Valley Center
Municipal Water District
nservation IA
Board of Directors
Gary A. Broomell
President
Robert A. Polito
Vice President
A Public Agency Organized July 12,1954
Merle J. Alestiire
^wTte^
Director
April 10, 2015
Ctiarles W. Stone, Jr.
Director
Randy D. Haskell
Director
Ms. Felicia Marcus, Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Sent via e-mail to Jessica.bean(5)waterboards.ca.gov
Subject:
Mandatory Conservation - Achieving a 25% Statewide Reduction in Potable Urban
Water Use (Issued on April 7, 2015)
Dear Ms. Marcus;
This correspondence is in response to and provides comments on the "Proposed Regulatory
Framework" for Mandatory Conservation issued by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) to impose a 35% mandatory reduction in potable urban water use by the Valley
Center Municipal Water District (VCMWD). Our comments are as follows:
Not All California Agriculture is Found between Bakersfield and Redding
VCMWD is located in North San Diego County, one of the largest commercial avocado, nursery,
flower, citrus, and now wine grape growing areas in California. While VCMWD is classified as an
urban water agency, it is also a signatory to the Agricultural Best Management Practices MOD
in 1999. The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) developed and submitted, on behalf
of VCMWD and other San Diego County agricultural agencies, an Agricultural Water
Management Plan in 1999, with subsequent updates in 2001, and 2005, and then as part of the
SDCWA Urban Water Management Plan, a 2010 Update. Historically, agricultural demand has
accounted for the vast majority of VCMWD's water deliveries, and still represents between 65%
and 70% of annual sales.
When Governor Brown publically stated and later defended the statement that the current
mandatory reduction program was not aimed at agriculture, surely he was not leaving out the
$1.85 billion farm-gate value agricultural economy of San Diego County, ll'*^ largest in
California. Valley Center's 1,200 growers are a significant contributor to San Diego County's
farm economy.
Recommendation: Amend the current framework to clearly exempt California Agriculture
across the entire state, not just the Central Valley.
29300 Valley Center Road • P.O. Box 67 • Valley Center, CA 92082
(760) 735-4500 • FAX (760) 749-6478 • TDD (760) 749-2665 • www.valleycenterwater.org • e-mail [email protected]
Water Use Reduction Is Nothing New for Valley Center MWD
The basic premise of the Proposed Framework seems to be: Reward those who already
conserved, and Punish those who you perceive have not If that is the case, we will anxiously
await our reward. How so:
• Since FY 2003-2004, when VCMWD delivered just over 48,000 AF of water, deliveries have
dropped 42% to a little over 28,000 AF in 2013-2014. Deliveries are currently running at a
pace to be under 23,000 AF in FY 2014-2015. This is an anticipated overall drop of 52% in
just a little over a decade;
- VCMWD has not just met, it has actually exceeded its 20% x 2020 conservation goal
enacted in the 2009 water policy legislative package, and
• Since the SWRCB enacted its mandatory requirements in August of 2014, VCMWD's
Domestic gpcd has dropped 66%, from 288 gpcd in September, 2014 to 102 gpcd in
March, 2015.
VCMWD is confident that its recent conservation efforts and results, not to mention its proven
record of conservation, will match up well with any other community in the state. However, the
Proposed Framework will punish our domestic and agricultural customers with the highest level
of mandatory reduction, 35%.
Recommendation: Amend the current framework to take into consideration the longer view of
a water agency's conservation efforts and results prior to imposing a devastating level of
mandatory reduction on a primarily agricultural community.
Response the SWRCB's Questions
At this point we will attempt to address the questions posed in your April 7, 2015 Framework
document.
1. Are There Other Approaches to Achieving a 25% Statewide Reduction
?
and
2. How should the regulation differentiate between tiers of high, medium and low per
capita users?
In examining the current approach, suggestions for a different approach will be evident and
recommended.
Location, Location, Location
A major operative assumption in the Proposed Framework is that relativegpcd for September,
2014, was solely a reflection of comparative prior conservation efforts and those communities
with lower gpcd had been the "good stewards" and those with higher gpcd were irresponsibly
using water.
While the September 2014 number may have partially reflected efforts to reduce water use,
these numbers also reflect:
Variations in Community Character - High density urban versus suburban/rural
residential; multi-family dwelling versus large lot single family dwellings;
Climate - North Coastal versus Southern Inland, etc.; and
Early Supply Limitations - Some communities relying on limited or even one single
supply had to reduce water usage early because of actual supply limitations. In
contrast, some regions and communities having invested in conservation, developing
multiple import supplies - (SWP and Colorado River Aqueduct), alternative/local supply
development (seawater and brackish groundwater desalination and recycling), did not
face actual supply limitations.
Though maybe not intended, the overall SWRCB approach seems to say that only those living in
high rise apartments, on California's North Coast and relying on a single or limited number of
water sources are the only truly good stewards of water.
Surely this was not the intent of the SWRCB to communicate these value statements through
the proposed regulatory framework.
Recommendation: Any mechanism to allocate differential reduction requirements must factor
out the inherent variations associated with the fact that all communities are constructed
differently and have different weather characteristics which result in inherently different water
demands, irrespective of conservation efforts.
