Fall-Winter 2005-2006 California Water Conservation News

Water Conservation News Fall/Winter 2005-06
1
Departaeat c| \ater 8escarces 0|hce c| \ater |se l|hcleac,
water conservation news
ia thls lssae...
CUWCC and DWR Join Forces on
Urban CIMIS Stations...........................1
Five New Stations Added to the CIMIS
Network.................................................3
Managing Agricultural Irrigation
Drainage Water...................................3
The Price of Water Effciency Is Eternal
Vigilance...............................................4
EPA Creates A National Water
Effciency Organization......................5
DWR Announces Second Round of
Funding for Water Desalination........5
Agricultural Water Management
Information Resource Directory.......6
Energy Workshops...............................6
Olivenhain Municipal Water District
is Changing the Face of Conservation
One Yard at a Time ............................7
The Proposition 50 Water Use
Effciency Funded Projects..................9
SRCSDs Master Plan...........................10
Task Force Tackles Landscape
Water Waste.........................................11
Estimating Urban Landscape
Water Use.............................................12
On-Site Self Regenerative Water
Softeners and Recycled Water............13
Building sustainability, reliability, and accountability through efficient water use
With the recent award of a Proposition 50
Water Use Effciency Grant to the Califor-
nia Urban Water Conservation Council,
we are pleased to report that California
Department of Water Resources will join
forces CUWCC to implement non-ideal
sites for urban California Irrigation Man-
agement Information System (CIMIS)
weather stations.
CIMIS manages a
network of
over 125
automated
weather
stations
that collect
weather data
from regions throughout California. The
collected data is transferred to a central
computer in Sacramento and used to
estimate reference evapotranspiration
(ETo). ETo is the amount of water that is
lost to the atmosphere by the combined
processes of evaporation and transpiration
from standardized grass and/or alfalfa sur-
faces. The data is then made available to
the public at www.cimis.water.ca.gov.
The siting of weather stations requires
standardization of the surface on which
the weather stations sit. This standardiza-
tion is necessary because of the spatial
and temporal variability of factors affecting
evapotranspiration (ET), and the diffculty
this variability creates in formulating equa-
tions for estimation of ET. Factors affecting
ET include solar radiation, air temperature,
relative humidity, and wind speed. These
parameters are interdependent, spatially
and temporally variable, and highly de-
pendent on the nature and properties of
surfaces over which their measurements
are taken.
Researchers originally specifed using grass
and alfalfa as standard surfaces because of
their adaptability to various climates and
their biophysical similarity to many agricul-
tural crops. The standardized grass and/or
alfalfa surfaces on which the weather sta-
tions rest are known as reference crops
and the weather stations that are sited on
the surfaces are referred to as reference
stations. This standardization requires
that the reference crops have adequate
fetch in all
directions, com-
pletely shade
the ground,
and have ample
supply of water.
These requirements were
designed to simulate microclimates that
are common over most irrigated surfaces.
Originally designed for agricultural pur-
poses, CIMIS has adopted these weather
station standards and has developed the
other following major criteria in selecting
sites for its weather stations:
Site a station within the region it is
meant to represent.
Do not locate a station in a transition
area between different climates.
Avoid topographic depressions and
high points.
Avoid abrupt crop/vegetation changes
or roads within 50 yards, wind obstruc-
tions or small rivers within 100 yards,
larger rivers within 200 yards, and
lakes within 1,000 yards of the site.
Weather stations not conforming to the
basic defnition of reference stations are
commonly known as non-standardized or
non ideal sites. Urban regions are one
of the environments that are likely to have
a shortage of standardized reference sites
CUWCC and DWR Join Forces on Urban CIMIS Stations
By Kent Frame, Department of Water Resources
Continued on Page 15
!
Offce of Water Use Effciency
Mission Statement
Mission Statement
In cooperation with others, we promote the effcient and benefcial
use of Californias water resources to sustain our human and natural environment.
Water Conservation News provides informa-
tion on water use effciency developments.
This free newsletter is published semi-annu-
ally by the California Department of Water
Resources, Offce of Water Use Effciency.
Subscriptions: If you want to receive this
newsletter, send your name and address to:
Department of Water Resources
Bulletins and Reports
Attention: Mailing List Coordinator
P.O. Box 942836
Sacramento, CA 94236-0001
(916) 653-1097
Water Conservation News is available
online: www.owue.water.ca.gov/news/news.cfm
For more information about DWRs
water use effciency programs call:
Water Use Effciency Offce
(916) 651-9236
William J. Bennett
Chief
(916) 651-7051
Manucher Alemi
Data Services and Program Development
(916) 651-9662
Fawzi Karajeh
Water Recycling and Desalination
(916) 651-9669
David Todd
Technical Assistance and Outreach
(916) 651-7027
Simon Eching
Program Development
(916) 651-9667
Baryohay Davidoff
Agricultural Council Support
(916) 651-9666
Kent Frame
CIMIS
(916) 651-7030
Water use effciency information is also
available from DWR district staff:
X. Tito Cervantes
Northern District
2440 Main Street
Red Bluff, CA 96080-2398
(530) 529-7389
Ed Morris
Central District
3251 S Street
(916) 227-7578
David Scruggs
San Joaquin District
3374 E. Shields Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726-6990
(559) 230-3322
David Inouye
Southern District
770 Fairmont Avenue
Glendale, CA 91203-1035
(818) 543-4600

We welcome any comments, suggestions,
and story ideas; please send them to:
Water Conservation News
Editorial Staff
Department of Water Resources
P. O. Box 942836
E-mail: goettl@water.ca.gov
Telephone: (916) 651-9605
Fax: (916) 651-9849
DWR does not endorse any of the businesses or
consulting frms mentioned in this newsletter,
since there may be others that offer the same or
similar services
3
Five New Stations Added
to the CIMIS Network
By Kent Frame
The number of stations in the California Ir-
rigation Management Information System
(CIMIS) network has been growing steadi-
ly ever since its creation in 1982. This is
mainly because of the fact that more and
more Californians realized the signifcance
of the program and its potential water,
money, and energy savings.
Despite the staff and
budget constraints,
CIMIS managed to add
fve new stations since
January 2005 bringing
the total number of
active CIMIS stations
to 129. Historical data
is also available for 68 inactive stations
that have been removed from the network
for various reasons. All of the new CIMIS
stations also use landline phones for com-
munication since cell phones can have sig-
nifcant communication problems in some
areas of the state.
The fve new stations are:
Auburn (#195) The Auburn CIMIS
station was installed on February 16,
2005, and is located in the Sierra Foothill
region of Placer County in DWRs Central
District near the city of Auburn. It is
owned by the Placer County Water Agen-
cy. Its geographic coordinates are 38.89
o

North latitude and 121.1
o
West longitude
with an elevation of 935 feet above sea
level. The station stands on reference
grass surface and therefore is referred
to as a reference evapotranspiration
(ETo) station. A few of the CIMIS stations
provide only weather data and do not
report ETo because of their poor sitting
conditions. Such stations are referred to
as non-ETo stations.
Esparto (#196) The Esparto station is
located in the Sacramento Valley region
of Yolo County in Central
District. It was installed
on April 15, 2005, and is
owned by Esparto Dis-
trict Chamber of Com-
merce. Its geographic
coordinates are 38.69
o

North latitude and
122.14
o
West longitude
with an elevation of 174 feet above sea
level. It stands on reference grass surface
and reports ETo.
Palmdale (#197) The Palmdale sta-
tion was installed on April 6, 2005, in the
Los Angeles Basin region of Los Angeles
County in Southern District near the city
of Palmdale. The station is owned by the
Sanitation District of Los Angeles County
(SDLAC). It is located at 34.62
o
North
latitude and 118.03
o
West longitude at
2,550 feet elevation above sea level. Well-
maintained grass is the reference surface
on which the station stands and is an
ETo station.
Santa Paula (#198) This
station was installed on
March 30, 2005, in the
Central Coast Valleys
region of Ventura
County in DWRs
Southern District
near the city of Santa
Paula. It is sited on
a well-maintained
grass reference surface and reports ETo.
The station is owned by the University of
California Cooperative Extension. Geo-
graphic coordinates for the Santa Paula
Station are 34.33
o
North latitude and
119.10
o
West longitude at an elevation of
218 feet above sea level.
Big Bear Lake (#199) The Big Bear
Lake station is located near the city of
Big Bear Lake in the San Bernardino
region of San Bernardino County in
Southern District. It is owned by the city
of Big Bear Lake and is resting on a well-
established turf on a golf course. The
geographic coordinates for this station
are 34.24
o
North latitude and 116.87
o

