Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0502 CC REG ITEM 11CMOORPARK 1 ITEM / I .C. PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer Council member BERNARDO M. PEREZ Council member LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUMD . ·-···-----·-···-·-·--···--- M E M O R A N O U M The Honorable City Council Craig Phi 11 ips, Admin-i strative Assistant Apri 1 27, 1990 ( for CC meeting of 5-2··90) Water Conservation The current drought is now into Its 4th consecutive year. Past droughts have lasted as long as 7 years. Because of the possibility that the current drought might continue, local water agencies throughout the State are -implementing voluntary water corservation programs. In some cases, where ground water pump"irlg is exceedin~J the recharge rate or reservoir capacity is critically low, they are adopting ordinances to curtail wat.f>r wr1sting practices or to ration water. Water purveyors, such as Metropolitan Water Di s.tri ct (METROPOLITAN) and Calleguas Municipal WatPr Distrkt (CALLEGUAS), are urging voluntary water conservation. Their concern is the reduction in State Project a.ncl Colorado River water reso1;rces. Red11ctions in State Project resources will directly impact V0ntura County. Another problem of concern equal to thP drought is the distribution of water. For example, past legislatfon that would have facilitated an equitab·t e distribution throughout the ~t.ate was defeated by a large majority of northern voters. Another example of the distribution problem is the loss of 300,000 acre feet per year (afy) of the METROPOLITAN Colorado River supply Lo t\rizona and Nr~vada. Th,~ impact of this loss is to place further demand on state resources. METROPOLITAN has i dent if·i ed potent i a -1 expanded water resources. For details see the attached METROPOLITAN DroughtAction Plan for 1990. A more immediate potential source of additional water is tertiary treated effluent. Ventura County Waterworks District Number 1 (WATER~IORKS) discharges secondary trPated effluent to ponds for percc•1ation and evaporatfon. With tl·1;;1 addHion of tert·iar.Y treatment equipment, about 1.5 million qalloll'': pe•· day (gpd) of tertiary treated 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 The Honorable City Council April 27, 1990 Page 2 effluent would be available for landscaping and agricultural applications. If users can be found, the treatment equipment might be added to the plant by the summer of 1991 at a cost of $3 million. The feasibility of this program depends on finding users that are willing to pay the substantial costs to develop and connect to a tertiary water distribution system. WATERWORKS is currently identifying demand for tertiary water. DISCUSSION WATERWORKS receives 25 percent of its water from the Fox Canyon Aquifer and 75 percent from the Feather River State Project. METROPOLITAN is recommending a 10 percent reduction in water use to maintain water in storage for next year in case the drought continues. This reduction will be passed through to CALLEGUAS and WATERWORKS. The Fox Canyon Ground Water Management Agency (WATER AGENCY) is responsible for the yield of water from the Fox Canyon Aquifer. They are currently considering adoption of an ordinance to reduce the grourd water pumping yield. If the proposed Ordinance Number 5 is passed in July, the WATER AGENCY will seek a 5 percent reduction in yield every 5 years beginning in 1992 until a 25 percent reduction is reached in 2010. Currently the aquifer is producing 160,000 afy. Based on a wet and dry cycle of about 15 years, a safe yield level is considered to be 120,000 afy. The WATER AGENCY will control yield with tiered rates (if legislative authority is granted) and by continuing to limit the number of wells allowed to pump from the aquifer. The level of control will tend to vary depending on the rate of ground water recharge. The recharge rate can be increased by either a very wet year or by surface water recharging. Importing surface water during the winter and 1 ett i ng it to trick 1 e into the ground a 11 ows it to be pumped back out during the dry summer months. The North Los Posas Fox Canyon Basin is the ground water source for WATERWORKS. METROPOLITAN is considering the importation of winter runoff to recharge the North Los Posas Basin. Injecting water into this basin would increase the safe yield level for WATERWORKS and help offset the impact of drought years. According to WATERWORKS the average district wide residential use is approximately 650 gpd per meter while agricultural use is about 53,000 gpd per customer. The 7476 domestic customers use 55 percent of the water while the 88 agri cultura 1 customers use 45 percent. The 10 percent reduction being sought by METROPOLITAN would result in a summer conservation objective of 60 gpd for rPsidential use and 5,300 gpd for agricultural use. WATERWORKS believes Lh8sP objectives can be achieved if customers use water efficiently. Specifics of water shortages, required conservation measures, and model ordinances are currently being considered by METROPOLITAN and CALLEGUAS. The actions the water purveyors take will depend on summer water supply conditions and actual use. To date there has been an effort to increase public awareness, study the reuse of waste water effluent, and to request modification of building codes to require low flow plumbing fixtures in all new construction. More stringent measures may have to be considered in the fall. WATERWORKS has The Honorable City Council April 27, 1990 Page 3 indicated a mandatory conservation ordinance wi 11 be seriously considered if voluntary conservation is ineffective. WATERWORKS is also considering a tiered rate structure that would increase with use. That is, the more water used the more expensive it would become. The intent of the tiered rate is to enhance water awareness and efficiency of use. As part of the County budget process, WATERWORKS will propose that the Board of Supervisors implement the tiered rate in July. In an effort to reduce water usage State wide the Governor recently signed Assembly Bill 2355. It requires low flow plumbing fixtures in a 11 new construction after January, 1992. Ventura County imp 1 emented similar requirements effective ~July, 1990. Camarillo has also imp 1 emented these requirements. Low fl ow fixtures can save nearly 42 percent of all indoor water use. Some agencies in Ventura County are faced with moderate to sever water shortages. The City of Camarillo has adopted a water consevation ordinance as an urgency measure and Simi Valley is considering adoption of an ordinance. The ordinances prohibit water wasting practices. Some typical prohibited practices are landscape runoff, washing sidewalks and driveways, outdoor watering during the heat of the day, unrepaired leaks, use of ornamental pools and fountains, and water served in restaurants without a patron request. The City of Ventura has implemented a water rationing ordinance that is intended to reduce usage by 30 percent. The reduction is needed to offset a 3,000 afy deficit. The ordinance sets allocation caps of 294 gpd for single family use, 196 gpd for multifamily, and 85 percent of usage during 1987-89 for nonresidential. A user that exceeds the cap twice will pay 4 times the normal rate for the water used above the cap. The third time will cost a user 10 times the normal rate. Thereafter a flow restriction device can be installed. They are currently reviewing a rebate program for 1 ow fl ow fixtures and the impact of mandatory retrofitting on large family households. The Goleta Water District has had rebate program in place for several years. Last year they spent $1 million at $80 per retrofit. This year they will only offer $50 per retrofit. Santa Barbara is currently offering $80 per retrofit. A 1 ow fl ow toil et can cost as much as $160 and a shower head is anywhere from $3 to $80 depending on style and features. WATERWORKS has indicated that a rebate program would be considered if water reductions become more restrictive. The City of Moorpark (City) has taken a number of steps to curtail the use of water. First, low flow plumbing fixtures are required in all planned residential developments. Second, high efficiency watering systems are being put in new and redesigned parks. Third, park watering has been cutback by 50 percent by reducing watering time. Fourth, an additional 20 to 30 percent reduction in park watering is being sought by controlled graduations of watering schedules to establish minimum watering needs. Fifth, sidewalks are swept rather than washed down. The Honorable City Council Apri 1 27, 1990 Page 4 The drought in Ventura and other coastal communities is being worsened by inadequate ground water supplies and salt water intrusion. The east county region enjoys a number of advantages. The first is 1 ocat ion, i.e., being far enough away from the ocean that intrusion .; s not a problem. The second, given the overdraft of the Fox Canyon Aquifer, is that WATERWORKS receives the majority of its water from surface sources. The third is that METROPOLITAN is seeking improved resource distribution and considering the importation of winter runoff for ground water recharging. POTENTIAL ACTIONS There are a variety of actions water purveyors and local agencies take to reduce water use. Generally they start with public information and voluntary conservation, then proceed to mandatory conservation, and lastly implement rationing. As noted Parlier, the City is subject to voluntary conservation, Simi Valley and Camarillo to mandatory conservation, and Ventura to rationing. The attached Mode 1 Erner~ Water Conservation Ordinance developed by METROPOLITAN sets the level of control by the extent of water shortage. Depending on water use this summer, a continued 10 percent shortage would result in mandatory conservation. A 10-20 percent shortage would result in rationing enforced by rate penalties. And, a shortage above 20 percent would result in rationing enforced by rate penalties, fines, flow restrictions, and cut-off for flagrant violations. The City can adopt requirements for low f 1 ow fixtures, drought resistant landscaping, and water consPrvation. The use of police powers to enforce these requirements should be based on specific findings of need and a stated objective. In regard to the water shortage, findings would be made from information provided by the water purveyors and the water reduction objective would be administered by WATERWORKS. For example, if the City adopted a water conservation ordinance, fines could be charged for water wasting practices but rates and service cut-off would be the responsibility of WATERWORKS. It is important to note that WATERWORKS provides water to other users in addition to the City; conservation in Moorpark only equates to conservation in the unincorporated area if WATERWORKS enforces similar measures to those enforced in the City. This is not to suggest that there would be a lack of cooperation, H is only to clarify the use of police powers to enforce conservation. In regard to plumbing fixtures and landscaping, the City regulates devPlnpment. Based on the findings by the water purveyors that a 10 percent reduction is needed and that it can bi:> accomplished via a voluntary water conservation program, the City could consider actions that assist in achieving this objective. For example, the City could adopt 1 andscape guide 1 ines for a 11 new construction that reduce the use of sod, require the use of drought resistant plants, and installation of high efficiency watering systems. High efficiency systems might include drip lines or moisture activated sprinklers. Possibly the most effective long term action the City could take would be to modify the building codes to require the installation of low flow plumbing fixtures in all new construction. ThP<;P fixtures can save as much as The Honorable City Council April 27, 1990 Page 5 42 percent of all the water used indoors. The Ventura County Association of Water Agencies conducted a survey and found that there was an adequate supply of low flow fixtures to meet construction demands if such a requirement was enacted. The City could also stop washing down the Civic Center Patio, and consider plumbing retrofits for high use facilities. Santa Barbara is using a rather innovative approach to landscape watering. They allow residents to use sink, laundry, and bath water (grey water) for lawns and other landscaping. To avoid human exposure to potential pathogens, the grey water is discharged through leach lines that are underground. Installation of the leach system costs about $260 to $475 per home. The Ventura County Hea 1th Department Health Care Agency has adopted a policy recommending against the use of grey water for 1 and scape watering. The Agency be 1 i eves other forms of water conservation can more safely reduce water use. Ventura does not appear to be out of step since Santa Barbara is the only county in the State where it is legal to use grey water for this purpose. WATERWORKS has sufficient staff to read meters and repair leaks in the public right-of-way. However, they anticipate additional staff will be needed to enforce mandatory conservation. Although staffing is an important consideration, the first phase of conservation is aimed at developing increased public awareness. They have a wealth of information the City could help provide to the public by placing it in the City Hall reception area and at the I ibrary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended City Council direct staff as follows: 1. to prepare a modification to the Building Codes that requires low flow plumbing fixtures in all new construction by July. 2. to report on conservation efforts ,June 6, 1990. 3. to prepare a voluntary conservation resolution for action on May 16, 1990. 4. to investigate water conservation landscape guidelines for all new construction and if appropriate to rPturn with recommendations. wtrc.adm MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA Oly~ Moeflng of $a--199£) ACTIONi ~H'o/' :tP;,:"~· ~~ UJJ MWD METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT Of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 8-4 April 3, 1990 (Executive Committee--Action) To: Board of Directors (Water Problems Committee--Action) Frum. General Manager Sub;r:cr. Drought Action Plan '90 summary California is entering the fourth consecutive year of drought. Water supply conditions at the sources of all imported supplies used in Metropolitan's service area are well below normal for this time of the year. In addition, a continuing lack of rainfall within Metropolitan's service area has contributed to increased demand for deliveries to supplement locally produced supplies. The supply shortfall within Metropolitan's service area for this calendar year indicates a need to reduce retail demands by 200,000 acre-feet. Of even greater concern is the potential for continuing dry conditions in 1991, which could lead to a supply shortfall of as much as 500,000 acre-feet. In order to respond to these potential supply shortfalls in 1990 and 1991, Drought Action Plan '90 has been developed. This plan consists of specific actions to be taken by Metropolitan. It is assumed that continued coordination will take place with other operators of large water importation systems, and with Metropolitan's member agencies and subagencies. The Drought Action Plan '90 proposes the use of incentives, including a drought rebate of $100 per acre-foot, to be credited to the accounts of member agencies that successfully reduce total water demands more than five percent in Metropolitan's service area. It also recommends adoption of a resolution by your Board to urge all counties, water