Sustaining Our

Water Future

A Review of the Marin Municipal Water

District’s Alternatives to Improve Water
Supply Reliability
By James Fryer
Sponsored by Food & Water Watch
On the Cover

Photo of Bon Tempe Lake in view of Mount Tamalpais by Franco Folini.

About the Author

James Fryer is a water management and conservation professional with over 20 years experience with freshwater, es-
tuarine, and marine conservation policies, programs, and projects. He was the head of Marin Municipal Water District’s
water conservation program from 1990 to 1999. He served as the program manager for The Nature Conservancy’s Indian
River Lagoon Program in Florida, where he also represented the organization on the Indian River Lagoon National
Estuary Program Advisory Council. He was the director of the Florida Keys Program, where he also served on the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. In 1997, he served on the U.S./South Africa Bilateral Commission
sent to South Africa for watershed and water resources planning assistance. In 1996 he served as an advisor to the
British Columbia Water and Wastewater Association for development of a regional planning effort. He has a M.S. in
Environmental Management from the University of San Francisco where his Master’s Thesis was developing an Integrated
Floodplain Management model for the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed.

About Food & Water Watch

Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. We challenge
the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources by empowering people to take action and by transforming
the public consciousness about what we eat and drink. Food & Water Watch works with grassroots organizations around
the world to create an economically and environmentally viable future. Through research, public and policymaker educa-
tion, media and lobbying, we advocate policies that guarantee safe, wholesome food produced in a humane and sustain-
able manner, and public, rather than private, control of water resources including oceans, rivers and groundwater.

Food & Water Watch

Main Office California Office
1616 P St. NW, Suite 300 25 Stillman Street, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036 San Francisco, CA 94107
tel: (202) 683-2500 tel: (415) 293-9900
fax: (202) 683-2501 fax: (415) 293-9941
info@fwwatch.org california@fwwatch.org
www.foodandwaterwatch.org

Copyright © June 2009 by Food & Water Watch. All rights reserved. This report can be viewed or downloaded at
www.foodandwaterwatch.org.
Sustaining Our Water Future
A Review of the Marin Municipal Water District’s Alternatives
to Improve Water Supply Reliability

Table of Contents
iv Letter from Food & Water Watch
v Abbreviations, Acronyms and Definitions
vi Executive Summary, Recommendations and Conclusions

1 MMWD Service Area, Consumption and Production History

3 Water Supply Yield and Customer Response to Water Shortages
10 MMWD Customer Opinion Surveys

14 Russian River Water

16 MMWD’s Proposed Desalination Project

21 Water Conservation and Supply Improvements

21 The California Urban Water Conservation Council and the Best Management Practices
23 Development and Implementation of MMWD’s Water Conservation Programs
28 Conservation Rate Structures
30 Landscape Irrigation
35 Toilets and Urinals
37 Clothes Washers
38 Distribution System Unaccounted Losses and Leaks
39 Reservoir Operation Improvements
42 Recycled Water

44 Potential Additional Water Management Improvements

44 Urban Area Rain Harvesting, Cisterns and Graywater
46 Groundwater

49 Appendix: MMWD Rainfall Graph

50 Endnotes
Letter from Food & Water Watch

In February 2009, Food & Water Watch released a report on desalination entitled Ocean of Problems, in
which we outlined the growing threat of desalination to consumers and our coastal environments. Throughout
California more than 20 facilities are being considered and other states from New York to Florida are moving in
the same direction. As desalination is expensive, polluting, energy-intensive and in most cases unnecessary, it
should be the water supply option of last resort.

This report provides specific water solutions that are locally based, cost-effective and environmentally sound.
While this report is about Marin County, our hope is that the smart water solutions it recommends will provide
a roadmap for other communities in California and beyond — that it will provide a framework for thinking
about water and our natural environment that stands in contrast to costly industrial projects like desalination.

Similar to other proposed desalination facilities, the Marin Municipal Water District’s (MMWD) proposed
facility is unnecessary, energy intensive, expensive and could further degrade the San Francisco Bay. This
report offers smart water solutions that include replacing inefficient fixtures, improving landscape irrigation,
plugging system leaks and enhancing reservoir operation. These efficiency and waste prevention measures
would continue to provide Marin County with a reliable water supply.

We are proud to be working with Marin citizens, elected officials, community-based organizations and
environmental groups to advance these measures and oppose desalination. While we were disappointed that
the environmental review of the desalination plant downplayed the potential for conservation and the adverse
effects on the environment, we look forward to working with MMWD staff and board members who share our
goals of finding solutions that are in the public interest.

There is no doubt that in the coming years, especially in the West, water scarcity will be an increasingly
significant issue. We must work collectively to address this problem by first preventing waste and promoting
efficiency, not expensive and energy intensive projects that will ultimately cost consumers and the
environment.

Sincerely,

Wenonah Hauter
Executive Director
Food & Water Watch

iv Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

Abbreviations, Acronyms &
Definitions
Acre-foot: 325,851 gallons, or enough water to cover an
acre to a depth of one foot
Afy: Acre-Feet per Year
Billing Baseline: The baseline serves as the trigger point
for the tiers in the tier rate structure. For non-residential
customers, MMWD assigns a water entitlement that is the
maximum amount of water use allowable at the site, a wa-
ter budget that is intended to reflect present water need at
the site, and a bimonthly baseline that is the water budget
divided into six bimonthly billing periods. The water budget
and baseline cannot exceed the annual entitlement, but
may be less to reflect present use at the site. Customers can
allocate their baseline to the bimonthly billing periods to
reflect water use needs at the site. For example, a site with
landscape irrigation as the primary water use will allocate
more of their baseline to the summer months to reflect
increased water use during the summer.
BMPs: Best Management Practices, in the context of this
report the water conservation BMPs associated with the
California Urban Water Conservation Council.
CALFED: A collaboration of California and federal agen-
cies involved in San Francisco Bay-Delta water manage-
ment and environmental issues.
CCF: One hundred cubic feet of water, or 748 gallons, and
the MMWD standard billing unit for water use.
CUWCC: California Urban Water Conservation Coun-
cil, the organization established by a water conservation
Memorandum of Understanding to provide support and
record the progress of water agencies implementing water
conservation best management practices.
Demand Elasticity: In the context of this report, the
amount customers vary their water use based on various
influences such as the public perception of drought condi-
tions and water supply shortage.
EIR: Environmental impact report as required by the Cali-
fornia Environmental Quality Act.
ET: Evapotranspiration
ETo: Reference Evapotranspiration, the amount of water
in a given climate zone required by turf grass growing in
full sun and wind conditions.
ETo Controllers: Irrigation system automatic controllers
that utilize local evapotranspiration information to adjust
irrigation system run times to provide the amount of water
needed by the landscape.
Food & Water Watch
Evapotranspiration: Water lost to the atmosphere by
evaporation from the soil and from transpiration from
plants growing in the soil. This is the amount of water an
irrigation system is designed to replace, but in practice
irrigation systems often apply much more water than the
evapotranspiration replacement need.
GIS: Geographic Information System, a computer da-
tabase, software and analytical technique for cataloging
and analyzing natural features and systems and facilities
such as water agency pipelines. GIS capability was largely
developed and came into widespread use during the least
couple of decades and dramatically improved the ability to
conduct complex analyses on natural systems and manage-
ment options.
Marginal Cost: The cost of producing one more unit of
a good, or in this report the cost of producing or saving an
acre-foot of water. The marginal cost provides a mechanism
to compare the cost of different water conservation and
supply options on a realistic cost comparison basis.
MMWD: Marin Municipal Water District
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding. In the context of
this report, the agreement that created the California Urban
Water Council and the water conservation best manage-
ment practices.
Natural Replacement Rate: In the context of this
report, the rate that water use fixtures and appliances are
replaced by customers due to malfunction, or as part of
remodeling projects or upgrades.
NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service
NMWD: North Marin Water District
Plant Water Use Factors: The percentage of reference
evapotranspiration needed by a specific plant or group of
plants with similar water needs. The University of Califor-
nia Cooperative Extension has developed an extensive list
of plants in their Water Use Classification of Landscape
Species and groups then in the following categories:
High 70 - 90 percent of ETo (includes turf grass
and other high water use plants)
Moderate 40 - 60 percent of ETo
Low 10 - 30 percent of ETo
Very Low Less than 10 percent of ETo (includes
plants that need little or no irrigation in
normal rainfall years)
Price Elasticity: In the context of this report, the change
in water use resulting from a change in price. A significant
price increase results in a decrease in use.
SCWA: Sonoma County Water Agency
v
Executive Summary
The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) is developing a new program to improve water supply reliability.
MMWD staff has identified a theoretical water supply deficit of 6,700 afy by the year 2025. A range of alternatives are
being considered to address the projected supply deficit. The alternatives include increased water conservation, im-
proved reservoir management, increased water recycling, importing additional Russian River water and constructing a
desalination facility.

The Need for New Supply

MMWD estimates the existing water supply deficit is about 10 percent, or about 3,300 afy. This is the difference be-
tween the existing operational yield of 28,400 afy and “normal” year demand of 31,700 afy. MMWD projects the water
supply deficit in the year 2025 as 6,700 afy.

MMWD identified existing deficit 3,300 afy

MMWD projected deficit increase from new growth 3,400 afy
MMWD total projected deficit in 2025 6,700 afy

However, by assuming normal year demand equates to just the occasional highest years of careless and wasteful water
use that typically occur after a series of very wet years, modified with a modest amount of long-term conservation,
MMWD overestimates demand. According to MMWD records, total water production from 1993 to 2008, years with
no rationing to restrict water use, averaged 29,943 afy. Total water production during the last four calendar years
(2005-08), with no rationing in place, averaged 29,718 afy. This is well below the normal year demand of 31,700 afy
indicated by MMWD.

Existing average year demand 29,700 afy

Existing operational yield 28,400 afy
Existing supply deficit 1,300 afy

The existing supply deficit is about 1,300 afy, which is about 2,000 afy less than indicated in MMWD public infor-
mation materials. If we accept the assumption that in the absence of serious new water conservation programs, new
growth in the service area through 2025 will increase demand another 3,400 afy, the result is a supply deficit of 4,700
afy.

Existing supply deficit 1,300 afy

Projected deficit increase from new growth 3,400 afy
Total projected deficit in 2025 4,700 afy

MMWD Proposed Solution

As noted, MMWD has projected a supply deficit of 6,700 afy in the year 2025. MMWD proposes at least 3,400 afy in
new water conservation with the 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan. MMWD proposes providing an additional
3,300 afy with new supply projects such as desalination or other supply improvements.

However, whether one accepts the recent average year demand of 29,700 afy or MMWD’s suggested normal year
demand of 31,700 afy as the basis of supply planning, a package of six options to improve local water management and
increase conservation recommended in this report can provide a cost-effective and environmentally friendly solution
to providing long-term supply reliability.

MMWD Customer Opinion Surveys

To help shape the water reliability planning effort, MMWD has conducted numerous random public opinion surveys
designed to reflect general customer opinions and attitudes regarding water supply and water conservation issues.
Over the last two decades, these surveys have found consistent and widespread support for water conservation. Fur-
thermore, the surveys also found a strong and consistent preference for water conservation as the best approach for
improving water supply reliability. Respondents generally voiced twice the support for water conservation compared

vi Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

to either desalination or importing more Russian River water. Residents also indicated the District should be operated
in the most environmentally sensitive manner possible. These opinion surveys are consistent with recent public input
to MMWD provided as part of the current water supply planning process.

Russian River Water

MMWD began importing a modest amount of water from the Russian River in the 1970s. But voters and public inter-
est groups opposed projects providing large increases in water supply. Despite MMWD Board support for an expanded
pipeline project, in 1971 MMWD voters rejected by a nine-to-one margin a $20 million bond measure that would have
provided up to 42,000 afy of water from the new Warm Springs Dam project in the Russian River watershed.

In 1991, during a series of drought years, MMWD voters defeated Measure W, an $80 million bond measure to con-
struct an enlarged pipeline for increasing Russian River water imports. However, Measure V, a $37.5 million bond
measure to fund a five-phase plan, was adopted by voters in 1992. The five-phase plan was based on increased water
conservation and recycling first, and facility improvements for increased Russian River supply only on an as-needed
basis. As part of an agreement with local community organizations for support of Measure V, a new and ongoing
citizens advisory committee was formed. The new committee was to provide input and guidance to MMWD on the
development of new water conservation programs and help define when as-needed trigger points were reached that
would require phasing in of new Russian River facilities and supply.

Although MMWD now has contracts with the Sonoma County Water Agency for increased deliveries of Russian River
water, the actual delivery of additional water is seriously constrained. This includes limited pipeline and facilities ca-
pacity since some of the facilities considered with Measure V were never constructed. But a more important constraint
is now the unresolved environmental problems on the Russian River, and the Eel River diversions into the Russian
River. Resolution of the environmental problems and improved environmental health for both rivers should occur
before considering importation of additional water from the Russian River.

MMWD’s Proposed Desalination Project

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a potential 5 million gallons per day (MGD) to 15 MGD desalination facil-
ity was certified on February 4, 2009. The EIR identifies increased water conservation as the most environmentally
beneficial alternative. But the EIR also concludes that water conservation and all the other alternatives being consid-
ered as stand alone programs will not provide sufficient water supply reliability during drought of record conditions.
The EIR does not examine packages of conservation-oriented alternatives that in combination could provide adequate
water supply reliability in addition to being more environmentally, financially, and politically acceptable.

The proposal for a desalination facility in Marin is very controversial, with residents voicing opposition based on
questions over the real need, the high cost, concerns about water quality, and the associated energy use and negative
environmental impacts. The proposed 5 MGD to 15 MGD expandable facility would increase the available water sup-
ply from 19.3 percent to 500 percent depending on operation scheme, compared to an existing, but overestimated, 10
percent supply deficit identified in District planning documents. Average annual MMWD energy use would increase
from 43.4 percent to 124.3 percent, and annual use could peak as high as a 295.8 percent increase with a 15 MGD
facility run at full capacity.

Under the MMWD proposed operational scheme, the marginal cost of desalination ranges from about $3,600 to
$4,400 per acre-foot for a 5 MGD facility and $2,900 to $3,540 per acre-foot for a 10 MGD facility. Due to the higher
capital and operational cost, and not including future escalating operational cost, a 10 MGD facility will increase
MMWD overall revenue need about 23 percent and a 5 MGD facility will increase overall revenue need about 14 per-
cent.

Water Conservation
MMWD underestimates the potential for increasing cost-effective water conservation. During the last decade, MMWD
fell well behind the conservation goals in their 1994 conservation master plan and the implementation schedule for
some key water conservation best management practices. MMWD also fell behind more conservation oriented water
agencies in California.

Food & Water Watch vii

MMWD’s 2007 conservation master plan uses a flawed marginal cost comparison of $1,631 per acre-foot to screen
conservation measures rather than the $2,900 - $4,400 per acre-foot desalination is projected to cost. The plan re-
duces the goals of some core conservation programs from even the modest rate achieved in recent years. As a result,
many opportunities exist for increased water conservation and improved water management.

Recommended Solution
Based on a review of MMWD and water industry documents and records, interviews of MMWD and other water
agency staff and water experts, and analysis of a range of options, this report recommends the following package.

Reduce landscape irrigation waste and excessive use 4,000 afy

Reduce distribution system leaks at least 4 percent from present level 1,200 afy
Provide improvements in reservoir operation 1,000 afy
Increase efficient toilet and urinal retrofits to 90 percent 1,000 afy
Increase efficient clothes washer retrofits to 75 percent 500 afy
Increase water recycling 250 afy
7,950 afy

Measures with future potential but which need further development:

Develop Additional Groundwater 500 to 1,000+ afy

Urban Area Rain Harvesting, Cisterns and Graywater 500 to 1,000+ afy

Note that the package of six options will improve system yield and reduce demand. The package provides a combined
benefit of 7,950 afy. This is 1,250 afy more than the 6,700 afy MMWD indicates is needed. It is 3,250 afy more than
the actual existing and projected supply deficit in 2025. This provides a substantial contingency if any of the measures
underperform.

It is also worth noting that many additional conservation measures exist in addition to this list which are sensible and
cost-effective for MMWD to implement. These include swimming pool and spa conservation, improved cooling tower
efficiency, improved dishwashing machine technology, etc. The conservation items above are really just the measures
with the largest individual savings and additional measures would provide additional cost-effective savings. Also, two
potential future measures noted above may provide an additional 1,000 to 2,000+ afy of future supply and water sav-
ings benefits.

Each option in the recommended package is more thor- Table ES-1: Marginal Cost Comparison
oughly discussed in subsequent sections of this report. 5000 Recommended options

Marginal Cost Comparison Potential future options

4000
Dollars per Acre-Foot

Desalination
Table ES-1 at right provides a marginal cost comparison of
the various alternatives evaluated in this report. 3000

Note that many of the recommended measures for conser- 2000

vation and water management improvements are under
$500 an acre-foot. All of the measures, including the low 1000
landscape cost estimate, are no more than $1,000 per
acre-foot. The high landscape cost estimate, for a highly 0
5 MGD Desal - High
Graywater - Low

Graywater - High
ETo Controllers

10 MGD Desal - High

Clothes Washers
Toilets - SFR

Landscape - High

10 MGD Desal - Low

Dist. Sys. Leaks
Toilets - MFR

5 MGD Desal - Low

Toilets - Restaurant
Landscape - Low

sophisticated program which could include incentives for

graywater systems and rain gardens, which would provide
flood management and stormwater quality benefits to the
community, is no more than $2,000 per acre-foot. This
compares to a cost estimate range of $2,900 to $4,400 per
acre-foot for desalination. Since the low cost estimate for

viii Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

desalination does not include a construction market contingency or annual cost escalation, the final desalination cost
is likely to be in the high end of the range.

Recent public information presentations by MMWD indicate that the conservation programs would require a substan-
tial additional customer investment of $77 million and that this may make them more costly compared to desalina-
tion. This is misleading. The combined utility and customer marginal cost of all the proposed conservation programs
in the MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan is $1,111 per acre-foot.

More importantly, the financial incentives for the conservation measures are designed primarily to persuade custom-
ers to make a more efficient choice when replacing or servicing their water using features and fixtures. In most cases,
the customers will be faced with these replacement costs regardless of the conservation incentive program or desalina-
tion project. If customers utilize the conservation incentive programs (which are much less costly than a desalination
project) and make more efficient choices for their projects, they will avoid the cost of a desalination project on top
of the cost of their individual projects. They will also own upgraded assets for their homes and businesses and enjoy
long-term cost savings. By all well accepted economic measures, the conservation programs are much less costly from
the perspective of the individual customers, the water agency, and the community perspective.

Additional Key Recommendations

1. Reestablish a citizens advisory committee with knowledgeable membership that meets regularly to support water con-
servation program development and implementation and provide oversight of water supply reliability improvements.

2. Reevaluate the acceptable depth and frequency of rationing with a reestablished citizens advisory committee.

3. Develop a comprehensive, coherent water conservation master plan based on desalination marginal costs as the
measurement point for cost-effective water conservation programs.

4. Conduct a comprehensive urban landscape analysis using GIS and on-site surveys to determine the state of existing
landscape water use and shape a new landscape water conservation program.

5. Conduct a comprehensive district-wide groundwater study that also evaluates the integration of cisterns, rain gar-
dens, and flood management with groundwater recharge and management.

6. Conduct comprehensive reservoir reoperation study to identify optimum management schemes to increase yield in
an environmentally friendly manner.

7. Consider the price elasticity impact on demand as MMWD plans present and potential future rate increases to pro-
vide adequate revenue for a proposed desalination facility.

Conclusion
By assuming normal year demand equates to careless and wasteful water use after a series of very wet years, MMWD
overestimates existing average year demand by 2,000 afy. With a policy to limit rationing to 25 percent of wasteful
year water use in drought of record conditions, MMWD also underestimates demand elasticity and customer willing-
ness to conserve during serious drought events. Well-designed, long-term water conservation programs better prepare
customers to use considerably less water during future drought events.

MMWD underestimates the potential for increasing cost-effective water conservation. The 2007 water conserva-
tion master plan uses a flawed cost-benefit marginal cost comparison of $1,631 per acre-foot rather than the $2,900
- $4,400 per acre-foot that desalination is expected to cost. Thus, the plan under-recognizes the cost-effectiveness of
potential conservation measures. Furthermore, the plan reduces the goals of some core conservation programs from
even the rate achieved in recent years.

Through numerous mechanisms, MMWD customers have voiced a strong and consistent preference for the most envi-
ronmentally friendly solution to improved water supply reliability. Improved water conservation programs combined
with an improved distribution system and reservoir management along with a modest increase in water recycling can
provide a long-term solution to improving water supply reliability. This can be done at much lower cost compared to a
desalination facility and is the most environmentally friendly solution.

Food & Water Watch ix

 Photo by Alex Centrella/Stock.Xchng.

MMWD Service Area, Consumption and Production History

T he Marin Municipal Water District is located in the San Francisco Bay Area on
the north side of the Golden Gate Bridge across from San Francisco. MMWD
serves most of the population of Marin County and is primarily composed of single-
family residences, along with some multi-family, landscape, and light commercial
services. Presently, the population served is about 190,000, through about 61,000
service connections. Most of the population resides in the eastern corridor that
fronts San Francisco Bay. The District owns and manages a 21,250 acre watershed
situated on the western slopes of Mt. Tamalpais.1
The MMWD watershed and service area experiences
a Mediterranean climate with mild, dry summers and
Table 1: Population and Consumption Trends
cool, wet winters. Annual rainfall averages 52 inches
in MMWD Service Area5
on the watershed2 and about 30 inches on the populous
eastern corridor. However, there is much variation in Water Gallons/
the annual rainfall with numerous wet and dry peri- Year Population
Production Capita/Day
ods in the hydrologic record. The driest year on record 1940 48,000 3,989 74.2
was 1924, with 18 inches of rain.3 MMWD recorded 22 1950 78,000 9,207 105.4
inches of rainfall in 1976 and 25 inches in 1977, which 1960 124,000 19,344 139.3
comprises the 1976-77 drought of record.4 1970 168,000 32,530 172.9
1980 167,000 27,313 146.0
Water demand widely fluctuates based on wet or dry 1987 168,000 32,837 174.5
year conditions. It now averages less than 30,000 afy, 1990 170,000 29,122 152.9
but peaked at about 32,500 afy in 1970 and 1987. About 1995 176,000 28,350 143.8
two-thirds of water is used indoors, and one-third used 2000 184,122 31,165 150.4
for landscape irrigation. MMWD manages its own 2004 184,818 32,478 152.6
watershed, which accounts for the majority of its water 2008 190,000 29,975 144.4
supply. However, arrangements were made beginning in
 the 1970s to import some water from the Russian River. 1980s, wasteful and careless use again drove consumption
The Russian River imports now account for up to 25 per- to a high level peak in 1986-87. Another, less severe series
cent of the water supply. Recycled water provides about of drought years began with the 1987-88 rainfall season.
2.2 percent or 650 afy. In response, consumption again dramatically drops, and
rebounds during subsequent wet years. But the rebound of
Table 1 on the previous page and Figure 1 below summa- the 1990s is less pronounced due to the implementation of
rize population and consumption trends since 1940. more comprehensive and durable long-term conservation
efforts compared to the 1976-77 drought.
Figure 1 shows the dramatic reduction in use that occurred
in the 1976-77 drought. It also shows consumption quickly Table 2 below provides a more detailed breakdown of
rebounding after the drought, and then leveling off for sev- consumption, production and unaccounted use since
eral years at a level well below the pre-drought high. Then, 1990. Note that in the last four years, 2005 – 2008, years
as a series of very wet El Nino years occurred in the early with no rationing in place, total production was less than
30,000 each year.
Figure 1: Per Capita Demand6
200 As demonstrated in the above data sets, water use has
remarkable elasticity. The elasticity is based on many
factors discussed in this report, but to a large extent on
Gallons Per Capita Per Day

the perception of available supply by water users. As dem-

150 onstrated in Figure 1, water use is dramatically reduced
when the perception of water shortage exists. Since water
is a relatively low cost for most water users compared to
many other necessities, water use also becomes careless
and wasteful during wet years when water supplies are
100 perceived as plentiful. Nonetheless, most water agencies
in California assume demand equates to the careless and
inefficient highest years of water use that typically occur
during a series of wet years. This is an approach that is
50 no longer appropriate given modern water management
2001-02
1981-82
1961-62

1971-72

1999-00
1965-66

1979-80

1993-94
1975-76

1989-90
1969-70

1997-98
1963-64

1977-78

1991-92
1959-60

1973-74

1987-88
1967-68

1983-84

2005-06
1985-86

1995-96

2003-04

realities in California.

