06.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2BGG3EzFarXDBuIEgsni5Vv7TEhzuof-
9.0. References
148 February 2023
Santa Barbara County Public Health Department. 2010. Experience with Pandemic H1N1 Flu in Santa Barbara County. Retrieved from:
https://www.countyofsb.org/phd/documents/Press_Release/2010-04- 06%20H1N1%20Recap%20Press%20Release.pdf
Santa Barbara County Public Health Department. 2017. SUSPECTED NOROVIRUS IN COUNTY SCHOOLS: Numerous instances of student gastro-intestinal upset in North County. Retrieved from:
http://www.countyofsb.org/phd/documents/Press_Release/2017_Press_Releases/2017- 05-26%20Suspected%20Norovirus%20PR.pdf
Santa Barbara County Public Health Department. 2021. Santa Barbara County Community Data Dashboard. Accessed: Retrieved from:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/030e625c69a04378b2756de161f82ef6 Santa Maria Times. 2021. Judith Dale: Wildfires in Santa Barbara County, 2016 to 2019. Accessed:
26 October 2021. Retrieved from: https://santamariatimes.com/lifestyles/judith-dalewildfires-in-santa-barbara-county-2016-to-2019/article_ba567bff-ad16-5a6e-9d85- 226bcb76cce9.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2005. HHS Pandemic Influenza Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pdf/professionals/hhspandemicinfluenzaplan.pdf.
USGS. 2021. Post-wildfire Landslides Becoming More Frequent in Southern California. Accessed: 2 November 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.usgs.gov/news/post-wildfire-landslidesbecoming-more-frequent-southern-california City of Santa Barbara
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan IV
Attachment 4- Water Rates
1 WATER RATES AND FEES
Volumetric Water Rates
All rates are in $/HCF. 1 HCF (Hundred Cubic Feet) = 748 gallons.
Adopted
Customer Class Tiers FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28
Single Family Residential
First 4 HCF $5.10 $5.49 $6.06 $6.67 $7.34
Next 12 HCF $15.19 $15.31 $16.92 $18.61 $20.47
All other HCF $28.54 $34.90 $38.56 $42.42 $46.66
Multi-Family Residential
First 4 HCF (per
dwelling unit)
$5.10 $5.49 $6.06 $6.67 $7.34
Next 4 HCF (per
dwelling unit)
$15.19 $15.31 $16.92 $18.61 $20.47
All other HCF $28.54 $34.90 $38.56 $42.42 $46.66
Commercial/Industrial
100% of base
allotment
$7.77 $8.19 $9.05 $9.96 $10.96
All other HCF $28.45 $37.82 $41.80 $45.98 $50.58
Irrigation – Residential &
Commercial
100% of monthly
water budget*
$15.19 $15.31 $16.92 $18.61 $20.47
All other HCF $28.54 $34.90 $38.56 $42.42 $46.66
Irrigation –
Recreation/Parks/Schools
100% of monthly
water budget*
$5.98 $7.26 $8.02 $8.82 $9.70
All other HCF $28.54 $34.90 $38.56 $42.42 $46.66
Irrigation – Agriculture
100% of monthly
water budget*
$3.98 $5.13 $5.67 $6.24 $6.86
All other HCF $28.54 $34.90 $38.56 $42.42 $46.66
Recycled Water All HCF $4.99 $6.10 $6.74 $7.41 $8.15
*The Monthly Water Budget for irrigation accounts is a calculation of Tier 1 allotment based on the property’s irrigated landscape area and the monthly watering needs of plants. 2 Maximum Fixed Monthly Service Charges
Charges based on meter size.
5/8” 3/4” 1” 1 ½” 2” 3” 4” 6” 8” 10”
FY24 $32.60 $47.73 $77.97 $153.59 $244.33 $531.67 $955.12 $1,968.37 $3,631.93 $5,749.18 Adopted
FY25 $36.21 $52.50 $85.09 $166.55 $264.30 $573.86 $1,030.06 $2,121.66 $3,913.84 $6,194.80 FY26 $40.01 $58.01 $94.02 $184.04 $292.05 $634.12 $1,138.22 $2,344.43 $4,324.79 $6,845.25 FY27 $44.01 $63.81 $103.42 $202.44 $321.26 $697.53 $1,252.04 $2,578.87 $4,757.27 $7,529.78 FY28 $48.41 $70.19 $113.76 $222.68 $353.39 $767.28 $1,377.24 $2,836.76 $5,233.00 $8,282.76 City of Santa Barbara
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan V
Attachment 5- Notifications
January 15, 2026
Ray Stokes
Executive Director
Central Coast Water Authority
[email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Ray Stokes:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
January 15, 2026
David Beard
Deputy Director of Operations and Engineering
Central Coast Water Authority
[email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear David Beard:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
January 15, 2026
Janet Gingras
General Manager
Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board
[email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Janet Gingras:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
January 15, 2026
Matt Young
Water Agency Manager
Santa Barbara County Water Agency
[email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Matt Young:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
January 15, 2026
Rain Emmerson
Acting Area Manager
United States Bureau of Reclamation
[email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Rain Emmerson:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
January 15, 2026
Nicholas Turner
General Manager
Montecito Water District
[email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Nicholas Turner:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
January 15, 2026
Robert T. McDonald
General Manager
Carpinteria Valley Water District
[email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Robert T. McDonald:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
January 15, 2026
Kelley Dyer
General Manager
Carpinteria Valley Water District
[email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Kelley Dyer:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
January 15, 2026
Paeter Garcia
General Manager
Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1 [email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Paeter Garcia:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
January 15, 2026
David Matson
General Manager
Goleta Water District
[email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear David Matson:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
January 15, 2026
Ryan Drake
Water Supply and Conservation Manager
Goleta Water District
[email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Ryan Drake:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
March 27, 2026
Peter Cantle
Executive Director
Cachuma Conservation Release Board
[email protected]
Delivered Via Email
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Peter Cantle:
The City of Santa Barbara (City) is in the process of preparing its 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. An update of the City’s UWMP is required every five (5) years. In addition, the City is preparing an Appendix to the 2025 UWMP to demonstrate consistency with Delta Plan Policy WR P1, Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self-Reliance (California Code Reg., tit.23, §5003).
Water Code section 10621(b) requires an urban water supplier updating its UWMP and WSCP to notify cities and counties within its service area of the update at least sixty (60) days prior to holding a public hearing thereby encouraging public involvement and agency coordination. This letter serves as the City’s notice that it is preparing and updating its 2025 UWMP and WSCP.
The City’s draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be available for review prior to the public hearing and adoption meeting at: SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision.
The City will subsequently hold a noticed public hearing to hear public comments and consider adoption of the plan in 2026. You will be notified when the draft 2025 UWMP is complete and ready for public review and comment.
The City invites you to submit comments and consult with the City regarding its UWMP and WSCP. If you have any questions, comments, or input, please contact Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst, via email at [email protected] or by phone at (805) 897-2646.
Sincerely,
Dakota Corey.
Water Supply and Services Manager
DC:js
PUBLIC NOTICE
City of Santa Barbara
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara will conduct a Public Hearing on Tuesday, June 16, 2026 during the afternoon session of the meeting which begins at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 735 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara. You are invited to attend this hearing and address your verbal comments to the City Council. Written comments are also welcome up to the time of the hearing, and should be addressed to the City Council via the City Clerk’s Office via email at [email protected], or by mail at P.O. Box 1990, Santa Barbara, CA 93102-1990.
Public comment may be given in person at the meeting or remotely via Zoom. Members of the public who wish to give public comment remotely may do so by completing the Zoom registration at the URL provided on the front page of the agenda.
On Thursday, June 11, 2026 an Agenda with all items to be heard on Tuesday, June 16, 2026, will be available at City Hall, 735 Anacapa Street, and at the Central Library.
Agendas and Staff Reports are also accessible online at http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/CAP. The Agenda includes instructions for participation in the meeting. If you wish to participate in the public hearing, please follow the instructions on the posted Agenda.
The hearing is to consider the adoption of the City of Santa Barbara 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, according to the requirements of California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6, Chapter 3, commencing with § 10620. A copy of the proposed Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan is available for public review online at www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision. The preparation and adoption of the Urban Water Management Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under California Water Code § 10652.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need auxiliary aids or services or staff assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s Office at 564-5305. If possible, notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will usually enable the City to make reasonable arrangements. Specialized services, such as sign language interpretation or documents in Braille, may require additional lead time to arrange.
(SEAL)
Sarah Gorman, MMC
City Clerk Services Manager
[Date of Posting]
City of Santa Barbara
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan VI
Attachment 6- Resolution Approving the
WSCP
Resolution to be included following adoption.
City of Santa Barbara Water Conservation Strategic Plan 2025 Urban Water Management Plan | G
Appendix G Water Conservation
Strategic Plan
G
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Water Commission Staff Report
Date: May 21, 2026
To: Water Commission
Via: Joshua Haggmark, P.E., Water Resources Director
From: Madeline Wood, Water Conservation Analyst
Subject: Draft Water Conservation Strategic Plan
Recommendation
That Water Commission receive a presentation on the draft Water Conservation Strategic Plan, the updated analyses, and recommended program.
Discussion
The Water Conservation Strategic Plan (Plan) was prepared by City staff in coordination with Maddaus Water Management, Inc. (MWM). This Plan builds on the City’s long-standing commitment to water efficiency and outlines a comprehensive strategy for meeting future water use objectives, complying with new statewide regulations, and integrating equity into Conservation Program design.
Overview of Analyses
The Plan evaluates current and projected water demands, the effectiveness of existing conservation programs, and new opportunities for water savings. Key components of the Plan include:
• Updated demand forecasts using 2021–2024 data, incorporating recent population, housing, and employment trends.
• Analysis of more than 100 potential conservation measures, with 18 measures selected for detailed modeling through the Decision Support System Model (DSS Model) which estimates costs, savings, and interactions between measures.
• Integration of statewide regulatory requirements from the “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” regulation.
• Incorporation of equity considerations, informed by the 2024 Alliance for Water Efficiency report, “An Assessment of Water Affordability and Conservation Potential in Santa Barbara, CA,” (Affordability Report). • Evaluation of AMI data, now available Citywide, to enhance leak detection, customer engagement, and conservation targeting.
MWM conducted an economic evaluation of each selected water conservation measure using the DSS Model including how much water each measure will save through 2050, how much each measure will cost (including utility and staff PAGE 2 of 2
MAY 21, 2026
time cost estimates), and the cost of saved water per unit volume if the measure were to be implemented on a standalone basis. Cost savings from reduced water demand was quantified annually and based on the avoided costs of the City investing in additional water supplies to meet demands.
The measures were then grouped into three programs: the City’s existing conservation program was evaluated, as well as two additional, increasingly aggressive programs. MWM and the City created a list of potential program concepts that were appropriate for the City’s service area and that could meet the City’s goals of continued statewide regulation compliance and implementation of equity recommendations from the Affordability Report. As the City is currently in compliance with all aspects of the Regulation, the program concepts centered on implementing equity recommendations and maintaining current conservation efforts. • Program A: Current Measures. Current conservation program with no changes; includes 14 measures. • Program B: Recommended Measures. In addition to existing efforts, this Program includes more measures that incorporate equity recommendations from the Affordability Report through two additional measures (plumber-initiated high efficiency toilet retrofit program measure and the leak repair rebate measure) and is comprised of 16 measures. This is the recommended program. • Program C: All Modeled Measures. In addition to the measures in the Programs described above, this Program includes an additional outdoor measure and commercial rebate. This Program represents all modeled measures that include water savings in this effort (a total of 18 measures).
Recommended Program
To achieve continued water conservation savings, comply with new state regulations and reporting requirements, incorporate equity into program design, and maintain water use reductions, the City has elected to implement Program B. Program B includes 16 measures that:
• Support continued compliance with all state water use objectives. • Expand equity-focused program offerings, including plumber-initiated toilet replacements and leak repair assistance.
• Build on successful existing programs such as landscape rebates, irrigation efficiency upgrades, and public education.
• Leverage AMI data to proactively identify leaks, improve outreach, and support customer engagement.
Next Steps
Staff requests Water Commission review and comment on the draft Water Conservation Strategic Plan. Feedback will be incorporated into the final Water Conservation Strategic Plan, which will serve as a supporting document to the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and future water supply planning efforts.
Attachment
Water Conservation Strategic Plan
• CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 1 Water Conservation Strategic Plan
Making Conservation a Santa Barbara Way of Life
City of Santa Barbara
APRIL 2026
Table of Contents • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 1 Table of Contents
List of Figures 2
List of Tables 3
Abbreviations and Acronyms 4
1. Executive Summary 5
1.1 Purpose of the Plan 5
1.2 Overview of Analyses Performed 6
1.3 Key Findings and Takeaways 7
2. Introduction 9
2.1 Overview of the City of Santa Barbara Water System 9
2.2 Project Background 10
2.3 Plan Development 11
2.4 Purpose and Scope of Strategic Plan 11
3. Historical and Current Water Use 12
3.1 Information Review and Data Collection Methods 12
3.2 Consumption 12
3.3 Historical and Current Conservation Program 13
3.4 AMI Data 19
3.5 Water Affordability and Conservation 20
4. Urban Water Use Objectives 24
4.1 Regulation Background 24
4.2 Urban Water Use Objective 24
4.3 CII Performance Measures 26
4.4 Reporting and Compliance Schedule 27
4.5 UWUO Compliance Status 27
5. Conservation Measure Evaluation 28
5.1 Screening of Conservation Measures 28
5.2 Conservation Measures Analyzed 29
5.3 Comparison of Individual Conservation Measures 31
6. Conservation Program Evaluation 32
6.1 Measure Selection for Conservation
Program Alternatives 32
6.2 Selected/Recommended Program 35
7. Conclusions and Next Steps 36
7.1 Selected Program Estimated Water Savings
and Budget 36
7.2 Implementation 36
7.3 Conclusions 40
References 41
Appendix A – Performance Measures Report 43
Appendix B – DSS Model Overview 44
Appendix C – Projected Water Demands With and Without
Plumbing Code Savings 47
C.1 Projected Baseline Demand 47
C.2 Estimated Plumbing Code Savings 47
C.3 National Plumbing Code 50
C.4 State Plumbing Code 51
C.5 Key Baseline Potable Demand Inputs, Passive
Savings Assumptions, and Resources 52
Appendix D – DSS Model Measure Analysis, Methodology,
Perspectives, and Assumptions 56
D.1 Water Reduction Methodology 56
D.2 Present Value Analysis and Perspectives on
Benefits and Costs 57
D.3 Measure Cost and Water Savings Assumptions 58
Appendix E – Individual Conservation Measure Design Inputs and Results 59
Appendix F – Conservation Analysis Results 80
Appendix G – Regional Water Efficiency Program (RWEP)
Annual Report FY2023-2024 83
Appendix H – Outreach Examples 107
H.1 Social Media Examples 107
H.2 Online Example 108
H.3 Print Ad Examples 109
List of Figures • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 2 List of Figures
Figure ES-1. City of Santa Barbara Recommended Measures 7 Figure ES-2. City of Santa Barbara Historical and Projected Baseline Demand with Plumbing Code and Recommended Measures 8
Figure 2-1. City of Santa Barbara Water Sources 9
Figure 2-2. Santa Barbara Climate 9
Figure 3-1. Data Used in the DSS Model 12
Figure 3-2. City of Santa Barbara Historical Consumption 12 Figure 3-3. Average Consumption by User Category 13
Figure 3-4. City of Santa Barbara Population, Water Production, and Rainfall, 1898–2025 14 Figure 3-5. City of Santa Barbara Drought Advertising Example 15 Figure 3-6. “Sprinkler Spruce Up” Media Campaign 16
Figure 3-7. City of Santa Barbara’s Television Program Garden Wise 16 Figure 3-8. Rebate Participant: Before and After 17
Figure 3-9. Restaurant Table Card Example 18
Figure 3-10. Conservation Participation, 2015-2025 18
Figure 3-11. WaterSmart Customer Portal 18
Figure 3-12. WaterSmart Residential Registrations by Census Tract 21 Figure 4-1. Breakdown of Urban Water Use Objective Components 24 Figure 5-1. City of Santa Barbara Measure Screening Criteria 28 Figure 5-2. Conservation Measures – Cost Per Acre-Foot of Water Saved 31 Figure 6-1. Selected Conservation Program Measures 33
Figure 6-2. City of Santa Barbara Historical and Projected Demand 34 Figure 6-3. Present Value of Utility Costs Versus Water Saved in 2050 35 Figure 7-1. Conservation Program Tracking & Monitoring 37 Figure B-1. DSS Model Main Page 44
Figure B-2. Sample Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary 45
Figure B-3. DSS Model Analysis Locations in the U.S. 46 Figure B-4. DSS Model Analysis Flow 46
Figure C-1. DSS Model Overview Used to Make Potable Water Demand Projections 48 Figure C-2. City of Santa Barbara Potable Water System Demands 49 Figure D-1. Interest Rate Formula 57
List of Tables • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 3 List of Tables
Table 3-1. Annual Water Losses (Real and Apparent Loss) 15 Table 3-2. Priority Equity Recommendations 20
Table 4-1. CII Categories for Classification 26
Table 5-1. Measure Descriptions 29
Table 6-1. Comparison of Program Benefit-Cost Ratios, Average Costs, and FTE Requirements 33 Table 6-2. City of Santa Barbara Potable Water System Demands in AFY for Years 2030-2050 34 Table 7-1. Modeled Utility Costs for the Recommended Program 38 Table C-1. City of Santa Barbara Potable Water System Demands in AFY for Years 2026-2050 49 Table C-2. List of Key Assumptions 52
Table C-3. Key Assumptions Resources 53
Table F-1. Estimated Conservation Measure Costs and Savings 82 Table F-2. Comparison of Program Estimated Costs and Water Savings 83 Abbreviations & Acronyms • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 4 Abbreviations and Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
acct account
ADU accessory dwelling unit
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure
AWE Alliance for Water Efficiency
AWWA American Water Works Association
AWWARF American Water Works Association Research
Foundation
BMP Best Management Practice
CalWEP California Water Efficiency Partnership
CEC California Energy Commission
CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
DEI diversity, equity, and inclusion
DIM Dedicated irrigation meter
DSS Model Least Cost Planning Decision Support System Model FY fiscal year
GPCD gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
gpf gallons per flush
gpm gallons per minute
gpscd gallons per service connection per day
HECW high efficiency clothes washer
HET high efficiency toilet
LEF Landscape Efficiency Factor
LIHWAP Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program
MFR Multifamily residential
MUM Mixed-use meter
MWM Maddaus Water Management
N/A not applicable
NO-DES Neutral Output Discharge Elimination System
Plan Water Conservation Strategic Plan
PPI Poverty Prevalence Indicator
psi pounds per square inch
Regulation Making Conservation a California Way of Life regulation
REUWS Residential End Uses of Water Study
RWEP Regional Water Efficiency Program
SB Senate Bill
SBMC Santa Barbara Municipal Code
SB X7-7 Water Conservation Act of 2009
SFR Single Family Residential
State Board State Water Resources Control Board
ULFT ultra-low flush toilet
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
UWUO Urban Water Use Objective
Executive Summary • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 5
1. Executive Summary
The City of Santa Barbara updated its Water
Conservation Strategic Plan (Plan) to guide
long‑term water use efficiency, support
compliance with new state regulations, and
ensure that conservation remains a reliable,
cost‑effective part of the City’s water supply
portfolio. This update evaluates how the
community uses water today, identifies
opportunities to save more, and recommends
a set of programs that balance water savings,
equity, cost, and feasibility. The recommended
program is projected to save 984 acre‑feet per
year (AFY) by 2050—an amount comparable to
approximately nine percent of the City’s current
annual water demand. The updated Plan includes
a cost-effective suite of water conservation
measures that will help the City meet future water
needs and comply with statewide water efficiency
requirements amidst changing water demand
conditions and conservation program priorities.
1.1 Purpose of the Plan
The Plan serves several key purposes:
1. Forecast long‑term water demands using updated population, land use, and water use trends.
2. Evaluate existing and potential conservation measures to determine which are most effective for Santa Barbara’s climate, customer base, and infrastructure.
3. Integrate equity considerations so that conservation programs are accessible and beneficial to all customers, including renters, multifamily residents, and lower‑income households.
4. Support compliance with the State’s “Making Conservation a California Way of Life” regulation, which requires suppliers to meet annual water use objectives and implement new commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) performance measures.
5. Guide future investments in water efficiency programs, staffing, and partnerships.
1.2 Overview of Analyses Performed
1 More information can be found at: City of Santa Barbara - One Water The Plan is built on a comprehensive set of technical and policy analyses, including:
1. Water Use and Demand Forecasting.
The City and Maddaus Water Management, Inc. (MWM) analyzed:
• 1998–2024 billing data for all customer classes
• Indoor and outdoor water use patterns
• Impacts of drought, economic cycles, and the COVID‑19 pandemic • Population, housing, and employment trends
This analysis shows that total water use has fallen to levels last seen in the 1950s, despite a much larger population.
2. Conservation Program Review.
The City’s long‑standing conservation program—rebates, education, landscape standards, water loss control, and more—was evaluated for effectiveness and alignment with new priorities.
3. Equity and Affordability Assessment.
The Plan incorporates findings from the 2024 Alliance for Water Efficiency report, “An Assessment of Water Affordability and Conservation Potential in Santa Barbara, CA,” (Affordability Report) including recommendations for more accessible program design.
These insights shaped the selection of new measures, such as leak repair assistance and direct‑install toilet replacements.
4. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Integration.
With AMI fully deployed in 2024, the City now has hourly water use data for all customers. The Plan evaluates how AMI can improve leak detection, support targeted customer outreach, and enhance program evaluation.
5. Regulatory Compliance Analysis.
A detailed “gap analysis” assessed the City’s readiness for statewide Urban Water Use Objective (UWUO) regulatory requirements including CII performance measures and water loss standards. The City is currently in full compliance with all components of the UWUO but continued conservation is necessary to maintain compliance.
6. Conservation Measure Screening and Modeling.
More than 100 potential measures were screened using criteria such as:
• Water savings potential
• Equity impacts
• Service area fit
• Co‑benefits (e.g., stormwater, energy savings)
A resulting 18 measures were modeled using the Decision Support System Model, developed by MWM, which estimates costs, savings, and interactions between measures.
7. Program Scenario Evaluation.
Three program packages were modeled:
• Program A – Current measures
• Program B – Expanded program with additional
equity‑focused measures
• Program C – Most aggressive, additional measures, highest cost Program B was selected as the Recommended Program. Of all the measures evaluated, those in Program B were chosen for the following reasons:
• Alignment with the One Water Santa Barbara1 guiding principle to improve local water supply reliability by diversifying the supply portfolio and using water efficiently.
• Addresses recommendations from the Affordability Report that incorporate equity considerations for the conservation program. • Expansion of existing efforts to meet state-mandated targets and aggregate water use objectives.
• Result in a long-term plan that models a cost-effective means to manage water supplies.
The following projected outcomes are associated with the Recommended Program:
• 984 AFY saved by 2050
• 9% reduction in projected 2050 demand
(including plumbing code savings)
• Average annual utility cost: ~$446,000
• Staffing need: 6 full- time equivalent employees by 2030 Executive Summary • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 6 Executive Summary • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 7
1.3 Key Findings and Takeaways
1. Conservation Remains One of the City’s Most
Cost‑Effective Water Sources
The Fiscal Year 2024 variable avoided cost of water is $1,078 per AF, while the recommended program saves water at $719 per AF.
2. The City is Already Meeting All State Water
Use Requirements
The City’s current water use is below its current and future Urban Water Use Objectives and the City also meets all CII and water loss standards currently. Continued conservation is necessary to maintain compliance.
3. Residential Water Use Offers the Greatest
Savings Potential
About 72% of the City’s water use is residential, so indoor and outdoor residential programs provide the largest long‑term benefit.
4. Equity Improvements are Needed and Achievable
Lower‑income census tracts traditionally have lower participation in conservation programs, higher prevalence of multifamily housing, and more renters who do not directly receive water bills. The recommended program includes measures designed to reach these customers more effectively.
5. AMI Creates New Opportunities
Hourly AMI water consumption data can enable faster leak detection, more precise targeting of high‑use accounts, and better evaluation of program effectiveness.
Figure ES-1. City of Santa Barbara Recommended Measures Irrigation
• Green Gardener Program
• Water Efficient Landscape Standards
• Smart Sprinkler Timer Rebate
• Mulch Delivery Rebate
• Spray Sprinklers to Low-Precipitation
Sprinklers Retrofit
• Sprinkler to Drip Irrigation Retrofit
• Sustainable Lawn Retrofit
Commercial
• Customized CII Incentive
• CII Water Survey
Community Education
• School Education
• General Public Education
Residential
• Residential Washer Rebate
• Plumber Initiated High Efficiency
Toilet Retrofit Program
Leak Assistance
• AMI Customer Portal and Leak Alerts
• Leak Detection Device Rebate
• Leak Repair Rebate
Executive Summary • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 8 Figure ES-2. City of Santa Barbara Historical and Projected Baseline Demand with Plumbing Code and Recommended Measures The following figure presents historical and projected water use for the City in AFY. Plumbing code elements include current local, state, and federal standards for retrofits of items such as toilets, showerheads, faucets, and clothes washers.
Note that the 2025 demand projections start from 2021-2024 average water use. The years 2014-2019 were declared drought for the City which lowered overall water consumption.
Introduction • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 9
2. Introduction
2 City of Santa Barbara. Municipal Code, SBMC §14.08.010 This section presents an introduction to this effort with an overview of the City’s supply, climate, and demographics, as well as the project’s background, development, and purpose.
2.1 Overview of the City of Santa Barbara Water System
Santa Barbara has a semi-arid climate, so providing an adequate water supply requires careful management of water resources. The City has a diverse water supply including local reservoirs (Lake Cachuma and Gibraltar Reservoir), groundwater, State Water Project water, desalinated water, infiltration water from a conveyance tunnel, and recycled water, as illustrated in the following figures.
Conservation has been a long-term priority for the City and is considered a water source. A supply assessment is conducted twice a year by the City in which the water saved through conservation is regarded as equal to other water supply options.
When the City conducts supply and demand forecasting analyses, the estimated water made available through conservation is a part of the supply portfolio.
The City has recorded measurements of all water sources and production since 1920 and has metered all service connections since 1973 (Santa Barbara Municipal Code [SBMC] §14.08.010);2 as of fiscal year 2025, there are 27,722 service connections.
The City uses a tiered water rate structure that provides incentive for customers to reduce water use. The City bills customers monthly based on metered use, with the units of consumption clearly indicated.
2.1.1 Climate
The City is located on the central coast of California between the Santa Ynez Mountains and the Pacific Ocean. It offers year-round sunshine with a temperate Mediterranean-style climate of cool, wet winters and mild, dry summers. Temperatures only rarely fall below freezing in winter. During the late summer and early fall, hot, dry sundowner winds can create high water demands.
Figure 2-2. Santa Barbara Climate
Figure 2-1. City of Santa Barbara Water Sources
The numbers presented are based on data from 1994-2025 from Santa Barbara CIMIS Station No. 107.
Introduction • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 10
2.1.2 Demographics
Santa Barbara is the second-most populous city in the county with an estimated population of 93,340 at the time of writing this Plan.3 The City has a mix of housing types, including single family residences and multi-unit residences. The City is largely built-out, though it should be assumed that infill and redevelopment will continue at roughly the same rate as in the recent past, resulting in a minor increase in population.
Santa Barbara is a popular vacation destination, and tourism is an important part of the local economy. In addition, many people commute from locations throughout the county or adjacent counties to work in Santa Barbara. It is estimated that there are more than 48,000 jobs in the service area.4 Population from tourism and commuters is not factored into the estimated population numbers. However, water use from tourism and commuters is accounted for under the non-residential customer categories in the DSS Model.
2.2 Project Background
The City of Santa Barbara has been a long-term leader in water conservation. The City’s Water Conservation Program has been successful in reducing the use of potable water supplies, achieving compliance with state and federal conservation requirements, and creating a water efficiency ethic in the Santa Barbara community.
The City’s commitment to water conservation has been evidenced by reductions in water demands achieved over the past 30 years. As of the writing of this Water Conservation Strategic Plan, community water use has decreased to the same level it was in the late 1950s, despite population having nearly doubled since that time.
Water use efficiency in the City is supported by coordinating initiatives to achieve a holistic approach to providing the water system and each customer within the service area with the tools needed to conserve water. Recently, a shift in the challenges and drivers for urban water conservation in the City has occurred due to the recent drought, statewide water supply conditions, new state water urban water use objectives, the implementation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure, and changing program priorities (such as the integration of equity considerations in program design). The Plan considers best management practices consistent with current regulations and best practices in the industry and has been guided by the American Water Works Association Manual of Practice M52 – AWWA Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual (AWWA, 2017). 3 This is an estimate of 2025 population based on 2020 Census data and includes a population estimate for the Mission Canyon Community Plan. Population estimate for 2025 is escalated from the 2020 Census estimate using Santa Barbara County Regional Growth Forecasts 4 Based on December 2025 employment reported in Mission Canyon and City of Santa Barbara per the Employment Development Department (EDD) web page, accessed March 2026.
In 2010, the City hired Maddaus Water Management to forecast and plan for long-term demand management reductions and meet the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7) per capita water use reduction requirements. MWM analyzed the existing conservation program and used its proprietary DSS Model to evaluate current and potential water conservation measures. The DSS Model quantified the demand reduction effects of these measures along with the effects of plumbing codes and appliance standards. Over the past decade, the City has built on the analytical foundation of the DSS Model and related forecasts through consistent program implementation and performance tracking, including additional modeling efforts in 2014, 2018, and 2020. Results of these modeling efforts were used in water supply planning documents and informed water supply policies still in use by the City today.
The City uses benchmarks to assess ongoing program implementation and effectiveness as part of its performance measures. The measures must be measurable and reflect current workload, practices, and policies. Implementation of the conservation measures from the previous DSS Model analyses have been assessed through various performance measures over the past 15 years. These include metrics on meeting the SB X7-7 20% by 2020 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) target annually, participation in the City’s Water Education Program for youth, attendees at landscaping workshops for homeowners and professionals, landscape rebate participation, water checkup appointments for homes and businesses, the percentage of e-newsletters read by customers, and more. An example of the City’s performance measures report can be found in Appendix A.
Building on the strong foundation of program implementation, participation tracking, and analytical rigor of previous forecasting efforts, this Water Conservation Strategic Plan aims to present an overview of the conservation evaluation process that was completed for the City of Santa Barbara. The goal is to develop a plan that will optimize program costs and water savings and lay a foundation for continued compliance with state mandates. The City has a current Water Conservation Program, which includes the measures that comprise Conservation Program A (described in Chapter 5) and additional qualitative measures. This Plan evaluates whether expanding existing efforts is a feasible and cost-effective way to meet future water needs in comparison to using and/or developing other water sources, while meeting other program objectives such as compliance with state conservation requirements and the incorporation of equity components.
Introduction • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 11
2.3 Plan Development
The City worked closely with MWM to compile extensive historical data on the region, agency, conservation measures, production, consumption, weather, and various census data points. Together, these formed the foundation for MWM’s DSS Model, which prepares long-range water demand and conservation water savings projections.5 More detailed information about the DSS Model can be found in the appendices of this Plan, including a description of the assumptions, analysis, and methodology used.
Based on the analysis of current water use patterns, and taking into account characteristics of the service area, a list of more than 100 potential conservation measures was compiled and evaluated. In previous efforts conducted by the City, significant stakeholder input was gathered through work groups established to evaluate needs and rank measures per pre-defined and stakeholder-defined criteria. The measure screening in this current effort was an update to the previous endeavors. During this measure screening, 18 measures were selected for further detailed economic analysis. Assumptions and results for each of the 18 individual measures and three programs (Programs A, B, and C) are described in detail in this Plan.
Following the DSS Model completion and selection of Program B as the Recommended Program for implementation, the Water Conservation Strategic Plan was prepared. This Plan is aligned with a compliance strategy for the new state requirements and with the equity recommendations from the Alliance for Water Efficiency’s “An Assessment of Water Affordability and Conservation Potential in Santa Barbara, CA” study.
5 The DSS Model is an “end-use” model that breaks down total water production (water demand in the service area) to specific water end uses, such as plumbing fixtures and appliance uses. It uses a bottom-up approach that allows for multiple criteria to be considered when estimating future demands, such as the effects of fixture replacements, plumbing codes, and conservation efforts.
2.4 Purpose and Scope of Strategic Plan
Through the identification and prioritization of conservation measures, the Plan enables the City to project long-range demands, identify attainable conservation goals, develop strategies, and attempt to raise public awareness. By combining new initiatives with existing programs, this comprehensive strategy and slate of conservation activities will contribute to a more sustainable management of water supplies for the Santa Barbara community.
This Plan incorporates the City objectives as follows:
• Provide assessment, analysis, and measurement of completed and existing water conservation programs.
• Identify cost-effective water conservation opportunities. • Support the development of updated water demand forecasts used in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and other longterm water supply planning efforts. • Integrate equity considerations into the screening and prioritization of conservation measures.
• Lay a foundation for continued compliance with state mandates.
In addition, the Plan is intended to serve as a guide for the City regarding future water use efficiency and conservation investments and activities. It includes a functional implementation plan to establish and administer cost-effective conservation measures.
Based on a preliminary analysis of the 18 individual measures, three programs (Programs A, B, and C) were designed by the City. Each of the three programs were evaluated to determine the net effect of running multiple measures together over the 26-year period of analysis (2025–2050).
Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 12
3. Historical and Current Water Use
6 See Resolution No. 17-017
7 California Health and Human Services. 2023. End of California’s COVID-19 State of Emergency and the Federal Public Health Emergency for COVID-19.
This section presents historical and current water use data and data collection methodologies.
3.1 Information Review and
Data Collection Methods
Monthly water use and account data from 2021–2024 was used to derive typical non-drought average water use per account per day.
These years were selected because they represent more recent water consumption trends, are after the 2014-2019 drought, and are after the COVID-19 Pandemic. Based on the City’s water billing system, residential water use was broken down into single family, single family with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), and multifamily categories.
Historical data was segregated into indoor and outdoor water use by customer type using the monthly billing data. Irrigation-only water use was also analyzed (from consumption data for irrigation-only accounts). Non-residential categories of use were analyzed for average daily commercial and industrial water use on a
gallons-per-account basis.
3.2 Consumption
Figure 3-2 illustrates historical monthly total consumption from the last 27 years. Consumption data is measured at the customer meters. The City’s water use decreased with the 2008-2011 recession and the multiyear drought which affected the City from 2014-2019.6 Water use was
further impacted by the COVID-19 Pandemic.7
The City serves several types of water users through approximately 27,597 potable connections (excluding fire lines), all of which are metered. For the purpose of this analysis, current and projected potable water user categories are classified as follows:
• Single Family
• Single Family with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
• Multifamily
• Commercial
• Industrial
• Irrigation
Figure 3-2.
City of Santa Barbara Historical Consumption
Figure 3-1.
Data Used in the DSS Model
General Information
• Agency Info
• Planning Documents
• Abnormal Years
Historical Data
• Customer Categories
• Production
• Consumption
• Maximum Day Demand
• Weather
• Avoided Cost of Additional
Water Supplies
Demographic Data
• Population
• Jobs
Conservation
• Conservation Targets
• Historical Conservation
• Water Loss Program
• Landscape Area
Measurements
• CII Classifications
Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 13 Single Family with ADU accounts represent single-family residences with an accessory dwelling unit (an independent living unit usually comprised of living quarters with a kitchen and bathroom). This category was included in modeling as it is expected that water use on single family properties with an ADU varies from water use by single family residences without an ADU. As vacant lots are scarce in the City, ADUs are in high demand as a key way to build new housing. The City offers preapproved ADU building plans to streamline the building process. Modeling this customer category separately will allow for the City to more accurately track their water use, potential water savings and potential conservation measure costs. Figure 3-3 presents the water use profile of the average annual billed metered consumption of the various user categories based on monthly water use and account data from years 2021–2024.
3.3 Historical and Current
Conservation Program
The City’s Water Conservation Program began as a response to drought in the late 1970s. In 1988, the Water Conservation Program was enhanced as a result of recommendations from the City’s Five-Year Water Policy Action Plan. As a result of the 1987-1991 drought, the City accelerated implementation of the Water Conservation Program.
In December 1990, the Santa Barbara County Regional Water Efficiency Program (RWEP) was established as a collaboration among the many local water purveyors and the County of Santa Barbara Water Agency.
RWEP promotes the efficient use of water countywide and provides information and assistance to the 16 local water purveyors within the county, including the City of Santa Barbara. RWEP members coordinate cooperative water conservation efforts among purveyors, co-fund projects and programs, function as a clearinghouse for information on water efficiency, manage specific projects and programs, and monitor local, state, and national legislation related to efficient water use. RWEP provides an annual report with information on accomplishments; the FY2023-24 report can be found in Appendix G.
8 Rounded to the nearest hundred acre-feet.
In January 1992, the City joined the California Urban Water Conservation Council, now the California Water Efficiency Partnership (CalWEP), by signing the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation. Since that time, the City has been actively implementing the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other water conservation measures. Additionally, implementing the BMPs satisfies contractual requirements with the Bureau of Reclamation for the Cachuma Reservoir Project.
The City’s Water Conservation Program aims to minimize the use of potable water supplies, meet BMP requirements, and achieve compliance with state efficiency standards by making water conservation a Santa Barbara way of life. Water conservation measures are evaluated for cost-effectiveness based on the avoided cost of additional water supplies.
The City’s long-term commitment to water conservation is evident in reductions in water demand achieved over the past 35 years. Total system production has dropped from a peak near 16,800 AFY in the mid-1980s to about 14,600 AFY before the most recent drought and is averaging approximately 9,700 AFY8 as of the writing of this Plan (based on 2021–2024 data). This water use trend (including the recycled water system production that started in 1989), along with historical annual population and rainfall in the City, is illustrated in Figure 3-4 along with notable historical drought periods.
Water use efficiency in the City is supported by a coordinated effort of the City and RWEP initiatives to create a holistic approach for providing the needed water conservation tools to both the water system and each customer within the service area. Additionally, the City requires water efficiency in building codes and standards as a result of state-guided mandates and local ordinances.
Figure 3-3. Average Consumption by User Category
Figure 3-3 is based on
2021–2024 historical
water use per account
by customer category,
representing conditions
after the 2014-2019
drought and the COVID-19
Pandemic.
Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 14 Figure 3-4. City of Santa Barbara Population, Water Production, and Rainfall, 1898–2025 9 City of Santa Barbara. Municipal Code, SBMC §14.20.007, accessed March 2026. 10 Ibid. Municipal Code, SBMC §14.20.0226 accessed March 2026.
Note: The total water production in the above graph includes the recycled water system production that came online in 1989. Yellow bars indicate periods of drought.
3.3.1 Utility Operations Measures
Utility operations measures encompass preventing water waste, reducing water loss, and addressing water efficiency in development projects.
Water Waste Prevention
City Ordinance No. 4558, adopted in February 1989, prohibits the waste of water, which is defined as any excessive, unnecessary or unwarranted use of water, including, but not limited to: 1) any use which causes significant runoff beyond the boundaries of property served by a meter; 2) failure to repair any leak or rupture in any water pipes, faucets, valves, plumbing fixtures or other water service appliances within 72 hours after notice by the City; and 3) irrigation during and for a period of 48 hours after a measurable rainfall event. The City makes educating the community on water waste practices a high priority. The City’s water waste ordinance can be found in the City’s municipal code SBMC §14.20.007 Prohibition Against Waste of Water.9 Enforcement of the City’s water waste ordinance is found in SBMC §14.20.226 Penalties and Charges.10
Water Loss Control
The City has been conducting annual water audits of the water distribution system since 2010 using the approach described in the AWWA Manual M36 – Water Audits and Loss Control Programs (AWWA, 2016). The purpose of the audit is to quantify the City’s real losses (water physically lost from the system through leaks, breaks, theft, and other means), as well as apparent losses (water lost through meter under registration and data handling errors). In addition to conducting annual water loss audits, beginning in 2017, the City has worked with a third-party validator to complete a level 1 validation of each water audit, as required by Senate Bill (SB) 555. This ensures the data used to compile the audits are as accurate as possible and helps to identify areas where data collection and quality could be improved.
In response to increased water main breaks in the late 1980s, the City Council created an annual Water Main Improvement Program and established a goal of annually replacing 1%, or approximately 3 miles, of the City’s water mains. This goal was an integral part of the Water Capital Improvement Program for over 30 years. In June 2018, the City Council approved increasing the annual replacement goal to Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 15 2%, or approximately 6 miles, of water mains. This more aggressive replacement goal targets the distribution system’s cast iron mains, which were installed between 1900 and 1950, make up 44% of the City’s distribution system, and have an average life span of 77 years.
Proactively replacing water mains reduces main breaks, which helps to reduce the City’s real water losses.
To address water loss during annual maintenance activities, the City invested in a Neutral Output Discharge Elimination System (NO-DES) truck to flush water distribution pipelines. Before the NO-DES truck was in use, the City would have to perform this annual distribution system maintenance work by flushing water from fire hydrants to storm drains. With NO-DES technology, the City can now flush distribution lines by connecting two fire hydrants to a filtration truck that flushes, recirculates, and filters the water before returning it back to the distribution system.
The City launched a comprehensive Meter Replacement Program in 2014 with goals to replace the City’s aging meter population with new meters that more accurately register lower flows and that were compatible with advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). The AMI system was deployed to all City water customers in March 2024. The detailed consumption data provided by AMI offers potential to improve the identification of meter inaccuracies and distribution system leaks, ultimately supporting more effective management of both apparent and real water losses. As the City’s AMI data analytics capabilities are further developed, the City will continue to explore these and other potential applications to strengthen system efficiency and water loss management.
Table 3-1 shows the City’s total water losses (real and apparent loss) range from 35.3 to 14.0 gallons per service connection per day (gpscd) between FY2021 and FY2025. The City’s FY2025 Water Loss Audit shows the City’s total water losses were 14 gpscd, and real water losses were 10.1 gpscd, which is below the City’s real water loss standard of 28.8 gpscd.
As of the writing of this Plan, the City is currently creating a Water Loss Control Strategic Plan to increase the City’s confidence in its water loss calculations, ensure legislative targets are met, and direct strategic and cost-effective water loss control efforts. The City anticipates the Water Loss Control Strategic Plan will be completed by the end of Fiscal Year 2026.
Water Efficient Landscape Standards
For development projects, the City has adopted Water Efficient Landscape Standards that are more stringent than California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The City reviews plans and conducts inspections to ensure compliance with design standards, including a water wise plant palette, efficient irrigation, proper pressure regulation, smart irrigation controllers, mulch, and more. The landscape design standards were originally adopted by the City in 1989 and last updated in 2023. The City has submitted an annual report to the state since December 2015 that includes the total number of approved projects and square feet of new/revised landscape.
3.3.2 Public Information and Outreach
The City strives to raise awareness among all customer types of the importance of efficient and responsible water use. The City works to foster a culture of conservation within the community and affect impactful behavioral changes. Components of the City’s existing public education program include the following:
• Communicating the value of water – The City regularly provides the public with images and status updates of water sources. The City regularly provides presentations to community groups and informational tables at events to communicate information on local water sources, the history of water in Santa Barbara, water efficiency, and more.
• Providing information on methods and opportunities for reducing consumption – The City engages customers in water efficiency through the City’s website, the WaterSmart customer portal, newsletters, informational videos, social media, printed materials, public presentations, workshops, and more. The City promotes the use and maintenance of water efficient WaterSense products, practices, and services.
• Delivering consistent, persistent messages and media
campaigns – This is done through radio messages, television commercials, print advertising, social media messaging, digital advertising, and more, including messaging for both indoor and outdoor water use efficiency. Messages are tailored to the season (i.e., “turn it down” in the fall and “sprinkler spruce up” in the spring).
Figure 3-5. City of Santa Barbara Drought Advertising Example Table 3-1. Annual Water Losses (Real and Apparent Loss) Note: Reported losses for years FY2021-FY2025 based on water loss audits.
FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025
Total Water Loss, AFY 1,148 747 796 1,041 411
Total Water Loss, gpscd 35.5 23.0 26.9 35.3 14.0
Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 16
3.3.3 Current Public Information Programs
• Water Conservation Phone Line – The Conservation Phone Line assists customers with identifying and resolving high water use by providing guidance on leak detection, water use analysis, and efficiency improvements. Staff help customers understand their water use patterns, explain the rate structure, and connect them with available rebates, resources, and tools, including registration for the WaterSmart portal.
• WaterSmart Customer Portal and Automated Leak Alerts – As part of the AMI project, the City has a customer-facing water use and billing portal called WaterSmart. Through WaterSmart, customers can monitor water use by the hour, day, and month; receive automated leak alerts; pinpoint reasons behind a high bill; customize alerts for unusual water use; and sign up for autopay and paperless billing.
• Website – The City’s Water Conservation Program website is SantaBarbaraCA.org/WaterWise. Additionally, the City contributes to and promotes the website for the Regional Water Efficiency Program of Santa Barbara County: WaterWiseSB.org.
• Conservation Videos – DIY and informational videos on sustainable landscaping, leak detection, efficient irrigation, water supply, and more are on the City’s Water Conservation YouTube Channel:
YouTube.com/SaveWaterSB.
• Media Campaign – Spring, summer, and fall media campaigns are implemented by the City, often in conjunction with RWEP to expand reach. Advertisements are placed online, on TV, in movie theatres, in print publications, and on the radio.
• Water Bill Messages/Bill Insert/e-Newsletter – Monthly water conservation messages are printed directly on water bills and are customized by customer classification. A monthly water bill insert is mailed with all water bills and available electronically for online bill pay customers. A Water Resources e-newsletter is sent out quarterly and a citywide “City News in Brief” e-newsletter is sent out weekly, with a water efficiency section included every week.
• Social Media – Outreach on water conservation actions and events are posted on the Nextdoor website, as well as the City’s Facebook and X accounts.
• Demonstration Gardens – The Water Conservation Program has many beautiful water wise demonstration gardens to showcase sustainable landscaping: Alice Keck Park Memorial Garden in conjunction with the Parks Department, the Firescape Garden in conjunction with the Fire Department, Spencer Adams Park in conjunction with the Parks Department and via a Surfrider Foundation Whale Tail Grant, the El Estero Recycled Water Garden, the Water Wise Home Garden in conjunction with the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, and the Santa Barbara Association of Realtors Rainwater Garden in conjunction with the Association of Realtors. • Public Events – City staff set up tables and displays and engage the public in water efficiency information at local events such as Earth Day, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden events, various school science nights, and neighborhood association meetings.
• Garden Wise TV Show – Garden Wise is a 30-minute quarterly television show about designing and maintaining sustainable landscapes. Featured segments include: Plant Rant, What Tree is That?, Crimes Against Horticulture, and Design a Water Wise Garden featuring local designers. This program is coordinated and co-funded through RWEP.
• Water Wise Gardening for Santa Barbara County Website – This robust gardening information website is tailored to the Santa Barbara climate with an extensive plant database of over 1,000 water wise plants, more than 300 photos of local gardens, and guidance on gardening design and practices: WaterWiseGardeningSB.org. This program is coordinated and co-funded through RWEP.
Figure 3-6. “Sprinkler Spruce Up” Media Campaign
Figure 3-7. City of Santa Barbara’s Television Program
Garden Wise
Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 17
3.3.4 Current School Education Programs
• Classroom Presentations – This involves fun and engaging K-6 presentations about Santa Barbara’s water supply, the water cycle, water conservation, and wastewater treatment. Songs, photos, and videos are used, based on the age group. Sixth grade presentations include the Living Wise kit and curriculum – a take home kit with water and energy fixtures and activities to conduct at home.
Presentations are tailored to grade or class objectives and are aligned to California content standards and the Education and the Environment Initiative Curriculum.
• Field Trips – Water facilities such as the El Estero Water Resource Center, Cater Water Treatment Plant, Charles E. Meyer Desalination Plant, Sheffield Reservoir, and the Firescape Garden are available for school and community group tours with City personnel to lead and educate attendees.
• Musical Assemblies – This program includes musical-comedy education shows about water supplies, the value of water, groundwater, and water efficiency. It is coordinated and co-funded through RWEP.
• WaterWise High School Video Contest – This annual countywide contest encourages high schools to create and submit a 30-second public service announcement for water efficiency in English or Spanish. Winning videos are used for television and movie theater advertising. This program is coordinated and co-funded through RWEP.
• WaterWise Science Fair Award – This special award is part of the larger Santa Barbara County Science Fair for junior and senior science fair projects that address water efficiency, water supplies, or water treatment. This program is coordinated and co-funded through RWEP.
11 California Building Standards Commission, CA Plumbing Code. (2025). Chapter 15 Alternate Water Sources for Nonpotable Applications.
3.3.5 Outdoor Water Use Efficiency
The City’s outdoor water use efficiency programs are intended to promote the “new normal” of water wise landscaping through proper design, installation, and maintenance of new and existing landscapes and irrigation systems.
• Sustainable Lawn Replacement Program – Rebates are available to help offset the cost of replacing water-thirsty lawns and irrigation with water-wise plants and efficient irrigation. Rebate amount is based upon square footage of lawn removed and can be stacked with the rain garden rebate from the Creeks Division for a higher dollar-per-square foot and higher rebate maximum.
• Irrigation Efficiency Rebates - Rebates are available for smart irrigation controllers, spray to drip system conversions, spray to low-precipitation nozzle conversions, and laundry-to-landscape graywater systems.
• Irrigation Budgets for Dedicated Irrigation Meters – The City has budget-based rates for accounts with dedicated irrigation meters to incentivize water efficiency. For the City’s 900 irrigation meters, the monthly water budget is determined by the property’s irrigated landscaped area, the water requirements of plants, and the current weather conditions. The purpose of providing a monthly water budget is to bill based on the water needs of the landscaping; water use that exceeds the budget is billed at a higher rate.
Customers can track their water use compared to their budget in the WaterSmart portal.
• Green Gardener Program – Taught through Santa Barbara City College School of Extended Learning, gardeners are trained in resource efficiency and pollution prevention landscape maintenance practices. Gardeners attend a 15-week course taught in both English and Spanish covering topics such as irrigation design and maintenance, fertilizing, soil health, integrated pest management, pruning, and reduction of green waste. This program is coordinated and co-funded through RWEP.
• Mulch Delivery Rebate – The City will rebate a portion of the cost of up to two dump truck loads per year of county mulch deliveries to reduce evaporation and increase water retention in the soil. • Graywater Information – The City provides education on the use of graywater with handouts, fact sheets, sample plan sheet, videos, and information on the City’s website. The City promotes the use of graywater in accordance with the California Plumbing Code Chapter 15.11
• WaterWise Garden Recognition Contest – Residential front gardens are evaluated for water efficiency, design elements, and sustainability. The winning garden is submitted to the countywide contest for the top prize. Winning properties receive an engraved sandstone boulder and are highlighted in public outreach to encourage water-wise practices. This program is coordinated and co-funded through RWEP.
Figure 3-8. Rebate Participant: Before and After
Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 18
3.3.6 Residential Programs
In addition to the programs previously listed, the following programs are geared toward residential customers:
• Flume Smart Home Water Monitor Rebate – The City offers a direct distribution rebate on the Flume smart home water monitoring system. Flume easily attaches to the meter and allows users to monitor water use down to the minute and catch water leaks quickly using a smartphone app.
• Washing Machine Rebate Program – The Smart Rebates Program is coordinated by CalWEP for participating water suppliers throughout California. The City participates with high efficiency clothes washer rebates for residential customers who replace an existing high water use washing machine with a qualifying high efficiency model.
3.3.7 Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Programs In addition to the programs previously listed, the following programs are geared toward CII customers:
• CII WaterWise Survey and Incentive Program – This tailored program for high water use CII customers includes a comprehensive water survey and incentives for making recommended upgrades.
The survey includes identifying high water use appliances, searching for hidden leaks, cataloging use and flow rates of fixtures, and identifying areas for improvement. A summary report is generated which includes an analysis of the facility’s water use, water and costsaving recommendations eligible for monetary incentives from the City, and estimated return on investment.
• Lodging Industry Towel and Linen Cards – Free linen cards and towel rack hangers are available to encourage patrons to conserve water during their stay by reusing towels and linens.
• Restaurant Table Cards – Free table tents are available to inform restaurant customers that water will be served upon request. • Green Business Program of Santa Barbara County – Businesses are certified through onsite evaluations from City staff. New and existing certified Green Businesses receive workshops, trainings, resources, and recognition. Organized by the California Green Business Network, Santa Barbara County.
Figure 3-9. Restaurant Table Card Example
Figure 3-10. Conservation Participation, 2015-2025
Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 19
3.4 AMI Data
The City has recently completed implementation of an AMI system, representing a significant achievement and advancement in system operation and water use monitoring. AMI consists of digital water meter registers, wireless communication equipment, and data management software that automatically collects water use data from customer meters. Unlike traditional meter reading systems that collect a single read per billing cycle, AMI provides hourly water consumption data. This allows both the City and its customers to better understand water use patterns and respond more quickly to abnormal consumption events.
3.4.1 AMI Implementation and Milestones
The City began preparing for AMI implementation in 2014 by replacing existing meters with AMI-compatible meters. Installation of the Aclara radio-frequency network and software began in 2021 and marked a major step in the project. Approximately 28,000 meters were equipped with meter transmission units and 22 data collection units were installed throughout the City to collect and transmit meter data. The AMI network installation was completed ahead of schedule and within budget in July 2023, after which the City began collecting hourly water use data from all customers and integrated the data into the City’s billing and customer service systems.
In March 2024, the City launched the WaterSmart customer portal, which provides customers with direct access to their water use data, leak notifications, and conservation recommendations.
Customer adoption has been strong and registration rates have exceeded initial expectations.
3.4.2 AMI in Water Management
The implementation of AMI has significantly improved the City’s ability to monitor water use and respond to operational issues. The system allows all customer meter reads to be collected within approximately one hour, compared to several days previously required for manual meter reading. This automated data collection has improved operational efficiency and enabled staff to focus more on proactive system management and customer service.