West longitude with an elevation of 6,910
feet.
If you are interested in having a CIMIS
station in your area, please contact CIMIS
representative in your district for more in-
formation. The CIMIS staff list and contact
information can be found at: http://www-
cimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/welcomeStaff.jsp.
Managing Agricultural Irrigation Drainage Water:
A Guide for Developing Integrated On-Farm Drainage Management Systems
By Jose Faria
The California of Department of Water
Resources is offering to the public a
technical manual containing information
on the Integrated On-Farm Drainage
Management (IFDM) implementation
for professionals and technical support
personnel. The technical manual is the
second of two manuals published as part
of an educational and outreach program
which was funded by EPAs 319(h) grants
through the local Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The frst manual was pub-
lished and distributed during 2003-2004
to landowners at a series of workshops.
The Center for Irrigation Technology at
California State University, Fresno (CIT)
prepared the IFDM landowner and techni-
cal manuals under a subcontract with the
Westside Resource Conservation District.
DWR-SJD wrote portions of the manuals,
provided technical assistance in the docu-
ment review process, and participated on
the technical advisory committee.
The CIT and the Westside Resources
Conservation District (WRCD) held two
IFDM workshops during October 2005 in
+
CALIFORNIA URBAN WAteR CONSeRVAtION COUNCIL
The Price of Water Effciency Is
Eternal Vigilance
We have won many battles in water con-
servation. Water effcient showerheads,
once viewed to be inadequate for hy-
giene, are now universally accepted and
even required by law. In the 1980s, the
1.6-gallon per fush toilet was promoted
by the water conservation community,
but the plumbing industry denounced
it as a faulty concept that would cause
rampant clogs and sewer line obstruc-
tions throughout the nation. Now, more
than 30 percent of toilets in the nation
meet the 1.6-gallon per fush standard,
yet the wastewater fows are uninter-
rupted and consumer satis-
faction is excellent. Great
progress in water effcien-
cy has been achieved thus
far, but additional threats
remain.
Non-Water Supplied
Urinals
Unfortunately, plumbing
codes have sometimes unfortunately
impeded water effciency advance-
ments; new code amendments can
unintentionally (or purposely) restrict
water conservation measures. As an
example, the legality of non-water sup-
plied urinals has been ambiguous in the
Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) versions
to date. It is understandable that the
code cannot anticipate every innovation
in plumbing fxtures and it is reasonable
for conficts to occur when new and safe
innovations frst come into the market-
place.
The International Association of Plumb-
ing and Mechanical Offcials (IAPMO)
recently approved amendments for the
2006 version of the UPC. It was antici-
pated by the entire water conservation
community that the 3-year code amend-
ment process would clarify and accom-
modate new and safe innovation to be
included in the next version of the UPC.
However, IAPMO has chosen to amend
the code to purposefully bar all installa-
tions of non-water supplied urinals, con-
trary to all scientifc evidence in support of
the safety and reliability of these fxtures. If
the State of California, its counties and cit-
ies adopt the 2006 version of the UPC, as
currently written, an important measure to
improve water effciency will no longer be
available to the State, water suppliers and
consumers unless a legislative override
is passed.
Showerheads
The battle for effcient shower-
heads was won long ago-
-or so we thought. State
and federal laws restrict
fow rates to 2.5 gallons
per minute (GPM). The
water conservation com-
munity believed that
the law applied to the
shower experience.
The industry believes otherwise.
There is a growing trend among fxture
manufacturers, builders, plumbers and
consumers to sidestep the law by install-
ing multiple showerheads in one shower.
Some disguise the subversion by calling
the water wasting showers home spas.
While each individual showerhead meets
the legal requirements, the multiple show-
erheads will use 30 to 100 gallons for every
shower. As a result, California may enact
separate restrictions disallowing multiple
showerheads. Another strategy for correc-
tion would be to amend the Federal En-
ergy Policy Act of 1992, where the original
showerhead standard was passed. In any
event, the water conservation community
must continue to fght a battle it thought it
won more nearly ffteen years ago.
Energy Effciency or Water
Effciency?
The energy shortage in California em-
phasized the conficts between energy
conservation and water conservation. The
rapid rise in energy costs have changed
consumer choices in appliance purchases,
and products are being developed to
ensure great energy savings. Additional
water consumption being exchanged for
energy effciency is especially likely to
occur during the peak water use times of
summer. While the water supplier imple-
ments intensive campaigns to reduce peak
summer water use, new appliances may
actually exacerbate the problem. Some
appliances, such as ice makers and home
air-conditioners, can yield great electrical
savings by using water to remove the heat
from the refrigerant in condenser coils,
but can simultaneously increase water us-
age. Water-cooled air conditioners were
not an economically viable product for
homeowners in the past due to the high
cost of the equipment. Now that electrical
costs have risen, the savings of electricity
more than justifes the high initial cost of
the equipment.
CUWCC is currently working in coopera-
tion with energy policy decision makers
at the California Energy Commission to
assure water is valued appropriately when
traded for energy conservation. Water
conservation is a long-term commitment.
Great water eff-
ciency improve-
ments have
been achieved,
but there is no
guarantee these
improvements will be
maintained. The challenge to the wa-
ter conservation community is to maintain
constant vigilance to ensure that the past
savings gains will not be lost.
5
CALIFORNIA URBAN WAteR CONSeRVAtION COUNCIL
EPA Creates A National Water
Effciency Organization
Our time has fnally come. The water con-
servation community nationwide is get-
ting its very own national organization to
promote water effciency. CUWCC, under
a grant from the US Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) has issued a draft report
to recommend a framework for a national
partnership on water use effciency. This
partnership organization will be composed
of water supply agencies, product manu-
facturers and distributors, environmental
groups, government organizations and
others and will have the ability to develop
cross-state initiatives, conduct needed
water effciency research, coordinate water
effciency project partners, and in general
serve as a clearinghouse for water effcien-
cy progress and cutting-edge change.
To design a program that best meets the
needs of the water and related industries,
CUWCC will:
Conduct stakeholder workshops
throughout the country to listen to
potential partners to learn what is im-
portant to them;
Conduct a nationwide survey of stake-
holders through the internet;
Inventory existing water effciency
organizations on a local and regional
basis and learning from their experi-
ences;
Conduct three specialized focus
groups to get feedback on proposed
designs for the national organization
Complete a report summarizing all the
options and making recommendations
The draft report will likely be presented
to EPA in early 2006, and the organization
created sometime mid-2006. Comments
on the draft report are welcome, especially
with respect to a proposed name and a
proposed location. The report is posted at
www.cuwcc.org/ national_cwe.lasso.
DWR Announces
Second Round of Funding
for Water Desalination
By Water Recycling and Desalination Staff
On October 25 and November 7, 2005, the
California Department of Water Resources
organized two public work-
shops in Sacramento and
San Diego, respectively, to
provide information to in-
terested parties and accept
comments on the Draft
2006 Water Desalination
Proposal Solicitation Package
(PSP), which was released
October 4, 2005. This is the
second funding cycle of a
$50 million water desalination
grant program that implements Chapter
6(a) of Proposition 50 (the Water Security,
Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach
Protection Act of 2002). The program
aims to assist local public agencies
with the development of new potable
water supplies through the construction
of brackish water and ocean water desali-
nation projects and help advance water
desalination technology and its use by
means of feasibility studies, research and
development, and pilot and demonstra-
tion projects.
2006 Funding Cycle
This is the second cycle of this funding
program. This cycle will grant $21.5 million
for the Fiscal Year 2005-06. The maximum
funding limits per project are:
feasibility studies $250,000
research & development $500,000
pilot & demonstration $1.5 million
water desalination construction
$3 million
Contract execution and disbursements are
subject to the availability of funds.
Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicants include California pub-
lic entities involved with water manage-
ment activities including cities, counties,
cities and counties, joint power authori-
ties, public water districts, tribes, state
agencies and other political subdivisions
of the state. Also eligible are California and
non-California entities such as non-proft
organizations (including California water-
shed management groups), universities
and colleges and federal agencies. To be
eligible to receive a grant, at least 50 per-
cent of the total cost of the project shall be
met by matching funds or donated servic-
es from non-state sources. The draft PSP
was released on October 4, 2005, and the
proposals are due in February 2006.
The review process will be completed by
April (2006) and awards are announced by
May 2006.
For more information, contact Fawzi Kara-
jeh at (916) 651-9669 or fkarajeh@water.
ca.gov. For a copy of the PSP: www.owue.
water.ca.gov/recycle/DesalPSP/DesalPSP.
cfm.
o
The Agricultural Water Management Coun-
cil is developing an informa-
tion-clearing-house and
database directory for water
management resources.
With access to this informa-
tion water providers can
make informed decisions
that maximize water use eff-
ciency effectiveness, reduce
costs and enhance environ-
mental conditions as well as
to improve district service to
its users.
Currently, information relevant to agricul-
tural water management is decentralized
and scattered; there is no index that iden-
tifes what resources are available. Each
agency, frm, or organization conducts its
own research and studies with no coordi-
nated mechanism to bring the information
back to the agricultural water community
for application and use. As a result, it is
diffcult for water suppliers to have ac-
cess to all the tools for optimal water
management effciency and conservation
planning. The Council seeks to fll this
communication gap by serving the agricul-
tural water community with the promo-
tion of information sources to meet their
needs for education and reference.
The Council will research and identify
available agricultural water management
information sources and organize the fnd-
ings into an online database and directory.
This will include the review of models
used to describe various water manage-
ment activities, such as canal seepage, and
regulating reservoir sizing that have a di-
rect connection to cost-effective solutions
Agricultural Water Management Information Resource Directory
How Do You Know What Information is Out There to Assist You in Your Next Project?
By Mike Wade
for implementing the AB 3616 Effcient
Water Management Practices. The Agricul-
tural Water Management Directory will be
a collection of information services that
are focused to the needs of agricultural
water managers. The directory will also
be accessible online. Users will be able to
search the database by
author, title, subject,
and date. Timely ac-
cess is required to
enable the agricultural
water community to
properly manage its
water resources.
Look for the Agricultural Water Manage-
ment Resources Directory Fall 2006. For
more information visit www.agwatercoun-
cil.org.
Energy Workshops
By Dave Todd
In 2005, At the request of the Governors
Offce, the California Department
of Water Resources sponsored
a series of workshops entitled
Energy Workshops for Water
and Wastewater Agencies to
ask utilities (and their custom-
ers) to shift water use off the
peak energy demand period during
Summer 2005.
A task force that included representatives
from DWR, the California Energy Com-
mission, Flex Your Power, Association of
California Water Agencies, energy utilities,
water and wastewater agencies, and con-
sultants developed an agenda designed to
explain why even though there is enough
energy during the summer, the potential
still existed for periodic regional shortages.
Agenda topics included:
Discussing and understanding the
relationship between water use and
energy demand
Explaining why it is necessary to shift
water use off the peak energy demand
period
Sharing strategies for shifting peak
demand and identifying what utilities
and their customers can do to prepare
for 2006
The Offce of Water Use Effciency and
Transfers staff coordinated and partici-
pated in the series of three workshops
conducted in Los Angeles, San Diego and
San Jose. Approximately 48 representatives
from water, wastewater, and energy utili-
ties attended the Los Angeles workshop,
60 attended the San Diego workshop,
and 103 attended the San Jose workshop.
Media coverage included the Copley News
Service in Los Angeles, KPBS public radio
in San Diego, and KCBS news radio in San
Jose.
Additional information about the work-
shops is available on the Offce of Water
Use Effciency and Transfers Flex Your
Power at the Tap Web site at: www.owue.
water.ca.gov.
AFTER
BEFORE
The Olivenhain Municipal Water District
has changed its water conservation efforts
to focus more on the outdoor aspects
as 60 percent of residential water use is
typically outdoors. To commence this
program, the District undertook a Califor-
nia-Friendly Landscape makeover for one
of its customers, wherein a front lawn was
converted into a California-Friendly yard
that uses less water.
In April 2005, the District selected En-
cinitas residents Anne Michaux and her
husband Joan Ceuterick as the winners
of a free water-wise landscape makeover
contest advertised to all District custom-
ers. Their yard was transformed from a 100
percent grass lawn to a California-Friendly
landscape that meets the needs of the resi-
dents, is beautiful and saves water. This
yard serves as a community demonstration
garden of the richness and beauty that
California-Friendly planting and landscape
themes have to offer, stated Board Direc-
tor Mark A. Muir. San Diego residents and
gardening professionals are discovering
the value of a yard that can bloom year
round and use less water.
Many people believe that a colorful, lush,
and vibrant garden needs lots of water.
In reality, the same ends can be achieved
through the application of California-
Friendly gardening principles, resulting in
a 35- to 70-percent water savings. Water-
wise gardens often require less mainte-
nance than a traditional yard so you will
save time too. You can have almost any
garden style you like and still save water.
If important to your lifestyle, even higher
water using materials such as turf or roses
can be incorporated as long as materials
Olivenhain Municipal Water District is
Changing the Face of Conservation One Yard at a Time
By Olivenhain Municipal Water District Staff
with the same water requirements are ir-
rigated on the same line. Since up to 60
percent of residential water in San Diego is
used outdoors for landscape, this project
is designed to motivate people to replace
ultra thirsty lawns with attractive, drought
resistant plants, states Muir.
Anyone interested in California-Friendly
landscaping principles can visit www.
bewaterwise.com for information on irriga-
tion schedules, plant selection, and much
more. Please visit www.omwd.com to
learn more about the project, its partners,
their services, and landscape and irrigation
system design.