Table 2: Consumption, Production and Unaccounted Use Since 19907

Billed Potable Recycled Total Unbilled

Year Unaccounted
Consumption Production (FY) Production Use
1990 25,683 28,972 293 29,265 148 3,141
1991 19,516 21,332 274 21,606 108 1,708
1992 21,804 23,597 372 23,969 144 1,649
1993 23,151 25,193 564 25,757 181 1,861
1994 24,605 27,290 662 27,952 683 2,002
1995 24,973 27,431 701 28,132 216 2,242
1996 25,655 28,255 786 29,041 170 2,430
1997 27,150 29,834 915 30,749 92 2,592
1998 25,235 28,133 632 28,765 110 2,788
1999 27,283 29,696 768 30,464 185 2,228
2000 28,244 30,459 782 31,241 164 2,051
2001 28,848 31,787 774 32,561 132 2,808
2002 28,043 31,834 789 32,623 101 3,690
2003 27,195 30,467 673 31,140 406 2,866
2004 28,084 31,073 720 31,793 66 2,923
2005 25,727 28,982 649 29,631 75 3,180
2006 25,372 28,930 684 29,614 84 3,474
2007 25,617 29,018 635 29,653 41 3,360
2008 26,100 29,327 648 29,975 75 3,152

2 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

MMWD water supply planning public information ma-
terials identify “normal” year demand as 31,700 afy.8 By
assuming demand is the infrequently occurring highest
years of production, modified with a modest amount of
long-term conservation, MMWD overestimates existing
demand. In 1993, the year after rationing was discon-
tinued due to abundant rainfall, total production was
only 25,757 acre-feet. This is a drop of over 7,000 acre-
feet from the pre-drought high in 1987. The 1993 total
production provides an indication how much demand
elasticity is available with careful, but non-restricted
water use. As shown in Table 2 above, total water produc-
tion from 1993 to 2008, years with no rationing in place,
averaged 29,943 afy. Furthermore, total water produc-
tion during the last four years, with no rationing in place,
averaged 29,718 afy. This is well below the “normal” year
demand of 31,700 afy indicated on MMWD’s website and
in recent presentations to the public and which is used as
the basis of future demand projections.9
MMWD points to an existing supply deficit of about
3,300 afy, the difference between 31,700 afy and opera-
tional yield of 28,400.10 However, since the existing aver-
age year demand is about 29,700 afy, the present supply
deficit is overestimated and is actually about 2,000 afy
less or about 1,300 afy.
Existing average year demand: 29,700 afy
Existing operational yield: 28,400 afy
Existing supply deficit: 1,300 afy
Photo by Arjun Kartha/Stock.Xchng.
Food & Water Watch
Water Supply Yield and Customer
Response to Water Shortages
• The need for new supply depends in part on the
willingness and ability of water users to reduce
use during infrequent drought events.
• MMWD customers, through numerous citizen
committees and public opinion surveys, have
consistently and repeatedly voiced a willingness
to accept water use reductions during drought
events to avoid costly new supplies and the as-
sociated environmental impacts.
• Comprehensive conservation programs along
with improved distribution system and reservoir
management schemes, and a modest increase in
recycling can reduce the frequency and level of
water shortages to an acceptable level of risk.
• Ongoing water conservation programs better
prepare water users to conserve additional water
in future droughts.
California has a Mediterranean climate of warm, dry win-
ters and cool, wet winters, but it experiences considerable
variation in winter rainfall from year to year. Marin’s
rainfall records document three significant drought
events since 1879. A six-year drought in the 1930s, an-
other six-year drought in the late 1980s through the early
1990s, and the most extreme event, the drought of record
in 1976-77.11
Recurring droughts, and in particular, drought of record
conditions, determine reliability of the water supply.
Another key factor is the willingness and ability of water
users to reduce consumption during drought conditions.
Reduced water consumption during droughts extends
available supplies further and reduces the need for costly
new water supply only needed during infrequent drought
events.
The record demonstrates that MMWD water users have
the ability to dramatically reduce consumption during
drought periods. Previous droughts and rationing expe-
riences also provide important lessons in understand-
ing customer response to these events. In the 1976-77
drought, the most severe on record, MMWD instituted
a per capita rationing allotment and prohibited most
landscape irrigation. Motivated by the severity of the
event and the widespread press attention to the drought
as a local and statewide situation, customers responded
with an impressive amount of cooperation. They rapidly
implemented numerous short term conservation mea-
sures including use of graywater. Ultimately, customers
3
responded to a call for an overall 57 percent reduction in
use with a 62 percent reduction.12
Newspaper articles of the day and at least two books
provide considerable documentation of the water plan-
ning conflicts the MMWD Board faced during the 1976-77
drought.13 For years preceding the drought, anti-devel-
opment advocates openly used the lack of water sup-
ply as a means to inhibit new growth in Marin County,
and MMWD had a moratorium on new connections. In
fact, the 1971 bond measure to dramatically increase the
quantity of imported Russian River water was rejected by
voters in a 9 to 1 margin largely for this reason.14 Develop-
ment interests bitterly fought the moratorium, harassing
pro moratorium MMWD Board members to the point
that one resigned because of the stress it was causing
his family15 and another was sued (unsuccessfully) for
$25 million.16 Newspaper articles and books recording
the event distinguish between this ongoing issue and the
short-term need for serious rationing as reservoir levels
dropped precariously low.17 This was confirmed with re-
cent interviews of two past MMWD Board members who
were on the board during the 1976-77 drought event.18
Regarding rationing, after an initial year of some skepti-
cism and adjustment by customers, the local newspaper
articles frequently cite the impressive community spirit
in responding to the drought conditions and reducing
consumption.19 In some cases block parties were held to
celebrate the lowest water consumers in the neighbor-
hood.20 While there were certainly some hardships, and
4 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
much non-native landscaping was lost during the ex-
ceptionally dry conditions, present day representations
of widespread customer resentment over the drought
mischaracterizes the situation and confuses the issues.
In the more recent six-year drought in the late 80s and
early 90s, water users again demonstrated an ability to
reduce demand commensurate with supply conditions.
The seriousness of the situation varied from year to year,
as did the call by water managers for reduced consump-
tion. On several occasions MMWD geared up for manda-
tory rationing, only to have late season rains negate this
need.
In 1989, MMWD instituted a 35 percent rationing pro-
gram with each customer’s rationing allotment based
on the simple formula of a cutback of each customer’s
previous year of use. This approach resulted in a seri-
ous public relations problem for the District. There was
widespread skepticism by customers whether rationing
was really necessary, and probably even greater outrage
at the perceived inequity in rationing allotments. The per-
cent cutback plan, although relatively easy to administer
from the District’s point of view, was seen by customers
to reward water wasters and penalize conservers. Fortu-
nately, adequate rainfall occurred later in the spring to
allow the District to rescind mandatory rationing and call
for a 10 percent voluntary program. However, substantial
customer ill will and mistrust remained.21
As the drought worsened again in the 1990-91 rainfall
season, the District adopted a new approach for another
round of mandatory rationing. Clear, predetermined trig-
ger points were developed for different levels of ration-
ing based on reservoir levels late in the rainy season. A
per capita allotment program was developed and census
cards were sent to all customers to prepare for the pos-
sible need for mandatory rationing. Media attention
increased as dry conditions persisted, and in late Febru-
ary, 1991, the MMWD Board enacted 50 percent manda-
tory rationing. Ironically, the next day it began to rain,
but with the reservoirs so low, and much media attention
on the drought, customers responded with remarkable
cooperation. They quickly lined up at the District’s office
for free conservation kits and attended local drought fairs
in large numbers, even though raincoats were needed
due to continuing rainfall. Census cards for the per capita
rationing allotments were returned and the actual popu-
lation count closely correlated with the expected popula-
tion. This indicated a high degree of customer honesty in
claiming household population on which they knew their
rationing allotment would be based. After the “March
Miracle” rains resulted in a rollback to 25 percent volun-
tary rationing, customers continued to respond with a 34
percent reduction.22
The reasons for this dramatic turnaround in customer re-
sponse and cooperation to mandatory rationing appeared
to be clear recognition, through media attention and
predetermined reservoir trigger points, of the real water
shortage and need to reduce consumption. Also, the per-
ception of fairness and equity with the per capita allot-
ments was important to customers.23 Finally, customers
responded favorably to carefully instituted emergency
conservation programs. In short, customers will respond
to and cooperate with well-designed drought and ration-
ing programs when the perception of a real need exists.
Net Safe Yield and Operational Yield
The term “net safe yield” is an assessment of the quan-
tity and reliability of water supply available to a water
agency when its system is stressed from drought condi-
tions. For this assessment, droughts of record conditions
are usually modeled with the presently existing system
of reservoirs, groundwater and water import contracts.
While a system may be capable of supplying substantially
more water during wet years, it is the dry year yield that
determines the reliability of the supply, and typically
drives decisions to seek new water supply sources.
A common historic practice in assessing the need for
new supplies is to compare drought year water supply
yield to the demand for water that typically peaks dur-
ing non-drought periods. The goal was to minimize the
risk of water shortages by planning a system fully ca-
pable of supplying non-drought year peak water demand
(or in some cases demand projected to increase during
droughts) during drought of record conditions.
This has several fundamental problems. First, as has now
been demonstrated by several drought cycles of various
degrees of seriousness, consumer water use typically
becomes increasingly careless and wasteful after numer-
ous consecutive wet years when supplies are perceived as
more abundant. Second, due to increasing competition
for limited supplies and recognition of serious environ-
mental consequences from diversions and altered natural
hydropatterns, many water purveyors in California no
longer have the luxury to plan drought year supplies to
fully meet non-drought year demands. Finally, the cost
of providing supplies for careless and wasteful use during
infrequent serious drought events is seen by many as a
poor use of limited public funds that could be used for
other purposes.
In light of these modern realities, the Marin Munici-
pal Water District adopted the concept of “operational
yield.” With this approach, rather than simply comparing
drought year supply to non-drought year consumption,
drought year supply is compared to consumption that is
reduced by a pre-determined acceptable frequency and
Food & Water Watch
level of rationing. This recognizes the ability and willing-
ness of consumers to reduce consumption during dry
years and has very important implications for water sup-
ply planning and when new supplies are needed.
MMWD customers,
through numerous citizen
committees and public
opinion surveys, have
consistently and repeatedly
voiced a willingness to
accept water use reductions
during droughts.
Acceptable Frequency and Level of Water
Shortage During Drought Events
To determine the acceptable frequency and level of water
shortages, critical questions include the acceptability of
the idea of occasional water shortages and what fre-
quency and percent of water shortage are acceptable. In
the case of MMWD, considerable information exists for
examining this issue.
According to the water Shortage Contingency Plan in the
1995 Urban Water Management Plan, developed soon
after a six-year drought, the District was “planning its
water supply to reduce the depth and frequency of ration-
ing to a level of no more than 30 percent with a frequency
of once in 50 years.”24 Based on the District’s then-recent
drought experience, rationing of 25 percent was viewed
as attainable, and in fact had recently been attained
under a voluntary rationing program. The District’s code
also planned for more extreme events up to and including
a 50 percent mandatory rationing program with cor-
responding reservoir storage trigger points at the end of
each rainy season. While rationing events of 40 percent
to 50 percent were considered undesirable, advance plan-
ning such extreme events was considered prudent and
responsible. Also, clear trigger points for different levels
of rationing based on reservoir levels was considered an
appropriate mechanism for rational decision making.
Clear trigger points also improved credibility with an
often skeptical public whose acceptance of the situation
and appropriate response was critical.25
5
This issued was also frequently considered by MMWD
board and citizen committees in the 1990s. At that point,
many believed the cost of developing a system with 100
percent supply reliability during drought periods was not
justified from the perspectives of cost and environmental
impacts. In 1999, believing that additional water would
be available at relatively low-cost from the Russian River
source, the District adopted a water shortage policy of 10
percent rationing in the first year and 25 percent in the
second year of drought of record conditions and revised
its code to remove levels of rationing above 25 percent.26
Under this policy, water users would only be required to
make a serious effort to reduce consumption during what
is now a once in 129 year event.
Given the present recognition that relatively low-cost
Russian River water is much more problematic than pre-
viously believed (see the Russian River Water section for
more details) and with the MMWD Board now consider-
ing desalination which is two to three time more costly
a supply option, the drought shortage policy appears
due for review. This should be done with the input of a
citizens’ advisory committee. The demonstrated willing-
ness and ability of District customers to conserve extra
water during rarely occurring serious drought conditions,
documented in the MMWD Customer Opinion Surveys
section of this report, reduces the need for new supply
that is really only needed during these rare events.
Demand Hardening
Part of the justification for this change of frequency and
degree of rationing is the controversial issue of so called
“demand hardening.” Demand hardening is the assumed
loss of demand elasticity, or the decreased ability of con-
sumers to reduce water use during a drought that results
from water conservation programs implemented before
the drought.
MMWD recently evaluated demand hardening in its 2007
Water Conservation Master Plan. The analysis concluded
that a demand hardening effect “is not considered in our
professional opinion to be significant or a reason not to
implement long term conservation.”27
Another useful indicator of demand elasticity is an
evaluation of how much water MMWD customers
historically used on a per capita basis. Table 3 shows
that average consumption was only 74.2 gallon per
capita per day in 1940. This contrasts with a peak per
capital consumption of 174.5 gallon per person per day
in 1987, a per capita increase of 235.2 percent. While
some of this increase reflects increasing commercial
and industrial use relative to residential use, there is
tremendous elasticity in the amount of water needed
for people to live happily and comfortably in MMWD’s
service area.
If we assume a future population of 208,97129 and a 30
percent rationing reduction of a 30,000 afy demand, the
average per capita consumption would be 89.7 gallon a
day. This is 120.9 percent of the 74.2 gallons per capita
needed on a daily basis by water users in 1940 in a non-
drought period shown in Table 3.
But perhaps a more useful analysis is evaluating how
much water would be available to residential customers
on a per capita basis, using a more sophisticated analysis
that takes into account the different customer classes and
the cutbacks expected of each class. It is also useful to
consider how much water is actually needed by customers
with efficient fixtures and practices compared to custom-
ers with inefficient fixtures and practices.
Table 4, from the 2005 UWMP, shows the expected
cutback per customer class under different levels of
rationing. While levels of rationing above 25 percent were
included to satisfy the requirements of the Urban Water
Management Plan, these levels of rationing were removed
from District code in 1999.30

Table 3: Population and Consumption Table 4: Allocation Plan: Proposed Cutbacks

Trends in MMWD Service Area28 at Different Rationing Levels31
Year Population Gallons/Capita/Day Billing 20% 25% 30% 40% 50%
1940 48,000 74.2 Codes Rationing Rationing Rationing Rationing Rationing

1950 78,000 105.4 Code 1-5

25% 32% 32% 46% 55%
Residential
1960 124,000 139.3 Code 6
1970 168,000 172.9 20% 25% 30% 40% 50%
Institutional
1980 167,000 146.0 Code 7
15% 20% 25% 35% 45%
1987 168,000 174.5 Business
1990 170,000 152.9 Code 8
45% 50% 60% 75% 90%
1995 176,000 143.8 Irrigation
2000 185,000 150.4
20% and above rationing plan: Per Capita/Service Allotments
2004 190,000 152.6

6 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

Table 5 provides a consumption history water usage for Table 5: Five Year Consumption History by
the different customer classes. Consumer Class32
Using data from the above two tables, an analysis of 30 Service
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Type
percent rationing with a corresponding 32 percent cut- Single Family 16,002 af 16,530 af 16,446 af 16,062 af 16,568 af
back for single-family residential services of their 2004 (No. Services) (51,466) (50,943) (50,070) (51,359) (51,435)
consumption gives the following results: Duplex (No. 748 af 766 af 748 af 726 af 748 af
Services) (2,240) (2,212) (2,200) (2,215) (2,224)
3 & 4 Units 414 af 410 af 394 af 378 af 376 af
Assuming total population of 195,362 people in MMWD’s (No. Services) (797) (791) (777) (782) (780)
service area (ABAG Projection for 2010) and 2.8 residents 5-9 Units (No. 786 af 788 af 749 af 725 af 736 af
per SFR (adjustment of 2.7 per household from baseline Services) (792) (785) (770) (766) (766)
study data) and 51,435 SFR services yields a SFR popula- 10+ Units 2,034 af 2,015 af 1,979 af 1,940 af 1,951 af
(No. Services) (650) (645) (645) (652) (652)
tion of 144,018. A 32 percent cutback means a daily per
Institutional 2,198 af 2,096 af 2,095 af 1,756 af 1,854 af
capita allotment of about 70 gallons. (This compares to 46 (No. Services) (287) (261) (256) (237) (237)
gallons per capita per day rationing allotments provided Business 3,449 af 3,394 af 3,280 af 3,175 af 3,200 af
during the peak of the 1976-77 drought). (No. Services) (3,327) (3,330) (3,316) (3,332) (3,326)
Landscape 2,613 af 2,849 af 2,738 af 2,513 af 2,653 af
(No. Services) (1,250) (1,277) (1,292) (1,315) (1,309)
Assuming a year 2025 population of 208,971 (a popula- Total Billed
tion increase of 10 percent in 16 years), and assuming an 28,244 af 28,848 af 28,429 af 27,275 af 28,086 af
Use
SFR population of 158,420, the daily per capital allot- Adjustments 205 af 295 af 336 af 303 af 326 af
ment would be 63.5 gallons. Unaccounted
2,605 af 3,449 af 3,577 af 3,608 af 3,139 af
(1)
Production
This means that under present water supply and popula- (2)
31,165 af 32,427 af 32,006 af 30,883 af 32,478 af
tion conditions, a 30 percent overall rationing program Recycled (3) 687 af 774 af 789 af 684 af 720 af
will result in about 70 gallons per day of water use for (No. Services) (297) (301) (316) (316) (322)
each resident in single-family homes. If the population
does increase 10 percent by the year 2025, with exist- (1) Includes unaccounted for losses & uses not billed — e.g.
temporary taps, water quality samples.
ing water supply, each resident in a single-family home (2) Production is based on daily flows and does not equate to the total
will receive about 63.5 gallon per day under a 30 percent of billed adjusted and unaccounted water.
overall rationing program. (3) Consumption and number of services are incorporated in customer
classes listed above.
Of course, a key question remains over just how difficult it
will be for residents to live for a year under these condi- tions. Using well-established interior water use informa-
tion that is derived from MMWD documents and other
relevant water use studies,33 Table 6 evaluates the typical
average daily water use for one person in a single-family
residence equipped with modern, water efficient fixtures
and appliances.

As shown in Table 6, a person in an efficiently equipped

household with average water use behavior has an inte-
rior daily water use need of about 51 gallons. Under the
30 percent rationing scenario described above, with a
70 gallon per day rationing allotment, this person would
have 19 extra gallons per day for discretionary interior
or landscape water use. This same person would also be
producing almost 29 gallon a day of graywater that could
be captured and used for landscaping. A three-person
household would have 57 extra gallons per day, and if
combined with graywater, up to 143 extra gallons per day.

This same household with a 63.5 gallons per capita per

day allotment under the year 2025 population growth
projection would still have excess water. Each person
would have nine extra gallons per day and the same 29
gallons a day of graywater that could be captured and

Food & Water Watch 7

 Table 6: Daily Water Use per Person with Table 7: Daily Water Use per Person with
Efficient Fixtures — Average Behavior Efficient Fixtures — Conserving Behavior
Efficient Fixtures – Average Behavior Efficient Fixtures – Conserving Behavior
Gal/ Gal/
Daily Items Frequency Gallons Per Use Daily Items Frequency Gallons Per Use
day day
9.6 Toilet 6 flushes 1.6 Gal/Flush 3.2 Toilet 2 Flushes 1.6 Gal/Flush
15 Shower 6 minutes 2.5 Gal/min 10 Shower 4 minutes 2.5 Gal/min
6 Personal Cleaning 3 cleanings 2 gal/cleaning 2 Personal Cleaning 2 cleanings 1 gal/cleaning
6 Cooking 3 Meal 2 gal/meal 6 Cooking 3 Meal 2 gal/meal
1 Drinking Day 1 gal/day 1 Drinking Day 1 gal/day
37.6 Subtotal – Daily 22.2 Subtotal – Daily

Weekly Items Weekly Items

8 Dishwasher 1 Loads 8 gal/load 8 Dishwasher 1 Loads 8 gal/load
75 Clothes Washer 3 Loads 25 gal/load 50 Clothes Washer 2 Loads 25 gal/load
8 House Cleaning 2 Cleanings 4 gal/cleaning 2 House Cleaning 1 Cleanings 2 gal/cleaning
91 Subtotal – Weekly 60 Subtotal – Weekly

50.6 Daily Average 30.8 Daily Average

28.7 Graywater production/person/day 18.1 Graywater production/person/day

used for landscaping. A three-person household would
have 18 extra gallons per day, and if combined with
graywater, up to 113 extra gallons per day. Note that this
example is with average water use behavior.
Using the same data sources as above, Table 7 evaluates
water use in a house with efficient fixtures and adopting
water conserving practices during a drought.
As shown in Table 7 above, a person in an efficiently
equipped household that adopts conserving practices
during a serious drought uses about 31 gallons per day.
With a 70 gallons per day allotment, this person would
have 39 extra gallons, and up to an additional 18 gallons
if capturing graywater for a potential total of 57 extra gal-
lons per day.
In the case of a daily per capita rationing allotment of
63.5 gallons in the year 2025, an extra 32.5 gallons per
day is available to each individual and could be combined
with up to 18 gallons per day of graywater. In both ration-
ing allotment cases, the amount of extra water per day
for landscaping or other uses increases with additional
household members. Even with the 46 gallons per person
per day rationing allotment during the 1976-77 drought,
a person living in an efficiently equipped house and using
water conserving practices will have an extra 15 gallons
per day and have the potential to use 18 additional gal-
lons of graywater per day.
Table 8 evaluates the interior water use of a person in a
non-efficient household with average water use behavior.
With an interior average daily water use of about 95 gal-
lons per capita, some water conserving behavior modifi-
cation will be needed to stay within either a 70 gallon or
63.5 gallon per day allotment.
Table 9 evaluates the interior water use of a person in a
household with non-efficient fixtures adopting conserv-
ing behavior during a drought. After adopting conserving
behavior, this person is using about 50 gallons per day
and producing about 29 gallons per day of graywater.
Although living in a house with non-conserving fixtures,
with the adoption of conserving behavior this person has
extra water under both the 70 gallons per day and the
63.5 gallons per day rationing allotment. Combined with
extra water from other household members with conserv-
ing behavior and the potential capturing of graywater, a
three-person household may have as much as 147 extra
gallons per day with the 70 gallons per day rationing al-
lotment, and as much as 128 extra gallons per day with
the 63.5 gallons per day ration allotment.
As is demonstrated by this analysis, most households
equipped with water efficient technologies would be well
prepared to remain within their rationing allotments in
the 30 percent rationing allotment in both the present day
and in the year 2025. With the adoption of water conserv-
ing behavior, considerable extra water would be available
for discretionary or landscape water use. And if they had
already converted to a drought tolerant landscape, they
would probably lose little landscaping to the drought.

8 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

Only a household with inefficient fixtures would have dif- Table 8: Daily Water Use per Person with Non-
ficulty remaining within their allotment, and with water Efficient Fixtures — Average Behavior
conserving behavior, they too would have extra water for
landscaping. Non-Efficient Fixtures — Average Behavior
Gal/
Daily Items Frequency Gallons Per Use
day
A technical paper using MMWD data to examine the is- 30 Toilet 6 flushes 5 Gal/Flush
sue of demand hardening was presented at an American 24 Shower 6 minutes 4 Gal/min
Water Works Association water conservation conference
12 Personal Cleaning 3 cleanings 4 gal/cleaning
in 1999. The paper demonstrated how conservation pro-
6 Cooking 3 meal 2 gal/meal
grams can actually result in increased demand elasticity
1 Drinking day 1 gal/day
during future droughts for the following reasons:34
73 Subtotal – Daily

1. Water conserved from retrofitting fixtures may be

Weekly Items
allocated to new users who also have conserving
15 Dishwasher 1 loads 15 gal/load
fixtures, resulting in more fixtures being used less
120 Clothes Washer 3 loads 40 gal/load
frequently in drought conditions;
16 House Cleaning 2 Cleanings 8 gal/cleaning
151 Subtotal – Weekly
2. Load shifting of savings from conservation measures
to other discretionary uses may occur until the load
94.6 Daily Average
shifting is discontinued during a subsequent drought
period; 47.1 Graywater production/person/day

3. Careless water use behavior and practices in non-

drought periods can hide total potential savings from Table 9: Daily Water Use per Person with Non-
water conservation programs; and Efficient Fixtures — Conserving Behavior
4. Customers who participate in some conservation pro- Non-Efficient Fixtures – Conserving Behavior
grams have a better understanding of new conserva- Gal/
Daily Items Frequency Gallons Per Use
day
tion measures to implement during future droughts.
10 Toilet 2 Flushes 5 Gal/Flush

While nobody looks forward to the next inevitable 16 Shower 4 Minutes 4 Gal/min
drought, it appears that given modern efficient technol- 3 Personal Cleaning 3 Cleanings 1 gal/cleaning
ogy, residents with efficient fixtures and behavior will be 6 Cooking 3 Meal 2 gal/meal
well prepared for weathering such future events. As non- 1 Drinking Day 1 gal/day
conservers respond to drought conditions and adopt ef- 36 Subtotal – Daily
ficient technologies and conserving behaviors, additional
demand elasticity will result. This analysis demonstrates Weekly Items
that the willingness of MMWD customers to accept 15 Dishwasher 1 Loads 15 gal/load
infrequent water supply shortage during serious drought 80 Clothes Washer 2 Loads 40 gal/load
conditions is reasonable. The MMWD board should reex- 2 House Cleaning 1 Cleanings 2 gal/cleaning
amine this issue and work to align water supply planning 97 Subtotal – Weekly
and District code with clearly voiced customer preference
of reducing use in serous drought over expensive and 49.9 Daily Average
environmentally risky new supply projects.
28.9 Graywater production/person/day

The assumed issue of demand hardening is mislead-

ing and not very helpful in understanding appropriate
drought policy. The analysis should focus more on how
much water is really needed during infrequent, but seri-
ous drought conditions. It appears rationing levels of 35
percent or higher is easily achievable using modern water
efficient fixtures. A rationing allotment of 50 gallons
per person per day in rarely occurring drought of record
conditions is also viable using modern water efficient
fixtures. This would be more water than the 46 gallon per
person per day allocated in the 1976-77 drought. But it
would be provided to customers much better equipped
for using less water, and potentially much better prepared
to use graywater and capture rainwater. As more land-
scapes are converted to drought tolerant designs, less wa-
ter will be needed for landscape during serious droughts.
If graywater standards in California are updated to be
more cost-effective and practical, the use of graywater
will be easier and become more widespread.

