Santa Monica City Council
September 22, 2026

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan
1 Prepared by:

March 29, 2024
Water Conservation Master
Plan
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................................5

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................5

1.2 Plan Objective .............................................................................................................................................................5

1.3 Plan Process................................................................................................................................................................5

1.3.1 Identify Conservation Measures for Analysis..................................................................................................6

1.3.2 Estimate Water Savings and Cost for Each Measure ......................................................................................7

1.3.3 Create and Model Three Program Options.....................................................................................................7

1.3.4 Selected Program and Implementation Recommendations.........................................................................10 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................11

2.1 Overview of the Santa Monica Water System ..........................................................................................................11

2.2 Plan Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................13

2.2.1 California Legislation and the Water Use Objectives....................................................................................13

2.3 Plan Background and Development..........................................................................................................................15 3 ANALYSIS OF WATER DEMAND .........................................................................................................................................17

3.1 Information Review and Data Collection Methods...................................................................................................17

3.2 Total Consumption....................................................................................................................................................17

3.3 Consumption by User Category ................................................................................................................................19 4 CONSERVATION MEASURE EVALUATION..........................................................................................................................21

4.1 Conservation Measure Screening .............................................................................................................................21

4.2 Conservation Measures Evaluated............................................................................................................................22

4.3 Conservation Measure Analysis................................................................................................................................26 5 CONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION.........................................................................................................................29

5.1 Measure Selection for Conservation Program Alternatives......................................................................................29

5.2 Conservation Program Analysis ................................................................................................................................31

5.3 Selected Program B (Strategic) .................................................................................................................................34 6 PROGRAM B IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................................................................37

6.1 Implementation Costs and Schedule ........................................................................................................................37

6.2 Staffing for Modeled Programs and Future Legislation Compliance ........................................................................40

6.2.1 Recommended Staffing for Program B .........................................................................................................40

6.3 2024-2030 Implementation: Strategic Recommendations.......................................................................................43

6.4 Suggestions for Future DSS Model Updates .............................................................................................................43

6.5 Recommended Funding Sources and Partnerships ..................................................................................................44

6.6 Track and Update for New Codes and Emerging Technologies................................................................................44

6.7 Tracking and Monitoring Progress............................................................................................................................45 7 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................................47 APPENDIX A. DSS MODEL DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................................49 APPENDIX B. INDIVIDUAL CONSERVATION MEASURE DESIGN INPUTS AND RESULTS ...........................................................61 City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 3

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Water Conservation Master Plan Key Steps........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 1-2. Measures Selected for Evaluation.......................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 1-3. Water Conservation Programs Comparison Summary .......................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-1. City of Santa Monica Potable Water System........................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2-2. City of Santa Monica Water Supply Profile .......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-3. Plan Development Process................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3-1. Data Collection Workbook Topics and Items....................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3-2. Bi-Monthly Consumption ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3-3. Gallons Per Capita Per Day and Population ......................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3-4. Consumption by Customer Category 2017-2019, 2022 (Baseline Period)........................................................... 19 Figure 3-5. Overall Use: Indoor vs. Outdoor 2017-2019, 2022 (Baseline Period) .................................................................. 20 Figure 4-1. Measure Screening Criteria.................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 4-2. Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/AF) based on cumulative water savings in 2035 ......................................... 28 Figure 4-3. Cumulative Projected Water Savings in 2035 (AF)............................................................................................... 28 Figure 4-4. Cumulative Projected Water Savings vs. Cost of Savings per Unit Volume (2035).............................................. 29 Figure 5-1. Conservation Programs Comparison Summary ................................................................................................... 32 Figure 5-2. Water Demand with Different Program Options................................................................................................. 33 Figure 5-3. GPCD Demand...................................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 5-4. Program B (Strategic) Results Summary .............................................................................................................. 35 Figure 6-1. Program B (Strategic): Implementation Schedule (2023-2040+) ......................................................................... 39 Figure 6-2. Program Staffing Comparison - Modeled & Recommended................................................................................ 40 Figure 6-3. State Regulations Implementation Timeline........................................................................................................ 42 Figure 6-4. Program Tracking and Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 46 Figure A-1. DSS Model Main Page.......................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure A-2. Sample Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary .............................................................................................................. 50 Figure A-3. DSS Model Analysis Flow ..................................................................................................................................... 51

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Measures by Program.............................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 1-2. Water Savings and Costs of Evaluated Water Conservation Programs................................................................... 9 Table 2-1. SB 606 and AB 1668 Key Requirements - Completed and Proposed .................................................................... 14 Table 4-1. Measure Descriptions............................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 5-1. Measures by Program............................................................................................................................................ 30 Table 5-2. Water Savings and Costs of Evaluated Water Conservation Programs................................................................. 31 Table 5-3. Program B (Strategic) Water Demand, Savings, GPCD, and Costs......................................................................... 36 Table 6-1. Program B (Strategic): Total Modeled Utility Expenses Through 2028……………………………………………………………… 38 Table 6-2. Recommended Staffing for Program B (Strategic)……………………………………………………………………………………………. 41 Table A-1. List of Key Assumptions......................................................................................................................................... 55 Table A-2. Key Assumptions Resources.................................................................................................................................. 55 City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AB Assembly Bill
acct Account
AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure
AF acre-feet or acre-foot
AFY acre-feet per year
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
COM Commercial
CII Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
DIM Dedicated Irrigation Meter
DSS Model Demand Side Management Least Cost
Planning Decision Support System
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
GPCD gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
gpf gallons per flush
gpm gallons per minute
HCF Hundred Cubic Feet
IRR Irrigation
PHET Premium High Efficiency Toilet
MF Multi-Family
MG million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
MGY million gallons per year
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance
MWM Maddaus Water Management
N/A not applicable
Plan Water Conservation Master Plan
psi pounds per square inch
RES Residential
SB Senate Bill
SF Single Family
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWMP
SMURRF
Sustainable Water Master Plan
Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling
Facility
ULWU Ultra Low Water Urinal
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WBIC weather based irrigation controller
WELIS Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation
Standards
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WUE Water Use Efficiency
ZWU Zero Water Urinal

WATER VOLUME UNITS AND CONVERSIONS
1 Hundred Cubic Feet (HCF) = 748 gallons
1 Acre-Foot (AF) = 325,851 gallons
1 Million Gallons (MG) = 3.068887 AF
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 5
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction
Water conservation is a key component of the City of Santa Monica (City) Water Resources Division’s mission to provide safe, sustainable, high-quality drinking water to the community. As described in the City’s 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP), water conservation helps attain the SWMP goals of diversifying the City’s water supply portfolio, enhancing water supply resiliency in the face of climate change and periods of extreme drought, and reducing reliance on imported water supplies (water self-sufficiency).

Water conservation activities are outlined in the SWMP; however, three significant developments have occurred since it was last updated in 2018:
• Pandemic: The three-year COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the City’s finances and staffing. As a result, the water conservation staff was reduced from 6 FTEs to 2 FTEs in 2020 and can now only maintain the status quo on the City’s existing water conservation program and policies (e.g., Water Neutrality and Cash for Grass Landscape Rebates).
• Drought: 2020-2022 was the driest three-year period on record in California. • Legislation: New mandatory California water conservation regulations have been passed that start on January 1, 2025. These regulations include:
o Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg), Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman), and Senate Bill 1157 (Hertzberg)1
o Potable Water Nonfunctional Turf: Assembly Bill 1572 (Friedman) As such, this Water Conservation Master Plan (Plan) presents a comprehensive program to realign the City’s water conservation efforts in light of the above recent developments to achieve the SWMP goals and comply with the new California legislative requirements. The Plan analyzes new and existing water conservation measures and provides scheduling and resource recommendations to implement the selected measures, collectively called a Program.

1.2 Plan Objective
The Plan’s objective is to help the City realign and advance its water conservation efforts by providing a program that will attain the SWMP water self-sufficiency and sustainability goals while taking into account the impacts of the Pandemic, ongoing drought, and new state regulatory requirements. This analysis is designed to be used in support of the City’s water conservation program planning for budgeting, staffing, and workload prioritization.

1.3 Plan Process
City staff and Maddaus Water Management (MWM) worked together as a team to develop the WCMP using the following step-by-step process summarized in Figure 1-1.
1 California Department of Water Resources, et al. (2018). Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Primer of 2018 Legislation on Water Conservation and Drought Planning Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg) and Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman).

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 6
Figure 1-1. Water Conservation Master Plan Key Steps

1.3.1 Identify Conservation Measures for Analysis
First, City staff conducted a screening of more than 100 water conservation measures targeting residential and commercial customers, irrigation systems, and system-wide issues. The screening followed the methodology presented in the American Water Works Association Manual of Practice, M52 Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual (AWWA, 2017). The screening process resulted in the City selecting 16 applicable conservation measures (11 existing and five new), listed below in Figure 1-2, for detailed analysis and modelling.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 7
Figure 1-2. Measures Selected for Evaluation

1.3.2 Estimate Water Savings and Cost for Each Measure
An analysis of each of the selected 16 measures was then conducted by MWM using the Least Cost Planning Decision Support System (DSS Model). All 16 evaluated measures are described in Table 4-1 and the DSS Model outputs for each measure are in Appendix B. See Appendix A for details about the DSS Model itself.

1.3.3 Create and Model Three Program Options
After modeling, the 16 selected conservation measures were combined into three different suites for further evaluation as Program options.

A. Program A (Current) includes the existing 11 measures only. This suite generally reflects the City’s current conservation efforts.

B. Program B (Strategic) includes 13 measures (nine existing and four new) that balance water savings with cost to save significant amounts of water and provide enhanced community outreach and education. This is the Plan’s recommended program.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 8
C. Program C (All-Inclusive) includes all 16 measures modeled, making it the most expensive suite of measures as well as the one that will achieve the most water savings.

Table 1-1. Measures by Program
Measure Name New
Program
A
Current
B
Strategic
C
AllInclusive

1. Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)   

2. Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors  

3. Free Water Saving Devices   

4. Public Messaging and Education   

5. Rebate: Toilets (Residential)   

6. Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)   

7. Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential)   

8. Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII)   

9. Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip)  

10. Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass)   

11. Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices   

12. Direct Install: Irrigation Devices   

13. Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential   

14. Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII   

15. Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste  

16. Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters)    A comparison of the water savings and costs resulting from the DSS Model analysis for the three programs is provided in Table 1-2 below. Actual savings will depend on a variety of factors including staff resources, implementation schedule, population dynamics, and climate variability. For instance, by 2040, one measure has ended (Measure 16: Compliance- CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters), see Figure 6-1) and population growth has slowed. As a result, annual savings slightly decline.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 9
Table 1-2. Water Savings and Costs of Evaluated Water Conservation Programs Water Savings Program A
(Current)
Program B
(Strategic)
Program C
(All-Inclusive)
Year MGY AFY % MGY AFY % MGY AFY %
2025 77 236 2.2% 101 310 2.8% 106 327 3.0%
2030 162 496 4.6% 255 782 7.3% 264 810 7.6%
2035 220 675 6.5% 330 1013 9.7% 340 1043 10.0%
2040 241 740 7.1% 300 922 8.9% 310 953 9.2%
2045 243 747 7.4% 301 924 9.1% 311 956 9.4%
Lifetime Present Value of
Water Savings (2023-2045) $8,075,000 $11,301,000 $11,704,000 Lifetime Present Value of
Utility Costs (2023-2045) $13,873,000 $13,001,000 $18,699,000 Water Utility Average Cost of
Water Saved (2023-2045) $3,290/MG $1,070/AF $2,250/MG $730/AF $3,120/MG $1,020/AF 2024-2028 Average Annual
Utility Cost $980,000 $932,000 $1,331,000
Notes:

1. Water savings are relative to the Plan baseline period (2017-2019, 2022) average annual demand of 3,599 MGY (11,045 AFY). The Plan baseline is 18.3% below the 2013 baseline (used in other analysis and reporting) of 13,519 AFY.

2. Program savings do not include savings from plumbing codes.

3. Costs are attributable only to the utility’s conservation team.

4. Present value costs and savings are rounded to the nearest $1,000.

5. Water utility cost of water saved is rounded to the nearest $10.

6. 2024-2028 average annual utility cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.

7. 2024-2028 average annual utility cost for all three programs includes all direct City costs but does not include any costs related to partners’ programs or grants.

Figure 1-3. Water Conservation Programs Comparison Summary City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 10

1.3.4 Selected Program and Implementation Recommendations The final step in the Plan process was to select a program and develop recommendations to successfully implement the selected program including the staffing and resources. Based on MWM’s analysis of the DSS Model output, the City selected Program B (Strategic) for implementation for the following reasons:
• Projected savings will provide the necessary conservation water supply (or water demand reduction) to help meet the City’s SWMP goal of water self-sufficiency.
• The cost of water savings is approximately $730/AF which is in the same range as the City’s local groundwater supply, but less than the cost of MWD imported water (approximately $1,250/AF in 2024). • Program B has the highest cost-effectiveness of the three programs, offering the most water savings per unit cost.
• Excludes measures that have been determined to be a cost burden for little savings or water conserved.

Recommendations to assist with Program B implementation include:
• Prioritize Measures for Implementation: Measures that are relatively easy to operate with limited staff and contribute the most to meeting water saving targets should be prioritized for implementation. For example, each of the following are low in cost, result in significant water savings, and require less than 0.3 FTE to implement:
o Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters) o Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor (Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional - CII) o Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)
• Prepare an Annual Work Plan: Annually review the prior year’s measures including their performance and contribution to water conservation goals (e.g., overall demand, projected water savings, and gallons per capita demand). Prepare an updated annual work plan that accounts for budget, staff resources, regulation compliance dates, and contracts. Consider partnerships, grants, and new contracts where appropriate. • Maintain Program Data Management: Track and measure participation, cost, and other data to gauge successes and areas that need improvement. This data can also assist staff in preparing required DWR reports and plans such as the Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment (Annual Assessment), Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report (Annual Shortage Report), and, every five years, the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
• Increase Staff Resources: To implement Program B (Strategic), MWM recommends that the City increase the water conservation staff by two full-time equivalent (FTE). MWM recommends increasing staff by two FTEs (one Sustainability Analyst and one Program Support Assistant) to account for additional unforeseen programming to comply with upcoming state reporting requirements. (Many details of the new California water conservation legislation have yet to be finalized. When requirements are formally adopted, the Plan may need to be modified to include any new or revised actions needed by the City for compliance.) City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 11
2 INTRODUCTION
This section provides an overview of the City’s water system and service area. This section also describes the purpose and objectives of the Plan, and the steps used to complete it.

2.1 Overview of the Santa Monica Water System
The City is an urban coastal community, bordered to the west by the Pacific Ocean and the City of Los Angeles to the north, east, and south. The City’s Water Resources Division provides water, wastewater, and recycled water service to approximately 18,000 metered customers. The City maintains three well fields (total of 11 groundwater production wells), two well head treatment facilities to remove industrial contaminants (Charnock Treatment Plant and Olympic Advanced Water Treatment Facility), a brackish groundwater desalination facility (Arcadia Water Treatment Plant), four water storage reservoirs, two stormwater harvesting tanks, and two advanced water recycling facilities (Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility and the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Advanced Water Treatment Facility). The City's water service area consists entirely of the City of Santa Monica with limited service in the City of Los Angeles (Figure 2-1).

Figure 2-1. City of Santa Monica Potable Water System
The City experiences a Mediterranean climate, ranging from warm and generally dry summers to cool, relatively wet winters. Water usage in the City varies with changes in temperature and rainfall throughout the year. Climate change and a significant increase in housing units in the coming decades is expected to test the City’s ability to sustainably manage its local water resources and maintain its goal of reducing its reliance on imported water supplies.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 12
Besides local groundwater, the City’s current potable water supply also includes imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River, provided through the wholesale water agency Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Santa Monica’s water supply profile2 according to the City’s 2018 SWMP is displayed in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2. City of Santa Monica Water Supply Profile
As described in the City’s 2018 SWMP, the City was working towards a goal of water self-sufficiency by meeting 99% or more of the City’s water demand using local water sources. The 2018 SWMP outlined a comprehensive approach to achieve this goal with a combination of water demand reduction strategies, increased development of local water supplies, and implementation of alternative water supply projects to collectively offset imported water purchases from MWD. The original 99% water self-sufficiency goal has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and revised to approximately 80% in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan if water conservation efforts are not realigned and advanced. With increased water conservation efforts, the City may be able to meet roughly 90% of its water supply through local water resources.

To increase local groundwater and alternative water supplies, the City has implemented several projects scheduled to be completed in 2023 and early 2024:
• The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP): SWIP will collect and treat stormwater, dry weather urban runoff, brackish groundwater, and municipal wastewater for permitted non-potable reuse applications and indirect potable reuse via aquifer recharge. The SWIP and upgrades to the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) are expected to produce up to 1,680 AFY of advanced treated recycled water. • Olympic Well Field Restoration: This project will restore the well field’s pumping capacity which has been limited due to prior industrial activities that contaminated the groundwater water aquifer. Restoring the Olympic Well Field will expand local groundwater production by up to 3,200 AFY. • Arcadia Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Expansion: By retrofitting the plant’s existing reverse osmosis system with innovative Flow Reversal Reverse Osmosis (FRRO) technology, production efficiency will increase from 82% to 90% or greater. This will allow the City to produce additional high-quality drinking water from the same amount of raw 2 Data in this figure represents the percentage of the City’s demand that was met by each source received in 2017.

Local Groundwater
52%
Imported
29%
Conservation
18%
Recycled
1%
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 13
groundwater. Upon project completion, the raw water treatment capacity of the Arcadia WTP will expand from 10 million gallons per day (MGD) to approximately 13 MGD.

2.2 Plan Purpose
The primary purpose of this Plan is to help the City realign and advance its water conservation efforts by providing a program that will attain the SWMP water self-sufficiency and sustainability goals while taking into account the impacts of the Pandemic, ongoing drought, and new state regulatory requirements. The Plan details the assessment and analysis of existing conservation measures and identifies new water use efficiency (WUE) opportunities. The Plan analyzes program costs and water savings, thereby evaluating whether expanding existing efforts is a feasible and cost-effective way to meet future water needs in comparison to using and/or developing other sources of water. This analysis is designed to be used in support of the City’s water conservation program planning for budgeting, staffing, and workload prioritization.

Other purposes of the Plan are to refine water demand forecasts through the year 2045 using the most recent data available, and to support the City’s parallel update of the Water and Sewer Master Plan and development of the Recycled Water Master Plan.

Through identification and prioritization of conservation measures, the City can project long-range demands, advance, and identify attainable conservation goals, develop strategies, and raise awareness. Additionally, potential water savings from the individual conservation measures and/or combinations thereof were determined in this Plan to assess potential per capita water use reduction. By combining new initiatives with existing activities, water conservation can contribute even further to the sustainable management of water supplies in the City’s service area.

A key driver of the Plan is the need to achieve compliance with the new California state legislative requirements (described in Section 2.2.1 below) whereby the City is required to meet a water use objective and submit an annual report on progress.

Moreover, this Plan also aims to support compliance with the AWWA G480-20 Water Conservation and Efficiency Program Operation and Management Standard (G480 Standard), which is a voluntary standard that can be adopted by water providers at their own discretion. The G480 Standard describes the critical elements of an effective water conservation program and encompasses activities undertaken by a utility within its own operations to improve water use on the supply side through distribution system management and on the demand side through customer billing and education practices.

An agency’s water conservation program meeting this standard has the potential to impact all water users.3

2.2.1 California Legislation and the Water Use Objectives In the aftermath of yet another drought from 2014-2017, the California Legislature established a framework centered on “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Primer of 2018 Legislation on Water Conservation and Drought Planning Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg) and Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman).”4 This framework was designed to help the state better prepare for droughts and climate change by establishing statewide water efficiency standards and incentivizing recycled water. The supporting state legislation, SB 606 and AB 1668, established guidelines for efficient water use and a framework for the implementation and oversight of the new standards by 2024. These efforts and requirements, along with any future regulations, will have profound effects on water providers over the coming years by requiring annual water budgets for urban retail water suppliers, per-person indoor water use goals, and documented preparation for long-term droughts.

