A.3.5 WATER CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION

Water conservation and reclamation include a broad spectrum of physical and regulatory activities that result in reduced consumption of drinking water and can reduce the need for new water augmentation facilities. Two basic conservation philosophies are pursued in the water industry and may overlap:

  • Reduce total community demand—The goal of this approach is to achieve an absolute reduction in water use by the community as a whole; few opportunities exist for reuse of a portion of saved water through water credits for new construction and remodels.
  • Reduce per capita demand—The goal of this philosophy is to achieve a reduction in per capita demand, but total water demand could remain the same or even increase slightly if more people use the same supply; an effort is made to provide opportunities for reuse of a portion of saved water through water credits for new construction and remodels.

To date, the MPWMD Board of Directors has favored the second general philosophy, as reflected in a series of ordinances that enable the district to use limited conservation savings for new construction and remodel projects under specific, defined circumstances.

General types of conservation programs include education to change behavior, incentives to encourage use of water-saving fixtures and appliances, and regulations to require physical and operational changes in homes and businesses. Since 1987, MPWMD has carried out a comprehensive, long-term conservation program that includes many education, incentive, and regulatory elements. A series of ordinances have been adopted by MPWMD to prevent water waste, require use of water-saving fixtures and landscaping, fund a voluntary program of toilet replacements and refunds, provide incentives to retrofit fixtures in exchange for water credits, and enable the district to enforce these water-saving measures. Monthly updates on water savings are provided to the board. The MPWMD conservation goal is to reduce per capita use by 15% so that future use (in 2020) will be 15% less than it would have been without conservation during the intervening years; future use is still expected to be more than it is today because of continued population growth.

When the MPWMD conservation program began in 1987, an associated conservation plan identified the 15% savings goal as corresponding to a 3,900-af reduction in water use, based on an estimated buildout demand of 26,000 af. The 3,900-af estimate soon became outdated because of the downsizing of general plans, zoning revisions, development permit conditions, and other actions that have occurred since 1987. The 1994 NLP EIR estimated normal-year Cal-Am production at buildout to be 22,750 af, which mathematically corresponds to a savings goal of about 3,400 af. An MPWMD summary prepared for the September 22, 1997 CPUC workshop (MPWMD 1997d) stated that an estimated 1,810 af was permanently saved between 1987 and 1996 as a result of MPWMD programs and noted that no detailed follow-up study has been performed to determine the accuracy of the savings estimated in the original conservation plan. The MPWMD conservation program cost about $230,000 annually in fiscal year 1995–1996 and has expanded to an annual budget of about $980,000 in fiscal year 1998–1999, in large part because of implementation of the toilet replacement refund program.

In response to SWRCB Order WR 95-10, Cal-Am requested and received authority from the CPUC in 1996 to implement a four-phase conservation plan to enable it to comply with water production goals set for diversions from the Carmel River Basin. Program elements in Phases I and II included a public awareness campaign, joint funding of the MPWMD toilet replacement and refund program, and restrictions on water waste with an emphasis on outdoor watering (on odd or even days). In November 1997, Phase III went into effect when Cal-Am production from the Carmel River in water year 1997 exceeded the SWRCB goal. The major change was more restrictions on outdoor irrigation (limited to twice weekly). Based on water meter readings early in water year 1998, before the El Niño storms began, Phase IV went into effect in March 1998 and encompassed more stringent enforcement actions. Although production in water year 1998 has remained below the SWRCB goal, Cal-Am’s program remains in Phase IV.

In April 1998, Cal-Am applied to the CPUC for authority to initiate several actions:

  • a mandatory rationing program based on compliance with monthly goals associated with Order WR 95-10,
  • a moratorium on new and expanded water meters,
  • a revised rate schedule with substantially higher charges for large-volume water use, and
  • additional funding to expand the existing conservation program.

The CPUC dismissed all four applications without prejudice in Decision 98-08-036, dated August 6, 1998. The commission suggested that Cal-Am coordinate with MPWMD in its ongoing efforts to develop a comprehensive, standby rationing program by late 1998.

MPWMD, in cooperation with other public agencies, Cal-Am, and various private entities, has evaluated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of several conservation and reclamation projects. Summaries of earlier analyses are provided in the 1994 NLP Final EIR (MPWMD 1994a); MPWMD worksheets prepared for the February 8, 1996 Alternatives Workshop; a draft matrix of alternatives prepared for the September 8, 1997 CPUC workshop; a summary of MPWMD water conservation activities prepared for the September 22, 1997 CPUC workshop (MPWMD 1997d); and monthly information reports submitted to the MPWMD Board of Directors. Table A-11 provides a summary of information provided in these studies.

A.3.5.1 Water Conservation and Reclamation Concepts

 

Elements of existing conservation programs or suggestions for future programs include the following:

  • requirements for water-efficient fixtures in new construction, remodels, property sales, and changes in use (including plumbing and landscaping fixtures);
  • agency funding of voluntary incentive programs (the present focus is toilet replacements and refunds);
  • agency funding of comprehensive water fixture retrofitting in public buildings;
  • water credit programs (public and private) to allow reuse of a portion of water savings from conservation efforts;
  • repairs of leaks in the Cal-Am system (and/or reduction of water pressure where necessary);
  • educational programs to change water use behavior;
  • disincentives to water waste by means of tiered rate structures;
  • incentives to conserve water through local water marketing; and
  • mandatory, permanent rationing or reductions in use.

In this SEIR, the term reclamation refers primarily to reuse (recycling) of highly treated wastewater for turf and landscape irrigation in areas such as golf courses, cemeteries, and median strips. The treatment and reuse of surface stormwater is also addressed in discussions of reclamation. Information on reclamation is also summarized in Table A-11. Elements of existing reclamation programs or suggestions for future programs include the following areas:

  • expand existing reclamation projects to serve more turf and open space;
  • require all golf courses to use reclaimed water;
  • provide sewer service to the Carmel Valley to facilitate use of reclaimed water source on golf courses;
  • recharge aquifers with reclaimed water;
  • use small, local lakes and other subpotable supply sources for landscape irrigation; and
  • stormwater capture, treatment, and distribution.

The following paragraphs briefly describe each of these concepts and provide information (where it is known) on potential savings, costs, and other information. Compared to the water augmentation facilities described above, it is more difficult to determine whether various conservation and reclamation concepts are reasonably foreseeable and whether they would lead to a permanent reduction in water use. Most concepts are technically feasible but may not be feasible based on cost, regulatory, social, and other nontechnical constraints. Water savings tend to change from year to year, are affected by the weather (use typically increases in dry years and decreases in wet years), and vary based on the economy and other social factors that affect the regional tourist industry. Cal-Am records show that residents in single-family homes and apartments account for about 65% of annual water sales; commercial/industrial users account for about 20%; government/public agencies account for about 10%; and golf courses account for about 5%.