Food & Water Watch 9

MMWD Customer Opinion Surveys
• Residents believe the District should be operated
in the most environmentally sensitive manner
possible.
• Residents have a strong and consistent prefer-
ence for water conservation as the best approach
for improving water supply reliability.
• Residents support providing financial incen-
tives to market and advance water conservation
programs.
• Residents are willing and have demonstrated the
ability to make extra effort to conserve more wa-
ter, collect and use rain water and graywater, and
even dramatically cut back or forego landscape
watering in future serious drought events.
MMWD has numerous instruments for accurately and
quantitatively gauging customer viewpoints regarding
water management options and policies. These include
citizen comments at board meetings, citizen advisory
committees, focus groups, letters to local papers, and cus-
tomer opinion surveys. While all are useful, many reflect
a small sample size and may not entirely represent the
broader customer base. Well-designed, randomly select-
ed customer surveys are a reliable indicator of attitudes
and views of the general population. Interestingly, in
10 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
MMWD’s case, there is an impressive consistency among
the various instruments for the support of water conser-
vation as the preferred water management tool.
MMWD’s 1994 Water Conservation Baseline Study used
phone interviews and site visits to “collect and analyze
data on water end uses, water using fixtures and appli-
ances, water efficient retrofit devices, customer knowl-
edge and attitudes, customer receptiveness to conserva-
tion, and customer demographics.”35
Some of the key findings in the study include: 36
• 65 percent of residential telephone survey
respondents indicated they would consider
participating in retrofit programs if MMWD of-
fered financial incentives, and an additional 16
percent would like more information about such
programs.
• 78 percent of single-family, 55 percent of multi-
family, and 61 percent of nonresidential site
survey respondents said they would be interested
in participating in financial retrofit programs.
An additional 15 percent to 20 percent said they
would need more information.
• 69 percent of respondents said MMWD should
offer financial incentive programs, only 18 per-
cent opposed financial incentive programs.
 Figure 2: Favor/Oppose: Water Supply Options42
Recently, there has been discussion about a few options for increasing the water supply in Marin. I’d like you to tell me whether you
favor or oppose each of the following water supply options.
*Indicates percent strongly favor. Source: Charleston Research Company.
• 56 percent of single-family telephone survey
respondents indicated they collected and used
rainwater during the recent drought.
• When asked why they would be willing to imple-
ment conservation measures and habits, com-
mon responses were: “to save money and water”
and “for the environment.”
In 1997, the District completed a telephone survey of
customer opinions. Key findings of that survey include:37
• 89 percent said that efficient use of water is
extremely important.38
• 71 percent agreed to using ratepayer dollars to
provide financial incentives to encourage people
to use water efficiently.39
• When asked their view of the following
statements:
Some people say: Water is a limited resource
and we should use it efficiently, even if it ends up
costing more.
Other people say: A water district is supposed to
get more to meet demand, even if it ends up cost-
ing more.
Seventy-two percent agreed with the statement
to use water efficiently, even if it ends up costing
more. Only 16 percent agreed with the statement
to get more to meet demand, even if it ends up
costing more.40
Food & Water Watch
Favor Oppose Don’t Know
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 3: Early Ballot: Water Supply Options43
Although the Marin Municipal Water District reservoirs may appear to
be full, we are currently facing a 10 percent water supply deficiency.
The three main options being discussed for increasing the water supply
in Marin are A) desalination of water from the San Francisco Bay, B)
building another pipeline to import additional water from Sonoma
County’s Russian River and C) increasing current conservation efforts and
implementing a permanent, agressive conservation program. Based on
what you know or have heard, which of these options do you prefer?
0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Source: Charleston Research Company.
MMWD conducted another customer opinion survey
in 2003.41 Key findings include the following charts. In
Figure 2 above, respondents voiced twice as much sup-
port for increased water conservation as a solution, with
about three times as many respondents indicating they
“strongly favor” water conservation over either desalina-
tion or additional Russian River water.
With a rephrasing of the question in Figure 3 above to
indicate an existing 10 percent water supply deficiency,
respondents still preferred increasing water conservation
over either desalination or increased Russian River water
by a margin of well over 2-to-1.
11
In Figure 4 below, respondents were asked how effective
they believe each of the three options would be in fulfill-
ing Marin’s water needs. Again, water conservation re-
ceives almost twice the support compared to desalination
or more Russian River water. Interestingly, the margin
for ranking desalination and the Russian River as a poor
option compared to increased water conservation is about
3 to 1. These responses suggest that most people in Marin
know they could do considerably more to conserve addi-
tional water, particularly if called upon to do so in serious
droughts.
Figure 5 below probes respondent support for a serious
reduction in landscape irrigation as a cornerstone of the
increased water conservation program. Over 70 percent of
respondents favored and 42 percent to 45 percent strongly
favored a serious reduction in landscape water use to
improve Marin’s water supply reliability. Only about 20
percent of respondents voiced opposition. Note that in
the final question in the graph, 73 percent favored and 41
percent strongly favored the possibility of water ration-
ing during droughts. This indicates that an expensive new
water supply is not the favored option or necessary ac-
cording to over 70 percent of Marin residents. This graph
also provides important customer input in considering
revisions to MMWD’s landscape ordinance as discussed
in the landscape irrigation section of this report. Clearly,
the majority opinion is that landscape water use should
be reduced. Therefore, any landscape ordinance revisions
should be consistent with this view and result in less land-
scape water use.
It is important to note that 47 percent of the respondents
in this survey lived in the service area in the 1976-77

Figure 4: Water Supply Options44

Now I’d like you to tell me how well you think each of the following water supply options will fulfill Marin’s water needs, using a scale of one
to nine, where one means very poorly and nine means very well.
Well (7-9) Neutral (4-6) Poorly (1-3) Don’t know

Source: Charleston Research Company. 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 5: Messages: Conservation45

Now I’m going to read you some statements about Conservation.
Favor Oppose Don’t Know

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

*Indicates percent strongly favor. Source: Charleston Research Company.

12 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

 Figure 6: Messages: Conservation46
Now I’m going to read you some statements about Conservation.
Favor Oppose Don’t Know

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

*Indicates percent strongly favor. Source: Charleston Research Company.

drought event. Since 69 percent of respondents were

residents for more than 10 years, presumably a consider-
ably greater number than 47 percent lived in the MMWD
service area during the 6-year drought of the late 80’s and
early 90s. The willingness to reduce water use in future
droughts includes the view of respondents familiar with
drought conditions.
Figure 7: Late Ballot: Water Supply
Options47
After everything we have discussed, which of the following water
supply options for addressing Marin’s 10 percent water supply defecit
do you prefer: desalination of water from the bay, building another
pipeline to import additional water from Sonoma County’s Russian
River or increasing current conservation efforts and implementing a
permanent, agressive conservation program?

The questions in Figure 6 above probe support for in- Late Ballot Early Ballot
creased conservation and reduced landscape irrigation in
what many would find to be considerably more alarming 51
52
terms, such as “let their landscape die at times,” “increase
the rates charged” and “more frequent and deeper water 29
21
rationing.” Despite the alarming language, nearly 70
percent supported increased conservation, with over 40 17
23
percent strongly supporting.
1
2
Figure 7 at right is a late ballot question probing whether
the increasingly alarming and dire-sounding questions 2
2
regarding water shortages and conservation program
0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
change respondent views regarding conservation. The
Source: Charleston Research Company.
presence of this question indicates that the opinion
survey was designed partly to “educate” respondents on
some of the “realities” of new water options. Or, more port for taking more water from the Russian River. One
directly stated, it appears designed to persuade respon- wonders what the late ballot responses would have been
dents to increase support for desalination as an alterna- if asked a series of alarming and dire-sounding questions
tive, rather than simply document existing opinions and about the desalination and Russian River options such as:
attitudes. Nonetheless, the late ballot responses reflect
Do you favor building a desalination plant that will
steadfast support for water conservation as the heavily
contribute to global warming and result in signifi-
favored solution to improving water supply reliability.
cantly increased water costs, while risking the extinc-
While the support for desalination increased relative to tion of some San Francisco Bay marine life so that
the Russian River option, the support for water conserva- people can flush more water down inefficient toilets,
tion only decreased 1 percent (which is within the survey irrigate side walks and storm drains, and irrigate
sampling error) and remains almost twice the level of water thirsty landscapes during infrequent serious
support for desalination and over twice the level of sup- drought events?

Food & Water Watch 13

 Do you favor diverting even more water from the
Russian River and risking the collapse of already seri-
ously stressed river life so that people can flush more
water down inefficient toilets, irrigate side walks and
storm drains, and irrigate water thirsty landscapes
during infrequent serious drought events?
Figure 8 below probes customer views regarding the
trade-offs between a potentially least-costly option vs.
an option causing the least environmental harm. Sixty
percent responded that the option causing the least envi-
ronmental harm should be selected, while only 28 percent
responded that the most economical option should be
selected over the least environmentally harmful option.
This response is very consistent with the question probing
the same issue in the 1997 survey previously noted.
Fortunately for customers and ratepayers in the MMWD
service area, the most environmentally friendly options
recommended in this report are also the most economical.
It may be tempting to assume that the overwhelming
support for increased water conservation rather than
desalination of more Russian River water voiced at recent
MMWD Board meetings and public forums is really just a
self-selected group that does not reflect general resident
viewpoints as a whole. However, the information collect-
ed in these MMWD sanctioned customer opinion surveys
conducted numerous times since 1994, and the MMWD
customer water supply voter record going back to the
early 1970s (discussed in the Russian River Water section
of this report) documents the consistent,and strongly
favored support for increased water conservation as the
customer-preferred solution to improving Marin’s water
supply reliability.
Figure 8: Trade-Off: Most Economical Option
Vs. Least Environmental Harm48
Which of the following statements come closer to your view?
Some people say: It is most important to provide customers with
the most economical water supply option, regardless of environmental
impact.
Other people say: It is essential that Marin employs the water supply
option that causes the least environmental harm, regardless of cost.
Net: Most
Some people/strongly
economical
option 28% 13 12 Some people/somewhat
15 Don’t know
21 Other people/somewhat
Other people/strongly
39 Net: Least
environmental
harm 60%
Source: Charleston Research Company.
14 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
Russian River Water
• MMWD residents have a long history of prefer-
ring local and limited water supplies.
• The importation of modest amounts of Russian
River water began in the in the 1970s, but voters
and public interest groups continued to oppose
projects providing large increases in water supply.
• Although MMWD has contracts for increased de-
liveries of Russian River water, the actual delivery
of additional water is constrained by limitations
in pipeline and facilities capacity, and unresolved
environmental problems on the Russian River.
In one of the first major diversions in California, in 1905
the Eel River Power and Irrigation Company began con-
struction of a diversion dam and a mile long tunnel to di-
rect what become about 160,000 afy of water into the Rus-
sian River.49 This diversion had impacts on the Eel River
that remain controversial, but dramatically increased
water available in the Russian River and to its water users.
Continued concern and legal wrangling over the impacts
to the Eel River may ultimately affect this diversion.
Beginning with its formation from the consolidation of
a number of smaller water purveyors in 1912 until the
1970s, MMWD’s water source was exclusively the Phoe-
nix and Lagunitas watersheds in Marin County. How-
ever, since its inception in 1912, MMWD water planners
considered the Russian River a potential source of water
for southern Marin.50 To that end, the District planned
its first pipe connection to North Marin Water District
(NMWD) in 1970, and the project for a facility to import
up to 4,000 afy was approved by the voters.51 But shortly
thereafter, despite board support for an expanded pipe-
line project, in 1971 MMWD voters rejected by a nine to
one margin a $20 million bond measure that would have
provided up to 42,000 afy of water from the new Warm
Springs Dam project in the Russian River watershed.52
The reasons for the defeat appear to be the cost, concern
over environmental impacts to Dry Creek and the Russian
River, the desire to avoid importing water from outside
areas, and probably most important was the growing
anti-growth sentiment that existed.53 As a result, the
smaller pipeline project to NMWD was constructed and
the importation of a much more modest amount of Rus-
sian River water began in 1976.54
With the completion of the smaller pipeline connection
NMWD, the MMWD Board grappled with the very con-
tentious decision of whether to repeal a moratorium on
new service connections when the 1976-77 drought began
and rationing was instituted.55 Both rationing and the
moratorium on new connections were ended in 1978 after
abundant rainfall.56 The early 1980s brought about a re-
laxation of water supply concerns when El Nino weather
conditions caused many serious floods. Water use in the
MMWD service area peaked in 1987 after a series of wet
years.57 However, another dry spell began in 1988.

In the early 1990s, MMWD negotiated a new agreement

with the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), provid-
ing the potential to increase purchases from 4,300 afy to
14,300 afy. Of the new 10,000 afy of potential purchased
water, 5,000 afy was a firm entitlement and 5,000 afy
was on an as-available basis. However, with a payment of
$6.3 million to SCWA in 2005, the 5,000 afy of as-avail-
able water was converted to a firm entitlement. Nonethe-
less, some uncertainty remains as to whether the 14,300
afy entitlement is included in SCWA’s existing 75,000
afy Russian River water right or if an expansion of that
water right would be required. Furthermore, although
MMWD now had a contract with SCWA for up to 14,300
afy in water purchases, pipelines and associated facilities
designed before this agreement provide physical limita-
tions on the amount of water that can be delivered.58

Despite the 1976-77 drought of record, the subsequent

six-year drought starting in the late 1990s, and a new
moratorium on new connections in the early 1990s, vot-
ers continued to resist the import of new water supplies.
In 1991, MMWD voters defeated Measure W, an $80
million bond measure to construct an enlarged pipeline
for delivering the newly negotiated contract for additional
Russian River water.59 In the aftermath, a temporary
citizens’ committee was formed to review MMWD water
supply needs and options and formulate a new plan.
The result was a five-phase plan that included increased
water conservation and water recycling, and a phased
in construction of new pipeline facilities for increasing
the importation of Russian River water on an as-needed
basis. In 1992, Measure V, a $37.5 million bond measure
to fund the five-phase plan was adopted by voters.60 As
part of an agreement with local community organizations
for support of the new bond measure, a new and ongo-
ing citizens’ advisory committee was formed. The new
committee was to provide input and guidance to MMWD
on the development of new water conservation programs
and help define when as-needed trigger points were
reached that would require phasing in of new Russian
River facilities and supply.61
Some of the facility and pipeline limitations for importing
more Russian River water are the connections between
MMWD’s and SCWA’s facilities and would be the re-
sponsibility of MMWD to address.62 But some of the
limitations are within SCWA’s facilities and would need
to be addressed by SCWA. In 1998, the SCWA Board of
Photo of Russian River in Sonoma County by Erin Montague/Stock.Xchng.
Directors certified an EIR to provide for new pipeline and
associated facilities in their system and to increase Rus-
sian River diversions from 75,000 afy to 101,000 afy. The
EIR was challenged in court and, in losing on appeal, was
found inadequate on several issues. SCWA developed a
new draft EIR that was released in December, 2008, and
certification of this document may be considered by the
SCWA Board in 2009.63
To further complicate this picture, Chinook salmon and
steelhead trout inhabiting the Russian River have been
listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Spe-
cies Act, and Coho salmon have been listed as endangered
under the Federal and State Endangered Species Act. A
Biological Opinion regarding these listings was issued
by the National Marine Fisheries Service in September
2008. It concluded that the SCWA and Warm Springs
Dam operations and diversions jeopardize endangered
species.64 The opinion provides a list of new requirements
that must be met to continue water withdrawal opera-
tions at present or increased levels in the future. The new
requirements must be fulfilled within 12 years and are
preliminarily estimated by SCWA to cost over $100 mil-
lion.65 The cost implications, funding mechanisms, and
individual obligations by various water diversion benefi-
ciaries are still being determined.66

Food & Water Watch 15

With continued growth and increasing water demand in
Sonoma County and NMWD, pipeline capacity sufficient
to fully meet Sonoma and MMWD contracted deliveries
no longer exists. Without increased water conservation
effort in the NMWD and SCWA service areas, excess
pipeline capacity will likely further erode.67 Facing the cost
of the new requirements of the Biological Opinion, SCWA
has proposed deferring facility improvements for divert-
ing and delivering more water until the environmental
issues are resolved.68
MMWD staff reports indicate that increased pipeline
capacity from Novato to Kastania could deliver an ad-
ditional 1,000 to 1,200 afy to MMWD, even with existing
constraints with the SCWA contract and facilities. This is
a project MMWD could undertake independent of new
SCWA facilities.69
However, until the environmental issues are better
resolved for the seriously stressed Russian River, the reli-
ability of new supply from the Russian River is uncertain,
particularly during critical drought years. Since a more
reliable and cost-effective package of options exists for
improving water supply reliability in the MMWD ser-
vice area, increased importation of Russian River water
does not appear to offer an attractive option at this time.
Resolution of the environmental problems and improved
environmental health for both the Eel and Russian Rivers
should occur before considering importation of additional
water from the Russian River.
Photo by Benjamin Earwicker/Stock.Xchng.
16 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
MMWD’s Proposed Desalination
Project
• The proposal for a desalination facility in Marin is
very controversial, with residents voicing opposi-
tion based on questions over the real need, the
associated negative environmental impacts, the
high cost and questions regarding water quality.
• The proposed 5 MGD to 15 MGD expandable
facility would increase the available water supply
from 19.3 percent to 500 percent depending on
operation scheme, compared to an 11.4 percent
supply deficit identified in District planning
documents.
• Average annual MMWD energy use would in-
crease from 43.4 percent to 124.3 percent, and
annual use could peak as high as a 295.8 per-
cent increase with a 15 MGD facility run at full
capacity.
• Under the MMWD proposed operational scheme,
the marginal cost of desalination ranges from
about $3,600 to $4,400 per acre-foot for a 5
MGD facility and $2,900 to $3,540 per acre-foot
for a 10 MGD facility.
• Due to the higher capital and operational cost,
and not including future escalating operational
cost, the 10 MGD facility will increase MMWD
overall revenue need about 23 percent and the 5
MGD facility will increase overall revenue need
about 14 percent.
• The long-term impact on marine life is unknown.
As noted in the National Marine Fisheries Service
and California department of Fish and Game
comments, the entrainment studies do not reflect
long-term operation of the facility.
In December, 2008, MMWD released its final Environ-
mental Impact Report (EIR) evaluating a potential de-
salination facility. The report evaluates a range of project
alternatives for improving water supply reliability, but
primarily focuses on a 5 MGD desalination facility that
could be expanded in phases up to 15 MGD.
The proposed desalination facility is highly controversial
with the District’s customers. Concerns are generally
focused on whether the facility is really needed, the high
cost of desalination compared to more environmentally
friendly options such as increased conservation, and neg-
ative environmental impacts. The environmental impacts
include high energy use, which contributes to climate
change, and risk to San Francisco Bay marine life. While
this report prepared for Food & Water Watch is primarily
focused on cost-effective alternatives, key issues of con-
cern with the desalination facility are outlined below. This
provides a basis for comparison with more cost-effective
and environmentally friendly solutions.
Desalination Water Production
Given existing facilities, programs and trends, MMWD
public information materials indicate a 3,300 afy water
supply deficit in the year 2025 that would be filled with a
new supply project. The 5 MGD to 15 MGD desalination
facility is proposed to address this 3,300 afy supply defi-
cit. The actual acre-feet per year of new supply provided
by a 5 MGD to 15 MGD facility running at design capacity
are noted in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Proposed Facility Capacity70
As noted in Table 11 above, the proposed operational
scheme of the 5 to 15 MGD facilities would produce
significantly less new water compared to operating at full
capacity. While this would reduce operating costs and
some of the associated negative environmental impacts, it
would not reduce the capital cost of the desalination facil-
ity or the capital cost of new pumps, storage tanks, and
new pipeline necessary to connect to MMWD’s distribu-
tion system.
Desalination Environmental Impacts to
San Francisco Bay
A desalination facility poses significant risk of environ-
mental harm to the San Francisco Bay estuary, a water
body already seriously impaired from human impacts and
in a condition that most environmental experts consider
on the brink of collapse.

Capacity – MGD Capacity – AFY

5 5,600 Residents have voiced
10 11,200
opposition against a
15 16,802
desalination facility in
Note that this project proposes satisfying a MMWD iden-
tified supply deficit of 3,300 afy in the year 2025 with a Marin based on questions
project capable of supplying a minimum of 5,600 afy and
maximum of 16,802 afy when operated at design capac- over need, negative
ity. A 15 MGD facility operated at design capacity would
generate a total water supply increase of 59 percent com-
environmental impacts,
pared to an existing water supply yield of about 28,400
afy. This is more than 500 percent of the theoretical new
cost and water quality.
supply needed through the MMWD planning horizon of
2025 and compares to an expected yield deficit of 11.4
percent identified in MMWD planning documents. Eelgrass plays an important role in improving water
quality and providing food and habitat for many im-
However, it is important to note that the EIR indicates portant species in San Francisco Bay. According to the
the desalination facility would probably be operated at Romberg-Tiburon Center, “because of the multitude of
about 50 percent of capacity during wet years when res- life they support, eelgrass beds are often referred to as
ervoir storage is high and at 100 percent during drought the nurseries of the bay.”71 Because of human impacts, the
years. Table 11 below outlines the actual average annual extent of eelgrass beds in San Francisco Bay is believed
water production from operating the facility at 50 percent to be greatly reduced, and maybe as low as 10 percent of
capacity most years, and 100 percent capacity 2 years out historic abundance.72 San Francisco State University in
of 25. conjunction with the Tiburon Romberg Center has been
conducting eelgrass restoration studies in San Francisco
Table 11: Average Annual Water Production Bay. Of the sites studied with eelgrass restoration meth-
with Wet year/Dry Year Operation Scheme ods, the site in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
location of the desalination facility has been the most
Avg Annual
Annual Annual successful for eelgrass restoration, is considered a prime
Production
Daily Production Production site, and is targeted for further restoration efforts.73 Us-
Capacity 100 percent (23 yrs @ 50
50 percent percent, 2 yrs @ ing electronic tagging methods, these studies have also
Operation Operation 100 percent)
detected the foraging use of this site by out-migrating
5 MGD 5,600 afy 2,800 afy 3,024 afy
salmon.74 However, the desalination EIR makes no men-
10 MGD 11,200 afy 5,600 afy 6,048 afy
15 MGD 15,802 afy 7,901 afy 9,072 afy
tion of this restoration effort or the potential impacts of
the proposed facilities to these studies.