A
g
:

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
r
b
a
n
:

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
r
b
a
n
:

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

&

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
m
e
n
t
A
g
:

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

&

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
m
e
n
t
APPLICANT PROJECT REC APPSHR ADJCOST COMMENTS
1 Lost Hills Water District 4129 7NCanalLining $245,760 $61,440 $307,200 Approverequestedfund
2 Lost Hills Water District 4130 4CanalLining $559,140 $186,380 $745,520 Approverequestedfund
3 Amador Water Agency 4163 CanaltoMainline $500,000 $14,532,281 $15,032,281 Applicants local benefts are underestimated, and CALFED benefts are less and indirect. Fund at $0.5 M. Applicant to submit a complete UWMP to DWR by 12/31/05.
4 Western Canal Water District 4008 Replacement & Automation of Elevation Control Structure 875 $104,929 $314,786 $419,715 Fully fund
5 Patterson Irrigation 4038 Decision Supp for Impl & Eval of Ag Wtr Reuse BMPs to Improve Dist-Lvl Irrig Eff $775,000 $725,000 $1,500,000 Approve $775,000 to fund tasks 4.1, 4.2, & 4.3. Cost reduced. Local share: $725,000. Project was revised & grant reduced to $705,579 and local share to $659,970.
6 Yolo County Fld Control & Water Cons Dist.4128 Yolo County Flow Monitoring Network $272,000 $327,144 $599,144 Fully funded
7 Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District 4161 CanalModernization $1,775,266 $40,000 $1,815,266 Approve $1,775,266 for scaled-down project. Total approved for phase 1 & 2 $775,266. Applicant share: $1,000,000. Unused funds to be used in phase 3.
8 Modesto Irrigation District 4168 Ditch Pipeline Replacement $500,000 $529,000 $1,029,000 Fully fund
9 Deer Creek Irrigation District 4013 Deer Creek Ag Water Use Eff Prog Near-Term Sys Impr Proj $1,154,254 $0 $1,154,254 Approve $1,154,254. Monitoring & assessment ($46,545) funded under Sec B. Management reduced by $30,000. One cooperator declined.Grant was reduced to $453,035.
10 Stevinson Water District 4164 Lateral Canal Piping $896,000 $107,200 $1,003,200 Approve requested fund. Applicants share is $107,200.
11 South Feather Water and Power Agency 4090 Canal Seepage Reduction Program $0 $0 $0 Do not fund. This implementation project depends on the applicants Section B project (4056) which was not funded.
12 Oakdale Irrigation District 4116 Tailwater Recovery Program $731,500 $1,377,750 $2,109,250 Fully fund
$7,513,849 $18,200,981 $25,714,830 State grant adjusted to $6,743,209
1 University of California, Davis 4032 Monitor Wetting Front Advance Rate for Irri Manage in Flood Irri Alfalfa Prod Sys $197,343 $0 $197,343 Complete proposed work in two years at 2/3 proposed budget
2 Regent of the University of California 4089 Benefts and Costs of Defcit Irrigation in Alfalfa $632,000 $0 $632,000 Reduce crop loss payment to $120,000 for the three-year program. Fund feld assistants at 50% time, Do not fund Eddy covariance equipment. Fund for a total of $632,000.
3 University of California, Davis 4070 Water Use Effciency in Sacramento Valley Rice Cultivation $428,000 $39,005 $467,005 Eliminate third year of the project, may apply in future. Applicant may compare pesticide application loads vs cultural practices.
4 California State University, Monterey Bay - Foundation 4063 Developing of the VITicultural Information System (VITIS) for Vineyards $118,590 $0 $118,590 Fund verifcation of VISM model using vinyard ground data and remote sensing. Do not fund meterological work, investigators, students. Supplies: $19,000. Travel: $2,000.
5 University of California, Davis 4115 Calif Regulated Defcit Irrigation Prog & Remote Sensing to Quantify Evapotrans $563,000 $563,000 $1,126,000 6 sites to include 2 almond (SJV valley site & Sac Valley site), 1 pistachio, 1 citrus, and 2 winegrapes. . Monitoring and verifcation to measure ET under RDI.
6 United States Department of Agriculture 4015 Improved Water Use Effciency for Vegetables Grown in the San Joaquin Valley $248,000 $260,000 $508,000 Fund project for two years. Local share for two years is $260,000.
7 University of California, Davis 4046 Ground-Based Remote Sensing Tech for Improved Ag Water Use Eff In Furrow Irr $0 $0 $0 No more research projects funded.
8 California Poly Technic State University Foundation 4047 Technology Transfer to Irrigation Districts $387,500 $127,800 $515,300 Min 25 rapid appraisals including contribution to Quantifable Objectives ($15,500 a site). Local share: 33% or $127,800.
9 Glenn Colusa Irrigation District 4133 Regulating Reservoir Feasibility $257,000 $51,400 $308,400 Fully fund
10 University of California, Davis 4102 Updating Crop Coeff Information to Improve Crop Water Est $0 $0 $0 No more research projects funded.
11 San Joaquin County Resources Conservation Dist 4158 Expanded Mobile Irrig Lab and Irrig Workshops in Spanish $60,000 $67,560 $127,560 Fund 40 evaluations at $1,000 ea, 10 Spanish workshops at $1,500 ea, $5,000 admin, $60,000 total.
12 Anderson-cottonwood Irrigation District 4166 Churn Creek Lateral Improvement $144,000 $5,000 $149,000 Fully fund
13 Deer Creek Irrigation District 4021 Deer Creek Ag Water Use Eff Prog Long-Term Sys Impr Feas Invest $288,180 $0 $288,180 Outreach ($13,776) funded in Sec A. Management reduced to $30,000. Fund for a total of $288,180. One cooperator declined. Grant was reduced to $172,8850.
14 Orland Unit Water Users Association 4022 Orland Project Regulating Reservoir Feasibility Investigation $168,153 $8,000 $176,153 Approve three step funding agreement. Feasibility study, near fnal design ($37,418) & environmental work ($17,714) should be done as part of three step project agreement.
15 Biggs-West Gridley Water District 4170 Regional Water Measurement Program $50,000 $27,000 $77,000 Fund Tasks 1 ($3,880), Task 2 ($25,360), partial Task 3 ($13,120). Plus $7,640 for report & project management. Total of $50,000. Applicant share: $27,000.
16 Reclamation District 108 4126 Reclamation/BWMP Cooperative Water Measurement Study $318,803 $161,000 $479,803 Fund Task 1 through 8 with State share of $318,803. Applicant to fnd other source of funding to complete project.
17 Yolo County Resource Conservation District 4095 Yolo/Colusa Mobile Wtr Lab Integr Water Qual, On-Farm Irrig Wtr Manage Impr $100,500 $14,000 $114,500 Do 60 evaluations for $1500 each, $1500 for workshop and $9,000 for admin, total of $100,500. Coordinate with Ag Waiver Monitoring Programs.
18 Agricultural Water Management Council 4096 Ag Water Management Informational Resources Directory $62,680 $0 $62,680 Fully fund
19 University of California, Davis 4101 California Irrigation Management Information System Phase II $0 $0 $0 No more research projects funded.
20 California State University, Fresno 4113 Optimizing a Tailwater Return System to Improve Water Quality $0 $0 $0 No more research projects funded.
21 Reclamation District 108 4162 Sac River BWMP Sub-Basin-Lvl Water Man Prog Demo Proj $200,193 $264,700 $464,893 Fund at $200,193 for meter installation ($187,000 for install/$13,000 for admin). Applicant cost share data collection. Local share increased to $264,700.
$4,223,942 $1,588,465 $5,812,407 Grant reduced to $4,108,612
1 Contra Costa Water District 4014 High Effciency Toilet and Urinal Replacement Program $647,446 $647,446 $1,294,892 Fully fund
2 Inland Empire Utilities Agency 4110 Multi-Family UFL Toilet Direct - Install Program $1,650,133 $2,436,659 $4,086,792 Fully fund
3 Municipal Water District of Orange County 4131 Industrial Process Water Use Reduction Program $404,801 $414,208 $819,009 Fully fund
4 City of Los Angeles 4172 Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller Replacement Program $350,000 $675,000 $1,025,000 Fully fund
5 California Urban Water Conservation Council 4139 Statewide Rebate Prog for Cooling Tower Conduct Controllers $349,714 $606,000 $955,714 Limit to about 200 rebates, instead of 700. Limit admin costs to less than 20%. Rebate for 200 and 20% admin costs, limit grant to $349,714.
6 City of Los Angeles 4134 Los Angeles City Park Irrigation Effciency Program $362,000 $778,970 $1,140,970 Fully fund
7 California Urban Water Conservation Council 4156 Statewide Urban Water Agency One-Stop Rebate Program $1,250,000 $1,441,000 $2,691,000 DWR staff to negotiate administration costs of less than 20%. Take into consideration similar rebate programs to determine rebate amount.
8 City of West Sacramento 4173 Parks Irrigation Retroft $324,551 $0 $324,551 Applicant is disadvantaged community. Approve requested funds. Applicant must submit a complete UWMP by December 31, 2005.
9 El Dorado Irrigation District 4091 EID CII/Multi-Fam Lands Sub-Meter & ET Controller Install Proj $83,098 $84,201 $167,299 Fully fund
10 City of Sacramento 4025 Park Irrigation Infrastructure Improvements $754,000 $143,000 $897,000 Limit $10,000 for monitoring/assessment & report writing. Limit of $428,620 for Group 2 part of the proposal for a total of $754,000. Proposed local share is prorated.
11 San Benito County Water District 4081 Water Softener Rebate Program $300,000 $305,560 $605,560 Fully fund
12 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 4029 Residential High Effciency Clothes Washer Rebate Program $1,660,000 $1,992,000 $3,652,000 Data & evaluation indicates the application not Locally Cost Effective. Limit grant to two third, two years of the program at $1,660,000. Applicant cost share: $1,992,000.
13 City of Pittsburg 4033 Innovative Irrigation Saving Our Delta I2SOD $0 $0 $0 Applicant doesnt make a compelling case that the project will have broad transferable benefts or accelerates implementation. Recommend do not fund.
14 City of Port Hueneme 4071 Citywide Meter Retroft and System Audit Program $345,324 $1,037,973 $1,383,297 Fund one year of project, 1,733 meters. Locally cost effective, fund at 25% or $345,324.
15 City of Cathedral City 4005 Landscape Irrigation System Upgrade $36,900 $54,450 $91,350 Fully fund
16 Newhall County Water District 4073 Residential ET Controller Rebate Program $55,332 $165,997 $221,329 Applicant is found locally cost effective subject to 25% state share. Applicant to submit a complete Urban Water Management Plan by December 31, 2005.
17 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 4064 California Friendly Communities $423,150 $154,000 $577,150 Fund multi-family portion of project.
18 City of Los Angeles 4142 Large Landscape Smart Irrigation Program $183,750 $187,420 $371,170 Fund at 50 percent.
19 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 4067 High-Effciency Toilet Rebate Program $1,000,000 $840,000 $1,840,000 Limit to $1,000,000 and limit program to 10,000 ULFTs. Was found to be not locally cost effective.
20 Los Angeles County Waterworks District 4031 Residential Water Use Audits Program $386,640 $313,000 $699,640 Fund voluntary residential water audits for 10% of district customers instead of 20%. Project does not meet Disadvantaged Community criteria.
21 Richgrove Community Services District 4039 Richgrove Water Meter Retroft Program $119,683 $0 $119,683 Fully fund
22 West Basin Municipal Water District 4080 West Basin Municipal Water District Restroom Retroft Project $294,834 $294,834 $589,668 Fund one year only, 248 rest rooms.
23 Electric and Gas Industries Association 4127 Regional Resource - Effcient Clothes Washer Rebate Prog $1,534,342 $2,175,816 $3,710,158 Initial funding recommendation of $1.9 million reduced to fund eligible projects with higher score. Fund one year only, DWR to negotiate approximately 25,000 rebates.
24 Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts 4042 Comm, Indust, Instit Water Use Audits & Ded Lands Meter Install Prog $108,681 $326,046 $434,727 Fund 1,788 audits. Project is Locally Cost Effective. Fund at 25% ($108,681). Project does not meet Disadvantaged Community criteria.
25 Friars Village Homeowners Association 4069 Landscape Irrigation System Upgrade $46,870 $64,220 $111,090 Fully fund
$12,671,249 $15,137,800 $27,809,049

