at the northwest corner of the Salinas Valley, adjacent to the Monterey Peninsula. The total surface area of the aquifer covers approximately 19-square miles.
The southern boundary of the Seaside Groundwater Basin follows the Chupines fault, a relatively impermeable formation uplifted to near sea level. The western boundary of the basin extends to the shoreline. The eastern boundary of the basin is defined by the flow divide in the Paso Robles aquifer, which approximately coincides with surface drainage between the Canyon del Rey and El Toro Creek watersheds. Finally, the northern boundary of the basin also follows a groundwater flow divide from the Salinas Valley groundwater basin. The Seaside Groundwater Basin was subdivided into several subbasins as shown in Figure 6-2 including the Laguna Seca, Coastal, and Inland subareas; these divisions were created for planning purposes and not hydrogeological formations (Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, 2008). The Monterey and Ryan Ranch System both overlie the Coastal Subarea, and the Bishop and Hidden Hills Systems overlie the Laguna Seca Subarea.
In the adjudication, the CAW shares of the operating yield in water year 2020 for the Coastal and Laguna Seca subbasins were reduced to 1,820 and 0 AFY, respectively (California American Water v.
City of Seaside, et al., 2006). Under the terms of the adjudication, CAW’s share of the Seaside Basin operating yield decreased in Water Year 2021 to the ultimate safe yield of 1,474 AFY for the Coastal subbasin and 0 AFY for the Laguna Seca subbasin.
However, due to years of over pumping the Seaside Groundwater Basin prior to the 2006 adjudication, CAW has agreed to an over pumping repayment plan and to reduce their pumping from the basin by Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-4 2020 Urban Water Management Plan 700 AFY once a new reliable water supply source is operational for a 25-year period to help balance the basin. This Plan assumes a new reliable water supply source for the Peninsula will be online by 2030, and CAW’s share from the Seaside Groundwater Basin will be reduced to 774 AFY from 2030 through 2055 as part of the over pumping repayment plan. The repayment could increase in volume or the duration of repayment could lengthen due to additional over pumping as a result of delays in securing a new reliable water supply not accounted for when the agreement was reached. The adjudication is included in Appendix G.
Historically, seawater intrusion had not been observed in existing monitoring and production wells in the Seaside Basin. In 2020, as detailed in the 2020 Seawater Intrusion Analysis Report, increased chloride concentrations were reported in two monitoring wells for the first time, which may be a precursor to seawater intrusion. The 2019 updated Water Quality, Seawater Intrusion Analysis Report, and Basin Management Action Plan found that despite recent pumping at levels less than the decision-established natural safe yield of 3,000 AFY, water levels in some portions of the Basin are continuing to drop.
Water levels and chloride concentrations are expected to improve once a new supply source is secured for the Peninsula and CAW can reduce its pumping from the Seaside Groundwater Basin. As described in Chapter 4, the Seaside Basin Watermaster has projected the need to provide 1,000 AFY to protect the Seaside Basin.
The historic and projected Seaside Groundwater Basin supplies are listed in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 respectively. Similar to the Carmel River, the Seaside Basin is vulnerable to climate impacts, notably after years of over pumping. The main climate vulnerability is continued seawater intrusion in the basin as seawater levels rise, plus increased agricultural water use and more severe and frequent droughts that may result in over pumping and further stress the basin. As shown, CAW is excepted to significantly reduce reliance on both the Carmel River and Seaside Basin in the future.
Table 6-1 DWR 6-1R Groundwater Volume Pumped
GROUNDWATER TYPE LOCATION OR BASIN NAME 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Alluvial Basin Carmel Valley Aquifer1 6,181 5,619 5,954 6,249 5,317 Alluvial Basin Seaside Groundwater Basin 2,471 3,532 2,296 2,378 2,802 Total: 8,652 9,152 8,249 8,627 8,119
Notes:
1. The Carmel River Aquifer volume excludes water that was injected into the Seaside Basin for ASR. This volume is counted as ASR storage and supply.
Table 6-2. Projected Groundwater Volume
GROUNDWATER TYPE LOCATION OR BASIN NAME 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Alluvial Basin Carmel Valley Aquifer1 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 Alluvial Basin Seaside Groundwater Basin2 1,474 774 774 774 774 Total: 4,850 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150
Notes:
1. The CAW Monterey Main System has a total entitled right of 3,376 AFY from the Carmel River Aquifer. This volume does not include water for ASR injection to the Seaside Basin, which is reliant on seasonal diversions from the Carmel River.
2. The CAW Monterey Main System has a total entitled right of 1,474 AFY from the Seaside Groundwater Basin, however CAW has an agreement in place to not pump 700 AFY of this right for 25-years once a new supply source is operational. This Plan assumes the reduced pumping will beginning in 2030 and continue through 2055. The reduced pumping repayment volume or duration of payment is subject to increase in the future.
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division – Monterey County District 6-5 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Figure 6-1. Carmel River Aquifer and Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division – Monterey County District 6-6 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Figure 6-2. Seaside Groundwater Basin Aquifer
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-7 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
6.3 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)
The Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program allows for the storage of excess Carmel River flows in the Seaside Groundwater Basin Coastal Subbasin for later extraction during summer months. The ASR program is a joint program between CAW and the MPWMD.
In 1996, MPWMD began investigating the feasibility of ASR in the local setting. MPWMD constructed a “proof-of-concept” demonstration project in 1997, followed by a pilot test well in 1998 in the shallower aquifer of the Seaside Basin, the Paso Robles aquifer. After several years of successful pilot-well testing, MPWMD acquired property and approvals to construct a full-scale, 700-foot deep test well in 2001 in the deeper aquifer, the Santa Margarita Sandstone aquifer. The subsequent results of extensive water quality and quantity testing led to planning for a permanent ASR project.
In 2006, MPWMD and CAW developed an ASR Management and Operations Agreement to construct, operate and maintain ASR and ASR-related support facilities for the recharge, storage, and recovery of water. The ASR program was developed in two phases. CAW began utilization of ASR recovery in 2008. The wells inject excess river flows from December to May and extract water as needed (mainly between July and November).
The Phase 1 ASR operation is regulated under SWRCB Permit No. 20808A, which permits the withdrawal of 2,426 AFY from Santa Margarita Well Nos. 1 and 2. The Phase 2 ASR operation is regulated under SWRCB Permit No. 20808C, which permits the withdrawal of 2,900 AFY from the Seaside Middle School Well Nos. 3 and 4. The SWRCB permits allow for the ASR program to divert about 5,326 AFY from the Carmel River. Diversions are limited by river flow conditions and can only occur from December 1 of each year to May 31 at a maximum instantaneous rate of 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for each permit, or a total of 6,000 gpm.
CAW is currently receiving water produced at its Santa Margarita Well No. 1. MPWMD has recently completed the construction of the disinfection facility at the ASR 1 & 2 site that can be used to disinfect water from all current ASR wells. It is expected that all four ASR wells will be operational for future planning.
Because diversions for the ASR system are contingent on maintaining minimum daily instream Carmel River flows, and precipitation and streamflow can vary substantially from year to year, the actual supply from the ASR project can vary substantially. In wet years with high streamflow, CAW is able to inject a significant volume of water for ASR.
Due to climate change, in the future a larger percentage of precipitation is expected to come from intense single-day events, which may limit CAW's ability to maximize ASR injections (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2021). In recent years, a larger percentage of precipitation has come in the form of intense single-day events.
Figure 6-3 shows the volume of water injected and extracted through the ASR program by water year since the program began in 2006, which has averaged 790 AFY of injection and 713 AFY of extraction.
Also shown is the calculated storage over time, not including losses within the Seaside Basin, and the average storage over the period which is about 580 AF.
In dry years the Monterey Main System can only inject small volumes of excess flows for ASR. As shown, in the last drought ASR injection rates dropped and the built up storage was nearly depleted by 2013, only the second year into the drought. The ASR extraction declined in a drought and reduced to zero in 2014 and 2015. In wet years with high streamflow, like 2017 and 2019, CAW is able to inject a significant volume of water for ASR. However, the storage has not been shown to last through a multiyear drought. At the end of water year 2020, CAW had about 1,170 AF in the ASR storage balance.
ASR deliveries can vary drastically year to year based on the availability of excess Carmel River flows.
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-8 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Figure 6-3. Injection and Recovery Volumes from ASR
Table 6-3 shows the historic and projected yield from ASR under normal years. Historically, the yield from ASR has varied significantly based on the hydrology and the available storage. The project has not been effective at building long term storage, and the average annual volume stored since 2006 is 84 AFY with multiple years of no stored water.
The projected ASR supply is 920 AFY based on the last three years, chosen to exclude the exceptionally wet year of 2017 and five preceding dry years from 2012-2016. From 2017 to 2020, the average ASR injection volume was 927 AFY. This suggests that in most normal years the injection volume from seasonal Carmel River flows beyond CAW’s entitled rights, up to 1,488 AFY, is only slightly greater than the extraction volume and there is little to no excess supply available to build ASR storage. CAW is projected to build ASR storage only in wet years. In dry years, if storage is available, CAW could draw down the ASR storage when the excess Carmel River flows are unavailable, but it is not anticipated to last through a multi-year drought based on the previous drought. Additional ASR storage would allow the ASR supply to last longer in a multi-year drought, though increased demands and climate impacts, including shifting rainfall patterns and hotter summers, will increase the difficulty of building ASR storage.
Table 6-3. Historic and Projected Normal Year Supply from ASR (AFY)
HISTORIC SUPPLY PROJECTED SUPPLY
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
ASR
Extraction 914 1,196 1,210 744 806 920 920 920 920 920
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Volume of Water (AF)
Water Year
ASR Injection ASR Recovery Calcualted Storage Average Storage Five Consecutive Driest
Years
2012-2016
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-9 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
6.4 Surface Water
The Monterey Main System does not supply any surface water. Wells pumped from the Carmel River Aquifer are influenced by flows in the Carmel River. More information on the Carmel River is presented in Section 6.2.
6.5 Stormwater
Stormwater is not currently used directly as a supply source, although precipitation helps replenish local groundwater basins and both the cities of Pacific Grove and Seaside both operate stormwater diversion projects to divert dry weather flows to the Monterey One Water treatment plant.
CAW and MPMWD offered programs to support and incentivize onsite water capture and reuse through various rainwater and graywater programs available to water customers and landscape professionals, including a Cistern Water Tanks Rebate program that provides $50 per 50 gallons of water storage capacity (up to 500 gallons) in a Cistern, then $25 per 100 gallons of water storage capacity up to a maximum storage capacity of 25,000 gallons per qualifying property. They also provide educational materials for outdoor water savings, rainwater harvesting, and offer rebates for soil moisture sensors.
More information can be found at https://www.montereywaterinfo.org/.
6.6 Wastewater and Recycled Water
Wastewater is treated by multiple agencies within the Monterey Main System, including:
• Monterey One Water (M1W) treats wastewater collected in Pacific Grove, Monterey, Del-Rey-Oaks, Seaside, Sand City, and Ryan Ranch.
• Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD) and Pebble Beach Community Services District (PBCSD) collect and treat wastewater in Pebble Beach, Carmel-by-the-Sea, and parts of Carmel Valley.
• California American Water (CAW) collects wastewater from the remainder of sewer served locations within the service area and provides treatment at four wastewater facilities.
There are also locations within the service area where wastewater is disposed of through on-site septic systems, including all the Hidden Hills System.
Table 6-5 and Table 6-6 summarize the wastewater collected and treated in the Monterey Main’s service area along with the volume that meets recycled water standards. These wastewater quantities exclude those on private septic systems.
6.6.1 Monterey One Water
M1W, formerly Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, serves Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Ryan Ranch, and Seaside, which are within the CAW service area, as well as Salinas, Boronda, Castroville, Moss Landing, Fort Ord, Marina, and parts of Monterey County that are not serviced by CAW.
M1W operates a treatment plant that produces varying levels of recycled water. The M1W Regional Treatment Plant treats all collected wastewater through secondary treatment. Some secondary treated wastewater is treated to higher levels including Title 22 tertiary disinfected level for raw food crop irrigation or purified using advanced treatment as part of the PWM Project (About Monterey One Water, 2021). The tertiary treated recycled water is currently used to irrigate edible food crops in the northern Salinas Valley, outside of the Monterey Main service area. The remainder of the water that is not recycled or purified is discharged to the ocean.
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-10 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
6.6.1.1 Pure Water Monterey
The MPWMD and M1W recently completed the construction and startup of the PWM Project. The PWM Project provides purified recycled water for injection into the Seaside Groundwater Basin and ultimate potable use in Monterey Main. The PWM Project also provides purified recycled water for landscape irrigation for the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) and recycled water to augment the existing Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project’s agricultural irrigation supply.
CAW has a water purchase agreement to secure water from the project, which would deliver 3,500 AFY of advanced-treated recycled water for injection to the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The advanced treated recycled water will mix with the existing groundwater and will be pumped as a potable supply source. The PWM Project is a key component of CAW’s MPWSP to reduce diversions from the Carmel River and will serve as a key component of the future water supply for the Monterey Peninsula.
Phase 1 of the project began operation near the end of 2019 and is intended to provide 3,500 AFY of water to Monterey Main once it is fully operational. MPWMD and M1W updated and certified the Supplemental EIR for the expansion of the PWM Project in April 2021. The PWM Expansion is envisioned to deliver an additional 2,250 AFY of water to the Seaside Basin that would be available to CAW. However, the PWM Expansion project has not been proven to have an adequate volume of source water to provide the full 2,250 AFY, especially during dry years.
In 2020, Hazen and Sawyer, contracted by CAW, completed a supply and demand analysis evaluating the wastewater source supply for PWM and the proposed PWM Expansion Project. The Hazen analysis, provided in Appendix H, reviewed the latest PWM Supplemental EIR and wastewater flows (source water) for the PWM and PWM Expansion projects. It found that the Supplemental EIR uses wastewater flows based on the period from 2009 to 2013, which is an average flow of 21,764 AFY.
Wastewater flows and water use correlate closely, and as described in Chapter 4, water use on the Peninsula has significantly declined over the last ten years. The analysis updated wastewater flows for the project using more recent flow data and showed that the Supplemental EIR overstates the availability of wastewater flows for PWM and the PWM Expansion (Hazen and Sawyer, 2020). Figure 6-4 below (Figure 3 from the Hazen and Sawyer analysis) shows the correlation between wastewater flows and water demand. As shown the current wastewater flows are projected to be much less than the 2009 to 2013 average flows used in the Supplemental EIR.
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-11 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Figure 6-4. Correlation between Water Demand and Wastewater Flows and Reduced Source Water for PWM (Hazen and Sawyer, 2020)
Based on updated wastewater flows, the analysis updated the Supplemental EIR flow balance to understand the impacts of reduced flows on the water available to use for PWM, the PWM Expansion, and other promised water uses of the project including the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) and the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP). Figure 6-5 (Figure 5 in the Hazen and Sawyer analysis) show both the best-case normal year supply and worst-case dry year supply and demand balance on a monthly basis. The analysis found that with the current 2020 wastewater flows, in normal water years only 84 AFY is available to be fed to the PWM Expansion after meeting demands for the PWM Phase 1, CSIP and RUWAP. In the worst-case dry year conditions, there is no flow available for either the PWM Project or the PWM Expansion Project, and flow to CSIP would be reduced. Flow to the RUWAP could be taken as a water right to serve the PWM flows in dry years.
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-12 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Figure 6-5. Seasonal Supply and Demand Balance for PWM, PWM Expansion, CSIP, and RUWAP (Hazen and Sawyer, 2020)
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-13 2020 Urban Water Management Plan This analysis is based on 2020 water demands and estimated wastewater flows. As described in Chapter 4, water demands are anticipated to rebound by 2030 and allow for demand growth once the MPWSP Desalination Plant is online. To understand the available water for the PWM and PWM Expansion projects in normal and dry years through the planning period, the 2020 Hazen and Sawyer analysis was updated for future conditions using water demand projections presented in Chapter 4.
Table 6-4 shows the normal year and worst-case dry-year reliability for both projects. While M1W currently forecasts that the PWM Expansion will be operational in 2025, there are regulatory approvals and other obstacles that must be resolved before operations may commence, including obtaining CPUC approval of an agreement between M1W and CAW. Assuming the PWM Expansion is able to obtain all necessary approvals and commence operations in 2025, without the benefit of additional wastewater streams or other secure source waters, the 2020 Hazen and Sawyer analysis confirms that the PWM Expansion would be able to provide only 528 AF in a normal year. During a dry year, there would not be adequate source waters available for either the PWM Phase 1 or the PWM Expansion to produce any water. (Hazen & Sawyer, Sept. 2020, Appendix A.) The analysis presented in this UWMP projects that when the MPWSP becomes operational in 2030, the newly available desalinated water will increase water demand, which in turn will result in increased quantities of wastewater that would serve as a source water supply for both the PWM Phase 1 and the PWM Expansion during normal and dry years. Under these assumptions, starting in 2030 when the MPWSP desalination plant is operational, in a normal water year the PWM Phase 1 would be expected to provide 3,500 AF and the PWM Expansion would be expected to provide 2,250 AF. In 2030 during a dry year, the PWM Phase 1 would provide 3,500 AF and the PWM Expansion would provide 528 AFY, about 23 percent of its designated capacity as shown in Table 6-4. The overall reliability of the PWM Expansion would increase to 100 percent in dry years by 2040 due to anticipated increasing use of desalinated water from the MPWSP and associated wastewater production.
Table 6-4. PWM and PWM Expansion Projected Supply Reliability 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
PWM Phase 1 Contractual Supply, AFY 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Normal Year Reliability 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Worst-Case Scenario Multi-Dry Year Reliability 0 0 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 PWM Expansion Design Supply, AFY1 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 Normal Year Reliability 528 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250
Worst-Case Scenario Dry Year Reliability 0 503 1,388 2,250 2,250 Notes:
1. PWM Expansion is not anticipated to be operational until 2025
6.6.2 Carmel Area Wastewater District
The Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD) owns and operates approximately 81 miles of sewer collection pipelines to collect wastewater in Carmel-by-the-Sea and parts of Carmel Valley (CAWD Facilties, 2021). The Pebble Beach Community Services District (PBCSD) owns and maintains approximately 75 miles of sewer collection and interceptor lines to collect wastewater in Pebble Beach (PBCSD About Us, 2021). Wastewater collected by both agencies is treated at the CAWD Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and Reclamation Plant. The CAWD WWTP has a permitted capacity of 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD) of dry weather flow, and the current average dry weather flow is approximately 1.1 MGD. The WWTP consists of headworks, primary and secondary treatment, and disinfection. On average, about 90 percent of the flows through the WWTP are treated at the 1.5-MGD Reclamation Plant. The Reclamation Plant includes tertiary treatment, microfiltration and reverse Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-14 2020 Urban Water Management Plan osmosis (RO) treatment to produce recycled water for irrigation at the Pebble Beach golf course and other recreational open spaces within Pebble Beach. The recycled water from the Reclamation Plant offsets approximately 1,000 AFY of potable demand within the CAW service area (Reclamation Plan, 2021). Any wastewater that is not recycled is discharged to the ocean.
CAWD was granted approval to discharge RO reject water to the Carmel River Lagoon in 2008. The anticipated volume of water is 300 AFY per year, with 150 AFY discharged during the summer months when water levels are at their lowest.
6.6.3 California American Water Wastewater
CAW operates a total of seven small wastewater facilities in the Monterey County area, and four are operated within the Monterey Main water service area. Carmel Valley Ranch is the largest treatment facility, serving about 260 housing units. The treatment plant operates with an average inflow of 58,000 gallons per day (GPD) and the plant’s maximum capacity is rated at 100,000 GPD. The facility’s treatment process consists of primary and secondary treatment, sand filters, and chlorine disinfection.
Treated effluent is discharged into two ponds adjacent to the treatment plant. The treated wastewater is subsequently used to irrigate two golf courses in the service area.
The Pasadera or Laguna Seca Ranch wastewater treatment facility serves around 250 housing units.
This plant receives an average inflow of about 48,000 GPD and a maximum flow of 91,000 GPD. The treatment process consists of screening, a biological trickling filter, clarification, flocculation, filtration, and chlorine disinfection. The reclaimed water is stored in a reservoir and is eventually used for golf course irrigation near the plant (California American Water, 2007).
White Oaks and Village Green are septic systems that serve approximately 38-unit and 22-unit condominiums, respectively. The average flow to the septic tanks is 5,700 and 3,300 GPD for the White Oaks and Village green systems, respectively (California American Water, 2007). There is no anticipated increase in flow.
6.6.4 City of Pacific Grove
The City of Pacific Grove completed the Pacific Grove Local Water Project (PGLWP) in 2017, which consists of a new satellite recycled water treatment plant (SRWTP) that recycles a portion of Pacific Grove’s municipal wastewater. The SRWTP includes screening, activated sludge secondary biological treatment, membrane filtration, and ultraviolet disinfection, along with chemical disinfection to maintain a chlorine residual within the storage tanks and recycled water distribution system. Recycled water produced at the SRWTP (located at the retired Point Pinos WWTP) is used primarily for landscape irrigation at the Pacific Grove Golf Links and El Carmelo Cemetery, owned by the City of Pacific Grove and located adjacent to the SRWTP. All recycled water waste is discharged back into the sewer and is delivered to the M1W Plant. The Project is currently offsetting approximately 85 AFY of potable water use for irrigation purposes.
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division – Monterey County District 6-15 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 6-5. DWR 6-2R Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020
WASTEWATER COLLECTION RECIPIENT OF COLLECTED WASTEWATER
NAME OF WASTEWATER
COLLECTION AGENCY
WASTEWATER VOLUME
METERED OR ESTIMATED
WASTEWATER VOLUME
COLLECTED FROM UWMP
SERVICE AREA IN 2020 (AFY)
NAME OF WASTEWATER AGENCY
RECEIVING COLLECTED WASTEWATER
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT NAME WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT LOCATED WITHIN
UWMP AREA
WWTP OPERATION
CONTRACTED TO A THIRD
PARTY
City of Pacific Grove Estimated 1,250 Monterey One Water Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant No No City of Monterey Estimated 3,596 Monterey One Water Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant No No City of Seaside, City of Sand
City, City of Del Rey Oaks
Estimated 2,825 Monterey One Water Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant No No Pacific Beach Community
Services District
Metered 477 Carmel Area Wastewater District Carmel Area Wastewater District Wastewater Treatment Plant Yes No Carmel Area Wastewater
District
Metered 919 Carmel Area Wastewater District Carmel Area Wastewater District Wastewater Treatment Plant Yes No California American Water Estimated 69 California American Water Carmel Valley Ranch WWTP Yes No California American Water Estimated 61 California American Water Pasadera/ Laguna Seca Ranch WWTP Yes No California American Water Estimated 6 California American Water White Oaks Septic System Yes No California American Water Estimated 4 California American Water Village Green Septic System Yes No City of Pacific Grove Estimated 85 Monterey One Water Pacific Grove Satellite Recycled Water Treatment Plant Yes No Total 9,293
Table 6-6. DWR 6-3R Wastewater Treatment and Discharge within Service Area in 2020
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
NAME
DISCHARGE LOCATION
NAME OR IDENTIFIER
DISCHARGE LOCATION
DESCRIPTION
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGE ID NUMBER
METHOD OF
DISPOSAL
PLANT TREATS
WASTEWATER
GENERATED OUTSIDE
THE SERVICE AREA
TREATMENT LEVEL WASTEWATER
TREATED (AFY)
DISCHARGED
TREATED
WASTEWATER
(AFY)
RECYCLED
WITHIN SERVICE
AREA (AFY)
RECYCLED
OUTSIDE OF
SERVICE AREA
(AFY)
INSTREAM FLOW
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
(AFY)
Monterey One Water
Regional Treatment
Plant
Pacific Ocean Monterey Bay Ocean
Outfall
NPDES No.
CA0048551
Ocean outfall Yes Advanced 7,672 405 1,710 3,766 -
Carmel Area
Wastewater District
Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Pacific Ocean Carmel Bay Ocean
Outfall
NPDES No.
CA0047996
Ocean outfall No Tertiary 1,396 457 939 - -
Carmel Valley Ranch
Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Carmel Valley Golf
Course and Golf Course
Lakes
Storage Pond for
Recycled Water Use
WRR No. 01-083 Other No Tertiary 69 - 69 - -
Pasadera / Laguna
Seca Ranch
Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Laguna Seca Golf
Course
Storage Pond for
Recycled Water Use
WDR No. 98-58 Other No Tertiary 61 - 61 - -
Pacific Grove Satellite
Recycled Water
Treatment Plant
Collection System Collection System
conveyed to the M1W
Regional Treatment
Plant
WRR No. R3-2016-
0044
Collection System No Tertiary 85 - 85 - -
Total 9,283 862 2,865 3,766 -
Note: Total wastewater treated excludes approximately 10 AF collected at the White Oaks and Village Green Septic Systems Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-16 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
6.6.5 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycled Water Uses Table 6-7 shows the total amount of recycled water that is projected to be utilized in CAW’s Main Monterey service area through 2045.
Table 6-7. Projected Uses of Recycled Water in CAW’s Service Area (AFY)
TREATMENT
FACILITY
ACTUAL USE 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
CAWD Golf Course Irrigation 939 954 969 985 1,000 1,015 PGLWP Golf Course and Cemetery
Irrigation
85 85 85 85 85 85
California
American
Water
Golf Course Irrigation 130 139 147 153 159 165
Subtotal Non-potable reuse for
irrigation
1,155 1,178 1,202 1,223 1,243 1,264
M1W Pure Water Monterey
(Indirect Potable Reuse)
788 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
M1W Pure Water Monterey
Expansion
(Indirect Potable Reuse)
0 528 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250
Total 1,943 5,206 6,952 6,973 6,993 7,014
Table 6-8 summarizes 2020 projected water recycling uses from the 2015 UWMP and compares the previous estimates with actual recycled use in 2020. The table only shows estimated recycled water use in 2015 for the Main Monterey System. As shown, the 2015 UWMP projection is close to the actual 2020 recycled water use for golf course irrigation. The 2015 UWMP did not anticipate PWM to begin providing recycled water for groundwater recharge until after 2020, which is the largest difference between the 2015 projection and actual use.
Table 6-8. DWR 6-5R 2015 Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual USER TYPE 2015 PROJECTION FOR 2020 (AFY) 2020 ACTUAL USE (AFY)1 Agriculture - -
Golf Course Irrigation 1,414 1,155
Wildlife Habitat - -
Wetlands - -
Industrial - -
Groundwater Indirect Potable Reuse - 788
Other - -
Total 1,414 1,943
Note: Estimated recycled water use from CAWD and California American Water used within service area.
CAW is an investor-owned utility and therefore does not have the authority to issue a mandatory recycled water use ordinance. However, due to a heavily weather dependent water supply and strong pressures to maintain the Monterey Peninsula’s natural habitat, the governing bodies and wastewater agencies have developed an aggressive water recycling program.
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-17 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
6.7 Sand City Desalination
Construction of the Sand City Water Supply Project, shown in Figure 6-6, was completed in 2009. CAW began operating and distributing water from the plant in April 2010. The project includes a RO desalination plant, a pipeline to deliver the treated water to Sand City users, two water storage tanks, and a connection to CAW’s Monterey Main distribution system.
The source for the desalination plant is brackish water from the Aroma Sands Formation aquifer near Monterey Bay. The brackish water is obtained through 4 brackish water feed wells. Concentrate is disposed through a below sea-level horizontal well.
The desalination facility is designed to produce up to 300 AFY, though it does not typically produce this volume and the 2016-2020 average deliveries were about 190 AFY as shown in Table 6-9. CAW has an allocation of 94 AFY from this facility and the remaining allocation of 206 AFY is reserved for future development and redevelopment. CAW may use the remaining supply available until new development utilizes the available remaining supply. CAW’s allocation of 94 AFY is used for the estimated future supply from the desalination plant for 2025 through 2045, as shown in Table 6-10.
Figure 6-6. Sand City Desalination Plant (Desalination Plant Helps Save a California Coastal Community, 2010).
Table 6-9. DWR 6-8DS Source Water Desalination
PLANT NAME
OR WELL ID PLANT
CAPACITY
INTAKE
TYPE
SOURCE
WATER TYPE INFLUENT TDS BRINE
DISCHARGE
VOLUME OF WATER DESALINATED IN
AFY
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Sand City
Desalination
Plant
300 Vertical
Well
Groundwater 35,000 ppm Note 1
185 256 194 106 213
- Total: 185 256 194 106 213
Note 1: Brine is disposed via injection to a below sea-level horizontal concentrate well beneath the coastal bluff. The brine salinity does not exceed the seawater salinity. Source: https://www.mpwmd.net/water-supply/desalination/in-operation/ Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-18 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 6-10. Projected Supply from Sand City Desalination Plant (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Sand City Desalination Plant 94 94 94 94 94
6.8 Water Exchanges and Transfers
CAW has completed interconnections between the Monterey System and the Ryan Ranch and Bishop System which are now both supplied from the Monetary System. CAW is also working to complete an interconnection between the Monterey System and Hidden Hills System. The interconnections provide greater supply reliability for all systems. CAW does not have plans for other exchanges, transfers, or interties.
6.9 Future Water Projects
6.9.1 Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Ocean Desalination CAW completed the Final EIR/EIS for the MPWSP Desalination Plant in March 2018. The proposed desalination plant would produce 6,252 AFY (6.4 mgd) of potable water. The desalination plant would be constructed near the Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant (MOWRTP). It would treat seawater that was filtered through the ocean floor, then collected through slant wells and piped to the desalination plant. The slant well approach would draw water from under the sea floor past the average high tide line and would avoid the impacts to marine life posed by open ocean intakes.
At the plant, seawater would be treated using various treatment technologies including RO. Brine would be blended with other treated effluent and discharged to the ocean via the existing outfall at MOWRTP.
Portions of the project have been constructed or are currently under construction, including 5,300 new feet of transmission main. The final permit to begin facility slant wells construction was refiled in November 2020 and is pending a hearing and approval by the California Coastal Commission. This plan assumes the MPWSP Desalination Plant will be fully operational by 2030.
6.9.2 Pure Water Monterey Expansion
The PWM Expansion project is currently designed to deliver an additional 2,250 AFY of water to the Seaside Basin that would be available to CAW. The project’s Supplemental EIR was adopted by MPWMD and M1W in April 2021, and M1W anticipates the project to be operational by 2025. Based on the 2020 Hazen and Sawyer PWM and PWM Expansion supply and demand analysis with updated wastewater flows, discussed in Section 6.6.1.1, there is not currently enough source water to support the PWM Expansion project at this time. However, when the MPWSP Desalination Plant is online in 2030, it will provide a drought proof supply and allow increased water use and increase wastewater flows, which will provide more source water for the PWM Expansion project. In 2025, approximately 528 AFY of water is expected to be available from the PWM Expansion Project in normal years, and is expected to provide no water in the worst-case dry years, but will increase up to its design supply of 2,250 AFY in normal years by 2030 when the MPWSP Desalination Plant is online. Without the MPWSP Desalination Plant, the PWM Expansion Project is not expected to be able to provide its design supply in normal year types.
6.10 Summary of Existing and Planned Sources of Water
Summaries of the existing and planned sources of water are provided in Table 6-11 and Table 6-12.
The volumes shown for each supply source are projected for normal years and can vary in dry hydrologic years, as discussed in Chapter 7.
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-19 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 6-11. DWR 6-8R Actual Water Supplies
2020
WATER SUPPLY ADDITIONAL DETAIL ON WATER SUPPLY ACTUAL
VOLUME
(AFY)
WATER QUALITY TOTAL RIGHT OR
SAFE YIELD
Groundwater Carmel River Aquifer1 5,3171 Drinking Water 6,0602 Groundwater Seaside Basin 2,802 Drinking Water 2,1833
Desalinated Water Sand City Desalination 213 Drinking Water 3004 Other Aquifer Storage and Recovery 8065 Drinking Water 1,300 Total 9,138 9,843
Notes:
1. CAW’s total volume extracted from the Carmel River in 2020 was 5,977 AF, however, 660 AF was injected into the Seaside Basin for ASR. This volume is accounted for in the total ASR supply.
2. CAW’s allowable diversion from the Carmel River Aquifer was 6,310 AFY in WY 2019-2020 and 5,310 AFY in WY 2020-2021, which equates to 6,060 AFY in calendar year 2020 based on equal diversion each month.
3. CAW’s Seaside Groundwater Basin allocation was 1,820 AFY in WY 2019-2020 and 1,474 AFY in WY 2020-2021, which equates to 1,734 AFY in calendar year 2020. The total right is 1,734 AFY plus 136.23 AF carryover storage credits from WY 2019 and 845.93 AF storage credits for WY 2020 (calculated as 449 AF combined storage carryover credits for calendar year 2020). Note CAW did overproduce 334.21 AF beyond the Natural Safe Yield and 229.63 AF beyond the Operating Safe Yield in WY 2020 and paid an overproduction assessment (Source: Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Annual Report WY 2020)
4. CAW’s total rights from the Sand City Desalination Plant is 94 AFY, however the plant’s capacity is 300 AFY and CAW may purchase available capacity.
5. In 2020 the ASR extraction volume was 806 AF, which includes 660 AF of injection volume from Carmel River seasonal flows plus 146 AF of ASR storage water.
Table 6-12. Projected Water Supplies
REASONABLY AVAILABLE VOLUME, AF
WATER SUPPLY ADDITIONAL DETAIL ON
WATER SUPPLY 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater Carmel River Aquifer 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 Groundwater Seaside Basin1 1,474 774 774 774 774
Desalinated
Water
Sand City Desalination 94 94 94 94 94
Other Aquifer Storage and
Recovery
920 920 920 920 920
Recycled Water Pure Water Monterey 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Recycled Water PWM Expansion 528 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 Desalinated
Water
MPWSP Ocean
Desalination Project
0 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252
Total 9,892 17,166 17,166 17,166 17,166
Notes:
1. The CAW Monterey Main System has a total entitled right of 1,474 AFY from the Seaside Groundwater Basin, however CAW has an agreement in place to not pump 700 AFY of this right for 25-years once a new supply source is operational. This Plan assumes the reduced pumping will beginning in 2030 and continue through 2055. The reduced pumping repayment volume or duration of payment is subject to increase in the future.
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-20 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
6.10.1 Climate Change Effects
There are numerous climate change impacts that may affect the Monterey Main’s supply sources as described in the 2019 Final Draft Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWMP, including:
• Shifting rainfall patterns may make Carmel River Aquifer supply less available in the spring and summer. Lower seasonal surface flows will likely lead to higher pollutant concentrations in the river.
• Increased flood recurrence along creeks, rivers, and coastal structures could inundate infrastructure, including production facilities. More intense rainfalls could increase sediment loading into the Carmel River and reduce water quality. • Increased drought recurrence and severity could strain existing supply source availability further.
• Rising sea levels could impact groundwater quality and increase rates of seawater intrusion.
The Seaside Groundwater Basin is especially vulnerable.
CAW is aware of the significant climate change impacts to its existing supply sources and is expected to reduce its reliance on the more vulnerable Carmel River Aquifer and Seaside Groundwater Basin in the future.
The increased recurrence of floods may impact CAW’s ability to capture and inject more water for ASR storage during the rainy season, and a warmer and drier climate will make building up ASR storage more difficult because most, if not all, of the annual stored water could be needed each year. More severe droughts will also deplete any built-up ASR storage quicker, making it more difficult to build ASR storage in the future.
PWM and the PWM Expansion project rely on multiple source waters, each of which are impacted differently by climate warming and increased frequency of drought. As discussed in Section 6.6.1.1, during dry years there is limited source water available for PWM and the PWM Expansion project after meeting other contracted demands until demands and wastewater flows on the Peninsula increase.
The increased frequency of droughts due to climate change will continue to reduce the reliability of source supply for these projects and as a water supply for the Monterey Main System.
After the MPWSP Ocean Desalination Plant is operational, CAW will have another large supply source, up to 6,252 AFY, that is less vulnerable to climate change impacts. The investments in new supply will allow CAW to reduce reliance on the existing vulnerable supply sources in the future.
6.10.2 Regulatory Conditions and Project Development
For Monterey Main’s two main existing supply sources, the Carmel River and the Seaside Groundwater Basin, water rights are defined and protected by the SWRCB and the Seaside Groundwater Basin adjudication. Future supplies will predominantly shift toward ocean desalination and purified recycled water through PWM. The PWM project is in operation, and CAW has contractual amount of 3,500 AFY through 2050 (Water Purchase Agreement Pure Water Monterey, 2016). CAW’s ocean desalination plant is awaiting final permit approval from the California Coastal Commission to begin construction of the slant wells that supply the plant. All other major permits have been received. If the Coastal Commission denies the permit or requires additional studies to approve the permit, it would further delay the startup of the ocean desalination plant.
Water Supply Characterization Section 6
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 6-21 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
6.11 Energy Intensity
CAW has compiled data for the energy used to pump, treat, and distribute potable water to its customers from 2016 through 2020. The data are summarized in Table 6-13, and show the average energy intensity to produce, treat, and deliver water in the Monterey Main is about 1,220 kilowatt-hour per acre-foot (kWh/AF).
Table 6-13. Energy Use and Estimated Energy Intensity
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Volume of Water
Entering Process (AF) 9,285 9,421 9,398 9,234 9,138
Energy Consumed (kWh) 11,064,588 12,621,066 10,895,231 11,378,044 10,671,334 Energy Intensity
(kWh/AF) 1,192 1,340 1,159 1,232 1,168
7-1
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Water Service Reliability and
Drought Risk Assessment
This section discusses the long-term reliability of supplies for the Monterey Main System. Anticipated supplies and demands through 2045 are compared for a normal year, single-dry year, and multiple-dry year period.
7.1 Water Service Reliability Assessment
This section describes the existing constraints on Monterey Main’s existing and proposed supply sources and reliability in different hydrologic year types.
7.1.1 Constraints on Water Sources
7.1.1.1 Carmel River Aquifer
Under SWRCB Orders, CAW’s Monterey County System
Carmel River diversions are limited to 3,376 AFY based on its pre-1914 appropriative rights, riparian rights, and License #0011866. While CAW has historically pumped more than this volume, it is expected to reduce its diversion by December 31, 2021, as described in Chapter 6. For future supply projections, 3,376 AFY is expected to be reliably available from the Carmel River Aquifer through 2045.
Additional seasonal diversion, up to 1,488 AF, may also be available in normal to wet years between December 1 and May 31, depending on the stream flowrate, through CAW’s permit 21330. These flows are expected to be injected in the Seaside Basin for ASR. Climatic changes that increase the frequency of droughts may reduce the availability of these seasonal flows.
IN THIS SECTION
• Water Source
Constraints
• Water Service
Reliability
Assessment
• Drought Risk
Assessment
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7-2 2020 Urban Water Management Plan While the Carmel River Aquifer is of generally good water quality and meets all primary drinking water standards, the lower aquifer wells are treated for iron and manganese, secondary contaminants that impact taste and color, at the Begonia Iron Removal Plant. Climate impacts due to more intense rainfalls and lower spring and summer flows may impact the good water quality in the Carmel River in the future through increased sedimentation or higher pollutant concentrations. Water quality impacts are expected to be short term vulnerabilities and CAW is able to construct additional treatment if needed.
7.1.1.2 Seaside Groundwater Basin
CAW has a right to pump 1,474 AFY of water from the Seaside Basin. CAW has a stipulation to reduce pumping by 700 AFY once a new sufficient and reliable water supply source for the Monterey Peninsula is operational for a 25-year period to help replenish the basin and protect it from seawater intrusion.
The supply projections assume CAW will only pump up to 774 AFY from the Seaside Basin beginning in 2030 when new sufficient and reliable supply sources are online. The repayment could increase in volume or the duration of the repayment could lengthen due to additional over pumping as a result of delays in securing a new reliable water supply not accounted for when the agreement was reached.
Water quality issues caused by secondary contaminants are a constraint on the Seaside Basin.
Groundwater produced at two of CAW’s seaside wells is treated at the Ord Grove Ozone Treatment Facility to address taste and odor concerns caused by the presence of high sulfides (Water Systems Consulting, 2018). The Seaside Basin is also susceptible to seawater intrusion due to its coastal location and climate impacts of sea level rise. Historically, seawater intrusion has not been an issue in the basin. However increased chloride concentrations were reported in two monitoring wells in 2020, which may be an indication of incipient seawater intrusion. CAW and other stakeholders in the basin work collaboratively with the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster to manage, protect, and promote sustainability of the basin.
7.1.1.3 Sand City Desalination
Currently CAW has an allocation of 94 AFY from the 300 AFY Sand City Desalination Plant, and the remaining 206 AFY are reserved for future development and redevelopment. Until new development utilizes the reserved supply, CAW can use the remaining supply. However, for conservative supply planning only 94 AFY is included as a reliable supply from the Sand City Desalination Plant in the future.
7.1.1.4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery
The ASR Program is currently limited by the availability of excess seasonal Carmel River flows. In normal and wet years, CAW can divert excess Carmel River flows in the winter and spring months for injection into the Seaside Groundwater Basin and later extraction in the summer months. In most years, the volume injected is subsequently extracted in the summer and little to none is left for longer-term storage except in exceptionally wet years. The average annual stored volume since 2006 when ASR became operational is 84 AFY. ASR reliability decreases during dry hydrologic periods when excess Carmel River Flows are reduced or unavailable, and the program has not built a significant storage volume to continue to provide its normal year volume for a single dry year or a multiple dry year period.
7.1.1.5 Pure Water Monterey and Pure Water Monterey Expansion California American Water’s 2015 UWMP noted that unlike groundwater and surface water supplies, groundwater replenishment sources are generally consistent, and assumed for purposes of the 2015 UWMP that the water supply produced by the PWM Project would be 100% reliable. However, this assumption has been revised based on new source water supply information that became available since the 2015 UWMP. Specifically, new information on the PWM Project’s source water supplies was Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7-3 2020 Urban Water Management Plan presented in the Supplemental EIR for the expansion of the PWM Project, and as discussed in Hazen and Sawyer’s 2020 analysis of those source water supplies, the supplies are not 100% reliable.