AMI data also supports improved leak detection. Automated monitoring of hourly water use allows the City to quickly identify unusual consumption patterns that may indicate leaks or other issues.
Customers who enroll in the WaterSmart portal can receive automated notifications of high or continuous water use, allowing them to address potential leaks before they result in significant water loss or unexpected bill impacts. In addition, City staff routinely review system alerts and proactively contact customers when abnormal water use patterns are detected.
3.4.3 AMI Data Considerations
AMI data can enhance the City’s ability to refine conservation program targeting and evaluate potential new measures. A substantial analysis of historical program participation was completed as part of the Alliance for Water Efficiency report, “An Assessment of Water Affordability and Conservation Potential in Santa Barbara, CA.” Building on this analysis, AMI data provides an additional layer of insight by enabling the City to identify accounts exhibiting specific water use patterns, such as high seasonal irrigation demand, persistent high usage, or other indicators of conservation potential that may align with current or future conservation measures. When combined with the GISbased analyses conducted for the water affordability report (discussed below in section 3.5.4), AMI data can help estimate potential water savings and support more strategic targeting of program participation to maximize achievable savings.
AMI data availability was reviewed as part of MWM’s modeling efforts, and it is recommended that the City explore options to retain AMI data for longer than the vendor currently stores it. This ensures the data remains available for future program evaluation and planning analyses. At present, AMI data represents an opportunity to strengthen conservation planning and program effectiveness over time.
Figure 3-11. WaterSmart Customer Portal
Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 20
3.5 Water Affordability and Conservation
As part of this Plan, equity considerations were embedded into the measure selection and design process to incorporate this important driver in planning for the next phase of water conservation in the City.
3.5.1 Background
With the cost of water and wastewater rising across the country, the Water Resources Department initiated an effort in spring 2023 with the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) to study the affordability of City water and wastewater service. The results of the study were documented in a final written report “An Assessment of Water Affordability and Conservation Potential in Santa Barbara, CA” (Affordability Report). Measuring water affordability is a relatively new concept in the water industry and affordability metrics are just beginning to be established. In the Affordability Report, affordability was assessed using a combination of various metrics, including the Household Burden Indicator and Poverty Prevalence Indicator (PPI), which focus on water and wastewater bill impacts to households in the lowest 20th percentile of income within each census tract. Unlike previous studies conducted by AWE, the City's assessment also included the financial impact of water and wastewater services on multifamily residential (MFR) households, rather than focusing solely on single family residential (SFR) households.
The study found that the City’s water customers, when viewed as a whole, have little to no water affordability concerns. However, when analyzed at the census tract level, certain tracts are more burdened by water affordability. Several tracts qualify as disadvantaged communities (median annual household income less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income), and the combination of high cost of living and low wages results in City utility bill costs that are a “moderately high” burden.
Overall, the study found that the City is already conducting a number of best practices related to rate structures, affordability, and water conservation. Some the best practices include the price of tier one water consumption being relatively low compared to the highest tier, providing an online bill calculator, having a dedicated water conservation program, and translating outreach materials into Spanish.
The Affordability Report provided additional recommendations ranging from low-impact to high-impact, and from simple implementation to complex and long-range implementation.
3.5.2 Prioritization of Recommendations
The following table presents the highest priority recommendations identified by the City’s Water Commission in the Affordability Report, listed in anticipated order of implementation. Priorities were determined based on several factors, including cost/benefit analysis, ease of implementation, items already being implemented, items that will take more time to develop or are more complex, and items that may require policy action and/or should be addressed as part of future rate studies.
Table 3-2. Priority Equity Recommendations
Status Recommendation
Completed
Leverage AMI hourly data and WaterSmart portal
communication platform to help target water
conservation tips, programs, and customer
assistance programs to those who are using water
inefficiently and if done proactively, can help avoid
high bills. (Affordability Report recommendation
number 10).
Completed
Assess historical participation in water
conservation programs by census tract.
(Affordability Report recommendation number 5).
In Progress
Explore strategies to expand and improve the
accessibility of current water conservation
programs. (Affordability Report recommendation
number 6.)
In Progress
Ensure communications and marketing strategies
for AMI data and the WaterSmart portal are
specifically designed to reach account holders in
low-income and multifamily settings. (Affordability
Report recommendation number 9.)
In
Development
Explore partnerships with existing efforts
addressing a broader range of affordability
challenges. (Affordability Report recommendation
number 12.)
In
Development
Explore customer assistance programs to improve
and/or expand support to low-income households.
This effort should also assess the process for
customer participation and aim to make it as easy
and accessible as possible. (Affordability Report
recommendation number 13.)
Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 21
3.5.3 Leverage AMI Data to Target Water Conservation
The Affordability Report was released prior to the Citywide launch of WaterSmart in March 2024. WaterSmart is the City’s customer-facing portal in which account holders can access hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly water use, pay bills online, receive automated water leak alerts, set custom notifications, see a breakdown of their bill, explore water efficiency recommendations, and more.
Staff will continue to target outreach and programs to customers who meet certain water use thresholds such as continuous leaks or overirrigation. Staff conducts individual outreach to customers via phone and email that WaterSmart has identified as experiencing continuous use or large leaks to ensure the customer is aware of the issue and to provide support as needed.
3.5.4 Assess Historical Participation in
Water Resources Program
Per the recommendations in the Affordability Report, an assessment was conducted by the City using GIS to analyze the locations of historical program participation by account number and customer type (single-family, multifamily). Data from the past 20 years was analyzed by census tract. The measures analyzed include bill assistance, WaterSmart registrations, and water conservation measures like toilet rebates, showerhead giveaways, etc. This information serves as the roadmap for where more targeted and equitable outreach and communication can occur and provides staff with the baseline knowledge needed to more effectively implement the remaining top priority recommendations in the future.
The following measures were included in the mapping analysis:
• WaterSmart Registrations – WaterSmart can be a helpful tool for account holders of high burdened households because it provides customers with detailed water use information and tailored recommendations for water efficiency. WaterSmart is currently only available to individually metered customers that receive a water bill (not master-metered MFR or renters who do not pay their water bills). WaterSmart also has an interactive utility bill breakdown chart that shows the components of their utility bills so customers can see where the bulk of their charges are stemming from. One of the most impactful components of WaterSmart for high burdened households is the ability to recognize and automatically alert customers of continuous water use, usually indicating a leak. Early detection and alerting can prompt the customer to make leak repairs quickly, thus reducing the higher bill charges associated with the increased water use.
• The mapping analysis (illustrated in Figure 3-12) showed a positive customer reception of this new tool for water efficiency and customer assistance. The number of residential registrations was compared to total residential water accounts per census tract and overlayed on the Poverty Prevalence Indicator (PPI) from the Affordability Report.
In general, higher registration rates were seen in the census tracts that have a lower PPI (less financially burdened). The most recent map analysis (Figure 3-12) shows an improvement in registrations throughout the service area, especially in the high PPI tracts, bringing those tracts more inline with registration rates across the community.
Initially, the lowest uptake was seen in the five census tracts with the highest PPI, the tracts that are more financially burdened and have a higher density of multifamily accounts. Those five census tracts have a higher percentage of Spanish as the primary language spoken in the household, so City staff have worked with the WaterSmart developers to send outreach that is available in both English and Spanish languages to improve access.
Figure 3-12. WaterSmart Residential Registrations by Census Tract Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 22 • Bill Assistance – The City participated in two major federal and state financial assistance programs in the past four years, the LowIncome Household Water Assistance Program (LIHWAP), and the California Water and Wastewater Arrearages Program. LIHWAP was a federally funded program that offered assistance to low-income households to pay past due residential water and wastewater bills.
The program ended in March 2024; there were 156 City customers who received a total of $410,923 in LIHWAP assistance. City staff applied for and received funding from the California Water and Wastewater Arrearages Payment Program in 2022 and 2024. A total of $1,999,324 was dispersed to 4,181 qualifying residential and commercial water accounts.
• The mapping analysis found that, overall, participation in both programs was seen throughout the City with higher clusters in lower income census tracts.
• Water Conservation Measures – Measures analyzed as part of this mapping exercise include residential Water Checkups; indoor programs (including showerhead distributions, toilet rebates, and clothes washer rebates); and outdoor programs (irrigation evaluations, mulch rebates, free rain sensors and soil probes, water broom rebates, irrigation rebates, and lawn removal rebates). • In general, census tracts with higher PPI scores, meaning lower incomes, tended to have lower rates of water conservation program participation. However, it should be noted that the Affordability Report found that “in lower income Census tracts, average water use per dwelling unit tends to be lower.” Although rates of water conservation program participation are generally less in census tracts with higher PPIs, this may be a function of water use. For example, census tracts with high PPIs (lower incomes) are generally composed of higher density areas with properties with typically smaller landscaped areas, so the ability to save water outdoors and participate in outdoor conservation programs is low.
3.5.5 Conservation Measure Evaluation Criteria
One of the priorities of this Plan is to evaluate conservation measures not solely on water savings, but on a broader set of evaluation criteria that includes equity. In conducting this Plan update, staff expanded the analysis of potential water conservation measures. As expanded on in Chapter 4, each measure was scored using evaluation criteria designed to ensure equitable, practical, and effective outcomes for the City’s diverse customer base. Measures were scored based on the four criteria below; each were given equal weight:
1. Water Savings Potential (Per Account) – Refers to the water savings potential a measure has on an account-by-account basis and the expected adoption rate. This is a qualitative assessment of expected water savings potential; actual savings were quantitatively measured using the DSS Model.
2. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion – Considers how the measure benefits different customer groups, income levels, and housing types, and how accessible it is to non-English-speaking or underrepresented communities.
3. Service Area Match – Evaluates whether the measure is appropriate for Santa Barbara’s climate, building stock, and lifestyle characteristics.
4. Additional Service Area Benefits – Identifies co-benefits such as stormwater management, habitat creation, energy savings, community aesthetics, or educational opportunities.
These criteria ensure that recommended measures not only save water but also provide broader community and environmental value. This involves designing programs that provide equitable access to watersaving technologies and support for underserved populations, thereby helping to maximize access across all types of customers.
The City is currently participating in an AWE study titled “Characterizing Water Use in Low-Income Households Seeking Bill Pay Assistance” that will analyze household water use patterns related to water affordability challenges and recommend complementary bill payment assistance and leak repair programs. AWE will analyze City utility billing and water use data to quantify the prevalence of leaks, persistently high consumption, and inefficient fixtures among low-income households seeking assistance. Participation in the study will provide a deeper understanding of water use trends among low-income customers, helping the City evaluate whether plumbing repair or efficiency retrofit programs could complement bill assistance efforts.
Historical and Current Water Use • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 23
3.5.6 Next Steps for Achieving Equity
As the City explores assistance programs and continues to implement the Affordability Report recommendations, ensuring that the program benefits those in need is a complex issue. The data shows that the lowest income census tracts have the highest density of multifamily residences. Currently, only 17% of multifamily dwelling units are individually metered. In addition, customers who rent their homes, both multifamily and single family residential, may not directly see or pay their water bills because they are included in their rent. This leads to potential landlord transparency issues and challenges related to ensuring the assistance program is actually passed along to the customers experiencing affordability challenges. During the Affordability Report it was difficult to obtain survey responses and workshop participation from low-income customers, leading to the conclusion that water affordability may not be top of mind for these customers, as it is only one part of a much larger affordability issue in the community. Other affordability concerns such as housing and food costs may be more top of mind.
The City continues to focus on strategies to improve accessibility of water conservation programs, including WaterSmart. The City is working to improve language-access by ensuring information and resources are also available in Spanish, since that is the main additional language spoken in the community. The City could also train others in the community who work with or are trusted by low-income or otherwise vulnerable households to help account holders get registered in WaterSmart, assist residents with water conservation education and strategies, or volunteers with plumbing skills.
The City has potential to reduce indoor water use through reliable strategies like high-flush volume toilet replacements. However, traditional rebate programs are a challenge for customers who may not be able to make the upfront purchase and wait for reimbursement or may not be able to pay for plumbing services. Common alternative program models include a direct install model (with or without a customer cost-share), or a free or subsidized leak detection and plumbing repair service program. These measure considerations were modeled and are included in the Program recommended in this Plan.
As the City continues to explore these opportunities, staffing capacity is a key factor in the City’s ability to expand water affordability assistance and build partnerships with community-based organizations.
Implementing the remaining recommendations from the Affordability Report will require significant coordination, outreach, and program administration. In addition, engaging these households often requires trusted community partners, language-accessible outreach, and handson support for programs such as WaterSmart enrollment, conservation education, or direct-install efficiency upgrades. Developing and maintaining these partnerships, while also administering potential programs such as leak repair services or direct-install fixture replacements, would require dedicated staff capacity. It is estimated that approximately one additional full-time equivalent position would be needed to effectively implement the remaining Affordability Report recommendations and support long-term community engagement in those programs.
Photo: Benoit Debaix • Unsplash
Urban Water Use Objectives • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 24
4. Urban Water Use Objectives
This section presents background information about the requirements put forth in the Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life regulation (Regulation) which was one of the primary drivers for developing this Plan. As stated in the introduction, one of the purposes of this Plan is to assess if the City is on track to meet requirements in future compliance years with its current estimated demand, growth projections, and conservation program.
4.1 Regulation Background
In 2018, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1668 and Senate Bill (SB) 606. This legislation directed the State Board to adopt water efficiency standards for residential and landscape use and performance measures for CII water use. In 2024 the State Board adopted the Regulation, which established a unique Urban Water Use Objective (UWUO) or water budget for each urban retail water supplier and performance measures for CII customers. Annual reporting on the Regulation was required beginning January 1, 2025. Compliance is required beginning January 1, 2027, and is measured based on the various standards and CII performance measures that are in effect for the reporting period. The standards and performance measures have various effective dates over the course of the next fifteen years and are based on which compliance options water suppliers choose.
4.2 Urban Water Use Objective
The Regulation requires urban water suppliers to comply with an UWUO that is calculated annually. The calculation is based on local characteristics and standards for residential indoor and outdoor use, outdoor use from dedicated irrigation meters (DIMs), water loss, a bonus incentive for potable reuse, and variances. The standards for indoor and outdoor use decrease over the implementation period between 2025 and 2040, requiring urban water suppliers to meet stricter water use budgets as time progresses.
4.2.1 Residential Indoor Water Use Standard
The residential indoor water budget component of the UWUO is calculated by multiplying the applicable gallons per capita per day (GPCD) consumption standard by the supplier’s service area population and by the number of days in the year. The GPCD standards applied to calculate the residential indoor water budget decrease over time, starting at 47 GPCD in years 2025 through 2029 and decrease to 42 GPCD in 2030 and beyond.
Figure 4-1. Breakdown of Urban Water Use Objective Components Urban Water Use Objectives • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 25
4.2.2 Residential Outdoor Water Use Standard
The residential outdoor water use standard is calculated based on the square footage of the City’s residential irrigated landscape area, local weather data, and a landscape efficiency factor (LEF). The LEF is 0.8 starting in fiscal year (FY) 2025 to FY 2035, 0.63 from FY 2035 to FY 2040, and is 0.55 beginning in FY 2040. As the LEF lowers, the residential outdoor water use standard is reduced. The total residential irrigated landscape area and the weather data used in the calculation is provided by the State.
4.2.3 Commercial Outdoor Water Use Standard
Like the residential outdoor water use standard described above, the commercial outdoor water use standard is also calculated by multiplying landscape area measurements by a LEF. The standard for dedicated irrigation meters (DIM) serving commercial customers (CIIDIM) is calculated in the same way as the residential outdoor standard.
However, the LEF for CII-DIMs is 0.8 from FY 2025 to FY 2035, 0.63 from FY 2035 to FY 2040, and drops to 0.45 beginning in FY 2040.
The CII-DIM water budget will go into effect beginning July 1, 2028 to allow water suppliers time to identify and measure DIM accounts and/ or install DIMs on CII large landscapes. Prior to June 30, 2028, the CIIDIM budget will be equal to actual deliveries associated with landscape irrigation reported to the State Board in the electronic annual report. 12 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, §§ 980-986
4.2.4 CII Mixed-Use Meter Large Landscape Compliance
In addition to the commercial outdoor water use standard, which establishes a water use budget for commercial landscapes, the Regulation includes a requirement for conversion of large landscapes with mixed-use meters (MUMs). The CII MUMs portion of the Regulation requires suppliers to measure and report all large CII landscapes (greater than half an acre in size) with MUMs by July 1st, 2027. By June 30, 2039, suppliers will have to implement one of the following compliance options and maintain the process for compliance at a rate of 95% of all CII MUM large landscapes starting in June 30, 2040.
• Compliance Option 1 – Conversion to DIMs: Suppliers must install DIMs in large CII landscapes. For suppliers using the first compliance option, all CII large landscapes with MUMs must be measured and reported by July 1st, 2027.
• Compliance Option 2 – Use In-Lieu Technologies: Instead of installing DIMs, suppliers must implement at least one of the following methods: water budget-based management programs without a rate structure, water budget-based rate structure, installation of technologies that enable the supplier to identify, estimate, and analyze outdoor water use (such as AMI or remote sensing), and offer, at a minimum, one BMP from the Outreach, Technical Assistance, and Education category and at least two BMPs identified in the Landscape category.
The options above have different data requirements that will be due on June 30, 2039, when full compliance is required.
4.2.5 Water Loss Standard
In 2022, a separate State Board regulation established system-specific standards for water losses.12 A supplier will calculate its annual water loss budget by multiplying its system-specific standard by the number of days in the year, and, depending on the units associated with the standard, by either the number of total service connections or the length of the distribution system, in miles. Suppliers must meet their Water Loss Standard starting January 1, 2028 (for data submitted for 2025-2027). After the initial compliance period, suppliers will be evaluated every three years based on their average system losses across those three years.
The water loss standard is unique in that it was originally regulated under prior and independent 2015 legislation – Senate Bill 555.
Therefore, compliance can be enforced individually for water loss, unlike other standards within the long-term framework legislation.
Urban Water Use Objectives • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 26
4.3 CII Performance Measures
In addition to compliance with the calculated UWUO, the City must also implement CII Performance Measures. The Performance Measures were developed by the State Board to address water use associated with the business community but are not a quantifiable standard since CII water use efficiency consists of many diverse industries, production rates, equipment, and other unique factors. CII water use efficiency is also difficult to assess and quantify due to the prevalence of shared or multiple meters supplying multiple businesses and the frequent turnover of business types.
The performance measures primarily focus on identification of the types of CII customers and implementation of BMPs which consist of offering various types of resources and programs to the CII customer sector. The four performance measures are:
1. Identify Disclosable Buildings – The owners of disclosable buildings are required to submit monthly energy use data annually to the California Energy Commission (CEC) via the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager web portal. This performance measure requires all urban water suppliers to identify the number of disclosable buildings in their service area and to provide monthly water use data for at least the previous 12 months when requested by owners or owner’s agents of the buildings. They are also required to annually report the number of customers for which water use data has been provided annually.
2. CII Account Classification – Water suppliers are required to classify their CII customers according to the broad classification categories used by the US Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool. All CII customers must be classified into the 22 designated categories by July 1, 2027.
3. Identify High Volume Users – The regulation requires identification of high-volume CII water users implementing one of three compliance options, each with an associated deadline.
Option 1 requires identifying existing CII users who fall at or above the 97.5th percentile for CII water use, as well as those at or above the 80th percentile for CII water use, with a compliance deadline of June 30, 2025. Option 2 expands this analysis by requiring classification of CII customers and identifying those at or above the 97.5th percentile and the 80th percentile within each classification category (from the CII Classification measure described above). This option allows for a later compliance date of June 30, 2027. Option 3 extends the deadline further to June 30, 2029, and requires the development and application of Key Business Activity Indicators to assess inefficiency within CII classification categories.
4. Implement Best Management Practices for High Volume
Users – This task requires water suppliers to design resources and implement water efficiency programs from five categories of CII BMPs: 1) Outreach, Technical Assistance, and Education, (2) Incentives, (3) Landscape, (4) Collaboration and Coordination, and (5) Operational. Two BMPs from each category must be offered to the top 97.5th percentile of CII users and one BMP from each category must be offered to the top 80th percentile of CII users.
Singular BMPs can address multiple categories. Suppliers must have a conservation program that meets the BMP requirements in place by 2039, and progress towards compliance must be reported annually.
ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager Categories California Water Boards Categories
Banking/Financial Services Lodging/Residential Retail Services CII Laundries Education Manufacturing/Industrial Technology/Science Landscapes with Dedicated Irrigation Entertainment/Public Assembly Mixed-Use Utility Meters (DIM) Food Sales and Service Office Warehouse/Storage Water Recreation Health Care Parking Workshop Car Wash
Public Services Religious Other
Table 4-1. CII Categories for Classification
Urban Water Use Objectives • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 27
4.4 Reporting and Compliance Schedule
Reporting on the regulation started in 2025, and water use is expected to be in compliance with each supplier’s UWUO by 2026. The City submitted its second report in December 2025. Beginning in 2026, the State Board may issue conservation orders to suppliers that are not in compliance, and beginning in 2027, the State Board may impose administrative civil liabilities for non-compliance with the UWUO.
Additionally, ongoing compliance with the targets set by SB 7 of Special Extended Session 7 (SB X7-7, 2009) is required. SB X7-7 required water suppliers to calculate their actual 2020 gross water use to determine whether they had met their 2020 target of reducing per-capita water consumption by 20%. The City’s 2020 target was 117 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) or less and the City achieved an actual per capita water in 2020 of 92 gpcd.
The Regulation uses the 2020 target as a backstop for calculating the UWUO. The City’s 2020 target is lower than its calculated UWUO, with a calculated UWUO plus excluded water demand of 13,970 AF compared to the SB X7-7 target of 12,933 AF,13 resulting in a capped UWUO that aligns with the 2020 target.
In future reporting years, if the UWUO is higher than the SB X7-7 target, then it is capped at the SB X7-7 target as the objective that the City will be subject to and report on annually. Since the various standards decrease over time, compliance is based on the applicable standards that are in effect for each reporting year. Compliance is assessed based on the total UWUO, and not on each individual component.
Although the City is already in compliance with current standards and estimates compliance with future standards for the UWUO, the long-term framework underpins that the City must “stay the course” with community water conservation measures. The exemplary water conservation achieved by City water customers and the leadership demonstrated by the Water Commission and City Council has positioned the community to better withstand droughts and state regulations. It is important to note that the long-term framework necessitates significant staff time for tracking, analyzing, and reporting on the UWUO, the water loss standard, and the CII performance measures. Additionally, the UWUO will require some changes and enhancements to City water conservation programs and outreach to continue to achieve compliance.
13 This figure was reported in the City’s FY2024 Annual UWUO and Water Use Report.
4.5 UWUO Compliance Status
As part of this Plan update, the City and MWM conducted a gap analysis completed over a series of meetings to discuss all aspects of the new Regulation and the City’s current activities and water use metrics for compliance. The City is currently in compliance with all components of the Regulation. A recap of the City’s compliance with each component is as follows:
• Urban Water Use Objective – The City is in compliance with current urban water use objectives. Below are a couple objectives that are in progress for future continued compliance.
• CII Mixed-Use Meter Large Landscape Compliance – This component of the UWUO requires all CII landscapes with MUMs that are greater than half an acre in size to be measured and reported by July 1, 2027. By June 30, 2039, suppliers will have to implement one of the compliance options described earlier. The City plans to offer irrigation audits to comply with the reporting requirements of this component by 2039. Staff time costs for this Regulation requirement have been modeled in the “Regulation Requirements” measure presented in following chapters; more details for this measure can be found in Appendix E.
• Water Loss Standard – For the initial compliance period, the State Water Resources Control Board will assess if the City has met its water loss standard in at least one of three years for the period of 2025 – 2027. As described in Chapter 3 above, the City’s FY2025 Water Loss Audit shows the City’s total water losses were 14 gpscd, and real water losses were 10.1 gpscd, which is below the City’s real water loss standard of 28.8 gpscd. Although the City has met its water loss standard established by the State Water Resources Control Board for the initial compliance period, it must continue to do so in all subsequent compliance periods. Going forward, the City’s compliance will be assessed every three years based on its average losses across the three-year compliance period. The City is working on development of a Water Loss Control Strategic Plan.
• CII Performance Measures – The City must also adhere to regulatory requirements for the CII performance measures listed below. Administrative costs to comply with these requirements are included in the measure titled “Regulation Requirements” that will be presented in the following chapters.
• Identify Disclosable Buildings – The City is required to provide owners of disclosable buildings with at least 12 months of historical water use data upon request. The City is currently compliant with this performance measure.
• CII Account Classification – The City completed its CII classification according to the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager Tool classification categories in November 2024 and has maintained classifications.
• Identify High Volume Users – The regulation requires
identification of high-volume CII water customers. The City completes this analysis every year and is in compliance with this performance measure.
• Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) – This task requires water suppliers to design resources and implement water efficiency programs for CII customers. The City is currently compliant with this component of the Regulation through its existing conservation program and measure offerings.
The City’s comprehensive conservation programs, tracking, and monitoring processes support compliance with CII Best Management Practices. The conservation program recommended in this Plan is designed to sustain existing conservation achievements as per the Regulation while also allowing the City to address additional priorities, including equity-focused program design.
Conservation Measure Evaluation • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 28
5. Conservation Measure Evaluation
This section details the screening process, the conservation measures that were analyzed, the measure assumptions, and inputs used in the DSS Model.
5.1 Screening of Conservation Measures
This section presents an overview of the measure screening and analysis process completed to arrive at conservation program recommendations that balance the greatest ease and efficiency of program administration, the lowest cost of implementation, water savings, and current program priorities (such as continued compliance with the Regulation and equity considerations informed by the Affordability Report).
An important step in updating the City’s Water Conservation Strategic Plan included identification of new measures that may be appropriate and the screening of these measures to a short-list for detailed evaluation (benefit-cost analysis). This evaluation was specific to the factors that were unique to the City’s service area, such as water use characteristics, economies of scale, and demographics, and were aligned with the City’s program priorities as mentioned above. The measure screening process also involved a review of the gap analysis (summarized in the previous section) conducted to evaluate the City’s activities against the requirements of the new state Regulation to ensure any gaps in measure activities were addressed.
The experience of many utilities has shown there is a reasonable limit to how many measures can be feasibly implemented at one time. Programs that consist of a large number of measures are historically difficult to implement successfully. Therefore, prioritization of measures is important both as an outcome of this planning effort and as the program is implemented. The approach to program implementation is viewed as a “living” process where opportunities may arise and be adopted as new technologies become available over time. Program timelines can also be adjusted, with the recognition that doing so may impact the savings objectives. The screening process undertaken with the City’s staff yielded 18 measures for further evaluation.
Potential new measures were screened using qualitative evaluation that considered a list of more than 100 potential water conservation measures, the experience of MWM and City staff, the previous conservation planning effort conducted in 2020, and a review of what other water agencies with innovative and effective conservation programs were effectively (or unsuccessfully) implementing. In this effort’s measure screening, City staff considered the criteria outlined in the following figure when evaluating whether a measure should be included in the cost-benefit analysis.
Water Savings Potential (Per Account):
Refers to the water savings potential a measure has on an account-by-account basis and the expected adoption rate.
This is a qualitative assessment of expected water savings potential; actual savings will be quantitatively measured using the DSS Model.
Service Area Match:
Evaluates whether the measure is appropriate for Santa
Barbara’s climate, building stock, and lifestyle characteristics.
Additional Service Area Benefits:
Identifies co-benefits such as stormwater management,
habitat creation, energy savings, community aesthetics, or educational opportunities.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion:
Considers how the measure benefits different
customer groups, income levels, and housing types,
and how accessible it is to non-English-speaking or
underrepresented communities.
Figure 5-1. City of Santa Barbara Measure Screening Criteria Photo: Clayton Cardinalli • Unsplash
Conservation Measure Evaluation • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 29
5.2 Conservation Measures Analyzed
Table 5-1 describes the 18 measures that were selected for analysis during the screening process. The list includes devices or measures that can be used to achieve water conservation; methods through which the device or measure will be implemented; and what distribution method, or mechanism, can be used to activate the device or measure.14 Table 5-1. Measure Descriptions
14 SBMC § 14.23.005, Ordinance 6101, and Council Resolution No. 23-007 Measure Name Description
Commercial
CII Water Survey City staff will conduct a comprehensive water survey of fixtures and appliances and provide recommendations as to how the customer can become more water efficient and save money.
Participation in the survey is a requirement for eligibility in the Customized CII Incentive measure.
Customized CII Incentive This measure models an incentive program for CII users that will be conducted after analyzing the recommendations on the findings report that is provided through the CII Water Survey measure. Financial incentives will be provided after analyzing the cost-benefit ratio of each proposed project. Rebates are tailored to each individual site as each site has varying water savings potential.
Restaurant Spray Nozzles Rebate Rebate 1.15 gallons per minute (gpm) or lower spray nozzles for the rinse and clean operation in restaurants and other commercial kitchens. Stack with existing SoCalGas rebate.
Irrigation
Irrigation Evaluation All public and private irrigators of large landscapes would be eligible for free landscape water surveys upon request. Typically those with high water use would be targeted and provided a customized report.
Sprinkler to Drip Irrigation Retrofit Provide rebate for customers to convert their sprinkler system to efficient drip irrigation.
Eligible materials include: pressure regulator filter assembly, drip tubing, ¼” tubing, drip emitters, connectors, figure 8s, goof plugs, and stakes/staples. Does not include micro spray, irrigation valves, labor, or tax. Cannot be used in combination with the Sustainable Lawn Replacement rebate.
Sustainable Lawn Replacement Rebate The Sustainable Lawn Replacement Rebate provides incentives to help offset the cost of replacing water-thirsty lawns with water-wise plants and efficient irrigation. Total rebate amount is based upon square footage of lawn removed. Stacked rebate available for rain gardens, with funding provided by the Creeks Division.
Spray Sprinklers to Low-Precipitation
Sprinklers Retrofit
Provide rebate for customers to upgrade nozzles to reduce misting, runoff, and allow the water to soak into the ground more easily. Eligible materials include: Rotating or low-precipitation nozzles at 1 gpm flow or less.
Smart Sprinkler Timer Rebate Provide a rebate for the purchase of a weather-based/smart irrigation controller. Smart irrigation controllers can be programmed to give plants the right amount of water for the type of plant, soil, time of year, and weather - often with a smartphone. Eligible materials include: smart controller or weather sensor add-on for existing controller.
Water Efficient Landscape Standards Compliance with the City’s WELS is mandatory whenever a landscaping or irrigation plan is required by any Chapter or Section of the City Municipal Code or by any City design review or land use review body.14 The Standards are intended to promote water conservation while allowing flexibility in designing attractive and cost effective water-wise landscapes. As part of this measure, staff perform plan reviews and final inspections for compliance.
Mulch Delivery Rebate Rebate of two deliveries of the County mulch per customer per year. Mulch helps reduce evaporation and retain soil moisture, reducing irrigation needs.
Conservation Measure Evaluation • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 30 Measure Name Description
Residential
Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer
(HECW) Rebates
Rebate for a high efficiency clothes washer. Only applicable on eligible models and for replacing an existing high-water using washer.
Plumber Initiated High Efficiency Toilet
(HET) Retrofit ProgramE
Subsidize installation cost of new HETs purchased in bulk by the utility to replace 3.5 gallons per flush (gpf) toilets with 0.8 gpf toilets. Licensed plumbers, pre-qualified by the utility would solicit customers directly. Customers would get a new HET installed at no cost or a discounted price.
May focus efforts on income-qualified residential account holders and partner with gas company for economies of scale.
Community and Education
School Education This measure includes the City's school education initiatives: 1) The LivingWise Program wherein 6th grade students receive a kit containing high-efficiency water and energy fixtures to install within their homes. 2) Musical assemblies for K-6 grade students to promote water efficiency and conservation. 3) In-class presentations to K-6 grade students about where water comes from and how to conserve it.
General Public Education This measure includes the City's varied public outreach efforts, including printed and digital advertising, information on the City’s websites, targeted messaging campaigns, informational videos, and educational workshop series.
Green Gardener Program 15-week bilingual course taught through Santa Barbara City College's School of Extended Learning. The class covers topics on resource-efficient and pollution prevention landscape maintenance practices. After completion of the course and a final test, gardeners are placed on the Green Gardener list which is promoted to the public. Green Gardener recertification issued annually with completion of 2 hours continuing education.
Leak Assistance
AMI Customer Portal and Leak Alerts This measure includes the AMI customer portal and the automated leak alert system. Leak alerts are sent by WaterSmart via email, text, phone, or print. This measure includes staff time to respond to calls and emails about leak alerts as well as to discuss water use with customers (i.e. conduct Virtual Water Checkups).
Leak Detection Device Rebate This measure models the CalWEP direct-distribution program for Flume rebates. Customers order leak detection devices directly through the Santa Barbara website and the rebate is built into reduced cost.
Leak Repair RebateE This measure will provide a rebate to cover part of the labor and materials cost for repairing water leaks, with a higher rebate amount for income-qualified account holders.
Note: Measures denoted with an “E” incorporate equity considerations recommended in the Affordability Report (see Section 3.5.5 for more information on recommendations to improve equity in the City’s water conservation program).
Information about the DSS Model analysis approach to measure unit costs, water savings, and market penetrations can be found in Appendix D.
Actual measure inputs used in the DSS Model to evaluate the water conservation measures selected by the City can be found in individual measure screenshots in Appendix E.
Conservation Measure Evaluation • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 31
5.3 Comparison of Individual Conservation Measures
15 The City’s estimated average water production cost is $1,078/AF including treatment, energy, and transport costs. Water production costs are based on FY 2024 variable costs including the following supply sources: Cachuma, Gibraltar/Mission Tunnel, Cachuma carryover/MWD, groundwater, State Water, banked water/water purchases, existing desalination, and expanded desalination.
MWM conducted an economic evaluation of each selected water conservation measure using the DSS Model. Appendix F presents detailed results with how much water each measure will save through 2050, how much each measure will cost (including utility and staff time cost estimates), and the cost of saved water per unit volume if the measure were to be implemented on a stand-alone basis (i.e., without interaction or overlap from other measures that might address the same end use or uses). Cost savings from reduced water demand was quantified annually and based on avoided costs provided by the City.15 While each measure was analyzed independently, it is important to note that very few measures operate independently. For example, The AMI customer portal and leak alert measure may lead to an irrigation evaluation or an irrigation or landscape rebate. Higher efficiency indoor fixtures go hand-in-hand with school and public education.
It should be noted that the utility costs and water savings from general public education measure are not double counted with other conservation measures. That is, savings from measures which address the same end use(s) are not additive; the model uses impact factors to avoid double counting in estimating the water savings from programs of measures (for more information on impact factors, please refer to Appendix F). As a result, the costs appear significantly higher for the general public education measure than for other measures due to the very minimal water savings estimated for the high staff time investment. However, other measures certainly would be less effective or possibly infeasible without an active outreach program.
Without public outreach, customers would be unaware of conservation measures and participation would likely plummet. With that in mind, Figure 5-2 presents a comparison of each measure’s cost of water saved per unit volume.
Figure 5-2. Conservation Measures – Cost Per Acre-Foot of Water Saved Notes: The “General Public Education” conservation measure has minimal assigned water savings and is based on an investment in community education and awareness to help drive participation in other conservation measures. Costs are rounded to the nearest $10. *These measures are part of the recommended program (Program B).
Conservation Program Evaluation • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 32
6. Conservation Program Evaluation
16 An additional measure, “Regulation Requirements”, was modeled to estimate the staffing costs of Regulation related reporting activities but has no water savings associated with it and was not included in modeled programs. This measure can be updated by the City and can serve as a tool to estimate staffing costs for reporting requirements in the future.
This section provides a summary of which
measures were included in each of the three
conservation programs analyzed, as well as
the program the City selected to implement.
The three programs were designed to illustrate
a range of various measure combinations and
resulting water savings taking into consideration
the following:
• Existing conservation measures
• Conservation measures recommended by
AWWA, CalWEP, California Department of Water
Resources, and others
• New and innovative measures
• Measure equity among customer categories
• Customer demographics
In addition, this section identifies and
prioritizes the conservation programs and
projects by cost effectiveness, quantifiable water
savings, and compliance with American Water
Works Association G480 Water Conservation
Program Operation and Management Standard
(G480 Standard).
6.1 Measure Selection for Conservation
Program Alternatives
MWM conducted an economic analysis to show the actual cost of implementing water conservation programs. The City’s existing conservation program was evaluated, as well as two additional, increasingly aggressive programs. MWM and the City created a list of potential program concepts that were appropriate for the City’s service area and that could meet the City’s goals of continued Regulation compliance and implementation of equity recommendations from the Affordability Report. As the City is currently in compliance with all aspects of the Regulation, the program concepts centered on implementing equity recommendations and maintaining current conservation efforts. Factors for determining which measures should be in each program included evaluation of two types of parameters, (1) measure feasibility parameters and (2) program priority alignment.
Measure feasibility was evaluated based on budgeting, feasibility to implement the program as informed by City staff time estimates, and the time at which each measure would need to be introduced to promote conservation efforts. Measures were also evaluated for alignment with the Affordability Report recommendations and to ensure the suites of measures in programs save water across all customer categories.
These program scenarios were not intended to be rigid but rather to demonstrate the range in savings that could be generated if selected measures were run at the same time. When programs were analyzed, any overlap in water savings (and benefits) from individual measures was considered to provide a total combined water savings (and benefits). Each program is described below:
• Program A – Current Measures. Current conservation program with no changes; includes 14 measures.
• Program B – Recommended Measures. In addition to existing efforts, this Program includes more measures that incorporate equity recommendations from the Affordability Report through two additional measures (plumber-initiated high efficiency toilet retrofit program measure and the leak repair rebate measure) and is comprised of 16 measures. This is the recommended program. • Program C – All Modeled Measures. In addition to the measures in the Programs described above, this Program includes an additional outdoor measure and commercial rebate. This Program represents all modeled measures that include water savings16 in this effort (a total of 18 measures).
Figure 6-1 presents the City’s conservation measure program scenarios, indicating which measures were selected and modeled within each program.
Conservation Program Evaluation • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 33 Figure 6-1. Selected Conservation Program Measures
Note: Measures denoted with an “E” were designed to integrate equity considerations.
Table 6-1 shows the benefit-cost ratios for conservation Programs A, B, and C as well as average annual utility costs and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff required. Each program’s present value of water savings and utility costs as well as cost of water saved can be found in Appendix F.
Table 6-1. Comparison of Program Benefit-Cost Ratios, Average Costs, and FTE Requirements Conservation
Program
Water Utility
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Average Annual Utility
Costs (2026-2050)
Full-Time Equivalent
Staff Required (2030)
Program A with Plumbing Code 1.08 $415,300 4.5
Program B with Plumbing Code 1.04 $446,100 6
Program C with Plumbing Code 0.99 $486,700 6
Expanded
Program Program
C
Program
B
Program
A
• AMI Customer Portal and Leak Alerts
• Leak Detection Device Rebate
• Water Efficient Landscape Standards
• Smart Sprinkler Timer Rebate
• Green Gardener Program
• CII Water Survey
• Customized CII Incentive
• Sustainable Lawn Replacement Rebate
• Mulch Delivery Rebate
• Sprinkler to Drip Irrigation Retrofit
• Spray Sprinklers to Low-Precipitation Sprinklers
• Residential Washer Rebate
• School Education
• General Public Education
Recommended
Program
Current
Program
• Irrigation Evaluation
• Restaurant Spray Nozzles
• All measures in Program B
• Plumber Initiated High Efficiency Toilet RebateE
• Leak Repair RebateE
• All measures in Program A
Conservation Program Evaluation • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 34 Table 6-2 shows the water system demands for the City of Santa Barbara. Demand is shown in acre-feet in 5-year increments over the modeling period. Table 6-2 and Figure 6-2 include demand with and without plumbing code, and projected demand with plumbing codes and three active conservation program scenarios.
Table 6-2. City of Santa Barbara Potable Water System Demands in AFY for Years 2030-2050 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Baseline Demands 10,539 10,774 10,927 11,029 11,133
Plumbing Code Savings 188 304 379 450 500
Demands with Plumbing Code Savings 10,351 10,470 10,547 10,579 10,633 Conservation Program A Savings 402 426 433 455 468
Demands with Plumbing Code and
Conservation Program A Savings 9,949 10,044 10,105 10,124 10,166 Conservation Program B Savings 402 438 459 472 484
Demands with Plumbing Code and
Conservation Program B Savings 9,949 10,031 10,088 10,107 10,149 Conservation Program C Savings 405 454 477 490 503
Demands with Plumbing Code and
Conservation Program C Savings 9,947 10,016 10,070 10,089 10,131 Figure 6-2 presents historical and projected water demand in AFY given multiple scenarios. Plumbing code elements include current local, state, and federal plumbing code standards for retrofits of items such as toilets, urinals, showerheads, faucets, and clothes washers.
Figure 6-2. City of Santa Barbara Historical and Projected Demand All line types shown in the legend are presented in the graph. Program B and Program C demand scenarios are close in value and therefore may be somewhat indistinguishable in the figure.
Conservation Program Evaluation • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 35 Figure 6-3 illustrates how marginal returns change as more money is spent to achieve water savings in AFY in 2050. A cost-effectiveness curve displays the results of the present value of each program’s costs versus the cumulative water savings at the end of the planning period, as the curve flattens out more expenditure is needed to get less savings. This curve is helpful in determining how far to push the “conservation envelope” as the point of diminishing economic returns is evident.
Figure 6-3. Present Value of Utility Costs Versus Water Saved in 2050
6.2 Selected/Recommended Program
To achieve continued water conservation savings, comply with new Regulation and state reporting requirements, incorporate equity into program design, and maintain water use reductions, the City has elected to implement Program B. Of all the measures evaluated, those in Program B were chosen for the following reasons:
• Alignment with the One Water Santa Barbara guiding principle to improve local water supply reliability by diversifying the supply portfolio and using water efficiently.
• Addresses recommendations from the Affordability Report (Alliance for Water Efficiency, 2024) that incorporate equity considerations for the conservation program through inclusion of two new measures that directly address equity concerns
• Expansion of existing efforts to meet state-mandated targets and aggregate water use objectives.
• Result in a long-term plan that models a cost-effective means to manage water supplies.
Program B includes 16 of the measures evaluated in this planning effort and represents a robust, forward-looking program with a favorable benefit-cost ratio. This Recommended Program (Program B) is the most comprehensive option that best meets the City’s current program objectives. Its measures are likely to be implemented, eligible for funding, and well-suited for outside partnerships. The Recommended Program provides a broad range of customer benefits in a more equitable manner, incorporates recommendations from the 2024 Affordability Report, and aligns with Regulation requirements.
The Recommended Program has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.04 and is estimated to achieve 984 AFY in water savings by 2050.
Conclusions and Next Steps • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 36
7. Conclusions and Next Steps
Current conditions have resulted in the City
to choosing Program B as the Recommended
Program for implementation. However, water
use is very dynamic and responds to changes
in population, economy, weather, efficiency of
devices, and types of industry. In the future, as
the community evolves and water use patterns
and weather change, the City may adjust
implemented measures, and measure targets
and schedules. This may include expanding upon,
or scaling back, various program components
and measures to increase efficiency, improve
cost-effectiveness, adopt or adjust to better
technology or methods, or adjust to budget
and staffing parameters. Whether additional
measures become necessary is dependent on
several factors, including potential future drought
conditions, compliance with the annual aggregate
water use objectives as provided by the state,
and the City’s ability to support new and more
innovative programs.
With clearly defined individual conservation
measures as well as calculable water saving
objectives and customer target goals, the City
has quantifiable performance objectives that can
be tracked on both an individual conservation
measure level and an overall program level.
7.1 Selected Program Estimated Water
Savings and Budget
In conjunction with plumbing codes, the Recommended Program saves 9% of projected demand in 2050. From the utility standpoint, the average cost of water saved for the Recommended Program is $719 per AF, which is less than the avoided cost of water at $1,078 per AF.
This program has the potential to reduce per capita water use in a very cost-effective manner.
7.2 Implementation
The City will continue to monitor conservation program performance by tracking participation levels, implementation progress, and measure effectiveness over time. Table 7-1 summarizes the modeled utility costs of implementing the Recommended Program through 2050, while the discussion that follows describes the associated staffing needs and factors that may influence future costs.
The City will also submit annual reports to the State Board, five-year updates of the Water Management Plan submitted to the US Bureau of Reclamation, and five-year updates of the Urban Water Management Plan to the CA Department of Water Resources, among other efforts as described in the following subsections. Additionally, progress on the demand management measures is tracked quarterly and annually through performance measures.
Conclusions and Next Steps • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 37
7.2.1 Tracking and Monitoring
The City will continue to monitor progress and track the level of participation and effectiveness of conservation measures through the following:
• Prepare an annual performance measure plan in concert with the budget planning process.
• Store and manage measure participation, cost, and other data to gauge successes and areas that need improvement. Consider establishing data best practices as part of this tracking effort so that participation tracking can integrate with AMI data, such as to estimate water savings from measure participation.
• Review Plan goals in the DSS Model annually and update measure participation or other elements that are refined through experience. • Track water use annually relative to the City’s Urban Water Use Objective to ensure the City remains on track for compliance .
Monitoring UWUO progress annually will allow the City to identify potential gaps early and provide sufficient time to adjust program strategies, ramp up conservation efforts, or revise measures and participation targets as needed.
• Monitor equity outcomes using GIS-based analysis by leveraging the demographic and spatial analysis completed as part of the Affordability Report. This approach can help evaluate whether conservation measures that include equity considerations are successfully reaching low-income customer groups. The City’s participation in the Alliance for Water Efficiency “Characterizing Water Use in Low-Income Households Seeking Bill Pay Assistance” study is also expected to provide additional insights into customer behavior and program accessibility, which can help refine measure offerings and outreach strategies to improve equitable participation. • Expand the use of AMI data to inform program targeting and evaluation. AMI data can help identify customers with water use patterns associated with higher conservation potential such as high seasonal irrigation demand and persistent high use, which can inform targeted outreach and improve the effectiveness of certain conservation measures. As equity metrics and best practices for equitable conservation planning continue to evolve, AMI-based analyses can also be integrated with demographic and spatial data to support more refined and data-driven program targeting. • Track costs and staff time requirements to implement the conservation program. The new Regulations and other state reporting requirements demand significant staff time for continued compliance. Tracking staff time to complete required reporting and Regulation activities as well as time to implement programs will help inform future staffing decisions and allow the City to respond more effectively to changes to the conservation program (for example, if participation targets are increased as a response to higher demands materializing in future years).
• Track water use to ensure the Plan is on track to meet water use reduction goals. Use the input from City staff and the annual work planning process as the forum to amend the Plan, budget, staffing, schedule, and so forth to stay on track.
17 Information about California Assembly Bill 1572 can be found at: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1572/id/2814825
7.2.2 Implementation Costs
Table 7-1 depicts the modeled utility expense to implement the Recommended Program through 2050. Expenses for each measure are calculated from device and material expenses and do not include staffing costs (staffing requirements are noted in the following subsection). In addition, individual measure cost is based on target implementation metrics. For example, some measures are based on a percentage of accounts and therefore may grow or decline as the customer populations change, while others are based on the number of accounts and may therefore remain steady.
It is anticipated that the current participation in the City’s conservation program measures will continue to increase modestly through 2030 (when new measures are modeled to come online). The higher modeled projected costs in 2028 and 2029 are mostly driven by participation estimates for lawn replacement rebates in the commercial customer category, which are modeled to decrease in 2030 when compliance with the statewide nonfunctional turfgrass watering ban is anticipated to be largely complete.17
The costs presented in this table are programmatic and measurespecific expenses for the water conservation program. There are broader allocated administrative costs associated with running the conservation program that are not included in the costs below. It is estimated that a 24% additional expenditure is required to meet City allocated and administrative costs each year.
Figure 7-1. Conservation Program Tracking & Monitoring
Progress toward conservation program targets will be reviewed by analyzing the costs, participation, water savings, and quantity of measurable factors for each conservation measure.
Conclusions and Next Steps • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 38 Table 7-1. Modeled Utility Costs for the Recommended Program Fiscal Year Utility Cost
Projected Budget Provided by City
2026 $343,000
Proposed Budget Provided by City
2027 $346,000
Modeled Projected Costs
2028 $457,000
2029 $426,000
2030 $429,000
2031 $426,000
2032 $450,000
2033 $450,000
2034 $451,000
2035 $452,000
2036 $453,000
2037 $454,000
2038 $454,000
2039 $455,000
2040 $455,000
2041 $436,000
2042 $437,000
2043 $437,000
2044 $438,000
2045 $438,000
2046 $439,000
2047 $439,000
2048 $440,000
2049 $440,000
2050 $441,000
Notes: Costs are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars, a 6.1% nominal interest rate was used to estimate present value costs.
7.2.3 Staffing Requirements
This section summarizes the staff time requirements needed to achieve the key objectives driving this Plan update: maintaining compliance with new regulatory requirements and annual reporting obligations, integrating equity considerations into the conservation program, and sustaining long-term water conservation savings.
7.2.4 Overview
The City is currently running a conservation program with 4.5 FTE staff (one full-time Water Conservation Analyst and other positions whose role includes support for water conservation activities). It is recommended that the City increase the FTE water conservation team by at least 1.5 staff with water conservation experience (for a total of 5.5 FTEs by year 2030 and 6 FTEs by 2032) to implement the Recommended Program, address continued Regulation compliance and annual state reporting requirements, and implement the recommendations from the Affordability Report.
7.2.5 Implementing Affordability
Report Recommendations
Implementing the recommendations from the Affordability Report will require significant coordination, outreach, and program administration.
In addition, engaging households often requires trusted community partners, language-accessible outreach, and hands-on support for programs such as WaterSmart enrollment, conservation education, or direct-install efficiency upgrades. Developing and maintaining these partnerships, while also administering potential programs such as leak repair services or direct-install fixture replacements, would require dedicated staff capacity. As outlined in the Affordability Report, it is estimated that approximately one additional full-time equivalent position would be needed to effectively implement the remaining Affordability Report recommendations and support long-term community engagement in those programs.
Conclusions and Next Steps • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 39
7.2.6 Implementing the Recommended Program and
Activities for Continued Regulation Compliance
As part of the gap analysis conducted to assess the City’s compliance with the new Regulation, staff time requirements for annual reporting and upcoming requirements (such as CII MUMs, CII Best Management Practices, AB 1572, and SAFER reporting) were estimated in collaboration with the City. Compliance activities are estimated to require approximately 350 staff hours in 2027, declining slightly to about 300 hours annually thereafter.
The Recommended Program was developed using historical
participation data to estimate achievable targets. The program includes two additional equity-focused measures: the leak repair rebate and the plumber-initiated high efficiency toilet retrofit program, which are intended to better reach customers facing financial and structural barriers. These measures are estimated to require an additional 40- 60 staff hours annually to administer (at the modeled participation rates) and are assumed to begin in 2030, when improved data from Affordability Report recommendation implementation and enhanced tracking can support more refined targeting. However, this additional staff time to administer the new measures assumes the measures have been established and does not model the staff time required to create them such as outreach, internal coordination, setting up administrative protocols, and other required activities to establish the systems and processes to run the measures. Therefore, these estimates assume participation rates that are conservative, time requirements per participant that are conservative, and do not include time for increased outreach or community coordination. Therefore, these staff time estimates can be significantly higher. In combination, implementation of the Recommended Program and ongoing compliance efforts is projected to require approximately 0.5 FTE by 2032, with potential increases as participation grows and programs evolve.
However, staffing needs arise earlier due to near-term compliance demands. With compliance activities alone requiring approximately 350 hours in 2027, additional capacity is needed to avoid overextending existing staff while maintaining and advancing program priorities. To support regulatory compliance and implementation of Affordability Report recommendations, as well as implement the Recommended Program, it is recommended that one full-time equivalent (1.0 FTE) position be added by 2030. This role would support reporting, coordination, and program administration, while progressing the implementation of Affordability Report recommendations as mentioned above. As efforts to implement Affordability Report recommendations mature and data improves, staffing can be scaled accordingly, with an estimated additional 0.5 needed by 2032 to support full program implementation.
In summary, staffing recommendations to meet program needs and implement the Affordability Study recommendations would be phased in the following way:
• Hire an additional FTE by FY 2030 (consider hiring in FY 2028).
This position would begin the implementation of Affordability Report recommendations, while supporting Regulation reporting requirements. It is anticipated that launching the two new measures in the recommended program will require significant staff time and iteration, and this position can synergistically work on the relationship-building activities recommended in the Affordability Report while also working to establish the two new measures. • Hire an additional half FTE by 2032 (consider hiring in FY 2030). This position would support the implementation of the new measures and reporting requirements. The FTE and half FTE duties and workload can continue to be synergistic as data found through the implementation of Affordability Report recommendations will likely inform changes to conservation measures that can be implemented by the FTE and half FTE.
7.2.7 Next Steps
In addition to conducting Recommended Program implementation as described in the previous section, some next steps are as follows:
• Review program staff needs and hire staff accordingly to adequately support program needs. Refine as needed around budget, water savings needs, staff capabilities, and community interests. • Prioritize measures for implementation, with the highest priority for implementation given to those that contribute the most to meeting water saving targets and/or can be implemented with relative ease.
Key questions to direct action include:
• What level of support will be required from conservation staff to run the selected measures?
• What other support is needed (e.g., outsourced support or other sources of funding) to run these programs?
• Develop implementation plans that describe in detail how to implement each conservation measure.
• Prepare annual performance measures in concert with the budget process.
• Identify potential partnership opportunities and form collaborations, applying for grants where appropriate.
• Continue to collect and analyze measure participation, costs, and other data to gauge successes and areas that need improvement.
Conclusions and Next Steps • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 40
7.3 Conclusions
The following is a summary of the Water Conservation Strategic Plan analysis findings:
• Conservation is one of the least expensive means of meeting future water supply needs for the area. The avoided cost of water was estimated to be $1,078/AF, while the average cost of water saved for the Recommended Program is $719/AF. Implementation of the recommended conservation measures should reduce
per capita water use and has the potential to defer the need for further infrastructure expansion. While the conservation actions identified can have a significant cost (annual utility costs for the Recommended Program range from $414,000 to $465,000 rounded to the nearest thousand dollars), the cost of not participating in conservation and having to address increased demands through engineering solutions is higher. Furthermore, with climate change, long-term drought, and environmental restrictions on the delivery of imported water, additional water supplies may not be available to meet future increases in demand.