suppliers, and public and private water users within Metropolitan's service area to reduce total water demands by at least 10 percent in 1990, as compared to 1989. In addition, funds to purchase and distribute water conservation packages and for other costs related to implementation of Drought Action Plan '90 are being requested in the fiscal year 1990-91 budget. These costs are expected to total $500,000. Board of Directors -2-April 3, 1990 These requested actions are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as they involve the protection of a natural resource (State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, section 15307). Recommendations 1. That the Board, by a two-thirds vote, find it is necessary for the protection of Metropolitan's rights and properties that Metropolitan widely disseminate information concerning the effects of the current severe drought; (Executive Committee and Water Problems Committee--Action); 2. That the Board approve in concept the drought rebate program as described in this letter as part of "Drought Action Plan '90" (Water Problems Committee--Action); 3. That the Board adopt the proposed resolution (Attachment B) to assist with implementation of the Drought Action Plan '90 (Executive Committee and Water Problems Committee--Action). Detailed Report With precipitation in most major watersheds well below normal this year, and barring any unusually late and intense storms, it is apparent that California is in the fourth year of drought. As defined by the Sacramento River Index, 1990 has been designated a "critical" year. Were it not for one very wet period in March of last year in Northern California, 1990 could have been the fourth consecutive critical year. Many areas of California are already experiencing severe shortages due to drought conditions. While Metropolitan is better prepared for the effects of the drought than other areas, it is essential that we encourage increased water conservation during the continuing drought to help meet necessary water demands in 1990, and maintain adequate water in storage to protect against potentially serious shortages in 1991. A combination of inadequate reserves and a continuation of drought for a fifth year could result in substantial shortages in 1991. If carryover storage is severely depleted by the end of 1990, there will be inadequate supplies from groundwater basins and surface reservoirs upon which Metropolitan and its member agencies > I, Board of Directors -3-April 3, 1990 can draw next year. Thus, operational decisions this year must take into account the potential for continuation of the dry period. Analysis of Need Demands for supplemental water service by Metropolitan's member agencies have risen substantially from just over 2 million acre-feet (MAF) in 1988, to slightly less than 2.4 MAF in 1989, to about 2.5 MAF expected during 1990. The increased demand over the last two years is attributable to several factors, one of which is population growth within Metropolitan's service area, currently increasing at the rate of about 300,000 new residents annually. Another factor contributing to continued high demands is the increased outdoor use of water by retail customers caused by the continuing dry conditions locally. There has also been a demand for additional groundwater replenishment deliveries from Metropolitan to compensate for the abnormally low local runoff during the last three years. Finally, the loss by the City of Los Angeles of the use of much of its Mono Basin supply has increased demands on Metropolitan by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). All of these factors were responsible for the incremental increase in demands over the last two years, and at least some of these factors may contribute to continuation of a similar trend into the next fiscal year. Colorado River Aqueduct Since Metropolitan began operating the Colorado River Aqueduct, it has had the use of whatever Colorado River water was needed up to the capacity of the aqueduct. For 1990, however, the Annual Operating Plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior limits use in the Lower Basin states of Arizona, Nevada, and California to 7.5 MAF. Under this limitation and in consideration of the increasing use by Arizona and Nevada of their apportionments, Metropolitan could have available 970,000 acre-feet (AF) of Colorado River water for use in 1990. This is the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's April 1990 estimate and compares with Colorado River Aqueduct pumping of about 1.2 MAF in each of the last two years. This potential reduction in Metropolitan's Colorado River supply for 1990 is not a temporary situation, but rather could become the general rule in the future, except in multi-year wet periods. It has been known since the Central Board of Directors -4-April 3, 1990 Arizona Project (CAP) began operation in 1985 that Metropolitan would eventually be limited in its use of Colorado River water. Metropolitan is currently undertaking efforts on several fronts to increase its dependable supply from the Colorado River. Until negotiations for additional supplies are successfully completed, Metropolitan must, under the terms of the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decree in Arizona v. California and the 1970 Long-Range Operating Criteria, regard any diversions in excess of 520,000 AF (plus conserved water received from the water conservation agreement with Imperial Irrigation District) as not dependable. It will be available in some years but not in others. State Water Project The continuing drought in Northern California will seriously curtail supplies available for State Water Project agricultural water use in 1990. In March, the Department of Water Resources (DWR} imposed deficiencies of 50 percent on State project deliveries to agricultural contractors. Metropolitan has ordered about 1.4 MAF from the State project for its service area. At this time, it is anticipated that Metropolitan will be able to receive the water requested for delivery to its service area. In addition, DWR has negotiated an agreement with Yuba County Water Agency (Yuba} to purchase up to 300,000 AF of water currently stored in New Bullards Bar Reservoir, and is also negotiating a possible purchase of groundwater from La Hacienda, Inc. in Kern County. Approval of the Yuba agreement by the State Water Resources Control Board and conclusion of the La Hacienda, Inc., agreement would help avert the chance of additional deficiencies being imposed later this year and could help reduce agricultural deficiencies slightly. Los Angeles Aqueducts System The watersheds from which the City of Los Angeles imports water, the Owens Valley and Mono Basin on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada, are also in the fourth year of a drought. Runoff this April through September into the Owens Valley is currently projected at 48 percent of normal. Litigation may effectively prevent any importation from the Mono Basin in 1990. Historically, LADWP has been able to import about 460,000 AF annually from the Owens Valley and Mono Basin into the Los Angeles Aqueducts. For fiscal year 1990-91, it is anticipated that approximately 175,000 AF will be available compared to about 256,000 AF in 1989-90. This Board of Directors -5-April 3, 1990 projected decline assumes continued dry conditions in these watersheds, plus limitations on the pumping of groundwater from the Owens Valley in accordance with the Inyo County-city of Los Angeles groundwater management plan. As a result, during the current fiscal year, LADWP will purchase about 338,000 AF from Metropolitan to meet demands. Next year, due to the anticipated limited supply from the Owens Valley and Mono Basin, LADWP has ordered 444,000 AF from Metropolitan. Local Supplies The drought has .also significantly reduced locally developed