1 California Urban Water Conservation Council 4109 California WaterStar Initiative: Water Effciency Product Rating & Labeling $217,000 $108,600 $325,600 Approve tasks 1 through 3 at 67% state share, limit admin costs to 20%. Fund for a total of $217,000.
2 Alameda Point Collaborative 4086 Water Effcient Landscaping $308,000 $0 $308,000 Fund irrigation system only, not plant design or materials (eligible cost only). Applicant to pay for ineligible costs.
3 Irvine Ranch Water District 4054 Statewide Study of Water Use Effciency $761,668 $235,000 $996,668 Fully fund
4 California Urban Water Conservation Council 4132 Urban Water Effciency Technical Assistance Program $506,913 $159,664 $666,577 Some tasks eliminated. Limit admin to 20% and state share at 76%. Fund for a total of $506,913.
5 South Yuba River Citizens League 4112 The Great Water Mystery Assemblies & School Water Audit $51,717 $53,718 $105,435 Fund one year of school assemblies and water audits. Applicants share was prorated.
6 Irvine Ranch Water District 4017 Rotary Nozzle Retroft Study $71,819 $60,166 $131,985 Fully fund
7 Alameda Point Collaborative 4085 Plowshares Demonstration Garden $193,460 $0 $193,460 Fully fund.
8 California Urban Water Conservation Council 4136 Smart From the Start $104,496 $21,583 $126,079 Fund New Home Construction Standards component only.
9 UC Regents - Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab 4174 Determin Waste of Water & Energy in Res Hot Water Dist Sys $500,000 $543,725 $1,043,725 Fund new houses study (eliminate 40 existing houses study for $682,550), reduce meetings and deliverable and other costs, for state share of $500,000.
10 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 4114 Online/Web-Based Irrigation Effciency Training $77,500 $77,500 $155,000 Fund 1 residential series class & 2 class from the professional course.
11 Santa Clara Valley Water District 4083 Water Effciency Demonstration Garden $146,000 $48,173 $194,173 Fund one acre demo garden for $146,000.
12 Central Basin Municipal Water District 4020 Comm Lands Wireless Valve End Use Manage Research Proj $164,052 $138,000 $302,052 Fund 45 controllers
13 Clovis Botanical Garden Committee 4036 Clovis Botanical Garden Expansion $72,362 $24,603 $96,965 Fund exhibits, grading, paths, irrigation system, monitoring, and assessment. No plant materials funded.
14 East Bay Municipal Utility District 4141 New Business Plan Review Program For Water Use Eff $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 Fund portion of Guidebook cost.
15 Effciency Partnership 4118 Flex Your Power at the Tap $38,551 $5,560 $44,111 Fund Market research, focus groups, public opinion survey, e-Newswire, Web site, Database, Translation Contractors. Applicant declined the award.
16 UC Regents, Agr & Nat Res/UCCE San Bern Co 4049 Cons Water & Improving Plant Health in Large So Calif Lands $130,009 $39,668 $169,677 Fund Year One - irrigation scheduling and best management practices training.
17 Pacifc Inst for Studies in Dev, Environ, & Security 4157 Dev of a Water Use Effciency Impl Cost & Cost Effect Model $142,385 $0 $142,385 Approve requested fund. Include DWR, CBDA, SWRCB, and USBR to participate in the Public Advisory Committee
18 California State University, Fresno Foundation 4111 Irrigation System Audits by Students $159,392 $0 $159,392 Fund project at 50% level.
19 East Bay Municipal Utility District 4143 Multi-Family Submeter Pilot Study $150,000 $150,000 $300,000 Fully fund
20 Stockton East Water District 4119 Children Museum WUE $54,000 $6,000 $60,000 Fully fund
21 City of San Diego4057 Recirculating Hot Water Systems: Res Survey & Feas Study $30,100 $0 $30,100 Fully fund
22 University of California, Davis 4034 Improvement in CIMIS Calif Statewide Potential Evap Maps $214,919 $0 $214,919 Fund at reduced level. DWR negotiate project tasks.
23 Water Education Foundation 4151 Project Wet (Urban Focus) $79,599 $0 $79,599 Fund Project Wet for approximately 80,000 students.
$4,223,942 $1,721,960 $5,945,902 Grant reduced to $4,185,391.
APPLICANT PROJECT REC APPSHR ADJCOST COMMENTS
9
1 Lost Hills Water District 4129 7NCanalLining $245,760 $61,440 $307,200 Approverequestedfund
2 Lost Hills Water District 4130 4CanalLining $559,140 $186,380 $745,520 Approverequestedfund
3 Amador Water Agency 4163 CanaltoMainline $500,000 $14,532,281 $15,032,281 Applicants local benefts are underestimated, and CALFED benefts are less and indirect. Fund at $0.5 M. Applicant to submit a complete UWMP to DWR by 12/31/05.
4 Western Canal Water District 4008 Replacement & Automation of Elevation Control Structure 875 $104,929 $314,786 $419,715 Fully fund
5 Patterson Irrigation 4038 Decision Supp for Impl & Eval of Ag Wtr Reuse BMPs to Improve Dist-Lvl Irrig Eff $775,000 $725,000 $1,500,000 Approve $775,000 to fund tasks 4.1, 4.2, & 4.3. Cost reduced. Local share: $725,000. Project was revised & grant reduced to $705,579 and local share to $659,970.
6 Yolo County Fld Control & Water Cons Dist.4128 Yolo County Flow Monitoring Network $272,000 $327,144 $599,144 Fully funded
7 Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District 4161 CanalModernization $1,775,266 $40,000 $1,815,266 Approve $1,775,266 for scaled-down project. Total approved for phase 1 & 2 $775,266. Applicant share: $1,000,000. Unused funds to be used in phase 3.
8 Modesto Irrigation District 4168 Ditch Pipeline Replacement $500,000 $529,000 $1,029,000 Fully fund
9 Deer Creek Irrigation District 4013 Deer Creek Ag Water Use Eff Prog Near-Term Sys Impr Proj $1,154,254 $0 $1,154,254 Approve $1,154,254. Monitoring & assessment ($46,545) funded under Sec B. Management reduced by $30,000. One cooperator declined.Grant was reduced to $453,035.
10 Stevinson Water District 4164 Lateral Canal Piping $896,000 $107,200 $1,003,200 Approve requested fund. Applicants share is $107,200.
11 South Feather Water and Power Agency 4090 Canal Seepage Reduction Program $0 $0 $0 Do not fund. This implementation project depends on the applicants Section B project (4056) which was not funded.
12 Oakdale Irrigation District 4116 Tailwater Recovery Program $731,500 $1,377,750 $2,109,250 Fully fund
$7,513,849 $18,200,981 $25,714,830 State grant adjusted to $6,743,209
1 University of California, Davis 4032 Monitor Wetting Front Advance Rate for Irri Manage in Flood Irri Alfalfa Prod Sys $197,343 $0 $197,343 Complete proposed work in two years at 2/3 proposed budget
2 Regent of the University of California 4089 Benefts and Costs of Defcit Irrigation in Alfalfa $632,000 $0 $632,000 Reduce crop loss payment to $120,000 for the three-year program. Fund feld assistants at 50% time, Do not fund Eddy covariance equipment. Fund for a total of $632,000.
3 University of California, Davis 4070 Water Use Effciency in Sacramento Valley Rice Cultivation $428,000 $39,005 $467,005 Eliminate third year of the project, may apply in future. Applicant may compare pesticide application loads vs cultural practices.
4 California State University, Monterey Bay - Foundation 4063 Developing of the VITicultural Information System (VITIS) for Vineyards $118,590 $0 $118,590 Fund verifcation of VISM model using vinyard ground data and remote sensing. Do not fund meterological work, investigators, students. Supplies: $19,000. Travel: $2,000.
5 University of California, Davis 4115 Calif Regulated Defcit Irrigation Prog & Remote Sensing to Quantify Evapotrans $563,000 $563,000 $1,126,000 6 sites to include 2 almond (SJV valley site & Sac Valley site), 1 pistachio, 1 citrus, and 2 winegrapes. . Monitoring and verifcation to measure ET under RDI.
6 United States Department of Agriculture 4015 Improved Water Use Effciency for Vegetables Grown in the San Joaquin Valley $248,000 $260,000 $508,000 Fund project for two years. Local share for two years is $260,000.
7 University of California, Davis 4046 Ground-Based Remote Sensing Tech for Improved Ag Water Use Eff In Furrow Irr $0 $0 $0 No more research projects funded.
8 California Poly Technic State University Foundation 4047 Technology Transfer to Irrigation Districts $387,500 $127,800 $515,300 Min 25 rapid appraisals including contribution to Quantifable Objectives ($15,500 a site). Local share: 33% or $127,800.
9 Glenn Colusa Irrigation District 4133 Regulating Reservoir Feasibility $257,000 $51,400 $308,400 Fully fund
10 University of California, Davis 4102 Updating Crop Coeff Information to Improve Crop Water Est $0 $0 $0 No more research projects funded.
11 San Joaquin County Resources Conservation Dist 4158 Expanded Mobile Irrig Lab and Irrig Workshops in Spanish $60,000 $67,560 $127,560 Fund 40 evaluations at $1,000 ea, 10 Spanish workshops at $1,500 ea, $5,000 admin, $60,000 total.
12 Anderson-cottonwood Irrigation District 4166 Churn Creek Lateral Improvement $144,000 $5,000 $149,000 Fully fund
13 Deer Creek Irrigation District 4021 Deer Creek Ag Water Use Eff Prog Long-Term Sys Impr Feas Invest $288,180 $0 $288,180 Outreach ($13,776) funded in Sec A. Management reduced to $30,000. Fund for a total of $288,180. One cooperator declined. Grant was reduced to $172,8850.
14 Orland Unit Water Users Association 4022 Orland Project Regulating Reservoir Feasibility Investigation $168,153 $8,000 $176,153 Approve three step funding agreement. Feasibility study, near fnal design ($37,418) & environmental work ($17,714) should be done as part of three step project agreement.
15 Biggs-West Gridley Water District 4170 Regional Water Measurement Program $50,000 $27,000 $77,000 Fund Tasks 1 ($3,880), Task 2 ($25,360), partial Task 3 ($13,120). Plus $7,640 for report & project management. Total of $50,000. Applicant share: $27,000.
16 Reclamation District 108 4126 Reclamation/BWMP Cooperative Water Measurement Study $318,803 $161,000 $479,803 Fund Task 1 through 8 with State share of $318,803. Applicant to fnd other source of funding to complete project.
17 Yolo County Resource Conservation District 4095 Yolo/Colusa Mobile Wtr Lab Integr Water Qual, On-Farm Irrig Wtr Manage Impr $100,500 $14,000 $114,500 Do 60 evaluations for $1500 each, $1500 for workshop and $9,000 for admin, total of $100,500. Coordinate with Ag Waiver Monitoring Programs.
18 Agricultural Water Management Council 4096 Ag Water Management Informational Resources Directory $62,680 $0 $62,680 Fully fund
19 University of California, Davis 4101 California Irrigation Management Information System Phase II $0 $0 $0 No more research projects funded.
20 California State University, Fresno 4113 Optimizing a Tailwater Return System to Improve Water Quality $0 $0 $0 No more research projects funded.
21 Reclamation District 108 4162 Sac River BWMP Sub-Basin-Lvl Water Man Prog Demo Proj $200,193 $264,700 $464,893 Fund at $200,193 for meter installation ($187,000 for install/$13,000 for admin). Applicant cost share data collection. Local share increased to $264,700.
$4,223,942 $1,588,465 $5,812,407 Grant reduced to $4,108,612
1 Contra Costa Water District 4014 High Effciency Toilet and Urinal Replacement Program $647,446 $647,446 $1,294,892 Fully fund
2 Inland Empire Utilities Agency 4110 Multi-Family UFL Toilet Direct - Install Program $1,650,133 $2,436,659 $4,086,792 Fully fund
3 Municipal Water District of Orange County 4131 Industrial Process Water Use Reduction Program $404,801 $414,208 $819,009 Fully fund
4 City of Los Angeles 4172 Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller Replacement Program $350,000 $675,000 $1,025,000 Fully fund
5 California Urban Water Conservation Council 4139 Statewide Rebate Prog for Cooling Tower Conduct Controllers $349,714 $606,000 $955,714 Limit to about 200 rebates, instead of 700. Limit admin costs to less than 20%. Rebate for 200 and 20% admin costs, limit grant to $349,714.
6 City of Los Angeles 4134 Los Angeles City Park Irrigation Effciency Program $362,000 $778,970 $1,140,970 Fully fund
7 California Urban Water Conservation Council 4156 Statewide Urban Water Agency One-Stop Rebate Program $1,250,000 $1,441,000 $2,691,000 DWR staff to negotiate administration costs of less than 20%. Take into consideration similar rebate programs to determine rebate amount.
8 City of West Sacramento 4173 Parks Irrigation Retroft $324,551 $0 $324,551 Applicant is disadvantaged community. Approve requested funds. Applicant must submit a complete UWMP by December 31, 2005.
9 El Dorado Irrigation District 4091 EID CII/Multi-Fam Lands Sub-Meter & ET Controller Install Proj $83,098 $84,201 $167,299 Fully fund
10 City of Sacramento 4025 Park Irrigation Infrastructure Improvements $754,000 $143,000 $897,000 Limit $10,000 for monitoring/assessment & report writing. Limit of $428,620 for Group 2 part of the proposal for a total of $754,000. Proposed local share is prorated.
11 San Benito County Water District 4081 Water Softener Rebate Program $300,000 $305,560 $605,560 Fully fund
12 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 4029 Residential High Effciency Clothes Washer Rebate Program $1,660,000 $1,992,000 $3,652,000 Data & evaluation indicates the application not Locally Cost Effective. Limit grant to two third, two years of the program at $1,660,000. Applicant cost share: $1,992,000.
13 City of Pittsburg 4033 Innovative Irrigation Saving Our Delta I2SOD $0 $0 $0 Applicant doesnt make a compelling case that the project will have broad transferable benefts or accelerates implementation. Recommend do not fund.
14 City of Port Hueneme 4071 Citywide Meter Retroft and System Audit Program $345,324 $1,037,973 $1,383,297 Fund one year of project, 1,733 meters. Locally cost effective, fund at 25% or $345,324.
15 City of Cathedral City 4005 Landscape Irrigation System Upgrade $36,900 $54,450 $91,350 Fully fund
16 Newhall County Water District 4073 Residential ET Controller Rebate Program $55,332 $165,997 $221,329 Applicant is found locally cost effective subject to 25% state share. Applicant to submit a complete Urban Water Management Plan by December 31, 2005.
17 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 4064 California Friendly Communities $423,150 $154,000 $577,150 Fund multi-family portion of project.
18 City of Los Angeles 4142 Large Landscape Smart Irrigation Program $183,750 $187,420 $371,170 Fund at 50 percent.
19 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 4067 High-Effciency Toilet Rebate Program $1,000,000 $840,000 $1,840,000 Limit to $1,000,000 and limit program to 10,000 ULFTs. Was found to be not locally cost effective.
20 Los Angeles County Waterworks District 4031 Residential Water Use Audits Program $386,640 $313,000 $699,640 Fund voluntary residential water audits for 10% of district customers instead of 20%. Project does not meet Disadvantaged Community criteria.
21 Richgrove Community Services District 4039 Richgrove Water Meter Retroft Program $119,683 $0 $119,683 Fully fund
22 West Basin Municipal Water District 4080 West Basin Municipal Water District Restroom Retroft Project $294,834 $294,834 $589,668 Fund one year only, 248 rest rooms.
23 Electric and Gas Industries Association 4127 Regional Resource - Effcient Clothes Washer Rebate Prog $1,534,342 $2,175,816 $3,710,158 Initial funding recommendation of $1.9 million reduced to fund eligible projects with higher score. Fund one year only, DWR to negotiate approximately 25,000 rebates.
24 Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts 4042 Comm, Indust, Instit Water Use Audits & Ded Lands Meter Install Prog $108,681 $326,046 $434,727 Fund 1,788 audits. Project is Locally Cost Effective. Fund at 25% ($108,681). Project does not meet Disadvantaged Community criteria.
25 Friars Village Homeowners Association 4069 Landscape Irrigation System Upgrade $46,870 $64,220 $111,090 Fully fund
$12,671,249 $15,137,800 $27,809,049