• The City is currently in compliance with all components of the “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” Regulation. This Plan incorporates staffing costs for continued compliance activities and presents a suite of measures that are estimated to maintain water conservation achievements for continued compliance with water use objectives.
• Equity is a main driver in this Plan update, and the recommendations from the 2024 Affordability Report prepared by the Alliance for Water Efficiency are integrated into the Recommended Program . • The availability of AMI data presents the City with opportunities to enhance conservation measure outreach efforts and targets, as well as potential water savings estimates for future planning efforts.
As equity metrics and more information about customers is made available, such as through the AWE “Characterizing Water Use in LowIncome Households Seeking Bill Pay Assistance” study, the City can leverage its AMI data to inform its conservation program. • Through the DSS Model analysis, the City identified fixture costs, applicable customer classes, time period of implementation, measure life, administrative costs, end uses, end-use savings per replacement, and a target number or percentage of accounts per program year. This thorough analysis is used in the 2025 City of Santa Barbara Urban Water Management Plan and additional Santa Barbara planning documents.
• Continuing water conservation efforts appears to be a feasible and cost-effective means of:
• Being more sustainable within existing water supplies. • Meeting the water use objectives outlined in the “Making Conservation a California Way of Life” Regulation as well as complying with the CII Performance Measures.
• Measuring, tracking, and reducing non-revenue water losses as outlined in SB 555 and to stay in compliance with the Water Loss Standard of the Regulation.
• Approximately 72% of the City’s service area water use is associated with residential water use. Consequently, residential conservation programs will produce the most savings. At 22% of overall water use, the City’s service area does not include extensive commercial activity. Therefore, the conservation potential for the commercial sector is not as high.
• Based on the analysis, the City has selected to implement Recommended Program (Program B), with 16 measures, a utility benefit-cost ratio of 1.04 and a cost of water saved of $719 per AF, an average annual next 5-year utility cost of $438,000, and an average annual FTE staff of 6 (1.5 more FTE than currently needed).
References • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 41 References
All links below were accessed in April 2026 unless otherwise indicated.
Alliance for Water Efficiency. (2016). The Status of Legislation, Regulation, Codes & Standards on Indoor Plumbing Water Efficiency.
Alliance for Water Efficiency. (2024). An Assessment of Water Affordability and Conservation Potential in the City of Santa Barbara, California. Chicago, IL: Alliance for Water Efficiency.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). G480 Standard and AWE Leaderboard web page. https://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/ resources/topic/g480-standard-and-awe-leaderboard
American Water Works Association (AWWA). (2016). M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, 4th Edition.
American Water Works Association (AWWA). (2017). M52 Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual, 2nd Edition.
California Department of Water Resources. (2016). Chapter 16A NonPotable Water Reuse Systems. https://up.codes/viewer/california/ ca-plumbing-code-2016/chapter/16A/non-potable-water-reusesystems#16A California Department of Water Resources. (2015). Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/WaterUse-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Model-Water-EfficientLandscape-Ordinance California Department of Water Resources, et al. (2017). Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life, Implementing Executive Order B-37-16. https://cawaterlibrary.net/wp-content/ uploads/2017/06/20170407_EO_B-37-16_Final_Report.pdf
California Energy Commission. (2013). Analysis of Standards Proposal for Residential Faucets and Faucet Accessories, Docket #12-AAER-2C, prepared by Energy Solutions and Natural Resources Defense Council. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument. aspx?tn=71768&DocumentContentId=8103
California Energy Commission. (2015). Appliance Efficiency Regulations, California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Sections 1601-1609, Toilet, Urinal, Faucet, and Showerhead Regulations.
California Energy Commission. (2014). Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD. http://droughtresilience. com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/CEC-400-2014-007-SD.pdf
California Green (CALGreen) Building Standards 2019 Code, effective January 1, 2020.
California State Legislature. Assembly Bill 715 (Laird), October 11, 2007. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_ id=200720080AB715
California State Legislature. Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman), May 31, 2018. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_ id=201720180AB1668
California State Legislature. Senate Bill 407 (Padilla), October 11, 2009. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_ id=200920100SB407
California State Legislature. Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg), May 31, 2018. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_ id=201720180AB606
California State Legislature. Senate Bill 837 (Blakeslee), July 1, 2011. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_ id=201120120SB837
City of Santa Barbara. Water Supply Management Report, 2018-2019 Water Year.
City of Santa Barbara. Water Supply & Drought Planning web page. https://www.SantaBarbaraCA.gov/Drought
City of Santa Barbara. Municipal Code, SBMC §14.08.010. http://qcode. us/codes/santabarbara/?view=desktop&topic=14-14_20-14_08_010 City of Santa Barbara. Municipal Code, SBMC §14.20.007. http://qcode. us/codes/santabarbara/?view=desktop&topic=14-14_20-14_20_007 City of Santa Barbara. Municipal Code,
SBMC §14.20.0226. http://qcode.us/codes/
santabarbara/?view=desktop&topic=14-14_20-14_20_226
City of Santa Barbara. (1989). Ordinance 4558.
http://qcode.us/codes/santabarbara/
City of Santa Barbara. (2014). Ordinance 5653.
http://qcode.us/codes/santabarbara/
City of Santa Barbara. Smart Landscape Rebate web page: www.
SantaBarbaraCA.gov/LandscapeRebate
City of Santa Barbara. Tree Watering web page: https://www. santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/pw/resources/conservation/ landscaping/treewatering.asp?utm_source=PublicWork&utm_ medium=TreeWatering&utm_content=QuickLinks
City of Santa Barbara. Water Wise Landscaping web page: https://www.
SantaBarbaraCA.gov/Landscaping
City of Santa Barbara. YouTube Garden Wise TV program entitled “How to Pick the Right Plants [for your climate] with Billy Goodnick.” https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kgE4LIrido&t=35s
Consortium for Efficient Energy website. www.cee1.org
County of Santa Barbara. Water Wise website.
http://www.waterwisesb.org/
DeOreo, W.B. (2016). Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 - 4309.
Denver, Colorado: AWWA Research Foundation. https://www.waterrf. org/research/projects/residential-end-uses-water-version-2 References • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 42 DeOreo, W.B., P.W. Mayer, Leslie Martien, Matthew Hayden, Andrew Funk, Michael Kramer-Duffield, Renee Davis, James Henderson, Bob Raucher, Peter Gleick, and Matt Heberger. (2011). California SingleFamily Water Use Efficiency Study. Sacramento, California: Department of Water Resources. http://water.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/ Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Documents/California-Single-FamilyHome-Water-Use-Efficiency-Study-20110420.pdf Dziegielewski, B. (2009). Residential Water Use in Northeastern Illinois Estimating Water-use Effects of In-fill Growth versus Exurban Expansion.
Prepared for the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.
Dziegielewski, B., J. C. Kiefer, W. DeOreo, P. Mayer, E. M. Opitz, G.
A. Porter, G. L. Lantz, and J. O. Nelson. (2000). Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water. Denver, Colorado: AWWA, Research Foundation and American Water Works Association with Cooperation of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Catalog No.90806. 264 pp. ISBN 1-58321-035-0. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WC13511002/00001
Employment Development Department (EDD). Employment Projections web page. https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/employmentprojections.html GMP Research, Inc. (2019). 2019 U.S. WaterSense Market Penetration Industry Report, commissioned by Plumbing Manufacturers International. https://www.safeplumbing.org/files/safeplumbing.org/ documents/misc/7-1-19-WaterSense-2019-Report.pdf
Lee, J. (2014). Residential Water Demand Analysis Due to Meter Installations, a report submitted to California Water Service Company. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269046998_Residential_ Water_Demand_Analysis_Due_to_Water_Meter_Installation_in_ California
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Energy Division. (1998). “Bern Clothes Washer Study, Final Report,” prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc691712/ Plumbing Efficiency Research Coalition. (2012). The Drainline Transport of Solid Waste in Buildings, PERC Phase 1 Report, Table 2-A: Water Consumption by Water-Using Plumbing Products and Appliances – 1980-2012.
Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Use Efficiency Unit. (2008). “SCVWD CII Water Use and Baseline Study.”
State Water Resources Control Board. California Statues web page (defining “Making Conservation a California Way of Life”). https://www. waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/ california_statutes.html
U.S. Census Bureau. American Fact Finder Population Finder web page. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Access web page for July 1, 2018. https:// www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santabarbaracitycalifornia/ PST045218#PST045218
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census Data web page. https://www.census. gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/data/datasets.2010.html U.S. Congress. Energy Policy Act of 1992; amended in 2005. https:// www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/776/text/enr; https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-policyact; https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr6enr/pdf/BILLS109hr6enr.pdf Appendix A • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 43 Appendix A – Performance Measures Report
FY2025 Performance Measures Results
Relevant Objectives from Program 4612 (Water Supply & Conservation) and Program 4611 (Meter Services) Goal FY25 Target
FY25 Qtr1
Actual
FY25 Qtr2
Actual
FY25 Mid-Year
Actual
FY25 Qtr3
Actual
FY25 Qtr4
Actual
FY25 Year-End
Actual
Track digital outreach efforts in City publications (Water e-newsletter, new customer e-newsletters, etc.). 50% Open Rate 52% 61% 57% 53% 62% 57% Number of plans reviewed for conformance with Water Efficiency Landscape Standards for Water Conservation 100 52 62 114 68 59 241 Number of plans reviewed for conformance with individual water metering requirements 100 48 58 106 91 69 266 Number of customer support interactions for WaterSmart/conservation 3,500 1,128 907 2,035 1,000 948 3,983 Residential gallons per capita per day (GPCD) (Average over time period) 70 or less 63 66 61 55 58 58 Promote public education of the City's water resources by providing tours of Desal and EEWWTP 10 8 2 10 12 9 31 Promote public education of the City's water resources by providing presentations to community 3 2 1 3 2 1 6 Percent of accounts registered for WaterSmart 10% 42.9% 48.2% 48.2% 50% 55% 55% (accounts registered/total of accounts eligible for WaterSmart = percentage) 13,198/30,768 14,871/30,853 14,871/30,853 15,472/30,884 16,865/30,884 16,865/30,884 AMI read rate success maintained above 98% 98% 98.8% 99.3% 99.1% 99.38% 99.24% 99.24% Percent of Waste of Water (WoW) investigated 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (WoW investigated/total WoW reports = percentage) 10/10 9/9 19/19 11/11 10/10 40/40 Appendix B • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 44 Appendix B – DSS Model Overview
DSS Model Overview – The Least Cost Planning Decision Support System Model (DSS Model) is used to prepare long-range, detailed demand projections. The purpose of the extra detail is to enable a more accurate assessment of the impact of water efficiency programs on demand and to provide a rigorous and defensible modeling approach necessary for projects subject to regulatory or environmental review.
Originally developed in 1999 and continuously updated, the DSS Model is an “end-use” model that breaks down total water production (water demand in the service area) to specific water end uses, such as plumbing fixtures and appliances. The model uses a bottom-up approach that allows for multiple criteria to be considered when estimating future demands, such as the effects of natural fixture replacement, plumbing codes, and conservation efforts. The DSS Model may also use a top-down approach with a utility-prepared water demand forecast.
Demand Forecast Development and Model Calibration – To forecast urban water demands using the DSS Model, customer demand data is obtained from the water agency being modeled. Demand data is reconciled with available demographic data to characterize water usage for each customer category in terms of number of users per account and per capita water use. Data is further analyzed to approximate the split of indoor and outdoor water usage in each customer category.
The indoor/outdoor water usage is further divided into typical end uses for each customer category. Published data on average per capita indoor water use and average per capita end use is combined with the number of water users to calibrate the volume of water allocated to specific end uses in each customer category. In other words, the DSS Model checks that social norms from end studies on water use behavior (e.g., flushes per person per day) are not exceeded or drop below reasonable use limits.
Passive Water Savings Calculations – The DSS Model is used to forecast service area water fixture use. Specific end-use type, average water use, and lifetime are compiled for each fixture. Additionally, state and national plumbing codes and appliance standards are modeled by customer category. These fixtures and plumbing codes can be added to, edited, or deleted by the user. This process yields two demand forecasts, one with plumbing codes and one without plumbing codes.
Water
Demand
Projection
Development
Water
Demand
Breakdown by
End Use
Impact of
Water
Efficiency
Measures on
Each End Use
Benefit-Cost
Analysis and
Conservation
Program
Selection
Total Demand
Reductions
from
Conservation
Figure B-1. DSS Model Main Page
Appendix B • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 45 Active Conservation Measure Analysis Using Benefit-Cost Analysis – The DSS Model evaluates active conservation measures using benefit-cost analysis with the present value of the cost of water saved ($/Million Gallons or $/Acre-Feet). Benefits are based on savings in water and wastewater facility operations and maintenance (O&M) and any deferred capital expenditures. The figures on the following page illustrate the processes for forecasting conservation water savings, including the impacts of fixture replacement due to existing plumbing codes and standards.
Figure B-2. Sample Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary
Model Use and Validation – The DSS Model has been used for over 20 years for practical applications of conservation planning in over 300 service areas representing 60 million people, including extensive efforts nationally and internationally in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
Appendix B • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 46 Figure B-3. DSS Model Analysis Locations in the U.S.
The California Water Efficiency Partnership (CalWEP) has peer reviewed and endorsed the model since 2006. It is offered to all CalWEP members for use to estimate water demand, plumbing code, and conservation program savings.
The DSS Model can use one of the following: 1) a statistical approach to forecast demands (e.g., an econometric model); 2) a forecasted increase in population and employment; 3) predicted future demands; or 4) a demand projection entered into the model from an outside source. For the City, baseline demand was developed based on deriving a non-drought year average year demand per account factor for each customer category and projecting each customer category’s account growth based on either population growth or commercial growth projections. The following figure presents the flow of information in the DSS Model Analysis.
Figure B-4. DSS Model Analysis Flow
Appendix C • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 47 Appendix C – Projected Water Demands With
and Without Plumbing Code Savings
1 Fixture models are used in the DSS Model to track individual plumbing devices and their water savings as they change and become more efficient over time.
This section presents baseline water demands with and without the plumbing code; details regarding the national and state plumbing codes; and key inputs and assumptions used in the DSS Model, which is used to prepare long-range, detailed demand projections. This rigorous modeling approach is especially important if the project will be subject to regulatory or environmental review.
C.1 Projected Baseline Demand
The assumptions having the most dramatic effect on future demands are: 1) the natural replacement rate of fixtures; 2) how residential or commercial future use is projected; and 3) the percent of estimated real water losses. As described in the previous section, baseline customer category water use was determined using 2021–2024 historical monthly water use as the data available for this range of years represents more recent demand trends after the 2014-2019 drought and the COVID-19 Pandemic. After several demand scenarios were explored, City staff determined that the projected baseline water demand would represent demands with plumbing code and the recommended program (Program B). As part of the development of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, the City reviewed a total of 7 different scenarios. The scenarios included faster and slower housing and employment growth rates, demand creep, climate change, and water rates impacts.
C.2 Estimated Plumbing Code Savings
The DSS Model forecasts service area water fixture use. In the codes and standards part of the DSS Model, specific fixture end-use type (point of use fixture or appliance), average water use, and lifetime are compiled. Additionally, state and national plumbing codes and appliance standards for toilets, urinals, showers, and clothes washers are modeled by customer category. This approach yields two distinct demand forecasts related to plumbing code savings: 1) with plumbing codes and 2) without plumbing codes. Plumbing code measures are independent of any conservation program and are based on customers following applicable local, state and federal laws, building codes, and ordinances.
Plumbing code-related water savings are considered “passive” and reliable long-term savings and can be depended upon over time to help reduce overall system water demand. In contrast, water savings are considered “active” if a specific action unrelated to the implementation of codes and standards is taken by the water agency to accomplish conservation measure savings (e.g., offering turf replacement rebates). The DSS Model incorporates the following items as a “code,” meaning that the savings are assumed to occur and therefore are “passive” savings:
• The Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992 (amended in 2005) • California Code of Regulations Title 20 California State Law (Assembly Bill 715)
• California State Law Senate Bill 407
• 2015 California Code of Regulations Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
• 2025 CALGreen Code (effective January 1, 2026)
• Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers (United States Department of Energy ruling, effective July 15, 2024) Figure C-1 conceptually describes how plumbing codes using “fixture models” are incorporated into the flow of information in the DSS Model.1 The demand projections, including plumbing code savings, further assumes no active involvement by the water utility, and that the costs of purchasing and installing replacement equipment (and new equipment in new construction) are borne solely by the customers, occurring at no direct utility expense. The inverse of the fixture life is the natural replacement rate expressed as a percentage (i.e., 10 years is a rate of 10% per year).
Appendix C • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 48 Figure C-1. DSS Model Overview Used to Make Potable Water Demand Projections The DSS Model makes water demand projections using a multi-level process.
Indoor/outdoor Water Use
Users per Account
final Demand
Projections
ReD boX = Input Data bLUe boX = Model Process gReen DIAMonD = Calibration YeLLoW boX = output/Results base-Year Conditions
Demand forecasting
Standardized Water Use
Data by Account Type
(National Publications)
Single family
Residential
Multifamily
Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional
Demographic Data
fixture and
Replacement Data
Population and employment
Projections
Water Usage by end Use
fixture Models
Account growth
Projections
Calibration
Appendix C • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 49 Table C-1 shows the water system demands for the City in acre-feet in 5-year increments over the 25-year modeling period (years 2025-2050), demands are presented starting in 2026. Figure C-2 illustrates demands in graphical format. Both the table and the figure include historical (baseline) demand as well as demand with and without plumbing code. While the demand projection in modeling began in 2025, this year has been omitted as at the time of writing, actual demand data for the year is available.
Table C-1. City of Santa Barbara Potable Water System Demands in AFY for Years 2026-2050 2026 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Baseline
Demands 10,252 10,539 10,774 10,927 11,029 11,133
Plumbing Code
Savings 43 188 304 379 450 500
Demands with
Plumbing Code
Savings
10,210 10,351 10,470 10,547 10,579 10,633
Figure C-2. City of Santa Barbara Potable Water System Demands 8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
199820012004200720102013201620192022202520282031203420372040204320462049 Acre Feet/Year
Historical Average Demand
Demand without Plumbing Code
Demand with Plumbing Code
Appendix C • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 50 C.3 National Plumbing Code
The Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992, as amended in 2005, mandates that only fixtures meeting the following standards can be installed in new buildings:
• Toilet – 1.6 gal/flush maximum
• Urinals – 1.0 gal/flush maximum
• Showerhead – 2.5 gal/min at 80 pounds per square inch (psi) • Residential faucets – 2.2 gal/min at 60 psi
• Public restroom faucets – 0.5 gal/min at 60 psi
• Dishwashing pre-rinse spray valves – 1.6 gal/min at 60 psi • Clothes washers – Integrated Water Factor (IWF) of 6.5 Replacement of fixtures in existing buildings is also governed by the Federal Energy Policy Act, which mandates that only devices with the specified level of efficiency (as shown above) can be sold as of 2006.
The net result of the plumbing code is that new buildings will have more efficient fixtures and old inefficient fixtures will slowly be replaced with new, more efficient models. The national plumbing code is an important piece of legislation and must be carefully taken into consideration when analyzing the overall water efficiency of a service area.
In addition to the plumbing code, the U.S. Department of Energy regulates appliances, such as residential clothes washers, further reducing indoor water demands. Regulations to make these appliances more energy efficient have driven manufactures to dramatically reduce the amount of water these machines use. Generally, front-loading washing machines use 30-50% less water than conventional models (which are still available).
C.3.1 Clothes Washers
In this analysis, the DSS Model forecasts a gradual transition to high efficiency clothes washers (using 15 gallons or less) so that by the year 2028 that will be the only type of machine available for purchase.
In addition to the industry becoming more efficient, rebate programs for washers have been successful in encouraging customers to buy more water efficient models. Given that machines last about 10 years, eventually all machines on the market will be the more water efficient models. ENERGY STAR washing machines have a water factor of 6.0 or less – the equivalent of using 3.1 cubic feet (or 23.2 gallons) of water per load. The maximum water factor for residential clothes washers under current federal standards is 9.5. The water factor equals the number of gallons used per cycle per cubic foot of capacity. Prior to the year 2000, the water factor for a typical new residential clothes washer was about 12. In March 2015, the federal standard reduced the maximum water factor for top- and front-loading machines to 8.4 and
4.7, respectively. In 2018, the maximum water factor for top-loading machines was further reduced to 6.5. For commercial washers, the maximum water factors were reduced in 2010 to 8.5 and 5.5 for top- and front-loading machines, respectively. Beginning in 2021, the maximum water factor for ENERGY STAR certified washers was
3.2 for front-loading and 4.3 for top-loading machines. In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that ENERGY STAR washers comprised more than 60% of the residential market and 30% of the commercial market (ENERGY STAR, 2011). A new ENERGY STAR compliant washer uses about two-thirds less water per cycle than washers manufactured in the 1990s.Standards for residential clothes washers fall under the regulations of the U.S. Department of Energy.
In 2018, the maximum water factor for standard top-loading machines was reduced to 6.5. Under the Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers (United States Department of Energy ruling, effective July 15, 2024), the minimum water efficiency ratio for standard top-loading machines (greater than 1.6 cubic feet of capacity) would be 0.57 pounds of laundry per gallon per cycle. At the time of writing (March 2026), the Department of Energy has proposed to rescind the Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers.
C.3.2 Dishwashers
For residential dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1, 2010, Congress has set the maximum water use for a standard size dishwasher at 6.5 gallons per cycle and for a compact size dishwasher at 4.5 gallons per cycle. The Department of Energy has set more stringent requirements. For dishwashers manufactured on or after May 30, 2013, standard size dishwashers must not exceed 5.0 gallons per cycle and compact size dishwashers shall not exceed 3.5 gallons per cycle. Per the Amended Water Use Standards for Residential Dishwashers set by the Department of Energy, all dishwashers manufactured on or after April 23, 2027 must not exceed 3.3 gallons per cycle and 3.1 gallons per cycle for standard and compact models respectively. At the time of writing this Plan, the Department of Energy has requested comments for a proposal to rescind the water requirements established under the Amended Water Use Standards for Residential Dishwashers.
Appendix C • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 51 C.4 State Plumbing Code
This section describes California state codes applicable to the City’s water use.
C.4.1 California State Law – AB 715
Plumbing codes for toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucets were initially adopted by California in 1991, mandating the sale and use of ultra-low flush toilets (ULFTs) using 1.6 gpf, urinals using 1 gpf, and lowflow showerheads and faucets. AB 715 led to an update to California Code of Regulations Title 20 mandating that all toilets and urinals sold and installed in California as of January 1, 2014 must be high efficiency versions having flush ratings that do not exceed 1.28 gpf (toilets) and
0.5 gpf (urinals).
C.4.2 California State Laws – SB 407 and SB 837
SB 407 addresses plumbing fixture retrofits on resale or remodel. The DSS Model carefully considers the overlap with SB 407, the plumbing code (natural replacement), CALGreen, AB 715 and rebate programs (such as toilet rebates). SB 407 (enacted in 2009) requires that properties built prior to 1994 be fully retrofitted with water conserving fixtures by the year 2017 for single family residential houses and 2019 for multifamily and commercial properties. SB 407 program length is variable and continues until all the older high flush toilets have been replaced in the service area. The number of accounts with high flow fixtures is tracked to make sure that the situation of replacing more high flow fixtures than actually exist does not occur.
Additionally, SB 407 conditions issuance of building permits for major improvements and renovations upon retrofit of non-compliant plumbing fixtures. SB 837 (enacted in 2011) requires that sellers of real estate property disclose on their Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement whether their property complies with these requirements. Both laws are intended to accelerate the replacement of older, low efficiency plumbing fixtures, and ensure that only high efficiency fixtures are installed in new residential and commercial buildings.
C.4.3 2019 CALGreen and 2015 CA Code of Regulations
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
Fixture characteristics in the DSS Model are tracked in new accounts, which are subject to the requirements of the 2025 California Green Building Code and 2015 California Code of Regulations Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) on September 1, 2015. The CEC 2015 appliance efficiency standards apply to the following new appliances, if they are sold in California: showerheads, lavatory faucets, kitchen faucets, metering faucets, replacement aerators, wash fountains, tub spout diverters, public lavatory faucets, commercial pre‐rinse spray valves, urinals, and toilets. The DSS Model accounts for plumbing code savings due to the effects these standards have on showerheads, faucet aerators, urinals, toilets, and clothes washers.
• Showerheads – January 2026: 1.8 gpm
• Wall Mounted Urinals – January 2026: 0.125 gpf (pint) • Lavatory Faucets and Aerator – January 2026: 1.2 gpm at 60 psi • Kitchen Faucets and Aerator – January 2026: 1.8 gpm with optional temporary flow of 2.2 gpm at 60 psi
• Public Lavatory Faucets – January 2026: 0.5 gpm at 60 psi In summary, the controlling law for toilets is Assembly Bill 715, requiring high efficiency toilets of 1.28 gpf sold in California beginning in 2014.
The controlling law for wall-mounted urinals is the 2015 CEC efficiency regulations requiring that ultra-high efficiency pint urinals (0.125 gpf) be exclusively sold in California beginning January 1, 2016. This is an efficiency progression for urinals from AB 715’s requirement of high efficiency (0.5 gpf) urinals starting in 2014.
Standards for residential clothes washers fall under the regulations of the U.S. Department of Energy. In 2018, the maximum water factor for standard top-loading machines was reduced to 6.5.
Showerhead flow rates are regulated under the 2015 California Code of Regulations Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations adopted by the CEC, which requires the exclusive sale in California of 2.0 gpm showerheads at 80 psi as of July 1, 2016 and 1.8 gpm showerheads at 80 psi as of July 1, 2018. The WaterSense specification applies to showerheads that have a maximum flow rate of 2.0 gpm or less. This represents a 20% reduction in showerhead flow rate over the current federal standard of 2.5 gpm, as specified by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Faucet flow rates likewise have been regulated by the 2015 CEC Title 20 regulations. This standard requires that the residential faucets and aerators manufactured on or after July 1, 2016 be exclusively sold in California at 1.2 gpm at 60 psi; and public lavatory and kitchen faucets/ aerators sold or offered for sale on or after July 1, 2016 be 0.5 gpm at 60 psi and 1.8 gpm at 60 psi (with optional temporary flow of 2.2 gpm), respectively. Previously, the 2010 California Green Building Code had regulated all faucets at 2.2 gpm at 60 psi.
Appendix C • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 52 C.5 Key Baseline Potable Demand Inputs, Passive Savings Assumptions, and Resources The following table presents the key assumptions and references that are used in the DSS Model in determining projected demands with plumbing code savings.
Table C-2. List of Key Assumptions
Parameter Model Input Value, Assumptions, and Key References Model Start Year
for Analysis 2025
Water Demand Factor Year
(Base Year) 2021-2024
Population
Projection Source
2020 Census Data, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Regional Growth Forecast 2050 and the Mission Canyon community plan.
Employment
Projection Source
California Employment Development Department Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Regional Growth Forecast
Avoided Cost of Water
The City’s estimated average water production cost is $1,078/AF including treatment, energy, and transport costs. Water production costs are based on FY 2024 variable costs including the following supply sources:
Cachuma, Gibraltar/Mission Tunnel, Cachuma carryover/MWD, groundwater, State Water, banked water/ water purchases, existing desalination, and expanded desalination.
Potable Water System Base Year Water Use Profile
Customer Categories Start Year
Accounts
Total
Water Use
Distribution
Demand
Factors
(gpd/acct)
Indoor Use
%
2025 Modeled
Residential Indoor
Water Use (GPCD)
Single Family 16,712 43.1% 207 57% 45
Multifamily 6,731 27.1% 323 83% 40
Commercial 2,745 20.2% 591 69% N/A
Industrial 51 1.9% 2,917 57% N/A
Irrigation (Potable) 900 6.2% 553 0% N/A
Single Family with ADU 431 1.6% 295 58% 42
Total/Avg 27,627 100% N/A 74% N/A
Appendix C • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 53 Table C-3. Key Assumptions Resources
Parameter Resource
Residential End Uses
Key Reference: California Department of Water Resources Report “California Single Family Water Use Efficiency Study,” (DeOreo, 2011 – Page 28, Figure 3: Comparison of household end-uses) and AWWA Research Foundation (AWWARF) Report “Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 - 4309” (DeOreo, 2016).
Table 2-A. Water Consumption by Water-Using Plumbing Products and Appliances - 1980-2012. PERC Phase 1 Report. Plumbing Efficiency Research Coalition. 2013.
Model Input Values are found in the “End Uses” section of the DSS Model on the “Breakdown” worksheet.
Non-Residential
End Uses, percent
Key Reference: AWWARF Report “Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water” (Dziegielewski, 2000 – Appendix D: Details of Commercial and Industrial Assumptions, by End Use).
Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Use Efficiency Unit. “SCVWD CII Water Use and Baseline Study.” February 2008.
Model Input Values are found in the “End Uses” section of the DSS Model on the “Breakdown” worksheet.
Efficiency Residential Fixture
Current Installation Rates
2023 U.S. Census American Community Survey (5-year estimates), Housing age by type of dwelling plus natural replacement plus rebate program (if any).
Key Reference: GMP Research, Inc. (2019). 2019 U.S. WaterSense Market Penetration Industry Report.
Key Reference: Consortium for Efficient Energy
Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section of the DSS Model by customer category fixtures.
Probolsky Residential Community Survey (2019).
MWM Market Saturation Study (2010, Santa Barbara).
Water Savings for Fixtures,
gal/capita/day
Key Reference: AWWARF Report “Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 - 4309” (DeOreo, 2016).
Key Reference: California Department of Water Resources Report “California Single Family Water Use Efficiency Study” (DeOreo, 2011 – Page 28, Figure 3: Comparison of household end-uses). WCWCD supplied data on costs and savings; professional judgment was made where no published data was available.
Key Reference: California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC400-2014-007-SD, 2014.
Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the “Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model.
Non-Residential Fixture
Efficiency Current
Installation Rates
Key Reference: 2023 U.S. Census American Community Survey (5-year estimates), Housing age by type of dwelling plus natural replacement plus rebate program (if any). Assume commercial establishments built at same rate as housing, plus natural replacement.
California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD, 2014.
Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Use Efficiency Unit. “SCVWD CII Water Use and Baseline Study.” February 2008.
Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section of the DSS Model by customer category fixtures.
MWM Market Saturation Study (2010, Santa Barbara).
Appendix C • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 54 Parameter Resource
Residential Frequency of Use
Data, Toilets, Showers, Faucets,
Washers, Uses/user/day
Key Reference: AWWARF Report “Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 - 4309” (DeOreo, 2016). Summary values can be found in the full report.
Key Reference: California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC400-2014-007-SD, 2014.
Key Reference: Alliance for Water Efficiency, The Status of Legislation, Regulation, Codes & Standards on Indoor Plumbing Water Efficiency, January 2016.
Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the “Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model and confirmed in each “Service Area Calibration End Use” worksheet by customer category.
Non-Residential Frequency of
Use Data, Toilets, Urinals, and
Faucets, Uses/user/day
Key References: Estimated based on AWWARF Report “Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water” (Dziegielewski, 2000 – Appendix D: Details of Commercial and Industrial Assumptions, by End Use).
Key Reference: California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC400-2014-007-SD, 2014.
Fixture uses over a 5-day work week are prorated to 7 days.
Non-residential 0.5gpm faucet standards per Table 2-A. Water Consumption by Water-Using Plumbing Products and Appliances - 1980-2012. PERC Phase 1 Report. Plumbing Efficiency Research Coalition, 2012.
Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the “Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model and confirmed in each “Service Area Calibration End Use” worksheet by customer category.
East Bay Municipal Utility District – Commercial Water Efficiency Guidebook (2025).
Natural Replacement
Rate of Fixtures
(percent per year)
Residential Toilets 2%-4%
Non-Residential Toilets 2%-3%
Residential Showers 4% (corresponds to 25-year life of a new fixture) Residential Clothes Washers 10% (based on 10-year washer life).
Key References: “Residential End Uses of Water” (DeOreo, 2016) and “Bern Clothes Washer Study, Final Report” (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1998).
Residential Faucets 10% and Non-Residential Faucets 6.7% (every 15 years). CEC uses an average life of 10 years for faucet accessories (aerators). A similar assumption can be made for public lavatories, though no hard data exists and since CII fixtures are typically replaced less frequently than residential, 15 years is assumed. CEC, Analysis of Standards Proposal for Residential Faucets and Faucet Accessories, a report prepared under CEC’s Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative, Docket #12-AAER-2C, August 2013.
Model Input Value is found in the “Codes and Standards” green section on the “Fixtures” worksheet of the DSS Model.
Residential Future
Water Use Increases Based on Population Growth and Demographic Forecast Non-Residential Future
Water Use Increases Based on Employment Growth and Demographic Forecast Appendix C • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 55 C.5.1 Fixture Estimates
2 It is important to note that in water conservation program management the “free rider effect” occurs when a customer applies for and receives a rebate on a targeted high efficiency fixture that they would have purchased even without a rebate. In this case, the rebate was not the incentive for their purchase but a “bonus.” Rebate measures are designed to target customers needing financial incentive to install the more efficient fixture.
Determining the current level of efficient fixtures in a service area while evaluating passive savings in the DSS Model is part of the standard process and is called “initial fixture proportions.” MWM reconciled water efficient fixtures and devices installed within the City of Santa Barbara service area and estimated the number of outstanding inefficient fixtures.
MWM used the DSS Model to perform a saturation analysis for toilets, urinals, showerheads, faucets, and clothes washers. The process included a review of age of buildings from census data, number of rebates per device, and assumed natural replacement rates. MWM presumed the fixtures that were nearing saturation and worth analysis would include residential toilets and residential clothes washers, as both have been included in recommended conservation practices for over two decades.
In 2016, the Water Research Foundation updated its 1999 Residential End Uses of Water Study (REUWS). Water utilities, industry regulators, and government planning agencies consider it the industry benchmark for single family home indoor water use. This Plan incorporates recent study results which reflect the change to the profile of water use in residential homes including adoption of more water efficient fixtures over the 15 years that transpired from 1999 to 2016. REUWS results were combined with City historical rebate and billing data to enhance and verify assumptions made for all customer accounts, including saturation levels on the above-mentioned plumbing fixtures.
The DSS Model presents the estimated current and projected proportions of these fixtures by efficiency level within the City’s service area. These proportions were calculated by:
• Using standards in place at the time of building construction. • Taking the initial proportions of homes by age (corresponding to fixture efficiency levels).
• Adding the net change due to natural replacement.
• Adding the change due to rebate measure minus
the “free rider effect.”2
Further adjustments were made to initial proportions to account for the reduction in fixture use due to lower occupancy and based on field observations. The projected fixture proportions do not include any future active conservation measures implemented by the City.
More information about the development of initial and projected fixture proportions can be found in the DSS Model “Codes and Standards” section.
The DSS Model is capable of modeling multiple types of fixtures, including fixtures with different designs. For example, currently toilets can be purchased that flush at a rate of 0.8 gallons per flush (gpf),
1.0 gpf or 1.28 gpf. The 1.6 gpf and higher toilets still exist but can no longer be purchased in California. Therefore, they cannot be used for replacement or new installation of a toilet. So, the DSS Model utilizes fixture replacement rates to determine what type of fixture should be used for a new construction installation or replacement.
The replacement of the fixtures is listed as a percentage within the DSS Model. A value of 100% would indicate that all the toilets installed would be of one particular flush volume. A value of 75% means that three out of every four toilets installed would be of that particular flush volume. All the fixture model information and assumptions were carefully reviewed and accepted by City staff.
The DSS Model provides inputs and analysis of the number, type, and replacement rates of fixtures for each customer category (e.g., single family toilets, commercial toilets, residential clothes washing machines). For example, the DSS Model incorporates the effects of the 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act and AB 715 on toilet fixtures. A DSS Model feature determines the “saturation” of 1.6 gpf toilets as the 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act was in effect from 1992-2014 for 1.6 gpf toilet replacements. AB 715 now applies for the replacement of toilets at 1.28 gpf. Further consideration and adjustments have been made to replacement rates to account for the reduction in fixture use and fixture wear, based on field observations.
Appendix D • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 56 Appendix D – DSS Model Measure Analysis,
Methodology, Perspectives, and Assumptions
Throughout the planning process, the City of Santa Barbara and MWM conducted multiple meetings, primarily in an effort to complete the DSS Model, which is robust for each of the 18 measures modeled.
In the model, the City identified fixture costs, applicable customer classes, time period of implementation, measure life, administrative costs, end uses, end-use savings per replacement, and a target number or percentage of accounts per program year. The robust analysis is planned to be used in further Santa Barbara planning documents such as the 2025 City of Santa Barbara Urban Water Management Plan.
D.1 Water Reduction Methodology
Each conservation measure targets a particular water use, such as indoor single family water use. Targeted water uses are categorized by water user group and by end use. Targeted water user groups include single family residential; multifamily residential; commercial, industrial, and institutional; and so forth. Measures may apply to more than one water user group. Targeted end uses include indoor and outdoor use.
The targeted water use is important to identify because the water savings are generated from reductions in water use for the targeted end use. For example, a residential retrofit conservation measure targets single family and multifamily residential indoor use, and in some cases specifically shower use. When considering the water savings potential generated by a residential retrofit, one considers the water saved by installing low-flow showerheads in single family and multifamily homes.
The market penetration goal for a measure is the extent to which the product or service related to the conservation measure occupies the potential market. Essentially, the market penetration goal identifies how many fixtures, rebates, surveys, and so forth that the wholesale customer would have to offer or conduct over time to reach its water savings goal for that conservation measure. This is often expressed in terms of the number of fixtures, rebates, or surveys offered or conducted per year.
The potential for error in market penetration goal estimates for each measure can be significant because the estimates are based on previous experience, chosen implementation methods, projected utility effort, and funds allocated to implement the measure. The potential error can be corrected through reevaluation of the measure as the implementation of the measure progresses. For example, if the market penetration required to achieve specific water savings turns out to be different than predicted, adjustments to the implementation efforts can be made. Larger rebates or additional promotions are often used to increase the market penetration. The process is iterative to reflect actual conditions and helps to ensure that market penetration and needed savings are achieved regardless of future variances between estimates and actual conditions.
In contrast, market penetration for mandatory ordinances can be more predictable with the greatest potential for error occurring in implementing the ordinance change. For example, requiring dedicated irrigation meters for new accounts through an ordinance can ensure an almost 100% market penetration for affected properties.
The City is constantly examining when a measure might reach saturation. Baseline surveys are the best approach to having the most accurate information on market saturation. This was considered when analyzing individual conservation measures where best estimates were made. A market saturation study conducted in 2010 by MWM was taken into consideration to establish initial proportions and replacement rates as a more recent saturation study was not available, and discussions were held with the City regarding what the saturation best estimates were within its service area.
Appendix D • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 57 D.2 Present Value Analysis and Perspectives on Benefits and Costs The determination of the economic feasibility of water conservation programs involves comparing the costs of the programs to the benefits provided using the DSS Model, which calculates the cost effectiveness of conservation measure savings at the end-use level. For example, the model determines the amount of water a toilet rebate program saves in daily toilet use for each single family account.
Present value analysis using present day dollars and a real discount rate of 3% is used to discount costs and benefits to the base year.
From this analysis, benefit-cost ratios of each measure are computed.
When measures are put together in programs, the model is set up to avoid double counting savings from multiple measures that act on the same end use of water. For example, multiple measures in a program may target toilet replacements. The model includes assumptions to apportion water savings between the multiple measures.
Economic analysis can be performed from several different perspectives, based on which party is affected. For planning water use efficiency programs for utilities, perspectives most commonly used for benefit-cost analyses are the “utility” perspective and the “community” perspective. The “utility” benefit-cost analysis is based on the benefits and costs to the water provider. The “community” benefit-cost analysis includes the utility benefit and costs together with account owner/ customer benefits and costs. These include customer energy and other capital or operating cost benefits plus costs of implementing the measure beyond what the utility pays.
The utility perspective offers two advantages. First, it considers only the program costs that will be directly borne by the utility. This enables the utility to fairly compare potential investments for saving versus supplying increased quantities of water. Second, revenue shifts are treated as transfer payments, which means program participants will have lower water bills and non-participants will have slightly higher water bills so that the utility’s revenue needs continue to be met.
Therefore, the analysis is not complicated with uncertainties associated with long-term rate projections and retail rate design assumptions.
It should be noted that there is a significant difference between the utility’s savings from the avoided cost of procurement and delivery of water and the reduction in retail revenue that results from reduced water sales due to water use efficiency. This budget impact occurs slowly and can be accounted for in water rate planning. Because it is the water provider’s role in developing a water use efficiency plan that is vital in this study, the utility perspective was primarily used to evaluate elements of this report.
The community perspective is defined to include the utility and the customer costs and benefits. Costs incurred by customers striving to save water while participating in water use efficiency programs are considered, as well as benefits received in terms of reduced energy bills (from water heating costs) and wastewater savings, among others. Water bill savings are not a customer benefit in aggregate for reasons described previously. Other factors external to the utility, such as environmental effects, are often difficult to quantify or are not necessarily under the control of the utility. They are therefore frequently excluded from economic analyses, including this one.
The time value of money is explicitly considered. Typically, the costs to save water occur early in the planning period whereas the benefits usually extend to the end of the planning period. A long planning period of over 30 years is often used because costs and benefits that occur beyond these 30 years (beyond the year 2050 in this Plan) have very little influence on the total present value of the costs and benefits. The value of all future costs and benefits is discounted to the first year in the DSS Model (the base year) at the real interest rate of 3.01%. The DSS Model calculates this real interest rate, adjusting the current nominal interest rate (assumed to be approximately 6.1%) by the assumed rate of inflation (3.0%).
The formula to calculate the real interest rate is shown in Figure D-1 below. Cash flows discounted in this manner are herein referred to as “Present Value” sums.
(nominal interest rate – assumed rate of inflation) / (1 + assumed rate of inflation) Figure D-1. Interest Rate Formula
Appendix D • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 58 D.3 Measure Cost and Water Savings Assumptions
Appendix E presents more detail on the assumptions and inputs used in the City’s DSS Model to evaluate each water conservation measure. Assumptions regarding the following variables were made for each measure:
• Targeted Water User Group End Use – Water user group (e.g., single family residential) and end use (e.g., indoor or outdoor water use). • Utility Unit Cost – Cost of rebates, incentives, and contractors hired to implement measures. The assumed dollar values for the measure unit costs were closely reviewed by staff and are found to be adequate for each individual measure. The values in most cases are in the range of what is currently offered by other water utilities in the region.
• Retail Customer Unit Cost – Cost for implementing measures that is paid by retail customers (i.e., the remainder of a measure’s cost that is not covered by a utility rebate or incentive).
• Utility Administration and Marketing Cost – The cost to the utility for administering the measure, including consultant contract administration, marketing, and participant tracking. The mark-up is sufficient (in total) to cover conservation staff time, general expenses, and overhead.
Costs are determined for each of the measures based on industry knowledge, past experience, and data provided by the City. Costs may include incentive costs, usually determined on a per-participant basis; fixed costs, such as marketing; variable costs, such as the cost to staff the measures and to obtain and maintain equipment; and a one-time set-up cost. The set-up cost is for measure design by staff or consultants, any required pilot testing, and preparation of materials that are used in marketing the measure. Measure costs are estimated each year through 2050. Costs are spread over the time period depending on the length of the implementation period for the measure and estimated voluntary customer participation levels.
Lost revenue due to reduced water sales is not included as a cost because the water use conservation measures evaluated herein generally take effect over a long span of time. This span is sufficient to enable timely rate adjustments, if necessary, to meet fixed cost obligations and savings on variable costs such as energy and chemicals.
The unit costs vary according to the type of customer account and implementation method being addressed. For example, a measure might cost a different amount for a residential single family account than for a residential multifamily account, and for a rebate versus an ordinance requirement or a direct installation implementation method. Typically, water utilities have found there are increased costs associated with achieving higher market saturation, such as more surveys per year. The DSS Model calculates the annual costs based on the number of participants each year. The general formula for calculating annual utility costs is:
• Annual Utility Cost – Annual market penetration rate x total accounts in category x unit cost per account x (1+administration and marketing markup percentage)
• Annual Customer Cost – Annual number of participants x unit customer cost
• Annual Community Cost – Annual utility cost + annual
customer cost
Data necessary to forecast water savings of measures include specifics on water use, demographics, market penetration, and unit water savings. Savings normally develop at a measured and predetermined pace, reaching full maturity after full market penetration is achieved.
This may occur 3–10 years after the start of implementation, depending upon the implementation schedule.
For every water use efficiency activity or replacement with more efficient devices, there is a useful life. The useful life is called the “Measure Life” and is defined to be how long water use conservation measures stay in place and continue to save water. It is assumed that measures implemented because of codes, standards, or ordinances (e.g., toilets) would be “permanent” and not revert to an old inefficient level of water use if the device needed to be replaced. However, some measures that are primarily behavior-based, such as residential surveys, are assumed to need to be repeated on an ongoing basis to retain the water savings (e.g., homeowners move away, and the new homeowners may have less efficient water using practices). Surveys typically have a measure life on the order of five years.
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 59 Appendix E – Individual Conservation Measure
Design Inputs and Results
1 # # # # # #
# # # # #
# #
# # # # #
# # # # #
# # # # #
# # # # #
# #
#
# # # # #
# # #
# # # # #
# # # # # #
# # #
# # #
# # #
# # # # # #
# #
# # # # #
# #
2050 12,065 5,549 2,772 52 694 1,136 22,267
Water Savings
2047 326.818259
2048 327.716721
2049 328.615369
2050 329.514203
2048 12,096 5,534 2,742 52 694 1,104 22,222
2049 12,080 5,541 2,757 52 694 1,120 22,245
2048 $76,444 $53,511 $129,955
2049 $76,522 $53,565 $130,087
2050 $76,600 $53,620 $130,219
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
> Utility Cost: Includes costs for WaterSmart services (annual contract), as a cost per leak alerts sent.
> Customer Cost: Assumes costs are to resolve leaks that are made known to the customer, not all customers will incur costs, and some will incur costs greater than this average.
> Admin Cost: Assumes half of the Operations Assistant's time is required to run this measure (at the fully burdened rate of $49/hour). This total cost was converted into a cost per leak alert sent using historical data. > End Use Savings: Savings based on SFPUC case study per Julie Ortiz ppt at 2019 Peer-to-Peer “AMI: Everything you need to know to run a successful program." Savings are estimated to be 20%-50% on leakage (internal and external). Assume savings are 25% (conservative) as some customers who receive a leak alert will have high continuous use events that are not leaks, while others might save significantly more. Assume minimal savings on irrigation from customer being more efficient with watering due to available AMI data on their water use.
> Targets: Based on historical data provided by SB on the number of leak alerts sent in FY 23-24.
Costs
2047 $76,366 $53,456 $129,823
Targets
2047 12,111 5,527 2,727 51 694 1,089 22,200
ADUSF Irrigation 1.0% 101.6
ADUSF External Leakage 25.0% 8.6
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 77.000%
63.2 IND Internal Leakage 25.0% 165.2
IND Irrigation 2.0% 758.0
ADUSF Internal Leakage 25.0% 23.2
Abbr AMI
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name AMI Customer Portal and Leak Alerts
IRRADUSF
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
315.242503
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years 1
Repeat ####
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
MF $3.44 $75.00 1
COM $3.44 $75.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $3.44 $75.00 1
Markup Percentage 70%
Description
This measure includes the AMI Customer Portal and the Leak Alert system.
Leak Alerts are automated and sent by WaterSmart via email, text, or print.
This measure includes staff time to respond to calls and emails about Leak Alerts as well as to discuss water use with customers (i.e. conduct Virtual Water Checkups).
Customer Classes
SFMFCOMIND
ADUSF $3.44 $75.00 1
Administration Costs
IND $3.44 $75.00 1
IRR $3.44 $75.00 1
Utility $6,202,262
Pools
Wash Down
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
End Uses
Community $8,356,308
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $2,347,215
Community $32,450,004
Cooling
Comments
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
ory/Kitchen Faucets
SFMFCOMINDIRRADUSF
Utility $286
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 2.64
Community
MF Internal Leakage 25.0% 34.2
SF Irrigation 2.0% 73.6
0.26 Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
COM External Leakage 25.0% 9.2
SF Internal Leakage 25.0% 16.6
COM Internal Leakage 25.0% 40.7
COM Irrigation 25.0% 128.8
SF External Leakage 25.0% 6.2
MF External Leakage 25.0% 3.8
MF Irrigation 2.0% 44.9
IRR Irrigation 2.0% 525.3
IRR External Leakage 25.0% 27.6
IND External Leakage 25.0%
2025 $73,027 $51,119 $124,147
ADUSF Total
2025 12,868 5,183 2,114 39 693 332 21,229
SF MF COM IND
2026 $73,299 $51,309 $124,609
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2029 $74,089 $51,862 $125,951
2030 $74,352 $52,047 $126,399
2027 $73,562 $51,494 $125,056
2028 $73,825 $51,678 $125,503
2033 $74,998 $52,498 $127,496
2034 $75,116 $52,581 $127,697
2031 $74,616 $52,231 $126,847
2032 $74,880 $52,416 $127,296
2037 $75,471 $52,830 $128,301
2038 $75,591 $52,914 $128,505
2035 $75,234 $52,664 $127,898
2036 $75,352 $52,747 $128,099
2041 $75,903 $53,132 $129,035
2042 $75,979 $53,185 $129,164
2039 $75,712 $52,998 $128,710
2040 $75,833 $53,083 $128,915
2045 $76,211 $53,348 $129,559
2046 $76,289 $53,402 $129,691
2043 $76,056 $53,239 $129,295
2044 $76,134 $53,294 $129,427
IRR
374 21,308
2027 12,783 5,222 2,226 41 696 417 21,384
2026 12,826 5,202 2,170 40 696
459 21,461
2029 12,698 5,260 2,338 44 696 502 21,537
2028 12,741 5,241 2,282 43 696
2031 12,612 5,299 2,450 46 696 588 21,691
2030 12,655 5,280 2,394 45 696 545 21,614
2033 12,526 5,339 2,520 47 696 674 21,802
2032 12,569 5,319 2,506 47 696 631 21,767
2035 12,439 5,378 2,549 48 696 761 21,870
2034 12,482 5,358 2,534 48 696 718 21,836
2037 12,352 5,418 2,577 48 696 848 21,939
2036 12,395 5,398 2,563 48 696 805 21,905
2039 12,264 5,458 2,607 49 696 936 22,009
2038 12,308 5,438 2,592 49 696 892 21,974
2041 12,204 5,485 2,636 50 694 996 22,065
2040 12,220 5,478 2,622 49 696 980 22,044
2043 12,174 5,499 2,666 50 694 1,027 22,109
2042 12,189 5,492 2,651 50 694 1,011 22,087
2046 12,127 5,520 2,712 51 694
1,042 22,132
2045 12,143 5,513 2,697 51 694 1,058 22,154
2044 12,158 5,506 2,681 50 694
1,073 22,177
2026 292.835118
2027 296.040643
2028 299.244020
Total Savings (afy)
2025 289.580048
2032 312.075216
2033 313.132150
2034 314.186951
2029 302.451269
2030 305.659385
2031 308.865360
2038 318.445495
2039 319.529223
2040 320.610834
2035 315.245640
2036 316.302202
2037 317.362657
2044 324.123982
2045 325.021890
2046 325.919983
2041 321.453495
2042 322.328714
2043 323.226256
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
AMI Customer
Portal and
Leak Alerts
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 60 2 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
Overview
Name
Plumber Initiated High Efficiency
Toilet Retrofit Program
Customer Classes SFMF COM IND IRR ADUSFResults
Average Water Savings (afy)
Markup Percentage 4%
End Uses
Measure Life
Abbr UHET
Category 2
Measure Type 1
SF $550.00 $0.00 1
MF $550.00 $0.00 1
Administration Costs
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year 2030
Last Year 2040
Measure Length 11
2.077917
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
ADUSF
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
$35,534
Community $35,534
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $163,124
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Dishwashers
SFMFCOMINDIRR
Car Washing
External Leakage
Utility $3,019
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Community $163,124
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.22
Community 0.22
> Utility Cost: Cost includes burdened cost to buy
toilet, remove old, install new, and dispose of old,
plus admin cost (as might be incurred for a regional
partner to administer this measure).
> Customer Cost: Assumes minimal costs incurred by
customer, as SB is purchasing the fixture and paying
for installation.
> Admin Cost: Assumes 15 minutes of supervisory
time per rebate awarded (at $84/hr for the fully
burdened rate of the Analyst II position) to oversee
the general management of this measure.
> End Use Savings: Switching from a 3.5gpf toilet to
a 0.8gpf toilet presents about 77% savings, assuming
that only 1 toilet is replaced per account and
dividing by the number of toilets estimated to be
present per account results in 35% savings for SF and
20% savings for MF.
> Targets: SB estimates that a pilot program might
start with a budget of $20,000, targets have been set
to start at this approximate cost (including utility
and admin costs).