In addition to performance measures for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) water use, and with stakeholder input, the SWRCB will adopt long-term efficiency standards for outdoor water use and water loss through leaks. The legislation will require each urban retail water supplier to calculate and report an urban water use objective, which is an estimate of aggregate efficient water use for the previous year based on the adopted water use efficiency standards. As of March 1, 2024, reports are due by January 1, 2025, and every year thereafter. Senate Bill 1157 (Hertzberg), signed into law 3 American Water Works Association. G480 Standard and AWE Leaderboard web page:
https://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/resources/topic/g480-standard-and-awe-leaderboard 4 California Department of Water Resources, et al. (2018). Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Primer of 2018 Legislation on Water Conservation and Drought Planning Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg) and Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman).

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 14
in September 2022 by Governor Gavin Newsom, lowered limits for indoor residential water use even further than those established just four years prior.

The bills grant the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) the authority to enforce compliance with the Urban Water Use Objectives, which is expected to include monetary penalties for non-compliance. The bills also establish a schedule for state agencies to develop the methodology for implementing the requirements. This Plan will be used for compliance in meeting the many requirements of recent legislation and additional expected state mandates. A list of key requirements and proposed regulations from the legislation is included in Table 2-1.

This Plan is aligned to the state legislative framework; however, as illustrated in Table 2-1, details of the final state regulations have yet to be released. When detailed guidance becomes available, this Plan may need to be modified to include any new or revised actions needed by the City. Per the SWRCB, draft regulations will be released in the fall of 2024.

City staff plans to track state legislation metrics as the standards are developed through the state’s stakeholder process by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the SWRCB.

Table 2-1. SB 606 and AB 1668 Key Requirements - Completed and Proposed as of March 1, 2024 Date AB 1668/SB 606 Key Requirements
Completed

1. California Legislature standards for indoor residential water SB 1157 (Hertzberg) was signed by Governor Newsom in September 2022 with the following standards:
55 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) until 2025
47 GPCD from 2025 until January 2030
42 GPCD beginning in 2030

2. DWR provided each urban retail water supplier with data regarding irrigable lands at level of detail sufficient to verify accuracy at the parcel level
September 30, 2022 DWR recommended standards for outdoor residential use, performance measures for CII water, variance provisions, incentive provisions for recycled water and standards for outdoor irrigation of landscape areas with dedicated irrigation meters (DIMs).

March 22, 2023
SWRCB staff provided alternate recommendations to the Board on standards, measures, incentives, and CII Performance Measures. Notable revisions include lowering the outdoor residential and CII standard to an evapotranspiration factor of 0.55 and 0.45 after Oct. 1, 2035 respectively, replacing the CII-DIM conversion threshold of 1 acre with a volumetric water usage of 500 thousand gallons or more annually (process water excluded), and changing the CII classification categories from the 19 NAICS codes recommended by DWR to the 18 categories used by the U.S. EPA’s ENERGYSTAR Portfolio Manager tool.

Pending August 2024

1. SWRCB to adopt long-term standards for efficient water use:

Outdoor residential
Outdoor irrigation of landscape with dedicated irrigation meters at CII customer sites Water loss (consistent with Senate Bill 555)

2. SWRCB to adopt performance measures for CII water use Pending 2025
Urban water supplier shall calculate its urban water use objective and report its actual water demand for the previous calendar or fiscal year:

Efficient indoor residential water use, plus
Efficient outdoor residential water use, plus
Efficient outdoor water use through dedicated irrigation meters (DIMS) at CII customer sites, plus Efficient water loss, plus
Variances and incentives as appropriate
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 15

2.3 Plan Background and Development
This Plan provides detailed information for planning a conservation program that aligns with the following:
• Current and pending state regulations.
• California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) resolutions. • Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) guidelines.
• Utility supply reliability goals.
• American Water Works Association Manual of Practice, M52 Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual (AWWA, 2017).

The Plan development (see Figure 2-3) included review of past documentation and data analyses. The City provided data per a list of requirements. The information requested and received included:
• Water production and consumption data on a bi-monthly basis for the different classes of water users. • Complete descriptions of past, present, and proposed future conservation programs including historical annual participation rates.
• Results of any independent analyses of water savings due to prior City programs. • Historical and projected water system service area population, employment, land use data, and growth projections through the year 2045, or other suitable end year, along with maps of the water system, political jurisdiction boundaries, and study area(s).
• Customer characteristics and data needed to characterize water conservation measures such as the number of facilities or businesses of a particular type.

Figure 2-3. Plan Development Process
City staff worked closely with MWM to compile the data which was then input into MWM’s Least Cost Planning Decision Support System (DSS Model). This DSS Model, developed by MWM, provided an update to the DSS Model which was initially developed as part of the 2018 SWMP. The project team at MWM verified and tested data against historical records to ensure accuracy and logic as the DSS Model was developed. 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.

MWM reviewed existing City practices and procedures to create a comprehensive list of water use conservation measures currently in place. The team also reviewed relevant literature and practices of other agencies to determine potential measures that could be implemented by the City. MWM used its master database of over 100 measures and followed the screening process outlined in the American Water Works Association Manual of Practice, M52 Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual (AWWA, 2017).

Throughout the planning process, the City and MWM conducted multiple meetings, primarily to complete the individual measure design sheets of the DSS Model which identify criteria such as fixture costs, applicable customer classes, length of implementation, measure life, administrative costs, end uses, end-use savings per replacement, and a target number or City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 16
percentage of accounts per measure year. Following the DSS Model completion and evaluation of program options, the draft and final Water Conservation Master Plan reports were prepared.

With detailed measure information readily available, the City has the flexibility to use this Plan as a guide to implement additional measures to help increase water savings whenever statewide drought occurs.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 17
3 ANALYSIS OF WATER DEMAND
This section presents information about the data collection process, historical production, and customer category consumption data, as well as a summary of the City’s conservation efforts.

3.1 Information Review and Data Collection Methods
A thorough collection and review of information relevant to this effort was conducted and entered into the City’s Data Collection Workbook. Using the provided consumption and accounts values from the City, MWM and City staff confirmed the number and types of customers within the service area and identified the unique customer categories to be tracked.

Figure 3-1 presents data topics and items requested, gathered, and stored in the City’s Data Collection Workbook.

Figure 3-1. Data Collection Workbook Topics and Items

3.2 Total Consumption
The City’s water use patterns were analyzed based on twelve years of water consumption data provided by the City (years 2010 to 2022). Figure 3-2 illustrates the total consumption for the City’s service area, not including recycled water consumption. Water consumption data was measured at the customer meters. Note the overall decreased water use since 2013 (approximately 20%) is related to the severe California drought from 2013-2017and the water conservation efforts implemented during this period. Consumption can also be measured using gallons per capita per day (GPCD). Figure 3-3 illustrates the historical GPCD demand and how it has decreased as population has increased.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 18
Figure 3-2. Bi-Monthly Consumption
Figure 3-3. Gallons Per Capita Per Day and Population
Note: GPCD values include both indoor and outdoor water use.

Drought
(2013-2017)
Drought
(2021-
2022)
Pandemic
(2020-2022)
Bad
Economy
(2008-2011)
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 19

3.3 Consumption by User Category
The City has a variety of customer categories utilized in their billing system. Data from each customer category was analyzed separately. This Plan has organized users into Single Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, Commercial/Industrial, Institutional, Landscape Irrigation, and Fire categories to align with the City’s 2020 UWMP customer categories. Figure 3-4 illustrates the water use breakdowns within the City based on water use data. The period 2017-2019, 2022 was selected as the baseline period for the water use profiles in this section to avoid potential abnormal impacts to the data from drought and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Figure 3-4. Consumption by Customer Category 2017-2019, 2022 (Baseline Period) Note: Customer category water use is based on averaging 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2022 (Plan baseline period) historical water use per account by customer category, representing post-drought and non-Covid conditions.

Approximately 70% of the City’s service area water usage is associated with residential water use. Consequently, residential and irrigation conservation programs will produce the most savings. The City’s service area does include significant commercial and industrial activity as well (approximately 25% of total water use), and thus the conservation potential for this sector should not be overlooked.

Using the DSS Model, historical data was segregated into indoor and outdoor water use by customer type. To determine the indoor and outdoor water use split, it was assumed that indoor use is approximately equal to the minimum use in the winter. While there may be minimal landscape watering in the winter, or leakage from irrigation systems, it is assumed this is minor, at less than 5-10% of the average winter water use. Figure 3-5 shows the breakdown of water use into indoor and outdoor components based on these assumptions.

Single Family
Residential, 24.1%
Multi-Family
Residential, 44.6%
Commercial/Industrial,

26.0%
Landscape Irrigation,

4.5%
Institutional, 0.7%
Fire, 0.1%
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 20
Figure 3-5. Overall Use: Indoor vs. Outdoor 2017-2019, 2022 (Baseline Period) Note: Figure is based on average 2017-2019 and 2022 estimated indoor water use (Plan baseline period).

Indoor Total , 87.6%
Outdoor Total, 12.4%
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 21
4 CONSERVATION MEASURE EVALUATION
The analysis for this Plan examined existing and new conservation measures the City could implement and how their savings contribute to water conservation. To estimate savings, MWM and City staff conducted a robust evaluation process to limit and define the appropriate conservation measures. City staff identified 16 conservation measures for further evaluation in the DSS Model, consisting of both existing and new measures. This section presents descriptions, baseline assumptions, and output comparison of the conservation measures that were evaluated as part of this Plan’s development, as well as an overview of the conservation measure evaluation process conducted.

4.1 Conservation Measure Screening
The experience of many utilities has shown there is a reasonable limit to how many conservation measures can be feasibly implemented at one time. Programs that consist of many 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 and as conditions change over time. Program timelines can also be adjusted, with the recognition that doing so may impact the savings objectives.

An important step in developing this Plan included the identification and screening of a library list of over 100 measures to a short-list for detailed evaluation (benefit-cost analysis). The library list of measures was drawn from MWM and City experience and a review of what other water agencies with innovative and effective conservation programs are implementing. Each measure screened included devices and/or activitiesto achieve water conservation and the distribution method, or mechanism (direct install, incentive, ordinance, etc.). A thorough screening process was necessary to identify a reasonable short-list of measures for evaluation in the DSS Model. City staff reduced the library list of existing and new measures down to 16 measures based on a quantitative and qualitative ranking of each measure’s estimated water savings, cost to the City, public acceptance, and ease of implementation. The 16 selected measures target water conservation across all relevant customer categories. Figure 4-1 shows the City’s measure screening criteria.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 22
Figure 4-1. Measure Screening Criteria

4.2 Conservation Measures Evaluated
Table 4-1 defines all 16 measures that were thoroughly analyzed for the Plan. Information about the DSS Model analysis approach to measure unit costs, water savings, and lifetimes are in Appendix C. Actual measure inputs used in the DSS Model to evaluate the water conservation measures selected by the City, and their results, can be found in individual measure screenshots from the DSS Model provided in Appendix B.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 23
Table 4-1. Measure Descriptions
Measure Name Description

1. Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI)
The City plans to have AMI fully deployed and operational by 2026. The rollout includes web portals to access AMI data: one for the utility, and one for customers (which includes a mobile app). This measure consists of two aspects: 1) Water resources or billing staff will reach out to customers when usage is flagged as a leak by the web portal if there are no immediate response by the customer, and 2) Education for customers on accessing the web portal/mobile app and setting up their own leak detection alerts (which has been shown to improve
accountability and reduce water use). Note: this measure does not include watering restrictions, monitoring, or enforcement.

2. Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors The City will provide rebates or other financial incentives to Multi-Family (MF) property owners for a toilet leak detection technology system (e.g., Sensor Industries SI-Flush Sensor).

These sensors send data to a server that alerts property owners of potential leaks. This measure can be a starting component of a follow-on comprehensive MF program (modeled after Santa Clarita Valley Water's MF program).

3. Free Water Saving Devices The City's Water Resources Division bulk purchases high efficiency showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet dye strips, and hose nozzles and gives them away for free at the City office or community events. The City is planning to add pre-rinse spray valves for restaurants. Free devices are also included in the Office of Sustainability's residential sustainability kit. The City also partners with Sustainable Works to distribute devices through their Green Business Program.

4. Public Messaging and Education The City conducts several public education and training efforts including:
• Printed and electronic materials to raise awareness of conservation measures available to customers. This includes newsletters, bill stuffers, brochures, working with local newspapers, signage at retailers, signs on public buses, social media campaigns, and website updates.
• Community outreach: Conducting presentations at various neighborhood groups, BIDs, and booths at relevant
community events with free device giveaways. Workshops
giveaways. Workshops or other means for educating
customers, landscapers, and contractors in efficient
landscaping and irrigation principles (e.g., Sustainable Landscape Workshops at the Airport Demonstration
Gardens).
• School education program.
• Recognition program for water saving businesses- through Green Business Program efforts by Sustainable Works
• Non-Functional Turf Education
• Fixture replacement compliance (SB 407)
• Signage in public landscape areas (e.g., using recycled water, reduced watering, etc.)
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 24
Measure Name Description

5. Rebate: Toilets (Residential) The City provides a rebate for installing a Premium High Efficiency Toilet (PHET: i.e., a toilet that uses 1.06 gpf (4 liters/flush) or less) that replaces a toilet using >= 1.6 gpf in residential properties. The current rebate covers up to nine toilets (SF only, unlimited for MF) and covers the material cost up to $200/toilet ($40 from MWD and supplemental $160 from the City). A new incentive amount going forward would provide $70 in supplemental funds from the City per toilet for a total rebate of $110. California (CA) code requires toilets flush at 1.28 gpf or less.

6. Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII) The City provides a rebate for the installation of a Premium High Efficiency Toilet (PHET: i.e., a toilet that uses 1.06 gpf (4 liters/flush) or less) that replaces a toilet using >= 1.6 gpf in CII properties. The current rebate covers the material cost up to $200/toilet ($40 from MWD and supplemental $160 from the City). A new incentive going forward would provide a $70 rebate from the City per toilet for a total rebate of $110. CA code requires toilets flush at 1.28 gpf or less.

The City provides a rebate for the installation of an Ultra-Low Water Urinal (ULWU: 0.125 gpf) or Zero Water Urinal (ZWU) that replaces a urinal using >= 1.5 gpf. The current rebate covers the material cost up to $400/urinal ($200 from MWD and
supplemental $200 from the City). The City proposesto keep the same incentive amount moving forward. CA code requires
urinals flush at 0.125 gpf or less.

7. Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential) The City provides a rebate for High Efficiency Clothes Washers (meet or exceeds the CEE Tier 1 standard) to Single Family homes. The current rebate covers the material cost up to $400/HECW ($85 from MWD and supplemental $315 from the
City). A new incentive amount going forward would provide $120 in supplemental funds from the City for a total rebate of $205.

8. Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII) The City provides rebates for water efficient indoor commercial equipment. This includes air-cooled ice machines, steamers, dry vacuum pumps, and controllers on cooling towers. The City can add cooling tower submeters as an additional item, but this would be a City rebate and not through MWD.

9. Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip) The City's Spray to Drip program provides a rebate for waterefficient landscape irrigation retrofits that replace overhead spray irrigation (sprinklers) in non-turf areas (e.g., hedges and planter beds) with highly efficient drip irrigation. The rebate is $2.00/sqft up to $4,000 for SF, $6,000 for MF and CII.

10.Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass) The City's Cash for Grass program provides a landscape conversion rebate for water-efficient landscape retrofits that remove turf grass, cap sprinklers, and install low-water plants, compost, mulch, and drip irrigation. The rebate is $3.50/sqft up to $6,000 for SF. The rebate is $3.50/sqft up to $10,000 for MF, $20,000 for CII. The City uses Eagle Aerial's WaterView to identify City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 25
Measure Name Description
large turf areas to target outreach for landscape conversion. This measure will be further encouraged by the passing of Assembly Bill 1572 (Friedman): Potable Water Nonfunctional Turf, banning nonfunctional turf in commercial landscapes.

11.Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices The Water Neutrality Direct Install Program installs high efficiency indoor fixtures in SF, MF, and CII buildings. This includes Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Santa Monica College, and private schools. Replacements include high efficiency toilets, showerheads, faucet aerators, and high efficiency urinals. Installations are performed by a contracted third-party installer. The “Water Neutrality Direct Install Program” is funded by Water Neutrality offset fees for new development which are determined during plan check.

12.Direct Install: Irrigation Devices For SF, MF, CII, and IRR customers with landscape, this measure would provide for the installation of water efficient irrigation upgrades. This could be in conjunction with the WaterWise landscape surveys or via one of CalWEP's turnkey programs for administration assistance. Included in the menu of installations are rotary nozzles, WBICs, soil moisture sensors, rain sensors, and rain barrels. The City uses Eagle Aerial's WaterView to identify large turf areas to target outreach. This program could be funded by Water Neutrality fees.

13.Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential The City may provide a free water survey for Residential customers. The City is working on a contract with WaterWise Consulting to provide water surveys for residential customers.

Those with high water use or that have received a Notice of Violation (NOV) for outdoor water waste are targeted. This measure assumes these customers are different than those targeted with AMI leak alerts. This measure includes an onsite visit and customized report on how to save water. Outdoor surveys would include simple irrigation repairs, spray head alignment, retrofits with rotary nozzles, and installation and programming of WBICs. These surveys can link with the Irrigation Devices Direct Install program. An outdoor survey is the primary offering, with indoor water surveys also available upon request.

Indoor surveys include free installation of efficient showerheads and aerators.

14.Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII The City would provide a free water survey for CII customers, targeting top users including hotels, hospitals, and restaurants.

This measure assumes these audits are contracted but could be administered in-house with additional staff. After the free water use survey, the City would provide recommendations in a report and describe if the site qualifies for rebates, direct installs, and/or MWD's WSIP (Water Savings Incentive Program).

Recommendations would be tailored to each site based on water savings potential. This measure could link to the Equipment Rebates measure and the Irrigation Devices Direct Install program. This is modeled after the West Basin pilot program.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 26
Measure Name Description

15.Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste The City's Water Conservation requirements SMMC 7.16.020 prohibits the waste of water outdoors, including failure to repair leaks in a timely manner. Water waste enforcement is handled for reported violations with Notices of Violation sent to the property's account holder. A contract is pending for nighttime water waste patrols. A component of this program could be to provide coupons for saving water and money at a certified water smart car wash. Water smart car washes recycle water on-site or send it to a water treatment facility where the water is treated, recycled, and reused. Some establishments may go waterless, providing car cleaning services with environmentally friendly products using little or no water. Coupons may only be
redeemed at a participating retailer. Coupons could be
presented at the time of purchase. Water Resources Protection could provide coupons when addressing water runoff issues.

16.Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters)
This measure would include conducting detailed landscape area measurements for CII dedicated irrigation accounts. The City can use aerial imagery including freely available National Agricultural Aerial Program (NAIP) Imagery. The recommended state
standard would require urban retail water suppliers to identify dedicated irrigation meters (DIMs) and measure the associated irrigated CII landscapes within five years after the State Water Board adopts the regulation. The total landscape area will be incorporated into a landscape water use equation/standard (provided by DWR) to produce a supplier level CII landscape budget in gallons. The state will not enforce CII landscape budgets for individual parcels/customers. This also includes requirements for new MF and CII developments and SF accounts with greater than 5,000' of irrigation to install a dedicated landscape meter. This is already specified in the City's WELIS and enforced in plan check.

4.3 Conservation Measure Analysis
MWM conducted an economic evaluation of each selected water conservation measure using the DSS Model. Appendix B presents detailed results including how much water each measure will save annually through 2045, how much each will cost, 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/uses). Dollar savings from reduced water demand was quantified annually and based on avoided costs provided by the City. 5 Actual measured design
parameter inputs can be found in Appendix B. While each measure was analyzed independently, it is important to note very few measures operate independently. For example, higher efficiency indoor fixtures go together with indoor water checkups and public education.