Food & Water Watch 17

As noted in the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) comments regarding the EIR, the project will
appreciably adversely impact essential fish habitat, and
will have an entrainment impact on larvae in the wa-
ter column.75 The District conducted short-term larval
entrainment studies and the EIR concludes the impacts
will not by themselves reduce affected species below
minimum necessary breeding populations.76 However, as
noted in the NMFS comments, the short-term studies are
not adequate to assess long-term impacts.
Comments submitted by the California Department of Fish
and Game disagree with the EIR conclusion of no sig-
nificant adverse impacts and no need for mitigation. The
Department of Fish and Game comments state the impacts
include “potentially significant entrainment of marine fish
and invertebrate eggs and larvae from the saltwater intake;
loss of potential eelgrass habitat from the new concrete
pier; adverse effects on benthic marine life from salinity
changes at the outfall; and toxic effects to aquatic life from
bio-fouling treatment of the intake pipe.”77
The long-term impacts, particularly during drought year
operation when many species are more highly stressed,
could only be assessed with long-term studies which
would add to the cost of operating the facility. The
requirement of future mitigation measures would also
increase the cost of the facility.
Desalination Energy Use
At numerous board meetings in recent years, MMWD
directors expressed the goal of reducing the District’s
carbon footprint. Certainly a worthy goal considering
that climate change can so dramatically impact MMWD
operations and operational cost. As is the case with many
water districts, MMWD is the largest energy user in its
service area. The EIR identifies present MMWD annual
energy use as 26,000,000 kilo-watt hours per year.
Table 12 summarizes the increase in energy use for the
various sized desalination facilities under different op-
Table 12: Increase in Energy Use by Proposed Desalination Facility78
Operational Scheme
MMWD Present Average Use
5 MGD at 50 percent Capacity (wet years)
5 MGD at 100 percent Capacity (drought years)
5 MGD at 25 Year Avg. Capacity (23 yrs + 2 yrs)
10 MGD at 50 percent Capacity (wet years)
10 MGD at 100 percent Capacity (drought years)
10 MGD at 25 Year Avg. Capacity (23 yrs + 2 yrs)
15 MGD at 50 percent Capacity (wet years)
15 MGD at 100 percent Capacity (drought years)
15 MGD at 25 Year Avg. Capacity (23 yrs + 2 yrs)
18 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
erational schemes. With the proposed operation scheme
of 50 percent during wet years and full capacity during
drought years, and assuming 23 wet years of operation
for every two years drought years of operation, the pro-
posed new desalination facility would increase the energy
use as follows. A 5 MGD facility would result in a 43.4
percent increase in electricity use by MMWD averaged
over a 25 year period. A 10 MGD facility would result in
an average annual increase of 81.2 percent, and a 15 MGD
facility would result in a 124.3 percent average annual
increase over a 25 year period. A 15 MGD facility oper-
ated at 100 percent would result in an annual increase in
energy usage of 295.8 percent.
On the other hand, MMWD documents indicate an overall
3 percent annual decrease in electrical use by the District
if the theoretical 3,300 afy supply deficit is satisfied with
additional water conservation.80 The analysis leading to the
3 percent decrease in energy usage appears to be the result
of decreased MMWD water pumping requirements. Addi-
tional reduction in electrical use would occur in the service
area due to reduced wastewater treatment requirements,
and reduced energy use for heating water which would
result from some of the water conservation measures.
MMWD is exploring various energy conservation mea-
sures to offset some of this increased energy use, such as
solar panel arrays. Given MMWD’s existing high energy
use, these measures should be pursued regardless of the
construction of the proposed desalination facility. None-
theless, given the large increases in energy use resulting
from the proposed facility, the purchase of carbon offsets
would be a likely necessity in order to remain carbon
neutral. PG&E reports their CO2 emissions rate is 0.524
pounds of CO2 per kilo-watt-hour of electricity pro-
duced.81 Using the PG&E emissions information, Table
13 summarizes average annual CO2 production from 5
MGD, 10 MGD, and 15 MGD desalination facilities oper-
ating under the 23 years at 50 percent and 2 years at 100
percent scheme. The table also summarizes the annual
carbon offset cost at an assumed cost of $15 per metric
KWh/yr79 Increase in Energy Use
26,000,000 None
10,037,500 + 38.6 percent
25,550,000 + 98.3 percent
11,274,500 + 43.4 percent
18,615,000 + 71.6 percent
51,000,000 + 196.1 percent
21,205,800 + 81.2 percent
28,470,000 + 109.5 percent
76,650,000 + 295.8 percent
32,324,400 + 124.3 percent
Table 13: Annual CO2 Production and Cost of Desalination Marginal Cost
Carbon Offset According to MMWD cost projections, constructing a 5
MGD facility is expected to cost $104 to $111 million in
CO2 Metric Cost of Offset capital cost and $3.8 million in normal years to operate
Facility KWH/yr83 Production Tons/ Carbon
at $15/Metric and $6.5 million to operate in drought years. 87 A 10 MGD
(lbs/yr) 84 Yr Ton85 facility would have a capital cost of $163 to $173 million
5 MGD 11,274,500 5,907,838 2,679.8 $40,196
and an operating cost of $6.3 million in normal years
10 MGD 21,205,800 11,111,839 5,040.2 $75,604
to operate and $12.4 million operating cost in drought
15 MGD 32,324,400 16,937,986 7,682.9 $115,244
years.88 Although the EIR discusses a 15 MGD facility,
the capital and operating cost projections for a 15 MGD
ton of CO282. This is a midpoint cost for certified carbon facility were not developed or released by MMWD.89
offset projects occurring in North America. While these
types of offset are controversial as to their real effective- If a desalination facility is approved, financing would prob-
ness, as least they represent a starting point in providing ably be provided with municipal revenue bonds, although
for carbon offset for the proposed facility. Note that these slightly more expensive certificates of participation are
energy use calculations do not account for the additional also a possibility. MMWD has not released a marginal
energy for wastewater treatment. cost analysis (the standard cost comparison approach) for
comparing the cost of desalination to water conservation
Although it may be the intention of the MMWD Board to options. However, it is possible to compute the marginal
only operate a desalination facility at 100 percent during cost of the desalination 5 MGD and 10 MGD facilities us-
drought years, and the rainfall history in Marin may sug- ing MMWD capital and operating costs estimates, if we
gest that would be every few decades, predicting the year assume capital cost is financed with 30 year bonds at 5
to year weather has always be a very unreliable under-
taking. As indicated in MMWD’s rainfall records (Ap-
pendix A), single dry years occur much more frequently
than multiple dry years that would be labeled droughts.
But after a single dry year, no one really knows what the
weather will do the following year or two years later.
Future MMWD boards will be under frequent pressure
to operate an existing facility more than, in retrospect,
would end up being necessary. After most of the single
dry years the rains return. In these cases, the desalination
facility would have been unnecessarily operated at higher
capacity than needed. This will provide unneeded water
while increasing operating costs, energy consumption,
and environmental impacts. It will also put pressure on
future boards to reduce water conservation programs to
reduce costs and increase water sales to pay for the extra
desalination operating costs.

One MMWD board member is already expressing con-

cern that California may be moving into severe prolonged
drought periods similar to what Australia has been
experiencing.86 While concern over climate change is
understandable and valid, a direct comparison to a differ-
ent continent in a different hemisphere is not particularly
valid. Australia is a continent that has a very long his-
tory of prolonged severe drought compared to Northern
California. If climate change for Australia and Northern
California is a real concern, one has to ask whether it is
sensible to move forward with a new project that will sig-
nificantly increase the energy use and indirect atmospher-
ic CO2 contribution of one of the largest energy users in
the region, particularly when energy reducing alternatives
are available and preferred by the local customer base. Photo by Glenn Pebley/Stock.Xchng.

Food & Water Watch 19

percent interest, and a reasonable assumption of an aver-
age operational scheme of 23 normal years of operation
and two years of drought operation for every 25 years.
Table 14 below summarizes the impact on the actual
marginal cost of new supply provided by the proposal
desalination facility in nominal dollars assuming that the
capital cost is financed over 30 years at 5 percent. It also
includes the average annual carbon offset cost calculated
in Table 13 above and $100,000 per year in additional
environmental monitoring cost.
The marginal cost is about $3,600 per acre-foot of water
for the 5 MGD facility and $2,900 per acre-foot of water
for the 10 MGD facility. For a district with a fiscal year
2008-09 capital and operating budget of about $77 mil-
lion, the 5 MGD facility would increased overall costs
for the District by about 14 percent while the 10 MGD
facility would increase cost by about 23 percent. While
the 10 MGD facility would have a lower marginal cost per
acre-foot of water provided, it would have a considerably
higher impact on overall District costs.
The cost of about $3,600 afy for the 5 MGD facility to
$2,900 afy for the 10 MGD facility compares to marginal
cost for the conservation oriented options that are gener-
ally under $1000 per acre-foot, and all are under $2,000
with the possible exception of increased water recycling.
It is important to note the desalination marginal cost
analysis in Table 14 above does not include an annual
cost escalator for increased labor, maintenance, and en-
ergy. Additional costs such as additional environmental
mitigation depending on monitoring results may occur.
Better energy efficiency from improved membrane tech-
nology is possible in the future, but this seems likely to be
outpaced by rising future energy cost. Also, the marginal
cost analysis above does not include a 15 percent con-
struction market uncertainty factor that is identified in
the MMWD Desalination Cost Estimated spreadsheet
provided by MMWD staff.90 With the recent downturn in
the economy, bidding for construction projects has been
more competitive compared to a few years ago. However,
as noted in recent MMWD Board packet items, with the
infusion of economic stimulus money into numerous
large construction projects, the 15 percent construction
market uncertainty factor may again become necessary.91
So the marginal cost analysis above represents a best case
scenario.
Table 15 below summarizes a marginal cost analysis that
includes a 15 percent construction market uncertainty
contingency and an annual 3 percent operating cost
escalation to account for potential increasing energy and
maintenance costs. In this case the marginal cost for the
5 MGD facility is $4,404 per acre-foot. The marginal cost
for a 10 MGD facility is $3,544.
There are many uncertainties in the construction and
operating cost. Therefore, Table 15 above may represent
a more realistic marginal cost for desalination compared
to Table 14. Based on this analysis, the marginal cost for
a 5 MGD facility will likely range from $3,619 to $4,404
per acre-foot. The marginal cost for a 10 MGD facility will
likely range from $2,903 to $3,544 per acre-foot.
It is important to note that in the District’s 2007 Water
Conservation Master Plan, a new water supply marginal
cost of $1,631 per acre-foot was used to compare the cost-
effectiveness of water conservation measures. If a water
conservation measure had a projected cost higher than

Table 14: Marginal Cost of Supply Under Proposed Operational Scheme

Avg Annual Avg Ann
Ann Op Ann Op Avg Ann Ann Carbon Avg Avg
Cap Cost Cost, Avg
Cap Cost Cost, 100 Cost, 50 Op Cost, and Env AFY Marginal
30 yrs @ 5 Cap + Avg
percent percent 23 + 2 yrs Monitoring Prod Cost/AF
percent Op
5 MGD 104,138,335 6,525,000 3,813,000 4,029,960 $140,196 $6,774,348 $10,944,504 3,024 $3,619
10MGD 162,853,650 12,404,000 6,301,000 6,789,240 $175,604 $10,593,864 $17,558,707 6,048 $2,903

Table 15: Marginal Cost of Supply under Proposed Operational Scheme with 15 Percent
Construction Contingency and 3 percent Annual Cost Escalator
Adj. for Adj. for
Avg Ann Op Avg Annual
Cap Cost Increased Env. Carbon Avg
Facility cost 23 Yrs + 2 Cap Cost, Total Avg Avg Ann
w/15 Monitoring Offset Marginal
Capacity Yrs, 3 percent 30 yrs at 5 Ann Cost Production
percent (with 3 (with 3 Cost/AF
Esc percent
percent) percent)
5 MGD 111,229,417 5,877,175 145,837 58,621 7,235,633 13,317,266 3,024 $4,404
10 MGD 173,393,213 9,901,228 145,837 110,259 11,279,477 21,436,801 6,048 $3,544

20 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

$1,631 per acre-foot it was rejected as not cost-effective.
This comparison point is much lower than the marginal
cost of desalination. Therefore, many conservation mea-
sures that would be less costly per acre-foot compared to
desalination would have been rejected. This was the case
with graywater systems, which were found to have a mar-
ginal cost of $2,250 to $3,211. This issue is further dis-
cussed in the conservation program sections of this report.

Water Conservation and Supply

Improvements
The California Urban Water Conservation
Council and the Best Management Practices
In December 1991, representatives from many of Cali-
fornia’s largest water agencies, as well as some smaller
urban water agencies, environmental organizations, and
a number of water consultants gathered in Sacramento to
sign a water conservation Memorandum of Understand-
ing (MOU). Thus agreeing to make a good faith effort to
implement a pre-negotiated list of urban water conserva-
tion programs called Best Management Practices (BMPs).
In many ways, this was the day urban water conservation
began to be accepted as a fundamental component of any
solution to California’s water woes.

In addition to identifying Best Management Practices, the

Memorandum of Understanding established the Califor-
nia Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC). The Photo by Les Powell/Stock.Xchng.
Council’s role was to record and provide support for the
Although not a water diverter from the Bay-Delta up-
ongoing implementation of the original list of water con-
stream tributaries, MMWD was an original signatory to
servation BMPs by the signatories. This effort to better
the agreement. This was primarily due to concerns over
standardize and advance the conservation of California’s
public perception, since at the time MMWD was pursu-
water resources and associated natural systems was wor-
ing public approval of bonds for increased Russian River
thy in its own right. However, a well recognized motivator
supply. In addition, there was concern over how the State
of the process was the agreement between water agen-
Water Resources Control Board may view non-participa-
cies and environmental groups to avoid another lengthy
tion in light of Lagunitas Creek and Russian River water
round of litigation over water issues in the San Francisco
rights issues.93
Bay-Delta system with this document. Fundamentally, it
is an agreement for water agencies to implement conser-
Table 16 on the next page summarizes the list of BMPs
vation programs before seeking new supply sources to the
and the associated implementation rate for each BMP.
extent water conservation is less costly than new supply
The recent December 2008 update refines, reorganizes,
on a marginal cost basis.92
and better defines some aspects of the MOU agreement,
but since the pre-2008 update is what agencies have
The Council quickly established itself as the most
been following and reporting on to date, it is presented
prominent focal point for urban water conservation
in Table 16. The BMP list was considered a minimum list
in California and attracted numerous new signatories.
of conservation measures that are generally recognized
Membership proved very beneficial for cost sharing on
to be cost-effective and sensible for water agencies to
program development and evaluation research, and for
implement. The list is updated over time, as new water
informational exchange on program development and
conservation measures are identified and evaluated, and
implementation issues. Now, almost two decades later,
represents a good starting point for any agency develop-
the Council continues in that leadership role with water
ing water conservation plans or for measuring the per-
agency signatories representing most of the urban water
formance of existing programs. The list does not neces-
use in California.
sarily represent all that could or should be done by water

Food & Water Watch 21

Table 16: CUWCC Best Management Practices
(Before December 2008 Update)94
No. Best Management Requirements
Practice
1 Water Survey Survey 15% of residential single-family
Programs for Single- and 15% of multi-family customers within
and Multi-family 10 years.
Residential Customers
2 Residential Plumbing Retrofit 50% of residential housing
Retrofit constructed prior to 1992 with low-flow
showerheads, toilet displacement devices,
toilet flappers and aerators; or achieve
75% saturation of the agency service
area and be able to prove it statistically.
3 System Water Audits, Audit the water utility distribution system
Leak Detection and regularly and repair any identified leaks;
Repair check yearly to see that water loss is less
than 10%.
4 Metering with Install meter in 100% of existing
Commodity Rates for unmetered accounts within 10 years; bill
All New Connections by volume of water use; assess feasibility
and Retrofit of Existing of installing dedicated landscape meters.
Connections
5 Large Landscape Prepare water budget for 90% of
Conservation Programs commercial and industrial accounts with
and Incentives dedicated landscape meters; provide
irrigation surveys to 15% of mixed-
metered customers.
6 High-Efficiency Provide cost-effective customer
Washing Machine incentives, such as rebates, to encourage
Rebate Programs purchase of machines that use 40%
less water per load. Number of clothes
washers required is based on the total
dwelling units x 0.048; up to a third fewer
machines required if all of them are super
high-efficiency (6.0 or less water factor).
7 Public Information Water utilities to provide public
Programs information programs to promote
and educate customers about water
conservation.
8 School Education Provide active school education programs
Programs to educate students about water
conservation and efficient water uses.
9 Conservation Program Provide a water survey of 10% of these
for Commercial, customers within 10 years and identify
Industrial, and retrofitting options; OR reduce water
Institutional Accounts use by an amount equal to 10% of the
baseline use within 10 years.
10 Wholesale Agency Provide financial incentives to water
Assistance Programs agencies and cities to encourage
implementation of water conservation
programs.
11 Conservation Pricing Eliminate non-conserving procing
policies and adopt pricing structure
such as uniform rates or inclining block
rates, incentives to customers to reduce
average or peak use, and surcharges to
encourage conservation.
12 Conservation Designate a water agency staff member
Coordinator to have the responsibility to manage the
water conservation programs.
13 Water Waste Adopt water waste ordinances to prohibit
Prohibition gutter flooding, single-pass cooling
systems, non-recrculation system in all
new car wash and commercial laundry
systems, and non-recycling decorative
water fountains.
14 Residential Ultra- Replace older toilets for residential
Low-Flush Toilet customers as a rate equal to that of an
Replacement Programs ordinance requiring retrofit upon resale.
22 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
agencies seeking to improve water supply reliability or
reduce environmental impacts from water diversions.
This is particularly true for agencies faced with only ex-
pensive new supply options such as MMWD’s proposed
desalination facility.
As is very evident from the analysis in the CALFED
2006 Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation,
despite good intentions, many agencies fell behind the
agreed implementation schedule. This is also the case
with MMWD. This is important to note, since MMWD
is now pursuing expensive new supply projects despite
the fact that their implementation rate fell below this
generally recognized minimum standard for some key
BMPs during the last decade. The key areas of deficient
performance are summarized below.
BMP 1: Single-family Residential Surveys
The surveys consist of providing trained water agency
staff for on-site consultations with customers to evalu-
ate water use at the site and provide efficiency and
conservation recommendations and incentives. The
BMP implementation goal is to survey 15 percent of ser-
vices at the end of 10 years. According to MMWD BMP
reports, 8.6 percent have actually been done to date.
This is important for interior water conservation and
also for addressing landscape water use by single-fam-
ily customers, which is a large percentage of MMWD
landscape water use.
BMP 3: Distribution System Leak
Detection
The BMP require water agencies whose unaccounted
water loss exceeds 10 percent in any given year to
conduct a distribution system audit as detailed in the
American Water Works Association manual, which is
commonly referred to as the M36 Manual. The M36
manual provides detailed procedures for auditing dis-
tribution system pipelines to determine the sources of
unaccounted losses and maintain the system to reduce
leakage.
MMWD’s BMP reports indicate the unaccounted loss
rate in 2005 and 2006 exceeded the rate where a full
audit is triggered. However, consumption and produc-
tion data provided by MMWD indicates that unac-
counted losses exceeded the 10 percent level where a
system audit should have been triggered all but two
years since 2002 (see Table 18). In its annual BMP re-
ports, MMWD reports that full audits were performed.
But this appears extremely unlikely since MMWD
management indicate that a program for this was
only established in the last year and no full time staff
members were previously assigned this responsibility.
Furthermore, the unaccounted loss rate has generally
increased since 2001 and averaged nearly 12 percent in
the last four years (see Table 18).
This is an area where important water management
improvements appear possible for MMWD. This report
recommends reducing the leakage rate at least 4% for a
water savings to MMWD of 1,200 afy or more. A more
thorough discussion of this issue is in the Distribution
System Unaccounted Losses and Leaks section of this
report.
BMP 5: Large Landscape Surveys
The surveys consist of providing water agency staff for
on-site consultations with large landscape customers
to evaluate water use at the site and provide efficiency
and conservation recommendations and incentives. In
the most recent BMP report, MMWD indicates that 5.5
percent of these sites have received conservation surveys.
This is far below the BMP goal of 15 percent. Reduced
waste and improved landscape efficiency is a key oppor-
tunity area for MMWD, and this is an important mecha-
nism for addressing this problem. This report recom-
mends reducing the estimated 10,000 afy of landscape
water use in the MMWD service area by 4,000 afy, and
this is one of the mechanisms that should be employed
with a broad range of other mechanisms. More informa-
tion on this subject can be found in the Landscape Irriga-
tion section of this report.
All of these BMPs are important components of a serious,
comprehensive water conservation program. The goals
identified in the BMP implementation schedule are really
just minimal standards and represent a starting point, not
an exceptional effort. MMWD board and staff indicate
that they now plan a more serious implementation effort.
But had these been more seriously pursued for the past
decade, MMWD would now have a much more reliable
water supply.
Food & Water Watch
Development and Implementation
of MMWD’s Water Conservation
Programs
MMWD began its modern era of water conservation dur-
ing dry periods in the 1970s. With the rejection in 1971
of the $20 million bond measure to import 42,000 afy of
Russian River water, MMWD established a water con-
servation program and began construction of a smaller
pipeline to North Marin Water District to provide more
limited access to Russian River water.98
After adoption of a controversial and contentious morato-
rium on new connections in 1973, MMWD began evaluat-
ing long-term conservation strategies.99 In 1974, a report
entitled “Conservation Element – Water Supply program”
was released. The report states: “Preliminary studies con-
ducted by the District’s staff indicate that the cost-effec-
tiveness of a water conservation program would be much
better than any alternate program. Such a program would
require a relatively low capital investment, would have a
beneficial effect on the environment and would have an
insignificant annual operation and maintenance cost.”100
MMWD began implementing some of the recommenda-
tions in the report in 1975 and the seeds of MMWD’s
toilet, plumbing, and landscape conservation programs
can be traced to this time.
During the 1976-77 drought, reservoirs dropped to pre-
cariously low levels and residents responded to a call for
57 percent rationing with a 62 percent use reduction.101
During this time, MMWD adopted the first in a series of
water waste ordinances. It prohibited gutter flooding, the
washing of sidewalks, overhead turf irrigation, the filling
of swimming pools, the use of a hose to wash vehicles,
and the use of potable water for construction.102 When the
rains returned in 1978, the rationing program and contro-
versial moratorium were rescinded.103 Water consump-
tion then rebounded as the behavior modifications were
relaxed and the low-quality plastic low-flow showerheads
and toilet displacement bags designed as temporary mea-
sures began to fail and were removed.104
In the early 1980s Soulajule Reservoir was constructed
and Kent Dam was raised.105 With abundant rainfall and
new water supply, conservation became a low priority un-
til another period of six dry years began in the late 1980s.
In 1986, MMWD adopted Ordinance 263 limiting turf
grass to 40 percent of landscape areas for newly installed
landscapes. This was updated in 1989 with the adop-
tion of Ordinance 285, which further limited turf to 25
percent of landscape areas, required new non-residential
landscape plans to be reviewed and approved by MMWD,
23
and included a then-controversial requirement for 1.6
gallon toilets for new installations.106
In 1990, MMWD released a report that evaluated 1.6 gal-
lon toilet effectiveness and projected nearly 3,000 afy of
saving potential from retrofitting all residential sites.107
This ultimately led to a toilet retrofit incentive program in
1993.
In 1991, MMWD became a founding signatory to the
California Urban Water Conservation Best Management
Practices Agreement, thereby agreeing to implement a
pre-determined list of water conservation Best Manage-
ment Practices.
In 1992, after a failed $80 million bond measure in 1991
to increase importation of Russian River water, and the
subsequent passage of Measure V, a $37.5 million bond
measure to fund increased conservation and phased in
Russian River supply on an as-needed basis, a citizens’
advisory committee was established. The committee was
formed to provide input on the development and imple-
mentation of conservation programs, and provide recom-
mendations to the board regarding the need for phasing
in new Russian River supply.108
In 1993, MMWD conducted the first water conservation
baseline study. The study collected data on the penetra-
tion of conservation technologies, identified additional
efficiency opportunities, and assessed customer attitudes
toward water conservation and incentive programs. The
baseline study began to transform water conservation
planning into a science and was a critical step in develop-
ing the 1994 Water Efficiency and Conservation Master
Plan.
was launched, and the conservation site audit program
was established and meeting the BMP implementation
requirements. A conservation-oriented tiered rate struc-
ture was also in place.
However, after another series of wet years, the priority
level for conservation programs appeared to decline. By
the mid part of the present decade, the citizens’ advisory
committee was inactive and implementation began to fall
behind on the toilet replacement program, many of the
BMPs, and many conservation master plan programs.
Presently, the MMWD board is expressing an intention to
increase the conservation program effort.109 A new Water
Conservation Master Plan was developed in 2007 to help
guide that effort.
2007 Water Conservation Master Plan
An update of the 1994 Water Efficiency and Conserva-
tion Master Plan was certainly due, and the increased
board and staff attention to water conservation is entirely
appropriate given the present circumstances. In April
of 2006, a Water Management Report was submitted
to the MMWD board. In a coherent manner, the report
examines the past performance of MMWD’s water con-

In 1994, MMWD completed its first Water Conservation

and Efficiency Master Plan. The plan identified a broad
range of conservation measures and programs, pro-
vided implementation goals and appropriate incentives,
projected associated water savings, and established the
cost-effectiveness of water conservation compared to new
supply options.