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 0.150%
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
SF Toilets 35.0% 20.1
MF Toilets 20.0% 65.1
vatory/Kitchen Faucets
Cooling
Comments
Outdoor Other
Description
Utility would subsidize installation cost of a new HET
purchased in bulk by the utility to replace 3.5 GPF
toilets with 0.8 GPF toilets. Licensed plumbers, prequalified by the Utility would solicit customers directly. Customers would get a new HET installed at
no cost or a discounted price. May focus efforts on
income-qualified account holders in SFR and MFR
and partner with gas company for economies of
scale as their contractors are already directinstalling energy saving fixtures in homes. 2026 $0 $0 $0
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2025 $0 $0 $0
2029 $0 $0 $0
2030 $19,216 $769 $19,985
2027 $0 $0 $0
2028 $0 $0 $0
2033 $19,141 $766 $19,906
2034 $19,115 $765 $19,880
2031 $19,191 $768 $19,959
2032 $19,166 $767 $19,932
2037 $19,039 $762 $19,800
2038 $19,013 $761 $19,774
2035 $19,090 $764 $19,853
2036 $19,064 $763 $19,827
2041 $0 $0 $0
2042 $0 $0 $0
2039 $18,988 $760 $19,747
2040 $18,962 $758 $19,720
2045 $0 $0 $0
2046 $0 $0 $0
2043 $0 $0 $0
2044 $0 $0 $0
2049 $0 $0 $0
2050 $0 $0 $0
2047 $0 $0 $0
2048 $0 $0 $0
2026 0 0 0
Targets
SF MF Total
2025 0 0 0
2029 0 0 0
2030 25 10 35
2027 0 0 0
2028 0 0 0
2033 24 10 35
2034 24 10 35
2031 25 10 35
2032 24 10 35
2037 24 11 35
2038 24 11 35
2035 24 10 35
2036 24 11 35
2041 0 0 0
2042 0 0 0
2039 24 11 35
2040 24 11 34
2045 0 0 0
2046 0 0 0
2043 0 0 0
2044 0 0 0
2049 0 0 0
2050 0 0 0
2047 0 0 0
2048 0 0 0
2026 0.000000
2027 0.000000
2028 0.000000
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 0.000000
2032 0.972965
2033 1.288476
2034 1.600314
2029 0.000000
2030 0.329218
2031 0.653366
3.116001
2040 3.412304
2035 1.908846
2036 2.214401
2037 2.517274
2050 3.253199
2047 3.294516
2048 3.280245
2049 3.266484
2044 3.340778
2045 3.324740
2046 3.309334
2041 3.393199
2042 3.374952
2043 3.357498
2038 2.817728
2039
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Plumber
Initiated High
Efficiency Toilet
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 61 3 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
2047 7.497461
2048 7.509270
2049 7.521083
2050 7.532901
ADUSF Irrigation 5.0% 101.6
USF External Leaka 50.0% 8.6
COM Pools 10.0% 12.9
D Kitchen Spray Rin 5.0% 0.0
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr
2042 7.436349
2043 7.449885
2044 7.462398
2045 7.473905
2046 7.485657
2037 7.356137
2038 7.372757
2039 7.389466
2040 7.406224
2041 7.421795
2032 7.224782
2033 7.260783
2034 7.291908
2035 7.318175
2036 7.339585
2027 4.236612
2028 5.665225
2029 7.102009
2030 7.143125
2031 7.183942
3 58
3 58
3 58
3 58
3 58
3 57
3 57
3 57
3 57
3 58
2 57
2 57
2 57
2 57
3 57
1 56
1 56
1 56
2 57
2 57
1 56
2 56
2 57
2 57
RR External Leakag 50.0% 27.6
ND External Leakag 50.0%
1 55
1 55
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 1.403844
2026 2.816147
0.200%
Only Effects New Accts
USF Internal Leaka 50.0% 23.2
FALSE
ND Internal Leakage 50.0% 165.2
63.2 IND Irrigation 5.0% 758.0
IRR Irrigation 5.0% 525.3
50.0% 40.7
128.8
OM External Leakag 50.0% 9.2
IND Process 5.0% 495.6
Cooling
Comments
> Utility Cost: Rebate paid by SB per device.
> Customer Cost: Remaining cost for purchase of device and shipping.
> Admin Cost: 4 hours of Admin Analyst II per year (at the fully burdened rate of $84/hr) and 10 hours of Ops Assistant per year (at the fully burdened rate of $49/hour), as much of the logistical and administrative processes are foregone through the set up of this measure (customer purchases device online with rebate applied).
> End Use Savings: Assumes similar savings as expected from AMI installation, with an additional 5% savings for irrigation savings from more granular water use data. SFPUC case study per Julie Ortiz ppt at 2019 Peer-to-Peer “AMI: Everything you need to know to run a successful program." Savings are
estimated to be 20%-50% on leakage (internal and external).
Assume higher end of this range as participants incur costs for device and assume they are more invested in tracking and managing their water use.
> Targets: Derived using historical data provided by SB for 2024.
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
6.780824
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $129,739
Community $179,718
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $118,847
Community $264,800
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 1.09
16.6 SF Irrigation 10.0% 73.6
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
vatory/Kitchen Faucets
End Uses IND IRR ADUSF
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Clothes Washers
Showers
Dishwashers
COM
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
2 1
Name
Overview
Leak Detection Device Rebate
LEAK
Customer Classes COM IND IRR ADUSF
$140.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 5
Repeat FALSE
Fixture Cost per Device
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
IND $100.00 $140.00 1
IRR $100.00 $140.00 1
ADUSF $100.00 $140.00 1
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 14%
Description
This measure models the CalWEP direct-distribution program for Flume rebates. Customers order leak detection devices directly through the Santa Barbara website and the rebate is built into reduced cost.
MF
SFMF
MF $100.00 $140.00 1
COM $100.00 $140.00 1
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $100.00
SF
Community 0.68
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Utility $674
End Use Savings Per Replacement
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Internal Leakage 50.0%
MF Irrigation 10.0%
COM Irrigation 5.0%
SF External Leakag 50.0% 6.2
MF Internal Leakage 50.0% 34.2
44.9 MF External Leakag 50.0% 3.8
COM Process 5.0% 81.3
OM Internal Leakag
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total IRR
Costs Targets
ADUSF Total
2025 $5,514 $772 $6,286
2026 $5,535 $775 $6,309
2025 33 13 5 0 2
SF MF COM IND
2029 $5,594 $783 $6,377
2030 $5,614 $786 $6,400
2027 $5,554 $778 $6,332
2028 $5,574 $780 $6,355
2033 $5,663 $793 $6,456
2034 $5,672 $794 $6,466
2031 $5,634 $789 $6,423
2032 $5,654 $792 $6,445
2037 $5,699 $798 $6,496
2038 $5,708 $799 $6,507
2035 $5,681 $795 $6,476
2036 $5,690 $797 $6,486
2041 $5,731 $802 $6,533
2042 $5,737 $803 $6,540
2039 $5,717 $800 $6,517
2040 $5,726 $802 $6,527
2045 $5,754 $806 $6,560
2046 $5,760 $806 $6,567
2043 $5,743 $804 $6,547
2044 $5,749 $805 $6,553
2049 $5,778 $809 $6,587
2050 $5,784 $810 $6,593
2047 $5,766 $807 $6,573
2048 $5,772 $808 $6,580
2027 33 14 6 0 2
2026 33 14 6 0 2
2029 33 14 6 0 2
2028 33 14 6 0 2
2031 33 14 6 0 2
2030 33 14 6 0 2
2033 33 14 7 0 2
2032 33 14 7 0 2
2035 32 14 7 0 2
2034 32 14 7 0 2
2037 32 14 7 0 2
2036 32 14 7 0 2
2039 32 14 7 0 2
2038 32 14 7 0 2
2041 32 14 7 0 2
2040 32 14 7 0 2
2043 32 14 7 0 2
2042 32 14 7 0 2
2045 32 14 7 0 2
2044 32 14 7 0 2
2050 31 14 7 0
2 2049 31 14 7 0 2
2048 31 14 7 0
2 2047 31 14 7 0 2
2046 31 14 7 0 2
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Leak Detection
Device Rebate
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 62 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
Abbr EDU
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name General Public Education
IRRADUSF
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
13.079044
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 1
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
MF $5.80 $1.00 1
COM $5.80 $2.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $5.80 $1.00 1
Markup Percentage 77%
Description
This measure describes and captures the varied outreach activities conducted and for consideration by the City that would continue indefinitely. > Use a range of printed materials to raise awareness of conservation measures available to customers. This can include newsletters, bill stuffers, brochures, working with local newspapers, signage at retailers, and/or signs on public buses. > Regional participation and development would be considered where applicable to help assure consistent message.
> Provide variety of conservation information on city or utility web site, distribution of videos. Other activities would include conducting presentations at various venues, from radio and TV to service organizations and focused groups, booths at relevant community events, etc.
> City would develop branded/targeted messaging with focused action like: “Take Control of your Controller” Campaign.
> This measure also captures efforts including poster contests, speakers to community groups, conservation hotline, website, radio and television time, demonstration gardens, and sponsoring series of educational workshops or other means for educating homeowners, landscapers and contractors in efficient landscaping and irrigation principles or other water conservation topics, utilizing guest speakers, and incentives, such as a nursery plant coupons.
Customer Classes
SFMFCOMIND
ADUSF $5.80 $1.00 1
Administration Costs
IND $5.80 $2.00 1
IRR $5.80 $2.00 1
End Uses
SFMFCOMINDIRRADUSF
> Utility Cost: Advertising costs incurred by SB annually. > Customer Cost: Assume minimal costs for customers to change behaviors or for small fixture upgrades (average customer cost is low to reflect that many customers will not purchase fixtures or upgrade equipment).
> Admin Cost: Assumes 1/3 of the annual time for the Analyst II position is required to oversee public education efforts, at the fully burdened rate of $84/hour. > End Use Savings: Public info water savings range is 0.1%-0.5% on each end use. Assumed average savings of 0.3%.
> Targets: Assume target 50% of customers annually, so that every 2 years all customers have been reached through some form of outreach effort conducted by the City.
Utility $258,840
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Community $258,840
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $2,675,630
Community $2,975,012
Cooling
Comments
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Utility $7,868
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.10
Community 0.09
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
COM Urinals 0.3% 16.3
IND Urinals 0.3% 99.1
COM Toilets 0.3% 61.0
IND Toilets 0.3% 247.8
COM Showers 0.3% 36.6
IND Showers 0.3% 49.6
COM Lavatory Faucets 0.3% 20.3
IND Lavatory Faucets 0.3% 124.9
COM Clothes Washers 0.3% 61.0
IND Clothes Washers 0.3% 132.1
COM Dishwashers 0.3% 24.4
IND Dishwashers 0.3% 66.1
IND Internal Leakage 0.3% 165.2
COM Irrigation 0.3% 128.8
COM Kitchen Spray Rinse 0.3% 20.3
COM Internal Leakage 0.3% 40.7
COM External Leakage 0.3% 9.2
IND External Leakage 0.3% 63.2
IND Irrigation 0.3% 758.0
IRR Irrigation 0.3% 525.3
IND Other 0.3% 165.2
COM Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 20.3
IRR External Leakage 0.3% 27.6
COM Other 0.3% 24.4
MF Toilets 0.3% 65.1
SF Lavatory Faucets 0.3% 7.8
IND Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 106.4
SF Toilets 0.3% 20.1
MF Showers 0.3% 56.0
SF Dishwashers 0.3% 2.4
MF Lavatory Faucets 0.3% 17.8
SF Showers 0.3% 27.2
MF Clothes Washers 0.3% 44.4
SF Internal Leakage 0.3% 16.6
MF Dishwashers 0.3% 4.8
SF Clothes Washers 0.3% 17.8
MF Baths 0.3% 5.9
SF Other 0.3% 7.6
MF Internal Leakage 0.3% 34.2
SF Baths 0.3% 3.6
MF Irrigation 0.3% 44.9
SF Pools 0.3% 1.8
MF Other 0.3% 8.1
SF Irrigation 0.3% 73.6
MF Wash Down 0.3% 2.2
SF Car Washing 0.3% 3.5
MF Pools 0.3% 1.1
SF Wash Down 0.3% 3.5
MF External Leakage 0.3% 3.8
SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 15.4
MF Car Washing 0.3% 2.2
SF External Leakage 0.3% 6.2
ADUSF Lavatory Faucets 0.3% 11.4
ADUSF Showers 0.3% 32.7
MF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 32.8
ADUSF Toilets 0.3% 41.8
ADUSF Internal Leakage 03% 232
ADUSF Dishwashers 0.3% 2.1
ADUSF Clothes Washers 0.3% 28.2
Method:
Units
Method:
General Public
Education
Continued next page
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 63 4 MF Baths 0.3% 5.9
SF Other 0.3% 7.6
MF Internal Leakage 0.3% 34.2
SF Baths 0.3% 3.6
MF Irrigation 0.3% 44.9
SF Pools 0.3% 1.8
MF Other 0.3% 8.1
SF Irrigation 0.3% 73.6
MF Wash Down 0.3% 2.2
SF Car Washing 0.3% 3.5
MF Pools 0.3% 1.1
SF Wash Down 0.3% 3.5
MF External Leakage 0.3% 3.8
SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 15.4
MF Car Washing 0.3% 2.2
SF External Leakage 0.3% 6.2
ADUSF Lavatory Faucets 0.3% 11.4
ADUSF Showers 0.3% 32.7
MF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 32.8
ADUSF Toilets 0.3% 41.8
ADUSF Internal Leakage 0.3% 23.2
ADUSF Baths 0.3% 4.4
ADUSF Dishwashers 0.3% 2.1
ADUSF Clothes Washers 0.3% 28.2
ADUSF Pools 0.3% 2.4
ADUSF Wash Down 0.3% 4.9
ADUSF Other 0.3% 7.4
ADUSF Irrigation 0.3% 101.6
ADUSF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 21.2
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 50.000%
ADUSF Car Washing 0.3% 4.9
ADUSF External Leakage 0.3% 8.6
FALSE
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
Targets
IRR
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 $79,953 $61,564 $141,517
2026 $80,251 $61,793 $142,043
Only Effects New Accts
ADUSF Total
2025 8,356 3,366 1,373 26 450 216 13,785
SF MF COM IND
2029 $81,115 $62,459 $143,573
2030 $81,404 $62,681 $144,084
2027 $80,539 $62,015 $142,553
2028 $80,827 $62,236 $143,063
2033 $82,110 $63,225 $145,335
2034 $82,239 $63,324 $145,564
2031 $81,692 $62,903 $144,595
2032 $81,981 $63,126 $145,107
2037 $82,628 $63,624 $146,252
2038 $82,760 $63,725 $146,486
2035 $82,369 $63,424 $145,793
2036 $82,499 $63,524 $146,022
2041 $83,101 $63,988 $147,089
2042 $83,184 $64,052 $147,236
2039 $82,892 $63,827 $146,719
2040 $83,024 $63,929 $146,953
2045 $83,439 $64,248 $147,687
2046 $83,524 $64,313 $147,837
2043 $83,269 $64,117 $147,386
2044 $83,354 $64,182 $147,536
2049 $83,779 $64,510 $148,288
2050 $83,864 $64,575 $148,439
2047 $83,609 $64,379 $147,987
2048 $83,694 $64,444 $148,138
243 13,836
2027 8,301 3,391 1,445 27 452 271 13,886
2026 8,328 3,378 1,409 26 452
298 13,936
2029 8,245 3,416 1,518 28 452 326 13,985
2028 8,273 3,403 1,482 28 452
354 14,035
2031 8,190 3,441 1,591 30 452 382 14,085
2030 8,218 3,428 1,554 29 452
410 14,135
2033 8,134 3,467 1,636 31 452 438 14,157
2032 8,162 3,454 1,627 31 452
2035 8,077 3,492 1,655 31 452 494 14,202
2034 8,106 3,479 1,646 31 452
2037 8,021 3,518 1,674 31 452 551 14,246
2036 8,049 3,505 1,664 31 452
2039 7,964 3,544 1,693 32 452 608 14,292
2038 7,992 3,531 1,683 32 452
2041 7,925 3,562 1,712 32 451 647 14,328
2040 7,935 3,557 1,702 32 452
2043 7,905 3,571 1,731 33 451 667 14,357
2042 7,915 3,566 1,721 32 451
2045 7,885 3,580 1,751 33 451 687 14,386
2044 7,895 3,575 1,741 33 451
2047 7,865 3,589 1,771 33 451 707 14,415
2046 7,875 3,585 1,761 33 451
2050 7,834 3,603 1,800 34 451
717 14,430
2049 7,844 3,598 1,790 34 451 727 14,445
2048 7,854 3,594 1,781 34 451
737 14,459
2025 12.833130
2026 12.855026
697 14,401
677 14,371
657 14,342
636 14,315
579 14,269
523 14,224
466 14,179
2030 12.971110
2031 13.011693
2032 13.057115
2027 12.878167
2028 12.904975
2029 12.935361
2036 13.090168
2037 13.104475
2038 13.119854
2033 13.061003
2034 13.067620
2035 13.077927
2042 13.155869
2043 13.159408
2044 13.164401
2039 13.137275
2040 13.156617
2041 13.154386
2048 13.196786
2049 13.207533
2050 13.219184
2045 13.170734
2046 13.178304
2047 13.187017
Target Method:
View: View Units
Continued from previous page
Continued next page
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 64 4 ADUSF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 21.2
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 50.000%
g
ADUSF External Leakage 0.3% 8.6
FALSE
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
Targets
IRR
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 $79,953 $61,564 $141,517
2026 $80,251 $61,793 $142,043
Only Effects New Accts
ADUSF Total
2025 8,356 3,366 1,373 26 450 216 13,785
SF MF COM IND
2029 $81,115 $62,459 $143,573
2030 $81,404 $62,681 $144,084
2027 $80,539 $62,015 $142,553
2028 $80,827 $62,236 $143,063
2033 $82,110 $63,225 $145,335
2034 $82,239 $63,324 $145,564
2031 $81,692 $62,903 $144,595
2032 $81,981 $63,126 $145,107
2037 $82,628 $63,624 $146,252
2038 $82,760 $63,725 $146,486
2035 $82,369 $63,424 $145,793
2036 $82,499 $63,524 $146,022
2041 $83,101 $63,988 $147,089
2042 $83,184 $64,052 $147,236
2039 $82,892 $63,827 $146,719
2040 $83,024 $63,929 $146,953
2045 $83,439 $64,248 $147,687
2046 $83,524 $64,313 $147,837
2043 $83,269 $64,117 $147,386
2044 $83,354 $64,182 $147,536
2049 $83,779 $64,510 $148,288
2050 $83,864 $64,575 $148,439
2047 $83,609 $64,379 $147,987
2048 $83,694 $64,444 $148,138
243 13,836
2027 8,301 3,391 1,445 27 452 271 13,886
2026 8,328 3,378 1,409 26 452
298 13,936
2029 8,245 3,416 1,518 28 452 326 13,985
2028 8,273 3,403 1,482 28 452
354 14,035
2031 8,190 3,441 1,591 30 452 382 14,085
2030 8,218 3,428 1,554 29 452
410 14,135
2033 8,134 3,467 1,636 31 452 438 14,157
2032 8,162 3,454 1,627 31 452
2035 8,077 3,492 1,655 31 452 494 14,202
2034 8,106 3,479 1,646 31 452
2037 8,021 3,518 1,674 31 452 551 14,246
2036 8,049 3,505 1,664 31 452
2039 7,964 3,544 1,693 32 452 608 14,292
2038 7,992 3,531 1,683 32 452
2041 7,925 3,562 1,712 32 451 647 14,328
2040 7,935 3,557 1,702 32 452
2043 7,905 3,571 1,731 33 451 667 14,357
2042 7,915 3,566 1,721 32 451
2045 7,885 3,580 1,751 33 451 687 14,386
2044 7,895 3,575 1,741 33 451
2047 7,865 3,589 1,771 33 451 707 14,415
2046 7,875 3,585 1,761 33 451
2050 7,834 3,603 1,800 34 451
717 14,430
2049 7,844 3,598 1,790 34 451 727 14,445
2048 7,854 3,594 1,781 34 451
737 14,459
2025 12.833130
2026 12.855026
697 14,401
677 14,371
657 14,342
636 14,315
579 14,269
523 14,224
466 14,179
2030 12.971110
2031 13.011693
2032 13.057115
2027 12.878167
2028 12.904975
2029 12.935361
2036 13.090168
2037 13.104475
2038 13.119854
2033 13.061003
2034 13.067620
2035 13.077927
2042 13.155869
2043 13.159408
2044 13.164401
2039 13.137275
2040 13.156617
2041 13.154386
2048 13.196786
2049 13.207533
2050 13.219184
2045 13.170734
2046 13.178304
2047 13.187017
Target Method:
View: View Units
Continued from previous page
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 65 5 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
Abbr WEL
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Water Efficient Landscape Standards
Customer Classes
SFMFCOMINDIRRADUSF
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
Description
Compliance with the City’s WELS is mandatory whenever a landscaping or irrigation plan is required by any Chapter or Section of the City Municipal Code or by any City design review or land use review body (SBMC § 14.23.005, Ordinance 6101, and Council Resolution No. 23-007). The Standards are intended to promote water conservation while allowing flexibility in designing attractive and cost effective water-wise landscapes. Standards specify that development projects subject to design review are landscaped according to climate appropriate principals, with appropriate plant selection, efficient irrigation systems and smart irrigation controllers. Some accounts transition from mixed meters to irrigation meters. As part of this measure, staff perform plan reviews and final inspections for compliance.
IRR $70.00 $15.00 1
ADUSF $70.00 $15.00 1
End Uses
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 6%
COM $70.00 $15.00 1
IND $70.00 $15.00 1
SF $70.00 $15.00 1
MF $70.00 $15.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
> Utility Cost: Utility cost here is the admin cost to review plans and perform inspections.
Plan reviews take ~0.75hours of the Water Resources Specialist position at the rate of $70/hour. 16% of plans that are reviewed prompt an inspection, which takes 1.5 hours, at the fully burdened rate of $70/hour.
> Customer Cost: Assume minimal additional costs are incurred from compliance, as installation and maintenance of acceptable landscape is not necessarily more expensive than alternatives.
> Admin Cost: Assumes admin cost is for general administration of this program by the Analyst II position, assume minimal supervisory time is required per rebate, at the fully burdened rate of $84/hour, for a 6% markup on the utility cost. > End Use Savings: Native plants save 60-80% of water use compared to grass, assume half of these savings are achieved from compliance with WEL Standards as not all sites will be converting from high water using plants. Assumes small savings from reducing leakage when landscape is changed.
> Targets: Based on historical data received, about 250 plan reviews are conducted annually and about 40 inspections are conducted, resulting in a target of 0.14% of accounts completing their compliant WELS landscape each year.
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
16.251129
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
ADUSF
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
$282,278
Community $282,278
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $54,046
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Cooling
Comments
Dishwashers
SFMFCOMINDIRR
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Utility $128
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Community $64,993
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 5.22
Community 4.34
IND Irrigation 30.0% 758.0
IND External Leakage 5.0% 63.2
COM Irrigation 30.0% 128.8
COM External Leakage 5.0% 9.2
IRR Irrigation 30.0% 525.3
SF External Leakage 5.0% 6.2
SF Irrigation 30.0% 73.6
MF Irrigation 30.0% 44.9
ADUSF Irrigation 30.0% 101.6
ADUSF External Leakage 5.0% 8.6
MF External Leakage 5.0% 3.8
IRR External Leakage 5.0% 27.6
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 0.140%
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
IND Kitchen Spray Rinse 0.0% 0.0
COM Pools 0.0% 12.9
2025 $2,702 $157 $2,859
2026 $2,712 $157 $2,869
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2029 $2,741 $159 $2,900
2030 $2,751 $160 $2,910
2027 $2,722 $158 $2,880
2028 $2,731 $158 $2,890
2033 $2,775 $161 $2,936
2034 $2,779 $161 $2,940
2031 $2,761 $160 $2,921
2032 $2,770 $161 $2,931
2037 $2,792 $162 $2,954
2038 $2,797 $162 $2,959
2035 $2,784 $161 $2,945
2036 $2,788 $162 $2,950
2041 $2,808 $163 $2,971
2042 $2,811 $163 $2,974
2039 $2,801 $162 $2,964
2040 $2,806 $163 $2,968
2045 $2,820 $164 $2,983
2046 $2,823 $164 $2,986
2043 $2,814 $163 $2,977
2044 $2,817 $163 $2,980
2049 $2,831 $164 $2,995
2050 $2,834 $164 $2,998
2047 $2,825 $164 $2,989
2048 $2,828 $164 $2,992
Targets
SF MF COM IND IRR ADUSF Total
1 39
2026 23 9 4 0 1 1 39
2025 23 9 4 0 1
1 39
2028 23 10 4 0 1 1 39
2027 23 9 4 0 1
1 39
2030 23 10 4 0 1 1 39
2029 23 10 4 0 1
1 39
2032 23 10 5 0 1 1 40
2031 23 10 4 0 1
1 40
2034 23 10 5 0 1 1 40
2033 23 10 5 0 1
1 40
2036 23 10 5 0 1 1 40
2035 23 10 5 0 1
2 40
2038 22 10 5 0 1 2 40
2037 22 10 5 0 1
2 40
2040 22 10 5 0 1 2 40
2039 22 10 5 0 1
2 40
2042 22 10 5 0 1 2 40
2041 22 10 5 0 1
2 40
2044 22 10 5 0 1 2 40
2043 22 10 5 0 1
2 40
2046 22 10 5 0 1 2 40
2045 22 10 5 0 1
2 40
2048 22 10 5 0 1 2 40
2047 22 10 5 0 1
2 40
2050 22 10 5 0 1 2 40
2049 22 10 5 0 1
2026 2.333749
2027 3.510433
2028 4.693367
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 1.163327
2032 9.487800
2033 10.698394
2034 11.911552
2029 5.882570
2030 7.078047
2031 8.279783
18.016219
2040 19.245008
2035 13.127294
2036 14.345608
2037 15.566514
2050 31.626694
2047 27.893118
2048 29.135824
2049 30.380349
2044 24.175906
2045 25.413160
2046 26.652230
2041 20.475038
2042 21.706846
2043 22.940468
2038 16.790050
2039
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Water Efficient
Landscape
Standards
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 66 6 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
Abbr SPRINK
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Smart Sprinkler Timer Rebate
IRRADUSF
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
2.638121
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 5
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
MF $70.00 $170.00 1
COM $70.00 $170.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $70.00 $170.00 1
Markup Percentage 18%
Description
Provide a rebate for the purchase of a weather-based/smart irrigation controller.
Smart irrigation controllers can be programmed to give plants the right amount of water for the type of plant, soil, time of year, and weather - often with a smartphone. Eligible materials include: smart controller or weather sensor add-on for existing controller. Does not include labor or tax.
Customer Classes
SFMFCOMIND
ADUSF $70.00 $170.00 1
Administration Costs
IND $70.00 $170.00 1
IRR $70.00 $170.00 1
End Uses
SFMFCOMINDIRRADUSF
> Utility Cost: Rebate amount offered by the City, assumes average device cost is approximately $140, and City is rebating 50%.
> Customer Cost: Remaining costs to purchase device, assumes installation cost of on average $200 and that half of rebate participants hire a contractor for installation. > Admin Cost: Estimated staff time required is 0.25hours of the Operations Assistant position, at the fully burdened rate of $49/hour, or approximately a 18% markup on utility cost per rebate.
> End Use Savings: EPA estimates annual water savings of 7,600 for the average home from installation of a smart irrigation controller. Converted this estimate into percentages based on the average irrigation use of different customer categories. > Targets: Based on historical data, ~10 rebates have been offered, assume participation increases to ~30 participants in following years as the program becomes more known through outreach efforts.
Utility $50,633
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Community $50,633
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $43,056
Community $131,670
Cooling
Comments
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Utility $628
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 1.18
Community 0.38
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
IRR Irrigation 4.0% 525.3
SF Irrigation 25.0% 73.6
COM Irrigation 15.0% 128.8
IND Irrigation 3.0% 758.0
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 0.100%
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
MF Irrigation 40.0% 44.9
ADUSF Irrigation 4.0% 101.6
2025 $1,930 $347 $2,277
Targets
SF MF COM IND IRR ADUSF Total
0 28
2026 $1,937 $349 $2,286
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2029 $1,958 $352 $2,310
2030 $1,965 $354 $2,319
2027 $1,944 $350 $2,294
2028 $1,951 $351 $2,302
2033 $1,982 $357 $2,339
2034 $1,985 $357 $2,342
2031 $1,972 $355 $2,327
2032 $1,979 $356 $2,335
2037 $1,994 $359 $2,353
2038 $1,998 $360 $2,357
2035 $1,988 $358 $2,346
2036 $1,991 $358 $2,350
2041 $2,006 $361 $2,367
2042 $2,008 $361 $2,369
2039 $2,001 $360 $2,361
2040 $2,004 $361 $2,365
2045 $2,014 $363 $2,377
2046 $2,016 $363 $2,379
2043 $2,010 $362 $2,372
2044 $2,012 $362 $2,374
2049 $2,022 $364 $2,386
2050 $2,024 $364 $2,389
2047 $2,018 $363 $2,381
2048 $2,020 $364 $2,384
2026 17 7 3 0 1 0 28
2025 17 7 3 0 1
1 28
2028 17 7 3 0 1 1 28
2027 17 7 3 0 1
1 28
2030 16 7 3 0 1 1 28
2029 16 7 3 0 1
1 28
2032 16 7 3 0 1 1 28
2031 16 7 3 0 1
1 28
2034 16 7 3 0 1 1 28
2033 16 7 3 0 1
1 28
2036 16 7 3 0 1 1 28
2035 16 7 3 0 1
1 28
2038 16 7 3 0 1 1 29
2037 16 7 3 0 1
1 29
2040 16 7 3 0 1 1 29
2039 16 7 3 0 1
1 29
2042 16 7 3 0 1 1 29
2041 16 7 3 0 1
1 29
2044 16 7 3 0 1 1 29
2043 16 7 3 0 1
1 29
2046 16 7 4 0 1 1 29
2045 16 7 4 0 1
1 29
2048 16 7 4 0 1 1 29
2047 16 7 4 0 1
1 29
2050 16 7 4 0 1 1 29
2049 16 7 4 0 1
2026 1.128933
2027 1.695286
2028 2.262867
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 0.563811
2032 2.850185
2033 2.855118
2034 2.858845
2029 2.831678
2030 2.837906
2031 2.844048
2.863040
2040 2.863172
2035 2.861366
2036 2.862683
2037 2.862795
2050 2.874996
2047 2.870537
2048 2.872024
2049 2.873511
2044 2.866155
2045 2.867570
2046 2.869048
2041 2.863519
2042 2.864131
2043 2.865009
2038 2.862914
2039
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Smart Sprinkler
Timer Rebate
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 67 7 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
Abbr GGP
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Green Gardener Program
IRRADUSF
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
14.552161
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 2
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
MF $0.00 $15.00 1
COM $0.00 $15.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $0.00 $15.00 1
Annual Admin Costs $2,400
Description
15 week bilingual course taught through Santa Barbara City College's School of Extended Learning.The class covers topics on resource-efficient and pollution prevention landscape maintenance practices. After completion of the course and a final test, gardeners are placed on the Green Gardener list which is promoted to the public. Green Gardener recertification issued annually with completion of 2 hours continuing education.
Customer Classes
SFMFCOMIND
ADUSF $0.00 $15.00 1
Administration Costs
IND $0.00 $15.00 1
IRR $0.00 $15.00 1
Utility $285,017
Pools
Wash Down
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
End Uses
Community $285,017
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $44,146
Community $239,619
Cooling
Comments
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
SFMFCOMINDIRRADUSF
Utility $117
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 6.46
Community 1.19
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
COM Irrigation 10.0% 128.8
IND Irrigation 10.0% 758.0
SF Irrigation 10.0% 73.6
MF Irrigation 10.0% 44.9
MF External Leakage 5.0% 3.8
COM External Leakage 5.0% 9.2
IRR Irrigation 10.0% 525.3
SF External Leakage 5.0% 6.2
ADUSF Irrigation 10.0% 101.6
ADUSF External Leakage 5.0% 8.6
IND External Leakage 5.0% 63.2
IRR External Leakage 5.0% 27.6
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 2.500%
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
SF MF COM IND IRR ADUSF Total Total Savings (afy)
2027 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2028 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2025 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2026 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2031 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2032 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2029 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2030 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2035 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2036 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2033 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2034 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2039 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2040 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2037 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2038 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2043 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2044 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2041 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2042 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2047 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2048 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2045 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2046 $0 $2,400 $2,400
11 689
2026 416 169 70 1 23 12 692
2025 418 168 69 1 23
18 702
2029 412 171 76 1 23
14 694
2028 414 170 74 1 23 15 697
2027 415 170 72 1 23
2032 408 173 81 2 23 20 707
2031 409 172 80 1 23
22 708
2034 405 174 82 2 23 23 709
2033 407 173 82 2 23
25 710
2036 402 175 83 2 23 26 711
2035 404 175 83 2 23
28 712
2038 400 177 84 2 23 29 713
2037 401 176 84 2 23
30 715
2040 397 178 85 2 23 32 716
2039 398 177 85 2 23
32 716
2042 396 178 86 2 23 33 717
2041 396 178 86 2 23
2 23 34 719
2043 395 179 87 2 23
34 719
2046 394
2030 14.550829
179 88 2 23 35 720
2045 394 179 88 2 23
33 718
2044 395 179 87
35 721
2048 393 180 89 2 23 36 721
2047 393 179 89 2 23
2031 14.627273
2026 14.240213
2027 14.321654
2028 14.397967
> Utility Cost: Utility cost is included in admin costs, the annual utility cost for this program is $1500.
> Customer Cost: Assume minimal customer costs are incurred, as participants are performing behavioral changes (proper irrigation scheduling) and small fixture upgrades from irrigation leak corrections.
> Admin Cost: Costs for Analyst II position staff time to oversee the general administration of this program, approximately 10 hours of staff time are required per year, at the fully burdened rate of $84/hour. This administration fixed costs includes utility costs. > End Use Savings: Assume 10% irrigation savings from proper irrigation scheduling, and small savings from leak corrections (not captured through AMI or flume) to not overlap with other measures offered.
> Targets: Based on SB participation data, ~140 gardeners that participate are from the service area and professional gardeners (and work on ~5 sites per gardener), so targeting 700 accounts. SB surveys indicate that average number of sites affected per gardener that participates in the program is ~7, but not all sites are in the SB service area.
Costs
2025 7.098485
19 704
16 699
2030 411 171 78 1 23
14.757807
2044 15.065848
2045 15.088000
2046
2047 15.132332
2038 14.915537
2039 14.947677
2040 14.979755
2035 14.820640
2036 14.852123
2037 14.883650
2049 $0 $2,400 $2,400
2050 $0 $2,400 $2,400
Targets
2049 392 180 90 2 23 36 722
2050 392 180 90 2 23 37 723
Water Savings
2049 15.176701
2050 15.198900
2048 15.154512
15.110161
2041 15.003344
2042 15.021785
2043 15.043705
2034 14.789201
2029 14.474323
2032 14.703759
2033
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Green Gardener
Program
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 68 8 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
Abbr LAWN
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Sustainable Lawn Replacement Rebate
IRRADUSF
SF $1,500.00 $4,500.00 1
MF $2,000.00 $8,000.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
Markup Percentage 0%
Description
The Sustainable Lawn Replacement Rebate provides incentives to help offset the cost of replacing water-thirsty lawns with water-wise plants and efficient irrigation. Total rebate amount is based upon square footage of lawn removed: $2.00 / square foot of eligible lawn replaced.
Single Family Residential and Small Multi-Family Residential (1-4 dwelling units): $1,500 maximum rebate.
Commercial and Large Multi-Family Residential (5+ dwelling units): $2,500 per meter serving irrigation, maximum of $5,000 per property. Stacked rebate availble for rain gardens, funding provided by the Creeks Division.
Customer Classes
SFMFCOMIND
IRR $2,500.00 $10,000.00 1
Administration Costs
COM $2,500.00 $10,000.00 1
IND $2,500.00 $10,000.00 1
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
End Uses
SFMFCOMINDIRRADUSF
Cooling
Comments
> Customer Cost: Assumes the rebate represents 1/4 of total costs for replacement, and that customer incurs approximately 3/4 of costs. > Admin Cost: Estimated staff time required to process rebates and generally manage this measure are 0.5 hour of Meter Tech time (at fully burdened rate of $63/hr), 0.5 hour of Operations Assistant time (at $49/hour) and 0.25 hour of Specialist time (at $70/hour), this is approximately $73 or an admin markup cost of
0.05%.
> End Use Savings: Reductions estimate half of turf is removed from SF and MF and 30% in COM/IND/IRR to be conservative, assumes additional 5% savings from leak reductions and switching to more efficient irrigation systems. > Targets: Based on historical data, average about 10 rebates per year, expect more with NFT ban. COM, IND, IRR increase during ban effect. Assume 15 rebates per year on ave. This is about 0.06% of accounts.
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
17.608921
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $320,237
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.56
Community 0.12
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Community $320,237
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $571,765
Community $2,612,430
SF Irrigation 50.0% 73.6
MF Irrigation 50.0% 44.9
Utility $1,249
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
IRR Irrigation 50.0% 525.3
SF External Leakage 5.0% 6.2
COM Irrigation 50.0% 128.8
IND Irrigation 50.0% 758.0
IRR Total
IND External Leakage 5.0% 63.2
IRR External Leakage 5.0% 27.6
MF External Leakage 5.0% 3.8
COM External Leakage 5.0% 9.2
2025 $26,274 $13 $26,287
2026 $37,416 $19 $37,434
Targets
Enter Annual Targets Below
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
Targets
SF MF COM IND
2029 $43,698 $22 $43,720
2030 $32,956 $16 $32,973
2027 $86,156 $43 $86,199
2028 $76,138 $38 $76,176
2033 $22,374 $11 $22,385
2034 $22,356 $11 $22,367
2031 $28,666 $14 $28,680
2032 $22,391 $11 $22,403
2037 $22,302 $11 $22,314
2038 $22,284 $11 $22,296
2035 $22,338 $11 $22,349
2036 $22,320 $11 $22,331
2041 $22,239 $11 $22,251
2042 $22,233 $11 $22,245
2039 $22,266 $11 $22,278
2040 $22,248 $11 $22,259
2050 $22,185 $11 $22,196
2047 $22,203 $11 $22,215
2048 $22,197 $11 $22,208
2049 $22,191 $11 $22,202
2045 $22,215 $11 $22,227
2046 $22,209 $11 $22,221
2043 $22,227 $11 $22,239
2044 $22,221 $11 $22,233
15 2026 9 4 5 1 0 19
2025 9 4 2 0 0
39 2028 9 4 15 2 5 35
2027 9 4 20 2 4
22 2030 9 4 2 0 3 18
2029 9 4 5 0 4
16 2032 9 4 0 0 0 13
2031 9 4 1 0 2
13 2034 9 4 0 0 0 13
2033 9 4 0 0 0
13 2036 9 4 0 0 0 13
2035 9 4 0 0 0
13 2038 9 4 0 0 0 13
2037 9 4 0 0 0
13 2040 9 4 0 0 0 13
2039 9 4 0 0 0
13 2042 9 4 0 0 0 13
2041 9 4 0 0 0
13 2044 9 4 0 0 0 13
2043 9 4 0 0 0
13 2046 9 4 0 0 0 13
2045 9 4 0 0 0
13 2048 9 4 0 0 0 13
2047 9 4 0 0 0
13 2050 9 4 0 0 0 13
2049 9 4 0 0 0
2026 2.158218
2027 6.126729
2028 10.026778
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 0.744266
2032 15.337068
2033 15.967234
2034 16.596549
2029 12.059711
2030 13.556950
2031 14.706066
19.730403
2040 20.354607
2035 17.225023
2036 17.852641
2037 18.479412
2050 26.579859
2047 24.714834
2048 25.336753
2049 25.958429
2044 22.847616
2045 23.470264
2046 24.092671
2041 20.978220
2042 21.601593
2043 22.224725
2038 19.105334
2039
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Sustainable
Lawn
Replacement
Rebate
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 69 9 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
2050 0.851760
ADUSF Irrigation
Costs
2050 $3,757 $1,052 $4,809 2050 44 20 10 0 3 4 81
10.0%
Targets Water Savings
101.6
ADUSF External Leakage
Abbr MULCH
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Mulch Delivery Rebate
IRRADUSF
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
0.831301
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 1
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
MF $45.00 $20.00 1
COM $45.00 $20.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $45.00 $20.00 1
Markup Percentage 28%
Description
Rebate of two deliveries of the County mulch per year. Mulch helps reduce evaporation and retain soil moisture, reducing irrigation needs. A maximum of two rebates is offered per customer per year.
Customer Classes
SFMFCOMIND
ADUSF $45.00 $20.00 1
Administration Costs
IND $45.00 $20.00 1
IRR $45.00 $20.00 2
Utility $16,413
Pools
Wash Down
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
End Uses
Community $16,413
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $86,746
Community $116,867
Cooling
Comments
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
SFMFCOMINDIRRADUSF
Utility $4,013
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.19
Community 0.14
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
COM Irrigation 10.0% 128.8
IRR Irrigation 10.0% 525.3
SF Irrigation 10.0% 73.6
MF Irrigation 10.0% 44.9
COM External Leakage 5.0% 9.2
SF External Leakage 5.0% 6.2
MF External Leakage 5.0% 3.8
8.6 IND Kitchen Spray Rinse 0.0% 0.0
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 0.280%
IRR External Leakage 5.0% 27.6
IND Irrigation 10.0% 758.0
IND External Leakage 5.0% 63.2
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
> Utility Cost: The rebate offered by the City is $45/delivery. > Customer Cost: The total cost of delivery is $65, this is the remaining cost paid by the customer per delivery.
> Admin Cost: Estimated staff time requirements per rebate are approximately 0.25 hour of the Operations Assistant position, or a 28% markup on utility cost per rebate. > End Use Savings: Mulch can reduce up to 25% of irrigation needs, assume lower savings to be conservative (since customers might not mulch a majority of their landscapes). Assume minimal savings for external leakage as irrigation use is reduced. > Targets: From historical data, ~78 deliveries per year are rebated. This is about 0.3% of total accounts.
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2025 $3,587 $1,004 $4,592
SF MF COM IND IRR ADUSF Total Total Savings (afy)
2025 0.795030
5.0%
1 77
2026 47 19 8 0 3 1 77
2025 47 19 8 0 3
2029 $3,638 $1,019 $4,657
2026 $3,601 $1,008 $4,609
2027 $3,613 $1,012 $4,625
2028 $3,626 $1,015 $4,641
2032 $3,676 $1,029 $4,705
2033 $3,681 $1,031 $4,712
2030 $3,651 $1,022 $4,673
2031 $3,663 $1,026 $4,689
2036 $3,698 $1,036 $4,734
2037 $3,704 $1,037 $4,741
2034 $3,687 $1,032 $4,719
2035 $3,693 $1,034 $4,727
2040 $3,721 $1,042 $4,763
2041 $3,724 $1,043 $4,767
2038 $3,710 $1,039 $4,748
2039 $3,715 $1,040 $4,756
2044 $3,735 $1,046 $4,781
2045 $3,739 $1,047 $4,786
2042 $3,728 $1,044 $4,772
2043 $3,731 $1,045 $4,776
2048 $3,750 $1,050 $4,800
2049 $3,754 $1,051 $4,805
2046 $3,743 $1,048 $4,790
2047 $3,746 $1,049 $4,795
19 8 0 3 2 78
2027 46 19 8 0 3 2 78
2028 46
2 78
2030 46 19 9 0 3 2 79
2029 46 19 9 0 3
2 79
2032 46 19 9 0 3 2 79
2031 46 19 9 0 3
2034 45 19 9 0 3 3 79
2033 46 19 9 0 3 2 79
2036 45 20 9 0 3 3 80
2035 45 20 9 0 3 3 80
2038 45 20 9 0 3 3 80
2037 45 20 9 0 3 3 80
2040 44 20 10 0 3 4 80
2039 45 20 9 0 3 3 80
2042 44 20 10 0 3 4 80
2041 44 20 10 0 3 4 80
2044 44 20 10 0 3 4 80
2043 44 20 10 0 3 4 80
2046 44 20 10 0 3 4 81
2045 44 20 10 0 3 4 81
2049 44 20 10 0 3
4 81
2048 44 20 10 0 3 4 81
2047 44 20 10 0 3
4 81
2029 0.812704
2030 0.816989
2031 0.821265
2026 0.799873
2027 0.804152
2028 0.808421
2035 0.830840
2036 0.832598
2037 0.834371
2032 0.825556
2033 0.827319
2034 0.829072
2041 0.840612
2042 0.841828
2043 0.843067
2038 0.836169
2039 0.837970
2040 0.839762
2047 0.848032
2048 0.849274
2049 0.850517
2044 0.844308
2045 0.845548
2046 0.846790
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Mulch Delivery
Rebate
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 70 10 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
Abbr DRIP
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Sprinkler to Drip Irrigation Retrofit
IRRADUSF
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
0.971772
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 5
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
MF $100.00 $300.00 1
COM $100.00 $300.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $100.00 $300.00 1
Markup Percentage 25%
Description
Provide rebate for customers to convert their sprinkler system to efficient drip irrigation. Eligible materials include: pressure regulator filter assembly, drip tubing, ¼” tubing, drip emitters, connectors, figure 8s, goof plugs, and stakes/staples. Does not include micro spray, irrigation valves, labor, or tax. Cannot be used in combination with the Sustainable Lawn Replacement rebate.
Customer Classes
SFMFCOMIND
ADUSF $100.00 $300.00 1
Administration Costs
IND $100.00 $300.00 1
IRR $100.00 $300.00 1
End Uses
SFMFCOMINDIRRADUSF
> Utility Cost: Represents rebate amount offered by the City. > Customer Cost: Costs for installation and materials can range from under $100 to over $500 depending on whether customers install their system on their own or hire a contractor.
Assumed an average cost of $300 per participant.
> Admin Cost: Estimated staff time required to review receipts is approximately 0.5hours of the Operations Assistant position (at the fully burdened rate of $49/hour) or a 25% markup on the utility costs.
> End Use Savings: Drip irrgation can be up to 90% efficient, compared to sprinkler systems which are 65-75% efficient. Savings are for increased watering efficiency, assume lower savings to be conservative as watering practices will impact savings realized. Assume small additional savings on leakage from leaks that are captured and corrected in the process of switching to drip irrgation.
> Targets: Targets based on historical rebate data, assume similar levels of participation in the future.
Utility $18,646
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Community $18,646
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $32,579
Community $110,768
Cooling
Comments
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Utility $1,289
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.57
Community 0.17
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
COM Irrigation 15.0% 128.8
IND Irrigation 15.0% 758.0
SF Irrigation 15.0% 73.6
MF Irrigation 15.0% 44.9
COM External Leakage 5.0% 9.2
IND External Leakage 5.0% 63.2
SF External Leakage 5.0% 6.2
MF External Leakage 5.0% 3.8
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 0.050%
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
IRR Irrigation 15.0% 525.3
IRR External Leakage 5.0% 27.6
2025 $1,379 $345 $1,723
2026 $1,384 $346 $1,730
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2029 $1,399 $350 $1,748
2030 $1,404 $351 $1,754
2027 $1,389 $347 $1,736
2028 $1,394 $348 $1,742
2033 $1,416 $354 $1,770
2034 $1,418 $354 $1,772
2031 $1,408 $352 $1,761
2032 $1,413 $353 $1,767
2037 $1,425 $356 $1,781
2038 $1,427 $357 $1,784
2035 $1,420 $355 $1,775
2036 $1,422 $356 $1,778
2041 $1,433 $358 $1,791
2042 $1,434 $359 $1,793
2039 $1,429 $357 $1,786
2040 $1,431 $358 $1,789
2045 $1,439 $360 $1,798
2046 $1,440 $360 $1,800
2043 $1,436 $359 $1,795
2044 $1,437 $359 $1,796
2049 $1,444 $361 $1,806
2050 $1,446 $361 $1,807
2047 $1,442 $360 $1,802
2048 $1,443 $361 $1,804
Targets
SF MF COM IND IRR ADUSF Total
0 14
2026 8 3 1 0 0 0 14
2025 8 3 1 0 0
0 14
2028 8 3 1 0 0 0 14
2027 8 3 1 0 0
0 14
2030 8 3 2 0 0 0 14
2029 8 3 2 0 0
0 14
2032 8 3 2 0 0 0 14
2031 8 3 2 0 0
0 14
2034 8 3 2 0 0 0 14
2033 8 3 2 0 0
0 14
2036 8 4 2 0 0 1 14
2035 8 3 2 0 0
1 14
2038 8 4 2 0 0 1 14
2037 8 4 2 0 0
1 14
2040 8 4 2 0 0 1 14
2039 8 4 2 0 0
1 14
2042 8 4 2 0 0 1 14
2041 8 4 2 0 0
1 14
2044 8 4 2 0 0 1 14
2043 8 4 2 0 0
1 14
2046 8 4 2 0 0 1 14
2045 8 4 2 0 0
1 14
2048 8 4 2 0 0 1 14
2047 8 4 2 0 0
1 14
2050 8 4 2 0 0 1 14
2049 8 4 2 0 0
2026 0.413922
2027 0.621930
2028 0.830581
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 0.206562
2032 1.049704
2033 1.052254
2034 1.054128
2029 1.039879
2030 1.043260
2031 1.046484
1.055428
2040 1.055289
2035 1.055329
2036 1.055856
2037 1.055709
2050 1.060530
2047 1.058265
2048 1.059021
2049 1.059776
2044 1.056109
2045 1.056758
2046 1.057509
2041 1.055231
2042 1.055348
2043 1.055641
2038 1.055566
2039
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Sprinkler to Drip
Irrigation
Retrofit
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 71 11 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
2050 9 4 2 0 0 1 16
Water Savings
2048 1.067281
2049 1.067617
2050 1.067952
2048 9 4 2 0 0 1 16
2049 9 4 2 0 0 1 16
2048 $794 $198 $992
2049 $794 $199 $993
2050 $795 $199 $994
Abbr NOZZL
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Permanent FALSE
Years 5
Repeat FALSE
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
MF $50.00
Overview
Name Spray Sprinklers to Low-Precipitation Sprinklers Retrofit
IRRADUSF
Time Period Measure Life
$160.00 1
COM $50.00 $480.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $50.00 $80.00 1
Markup Percentage 25%
Description
Provide rebate for customers to upgrade nozzles to reduce misting, runoff, and allow the water to soak into the ground more easily. Eligible materials include: Rotating or low-precipitation nozzles at 1 gallon per minute (gpm) flow or less. Does not include labor or tax.
Customer Classes
SFMFCOMIND
ADUSF $50.00 $80.00 1
Administration Costs
IND $50.00 $480.00 1
IRR $50.00 $480.00 1
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
End Uses
SFMFCOMINDIRRADUSF
Cooling
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
0.984332
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $18,906
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 1.06
Community 0.30
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Community $18,906
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $17,918
Community $63,555
SF Irrigation 20.0% 73.6
MF Irrigation 10.0% 44.9
Utility $700
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF External Leakage 5.0% 6.2
MF External Leakage 5.0% 3.8
COM Irrigation 10.0% 128.8
IND Irrigation 5.0% 758.0
IRR Irrigation 4.0% 525.3
IRR External Leakage 5.0% 27.6
COM External Leakage 5.0% 9.2
IND External Leakage 5.0% 63.2
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 0.055%
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
ADUSF Irrigation 4.0% 101.6
ADUSF External Leakage 5.0% 8.6
Costs
2026 $761 $190 $951
2027 $764 $191 $955
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2025 $758 $190 $948
2030 $772 $193 $965
2031 $775 $194 $968
2028 $766 $192 $958
2029 $769 $192 $961
2034 $780 $195 $975
2035 $781 $195 $976
2032 $777 $194 $972
2033 $779 $195 $973
2038 $785 $196 $981
2039 $786 $197 $983
2036 $782 $196 $978
2037 $784 $196 $979
2042 $789 $197 $986
2043 $790 $197 $987
2040 $787 $197 $984
2041 $788 $197 $985
2046 $792 $198 $990
2047 $793 $198 $991
2044 $790 $198 $988
2045 $791 $198 $989
"> Utility Cost: City offers a rebate of up to $50 per participant. > Customer Cost: Assuming SF and MF customers purchase up to 10 nozzles and other categories purchase up to 30, includes labor costs for installation (approximately the same as purchase costs for nozzles).
> Admin Cost: Estimated staff time required to run this measure is 0.25 hours of the Operations Assistant time, at the fully burdened rate of $49/hour, this is about a 25% markup on the utility cost.
> End Use Savings: Switching to low precipitation sprinklers can save up to 5,600 gallons per year according to the EPA (for the average household). 5,600 gallons is approximately 15 gallons per day. This represents about 2%-30% of water use depending on the customer category (as listed in end uses) and considers that there are multiple units represented per account in MF accounts to not double count savings. Assume additional savings for leak detection while switching nozzles (5% on external leakage). Savings are higher for IND and COM irrigation since these customers are assumed to incur additional costs to set up a larger system and therefore capture savings at scale for their irrigation use. > Targets: Assume about 15 rebates are awarded annually (based on historical participation data).
Targets
ADUSF Total
2025 9 4 2 0 0 0 15
SF MF COM IND IRR
0 15
2027 9 4 2 0 0 0 15
2026 9 4 2 0 0
0 15
2029 9 4 2 0 0 0 15
2028 9 4 2 0 0
0 15
2031 9 4 2 0 0 0 15
2030 9 4 2 0 0
0 16
2033 9 4 2 0 0 0 16
2032 9 4 2 0 0
1 16
2035 9 4 2 0 0 1 16
2034 9 4 2 0 0
1 16
2037 9 4 2 0 0 1 16
2036 9 4 2 0 0
1 16
2039 9 4 2 0 0 1 16
2038 9 4 2 0 0
1 16
2041 9 4 2 0 0 1 16
2040 9 4 2 0 0
1 16
2043 9 4 2 0 0 1 16
2042 9 4 2 0 0
1 16
2045 9 4 2 0 0 1 16
2044 9 4 2 0 0
1 16
2047 9 4 2 0 0 1 16
2046 9 4 2 0 0
Total Savings (afy)
2025 0.211652
2029 1.061930
2030 1.063715
2031 1.065449
2026 0.423699
2027 0.636096
2028 0.848839
1.069338
2037 1.068687
2032 1.067179
2033 1.068434
2034 1.069211
2047 1.066944
2044 1.065973
2045 1.066273
2046 1.066607
2041 1.066254
2042 1.065965
2043 1.065871
2038 1.068036
2039 1.067387
2040 1.066738
2035 1.069513
2036
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Spray Sprinklers
to LowPrecipitation
Sprinklers
Retrofit
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 72 12 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
2049 17.985675
2050 17.998445
2049 $26,155 $3,139 $29,294
2050 $26,169 $3,140 $29,310
Targets
2049 30 22 52
2050 30 22 52
2028 0 0 0
0 0 0
2031 0 0 0
2032 29 21
Abbr LK_REP
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Leak Repair Rebate
IRRADUSF
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
11.639262
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
1 Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 5
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2032
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 19
Markup Percentage 12%
Description
Customer leaks can go uncorrected at properties
where owners are least able to pay costs of repair.