It should be noted that the water savings from the education measure is not double counted with other conservation measures. As a result, costs appear significantly higher for education than for other measures due to the very minimal water savings estimated for the singular cost investment. However, other measures certainly would be less effective or possibly infeasible without an active outreach program. Without community and school education initiatives, customers would be unaware of other conservation measures and participation would likely be reduced. 5 Santa Monica’s weighted unit cost of imported water in fiscal year 2022 was $3,508/MG ($1,143/AF).

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 27
Figures 4-2,4-3, and 4-4 below summarize the comparison of cost of savings per unit volume and projected water savings of all modeled measures. Measures that have low cost of savings would be most cost effective for the utility to implement since they have the lowest costs it would take per AF of water saved. However, the cost of savings should not be the only factor considered for measure selection, as there are many additional benefits or considerations. This analysis demonstrates that the most cost-effective measures include commercial equipment rebates, water neutrality direct installations, and dedicated irrigation meter compliance. On the other hand, some of the least cost-effective measures for the utility to implement include Spray to Drip rebates, outdoor water waste enforcement, and toilet flow sensors. Comparing costeffective measures to measures with high savings, we can see that most of the high savings’ measures are the most costeffective as well, but there are a few distinctions; for example, the commercial equipment rebate is the most cost-effective measure but does not rank very high in terms of savings. So, while this measure may be a good choice to implement during times of budget constraints, the City may elect to implement other measures with greater savings potential when they have the capital to go after the most water savings possible.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 28
Figure 4-2. Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/AF) based on cumulative water savings in 2035 Figure 4-3. Cumulative Projected Water Savings in 2035 (AF) $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000
Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip)
Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste
Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors
Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass)
Public Messaging and Education
Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential
Free Water Saving Devices
Rebate: Toilets (Residential)
Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential)
Direct Install: Irrigation Devices
Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)
Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII
Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters) Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices
Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste
Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip)
Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors
Free Water Saving Devices
Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential)
Public Messaging and Education
Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass)
Rebate: Toilets (Residential)
Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII)
Direct Install: Irrigation Devices
Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)
Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential
Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII
Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters) Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 29
Figure 4-4. Cumulative Projected Water Savings vs. Cost of Savings per Unit Volume (2035) 5 CONSERVATION PROGRAM EVALUATION
This section provides a summary of which measures were included in each of the three conservation programs (Programs A, B, and C) as well as the program implementation strategy selected by the City. The three programs were designed to illustrate a range of various measure combinations and resulting water savings.

The following key items were taken into consideration during measure selection for Programs A, B, and C:
• Existing conservation measures eases implementation and enhancement • Measures run by MWD – funding and administration provided • Conservation measures recommended by AWWA, CalWEP (California Water Efficiency Partnership – formerly CUWCC), DWR, and others – success seen from previous implementation and/or pilot studies • New and innovative measures – creates new water savings opportunities • Equitability among customer categories – promotes accessibility for all customers to participate • Customer demographics – to align measure offerings with customer needs 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). The G480 Standard is defined on the AWWA web page as follows:

5.1 Measure Selection for Conservation Program Alternatives Using the data gathered, MWM created a list of all potential program concepts that were appropriate for the City service area to meet future regulatory and conservation compliance mandates. The list included existing program elements and traditional conservation measures as well as concepts that had yet to be implemented or considered by the City. Factors for determining which measure should be in each program included budgeting, feasibility to implement the program, and the time at which each measure would need to be introduced to promote conservation efforts. Programs also needed to address water conservation across all relevant 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).

Programs A, B and C involve the following measures:
• Program A (Current): Current conservation program with no changes; includes 11 measures.

Rebate: Irrigation
Conversion (Spray to Drip)
Enforcement: Outdoor
Water Waste
Leak Detection and Alerts:

Toilet Flow Sensors
Rebate: Landscape Conversion
(Cash for Grass)
Public Messaging and
Education Water Audits: Indoor
and Outdoor Residential
Water Audits: Indoor and …
Compliance: CA Water
Budgeting (Dedicated …
Water Neutrality Direct
Install: Indoor Devices
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume in 2035
($/AF)
Cumulative Projected Water Savings in 2035 (AF)
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 30
• Program B (Strategic): This is the recommended program selected by the City including 13 measures. In addition to nine existing measures from Program A, Program B includes four new measures that the City is already in progress on or plans to start soon:
o Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) for Leak Detection o Direct Install of Irrigation Devices
o Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Water Audits (CII), Indoor and Outdoor o Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters)
These additional measures are a high priority for the City to implement due to several factors such as cost effectiveness, community benefits, and legislative compliance. However, the availability of staff bandwidth may present a challenge to implement all four additional measures.

Program B does not include two current measures from Program A due to high costs and low savings: Spray to Drip Rebate and Outdoor Water Waste Enforcement.
• Program C (All-Inclusive): This program includes all modeled measures, which includes all 11 from Program A and the four new additional measures from Program B. In addition, Program C includes a new Toilet Flow Sensors for Leak Detection measure, for a total of 16 measures.

Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 summarize the three program alternatives:

Table 5-1. Measures by Program
Measure Name New
Program
A
Current
B
Strategic
C
AllInclusive

1. Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)   

2. Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors  

3. Free Water Saving Devices   

4. Public Messaging and Education   

5. Rebate: Toilets (Residential)   

6. Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)   

7. Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential)   

8. Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII)   

9. Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip)  

10. Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass)   

11. Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices   

12. Direct Install: Irrigation Devices   

13. Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential   

14. Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII   

15. Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste  

16. Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters)    City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 31

5.2 Conservation Program Analysis
Table 5-2 shows the estimated annual savings in five-year increments for all three programs, as well as the present value of water savings and utility costs. Program B has the lowest cost per unit of water saved, making it the most cost effective of the three programs. Program C offers a little more water savings, but at a higher cost. Overall, all three programs reduce demand significantly compared to demand without conservation (Figure 5-2).

Table 5-2. Water Savings and Costs of Evaluated Water Conservation Programs Water Savings Program A
(Current)
Program B
(Strategic)
Program C
(All-Inclusive)
Year MGY AFY % of
demand MGY AFY % of demand MGY AFY % of demand
2025 77 236 2.2% 101 310 2.8% 106 327 3.0%
2030 162 496 4.6% 255 782 7.3% 264 810 7.6%
2035 220 675 6.5% 330 1013 9.7% 340 1043 10.0%
2040 241 740 7.1% 300 922 8.9% 310 953 9.2%
2045 243 747 7.4% 301 924 9.1% 311 956 9.4%
Lifetime Present Value of
Water Savings (2023-
2045)
$8,075,000 $11,301,000 $11,704,000
Lifetime Present Value of
Utility Costs (2023-2045) $13,873,000 $13,001,000 $18,699,000 Water Utility Average Cost
of
Water Saved (2023-2045)
$3,290/MG $1,070/AF $2,250/MG $730/AF $3,120/MG $1,020/AF 2024-2028 Average
Annual Utility Cost $980,000 $932,000 $1,331,000
Notes:

1. Water savings are relative to the Plan baseline period (2017-2019, 2022) average annual demand of 3,599 MGY (11,045 AFY). The Plan baseline is 18.3% below the 2013 baseline (used in other analysis and reporting) of 13,519 AFY.

2. Program savings do not include savings from plumbing codes.

3. Costs are attributable only to the utility’s conservation team.

4. Present value costs and savings are rounded to the nearest $1,000.

5. Water utility cost of water saved is rounded to the nearest $10.

6. 2024-2028 average annual cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.

7. 2024-2028 average annual utility cost for all three programs includes all direct City costs but does not include any costs related to partners’ programs or grants.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 32
Figure 5-1. Conservation Programs Comparison Summary
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 33
Figure 5-2. Water Demand with Different Program Options It is best practice to use an average of multiple years and not start a demand forecast on a single abnormal year which can reflect a drought year, or a high water use year. The years 2020-2021 were pandemic and drought years for the City. Therefore, the average baseline demand in Figure 5-2 for the first year of the projection (2023) is an average of 2017- 2019 and 2022 water consumption data. This methodology explains the gap observed between historical demand ending in 2022 and the baseline demand in 2023 in Figure 5-2.

Figures 5-3 presents estimated average per capita per day demand including plumbing code and active conservation. Active conservation results from the effort of water providers and their customers, in other words actively implementing and participating in conservation measures. On the other hand, passive conservation, otherwise known as plumbing code savings, results from the natural replacement of fixtures and appliances due to local, state, and national plumbing codes and standards.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 34
Figure 5-3. GPCD Demand

5.3 Selected Program B (Strategic)
Current conditions have encouraged the City to implement Strategic Program B and pursue the additional measures in Program C only as needed to achieve their water use objective or if drought conditions return and call for more drastic conservation measures.

However, water use in a service area is very dynamic and responds to changes in population, economy, weather, efficiency of devices, and types of industry. In the future, as the Santa Monica community evolves and water use patterns and weather change, there remains the possibility that the City will elect to adjust measure implementation targets and schedules. This may include expounding upon, or scaling back, various program components and measures to increase efficiency; meet benefit-cost ratios; adopt better technology or methods; or meet budget and staffing restrictions.

Whether additional measures become necessary would be 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 individual measures clearly defined and water saving objectives and customer target goals measurable, the City has quantifiable performance goals to track on both an individual measure and overall program level basis.

Program B has the highest cost-effectiveness of the three programs, offering the most water savings per unit cost. Program B was also selected because many of the current measures and the additional measures could be reasonably accomplished with existing staffing supplemented with contracted services or consulting assistance. Program B also excludes measures that, through this Plan analysis, have been determined to be a cost burden for little savings. Program C offers little more savings for more cost to both the City’s water utility and City customers. The additional measures in Program C can be pursued if the current drought continues and more drastic conservation measures are required.

The estimated cost to the City to implement the Strategic Program B as described in the Plan is approximately $932,000/year for 2024-2028. The costs include utility expenses (materials, rebates, giveaways, admin etc.). Costs covered by MWD and other partners are not included. The opportunities for cost sharing partnership with other utilities (energy, sewer, or City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 35
neighboring water utilities), or other means for lowering the cost of a conservation measure, will lower the budgetary needs for implementation.

Overall conclusions for the Plan’s selected Program B (Strategic) are depicted in Figure 5-4.

Figure 5-4. Program B (Strategic) Results Summary
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 36
Table 5-3. Program B (Strategic) Water Demand, Savings, GPCD, and Costs Program B
(Strategic) Population Water Demand Water Savings 3,4 Total GPCD Utility
Program
Costs
Utility
Admin
Costs
Total
Utility Cost
(Program +
Admin)
Year MG AF MG AF % of
demand Gallons Program Cost6
Program
Cost6 Program Cost6
Baseline 1,2 92,408 2 3,599 1 11,045 1 N/A N/A N/A 108 1 - - - 2023 92,412 3,572 10,963 26 81 0.7% 106 $727,000 $304,000 $1,032,000 2024 95,377 3,564 10,938 58 179 1.6% 102 $842,000 $363,000 $1,206,000 2025 98,342 3,545 10,880 101 310 2.8% 99 $922,000 $406,000 $1,328,000 2026 101,307 3,526 10,821 145 444 4.1% 95 $961,000 $448,000 $1,409,000 2027 104,272 3,508 10,766 188 578 5.4% 92 $965,000 $448,000 $1,413,000 2028 107,237 3,512 10,778 211 648 6.0% 90 $969,000 $448,000 $1,417,000 2029 110,202 3,517 10,794 233 716 6.6% 87 $973,000 $448,000 $1,421,000 2030 111,143 3,488 10,705 255 782 7.3% 86 $973,000 $448,000 $1,422,000 2035 115,848 3,387 10,393 330 1013 9.7% 80 $977,000 $448,000 $1,425,000 2040 119,704 3,385 10,387 300 922 8.9% 77 $892,000 $405,000 $1,298,000 2045 120,034 3,299 10,125 301 924 9.1% 75 $889,000 $404,000 $1,294,000 Totals (2023-2045)7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $21,124,000 $9,610,000 $30,734,000 Averages
(2023-2045)7 N/A 3,434 MGY 10,538 AFY 252 MGY 772 AFY 7.3% 84 GPCD $918,000/YR $418,000/YR $1,336,000/YR Notes:

1. Baselines for Water Demand and GPCD are the average annual for the years 2017-2019 and 2022.

2. Baseline for Population is for the year 2022.

3. Water savings are relative to the baseline demand of 3,599 MGY (11,045 AFY).

4. Program savings do not include savings from plumbing codes.

5. Costs are attributable only to the utility’s conservation team.

6. Utility program costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.

7. Totals and averages are for the complete modeling period (2023-2045). Not all years are included in this table.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 37
6 PROGRAM B IMPLEMENTATION
This section presents an overview of the conservation planning options proposed for the City, including budgeting, data monitoring strategies, an implementation schedule and staffing needs. Conservation is the least expensive means of meeting future water supply needs for the area. The implementation of these conservation measures should reduce per capita water use and have the potential to defer the need for further infrastructure expansion. While the conservation actions identified can have a significant cost, the cost of not doing conservation and having to address increased demands through engineering solutions are even 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 demands without conservation.

6.1 Implementation Costs and Schedule
Table 6-1 (following page) depicts the modeled labor (FTEs) and utility expense to implement Program B (Strategic) through 2028. Expenses for each measure are calculated from the fully burdened Water Resources Specialist FTE cost and device and material expenses. 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.

Figure 6-1 presents an implementation schedule for each individual measure in Program B (Strategic) illustrated through 2040, with arrows indicating which measures extend through 2045. A description of each measure can be found in Table 4-

1. Table 6.
1 Program B (Strategic): Total Modeled Utility Expenses Through 2028 City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 38
Annual Labor + Expense
Full Time Equivalent (FTEs)
Conservation Measure Activity FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Community and
Education
Leak Detection and Alerts: AMI $0 $0
$79,280$81,790$84,310
00 0.25 0.25 0.25
Free Water Saving Devices
$22,190$22,190$22,190$22,190$22,190

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Public Messaging and Education
$47,110$47,110$47,110$47,110$47,110

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Community and Education Total $128,130 $128,130 $165,780 $168,320 $170,850

0.35 0.35 0.6 0.6 0.6
Residential
Rebate: Residential Toilets
$39,200$39,200$39,200$39,200$39,200

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Rebate: Residential Clothes
Washers
$16,430$16,430$16,430$16,430$16,430

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Water Audits: Indoor and
Outdoor Residential
$96,180$96,180$96,180$96,180$96,180

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Water Neutrality Direct Install
(residential+ commercial)
$126,600$126,600$126,600$126,600$126,600

0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Residential Total $430,160 $430,160 $430,160 $430,160 $430,160

0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Commercial,
Industrial,
Institutional
Rebate: CII Toilet and Urinals $41,270 $41,23
0 $41,190 $41,160 $41,120

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Rebate: Commercial Equipment
$4,220$4,220$4,220$4,220$4,220

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Water Audits: Indoor and
Outdoor CII
$72,540$72,480$72,410$72,350$72,280

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Commercial, Industrial,
Institutional Total
$143,180 $143,060 $142,940 $142,820 $142,690

0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Irrigation
Direct Install: Irrigation Devices
$42,200$42,200$42,200$42,200$42,200

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Rebate: Landscape Conversion
(Cash for Grass)
$334,390$334,810$335,240$335,660$336,090

0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Compliance: CA Water Budgeting
(Dedicated Irrigation Meters)
$0$79,410$80,530$81,650$82,770
0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Irrigation Total $504,210 $626,350 $628,000 $629,660 $631,310

0.76 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 39
Figure 6-1. Program B (Strategic): Implementation Schedule (2023-2040+) Notes:

1. This schedule only includes the 13 measures in Program B (Strategic).

2. Conservation measures are described in Table 4-1.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 40

6.2 Staffing for Modeled Programs and Future Legislation Compliance As part of the analysis, staffing needs for each of the conservation programs was considered. Annual staff needed and recommended for Program B is displayed in Figure 6-2. The City is currently running their conservation program with 2 FTE staff (a Senior Sustainability Analyst and a Water Resources Specialist). The City will need to increase the FTE water conservation team by at least two staff with water conservation experience (for a total of 4 FTEs) to implement Program B and to address future legislation compliance (see section 6.2.1 below for details).

Figure 6-2. Program B Staffing: Modeled and Additional Recommended (2023-2045)

6.2.1 Recommended Staffing for Program B
To implement Program B along with the state legislative framework measures and reporting required by SB 606 and AB 1668 (see Figure 6-3), the City will require at least two additionalstaff to supplement the modeled FTEs. Thus, the minimum total FTEs recommended for Program B is four (two modeled, plus two recommended additions).

As the regulations have yet to be finalized (see Table 2-1), modelling the draft framework measures was outside of the scope of this Plan. However, the additional draft measures primarily target CII Best Management Practices (BMPs) and performance standards. Dependent on the track selected, by 2025, suppliers must design a conservation program for the top 20% of CII accounts, by consumption, in each of up to 22 categories, depending on what is present in the service area, as well as programs for those in the top 2.5% of water use. Additional measures include initial and ongoing CII classification, identifying disclosable buildings and conducting annual reporting on their water use, implementing a ban on irrigation of non-functional turf, mandatory conversion of mixed-use meters to dedicated irrigation meters, and starting in 2028, calculating and reporting the CII dedicated irrigation meter water use.

MWM has and continues to intensely monitor, track, and provide feedback on the development of the state legislative framework regulations, and fully understands the significant impact that compliance will have on water agencies’ staff and resources. Thus, given the regulations’ heavy burden on additional program design, implementation, and reporting–-even without modelling--MWM recommends two additional FTEs to implement the extra measures needed to comply with the State water conservation framework regulations. This additional staff will provide resources to enhance the effectiveness of Program B’s measures as well.

Table 6-1 below outlines the recommended City staffing necessary to support Program B.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 41
Table 6-2. Recommended Staffing for Program B (Strategic) FTEs Title Core Responsibilities
1 Water Conservation Coordinator
(Existing – Reclassify from
Senior Sustainability Analyst)
• Oversee management of program and measures.
• Annual work plan development.
• State regulation tracking/compliance reporting.
• Implement and lead new, selected, and CA regulation measures. • Supervisory and budgeting.
1 Water Resources Specialist
(Existing)
• Landscape rebate lead.
• Landscape inspections for Green Building Ordinance and rebates. • Landscape rebate administration, application tracking. • Water Use Consultations.
• AMI leak outreach.
1 Sustainability Analyst
(NEW)
• Water Neutrality and Landscape plan checks.
• State regulation tracking/compliance reporting support. • Implement selected measures, including extra CA regulation measures. 1 Sustainability Analyst
(NEW)
• Outreach and marketing lead: social media posts, etc. • Website content migration and updates.
• State regulation tracking/compliance reporting support. • Implement selected measures, including extra CA regulation measures. • AMI leak outreach.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 42
Figure 6-3. State Regulations Implementation Timeline
Figure 6-3 illustrates the reporting timelines and objectives related to “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” as of March 1, 2024. However, it cannot capture the full scope and depth of the requirements, including the practical design and manual implementation of specific conservation measures tailored to dozens of CII customer classifications with high water use. The legislative requirements also entail initial and ongoing classification of CII customer accounts, a process without end as businesses continue to change.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 43

6.3 2024-2030 Implementation: Strategic Recommendations Strategic recommendations to assist implementing Program B over the next five years are as follows:
• Consider hiring two additional FTEs to implement additional measures needed to comply with the forthcoming State water conservation framework regulations and to enhance current measures. • Prioritize measures that contribute the most to meeting water conservation targets and are relatively easy to operate with limited staff.
• Identify and target measures to the largest 100 water using customers to reduce their demand. • Develop an annual work plan for each plan year as soon as the budget is adopted (or in concert with the budget planning process).
• Form partnerships and apply for grants where appropriate. • Define steps for each measure in the work plan detailing how it will be implemented. • Track water use each month by customer class and overall per capita water use. Use the Data Collection Workbook to enter data or an online tool (e.g., WaterViewTM by Eagle Aerial). • Use aerial imagery tools (e.g., WaterViewTM by Eagle Aerial) to identify areas of turf grass to target outreach for landscape conversion rebates and removal of non-functional turf grass. • Employ a SaaS tool (e.g., ConserveTrack by RightThere, LLC) to track measure progress, including participation, cost, projected water savings, and other data to gauge successes and areas that need improvement/added attention.
• Consider conducting a device potentiality study to determine market saturation of installed indoor high-efficiency fixtures (toilets, showerheads, aerators, clothes washers) to inform rebate and direct install programs. • Continue enforcing existing City ordinances that reduce water use as previously required by the statewide drought emergency declaration (recently lifted) and the Governor’s Executive Orders (e.g., only serving water upon request, no watering for 48 hours after a rain event).
• Annually update the Plan, including individual measure participation and savings, overall projected water savings, and projected per capita water use reductions, to ensure the City is on track to meet conservation goals. • Consider launching pilot studies for new measures.
• Consider soliciting and tracking community input and feedback via online or phone surveys or at outreach and education events.
• Continue to utilize the information and support offered to urban water agencies provided by CalWEP and AWE. • As a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WaterSense Partner take advantage of their many resources including outreach in the form of infographics, videos, template press releases, social media graphics, advertisements, bill stuffers and more.

