[Scorecard] Feedback appreciated on sustainability indicator metric

Wed Dec 10 16:54:46 MST 2008

Although there would be lots of caveats to the indicator, I would like
to see it included.  

However, the section should be written after the Water Use Indicator
section is written, and after the imported water use metric for water
independence indicator section is written.  And, from my understanding
of our discussion last week, it is a lower priority than completing
water budgets for the two watersheds (Lisa & Caitlin - do you
disagree?).

One potentially defendable way to score the indicator would be to: 1)
scores higher than 66% of communities on list are good, 2) scores lower
than 33% of communities are bad (below average). 

Frances Knapczyk

Education Coordinator

Napa County Resource Conservation District

1303 Jefferson Street Suite 500B

Napa, CA 94559

707/252-4188 x 120

frances at naparcd.org

________________________________

From: Peter Vorster [mailto:vorster at bay.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:44 PM
To: Frances Knapczyk; scorecard at sonomacreek.net
Subject: Feedback appreciated on sustainability indicator metric

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sonomacreek.net/pipermail/scorecard_sonomacreek.net/attachments/20081210/b0548c04/attachment.html>