Frequently Asked Questions: Water Allocations

San Diego is facing a water crisis that makes it imperative that every citizen is informed about the problem, the need to conserve water, and the prospect that we soon may join other California cities in mandating significant water reductions by customers.

The questions on this page are among the most frequently asked at public forums and in e-mail sent to the Mayor's Office and the City Water Department.

They concern the implementation of water allocations, an approach that is still being analyzed. Over time, we will update and add to this page, and create others.

We hope this format brings you information that is timely and relevant to your water conservation goals. We urge you to check here regularly as new questions are posted.

To submit a question, use this form.

How a water allocation plan would work

Q. If the City adopts a water allocation plan, what will happen to my water supply?

A. The plan is still being analyzed and no decisions have been made. But if it was adopted, you would be told the size of your monthly allocation of water, measured in HCF, or hundred cubic feet. (1 HCF equals 748 gallons) before it took effect.

The City would not tell anyone how to use their allocation -- you could use it indoors or outdoors, to fill a bathtub or wash your dog -- so long as it was not used for wasteful activities that are prohibited by law. Some people call this the "bucket" approach: It's your bucket, use it as you choose.

As long as your water use remained within your allocation, you're good. However, if you used more water than your allocation permits, you could face fines and penalties. If your water usage remained excessive, you might experience a disruption in water service.

The City's allocation from its wholesaler is fixed for a full fiscal year (July 1 through June 30). The City would then calculate the amount of reduction needed from its various customers based upon past usage, season variations, and amount of indoor vs. outdoor usage in order to stay with the City’s allocation. Basically, if the City's allocation was reduced by 20 percent, allocations would be set so customers collectively achieve a 20 percent reduction.

(One exception would be for Super Savers, whose allocations would not be reduced. Details are in an answer below.)

If this plan is adopted, we anticipate that allocations would go into effect July 1, 2009.

How individual water allocations are determined

Q. How would my water allocation be determined?

A. Your individual water allocation would be determined from a baseline of past water use, as measured by your water meter. Individual baselines for any given billing period would reflect water use during the same time in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Your baseline for the month of June, for example, would be determined by your water use in June 2005, June 2006 and June 2007.

Your monthly allocation, the reduced amount of water you would have, would be a percentage of that month’s baseline. If, for example, your monthly baseline is 10 HCF based upon past use and the City's water allocation is reduced by 20 percent, your monthly allocation would be in the range of 8 HCF.

(Note: Early descriptions of the baseline formula did not include the year 2005. The City added 2005 to reflect the County Water Authority’s intention to use 2005, 2006, and 2007 in its allocation methodology.)

For many customers, allocations would vary from month to month. This would be particularly true of those who watered outdoors during the years 2005 through 2007, and adjusted their watering to reflect the weather.

Allocation variance

Q. What can I do if my allocation is too small?

A. You could apply for a hardship variance. This process would allow customers to request an increase in their water allocation.

The City recognizes that circumstances change, and that typical water usage from that three-year period may not reflect your needs today.

Customers who have had significant changes in their property characteristics such that use of the 2005-2007 baseline would create a significant hardship may apply for a variance from their initial allocation.

Customers who apply for the variance would be required to explain their circumstances in writing. Applications would be submitted under penalty of perjury, and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

You may have grounds for variance if:

• You have a large family.
• You have health problems that make water conservation difficult.
• Someone else occupied your residence during the years 2005 to 2007.
• The size of your family has grown since the baseline years.

The Super Saver exception

Q. I hardly use any water at all. I have xeriscaping in my yard, water-efficiency appliances throughout my house, and I limit my showers to five minutes. Why do I have to cut back on my water use?

A. You may not have to. From your description, you may be a Super Saver. Customers who fall into that category will not have to reduce their water use any further.

The water allocation formula, as it is now being contemplated, would include a "floor" below which further conservation is not required. That level has not been determined, though it is likely to be in the vicinity of 6 HCF (or 600 cubic feet, or 4,488 gallons) a month. You can determine your monthly usage in HCF by examining your water bill.