This measure will provide a rebate to cover part of
the cost, with a higher rebate amount for incomequalified account holders.
Customer Classes SFMF COM IND
MF $500.00 $300.00 1
Administration Costs
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $500.00 $300.00
End Uses SFMF COM
INDIRRADUSF
> Utility Cost: City is offering a maximum rebate of $500. > Customer Cost: Income qualifying customers receive up to the maximum rebate. Costs will vary depending on the
severity of the leak, assume since targeting high users that customer costs will range from $100-$500 in addition to the rebate awarded. Use an average customer cost of $300.
> Admin Cost: Estimate that 0.5 hours of the Operations Assistant time and 0.4 hours of the Analyst II position are required per rebate to run this measure, at their respective fully burdened rates of $49/hour and $84/hour, this is a cost of $60/rebate, or a 12% markup on the utility cost.
> End Use Savings: Assume target high users where available, to achieve savings on users with 2-3x the average GPDA.
Assume savings on leaks is 70% at properties that
participate, and therefore ~210% for high user accounts.
Although leak fixes are permanent for leaks resolved
through this program, other leaks may arise (savings life is ~5 years on these significant leaks for which significant costs are incurred).
> Targets: Assume ~50 rebates awarded per year,
approximately, and that approximately 20 of these are for MF.
Utility $199,259
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Community $324,553
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $347,090
Community $533,031
Cooling
Comments
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Utility $1,147
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.57
Community 0.61
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
SF Internal Leakage 210.0% 16.6
SF External Leakage 210.0% 6.2
MF Internal Leakage
Enter Annual Targets Below
210.0% 34.2
MF External Leakage 210.0% 3.8
Targets
Costs Water Savings
SF MF Total
2027 $0 $0 $0 2027 0 0 0
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2025 0 0 0
2026
2028 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0
2026 $0 $0 $0
2031 $0 $0 $0
2032 $25,207 $3,025 $28,232
2029 $0 $0 $0
2030 $0 $0 $0
2035 $25,826 $3,099 $28,925
2036 $25,866 $3,104 $28,970
2033 $25,247 $3,030 $28,276
2034 $25,286 $3,034 $28,321
2039 $25,987 $3,118 $29,105
2040 $26,027 $3,123 $29,150
2037 $25,906 $3,109 $29,015
2038 $25,946 $3,114 $29,060
2043 $26,069 $3,128 $29,198
2044 $26,084 $3,130 $29,214
2041 $26,041 $3,125 $29,166
2042 $26,055 $3,127 $29,182
2047 $26,126 $3,135 $29,262
2048 $26,141 $3,137 $29,278
2045 $26,098 $3,132 $29,230
2046 $26,112 $3,133 $29,246
50 2029 0 0 0
2030 0 0 0
2035 30 22 52
2036 30 22 52
2033 29 21 50
2034 29 22 51
2039 30 22 52
2040 30 22 52
2037 30 22 52
2038 30 22 52
2043 30 22 52
2044 30 22 52
2041 30 22 52
2042 30 22 52
2047 30 22 52
2048 30 22 52
2045 30 22 52
2046 30 22 52
Total Savings (afy)
2025 0.000000
2026 0.000000
2030 0.000000
2031 0.000000
2032 3.468589
2027 0.000000
2028 0.000000
2029 0.000000
17.610335
2038 17.699630
2033 6.944253
2034 10.427013
2035 13.970509
2048 17.972926
2045 17.934802
2046 17.947489
2047 17.960197
2042 17.882798
2043 17.904795
2044 17.922135
2039 17.789024
2040 17.824897
2041 17.856160
2036 17.521139
2037
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Leak Repair
Rebate
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 73 13 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
Abbr HECW
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Residential Washer Rebate
IRRADUSF
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
0.635263
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 12
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2029
Measure Length 5
Markup Percentage 0%
Description
Customer Classes SFMF COM IND
MF $190.00 $1,000.00 1
Administration Costs
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $190.00 $1,000.00 1
End Uses SFMF COM
INDIRRADUSF
> Utility Cost: The City administers this rebate through CalWEP, total costs are approximately $190/rebate, and
include admin time by CalWEP staff to run this measure. > Customer Cost: Based on historical data, remaining cost to customer for purchase and installation is approximately $1,000 on average per rebate.
> Admin Cost: No admin time is required from the City, as CalWEP manages the program.
> End Use Savings: Switching from a washing machines with a medium efficiency level (integrated water factor of 9.5 or greater) to a high efficiency washing machine (IWF of 3.7 or less) represents approximately 35% of water savings for this end use. For MF, there are 3 clothes washers per
account (per WUDS), savings are divided by 3 to get savings for replacing 1 clothes washer (11% for MF).
> Targets: Based on historical data, targeting approximately 50 accounts per year (offering 1 rebate per account).
Utility $14,416
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Community $56,038
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $41,909
Community $262,484
Cooling
Comments
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Utility $2,537
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.34
Community 0.21
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 0.200%
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
SF Clothes Washers 35.0% 17.8
MF Clothes Washers 11.0% 44.4
2025 $8,908 $0 $8,908 2025 33 13 47
Offer a rebate for a high efficiency clothes washer.
Only applicable on eligible models and for replacing
an existing high-water using washer (with an
integrated water factor of 6.5 or greater).
2026 $8,897 $0 $8,897
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2029 $8,863 $0 $8,863
2030 $0 $0 $0
2027 $8,886 $0 $8,886
2028 $8,874 $0 $8,874
2033 $0 $0 $0
2034 $0 $0 $0
2031 $0 $0 $0
2032 $0 $0 $0
2037 $0 $0 $0
2038 $0 $0 $0
2035 $0 $0 $0
2036 $0 $0 $0
2041 $0 $0 $0
2042 $0 $0 $0
2039 $0 $0 $0
2040 $0 $0 $0
2045 $0 $0 $0
2046 $0 $0 $0
2043 $0 $0 $0
2044 $0 $0 $0
2049 $0 $0 $0
2050 $0 $0 $0
2047 $0 $0 $0
2048 $0 $0 $0
2026 33 14 47
Targets
SF MF Total
2029 33 14 47
2030 0 0 0
2027 33 14 47
2028 33 14 47
2033 0 0 0
2034 0 0 0
2031 0 0 0
2032 0 0 0
2037 0 0 0
2038 0 0 0
2035 0 0 0
2036 0 0 0
2041 0 0 0
2042 0 0 0
2039 0 0 0
2040 0 0 0
2045 0 0 0
2046 0 0 0
2043 0 0 0
2044 0 0 0
2049 0 0 0
2050 0 0 0
2047 0 0 0
2048 0 0 0
2026 0.603215
2027 0.890029
2028 1.167160
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 0.306587
2032 1.375690
2033 1.358992
2034 1.343607
2029 1.434725
2030 1.413443
2031 1.393804
0.512138
2040 0.254027
2035 1.329442
2036 1.316408
2037 1.042730
2050 0.000000
2047 0.000000
2048 0.000000
2049 0.000000
2044 0.000000
2045 0.000000
2046 0.000000
2041 0.000000
2042 0.000000
2043 0.000000
2038 0.774849
2039
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Residential
Washer Rebate
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 74 14 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 7.800%
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
SF Car Washing 3.0% 3.5
SF External Leakage 3.0% 6.2
SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 3.0% 15.4
SF Irrigation 3.0% 73.6
SF Pools 3.0% 1.8
SF Wash Down 3.0% 3.5
Abbr SCHOOL
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Schools Education
IRRADUSF
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
29.573106
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
1 Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 3
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
Annual Admin Costs $3,660
Description
This measure includes the City's school education
initiatives: 1) The LivingWise Program wherein 6th
garde students receive a kit containing highefficiency water and energy fixtures to install within their homes. 2) Musical assemblies for K-6 grade
students to promote water efficiency and
conservation. 3) In-class presentations to K-6 grade
students about where our water comes from and
how to conserve it. In addition, this measure
includes the WaterWise High School Video Contest
Customer Classes SFMF COM IND
MF $21.00 $0.50 1
Administration Costs
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $21.00 $0.50
End Uses SFMF COM
INDIRRADUSF
> Utility Cost: Reflects costs per student for in-class presentation, assembly, and LivingWise kit.
> Customer Cost: Minimal customer costs as savings
expected to be from behavioral changes an fixture upgrades from fixtures included in the kit (free to the customer). > Admin Cost: Fixed cost of $3,660, or 40 hours of staff time from the Analyst II position at the fully burdened rate of $84/hour.
> End Use Savings: Assume savings similar to public
education, with a focus on savings on end uses with higher user dependance that are more impacted by behavioral
changes (2% savings). Assume small additional savings (1%) since school assembly participants might be higher than 6th grade targets for the LivingWise kit and in-class
presentations, and since targets for presentations is ~1,000 according to SB. Total savings is ~3%. However, estimate at 1% for MF units since there are 3 dwelling units per account and only targeting 1.
> Targets: 1,800 students per year for all activities.
Utility $580,794
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Community $1,146,427
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $764,615
Community $781,217
Cooling
Comments
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Utility $994
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.76
Community 1.47
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
MF Showers 1.0% 56.0
MF Dishwashers 1.0% 4.8
MF Toilets 1.0% 65.1
MF Lavatory Faucets 1.0% 17.8
MF Baths 1.0% 5.9
MF Other 1.0% 8.1
MF Clothes Washers 1.0% 44.4
MF Internal Leakage 1.0% 34.2
MF Wash Down 1.0% 2.2
MF Car Washing 1.0% 2.2
MF Irrigation 1.0% 44.9
MF Pools 1.0% 1.1
SF Toilets 3.0% 20.1
SF Lavatory Faucets 3.0% 7.8
MF External Leakage 1.0% 3.8
MF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 1.0% 32.8
SF Showers 3.0% 27.2
SF Dishwashers 3.0% 2.4
SF Clothes Washers 3.0% 17.8
SF Internal Leakage 3.0% 16.6
SF Baths 3.0% 3.6
SF Other 3.0% 7.6
2025 $38,400 $3,660 $42,060
2026 $38,350 $3,660 $42,010
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2029 $38,202 $3,660 $41,862
2030 $38,153 $3,660 $41,813
2027 $38,301 $3,660 $41,961
2028 $38,252 $3,660 $41,912
2033 $38,003 $3,660 $41,663
2034 $37,952 $3,660 $41,612
2031 $38,103 $3,660 $41,763
2032 $38,053 $3,660 $41,713
2037 $37,801 $3,660 $41,461
2038 $37,750 $3,660 $41,410
2035 $37,902 $3,660 $41,562
2036 $37,852 $3,660 $41,512
2041 $37,630 $3,660 $41,290
2042 $37,612 $3,660 $41,272
2039 $37,699 $3,660 $41,359
2040 $37,648 $3,660 $41,308
2045 $37,558 $3,660 $41,218
2046 $37,540 $3,660 $41,200
2043 $37,594 $3,660 $41,254
2044 $37,576 $3,660 $41,236
2049 $37,486 $3,660 $41,146
2050 $37,468 $3,660 $41,128
2047 $37,522 $3,660 $41,182
2048 $37,504 $3,660 $41,164
2025 1,304 525 1,829
2026 1,299 527 1,826
Targets
SF MF Total
2029 1,286 533 1,819
2030 1,282 535 1,817
2027 1,295 529 1,824
2028 1,291 531 1,822
2033 1,269 541 1,810
2034 1,264 543 1,807
2031 1,278 537 1,814
2032 1,273 539 1,812
2037 1,251 549 1,800
2038 1,247 551 1,798
2035 1,260 545 1,805
2036 1,256 547 1,802
2041 1,236 556 1,792
2042 1,235 556 1,791
2039 1,242 553 1,795
2040 1,238 555 1,793
2045 1,230 558 1,788
2046 1,228 559 1,788
2043 1,233 557 1,790
2044 1,232 558 1,789
2049 1,224 561 1,785
2050 1,222 562 1,784
2047 1,227 560 1,787
2048 1,225 561 1,786
2026 21.801142
2027 32.486388
2028 32.248492
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 10.976472
2032 31.430511
2033 31.260995
2034 31.103812
2029 32.020943
2030 31.809535
2031 31.613069
30.423678
2040 30.299177
2035 30.958410
2036 30.819966
2037 30.687849
2050 29.546602
2047 29.727731
2048 29.665018
2049 29.604708
2044 29.932575
2045 29.861259
2046 29.793065
2041 30.182907
2042 30.085752
2043 30.007300
2038 30.553393
2039
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Schools
Education
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 75 15 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
Abbr CII_SUR
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name CII Water Survey
IRRADUSF
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
3.644430
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
1 Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 7
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
Annual Admin Costs $7,000
Description
City staff will conduct a comprehensive water
survey of fixtures and appliances and provide
recommendations as to how the customer can
become more water efficient and save money.
Participation in the survey is a requirement for
eligibility in the Customized CII Incentive measure.
Customer Classes SFMF COM IND
IND $250.00 $100.00 1
Administration Costs
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
COM $250.00 $100.00
End Uses SFMF COM
INDIRRADUSF
> Utility Cost: Assume $5,000 for MWM support. If there are approximately 20 participants, this is about a $250 cost per participant.
> Customer Cost: Assume costs are for fixture upgrades or to repair small leaks, average at $100.
> Admin Cost: This measure takes about 5 hours of WR
Specialist time (including one hour to coordinate with
participants), this is approximately $350 at the fully
burdened rate of $70/hour. Fixed annual cost is for
approximately 20 rebates per year.
> End Use Savings: Assume savings are from small fixture upgrades on average (5%), irrigation savings from
identification of wasteful practices (5%), correction of leaks (5%) and that some customers will achieve higher
savings from larger fixture upgrades or optimization of their commercial practices (5%). However, assume these
are high user accounts with water use 3-5x the average
GPDA, therefore savings are ~20% on indoor end uses, 5% savings for irrigation, and 5% savings for process use. > Targets: Based on historical data, there has not been much participation in this measure, assuming additional efforts are undertaken to identify and recruit participants.
Utility $68,174
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Community $215,445
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $180,527
Community $201,234
Cooling
Comments
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Utility $1,905
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.38
Community 1.07
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
COM Showers 20.0% 36.6
IND Showers 20.0% 49.6
COM Lavatory Faucets 20.0% 20.3
IND Lavatory Faucets 20.0% 124.9
COM Process 5.0% 81.3
IND Process 5.0% 495.6
COM Dishwashers 20.0% 24.4
IND Dishwashers 20.0% 66.1
IND Internal Leakage 20.0% 165.2
COM Irrigation 5.0% 128.8
COM Kitchen Spray Rinse 20.0% 20.3
COM Internal Leakage 20.0% 40.7
IND External Leakage 20.0% 63.2
COM Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 20.0% 20.3
IND Irrigation 5.0% 758.0
COM External Leakage 20.0% 9.2
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 0.340%
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
IND Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 20.0% 106.4
IND Kitchen Spray Rinse 20.0% 0.0
2025 $2,377 $7,000 $9,377
2026 $2,440 $7,000 $9,440
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2029 $2,629 $7,000 $9,629
2030 $2,692 $7,000 $9,692
2027 $2,503 $7,000 $9,503
2028 $2,566 $7,000 $9,566
2033 $2,834 $7,000 $9,834
2034 $2,850 $7,000 $9,850
2031 $2,755 $7,000 $9,755
2032 $2,818 $7,000 $9,818
2037 $2,898 $7,000 $9,898
2038 $2,915 $7,000 $9,915
2035 $2,866 $7,000 $9,866
2036 $2,882 $7,000 $9,882
2041 $2,965 $7,000 $9,965
2042 $2,981 $7,000 $9,981
2039 $2,932 $7,000 $9,932
2040 $2,948 $7,000 $9,948
2045 $3,033 $7,000 $10,033
2046 $3,050 $7,000 $10,050
2043 $2,999 $7,000 $9,999
2044 $3,016 $7,000 $10,016
2049 $3,101 $7,000 $10,101
2050 $3,118 $7,000 $10,118
2047 $3,067 $7,000 $10,067
2048 $3,084 $7,000 $10,084
2025 9 0 10
2026 10 0 10
Targets
COM IND Total
2029 10 0 11
2030 11 0 11
2027 10 0 10
2028 10 0 10
2033 11 0 11
2034 11 0 11
2031 11 0 11
2032 11 0 11
2037 11 0 12
2038 11 0 12
2035 11 0 11
2036 11 0 12
2041 12 0 12
2042 12 0 12
2039 12 0 12
2040 12 0 12
2045 12 0 12
2046 12 0 12
2043 12 0 12
2044 12 0 12
2049 12 0 12
2050 12 0 12
2047 12 0 12
2048 12 0 12
2026 1.019353
2027 1.545953
2028 2.084114
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 0.504116
2032 3.858564
2033 3.935050
2034 4.001910
2029 2.634083
2030 3.196065
2031 3.770217
4.193841
2040 4.213794
2035 4.059247
2036 4.107027
2037 4.145308
2050 4.432463
2047 4.363456
2048 4.386215
2049 4.409252
2044 4.297039
2045 4.318856
2046 4.340989
2041 4.233960
2042 4.254499
2043 4.275551
2038 4.174260
2039
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
CII Water Survey
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 76 16 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
Abbr IRR_EVAL
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Irrigation Evaluation
Customer Classes
SFMFCOMINDIRRADUSF
FALSE
Years 7
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2030
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 21
Description
All public and private irrigators of large landscapes would be eligible for free landscape water surveys upon request. Normally those with high water use would be targeted and provided a customized report.
IND $800.00 $250.00 1
IRR $800.00 $250.00 1
End Uses
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $2,555
MF $800.00 $250.00 1
COM $800.00 $250.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $800.00 $250.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent
> Utility Cost: Costs assume program is contracted through a regional partner and includes costs for inspection and administrative time to run the measure (charged by the contractor).
> Admin Cost: Admin costs to run the measure are included in the Utility cost.
This admin cost represents the estimate of overall supervisory/management time for the Analyst II position (~20 hours per year at the fully burdened rate of $84/hour) in addition to 0.25 hours/survey from the WR Specialist position (at the fully burdened rate of $70/hour)
> End Use Savings: Assume savings are for irrigation and leak corrections, savings range for irrigation upgrades, i.e. for nozzle rebate and drip irrigation rebate are ~15%, with 5% savings for leak corrections. However, assume accounts targeted have water use 3-5x the average GPDA, so savings are ~45% on irrigation and ~15% on leaks.
> Targets: Assume target approximately 50 accounts per year.
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
11.053243
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
ADUSF
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
$192,939
Community $192,939
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $574,646
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Cooling
Comments
Dishwashers
SFMFCOMINDIRR
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
Utility $2,000
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Community $743,302
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.34
Community 0.26
COM Irrigation 45.0% 128.8
IND Irrigation 45.0% 758.0
SF Irrigation 45.0% 73.6
MF Irrigation 45.0% 44.9
MF External Leakage 15.0% 3.8
COM External Leakage 15.0% 9.2
IRR Irrigation 45.0% 525.3
SF External Leakage 15.0% 6.2
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 0.180%
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
IND External Leakage 15.0% 63.2
IRR External Leakage 15.0% 27.6
2025 $0 $0 $0
2026 $0 $0 $0
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2029 $0 $0 $0
2030 $39,402 $2,555 $41,957
2027 $0 $0 $0
2028 $0 $0 $0
2033 $39,511 $2,555 $42,066
2034 $39,494 $2,555 $42,049
2031 $39,465 $2,555 $42,020
2032 $39,528 $2,555 $42,083
2037 $39,443 $2,555 $41,998
2038 $39,426 $2,555 $41,981
2035 $39,477 $2,555 $42,032
2036 $39,460 $2,555 $42,015
2041 $39,402 $2,555 $41,957
2042 $39,414 $2,555 $41,969
2039 $39,410 $2,555 $41,965
2040 $39,393 $2,555 $41,948
2045 $39,454 $2,555 $42,009
2046 $39,467 $2,555 $42,022
2043 $39,428 $2,555 $41,983
2044 $39,441 $2,555 $41,996
2049 $39,506 $2,555 $42,061
2050 $39,519 $2,555 $42,074
2047 $39,480 $2,555 $42,035
2048 $39,493 $2,555 $42,048
Targets
SF MF COM IND IRR Total
0 2026 0 0 0 0 0 0
2025 0 0 0 0 0
0 2028 0 0 0 0 0 0
2027 0 0 0 0 0
0 2030 30 12 6 0 2 49
2029 0 0 0 0 0
49 2032 29 12 6 0 2 49
2031 29 12 6 0 2
49 2034 29 13 6 0 2 49
2033 29 12 6 0 2
49 2036 29 13 6 0 2 49
2035 29 13 6 0 2
49 2038 29 13 6 0 2 49
2037 29 13 6 0 2
49 2040 29 13 6 0 2 49
2039 29 13 6 0 2
49 2042 28 13 6 0 2 49
2041 29 13 6 0 2
49 2044 28 13 6 0 2 49
2043 28 13 6 0 2
49 2046 28 13 6 0 2 49
2045 28 13 6 0 2
49 2048 28 13 6 0 2 49
2047 28 13 6 0 2
49 2050 28 13 6 0 2 49
2049 28 13 6 0 2
2026 0.000000
2027 0.000000
2028 0.000000
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2025 0.000000
2032 6.822958
2033 9.103935
2034 11.384585
2029 0.000000
2030 2.267382
2031 4.541693
15.960247
2040 15.958120
2035 13.664932
2036 15.944934
2037 15.957237
2050 16.023803
2047 15.989590
2048 16.000960
2049 16.012387
2044 15.964566
2045 15.970995
2046 15.979323
2041 15.956848
2042 15.957449
2043 15.960031
2038 15.962353
2039
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Irrigation
Evaluation
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 77 17 ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
Abbr CII_IN
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Customized CII Incentive
IRRADUSF
Results
Average Water Savings (afy)
14.923864
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
1 Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 15
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2025
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
Markup Percentage 1%
Description
This measure models an incentive program for CII
users that will be conducted after analyzing the
recommendations on the findings report that is
provided through the CII Water Survey measure. The
City will review the survey report and determine if
the site qualifies for a rebate. Financial incentives
will be provided after analyzing the cost benefit
ratio of each proposed project. Rebates are tailored
to each individual site as each site has varying water
savings potential.
Customer Classes SFMF COM IND
IND $11,000.00 $22,000.00 1
Administration Costs
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
COM $11,000.00 $22,000.00
End Uses SFMF COM
INDIRRADUSF
> Utility Cost: Assume average rebate amount is $11,000 (maximum rebate is $15,000).
> Admin Cost: Estimate staff time to run this measure is 1.5 hours of WR Specialist time (at the fully burdned rate of $70/hour). This is approximately 0.6% of the utility cost. > End Use Savings: Assume conservative savings on process use (10%) and 10% savings on other end uses (faucets,
irrigation, toilets, urinals, dishwashers). However, assume rebate is only available to very high users with water use 5- 10x the average GPDA (such as SB College). Savings are
multiplied by 8 to reflect savings for high users.
> Targets: Assume target approximately 3-5 accounts per year.
Utility $266,431
Pools
Wash Down
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Community $665,563
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $673,947
Community $2,013,801
Cooling
Comments
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Utility $1,737
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.40
Community 0.33
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/af)
COM Urinals 80.0% 16.3
IND Urinals 80.0% 99.1
COM Toilets 80.0% 61.0
IND Toilets 80.0% 247.8
COM Showers 80.0% 36.6
IND Showers 80.0% 49.6
COM Lavatory Faucets 80.0% 20.3
IND Lavatory Faucets 80.0% 124.9
COM Clothes Washers 80.0% 61.0
IND Clothes Washers 80.0% 132.1
COM Dishwashers 80.0% 24.4
IND Dishwashers 80.0% 66.1
COM Kitchen Spray Rinse 80.0% 20.3
COM Internal Leakage 80.0% 40.7
COM Process 10.0% 81.3
IND Process 10.0% 495.6
IND Irrigation 80.0% 758.0
COM External Leakage 80.0% 9.2
IND Internal Leakage 80.0% 165.2
COM Irrigation 80.0% 128.8
IND Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 80.0% 106.4
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 0.100%
IND External Leakage 80.0% 63.2
COM Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 80.0% 20.3
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
Targets
COM IND Total
Water Savings
Total Savings (afy)
2027 $32,388 $194 $32,582
2028 $33,204 $199 $33,403
2025 $30,756 $185 $30,941
2026 $31,572 $189 $31,761
2031 $35,651 $214 $35,865
2032 $36,467 $219 $36,686
2029 $34,020 $204 $34,224
2030 $34,836 $209 $35,045
2035 $37,093 $223 $37,316
2036 $37,301 $224 $37,525
2033 $36,676 $220 $36,896
2034 $36,884 $221 $37,106
2039 $37,940 $228 $38,167
2040 $38,154 $229 $38,383
2037 $37,510 $225 $37,735
2038 $37,725 $226 $37,951
2044 $39,026 $234 $39,260
2041 $38,369 $230 $38,599
2042 $38,584 $232 $38,815
2050 $40,353 $242 $40,595
2047 $39,689 $238 $39,927
2048 $39,910 $239 $40,150
2025 3 0 3
2049 $40,132 $241 $40,372
2045 $39,247 $235 $39,482
2046 $39,468 $237 $39,705
2043 $38,805 $233 $39,038
2028 3 0 3
2029 3 0 3
2026 3 0 3
2027 3 0 3
2032 3 0 3
2033 3 0 3
2030 3 0 3
2031 3 0 3
2036 3 0 3
2037 3 0 3
2034 3 0 3
2035 3 0 3
2040 3 0 3
2041 3 0 3
2038 3 0 3
2039 3 0 3
2025 1.191291
2048 4 0 4
2046 4 0 4
2047 4 0 4
2044 3 0 4
2045 4
2026 2.408930
2027 3.653553
2028 4.925339
2050 4 0 4
2049 4 0 4
0 4
2042 3 0 4
2043 3 0 4
2032 10.289745
2033 11.674684
2034 13.057340
2029 6.224515
2030 7.551482
2031 8.906442
20.017407
2035 14.440407
2036 15.827328
2037 17.218665
2050 21.699382
2047 21.394256
2048 21.494248
2049 21.596003
2044 21.036606
2045 21.176771
2046 21.296010
2041 20.490237
2042 20.693161
2043 20.875413
2038 18.615324
2039
2040 20.265927
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Customized CII
Incentive
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 78 18 ## ## ## ## ## ##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
Overview
Name Restaurant Spray Nozzles
Customer Classes SFMF
ADUSF
FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2032
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 19
Abbr SPRY_NOZ
Category 2
Measure Type 1
End Uses
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $2,930
Description
Rebate 1.15 gpm (or lower) spray nozzles for the
rinse and clean operation in restaurants and other
commercial kitchens. Stack with existing SoCalGas
rebate
https://www.socalgas.com/business/savings/equip
ment-rebates
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
COM $20.00 $5.00 2
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 5
Repeat
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)
0.002039
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
ADUSF
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
SFMFCOMINDIRR
COMINDIRR
Community $96,337
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.46
Community 3.13
$39,024
Community $301,506
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $84,090
COM Kitchen Spray Rinse 30.0% 20.3
Targets
% of Accts Targeted / yr 3.000%
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $4,344
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Only Effects New Accts FALSE
Costs
Utility Customer Total
Targets
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Cooling
Comments
> Utility Cost: City plans to provide $20 rebate in addition to the Socalgas rebate.
> Admin Cost: Admin cost is approximately $12.5/rebate at the fully burdened rate of $49/hour. An additional
$17/rebate are from overall staff time required from the Analyst II position to oversee the design and
implementation of the program. Total costs are ~$2,930 for the targets.
> End Use Savings: Assume replacing 1.6gpm or greater
spray valve with 1.15gpm or lower spray valve.
> Targets: Target approximately ~100 accounts per year.
COM Total
2027 $0 $0 $0
2028 $0 $0 $0
2025 $0 $0 $0
2026 $0 $0 $0
2031 $0 $0 $0
2032 $6,835 $976 $7,811
2029 $0 $0 $0
2030 $0 $0 $0
2035 $6,902 $993 $7,895
2036 $6,924 $999 $7,923
2033 $6,857 $982 $7,839
2034 $6,880 $987 $7,867
2039 $6,992 $1,016 $8,008
2040 $7,015 $1,021 $8,037
2037 $6,947 $1,004 $7,951
2038 $6,970 $1,010 $7,979
$1,045 $8,153
2041 $7,038 $1,027 $8,066
2042 $7,061 $1,033 $8,094
2050 $7,251 $1,080 $8,331
2047 $7,180 $1,062 $8,242
2048 $7,203 $1,068 $8,272
2025 0 0
2049 $7,227 $1,074 $8,301
2045 $7,132 $1,051 $8,183
2046 $7,156 $1,057 $8,213
2043 $7,085 $1,039 $8,124
2044 $7,109
2028 0 0
2029 0 0
2026 0 0
2027 0 0
2032 98 98
2033 98 98
2030 0 0
2031 0 0
2036 100 100
2037 100 100
2034 99 99
2035 99 99
2040 102 102
2041 103 103
2038 101 101
2039 102 102
104
2045 105 105
2042 103 103
2043 104 104
2050 108 108
Water Savings
Total Savings (mgd)
2025 0.000000
2026
2048 107 107
2049 107 107
2046 106 106
2047 106 106
2044 104
2030 0.000000
2031 0.000000
2032 0.000596
0.000000
2027 0.000000
2028 0.000000
2029 0.000000
2036 0.003012
2037 0.003029
2038 0.003046
2033 0.001195
2034 0.001797
2035 0.002403
2048 0.003223
2049 0.003241
2050 0.003259
2045 0.003169
2046 0.003187
2047 0.003205
2042 0.003116
2043 0.003133
2044 0.003151
2039 0.003063
2040 0.003081
2041 0.003098
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Restaurant
Spray Nozzles
Appendix E • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 79 19 ## ## ## ## ## ##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
##
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)
Overview
Name Regulation Requirements
Customer Classes SFMF COM IND
IRRADUSF
0.000000
Last Year 2050
Measure Length 26
Abbr REQ
Category 2
Measure Type 1
End Uses
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 0%
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $84.00 $0.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 1
Repeat FALSE
Time Period
First Year 2025
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
ADUSF
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
SFMF
$0
Community $0
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $444,988
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Cooling
Comments
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor Other
COMINDIRR
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $0
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Community $444,988
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.00
Community 0.00
Costs
Utility Customer Total
SF Other 0.0% 7.6
Targets
Enter Annual Targets Below
> Utility cost: this cost reflects the fully burdened rate of the Analyst position, as it is expected this position will be completing the compliance activities captured in this
measure.
> Targets: these estimates reflect the total hours annually for compliance activities (as needed for reporting and
administration).
Description
This measure captures the staff time requirements
to comply with reporting and administration of the
Making Conservation a California Way of Life
Regulation, SAFER reporting, and AB 1572. No
savings are assumed for this measure. Targets
reflect staff time hours estimated to complete
compliance work on an annual basis.
Targets
SF Total
2027 $24,696 $0 $24,696
2028 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2025 $23,688 $0 $23,688
2026 $29,568 $0 $29,568
2031 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2032 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2029 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2030 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2035 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2036 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2033 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2034 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2039 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2040 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2037 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2038 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2044 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2041 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2042 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2050 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2047 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2048 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2025 282 282
2049 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2045 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2046 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2043 $23,856 $0 $23,856
2028 284 284
2029 284 284
2026 352 352
2027 294 294
2032 284 284
2033 284 284
2030 284 284
2031 284 284
2036 284 284
2037 284 284
2034 284 284
2035 284 284
2040 284 284
2041 284 284
2038 284 284
2039 284 284
284
2045 284 284
2042 284 284
2043 284 284
2050 284 284
Water Savings
Total Savings (mgd)
2025 0.000000
2026
2048 284 284
2049 284 284
2046 284 284
2047 284 284
2044 284
2030 0.000000
2031 0.000000
2032 0.000000
0.000000
2027 0.000000
2028 0.000000
2029 0.000000
2036 0.000000
2037 0.000000
2038 0.000000
2033 0.000000
2034 0.000000
2035 0.000000
2048 0.000000
2049 0.000000
2050 0.000000
2045 0.000000
2046 0.000000
2047 0.000000
2042 0.000000
2043 0.000000
2044 0.000000
2039 0.000000
2040 0.000000
2041 0.000000
Method:
Units
Method:
Target Method:
View: View Units
Regulation
Requirements
Appendix F • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 80 Appendix F – Conservation Analysis Results
1 For example, if two measures are planned to address the same end use and both save 10% of the prior water use, then the net effect is not the simple sum of 20%. Rather, it is the cumulative impact of the first measure reducing the use to 90% of what it was originally, without the first measure in place. Then, the revised use of 90% is reduced by another 10% (10% x 90% = 9%) to result in the use being 81% (90% - 9% = 81%). In this example, the net savings is 19%, not 20%. Using impact factors, the model computes the reduction as follows, 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 or 19% water savings.
This appendix presents benefit and cost analysis
results for individual conservation measure
and overall conservation programs. Table F-1
presents how much water the measures will
save through 2050, how much they will cost, and
the cost of saved water per unit volume if the
measures were to be implemented on a standalone basis (i.e., without interaction or overlap from other measures that might address the same
end use or uses). Savings from measures which
address the same end use(s) are not additive;
the model uses impact factors to avoid double
counting in estimating the water savings from
programs of measures.1 This is why a measure
like Public Education may show a distorted cost
in comparison to water saved. Most, if not all,
measures rely on public awareness. However,
it is important to note that water savings are
more directly attributable to an “active” measure,
like a toilet rebate, than the less “active” public
education/awareness measure that informs the
community of the active measure.
Since interaction between measures has not been accounted for in Table F-1, it is not appropriate to include totals at the bottom of the table. However, the table is useful to give a close approximation of the cost effectiveness of each measure.
Cost categories are defined as follows:
• Utility Costs – Costs the City will incur, as a water utility, to operate measure, including administrative costs.
• Utility Benefits – The avoided cost of producing water at the identified rate $1,078/AF. More information about the source of this value can be found in Section 4.3.
• Customer (Community) Costs – Those costs customers will incur to implement a measure in the City’s conservation program and maintain its effectiveness over the life of the measure. • Customer (Community) Benefits – The additional savings, such as energy savings resulting from reduced use of hot water. These savings are additional as customers also would have reduced water bills (since the Utility Costs and Benefits transfer to the customers). • Community Costs – Includes Utility Costs plus Customer Costs. • Community Benefits – Includes Utility Benefits plus
Customer Benefits.
The column headings in Table F-1 are defined as follows:
• Present Value (PV) of Utility and Community Costs and Benefits ($) – the present value of the 31-year time stream of annual costs or benefits, discounted to the base year.
• Utility Benefit to Cost Ratio – PV of Utility Costs divided by PV of Utility Benefits over 26 years.
• Community Benefit to Cost Ratio – (PV of Utility Benefits plus PV of customer energy savings) divided by (PV of Utility Costs plus PV of Customer Costs), over 26 years.
• Five Years of Water Utility Costs ($) – sum of annual Utility Costs for 2026-2030. Measures start in the years as specified for each measure shown in Appendix E. Utility costs include administrative costs and staff labor.
• Water Savings in 2030 (AFY) – water saved in acre-feet per year. • Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/AF) – PV of Utility Costs over 26 years divided by the 26-year water savings. The analysis period is 2025–2050. This value is compared to the utility’s avoided cost of water as one indicator of the cost effectiveness of conservation efforts. Note that this value somewhat minimizes the cost of savings because program costs are discounted to present value, but water benefits are not.
Appendix F • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 81 Table F-1. Estimated Conservation Measure Costs and Savings Measure
Name
Present
Value of
Water Utility
Benefits
Present Value
of Community
Benefits
Present Value of
Water Utility Costs
Present Value of
Community Costs
Water
Utility
Benefit to
Cost Ratio
Community
Benefit to
Cost Ratio
Five Years of
Water Utility
Costs
(2026-2030)
Water
Savings
in 2030
(AFY)
Cost of
Savings
per Unit
Volume
($/AF)
Commercial
CII Water Survey $68,174 $215,445 $180,527 $201,234 0.38 1.07 $47,829 3.20 $1,905 Customized
CII Incentive $266,431 $665,563 $673,947 $2,013,801 0.40 0.33 $167,015 7.55 $1,737 Restaurant Spray
Nozzles Rebate $39,024 $301,506 $84,090 $96,337 0.46 3.13 0 0.00 $1,415 Irrigation
Irrigation Evaluation $192,939 $192,939 $574,646 $743,302 0.34 0.26 $41,957 2.27 $2,000 Sprinkler to Drip
Irrigation Retrofit $18,646 $18,646 $32,579 $110,768 0.57 0.17 $8,710 1.04 $1,289 Sustainable Lawn
Replacement Rebate $320,237 $320,237 $571,765 $2,612,430 0.56 0.12 $276,501 13.56 $1,249 Spray Sprinklers to
Low-Precipitation
Sprinklers Retrofit
$18,906 $18,906 $17,918 $63,555 1.06 0.30 $4,790 1.06 $700 Smart Sprinkler
Timer Rebate $50,633 $50,633 $43,056 $131,670 1.18 0.38 $11,511 2.84 $628 Water Efficient
Landscape
Standards
$282,278 $282,278 $54,046 $64,993 5.22 4.34 $14,449 7.08 $128 Mulch Delivery Rebate $16,413 $16,413 $86,746 $116,867 0.19 0.14 $23,204 0.82 $4,013 Residential
Residential Rebates
for HECW $14,416 $56,038 $41,909 $262,484 0.34 0.21 $35,519 1.41 $2,537 Plumber Initiated
High Efficiency Toilet
Retrofit ProgramE
$35,534 $35,534 $163,124 $163,124 0.22 0.22 $19,985 0.33 $3,019 Appendix F • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 82 Measure
Name
Present
Value of
Water Utility
Benefits
Present Value
of Community
Benefits
Present Value of
Water Utility Costs
Present Value of
Community Costs
Water
Utility
Benefit to
Cost Ratio
Community
Benefit to
Cost Ratio
Five Years of
Water Utility
Costs
(2026-2030)
Water
Savings
in 2030
(AFY)
Cost of
Savings
per Unit
Volume
($/AF)
Community & Education
School
Education $580,794 $1,146,427 $764,615 $781,217 0.76 1.47 $209,558 31.81 $994 General
Public Education $258,840 $258,840 $2,675,630 $2,975,012 0.10 0.09 $715,317 12.97 $7,868 Green Gardener
Program $285,017 $285,017 $44,146 $239,619 6.46 1.19 $12,000 14.55 $117 Leak Assistance
AMI Customer
Portal and
Leak Alerts
$6,202,262 $8,356,308 $2,347,215 $32,450,004 2.64 0.26 $627,517 305.66 $286 Leak Detection
Device Rebate $129,739 $179,718 $118,847 $264,800 1.09 0.68 $31,773 7.14 $674 Leak Repair RebateE $199,259 $324,553 $347,090 $533,031 0.57 0.61 $0 0.00 $1,147 Additional information about the water reduction methodology, perspectives on benefits and costs, and assumptions about present value parameters and measure costs/savings can be found earlier in this Plan in Appendix D.
The following table shows each conservation program’s present value of water savings and utility costs, as well as cost of water saved. See Appendix D for a more detailed explanation of present value.
Table F-2. Comparison of Program Estimated Costs and Water Savings Conservation Program Water Utility Present Value
of Water Savings
Water Utility Present Value
of Utility Costs
Water Utility Cost of Water Saved
($/AF)
Program A with Plumbing Code $8,293,612 $7,652,947 $691 Program B with Plumbing Code $8,479,360 $8,163,161 $719 Program C with Plumbing Code $8,695,636 $8,821,897 $756 Note: Costs presented in the table above are directly attributable to the City’s conservation program only. Present value costs and savings are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 83 Appendix G – Regional Water Efficiency
Program (RWEP) Annual Report FY2023-2024
Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 84 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 85 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 86 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 87 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 88 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 89 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 90 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 91 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 92 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 93 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 94 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 95 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 96 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 97 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 98 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 99 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 100 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 101 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 102 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 103 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 104 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 105 Appendix G • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 106 Appendix H - Outreach Examples • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 107 Appendix H – Outreach Examples
H.1 Social Media Examples
“Let the rain do the work!” Landscape Campaign
Appendix H - Outreach Examples • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 108 H.2 Online Example
City of Santa Barbara’s Water Wise Landscaping “Tree Watering” Web Page Source: City of Santa Barbara Tree Watering web page.
Appendix H - Outreach Examples • CITY OF SANTA BARBARA WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIC PLAN • MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT INC. 109 H.3 Print Ad Examples
Public Draft
2025 Water
Shortage
Contingency Plan
MAY 2026 CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
2025 Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
MAY 2026
Public Draft
Prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the City of Santa Barbara. The primary contributors are listed below.
Dakota Corey, Water Supply & Services Manager
Jasmine Showers, Water Resources Analyst
Dana Hoffenberg, Water Resources Analyst
Madeline Wood, Water Conservation Analyst
The 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan was prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc.
The primary authors are listed below.
Heather Freed, PE
Corinne Watson, EIT
Rob Morrow, PE
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Water Service Reliability Analysis.................................................................................... 2
2.1 Supply Characterization............................................................................................... 2
2.2 Supply and Demand Assessment ................................................................................ 3
2.3 2026-2030 Drought Risk Assessment.......................................................................... 4
2.4 Water Supply Reliability Risks ..................................................................................... 5
3.0 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Procedures .......................................... 7
4.0 Water Shortage Stages ................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Normal Supply Stage..................................................................................................10
4.2 Stage 1 Water Shortage Condition: Water Shortage Watch ........................................10
4.3 Stage 2 Water Shortage Condition: Water Shortage Alert...........................................11
4.4 Stage 3 Water Shortage Condition: Water Shortage Emergency ................................12
4.5 Stage 4 Water Shortage Condition: Catastrophic Water System Emergency ..............13
4.6 Standard Water Level Crosswalk ................................................................................13
5.0 Shortage Response Actions ...........................................................................................14
5.1 Demand Reduction .....................................................................................................14
5.2 Supply Augmentation..................................................................................................19
5.3 Operational Changes ..................................................................................................19
5.4 Emergency Response Plan.........................................................................................20
5.5 Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan ............................................................24
5.6 Shortage Response Action Effectiveness ...................................................................25
6.0 Communication Protocols...............................................................................................25
7.0 Compliance and Enforcement ........................................................................................27
8.0 Legal Authority ...............................................................................................................27
9.0 Financial Consequences of WSCP Implementation........................................................27
10.0 Monitoring and Reporting............................................................................................29
11.0 WSCP Refinement Procedures...................................................................................29
12.0 Special Water Feature Distinction...............................................................................30
13.0 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability ...................................................................30 References ...............................................................................................................................32 Attachment 1- Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 14.20 ..................................................... I Attachment 2- Water Shortage Resolution ................................................................................. II City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | ii
Attachment 3- City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex.................................III Attachment 4- Water Rates....................................................................................................... IV Attachment 5- Notifications ........................................................................................................ V Attachment 6- Resolution Approving the WSCP........................................................................ VI City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. 2026-2030 Drought Risk Assessment, Supply and Demand Projections.................. 5 Figure 3-1. City of Santa Barbara Annual Water Assessment Timeline...................................... 8 Figure 4-1. Water Shortage Stages Crosswalk..........................................................................13 City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Supply and Demand Comparison Summary (AFY) ................................................... 4 Table 2-2. Supply Risks ............................................................................................................. 6 Table 4-1. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels ................................................................. 9 Table 5-1. Demand Reduction Actions......................................................................................15 Table 5-2. Supply Augmentation and Other Actions..................................................................19 Table 5-3.Catastrophic Interruption Scenarios ..........................................................................22 Table 5-4. Area Inspection Groups after a Catastrophic Interruption Scenario ..........................23 Table 6-1. Communication Protocol During Water Shortage Conditions ...................................25 City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | v
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
AF Acre-feet
AFY Acre-feet per Year
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure
CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
CITY City of Santa Barbara
COMB Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board
CWC California Water Code
DCR Delivery Capability Report
DWR Department of Water Resources
LTWSP Long-Term Water Supply Plan
SBMC Santa Barbara Municipal Code
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SWP State Water Project
USBR US Bureau of Reclamation
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 1
1.0 Introduction
This Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) is a detailed plan for how the City of Santa Barbara (City) intends to respond to water shortages. The WSCP is used to provide guidance to the City’s Water Commission and City Council, staff, and the public by identifying response actions to allow for efficient and equitable management of water shortages.
Water shortages can be triggered by a hydrologic limitation in supply (i.e., a prolonged period of below-normal precipitation and runoff); limitations or failure of supply, treatment, and/or conveyance infrastructure; or both. Hydrologic or drought limitations tend to develop and abate more slowly, whereas infrastructure failure tends to happen quickly and relatively unpredictably.
Water supplies may be interrupted or reduced significantly in several ways, such as during a drought that limits supplies; a catastrophic event, such as an earthquake, that damages water delivery or storage facilities; a regional power outage; or a toxic spill that affects water quality.
The WSCP describes the following:
1. Water Service Reliability Analysis: Summarizes the City’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 stages and response actions.
3. Water Shortage Stages: Establishes water shortage stages 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.
5. Communication Protocols: Describes communication protocols under each stage to ensure customers, the public, and government agencies are informed of shortage conditions and requirements.
6. Compliance and Enforcement: Defines compliance and enforcement actions available to administer demand reductions.
7. Legal Authority: Lists the legal documents that grant the City the authority to declare a water shortage and implement and enforce response actions.
8. Financial Consequences of WSCP Implementation: Describes the anticipated financial impact of implementing water shortage stages and identifies mitigation strategies to offset financial burdens.
9. Monitoring and Reporting: Summarizes the monitoring and reporting techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of shortage response actions and overall WSCP City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 2
implementation. Results are used to determine if shortage response actions should be adjusted.
10. WSCP Refinement Procedures: Describes the factors that may trigger updates to the WSCP and outlines how to complete an update.
11. Plan Adoption, Submittal, and Availability: Describes the process for the WSCP adoption, submittal, and availability after each revision.
2.0 Water Service Reliability Analysis
Chapter 7 of the City’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) describes the reliability of the City’s water supply by comparing supply and demand projections through 2050 for a normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. The chapter also assesses the drought risk over the next five years (2026–2030) assuming the driest five-year period is repeated over the next five years.
Water supply reliability reflects the City’s ability to meet the water needs of its customers with available water supplies under varying conditions. The analysis considers plausible hydrological and regulatory variability, climate conditions, and other factors that affect the City’s water supply and demand. The following is a concise narrative of the assessment. Refer to the City’s 2025 UWMP for the full assessment.
2.1 Supply Characterization
The diversity of the City’s water supply portfolio is an important factor in assessing the reliability of the water supply under a variety of hydrologic conditions as well as the ability to store multiple years of demand in Lake Cachuma. In normal conditions, the City’s primary water supply is surface water from the Santa Ynez River stored in both Lake Cachuma and Gibraltar Reservoir, including carryover storage from unused Cachuma allocations, and desalination. These supplies are augmented with limited groundwater production (which is typically preserved by the City for droughts and emergencies), State Water Project (SWP) deliveries, and recycled water. These additional supplies typically offset any reduced inflows into Lake Cachuma and Gibraltar Reservoir that would occur in a single year of below-average rainfall conditions.
A single dry year has little effect on availability of Cachuma supplies, because the multiyear reservoir typically has storage available from previous years. However, because Gibraltar is a much smaller reservoir than Cachuma, available supply from Gibraltar Reservoir could potentially be significantly reduced, depending on how dry the year is. In this situation, the City’s annual water supply assessment will determine whether to offset the supply deficiency with added State Water deliveries, increased groundwater pumping, or additional use of Cachuma supplies.
The critical drought period for the City’s water supply occurs when there are multiple consecutive years of below-average rainfall. This is due to the hydrology of the Santa Ynez River, where little or no inflow to Cachuma Reservoir occurs until there is at least a year of City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 3
average rainfall. When the condition of average or less rainfall continues for multiple years in succession, the storage level of Cachuma Reservoir drops and shortages in deliveries occur.
2.2 Supply and Demand Assessment
For the water service reliability analysis, the following supply availability assumptions were applied for the normal, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions for each of the City’s supplies:
• Normal Year: Average supply availability during the entire 1942–2019 simulation • Single Dry Year: The year with the lowest water supply available to the City (2016) • Multiple Dry Year: The five-year historical sequence with the lowest precipitation at Lake Cachuma (2012–2016)
As shown in Table 2-1, the City has sufficient supplies to meet demands in a normal year, a single dry year, and multiple dry years, with the need for 20% extraordinary conservation above and beyond the City’s regular water conservation program in the fifth year of a five-year drought.
As shown in the table, in normal years, the City has roughly an excess of 7,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of available supplies that can be used to prepare for dry periods. For example, unused Cachuma Project water could be stored for use in future years as carryover water. This approach is shown in a single dry year with no Cachuma Project allocations or Gibraltar Reservoir supplies; the City can meet demands through the use of carryover water storage at Lake Cachuma. In multiple dry years, due to limited supplies and assuming no Cachuma carryover water availability in the last two years of a five-year drought, demands are assumed to be reduced by 20% through extraordinary conservation11 measures in the fifth year. During the 2014 - 2019 extended drought, City customers achieved 40% conservation, so the City is confident extraordinary conservation can be achieved during an extended drought, if necessary. 1 Extraordinary conservation is additional conservation measures above and beyond the City’s regular water conservation program that are required to enable the City to meet water demands using available supplies.
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 4
Table 2-1. Supply and Demand Comparison Summary (AFY)
Year Item1 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Normal
Year
Supply Totals 19,260 19,210 19,160 19,110 19,060
Demand Totals 12,400 12,480 12,540 12,560 12,600
Difference 6,860 6,730 6,620 6,560 6,470
Single Dry
Year
Supply Totals 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420 12,420
Demand Totals2 12,400 11,980 12,030 12,050 12,090
Difference 20 440 390 370 330
Multiple Dry Years
First Year
(2012)
Supply Totals 23,460 23,460 23,460 23,460 23,460
Demand Totals 12,400 12,480 12,540 12,560 12,600
Difference 11,060 10,980 10,920 10,900 10,860
Second
Year
(2013)
Supply Totals 22,450 22,370 22,310 22,290 22,250
Demand Totals 12,400 12,480 12,540 12,560 12,600
Difference 10,050 9,890 9,770 9,740 9,650
Third Year
(2014)
Supply Totals 19,440 19,270 19,160 19,120 19,040
Demand Totals 12,400 12,480 12,540 12,560 12,600
Difference 7,040 6,790 6,620 6,570 6,440
Fourth
Year
(2015)
Supply Totals 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700
Demand Totals 12,400 12,480 12,540 12,560 12,600
Difference 3,310 3,220 3,170 3,150 3,100
Fifth Year
(2016)
Supply Totals 11,010 11,010 11,010 11,010 11,010
Demand Totals3 10,410 10,480 10,520 10,540 10,570
Difference 600 540 490 480 440
1. Refer to supply assumptions in Section 7.1 of the 2025 UWMP. Values are rounded to the nearest 10.
2. Extraordinary conservation measures, which are above and beyond the City’s adopted conservation program, are assumed to be implemented to reduce demand by 5% beginning in 2035 during a single dry year.
3. Extraordinary conservation measures, which are above and beyond the City’s adopted conservation program, are assumed to be implemented to reduce demand by 20% in Year 5.
2.3 2026-2030 Drought Risk Assessment
The Drought Risk Assessment for the upcoming five years (2026–2030) is based on current conditions and the five driest years on record (2012–2016). Based on the projected demands and available supplies, Figure 2-1 presents the projected supplies used to meet demands and City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 5
the remaining available supply each year. While the City currently has no Cachuma carryover following the reservoir spilling in early 2026, it is anticipated that the City could build some carryover in the next few years that would be used starting in 2029 as Cachuma allocations decrease. With the current available supplies, the City is expected to have sufficient supplies to meet demand through a five-year drought.
Note that these projections contrast with the need to implement extraordinary conservation measures during the 2014-2019 drought due to the addition of desalination, which adds a baseloaded annual supply and allows the City to accumulate carryover storage in Cachuma.
Figure 2-1. 2026-2030 Drought Risk Assessment, Supply and Demand Projections Note: Supply projections assume drought conditions extend through 2030. Refer to the City’s 2025 UWMP Chapter 7 for supply and demand assumptions.
2.4 Water Supply Reliability Risks
A range of issues could lead to supply shortages. However, extended drought conditions are the most likely threat. The City’s 2021 Long-Term Water Supply Plan (LTWSP) analyzed the most impactful risks associated with the City’s supply projections, shown in Table 2-2 (WSC, 2021).
The topics listed in the table were analyzed by comparing supply and demand with risk-adjusted supplies to understand reliability under potential future conditions. Also, resilience scenarios, such as temporary loss of one or more supplies from an earthquake, were analyzed. The result City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 6
of the analysis was a series of recommendations and an Adaptive Management Plan for the City to implement when supply or demand conditions change in the future.
Table 2-2. Supply Risks
Risk Description
Climate
Variability
More extreme droughts, increased irrigation demand, reduced yield, more intense rainfall/flooding, and higher variability from surface water supplies Lake
Cachuma
Increased
Releases
An update to the 2000 Biological Opinion may lead to a reduction in Lake Cachuma supplies and the City’s annual yield.
Gibraltar
Reservoir
High
Sedimentation
Increased rate of sedimentation due to wildfires reduces the Gibraltar Reservoir storage volume and annual yield. Obtaining a Warren Act contract with US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) per the Pass-Through Agreement would shift lost Gibraltar Reservoir storage capacity to Lake Cachuma.
Megadrought1 A prolonged drought lasting two decades or longer Surface Water
Quality
Degradation
Surface water quality degradation due to wildfires and warmer temperatures impact Lake Cachuma and Gibraltar Reservoir, making them susceptible to algae blooms, which negatively impact water quality.
Ocean Water
Quality
Degradation
Ocean water quality degradation scenarios from algae blooms, debris flows, oil spills, and sewage spills would temporarily prevent intake of seawater for desalination.
