6/18/02
Consolidated Water Use Efficiency
2002 Proposal Solicitation Package
FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a cooperative effort of State and federal agencies with management or regulatory responsibilities for the Bay-Delta. The Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Program, an integral part of the CALFED initiative, is dedicated to accelerating the implementation of cost-effective actions to conserve and recycle water throughout the State.
A key WUE strategy articulated in CALFED’s August 2000 Record of Decision is to implement an incentive-based program that provides grants for actions that contribute to CALFED objectives. In January 2002, the WUE Agency Team consisting of staff from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and CALFED Program launched the second Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) intended to identify and award grants to the most promising agricultural and urban water conservation actions.
This document provides an overview of the 2002 WUE PSP process and the final funding recommendations. It is presented in two sections:
Section One: Process Overview.
Section Two: Final Funding Recommendations.
SECTION 1: Process Overview
The Consolidated Water Use Efficiency 2002 Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) was released on January 4, 2002. There were three components in this PSP: Proposition 13 Agricultural Water Conservation feasibility study grants, Proposition 13 Urban Water Conservation capital outlay grants, and a DWR Water Use Efficiency grant. No specific authorizing legislation and no State or federal funding have become available during the year for the DWR WUE component, therefore no funding recommendations will be made for that set of proposals.
Four workshops were held in early January in Modesto, Concord, Los Angeles, and Chico. Application materials were made available at the workshops, on DWR’s website, and by request.
A total of 210 proposals were received (24 for Proposition 13 Agricultural Water Conservation feasibility study grants, 116 for Proposition 13 Urban Water Conservation grants, and 70 for the unfunded DWR Water Use Efficiency grants). This represents more than $117 million in funding requests.
The project review and selection process, stretching over a two-month period, was composed of three key stages: eligibility and technical review, panel review, and the WUE Agency Team review.
• Eligibility and Technical Review.
Proposals were first screened by DWR for applicant and project eligibility. Thirty-six proposals submitted under the Proposition 13 Urban Water Conservation Program component were found to be ineligible under the statute. One other project was found to be ineligible since it did not involve capital outlay.
Upon final legal review, six water recycling proposals were found ineligible based on Section 79151(h) of the Water Code (Proposition 13) that defines urban water conservation projects as “capital outlay features of urban water conservation programs identified in the ‘Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California.’” Recycled water projects are not identified as a Best Management Practice in the MOU.
Under the Proposition 13 Agricultural Water Conservation category, seven projects were found ineligible: three were not WUE projects, one was a research project rather than a feasibility study, and the other three had ineligible applicants.
All eligible Proposition 13 agricultural and urban proposals were then reviewed by an economics team, a science team, and a Native American team. These reviews, conducted by individuals drawn from CALFED agencies and consultants, were designed to generate detailed, project-by-project critiques on specific criteria outlined in the PSP. The Technical Teams provided written comments for each proposed project. As appropriate, the Technical Teams also indicated where and why projects did not, in their view, merit funding. This information was provided to the WUE Agency Team and the Review Panel for their subsequent deliberations.
• Panel Review.
An orientation meeting was held April 12, 2002 with both Technical Team members and the Review Panel, a group of 43 highly qualified individuals drawn from CALFED agencies and environmental, urban, agricultural and environment justice stakeholder groups actively involved in water use efficiency programs. The session provided reviewers an opportunity to discuss the proposed scoring criteria and better understand the process and their roles. The WUE Agency Team emphasized ground rules regarding confidentiality and conflict of interest.
Projects were evaluated based on five primary criteria:
1) relevance and importance;
2) technical/scientific merit;
3) qualifications of the applicants and cooperators;
4) costs and benefits; and
5) outreach, community involvement and acceptance.
The Review Panel convened on May 15, 2002, to foster a comprehensive discussion of each project. Prior to the review session, the WUE Agency Team organized reviewers into teams of four to five people, for a total of two agricultural and eight urban teams. Each member of the team was then asked to read and rate (individually) 10 to 20 proposals. Reviewers’ individual scores were then combined and averaged to generate a preliminary ranking for each proposal.
At the May 15 Review Panel session, the WUE Agency Team facilitated discussions within and across the different review teams. These discussions provided opportunities for individuals to share information and perspectives on the various projects, as well as identify and normalize scoring discrepancies across the different review teams. Technical Team members also were on-hand to answer questions and provide explanations, as needed, regarding their review of the projects. The WUE Agency Team relied on the final rankings – and reviewers’ qualitative comments – to inform its subsequent deliberations.
• WUE Agency Team Review.
The WUE Agency Team met on May 16, 2002 to develop the draft recommended funding package, relying heavily but not solely on the Review Panel’s input. In addition to the Review Panel’s evaluations, the WUE Agency Team endeavored to develop a package of draft funding recommendations that would include diversity in project type, geographic distribution, and project size. The funding of some projects was scaled back to allow for a wider distribution of funds. The final funding recommendations outlined below represent the consensus view of the WUE Agency Team.