The PWM project began injecting purified recycled water into the Seaside Basin in 2020. As listed in Table 6-7, 788 AF was injected into the basin in calendar year 2020. CAW has a contractual allocation of 3,500 AFY from PWM that it could pump from the Seaside Basin. The PWM Expansion Project’s Supplemental EIR was certified in April 2021, and the expansion is designed to provide an additional 2,250 AFY of water to the Seaside Basin that CAW could pump for delivery.
PWM and PWM Expansion rely on municipal wastewater, industrial processing water, crop drainage water, and urban stormwater runoff as the source waters to treat to purified levels before injection in the basin. Stormwater runoff and wastewater flows generally decline during drought periods due to less rainfall and the robust water conservation programs in place. These factors would reduce the available source water for PWM and PWM Expansion during a drought.
As described in Chapter 6, PWM is on track to deliver the contractual volume this year but may have source water constraints in future dry years. The PWM Expansion project is only expected to provide 528 AFY by 2025 in normal years, which will decline to zero in the worst-case dry years due to source water constraints. The reliability from PWM and PWM Expansion will increase when the MPWSP Desalination Plant comes online because it will provide sufficient drought proof supply to allow demands and wastewater flows to increase, relieving some of the source water constraints.
7.1.1.6 Ocean Desalination
Desalination is a highly reliable source of supply. Once CAW’s MPWSP Ocean Desalination Plant is operational, it is expected to supply 6,252 AFY of water for the Monterey Main System. There are no anticipated reliability issues due to varying hydrologic conditions.
Progress on the project is currently behind schedule due to the California Coastal Commission delays, and a court-ordered stay on construction of the desalination plant facility. The supply projections in this plan assume that the desalination plant will be operational by 2030.
7.1.2 Water Supply Management
Currently CAW relies on Carmel River Aquifer supply in the winter and spring months to comply with minimum stream flows in the Carmel River. Typically pumping from the Carmel River in the summer months is lower than the winter months, but in dry years the monthly diversions from the Carmel River could be constant throughout the year. In the Seaside Basin, the typical seasonal pattern is reversed.
CAW injects excess available water from the Carmel River Aquifer into the Seaside Groundwater Basin from December to May as part of the ASR Program, and generally pumps less native groundwater from the basin in these same months. In the summer and fall when CAW diverts less from the Carmel River, it pumps higher volumes from the Seaside Groundwater Basin and typically extracts most of the stored ASR water. While the ASR injection and extraction season is limited seasonally, normal groundwater production from the Seaside Basin is not seasonally constrained, and CAW could pump equal amounts of water each month throughout the year if needed.
Water from the Sand City Desalination plant is used year-round at the same rate. Water from PWM and the future ocean desalination plant are assumed to be available year-round and in all year types.
7.1.3 Year Type Characterization
Normal water year, single-dry water year, and five-consecutive-year drought period supply projections were developed for existing and projected supply sources. The basis for water year data and anticipated supply reliability for each supply source excepted the PWM and PWM Expansion Project is presented in Table 7-1.
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7-4 2020 Urban Water Management Plan CAW has entitled rights from the Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basin can be reliably pumped in all year types. Desalination is not affected by hydrology, and as such both desalination plants are anticipated to be 100 percent reliable in all water year types.
The historic injection and extraction volumes for ASR were analyzed to understand ASR reliability for a single-dry year and consecutive five-year drought. As described in Chapter 6, the five driest year for ASR were 2012 through 2016, where no water was available from ASR in 2014 and 2015 when the storage was depleted. In 2012, the first year of the drought, CAW was able to pull 100 percent of the average ASR supply using mostly stored water because the two previous water years were wet and CAW was able to build significant storage. Due to climate change it will be more difficult for CAW to build ASR storage volume in the future. For this reason, in a single-dry year ASR supply is assumed to be 67 percent of the average volume and supplied from storage. For the five-consecutive dry years, the first year is assumed to be 67 percent of the average supply and similar to a single-dry year because it can rely on built up storage. In the following years ASR supply declines linearly, and no supply is available from ASR by year three of a five-consecutive year drought similar to the 2012-2016 drought when the ASR storage volume was depleted by year three. No ASR supply is assumed in year three, four, and five of the five-year drought.
Table 7-1. DWR 7-1R Basis for Water Year Data and Supply Reliability
PERCENT OF AVERAGE SUPPLY BY WATER YEAR TYPES
-WATER SUPPLY
SOURCE
BASE
YEAR
WATER RIGHT,
CONTRACTUAL/
DESIGN SUPPLY,
AFY
NORMAL
YEAR
SINGLE-DRY
YEAR
CONSECUTIVE DRY YEARS
1ST YEAR 2ND YEAR 3RD YEAR 4TH YEAR 5TH YEAR
2004 2015 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Carmel River
Aquifer
3,376 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Seaside
Groundwater
Basin1
774 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Sand City
Desalination
94 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Aquifer Storage
and Recovery
920 100% 67% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0%
MPWSP Ocean
Desalination
6,252 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note:
1. The CAW Monterey Main System has a total entitled right of 1,474 AFY from the SGWB, however it plans to only pump 774 AFY, leaving 700 AFY of this right in the Basin for 25-years once a new supply source is operational. In year 2025 new supplies will not be online and CAW plans to pump the full right of 1,474 AFY.
The supply reliability for PWM and PWM Expansion is presented in Table 7-2 and Table 7-3. The reliability of both projects varies by the hydrologic year type and the future year because it is dependent on wastewater flows which are projected to increase as demands increase. As described in Section
6.6.1 and Table 6-4, PWM and the PWM Expansion project are not reliable during the worst-case scenario dry year due to reduced wastewater flows, but when the MPWSP Desalination Plant becomes operational, the demands are projected to increase on the Peninsula and the wastewater flows will also increase, improving the PWM and PWM Expansion project’s supply reliability.
In normal years PWM is projected to provide 100 percent of the contractual supply volume. The PWM Expansion project can only provide up to 528 AFY in normal year types until the MPWSP Desalination Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7-5 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Plant comes online in 2030. The worst-case dry year supply reliability presented in Table 6-4 is used to represent the last year of a consecutive five-year drought. The water supply available from PWM and PWM Expansion are projected to decline during a drought as conservation is increased and source flows for the projects decline. For years one through four of the consecutive five-year drought, the supply reliability is assumed to decline linearly until the worst-case dry year availability in year five. The single-dry year reliability is the same as year one of a five-year drought. Based on the projected increase in water use and wastewater flows once the MPWSP Desalination Plant is online, the PWM Phase 1 project and PWM Expansion project are expected to be reliable in all hydrologic year types by 2030 and 2040, respectively. Without the MPWSP Desalination Plant, PWM and PWM Expansion reliability would decline in a drought and during the worst-case dry year would continue to be zero.
More information on how the reliability of PWM and PWM Expansion are calculated is included in Appendix H.
Table 7-2. Pure Water Monterey Basis for Supply Reliability 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
PWM CONTRACTUAL SUPPLY, AFY 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 NORMAL YEAR 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
SINGLE-DRY YEAR 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%
CONSECUTIVE
DRY YEARS
1ST YEAR 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2ND YEAR 60% 100% 100% 100% 100%
3RD YEAR 40% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4TH YEAR 20% 100% 100% 100% 100%
5TH YEAR 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 7-3. Pure Water Monterey Expansion Basis for Supply Reliability 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
PWM EXPANSION DESIGN SUPPLY,
AFY 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250
NORMAL YEAR 23% 100% 100% 100% 100%
SINGLE-DRY YEAR 19% 84% 92% 100% 100%
CONSECUTIVE
DRY YEARS
1ST YEAR 19% 84% 92% 100% 100%
2ND YEAR 14% 69% 85% 100% 100%
3RD YEAR 9% 53% 77% 100% 100%
4TH YEAR 5% 38% 70% 100% 100%
5TH YEAR 0% 22% 62% 100% 100%
Note:
The Hazen analysis identified a reliability of zero for Pure Water Monterey Expansion during a worst-case dry year. It is expected that reliability would decrease gradually over a number of dry years as water use, wastewater flows, and supply available for PWM Expansion decreased. It was assumed that over a five-year period, the reliability would decrease linearly from its value in a normal year to zero in the fifth dry year.
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7-6 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
7.1.4 Water Service Reliability
This section compares projected supplies and demands for a normal year, single-dry year, and five-dry year period. In each year type a 10 percent operational buffer is subtracted from the total supplies for conservative planning purposes. The operational buffer incorporates a safety factor in the supply and demand analysis to account for production facilities down time due to maintenance or other reasons.
This analysis assumes both the MPWSP desalination plant and the PWM Expansion are operational by 2030.
Table 7-4 and Table 7-5 compare the normal and single dry year water supply and demand. Each table lists each available supply based on the projected reliability and compares the projected demand to the total supply both with and without the MPWSP Desalination Plant. As shown, there is a shortfall in supply in all years when excluding additional supplies from the MPWSP Desalination Plant. Not only does the desalination plant provide 6,252 AFY of drought proof supply, but it also allows the demands and wastewater flows to increase on the Monterey Peninsula, which results in more source water and greater supply from the PWM and PWM Expansion projects in dry years. After 2030, when the MPWSP Desalination Plant is projected to be online, the available supply exceeds unrestricted demands. In 2025 before the new supply sources are online, the projected demand is anticipated to exceed the available supply. To close the gap between supply and demand CAW will need to reduce demands through the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) until the new supply sources are online. In a normal year, demands will need to be reduced by approximately 15 percent in 2025 to close the supply gap. In the single-dry year, the demand will need to be reduced by about 24 percent.
Table 7-4. DWR 7-2R Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison - 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Demand Totals, AFY 10,443 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
WATER SUPPLY WITHOUT MPWSP
DESALINATION, AFY
9,892 10,914 10,914 10,914 10,914
Carmel River Aquifer 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376
Seaside Groundwater Basin 1,474 774 774 774 774
Sand City Desalination 94 94 94 94 94
ASR 920 920 920 920 920
Pure Water Monterey 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Pure Water Monterey Expansion1 528 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 Shortfall without MPWSP Desalination -551 -969 -1,560 -2,151 -2,742
ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLY FROM
MPWSP DESALINATION, AFY
0 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252
Total Water Supply, AFY 9,892 17,166 17,166 17,166 17,166 Operation Buffer (10%) -989 -1,717 -1,717 -1,717 -1,717 Surplus/ Shortfall without WSCP Action -1,540 3,566 2,975 2,384 1,793 WSCP Savings 1,540 0 0 0 0
DIFFERENCE: 0 3,566 2,975 2,384 1,793
Note:
1. PWM Expansion during a normal hydrologic year is only anticipated to supply up to 528 AFY.
2. When the MPWSP Desalination Plant comes online, it will provide a drought-proof supply that will allow the demands to increase to the projected levels, wastewater flows to increase, which provides more source water for the PWM Expansion Project and improve its supply reliability.
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7-7 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 7-5. DWR 7-3R Single-Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison - 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Demand Totals, AFY 10,443 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
WATER SUPPLY WITHOUT MPWSP
DESALINATION, AFY
8,783 8,083 8,083 8,083 8,083
Carmel River Aquifer 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376
Seaside Groundwater Basin 1,474 774 774 774 774
Sand City Desalination 94 94 94 94 94
ASR 616 616 616 616 616
Pure Water Monterey 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 422 422 422 422 422
Shortfall without MPWSP Desalination -1,660 -3,800 -4,391 -4,982 -5,573
ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLY FROM
MPWSP DESALINATION, AFY
0 8,430 8,609 8,780 8,780
MPWSP Ocean Desalination 0 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252
Pure Water Monterey1 0 700 700 700 700
Pure Water Monterey Expansion1 0 1,478 1,657 1,828 1,828 Total Water Supply, AFY 8,783 16,513 16,691 16,862 16,862 Operation Buffer (10%) -878 -1,651 -1,669 -1,686 -1,686 Surplus/ Shortfall without WSCP
Action
-2,539 2,979 2,548 2,111 1,520
WSCP Savings 2,539 0 0 0 0
DIFFERENCE: 0 2,979 2,548 2,111 1,520
Note:
1. When the MPWSP Desalination Plant comes online, it will provide a drought-proof supply that will allow the demands to increase to the projected levels, wastewater flows to increase, which provides more source water for the PWM and PWM Expansion Project and improve both projects supply reliability. This excess supply is only available in dry years if the MPWSP is operational.
2. Reductions in availability for Pure Water Monterey are applied proportionately to PWM and PWM Expansion.
Table 7-6 compares the average annual supply and demand in a five-consecutive year drought. As shown, the total supply declines each year into the drought. Like the normal and single dry year scenarios, without the MPWSP Desalination Plant there is a supply deficit every year and the unrestricted demands exceed the supply until the MPWSP Desalination Plant is online in 2030. In year 2025, the tables show unrestricted demands and the WSCP savings needed to close the gap between supply and demand. As the supplies decline each year into the drought, the conservation required to reduce demands also increases. In year 2025, the demand reduction needed to meet the available supplies is about 2,539 AFY, or about a 24% percent reduction in projected demand. By the fifth year of a drought in 2025 conditions, the WSCP savings increases to about 5,990 AFY, or upwards of a 57 percent reduction in projected demands.
The new supply sources, including the desalination plant providing 6,252 AFY of drought proof supply and the PWM Expansion project, are both needed to provide a secure and reliable water supply for the Monterey Peninsula, and eliminate the need for stringent demand reduction measures to close the gap between supply and demand. But with the PWM Expansion project alone there will continue to be shortfalls in supplies as shown in the tables, and water use will need to continue to be restricted in the future. Without the MPWSP Desalination Plant, the PWM Expansion project is not expected to supply its full design supply and will continue to have supply source limitations. Beginning in 2022, when the Carmel River supply is reduced to its lawful diversions, CAW will need to reduce demands through the WSCP until the future supply sources are online in all year types. The WSCP stage and required Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7-8 2020 Urban Water Management Plan demand reduction from customers increases in dry years as supply reliability and available volume are also reduced.
Table 7-6. DWR 7-4R Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand (Average Annual, AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First
Year
Water Demand 10,443 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
WATER SUPPLY WITHOUT MPWSP DESALINATION 8,783 8,083 8,083 8,083 8,083 Carmel River Aquifer 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376
Seaside Groundwater Basin 1,474 774 774 774 774
Sand City Desalination 94 94 94 94 94
ASR 616 616 616 616 616
Pure Water Monterey 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 422 422 422 422 422
Supply Shortfall without MPWSP Desalination -1,660 -3,800 -4,391 -4,982 -5,573 ADDITIONAL SUPPLY WITH MPWSP DESALINATION 0 8,430 8,609 8,780 8,780 MPWSP Ocean Desalination 0 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252
Pure Water Monterey 0 700 700 700 700
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 0 1,478 1,657 1,828 1,828 Total Water Supply 8,783 16,513 16,691 16,862 16,862
Operation Buffer (10%) -878 -1,651 -1,669 -1,686 -1,686 Surplus/ Shortfall without WSCP Action -2,539 2,979 2,548 2,111 1,520 WSCP Savings, AFY 2,539 0 0 0 0
DIFFERENCE 0 2,979 2,548 2,111 1,520
Second
Year
Water Demand 10,443 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
WATER SUPPLY WITHOUT MPWSP DESALINATION 7,669 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 Carmel River Aquifer 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376
Seaside Groundwater Basin 1,474 774 774 774 774
Sand City Desalination 94 94 94 94 94
ASR 308 308 308 308 308
Pure Water Monterey 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 317 317 317 317 317
Supply Shortfall without MPWSP Desalination -2,774 -4,914 -5,505 -6,096 -6,687 ADDITIONAL SUPPLY WITH MPWSP DESALINATION 0 8,886 9,243 9,585 9,585 MPWSP Ocean Desalination 0 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252
Pure Water Monterey 0 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 0 1,234 1,591 1,933 1,933 Total Water Supply 7,669 15,855 16,212 16,554 16,554
Operational Buffer (10%) -767 -1,586 -1,621 -1,655 -1,655 Surplus/ Shortfall without WSCP Action -3,541 2,387 2,117 1,834 1,243 WSCP Savings, AFY 3,541 0 0 0 0
DIFFERENCE 0 2,387 2,117 1,834 1,243
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7-9 2020 Urban Water Management Plan 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Third
Year
Water Demand 10,443 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
WATER SUPPLY WITHOUT MPWSP DESALINATION 6,555 5,855 5,855 5,855 5,855 Carmel River Aquifer 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376
Seaside Groundwater Basin 1,474 774 774 774 774
Sand City Desalination 94 94 94 94 94
ASR 0 0 0 0 0
Pure Water Monterey 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 211 211 211 211 211
Supply Shortfall without MPWSP Desalination -3,888 -6,028 -6,619 -7,210 -7,801 ADDITIONAL SUPPLY WITH MPWSP DESALINATION 0 9,342 9,878 10,391 10,391 MPWSP Ocean Desalination 0 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252
Pure Water Monterey 0 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 0 990 1,526 2,039 2,039
Total Water Supply 6,555 15,198 15,733 16,246 16,246
Operational Buffer (10%) -656 -1,520 -1,573 -1,625 -1,625 Surplus/ Shortfall without WSCP Action -4,543 1,795 1,686 1,556 965 WSCP Savings, AFY 4,543 0 0 0 0
DIFFERENCE 0 1,795 1,686 1,556 965
Fourth
Year
Water Demand 10,443 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
WATER SUPPLY WITHOUT MPWSP DESALINATION 5,750 5,050 5,050 5,050 5,050 Carmel River Aquifer 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376
Seaside Groundwater Basin 1,474 774 774 774 774
Sand City Desalination 94 94 94 94 94
ASR 0 0 0 0 0
Pure Water Monterey 700 700 700 700 700
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 106 106 106 106 106
Supply Shortfall without MPWSP Desalination -4,693 -6,833 -7,424 -8,015 -8,606 ADDITIONAL SUPPLY WITH MPWSP DESALINATION 0 9,798 10,512 11,196 11,196 MPWSP Ocean Desalination 0 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252
Pure Water Monterey 0 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 0 746 1,460 2,144 2,144
Total Water Supply 5,750 14,848 15,562 16,246 16,246
Operational Buffer (10%) -575 -1,485 -1,556 -1,625 -1,625 Surplus/ Shortfall without WSCP Action -5,268 1,480 1,532 1,556 965 WSCP Savings, AFY 5,268 0 0 0 0
DIFFERENCE 0 1,480 1,532 1,556 965
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7-10 2020 Urban Water Management Plan 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Fifth
Year
Water Demand 10,443 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
WATER SUPPLY WITHOUT MPWSP DESALINATION 4,944 4,244 4,244 4,244 4,244 Carmel River Aquifer 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376
Seaside Groundwater Basin 1,474 774 774 774 774
Sand City Desalination 94 94 94 94 94
ASR 0 0 0 0 0
Pure Water Monterey 0 0 0 0 0
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 0 0 0 0 0
Supply Shortfall without MPWSP Desalination -5,499 -7,639 -8,230 -8,821 -9,412 ADDITIONAL SUPPLY WITH MPWSP DESALINATION 0 10,255 11,147 12,002 12,002 MPWSP Ocean Desalination 0 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252
Pure Water Monterey 0 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Pure Water Monterey Expansion 0 503 1,395 2,250 2,250
Total Water Supply 4,944 14,499 15,391 16,246 16,246
Operational Buffer (10%) -494 -1,450 -1,539 -1,625 -1,625 Surplus/ Shortfall without WSCP Action -5,993 1,166 1,378 1,556 965 WSCP Savings, AFY 5,993 0 0 0 0
DIFFERENCE 0 1,166 1,378 1,556 965
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7-11 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
7.2 Drought Risk Assessment
A new provision of the Water Code directs Suppliers to prepare a DRA. The DRA considers a drought period lasting five consecutive years, starting from the year following the when the assessment is conducted. For this plan, the DRA considers five consecutive dry years from 2021 through 2025. CAW may conduct an interim update or updates to this DRA within the five-year cycle of its UWMP update.
The DRA analysis allows CAW to examine the management of its supplies during stressed hydrologic conditions and provides an opportunity to evaluate the functionality of its WSCP during the next actual drought period lasting at least five years. To help evaluate the impacts of a multi-year drought, the DRA was performed using the DWR Planning Tool to evaluate supply and demand on a monthly basis. The supply and demand assumptions used in the DRA are described in Table 7-7.
Table 7-7. 2021-2025 DRA Supply and Demand Assumptions
DEMAND/ SUPPLY SOURCE ASSUMPTIONS
Demand Customer Demand WSCP is enacted to reduce customer demands in all years of the 5-year drought Supply
Carmel River Aquifer 5,060 AF available in 2021 based on cut back schedule. 3,376 AF available in 2022-2025.
Seaside Basin 1,474 AFY available every year
Sand City Desalination 94 AFY available every year
ASR ASR supply is based on the current ASR storage volume of 1,170 AF multiplied by the five-consecutive dry year reliability percentages in Table 7-1: 780 AFY in year one, 390 AFY in year two, and no ASR supply in year three, four, and five.
PWM The contractual supply amount from PWM based on contract amount of 3,500 AFY multiplied by the five-consecutive dry year reliability percentages in Table 7-2:
2,800 AFY in year one, 2,100 AFY in year two, 1,400 AFY in year three, 700 AFY in year four, and no water available in year five.
PWM Expansion No supply from PWM Expansion. Although this is projected to be online in 2025, the supply from PWM Expansion during the fifth year of a drought (2025) is 0 AFY.
MPWSP Ocean
Desalination
No supply from Ocean Desalination
Operational Buffer A 10% operational buffer is subtracted from the total supplies to account for production facilities down time due to maintenance or other reasons.
The annual DRA summary is provided in Table 7-8. As shown, without the future supply sources, CAW would need to enact its WSCP to reduce demands in the service area if a five-year drought occurred beginning 2021. Customer demands would need to be restricted in all years, ranging from 29 percent reduction in year one to 57 percent in year five of the drought. This would require aiding the MPWMD to implement all water rationing measures listed in the WSCP. At this stage water will be prioritized to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the community only.
Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment Section 7 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 7-12 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Table 7-8. Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment, AFY
WATER USE TYPE 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Total Water Use 9,399 9,660 9,920 10,181 10,442
Total Supply 10,208 7,434 6,344 5,644 4,944
Carmel River Aquifer1 5,060 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376
Seaside Groundwater Basin2 1,474 1,474 1,474 1,474 1,474 Sand City Desalination3 94 94 94 94 94
ASR4 780 390 0 0 0
Pure Water Monterey5 2,800 2,100 1,400 700 0
Operation Buffer (10%) -1,021 -743 -634 -564 -494
Surplus/ Shortfall without WSCP Action -212 -2,969 -4,211 -5,102 -5,992 WSCP Demand Reduction 212 2,969 4,211 5,102 5,992
Revised Surplus/ Shortfall 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Reduction from WSCP Action 2% 31% 42% 50% 57%
Notes:
1. Carmel River Supply in year 2021 is 5,060 AFY based on the Carmel River pump back schedule. Beginning in 2022, CAW will only be allowed to pump up to their lawful diversion of 3,376 AFY.
2. CAW has a right to 1,474 AFY from the Seaside Basin.
3. CAW has a right to 94 AFY from Sand City Desalination.
4. ASR supply is based on the current ASR storage volume of 1,170 AF multiplied by the five-consecutive dry year reliability percentages in Table 7-1 (100% in year 1, 67% in year 2, 33% in year 3, and 0% in year 4 and 5).
5. Pure Water Monterey supply is based on the contractual supply of 3,500 AFY multiplied by the five-consecutive dry year reliability percentages in Table 7-2 in 2025 (80% in year 1, 60% in year 2, 40% in year 3, 20% in year 4, and 0% in year 5). 8-1
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Water Shortage Contingency
Plan
The WSCP is a detailed plan for how CAW intends to respond to foreseeable and unforeseeable water shortages.
A water shortage occurs when the water supply is reduced to a level that cannot support typical demand at any given time. The WSCP is used to provide guidance to the Monterey County District’s governing body, staff, and the public by identifying response actions to allow for efficient management of any water shortage with predictability and accountability. Preparation provides the tools to maintain reliable supplies and reduce the impacts of supply interruptions due to extended drought or catastrophic supply interruptions. The WSCP describes the following:
1. Water Supply Reliability Analysis: Summarizes
Monterey Main’s water supply analysis and reliability and identifies any key issues that may trigger a shortage
condition.
2. Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment
Procedures: Describes the key data inputs, evaluation
criteria, and methodology for assessing the system’s
reliability for the coming year and the steps to formally declare any water shortage levels and response actions.
3. Six Standard Shortage Stages: Establishes water
shortage levels to clearly identify and prepare for
shortages.
4. Shortage Response Actions: Describes the response
actions that may be implemented or considered for each
stage to reduce gaps between supply and demand as
IN THIS SECTION
• Summary of Plan
Water Shortage Contingency Plan Section 8
8-2
well as minimize social and economic impacts to the community.
5. Compliance and Enforcement: Defines compliance and enforcement actions available to administer demand reductions.
6. Legal Authority: Lists the legal documents that grant CAW the authority to declare a water shortage and implement and enforce response actions.
7. Financial Consequences of WSCP Implementation: Describes the anticipated financial impact of implementing water shortage stages and identifies mitigation strategies to offset financial burdens.
8. Monitoring and Reporting: Summarizes the monitoring and reporting techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of shortage response actions and overall WSCP implementation. Results are used to determine if additional shortage response actions should be activated or if efforts are successful and response actions should be reduced.
9. WSCP Refinement Procedures: Describes the factors that may trigger updates to the WSCP and outlines how to complete an update.
10. Special Water Features Distinctions: Identifies exemptions for ponds, lakes, fountains, pools, and spas, etc.
11. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability: Describes the process for the WSCP adoption, submittal, and availability after each revision.
The 2021 WSCP is a standalone document that can be modified as needed and is included as Appendix I.
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan 9-1
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Demand Management
Measures
This chapter describes Monterey Main’s efforts to promote water use efficiency, reduce demands, and prepare for future requirements.
This chapter describes the water conservation programs that CAW has implemented for the past five years, is currently implementing, and plans to implement to continue meeting its SB X7-7 water use target and position for future State
mandated water use efficiency standards that are currently under development. The section of the CWC addressing
Demand Management Measures (DMM) was significantly
modified in 2014, based on recommendations from the
Independent Technical Panel (ITP) to the legislature. The ITP was formed by DWR to provide information and
recommendations to DWR and the Legislature on new DMMs, technologies and approaches to water use efficiency. The ITP recommended, and the legislature enacted, streamlining the requirements from the 14 specific measures reported on in the 2010 UWMP to six more general requirements plus an “other” category for measures agencies implemented in addition to the required elements. The required measures are summarized in Table 9-1.
Table 9-1. Demand Management Measures
MEASURE
1 Water waste prevention ordinances
2 Metering
3 Conservation pricing
4 Public education and outreach
5 Programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss 6 Water conservation program coordination and staffing
7 Other demand management measures
IN THIS SECTION
• Demand
Management
Measures
• Reporting
Implementation
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Demand Management Measures Section 9
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 9-2 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
9.1 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail
The DMM section provides a comprehensive description of the water conservation programs that CAW has implemented for the past five years, is currently implementing, and plans to implement. These measures help reduce overall water consumption and aided in Monterey Main’s attainment of the water use reduction targets discussed in Chapter 5. Consistent with the requirements of the CWC, this section describes the DMMs that have been implemented to meet water use targets pursuant to Section 10608.20 of the CWC. The following sections provide a description of the DMM including the nature and extent of each.
9.1.1 Water Waste Prevention Ordinances
CAW does not have the legal authority to create ordinances as a public utility company and must obtain approval from the CPUC to implement its WSCP, including voluntary and/or mandatory measures. Rule
14.1 defines water conservation measures and the approval process that CAW must follow to implement mandatory water conservation (Appendix I, Attachment 1).
Section D of Rule 14.1 (B) defines water conservation requirements that are effective at all times until deactivated by the CPUC. These conservation requirements define non-essential uses of water and limit water waste from new developments and existing customers. Although these are considered requirements, they are voluntary and serve as the CAW’s Voluntary Water Conservation Program.
Sections E through H of Rule 14.1 list the specific requirements of CAW’s three mandatory conservation stages. CAW must receive authorization from the CPUC before implementing mandatory conservation measures.
The mandatory conservation stages listed in Rule 14.1 shall remain dormant until Monterey Main submits a letter to the CPUC and receives authorization to declare mandatory conservation. The mandatory conservation request letter to the CPUC shall include justification for activating the particular mandatory conservation stage, as well as the expected duration the mandatory conservation will be in effect. The WSCP contains a more in-depth discussion of these prohibitions and consequences associated with them.
9.1.2 Metering
All connections in Monterey Main are metered with the exception of a few unmetered free water accounts in Carmel Valley that are planned to have meters installed by end of the year. CAW performs meter reading on a bi-monthly basis and consequently bills customers on a bi-monthly basis. All customers, with the exception of private fire connections, are billed a service charge and a usage rate/commodity charge for each unit of water consumed.
CAW maintains a database to track meters and record years in service. Monterey Main follows a program to test, repair, and replace water meters. CAW replaces 5/8-inch and 1-inch meters on a 15- year cycle. CAW tests 1 ½-inch and 2-inch meters on a four-year cycle; meters that do not pass testing requirements are replaced. The number of meters replaced each year varies due to varying installation dates.
9.1.3 Conservation Pricing
Conservation pricing sends a signal to customers regarding their water use. The type of rate structure used by Monterey Main for each connection type is shown in Table 9-2 and is described here:
• Residential Connections: Monterey Main’s water rate structure encourages residential customers to conserve water by using tiered rates. Monterey Main has a five-tiered rate structure. The tiered rate structure establishes volumetric rates; that is the more water a customer consumes, the more Demand Management Measures Section 9
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 9-3 2020 Urban Water Management Plan expensive the water becomes. In addition, Monterey Main’s rates include a monthly service charge per meter depending on the size of the connection.
• Non-Residential Connections (except private fire): Monterey Main has a four-tier rate structure for commercial, public authority, irrigation, and industrial customers. In addition, rates include a monthly service charge per meter depending on the size of the connection. • Private Fire Connections: Private fire protection systems and private fire hydrants are charged a fixed monthly fee per hydrant or connection.
Table 9-2. Water Rate Structures
CUSTOMER TYPE WATER RATE STRUCTURE
Residential Five Tier Volumetric Rate
Commercial Four Tier Volumetric Rate
Industrial Four Tier Volumetric Rate
Institutional/Government Four Tier Volumetric Rate
Irrigation Four Tier Volumetric Rate
Private Fire Fixed
9.1.4 Public Education and Outreach
Monterey Main has participated in a variety of public outreach meetings, community events, and educational campaigns. All public outreach and educational efforts are managed by CAW’s local external affairs and conservation departments in cooperation with Monterey Peninsula water Management District’s (MPWMD’s) conservation department.
9.1.4.1 Public Information Program
California American Water in partnership with MPWMD continued its Monterey Water Conservation Facebook page to keep local contacts informed about conservation efforts. The page provides timely conservation tips and news about upcoming events and local water issues.
Email Blasts and Social Media
California American Water continued encouraging customers to maintain high levels of conservation throughout the year and provided educational emails on what conservation resources and activities customers can undertake.
Three focused campaigns took place in 2019 -- surrounding Earth Day, summer conservation and fall conservation. The materials shared water saving tips for indoor and outdoor use as well as promoting available rebates, water wise house calls and other offerings. These themes were echoed through concurrent radio advertising and accompanying handouts were created to share at the front office and at community events.
Additional online ads were employed to encourage customers to turn off their sprinklers at the start of the rainy season. This message was additionally promoted through newspaper advertising, direct mail and an email blast.
Mailers/Bill Inserts
Two postcards were sent to customers in 2019 which focused specifically on conservation, the first advising customers to call California American Water’s conservation department to schedule a free yearly season sprinkler check-up at the start of the irrigation season; and the second promoting the company’s rain sensor program. Three bill inserts were sent themed around Earth Day, summer Demand Management Measures Section 9
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 9-4 2020 Urban Water Management Plan conservation tips and fall conservation tips. Each piece contained information on rebates, water conservation tips and further resources available from California American Water and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.
Local Community Events
CAW also participates in a multitude of local community events throughout the year where they host a booth and provide information such as conservation tips to the community as well devices to promote conservation. However, due to the COVID-19 Pandemic many of these events were canceled in 2020 and continue to be postponed.
9.1.4.2 School Education Program
In 2019, California American Water continued reaching its key objectives for ongoing school education and outreach in water conservation.
The key goals included:
• Ongoing relationship building with the Water Awareness Committee (WAC); • Outreach to students at community events offering free educational materials; • Outreach to students in-class and at afterschool activities to offer education regarding water conservation.
Zun Zun School Performances
California American Water, through the Water Awareness Committee of Monterey County, offered school presentations by the Zun Zun performance group. In 2019, Zun Zun provided fifteen 45-minute performances within California American Water’s service territory. The performances reached a total of 2,762 students and covered topics such as the water cycle, watershed, indoor conservation and conservation tips, including information about fixing leaks. In addition, we continued to sponsor Zun Zun to perform at the Monterey County Fair which it is estimated that 1,250 children, teenagers and adults attended the event.
Students were encouraged to participate during the event through a song and dance presentation of the water cycle. Conservation tips were also presented to the students such as taking shorter showers, not letting the faucet run when brushing teeth, using a positive shut off nozzle at the end of a hose when watering the plants, and to notify their parents when they see leaks at home or their school teacher when they see leaks at school.
9.1.5 Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution System Real Monterey Main’s system water audits, leak detection, and repair programs are ongoing and focus on high probability leak areas. Table 4-2 in Chapter 4 of the 2020 UWMP documents the total system losses.
9.1.6 Water Conservation Program Coordination and Staffing Support CAW has conservation staff to coordinate and implement the programs described in this chapter. Most Monterey Main conservation staff were compensated as part of regular operating expenses and not through the conservation surcharge.
9.1.7 Other Demand Management Measures
CAW is committed to implementing cost-effective programs that will increase water efficiency throughout the entire service area. Though not required, CAW has implemented the following demand management measures during the past five years and will continue implementation into the future in order to increase the overall water efficiency of the Monterey Main’s customers.
Demand Management Measures Section 9
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 9-5 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
9.1.7.1 Residential Water Audits
California American Water continued its Water Wise House Call Program in 2019 utilizing in house trained certified audit staff at no cost to the conservation budget. The program has been in effect since 2008 and consists of offering free residential audits for single and multi-family properties to identify ways the customer can save water indoors and out and detect leaks.
California American Water’s conservation staff completed 481 Water Wise House Calls in 2019 and 125 irrigation sprinkler checks at the beginning of the spring season. Residential customers are sent a postcard at the beginning of the irrigation season offering a free sprinkler check up. The program is becoming more popular each year where customers’ irrigation systems were evaluated to ensure there were no leaks and to identify root causes of possible high water use. Outdoor tips and recommendations were also provided to customers, as well as the offering of free rain sensors installed by California American Water Company’s contractors.
California American Water promoted the Water Wise House Call program through bill inserts, rebate brochures, offering the service to customers who visited the office to make payments and by targeting customers who had received high water bills and had been billed in the higher tiers of California American Water’s five-tiered rate design.
During the Water Wise House Calls and high bill investigations, California American Water identified common inefficiencies and water waste in many of the Monterey residences. The most common occurrences were:
• Toilet and faucet leaks
• Irrigation controllers set to run too long resulting in water waste • Water softener issues
• Misaligned and broken sprinkler heads
• Customer service line leaks
California American Water’s conservation staff assisted customers by showing them how to read their water meters and properly convert cubic feet units to gallons so that customers can better monitor their daily usage and also compare the meter readings to the billing units identified on their water bills. In addition, conservation staff also assisted customers by properly adjusting their irrigation controllers to meet the plant water needs and to irrigate in compliance with MPWMD’s two day a week watering schedule. Conservation staff also provided free water conserving devices to customers. The audit reports also include recommendations on utilizing the rebate program for the replacement of high water-use fixtures and appliances at customers’ homes.
The effectiveness of the Water Wise House Call program was measured through the evaluation of water savings, as well as by inclusion of an evaluation survey form along with a pre-stamped envelope in the customer report package. Many evaluation surveys were returned from the Water Wise House Call service showed high customer appreciation.
Leak Detection
CAW’s conservation staff utilizes data logging technology to assist in evaluating difficult to diagnose high water hills by downloading up to 180 days of usage, hour by hour, from the company’s radio read meters. By evaluating hourly usage patterns, usage data reports have aided in identifying the date range in which high usage occurred, and resulted in the identification of issues including improperly programmed irrigation controllers, leaks in the irrigation system, toilet leaks, service line leaks, and hoses been left running. A total of 695 Data Log reports were evaluated by Conservation staff in Monterey in 2019.
Demand Management Measures Section 9
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 9-6 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
9.1.7.2 Residential Plumbing Retrofit
CAW has been offering various free water savings devices for its residential and commercial customers including showerheads and kitchen faucet aerators with a flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute, bathroom faucet aerators with a flow rate of 0.5 gallons per minute, leak detection tablets/kits and outdoor water saving tools such as soil moisture meters and hose nozzles that automatically shut off when not in use.
The residential plumbing retrofit program was funded out of the conservation surcharge one-way balancing account. Items provided through MPWMD were funded out of MPWMD’s conservation budget.
9.1.7.3 Residential and Commercial Rebates (MPWMD Rebates) Monterey Main’s rebate program is funded by CAW but administered by MPWMD. CAW has been working closely with MPWMD to implement advertising campaigns and press releases that draw customers’ attention to the rebate program benefits. MPWMD is in the process of creating an online rebate application that would be available from the “montereywaterinfo.org” website http://www.montereywaterinfo.org/ .
The rebate program was funded out of the conservation surcharge one-way balancing account.
9.1.7.4 Large Landscape Grant Program
CAW’s successful landscape grant program, implemented in 2011, continues to reduce the water demand of municipal properties by changing landscaping and upgrading irrigation systems. CAW marketed the large landscape grant program with a focus on replacing turf on city properties and schools with low water use plants, and/or installation of water saving irrigation technology. The grant award was intended to provide funding for a demonstration project with high visibility, water savings, exemplary landscaping, and/or use of water-saving irrigation technology.
9.1.7.5 WBIC, Rain Sensor Install Program and Soil Moisture Sensors CAW continued its Rain Sensor Installation Program and has installed 523 rain sensors since the program began in 2011 for residential and non-residential customers. In addition, soil moisture sensors were offered to select customers who have landscapes which would benefit from this add-on to the Sensor Program. The rain sensor has a shut off device which automatically signals the irrigation controller to curtail irrigation when it rains and allows watering to resume when needed. The rain sensor can be programmed to halt irrigation for up to 72 hours after a rainfall event. The soil moisture sensor can be used throughout the year to assist customers in monitoring their usage and to refrain from overwatering their landscapes.
9.1.7.6 CII Audits
CAW continued its commercial audit program established in 2009 along with its contract with WaterWise Consulting to conduct commercial, institutional, and industrial audits. Water Wise Consulting completed 32 audits with an estimated potential savings of 60.99 acre feet following the implementation of the audit recommendations. Since the program began in 2009, over 200 commercial customers have been reached with great potential water savings as the result.
CAW’s conservation staff followed up with the customers on site and in person to review the audit reports and provide free devices, such as faucet aerators and pre-rinse spray valves.
Customers were given audit reports that focused on applicable water-saving devices, and estimated water and cost savings together with expected payback periods for such upgrades. The payback period calculations included the rebate incentives available to CII customers through the CAW and MPWMD Rebate Program.
Demand Management Measures Section 9
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 9-7 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
9.1.7.7 Low Income Water/Energy Joint Direct Install Program California American Water partnered with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to offer a first of its kind Water-Energy Joint Partnership Direct Install Program for its Low Income customers. The program provides low income residential customers with free home improvements to make their home more energy and water efficient. Partnering with PG&E allowed both utilities to share costs as part of an Energy Savings Assistance Program (ESA) Water pilot where California American Water provided funding for the cold water conservation measures (Toilets, Toilet Flappers, Hose nozzles) and water conservation education. PG&E provided funding for all hot water measures (Faucet aerators, showerheads, thermostatic valves, water heater leak repair, etc.). This joint program provided participating customers the convenience of a single contractor visit and single contact to the program administrator instead of separate water and energy audits and multiple installation visits.
In addition to the energy, home weatherization and water measures, California American Water customers also received an indoor and outdoor home water audit and received a brief water conservation education at their home. In 2019, a total of 115 low income households in Monterey were retrofitted through this program.
This partnership was the first Water/Energy Joint program of its kind in California and served as a model for similar programs now developed in other areas of California. Funding for California American Water’s portion of the program came from CPUC authorized conservation program funds for low income direct install programs.
9.2 Reporting Implementation
9.2.1 Implementation Over the Past Five Years
Table 9-3 summarizes the DMM implementation over recent years.