6.4 Suggestions for Future DSS Model Updates
There are two types of updates envisioned for the DSS Model: 1) regular monitoring of costs and water savings; and 2) model recalibrations with updated base year data and model inputs and assumptions. The following describes each type of update in more detail:
• Annual model monitoring updates. The conservation measure worksheets can be used to track actual activities and compare them to the planned activities defined as part of the model development for this program. It is recommended that this update be done in conjunction with the development of an annual work plan and budget.

At minimum, it should happen every 3-5 years.
• Recalibration of the baseline. The DSS Model baseline demand is the average annual demand of 2017-2019 and 2022. Depending on actual water demand and account growth rates, it is advisable to update the baseline on a City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 44
five-year basis. This update requires reviewing historical demand trends, future population and demand forecasts, fixture models calibration, new or updated conservation measures, and cost and water savings assumptions.

Specific triggers for updates may include:
• Significant shift in the cost of water (more than 10-20% energy or chemical cost increase or decrease would modify the DSS Model savings worksheet and change the benefit-cost ratios). • Significant change in population accounts for one of the billing categories (more than a 5% shift). • Significant changes to the water system balance (e.g., more than 10% change in water losses or other parameter on the Demands Section of the DSS Model).
• New codes or regulations that affect natural replacement rates of fixtures. • New codes or regulations that affect conservation goals or requirements (historically including but not limited to SB 555, AB 1668, SB 606, SB 1157).
• Alternatives for staffing versus outsourced contracting or other changes to cost of implementation of a conservation measure (change to conservation measure DSS Model worksheet only). • New technologies for the conservation measure being considered (change or addition of new conservation measure DSS Model worksheet).
• Any other change in conservation measures (i.e., updates to the DSS Model measure worksheets can be changed or modified at any time without altering the water system balance worksheets or affecting fixture model calibration).

6.5 Recommended Funding Sources and Partnerships
It is recommended the City seek out additional funding sources and partnership opportunities both nationally and regionally to supplement or expand the conservation measures with high potential for water savings in the City.

Partnership and funding sources may include the following:
• City Water Enterprise Fund
• City Water Neutrality Offset Fees
• MWD Member Agency Administered Program funds
• State and federal grants
• MWD programs to achieve regional water conservation goals for minimum cost and maximize outreach and customer awareness and/or participation amongst its member agencies.

6.6 Track and Update for New Codes and Emerging Technologies Tracking changes in the consumer marketplace for the vast array of water-using appliances and plumbing fixtures in both the residential and commercial sectors is challenging. The following are options for tracking the latest in national standards and building codes as well as technologies and emerging trends in customer preferences:
• The governor signed SB 606 and AB 1668 into state law to create a more permanent conservation standard as part of implementing the “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” legislation. City staff should track development of the DWR framework into new state mandates for 2024 and beyond and update this Plan as necessary to comply with those new mandates.
• Engage in state processes to establish the requirement associated with implementation of legislation. Review state documents, present key information to City stakeholders and receive feedback, submit written comments as needed, and participate in public workshops and stakeholder groups. • Participate on the AWWA Water Conservation Division’s committees with attendance at the Annual Conference Committee meetings and conference calls, in particular the Water Efficiency Programs and Technology Committee.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 45
• Monitor the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) for updates on changes in National Standards and Codes as well as opportunities to comment on future national changes to codes and regulations. • Track the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense new technologies and updated equipment lists of newly labeled products and services.6 Frequently, AWE or CalWEP have performance testing results posted on their websites that provide very useful information to consumers. Performance information may also be available through Consumer Reports or Consortium for Energy Efficiency (http://www.cee1.org). • Attend the WaterSmart Innovations Conference and CalWEP Plenaries for exposure to the vendors participating in the exhibition and information on emerging trends in water conservation programs. • Maintain and use a network of 10-20 key contacts at progressive utilities to inquire about new technologies (e.g., through known contacts or new contacts made at conferences). • Attend events with other partner utilities and applicable stakeholders on related water loss control programs or conservation measures.

Staying on or ahead of the curve with tracking new technologies could lead to water savings through incentive programs.

Emerging products may be worthy of pilot programs and potentially attractive for grant funding through agencies like the U.S. EPA or U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. However, precautions should be taken prior to adopting new technologies that have yet to be adequately researched or tested.

6.7 Tracking and Monitoring Progress
It will be imperative to track the Program’s measures to ensure that the Plan is being implemented effectively and on target to meet its water conservation goals. Key components of tracking and monitoring are depicted in Figure 6-4 below. As new and promising technologies and methodologies emerge, they should be researched and tested and could replace measures that are underachieving.
6 https://www.epa.gov/watersense/watersense-products
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 46
Figure 6-4. Program Tracking and Monitoring
At the time this report was published, the City has elected to utilize two third party Software as a Service (SaaS) tools to track and monitor individual measure implementation:
• ConserveTrack by RightThere, LLC helps administer and track program implementation via “cases” (a customer engagement in a program) and “steps” (the sequence of actions for each program). ConserveTrack also tracks program metrics to calculate water savings for each measure. • WaterView™ (Eagle Aerial) is a water efficiency and data management SaaS custom-designed to help water agencies meet the state water conservation framework requirements under SB606 & AB1668 and comply with the new efficiency standards. It uses aerial photography, sophisticated image analysis to identify landscape types, actual water use data, and other tools to target high impact water conservation actions and to help comply with state regulations.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 47
7 REFERENCES
All links were accessed February 2024 unless otherwise indicated.

Alliance for Water Efficiency. (2016). The Status of Legislation, Regulation, Codes & Standards on Indoor Plumbing Water Efficiency. http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/Codes-Standards-White-Paper.aspx American Water Works Association (AWWA). G480 Standard and AWE Leaderboard web page. https://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/resources/topic/g480-standard-and-awe-leaderboard Ibid. (2017). M52 Water Conservation Programs – A Planning Manual, 2nd Edition. https://www.awwa.org/Store/ProductDetails/productId/61841578 California Department of Water Resources. (2015). Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=I55B69DB0D45A11DEA95 CA4428EC25FA0&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) California Department of Water Resources et al. (2018). Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Primer of 2018 Legislation on Water Conservation and Drought Planning Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg) and Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman). https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Make-WaterConservation-A-California-Way-of-Life/Files/PDFs/Final-WCL-Primer.pdf California Department of Water Resources. Water Use Efficiency. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-AndEfficiency California Energy Commission. (2022). Appliance Efficiency Regulations, California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Sections 1601-1609, Toilet, Urinal, Faucet, and Showerhead Regulations. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=206010 Ibid. (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=71714&DocumentContentId=8058 Ibid. (2014). Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-SD. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=203718&DocumentContentId=11538 California Executive Order B-37-16. (2016).
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/docs/5_9_16_eo_b37_16.pdf California Green (CALGreen) Building Standards 2022 Code, effective January 1, 2023. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen
California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC, now California Water Efficiency Partnership). (2005). Best Management Practices (BMP) Cost and Savings Study. https://owl.cwp.org/mdocs-posts/an-technical-services-2005/ California Water Efficiency Partnership (formerly CUWCC) Website. https://calwep.org/ California State Legislature. Assembly Bill 715 (Laird), October 11, 2007. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200720080AB715 Ibid. Assembly Bill 1668 (Friedman), May 31, 2018.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1668 Ibid. Senate Bill 1157 (Hertzberg), September 28, 2022. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1157 Ibid. Senate Bill 407 (Padilla), October 11, 2009.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200920100SB407 Ibid. Senate Bill 555 (Wolk), October 9, 2015.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB555 City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 48
Ibid. Senate Bill 606 (Hertzberg), May 31, 2018.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB606 Ibid. Senate Bill 837 (Blakeslee), July 1, 2011.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB837 City of Santa Monica. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://santamonica.gov/media/Users/smgov_5Calfredo_2Egonzalez/WRPP/2020_UWMP.pdf Ibid. 2018 Sustainable Water Master Plan.
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Public_Works/Water/SWMP.pdf Consortium for Efficient Energy website. https://www.cee1.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 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 Single-Family Water Use Efficiency Study.

Sacramento, California: Department of Water Resources.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/byron_bethany/docs/exhibits/pt/wr71.p df
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
Energy Star. (2011). Unit Shipment and Market Penetration Report Calendar Year 2011 Summary. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/downloads/unit_shipment_data/2011_USD_Summary_Report.pdf Federal Regulations. (2022). Subpart O – Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves, 87 FR 13910, as amended Mar. 11, 2022. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-II/subchapter-D/part-431/subpart-O 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
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/ State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). California Statutes 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. Explore Census Data web page. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ Ibid. 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/housebill/776/text/enr; https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-policy-act; https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr6enr.pdf U.S. Department of Energy. EnergyStar Calculators. Online: https://www.energystar.gov/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. WaterSense Products. Online: https://www.epa.gov/watersense/watersenseproducts Ibid. WaterSense Partners. https://www.epa.gov/watersense/join-watersense#utilities City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 49
APPENDIX A. DSS MODEL DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMPTIONS
DSS Model Overview: The Demand Side Management Least Cost Planning Decision Support System (DSS Model) as shown in the left figure 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 appliance uses. 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 those 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.

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 previous page illustrate the processes for forecasting conservation water savings, including the impacts of fixture replacement due to existing plumbing codes and standards.

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
Agency Info Edit
Model Setup Edit
Production Edit
Consumption Data Edit
Historical Demographics Edit
Growth Projections Edit
Data Collection Hide
Base Year Profile Edit
NRW Edit
Regression Data Edit
End Uses Edit
Codes and Standards Edit
Water Demand Scenario Edit
Service Area Calibration Edit
Demand Projections Edit
Demand Analysis Hide
Settings and Targets Edit
Avoided Costs Edit
Conservation Measures Edit
Program Scenarios Edit
Final Check Edit
Conservation Analysis Hide
Tables and Figures Edit
Results Hide
Figure A-1. DSS Model Main Page
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 50
Figure A-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. The California Water Efficiency Partnership, or 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 an increase in residential population and to align with the 2020 UWMP. The following figure presents the flow of information in the DSS Model Analysis.

Measure
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 2023-
2028
Water
Savings in
2035 (mgd)
Cost of
Savings
per Unit
Volume
($/mg)
1 Leak Detection and Alerts $263,774 $445,424 $535,684 $3,850,355 0.49 0.12 $77,076 0.021365 $3,814 2 Leak Detection and Alerts $222,198 $407,049 $2,138,428 $3,197,055 0.10 0.13 $580,389 0.015185 $19,077 3 Free Water Saving Device $274,278 $651,707 $314,118 $389,613 0.87 1.67 $110,968 0.017143 $2,374 4 Public Messaging and Ed $328,378 $722,192 $667,244 $667,244 0.49 1.08 $235,559 0.018369 $4,385 5 Rebate: Toilets (Residenti $522,451 $522,451 $555,249 $1,971,700 0.94 0.26 $196,021 0.038057 $1,917 6 Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (Co $762,972 $762,972 $574,596 $1,125,272 1.33 0.68 $206,150 0.055824 $1,372 7 Rebate: Clothes Washers $237,513 $815,092 $232,633 $807,037 1.02 1.01 $82,127 0.018274 $1,916 8 Rebate: Commercial Equi $514,669 $615,675 $59,783 $1,553,491 8.61 0.40 $21,105 0.039467 $226 9 Rebate: Irrigation Convers $96,017 $96,017 $2,010,084 $2,657,174 0.05 0.04 $708,044 0.007416 $40,140 10 Rebate: Landscape Conve $470,019 $470,019 $4,755,195 $6,890,592 0.10 0.07 $1,674,067 0.037671 $18,561 11 Water Neutrality Direct Ins $3,872,884 $7,480,074 $1,793,120 $1,793,120 2.16 4.17 $633,029 0.310533 $869 12 Direct Install: Irrigation De $562,930 $562,930 $555,526 $555,526 1.01 1.01 $168,814 0.046989 $1,844 13 Water Audits: Indoor and $1,052,107 $1,941,722 $1,362,246 $1,502,973 0.77 1.29 $480,917 0.066705 $2,660 14 Water Audits: Indoor and $1,471,959 $2,925,040 $937,454 $1,898,946 1.57 1.54 $289,778 0.122827 $1,206 15 Enforcement: Outdoor Wa $123,747 $123,747 $1,649,415 $2,315,448 0.08 0.05 $583,613 0.007320 $28,048 16 Compliance: CA Water Bu $1,330,465 $1,330,465 $658,516 $1,586,167 2.02 0.84 $241,592 0.145892 $1,181 Conservation Measures
Benefit Cost Analysis
Santa Monica
Benefit Cost Analysis
Previous Step Conservation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B/C Next Step Review Data
Util Cost Five Year Start Year Water Savings Year Units Benefit Cost
Analysis
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 51
Figure A-3. DSS Model Analysis Flow
Irrigation
Commercial
Single Family
Multifamily
Institutional
Base Year
Water Use Projected
Demand
Passive and
Continuing
Conservation
Programs
Forecasts
by Customer
Category
Forecasts
by Indoor/
Outdoor
New
Planned
Conservation
Short-Term
Drought
Recovery
2019-2023
Long-Term
Population/
Employment
Growth
Projections
Demand
Forecast
Results
Customer Categories
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 52

PLUMBING CODE ASSUMPTIONS
This section presents the methodology used to determine the City’s passive water savings, information regarding national and state plumbing codes, and key inputs and assumptions used in the DSS Model including fixture replacement and estimates.

National Plumbing Codes
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 – 1.0 to 1.2.8 gal/min dependent on spray force 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).

In this analysis, the DSS Model forecasts a gradual transition to high efficiency clothes washers (using 12 gallons or less) so that by the year 2025 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 6.5. 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 around 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 2015, the maximum water factor for Energy Star certified washers was 3.7 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 that 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.

State Plumbing Codes
This section describes California state codes applicable to the City’s water use.

California State Law – AB 715
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 53
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 using 1.6 gpf, urinals using 1 gpf, and low-flow showerheads and faucets. AB 715 led to an update to California Code of Regulations Title 20 (see Section C.2.3) 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).

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 multi-family 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 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. 2019 CALGreen and 2020 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 2019 California Green Building Code and 2020 California Code of Regulations Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) on December 9th, 2020. The CEC 2020 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 resulting from the standards set for showerheads, faucet aerators, urinals, toilets, and clothes washers. • Showerheads – July 2016: 2.0 gpm; July 2018: 1.8 gpm
• Wall Mounted Urinals – January 2016: 0.125 gpf (pint) • Lavatory Faucets and Aerator – July 2016: 1.2 gpm at 60 psi • Kitchen Faucets and Aerator – July 2016: 1.8 gpm with optional temporary flow of 2.2 gpm at 60 psi • Public Lavatory Faucets – July 2016: 0.5 gpm at 60 psi • Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves – January 2019: 1.28 gpm at more than 8.0 ounces per force (ozf) and shall be equipped with an integrated automatic shutoff.

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 2020 California Code of Regulations Title 20 Appliance 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 2020 CEC Title 20 regulations that are exclusively for appliances sold in California. Showerheads manufactured on or after July 1, 2016, and prior to July 1, 2018, should have a flow rate no higher than 2.0 gpm at 80 psi. Showerheads manufactured on or after July 1, 2018, should have a flow rate no higher than 1.8 gpm at 80 psi. 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 have likewise been regulated by the 2020 CEC Title 20 regulations exclusively for appliances sold in California. Residential faucets and aerators manufactured on or after July 1, 2016, should have a flow rate no greater than City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 54

1.2 gpm at 60 psi. Public lavatory and kitchen faucets/aerators sold or offered for sale on or after July 1, 2016, should have a flow rate no greater than 0.5 gpm at 60 psi, and 1.8 gpm with optional temporary flow of 2.2 gpm at 60 psi, respectively.

Previously, all faucets were regulated by the 2010 California Green Building Code at 2.2 gpm at 60 psi.

Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves flow rates have been regulated in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Pre-rinse spray valves manufactured on or after January 28, 2019, shall have a maximum flow rate of 1.28 gpm at more than 8.0 ounces per force (ozf) and shall be equipped with an integrated automatic shutoff.

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. The assumptions having the most dramatic effect on future demands are the natural replacement rate of fixtures, how residential or commercial future use is projected, and the percentage of estimated real water losses.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 55
Table A-1. List of Key Assumptions
Parameter Model Input Value, Assumptions, and Key References Model Start Year for Analysis 2023
Water Demand Basis 2017-2019, 2022 (4-year average)
Population Projection Source
Forecasted population data is based on Housing Element projections and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements as provided from City Planning Department. This includes existing and new SF, MF, ADU and group quarters population.

Avoided Cost of Water $3,508/MG
Potable Water System Base Year Water Use Profile
Customer Categories Start Year
Accounts
Start Year Total
Water Use
Distribution
Start Year
Demand Factors
(gpd/acct)
Start Year
Indoor Use %
Single Family Residential 8,098 24% 294 81%
Multi-Family Residential (2022) 6,957 45% 632 97%
Commercial/Industrial 2,227 26% 1,149 93%
Landscape Irrigation 666 4% 663 N/A
Institutional 247 1% 294 76%
Fire 1,321 0% 6 N/A
New Accessory Dwelling Units (post
2023)
1 0% 55 100%
New Multi-Family Residential (post
2023)
1 0% 85 100%
Total/Avg 19,518 100% 397 88%
Table A-2. Key Assumptions Resources
Parameter Resource
Residential End Uses
Key Reference: CA DWR 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. http://www.map-testing.com/content/info/menu/perc.html Model Input Values are found in the “End Uses” section of the DSS Model on the “Breakdown” worksheet.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 56
Parameter Resource
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
U.S. Census, 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 (www.cee1.org).

Model Input Values are found in the “Codes and Standards” green section of the DSS Model by customer category fixtures.

Water Savings for
Fixtures, gal/capita/day
Key Reference: AWWARF Report “Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2 – 4309” (DeOreo, 2016).

Key Reference: CA DWR 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 # CEC-400-2014-007-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: 2010 U.S. Census, 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.

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:
http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Projects.aspx?PID=4309
Key Reference: California Energy Commission, Staff Analysis of Toilets, Urinals and Faucets, Report # CEC-400-2014-007-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.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 57
Parameter Resource
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 # CEC-400-2014-007-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. http://www.maptesting.com/content/info/menu/perc.html 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.

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 City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Master Plan 58

FIXTURE ESTIMATES
Determining the current level of efficient fixtures in a service area while evaluating the passive savings in the DSS Model is part of the standard process and is called “initial fixture proportions.” MWM used the DSS Model to perform a saturation analysis for toilets, urinals, showerheads, faucets, and clothes washers.

The process included a review of the 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 2014, 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 incorporatesstudy results that reflect the change to the water use profile in residential homes including adoption of more water efficient fixtures over the 15 years that transpired from 1999 to 2014. REUWS results were combined with the City’s 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 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.”7 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 model is capable of modeling multiple types of fixtures, including ones with different designs. For example, currently toilets can be purchased that flush at a rate of 0.8 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. 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 fixtures is listed as a percentage within the DSS Model. A value of 100% would indicate that all toilets installed would be of one flush volume. A value of 75% means that three out of every four toilets installed would be of that flush volume.