Requirements for New Construction, Remodels, and Other Actions. Since August 1987, MPWMD has passed a series of ordinances requiring replacement of existing fixtures with 1.6-gallon (or less) ultra-low-flush (ULF) toilets, low-flow showerheads, and faucet aerators when a building transfers ownership, when is remodeled by adding a bathroom, or when a commercial use changes. New construction is required to install these fixtures, as well as recirculating or "instant-access" hot water systems and drip irrigation, where appropriate. The MPWMD program includes a regular inspection and tracking element and complements state Landscape Water Use Guidelines (AB 325), which require each jurisdiction to adopt its own water-saving landscape plan or to implement the state’s plan. Landscape restrictions have reduced the amount of turf allowed in new construction and have encouraged drought-tolerant planting. Water waste has been prohibited by ordinance since 1989.

In the 11 years that MPWMD requirements have been in place, an estimated 362 af has been saved based on 7,844 verified retrofits. Additional undocumented savings are also assumed to have occurred from retrofits that were not verified. MPWMD inspections constitute 50%–60% of total transactions. Savings in the future are difficult to predict. For fiscal year 1998-99, MPWMD is considering a comprehensive review of its water conservation program. The study would address savings to date and expected future savings. One complicating issue is housing stock turnover—that is, future sales have a higher chance of involving a home or business that has already been retrofitted with ULF fixtures.

MPWMD ordinances adopted during the 1987–1991 drought required substantial reductions in water use by golf courses; owners responded by installing state-of-the-art irrigation systems. In addition, since 1994, many courses in the Pebble Beach area have begun irrigating with reclaimed wastewater. These actions led to a 643-af reduction in water use in water year 1996 (compared to 1988 levels) for golf courses in the Cal-Am system (Pebble Beach and Monterey area). Non-Cal-Am courses (primarily in Carmel Valley) have also saved 25%–50%. (MPWMD 1997d.)

In July 1997, the MPWMD Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 89 requiring all visitor-serving commercial facilities to retrofit to ULF toilets by 2001. The ordinance also requires more immediate actions to reduce water use. Ordinance No. 89 requires conservation notices in all restrooms, kitchens, and dining areas of public, quasi-public, and visitor-serving commercial facilities; owners and managers of rental properties are required to provide information about the water conservation and water waste rules to current and future tenants; and it is now illegal to drain and refill swimming pools needlessly.

To date, no governmental entity has considered imposing mandatory retrofit requirements or drought-tolerant landscaping requirements on all existing residential properties for which sale or remodeling is not planned. The focus of existing and planned programs is on voluntary efforts, as described below. If mandatory action is approved in the future, such action would focus on retrofitting residential appliances. Questions exist regarding the legality of intrusion on private lives and property rights and the associated financial burden, in the absence of a water supply emergency. Government funding of a mandatory program could help address the issue of a cost burden. Other issues include options for disposal of porcelain fixtures and possible adverse impacts on sewage flows.

In February 1996, Cal-Am was estimated to have approximately 31,500 residential Cal-Am customers. MPWMD estimates that one-third of the properties not subject to MPWMD requirements have already voluntarily obtained retrofitted toilets (and possibly other fixtures). Any estimate of future savings potential is difficult because it must include a prediction of the annual number of home sales and the percentage of those homes that would already have been retrofitted. Calculations based on recent data are questionable because they assume the status quo; future economic trends could change annual sales. Changing demographics, such as an increase in the average family size in a home, could counterbalance or outstrip the water savings of new fixture installation.

In summary, this feasible option is being substantively implemented at present and has the potential for only limited additional savings in the future. A more precise quantification should be included in a future evaluation that is beyond the scope of this SEIR.

Funding of Voluntary Incentive Programs

Indoor Fixtures. In 1988, MPWMD distributed 44,000 water-saving kits for existing toilets, sinks, and showers. Follow-up monitoring indicated that 93% of the kits had been installed as part of the "Save Your Share" campaign. Presently, MPWMD offers several incentive programs to encourage voluntary plumbing retrofits. Monetary refunds of as much as $100 are offered for voluntarily replacing older toilets with ULF models. The refund program is financed by MPWMD and Cal-Am. From the program’s inception in January 1997 through September 1998, replacement of 3,750 toilets has saved an estimated 85 af/yr (based on savings of 0.023 af/yr per toilet); refunds totaled about $353,000. The MPWMD budget is $545,000 for fiscal year 1998–99. Based on a survey of residential property owners in 1996, MPWMD staff estimated that approximately one-third of residential toilets within the district had already been voluntarily retrofitted with ULF fixtures. The survey indicated that 63% of respondents would consider voluntary replacement of toilets if a rebate program were offered. A future study should assess the total housing stock and the number of residential properties that could be retrofitted if this program were continued.

Other MPWMD incentive programs include distribution of free showerheads, faucet aerators, and hose nozzles. Water credits are sometimes given for installation of water-saving dishwashers, washing machines, instant-access hot water systems, and 2-liter ULF toilets. Any attempt to estimate water savings that could stem from such programs would be premature. Such an estimate would involve assessing the number of properties where meaningful savings could be obtained; estimated savings from conservation actions; the cost of replacement; the level of program funding; and property owner participation. For example, if 25% of the estimated 31,500 residential Cal-Am customers installed recirculating hot water systems, the total savings could be about 60 af at a total cost of $5.9 million, or nearly $100,000 per af.

Cisterns. Programs providing rebates or other incentives for installation of drought-tolerant landscaping may be considered in the future. Cisterns provide storage of rainfall that runs off roofs and impermeable surfaces in various types of storage containers. Pumps may be needed to convey water from the storage containers to gardens and landscaping for irrigation. MPWMD co-sponsored a demonstration garden and cistern system at the La Mirada/Monterey Museum of Art, as well as earlier studies on the potential for using cisterns at local schools. In 1992, the district estimated that a 2,000-gallon cistern system could save 0.026 af/yr if rain refilled the container 4.2 times; the associated cost would be about $1,500 for containers and gutters, based on earlier district-sponsored studies. Studies conducted in 1981 indicate that if 25% of homes installed cisterns, an overall savings of 1%–2% (approximately 170–340 af/yr) could result in the Cal-Am system. Water from cisterns was estimated to cost $10,000–20,000 per af in 1981. A primary drawback of cisterns is the ineffectiveness of small systems, which cannot store enough water in the rainy season for effective use during the multiple-month dry season. Also, cistern effectiveness depends on sequential rainfall events spaced over time to allow use and refilling of the system several times over the course of a year.