Demand Management Measures Section 9
California American Water Central Division – Monterey County District 9-8 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Table 9-3. DMM Implementation
NAME OF MEASURE 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019 2020 2020 Number of
Units
Estimated
Annual
Savings
(AFY)
Number of
Units
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Number of
Units
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Number of
Units
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Number of
Units
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Conservation Staff / Training n/a
Public Information Programs 35 n/a
School Education Programs 14 14 12 n/a
Residential Water Audits 350 14 476 17.0 437 17.48 606 24.24 Low Flow Fixtures 25,181 25,181 40.3 30,752 34.5 20,876 23.1 Rebates 2,076 1,148 152. 1,023 15.7
Soil Moisture and Rain Sensor
Install Program 46 46 unknown 28 39
Low Income Water/Energy
Direct Install 189 0 115 2.8
Landscape Upgrade Grant
Program 1 1 1
CII and Large Landscape
Conservation (Audits) 25 16.5 25 16.5 7 4.62 6 3.96
Sustainable Landscape
Programs 1 0
Total 73.5 208.8 69.7
Demand Management Measures Section 9
9-9
9.2.2 Implementation to Achieve Water Use Targets
As discussed in Chapter 5, CAW has met its 2020 water use target. However, Monterey Main also realizes a portion of the observed conservation is due to the strict water use restrictions imposed during the drought. If those restrictions are lifted, Monterey Main will remain diligent in continuing use of the above described DMMs. The extensive metering program, ongoing public outreach, and education programs, and assessing and managing distribution system losses over the last several years has helped Monterey Main to maintain overall lower water consumption.
9.3 Water Use Objectives (Future Requirements)
New water use objectives are currently being developed that will define an efficient standard for indoor water use per person. The final water use objectives for Monterey Main have not yet been determined.
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan 10-1
2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and
Implementation
This chapter describes the steps taken to adopt and submit the UWMP and to make it publicly available. This chapter also includes a discussion of the agency’s plan to implement the UWMP.
10.1 Inclusion of all 2020 Data
This UWMP update has been prepared on a calendar year
basis and includes all water use and planning data for the 2020 calendar year.
10.2 Notice of Public Hearing
CAW has notified all necessary Cities, Counties, and Districts within its service area of its intent to review the UWMP and consider changes to the plan. These governmental entities as well as a host of local water purveyors and agencies were notified of the preparation of the UWMP and public hearing and encouraged to participate in the development of this plan update, as shown in Table 2-1. Copies of the notifications are included in Appendix J.
10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption
CAW held a public hearing and adopted the 2020 UWMP on
June 17, 2021. Prior to the public hearing notices were published notifying the public of the date of time of the hearing.
CAW adopted the 2020 UWMP after the hearing on June 17, 2021. A copy of the adopting resolution is included in
Appendix K.
IN THIS SECTION
• Public Hearing
Notices
• Adoption
• Public Availability
• Amendment Process
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation Section 10 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 10-2 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
10.4 Plan Submittal
Once the 2020 UWMP and WSCP have been adopted, copies of the 2020 UWMP and WSCP and any subsequent amendments will be submitted to DWR (electronically using the WUEdata reporting tool), the State Library, and all necessary Cities and Counties, within 30 days of adoption.
10.5 Public Availability
Once the plan has been adopted, a hardcopy will be made available for public review at CAW’s local Monterey Peninsula office at 511 Forest Lodge Road, Suite 100, Pacific Grove, CA 93950 (subject to office closures due to COVID-19 restrictions). Additionally, an electronic copy will be uploaded to the CAW webpage and available for public reference.
10.6 Notification to Public Utilities Commission
Per Water Code Section 10621(c), those Suppliers that are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) must submit their UWMP and WSCP to the CPUC as part of their general rate case filings.
CAW will include these plans as part of its general rate case filings.
10.7 Amending an Adopted UWMP or WSCP
If CAW revises its UWMP after approved by DWR, the public notice, hearing, and adoption process will be repeated and an electronic copy of the revised UWMP will be submitted to DWR within 30 days of its adoption.
References Section 11
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District 11-1 2020 Urban Water Management Plan References
About Monterey One Water. (2021). Retrieved from Monterey One Water:
http://www.mrwpca.org/about/index.php
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments. (2014). Revised Draft - Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan 2014-2023 for Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties.
California American Water. (2007). Monterey Sewer District Comprehensive Planning Study.
California American Water v. City of Seaside, et al., 66343 (Monterey Superior Court 2006).
California Department of Water Resources. (2004). Bulletin 118, Seaside Area Subbasin.
California State Water Resources Control Board. (1995). Order No. WR 95-10.
California State Water Resources Control Board. (2009). Cease and Desist Order WR 2009- 0060.
CAWD Facilties. (2021). Retrieved from Carmel Area Wastewater District.
Desalination Plant Helps Save a California Coastal Community. (2010, June 21). Retrieved May 6, 2011, from Planet Green: http://planetgreen.discovery.com/techtransport/desalination-plant-helps-save-a-california-coastal-community.html (2019). Final Draft Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.
Hazen and Sawyer, K. A. (2020, 08 11). California American Water Peer Review of Supply and Demand for Water on the Monterey Peninsula.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. (2008). Seaside Groundwater Basin Questions and Answers.
PBCSD About Us. (2021). Retrieved from Pebble Beach Community Services District.
Reclamation Plan. (2021). Retrieved from Carmel Area Wastewater District.
Water Purchase Agreement Pure Water Monterey. (2016).
Water Systems Consulting. (2018). California American Water Montery County District Comprehensive Planning Study.
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District A 2020 Urban Water Management Plan A
Appendix A. 2020 UWMP
Checklist
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District
Appendix A
2020 UWMP Checklist
Retail Wholesale
2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMP Subject 2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use) xx Chapter 1 10615 A plan shall describe and evaluate sources of supply, reasonable and practical efficient uses, reclamation and demand management activities. Introduction and Overview Executive Summary xx
Chapter 1 10630.5
Each plan shall include a simple description of the supplier’s plan including water availability, future requirements, a strategy for meeting needs, and other pertinent information. Additionally, a supplier may also choose to include a simple description at the beginning of each chapter.
Summary Executive Summary
xx Section 2.2 10620(b) Every person that becomes an urban water supplier shall adopt an urban water management plan within one year after it has become an urban water supplier Plan Preparation Chapter 1 Description, 2.2 Basis for Preparing a Plan xx
Section 2.6 10620(d)(2)
Coordinate the preparation of its plan with other appropriate agencies in the area, including other water suppliers that share a common source, water management agencies, and relevant public agencies, to the extent practicable.
Plan Preparation 2.3 Coordination and Outreach
xx
Section 2.6.2 10642
Provide supporting documentation that the water supplier has encouraged active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the service area prior to and during the preparation of the plan and contingency plan Plan Preparation 10.2 Notice of Public Hearing and 10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption x Section 2.6, Section 6.1 10631(h) Retail suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their wholesale supplier(s) - if any - with water use projections from that source. System Supplies Not Applicable x
Section 2.6 10631(h)
Wholesale suppliers will include documentation that they have provided their urban water suppliers with identification and quantification of the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale to the urban supplier during various water year types System Supplies Not Applicable
xx Section 3.1 10631(a) Describe the water supplier service area. System Description 3.2 Service Area Boundary xx Section 3.3 10631(a) Describe the climate of the service area of the supplier. System Description 3.3 Service Area Climate xx Section 3.4 10631(a) Provide population projections for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045 System Description 3.4.1 Service Area Population xx Section 3.4.2 10631(a) Describe other social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning. System Description 3.4.2 Other Social, Economic, and Demographic Factors xx Sections 3.4 and 5.4 10631(a) Indicate the current population of the service area. System Description and Baselines and Targets 3.4.1 Service Area Population xx Section 3.5 10631(a) Describe the land uses within the service area. System Description 3.5 Land Uses within Service Areaxx Section 4.2 10631(d)(1) Quantify past, current, and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors. System Water Use
4.2.2 Past and Current Water Use, Table 4-1, 4.2.4 Projected Water Use, Table 4-5 xx
Section 4.2.4 10631(d)(3)(C) Retail suppliers shall provide data to show the distribution loss standards were met. System Water Use
4.2.3 Distribution System Water Loss, no loss standards have been adopted xx
Section 4.2.6 10631(d)(4)(A) In projected water use, include estimates of water savings from adopted codes, plans and other policies or laws. System Water Use 4.2.4.1 Projection Methodology, references new State Regulations xx
Section 4.2.6 10631(d)(4)(B) Provide citations of codes, standards, ordinances, or plans used to make water use projections. System Water Use
4.2.4.1 Projection Methodology, references new State Water Use Objective Regulations x optional Section 4.3.2.4 10631(d)(3)(A) Report the distribution system water loss for each of the 5 years preceding the plan update. System Water Use 4.2.3 Distribution System Water Loss x optional Section 4.4 10631.1(a) Include projected water use needed for lower income housing projected in the service area of the supplier. System Water Use 4.3 Water Use for Lower Income Households xx Section 4.5 10635(b) Demands under climate change considerations must be included as part of the drought risk assessment. System Water Use 4.4 Climate Change Considerations x
Chapter 5 10608.20(e)
Retail suppliers shall provide baseline daily per capita water use, urban water use target, interim urban water use target, and compliance daily per capita water use, along with the bases for determining those estimates, including references to supporting data Baselines and Targets 5.2 Baseline and Target Calculations for 2020 UWMP, Table 5-1 x
Chapter 5 10608.24(a) Retail suppliers shall meet their water use target by December 31, 2020. Baselines and Targets
5.4 2020 Compliance Daily PerCapita Water Use (GPCD), Table 5-2 x
Section 5.1 10608.36 Wholesale suppliers shall include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies to help their retail water suppliers achieve targeted water use reductions. Baselines and Targets Not Applicable x
Section 5.2 10608.24(d)(2)
If the retail supplier adjusts its compliance GPCD using weather normalization, economic adjustment, or extraordinary events, it shall provide the basis for, and data supporting the adjustment.
Baselines and Targets Not Applicable
x
Section 5.5 10608.22
Retail suppliers’ per capita daily water use reduction shall be no less than 5 percent of base daily per capita water use of the 5 year baseline. This does not apply if the suppliers base GPCD is at or below 100.
Baselines and Targets Not Applicable
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District
Appendix A
2020 UWMP Checklist
Retail Wholesale
2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMP Subject 2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use) x Section 5.5 and Appendix E 10608.4 Retail suppliers shall report on their compliance in meeting their water use targets. The data shall be reported using a standardized form in the SBX7-7 2020 Compliance Form Baselines and Targets Appendix C xx Sections 6.1 and 6.2 10631(b)(1) Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought System Supplies Table 6-12, Table 7-4, Table 7-5, Table 7-6 xx
Sections 6.1 10631(b)(1)
Provide a discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal, single dry year, and a drought lasting five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, including changes in supply due to climate change.
System Supplies
Table 6-12, Table 7-4, Table 7-5, Table 7-7, 6.10.1 Climate Change Effects xx Section 6.1 10631(b)(2) When multiple sources of water supply are identified, describe the management of each supply in relationship to other identified supplies System Supplies 7.1.2 Water Supply Management xx Section 6.1.1 10631(b)(3) Describe measures taken to acquire and develop planned sources of water System Supplies 6.9 Future Water Projects xx Section 6.2.8 10631(b) Identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available for 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and optionally 2045 System Supplies Table 6-11 and Table 6-12 xx
Section 6.2 10631(b) Indicate whether groundwater is an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier. System Supplies
6.1 Carmel River Aquifer, 6.2 Seaside Groundwater Basin, Table 6- 1, Table 6-2
xx
Section 6.2.2 10631(b)(4)(A)
Indicate whether a groundwater sustainability plan or groundwater management plan has been adopted by the water supplier or if there is any other specific authorization for groundwater management. Include a copy of the plan or authorization System Supplies Not Applicable
xx
Section 6.2.2 10631(b)(4)(B) Describe the groundwater basin. System Supplies
6.1 Carmel River Aquifer, 6.2 Seaside Groundwater Basin, Figure 6-1, Figure 6-2 xx Section 6.2.2 10631(b)(4)(B) Indicate if the basin has been adjudicated and include a copy of the court order or decree and a description of the amount of water the supplier has the legal right to pump System Supplies 6.2 Seaside Groundwater Basin (is adjudicated), Appendix Gxx Section 6.2.2.1 10631(b)(4)(B)
For unadjudicated basins, indicate whether or not the department has identified the basin as a high or medium priority. Describe efforts by the supplier to coordinate with sustainability or groundwater agencies to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions.
System Supplies 6.1 Carmel River Aquifer
xx Section 6.2.2.4 10631(b)(4)(C) Provide a detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years System Supplies Table 6-1 xx Section 6.2.2 10631(b)(4)(D) Provide a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped. System Supplies Table 6-2xx Section 6.2.7 10631(c) Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long- term basis. System Supplies 6.8 Water Exchanges and Transfers xx Section 6.2.5 10633(b) Describe the quantity of treated wastewater that meets recycled water standards, is being discharged, and is otherwise available for use in a recycled water project System Supplies (Recycled Water) Table 6-5 and Table 6-6 xx Section 6.2.5 10633(c) Describe the recycled water currently being used in the supplier's service area. System Supplies (Recycled Water) 6.6 Wastewater and Recycled Water, Table 6-6xx Section 6.2.5 10633(d) Describe and quantify the potential uses of recycled water and provide a determination of the technical and economic feasibility of those uses. System Supplies (Recycled Water) 6.6.5 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycled Water Uses, Table 6-7 xx
Section 6.2.5 10633(e)
Describe the projected use of recycled water within the supplier's service area at the end of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, and a description of the actual use of recycled water in comparison to uses previously projected.
System Supplies (Recycled Water)
6.6.5 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycled Water Uses, Table 6-7, Table 6-8 xx
Section 6.2.5 10633(f) Describe the actions which may be taken to encourage the use of recycled water and the projected results of these actions in terms of acre-feet of recycled water used per year. System Supplies (Recycled Water) 6.6.5 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycled Water Uses / Not Applicable xx
Section 6.2.5 10633(g) Provide a plan for optimizing the use of recycled water in the supplier's service area. System Supplies (Recycled Water) 6.6.5 Potential, Current, and Projected Recycled Water Uses / Not Applicable xx
Section 6.2.6 10631(g) Describe desalinated water project opportunities for long-term supply. System Supplies
6.7 Sand City Desalination, 6.9.1 Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Ocean Desalination xx Section 6.2.5 10633(a) Describe the wastewater collection and treatment systems in the supplier’s service area with quantified amount of collection and treatment and the disposal methods System Supplies (Recycled Water) 6.6 Wastewater and Recycled Water, Table 6-5 xx
Section 6.2.8, Section 6.3.7 10631(f)
Describe the expected future water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken by the water supplier to address water supply reliability in average, single-dry, and for a period of drought lasting 5 consecutive water years.
System Supplies 6.9 Future Water Projects
xx Section 6.4 and Appendix O 10631.2(a) The UWMP must include energy information, as stated in the code, that a supplier can readily obtain. System Suppliers, Energy Intensity 6.11 Energy Intensity xx
Section 7.2 10634 Provide information on the quality of existing sources of water available to the supplier and the manner in which water quality affects water management strategies and supply reliability Water Supply Reliability Assessment 7.1.1 Constraints on Water Sources
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District
Appendix A
2020 UWMP Checklist
Retail Wholesale
2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMP Subject 2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use) xx Section 7.2.4 10620(f) Describe water management tools and options to maximize resources and minimize the need to import water from other regions. Water Supply Reliability Assessment 7.1.2 Water Supply Management xx
Section 7.3 10635(a)
Service Reliability Assessment: Assess the water supply reliability during normal, dry, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years by comparing the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over the next 20 years.
Water Supply Reliability Assessment
7.1.4 Water Service Reliability, Table 7-4, Table 7-5, Table 7-6 xx Section 7.3 10635(b) Provide a drought risk assessment as part of information considered in developing the demand management measures and water supply projects. Water Supply Reliability Assessment 7.2 Drought Risk Assessmentxx Section 7.3 10635(b)(1)
Include a description of the data, methodology, and basis for one or more supply shortage conditions that are necessary to conduct a drought risk assessment for a drought period that lasts 5 consecutive years.
Water Supply Reliability Assessment
7.2 Drought Risk Assessment, Table 7-7
xx
Section 7.3 10635(b)(2) Include a determination of the reliability of each source of supply under a variety of water shortage conditions. Water Supply Reliability Assessment 7.1.3 Year Type Characterization, Table 7-1, Table 7-2 xx Section 7.3 10635(b)(3) Include a comparison of the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the total projected water use for the drought period. Water Supply Reliability Assessment Table 7-5, Table 7-6 xx
Section 7.3 10635(b)(4)
Include considerations of the historical drought hydrology, plausible changes on projected supplies and demands under climate change conditions, anticipated regulatory changes, and other locally applicable criteria.
Water Supply Reliability Assessment
7.1.1 Constraints on Water Sources, 7.1.3 Year Type Characterization xx Chapter 8 10632(a) Provide a water shortage contingency plan (WSCP) with specified elements below. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I xx Chapter 8 10632(a)(1) Provide the analysis of water supply reliability (from Chapter 7 of Guidebook) in the WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.1 Water Supply Reliability Analysis xx
Section 8.10 10632(a)(10)
Describe reevaluation and improvement procedures for monitoring and evaluation the water shortage contingency plan to ensure risk tolerance is adequate and appropriate water shortage mitigation strategies are implemented.
Water Shortage Contingency Planning 1.10 WSCP Refinement Procedures xx
Section 8.2 10632(a)(2)(A) Provide the written decision-making process and other methods that the supplier will use each year to determine its water reliability. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.2 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment xx
Section 8.2 10632(a)(2)(B) Provide data and methodology to evaluate the supplier’s water reliability for the current year and one dry year pursuant to factors in the code. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.2 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment xx
Section 8.3 10632(a)(3)(A)
Define six standard water shortage levels of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 percent shortage and greater than 50 percent shortage. These levels shall be based on supply conditions, including percent reductions in supply, changes in groundwater levels, changes in surface elevation, or other conditions. The shortage levels shall also apply to a catastrophic interruption of supply.
Water Shortage Contingency Planning
Appendix I, 1.3 Six Standard Water Shortage Levels, Table 1, Figure 1 xx
Section 8.3 10632(a)(3)(B) Suppliers with an existing water shortage contingency plan that uses different water shortage levels must cross reference their categories with the six standard categories. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.3.5 Standard Water Shortage Level Crosswalk, Figure 1 xx Section 8.4 10632(a)(4)(A) Suppliers with water shortage contingency plans that align with the defined shortage levels must specify locally appropriate supply augmentation actions. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.4.2 Supply Augmentation, Table 3 xx Section 8.4 10632(a)(4)(B) Specify locally appropriate demand reduction actions to adequately respond to shortages. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.4.1 Demand Reduction, Table 2xx Section 8.4 10632(a)(4)(C) Specify locally appropriate operational changes. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.4.3 Operational Changes xx Section 8.4 10632(a)(4)(D) Specify additional mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions are appropriate to local conditions. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.1.1 Shortage Level 1, Attachment 2 xx Section 8.4 10632(a)(4)(E) Estimate the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, Table 2xx Section 8.4.6 10632.5 The plan shall include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Appendix I, 1.4.5 Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan xx Section 8.5 10632(a)(5)(A) Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any current or predicted water shortages. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.5 Communication Protocols, Figure 2xx Section 8.5 and 8.6 10632(a)(5)(B) 10632(a)(5)(C) Suppliers must describe that they will inform customers, the public and others regarding any shortage response actions triggered or anticipated to be triggered and other relevant communications. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.5 Communication Protocols, Figure 3 x
Section 8.6 10632(a)(6) Retail supplier must describe how it will ensure compliance with and enforce provisions of the WSCP. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.6 Compliance and Enforcement x Section 8.7 10632(a)(7)(A) Describe the legal authority that empowers the supplier to enforce shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.7 Legal Authorities
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District
Appendix A
2020 UWMP Checklist
Retail Wholesale
2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMP Subject 2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use) xx
Section 8.7 10632(a)(7)(B) Provide a statement that the supplier will declare a water shortage emergency Water Code Chapter 3. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Not Applicable- CAW as a public utlity does not have the authority to declare a water shortage emergency, but will advise the CPUC of a water shortage emergency and them the MPWMD will implement the appropriate stage and enforcement, as described in Appendix I, 1.3 Six Standard Water Shortage Levels xx Section 8.7 10632(a)(7)(C) Provide a statement that the supplier will coordinate with any city or county within which it provides water for the possible proclamation of a local emergency. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.7 Legal Authorities xx Section 8.8 10632(a)(8)(A) Describe the potential revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.8 Financial Consequences of WSCP xx Section 8.8 10632(a)(8)(B) Provide a description of mitigation actions needed to address revenue reductions and expense increases associated with activated shortage response actions. Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.8 Financial Consequences of WSCPx Section 8.8 10632(a)(8)(C) Retail suppliers must describe the cost of compliance with Water Code Chapter 3.3: Excessive Residential Water Use During Drought Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.8 Financial Consequences of WSCPx Section 8.9 10632(a)(9)
Retail suppliers must describe the monitoring and reporting requirements and procedures that ensure appropriate data is collected, tracked, and analyzed for purposes of monitoring customer compliance.
Water Shortage Contingency Planning
Appendix I, 1.9 Monitoring and Reporting
x Section 8.11 10632(b) Analyze and define water features that are artificially supplied with water, including ponds, lakes, waterfalls, and fountains, separately from swimming pools and spas Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.11 Special Water Feature Distinction xx
Sections 8.12 and 10.4 10635(c)
Provide supporting documentation that Water Shortage Contingency Plan has been, or will be, provided to any city or county within which it provides water, no later than 30 days after the submission of the plan to DWR.
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation
Appendix I, 1.12 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability, TBD xx Section 8.14 10632(c) Make available the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to customers and any city or county where it provides water within 30 after adopted the plan Water Shortage Contingency Planning Appendix I, 1.12 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability, TBD x
Sections 9.1 and 9.3 10631(e)(2) Wholesale suppliers shall describe specific demand management measures listed in code, their distribution system asset management program, and supplier assistance program. Demand Management Measures Not Applicable x
Sections 9.2 and 9.3 10631(e)(1)
Retail suppliers shall provide a description of the nature and extent of each demand management measure implemented over the past five years. The description will address specific measures listed in code.
Demand Management Measures
9.1 Existing Demand Management Measures for Retail, 9.2 Reporting Implementation x Chapter 10 10608.26(a) Retail suppliers shall conduct a public hearing to discuss adoption, implementation, and economic impact of water use targets (recommended to discuss compliance). Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation 10.3 Public Hearing and Adoption xx
Section 10.2.1 10621(b)
Notify, at least 60 days prior to the public hearing, any city or county within which the supplier provides water that the urban water supplier will be reviewing the plan and considering amendments or changes to the plan. Reported in Table 10-1 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation
10.2 Notice of Public Hearing, 2.3 Coordination and Outreach xx Section 10.4 10621(f) Each urban water supplier shall update and submit its 2020 plan to the department by July 1, 2021. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation TBD xx
Sections 10.2.2, 10.3, and 10.5 10642
Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier made the plan and contingency plan available for public inspection, published notice of the public hearing, and held a public hearing about the plan and contingency plan Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation TBD
xx
Section 10.2.2 10642 The water supplier is to provide the time and place of the hearing to any city or county within which the supplier provides water. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation TBD xx
Section 10.3.2 10642 Provide supporting documentation that the plan and contingency plan has been adopted as prepared or modified.
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation TBD
xx Section 10.4 10644(a) Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to the California State Library. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation TBDxx Section 10.4 10644(a)(1) Provide supporting documentation that the urban water supplier has submitted this UWMP to any city or county within which the supplier provides water no later than 30 days after adoption. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation TBD xx Sections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 10644(a)(2) The plan, or amendments to the plan, submitted to the department shall be submitted electronically. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation TBDxx Section 10.5 10645(a)
Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation TBD
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District
Appendix A
2020 UWMP Checklist
Retail Wholesale
2020 Guidebook Location Water Code Section Summary as Applies to UWMP Subject 2020 UWMP Location (Optional Column for Agency Review Use) xx
Section 10.5 10645(b)
Provide supporting documentation that, not later than 30 days after filing a copy of its water shortage contingency plan with the department, the supplier has or will make the plan available for public review during normal business hours.
Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation TBD
xx Section 10.6 10621(c) If supplier is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, include its plan and contingency plan as part of its general rate case filings. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation TBD xx Section 10.7.2 10644(b) If revised, submit a copy of the water shortage contingency plan to DWR within 30 days of adoption. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Implementation TBD
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District B 2020 Urban Water Management Plan B
Appendix B. DWR
Standardized Tables
Public Water
System Number Public Water System Name Number of Municipal Connections 2020
Volume of Water
Supplied 2020
CA2710004 Cal Am Water Company -
Monterey 38,644 8,808
CA2701882 Cal Am Water Company -
Bishop 418 147
CA2710022 Cal Am Water Company -
Hidden Hills 452 134
CA2701466 Ryan Ranch WS 214 49
- Total: 39,728 9,138
2-1R | Public Water Systems
Type of Plan Member of
RUWMP
Member of
Regional Alliance
Name of RUWMP or
Regional Alliance
Individual UWMP No No
2-2 | Public Water Systems
Type of Supplier Year Type Unit Type
DD MM
325851
892.7425
2-3 | Agency Identification
Conversion to Gallons:
Conversion to Gallons per Day:
First Day of Year
Retailer Calendar Years Acre Feet (AF)
-
-
2-4R | Water Supplier Information Exchange
Wholesale Water Supplier Name
Not Applicable
-
Population Served 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Monterey Main 91,717 93,577 95,437 97,297 99,157 101,017 Total 91,717 93,577 95,437 97,297 99,157 101,017
3-1R | Current & Projected Population
- -- -
Use Type Additional
Description
Level of Treatment
When Delivered
2020
Volume
Residential Single Family and
Multifamily Residential Drinking Water 5,133
Commercial Drinking Water 3,001
Industrial Drinking Water 13
Other Public Authority
Institutional/
Governmental.
Includes government
accounts and schools
Drinking Water 393
Company Accounts CAW Accounts Drinking Water 13
Sales for Resale Sales to other agencies Drinking Water 6 Fire Fire Service Drinking Water 443
Miscellaneous Sales Construction meter
usage Drinking Water 13
Losses Drinking Water 124
- Total: 9,138
4-1R | Actual Demands for Water
- - -----
-
Use Type
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Residential
Single Family
and Multifamily
Residential
5,031 6,009 6,404 6,800 7,195
Commercial 4,212 4,622 4,783 4,943 5,103
Industrial 27 28 29 30 31
Other Public Authority
Institutional/
Governmental.
Includes
government
accounts and
schools
533 555 577 598 620
Company Accounts CAW Accounts 23 24 25 26 27
Sales for Resale Sales to other
agencies - - - - -
Fire Fire Service 400 400 400 400 400
Miscellaneous Sales Construction
meter usage 11 11 12 12 13
Losses 205 233 245 256 268
- Total: 10,442 11,882 12,475 13,065 13,657
Projected Water Use
4-2R | Projected Demands for Water
Additional
Description
-
- 2020 2020 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable and Raw Water
From Table 4-1R and 4-2R 9,138 10,442 11,882 12,475 13,065 13,657 Recycled Water Demand*
Non-Potable Reuse from Table 6-
4R
1,155 1,178 1,202 1,223 1,243 1,264
Total Water Use: 10,293 11,620 13,084 13,698 14,308 14,921 -
4-3R | Total Gross Water Use
MM YYYY
1 2016 637
1 2017 332
1 2018 406
1 2019 509
1 2020 124
4-4R | 12 Month Water Loss Audit Reporting
Report Period Start Date Volume of Water Loss*
Yes
Section 4.2.4.1 on Page
4-5, references new
State Water Use
Are Lower Income Residential Demands Included in Projections? Yes Section or page number where the citations utilized in the demand projects can it be found:
4-5R | Inclusion in Water Use Projections
Are Future Water Savings Included in Projections?
Refer to Appendix K of UWMP Guidebook.
-
-
Baseline Period Start
Year
End
Year
Average Baseline
GPCD*
Confirmed 2020
Target *
10-15 Year 1996 2005 114
5 Year 2004 2008 143
-
*All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD)
5-1R | Baselines & Targets Summary
118
-
Actual 2020
GPCD* Extraordinary
Events*
Economic
Adjustment*
Weather
Normalization*
Total
Adjustments*
Adjusted
2020 GPCD*
89 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes
-
*All values are in Gallons per Capita per Day (GPCD)
Optional Adjustments to 2020 GPCD
5-2R | 2020 Compliance
2020 GPCD*
(Adjusted if
applicable)
Supplier
Achieved
Targeted
Reduction
in 2020
-
Groundwater Type Location or Basin Name 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Alluvial Basin Carmel Valley Aquifer 6,181 5,619 5,954 6,249 5,317 Alluvial Basin Seaside Groundwater Basin 2,471 3,532 2,296 2,378 2,802 - Total: 8,652 9,152 8,249 8,627 8,119
6-1R | Groundwater Volume Pumped
Note: The Carmel River Aquifer volume excludes water that was injected into the Seaside Basin for ASR. This volume is counted as ASR storage and supply.
Supplier will complete the table.
-
Name of WastewaterCollection Agency
Wastewater VolumeMetered or Estimated
Wastewater Volume Collected from UWMP Service Area in 2020 Name of Wastewater Agency Receiving Collected Wastewater Wastewater Treatment Plant Name
Wastewater Treatment Plant Located within UWMP Area
WWTP Operation Contracted to a Third Party
City of Pacific Grove Estimated 1,250 Montery One Water Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant No No City of Monterey Estimated 3,596 Montery One Water Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant No No City of Seaside, City of Sand City, City of Del Rey Oaks Estimated 2,825 Montery One Water Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant No No Pacific Beach Community Services District Metered 477 Carmel Area Wastewater District Carmel Area Wastewater District Wastewater Treatment Plant Yes No
Carmel Area Wastewater District Metered 919 Carmel Area Wastewater District Carmel Area Wastewater District Wastewater Treatment Plant Yes No
California American Water Estimated 69 California American Water Carmel Valley Ranch WWTP Yes No California American Water Estimated 61 California American Water Pasadera/ Laguna Seca Ranch Yes NoCalifornia American Water Estimated 6 California American Water White Oaks Septic System Yes No California American Water Estimated 4 California American Water Village Green Septic System Yes No City of Pacific Grove Estimated 85 Montery One Water
Pacific Grove Satellite Recycled Water Treatment Plant
Yes No
- Total: 9,293
6-2R | Wastewater Collected within Service Area in 2020 Wastewater Collection Recipient of Collected Wastewater Percentage of 2020 service area covered by wastewater collection system (optional):
The supplier will complete the table.
-
-
-Wastewater Treatment Plant Name
Discharge Location Name or Identifier
Discharge Location Description
Wastewater Discharge ID Number
Method ofDisposal
Plant Treats Wastewater Generated Outside the Service Area Treatment Level
Wastewater Treated
Discharged Treated Wastewater
Recycled Within Service Area
Recycled Outside of Service Area
Instream Flow Permit Requirement
Monterey One Water Regional Treatment Plant
Pacific Ocean Monterey Bay Ocean Outfall NPDES No. CA0048551 Ocean outfall Yes Advanced 7,672 405 1,728 3,766 - Carmel Area Wastewater District Wastewater Treatment Plant Pacific Ocean Carmel Bay Ocean Outfall NPDES No. CA0047996 Ocean outfall No Tertiary 1,396 457 939 - - Carmel Valley Ranch Wastewater Treatment Plant
Carmel Valley Golf Course and Golf Course Lakes
Storage Pond for Recycled Water Use WRR No. 01-083 Other No Tertiary 69 - 69 - - Pasadera / Laguna Seca Ranch Wastewater Treatment Plant Laguna Seca Golf Course
Storage Pond for Recycled Water Use WDR No. 98-58 Other No Tertiary 61 - 61 - - Pacific Grove Satellite Recycled Water Treatment Plant
M1W Collection System
Collection System conveyed to the M1W Regional Treatment Plant WRR No. R3-2016-0044 Other No Tertiary 85 85
- Total: 9,283 862 2,883 3,766 -
2020 Volumes
Volume of collected and treated wastewater and the volume of such that went to recycled water is estimated except for at the Carmel Wastewater District Plant, where flows are metered and 100% from the CAW service area. Total wastewater treated excludes approximately 10 AF collected at the White Oaks and Village Green Septic Systems. 6-3R | Wastewater Treatment & Discharge Within Service Area in 2020 The supplier will complete the table.
- -
--
Beneficial Use Type Potential Beneficial Uses of Recycled Water Amount of Potential Uses of Recycled Water General Description of 2020 Uses Level of Treatment 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Landscape Irrigation (excludes golf courses)Golf Course Irrigation Unrestricted outdoor use 1,300 Pebble Beach, Carmel Valley, Laguna Seca, and Pacific Grove Links Golf Course Irrigation Tertiary 1,155 1,178 1,202 1,223 1,243 1,264
Commercial Use
Industrial UseGeothermal and Other Energy Production Seawater Intrusion BarrierRecreational ImpoundmentWetlands or Wildlife HabitatGroundwater Recharge (IPR)* Unrestricted use 5,750 Pure Water Monterey and Expansion Seaside Basin Injection Advanced 788 4,028 5,750 5,750 5,750 5,750
Surface Water Augmentation (IPR)*
Direct Potable Reuse- Total: 1,943 5,206 6,952 6,973 6,993 7,014 0%
N/A
*IPR - Indirect Potable Reuse
6-4R | Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area Name of Supplier Producing (Treating) the Recycled Water:
Name of Supplier Operating the Recycled Water Distribution System:
Supplemental Volume of Water Added in 2020:
Source of 2020 Supplemental Water:
Carmel Area Wastewater District, Monterey One Water, California American Water, City of Pacific GroveCarmel Area Wastewater District, Monterey One Water, California American Water, City of Pacific Grove The supplier will complete the table.
--
Use Type 2015 Projection for 2020 2020 Actual Use
Agricultural Irrigation
Landscape Irrigation (excludes golf courses)
Golf Course Irrigation 1,414 1,155
Commercial Use
Industrial Use
Geothermal and Other Energy Production
Seawater Intrusion Barrier
Recreational Impoundment
Wetlands or Wildlife Habitat
Groundwater Recharge (IPR)* 788
Surface Water Augmentation (IPR)*
Direct Potable Reuse
Total: 1,414 1,943
--
6-5R | 2015 Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2020 Actual Note: Estimated recycled water use from CAWD and California American Water used within service area.
The supplier will complete the table.
-
NOTES:
--
--
6-6R | Methods to Expand Future Recycled Water Use
California American Water is an investor owned utility and therefore does not have the authority to issue a mandatory recycled water use ordinance.
The supplier does not plan to expand recycled water use in the future.
The supplier will not complete the table below but will provide narrative explanation.
-
Name of Future Projects or Programs
Joint Project with Other Suppliers
Agency Name Description
Planned Implementation Year
Planned for Use in Year Type
Expected Increase in Water Supply to Supplier
Pure Water Monterey Expansion Yes
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and Monterey One Water Expansion of the Pure Water Monterey Project to provide an additional 2,250 AFY to the Seaside Basin for CAW's use. 2025 All Year Types
Up to 2,250 AFY when avaliable. Only 528 AFY projected in 2025 normal year, less in dry years Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Ocean Desalination No Ocean Desalination Plant 2030 All Year Types 6,252 AFY 6-7R | Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs The supplier will complete the table.
-
-Water Supply Additional Detail on Water Supply Actual Volume Water Quality Total Right or Safe Yield Groundwater (not desalinated) Carmel River Aquifer (Note 1 & 2) 5,317 Drinking Water 6,060 Groundwater (not desalinated) Seaside Groundwater Basin (Note 3) 2,802 Drinking Water 2,183 Desalinated Water - Groundwater Sand City Desalination (Note 4) 213 Drinking Water 300 Other Aquifer Storage and Recovery (Note 5) 806 Drinking Water 1,300 - Total: 9,138 9,843 2020
Notes:1.CAW’s total volume extracted from the Carmel River in 2020 was 5,977 AF, however, 660 AF was injected into the Seaside Basin for ASR. This volume is accounted for in the total ASR supply. 2.CAW’s allowable diversion from the Carmel River Aquifer was 6,310 AFY in WY 2019-2020 and 5,310 AFY in WY 2020-2021, which equates to 6,060 AFY in calendar year 2020 based on equal diversion each month. 3.CAW’s Seaside Groundwater Basin allocation was 1,820 AFY in WY 2019-2020 and 1,474 AFY in WY 2020-2021, which equates to 1,734 AFY in calendar year 2020. The total right is 1,734 AFY plus 136.23 AF carryover storage credits from WY 2019 and 845.93 AF storage credits for WY 2020 (calculated as 449 AF combined storage carryover credits for calendar year 2020). Note CAW did overproduce 334.21 AF beyond the Natural Safe Yield and 229.63 AF beyond the Operating Safe Yield in WY 2020 and paid an overproduction assessment (Source: Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster Annual Report WY 2020)4.CAW’s total rights from the Sand City Desalination Plant is 94 AFY, however the plant’s capacity is 300 AFY and CAW may utilize the unused rights until development occurs and acquires the rights to the remaining capacity. 5.In 2020 the ASR extraction volume was 806 AF, which includes 660 AF of injection volume from Carmel River seasonal flows plus 146 AF of ASR storage water. 6-8R | Actual Water Supplies
--
-Plant Name or Well ID Plant
Capacity
Intake Type Source Water
Type
Influent TDS Brine Discharge
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Sand City Desalination Plant 300 Vertical Well Groundwater 35,000 ppm Other (describe in notes) 185 256 194 106 213 - Total: 185 256 194 106 213
--
6-8DS | Source Water Desalination
Brine is disposed via injection to a a below sea-level horizontal concentrate well beneath the coastal bluff. The brine salinity does not exceed the seawater salinity. Source: https://www.mpwmd.net/watersupply/desalination/in-operation/.
Volume of Water Desalinated in AFY
The supplier will complete the table below.
--
-
-Water Supply Additional Detail on Water Supply Reasonably Available Volume Total Right or Safe Yield Reasonably Available Volume Total Right or Safe Yield Reasonably Available Volume Total Right or Safe Yield Reasonably Available Volume Total Right or Safe Yield Reasonably Available Volume Total Right or Safe Yield Groundwater (not desalinated) Carmel River Aquifer 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 3,376 Groundwater (not desalinated) Seaside Basin 1,474 1,474 774 774 774 774 774 774 774 774 Desalinated Water - Groundwater Sand City Desalination 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Other Aquifer Storage and Recovery 920 920 920 920 920 920 920 920 920 920 Recycled Water Pure Water Monterey 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Recycled Water PWM Expansion 528 528 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 Desalinated Water - Surface Water MPWSP Ocean Desalination Project - - 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252 6,252 - Total: 9,892 9,892 17,166 17,166 17,166 17,166 17,166 17,166 17,166 17,166 6-9R | Projected Water Supplies
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Water Supply
--
7-1R | Basis of Water Year Data (Reliability Assessment) Page Location for Narrative in UWMP:
Quantification of available supplies is not compatible with this table and is provided elsewhere in the UWMP.
Section 7.1.3, pages 7-3 through 7-5
--
-
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Totals
(Note 1) 8,903 15,449 15,449 15,449 15,449
Demand Totals
(Note 2) 8,903 11,882 12,475 13,065 13,657
Difference: 0 3,567 2,974 2,384 1,792
--
7-2R | Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
Notes:
1. Supply totals from Table 6-9R minus 10 percent for a supply buffer.
2. Demand totals from Table 4-2R. In year 2025 demand is projected to exceed supply and the WSCP is needed to reduce demands by about 1,540 AFY, or 15%.