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 were made to replacement rates to account for the reduction in fixture use and wear, due to lower occupancy and based on field observations.
7 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 those customers needing financial incentive to install the more efficient fixture.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 59

DSS MODEL MEASURE ASSUMPTIONS
The following presents an overview of the water reduction methodology, benefit-cost perspectives, present value analysis, and costs and savings assumptions for the measure analysis.

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; multi-family 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. 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 multi-family 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 lowflow showerheads in single family and multi-family 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 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 assure an almost 100% market penetration for affected properties.

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 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 the 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 City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 60 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. For this reason, a planning period of 10 years or longer is used because costs and benefits that occur beyond 10 years have very little influence on the total present value of 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 5.0%. The DSS Model calculates this real interest rate, adjusting the current nominal interest rate (assumed to be approximately 7.1%) by the assumed rate of inflation (2.0%).

The formula to calculate the real interest rate is:
(nominal interest rate – assumed rate of inflation) / (1 + assumed rate of inflation) Cash flows discounted in this manner are herein referred to as “Present Value” sums.

Measure Cost and Water Savings Assumptions
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, excluding the landscape conversion/turf removal program. • 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 2045. 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 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 single family residential account than for a multi-family residential 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)
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 61 • 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 to 10 years after the start of implementation, depending upon the implementation schedule.

For every water use efficient 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 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 of about five years.

APPENDIX B. INDIVIDUAL CONSERVATION MEASURE DESIGN

INPUTS AND RESULTS
The following figures present the DSS Model starting values for the conservation measures that were analyzed for possible inclusion into the City’s conservation program. While the model forecasts through 2045, in most cases results through 2035 are shown for easier visibility of values.

City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 62 Measure 1: Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ## ##
2045 $52,405 $524 $52,929 2045 81 70 20 3 4 134 312 2045 0.021527 2044 $52,366 $524 $52,890 2044 0.021533
87 264
2044 81 70 20 3 4 134 312
0 0 0
70 22 3 2 58 235
3 105 283
96 273
100 278
81 2029 81 70 22 3 2
1 Clothes Washers
Dishw ashers
Comments
0 0 0
SF MF_2022 NEW MF Total
>Utility & Admin Costs: The water conservation dept does not fund the fixture (AMI device) costs of this measure, but water conservation dept staff time is dedicated to this leak detection and customer outreach component. It is estimated that approx. 1/4 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating with approx. 250 accounts per year, yielding ~$168/acct.
(Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827; .25= about $42,000 annually.) This is tracked in the fixture costs to better understand the per acct cost. Staffing roll-ups will account for this cost appropriately. >A negligible admin percentage input value of 1% is included for modeling tracking purposes.
>Customer Cost: Assume $600-$1500 per account for leak repairs. Based on SFPUC survey to customers.
>End Use Savings: Savings based on significant reductions to leakage since targeting accounts with leaks. Water use savings also assumed for irrigation end use due to behavioral changes. Assumes MF and CII buildings will have 1/7 the savings due to higher number of fixtures onsite.
>Targets: Per Tom;
> 250 outreach contacts/year by staff (contact 5 customers/week with leaks), or ~1% of total accounts.
> 9,000 accounts (50% customer signup rate for mobile customer AMI app) Costs
MF_2022 $168.00 $1,200.00 1
CI
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Targets
Internal Leakage
NEW MF $168.00 $1,200.00 1
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
The City plans to have AMI fully deployed and operational by 2026. The rollout includes web portals to access AMI data: one for the utility, and one for customers (which includes a mobile app). This measure consists of two aspects:
1) Water resources staff will reach out to customers on a daily basis where usage is flagged as a leak by the web portal, and 2) Education for customers on accessing the web portal/mobile app and setting up their own leak detection alerts (which has been shown to improve accountability and reduce water use).

Could roll out program by targeting certain customer classes, high volume users, or ongoing leaks. Note: this measure does not include watering restrictions, monitoring, and enforcement.

Cooling
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 20
Category
Measure Type
Years 5
Repeat ####
2 1
Measure Life
Permanent ####
End Uses
SFMF_202CILSINSTFINEW ANEW M
Time Period
First Year 2026
Name
Overview
Leak Detection and Alerts: Advanced Metering Infrastructu Customer Classes
Abbr 1
SFMF_202CILSINSTFINEW ANEW M
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)
Fixture Cost per Device
SF $168.00
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 1%
Description
$168.00 $1,500.00 1
INST $168.00 $1,500.00 1
NEW ADU $168.00 $1,000.00 1
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
$600.00

0.016720
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $263,774
Community $445,424
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $535,684
Community $3,850,355
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.49
Toilets
2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

CI INST NEW ADU
0 2028 81 70 22 3 2 72 249
105.0
INST Internal Leakage 12.5% 21.9
NEW ADU Internal Leakage 90.0% 7.4
NEW MF Internal Leakage 12.5% 11.3
SF Irrigation 10.0% 45.5
MF_2022 Irrigation 1.5% 13.6
Community 0.12
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $3,814
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Internal Leakage 90.0% 32.8
MF_2022 Internal Leakage 12.5% 81.8
CI Internal Leakage 12.5%
CI Irrigation 1.5% 63.2
INST Irrigation 1.5% 51.7
SF External Leakage 90.0% 3.8
Targets
91 269 2030
2028 0.012616
2029

0.000000
2024 0.000000
2026 0.004183

0.008389
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 1.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Water Savings
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.000000
0 MF_2022 External Leakage 12.5% 1.1
CI External Leakage 12.5% 5.7
INST External Leakage 12.5% 5.0
2032 $46,707 $467 $47,174
3 2030 $45,151 $452 $45,603 2030 81 70 22 3 3
3 2028 $41,887 $419 $42,305
2029 $44,374 $444 $44,817
2031 $45,929 $459 $46,388

0.016865
2025
2027 $39,400 $394 $39,794
2025 $0 $0 $0
2026 $36,913 $369 $37,282
2027
2026 81 70 22 3 1 43 220
2027
2036 $49,817 $498 $50,315
2031 81 70 21 3
2032 81 70 21 3
2033 81 70 21 3
3 2033 $47,484 $475 $47,959
119 297
2035
2034 81 70 21 3 3 109 287
3 114 292
2036 0.021395
2037 $50,595 $506 $51,101

0.021120
2031 0.021198
2032 0.021260
2033 0.021305
2034 0.021335
2035 81 70 21
2036 81 70 21 3 3
2038 $51,372 $514 $51,886
2039 $52,150 $522 $52,672
2040 $52,211 $522 $52,733
2041 $52,250 $522 $52,772
2042 $52,289 $523 $52,811
2043 $52,327 $523 $52,851
2037 81 70 21 3 4 123 301
2038 81 70 21 3 4 128 306
4 132 310
2040 81 70 21 3 4 133 311
2043 81 70 20 3 4 134 311

0.021534
2043 0.021537
2042 81 70 20 3 4 133 311
2037
2042
2041 81 70

0.021424
2038 0.021454
2039 0.021484
2040 0.021508
20 3 4 133 311 2041 0.021524
2039 81 70 21 3

0.021365
2024 $0 $0 $0 2024
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
2023 $0 $0 $0 2023
2034 $48,262 $483 $48,744
2035 $49,039 $490 $49,530
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 63 Measure 2: Leak Detection and Alerts: Toilet Flow Sensors ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
##
##
##
##
## ##
354 1,456
Water Savings
2042 0.015824
2043 0.015832
2044 0.015841
2045 0.015849
2039 0.015641
2040 0.015728
2041 0.015790
2036 0.015299
2037 0.015413
2038 0.015527
2044 $174,658 $1,747 $176,405
2045 $174,763 $1,748 $176,510
Targets
2042 1,102 352 1,454
2043 1,102 353 1,455
2044 1,102 353 1,455
2045 1,102
>Utility & Admin Costs: The utility unit cost is
estimated to be approximately $35 per toilet for the
sensor and network hardware. It is estimated that
approx. 1/10 of an FTE is spent on this measure per
year collaborating with approx. 200 accounts per year,
yielding ~$85/acct. (Assume Specialist is
administering this measure- total burdened salary of
$168,827x.1= about $16,830 annually.) Included admin
costs in the fixture costs to better understand the per acct cost. Staffing roll-ups will account for this cost appropriately.
>A negligible admin percentage input value of 1% is
included for modeling tracking purposes.
>Customer Cost: Per Tom, customer cost will be
$35/toilet for the sensor and network hardware and
an additional $25/toilet for the software subscription. >End Use Savings: Savings similar to AMI - slightly less since smaller investment and likely investment
would be by bldg owner and not renter. Sensor
Industries (device manufacturer) estimates 15-25%
savings.
> Devices typically have 3 year warranty, assumed 4
year savings life.
>Targets: Per Tom, annual target should be at least 40
accounts (out of 6,957 MF 2023 accounts); but should
target 1,100 toilets. Targeting 1,100 toilets yields
about 200 accounts at start year.

Costs
2042 $174,449 $1,744 $176,194
2043 $174,554 $1,746 $176,299
2041 $174,345 $1,743 $176,088
2039 1,102 349 1,451
2040 1,102 350 1,452
2041 1,102 351 1,453
2039 $174,135 $1,741 $175,877
2040 $174,240 $1,742 $175,982
2030 $161,096 $1,611 $162,707
2031 $162,545 $1,625 $164,170
2029
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years 4
Repeat ####
Time Period
First Year 2024
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 22
Overview
Name Leak Detection and Alerts: Toil

LSINSTFINEW A
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
Results
Abbr 2
NEW M
Average Water Savings (mgd)
Provide rebates or other financial incentive
to MF property owners for a toilet leak
detection technology system (e.g. Sensor
Industries SI-Flush Sensor). These sensors
send data to a server that then alerts
property owners of potential leaks. This
measure can be a starting component of a
follow-on comprehensive MF program
(modeled after Santa Clarita's MF program).

MF_2022 $120.00 $60.00 7
NEW MF $120.00 $60.00 1
Toilets
LSINST
Show ers
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 1%
Description
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
End Uses SFMF_20 CI
FI

0.013343
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)

NEW ANEW M
Avg GPD/Acct
Community
Community 0.13
$3,197,055
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.10
Utility $222,198
Community $407,049
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $2,138,428
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $19,077
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct
Comments
Cooling
Car Washing
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 2.200%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
MF_2022 Internal Leakage 25.0% 81.8
NEW MF Internal Leakage 25.0% 11.3
Targets
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Wash Dow n
2035 $168,340 $1,683 $170,023
2032 $163,993 $1,640 $165,633
2033 $165,442 $1,654 $167,097
2034 $166,891 $1,669 $168,560
2038 $172,687 $1,727 $174,413
2036 $169,789 $1,698 $171,487
2037 $171,238 $1,712 $172,950
2032 1,102 265 1,367
2033 1,102 277 1,379
2030 1,102 240 1,342
2031 1,102 253 1,355
2038 1,102 337 1,439
2036 1,102 313 1,415
2034 1,102 289 1,391
2035 1,102 301 1,403
2037 1,102 325 1,427
2031 0.014668
2032 0.014843
2033 0.014957
2034 0.015071
2035 0.015185
2030 0.014432
2023 $0 $0 $0
2024 $136,809 $1,368 $138,177
2028 $155,079 $1,551 $156,630
$159,647 $1,596 $161,243
2028
2025 1,102 76 1,178
2028
0 Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2027 $150,512 $1,505 $152,017
2025 $141,377 $1,414 $142,791
2026 $145,944 $1,459 $147,404
0 0
2024 1,102 38 1,140
MF_2022 NEW MF Total
2023

0.014134
2025 0.006528
2026 0.009927
2027 0.013415
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.000000
2024 0.003219

0.013775
2029
1,102 190 1,292
2029 1,102 228 1,330
2026 1,102 114 1,216
2027 1,102 152 1,254
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 64 Measure 3: Free Water Saving Devices
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##

0.016565
2042 0.016482
2043 $5,317 $16,830 $22,147 2043 49 42 12 2 104 2043 0.016402 2042 $5,320 $16,830 $22,150 2 104
2041 49
2042
42 42 12 2 105 2041
2037
13 2 105
42 13 2 105
42 13 2
12 2 105
49 42 12
13 2 105
42 2026 49
2027 49
2028 49
49 2032 49
2033 49
42 42 13 2 105
42 2041 $5,324 $16,830 $22,154
13 1 105
CI INST Total
$22,191
2026 $5,363 $16,830
13 2 105
42 13 2 105
2028 $5,361 $16,830
105 2025
$22,193 2026
2027 $5,362 $16,830 $22,192
2025 $5,364 $16,830 $22,194
$5,365 $16,830 $22,195
2024 $5,365 $16,830 $22,195
13 2
49 42
2024 49
2025 49
Overview
Free Water Saving Devices
Utility
INST $63.00 $15.00 1
CI

NEW ANEW M
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
MF_2022 $13.00

NEW ADNEW M
Name
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Time Period
First Year 2023
3 2
1 2029 $5,360 $16,830 $22,190
2030 $5,357 $16,830 $22,187
Customer Fix/Acct
SF $13.00 $15.00 1
$63.00 $15.00 1
$15.00 7
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2023
Fixture Cost per Device
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $16,830
Description
The City's water resources division bulk purchases high efficiency showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet dye
strips, and hose nozzles and gives them away for free at the City office or community events. Planning to add
spray valves for restaurants. Free devices are also
included in the Office of Sustainability's residential
sustainability kit. The City partners with Sustainable
Works to distribute devices through their Certified
Green Business program.

Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI LSINST FI
End Uses SFMF_202 CI LS
INSTFI
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.015752
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $274,278
Community $651,707
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $314,118
Community $389,613
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.87
Community 1.67
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility
Baths
$2,374
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Lavatory Faucets 13.8% 9.2
MF_2022 Lavatory Faucets 13.8% 29.1
CI Lavatory Faucets 13.8% 44.1
INST Lavatory Faucets 13.8% 18.9
SF Show ers 13.8% 49.5
MF_2022 Show ers 13.8% 115.1
CI Show ers 13.8% 94.5
INST Show ers 13.8% 21.9
CI Kitchen Spray Rinse 13.8% 52.5
INST Kitchen Spray Rinse 13.8% 10.9
INST Internal Leakage 13.8% 21.9
SF Irrigation 13.8% 45.5
MF_2022 Irrigation 13.8% 13.6
SF Internal Leakage 13.8% 32.8
MF_2022 Internal Leakage 13.8% 81.8
CI Internal Leakage 13.8% 105.0

13.8% 63.2
INST Irrigation 13.8% 51.7
SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 13.8%

13.8% 92.4
MF_2022 Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 13.8% 74.5
CI Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets

30.5 CI Irrigation
INST Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 13.8% 16.1
2037 $5,337 $16,830 $22,167
2032 $5,352 $16,830 $22,182
2033 $5,349 $16,830 $22,179
2031 $5,355 $16,830 $22,185
Targets
SF
2023
2038 $5,334 $16,830 $22,164
2034 $5,346 $16,830 $22,176
2035 $5,343 $16,830 $22,173
2036 $5,340 $16,830 $22,170
MF_2022
42 2029 49
2030 49
Total Savings (mgd)
2036 49 42 13 2 105
2031 2031 0.017633
2032 0.017501
2033 0.017376
2034 0.017256
2035

0.014722

0.017143
2028
2036 0.017035
13 2 105
2035 49 42 13 2 105
2034 49 42
13 2 105
42 13 2 105
2037 49 42 13 2 105
2038 49 42
2039 $5,332 $16,830 $22,162
2040 $5,328 $16,830 $22,158
2039 49 42 12 2 105
2040 49 42 12 2 105
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 0.600%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
105
2039 0.016741
2040 0.016651

0.016933
2038 0.016835
2029 0.017918
2030 0.017772
2023

0.018073
2027 0.018236

0.003795
2024 0.007508

0.011149
2044 49 42 12 2 104
2045 49 42 12 2
Years 5
Repeat ####
104
Water Savings
2044 0.016326
2045 0.016252
>Utility & Admin Costs: Devices are ordered in bulk. Some devices are given away individually, and some are given away as a "kit".

Aerators, Hand sink (1.0 gpm): $0.85 each; Aerators, Kitchen (1.5 gpm): $1.89 each; Showerheads (1.5 gpm): $4.19 each; Hose Nozzles: $5.65 each; Toilet Dye Strips: $280 / 1,000 packets; Prerinse Spray Valve (1.15 gpm): $50 each . Assume one kit per unit/account with one fixture each but PRSV only for commercial and institutional. It is estimated that approx. 1/10 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827x0.1= about $16,830 annually.)
> Customer Costs - Assumes minimal cost for installation since some customers will self-install, and others will not.
> End Use Savings - Assume kits save 27.6% overall (reduced to be conservative by assuming only 50% of kits are actually installed in the homes and yield water savings). Assumed Kit savings of 27.6% * 0.5 installed = 13.8% actual savings. Some accounts will only get hoses so higher outdoor savings. Some will only get indoor fixtures; maybe even just one, and so this is an overall average savings estimate.
> Targets: Approx. 100 accounts per year.

In recent years (2020-2022) the following devices were distributed annually:
> 300 SF+MF Showerheads (1.5 gpm)
> 300 SF+MF Aerators (1.0 gpm)
> 200 SF+MF Aerators (1.5 gpm)
> 250 CII Aerators (0.5 gpm)
> 1,000 Toilet Dye Strip packets
> 500 Hose Nozzles
Costs
2044 $5,313 $16,830 $22,143
2045 $5,309 $16,830 $22,139
Targets
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 65 Measure 4: Public Messaging and Education
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
Name
Overview
Public Messaging and Education
MF_2022 $0.18 $0.00 7
SF $0.18 $0.00 1
Measure Life
Permanent FALSE
Years 2
Repeat FALSE
Time Period

INSTFINEW ANEW M
Toilets
Urinals
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
4 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $42,000
Description
The City conducts and plans to conduct several
public education and training efforts including:
> Printed and electronic materials to raise
awareness of conservation measures available to
customers, including incentive programs offered by
Utility. This includes newsletters, bill stuffers,
brochures, working with local newspapers, signage
at retailers, signs on public buses, social media
campaigns, and website updates.
> Community outreach: Conducting presentations
at various neighborhood groups, BIDs, and booths
at relevant community events with free device
giveaways.
> Workshops or other means for educating
customers, landscapers, and contractors in efficient
landscaping and irrigation principals (e.g.