Public Workshop. A public workshop was held in Sacramento May 23, 2002 to announce the draft funding recommendations. Applicants were notified by e-mail about the workshop and were also given an opportunity to comment via e-mail, fax, or letter. The WUE Agency Team reviewed the comments generated through the May 23 public workshop and the subsequent seven-day public comment period. All comments were submitted by four of the six agencies that applied for water recycling projects. Formal letters were sent to those applicants with more detailed information about their ineligibility.
CALFED/DWR Review. CALFED reviewed and approved the WUE Agency Team’s final funding package May 28, 2002. DWR’s Director approved the final funding package June 7, 2002.
A new requirement this year is that agencies subject to the Urban Water Management Planning Act must have adopted a plan that meets the requirements of the law and submitted it to DWR to be eligible for Proposition 13 funding (Senate Bill 610, Costa, Water Code Sections 10656-10657.) Applicants tentatively recommended for funding will receive notice of this requirement and be given an opportunity to comply prior to contract execution.
Section Two: Final Funding Recommendations
The final list of proposals recommended for funding follows in Attachment A for Proposition 13 Agricultural Water Conservation feasibility study grants and Attachment C for Proposition 13 Urban Water Conservation capital outlay grants. Information includes a project-by-project look at the Review Panel’s average numeric rankings (on a scale of 0 to 100) and the WUE Agency Team’s comments and recommendations. Reviewers’ scores and comments for each project are available to applicants.
There are no funding recommendations for the DWR Water Use Efficiency component since specific legislation and funding have not become available for that program.
Funding highlights are as follows:
• Overall, staff recommended awarding $9,591,958 in grant funding to 29 projects. This represents $8,873,956 in grants to 21 urban projects and $718,002 in feasibility study grants to 8 agricultural projects.
• Projects recommended for funding are located throughout the State. Of the 8 Proposition 13 Agricultural Water Conservation Feasibility Study projects recommended for funding, three are in the Sacramento Valley, two in northern California, and three in the San Joaquin Valley. Six projects will study the feasibility of various infrastructure improvements. The other two are related to water measurement or management technology.
Of the 21 Proposition 13 Urban Water Conservation Capital Outlay projects recommended for funding, 11 are in northern and 10 in southern California.
Summary of Urban Projects Recommended for Funding by Project Type
Project type # of projects $ amount
Infrastructure 5 4,665,249
Commercial, industrial, institutional 5 1,687,081
Meters 3 1,411,348
Landscape irrigation, including ET controllers 4 501,278
High efficiency washers 2 495,000
Toilets 2 114,000
Total 21 8,873,956
Eighteen million dollars are budgeted for 2002-2003 for Proposition 13 Urban Water Conservation capital outlay projects. The next grant application package will be offered this fall or winter.
Another $30 million of Proposition 13 is available for agricultural water conservation capital outlay loans. The Agricultural Water Conservation Program Loan Application Package will be available this summer.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Proposition 13 Agricultural Water Conservation Feasibility Studies List of Projects Recommended for Funding
Attachment B: Proposition 13 Agricultural Water Conservation Feasibility Studies List of Projects NOT Recommended for Funding
Attachment C: Proposition 13 Urban Water Conservation Capital Outlay List of Projects Recommended for Funding
Attachment D: Proposition 13 Urban Water Conservation Capital Outlay List of Projects NOT Recommended for Funding
Attachment E: Ineligible Proposition 13 Urban and Agricultural Proposals
7
Attachment A:
Proposition 13 Agricultural Water Conservation Feasibility Studies
List of Projects Recommended for Funding
Score / Application# / Applicant /Project Title
/ Funds Requested / Recommended Funding / Comments91 / 464 / Tulelake Irrigation District / Evaluation of the Feasibility and Cost Effectiveness of Canal Lining / $99,720.00 / $99,720.00
85 / 463 / Placer County Water Agency / Canal and Reservoir Efficiency Feasibility Study / $100,000.00 / $100,000.00
84 / 441 / Solano Irrigation District / Spill Reduction Feasibility Study / $89,000.00 / $89,000.00
83 / 459 / Westlands Water District / Water Measurement Enhancement Project / $82,500.00 / $82,500.00
82 / 447 / Panoche Water District / Herndon Avenue Lateral Feasibility Study / $54,545.00 / $54,545.00
82 / 461 / Banta Carbona Irrigation District / Banta-Carbona Irrigation District Modernization Feasibility Study / $99,204.00 / $99,204.00
78 / 442 / Consolidated Irrigation District / Turnout Metering / $95,000.00 / $95,000.00
75 / 462 / San Jacinto Basin Resource Conservation District / Feasibility of retrofitting to a remote-sensing soil moisture monitoring and irrigation scheduling system / $98,033.00 / $98,033.00