--
-
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Totals
(Note 1) 7,904 14,862 15,022 15,176 15,176
Demand Totals
(Note 2) 7,904 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
Difference: 0 2,979 2,548 2,111 1,520
--
Note:
1. Supply totals listed incorporate a 10 percent buffer subtracted from the supply total.
2. Demand is reduced by 2,539 AFY, or 24%, in 2025 through the WSCP. From 2030 to 2045 demand is unrestricted. 7-3R | Single Dry Year Supply & Demand Comparison
- - 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First
Supply Totals
(Note 1) 9,661 18,164 18,361 18,549 18,549
Year Demand Totals
(Note 2) 7,904 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
- Difference: 1,757 6,281 5,887 5,484 4,893
Second
Supply Totals
(Note 1) 8,436 17,441 17,833 18,210 18,210
Year Demand Totals
(Note 2) 6,902 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
- Difference: 1,534 5,558 5,359 5,145 4,554
Third
Supply Totals
(Note 1) 7,211 16,717 17,306 17,871 17,871
Year Demand Totals
(Note 2) 5,900 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
- Difference: 1,311 4,834 4,832 4,806 4,215
Fourth
Supply Totals
(Note 1) 6,325 16,333 17,118 17,871 17,871
Year Demand Totals
(Note 2) 5,175 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
- Difference: 1,150 4,450 4,644 4,806 4,215
Fifth
Supply Totals
(Note 1) 5,438 15,948 16,930 17,871 17,871
Year Demand Totals
(Note 2) 4,450 11,883 12,474 13,065 13,656
- Difference: 989 4,065 4,456 4,806 4,215
Supply Totals
-- -
-- -
Note:
1. Supply totals listed incorporate a 10 percent buffer subtracted from the supply total.
2. Demand is reduced through the WSCP in 2025 by 24% in the first year and increases each year to the maximum 57% in the fifth year. From 2030 to 2045 demand is unrestricted. 7-4R | Multiple Dry Years Supply & Demand Comparison
Gross Water Use 9,399
Total Supplies 9,187
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action -212
WSCP (Supply Augmentation Benefit) 0
WSCP (Use Reduction Savings Benefit) 212
Revised Surplus/Shortfall 0
Resulting Percent Use Reduction from WSCP Action 2%
Gross Water Use 9,660
Total Supplies 6,691
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action -2,969
WSCP (Supply Augmentation Benefit) 0
WSCP (Use Reduction Savings Benefit) 2,969
Revised Surplus/Shortfall 0
Resulting Percent Use Reduction from WSCP Action 31%
Gross Water Use 9,920
Total Supplies 5,710
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action -4,210
WSCP (Supply Augmentation Benefit) 0
WSCP (Use Reduction Savings Benefit) 4,210
Revised Surplus/Shortfall 0
Resulting Percent Use Reduction from WSCP Action 42%
Gross Water Use 10,181
Total Supplies 5,080
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action -5,101
WSCP (Supply Augmentation Benefit) 0
WSCP (Use Reduction Savings Benefit) 5,101
Revised Surplus/Shortfall 0
Resulting Percent Use Reduction from WSCP Action 50%
Gross Water Use 10,442
Total Supplies 4,450
Surplus/Shortfall without WSCP Action -5,992
WSCP (Supply Augmentation Benefit) 0
WSCP (Use Reduction Savings Benefit) 5,992
Revised Surplus/Shortfall 0
Resulting Percent Use Reduction from WSCP Action 57%
2021
7-5 | Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment Tables to Address Water Code Section 10635(b)
2022 Planned WSCP Actions (Use Reduction and Supply Augmentation) Planned WSCP Actions (Use Reduction and Supply Augmentation) 2023 Planned WSCP Actions (Use Reduction and Supply Augmentation) 2024 Planned WSCP Actions (Use Reduction and Supply Augmentation) 2025 Planned WSCP Actions (Use Reduction and Supply Augmentation) City 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing Other
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Yes Yes
City of Del Rey Oaks Yes Yes
City of Monterey Yes Yes
City of Pacific Grove Yes Yes
City of Sand City Yes Yes
City of Seaside Yes Yes
County 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing Other
County of Monterey Yes Yes
Presidio of Monterey Yes Yes
Other 60 Day Notice Notice of Public Hearing Other
Pebble Beach Community
Services District Yes Yes
Carmel Area Wastewater
District Yes Yes
Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency Yes Yes
Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District Yes Yes
Alisal Water Corporation Yes Yes
Monterey County CSA 75 Yes Yes
--
10-1R | Notification to Cities & Counties
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District C 2020 Urban Water Management Plan C
Appendix C. SBx7-7 Tables
and Verification Forms
SBx7-7 Verification Tables and Targets
Appendix A to
California American Water – Monterey County District
2015 Urban Water Management Plan
Technical
Memorandum
Monterey Per Capita Water Use Memo_Revised2015.docx Page 1 of 9 Date: 6/22/2016
To: Mark Reifer, P.E. Phone: (916) 568-4218
California American Water
8657 Grand Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770
Prepared by: Spencer Waterman
Project: 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division- Monterey County District SUBJECT: BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE AND TARGET WATER USE UPDATE This memorandum presents the procedure used by California American Water’s Central Division Monterey County District to meet the requirements of Senate Bill x 7-7 (SB7) as defined in the Water Conservation Act of 2009 as incorporated into Division 6 of the California Water Code, commencing with Section 10608 of Part 2.55.
Background
On November 10, 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill x 7-7 into law. The legislation requires all water suppliers to achieve a reduction in per capita water use of 20% by December 31, 2020, with an interim target of 10% reduction by December 31, 2015. The legislation requires each urban water supplier to develop, and include in its Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs), estimates of: 1) baseline daily per capita water use; 2) daily per capita water use target; 3) daily per capita water use interim target; and 4) compliance daily per capita water use. The UWMP must also include bases for determining the estimates, with references to supporting data. However, SB 7 did not include a detailed description of the allowable methodologies for determining the required values. Instead, it required California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to develop appropriate methodologies and criteria, and to make them available to water suppliers no later than October 1, 2010. In consideration of this delay, the bill extended the deadline for adoption of the 2010 UWMP to July 1, 2011.
In connection with preparation of California American Water’s Monterey County District 2010 UWMP update, California American Water hired Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) to develop the required estimates described by SB 7. The Monterey County District has multiple service areas. Consistent with the requirements outlined in DWR’s Guidebook to Assist Urban Water Suppliers to Prepare a 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, compliance is calculated for the District as a whole. California American Water directed WSC to apply methodologies consistent with those described in the Methodologies for Calculating Baseline and Compliance Urban Per Capita Water Use guidebook (Methodologies Guidebook). The selected procedure used to develop the required SB7 estimates includes the following basic steps:
2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division- Monterey County District
BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE AND TARGET WATER USE UPDATE 6/22/2016 Page 2 of 9
Monterey Per Capita Water Use Memo_Revised2015.docx
1. Calculate baseline water use, which is the average gross daily water use per capita, reported in gallons per capita per day, based on gross water use and service area population for a continuous 10-year period ending no earlier than December 31, 2004
2. Calculate urban water use target using one of the four methods described below
3. Check and confirm the urban water use target using the five-year running average
4. Calculate the interim urban water use target (equal to the average of the baseline and confirmed urban water use target)
5. Calculate the compliance daily per capita water use (equal to the gross daily water use per capita during the final year of the reporting period (i.e. 2010)
DWR allows the urban water supplier to choose one of four different methods to calculate the urban water use target in Step 2 above.
Method 1 involves calculating the target based on 80% of baseline daily per capita water use and the interim target based on 90% of the baseline daily per capita water use. Method 2 involves calculating the per capita daily water use by using the sum of performance standards applied to indoor residential use, landscaped area water use, and commercial, industrial, and institutional uses.
Method 3 calculates the water use target as 95% of the applicable state hydrologic region target as stated in the draft 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. California American Water’s service areas are located in the Monterey hydrologic region number 5 as defined in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.
Method 4 is an approach developed by DWR and it uses a spreadsheet to calculate estimated water savings factors to estimate targets.
Gross Water Use
SB 7 defines gross water use as:
“The total volume of water, whether treated or untreated, entering the distribution system of an urban retail water supplier, excluding all of the following: (1) Recycled water that is delivered within the service area of an urban retail water supplier or its urban wholesale water supplier; (2) The net volume of water that the urban retail water supplier places into long-term storage; (3) The volume of water the urban retail water supplier conveys for use by another urban water supplier.; (4) The volume of water delivered for agricultural use, except as otherwise provided in subdivision (f) of Section 10608.24.” 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division- Monterey County District
BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE AND TARGET WATER USE UPDATE 6/22/2016 Page 3 of 9
Monterey Per Capita Water Use Memo_Revised2015.docx
From 1987 to 2003, the Monterey County District utilized both surface diversions from the Carmel River and groundwater as the primary sources of supply. However, 2004 marked the first year that the Monterey County District ceased all surface diversions and supplied water solely from groundwater. Presently, groundwater represents 99% of the current supply with some quantities deriving from desalination. Therefore, gross water use is calculated as the sum of California American Water’s total groundwater and desalination production.
Population Estimates and Projections
The population estimates for California American Water’s service areas were calculated using DWR’s online Population Tool, which utilizes Geographical Information Systems (GIS) service area boundaries, service connection data and Census data. The DWR Population Tool overlaps GIS shapefiles with Census populations by Census block for 1990, 2000 and 2010. The calculated population of each block within California American Water’s service area is summed up to provide populations for 1990, 2000, and 2010. Populations are divided by the total service connections in each respective census year to come up with a persons per connection factor for the purposes of projecting populations from 2010-2015. Linear interpolation was used to determine the population for years in between the census years. In 2010, there were 10,600 census blocks within the Monterey County District. The Monterey District service area intersected with 2,776 of those census blocks Baseline Per Capita Water Use
WSC calculated per capita water use using gross water use values and the population estimates shown in Table
1. The annual per capita water use value was averaged across 10-year periods ranging from 1998-2007 through 2001-2010. Figure 1 shows the historical population, along with the annual per capita water use for the years 1998 through 2010.
2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division- Monterey County District
BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE AND TARGET WATER USE UPDATE 6/22/2016 Page 4 of 9
Monterey Per Capita Water Use Memo_Revised2015.docx
Table 1. Baseline Daily Per Capita Water Use
Calendar
Year
Distribution System
Population1
Daily System
Gross Water
Use (mgd)
Annual
Daily Per
Capita
Water
Use
(gpcd)
10 year
running
average
(gpcd)
1994 95,607 n/a n/a
1995 95,806 n/a n/a
1996 96,006 14 151
1997 96,205 15 158
1998 96,405 13 130
1999 96,604 14 141
2000 96,803 13 139
2001 96,464 14 145
2002 96,125 13 140
2003 95,787 14 141
2004 95,448 14 148
2005 95,109 14 144 144
2006 94,770 13 138 142
2007 94,431 13 142 141
2008 94,092 13 143 142
2009 93,753 12 131 141
2010 93,414 11 122 139
Base Daily Per Capita Water Use 144
2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division- Monterey County District
BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE AND TARGET WATER USE UPDATE 6/22/2016 Page 5 of 9
Monterey Per Capita Water Use Memo_Revised2015.docx
Figure 1. Historical Population and Per Capita Water Use for the Monterey County District Water Use Targets
The baseline daily per capita water use is used to calculate the urban water use target and the interim urban water use target. The per capita water use target and interim target estimates are calculated using Method 1, Method 3, and Method 4 from the Methodologies Report. Method 2 was not used due to a lack of available data. Table 2 shows the estimated daily per capita water use targets for each method analyzed.
Table 2. Daily Per Capita Water Use Targets
Calculation Method Water Use Target
(gpcd)
Method 1: 80% of Baseline Per Capita
Water Use
115
Method 2: Performance Standards Not calculated
Method 3: 95% of Regional Target 117
Method 4: DWR Approach 118
Selected Urban Water Use Target 118
151
158
130
141 139
145
140 141
148
144
138
142 143
131
122
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,000
95,000
100,000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average Per Capita Water Use (gpcd)
Population
District Population Average Per Capita Water Use (gpcd) 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division- Monterey County District
BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE AND TARGET WATER USE UPDATE 6/22/2016 Page 6 of 9
Monterey Per Capita Water Use Memo_Revised2015.docx
Minimum Water Use Reduction Requirements
The selected target must be less than 95% of a selected five-year running average ending no earlier than December 31, 2007 and ending no later than December 31, 2010 per the requirements of California Water Code Section 10608.22. Table 3 shows the five-year running averages, with the selected 5-year running average of 141 gpcd. Table 4 shows that the selected target from Table 2 meets the minimum water use reduction requirement; that is, the selected target of 118 gpcd is less than 95% of 134 gpcd. Thus, the confirmed water use target is set to 118 gpcd. Table 5 shows the final baseline, compliance, interim target, and target per capita water use. Table 6 shows the status of meeting the interim target and target based on current compliance per capita water use. The values shown will be reported in California American Water’s 2010 Monterey County District UWMP.
Table 3. Minimum Water Use Reduction
Calendar
Year
Distribution System
Population
Daily System
Gross Water
Use (mgd)
Annual
Daily Per
Capita
Water
Use
(gpcd)
5 year
running
average
2003 95,787 14 141
2004 95,448 14 148
2005 95,109 14 144
2006 94,770 13 138
2007 94,431 13 142 142.58
2008 94,092 13 143 142.96
2009 93,753 12 131 139.53
2010 93,414 11 122 135.20
Base Daily Per Capita Water Use 142.96
Table 4. Target Confirmation
Parameter Value
Selected Urban Water Use Target (gpcd) 118
95% of 5-year Base Daily Per Capita Water Use (gpcd) 136 Selected Urban Water Use Target < 95% of 5-year Base GPCD Yes Confirmed Urban Water Use Target (gpcd) 118
2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division- Monterey County District
BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE AND TARGET WATER USE UPDATE 6/22/2016 Page 7 of 9
Monterey Per Capita Water Use Memo_Revised2015.docx
Table 5. Baseline, Compliance, Interim Target, and Target Water Use Parameter Water Use
(gpcd)
Base Daily Per Capita Water Use 144
2015 Actual Daily Per Capita Water
Use
94 2015 Interim Urban Water Use Target 131
2020 Urban Water Use Target 118
Table 6. Water Use Reduction Status
Water Use Reduction (on gpcd basis) % Reduction1
Achieved by 2015 34.6%
Needed to meet 2015 target -39.1%
Needed to meet 2020 target -25.2%
1 A negative % means the compliance is currently lower than the target.
Figure 2 shows the historical, baseline, targets, compliance, and projected per capita water use for the Monterey County District.
Figure 2. Historical Per Capita Water Use, Baseline, and Targets 131
144
118
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
19961998200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034 Water Use (Gallons/Capita/Day)
Interim Target (2015) Target (2020) Baseline
Projected Use (gpcd) Historical Use (gpcd)
2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division- Monterey County District
BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE AND TARGET WATER USE UPDATE 6/22/2016 Page 8 of 9
Monterey Per Capita Water Use Memo_Revised2015.docx
Appendix A. User Input- Method 4
2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Central Division- Monterey County District
BASELINE DAILY PER CAPITA WATER USE AND TARGET WATER USE UPDATE 6/22/2016 Page 9 of 9
Monterey Per Capita Water Use Memo_Revised2015.docx
Appendix B. Calculator-Method 4
SBx7-7 Compliance Forms
SB X7‐7 Table 0: Units of Measure Used in 2020 UWMP*
(select one from the drop down list)
Acre Feet
*The unit of measure must be consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in Submittal Table 2‐3.
NOTES:
NOTES:
SB X7‐7 Table 2: Method for 2020 Population Estimate
Method Used to Determine 2020 Population
(may check more than one)
1. Department of Finance (DOF) or
American Community Survey (ACS)
3. DWR Population Tool
4. Other
DWR recommends pre‐review
2. Persons‐per‐Connection Method
2020 91,717
SB X7‐7 Table 3: 2020 Service Area Population
2020 Compliance Year Population
NOTES:
Exported
Water *
Change in
Dist. System
Storage*
(+/‐)
Indirect
Recycled
Water
This column will
remain blank
until SB X7‐7
Table 4‐B is
completed.
Water
Delivered for
Agricultural
Use*
Process Water
This column will
remain blank
until SB X7‐7
Table 4‐D is
completed.
9,138 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,138 NOTES:
SB X7‐7 Table 4: 2020 Gross Water Use
2020 Volume
Into
Distribution
System
This column will
remain blank until
SB X7‐7 Table 4‐A
is completed.
2020 Gross Water
Use
2020 Deductions
* Units of measure (AF, MG , or CCF) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in SB X7‐7 Table 0 and Submittal Table 2‐3.
Compliance
Year 2020
Volume Entering
Distribution System 1
Meter Error
Adjustment 2
Optional
(+/‐)
Corrected Volume
Entering
Distribution System
5,317 ‐ 5,317 Volume Entering
Distribution System 1
Meter Error
Adjustment 2
Optional
(+/‐)
Corrected Volume
Entering
Distribution System
2,802 2,802
A purchased or imported source
1 Units of measure (AF, MG , or CCF) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in SB X7‐7 Table 0 and Submittal Table 2‐3. 2 Meter Error Adjustment ‐ See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document Compliance Year
2020
SB X7‐7 Table 4‐A: 2020 Volume Entering the Distribution System(s), Meter Error Adjustment
Complete one table for each source.
Name of Source Seaside Groundwater Basin
Name of Source
SB X7‐7 Table 4‐A: 2020 Volume Entering the Distribution System(s) Meter Error Adjustment
Complete one table for each source.
1 Units of measure (AF, MG , or CCF) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in SB X7‐7 Table 0 and Submittal Table 2‐3. 2 Meter Error Adjustment ‐ See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document NOTES: Volume does not include Carmel River Water that was injected for Aquifer Storage and Recovery. This volume is counted in the Aquifer Storage and Recovery volume to not double count supplies.
This water source is (check one) :
The supplier's own water source
A purchased or imported source
Carmel River Aquifer Groundwater
Compliance Year
2020
This water source is (check one) :
The supplier's own water source
NOTES:
Volume Entering
Distribution System 1
Meter Error
Adjustment 2
Optional
(+/‐)
Corrected Volume
Entering
Distribution System
213 213
Volume Entering
Distribution System 1
Meter Error
Adjustment 2
Optional
(+/‐)
Corrected Volume
Entering
Distribution System
806 806
Sand City Desalination Plan
This water source is (check one) :
SB X7‐7 Table 4‐A: 2020 Volume Entering the Distribution System(s), Meter Error Adjustment
Complete one table for each source.
1 Units of measure (AF, MG , or CCF) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in SB X7‐7 Table 0 and Submittal Table 2‐3. 2 Meter Error Adjustment ‐ See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document NOTES:
1 Units of measure (AF, MG , or CCF) must remain consistent throughout the UWMP, as reported in SB X7‐7 Table 0 and Submittal Table 2‐3. 2 Meter Error Adjustment ‐ See guidance in Methodology 1, Step 3 of Methodologies Document Compliance Year
2020
Compliance Year
2020
Aquifer Storage and Recovery
This water source is (check one) :
The supplier's own water source
A purchased or imported source
SB X7‐7 Table 4‐A: 2020 Volume Entering the Distribution System(s), Meter Error Adjustment
Complete one table for each source.
NOTES:
Name of Source
The supplier's own water source
A purchased or imported source
Name of Source
2020 Gross Water
Fm SB X7‐7 Table 4
2020 Population Fm
SB X7‐7 Table 3
2020 GPCD
9,138 91,717 89 SB X7‐7 Table 5: 2020 Gallons Per Capita Per Day
(GPCD)
NOTES:
Extraordinary
Events1
Weather
Normalization1
Economic
Adjustment1
89 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 89 118 YES NOTES:
1 All values are reported in GPCD2 2020 Confirmed Target GPCD is taken from the Supplier's SB X7‐7 Verification Form Table SB X7‐7, 7‐F.
SB X7‐7 Table 9: 2020 Compliance
Optional Adjustments to 2020 GPCD Did Supplier
Achieve
Targeted
Reduction for
2020?
Actual 2020
GPCD1
2020 Confirmed
Target GPCD 1, 2 TOTAL Adjustments1
Adjusted 2020
GPCD 1
(Adjusted if
applicable)
Enter "0" if Adjustment Not Used
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District D 2020 Urban Water Management Plan D
Appendix D. AWWA
Water Audits
Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 8 2,935.780 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water imported: 8 68.590 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 3,004.370 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 2,923.790 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 12.270 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 7 37.555 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 2,973.615 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 30.755 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 7.511 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 5 29.657 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 7.309 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 44.478 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: -13.722 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 30.755 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 80.580 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 516.6 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 37,502 Service connection density: 73 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 8 93.0 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 7 $36,756,178 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $18.08 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $930.90 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Customer metering inaccuracies
3: Billed metered
Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
Default option selected for Unbilled unmetered - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed
12.330
2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
California American Water - Monterey District Main System (2710004) *** YOUR SCORE IS: 73 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score
1.000
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Check input values; APPARENT LOSSES should be less than WATER LOSSES ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 5 2,923.490 MG/Yr 3 -5.00% MG/Yr Water imported: n/a MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 3,077.358 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 6 2,872.510 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 4 1.360 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 7 5.840 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 2,879.710 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 197.648 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 3 1.000 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 3 29.029 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 2 7.181 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 37.210 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 160.438 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 197.648 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 204.848 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 555.5 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 39,256 Service connection density: 71 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 4 87.7 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $27,584,871 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $12.48 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 6 $1,281.56 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Customer metering inaccuracies
3: Unbilled metered
0.500
*** YOUR SCORE IS: 57 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score
13.000
1.000
California American Water - Monterey Main System (2710004) <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> -1.000
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
5.840
2016 1/2016 - 12/2016
?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 5 2,966.220 MG/Yr 3 -5.00% MG/Yr Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 2,974.440 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 2,876.690 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 1.800 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 8 1.570 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 2,880.060 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 94.380 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 3 7.436 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 36.257 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 2 7.192 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 50.885 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 43.495 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 94.380 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 97.750 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 564.0 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 39,183 Service connection density: 69 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 90.1 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $27,043,530 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $14.93 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $1,410.45 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Billed metered
3: Customer metering inaccuracies
-8.220
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
1.570
2017 1/2017 - 12/2017
California American Water - Monterey Main System (2710004) <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score
36.257
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed
0.500
*** YOUR SCORE IS: 66 out of 100 ***
?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 5 2,961.640 MG/Yr 3 -5.00% MG/Yr Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 2,991.800 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 2,845.670 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 2.160 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 8 24.620 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 2,872.450 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 119.350 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 3 7.480 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 35.176 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 2 7.114 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 49.770 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 69.580 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 119.350 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 146.130 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 564.7 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 38,854 Service connection density: 69 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 90.1 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $29,450,922 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $15.78 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $1,313.43 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Billed metered
3: Customer metering inaccuracies
-30.160
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
24.620
2018 1/2018 - 12/2018
California American Water - Monterey Main System (2710004) <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score
35.176
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed
0.500
*** YOUR SCORE IS: 66 out of 100 ***
?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 7 2,907.350 MG/Yr 6 -5.00% MG/Yr Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: 6 0.760 MG/Yr 3 MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 2,925.100 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 2,769.280 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 2.570 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 8 4.080 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 2,775.930 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 149.170 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 3 7.313 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 7 41.879 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 2 6.923 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 56.115 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 93.055 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 149.170 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 155.820 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 570.9 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 37,934 Service connection density: 66 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 90.1 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $32,058,913 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $16.06 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $1,465.75 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Billed metered
3: Unauthorized consumption
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
4.080
2019 1/2019 - 12/2019
California American Water - Monterey Main System (2710004) <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> -18.510
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed
0.500
*** YOUR SCORE IS: 74 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score
41.879
0.000
?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 8 45.040 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 45.040 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 42.410 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 0.310 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 7 0.563 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 43.283 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 1.757 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.113 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 0.432 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.106 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.650 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 1.107 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 1.757 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 2.630 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 15.1 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 394 Service connection density: 26 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 8 81.0 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 7 $36,756,178 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $18.08 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $930.90 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Billed metered
3: Customer metering inaccuracies
Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
Default option selected for Unbilled unmetered - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed
0.650
2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
California American Water - Monterey District Bishop System (2701882) *** YOUR SCORE IS: 73 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score
1.000
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 7 42.670 MG/Yr 3 -1.00% MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 43.101 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 38.450 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 4.670 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.120 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 43.240 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) -0.139 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.108 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 0.430 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.096 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.634 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: -0.773 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: -0.139 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 4.651 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 16.5 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 413 Service connection density: 25 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 81.0 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 7 $301,052 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $16.42 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 5 $1,152.52 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
3: Billed metered
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Check input values; APPARENT LOSSES should be less than WATER LOSSES Check input values; WATER SUPPLIED should be greater than AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION *** YOUR SCORE IS: 68 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score
0.430
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
0.120
2016 1/2016 - 12/2016
California American Water - Monterey District - Bishop System (2701882) ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 7 41.620 MG/Yr 3 MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 41.980 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 36.440 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 3.470 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.010 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 39.920 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 2.060 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.105 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 0.400 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.091 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.596 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 1.464 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 2.060 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 5.540 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 16.7 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 412 Service connection density: 25 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 77.6 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 7 $298,028 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $19.18 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 5 $1,305.93 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
3: Billed metered
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 68 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score -0.360
0.400
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
0.010
2017 1/2017 - 12/2017
California American Water - Monterey District - Bishop System (2701882) ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 5 41.130 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 41.130 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 35.090 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 3.790 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.010 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 38.890 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 2.240 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.103 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 5 0.390 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.088 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.581 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 1.659 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 2.240 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 6.040 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 16.2 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 422 Service connection density: 26 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 77.6 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $318,635 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $20.22 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $990.36 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Customer metering inaccuracies
3: Billed metered
Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
0.010
2018 1/2018 - 12/2018
California American Water - Monterey District - Bishop System (2701882) *** YOUR SCORE IS: 65 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score -0.360
0.390
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 5 49.530 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: 5 5.610 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 43.920 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 35.750 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 2.740 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.110 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 38.600 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 5.320 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.110 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 5 0.380 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.089 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.579 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 4.741 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 5.320 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 8.170 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 16.7 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 410 Service connection density: 25 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 77.6 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $347,006 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $19.14 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $1,334.90 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Customer metering inaccuracies
3: Billed metered
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 65 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score -0.360
0.380
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
0.110
2019 1/2019 - 12/2019
California American Water - Monterey District - Bishop System (2701882) ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 8 43.600 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 43.600 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 36.980 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 0.010 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 7 0.545 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 37.535 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 6.065 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.109 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 0.374 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.092 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.575 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 5.490 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 6.065 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 6.620 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 20.8 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 439 Service connection density: 21 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 8 121.0 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 7 $36,756,178 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $18.08 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $930.90 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Billed metered
3: Customer metering inaccuracies
Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
Default option selected for Unbilled unmetered - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed 2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
California American Water - Monterey District Hidden Hills System (2710022) *** YOUR SCORE IS: 73 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score
1.000
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 7 40.560 MG/Yr 3 -1.00% MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 40.970 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 31.990 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 0.070 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.050 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 32.110 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 8.860 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.102 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 0.320 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.080 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.502 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 8.357 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 8.860 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 8.980 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 22.1 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 453 Service connection density: 20 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 121.0 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 7 $330,780 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $16.41 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 5 $1,213.05 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
3: Billed metered
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 68 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ---------->
0.320
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
0.050
2016 1/2016 - 12/2016
California American Water - Monterey District - Hidden Hills System (2710022) ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 7 43.280 MG/Yr 3 MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 43.450 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 32.300 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 0.070 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.160 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 32.530 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 10.920 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.109 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 0.320 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.081 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.509 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 10.411 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 10.920 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 11.150 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 22.5 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 454 Service connection density: 20 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 95.5 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 7 $330,769 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $15.80 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 5 $1,331.30 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
3: Billed metered
0.320
*** YOUR SCORE IS: 68 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> -0.170
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
0.160
2017 1/2017 - 12/2017
California American Water - Monterey District - Hidden Hills System (2710022) ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 5 40.580 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 40.580 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 32.170 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 0.070 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.250 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 32.490 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 8.090 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.101 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 5 0.320 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.080 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.502 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 7.588 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 8.090 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 8.410 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 21.1 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 458 Service connection density: 22 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 95.5 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $344,453 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $17.38 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $1,250.95 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Customer metering inaccuracies
3: Billed metered
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line?
0.320
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 65 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
0.250
2018 1/2018 - 12/2018
California American Water - Monterey District - Hidden Hills System (2710022) ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 5 39.840 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 39.840 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 30.030 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: 8 0.070 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.050 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 30.150 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 9.690 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.100 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 5 0.300 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.075 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.475 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 9.215 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 9.690 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 9.810 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 22.5 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 449 Service connection density: 20 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 95.5 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $372,550 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $22.22 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $1,419.38 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Customer metering inaccuracies
3: Billed metered
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 65 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line?
0.300
AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
0.050
2019 1/2019 - 12/2019
California American Water - Monterey District - Hidden Hills System (2710022) <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ---------->
0.000
?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 8 17.260 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 17.260 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 15.450 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 7 0.216 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 15.666 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 1.594 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.043 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 0.156 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.039 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.238 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 1.356 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 1.594 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 1.810 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 4.7 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 199 Service connection density: 42 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 8 82.0 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 7 $36,756,178 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $18.08 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $930.90 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Billed metered
3: Customer metering inaccuracies
Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
Default option selected for Unbilled unmetered - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed 2015 1/2015 - 12/2015
California American Water - Monterey District Ryan Ranch System (2701466) *** YOUR SCORE IS: 72 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score
1.000
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 7 19.070 MG/Yr 3 -1.00% MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 19.263 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 17.530 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.482 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 18.012 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 1.251 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.048 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 0.180 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.044 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.272 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 0.979 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 1.251 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 1.733 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 4.9 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 210 Service connection density: 43 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 82.0 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 7 $150,938 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $14.32 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 5 $1,200.54 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
3: Billed metered
0.180
*** YOUR SCORE IS: 67 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
Unbilled Unmetered volume entered is greater than the recommended default value
0.482
2016 1/2016 - 12/2016
California American Water - Monterey District - Ryan Ranch System (2701466) ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 7 18.690 MG/Yr 3 -1.00% MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 18.879 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 17.590 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.472 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 18.062 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 0.817 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.047 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 6 0.180 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.044 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.271 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 0.546 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 0.817 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 1.289 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 5.0 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 211 Service connection density: 42 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 82.0 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 7 $149,794 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 9 $15.21 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 5 $1,350.75 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses)
3: Billed metered
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line?
0.180
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 67 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score <----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
Unbilled Unmetered volume entered is greater than the recommended default value
0.472
2017 1/2017 - 12/2017
California American Water - Monterey District - Ryan Ranch System (2701466) ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property boundary,
that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 5 18.920 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water imported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 18.920 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 16.320 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.250 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 16.570 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 2.350 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.047 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 5 0.160 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.041 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.248 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 2.102 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 2.350 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 2.600 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 4.6 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 211 Service connection density: 46 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 82.0 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $158,168 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $16.28 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $1,259.40 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Customer metering inaccuracies
3: Billed metered
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 64 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score
0.160
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
Unbilled Unmetered volume entered is greater than the recommended default value
0.250
2018 1/2018 - 12/2018
California American Water - Monterey District Ryan Ranch System (2701466) ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property
boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water
supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 Water Audit Report for:
Reporting Year:
All volumes to be entered as: MILLION GALLONS (US) PER YEAR Master Meter and Supply Error Adjustments
WATER SUPPLIED Pcnt: Value:
Volume from own sources: 5 11.440 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water imported: 5 6.380 MG/Yr n/a MG/Yr
Water exported: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr MG/Yr
Enter negative % or value for under-registration
WATER SUPPLIED: 17.820 MG/Yr Enter positive % or value for over-registration .
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION
Billed metered: 7 16.200 MG/Yr
Billed unmetered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr
Unbilled metered: n/a 0.000 MG/Yr Pcnt: Value:
Unbilled unmetered: 5 0.045 MG/Yr 1.25% MG/Yr
AUTHORIZED CONSUMPTION: 16.245 MG/Yr
WATER LOSSES (Water Supplied - Authorized Consumption) 1.575 MG/Yr Apparent Losses Pcnt: Value:
Unauthorized consumption: 0.045 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr
Customer metering inaccuracies: 5 0.160 MG/Yr 1.00% MG/Yr Systematic data handling errors: 0.041 MG/Yr 0.25% MG/Yr Apparent Losses: 0.245 MG/Yr
Real Losses (Current Annual Real Losses or CARL)
Real Losses = Water Losses - Apparent Losses: 1.330 MG/Yr WATER LOSSES: 1.575 MG/Yr
NON-REVENUE WATER
NON-REVENUE WATER: 1.620 MG/Yr
= Water Losses + Unbilled Metered + Unbilled Unmetered
SYSTEM DATA
Length of mains: 8 5.0 miles
Number of active AND inactive service connections: 7 203 Service connection density: 40 conn./mile main
Yes
Average length of customer service line: ft
Average operating pressure: 5 82.0 psi
COST DATA
Total annual cost of operating water system: 10 $168,508 $/Year Customer retail unit cost (applied to Apparent Losses): 10 $17.59 Variable production cost (applied to Real Losses): 7 $1,406.34 $/Million gallons WATER AUDIT DATA VALIDITY SCORE:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR ATTENTION:
1: Volume from own sources
2: Water imported
3: Customer metering inaccuracies
Based on the information provided, audit accuracy can be improved by addressing the following components:
$/1000 gallons (US)
<----------- Enter grading in column 'E' and 'J' ----------> Default option selected for unauthorized consumption - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed *** YOUR SCORE IS: 64 out of 100 ***
A weighted scale for the components of consumption and water loss is included in the calculation of the Water Audit Data Validity Score
0.160
Default option selected for Systematic data handling errors - a grading of 5 is applied but not displayed Average length of customer service line has been set to zero and a data grading score of 10 has been applied Are customer meters typically located at the curbstop or property line? AWWA Free Water Audit Software:
Reporting Worksheet
0.045
2019 1/2019 - 12/2019
California American Water - Monterey District Ryan Ranch System (2701466) ?
?
?
?
?
? Click to access definition
?
?
?
?
?
?
Please enter data in the white cells below. Where available, metered values should be used; if metered values are unavailable please estimate a value. Indicate your confidence in the accuracy of the input data by grading each component (n/a or 1-10) using the drop-down list to the left of the input cell. Hover the mouse over the cell to obtain a description of the grades ?
?
?
?
?
?
(length of service line, beyond the property
boundary, that is the responsibility of the utility)
Use buttons to select
percentage of water
supplied
OR
value
Click here: ?
for help using option
buttons below
?
?
?
?
+
+ Click to add a comment
WAS v5.0
+
+
+
+
+
+
American Water Works Association.
Copyright © 2014, All Rights Reserved.
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Use Customer Retail Unit Cost to value real losses
?
To select the correct data grading for each input, determine the highest grade where the utility meets or exceeds all criteria for that grade and all grades below it.
AWWA Free Water Audit Software v5.0 Reporting Worksheet 1 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District E 2020 Urban Water Management Plan E
Appendix E. State Water
Resources Control Board
Order No. WR-95-10
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District F 2020 Urban Water Management Plan F
Appendix F. State Water
Resources Control Board
Order No. WR 2016-0016
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WR 2016-0016
In the Matter Of Application of
California American Water Company
To Amend State Water Board Order 2009-0060
SOURCE: Carmel River
COUNTY: Monterey County
ORDER AMENDING IN PART REQUIREMENTS OF
STATE WATER BOARD ORDER WR 2009-0060
BY THE BOARD:
1.0 OVERVIEW
For decades, California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) has been unlawfully diverting water from the Carmel River to provide municipal water to a large area of the Monterey Peninsula.
State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Order WR 2009-0060 (hereafter, WR 2009-0060) is a cease and desist order that, among other requirements, established a compliance timeline for cessation of Cal-Am’s unlawful diversions from the Carmel River by December 31, 2016. This timeline was based on evidence gathered at hearing that indicated that a regional desalination plant would be built, enabling the area’s municipal water needs to be met by new water supplies. It is now clear that no desalination plant will be in operation by the end of this year. In light of this recognition, Cal-Am has proposed modifying the compliance schedule to accommodate the anticipated pace for approval and implementation of several proposed projects (1) a different desalination plant, the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project; (2) a water recycling project, entitled Pure Water Monterey; and (3) the expansion of the facilities for an existing groundwater storage project entitled Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). These projects are undergoing review by permitting agencies.
Since the adoption of WR 2009-0060 in 2009, Cal-Am’s diversions from the Carmel River have consistently been well below the annual diversion levels set by WR 2009-0060, but still remain thousands of acre-feet per annum above the amount available under Cal-Am’s lawful water rights.(See Table 1, p. 2.) The reductions in Carmel River diversions have resulted from a number of factors, including conservation and efficiency measures and implementation of local supply projects, combined with a moratorium on increased water use within Cal-Am’s service area. To address the impacts of its diversions, Cal-Am has also applied significant resources to fishery conservation and habitat improvement programs.
2 Seven years after adoption of WR 2009-0060, the State Water Board is again placed in a position of deciding whether to adopt a compliance schedule that may allow for obtaining lawful supplies with less disruption to existing communities than meeting the required legal pumping limit by December 31, 2016. For the reasons described herein, this order adopts a new compliance schedule that essentially maintains an ongoing diversion level as long as specified progress towards alternative supplies is met, but sharply drops allowable diversions should the progress towards these supplies slip. In taking this action, the State Water Board is facilitating local cooperation in development of alternate water supplies and at the same time requiring that unauthorized diversions end by December 31, 2021, regardless of whether the envisioned projects are timely built.
2.0 BACKGROUND
WR 2009-0060 and State Water Board Order WR 95-10 (hereinafter WR 95-10) detail specific information regarding Cal-Am’s lawful and unlawful diversions from the Carmel River, which does not require repetition here.
Since the adoption of WR 2009-0060, Cal-Am has lowered its diversions from the Carmel River more rapidly than the minimum compliance terms in the CDO required, and has not missed the CDO diversion reduction requirements in any year.
Table 1
Water Year
(Oct. 1 – Sept. 30)
Carmel River Pumping
(to nearest acre-foot)
Pumping Limit under
Order 2009-0060
2009-2010 9,786 10,209
2010-2011 8,559 9,994
2011-2012 7,646 9,883
2012-2013 8,008 9,772
2013-2014 7,744 9,661
2014-2015 7,228 9,550
The pumping limit under Order 2009-0060 for Water Year (hereinafter also WY) 2015-2016 is 9,318, and there is no indication from current reporting or based on recent historical use, to think that Cal-Am will not fall well under this mark.
The reductions in pumping are the result of demand reductions as well as new supplies, both of which were required under WR 2009-0060. In terms of demand reduction, Cal-Am and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (District) have adopted programs encouraging conservation by business and residential customers, including turf replacement programs, water efficiency requirements, and tiered conservation rates. Cal-Am has also implemented new technologies to identify and address leaks. Additionally, Cal-Am has proposed revisions to its water rationing program pending at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The CPUC anticipates making a decision on the proposed changes in October 2016.
Three new non-Carmel River supplies have either already come online, expanded or have received regulatory approval since 2009. Sand City’s desalination plant provides to Cal-Am, in the form of offset deliveries, a minimum of 94 acre-feet per annum (afa), and the balance of its 3 capacity which is not needed for expanded use in Sand City. Pebble Beach’s water recycling facility has expanded its capacity and technology, and increased its offset of Cal-Am’s unlawful pumping to an average of 970 afa. Its average offset prior to the technology changes completed in 2008 was 450 afa. This increase far out-measures the modest increase in usage entitlements, which now measure 65 afa, and are expected to reach on the order of 140 afa 1 by
the end of the proposed compliance period. As of June 2016, the City of Pacific Grove was scheduled to have begun construction of a recycled water plant that will offset 100 to 125 afa of current Cal-Am deliveries for golf course and cemetery irrigation.
Additionally, Cal-Am has pursued lawful water rights in the Carmel River. Cal-Am has obtained water right Permit 21330, allowing lawful diversion in the high flow season, under certain bypass flow conditions, at a rate of 4.1 cubic feet per second with an limit of 1,488 afa. This water may only be used within the Carmel River watershed, rather than throughout the Cal-Am service area. In WY 2014-2015, Cal-Am diverted approximately 42 acre-feet under this water right.
Joint owners Cal-Am and the District have lawful water rights under Permit 20808A and Permit 20808C to develop and use up to 5,326 afa (2,426 afa and 2,900 afa, respectively) of pumping from the Carmel River under certain bypass flow conditions for operation of the ASR project.
The ASR project has expanded its capacity since the adoption of WR 2009-0060, although increased water has not been available for diversion during the recent drought. The ASR project diverted just over 1,110 afa of water in WY 2009-2010 and WY 2010-2011, and between 0 and 210 afa in the drier water years from WY 2011-2012 through WY 2014-2015. The ASR water is pumped to the Seaside Groundwater Basin and WR 2009-0060 requires Cal-Am to recover the ASR water during the months most beneficial to the fishery. By June 1 of each year, Cal-Am, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) agree on a schedule for using the ASR water by reducing Carmel River pumping for fishery benefits. Cal-Am’s diversions from the Carmel River are reduced on a oneto-one basis with the scheduled recovery. NMFS and CDFW can and have agreed to allow some ASR water to be carried over in Seaside Groundwater storage for the next water year’s use, as allowed under WR 2009-0060. Cal-Am carried over 215 acre-feet of ASR water, and WY 2015-2016 storms allowed for an additional 699 acre-feet of ASR diversions such that Cal-Am had 914 acre-feet of available ASR water stored in the Seaside Groundwater Basin by June 1, 2016. NMFS and DFW agreed that Cal-Am would recover the ASR water from June through September of 2016, and carry over approximately 315 acre-feet for WY 2016-2017.
Water previously pumped from the Carmel River for the Odello Ranch under License 13868A, is being provided to offset Cal-Am’s unlawful diversions on an interim basis. The water will not be available on a long-term basis. The project provided 85 acre-feet of water to offset Cal-Am’s unlawful diversions in 2015, and will provide a minimum of 50 acre-feet in 2016 and 25 acre-feet in 2017. Cal-Am and the Eastwood Trust have reached an agreement for Cal-Am to divert up to 85 afa on an interim basis, to the extent that the water is not being sold by the Malpaso Water Company to other users.
1 Pebble Beach estimates that deliveries of water under new entitlements through the end of December 2020 will be 140 afa. While the application now requests an extension of the compliance deadline for an additional year, there is no reason to think that this number will be significantly different by 2021, given the prior rate of growth in the area and the necessarily imprecise nature of such estimates.
4 Since adoption of WR 2009-0060, Cal-Am has also funded or otherwise implemented significant measures to improve fish habitat and survival. WR 2009-0060 required some of these measures, while others were implemented as part of an agreement with the NMFS and the CDFW.
After the failure of efforts to build the Coastal Water Project and the Regional Desalination Project2, it became clear that there would not be a lawful alternative supply of water for the Cal-Am service area prior to the end of 2016, when WR 2009-0060 requires Cal-Am to end all unlawful diversions from the Carmel River.
In 2014, Cal-Am approached State Water Board staff regarding the possibility of reaching an agreement on a proposal to amend the CDO’s compliance schedule which State Water Board staff would recommend to the State Water Board for consideration. Staff met with Cal-Am and other stakeholders over a period of two years in an effort to craft a proposal that staff, Cal-Am, and a range of stakeholders could endorse. At points over the two year period, the discussion included representatives from Cal-Am, the District, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, the Sierra Club, the Planning and Conservation League, the Pebble Beach Company, and NMFS.
3 The group was able to reach an agreement on a framework for a proposal to amend the Cal-Am CDO’s compliance schedule until the end of December 2020, even as some of the specifics remained contested. The broad area of agreement was maintaining a diversion limit significantly lower than that required for WY 2015-2016 in the current CDO as long as milestones based on securing alternative water supplies are met. Failure to meet the milestones would result in significant reductions of the diversion limits under the compliance schedule, such that Cal-Am’s diversions from the Carmel River would be limited to lawful diversion limits prior to the end of the compliance period.