Desalination
Regulations
Permanent loss or reduction of desalination supply due to changes in laws or regulatory policy would return the City to supply conditions prior to the desalination plant activation in 2017.
SWP Yield
SWP annual allocations are highly variable, and average yield projections have declined with each successive Delivery Capability Report (DCR) from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The City does not benefit from average and wet year supplies due to lack of storage beyond limited carryover water in San Luis Reservoir. Delta Conveyance Project construction would further reduce the reliability of SWP water since San Luis Reservoir will spill more frequently and the City loses its carryover water after spill events.
1Per Williams et al. “Global warming has pushed what would have been a moderate drought in southwestern North America into megadrought territory.” Williams et al. used a combination of hydrological modeling and tree-ring reconstructions of summer soil moisture to show that the period from 2000 to 2018 was the driest 19-year span since the late 1500s and the second driest since 800 CE. “This appears to be just the beginning of a more extreme trend toward megadrought as global warming continues.” (Williams, 2020) City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 7
3.0 Annual Water Supply and Demand
Assessment Procedures
As established by California Water Code (CWC) Section 10632.1, urban water suppliers must conduct annual water supply and demand assessments and submit an annual water shortage assessment report to DWR with information on anticipated shortages, triggered shortage response actions, and compliance and enforcement actions consistent with the WSCP.
Beginning in 2022, the City prepares and submits an Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report to DWR. The Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report is due by July 1 of every year.
Per CWC, the annual assessment must include:
• The written decision-making process that the City will use each year to determine its water supply reliability
• The key data inputs and assessment methodology used to evaluate the supplier’s water supply reliability for the current year and one dry year, including:
Current-year unconstrained demand
Available supply in the current year and one dry year Existing infrastructure capabilities and plausible constraints A defined set of locally applicable evaluation criteria that are consistently relied on for each annual water supply and demand assessment
A description and quantification of each source of water supply The City has an existing annual assessment process in place that goes beyond the CWC annual assessment requirements. The City’s process comprises an Annual Water Supply Management Report and Annual Water Supply Outlook, which are separate activities that are often presented to the City’s Water Commission and City Council in conjunction with each other.
The City’s Annual Water Supply Management Report is a backward-looking analysis that summarizes water supplies and issues for the previous water year, which extends from October 1 to September 30. The report summarizes the following information:
• The status of water supplies at the end of the water year (September 30) • Drought outlook
• Water conservation and demand
• Major capital projects that improve the City’s ability to provide safe and reliable water • Significant issues that affect the security and reliability of the City’s water supplies The Annual Water Supply Outlook provides an overview of the City’s water supplies at the beginning of each water year and includes an analysis of whether the City’s available water supplies are sufficient to meet demands over the next three years. The analysis takes a conservative approach, assuming the next three years will be drought years. This conservative planning approach allows staff to evaluate if the City has sufficient water to meet demands City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 8
under three additional years of drought and, if not, what level of shortage is anticipated.
Assumptions used to compile the Annual Water Supply Outlook include:
• Next three water years are dry — no new inflows to Cachuma or Gibraltar • Current Cachuma storage and projected storage for the next three years (source: Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board [COMB])
Reduced Cachuma allocations based on projected Cachuma storage • 35% SWP allocation
• Assumes drought-impacted Mission Tunnel intrusion (75 AF/month) • Current supply availability
o Cachuma carryover plus Cachuma allocation (source: monthly COMB reports) o Gibraltar storage (source: monthly Upper Santa Ynez River Operations Agreement Reports [City])
o Groundwater storage and pumping capacity (source: USGS water-level data and City well-pumping-capacity data)
o SWP carryover and SWP allocation (source: Central Coast Water Authority Water Delivery Status Report)
o Desal production capacity (source: City data)
• Demands as projected in the UWMP or as adjusted to meet real-time demands Figure 3-1 presents a typical annual timeline for preparation and submittal of the Annual Water Supply Management Report and Annual Water Supply Outlook in relation to the water year. If the City is actively engaged in drought response, water supply updates are provided to the Water Commission monthly and the Council as frequently as monthly, as needed. The Water Commission can recommend, and the Council can adopt, new ordinances to change the City’s water shortage condition, as described in Section 7.
Figure 3-1. City of Santa Barbara Annual Water Assessment Timeline City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 9
4.0 Water Shortage Stages
The City’s water shortage planning addresses supply shortages ranging from a slowly developing drought to sudden and potentially catastrophic interruptions, such as earthquakes and/or failure of major system components. Consistent with past plans and experience with severe droughts, including the most recent record drought, this plan uses four stages to structure the City’s response to water shortages. It reflects the City’s experience that each shortage situation is different and that flexibility is needed to respond to developing water conditions. This is especially important with the increasing diversity of the City’s water supply portfolio and the need to comply with State mandates regarding water reduction targets and water use regulations.
The City’s water shortage stages and corresponding demand reductions and a description of the corresponding water supply conditions are included in Table 4-1 and described further in separate sections. The potential reduction measures for each stage are described in Section
5.0. Table 4-1. Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels
Stage
Percent
Supply
Reduction
Category Water Supply Condition
Normal
Supply 0%
Full Cachuma entitlement is projected for the coming
water year, and there are no extraordinary shortages
in other City supplies.
1 0%–15%
Water
Shortage
Watch
A Cachuma entitlement reduction is projected for the
coming water year, assuming continued dry weather,
or an extraordinary reduction in other City supplies
has been identified.
2 15%–25%
Water
Shortage
Alert
Continuing conditions of average or less rainfall have
resulted in continued decline in Cachuma storage
following a reduction in entitlement, or an
extraordinary reduction in other City supplies has
been identified.
3 25%–50%
Water
Shortage
Emergency
Cachuma supplies are projected to be exhausted
during the coming water year, or a catastrophic
interruption to City water supplies has occurred.
4 >50%
Catastrophic
Water System
Emergency
Catastrophic interruption to City water supplies has
occurred.
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 10
4.1 Normal Supply Stage
Supplies are considered normal when a 100% Cachuma allocation is projected for the coming water year and there are no extraordinary shortages in other City supplies. While in the normal supply condition stage, the City will:
• Continue efforts to preserve water supply sources, such as management of watersheds to minimize siltation, banking of water as feasible to firm up deliveries through the SWP, in-lieu recharge of groundwater in years when adequate surface water supplies are available to meet demand (even as demand may be reduced through conservation measures), and development of optimal groundwater pumping capacity to ensure reliable extraction of groundwater when needed
• Continue implementation of the City’s conservation program with the goal of encouraging water conservation as a way of life, including high-efficiency plumbing retrofits, low-waterusing landscaping, efficient irrigation practices, public information regarding water awareness, and tiered rate pricing
• Extend and expand the use of recycled water where feasible and cost effective • Monitor water demands in terms of actual versus projected consumption and cumulative commitments to serve
• Limit water use restrictions to prohibiting water waste
4.2 Stage 1 Water Shortage Condition: Water
Shortage Watch
A Stage 1 Water Shortage Condition is defined as a short-term water shortage condition declared by Resolution of the City Council upon being advised that a Cachuma entitlement reduction is projected for the coming water year, assuming continued dry weather. A Stage 1 Water Shortage Condition is also defined as the identification of an extraordinary reduction in other City supplies. During a Stage 1 Water Shortage Condition, the City will take the following actions:
• Staff prepares a report to the Water Commission and City Council addressing:
Status of surface water supplies
Status of the City’s groundwater resources and pumping capability Status of the City’s desalination facility and any related cost and permitting issues Projected deliveries of SWP entitlement
Anticipated availability of banked water and one-time purchase of water via short-term transfers
Possible reduction in Cachuma deliveries to City in excess of reductions agreed to by member units to allow build-up of City carryover at Cachuma A range of water supply scenarios based on various levels of assumed rainfall City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 11
• Water Commission and City Council consider staff recommendation regarding adoption of a resolution declaring a Stage 1 Water Shortage Condition • Public advised of the City’s water supply situation; the need for voluntary reductions in water use is expected to range from 0% to 15% at this stage
• Water use restrictions limited to prohibiting water waste
4.3 Stage 2 Water Shortage Condition: Water
Shortage Alert
A Stage 2 Water Shortage Condition is defined as a short-term water shortage condition declared by Resolution of Council upon being advised that continuing conditions of average or less rainfall have resulted in continued decline in Cachuma storage following a reduction in entitlement. A Stage 2 Water Shortage Condition is also defined as the identification of an extraordinary reduction in other City supplies. During a Stage 2 Water Shortage Condition, the City will take the following actions:
• Staff prepares a report to the Water Commission and City Council addressing:
Updated water supply scenarios based on various levels of assumed rainfall or other applicable metrics
Need for:
➢ Demand reduction by the public
➢ Water use restrictions
➢ Design and permitting work associated with temporary water supply augmentations • Revenue projections and changes in water rates
• City Council considers staff and Water Commission recommendation regarding adoption of a resolution declaring a Stage 2 Water Shortage Condition • Public advised of need for mandatory water conservation savings in the range of 15%–25% • City determines the need for water use restrictions pursuant to Santa Barbara Municipal Code (SBMC) Section 14.20.215 (Attachment 1) and incorporates appropriate exemptions into the water shortage resolution
• Public information effort is aimed at advising the public regarding:
The City’s water supply situation
Efforts being made by the City to minimize impacts of the water shortage The public’s role in achieving demand reductions
Enforcement of water use restrictions, pursuant to Council direction Review of revenue projections and implementation of rate changes, if necessary, pursuant to Council direction
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 12
4.4 Stage 3 Water Shortage Condition: Water
Shortage Emergency
A Stage 3 Water Shortage Condition is defined as a short-term water shortage condition declared by Resolution of Council upon being advised that Cachuma supplies are projected to be exhausted during the coming water year. A Stage 3 Water Shortage Condition is also defined as the imminence or occurrence of a catastrophic interruption to City water supplies.
During a Stage 3 Water Shortage Condition, the City will take the following actions:
• Staff prepare a report to the Water Commission and City Council addressing:
Updated water supply scenarios based on various levels of assumed rainfall or other applicable metrics
Need for:
➢ Further demand reduction by the public
➢ Increased water use restrictions, including potential prohibition on uses other than drinking water and sanitation
➢ Accelerated design, permitting, and construction work associated with temporary water supply augmentations
Evaluation of potential increased supply from desalination facility and from purchases of supplemental water
• City Council considers staff and Water Commission recommendations regarding adoption of a resolution declaring a Stage 3 Water Shortage Condition pursuant to CWC, Chapter 3 • Public advised of need for mandatory water conservation savings in the range of 25%–50% • Revised demand reduction target announced to public, accompanied by information about how to achieve required reductions and efforts being made by the City to resolve the water shortage condition
• Water use restrictions adjusted as necessary pursuant to SBMC Section 14.20.215.B (Attachment 1)
• Evaluate revenues and the need for rate changes; staff implement changes pursuant to Council direction
• Suspension of development project approvals considered • Water use restrictions enforced by staff pursuant to Council direction • Success in meeting reduction targets measured by tracking monthly production of water into the distribution system and by targeted water use analysis of specific water use sectors While the City’s long-term supply planning is based on a maximum planned shortage of 15%, unforeseen circumstances can result in the need to respond to shortages of up to 50%. The City’s customers achieved 40% conservation during the 2014-2019 drought, and the City still had water shortage response measures that could achieve short-term demand reductions up to 50%, carefully tailored to the situation at hand. Flexible application of water use regulations, development restrictions, allocations, and public information will be used to meet the required demand reduction target.
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 13
4.5 Stage 4 Water Shortage Condition: Catastrophic
Water System Emergency
A Stage 4 Water Shortage Condition is defined as a short-term water service emergency declared by the City Council following a catastrophic event that substantially reduces the City’s ability to provide potable water to its customers. The condition may be activated following a major earthquake or other natural disaster that could restrict the City’s water service abilities.
During a Stage 4 Water Shortage Condition, the City would implement its Emergency Response Plan, which is described in Section 5.4.
4.6 Standard Water Level Crosswalk
CWC Section 10632(a)(3)(A) includes six standard water shortage levels, corresponding to progressive ranges of up to 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% shortages and greater than a 50% shortage. If the supplier’s water shortage levels do not correspond with the six standard levels, then a crosswalk between the supplier’s stages and the standard levels is required for compliance. The crosswalk between the City’s four stages and the standard water shortage levels is shown in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1. Water Shortage Stages Crosswalk
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 14
5.0 Shortage Response Actions
This WSCP identifies various actions to be considered by the City Council during the various water shortage stages, including public information, water conservation assistance, supply augmentation, water use regulations, development approvals, and demand tracking. In the event of a water shortage emergency, the City will evaluate the cause of the emergency to help inform which response actions should be implemented. Depending on the nature of the water shortage, the City can elect to implement one or several response actions to mitigate the shortage and reduce gaps between supply and demand. It should be noted that all actions listed for Stage 1 apply to Stages 2, 3, and 4. Likewise, Stage 2 actions apply to Stages 3 and 4, and Stage 3 actions apply to Stage 4. If necessary, the City may adopt additional actions not listed here in extreme circumstances. SBMC Chapter 14.20 (Attachment 1) provides standing authorization for water use restrictions and prohibitions to become effective upon adoption of a Water Shortage Resolution at any regular meeting of the City Council. An example water shortage resolution is included in Attachment 2.
5.1 Demand Reduction
Whether during normal supply or water shortage conditions, the City implements a comprehensive water conservation program pursuant to the Water Conservation Strategic Plan.
Public information, development standards, workshops, rebates, and tiered rates are ongoing during normal supply conditions and adjusted to target needed reductions during water shortage conditions. Table 5-1 identifies demand reduction methods that are considered during water shortage conditions. These methods were effective in providing substantial reductions in demand during the drought of the late 1980s and the recent record drought that commenced in 2014.
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 15
Table 5-1. Demand Reduction Actions
Shortage
Level
Demand Reduction
Actions
How much is this
going to reduce
the shortage
gap?1
Additional Explanation or Reference
Penalty,
Charge, or
Other
Enforcement
All Expand Public
Information Campaign 0%–5%
Community outreach includes increased
advertising, presentations to community groups,
workshops, and enhanced website resources.
No
All Offer Water Use Surveys 0%–1% Water checkups are available to all customer classes. No
All
Provide Rebates on
Plumbing Fixtures and
Devices
0%–1%
Offer or expand rebates on a variety of plumbing
fixtures that are high efficiency such as washers,
toilets, and urinals.
No
All
Provide Rebates for
Landscape Irrigation
Efficiency
0%–1%
Offer or expand rebates for drip irrigation
conversions, smart irrigation controllers, water wise
plants, and rain sensors to improve efficiency.
No
All Provide Rebates for
Turfgrass Replacement 0%–1%
Offer or expand rebates for community members
who wish to replace their turfgrass with a water wise
garden.
No
All
Decrease Line Flushing
or Pursue Zero
Discharge Flushing
Methods
0%–1% The City uses zero-discharge water recycling trucks for water system flushing.
No
All Other — Leaky device 0%–1%
Customers are required to repair any leaking or
malfunctioning devices within 72 hours of
notification of leak.
Yes
All Landscape — Runoff 0%–1% Landscape irrigation in excess leading to runoff onto nearby surfaces is prohibited. Yes
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 16
Shortage
Level
Demand Reduction
Actions
How much is this
going to reduce
the shortage
gap?1
Additional Explanation or Reference
Penalty,
Charge, or
Other
Enforcement
All Other — Post-rainfall
prohibition 0%–1% Prohibit irrigation with potable water during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall. Yes 1 Reduce System Water
Loss 0%–1%
The City increases efforts to correct water system
losses, including repairing leaks and eliminating
illicit connections.
No
2 Increase Water Waste
Patrols 0%–1% Patrols discourage water wasting and correct water wasting practices in the community. Yes 2 Other — Nozzles 0%–1% Only hoses with automatic shutoff nozzle fixtures are permitted. Yes
2 Other — Prohibit vehicle
washing 0%–1%
Prohibit washing cars, boats, trailers, aircraft, or
other vehicles except with hose shutoff nozzle or at
commercial or fleet vehicle washing facilities using
water recycling equipment.
Yes
2 Landscape — Limit
landscape irrigation to
specific times
0%–5% Prohibit irrigation during the hours when
evaporation is highest. Yes
2 CII — Lodging linen
service 0%–1% Hotels/motels must provide guests with option to reuse towels and linens for more than one day. Yes 2 CII — Restaurants serve
water upon request 0%–1%
No restaurant, hotel, café, cafeteria, or other public
place where food is served shall serve drinking
water to any customer unless expressly requested.
Yes
2 Other 0%–1%
Require posting of water shortage notice at
restaurants, hotels/motels, and commercial
showering and car washing facilities.
Yes
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 17
Shortage
Level
Demand Reduction
Actions
How much is this
going to reduce
the shortage
gap?1
Additional Explanation or Reference
Penalty,
Charge, or
Other
Enforcement
2 Pools and Spas —
Require covers for pools
and spas
0%–1% Require covers for swimming pools and spas when
not in use. Yes
3 Other — Prohibit use of
potable water for
washing hard surfaces
0%–1%
Prohibit use of potable water to wash sidewalks,
walkways, driveways, parking lots, open ground, or
other hard-surfaced areas except where necessary
for public health or safety.
Yes
3 Landscape — Limit
landscape irrigation to
specific days
5%–10% Limit to assigned watering days, which may depend on seasonal changes, such as summer and winter. Yes
3 Water Features —
Restrict water use for
decorative water features
0%–1%
Prohibit use of potable water to fill or maintain
decorative fountains and water features unless
located indoors or are home to aquatic life.
Yes
3 Other water feature or
swimming pool restriction 0%–1% Restrict draining and refilling of pools by more than one-third of the pool volume. Yes 3 Other 0%–1% Limit the use of potable water hydrant meters. Yes 4 Landscape — Other
landscape restriction or
prohibition
5%–10% Restrict irrigation to high-efficiency methods. Yes 4 Landscape — Other
landscape restriction or
prohibition
5%–20% Restrict irrigation to watering by hand only. Yes 4 Landscape — Other
landscape restriction or
prohibition
5%–20% Prohibit/restrict irrigation of turfgrass. Yes
4 Other 20%–40% Prohibit all outdoor water use. Yes
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 18
Shortage
Level
Demand Reduction
Actions
How much is this
going to reduce
the shortage
gap?1
Additional Explanation or Reference
Penalty,
Charge, or
Other
Enforcement
4 Other 20%–70% Institute water rationing. Yes
4 Moratorium or Net Zero
New Demand 0%–1% The City may temporarily limit or ban new water service connections within the service area. No
1. Reduction in the shortage gap is estimated and can vary significantly.
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 19
5.2 Supply Augmentation
The SWP conveyance infrastructure provides the City with the ability to convey supplemental water purchases to augment drought-year supplies. During the 2012-2016 drought, the City purchased supplemental water through Central Coast Water Authority. Refer to the 2025 UWMP Section 6.3.2 for more information on supplemental water purchases. Supply augmentation actions are described in Table 5-2. These augmentations represent short-term management objectives triggered during a water shortage and do not overlap with long-term new water supply development or supply reliability enhancement projects.
Table 5-2. Supply Augmentation and Other Actions
Shortage
Level
Supply Augmentation
Action and Other
Actions by Water
Supplier
How much is
this going to
reduce the
shortage
gap?
Additional Explanation or Reference
All Groundwater Varying
Groundwater is pumped from drought
storage volume. The amount is
dependent on diminished quantity from
City’s supply portfolio.
All Water Purchases Varying
The amount of water purchased is
dependent on diminished quantity from
City’s supply portfolio.
5.3 Operational Changes
To address water shortages on a short- and long-term basis, operational changes within the City occur to ensure an efficient and meaningful response. During a time of water shortage, the City will convene a series of task forces, including:
• Executive Drought Team: composed of the City Administrator, City department heads, the Water Resources Director and the Water Supply and Services Manager. This team discusses plans and strategies for responding to the persistent drought conditions. • Intra-City Drought Team: composed of representatives from Parks and Recreation Department, Airport Department, Fire Department, Fleet Services Division, Facilities Division, Planning Division, Building and Safety Division, Waterfront Department, Office of Emergency Services, Streets Division, and Water Resources Department. This team identifies immediate and long-term water-saving actions that can be implemented throughout the City organization and facilities, with support from Water Resources staff. • Water Resources Operational Drought Team: composed of management and operational staff from water treatment, water distribution, wastewater treatment, wastewater collections, and water supply management work groups. This team identifies operational opportunities City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 20
to conserve water as well as practices to implement at water treatment facilities and/or throughout the water and wastewater system.
• Core Drought Team: composed of water supply management staff to assess changing water supply shortage conditions and implement the WSCP.
These teams work to facilitate internal City coordination. For example, during the 2014-2019 drought, the Parks and Recreation Department instituted a successful 2014 Strategic Drought Response Plan (City of Santa Barbara Parks and Recreation Department, 2014) that detailed department actions to prioritize potable water use for certain facilities and sensitive/historic resources. The majority of the City’s parks are irrigated with recycled water, and increased messaging about the benefits and use of recycled water was also implemented. Similar measures may be considered in the future. Other internal operational changes that may be implemented by the City include:
• Display messaging highlighting water-saving actions in City facilities, including communal staff areas and public areas such as restrooms, kitchens, and break rooms • Limit vehicle washing, in coordination with Fleet Services Division • Evaluate frequency of items laundered by laundering contractor • Equip field staff with public information material about the drought and water use regulations and educate staff on how to report water waste to enforcement staff • Reduce reservoir cleaning
• Use secondary wastewater effluent as process water for wastewater treatment • Reuse plant processing water at water treatment plant • Evaluate suspending capital improvement projects that are water intensive and cannot use the water recycler vehicles
• Require the use of recycled water for dust control for all applicable City projects During the 2014-2019 drought, the City researched, piloted, and invested in two new technologies to reduce the amount of water used in operational practices. The water distribution team purchased a vehicle that flushes water mains by filtering and recycling potable water in the system between two fire hydrants, rather than discharging the water into a nearby storm drain.
The wastewater collection team purchased a vehicle that initially fills with recycled water and proceeds to clean the wastewater mains by continuing to recycle the water in the system, rather than using additional recycled or potable water. Use of these vehicles has now become standard practice for the City, and they will continue to be used during normal supply conditions, as well as during a water shortage condition.
5.4 Emergency Response Plan
Besides drought, the City water supply may experience a catastrophic interruption as a result of natural disasters such as an earthquake, a tsunami, a wildfire, a mudslide, a regional power outage, or terrorism. Emergency administrative procedures are detailed and periodically updated in the City’s Emergency Operations Center Manual.
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 21
Planning and response measures in the event of an interruption to the City’s water supply include the following:
• A diverse portfolio of supplies provides redundancy that increases the likelihood of being able to meet emergency needs even under catastrophic conditions. • In advance of a known threat to the City’s water system, such as a wildfire, distribution reservoirs will be filled to full capacity, and any reservoir out of service will be put back into service.
• Primary water supply sources and the main treatment plant will supply water to the City via gravity to reduce normal operating costs and minimize disruption during disasters. • A groundwater production system has been developed and maintained to augment supplies to the distribution system or provide direct emergency drinking water supplies should the distribution system be put out of service. In the event of a prolonged power outage, power can be provided by portable generators to more than half of the City’s major production wells.
• Backup power supplies with automatic transfer switching and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) capability have been installed at the primary water treatment plant and critical distribution pump stations.
• Portable generators will be deployed to critical facilities lacking emergency backup power. • SCADA is used throughout the distribution system to monitor system problems, whether minor day-to-day problems or major disruptions.
• An ongoing program of water main replacement targets sections of the distribution system with the highest likelihood of breaks.
• Upgraded security, including more secure fencing, video monitoring, and alarms, is being installed at select water supply facilities.
• Public access to water supply facilities has been limited for security reasons. • City distribution system crews are trained in pipe repair and replacement as a part of their normal duties and are continually ready to perform such work in emergencies. • All City employees are designated as emergency service workers and would be activated to perform damage assessment and repairs and to fill gaps left by staff who live out of town and may be unable to get to Santa Barbara during a disaster. • The City’s emergency response program includes emergency communication procedures that would be used for notifying the public about emergency water use restrictions, potential need to boil tap water before drinking, and locations where drinking water is available in the event of widespread distribution system failure.
Given the diversity of the City’s water supply, there is a range of catastrophic supply interruption scenarios that may occur. At the extreme end of the range, a catastrophic seismic event could include failure of both Gibraltar Dam and Bradbury Dam (Lake Cachuma), also impacting State Water deliveries, or failure of Tecolote and/or Mission Tunnels, which convey surface water supplies from Lake Cachuma and Gibraltar Reservoir, respectively, to the City’s treatment plant.
Damage to groundwater wells would also be expected. Table 5-3 summarizes some foreseeable interruptions of higher probability but lesser magnitude. In an actual event, detailed City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 22
analysis would be conducted to assess the extent and duration of interruption and the alternatives for short-term replacement of lost supplies.
Table 5-3.Catastrophic Interruption Scenarios
Damage limited to distribution system: Main breaks in various parts of the City Anticipated Duration: Ranging from days to months, depending on extent of damage Responses:
• Valve off damaged sections.
• Inventory customers without service and provide access to emergency drinking water as necessary.
• Prioritize repair efforts based on health, safety, and sanitation.
Collapse of Mission Tunnel: Supplies from Gibraltar Reservoir and Mission Tunnel infiltration interrupted
Anticipated Duration: Ranging from months to a year or more Responses:
• Assess extent of remaining tunnel flow.
• Restrict irrigation uses.
• Impose water usage restrictions and notify public to reduce water use to targeted level based on actual circumstances.
• Consider increases in SWP delivery requests.
• Initiate emergency design and construction process for tunnel repair.
Collapse of Tecolote Tunnel: Supplies from Lake Cachuma, tunnel infiltration, and SWP interrupted
Anticipated Duration: Ranging from months to a year or more Responses:
• Assess extent of remaining tunnel flow.
• Curtail most or all irrigation uses.
• Impose water usage restrictions and notify public to reduce water use to targeted level based on actual circumstances.
• Consider extent to which supplies are available to assist neighboring agencies affected by loss of Cachuma deliveries.
• Participate with COMB and USBR in emergency design and construction process for repair of tunnel.
Regional Power Outage
Anticipated Duration: Ranging from hours to weeks
Responses:
• Initiate contact with City Emergency Operations Center. • Activate and monitor backup generators at Cater Treatment Plant and key distribution pumping stations.
• Assess supplies of generator fuel and develop a schedule of prioritized fuel needs.
• Identify optimal sites for deployment of portable generators (wells, pump stations, treatment system).
• Prepare to issue a consumer alert about potential for: 1) low system pressure, 2) need to curtail water use, and 3) need to boil water before drinking. • Evaluate the need for water quality sampling.
• Consider increasing disinfectant residual as a precaution against potential system contamination.
• Isolate any segments of known contamination; issue notice not to drink water in the affected areas.
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 23
In the occurrence of a catastrophic event, City employees are prepared to mobilize to respond to emergent issues, including taking the following actions:
• Assemble supervisors at Public Works Yard, 630 Garden Street. • Determine which staff are present and which need to be contacted. • Contact absent staff and direct them to report once families are safe. • Check status of all equipment, refuel, and restock supplies on vehicles. • Mobilize Water Resources Laboratory staff at City lab and prepare for anticipated water quality test requests.
• Contact local contractors to be at the ready to provide support.
Dispatch crews will be sent to inspect, patrol, and report on condition of facilities and distribution piping in designated areas of the system based on Table 5-4.
The City also maintains a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) available online (https://santabarbaraca.gov/wastewatercollection) that includes a Sewer System Overflow Emergency Response Plan (Appendix G1 of the SSMP) and Lift Station Emergency Response Plan (Appendix G2 of the SSMP).
Table 5-4. Area Inspection Groups after a Catastrophic Interruption Scenario Group A - Water Facilities Group B - Water Facilities
Vic Trace Reservoir & La Coronilla Pump
Station Reservoir No. 1
La Mesa Reservoir East Reservoir & Bothin Pump Station
Escondido Pump Station El Cielito Reservoir & Skofield Pump Station
Calle Las Caleras Pump Station Skofield Reservoir
Hope Reservoir & Campanil Hill Pump Station La Vista Reservoir Group C – Water Facilities Group D - Wastewater Lift Stations Reservoir No. 2
Braemar
Linda Road
El Camino De la Luz
Sheffield Reservoirs & El Cielito Pump Station
South Portal of Mission Tunnel (Cater Staff to
inspect)
Rocky Nook Pump Station
Sheffield Pump Station
Tunnel Road Reservoir & Pump Station
Cater Cross-Tie Pump Station (Cater Staff to
inspect)
Group E - Wastewater Lift Stations
Skofield
La Colina
Via Lucero
Tallant Road
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 24
Additional actions to be implemented during a catastrophic event include:
• Assign qualified staff to monitor the SCADA telemetry system, to the extent it is still functional, to determine the extent of system damage and the most critical points on the distribution system.
• Conduct a complete inspection of the Cater Water Treatment Plant, Ortega Groundwater Treatment Plant, and Desalination Plant to determine status and extent of damage. • Contact Cachuma Project operators (USBR and COMB) to determine condition of Bradbury Dam, Tecolote Tunnel, and related facilities.
• Contact the City’s dam caretaker at Gibraltar Reservoir to determine condition of Gibraltar Dam and related facilities.
• Contact the City’s Water Treatment Superintendent to determine if Mission Tunnel has experienced a disruption of water conveyance.
• Assess condition of City groundwater wells by measuring water levels and well depths and taking water samples for analysis of water quality.
• Assign qualified staff to use the City’s hydraulic computer model to simulate identified field deficiencies and run scenarios to identify the most efficient repair, isolation, or reconstruction recommendations.
• Prioritize distribution system repairs to best meet critical needs, including water for firefighting and health and safety needs; identify a portion of available potable supply to be reserved for drinking water purposes in the event of prolonged interruption. • Develop materials list for treatment plant and distribution system repairs, and contact California Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network for mutual aid support. • Allocate available portable generators and pumps according to highest need for groundwater wells, sanitation, firefighting, or powering emergency facilities. • Develop a clear message for information dissemination to the public that includes:
Nature of the catastrophic event
Status of distribution system
Water use prohibitions
Allowable water uses
Potential need to boil drinking water before consumption Location and availability of emergency drinking water, in the event of distribution system failure
For more information on actions during an emergency, refer to the 2020 City of Santa Barbara Water System Risk and Resilience Assessment Report (Brown and Caldwell, 2020) and the City of Santa Barbara Emergency Response Plan (City of Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Services, 2021).
5.5 Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan
Refer to the 2023 Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan with City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex (Attachment 3) for general seismic risk City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 25
assessment and the 2020 City of Santa Barbara Water System Risk and Resilience Assessment Report (Brown and Caldwell, 2020) for seismic risk assessment specifically related to the City’s water system. The City of Santa Barbara Emergency Response Plan (City of Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Services, 2021) details processes for mitigation. Refer to the previous Section 5.4 for an overview of the City’s post-catastrophic-event mitigation process.
5.6 Shortage Response Action Effectiveness
Measuring reductions in water use is part of regular procedures, whether during normal or water shortage conditions. Water is produced and introduced into the distribution system in response to customer demand and is tracked monthly as an indicator of overall demand. For demand analysis by customer class, geographic area, and usage level, the City’s billing system provides standardized reports on monthly metered sales by bill code, as well as customized reports for specific areas of analysis. The City can also utilize advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) data to track water use on a more regular basis (hourly, daily) or granular level (by customer type).
During water shortage conditions, savings are measured in comparison to what is considered to be a normal-year demand (i.e., current customer base with approximately average rainfall) or in reference to a specific base year as may be dictated by statewide requirements.
6.0 Communication Protocols
This WSCP includes a staged plan to communicate the declaration of a shortage stage and provide updates during a water shortage emergency. A summary of actions the City could potentially take during a specific shortage stage is outlined in Table 6-1. As water supply conditions worsen, but before a water shortage is declared, the City increases public outreach on the current water supply conditions, the plans for water shortage response, and the importance of water efficiency to stretch current supplies.
Table 6-1. Communication Protocol During Water Shortage Conditions Shortage
Level City Action
1 Information posted on the City’s website and regional water efficiency website, WaterWiseSB.org
1 Press releases to local media (online and print newspapers, TV, radio, etc.) 1 Increased messaging with the utility bill (message printed on front and back of bill, flyer insert with bill, message printed on front and back of envelope) 1 Articles in the weekly City e-newsletter
1 Articles in the quarterly water e-newsletter
1 Social media posts (Facebook, X, and Nextdoor)
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 26
Shortage
Level
City Action
2-3
“Weekly Water Conservation Message” emailed weekly to partner organizations to share in their own messaging/newsletters, posted on City social media, sent in City weekly e-newsletter
2-3
Increased paid advertising — print, online, radio, TV, streaming, social media, movie theaters, buses, etc.
2-3
Signage in all City public facilities to reduce water usage, such as kitchens and bathrooms
2-3
Signage on City fountains that are turned off, City turfgrass that is deficit watered or stressed, and sites that use recycled water for irrigation or fountains 2-3
Letters, postcards, and flyers mailed to residents and businesses impacted by water use regulations
2-3
Outreach materials and drought notices mailed to the hospitality industry, including restaurants and lodging
2-3
Flyers posted in public places such as libraries and neighborhood centers or distributed to targeted areas
2-3
Targeted outreach and technical assistance to highest water users in each classification
2-3 Coordination with school district to send messaging to parents/guardians 2-3
Assembly and promotion of the speaker’s bureau for water shortage presentations for neighborhood associations, gardening clubs, HOAs, churches, senior centers, business associations, community groups, property management companies, etc. 2-3
Creation and promotion of videos through City TV and rotation scrolls to display on City TV between programs
4 Signage posted at nurseries and irrigation supply stores, possibly to include receipt attachments
4 Increased outreach to the certified Green Gardeners email and mailing list 4 Increased coordination with the local landscaping industry, including water shortage information in their newsletters, publications, and facilities: California Landscape Contractors Association Channel Islands Chapter, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, UCCE Master Gardeners, the Permaculture Network, local wholesale and retail nurseries, and irrigation supply stores Note: If a water shortage progresses through multiple stages, all measures in the previous stage(s) are implemented in addition to current stage actions.
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 27
7.0 Compliance and Enforcement
With the exception of irrigation system standards for new homes and buildings, which are administered and enforced through the Building Permit process, all of the prohibitions in Table 5-1 are subject to the “Penalties and Charges” provisions of SBMC Section 14.20. 226–227, as summarized below:
Violations of SBMC Chapter 14.20:
1. First violation within the past year: Written “Notice of Violation” sent to the account holder and serves as a warning
2. Second violation within the past year: Penalty of up to $250 applied to the account holder’s bill
3. Third violation within the past year: Penalty of up to $250, plus possible installation of a flow restrictor
4. Fourth and subsequent violations within the past year: Penalty of up to $250, plus possible installation of a flow restrictor or possible service shutoff Account holders are provided with an opportunity for a hearing before the Water Resources Director. See Attachment 1 for the complete text of SBMC Chapter 14.20.
8.0 Legal Authority
SBMC Section 14.20 (Attachment 1) establishes authority for the City Council to adopt resolutions declaring water shortage conditions and adopt appropriate restrictions and prohibitions on water use. Although the SBMC does not apply to water service areas outside City limits, the County of Santa Barbara will adopt the water shortage resolution when necessary, allowing the City to enforce the regulations in those parts of the County located within the City’s water service area. Such resolutions can be adopted at any weekly meeting of the City Council. Attachment 1 contains the full text of SBMC Section 14.20. Attachment 2 contains an example water shortage resolution from 2017.
9.0 Financial Consequences of WSCP
Implementation
As the City activates different stages of response to water supply conditions, the financial position of the water utility is impacted both in revenues and expenses. The operating cost structure of the utility is largely fixed and independent of the level of customer demands.
However, the City’s water rates are structured such that approximately 30% of rate revenues City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 28
are collected from fixed monthly service charges and 70% are collected from consumptionrelated charges. This type of rate structure, combined with tiered pricing, promotes conservation and the efficient use of water and allows customers to considerably change their monthly water bill by using more or less water. As a result of this rate structure, however, when the utility experiences decreasing demand, as is expected when the City activates shortage response actions, there is an immediate impact on revenues, as the majority of revenue comes from volumetric charges. In contrast, the City’s operating costs are only slightly reduced because many of the operating costs are fixed.
Although there are some reductions in operating costs related to treatment and delivery of drinking water, the total revenue requirement of the utility generally increases during water shortages. Primarily, this increase is related to the procurement or development of additional water supplies, which can be expensive and have long-term financial impacts on the water enterprise. The Charles E. Meyer Desalination Plant, for example, was originally constructed during a drought in the early 1990s and was financed through debt obligations that were paid over many years. Similarly, the desalination plant was reactivated in 2017 during the most recent drought of record, and again the City took on debt to finance design and construction of the reactivation. These debt payments will be paid by customers in their water bills over the next 20 years. To a lesser extent, there is an increased need for staff resources to implement and manage a water shortage condition. In the past, the City has increased staffing to provide additional public outreach and support professional staff as their workloads become focused on managing water supplies and communicating with decision makers.
The City has used tiered rates to encourage water conservation since 1989. The current adopted water rates are included in Attachment 4. The tiered system provides standardized allotments for residential customers based on the type of building (single family vs. multifamily) and number of dwelling units. Commercial and industrial allotments are based on historical offpeak usage because appropriate usage rates vary widely for customers in these classes.
Irrigation billing provides a first-tier allotment that is a weather-based water budget sufficient for landscapes that are compliant with the City’s landscape design standards (SBMC §14.23.005, Ordinance 6101, and Council Resolution No. 23-007) (City of Santa Barbara, 2023). Usage in excess of the budget is billed at a higher rate.
The tiered rate system worked well during the 1987–1992 drought when tier allotments and prices were modified as necessary to ensure adequate revenue. The system proved to be workable even for the 50% shortages experienced. The City’s experience has been that tiered prices and allotments are best determined based on actual circumstances rather than trying to determine appropriate values in advance of the drought based on hypothetical situations. During drought, the City moves to an annual rate setting cycle to allow rates to be more responsive to current demands and the financial environment. The City has a comprehensive water rate model used to balance water system revenues and costs under normal and water shortage conditions. A tiered rate system presents challenges with revenue stability under normal conditions and even more so during water shortages. The rate model enables the City to identify City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 29
costs of service for the various water supply sources and system components and apply them in accordance with Proposition 218 to identify suitable water rates to meet revenue requirements.
As described above, the City’s water utility typically experiences increasing costs and decreasing revenues during water shortage events. All things being equal, this type of situation will lead to significant increases in customer rates without mitigating measures. The water utility may choose to use reserves to cover any gaps between operating revenues and expenditures and buffer potential rate increases for customers.
For the City Water Fund, the policies include the following targets for reserve balances:
• Disaster Reserve: 15% of operating budget
• Contingency Reserve: 10% of operating budget
• Capital Reserve: Lessor of 5% of Water Fund asset value, or the average of the planned capital program budgets for the upcoming three fiscal years, excluding major capital projects that will be debt funded.
In addition, it may be necessary to defer certain noncritical capital expenditures to further alleviate rate pressure. However, the long-term deferral of water system infrastructure maintenance leads to increased maintenance costs in the future.
10.0 Monitoring and Reporting
As described in Section 3.0, the City intends to track its supplies and projected demands on an annual basis, and if supply conditions described in Table 4-1 are projected, the City will enact its WSCP. Monitoring demands is essential to ensure the WSCP response actions are adequately meeting required reductions and decreasing the supply and demand gap. This will help analyze the effectiveness of the WSCP or identify the need to activate additional response actions.
The City recently completed an AMI technology project to improve customer service with granular water usage data and customer leak notifications. The City currently has all of its customer connections equipped with AMI. With AMI, the City can use the detailed water usage data to monitor customers’ response and demand reduction due to restrictions for each stage in the WSCP. The many restrictions and prohibitions assigned to each stage in Table 5-1 are inherently flexible so the City can implement certain restrictions, monitor customer usage, and implement additional restrictions if the demand reductions are not sufficient to close the supply and demand gap.
11.0 WSCP Refinement Procedures
The City intends to use this WSCP adaptively to respond to foreseeable and unforeseeable water shortages. The WSCP is used to provide guidance to City Council, staff, and the public by identifying response actions to allow for efficient management of any water shortage with City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 30
predictability and accountability. The WSCP will be revised during the UWMP update cycle to incorporate updated and new information. For example, new supply augmentation actions will be added, and actions that are no longer applicable for reasons such as program expiration will be removed. However, if revisions to the WSCP are warranted before the UWMP is updated, the WSCP will be updated outside of the UWMP update cycle.
12.0 Special Water Feature Distinction
As listed in Table 5-1, there are separate demand reduction actions for decorative water features (including fountains and ponds), and for pools and spas. The City has separate response actions, enforcement actions, and monitoring programs for both decorative water features and pools and spas. Non-pool or non-spa water features may use recycled water, whereas pools and spas must use potable water for health and safety considerations.
Limitations to pools and spas may require different considerations compared to non-pool or nonspa water features.
13.0 Plan Adoption, Submittal, and
Availability
Per Water Code Section 10642, the City provided notice of the availability of the Draft 2025 WSCP and notice of the public hearing to consider adoption of the 2025 WSCP. The public review drafts of the 2025 WSCP were posted prominently on the City’s website, https://SantaBarbaraCA.gov/WaterVision, on May 15, 2026, and more than 14 days in advance of the public hearing. Public hearing notifications were also published in local newspapers.
Copies of the hearing notifications are included in Attachment 5.
The Draft 2025 WSCP was discussed with the Board of Water Commissioners on April 16, 2026. The Commission supported the Plan content and recommendations. A public hearing, with public notice, was held at the same time as the City Council approval and adoption meeting on June 16, 2026. See Attachment 6 for the resolution approving the WSCP.
By July 1, 2026, the adopted 2025 WSCP was submitted to DWR through the WUEData portal and sent to the office of the Clerk of the Board, County of Santa Barbara, and the California State Library and DWR. There are no other cities in which the City provides water. Once the plan has been adopted, a hard copy will be made available for public review during normal business hours at the City Water Resources Department offices (located at 630 Garden Street).
Additionally, an electronic copy will be uploaded to the City’s website within 30 days of the filing date and will be available for public reference.
City of Santa Barbara Public Draft
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan | 31
Based on DWR’s review of the WSCP, the City will make any amendments in its adopted WSCP, as required and directed by DWR. If the City revises its WSCP after the UWMP is approved by DWR, then an electronic copy of the revised WSCP will be submitted to DWR within 30 days of its adoption.
City of Santa Barbara References
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan 32
References
Brown and Caldwell. (2020). City of Santa Barbara Water System Risk and Resilience.
City of Santa Barbara. (2008). Landscape Design Standards for Water Conservation.
City of Santa Barbara. (2023). Water Efficient Landscape Standards, Reolution No. 23-007.
City of Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Services. (2021). Emergency Response Plan.
City of Santa Barbara Parks and Recreation Department. (2014). 2014 Strategic Drought Response Plan.
Williams, A. P. (2020, April 17). Large Contribution from Anthropogenic Warming to an Emerging North American Megadrought. Science, pp. 314-318.
WSC. (2021). City of Santa Barbara Long-Term Supply Plan.
City of Santa Barbara
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan I
Attachment 1- Santa Barbara Municipal
Code Chapter 14.20
CHAPTER 14.20
WATER REGULATIONS
§ 14.20.005. Use of Water.
The use of all water obtained by or through the distribution facilities of the City shall be governed and controlled by the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 4558, 1989)
§ 14.20.007. Prohibition Against Waste of Water.
It shall be a violation of this chapter for any consumer or account holder to waste any water obtained from or through the distribution facilities of the City. (Ord. 4558, 1989)
§ 14.20.010. Wasting Water - Repairs - Temporary Shut-Off.
Property owners are required to repair water pipes, faucets, valves, plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems, or any other devices, to eliminate leaks and prevent waste of water.
Upon reasonable notice or attempted notice to the occupant, the City may, but has no duty to, temporarily shut off service to any lot where the City reasonably believes there is a leak or other plumbing failure that is resulting in waste of water as demonstrated by water flowing off the property, excessive flow through the meter, or other facts indicating a leak or other plumbing failure. The City shall post a notice on the property stating that the service has been temporarily shut off to prevent further waste of water and advising the customer how to contact the City for restoration of service. Service will be restored upon determination by the Director that the condition that resulted in the disconnection has been corrected. The City will not charge a service fee for temporary shut off or restoration of service.
(Prior code §44.30; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963; Ord. 5847, 2018) § 14.20.040. City's Relation to Seepage, Etc. - Damage on Private Property.
The City is not responsible for damage to property or injury to persons arising from the installation, maintenance, condition, or use of pipes, plumbing systems, fixtures and other devices located on private property.
(Prior code §44.33; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963; Ord. 5847, 2018) § 14.20.050. Protection of City Water System - Prohibited Activity.
No person shall operate, tamper with, connect to, damage, or modify in any manner any meter, valve, pipe, pump, or other component of the City water system unless the person has obtained a written permit from the Director issued in accordance with this title. This section does not apply to work by City employees or contractors in the performance of their official duties.
(Prior code §44.34; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963; Ord. 5847, 2018) City of Santa Barbara, CA
§ 14.20.005 § 14.20.060
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5006 on 2026-03-02 § 14.20.060. Preventing Access to Water System Facilities Prohibited.
No person shall place upon or about a fire hydrant, curbcock, meter, valve, pump, water gate, or other City water facility any vegetation, object, material, debris or structure of any kind that obstructs or prevents free access by City employees or contractors. The City may remove any vegetation, object, material, debris, or structure placed in violation of this section.
(Prior code §44.42; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963; Ord. 5847, 2018) § 14.20.070. Consumer Precautions in Case of Fire.
In case of fire, consumers shall be required to shut off all irrigation or any steady flow of water being used when the fighting of any fire reasonably necessitates the same. (Prior code §44.43; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963)
§ 14.20.080. Right of Access to Water Meters.
Any duly authorized representative of the City shall at all times have the right of ingress to and egress from any water meter located upon a consumer's premises by way of such easement, license or right-of-way, if any, as the City may own and for such purposes as are permitted by the easement, license or right-of-way. (Prior code §44.44; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963; Ord. 4250, 1984; Ord. 4558, 1989) § 14.20.090. Access to Meters Inside Premises.
Where a water meter is placed inside the premises of a consumer, provision shall be made for convenient meter reading and repairing by representatives of the City, for shutting off or turning on water service, and for installation or removal of flow restricters.
(Prior code §44.45; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963; Ord. 4250, 1984; Ord. 4558, 1989) § 14.20.100. Shutting Off Water for Repairs, Etc., and Notice.
The City reserves the right to shut off the water from any premises, or from any part of the distribution system, as long as necessary, without notice to the consumer, at any time when the exigencies of the occasion may require it; but in all cases of extension or connections the Department shall notify consumers of the necessity of shutting off water and the probable length of time the water shall be shut off before taking such action. (Prior code §44.46; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963)
§ 14.20.105. Shutting Off Irrigation Meters.
The City shall have the right to shut off water service to meters restricted to irrigation uses temporarily and as necessary to determine that the use of such meters is limited to irrigation. Any person applying for service through a meter restricted to irrigation uses shall be informed of such conditions of use at the time he or she applies for such a meter. (Ord. 4558, 1989)
City of Santa Barbara, CA
§ 14.20.060 § 14.20.108
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5006 on 2026-03-02 § 14.20.108. Place of Use of Water.
Except as otherwise provided in this title or as specifically authorized by the Director, water received from or through a meter may be used only on and for the property served by that meter.
(Ord. 4558, 1989)
§ 14.20.110. Tanks Required for Steam Boilers.
No stationary steam boiler shall be connected directly with the water distribution system of the City but in each and every case, a suitable tank of storage capacity, sufficient for 12 hours supply for such boiler, shall be provided and the service pipe supplying such tank shall discharge directly into the top of such tank. (Prior code §44.47; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963)
§ 14.20.130. Unlawful Use of Water and Meter Removal.
It is unlawful:
(Ord. 5653, 2014)
§ 14.20.140. Illegal Consumption Shown by Meter.
When a meter shows a consumption of water after service has been officially discontinued, the owner of the property served shall be held responsible for such consumption, in addition to which he or she shall pay to the City a service restoration fee and the water shall not again be turned on for either owner or tenant until such illegal consumption has been fully paid for.
(Prior code §44.50; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963; Ord. 4250, 1984) § 14.20.150. Reconnection.
A. For a person or entity that is not an Account Holder to use water through a Meter, unless such person or entity is authorized by agreement with the Account Holder to use such water through such Meter;
B. For a person or entity to use water from a fire hydrant, except as authorized by a permit issued by the Public Works Director;
C. For a person or entity to use water from a dedicated fireline except in response to a fire or in the minimum amount needed to perform maintenance of such fireline, or as authorized by the Public Works Director;
D. For a person or entity to use water from a Connection that does not have a Meter, except as expressly authorized by the Public Works Director; E. For a person or entity to use water from a Meter for which there is no active Account Holder; and
F. For any person or entity to remove a Meter from a Water Service, except as authorized by the Public Works Director.
City of Santa Barbara, CA
§ 14.20.108 § 14.20.150
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5006 on 2026-03-02 (Prior code §44.51; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963; Ord. 4250, 1984; Ord. 5847, 2018) § 14.20.170. Notice Upon Vacating Premises - Required.
Prior to vacating any premises connected to the City water supply system, the consumer shall request that the City terminate service and prepare a final billing. (Prior code §44.53; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963; Ord. 4250, 1984) § 14.20.180. Department to Read Meter on Receipt and Stop Service.
Within two working days of receipt of the notice required by Section 14.20.170, the City shall read the water meter and shut off the water to the premises. (Prior code §44.54; Ord. 2931 §2, 1963; Ord. 4250, 1984) § 14.20.215. Water Use Regulations During Water Shortage Conditions.
A. After water service has been discontinued to any premises, it shall not be restored except by the Department. Service may not be restored until a written application signed by the account holder, upon forms furnished by the Department, has been filed with the Department and approved by the Director.
B. The Director may approve a service restoration upon the Director's determination that the connection complies with the requirements of this chapter and the applicant has paid all required reconnection fees in an amount established by City Council resolution.
A. Water shortage conditions. A Stage One Water Shortage Condition, a Stage Two Water Shortage Condition and a Stage Three Water Shortage Condition are defined as short-term conditions declared by resolution of the City Council upon being advised by staff that projected water supply conditions warrant response measures consistent with those associated with corresponding stages in the City's adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The Council resolution may identify and refer to such short-term conditions in terms or titles specific to the current water shortage.
B. Regulations during water shortage conditions. Upon adoption by the City Council of a resolution declaring a Stage One Water Shortage Condition, a Stage Two Water Shortage Condition or a Stage Three Water Shortage Condition, or such other titles as may be selected by Council pursuant to subsection A, the City Council may adopt a resolution containing such rules and regulations as necessary to restrict and regulate use of water from the City's water supply system in order to protect the public health and safety. Failure of any person or entity to comply with such rules and regulations as adopted by resolution of the City Council is a violation of this code subject to the remedies and penalties provided herein and as provided by Chapter 1.28 and as otherwise provided by law.
C. Exemptions. Exemptions to the water use regulations set forth by City Council resolution during a declared Stage One, Stage Two or Stage Three Water Shortage Condition may be granted by the Public Works Director for specific uses of water on the basis of factually demonstrated need or undue hardship and in accordance with guidelines for exemptions as may be determined by the Public Works Director.
City of Santa Barbara, CA
§ 14.20.150 § 14.20.215
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5006 on 2026-03-02 (Ord. 4558, 1989; Ord. 5653, 2014)
§ 14.20.225. Violations.
(Ord. 4558, 1989; Ord. 5653, 2014)
§ 14.20.226. Penalties and Charges.
If the Public Works Director denies a request for an exemption for a specific water use, a written request for reconsideration may be made to the Board of Water Commissioners. The decision of the Water Commission shall be final.
D. Upon the declaration of and during a Water Shortage Condition, the failure of a mobilehome park owner to introduce water into a swimming pool or spa located in a mobilehome park, in accordance with the City Council resolution, shall not be considered an increase in "rent" for purposes of Municipal Code Section
26.08.030.N.
A. Any failure to comply with a provision of this chapter shall constitute a violation of this code, regardless of whether the failure to comply is caused by an Account Holder, a Consumer or any other person or entity.
B. Where the failure to comply with this chapter is continuing and reasonably preventable by the person or entity failing to comply, each successive hour of such failure to comply shall be a separate and distinct violation.
A. In addition to the penalties and other methods of enforcement provided in Chapter
1.28, the following penalties may also be applied to any violation of any provision of this chapter:
1. For the first violation within the preceding 12 calendar months, the Director shall issue a written notice of the fact of such violation.
2. For a second violation within the preceding 12 calendar months, the Director shall impose a penalty on the bill of the Account Holder for the property where the violation occurred or is occurring, in an amount not to exceed $250.00.
3. For a third violation within the preceding 12 calendar months, the Director:
a. Shall impose a penalty on the bill of the Account Holder for the property where the violation occurred or is occurring, in an amount not to exceed $250.00; and
b. May install a flow restricter on the service where the violation occurred or is occurring, for a period to be determined by the Director.
4. For a fourth and any subsequent violation within the preceding 12 calendar months, the Director:
a. Shall impose a penalty on the bill of the Account Holder for the property where the violation occurred or is occurring, in an amount not to exceed $250.00; and
City of Santa Barbara, CA
§ 14.20.215 § 14.20.226
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5006 on 2026-03-02 (Ord. 4558, 1989; Ord. 5653, 2014)
§ 14.20.227. Notice of Violation - Hearing.
b. May install a flow restricter on or shut off water service to the property where the violation occurred or is occurring, for a period to be determined by the Director.
B. If a flow restricter is installed or water service shut off pursuant to subsection A of this section, prior to restoration of normal water service the Account Holder whose service is affected shall be required to reimburse the City for all costs it has incurred and will incur in installing and removing a flow restricter and in shutting off and turning on water service.