Sustainable Landscape Workshops at the Airport
Demonstration Gardens).
> School education program
> Recognition program for water saving businessesthrough Green Business program efforts by Sustainable Works
> Non-Functional Turf Education
> Fixture replacement compliance (SB 407)
> Signage in public landscape areas (e.g. using
recycled water, reduced watering, etc.)
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI LS

INSTFINEW ANEW M
End Uses SFMF_202 CI
LS
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Lavatory Faucets
Showers
Dishwashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $4,385
End Use Savings Per Replacement
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Down
Cooling
Car Washing
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Toilets 0.3% 49.3
MF_2022 Toilets 0.3% 146.6
SF Lavatory Faucets 0.3% 9.2
MF_2022 Lavatory Faucets 0.3%
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $667,244
Community $667,244
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.49
Community 1.08
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.018113
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $328,378
Community $722,192

29.1 SF Showers 0.3% 49.5
MF_2022 Showers 0.3% 115.1
SF Dishwashers 0.3% 2.8
MF_2022 Dishwashers 0.3% 7.3
SF Clothes Washers 0.3% 35.4
MF_2022 Clothes Washers 0.3% 103.0
SF Internal Leakage 0.3% 32.8
MF_2022 Internal Leakage 0.3% 81.8
SF Baths 0.3% 6.3
MF_2022 Baths 0.3% 16.4
SF Other 0.3% 18.8
MF_2022 Other 0.3% 32.1
SF Irrigation 0.3% 45.5
MF_2022 Irrigation 0.3% 13.6
SF Pools 0.3% 1.1
MF_2022 Pools 0.3% 0.3
SF Wash Down 0.3% 2.2
MF_2022 Wash Down 0.3% 0.7
SF Car Washing 0.3% 2.2
MF_2022 Car Washing 0.3% 0.7
SF External Leakage 0.3% 3.8
MF_2022 External Leakage 0.3% 1.1
SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 30.5
MF_2022 Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 0.3% 74.5
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 50.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
2023 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112 2023 4,049 3,479 7,528
2024 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2025 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2026 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2027 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2028 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2029 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2030 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2031 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2032 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2033 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2034 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2035 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2036 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2037 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2038 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2039 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2040 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2041 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2042 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2043 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2044 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2045 $5,112 $42,000 $47,112
2025 4,049 3,479 7,528
2026 4,049 3,479 7,528
2027 4,049
2029 4,049 3,479 7,528
2030 4,049 3,479 7,528
2031 4,049
2024 4,049 3,479 7,528
3,479 7,528
2028 4,049 3,479 7,528
3,479 7,528
2032 4,049 3,479 7,528
2033 4,049 3,479 7,528
2034 4,049 3,479 7,528
2035 4,049 3,479 7,528
2036 4,049 3,479 7,528
2037 4,049 3,479 7,528
2038 4,049 3,479 7,528
4,049 3,479 7,528
2044 4,049 3,479 7,528
2039 4,049 3,479 7,528
2040 4,049 3,479 7,528
2041 4,049 3,479 7,528
2045 4,049 3,479 7,528
2023 0.010009
2024 0.019847
2025 0.019684
2026 0.019528
2027 0.019380
2028 0.019238
2029 0.019101
2042 4,049 3,479 7,528
2043
2030 0.018971
2031 0.018845
2032 0.018724
2033 0.018603
2034 0.018484

0.017524
2044 0.017428
2035 0.018369
2036 0.018256
2037 0.018145
2038 0.018036
2039 0.017930
2045 0.017333
>Utility & Admin Costs: Per Tom, this measure costs the utility $5,000 annually primarily for printing and mailing. It is estimated that approx. .25 of an FTE is spent on this
measure per year collaborating. (Assume Specialist is
administering this measure- total burdened salary of
$168,827x.25= about $42,000 annually.)
>Customer Cost: Assume no cost for the customer.
>End Use Savings: Assumes savings lasts 2 year, assume
minimal savings on all end uses due to behavioral changes. >Targets: 50% of accounts per year.
>Per Tom:
> 50 Social Media postings on various topics (~1/week)
> Two Landscape Workshops
> Two newspaper ads
> Public landscape signage (parks, medians).

Costs
Fixture Costs Admin Costs Util Total
Targets
SF MF_2022 Total
Water Savings
Total Savings (mgd)
2040 0.017826
2041 0.017723
2042 0.017623
2043
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 66 Measure 5: Rebate: Toilets (Residential)
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
2045 0.062455
>Utility & Admin Costs: Rebate of $70/toilet from City, up to 9 toilets per SFR account, unlimited for MFR
accounts. Assumes MFR accounts will have 7 units per
account and 1.2 toilets/unit. Per Tom, this is an MWD
administered rebate. City allocates a single amount of
supplemental funding for all rebates administered by
MWD. It is estimated that approx. 10% of an FTE is spent on all MWD rebate measures annually- distributing .025
to each measure. (Assume Specialist is administering
this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827x.025=
about $4,220 annually. Equates to a 12% markup on
fixture cost.)
> Customer Cost: Estimated remaining cost of fixture
and installation.
>End Use Savings: Assumes 1.6 gpf toilets are replaced
with 1.06 gpf or less toilets.
>Targets: Per Tom, 500 toilets per year.
2045 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204 2045 109 392 500
2044 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204 2044 0.060177
Targets
2044 109 392 500
2024
2029 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
109
109
$39,204
2025 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
$35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2026 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2027 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2023
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name
SF $70.00 $200.00 2
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
MF_2022 $70.00 $200.00 8
Costs
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs
LS
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Dishw ashers
End Uses SFMF_20 CI
NEW M

LSINSTFI

NEW AD NEW A
NEW M
$35,004 $4,200
$35,004 $4,200 $39,204
109
109
109
109
2028
2032 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
109
2033 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2030 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2031 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2036 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2037 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2034 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2035 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2040 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2041 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2038 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2039 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
2036 0.040668
2037 0.043238
109 392 500
109 392 500 2034
2035
109 392 500
109 392 500

0.035405

0.038057
109 392 500
109 392 500 2038 0.045769
2039 0.048262
2040 0.050717
109 392 500
109
109 392 500
2042 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204 109 392 500
2043 $35,004 $4,200 $39,204
Overview
Rebate: Toilets (Residential)
5 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
INSTFI
Clothes Washers
Process
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 12%
Description
Provide a rebate for installing a Premium
High Efficiency Toilet (PHET: i.e. a toilet that
uses 1.06 gpf (4 liters/flush) or less) that
replaces a toilet using >= 1.6 gpf in
residential properties. Current rebate covers
up to nine toilets (SF only, unlimited for MF)
and covers the material cost up to $200/toilet
($40 from MWD and supplemental $160 from
Santa Monica). New incentive amount going
forward would provide $70 supplemental
funds from Santa Monica per toilet. CA code
requires toilets flush at 1.28 gpf or less.

Community
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing

0.26 Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.034477
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $522,451
Community $522,451
Utility $555,249
Community $1,971,700
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.94
Water Savings
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $1,917
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Toilets 34.0% 49.3
MF_2022 Toilets 34.0% 146.6
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 0.670%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Util Total SF MF_2022 Total
2034
2035
2036
2037
392 500
109 392 500
109 392 500
109 392 500
109 392 500
2038
2039
2040
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2023 0.003232
2024 0.006408
392 500 2025 0.009528
392 500
392 500
392 500

0.012596
2028 0.018578
392 500 2029
392 500
392 500
2042 0.055518
2043 0.057865

0.021496
2030 0.024367
2031 0.027193
2032 0.029974
2033 0.032711
2041
2042
2043
Total Savings (mgd)
2041 0.053136
2026
2027 0.015612
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 67 Measure 6: Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
2045 $34,877 $3,941 $38,818 2045 80 13 93 2045 0.086097 2042 81 13 94
2043 81 13 94
2042 $35,325 $3,992 $39,316
2043 $35,175 $3,975 $39,150
2039 $35,771 $4,042 $39,813
$4,119 $40,575
2034 $36,342 $4,107 $40,448
2037 $35,999 $4,068 $40,067
2038 $35,885 $4,055 $39,940
2035 $36,228 $4,094
2033 0.048588
2034 0.052261
2035 0.055824
2030 0.036877
2031 0.040899
2032 0.044802
2042 0.077960
2043 0.080755
2039 0.069044
2036 0.059280
2037 0.062633
2038 0.065887
2027 87 11 99 2027
2029 $36,912 $4,171 $41,083
2027 $36,978 $4,179 $41,157
2028 $36,945 $4,175 $41,120

0.024060
2028 0.028460
2029 0.032732
2038 83 13 96
2034 85 12 97
2035 84 12 97
2032 85 12 98
2033 85 12
2039 83 13 95
2036 84 12 96
2037 83 13 96
97 12 98
2031 86 12 98
2028 87 11 99
2029 87 12 98
$40,321
2036 $36,113
2030 86
$4,081 $40,194
2033 $36,456
2030 $36,798 $4,158 $40,956
2031 $36,684 $4,145 $40,829
2032 $36,570 $4,132 $40,702
2026 0.019529
INST Urinals 92.0%
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.005102
2024 0.010054
2025 0.014862
99 2023 89 10 99
2024 89 10 99
99 2026 88 11
2025 88 11

13.1 Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 2.000%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Water Savings
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total CI INST Total
2026 $37,011 $4,182 $41,193
2023 $37,110 $4,193 $41,303
2024 $37,077 $4,190 $41,267
2025 $37,044 $4,186 $41,230
Provide a rebate for the installation of a
Premium High Efficiency Toilet (PHET: i.e. a
toilet that uses 1.06 gpf (4 liters/flush) or
less) that replaces a toilet using >= 1.6 gpf in
CII properties. Current rebate covers the
material cost up to $200/toilet ($40 from
MWD and supplemental $160 from Santa
Monica). New incentive going forward would
provide a $70 rebate from the City per toilet
for a total rebated cost of $110. CA code
requires toilets flush at 1.28 gpf or less.

Provide a rebate for the installation of a UltraLow Water Urinal (ULWU: 0.125 gpf) or Zero Water Urinal (ZWU) that replaces a urinal
using >= 1.5 gpf. Current rebate covers the
material cost up to $400/urinal ($200 from
MWD and supplemental $200 from Santa
Monica). Proposing to keep the same
incentive amount moving forward. CA code
requires urinals flush at 0.125 gpf or less.

Utility $762,972
Community $762,972
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Community $1,125,272
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 1.33
Community 0.68
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
$375.00 $400.00 2
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility
>Utility & Admin Costs: Rebate of $70/toilet and
$200/urinal from City. Particpants would receive
$200/urinal and $40/toilet from MWD additionally. Per
Tom, this is an MWD administered rebate. City allocates a single amount of supplemental funding for all rebates administered by MWD. It is estimated that approx. 10%
of an FTE is spent on all MWD rebate measures annuallydistributing .025 to each measure. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of
$168,827x.025= about $4,220 annually. Equates to about
an 11.3% markup on fixture cost.) Measure includes City fixture costs only and NOT MWD rebate amounts.
> Customer Cost: Estimated remaining cost for fixture
and installation.
>End Use Savings: Assumes 1.6 gpf toilets are replaced
with 1.06 gpf or less toilets (34% savings), and 1.5 gpf urinals are replaced with 0.125 gpf urinals (92%
savings).
>Targets: Per Tom, target about 250 toilets and 100
urinals per year.
> Costs and savings assume 5 toilets and 2 urinals per
account. This is to capture all potential savings as many sites have multiple unique commercial units. LSINST
End Uses
$1,372

43.7 CI Urinals 92.0% 63.0
157.6
INST Toilets
Utility $574,596

34.0%
CI Toilets 34.0%

NEW ANEW M
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
SFMF_202CI
Category 2
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.049842
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage End Use Savings Per Replacement
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Measure Life
Permanent TRUE
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Overview
Name Rebate: Toilet/Urinals (CII)

LSINSTFINEW A
Customer Classes
Abbr 6
SFMF_202CINEW M
2040 82 13 95
2041 82 13 95
Measure Type 1
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 11%
Description
Baths
CI $375.00 $400.00 2
INST
FI
Fixture Cost per Device
2044 0.083467
Costs
2044 $35,026 $3,958 $38,984
Targets
2044 81 13 93
2040 0.072107
2041 0.075078
2040 $35,623 $4,025 $39,648
2041 $35,474 $4,009 $39,482
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 68 Measure 7: Rebate: Clothes Washers (Residential)
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
101
101
101
101
2034
2035
73 73
28 2042 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2043 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2042
2043
2035
2036
2031
2032
2033

0.017029
2043 0.016829

0.017779
2039 0.017600
2034

0.016898

0.018683

0.018558
2030 28
73 28 73
2031 28
2029
2030
101
101
$4,258 $16,425
2035 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2036 $12,167 2036
2037 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2038 $12,167
$4,258 $16,425
2037
2031 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2032 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2034 $12,167
2033 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
$4,258 $16,425
2041 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2039 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2040 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
Category 2
$4,258 $16,425
% of Accts Targeted/Yr
2023 0.001931
2024 0.003854
2025 28
2026 28
2027 28
SF
2023 28
2024
2030 $12,167 73

0.005764
Fixture Cost per Device
Fix/Acct
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
1 Administration Costs
MF_2022 $120.00 $400.00 3
Markup Percentage 35%
Description
Provides a rebate for High Efficiency Clothes
Washers (meet or exceeds the CEE Tier 1
standard) to single family homes. Current
rebate covers the material cost up to
$400/HECW ($85 from MWD and supplemental
$315 from Santa Monica). New incentive
amount going forward would provide $120
supplemental funds from Santa Monica.

External Leakage
2029 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029 28 73
$4,258 $16,425
$12,167 $4,258 $16,425 2028
2026 $12,167 $4,258 73
73 2028 28
Community 1.01
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
SF Clothes Washers 55.0% 35.4
Targets
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF $120.00 $400.00
Utility $1,916
Total Savings (mgd)
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility Customer
End Use Savings Per Replacement

1.02 SFMF_202CILSINSTFINEW ANEW M
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Community $807,037
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility
Community $815,092
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Years 10 Utility $232,633
Repeat ####
First Year 2023
Measure Type 1
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Time Period
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23

0.014449
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
End Uses Utility $237,513
Overview
Name Rebate: Clothes Washers (Resi

LSINSTFINEW A
Results
Abbr 7
NEW M
Average Water Savings (mgd)
2044 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2045 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
Targets
Total
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
$16,425
2027 $12,167
101
101
2038
101
101
2044 28 73 101
2038 28
2040
2039 28
2042
2045 28 73 101
28 73
28 73
28 73
2041 28 73 101
Car Washing
>Utility & Admin Costs: Rebate of $120/HECW from
City (on top of $85 from MWD). Per Tom, this is an
MWD administered rebate. City allocates a single
amount of supplemental funding for all rebates
administered by MWD. It is estimated that approx.
10% of an FTE is spent on all MWD rebate measures
annually- distributing .025 to each measure. (Assume
Specialist is administering this measure- total
burdened salary of $168,827x.025= about $4,220
annually. Equates to ~35% markup on fixture cost.)
Measure includes City fixture costs only and NOT MWD
rebate amounts.
> Customer Cost: Estimated remaining cost of fixture
and installation. Per Tom, this averages $400.
>End Use Savings: Assumes 55% savings based on
SoCal Water Smart HECW rebate page, "Qualifying
washers use 55% less water than standard clothes
washers".
>Targets: Per Tom, approx. 100 washers per year.

Costs
2025 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2023 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425
2024 $12,167 $4,258 $16,425

0.017952
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
28 MF_2022
73 73
73 73

0.007662

0.009544

0.011410
73 28 73
28 73
2032 28 73
2033 28 73

0.350%
Cooling
Water Savings
2044 0.016626
2045 0.016418
MF_2022 Clothes Washers 55.0% 103.0
Only Affects New Accts FALSE

0.018421

0.013258

0.015088

0.018274

0.018117
2040 0.017415
2041 0.017225
2037
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 69 Measure 8: Rebate: Commercial Equipment (CII)
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
2044 0.037974
INST Cooling 10.0% 10.6
CI External Leakage 10.0% 5.7
INST External Leakage 10.0% 5.0
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 4.340%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
2038 0.038986
2039 0.038820
2040 0.038653
2041
Costs
2044 $0 $4,220 $4,220
Targets
2044 87 14 101
2043 $0 $4,220 $4,220 2043 88 14 102
2041 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2042 $0
CI Cooling 10.0% 12.1
2037 0.039149

0.039467
2036 0.039309
2033 0.039774
2034 0.039622
2029 0.028103
2030 0.032059
2031 0.035999
2032 0.039923
2028 0.024129
2023 0.004056

0.038485
2042 0.038316
2043 0.038145
2040 89 14 103
2041 89
2024 0.008098
2025 0.012127
2027 0.020142
2031 93 13 106
11 107
2025 96 11 107
2034 92
$4,220 $4,220
2037 91 14 104
14 103
2042 88 14 102
2038 90 14 104
2039 90 14 103
13 105
2040 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2037 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2038 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2039 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2035 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2036 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2035 91 13 105 2035
2036 91 14 104
Total Savings (mgd)
2030 94 13 106
2026 95 12 107 2026 0.016142
2027 95 12 107
2024 96
2028 94 12 107
2029 94
2032 93 13 106
2033 92 13 105
13 107
CI INST Total
2023 97 11 107
2030 $0 $4,220 $4,220
$0 $4,220 $4,220
2024 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2025 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2026
2031 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2028 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2029 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2034 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2032 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2033 $0 $4,220 $4,220
$0 $4,220 $4,220

10.0% 147.1
CI Internal Leakage 10.0% 105.0
INST Internal Leakage 10.0%
External Leakage
Outdoor INST Irrigation

21.9 28.4
CI Irrigation 10.0% 63.2
CI Other 10.0% 73.5

10.0% 51.7
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Cooling
CI $0.00 $1,000.00 1
INST $0.00 $1,000.00 1
Wash Dow n
Car Washing
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $4,220
Description
Provide rebates for water efficient indoor
commercial equipment. Includes air-cooled
ice machines, steamers, dry vacuum pumps,
and controllers on cooling towers. Can add
cooling tower submeters as an additional
item but would be a City rebate not through
MWD.

Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.031534
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Other
Irrigation
Pools
NEW M
End Uses
Community $1,553,476
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 8.61
Community 0.40
Utility $514,669
Community $615,675
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $59,768
Dishw ashers
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $226
INST Other 10.0%

NEW ANEW M
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
SFMF_20CILSINSTFI
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
CI Process
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Years 10
Repeat ####
Abbr 8
Category 2
Measure Type 1
Overview
Name Rebate: Commercial Equipmen

LSINSTFINEW A
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
Results
2045 0.037801
>Utility & Admin Costs: Per Tom, City currently uses
the MWD base amount for these CII rebates and does
not add supplemental funding, so City's utility cost is $0. It is estimated that approx. 10% of an FTE is spent on all MWD rebate measures annually- distributing
.025 to each measure. (Assume Specialist is
administering this measure- total burdened salary of
$168,827x.025= about $4,220 annually.
>Customer Cost: Per Tom, the average customer cost
is $1,000.
>End Use Savings: Based on recent average fixture
type participation shown below.
>Targets: Assume hit 100% of accounts over the next
23 measure length. This is consistent with recent
participation rates. Per Tom, recent 2022 participation is as follows:
- Plumbing Flow Control Valve: 0
- Laminar Flow Restrictors: 100 (health care?)
- WBIC: 20 (also in Irrigation DI program)
- CCIC: 0 (also in Irrigation DI program)
- Soil Moisture Sensor: 20 (also in Irrigation DI
program)
- Hose Bib Irrigation Controller: 0 (also in Irrigation DI program)
- pH‐Cooling Tower Controller: 3
- Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller: 3
- Dry Vacuum Pump ($125 per 0.5 HP): 5
- Connectionless Food Steamers ($485 per
compartment): 5
- Ice‐Making Machines: 5
2045 $0 $4,220 $4,220 2045 87 14 101
Water Savings
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2023 $0 $4,220 $4,220
2027
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 70 Measure 9: Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip) ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
2 1 46
Water Savings
2043 0.007620
2044 0.007631
2045 0.007640
2042 0.007607
2035 0.007416
2036 0.007459

0.005756
1 46
1 46
2038
2031
2045 $107,898 $33,800 $141,698
Targets
2043 20 17 5 2 1 46
2044 20 17 5 2 1 46
2045 20 17 5
2043 $108,040 $33,800 $141,840
2044 $107,969 $33,800 $141,769
2041 $108,182 $33,800 $141,982
2042 $108,111 $33,800 $141,911
2041 0.007590
2037 0.007495

0.007526
2039 0.007550
2026 0.002813
2027 0.003537
2028 0.004270
2029 0.005012
2030

0.006503

0.007251

0.007312

0.007367
Administration Costs
Kitchen Spray Rinse
LS Irrigation 25.0% 606.8
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
2040 0.007571
Costs
2040 $108,253 $33,800 $142,053
2034 $108,353
MF_2022 External Leakage 25.0% 1.1
CI External Leakage 25.0% 5.7
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.005961
SFMF_202
INST Irrigation 25.0% 51.7
INST External Leakage 25.0% 5.0
SFMF_20
NEW M

CILSINST
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $96,017
Community $96,017

NEW ANEW M
Targets
LS External Leakage 25.0% 45.7
2034 20
2035 20
17 17 1
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 0.250%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
MF_2022 CI LS INST Total Total Savings (mgd)

0.000690
2036
2031 20
2032 20
2033 20
SF
2023 20
17 5 2 1 46
2037 20
2038 20
2039 20 17 5 2 1 46
5 2 1 46
46 17
Overview
Rebate: Irrigation Conversion (Spray to Drip)
9 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Customer Classes FI
End UsesFI
Toilets
Urinals
Results

CILSINST
17 5 2 1 46
17 5 2 1
2042 20 17 5 2
2040 20 17 5 2
2041 20
Internal Leakage
20 20
2024 20
2025 20
2026 20
2027 20
2028 20
2029 20
Irrigation
Pools
>Utility & Admin Costs: The City provides a rebate of $2.00 per sqft up to $4,000 for SF accounts and up to $6,000 for MF and CII accounts. Per Tom, the average utility cost is $2,200 per rebate. It is estimated that approx.