Other Outdoor Uses. Replacement of lawns and other plants that require high water use with drought-tolerant landscaping is estimated to save 1.0–1.2 af per acre. Potential areas for landscape retrofit programs are governmental sites not used for recreation, landscaped areas around hotels and resorts, and common areas of residential complexes. Where lawns must be maintained, subpotable water sources could be explored. Estimates of total acreage that could be replaced and associated water savings are beyond the scope of this SEIR. Other concepts (e.g., the use of gray water [recycled household wastewater]) for use in landscaping, installation of dual plumbing systems to allow the use of gray water indoors, and the use of chemical toilets in public restrooms) are presently either prohibited or tightly controlled by state and local health departments, which have not indicated any plans to change these regulations in the foreseeable future. MPWMD plans to request reconsideration of gray water regulations in Monterey County as part of its conservation program for fiscal year 1998-99. The health agencies’ response to MPWMD’s request cannot be predicted at this time.

In summary, voluntary incentive programs that include cash refunds for water-saving fixtures are being substantively implemented at present and have the potential to provide only limited additional savings in the future through expansion of these programs. An accurate assessment of future water savings will be based on future actions by the MPWMD Board of Directors and detailed evaluations that are beyond the scope of this SEIR.

Retrofitting of Public and Government Buildings. In 1996, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed with representatives from the local federal facilities, including several local military installations. This MOU was the result of efforts by MPWMD to obtain federal funding to retrofit these facilities. Funding was not available, but the MOU partners agreed to work together to implement cost-effective water conservation projects at the facilities to help the Monterey Peninsula meet its water use reduction goals.

To date, the Navy Postgraduate School (NPS) has extensively retrofitted its main campus and off-campus housing complex, and is in the process of building new structures with water-saving fixtures to replace older housing. MPWMD staff reports in October 1995 and February 1996 indicated that 60%–70% of the toilets at the main NPS station have been retrofitted. The NPS main station also converted its turf irrigation from potable water to subpotable water from an onsite lake; installed a recycling car wash; and replaced older, leaking steam heating lines. The Presidio of Monterey (a U.S. Army installation) has embarked upon a retrofit program to replace toilets and hot water systems in its older barracks, but data are presently not available on the scope of the program. The U.S. Coast Guard has retrofitted all of its toilets. Much of this activity was performed to help offset new water use resulting from expansion at these facilities (NPS and Presidio). New housing and other facilities at all military installations have been constructed in compliance with MPWMD’s conservation codes. It is difficult to accurately assess the current and future water savings associated with these efforts because a variety of uses are associated with each facility and the facilities are served by master meters (i.e., one water meter for the entire facility).

Fluctuations in the number of students attending each institution and the lack of individual water meters at these institutions make it nearly impossible to document water savings. As an example, the student population at the Presidio of Monterey has increased by approximately 25% (600 new students) since 1994, and water use increased by about 15 af/yr. Water saved by retrofitting toilets and other fixtures is apparently not enough to compensate for the greater number of people using these fixtures each day. The conservation program review study should assess the potential for additional water savings at these federal facilities. Greater use of individual water meters for dorms and other buildings would help track locations where most water is used, but the likelihood of installing multiple meters is questionable.

Public schools have excellent potential as locations for major retrofit projects. A study performed for the City of Pacific Grove is the only detailed analysis of the water savings potential of schools in the Cal-Am service area. The city’s consultant determined that retrofitting eight public schools and the school district office at a cost of $48,800 (in 1995) could save 6.88 af/yr, of which 5.85 af/yr would be reused as part of the MPWMD public water credit program. Thus, the net savings would be 1.03 af/yr.

In summary, this feasible option is being substantively implemented at present and has the potential for limited additional savings in the future through additional actions by federal and other public agencies. Other factors, such as the increasing student population or water reuse in credit programs, could offset water savings by fixture replacement. An accurate assessment of future water savings will be based on future government actions and future evaluations that are beyond the scope of this SEIR.

Water Credit Programs to Allow Reuse of Saved Water. Since May 1995, the MPWMD water credit program has allowed limited reuse of permanent water conservation savings not already mandated or sponsored by MPWMD. The residential retrofit program (Ordinance No. 90) allows each jurisdiction to reuse up to 10 af of water (for the jurisdiction as a whole) for residential remodels based on water saved by documented replacement of older toilets with new, water-saving models. Ordinance No. 90 expired on September 30, 1998, and a new ordinance must be passed for it to be reinstated. The MPWMD board is developing a comprehensive ordinance that addresses this and other related issues.

The public credit program (Ordinance No. 91) allows a jurisdiction to reuse 85% of water saved through permanent, quantifiable reductions that result from retrofitting publicly owned and operated facilities (such as parks, schools, and city buildings). The jurisdiction controls where public credits received through this program must be used within the same jurisdiction. Transfers facilitated by the local jurisdiction may be assigned to any expansion project, including remodels and new construction.

Based on the limited data that are presently available, it is unclear whether reductions in water demand have resulted from the credit programs. The new water uses may exceed MPWMD’s estimates, or the estimated water savings at the originating site may be lower than expected. Factors such as weather and the effect of outdoor watering could counteract indoor savings from the retrofitted fixtures. A planned comprehensive review of the MPWMD water permit process will look for trends based on available data.

The two credit ordinances are currently being reviewed by the MPWMD Board of Directors and may be refined or amended in late 1998. Because many jurisdictions have no water to allocate for remodels and new construction, the water credit program is one of the few avenues available to facilitate implementation of new projects. Thus, elected officials from each jurisdiction have strongly encouraged MPWMD to continue and possibly expand these programs. On the other hand, litigation by local residents was initiated in July 1998 challenging whether these programs should continue in light of SWRCB Order WR 95-10. Therefore, the fate of these programs cannot be predicted at this time. In summary, this feasible option is being fully implemented at present, but its effectiveness and future usefulness to save water are uncertain. An accurate assessment of future water savings will be based on the outcome of litigation, future MPWMD board actions, and evaluations beyond the scope of this SEIR.

Repair of Cal-Am System to Prevent Leaks. Cal-Am has an ongoing leak detection and water main repair program that results in an average annual rate of unaccounted-for water loss of 6.74% (for 1990–1996). This compares favorably to the statewide average of losses from distribution systems, which is closer to 10%. Cal-Am is also signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding regarding Urban Water Conservation, which requires urban water suppliers to maintain system losses of not more than 10%. The MOU also requires signatories to provide water use surveys (including leak detection) to at least 15% of all single-family and 15% of all multifamily customer accounts before July 1, 2008.

