6-10 Baryohay Davidoff.pdf

www2.bren.ucsb.edu

6-10 Baryohay Davidoff.pdf

Efficient Use of WaterThrough Financial Incentive ProgramsDepartment Of Water ResourcesBaryohay Davidoff


California’s s Future PopulationProjected Population Growth in CaliforniaCalifornia Department of Finance: 19987060Millions of People504030201034.7 Million(RAND Est.)M45.5 Million(RAND Est.)54.8 Million(StateDemographerEst.)01990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040Calendar Year


600,000 people and over 200,000 homes per yearImpacts housing, education, transportation, energy, environment, water


Disposition of Average AnnualWater Supply 1990Environmental24 MAF 28%IrrigatedAgriculture24 MAF 28%Urban6 MAF 7%Other Outflow36% 30 MAFOther Uses1 MAF 1%


CA Water Demand(developed water)20%Environmental3%Urban77%Agriculture


Water Use Efficiency Works• The California Water Plan: by 2030:• Urban 1.1 - 3.1 MAF/Y• Agricultural 0.5 - 0.8 MAF/Y• Recycling 0.8- 1.4 MAF/Y


Water Use EfficiencyFinancial Incentive Program:Loan ProgramGrant Program


Agricultural Water ConservationLoan Program• Applicant: Public agencies and incorporated mutual watercompaniesProjects: Agricultural capital outlay measures to increase watersavings and improve water use efficiencyFunding: Up to $5 million per eligible projectDue Date: continuousTotal Program Funds: $35 million for agricultural projectsTotal Funds Available: $15 million


Water Use Efficiency Grants• $12 million in 2001• $10 million in 2002• $18 million in 2003• $28 million in 2005• $35 million in 2007• $30 million in 2008• Prop 50 $50 million each year for Desalinationover the next 2 years


• Benefits:Proposition 50 WUE GrantProgram Goals– Water Savings– In-Stream Flow & Timing– Water Quality Improvements– Energy Efficiency– Other Benefits


Selection and Funding Process• PSP criteria– Minimum score of 70– Ag & Urban• 50% of total funds• 25% R&D & 75% implementation– Locally cost effective- 10% of funds– Cost share based on State & local benefits– Cost share required for Implementation projects;encouraged for section R&D• Waived for disadvantaged communities


WUEGrantFunding2001 (SB23)General2001(Prop 13)Feas.Study2002(Prop 13)2003(Prop.13)Proposalsreceived1164021060Total $requested$ 85 million$ 8.9 million$ 117 million$39 millionProjectsselectedAg: 2353Ag: 51229Ag: 8 (FS)25Urban: 30Urban: 7Urban: 21Urban: 25Total $dispersed$ 11.8 million$ 1.1 million$ 9.8 million$18 millionTotal AgTotalUrbanAg: $5,923,744Urban: $5,883,250Ag: $499,930Urban: $682,911Ag: $719,000Urban: $8,503,956Urban:$18 million


Est. AnnualProgram# ProjectsTypeWater Savings *2001(SB23)2323AgUrban14,8005,7002002(Prop 13)821AgUrban38,8007,1002003(Prop 13)25Urban13,200Subtotal10079,600* Real and applied water savings


Statistics- fundingCategory Available RecommendedAgricultural Imp. $12,671,249 $ 7,013,849Agricultural R&D $4,223,749 $ 4,223,942subtotal $16,894,998 $11,237,791Urban Section Imp. $12,671,249 $12,671,249Urban Section R&D $4,223,749 $ 4,223,942subtotal $16,894,998 $16,895,191Total $33,789,996 $28,132,982Local Match:Ag: $5.2 millionUrban: $16.9 million


2005 Prop 50 Ag GrantsResource Assistance (InfoDirectory/Demo/ MobileLab/Workshop)13%Canal Lining7%Feasibility Study(Reservoir/IrrigationImprovements)17%Canal SystemImprovements19%Irrigation Technology Study7%Irrigation ManagmentStudy17%Flow Monitoring10%Irrigation Water Re-Use10%30 Projects


Prop 50 2005 Urban GrantsConservation Research(Residential/Commercial)17%Landscape IrrigationImprovement13%Meter Installation8%Resource Assistance(Education/Awareness/Demo Garden)37%Retrofit or Rebate(Residential/Commercial)25%48 Projects


Definition ofLocal Cost-effectivenessLocal Annual Monetary Benefits> annual costs Locally cost-effectiveLocal Annual Monetary Benefits< annual costs Not locally cost-effectiveLocal benefits are avoided cost of water supply, water treatment, labor, etc.