supplies within Metropolitan's service area. Rainfall at the Los Angeles Civic Center for the fiscal year to late March was only 5.60 inches, or 42 percent of normal. Several Metropolitan member agencies rely to a great extent on local runoff for the replenishment of groundwater basins and surface reservoirs from which a significant portion of the total demand within Metropolitan's service area is met. Low local runoff during the last four drought years has resulted in a substantial depletion of water stored in the major groundwater basins within Metropolitan's service area. This decline in storage has not yet had a major impact on the ability of the local agencies to pump groundwater. Continued declines in storage, however, could lead to reduced local production within a short time. This would, in turn, lead to increases in demands on Metropolitan to offset this loss of local supply. To some extent, such increases in demands have already occurred for member agencies which rely on local runoff into surface reservoirs for a significant part of their total supply. Recommended Actions Although some uncertainty remains regarding available supplies and future demands, Southern California could be short by about 200,000 AF during 1990 and by as much as 500,000 AF during 1991, if a fifth drought year develops. To respond to these potential shortages, the Drought Action Plan '90 establishes two basic objectives: (1) to reduce total water demands in Metropolitan's service area by at least 10 percent, especially during the hot summer months; and (2) to retain this saved water, to the maximum degree possible, in storage. Several strategies were considered as a possible response to the drought. These included: (1) a significant Board of Directors -6-April 3, 1990 interruption during 1990 of water available under the interruptible program: (2) the use of positive financial incentives to encourage the implementation of effective programs to reduce demands: and (3) the use of a combination of financial penalties and positive incentives, similar to the drought pricing policy of 1977. Calling a substantial amount of interruptible water at this time would remove water from storage and, therefore, would not achieve one of the basic objectives of the plan. In a separate letter to your Board, it is recommended that your Board approve interruptible deliveries through the end of this calendar year. The availability of interruptible service from Metropolitan after January 1, 1991, will be determined later this year, after information is available on the success of conservation efforts this summer and ultimate deliveries of Colorado River water during 1990. The use of financial incentives to encourage and help pay for drought-related conservation was discussed at a March 2, 1990, meeting on the drought with the member agency managers. Accordingly, staff considered alternative pricing approaches to such financial incentives. In 1977, Metropolitan established a pricing system that imposed a substantial penalty --payment of double the normal water rate --for water use above 90 percent of the level used the previous year. In addition, the 1977 plan provided a modest rebate for reducing water use below 90 percent of the previous level. At this time, the use of a punitive rate structure does not appear necessary and would not be consistent with the decision to avoid calling for a significant amount of interruptible water in 1990. Instead, a drought rebate program is recommended that will offer strong positive financial incentives to develop effective programs to reduce water demands. Under the drought rebate program, member agencies would receive a rebate of $100/AF during the designated period for all reductions in 1990 total water demands below 95 percent of demands during the same period in 1989, after adjusting for population growth. Member agencies would have the option of passing all or any portion of the rebate through to their subagencies. Payments to member agencies would be made only for reductions in water use beyond five percent because reductions of roughly this magnitude should occur in any event due to the $2 million summer conservation media campaign approved previously by your Board, and to increasing general awareness of the drought. Drought rebate payments Board of Directors -7-April 3, 1990 would be based on changes in total water demands and not on changes in demands for Metropolitan water to encourage real conservation. Payments to eligible member agencies would require certification that reduced demands on Metropolitan are not achieved through increased use of other supply sources or through withdrawals from local storage. The maximum amount payable to a member agency would be based on total supplemental water purchases from Metropolitan during 1989. The program will be in effect from June through September 1990, but can be terminated at the discretion of the General Manager. The drought rebate program will assist Southern California water agencies in financing the conservation efforts that will be required to actually reduce total water demands. This financial incentive package, combined with the implementation of mandatory drought ordinances urged by your Board and other measures described below, is expected to accomplish the objectives of Drought Action Plan '90. However, if subsequent monitoring of the results of the plan indicate that it has not.been effective, or if drought conditions should significantly worsen going into 1991, it may be necessary that your Board consider more stringent measures to assure that Metropolitan will be able to meet necessary water demands during the drought. Based on summertime reductions in water use of 200,000 AF and decreased Metropolitan sales equal to that desired amount, the drought rebate program will have a financial impact on Metropolitan of about $35 million, including about $10 million in direct rebate payments for 100,000 AF of savings (i.e., on five percent of the total 10 percent summertime reduction) and about $25 million in foregone net revenue. This latter figure includes revenues foregone due to the first five percent of conservation savings, as well as those amounts for which the rebate is paid. The drought rebate program and other conservation- related elements of Drought Action Plan '90 are explained in Attachment A. These other elements include the distribution of water conservation packages, the development of weathercaster slides to keep the public informed regarding drought conditions, restaurant tent cards, newspaper slicks, and a Metropolitan task force to assist local agencies and municipalities in the implementation of drought ordinances, and other activities. Board of Directors -8-April 3, 1990 In addition, it is recommended that your Board adopt a resolution to encourage recognition of the seriousness of the drought in 1990 and to further encourage action to reduce its effects. In March, your Board passed a resolution urging all relevant public agencies in Southern California to adopt drought ordinances containing mandatory anti-waste provisions. The resolution recommended in this letter would reinforce the earlier resolution by establishing a specific quantitative goal to reduce water demands by at least 10 percent {Attachment B). As this plan enters the implementation phase, some modifications may be necessary to accommodate new facts and to coordinate efforts with Metropolitan's member agencies and others. Staff will keep your Board apprised of the status of Drought Action Plan '90. It is estimated that an expenditure of $500,000 is necessary to implement Drought Action Plan '90. Sufficient funds are included in the 1990-91 budget to finance the cost of the program. These requested actions are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) as they involve the protection of a natural resource {State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Section 15307). JVD:THQ:ajs Attachments ATTACHMENT A DROUGHT ACTION PLAN '90 In 1988, Metropolitan prepared a Drought Action Plan, DROUGHT 1 88, to provide a framework for Metropolitan's response to a multi-year dry period. That plan, which was presented to your Board on April 25, 1988, was subsequently distributed to Metropolitan's member agencies and subagencies. The framework consisted of a three-phase series of successively more stringent water conservation measures to be implemented according to the severity of the drought in a given year. We are now effectively at the second level within that framework. With 1987 and 1988 having been "critical" years as defined by the Sacramento River Index, and 1989 prevented from being similarly classified only by heavy rains in March 1989, this year represents the fourth drought year in a row. Your Board approved DROUGHT '88, to implement the first level of conservation measures. The recommended plan for 1990 is structured in a manner similar to the plan of two years ago, but also contains pricing incentives, one of the second level measures of the drought contingency plan framework prepared in 1988. For several years, Metropolitan has had an ongoing program of public information and education to attempt to modify the long-term behavior of water users in its service area. Through this program, elements such as in-school water conservation training, extensive media campaigns, and other techniques have been instituted on a permanent basis to achieve the desired behavioral changes. Under Drought Action Plan '90, these ongoing efforts would be enhanced to encourage additional conservation during the drought. An overall goal will be to achieve at least a 10 percent reduction in total demands from 1989 levels. The drought measures discussed below are deemed to be stringent enough to result in the desired 10 percent reduction without placing undue hardship on any one segment of the public. • • Reduction Goal--Set a goal to achieve at least a 10 percent reduction in total demands from 1989 levels, adjusted for population increases. Drought Rebate Program--The need for financial incentives and an assessment of alternative approaches were discussed at meetings with the member agency managers on March 2 and March 30, 1990. As a result of those discussions, it is proposed that Metropolitan offer a rebate for a designated period to any member agency that reduces total water demand within its service area during that period to less than 95 percent * * -2- of that used during the same period in 1989, adjusted for population increases. Such rebate will be $100 per acre-feet of reduction below this 95-percent level. The maximum amount of the rebate will be limited to the amount of supplemental water purchased in 1989 from Metropolitan. To receive the rebate, an agency must certify that the conservation was not achieved through increased use of other sources, nor through the withdrawal of water from storage. Water Conservation Packages--Metropolitan would purchase 400,000 water conservation packages to be distributed to our member agencies for distribution to retail purveyors' customers. The contents of the packages would be designed to heighten consumer awareness for the need to conserve water. The packages would include shower flow restrictors, dye tablets to check for toilet leaks, a package of drought resistant plant seeds, a package of soil polymers to hold water in the root zone of plants, and printed water conservation information materials. The estimated cost is $400,000. Weathercaster Slides--Metropolitan would provide computer-generated slides for use by weathercasters at local television stations. These slides would emphasize the need to maintain carryover storage at the highest practicable levels going into 1991. They can be designed for use as backgrounds for on-screen forecasts, current conditions, or other information. These were found to be very popular with the weathercasters in 1988. * Restaurant Tent Cards--Used also in 1988, these cards are placed through the restaurant trade associations on tables of restaurants to explain why water is served only upon request. * Newspaper Slicks--Camera-ready articles and art work on the current drought would be provided to member agencies and subagencies for use in local newspapers. * Task Force on Implementation--A Metropolitan staff task force would be created to assist local water purveyors in developing and adopting water conservation ordinances. This task force could also assist member agencies and subagencies in discussions on the need for increased water use efficiency in public infrastructures such as parks, golf courses, freeway and street medians, and other similar areas. Attachment B RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA URGING ITS SERVICE AREA TO REDUCE DEMANDS BY 10 PERCENT TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF THE 1990 CALIFORNIA DROUGHT WHEREAS, California is in the fourth consecutive year of below-normal precipitation: WHEREAS, precipitation for the current water year has been substantially below normal in the watersheds of the imported supplies serving Southern California: WHEREAS, precipitation in Southern California has also been below average and water levels in many local groundwater basins have declined over the last few years: WHEREAS, during the drought of 1988 Southern California reduced demands an additional 8 percent from what they would ordinarily have been: WHEREAS, the drought of 1990 appears to be more severe than the drought of 1988: WHEREAS,_ The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Board of Directors has urged all cities, counties and other local entities to adopt conservation ordinances to mitigate the effects of the continuing drought: and WHEREAS, there is a need to reduce total demands on all water supply entities within the Metropolitan service area by 10 percent in 1990 as compared to 1989, to reduce the potential for shortages for this year and even more severe shortages next year; -2- NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California urges all counties, water supply entities, and other public and private water users in its service area to reduce their own usage and to urge their customers to reduce their usage by at least 10 percent, as compared to 1989, to assist in the mitigation of the effects of the drought during 1990, and to maintain the conserved water in storage against the possibility of even more severe shortages in 1991; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the governing body and chief executive officer of every county, city and water supply entity within Metropolitan's service area. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California at its meeting held on April 17, 1990. Executive Secretary The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWD METROPOLll4N WATER DISTRICT Of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 9-24 April 3, 1990 Board of Directors General Manager (Executive Committee--Information) (Water.Problems Committee--Information) Model Emergency Water Conservation Ordinance Summary At its March meeting, your Board adopted a resolution encouraging adoption of local drought ordinances to help reduce the threat of water shortages. Metropolitan has since received a very positive response to this resolution from water supply and other local entities in its service area, and a number of requests for assistance in drafting such an ordinance. In response, staff has prepared the attached model Emergency Water Conservation Ordinance that could be used by retail water suppliers and other local entities. Adoption of this type of ordinance would be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Recommendation For information only. Detailed Report At its March meeting, your Board adopted a resolution recognizing that the State was experiencing its fourth consecutive year of below-normal water supply conditions and urging counties, cities and other local water supply entities in its service area to adopt water conservation ordinances designed to mitigate the effects of the continuing drought. We have since received a very positive response to the resolution from member agencies and other local entities. We also have received requests for assistance in drafting such an ordinance. In response, staff has drafted a model Emergency Water conservation Ordinance that local entities could adapt to fit their respective situations. Board of Directors -2-April 3, 1990 The ordinance is designed to provide a permanent mechanism that would allow local entities to deal with water shortage emergencies. It sets forth three basic implementation phases keyed to the severity of the water shortage. The local entity would implement the plan only after a public hearing and formal published determination of the shortage emergency. The implementation phases prohibit certain types of water use, require percentage reductions in water uses and impose surcharges on excess water uses. In addition to the excess use surcharges, the ordinance provides increasing sanctions for repeated use of water for prohibited purposes. The penalties include a warning citation, additional surcharges and installation of flow restrictors. The customer could obtain relief from the sanctions upon appropriate application and showing. This ordinance was drafted so that it could be used or adapted by a wide range of water supply agencies and does not exhaust all possible measures that could be included in a water conservation plan. It is recommended that the ordinance be reviewed closely for its applicability to a specific agency's needs before it is adopted. The adoption of this type of ordinance would be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act because it involves activities undertaken for the purpose of conserving a natural resource. EJT:ajs MODEL WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE Section 1. Statement of Policy and Declaration of Purpose (a) Because of the water supply conditions prevailing in the [entity) and/or in the area from which the [entity] obtains a portion of its supply, the general welfare requires that the water resources available to the [entity] be put to the maximum beneficial use to the extent to which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented and that the conservation of such water be practiced with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people of (entity] and for the public welfare. (b) The purpose of this ordinance is to provide a mandatory water conservation plan to minimize the effect of a shortage of water supplies on the customers of the [entity] during a water shortage emergency. Section 2. Ordinance Authorization to Implement Water Conservation (a) The (governing body of the entity] is authorized to implement the provisions of this ordinance, following the public hearing required by sub-section (b), upon its determination that such implementation is necessary to protect the public welfare and safety. -2- (b) Prior to implementation of this ordinance, the [governing body of the entity) shall hold a public hearing for the purpose of determining whether a shortage exists and which measures provided by this ordinance should be implemented. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be published not less than ten (10) days before the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the (entity). (c) The (governing body of the entity] shall issue its determination of shortage and corrective measures by public proclamation published in a qaily newspaper of general circulation within the (entity]. Any prohibitions on the use of water shall become effective immediately upon such publication. Any provisions requiring curtailment in the use of water shall become effective with the first full billing period commencing on or after the date of such publication. Section 3. General Prohibition No customer of the (entity) shall make, cause, use, or permit the use of water from the [entity] in a manner contrary to any provision of this ordinance or in an amount in excess of that use permitted by any curtailment provisions then in effect pursuant to action taken by the governing board in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. -3- Section 4. Phase I Shortage (a) A Phase I Shortage shall be declared when the [governing body] determines that it is likely that it will suffer a ten percent (10%) shortage in its water supplies. (b) The following restrictions on the use of water shall be in effect during a Phase I Shortage: (1) There shall be no hose washing of sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas or other paved surfaces, except as is required for sanitary purposes; (2) Washing of motor vehicles, trailers, boats and other types of mobile equipment shall be done only with a hand-held bucket or a hose equipped with a positive shutoff nozzle for quick rinses, except that washing may be done at the immediate premises of a commercial car wash or with reclaimed wastewater. (3) No water shall be used to clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains, ponds, lakes or other similar aesthetic structures unless such water is part of a recycling system. (4) No restaurant, hotel, cafe, cafeteria or other public place where food is sold, served or offered for sale, shall serve drinking water to any customer unless expressly requested. -4- (5) All customers of the (agency] shall promptly repair all leaks from indoor and outdoor plumbing fixtures. (6) No lawn, landscape or other turf area shall be watered more often than every other day and during the hours between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.; except that this provision shall not apply to commercial nurseries, golf courses and other water-dependent industries. (7) No customer of the (agency] shall cause or allow the water to run off landscape areas into adjoining streets, sidewalks or other paved areas due to incorrectly directed or maintained sprinklers or excessive watering. section 5. Phase II Shortage (a) A Phase II Shortage shall be declared when the (governing body] determines that it is likely that it will suffer a shortage of more than ten percent (10%) but less than twenty percent (20%) in water supplies. (b) The following restrictions on the use of water shall be in effect during a Phase II Shortage: (1) The restrictions listed in Section 4, subsection (b) shall be in effect, except that the restrictions on water lawn, landscape or other turf area shall be modified to prohibit watering more often than every third day between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. -5- (2) Commercial nurseries, golf courses and other water-dependent industries shall be prohibited from watering lawn, landscape or other turf areas more often than every other day and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.; except that there shall be no restriction on water utilizing reclaimed wastewater. (c) No customer shall make, cause, use or permit the use of water from the (agency) for any purpose in an amount in excess of percent ( %) of the amount used on the customer's premises during the corresponding billing period during the prior calendar year. Section 6. Phase III Shortage (a) A Phase III Shortage shall be declared whenever the governing body determines that it is likely that it will suffer a shortage of more than twenty percent (20%) in water supplies. (b) The following restrictions on the use of water shall be in effect during a Phase III Shortage: (1) The restrictions listed in Section 4, subsection (b) shall be in effect, except that there shall be no residential outside watering of lawn, landscaping and other turf