0.20 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating with approx. 45 accounts per year. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827 x .2= about $33,800 annually.)
>Customer Cost: Per Tom, the average customer cost for installation and any remaining materials is $1,000.
>End Use Savings: Drip/micro-irrigation have an efficiency of 80-95%, compared to landscape spray systems which ranges from 40-65% efficiency (Irrigation Association). Thus, switching from the latter to the former, water savings could be between 15-55%. It really depends on initial irrigation efficiency, but on average, drip saves 30-50% more water when compared to conventional sprinkler irrigation. -Per Tom, average savings of 4.18 gallons/sqft. For 60,000 sqft targeted per year, assumes 250,800 gal/year saved, or 687 gal/day (.000687 mgd).

This equates to about 25% savings/account.
>Targets: Per Tom, recent participation is as follows:
> 45 rebate projects (assumed 1 rebate project per account) which is

0.2% of all SF, MF, CII, LS start year accounts (18,159). > 60,000 sq.ft. (includes areas over max rebate amount but were converted as part of rebated project)
2030
17 5 2 1 46
$33,800 $142,153
MF_2022 Irrigation 25.0%
CI Irrigation 25.0%
SF External Leakage 25.0%
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $40,140
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Irrigation 25.0% 45.5

13.6 63.2

3.8 Baths
Other
Annual Admin Costs $33,800
Description
The City's Spray to Drip program provides a rebate for waterefficient landscape irrigation retrofits that replace overhead spray irrigation (sprinklers) in non-turf areas with highly efficient drip irrigation. Rebate is $2.00/sqft up to $4,000 for SF, $6,000 for MF and CII.

Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Fix/Acct
Utility $2,010,084
Community $2,657,174
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.05
Community 0.04
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Years 10
2039 $108,322 $33,800 $142,122
2035 $108,347 $33,800 $142,147
2036 $108,341 $33,800 $142,141
2037 $108,334 $33,800 $142,134
2038 $108,328 $33,800 $142,128
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2026 $107,953 $33,800 $141,753
NEW A
INST $3,000.00 $1,000.00 1
$1,000.00 1
Measure Length 23 Repeat ####
CI
LS $3,000.00 $1,000.00 1
$3,000.00 $1,000.00 1
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
SF
MF_2022 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 1
$2,000.00
Utility Customer
2023 $107,521 $33,800 $141,321 6 2 1 45 2023
6 2 1 46
2024 $107,665 $33,800 $141,465 2024
2025 $107,809 $33,800 $141,609

0.001389
17 2030 $108,378 $33,800 $142,178
2031 $108,372 $33,800 $142,172
2032 $108,365 $33,800 $142,165
2033 $108,359 $33,800 $142,159
$141,896
2028 $108,240 $33,800 $142,040
2029 $108,384 $33,800 $142,184
2027 $108,096 $33,800
2025 0.002097
17 5 2 1 46
5 2 1 46
17 5 2 1 46
5 2 1 46
17 17
6 2
17 5 2 1 46
5 2 1 46
17 5 2 1 46
17 17
46 17
5 2 1 46
5 2 1 46
2033
2034
2032
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 71 Measure 10: Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass) ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
3 1 60
Water Savings
2043 0.044957
2044 0.045049
2045 0.045130

0.028716
2033 0.031691
2034 0.034676
2035 0.037671
60 60
60 Total
60 2045 $249,482 $85,595 $335,076
Targets
2043 27 23 7 3 1 60
2044 27 23 7 3 1 60
2045 27 23 7
2043 $249,794 $85,702 $335,496
2044 $249,638 $85,648 $335,286
2042 $249,950 $85,755 $335,706
2041 $250,107 $85,809 $335,916
2038 $250,429 $85,919 $336,348
2039 $250,415 $85,915
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
2041 0.044670
2042 0.044831
LS Irrigation 75.0%
2036 0.040675
2037 0.043688
2038 0.043978
2039 0.044243
2040 0.044474
2030 0.022794
2031 0.025750
2032
2039
2040
2041
2042 27 23 7 3 1
3 1
27 23 7 3 1
27 23 7
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
CI External Leakage 75.0% 5.7
INST External Leakage 75.0% 5.0
606.8
LS External Leakage 75.0% 45.7
Targets
27 23 7 3 1 60
2030
2031
2032
27 23 7 3 1 60
60 27 23 7 3 1
% of Accts Targeted/Yr
INST Irrigation 75.0% 51.7
SF External Leakage 75.0% 3.8
MF_2022 External Leakage 75.0% 1.1
SF Irrigation 75.0% 45.5
MF_2022 Irrigation 75.0% 13.6
CI Irrigation 75.0% 63.2
Community 0.07
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $18,561
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $4,755,195
Community $6,890,592
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility
Toilets

0.10 Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.030497
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $470,019
Community $470,019
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
End Uses
SFMF_20CI

FINEW ANEW M

LSINSTFINEW ANEW M
2 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 34%
Description
The City's Cash for Grass program provides a landscape
conversion rebate for water-efficient landscape retrofits that remove turf grass, cap sprinklers, and install low-water plants, compost, mulch and drip irrigation. Rebate is $3.50/sqft up to $6,000 for SF. Rebate is $3.50/sqft. up $10,000 for MF, $20,000 for CII. Use Eagle Aerial's WaterView to identify large turf areas to target outreach for landscape conversion.
1 INST $5,000.00 $2,500.00 1
Dishw ashers
27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1
$336,330
2040 $250,263 $85,863 $336,126
2035 $250,469 $85,933
60 27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1 60
$336,403
2036 $250,456 $85,929 $336,385
2037 $250,442 $85,924 $336,366
2032 $250,510 $85,947 $336,458
2033 $250,497 $85,943 $336,439
2034 $250,483 $85,938 $336,421
2031 $250,524 $85,952 $336,476
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
2023 $248,653 $85,310 $333,964
2024 $248,970 $85,419 $334,389
2025 $249,286 $85,527 $334,813
2026 $249,602 $85,636 $335,238

0.330%
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name
LSINST
SF $3,500.00 $2,500.00 1
MF_2022 $4,500.00 $2,500.00 1
CI $5,000.00 $2,500.00 1
LS $5,000.00 $2,500.00
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Baths
Overview
Rebate: Landscape Conversion (Cash for Grass)
10 Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years 15
Repeat ####
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Comments
>Utility & Admin Costs: The City provides a rebate of $3.50 per sqft up to $6,000 for SF accounts, up to $10,000 for MF, and up to $20,000 for CII accounts. Per Tom, the average utility cost is $4,100 per rebate. It is estimated that approx. .50 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating with approx. 60 accounts per year, yielding ~$1,406/acct. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827 x .5= about $84,400 annually.)
>Customer Cost: Per Tom, the average customer cost for installation and any remaining materials is $2,500.
>End Use Savings:
- Research by Southern Nevada Water Authority (source: Public Policy Institute of California, Lawns and Water Demand in California) estimates that conversion from turf to low-water landscaping resulted in up to a 76 percent savings.
- Other savings estimates range from 15%- over 50%. Santa Clarita Water Agency estimates 25%, Liberty Utilities (Park Water Company) estimates 18%.
- Initially assumed a conservative estimate of 50% average account irrigation and leakage savings based on California estimates and SNWA research.
-Per Tom, average of 21.66 gal saved per sqft. Applied to target of 85,000 sqft/year, equates to 1,841,100 gal saved= 5,044 gal/day or 0.00504 mgd.

Updated savings to 75% estimate to align more closely to Santa Monica specific savings.
> Targets: Per Tom, design per recent (2022) participation which is as follows:
- 60 rebate projects (assumed 1 rebate project per account) which is ~0.4% of all SF, MF, CI, and Inst start year accounts (17,529). - 85,000 sq.ft. (includes areas over max rebate amount but were converted as part of rebated project)
Costs
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
2027 $249,919 $85,744 $335,663
2028 $250,235 $85,853 $336,088
2029 $250,551 $85,961 $336,513
2030 $250,538 $85,957 $336,494
SF MF_2022 CI LS INST
27 23 7 2 1
27 23 7 2 1
27 23 7 2 1
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.002734
60 27 23 7 2 1 60
2024 0.005501
2025 0.008303
60 27 23 7 2 1 60
2026 0.011138
2027 0.014007
2028 0.016910
2029 0.019847
27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1 60
27 23 7 3 1 60
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 72 Measure 11: Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor Devices ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
2045 $126,600 $0 $126,600 2045 105 90 26 4 226 2045 0.326867 2042 0.335382
2043 0.332458
2044 0.329620
2039 0.344719
2040 0.341512
2041
>Utility & Admin Costs: There is no cost to the utility for this measure, it is funded by Water Neutrality fees. It is estimated that approx. .75 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating. (Assume Specialist is administering this measuretotal burdened salary of $168,827 x .75= about $126,600 annually.) >Customer Cost: There is no customer cost for this measure.

Fixture and installation are covered by the Neutrality Fees. > End Use Savings: Assumes participating accounts upgrade all eligible fixtures. Per customer category initial proportions (see code section), conservatively assumes the following fixtures (1.6 gpf toilets, 2.5 gpm showerheads, 2.2 gpm aerators, 1.0 gpf urinals) are being replaced with ultra-low-flow devices (listed below).
> Targets: Per Tom CY 2019 direct install stats are as follows:
- 1,000 SF+ MF Toilets (0.8 gpf)
- 500 SF+MF Showerheads (1.5 gpm)
- 300 SF+MF Aerators (1.0 gpm)
- 250 SF+MF Aerators (1.5 gpm)
- 50 CII Tank Toilets (0.8 gpf)
- 150 CII Flushvalve Toilets (>=1.28 gpf)
- 150 CII Urinals (0.125 gpf)
- 750 CII Aerators (0.5 gpm)
- participation in this measure significantly declined in 2020-2022 as compared to 2019. Range of 2019-2022 annual account
participation is residential (7-191) and CII (1-30). Targeted accounts selected based on targeted ~30 MGY savings.
> On July 1, 2017, the City’s Water Neutrality Ordinance went into effect for all new developments. Water Neutrality is a code that caps water use for new developments by limiting the project to the historical use for that individual parcel. If a new project is projected to use more water than the historical usage for the site, the new development applicant is responsible to offset that water somewhere else in the city. One of the offset options the applicant can choose to meet compliance is a fee-based City sponsored offset program. The City’s Water Neutrality Direct Install Program is fully funded by new development applicants who choose this compliance option. Because toilets are the highest indoor water using fixture, replacing older, water-wasting toilets with the newest water efficient models can save significant amounts of water.

Costs
2037 0.351443
2038 0.348027
2027 0.130671
2028 0.154854
2029 0.178490
2030 0.201609
2031 0.224245
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.027607
2024

0.338398
2032 0.246429
2033 0.268189
2034 0.289550
2035 0.310533
2036 0.331159

0.054420
2025 0.080500
2026 0.105901
2043 105 90 26 4 226
2039 105 90 27 4 227
2040 105 90 27 4 227
2037
2038 105 90 27 4 227
2044 105 90 26 4 226
2041 105 90 27 4 226
2042 105 90 26 4 226
2036 105 90 27 4 227
105 90 27 4 227
2034 105 90 28 4 227
2035 105 90 27 4 227
2032 105 90 28 4 227
2033 105 90 28 4 227
2030 105 90 28 4 228
2031 105 90 28 4 228
2028 105 90 28 4 228
2029 105 90 28 4 228
2026 105 90 29 4 228
2027 105 90 28 4 228
2024 105 90 29 3 228
2025 105 90 29 3 228
2042 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2043 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2044 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2039 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2040 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2041 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2036 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2037 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2038 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2033 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2034 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2035 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2030 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2031 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2032 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2027 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2028 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2029 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2024 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2025 $126,600 $0 $126,600
2026 $126,600 $0 $126,600
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Utility Customer Total
2023 $126,600 $0 $126,600
Targets
SF MF_2022 CI INST Total
2023 105
Water Savings
90 29 3 228
CI Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 31.8% 92.4
INST Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 31.8% 16.1
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 1.300%

40.0% 94.5
INST Show ers 40.0% 21.9
SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 31.8% 30.5
MF_2022 Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 31.8% 74.5
MF_2022 Lavatory Faucets 54.5% 29.1
CI Lavatory Faucets 77.3% 44.1
INST Lavatory Faucets 77.3% 18.9
CI Urinals 87.5% 63.0
INST Urinals 87.5% 13.1
SF Lavatory Faucets 54.5% 9.2
Community 4.17
MF_2022 Toilets 50.0% 146.6
CI Toilets 50.0% 157.6
INST Toilets 50.0% 43.7
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.245764
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $3,872,884
Community $7,480,074
Utility $1,793,036
Community $1,793,036
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 2.16
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Overview
Water Neutrality Direct Install: Indoor D
11 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI LSINST FI
End Uses SFMF_202 CI LS
SF Show ers 40.0% 49.5
MF_2022 Show ers 40.0% 115.1
CI Show ers
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
SF $0.00 $0.00 1
MF_2022 $0.00 $0.00 5
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
CI $0.00
$0.00 1
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $126,600
Name

NEW ANEW M
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years 15
Repeat ####
Time Period
First Year 2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Toilets
Description
The Water Neutrality Direct Install Program installs
high efficiency indoor fixtures in SF, MF, and CII
buildings. This includes SMMUSD, SMC, and private
schools. Replacements include high efficiency toilets,
showerheads, faucet aerators, and high efficiency
urinals. Installations are performed by a contracted
third-party installer. The “Water Neutrality Direct
Install Program” is funded by the Water Neutrality
Ordinance offset and in-lieu fees for new
development.

Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments

INSTFINEW ANEW M
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $868
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Toilets 50.0% 49.3
$0.00 1
INST $0.00
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 73 Measure 12: Direct Install: Irrigation Devices
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
2045 0.048405
>Utility & Admin Costs: Per Tom there are no utility costs for this measure. Measure can be funded by Water Neutrality fees paid by building permit applicants. It is estimated that approx. .25 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year collaborating. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827 x .25= about $42,200 annually.)
>Customer Cost: There is no customer cost for this measure. Fixture and installation are covered by the Neutrality Fees.
>End Use Savings: Participating fixtures typically save between 5%-35% of irrigation water use. Assuming average of 20%.
>Targets: Per Tom, recent participating includes the following:
- 250 Rotary Nozzles
- 35 WBICS
- 35 Soil Moisture Sensors
- 20 Rain Sensors
- 20 Rain Barrels
Assume 1 of these fixtures per participating account, so about 360 accounts/yr.

Costs
2045 $42,200 $0 $42,200 2045 160 138 40 17 6 361
2044 0.048352
2036 0.047259
2044 160 138
2032 0.041571
2033 0.046332
2034 0.046680
2035 0.046989
INST Irrigation 20.0% 51.7
SF External Leakage 20.0% 3.8

1.980%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
MF_2022 External Leakage 20.0% 1.1
CI External Leakage 20.0% 5.7
40 17 6 361
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.000000
2024 0.004428
2042 0.048196
2043 0.048282
2025 0.008910
2026 0.013447
2027 0.018038
2028
2041 0.048092
6 362 2040 0.047972
2037 0.047490
6 362 2039 0.047835
138 41 17 6 362 2038 0.047682
6 362
2040 160
2041 160
2042 160 138 40 17
138 40 17 6 362
138 41 17
6 362
160
2043 160 138 40 17
138 41 17
2043 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2044 $42,200 $0 $42,200
Targets
SF
2023 0
2024 160
2025 160
2026 160
2027 160
2042 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2028 160
2029 160
2030 160
2031 160
2032 160
2033 160
2034 160
2035 160
2036 160
2037 160
2038 160
2039
LS External Leakage 20.0% 45.7
INST External Leakage 20.0% 5.0
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr
MF_2022 Irrigation 20.0% 13.6
CI Irrigation 20.0% 63.2
LS Irrigation 20.0% 606.8
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $1,844
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Irrigation 20.0% 45.5
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.035867
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $562,930
Community $562,930
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $555,479
Community $555,479
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 1.01
Community 1.01
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
Administration Costs
Annual Admin Costs $42,200
Description
For SF, MF, CII, and IRR customers with landscape, provide for the installation of water efficient irrigation upgrades. This could be in conjunction with the WaterWise landscape surveys or via one of CalWEP's turnkey programs for administration
assistance. Included in the menu of installations are: rotary nozzles, WBIC, soil moisture sensor, rain sensors, rain barrels.

Use Eagle Aerial's WaterView to identify large turf areas to target outreach. This program could be funded by Water
Neutrality fees and become part of that program.

Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI LSINST FI
End Uses
SFMF_20CILSINSTFI
10 Toilets
Repeat ####
Time Period
First Year
Overview
Direct Install: Irrigation Devices
12 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers

NEW ANEW M
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name

NEW ADNEW M
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years
2041 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2038 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2039 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2040 $42,200 $0 $42,200
138 42 16 6 362
138 42 16 6 362
138 42 17 6 362
138 41 17 6 362
138 41 17 6 362
2035 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2036 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2037 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2033 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2034 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2032 $42,200 $0 $42,200 138 42 16 6 362
138 42 16 6 363
138 43 16 6 363 2030 0.032096
2031 0.036826
138 43 16 6 363 2029 0.027382
138 43 15 6 362 0.022683
138 43 15 6 362
138 43 14 5 361
138 44 14 5 361
138 44 14 5 361
2031 $42,200 $0 $42,200
Utility Customer Total
2025 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2026 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2023 $0 $0
2029 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2030
2024
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 22
Dishw ashers
SF $0.00 $0.00 1
MF_2022 $0.00 $0.00 1
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
Clothes Washers
Process
CI $0.00 $0.00 1
LS $0.00 $0.00 1
INST $0.00 $0.00 1
Water Savings
$0
2024 $42,200 $0 $42,200
0 0 0 0 0
MF_2022 CI LS INST Total
$42,200 $0 $42,200
2027 $42,200 $0 $42,200
2028 $42,200 $0 $42,200
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 74 Measure 13: Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor Residential ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
2045 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120 2045 107 92 199 2045 0.065566 2044 0.065670
2041 0.065995
2042 0.065885
2037 0.066459
2038 0.066340
2039 0.066223
2040
Costs
2043 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2044 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2039 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2036 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2037 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2038 $96,183 $9,936
Targets
2043 107 92 199
2044 107 92 199
199
107 92 199
107 92 199
107 92 199
107 92 199
107 92
107 92 199

0.066108
107 92
2043 0.065776
2042 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2040 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2041 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120 2041
2042
$106,120
2034 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2035 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
Comments
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Utility
Community
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $2,660
Internal Leakage
Baths

0.77 1.29
End Use Savings Per Replacement
Fix/Acct
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Name

LSINSTFINEW AD
2023
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Utility Customer
SF $400.00 $50.00
MF_2022 $400.00 $50.00 1
Administration Costs
NEW M

LSINSTFINEW ANEW M
1 Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years 5
Repeat ####
Time Period
First Year
Overview
Water Audits: Indoor and Outd
13 2
1 Fixture Cost per Device
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.060961
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $1,052,107
Community $1,941,722
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $1,362,246
Community $1,502,973
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Markup Percentage 21%
Description
Provide a free water survey for Residential
customers.The City is working on a contract with
WaterWise Consulting to provide water surveys
for residential customers. Those with high water
use or that have received a Notice of Violation
(NOV) for outdoor water waste are targeted.