By the mid 1990s, with the new water conservation

master plan, a toilet incentive program, landscape and
plumbing ordinances in place, a citizens’ advisory com-
mittee helping to support conservation program imple-
mentation, and fresh memories of drought, MMWD
had what could finally be described as a long-term,
comprehensive water conservation program in place. A
noticeable transformation was taking place, with many
landscapes becoming more water efficient in design, if
not management. Toilet replacements continued at a sig-
Photo by Andrea Kratzenberg/Stock.Xchng.
nificant rate. The high efficiency clothes washer program

24 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

 Figure 9: CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation Marginal Costs116
Medical Sterilizers – Condensate Chamber $69
BMP 5 Landscape Budgets $75
BMP 2 Residential Showerheads – SF $167
Cll Dishwasers $191
BMP 14 Residentail Toilets – MF $210
BMP 5 Landscape Surveys $210
BMP 2 Residential Showerheads – MF $216
Cll Spray Valves $258
BMP 4 Metering $278
BMP 9 Cll Surveys $290
Medical Sterilizers – Ejector $294
BMP 14 Residential Toilets – SF
BMP 3
Other Landscape
Residential ET-Controllers – SF
Cll Toilets – Restaurants
Residential Washers – SF
Cii Toilets – Retail/Wholesale
Residential Washers – MF
Cll Toilets – Other
Cll Toilets – Office/Health
Cll Toilets – Hotels
0 $300
servation programs, and evaluates the future potential
for conservation program given appropriately aggres-
sive goals.110 The report indicates 5,000 to 8,000 afy
of potential through increased water conservation and
improved water management.111
In a further step, the 2007 Water Conservation Master
Plan was developed.112 It includes a considerable amount
of analysis and discussion of conservation options.
However, rather than a well organized, comprehensive,
and coherent analysis of water conservation options, the
2007 Water Conservation Master Plan is a document that
appears to be haphazardly cobbled together from numer-
ous previous reports and more narrowly focused analy-
ses. As a result, it is fairly incomprehensible for readers
attempting to understand the present state of conserva-
tion programs and the basis for water conservation costs,
goals, and projected water savings for the 2025 planning
horizon.
Furthermore, the implementation goals for some core
conservation measures are weaker than past goals or
activity levels for many measures in recent years. The
problem of weakened goals will be further noted in
subsequent sections of this report. In another serious
flaw, a marginal cost for new water supply of $1,631
Food & Water Watch
$345
$362
$378
$379
$457
$507
$537
$611
$1,028
$1,075
$1,343
$600 $900 $1,200 $1,500
was used to determine and screen the cost-effectiveness
of new conservation measures.113 This is far below the
desalination marginal cost estimate of $2,900 to $4,400
per acre-foot. In addition, some of the water conserva-
tion measures were found to have a marginal cost much
higher than generally accepted cost established by other
credible analysis. For example, large landscape surveys in
the 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan were found to
have a marginal cost of $2,565 per acre-foot.114 The cost
assumptions in the analysis are not sufficiently docu-
mented to review the calculations. However, in the 2006
CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evalua-
tion, where the cost assumptions are well documented,
the marginal cost for large landscape surveys was deter-
mined to be $210.115
Figure 9 above provides a list of potential conservation
measures and water conservation Best Management
Practices from the CALFED study along with the mar-
ginal costs. The assumptions behind the cost analyses are
well documented in the study.
All of these measures are appropriate for the MMWD
service area and are clearly much more cost effective
compared to the cost of desalination. Yet many of these
are not found in the MMWD 2007 Water Conservation
25
Photo by Eleonora Felisatti/Stock.Xchng.
Master Plan or have poorly documented costs that are
dramatically higher than the CALFED analysis.
Given its inherent flaws, it is difficult to understand how
the 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan can provide
board members with confidence that water conservation
programs can adequately address MMWD’s perceived
supply deficit. This is unfortunate, since it appears that
MMWD has dedicated water conservation staff and the
senior staff, board and community support for water con-
servation appears to be as high or higher than has often
been the case in the past.
In order to adequately plan, communicate and imple-
ment a truly aggressive, industry leading conservation
program, a more coherent planning document with ap-
propriately aggressive implementation goals is needed.
The document should organize and define the following
information:
• past water conservation program performance
• present conditions in the service area as they
relate to conservation options
• specific conservation measures
• planned annual implementation rates for specific
measures and long-term penetration goals and
how this compared to implementation in past
years
26 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
• expected water savings with the identified conser-
vation measures and assumptions for generating
the savings estimates
• proposed bundling of measures into programs
and marketing and delivery mechanisms of the
programs
• opportunities to partner with local agencies and
community groups to deliver water conservation
measures and programs
• mechanisms to monitor and track implementa-
tion progress and resultant water savings
• credible marginal cost comparisons of water con-
servation programs and new supply options using
the marginal cost estimates for desalination
In order to provide a sound planning basis for this docu-
ment, an update to the water conservation baseline study
is needed. This would examine the following:
• the measured penetration of past interior and
landscape conservation measures and programs
• existing customer knowledge and attitudes re-
garding the implementation of specific conserva-
tion measures and programs
• presently existing ornamental landscape char-
acteristics, including quantity of irrigated land-
scaping, quantity of turf area and high water use
 plantings, quantity of low-water-use plantings,
design characteristics and efficiency of irrigation
systems, and irrigation management knowledge
and practices of landscape managers
Answers to these questions are critical in designing a
new generation of effective interior and landscape con-
servation programs. But at this point, the answers are
highly speculative. Given MMWD’s proposed $44 million
commitment to water conservation in the years ahead,117
an adequate technical foundation for planning the con-
servation programs is needed.
The technology and resources available for conducting
this background research has greatly improved since the
1994 baseline study. The update should include the use
of modern GIS tools, including analysis of multi spectral
aerial orthophotos to determine landscape composi-
tions and a ground truthing site visit of a representative
sample to verify findings and collect qualitative data on
landscape irrigation management practices. This should
then be used along with GIS for monitoring and tracking
and a citizens’ advisory committee that includes some
members with landscape management expertise to help
develop, implement, and provide guidance to a serious
and long-term landscape and interior water use reduction
program.
In an updated conservation plan, all the cost assumptions
should be clearly documented to avoid potential confu-
sion or misleading interpretations. For example, recent
public information presentation by MMWD indicate that
the conservation programs in the 2007 Water Conser-
vation Master Plan would require MMWD investment
of $44 million and a substantial additional customer
investment of $77 million and that this may make them
more costly compared to desalination.118 (Note that both
of these figures include a 3 percent annual cost escala-
tor.119) This is highly misleading. First of all, the MMWD
2007 Conservation Master Plan actually found that the
combined utility and customer marginal cost of all the
proposed conservation programs in the plan is $1,111 per
acre-foot,120 which is far below the projected marginal
cost of desalinated water.
It is important to note that the financial incentives for
conservation measures are generally designed to per-
suade customers to make more efficient choices when
replacing or servicing their water using features and
fixtures. In most cases, probably well over 75 percent of
the cases, the customers will be faced with the costs of
replacing aging or malfunctioning water features regard-
less of the conservation incentive programs or desalina-
tion project. If customers are persuaded by the conserva-
tion incentive programs (which are much less costly than
a desalination project) to make more efficient choices
Food & Water Watch
for their projects, they will avoid the cost of a desalina-
tion project on top of the cost of their individual projects.
They will also own upgraded assets for their homes and
businesses.
Furthermore, in a public presentation on April 28, 2009,
MMWD’s staff noted that 40 percent of the water conser-
vation budget is for financial incentives.121 This means that
of the $44 million in projected conservation expenditures
by MMWD, 40 percent of the $44 million, or $17.6 million
will be returned directly to MMWD customer as financial
incentives. The remaining 60 percent of the $44 million
conservation budget, or $26.4 million, will be expendi-
tures for program support such as staff and marketing.
If we make the (probably overestimated) assumption that
25 percent of the $77 million customer cost represents
new expenditures triggered only by the incentive program,
this results in a $19.2 million customer cost. By adding
$19.2 million in new customer cost to the $26.4 million in
MMWD expenditure not returned to customers as finan-
cial incentives, the result is $45.6 million in conservation
program cost that must be borne by MMWD ratepayers.
On the other hand, if we consider the $111.2 million capi-
tal cost of a 5 MGD desalination facility (see Table 15) am-
ortized for 30 years at 5 percent, the total capital cost with
financing is actually $217.1 million. If we add the annual
operating cost of $6.1 million (see Table 15) for 30 years
with a 3 percent annual escalation, this results in $182.4
million. Adding the financed capital cost of $217.1 with the
escalated 30-year operation cost of $182.4, the result is
$399.5 million cost to MMWD ratepayers over 30 years.
MMWD is projecting the above-noted conservation
program costs and desalination program costs to provide
similar amounts of water supply reliability improvement.
So if we double the $45.6 million conservation cost to
MMWD ratepayers to $91.2 million, or even triple the
conservation costs $136.8 million, to provide sufficient
increased conservation to completely avoid the need
for desalination, the cost to MMWD ratepayers is still
dramatically less than the $399.5 million cost of desalina-
tion. And this is the case without including the non-quan-
tified “externalities,” such as potential environmental
costs or benefits.
Of course, the reason economists use a marginal cost
analysis is to provide a simple result of comparable costs
for different program alternatives (see Table ES-1). By all
well accepted economic measures, cost-effective con-
servation programs are much less costly than MMWD’s
desalination proposal from the perspective of the indi-
vidual customers, the water agency, and the community
perspective. These issues need to be more accurately
articulated in an updated water conservation master plan.
27
Conservation Rate Structures
• For most urban areas, water bills are a relatively
low cost compared to many living costs and
monthly bills. However, there is usually con-
siderable public opposition to even modest rate
increases.
• Most of the real environmental cost of extract-
ing water from natural systems is considered an
externality and is not well quantified or reflected
in the price charged to consumers.
• Price elasticity studies suggest that, for the most
part, the cost of water is too low for rate struc-
tures to provide an adequate stand-alone tool for
driving full efficiency in water use.
• Conservation-oriented rate structures coupled
with comprehensive conservation programs and
additional financial incentives for installation of
water-efficient devices have proven more effective
in improving efficient water use in urban areas.
Water pricing in California is a complex and controversial
issue. Public water agencies are only allowed to recover
the cost of providing the facilities, water supply, and
necessary administrative support. Some environmental
monitoring and mitigation cost is captured in the cost
of operations and passed on to ratepayers. However, as
noted by many environmental advocates, most of the real
environmental cost of extracting water from natural sys-
tems is an economic externality and is not well-quantified
or reflected in the price charged to consumers. There
is a strong argument that this keeps the price of water
artificially low compared to its true cost and value. For
most residents of urban areas, the water bill is a relatively
low cost compared to many living costs and monthly bills.
However, as most water board members contemplating
a rate increase understand, there is usually considerable
public opposition to even modest rate increases.
Despite the public resistance to rate increases, price elas-
ticity studies suggest that, for the most part, the cost of
water is too low for rate structures to provide an adequate
stand-alone tool for driving full efficiency in use. Elastic-
ity studies generally indicate that for a 10 percent in-
crease in price, demand will decrease by about 2 percent
for single-family customers, 1 percent for multi-family
customers, 2.5 percent for commercial customers, and 2
percent to 5 percent for landscape irrigation.122 This has
the paradoxical effect that rate increases to pay for the
cost of new water supply projects actually help reduce
the need for new supply by reducing water use. While
water pricing alone is not enough to drive economically
28 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
efficient water use, conservation-oriented rate structures
coupled with comprehensive conservation programs and
additional financial incentives to encourage installation
of water efficient devices has proven more effective in the
MMWD service area and elsewhere.
Another noteworthy consideration in evaluating rate
structures is the actual impact on water bills paid by
consumers. Water agencies often conduct a rate impact
analysis when evaluating new supply and water conserva-
tion options. The new supply projects, since it is assumed
all the new water will be sold, often appear misleadingly
attractive compared to water conservation options, which
may actually reduce revenue by reducing sales. However,
this analysis often falls short of considering the actual
impact on water bills paid by consumers. The water
conservation programs, while reducing revenue, also
reduce the comparative need for revenue. This is particu-
larly important in an area like the MMWD service area,
where there is relatively little new growth and the costs
are borne largely by existing consumers. Cost-effective
water conservation programs, which by definition are
less costly than new supply projects, can result in slightly
higher cost per unit of water used, but lower water bills to
consumers compared to more costly new supply projects.
MMWD presently has a rate structure with a base fee
called a service charge and four inclining block tiers. The
service charge is based on water meter size and, accord-
ing to MMWD documents, covers “the cost of meter
reading and billing, customer, service, meter replacement
and repair, system capacity, water conservation, and ad-
ministration.” The inclining block tiers are billed in CCFs
(hundred cubic feet, or 748 gallons), and cover the “cost
of water transmission, treatment, distribution, watershed
maintenance, importing water, and recycling water.” The
service charge ranges from $18.06 for a 5/8-inch meter,
to $1,150.70 for a 10-inch meter.123 The four tiers are
shown in Table 17 below and the break points are based
on amount of water used in each billing cycle and vary
from summer to winter for the residential accounts.
As indicated in Table 17, the tiers incline steeply. This
is generally considered a good driver for efficient water
use since customers with low water use will have much
lower bills than customers with high water use. However,
customers are billed on a bimonthly cycle, so it may be
two months before a price signal for high consumption
Table 17: MMWD Tiered Rates124
Tier Rate per CCF
1 $2.81
2 $5.62
3 $11.24
4 $16.86
reaches a customer. For this reason, some water agencies
are moving to a monthly billing system.

Perhaps one the most difficult questions in developing

and assigning a tiered rate program is how to fairly assign
the tier-break points to different customers or to differ- Most of the real
ent customer classes. For example, consider a two-person
office nextdoor to a busy café. These would have very
environmental cost of
different water needs. Should they have the same trig-
ger point for higher tiers? Furthermore, should a small
extracting water from
house with a small yard have the same tier trigger points natural systems is not well
as a large house with a large yard? Issues of equity arise
even without tiered rate structures, since high water us- quantified or reflected in
ers drive the need for expensive new supplies. Also, high
water users are subsidized by everyone under a uniform the price to consumers.
rate structure.

Given the complexity of this subject, a thorough review

of rate structure issues is well beyond the scope of this
non-residential baselines to reflect efficient water use
analysis. Interested readers are referred to other detailed
and reducing the service charge component of water bills
treatments of rate structure issues such as Designing,
would likely have a measurable impact on reducing water
Evaluating, and Implementing Conservation Rate Struc-
use in the District. Some of this use reduction is already
tures available from the California Urban Water Conser-
considered in the landscape water savings, but some
vation Council.
would be new conservation.
However, there are a some issues with the MMWD rate
MMWD Board members recently indicated the need to
structure that deserve further comment. The assigned
increase rates even without the additional cost of new
tier-break point for non-residential MMWD custom-
supply projects. New supply projects, such as the pro-
ers is specific to each account. The original intention of
posed desalination facility, with the 14 percent increased
this approach was to reflect efficient water use for each
revenue requirement for a 5 MGD facility and 23 percent
customer and was a very innovative approach. However,
increased revenue requirement for the 10 MGD facility,
in an administrative compromise, the assignment of
would require substantial additional bill increases. Since
“baselines,” the amount of water use for each account
water use is suppressed by bill increases, this needs to be
that triggers the higher tiers, for most accounts reflect
carefully considered. According to water price elasticity
historic water use from the 1987 peak year or other peak
studies, if MMWD raised water bills by 25 percent in the
years of use, rather than efficient water use for present
next few years, this would suppress water use by about 5
circumstances at the site. MMWD staff members are
percent, or about 1,500 afy. Interestingly, this is almost
aware of this problem and have stated their intention of
half of the 3,300 afy supply deficit in the year 2025
adjusting baselines to reflect efficient use at each site.125
identified by MMWD staff and more than the existing
This report recommends moving forward with that ef-
1,300 afy supply deficit based on average year demand.
fort. In addition, sites with mixed interior and landscape
If MMWD does move forward with the desalination
water use, which are very common, should have base-
facility, this price elasticity issue will likely put consider-
lines that reflect landscape water use consistent with the
able pressure on future MMWD Boards to reduce water
recommendations in the Landscape Irrigation section of
conservation efforts.
this report rather than historic water-thirsty landscapes.

MMWD should also consider reducing the service charge Recommendations

and collecting a greater percent of its revenue through
the rate tiers. This will send a stronger conservation
price signal to water users, reducing bills for low users
that continue to reduce use and increasing bills for high
users. The City of San Luis Water Department, with
no service charge, collects all of its revenue through its
tiered rates. The city’s conservation manager reports this
is contributing to the relatively low per capita consump-
tion in the department’s service area.126 Updating the
Adjust and maintain billing baselines to reflect efficient
use at the individual sites.
Evaluate lowering the service charge and collecting more
revenue from the tiered rates.
Evaluate price elasticity in projecting future demand, and
in particular the effects of the cost of potential desalina-
tion facility on demand elasticity.

Food & Water Watch 29

Landscape Irrigation
• Typically one-third to one-half of water use in
California urban areas is for landscape irrigation.

• It is well-documented that a large portion of

landscape water use is wasted by poorly designed,
maintained, and managed irrigation systems.

• Turf and high-water-use plants typically require

two to three times more water than low-water-
use, drought-tolerant plants.

• Reducing landscape irrigation waste and exces-

sive use holds the most promise of any single wa-
ter conservation category in the MMWD service
area.

• Drought-tolerant, low-water-use landscapes can

be designed with interesting color, shape, tex-
ture, and fragrance, while requiring less ongoing
maintenance.

As noted by MMWD staff, “landscape programs have the

greatest untapped potential” for reducing water use in the
MMWD service area.127 About 10,000 afy, or one-third of
water use, in the MMWD service area goes to landscape
irrigation. MMWD water conservation documents note
that much of the landscape water use is wasted by ineffi-
ciently designed, managed and maintained irrigation sys- Photo by StockXpert.
tems that “are routinely set to apply 30-50 percent more
Largely motivated by MMWD landscape programs, Marin
water than is needed to maintain plant health, regardless
residents have already begun to make impressive strides
of the type of plants being watered. This over-watering
in shifting away from water-guzzling, high-maintenance
occurs throughout the year, often during rainy periods
landscapes to more regionally appropriate landscapes.
and in the fall.”128 A 2006 MMWD report also notes that
A drive around Marin 20 years ago would have demon-
“water savings of 25-50 percent are routinely observed af-
strated that the standard landscape was basically a spread
ter improvements are made to irrigation equipment and
of turf grass with a few shrubs here and there. Now a
operational practices.”129 In addition, it is also clear that
similar drive will show that many landscapes are bursting
much water goes to water thirsty landscapes inappropri-
with color, shape, texture, and fragrance using low-water-
ate for Marin’s climate conditions. This is an area with
use and drought-tolerant plants. These new landscapes
tremendous potential for reducing water use in Marin.
often require as much as 75 percent less water than turf
grass while also requiring less maintenance. Clearly,
Some might suggest that reducing landscape irrigation
many District consumers have responded well to MMWD
will mean no landscaping in Marin, just rock gardens,
initiatives to revise the concept of urban landscaping
hardscape and dirt patches. However, as is plain to see,
into something much more environmentally friendly and
the Mt.Tamalpais watershed, one of the natural scenic
aesthetically pleasing.
jewels of the region, is covered in vegetation that re-
ceives no dry season irrigation at all. Many people visit
Few people would argue this transformation degrades
the watershed to enjoy its natural beauty. For urbanized
quality of life in Marin. While many landscapes in Marin
areas, it comes down to shifting to regionally appropri-
have begun this transition, the same drive around Marin
ate landscape designs that require minimal irrigation in
makes clear that much unnecessary turf grass and high-
the local climate, then supporting this with efficiently
water-use landscaping remains and that a large quan-
designed, managed, and maintained irrigation systems
tity of water is still routinely wasted by poor irrigation
that are only used as needed.
practices.

30 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

As documented in the MMWD Customer Opinion Sur-
veys section of this report, in numerous customer opin-
ion surveys, MMWD customers indicate consistent and
strong support for a greater reduction in landscape water
use before pursuing new supply from the Russian River
or desalination. There is also very strong majority sup-
port for seriously curtailing landscape water use during
serious drought events rather than developing costly new
supply options. However, this will require a serious and
creative leadership effort by MMWD and an approach
that integrates many marketing and program delivery
mechanisms.
According to its 2005 Urban Water Management Plan,
MMWD had 1,309 irrigation accounts using about 2,600
afy. These accounts are relatively easy to monitor for
water use. However, as noted in District documents, the
water use baselines for most of these accounts, which
is the basis for the tier rate billing structure for each
individual account, does not reflect efficient water use or
a landscape with mostly low-water-use plants.130 Most of
the irrigation water use, about 7,500 afy, is in mixed-use
meters, including commercial, institutional, and residen-
tial accounts with landscaping. Since these accounts have
Photo by Scol22/Stock.Xchng.
Food & Water Watch
landscape and interior water use on the same meter, they
present more of a challenge in monitoring and managing
the irrigation water use and will require a range of tools
to address.
California has a Model Landscape Ordinance that pro-
vides guidance on irrigation system design and allow-
able water use at new landscape sites. Effective January
1993, local agencies were required to adopt and enforce
the model ordinance, show findings that an ordinance is
not necessary in their area (a difficult case to make given
California’s ongoing water situation), or implement a
landscape ordinance of local design.131 As a result of more
recent A.B.1881 and A.B.2717, California is in the process
of revising the State Model Landscape Ordinance.132
The proposed new State Model Landscape Ordinance,
while not yet adopted or enacted, allows slightly less wa-
ter use for new landscapes, to reflect improvements in ir-
rigation system efficiency. Both the existing and the pro-
posed new ordinance would allow an average plant water
use factor of 0.5. The plant water use factor is the amount
of water a plant needs for evapotranspiration compared
to the reference evapotranspiration of turf grass. While
the balance between high, medium, and low-water-use
plants at a site could vary, the combined average plant
water use factor cannot exceed the 0.5 limit. This limit
would allow one-third of the site to be landscaped with
high-water-use plants, one-third with medium-water-use
plants, and one-third with low-water-use plants.133
In another initiative now underway, the governor ap-
pointed a task force to develop a statewide water con-
servation plan to reduce water consumption in urban
areas 20 percent by the year 2020. This is now generally
referred to as the 20X2020 Agency Team. While the final
plan is still several months away, preliminary reports
indicate that a key recommendation is expected to be a
serious reduction in urban landscape water use.134 It is
not yet clear how these recommendations may affect the
proposed new Model Landscape Ordinance. However,
more stringent water-use limits in a new 20X2020 plan
are likely to result in the need for serious revisions to the
proposed new Model Landscape Ordinance in order to
reduce the allowable water use in new landscapes.
Ordinance 385 is MMWD’s local landscape ordinance
adopted in lieu of the state model ordinance. Ordinance
385 allows for new and remodeled landscapes to have a
maximum of 25 percent turf and 10 percent high-water-
use plants; the remaining 65 percent must be low-water-
use plants or non-irrigated. An analysis of the allowable
water use of the proposed new State Model Landscape
Ordinance compared to MMWD’s Ordinance 385 indi-
cates that the proposed new State Model Landscape Ordi-
31
nance as currently drafted would allow 2.7 percent more
water use in new landscape sites compared to MMWD’s
existing ordinance.135
This is an important issue since MMWD conservation
staff has indicated a desire to revise MMWD’s ordinance
to be consistent with the proposed state ordinance.136 At
a time when MMWD residents are calling for increased
water conservation and the MMWD Board is indicat-
ing an intent to increase the water conservation effort,
this would be a step in the wrong direction. It would also
send a message to MMWD customers that the district is
not serious about water conservation. Any revisions to
MMWD’s landscape ordinance should include a signifi-
cant reduction in allowable water use in new landscapes
while encouraging drought-tolerant landscaping. This
would be consistent with the historical progression of
landscape ordinance revisions in the service area.
Rather than allow more water use, it would be appropri-
ate to consider restricting new landscapes (exempting
certain types of parks, playgrounds, and ballfields, etc) to
no more than 15 percent turf and high-water-use plants,
and the remaining 65 percent to low-water-use plants
or non-irrigated plants. Sites with exceptionally large
landscapes should have additional requirements such as
a limit of 15 percent turf and 65 percent low-water-use
plants for the first acre, and the remaining acreage devot-
ed to non-irrigated plants. The actual formula would need
to be carefully developed, but the point is to continue the
historical progression away from landscapes requiring
large amounts of ongoing irrigation to landscapes requir-
ing minimal irrigation.
It would be reasonable to apply this restriction only to
MMWD-provided irrigation water. Sites with large land-
scapes that wish to harvest rainwater and use graywater
for irrigation, as discussed in the Rain Harvesting, Cis-
terns and Graywater section of this report would be free
to do so. Areas that have additional groundwater poten-
tial, as discussed in Groundwater section of this report,
could also utilize that source and with a well-designed
rain harvesting landscape they would be helping to re-
charge the local groundwater for their summer use.
Another example of the weakening of the landscape con-
servation effort is the phasing out of efficient landscap-
ing seminars offered to the public. In the 1990s, MMWD
conservation staff conducted an annual series of careful-
ly designed and detailed three-hour efficient landscaping
seminars for homeowners. This included a basic semi-
nar, an advanced seminar, an irrigation system design
and installation seminar, and a plant seminar.137 MMWD
customers enthusiastically responded. Most seminars
quickly filled to their capacity of about 40 people. Post-
32 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
seminar evaluations were highly favorable and many
participants indicated their attendance was motivated by
excellent word-of-mouth recommendations from friends
and neighbors. Yet, with a diminishing emphasis on con-
servation by District Management, these seminars were
phased out over the last decade.
With new senior and conservation management now in
place, MMWD is beginning to offer landscaping semi-
nars again through the Marin Master Gardeners. How-
ever, as attendance at one of the recent seminars made
clear, the caliber of the seminar is greatly diminished
compared to the seminars offered in the 1990s. While the
Master Gardeners are more knowledgeable than many
hobbyist landscapers and are clearly well-intentioned,
it is not realistic to provide sufficient information in a
single one-and-a-half hour seminar for such a complex
subject. With attendance of less than ten people, the real
impact is minimal. Fundamental information provided
was at times misleading or incorrect, such as recom-
mendations to connect drip conversions to existing spray
circuits with no regard for separating circuits or different
pressure requirements, or lack of head-to-head cover-
age for spray zones, etc. Furthermore, it is probably not
realistic to expect volunteers to dedicate the time and
effort necessary to prepare an elaborate series of semi-
nars, or to have the professional experience necessary to
accurately address the many complex issues.
The Master Gardeners should be commended for their
willingness and effort to assist MMWD with improving
landscape water use efficiency. While there may be im-
portant roles they can play to support MMWD programs,
it is false economy for MMWD to rely on volunteers to
handle many aspects of landscape conservation efforts,
including seminars and site surveys. The failure to pro-
vide high-quality conservation programs will only lead to
more costly supply options, such as desalination, which
is two to three times more costly than water conserva-
tion programs and has serious negative environmental
impacts. MMWD should allocate sufficient professional
expertise and resources to the development and imple-
mentation of landscape conservation programs.
Also, staff members trained in customer service tech-
niques and efficient landscape irrigation practices should
be available for rapid response to landscape water waste
calls. MMWD’s meter readers should also be trained to
recognize and report signs of gutter flooding and land-
scape water wasting. In addition, easy to use and broadly
marketed phone and email reporting mechanisms should
be in place for customers to report problems.
The goal of the water waste responses should be to edu-
cate site managers and correct the problem in a friendly,
non-confrontation oriented approach. Other agencies,
including Contra Costa Water District and San Luis
Water Department, that have developed the capability
to rapidly respond to water waste calls report that the
program is working much smoother than anticipated and
it really helps to foster the sense that water is too valuable
a resource to be carelessly wasted.138 It may be appropri-
ate to engage the Master Gardeners to provide follow-up,
after initial MMWD staff contact, to assist cooperative
site managers with improving ongoing landscape irriga-
tion efficiency.
Recommendation
MMWD should more aggressively pursue an ongoing
transformation of Marin landscaping to drought-tolerant
planting designs based on native plants. A truly compre-
hensive, integrated, and coherent plan is needed as the
basis for this effort. To develop the new plan it would be
extremely helpful to have a quantitative sense of the pres-
ent landscape composition in Marin. How much irrigated
landscaping is there? How much of the landscaping is
turf, high-water-use, low-water-use? What is the typical
landscape size and composition in different parts of the
service area? How knowledgeable are the site managers
(whether professional or homeowner) regarding efficient
irrigation practices? Answers to these questions are criti-
cal in designing an effective landscape-based conserva-
tion program. But at this point, the answers are specula-
tive.
An update to the 1994 Water Conservation Baseline Study
is needed and warranted given the proposed $44 million
commitment to water conservation by the MMWD Board.
Food & Water Watch
The update should include analysis of multi-spectral
aerial orthophotos to determine landscape compositions
along with ground truthing site visits to a representative
sample to verify findings and collect additional data on
landscape irrigation management practices. This would
then be used along with GIS for monitoring and tracking
and a citizens’ advisory committee with some members
knowledgeable in efficient landscaping practices to de-
velop and implement a serious and long-term landscape
water use reduction program.
Shaped with the data collected from an updated baseline
study, the new landscaping plan should include, but not
be limited to:
• the rate structure, and updated water budgets
and baselines that better target wasteful and
excessive irrigators
• revised landscape ordinance allowing less (not
more) landscape water use
• on-site technical assistance landscape surveys
• financial incentives for improved irrigation tech-
nology such as drip systems and ETo controllers,
rain shutoff devices, the use of lower water use
plants, and more effective use of mulch
• improved public education and seminars
• school education programs that train students to
be landscape water efficiency surveyors and rain
garden advocates
• ongoing landscape professional training
programs
• GIS analytical techniques to identify, target and
monitor areas with large reduction potential
• rapid and effective response to reports of over-
irrigation and water waste
MMWD now has many of these components, but not a
comprehensive, carefully integrated package designed
around the information that would be provided with an
updated water conservation baseline study.
Regarding potential savings, as previously noted,
MMWD documents indicate irrigation systems “are
routinely set to apply 30-50 percent more water than
is needed to maintain plant health, regardless of the
type of plants being watered. This over-watering occurs
throughout the year, often during rainy periods and in
33