1 California Urban Water Conservation Council 4109 California WaterStar Initiative: Water Effciency Product Rating & Labeling $217,000 $108,600 $325,600 Approve tasks 1 through 3 at 67% state share, limit admin costs to 20%. Fund for a total of $217,000.
2 Alameda Point Collaborative 4086 Water Effcient Landscaping $308,000 $0 $308,000 Fund irrigation system only, not plant design or materials (eligible cost only). Applicant to pay for ineligible costs.
3 Irvine Ranch Water District 4054 Statewide Study of Water Use Effciency $761,668 $235,000 $996,668 Fully fund
4 California Urban Water Conservation Council 4132 Urban Water Effciency Technical Assistance Program $506,913 $159,664 $666,577 Some tasks eliminated. Limit admin to 20% and state share at 76%. Fund for a total of $506,913.
5 South Yuba River Citizens League 4112 The Great Water Mystery Assemblies & School Water Audit $51,717 $53,718 $105,435 Fund one year of school assemblies and water audits. Applicants share was prorated.
6 Irvine Ranch Water District 4017 Rotary Nozzle Retroft Study $71,819 $60,166 $131,985 Fully fund
7 Alameda Point Collaborative 4085 Plowshares Demonstration Garden $193,460 $0 $193,460 Fully fund.
8 California Urban Water Conservation Council 4136 Smart From the Start $104,496 $21,583 $126,079 Fund New Home Construction Standards component only.
9 UC Regents - Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab 4174 Determin Waste of Water & Energy in Res Hot Water Dist Sys $500,000 $543,725 $1,043,725 Fund new houses study (eliminate 40 existing houses study for $682,550), reduce meetings and deliverable and other costs, for state share of $500,000.
10 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 4114 Online/Web-Based Irrigation Effciency Training $77,500 $77,500 $155,000 Fund 1 residential series class & 2 class from the professional course.
11 Santa Clara Valley Water District 4083 Water Effciency Demonstration Garden $146,000 $48,173 $194,173 Fund one acre demo garden for $146,000.
12 Central Basin Municipal Water District 4020 Comm Lands Wireless Valve End Use Manage Research Proj $164,052 $138,000 $302,052 Fund 45 controllers
13 Clovis Botanical Garden Committee 4036 Clovis Botanical Garden Expansion $72,362 $24,603 $96,965 Fund exhibits, grading, paths, irrigation system, monitoring, and assessment. No plant materials funded.
14 East Bay Municipal Utility District 4141 New Business Plan Review Program For Water Use Eff $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 Fund portion of Guidebook cost.
15 Effciency Partnership 4118 Flex Your Power at the Tap $38,551 $5,560 $44,111 Fund Market research, focus groups, public opinion survey, e-Newswire, Web site, Database, Translation Contractors. Applicant declined the award.
16 UC Regents, Agr & Nat Res/UCCE San Bern Co 4049 Cons Water & Improving Plant Health in Large So Calif Lands $130,009 $39,668 $169,677 Fund Year One - irrigation scheduling and best management practices training.
17 Pacifc Inst for Studies in Dev, Environ, & Security 4157 Dev of a Water Use Effciency Impl Cost & Cost Effect Model $142,385 $0 $142,385 Approve requested fund. Include DWR, CBDA, SWRCB, and USBR to participate in the Public Advisory Committee
18 California State University, Fresno Foundation 4111 Irrigation System Audits by Students $159,392 $0 $159,392 Fund project at 50% level.
19 East Bay Municipal Utility District 4143 Multi-Family Submeter Pilot Study $150,000 $150,000 $300,000 Fully fund
20 Stockton East Water District 4119 Children Museum WUE $54,000 $6,000 $60,000 Fully fund
21 City of San Diego4057 Recirculating Hot Water Systems: Res Survey & Feas Study $30,100 $0 $30,100 Fully fund
22 University of California, Davis 4034 Improvement in CIMIS Calif Statewide Potential Evap Maps $214,919 $0 $214,919 Fund at reduced level. DWR negotiate project tasks.
23 Water Education Foundation 4151 Project Wet (Urban Focus) $79,599 $0 $79,599 Fund Project Wet for approximately 80,000 students.
$4,223,942 $1,721,960 $5,945,902 Grant reduced to $4,185,391.
The Proposition 50
Water Use Effciency
Funded Projects
By Manucher Alemi
In November 2002, California voters
passed Proposition 50, The Water Security,
Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach
Protection Act of 2002. This created a new
grant program to implement the Water
Code Chapter 7, Section 79550 (g) of
Proposition 50. Then on November 15,
2004, the California Department of Water
Resources issued a Proposal Solicitation
Package (PSP) with a deadline for applica-
tion of January 11, 2005. The PSP solicited
proposals from local public agencies for
implementation or research and develop-
ment projects.
A total of 168 proposals were ac-
cepted requesting $146.5 million in grants.
In 2004, DWR had about $34 million for
its frst cycle of Proposition 50 grant fund-
ing. The approved projects are shown in
Table I-IV. As a result, DWR awarded $28.6
million in grant funding to 75 projects.
This represents $11.7 million in grant
funding to 28 agricultural projects with an
estimated $19.8 million in local match and
$16.8 million in grant funding to 47 urban
projects with an estimated $16.9 million
in local match. DWR has since developed
agreements with the grantees to imple-
ment the projects. The next cycle of water
use effciency grants is expected in fscal
year 2006-07. For more information visit
www.owue.water.ca.gov/finance/index.cfm
10
SRCSDs Master Plan:
Water Recycling Planning for the
Next Two Decades
By Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
District Staff
Recognizing the importance of recycled
water as part of the water portfolio, the
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
District has initiated the Water Recycling
Program. This program is the
frst of its kind in Sacramento
County and provides for
an environmentally
responsible and safe
water supply for ir-
rigation, industrial
uses and environ-
mental restoration.
Using recycled water
to meet these needs
reduces the regions
dependence on
groundwater and surface water sup-
plies for non-potable purposes.
In 2004, the SRCSD Board of Directors
approved a goal of expanding the Water
Recycling Program to 30-40 million gallons
per day (MGD) in the Sacramento Region
over the next 20 years. Ultimately, SRCSD
strives to achieve an appropriate balance
between discharge of highly treated waste-
water to the Sacramento River and water
recycling expansion within the Sacramento
Region. District staff and an experienced
water-recycling consultant team are ac-
tively pursuing potential future water recy-
cling projects to meet the large-scale water
recycling goal through the development of
a Water Recycling Master Plan (WRMP)--a
draft of the plan is anticipated for comple-
tion in 2006.The WRMP will explore water-
recycling opportunities through:
Having open dialogue with stakehold-
ers, such as cities, land use authorities,
and water purveyors that serve them
to develop water recycling opportuni-
ties within SRCSDs service area
Investigating potential uses of recycled
water for traditional landscape uses,
such as irrigation of parks, golf cours-
es, recreational felds and, potentially,
industrial demands
Investigating potential use of recycled
water for irrigation of non-food crops.
This could include replacing or aug-
menting use of surface or groundwater
for agricultural purposes such as irriga-
tion of alfalfa and other animal fodder
crops
Examining the possibility of installing
purple pipes in new developments
during construction when recycled
water infrastructure (piping, pumping
and storage tanks) is the least expen-
sive. WRMP planning estimates indi-
cate that purple pipe installation into
existing developments can be double
or triple the cost of installation
with new developments
Determining where the most
logical place is to treat and
supply communities with
recycled water. Treatment
could be at the existing SRC-
SD water recycling plant, a new
satellite facility closer to the user,
or possibly both.
SRCSDs investment in water recycling be-
gan with construction of a water recycling
plant located at the Sacramento Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) in
Elk Grove, CA. The water recycling plant
began operation in April 2003 and cur-
rently delivers a daily peak production of
3 MGD with an average daily production
of 1.0-1.5 MGD. The plant is expandable to
10 MGD. All recycled water produced by
SRCSD is tertiary treated and meets Title
22 requirements for unrestricted reuse.
Currently, recycled water is being used in
the Laguna West/Stonelake Communities
of Elk Grove to irrigate parks, schoolyards,
commercial landscapes, roadway medians
and freeway interchanges. Additionally,
recycled water is used for landscape ir-
rigation and other non-potable water uses
throughout SRWTP.
SRCSD is currently conducting a 12-month
membrane fltration pilot study as part of
its continual pursuit of a more effcient
and innovative water recycling facility.
There are four micro/ultra-fltration mem-
brane technologies being tested for future
expansion of the existing water recycling
plant. SRCSDs goal is to increase the pro-
duction of future recycled water in a safe
and cost effective manner to reliably meet
future demands. The pilot study is antici-
pated to be completed in 2006.
Lastly, as public involvement is a key to
a successful water recycling program, in
1998 SRCSD began a proactive public
outreach program to help educate the
public about water recycling and promote
the future of SRCSDs water recycling
program. Focus groups and a community
advisory committee (consisting of public
offcials, community and industry leaders,
commercial, industrial, and residential
users of recycled water and SRCSD staff)
developed public education materials,
including brochures, community event
exhibits, fact sheets, and a school educa-
tion program. Additional outreach was
conducted through customer mailing, bill-
board advertising campaign, and articles in
area media outlets.
Find more information on SRCSDs Water
Recycling Program at www.purplepipes.
com, or contact Kent Craney at (916) 876-
6018 or email at craneyk@saccounty.net.

