Calaveras meeting tonight could affect the future of the Mokelumne River

Monday, August 28, 6 pm, Mokelumne Hill Town Hall

Calaveras County water districts will hold a public meeting tonight to preview their new Mokelumne River “water needs study.” The meeting will be held at the Mokelumne Hill Town Hall at 6 pm. The study is intended to influence the State of California’s Mokelumne River Wild and Scenic suitability study, which is now underway. The state study was mandated by the passage of AB 142 in 2015.

While we have not yet seen the Calaveras study, a similar study was recently completed in Amador County. It drastically overestimated future population and future water demand.

Please come to the meeting and urge local water officials to:

— Use modern water demand forecasting techniques that consider efficiency, price, and declining water use in California.

— Avoid planning water projects that may harm the natural, recreational, scenic, water quality and cultural values of the Mokelumne River.

— Use a reasonable planning horizon (20-30 years) and develop a range of demand forecasts, not just one, high number.

— Use existing water storage and fix leaky pipes first. It is far cheaper to use water now stored in Schaad’s Reservoir, to buy space in PG&E and EBMUD reservoirs, and to fix leaking distribution systems than to build expensive new projects that will lead to higher water rates.

— Fully implement water conservation and efficiency programs.

— Fully support Wild and Scenic designation for the Mokelumne River, recognizing that state designation would allow diversions of water to Calaveras provided they do not harm the river.

What makes a good water demand study? 

See checklist below from the respected Pacific Institute.

❑      Is the purpose of the forecast clearly stated?

Is the forecast intended to justify new infrastructure or water purchases? Decision-makers should state what decisions will be based on the forecast.

❑      Are major classes of water users analyzed separately?

Does the forecast divide customers into appropriate groups? At a minimum, the analysis should cover each sizable class of water users with similar characteristics, e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, and large landscapes.

❑      Does the forecast use recent, up-to-date data?

Are the data sources clearly identified and do they come from reliable sources? Look for data that accurately reflects recent history, i.e., a mix of wet and dry years. Beware of cherry-picked data from a single year that does not reflect average conditions. For example, does the analyst rely on information from before the 2008 economic recession, which caused a slowdown in employment and new construction almost everywhere in the country?

❑      Has the water demand model been “validated?”

If the analyst is using a computer model to predict future demand, has he or she used the model to recreate observed conditions in the past? Did the model perform well? This process is referred to as model validation or hindcasting.

❑      Does the forecaster take into account increasing water use efficiency?

The forecast should include the effects of “passive conservation” caused by greater uptake of efficient appliances and fixtures that are mandated by standards and codes. In addition, the forecast should consider “active conservation” programs run by the utility, such as rebates for efficient appliances.

❑      Does the forecast take into account recent trends or developments in water use?

The document should include a table or chart of historical total water use and per capita water use for the region for at least the last 20 to 30 years. Such a chart can illustrate past trends, such as declining per capita water use, and allow you to see if the forecast is consistent with those trends. If the forecaster is making a projection that contradicts recent trends, it should be explained and justified with sufficient evidence.

❑      Does the forecast reflect any structural changes in the economy or other foreseeable changes in commercial and industrial water use?

Does the forecaster take into consideration economic changes that are ongoing or anticipated? For example, a region that is shifting from manufacturing to a more service-oriented economy, such as office buildings or retail, may experience a decline in water use. Are local businesses and/or institutions using water more efficiently, and is this reflected in the forecast?

❑      Does the forecast include anticipated changes in water prices, and how these may affect demand?

Has the cost of water for the utility increased faster than inflation in the recent past? Is it expected to do so in the future? If so, water use forecasts should include the price elasticity on demand, i.e., the relationship between price and consumption.

❑      Is projected population growth realistic?

Is the projected population comparable with that of other planning documents in the region? Can such growth be realistically expected in the timeframe of the forecast? How do projected rates of growth compare to historic rates? Does the forecast consider factors that are likely to accelerate or slow growth?

❑      Does the forecast include expected changes in land use or density?

Is your community, like many in California, seeing an increase in density in new development (i.e., homes on smaller lots and more multi-family homes)? Does the forecast consider these current development trends? Forecasts based on extrapolating existing density may overestimate water use.

❑      Is the water demand forecast consistent with other regional planning documents?

Are projections of population, employment, and land use consistent with those produced by other authorities in the region? Are assumptions about the region’s future, including different types of development (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial), similar to those in a city’s general plan or in regional transportation plans?

❑      Does the forecast include the effects of climate change?

Warming of the climate is likely to increase water use for landscapes and cooling, other things held equal. The effects of climate change should be included in detailed forecasts for those areas with significant outdoor water use.

❑      Are drought impacts on demand included?

Does the forecast take into account the reductions in water use from recent droughts or drought restrictions that have been imposed? Does the forecaster assume that some of this reduction will be permanent, or present evidence there will be a fuller rebound? Are future droughts and the effect they will have on water demand anticipated?

❑      Does the analyst incorporate uncertainty into the forecasts?

Modern software makes it much easier to incorporate uncertainty into the forecast, using Monte Carlo simulation or other stochastic methods. If the analyst has used one of these approaches, the forecast will show the output as a range. This may take the form of high and low estimates of future water demand, or the estimate may have error bars or “prediction intervals.”

❑      Are there multiple forecasts representing other possible future scenarios?

Does the forecast only represent a “business-as-usual” water demand, or are other possibilities imagined, such as “slow-growth” or “rapid-growth”?

❑      Have the public and other stakeholders been given opportunity to give input?

Was stakeholder input solicited? Was a draft presented for public review and comment? Did the authors respond meaningfully to the input they received? Were meetings or workshops held to describe the forecasts and/or solicit feedback?

❑      Has the forecast been peer reviewed?

Was the analysis peer reviewed or otherwise evaluated by external experts? External technical review can help spot and fix many potential errors. Further, forecasts are improved by incorporating a variety of data and viewpoints.

❑      Does the forecaster have a conflict of interest?

The utility or firm producing the forecast should not stand to profit from decisions related to the forecast. For example, the forecasting firm should not be eligible to bid on design, construction, or management of a project that is justified by the forecast.

Source: A Community Guide for Evaluating Future Urban Water Demand, Pacific Institute,  August 2016