Photo by Ronny Satzke/Stock.Xchng.
the fall.”139 Also, a 2006 MMWD report notes that “wa-
ter savings of 25-50 percent are routinely observed after
improvements are made to irrigation equipment and
operational practices.”140
The University of California Cooperative Extension has
developed an extensive list of plants in their Water Use
Classification of Landscape Species and groups them in
the following categories:141
High 70 - 90% of ETo (includes turf grass
and other high-water-use plants)
Moderate 40 - 60% of ETo
Low 10 - 30% of ETo
Very Low Less than 10% of ETo (includes
plants that need little or no irrigation
in normal rainfall years)
By replacing high-water-use plants with low- and very-
low-water-use plants and only irrigating them according
to need, dramatic water savings are possible. As previously
noted, the stunningly beautiful, mostly native vegetation in
the MMWD Mt. Tamalpais watershed receives no summer
irrigation.
34 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
An analysis of urban landscape use by the Pacific Insti-
tute estimated that landscape water use savings “of 25 to
40 percent could be made with improved management
practices and better application of available technology,
economically and relatively quickly.”142
Based on this information, a goal of 40 percent, or about
4,000 afy, of water savings is reasonable, viable and
achievable.
The cost would vary depending on how various landscape
measures are bundled and marketed, and what finan-
cial incentives are provided. The full development and
structuring of this effort is beyond the scope of this re-
view and should be undertaken with regular community
input through a revived citizens’ advisory committee that
includes landscape experts with a serious conservation
ethic. Regular forums with local landscape professionals
should also be held during the development and imple-
mentation process.
Some of the implementation cost would be embedded in
MMWD’s existing public information and school educa-
tion program. Some marginal cost indications can be
assessed from information in 2006 CALFED Water Use
Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation and MMWD’s 2007
to 2006 Water Conservation Master Plan.
• ETo controllers for new or remodeled landscapes:
$36 per acre-foot143
• Landscape water budgets: $75 per acre-foot144
• Residential landscape irrigation seminars: $197
per acre-foot145
• Landscape surveys: $210 per acre-foot146
• Residential landscape surveys: $442 per acre-
foot147
• Financial incentives for irrigation upgrades:
$1,296 per acre-foot148
The overall marginal cost is likely to be well under $1,000
for these basic programs.
If MMWD doubled the cost for a more advanced pro-
gram including incentives for creating rain gardens and
graywater systems, the overall marginal cost would be
unlikely to exceed $2,000 per acre-foot. This is still much
more cost-effective compared to the marginal cost of
desalination.
Toilets and Urinals
• The efficiency of toilets and urinals has increased
dramatically since the 1980s and the replacement
of old, water-wasting fixtures is one of the most
effective interior conservation programs.
• MMWD began financial incentives to replace old
toilets in 1993 and by 2002 replaced over 41,000
toilets.
• After MMWD discontinued rebates and insti-
tuted replacement ordinances, the annual toilet
replacement rate appears to have decreased from
2002 to 2008. At this point, about 45 percent to
55 percent of toilets in the MMWD service area
are efficient. In comparison, some water agen-
cies in California have now reached a level of 85
percent efficient toilets.
• Increasing the rate of toilet and urinal replace-
ments with financial incentives to reach a level of
90 percent efficient fixtures by the year 2025 will
reliably save 1,000 afy or more at a marginal cost
of $200 to $500 per acre-foot of water saved.
In 2001, the financial incentive programs were discontin-
ued in favor of an ordinance requiring toilet replacement
at time of resale. The time of resale ordinance was re-
pealed in 2004 and replaced with an ordinance requiring
toilet replacement at time of change of water service.151
Both ordinances appear to have underperformed based
on MMWD expectations and resulted in unanticipated
high administration cost in addition to customer resent-
ment. The actual number of toilets replaced with the two
ordinances is uncertain since most were not verified with
a receipt or inspection.152 Based on administration prob-
lems, customer dissatisfaction, and the lagging retrofit
rate, the time of service change ordinance was repealed.
MMWD now offers up to a $250 rebate for replacing
toilets using 3.5 gallons or more per flush with the new-
generation toilets using 1.28 gallons or less per flush.153
MMWD documents now estimate the overall percentage
of efficient residential and non-residential toilets using
1.6 gallons per flush or less is about 55 percent.154 But it
may be considerably lower due to lack of verification of
many replacements during the time of sale, change of ser-
vice ordinances, and uncertainty over the natural replace-
ment rate. In light of this, it appears that about 45-55
percent of the residential toilets in the service area are

When the drought of record occurred in 1976-1977, toilets

were designed to use 5 to 7 gallons per flush. As a result
of the drought, standards for more efficient 3.5-gallon-
per-flush toilets were quickly enacted. With minimal
time to respond, toilet manufacturers generally adapted
tanks with smaller flush volumes on their existing toilet
designs. This led to poor-performing fixtures and user
complaints. However, in the early 1990s, a new round of
1.6-gallon-per-flush standards were enacted. This time,
toilet manufacturers responded with completely rede-
signed fixtures that performed well and saved impres-
sive amounts of water. As a result, toilet replacement
programs became a cornerstone of urban water agency
conservation programs. And in recent years, a new gen-
eration of even more efficient, 1.28-gallon-per-flush or
less toilets has become available.

With analysis indicating about 154,000 residential

toilets in the service area at the time and projected sav-
ings potential from retrofitting them of over 3,600 afy,
MMWD began offering financial incentives for toilet
retrofits. This began in 1993 with a $150 no-interest loan
program. To increase participation, in 1994 the program
was expanded to include a $100 rebate and opened to
commercial and institutional sites.149 MMWD also began
offering free toilets through community-based organi-
zations. With an annual goal and adequate funding for
about 8,000 retrofits, these financial incentive programs
continued in various forms until 2001 and resulted in the
Photo by Stephanie L./Stock.Xchng.
replacement of over 41,000 toilets.150

Food & Water Watch 35

efficient and about 70,000 to 80,000 inefficient fixtures
remain. In addition, about 17,000 non-efficient toilets
remain in CII sites.155 In comparison, some communities
in California, such as San Luis Obispo, which aggressively
pursued toilet replacements since the early 1990s, have
now achieved an 85 percent penetration rate with the
new efficient toilet fixtures.156
The 2007 Conservation Master Plan annual toilet replace-
ment goal is only 1,671.157 This is far below the annual
goal of about 8,000 incentive-triggered toilet retrofits per
year identified in the 1994 MMWD Water Efficiency &
Conservation Master Plan. To respond to customer calls
for increased conservation and MMWD Board statements
of the intention to increase the conservation program ef-
fort, the toilet replacement rate should be increased. The
goal of 8,000 fixtures per year may be less viable now
that more of the service area is retrofitted, but the goal
should be at least 4,500 toilets per year.
In addition to the toilets, MMWD’s 2006 Water Manage-
ment Report estimates that about 1,200 non-efficient
urinals remain in non-residential sites in the service
area and replacing these with efficient units would save
up to 245 afy.158 MMWD now offers a $400 rebate for
that purpose. However, as noted in the desalination EIR,
there was “a waiting list of approximate 100 units for the
High-Efficiency Urinal Program, which was temporar-
ily suspended after exceeding the annual target... this
program will be restarted as soon as additional funds are
available.”159 Apparently, MMWD found adequate funds
for a desalination pilot project and an EIR process (more
than $1 million), but not enough to replace another 100
water-wasting urinals.
Photo by Marcin Jochimczyk/Stock.Xchng.
36 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
Recommendation
Using a variety of mechanisms such as financial incen-
tives, direct install, community organizations, and ordi-
nances, MMWD should establish aggressive annual goals
and work to achieve a 90 percent penetration of efficient
toilet and urinal fixtures by the year 2025. This will
require replacing another 60,000 to 70,000 toilets by the
year 2025. By structuring a program to replace a mini-
mum of 4,500 per year for the next 15 years, the result
would be 67,500 new water-efficient toilets. This would
meet the 90 percent goal by the year 2025.
According to MMWD’s 2006 Water Management Report,
just replacing the inefficient CII toilets with 1.6-gallon
toilets would save 654 afy and replacement with 1.28-gal-
lon per-flush-toilets would save 785 afy.160 Based on
established savings estimates, toilet and urinal retrofits
combined will easily provide 1,000 afy or more of reliable
water savings.
The marginal cost identified in MMWD’s 2007 Water
Conservation Master Plan is $1,118 for high-efficiency
toilets and $1,607 per acre-foot for efficient urinals.161
However, the 2006 Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive
Evaluation for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program found the
marginal cost of efficient toilets in most settings relevant
to the MMWD service area to be considerably lower. The
study determined single-family and multi-family resi-
dential sites to have toilet replacement marginal costs of
$345 and $219 respectively per acre-foot of saved water.
The same study found the marginal cost of replacing res-
taurant toilets to be $457 per acre-foot of saved water.162
Clothes Washers
• The water and energy efficiency of clothes wash-
ers increased dramatically in the last 15 years
with the release of a new generation of clothes
washers.
• Financial incentives offered by MMWD in con-
junction with PG&E have resulted in the replace-
ment of about 20 percent or less of clothes wash-
ers with new-generation efficient washers.
• Providing adequate incen-
tives to reach a replace-
ment level of 75 percent by
the year 2025 would result
in savings of 500 to 1,000
afy at a marginal cost of
$274 per acre-foot of saved
water.
A modern generation of much more
water- and energy-efficient clothes
washers became available in the
last 15 years. In the late 1990s,
MMWD, in conjunction with PG&E
other Bay Area water utilities,
began offering financial incen-
tives for retrofitting to the new,
more efficient clothes washers. The
new generation of clothes wash-
ers receives very high ratings from
customers.163
As more of the new-generation Photo by David Jones/Stock.Xchng.
clothes washers reached the mar-
ket and customers became familiar with the benefits, the
rebate activity level increased until reaching an average
of about 1,460 clothes washers per year for the last five
years. However, the new clothes washer replacement goal
appears to be 1,200 washers per year. This is 18 percent
164
lower than the actual average rate reported by MMWD
staff for the last five years. The reduced rate is also the
rate used for calculating the water savings in the Mad-
daus analysis – which is the basis of the projected water
savings in the year 2025. The MMWD Board indicates the
intention of increasing conservation, but, unless the goal
is increased, this key conservation program goal will actu-
ally be reduced from recent levels.
Based on extrapolation of data collected in the 1994 Wa-
ter Conservation Baseline Study and the 2006 CALFED
Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation, over
60,000 clothes washers probably exist in the MMWD ser-
vice area. The clothes washer rebate program with PG&E
Food & Water Watch
reports replacement of 12,450 clothes washers from 1999
through 2008.165 The 2007 Water Conservation Mas-
ter Plan estimates that an additional 40,000 inefficient
clothes washers exist, but the number may be as high as
48,000. The 2007 Water Conservation Master Plan goal
of 1,200 clothes washer per year is well below the rate of
1,647 in 2007 and 1,544 in 2008.166 A replacement rate of
only 1,200 clothes washers per year until 2025 will only
result in another 18,000 clothes washers replaced, for a
penetration rate of approximately 50 percent or less.
The 2006 CALFED Water Use
Efficiency Comprehensive Evalu-
ation estimates the average useful
life of clothes washers in residential
settings is 14 years.167 This would
mean that about 7 percent of the ap-
proximately 60,000 clothes washers
in the service area, or about 4,200,
are being replaced each year. Since
consumers still have the opportu-
nity to purchase either inefficient
or new-generation, efficient clothes
washers, the rebates are important
to affect this decision. The program
goal should be to shift at least half
of the replacements to the efficient
machines.
Recommendation
The annual replacement goal
should be increased to at least
2,100 efficient clothes washers per
year to achieve an overall penetra-
tion goal of about 75 percent by the
year 2025. This would provide savings of 500 afy or more
and could be as much as 1,000 afy if the most efficient
clothes washers on the market are selected. Therefore,
the rebate levels should be adequate to encourage an
increased level of participation and selection of the most
efficient clothes washer by program participants.
The marginal cost identified in the 2007 Water Conser-
vation Master Plan for retrofitting to efficient clothes
washers is $274 per acre-foot of water. This would be for
the rebate cost of motivating customers to purchase the
new generation efficient models when replacing dys-
functional or remodeled washers. While there would be
some additional customer cost in the transaction, in most
cases they would be replacing the machine anyway. When
compared to the $2,900 to $4,400 marginal cost range
of desalination, there is considerable room for increas-
ing the incentive level to increase participation levels and
motivate the selection of the most efficient washers by
program participants.
37
Distribution System Unaccounted
Losses and Leaks
• MMWD data indicates an average distribution
system leaks and losses rate of over 10 percent in
recent years.
• MMWD has not had an active, ongoing leak de-
tection and reduction program until recently.
• As noted in MMWD staff reports, for every one
percent reduction in leakage, about 300 afy is
saved.
• A similar coastal water agency in California with
an active, ongoing leak detection and repair pro-
gram has reduced the leakage rate from above 10
percent to about 4 percent in recent years.
documents average replacement rate averages about 6.8
miles per year which assumes a lifespan of about 130
years.171 Therefore, much of the pipe is in a seriously aged
condition. Until recently, and for over five years MMWD
did not have a dedicated crew and active program for
proactively surveying for leaks and only responded to re-
ports of serous pipe breaks.172 However, MMWD recently
dedicated full time two staff equipped with sonic leak de-
tection technology to an ongoing leak detection effort.173
The 20X2020 Agency Team water conservation planning
process initiated by California’s Governor is evaluating
an unaccounted and leakage target of no more than 40
gallons per service connection per day as a statewide
minimum standard.174 This calculates to about 9% for the
MMWD service area. Table 18 tallies the MMWD distri-
bution system unaccounted water from 1990 to 2008.

• By achieving a reduction in losses and leakage
of at least 4 percent from the existing average
of over 10 percent, water savings of 1,200 afy or
more would be obtained at a marginal cost of
about $265 per acre-foot of saved water.
MMWD reports an average distribution system unac-
counted loss rate of around 10 percent168 As noted in
MMWD staff reports, for every one percent reduction
in leakage, about 300 afy is saved.169 MMWD has over
900 miles of pipelines.170 According to MMWD staff
As shown in Table 18, in recent years, the unaccounted
losses and leakage rate is higher than 10 percent, and av-
eraged close to 12 percent in the last four years. MMWD
staff note that the customer end use water meters typical
run slow as they age and staff believes this may account
for a substantial portion of the unaccounted water use.176
Inaccurate meters undoubtedly account for some portion
of the unaccounted use. The 20X2020 Agency Team is
recommending a water meter maintenance program so
that the inaccurancy rate does not exceed 2.5 percent.
MMWD’s inaccuracy rate may be higher but the actual
rate is unknown. However, MMWD does have aging

Table 18: MMWD Billed Consumption, Production and Unaccounted Losses175

Year Billed Potable Unbilled Use Unaccounted Percent AF Saved if
Consumption Production Unaccounted Reduced to 6%
1990 25,683 28,972 148 3,141 10.8% 1403
1991 19,516 21,332 108 1,708 8.0% 428
1992 21,804 23,597 144 1,649 7.0% 233
1993 23,151 25,193 181 1,861 7.4% 349
1994 24,605 27,290 683 2,002 7.3% 365
1995 24,973 27,431 216 2,242 8.2% 596
1996 25,655 28,255 170 2,430 8.6% 735
1997 27,150 29,834 92 2,592 8.7% 802
1998 25,235 28,133 110 2,788 9.9% 1100
1999 27,283 29,696 185 2,228 7.5% 446
2000 28,244 30,459 164 2,051 6.7% 223
2001 28,848 31,787 132 2,807 8.8% 900
2002 28,043 31,834 101 3,690 11.6% 1780
2003 27,195 30,467 406 2,866 9.4% 1038
2004 28,084 31,073 66 2,923 9.4% 1059
2005 25,727 28,982 75 3,180 11.0% 1441
2006 25,372 28,930 84 3,474 12.0% 1738
2007 25,617 29,018 41 3,360 11.6% 1619
2008 26,100 29,327 75 3,152 10.7% 1392

38 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

 Reservoir Operation Improvements
infrastructure and until very recently did not have a well-
organized distribution system leak detection and repair California now has an extensive dam and reservoir sys-
program. Also, Marin has much clay soil that expands tem that includes over 1,200 major dams that provide
and contracts during wet and dry cycles. This can contrib- most of the agricultural and urban water supply. Most of
ute to pipe leakage problems. Given these factors, high the dams were constructed with the purpose of provid-
leakage rate is likely and may account for a large portion ing both flood control and water supply. An extensive
of the unaccounted losses. levee system was also constructed along many of Califor-
nia’s rivers. The levees were conceived of as a floodplain
By comparison, San Luis Obispo Water Utility, through management concept referred to as the “single channel”
an ongoing effort following the procedures in the AWWA approach. The idea was to provide a deep, high-velocity
Water Audits and Loss Control Manual, reduced the un- single-channel pathway to shed floodwater to the sea. The
accounted losses rate from over 10 percent to an average dams and levees were intended to provide a system where
of about 4 percent in recent years.177 It should be noted major runoff and snow-melt events could be temporarily
that San Luis Obispo service area also includes a large captured and released from the dams in a quantity that
number of old water meters178 that presumably have a could be contained as high-velocity flows within the levee
slow running calibration problem similar to MMWD’s system. To provide adequate space within reservoirs for
meters. Table 19 below, provides a comparison MMWD upcoming big runoff events, it as often necessary to lower
and San Luis Obispo. reservoir levels in advance. Later, as the rainfall and
snow-melt season draws to a close, managers attempt to
Using the same data for measurement points between top up the reservoirs again to provide water supply for
these two agencies, it is clear that MMWD has consider- the upcoming summer dry season.
able potential for improvement.
In practice, this operational scheme has proven much
Recommendation more problematic than was originally anticipated, and
involves many inherent conflicts. Flood management
By achieving a reduction in losses and leakage of at least
authorities are interested in removing as much water
4 percent from the existing average rate of well over 10
as quickly as possible from the system, thereby reduc-
percent in recent years, savings of 1,200 afy or more
ing available water supply. Water supply managers are
would be obtained. If necessary, additional resources
interested in retaining as much water as possible in the
should be dedicated to this effort and the procedures
system, thereby reducing flood management capability.
outlined in the AWWA Water Audits and Loss Control
California’s highly variable weather patterns no doubt
Manual should be carefully followed. The marginal cost
lead to many sleepless nights for flood and water supply
for this measure identified in MMWD’s 2007 Water
managers trying to forecast upcoming weather events
Conservation Master Plan is $265 per acre-foot of water.
to adequately manage the system and balance these
The actual cost to achieve a reduction of 4 percent may be
tradeoffs. Despite their best efforts, California often has
higher than $265 per acre-foot, but is still likely very cost-
serious floods — sometimes in the same years that water
effective compared to the cost of new supply options.
supply shortages occur. Much water-supply yield is lost
to flood management and much flood-control potential is
lost to water supply management. A false sense of secu-
rity provided by the levees often leads to inappropriate
Table 19: MMWD & SLO Unaccounted development in the floodplain that can result in costly
and dangerous flood disasters.
Losses Comparison179
Year MMWD San Luis Obispo Environmental conditions in California’s watershed have
Unaccounted Unaccounted seriously declined as a result of the altered natural pro-
1999 7.5% 3.9% cesses caused by dams and levees. Altered hydropatterns
2000 6.7% 2.7% (the timing and quantity of flows) confuse many native
2001 8.8% 5.8% species that depend on river pulse signals. Altered hydro-
2002 11.6% 8.4% patterns also reduce rivers’ ability to provide “geomor-
2003 9.4% 3.8% phic” (earth changing) flows that transport different types
2004 9.4% 6.8%
of sediment and create and maintain needed complex
2005 11.0% 4.1%
habitat features. The isolation of rivers from their flood-
2006 12.0% 8.5%
2007 11.6% 2.4%
plains reduces wetland habitat and groundwater recharge
2008 10.7% <0.1% and alters water quality.180