SRCSD won two Gold Cappie Awards from the
Sacramento Public Relations Association for
both its overall water recycling public relations
program and for its water recycling booth
11
Task Force Tackles
Landscape Water Waste
By Katie Shulte Joung
Water, water everywhere: Sprinklers are
watering driveways, not plants. Native
plants suffer death from drowning. Are
California cities running out of water or do
our landscapes have a drinking problem?
In Assembly Bill 2717 sponsored by John
Laird (D-Santa Cruz) the California Legisla-
ture and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
asked the California Urban Water Conser-
vation Council to convene a Landscape
Task Force with representatives from the
landscape and building industries, water
suppliers, environmental groups, and gov-
ernment agencies to evaluate landscape
water use effciency and to make recom-
mendations for improvements. California
uses more water on landscape irrigation
than all other residential water uses com-
bined, says Marsha Prillwitz, the project
manager for the Task Force. And much of
this water is being wasted, not benefting
our plants or lawns.
The report follows several other important
studies, including the most recent draft of
the California Water Plan, that says water
conservation, especially in landscaping,
could be the largest new source of water
to meet Californias growing thirst. We
know improving water use effciency is
one of the most cost-effective ways to
extend existing water supplies and protect
our environment by keeping more water
in streams, rivers and lakes so it will be
there for fsh and wildlife, says Mary Ann
Dickinson, Executive Director of CUWCC.
This report give us a road map as to how
we can have attractive, California-friendly
landscaping, save water, and save money
for consumers and water suppliers.
The stakeholder-based Landscape Task
Force convened in February 2005 with 30
members, including representatives of the
California Department of Water Resources,
State Water Resources Control Board,
California Bay-Delta Authority, United
States Bureau of Reclamation, landscape
industry groups, manufacturers, the build-
ing and construction industry, urban water
suppliers, environmental advocacy and
environmental justice groups, the League
of California Cities, the California State As-
sociation of Counties, and the University
of California. Four technical work groups,
comprised of 84 participants, conducted
30 meetings over the past year. Two public
workshops were conducted to solicit pub-
lic comment. CUWCC facilitated the meet-
ings, provided staff support and raised
funds to fnance this project.
The recommendations in the report ac-
knowledge and refect the improvements
in landscape technology and management
in California over the past 15 years (since
adoption of the California Model Water
Effcient Landscape Ordinance), but antici-
pates the need to improve landscape wa-
ter use effciency even more over the next
25 years. The recommendations include
changes to California law, revisions to the
Model Ordinance, and amendments to
the California Urban Water Conservation
Councils Memorandum of Understanding
and Best Management Practices. The legis-
lative process, regulatory process, and CU-
WCCs governing rules all entail extensive
fact gathering and public participation.
The Landscape Task Force recommenda-
tions are not intended to supersede the
existing processes, but rather to provide
ideas and impetus to these institutions
based on broad support from the stake-
holder groups involved in the task force
process. The Task Force hopes that ample
weight be given to the extensive delibera-
tions and collaborative process leading to
these recommendations.
The report recommends pricing water to
promote water conservation, designing
landscapes to meet more stringent water
budgets, and enforcing existing landscape
water conservation ordinances. The report
also recommends increasing the use of
recycled water for irrigating landscapes,
installing separate meters for landscapes,
and requiring the use of smart irrigation
controllers.
The Top 12 Recommendations supported by
the Landscape Task Force are:
1. Adopt water conserving rate structures
as defned by the Task Force.
2. Reduce the ET Adjustment Factor in
the Model Ordinance and review the
ET Adjustment Factor every ten years
for possible further reduction.
3. Enforce and monitor compliance with
local ordinances and the state model
ordinance.
4. Require dedicated landscape meters.
5. Promote the use of recycled water in
urban landscapes.
6. Require that local ordinances be at
least as effective as the state model
ordinance.
7. Increase the publics awareness of the
importance of landscape water use
effciency and inspire them to action.
8. Require Smart Controllers.
9. Adopt and enforce statewide
prohibitions on overspray and runoff.
10. Provide training and certifcation op-
portunities to landscape and irrigation
professionals.
11. Support upgrading the California
Irrigation Management Information
System Program.
12. Adopt performance standards for
irrigation equipment.
In addition to the legislative, regulatory, and
administrative changes proposed by the Task
Force, there are recommendations regarding
public education, training and certifcation,
research, and fnancial incentives. When
taken together, implementation of the rec-
ommendations and corresponding actions
will chart a bright future for water effcient
California landscapes.
For a copy of the report and additional in-
formation on the Landscape Task Force visit
www.cuwcc.org/ab2717_landscape_task_
force.lasso. For more information about CU-
WCC contact Katie Shulte Joung at
(916) 552-5885.
1!
Estimating Urban
Landscape Water Use
By Simon O. Eching and Richard L. Snyder
In California, the landscape industry is
huge and there is constant increased com-
petition among water users. Consequently,
managing irrigation to optimize effcient
water use is critically important to stretch
existing water supplies. To help with this,
a Microsoft Excel application program
Landscape Irrigation Management Pro-
gram (LIMP) has been designed to help
landscape professionals and homeown-
ers to calculate evapotranspiration (ETo)
rates, determine landscape coeffcient
(KL) values, estimate landscape evapo-
transpiration (ETL) and determine irriga-
tion schedules. LIMP is part of an effort to
make urban landscape water management
more scientifc by accounting for factor
that affects it.
LIMP accounts for microclimate, vegeta-
tion type, plant density, stress conditions,
slope, orientation, and rainfall effect on
ET. Regional ETo rates are estimated by
entering monthly average weather data
from a good site (such as the California Ir-
rigation Management Information System)
or by entering daily mean ETo by month
directly into the program. If weather data
are input, then daily mean
ETo is estimated using the
monthly Penman-Monteith
equation. A mi-
croclimate coef-
fcient (Km) is
used to adjust the ETo
for the local microclimate
differences from the regional
ETo. The regional and local
ETo values are compared to
determine the microcli-
mate coeffcient (Km).
In addition to accounting for local and
regional weather differences, one
can adjust the Km factor
for slope and aspect of
the local site. Slope is
used to describe
how steepness the landscape is, and ori-
entation describes whether the landscape
faces east, south or west. A vegetation
coeffcient (Kv), referred to in WUCOL as
species coeffcient, is used to account for
the difference in well-watered vegetation
ET and the ETo. To account for sparse
canopies, a plant density coeffcient (Kd),
which is based on percentage ground cov-
er, is used. LIMP uses a stress coeffcient
(Ks) to adjust for reductions in ET due to
water stress. Using a model to estimate
soil evaporation as a function of ETo rate
and rainfall frequency, LIMP estimates the
evaporation expected from bare soil in a
particular location. Then an evaporation
coeffcient (Ke) is computed as the ratio
of the bare soil evaporation to ETo. This
provides a baseline (i.e., minimum value)
for KL. LIMP calculated KL can be used
in controllers or the program can use to
schedule irrigation.
The KL value is determined as:
KL = Km Kv Kd Ks > Ke.
Landscape ET is calculated as:
ETL = ETo KL.
The LIMP Excel fle consists of the follow-
ing worksheets:
weather
ETo
Output
RT
CRT
KL_Mult
RT_Mult
CRT_Mult.
There are some additional hid-
den worksheets that are used
for internal calculations. The
worksheet weather is used to es-
timate regional ETo and local ETo.
Various adjustment coeffcients are
also input or determined in the worksheet
weather. Daily ETo rates are estimated
from the monthly data by a hidden work-
sheet and displayed in the worksheet ETo.
The worksheet OUTPUT contains all coef-
fcients and ET calculations. LIMP also sup-
plies information for irrigation scheduling
such as daily sprinkler runtimes needed
to replace the ETL
losses). The in-
formation is
displayed
in the
worksheet
RT. Cu-
mula-
tive runtime minutes are displayed in the
worksheet CRT. LIMP allows for schedul-
ing of up to 20 zones by inputting KL
values in the worksheet KL_MULT. Once
KL values are entered into the worksheet,
a column of runtime values for each of
the 20 zones is created in the worksheet
RT_Mult and the corresponding cumula-
tive runtime requirement is provided in
the worksheet CRT_Mult. The coeffcients
and ET values are then plotted on various
charts.