Notably, during the July 1996–June 1997 reporting period, Cal-Am losses were 8.31%, resulting in an annual loss of about 1,600 af for the water year. This amount was similar to the overage that resulted in the $168,000 fine being imposed by the SWRCB. Cal-Am officials note that incorrect water reporting categories and other accounting errors were responsible for this seemingly higher-than-normal loss because a comprehensive audit of the distribution system did not show inordinate water losses. In May 1998, Cal-Am applied to the CPUC for a $1.5-million accelerated main replacement program that would reduce annual losses from leaks by about 80 af. This request was dismissed without prejudice by the CPUC on August 6, 1998; the commission directed Cal-Am to pursue the requested balancing account as part of its next general rate increase request in January 1999.

Reduction in water pressure has been suggested as a means to reduce water leaks. Cal-Am officials have noted that its system must comply with state laws that require minimum water pressures for public safety, particularly for fire flows. Repair and replacement of leaky pipes were identified by Cal-Am as the preferred means to address system water loss.

In summary, this feasible option is being implemented by Cal-Am at present, but at a slower rate than desired because of limitations imposed by the CPUC. An accurate assessment of future water savings will be based on future CPUC actions and evaluations that are beyond the scope of this SEIR.

Educational Programs to Change Water Use Behavior. Both MPWMD and Cal-Am sponsor ongoing public awareness campaigns to promote water conservation, and both are active members of the Water Awareness Committee of Monterey County. The MPWMD program includes brochures; displays at libraries and nurseries; public service announcements; speakers on conservation; free water-saving showerheads, faucet aerators, and hose nozzles; and a toilet replacement refund program. MPWMD has also sponsored seminars on drought-tolerant landscaping and provides information on drought-tolerant plant species, water-efficient appliances, and cisterns and gray water systems. Educational programs are conducted through the Water Awareness Committee of Monterey County. MPWMD staff members have also been trained to conduct water audits on homes and businesses to teach residents and business owners about water conservation, best management practices, and least-cost operating methods. MPWMD transformed its office landscaping from a suburban lawn to a showcase drought-tolerant landscape as a model for the community.

Cal-Am’s program is similar and has centered on an extensive and intensive public information campaign, using print and electronic media, with repeated messages about water conservation. A notable component of the program is a series of distinctive cartoons by a noted local artist that appears in all local papers. Cal-Am and MPWMD have co-hosted leak detection courses for large water users and provide free materials on in-home leak detection.

In summary, this feasible option is being fully implemented by MPWMD and Cal-Am at present. It is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the contribution of educational programs toward overall water savings. Most residents on the Monterey Peninsula already practice good water conservation habits, as reflected by the relatively low per capita water use rates compared to those in other parts of California. Educational efforts focused on the visitor-serving/hospitality industry are assumed to help reduce the water use impact of millions of visitors per year. Regional economic and climatic factors play a large role in determining the number of people who visit each year, which, in turn, affects overall water use.

Disincentives to Water Waste through Tiered Rate Structures. In January 1997, Cal-Am, with CPUC approval, began a trial period of using tiered rates as a disincentive to water waste, in which those who use more than an established volume of water each billing period are charged a higher rate per unit. In May 1998, Cal-Am applied to the CPUC for a modification to the tiered rate structure for residential customers only. The modification was the requested addition of two tiers to the existing three-tier rate structure, resulting in a decrease of the water price for low water users and an increase in charges for high water users. The proposed plan also included multifamily accounts in the tiered rate program. In August 1998, the CPUC dismissed this application without prejudice and advised Cal-Am that it could be considered as part of the next general rate increase request to be filed in January 1999.

Cal-Am did not provide information concerning estimates of water savings that might result from the rate change. As noted in the discussion of educational programs above, the contribution of changed rates toward overall water savings is difficult to quantify. Most residents on the Monterey Peninsula already practice good water conservation habits and view water as a basic necessity. The revised rates are assumed to help change the behavior of water users who need to improve their conservation habits. Cal-Am presently provides information about the customer’s last year’s water consumption on each bill.

In summary, this feasible option is being implemented by Cal-Am at present and could be refined in the future based on CPUC actions in 1999. An accurate assessment of future water savings from rate changes is very difficult to develop and is beyond the scope of this SEIR.

Incentives to Conserve through Local Water Marketing. Increased opportunity to engage in local water marketing at an individual household or business level has been suggested as a means to encourage water conservation and more efficient use of existing resources. (Section A.3.6, "Water Importation and Marketing," contains a discussion of large-scale water marketing between agencies.) The concept of "fair use management" (FUM) (Haddad 1998) suggests that a market could be made available for water use rights. Every Cal-Am customer would be granted an allocation of water in the form of shares of the total supply that is available in a given season (actual water quantities would fluctuate quarterly with conditions). Using water brokers, consumers could sell or rent the rights to excess water that they do not plan to use. Water transactions would be tracked through a master database; extensive, accurate monitoring of water use would be needed to verify consumption. The program would involve financial penalties for exceeding the allotted share (e.g., charges at five times the base cost) and a baseline residential amount that cannot be traded. Key determinations would include how many shares to award to each water customer initially and how much water should be available for community use each quarter.

The FUM concept assumes that other water supply projects are in place that legalize the current Cal-Am supply in compliance with SWRCB Order WR 95-10. This is presently not the case, and it will be several years before projects are constructed to ensure compliance with the order. In reporting year 1996–97, about 60% of Cal-Am’s production was not lawfully derived.

Even after a lawful supply is available to permit marketing of water use rights, several concerns about the FUM concept will need to be addressed:

  • how to fairly determine initial shares and quarterly amounts in a contentious and adversarial atmosphere, and the multiple levels of bureaucracy associated with these decisions;
  • the cost and complexity of tracking water share transactions, monitoring water use in increments smaller than standard water units, and enforcing the program;
  • difficulties presented by apartment complexes and other facilities (such as military housing) where numerous consumers are served by one water meter;
  • how individual consumers who are not mathematically sophisticated or have numerous other responsibilities will be able to accurately predict, monitor, and compare their water use under changing circumstances;
  • public confusion about water use limits, given that the FUM concept anticipates changing water quantities every quarter;
  • potential for the program to subsidize high water use by those who can afford to pay the higher price; and
  • the questionable potential for permanent savings if one consumer’s water savings (excess water shares) are being sold to and used by other consumers willing to pay the market price.

For these reasons (especially the last), the FUM concept appears to be primarily a way to maintain a set consumption quantity that can change dramatically over time (e.g., low levels during a drought and higher levels in wet years), rather than a way to permanently reduce overall water use in the community.