Cal-Am, in conjunction with the District, Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, the City of Pacific Grove and the Pebble Beach Company, submitted an application to amend the Cal-Am CDO on November 20, 2015. On April 28, 2016, Cal-Am submitted a revised application to amend the CDO, in light of significant delays in the CPUC’s schedule for consideration of a proposed desalination facility, the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Desalination Project. These delays resulted from the CPUC’s desire to prepare a joint environmental impact statement and environmental impact report in conjunction with a federal partner, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. In addition, the CPUC needed to evaluate a potential conflict of interest issue involving one of the contractors evaluating the project under the California Environmental Quality Act. There have also been repeated interruptions in operations of the test wells used to evaluate the impacts and viability of the proposed facility’s slant well technology.
3.0 CAL-AM’S PROPOSAL
Cal-Am’s April 28, 2016 revised application to amend WR 2009-0060 was submitted pursuant to Water Code section 1832, which allows the State Water Board to “modify, revoke or stay” cease and desist orders.
2 The CPUC approved an alternative to the Coastal Water Project – the Regional Desalination Project. 3 Cal-Am and other stakeholders indicated that a broader group met in preparation for meetings with staff, including participation by the Carmel River Steelhead Association, Quail Lodge, Bernardus Lodge, and Carmel Valley Ranch. 5 The primary change Cal-Am proposes is maintaining an “effective diversion limit” (or EDL) of 8,310 afa from the Carmel River from the start of WY 2015-2016 until December 31, 2021, as long as alternate water supply projects meet defined approval and construction milestones.
Cal-Am proposes a milestone for each water year from 2017-2018 until the end of December 2021. If Cal-Am fails to achieve a milestone by the last day of the water year, then the effective diversion limit would be reduced by 1,000 afa for the following water year.4 For example, if construction on the Pure Water Monterey project fails to begin and the CPUC fails to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the proposed MPWSP Desalination Project by September 30, 2018, then the proposed effective diversion limit for WY 2018-2019 would be 7,310 acre-feet. Thus, if Cal-Am fails to meet each milestone, the effective diversion limit would fall by 1,000 afa each water year from WY 2018-2019 on. The limit for WY 2021-2022 would be 4,310 acre-feet until the end of December 2021. As discussed above, WR 2009-0060 requires all unlawful diversions from the Carmel River to end by December 31, 2016. This EDL would replace the “base level” that formed the foundation for diversion limits under WR 2009-0060.
Cal-Am also proposes several changes to the manner of calculating the diversion limit, or of assessing compliance with that limit.
One significant change in determining compliance with a diversion limit is Cal-Am’s proposal that it be allowed to accrue “credits” in years in which its diversions are lower than the EDL for a particular water year, starting in WY 2015-2016. Cal-Am could then apply any such “credits” to be able to pump more than the EDL in future years, without penalty. WR 2009-0060 had no such credit system. Cal-Am’s proposal includes a Cap on Carryover Credits that would need to be calculated to confirm that the sum of non-ASR diversions from the Carmel River plus the amount of ASR water recovered that year cannot exceed the EDL plus 750 afa.
Another substantial calculation change that Cal-Am proposes is to amend the accounting for winter pumping under the ASR.
Under WR 2009-0060, any ASR diversions are counted towards the annual limit on Carmel River diversions: Here, Cal-Am proposes to count only the first 600 afa towards the diversion limit. Thus, as proposed, diversions to storage under the ASR program above 600 afa could occur without impacting Cal-Am’s subsequent diversions from the Carmel River in a particular water year. For example, Cal-Am reported diversion of 699 afa to ASR storage in WY 2015-2016, so 99 afa would not be considered in measuring compliance with the EDL.
A third significant change to calculating the diversion limits would be the manner in which the limit is changed by the addition of lawful supplies. Under WR 2009-0060, production from new sources of water generally lowered the Carmel River diversion limit acre-foot by acre-foot.
Under Cal-Am’s proposed application, the EDL would be lowered for water delivered under the Pure Water Monterey water recycling project in this same manner, and the reductions for Sand City desalination project and for accounting for Pebble Beach entitlements would continue unchanged (except that the provision on unlawful diversions to serve Pebble Beach entitlements would be extended until December 31, 2021). However, Cal-Am proposes that fifty percent of
4 The deadline for measuring achievement of a milestone for the 2021-2022 water year is December 31, 2021.
Because this is the end of the compliance period, failure to meet this milestone would not result in a reduction of the effective diversion limit, as the limit to Carmel River diversions after that time is the limit of Cal-Am’s lawful water rights.
6 any water Cal-Am may acquire from other willing water right holders on the Carmel River be added to the EDL, with the other fifty percent being added to instream use. Additionally, Cal-Am proposes that water rights purchased from the Malpaso Water Company LLC to Cal-Am be added to the EDL. Finally, Cal-Am proposes that the EDL not apply to excess pumping that any of the petitioners establish was necessary to meet reductions required by mitigation measures imposed by the Seaside Basin watermaster or the court to address seawater intrusion within the Seaside Groundwater Basin.
Cal-Am’s application also includes new reporting requirements. The first new reporting requirement is an annual report to the State Water Board regarding progress towards each milestone due 120 days prior to its deadline. In the event that the annual milestones report anticipates a delay in achieving a milestone, Cal-Am proposes that the State Water Board determine whether the delay is beyond the control of the applicants, and, if so, that the State Water Board determine whether or not to lower the EDL by 1,000 afa after a missed milestone.
The second proposed reporting requirement is Cal-Am’s funding of an annual report on the status of the Carmel River steelhead population that may include adaptive management recommendations.
Cal-Am’s application also notes Cal-Am’s substantial completion of downstream fish passage facilities at Los Padres Dam, and states that the company will endeavor to remove the Old Carmel River Dam and Sleepy Hollow Ford prior to September 30, 2017.
4.0 NOTICE AND COMMENTS RECIEVED
The State Water Board noticed Cal-Am’s application on May 6, 2016. The State Water Board received 16 comments prior to June 1, 2016, the deadline for consideration of comments by staff prior to releasing a preliminary staff recommendation. Staff released a preliminary staff recommendation, along with a rationale document explaining the reasoning behind the proposed adoption of the broad framework of the extension, and for the recommended changes from certain terms in the submitted application. The document further set notice of a comment deadline of July 13, 2016 for written comments. The State Water Board received an additional 77 comments prior to the written comment deadline of July 13, 2016. All comments received were posted on the State Water Board, Division of Water Rights page for the Cal-Am CDO Change Application:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/projects/california_american_water_co mpany/index.shtml.
5.0 ANALYSIS
5.1 Adoption of Proposed Approach to Extension of CDO
Seven years after adoption of Order 2009-0060, the State Water Board finds itself in a situation that is in some respects analogous to the situation before it at the Cal-Am CDO hearings. A project that was presented to the State Water Board as a solution to end unlawful diversions has failed to come to fruition: then, the Los Padres Dam, here the Coastal Water Project. 7 Cal-Am’s service area continues to depend on thousands of acre-feet of unlawful diversions from the Carmel River each year. Cal-Am has plans to develop a substitute supply that could resolve reliance on unlawful diversions, and proposes a CDO compliance schedule that would allow continued diversions at recent historic levels during the foreseeable timeframe for construction. The plans are supported by a number of stakeholders, but there is also substantial opposition. Permitting is incomplete and construction not yet begun.
In other ways, however, the situation is different than that in 2009. Cal-Am has complied with the compliance schedule in WR 2009-0060, including making significant reductions in diversions from the Carmel River despite the ultimate failure of the Coastal Water Project and the Regional Desalination Project. WR 2009-0060 required Cal-Am to reduce diversions from the Carmel River as much as possible and set minimum reductions. Cal-Am reduced diversions at a faster rate than the minimum required under the order. (See Table 1, p. 2.) The pumping limit Cal-Am is currently requesting is approximately 2,000 afa less than the first limit for diversions imposed under WR 2009-0060, and the actual reductions top 3,000 af of reduction in some years. These amounts constitute a reduction of approximately one third to almost half of the average annual unlawful diversions found in 2009.
Additionally, Cal-Am has undertaken or funded a number of fishery restoration actions since 2009. As required under an agreement with NMFS and CDFW, Cal-Am has funded a number of significant habitat improvement and fishery recovery projects as mitigation for unlawful diversions. Cal-Am helped fund removal of the San Clemente Dam, with benefits for not only the steelhead fishery, but also public safety. Under an agreement with NMFS, Cal-Am has contributed funding towards a series of steelhead recovery projects identified by the State Coastal Conservancy in consultation with NMFS, CDFW and Carmel River stakeholders. These include ongoing projects to facilitate fish passage by removing barriers, including removal of Old Carmel River Dam and Sleepy Hollow Ford anticipated by the end of September 2017, 5 to
restore habitat upstream of San Clemente Dam and in the Carmel Lagoon and to augment water availability for fisheries purposes in the Carmel Lagoon and during the summer. Cal-Am and other stakeholders have also constructed downstream fish passage facilities at Los Padres Dam and the company is helping fund a planning effort to address long-term disposition of Los Padres Dam. These actions are in addition to ongoing habitat restoration and steelhead rescue operations on the lower Carmel River. NMFS has commented that the habitat has improved since 2009, and that an additional four years of diversion at levels similar to recent years would be unlikely to cause jeopardy.
Further significant habitat restoration actions have also been set in motion, indicating that habitat improvement will continue over the next few years even absent an immediate cessation of Cal-Am’s unlawful diversions.
Cal-Am has also funded a forbearance agreement with Rancho Cañada to add approximately 300 afa to the Carmel River for the next three years. This agreement is part of a larger effort to convert much of the property to riparian habitat, with additional potential ecological benefits.
Cal-Am is also a purchaser of water from Malpaso Water Company, to offset unlawful
5 This order adds reopener provisions if these anticipated efforts to undertake major habitat expansion efforts do not continue to develop according to the schedule set forth. That schedule would enable realization of the project benefits for almost the entire duration of the extension of the compliance schedule. 8 diversions, and with the funds from the purchase to facilitate the transfer of the Eastwood/Odello Ranch for wetland restoration near the Carmel Lagoon.
Thus, the current situation on the Carmel River has improved in that the Cal-Am service area has meaningfully reduced its dependence on unlawful diversions, fish habitat has undergone improvement and expansion, plans are underway to undertake additional large fishery habitat improvements, robust fish rescue and habitat restoration efforts have been ongoing for years and will continue throughout the requested extension period, and additional instream flows have been secured. These factors all indicate that the impact of extending the compliance period will not be as great as the impacts found in 2009. The broad terms of the proposed revisions to the compliance plan also provide a framework that encourages success in constructing new water supplies, and that allow for planned reductions to lawful levels of diversions regardless of the success of supply projects.
Cal-Am is proposing a more diversified approach to water supply on the Monterey Peninsula than the efforts in 2009, so that the water supply does not depend so heavily on the success of any one project. In 2009, the State Water Board required Cal-Am to diligently pursue small projects, including requiring implementation of small projects that would result in at least 500 afa of additional water supply, and also required annual reductions in Carmel River diversions of between 121 and 242 afa. The central element of the effort to reduce diversions to sustainable levels, however, required construction of the Coastal Water Project. Development of a water supply project large enough to address the region’s water needs has proven a challenge, given the failure of several major proposed water supply projects: the New Los Padres Dam, the Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project, the Coastal Desalination Project, and the Regional Water Supply Project. Here, Cal-Am has proposed three potential projects to substitute for unlawful Carmel River diversions: a 6,250 to 9,752 afa desalination facility currently undergoing environmental review and permitting at the CPUC; a 3,500 afa water recycling project with completed environmental review that is currently undergoing expedited permitting review at the CPUC, with a decision expected in August 2016; and a proposed expansion of facilities to complete the ASR groundwater storage project, which is permitted to produce up to 5,326 afa, albeit subject to water availability. Each of these projects has the potential to provide a significant amount of new lawful water supplies to the Cal-Am Service area, and to greatly reduce Cal-Am’s remaining unlawful diversions of approximately 3,500-4,500 afa.
The application changes the incentive for conservation and for adopting smaller-scale projects.
WR 2009-0060 required yearly reductions in diversion amounts and did not specify whether these reductions stem from conservation measures or small water supply projects. As described above, conservation and small projects have resulted in a combined reduction of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 afa of demand from the Carmel River. As these projects were the first to be implemented, they likely represent some of the lowest-hanging fruit in terms of demand reduction. Rather than imposing additional reductions, the application proposes adopting a “credit” system that incentivizes conservation and small projects. Should the larger projects fail to proceed on their expected timelines, Cal-Am can draw on these credits to offset the majority of the required reduction in diversions. Thus, Cal-Am and other stakeholders can anticipate whether the milestones will be met, and undertake efforts to build credits in anticipation of failures to meet milestones, but are otherwise not required to expend additional resources on conservation and small projects. Stakeholders can thus focus efforts on working to make implementation of the larger supply projects go more smoothly. 9 The Board implements the overall concept of credits in this order, but imposes more limits on the accrual and use of credits so as to avoid overwhelming other incentives and results of the extended compliance schedule. (see explanation below)
The milestones approach proposed is similarly broadly acceptable, as it accomplishes two important goals. First of all, it provides structural encouragement to timely develop lawful water supplies for the Cal-Am service area. Implementing a large municipal water supply project is a long-term decision that affects a wide range of stakeholders and involves impacts to costs of service to existing users, to the environment, and to the cost of and potential for municipal growth. The potential for sharp reductions in water availability provides an incentive to multiple stakeholders to make diligent progress, and to shift the baseline of a discussion regarding the area’s water needs away from a status quo that relies on cheap unlawful diversions. If the alternative to implementation of a project is severely limited access to water there is an incentive to implement change from the status quo.
6 It is the Board’s hope that the focus on
annual deadlines with large but achievable reductions of up to 1,000 afa for failure to meet them will be an effective incentive. The fact that Cal-Am did meet the more incremental annual reductions each year under WR 2009-0060 provides reason to believe that the incremental approach may be an effective inducement to alternate water supply development. Secondly, in the event that one or more of the proposed projects fails to move forward as envisioned, the step-wise reduction of diversions ensures a staggered approach to ending reliance on unlawful Carmel River diversions through continued conservation, efficiency and smaller supply development. This step-wise reduction approach allows for greater planning for reductions and implementation of alternative projects. As discussed below, this order does make changes to the milestones proposal to better serve the goals described above.
This more diversified approach, in combination with diversion reductions for failure to achieve milestones allows for Cal-Am to reduce its diversions to lawful levels by the end of December 2021, regardless of whether any one of the proposed projects – or any of them at all - are built. Implementation of one or more of these projects in combination with diversion limits for any failure to reach particular milestones provides sufficient assurance that the State Water Board will not again find itself in the same position of again extending the compliance deadlines in the CDO at the end of December 2021.
The proposed annual reporting on milestone progress will give the State Water Board the opportunity to track compliance. This order adopts the annual reporting requirement with minor timeline modifications that better accommodate State Water Board processes. The report gives time for a formal warning should progress towards a milestone be lacking, which will allow CalAm and other stakeholders to prepare for step-wise reductions through development of additional supplies, to generate additional credits, or to implement additional conservation
6 Numerous commenters have asserted that the milestone approach inappropriately burdens ratepayers and water users for Cal-Am’s unlawful diversions, and that therefore the CDO should impose monetary fines in-lieu-of requiring diversion reductions. The remedies of issuing a CDO and imposing penalties for unlawful diversions are not mutually exclusive, however, and payment of a penalty does not authorize continuing violations. The penalty addresses past violations; the law still requires elimination of future violations. Moreover, the argument that the State Water Board should impose penalties in-lieu-of requiring elimination of unlawful diversions fails to recognize the connection between Cal-Am’s diversions and the ratepayers – Cal-Am diverts water only for the purpose of serving it to ratepayers, whose costs have been artificially lowered and expectations of supply have been artificially raised because of diversions in excess of the available lawful supply. California law prohibits both the diversion and the use of water without a lawful right. The State Water Board’s concern is not forcing one party or another to bear a burden, but is rather to encourage compliance, and both Cal-Am and its customers have a role in achieving that outcome. 10 measures. It also provides for the opportunity for the State Water Board to re-assess whether to impose EDL cuts where the anticipated failure to meet a milestone is not reasonably within the control of the Applicants.
The annual report on the state of the fishery gives the State Water Board additional assurance that an extension of the compliance period will not cause undue harm to the fishery. If the restoration measures planned are not undertaken or fail to achieve the improvements that this order relies on in part, then the report will recommend adaptive management measures.
The foreseeable consequences if State Water Board were not to extend the compliance schedule also provide reasons to extend the schedule.
Without amendment of WR 2009-0060’s deadline, Cal-Am would need to cease its unlawful diversions from the Carmel River by the end of December 2016. This would mean that CalAm’s diversions from the Carmel River would be limited to 3,376 afa, plus whatever lawful diversions are available in the diversion seasons under Permit 21330, and Permits 20808A and 20808C for the ASR project, plus any water available under transfers from other rights holders on the Carmel River. Because the Cal-Am service area continues to rely on thousands of acrefeet per year of unlawful diversions, a reduction to lawful levels would require immediate and substantial curtailment of use, and the purchase and importation of additional supplies at costs previously believed to be untenable. Since 2009, the average total reported diversions in the Carmel River basin under other confirmed or claimed rights are approximately 2,000 afa. But, there is no indication that users are willing or able to transfer that amount of water for use in the Cal-Am service area. State Water Board staff have calculated that the annual average residential per-capita usage in the Cal-Am service area from June 2014 through May 2016 was 55 to 57 gallons per person per day, based on reporting required under emergency conservation regulations. This level is in the lowest 12% of urban water users in the state.
During this period, such residential use accounted for between 40 and 70% of total usage.
Numerous commenters have suggested that additional measures would cause economic harm, and could potentially affect health and safety.
With respect to the claims of potential health and safety impacts, there is no established level of per capita water use required for health and safety in the U.S. or California. The State Water Board has used 50 gallons per person per day as a benchmark for drought evaluation of diversions – just slightly under the amount typically considered for indoor use. Some Coastal California communities have achieved averages of approximately 40 gallons per person per day during the ongoing drought emergency. The standards adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2010 to implement a basic human right to water require 50-100 liters per person per day (13-26 gallons).
The State Water Board recognizes that requiring major reductions in water use rates over a relatively short period could cause substantial adverse economic impacts, and even greater inconvenience. Rapid curtailments in water use and implementation of rationing may be necessary, however, to end unlawful diversions on the Carmel River if the area continues to fail to develop alternative supplies. Economic impacts are a consideration in establishing a schedule of compliance, but cannot justify a decision not to require compliance. This order allows for cuts to occur on a predictable schedule, should the planned projects not meet development milestones, and also sets forth a clear method to address health and safety 11 concerns as the reductions of 1,000 afa for each milestone missed occur. The plans also allow time for and provide incentive for additional innovation in water supply planning should the processes underway fail.
To the extent that additional demand reduction and immediate supply acquisition efforts fail, Cal-Am would face significant fines. Each day of violation of a CDO accrues a potential administrative penalty of $10,000 in certain drought years, or of $1,000 in wetter years. (See Wat. Code, § 1845, subd. (b)(1).)
This administrative penalty is in addition to the potential administrative civil liability penalties for unlawful diversion of water under Water Code section 1052, which may be imposed for all unlawful diversions, not just those which are in excess of the levels set in the CDO. Such penalties are up to $1,000 per day and $2,500 per acre-foot of unlawfully diverted water in certain drought years, and up to $500 per day in wetter years. (See Wat. Code, § 1052, subd. (c).) Thus, in wetter years, Cal-Am would face approximately $550,000 for each year of violation of the CDO. In certain drought years, such as those the state is currently experiencing, Cal-Am could face over $4 million per year of violation in per-diem penalties, in addition to up to $2.5 million in penalties for every 1,000 acre-feet that the company diverts unlawfully. These penalties would be deposited in the Water Rights Fund for the state, rather than being used directly to fund a more stable water supply for the Monterey Peninsula. To the extent that Cal-Am or others dispute the imposition of fines, the process could result in additional expenditures of time and resources on issues related to the peninsula’s lack of water supply, but that do not have the potential to provide a long-term solution. The CPUC would determine the question of whether these penalties would ultimately be borne by Cal-Am as a corporation or by the area’s ratepayers, or whether the burden of these penalties would be shared. (See Cal. Const., Art XII, 6; Pub. Util. Code, §§ 427, 727.5.) The result of an immediate reduction in pumping such that Cal-Am is taking only lawful supplies by the end of December 2016 is likely to divert time and resources from building a permanent, lawful supply, and to cause significant hardship to the residents of the Monterey Peninsula and to have broad economic impacts.
An immediate end to unlawful diversions would provide significantly more water for the fishery, and NMFS continues to have serious concerns regarding the impact of diversions on the fishery. However, NMFS supports extension of the CDO for the 6 years requested, under the conditions outlined for fishery protection, habitat restoration and rescue efforts, so long as sufficient monitoring of the fishery occurs.7 Environmental organizations with longstanding and immediate experience in the area similarly support the limited extension of the compliance period, as conditioned.
7 Some comments have proposed specific additional measures during the compliance period in order to mitigate impacts to the Carmel River fisheries. The State Water Board does not have before it sufficient information regarding the potential efficacy, need for, and cost of these measures, and is reluctant to re-balance the suite of priorities that NMFS has expressed without this information. This order provides for an annual fisheries report that includes the opportunity for recommendations for any adaptive management measures, including those suggested by commenters.
12 Amending the existing compliance schedule in WR 2009-0060 is appropriate in light of the fishery agency’s support, the substantial mitigation measures that are completed, ongoing and planned for the immediate future, and the substantial hardships in immediately cutting off unlawful diversions where there is no clear alternative supply.
For the reasons discussed above, the Board will extend the CDO in a manner following the application’s broad approach. This order does, however, make modifications to the application’s proposal, as discussed below.
5.2 Adoption of Initial Effective Diversion Limit
Cal-Am’s application proposes a starting Carmel River diversion limit of 8,310 acre-feet per annum, which is approximately 1,000 acre-feet less than the requirement of WR 2009-060 for WY 2015-16, and approximately the five-year average of pumping from WY 2009-2010 until WY 2012-2013. Staff’s Preliminary Recommendation had suggested reducing this limit to 7,990, which is the most recent six-year average of diversions with adjustments to reflect modifications to ASR accounting.
8 A table comparing the various average diversion levels over the past few years is below:
Requested Limit 8,310 af
Unadjusted Averages
WY 2009/10 to 2013/14 8,348 af
WY 2009/10 to 2014/15 8,162 af
WY 2010/11 to 2014/15 7,836 af
Averages Adjusted - New ASR Accounting
WY 2009/10 to 2013/14 8,143 af
WY 2009/10 to 2014/15 7,990 af
WY 2010/11 to 2014/15 7,733 af
Applicants submitted a letter in response to the preliminary recommendation requesting again that the State Water Board set the EDL at 8,310.9 The submittal included additional information on the proposed EDL, demand levels during the historic drought, and the scheduled decreases in pumping from the Seaside Basin10 under the management plan ordered under the Seaside Groundwater Basin Adjudication, California American Water v. City of Seaside (Monterey County Superior Court, Case Number M66343). This information indicates that, because of a scheduled reduction in allowable pumping from the Seaside Groundwater Basin of approximately 400 afa starting in WY 2017-2018, setting the diversion limit at 7,990 afa would require improvement on conservation levels from those achieved during the historic drought.
8 As described above, the application proposes counting only the first 600 acre-feet of ASR pumping in any water year towards the EDL.
9 A number of additional commenters also wrote in support of setting the diversion level at 8,310, either independently or in explicit support of the Applicants’ letter. 10 Cal-Am’s major alternative supply to Carmel River water is groundwater extracted from the Seaside Groundwater Basin, an adjudicated basin regulated by a watermaster. Due to a continued negative gradient for seawater intrusion, there is a ten percent reduction every three years in to the production allocations to the Basin users, including CalAm. According to the Watermaster Report for WY 2014-15, the watermaster has implemented another ten percent reduction. Cal-Am exceeded its allotments from the Basin in 2014-2015. 13 Thus, setting the EDL at 7,990 would therefore require immediate efforts to lower demand or cultivate alternate sources, rather than only requiring such efforts if milestones are missed. This would potentially undermine one of the benefits of the milestone structure – namely, allowing parties to focus on development of the primary water supply projects already underway.
The only comments submitted in support of lowering the proposed EDL were submitted by Planning and Conservation League and the Sierra Club, prior to the submittal of Cal-Am’s revised application. The two environmental organizations have submitted a new joint letter explaining that they now support the EDL level of 8,310 for two primary reasons: (1) Cal-Am has entered into a forbearance agreement with Rancho Cañada which will increase flows in the river by 300 afa, reducing the fisheries impact of a slightly higher pumping level than that used over the past three years; and (2) the agreements to accelerate the Pure Water Monterey project indicate that it will provide water by 2018, resulting in an EDL after that date of 4,810.
For the reasons discussed above, this order adopts an initial EDL of 8,310, despite the fact that diversions at this level would constitute an actual increase in Carmel River diversions over those in recent years, and would likely result in Cal-Am accruing a significant number of credits prior to implementation of further restrictions on Seaside Groundwater Basin diversions. 11 5.3 Modifications to Cal-Am’s Application
5.3.1 Changes to Proposed Credit Framework
As discussed above, allowing Cal-Am to generate “credits” for reducing unlawful diversions from the Carmel River below the EDL is a worthwhile tool to encourage continued efficiency and conservation measures, as well as to encourage investment by various parties in development of water supply and re-use projects. Any additional reductions in diversions are likely to assist the fishery. However, allowing too generous accrual and use of credits threatens to undermine the basic principle of having a substantial drop in diversions for failure to meet a milestone and of ensuring that the diversion limits are ratcheted down such that unlawful diversions end by December 31, 2021 regardless of whether Cal-Am meets the milestones.
Therefore, this order adopts the concept of credits, but makes a minor adjustment to the proposed method of their accrual and use.
The order sets a clear limit to the number of credits that can be used in any year to 750 acrefeet. This 750 acre-foot limit prevents the entire reduction from a missed milestone (and its associated incentive to meet deadlines) from being cancelled out by significant accrual of credits.
Cal-Am also proposes limiting the quantity of credits available for use in any one year, but using a different calculation for this limit. The application proposes limiting carryover credits once the non-ASR total production from the Carmel River plus the amount of ASR water recovered that year exceeds the sum of EDL + 750 acre-feet. Because Cal-Am’s pumping from Carmel River to ASR storage typically often exceeds the amount of ASR recovered that year (due to allowable ASR carryover), the value of non-ASR water plus ASR recovery is less than the Carmel River production counted under the EDL in most years. Thus, under the calculation method in the application, Cal-Am could use credit to pump up to 1,350 acre-feet above the
11 Since the adjusted average for usage in the last six years is 7,990 afa, using an EDL for 8,310 afa is likely to result in accrual of approximately 400 afa of credits in 2015-2016 and in 2016-2017, prior to enactment of the next reductions in Seaside Groundwater Basin pumping.
14 otherwise-applicable limit, if it had diverted 600 or more acre-feet to storage in that year and had not recovered that amount from storage. In simpler terms, there would potentially be no reduction in diversions for missing a milestone during a year when there is water banking under the ASR, which could undermine the incentives for compliance, and the step-down structure towards ending unlawful diversions by the end of December 2021.
Additionally, it is easier to understand, comply with, and enforce the order when it treats ASR water in the same manner, rather than counting it in different ways for different purposes.
5.3.2 Changes to Proposed EDL Following Late Achievement of Milestones This order adjusts Cal-Am’s proposed accounting system by modifying the requested elimination of step-wise reductions when compliance with a milestone is achieved late. Under the application, Cal-Am proposes that the 1,000 afa reduction in the EDL be eliminated in the water year following late achievement of a milestone. This proposal reduces too greatly the incentive to meet a milestone. Additionally, it does not provide meaningful incentives for stakeholders to adhere as closely as possible to proposed timelines, even in the event of a delay. The order requires that for milestones achieved within the month following the deadline, the continuing reduction shall be 250 afa. For those achieved between one and six months after the deadline, the continuing reduction shall be 500 afa. For milestones achieved between six and nine months after the deadline, the continuing reduction shall be 750 afa. The 1,000 afa reduction to the EDL shall remain for milestones achieved more than nine months after the deadline. This structure provides meaningful incentives for adhering as closely as possible to the timelines proposed. Additionally, as discussed below in the Changes to EDL Accounting section, this order permits the accrual of credits for up to 50 percent of instream flow agreements, upon approval of the Deputy Director for the Division of Water Rights.
5.3.3 Changes to Milestones
5.3.3.1 New Milestones
This order adds two milestones to those proposed. These additions are necessary to track progress towards completion of the Pure Water Monterey recycled water project, even in the face of delays for the review of the desalination project. The first added milestone, for WY 2015-2016, is for CPUC approval of the Water Purchase Agreement for Cal-Am’s purchase of water from the Pure Water Monterey Project, and of construction of the Cal-Am components of the Pure Water Monterey facilities. On April 25, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Sandoval ruled that the Pure Water Monterey portions of Cal-Am’s pending request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity should be expedited. The order set an accelerated schedule for hearings and a decision on Cal-Am’s ability to purchase and convey water from the recycled water project, with a decision anticipated in August 2016. The joint Applicants’ letter of June 29, 2016 informed the Board that the CPUC has subsequently issued a ruling, on June 10, 2016, that includes a newly-noticed workshop and public hearing that will address the Pure Water Monterey Project. Cal-Am has filed a motion to the CPUC to confirm whether a decision is still anticipated on August 18, 2016. Absent such confirmation, Applicants have requested that the deadline for meeting this milestone be set for the end of December 2016, rather than the September 30, 2016 date proposed in the preliminary staff recommendation.
This order sets December 31, 2016 as the deadline for meeting the milestone, but notes that, should there be additional delay in the decision or a denial, the entire 1,000 afa reduction in use would occur for the 2016-2017 water year, despite the extension of the deadline. 15 The order also adds a second milestone for start of construction of the Cal-Am portion of Pure Water Monterey Project to track progress on this Pure Water Monterey Project, for WY 2016- 2017.
The Applicants have affirmed in their April 2016 application, and in their letter of June 29, 2016, that they anticipate water deliveries to begin under the Pure Water Monterey project in 2018.
This timeline is significantly accelerated compared to the timeline in the initial application, and is based on the CPUC’s ruling expediting proceedings for this project. In the initial application, the start of construction of the Pure Water Monterey project facilities constituted part of a WY 2017- 2018 milestone. However, in the April 2016 application, this milestone was pushed back to 2018-2019 in its entirety, including the Pure Water Monterey portions. This order returns the Pure Water Monterey construction milestone to WY 2017-2018, as there is no indication that such an extension is necessary—acceleration rather than delay of the project is anticipated.
5.3.1.2 New Limit to Milestone Reductions
This order additionally limits the cuts to the EDL for missing a milestone when the diversions from the Carmel River in a particular water year are reduced to lawful levels. This addition is necessary because the Pure Water Monterey Project is anticipated to begin providing 3,500 afa to the Cal-Am service area, with water deliveries beginning in 2018. While this amount of water is insufficient on its own to eliminate the threat of unlawful diversions, implementation of the project followed by a failure to meet milestones related to the desalination project could result in the EDL falling below lawful pumping levels. Implementation of Pure Water Monterey and use of significant ASR water in the same water year could allow Cal-Am to pump lawfully at a level above the EDL if milestones are missed. However, as ASR water is not always available, the CDO would not likely be lifted under this scenario: termination of the CDO requires that Cal-Am have a permanent supply available.
5.3.1.3 Requirement to Revisit Milestones Based On Alternative Supply Projects In a final change to the proposed milestones, this order adds the requirement that Cal-Am submit revised milestones within 60 days of CPUC approval of any water purchase agreement with Cal-Am for a major water supply project not specified in the milestones receives CPUC approval.
Two competing desalination projects at Moss Landing are currently undergoing environmental review: the People’s Moss Landing Water Desalination Project and the Deep Water Desal Project. Proponents of both projects project that they could be permitted and built to begin serving water by 2019. The People’s Moss Landing Water Desalination Project is a proposed 13,400 afa project that could serve the North Monterey County and Monterey Peninsula communities. The Moss Landing Harbor District is the lead agency for environmental review.
The facility would use existing open ocean intakes that operate under proven technologies, and would be built on a previously-used industrial site. The use of these facilities could significantly reduce the cost of the facilities, and therefore of the water produced.
The Deep Water Desal Project is a proposed 25,000 afa project that could serve from Santa Cruz to the Monterey Peninsula, and east to Salinas. The facility would use open ocean intakes that draw deep ocean water, with the goal of lessening impacts on ocean organisms. It would be run conjunctively with a computer data center, to reduce the energy demand of each 16 of the two facilities, as compared to separate operation. The District has identified the Deep Water Desal Project as a potential supply project for the service area, should Cal-Am’s proposed desalination facility not be built.
Open ocean intakes can cause significant impacts to the ocean. The State Water Board’s 2015 amendments to the Ocean Plan require that subsurface intakes be infeasible, including consideration of alternative siting and sizing of facilities, before issuance of a permit for a surface intake of ocean water. (State Water Board Resolution No. 2015-0033, approved by Office of Administrative Law on January 28, 2016.) The Coastal Commission would also need to permit construction of either of these facilities, and The Public Utilities Commission would need to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in order for the facilities to sell water in the Cal-Am Service Area.
Additionally, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board has suggested that there is significant untapped potential in recycling water from wastewater treatment plants owned by Cal-Am and others in the Salinas area. Discharges that are not currently recycled could be routed through the existing water recycling facilities operated by the Monterey Peninsula Reginal Water Pollution Control Agency.
Cal-Am’s application does not include milestones for either of these larger desalination facilities, and neither of the project proponents have submitted usable potential amendments to the existing milestones.12 Yet, the construction of either Moss Landing facility could provide sufficient water to end unlawful diversions from the Carmel River, were its water approved for sale within the Cal-Am Service Area. Other large projects, such as the wastewater recycling augmentations mentioned above, may emerge as review of the proposed projects continues.
The State Water Board’s interest is in ending unlawful diversions from the Carmel River, rather than in supporting a particular facility. The specification of the MPSWP desalination and water recycling facilities in the milestones in this order are based on Cal-Am’s application and on evidence suggesting that they have made regulatory progress and are capable of ending unlawful diversions by the end of 2021. Should either of the other large desalination projects, or any other major water supply project, emerge as an alternative to all or part of the MPWSP, the State Water Board should have the opportunity to consider amendment of the proposed milestones.
5.3.1.4 Changes to EDL Accounting
The order adopts some of the new water diversion accounting methods proposed, in order to encourage full development of new water supplies. But it also amends or rejects other proposed changes that undermine the principle that new supplies must offset current unlawful diversions. It also clarifies whether or not various sources of additional supply count towards the EDL, rather than raising the EDL for specific supplies, in order to reduce confusion about what the EDL actually is.
12 Water Plus has suggested requiring Cal-Am to support the People’s Water Supply Project, but as discussed above, the State Water Board supports a more diversified approach at this point, given the track record for large water supply projects in the area.
17 The order adopts a new method of accounting for lawful winter diversions from the Carmel River to aquifer storage for later recovery, under the ASR. These changes encourage Cal-Am to maximize diversion during the winter months when sufficient water is available to meet bypass flows, and encourage further development of facilities to capture flows when they are available.
The ASR permits authorize diversion of 5,326 afa of winter high flows, but the pumping and transportation pipeline facilities have limited the diversions to a maximum of about 1,110 af.
Because the fisheries impact of diversions during periods of higher flow in winter, and under specified bypass requirements, are significantly less than the impact of the same amount of diversion in the lower-flow summer months, it makes sense to implement a strong incentive signal in the pumping limits to encourage reliance on this pumping rather than on summer diversions. Because the pumping continues to have some impact on the fishery, the first 600 afa will continue to count towards determination of the EDL. Additional pumping will not be counted in the EDL.
The application recommends that water delivered on an interim basis by the Malpaso Water Company LLC to Cal-Am under State Water Board License 13868A be added to the EDL for the water year. License 13868A requires that all water diverted under the right and provided to Cal-Am for municipal purposes be for the purpose of reducing Cal-Am’s unlawful diversions13 in 2015, that 50 afa be used to reduce unlawful diversion in 2016, and that 25 afa be so used in 2017. Because these amounts are used to offset unlawful diversions rather than increase deliveries, they should not increase the EDL. The order does add clarification, provided in State Water Board Division of Water Rights Decision 2005-0001, regarding the extent to which Condition 2 of WR 2009-0060 applies to water that Cal-Am may wheel on behalf of Malpaso Water Company. Namely, where Cal-Am is the purchaser of the water, Condition 2 applies.
Where Malpaso Water Company sells to a customer outside the current service area, however, Condition 2 does not apply. The order also establishes monthly reporting requirements to monitor implementation of this condition.
The application additionally requests that fifty percent of the water from other water supply projects and from forbearance agreements be used to increase the EDL, with the other fifty percent of the water being used for instream use. Increasing the EDL is contrary to the basic premise of the enforcement action that new water supplies must offset current unlawful diversions. However, in the event that a milestone is missed, small projects and instream flow agreements may prove to be the fastest and best way to obtain supplies and river protection in the short term. The credit system as proposed provides incentives for small water supply projects and conservation: it does not, however, provide incentives for instream flow projects, as increasing instream flows does not directly14 affect water supplies or demand. Therefore, this order adds provisions to incentivize such projects.15 This order provides that fifty percent of the flows provided through forbearance agreements or other instream water dedications may be accrued as carryover credits, provided that the Deputy Director reviews the agreements to ensure that the agreement provide increased flows in the river as envisioned.
13 See Division of Water Rights Decision 2005-0001, Condition 2. 14 In certain winters, increasing instream flows above the ASR points of diversion may have minor impacts on the number of days that ASR pumping can occur, by affecting whether bypass flows are achieved. However, these changes are likely to be minimal as the bypass flows are set to be triggered only when there are high flows. It is unlikely that flows would remain in the range where an instream flow dedication makes the difference in the ability to pump ASR supplies.
15 This change did not appear in the preliminary staff recommendations distributed on June 17, 2016. 18 It is worth noting that the temporary non-diversion of water, and its use instream for fisheries and instream habitat improvement purposes may be considered a reasonable and beneficial use of water in some circumstances. Consistent with state policy and water rights law, the State Water Board encourages appropriately-documented forbearance agreements to improve fisheries flows. Short-term agreements and agreements regarding riparian rights may be structured in such a manner that the subject rights are not prejudiced. The substantive standards of Water Code section 1707, and various decisions approving such instream flow dedication, provide guidance as to the appropriate manner by which to construct forbearance agreements that provide real benefits to instream flow and which do not prejudice the water holder dedicating the flow or the rights of other lawful water users.
The application requests that the State Water Board provide assurances regarding a particular forbearance agreement with Rancho Cañada for a significant amount of water in calendar years 2016-2019. This agreement generates funding for a planned permanent land conservation and restoration project, and for the potential permanent retirement of associated water diversions.
This proceeding is not the context to make definitive findings regarding the water rights at issue in the agreement: This is neither a noticed adjudicative proceeding regarding the rights at issue, nor a rulemaking regarding instream fishery needs. However, it is worth noting that a four-year cessation of diversion cannot be the basis for forfeiture, and that the State Water Board has recently approved a water right change petition to add instream beneficial use and use for wetland protection in the vicinity.
5.3.1.5 Changes as to Form
Attachment 1 to the Application recommends embedding the changes proposed in the ordering section of WR 2009-0060. Because WR 2009-0060 was issued after an evidentiary hearing, and is based on the evidence presented therein, the State Water Board has determined that it is clearer to issue a separate order based on the Water Code section 1832 application.
5.3.1.6 Modifications to Reporting
This order generally adopts the reporting provisions requested in the application, but modifies the timelines to better fit State Water Board needs and to give NMFS additional authority over the selection of a contractor to prepare the fisheries report, in the event that NMFS cannot itself prepare the report.
6.0 CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the State Water Board approves, with modifications, Cal-Am’s application to modify the compliance schedule in WR 2009-0060. 19 ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT as of the effective date of this Order, Cal-Am shall cease and desist from the unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River in accordance with the following schedule and conditions.
1. This Order shall supersede the requirements in State Water Board Orders WR 2009- 0060, 95-10 and any other State Water Board orders affecting Cal-Am’s diversions from the Carmel River, to the extent stated herein, or to the extent that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the requirements here and those orders. All other requirements in State Water Board orders affecting Cal-Am’s diversions from the Carmel River remain in effect until terminated by operation of law or action of the Stat Water Board.
2. Cal-Am shall diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions from the Carmel River and shall terminate all unlawful diversions from the river no later than December 31, 2021. This date supersedes the December 31, 2016 date in State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060, ordering paragraph 1.
3. At a minimum, Cal-Am shall adjust its diversions from the Carmel River in accordance with the following terms and conditions. These terms and conditions supersede the annual reductions in State Water Board Order 2009-0060, ordering paragraph 3.a.(2), after the effective date of this Order:
a. Effective Diversion Limit: The limit set forth in this Condition 3.a., as may be further reduced or increased pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Order, is referred to as the "Effective Diversion Limit."
i. Immediate Reduction: Commencing on October 1, 2015 (Water Year 2015-2016) the Effective Diversion Limit shall be 8,310 acre-feet per annum (afa). This Effective Diversion Limit shall not be exceeded through December 31, 2021 except as provided in condition 3.b.ii or 3.c. of this Order. This limit supersedes the reduction limit required under Order 2009-0060 for Water Year 2015-2016.
b. Adjustments to the Effective Diversion Limit:
i. Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Offset: In any year that Cal-Am delivers water stored in the Seaside Groundwater Basin as part of the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project to its customers for use, the Effective Diversion Limit shall be reduced by one acre foot for every acre foot of Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project Water so delivered. If this reduction will result in the Effective Diversion Limit for that year being lower than Cal-Am’s available lawful diversions from the Carmel River in that year, Cal-Am may apply to the Deputy Director for a limitation of this condition such that the provision will not limit lawful diversions.
20 ii. Seaside Groundwater Basin Limitations: The Board may adjust the Effective Diversion Limit if an unexpected reduction in Cal-Am’s production allocation from the Seaside Groundwater Basin, or access to water pumped makes the supply unavailable.
The Applicants16 may request such relief whenever they can establish that access to water in the Seaside Groundwater Basin is limited due to unexpected mitigation measures imposed pursuant to the Seaside Basin Watermaster's Seawater Intrusion Response Plan, or by the court pursuant to the Seaside Groundwater Basin Judgment in response to a detection of seawater intrusion within the Seaside Groundwater Basin. iii. Carryover: After October 1, 2015 if Cal-Am's diversions from the Carmel River during a given water year are less than the Effective Diversion Limit for that water year, Cal-Am will accumulate credit for the difference between the Effective Diversion Limit and Cal-Am's actual diversions. Additionally, Cal-Am may generate credits through instream flow agreements, as described in 3.b.xii, below. Any such credit may be carried over to offset an exceedance of the Effective Diversion Limit prior to December 31, 2021, subject to the restriction in Paragraph
3.b.iv below, and subject to the overall cap on diversions in Paragraph 3.a.i., above. iv. Cap on Carryover: The amount of carryover water accumulated under Paragraph
3.b.iii that may be credited in any one water year shall not exceed 750 afa. v. Milestones: For purposes of calculating a reduction to the Effective Diversion Limit, the following Milestones and Deadlines will apply:
Water Year Milestone
17 Deadline
2015-2016 CPUC approval of (1) the Water Purchase Agreement for Cal-Am’s purchase of Pure Water Monterey water, and of
(2) construction of the Cal-Am components of the Pure
Water Monterey conveyance facilities,18 including the
Monterey Pipeline and pump station.
December 31, 2016*
2016-2017 Start of construction of the Cal-Am components of the Pure Water Monterey project, meaning commencement of
physical work after issuance of required regulatory permits and authorizations to begin work.
September 30, 2017
16 “Applicants” refers to the joint applicants for the request to modify State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060: CalAm, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, the Pebble Beach Company, and the City of Pacific Grove.
17 If at any point prior to completion of the facilities listed in these Milestones the CPUC authorizes Cal-Am to acquire more than 1,000 afa of water from an alternative source, then the following shall occur. Cal-Am shall submit to the Executive Director within 60 days a revised set of milestones taking this water supply source into account. If the proponents of the alternative project are unable to reach concurrence with Cal-Am on revised milestones to propose, the proponents may also submit revised milestones within that time period. The Executive Director shall determine whether to bring forward a recommendation to the State Water Board regarding amendment of the milestones. 18 “Cal-Am components” of the Pure Water Monterey Project refers to the pump station and pipeline within or leading to Cal-Am’s Service Area needed to transmit water to Cal-Am’s service area. 21 Water Year Milestone
17 Deadline
2017-2018 Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project Desalination Plant ("MPWSP Desalination
Plant") by the California Public Utilities Commission.
September 30, 2018
2018-2019 Start of construction for any of the Cal-Am Components of the MSWSP Desalination Plant19, meaning commencement
of physical work after issuance of required regulatory
permits and authorizations to begin work.
20 September 30, 2019
2019-2020 (1) Drilling activity for at least one MPWSP Desalination Plant source water production well21 complete; (2) foundation and structural framing complete for MPWSP Desalination Plant pretreatment seawater reverse osmosis, and administration buildings at desalination plant; (3) excavation complete for MPWSP Desalination Plant brine and backwash storage
basins; and (4) 25% of MPWSP Desalination Plant
transmission pipelines installed based on total length, including 100% installation of the “Monterey Pipeline and other ASR related improvements”.
September 30, 2020
2020-2021 For MPWSP Desalination Plant: (1) 50% of drilling activity complete for source water production wells based on total number of wells required; (2) mechanical systems for brine and backwash storage basins complete; (3) construction of filtered water tanks and finished water tanks complete; (4) 50% of transmission pipelines installed based on total length.
September 30, 2021
2021-2022
and beyond
Substantial completion of the Cal-Am Components of the
MPWSP Desalination Plant, meaning the Cal-Am Components are sufficiently complete and appropriately permitted to allow delivery of MPWSP Desalination Plant produced potable water to Cal-Am's Monterey Main system, eliminating further CalAm diversions of Carmel River water without valid basis of right
December 31, 2021
* It is anticipated that this milestone will be achieved during Water Year 2015-2016. The deadline provides a three-month extension in the event that it occurs soon after the end of the water year. vi. Reductions to the Effective Diversion Limit Based on Missed Milestones: The following reductions to the Effective Diversion Limit shall apply if an applicable Milestone Deadline is not met:
19 For purposes of this proposal the Cal-Am Components of the MPWSP Desalination Plant include: source water production wells; desalination plant; brine disposal system; and transmission pipelines 20 Such work may include, among other things, any of the following: desalination plant site grading and preparation; electric utility installation; yard piping; subsurface excavation for structural foundations; and transmission pipeline installation.
21 Not including construction of the MPWSP Desalination Plant Test Well completed in 2015. 22 Water Year Milestone
Missed
Reduction in Effective Diversion Limit Date
Reduction
Assessed
2016- 2017 1 1,000 AFA Dec. 31, 2016*
2017- 2018 2 1,000 AFA Oct. 1, 2017
2018- 2019 3 1,000 AFA Oct. 1, 2018
2019- 2020 4 1,000 AFA Oct. 1, 2019
2020-2021 5 1,000 AFA Oct. 1, 2020
Oct. 1, 2021 –
Dec 31, 2021
6 1,000 AFA Oct. 1, 2021
* The entire 1,000 AFA reduction for failure to meet this milestone must occur in the 9 remaining months of WY 2016-2017.
If a Milestone is not achieved by its Deadline but is subsequently achieved, the 1,000 afa reduction to the Effective Diversion Limit shall be amended on the first day of the water year following achievement of the Milestone, as follows. For Milestones achieved within the first month following the deadline, the reduction shall be 250 afa. For Milestones achieved between one and six months after the deadline, the reduction shall be 500 afa. For Milestones achieved between six and nine months after the deadline, the reduction shall be 750 afa. The 1,000 afa reduction to the Effective Diversion Limit shall remain for milestones achieved 9 months after the deadline or later.
If the reductions required under this subparagraph will result in the Effective Diversion Limit for that year being lower than Cal-Am’s available lawful diversions from the Carmel River in that year, Cal-Am may apply to the Deputy Director for Water Rights for a limitation of this section such that the provision will not limit lawful diversions. vii. Illustration: The following table illustrates the effect of the reduction in the Effective Diversion Limit over the term of this Order, and assumes no Deadlines have been met and no carryover credits have been applied under Paragraph 3.b.iii, and no additional water rights have been obtained or other adjustments made to the Effective Diversion Limit. The result is an elimination of unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River on October 31, 2020 if no Deadlines are met.
Water Year EDL if All Milestones Missed, No Other
EDL Adjustments
2015-2016 8,310 AFA
2016- 2017 7,310 AFA
2017- 2018 6,310 AFA
2018-2019 5,310 AFA
2019-2020 4,310 AFA
23 Water Year EDL if All Milestones Missed, No Other
EDL Adjustments
2020-2021 Legal limit
Thereafter Legal limit
viii. Joint Annual Report: Commencing in water year 2016-2017, at least 120 days prior to each Milestone Deadline described in Condition 3.b.v, Cal-Am, in coordination with Applicants, shall submit a joint report to the Deputy Director for Water Rights, describing progress towards that Milestone, whether Applicants expect the Milestone to be achieved by its Deadline and, if not, whether the Milestone will be missed for reasons beyond Applicants’ control. Sufficient evidence supporting the reasons that missing a milestone is beyond the control of Applicants shall be included for any further action related to such a claim.
If requested, Cal-Am, in coordination with Applicants, shall present written and/or oral comments on the progress towards Milestones at a regularly scheduled State Water Board meeting that falls at least 60 days after submission of the report. If the report indicates that a Milestone is likely to be missed for reasons beyond Applicants’ control, the State Water Board may make a determination during that meeting or at a subsequent meeting whether the cause for delay is beyond Applicants’ control. If the State Water Board determines that the cause is beyond Applicants' control, it may suspend any corresponding reductions under Condition
3.b.vi until such time as the Applicants can reasonably control progress towards the Milestone. ix. ASR Project: Commencing for water year 2015-2016, only the first 600 afa of the amount of any water diverted to underground storage under State Water Board Permits 20808A and 20808C as of May 31 of each water year shall be included in determining compliance with the Effective Diversion Limit: Diversions greater than 600 afa in a single water year shall not count as annual production of Carmel River water for the Effective Diversion Limit calculation.
This section supersedes State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060, ordering paragraph 3.a.(3). x. Sand City Desalination Plant: Any volume of water that is produced by the Sand City Desalination Plant and not served to persons residing within the City of Sand City shall be subtracted from the Effective Diversion Limit for the water year in which it is produced. xi. Pebble Beach: Pebble Beach Company (PBC) shall continue to annually submit, on September 30, a report to the Deputy Director for Water Rights accounting for any additional water that is diverted from the Carmel River as the result of an increased use of its remaining District water entitlement. Any diversions from the river by Cal-Am to satisfy PBC remaining entitlements from District shall not be considered in calculating compliance with the Effective Diversion Limit. After December 31, 2021, Cal-Am shall not illegally divert water from the river to supply the holders of PBC entitlements. This order supersedes the last sentence of paragraph 3.a.(6) of State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060. 24 xii. Supplemental Water Rights and Acquisitions: Provided Cal-Am is able to identify suitable and willing transacting parties, Cal-Am will acquire supplemental Carmel River water rights, and/or will pursue other Carmel River water acquisitions and water right changes in order to increase flows in the Carmel River and decrease Cal-Am's unauthorized Carmel River diversions ("Carmel River Flow Enhancement Program"). Cal-Am will implement the Carmel River Flow Enhancement Program to the extent it can negotiate agreements with water right holders. Such acquisitions or water right changes may include forbearance agreements, leases and/or purchases of water rights along the Carmel River on a temporary or permanent basis, and may include water right change approvals or permits (permanent or temporary) from the State Water Board. The acquisitions may increase the proportion of Cal-Am’s diversions that are made under lawful right, or increase Carmel River instream flows during periods of lower flow on the Carmel River. Instream flow agreements made with other parties can generate carryover credits described in 3.b.iii. at 50% of the amount that the Deputy Director confirms that the agreements have increased Carmel River flows without being diverted by other downstream users. To claim the credits, Cal-Am must first submit the agreement and a monitoring and reporting plan to the Deputy Director for concurrence. After concurrence in the plan, Cal-Am shall implement the monitoring and reporting, and shall annually submit the proposed credit amount for the water year within 2 months of the end of the instream flow agreement or of the water year, whichever comes first. The amount shall become available as credit in the amount approved by the Deputy Director.
xiii. Malpaso Water Company: Water provided by the Malpaso Water Company LLC to Cal-Am under water right License 13868A shall not be counted towards calculation of compliance with the Effective Diversion Limit for the water year in which the water is provided to Cal-Am to the extent that Cal-Am is merely transporting the water on behalf of Malpaso Water Company to serve Malpaso Water Company’s contracts with water users. To the extent such water is used by Cal-Am to serve its customers, this water will be counted towards calculation of compliance with the EDL, and shall serve to increase the portion of such diversion that are made under lawful rights. Any use of the Malpaso Water Company’s diversions shall be consistent with the terms of License 13868A and Division Decision 2015-0001. c. Either Cal-Am or the District may petition the Deputy Director for Water Rights for relief from reductions imposed under this Order. No relief shall be granted unless all of the following conditions are met: (1) Cal-Am and the District continue the moratorium on new service connections; (2) the demand for potable water by Cal-Am customers meets all applicable conservation standards and requirements; and (3) a showing is made that public health and safety will be threatened if relief is not granted. Any relief granted shall remain in effect only as long as a prohibition on new service connections remains in effect, and compliance with applicable conservation standards and requirements remains in effect. This section supersedes ordering paragraph 3.b. of State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060.
4. Status of Steelhead Fishery Report. During the extension period Cal-Am will provide funding in an amount up to $175,000 per year for the preparation of an annual report that evaluates the status of the threatened South-Central California Coast Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ("SCCC Steelhead DPS") in the Carmel River ("Status of Steelhead Fishery Report"). If possible, the annual Status of the Steelhead Fishery Report will be 25 prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Science ("NMFS") Southwest Fisheries Science Center ("SWFSC"). If NMFS West Coast Region finds a significant change in the status of the SCCC Steelhead DPS since the previous report (or, in the case of the first report, since the effective date of this Order), NMFS West Coast Region may provide recommendations for additional adaptive management measures to be taken with respect to the SCCC Steelhead DPS in the Carmel River. If SWFSC cannot complete the Status of the Steelhead Fishery Report for any or all years during the extension period, Cal-Am will designate another individual or entity, in consultation with the other Applicants and other stakeholders, with requisite expertise to complete the report. If NMFS objects to the choice, Cal-Am shall designate a different individual or entity. If the NMFS West Coast Region cannot review the Status of the Steelhead Fishery report in any or all years, Applicants and other stakeholders may develop an alternative system for making adaptive management recommendations. Cal-Am will deliver the report in a cost effective and efficient manner, and will work with Applicants, stakeholders, and the preparer of the Status of the Steelhead Fishery Report to share resources, and to avoid duplication of effort to lower the cost of the report to the extent practicable. The Status of the Steelhead Fishery Report and any adaptive management recommendations shall be submitted to the State Water Board by Cal-Am each year with the corresponding joint annual report.
5. Additional Conservation Measures: Cal-Am has stated that it will implement an additional $2.5 million of projects to improve fish passage and habitat during the four years following adoption of this Order, as follows: improvements to the existing upstream fish passage ladder and trap at Los Padres Dam ($0.2 million); installation of a fish screen at the lower outlet pipe on Los Padres Dam ($0.8 million); a pit tagging program ($1.0 million); and a through-reservoir survival study for Los Padres Reservoir ($0.5 million). If the above projects are not implemented according to plans developed in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the State Water Board may revisit this Order to determine whether to make further adjustments to protect public trust resources in the Carmel River.
6. Carmel River Volitional Fish Passage: Cal-Am has substantially completed downstream fish passage facilities at Los Padres Dam. If Cal-Am fails to remove the Old Carmel River Dam and the Sleepy Hollow Ford before September 30, 2017, the State Water Board may reopen this order to determine whether to make further adjustments to improve fish passage in the Carmel River or otherwise restore public trust resources.
7. On June 1 of each year, Cal-Am shall submit an operating plan to the Deputy Director for Water Rights specifying the quantity of water it will supply from the ASR Project for its customers after May 31 of each year. This plan shall provide for use of the water between June 1 and September 30 of the water year the water was pumped from the Carmel River, unless otherwise authorized by the fishery agencies. Cal-Am shall reduce its illegal diversions from the Carmel River at the same rate ASR water is recovered from the groundwater basin. ASR diversions remain subject to State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060, ordering paragraph 3.c. This section supersedes ordering paragraph 4 of WRO 2009-0060.
26 8. In addition to the reporting required elsewhere in this order or required under WRO 2009-0060 ordering paragraph 6, except as specified, Cal-Am shall provide and post on its website the following information in quarterly reports:
a. Monthly summaries of the total quantity of water produced from the Carmel River, and other separate sources of water used by Cal-Am within the service area. b. Monthly summaries of the total quantity of ASR project water diverted from the river under water right Permits 20808A and 20808C and stored in the Seaside Groundwater Basin, including the separate accounting of the amounts pumped in excess of 600 afa. The monthly reporting shall also state the quantity of ASR water recovered from aquifer storage and beneficially used, and the current balance of ASR water remaining in storage in the Seaside Groundwater basin. This paragraph supersedes WRO 2009-0060, ordering paragraph 6.(b). c. Monthly summaries of the quantity of water being supplied by the Malpaso Water Company to Cal-Am and to Malpaso customers supplied using Cal-Am facilities. The reporting shall identify the amount of water used at Cal-Am’s existing meter connections and within the Cal-Am service area, and the amounts used at new service connections served by Malpaso Water Company. The monthly reports shall specify the quantity of water used to reduce diversions from the river during the reporting period.
d. Monthly summaries of the quantity of water produced by the City of Pacific Grove, and the quantity of water used to reduce diversions from the river during the reporting period.
Cal-Am shall not deliver water produced by the City of Pacific Grove unless such use is consistent with Resolution 2015-0070, paragraph 4.
e. For the final quarter of each water year, the report shall include the quantification and basis of any credits earned and of any amount being carried over for future years. f. An accounting of the progress towards completion of the Water Supply Project MPWSP Desalination Plant and Pure Water Monterey Project that identifies all progressive steps completed during the previous 12 months and the upcoming 12 month’s anticipated progress, and discussion of potential setbacks that may beyond the Applicant’s control.
10. Each report submitted by Cal-Am shall be certified under penalty of perjury and shall include the following declaration: "I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that all statements contained in this report and any accompanying documents are true and correct, with full knowledge that all statements made in this report are subject to investigation and that any false or dishonest statement may be grounds for prosecution."
11. Cal-Am shall file quarterly reports of its diversions under Paragraph 5 (small project implementation) of State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060. This section corrects an error in State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060 ordering paragraph 7, which incorrectly identified the relevant paragraph as State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060 ordering paragraph 3.
12. The Deputy Director for Water Rights is authorized to modify the timing and the content of the reporting required by all of the provisions of this Order to more effectively carry out the intent of this Order.
13. Cal-Am shall comply with all requirements of State Water Board Order 95-10, except as provided in State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060, ordering paragraph 9, or except as inconsistent with this Order.
27 14. The Deputy Director for Water Rights is directed to closely monitor Cal-Am's compliance with State Water Board Order 95-10, State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060, and this Order. Appropriate action shall be taken to insure compliance with these Orders including the issuance of additional cease and desist orders under Water Code section 1831, the imposition of administrative civil liability under Water Code section 1055, and referral to the Attorney General under Water Code section 1845 for injunctive relief and for civil liability. If additional enforcement action becomes necessary, the Deputy Director is directed to consider including in such actions all Cal-Am's violations of Water Code section 1052 since the adoption of Order 95-10.
15. The conditions of this Order, State Water Board Order WR 2009-0060 and State Water Board Order 95-10 shall remain in effect until (a) Cal-Am certifies, with supporting documentation, that it has obtained a permanent supply of water that has been substituted for the water illegally diverted from the Carmel River and (b) the Deputy Director for Water Rights concurs, in writing, with the certification.
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned Clerk to the Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on July 19, 2016.
AYE: Chair Felicia Marcus
Vice Chair Frances Spivy-Weber
Board Member Tam M. Doduc
Board Member Steven Moore
Board Member Dorene D’Adamo
NAY: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Jeanine Townsend
Clerk to the Board
California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District G 2020 Urban Water Management Plan G
Appendix G. Seaside
Groundwater Basin
Adjudication
1 2
3 4
5 6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CITY OF SEASIDE; CITY OF
MONTEREY; CITY OF SAND CITY;
CITY OF DEL REY OAKS; SECURITY
NATIONAL GUARANTY, INC.; GRANITE
ROCK COMPANY, INC.; D.B.O.
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NO. 27, INC.;
MURIEL E. CALABRESE 1987 TRUST;
ALDERWOODS GROUP (CALIFORNIA),
INC.; PASADERA COUNTRY CLUB, LLC;
LAGUNA SECA RESORT, INC; BISHOP
MC INTOSH & MC INTOSH, a general
partnership; THE YORK SCHOOL, INC.;
COUNTY OF MONTEREY; and DOES 1
through 1,000, Inclusive,
Defendants.
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
Intervenor.
MONTEREY COUNTY WATER
RESOURCES AGENCY,
Intervenor.
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
Case No. M66343
AMENDED DECISION
Action Filed: August 14, 2003
Trial Date: December 13, 2005
Dept.: 21
27 28
SONIACI, SIM IONS &
AMENDED DECISION 1
I. INTRODUCTION
This Decision sets forth the adjudicated rights of the parties to this lawsuit (with certain exceptions noted in section I.D. below), including Plaintiff California American Water, and Defendants the City of Seaside, the City of Monterey, the City of Sand City, the City of Del Rey Oaks, Security National Guaranty, Inc., Granite Rock Company, D.B.O. Development Company No. 27, Muriel E. Calabrese 1987 Trust, Alderwoods Group (California), Inc., Pasadera Country Club, LLC, Laguna Seca Resort, Inc., Bishop, McIntosh & McIntosh, and The York School, Inc. (hereinafter "Water User Defendants") to use the water resources of the Seaside Groundwater Basin ("Seaside Basin" or "Basin") and provides for a physical solution for the perpetual management of the Basin, which long-term management will provide a means to augment the water supply for the Monterey Peninsula.
A. Seaside Groundwater Basin.
The Seaside Basin is located in Monterey County and underlies the Cities of Seaside, Sand City, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, and portions of unincorporated county areas, including the southern portions of Fort Ord, and the Laguna Seca Area. The boundaries of the Basin are depicted in Exhibit B of this Decision. Generally, the Seaside Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west, the Salinas Valley on the north, the Toro Park area on the east, and Highways 68 and 218 on the south. The Seaside Basin consists of subareas, including the Coastal subarea and the Laguna Seca subarea in which geologic features form partial hydrogeologic barriers between the subareas.
B. The Parties.
1. Plaintiff California American Water ("Plaintiff" or "California American") is an investor-owned public utility incorporated under the laws of the State of California. (See Pub.
Utilities Code, §§ 1001 et seq. and 2701 et seq.) California American produces groundwater from the Seaside Basin and delivers it for use on land within its certificated service area that both overlies portions of the Seaside Basin, and is located outside of the Seaside Basin Area, all within the County of Monterey.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 SOTIACH, SIMMONS & UPON
PROFF,SIONAL COPPORTTION
//
AMENDED DECISION 2
2. Defendant City of Seaside ("Seaside") is a general law city situated in the County of Monterey. Seaside produces groundwater from the Seaside Basin (1) for use on two city-owned golf courses that overly the Basin, and (2) for municipal water service to its residents. (See Call. Const., Art. XI, § 9; Gov. Code, § 38730.)
3. Defendant City of Sand City ("Sand City") is a charter city situated in the County of Monterey. Sand City produces groundwater from the Seaside Basin and delivers it for use on private and publicly owned lands within its incorporated boundaries, all of which overlie the Seaside Basin. (See Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 9; Gov. Code, § 38730.)
4. Defendant City of Del Rey Oaks ("Del Rey Oaks") is a general law city situated in the County of Monterey. Land within Del Rey Oaks' incorporated boundaries overlies the Seaside Basin. The two wells Del Rey Oaks presently operates for irrigation of public lands are located outside the Seaside Basin area and are, therefore, excluded from this Stipulation. (See Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 9; Gov. Code, § 38730.)
5. Defendant City of Monterey ("Monterey") is a charter city situated in the County of Monterey. Monterey owns and controls land that overlies the Seaside Basin area.
6. Defendant Security National Guaranty, Inc. ("SNG") is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the City and County of San Francisco. SNG's primary business activity is real estate development. As part of its operation, SNG and/or its predecessors-in-interest have produced groundwater from the Seaside Basin. SNG also owns land overlying the Seaside Basin.
7. Defendant Granite Rock Company ("Granite") is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the County of Santa Cruz. Granite's primary business activity is the production and sale of concrete aggregate and building materials. As part of its Seaside concrete and building materials plant, Granite has produced groundwater from the Seaside Basin.
Granite also owns land overlying the Seaside Basin.
8. Defendant D.B.O. Development No. 27 ("D.B.O."), erroneously sued herein as D.B.O. Development Company, is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in the County of Monterey. D.B.O.'s primary business activity is the ownership and 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
sonuai, SIMMONS & DUNN
A PROrE,S101.1. COMPOWSTIUN
AMENDED DECISION 3
development of real property for commercial, industrial, residential, and public uses. As part of their ownership and development of land overlying the Seaside Basin, D.B.O. and/or its predecessor in interest have produced groundwater from the Basin. D.B.O. also owns and controls land overlying the Seaside Basin.
9. Defendant Muriel E. Calabrese 1987 Trust ("Calabrese") is an irrevocable trust that holds property in the County of Monterey. Calabrese and/or its predecessor in interest have produced groundwater from the Seaside Basin in relation to the operation of its paving, grading and construction business and operation of a concrete batch plant in Sand City. Calabrese also owns and controls land overlying the Seaside Basin.
10. Defendant Alderwoods Group (California), Inc. ("Alderwoods Group"), DBA Mission Memorial Park ("Mission Memorial") is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the County of Monterey. Mission Memorial's primary business activity is the operation of a cemetery in the City of Seaside. As part of maintenance of the cemetery, Mission Memorial has produced groundwater from the Seaside Basin. Mission Memorial also owns land overlying the Seaside Basin.
11. Defendant Pasadera Country Club, LLC ("Pasadera") is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business in the County of Monterey. Pasadera's primary business activity is the operation of a private golf course. As part of its golf course operations, Pasadera has produced groundwater from the Seaside Basin. Pasadera also owns land overlying the Seaside Basin.
12. Defendant Bishop, McIntosh & McIntosh ("Bishop") is a general partnership, with its principal place of business in the County of Monterey. Bishop owns land overlying the Laguna Seca Subarea of the Seaside Basin. Defendant Laguna Seca Resort, Inc.("Laguna Seca") is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the County of Monterey.
Laguna Seca's primary business activity is the operation of a public golf course on land owned in fee by Bishop. Laguna Seca operates the golf course pursuant to a lease with Bishop. As part of the golf course's operations, groundwater is produced from the Laguna Seca Subarea of the Seaside Basin for irrigation purposes. Laguna Seca filed a cross-complaint against California 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOMACH, SIMMONS & Dunn,
PlierES,IONAL CORPORATION
AMENDED DECISION 4
American, and Bishop filed a cross-complaint against California American and all defendants other than Laguna Seca Defendants Laguna Seca Resort, Inc. and Bishop, McIntosh & McIntosh shall collectively be referred to as "Laguna Seca/Bishop." However, the pumping allocation established in Section III.B., below, is held only by Bishop, as the overlying property owner.
Laguna Seca is a Water User Defendant now exercising Bishop's pumping allocation and operating the golf course facilities. The damages provided for in Section III.G. shall be based on the Average Gross Annual Income of the entity operating thee golf course facilities, which is now Laguna Seca (Bishop's lessee).
13. Defendant County of Monterey owns land on which is operates the Laguna Seca Park. County of Monterey has produced groundwater from the Seaside Basin for use at Laguna Seca Park. County of Monterey owns land overlying the Seaside Basin.
14. Intervenor Monterey Peninsula Water Management District ("MPWMD") is a district formed pursuant to Water Code Appendix sections 118-1 et seq. MPWMD intervened as a party defendant as against California American, cross-complained against the other parties as a plaintiff, and is a defendant in a cross-complaint filed by Seaside and joined in by City defendants.
15. Intervenor Monterey County Water Resources Agency ("MCWRA") is a duly constituted Water Resources Agency created pursuant to California Water Code Appendix section 52-3 et seq. MCWRA intervened inn this action as a plaintiff as against all parties.
16. Defendant The York School, Inc. ("York" or "York School"), is a nonprofit corporation, founded in 1959 as an independent day school providing college preparatory education. Its primary activity is the operation of a school. York leases approximately 31.4 acres of property from the United States, Department of the Army, on the former Fort Ord. This property is located immediately north of the main campus, across York Road, and is a portion of a larger parcel, approximately 107 acres in size, that is scheduled to be transferred as a public benefit conveyance to York from the federal government. This parcel overlies the Seaside Basin and is subject to this Decision. York has produced groundwater from the Seaside Basin. York is not an agent of the United States, nor can York bind the United States to this Decision.
AMENDED DECISION 5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SONIACI1, SIMMONS & DUN'
PFICIM,S11INAL L0111,10..iTION
C. The Complaint.
On or about August 14, 2003, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1 through 1,000 requesting a declaration of Plaintiff's and Defendants' individual and collective rights to groundwater and a mandatory and prohibitory injunction requiring the reasonable use and coordinated management of groundwater within the Seaside Basin pursuant to Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution. The pleadings further allege that Plaintiff and Defendants collectively claim substantially all rights of groundwater use, replenishment and storage within the Seaside Basin area, that the Natural Safe Yield (as defined in Section III.A.) is being exceeded, and that absent a physical solution and coordinated groundwater management strategy, the Seaside Basin is in imminent risk of continued lowering of water levels, increased pump-lifts, diminution of water supply and quality, seawater intrusion, and possible land subsidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff requested: (1) a determination of the Seaside Basin's safe yield; (2) an operating plan for the management of the Basin; (3) a declaration of the rights of the parties named in this Complaint; (4) a declaration and quantification, as part of a physical solution, of the parties' respective rights to make use of the Seaside Basin's available storage space; and (5) the appointment of a Watermaster to administer the Court's Decision. Subsequently, Plaintiff has twice amended its complaint and the operative complaint is now the Second Amended Complaint, which sets forth the same general allegations as the original complaint.
D. Defendants' Responses.
Water User Defendants in this action have all responded to the Complaint pursuant to Answers. In addition, they have all joined in a motion seeking Court approval of a Stipulated Judgment. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the County of Monterey, including the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, did not join in the Stipulation.
On or about September 24, 2003, Intervenor MPWMD filed a complaint in intervention against the defendants named in the Complaint. Defendants to that complaint responded to the cross-complaint pursuant to an Answer, containing a general denial and affirmative defenses. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 27
28 SUMACH, sminIoNs DIANN
PROf E,SIONAL COP.RATION
//
AMENDED DECISION 6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Seaside, on or about January 9, 2004, filed a cross-complaint against MPWMD. MPWMD responded to the cross-complaint by filing an Answer, containing a general denial and affirmative defenses.
Laguna Seca, on or about April 23, 2004, filed a cross-complaint against California American. California American responded to the cross-complaint pursuant to an Answer, containing a general denial and affirmative defenses.
Bishop, on or about September 23, 2004, filed a cross-complaint against California American and against all defendants other than Laguna Seca. California American, Granite, Sand city, Alderwoods Group, York School, D.B.O., Monterey, MPWMD, Seaside, and Pasadera responded to the cross-complaint pursuant to Answers containing general denials and affirmative defenses.
SNG, on or about July 26, 2005, filed a cross-complaint against MPWMD. MPWMD responded to the cross-complaint by filing an Answer, containing a general denial and affirmative defenses.
At the conclusion of argument on December 22, 2005, the various defendant crosscomplainants agreed that the relief they had sought via their cross-complaints had been subsumed in the litigation of the complaint and complaints in intervention, the answers thereto, and the Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release executed by all parties save the intervenors and the County of Monterey.
E. Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment.
Plaintiff and Water User Defendants filed a Motion for the Entry of Judgment along with a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, which was opposed by both intervenors. The Motion for Entry of Judgment requested that the Court approve the Stipulation and enter the Judgment. The motion was heard by this Court on December 12, 2005. At the request of the moving parties, it deferred its ruling until it had taken evidence in the trial of this matter.
Having now received the evidence, and having considered written and oral argument from the various parties, the Court denies the Motion for Entry of Judgment. The Court accepts the stipulation of certain of the parties entitled "Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release" SONIACI-N SIMMONS & DUNN uiorD,RDAcroPPuRADon
AMENDED DECISION 7
filed with the Court during trial insofar as the stipulation does not conflict with the ruling set forth herein.
F. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction to enter a Judgment declaring and adjudicating Plaintiff's and Water User Defendants' rights to the reasonable and beneficial use of groundwater in the Seaside Basin Area, including the imposition of a physical solution, pursuant to Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution.
II. FINDINGS
A. Importance of Groundwater. Groundwater is an important water supply source for businesses, individuals and public agencies that overlie or Extract groundwater from the Seaside Basin. The overwhelming majority of the groundwater appropriated from the Seaside Basin has been and continues to be dedicated to a public use in accordance with the provisions of the California Constitution, Article X, Section 5. The Plaintiff and the Water User Defendants rely upon continued availability of groundwater to meet their demands. The intervenors, MPWMD and MCWRA, have a legislatively mandated interest in the preservation and enhancement of groundwater in the Basin.
B. Status of the Groundwater Basin.
1. Perennial Natural Safe Yield. The Perennial Natural Safe Yield (as defined in Section III.A. and hereinafter referred to as "Natural Safe Yield") of the Seaside Basin is solely the result of natural percolation from precipitation and surface water bodies overlying the Basin.
The Court finds that the Natural Safe Yield of the Basin as a whole, assuming no action is taken to capture subsurface flow exiting the northern boundary of the Basin, is from 2,581 to 2,913 acre feet per year. The Natural Safe Yield for the Coastal Subarea is estimated from 1,973 to 2,305 acre feet per year, and the Natural Safe Yield for the Laguna Seca Subarea is 608 acre feet per year.
2. Groundwater Production. Production records demonstrate that the cumulative annual groundwater production of the Parties from the Seaside Basin area in each of the five (5) years immediately preceding the filing of this action has been between approximately 5,100 and 6,100 acre feet. Therefore, the Court finds that groundwater production has exceeded the Natural 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOMACI-1, SIMMONS & DUNN
A PN OMS 11,1 CAMATION AMENDED DECISION 8
Safe Yield during the preceding five (5) years throughout the Seaside Basin and in each of its subareas. While no one can predict with precision when it will occur, all parties agree continued indefinite production of the Basin Groundwater in excess of the Natural Safe Yield will ultimately result in seawater intrusion, with deleterious effects on the Basin. The evidence demonstrates that the stage is set for such an occurrence in the foreseeable future.
C. Legal Claims.
1. Groundwater Rights. Certain Parties allege that they have produced groundwater openly, notoriously, continuously, and without interruption in excess of the Natural Safe Yield of the Basin for more than five (5) years. As a result, these Parties allege that they have accrued prescriptive rights as articulated by the California Supreme Court in City of Pasadena v. City of Alhambra (1948) 33 Cal.2d 908. In defense of these claims, other Parties deny that the elements of prescription have been satisfied, and further allege the affirmative defense of "self help" as recognized in Pasadena, supra, 33 Cal.2d at pp. 932-32. Those Parties responsible for public water service also raise Civil Code section 1007 as an affirmative defense against prescription.
The Court finds that there is merit to the claim that certain prescriptive rights have accrued, but also finds that there is merit to the aforementioned affirmative defenses. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Parties collectively possess a variety of rights based in prescription and other original rights (including overlying and appropriative rights). Each Party's right to produce naturally occurring groundwater from the Seaside Basin therefore reflects the amount of their historical production from the Basin, and respects the priority of allocations under California law. The physical solution set forth by this Decision is intended to ultimately reduce the drawdown of the aquifer to the level of the Natural Safe Yield; to maximize the potential beneficial use of the Basin; and to provide a means to augment the water supply for the Monterey Peninsula.
2. Storage Rights. The Court finds that the public interest is served by augmenting the total yield of the Seaside Basin through artificial groundwater recharge, storage, and recovery.
It is well established that an entity which artificially recharges a groundwater basin with the intent to later recapture that water maintains an exclusive right to recapture that quantity of water by which said recharge augments the retrievable water supply of the groundwater basin, so long as 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
AMENDED DECISION 9
such recharge and recapture (i.e., storage) does not materially harm the groundwater basin or any other entity's prior rights associated with the groundwater basin. (City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando (1975) 14 Ca1.3d 199, 264; City of Los Angeles v. City of Glendale (1943) 23 Cal.2d 68, 76-77; see also Water Code, § 7075.) The Court finds, therefore, that the right to store and recover water from the Seaside Basin shall be governed by the provisions of the Decision, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Seaside Basin Watermaster, the basic provisions of which are described in Section III.H.
3. De Minimis Production. The Court finds that production of groundwater by any person or entity less than five (5) acre feet per year is not likely to significantly contribute to a Material Injury (as defined in Section III.A.) to the Seaside Basin or any interest related to the Seaside Basin. Accordingly, this Decision is not intended to govern the production of groundwater by any person or entity that produces a total quantity of groundwater that is less than five (5) acre feet peer year. However, to the extent the Court determines in the future that this exemption has contributed to or threatens to contribute to a Material Injury to the Seaside Basin or any interest related to the Seaside Basin, including any contribution caused by production subject to this exemption in combination with all other production from the Seaside Basin, the Court will modify or eliminate this exemption as it deems prudent pursuant to its reserved jurisdiction provided in Section M.O.
4. Transferability of Seaside Basin Rights. The Court finds that maximum beneficial use of the Seaside Basin's resources is encouraged by the ability to sell and lease production allocations. Such transferability will also provide necessary flexibility to satisfy future water supply needs. Accordingly, the Court finds that production allocations should be assignable, subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Watermaster, and subject to certain Parties' participation in the Alternative Production Allocation, described in Section III.B.3, which election will restrict their transfers of water.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
//
//
//
SONIACH, SIMMONS & DUNN
A PROrESSIONAL CDPPIRATI,
AMENDED DECISION 10
III. DECISION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
A. Definitions.
1. "Alternative Production Allocation" is the amount of Groundwater that a Producer participating in this allocation method may Produce from a Subarea of the Seaside Basin as provided in Section III.B.3.
2. "Artificial Replenishment" means the act of the Watermaster, directly or indirectly, engaging in or contracting for Non-Native Water to be added to the Groundwater supply of the Seaside Basin through Spreading or Direct Injection to offset the cumulative OverProduction from the Seaside Basin in any particular Water Year pursuant to Section III.L.3.j.iii.
It shall also include programs in which Producers agree to refrain, in whole or in part, from exercising their right to produce their full Production Allocation where the intent is to cause the replenishment of the Seaside Basin through forbearance in lieu of the injection or spreading of Non-Native Water.
3. "Base Water Right" is the percentage figure or the fixed amount assigned to each Party as provided in Section III.B.2, which is used to determine various rights and obligations of the Parties as provided in Sections III.B.2, III.B.3, III.L.3.c, and III.L.3.j.iii.
4. "Brackish Water" means water containing greater than 1,000 parts of chlorides to 1,000,000 parts of Water.
5. "Carryover" means that portion of a Party's Production Allocation that is not Extracted from the Basin during a particular Water Year. Each acre-foot of Carryover establishes an acre-foot of Carryover Credit.
6. "Carryover Credit(s)" means the quantity of Water established through Carryover, that a Party is entitled to Produce from the Basin pursuant to Section III.F. //
//
//
//
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SONIACII, SIMMONS & DU.
A 1,20,...,,,,PPONATION
AMENDED DECISION 11
7. "Coastal Subarea" means those portions of the Seaside Basin that are west of North-South Road, and further as shown on the Basin map attached as Exhibit B to this Decision.
8. "Direct Injection" means a method of Groundwater recharge whereby Water is pumped into the Basin through wells or other artificial channels.
9. "Extraction," "Extractions," "Extracting," "Extracted," and other variations of the same noun or verb, mean pumping, taking, diverting or withdrawing Groundwater by any manner or means whatsoever from the Seaside Basin.
10. "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
11. "Fiscal Year" means the twelve (12) month period from January 1 through December 31.
12. "Groundwater" means all Water beneath the ground surface in the Seaside Basin, including Water from Natural Replenishment, Artificial Replenishment, Carryover, and Stored Water.
13. "Laguna Seca Subarea," or "Laguna Seca Area," means those portions of the Basin that are east of the Southern Coastal Subarea and south of the Northern Inland Subarea, as shown on the Seaside Basin map attached as Exhibit B to this Decision.
14. "Landowner Group" means all Producers that own or lease land overlying the Seaside Basin and Produce Groundwater solely for use on said land, except California American, Seaside (Municipal), Monterey, Del Rey Oaks, and Sand City.
15. "Material Injury" means a substantial adverse physical impact to the Seaside Basin or any particular Producer(s), including but not limited to: seawater intrusion, land subsidence, excessive pump lifts, and water quality degradation. Pursuant to a request by any Producer, or on its own initiative, Watermaster shall determine whether a Material Injury has occurred, subject to review by the Court as provided for in Section M.N. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SUMACH, SIMMONS
A PROFF,SIONALMI,C){,TION
AMENDED DECISION 12
16. "Natural Replenishment" means all processes by which Water may become a part of the Groundwater supply of the Seaside Basin without the benefit of the Physical Solution and the coordinated management it provides. Groundwater that occurs in the Seaside Basin as a result of the Physical Solution, which is not Natural Replenishment, includes, but is not limited to Storage, Carryover, and Artificial Replenishment.
17. "Natural Safe Yield" or "Perennial Natural Safe Yield" means the quantity of Groundwater existing in the Seaside Basin that occurs solely as a result of Natural Replenishment. The Natural Safe Yield of the Seaside Basin as a whole, assuming no action is taken to capture subsurface flow exiting the northern boundary of the Basin, is from 2,581 to 2,913 acre feet per year. The Natural Safe Yield for the Coastal Subareas is from 1,973 to 2,305 acre feet per year. The Natural Safe Yield for the Laguna Seca Subarea is 608 acre feet per year.
18. "Non-Native Water" means all Water that would not otherwise add to the Groundwater supply through natural means or from return flows from surface applications other than intentional Spreading.
19. "Overdraft" or "Overdrafted" refers to a condition within a Groundwater basin resulting from long-term depletions of the basin over a period of years.