Why this method is being considered

Q. Why are you considering water allocation instead of some other method?

A. City water officials understand that the water allocation formula is not perfect. However, given the amount of water the region must conserve, and the short time frame before that conservation must begin, they consider water allocation to be the most feasible option for San Diego.

All other options are being evaluated, and each has its own drawbacks. Perhaps the principal advantage of the water-allocation approach is that it has a high likelihood of success, and no other method does. We define success as achieving our conservation goals and avoiding the heavy fines the City would face by falling short of them.

Other options

Q. What other options are being considered?

A. A pricing option, a site survey option, and basing allocations on average use.

The pricing option

Q. Why not encourage conservation with a tiered-rate structure that makes heavy users pay a lot more for their water?

A tiered-rate structure is one that rewards conservation and penalizes heavy water use. Such a structure would charge one price for, say, the first 6 HCFs of water used in a month, then increase the price as more water is used that month.

The problem with a tiered-rate approach is that it would not encourage enough water conservation to meet our goals. Here are two reasons:

1) The process by which the cost of water is determined for all our customers is a very intense and highly scrutinized one. We cannot restructure our rates without undergoing an extensive Cost of Service study. The City will be exploring this option in its next Cost of Service study, but it will not be complete in time to address the current crisis.

2) Even then, we could not set a price so high that it would deter every customer from wasting water. Some people will spend whatever it takes, and will not conserve.

Higher prices do not always affect the behavior of people with average incomes, either. Studies indicate that it takes a steep price increase to encourage conservation: a doubling of the cost of water achieves only a 20 percent reduction in overall use. That might get us to our goal, but success might come at the expense of low-income households that would effectively be priced out of the water market.

The site survey option

Q. Why not base the allocation on lot size or other objective criteria, such as number of household occupants, amount of irrigated landscape, and/or the number of plumbing fixtures?

A. Perhaps the fairest way to proceed would be to base individual allocations on specific site characteristics, such as the size of the house, the number of people who live there, and the size of the lot.

The average-use option

Q. Why not calculate the average amount of water each customer uses and penalize those who are using more than that amount?

A. We do not believe this method would help us reach our conservation goal.

While this may seem to be a fairer approach to some, no matter what allocation method is used, it creates unfairness for some customers. In this case, it is unfair to large families.

Average water use is determined by water meter. As a general rule, San Diego has one meter per household, no matter how many people live in that household.

If we asked every above-average household to reduce its water use, we would essentially be penalizing large families -- even if each person in the family was highly efficient in his or her water use.

Put another way, under this formula an unrepentant water waster might be able to continue wasting water simply because he or she lives alone.

We believe the water allocation formula that we are developing -- in conjunction with the Super Saver protection and the allocation variance - will create the least amount of unfairness for our 270,000 customers.

Crediting past conservation

Q. I began conserving water around 1990. Why can't my baseline take that past conservation into account?

A. The City recognizes that many, many people have already taken steps to conserve water. Some of these conservation efforts began even before our current records system was established.

So no matter when the baseline is established, there will always be somebody whose water conservation began earlier.

The years 2005-2007 were chosen so that we are using the same calculation period as that being used by the County Water Authority to calculate the City’s allocation.

If we used a different period than the one used by the CWA, we would risk miscalculating how much our customers would have to reduce in order to stay within the City’s allocation. A significant miscalculation could result in millions of dollars in penalties to the City.

In addition, the further back the baseline calculation occurs, the greater likelihood there is that current customers were not occupying their homes during that time. It is in everyone's interest to minimize instances when current occupants moved in after the baseline was set.

Here's why:

When a family of seven moves into a house that was occupied by a family of two during the calculation period, they will be unhappy with their lower allocation and request a variance.

But when a family of two moves into a house that was occupied by a family of seven during the calculation period, they probably will be happy with their higher allocation and will not request a variance.

Each time that happens, one more water customer is not contributing to the solution.

Growth moratorium

Rather than ask us to conserve water, why not stop all new development projects?

A. If the City placed a moratorium on new development tomorrow, the resulting water savings wouldn't come close to the savings we must achieve. Additionally, a moratorium is almost certain to hurt the local economy and create additional financial problems for the City.