The FUM concept does not address marketing of water savings to facilitate new construction or remodels that will use more water. Conceptual examples include members of a church voluntarily installing water-saving fixtures in their homes and "donating" the savings toward construction of a new church youth center or a business paying neighboring homeowners to install water-saving fixtures to offset increased water use resulting from the planned expansion of the business. One difficulty with marketing to facilitate increased water use is accurately predicting, monitoring, and maintaining the savings goals. For example, if a home with water-saving fixtures is sold to a larger family or if a youth center is more popular than anticipated, water use could exceed the original estimate.

Implementation of these concepts would require changes in MPWMD’s regulations, which presently prohibit some of these suggested activities. Such changes are possible, and some members of the MPWMD Board of Directors support such marketing concepts as a means to stretch limited supplies. It is notable that Monterey County has adopted an ordinance that would allow such transfers of water savings in unincorporated areas.

In summary, these local water marketing concepts, although cumbersome, would be potentially feasible if regulations were changed to allow their use and the Cal-Am supply were previously legalized through construction of other projects. These types of transactions appear to focus on extending existing supplies among various types of water consumers and enabling a small amount of economic development to occur, rather than permanently reducing water use. Because of the many uncertainties about these concepts, they are not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable, feasible means to provide a lawful, reliable water supply to the Cal-Am system, although they could help attain specific water use goals.

Mandatory, Permanent Rationing. Mandatory, permanent rationing, regardless of weather, has been recommended as a component of an alternative water resource plan, but no details have been given on the goals or expected water savings of such a program. As an example, a 10% reduction from the 1997 Cal-Am production level of about 17,100 af would be 15,390 af (a reduction of 1,710 af). "Mandatory rationing" is defined herein as specific limits imposed on water use, measured in water units per billing period, that are tracked by means of water meters and cannot be exceeded without some type of penalty. As a service to customers, water agencies may express water units per billing period as gallons per day to help customers track their own water use. Mandatory rationing differs from a "mandatory conservation program", which may include restrictions on certain activities (e.g., when gardens can be watered) but does not limit total water use by the customer.

As described above, Cal-Am is presently in Phase IV of a mandatory conservation program that was approved by the CPUC in 1996. The Cal-Am program is not intended to permanently reduce community water use. Rather, the intent of the Cal-Am program is to comply with SWRCB Order WR 95-10, and specifically to stay within the interim annual production goal of 11,285 af of diversions from the Carmel River Basin. The 11,285-af limit represents a 20% reduction from the 1978–1987 average annual river diversion of 14,100 af. In water year 1997, which included an unusually dry period from February through September 1997, community water use was nearly 1,600 af (12%) more than the SWRCB goal. In water year 1998, which ended September 30, 1998, community water use was about 1,100 af below the SWRCB goal. This analysis assumes that measures will be taken by Cal-Am and MPWMD to ensure continued compliance in the future.

MPWMD can only institute mandatory water rationing by ordinance in a declared "water supply emergency". Its most recent rationing experience was in the 1987–1991 drought, when mandatory rationing was imposed for a 28-month period (January 1989–May 1991), with water year 1988 as the base year. Over that period, the community’s water savings of more than 30% exceeded the MPWMD program goal of a 20% reduction. All sectors (residential, commercial, golf, and public authority) exceeded the 20% savings goal. A key to this successful program, which cost more than $600,000 annually to implement, was obtaining understanding and acceptance by the public that the situation was dire and action by everyone was essential. The MPWMD program also featured two options to set water use limits and is intended to be fair to all sectors of the community.

Future rationing goals are likely to be more difficult to achieve than those set in the past. This is because, as a result of the success of previous programs, fewer opportunities are available today (and will be available in the future) to easily reduce onsite water use than were available a decade ago. Also, the Cal-Am system includes more residents and visitors than it did a decade ago, so that overall water use has increased even if each individual uses less. As evidenced by the extensive controversy over Cal-Am’s proposed mandatory rationing program during the wet winter of water year 1998, community acceptance of a rationing program is difficult to obtain except under dry conditions.

Potential legal problems may also be associated with permanent, mandatory rationing as a long-term water supply solution unless findings indicate that no other means are available to address the water shortage. A "taking" of property may be involved if the plan deliberately does not provide water for legal lots of record. Decision 98-08-036 by the CPUC stated that permanent rationing is not an acceptable water resources plan. For these reasons, permanent rationing is not viewed as a reasonably foreseeable, feasible means to provide a reliable water supply to the Cal-Am system.

Expansion of Existing Reclamation Projects

Pebble Beach Project. Wastewater reclamation is an important component of the MPWMD’s conservation plan because it reduces dependence on potable supplies for irrigation needs. MPWMD functioned as the financing entity in a joint public-private partnership to construct the CAWD/PBCSD wastewater reclamation project. This $34-million project, sponsored by the Pebble Beach Company (PBC), is designed to provide 800 af of highly treated reclaimed water to nine golf courses, playing fields, and other turf areas in Del Monte Forest, which were previously being watered with potable water, in exchange for permanent entitlements to 380 af of Cal-Am service. The remaining 420 af are retained for use by MPWMD, which has chosen not to allocate this water.

Some water quality concerns were raised after the project began operating in 1994 relating to turf sensitivity to salts, and these concerns have affected total production from the plant. In calendar year 1996, only 472 af of reclaimed water were produced. The situation improved in calendar year 1997, when 802 af of reclaimed water were produced. However, total water use was 1,139 af that year, illustrating the inability of the project to meet peak summer demand because of lack of storage. These issues became temporarily moot with the unusually wet weather in water year 1998. In the meantime, project participants are developing interim and long-term treatment solutions to remove salts before the water is applied on sensitive greens.

PBC’s right to the 380 af of water has been confirmed by the SWRCB (Anton pers. comm.). Specifically, the existing 11,285-af diversion goal in the Carmel River could be increased by 380 af (to 11,665 af) because the PBC entitlements are activated with each new increment of construction. Thus, the future potential savings of this project is 420 af/yr, which is less than the current estimated savings of 600–800 af/yr.

MPWMD, PBCSD, CAWD, PBC, and Cal-Am are presently discussing ways to expand the existing reclamation project to accommodate additional greenbelt and golf course irrigation. In August 1998, the SWRCB agreed to waive the $168,000 fine against Cal-Am if Cal-Am directs these funds toward use of the 420-af Forest Lake Reservoir in Pebble Beach as a reclaimed water storage site to provide greater assurance that the reclamation project can meet peak demand in summer and reduce the need for supplemental use of potable water at that time. With the storage reservoir, the 800-af/yr reclaimed water goal should be met easily. An estimated $6–8 million in improvements to Forest Lake Reservoir must first be completed by PBCSD. In addition, alternative means of improving the quality of the reclaimed water, focusing on desalination processes at the CAWD treatment plant, are currently being evaluated.