areas at any time except by bucket. (2) Commercial nurseries, golf courses and other water-dependent industries shall be prohibited from watering lawn, landscaping and other turf areas more -6- often than every third day and between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.;_except that there shall be no restriction on watering utilizing reclaimed water. (3) The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting and related activities and other uses of water for municipal purposes shall be limited to activities necessary to maintain the public health, safety and welfare. (c) No customer shall make, cause, use or permit the use of water from the (agency] for any purpose in an amount in excess of percent ( %) of the amount used on the customers premises during the corresponding billing period of the prior calendar year. Section 7. Relief from Compliance (a) A customer may file an application for relief from any provisions of this ordinance. The [chief executive officer of the governing body] shall develop such procedures as he considers necessary to resolve such applications and shall, upon the filing by a customer of an application for relief, take such steps as he or she deems reasonable to resolve the application for relief. The decision of the [chief executive officer] shall be final. The [chief executive officer] may delegate his or her duties and responsibilities under this section as appropriate. -7- (b} The application for relief may include a request that the customer be relieved, in who~e or in part, from the water use curtailment provisions of Sections 5(c} and 6(c). (c} In determining whether to grant relief, and the nature of any relief, the [chief executive officer] shall take into consideration all relevant factors including, but not limited to: (1) Whether any additional reduction in water consumption will result in unemployment; (2) Whether additional members have been added to the household; (3) Whether any additional landscaped property has been added to the property since the corresponding billing period of the prior calendar year; (4) Changes in vacancy factors in multi-family housing; (5) Increased number of employees in commercial, industrial, and governmental offices; (6) Increased production requiring increased process water; (7} Water uses during new construction; (8) Adjustments to water use caused by emergency health or safety hazards; (9) First filling of a permit-constructed swimming pool; and -8- (10) Water use necessary for reasons related to family illness or health. (d) In order to be considered, an application for relief must be filed with (the agency] within fifteen (15) days from the date the provision from which relief is sought becomes applicable to the applicant. No relief shall be granted unless the customer shows that he or she has achieved the maximum practical reduction in water consumption other than in the specific areas in which relief is being sought. No relief shall be granted to any customer who, when requested by the (chief executive officer], fails to provide any information necessary for resolution of the customer's application for relief. Section 8. Failure to Comply (a) For each violation by any customer of the water use curtailment provisions of Sections S(c) and 6(c), a surcharge shall be imposed in an amount equal to percent ( %) of the portions of the water bill that exceeds the respective percentages set in those two subsections. (b) Violation by any customer of the water use prohibitions of Section 3, or subsection (b) of Sections 4, 5 and 6, shall be penalized as follows: (l) First violation. The (governing body] shall issue a written notice of the fact of a first violation to the customer. -9- (2) Second violation. For a. second violation during any one water shortage emergency, the [governing body] shall impose a surcharge in an amount equal to percent ( %) of the customer's water bill. (3) Third and Subsequent Violations. For a third and each subsequent violation during any one water shortage emergency, the (governing body] shall install a flow restricting device of one (1) gallon per minute capacity for services up to one and one-half (1 1/2) inch size, and comp~ratively sized restrictors for larger services, on the service of the customer at the premises at which the violation occurred for a period of not less than forty-eight (48) hours. The [governing body] shall charge the customer the reasonable costs incurred for installing and for removing the flow-restricting devices and for restoration of normal service. The charge shall be paid before normal service can be restored. In addition, the surcharge provided in subsection (b) (2) shall be imposed. (c) The [agency] shall give notice of violation to the customer committing the violation as follows: (1) Notice of violation of the water use curtailment provisions of Sections 5(c) and 6(c) or of first violations of the water use prohibitions of Section 3 -10- or of subsection (b) of Sections 4, 5 and 6 shall be given in writing by regular mail. (2) Notice of second or subsequent violations of the water use prohibitions of Section 3 or of subsection (b) of Sections 4, 5 and 6 shall be given in writing in the following manner: (A) by giving the notice to the customer personally; (B) if the customer is absent from or unavailable at the premises at which the violation occurred, by leaving a copy with some person of suitable age and discretion at the premises and sending a copy through the regular mail to the address at which the customer is normally hilled; or (C) if a person of suitable age or discretion cannot be found, then by affixing a copy in a conspicuous place at the premises at which the violation occurred and also sending a copy through the regular mail to the address at which the customer is normally hilled. (d) The notice shall contain a description of the facts of the violation, a statement of the possible penalties for each violation and a statement informing the customer of his right to a hearing on the merits of the violation pursuant to Section 9. -11- Section 9. Hearing Regarding Violations (a) Any customer receiving notice of a second or subsequent violation of sections 4(b), S(b), or 6(b) shall have a right to a hearing by the (chief executive officer] of the (agency] within fifteen (15) days of mailing or other delivery of the notice of violation. (b) The customer's timely written request for a hearing shall automatically stay installation of a flow-restricting device on the customer's premises until the (chief executive officer] renders his or her decision. (c) The customer's timely written request for a hearing shall not stay the imposition of a surcharge unless within the time period to request a hearing, the customer deposits with the (agency] money in the amount of any unpaid surcharge due. If it is determined that the surcharge was wrongly assessed, the (agency] will refund any money deposited to the customer. (d) The decision of the (chief executive officer] shall be final except for judicial review. (e) The [chief executive officer] may delegate his duties and responsibilities under this section as appropriate. -12- Section 10. Additional Water Shortage Measures The (governing body] may order implementation of water conservation measures in addition to those set forth in Sections 4, 5 and 6. Such additional water conservation measures shall be implemented in the manner provided in Section 2(b). Section 11. Public Health and Safety Not to be Affected Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to require the (agency] to curtail the supply of water to any customer when such water is required by that customer to maintain an adequate level of public health and safety. Section 12. Severability If any part of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is for any reason held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remainder of the ordinance or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. MEASURES NORMALLY INCLUDED IN EMERGENCY WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCES PHASE I 10% SHORTAGE 1. No hosing of hard surfaces, except for sanitary requirements. 