2005 Prop 50 Funding Summary• Ag Implementation:– State share $ 7,513,849– Applicants’ share $18,200,981• Urban Implementation:– State share $12,671,249– Applicants’ share $15,137,800


Prop 50 PreviouslyAg Funded ProjectsAg Implementation Funded (11)Spill and TailwaterRecovery System(1)Automate CanalStructure (2)Evaluate andImprove WaterEfficiency (2)Canal LiningSpill and TailwaterRecovery SystemAutomate CanalStructureCanal Lining (6)Evalaute andImprove WaterEfficiency


Prop 50 PreviouslyUrban Funded Projects(by category)Urban A Funded (25)Residential PlumbingRetrofit/RebatesMetering (4)System Audits (1)Residential PlumbingRetrofit/Rebates (8)Commercial, Industrial,InstitutionalConservationLarge LandscapeConservationMeteringLarge LandscapeConservation (8)Commercial, Industrial,InstitutionalConservation (4)System Audits


Examples of ag and urban funded projects


Deer Creek Irrigation District• State Benefit: DIRECT.• Reduce recoverable loss anddecrease diversions from DeerCreek during Salmon migration(TB and QO)• Local Benefits: structuralimprovements, flexibility• SUMMARY• replace and automate canal diversion gates, install canal “Y”structure and SCADA to improve system efficiency•MONITORING: Pre and post project monitoring•ANTICIPATED RECOVERABLE FLOW: 700 AF/YFUNDING State: $453,000Local Agency: 0


Modesto Irrigation District• State Benefit: DIRECT. Reducediversion from Tuolumne; water qualityimprovement in the Tuolumne,Stanislaus, and SJR (TB and QO)• Local Benefits: water supply reliability,flexibility• SUMMARY• existing ditch and pipeline replacement with plastic pipe•MONITORING: Pre and post project monitoring•ANTICIPATED RECOVERABLE FLOW: 1000 af/yFUNDING State: $500,000Local : 529,000


Lost Hills Water DistrictAgricultural ~ Canal lining• State Benefit: INDIRECT-reduceirrecoverable loss, potential forless diversion• Local Benefit: reduceirrecoverable losses, watersupply reliability, drainagereduction• SUMMARY• Concrete lining of irrigation canals.• Benefits of reduction in drainage and maintenance costs.•MONITORING: Pre and post project monitoring•ANTICIPATED WATER SAVINGS350 AF/Y and 210 AF/Y drainage reduced from the two projects.• FUNDING State: $245,000 and $559,140Local : $ 61,440 and $186,380


City of SacramentoPark Irrigation Infrastructure Improvements• State Benefit: DIRECT- reduce recoverable/irrecoverable losses andimprove water quality• Local Benefits: flexibility, water management, costs• Summary:– Repair irrigation systems in 10 parks• Monitoring:– Pre-project water consumption– Water meter measurement of post project consumption• Anticipated savings: 176 AF/Y• Funding:– State: $754,000– Local: $135,000


Contra Costa Water DistrictULFT and Urinal Replacement• State Benefit: DIRECT- reduceirrecoverable loss• Local Benefits: water supplyreliability• SUMMARY:– single-family and multi-family andcommercial customers• MONITORING: Baseline data (fixtures/ waterconsumption), customer satisfaction, actualconsumption data• ANTICIPATED WATER SAVINGS:136 AF/Yyear• FUNDING State: $647,446Local: $647,446


Res. High Efficiency Clothes WasherRebate• State Benefits: DIRECT/INDIRECTreduceirrecoverable and recoverablelosses• Local Benefits: water supplyreliability• Summary;• MWD– $1.6 M– $2.0 M• Electric and Gas IndustriesAssociation– 25,000 clothe washers– State :$1.5 M– Local:$2.1 M• Anticipated benefits: 7,204 gallonsper clothes washer/year• Monitoring– Rebate activity– Customer satisfaction– Rebate/waterconsumptionevaluation