C. Any penalty imposed pursuant to this section shall be added to the account of the Account Holder for the property where the violation occurred or is occurring and shall be due and payable on the same terms and subject to the same conditions as any other charge for regular water service.
A. For each violation of this chapter, the Director shall give notice as follows:
1. By sending written notice through the U.S. mail to the Account Holder for the property where the violation occurred or is occurring, at the current billing address shown in the City's water billing records; and
2. By personally giving written notice thereof to the person who committed the violation or by leaving written notice with some person of suitable age and discretion at the property where the violation occurred or is occurring; or
3. If neither the person who committed the violation nor a person of suitable age and discretion can be found, then by affixing written notice in a conspicuous place on the property where the violation occurred or is occurring.
B. Any written notice given under this section shall contain a statement of:
1. The time, place and nature of the violation;
2. The person(s) committing the violation, if known;
3. The provision(s) of this chapter violated;
4. The possible penalties for each violation;
5. The Account Holder's right to request a hearing on the violation and the time within which such a request must be made; and
6. The Account Holder's loss of the right to a hearing in the event the Account Holder fails to request a hearing within the time required.
C. Any Account Holder provided a notice of violation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall have the right to request a hearing. The request must be made in writing and must be received by the Director within 10 calendar days of City of Santa Barbara, CA
§ 14.20.226 § 14.20.227
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5006 on 2026-03-02 (Ord. 4558, 1989; Ord. 5653, 2014)
the date of the notice of violation. The Director shall conduct the hearing, at which both written and oral evidence may be presented, and shall decide whether a violation occurred and the appropriate penalty. In determining the appropriate penalty, the Director shall consider whether the Account Holder knew of the violation at the time it occurred and whether he or she took reasonable action to correct the violation upon notification of it. In addition, the Director shall exercise his or her discretion in accordance with such guidelines as the City Council may adopt by resolution.
1. For a first, second or third violation within a 12 month period, the decision of the Director shall be final.
2. For a fourth or subsequent violation within a 12 month period, the Account Holder shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Director by requesting a hearing before the Board of Water Commissioners ("Board"). The request for hearing before the Board shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the Director not later than seven calendar days after the date of the decision of the Director. At the hearing, the Board may receive and hear both written and oral evidence and shall have the authority to affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Director. The decision of the Board shall be final.
D. If an Account Holder fails to request a hearing before the Director or the Board within the period(s) provided in this section, the action of the Director shall be deemed final.
E. Water service shall not be shut off until a notice of violation has become final or there is a final decision of the Director or the Board ordering the shut-off of water service.
City of Santa Barbara, CA
§ 14.20.227 § 14.20.227
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SA5006 on 2026-03-02 City of Santa Barbara
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan II
Attachment 2- Water Shortage Resolution
City of Santa Barbara
2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan III
Attachment 3- City of Santa Barbara
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex
City of Santa Barbara
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
An Annex to the Santa Barbara County
Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
February 2023
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan i
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table of Content
1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Plan Purpose and Authority........................................................................................................................2
3.0 Planning Process...........................................................................................................................................6
3.1 Overview...................................................................................................................................................6
3.2 Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC)................................................................................................ 7
3.3 Local Planning Team (LPT)......................................................................................................................8
3.4 Public Outreach and Engagement......................................................................................................10
4.0 Capability Assessment...............................................................................................................................10
4.1 Community Profile and Demographics ..............................................................................................10
4.2 Key Departments...................................................................................................................................11
4.2.1 City Administrator’s Office..........................................................................................................13
4.2.2 Santa Barbara Airport ................................................................................................................13
4.2.3 City Attorney Department...........................................................................................................14
4.2.4 Community Development Department.......................................................................................14
4.2.5 Finance Department......................................................................................................................14
4.2.6 Fire Department ............................................................................................................................15
4.2.7 Human Resources...........................................................................................................................17
4.2.8 Information Technology................................................................................................................17
4.2.9 Public Library System...................................................................................................................18
4.2.10 Parks and Recreation Department.............................................................................................18
4.2.11 Police Department.........................................................................................................................19
4.2.12 Public Works Department ...........................................................................................................19
4.2.13 Sustainability and Resilience Department................................................................................20
4.2.14 Waterfront Department ..............................................................................................................21
4.3 Administrative and Technical Capacity .............................................................................................22
4.4 Legal and Regulatory Capabilities....................................................................................................23
4.5 GIS, Computer and Communication Technology..............................................................................23
4.6 Financial Resources................................................................................................................................24
4.7 Education and Outreach Capabilities................................................................................................26
4.8 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances..........................................................................................27
4.8.1 The General Plan..........................................................................................................................27
4.8.2 Zoning Ordinance .........................................................................................................................28
4.8.3 Floodplain Management .............................................................................................................28
4.8.4 Safety Element...............................................................................................................................29
4.8.5 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan and Vulnerability Assessment ...........................................29
4.8.6 Community Wildfire Protection Plan .........................................................................................29
4.9 Opportunities for Mitigation Capability Improvements.................................................................30
5.0 Hazard Assessment....................................................................................................................................31
5.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................................31
5.2 Hazard Screening/Prioritization.........................................................................................................31
5.3 Hazard Profiles......................................................................................................................................32
5.3.1 Wildfire ..........................................................................................................................................32
5.3.2 Earthquake & Liquefaction..........................................................................................................37
5.3.3 Flood................................................................................................................................................42
5.3.4 Pandemic/Public Health Emergency..........................................................................................46
5.3.5 Tsunami .............................................................................................................................................48
5.3.6 Drought and Water Shortage....................................................................................................50
5.3.7 Energy Shortage and Resiliency ................................................................................................52
5.3.8 Dam Failure....................................................................................................................................53
5.3.9 Landslide.........................................................................................................................................55 ii February 2023
5.3.10 Train Accident................................................................................................................................58
5.3.11 Aircraft Crash ................................................................................................................................59
5.3.12 Coastal Hazards ...........................................................................................................................60
5.3.13 Extreme Heat.................................................................................................................................62
5.3.14 Hazardous Materials Release ....................................................................................................64
5.3.15 Oil Spill ...........................................................................................................................................65
6.0 Vulnerability Assessment...........................................................................................................................66
6.1 Wildfire...................................................................................................................................................74
6.2 Earthquake & Liquefaction ..................................................................................................................77
6.3 Flood ........................................................................................................................................................88
6.4 Tsunami ....................................................................................................................................................92
6.5 Dam Failure.............................................................................................................................................94
6.6 Landslide .................................................................................................................................................96
6.7 Coastal Hazards....................................................................................................................................99
7.0 Mitigation Strategy ................................................................................................................................102
7.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................102
7.2 Mitigation Progress ............................................................................................................................104
7.3 Mitigation Approach..........................................................................................................................106
7.4 Implementation Plan...........................................................................................................................107
8.0 Plan Maintenance....................................................................................................................................143
8.1 Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan............................................................................143
8.2 Implementation through Existing Plans and Programs................................................................. 144
8.3 Ongoing Public Outreach and Engagement..................................................................................145
8.4 Point of Contact...................................................................................................................................145
9.0 References................................................................................................................................................145 List of Figures
Figure 5-1. Santa Barbara County Fire Hazard Severity Zones...............................................................36 Figure 5-2. Santa Barbara County Probability of Shaking 2% in 50 Years..........................................40 Figure 5-3. Santa Barbara County Liquefaction Severity...........................................................................41 Figure 5-4. Santa Barbara County FEMA Flood Hazards ..........................................................................45 Figure 5-5. South Coast Tsunami Hazard Area.............................................................................................51 Figure 5-6. Landslide Susceptibility in Santa Barbara County ..................................................................57 Figure 6-1. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities within Wildfire Threat Zones...............................75 Figure 6-2. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities and Earthquake Groundshaking Potential (Red Mountain Fault 7.4 Magnitude ShakeMap) ...................................................86 Figure 6-3. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities and Liquefaction Potential...................................87 Figure 6-4. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities in FEMA Flood Hazard Zones..............................91 Figure 6-5. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities in Tsunami Hazard Zone.......................................93 Figure 6-6. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities in Dam Inundation Zone........................................95 Figure 6-7. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities within Landslide Susceptibility Zones.................98 Figure 6-8. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities in Sea Level Rise Coastal Hazard Zones....... 101 City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan iii
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan List of Tables
Table 3-1. Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC) Meetings Summary..................................................... 7 Table 3-2. City of Santa Barbara Local Planning Team 2022................................................................... 8 Table 3-3. Local Planning Team Activity Summary ....................................................................................... 9 Table 4-1. City of Santa Barbara Administrative and Technical Capacity............................................22 Table 4-2. City of Santa Barbara Legal and Regulatory Capability.....................................................23 Table 4-3. City of Santa Barbara Fiscal Capability ..................................................................................25 Table 5-1. City of Santa Barbara Local Priority Hazards.........................................................................31 Table 5-2. Richter Scale....................................................................................................................................37 Table 5-3. Southern California Region Earthquake Likelihoods................................................................39 Table 6-1. Critical Facilities in the City of Santa Barbara ........................................................................66 Table 6-2. Summary of Potential Impacts on Critical Facilities.................................................................73 Table 6-3. City of Santa Barbara at Risk to Wildfire Threat...................................................................74 Table 6-4. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities Vulnerable to Wildfire.........................................76 Table 6-5. City of Santa Barbara at Risk to Liquefaction Hazard by Property Type ........................77 Table 6-6. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities Vulnerable to Groundshaking & Liquefaction .....................................................................................................................................78 Table 6-7. City of Santa Barbara FEMA Floodplain Exposure and Loss................................................88 Table 6-8. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities at Risk to Flood Hazard .......................................89 Table 6-9. City of Santa Barbara at Risk to Tsunami Hazard..................................................................92 Table 6-10. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities Vulnerable to Tsunami ..........................................92 Table 6-11. City of Santa Barbara at Risk to Dam Inundation Hazard....................................................94 Table 6-12. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities Vulnerable to Inundation from Dam Failure...............................................................................................................................................94 Table 6-13. City of Santa Barbara Improved Properties at Risk to Landslide Summary......................96 Table 6-14. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities Vulnerable to Landslide .......................................96 Table 6-15. City of Santa Barbara at Risk to Sea Level Rise Coastal Hazards by Property Type..................................................................................................................................................99 Table 6-16. City of Santa Barbara Critical Facilities Vulnerable to Coastal Hazards....................... 100 Table 7-1. Status of City of Santa Barbara Previous Mitigation Actions ............................................ 104 iv February 2023
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1.0. Introduction
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 1
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Natural and human-caused disasters can lead to death, injury, property damage, and interruption of business and government services. When they occur, the time, money, and effort to respond to and recover from these disasters divert public resources and attention from other important programs and problems.
However, the impact of foreseeable yet often unpredictable natural and human-caused events can be reduced through mitigation planning. History has demonstrated that it is less expensive to mitigate against disaster damage than to repeatedly repair damage in the aftermath. A mitigation plan states the aspirations and specific courses of action jurisdictions intend to follow to reduce vulnerability and exposure to future hazard events.
The City of Santa Barbara (City) recognizes the consequences of disasters and the need to reduce the impacts of all hazards, natural and human-caused. This annex was prepared in 2022 as part of the update to the County of Santa Barbara (County) Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). This annex serves as the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for the City. The LHMP was last comprehensively updated in 2017 as an annex to the 2017 MJHMP. Since 2017, the City has:
• Incorporated the LHMP goals, objectives, and mitigation actions into its local plans and processes, including the General Plan Safety Element by reference and specific hazard planning efforts (e.g., Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan).
• Used the LHMP’s assessment of capabilities, hazards, and vulnerabilities to inform planning, capital improvements, programs, decision-makers, and the public. • Implemented mitigation actions through the City’s general plan, capital improvement program, maintenance programs, grant programming, community outreach, and budget process. • Reviewed and evaluated mitigation actions before and after disasters, including the Thomas Fire and Montecito debris flow.
This 2022 update to the LHMP builds on and refines the MJHMP’s assessment of hazards and vulnerabilities countywide to develop a mitigation plan for the City. The City participated in the 2022 MJHMP Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC) and Local Planning Team (LPT), reviewed all portions of the MJHMP pertaining to the City, and incorporated relevant components into this annex.
It contains updated capability assessment information, a current vulnerability assessment, and an updated/revised mitigation strategy. The methodology and process for developing this annex build on approaches employed in the 2022 MJHMP and are explained throughout the following sections.
The 2022 MJHMP update was prepared with input and coordination from each of the county’s eight incorporated cities, six special districts, the County, citizen participation, responsible officials, and support from the State of California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The process to update the MJHMP and this LHMP included over a year of coordination with representatives from all participating agencies within the County and County representatives who comprised the MAC (described further in Section
3.0, Planning Process below). The City is a participating agency in the County’s MJHMP update.
The City’s LHMP is used by local emergency management teams, decision-makers, and agency staff to implement needed mitigation to address known hazards. The MJHMP and this annex can also be
2.0. Plan Purpose and Authority
2 February 2023
used as a tool for all stakeholders to increase community awareness of local hazards and risks and provide information about options and resources available to reduce those risks. Informing and educating the public about potential hazards helps all county residents and visitors protect themselves against their effects.
Risk assessments were performed that identified and evaluated priority hazards that could impact the City. Vulnerability assessments summarize the identified hazards’ impact on the City. Estimates of potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures are presented. The risk and vulnerability assessments were used to determine mitigation goals and objectives to minimize near-term and long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards. These goals and objectives are the foundation for a comprehensive range of specific attainable mitigation actions (see Section 7.0, Mitigation Strategy).
2.0 PLAN PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Federal legislation historically provided funding for disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. The Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000, also commonly known as “The 2000 Stafford Act Amendments” (the Act), constitutes an effort by the federal government to reduce the rising cost of disasters. The legislation reinforces the importance of mitigation planning and emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur.
Section 322 of the DMA requires local governments to develop and submit mitigation plans to qualify for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds. The 2022 MJHMP meets the statutory requirements of DMA 2000 (P.L. 106-390), enacted October 30, 2000, and 44 CFR Part 201 – Mitigation Planning, Interim Final Rule, published February 26, 2002. The HMA grants include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. Additional FEMA mitigation funds include the HMGP Post Fire funding associated with Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) declarations and the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) funding associated with the 2018 Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA).
DMA 2000 specifically addresses mitigation planning at the state and local levels. It identifies requirements that allow HMGP funds to be used for planning activities and increases the amount of HMGP funds available to states that have developed a comprehensive, enhanced mitigation plan before a disaster. State, county, and local jurisdictions must have an approved mitigation plan in place before receiving post-disaster HMGP funds. These mitigation plans must demonstrate that their proposed projects are based on a sound planning process that accounts for the risk to and the capabilities of the individual communities.
Local governments have certain responsibilities for implementing Section 322, including:
• Preparing and submitting a local mitigation plan;
• Reviewing and updating the plan every five years; and • Monitoring mitigation actions and projects.
To facilitate implementation of the DMA 2000, FEMA created an Interim Final Rule (the Rule), published in the Federal Register in February of 2002 at section 201 of 44 CFR. The Rule spells out
2.0. Plan Purpose and Authority
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 3
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan the mitigation planning criteria for states and local communities. Specific requirements for local mitigation planning efforts are outlined in section §201.6 of the Rule.
In March 2013, FEMA released The Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (Handbook) as the official guide for local governments to develop, update and implement local mitigation plans. The Handbook complements and references the October 2011 FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide (Guide) to help “Federal and State officials assess Local Mitigation Plans in a fair and consistent manner.” Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that proposed mitigation actions are based upon a sound planning process that accounts for the inherent risk and capabilities of the individual communities as stated in section §201.5 of the Rule. The Handbook and Guide were consulted to ensure thoroughness, diligence, and compliance with the DMA 2000 planning requirements.
DMA 2000 is intended to facilitate cooperation between state and local authorities, prompting them to work together. It encourages and rewards local and state pre-disaster planning and promotes sustainability as a strategy for disaster resistance. This enhanced planning network is intended to enable local and state governments to articulate accurate needs for mitigation, resulting in a faster allocation of funding and more effective risk reduction projects.
This LHMP was prepared as an annex to the County’s MJHMP in compliance with DMA 2000 and applicable FEMA guidance. The following pages show the resolutions that adopt the City’s 2022 LHMP.
RESOLUTION NO. 23-038
A RESOLUTION OF THE C\JV COUNCIL OF THE CIT/ OF
SANTA BARBARA CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE 2022 CIT/
OF SANTA BARBARA ANNEX OF THE SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION
PLAN
WHEREAS, The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Act), as described in 44 CFR Section 201. 6 mandates local governments to submit and maintain a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) approved local hazard mitigation plan; WHEREAS, The of City Santa Barbara has participated in a county-wide multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation plan with Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management as the Operational Area and lead agency;
WHEREAS, The Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies each jurisdiction's risk assessment and mitigation strategies to reduce the impacts of natural, technological, or intentional disasters on the public and local government; WHEREAS, Identification of hazards in the City assists with response planning, exercise development, public education, and awareness, and other emergency management functions;
WHEREAS, the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan will be an Annex to the City's Emergency Operations Plan and a resource for the Safety Element of the City's General Plan in accordance with California Government Code Sections 8685.9 and 65302.6; WHEREAS, The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires the Plan to be formally adopted by the City Council or governing agency; and
WHEREAS, adopting the City's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and amending the General Plan to incorporate the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by reference is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) through the use of the "General Rule" Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as adoption of the Amendment will have no potential adverse impact upon the environment because the LHMP will act a guidebook for hazard mitigation strategies but does not implement any specific project, action, or funding.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara, California, as follows:
1. The City Council approves and adopts the 2022 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan five (5) year update in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.
2. The City Council adopts the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
3. This Resolution is effective upon its adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 23-038
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.
)
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Santa Barbara at a meeting held on April 11, 2023, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Eric Friedman, Alejandra Gutierrez, Oscar Gutierrez, Meagan Harmon, Kristen W. Sneddon, Mayor Randy Rowse
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Mike Jordan
ABSTENTIONS: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Santa Barbara onj!^@|^^. 2Qg.3..,
A^x^t/'/. '^'^
^^^&, '^.... ^""'.^''
s:sswl/:
^^^/fU
"^^.^^ .N-ye.1 minguez
^'.;**.^ y~-^i'^ put Cit Clerk
.
'^&;::"^<?
I HEREBY APPROVE tte%^oir^tel ution on April 13, 2023.
Randy wse
Mayor
3.0. Planning Process
6 February 2023
3.0 PLANNING PROCESS
3.1 OVERVIEW
The planning process implemented for the County’s 2022 MJHMP update, including the City’s LHMP update, utilized two different planning teams to review progress, inform and guide the update, and directly review and prepare portions of the plan, including each jurisdictional annex. The first team is the Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC) and the second is the Local Planning Team (LPT).
All eight incorporated cities and the six special districts joined the County as participating agencies in the preparation of the MJHMP update, including the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, and Solvang; and special districts Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board (COMB), Carpinteria Valley Water District (CVWD), Goleta Water District (GWD), Montecito Fire Protection District (MFPD), Montecito Water District (MWD), and Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District (SMVWCD). Each of the participating agencies had representation on the MAC and was responsible for the administration of their own LPT. In addition, the MAC included representatives from other state and local agencies with an interest in hazard mitigation in Santa Barbara County, including local non-profit organizations, special districts, and state and federal agencies. This composition ensures diverse input from an array of voices representing all communities within Santa Barbara County.
Both the MAC and the LPTs focused on these underlining philosophies, adopted from the FEMA Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide:
• Focus on the mitigation strategy
The mitigation strategy is the plan’s primary purpose. All other sections contribute to and inform the mitigation strategy and specific hazard mitigation actions. • Process is as important as the plan itself
In mitigation planning, as with most other planning efforts, the plan is only as good as the process and people involved in its development. The plan should also serve as the written record, or documentation, of the planning process.
• This is the community’s plan
To have value; the plan must represent the current needs and values of the community and be useful for local officials and stakeholders. Develop the mitigation plan in a way that best serves your community’s purpose and people.
• Intent is as important as Compliance
Plan reviews will focus on whether the mitigation plan meets the intent of the law and regulation; and ultimately that the plan will make the community safer from hazards.
As a result, the planning process incorporated the following steps:
• Plan Preparation
3.0. Planning Process
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 7
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan • Form/validate planning team members
• Establish common project goals
• Set expectations and timelines
• Plan Development
• Validate and revise the existing conditions/situation within the planning area; • Develop and review the risk to hazards (exposure and vulnerability) within the planning area;
• Review and identify mitigation actions and projects within the planning area; • Finalize the Plan
• Review and revise the plan
• Approve the plan locally and with state and federal reviewers • Adopt and disseminate the plan
3.2 MITIGATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MAC)
The City participated as a MAC member to prepare this LHMP as an annex to the 2022 MJHMP.
The City was represented by Yolanda McGlinchey, Emergency Services Manager, on the MAC.
The MAC meetings were designed to discuss each component of the MJHMP with MAC members and coordinate annex updates. Table 3-1 below provides a list and the main purpose and topics of each MAC meeting.
Table 3-1. Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC) Meetings Summary Date Purpose
March 2021
MAC Meeting #1 (virtual)
Provided an overview of the project and why the plan is being revised Reviewed FEMA guidance and processes
Discussed roles and responsibilities of the participating jurisdictions September 2021
MAC Meeting #2 (virtual)
Reviewed goals of the project, role of the MAC
Summarized public outreach results
Presented hazards assessment and displayed select draft hazard maps Conducted interactive exercise to rank hazards
October 2021
MAC Meeting #3 (virtual)
Provided results of hazard ranking methodology
Presented vulnerabilities assessment
Discussed mitigation goals, objectives, and strategies
Reviewed County goals from 2017 and compared them to new goals Conducted interactive exercise on potential mitigation goals and strategies October 2021 MAC Meeting #4 (virtual)
Collected feedback on 2017 mitigation strategies
3.0. Planning Process
8 February 2023
Date Purpose
Conducted interactive exercise on mitigation strategies for key hazards unaddressed in previous MJHMP
Discussed annex updates
January 2022
MAC Meeting #5 (virtual)
Presented draft plan
Discussed key MAC/LPT review needs and key issues
Discussed annex updates to dovetail with plan update
March 2022
MAC Meeting #6 (virtual)
Review and discuss public comments received on the draft plan Recommend a revised draft plan to decision-makers
Review annex updates for review and approval
3.3 LOCAL PLANNING TEAM (LPT)
Table 3-2 lists the City’s LPT. These individuals collaborated to identify the City’s critical facilities, provide relevant plans, report on the progress of City mitigation actions, and provide suggestions for new mitigation actions.
Table 3-2. City of Santa Barbara Local Planning Team 2022 Department Name Title
Airport Aaron Keller Airport Operations Manager
Public Works Adam Hendel Principal Engineer
Sustainability & Resilience Alelia Parenteau Interim Sustainability & Resilience Dept. Director Attorney Ariel Calonne City Attorney
Public Works Ashleigh Shue Principle Engineer
Fire Brady Beck Fire Investigator III
Airport Brian D’Amour Interim Airport Director
Public Works Catherine Taylor Water Services Manager
Community Development Christina Dye Building Official
Fire Christopher Braden Wildland Fire Services Specialist - GIS Finance Doug Smith Accounting Manager
Information Technology Eric Just GIS Coordintor
Waterfront Erik Engebretson Harbor Operations Manager
Parks & Recreation Jazmin LeBlanc Assistant Parks & Recreation Director Public Works Jeff Brent Maintenance Supervisor II
Library Jessica Cadiente Library Director
Public Works Jim Dewey Streets Operations Infrastructure Manager Police Joshua Morton Police Lieutenant
Finance Keith DeMartini Finance Director
Library Kristina Hernandez Library Services Manager
Fire Liliana Encinas Bilingual Public Outreach Coodinator Sustainability & Resilience Melissa Hetrick Administrative Analyst II
3.0. Planning Process
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 9
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Department Name Title
Administration Rene Eyerly Interim Assistance City Administrator Community Development Renee Brooke City Planner
Parks & Recreation Rich Hanna Recreation Program Manager Community Development Rosie Dyste Project Planner
Information Technology Rudy Fidler Information Technology Planner Fire Ryan DiGuilio Fire Marshal
Airport Sara Iza Principal Project Manager
Fire/OES Yolanda McGlinchey Emergency Services Manager
The Santa Barbara LPT members worked directly with the Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), the consultant team, and each other to provide data, recommended changes, and continually work on the MJHMP and LHMP updates throughout the planning process. The City LPT met virtually as needed during the planning process to discuss data needs and organize data collection. Table 3-3 below outlines a timeline of the LPT's activities throughout the planning process.
Table 3-3. Local Planning Team Activity Summary
Meeting Dates Summary of Activity
February 2020 LPT kickoff meeting to discuss stakeholder and public involvement and refine the scope of hazard analysis
April 2021 to January
2022
Collated data to share with hazard mitigation planning team, including hazard identification, refreshed data layers for maps, and geographic settings.
Completed Plan Update Guides to directly inform hazard priorities and mitigation capabilities
Met with County OEM and consultant staff (12/17/22) to discuss LHMP priorities and mitigation approaches.
April 9, 2021 City LHMP met to review documents and forms needed for the Consultant and County OEM
November 10, 2021
City LHMP to review City’s Goals and Objectives
Review Mitigation Projects, Defer, Complete, Delete or add new projects and review the template for projects from Consultant
Review and revise Mitigation Strategies
January and March 2022
Reviewed new maps and local vulnerabilities.
Provided input on the status of 2017 LHMP mitigation strategies.
Reviewed draft mitigation strategies and provide feedback.
Reviewed and finalized 2022 LHMP
January through April
2022
City’s LHMP meet in various small meetings to complete:
Updated Section 4 – Capability Assessment
Reviewed and updated on Cost-Benefit Worksheet
Mitigation Projects
Review and make comment on City’s Annex to the MJHMP
4.0. Capability Assessment
10 February 2023
3.4 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
As a participating agency in the 2022 MJHMP update, the City was directly involved in the outreach program undertaken by the County for the 2022 MJHMP update, which involved extensive outreach during 2021 and early 2022. The City’s MAC and LPT members participated in public outreach efforts for the MJHMP and LHMP update planning process by distributing notices for the 6-monthlong community hazards survey (refer to Section 3.4.1 of the 2022 MJHMP) and three public workshops (refer to Section 3.4.4 of the MJHMP). The Public Outreach Plan (POP) employed a diversity of tools to maximize notification and participation. The POP was responsive to limitations presented by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and focused on direct bilingual outreach using a variety of digital tools, including a fact sheet, social media posts, emails, and press releases.
Multiple platforms and tools were used to publicize opportunities to participate. All public and stakeholder meetings were hosted virtually through Microsoft Teams, and all outreach completed for the project was conducted via electronic communications. Many of the meetings used an interactive tool called Slido to collect feedback during meetings. Slido allows audience members to answer questions during presentations, helping the County collect direct detailed feedback and facilitate discussion. All written notices were made available in English and Spanish.
Emergency preparedness information is also regularly distributed to the residents and businesses via the City’s website.
In May 2022, the LHMP was completed and made available for public review, concurrent with review by FEMA and CalOES. The City’s Draft LHMP was published on the City OES website for comment. Once approved the plan will be placed on the OES website. The opportunity to review documents was announced through social media, media release and the City’s website. The community was welcome to submit written or verbal comments to the Emergency Services Manager.
In addition, the opportunity for the community to be heard was permitted during the City Council meeting before the adoption of this plan.
4.0 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
The City LPT identified current capabilities and mechanisms available for implementing hazard mitigation activities. This section presents a discussion of the roles of key departments, administrative and technical capacity, fiscal resources, and summaries of relevant planning mechanisms, codes, and ordinances.
4.1 COMMUNITY PROFILE AND DEMOGRAPHICS
The City of Santa Barbara is located on the south coast of Santa Barbara County. Due to the Santa Ynez mountain range that blocks colder air from the north, Santa Barbara enjoys mild and pleasant weather. It sits at an elevation of roughly 50 feet above sea level and has a land area of 19 square miles. The City received its name when the California Mission Santa Barbara was founded there in 1786. The mission was known as the Queen of the Missions due to its beauty and the beauty of its surroundings.
Attractions in Santa Barbara include the Waterfront, Downtown retail, entertainment, and cultural districts, Santa Barbara Museums of Art and Natural History, the Santa Barbara Zoo, and special
4.0. Capability Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 11
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan events such as Old Spanish Days – Fiesta Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara is the retail, tourism, government, education, and medical center of the County. It is home to the Santa Barbara Airport, which provides commercial services for Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties.
According to 2019 U.S. Census Bureau data, the City is home to 92,034 residents. This population is projected to grow to 98,655 residents by 2050 (SBCAG 2018). The average household size in the City is 2.45 and the median household income is $78,945. Approximately 56.2 percent of City of Santa Barbara residents identify as White, 36.50 percent identify as Hispanic, and 7.4 percent identify as Asian, Black, Mixed, or Other (US Census Bureau 2019).
4.2 KEY DEPARTMENTS
The City of Santa Barbara employs a Manager-Council form of governance. Santa Barbara City Council is comprised of one Mayor and six Council Members, all of whom are elected officials each serving a four-year term. The City of Santa Barbara’s organization is comprised of fifteen departments. These departments are Airport; City Administrator; City Attorney; Community Development; Finance; Fire; Human Resources, Information Technology, Library; Mayor and Council; Parks and Recreation; Police; Public Works; Sustainability and Resilience and Waterfront Departments. In addition, Santa Barbara has 29 Advisory Boards, Commissions, and Committees whose job is to advise the City Council on a wide variety of subjects.
4.0. Capability Assessment
12 February 2023
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA ORGANIZATION CHART
ELECTORATE
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CITY ATTORNEY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS,
COMMITTEES
AIRPORT SPECIAL PROJECTS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCE
FIRE
LIBRARY
PARKS & RECREATION
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
POLICE
PUBLIC WORKS
WATERFRONT
HUMAN RESOURCES
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
SUSTAINABILITY & RESILIENCE
4.0. Capability Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 13
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Departments involved in activities related to hazard mitigation include:
4.2.1 City Administrator’s Office
The City Administrator’s Office provides leadership, direction, and oversight to City departments to accomplish goals and objectives approved by the City Council, per the City Charter. The City Administrator manages all departments, provides training and development for all City employees, reviews the performance of all City departments, and assists the City Council in prioritizing goals.
The City Administrator’s Office also provides oversight to City TV on Channel 18.
In response to natural disasters, the City Administrator’s Office serves as the primary point of contact to coordinate the entire flow of public information. This is accomplished through the use of media releases, press conferences, website updates, the City TV scroll, public information kiosks, and all other social media outlets. The Administrator’s office works in conjunction with other emergency personnel to coordinate the public release of accurate, timely, and consistent information.
4.2.2 Santa Barbara Airport
The Santa Barbara Airport is one of the region’s most important and visible assets. A recent University of California, Santa Barbara Economic Forecast Project study found that the Airport has a $500 million annual impact on the County. Since the 1930s, it has been the region’s primary air transportation facility. Nearly 1 million passengers used the Airport in 2019; making it the busiest airport on the California coast between San Jose and Los Angeles. Consistent with national trends, air travel through the Santa Barbara Airport declined during the recent pandemic. However, passenger numbers have started to increase through the summer of 2020, and airline forecast studies show the passenger volume will grow over the next 10 years.
The Airport has recently completed a new master plan for development through 2025. The plan identifies Airport facility and capacity needs and prescribes improvements. The Airport must remain open during natural disaster situations to serve as a transportation point for the ingress and egress of personnel, equipment, and supplies during the recovery phase of a disaster. The Airport completed a master drainage plan to address flooding issues, and several of the recommended projects from the plan have been completed. The remaining flood control projects are listed in this document as potential projects for funding.
Approximately 400 of the 430 acres of the Goleta Slough Ecological Reserve are within Airport boundaries. As a steward of the slough, the Airport has made significant environmental improvements with plans for further restoration in the future.
In 2008, the Airport completed its airfield safety projects, which brought the runway safety areas up to federal standard and reduced the commercial runway flood hazard.
As mitigation for the Airfield Safety Projects, the Airport has spent nearly $9 million to improve or restore 40 acres of wetland habitat in the Goleta Slough. Ten of those acres were completed in 2010 after a 3-year study of bird behavior in tidal wetlands. The results of this study show that the restoration of tidal circulation has improved habitat for wildlife while reducing the risk of wildlife strikes on or near the airfield. This study has national significance as other airports may follow in
4.0. Capability Assessment
14 February 2023
Santa Barbara’s footsteps. Each restoration site is overseen in a 7-year maintenance and monitoring program to ensure success, no concerns followed the conclusion of the monitoring program in 2017.
4.2.3 City Attorney Department
The City Attorney’s Office is responsible for legal representation and advice to the City Council, Boards, Commissions, and all City officers and staff. These responsibilities include advising the City Council and Planning Commission, as well as City staff, on thousands of matters each year. The office is also responsible for all City code enforcement and litigation services. The office is staffed by six attorneys and five support and paraprofessional staff.
4.2.4 Community Development Department
The Community Development Department is responsible for planning and zoning, building and safety, and housing and redevelopment for the City of Santa Barbara.
The Building & Safety Division is responsible for Building Inspection and Code Enforcement; Building Counter and Plan Review; and Records, Archives, and Clerical Services. One of the primary functions of this division is to ensure all new and remodeled structures, as well as additions to existing structures, are constructed to current health and safety codes, thus lessening the potential impact of hazards.
The Planning Division is responsible for Long Range Planning and Special Studies; Zoning Ordinance Information; Development / Environmental Review; and Design Review and Historic Preservation.
This division mitigates natural and human-caused hazards for new and existing development through the implementation of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Local Coastal Plan, the Subdivision Map Act, and a variety of other California planning statutes.
The primary responsibilities of this division in mitigating hazards are through 1) developing General Plan and Coastal Zone goals, policies, and implementation actions that address natural and humancaused hazards(e.g., the Safety Element and the Coastal Land Use Plan); 2) mapping geologyrelated hazards and providing guidelines for site-specific geological investigations for various types of development projects via the Geology and Geohazards Master Environmental Assessment; 3) review and permitting of development consistent with hazard risk reduction and community resilience-related goals, polices, and procedures; and 4) enforcing existing development to ensure continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, all divisions of the Community Development Department are regularly trained to respond to disasters and assist with recovery efforts.
4.2.5 Finance Department
The Finance Department is responsible for providing financial expertise and guidance to the City Council and City Departments, managing the City's daily operations, and maintaining the financial integrity of the City. The Finance Department consists of five divisions, Administration, Accounting, Risk Management, Treasury, and General Services, which encompass sixteen programs.
4.0. Capability Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 15
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.2.6 Fire Department
The mission of the Fire Department is to serve and protect the community from the perils of fires, medical emergencies, environmental emergencies, and natural disasters. This will be accomplished through education, code enforcement, planning, prevention, emergency response, and disaster recovery. The Fire Department is responsible for managing the following programs, Fire Administration; Fire Prevention; Wildland; Office of Emergency Services; and Fire Operations.
Fire Administration provides leadership, policy direction, and administrative support to the entire department. Fire Prevention protects life, property, and the environment from the perils of fire, hazardous materials, and other disasters through proactive code enforcement, modern fire prevention methods, fire and arson investigation, and progressive public safety education, which provides fire and life safety education to the whole community to reduce the loss of life and property. Wildland Division ensures a safer community in the wildland-urban interface through analysis, defensible space, evacuation planning, education, enforcement and fuels modification The Office of Emergency Services coordinates the City’s response to a disaster, educates residents to prepare and operates the City Emergency Operations Center, located at Fire Station 1; Fire Operations saves and protects lives, property, and the environment of the Santa Barbara community by preventing the impact of future events through proactive planning, public education, and occupancy fire code inspections.
In 2004, the City adopted the Wildland Fire Plan as a comprehensive, coordinated plan to mitigate the impact of wildland fire. The plan has recently been designated as the City’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The Plan identifies and ranks the City’s high fire hazard areas based on hazard and risk, identifies policies and actions to reduce the community’s threat from wildland fire, and provides a process to prioritize and fund implementation of wildland fire projects. The Plan covers a wide range of areas including defensible space requirements and landscape guidelines, public education and outreach programs, evacuation preplanning, Codes modification and enforcement, fire protection services, post-fire rehabilitation, biomass utilization, and vegetation management programs on both private and public lands. To implement elements of that plan, the City adopted the Wildland Fire Suppression Assessment District (WFSAD) in 2006. The WFSAD provides an alternate funding source for defensible space chipping, vegetation road clearance, vegetation fuels management projects, and voluntary defensible space evaluations for residents located in the Foothill and Extreme Foothill high fire hazard areas. In cooperation with residents of the district, the program has removed hundreds of tons of flammable vegetation, thereby reducing the threat of wildfire and enhancing evacuation routes throughout the district.
City of Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Services Division The City of Santa Barbara’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) is a Division of the Fire Department. The OES office consists of an Emergency Services Manager and a Bilingual Public Outreach Coordinator. The purpose of OES is to develop and implement plans for the protection of persons and property within the City of Santa Barbara in the event of a disaster and to coordinate Emergency Services functions of the City with all other public agencies and affected nonprofits, corporations, and non-governmental organizations.
The City of Santa Barbara’s Emergency Services Organization is managed by the Emergency Services Council (ESC). The City Administrator serves as the Director of Emergency Services and acts
4.0. Capability Assessment
16 February 2023
as chair of the ESC. Other members of the ESC include the Police Chief; Fire Chief; Public Works Director; and representatives of each City department, service, or division designated by the City Administrator. The Emergency Services Manager is responsible for the development and maintenance of emergency plans, per the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), organization and coordination of emergency programs and training, and is a member of the ESC.
The City of Santa Barbara’s Emergency Services Organization is comprised of all officers and employees of the City, together with those volunteer forces enrolled to aid the City during a disaster, and all groups, organizations, and persons who may by agreement or operation of law, including persons pressed into service under the provisions of Section 9.116.060(3) of the Santa Barbara Municipal Code be charged with duties incident to the protection of life and property in the City during such disaster. This includes, but is not limited to, School Districts, Santa Barbara Community College District, Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District, American Red Cross, and Amateur Radio Emergency Services (ARES).
The City of Santa Barbara revised its Standardized Emergency Management System Emergency Operations Plan (SEMS EOP) in August 2019 to ensure the most effective and economical allocation of resources for the maximum benefit and protection of the civilian population in an emergency.
The EOP was developed in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Operational Area, as part of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The EOP addresses emergency responses associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security. The objective of the plan is to establish an effective organization capable of responding to and recovering from potential large-scale emergencies using all appropriate facilities and personnel in the City. The SEMS EOP assigns tasks and procedures for the coordination of emergency staff and service elements per the Comprehensive Plan Guide 101 (CPG101). The SEMS EOP identifies emergency response actions associated with large-scale emergencies through standard operating procedures.
The plan states that hazard mitigation is a year-round effort and encourages all entities to prepare hazard mitigation plans. The following activities are identified by the plan as potential mitigation activities: improving structures and facilities at risk; identifying hazard-prone areas and developing standards for prohibited or restricted use; recovery and relief from loss; and providing hazard warning.
Santa Barbara Aircraft Rescue (ARFF) and Firefighting Services The Fire Department has been providing ARFF services at the Airport since July 1, 1990, after the Airport Director transferred the service from Santa Barbara County Fire Department. The ARFF Station 8, which was constructed in the early 1990s, was jointly funded by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program grants and Airport Capital funds. The Airport provides the two ARFF apparatuses, which were purchased in 2002 with FAA Airport Improvement Program grant funds, as well as a smaller “Rescue Squad” unit. Station 8 also houses the City’s Mass Casualty unit, which can provide EMS supplies and staging equipment for 100 patients.
Additionally, the Airport pays for specialized equipment (silver suits), routine supplies, and services.
The Fire Department provides nine permanent positions - three Captains and six Engineers - to staff the ARFF station on a 24/7 basis. This personnel is trained and certified for airport firefighting (live fire drills), rescue, and EMS operations under both the FAA and City Fire Department requirements.
4.0. Capability Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 17
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan To accept commercial air carrier service, an airport is required to obtain certification from the Federal Aviation Administration, per the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 14, Part 139. CFR Part 139 regulations include requirements for equipment, firefighting agents, and operational requirements such as personnel training and emergency response times. All active-duty Fire Department ARFF personnel are compliant with these mandatory FAA requirements.
4.2.7 Human Resources
Human Resources provides a centralized program of personnel administration for approximately 1,050 regular employees (FTE) and approximately 500 hourly employees in 12 departments.
Human Resources oversees programs designed to meet the needs of the City and its employees throughout the employee lifecycle.
• Classification and Compensation: Establishes job classifications and compensation levels for over 400 classifications; manages the HR Payroll System (Munis) concerning job titles, positions, and compensation (COLAS, merit increases, status changes, etc.) • Recruitment and Retention: Recruits, tests, and certifies qualified applicants for City positions; establishes programs that ensure the City is abreast of current trends to stay an employer of choice.
• Employee Relations: Coordinates and assists departments with disciplinary actions, performance issues, grievances, and complaints; provides guidance, interpretation of policies, processes, laws, and MOU and other personnel-related information to employees and departments.
• Civil Service Commission: Provides staff support to the Civil Service Commission. • Benefits and Wellness: Administers employee benefit programs including medical insurance, life insurance, long and short-term disability, flexible spending accounts, deferred compensation and retirement, and leaves of absences.
• Training and Development: Manages employee training through the LEAP programs (Learning for Excellence and Achievement Program), including the City Leadership Academy, City Supervisory Excellence Academy, New Employee Orientation, and Educational Reimbursement.
4.2.8 Information Technology
Information Technology provides Infrastructure support, Enterprise Applications, Web Services, Computer Training, and Centralized GIS. Infrastructure Support provides technical leadership, maintenance, and user support for computing and networking services to City staff by operating and maintaining the City’s 40+ Local Area Networks; providing maintenance and support to over 950 desktop and laptop computers; establishing and maintaining standards for hardware and software; and performing systems analysis, system integration and system implementation; provides consulting services to all departments in areas of business problems, implementing solutions.
Enterprise Applications Support provides financial management systems (including Human Resources and Payroll systems) and related services; maintains enterprise-wide applications such as customer information system for City Utilities, maintenance management, land use permitting, electronic content and agenda management, SQL reporting services, and data exportation to support the
4.0. Capability Assessment
18 February 2023
analysis and inquiry needs of City staff. Web Services establishes standards and provides oversight of the City’s local Intranet and public Website and associated services. Computer Training coordinates the City’s computer training program; provides consulting services to all departments in areas of business problems, implementing solutions. Centralized GIS provides standards and a rules-based central database of GIS data; provides tools to update and display GIS data; and provides detailed maps, drawings, and other GIS services.
4.2.9 Public Library System
The Santa Barbara Public Library is dedicated to supporting community education for all ages through classes and events, building a community of readers, empowering individuals with free access to information, and connecting people to community resources.
In addition to providing free access to physical and digital materials for information and entertainment, the Library provides computer and internet access as well as through technology available for checkout. Library programming offers educational and enrichment opportunities for people of all ages and includes early literacy classes, science, technology, and maker classes, career resources, college readiness classes for teens, one-on-one support for business owners, jobseekers, and those pursuing citizenship, tech classes for seniors, and more. The Library celebrates local Santa Barbara history, supports the local community of artists, writers, and creators, and facilitates opportunities for residents to connect with other community organizations. Santa Barbara library staff work to serve all community members, including Black, Indigenous, and people of color, immigrants, people with disabilities, and the most vulnerable in our communities, offering services and educational resources to help transform communities, open minds, and promote inclusion, diversity, equity, and justice.
The central and Eastside libraries serve the residents of Santa Barbara, while the Carpinteria, and Montecito branch libraries are owned and funded by the County of Santa Barbara and administered under an agreement with the City.
4.2.10 Parks and Recreation Department
The City of Santa Barbara Parks and Recreation Department maintains 60 parks totaling nearly 1810 acres. The Parks Division is responsible for all aspects of parks, open space, street tree care, and beach management, and during emergencies provides logistical support such as personnel and supply transportation. The Recreation Division provides numerous recreational and cultural opportunities as well as community services. During emergencies, the Department manages community buildings and recreation facilities as shelters and staging areas. The Department oversees the management of the City’s municipal golf course, which is a second staging area for emergency operations. The mission of the Creeks Restoration and Water Quality Improvement Division is to improve creek and ocean water quality and restore natural creek systems with the implementation of storm water and urban runoff pollution reduction, creek restoration, and community education programs. The water quality program focuses on creek clean-up, street sweeping, and storm water projects. Creek restoration programs improve creek health and water quality. Objectives include reducing erosion by bank stabilization and providing access where feasible. The Creeks Division has prepared Watershed Action Plans for Santa Barbara’s three major watersheds and has held community forums for public input into these plans.
4.0. Capability Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 19
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.2.11 Police Department
The mission of the Santa Barbara Police Department, through the philosophy of community-oriented policing, is to create a safe community where all people can live in peace without the fear of crime.
This commitment will ensure a professional quality of service and accountability to the citizens of the City of Santa Barbara.
While the primary mission of the Santa Barbara Police Department is law enforcement, the Police Department plays a pivotal role in general public safety as it relates to disaster preparedness. In addition, the Police Department has created some mitigation strategies that are included in their Unusual Occurrence Manual (UOM). The UOM is a guide for how officers will respond during a major incident or disaster.
The City’s dispatch center was relocated to the Granada Garage facility at 1219 Anacapa Street.
The move was due to the substandard condition of the current Police Department. In many emergencies, police officers are among the first responders, assisting with traffic control, effecting evacuations, and monitoring potentially life-threatening situations.
4.2.12 Public Works Department
The City's largest department is Public Works. The department’s total annual budget of nearly $150 million represents approximately 40% of the City's total budget and its 301 full-time employees are approximately 28% of the City's permanent workforce. The Department is responsible for operating the City's El Estero Water Resources Center and Charles E. Meyer Desalination Plant both on Yanonali Street, the Ortega Groundwater Treatment Plant on Ortega Street, the Cater Water Treatment Facility on San Roque Road, and Mission Tunnel and the Gibraltar Dam and Reservoir located off Paradise Road on the Santa Ynez River. The Department’s mission is to provide for the public's needs relative to the City's water and wastewater systems, construction and maintenance of all City facilities, automotive equipment, communications equipment, City parking lots and structures, and repair and maintenance of all streets, sidewalks, storm drains, traffic signals, and streetlights throughout the City.
The Public Works Department is divided into seven divisions: Administration, Engineering, Facilities, Streets Operations, and Infrastructure, Transportation Planning and Parking, Fleet Management, and Water Resource. The Administration Division provides administrative, personnel, and financial support to the entire department. The Engineering Division is responsible for engineering oversight for design and construction projects; land development; and real property. The Facilities Management Division is responsible for building maintenance; capital building renewal; communications; custodial services; and environmental compliance. The Transportation Planning and Parking Division is responsible for alternative transportation; parking; and transportation planning.
The Streets Operations and Infrastructure Division is responsible for streets maintenance; transportation operations; traffic engineering and streets infrastructure management. The Water Resources Division is responsible for water and wastewater administration; water supply management; water treatment; water distribution; wastewater collection; wastewater treatment; and laboratory services. The Fleet Management Division is responsible for the service, repair, and replacement of all city vehicles and heavy equipment.
The Department is responsible for the following emergency activities and areas:
4.0. Capability Assessment
20 February 2023
• Recovery operations in all types of disasters.
• Coordinating with Public Utility companies in the repair of utilities essential to the life, health, and welfare of the community.
• Coordinating and furnishing transportation to all emergency agencies of the City and providing maintenance for disaster vehicles and equipment throughout the State of Emergency. • Assuring an adequate supply of water for emergency requirements and an adequate supply of potable water for human consumption.
• Assuring that sanitary facilities are operational or that alternate emergency facilities are provided.
• Assuring the Laguna pump station is operating.
• Assisting in and providing for traffic controls (signs, barricades, and signalization) and warning signs.
• Providing personnel to assist in EOC operations (office and field). Setting up and operating the Public Works Department Operations Center.
The Public Works Engineering Division is very involved in hazard mitigation activities. It manages the City's Capital Improvement Program and provides professional engineering services for planning, designing, and constructing public works improvements. Long-range master planning to support the City's street, water, wastewater, transportation, and parking infrastructures is also provided. The Division also provides the Airport, Waterfront, and all General Fund departments with engineering services.
4.2.13 Sustainability and Resilience Department
The City of Santa Barbara Sustainability and Resilience Department leads and coordinates projects, policies, and services related to environmental sustainability and resilience across the City. The Department consists of two divisions: Environmental Services, Energy, and Climate.
The Environmental Services Division provides garbage, recycling, and organics collection, processing, and disposal services for the community. The Division oversees zero waste planning, waste reduction policies, education, and food resilience and security programs. The Division’s CleanSB program provides a suite of neighborhood services including illegal dumping, code enforcement, public area trash collection, encampment cleanup, and disaster debris planning. In the event of a disaster, Environmental Services is responsible for ensuring regular services are reestablished as quickly as possible, coordination with trash collection companies to remove disaster debris safely and efficiently, ensuring adequate disaster debris staging areas and processing, and communication with other regional solid waste agencies and state regulators.
The Energy and Climate Division is responsible for developing and managing the City’s renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, creating and overseeing the Community Choice Energy enterprise, coordinating climate action planning and adaptation efforts, and overseeing other sustainable planning initiatives such as the Green Building policy. The Division is a primary contact for coordination with energy utilities providing power to the community and for coordinating efforts relating to climate hazard mitigation, such as sea level rise.
4.0. Capability Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 21
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.2.14 Waterfront Department
The Waterfront Department is an Enterprise Fund, which oversees the operations, infrastructure, and public safety within the City of Santa Barbara’s Waterfront area. The Waterfront provides services in support of recreation, commercial fishing, local business, and tourism. The responsibilities of the Waterfront Department include:
• Tidelands and ocean space fronting the City of Santa Barbara • Harbor Business District buildings and infrastructure • Stearns Wharf buildings and infrastructure
• 1100+ Slip Marina and associated facilities
• Breakwater and associated infrastructure
• East Beach mooring areas
• 10 Waterfront parking lots and associated infrastructure The Waterfront Department consists of three Divisions: Harbor Operations, Facilities Management, and Business Services. These three divisions are outlined below.
Harbor Operations Division
Harbor Operations oversees the marina management-related activities within the harbor, which includes oversight of visiting vessels, slip holders, and liveaboards. Additionally, Harbor Operations oversees the Santa Barbara Harbor Patrol. The mission of the Santa Barbara Harbor Patrol is to enforce laws, educate the public and provide emergency fire, medical, and ocean response services to facilitate the safe and orderly use of the Waterfront area.
Facilities Division
The Facilities Division is responsible for the maintenance of all Waterfront facilities and infrastructure, which includes the Harbor Business District, Stearns Wharf, breakwater, marina, parking lots, and all Waterfront buildings. The Facilities Division is tasked with providing clean and safe commercial and recreational facilities for tenants and visitors. The Facilities Division also oversees the Waterfront’s Capital Improvement Program, which includes planning, design, permitting, and construction of all associated projects.
Business Management Division
The Business Management Division oversees all financial and budgeting elements of the entire Waterfront Department. Additionally, the Business Management Division oversees the Department's parking and property management operations. The property management operations include oversight of 61 tenant leases and licenses and associated revenues. The parking operations include 10 Waterfront parking lots and associated revenues.
For Emergency Response, the Waterfront Department is available and ready to respond. The Waterfront Department has the ability to standup a Department Operating Center (DOC) located in the Waterfront Administration Building, which is established to effectively coordinate personnel and resources to effectively respond to specific emergency events. The DOC becomes a base of operations and collection center for information, inspection/damage reports, and response
4.0. Capability Assessment
22 February 2023
strategies as they are developed. For larger, citywide emergency events, the Waterfront Department will coordinate with the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and provide support as needed.
4.3 ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL CAPACITY
The administrative and technical capabilities of the City, as shown in Table 4-1, include staff, personnel, and department resources available to implement the actions identified in Section 7.0, Mitigation Strategy of this LHMP. Specific resources reviewed include those involving technical personnel such as planners/engineers with knowledge of land development and land management practices, engineers trained in construction practices related to building and infrastructure, planners and engineers with an understanding of natural or manmade hazards, floodplain managers, surveyors, personnel with GIS skills and scientists familiar with hazards in the community. Equipment and supplies are maintained by the Public Works Director.
Table 4-1. City of Santa Barbara Administrative and Technical Capacity Personnel Resources Yes/No Department/Position
Planner/engineer with knowledge of land development/land management practices Yes
Public Works/Senior Planner
Community
Development/Project Planner
Engineer/professional trained in construction practices related to buildings and/or infrastructure Yes Public Works/FacilitiesManager Planner/engineer/scientist with an understanding of natural hazards Yes Community Development/Project Planner
Personnel skilled in GIS Yes
IT/GIS Coordinator
Community Development/GIS
Technician
Full-time building official Yes
Community
Development/Chief Building
Official
Floodplain manager Yes
Community
Development/Floodplain
Coordinator
Emergency manager Yes Fire Department/Emergency
Services Manager
Grant writer Yes Departmental
Other personnel
GIS Data Resources
(Hazard areas, critical facilities, land use, building footprints, etc.) Yes Information Technology/
Community Development and
Public Works
Warning Systems/Services
(Reverse 9-11, cable override, outdoor warning signals) Yes The City uses the County’s notification system
Other N/A
4.0. Capability Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 23
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
4.4 LEGAL AND REGULATORY CAPABILITIES
The legal and regulatory capabilities of the City are shown in Table 4-2, including existing ordinances and codes that affect the physical or built environment of Santa Barbara. Examples of legal and/or regulatory capabilities can include the City’s building codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, special purpose ordinances, growth management ordinances, site plan review, general plans, capital improvement plans, economic development plans, emergency response plans, and real estate disclosure plans.