2. Washing of cars only with hoses with shut-off valve. 3. Restrictions on non-recirculating decorative fountains and other aesthetic uses. 4. Serving of water in restaurants only on request. 5. All leaks to be promptly repaired. 6. Residential and governmental outdoor irrigation restricted to every other day irrigation and non-peak water using hours (e.g. 4 p.m. to 10 a.m.). PHASE II 10-20% SHORTAGE Phase II normally includes all of the measures implemented during Phase I, plus the following: 1. In this Phase, water use allotments are set, based on previous years use or other methods. Pricing structures are modified to encourage compliance with goals (i.e., increasing block penalties) and to increase water utility revenues lost because of lower sales. -2 - 2. Residential and governmental exterior irrigation further curtailed. In most cases, irrigation would be limited to every third day, or less, and watering hours further restricted (e.g. 8 p.m. to 6 a. m.) . 3. Irrigation for water-dependent industries (nurseries,_golf courses, etc.) similar to Phase I requirements for residential/governmental outdoor use. PHASE III 20% SHORTAGE AND ABOVE Phase III is normally implemented only in extreme emergencies and includes the measures in Phases I and II plus the following: 1. Water use allotments are set, based on previous years or other base use, with reductions determined by severity of shortage. Penalties include increasing block rate fines, flow restrictors at meter, and cut-off of service for flagrant violations. 2. No residential outdoor irrigation, except by bucket. Restrictions on irrigation for water-dependent industries (nurseries, golf courses, etc.), similar to Phase II residential - 3 - restrictions. Often these industries are required to pay heavy surcharges for water use. 3. No use of water from fire hydrants, except for health and safety reasons, and municipal water service (street cleaning, etc.) would be severely restricted. PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY county of ventura Representing Ex-officio: Ventura County Flood Control District Ventura County Waterworks Districts No. 1,16,17, and 19 Lake Sherwood Community Services District Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency April 3, 1990 Steve Kueny, City Manager city of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 RECEIVED APR O 6 90 CITY OF MOORPARK Ref: Water Conservation -Ultra Low Volume Plumbing Fixtures Director Arthur E. Goulet Deputy Directors John C. Crowley Water Resources/Development Al F. Knuth Transportation T.M. Morgan Engineering Services G.J. Nowak Flood Control Paul W. Ruffin Central Services Precipitation for the current water year has been substantially below normal and California is entering a fourth consecutive year of below normal rainfall. The local ground water basin is being overdrafted and imported water supplies suffer water shortages. Water demands have been increasing because of continuing drought. Efficient use of limited water supplies is urgently needed. Water conservation has proven to be a successful mechanism to reduce per capita water consumption. Ventura County waterworks District No. 1 (District) has been encouraging water conservation for some time. Helpful water conservation literature and brochures are available at our office for customer use. We are in the process of revising our Rules and Regulations to include mandatory water conservation. One type of water waste that can be eliminated with minimal cost and impact on life-styles, is water consumed by inefficient plumbing fixtures and devices. Since 1983, the California Uniform Plumbing Code has required 3.5 gallons per flush (gpf) water closets in new construction. Even more efficient water closets, designed to use only 1.6 gpf, have been mandated in many jurisdictions, both within California and throughout the Nation, due to their effectiveness in reducing water usage. Studies identified that water closet flushing comprises 42% of interior water use, the largest use of water inside the home. The second largest use is for bathing and showering. Ultra-low consumption showerheads use 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm) compared to the State standard of 2.75 gpm. Ultra-low water consumption (ULC) plumbing devices will have indirect impacts on the Moorpark wastewater activities of sewage 7150 Walnut Canyon Road, P.O. Box 250, Moorpark, CA 93020 (8051 584-4829 collection, and treatment. Comprehensive full scale tests com- pleted elsewhere showed that the reduced volume of water from ULC devices have no significant impact on the ability of the wastewater collection system to carry solid debris through the pipes to the sewage treatment plant may result in more frequent sewer line cleaning in order to maintain and operate at peak efficiency. This would be a small price to pay in relation to the greater benefit of water savings. ULC will also impact the Treatment at the Moorpark Wastewater Plant in addition to the Collection System. The reduced volume of water can help delay or eliminate the need for costly expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. Customers with septic tanks will have positive impacts. The most common cause of failure of septic tank systems is liquid overloading. Use of ULC devices will lower the liquid loading on septic tanks and allow them to work more efficiently. Governor Deukmejian recently signed Assembly Bill 2355 (Cosponsored by Assembly Member Jack O'Connell), requiring all buildings constructed after January 1, 1992, to install water closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, which use no more than 1.6 gpf and urinals and associated flushometer valves, if any, which use no more than 1.6 gpf. County of Ventura has been promoting water conservation aggressively. On February 6, 1990, the Board of supervisors, amended the Ventura County Building Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code (1988) Chapter 9, Section 914 requiring ultra-low water consumption plumbing fixtures and devices in all new construction. Calleguas Municipal Water District passed a Resolution on December 10, 1989 encouraging local governments to require the installation of ULC water closets, urinals and showerheads in new construction within their service area. The Association of Water Agencies has taken a position supporting requirements for ULC plumbing fixtures. Plumbing Efficiency Research Group, a voluntary group formed by the County, investigated the performance of water efficient plumbing devices and recommended the measures to mandate them in new construction. The Committee found ULC plumbing fixtures are as reliable as conventional water closets. We strongly urge that the City move ahead with a requirement for ULC plumbing fixtures and devices in all new construction. There will be many positive and direct impacts on the potable water supply. There will also be indirect impacts on the wastewater activities. These indirect impacts are judged to range from beneficial to minor inconveniences and any negative impacts are far outweighed by the benefits to the community as a whole. A significant amount of water which is a precious and essential resource for life, can be saved by early implementa- tion of this eventual State requirement. Should you have any questions, please call me at (805) 584-4830. fe:y :ruly ft.' \? \~ R. ~-"i>akala, Manager ' Water and Sanitation Services Division Water Resources and Development Department RRP: jp cc: David Baird, City of Moorpark, Building & Safety Arthur E. Goulet, Director PWA John c. Crowley, Deputy Director PWA