Assumes these customers are different than
those targeted with AMI leak alerts. Includes an
onsite visit and customized report on how to save
water. Simple irrigation repairs, spray head
alignment, retrofits with rotary nozzles, and
installation and programming of WBICS is
included. Outdoor survey is the primary offering,
with indoor water surveys also available upon
request. Includes the free installation of efficient
showerheads and aerators. These surveys can link
with the Irrigation Devices Direct Install program.

Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
End Uses SFMF_20 CI
Toilets
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Toilets 5.0% 49.3
MF_2022 Toilets 5.0% 146.6
SF Lavatory Faucets 5.0% 9.2
MF_2022 Lavatory Faucets 5.0% 29.1
SF Show ers 5.0% 49.5
MF_2022 Show ers 5.0% 115.1
SF Dishw ashers 5.0% 2.8
MF_2022 Dishw ashers 5.0% 7.3
SF Clothes Washers 5.0% 35.4
MF_2022 Clothes Washers 5.0% 103.0
SF Internal Leakage 75.0% 32.8
MF_2022 Internal Leakage 75.0% 81.8
SF Baths 5.0% 6.3
MF_2022 Baths 5.0% 16.4
SF Other 5.0% 18.8
MF_2022 Other 5.0% 32.1
SF Irrigation 25.0% 45.5
MF_2022 Irrigation 25.0% 13.6
SF Pools 5.0% 1.1
MF_2022 Pools 5.0% 0.3
SF External Leakage 75.0% 3.8
SF Wash Dow n 5.0% 2.2
MF_2022 Wash Dow n 5.0% 0.7
SF Car Washing 5.0% 2.2
MF_2022 Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Targets
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 1.320%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Water Savings
MF_2022 External Leakage 75.0% 1.1
>Utility Costs: This measure has a utility cost of $400 per audit using a contractor to perform the audit.

Giveaway device costs and device rebates as a result
of this measure are not included since these are
covered in separate measures.
>Admin Costs: Estimated that 0.1 FTE time will be
spent on this measure per year collaborating. (Assume
Specialist is administering this measure- total
burdened salary of $168,827 x .1 = about $17,000
annually- equates to about $85 per targeted account.
>Customer Cost: Customer costs represent average
customer cost to implement any survey suggestions.
>End Use Savings: Savings represents average account
savings. Indoor savings based off of California Urban
Water Agencies water savings study (4/13/15).

Approximate 5.8% savings for indoor. Slightly lower
value of 5% water savings were selected to account for
efficient devices installed during the recent CA
drought, and more efficient homes built to CALGreen
on the market in the past 5 years. Outdoor savings
higher since targeting those with high water
use/outdoor water waste.
>Targets: Per Tom, target ~ 200 surveys annually.

Utility Customer Total
2023 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
SF MF_2022 Total
2023 107 92 199
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.013704
SF Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
2024 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2032 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2033 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2028 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2029 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2030 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2031 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2025 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2026 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2027 $96,183 $9,936 $106,120
2032 107 92 199
2024 107 92 199
2033
2025 107 92 199
2026 107 92 199
2027 107 92 199
2028 107 92
2033 107 92 199
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2034
2035
199
107 92 199
107 92 199
2024 0.027333
2025 0.040891
2026 0.054385
2031 107
2027 0.067818
2028
199
2030 107 92 199
92 199
199
2029 107 92

0.066963
2034 0.066833
2035 0.066705
2036 0.066581

5.0% 30.5

5.0% 74.5
MF_2022 Car Washing 5.0% 0.7

0.067661
2029 0.067512
2030 0.067368
2031 0.067230
2032 0.067096
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 75 Measure 14: Water Audits: Indoor and Outdoor CII
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
##
## ##
## ##
## ##
Abbr 14
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)
Measure Length 22

CILSINST
Time Period
First Year 2024
Last Year
Repeat ####
Utility $937,454
Permanent ####
Years 10
Customer Fix/Acct
Measure Life
Overview
Name Water Audits: Indoor and Outd

LSINSTFINEW AD
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI
NEW M
Category 2
Measure Type 1
2045
End Uses
External Leakage
Outdoor
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
SFMF_20FI
Cooling
Car Washing
Other
Irrigation
Pools
Wash Dow n
CI Lavatory Faucets

10.0% 157.6
INST Toilets 10.0% 43.7
CI Urinals 10.0% 63.0
INST Urinals 10.0% 13.1

10.0% 44.1
$1,471,959
Community $2,925,040
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
% Savings/Acct
2023 $0 $0 $0
Fixture CostsAdmin Costs Util Total
Avg GPD/Acct
Community $1,898,946
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 1.57
Community 1.54
Comments
CI Toilets
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $1,206

NEW ANEW M
Toilets
Urinals
End Use Savings Per Replacement
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
2024 $55,801 $16,740 $72,541 67
Costs Targets

0.092504
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Utility
Fixture Cost per Device
Utility
CI $750.00 $1,000.00 1
INST $750.00 $1,000.00 1
0 Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
CI
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 30%
Description
Provide a free water survey for CII customers.

Target top users including hotels, hospitals,
and restaurants. Assumes contracted out at
this time, but could add staff to be
administered in-house. After the free water
use survey has been completed at each site,
Santa Monica would analyze the
recommendations on the findings report that
is provided and determine if site qualifies for
rebates, direct installs, and/or MWD's WSIP
(Water Savings Incentive Program).

Recommendations are tailored to each
individual site as each site has varying water
savings potential. Link to CII Equipment
Rebates measure and the Irrigation Devices
Direct Install program. Modeled after the
West Basin pilot program.

INST Lavatory Faucets 10.0% 18.9
CI Show ers 10.0% 94.5
INST Show ers 10.0% 21.9
CI Dishw ashers 10.0% 63.0
INST Dishw ashers 10.0% 13.1
CI Clothes Washers 10.0% 157.6
INST Clothes Washers 10.0% 30.6
CI Process 10.0% 147.1
CI Kitchen Spray Rinse 10.0% 52.5
INST Kitchen Spray Rinse 10.0% 10.9
CI Internal Leakage 75.0% 105.0
INST Internal Leakage 75.0% 21.9
CI Other 10.0% 73.5
INST Other 10.0% 28.4
CI Irrigation 20.0% 63.2
INST Irrigation 20.0% 51.7

3.5 CI Cooling 10.0% 12.1
INST Cooling 10.0% 10.6
CI External Leakage 10.0% 5.7
INST Pools 10.0%

5.0 CI Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 10.0% 92.4

16.1 Targets
INST External Leakage 10.0%

3.010%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
% of Accts Targeted/Yr

0.063312
2027 0.050847
2026 $55,702 $16,711 $72,412
2025
INST Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets 10.0%
74 Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.000000
2024
2023 0
2024 8 0.012867
INST Total
0 0.025628
2026 0.038287
2025 66 8 74
2026 66 8 74
2029 65 9 74
2028 $55,602 $16,681 $72,283
2025
2027 $55,652 $16,696 $72,348 2027 66 8 74
2028 66 9 74
$55,751 $16,725 $72,477
2031 $55,209 $16,563 $71,772
2032 $55,038 $16,511 $71,549
2029 $55,553 $16,666 $72,219
2030 $55,381 $16,614 $71,995
$70,433
2038 $54,007 $16,202 $70,209
2033 $54,866 $16,460 $71,326
2034 $54,694 $16,408 $71,102
2035 $54,522 $16,357 $70,879
2043 $52,939 $15,882 $68,821
2044 $52,714 $15,814 $68,529
2039 $53,835 $16,151 $69,986
$53,612 $16,084 $69,696
2041 $53,388 $16,016 $69,404
2030 65 9 74
2031 65 9
2032 64 9 73
74 2033 64 9 73
2034 64 9 73
2035 63 9 73
2036 63 9 72
2037 63
2040
2042 61 10 71
9 72
2042 $53,163 $15,949 $69,112
2036 $54,351 $16,305 $70,656
2037 $54,179 $16,254
2043 61 10 71
2038 62 10 72
2039 62 10 72
2040 62 10 71
2041 62 10 71
2030 0.087959
2031 0.100139
2032 0.112227
2042 0.117962
2033 0.124224
2034 0.123525
2035 0.122827
2036 0.122130
2044 0.116593
2037 0.121432
2038 0.120735
2039 0.120037
2040 0.119342
2041 0.118651
2045 0.115912
>Utility Cost: This measure has an estimated utility
cost of $750 per audit. Giveaway device costs and
device rebates as a result of this measure are not
included since these are covered in separate
measures.
>Admin Cost: Estimated that 0.1 FTE time will be
spent on this measure per year coordinating surveyssurveys will be performed by a contractor. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total
burdened salary of $168,827 x .1 = about $17,000
annually. Divided by 75 accounts targeted is about
$225 or 30% markup.)
>Customer Cost: Reflects cost/time to install fixtures
and address survey recommendations. Assumes
$1,000/site on average in addition to any giveaways
provided.
>End Use Savings: BAWSCA Phase 1 (YEAR) study on
Making Conservation a California Way of Life found
savings of 10-15% per site. Assume 10% on indoor
devices to be conservative, and 20% for outdoor.

Assume high leak savings from addressing identified
leaks.
>Targets: Per Tom, target ~75 audits annually.
2045 $52,490 $15,747 $68,237 2045 60 10 70
2044 61 10 70
Water Savings
2028
2029 0.075684
2043 0.117277
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 76 Measure 15: Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ##
## ##
## ##
## ##
## ## ## ##
## ## ## ##
2045 0.007251
>Utility & Admin Costs: This measure will cost the utility $450 per 4-hour patrol. Per Tom, an estimated 150 nighttime patrols are targeted for this measure. Assuming these 150 nighttime patrols are 4 hours each yields an annual utility cost of $67,000.

It is estimated that approx. .25 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827 x .25= about $42,200 annually.)
>Customer Cost: Assume $50/SF customer cost and $100 MF/CII cost to fix irrigation water waste/leak - most visible water waste is irrigation.
>End Use Savings: Savings of 6% approximately equates to an account having a leak of 33 gallons per day. Assumed 3% water savings per account for outdoor uses to be conservative since not all site visits reveal water waste which yield water savings.

Assumes 95% savings for external leakage since targeting high leaks reported.
>Targets: Per Tom, recent involvement in this measure (2022) is as follows:
> 150 Nighttime Patrols
> 350 NOVs
> 50 Car Wash Coupons
Costs
2045 $66,913 $41,821 $108,734 2045 283 243 70 11 608
Water Savings
Admin Costs Util Total Total Savings (mgd)
Targets
SF MF_2022 CI INST Total
2041 0.007282
2042 0.007274
2037 0.007308
2038 0.007302
243 72 11 610
243 72 11 610
2039 0.007296
2040

0.007267
2044 0.007259
243 72 11 610
243 71 11 609
243 71 11 609
243 71 11 609
2043

0.007289
243 73 11 611
243 73 11 611
243 73 11 611
2036 0.007314
2042 $67,028 $41,893 $108,921
2043 $66,990 $41,869 $108,859
2044 $66,952 $41,845 $108,797
2039 $67,143 $41,964 $109,107
2040 $67,105 $41,941 $109,046
2041 $67,067 $41,917 $108,983
2036 $67,231 $42,019 $109,250
2037 $67,202 $42,001 $109,203
2038 $67,172 $41,983 $109,155
2034 $67,289 $42,056 $109,345
243 75 11 612
2035 $67,260 $42,038 $109,298
243 74 11 612
243 74 11 612
243 74 11 611

0.007353
2030 0.007349
2031 0.007344
Targets
2033 $67,319 $42,074 $109,393
243 75 10 613
Fixture Costs
243 75 10 613
243 76 10
243 77 9 613
243 77 9 613 2025
10 613
243 77 10 613 2027 0.007358
2028 2028 0.007355
2031 $67,377 $42,111 $109,488
2032 $67,348 $42,093 $109,441
2029 $67,436 $42,147 $109,583
2030 $67,407 $42,129 $109,536
$109,625
2023 $67,487 $42,179 $109,666
2024 $67,478
2027 $67,453 $42,158 $109,611
$67,444 $42,153
Wash Dow n
MF_2022 $110.00 $100.00 1
CI $110.00 $100.00 1
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Description
The City's Water Conservation requirements SMMC

7.16.020 prohibits the waste of water outdoors, including failure to repair leaks in a timely manner. Water waste enforcement is handled for reported violations with
Notices of Violation sent to the property's account
holder. A contract is being finalized for nighttime water waste patrols. A component of this program could be to
provide coupons for saving water and money at a
certified water smart car wash. Water smart car washes
recycle water on-site or send it to a water treatment
facility where the water is treated, recycled and reused.

Some establishments may go waterless, providing car
cleaning services with environmentally-friendly products using little or no water. Coupons may only be redeemed
at a participating retailer. Coupons could be presented at the time of purchase. Water Resources Protection could
provide coupons when addressing water runoff issues.

Comments
$109,597
2025 $67,470 $42,169 $109,638
2026 $67,461 $42,163
$42,174 $109,652
Name

NEW ADNEW M
Overview
Enforcement: Outdoor Water Waste
INST $110.00 $100.00 1
Administration Costs
Markup Percentage 63%
Internal Leakage
Baths
Other
Irrigation
Pools
NEW A
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
SF $110.00 $50.00 1
Fixture Cost per Device
Measure Life
2023 Permanent ####
Last Year 2045
Measure Length 23
Abbr
Category
Measure Type
Time Period
First Year
15 2
1 Years 3
Repeat ####
Customer Classes SFMF_202 CI LSINST FI
End Uses
SFMF_20CILSINSTFI
Toilets
NEW M
Urinals
Lavatory Faucets
Show ers
Dishw ashers
Cooling
Car Washing
External Leakage
Outdoor
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Clothes Washers
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.007000
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Utility $123,747
Community $123,747
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $1,549,306
Community $2,215,339
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 0.08
Community 0.06
Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg)
Utility $26,346
End Use Savings Per Replacement
% Savings/Acct Avg GPD/Acct
SF Irrigation 3.0% 45.5
MF_2022 Irrigation 3.0% 13.6
CI Irrigation 3.0% 63.2
INST Irrigation 3.0% 51.7
SF Wash Dow n 3.0% 2.2
MF_2022 Wash Dow n 3.0% 0.7
SF Car Washing 3.0% 2.2
MF_2022 Car Washing 3.0% 0.7
SF External Leakage 95.0% 3.8
MF_2022 External Leakage 95.0% 1.1
CI External Leakage 95.0% 5.7
INST External Leakage 95.0% 5.0
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 3.500%
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
283
2034 283
2031 283

0.002455
243 78 9 613 2024 0.004909
243 78 9 614 2023
613 2029

0.007363
2026 0.007360
243 76
283
2037 283
2038 283
2023 283
2024 283
2025 283
2026 283
2027 283
2028 283
2029 283
2030 283
2032 283
2033
2044 283
2032 0.007338
2033 0.007332
2034 0.007326
2035 0.007320
2039 283
2040 283
2041 283
2042 283
2043 283
2035 283
2036
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units
City of Santa Monica Water Conservation Management Plan 77 Measure 16: Compliance: CA Water Budgeting (Dedicated Irrigation Meters) ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
##
##
2044 $0 $0 $0
2045 $0 $0 $0
Targets
2044 0 0
2045 0 0
0 0
$0
$0 $0
0 0
2042
2041 0.000000
2042 0.000000
2043 0.000000
2036 0.097659
2037 0.049029
2038 0.000000
2039 0.000000
2040 0.000000
2044 0.000000
2045 0.000000
2036
2040
2041 $0 $0 $0
2036 $0 $0 $0
2037 $0 $0 $0
2038 $0
2041
2039
$0 $0
$0 $0 $0
2043 $0 $0 $0
0 0
2042 0 0
2043 0 0
0 2039 $0 $0 $0
2040
2035 $86,032 $125,235 $211,267 2035 501 501
2030 0.139062
2031 0.141113
2032 0.142308
2033 0.143502
2034 0.144697
2035 0.145892
0 0
2037 0 0
2038 0
Total Savings (mgd)
2023 0.000000

0.000000
2025 0.041620
2026 0.084495
2027 0.128625
2024
2027 451 451
2025 425
2028 0.132389
2029 0.136154
497
2029
2028 464 464
497
2031 $84,608 $121,166 $205,774
2032 $84,964
2030 $84,252 $120,149 $204,401
2034 $85,676 $124,218 $209,894
$122,183 $207,147
2033 $85,320 $123,200 $208,521
477 477
2023 0 0
2024 0
2030 481 481
2031 485 485
2032 489 489
2033 493 493
0 2034
2025 $79,409 $106,310 $185,719 425
2026 438 438
2029 $83,896 $119,131 $203,028
2026 $80,531 $109,516 $190,046
2027 $81,652 $112,721 $194,373
2028 $82,774 $115,926 $198,700
Avg GPD/Acct
Non-Lavatory/Kitchen Faucets
Comments
Car Washing
% of Accts Targeted/Yr 60.000%
2023 $0
2024 $0
Water Savings
As of March 2023, SWRCB timeline states the CII DIM
requirement will go into effect in summer 2024, thus
starting measure in 2025.
>Utility & Admin Costs: Per Tom, the estimated annual
utility cost will be $35,000 for the WaterView
subscription. Assume this cost for conducting 400 CII
DIM assessments annually. It is estimated that approx.

0.25 of an FTE is spent on this measure per year
collaborating. (Assume Specialist is administering this measure- total burdened salary of $168,827 x .25=
about $42,200 annually.) Subscription costs are tracked as utility fixture costs; whereas staff mgmt. time is
tracked in admin costs to better track staffing
accurately.
>Customer Cost: Customer cost represents average
cost to implement any water saving actions done by
customers as a result of their budget.
>End Use Savings: Using various program estimates, on
average, customers are 15% over budget or "expected"
water use. Customers will become slightly more
efficient on average due to the cost of being
inefficient.
>Targets: Per Tom, target 400 CII DIM Accounts
(estimate). This would be 60% of the 666 start year LS
accounts.

Costs
LS Total
$0 $0
$0 $0
Utility Customer Total
$1,330,465
Lifetime Costs - Present Value ($)
Utility $658,516
Results
Average Water Savings (mgd)

0.066371
MF_20CILSNEW M
Lavatory Faucets
LS External Leakage 15.0% 45.7
Only Affects New Accts FALSE
Administration Costs
Show ers
Benefit to Cost Ratio
Utility 2.02
Community 0.84
External Leakage
Outdoor
Annual Admin Costs $42,200
Description LS Irrigation
% Savings/Acct
Conduct detailed landscape area
measurements for CII dedicated irrigation
accounts. Can use aerial imagery including
freely-available National Agricultural Aerial
Program (NAIP) Imagery. The recommended
standard would require urban retail water
suppliers to identify dedicated irrigation
meters (DIMs) and measure the associated
irrigated CII landscapes within five years after
the State Water Board adopts the regulation.

The total landscape area will be incorporated
into a landscape water use equation/standard
(provided by DWR) to produce a supplier level
CII landscape budget in gallons. The state will
not enforce CII landscape budgets for
individual parcels/customers. Also includes
requirements for new MF and CII
developments to install dedicated irrigation
meters and SF accounts with greater than
5,000' of irrigation to install a dedicated
landscape meter. This is already specified in
Santa Monica's WELIS and enforced in plan
check.

Urinals
Targets
Utility Customer Fix/Acct
606.8
LS $87.50 $250.00 1 Cost of Savings per Unit Volume ($/mg) Utility
Fixture Cost per Device
Wash Dow n
Cooling
Dishw ashers
Clothes Washers
Process
Kitchen Spray Rinse
Internal Leakage
Baths
Pools
Category 2
Measure Life
Permanent ####
Years 3
Repeat
Time Period
Measure Type 1
First Year 2025
Last Year 2035
Measure Length 11 ####
End Uses

15.0%
MF_202CI
Community
Toilets
Customer Classes SF
$1,586,167

SFINSTFINEW A
Lifetime Savings - Present Value ($)
Other
Irrigation
$1,181
End Use Savings Per Replacement
Utility $1,330,465
Community
Overview
Name Compliance: CA Water Budgeti
Abbr 16

LSINSTFINEW ANEW M
Method:

Units
Method:

Target Method:

View: View Units