Food & Water Watch 39

Photo by Daniel Cardiff/iStockphoto.
The system of water facilities that includes dams and
levees has contributed to California’s economic develop-
ment. It has also come at a cost that was not anticipated
and is now becoming better understood and recognized.
This is leading to calls from many researchers and public
interest groups to better manage and reoperate the sys-
tem using integrated watershed and floodplain manage-
ment practices to provide necessary economic benefits
while improving the environmental health of the system.
Resolving the inherent water management conflicts with
better integrated management practices will be a key is-
sue in addressing California’s water problems.181
The Russian River portion of Marin’s water supply is sub-
ject to many of these issues, but is not directly managed
by MMWD. In the case of MMWD’s seven local reser-
voirs, management for flood control is not required as
part of licensing agreements for the dams. Therefore, the
management of MMWD’s reservoirs is less complex. But
operation schemes do affect the calculated water-supply
yield. The year-to-year management of the reservoirs also
affects the actual year-to-year water supply. For example,
some reservoirs have a higher evaporation rate due to
higher surface area per volume than others. By moving
water from high-evaporation reservoirs to Kent Lake,
which has a relatively low evaporation rate due to less
40 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
surface area per volume, some increase in yield may be
obtained. Also, moving water from Nicasio Reservoir to
Kent Lake reservoirs to reduce spillage during moderately
high rainfall years, when Nicasio would spill but Kent
would not, can increase the system yield.182
As is clear in the customer opinion surveys conducted
by MMWD, most residents prefer to better manage and
make do with the existing water system rather than pur-
sue large new supply projects. MMWD staff has recently
developed a proposal for reservoir operation improve-
ments.183 The proposal has three components. The first is
to modify the pump system to include one mile of floating
pipeline along with pumps and barges in Alpine Lake to
recover more water when the reservoirs are extremely
low. This will allow collecting some of the water remain-
ing in low depressions in the reservoir. This additional
water would be unavailable to the existing pump system
and for stream flow releases. The second is to construct
an additional half-mile of pipe and outlet structure on
Kent Lake to capture more of the wet-season spillage
from Nicasio Reservoir. The third is to upsize a pump
station in Corte Madera to allow better management of
reservoir water levels and optimize the use of water in the
western reservoirs of Soulajule, Nicasio, and Kent Lake.
There is some environmental concern regarding the
transfer of water from Nicasio Reservoir to Kent Lake.
Lagunitas Creek hosts what is documented to be the
largest surviving population of native Coho salmon on
the Central Coast.184 Lagunitas Coho are listed as “en-
dangered” at both the state and federal level.185 Prior to
construction of the major dams on Lagunitas and Nica-
sio Creeks, the Lagunitas Coho run probably numbered
approximately 5,000 fish per year. 186 In the 1990s, the
number of returning Coho was on average 500 per year,
or 10 percent of historical levels. 187 More recently, in
2008, MMWD survey teams observed only 45 returning
Coho, representing a 91 percent decline generally con-
sistent with recent salmon declines in other California
streams and rivers.188
Coho salmon have highly developed olfactory senses.189
Fisheries scientists believe that out migrating juvenile
salmon are imprinted with the smell of their home
waters.190 After the ocean stage of their life cycle, adult
Salmon then use their sensory apparatus to navigate back
to their streams and creeks of birth to spawn and repro-
duce.191 Transferring water between different watersheds
has the potential to alter the water quality characteristics
of downstream releases.
The watersheds for Kent Lake and Nicasio reservoirs con-
tain similar geology and rock types.192 However, while the
Kent watershed is primarily undeveloped wildland, the
Nicasio watershed contains a modest amount of develop-
ment and considerable grazing lands. This has the po-
tential to alter Nicasio water chemistry and in particular
introduce a higher level of nutrients and sediments.193 As
water is stored in Nicasio during the dry summer period,
lake temperatures are also known to rise much higher
than Kent Lake temperatures.194 The warmer, more
nutrient-rich Nicasio water will host different biological
activity. This altered water chemistry has the potential to
confuse migrating salmon.
Furthermore, while Lagunitas Creek is a rare example of
a California stream with few non-native aquatic species
competing with the native species, Nicasio is known to
host numerous non-native aquatic species that seed areas
of Lagunitas Creek downstream of the confluence with
Nicasio Creek.195 The introduction of non-native fish such
as carp, bluegill, large-mouth bass and other organisms
in water transferred to Kent Lake that eventually spill
into Lagunitas Creek could impact native species and
compromise recovery goals for listed salmonids.196
These issues do not appear to be insurmountable, but
need to be carefully evaluated and addressed in moving
forward with a plan to transfer water from Nicasio to
Kent. If the transfers occur in the winter and early spring,
Food & Water Watch
before Nicasio water warms in the summer, this may
minimize potential problems. Also, if relatively little wa-
ter is transferred from Nicasio compared to the volume of
receiving water in Kent, and the water is well-mixed, this
could also minimize potential problems. Effective screens
may be needed to avoid the introduction of non-native
species to Kent. Also, a means to avoid live larval transfer
may need to evaluated.
Another project to improve reservoir management could
occur at Phoenix Lake. The pump that moves Phoenix
Lake water to the treatment plant has not been used in
10 years and is inoperable. A replacement pump was
recently ordered. Staff indicates that water from Phoe-
nix Lake is included in water supply yield calculation.
However, since it has not been used in the last 10 years,
it has not contributed to actual water supply availability,
particularly during the recent spell of dry years. Phoenix
Lake holds 411 acre-feet and is often one of the first to
spill during the rainfall season. Since Phoenix drains
through Corte Madera Creek, its spillage is not captured
by any of the other reservoirs.
MMWD staff indicates that 70 percent, or about 288
acre-feet, can be recovered from Phoenix Lake with an
operative pumping system.197 If Phoenix is managed to
recover this 288 acre-feet for several pump-and-fill cycles
in a single rainy season, some additional water supply
would be available that was not available in recent years.
This could be done while still maintaining a high Phoe-
nix Lake level at the end of the rainy season to provide
stream releases for Corte Madera Creek aquatic life. In
addition, better management of Phoenix Lake for water
supply yield may also provide flood benefits for flood-
prone areas along Corte Madera Creek.198 Corte Madrea
Creek aquatic life could also benefit from managing Phoe-
nix Lake to help reduce flood-stage and unnaturally high
channel-flow velocities during high runoff events.
Recommendation
Provided environmental issues are properly addressed,
operational improvements should include the MMWD
staff proposal, which is expected to provide a supply in-
crease of 1,000 acre-feet during drought periods. MMWD
staff reports indicate a total capital cost of about $4
million to implement, but note some reduced energy and
operating cost are expected to result from these improve-
ments.
Some additional operation improvements from Phoe-
nix and improved operation of other reservoirs may be
possible and should be carefully evaluated. Independent
expertise should be engaged for these analyses and be
combined with input from a citizens’ advisory committee
and MMWD’s watershed technical advisory committee.
41
Recycled Water
• MMWD has recycled treated wastewater for
landscape and other appropriate uses since the
1976-77 drought.
• Presently, 650 afy, or 2.2 percent of MMWD’s
water supply, is recycled water. Some additional
water is recycled by local wastewater agencies
independently of MMWD.
• The lack of appropriate large recycled-water us-
ers near treatment facilities and the high cost of
double-piping to deliver recycled water constrain
increasing use of recycled water, but an additional
250 afy is feasible and some additional expan-
sion with small satellite recycling facilities may be
possible.
• Use of graywater by Marin residents provides an
opportunity to recycle household graywater for
on-site landscape use, and California graywater
standards are beginning a revision process that is
expected to result in more flexible and practical
standards for California.
Much of the water on earth is continuously used,
cleansed, and recycled in the natural process known
as the hydrologic cycle. Water that we may think of as
pristine rainfall from Pacific storm systems has a very
long history of evaporating, falling as rainfall, sometimes
flowing into and draining from groundwater basins,
running off into rivers, and evapotranspirating through
plants or flowing to the lakes and sea before evaporating
and starting the cycle again. Along the way, much of this
water now flows through agricultural fields and munici-
pal water supply and wastewater systems. In nature, the
cleansing and reuse of water is certainly a very longstand-
ing practice.
Many people may not realize it or care to think about it
too much, but, as noted, water in North American rivers
is used multiple times by agriculture, water and waste-
water utilities. Municipal water treatment plants have
developed processes to cleanse this water for potable use.
Without question, our water treatment processes have
greatly contributed to human health with the prevention
of much possible waterborne disease. It is not always
obvious, but we have developed impressive potable water
recycling capabilities that are in widespread use.
However, water being recycled for human potable use has
one feature that appears to give the public and regula-
tors considerable peace of mind. The water is returned
to a natural river or waterway, and often for not very
42 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
long or far, before being withdrawn again for treatment
and potable use. This has become accepted practice and
seems practical for communities situated further up in
watersheds where it is possible to discharge wastewater
into rivers before withdrawal again further downstream
(though this does come at considerable environmen-
tal cost to aquatic systems and life). However, it is not
practical for many large coastal urban areas that generate
considerable quantities of wastewater. For coastal urban
areas, there generally are no downstream river stretches
for this type of indirect recycling.
Many coastal urban areas have developed water recy-
cling programs. Wastewater is treated and directly used
for landscape irrigation without first being discharged
to natural waterways for some short length before being
withdrawn and treated again. MMWD has aggressively
and creatively pursued water recycling. Recycled water
now provides 650 afy, or about 2.2 percent, of MMWD’s
supply. In addition, three local sanitation agencies
provide relatively small amounts of local recycled water
separate from MMWD facilities. These include Sanita-
tion Agency of Southern Marin, Central Marin Sanita-
tion Agency, and the Richardson Bay Sanitary District.199
MMWD has also helped develop new uses for directly
recycled water, including toilet flushing and use in car
washes.200 But despite considerable effort and public
support for additional water recycling in Marin, serious
constraints exist which make large increases in recycled
water use very problematic.
The constraints include increased cost due to legally
required monitoring, widespread saline intrusion into
wastewater lines, the high cost of double-piping an
already largely built-out region to deliver the recycled
water in separate pipes from potable water, and a limited
number of suitable large recycled water uses near existing
wastewater treatment facilities.201
Most of Marin’s wastewater treatment plants are located
at low elevations along the San Francisco Bay water-
front and are plagued with saltwater intrusion into the
wastewater collection pipes. In the dry summer irrigation
season, when the recycled water would be most useful,
the wastewater salinity rises above levels most ornamen-
tal landscaping can tolerate.202 However, the most costly
constraint to increased water recycling is the requirement
for double-piping to deliver recycled water. 203 If addi-
tional large appropriate sites existed for using recycled
water near wastewater treatment plants, a shorter piping
run would be needed and the cost would be lower.
Although few people who do not understand the present
situation with the frequent reuse of wastewater through
river systems would find this appealing, and it is not
recommended in this report in the near future in Marin,
there may come a time when pipe-to-pipe recycling for
potable supply may be viable and necessary in North
America. If so, and the energy and potential malfunc-
tioning problems can be adequately resolved, it would
be a much more appropriate use of reverse osmosis
technology compared to desalination of seawater or bay
water. Wastewater could be treated with existing reverse
osmosis technology at much lower energy and potential
environmental cost than seawater. This would also be
a much higher treatment standard than typical potable
water treatment facilities now use to treat water that has
often been used multiple times on agricultural fields and
discharged as urban wastewater.
If it one day became acceptable for direct potable reuse, it
would dramatically improve the water recycling poten-
tial for Marin and much of coastal California, and would
resolve much of the water supply problem for California’s
urban areas. In a step in that direction, Orange County
is injecting the reverse osmosis treated wastewater into
groundwater basins for storage and “polishing” with
Photo by StockXpert.
Food & Water Watch
natural microbial activity before extracting it for potable
use. Given the very limited groundwater situation in
Marin, that approach is less viable here.
Fortunately, many more appealing options recommended
in this report are now available for MMWD customers.
Presently, the best approach for more widespread water
reuse in Marin will be graywater systems installed and
maintained by interested and willing households. In
essence, residents can use their untreated graywater for
onsite recycled use in their landscape. Widespread use of
graywater could help forestall the day when pipe-to-pipe
potable recycling may become an unavoidable necessity.
Interested readers are referred to the Cisterns and Gray-
water section in this report for more detail on graywater.
At this point some modest increase in treated recycled
water use in the MMWD service area is possible. MMWD
staff has identified another 250 afy of potential expanded
landscape use of recycled water from the Las Gallinas fa-
cility. This should be incorporated into the overall water
management program. The most promising possibility
to expand recycled water use beyond the 250-afy Las
Gallinas expansion may be to develop satellite treatment
facilities located close to large landscape water users. The
following statement is found in MMWD’s 2005 Urban
Water Management Plan.204
The GIS analysis of landscape opportunities discussed in
other sections of this report could include an analysis of
potential sites for satellite recycled water facilities and
nearby large recycled water users. If the marginal cost is
found to be in the $3,000 to $4,000 range per acre-foot,
it would still be cost-competitive with desalination and be
available at reduced environmental and energy cost.
Recommendation
Increase recycling by 250 afy, conduct GIS analysis of
potential satellite recycled facilities and work to expand
graywater use by MMWD customers as an alternative to
centralized water recycling.
43
Potential Additional Water
Management Improvements
Urban Area Rain Harvesting, Cisterns and
Graywater
• During previous droughts, many MMWD cus-
tomers have collected and used rainwater and
graywater on their landscapes.

• Rain harvesting and rain gardens can help reduce

flood risk in some areas of Marin while improving
storm water quality and increasing groundwater
recharge and use.

• Although California standards for legal graywater

systems are very restrictive, a process to revise
the standards is underway and is expected to
result in more flexible and practical standards by
January 1, 2011.

The wet winter/dry summer climate in Marin makes

rainwater harvesting less attractive compared to other re-
gions where rain occurs throughout the year. Therefore, it
appears unlikely that rainwater harvesting will soon play
a major water supply role in Marin. However, it has the
potential to play a helpful role, particularly during future
serious droughts. For example, in the 1976-77 drought of Photo by StockXpert.
record,Marin received 22 inches of rain the first year and
it can slowly infiltrate into local groundwater basins for
25 inches the second year.
use during summer dry spells or future droughts, or to
help rewater and maintain flows in nearby creeks during
During serious drought periods, many MMWD customers
the dry season.207
reported the use of rainwater harvesting as a mechanism
to supplement district water supplies. In MMWD’s 1994
Rain harvesting also has the potential to play a helpful
Water Conservation Baseline Study, 56 percent of single-
role in reducing flood problems in parts of Marin. Some
family telephone survey respondents indicated they col-
of the low-lying urbanized areas of Marin experience
lected and used rainwater during the then-recent 6-year
much more frequent and damaging flood events com-
drought.205 Rainwater collection can and did play a key
pared to droughts. Impermeable surfaces such as roads,
role in saving prized trees and other landscape features
parking lots and roofs in urban areas contribute to floods.
during these conditions. This is not surprising since many
Rainwater collection by homeowners can hold back and
communities in other regions of the world live primar-
slow down the runoff from heavy rain events, reducing
ily on local rainwater harvesting and have designed their
flooding problems in low-lying areas while also providing
communities with this in mind.206 Substantial benefits
water supply benefits.208
are also possible in California if communities are progres-
sively reshaped to reduce landscape water needs while
Involving people in small-scale rainwater harvesting
improving rainwater capture, retention, and infiltration
activities also has the benefit of actively engaging people
to groundwater storage.
in thinking about and monitoring their water use. In
Texas, Austin and San Antonio have provided subsidized,
Rainwater capture systems can range from very simple
low-cost 75-gallon rain barrels to customers to capture
barrels with hose connections that collect rainwater from
rainwater for use on landscapes. It is very popular with
roof gutters and downspouts for manually irrigating
the public and is seen as a gateway program leading
nearby landscaping, to several-thousand-gallon tanks
participants to other water conservation activities.209 San
with filtration systems connected to permanent irriga-
Francisco Public Utilities Commission has begun offer-
tion systems. A well-designed system also uses landscape
ing discounted 60-gallon rain barrels with hose fittings to
features to hold water in settling ponds and swales where
residents through a local hardware supplier. As recently

44 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

noted by Mayor Newsom, “Rainwater harvesting is a
simple, safe, and sustainable way to help conserve our
precious drinking water supplies, green our city and pro-
tect our environment.” 210
Marin has some excellent examples of residential sites
remodeled for rainwater harvesting. Sustainable Fairfax
has a demonstration rain garden site in Fairfax that is
open to the public. The site is a house built in the 1920s
on a typical urban-sized lot. The roof has an effective sur-
face area of 500 square feet. All the gutters are drained
into a collection tank that overflows in high runoff events
into a series of small constructed onsite ponds and swales
that provide infiltration to groundwater. In average rain-
fall years, the roof collects about 13,500 gallons for use
in the landscape. Additional rain that falls directly on the
landscape is also collected in the ponds and swales.211
The site was developed from a typical residential land-
scape using only hand tools and methods that can be
utilized by home gardeners. The site features drought-
tolerant landscaping, and in addition to improving
natural hydrologic function, is exceptionally attractive.
More information on this site can be found at www.
sustainablefairfax.org. This site represents an admirable
step forward in better management of natural resources.
It combines improvements in flood management, water
supply reliability, groundwater recharge, stormwater
quality, and improved community aesthetics into one
package. It is entirely practical for many active gardeners
to begin transitioning their landscapes into environmen-
tally friendly rain gardens.
MMWD could help reduce the cost of rain harvesting by
partnering with other local agencies for bulk purchasing of
rainwater tanks and other necessary equipment. A multi-
agency GIS analysis as part of an updated water conser-
vation baseline study, also discussed in the Landscape
Irrigation and Groundwater sections of this report, would
be ideal for targeting the most appropriate areas for rain
gardens to help reduce flood risk and improve ground-
water management. Rather than attempting to construct
one or a few large retention ponds for flood management,
which will be difficult to site in the developed low-lying
areas, a mosaic of small retention ponds and rain gardens
could be utilized. This would also reduce the risk of failure
of a large retention area that could result in catastrophic
flooding of downstream areas. Information on this ap-
proach should be included in the landscape seminar series
and an exhibit on this issue at the County fair would be
appropriate. It is also a tangible measure to include in
school education programs. In addition, it would also be
worthwhile to explore combining rainwater catchment
systems with graywater systems.
Food & Water Watch
Graywater
Graywater is water from laundry, showers, and bathroom
sinks that can be used onsite for irrigation. It does not in-
clude toilet, kitchen sink, or dishwasher water due to the
high bacteria and possibly high pathogen count of water
from these sources. There is a long history of graywater
use in the California and the MMWD service area with
highly variable systems ranging from simple buckets to
more elaborate diversion pipes and irrigation compo-
nents. Graywater can provide a supplement to irrigation
water throughout the summer irrigation season and
provide critical landscape irrigation water during Califor-
nia’s infrequent but inevitable droughts. In a residential
setting, the average person generates about 30 gallons of
graywater per day.212 A household of two or more people
can generate a considerable quantity of graywater. During
drought periods, many MMWD customers used graywa-
ter to water prized landscaping.
In 1997, California adopted Appendix G to the plumb-
ing code which provides standards for the installation
of graywater systems. However, the standards are very
restrictive.213 As a result, few legal graywater systems
exist in California, although many non-code systems
are known to exist. In 2001, Arizona adopted graywater
standards that are more flexible, practical, and effective
than California’s standards.214 In 2008, S.B.1258 was
adopted in California, requiring review and revision of
California’s graywater standards. Given the less restric-
tive and more effective standards in nearby Arizona and
the widespread call for more effective water management
in California, more practical standards are likely in Cali-
fornia in the next year or two. The initial kick-off meeting
for the revision to the California graywater standards was
held on February 25, 2009. There was a widespread call
by meeting attendees representing a broad spectrum of
California water interests, including a staff water quality
expert from MMWD, for California standards consistent
with the Arizona standards.215
The District funded a recent evaluation of the cost of
graywater systems under the presently existing California
standards.216 The marginal cost was determined to range
from $2,250 per acre-foot for a basic code legal system to
$3,211 for the same system with backflow prevention and
expansion tank, which would allow connection into an ex-
isting potable water irrigation system.217 While more costly
compared to other conservation options, on a marginal
cost basis it is competitive with the desalination option
which is $3,600 to $4,400 per acre-foot for the 5 MGB fa-
cility and $2,900 to $3,500 per acre-foot for the 10 MGD
facility. The study found that if 10 percent of residential
customers installed and used a graywater system, 680
afy may be saved.218 If California adopts standards that
reduce the cost and difficulty of installing graywater sys-
45

Photo by John Byer/Stock.Xchng.
tems, this option will become increasingly viable. As noted
in the recycled water section of this report, given the high
cost of dual piping systems for delivering treated recycled
water for irrigation, graywater systems provide the unique
ability to environmentally conscious residents to recycle
some of their used water on-site for landscaping.
Recommendation
MMWD should continue to participate in and support
practical revisions of the California graywater standards.
Given the potential for more practical and cost-effective
systems in the near future and the experience MMWD
customers have with graywater and rain harvesting dur-
ing droughts, this option should continue to be evaluated
and may ultimately provide a modest but helpful reliable
savings of 500 afy or considerably more. In addition, it
may also be possible to link graywater systems with rain-
water harvesting systems to improve the cost-effective-
ness of both options and improve the overall benefit.
46 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
Groundwater
• Marin’s geology typically provides poor aquifer
potential and therefore seriously limits large-
scale groundwater use compared to many parts of
California.
• Some groundwater use does occur in the service
area and better management and recharge activ-
ity has the potential for providing limited but
helpful increased supply while improving local
creek habitat.
• Naturally occurring groundwater mounds that
may have the potential to provide additional
critical supply during serious drought periods
probably surround local reservoirs and should be
further evaluated.
• Past MMWD groundwater studies were too limit-
ed in geographic and technical scope to adequate-
ly evaluate the full potential to provide additional,
environmentally friendly groundwater supply.
Presently, MMWD’s local municipal water supply is
based entirely on surface water from its seven reservoirs
along with a small amount of recycled wastewater. In
general, Marin’s geology typically provides poor large-
scale aquifer potential compared with that of many parts
of California.
Geologic studies indicate Marin’s geology primarily
consists of Franciscan Complex, which is generally made
up of three rock types.219 The first is pillow basalt rocks
formed by volcanism at the point of seafloor spreading.220
The second is radiolarian chert formed from the deposi-
tion of countless single-celled radiolarian zooplankton
deposited on the seafloor and compacted into rock.221
The third rock type is graywacke formed from terrestrial
sediments deposited in subduction zone trenches that
were metamorphosed and faulted back to the surface.222
Significant amounts of greenstone, shale, sandstone, and
serpentine also are know to exist in the region.223 Due
to their presence in the vicinity of active fault zones such
as the San Andreas fault, and the fact that many were
scraped up off the seafloor and jammed together, these
rocks are now distributed in a complex, non-uniform,
highly fractured arrangement.224
Some areas of Marin, including much of the Marin
Headlands and Bolinas Ridge, consist of well-cemented
Franciscan Complex coherent rocks.225 These coherent
formations, with very little effective porosity, provide
particularly poor groundwater potential. However, most
of southern Marin is composed of Franciscan Complex
mélange. These are much less cemented and consolidated
rocks that were ground up by tectonic plate collisions and
faulting.226 The mélange formations have some limited
groundwater potential in areas of higher porosity, fis-
sures and pockets of unconsolidated material.
Numerous bands of alluvial surface deposits laid down
by relatively recent erosion forces exist in Marin.227 The
larger alluvial bands include areas along Arroyo Corte
Madera del Presidio in Mill Valley, along Corte Madera
Creek and Sleepy Hollow Creek though the Ross Val-
ley area, the Dominican and Terra Linda area in North
San Rafael, along Miller Creek north of San Rafael and
west of Highway 101, the San Geronimo Valley along Sir
Francisco Drake Boulevard, and in the vicinity of Nicasio
Reservoir.228 These alluvial deposits hold the best prom-
ise for aquifer use, but are generally believed to be fairly
thin, limiting the total storage potential.229 However, no
evidence was found indicating MMWD has conducted a
comprehensive study of groundwater potential in most of
these areas.
Some private groundwater use is known to occur in
several of these alluvial deposits including in the San
Geronimo Valley, the Dominican area in San Rafael and
in Mill Valley. A groundwater investigation funded by
MMWD in 1978 found considerable private use of the
Ross Valley aquifer and indicated that further develop-
ment of the aquifer was possible.230 Furthermore, in 1993,
about 3 percent of single-family residential respondents
in MMWD’s Water Conservation Baseline Study reported
the use of well water at their sites.231
But MMWD’s desalination EIR quickly rejects further
study of groundwater potential in Marin. The following
is the entire analysis for a groundwater alternative in
MMWD’s Desalination EIR:232
6.3.9 Groundwater
Groundwater in the area is very limited and is found
in fractures of the Franciscan Formation or in shal-
low alluvial deposits in valleys. In the mid-1970s,
MMWD explored possible well locations in the
Marin Headlands just north of the Golden Gate on
Mount Tamalpais and found that, after several days
of pumping at relatively low rates, the wells began
to show significant drawdown. A report prepared in
1978 on the groundwater potential of Ross Valley, the
area’s largest contained alluvial deposit, found that
the capacity of that source was very limited and al-
ready was being used for landscape irrigation by both
public and private parties (Ellis and Associates 1978).
Due to the lack of significant aquifers in the MMWD
service area, it was determined that developing ad-
Food & Water Watch
ditional groundwater sources would not meet the
project objectives. Therefore, this alternative was not
carried forward for environmental review.
A review of the 1978 Ellis and Associates report reveals
that the EIR is very misleading. Here is language in the
report from the chapter on the Ross aquifer titled “Basin
Potential”:
“It is apparent that only a small portion of the local
groundwater potential has been developed to the present
time. Therefore, additional use of wells, properly imple-
mented, would further conserve the water resource and
also enhance the supply of the MMWD system.”233
Furthermore, the desalination EIR analysis makes no
mention whatsoever of a more recent MMWD-funded
study of groundwater potential on the MMWD watershed.
The November 2004 study, titled Ground Water Sup-
ply Alternatives, Upper Lagunitas Creek Catchment and
conducted by GSi/water, studied groundwater potential
in limited areas surrounding the MMWD watershed lakes
and an ancient slide formation area near Alpine Lake.
GSi/water was directed to look for sources of groundwater
that could yield up to 3,000 afy and concluded, the “likeli-
hood of success appears to be reasonable. We have used
conservative assumptions in the processes that we think
apply to the geology and hydrology of the setting.”234 The
study went on to note that the validity of the “results and
interpretations can be tested only by drilling.” 235 But no
further investigation was done of this possibility.236
As noted in the recent GSi/water study, naturally oc-
curring groundwater mounds called bank storage may
surround the reservoirs in MMWD’s watershed. These
may have the potential to provide additional critical sup-
ply during serious drought periods. Some of this water
may naturally flow very slowly into the reservoirs during
drought periods when the reservoirs have very low water
levels. With strategically placed wells and pumps, it may
be possible to accelerate this process and capture addi-
tional groundwater during droughts. This groundwater
would then be naturally recharged during subsequent wet
years. 237 The study also found that several hundred acre-
feet per year of groundwater may be available from an an-
cient slide formation near Alpine Lake.238 If so, it may be
possible to extract and pipe it into the existing reservoir
system for processing through the existing treatment and
distribution system. Both possibilities should be further
evaluated.
Even these two studies are very limited in technical and
geographic scope and are far from a comprehensive
evaluation of the MMWD service area. Several modern
geotechnical techniques exist for locating useful reserves
47
of groundwater in complex geological structures without
the expense of borehole drilling. Electrical tests can help
detect water-saturated rock, which is more electrically
conductive than unsaturated rock.239 Another possibility
is the use of seismic waves, generated with a mild explo-
sive or sometimes with just a sledgehammer on a metal
plate.240 These techniques, along with existing data sets
and GIS tools, could be useful in mapping potential aqui-
fer pockets and alluvial bands in Marin.
While large-scale groundwater use is limited in Marin by
local geology, better management and recharge activ-
ity has the potential for providing a modest but helpful
increase in water available for local irrigation use. There
is also an important linkage to flood management in the
urbanized eastern corridor of Marin.
With urban development, the increase in impermeable
surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and roofs decreases
naturally occurring groundwater recharge and collects
and accelerates surface stormwater runoff into hazardous
flood flows. In fact, the flood damage interval for many
Marin communities is more frequent than the drought
interval.241 Slowing, storing, and infiltrating storm
runoff through key urban watershed areas will decrease
downstream flood problems while recharging small local
aquifers.
This may be possible with a mosaic of small retention
ponds and encouraging rain gardens in strategically iden-
tified areas. This increased groundwater could then offset
some present irrigation use and provide additional water
during drought years. Local groundwater irrigation use
could occur without the expense of piping the ground-
Photo by Andrej Kropotov/iStockphoto.t
48 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
water back to MMWD treatment facilities then back to
users. Improved groundwater recharge could also play a
role in rewatering small creeks and streams during the
summer dry season, which would improve aquatic habitat
conditions.
Recommendation
A thorough, districtwide analysis of groundwater poten-
tial is warranted. This analysis should make use of USGS
data along with MarinMap and MMWD’s GIS databases.
The use of modern geotechnical tools for better mapping
and assessing local aquifers in the watershed and east-
ern urbanized corridor should also be considered. This
analysis should be done working in partnership with local
flood management agencies and watershed groups to bet-
ter evaluate the potential for increased groundwater use
while also reducing local flood risk, improving storm-
water quality and enhancing local creek habitat and dry
season flows.
While large-scale local groundwater production appears
unrealistic, improved groundwater management to pro-
tect local creeks and streams and some increased small
scale groundwater use may be economically feasible and
play a helpful, environmentally friendly role in improving
supply reliability in MMWD’s service area.
Given adequate analysis and development of the potential
options, a modest increase in groundwater use of about
500 afy may be possible. As noted in the GSi/water report
conducted for MMWD, an increase to 1,000 afy or con-
siderably more may also be possible.
Appendix: MMWD Rainfall Graph

