sustaining our water future - food & water watch€¦ · water conservation program from 1990...

By James FryerSponsored by Food & Water Watch

A Review of the Marin Municipal Water District’s Alternatives to Improve Water Supply Reliability

Sustaining Our Water Future

About Food & Water WatchFood & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. We challenge the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and by transforming the public consciousness about what we eat and drink. Food & Water Watch works with grassroots organizations around the world to create an economically and environmentally viable future. Through research, public and policymaker educa-tion, media and lobbying, we advocate policies that guarantee safe, wholesome food produced in a humane and sustain-able manner, and public, rather than private, control of water resources including oceans, rivers and groundwater.

Food & Water WatchMain Office1616 P St. NW, Suite 300Washington, DC 20036tel: (202) 683-2500fax: (202) [email protected]

Copyright © June 2009 by Food & Water Watch. All rights reserved. This report can be viewed or downloaded at www.foodandwaterwatch.org.

California Office25 Stillman Street, Suite 200San Francisco, CA 94107tel: (415) 293-9900fax: (415) [email protected]

On the Cover

About the AuthorJames Fryer is a water management and conservation professional with over 20 years experience with freshwater, es-tuarine, and marine conservation policies, programs, and projects. He was the head of Marin Municipal Water District’s water conservation program from 1990 to 1999. He served as the program manager for The Nature Conservancy’s Indian River Lagoon Program in Florida, where he also represented the organization on the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program Advisory Council. He was the director of the Florida Keys Program, where he also served on the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. In 1997, he served on the U.S./South Africa Bilateral Commission sent to South Africa for watershed and water resources planning assistance. In 1996 he served as an advisor to the British Columbia Water and Wastewater Association for development of a regional planning effort. He has a M.S. in Environmental Management from the University of San Francisco where his Master’s Thesis was developing an Integrated Floodplain Management model for the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed.

Photo of Bon Tempe Lake in view of Mount Tamalpais by Franco Folini.

Sustaining Our Water FutureA Review of the Marin Municipal Water District’s Alternatives to Improve Water Supply Reliability

Table of Contents iv Letter from Food & Water Watch

v Abbreviations, Acronyms and Definitions

vi Executive Summary, Recommendations and Conclusions

1 MMWD Service Area, Consumption and Production History

3 Water Supply Yield and Customer Response to Water Shortages

10 MMWD Customer Opinion Surveys

14 Russian River Water

16 MMWD’s Proposed Desalination Project

21 Water Conservation and Supply Improvements

21 The California Urban Water Conservation Council and the Best Management Practices

23 Development and Implementation of MMWD’s Water Conservation Programs

28 Conservation Rate Structures

30 Landscape Irrigation

35 Toilets and Urinals

37 Clothes Washers

38 Distribution System Unaccounted Losses and Leaks

39 Reservoir Operation Improvements

42 Recycled Water

44 Potential Additional Water Management Improvements

44 Urban Area Rain Harvesting, Cisterns and Graywater

46 Groundwater

49 Appendix: MMWD Rainfall Graph

50 Endnotes

iv Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

Letter from Food & Water Watch

In February 2009, Food & Water Watch released a report on desalination entitled Ocean of Problems, in which we outlined the growing threat of desalination to consumers and our coastal environments. Throughout California more than 20 facilities are being considered and other states from New York to Florida are moving in the same direction. As desalination is expensive, polluting, energy-intensive and in most cases unnecessary, it should be the water supply option of last resort.

This report provides specific water solutions that are locally based, cost-effective and environmentally sound. While this report is about Marin County, our hope is that the smart water solutions it recommends will provide a roadmap for other communities in California and beyond — that it will provide a framework for thinking about water and our natural environment that stands in contrast to costly industrial projects like desalination.

Similar to other proposed desalination facilities, the Marin Municipal Water District’s (MMWD) proposed facility is unnecessary, energy intensive, expensive and could further degrade the San Francisco Bay. This report offers smart water solutions that include replacing inefficient fixtures, improving landscape irrigation, plugging system leaks and enhancing reservoir operation. These efficiency and waste prevention measures would continue to provide Marin County with a reliable water supply.

We are proud to be working with Marin citizens, elected officials, community-based organizations and environmental groups to advance these measures and oppose desalination. While we were disappointed that the environmental review of the desalination plant downplayed the potential for conservation and the adverse effects on the environment, we look forward to working with MMWD staff and board members who share our goals of finding solutions that are in the public interest.

There is no doubt that in the coming years, especially in the West, water scarcity will be an increasingly significant issue. We must work collectively to address this problem by first preventing waste and promoting efficiency, not expensive and energy intensive projects that will ultimately cost consumers and the environment.

Sincerely,

Wenonah Hauter Executive Director

Food & Water Watch

vFood & Water Watch

Abbreviations, Acronyms & DefinitionsAcre-foot: 325,851 gallons, or enough water to cover an acre to a depth of one foot

Afy: Acre-Feet per Year

Billing Baseline: The baseline serves as the trigger point for the tiers in the tier rate structure. For non-residential customers, MMWD assigns a water entitlement that is the maximum amount of water use allowable at the site, a wa-ter budget that is intended to reflect present water need at the site, and a bimonthly baseline that is the water budget divided into six bimonthly billing periods. The water budget and baseline cannot exceed the annual entitlement, but may be less to reflect present use at the site. Customers can allocate their baseline to the bimonthly billing periods to reflect water use needs at the site. For example, a site with landscape irrigation as the primary water use will allocate more of their baseline to the summer months to reflect increased water use during the summer.

BMPs: Best Management Practices, in the context of this report the water conservation BMPs associated with the California Urban Water Conservation Council.

CALFED: A collaboration of California and federal agen-cies involved in San Francisco Bay-Delta water manage-ment and environmental issues.

CCF: One hundred cubic feet of water, or 748 gallons, and the MMWD standard billing unit for water use.

CUWCC: California Urban Water Conservation Coun-cil, the organization established by a water conservation Memorandum of Understanding to provide support and record the progress of water agencies implementing water conservation best management practices.

Demand Elasticity: In the context of this report, the amount customers vary their water use based on various influences such as the public perception of drought condi-tions and water supply shortage.

EIR: Environmental impact report as required by the Cali-fornia Environmental Quality Act.

ET: Evapotranspiration

ETo: Reference Evapotranspiration, the amount of water in a given climate zone required by turf grass growing in full sun and wind conditions.

ETo Controllers: Irrigation system automatic controllers that utilize local evapotranspiration information to adjust irrigation system run times to provide the amount of water needed by the landscape.

Evapotranspiration: Water lost to the atmosphere by evaporation from the soil and from transpiration from plants growing in the soil. This is the amount of water an irrigation system is designed to replace, but in practice irrigation systems often apply much more water than the evapotranspiration replacement need.

GIS: Geographic Information System, a computer da-tabase, software and analytical technique for cataloging and analyzing natural features and systems and facilities such as water agency pipelines. GIS capability was largely developed and came into widespread use during the least couple of decades and dramatically improved the ability to conduct complex analyses on natural systems and manage-ment options.

Marginal Cost: The cost of producing one more unit of a good, or in this report the cost of producing or saving an acre-foot of water. The marginal cost provides a mechanism to compare the cost of different water conservation and supply options on a realistic cost comparison basis.

MMWD: Marin Municipal Water District

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding. In the context of this report, the agreement that created the California Urban Water Council and the water conservation best manage-ment practices.

Natural Replacement Rate: In the context of this report, the rate that water use fixtures and appliances are replaced by customers due to malfunction, or as part of remodeling projects or upgrades.

NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service

NMWD: North Marin Water District

Plant Water Use Factors: The percentage of reference evapotranspiration needed by a specific plant or group of plants with similar water needs. The University of Califor-nia Cooperative Extension has developed an extensive list of plants in their Water Use Classification of Landscape Species and groups then in the following categories:

High 70 - 90 percent of ETo (includes turf grass and other high water use plants)

Moderate 40 - 60 percent of ETo

Low 10 - 30 percent of ETo

Very Low Less than 10 percent of ETo (includes plants that need little or no irrigation in normal rainfall years)

Price Elasticity: In the context of this report, the change in water use resulting from a change in price. A significant price increase results in a decrease in use.

SCWA: Sonoma County Water Agency

vi Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

Executive SummaryThe Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) is developing a new program to improve water supply reliability. MMWD staff has identified a theoretical water supply deficit of 6,700 afy by the year 2025. A range of alternatives are being considered to address the projected supply deficit. The alternatives include increased water conservation, im-proved reservoir management, increased water recycling, importing additional Russian River water and constructing a desalination facility.

The Need for New SupplyMMWD estimates the existing water supply deficit is about 10 percent, or about 3,300 afy. This is the difference be-tween the existing operational yield of 28,400 afy and “normal” year demand of 31,700 afy. MMWD projects the water supply deficit in the year 2025 as 6,700 afy.

MMWD identified existing deficit 3,300 afyMMWD projected deficit increase from new growth 3,400 afyMMWD total projected deficit in 2025 6,700 afy

However, by assuming normal year demand equates to just the occasional highest years of careless and wasteful water use that typically occur after a series of very wet years, modified with a modest amount of long-term conservation, MMWD overestimates demand. According to MMWD records, total water production from 1993 to 2008, years with no rationing to restrict water use, averaged 29,943 afy. Total water production during the last four calendar years (2005-08), with no rationing in place, averaged 29,718 afy. This is well below the normal year demand of 31,700 afy indicated by MMWD.

Existing average year demand 29,700 afyExisting operational yield 28,400 afyExisting supply deficit 1,300 afy

The existing supply deficit is about 1,300 afy, which is about 2,000 afy less than indicated in MMWD public infor-mation materials. If we accept the assumption that in the absence of serious new water conservation programs, new growth in the service area through 2025 will increase demand another 3,400 afy, the result is a supply deficit of 4,700 afy.

Existing supply deficit 1,300 afyProjected deficit increase from new growth 3,400 afyTotal projected deficit in 2025 4,700 afy

MMWD Proposed Solution As noted, MMWD has projected a supply deficit of 6,700 afy in the year 2025. MMWD proposes at least 3,400 afy in new water conservation with the 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan. MMWD proposes providing an additional 3,300 afy with new supply projects such as desalination or other supply improvements.

However, whether one accepts the recent average year demand of 29,700 afy or MMWD’s suggested normal year demand of 31,700 afy as the basis of supply planning, a package of six options to improve local water management and increase conservation recommended in this report can provide a cost-effective and environmentally friendly solution to providing long-term supply reliability.

MMWD Customer Opinion SurveysTo help shape the water reliability planning effort, MMWD has conducted numerous random public opinion surveys designed to reflect general customer opinions and attitudes regarding water supply and water conservation issues. Over the last two decades, these surveys have found consistent and widespread support for water conservation. Fur-thermore, the surveys also found a strong and consistent preference for water conservation as the best approach for improving water supply reliability. Respondents generally voiced twice the support for water conservation compared

viiFood & Water Watch

to either desalination or importing more Russian River water. Residents also indicated the District should be operated in the most environmentally sensitive manner possible. These opinion surveys are consistent with recent public input to MMWD provided as part of the current water supply planning process.

Russian River Water MMWD began importing a modest amount of water from the Russian River in the 1970s. But voters and public inter-est groups opposed projects providing large increases in water supply. Despite MMWD Board support for an expanded pipeline project, in 1971 MMWD voters rejected by a nine-to-one margin a $20 million bond measure that would have provided up to 42,000 afy of water from the new Warm Springs Dam project in the Russian River watershed.

In 1991, during a series of drought years, MMWD voters defeated Measure W, an $80 million bond measure to con-struct an enlarged pipeline for increasing Russian River water imports. However, Measure V, a $37.5 million bond measure to fund a five-phase plan, was adopted by voters in 1992. The five-phase plan was based on increased water conservation and recycling first, and facility improvements for increased Russian River supply only on an as-needed basis. As part of an agreement with local community organizations for support of Measure V, a new and ongoing citizens advisory committee was formed. The new committee was to provide input and guidance to MMWD on the development of new water conservation programs and help define when as-needed trigger points were reached that would require phasing in of new Russian River facilities and supply.

Although MMWD now has contracts with the Sonoma County Water Agency for increased deliveries of Russian River water, the actual delivery of additional water is seriously constrained. This includes limited pipeline and facilities ca-pacity since some of the facilities considered with Measure V were never constructed. But a more important constraint is now the unresolved environmental problems on the Russian River, and the Eel River diversions into the Russian River. Resolution of the environmental problems and improved environmental health for both rivers should occur before considering importation of additional water from the Russian River.

MMWD’s Proposed Desalination ProjectAn Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a potential 5 million gallons per day (MGD) to 15 MGD desalination facil-ity was certified on February 4, 2009. The EIR identifies increased water conservation as the most environmentally beneficial alternative. But the EIR also concludes that water conservation and all the other alternatives being consid-ered as stand alone programs will not provide sufficient water supply reliability during drought of record conditions. The EIR does not examine packages of conservation-oriented alternatives that in combination could provide adequate water supply reliability in addition to being more environmentally, financially, and politically acceptable.

The proposal for a desalination facility in Marin is very controversial, with residents voicing opposition based on questions over the real need, the high cost, concerns about water quality, and the associated energy use and negative environmental impacts. The proposed 5 MGD to 15 MGD expandable facility would increase the available water sup-ply from 19.3 percent to 500 percent depending on operation scheme, compared to an existing, but overestimated, 10 percent supply deficit identified in District planning documents. Average annual MMWD energy use would increase from 43.4 percent to 124.3 percent, and annual use could peak as high as a 295.8 percent increase with a 15 MGD facility run at full capacity.

Under the MMWD proposed operational scheme, the marginal cost of desalination ranges from about $3,600 to $4,400 per acre-foot for a 5 MGD facility and $2,900 to $3,540 per acre-foot for a 10 MGD facility. Due to the higher capital and operational cost, and not including future escalating operational cost, a 10 MGD facility will increase MMWD overall revenue need about 23 percent and a 5 MGD facility will increase overall revenue need about 14 per-cent.

Water ConservationMMWD underestimates the potential for increasing cost-effective water conservation. During the last decade, MMWD fell well behind the conservation goals in their 1994 conservation master plan and the implementation schedule for some key water conservation best management practices. MMWD also fell behind more conservation oriented water agencies in California.

viii Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

MMWD’s 2007 conservation master plan uses a flawed marginal cost comparison of $1,631 per acre-foot to screen conservation measures rather than the $2,900 - $4,400 per acre-foot desalination is projected to cost. The plan re-duces the goals of some core conservation programs from even the modest rate achieved in recent years. As a result, many opportunities exist for increased water conservation and improved water management.

Recommended SolutionBased on a review of MMWD and water industry documents and records, interviews of MMWD and other water agency staff and water experts, and analysis of a range of options, this report recommends the following package.

Reduce landscape irrigation waste and excessive use 4,000 afyReduce distribution system leaks at least 4 percent from present level 1,200 afyProvide improvements in reservoir operation 1,000 afyIncrease efficient toilet and urinal retrofits to 90 percent 1,000 afyIncrease efficient clothes washer retrofits to 75 percent 500 afyIncrease water recycling 250 afy 7,950 afy

Measures with future potential but which need further development:

Develop Additional Groundwater 500 to 1,000+ afy Urban Area Rain Harvesting, Cisterns and Graywater 500 to 1,000+ afy

Note that the package of six options will improve system yield and reduce demand. The package provides a combined benefit of 7,950 afy. This is 1,250 afy more than the 6,700 afy MMWD indicates is needed. It is 3,250 afy more than the actual existing and projected supply deficit in 2025. This provides a substantial contingency if any of the measures underperform.

It is also worth noting that many additional conservation measures exist in addition to this list which are sensible and cost-effective for MMWD to implement. These include swimming pool and spa conservation, improved cooling tower efficiency, improved dishwashing machine technology, etc. The conservation items above are really just the measures with the largest individual savings and additional measures would provide additional cost-effective savings. Also, two potential future measures noted above may provide an additional 1,000 to 2,000+ afy of future supply and water sav-ings benefits.

Each option in the recommended package is more thor-oughly discussed in subsequent sections of this report.

Marginal Cost ComparisonTable ES-1 at right provides a marginal cost comparison of the various alternatives evaluated in this report.

Note that many of the recommended measures for conser-vation and water management improvements are under $500 an acre-foot. All of the measures, including the low landscape cost estimate, are no more than $1,000 per acre-foot. The high landscape cost estimate, for a highly sophisticated program which could include incentives for graywater systems and rain gardens, which would provide flood management and stormwater quality benefits to the community, is no more than $2,000 per acre-foot. This compares to a cost estimate range of $2,900 to $4,400 per acre-foot for desalination. Since the low cost estimate for

Table ES-1: Marginal Cost Comparison

Dol

lars

per

Acr

e-Fo

ot

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

5 M

GD

Des

al -

Hig

h5

MG

D D

esal

- Lo

w

10 M

GD

Des

al -

Hig

hG

rayw

ater

- H

igh

10 M

GD

Des

al -

Low

Gra

ywat

er -

Low

Land

scap

e - H

igh

Land

scap

e - L

owTo

ilets

- Re

stau

rant

Toile

ts -

SFR

Clot

hes

Was

hers

Dis

t. Sy

s. Le

aks

Toile

ts -

MFR

ETo

Cont

rolle

rs

Recommended options

Potential future options

Desalination

ixFood & Water Watch

desalination does not include a construction market contingency or annual cost escalation, the final desalination cost is likely to be in the high end of the range.

Recent public information presentations by MMWD indicate that the conservation programs would require a substan-tial additional customer investment of $77 million and that this may make them more costly compared to desalina-tion. This is misleading. The combined utility and customer marginal cost of all the proposed conservation programs in the MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan is $1,111 per acre-foot.

More importantly, the financial incentives for the conservation measures are designed primarily to persuade custom-ers to make a more efficient choice when replacing or servicing their water using features and fixtures. In most cases, the customers will be faced with these replacement costs regardless of the conservation incentive program or desalina-tion project. If customers utilize the conservation incentive programs (which are much less costly than a desalination project) and make more efficient choices for their projects, they will avoid the cost of a desalination project on top of the cost of their individual projects. They will also own upgraded assets for their homes and businesses and enjoy long-term cost savings. By all well accepted economic measures, the conservation programs are much less costly from the perspective of the individual customers, the water agency, and the community perspective.

Additional Key Recommendations1. Reestablish a citizens advisory committee with knowledgeable membership that meets regularly to support water con-servation program development and implementation and provide oversight of water supply reliability improvements.

2. Reevaluate the acceptable depth and frequency of rationing with a reestablished citizens advisory committee.

3. Develop a comprehensive, coherent water conservation master plan based on desalination marginal costs as the measurement point for cost-effective water conservation programs.

4. Conduct a comprehensive urban landscape analysis using GIS and on-site surveys to determine the state of existing landscape water use and shape a new landscape water conservation program.

5. Conduct a comprehensive district-wide groundwater study that also evaluates the integration of cisterns, rain gar-dens, and flood management with groundwater recharge and management.

6. Conduct comprehensive reservoir reoperation study to identify optimum management schemes to increase yield in an environmentally friendly manner.

7. Consider the price elasticity impact on demand as MMWD plans present and potential future rate increases to pro-vide adequate revenue for a proposed desalination facility.

ConclusionBy assuming normal year demand equates to careless and wasteful water use after a series of very wet years, MMWD overestimates existing average year demand by 2,000 afy. With a policy to limit rationing to 25 percent of wasteful year water use in drought of record conditions, MMWD also underestimates demand elasticity and customer willing-ness to conserve during serious drought events. Well-designed, long-term water conservation programs better prepare customers to use considerably less water during future drought events.

MMWD underestimates the potential for increasing cost-effective water conservation. The 2007 water conserva-tion master plan uses a flawed cost-benefit marginal cost comparison of $1,631 per acre-foot rather than the $2,900 - $4,400 per acre-foot that desalination is expected to cost. Thus, the plan under-recognizes the cost-effectiveness of potential conservation measures. Furthermore, the plan reduces the goals of some core conservation programs from even the rate achieved in recent years.

Through numerous mechanisms, MMWD customers have voiced a strong and consistent preference for the most envi-ronmentally friendly solution to improved water supply reliability. Improved water conservation programs combined with an improved distribution system and reservoir management along with a modest increase in water recycling can provide a long-term solution to improving water supply reliability. This can be done at much lower cost compared to a desalination facility and is the most environmentally friendly solution.

The MMWD watershed and service area experiences a Mediterranean climate with mild, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Annual rainfall averages 52 inches on the watershed2 and about 30 inches on the populous eastern corridor. However, there is much variation in the annual rainfall with numerous wet and dry peri-ods in the hydrologic record. The driest year on record was 1924, with 18 inches of rain.3 MMWD recorded 22 inches of rainfall in 1976 and 25 inches in 1977, which comprises the 1976-77 drought of record.4

Water demand widely fluctuates based on wet or dry year conditions. It now averages less than 30,000 afy, but peaked at about 32,500 afy in 1970 and 1987. About two-thirds of water is used indoors, and one-third used for landscape irrigation. MMWD manages its own watershed, which accounts for the majority of its water supply. However, arrangements were made beginning in

The Marin Municipal Water District is located in the San Francisco Bay Area on the north side of the Golden Gate Bridge across from San Francisco. MMWD

serves most of the population of Marin County and is primarily composed of single-family residences, along with some multi-family, landscape, and light commercial services. Presently, the population served is about 190,000, through about 61,000 service connections. Most of the population resides in the eastern corridor that fronts San Francisco Bay. The District owns and manages a 21,250 acre watershed situated on the western slopes of Mt. Tamalpais.1

MMWD Service Area, Consumption and Production History

Table 1: Population and Consumption Trends in MMWD Service Area5

Year Population Water Production

Gallons/Capita/Day

1940 48,000 3,989 74.21950 78,000 9,207 105.41960 124,000 19,344 139.31970 168,000 32,530 172.91980 167,000 27,313 146.01987 168,000 32,837 174.51990 170,000 29,122 152.91995 176,000 28,350 143.82000 184,122 31,165 150.42004 184,818 32,478 152.62008 190,000 29,975 144.4

Photo by Alex Centrella/Stock.Xchng.

2 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

the 1970s to import some water from the Russian River. The Russian River imports now account for up to 25 per-cent of the water supply. Recycled water provides about 2.2 percent or 650 afy.

Table 1 on the previous page and Figure 1 below summa-rize population and consumption trends since 1940.

Figure 1 shows the dramatic reduction in use that occurred in the 1976-77 drought. It also shows consumption quickly rebounding after the drought, and then leveling off for sev-eral years at a level well below the pre-drought high. Then, as a series of very wet El Nino years occurred in the early

1980s, wasteful and careless use again drove consumption to a high level peak in 1986-87. Another, less severe series of drought years began with the 1987-88 rainfall season. In response, consumption again dramatically drops, and rebounds during subsequent wet years. But the rebound of the 1990s is less pronounced due to the implementation of more comprehensive and durable long-term conservation efforts compared to the 1976-77 drought.

Table 2 below provides a more detailed breakdown of consumption, production and unaccounted use since 1990. Note that in the last four years, 2005 – 2008, years with no rationing in place, total production was less than 30,000 each year.

As demonstrated in the above data sets, water use has remarkable elasticity. The elasticity is based on many factors discussed in this report, but to a large extent on the perception of available supply by water users. As dem-onstrated in Figure 1, water use is dramatically reduced when the perception of water shortage exists. Since water is a relatively low cost for most water users compared to many other necessities, water use also becomes careless and wasteful during wet years when water supplies are perceived as plentiful. Nonetheless, most water agencies in California assume demand equates to the careless and inefficient highest years of water use that typically occur during a series of wet years. This is an approach that is no longer appropriate given modern water management realities in California.