20. "Operating Safe Yield" means the maximum amount of Groundwater resulting from Natural Replenishment that this Decision, based upon historical usage, allows to be produced from each Subarea for a finite period of years, unless such level of production is found to cause Material Injury. The Operating Safe Yield for the Seaside Basin, as a whole, is 5,600 acre feet. The Operating Yield is 4,611 acre feet for the Coastal Subarea and 989 acre feet for the Laguna Seca Subarea. The Operating Yield established here will be maintained for three (3) years from the date of this Decision or until a determination is made by the Watermaster, concurred in by this Court, that continued pumping at this established Operating Yield will cause Material Injury to the Seaside Basin or to the Subareas, or will cause Material Injury to a Producer due to unreasonable pump lifts. In either such event the Watermaster shall determine the modified Operating Yield in accordance with the Principles and Procedures attached hereto as Exhibit A, and through the application of criteria that it shall develop for this purpose. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SON, CH, NIMMONS lfc DUNN
A FROY.,101,1,01L,RATIIIN
AMENDED DECISION 13
21. "Over-Production" and other variations of the same term means (1) with regard to all Production from the Seaside Basin, that quantity of Production which exceeds an initially assumed Natural Safe Yield of 3,000 afy (or such adjusted calculation of Natural Safe Yield as further study of the Basin by the Watermaster shall justify); or (2) with regard to each Producer, that quantity of Water Produced in any Water Year in excess of that Producer's Base Water Right, as applied to an initially assumed Natural Safe Yield of 3,000 afy (subject to adjustment as further study shall justify). For a Party producing under the Alternative Production Allocation, the calculation shall be based upon the Base Water Right assigned to them in Table 1, infra, only to the extent that Party has elected to convert all or part of an Alternative Production Allocation into a Standard Production Allocation, pursuant to Section III.B.3.e.
22. Operating Yield Over-Production means pumping of Native Water by Producers in excess of their Standard Production Allocation or Alternative Production Allocation, as discussed in Section III.L.3.j.iii.
23. "Person" or "Persons" includes individuals, partnerships, associations, governmental agencies and corporations, and any and all types of entities.
24. "Physical Solution" means the efficient and equitable management of Groundwater resources within the Seaside Basin, as prescribed by this Decision, to maximize the reasonable and beneficial use of Water resources in a manner that is consistent with Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution, the public interest, and the basin rights of the Parties, while working to bring the Production of Native Water to Natural Safe Yield.
25. "Produce," "Produced," or "Production" means (1) the process of Extracting Water or (2) the gross amount of Water Extracted.
26. "Producer" means a Party possessing a Base Water Rights.
27. "Production Allocation" is the amount of Groundwater that a Producer may Produce from a Subarea of the Seaside Basin based on the Parties' election to proceed under either the Standard Production Allocation or the Alternative Production Allocation set forth in Sections III.B.2 and III.B.3, respectively.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOMACI3, SIMMONS & DONN
A 1-10.7FESNRINAI.000.1,017ATION
AMENDED DECISION 14
28. "Replenishment Assessment" means an assessment levied by the Watermaster per each acre-foot of Over-Production against each party Over-Producing Groundwater in the previous Water Year. The amount of the assessment shall be sufficient to cover the cost of Artificial Replenishment in an amount necessary to off-set that Producer's Over-Production, and levied as provide in Section III.L.3.j.iii. The assessment must of necessity be initially determined based upon the estimated cost of providing Non-Native water to replenish the Basin, as determined by the Watermaster.
29. "Seaside Basin" is the underground water basin or reservoir underlying the Seaside Basin Area, the exterior boundaries of which are the same as the exterior boundaries of the Seaside Basin Area.
30. "Seaside Basin Area" is the territory depicted in Exhibit B to this Decision.
31. "Spreading" means a method of introducing Non-Native Water into the Seaside Basin whereby Water is placed in permeable impoundments and allowed to percolate into the Seaside Basin.
32. "Standard Production Allocation" is the amount of Groundwater that a Producer participating in this allocation method may Produce from a Subarea of the Seaside Basin as provided in Section III.B.2, which is determined by multiplying the Base Water Right by the Operating Yield.
33. "Storage" means the existence of Stored Water in the Seaside Basin.
34. "Storage Allocation" means that quantity of Stored Water in acre feet that a Party is allowed to Store in the Coastal Subarea or the Laguna Seca Subarea at any particular time.
35. "Storage Allocation Percentage" means the percentage of Total Usable Storage Space allocated to each Producer proceeding under the Standard Production Allocation. Producers proceeding under the Alternative Production Allocation are not allocated Storage rights and, consequently, their share of the Total Usable Storage Space is apportioned to the Producers proceeding under the Standard Production Allocation. Pursuant to the terms of Section III.B.3, Parties proceeding under the Alternative Production Allocation enjoy a one-time right to change 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SONIACH, SIMMONS & DUNN
Fft(IFENNIONAL
AMENDED DECISION 15
to the Standard Production Allocation. Due to the recalculation of the Storage Allocation Percentage necessitated when a Party changes to the Standard Production Allocation, the Watermaster will maintain the up-to-date Seaside Basin Storage Allocation Percentages.
36. "Storage and Recovery Agreement" means an agreement between Watermaster and a Party for Storage pursuant to Section III.L.3.j.xx.
37. "Store" and other variations of the same verb refer to the activities establishing Stored Water in the Seaside Basin.
38. "Stored Water" means (1) Non-Native Water introduced into the Seaside Basin by a Party or any predecessors-in-interest by Spreading or Directly Injecting that Water into the Seaside Basin for Storage and subsequent Extraction by and for the benefit of that Party or their successors-in-interest; (2) Groundwater within the Seaside Basin that is accounted for as a Producer's Carryover; or (3) Non-Native water introduced into the Basin through purchases by the Watermaster, and used to reduce and ultimately reverse Over-Production.
39. "Stored Water Credit" means the quantity of Stored Water augmenting the Basin's Retrievable Groundwater Supply, which is attributable to a Party's Storage and further governed by this Decision and a Storage and Recovery Agreement.
40. "Subarea(s)" means either the Laguna Seca Subarea or the Coastal Subarea.
41. "Total Useable Storage Space" means the maximum amount of space available in the Seaside Basin that can prudently be used for Storage as shall be determined and modified by Watermaster pursuant to Section III.L.3.j.xix, less Storage space which may be reserved by the Watermaster for its use in recharging the Basin.
42. "Transfer" and other variations of the same verb refers to the temporary or permanent assignment, sale, or lease of all or part of any Producer's Production Allocation, Storage Allocation, Carryover Credits, or Stored Water Credits. Pursuant to Section III.B.3., Transfer does not include the use of Water on properties identified in Exhibit C for use under an Alternative Production Allocation.
43. "Water" includes all forms of Water.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 //
SONIACH, SIMMONS & DUNN
A PROFEA,IONALSOPMAATION
AMENDED DECISION 16
44. "Watermaster" means the court-appointed Watermaster pursuant to Section III.L. of this Decision for the purpose of executing the powers, duties, and responsibilities assigned therein.
45. "Watermaster Rules and Regulations" means those rules and regulations promulgated by the Watermaster consistent with the terms of this Decision.
46. "Water Year" means the twelve (12) month period from October Pt through
September 30th.
B. Physical Solution.
1. Groundwater Rights. The Parties have Produced Groundwater from the Seaside Basin openly, notoriously, continuously, and without interruption, which Production has been determined to be in excess of the Natural Safe Yield of the Seaside Basin and each of its Subareas for more than five (5) years. Accordingly, Parties have accrued mutual prescriptive rights and/or have preserved their overlying, appropriative, and prescriptive rights against further prescription by self-help. These individual and competitive rights, whether mutually prescriptive, appropriative or overlying rights, can be most efficiently exercised and satisfied by the implementation of this Physical Solution and in the manner expressly set forth herein.
2. Standard Production Allocation. Each Producer is authorized to Produce its Production Allocation within the designated Subarea in each of the first three Water Years.
Except for those certain Parties electing to proceed under the Alternative Production Allocation, as set forth in Section III.B.3., each Producer's Production Allocation for the first three Water Years shall be calculated by multiplying its Base Water Right, as set forth in Table 1 below, by that portion of the Operating Yield which is in excess of the sum of the Alternative Production Allocations. The Operating Yield for the Seaside Basin, as a whole, is set at 5,600 acre feet annually (afa). The Operating Yield for the Coastal Subarea is 4,611 afa, with 743 afa committed to Alternative Production Allocations and 3,868 afa committed to Standard Production Allocations. The Operating Yield for the Laguna Seca Subarea is 989 afa, with 644 afa committed to Alternative Production Allocations and 345 afa committed to Standard Production Allocations. The Operating Yield established here will be maintained for three (3) Water Years
AMENDED DECISION
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOMACI-I, NIMMONS & OMNI,
PPOR2,10.1.CORYOMIIIN
17 from the date Judgment is granted or until a determination is made by the Watermaster, concurred in by this Court, that continued pumping at this established Operating Yield will cause Material Injury to the Seaside Basin or to the Subareas or will cause Material Injury to a Producer due to unreasonable pump lifts. In the event of such Material Injury the Watermaster shall determine the modified Operating Yield in accordance with the Principles and Procedures attached hereto as Exhibit A, and through the application of criteria that it shall develop for this purpose.' Commencing with the fourth Water Year2
, and triennially thereafter the Operating Yield for both Subareas will be decreased by ten percent (10%) until the Operating Yield is the equivalent of the Natural Safe Yield unless:
a. The Watermaster has secured and is adding an equivalent amount of Non-Native water to the Basin on an annual basis; or
b. The Watermaster has secured reclaimed water in an equivalent amount and has contracted with one or more of the Producers to utilize said water in lieu of their Production Allocation, with the Producer agreeing to forego their right to claim a Stored Water Credit for such forbearance; or
a. Any combination of a and b which results in the decrease in Production of Native Water required by this decision; or
b. The Watermaster has determined that Groundwater levels within the Santa Margarita and Paso Robles aquifers are at sufficient levels to ensure a positive offshore gradient to prevent seawater intrusion. 1 If the Operating Yield changes, Standard Production Allocations will be calculated by multiplying the portion of the changed Operating Yield committed to Standard Production Allocations by the Standard Producers' Base Water Rights. This calculation will result in a remaining quantity of water already committed to Standard Production Allocations (due to the Base Water Right percentages assigned to Alternative Producers but which are not used to calculate the Standard Production Allocations), which will be further allocated to the Standard Producers in proportion to their Base Water Rights until no quantity remains unallocated. 2 As ordered by the Court at the January 12, 2007 hearing, the initial potential 10% reduction in Operating Yield will occur, if at all, on January 1, 2009. The 10% reduction would apply to 75% of the Operating Yield, because 25% of the Water Year would have already elapsed. Assuming the current Operating Yield of 5600 acrefeet, the Basin-wide Operating Yield would be reduced to 3,780 acre-feet for the remainder of the Water Year.
Subsequent potential Operating Yield reductions would occur on the Water Year schedule set forth in the MMP. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 500001. SIMMONS & DUNN
Pli,E,IONAL COPPOPATIOX
AMENDED DECISION 18
TABLE 13
Standard Production Allocations
Party: Percentage of Operating Yield Coastal Subarea
California American Water 77.55%
City of Seaside (Municipal) 6.36%
City of Seaside (Golf Courses) 10.47%
City of Sand City 0.17%
Granite Rock Company 0.60%
SNG 2.89%
D.B.O. Development No. 27 1.09%
Calabrese 0.27%
Mission Memorial Park 0.60%
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Producer: Percentage of Operating Yield for Laguna Seca Sec area
California American Water
Company
45.13%
Pasadera Country Club 22.65%
Bishop 28.88%
York School 2.89 %
Laguna Seca County Park 0.45%*
* Because the County of Monterey has not joined in the Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release, its right to Produce water will be governed by the provisions made for those Producers selecting Alternative Production Allocations.
3. Alternative Production Allocation. The following Parties, which all assert overlying Groundwater rights, have chosen to participate in an Alternative Production Allocation:
Seaside with regard to the Groundwater that it Produces for irrigation of its golf courses; Sand City, SNG, Calabrese, Mission Memorial, Pasadera, Bishop, York School, and Laguna Seca.
The Alternative Production Allocation provides the aforementioned Parties with a prior and paramount right over those Parties Producing under the Standard Production Allocation to Produce the amount set forth in Table 2 in perpetuity, and said Alternative Production shall not be 3 Certain Parties including Seaside (Golf Courses), Sand City, SNG, Calabrese, Mission Memorial, Pasadera, Bishop and York School hold an Alternative Production Allocation in the fixed amount shown in Table
2. If any of these Parties subsequently elects to convert to the Standard Production Allocation, then the Base Water Right shown in Table 1 for such converting Party will be used to determine that Party's Standard Production Allocation consistent with the terms provided in Section III.B.3.e.
SOMACH, SIMMONS & DUNN
CoRPo0...rioN
AMENDED DECISION 19
subject to any reductions under Section III.B.2 or at such times as the Watermaster determines to reduce the Operating Yield in accordance with Section III.L.3.j.ii., subject to the following terms:
a. The Alternative Production Allocation may not be transferred for use on any other property, but shall be limited to use on the respective properties (including subdivisions thereof) identified in Exhibit C;
b. The Party electing the Alternative Production Allocation may not establish Carryover Credits or Storage rights;
c. The Party electing the Alternative Production Allocation is obligated to adopt all reasonably Feasible Water conservation methods, including methods consistent with generally accepted irrigation practices;
d. In the event a Party electing the Alternative Production Allocation is required to utilize reclaimed Water for irrigation purposes, pursuant to the terms of sections 13550 and 13551 of the California Water Code, that Party shall have the first opportunity to obtain and substitute reclaimed Water for its irrigation demands. Should that Party not pursue such substitution with due diligence, any other Party may provide reclaimed Water for the irrigation purpose pursuant to the terms of sections 13550 and 13551 of the California Water Code. Under either circumstance, the Party providing the reclaimed Water for substitution shall obtain a credit to Produce an amount of Groundwater equal to the amount of substituted reclaimed Water in that particular Water Year, provided that such credit shall be reduced proportionately to all reductions in the Operating Yield in accordance with Section III.L.3.j.ii.
The Alternative Production Allocation of the Party utilizing the reclaimed Water shall be debited in an amount equal to the reclaimed Water being substituted. e. In the event that this Court, the Watermaster, or other competent governmental entity requires a reduction in the Extraction of Groundwater from the Seaside Basin or either of its Subareas, then Parties exercising a Standard Production Allocation in the affected subarea shall reduce their Groundwater Extractions pro rata to accommodate the required reduction. Only after such Parties exercising a Standard Production Allocation reduce their Extractions to zero, may Parties exercising an Alternative Production Allocation in the affected 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOMMIN SIMMONS & DUNN AMENDED DECISION 20
subarea be required to reduce their Groundwater Extractions. In such case, those Parties exercising an Alternative Production Allocation shall reduce their pumping in an amount correlative to each other in accordance with the California law pertaining to allocation of rights to Overdrafted Groundwater basins between overlying landowners.
TABLE 2
Alternative Production Allocations
Party: Coastal Subarea
Seaside (Golf Courses) 540 afa
S NG 149 afa
Calabrese 14 afa
Mission Memorial 31 afa
Sand City 9 afa
Producer: Alternative Production Allocation
Pasadera 251 afa
Bishop 320 afa
York School 32 afa
Laguna Seca County Park 41 afa*
* The County of Monterey possesses certain water rights based upon its use of water from the aquifer for maintenance of Laguna Seca Park. Its historic Production of Groundwater has averaged 41 afy. It has not joined in the stipulation of the other Producers, but is entitled to draw up to 41 afy from the Laguna Seca Subarea as if it were a party to the Alternative Production Allocations.
At any time prior to the expiration of the initial three-year operating period of this Decision, as designated in Section III.B.2, any of the aforementioned Parties, except the County of Monterey, may choose to change all or a portion of their Alternative Production Allocation to the Standard Production Allocation method set forth in Section III.B.2 and shall be entitled to all of the privileges associated with said Production Allocation as set forth herein (e.g., transferability, Storage rights, and Carryover rights). A Party choosing to change to the Standard Production Allocation shall do so by filing a declaration with the Court, and serving said declaration on all other parties. Once a Party chooses to change to the Standard Production Allocation method set forth in Section III.B.2, that Party shall not be allowed to thereafter again choose to participate in the Alternative Production Allocation. The Parties under the Standard 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOMACO, SIMMONS &
1.coxvoRaTION
AMENDED DECISION 21
Production Allocation shall not be allowed at any time to change from the Standard Production Allocation to the Alternative Production Allocation.
C. Production of Brackish Water. Sand City shall have the right to Produce Brackish Water from the brackish Groundwater aquifer portion of the Coastal Subarea of the Seaside Basin for the purpose of operating its proposed desalinization plant, said Production being limited to the Aromas Sands Formation, so long as such Production does not cause a Material Injury. Upon receiving a complaint supported by evidence from any Party to this Decision that the Production of Brackish Water by Sand City is causing a Material Injury to the Seaside Basin or to the rights of any Party to this Decision as set forth herein, the Watermaster shall hold a noticed hearing. The burden of proof at such hearing shall be on the Party making the complaint to show, based on substantial evidence, that the Production of Brackish Water by Sand City is causing a Material Injury. If the Watermaster determines, based on substantial evidence, that the Production of Brackish Water by Sand City is causing a Material Injury to the Seaside Basin or to the rights of any Party to this Decision as set forth herein, the Watermaster may impose conditions on such Production of Brackish Water that are reasonably necessary to prevent such Material Injury.
D. Injunction of Unauthorized Production. Each Producer is prohibited and enjoined from Producing Groundwater from the Seaside Basin except pursuant to a right authorized by this Decision, including Production Allocation, Carryover, Stored Water Credits, or Over-Production subject to the Replenishment Assessment. Further, all Producers are enjoined from any OverProduction beyond the Operating Yield in any Water Year in which Watermaster has declared that Artificial Replenishment is not available or possible.
E. No Abandonment. It is in the interest of reasonable beneficial use of the Seaside Basin and its Water supply, that no Producer be encouraged to take and use more Water in any Water Year than is actually required, Therefore, failure to Produce all of the Water to which a Producer is entitled hereunder for any amount of time shall, in and of itself, not be deemed to be, or constitute an abandonment of such Producer's Base Water Right or Production Allocation, in whole or in part. The Water unused by any Party (either as Production or Carryover) will SOMA., SIMMONS & DUNN
A r110,ASIONAI. CORPOIUTION
AMENDED DECISION 22
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
otherwise contribute to the ongoing efficient administration of the Decision and the Physical Solution.
F. Right to Carryover Unused Production Allocation; Carryover Credits. Except for those certain Parties electing to proceed under the Alternative Production Allocation, as set forth in Section III.B.3., for the first three Water Years each Producer who, during a particular Water Year, does not Extract from the Basin a total quantity equal to such Producer's Standard Production Allocation for the particular Water Year may establish Carryover Credits, up to the total amount of that Producer's Storage Allocation; provided, however, in no circumstance may the sum of a Producer's Storage Credits and Carryover Credits exceed that Producer's available Storage Allocation. Use (Extraction) of Carryover Credits shall be governed as otherwise provided in this Decision and the Watermaster Rules and Regulations. In consideration of the Seaside Basin's hydrogeologic characteristics, the Watermaster may discount the quantity of Water that may be Extracted pursuant to a Carryover Credit.
G. Damages and Prohibition on Enjoining Municipal Pumping. The Parties recognize that California American's pumping is for municipal purposes, including drinking Water supplies for most of the Monterey Peninsula, including within all of the Defendant Cities and to all of the Defendant landowners. In this context, if California American's Groundwater pumping causes an "Intrusion" upon a Water User Defendant's Production Allocation, then it shall compensate the Water User Defendant for damages caused by this Intrusion. An "Intrusion" occurs when a Water User Defendant exercising an Alternative Production Allocation is directed by the Watermaster, this Court or any other competent governmental entity to reduce its Groundwater pumping to a level below that Water User Defendant's Alternative Production Allocation, while California American continues pumping Groundwater from the same subarea. This damages provision does not alter the priority of the Alternative Production Allocation over the Standard Production Allocation pursuant to Section III.B.3, and is intended to address potential exigent circumstances that might arise regarding California American's municipal water service.
1. Damages from an Intrusion shall be calculated based upon the losses incurred by the Water User Defendant that are caused by the Intrusion. These losses may include the loss of 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOMACH. SIMMONS DUNN
A NROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
AMENDED DECISION 23
crop yield and associated income, measured against the average achieved over the preceding five (5) years from the date of the loss. Where an Intrusion occurs with respect to a Water User Defendant's exercise of an Alternative Production Allocation for golf course irrigation (i.e., an Intrusion to a "Golf Course Water User"), the Intrusion may cause discoloration, thinning and damage to the golf course turf and may require replacement of golf course turf and other golf course landscaping. Such conditions may, in turn, cause the loss of income from reduced golf course facilities usage and loss of good will. It may be difficult to quantify such damages to a sum certain. Accordingly, where a Golf Course Water User demonstrates that an Intrusion caused discoloration, thinning or loss of golf course turf, the following criteria shall be utilized to determine damages for an Intrusion to a Golf Course Water User. a. Lost Income.
i. The Golf Course Water User's "Average Gross Annual Income" shall be determined by summing its gross annual income from each of the five (5) years preceding the year of the Intrusion and dividing that sum by five, except where a Golf Course Water User (Pasadera) has not been in operation for seven (7) years at the time of the Intrusion, the Average Gross Annual Income shall be determined by summing the gross annual income from each of the three years preceding the year of the Intrusion and dividing that sum by three; ii. The Golf Course Water User's gross annual income during the year of an Intrusion shall be subtracted from its Average Gross Annual Income, with the resulting difference constituting the amount of lost income damages for that year of Intrusion; and iii. If an Intrusion occurs in two or more years within a five-year period, damages shall be calculated using an Average Gross Annual Income based on the last consecutive five-year period preceding the first year of Intrusion, or if a Golf Course Water User (i.e., Pasadera) has not been in operation for a full seven (7) years at the time of the Intrusion, damages shall be calculated using an Average Gross Annual Income based on the last consecutive three-year period proceeding the first year of Intrusion. Gross Annual Income shall not be calculated based upon a year in which an Intrusion occurred. //
AMENDED DECISION 24
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Seaside Groundwater Basin Adjudication Allocations: Water Years 2006 - 2026 Coastal Subareas Laguna Seca Subarea Basin
Water Operating Alternative Standard CAW Operating Alternative Standard CAW Operating Years Yield Production Production Share Yield Production Production Share Yield Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation
(afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy)
2006-2008 4,611 743 3,868 3,504 989 644 345 345 5,600
2009 4,265 743 3,522 3,191 915 644 271 271 5,180
2010-2011 4,150 743 3,407 3,087 890 644 246 246 5,040
2012-2014 3,689 743 2,946 2,669 791 644 147 147 4,480
2015-2017 3,228 743 2,485 2,251 692 644 48 48 3,920
2018-2020 2,752 743 2,009 1,820 608 608 0 0 3,360
2021-2023 2,392 743 1,649 1,494 608 608 0 0 3,000
2024-2026 2,392 743 1,649 1,494 608 608 0 0 3,000
Source: California American Water v. City of Seaside, et al. (Case No. M66343, California Superior Court, Monterey County, March 27, 2006, as amended February 9, 2007)
Notes:
1. Values are based on the Court's decision at the January 12, 2007 hearing to switch to a Water Year-based accounting period (October 1 through September 30), the first "Administrative" Year began on October 1, 2006. However, consistent with the original decision, the first reduction in the Operating Yield will occur on January 1, 2009. Each reduction after January 1, 2009, will occur at the beginning of each triennial period, i.e., October 1, 2012, October 1, 2015, and so forth.
3. CAW's share of the Standard Production Allocation for the Coastal Subareas is calculated as 90.60% of the total Standard Production Allocation. For the first triennial period, i.e., Water Years 2006 through 2008, CAW's share is 3,504 afy. This calculation is consistent with the procedure described in the adjudication decision (pages 17 through 19) and Cal-Am's arguments in the Joint Post-Judgment Motion to Request Clarification of the Court's Final Decision Relating to the Calculation of the Over-Production Replenishment Assessment dated November 28, 2006 (pages 8 through 10).
4. For computation purposes, it is assumed that the 10% reduction in the Operating Yield is based on the initial Operating Yield specified by the Court, i.e., 5,600 afy. For example, at the beginning of Water Year 2010, the 10% reduction equals 560 afy (5,600 x 0.10 = 560). Similarly, at the beginning of Water Year 2012, the 10% reduction also equals 560 afy (5,600 x
0.10 = 560).
5. For computation purposes, it is assumed that the Natural Safe Yield for the basin is and remains at 3,000 afy, with 608 afy assigned to the Laguna Seca Subarea and the remainder, 2,392 afy, assigned to the Coastal Subareas within the basin. /u/darby/excel/seaside/sgb_allocations_27mar06.xls 1/13/2008 California American Water Central Division –
Monterey County District H 2020 Urban Water Management Plan H
Appendix H. Pure Water
Monterey and Expansion
Reliability Analysis TMs
1 California American Water
Peer Review of Supply and Demand for Water
on the Monterey Peninsula
Prepared By: Kevin Alexander, P.E.
Reviewed By: Cindy L. Miller, P.E.; Jack Kiefer, PhD, Greg Gates, P.E., Luke Wang, P.E.
Hazen and Sawyer - August 11, 2020
This memorandum is in response to the following:
• Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), Exhibit 4-A Supply and Demand for Water on the Monterey Peninsula dated March 13, 2020 prepared by David J. Stoldt, General Manager;
• Exhibit 4-B Marina Coast Water District Demand (MCWD) Study by WaterDM dated April 21, 2020;
• Final Supplemental EIR for the PWM Expansion dated April 2020; and
• WaterDM Supplemental Study dated June 24, 2020.
California American Water Company (CalAm) is
responsible for ensuring the Monterey Peninsula’s
available water supply is adequate to meet demand
not just under ideal circumstances, but particularly
under any number of adverse conditions that have
some probability of occurrence.
There is no dispute that the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project (MPWSP) will provide a supply
required to meet the demand of the Monterey
Peninsula. The MPWSP is the only solution that
meets the stated goals of Governor Newsom’s 2020
Water Resilience Portfolio of: diverse water supplies,
protect and enhance natural ecosystems, build
connections and be prepared1.
MPWMD’s General Manager is asking
CalAm to utilize recycled water with
sources that are vulnerable to
drought, climate change, and water
quality challenges. CalAm is asking
for consideration of the MPWSP as a
means to address those concerns and
to address vulnerable supply issues
for the entire region.
Considering the Ocean as a safe,
secure, reliable, and resilient source
as part of the Monterey Peninsula
water supply portfolio is critical to
solving the region’s water supply.
• Since 2001, 13 dry years and 4 critically
dry years have affected the Peninsula’s
water supplies.
• Agricultural flows are diminished by a
third when compared to past years.2
• Water demands are down and that is
reducing municipal wastewater flows
available for water recycling.3
PHOTOS: USGS (TOP), HAZEN AND SAWYER (ABOVE)
2 The Pure Water Monterey(PWM) Expansion project as proposed by Monterey One Water (M1W) is intended to provide additional water supply, but fails to provide the reliability, resiliency and supply diversity needed to meet demand on the Monterey Peninsula under multiple probable adverse scenarios including demand variability, wastewater flow variability, and surface water supply limitations as discussed further in this memorandum.
In contrast, the resiliency and certainty of the MPWSP facility provides the ability to meet uncertain demands across multiple probable adverse scenarios, flexibility to manage supply to protect the environment, and enough water to support stated goals of safe, secure, reliable and resilient water for the Peninsula at all times.
Phase One of the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (PWM Phase One) is intended to provide up to 3,500 acre-feet per year of recycled water as a valuable part of the Peninsula’s supply portfolio, but expanding the facility with the PWM Expansion means more reliance on an uncertain water source and creates an imbalance in the Peninsula’s supply portfolio. Such heavy reliance on one source means more scrutiny must be placed on assessing the risks of the supply.
Only the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project provides a source that can meet the objectives of a reliable and adequate potable water supply for the Monterey Peninsula.
Water Resource Management
CalAm is responsible for assessing the ability of water supplies to meet the demands of the community and the environment in Monterey. With that responsibility comes a need to identify potential risks to its customers’ water supplies and the need to develop plans and supplies resilient to those risks. CalAm has developed the MPWSP to accomplish these objectives, ensuring the ability to protect public health and the environment on the Peninsula for the foreseeable future.
3 CalAm Considers Water Supplies Through Supply Reliability, Diversification, Data, and Dry Year Resiliency.
Supply Reliability – Water
agencies throughout the world
consider water supply reliability
when developing water supply
plans to account for known and
unknown risks. California Water
Code 10635(a) requires water
suppliers to assess the reliability
of supplies. Of the proposed
supply projects for the Peninsula,
only the MPWSP fully accounts for
water supply reliability to protect
the Peninsula from adverse supply
conditions.
Diversification – Diversification
is a foundational strategy for
minimizing the risks to any kind of
water supply portfolio. Even
California Water Code section
10608(c) declares that diverse
supply portfolios will increase
supply reliability. Governor
Newsom’s 2020 Water Resilience
Portfolio includes diversification
as the first approach to address
climate change in the state’s
water supply systems and explains
that diversification “will
strengthen water security and
reduce pressure on river systems
across the state.” (Portfolio, at p.
5.) The Governor explains that
local and regional entities “must
reduce reliance on any one source
and diversify supplies to enable
flexibility as conditions change.”
(Portfolio, p. 17.) The MPWSP
increases the diversity of the
Peninsula’s water portfolio by
introducing a new source of raw
water and reduces risk,
as opposed to the PWM Phase
One and the PWM Expansion,
which rely on the availability of
effluent treated at a centralized
recycling facility to generate 51%
of total supply available to
CalAm’s Customers.
Data – Analysis of proposed water
sources and demands over the
same time period is important to
account for impacts such as
financial downturns, drought,
water restrictions, tiered rates,
regulatory changes and
population considerations. The
MPWMD Supply and Demand
Report fails to fully account for
historical data and thus fails to tell
a complete story by using only the
past 3 or 5 years of demand data,
while simultaneously using a
different time range (2009-2013)
for other sources. Informed
decisions based on a complete
picture of supply and demand and
concrete data from the historic
and available record can and
should be made together and in
the best Interest of the Peninsula.
Dry Year Resiliency –
Throughout an increasing
percentage of the world, the
western United States, and
certainly California, planning for a
very dry year (and a succession of
dry years) is a key element to
water supply planning as required
by the California Water Code. The
source water for the MPWSP, the
Pacific Ocean, is not vulnerable to
drought – and the regulatory
conservation that often
accompanies it – unlike the source
water for PWM Phase One and the
PWM Expansion. Governor
Newsom’s 2020 Water Resilience
Portfolio specifically notes that
water suppliers need to plan for
deeper droughts and “develop
strategies to protect communities
and fish and wildlife in the event
of a drought lasting at least six
years. (p. 25) Only the MPWSP
provides for such dry year
resiliency. (Portfolio, pp. 25-26.)
4 Water Supply to Meet Demand
CalAm is responsible for meeting the requirements of the California Water Code for Urban Water Management Planning, which requires the assessment of the reliability of water service under multiple scenarios (normal, dry, and multiple dry years, including a repeat of the 5 consecutive historic driest years) and consideration of the reliability of water service given the combination of supplies available to it. (See Water Code §10635.) If PWM Phase One and the PWM Expansion are considered key sources of supply for the Peninsula, then the Peninsula is required to rely on production from PWM Phase One and PWM Expansion and ASR at all times to barely achieve normal year demands. Accepting the PWM Expansion as a key supply does not line up with informed and thorough engineering practices for water supply planning required by the California Water Code. (Water Code §§ 10610 et seq.) Figure 1 below illustrates why a diverse and balanced portfolio of water supplies is required for the Peninsula to meet the range of water demands including low optimistic demand values to the higher and more conservative demand values.
The only solution that addresses the water supply issue in a way that provides appropriate supply reliability on the Peninsula is the MPWSP. As depicted in Figure 1 below, coupled with the existing PWM Phase One and other existing sources, the MPWSP provides a robust and diversified portfolio of water supplies to address known and probable challenges such as prolonged drought conditions, limited wastewater flows, limited PWM Phase One injection, limited agricultural drain flows, flows from the Sand City Desal and possible limited flows from Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR).
Figure 1: Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Portfolio Diversification 5 ASR build-up in particular has not been successfully demonstrated throughout the development and use of the ASR system over a 15-year period. As shown in Figure 6, included in the Appendix hereto, only once in the past 15 years has ASR achieved 1,300 AFY. As explained in Hazen’s prior memo, ASR water availability is reduced to 63% in a single dry year, and even further reduced to 4% following three dry years. Therefore, ASR does not meet Water Code reliability standards (5 consecutive historic driest years) or Governor Newsom’s 2020 Water Resilience Portfolio that requires consideration of a drought lasting six years.
Further, over the past 15 years, the average availability of ASR is approximately 138 AFY, far less than the 1,300 AFY assumed by MPWMD General Manager David Stoldt and WaterDM as available to meet water demand on the Peninsula. Even over the last five years, the average availability of ASR is 352 AFY, which again is far less than the 1,300 AFY assumed available by Stoldt and WaterDM. Analysis offered by Stoldt in September 2019 to the Coastal Commission and WaterDM relied on the full availability of ASR in order for the PWM Expansion to meet existing demand on the Peninsula, however, such analysis is based on the unrealistic assumption that no drought will take place between now and 2034. Such an assumption is contradicted by plain history—there has been a multi-year drought in California in virtually every decade since 1917—and as discussed above is inconsistent with applicable water planning regulations and guidance.
In addition, counting on ASR storage at 100% with limited knowledge of losses to the ocean and other basins imparts uncertainty in that supply as a continuous resource and drought mitigation strategy. In Figure 2 below, ASR volume is shown under three distinct scenarios to account for the limited volume stored over the past 15 years and these other uncertainties—No ASR, Half ASR and Full ASR. Notably, even the Half ASR scenario requires 650 AFY, which is almost double the average ASR availability over the past five years, and over five times the 15-year ASR average. When the variability of ASR is considered, the PWM Phase One and PWM Expansion do not meet the Peninsula’s minimum water demands. This is one of the reasons that the California Public Utilities Commission concluded that “only in conjunction with construction of a desalination plant of some size within five to fifteen years” would the PWM Expansion be capable of providing a “sufficient and reliable water supply” for the Peninsula. (See CPUC Decision D.18-09-017, Appx. C, p. C-71.)
6 Figure 2: Monterey Peninsula Water Supplies to Meet Demands Comparison of PWM Expansion and MPWSP with Variable ASR MPWSP opponents claim that the MPWSP is not currently needed to meet existing demand projections. However, meeting even the lowest demand projections without the MPWSP requires full capacity operation of two other supplies that have yet to prove reliable and are vulnerable to high-probability risks.
Wastewater as a Source for PWM Phase One and PWM Expansion Stoldt’s characterization of the PWM Expansion as a project that can replace CalAm’s existing water supplies and meet the long-term needs of the Peninsula also does not accurately and transparently account for the risks of having wastewater as a primary water supply that varies with demand and drought.
4,5 As discussed below, publicly available
evidence demonstrates that wastewater cannot be relied upon as a primary water source for the PWM Expansion, and additional reliable supplies would be needed to ensure that the PWM Phase One and PWM Expansion can supply water in the amounts those projects have promised/projected.
The MPMWD Supply and Demand Report and the Supplemental EIR for the PWM Expansion focus on demands being low and use the last 3, 5 and 10 years as the basis for revised demand assumptions in CalAm’s service territory. (See MPWMD Supply and Demand Report page 8, Table 3 .) MPMWD had WaterDM evaluate demands with recent data in an attempt to explain the differences in demands between estimates by CalAm and what has been observed on the Peninsula in the past 5 years.6
7 In contrast to MPMWD’s and WaterDM’s attempt to focus only on the most recent years to support their positions, Appendix I to the Supplemental EIR for the PWM Expansion asserts that the average wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) flows should be based on the period from 2009 to 2013 where WWTP flows were 21,764 AF, or a worse case flow of 20,090 AF based on the 2013 drought year.
7 By failing to account for the most recent years since 2013, Appendix I substantially overstates the available wastewater flows that could potentially be used as source water for recycled water projects on the Peninsula.
The approach taken in Appendix I ignores that WWTP flows correlate to water demand/use, which has continued to decrease on the Peninsula due to conservation and other factors. Based on available data, Figure 3 below depicts an overall downward trend in WWTP flows that is consistent with the observed decline in water demand on the Peninsula. The EIR from 2016 for PWM Phase One shows WWTP flows trending downward from approximately 25,000 AF in 2000 to approximately 20,000 AF in 2013.8 A separate appendix to the Supplemental EIR (Appendix E) shows further reduced WWTP flows to 18,810 AF (16.79 MGD) .9 However, this number was not utilized in the Supplemental EIR to calculate available WWTP flows as source water for either PWM Phase One or PWM Expansion, which is a significant error.
Moreover, additional data collected by M1W and presented to its Ad-Hoc JPA Revision Committee on July 20, 2020, indicates that since the beginning of 2020 WWTP flows are yet again further reduced to 17,980 AF or 16.05 mgd, as specified in Exhibit 5.10 Figure 3 shows that the WWTP Flows correlate with demand reductions on the Peninsula. For example, as shown in Figure 3, since 2013 demand has declined 20.3% when compared to the average demand from 2009 to 2013. Additionally, 2013 drought year demand compared to current demand, represents a 15.3% reduction.11 Calculating the WWTP flows over these same time periods using these respective reduction percentages (20.3% and
15.3%), a conservative estimate of current average WWTP flows is 17,296 AF to as low as 17,016 AF, respectively. An alternative method of determining todays WWTP flows based on a linear trend of the existing flow data indicates that current flows are 17,987 AF, as shown in Figure 3. All of these WWTP flow estimates, which are based on a more complete picture of recent data, are much lower than those used in the SEIR Appendix I -Tables 8 to
11. As result the SEIR substantially overstates the availability of WWTP flows available as source water available to PWM Phase One and the PWM Expansion. 8 Figure 3: Reduced Demand = Reduced WWTP Flow (=Reduced Recycled Water Supply)
Monterey Wastewater Flows shown in the SEIR Appendix I-Table 8,9,10 (Normal Yr) and Table 11(Dry Yr) use data from 2009-2013 which does not represent the current WWTP Flows. The graph below estimates current WWTP flows in 2020 based on demand correlation from MPWMD Supply and Demand Report-Fig 1.
SEIR Appendix I -Tables 8 to 11 have been updated in Table 1 below to reflect more realistic estimates of WWTP flows, along with minor reductions to Reclamation Ditch flows in the Surface Waters category based on the analysis provided in the next section of this memorandum demonstrating these flows also are expected to be reduced compared to amounts claimed in the SEIR. When realistic estimates of WWTP flows are utilized, it becomes clear, the MPMWD Supply and Demand Study and the SEIR failed to assess how reduced WWTP flows would adversely affect production of the PWM Phase One or the PWM Expansion. The following Table 1 provides a comparison of Supply and Demand from SEIR Appendix I - Tables 8 to 11 with updated WWTP flows and Reclamation Ditch flows to show the impact of these expected reductions on the water available to use for the CSIP, PWM Phase One, PWM Expansion, and the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP). In all conditions there is a supply deficit.
9 TABLE 1 – IMPACTS OF REDUCED WWTP FLOW ON TABLES 8 – 11 FROM SEIR APPX. I Original SEIR Appx. I Data Updated Appx. I Data
Supply and Demand
in Acre-Ft Table 8 Table 9 Table10 Table11
Table 8
Updated
Table 9
Updated
Table10
Updated
Table11
Updated
SUPPLY
WWTP Flowa 21764 21764 21764 20090 17987 17987 17987 17016 Domestic Flows 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
New Sourcesb 2579 2579 2579 2430 2579 2579 2579 2430
Surface Waterc 3721 2052 2041 2840 3641 1972 1961 2304
TOTAL 28146 26477 26466 25442 24289 22620 22609 21832
DEMAND
CSIP and CSIP Well 17227 17227 17227 22619 17227 17227 17227 22619 PWM 4320 4320 4320 2963 4320 4320 4320 2963
PWM drought 248 248 0 0 248 248 0 0
PWM Expansion 2778 2778 2778 2778 2778 2778 2778 2778
RUWAP 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741
TOTAL 25314 25314 25066 29101 25314 25314 25066 29102
Annual Supply Excess
d 2833 1164 1400 -3659 -1025 -2693 -2457 -7270
Notes:
a Updated WWTP Flows based on Figure 2 Trends and calculated Dry Year from Demand Correlation B New sources from Table 8-11
c Surface water updated by reducing Reclamation Ditch Values from USGS 10yr average. d Annual supply excess calculated from Supply minus Demand. A negative value means a supply deficit.
Table 2 represents a flow balance to compare SEIR Appendix I Tables 8 to 11 compared to updated Table 8 to 11 with updated WWTP flow and Reclamation Ditch waters from Figure
3. Based on the flow balance for the updated Normal/Wet Year when building a reserve “Table 9 Updated column” would allow for 84 Acre-Ft to be fed to the PWM Expansion. The available supply for the Dry Year, as shown in the “Table 11 Updated” column, demonstrates that there is no flow available for PWM Phase One and PWM Expansion during a dry year, and flow for RUWAP would have to be taken as a water right to serve those flows. All scenarios analyzed demonstrate that there is little to no WWTP flow available to PWM Expansion. As a result, PWM Expansion would not have sufficient source water to produce the promised supply of 2,250 AFY.