Years (1879-2008)

Food & Water Watch 49

Endnotes 31 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, MMWD, p.23.
32 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, MMWD, p.31.
33 Water use estimates compiled from MMWD “1994 Water
1 “2008-09 Fact Sheet.” Marin Municipal Water District, June 21,
Conservation Baseline Study”, MMWD Water Use brochure, and
2008.
“Orange County Saturation Study,” A Study by the Metropolitan
2 “2008-09 Fact Sheet.” Op. cit.
Water District of Southern California and the Municipal Water
3 “A History of Our Rainfall.” Marin Municipal Water District,
District of Orange County, July 24, 2002.
included as Appendix A, also available at www.marinwater.org.
34 Fryer, James. Demand Elasticity During a Drought, Conserv99
4 “A History of Our Rainfall.” Op. cit.
Proceedings, American Water Works Association, January, 1999.
5 Compiled from “Report on Water Production and Related
35 “Water Conservation Baseline Study Final Report.” Marin
Statistics.” MMWD, June 2006 and “2005 Urban Water
Municipal Water District Prepared by DMC with PMCL, April 6,
Management Plan.” MMWD, Adopted January 18, 2006,
1994. p.1.
Appended October 2006. Both available at www.marinwater.org.
36 “Water Conservation Baseline Study Final Report.” Op. cit., p.1,
6 “Report on Water Production and Related Statistics.” Op. cit.,
34 , 84.
p.14.
37 “MMWD Survey and Topline Report.” Charlton Research
7 Billed consumption from “MMWD Consumption by Resi Code”
Company, June 25, 1997.
Excel spreadsheet provided by MMWD staff, Potable and recycled
38 “MMWD Survey and Topline Report.” Op. cit., Question 19.
production from “Report on Water Production and Related
39 “MMWD Survey and Topline Report.” Op. cit., Question 53.
Statistics.” Unbilled use from Dana Roxon email forwarded
40 “MMWD Survey and Topline Report.” Op. cit., Question 52.
through Paul Helliker, MMWD General Manager March 18, 2009.
41 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Charlton Research Company,
The 2008 unbilled use is estimated (data not available).
April 16, 2003.
8 “Meeting the Challenge: Water Supply & Demand.” MMWD,
42 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Questions 22, 23, 24.
February 2009, available at www.marinwater.org. A precise
43 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Question 25.
definition of “normal” year demand was not found in MMWD
44 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Questions 26, 27, 28.
planning documents. However, by determining demand to be the
45 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Questions 42, 43, 44,
years of careless and wasteful water use after a series of wet years,
45.
the term “abnormal” water use may be more appropriate.
46 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Questions 46, 47, 48.
9 “Meeting the Challenge: Water Supply & Demand.” Op. cit.
47 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Question 49.
10 “Meeting the Challenge: Water Supply & Demand.” Op. cit.
48 “MMWD Water Options Survey.” Op. cit., Question 52.
MMWD Board Packet Item No. 8 “Water Supply and Demand
49 “Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast” Op. cit., p.173. “Sonoma County
Portfolios.” Attachment 2. October 15, 2008. p2. “2008-09 Fact
While Paper – Proposed Potter Valley Authority.” Environmental
Sheet.” Op. cit.
Center of Sonoma County, a Project of the Sonoma County
11 “A History of Our Rainfall.” Op. cit.
Conservation Council. Available at: http://www.envirocentersoco.
12 Fryer, James. “Rationing, the Plans You Need but Dread to Use.”
org/SCWA/
AWWA Conserv96 Conference Proceedings
50 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity –
13 Hardcopy file with hundreds of local newspaper articles covering
Russian River.” Dana Roxon, January 21, 2009. p.1.
the 1976-77 drought, California Room, Marin County Civic
51 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity” Op. cit.,
Library, Griffin, Martin L., Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast,
p.1. “A Revolution in Water Policy.” Marin Independent Journal,
Sweetwater Springs Press, 1998, p. 139. McCarthy, Michael. “The
April 25, 1975.
Man Who Made it Rain.” Public Ink, April 10, 2006.
52 “Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast.” Op. cit., p.139.
14 ”Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast” Op. cit., p.139.
53 “Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast.” Op. cit., p.139.
15 Angle, Pat. “Boylan quits job on water board.” Marin Independent
54 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity” Op. cit.,
Journal, March 24, 1977.
p.1.
16 Personal phone interview of Martin Griffin, February 26, 2009.
55 “Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast.” Op. cit., p.146.
17 Hardcopy file with hundreds of local newspaper articles covering
56 “MMWD Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.”
the 1976-77 drought, Marin County Civic. “Saving the Marin-
Barakat & Chamberlin, 1994, p.C-3.
Sonoma Coast” Op. Cit., “The Man Who Made it Rain.” Op. cit.
57 “MMWD 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.” Marin Municipal
18 Personal phone interviews of Martin Griffin, February 26, 2009,
Water District. p.5.
and Pamela Lloyd, February 26, 2009.
58 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,
19 Readers interested in more information on this subject are
p.2.
referred to the California Room of the Civic Center branch of the
59 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,
Marin County Library where extensive files are stored containing
p.3.
hundreds of newspaper clippings on the 1976-77 drought and the
60 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,
conflict surrounding the moratorium.
p.3.
20 Liberatore, Paul. “Folk Hero of ’76 Drought.” San Francisco
61 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” Op. cit., p.C-7.
Chronicle, March 31 1988.
62 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,
21 “Rationing, the Plans You Need but Dread to Use.” Ob. Cit.
p. 5, 8.
22 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” Marin
63 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,
Municipal Water District, 1994. p.C-4.
p.5, 6.
23 “Rationing, the Plans You Need but Dread to Use.” Ob. Cit.
64 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,
24 “1995 Urban Water Management Plan.” Marin Municipal Water
p.6.
District, p.47.
65 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,
25 “Rationing, the Plans You Need but Dread to Use.” Ob. Cit.
p.6.
26 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 5, “Ordinance No. 387,
66 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,
Modifications to Chapter 13.02 of the District Code – Dry Year
p.6.
Water Use Reduction Program.” February 17, 1999.
67 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,
27 “2007 Water Conservation Master Plan.” Marin Municipal Water
p.5.
District, Appendix A, p.42 of 51.
68 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,
28 Compiled from “2005 Urban Water Management Plan.” MMWD,
p.6.
p.5.
69 MMWD Board Item No. 13, “Water Supply Opportunity.” Op. cit.,
29 Association of Bay Area Governments projection quoted from
p.8.
“2005 Urban Water Management Plan.” MMWD, p. 5.
70 Derived from 5 millions gallons per day, 365 days per year.
30 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 5, Ordinance No. 387, February
17, 1999.

50 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer

71 “RTC Scientists Work to Bring Eelgrass Beds Back to San
Francisco Bay.” Bayside Newsletter, Romberg Tiburon Center/
San Francisco State University, Fall 2006. available at: http://rtc.
sfsu.edu/documents/Bayside_2006.pdf
72 Boyer, Katharyn. Ph.D., Lecture at Audubon Center, Tiburon, CA.,
March 19, 2009.
73 Personal phone interview of Katharyn Boyer, Ph.D, March 27,
2009.
74 Personal phone interview of Katharyn Boyer, Ph.D, March 27,
2009.
75 “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water
District Desalination Project.” URS, December, 2008. Vol II,
p.3-1.
76 “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water
District Desalination Project.” URS, December, 2008. Vol 2, p.3-7.
77 “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water
District Desalination Project.” Op. cit., Vol. II, p.4-5.
78 Wet year and dry year energy use figures from “Final
Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water District
Desalination Project.” Op. cit., Vol. 1, p.5-2.
79 Wet year and dry year energy use figures from “Final
Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water District
Desalination Project.” Op. cit., Vol. 1, p.5-2.
80 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 8, Attachment 7, October 15, 2008
81 PG&E Carbon Footprint Calculator Assumption, available
at: http://www.pge.com/about/environment/calculator/
assumptions.shtml
82 Ecobusinesslink.com Carbon Offset Survey
83 Energy consumption derived from 25 year average use in Table
12.
84 CO2 production derived from PG&E Carbon Footprint Calculator
Assumption, available at: http://www.pge.com/about/
environment/calculator/assumptions.shtml
85 Carbon offset cost calculated from mid point North
American based carbon offset cost of $15/metric ton found in
Ecobusinesslink.com Carbon Offset Survey.
86 Alex Forman, MMWD Board President, Public statement at
MMWD Feb 11, 2009 Board meeting, and “Deconstructing the
Desal Debate.” by Peter Seidman, Pacific Sun, April 2, 2009. p.8.
87 “Desalination Conceptual Cost Estimate” Op. cit.
88 “Desalination Conceptual Cost Estimate.” Op. cit.
89 “Desalination Conceptual Cost Estimate.” Op. cit.. “Seawater
Desalination Pilot Program.” MMWD Engineering Report,
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. January 26, 2007.
90 “Desalination Conceptual Cost Estimate” Op. cit.
91 MMWD Board Packet Item No.10, “Proposed Changes to Title 6 –
Water Service rates and Charges – of the Marin Municipal Water
District Code.” March 4, 2009. p.2.
92 “Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Conservation
in California.” California Urban Water Conservation Council,
available at www.cuwcc.org
93 Based on personal experience of the author when serving as the
Water Conservation Coordinator for MMWD and primary liaison
to the California Urban Water Conservation Council and the water
conservation MOU.
94 “Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water Conservation
in California.” before the December 2008 update.
95 MMWD’s annual reports to the California Urban Water
Conservation Council from 1999 though 2008 can be found at:
www.cuwcc.org.
96 MMWD annual reports to CUWCC available at www.cuwcc.org.
97 Personal discussion with MMWD Watershed and Operations
Manager (title), Steve Phelps, February 11. 2009.
98 MMWD Board Item No. 13, Water Supply Opportunity – Russian
River, Dana Roxon, January 21, 2009. p.1.
99 “Saving the Marin-Sonoma Coast.” Op. cit., p.146.
100 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,
p.C-2.
101 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,
p.C-3.
102 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,
p.C-3.
Food & Water Watch
103 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,
p.C-3.
104 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,
p.C-3.
105 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,
p.C-4.
106 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,
p.C-4.
107 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,
p.C-5.
108 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan.” 1994. Op. cit.,
p.C-6.
109 Public comments of MMWD Board members at February 11, 2009
Board meeting.
110 “2006 Water Management Report.” Marin Municipal Water
District, April 26, 2006.
111 “2006 Water Management Report.” Op. cit., p.i.
112 “2007 Water Conservation Master Plan.” Marin Municipal Water
District, June 20, 2007.
113 “2007 Water Conservation Master Plan.” Marin Municipal Water
District. Maddaus Technical Analysis, p.13 of 51.
114 “2007 Water Conservation Master Plan.” Maddaus Technical
Analysis, Op. cit., p.20 of 51
115 “CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.”
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. p.144.
116 2006 “CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.”
Op. cit., p.144.
117 Public comments of MMWD Board members at February 11, 2009
Board meeting.
118 “Meeting the Challenge: Water Supply & Demand.” MMWD,
February 2009, available at www.marinwater.org. Note that a
customer cost figure of $96 million was initially presented to
the public, but later corrected to $77 million in an email from
Paul Helliker, MMWD General Manager to Mark Schlosberg,
Food and Water Watch California Director, April 20, 2009, and
a PowerPoint presentation at MMWD’s Conservation Action
Committee meeting presented by Dan Carney, MMWD Water
Conservation Manager. April 28, 2009.
119 Email from Paul Helliker, MMWD General Manager to Mark
Schlosberg, Food and Water Watch California Director, April 20,
2009.
120 “2007 Water Conservation Master Plan.” MMWD, Maddaus
Technical Analysis, p.35 of 51.
121 “Conservation Action Committee Staff Presentation.” Marin
Municipal Water District, April 28, 2009. Available at:http://
www.marinwater.org/documents/cac_presentation_april_2009.
pdf
122 “Designing, Evaluating, and Implementing Conservation Rate
Structures.” California Urban Water Conservation Council, July
1997, p.8-18.
Cooley, Heather. “A Review of the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission’s Retail and Wholesale Customer Water demand
Projections.” Pacific Institute, July 2007. p.22.
123 “Water Rates (effective 7-1-08)” Marin Municipal Water District
website: www.marinwater.org. Does not reflect proposed rate
increase for 2009.
124 “Water Rates (effective 7-1-08)” Op. cit.
125 “MMWD 2006 Water Management Report.” Op cit., p.41.
Personal Communication with Dan Carney, MMWD Water
Conservation Manager, January 20, 2009.
126 Personal phone interview of Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation
Manager, San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, January 7, 2009.
127 Board Packet Item No. 8, “Landscape Irrigation Incentive
Program.” Marin Municipal Water District. December 13, 2006.,
p.1.
128 Board Packet Item No. 8, “Landscape Irrigation Incentive
Program.” Op. cit., p.7.
129 Board Packet Item No. 8, “Landscape Irrigation Incentive
Program.” Op. cit., p.35.
130 “2006 Water Management Report.” Op. cit., p.41.
131 AB 325, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 1990.
Available at http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/WaterOrdIn-
dex.cfm
51
132 “Draft New Actions Technical Memo Task 5” 20X2020 Agency
Team on Water Conservation. p.10. Available at http://www.
swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/20x2020/docs/
conceptual_draft2020newactions_task5.pdf
133 Update Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance AB 1881,
California Department of Water Resources website: http://www.
owue.water.ca.gov/landscape/ord/ord.cfm
134 “Draft New Actions Technical Memo Task 5” 20X2020 Agency
Team on Water Conservation. Op. cit., p.9.
135 The 2.7% percent increase is derived from comparing an overall
plant water use factor of 0.5 allowed the proposed new state mod-
el landscape ordinance with water use requirement of a landscape
consistent with MMWD Ordinance 385 including 15% percent
turf, 10% percent high-water-use, and 65% percent low-water-use
planting.
136 Personal communication with Dan Carney, MMWD Water
Conservation Manager, January 20, 2009.
137 “Water Conservation Action Plan for 1997.” Marin Municipal
Water District, Water Conservation Section, January, 1997.
138 Personal phone interview with Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation
Manager, San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, January 7, 2009.
Personal phone interview with Chris Dundon, Water Conservation
Supervisor, Contra Costa Water District, January 12, 2009.
139 Board Packet Item No. 8, “Landscape Irrigation Incentive
Program.” Op. cit., p.7.
140 “2006 Water Management Report.” Op. cit., p.35.
141 “A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape
Plantings in California.” University of California Cooperative Ex-
tension, California Department of Water Resources, August 2000,
p.52.
142 “Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water
Conservation in California.” The Pacific Institute, November
2003. p.63.
143 “Appendix A: Maddaus Conservation Technical Analysis” 2007
Water Conservation Master Plan, MMWD, p.23 of 51.
144 “Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.” CALFED
Bay-Delta Program Water Use Efficiency Element, August 2006.
p.144.
145 “Appendix A: Maddaus Conservation Technical Analysis.” Op. cit.,
p.21 of 51.
146 “Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.” Op. cit., p.144.
147 “Appendix A: Maddaus Conservation Technical Analysis.” Op. cit.,
p.20 of 51.
148 “Appendix A: Maddaus Conservation Technical Analysis.” Op. cit.,
p.21 of 51.
149 “Water Efficiency and Conservation Master Plan” Marin
Municipal Water District, 1994. p.II-2.
150 “2006 Water Management Report” Marin Municipal Water
District, April 26, 2006. p.17.
151 “2006 Water Management Report” Op. cit., p.17.
152 “2006 Water Management Report” Op. cit., p.17.
153 Toilet rebate program information available at: www.marinwater.
org.
154 “2006 Water Management Report” Op. cit., p.17, 59.
155 “2006 Water Management Report” MMWD, April 26, 2006. p.17,
59.
156 Personal phone interview with Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation
Manager, San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, January 7, 2009.
157 “MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan.” Marin Municipal
Water District, June 20, 2007. p.29.
158 “2006 Water Management Report” Op. cit., p.51, 52.
159 “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water
District Desalination Project.” URS, December, 2008. Vol. 2,
p.2-8.
160 “2006 Water Management Report” Op. cit., p.59.
161 “MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan.” Maddaus
Conservation Technical Analysis, June 20, 2007. Appendix A p.21
of 51, and p.22 of 51.
162 “CALFED Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.” Op.
cit., p.144.
163 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 6, “Quarterly Water Conservation
Update and Additional Program Analysis.” November 19, 2008.
p.5.
52 Sustaining Our Water Future by James Fryer
164 “Appendix A: Maddaus Conservation Technical Analysis” 2007
Water Conservation Master Plan, Marin Municipal Water District,
p.20 of 51.
165 Compiled from MMWD annual reports to CUWCC and from
email from Dan Carney, MMWD Water Conservation Manager,
February 3, 2009.
166 1997 and 1998 clothes washer rebate data provided in an email by
Dan Carney, MMWD Water Conservation Manager, February 3,
2009.
167 “Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation.” CALFED
Bay-Delta Program Water Use Efficiency Element, August 2006.
p.145.
168 “MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan” June 20, 2007. p.21.
169 “MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan” Op. cit., p.22.
170 “MMWD 2007 Fact Sheet.” Available at www.marinwater.org.
171 “Annual Pipeline Replacement Summaries” MMWD spreadsheet
provided by Kevin MacDonald to Malcom Harvey, February 1,
2008.
172 “MMWD 2007 Conservation Master Plan.” Op. cit., p.21. Personal
communication with Steve Phelps, MMWD Watershed and
Facilities Manager, February 4, 2009. Personal communication
with Dan Carney, MMWD Water Conservation Manager, January
20, 2009.
173 Personal communication with Steve Phelps, MMWD Watershed
and Facilities Manager, February 4, 2009.
174 “Draft New Actions Technical Memo Task 5” 20X2020 Agency
Team on Water Conservation. p.10. Available at http://www.
swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/20x2020/docs/
conceptual_draft2020newactions_task5.pdf
175 Billed consumption from “MMWD Consumption by Resi Code”
Excel spreadsheet provided by MMWD staff, Potable production
from “Report on Water Production and Related Statistics.”
Unbilled use from Dana Roxon email forwarded through Paul
Helliker, MMWD General Manager March 18, 2009. The 2008
unbilled use is estimated (data not available).
176 Personal phone interview of Dana Roxon, MMWD Assistant
Manager, Environmental & Engineering Services Division, March
26, 2009.
177 Personal phone interview of Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation
Manager, San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, January 7,
2009.
178 Personal phone interview of Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation
Manager, San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, January 7,
2009.
179 MMWD data from Table 18. San Luis Obispo data from annual
BMP reports available at www.cuwcc.org. Both compare billed
and known uses to total production.
180 Fryer, James. “Integrated Floodplain Management” University of
San Francisco. June 1999.
181 “Integrated Floodplain Management” June 1999.
182 Personal phone interview of Dana Roxon, MMWD Assistant
Manager, Environmental & Engineering Services Division, March
26, 2009.
183 MMWD Board Packet Item No. 8, “Water Supply and Demand
Portfolios.” Attachment 2. October, 15, 2008. p.1.
184 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, Conservation Program
Director, SPAWN, April 20, 2009.
185 California Department of Fish and Game website: http://www.
dfg.ca.gov/fish/Resources/Coho/SAL_CohoRecovery.asp
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service website:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-
Populations/Coho/Index.cfm
186 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.
187 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.
188 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.
189 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.
190 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.
191 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.
192 Sloan, Doris. “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region.”
University of California Press. 2006. p.83, 84.
193 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.
194 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.
195 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.
196 Personal interview of Paola Bouley, SPAWN, Op. cit.
197 Personal phone interview of Dana Roxon, MMWD Assistant
Manager, Environmental & Engineering Services Division, March
26, 2009.
198 “Position Paper on Ross Valley Flood Protection and Watershed
Program.” Friends of Corte Madera Creek. January 17, 2007. P.2.
Available at: http://www.friendsofcortemaderacreek.org/rep/
RossValleyWatershedPolicy.pdf
199 “MMWD 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.” Adopted
January 18, 2006, Appended October 2006. p.12, 13.
200 “Update and Review of Recycled Water from CMSA.” MMWD
PowerPoint Presentation on Recycled Water Expansion Study,
December 11, 2007.
201 Castle, Bob. “Update and Review of Recycled Water from CMSA.”
MMWD District Operations Committee Packet Item. December
11, 2007. Personal communication with Bob Castle, MMWD
Water Quality Manager, January, 20, 2009.
202 “Update and Review of Recycled Water from CMSA.” Op. cit., p4.
203 “Update and Review of Recycled Water from CMSA.” Op. cit., p5.
204 “MMWD 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.” Op. cit., p.19.
205 “Water Conservation Baseline Study Final Report.” Op. cit., p.34.
206 Based on the author’s personal experience which includes several
years of traveling and living in relevant places including Bahamas
out islands, Belize offshore islands, Bermuda, Kiribati, Marshall
Islands, Micronesia, and Tuamotus in French Polynesia.
207 “Rain Gardens, A how-to manual for homeowners.” Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, DNR Publications PUB-
WT-779 2003. Available at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/runoff/
rg/rgmanual.pdf
208 “Rain Gardens, A how-to manual for homeowners.” Op. cit., p.2.
209 Personal phone interview of Jennifer Walker, Water Resources
Specialist, Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club, January 27, 2009.
More information available at: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/
watercon/rwrebates.htm and http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/
rainharvesting.html
210 “Mayor Gavin Newsom Launches Rainwater Harvesting Initiative
to Green the City, Conserve Water & Protect the Bay & Ocean.”
San Francisco Public Utilities Department, Communications and
Public Outreach, October, 10, 2008. Available at: http://sfwater.
org/detail.cfm/MC_ID/14/MSC_ID/361/MTO_ID/559/C_
ID/4179
211 Personal phone interview of Pam Hartwell-Herrero, Executive
Director, Sustainable Fairfax, February 19, 2009. More
information on the demonstration rain garden site at: http://
www.sustainablefairfax.org/content/view/184/5/
212 See Table 6 in the Water Supply Yield and Customer Response
to Water Shortages of this report. “Graywater Guidelines.” The
Water Conservation Alliance of Southern Arizona. P.3. Available
at: http://www.watercasa.org./publications.php
213 Sheikh, Ph.D. P.E., “Review of Water Recycling and Graywater”
report for Marin Municipal Water District. April 2001. p.5.
Food & Water Watch
214 “Graywater Guidelines.” The Water Conservation Alliance of
Southern Arizona. Op. cit., p.2.
215 Personal experience of author attending the January 25, 2009
Graywater meeting in Sacramento California.
216 “Review of Water Recycling and Graywater.” Op. cit.
217 “Review of Water Recycling and Graywater.” Op. cit., p.8.
218 “Review of Water Recycling and Graywater.” Op. cit., p.5.
219 Sloan, Doris. “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region”
University of California Press, 2006. p.62.
220 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.62
221 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.62
222 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.62
223 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek
Catchment.” GSi/water, Prepared for Municipal Water District,
November 17, 2004. p.3.
224 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.82, 83.
Personal phone interview of Eric Gorman, Project Geologist in
charge of MMWD Study, GSi/water, January 26, 2009.
225 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p82, 83.
226 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.63.
227 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.8, 82, 83.
228 “Geology of the San Francisco Bay Region” Op. cit., p.82, 83.
229 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek
Catchment.” Op cit., p.16.
230 Ellis and Associates. “Groundwater Resources of Ross Valley.”
Prepared for Marin Municipal Water District, October 1978.
231 MMWD Water Conservation Baseline Study Final Report, Op.
Cit., p.6.
232 “Final Environmental Impact Report, Marin Municipal Water
District Desalination Project.” URS, December, 2008. Vol. I,
p.6-9.
233 Ellis and Associates. “Groundwater Resources of Ross Valley.” Op
cit., p22.
234 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek
Catchment.” Op cit., p.14.
235 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek
Catchment.” Op. cit., p.14.
236 Personal phone interview of Eric Gorman, Project Geologist in
charge of MMWD Study, GSi/water, January 26, 2009.
237 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek
Catchment.” Op. cit., p.42, 44, 57.
238 “Ground Water Supply Alternatives Upper Lagunitas Creek
Catchment.” Op. cit., p.54,55, 57.
239 Pielou, E.C. “Fresh Water.” The University of Chicago Press,
1998., p.39.
240 “Fresh Water.” Op. cit., p.39.
241 “Watershed.” Friends of Corte Madera Creek. Available at: http://
www.friendsofcortemaderacreek.org/ws/watershed.html
53
Food & Water Watch
Main Office California Office
1616 P St. NW, Suite 300 25 Stillman Street, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036 San Francisco, CA 94107
tel: (202) 683-2500 tel: (415) 293-9900
fax: (202) 683-2501 fax: (415) 293-9941
info@fwwatch.org california@fwwatch.org
www.foodandwaterwatch.org