For additional information contact Dr.
Richard Snyder at e-mail rlsnyder@ucda-
vis.edu or Simon Eching at e-mail sech-
ing@water.ca.gov. A copy of LIMP.XLS is
available on Dr. Richard Snyders Web site
at http://biomet.ucdavis.edu.
13
On-Site Self Regenerative
Water Softeners and
Recycled Water
By Nancy King and Fawzi Karajeh
Over the past forty years, the salt content
of wastewater has become a topic of con-
cern to water and wastewater agencies;
high salinity degrades water quality, and
thus, impacts residential, commercial, in-
dustrial, and agricultural water users. High
salinity levels can also negatively impact
groundwater, wastewater, and recycled
water resources, and utility distribution
systems.
In the last few decades increasing num-
bers of California residents have installed
water softeners in their homes to reduce
problems caused by hard water (water
high in calcium/magnesium salts.) While
not a health concern, hard water can result
in the formation of spots on dishes or ve-
hicles, scaling of pipe walls and plumbing
fxtures, and slightly higher soap require-
ments for laundry and dish washing. Salts
are present in potable water, primarily
from natural sources but also from dis-
charges of agricultural, industrial, and
municipal discharges into rivers. Unfor-
tunately, the use of softeners, particularly
onsite, self-regenerative water softeners,
has led to increased salt in
recycled water. Water soft-
eners, through a cation
exchange media, soften
the water by exchanging
the calcium and magne-
sium ions for sodium and
potassium.
Any salt added to wastewater can push
recycled water agencies using traditional
water recycling treatment processes into
non-compliance with their water quality
permits and or make the recycled water
unmarketable for irrigation use, the pri-
mary use throughout the State. In many
cases, the potable water is already high
in total dissolved solids (TDS), and water
softeners compound the problem, creat-
ing diffculties attracting customers for the
higher saline recycled water. Salinity or
TDS is the concentration of mineral salts
dissolved in water. Sodium reduces soil
moisture penetration, TDS reduces crop
yields, and high level of chloride is toxic to
plants. The discharge of salts (i.e. calcium,
magnesium, sodium, sulfate, and chloride)
creates problems for
the environment. Fur-
thermore, salts are dif-
fcult to remove using
traditional treatment
processes.
For this reason, con-
cerned agencies have
looked to source
control as a method
of dealing with salts.
Residential self-regen-
erating water soften-
ers (SRW softeners) also known as
automatic water softeners, rock salt water
softeners, or ion exchange water soften-
ers are an easily identifable and pre-
ventable source of salt because they use
sodium chloride (rock salt) to regenerate
the exchange capacity of the resin. After
this regeneration the salt is discharged and
results in excessive amounts of salt ending
up in the waste stream.
To deal with the problem in California,
several recycled water producers banned
SRW softeners. Irvine Ranch Water Dis-
trict placed a ban in 1966. Then the State
Health and Safety Code added
technical standards for SRW
softeners in the 1970s. In
1978, a state law (SB 2148,
1978) prohibited local bans
on residential water softeners;
even still, some local jurisdic-
tions banned them. Some of
these bans were challenged
and overturned in court in
1992. Then in 1996 and 1997,
the Court of Appeals upheld
lower court rulings that local
ordinances banning water
softeners are invalid because of the exist-
ing State statutes that forestalled new local
water softener standards or regulations.
To further restrict on-site residential water
softeners, local agencies would have to
change existing State statutes. In response,
IRWD and the Association of California
Water Agencies sponsored Senate Bill 1006
Left to Right: Timer Water Softener. This outdated water softener is regenerated based on
a set time interval. Demand Initiated Water Softener. This newer more water effcient water
water softener sense when regeneration is necessary.
1+
Water Hardness is defned in SB 1006 as
the total of all dissolved calcium, magnesium, iron and other heavy
metals, that interact with soaps and detergents in a manner that the
effciency of soaps and detergents for cleaning purposes is impaired.
Harness is expressed in grains per gallon or milligram per liter as if
all such salts were present as calcium carbonate.
On-Site from Page 13
(Costa, 1999) which amended SB 2148
to set a framework for the restriction of
self-regenerative water softeners. Then in
2003, Assembly Bill 334 -Water Softening
and Conditioning Appliances - amended
SB 1006 to allow local agencies fexibility
improve recycled water quality through
source control measures.
The water softener industry met the chal-
lenge by designing new water softeners
which meet the criteria An appliance in-
stalled on or after January 1, 2002, shall be
certifed by a third party rating organiza-
tion using industry standard to have a salt
effciency rating of no less than 4,000
grains of hardness removed per
pound of salt used in regenera-
tion. Still, the salt generated
from water
softeners
continues
to challenge
the recycled
water industry. SB 1006
and AB 334 do not apply
to existing water softeners
produced and installed prior to the
adoption of any ordinance. The appliances
are grandfathered in and can operate as
usual. Also, even the most effcient water
softener system still requires a regular
discharge of salt brine into local wastewa-
ter stream. Although some headway has
been made, alternative strategies are still
needed.
One local agency, Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency supplies
recycled water to irrigate almost 12,000
acres of food crops. Although the fve year
Monterey Wastewater Reclamation Study
for Agriculture did not see a decrease in
soil health or crop yields, the long term
effects of recycled waters salt content is
a major concern to growers. As
a result of growers concerns,
MRWPCA has examined the
recycled water quality and
found that sodium levels were
nearing the upper limits of the
acceptable range. MRWPCA found that 37
percent of the source-waters salt load was
from residential, commercial and indus-
trial water softener brine.
The State has also addressed the issue of
salt from SRW softeners. The Recycled
Water Task Force (RWTF) report recom-
mended to the State legislature that local
agencies be empowered through legisla-
tion to regulate the discharge of residen-
tial water softeners in the same manner
as other sources of discharge into sewers
and encouraged water softener studies
to develop alternatives for salt reduction
in recycled water. Another RWTF recom-
mendation asked local agencies to educate
consumers regarding the impacts of SRW
softeners through publicity campaigns and
to offer fnancial incentives to upgrade
older ineffcient appliances. Assembly Bill
334 (Goldberg, 2003) Water Softening and
Conditioning Appliances was adopted in
response to the RWTF recommendations.
The State has supported further efforts
to reduce salt loading when the
California Department of Water
Resources awarded Santa Clara
Valley Water District with a