In terms of future expansion, another 85–100 af of potable water could be saved if the City of Pacific Grove agrees to purchase reclaimed water for use on its golf course and cemetery (to date, the City has been reluctant to participate). If approved, the project expansion could be completed in 1–2 years. Estimated capital costs for the project, including modifications to existing Pacific Grove facilities but not including pipeline rights-of-way or final design costs, total $1.95 million in 1998 dollars (1990 costs escalated at 3% per year) (Parsons Engineering Science 1990). The O&M costs are estimated to be $35,000 per year in 1998 dollars.

Carmel Valley Ranch. The only other golf course that uses reclaimed water is at Carmel Valley Ranch, which operates an onsite treatment plant in Carmel Valley. Opportunity for expansion is extremely limited because of permit restrictions imposed by the Monterey County Department of Health on the amount of treated water that can be applied. The ranch has proposed construction of a 3.74-acre lined reservoir that would hold 10 million gallons to replace the use of an existing driving range as a storage basin for winter surface runoff and reclaimed water to irrigate the golf course. The driving range would remain available to store up to 12 million gallons in very wet years to comply with permit requirements that 120 days of effluent must be able to be stored. Additional use of reclaimed water is not anticipated. The alternative of providing sewer service to Carmel Valley to generate reclaimed water for golf courses is discussed below.

Regional Treatment Project. In 1992 and 1996, MPWMD co-funded two studies to determine the potential for using reclaimed wastewater from the MRWPCA treatment plant on receptor sites such as parks, school grounds, golf courses, and other open space areas within the MRWPCA service area. In 1996, MPWMD co-sponsored an update to a 1992 study by CH2M Hill on the potential for urban reuse of reclaimed wastewater from the MRWPCA regional treatment plant. The original study (CH2M Hill 1992) had determined that reclamation opportunities were limited to approximately 1,000 af/year, with costs of $2,400–3,500 per af. The closing of Fort Ord was recognized as providing an expanded market for reclaimed water, and the updated study (CH2M Hill 1996a), which was funded by MRWPCA, FORA, Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), Marina Coast Water District (MCWD), Cal-Am, and MPWMD, identified many potential reclamation sites in Marina and Fort Ord.

A summary of the 1996 update was presented to the MPWMD Board of Directors at its October 21, 1996 meeting. The update study determined that approximately 1,100–4,000 af/yr of reclaimed water could be used, assuming cooperative use and funding of the distribution facilities by two participating agencies (CH2M Hill 1996a). Capital costs were estimated to range from $9 million to $37 million (in 1996 dollars), with O&M costs of $300,000–$1.2 million per year. Based on the report’s tabulation of potential receptor sites, approximately 690 af/yr could be used within the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System. Areas representing approximately 215 af/yr are currently served by Cal-Am, 25 af/yr by the Seaside municipal water system, and 450 af/yr by wells in the Seaside Coastal Subareas supplying untreated water for irrigation. If the project were to serve all receptor sites identified in the CH2M Hill report from Marina through Monterey, the proportionate share of costs for the 215 af/yr identified in the Cal-Am system is estimated to be $3.8 million in capital costs and $76,000 per year in O&M costs (in 1998 dollars).

The probability of using reclaimed water on many peninsula receptor sites is uncertain for several reasons. First, reclaimed water costs much more than local groundwater, which is used for 475 af of the total 690 af used by receptor sites (i.e., Seaside area uses, including two golf courses now owned by the City of Seaside). To date, little incentive has been available for receptors representing the remaining 215 af within the Cal-Am system to buy more expensive, lower quality water. Future increases in Cal-Am water rates could change this trend, especially for Del Monte Golf Course, which uses an estimated 187 af of Cal-Am’s total 215 af. State law requires the purchase of reclaimed water for irrigation if it is reasonably available, determined on the basis of prices that are competitive with existing supply sources and suitability for use (adequate quantity and quality). However, the physical availability of reclaimed water is questionable because of substantial competition for reclaimed water among other agencies facing seawater intrusion problems and the limited availability of supply for development plans (e.g., MCWRA, MCWD, FORA, and cities such as Seaside and Sand City). For example, if the City of Seaside chose to replace its golf course irrigation with reclaimed water rather than well water, it is reasonable to assume that the newly available well water would be used to support development and redevelopment projects planned by the city. Thus, there would not be a net savings associated with reclamation.

In summary, substantial reclamation has already been implemented in the Pebble Beach area. The option to expand the Pebble Beach facility to produce another 85–100 af of reclaimed water is technically feasible, although some institutional resistance exists at present. It is reasonably foreseeable that these concerns could be overcome. Expanded use at Carmel Valley Ranch is constrained by permit conditions, however, and is not reasonable foreseeable. Substantial use of treated water from MRWPCA facilities within the Cal-Am system cannot be predicted because of the high cost of reclaimed water compared to receptors’ existing sources (especially onsite groundwater sources) and competition for reclaimed water from other agencies with higher volume needs. Replacement of 187 af at the Del Monte course appears to be possible if water is made available from the regional project and the economic incentive increases with the cost of Cal-Am water. Limited quantities of onsite groundwater might be tapped for use on the Del Monte course, similar to the situation at the nearby Navy golf course. This water source would be less expensive than reclaimed water. At most, approximately 300 af in savings appears to be available in the reasonably foreseeable future when both the Pacific Grove and Del Monte courses are considered.

Requirement to Use Reclaimed Water on Golf Courses. The concept of requiring use of reclaimed water on golf courses involves enacting an ordinance that requires all golf courses to buy more expensive, reclaimed water for irrigation rather than use water from Cal-Am or other sources. As noted above, state law already requires use of reclaimed water if it is reasonably available (based on suitable quantity and quality and competitive price). Several concerns have been raised about this concept:

  • Nearly all golf courses in the Cal-Am system are already irrigated with reclaimed water, and few additional opportunities exist (as discussed above).
  • No reclamation project is available to serve many golf courses outside the Cal-Am system (primarily those in Carmel Valley), and future service by a sewage treatment plant in Carmel Valley is not reasonably foreseeable at this time.
  • Because the price of reclaimed water would be much higher than the price of existing onsite groundwater sources used by the non-Cal-Am courses, no incentive would exist for these facilities to purchase the reclaimed water.
  • As discussed below for Carmel Valley, regulatory and environmental concerns exist regarding nitrate contamination, loss of groundwater recharge, and increased effluent into the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary if the valley were connected to sewer service and reclaimed water were applied in greater amounts.
  • An ordinance such as the one described could be subject to legal challenge based on discrimination, water rights, and property rights laws.
  • Most important in the context of this SEIR, reclamation for use on golf courses not served by Cal-Am would do nothing to help Cal-Am comply with SWRCB Order WR 95-10, and nearly all courses served by Cal-Am have already converted to reclaimed water.