TABLE 2 – IMPACTS OF REDUCED WWTP FLOW ON SUPPLY FLOW BALANCE Flow Balance – in Acre-Ft
Table
8 Table
9 Table
10 Table
11 Table 8
Update
Table 9
Update
Table
10 Update
Table
11 Update
Flow to CSIP + CSIP Well
Pumping 17227 17227 17227 22619 17227 17227 17227 21091e Flow to PWMf 4320 4320 4320 2963 4320 4320 4320 0
Flow to PWM Drought 248 248 0 0 248 248 0 0
Flow to PWMEg 2778 2778 2778 2778 1753 84 321 0
Flow to RUWAP 741 741 741 741 741 741 741 741
Actual Use Flowsh 25314 25314 25066 29101 24289 22620 22609 21832 Flow to ASRi 5950 5950 5750 4650 5120 3768 3759 0
Concentrate Flow to Outfallj 1536 1536 1489 1232 1342 1025 1023 141 Deficit To ASR 0 0 0 -1100 -830 -2182 -1991 -4651
10 Notes:
e CSIP and CSIP Well Flows from Table 8-11 Demand. Reduced CSIP in “Table 11 Updated” by taking Water Right f Revised flow to PWM down for Table 11 to match actual Use to supply g Flow available to PWME is calculated based on maintaining flow to PWM and RUWAP and to Concentrate h Actual Use is calculated to confirm balance with Supply i ASR Flow is from the AWT product water flow without RUWAP j Concentrate flow is 19% of Flow for PWM, PWM Drought, PWME, and RUWAP k Deficit to ASR based on Flow to ASR minus the PWM AND PWME DEMAND from Table 1 The above analysis of the WWTP flows demonstrates the need for a very thorough and transparent analysis of the current WWTP flows and the impact to the reliability of PWM Phase One and PWM Expansion. At present, there appear to be significant limitations on the availability of source water from WWTP Flows for the PWM Expansion.
Surface Water Flow Analysis
As discussed above, another area that requires consideration is the flow available to the PWM Phase One and PWM Expansion from the proposed Surface Water supplies. The Reclamation Ditch flows were analyzed originally in the Schaaf & Wheeler Agricultural Ditch Yield Study, March 2015 based on 2006-2014 data, and were updated in the SEIR Appendix I Tables 8-11. A detailed analysis of the Reclamation Ditch flows using the most recent USGS data reveals that average flows are lower than indicated in Schaaf & Wheeler and the SEIR Appendix I. The following Table 3 below shows the average monthly flow according to USGS for the last 5 years, 10 years and 2013 as compared to the values in the SEIR Appendix I Tables 8 to 11.
Table 3: Reclamation Ditch Flows12
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Normal Years (Ac-ft)
USGS 5 yr Avg minus
Instream >360 >360 >360 340 123 74 83 77 35 108 >360 >360 USGS 10 yr Avg minus
Instream >360 >360 >360 356 59 93 98 96 45 129 >360 >360 Table 8 70 66 70 106 79 99 113 109 72 65 89 76
Table 9 0 0 0 106 79 99 113 109 72 11 0 0
Table 10 0 0 0 106 79 99 113 109 72 0 0 0
Dry Years (Ac-ft)
USGS 2013(Same Jan/Feb
as Tbl11) 0 0 42 4 0 28 53 57 23 16 43 0
Table 11 0 0 70 106 79 99 113 109 72 65 89 0
Note: >360 is when diversion flows above 6 cubic feet per second (CFS) after subtraction of the instream of 2 CFS.
Table 3 shows that for the months of May through September there is a reduction of average flow per month of 16% between the Table 8, 9 and 10 compared to the USGS flows for a 10 year comparison. Table 3 also shows that for the months of June through September there is a reduction of average flow per month of 16% between the Table 8, 9 and 10 compared to the USGS flows for a 5 year comparison. In addition, using the USGS flows for 2013 with similar assumptions for December-February, there is a 67% reduction 11 in flow as compared to the predicted dry year in SEIR Table 11. As a result, the SEIR overstates the availability of Reclamation Ditch flow potentially available as source water for PWM Phase One and the PWM Expansion. Again, in this case the available flow to the PWM Phase One and the PWM Expansion should be reconsidered and revised accordingly.
The Schaaf & Wheeler report for the Reclamation Ditch indicates that agricultural flows are continuing to drop, and have dropped 1/3 in recent years. This would likely mean there are reductions in the monthly flows from Blanco Drain as well as the Agricultural Wash Water below what is projected in the SEIR. The flows for these two proposed sources were not updated beyond what was provided in the original Draft EIR for the PWM Phase One in 2016 in Appendix B – Source Water Assumptions Memorandum dated March 26, 2015.
Both of those data sources in the SEIR Appendix I Tables 8 through 11 are based on similar dated information from 2014. If the flows from the Blanco Drain and Agricultural Wash Water are considered to have similar percentage reductions during the April to October period as Reclamation Ditch flows, then there are likely conditions where the actual flows available may not be able to supply the PWM Phase One let alone the PMW Expansion.
Supplies and Demands
The combined analysis of supplies and demand illustrated in Figure 4 below (Normal/ Wet Year Building ASR) and (Dry Year) are based on monthly supply and demand from SEIR Appendix I-Tables 9 and 11 with data updated as noted in Table 1 above. Figure 4 shows that when lower WWTP Flow from Figure 3 and lower Reclamation Ditch flows from Table 3 and all other available sources are accounted for, that demand for those specific source waters far exceeds available supplies in Normal/Wet Years and in Dry Years.
Table 2 above shows that in Normal Years Building a Reserve (Table 9 Updated Column), there is potentially only 84 AF available from all of the available supplies for the PWM Expansion. Then in Dry Years, Table 2 shows there is actually no flow available from all of the supplies for the PWM Phase One or the PWM Expansion assuming water is still supplied to the CSIP with some flow taken from CSIP as a water right (as described in the Final Supplemental EIR-3.3 Master Response #3: Comments on Water Supply and Source Water Availability) to serve the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP).
Based on this analysis, PWM Phase One and PWM Expansion would not be able to provide their promised product water to the Peninsula during dry years, which are 3,500 AFY and 2,250 AFY, respectively.
12 Figure 4: Impacts of Demands Exceeding Limited Supplies Best Case Scenario based upon SEIR Appendix I-Table 9 with revised WWTP Flows (Updated Table 9) shows a supply deficit such that 84 Acre-Ft is available to PWM Expansion. The Worst Case Scenario based upon SEIR Appendix I – Table 11 Dry Year with revised WWTP Flows (Updated Table 11) shows a deficit with Zero flow available to PWM, PWM Expansion and reduced flow to CSIP.
13 The demand assumptions in Figure 4 use the same values in SEIR Appendix I Tables 9 and 11 for CSIP, PWM Phase One, PWM Expansion and RUWAP which are the same values used in Table 1 above.
As shown in Figure 4 above there is a demonstrable water deficit. Monthly supply of water as compared to demand even when the additional proposed supplies of Agricultural Wash Water, Urban Runoff, Blanco Drain, and Reclamation Ditch are included does not satisfy the demand during a significant portion of the year – particularly during the summer months.
Water Supply Deficit for either PWM Expansion or CSIP
Without an adequate supply of source water, the Peninsula is placed in a difficult position of whether to supply water to the PWM Expansion or the CSIP system, which will impact the environment long term. Although there are water rights for the water that MWMWD proposes to use to supply the PWM Expansion, there are overstatements of the actual flows that need to be addressed. Protecting public health and the environment requires determining the true volumes available for the project and whether those flows can be counted on day in and day out for supply of water to the Peninsula.
Figure 5 closely correlates the cumulative water supplies to the respective cumulative demands. The water supplies are shown in the order of use with the PWM Phase One using Blanco Drain and Rec Ditch. Based on agreements, such as the Amended and Restated Water Recycling Agreement between the M1W and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, those flows are unavailable to the PWM Expansion. Then New Sources are added to serve as the supplies for the PWM Expansion according to the priorities and water rights as defined in SEIR Appendix M. The supplies are cumulative by month. The graphs are based on SEIR Appendix I -Table 9 and 11 with the WWTP and Reclamation Ditch flows updated. These graphs include Lake El Estero and AWW, which are now not included in the water supply as noted in SEIR Appendix M as a best-case supply scenario (SEIR Appendix M-Page 5).
The demands in Figure 5 are each shown cumulatively for PWM, then PWM+PWME, then PWM+PWME+RUWAP, and ultimately PWM+PWM+RUWAP and CSIP. There is a separate blue line of PWM+CSIP to show a normal year today without the PWM Expansion. That line is necessary to determine available volume in the winter. 14 Figure 5: Supply Available for PWM Expansion or CSIP (Not Both) Best Case Scenario based upon SEIR Appendix I-Table 9 with revised WWTP Flows (Updated Table 9) shows winter volume available for PWM Expansion or if injected could be used for CSIP in the summer. The Worst Case Scenario is based upon SEIR Appendix I – Table 11 Dry Year with revised WWTP Flows (Updated Table 11) shows there is near Zero flow available for the PWM Expansion in winter and significant reduced flow to CSIP. 15 Figure 5 demonstrates that in normal years, excess winter effluent that would ultimately go to the Ocean can be used or it is otherwise wasted. However, with current CSIP demand the system will always be in a deficit. If CSIP could capture winter flow (such as the proposed but not implemented improvements to the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project (SVRP) (SEIR Master Response #3 p. 3-20, SEIR Appendix M- Page 5)) to run SVRP and CSIP at lower flows without using wells in conjunction with water storage or groundwater infiltration, then excess winter water could be available for use in the summer for CSIP.
Implementing such a storage program would be a sizable new development project and would require a significant investment to secure and develop the necessary property where the storage program could be implemented (such as a reservoir). Further, for CSIP and CSIP well demands in SEIR Appendix I Tables 9-11 to be met, this would require all of the other New Water sources, Blanco Drain and Reclamation Ditch as well to meet the combined CSIP and CSIP well flows now and especially in dry years.
CSIP flows are shown in Figure 5 based on the SEIR Tables 8-11 including the CSIP well pumping. It should be noted that the improvements to SVRP have not been completed and therefore, the CSIP must rely on well pumping.
It should be highlighted that the flows shown in SEIR Appendix I for Tables 8-11 were not updated to match the assumptions in Final SEIR Appendix M. If the flows shown in Tables 8 to 11 were updated to account for the assumptions made in Final SEIR Appendix M, then the water supply deficit depicted in Figures 4 and 5 above would be even greater. For example, the Agricultural Wash Water and Lake El Estero were assumed to be unavailable in Final SEIR Appendix M. Moreover, Reclamation Ditch Flows were not reduced as noted in Table 3-B in the Final SEIR Master Response #3.
In addition, the SEIR Master Response #3 Table 3-A and SEIR Appendix M Table 2 both support the reduced flow of wastewater highlighted in Figure 3 above. One example is the use of 5,811 AFY as the Secondary Effluent available from the Outfall which is 3,000 AFY less than the estimated amount in Table 8, 9 and 10 of the SEIR Appendix I of 8,809 AFY.
Assuming this is the updated Outfall flow, this would correlate to roughly 18,810 AFY of WWTP flow in 2018. Again, this was not highlighted in Source Water Availability, Use and Yield in SEIR Appendix I and as discussed earlier in this memorandum the regional wastewater flows have reduced since then. When these reductions are accounted for, the supply deficit will only increase. As a result, the technical analysis of the PWM Expansion has greatly overstated the reliability and availability of the source water. It is not feasible to achieve the PWM Expansion’s projected water deliveries of 2,250 AFY based on the proposed water sources.
Responding to MPMWD and Water Demand Analysis
CalAm is responsible for assessing water demand on the Peninsula and continues to evaluate the impacts from climate change, regulatory drivers, growth in residential and commercial demands, impacts from water rates and restrictions imposed, and considers a future when the MPWSP is in place and how available water will shift demands. CalAm is contributing to conservation programs, participating in cutting edge research on leakage to apply the latest approaches to loss to their system.
16 All of this is done to ensure their customer demands are met, the environment is protected, and that water is not wasted. In performance of these duties, CalAm is continuing to assess the risks associated with meeting average demands, maximum day demand and peak hour demands. Hazen has participated in the studies with CalAm on system loss and is providing water resources planning services.
Hazen and Sawyer response to comments from MPMWD and WaterDM regarding prior memorandum:
Hazen and Sawyer is a national
consulting engineering firm with a
focus on all aspects of water
supplies, planning, treatment and
demands. We have local and
national experts working on
evaluation of water supplies and
demands. It should be noted that
WaterDM is a firm that
collaborates with Hazen and
Sawyer on large water supply
projects and is currently a team
partner for projects on the East
Coast.
MPWMD and WaterDM
reviewed Hazen’s prior
memorandum dated January 2020
and point to many areas that they
consider deficient, in error or
misleading. Hazen disagrees with
this claim. The Hazen
memorandum as written
highlights the substantial concern
with assuming lower water
demands on the Peninsula with no
discussion of range of uncertainty.
We feel the higher demands are
warranted to provide a buffer for
uncertainty. WaterDM and
MPMWD have been unwilling to
address the risk of the potential
demand increases on supply. For
supply to the PWM Expansion,
these entities have avoided
updating the flow data with
transparent information on the
proposed supplies.
WaterDM does not address
variability or uncertainty of
supplies in their report to a level
to assess the risk of the supplies to
meeting the lowest projected
demands that they developed.
Hazen asserts that supply and
demand planning in an area like
the Monterey Peninsula that is
dependent on new sources of
water must look at the risk and
must apply an appropriate level of
reliability and resiliency as good
engineering principles. MPMWD
has not addressed the current
supply as required by the
California CWC Section 10635 for
normal, dry and multiple dry years
to prove the resilience of that
supply. Our analysis highlights the
need for more analysis with recent
data including consideration of
historical impacts to supply. This
also gets to the heart of our prior
memorandum.
Current codes and regulations
as well as their interpretation are
important to establishing a
reliable and resilient water supply
across a range of likely supply and
demand conditions. MPMWD
focused on the interpretation of
Maximum Day Demand and Peak
Day Demand versus annual
demand which is well understood,
but avoided the topic of assessing
the long-term historical data in
determining future demands and
not just picking data to fit a
narrative.
In addition, interpreting the latest
revisions to American Waterworks
Association (AWWA) M50 Manual
to say that MPWMD can use 3 or 5
years of data when there is over
20 years of data available is not in
line with the intent and spirit of
the latest version of that
document which Hazen
participated in developing.
Hazen and Sawyer had the
MPMWD Supply and Demand
Report reviewed independently by
Hazen’s nationally recognized
demand expert, Dr. Jack Kiefer. He
noted: “There is not a standard or
minimum amount of empirical
rigor formally promulgated, which
leads many to focus on simple
averaging and story-telling instead
of modeling cause and effect and
then using official economic
forecasts for evaluating and
predicting growth. In addition, it is
seldom when you see uncertainty
explicitly accounted for or at least
addressed which detracts from a
higher-level objective of
identifying, reducing and
mitigating risks.”
Hazen’s intentions with our
comments on MPWMD’s analysis
are consistent with that objective
– a desire to see the Water Supply
Solutions for the Monterey
Peninsula truly evaluated and the
risks of the water supply
mitigated.
(Continued next page)
17 The demand analysis
performed by WaterDM assumes
that existing water conservation
measures will result in increased
conservation without
implementing more stringent
measures, such as use
moratoriums and water rationing.
CalAm has invested heavily in
Conservation Programs as well as
paying for research into water loss
and loss detection and mitigation
strategies in an assertive effort to
minimize the impact to the area in
the absence of a water supply
solution meeting the basic
requirements noted herein.
WaterDM and MPMWD do not
acknowledge that the MPWSP was
designed to avoid the need for
further implementation of
stringent measures, like
moratoriums and water rationing.
Those types of measures may be
necessary to achieve the demands
that WaterDM and MPWMD are
projecting.
MPMWD’s response to the
Hazen memorandum regarding
ASR, states that there is “no
immediate present-day demands”
for the PWM Expansion flow. If the
PWM Expansion is the backup
project to satisfy the CDO, as noted
in the SEIR (Final SEIR Page 1-1), to
supply water if MPWSP is not
available then the water demand
today would require all of that flow
and flow from ASR that is not
available.
MPMWD references multiple
times the SEIR Appendix I-Tables 9
through 11 and states “the annual
use of the new sources exceeds the
annual AWPF demands.” The SEIR
documents however do not
provide recent flow data as a basis
for the claim that the multiple
sources of water in the Appendix M
of the SEIR actually available to
the PWM Expansion. It highlights
those flows are from assumptions
and flow balance calculations. As
noted herein, there is a need to
assess the current water supplies
with recent data from the water
sources to fully validate that
statement.
To assume that paper water is
presently available without
evaluating actual flow data is a
significant error.
The WaterDM Supplemental
Study maintains the same errors
at the first WaterDM Study. The
water projections in the
WaterDM Supplemental Study
remain unreasonable, including
an over estimation of the
availability of ASR and PWM
Phase One. Likewise, the
WaterDM Supplemental Study
understates demand on the
Peninsula and overlooks M1W’s
July 20, 2020 report that
indicates since the beginning of
2020 WWTP flows were reduced
to 17,980 AF or 16.05 mgd.
Nonetheless, meeting even the
lowest demand projection in the
Supplemental Study is unrealistic
without the MPWSP and would
require full capacity operation of
the PWM Phase One and the
PWM Expansion, supplies that
have yet to prove reliable and are
vulnerable to high-probability
risks.
18 Recommendations and Conclusions
This memorandum is based on extensive analysis and a thorough review of the MPWMD Supply and Demand Report, the WaterDM Study, the Supplemental EIR for the PWM Expansion as well as other supporting documents. The following recommendations and conclusions are offered to the California Coastal Commission to consider as it evaluates the MPWSP and considers the feasibility of the PWM Expansion:
MPWMD Supply and Demand Report and SEIR for the PWM Expansion put the Peninsula in jeopardy of not having water available for meeting current demands with no recognition and accommodation for future uncertainty within the supplies proposed. (Refer to Figure 2).
MPWSP is the only currently proposed and feasible solution that provides safe secure reliable and resilient supply for a diversified portfolio for the Peninsula. (Refer to Figure 2).
The water supplies proposed for the PWM Expansion need further analysis with recent flow data to assess that water is actually available. Even if it is assumed that MPWMD has sufficient water rights to the source water for the PWM Expansion, which we understand it does not, holding adequate water rights will not actually secure water for the PWM Expansion if there is not actual water available to treat. (Refer to Figure 3).
The complex water supply management strategy to prioritize water supplies with limited historical flow information is a risk that must be considered in evaluating flows used for ensuring potable water supplies.
There is a deficit in water that will be available to the PWM Expansion when considering todays wastewater flows and Reclamation Ditch flows based on the most recent available data. Figure 4 highlights the deficit in supplies available to meet demands of PWM Phase One , CSIP, RUWAP and PWM Expansion.
Assuming that there are adequate water rights for the water supplies that MPMWD proposes to supply the PWM Expansion, the SEIR and supporting studies overstate the actual flows available for the PWM Expansion. The true flow available to the PWM Expansion needs to be addressed to determine the true volumes available and to determine if those flows can be counted on day in and day out to supply the Peninsula. Based on the proposed supplies as studied to date, PWM Expansion appears infeasible.
The PWM Expansion should be reevaluated based on updated and accurate flow data and demands such as CSIP and PWM. Current flows even in best of water supply cases shows that CSIP will always be in a deficit. The impact of the CSIP deficit should be evaluated to avoid unintended environmental impacts if seawater intrusion is not mitigated by CSIP flows.
19 _______________
Appendix
Figure 6 represents the current Aquifer Storage and Recovery program over the past 15 years in operation. Figure 4 shows the average annual injected and annual average pumped volume. The average stored volume annually over 15 years is 138 acre-ft. Over 15 years there is only 700 acre-ft claimed as storage yet the MPMWD Supply and Demand Report indicates they can store 1,300 acre-ft per year. There are only two years the system has achieved more than 1,300 acre-ft into the aquifer. The limited average storage coupled with the injection limitations being experienced at PWM Phase One means these supplies are not yet reliable to be considered as a source that CalAm or any other public agency.
Figure 6: Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Figures 7 and 8 are provided as further information for Updated Tables 8 and 10 to highlight that in all conditions, there is a flow deficit with updated WWTP and Reclamation Ditch Flows. In the above document, Best Case and Worst Case were used to keep the discussion simple and direct. There is a flow deficit in all conditions and there is a need to update the relevant calculations with recent flow data to give an accurate assessment of supply and demand in a clear and transparent way.
20 Figure 7: Supply Deficit – SEIR Appendix I - Updated Table 8 Figure 8: Supply Deficit – SEIR Appendix I – Updated Table 10 21 _______________
References
1 Governor Gavin Newsome’s 2020 Water Supply Portfolio – Executive Summary-Page 1 2 PWM Phase One 2016 Draft EIR Appendix P-Reclamation Ditch Yield Study - Page 12 3 PWM Expansion Supplemental EIR, April 2020 – Main Body, Page 3-1 4 PWM Expansion Final Supplemental EIR, Appendix O, Supply and Demand for Water on the Monterey Peninsula, March 13, 2020. Page 20
5 PWM Expansion Supplemental EIR, April 2020 – Main Body, Page S-1 6 Exhibit 4-B Expert Report and Recommendations of Peter Mayer, P.E. Regarding Water Supply and Demand in the California American Water Company’s Monterey Main System, prepared for The Marina Coast Water District, April 21, 2020 page 26 7 PWM Expansion Supplemental EIR, April 2020, Appendix I – Source Water Availability, Yield, and Use Technical Memorandum, Tables 8-11.
8 Final PWM Phase One 2016 EIR Consolidated – Jan 2016 - Volume I - Figure 2-9 Historic Regional Treatment Plant Flows
9 Supplemental EIR, April 2020, Appendices to the M1W Draft Supplemental EIR 11-7-2019 -Appendix E - Water Quality and Statutory Compliance Report-Appendix C – Projected Monthly Flows of Source Waters to the Regional Treatment Plant Influent 10 M1W Adhoc Committee Meeting, July 20, 2020 supporting documents. 11 PWM Expansion Final Supplemental EIR, Appendix O, Supply and Demand for Water on the Monterey Peninsula, March 13, 2020, Page 7 [Figure 1 – Annual Water Production for Customer Service (Demand) Last 21 Years]
12 USGS Website - https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?site_no=11152650 EXHIBIT 1
Jack Kiefer, PhD Resume
Hazen and Sawyer
Water Resources Expert
Kiefer, Jack
Education
PhD, Geography, Southern Illinois
University
MA, Monetary and Development
Economics, Southern Illinois
University
BA, Economics, Southern Illinois
University
Areas of Expertise
• Water Resources Planning
• Economic Analysis
• Econometrics
• Water Demand Forecasting
• Impact and Process Evaluation
• Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
• Water Supply Reliability Planning
Experience
• 30 total years
• 13 years with Hazen
Professional Activities
American Water Works
Association
American Water Resources
Association
Jack C. Kiefer, PhD
Senior Associate
Dr. Kiefer is an economist and geographer
specializing in multiple consulting areas of
water resource economics and planning,
econometrics, and integrated water demand
and supply planning and management.
Prior to joining Hazen and Sawyer, Dr. Kiefer led CDM’s Water Economics group and was a Lead Practitioner in the area of Water Resources.
Before joining CDM, Dr. Kiefer directed Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd.’s Water Resources Research program and its five business service lines of Integrated Water Demand and Supply Planning, Resource Economics and Quantitative Analysis, Navigation Analysis, Military Resources Planning and Environmental Planning.
Dr. Kiefer is an expert in forecasting the demand for potable water. He has performed numerous analyses of water demand, including the development of long term water demand forecasts for some of the largest water utilities in the United States, including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Tampa Bay Water, and San Diego County Water Authority. Dr. Kiefer is also an expert in conducting empirical evaluations of demand management programs. He has led water conservation studies for large utilities in the Southwest and demand management plans for Tampa Bay Water, the City of Phoenix, and New York City. He has also served as principal investigator on several Water Research Foundation (WaterRF), projects where he has led evaluations of urban water demands as part of WaterRF’s Strategic Climate Change initiative and Water Demand Forecasting focus area.
Dr. Kiefer has more than 15 years of consulting experience with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for whom he directed economic and water resources planning studies. He has addressed the Corps’ major Civil Works program functions, including Water Supply, Hydropower, Navigation, Recreation, Ecosystem Restoration, and Flood Damage Reduction. Dr. Kiefer has considerable expertise in the areas of risk analysis, multipurpose planning, and multi-criteria decision support techniques.
In 1997, he received the Commander’s Award for Public Service from the Department of the Army for outstanding performance in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cost Savings Task Force, which helped to identify and automate cost savings measures and to facilitate the analysis of those same measures nationwide.
Hazen and Sawyer
Jack C. Kiefer, PhD
Technical Publications
Evaluation of Customer
Information and Data Processing
Needs for Water Demand
Planning and Management. Kiefer,
J. and L. Krentz. 2016. Denver,
Colo.: Water Research
Foundation.
“Differentiating the Impacts of the
Economy, Efficiency, and
Conservation on Water
Demands.” J. Kiefer. 2016. The
Georgia Operator, Volume 53,
No.3, Summer 2016.
Water Demand Forecasting in
Uncertain Times: Isolating the
Effects of the Great Recession.
Kiefer, J., Johns, G., Snaith, S., and
B. Dziegielewski. 2016. Denver,
Colo.: Water Research
Foundation.
Methodology for Evaluation Water
Use in Commercial, Industrial, and
Institutional Sectors. 2015. J.
Kiefer, L. Krentz, and B.
Dziegielewski. Water Research
Foundation, Denver.
Analysis of Changes in Water Use
under Regional Climate Change
Scenarios. 2013. J. Kiefer, J.
Clayton, B. Dziegielewski, and J.
Henderson. Water Research
Foundation, Denver.
U.S. Water Demand, Supply and
Allocation: Trends and Outlook.
2007. B. Dziegielewski and J.
Kiefer. IWR Report 2007-R-03,
Institute for Water Resources,
Alexandria, Virginia.
Literature Review of ComputerAided Collaborative Decision Making. 2007. A. Imwiko and J.
Kiefer. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Institute for Water
Resources. Alexandria, Virginia.
“Prevailing Water Demand
Forecasting Practices and
Implications for Evaluating the
Effects of Climate Change.”
2006. J. Kiefer. Proceedings of
American Water Works
Association 2006 Water Sources
Conference, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
Evaluation of Water Ratemaking
Practices and Rate Structure
Complexity in Illinois Water
Systems. 2004. J. Kiefer. Doctoral
dissertation. Copyright © 2004,
Jack C. Kiefer.
“Water Supply Planning and Risk
Management: Coping with the
Costs of Uncertainty.” 2004. J.
Kiefer. Proceedings of North
Kiefer, Jack
Water Demand Planning and Management
Principal Investigator, Portfolio of Applied Research for the Water Research Foundation
• Uncertainty in Long Term Water Demand Forecasting (Project 4558) • Water Use in the Multifamily Sector (Project 4554)
• Water Demand Forecasting in Uncertain Times: Isolating the Effects of the Great Recession (Project 4458)
• Methodology for Evaluating Water Use in Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Sectors (Project 4375) –
• Analysis of Changes in Water Use under Regional Climate Change Scenarios (Project 4263)
• Evaluation of Customer Information and Data Processing Needs for Water Demand Planning and Management (Project 4527)
• Principal Investigator, Water Research Foundation Project 4735, Methodology for Determining Baseline Commercial, Institutional and Industrial End Uses of Water
Long-Term Demand Forecasting System (LTDFS) Update, Tampa Bay Water, Tampa Bay, FL
Technical Director leading a team to redevelop all elements of LTDFS, including estimation of econometric and end use water efficiency models, focusing on exploratory data analysis of an expanded time-series and cross-sectional database of water demands in the Tampa Bay region.
Long-term Water Demand Forecasts, San Diego County Water Authority, San Diego, CA
Project Manager of development of five consecutive water demand forecasts and forecast updates for the San Diego County Water Authority, in support of the Agency’s periodic development of its Urban Water Management Plan. Original efforts involved the development of econometric models of M&I water demands, which were followed by development of predictive models for agricultural demands. More recent support to the Authority has included the analysis of climate change impacts on water demand and the development and application of risk-based simulation procedures to support long-term supply reliability and capital improvement planning.
Modeler/Analyst, Water Research Foundation Project 4309, Residential End Uses of Water Update Dr. Kiefer was responsible for developing models of key indoor and outdoor residential end uses of water, using end use logging data for a large sample of households across the US and Canada, relating end use water consumption to household demographic and economic characteristics, as well as the price for water and sewer services.
Hazen and Sawyer
Kiefer, Jack
Jack C. Kiefer, PhD
Carolina American Water Works
Association/Water Environment
Association 84th Annual
Conference, November 14-17,
2004, Charlotte, NC.
“Development of Probabilistic
Water Demand Forecast for the
Tampa Bay Region: A Review of
Methodological Features.” 2003.
J. Kiefer. Proceedings of
American Water Works
Association 2003 Annual
Conference and Exposition,
Anaheim, CA.
“Relating Demand and Supply
Uncertainty to the Incremental
Cost of Water Supply Reliability.”
2003. J. Kiefer, D. Anderson, and
A. Adams. Proceedings of Florida
Section of American Water Works
Association 2003 Annual
Conference and Exposition.
“Risk-Based Water Demand
Forecasting: Balancing Uncertainty
and Sustainability in Water Supply
Planning.” 2003. J. Kiefer.
Proceedings of American Institute of
Hydrology 2003 Annual
Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.
“Water Demand Forecasting in a
Regulatory Environment.” 2002.
J. Kiefer and B. Dziegielewski.
Proceedings of American Water
Works Association 2002 Water
Sources Conference. Denver,
Colorado.
Commercial and Institutional End
Uses of Water. 2000. B.
Dzigielewski, J. Kiefer, E. M. Opitz,
G. A. Porter, G. Lantz, P. Mayer, W.
DeOreo and J. Nelson. American
Water Works Association Research
Foundation. Denver, Colorado.
Residential End Uses of Water.
1999. P. Mayer, W. DeOreo, E. M.
Opitz, B. Dzigielewski, J. Kiefer, W.
Y. Davis and J. Nelson. American
Water Works Association
Research Foundation. Denver,
Colorado.
“The Search for Acceptable Water
Rates: Research Needs and
Possibilities.” 1999, J. Kiefer. Journal
of Contemporary Water Research
and Education (formerly Water
Resources Update), Vol. 114.
“Demand Uncertainty: Portraying
and Quantifying the Risks for
Planning.” 1998. J. Kiefer.
Proceedings of the American
Water Works Association (AWWA)
1998 Annual Conference. AWWA.
Denver, Colorado.
Technical Director, Water Conservation Planning Support, NYCDEP, NY Technical Director, of the development of NYC DEP’s Water Demand Management Plan (WDMP) through a series of investigations involving pilot efficiency projects, water reuse at specific facilities, spatial demand profiling, and assessment of large users, drought management, and water pricing strategies. The objective of this project was to assist NYC DEP in the development of its WDMP through a series of investigations involving pilot efficiency projects, water reuse at specific facilities, spatial demand profiling, assessment of large users, drought management, and water pricing strategies.
Enhancements to New York City’s Long-Term Water Demand Forecasting Model, NYCDEP, NY Technical Director for this project. The objective was to make incremental improvements to NYCDEP’s long-term water demand forecasting model to incorporate key future trends and uncertainties related to water efficiency and climate. The updated model included a water efficiency index, climatic variables, and residual variance factors at both annual and monthly time steps, which supports development of multiple forecast scenarios.
Other Relevant Experience
• Co-Principal Investigator, Water Reuse Research Foundation Project 09-04, The Value of Water Supply in the Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Sector
• Principal Investigator, Water Conservation Metrics Study • Water Demand Management Plan, Tampa Bay Water, FL
• Project Manager, Phoenix Water Demand Management Plan Support, AZ
• Technical Director, Long-Term Forecast Performance Monitoring, Tampa Bay Water, FL
• Principal Investigator, Long-Term Probabilistic Water Demand and Supply Reliability Forecast for Tampa Bay Water, FL
• Project Manager, Future Needs Analysis, Tampa Bay Water, FL • Project Director, Development of Water Demand Forecasting Methodologies for the Delaware River Basin Commission, FL • Principal Investigator, Phoenix Meter Accuracy Study, AZ • Project Manager, Study of Institutional and Legal Environment of Texas Water Supply Allocation, TX
• Project Manager, Model Development and Long-Term Water Demand Forecasts for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, CA Hazen and Sawyer
Kiefer, Jack
Jack C. Kiefer, PhD
“Anticipating Nonresidential Flood
Damages: A Report of Findings of a
Survey of Businesses in the Wyoming
Valley of Pennsylvania.” 1998. J.
Kiefer and S. Davis. Proceedings of
the 22nd Annual Conference of the
Association of State Floodplain
Managers (ASFPM).
Incorporating Risk and
Uncertainty into Forecasts of
Waterborne Traffic Flows: A
Reference Manual of
Methodologies and Hypothetical
Examples. 1997. J. Kiefer. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers,
Institute for Water Resources.
Alexandria, Virginia.
Analysis of Non-residential
Content Value and DepthDamage Data for Flood Damage
Reduction Studies. 1996. J. Kiefer
and S. Willett. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Institute for Water
Resources. Alexandria, Virginia.
“Statistical Analyses of Water
Conservation Issues: The Case of
Phoenix, Arizona.” 1996. J. Kiefer
and J. DeWitt. Proceedings of
CONSERV96. Conference hosted
by the American Water Works
Association in Orlando, Florida.
Guidebook for the Preparation
and Use of Project Study Plans.
1996. J. Kiefer and J. Prather. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers,
Institute for Water Resources.
Alexandria, Virginia.
“Estimation of Single-Family
Residential Irrigation Demands: A
Model-Based Approach.” In Water in
the 21st Century: Conservation,
Demand and Supply. J. Kiefer and J.
DeWitt. April 23-26, 1995.
Proceedings of AWRA Annual Spring
Symposium. Salt Lake City, Utah.
“Isolating the Impact of a Change in
Rate Structure.” In Water in the 21st
Century: Conservation, Demand
and Supply. Proceedings of AWRA
Annual Spring Symposium. April
23-26, 1995. J. Kiefer and J. DeWitt.
Salt Lake City, Utah.
Urban Water Conservation
Programs Volume I: Annotated
Bibliography. 1994. Opitz, E.M., B.
Dziegielewski, N.A. HannaSomers, J. Kocik, J.R.M. Steinbeck, H.P. Garbharran, J.C. Kiefer and
K.L. O’Grady. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Institute for Water
Resources; U.S. Geological Survey;
Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California; Southern
Nevada Water Authority; California
Urban Water Agencies; Phoenix
Water Services Department and
American Water Works
Association.
• Project Manager, IWR-MAIN Water Demand Management Suite • Project Manager/Principal Investigator, City of Albuquerque Water Conservation Program, NM
• Coauthor and Principal Modeler, AWWARF Residential End Uses of Water and Commercial & Institutional Uses of Water Studies • Project Manager/Principal Investigator, Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations of Pilot Water Conservation Projects for the Cities of Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater (LOTT Wastewater Partnership)
Water Resources Planning and Economics
• Principal Investigator, Civil Works Program Strategy Papers. USACE Institute for Water Resources
• Principal Investigator, Review of Computer-Aided Decision-Making in Water Resources Planning and Management. USACE Institute for Water Resources
• Project Manager, Expert Independent Reviews of Corps of Engineers Economics and Planning Studies, USACE Institute for Water Resources • Economics Team Leader, National Economic Analysis of Water Use for the Republic of Ireland
• Principal Investigator, USACE New Orleans District, Economic Impact Analysis of Louisiana Coastal 2050 Restoration Initiative, LA • Project Manager/Principal Investigator, Evaluation of National U.S.
Army Corps Capital Stock Investments and Programmatic Benefits • Project Manager, National Dredging Needs Study of U.S. Ports and Harbors
• Principal Investigator, Plan Formulation Training Course for the Corps of Engineers
• Project Manager, America’s Water Resources Challenges for the 21st Century
• Project Manager, USACE/BPA Hydroelectric Investment Guide • Project Manager/Principal Investigator, USACE Flood Damage Reduction Studies EXHIBIT 2
SEIR Appendix I – Source Water Availability, Yield and Use Technical MemorandumTables 8, 9, 10 and 11
All facilities built 1 - average water year conditions - all flows in acre-feet SOURCES Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Existing RTP Inflows (Average 2009 to 2013) 1,798 1,678 1,867 1,796 1,850 1,799 1,893 1,888 1,813 1,844 1,762 1,776 21,764 Existing domestic flows to RTP (wells at RTP and MRWMD) 14 5 10 9 5 4 5 8 5 5 5 7 82 New Source Water
City of Salinas
1 Salinas Agricultural Wash Water 2156 158 201 307 311 391 435 444 367 410 329 223 3,732 Agricultural Wash Water (AWW) to Ponds 3
156 158 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 329 223 1,477
AWW directly to RTP 0 0 0 307 311 391 435 444 367 0 0 0 2,255 2 Salinas Urban Storm Water Runoff 452 41 34 16 2 0 0 0 2 8 23 47 225 Urban runoff to ponds 52 41 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 23 47 205
Urban runoff to RTP 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 20
3 Rainfall (on SIWTF, 121 acre pond area) 526 24 21 11 3 1 0 0 2 6 14 24 132 4 Evaporation (from SIWTF, 121 acre pond area) 6(12) (16) (29) (41) (46) (52) (28) (15) (12) (251) 5 Percolation 7(143) (129) (143) (138) (143) (138) (143) (138) (143) (1,257) 6 SIWTF pond storage balance 8684 763 847 647 362 0 0 0 0 253 466 605 7 Recovery of flow from SIWTF storage ponds to RTP 0 0 0 32 100 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 304 8 AWW and Salinas Runoff to RTP 0 0 0 355 413 563 435 444 369 0 0 0 2,579 Water Rights Applications to SWRCB
9 Blanco Drain 9209 223 246 252 225 274 277 244 184 168 133 185 2,620 10 Reclamation Ditch at Davis Road 10 70 66 70 106 79 99 113 109 72 65 89 76 1,014 11 Tembladero Slough at Castroville 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 City of Monterey - Diversion at Lake El Estero 24 15 14 5 1 0 0 0 1 4 10 13 87 13 Subtotal New Waters Available 303 304 330 718 718 936 825 797 626 237 232 274 6,299 Total Projected Water Supply 2,115 1,987 2,207 2,523 2,574 2,739 2,723 2,692 2,443 2,085 1,999 2,057 28,145 DEMANDS Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Average SVRP deliveries to CSIP (2009-2013) 13 459 726 1,376 1,763 1,750 1,866 1,854 1,698 984 448 18 12,955 14 FIVE YEAR AVERAGE CSIP AREA WELL WATER USE (2009-2013) 448 195 304 412 324 606 519 504 300 75 233 352 4,272 TOTAL CSIP Demand (excludes SRDF use) 461 654 1,030 1,788 2,087 2,356 2,385 2,358 1,998 1,059 681 370 17,227 15 FEEDWATER AMOUNT AT RTP TO PWM BASE PROJECT AWPF 367 331 367 355 367 355 367 367 355 367 355 367 4,320 16 FEEDWATER TO ESTABLISH CSIP AREA DROUGHT RESERVE
(200 AFY AWTF PRODUCT WATER) 14 42 38 42 42 41 42 248
FEEDWATER FOR 2250 AFY EXPANSION 362 333 357 114 106 101 105 111 109 340 357 382 2,778 17 FEEDWATER TO AWPF FOR MCWD RUWAP18 28 19 33 70 108 110 113 94 85 51 21 9 741 18 TOTAL TO GWR ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY 799 721 800 539 581 566 585 572 549 800 773 800 8,087 Total Projected Water Demand 1,260 1,376 1,829 2,328 2,668 2,922 2,971 2,929 2,547 1,860 1,455 1,169 25,314 Use of Source Water Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 19 Secondary effluent to SVRP for CSIP 12 461 654 1,030 1,735 1,747 1,693 1,785 1,802 1,733 1,059 681 370 14,750 20 New sources available to CSIP 13 0 0 0 249 245 480 353 319 162 0 0 0 1,808 21 Total Supply to CSIP 461 654 1,030 1,984 1,993 2,173 2,138 2,121 1,894 1,059 681 370 16,558 Net CSIP Increase 3,603
22 Surface waters at RTP to AWPF 303 304 330 114 106 101 105 111 109 237 232 274 2,325 23 Secondary effluent to AWPF 468 398 437 0 0 0 0 0 0 513 520 517 2,854 24 AWW and Salinas urban runoff to AWPF 0 0 0 355 367 355 367 367 355 0 0 0 2,166 25 Secondary effluent to AWPF for MCWD RUWAP 28 19 33 70 108 110 113 94 85 51 21 9 741 26 Feedwater to AWPF 799 721 800 539 581 566 585 572 549 800 773 800 8,086 Subtotal- all waters (including secondary effluent) 1,260 1,376 1,829 2,523 2,574 2,739 2,723 2,692 2,443 1,860 1,455 1,169 24,644 27 FIVE YEAR AVERAGE WASTE WATER EFFLUENT TO OCEAN OUTFALL (2009-2013)15 1,785 1,219 1,141 420 88 49 27 34 114 859 1,314 1,759 8,809 28 WASTE WATER EFFLUENT TO OCEAN OUTFALL WITH PROPOSED
DIVERSIONS TO CSIP/AWT/RUWAP 16 854 611 377 0 0 0 0 0 0 226 545 887 3,501 29 NEW SUPPLIES IN EXCESS OF AWT DEMANDS FOR GWR 17 (468) (398) (437) 249 245 480 353 319 162 (513) (520) (517) (1,046) 30 AWT BRINE TO OCEAN OUTFALL 152 137 152 102 110 108 111 109 104 152 147 152 1,536 Notes
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
Excess is calculated as Line 13 minus Lines 15 & 16
RUWAP supply comes from existing RTP inflows of municipal wastewater. Demands reflect existing urban irrigation customers along trunk main.