Table 2: Consumption, Production and Unaccounted Use Since 19907

Year Billed Consumption

Potable Production

Recycled (FY)

Total Production

Unbilled Use Unaccounted

1990 25,683 28,972 293 29,265 148 3,1411991 19,516 21,332 274 21,606 108 1,7081992 21,804 23,597 372 23,969 144 1,6491993 23,151 25,193 564 25,757 181 1,8611994 24,605 27,290 662 27,952 683 2,0021995 24,973 27,431 701 28,132 216 2,2421996 25,655 28,255 786 29,041 170 2,4301997 27,150 29,834 915 30,749 92 2,5921998 25,235 28,133 632 28,765 110 2,7881999 27,283 29,696 768 30,464 185 2,2282000 28,244 30,459 782 31,241 164 2,0512001 28,848 31,787 774 32,561 132 2,8082002 28,043 31,834 789 32,623 101 3,6902003 27,195 30,467 673 31,140 406 2,8662004 28,084 31,073 720 31,793 66 2,9232005 25,727 28,982 649 29,631 75 3,1802006 25,372 28,930 684 29,614 84 3,4742007 25,617 29,018 635 29,653 41 3,3602008 26,100 29,327 648 29,975 75 3,152

Figure 1: Per Capita Demand6

50

100

150

200

2005

-06

2003

-04

2001

-02

1999

-00

1997

-98

1995

-96

1993

-94

1991

-92

1989

-90

1987

-88

1985

-86

1983

-84

1981

-82

1979

-80

1977

-78

1975

-76

1973

-74

1971

-72

1969

-70

1967

-68

1965

-66

1963

-64

1961

-62

1959

-60

Gal

lons

Per

Cap

ita P

er D

ay

3Food & Water Watch

MMWD water supply planning public information ma-terials identify “normal” year demand as 31,700 afy.8 By assuming demand is the infrequently occurring highest years of production, modified with a modest amount of long-term conservation, MMWD overestimates existing demand. In 1993, the year after rationing was discon-tinued due to abundant rainfall, total production was only 25,757 acre-feet. This is a drop of over 7,000 acre-feet from the pre-drought high in 1987. The 1993 total production provides an indication how much demand elasticity is available with careful, but non-restricted water use. As shown in Table 2 above, total water produc-tion from 1993 to 2008, years with no rationing in place, averaged 29,943 afy. Furthermore, total water produc-tion during the last four years, with no rationing in place, averaged 29,718 afy. This is well below the “normal” year demand of 31,700 afy indicated on MMWD’s website and in recent presentations to the public and which is used as the basis of future demand projections.9

MMWD points to an existing supply deficit of about 3,300 afy, the difference between 31,700 afy and opera-tional yield of 28,400.10 However, since the existing aver-age year demand is about 29,700 afy, the present supply deficit is overestimated and is actually about 2,000 afy less or about 1,300 afy.

Existing average year demand: 29,700 afyExisting operational yield: 28,400 afyExisting supply deficit: 1,300 afy

Water Supply Yield and Customer Response to Water Shortages

The need for new supply depends in part on the •willingness and ability of water users to reduce use during infrequent drought events.

MMWD customers, through numerous citizen •committees and public opinion surveys, have consistently and repeatedly voiced a willingness to accept water use reductions during drought events to avoid costly new supplies and the as-sociated environmental impacts.

Comprehensive conservation programs along •with improved distribution system and reservoir management schemes, and a modest increase in recycling can reduce the frequency and level of water shortages to an acceptable level of risk.

Ongoing water conservation programs better •prepare water users to conserve additional water in future droughts.

California has a Mediterranean climate of warm, dry win-ters and cool, wet winters, but it experiences considerable variation in winter rainfall from year to year. Marin’s rainfall records document three significant drought events since 1879. A six-year drought in the 1930s, an-other six-year drought in the late 1980s through the early 1990s, and the most extreme event, the drought of record in 1976-77.11

Recurring droughts, and in particular, drought of record conditions, determine reliability of the water supply. Another key factor is the willingness and ability of water users to reduce consumption during drought conditions. Reduced water consumption during droughts extends available supplies further and reduces the need for costly new water supply only needed during infrequent drought events.

The record demonstrates that MMWD water users have the ability to dramatically reduce consumption during drought periods. Previous droughts and rationing expe-riences also provide important lessons in understand-ing customer response to these events. In the 1976-77 drought, the most severe on record, MMWD instituted a per capita rationing allotment and prohibited most landscape irrigation. Motivated by the severity of the event and the widespread press attention to the drought as a local and statewide situation, customers responded with an impressive amount of cooperation. They rapidly implemented numerous short term conservation mea-sures including use of graywater. Ultimately, customers

Photo by Arjun Kartha/Stock.Xchng.


responded to a call for an overall 57 percent reduction in use with a 62 percent reduction.12

Newspaper articles of the day and at least two books provide considerable documentation of the water plan-ning conflicts the MMWD Board faced during the 1976-77 drought.13 For years preceding the drought, anti-devel-opment advocates openly used the lack of water sup-ply as a means to inhibit new growth in Marin County, and MMWD had a moratorium on new connections. In fact, the 1971 bond measure to dramatically increase the quantity of imported Russian River water was rejected by voters in a 9 to 1 margin largely for this reason.14 Develop-ment interests bitterly fought the moratorium, harassing pro moratorium MMWD Board members to the point that one resigned because of the stress it was causing his family15 and another was sued (unsuccessfully) for $25 million.16 Newspaper articles and books recording the event distinguish between this ongoing issue and the short-term need for serious rationing as reservoir levels dropped precariously low.17 This was confirmed with re-cent interviews of two past MMWD Board members who were on the board during the 1976-77 drought event.18

Regarding rationing, after an initial year of some skepti-cism and adjustment by customers, the local newspaper articles frequently cite the impressive community spirit in responding to the drought conditions and reducing consumption.19 In some cases block parties were held to celebrate the lowest water consumers in the neighbor-hood.20 While there were certainly some hardships, and

much non-native landscaping was lost during the ex-ceptionally dry conditions, present day representations of widespread customer resentment over the drought mischaracterizes the situation and confuses the issues.

In the more recent six-year drought in the late 80s and early 90s, water users again demonstrated an ability to reduce demand commensurate with supply conditions. The seriousness of the situation varied from year to year, as did the call by water managers for reduced consump-tion. On several occasions MMWD geared up for manda-tory rationing, only to have late season rains negate this need.

In 1989, MMWD instituted a 35 percent rationing pro-gram with each customer’s rationing allotment based on the simple formula of a cutback of each customer’s previous year of use. This approach resulted in a seri-ous public relations problem for the District. There was widespread skepticism by customers whether rationing was really necessary, and probably even greater outrage at the perceived inequity in rationing allotments. The per-cent cutback plan, although relatively easy to administer from the District’s point of view, was seen by customers to reward water wasters and penalize conservers. Fortu-nately, adequate rainfall occurred later in the spring to allow the District to rescind mandatory rationing and call for a 10 percent voluntary program. However, substantial customer ill will and mistrust remained.21

As the drought worsened again in the 1990-91 rainfall season, the District adopted a new approach for another round of mandatory rationing. Clear, predetermined trig-ger points were developed for different levels of ration-ing based on reservoir levels late in the rainy season. A per capita allotment program was developed and census cards were sent to all customers to prepare for the pos-sible need for mandatory rationing. Media attention increased as dry conditions persisted, and in late Febru-ary, 1991, the MMWD Board enacted 50 percent manda-tory rationing. Ironically, the next day it began to rain, but with the reservoirs so low, and much media attention on the drought, customers responded with remarkable cooperation. They quickly lined up at the District’s office for free conservation kits and attended local drought fairs in large numbers, even though raincoats were needed due to continuing rainfall. Census cards for the per capita rationing allotments were returned and the actual popu-lation count closely correlated with the expected popula-tion. This indicated a high degree of customer honesty in claiming household population on which they knew their rationing allotment would be based. After the “March Miracle” rains resulted in a rollback to 25 percent volun-tary rationing, customers continued to respond with a 34 percent reduction.22

5Food & Water Watch

The reasons for this dramatic turnaround in customer re-sponse and cooperation to mandatory rationing appeared to be clear recognition, through media attention and predetermined reservoir trigger points, of the real water shortage and need to reduce consumption. Also, the per-ception of fairness and equity with the per capita allot-ments was important to customers.23 Finally, customers responded favorably to carefully instituted emergency conservation programs. In short, customers will respond to and cooperate with well-designed drought and ration-ing programs when the perception of a real need exists.

Net Safe Yield and Operational YieldThe term “net safe yield” is an assessment of the quan-tity and reliability of water supply available to a water agency when its system is stressed from drought condi-tions. For this assessment, droughts of record conditions are usually modeled with the presently existing system of reservoirs, groundwater and water import contracts. While a system may be capable of supplying substantially more water during wet years, it is the dry year yield that determines the reliability of the supply, and typically drives decisions to seek new water supply sources.

A common historic practice in assessing the need for new supplies is to compare drought year water supply yield to the demand for water that typically peaks dur-ing non-drought periods. The goal was to minimize the risk of water shortages by planning a system fully ca-pable of supplying non-drought year peak water demand (or in some cases demand projected to increase during droughts) during drought of record conditions.

This has several fundamental problems. First, as has now been demonstrated by several drought cycles of various degrees of seriousness, consumer water use typically becomes increasingly careless and wasteful after numer-ous consecutive wet years when supplies are perceived as more abundant. Second, due to increasing competition for limited supplies and recognition of serious environ-mental consequences from diversions and altered natural hydropatterns, many water purveyors in California no longer have the luxury to plan drought year supplies to fully meet non-drought year demands. Finally, the cost of providing supplies for careless and wasteful use during infrequent serious drought events is seen by many as a poor use of limited public funds that could be used for other purposes.

In light of these modern realities, the Marin Munici-pal Water District adopted the concept of “operational yield.” With this approach, rather than simply comparing drought year supply to non-drought year consumption, drought year supply is compared to consumption that is reduced by a pre-determined acceptable frequency and

level of rationing. This recognizes the ability and willing-ness of consumers to reduce consumption during dry years and has very important implications for water sup-ply planning and when new supplies are needed.

Acceptable Frequency and Level of Water Shortage During Drought EventsTo determine the acceptable frequency and level of water shortages, critical questions include the acceptability of the idea of occasional water shortages and what fre-quency and percent of water shortage are acceptable. In the case of MMWD, considerable information exists for examining this issue.

According to the water Shortage Contingency Plan in the 1995 Urban Water Management Plan, developed soon after a six-year drought, the District was “planning its water supply to reduce the depth and frequency of ration-ing to a level of no more than 30 percent with a frequency of once in 50 years.”24 Based on the District’s then-recent drought experience, rationing of 25 percent was viewed as attainable, and in fact had recently been attained under a voluntary rationing program. The District’s code also planned for more extreme events up to and including a 50 percent mandatory rationing program with cor-responding reservoir storage trigger points at the end of each rainy season. While rationing events of 40 percent to 50 percent were considered undesirable, advance plan-ning such extreme events was considered prudent and responsible. Also, clear trigger points for different levels of rationing based on reservoir levels was considered an appropriate mechanism for rational decision making. Clear trigger points also improved credibility with an often skeptical public whose acceptance of the situation and appropriate response was critical.25

MMWD customers, through numerous citizen committees and public opinion surveys, have consistently and repeatedly voiced a willingness to accept water use reductions during droughts.


This issued was also frequently considered by MMWD board and citizen committees in the 1990s. At that point, many believed the cost of developing a system with 100 percent supply reliability during drought periods was not justified from the perspectives of cost and environmental impacts. In 1999, believing that additional water would be available at relatively low-cost from the Russian River source, the District adopted a water shortage policy of 10 percent rationing in the first year and 25 percent in the second year of drought of record conditions and revised its code to remove levels of rationing above 25 percent.26 Under this policy, water users would only be required to make a serious effort to reduce consumption during what is now a once in 129 year event.

Given the present recognition that relatively low-cost Russian River water is much more problematic than pre-viously believed (see the Russian River Water section for more details) and with the MMWD Board now consider-ing desalination which is two to three time more costly a supply option, the drought shortage policy appears due for review. This should be done with the input of a citizens’ advisory committee. The demonstrated willing-ness and ability of District customers to conserve extra water during rarely occurring serious drought conditions, documented in the MMWD Customer Opinion Surveys section of this report, reduces the need for new supply that is really only needed during these rare events.

Demand HardeningPart of the justification for this change of frequency and degree of rationing is the controversial issue of so called “demand hardening.” Demand hardening is the assumed loss of demand elasticity, or the decreased ability of con-sumers to reduce water use during a drought that results from water conservation programs implemented before the drought.

MMWD recently evaluated demand hardening in its 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan. The analysis concluded

that a demand hardening effect “is not considered in our professional opinion to be significant or a reason not to implement long term conservation.”27

Another useful indicator of demand elasticity is an evaluation of how much water MMWD customers historically used on a per capita basis. Table 3 shows that average consumption was only 74.2 gallon per capita per day in 1940. This contrasts with a peak per capital consumption of 174.5 gallon per person per day in 1987, a per capita increase of 235.2 percent. While some of this increase reflects increasing commercial and industrial use relative to residential use, there is tremendous elasticity in the amount of water needed for people to live happily and comfortably in MMWD’s service area.

If we assume a future population of 208,97129 and a 30 percent rationing reduction of a 30,000 afy demand, the average per capita consumption would be 89.7 gallon a day. This is 120.9 percent of the 74.2 gallons per capita needed on a daily basis by water users in 1940 in a non-drought period shown in Table 3.

But perhaps a more useful analysis is evaluating how much water would be available to residential customers on a per capita basis, using a more sophisticated analysis that takes into account the different customer classes and the cutbacks expected of each class. It is also useful to consider how much water is actually needed by customers with efficient fixtures and practices compared to custom-ers with inefficient fixtures and practices.

Table 4, from the 2005 UWMP, shows the expected cutback per customer class under different levels of rationing. While levels of rationing above 25 percent were included to satisfy the requirements of the Urban Water Management Plan, these levels of rationing were removed from District code in 1999.30

Table 3: Population and Consumption Trends in MMWD Service Area28

Year Population Gallons/Capita/Day1940 48,000 74.21950 78,000 105.41960 124,000 139.31970 168,000 172.91980 167,000 146.01987 168,000 174.51990 170,000 152.91995 176,000 143.82000 185,000 150.42004 190,000 152.6

Table 4: Allocation Plan: Proposed Cutbacks at Different Rationing Levels31

Billing Codes

20% Rationing

25% Rationing

30% Rationing

40% Rationing

50% Rationing

Code 1-5 Residential 25% 32% 32% 46% 55%

Code 6 Institutional 20% 25% 30% 40% 50%

Code 7 Business 15% 20% 25% 35% 45%

Code 8 Irrigation 45% 50% 60% 75% 90%

20% and above rationing plan: Per Capita/Service Allotments

7Food & Water Watch

Table 5 provides a consumption history water usage for the different customer classes.

Using data from the above two tables, an analysis of 30 percent rationing with a corresponding 32 percent cut-back for single-family residential services of their 2004 consumption gives the following results:

Assuming total population of 195,362 people in MMWD’s service area (ABAG Projection for 2010) and 2.8 residents per SFR (adjustment of 2.7 per household from baseline study data) and 51,435 SFR services yields a SFR popula-tion of 144,018. A 32 percent cutback means a daily per capita allotment of about 70 gallons. (This compares to 46 gallons per capita per day rationing allotments provided during the peak of the 1976-77 drought).

Assuming a year 2025 population of 208,971 (a popula-tion increase of 10 percent in 16 years), and assuming an SFR population of 158,420, the daily per capital allot-ment would be 63.5 gallons.

This means that under present water supply and popula-tion conditions, a 30 percent overall rationing program will result in about 70 gallons per day of water use for each resident in single-family homes. If the population does increase 10 percent by the year 2025, with exist-ing water supply, each resident in a single-family home will receive about 63.5 gallon per day under a 30 percent overall rationing program.

Of course, a key question remains over just how difficult it will be for residents to live for a year under these conditions. Using well-established interior water use informa-

tion that is derived from MMWD documents and other relevant water use studies,33 Table 6 evaluates the typical average daily water use for one person in a single-family residence equipped with modern, water efficient fixtures and appliances.

As shown in Table 6, a person in an efficiently equipped household with average water use behavior has an inte-rior daily water use need of about 51 gallons. Under the 30 percent rationing scenario described above, with a 70 gallon per day rationing allotment, this person would have 19 extra gallons per day for discretionary interior or landscape water use. This same person would also be producing almost 29 gallon a day of graywater that could be captured and used for landscaping. A three-person household would have 57 extra gallons per day, and if combined with graywater, up to 143 extra gallons per day.

This same household with a 63.5 gallons per capita per day allotment under the year 2025 population growth projection would still have excess water. Each person would have nine extra gallons per day and the same 29 gallons a day of graywater that could be captured and

Table 5: Five Year Consumption History by Consumer Class32

Service Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Single Family (No. Services)

16,002 af (51,466)

16,530 af (50,943)

16,446 af (50,070)

16,062 af (51,359)

16,568 af (51,435)

Duplex (No. Services)

748 af (2,240)

766 af (2,212)

748 af (2,200)

726 af (2,215)

748 af (2,224)

3 & 4 Units (No. Services)

414 af (797)

410 af (791)

394 af (777)

378 af (782)

376 af (780)

5-9 Units (No. Services)

786 af (792)

788 af (785)

749 af (770)

725 af (766)

736 af (766)

10+ Units (No. Services)

2,034 af (650)

2,015 af (645)

1,979 af (645)

1,940 af (652)

1,951 af (652)

Institutional (No. Services)

2,198 af (287)

2,096 af (261)

2,095 af (256)

1,756 af (237)

1,854 af (237)

Business (No. Services)

3,449 af (3,327)

3,394 af (3,330)

3,280 af (3,316)

3,175 af (3,332)

3,200 af (3,326)

Landscape (No. Services)

2,613 af (1,250)

2,849 af (1,277)

2,738 af (1,292)

2,513 af (1,315)

2,653 af (1,309)

Total Billed Use 28,244 af 28,848 af 28,429 af 27,275 af 28,086 af

Adjustments 205 af 295 af 336 af 303 af 326 afUnaccounted

(1) 2,605 af 3,449 af 3,577 af 3,608 af 3,139 af

Production (2) 31,165 af 32,427 af 32,006 af 30,883 af 32,478 af

Recycled (3) (No. Services)

687 af (297)

774 af (301)

789 af (316)

684 af (316)

720 af (322)

(1) Includes unaccounted for losses & uses not billed — e.g. temporary taps, water quality samples.(2) Production is based on daily flows and does not equate to the total of billed adjusted and unaccounted water.(3) Consumption and number of services are incorporated in customer classes listed above.


used for landscaping. A three-person household would have 18 extra gallons per day, and if combined with graywater, up to 113 extra gallons per day. Note that this example is with average water use behavior.

Using the same data sources as above, Table 7 evaluates water use in a house with efficient fixtures and adopting water conserving practices during a drought.

As shown in Table 7 above, a person in an efficiently equipped household that adopts conserving practices during a serious drought uses about 31 gallons per day. With a 70 gallons per day allotment, this person would have 39 extra gallons, and up to an additional 18 gallons if capturing graywater for a potential total of 57 extra gal-lons per day.

In the case of a daily per capita rationing allotment of 63.5 gallons in the year 2025, an extra 32.5 gallons per day is available to each individual and could be combined with up to 18 gallons per day of graywater. In both ration-ing allotment cases, the amount of extra water per day for landscaping or other uses increases with additional household members. Even with the 46 gallons per person per day rationing allotment during the 1976-77 drought, a person living in an efficiently equipped house and using water conserving practices will have an extra 15 gallons per day and have the potential to use 18 additional gal-lons of graywater per day.

Table 8 evaluates the interior water use of a person in a

non-efficient household with average water use behavior. With an interior average daily water use of about 95 gal-lons per capita, some water conserving behavior modifi-cation will be needed to stay within either a 70 gallon or 63.5 gallon per day allotment.

Table 9 evaluates the interior water use of a person in a household with non-efficient fixtures adopting conserv-ing behavior during a drought. After adopting conserving behavior, this person is using about 50 gallons per day and producing about 29 gallons per day of graywater. Although living in a house with non-conserving fixtures, with the adoption of conserving behavior this person has extra water under both the 70 gallons per day and the 63.5 gallons per day rationing allotment. Combined with extra water from other household members with conserv-ing behavior and the potential capturing of graywater, a three-person household may have as much as 147 extra gallons per day with the 70 gallons per day rationing al-lotment, and as much as 128 extra gallons per day with the 63.5 gallons per day ration allotment.

As is demonstrated by this analysis, most households equipped with water efficient technologies would be well prepared to remain within their rationing allotments in the 30 percent rationing allotment in both the present day and in the year 2025. With the adoption of water conserv-ing behavior, considerable extra water would be available for discretionary or landscape water use. And if they had already converted to a drought tolerant landscape, they would probably lose little landscaping to the drought.

Table 6: Daily Water Use per Person with Efficient Fixtures — Average Behavior

Efficient Fixtures – Average BehaviorGal/day Daily Items Frequency Gallons Per Use

9.6 Toilet 6 flushes 1.6 Gal/Flush

15 Shower 6 minutes 2.5 Gal/min

6 Personal Cleaning 3 cleanings 2 gal/cleaning

6 Cooking 3 Meal 2 gal/meal

1 Drinking Day 1 gal/day

37.6 Subtotal – Daily

Weekly Items

8 Dishwasher 1 Loads 8 gal/load

75 Clothes Washer 3 Loads 25 gal/load

8 House Cleaning 2 Cleanings 4 gal/cleaning

91 Subtotal – Weekly

50.6 Daily Average

28.7 Graywater production/person/day

Table 7: Daily Water Use per Person with Efficient Fixtures — Conserving Behavior

Efficient Fixtures – Conserving BehaviorGal/day Daily Items Frequency Gallons Per Use

3.2 Toilet 2 Flushes 1.6 Gal/Flush

10 Shower 4 minutes 2.5 Gal/min




22.2 Subtotal – Daily

Weekly Items





30.8 Daily Average


9Food & Water Watch

Only a household with inefficient fixtures would have dif-ficulty remaining within their allotment, and with water conserving behavior, they too would have extra water for landscaping.

A technical paper using MMWD data to examine the is-sue of demand hardening was presented at an American Water Works Association water conservation conference in 1999. The paper demonstrated how conservation pro-grams can actually result in increased demand elasticity during future droughts for the following reasons:34

Water conserved from retrofitting fixtures may be 1. allocated to new users who also have conserving fixtures, resulting in more fixtures being used less frequently in drought conditions;

Load shifting of savings from conservation measures 2. to other discretionary uses may occur until the load shifting is discontinued during a subsequent drought period;

Careless water use behavior and practices in non-3. drought periods can hide total potential savings from water conservation programs; and

Customers who participate in some conservation pro-4. grams have a better understanding of new conserva-tion measures to implement during future droughts.

While nobody looks forward to the next inevitable drought, it appears that given modern efficient technol-ogy, residents with efficient fixtures and behavior will be well prepared for weathering such future events. As non-conservers respond to drought conditions and adopt ef-ficient technologies and conserving behaviors, additional demand elasticity will result. This analysis demonstrates that the willingness of MMWD customers to accept infrequent water supply shortage during serious drought conditions is reasonable. The MMWD board should reex-amine this issue and work to align water supply planning and District code with clearly voiced customer preference of reducing use in serous drought over expensive and environmentally risky new supply projects.

The assumed issue of demand hardening is mislead-ing and not very helpful in understanding appropriate drought policy. The analysis should focus more on how much water is really needed during infrequent, but seri-ous drought conditions. It appears rationing levels of 35 percent or higher is easily achievable using modern water efficient fixtures. A rationing allotment of 50 gallons per person per day in rarely occurring drought of record conditions is also viable using modern water efficient fixtures. This would be more water than the 46 gallon per

person per day allocated in the 1976-77 drought. But it would be provided to customers much better equipped for using less water, and potentially much better prepared to use graywater and capture rainwater. As more land-scapes are converted to drought tolerant designs, less wa-ter will be needed for landscape during serious droughts. If graywater standards in California are updated to be more cost-effective and practical, the use of graywater will be easier and become more widespread.

Table 8: Daily Water Use per Person with Non-Efficient Fixtures — Average Behavior

Non-Efficient Fixtures — Average BehaviorGal/day Daily Items Frequency Gallons Per Use

30 Toilet 6 flushes 5 Gal/Flush

24 Shower 6 minutes 4 Gal/min


6 Cooking 3 meal 2 gal/meal

1 Drinking day 1 gal/day

73 Subtotal – Daily

Weekly Items

15 Dishwasher 1 loads 15 gal/load

120 Clothes Washer 3 loads 40 gal/load



94.6 Daily Average


Table 9: Daily Water Use per Person with Non-Efficient Fixtures — Conserving Behavior

Non-Efficient Fixtures – Conserving BehaviorGal/day Daily Items Frequency Gallons Per Use

10 Toilet 2 Flushes 5 Gal/Flush

16 Shower 4 Minutes 4 Gal/min

3 Personal Cleaning 3 Cleanings 1 gal/cleaning



36 Subtotal – Daily

Weekly Items





49.9 Daily Average



MMWD Customer Opinion SurveysResidents believe the District should be operated •in the most environmentally sensitive manner possible.

Residents have a strong and consistent prefer-•ence for water conservation as the best approach for improving water supply reliability.

Residents support providing financial incen-•tives to market and advance water conservation programs.

Residents are willing and have demonstrated the •ability to make extra effort to conserve more wa-ter, collect and use rain water and graywater, and even dramatically cut back or forego landscape watering in future serious drought events.

MMWD has numerous instruments for accurately and quantitatively gauging customer viewpoints regarding water management options and policies. These include citizen comments at board meetings, citizen advisory committees, focus groups, letters to local papers, and cus-tomer opinion surveys. While all are useful, many reflect a small sample size and may not entirely represent the broader customer base. Well-designed, randomly select-ed customer surveys are a reliable indicator of attitudes and views of the general population. Interestingly, in

MMWD’s case, there is an impressive consistency among the various instruments for the support of water conser-vation as the preferred water management tool.

MMWD’s 1994 Water Conservation Baseline Study used phone interviews and site visits to “collect and analyze data on water end uses, water using fixtures and appli-ances, water efficient retrofit devices, customer knowl-edge and attitudes, customer receptiveness to conserva-tion, and customer demographics.”35

Some of the key findings in the study include: 36

65 percent of residential telephone survey •respondents indicated they would consider participating in retrofit programs if MMWD of-fered financial incentives, and an additional 16 percent would like more information about such programs.

78 percent of single-family, 55 percent of multi-•family, and 61 percent of nonresidential site survey respondents said they would be interested in participating in financial retrofit programs. An additional 15 percent to 20 percent said they would need more information.

69 percent of respondents said MMWD should •offer financial incentive programs, only 18 per-cent opposed financial incentive programs.

11Food & Water Watch

56 percent of single-family telephone survey •respondents indicated they collected and used rainwater during the recent drought.

When asked why they would be willing to imple-•ment conservation measures and habits, com-mon responses were: “to save money and water” and “for the environment.”

In 1997, the District completed a telephone survey of customer opinions. Key findings of that survey include:37

89 percent said that efficient use of water is •extremely important.38

71 percent agreed to using ratepayer dollars to •provide financial incentives to encourage people to use water efficiently.39

When asked their view of the following •statements:

Some people say: Water is a limited resource and we should use it efficiently, even if it ends up costing more.

Other people say: A water district is supposed to get more to meet demand, even if it ends up cost-ing more.

Seventy-two percent agreed with the statement to use water efficiently, even if it ends up costing more. Only 16 percent agreed with the statement to get more to meet demand, even if it ends up costing more.40

MMWD conducted another customer opinion survey in 2003.41 Key findings include the following charts. In Figure 2 above, respondents voiced twice as much sup-port for increased water conservation as a solution, with about three times as many respondents indicating they “strongly favor” water conservation over either desalina-tion or additional Russian River water.

With a rephrasing of the question in Figure 3 above to indicate an existing 10 percent water supply deficiency, respondents still preferred increasing water conservation over either desalination or increased Russian River water by a margin of well over 2-to-1.

Figure 2: Favor/Oppose: Water Supply Options42

Recently, there has been discussion about a few options for increasing the water supply in Marin. I’d like you to tell me whether you favor or oppose each of the following water supply options.

*Indicates percent strongly favor. Source: Charleston Research Company.0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Favor Oppose Don’t Know

Figure 3: Early Ballot: Water Supply Options43

Although the Marin Municipal Water District reservoirs may appear to be full, we are currently facing a 10 percent water supply deficiency. The three main options being discussed for increasing the water supply in Marin are A) desalination of water from the San Francisco Bay, B) building another pipeline to import additional water from Sonoma County’s Russian River and C) increasing current conservation efforts and implementing a permanent, agressive conservation program. Based on what you know or have heard, which of these options do you prefer?

Source: Charleston Research Company.

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


In Figure 4 below, respondents were asked how effective they believe each of the three options would be in fulfill-ing Marin’s water needs. Again, water conservation re-ceives almost twice the support compared to desalination or more Russian River water. Interestingly, the margin for ranking desalination and the Russian River as a poor option compared to increased water conservation is about 3 to 1. These responses suggest that most people in Marin know they could do considerably more to conserve addi-tional water, particularly if called upon to do so in serious droughts.

Figure 5 below probes respondent support for a serious reduction in landscape irrigation as a cornerstone of the increased water conservation program. Over 70 percent of respondents favored and 42 percent to 45 percent strongly favored a serious reduction in landscape water use to

improve Marin’s water supply reliability. Only about 20 percent of respondents voiced opposition. Note that in the final question in the graph, 73 percent favored and 41 percent strongly favored the possibility of water ration-ing during droughts. This indicates that an expensive new water supply is not the favored option or necessary ac-cording to over 70 percent of Marin residents. This graph also provides important customer input in considering revisions to MMWD’s landscape ordinance as discussed in the landscape irrigation section of this report. Clearly, the majority opinion is that landscape water use should be reduced. Therefore, any landscape ordinance revisions should be consistent with this view and result in less land-scape water use.

It is important to note that 47 percent of the respondents in this survey lived in the service area in the 1976-77

Figure 5: Messages: Conservation45

Now I’m going to read you some statements about Conservation.



Figure 4: Water Supply Options44

Now I’d like you to tell me how well you think each of the following water supply options will fulfill Marin’s water needs, using a scale of one to nine, where one means very poorly and nine means very well.

Source: Charleston Research Company. 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Well (7-9) Neutral (4-6) Poorly (1-3) Don’t know


drought event. Since 69 percent of respondents were residents for more than 10 years, presumably a consider-ably greater number than 47 percent lived in the MMWD service area during the 6-year drought of the late 80’s and early 90s. The willingness to reduce water use in future droughts includes the view of respondents familiar with drought conditions.

The questions in Figure 6 above probe support for in-creased conservation and reduced landscape irrigation in what many would find to be considerably more alarming terms, such as “let their landscape die at times,” “increase the rates charged” and “more frequent and deeper water rationing.” Despite the alarming language, nearly 70 percent supported increased conservation, with over 40 percent strongly supporting.

Figure 7 at right is a late ballot question probing whether the increasingly alarming and dire-sounding questions regarding water shortages and conservation program change respondent views regarding conservation. The presence of this question indicates that the opinion survey was designed partly to “educate” respondents on some of the “realities” of new water options. Or, more directly stated, it appears designed to persuade respon-dents to increase support for desalination as an alterna-tive, rather than simply document existing opinions and attitudes. Nonetheless, the late ballot responses reflect steadfast support for water conservation as the heavily favored solution to improving water supply reliability.

While the support for desalination increased relative to the Russian River option, the support for water conserva-tion only decreased 1 percent (which is within the survey sampling error) and remains almost twice the level of support for desalination and over twice the level of sup-

port for taking more water from the Russian River. One wonders what the late ballot responses would have been if asked a series of alarming and dire-sounding questions about the desalination and Russian River options such as:

Do you favor building a desalination plant that will contribute to global warming and result in signifi-cantly increased water costs, while risking the extinc-tion of some San Francisco Bay marine life so that people can flush more water down inefficient toilets, irrigate side walks and storm drains, and irrigate water thirsty landscapes during infrequent serious drought events?

Figure 6: Messages: Conservation46

Now I’m going to read you some statements about Conservation.



51

52

2921

17

23

1

2

22

Late Ballot Early Ballot

Figure 7: Late Ballot: Water Supply Options47

After everything we have discussed, which of the following water supply options for addressing Marin’s 10 percent water supply defecit do you prefer: desalination of water from the bay, building another pipeline to import additional water from Sonoma County’s Russian River or increasing current conservation efforts and implementing a permanent, agressive conservation program?


0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


Do you favor diverting even more water from the Russian River and risking the collapse of already seri-ously stressed river life so that people can flush more water down inefficient toilets, irrigate side walks and storm drains, and irrigate water thirsty landscapes during infrequent serious drought events?

Figure 8 below probes customer views regarding the trade-offs between a potentially least-costly option vs. an option causing the least environmental harm. Sixty percent responded that the option causing the least envi-ronmental harm should be selected, while only 28 percent responded that the most economical option should be selected over the least environmentally harmful option. This response is very consistent with the question probing the same issue in the 1997 survey previously noted.

Fortunately for customers and ratepayers in the MMWD service area, the most environmentally friendly options recommended in this report are also the most economical.

It may be tempting to assume that the overwhelming support for increased water conservation rather than desalination of more Russian River water voiced at recent MMWD Board meetings and public forums is really just a self-selected group that does not reflect general resident viewpoints as a whole. However, the information collect-ed in these MMWD sanctioned customer opinion surveys conducted numerous times since 1994, and the MMWD customer water supply voter record going back to the early 1970s (discussed in the Russian River Water section of this report) documents the consistent,and strongly favored support for increased water conservation as the customer-preferred solution to improving Marin’s water supply reliability.

Russian River WaterMMWD residents have a long history of prefer-•ring local and limited water supplies.

The importation of modest amounts of Russian •River water began in the in the 1970s, but voters and public interest groups continued to oppose projects providing large increases in water supply.

Although MMWD has contracts for increased de-•liveries of Russian River water, the actual delivery of additional water is constrained by limitations in pipeline and facilities capacity, and unresolved environmental problems on the Russian River.

In one of the first major diversions in California, in 1905 the Eel River Power and Irrigation Company began con-struction of a diversion dam and a mile long tunnel to di-rect what become about 160,000 afy of water into the Rus-sian River.49 This diversion had impacts on the Eel River that remain controversial, but dramatically increased water available in the Russian River and to its water users. Continued concern and legal wrangling over the impacts to the Eel River may ultimately affect this diversion.

Beginning with its formation from the consolidation of a number of smaller water purveyors in 1912 until the 1970s, MMWD’s water source was exclusively the Phoe-nix and Lagunitas watersheds in Marin County. How-ever, since its inception in 1912, MMWD water planners considered the Russian River a potential source of water for southern Marin.50 To that end, the District planned its first pipe connection to North Marin Water District (NMWD) in 1970, and the project for a facility to import up to 4,000 afy was approved by the voters.51 But shortly thereafter, despite board support for an expanded pipe-line project, in 1971 MMWD voters rejected by a nine to one margin a $20 million bond measure that would have provided up to 42,000 afy of water from the new Warm Springs Dam project in the Russian River watershed.52 The reasons for the defeat appear to be the cost, concern over environmental impacts to Dry Creek and the Russian River, the desire to avoid importing water from outside areas, and probably most important was the growing anti-growth sentiment that existed.53 As a result, the smaller pipeline project to NMWD was constructed and the importation of a much more modest amount of Rus-sian River water began in 1976.54

With the completion of the smaller pipeline connection NMWD, the MMWD Board grappled with the very con-tentious decision of whether to repeal a moratorium on new service connections when the 1976-77 drought began and rationing was instituted.55 Both rationing and the

Net: Most economical option 28%

Net: Least environmental harm 60%

Figure 8: Trade-Off: Most Economical Option Vs. Least Environmental Harm48

Which of the following statements come closer to your view?

Some people say: It is most important to provide customers with the most economical water supply option, regardless of environmental impact.

Other people say: It is essential that Marin employs the water supply option that causes the least environmental harm, regardless of cost.


39

21

1213

15

Some people/strongly

Some people/somewhat

Don’t know

Other people/somewhat

Other people/strongly


moratorium on new connections were ended in 1978 after abundant rainfall.56 The early 1980s brought about a re-laxation of water supply concerns when El Nino weather conditions caused many serious floods. Water use in the MMWD service area peaked in 1987 after a series of wet years.57 However, another dry spell began in 1988.

In the early 1990s, MMWD negotiated a new agreement with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), provid-ing the potential to increase purchases from 4,300 afy to 14,300 afy. Of the new 10,000 afy of potential purchased water, 5,000 afy was a firm entitlement and 5,000 afy was on an as-available basis. However, with a payment of $6.3 million to SCWA in 2005, the 5,000 afy of as-avail-able water was converted to a firm entitlement. Nonethe-less, some uncertainty remains as to whether the 14,300 afy entitlement is included in SCWA’s existing 75,000 afy Russian River water right or if an expansion of that water right would be required. Furthermore, although MMWD now had a contract with SCWA for up to 14,300 afy in water purchases, pipelines and associated facilities designed before this agreement provide physical limita-tions on the amount of water that can be delivered.58

Despite the 1976-77 drought of record, the subsequent six-year drought starting in the late 1990s, and a new moratorium on new connections in the early 1990s, vot-ers continued to resist the import of new water supplies. In 1991, MMWD voters defeated Measure W, an $80 million bond measure to construct an enlarged pipeline for delivering the newly negotiated contract for additional Russian River water.59 In the aftermath, a temporary citizens’ committee was formed to review MMWD water supply needs and options and formulate a new plan. The result was a five-phase plan that included increased water conservation and water recycling, and a phased in construction of new pipeline facilities for increasing the importation of Russian River water on an as-needed basis. In 1992, Measure V, a $37.5 million bond measure to fund the five-phase plan was adopted by voters.60 As part of an agreement with local community organizations for support of the new bond measure, a new and ongo-ing citizens’ advisory committee was formed. The new committee was to provide input and guidance to MMWD on the development of new water conservation programs and help define when as-needed trigger points were reached that would require phasing in of new Russian River facilities and supply.61

Some of the facility and pipeline limitations for importing more Russian River water are the connections between MMWD’s and SCWA’s facilities and would be the re-sponsibility of MMWD to address.62 But some of the limitations are within SCWA’s facilities and would need to be addressed by SCWA. In 1998, the SCWA Board of

Directors certified an EIR to provide for new pipeline and associated facilities in their system and to increase Rus-sian River diversions from 75,000 afy to 101,000 afy. The EIR was challenged in court and, in losing on appeal, was found inadequate on several issues. SCWA developed a new draft EIR that was released in December, 2008, and certification of this document may be considered by the SCWA Board in 2009.63

To further complicate this picture, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout inhabiting the Russian River have been listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Spe-cies Act, and Coho salmon have been listed as endangered under the Federal and State Endangered Species Act. A Biological Opinion regarding these listings was issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service in September 2008. It concluded that the SCWA and Warm Springs Dam operations and diversions jeopardize endangered species.64 The opinion provides a list of new requirements that must be met to continue water withdrawal opera-tions at present or increased levels in the future. The new requirements must be fulfilled within 12 years and are preliminarily estimated by SCWA to cost over $100 mil-lion.65 The cost implications, funding mechanisms, and individual obligations by various water diversion benefi-ciaries are still being determined.66

Photo of Russian River in Sonoma County by Erin Montague/Stock.Xchng.


With continued growth and increasing water demand in Sonoma County and NMWD, pipeline capacity sufficient to fully meet Sonoma and MMWD contracted deliveries no longer exists. Without increased water conservation effort in the NMWD and SCWA service areas, excess pipeline capacity will likely further erode.67 Facing the cost of the new requirements of the Biological Opinion, SCWA has proposed deferring facility improvements for divert-ing and delivering more water until the environmental issues are resolved.68

MMWD staff reports indicate that increased pipeline capacity from Novato to Kastania could deliver an ad-ditional 1,000 to 1,200 afy to MMWD, even with existing constraints with the SCWA contract and facilities. This is a project MMWD could undertake independent of new SCWA facilities.69

However, until the environmental issues are better resolved for the seriously stressed Russian River, the reli-ability of new supply from the Russian River is uncertain, particularly during critical drought years. Since a more reliable and cost-effective package of options exists for improving water supply reliability in the MMWD ser-vice area, increased importation of Russian River water does not appear to offer an attractive option at this time. Resolution of the environmental problems and improved environmental health for both the Eel and Russian Rivers should occur before considering importation of additional water from the Russian River.

MMWD’s Proposed Desalination Project

The proposal for a desalination facility in Marin is •very controversial, with residents voicing opposi-tion based on questions over the real need, the associated negative environmental impacts, the high cost and questions regarding water quality.

The proposed 5 MGD to 15 MGD expandable •facility would increase the available water supply from 19.3 percent to 500 percent depending on operation scheme, compared to an 11.4 percent supply deficit identified in District planning documents.

Average annual MMWD energy use would in-•crease from 43.4 percent to 124.3 percent, and annual use could peak as high as a 295.8 per-cent increase with a 15 MGD facility run at full capacity.

Under the MMWD proposed operational scheme, •the marginal cost of desalination ranges from about $3,600 to $4,400 per acre-foot for a 5 MGD facility and $2,900 to $3,540 per acre-foot for a 10 MGD facility.

Due to the higher capital and operational cost, •and not including future escalating operational cost, the 10 MGD facility will increase MMWD overall revenue need about 23 percent and the 5 MGD facility will increase overall revenue need about 14 percent.

The long-term impact on marine life is unknown. •As noted in the National Marine Fisheries Service and California department of Fish and Game comments, the entrainment studies do not reflect long-term operation of the facility.

In December, 2008, MMWD released its final Environ-mental Impact Report (EIR) evaluating a potential de-salination facility. The report evaluates a range of project alternatives for improving water supply reliability, but primarily focuses on a 5 MGD desalination facility that could be expanded in phases up to 15 MGD.

The proposed desalination facility is highly controversial with the District’s customers. Concerns are generally focused on whether the facility is really needed, the high cost of desalination compared to more environmentally friendly options such as increased conservation, and neg-ative environmental impacts. The environmental impacts include high energy use, which contributes to climate Photo by Benjamin Earwicker/Stock.Xchng.


change, and risk to San Francisco Bay marine life. While this report prepared for Food & Water Watch is primarily focused on cost-effective alternatives, key issues of con-cern with the desalination facility are outlined below. This provides a basis for comparison with more cost-effective and environmentally friendly solutions.

Desalination Water ProductionGiven existing facilities, programs and trends, MMWD public information materials indicate a 3,300 afy water supply deficit in the year 2025 that would be filled with a new supply project. The 5 MGD to 15 MGD desalination facility is proposed to address this 3,300 afy supply defi-cit. The actual acre-feet per year of new supply provided by a 5 MGD to 15 MGD facility running at design capacity are noted in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Proposed Facility Capacity70

Capacity – MGD Capacity – AFY

5 5,600

10 11,200

15 16,802

Note that this project proposes satisfying a MMWD iden-tified supply deficit of 3,300 afy in the year 2025 with a project capable of supplying a minimum of 5,600 afy and maximum of 16,802 afy when operated at design capac-ity. A 15 MGD facility operated at design capacity would generate a total water supply increase of 59 percent com-pared to an existing water supply yield of about 28,400 afy. This is more than 500 percent of the theoretical new supply needed through the MMWD planning horizon of 2025 and compares to an expected yield deficit of 11.4 percent identified in MMWD planning documents.

However, it is important to note that the EIR indicates the desalination facility would probably be operated at about 50 percent of capacity during wet years when res-ervoir storage is high and at 100 percent during drought years. Table 11 below outlines the actual average annual water production from operating the facility at 50 percent capacity most years, and 100 percent capacity 2 years out of 25.

Table 11: Average Annual Water Production with Wet year/Dry Year Operation Scheme

Daily Capacity

Annual Production100 percent Operation

Annual Production50 percent Operation

Avg Annual Production(23 yrs @ 50 percent, 2 yrs @ 100 percent)

5 MGD 5,600 afy 2,800 afy 3,024 afy10 MGD 11,200 afy 5,600 afy 6,048 afy15 MGD 15,802 afy 7,901 afy 9,072 afy

As noted in Table 11 above, the proposed operational scheme of the 5 to 15 MGD facilities would produce significantly less new water compared to operating at full capacity. While this would reduce operating costs and some of the associated negative environmental impacts, it would not reduce the capital cost of the desalination facil-ity or the capital cost of new pumps, storage tanks, and new pipeline necessary to connect to MMWD’s distribu-tion system.

Desalination Environmental Impacts to San Francisco BayA desalination facility poses significant risk of environ-mental harm to the San Francisco Bay estuary, a water body already seriously impaired from human impacts and in a condition that most environmental experts consider on the brink of collapse.

Eelgrass plays an important role in improving water quality and providing food and habitat for many im-portant species in San Francisco Bay. According to the Romberg-Tiburon Center, “because of the multitude of life they support, eelgrass beds are often referred to as the nurseries of the bay.”71 Because of human impacts, the extent of eelgrass beds in San Francisco Bay is believed to be greatly reduced, and maybe as low as 10 percent of historic abundance.72 San Francisco State University in conjunction with the Tiburon Romberg Center has been conducting eelgrass restoration studies in San Francisco Bay. Of the sites studied with eelgrass restoration meth-ods, the site in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location of the desalination facility has been the most successful for eelgrass restoration, is considered a prime site, and is targeted for further restoration efforts.73 Us-ing electronic tagging methods, these studies have also detected the foraging use of this site by out-migrating salmon.74 However, the desalination EIR makes no men-tion of this restoration effort or the potential impacts of the proposed facilities to these studies.

Residents have voiced opposition against a desalination facility in Marin based on questions over need, negative environmental impacts, cost and water quality.


As noted in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) comments regarding the EIR, the project will appreciably adversely impact essential fish habitat, and will have an entrainment impact on larvae in the wa-ter column.75 The District conducted short-term larval entrainment studies and the EIR concludes the impacts will not by themselves reduce affected species below minimum necessary breeding populations.76 However, as noted in the NMFS comments, the short-term studies are not adequate to assess long-term impacts.

Comments submitted by the California Department of Fish and Game disagree with the EIR conclusion of no sig-nificant adverse impacts and no need for mitigation. The Department of Fish and Game comments state the impacts include “potentially significant entrainment of marine fish and invertebrate eggs and larvae from the saltwater intake; loss of potential eelgrass habitat from the new concrete pier; adverse effects on benthic marine life from salinity changes at the outfall; and toxic effects to aquatic life from bio-fouling treatment of the intake pipe.”77

The long-term impacts, particularly during drought year operation when many species are more highly stressed, could only be assessed with long-term studies which would add to the cost of operating the facility. The requirement of future mitigation measures would also increase the cost of the facility.

Desalination Energy UseAt numerous board meetings in recent years, MMWD directors expressed the goal of reducing the District’s carbon footprint. Certainly a worthy goal considering that climate change can so dramatically impact MMWD operations and operational cost. As is the case with many water districts, MMWD is the largest energy user in its service area. The EIR identifies present MMWD annual energy use as 26,000,000 kilo-watt hours per year.

Table 12 summarizes the increase in energy use for the various sized desalination facilities under different op-

erational schemes. With the proposed operation scheme of 50 percent during wet years and full capacity during drought years, and assuming 23 wet years of operation for every two years drought years of operation, the pro-posed new desalination facility would increase the energy use as follows. A 5 MGD facility would result in a 43.4 percent increase in electricity use by MMWD averaged over a 25 year period. A 10 MGD facility would result in an average annual increase of 81.2 percent, and a 15 MGD facility would result in a 124.3 percent average annual increase over a 25 year period. A 15 MGD facility oper-ated at 100 percent would result in an annual increase in energy usage of 295.8 percent.

On the other hand, MMWD documents indicate an overall 3 percent annual decrease in electrical use by the District if the theoretical 3,300 afy supply deficit is satisfied with additional water conservation.80 The analysis leading to the 3 percent decrease in energy usage appears to be the result of decreased MMWD water pumping requirements. Addi-tional reduction in electrical use would occur in the service area due to reduced wastewater treatment requirements, and reduced energy use for heating water which would result from some of the water conservation measures.

MMWD is exploring various energy conservation mea-sures to offset some of this increased energy use, such as solar panel arrays. Given MMWD’s existing high energy use, these measures should be pursued regardless of the construction of the proposed desalination facility. None-theless, given the large increases in energy use resulting from the proposed facility, the purchase of carbon offsets would be a likely necessity in order to remain carbon neutral. PG&E reports their CO2 emissions rate is 0.524 pounds of CO2 per kilo-watt-hour of electricity pro-duced.81 Using the PG&E emissions information, Table 13 summarizes average annual CO2 production from 5 MGD, 10 MGD, and 15 MGD desalination facilities oper-ating under the 23 years at 50 percent and 2 years at 100 percent scheme. The table also summarizes the annual carbon offset cost at an assumed cost of $15 per metric

Table 12: Increase in Energy Use by Proposed Desalination Facility78

Operational Scheme KWh/yr79 Increase in Energy UseMMWD Present Average Use 26,000,000 None

5 MGD at 50 percent Capacity (wet years) 10,037,500 + 38.6 percent5 MGD at 100 percent Capacity (drought years) 25,550,000 + 98.3 percent

5 MGD at 25 Year Avg. Capacity (23 yrs + 2 yrs) 11,274,500 + 43.4 percent10 MGD at 50 percent Capacity (wet years) 18,615,000 + 71.6 percent

10 MGD at 100 percent Capacity (drought years) 51,000,000 + 196.1 percent10 MGD at 25 Year Avg. Capacity (23 yrs + 2 yrs) 21,205,800 + 81.2 percent

15 MGD at 50 percent Capacity (wet years) 28,470,000 + 109.5 percent15 MGD at 100 percent Capacity (drought years) 76,650,000 + 295.8 percent

15 MGD at 25 Year Avg. Capacity (23 yrs + 2 yrs) 32,324,400 + 124.3 percent


ton of CO282. This is a midpoint cost for certified carbon offset projects occurring in North America. While these types of offset are controversial as to their real effective-ness, as least they represent a starting point in providing for carbon offset for the proposed facility. Note that these energy use calculations do not account for the additional energy for wastewater treatment.

Although it may be the intention of the MMWD Board to only operate a desalination facility at 100 percent during drought years, and the rainfall history in Marin may sug-gest that would be every few decades, predicting the year to year weather has always be a very unreliable under-taking. As indicated in MMWD’s rainfall records (Ap-pendix A), single dry years occur much more frequently than multiple dry years that would be labeled droughts. But after a single dry year, no one really knows what the weather will do the following year or two years later. Future MMWD boards will be under frequent pressure to operate an existing facility more than, in retrospect, would end up being necessary. After most of the single dry years the rains return. In these cases, the desalination facility would have been unnecessarily operated at higher capacity than needed. This will provide unneeded water while increasing operating costs, energy consumption, and environmental impacts. It will also put pressure on future boards to reduce water conservation programs to reduce costs and increase water sales to pay for the extra desalination operating costs.

One MMWD board member is already expressing con-cern that California may be moving into severe prolonged drought periods similar to what Australia has been experiencing.86 While concern over climate change is understandable and valid, a direct comparison to a differ-ent continent in a different hemisphere is not particularly valid. Australia is a continent that has a very long his-tory of prolonged severe drought compared to Northern California. If climate change for Australia and Northern California is a real concern, one has to ask whether it is sensible to move forward with a new project that will sig-nificantly increase the energy use and indirect atmospher-ic CO2 contribution of one of the largest energy users in the region, particularly when energy reducing alternatives are available and preferred by the local customer base.

Desalination Marginal CostAccording to MMWD cost projections, constructing a 5 MGD facility is expected to cost $104 to $111 million in capital cost and $3.8 million in normal years to operate and $6.5 million to operate in drought years. 87 A 10 MGD facility would have a capital cost of $163 to $173 million and an operating cost of $6.3 million in normal years to operate and $12.4 million operating cost in drought years.88 Although the EIR discusses a 15 MGD facility, the capital and operating cost projections for a 15 MGD facility were not developed or released by MMWD.89

If a desalination facility is approved, financing would prob-ably be provided with municipal revenue bonds, although slightly more expensive certificates of participation are also a possibility. MMWD has not released a marginal cost analysis (the standard cost comparison approach) for comparing the cost of desalination to water conservation options. However, it is possible to compute the marginal cost of the desalination 5 MGD and 10 MGD facilities us-ing MMWD capital and operating costs estimates, if we assume capital cost is financed with 30 year bonds at 5

Table 13: Annual CO2 Production and Cost of Carbon Offset

Facility KWH/yr83CO2 Production (lbs/yr) 84

Metric Tons/Yr

Cost of Carbon Offset at $15/Metric Ton85

5 MGD 11,274,500 5,907,838 2,679.8 $40,19610 MGD 21,205,800 11,111,839 5,040.2 $75,60415 MGD 32,324,400 16,937,986 7,682.9 $115,244

Photo by Glenn Pebley/Stock.Xchng.


percent interest, and a reasonable assumption of an aver-age operational scheme of 23 normal years of operation and two years of drought operation for every 25 years.

Table 14 below summarizes the impact on the actual marginal cost of new supply provided by the proposal desalination facility in nominal dollars assuming that the capital cost is financed over 30 years at 5 percent. It also includes the average annual carbon offset cost calculated in Table 13 above and $100,000 per year in additional environmental monitoring cost.

The marginal cost is about $3,600 per acre-foot of water for the 5 MGD facility and $2,900 per acre-foot of water for the 10 MGD facility. For a district with a fiscal year 2008-09 capital and operating budget of about $77 mil-lion, the 5 MGD facility would increased overall costs for the District by about 14 percent while the 10 MGD facility would increase cost by about 23 percent. While the 10 MGD facility would have a lower marginal cost per acre-foot of water provided, it would have a considerably higher impact on overall District costs.

The cost of about $3,600 afy for the 5 MGD facility to $2,900 afy for the 10 MGD facility compares to marginal cost for the conservation oriented options that are gener-ally under $1000 per acre-foot, and all are under $2,000 with the possible exception of increased water recycling.

It is important to note the desalination marginal cost analysis in Table 14 above does not include an annual cost escalator for increased labor, maintenance, and en-ergy. Additional costs such as additional environmental mitigation depending on monitoring results may occur. Better energy efficiency from improved membrane tech-nology is possible in the future, but this seems likely to be

outpaced by rising future energy cost. Also, the marginal cost analysis above does not include a 15 percent con-struction market uncertainty factor that is identified in the MMWD Desalination Cost Estimated spreadsheet provided by MMWD staff.90 With the recent downturn in the economy, bidding for construction projects has been more competitive compared to a few years ago. However, as noted in recent MMWD Board packet items, with the infusion of economic stimulus money into numerous large construction projects, the 15 percent construction market uncertainty factor may again become necessary.91 So the marginal cost analysis above represents a best case scenario.

Table 15 below summarizes a marginal cost analysis that includes a 15 percent construction market uncertainty contingency and an annual 3 percent operating cost escalation to account for potential increasing energy and maintenance costs. In this case the marginal cost for the 5 MGD facility is $4,404 per acre-foot. The marginal cost for a 10 MGD facility is $3,544.

There are many uncertainties in the construction and operating cost. Therefore, Table 15 above may represent a more realistic marginal cost for desalination compared to Table 14. Based on this analysis, the marginal cost for a 5 MGD facility will likely range from $3,619 to $4,404 per acre-foot. The marginal cost for a 10 MGD facility will likely range from $2,903 to $3,544 per acre-foot.

It is important to note that in the District’s 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan, a new water supply marginal cost of $1,631 per acre-foot was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of water conservation measures. If a water conservation measure had a projected cost higher than

Table 14: Marginal Cost of Supply Under Proposed Operational Scheme

Cap CostAnn Op Cost, 100 percent

Ann Op Cost, 50 percent

Avg Ann Op Cost, 23 + 2 yrs

Ann Carbon and Env Monitoring

Avg Annual Cap Cost 30 yrs @ 5 percent

Avg Ann Cost, Avg Cap + Avg Op

Avg AFY Prod

Avg Marginal Cost/AF

5 MGD 104,138,335 6,525,000 3,813,000 4,029,960 $140,196 $6,774,348 $10,944,504 3,024 $3,619

10MGD 162,853,650 12,404,000 6,301,000 6,789,240 $175,604 $10,593,864 $17,558,707 6,048 $2,903

Table 15: Marginal Cost of Supply under Proposed Operational Scheme with 15 Percent Construction Contingency and 3 percent Annual Cost Escalator

Facility Capacity

Cap Cost w/15 percent

Avg Ann Op cost 23 Yrs + 2 Yrs, 3 percent Esc

Adj. for Increased Env. Monitoring (with 3 percent)

Adj. for Carbon Offset (with 3 percent)

Avg Annual Cap Cost, 30 yrs at 5 percent

Total Avg Ann Cost

Avg Ann Production

Avg Marginal Cost/AF

5 MGD 111,229,417 5,877,175 145,837 58,621 7,235,633 13,317,266 3,024 $4,40410 MGD 173,393,213 9,901,228 145,837 110,259 11,279,477 21,436,801 6,048 $3,544


$1,631 per acre-foot it was rejected as not cost-effective. This comparison point is much lower than the marginal cost of desalination. Therefore, many conservation mea-sures that would be less costly per acre-foot compared to desalination would have been rejected. This was the case with graywater systems, which were found to have a mar-ginal cost of $2,250 to $3,211. This issue is further dis-cussed in the conservation program sections of this report.

Water Conservation and Supply ImprovementsThe California Urban Water Conservation Council and the Best Management Practices In December 1991, representatives from many of Cali-fornia’s largest water agencies, as well as some smaller urban water agencies, environmental organizations, and a number of water consultants gathered in Sacramento to sign a water conservation Memorandum of Understand-ing (MOU). Thus agreeing to make a good faith effort to implement a pre-negotiated list of urban water conserva-tion programs called Best Management Practices (BMPs). In many ways, this was the day urban water conservation began to be accepted as a fundamental component of any solution to California’s water woes.

In addition to identifying Best Management Practices, the Memorandum of Understanding established the Califor-nia Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC). The Council’s role was to record and provide support for the ongoing implementation of the original list of water con-servation BMPs by the signatories. This effort to better standardize and advance the conservation of California’s water resources and associated natural systems was wor-thy in its own right. However, a well recognized motivator of the process was the agreement between water agen-cies and environmental groups to avoid another lengthy round of litigation over water issues in the San Francisco Bay-Delta system with this document. Fundamentally, it is an agreement for water agencies to implement conser-vation programs before seeking new supply sources to the extent water conservation is less costly than new supply on a marginal cost basis.92

The Council quickly established itself as the most prominent focal point for urban water conservation in California and attracted numerous new signatories. Membership proved very beneficial for cost sharing on program development and evaluation research, and for informational exchange on program development and implementation issues. Now, almost two decades later, the Council continues in that leadership role with water agency signatories representing most of the urban water use in California.

Although not a water diverter from the Bay-Delta up-stream tributaries, MMWD was an original signatory to the agreement. This was primarily due to concerns over public perception, since at the time MMWD was pursu-ing public approval of bonds for increased Russian River supply. In addition, there was concern over how the State Water Resources Control Board may view non-participa-tion in light of Lagunitas Creek and Russian River water rights issues.93

Table 16 on the next page summarizes the list of BMPs and the associated implementation rate for each BMP. The recent December 2008 update refines, reorganizes, and better defines some aspects of the MOU agreement, but since the pre-2008 update is what agencies have been following and reporting on to date, it is presented in Table 16. The BMP list was considered a minimum list of conservation measures that are generally recognized to be cost-effective and sensible for water agencies to implement. The list is updated over time, as new water conservation measures are identified and evaluated, and represents a good starting point for any agency develop-ing water conservation plans or for measuring the per-formance of existing programs. The list does not neces-sarily represent all that could or should be done by water

Photo by Les Powell/Stock.Xchng.


agencies seeking to improve water supply reliability or reduce environmental impacts from water diversions. This is particularly true for agencies faced with only ex-pensive new supply options such as MMWD’s proposed desalination facility.

As is very evident from the analysis in the CALFED 2006 Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation, despite good intentions, many agencies fell behind the agreed implementation schedule. This is also the case with MMWD. This is important to note, since MMWD is now pursuing expensive new supply projects despite the fact that their implementation rate fell below this generally recognized minimum standard for some key BMPs during the last decade. The key areas of deficient performance are summarized below.

BMP 1: Single-family Residential Surveys The surveys consist of providing trained water agency staff for on-site consultations with customers to evalu-ate water use at the site and provide efficiency and conservation recommendations and incentives. The BMP implementation goal is to survey 15 percent of ser-vices at the end of 10 years. According to MMWD BMP reports, 8.6 percent have actually been done to date. This is important for interior water conservation and also for addressing landscape water use by single-fam-ily customers, which is a large percentage of MMWD landscape water use.

BMP 3: Distribution System Leak Detection The BMP require water agencies whose unaccounted water loss exceeds 10 percent in any given year to conduct a distribution system audit as detailed in the American Water Works Association manual, which is commonly referred to as the M36 Manual. The M36 manual provides detailed procedures for auditing dis-tribution system pipelines to determine the sources of unaccounted losses and maintain the system to reduce leakage.

MMWD’s BMP reports indicate the unaccounted loss rate in 2005 and 2006 exceeded the rate where a full audit is triggered. However, consumption and produc-tion data provided by MMWD indicates that unac-counted losses exceeded the 10 percent level where a system audit should have been triggered all but two years since 2002 (see Table 18). In its annual BMP re-ports, MMWD reports that full audits were performed. But this appears extremely unlikely since MMWD management indicate that a program for this was only established in the last year and no full time staff members were previously assigned this responsibility. Furthermore, the unaccounted loss rate has generally

Table 16: CUWCC Best Management Practices (Before December 2008 Update)94

No. Best Management Practice

Requirements

1 Water Survey Programs for Single- and Multi-family Residential Customers

Survey 15% of residential single-family and 15% of multi-family customers within 10 years.

2 Residential Plumbing Retrofit

Retrofit 50% of residential housing constructed prior to 1992 with low-flow showerheads, toilet displacement devices, toilet flappers and aerators; or achieve 75% saturation of the agency service area and be able to prove it statistically.

3 System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair

Audit the water utility distribution system regularly and repair any identified leaks; check yearly to see that water loss is less than 10%.

4 Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections

Install meter in 100% of existing unmetered accounts within 10 years; bill by volume of water use; assess feasibility of installing dedicated landscape meters.

5 Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives

Prepare water budget for 90% of commercial and industrial accounts with dedicated landscape meters; provide irrigation surveys to 15% of mixed-metered customers.

6 High-Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs

Provide cost-effective customer incentives, such as rebates, to encourage purchase of machines that use 40% less water per load. Number of clothes washers required is based on the total dwelling units x 0.048; up to a third fewer machines required if all of them are super high-efficiency (6.0 or less water factor).

7 Public Information Programs

Water utilities to provide public information programs to promote and educate customers about water conservation.

8 School Education Programs

Provide active school education programs to educate students about water conservation and efficient water uses.

9 Conservation Program for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Accounts

Provide a water survey of 10% of these customers within 10 years and identify retrofitting options; OR reduce water use by an amount equal to 10% of the baseline use within 10 years.

10 Wholesale Agency Assistance Programs

Provide financial incentives to water agencies and cities to encourage implementation of water conservation programs.

11 Conservation Pricing Eliminate non-conserving procing policies and adopt pricing structure such as uniform rates or inclining block rates, incentives to customers to reduce average or peak use, and surcharges to encourage conservation.

12 Conservation Coordinator

Designate a water agency staff member to have the responsibility to manage the water conservation programs.

13 Water Waste Prohibition

Adopt water waste ordinances to prohibit gutter flooding, single-pass cooling systems, non-recrculation system in all new car wash and commercial laundry systems, and non-recycling decorative water fountains.

14 Residential Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Replacement Programs

Replace older toilets for residential customers as a rate equal to that of an ordinance requiring retrofit upon resale.


increased since 2001 and averaged nearly 12 percent in the last four years (see Table 18).

This is an area where important water management improvements appear possible for MMWD. This report recommends reducing the leakage rate at least 4% for a water savings to MMWD of 1,200 afy or more. A more thorough discussion of this issue is in the Distribution System Unaccounted Losses and Leaks section of this report.

BMP 5: Large Landscape SurveysThe surveys consist of providing water agency staff for on-site consultations with large landscape customers to evaluate water use at the site and provide efficiency and conservation recommendations and incentives. In the most recent BMP report, MMWD indicates that 5.5 percent of these sites have received conservation surveys. This is far below the BMP goal of 15 percent. Reduced waste and improved landscape efficiency is a key oppor-tunity area for MMWD, and this is an important mecha-nism for addressing this problem. This report recom-mends reducing the estimated 10,000 afy of landscape water use in the MMWD service area by 4,000 afy, and this is one of the mechanisms that should be employed with a broad range of other mechanisms. More informa-tion on this subject can be found in the Landscape Irriga-tion section of this report.

All of these BMPs are important components of a serious, comprehensive water conservation program. The goals identified in the BMP implementation schedule are really just minimal standards and represent a starting point, not an exceptional effort. MMWD board and staff indicate that they now plan a more serious implementation effort. But had these been more seriously pursued for the past decade, MMWD would now have a much more reliable water supply.

Development and Implementation of MMWD’s Water Conservation Programs MMWD began its modern era of water conservation dur-ing dry periods in the 1970s. With the rejection in 1971 of the $20 million bond measure to import 42,000 afy of Russian River water, MMWD established a water con-servation program and began construction of a smaller pipeline to North Marin Water District to provide more limited access to Russian River water.98

After adoption of a controversial and contentious morato-rium on new connections in 1973, MMWD began evaluat-ing long-term conservation strategies.99 In 1974, a report entitled “Conservation Element – Water Supply program” was released. The report states: “Preliminary studies con-ducted by the District’s staff indicate that the cost-effec-tiveness of a water conservation program would be much better than any alternate program. Such a program would require a relatively low capital investment, would have a beneficial effect on the environment and would have an insignificant annual operation and maintenance cost.”100 MMWD began implementing some of the recommenda-tions in the report in 1975 and the seeds of MMWD’s toilet, plumbing, and landscape conservation programs can be traced to this time.

During the 1976-77 drought, reservoirs dropped to pre-cariously low levels and residents responded to a call for 57 percent rationing with a 62 percent use reduction.101 During this time, MMWD adopted the first in a series of water waste ordinances. It prohibited gutter flooding, the washing of sidewalks, overhead turf irrigation, the filling of swimming pools, the use of a hose to wash vehicles, and the use of potable water for construction.102 When the rains returned in 1978, the rationing program and contro-versial moratorium were rescinded.103 Water consump-tion then rebounded as the behavior modifications were relaxed and the low-quality plastic low-flow showerheads and toilet displacement bags designed as temporary mea-sures began to fail and were removed.104

In the early 1980s Soulajule Reservoir was constructed and Kent Dam was raised.105 With abundant rainfall and new water supply, conservation became a low priority un-til another period of six dry years began in the late 1980s.

In 1986, MMWD adopted Ordinance 263 limiting turf grass to 40 percent of landscape areas for newly installed landscapes. This was updated in 1989 with the adop-tion of Ordinance 285, which further limited turf to 25 percent of landscape areas, required new non-residential landscape plans to be reviewed and approved by MMWD,


and included a then-controversial requirement for 1.6 gallon toilets for new installations.106

In 1990, MMWD released a report that evaluated 1.6 gal-lon toilet effectiveness and projected nearly 3,000 afy of saving potential from retrofitting all residential sites.107 This ultimately led to a toilet retrofit incentive program in 1993.

In 1991, MMWD became a founding signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Best Management Practices Agreement, thereby agreeing to implement a pre-determined list of water conservation Best Manage-ment Practices.

In 1992, after a failed $80 million bond measure in 1991 to increase importation of Russian River water, and the subsequent passage of Measure V, a $37.5 million bond measure to fund increased conservation and phased in Russian River supply on an as-needed basis, a citizens’ advisory committee was established. The committee was formed to provide input on the development and imple-mentation of conservation programs, and provide recom-mendations to the board regarding the need for phasing in new Russian River supply.108

In 1993, MMWD conducted the first water conservation baseline study. The study collected data on the penetra-tion of conservation technologies, identified additional efficiency opportunities, and assessed customer attitudes toward water conservation and incentive programs. The baseline study began to transform water conservation planning into a science and was a critical step in develop-ing the 1994 Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.

In 1994, MMWD completed its first Water Conservation and Efficiency Master Plan. The plan identified a broad range of conservation measures and programs, pro-vided implementation goals and appropriate incentives, projected associated water savings, and established the cost-effectiveness of water conservation compared to new supply options.

By the mid 1990s, with the new water conservation master plan, a toilet incentive program, landscape and plumbing ordinances in place, a citizens’ advisory com-mittee helping to support conservation program imple-mentation, and fresh memories of drought, MMWD had what could finally be described as a long-term, comprehensive water conservation program in place. A noticeable transformation was taking place, with many landscapes becoming more water efficient in design, if not management. Toilet replacements continued at a sig-nificant rate. The high efficiency clothes washer program

was launched, and the conservation site audit program was established and meeting the BMP implementation requirements. A conservation-oriented tiered rate struc-ture was also in place.

However, after another series of wet years, the priority level for conservation programs appeared to decline. By the mid part of the present decade, the citizens’ advisory committee was inactive and implementation began to fall behind on the toilet replacement program, many of the BMPs, and many conservation master plan programs.

Presently, the MMWD board is expressing an intention to increase the conservation program effort.109 A new Water Conservation Master Plan was developed in 2007 to help guide that effort.

2007 Water Conservation Master Plan An update of the 1994 Water Efficiency and Conserva-tion Master Plan was certainly due, and the increased board and staff attention to water conservation is entirely appropriate given the present circumstances. In April of 2006, a Water Management Report was submitted to the MMWD board. In a coherent manner, the report examines the past performance of MMWD’s water con-

Photo by Andrea Kratzenberg/Stock.Xchng.


servation programs, and evaluates the future potential for conservation program given appropriately aggres-sive goals.110 The report indicates 5,000 to 8,000 afy of potential through increased water conservation and improved water management.111

In a further step, the 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan was developed.112 It includes a considerable amount of analysis and discussion of conservation options. However, rather than a well organized, comprehensive, and coherent analysis of water conservation options, the 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan is a document that appears to be haphazardly cobbled together from numer-ous previous reports and more narrowly focused analy-ses. As a result, it is fairly incomprehensible for readers attempting to understand the present state of conserva-tion programs and the basis for water conservation costs, goals, and projected water savings for the 2025 planning horizon.

Furthermore, the implementation goals for some core conservation measures are weaker than past goals or activity levels for many measures in recent years. The problem of weakened goals will be further noted in subsequent sections of this report. In another serious flaw, a marginal cost for new water supply of $1,631

was used to determine and screen the cost-effectiveness of new conservation measures.113 This is far below the desalination marginal cost estimate of $2,900 to $4,400 per acre-foot. In addition, some of the water conserva-tion measures were found to have a marginal cost much higher than generally accepted cost established by other credible analysis. For example, large landscape surveys in the 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan were found to have a marginal cost of $2,565 per acre-foot.114 The cost assumptions in the analysis are not sufficiently docu-mented to review the calculations. However, in the 2006 CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evalua-tion, where the cost assumptions are well documented, the marginal cost for large landscape surveys was deter-mined to be $210.115

Figure 9 above provides a list of potential conservation measures and water conservation Best Management Practices from the CALFED study along with the mar-ginal costs. The assumptions behind the cost analyses are well documented in the study.

All of these measures are appropriate for the MMWD service area and are clearly much more cost effective compared to the cost of desalination. Yet many of these are not found in the MMWD 2007 Water Conservation

Figure 9: CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation Marginal Costs116

Medical Sterilizers – Condensate Chamber

BMP 5 Landscape Budgets

BMP 2 Residential Showerheads – SF

Cll Dishwasers

BMP 14 Residentail Toilets – MF

BMP 5 Landscape Surveys

BMP 2 Residential Showerheads – MF

Cll Spray Valves

BMP 4 Metering

BMP 9 Cll Surveys

Medical Sterilizers – Ejector

BMP 14 Residential Toilets – SF

BMP 3

Other Landscape

Residential ET-Controllers – SF

Cll Toilets – Restaurants

Residential Washers – SF

Cii Toilets – Retail/Wholesale

Residential Washers – MF

Cll Toilets – Other

Cll Toilets – Office/Health

Cll Toilets – Hotels

$69

$75$167

$191

$210

$210

$216

$258

$278

$290$294

$345

$362$378

$379$457

$507

$537

$611

$1,028$1,075

$1,343

$1,500$1,200$900$600$3000


Master Plan or have poorly documented costs that are dramatically higher than the CALFED analysis.

Given its inherent flaws, it is difficult to understand how the 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan can provide board members with confidence that water conservation programs can adequately address MMWD’s perceived supply deficit. This is unfortunate, since it appears that MMWD has dedicated water conservation staff and the senior staff, board and community support for water con-servation appears to be as high or higher than has often been the case in the past.

In order to adequately plan, communicate and imple-ment a truly aggressive, industry leading conservation program, a more coherent planning document with ap-propriately aggressive implementation goals is needed. The document should organize and define the following information:

past water conservation program performance •

present conditions in the service area as they •relate to conservation options

specific conservation measures •

planned annual implementation rates for specific •measures and long-term penetration goals and how this compared to implementation in past years

expected water savings with the identified conser-•vation measures and assumptions for generating the savings estimates

proposed bundling of measures into programs •and marketing and delivery mechanisms of the programs

opportunities to partner with local agencies and •community groups to deliver water conservation measures and programs

mechanisms to monitor and track implementa-•tion progress and resultant water savings

credible marginal cost comparisons of water con-•servation programs and new supply options using the marginal cost estimates for desalination

In order to provide a sound planning basis for this docu-ment, an update to the water conservation baseline study is needed. This would examine the following:

the measured penetration of past interior and •landscape conservation measures and programs

existing customer knowledge and attitudes re-•garding the implementation of specific conserva-tion measures and programs

presently existing ornamental landscape char-•acteristics, including quantity of irrigated land-scaping, quantity of turf area and high water use

Photo by Eleonora Felisatti/Stock.Xchng.


plantings, quantity of low-water-use plantings, design characteristics and efficiency of irrigation systems, and irrigation management knowledge and practices of landscape managers

Answers to these questions are critical in designing a new generation of effective interior and landscape con-servation programs. But at this point, the answers are highly speculative. Given MMWD’s proposed $44 million commitment to water conservation in the years ahead,117 an adequate technical foundation for planning the con-servation programs is needed.

The technology and resources available for conducting this background research has greatly improved since the 1994 baseline study. The update should include the use of modern GIS tools, including analysis of multi spectral aerial orthophotos to determine landscape composi-tions and a ground truthing site visit of a representative sample to verify findings and collect qualitative data on landscape irrigation management practices. This should then be used along with GIS for monitoring and tracking and a citizens’ advisory committee that includes some members with landscape management expertise to help develop, implement, and provide guidance to a serious and long-term landscape and interior water use reduction program.

In an updated conservation plan, all the cost assumptions should be clearly documented to avoid potential confu-sion or misleading interpretations. For example, recent public information presentation by MMWD indicate that the conservation programs in the 2007 Water Conser-vation Master Plan would require MMWD investment of $44 million and a substantial additional customer investment of $77 million and that this may make them more costly compared to desalination.118 (Note that both of these figures include a 3 percent annual cost escala-tor.119) This is highly misleading. First of all, the MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan actually found that the combined utility and customer marginal cost of all the proposed conservation programs in the plan is $1,111 per acre-foot,120 which is far below the projected marginal cost of desalinated water.

It is important to note that the financial incentives for conservation measures are generally designed to per-suade customers to make more efficient choices when replacing or servicing their water using features and fixtures. In most cases, probably well over 75 percent of the cases, the customers will be faced with the costs of replacing aging or malfunctioning water features regard-less of the conservation incentive programs or desalina-tion project. If customers are persuaded by the conserva-tion incentive programs (which are much less costly than a desalination project) to make more efficient choices

for their projects, they will avoid the cost of a desalina-tion project on top of the cost of their individual projects. They will also own upgraded assets for their homes and businesses.

Furthermore, in a public presentation on April 28, 2009, MMWD’s staff noted that 40 percent of the water conser-vation budget is for financial incentives.121 This means that of the $44 million in projected conservation expenditures by MMWD, 40 percent of the $44 million, or $17.6 million will be returned directly to MMWD customer as financial incentives. The remaining 60 percent of the $44 million conservation budget, or $26.4 million, will be expendi-tures for program support such as staff and marketing.

If we make the (probably overestimated) assumption that 25 percent of the $77 million customer cost represents new expenditures triggered only by the incentive program, this results in a $19.2 million customer cost. By adding $19.2 million in new customer cost to the $26.4 million in MMWD expenditure not returned to customers as finan-cial incentives, the result is $45.6 million in conservation program cost that must be borne by MMWD ratepayers.

On the other hand, if we consider the $111.2 million capi-tal cost of a 5 MGD desalination facility (see Table 15) am-ortized for 30 years at 5 percent, the total capital cost with financing is actually $217.1 million. If we add the annual operating cost of $6.1 million (see Table 15) for 30 years with a 3 percent annual escalation, this results in $182.4 million. Adding the financed capital cost of $217.1 with the escalated 30-year operation cost of $182.4, the result is $399.5 million cost to MMWD ratepayers over 30 years.

MMWD is projecting the above-noted conservation program costs and desalination program costs to provide similar amounts of water supply reliability improvement. So if we double the $45.6 million conservation cost to MMWD ratepayers to $91.2 million, or even triple the conservation costs $136.8 million, to provide sufficient increased conservation to completely avoid the need for desalination, the cost to MMWD ratepayers is still dramatically less than the $399.5 million cost of desalina-tion. And this is the case without including the non-quan-tified “externalities,” such as potential environmental costs or benefits.

Of course, the reason economists use a marginal cost analysis is to provide a simple result of comparable costs for different program alternatives (see Table ES-1). By all well accepted economic measures, cost-effective con-servation programs are much less costly than MMWD’s desalination proposal from the perspective of the indi-vidual customers, the water agency, and the community perspective. These issues need to be more accurately articulated in an updated water conservation master plan.


Conservation Rate Structures

For most urban areas, water bills are a relatively •low cost compared to many living costs and monthly bills. However, there is usually con-siderable public opposition to even modest rate increases.

Most of the real environmental cost of extract-•ing water from natural systems is considered an externality and is not well quantified or reflected in the price charged to consumers.

Price elasticity studies suggest that, for the most •part, the cost of water is too low for rate struc-tures to provide an adequate stand-alone tool for driving full efficiency in water use.

Conservation-oriented rate structures coupled •with comprehensive conservation programs and additional financial incentives for installation of water-efficient devices have proven more effective in improving efficient water use in urban areas.

Water pricing in California is a complex and controversial issue. Public water agencies are only allowed to recover the cost of providing the facilities, water supply, and necessary administrative support. Some environmental monitoring and mitigation cost is captured in the cost of operations and passed on to ratepayers. However, as noted by many environmental advocates, most of the real environmental cost of extracting water from natural sys-tems is an economic externality and is not well-quantified or reflected in the price charged to consumers. There is a strong argument that this keeps the price of water artificially low compared to its true cost and value. For most residents of urban areas, the water bill is a relatively low cost compared to many living costs and monthly bills. However, as most water board members contemplating a rate increase understand, there is usually considerable public opposition to even modest rate increases.

Despite the public resistance to rate increases, price elas-ticity studies suggest that, for the most part, the cost of water is too low for rate structures to provide an adequate stand-alone tool for driving full efficiency in use. Elastic-ity studies generally indicate that for a 10 percent in-crease in price, demand will decrease by about 2 percent for single-family customers, 1 percent for multi-family customers, 2.5 percent for commercial customers, and 2 percent to 5 percent for landscape irrigation.122 This has the paradoxical effect that rate increases to pay for the cost of new water supply projects actually help reduce the need for new supply by reducing water use. While water pricing alone is not enough to drive economically

efficient water use, conservation-oriented rate structures coupled with comprehensive conservation programs and additional financial incentives to encourage installation of water efficient devices has proven more effective in the MMWD service area and elsewhere.

Another noteworthy consideration in evaluating rate structures is the actual impact on water bills paid by consumers. Water agencies often conduct a rate impact analysis when evaluating new supply and water conserva-tion options. The new supply projects, since it is assumed all the new water will be sold, often appear misleadingly attractive compared to water conservation options, which may actually reduce revenue by reducing sales. However, this analysis often falls short of considering the actual impact on water bills paid by consumers. The water conservation programs, while reducing revenue, also reduce the comparative need for revenue. This is particu-larly important in an area like the MMWD service area, where there is relatively little new growth and the costs are borne largely by existing consumers. Cost-effective water conservation programs, which by definition are less costly than new supply projects, can result in slightly higher cost per unit of water used, but lower water bills to consumers compared to more costly new supply projects.

MMWD presently has a rate structure with a base fee called a service charge and four inclining block tiers. The service charge is based on water meter size and, accord-ing to MMWD documents, covers “the cost of meter reading and billing, customer, service, meter replacement and repair, system capacity, water conservation, and ad-ministration.” The inclining block tiers are billed in CCFs (hundred cubic feet, or 748 gallons), and cover the “cost of water transmission, treatment, distribution, watershed maintenance, importing water, and recycling water.” The service charge ranges from $18.06 for a 5/8-inch meter, to $1,150.70 for a 10-inch meter.123 The four tiers are shown in Table 17 below and the break points are based on amount of water used in each billing cycle and vary from summer to winter for the residential accounts.

As indicated in Table 17, the tiers incline steeply. This is generally considered a good driver for efficient water use since customers with low water use will have much lower bills than customers with high water use. However, customers are billed on a bimonthly cycle, so it may be two months before a price signal for high consumption

Table 17: MMWD Tiered Rates124

Tier Rate per CCF1 $2.812 $5.623 $11.244 $16.86


reaches a customer. For this reason, some water agencies are moving to a monthly billing system.

Perhaps one the most difficult questions in developing and assigning a tiered rate program is how to fairly assign the tier-break points to different customers or to differ-ent customer classes. For example, consider a two-person office nextdoor to a busy café. These would have very different water needs. Should they have the same trig-ger point for higher tiers? Furthermore, should a small house with a small yard have the same tier trigger points as a large house with a large yard? Issues of equity arise even without tiered rate structures, since high water us-ers drive the need for expensive new supplies. Also, high water users are subsidized by everyone under a uniform rate structure.

Given the complexity of this subject, a thorough review of rate structure issues is well beyond the scope of this analysis. Interested readers are referred to other detailed treatments of rate structure issues such as Designing, Evaluating, and Implementing Conservation Rate Struc-tures available from the California Urban Water Conser-vation Council.

However, there are a some issues with the MMWD rate structure that deserve further comment. The assigned tier-break point for non-residential MMWD custom-ers is specific to each account. The original intention of this approach was to reflect efficient water use for each customer and was a very innovative approach. However, in an administrative compromise, the assignment of “baselines,” the amount of water use for each account that triggers the higher tiers, for most accounts reflect historic water use from the 1987 peak year or other peak years of use, rather than efficient water use for present circumstances at the site. MMWD staff members are aware of this problem and have stated their intention of adjusting baselines to reflect efficient use at each site.125 This report recommends moving forward with that ef-fort. In addition, sites with mixed interior and landscape water use, which are very common, should have base-lines that reflect landscape water use consistent with the recommendations in the Landscape Irrigation section of this report rather than historic water-thirsty landscapes.

MMWD should also consider reducing the service charge and collecting a greater percent of its revenue through the rate tiers. This will send a stronger conservation price signal to water users, reducing bills for low users that continue to reduce use and increasing bills for high users. The City of San Luis Water Department, with no service charge, collects all of its revenue through its tiered rates. The city’s conservation manager reports this is contributing to the relatively low per capita consump-tion in the department’s service area.126 Updating the

non-residential baselines to reflect efficient water use and reducing the service charge component of water bills would likely have a measurable impact on reducing water use in the District. Some of this use reduction is already considered in the landscape water savings, but some would be new conservation.

MMWD Board members recently indicated the need to increase rates even without the additional cost of new supply projects. New supply projects, such as the pro-posed desalination facility, with the 14 percent increased revenue requirement for a 5 MGD facility and 23 percent increased revenue requirement for the 10 MGD facility, would require substantial additional bill increases. Since water use is suppressed by bill increases, this needs to be carefully considered. According to water price elasticity studies, if MMWD raised water bills by 25 percent in the next few years, this would suppress water use by about 5 percent, or about 1,500 afy. Interestingly, this is almost half of the 3,300 afy supply deficit in the year 2025 identified by MMWD staff and more than the existing 1,300 afy supply deficit based on average year demand. If MMWD does move forward with the desalination facility, this price elasticity issue will likely put consider-able pressure on future MMWD Boards to reduce water conservation efforts.

RecommendationsAdjust and maintain billing baselines to reflect efficient use at the individual sites.

Evaluate lowering the service charge and collecting more revenue from the tiered rates.

Evaluate price elasticity in projecting future demand, and in particular the effects of the cost of potential desalina-tion facility on demand elasticity.

Most of the real environmental cost of extracting water from natural systems is not well quantified or reflected in the price to consumers.

30 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer30

Landscape IrrigationTypically one-third to one-half of water use in •California urban areas is for landscape irrigation.

It is well-documented that a large portion of •landscape water use is wasted by poorly designed, maintained, and managed irrigation systems.

Turf and high-water-use plants typically require •two to three times more water than low-water-use, drought-tolerant plants.

Reducing landscape irrigation waste and exces-•sive use holds the most promise of any single wa-ter conservation category in the MMWD service area.

Drought-tolerant, low-water-use landscapes can •be designed with interesting color, shape, tex-ture, and fragrance, while requiring less ongoing maintenance.

As noted by MMWD staff, “landscape programs have the greatest untapped potential” for reducing water use in the MMWD service area.127 About 10,000 afy, or one-third of water use, in the MMWD service area goes to landscape irrigation. MMWD water conservation documents note that much of the landscape water use is wasted by ineffi-ciently designed, managed and maintained irrigation sys-tems that “are routinely set to apply 30-50 percent more water than is needed to maintain plant health, regardless of the type of plants being watered. This over-watering occurs throughout the year, often during rainy periods and in the fall.”128 A 2006 MMWD report also notes that “water savings of 25-50 percent are routinely observed af-ter improvements are made to irrigation equipment and operational practices.”129 In addition, it is also clear that much water goes to water thirsty landscapes inappropri-ate for Marin’s climate conditions. This is an area with tremendous potential for reducing water use in Marin.

Some might suggest that reducing landscape irrigation will mean no landscaping in Marin, just rock gardens, hardscape and dirt patches. However, as is plain to see, the Mt.Tamalpais watershed, one of the natural scenic jewels of the region, is covered in vegetation that re-ceives no dry season irrigation at all. Many people visit the watershed to enjoy its natural beauty. For urbanized areas, it comes down to shifting to regionally appropri-ate landscape designs that require minimal irrigation in the local climate, then supporting this with efficiently designed, managed, and maintained irrigation systems that are only used as needed.

Largely motivated by MMWD landscape programs, Marin residents have already begun to make impressive strides in shifting away from water-guzzling, high-maintenance landscapes to more regionally appropriate landscapes. A drive around Marin 20 years ago would have demon-strated that the standard landscape was basically a spread of turf grass with a few shrubs here and there. Now a similar drive will show that many landscapes are bursting with color, shape, texture, and fragrance using low-water-use and drought-tolerant plants. These new landscapes often require as much as 75 percent less water than turf grass while also requiring less maintenance. Clearly, many District consumers have responded well to MMWD initiatives to revise the concept of urban landscaping into something much more environmentally friendly and aesthetically pleasing.

Few people would argue this transformation degrades quality of life in Marin. While many landscapes in Marin have begun this transition, the same drive around Marin makes clear that much unnecessary turf grass and high-water-use landscaping remains and that a large quan-tity of water is still routinely wasted by poor irrigation practices.

Photo by StockXpert.


As documented in the MMWD Customer Opinion Sur-veys section of this report, in numerous customer opin-ion surveys, MMWD customers indicate consistent and strong support for a greater reduction in landscape water use before pursuing new supply from the Russian River or desalination. There is also very strong majority sup-port for seriously curtailing landscape water use during serious drought events rather than developing costly new supply options. However, this will require a serious and creative leadership effort by MMWD and an approach that integrates many marketing and program delivery mechanisms.

According to its 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, MMWD had 1,309 irrigation accounts using about 2,600 afy. These accounts are relatively easy to monitor for water use. However, as noted in District documents, the water use baselines for most of these accounts, which is the basis for the tier rate billing structure for each individual account, does not reflect efficient water use or a landscape with mostly low-water-use plants.130 Most of the irrigation water use, about 7,500 afy, is in mixed-use meters, including commercial, institutional, and residen-tial accounts with landscaping. Since these accounts have

landscape and interior water use on the same meter, they present more of a challenge in monitoring and managing the irrigation water use and will require a range of tools to address.

California has a Model Landscape Ordinance that pro-vides guidance on irrigation system design and allow-able water use at new landscape sites. Effective January 1993, local agencies were required to adopt and enforce the model ordinance, show findings that an ordinance is not necessary in their area (a difficult case to make given California’s ongoing water situation), or implement a landscape ordinance of local design.131 As a result of more recent A.B.1881 and A.B.2717, California is in the process of revising the State Model Landscape Ordinance.132

The proposed new State Model Landscape Ordinance, while not yet adopted or enacted, allows slightly less wa-ter use for new landscapes, to reflect improvements in ir-rigation system efficiency. Both the existing and the pro-posed new ordinance would allow an average plant water use factor of 0.5. The plant water use factor is the amount of water a plant needs for evapotranspiration compared to the reference evapotranspiration of turf grass. While the balance between high, medium, and low-water-use plants at a site could vary, the combined average plant water use factor cannot exceed the 0.5 limit. This limit would allow one-third of the site to be landscaped with high-water-use plants, one-third with medium-water-use plants, and one-third with low-water-use plants.133

In another initiative now underway, the governor ap-pointed a task force to develop a statewide water con-servation plan to reduce water consumption in urban areas 20 percent by the year 2020. This is now generally referred to as the 20X2020 Agency Team. While the final plan is still several months away, preliminary reports indicate that a key recommendation is expected to be a serious reduction in urban landscape water use.134 It is not yet clear how these recommendations may affect the proposed new Model Landscape Ordinance. However, more stringent water-use limits in a new 20X2020 plan are likely to result in the need for serious revisions to the proposed new Model Landscape Ordinance in order to reduce the allowable water use in new landscapes.

Ordinance 385 is MMWD’s local landscape ordinance adopted in lieu of the state model ordinance. Ordinance 385 allows for new and remodeled landscapes to have a maximum of 25 percent turf and 10 percent high-water-use plants; the remaining 65 percent must be low-water-use plants or non-irrigated. An analysis of the allowable water use of the proposed new State Model Landscape Ordinance compared to MMWD’s Ordinance 385 indi-cates that the proposed new State Model Landscape Ordi-

Photo by Scol22/Stock.Xchng.


nance as currently drafted would allow 2.7 percent more water use in new landscape sites compared to MMWD’s existing ordinance.135

This is an important issue since MMWD conservation staff has indicated a desire to revise MMWD’s ordinance to be consistent with the proposed state ordinance.136 At a time when MMWD residents are calling for increased water conservation and the MMWD Board is indicat-ing an intent to increase the water conservation effort, this would be a step in the wrong direction. It would also send a message to MMWD customers that the district is not serious about water conservation. Any revisions to MMWD’s landscape ordinance should include a signifi-cant reduction in allowable water use in new landscapes while encouraging drought-tolerant landscaping. This would be consistent with the historical progression of landscape ordinance revisions in the service area.

Rather than allow more water use, it would be appropri-ate to consider restricting new landscapes (exempting certain types of parks, playgrounds, and ballfields, etc) to no more than 15 percent turf and high-water-use plants, and the remaining 65 percent to low-water-use plants or non-irrigated plants. Sites with exceptionally large landscapes should have additional requirements such as a limit of 15 percent turf and 65 percent low-water-use plants for the first acre, and the remaining acreage devot-ed to non-irrigated plants. The actual formula would need to be carefully developed, but the point is to continue the historical progression away from landscapes requiring large amounts of ongoing irrigation to landscapes requir-ing minimal irrigation.

It would be reasonable to apply this restriction only to MMWD-provided irrigation water. Sites with large land-scapes that wish to harvest rainwater and use graywater for irrigation, as discussed in the Rain Harvesting, Cis-terns and Graywater section of this report would be free to do so. Areas that have additional groundwater poten-tial, as discussed in Groundwater section of this report, could also utilize that source and with a well-designed rain harvesting landscape they would be helping to re-charge the local groundwater for their summer use.

Another example of the weakening of the landscape con-servation effort is the phasing out of efficient landscap-ing seminars offered to the public. In the 1990s, MMWD conservation staff conducted an annual series of careful-ly designed and detailed three-hour efficient landscaping seminars for homeowners. This included a basic semi-nar, an advanced seminar, an irrigation system design and installation seminar, and a plant seminar.137 MMWD customers enthusiastically responded. Most seminars quickly filled to their capacity of about 40 people. Post-

seminar evaluations were highly favorable and many participants indicated their attendance was motivated by excellent word-of-mouth recommendations from friends and neighbors. Yet, with a diminishing emphasis on con-servation by District Management, these seminars were phased out over the last decade.

With new senior and conservation management now in place, MMWD is beginning to offer landscaping semi-nars again through the Marin Master Gardeners. How-ever, as attendance at one of the recent seminars made clear, the caliber of the seminar is greatly diminished compared to the seminars offered in the 1990s. While the Master Gardeners are more knowledgeable than many hobbyist landscapers and are clearly well-intentioned, it is not realistic to provide sufficient information in a single one-and-a-half hour seminar for such a complex subject. With attendance of less than ten people, the real impact is minimal. Fundamental information provided was at times misleading or incorrect, such as recom-mendations to connect drip conversions to existing spray circuits with no regard for separating circuits or different pressure requirements, or lack of head-to-head cover-age for spray zones, etc. Furthermore, it is probably not realistic to expect volunteers to dedicate the time and effort necessary to prepare an elaborate series of semi-nars, or to have the professional experience necessary to accurately address the many complex issues.

The Master Gardeners should be commended for their willingness and effort to assist MMWD with improving landscape water use efficiency. While there may be im-portant roles they can play to support MMWD programs, it is false economy for MMWD to rely on volunteers to handle many aspects of landscape conservation efforts, including seminars and site surveys. The failure to pro-vide high-quality conservation programs will only lead to more costly supply options, such as desalination, which is two to three times more costly than water conserva-tion programs and has serious negative environmental impacts. MMWD should allocate sufficient professional expertise and resources to the development and imple-mentation of landscape conservation programs.

Also, staff members trained in customer service tech-niques and efficient landscape irrigation practices should be available for rapid response to landscape water waste calls. MMWD’s meter readers should also be trained to recognize and report signs of gutter flooding and land-scape water wasting. In addition, easy to use and broadly marketed phone and email reporting mechanisms should be in place for customers to report problems.

The goal of the water waste responses should be to edu-cate site managers and correct the problem in a friendly,


non-confrontation oriented approach. Other agencies, including Contra Costa Water District and San Luis Water Department, that have developed the capability to rapidly respond to water waste calls report that the program is working much smoother than anticipated and it really helps to foster the sense that water is too valuable a resource to be carelessly wasted.138 It may be appropri-ate to engage the Master Gardeners to provide follow-up, after initial MMWD staff contact, to assist cooperative site managers with improving ongoing landscape irriga-tion efficiency.

RecommendationMMWD should more aggressively pursue an ongoing transformation of Marin landscaping to drought-tolerant planting designs based on native plants. A truly compre-hensive, integrated, and coherent plan is needed as the basis for this effort. To develop the new plan it would be extremely helpful to have a quantitative sense of the pres-ent landscape composition in Marin. How much irrigated landscaping is there? How much of the landscaping is turf, high-water-use, low-water-use? What is the typical landscape size and composition in different parts of the service area? How knowledgeable are the site managers (whether professional or homeowner) regarding efficient irrigation practices? Answers to these questions are criti-cal in designing an effective landscape-based conserva-tion program. But at this point, the answers are specula-tive.

An update to the 1994 Water Conservation Baseline Study is needed and warranted given the proposed $44 million commitment to water conservation by the MMWD Board.

The update should include analysis of multi-spectral aerial orthophotos to determine landscape compositions along with ground truthing site visits to a representative sample to verify findings and collect additional data on landscape irrigation management practices. This would then be used along with GIS for monitoring and tracking and a citizens’ advisory committee with some members knowledgeable in efficient landscaping practices to de-velop and implement a serious and long-term landscape water use reduction program.

Shaped with the data collected from an updated baseline study, the new landscaping plan should include, but not be limited to:

the rate structure, and updated water budgets •and baselines that better target wasteful and excessive irrigators

revised landscape ordinance allowing less (not •more) landscape water use

on-site technical assistance landscape surveys•

financial incentives for improved irrigation tech-•nology such as drip systems and ETo controllers, rain shutoff devices, the use of lower water use plants, and more effective use of mulch

improved public education and seminars•

school education programs that train students to •be landscape water efficiency surveyors and rain garden advocates

ongoing landscape professional training •programs

GIS analytical techniques to identify, target and •monitor areas with large reduction potential

rapid and effective response to reports of over-•irrigation and water waste

MMWD now has many of these components, but not a comprehensive, carefully integrated package designed around the information that would be provided with an updated water conservation baseline study.

Regarding potential savings, as previously noted, MMWD documents indicate irrigation systems “are routinely set to apply 30-50 percent more water than is needed to maintain plant health, regardless of the type of plants being watered. This over-watering occurs throughout the year, often during rainy periods and in


the fall.”139 Also, a 2006 MMWD report notes that “wa-ter savings of 25-50 percent are routinely observed after improvements are made to irrigation equipment and operational practices.”140

The University of California Cooperative Extension has developed an extensive list of plants in their Water Use Classification of Landscape Species and groups them in the following categories:141

High 70 - 90% of ETo (includes turf grass and other high-water-use plants)

Moderate 40 - 60% of ETo

Low 10 - 30% of ETo

Very Low Less than 10% of ETo (includes plants that need little or no irrigation in normal rainfall years)

By replacing high-water-use plants with low- and very-low-water-use plants and only irrigating them according to need, dramatic water savings are possible. As previously noted, the stunningly beautiful, mostly native vegetation in the MMWD Mt. Tamalpais watershed receives no summer irrigation.

An analysis of urban landscape use by the Pacific Insti-tute estimated that landscape water use savings “of 25 to 40 percent could be made with improved management practices and better application of available technology, economically and relatively quickly.”142

Based on this information, a goal of 40 percent, or about 4,000 afy, of water savings is reasonable, viable and achievable.

The cost would vary depending on how various landscape measures are bundled and marketed, and what finan-cial incentives are provided. The full development and structuring of this effort is beyond the scope of this re-view and should be undertaken with regular community input through a revived citizens’ advisory committee that includes landscape experts with a serious conservation ethic. Regular forums with local landscape professionals should also be held during the development and imple-mentation process.

Some of the implementation cost would be embedded in MMWD’s existing public information and school educa-tion program. Some marginal cost indications can be assessed from information in 2006 CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation and MMWD’s 2007 to 2006 Water Conservation Master Plan.

ETo controllers for new or remodeled landscapes: •$36 per acre-foot143

Landscape water budgets: $75 per acre-foot• 144

Residential landscape irrigation seminars: $197 •per acre-foot145

Landscape surveys: $210 per acre-foot• 146

Residential landscape surveys: $442 per acre-•foot147

Financial incentives for irrigation upgrades: •$1,296 per acre-foot148

The overall marginal cost is likely to be well under $1,000 for these basic programs.

If MMWD doubled the cost for a more advanced pro-gram including incentives for creating rain gardens and graywater systems, the overall marginal cost would be unlikely to exceed $2,000 per acre-foot. This is still much more cost-effective compared to the marginal cost of desalination.

Photo by Ronny Satzke/Stock.Xchng.


Toilets and UrinalsThe efficiency of toilets and urinals has increased •dramatically since the 1980s and the replacement of old, water-wasting fixtures is one of the most effective interior conservation programs.

MMWD began financial incentives to replace old •toilets in 1993 and by 2002 replaced over 41,000 toilets.

After MMWD discontinued rebates and insti-•tuted replacement ordinances, the annual toilet replacement rate appears to have decreased from 2002 to 2008. At this point, about 45 percent to 55 percent of toilets in the MMWD service area are efficient. In comparison, some water agen-cies in California have now reached a level of 85 percent efficient toilets.

Increasing the rate of toilet and urinal replace-•ments with financial incentives to reach a level of 90 percent efficient fixtures by the year 2025 will reliably save 1,000 afy or more at a marginal cost of $200 to $500 per acre-foot of water saved.

When the drought of record occurred in 1976-1977, toilets were designed to use 5 to 7 gallons per flush. As a result of the drought, standards for more efficient 3.5-gallon-per-flush toilets were quickly enacted. With minimal time to respond, toilet manufacturers generally adapted tanks with smaller flush volumes on their existing toilet designs. This led to poor-performing fixtures and user complaints. However, in the early 1990s, a new round of 1.6-gallon-per-flush standards were enacted. This time, toilet manufacturers responded with completely rede-signed fixtures that performed well and saved impres-sive amounts of water. As a result, toilet replacement programs became a cornerstone of urban water agency conservation programs. And in recent years, a new gen-eration of even more efficient, 1.28-gallon-per-flush or less toilets has become available.

With analysis indicating about 154,000 residential toilets in the service area at the time and projected sav-ings potential from retrofitting them of over 3,600 afy, MMWD began offering financial incentives for toilet retrofits. This began in 1993 with a $150 no-interest loan program. To increase participation, in 1994 the program was expanded to include a $100 rebate and opened to commercial and institutional sites.149 MMWD also began offering free toilets through community-based organi-zations. With an annual goal and adequate funding for about 8,000 retrofits, these financial incentive programs continued in various forms until 2001 and resulted in the replacement of over 41,000 toilets.150

In 2001, the financial incentive programs were discontin-ued in favor of an ordinance requiring toilet replacement at time of resale. The time of resale ordinance was re-pealed in 2004 and replaced with an ordinance requiring toilet replacement at time of change of water service.151 Both ordinances appear to have underperformed based on MMWD expectations and resulted in unanticipated high administration cost in addition to customer resent-ment. The actual number of toilets replaced with the two ordinances is uncertain since most were not verified with a receipt or inspection.152 Based on administration prob-lems, customer dissatisfaction, and the lagging retrofit rate, the time of service change ordinance was repealed. MMWD now offers up to a $250 rebate for replacing toilets using 3.5 gallons or more per flush with the new-generation toilets using 1.28 gallons or less per flush.153

MMWD documents now estimate the overall percentage of efficient residential and non-residential toilets using 1.6 gallons per flush or less is about 55 percent.154 But it may be considerably lower due to lack of verification of many replacements during the time of sale, change of ser-vice ordinances, and uncertainty over the natural replace-ment rate. In light of this, it appears that about 45-55 percent of the residential toilets in the service area are

Photo by Stephanie L./Stock.Xchng.


efficient and about 70,000 to 80,000 inefficient fixtures remain. In addition, about 17,000 non-efficient toilets remain in CII sites.155 In comparison, some communities in California, such as San Luis Obispo, which aggressively pursued toilet replacements since the early 1990s, have now achieved an 85 percent penetration rate with the new efficient toilet fixtures.156

The 2007 Conservation Master Plan annual toilet replace-ment goal is only 1,671.157 This is far below the annual goal of about 8,000 incentive-triggered toilet retrofits per year identified in the 1994 MMWD Water Efficiency & Conservation Master Plan. To respond to customer calls for increased conservation and MMWD Board statements of the intention to increase the conservation program ef-fort, the toilet replacement rate should be increased. The goal of 8,000 fixtures per year may be less viable now that more of the service area is retrofitted, but the goal should be at least 4,500 toilets per year.

In addition to the toilets, MMWD’s 2006 Water Manage-ment Report estimates that about 1,200 non-efficient urinals remain in non-residential sites in the service area and replacing these with efficient units would save up to 245 afy.158 MMWD now offers a $400 rebate for that purpose. However, as noted in the desalination EIR, there was “a waiting list of approximate 100 units for the High-Efficiency Urinal Program, which was temporar-ily suspended after exceeding the annual target... this program will be restarted as soon as additional funds are available.”159 Apparently, MMWD found adequate funds for a desalination pilot project and an EIR process (more than $1 million), but not enough to replace another 100 water-wasting urinals.

RecommendationUsing a variety of mechanisms such as financial incen-tives, direct install, community organizations, and ordi-nances, MMWD should establish aggressive annual goals and work to achieve a 90 percent penetration of efficient toilet and urinal fixtures by the year 2025. This will require replacing another 60,000 to 70,000 toilets by the year 2025. By structuring a program to replace a mini-mum of 4,500 per year for the next 15 years, the result would be 67,500 new water-efficient toilets. This would meet the 90 percent goal by the year 2025.

According to MMWD’s 2006 Water Management Report, just replacing the inefficient CII toilets with 1.6-gallon toilets would save 654 afy and replacement with 1.28-gal-lon per-flush-toilets would save 785 afy.160 Based on established savings estimates, toilet and urinal retrofits combined will easily provide 1,000 afy or more of reliable water savings.

The marginal cost identified in MMWD’s 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan is $1,118 for high-efficiency toilets and $1,607 per acre-foot for efficient urinals.161 However, the 2006 Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program found the marginal cost of efficient toilets in most settings relevant to the MMWD service area to be considerably lower. The study determined single-family and multi-family resi-dential sites to have toilet replacement marginal costs of $345 and $219 respectively per acre-foot of saved water. The same study found the marginal cost of replacing res-taurant toilets to be $457 per acre-foot of saved water.162

Photo by Marcin Jochimczyk/Stock.Xchng.


Clothes WashersThe water and energy efficiency of clothes wash-•ers increased dramatically in the last 15 years with the release of a new generation of clothes washers.

Financial incentives offered by MMWD in con-•junction with PG&E have resulted in the replace-ment of about 20 percent or less of clothes wash-ers with new-generation efficient washers.

Providing adequate incen-•tives to reach a replace-ment level of 75 percent by the year 2025 would result in savings of 500 to 1,000 afy at a marginal cost of $274 per acre-foot of saved water.

A modern generation of much more water- and energy-efficient clothes washers became available in the last 15 years. In the late 1990s, MMWD, in conjunction with PG&E other Bay Area water utilities, began offering financial incen-tives for retrofitting to the new, more efficient clothes washers. The new generation of clothes wash-ers receives very high ratings from customers.163

As more of the new-generation clothes washers reached the mar-ket and customers became familiar with the benefits, the rebate activity level increased until reaching an average of about 1,460 clothes washers per year for the last five years. However, the new clothes washer replacement goal appears to be 1,200 washers per year.164 This is 18 percent lower than the actual average rate reported by MMWD staff for the last five years. The reduced rate is also the rate used for calculating the water savings in the Mad-daus analysis – which is the basis of the projected water savings in the year 2025. The MMWD Board indicates the intention of increasing conservation, but, unless the goal is increased, this key conservation program goal will actu-ally be reduced from recent levels.

Based on extrapolation of data collected in the 1994 Wa-ter Conservation Baseline Study and the 2006 CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation, over 60,000 clothes washers probably exist in the MMWD ser-vice area. The clothes washer rebate program with PG&E

reports replacement of 12,450 clothes washers from 1999 through 2008.165 The 2007 Water Conservation Mas-ter Plan estimates that an additional 40,000 inefficient clothes washers exist, but the number may be as high as 48,000. The 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan goal of 1,200 clothes washer per year is well below the rate of 1,647 in 2007 and 1,544 in 2008.166 A replacement rate of only 1,200 clothes washers per year until 2025 will only result in another 18,000 clothes washers replaced, for a penetration rate of approximately 50 percent or less.

The 2006 CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evalu-ation estimates the average useful life of clothes washers in residential settings is 14 years.167 This would mean that about 7 percent of the ap-proximately 60,000 clothes washers in the service area, or about 4,200, are being replaced each year. Since consumers still have the opportu-nity to purchase either inefficient or new-generation, efficient clothes washers, the rebates are important to affect this decision. The program goal should be to shift at least half of the replacements to the efficient machines.

RecommendationThe annual replacement goal should be increased to at least 2,100 efficient clothes washers per year to achieve an overall penetra-tion goal of about 75 percent by the

year 2025. This would provide savings of 500 afy or more and could be as much as 1,000 afy if the most efficient clothes washers on the market are selected. Therefore, the rebate levels should be adequate to encourage an increased level of participation and selection of the most efficient clothes washer by program participants.

The marginal cost identified in the 2007 Water Conser-vation Master Plan for retrofitting to efficient clothes washers is $274 per acre-foot of water. This would be for the rebate cost of motivating customers to purchase the new generation efficient models when replacing dys-functional or remodeled washers. While there would be some additional customer cost in the transaction, in most cases they would be replacing the machine anyway. When compared to the $2,900 to $4,400 marginal cost range of desalination, there is considerable room for increas-ing the incentive level to increase participation levels and motivate the selection of the most efficient washers by program participants.

Photo by David Jones/Stock.Xchng.


Distribution System Unaccounted Losses and Leaks

MMWD data indicates an average distribution •system leaks and losses rate of over 10 percent in recent years.

MMWD has not had an active, ongoing leak de-•tection and reduction program until recently.

As noted in MMWD staff reports, for every one •percent reduction in leakage, about 300 afy is saved.

A similar coastal water agency in California with •an active, ongoing leak detection and repair pro-gram has reduced the leakage rate from above 10 percent to about 4 percent in recent years.

By achieving a reduction in losses and leakage •of at least 4 percent from the existing average of over 10 percent, water savings of 1,200 afy or more would be obtained at a marginal cost of about $265 per acre-foot of saved water.

MMWD reports an average distribution system unac-counted loss rate of around 10 percent168 As noted in MMWD staff reports, for every one percent reduction in leakage, about 300 afy is saved.169 MMWD has over 900 miles of pipelines.170 According to MMWD staff

documents average replacement rate averages about 6.8 miles per year which assumes a lifespan of about 130 years.171 Therefore, much of the pipe is in a seriously aged condition. Until recently, and for over five years MMWD did not have a dedicated crew and active program for proactively surveying for leaks and only responded to re-ports of serous pipe breaks.172 However, MMWD recently dedicated full time two staff equipped with sonic leak de-tection technology to an ongoing leak detection effort.173

The 20X2020 Agency Team water conservation planning process initiated by California’s Governor is evaluating an unaccounted and leakage target of no more than 40 gallons per service connection per day as a statewide minimum standard.174 This calculates to about 9% for the MMWD service area. Table 18 tallies the MMWD distri-bution system unaccounted water from 1990 to 2008.

As shown in Table 18, in recent years, the unaccounted losses and leakage rate is higher than 10 percent, and av-eraged close to 12 percent in the last four years. MMWD staff note that the customer end use water meters typical run slow as they age and staff believes this may account for a substantial portion of the unaccounted water use.176 Inaccurate meters undoubtedly account for some portion of the unaccounted use. The 20X2020 Agency Team is recommending a water meter maintenance program so that the inaccurancy rate does not exceed 2.5 percent. MMWD’s inaccuracy rate may be higher but the actual rate is unknown. However, MMWD does have aging

Table 18: MMWD Billed Consumption, Production and Unaccounted Losses175

Year Billed Consumption

Potable Production

Unbilled Use Unaccounted Percent Unaccounted

AF Saved if Reduced to 6%

1990 25,683 28,972 148 3,141 10.8% 14031991 19,516 21,332 108 1,708 8.0% 4281992 21,804 23,597 144 1,649 7.0% 2331993 23,151 25,193 181 1,861 7.4% 3491994 24,605 27,290 683 2,002 7.3% 3651995 24,973 27,431 216 2,242 8.2% 5961996 25,655 28,255 170 2,430 8.6% 7351997 27,150 29,834 92 2,592 8.7% 8021998 25,235 28,133 110 2,788 9.9% 11001999 27,283 29,696 185 2,228 7.5% 4462000 28,244 30,459 164 2,051 6.7% 2232001 28,848 31,787 132 2,807 8.8% 9002002 28,043 31,834 101 3,690 11.6% 17802003 27,195 30,467 406 2,866 9.4% 10382004 28,084 31,073 66 2,923 9.4% 10592005 25,727 28,982 75 3,180 11.0% 14412006 25,372 28,930 84 3,474 12.0% 17382007 25,617 29,018 41 3,360 11.6% 16192008 26,100 29,327 75 3,152 10.7% 1392


infrastructure and until very recently did not have a well-organized distribution system leak detection and repair program. Also, Marin has much clay soil that expands and contracts during wet and dry cycles. This can contrib-ute to pipe leakage problems. Given these factors, high leakage rate is likely and may account for a large portion of the unaccounted losses.

By comparison, San Luis Obispo Water Utility, through an ongoing effort following the procedures in the AWWA Water Audits and Loss Control Manual, reduced the un-accounted losses rate from over 10 percent to an average of about 4 percent in recent years.177 It should be noted that San Luis Obispo service area also includes a large number of old water meters178 that presumably have a slow running calibration problem similar to MMWD’s meters. Table 19 below, provides a comparison MMWD and San Luis Obispo.

Using the same data for measurement points between these two agencies, it is clear that MMWD has consider-able potential for improvement.

RecommendationBy achieving a reduction in losses and leakage of at least 4 percent from the existing average rate of well over 10 percent in recent years, savings of 1,200 afy or more would be obtained. If necessary, additional resources should be dedicated to this effort and the procedures outlined in the AWWA Water Audits and Loss Control Manual should be carefully followed. The marginal cost for this measure identified in MMWD’s 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan is $265 per acre-foot of water. The actual cost to achieve a reduction of 4 percent may be higher than $265 per acre-foot, but is still likely very cost-effective compared to the cost of new supply options.

Reservoir Operation ImprovementsCalifornia now has an extensive dam and reservoir sys-tem that includes over 1,200 major dams that provide most of the agricultural and urban water supply. Most of the dams were constructed with the purpose of provid-ing both flood control and water supply. An extensive levee system was also constructed along many of Califor-nia’s rivers. The levees were conceived of as a floodplain management concept referred to as the “single channel” approach. The idea was to provide a deep, high-velocity single-channel pathway to shed floodwater to the sea. The dams and levees were intended to provide a system where major runoff and snow-melt events could be temporarily captured and released from the dams in a quantity that could be contained as high-velocity flows within the levee system. To provide adequate space within reservoirs for upcoming big runoff events, it as often necessary to lower reservoir levels in advance. Later, as the rainfall and snow-melt season draws to a close, managers attempt to top up the reservoirs again to provide water supply for the upcoming summer dry season.

In practice, this operational scheme has proven much more problematic than was originally anticipated, and involves many inherent conflicts. Flood management authorities are interested in removing as much water as quickly as possible from the system, thereby reduc-ing available water supply. Water supply managers are interested in retaining as much water as possible in the system, thereby reducing flood management capability. California’s highly variable weather patterns no doubt lead to many sleepless nights for flood and water supply managers trying to forecast upcoming weather events to adequately manage the system and balance these tradeoffs. Despite their best efforts, California often has serious floods — sometimes in the same years that water supply shortages occur. Much water-supply yield is lost to flood management and much flood-control potential is lost to water supply management. A false sense of secu-rity provided by the levees often leads to inappropriate development in the floodplain that can result in costly and dangerous flood disasters.

Environmental conditions in California’s watershed have seriously declined as a result of the altered natural pro-cesses caused by dams and levees. Altered hydropatterns (the timing and quantity of flows) confuse many native species that depend on river pulse signals. Altered hydro-patterns also reduce rivers’ ability to provide “geomor-phic” (earth changing) flows that transport different types of sediment and create and maintain needed complex habitat features. The isolation of rivers from their flood-plains reduces wetland habitat and groundwater recharge and alters water quality.180

Table 19: MMWD & SLO Unaccounted Losses Comparison179

Year MMWDUnaccounted

San Luis Obispo Unaccounted

1999 7.5% 3.9%2000 6.7% 2.7%2001 8.8% 5.8%2002 11.6% 8.4%2003 9.4% 3.8%2004 9.4% 6.8%2005 11.0% 4.1%2006 12.0% 8.5%2007 11.6% 2.4%2008 10.7% <0.1%


The system of water facilities that includes dams and levees has contributed to California’s economic develop-ment. It has also come at a cost that was not anticipated and is now becoming better understood and recognized. This is leading to calls from many researchers and public interest groups to better manage and reoperate the sys-tem using integrated watershed and floodplain manage-ment practices to provide necessary economic benefits while improving the environmental health of the system. Resolving the inherent water management conflicts with better integrated management practices will be a key is-sue in addressing California’s water problems.181

The Russian River portion of Marin’s water supply is sub-ject to many of these issues, but is not directly managed by MMWD. In the case of MMWD’s seven local reser-voirs, management for flood control is not required as part of licensing agreements for the dams. Therefore, the management of MMWD’s reservoirs is less complex. But operation schemes do affect the calculated water-supply yield. The year-to-year management of the reservoirs also affects the actual year-to-year water supply. For example, some reservoirs have a higher evaporation rate due to higher surface area per volume than others. By moving water from high-evaporation reservoirs to Kent Lake, which has a relatively low evaporation rate due to less

surface area per volume, some increase in yield may be obtained. Also, moving water from Nicasio Reservoir to Kent Lake reservoirs to reduce spillage during moderately high rainfall years, when Nicasio would spill but Kent would not, can increase the system yield.182

As is clear in the customer opinion surveys conducted by MMWD, most residents prefer to better manage and make do with the existing water system rather than pur-sue large new supply projects. MMWD staff has recently developed a proposal for reservoir operation improve-ments.183 The proposal has three components. The first is to modify the pump system to include one mile of floating pipeline along with pumps and barges in Alpine Lake to recover more water when the reservoirs are extremely low. This will allow collecting some of the water remain-ing in low depressions in the reservoir. This additional water would be unavailable to the existing pump system and for stream flow releases. The second is to construct an additional half-mile of pipe and outlet structure on Kent Lake to capture more of the wet-season spillage from Nicasio Reservoir. The third is to upsize a pump station in Corte Madera to allow better management of reservoir water levels and optimize the use of water in the western reservoirs of Soulajule, Nicasio, and Kent Lake.

Photo by Daniel Cardiff/iStockphoto.


There is some environmental concern regarding the transfer of water from Nicasio Reservoir to Kent Lake. Lagunitas Creek hosts what is documented to be the largest surviving population of native Coho salmon on the Central Coast.184 Lagunitas Coho are listed as “en-dangered” at both the state and federal level.185 Prior to construction of the major dams on Lagunitas and Nica-sio Creeks, the Lagunitas Coho run probably numbered approximately 5,000 fish per year. 186 In the 1990s, the number of returning Coho was on average 500 per year, or 10 percent of historical levels. 187 More recently, in 2008, MMWD survey teams observed only 45 returning Coho, representing a 91 percent decline generally con-sistent with recent salmon declines in other California streams and rivers.188

Coho salmon have highly developed olfactory senses.189 Fisheries scientists believe that out migrating juvenile salmon are imprinted with the smell of their home waters.190 After the ocean stage of their life cycle, adult Salmon then use their sensory apparatus to navigate back to their streams and creeks of birth to spawn and repro-duce.191 Transferring water between different watersheds has the potential to alter the water quality characteristics of downstream releases.

The watersheds for Kent Lake and Nicasio reservoirs con-tain similar geology and rock types.192 However, while the Kent watershed is primarily undeveloped wildland, the Nicasio watershed contains a modest amount of develop-ment and considerable grazing lands. This has the po-tential to alter Nicasio water chemistry and in particular introduce a higher level of nutrients and sediments.193 As water is stored in Nicasio during the dry summer period, lake temperatures are also known to rise much higher than Kent Lake temperatures.194 The warmer, more nutrient-rich Nicasio water will host different biological activity. This altered water chemistry has the potential to confuse migrating salmon.

Furthermore, while Lagunitas Creek is a rare example of a California stream with few non-native aquatic species competing with the native species, Nicasio is known to host numerous non-native aquatic species that seed areas of Lagunitas Creek downstream of the confluence with Nicasio Creek.195 The introduction of non-native fish such as carp, bluegill, large-mouth bass and other organisms in water transferred to Kent Lake that eventually spill into Lagunitas Creek could impact native species and compromise recovery goals for listed salmonids.196

These issues do not appear to be insurmountable, but need to be carefully evaluated and addressed in moving forward with a plan to transfer water from Nicasio to Kent. If the transfers occur in the winter and early spring,

before Nicasio water warms in the summer, this may minimize potential problems. Also, if relatively little wa-ter is transferred from Nicasio compared to the volume of receiving water in Kent, and the water is well-mixed, this could also minimize potential problems. Effective screens may be needed to avoid the introduction of non-native species to Kent. Also, a means to avoid live larval transfer may need to evaluated.

Another project to improve reservoir management could occur at Phoenix Lake. The pump that moves Phoenix Lake water to the treatment plant has not been used in 10 years and is inoperable. A replacement pump was recently ordered. Staff indicates that water from Phoe-nix Lake is included in water supply yield calculation. However, since it has not been used in the last 10 years, it has not contributed to actual water supply availability, particularly during the recent spell of dry years. Phoenix Lake holds 411 acre-feet and is often one of the first to spill during the rainfall season. Since Phoenix drains through Corte Madera Creek, its spillage is not captured by any of the other reservoirs.

MMWD staff indicates that 70 percent, or about 288 acre-feet, can be recovered from Phoenix Lake with an operative pumping system.197 If Phoenix is managed to recover this 288 acre-feet for several pump-and-fill cycles in a single rainy season, some additional water supply would be available that was not available in recent years. This could be done while still maintaining a high Phoe-nix Lake level at the end of the rainy season to provide stream releases for Corte Madera Creek aquatic life. In addition, better management of Phoenix Lake for water supply yield may also provide flood benefits for flood-prone areas along Corte Madera Creek.198 Corte Madrea Creek aquatic life could also benefit from managing Phoe-nix Lake to help reduce flood-stage and unnaturally high channel-flow velocities during high runoff events.

RecommendationProvided environmental issues are properly addressed, operational improvements should include the MMWD staff proposal, which is expected to provide a supply in-crease of 1,000 acre-feet during drought periods. MMWD staff reports indicate a total capital cost of about $4 million to implement, but note some reduced energy and operating cost are expected to result from these improve-ments.

Some additional operation improvements from Phoe-nix and improved operation of other reservoirs may be possible and should be carefully evaluated. Independent expertise should be engaged for these analyses and be combined with input from a citizens’ advisory committee and MMWD’s watershed technical advisory committee.


Recycled WaterMMWD has recycled treated wastewater for •landscape and other appropriate uses since the 1976-77 drought.

Presently, 650 afy, or 2.2 percent of MMWD’s •water supply, is recycled water. Some additional water is recycled by local wastewater agencies independently of MMWD.

The lack of appropriate large recycled-water us-•ers near treatment facilities and the high cost of double-piping to deliver recycled water constrain increasing use of recycled water, but an additional 250 afy is feasible and some additional expan-sion with small satellite recycling facilities may be possible.

Use of graywater by Marin residents provides an •opportunity to recycle household graywater for on-site landscape use, and California graywater standards are beginning a revision process that is expected to result in more flexible and practical standards for California.

Much of the water on earth is continuously used, cleansed, and recycled in the natural process known as the hydrologic cycle. Water that we may think of as pristine rainfall from Pacific storm systems has a very long history of evaporating, falling as rainfall, sometimes flowing into and draining from groundwater basins, running off into rivers, and evapotranspirating through plants or flowing to the lakes and sea before evaporating and starting the cycle again. Along the way, much of this water now flows through agricultural fields and munici-pal water supply and wastewater systems. In nature, the cleansing and reuse of water is certainly a very longstand-ing practice.

Many people may not realize it or care to think about it too much, but, as noted, water in North American rivers is used multiple times by agriculture, water and waste-water utilities. Municipal water treatment plants have developed processes to cleanse this water for potable use. Without question, our water treatment processes have greatly contributed to human health with the prevention of much possible waterborne disease. It is not always obvious, but we have developed impressive potable water recycling capabilities that are in widespread use.

However, water being recycled for human potable use has one feature that appears to give the public and regula-tors considerable peace of mind. The water is returned to a natural river or waterway, and often for not very

long or far, before being withdrawn again for treatment and potable use. This has become accepted practice and seems practical for communities situated further up in watersheds where it is possible to discharge wastewater into rivers before withdrawal again further downstream (though this does come at considerable environmen-tal cost to aquatic systems and life). However, it is not practical for many large coastal urban areas that generate considerable quantities of wastewater. For coastal urban areas, there generally are no downstream river stretches for this type of indirect recycling.

Many coastal urban areas have developed water recy-cling programs. Wastewater is treated and directly used for landscape irrigation without first being discharged to natural waterways for some short length before being withdrawn and treated again. MMWD has aggressively and creatively pursued water recycling. Recycled water now provides 650 afy, or about 2.2 percent, of MMWD’s supply. In addition, three local sanitation agencies provide relatively small amounts of local recycled water separate from MMWD facilities. These include Sanita-tion Agency of Southern Marin, Central Marin Sanita-tion Agency, and the Richardson Bay Sanitary District.199 MMWD has also helped develop new uses for directly recycled water, including toilet flushing and use in car washes.200 But despite considerable effort and public support for additional water recycling in Marin, serious constraints exist which make large increases in recycled water use very problematic.

The constraints include increased cost due to legally required monitoring, widespread saline intrusion into wastewater lines, the high cost of double-piping an already largely built-out region to deliver the recycled water in separate pipes from potable water, and a limited number of suitable large recycled water uses near existing wastewater treatment facilities.201

Most of Marin’s wastewater treatment plants are located at low elevations along the San Francisco Bay water-front and are plagued with saltwater intrusion into the wastewater collection pipes. In the dry summer irrigation season, when the recycled water would be most useful, the wastewater salinity rises above levels most ornamen-tal landscaping can tolerate.202 However, the most costly constraint to increased water recycling is the requirement for double-piping to deliver recycled water. 203 If addi-tional large appropriate sites existed for using recycled water near wastewater treatment plants, a shorter piping run would be needed and the cost would be lower.

Although few people who do not understand the present situation with the frequent reuse of wastewater through river systems would find this appealing, and it is not


recommended in this report in the near future in Marin, there may come a time when pipe-to-pipe recycling for potable supply may be viable and necessary in North America. If so, and the energy and potential malfunc-tioning problems can be adequately resolved, it would be a much more appropriate use of reverse osmosis technology compared to desalination of seawater or bay water. Wastewater could be treated with existing reverse osmosis technology at much lower energy and potential environmental cost than seawater. This would also be a much higher treatment standard than typical potable water treatment facilities now use to treat water that has often been used multiple times on agricultural fields and discharged as urban wastewater.

If it one day became acceptable for direct potable reuse, it would dramatically improve the water recycling poten-tial for Marin and much of coastal California, and would resolve much of the water supply problem for California’s urban areas. In a step in that direction, Orange County is injecting the reverse osmosis treated wastewater into groundwater basins for storage and “polishing” with

natural microbial activity before extracting it for potable use. Given the very limited groundwater situation in Marin, that approach is less viable here.

Fortunately, many more appealing options recommended in this report are now available for MMWD customers. Presently, the best approach for more widespread water reuse in Marin will be graywater systems installed and maintained by interested and willing households. In essence, residents can use their untreated graywater for onsite recycled use in their landscape. Widespread use of graywater could help forestall the day when pipe-to-pipe potable recycling may become an unavoidable necessity. Interested readers are referred to the Cisterns and Gray-water section in this report for more detail on graywater.

At this point some modest increase in treated recycled water use in the MMWD service area is possible. MMWD staff has identified another 250 afy of potential expanded landscape use of recycled water from the Las Gallinas fa-cility. This should be incorporated into the overall water management program. The most promising possibility to expand recycled water use beyond the 250-afy Las Gallinas expansion may be to develop satellite treatment facilities located close to large landscape water users. The following statement is found in MMWD’s 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.204

The GIS analysis of landscape opportunities discussed in other sections of this report could include an analysis of potential sites for satellite recycled water facilities and nearby large recycled water users. If the marginal cost is found to be in the $3,000 to $4,000 range per acre-foot, it would still be cost-competitive with desalination and be available at reduced environmental and energy cost.

RecommendationIncrease recycling by 250 afy, conduct GIS analysis of potential satellite recycled facilities and work to expand graywater use by MMWD customers as an alternative to centralized water recycling.



Potential Additional Water Management ImprovementsUrban Area Rain Harvesting, Cisterns and Graywater

During previous droughts, many MMWD cus-•tomers have collected and used rainwater and graywater on their landscapes.

Rain harvesting and rain gardens can help reduce •flood risk in some areas of Marin while improving storm water quality and increasing groundwater recharge and use.

Although California standards for legal graywater •systems are very restrictive, a process to revise the standards is underway and is expected to result in more flexible and practical standards by January 1, 2011.

The wet winter/dry summer climate in Marin makes rainwater harvesting less attractive compared to other re-gions where rain occurs throughout the year. Therefore, it appears unlikely that rainwater harvesting will soon play a major water supply role in Marin. However, it has the potential to play a helpful role, particularly during future serious droughts. For example, in the 1976-77 drought of record,Marin received 22 inches of rain the first year and 25 inches the second year.

During serious drought periods, many MMWD customers reported the use of rainwater harvesting as a mechanism to supplement district water supplies. In MMWD’s 1994 Water Conservation Baseline Study, 56 percent of single-family telephone survey respondents indicated they col-lected and used rainwater during the then-recent 6-year drought.205 Rainwater collection can and did play a key role in saving prized trees and other landscape features during these conditions. This is not surprising since many communities in other regions of the world live primar-ily on local rainwater harvesting and have designed their communities with this in mind.206 Substantial benefits are also possible in California if communities are progres-sively reshaped to reduce landscape water needs while improving rainwater capture, retention, and infiltration to groundwater storage.

Rainwater capture systems can range from very simple barrels with hose connections that collect rainwater from roof gutters and downspouts for manually irrigating nearby landscaping, to several-thousand-gallon tanks with filtration systems connected to permanent irriga-tion systems. A well-designed system also uses landscape features to hold water in settling ponds and swales where

it can slowly infiltrate into local groundwater basins for use during summer dry spells or future droughts, or to help rewater and maintain flows in nearby creeks during the dry season.207

Rain harvesting also has the potential to play a helpful role in reducing flood problems in parts of Marin. Some of the low-lying urbanized areas of Marin experience much more frequent and damaging flood events com-pared to droughts. Impermeable surfaces such as roads, parking lots and roofs in urban areas contribute to floods. Rainwater collection by homeowners can hold back and slow down the runoff from heavy rain events, reducing flooding problems in low-lying areas while also providing water supply benefits.208

Involving people in small-scale rainwater harvesting activities also has the benefit of actively engaging people in thinking about and monitoring their water use. In Texas, Austin and San Antonio have provided subsidized, low-cost 75-gallon rain barrels to customers to capture rainwater for use on landscapes. It is very popular with the public and is seen as a gateway program leading participants to other water conservation activities.209 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has begun offer-ing discounted 60-gallon rain barrels with hose fittings to residents through a local hardware supplier. As recently



noted by Mayor Newsom, “Rainwater harvesting is a simple, safe, and sustainable way to help conserve our precious drinking water supplies, green our city and pro-tect our environment.” 210

Marin has some excellent examples of residential sites remodeled for rainwater harvesting. Sustainable Fairfax has a demonstration rain garden site in Fairfax that is open to the public. The site is a house built in the 1920s on a typical urban-sized lot. The roof has an effective sur-face area of 500 square feet. All the gutters are drained into a collection tank that overflows in high runoff events into a series of small constructed onsite ponds and swales that provide infiltration to groundwater. In average rain-fall years, the roof collects about 13,500 gallons for use in the landscape. Additional rain that falls directly on the landscape is also collected in the ponds and swales.211

The site was developed from a typical residential land-scape using only hand tools and methods that can be utilized by home gardeners. The site features drought-tolerant landscaping, and in addition to improving natural hydrologic function, is exceptionally attractive. More information on this site can be found at www.sustainablefairfax.org. This site represents an admirable step forward in better management of natural resources. It combines improvements in flood management, water supply reliability, groundwater recharge, stormwater quality, and improved community aesthetics into one package. It is entirely practical for many active gardeners to begin transitioning their landscapes into environmen-tally friendly rain gardens.

MMWD could help reduce the cost of rain harvesting by partnering with other local agencies for bulk purchasing of rainwater tanks and other necessary equipment. A multi-agency GIS analysis as part of an updated water conser-vation baseline study, also discussed in the Landscape Irrigation and Groundwater sections of this report, would be ideal for targeting the most appropriate areas for rain gardens to help reduce flood risk and improve ground-water management. Rather than attempting to construct one or a few large retention ponds for flood management, which will be difficult to site in the developed low-lying areas, a mosaic of small retention ponds and rain gardens could be utilized. This would also reduce the risk of failure of a large retention area that could result in catastrophic flooding of downstream areas. Information on this ap-proach should be included in the landscape seminar series and an exhibit on this issue at the County fair would be appropriate. It is also a tangible measure to include in school education programs. In addition, it would also be worthwhile to explore combining rainwater catchment systems with graywater systems.

GraywaterGraywater is water from laundry, showers, and bathroom sinks that can be used onsite for irrigation. It does not in-clude toilet, kitchen sink, or dishwasher water due to the high bacteria and possibly high pathogen count of water from these sources. There is a long history of graywater use in the California and the MMWD service area with highly variable systems ranging from simple buckets to more elaborate diversion pipes and irrigation compo-nents. Graywater can provide a supplement to irrigation water throughout the summer irrigation season and provide critical landscape irrigation water during Califor-nia’s infrequent but inevitable droughts. In a residential setting, the average person generates about 30 gallons of graywater per day.212 A household of two or more people can generate a considerable quantity of graywater. During drought periods, many MMWD customers used graywa-ter to water prized landscaping.

In 1997, California adopted Appendix G to the plumb-ing code which provides standards for the installation of graywater systems. However, the standards are very restrictive.213 As a result, few legal graywater systems exist in California, although many non-code systems are known to exist. In 2001, Arizona adopted graywater standards that are more flexible, practical, and effective than California’s standards.214 In 2008, S.B.1258 was adopted in California, requiring review and revision of California’s graywater standards. Given the less restric-tive and more effective standards in nearby Arizona and the widespread call for more effective water management in California, more practical standards are likely in Cali-fornia in the next year or two. The initial kick-off meeting for the revision to the California graywater standards was held on February 25, 2009. There was a widespread call by meeting attendees representing a broad spectrum of California water interests, including a staff water quality expert from MMWD, for California standards consistent with the Arizona standards.215

The District funded a recent evaluation of the cost of graywater systems under the presently existing California standards.216 The marginal cost was determined to range from $2,250 per acre-foot for a basic code legal system to $3,211 for the same system with backflow prevention and expansion tank, which would allow connection into an ex-isting potable water irrigation system.217 While more costly compared to other conservation options, on a marginal cost basis it is competitive with the desalination option which is $3,600 to $4,400 per acre-foot for the 5 MGB fa-cility and $2,900 to $3,500 per acre-foot for the 10 MGD facility. The study found that if 10 percent of residential customers installed and used a graywater system, 680 afy may be saved.218 If California adopts standards that reduce the cost and difficulty of installing graywater sys-


tems, this option will become increasingly viable. As noted in the recycled water section of this report, given the high cost of dual piping systems for delivering treated recycled water for irrigation, graywater systems provide the unique ability to environmentally conscious residents to recycle some of their used water on-site for landscaping.

RecommendationMMWD should continue to participate in and support practical revisions of the California graywater standards. Given the potential for more practical and cost-effective systems in the near future and the experience MMWD customers have with graywater and rain harvesting dur-ing droughts, this option should continue to be evaluated and may ultimately provide a modest but helpful reliable savings of 500 afy or considerably more. In addition, it may also be possible to link graywater systems with rain-water harvesting systems to improve the cost-effective-ness of both options and improve the overall benefit.

GroundwaterMarin’s geology typically provides poor aquifer •potential and therefore seriously limits large-scale groundwater use compared to many parts of California.

Some groundwater use does occur in the service •area and better management and recharge activ-ity has the potential for providing limited but helpful increased supply while improving local creek habitat.

Naturally occurring groundwater mounds that •may have the potential to provide additional critical supply during serious drought periods probably surround local reservoirs and should be further evaluated.

Past MMWD groundwater studies were too limit-•ed in geographic and technical scope to adequate-ly evaluate the full potential to provide additional, environmentally friendly groundwater supply.

Presently, MMWD’s local municipal water supply is based entirely on surface water from its seven reservoirs along with a small amount of recycled wastewater. In general, Marin’s geology typically provides poor large-scale aquifer potential compared with that of many parts of California.

Geologic studies indicate Marin’s geology primarily consists of Franciscan Complex, which is generally made up of three rock types.219 The first is pillow basalt rocks formed by volcanism at the point of seafloor spreading.220 The second is radiolarian chert formed from the deposi-tion of countless single-celled radiolarian zooplankton deposited on the seafloor and compacted into rock.221 The third rock type is graywacke formed from terrestrial sediments deposited in subduction zone trenches that were metamorphosed and faulted back to the surface.222 Significant amounts of greenstone, shale, sandstone, and serpentine also are know to exist in the region.223 Due to their presence in the vicinity of active fault zones such as the San Andreas fault, and the fact that many were scraped up off the seafloor and jammed together, these rocks are now distributed in a complex, non-uniform, highly fractured arrangement.224

Some areas of Marin, including much of the Marin Headlands and Bolinas Ridge, consist of well-cemented Franciscan Complex coherent rocks.225 These coherent formations, with very little effective porosity, provide particularly poor groundwater potential. However, most of southern Marin is composed of Franciscan Complex

Photo by John Byer/Stock.Xchng.


mélange. These are much less cemented and consolidated rocks that were ground up by tectonic plate collisions and faulting.226 The mélange formations have some limited groundwater potential in areas of higher porosity, fis-sures and pockets of unconsolidated material.

Numerous bands of alluvial surface deposits laid down by relatively recent erosion forces exist in Marin.227 The larger alluvial bands include areas along Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio in Mill Valley, along Corte Madera Creek and Sleepy Hollow Creek though the Ross Val-ley area, the Dominican and Terra Linda area in North San Rafael, along Miller Creek north of San Rafael and west of Highway 101, the San Geronimo Valley along Sir Francisco Drake Boulevard, and in the vicinity of Nicasio Reservoir.228 These alluvial deposits hold the best prom-ise for aquifer use, but are generally believed to be fairly thin, limiting the total storage potential.229 However, no evidence was found indicating MMWD has conducted a comprehensive study of groundwater potential in most of these areas.

Some private groundwater use is known to occur in several of these alluvial deposits including in the San Geronimo Valley, the Dominican area in San Rafael and in Mill Valley. A groundwater investigation funded by MMWD in 1978 found considerable private use of the Ross Valley aquifer and indicated that further develop-ment of the aquifer was possible.230 Furthermore, in 1993, about 3 percent of single-family residential respondents in MMWD’s Water Conservation Baseline Study reported the use of well water at their sites.231

But MMWD’s desalination EIR quickly rejects further study of groundwater potential in Marin. The following is the entire analysis for a groundwater alternative in MMWD’s Desalination EIR:232

6.3.9 GroundwaterGroundwater in the area is very limited and is found in fractures of the Franciscan Formation or in shal-low alluvial deposits in valleys. In the mid-1970s, MMWD explored possible well locations in the Marin Headlands just north of the Golden Gate on Mount Tamalpais and found that, after several days of pumping at relatively low rates, the wells began to show significant drawdown. A report prepared in 1978 on the groundwater potential of Ross Valley, the area’s largest contained alluvial deposit, found that the capacity of that source was very limited and al-ready was being used for landscape irrigation by both public and private parties (Ellis and Associates 1978).

Due to the lack of significant aquifers in the MMWD service area, it was determined that developing ad-

ditional groundwater sources would not meet the project objectives. Therefore, this alternative was not carried forward for environmental review.

A review of the 1978 Ellis and Associates report reveals that the EIR is very misleading. Here is language in the report from the chapter on the Ross aquifer titled “Basin Potential”:

“It is apparent that only a small portion of the local groundwater potential has been developed to the present time. Therefore, additional use of wells, properly imple-mented, would further conserve the water resource and also enhance the supply of the MMWD system.”233

Furthermore, the desalination EIR analysis makes no mention whatsoever of a more recent MMWD-funded study of groundwater potential on the MMWD watershed. The November 2004 study, titled Ground Water Sup-ply Alternatives, Upper Lagunitas Creek Catchment and conducted by GSi/water, studied groundwater potential in limited areas surrounding the MMWD watershed lakes and an ancient slide formation area near Alpine Lake. GSi/water was directed to look for sources of groundwater that could yield up to 3,000 afy and concluded, the “likeli-hood of success appears to be reasonable. We have used conservative assumptions in the processes that we think apply to the geology and hydrology of the setting.”234 The study went on to note that the validity of the “results and interpretations can be tested only by drilling.” 235 But no further investigation was done of this possibility.236

As noted in the recent GSi/water study, naturally oc-curring groundwater mounds called bank storage may surround the reservoirs in MMWD’s watershed. These may have the potential to provide additional critical sup-ply during serious drought periods. Some of this water may naturally flow very slowly into the reservoirs during drought periods when the reservoirs have very low water levels. With strategically placed wells and pumps, it may be possible to accelerate this process and capture addi-tional groundwater during droughts. This groundwater would then be naturally recharged during subsequent wet years. 237 The study also found that several hundred acre-feet per year of groundwater may be available from an an-cient slide formation near Alpine Lake.238 If so, it may be possible to extract and pipe it into the existing reservoir system for processing through the existing treatment and distribution system. Both possibilities should be further evaluated.

Even these two studies are very limited in technical and geographic scope and are far from a comprehensive evaluation of the MMWD service area. Several modern geotechnical techniques exist for locating useful reserves


of groundwater in complex geological structures without the expense of borehole drilling. Electrical tests can help detect water-saturated rock, which is more electrically conductive than unsaturated rock.239 Another possibility is the use of seismic waves, generated with a mild explo-sive or sometimes with just a sledgehammer on a metal plate.240 These techniques, along with existing data sets and GIS tools, could be useful in mapping potential aqui-fer pockets and alluvial bands in Marin.

While large-scale groundwater use is limited in Marin by local geology, better management and recharge activ-ity has the potential for providing a modest but helpful increase in water available for local irrigation use. There is also an important linkage to flood management in the urbanized eastern corridor of Marin.

With urban development, the increase in impermeable surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and roofs decreases naturally occurring groundwater recharge and collects and accelerates surface stormwater runoff into hazardous flood flows. In fact, the flood damage interval for many Marin communities is more frequent than the drought interval.241 Slowing, storing, and infiltrating storm runoff through key urban watershed areas will decrease downstream flood problems while recharging small local aquifers.

This may be possible with a mosaic of small retention ponds and encouraging rain gardens in strategically iden-tified areas. This increased groundwater could then offset some present irrigation use and provide additional water during drought years. Local groundwater irrigation use could occur without the expense of piping the ground-

water back to MMWD treatment facilities then back to users. Improved groundwater recharge could also play a role in rewatering small creeks and streams during the summer dry season, which would improve aquatic habitat conditions.

RecommendationA thorough, districtwide analysis of groundwater poten-tial is warranted. This analysis should make use of USGS data along with MarinMap and MMWD’s GIS databases. The use of modern geotechnical tools for better mapping and assessing local aquifers in the watershed and east-ern urbanized corridor should also be considered. This analysis should be done working in partnership with local flood management agencies and watershed groups to bet-ter evaluate the potential for increased groundwater use while also reducing local flood risk, improving storm-water quality and enhancing local creek habitat and dry season flows.

While large-scale local groundwater production appears unrealistic, improved groundwater management to pro-tect local creeks and streams and some increased small scale groundwater use may be economically feasible and play a helpful, environmentally friendly role in improving supply reliability in MMWD’s service area.

Given adequate analysis and development of the potential options, a modest increase in groundwater use of about 500 afy may be possible. As noted in the GSi/water report conducted for MMWD, an increase to 1,000 afy or con-siderably more may also be possible.

Photo by Andrej Kropotov/iStockphoto.t


Appendix: MMWD Rainfall Graph

Years (1879-2008)


Endnotes

1 “2008-09 Fact Sheet.” Marin Municipal Water District, June 21, 2008.

2 “2008-09 Fact Sheet.” Op. cit.3 “A History of Our Rainfall.” Marin Municipal Water District,

included as Appendix A, also available at www.marinwater.org.4 “A History of Our Rainfall.” Op. cit.5 Compiled from “Report on Water Production and Related

Statistics.” MMWD, June 2006 and “2005 Urban Water Management Plan.” MMWD, Adopted January 18, 2006, Appended October 2006. Both available at www.marinwater.org.

6 “Report on Water Production and Related Statistics.” Op. cit., p.14.

7 Billed consumption from “MMWD Consumption by Resi Code” Excel spreadsheet provided by MMWD staff, Potable and recycled production from “Report on Water Production and Related Statistics.” Unbilled use from Dana Roxon email forwarded through Paul Helliker, MMWD General Manager March 18, 2009. The 2008 unbilled use is estimated (data not available).

8 “Meeting the Challenge: Water Supply & Demand.” MMWD, February 2009, available at www.marinwater.org. A precise definition of “normal” year demand was not found in MMWD planning documents. However, by determining demand to be the years of careless and wasteful water use after a series of wet years, the term “abnormal” water use may be more appropriate.

9 “Meeting the Challenge: Water Supply & Demand.” Op. cit.10 “Meeting the Challenge: Water Supply & Demand.” Op. cit.

MMWD Board Packet Item No. 8 “Water Supply and Demand Portfolios.” Attachment 2. October 15, 2008. p2. “2008-09 Fact Sheet.” Op. cit.

11 “A History of Our Rainfall.” Op. cit.12 Fryer, James. “Rationing, the Plans You Need but Dread to Use.”

AWWA Conserv96 Conference Proceedings13 Hardcopy file with hundreds of local newspaper articles covering

the 1976-77 drought, California Room, Marin County Civic Library, Griffin, Martin L., Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast, Sweetwater Springs Press, 1998, p. 139. McCarthy, Michael. “The Man Who Made it Rain.” Public Ink, April 10, 2006.

14 ”Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast” Op. cit., p.139.15 Angle, Pat. “Boylan quits job on water board.” Marin Independent

Journal, March 24, 1977.16 Personal phone interview of Martin Griffin, February 26, 2009.17 Hardcopy file with hundreds of local newspaper articles covering

the 1976-77 drought, Marin County Civic. “Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast” Op. Cit., “The Man Who Made it Rain.” Op. cit.

18 Personal phone interviews of Martin Griffin, February 26, 2009, and Pamela Lloyd, February 26, 2009.

19 Readers interested in more information on this subject are referred to the California Room of the Civic Center branch of the Marin County Library where extensive files are stored containing hundreds of newspaper clippings on the 1976-77 drought and the conflict surrounding the moratorium.

20 Liberatore, Paul. “Folk Hero of ’76 Drought.” San Francisco Chronicle, March 31 1988.

21 “Rationing, the Plans You Need but Dread to Use.” Ob. Cit.22 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” Marin

Municipal Water District, 1994. p.C-4.23 “Rationing, the Plans You Need but Dread to Use.” Ob. Cit.24 “1995 Urban Water Management Plan.” Marin Municipal Water

District, p.47.25 “Rationing, the Plans You Need but Dread to Use.” Ob. Cit.26 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 5, “Ordinance No. 387,

Modifications to Chapter 13.02 of the District Code – Dry Year Water Use Reduction Program.” February 17, 1999.

27 “2007 Water Conservation Master Plan.” Marin Municipal Water District, Appendix A, p.42 of 51.

28 Compiled from “2005 Urban Water Management Plan.” MMWD, p.5.

29 Association of Bay Area Governments projection quoted from “2005 Urban Water Management Plan.” MMWD, p. 5.

30 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 5, Ordinance No. 387, February 17, 1999.

31 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, MMWD, p.23.32 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, MMWD, p.31.33 Water use estimates compiled from MMWD “1994 Water

Conservation Baseline Study”, MMWD Water Use brochure, and “Orange County Saturation Study,” A Study by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Municipal Water District of Orange County, July 24, 2002.

34 Fryer, James. Demand Elasticity During a Drought, Conserv99 Proceedings, American Water Works Association, January, 1999.

35 “Water Conservation Baseline Study Final Report.” Marin Municipal Water District Prepared by DMC with PMCL, April 6, 1994. p.1.

36 “Water Conservation Baseline Study Final Report.” Op. cit., p.1, 34 , 84.

37 “MMWD Survey and Topline Report.” Charlton Research Company, June 25, 1997.

38 “MMWD Survey and Topline Report.” Op. cit., Question 19.39 “MMWD Survey and Topline Report.” Op. cit., Question 53.40 “MMWD Survey and Topline Report.” Op. cit., Question 52.41 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Charlton Research Company,

April 16, 2003.42 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Questions 22, 23, 24.43 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Question 25.44 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Questions 26, 27, 28.45 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Questions 42, 43, 44,

45.46 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Questions 46, 47, 48.47 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Question 49.48 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Question 52.49 “Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast” Op. cit., p.173. “Sonoma County

While Paper – Proposed Potter Valley Authority.” Environmental Center of Sonoma County, a Project of the Sonoma County Conservation Council. Available at: http://www.envirocentersoco.org/SCWA/

50 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity – Russian River.” Dana Roxon, January 21, 2009. p.1.

51 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity” Op. cit., p.1. “A Revolution in Water Policy.” Marin Independent Journal, April 25, 1975.

52 “Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast.” Op. cit., p.139.53 “Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast.” Op. cit., p.139.54 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity” Op. cit.,

p.1.55 “Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast.” Op. cit., p.146.56 “MMWD Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.”

Barakat & Chamberlin, 1994, p.C-3.57 “MMWD 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.” Marin Municipal

Water District. p.5.58 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,

p.2.59 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,


p.3.61 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” Op. cit., p.C-7.62 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,

p. 5, 8.63 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,

p.5, 6.64 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,






p.8.70 Derived from 5 millions gallons per day, 365 days per year.


71 “RTC Scientists Work to Bring Eelgrass Beds Back to San Francisco Bay.” Bayside Newsletter, Romberg Tiburon Center/San Francisco State University, Fall 2006. available at: http://rtc.sfsu.edu/documents/Bayside_2006.pdf

72 Boyer, Katharyn. Ph.D., Lecture at Audubon Center, Tiburon, CA., March 19, 2009.

73 Personal phone interview of Katharyn Boyer, Ph.D, March 27, 2009.

74 Personal phone interview of Katharyn Boyer, Ph.D, March 27, 2009.

75 “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water District Desalination Project.” URS, December, 2008. Vol II, p.3-1.

76 “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water District Desalination Project.” URS, December, 2008. Vol 2, p.3-7.

77 “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water District Desalination Project.” Op. cit., Vol. II, p.4-5.

78 Wet year and dry year energy use figures from “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water District Desalination Project.” Op. cit., Vol. 1, p.5-2.

79 Wet year and dry year energy use figures from “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water District Desalination Project.” Op. cit., Vol. 1, p.5-2.

80 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 8, Attachment 7, October 15, 200881 PG&E Carbon Footprint Calculator Assumption, available

at: http://www.pge.com/about/environment/calculator/assumptions.shtml

82 Ecobusinesslink.com Carbon Offset Survey83 Energy consumption derived from 25 year average use in Table

12.84 CO2 production derived from PG&E Carbon Footprint Calculator

Assumption, available at: http://www.pge.com/about/environment/calculator/assumptions.shtml

85 Carbon offset cost calculated from mid point North American based carbon offset cost of $15/metric ton found in Ecobusinesslink.com Carbon Offset Survey.

86 Alex Forman, MMWD Board President, Public statement at MMWD Feb 11, 2009 Board meeting, and “Deconstructing the Desal Debate.” by Peter Seidman, Pacific Sun, April 2, 2009. p.8.

87 “Desalination Conceptual Cost Estimate” Op. cit.88 “Desalination Conceptual Cost Estimate.” Op. cit.89 “Desalination Conceptual Cost Estimate.” Op. cit.. “Seawater

Desalination Pilot Program.” MMWD Engineering Report, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. January 26, 2007.

90 “Desalination Conceptual Cost Estimate” Op. cit.91 MMWD Board Packet Item No.10, “Proposed Changes to Title 6 –

Water Service rates and Charges – of the Marin Municipal Water District Code.” March 4, 2009. p.2.

92 “Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Conservation in California.” California Urban Water Conservation Council, available at www.cuwcc.org

93 Based on personal experience of the author when serving as the Water Conservation Coordinator for MMWD and primary liaison to the California Urban Water Conservation Council and the water conservation MOU.

94 “Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Conservation in California.” before the December 2008 update.

95 MMWD’s annual reports to the California Urban Water Conservation Council from 1999 though 2008 can be found at: www.cuwcc.org.

96 MMWD annual reports to CUWCC available at www.cuwcc.org.97 Personal discussion with MMWD Watershed and Operations

Manager (title), Steve Phelps, February 11. 2009.98 MMWD Board Item No. 13, Water Supply Opportunity – Russian

River, Dana Roxon, January 21, 2009. p.1.99 “Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast.” Op. cit., p.146.100 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,

p.C-2.101 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,

p.C-3.102 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,

p.C-3.

103 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit., p.C-3.






109 Public comments of MMWD Board members at February 11, 2009 Board meeting.

110 “2006 Water Management Report.” Marin Municipal Water District, April 26, 2006.

111 “2006 Water Management Report.” Op. cit., p.i.112 “2007 Water Conservation Master Plan.” Marin Municipal Water

District, June 20, 2007.113 “2007 Water Conservation Master Plan.” Marin Municipal Water

District. Maddaus Technical Analysis, p.13 of 51. 114 “2007 Water Conservation Master Plan.” Maddaus Technical

Analysis, Op. cit., p.20 of 51115 “CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.”

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. p.144.116 2006 “CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.”

Op. cit., p.144.117 Public comments of MMWD Board members at February 11, 2009

Board meeting.118 “Meeting the Challenge: Water Supply & Demand.” MMWD,

February 2009, available at www.marinwater.org. Note that a customer cost figure of $96 million was initially presented to the public, but later corrected to $77 million in an email from Paul Helliker, MMWD General Manager to Mark Schlosberg, Food and Water Watch California Director, April 20, 2009, and a PowerPoint presentation at MMWD’s Conservation Action Committee meeting presented by Dan Carney, MMWD Water Conservation Manager. April 28, 2009.

119 Email from Paul Helliker, MMWD General Manager to Mark Schlosberg, Food and Water Watch California Director, April 20, 2009.

120 “2007 Water Conservation Master Plan.” MMWD, Maddaus Technical Analysis, p.35 of 51.

121 “Conservation Action Committee Staff Presentation.” Marin Municipal Water District, April 28, 2009. Available at:http://www.marinwater.org/documents/cac_presentation_april_2009.pdf

122 “Designing, Evaluating, and Implementing Conservation Rate Structures.” California Urban Water Conservation Council, July 1997, p.8-18.

Cooley, Heather. “A Review of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Retail and Wholesale Customer Water demand Projections.” Pacific Institute, July 2007. p.22.

123 “Water Rates (effective 7-1-08)” Marin Municipal Water District website: www.marinwater.org. Does not reflect proposed rate increase for 2009.

124 “Water Rates (effective 7-1-08)” Op. cit.125 “MMWD 2006 Water Management Report.” Op cit., p.41.

Personal Communication with Dan Carney, MMWD Water Conservation Manager, January 20, 2009.

126 Personal phone interview of Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation Manager, San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, January 7, 2009.

127 Board Packet Item No. 8, “Landscape Irrigation Incentive Program.” Marin Municipal Water District. December 13, 2006., p.1.

128 Board Packet Item No. 8, “Landscape Irrigation Incentive Program.” Op. cit., p.7.


130 “2006 Water Management Report.” Op. cit., p.41.131 AB 325, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 1990.

Available at http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/WaterOrdIn-dex.cfm


132 “Draft New Actions Technical Memo Task 5” 20X2020 Agency Team on Water Conservation. p.10. Available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/20x2020/docs/conceptual_draft2020newactions_task5.pdf

133 Update Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance AB 1881, California Department of Water Resources website: http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/landscape/ord/ord.cfm

134 “Draft New Actions Technical Memo Task 5” 20X2020 Agency Team on Water Conservation. Op. cit., p.9.

135 The 2.7% percent increase is derived from comparing an overall plant water use factor of 0.5 allowed the proposed new state mod-el landscape ordinance with water use requirement of a landscape consistent with MMWD Ordinance 385 including 15% percent turf, 10% percent high-water-use, and 65% percent low-water-use planting.

136 Personal communication with Dan Carney, MMWD Water Conservation Manager, January 20, 2009.

137 “Water Conservation Action Plan for 1997.” Marin Municipal Water District, Water Conservation Section, January, 1997.

138 Personal phone interview with Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation Manager, San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, January 7, 2009. Personal phone interview with Chris Dundon, Water Conservation Supervisor, Contra Costa Water District, January 12, 2009.


140 “2006 Water Management Report.” Op. cit., p.35.141 “A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape

Plantings in California.” University of California Cooperative Ex-tension, California Department of Water Resources, August 2000, p.52.

142 “Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California.” The Pacific Institute, November 2003. p.63.

143 “Appendix A: Maddaus Conservation Technical Analysis” 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan, MMWD, p.23 of 51.

144 “Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.” CALFED Bay-Delta Program Water Use Efficiency Element, August 2006. p.144.

145 “Appendix A: Maddaus Conservation Technical Analysis.” Op. cit., p.21 of 51.

146 “Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.” Op. cit., p.144.147 “Appendix A: Maddaus Conservation Technical Analysis.” Op. cit.,

p.20 of 51.148 “Appendix A: Maddaus Conservation Technical Analysis.” Op. cit.,

p.21 of 51.149 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan” Marin

Municipal Water District, 1994. p.II-2.150 “2006 Water Management Report” Marin Municipal Water

District, April 26, 2006. p.17.151 “2006 Water Management Report” Op. cit., p.17.152 “2006 Water Management Report” Op. cit., p.17.153 Toilet rebate program information available at: www.marinwater.

org.154 “2006 Water Management Report” Op. cit., p.17, 59.155 “2006 Water Management Report” MMWD, April 26, 2006. p.17,

59.156 Personal phone interview with Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation

Manager, San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, January 7, 2009.157 “MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan.” Marin Municipal

Water District, June 20, 2007. p.29.158 “2006 Water Management Report” Op. cit., p.51, 52.159 “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water

District Desalination Project.” URS, December, 2008. Vol. 2, p.2-8.

160 “2006 Water Management Report” Op. cit., p.59.161 “MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan.” Maddaus

Conservation Technical Analysis, June 20, 2007. Appendix A p.21 of 51, and p.22 of 51.

162 “CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.” Op. cit., p.144.

163 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 6, “Quarterly Water Conservation Update and Additional Program Analysis.” November 19, 2008. p.5.

164 “Appendix A: Maddaus Conservation Technical Analysis” 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan, Marin Municipal Water District, p.20 of 51.

165 Compiled from MMWD annual reports to CUWCC and from email from Dan Carney, MMWD Water Conservation Manager, February 3, 2009.

166 1997 and 1998 clothes washer rebate data provided in an email by Dan Carney, MMWD Water Conservation Manager, February 3, 2009.

167 “Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.” CALFED Bay-Delta Program Water Use Efficiency Element, August 2006. p.145.

168 “MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan” June 20, 2007. p.21.169 “MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan” Op. cit., p.22.170 “MMWD 2007 Fact Sheet.” Available at www.marinwater.org.171 “Annual Pipeline Replacement Summaries” MMWD spreadsheet

provided by Kevin MacDonald to Malcom Harvey, February 1, 2008.

172 “MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan.” Op. cit., p.21. Personal communication with Steve Phelps, MMWD Watershed and Facilities Manager, February 4, 2009. Personal communication with Dan Carney, MMWD Water Conservation Manager, January 20, 2009.

173 Personal communication with Steve Phelps, MMWD Watershed and Facilities Manager, February 4, 2009.

174 “Draft New Actions Technical Memo Task 5” 20X2020 Agency Team on Water Conservation. p.10. Available at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/20x2020/docs/conceptual_draft2020newactions_task5.pdf

175 Billed consumption from “MMWD Consumption by Resi Code” Excel spreadsheet provided by MMWD staff, Potable production from “Report on Water Production and Related Statistics.” Unbilled use from Dana Roxon email forwarded through Paul Helliker, MMWD General Manager March 18, 2009. The 2008 unbilled use is estimated (data not available).

176 Personal phone interview of Dana Roxon, MMWD Assistant Manager, Environmental & Engineering Services Division, March 26, 2009.



179 MMWD data from Table 18. San Luis Obispo data from annual BMP reports available at www.cuwcc.org. Both compare billed and known uses to total production.

180 Fryer, James. “Integrated Floodplain Management” University of San Francisco. June 1999.

181 “Integrated Floodplain Management” June 1999.182 Personal phone interview of Dana Roxon, MMWD Assistant

Manager, Environmental & Engineering Services Division, March 26, 2009.

183 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 8, “Water Supply and Demand Portfolios.” Attachment 2. October, 15, 2008. p.1.

184 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, Conservation Program Director, SPAWN, April 20, 2009.

185 California Department of Fish and Game website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Resources/Coho/SAL_CohoRecovery.asp

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service website: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-

Populations/Coho/Index.cfm186 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit. 187 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.188 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.189 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.190 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.191 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.192 Sloan, Doris. “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region.”

University of California Press. 2006. p.83, 84.193 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.194 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.195 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.


196 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit. 197 Personal phone interview of Dana Roxon, MMWD Assistant

Manager, Environmental & Engineering Services Division, March 26, 2009.

198 “Position Paper on Ross Valley Flood Protection and Watershed Program.” Friends of Corte Madera Creek. January 17, 2007. P.2. Available at: http://www.friendsofcortemaderacreek.org/rep/RossValleyWatershedPolicy.pdf

199 “MMWD 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.” Adopted January 18, 2006, Appended October 2006. p.12, 13.

200 “Update and Review of Recycled Water from CMSA.” MMWD PowerPoint Presentation on Recycled Water Expansion Study, December 11, 2007.

201 Castle, Bob. “Update and Review of Recycled Water from CMSA.” MMWD District Operations Committee Packet Item. December 11, 2007. Personal communication with Bob Castle, MMWD Water Quality Manager, January, 20, 2009.

202 “Update and Review of Recycled Water from CMSA.” Op. cit., p4.203 “Update and Review of Recycled Water from CMSA.” Op. cit., p5.204 “MMWD 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.” Op. cit., p.19.205 “Water Conservation Baseline Study Final Report.” Op. cit., p.34.206 Based on the author’s personal experience which includes several

years of traveling and living in relevant places including Bahamas out islands, Belize offshore islands, Bermuda, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Tuamotus in French Polynesia.

207 “Rain Gardens, A how-to manual for homeowners.” Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, DNR Publications PUB-WT-779 2003. Available at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/runoff/rg/rgmanual.pdf

208 “Rain Gardens, A how-to manual for homeowners.” Op. cit., p.2.209 Personal phone interview of Jennifer Walker, Water Resources

Specialist, Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club, January 27, 2009. More information available at: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watercon/rwrebates.htm and http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/rainharvesting.html

210 “Mayor Gavin Newsom Launches Rainwater Harvesting Initiative to Green the City, Conserve Water & Protect the Bay & Ocean.” San Francisco Public Utilities Department, Communications and Public Outreach, October, 10, 2008. Available at: http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/14/MSC_ID/361/MTO_ID/559/C_ID/4179

211 Personal phone interview of Pam Hartwell-Herrero, Executive Director, Sustainable Fairfax, February 19, 2009. More information on the demonstration rain garden site at: http://www.sustainablefairfax.org/content/view/184/5/

212 See Table 6 in the Water Supply Yield and Customer Response to Water Shortages of this report. “Graywater Guidelines.” The Water Conservation Alliance of Southern Arizona. P.3. Available at: http://www.watercasa.org./publications.php

213 Sheikh, Ph.D. P.E., “Review of Water Recycling and Graywater” report for Marin Municipal Water District. April 2001. p.5.

214 “Graywater Guidelines.” The Water Conservation Alliance of Southern Arizona. Op. cit., p.2.

215 Personal experience of author attending the January 25, 2009 Graywater meeting in Sacramento California.

216 “Review of Water Recycling and Graywater.” Op. cit.217 “Review of Water Recycling and Graywater.” Op. cit., p.8.218 “Review of Water Recycling and Graywater.” Op. cit., p.5.219 Sloan, Doris. “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region”

University of California Press, 2006. p.62.220 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.62221 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.62222 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.62223 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek

Catchment.” GSi/water, Prepared for Municipal Water District, November 17, 2004. p.3.

224 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.82, 83. Personal phone interview of Eric Gorman, Project Geologist in charge of MMWD Study, GSi/water, January 26, 2009.

225 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p82, 83. 226 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.63.227 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.8, 82, 83.228 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.82, 83.229 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek

Catchment.” Op cit., p.16.230 Ellis and Associates. “Groundwater Resources of Ross Valley.”

Prepared for Marin Municipal Water District, October 1978.231 MMWD Water Conservation Baseline Study Final Report, Op.

Cit., p.6.232 “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water

District Desalination Project.” URS, December, 2008. Vol. I, p.6-9.

233 Ellis and Associates. “Groundwater Resources of Ross Valley.” Op cit., p22.

234 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek Catchment.” Op cit., p.14.

235 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek Catchment.” Op. cit., p.14.

236 Personal phone interview of Eric Gorman, Project Geologist in charge of MMWD Study, GSi/water, January 26, 2009.

237 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek Catchment.” Op. cit., p.42, 44, 57.

238 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek Catchment.” Op. cit., p.54,55, 57.

239 Pielou, E.C. “Fresh Water.” The University of Chicago Press, 1998., p.39.

240 “Fresh Water.” Op. cit., p.39.241 “Watershed.” Friends of Corte Madera Creek. Available at: http://

www.friendsofcortemaderacreek.org/ws/watershed.html

Food & Water WatchMain Office1616 P St. NW, Suite 300Washington, DC 20036tel: (202) 683-2500fax: (202) [email protected]

California Office25 Stillman Street, Suite 200San Francisco, CA 94107tel: (415) 293-9900fax: (415) [email protected]

sustaining our water future - food & water watch€¦ · water conservation program from 1990...

Documents