For these reasons, this concept is not viewed as a reasonably foreseeable means to permanently reduce Cal-Am water use in compliance with Order WR 95-10, except for a maximum of about 300 af.

Connecting Carmel Valley to Sewer Service to Generate Additional Reclaimed Water. A major pipeline and associated infrastructure (including storage ponds) could be constructed to convey wastewater from Carmel Valley to the existing CAWD sewage treatment plant to replace the many individual septic systems that are presently used in Carmel Valley. The reclaimed water would be applied to golf course turf and other receptors (e.g., school playing fields, parks, and other open space areas) in Carmel Valley. This concept was evaluated in depth in a facilities plan EIR (Sedway/Cooke 1980). The capital cost was estimated at $55 million in 1980 (equivalent to $94 million in 1998, escalated at 3% per year) to be expended over a 20-year planning period. The study estimated that the sewer system could cost $20–40 per month per household, compared to $10 per month for septic tanks (both in 1980 dollars). This project was not pursued by Monterey County because of the high cost and other factors.

The facilities plan EIR noted that 70% of the wastewater treated in a septic system returns to the groundwater system and is filtered naturally. The EIR estimated that replacing septic systems with connections to a sewer system would reduce groundwater recharge in the Carmel Valley by 660 af. Other concerns with this concept include increased discharges to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, because more wastewater would be produced than could be used by reclaimed water users, and lack of capacity in the existing CAWD tertiary treatment facility to process higher wastewater flows, resulting in the need to expand the plant. Because of the seasonal dynamics of wastewater flows and the lack of adequate storage facilities, reliable year-round service for reclaimed water customers is questionable. If reclaimed water is not available, potable supplies would need to be used.

As noted in the discussion above regarding use of reclaimed water on golf courses, golf courses served by non-Cal-Am water would be unlikely to choose to accept reclaimed water, if it were available, because they have easy access to low-cost groundwater. Even if they were interested, the Monterey County Department of Health has expressed serious reservations about the use of reclaimed water on golf courses (and presumably other turf) in Carmel Valley because of its location overlying a drinking water aquifer. Contamination by nitrates is a particular concern. Any increased use of reclaimed wastewater would be subjected to the same conditions imposed on Carmel Valley Ranch, along with nitrate control by additional treatment or other means (e.g., blending with potable water sources) (Wong pers. comm.). Because nearly all golf courses in Carmel Valley are outside the Cal-Am service area, this concept is not viewed as a reasonably foreseeable means to permanently reduce Cal-Am water use in compliance with Order WR 95-10 or to obtain new water supplies.

Recharge of Aquifers with Reclaimed Water. Reclaimed water could be used to replenish aquifers through injection or percolation. As noted above, the Monterey County Department of Health has not been supportive of plans to recharge drinking water aquifers with reclaimed water because of health concerns. No change in this policy is expected in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Other Subpotable Supply Sources. Subpotable water supply sources (such as local lakes or springs) could be used at various receptors, particularly for turf irrigation. Presently, two local lakes, Del Monte Lake at the NPS and Lake El Estero in Monterey, collect stormwater and have replaced drinking water to irrigate adjacent turf. The total storage volume of Del Monte Lake is approximately 50 af, and it provides about 18–20 af/yr of water for turf irrigation. This project was required as a condition of the MPWMD water permit for the expansion of NPS to help offset the new water use, resulting in little, if any, net savings. The lake is being fully used at present, and expanding its use could lead to dewatering. Because of existing site constraints, substantially increasing the size of the lake would not be feasible.

The Lake El Estero project was completed in 1996–1997 by the City of Monterey as part of the MPWMD public water credit program, which allows reuse of 85% of savings from public projects. The project design included an estimated 13.2 af in savings of potable water use to irrigate adjacent park turf, resulting in a net savings of 1.98 af (assuming that 85% is reused). The cost of the Lake El Estero project was $31,275.

Other possible lake sources are Roberts and Laguna Grande Lakes in the City of Seaside, David Avenue Lake in Pacific Grove, Laguna Seca Lake at Laguna Seca Raceway (unincorporated), and Forest Lake in Del Monte Forest (unincorporated Pebble Beach area). Roberts Lake is considered too saline for use in turf irrigation because it is affected by ocean tides. No proposal for use of Roberts Lake is forthcoming at this time. Landscaping and lawn immediately adjacent to Laguna Grande Lake is presently irrigated by a subpotable well owned by the City of Seaside and located immediately adjacent to the lake. Production averaged about 25 af/yr in reporting years 1996 and 1997.

The David Avenue Reservoir is a small, urban reservoir that has been decommissioned and dewatered and is in the process of being converted into a storage facility for Cal-Am vehicles and other equipment. Changing its use to subpotable water storage is not foreseeable. As noted above, the Forest Lake Reservoir is slated for use as an integral component of the CAWD/PBCSD reclamation project and will not be available to store stormwater or other subpotable water supplies.

The 50-af Laguna Seca Lake is a portion of a relic lake that is controlled as part of the Laguna Seca racetrack setting. It could be used to water adjacent landscaping, but the suitability of the water for irrigation is questionable because of its proximity to the racetrack. Use of the lake would not help Cal-Am to comply with the SWRCB Order because Laguna Seca Raceway is supplied from sources independent of the main Cal-Am system.

In April 1998, the City of Monterey hired a consultant to explore the potential for additional sources of subpotable water to be used at potential receptor sites (e.g., private cemetery, local parks) that are presently irrigated with drinking water. Possible supply sources include past well sites; new wells near springs, seeps, and other areas in local watersheds; and detention basins and tanks that could capture and store stormwater runoff. The consultant is charged with ranking the most promising supply sources for further testing and the most promising receptors. No information is presently available from the study and no completion date is known. Implementation of such a program would preclude use of reclaimed water on receptor sites that are irrigated with subpotable water (as well as use of subpotable water on sites now irrigated with reclaimed water).