City of Los AngelesLarge Landscape Smart Irrigation Program• CALFED Benefit: INDIRECTreduceirrecoverable andrecoverable losses• Local Benefits: water supplyreliability• Summary: Install 150 weathersensitivecontrollers on largelandscapes• Anticipated savings: 75 AF/Yand 50% runoff reduction• Funding:– State: $183,500– Local: $187,500• Monitoring– Historical consumption– Post Inst. consumption– Site evaluation– Customer satisfaction


Prop 50 2007 Concept ProposalsCategoryConceptProposalsIneligibleProposalsInvitedBackAvailableFunding$MInvitedStateShare $MInvitedLocalShare $MUrbanSection A(Implementation)69426$12.8$24.8$40.6UrbanSection B68532$2.2$4.5$5.7(R&D)Agriculture SectionA(Implementation)26119$18.1$20.8$16.9Agriculture SectionB (R&D)53127$2.2$3.8$0.95Total21611104$35.3$53.9$64.1


Concept Proposals Invited Backby RegionStatewideUnknown Region 4Region 9Region 8Region 5SacramentoRegion 6VRegion 7


Concept Proposals Invited Backby TypeTechnical AssistanceR&DOutreachFeasibilitySection A-Implementation


SHOW ME THE MONEY !! ForWater Use Efficiency


Proposition 50 Chapter 7• Section 79550(g)-$180 Million for expenditures and grantsfor urban and agricultural waterconservation, recycling, and other wateruse efficiency projects.


Issues• Funding: less than expected– CALFED Record of Decision that called for aninvestment of $1.5 billion to $2 billion from2000-2007.• Measuring “benefits”– Effectiveness study: what are real savings?Where does the water go?– Monitoring projects


Issues• Are we getting what we need?– Target grant efforts to “Gaps”– Update TB’s– Balancing opportunities vs. specific goals– Participation• Education and Outreach• Proactive Project Development• Project environmental consequences– Careful/detailed application review


CALFED WUE Incentive-BasedProgram• Investments will be made in the most cost effective WUEmeasures first.• Requirements will be made for performance andaccountability• CALFED agency pays towards primarily capitalization, localpays for O&M• Cost effective projects must be implemented at the locallevel (AB 3616 and Urban MOU compliance)• CALFED agency pays towards projects that are not locallycost effective, but are cost effective from statewideperspective• Cost share must be according to local and statewidebenefits• Agency supports disadvantaged communities actions


Proposition 50 Chapter 7• Section 79550(g)- $180 Million forexpenditures and grants for urban andagricultural water conservation other wateruse efficiency projects ($120 M) andrecycling ($60 M).• Section 75552. Projects shall beconsistent with the CALFED ProgrammaticROD.


Water Use EfficiencyPriority Projects: Benefits1. Water Savings2. Flow & Timing3. Water Quality Improvements4. Energy Savings5. Other Benefits


Statistics- applications• Applications accepted: 168– Agriculture: 62– Urban: 106• Recommended for funding: 72– Agriculture: 27– Urban: 45


Prop 50 Grant Fund Requirementswere:• Project must result in Bay-Delta direct orindirect benefit• Project must be cost effective from Statewideperspective.• Projects with multiple benefits wereencouraged.• Cost share was based on the balance of theBay-Delta and local benefits• The greater the value of Bay-Delta benefits, the greaterState share


Bay-Delta System Direct or IndirectBenefits• Direct benefits are project outcomes that contribute toa CALFED Water Use Efficiency objective within theBay-Delta system.– contributes toward a stated Quantifiable Objective for in-streamflow and timing.• Indirect benefits are project outcomes that help toreduce dependency on the Bay-Delta related systemor improve a region’s water supply reliability.– an agency can delay the need for additional deliveries from theBay-Delta system.


DWR’s WUE Grant ProgramTo view previous applications, fundedprojects, and funding summary visit:http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/finance/index.cfm

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines