Program Committee Notes – 1/16/2019

Tia provided an introduction of new Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs.

Program Committee Chair/ Vice Chair: Luke Sires/ Robyn Navarra

Program Committee Staff Support: Lisa Cuellar

Research Committee Chair/ Vice Chair: Matt Dickens/ Mike Hollis

Research Committee Staff Support: Tia Lebherz

Tia noted that the Programs Committee will help inform the Research Committee work and vice versa. Also, two additional Committees, Peer-to-Peer and Legislative Policy Principles have already convened. Interested members were encouraged to contact Tia for more details ([email protected])

Tia reviewed the principles of committee operations approved by the CalWEP Board on 11/7/2018. Highlights include (see Power Point deck for more details):

·       Must be a member to participate on a Committee

·       Most Committee work will be conducted via conference call or e-mail and occasionally by in-person meetings

·       Chair/Vice-Chair terms are limited to one year

·       Task Forces will form to address time-sensitive or single-issue projects and then disband.

Lisa provided a high-level overview of the Listening Tour and the Board’s top 5 rankings of Strategic Plan actions. Feedback from the listening tour revealed that members would like CalWEP program support to focus on the long-term Framework, AMI, Landscape, and determining the effectiveness of water saving programs. Listening tour feedback regarding research topics revealed “Determining Future Conservation Program options” such as best practices for the CII sector and savings from advanced pressure regulation was of the highest priority, followed by “Better Measurement of Conservation Savings” as the most favorable (see Power Point deck for more details).

An additional recommendation from the listening tour included the formation of a Task Force of conservation representatives from smaller water agencies to brainstorm on their specific needs.

Board recommendations for Task Force topics included: Leak Detection and Water Loss, CII, Graywater, Landscape Design and Professional Training.

i.     Listening tour Webinar Registration

a.     Review of LTF components and resources – (Peter Brostrom)

-The Urban Advisory Group might shift to workshop-style engagement

-A stakeholder group meeting is anticipated for March/April timeframe

-Currently going through budget process and staffing up

Framework compliance tools

-With new parcel level data becoming available to agencies, there is an opportunity for CalWEP to develop a tool to study indoor and outdoor water use, and ID key customers.  DWR may be able to help fund tool and assistance with data export from billing systems. Using this data and developing budgets to ID over-use could let agencies focus outreach and programs.

CalWEP collaboration with LTF studies

There is an opportunity for CalWEP to collaborate on studies cited in long-term framework primer.  These include:

–        Indoor water use standard.  DWR to coordinate a study to better understand what indoor water use is in the state. Separate indoor from outdoor water use.

–        Outdoor water use standard.

–        8 Variance studies that cover unique uses of water. Methodology for agencies to estimate this.

–        Studies and investigations to develop recommendation on performance measures for CII water use. Stakeholder input will be sought on CII water use classification system, threshold for dedicated irrigation meters, other technologies that can assist with dedicated irrigation meter work, as outlined in primer. Evaluate CII water audits and water management plans.

c.     Potential LTF tools – (Joe Berg)

Joe provided an overview of the Framework Compliance Tools proposal and noted that CalWEP is currently seeking contributions toward their development. The first tool would be used to determine compliance with the new State Urban Water Use Standards. The second would be used to attain or ensure compliance through planed design of intentional WUE programs. If funded, invoicing would come from CalWEP.

A request was made to develop talking points to share (perhaps a few slides) with agency management. Including a justification for its cost.

d.     Questions about LTF – (Luke Sires)

Lisa provided an overview of three landscape-centric projects underway at CalWEP: 1) Bay Area Regional QWEL Training, 2) DWR Direct Action Contract (CII case studies and Multi-Benefit Framework for decision makers w/ the Pacific Institute), and 3) Watershed Handbook Training for disadvantaged communities.

There was a discussion around QWEL pass rates and challenges for ESL students. There was variable success at IRWD and Zone 7. Contra Costa suggested Diablo Valley College might support offering QWEL as part of course.

There was a discussion around eligible expenses for PACE/HERO grants and if native plants could be included as an eligible expense. Discussion will carry off-line between CalWEP and Contra Costa.

a.     Madeline Wood provided an overview of current Leak detection and consumption monitoring technologies emerging on the market along with agency pilot programs being developed to understand savings potential.

Agencies exploring these pilot programs include City of Santa Barbara EBMUD, WaterNow, LADWP, Contra Costa UD, SNWA and SAWS. The sensors provide real-time leak detection with a mobile app. Sensors are installed by professional plumbers in home plumbing line. A data point is collected every minute, much more granular than AMI that updates every hour on 15-minute increments.

An ad-hoc group has formed to collaborate and share information on program start up, savings, barriers, uses, etc. Home insurance companies are also interested in these technologies. If anyone is interested in Ad-hoc group contact Madeline at [email protected]

a.     How to participate and stay involved

This meeting was intended to provide a high-level overview of Committee structure and some preliminary information regarding Program priorities and Research topics. The goal for future meeting will be to continue work on priority program areas including long term framework, landscape, AMI, etc..

b.     Standing meeting schedule (Bi-monthly?)

Luke proposed setting most meetings on the calendar in advance, instead of scheduling in meeting one by one. There appeared to be general favor to schedule meetings in advance as long as there is a need to meet.  Meetings could always be added or dropped as needed.  An impromptu hand raising was conducted to determine baseline interest in meeting frequency and advanced scheduling of meetings. Hand raises are below:

·       6 meetings a year – 15 people in favor

·       4 meetings a year – 4 people in favor

·       Standing meeting – 15 people in favor