Regulating by Looking in the Rearview IVIirror
The April 7, 2015 Notice for the Proposed Framework states that it is "reasonable" to use the
September 2014 domestic gpcd to place the water suppliers into reduction categories because
the relative number then reflects that the areas with lower numbers have "achieve(d) greater
reductions."
It would be, in our view, more reasonable, equitable and perhaps legally sound to use the
February, 2015 numbers because:
• The effective date of the SWRCB mandatory use provisions was July 28, 2014, and water
agencies were given 30 days to implement drought plans with mandatory provisions while
the Governor maintained his request for a 20% voluntary reduction.
• The Proposed Framework uses those September 2014 conservation results as the basis to
impose a 35% mandatory use reduction on all water use, domestic, commercial and
agricultural, in the VCMWD service area.
• Those being regulated should be advised in advance of the specific regulation being
promulgated for achieving a specific prospective standard and then given a reasonable
transitional period, or future target date, by which to achieve compliance prior to
regulatory sanctions being imposed. What we are now being handed is a mandatory
regulatory requirement with an unreasonably short compliance time frame which is based
on prior performance under a voluntary regime, without prior notice that that voluntary
performance would later be used as the basis for a mandatory regulatory framework and
possible fines and sanctions.
Recommendation: If the basic framework is to be used, then all water agencies should be:
• Given advance notice of the need to reduce water usage by 25% against usage in 2013 on
a mandatory basis;
• Should be given a reasonable period of time (90 to 120 days) to implement the
mechanisms necessary to achieve the mandatory level of reduction; and
• If the agencies do not achieve the 25% level in a reasonable period of time the SWRCB
would be well grounded, at that point, in imposing higher levels of water use reduction.
Short of implementing these structural changes to the Proposed Framework, then the February
2015 gpcd data should be used to place water agencies in the reduction categories, since
February 2015 gpcd results actually reflect water and conservation efforts implemented after
the SWRCB imposed its first mandatory regulations in late July, 2014. As explained above, using
the September 2014 gpcd is inappropriate as those results came less than one month after the
SWRCB mandatory regulations were in force, while the Governor was still calling for 20%
voluntary conservation. The September 2014 data is likely more reflective of regional
variations in water use characteristics than the results of prior conservation efforts.
3. Should water suppliers disclose their list of actions to achieve the required water
reductions?
4. Should these actions detail specific plans for potable water use reductions In the
commercial. Industrial, and Institutional (Cll) sectors?
5. Should additional information be require in the monthly conservation reports for urban
suppliers to demonstrate progress toward achieving required water reductions
Recommendation: All the information identified in questions 3, 4 and 5, above, is a matter of
public record and should be readily disclosed to anyone or any agency so requesting. Ifthe data
requested and frequency of reporting is germane and will be used in a meaningful way to make
both a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of a water agencies efforts to meet the
Governor's directives and the SWRCB regulations, then this information being requested and
provided is certainly reasonable.
6. How and when should compliance with required water reductions be assessed?
Recommendation:
Short-term Compliance: Compliance with the mandatory use prohibitions can be assessed in
short-term as long as the SWRCB considers the legal processes imposed on local water agency
actions. Unless the Governor and SWRCB can exempt water agencies from CEQA, Proposition
218 and Proposition 26, the processes and timeframes associated with these laws and
constitutional provisions will impact response at the local level.
Mid and Long-term Compliance: In terms of achieving water use reductions, regulating water
use by persons, businesses and farms is not the same as issuing and monitoring compliance
with a NPDES or WDR to a water or wastewater agency. Unless the SWRCB wants to turn the
local water agency into a regulatory extension of the state and clog council chambers, board
rooms and courts with appeal hearings and lawsuits, dramatic reductions in water use can only
be successfully achieved with the public's awareness and cooperation after the process of
education and attitude changes.
The SWRCB should also be mindful that most water agencies are governed by elected city
councilman and water board members who are sensitive to the needs of the public they were
elected to serve. If, in enacting the SWRCB mandates, the regulations and/or the
implementation timeframes are perceived by the public as unreasonable and, as in VCMWD's
case, punitive, the locally elected officials will lose the support of the community and the ability
not only to impose use reductions but to effectively manage their respective water agencies.
As such, in evaluating the response to the requirement to reduce water use by significant
amounts, the SWRCB is advised not to look at water use on a month to month basis, but assess
comparative water use over 3, 6, 9 months or even a year. This was what was done by MWD
and the SDCWA in the drought/regulatory related mandatory water use reductions in 19901991 and then again in 2009-2011.
Finally, as long as we have any outdoor domestic, commercial, institutional or agricultural use,
requiring month to month comparisons completely ignores the wide year to year temperature
and precipitation variations experienced in California.
7. What enforcement response should be considered if water suppliers fail to achieve their
required water use reductions?
Recommendation: Ultimately, within the context of California's regulatory structure, fines
should be imposed for non-compliance. Also, however, prior to assessing fines and sanctions
there must be flexibility to evaluate extenuating circumstances as well as a water agency's
progress and overall good faith effort to achieve compliance. In the case of the inability to
demonstrate a good faith effort, or in the extreme, willful disobedience and negligence on the
part of the water agency, then certainly the imposition of fines, sanctions or exactions would be
appropriate.
Hopefully our input will be evaluated and incorporated into the regulatory framework which
moves forward. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please feel
free to contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely;
Gary Arant
General Manager