Nonetheless, a moratorium on new water meters is part of a Level 3 Water Emergency when a demand reduction by the City of 30% or more is required in order to meet available supply. Should that occur, new water meters would be issued only as existing water meters are retired, or an offset is found that ensures there will be no additional demands on the system.

But aside from that emergency scenario, a moratorium has little practical value. New development actually plays a very small role in water demand. People may see a housing development going up and assume the homebuyers are adding to our water crisis, but that is not the case.

First of all, most new homes are occupied by people who were already living here.

A relatively tiny percentage of San Diego's population consists of people who’ve moved into the region in the past five years. And roughly two-thirds of our growth results from the number of births exceeding the number of deaths. So when we talk about population growth in San Diego, we essentially are talking about San Diego families having babies. Development moratoriums do not deter that kind of growth.

Secondly, new homes are significantly more water-efficient than existing homes. Under our City building codes, toilets, showerheads and washing machines must meet high standards of water efficiency. By and large, these homes also have smaller yards and less landscaping.

The homes that contribute most to our water crisis are not new homes, but older homes that have never been upgraded to become water efficient. Hopefully, water allocations will hasten those upgrades.

Thirdly, San Diego is imposing increasingly stringent requirements on large developments to keep their water use low. Two recent developments illustrate how.

In the residential development known as Quarry Falls, the developers will be installing a wastewater treatment plant using a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), or equivalent, to take the wastewater produced on site to make recycled water for irrigation on site. The developers also were required to use drought-tolerant landscaping throughout the project, and are committed to using WaterSense and Energy Star qualified appliances and other LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) measures to reduce the project's overall water consumption.

In expansion of the University Towne Center shopping mall, the developers were required to expand the City's system of purple pipes that deliver non-potable reclaimed water for irrigation. As those pipes are installed, the expansion is projected to save approximately 21 million to 43 million gallons annually. The developers will also pay for other users to make the transition from potable water to reclaimed water for irrigation. These measures will boost the amount of potable water in the City's system, more than offsetting the water demand created by the expansion.

In addition to connecting recycled water to selected parks and schools, UTC is also committing to utilize LEED water-efficiency measures, such as installing super-low flow toilets, showerheads and faucets, waterless urinals, WaterSense appliances (dishwashers and clothes washers) and drought-tolerant landscaping.

As older buildings are replaced with newer ones, our community's water efficiency improves. So development is not always the enemy, and it can be a big part of the solution.

New water sources

Q. What is the City doing to create new water sources so we are not so dependent on imported water?

A. The City is actively taking steps to broaden our water portfolio.

We are investigating groundwater reservoirs in the San Pasqual Valley to see if brackish water there can be reclaimed. We are reclaiming waste water and treating it for irrigation. We are investigating the feasibility of a desalination plant. And we are funding a demonstration project for indirect potable reuse, which reclaims waste water for drinking purposes.

These opportunities, while important, represent mid- to long-term answers. They would not be in place in time to address the current water crisis.

To put the City's efforts in perspective, remember that the Water Department has been a water retail distributor, not a water wholesale supplier, through most of its history. Our mission has been to obtain raw water from various regional wholesalers, treat the water so it is safe, and deliver it to our customers.

Purchasing imported water for our customers' use has been the most efficient and economical way to accomplish that mission. And the center of this work has been building and maintaining the complex network of treatment plants, pipes and pumps that deliver clean water safely to your spigot.

As the City’s water supply has become less reliable in recent years, the Water Department has recognized the need to broaden its portfolio of water sources. But we have moved deliberately so that our actions reflect both the public's willingness to pay for new projects and the likelihood that those projects will prove economically sound.

These efforts are expensive. They take many years to reach fruition. Many face significant environmental hurdles. And the water they would provide would be significantly more expensive than what is currently available, though those economics are subject to change.

In addition, Mayor Jerry Sanders is working with other mayors and state officials on comprehensive, permanent solutions to the environmental problems associated with moving water from Northern California to Southern California.

Every approach is being diligently explored. But none is a solution to the immediate crisis.