TOTAL
/ $718,002.00 / $718,002.007
Attachment B:
Proposition 13 Agricultural Water Conservation Feasibility Studies
List of Projects NOT Recommended for Funding
Score
/Application#
/Applicant
/ Project Title / Funds Requested / Recommended Funding /Comments
100 / 451 / Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District / Main Canal Modernization Project to Partially Address CALFED QO 6 and 7 / $100,000.00 / $0.00 / Received $100,000 max. feas. study grant, 2001 PSP81 / 458 / Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District / Churn Creek Lateral Improvements to Partially Address CALFED QO 6,7,8 / $100,000.00 / $0.00 / Received $100,000 max. feas. study grant, 2001 Prop13
79 / 460 / Reclamation District 108 / BWMP Sub-basin Level Water Measurement / $100,000.00 / $0.00 / Received $100,000 max. feas. study grant, 2001 PSP
74 / 457 / Joint Water Districts Board - Sutter Extension, SEWD Butte, Biggs/West Gridley Water District, Richvale Irrigation / Sutter Extension Water District, Sutter-Butte Main Canal Lining Project to Address QO 38,44,46,47 / $100,000.00 / $0.00 / Funding recommended for more highly rated projects
74 / 452 / Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District / Flow Measurement Devices in Main Canal, Lateral System and Drain Outflow Points/Existing Automation Program to Address QO 13,20,27,30,35 / $100,000.00 / $0.00 / Funding recommended for more highly rated projects
74 / 445 / Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District / Sonoma Valley Recycled Water Feasibility study / $100,000.00 / $0.00 / Funding recommended for more highly rated projects
73 / 448 / Fresno Irrigation District / Canal automation and Regulation Basin Improvements Study / $79,996.00 / $0.00 / Funding recommended for more highly rated projects
73 / 456 / Sutter Mutual Water Company / Irrigation Recycle Project / $100,000.00 / $0.00 / Funding recommended for more highly rated projects
73 / 455 / Tehama Colusa Canal Authority / Development of Conveyance Alternatives for Emergency Water Supplies / $100,000.00 / $0.00 / Funding recommended for more highly rated projects
TOTAL
/ $879,996.00 / $0.0018
Attachment C:
Proposition 13 Urban Water Conservation Capital Outlay
List of Projects Recommended for Funding
Score / Application # / Applicant / Project Title / Funds Requested / Recommended Funding / Comments /93 / 176 / Goleta Water District / Large Meter Project / $85,800.00 / $85,800.00
91 / 157 / Regional Water Authority, Sacramento / Leak Detection and Repair Program / $386,750.00 / $386,750.00
89 / 114 / Rohnert Park, City of / Water Meter Project / $2,553,096.00 / $1,276,548.00 / fund 50% of proposed project
89 / 161 / Regional Water Authority, Sacramento / Large Landscape Irrigation System Incentive Program / $322,500.00 / $150,000.00 / scale back project to year 1 activities only
88 / 150 / Solano County Water Agency / Large Landscape ET Controller System Project / $391,219.00 / $195,000.00 / fund six sites only
88 / 167 / Victor Valley Water District / Residential ULFT Project / $70,000.00 / $70,000.00
87 / 123 / Las Virgenes Municipal Water District / Multifamily ULFT and Residential HECW Rebate Program / $145,000.00 / $145,000.00
86 / 164 / San Diego County Water Authority / Coin-Operated Multi Load Clothes Washer Voucher Incentive Program / $350,000.00 / $350,000.00
85 / 129 / Bear Valley Community Services District / Residential ULFT / $44,000.00 / $44,000.00
84 / 151 / Marina Coast Water District / Water Conservation System Rehabilitation Program / $3,918,245.00 / $959,029.00 / fund pressure reduction only
84 / 172 / East Bay Municipal Utility District / Pre-Rinse Spray Head and Dishwasher Installation Program for Fast Food Industry / $964,163.00 / $482,081.00 / fund 50% of proposed project
83 / 113 / Pleasantimes Mutual Water Company, Inc. / Water Meter Water Project / $49,000.00 / $49,000.00
83 / 159 / Placer County Water Agency / Auburn System Leak Repair / $679,560.00 / $679,560.00
82 / 137 / Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, City of / Enhanced Rebates and Incentives for Water Saving Devices / $1,115,000.00 / $615,000.00 / fund rebates only, not incentives
81 / 140 / Inland Empire Utilities Agency / X-Ray film Processor Retrofit Program / $230,000.00 / $230,000.00
80 / 103 / Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District / Olive Sports Park Model Water Efficient Landscape Project / $56,278.00 / $56,278.00
80 / 118 / Pasadena, City of / Commercial, Institutional, Industrial(CII) Zero Consumption Urinal Direct Install Program / $909,000.00 / $300,000.00 / fund 1/3 project: 1000 urinals
80 / 122 / Santa Clara Valley Water District / Water Softener Pilot Project / $60,000.00 / $60,000.00
80 / 134 / Santa Clara Valley Water District / Dedicated Landscape Meter Program / $100,000.00 / $100,000.00
79 / 179 / Calaveras County Water District / West Point Urban Water Conservation Capital Outlay Grant Project, Phase I / $3,282,000.00 / $1,925,000.00 / fund only Bear Creek Raw Water pipeline portion
79 / 136 / Rio Dell, City of / Water Use Efficiency 2002 / $714,910.00 / $714,910.00
TOTAL / $16,705,782.00 / $8,873,956.00
18