Other cities and Monterey County could embark on programs similar to that implemented in Monterey. The quantity of supply and the potential net savings cannot be predicted at this time and are beyond the scope of this SEIR. Again, use of subpotable water for irrigation would preclude use of reclaimed water at receptor sites unless the subpotable supply was inadequate. As noted above, major receptors such as golf courses in Seaside, Monterey (Navy golf course), and Carmel Valley already use onsite subpotable wells as their source of supply. In conclusion, subpotable water for irrigation is a feasible option that is already being used by major water consumers in several jurisdictions. Limited additional savings are envisioned in the foreseeable future because of the limited number of subpotable supply sources and remaining receptors. Detailed quantification of water savings is beyond the scope of this SEIR.

Stormwater Sources. Stormwater runoff could be used instead of drinking water for subpotable uses such as turf irrigation. Several examples of the use of stormwater are described above, and those conclusions apply to stormwater as well. For any potential stormwater reuse project, four elements are required:

  • facilities to capture and store the storm runoff,
  • facilities to treat the water to acceptable standards,
  • pumps and pipelines to distribute the water to receptors, and
  • receptor sites that can use and are willing to purchase the water.

Environmental concerns include the potential for degradation of existing wetland areas and water-dependent wildlife as a result of stormwater runoff being diverted from these areas; potential impacts on recreational uses; and Monterey County Department of Health concerns regarding the use of stormwater that may contain bacteria, viruses, heavy metals, organic chemicals (such as benzene), nitrates, oil, gasoline and other substances (Wong pers. comm.).

The lack of locations for aboveground storage facilities to store substantial quantities of stormwater during winter rainy periods for use in the dry season is a major issue. One concept to address this problem is use of stormwater to recharge aquifers, which would function as belowground storage vessels. The Monterey County Department of Health has expressed reservations about this concept because of concerns about contaminating the drinking water aquifer, similar to its concerns about using reclaimed water. Stormwater would have to undergo costly tertiary treatment, reverse osmosis, and activated carbon filtration to meet California Department of Health Services Title 22 standards before being injected into the aquifer (Wong pers. comm.). Finding a location for a tertiary treatment facility to process large quantities of stormwater could be difficult. Opportunity for stormwater treatment at the regional wastewater reclamation plant is limited (Israel pers. comm.).

Use of stormwater to recharge aquifers is gaining interest statewide. The need for tertiary treatment, sizable storage facilities, and new distribution systems appear to be the biggest hurdles locally. The quantity of potable water (and the associated costs) that could be saved annually on a reliable basis by implementing stormwater projects is unknown at this time, and such a determination would require detailed analysis that is beyond the scope of this SEIR. Again, use of reclaimed wastewater for irrigation would preclude use of stormwater (and vice versa) at those sites.

A.3.5.2 Conclusions

Many of the concepts described above are considered feasible and reasonably foreseeable to some degree, and some have already been substantively implemented. Concepts that are not believed to be reasonably foreseeable means of reducing Cal-Am demand are permanent, mandatory rationing; requiring reclaimed water on all golf courses; connecting Carmel Valley to sewer service to generate reclaimed water for golf course irrigation; and recharging aquifers with reclaimed water or stormwater.

Advantages of water conservation and reclamation concepts include efficient use of existing resources; decentralized, modular, and flexible implementation options; and relatively low cost to individual consumers for residential installation. Some options require no new facilities and are relatively inexpensive, whereas others require major capital expenditures for treatment plants, distribution systems, or large-scale purchase of plumbing fixtures. Disadvantages include lack of reliability of water savings (which would be affected by weather, economic, and demographic trends); poor cost/benefit ratio for many options (several ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per af); and increased public hardship in a drought if all reasonable water-saving options are already being employed to help maintain normal-year water production. In general, public and private water agencies (including MPWMD) actively promote conservation at present. Differences of opinion exist about the degree to which conservation and reclamation can be relied on to maintain the long-term balance between supply and demand. Legal issues regarding "taking" of property may arise if a water resources plan does not accommodate the needs of legal lots of record.

As explained above, the potential water savings resulting from continued or expanded conservation efforts is very difficult to quantify and would require detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of this SEIR. Based on the limited data evaluated by MPWMD staff to date, potential savings appear to be much lower than estimates promulgated by MPWMD in the past. Similarly, the cost of future programs is difficult to ascertain without detailed study but is expected to be millions of dollars, based on earlier estimates and actual program costs to date. The fate of the MPWMD water credit programs, as well as regional economic and demographic trends, could significantly influence the net savings that would result from these programs. For example, trends toward higher density housing, rapid population growth, or increased tourism could offset much of the conservation and reclamation savings. Conversely, trends toward reduced family size; use of homes for weekend use only; or a long-term downturn in the economy, high gasoline prices, or other factors that adversely affect tourism could enhance water savings.

For purposes of this analysis of water supply alternatives, it was estimated that a total of 800 af/yr of savings could be achieved through an aggressive combination of water conservation programs and expansion of two existing reclamation projects. Estimated potential savings from water conservation programs total 500 af/yr. This amount would be saved by continuing the current toilet replacement refund program and expanding it to provide refunds for replacement or installation of other types of water-saving equipment, such as dishwashers, washing machines, and recirculating hot water systems. It is estimated that the current toilet replacement refund program could be continued for about 5 years before reaching diminishing returns on voluntary replacements. At the current rate of savings and costs, this program would save a total of 243 af/yr at a cost of about $1.2 million. Expanding the program to other types of equipment is estimated to cost about $2.6 million for 257 af/yr in savings. Thus, the total capital costs for 500 af/yr in water conservation savings are estimated to be approximately $3.8 million. It is further estimated that, to maintain the savings achieved, annual program administration costs would be $192,000 per year.

Estimated potential savings from expansion of two existing reclamation projects total 300 af/yr. Extending the CAWD/PBCSD wastewater reclamation project to Pacific Grove is estimated to save 85 af/yr of potable water use. Estimated costs to serve the sites identified in Pacific Grove are $1.95 million in capital costs and $35,000 per year in O&M costs (in 1998 dollars). If the wastewater reclamation plant located at the MRWPCA site north of Marina were to serve urban sites between Marina and the Monterey Peninsula, it is estimated that a total of 215 af/yr of current potable water use within the Cal-Am service area could be saved. For these savings, the proportionate share of total project costs is estimated to be $3.8 million in capital costs and $76,000 per year in O&M costs (in 1998 dollars).

Total costs for 800 af/yr in savings from a combination of water conservation and wastewater reclamation projects (500 af/yr in water conservation savings and 300 af/yr in savings from expansion of existing reclamation projects) are estimated to be approximately $9.6 million in capital costs and $300,000 per year in O&M costs (in 1998 dollars).

 

Go Back | Top of Page | Continue