[Scorecard] Feedback appreciated on sustainability indicator metric

Wed Dec 10 08:10:54 MST 2008

Dear all -

I gave ALL water agencies and recyclers an opportunity to provide  
answers to my questions.  It may be worth documenting that, and I  
would be happy to share my e-mail inquiries to the heads of Public  
Works departments, the sewage treatment plants, and other pertinent  
agencies with the group as a whole, so you can decide whether to  
include them in an appendix.  Before I spend time on that, however, I  
need a strong YES.  No matter what, Peter's Calistoga example can be  
"fixed" easily by asking them for feedback. If they don't respond,  
it's up to us for choosing the appropriate percentage.

Rainer

On Dec 9, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Peter Vorster wrote:

> The BMP compliance scorecard that I mentioned is at :  http:// 
> www.cawaterpolicy.us/scorecard.php  The information could be used  
> for the having a quantifiable metric for the sustainable policy  
> indicator.
> The member agencies self-report to the California Urban Water  
> Conservation Council (Council) on their compliance with the  
> coverage requirements of the Council’s  BMP’s.  The coverage data  
> for 2005/06 was extracted by the POWER group and put into the  
> scorecard. POWER is an organization of California water agencies  
> and officials dedicated to promoting public accountability and  
> environmentally sustainable water policies and practices.
>
> I quickly calculated a percentage compliance for the 5 agencies in  
> the Napa and Sonoma watersheds that are members of the Council. I  
> gave one point for each BMP that was noted as “performing” , 1/2  
> point for “partial”, 1/4 point for “not on track”, and 0 points for  
> not reporting although only Calistoga did not report.  I would call  
> them to find out why they did not report before condemning them to  
> the bottom of the class.    Napa had one exemption which is why  
> their denominator is 13 and not 14.  The point assignment was quick  
> and arbitrary to see how they would “score”.  POWER tried to assign  
> grades but it was too controversial.
>
> City of American Canyon- 8/14= 57%
> City of Napa-  11.5/13-  88%
> City of Sonoma- 13/14- 93%
> Valley of the Moon-  12.5/14- 89%
>
> City of Calistoga- either 2.5/14 = 18% or 2.5/3= 83% depending on  
> how a “not reporting” designation is scored.
>
> Their “score” depends on how these percentages would be classified  
> in a  3-part good, OK, bad or getting better, fair, getting worse  
> or a 5 part score.  Either set the bar high (>90 %) for the top  
> score or set the break point at > 80% for good, > 50% for OK.   
> Without doing a lot more ruminating to justify any scoring system,  
> I would say the scoring classes will be somewhat arbitrary.
>
> What do you think – is this worth incorporating and reporting so  
> that the sustainability indicator can be scored with one metric  
> that is measuring program performance?  It would be the only  
> quantified metric for the sustainability metric so it may be  
> misleading having the indicator rely on this one metric, when many  
> other metrics are also proposed.  The following is from the POWER  
> scorecard under “challenges and solutions”.
>
> The POWER Scorecard demonstrates the difficulty in using Best  
> Management Practices (BMPs) to measure performance. Half of the  
> BMPs are not directly quantifiable, like public outreach, school  
> education, having a conservation coordinator, etc.; many new  
> technologies and approaches are not covered by the ten-year-old  
> existing BMPs; and only one BMP currently has a performance option  
> in it (BMP 9).
>
> While the Best Management Practice approach is valuable, it should  
> be complemented with a verifiable performance-based approach that  
> can provide clear measurable standards toward clearly outlined  
> water efficiency goals and allow more flexibility for water  
> providers in meeting those goals. Several steps need to be taken:
>
> Water efficiency potential needs to be studied by each agency, and  
> by each region engaged in integrated regional planning.
> Efficiency targets need to be established both within each agency,  
> for planning regions, and for the State as a whole. Targets may  
> need to be appropriate for California's unique biomes. The  
> Governor's letter of February 28, 2008 offers a statewide goal of  
> 20% reduction in per capita consumption by 2020, and invites  
> legislation to incorporate the goal into statute.
> Agencies need to have a "Conservation Plan" on the demand side,  
> just as agencies have a capital improvement plan on the supply  
> side. Those plans should be fully integrated into the agency's  
> Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). Agency IRPs should be consistent  
> with the Integrated Regional Water Management Plans.
> Methods of measurement, analysis protocols, and evaluation  
> frameworks need to be standardized across the industry and  
> throughout the State for both public and private water utilities.
> Reporting should be done annually, so performance can be tracked  
> and indexed for weather variations, and provide a basis for  
> continual improvement.
> A process for independent verification of annual reports should be  
> established.
> Accurate and timely measurement and reporting are the basis for a  
> performance-based approach which can produce continual improvement  
> in water conservation within and among water agencies. The POWER  
> Scorecard lists three clear performance measures that are  
> candidates for such a metric (listed in the last three Scorecard  
> columns):
>
> Residential sector gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
> Combined residential-commercial-industrial-institutional gallons  
> per capita per day
> Residential gallons per connection per day
>
>
> -- 
> Peter Vorster
> Hydrologist
> The Bay Institute
> Home Office
> 3901 Balfour Ave
> Oakland, CA 94610
> 510-444-5755 Voice/Fax
> 415-272-4209  Cell
> vorster at bay.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scorecard mailing list
> Scorecard at sonomacreek.net
> http://sonomacreek.net/mailman/listinfo/scorecard_sonomacreek.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sonomacreek.net/pipermail/scorecard_sonomacreek.net/attachments/20081210/d1960f21/attachment-0001.html>