Table 4-2. City of Santa Barbara Legal and Regulatory Capability Regulatory Tool
(ordinances, codes, plans) Yes/No
General Plan Yes
Zoning ordinance Yes
Subdivision ordinance Yes
Growth management ordinance Yes
Floodplain ordinance Yes
Other special-purpose ordinances (stormwater, steep slope, wildfire) Yes Building code Yes
Fire code Yes
Fire department ISO rating 2
Erosion or sediment control program Yes
Stormwater management program Yes
Site plan review requirements Yes
Capital improvements plan Yes
Economic development plan Yes
Local emergency operations plan Yes
Other special plans
Tsunami Response Guide
and Watershed
Response Guide – both
to be updated in the fall
of 2021
Flood insurance study or other engineering studies for streams Yes Elevation certificates (for floodplain development) Yes
4.5 GIS, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
The City has a basic GIS system used by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. Currently, parcels, zoning, and flood hazards have been mapped, including water, sewer, storm drain, and citywide striping. Hazard layers created for this plan can be incorporated into that system for future planning and updates. In the event it is needed, the GIS system is fully
4.0. Capability Assessment
24 February 2023
functional and can be used to provide the State of California Office of Emergency Services with preliminary damage assessments.
Using the County’s notification system, Santa Barbara has a fully functional 911 emergency telephone system, dispatch capabilities, and a reverse 911 system to issue warnings in advance of disasters.
The City has a website, which will be used to assist with communication necessary for the implementation and future updates of this plan.
4.6 FINANCIAL RESOURCES
The fiscal year 2022 adopted budget includes a total operating budget of $305.4 million and a citywide capital program of $460 million. The General Fund, which includes traditional local government services, is composed of a $143.8 million operating budget and a $24.5 million capital program.
In addition to the General Fund, the City has other funds used to account for various activities.
Special revenue funds, totaling $32.2 million are used to account for revenues legally restricted for a specific purpose. Enterprise funds, totaling $151.7 million are used to account for the activities of the City operating like the private sector, including water, wastewater, airport, golf, downtown parking, and waterfront operations. Finally, internal service funds, totaling $29.8 million are used to account for services provided internally to City departments and programs, such as Information Systems and Risk Management Services.
In 1996, the City Council established minimum reserve levels for all operating funds, including the General Fund. Under the adopted resolution, the General Fund currently maintains two separate reserves:
• Emergency Reserve – Set at 15% of the adopted operating budget, established to respond to natural disasters, such as floods, earthquakes, etc.
• Contingency Reserve – Set at 10% of the adopted operating budget, established to respond to provide for unique one-time costs and maintenance of City services, and to permit orderly adjustments during periods of reductions.
Table 4-3 shows specific financial and budgetary tools available to the City such as community development block grants; capital improvements project funding; authority to levy taxes for specific purposes; fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric services; ability to incur debt through general obligations bonds; and withholding spending in hazard-prone areas.
4.0. Capability Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 25
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 4-3. City of Santa Barbara Fiscal Capability
Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to
Use (Yes/No)
Has This Been Used for
Mitigation in the Past? Comments
Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG) Yes N/A
Capital improvements
project funding Yes Yes
City budgets capital
expenditures across all
funds.
Authority to levy taxes for
specific purposes Yes No
Subject to Voter
Approval. The voters
approved a 1% district
sales tax increase
(Measure C) that took
effect in 2018 that is
being used to maintain
critical infrastructure
across the City.
Fees for water and sewer
service Yes Yes
Fees charged for City
Water, Wastewater,
Solid Waste and soon
Community Choice Energy
Incur debt through general
obligation bonds Yes Yes
Several Enterprise Funds
have current bonds. No
current General Fund debt
at this time. Initial planning
is underway to issue debt
for the new police facility.
Incur debt through special
tax bonds Yes N/A
The City adopted a Debt
Management Plan in
2018
Incur debt through private
activity bonds Yes Yes
The City issued a private
debt in 2014 for
Waterfront capital
projects.
Federal Grant Programs
(Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program)
Yes Yes
The City has been
successful in receiving and
building projects from
Hazard Mitigation Funds.
4.0. Capability Assessment
26 February 2023
4.7 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH CAPABILITIES
The City of Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Services public outreach and education programs offer comprehensive emergency and disaster education to the community to reduce the loss of life and property. It includes activities that are designed to provide a variety of safety programs appropriate for all ages. The programs offered are bilingual in English and Spanish and are listed below:
• Community Disaster Education
• This program is designed to bring disaster education into all venues, including but not limited to, businesses, homeowner associations, community centers, etc. This program is tailored for meetings that have limited time for a presentation. This CDE Presentation will assist in better preparing your staff, residences and/or community for any type of disaster or emergency. • CERT
• The Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program educates participants about disaster preparedness for hazards that can impact their area and trains them in basic disaster response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, team organization, and disaster medical operations. CERT offers a consistent, nationwide approach to disaster training and organization to assist your family and neighbors. • LISTOS
• This program was developed to provide individuals and families with basic emergency and disaster preparedness education. LISTOS is a basic curriculum offered to all populations that desire to learn in an informal conversational setting about risks and vulnerabilities in their local community.
• Presentations, Drills and Special Events
• The City of Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Services offers specific presentations on all hazards, assists with all hazard evacuation drills upon request and actively participates in community events to provide the public with general safety education. • Social Media
• The City of Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Services conducts regular messaging through a content calendar that aligns with both local and national efforts such as, Tsunami Awareness Month, Earthquake Awareness Month, The Great California Shake Out, National Preparedness Month, Firewise and Firesafe, Storm Ready etc. • The city provides messaging for the public, via social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram, Nextdoor, Twitter, the City News in Brief, utility inserts among other local committees and social groups.
4.0. Capability Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 27
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan • Included in the city public messaging is partnerships with local media such as local radio, newspaper, and television stations to distribute preparedness and incident specific messaging.
Contacts: Liliana Encinas, Public Outreach Coordinator at 805-564-5778 or [email protected]
4.8 RELEVANT PLANS, POLICIES, AND ORDINANCES
The City of Santa Barbara has a range of guidance documents and plans for each of its departments. These include a general plan, public works, and public utilities plans, capital improvement plans, emergency management plans, Local Coastal Program (LCP), Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), Circulation Element, Safety Element, Mission Creek Project, Conejo Slide Area Program, Airport plans, flood response guidelines, Tsunami Response Plan, Community Wildfire Protection Plan, Sea Level Rise Adaption Plan and Vulnerability Assessment, and slough programs. The City uses building codes, fire codes, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and various planning strategies to address how and where development occurs. One of the essential ways the City guides its future is through policies laid out in the 2011 Plan Santa Barbara General Plan. The LHMP directly informs these plans and is used to evaluate the need for adjustments or updates to existing plans and programs. The City considers the LHMP’s assessment of capabilities, hazards, and vulnerabilities to inform planning, capital improvements, programs, decision-makers, and the public. The City also implements mitigation actions through the City’s general plan, capital improvement program, maintenance programs, grant programming, community outreach, and budget process.
4.8.1 The General Plan
The City of Santa Barbara General Plan was first adopted in the 1960s and was last updated in 2011. The 2011 General Plan is comprised of a comprehensively updated Land Use Element and seven reorganized elements, including the seven state-mandated elements, as well as optional elements of Economy and Fiscal Health and Historic Resources. The Safety Element was updated in 2013 and the Housing Element is updated every eight years per state law. In 2022, the City initiated an update to the Housing Element and the Safety Element. The LHMP is incorporated by reference in the Safety Element.
Santa Barbara is a mature city, and not much vacant land remains for residential or nonresidential development. The remaining vacant land is generally found in areas of steep topography where development potential is constrained. Over 60 percent of the land is in residential use, excluding the residential portion of mixed-use development in the Downtown or other commercial areas. To encourage residential infill development and due to concern over resources limitations, the General Plan has a Growth Management program to limit nonresidential growth. Conversely, one of the top priorities of the General Plan is to encourage workforce and affordable housing in the City’s multiunit and commercial zones. Institutional and public facilities are mainly found all over the City while most of the City’s government facilities are found in the historical center of the community. There are approximately 1,086 acres of land dedicated open space and parks (not including beaches).
4.0. Capability Assessment
28 February 2023
Since the last update of the City’s LHMP in 2017, land use and population in the City have not substantially changed. Modest development has occurred consistent with the adopted Land Use Element and has primarily comprised infill development and redevelopment within the City limits.
There has been no expansion of the City boundary or its Sphere of Influence (SOI) and no comprehensive changes to the Land Use Element that would result in substantial densification.
Further, City population has not substantially changed. As a result, the City’s level of vulnerability to hazards analyzed in Section 6.0, Vulnerability Assessment, has not substantially changed due to land use, development, or population growth since the last update of the LHMP.
4.8.2 Zoning Ordinance
Local land use controls include the Zoning Ordinance, which shapes the form and intensity of land use and residential development. Consistent with the General Plan, the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a range of zones and dwelling unit densities from one unit per acre (single-unit) to 27 units per acre (studio units with variable density). Higher density residential of 28-36 units per acre and 37 – 63 units per acre (Priority Housing Overlay) is allowed in certain areas under the Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program. These zones also allow mobile home and emergency shelter units.
Zoning ordinance regulations related to hazard mitigation relate to the risk assessment for hazards within the City, including flooding, faults, unstable soils, and wildfire hazards. Examples of zoning regulations for hazard mitigation include Development Along Mission Creek, which provides controls on development adjacent to Mission Creek to prevent undue damage or destruction of development from flood water; and a slope density regulation that increases the minimum lot area where the average slope from 10 to over 30 percent.
The Environmental Policy and Construction section of the Municipal Code includes regulations and general requirements for hazardous waste generators, seismic safety, flood plain management, erosion and sedimentation control for construction, and construction prohibited in the vicinity of the Conejo Road landslide due to special geologic hazard conditions.
4.8.3 Floodplain Management
The City of Santa Barbara has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) since 1978. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were developed most recently in 2015 through the NFIP and have been made available in GIS format as Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps. These are on file with the Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management, County Flood Control, and the Santa Barbara City Public Library to identify floodplains, along with evacuation routes and locations of public shelters. The 2018 Floodplain Management Ordinance minimizes public and private losses due to flood conditions in flood prone, mudflow or flood related erosion areas by restricting land use, controlling alteration of natural floodplains, and protecting uses that are vulnerable to floods.
Repetitive Loss (RL) Properties
Repetitive loss properties are defined as property that is insured under the NFIP that has filed two or more claims above $1,000 each within any consecutive 10-year period since 1978. FEMA repetitive loss data shows that there have been 30 properties in Santa Barbara with multiple claims
4.0. Capability Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 29
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan against the NFIP. These RL properties have resulted in 65 total losses amounting to approximately $1.5 million in loss payments.
4.8.4 Safety Element
The Safety Element is a required component of the City’s General Plan and is the element most relevant to hazard mitigation and emergency response. The Safety Element was updated in 2013 and includes specific items as prescribed by the California Government Code as well as other relevant safety issues that are considered important. Hazard maps provided in the Safety Element depict the general locations and possible severity of various hazards and are important tools in identifying and reducing the potential effects of hazards and for hazard response planning. The Safety Element provides information to guide the evaluation of hazard-related effects, provides policies to protect the community from hazard-related risk, and supports the implementation of programs intended to enable and expedite the recovery of a community after a disaster occurs.
The Safety Element incorporates this LHMP by reference.
4.8.5 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan and Vulnerability Assessment The purpose of the City’s Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan is to identify vulnerabilities to coastal hazards expected from sea-level rise in the City of Santa Barbara and possible actions to prepare for and adapt to sea-level rise. Preparation of a sea-level rise adaptation plan was a 2017 LHMP mitigation action and is identified as a priority in the Coastal Land Use Plan, Safety Element, and LHMP. Additionally, the State requires the City, as a trustee of state tidelands, to proactively plan for sea-level rise at the Harbor and Stearns Wharf and to consider sea-level rise as part of coastal development permitting. A vulnerability assessment was prepared for the Adaptation Plan to identify the areas of the city that, in the absence of intervention, are projected to be exposed to sea-level rise and related coastal hazards. The Adaptation Plan provides the framework for the City to monitor sea-level rise impacts and reduce vulnerabilities in phases as specific thresholds for action are reached. A wide range of adaptation options are presented, providing the City flexibility to consider different adaptation strategies over time.
4.8.6 Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The City of Santa Barbara Fire Department (SBFD)’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is maintained to protect lives, property, and natural resources threatened by wildland fire. The CWPP updated the City’s 2004 Wildland Fire Plan, accounting for changes in the City’s fire environment and work completed under that Plan. Development of the CWPP included an assessment of wildfire hazard, which involved modeling potential fire behavior in the City under extreme wind and weather conditions, consistent with conditions experienced during a sundowner wind event. Other wildfire hazard variables were evaluated (terrain, weather, fuels, development patterns, fire department response, structure density, etc.) to identify the High Fire Hazard Area of the City. The hazard assessment was used to evaluate the extent of the City’s four High Fire Hazard Area Zones (Extreme Foothill, Foothill, Coastal Interior, and Coastal) and the locations of the City’s Vegetation Management Units (VMUs) and Community Fuels Treatment Network (CFTN). CWPP development also included development of a Public Outreach and Engagement Plan to guide community engagement and coordination with other key stakeholders throughout the development
4.0. Capability Assessment
30 February 2023
of the CWPP. The City’s central engagement goal was to develop a CWPP that builds on input from key stakeholders, including community members, City departments, neighboring jurisdictions (e.g., Santa Barbara County Fire Department, the U.S. Forest Service), and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. This CWPP outlines a series of policies and action items which are intended to guide implementation of the CWPP. The policies and actions focus on codes and standards, funding, fire rehabilitation, evacuation, fire protection, vegetation/fuels management, and public education. Action items identify tasks to be implemented by the SBFD, and other responsible City departments, to achieve the stated goal of protecting lives, property, and natural resources threatened by wildland fire.
4.9 OPPORTUNITIES FOR MITIGATION CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENTS The City continuously strives to mitigate the adverse effects of potential hazards through its existing capabilities while also evaluating the opportunities for improvements. Based on the capability assessment, the City has existing regulatory, administrative/technical, education/outreach, and fiscal mechanisms in place that help to mitigate hazards. In addition to these existing capabilities, there are opportunities for the City to expand or improve on these policies and programs to further protect the community:
• Regulatory Opportunities: As part of this update, the City will comply with AB 2140 by amending its Safety Element to incorporate the LHMP by reference. The City will consider the LHMP in policy, land use plans, and programs, including coastal hazard and sea level rise planning. For example, the City’s CWPP recommends expanding the geographic extent of the City’s High Fire Hazard Area and increasing the quantity and extent of VMUs based on wildfire hazard. Further, the City’s Sea Level Rise Adaption Plan and Vulnerability Assessment recommends continued effort to improve the quality and accuracy of coastal hazard projections under sea level rise scenarios consistent with local and state guidelines. • Administrative/Technical Opportunities: The City continues to improve its resilience to ensure emergency response operations are sustained during a hazardous event, including improvements to public safety facilities and planning. Enhancements to hazard training for staff in partnership with the County and other agencies or stakeholders would improve the City’s ability to mitigate hazards with the latest knowledge and resources. • Outreach Opportunities: Enhanced community outreach, emergency notifications, and trainings would further enhance the City’s capabilities to respond to and recover from hazards. The City could expand outreach through digital tools such as social media, participate in the Great California ShakeOut, and increase FireWise outreach events and media coverage. • Fiscal Opportunities: The City can update its CIP to include hazard mitigation actions from the LHMP and related documents such as the CWPP and the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan. The City will continue to seek grants (e.g., HMGP, BRIC) to fund these CIP projects and related projects in the City’s mitigation strategy. The City can seek opportunities to partner with the County and/or other stakeholder agencies in grant applications to address regional hazards more effectively. The City could also consider expanding its fiscal capabilities through its annual budget process and other revenue measures (e.g., raising taxes, property assessments, bonds).
5.0. Hazard Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 31
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
5.0 HAZARD ASSESSMENT
5.1 OVERVIEW
The purpose of this section is to review, update, and/or validate the hazards identified for the 2022 City of Santa Barbara LHMP. The intent is to confirm and update the description, location and extent, and history of hazards facing the City now and in the future. This assessment also considers the potential exacerbating effects of climate change. The importance of this review is to ensure that decisions and mitigating actions are based on the most up-to-date information available.
Another purpose of this section is to screen the hazards to determine their relative probability and severity to inform the risk posed to various communities and resources. This assessment will provide an understanding of the significance by ranking hazards by their priority in the City.
In 2021, the MAC reviewed and revised 1) the list of hazards by community or geographic area; 2) the information and material presented for each hazard; and 3) the prioritization of the hazards.
The City LPT refined the list of hazards applicable to the City and confirmed the hazard prioritization. The following sections provide the results of this effort.
5.2 HAZARD SCREENING/PRIORITIZATION
The Hazard Assessment presented here reflects the City’s 2022 review and modifications to the updated risk assessment presented in Chapter 5.0, Hazard Assessment, and Chapter 6.0, Vulnerability Assessment of the 2022 MJHMP. Applicable hazard information from the City’s 2017 LHMP was incorporated during the development of this section. A comprehensive treatment of hazards and their descriptions may be found in Chapter 5.0 of the Santa Barbara County 2022 MJHMP.
The potential extent, probability, frequency, and magnitude of future occurrences were all used to identify and prioritize the list of hazards most relevant in the City. The City LPT completed the Plan Update Guide to rank the hazards and identify key hazards to help inform this assessment (Appendix A). As summarized in Table 5-1, the local priority hazards in the City are based on the screening of frequency/probability of occurrence, geographic extent, potential magnitude/severity of the hazard, and overall significance. Local experience, MAC/LPT input, and community feedback also informed the assessment of local priority hazards. After reviewing the localized hazard maps and exposure/loss assessment provided in the 2022 MJHMP, the following hazards were identified by the Santa Barbara LPT as their top priorities (Appendix A). A brief rationale for each hazard is included below. This assessment and description of key hazards in the City are provided in addition to the 2022 MJHMP’s comprehensive assessment of regional hazards that may affect the City.
Table 5-1. City of Santa Barbara Local Priority Hazards Hazard Type and Ranking Score Planning Consideration
Based on Hazard Level
Wildfire 12 Significant
Earthquake 12 Significant
5.0. Hazard Assessment
32 February 2023
Hazard Type and Ranking Score Planning Consideration
Based on Hazard Level
Flood 9 Moderate
Pandemic/Public Health Emergency 9 Moderate
Tsunami 9 Moderate
Drought and Water Shortage 8 Moderate
Energy Shortage and Resiliency 8 Moderate
Dam Failure 8 Moderate
Landslide 7 Moderate
Train Accident 7 Moderate
Aircraft Crash 7 Moderate
Coastal Hazards 6 Moderate
Extreme Heat 6 Moderate
Hazardous Materials Release 6 Moderate
Oil Spill 5 Limited
To continue compliance with the DMA of 2000, the City accepts the County’s natural hazard profiles presented in Chapter 5.0, Hazard Assessment with the following notes and refinements or elaborations provided specifically for the City in subsections below. The City’s LPT acknowledged the following hazards are either not a threat, are highly unlikely within the City limits, or are adequately addressed by the 2022 MJHMP and do not require additional information to be relevant to the City’s hazard setting; therefore, these hazards are not addressed further in the City’s LHMP: severe weather/storm, windstorm, hurricane, tornado, utility failure, natural gas pipeline rupture and storage facilities, hydraulic fracturing and well stimulation, radiological and nuclear accidents, levee failure, cyber threats, agricultural pests and invasive species, terrorism, and civil unrest. These additional hazards are being addressed in the more comprehensive 2022 MJHMP.
5.3 HAZARD PROFILES
5.3.1 Wildfire
Description of Hazard
Wildfires can be classified as either a wildland fire or a wildland-urban interface (WUI) fire. The former involves situations where wildfire occurs in an area that is relatively undeveloped except for the possible existence of basic infrastructure such as roads and power lines. A WUI fire includes situations in which a wildfire enters an area that is developed with structures and other human developments. In WUI fires, the fire is fueled by both naturally occurring vegetation and the urban structural elements themselves. According to the National Fire Plan issued by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior, the wildland-urban interface is defined as “…the line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.”
The WUI fire can be subdivided into three categories (NWUIFPP, 1998): The classic wildland-urban interface exists where well-defined urban and suburban development presses up against open
5.0. Hazard Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 33
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan expanses of wildland areas. The mixed wildland-urban interface is characterized by isolated homes, subdivisions, and small communities situated predominantly in wildland settings. The occluded wildland-urban interface exists where islands of wildland vegetation occur inside a largely urbanized area. Generally, many of the areas at risk within Santa Barbara County fall into the classic wildland-urban interface category.
Certain conditions must be present for a wildfire hazard to occur; a large source of fuel must be present, the weather must be conducive (generally hot, dry, and windy), and fire suppression sources must not be able to easily suppress and control the fire. The cause of a majority of wildfires is human-induced or lightning; however, once burning, wildfire behavior is based on three primary factors: fuel, topography, and weather. Fuel will affect the potential size and behavior of a wildfire depending on the amount present, its burning qualities (e.g., level of moisture), and its horizontal and vertical continuity. Topography affects the movement of air, and thus the fire, over the ground surface. The terrain can also change the speed at which the fire travels, and the ability of firefighters to reach and extinguish the fire. Weather as manifested in temperature, humidity, and wind (both short and long term) affect the probability, severity, and duration of wildfires.
Location and Extent of Hazard in Santa Barbara
The climate, topography, and vegetation in Santa Barbara County are conducive to wildfires.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (CDFFRAP) was mandated to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels (vegetation), terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. These zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones, define the application of various mitigation strategies to reduce the risk associated with wildland fires. The most current mapping efforts by CDF-FRAP were conducted in 2007. Figure 5-1 below shows the Fire Hazard Severity Zones located in Santa Barbara County.
CDF-FRAP developed data that displays the relative risk to areas of significant population density from wildfire. This data is created by intersecting residential housing unit density with proximate fire threat, to give a relative measure of potential loss of structures and threats to public safety from wildfire. Figure 5-2 of the 2022 MJHMP was generated using this data to show the WUI in Santa Barbara County. The WUI map depicts areas where potential fuels treatments will be prioritized to reduce wildland fire threats.
5.0. Hazard Assessment
34 February 2023
The WUI data shown in Figure 5-2 of the
MJHMP was developed on a statewide
basis and does not consider the placement
of local neighborhoods within the
geography. Santa Barbara City Fire has
created data at a more local level to
convey communities at risk. Due to the
threat, the City developed a ‘Ready, Set,
Go’ guide for residents within the high fire
area. A list containing the federally
regulated (communities that adjoin federal
lands) communities at risk, which includes
the City of Santa Barbara, is provided in
Section 5.3.1 of the MJHMP (see also
Figure 5-3 of the MJHMP).
History of Hazard in Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara County and the City are
prone to wildfires. There are many areas
in which the County and City intersect;
there is a long history of wildfires in the
County that have affected the City (refer
to Figure 5-4 of the MJHMP). Table 5-4 of
the MJHMP lists the major wildfires in
Santa Barbara County since 1932.
The CDF-FRAP compiles fire perimeters of wildfires and has established an ongoing fire perimeter data capture process. Figure 5-4 of the MJHMP shows historic, significant wildfire perimeters in Santa Barbara County. Fire perimeters provide a reasonable view of the spatial distribution of past large fires.
Over the last ten years, Santa Barbara County has experienced 9 major fires. Two of these fires directly threatened the heavily populated Santa Barbara Front Country and areas of the City of Santa Barbara:
• Before even larger fires in recent years, the Thomas Fire in 2017 was the largest California wildfire in modern California history, engulfing more than 280,000 acres, destroying or damaging more than 1,000 structures, primarily within Ventura County, and resulting in two fatalities. The fire was ignited north of Santa Paula in Ventura County and burned into Santa Barbara County through the Santa Ynez Mountains and parts of the upper Santa Ynez River watershed. It was one of the first wildfires to burn from inland Ventura County into the Santa Barbara front country of the Santa Ynez Mountains. The fire was active for 40 days and at one time involved more than 8,500 firefighters, 800 fire engines, and dozens of aircraft (National Interagency Fire Center 2021; Santa Maria Times 2021). The fire burned in the City from December 5 to December 7. Within the City, evacuations were limited to the Riviera and The 2017 Thomas Fire burned approximately 281,893
acres in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. The fire
was started by power lines coming in contact during high winds and remained active for 40 days. Emergency
personnel from all across the western U.S. responded to the fire The fire resulted in the destruction of 1,063
structures, the loss of one civilian, and one firefighter fatality.
Source: CALFIRE 2021; Ventura County Fire Department
2019. Photo: SB Bucket Brigade
5.0. Hazard Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 35
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Eucalyptus Hill area. No deaths, injuries, property damage, or infrastructure damage occurred within the City boundaries. However, the City experienced economic impacts due to air quality and ash during the height of the holiday shopping season. • The Cave Fire in 2019 burned over 3,000 acres near Painted Cave in the Los Padres National Forest for 21 days (National Interagency Fire Center 2021). Approximately 2,400 homes were placed under mandatory evacuation orders for areas north of Cathedral Oaks Road between Patterson Avenue and Highway 154 and areas of Foothill Road between Highway 154 and North Ontare Road. A unified command consisting of multiple County agencies was assembled to assist with the fire (County Fire Department 2021). No homes were damaged (Santa Maria Times 2021). The fire threatened a small area in the northwestern portion of the City.
Probability of Occurrence
Vegetation and topography were significant elements in the identification of the fire threat zones.
A substantial amount of the vegetation in Santa Barbara is commonly called chaparral, it is a dense and scrubby bush that has evolved to persist in a fire-prone habitat. Chaparral plants will eventually age and die; however, they will not be replaced by new growth until a fire rejuvenates the area. Chamise, manzanita, and ceanothus are all examples of chaparral which are quite common in Santa Barbara County and the foothills above the City. Santa Barbara County was subject to 42 major wildfires over 88 years, resulting in a 48 percent chance of occurrence in any given year.
Climate Change Considerations
Climate change plays a significant role in wildfire hazards. The changing conditions from wet to dry can create more fuel; the increased possibility of high winds increase risk and present a challenge, and drought conditions could hinder the ability to contain fires. Large wildfires also have several indirect effects beyond those of a smaller, local fire. These may include air quality and health issues, road closures, business closures, and other forms of losses. Furthermore, large wildfires increase the threat of other disasters such as landslide/debris flows and flooding (see Section 5.3.3, Flood and Section 5.3.9, Landslide).
5.0. Hazard Assessment
36 February 2023
Figure 5-1. Santa Barbara County Fire Hazard Severity Zones
5.0. Hazard Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 37
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
5.3.2 Earthquake & Liquefaction
Description of Hazard
An earthquake is caused by a release of strain within or along the edge of the Earth's tectonic plates producing ground motion and shaking, surface fault rupture, and secondary hazards, such as ground failure. The severity of the motion increases with the amount of energy released decreases with distance from the causative fault or epicenter and is amplified by soft soils. After just a few seconds, earthquakes can cause massive damage and extensive casualties.
Most people are familiar with the Richter scale, a method of rating earthquakes based on strength using an indirect measure of released energy. The Richter scale is logarithmic. Each one-point increase corresponds to a 10-fold increase in the amplitude of the seismic shock waves and a 32- fold increase in energy released. For example, an earthquake registering 7.0 on the Richter scale releases over 1,000 times more energy than an earthquake registering 5.0.
Table 5-2. Richter Scale
Richter
Magnitudes Earthquake Effects
Less than 3.5 Generally not felt but recorded.
3.5-5.4 Often felt, but rarely causes damage.
Under 6.0 Slight damage to well-designed buildings. Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions.
6.1-6.9 Can be destructive in areas up to about 100 kilometers across residential areas.
7.0-7.9 Can cause serious damage to larger areas.
8 or greater Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred kilometers across.
Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is a measure of the strength of ground shaking. Larger peak ground accelerations result in greater damage to structures. PGA is used to depict the risk of damage from future earthquakes by showing earthquake ground motions that have a specified probability (10%,5%, or 2%) of being exceeded in 50 years return period. These values are often used for reference in construction design, and in assessing relative hazards when making economic and safety decisions.
Liquefaction is the phenomenon that occurs when ground shaking causes loose, saturated soils to lose strength and act as a viscous fluid. Liquefaction causes two types of ground failure: lateral spread and loss of bearing strength. Lateral spreads develop on gentle slopes and entail the sidelong movement of large masses of soil as an underlying layer liquefies. Loss of bearing strength occurs when the soil supporting structures liquefy, causing the structures to settle; resulting in potential damage.
5.0. Hazard Assessment
38 February 2023
Location and Extent of Hazard in the City of Santa Barbara As previously mentioned, Santa Barbara County, including the City of Santa Barbara, is located in a high seismic activity zone. The county is located in the Transverse Range geologic province.
The movement of continental plates manifests primarily along the San Andreas Fault system. The San Andreas fault is situated 7 miles northeast of Santa Barbara County; active faults in the San Andreas Fault system that fall within Santa Barbara County include the Nacimiento, Ozena, Suey, and Little Pine faults. Other active faults in the region include the Big Pine, Mesa, Santa Ynez, Graveyard- Turkey Trap, More Ranch, Pacifico, Santa Ynez, and Santa Rose Island faults. The Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan Seismic Safety and Safety Element provides descriptions of all faults in Santa Barbara County, including historically active, active, potentially active, and inactive, as well as their location and fault length. A map of faults in the Santa Barbara County region is located below (Figure 5-2).
The City has areas of liquefaction that would cause severe damage in the downtown and lower eastside areas (Figure 5-3). After earthquakes, some regions may be prone to liquefaction. On level ground, liquefaction results in water rising to the ground surface. On sloping ground, liquefaction will usually result in slope failure such as the event at the Sheffield Dam in the aftermath of the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake. Liquefaction risk is considered high if there are soft soils (Types D or E) present. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) rates soils from hard to soft and gives the soils ratings from Type A through Type E. The hardest soils are rated Type A, and the softest soils are rated Type E. The majority of the soils in Santa Barbara County are types A-C, with some areas having type D. There have been no Type E soils identified.
Liquefaction risk is also determined by the depth to groundwater. Most of the low coastal plain and valley bottoms in the City are underlain by alluvium and given a moderate rating with respect to liquefaction potential.
History of Hazard in the City of Santa Barbara
The City of Santa Barbara is located in a high seismic activity zone and as such has a long history of earthquakes. Although most seismic activity in California occurs along the San Andreas Fault system, most historic seismic events in the City of Santa Barbara region have been centered offshore on an east-west trending fault between Santa Barbara and the Channel Islands. While more extensive discussion of previous earthquakes in Santa Barbara County is available in the 2022 MJHMP, the following information provides an overview of the more recent, significant events. Table 5-9 of the MJHMP provides an overview of significant events within the last 50 years. Figure 5-10 of the MJHMP displays historical epicenters of earthquakes located in Santa Barbara County since 1700
• In June of 1925, the City experienced this destructive earthquake that caused property damage estimated at $8 million and killed 13 people. Most of the damage occurred at Santa Barbara and nearby towns along the coast, but the earthquake caused moderate damage at many points north of the Santa Ynez mountains, in the Santa Ynez and Santa Maria River valleys.
North of Santa Barbara, the earth dam of the Sheffield Reservoir was destroyed, but the water released caused little damage. In Santa Barbara, few buildings on State Street escaped damage. Because parts of the main business district and the area near the seashore were built
5.0. Hazard Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 39
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan on land fill, many of the structures there were demolished, and others were so shattered that they had to be razed. In general, however, buildings of reinforced concrete were damaged little, except where workmanship was poor; frame buildings covered with stucco, sheathing, or lath also withstood the shock well. Loss to the sewage system was heavy only in areas of land fill, but the disposal plantwas destroyed above the surface of the ground. • In March of 1978, and continuing sporadically through July of 1978, a swarm of small earthquakes, called micro-earthquakes occurred underneath the northeastern end of the Santa Barbara Channel. Toward the end of the micro-earthquake swarm, in July and early August of 1978, an unusually large amount of oil and tar was reported on local beaches in Santa Barbara. A common occurrence for the Santa Barbara area, the oil from these natural seeps was considered only a minor nuisance. On August 13, 1978, an earthquake occurred just to the southwest of the City of Santa Barbara, about 5 miles beneath the Santa Barbara Channel.
There was minimal damage in the City. Sixty-five people were treated for injuries at local hospitals. No deaths were reported.
• On December 22, 2003, at 11:15 a.m. a magnitude 6.5 earthquake struck the central California coast. The event, known as the San Simeon Earthquake, was located 11 kilometers northeast of San Simeon, and 39 kilometers west/northwest of Paso Robles. Although the San Simeon Earthquake was felt in parts of the City, there was no damage.
Probability of Occurrence
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) and their partners, as part of the latest Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast Version 3 (USGS 2015), have estimated the chances of having large earthquakes throughout California over the next 30 years. Statewide, the rate of earthquakes around magnitude 6.7 (the size of the 1994 Northridge earthquake) has been estimated to be one per 6.3 years (more than 99 percent likelihood in the next 30 years); in southern California, the rate is one per 12 years (93 percent likelihood in the next 30 years). Southern California’s rates are given in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Southern California Region Earthquake Likelihoods Magnitude (greater than or equal to) Average Repeat Time (years) 30-year likelihood of one or more events 5 0.24 100%
6 2.3 100%
6.7 12 93%
7 25 75%
7.5 87 36%
8 522 7%
Source: USGS 2015.
Climate Change Considerations
To date, no credible evidence has been provided that links climate to earthquakes; however, climate and weather do play a significant role in the response and recovery from earthquakes. Effects from climate change could create cascading complications and impacts.
5.0. Hazard Assessment
40 February 2023
Figure 5-2. Santa Barbara County Probability of Shaking 2% in 50 Years
5.0. Hazard Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 41
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 5-3. Santa Barbara County Liquefaction Severity
5.0. Hazard Assessment
42 February 2023
5.3.3 Flood
Description of Hazard
A flood is a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation on land that is normally dry. Several factors determine the severity of floods, including rainfall intensity and duration, antecedent moisture conditions, surface permeability, and geographic characteristics of the watershed such as shape and slope. Other causes can include a ruptured dam or levee, rapid ice or snow melting in the mountains, under-engineered infrastructure, or even a poorly placed beaver dam that can overwhelm a river or channel and send water spreading over adjacent land or floodplains.
A large amount of rainfall in a short time can result in flash flood conditions, as can a dam failure or other sudden spill. The National Weather Service’s definition of a flash flood is a flood occurring in a watershed where the time of travel of the peak of flow from one end of the watershed to the other is less than six hours.
Another form of flooding occurs when coastal storms produce large ocean waves that sweep across coastlines making landfall. Storm surges inundate coastal areas, destroy dunes, and cause flooding.
If a storm surge occurs at the same time as high tide, the water height will be even greater. The County historically has been vulnerable to storm surge inundation associated with tropical storms and El Niño.
Location and Extent of Hazard in the City of Santa Barbara The geographical location, climate, and topography of Santa Barbara City and County make it prone to flooding (Figure 5-4). In regions such as Santa Barbara, without extended periods of below-freezing temperatures, floods usually occur during the season of highest precipitations or during heavy rainfalls after long dry spells. Additionally, due to the Mediterranean climate and the variability of rainfall, stream flow throughout the County is highly variable and directly impacted by rainfall with little snowmelt or base flow from headwaters. Watercourses can experience a high amount of sedimentation during wet years and high amounts of vegetative growth during dry and moderate years.
The drainages in the southern part of the County are characterized by high intensity, short duration runoff events, due to the relatively short distance from the top of the Santa Ynez Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. Runoff from high intensity, short-duration storm events can cause inundation of over bank areas, debris including sediment, rock, downed trees in the water that can plug culverts and bridges, erosion and sloughing of banks, and loss of channel capacity due to sedimentation.
The City is traversed by the floodplains of creeks that drain the Santa Ynez Mountains, with the degree of flood hazard varying substantially by community and creek. Mission Creek has been channelized reducing but not eliminating flood hazards. Flood control debris basins have been constructed on many of these creeks to intercept sediment and debris, reducing the potential for plugging of downstream creek channels and associated flood hazards.
Another contributing factor to flooding is the City’s location along the Pacific Ocean. With its six miles of coastline, the City is susceptible to storm surge events following storms off the coast. In particular, low-lying areas, including much of the City’s waterfront, are subject to wave attacks,
5.0. Hazard Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 43
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan coastal flooding, and storm surges. Additionally, portions of the City’s are subject to flooding due to flash flooding, urban flooding, watershed channel overflow, and downstream flooding (see Section 5.3.12, Coastal Hazards).
History of Hazard in the City of Santa Barbara
Flooding has been a major problem in the City of Santa Barbara. The City has several watershed areas that have different types of flooding problems, including over bank riverine flooding, flash floods, tidal flooding/tsunamis, and dam failure. The most common flooding in the City is due to watershed channel flooding and flash flood events.
Between 1906 and 2018, Santa Barbara County experienced 22 significant inland flood events.
Eight of these floods received Presidential Disaster Declarations. Section 5.3.4 of the MJHMP describes the floods, including information concerning the nature of the flooding and the extent of the damages.
While there is a detailed account of historical flood events in Santa Barbara County provided in Section 5.0 of the 2022 MJHMP, the following section provides a summary of the more recent significant flood events that affected the City:
• 1998 – The flooding events of 1998 arrived on a strong El Niño and brought several recordbreaking rainfalls with 50-year storm event intensities throughout February. The City of Santa Barbara recorded its wettest month in history, 21.36-inches of rainfall. By the end of the month, many areas in the county had received 600 percent of normal February rainfall. Flood-related damages within Santa Barbara occurred during three major storm periods: February 1-4, February 6-9, and February 22-24. The cost to repair extensive flood damage to public and private property was estimated at $15 million. Just like in 1995, transportation throughout the county was disrupted through closures of roads, the Santa Barbara Airport, and train service.
Flood damage was spread throughout the county and the county was declared a Federal Disaster Area on February 9. The floods received a Presidential Disaster Declaration (County Flood Control 1998).
• February 2, 1998 – During the first storm on February 2, winds with gusts as high as 63 miles per hour (mph) knocked over hundreds of trees and caused loss of power to thousands of homes across Goleta and Santa Barbara. The next day, 15-foot-high waves damaged pilings under Stearns Wharf and a broken sewer line near Arroyo Burro Beach, closing several nearby beaches due to high levels of bacteria buildup. Gaviota Creek overtopped and flooded the State Beach at the mouth of the creek. At the Gaviota Chevron plant, storm related damage caused a release of hazardous materials. The airport also closed down due to flood, and Highway 101 was shut down in Ventura, cutting off the City to the south (County Flood Control 1998).
• February 6, 1998 – With little time to recuperate, the South Coast was hit by a second major storm on February 6. Disruptions of transportation were widespread throughout the South Coast – a downed tree resulted in an accident that closed Highway 101. Along the coast, berms were hastily constructed to protect beachfront property (County Flood Control 1998).
5.0. Hazard Assessment
44 February 2023
• 2018 – Following the October 2017 Thomas Fire, heavy rains unleashed destructive rivers of water, mud, and debris in Santa Barbara County, particularly Montecito, leaving at least 23 people dead, destroying over 100 homes, and damaging over 300 homes. Rain from the storm fell on hillsides and mountains stripped of trees and vegetation by the Thomas Fire. The National Weather Service, Los Angeles reported that 0.54 inches of rain had fallen in 5 minutes at Montecito. Other figures include 0.73 inches in 10 minutes at KTYD Radio Towers, 0.86 inches in 15 minutes at Carpinteria, 1.11 inches in 30 minutes at Carpinteria, and 1.45 inches in 1 hour at Matilija Canyon (FloodList 2021) (see also, Section 5.3.9, Landslide).
Probability of Occurrence
The 100-year flood is a flood that has a one percent chance in any given year of being equaled or exceeded. The 500-year flood is the flood that has a 0.2 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.
Climate Change Consideration
Climate change is projected to amplify existing flood hazards through increased frequency and strength of El Niño events and rainfall intensity. Extreme weather events have become more frequent over the past 40 to 50 years and this trend is projected to continue. Up to half of California’s precipitation comes from a relatively small number of intense winter storms, which are expected to become more intense with climate change. For example, what is currently a 200-year storm, or one that has a 1 in 200 chance of occurring in a given year, by 2100 would increase in frequency by 40 to 50 years (to a 1 in 150/160 chance in a given year). This means that the 100-year and 500-year floodplains may expand, and the current floodplains may become 40- to 50-year floodplains (Santa County Barbara Planning and Development Department 2021). The frequency and intensity of heavy rainstorms are projected to increase, causing fluvial flooding along the City’s creeks, although overall annual precipitation levels are expected to increase only slightly. For discussion regarding the impacts of climate change on coastal flooding and sea level rise, see Section 5.3.12, Coastal Hazards.
5.0. Hazard Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 45
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 5-4. Santa Barbara County FEMA Flood Hazards
5.0. Hazard Assessment
46 February 2023
5.3.4 Pandemic/Public Health Emergency
Description of Hazard
Infectious disease emergencies are circumstances caused by biological agents, including organisms such as bacteria, viruses, or toxins, with the potential for significant illness or death in the population.
Infectious disease emergencies may be caused by:
• Naturally occurring diseases spread from person to person (e.g., measles, mumps,meningococcal disease, tuberculosis)
• Foodborne (e.g.: salmonella, E. coli, botulinum toxin, etc.) • Vectors such as mosquitos can spread diseases (e.g.: West Nile virus, dengue, Zika,malaria). • Newly emerging infectious diseases (e.g.: Ebola, Zika, SARS, MERS, avian influenza). • Intentionally caused the spread of disease or toxins known as bioterrorism. Past bioterrorism events include the contamination of restaurant food with E. coli in Oregon (1984) andthe release of Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway (1995).
The impact of infectious disease emergencies on the local community and its critical infrastructure will depend on:
• The type of biological agent and availability of treatment for victims • The availability of prophylaxis for responders and the public • The scale of exposure and ongoing exposure
• The mode of transmission and whether transmission can be interrupted • Whether the event is affecting staffing for critical infrastructure within and outside ofthe county such as transportation, law enforcement, health care, and the medical and food supply chains.
An outbreak is when there are more cases than would be normally expected, often suddenly, of an infectious disease in a community or facility.
An epidemic is when there are more cases than would be normally expected of infectious disease, often suddenly, in a population of a large geographic area.
A pandemic refers to an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, usually affecting a large number of people. Examples include pandemic influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or “SARS” and the Coronavirus (COVID-19).
Outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics can occur when a new virus emerges to which the population has little immunity. The 20th century saw three such pandemics, the most notable of which was the 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic that was responsible for 20 million deaths throughout the world.
Secondary impacts include significant economic disruption to a community’s infrastructure due to loss of employee work time, essential services and products, and costs of treating or preventing the spread of the disease.
Public health measures are used to control outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics of infectious diseases, and are especially important for diseases with high morbidity or mortality and limited medical prophylaxis and/or rapid treatment.
5.0. Hazard Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 47
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Measures to control disease include:
• Legal measures such as isolation and quarantine of persons or products, and legal closure of food establishments.
• Control of contaminated food or water through recall of product or, for water, “Do Not Use”, “Do Not Drink” or “Boil Water” orders issued by state or local health departments.
Vector control to eliminate vectors such as mosquitos that carry the disease from person to person. The Vector-Borne Disease Section of the California Department of Public Health identifies the following types of diseases:
• Africanized Honeybees • Bed Bugs • Body Lice
• Cat Scratch Disease • Conenose Bugs • Hantavirus Cardiopulmonary Syndrome • Head lice • Lyme Disease • Mosquitoes
• Murine Typhus • Plague • Ticks
• West Nile Virus • Red Imported Fire Ants • Scabies
• Swimmer’s Itch • Tularemia • Zika Virus
Location and Extent of Hazard in the City of Santa Barbara Public health emergencies, such as infectious disease hazards or epidemics, occur not only on a local or state level but on a national and global scale. It is likely that most communities in the county, including the City, would be affected, either directly or by secondary impacts. Some indirect consequences may be the diversion of resources that may be otherwise available given the limited regional transportation opportunities and flow of goods and materials to the City.
History of Hazard in the City of Santa Barbara
Outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics can occur when a new virus emerges to which the population has little immunity.
The 20th century saw several outbreaks, pandemics, and epidemics, the most notable of which was the 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic that was responsible for 40 to 50 million deaths throughout the world. The most notable pandemic of the 21st century is the current COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted the economic, political, social, and environmental conditions of the City, county, California, the U.S., and the world. Older adults and people who have severe underlying medical conditions like heart or lung disease or diabetes seem to be at higher risk for developing more serious complications from COVID-19 illness; however, numerous stories were reported of young and healthy people who developed the disease and had serious complications. People with COVID-19 have had a wide range of symptoms reported – ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Symptoms of COVID-19 include but are not limited to fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, nausea, or vomiting, and diarrhea.
Symptoms may appear 2-14 days after exposure to the virus. Anyone can have mild to severe
5.0. Hazard Assessment
48 February 2023
symptoms (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2021). On January 26, 2020, the CDC confirmed the first COVID-19 case in California, the third case in the U.S. As of June 2, 2021, there have been 34,507 confirmed COVID-19 cases within the county and 451 deaths (Santa Barbara County Public Health Department 2021a). In the City of Santa Barbara, there have been 15,065 reported cases and 112 reported deaths related to COVID-19. As of October 2021, 58 percent of Santa Barbara County was fully vaccinated (Santa Barbara County Public Health Department 2021). In the City of Santa Barbara, the County Public Health Department distributes COVID-19 vaccines at the Franklin Health Care Center and numerous participating pharmacies distribute vaccinations as well.
Probability of Occurrence
Disease outbreaks and flu epidemics occur on an ongoing basis. Occasionally these outbreaks require the initiation of the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department Infectious Disease Response Plan but have required little to no support from the City Emergency Operations Center (EOC). There is a continued threat from a novel influenza virus or other emerging epidemic or pandemic disease that would require a disaster response at the EOC level. The disease could affect the City infrastructure, and the ability of the EOC and other city departments to respond due to disease-related loss of staff.
Climate Change Consideration
It is widely accepted that the effects of climate change will facilitate increases in the frequency of infectious diseases. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Services, many vector-borne and zoonotic diseases are climate-sensitive and ecological shifts associated with climate change are expected to impact the distribution and incidences of these diseases (National Institute of Environmental Health Services 2018). While many vector-borne and zoonotic diseases, such as malaria, yellow fever, dengue, and murine typhus, are rarely seen in the U.S., the City is directly susceptible to vector-borne and zoonotic diseases that are found in warmer climates and vulnerable due to global trade and travel. Changes in temperature and precipitation directly affect vector-borne disease transmission through pathogen-host interaction, and indirectly through ecosystem changes and species composition. As temperatures increases, vectors can spread into new areas that were previously too cold. During warm weather, animal species that carry diseases typically become more active and insects and other pests reproduce more rapidly. As climate change causes warmer temperatures earlier in the spring and later in the autumn, these animals may be active for longer periods, increasing the time that diseases can be transmitted (National Institute of Environmental Health Services 2018).
Further, climate-related natural disasters (e.g., wildfire, drought and water shortage, flood, coastal hazards) also increase the risk of infectious disease by disrupting health services and infrastructures and damaging water and sanitation networks (World Health Organization 2018).
5.3.5 Tsunami
Description of Hazard
A tsunami is a series of long waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of a large volume of water. Underwater earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, meteoric impacts, or
5.0. Hazard Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 49
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan onshore slope failures cause this displacement. Tsunami waves travel at speeds averaging 450 to 600 miles per hour. As a tsunami nears the coastline, its speed diminishes, its wavelength decreases, and its height increases. Depending on the type of event that creates the tsunami, as well the remoteness of the event, the tsunami could reach land within a few minutes or after several hours.
Low-lying areas could experience severe inland inundation of water and deposition of debris more than 3,000 feet inland.
Location and Extent of Hazard in the City of Santa Barbara As described in Section 5.3.9 of the MJHMP, areas prone to tsunami hazards in the county are limited to coastal areas and offshore areas. The cities of Santa Barbara and Carpinteria are most susceptible to tsunami hazards, given that they are located on or near several offshore geological faults, the more prominent faults being the Mesa Fault, the Santa Ynez Fault in the mountains, and the Santa Rosa Fault (refer to Section 5.3.3 of the MJHMP). Other unnamed faults in the offshore area of the Channel Islands may present tsunami hazards. These faults have been active in the past and can subject the entire county coastal area to seismic action at any time.
History of Hazard in the City of Santa Barbara
The relative threat for local tsunamis in Santa Barbara can be considered low due to low recurrence frequencies. Thirteen possible tsunamis have been observed or recorded in the county from local earthquakes between 1812 and 1988; however, there have been no recorded locally generated tsunamis since 1988. Additionally, these tsunami events were poorly documented, and the precise extent of environmental and public impacts is uncertain (refer to Section 5.3.9 of the MJHMP). The size of these tsunamis may never be known with certainty, but there are unconfirmed estimates of 30-35 feet waves in Santa Barbara City. The estimates are found in various literature and based on anecdotal history only.
• On February 27, 2010, a magnitude 8.8 earthquake occurred along the central coast of Chile and produced a tsunami. For the coast of Southern California, it was one of the largest tsunami episodes since 1964. In general, tsunami waves between 2 and 4 feet were reported. Tsunami waves of around 3 feet were reported by tide gauges across the Santa Barbara Channel. At Santa Barbara Pier, significant beach erosion was reported along with displacement of buoys.
The tsunami surge lasted more than 20 hours. The most significant damage occurred along the coasts of Ventura and southern Santa Barbara counties. Numerous reports of dock damage were reported along with beach erosion.
• On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake occurred off the Pacific coast of Tohoku, Japan. This earthquake devastated many communities in Japan and caused tsunami effects across the ocean in Santa Barbara City. The only significant impact to Santa Barbara City was to the dredging contractor for the City of Santa Barbara harbor. The City harbor operations documented approximately $1,500 of damages (Public Assistance).
Probability of Occurrence
The University of Southern California (USC) Tsunami Research Group has modeled areas in the county that could potentially be inundated in the event of a tsunami. In 2001, the Tsunami Research Group concluded the walls of the basin that form the Santa Barbara Channel are susceptible to
5.0. Hazard Assessment
50 February 2023
submarine slope failures in at least two mapped locations (USC 2001). This model is based on potential earthquake sources and hypothetical extreme undersea, near-shore landslide sources. The data was mapped by the California Geological Survey and Cal OES for Tsunami Evacuation Planning. The maps and data are compiled with the best currently available scientific information and represent areas that could be exposed to tsunami hazards during a tsunami event. The tsunami inundation map helps to assist cities and counties in identifying their tsunami hazard areas. Figure 5-5 shows tsunami hazard areas in the City.
Based on the tsunami inundation map (Figure 5-5), several areas along the City’s coast have the potential to be inundated by a tsunami. Given, there is a medium probability of an earthquake, which would result in high impacts including potential tsunami events in the City, the City is at minor risk of future tsunami events.
Climate Change Consideration
As previously described, tsunamis are created by earthquakes or other earth movements. To date, no direct relationship has been made between climate change and the occurrences of earthquakes or other earth movements.
5.3.6 Drought and Water Shortage
Description of Hazard
Drought and water shortages are a gradual phenomenon and generally are not signified by one or two dry years. California’s and Santa Barbara’s extensive system of water supply infrastructure (reservoirs, groundwater basins, and interregional conveyance facilities) generally mitigates the effects of short‐term dry periods for most water users. However, drought conditions are present when a region receives below-average precipitation, resulting in prolonged shortages in its water supply, whether atmospheric, surface, or ground water. A drought can last for months or years or may be declared after as few as 15 days.
Location and Extent of Hazard in the City of Santa Barbara The entire county is subject to drought conditions and water shortages.
History of Hazard in the City of Santa Barbara
Three 20th century droughts were of particular importance from a water supply standpoint—the droughts of 1929–1934, 1976–1977, and 1987–1992. More recent multiyear droughts occurred in 2007–2009 and 2012–2017 (DWR 2021). California’s most recent multi-year drought occurred from 2012-2017. In January 2014, Santa Barbara County joined the State of California in declaring a local drought emergency, which was the first local emergency declaration of drought in the county’s history (County of Santa Barbara 2014). This was the first time the state-imposed mandatory urban water use reduction requirements on water suppliers, and all of California’s 58 counties declared local emergencies. Refer to Section 5.3.2 of the MJHMP for a detailed discussion of multi-year droughts that were identified as having significant impacts on the county.
5.0. Hazard Assessment
City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 51
Annex to the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 5-5. South Coast Tsunami Hazard Area
5.0. Hazard Assessment
52 February 2023
Since August 2020, the period between 2012 and 2016 was one of the documented driest consecutive water years in the county with 50.83 inches in cumulative rainfall (County of Santa Barbara 2021a). Effects of the drought have lowered water storage at Lake Cachuma, one of the county’s largest surface water reservoirs, with water storage at 48.4 percent of capacity in late 2021 (County Flood Control District 2021). Although the statewide drought of 2012–2016 was ended by a wet Water Year in 2017, localized drought conditions persisted in the Central Coast region and were not ended until a wet Water Year in 2019 (DWR 2021).
Probability of Occurrence
Droughts are a regularly recurring feature of Santa Barbara County weather that can be affected by overall regional or worldwide climactic patterns. El Niño and La Niña events are natural climate patterns over the Pacific Ocean often with global effects, with influence over the weather of the U.S. southwest that on average occur every two to seven years. The state recently experienced the 5-year significant drought event of 2012-2017; other notable historical droughts included 2007- 09, 1987-92, 1976-77, and off-and-on dry conditions spanning more than a decade in the 1920s and 1930s. In any given year, the City can be subject to drought conditions and water shortages.
However, out of the last 10 years, the county has been under a locally declared drought emergency for five years; therefore, it is likely drought and associated water shortages will continue and may increase due to climate change considerations, as described further below.
Climate Change Considerations
Climate change has the potential to make drought events more common in the county and City.
Extreme heat creates conditions more conducive for the evaporation of moisture from the ground, thereby increasing the possibility of drought. A warming planet could lead to earlier melting of winter snowpacks, leaving lower stream flows and drier conditions in the late spring and summer.
Snowpacks are important in terms of providing water storage and ensuring adequate supply in the summer when water is most needed. Changing precipitation distribution and intensity have the potential to cause more of the precipitation that does fall to run-off rather than be stored. The result of these processes is an increased potential for more frequent and more severe periods of drought.