2002 Proposition 13 Grant for their
Pilot Water Softener Rebate Program.
This award winning pilot program provid-
ed 400 residents with a rebate of $150 for
the replacement of their ineffcient pre-
1999 water softener system. The newer
models, demand-initiated regeneration
water softeners, more effciently sense
when the resin must be recharged with
salt and regenerate the resin as needed.
Thus, these types of water softeners use
less water and less salt.
15
Urban from Page 1
because of space limitations for adequate
fetch and obstructions from buildings
and other structures. Weather data from
non-standardized sites are likely to be er-
roneous in representing the microclimates
of irrigated surfaces. Air temperature on
warm summer days, for example, can be
higher in an urban environment by as
much as 8
o
F compared to adjacent veg-
etated surfaces with no water stress. This
difference is mainly because of what is
known as an urban heat island, a phe-
nomenon resulting from buildings and
paved surfaces in the
city absorbing more
solar energy and con-
verting it to heat.
Yet weather stations
in the urban environ-
ments have become in-
creasingly necessary to effciently manage
water resources. Consequently, because
of the increased demands for CIMIS data
from urban users, the diffculty of fnding
standardized sites in these areas, and the
advent of new technologies, such as auto-
mated landscape irrigation controllers, it
has become necessary to undertake a non-
ideal site studies using paired non-ideal
and reference weather stations.
A recent study by the University of Califor-
nia, Davis extension program has outlined
scenarios under which non-ideal weather
stations can be effectively sited and used.
Although this study was conducted on a
smaller scale, it has clearly indicated the
potential for using weather data from
non-ideal sites for irrigation purposes.
The study also suggested a scenario in
which certain weather parameters can
be measured at the non-ideal sites and
the remaining parameters taken from a
nearby CIMIS station, provided it has been
determined that the latter do not change
signifcantly on a regional scale. It should
be noted these non ideal sites can be
situated on surfaces other than grass
but still need to have upwind fetch and
uninterrupted solar radiation. The study
concluded by recommending an extensive
feasibility study by DWR and other agen-
cies in different regions of California.
Accordingly, CIMIS, in cooperation with
the Council, is planning to conduct a state-
wide project to investigate the possibility
of installing stations in non-ideal environ-
ments and converting the collected data
into an equivalent ideal condition. This
will be achieved by setting up paired
ideal and non-ideal stations in a given
study area. Data from the non-ideal sites
of the pairs will be correlated with the cor-
responding data from ideal
sites. These correlations will
then be used to convert the
non-ideal site data into an
equivalent ideal site data
after the completion of the
study. The converted values
thus represent values that
would have occurred at the non-ideal sites
if surfaces were ideal.
CUWCC and DWR will be forming a techni-
cal advisory committee consisting of many
members from different regions of the
State. This committee will meet regularly
during the project period. We welcome
any one or any group interested in taking
part in this important investigative project
and encourage those interested to contact
DWRs Kent Frame at (916) 651-7030,
Bekele Temesgen at (916) 651-9679, or
CUWCCs Karl Kurka at (916) 552-5885.
Managing from Page 3
Five Points and in Buttonwillow,
California. Workshop presenters
provided information of various
topics on the design and operation
of an IFDM system including:
FDM system description
IFDM system design
drainage water and plant
selection
laws and regulations/monitor-
ing, and soils
The manual contains an empirical
analysis and spreadsheet to assist
potential IFDM owners determine
farm-specifc costs, benefts, and
the net fnancial impact of imple-
menting IFDM. An Appendix CD
consists of a PowerPoint presenta-
tion by DWR on the Design of
the Solar Evaporator for the IFDM
system at Red Rock Ranch. At-
tendees who participated in the
feld tours at Red Rock Ranch
and AndrewsAg, Inc. were very
impressed with the IFDM system
layout and operation referenced in
both manuals.
The impacts of the IFDM manuals,
workshops, and feld tours:
Increased the awareness of IFDM
technology.
Facilitated the training of farmers
and professionals in IFDM
concept.
Expanded the sharing and
transfer of IFDM technology.
The release of the new manual will
help to meet the need of provid-
ing landowners and professionals
information and technical support
on how to operate an IFDM sys-
tem. To order a free copy (limited
quantity printed), contact Lisa
Basinal, Center for Irrigation Tech-
nology at (559) 278-2066. To get
a copy visit www.sjd.water.ca.gov/
drainage/ifdm/manual/index.cfm.
1o
WATER CONSERVATION NEWS
P. O. Box 942836
This newsletter is printed on recycled paper.
S
T
A
T
E
O
F CALIF
O
R
N
I
A
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
O
F WATER
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
Address Correction Requested

Fall-Winter 2005-2006 California Water Conservation News

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fall-Winter 2005-2006 California Water Conservation News

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fall-Winter 2005-2006 California Water Conservation News

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Conservation News Fall/Winter 2005-06

You might also like